Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.42867302 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>"Byzantine" Empire

>> No.42867332

Are we getting a history board or what?

>> No.42869465

>>42867302

Not a historyfag, and while I'm unlikely to ever use any actual historical times, places or events directly in my Generic Fantasy World, I'm still curious - what is it about this phrase that has you all disgustipated? Just looking to expand my mental database with potentially interesting facts as it were, like that time we learned about Myths in India.

>> No.42869500

>>42867332
Maybe. But first more porn boards.

>> No.42869553

>>42867302
Byzantium's cool. Wish they'd kicked Muslim ass back in the day, mideast wouldn't have so many problems today.

>> No.42869569

>>42869553
>/pol/
Confirmed for knowing nothing about history.

>> No.42869616

>>42869569
Go ahead and explain.

>> No.42869883

>>42869465
The "proper" name for the Byzantine Empire is "Imperium Romanum". AKA the Roman Empire. Because the Byzantine Empire was a direct continuation of the old Roman Empire.

>> No.42869903

>>42869883
But it lost Rome.

>> No.42869919

>>42869883
>kekus maximus
Greeks plz leave

>> No.42869934

>>42869903
Rome wasn't even the capital of the Western Roman Empire when it fell. The east had been using Constantinople as its political and cultural capital since Constantine.

>> No.42869965

>>42869934
It was the Constantinopalian Empire then?

>> No.42869981

>>42867302

>Byzantine "Empire"

>> No.42870050

who said you could post /twg/ memes in a neckbeard board you stupid sperg?

>> No.42870051

>>42869465
The term Byzantine Empire is only used by academics to differentiate between the Roman Empire before and after the fall of the west. It has no historical relevance at all. Everyone at the time would simply have refered to it as Rome.

>>42869965
Constantinople was called Byzantinium before Constantine, which is where the term is derived from.

>> No.42870064

>>42869465
Byzfags get upset that historians find it useful to distinguish between different eras of the roman empire and also that people don't properly respect the fact that rome sexually excites them.

>> No.42870099

>>42869981
Ah yes, mehmed II, one of my favorite roman emperors.

>> No.42870100

>>42870051
I know the origin of the name, I was trying to lead the guy to it.

>> No.42870112

>>42869981
Mohammedans go home.

>> No.42870207

>>42869965
No, it was the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire was the eastern administrative section of the entire Roman Empire, with its own Emperor. The western half, based in Rome and later Ravenna, had its own. Both were considered equal, though the eastern Emperor was considerably stronger and more secure in his position. When the Western Emperor was deposed and the former west completely divided into small kingdoms, the east remained politically powerful. There was an attempt to reclaim the Italian Peninsula, which failed due to the inability to fund the expedition and a plague. The east continued to chug right on by, using a system derived from the Roman imperial system, calling themselves Roman Emperors, and continuing the Greco-Roman culture of the Roman Empire. Over time, they had shifted and evolved enough that modern historians consider it an essentially different civilization.

During its day, no such distinction was held even if it was arguably true. Even when Constantinople was conquered, the Ottoman Sultan adopted the title of Caesar of the Romans.

All of this was in vain, as the true successor to Rome was centered in Germanic lands. See, I even have these papers to prove it.

>> No.42870332

>>42869903
When the Roman Empire split into east and west the west got Rome the east Constantinople
The west fell barbarians and the east lasted significantly longer (mostly because Constantinople was one of the best defended cities in the world) before falling to the Turks
People didn't want to call them Rome though because most Christians were Catholic and to Catholics the inheritance of the Roman Empire went to the Holy Roman empire that the pope crowned

>> No.42870400

>>42870332
>People didn't want to call them Rome though
But that's wrong.

>> No.42870542

>>42870050
>PULLO! GET BACK IN FORMATION!

>> No.42870675

The term byzantine empire is wholly a later invention. I recall reading some historian had it so bad for the ERE that he refused to call them romans and instead coined them as byzzies.

