One of the first things I learned during my vacation in Greece was that the typical Western narrative regarding the course of civilization doesn’t apply there. So, you ask, what does that mean?
The narrative runs as follows: Western civilization had its beginnings in ancient Greece; the Romans essentially absorbed and disseminated Greek ideas; the Roman Empire fell and civilization collapsed with it; but around 800, things started to improve, and they continued to improve (notwithstanding a blip for the Black Death in the 14th century) until the present day. It is a message of optimism.
The Greek story is different. The Eastern Empire didn’t fall; in fact, in the sixth century, it retook most of what the Western Empire had lost to the barbarians. The East remained a bastion of civilization during what we call the Middle Ages, even in the face of the Muslim onslaught, until 1204, at which time the Empire was stabbed in the back by perfidious Crusaders. The Empire returned shortly thereafter in weakened form until 1453, at which time the Turks put an end to it. Greece was controlled politically by the Turks until the early 19th century. The Western and Greek golden ages, as a result, in no way coincide, and the Greek message is not one of consistent improvement over a millennium.
There is merit to their position. We tend to overlook the importance of Byzantium in our narrative, but we shouldn’t. Constantinople arguably was the center of the world for nearly a thousand years. To the average Greek today, the ancient Athenians might as well have lived on another planet, but the demise of the Byzantine Empire still smarts, and Greco-Turkish relations reflect that.