There are many similarities and differences between the Byzantine Empire and mediaeval Western Europe. There are besides many factors that have contributed to their alterations. The reign of these emperors and traditions of these imperiums had led to of import historical developments and has besides taught us on how political leaders should hold ruled. The reign of Byzantine emperor Justinian I from 482–565 C. E. was of both glorification and devastation. Justinian reconquered much of the former Roman Empire while making permanent legal codifications and cultural icons such as the Hagia Sophia. the world’s largest cathedral. But every bit shortly as Justinian came into power everything changed. He introduced all the Torahs that ne’er existed into the authorities and he ended all already established imposts. He eliminated bing offices. established ordinances of the ground forces and invented new 1s for the direction of public personal businesss.
His ground for making so was non to better justness but merely because he wanted everything new and named after himself. even if something was out of his control he renamed himself anyhow. Harmonizing to Chapter VII of the secret history. Procopius describes Justinian as: sham. ambidextrous. cruel. hypocritical. ne’er moved to cryings by either joy or hurting. a prevaricator ever. a traitorous friend. a unreliable enemy. insane for slaying and loot. quarrelsome and radical. easy led to anything. ne’er willing to listen to good advocate. quick to be after mischief and transport it out. but happening even the hearing of anything good distasteful to his ears. It is obvious that Procopius is non fond of Justinian. In fact. the Secret History was likely written because he could non openly knock the Emperor. Procopius’ desire is obvious. it shows that he wants to demo what a atrocious emperor Justinian was.
In my sentiment. Procopius’ description might hold been a bit overdone because Justinian is still known for assorted accomplishments throughout his reign. These included the edifice of Hagia Sophia. the Justinian Codes and the recapture of many western states of the imperium. These accomplishments were non admired by many such as Procopius but there are clearly different positions of his success. As a individual Justinian didn’t seem to do smart determinations and he depended on his married woman Theodora during tough state of affairss but he did do alterations to Torahs that benefited himself and his people. He besides continued Roman civilizations. On the other manus. Charlemagne was the first of the Holy Roman Emperors. crowned in the twelvemonth 800 by Pope Leo
III. Charlemagne continued his father’s policies and protected the imperium by taking the Lombard’s from power. He reigned during a clip of much pandemonium and convulsion in Europe during the in-between ages. In Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne he describes Charlemagne’s ideals. beliefs and traits. As said by Einhard. Charlemagne was a adult male of many endowments. He spent clip seeking to advance Christianity. forming the land. church and aristocracy around himself. seeking to make a cardinal authorities. I feel that Einhard’s history on Charles was non exaggerated ; it is obvious that Einhard sees extremely of him. To compare Justinian and Charlemagne. both Justinian and Charlemagne tried to beef up their imperiums but Charlemagne was more successful. Charles gained power of cardinal Europe and Italy whereas Justinian failed to recover power on districts in the East. Charles created local and authorities functionaries called counts that supported justness and raised ground forcess whereas Justinian merely created the Justinian codification.
Based off what I read. I think that a clang between the Byzantines and the Western Europeans could non hold been avoided because non merely did that have spiritual differences they besides had much different economic systems. Both of Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire besides had really different authorities constructions. The Byzantine Empire was ruled by one Emperor and alternatively of direct regulation. used civil service to successfully run the imperium. Western Europe was divided up into tonss of little lands. They were divided by which linguistic communication was spoken and where the feudal system was used more efficaciously. Western Europe was without a centralised authorities until the Late Middle Ages. Although both the Byzantine Empire and Western Europe were chiefly Christian. Christianity led to a major division between the two. Clangs between the Pope and Patriarch over who had more power. authorization and apprehension of patterns within the church lead to the Great Schism.
Economic differences between the two were that European’s patterns of manorialism lead to an agricultural based economic system with small trading outside of Europe whereas the Byzantine Empire became the wealthiest imperium in Europe. Basically. the West was non developed as the Byzantine imperium. This is because Constantinople was the span between Europe and the remainder of the universe. and became the centre of east-west trade. Policraticus. by John of Salisbury. and The Prince. by Niccol Machiavelli. show distinguishable differences of the ideal swayer between the Medieval Ages and the period of Renaissance. The two books were written in different epochs. and they both talk about the true importance of an ideal swayer and how they should execute in order to keep their power.
The most important differences between the two authors are their different positions on faith. political power. and political ends. The different thoughts about faith separate the Renaissance from the Middle Ages. It is clear that the church played a major function in the lives of those in Middle Ages than in those of the Renaissance. John of Salisbury emphasizes that all power that the ideal swayer holds is from God and that He applied it through a low-level manus to do all things teach His clemency or justness.
He besides states that the order for the prince is to fear the Lord his God and to follow God’s words. Whereas for Machiavelli. ignores the job of faith. He chooses non to speak about it in his Hagiographas. He treats faith and authorities as two different things. He believes that the jurisprudence is made by the swayer and non by God. Another difference between the two is their different position on the involvements of the swayer. John of Salisbury believes that the ideal ruler’s aim is to do his people wealthier and his imperium successful. In contrast. for Machiavelli. the end of the prince is to keep his power and to fulfill his people.