>> No.42870754

>>42869616

Most of the issues in the Middle East right now stem from the Treaty of Versailles. A bunch of Europeans carved up the Ottoman Empire after WWI and didn't understand much of anything about the regions and the cultures they haphazardly created, leading to factionalism and strife.

>> No.42870890

>>42870207
Whaaaat? How do you have an empire with two emperors? Wouldn't they constantly be up in each other's shit trying to run things? What happens when they disagree on something?

>> No.42871012

>>42870207
Didn´t Russia take up the banner after the fall? thus the title of Czar?
Or did both HRE and Russia do it? >>42870332
Like this anon said, Orthodox vs Catholics?

>> No.42871026

>>42870890
They were effectively two different empires. Different governments, different economies, different cultures.

But then you get the Byzantine fondness for naming people "Co-Emperor"...

>> No.42871090

>>42871012
Several European powers claimed descent from Rome. Russia claimed to succeed the eastern empire, while the HRE claimed to be rightful descendants through the Catholic Church.

>> No.42871103

>>42869465
The Byzantine Empire is the exact same political entity as the Western Roman Empire. You can follow Roman imperial history in an unbroken chain from 1453 back to the founding of the empire in Julius Caesar's time.

Proper distinctions include West/East and Antiquity/Medieval. Roman/Byzantine implies one is not Roman, which is an outright lie; they are the same.

Furthermore, the term Byzantine is offensive in itself. Whereas "Classical, antique, and Roman" are used as distinguished and sophisticated terms, "Byzantine" has historically been used to mean corrupt and aging. Read this text by Charles Oman for more.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37756/37756-h/37756-h.html

Lastly, during the time that the Byzantines lived, they were referred to as Romans. When the crusaders struck upon the doors of Constantinople, they were in the Roman Empire. When the Ottomans took the city, they had conquered Rome. "Byzantine" is a 19th century mislabeling of an entity that already had a CORRECT name.

Don't be a faggot, call post 500s Roman Empire, "Western Roman Empire" or "Medieval era Roman Empire".

>> No.42871169

>>42871090
You even had the Venetians claiming to be the rightful heirs of the Roman Republic.

>> No.42871177

>>42871103
Correction, "Western" in last paragraph, meant "Eastern".

>> No.42871190

>>42871012

Yes, until they fell to the soviets. Which leads us to the real heir of the Roman Empire.

Argument closed.

>> No.42871215

>>42871103
But if what >>42871026 said is true, they don't they have nothing in common, save for the agreement of their leaders that they are one entity?

>> No.42871284

>>42871215
It's easy to see it that way, when you compare the stoic early Imperial leaders with a turban-wearing, robed 'asian' Emperor circa 1400.

But the transition was a gradient, a spectrum, not overnight. The empire slowly morphed and changed in culture. Take for example, the Roman Imperial language, which was Latin as of 500 AD, and Greek as of 1400 AD. Early Eastern emperors spoke Latin, and their courts spoke Latin. Over time, with most of the Latin-speakers dead or in fragmented Western tribes, the citizens of the empire spoke predominantly Greek. It took a couple centuries until the government did too.

>> No.42871298

>>42871190
While pretty funny, there's no real reason for ottoman claims to be illegitimate. "I conquered it so it's mine now" is an age-old tradition.

>> No.42871321

Mandatory Reading

>> No.42871355

>>42871298
>there's no real reason for ottoman claims to be illegitimate.
The legitimate title was sold to the king of France by the last Roman Emperor, and quite a few kings of France (Between Charles VIII and Francis I if I'm not mistaken) actually styled themselves as, among others, Emperor of the Romans. The title of Rome's successor had once again fallen in the hands of the Franks, sadly this time they lacked the power to enforce it.

>> No.42871358

>>42867302
>The "Aztecs"

>> No.42871379

>>42869553
It most certainly would. It's just that Europeans would be able to understand them without being Lawrence of Arabia.

>> No.42871382

>>42871358
Except the Aztecs were a legitimate group, like the Olmecs and Mayans.

