On Arabs, Byzantium and common knowledge

[bjorn-are.davidsen@s.televerket.tele.no]

Even Flood and Wilmer Rivers!
 
(Flood and Rivers are perhaps not to happy subjects in the US this year?)

I totally agree with Even's praise for Don's "Guardians of the Lost Library"! 

However,  I am a bit uncertain about the absolute need to mention the Arabs in this 
context. I'll give two reasons for it. 

Firstly, it may be due to my Norwegian backgroud (which I share with Even even if I am 
15 years younger), but I did during my schooldays in the 60's and 70's - time and 
again, from teacher after teacher, from one text book to the other, in television series, 
books and newspapers - certainly hear a lot about the indeed important  Arab 
contribution within mathematics (though stealing the zero from the Indians), astronomy 
(though mostly concerned with astrology) and literature (though mostly through 
translations from the Greeks). But I heard nothing - or next to nothing about the 
East-Romans or Byzantium. We learned about Bagdad and Cordoba, but not about 
Constantinople. That is a bit curious because Constantinople undoubtedly was the 
largest and most affluent city of its day, at least in our part of the world (one Chinese 
city had about one million inhabitants). Constantinople had a population of between 
500 000 and 1 million (depending on which historian you choose to believe).  And it's 
"day" lasted a LOT longer than either Bagdad or Cordoba, from about 330 A.D. to 1453, 
though not a very bright day after 1204. I have my own private theory that one of the 
reasons for the negative or non-focus on Constantinople is that it was the centre of an 
empire of well educated Christians, which it has not been popular to talk about the last 
few hundred years. Because, as we all know, medieval Christians are dirty and 
ignorant (like the western ones which sacked Constantinople in 1204). And the last 30 
years it has been more polical correct to mention the Arabs. 

Secondly, the Byzantinians were the direct descendants of the Roman empire, which 
controlled Alexandria when it's library was the largest. Alexandria was Byzantinian up 
to the last half of the 7th century. So, apart from several fires and fanatics, if there 
ought to one place in the region which historically could have contained Alexandrian 
remnants or more than that, it was Constantinople, Queen of Cities. It is also a 
historical fact that a lot of ancient literature did exist in Constantiople at least up to 
1204, being mentioned and quoted from in several still existing manuscripts. There is 
also a fact that Marco Polo did visit the city several times, even if that was a long time 
after 1204.

I promise, no more  history today. Apart from a small criticism of Don's "Guardians 
of...": The churches and buildings of Constantinople in 1204 should have been a bit 
more "round" or "smoother". As they now look it's almost like a scene from "Lost in the 
Andes".

Bj|rn Are Davidsen
bjorn-are.davidsen at televerket.tele.no