>>18031594
>So why are they given so much shit when their enemies were far more worse when it came to backstabbing.
Generally, people are referring to domestic affairs when they talk about Byzantine/Roman cutthroating, not foreign affairs. The Byzantine state and its politics were WAY more unstable and violent than Western Europe in the middle ages.

>>18031612
>The Byzantine state and its politics were WAY more unstable and violent than Western Europe in the middle ages.
Well that obviously depends. Norman Italy was in a state of civil war or unrest just as common, if not even more than Byzantium. It's not like Byzantium ever had some state collapse happen due to civil war like what happened under the Carolingians or after Frederick II in Germany. There was no endemic warfare in the country like in France before the 13th century. The only state with a more internally stable political community was England

>>18031777
The kind of chaos in the HRE following Frederick's death was pretty much the same king that plagued the Byzantine empire throughout its history. See the Twenty Years' Anarchy.
>There was no endemic warfare in the country like in France before the 13th century.
Yes there was; every state in the middle ages had that. Moreover, France had a completely stable royal succession for hundreds of years. Compare that to the Byzantine state, which saw numerous civil wars over succession and many dynasties come and go. France was much more stable than Byzantium.

Plus, there are more kinds of violence than just warfare. Beyond the 11th century, blinding, castrating, and mutilation weren't uncommon punishments in the Byzantine empire when they had largely died out in the west. Political assassinations were much more common in Byzantium as well.

>>18032646
>France was much more stable than Byzantium.
That would only be if you compare the reign of the monarch alone. To do so would ignore the fact his many vassals fought each other in both small and large scale warfare. Such internal warfare did not exist in Byzantium at all, there was no equivalent of the Angevin and Norman wars in the 11th century that existed in France or the same problems in Southern France. It was not endemic warfare in Byzantium, it was rare large scale civil war between state actors, not the constant low scale warfare which raised into large scale warfare that occurred in the West. France was unusual in continental Europe for not having any major civil wars like in Germany or Spain but just like them they had the endemic warfare in their borders. Neither did the Emperors effectively have to extort or wage war on their own subjects to actually achieve their aims like in France, the institutions of Byzantium were far more stable and long lasting than those of France

If we simply only judged stability to mean the power and continuity of the royal dynasty we would judge the Irish kings to be the pinnacle of stability as they lasted without any disruption from the end of Antiquity to the English conquest of Ireland under the Stuarts. But that would ignore everything else around them.

>>18031777
I’m a retard who probably shouldn’t even give an opinion of this, but that might shed light on why people perceive the Byzantines as more backstabbing than nobles of western kingdoms.
To me, it seemed like the Byzantines were constantly plotting and replacing the Emperors with total randoms. Some guy from nothing rises through the ranks, backstabs the emperor who gave him everything, and his family, and establishes a new dynasty, out of basically nowhere. I think Basil I is a good example. Meanwhile, the western kingdoms seem more logical and orderly in their disputes and plots. Sure, you have guys like William the Conqueror who had little heritable right to England, but most of the time it’s nobles supporting guys with legitimate claims. The Lancasters and Yorks didn’t come out of nowhere; they had their own claims that make sense. It isn’t like Norman de Fagbourgh became Butler of England and then assassinated the current king to make himself king without any rhyme or reason. Even figures like Simon de Montfort ruled through the legitimate king. There’s a veil of legality and order to it all while it seems like the Byzantines seemed to just do whatever they wanted.
Then with the western nobles, the disputes and plots were often fought out in the battlefield. There are obvious exceptions, but not ever dispute with the current king involved plots to kill him in the shadows. They were more like gathering enough nobles to appear on the battlefield to defeat the king and impose whatever. King John of England was a bastard that no one liked, but instead of assassinating him, the Barons defeated him on the battlefield, tried to impose their wishes over him, and move on. When they considered replacing him with the King of France, they scrapped the idea and made his son King Henry III when John died. I feel like the Byzantines in this situation would have just made one of their own opportunistic nobles king after strangling John after his defeat.

>>18032681
>Such internal warfare did not exist in Byzantium at all,
Yes it did. It is arguable whether it was more severe or common than in France. But if you're insisting I won't be able to find a single example of it, I hope you're prepared to eat your words.
>it was rare large scale civil war
Civil was not rare in Byzantium; it was quite common.
>Neither did the Emperors effectively have to extort or wage war on their own subjects to actually achieve their aims like in France
Of course they did. There were many times where Byzantine armies revolted or disobeyed Constantinople because their commander was in a dispute with the emperor or another official.
>the institutions of Byzantium were far more stable and long lasting than those of France
What institutions specifically? The Byzantine senate waned throughout the state's history and eventually disappeared altogether. So to did the theme system of organizing the military.
Name one Byzantine institution you think was more stable than its equivalent in France

>>18032710
>Yes it did
Governors were not fighting and declaring war on other governors and officials regularly. Nor was the main of internal wars small scale wars. If you solely took the rate and consistency of internal warfare, France was far, far worse, even by the standards of their neighbors. Internal warfare in Byzantium was limited to mostly large scale civil war which was not endemic.
>Civil was not rare in Byzantium; it was quite common.
Obviously depends on the period. Serious civil wars in Byzantium for most of its history were not much rarer than in Germany before the 13th century.
>Of course they did. There were many times where Byzantine armies revolted or disobeyed Constantinople because their commander was in a dispute with the emperor or another official.
That's not really the same thing at all. These officials were not independent warlords with independent resources and forces. Byzantine officials depended on the state for their power, French vassals did not.
>What institutions specifically?
The administration and legal system. If your idea of long lasting is never reformed then the Roman legal system would be, since the reforms of Diocletian it hardly had any real institutional change until the 13th century which only stopped because it was destroyed during the fallout of 4th Crusade. The civil administration was also largely the same, not facing serious reforms until the 8th century but that isn't some end or lack of stability in the system. Otherwise we would consider French legal and administrative systems to effectively stop existing in the middle 10th century and then stopping to exist again under Philip Augustus. There is a clear line between them.

>>18032684
>but not ever dispute with the current king involved plots to kill him in the shadows. They were more like gathering enough nobles to appear on the battlefield to defeat the king and impose whatever. King John of England was a bastard that no one liked, but instead of assassinating him
It's not like they were above just killing a King. Edward II was murdered after he was defeated and imprisoned. Outright assassinations where rare anywhere in the world. Even in Byzantium most rulers lost their positions through military defeat