>> No.42871388

>>42871358
So which do you prefer, Mexica tribes or Tenochtitlan?

>> No.42871414

>>42871190
why is WRE illegimate?

>> No.42871436

>>42871414
Because he's Finnish, and desperately looking for something to make his country interesting.

>> No.42871438

>>42869553
One my favorite alt histories is imagining what would have happened if the Arab tribes had unified and attempted to expand before Constantinople and Persia had totally exhausted each other.

>> No.42871500

>>42871379
>Implying
Constantinople in the Middle Ages was what Paris was during the 18th century or what New York and Los Angeles are today: the heart of the worlds academics, arts, culture and finances. Today Spain alone translates more books in a year than the Arabs translated in a thousand years. But don't take my word on this almost incredible fact, take the UN's word instead.

http://www.arab-hdr.org/publications/other/ahdr/ahdr2002e.pdf
Page 78, bottom right.

One could say that Islam is almost the exclusive reason why the Middle East is in the state it is in today.

>>42871438
As much as I dislike Arabs, Khalid ibn Walid was one hell of a general and probably carried most of the early Muslim expansions on his shoulders exclusively. As long as he's around, I doubt the Sassanids and Romans being in a better position would make much of a difference, unless that someone means producing generals of the calibre of Belisarius.

>> No.42871545

>>42871388
>tribes
I wouldn't call the largest city on Earth a tribe.
Mexico, I guess?

Anyway, historians have to rename stuff because they deal with large areas and time frames. Calling the pre-Colombian city of Tenochtitlan Mexico would confuse people. Calling the Eastern Empire 'Byzantium' is not suggesting that's what the people of Nova Roma called it.

>> No.42871578

>>42871500
That's why its one of my favorite alt histories. Without the war exhaustion of the region's two eminent powers, you have two firmly entrenched powers and one rising power. And it just becomes pretty unpredictable with chances for some insanity from there.

>> No.42871609

>>42871545
Speaking of the Romans, what's the deal with the Latin Empire? Early in Roman history Roman and Latin were used interchangably, right? Rome was in the province of Latium (modern day Lazzio, I think), the people of Rome spoke the language of the region (Latin). But the East Romans referred to Westerners as Latinkon (Latins) and they themselves called their new empire centered around Constantinople the Latin Empire. What gives?

>> No.42871662

>>42871298
>>42871414
>>42871436

Memeing aside, that pic is just a /int/ troll to make Italians buttblasted.

>why is the ottoman empire illegitimate

Ehh, they didn't practice Roman traditions in any way, also they were Islamic. Ottomans came from the Seljuk Turks which who were just invaders from central Asia. They had little to no legitimacy.

>why is WRE illegitimate

Well, they bowed down to the pope for one thing. Constantinopole was also the capital during the split, so there's that.

Also, a fun fact about legitimacy of ERE over WRE:

Odoacer, a leader of an German mercenary band, after disputes over payment ended up defeating the Emperor of WRE. He banished the emperor, declared that the WRE doesn't exist anymore and sent the crown of the WRE emperor to the ERE emperor.

>> No.42871680

>>42871103
I really hope you're joking because if not you're being incredibly pedantic. Your Barsoomian artwork leads me believe you're being intentionally pedantic. Please tell me you are.

>> No.42871965

>>42871609
The Latin Empire was created in 1204 following the Siege of Constantinople by Western Christians travelling on the Fourth Crusade. Yes, you heard me right. Constantinople was besieged, captured, and sacked by "Crusaders".

Rather than point their swords at the Muslims they so loved to hate, they turned on the Byzantines for a massacre of Latin Christians within the city, some 20 years earlier further escalating tensions between Eastern and Western Christianity following the Schism. BUT! It just so happened that a bunch of wealthy Venetians competing with the Empire and encroaching on territory that was supposed to belong to the Empire conveniently reminded them of this massacre as they were passing by.

And so, the jewel of the Medieval world, repository of ancient knowledge was put to the torch. Treasures hoarded and stolen. Even the Pope himself condemned this act.

There's a lot more to it and please excuse the hyperbole but, it's late and I'm a wee bit tired.

>> No.42872003

>>42871355
The title was given to Charlemagne by the pope in the ninth century. There's no evidence that the title was ever rightfully handed down from the last emperor to any one ruler in Europe, and indeed it seems very unlikely that they would ever have done so as to the people at the time it would have seemed as if the Roman Empire continued on just as it had always. The fall of the western half of the empire was not a dramatic turn of events but a progressive decline that went on for decades, and when it eventually was no more the eastern half just kept on trucking.

This has not stopped people from claiming that they had been handed imperial mandate to succeed the Roman state centuries later, however. Indeed, many European powers did, but there's nothing to prove that any one of this is legitimate and several things that points to them all being forgeries and lies. So, you know.

>> No.42872048

>>42869965
Roman became a legal and citizenship signifier back in the bc era.

Not ethnic, race had nothing to.do with it .

>> No.42872192

Why was he so based?

>> No.42872348

>>42872192
Because he was one of the Last True Romans.

>> No.42872367

>>42871965
>It just so happened that a bunch of wealthy Venetians competing with the Empire and encroaching on territory that was supposed to belong to the Empire conveniently reminded them of this massacre as they were passing by.

This statement is so god dammed wrong I barely know where to begin. First of all, Constantinople was always Venice's biggest trading partner, not their competitor. Venice's competitors were the Genoese/Pisans/Amalfians, all four of which were competing for the best trading rights and access to Constantinople's markets over the other the three. Indeed, Doge Dandolo had just finished hammering out a hard fought, but favorable, trade agreement with Constantinople around 1200. Mind that the Venetians were spared of the massacre, since earlier in the 1100s the Venetians across the empire were imprisoned because of how well they had been doing compared to Greek traders; Constantinople needed new trade partners and the Venetians were all they could really get after the massacre. Previous to the 4th crusade, Venice's Adriatic territory was legitimized by Constantinople.
The true leader behind the diversion to Constantinople was likely Boniface of Montferrat who was housing Angelus (son of the deposed emperor) and also had legitimate rights to the throne (through marriage). Everything that happened afterwards was fairly typical of Byzantine history throne claiming, followed by a tragic misunderstanding on the Crusader's part when the citizens handed the city over to a legitimate claimant. There is way more to it, but character limits.

I suggest reading Donald Queller's and Thomas Madden's, "The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople," for a readable account of the 4th crusade's contemporary historiography.

>> No.42872531

>>42872367
Oh, thanks! That's really helpful. Like I said, it's late and my mind isn't all there at the moment but I admit I don't know enough about the period to give a completely accurate summary of events.

I'll check that out.

>> No.42872648

>>42871500
>Los Angeles
>the heart of the worlds academics, arts, culture and finances
Uhhhhhhhh...

At the risk of being accused of hitting on you, I'd have to say a much more likely candidate is LONDON

>> No.42872805

>>42871500
>Constantinople in the Middle Ages was what Paris was during the 18th century or what New York and Los Angeles are today: the heart of the worlds academics, arts, culture and finances
Aaaaaaand? So was Baghdad, only an even bigger one and for a longer period to boot. But then some huge clusterfuck happens, someone has to take it up the ass and then it doesn't matter how culturally advanced you are - the entire region if fucked up for a good century at least. The only difference would be a smaller cultural distance between Westerners and the Middle East population.

>> No.42872984

>>42872805

The Mongols literally fucked Baghdad worse then the Americans could ever dream of doing. Chroniclers recorded the river turning black from the ink of all the books thrown into the water.

>> No.42873049

>>42872984
>worse then the Americans could ever dream of doing.
I'm pretty sure bombing it into a hole in the ground would be worse.

>> No.42873057

>>42872984
Don't forget about them destroying all the aqueducts that had accrued over millennia, plunging the region into downward spiral that they still haven't really recovered from.

