>you can see how the art quality on Byzantine coinage starts to recover as you get into the 900s and first half of the 1000s (some pieces even resemble ancient Rome)>IMMEDIATELY takes a dump again after Manzikert fuck my life into pieces
>>18483437Reminder that without the Turkic migrations, Byzantium would have survived into the present since it was the Turks who doomed Byzantium.
>>18483473I agree (at least into the 1800-1900s) but what survived of it wouldn't be able to maintain its lead over Western Europe for long, especially post Columbus. Some calamity or other would befall it and the global trade would diminish the relevance of its position.The region today wouldn't be as poor as Turkey is though, probably Italy-Spain level.
>>18483473>>18483529The Byzantines' 100 civil wars weren't caused by Turks and would have just been exploited by someone else
>>18483542They survived 'em in the past. Turks caught some exceptional circumstances to be able to do what they did.
>>18483437>wants to resemble ancient rome >is orthodog christian>fails at resembling ancient rome
>>18483660What has that 17th century picture got to do with it though
>>18483437>Doesn't know what a Turk isThe Byzantines always cherished their Khazar and GokTurk allies and in fact were still settling Turkish mercenaries on their lands well into the 12th century.
>>18483672Neither of those were around during the time period the image is referencing
>>18483672Why not settle Anatolian frontier with loyal christian vessels: the Slav (Serbian and Bulgarian), the non-GoTurkic (Cuman and Pechenegs), and the Latins (Germany - Saxons, France - Normans, Italy - Venetian or Pisan/early Florence)
>>18483437Nigga what are you talking about? This looks like ass, even compared to 5th century Western Roman coinage or early Byzantine
>>18483881BEHOLD
>>18483881vgh
>>18483881christkino
>>18483529>especially post ColumbusThe main impetus for the age of exploration was the fall of Constantinople and the consequential cutting of trade with the east.
>>18483437The artistic quality on Roman coinage is not actually a meaningful indicator of how things were going for the Empire. You should give this video from a Roman numismatics channel a watch, he compares a beautiful coin from Roman antiquity to a cartoonish and simple one from the Byzantine period. Except the classical Roman one was made by a usurper during the reign of Gallienus when Rome was at one of its weakest points and very near to full collapse, but the ugly Byzantine coin was made by Justinian the Great.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asIJQbFiJCk
>>18484092Oh ok, nobody would ever discover the Americas then.
>>18484432That's an incredibly retarded argument. How skilled a society's artists are is subject to substantial cultural inertia. So changes for the better or worse take a long time to fully manifest. But the underlying catalysts for these changes do still reflect the conditions of the societies in which they take place. You're not going to see the quality of coins tank because of a recent crisis. You're going to see it after persistent decline over generations. And a recent reversal of fortune isn't going to improve them.
>>18484779No that's not correct. The change in art was a stylistic choice, not a marker of decline. The age of Justinian continued to produce masterpieces of art.
>>18483437based turks
>>18483437Why conquer bulgaria in the first place tho…noone has been at the wheel of the ship of state for a long time obviously > Former money changer Michael IV the Paphlagonian (1034–41) assumed the throne of Byzantium in 1034 and began the slow process of debasing both the tetarteron nomisma and the histamenon nomisma. The debasement was gradual at first, but then accelerated rapidly. about 21 carats (87.5% pure) during the reign of Constantine IX (1042–1055), 18 carats (75%) under Constantine X (1059–1067), 16 carats (66.7%) under Romanus IV (1068–1071), 14 carats (58%) under Michael VII (1071–1078), 8 carats (33%) under Nicephorus III (1078–1081) and 0 to 8 carats during the first eleven years of the reign of Alexius I (1081–1118). Under Alexius I Comnenus (1081–1118) the debased solidus (tetarteron and histamenon) was discontinued and a gold coinage of higher fineness (generally .900-.950) was established, in 1092, commonly called the hyperpyron at 4.45 grs. The hyperpyron was slightly smaller than the solidus.It was introduced along with the electrum aspron trachy worth a third of a hyperpyron and about 25% gold and 75% silver, the billon aspron trachy or stamenon[7] valued at 48 to the hyperpyron and with 7% silver wash and the copper tetarteron and noummion worth 18 and 36 to the billon aspron trachy.[8] >
>>18483937>>18483940>>18483941>meanwhile on tiny greek islands 1500 years earlier
