I’ve read some from the byzantine historians and while they can sometimes be flowery about the role of Constantinople, I don’t think they were quite as bad as some of the stuff coming out of western european scholars, who practically wrote themselves to have invented everything.
Heck, we still do that.
I don’t think there’s much new about historians giving their own country/nation/ideology/etc a central place in world history. I think the best we can do is try to balance it out by comparing the tales.
hah that’s true. I learned a lot from a BBC documentary on “American Imperialism”… one that *didn’t* show up on American TV because they WEREN’T talking about 19th century America but early 21st century America.
I take the BBC’s history with a huge dose of skepticism anymore though. They’ve been getting very “creative” in their history telling, highlighting a little obscure thing and created a “new theory of history that changes everything” far too many times.
American History makes England bad guys. English history makes Rome the bad guys. Rome makes Byzantium and the Germanic tribes bad guys. [and England makes Byzantium idiots rather than bad guys]. Byzantium made Pagans bad guys. Romans made the Greeks bad guys…. etc.