Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SunkenCiv
When it comes to what happened to Anatolia, there's also the difference in lifestyles between the Eastern Roman and the Turkish.

The Eastern Romans had well-developed towns and cities in Anatolia, while the Turks were mainly nomadic and pastoral, so that after the Turks took over Anatolia, the towns and cities in the interior declined severely, and central Anatolia become kind of an Asian wasteland. At least that's how I read it.

(Note that I've sworn off the term "Byzantine"!)

10 posted on 06/26/2016 7:13:06 PM PDT by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: MUDDOG

I’ve never been fond of it, never made a lot of sense, actually, but since they were good at business, the “byz’ part is easy to remember. ;’)

Their last really kick-ass ruler was Boris the Bulgar-slayer; this page about him damn near mede me wet my pants when I read it.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/basil.html


11 posted on 06/26/2016 7:24:18 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (I'll tell you what's wrong with society -- no one drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson