Introduction by: Lewis Loflin
Extract by: Turgut Özal (1991)
I hold great admiration for Turgut Özal, a distinguished Turkish scholar and leader whose insightful analysis cuts through the complexities of history. His work on the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire, particularly his focus on Emperor Justinian I (527-565 CE), resonates with me deeply. As a political figure who guided Turkey through challenging times, Özal argued that Justinian’s ambitious policies—aimed at reuniting the Roman Empire and enforcing a singular faith—contributed significantly to the empire’s eventual unraveling. These actions, he suggested, fractured Eastern Christianity and created vulnerabilities that Muslim forces exploited in the 7th century.
Özal’s analysis primarily emphasizes political and religious factors, but I’ve added perspectives on climate and plague, inspired by William Rosen’s Justinian’s Flea. Around 536 CE, volcanic eruptions—possibly from Krakatoa or Central America—may have darkened the skies, causing decades of cooling and famine. Grain shipments from East Africa, intended to alleviate hunger, likely introduced the Plague of Justinian (541-542 CE), caused by Yersinia pestis. This bacterium thrives in colder conditions, similar to the Black Death after the Medieval Warm Period, and devastated the war-weary Byzantines and Persians, killing 25-50% of some populations and lingering for decades. Arabia, relatively isolated, was less affected.
Justinian’s campaigns—against Arian Christians, Jews, and other minorities in the West—aimed to unify but instead alienated many, driving some toward Muslim rule as a preferable alternative. Combined with the exhausting Persian-Byzantine wars, this climate catastrophe, and the plague, the empire was left vulnerable. The 1204 Crusade’s sacking of Constantinople further underscored its decline. Below, I present Özal’s own words to elaborate on this historical narrative.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for assisting with drafting and refining this introduction. The final edits and perspective are my own. March 17, 2025.
Extract from Turkey in Europe and Europe in Turkey (1991)
“Alas! O unhappy and long-suffering race of mortals! From what conflicts, from what lamentations you are born.” —Empedocles of Agrigentum
Constantine ascended to the throne in 306 CE, following a period of significant upheaval. He embraced Christianity in 312 and, in 330, established Constantinople at Byzantium, a city that would bear his name. Born near Byzantium in Naissus, Constantine initially considered Troy or Nicomedia as his capital but chose the village between the Bosphorus and the Golden Horn for reasons still unclear. The city grew rapidly, its population soon reaching 500,000, earning the title “the New Rome.”
As sole emperor, Constantine made the title hereditary to avoid succession crises, introduced the solidus coinage, and implemented measures to support farmers, merchants, and artisans. He reformed the civil administration by separating military and political powers, fostering a prolonged period of stability. While he did not designate Christianity as the state religion—only tolerating it—he significantly influenced the legal system with Christian principles.
Under Theodosius I in 391, Christianity became the official state religion, ushering in an era of religious empires, including the Germanic Holy Roman Empire (established by Charlemagne in 800) and the Ottoman Empire (founded in 1299). Unlike the Eastern Roman Empire, which recognized only one religion and discouraged others, the Ottomans adopted a “nations” system, protecting the rights of various religious communities, including diverse Islamic sects.
In 395, Theodosius divided the empire between his sons, creating two Roman Empires. Both faced invasions from the north and east, but the Eastern Roman Empire proved more resilient. Its success stemmed from Anatolia’s dense population, urbanization, and economic strength, bolstered by Constantine’s reforms and advanced agricultural techniques—skills the West did not match until the 10th century. The East also benefited from a more effective sociopolitical structure, with the emperor retaining direct access to resources, unlike the West, where a powerful senatorial class hoarded wealth and resisted imperial demands.
In the 7th century, Emperor Heraclius introduced the “themes” system, dividing the empire into provinces managed by army commanders. Conquered lands were granted to soldiers in perpetuity in exchange for military service, creating a class of peasant-soldiers. This system, later adopted in Anatolia and by the Ottomans, sustained the empire until feudal lords gained power during its decline, exploiting workers—a pattern repeated in the Ottoman Empire’s later years.
