How did the development of the Byzantine Empire differ from the development of Western Europe?

Answer 1

The main difference was the religion since Western Europe was Influenced by the Pope and Byzantium had its own Religious Authorities. In addition to this western Europe was occupied with its own affairs while Byzantium had also to face the threat of Islam

Answer 2

There were many ways Tangible and not Tangible. Tangible things were the remodel of Byzantium(constantinople) after a riot in 763 a.d. Justinian had an idea and made it big. Justinian also made Justinians Code which exsisted from old roman law that had 1456 BOOKS of law. Justinian cut it down to 4352 laws. Not tangible was the religon that made everybody the way they were. Christianity. Western Europe(after downfall of the western half of the roman empire(east split from Rome it is the byzantine empire) the eastewrn europe was contolled by the uncivilized germanic tribes aka barbarians. Hope i could help

Answer 3

In 1054, the Bishop of Rome (Pope) and the Bishop of Constantinople (Patriarch) excommunicated one another. The division was already a division cultures and intellectual traditions, but they were cut off from one another entirely.

The "Eastern Empire" adopted the intellectual and religious tradition of Hellenic Greece, and fell into religion as an endless mystery about which they spent reams of paper in logic chopping.

Even their centraform churches reflect this with the dome illuminated and no axis to allow the believer a sense of advancing towar salvation. They were eventually without a unifying language of scholarship unless you allow that Old Slavonic was such a tongue, but by the late middle ages no one could read it. In 1458 the Arabls took Constantinope and the Patriarch was moved to Russia and even greater obscurity

The East had no Renaissance, let alone a Reformation, The Enlightenment was a distant set of ideas that Catherine the Great imported played around with.

The West under the Pope was unified in some sense, and had a common language of scholarship, Latin. All learned men knew that language and it unified what they called Christendom. The church fell more under the legalistic traditions of Rome, You do the crime you do the time. There were the seven Deadly Sins and the seven Sacraments to get the sinner back in graceote the magic number seven) But it was a redemptive faith where the sinner was brought back into grace by "good works"

They adopted the basilican form of structure of Rome for their churches with an axis leading through the tampanium to the alter and to salvation. The Latin scholars were the recipients of the Helenic philosophical tradition from the Moores of Spain who had the texts translated into Arabic, and rendered them in Latin for the Western Intellectual community.

It's more complicated than this, but this is enough to allow you to turn in something without doing the work yourself.

Answer 4

It's Hellenic influence. It became a Greek empire; the continuation of the Hellenic world.

Answer 5

Burtlikko gave you very solid answer. the version replaced into significant on many ranges. Byzantine replaced into unified, homogeneous, centralized us of a with Greek language as their mean of verbal substitute. Western Europe replaced into dotted with numbers of smaller kingdoms and duchess the position Latin grew to grow to be global language of verbal substitute between topics of Saxon, Romanic, German, and Slavic states. The emphasis of Latin language inspired the variety of community languages right into a lot larger literal accomplishments than replaced into the case contained in the Byzantine/Orthodox lands as remains seen on the prompt. Politically, Western Europe replaced into by no potential unified, and the king many times did not have most suitable unquestionable potential because it had Byzantine emperor. The kings had many times co-shared their potential with different topics, highly with pope and his larger clergy. West also did not have dominant low-cost and psychological center as Constantinople; hence, crumple of one state did not create the end of the Western state as replaced into in case of Byzantine. Western states were very much surprised with the point of backwardness of their territory after appealing in Crusades, and had tried to strengthen the status of their society. The West gone through series of distinct psychological, architectural, tutorial, non secular, and political movements and reforms that we may be able to perceive with Ottonian, Cistercian, Benedictine, or 12th century renaissance. Byzantine felt too better and too solid to habit any reforms, and throughout its end, it replaced into thanks to have interaction into the previous then destiny. Western intellectuals in view that early medieval cases negatively reacted on Byzantine lack of ability to reform itself and be versatile to instant desires of the state. finally, the Greek civilization confronted a decision between the self reliant us of a and self reliant faith, it chosen to distant itself from mainstream of eu existence and were absorbed into Ottoman state.