>> No.42873065

>>42870890
Think that's crazy, Rome had experience with dual heads of state: before the Empire they consistently had two presidents (consuls) at a time, and once they even elected co-dictators while Hannibal was running around Italy wrecking shit.

>> No.42873090

>>42871012
Russia, Germany, Bulgaria, Rum, Rumania, etc etc etc. Damn near every country in the West wants to suck the Caesar's dick.

>> No.42873219

>>42871965
Just about every crusade was just a mobile clusterfuck, with the possible exception of the third. Just imagine an Orkish WAAAGH!!! but with priests leading peasants or armed thugs and absolutely no senses of humor, and you'd be in the ballpark.

>> No.42873324

>>42873049
Frankly the city of Baghdad is so far fallen that even reducing it to a radioactive crater would still be better than what the Mongols did.

>> No.42873764

>>42873219
I still love that the first crusade was successful only because all the states in the Levant were collectivley going, "WUT?" the whole time.

>> No.42873842

>>42870050

>> No.42873953

>>42872648
LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

>> No.42874018

>>42872192
My nigga

>> No.42874133

>liking christian romans

>> No.42874178

>>42874133
Late romans best romans

>> No.42874210

>>42874178
Why do they hate the letter P so much?

>> No.42874253

>>42874210
the hate makes them remember jesus

>> No.42874259

>>42874210
Because P is the worst letter.
P raped my mother and killed my father.

>> No.42874295

>>42870754
>It's the Euopeans' fault Muslims have always killed, raped, and murdered each other and everyone else throughout history.

Not even /pol/. Get fucked, revisionist dog.

>> No.42874736

So was a nail from the true cross used in the Charles wore?

>> No.42874813

>>42874133
>liking non christian romans
Pls just kill yourself, fam

>> No.42875034

>>42874295
He didn't say " throughout history", he was talking only about post WWI.
And to say that Treaty of Versailles was anything but pure shit and that carving of Ottoman Empire was not the most retarded part of that is just beyond stupidity.

>> No.42875168

>>42871103
>Byzantine implies one is not Roman

How many people in the East were born in Rome?

FUCKING NONE. Literally the most Roman it ever got was when the Catholic Crusaders took it.

Get over it. The heartland was Greek, the rest of em were a mix of peoples from North Africa, Middle East, eastern Europe and central Asia.

>> No.42875250

>>42869903
Under Justinians rule they took it and much of Italy back.

>> No.42875555

>>42875034
There's no difference between their behavior pre or post WWII. At that point you're just arguing degrees of barbarity.

Still hate women, non-Muslims, gays, and anyone they happen to find the least bit annoying. Blaming any bit of it on Europeans is also beyond stupidity.

>> No.42875721

>>42875555
>There's no difference between their behavior pre or post WWII
>WWII
My god you are dumb and uneducated.

>Still hate women, non-Muslims, gays, and anyone they happen to find the least bit annoying. Blaming any bit of it on Europeans is also beyond stupidity.
The only guys on the planet NOT hating women, non-Themselves, gays, and anyone they happen to find the least bit annoying are like, pats of the population in Western Europe and North America. By your definition of barbarity civilization did not exist until the 70s.

>Blaming any bit of it on Europeans is also beyond stupidity.
Current wars in Middle East are a direct consequence of Ottoman Empire being carved with zero regard to religion or ethnicity of population of the territories. The same thing in Europe caused WWII.

>> No.42875779

>>42875721
>My god you are dumb and uneducated.
Says the idiot apologizing for Muslim savages.

>Non sequitur
The argument isn't when civilization began, it's the difference between Muslim behavior prior to your silly little Versailles argument. There's no difference. Point to one difference. One.

>Current wars in Middle East are a direct consequence of Ottoman Empire

No, they aren't. It's just revisionist historians like yourself that consider Muslims blameless for the state of their own corner of the world. They've always murdered and warred with each other when they weren't doing it to everyone else around them. Blaming Europeans for any of it is willful ignorance. Keep crying.