The Black Sea served as a natural defense against northern threats, unlike Italy’s vulnerability to the Alps, which allowed the Herules to sack Rome in 476, ending the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire endured for nearly another millennium, emerging as a global power with political, cultural, and religious influence, with cities like Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria overshadowing Naples and Rome.
The Eastern Roman Empire faced constant wars due to Anatolia’s strategic position, repelling invasions from the northwest by the Ouz, Bulgars, Slavs, and Petchenegs, who later pushed into the Balkans. It also contended with Persia, where the Sassanids promoted Zoroastrianism, leading to aggressive westward campaigns. This dual-front conflict strained resources, as defending one front left the other exposed—a challenge the Ottomans later mitigated with treaties.
In the mid-7th century, Arab forces emerged as a new threat, invading Egypt and Syria, which were already in religious conflict with the empire. Preferring Arab tolerance to Byzantine religious oversight, these regions aligned with the invaders, who then pressed Anatolia’s borders and reached Constantinople. The eastern frontier stabilized, except for minor shifts along the Taurus coast and around Antioch, while declining Sassanid power reduced pressure from the east.
The bubonic plague, striking eastern Anatolia around 550 CE, devastated the empire, killing a third to half of Constantinople’s population. This reduced the number of peasants and soldiers, forcing leaders to rely on diplomacy and alliances—a skill that gave rise to the term “Byzantine intrigues.” Similarly, malaria affected Anatolia during the Ottoman decline. The empire’s golden age under the Macedonian dynasty (9th-11th centuries) saw stable borders and the spread of Orthodox Christianity among Bulgars and Slavs, aided by a Slav alphabet.
Centralized administration and the abolition of the Senate strengthened the emperor, though the Orthodox Church provided some check on power. The agro-military system declined as commerce favored land investment, and famines forced peasant-soldiers to sell their land, shifting power to a military aristocracy. This erosion of the empire’s backbone, mirrored in the Ottoman Empire’s later decline, coincided with the Seljuk invasion after the Battle of Malazgirt (1071) and Petcheneg attacks from the west.
Seeking aid against the Normans in southern Italy, the empire turned to Venice, granting commercial concessions that laid the groundwork for Venetian dominance in the eastern Mediterranean—a pattern echoed in Ottoman history. The First Crusade (1096-1099) aimed to reclaim Jerusalem from the Seljuks but returned Nicaea to the empire, though Antioch was retained by the crusaders. The Second Crusade (1147) failed, blaming the East, and the Third (1187) saw Richard the Lionheart occupy Cyprus, never returned to Byzantine control—later leased by Britain in 1878.
The Fourth Crusade (1204) sacked Constantinople, burning and pillaging the city, with Venice playing a key role in securing trade dominance. The Latin occupation lasted until 1261, weakening the empire irreparably. Efforts to revive trade or mend ties with the Papacy met with resistance, hastening decline as the military aristocracy and landed estates faltered.
The empire’s disintegration saw revolts from Bulgars and Slavs, a pattern familiar to the Ottomans during their own decline. Özal notes that a shared religion offered little protection against political conflicts, and barbarism was not exclusive to any group. The fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, to Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror transferred Roman titles to the Ottoman Empire, with Mehmet granting the Patriarch of Istanbul political authority over Orthodox Christians—a role the Turks protected, unlike the Latin West.
Özal argues that Anatolia was the empire’s heart, a view reinforced by the Ottomans’ reconquest of its territories. Classical culture faded under early Christianity, despite efforts to preserve texts, and the empire’s fall was more due to Western actions—particularly the Papacy and Crusades—than Turkish conquest. This history offers lessons for those advocating a unified European culture, as post-1453 religious wars in Europe proved costlier than conflicts with the Ottomans.
Arnold Toynbee’s A Study of History frames the Eastern Roman Empire as a universal state, slowing disintegration but not preventing it, contrasting with his view of it as a new civilization. Özal counters that it was a continuation of the Roman Empire, its reforms centralizing power at the cost of social mobility and creativity, leading to stagnation and external wars. This prefigures the Ottoman Empire, highlighting Anatolia’s enduring role in regional power dynamics.
