This is not saying Islam is bad, just saying its rise changed the world in a dramatic way.
I don't agree islam should be used to set a boundary in any way.
Too late.
Rome and
Romans as a source of cultural enlightenment
had already died, well before the
Constantine era. In fact, I regard the end of the northern/western "Classic world"to be roundabout the reign of
Commodus, AD 193 it ends without a proper successor. Everything that occurred after that was gradual decline, political games, bribing tribesman to prevent war and corruption. This decline set out during the
Severan dynasty and can be seen in
style and silver content of the coins.
When we consider the eastern
part of the
Roman Empire,
Byzantium should in my view be regarded as an extension of the
eastern "Classic world". The
Roman judiciary system was refined by Justinian, philosophy and art could florish in
Byzantium well into Ottonian age (10th century).
As far as islam is concerned, as I see it, geographiclally spoken it only affected the Iberian peninsula early.
Byzantium could not hold that
part of the
west. But it took until the 15th century before the
Byzantium city itself was included into the
Ottoman empire.
Early development of the Caliphate:
Source:
Wikipedia - Umayyad
As you see,
Spain was conquered before A.D. 750, but the Khalif was far from conquering
Constantinople..
The Islam managed to prosper.. The
Caliphate of Córdoba members of the same dynasty, would rule between 929 and 1031 and mainly focussed activity on the Iberian peninsula. Great works of
architecture and medicine were established. Until 950, the Holy
Roman Empire exchanged ambassadors with Córdoba. The gold
money of Cordoba has been imitated in Northern Europe well into the Carolingian age.
Meanwhile,
Byzantium was at its greatest power in the 6th-7th century, its decline was not so fast. Real trouble began in 1204,
"In the approximately 1,000 years of the existence of the
Byzantine Empire,
Constantinople had been besieged many times; it
had been captured only twice, during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and when the
Byzantines retook it decades later: the
crusaders had not originally set out to conquer the Empire, and the
Byzantines re-established themselves in the city in 1261. In the following two centuries, the much-weakened empire was gradually taken piece by piece by a new threat, the
Ottoman Empire. In 1453 the "empire" consisted of little more than the city of
Constantinople itself and a portion of the
Peloponnese"
So.. in my view, "our" classical world should end 193 AD, that is for Northern and Western Europe. It was followed by a period of corruption, anarchy and dictatorship by the declining
Roman empire, then the Dark Ages. These were actually a standstill in our realms, the "Classical world" as such was merely carved in
stone and studied by those few adepts of culture that survived (eg translations, Anglo-Roman literature).
Now if "The Classical world" would
include Byzantium, it would end 1204, the fourth crusade, "often described as one of the most profitable and disgraceful
sacks of a city in
history" ! Organizing it, Pope Innocent III ended the classical period in the east. It must be noted that this crusade could happen because of the East-West schism which dates back to 1054.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusadehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Schismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople Lex