>> No.42875952

>>42875779
>Point to one difference. One.
under the Ottoman Empire they were at wars with themselves only just as often as Europeans.

>No, they aren't. It's just revisionist historians like yourself that consider Muslims blameless for the state of their own corner of the world. They've always murdered and warred with each other when they weren't doing it to everyone else around them.
One one hand we have a complex political crisis coming from imperialistic powers seeking to fuck up a region to neutralize it's possible role as a dangerous player of the level akin to that of the Ottoman Empire using the power given to them by wictory in WWI to stick Kurds, Shia Persians and Sunnis into one state, plus the post-war desolation, plus the general incompetece.
One the other, we have the /pol/-tier
>"Durr bloodthirsty savages! They are murderous sandniggers because they are murderous sandniggers!"

>> No.42876070

>>42873219
Well, to put credit where it is due, the second managed to capture Lisbon from the moor.

>> No.42876721

>>42867302

>It was an empire.

>Its capital was Byzantium.

>Of course we should call it "Rome" because that's what they called themselves.

No, fuck you anon dead guys do not get a vote.

>> No.42877062

>>42875721
>Current wars in Middle East are a direct consequence of Ottoman Empire being carved with zero regard to religion or ethnicity of population of the territories.
What the fuck are you talking about because I am pretty sure it is all out your ass
≥The same thing in Europe caused WWII.
You are absolutely talking out of your ass now
Czech people didn't want to be annexed into Germany as a whole neither did Austrians. Pretty sure most of Poland didn't feel very Russian or German either
Really what caused WWII was the treaty of Versailles and Hitler wanting a war. Even if Hitler would have been given the Polish territory he wanted he would have kept asking for more until it caused a war.
And if the treaty of Versailles hadn't left Germany so devistated they never would have taken Adolf seriously

>> No.42877277

>>42875952
>Actual history of the Muslim world.
>"/pol/-tier"
Newsflash, revisionist. Muslim history goes beyond the Ottoman Empire, and it's just as bloody and awful as it is today. Keep crying.

It has nothing to do with race. Your insistence that pointing out common fact is somehow "/pol/" is just you airing out your own misgivings about history.

>> No.42877289

ITT: People defend the Greek Empire as being "Rome".

>> No.42877311

>>42867332
I have a feeling it'll be a mix between /pol/ and /int/, and will have 2 decent thread amongst the "hitler did nothing wrong." Or a variation of that thread.
>>42867302
Yes people don't understand Roman history. You should help them understand instead of being a prick.

>> No.42877358

>>42877289
The Roman empire assimilated dozens of cultures. The Greeks may have had more direct influence then, say, the Anglos, but they were only one small part of a massive socio-political amalgamation.

>> No.42877448

>>42877358
Missed the joke eh?
The Byzantine Empire is sometimes referred to as the Greek Empire, because it was based in modern Greece, the upper class were majority Greek, and the common language was Greek.
Justinian was the last Emperor fluent in Latin.

>> No.42877471

>>42877448
Oh, that one went completely over my head. Apologies.

>> No.42879181

>>42877062
>Czech people didn't want to be annexed into Germany as a whole neither did Austrians
Sudetenland was largely German and even welcomed the annexation.
>Pretty sure most of Poland didn't feel very Russian or German either
The entire part of the Poland that was taken by Russians was ethnically Belorussian.
Same with Western Poland and Germans.
>Really what caused WWII was the treaty of Versailles
And by Treaty of Versailles you mean exactly WHAT, if not the borders it established?

>> No.42879218

>>42877277
>Muslim history goes beyond the Ottoman Empire
Of course. If we turn to the time beyond the Ottoman Empire, Muslims come across as the peace-loving ones - Europe had a TON more warfare and killing compared to Muslim world in XXII century and earlier.

>> No.42879747

>>42872348
Baked by true roman bakers?

>> No.42879813

>>42875168
>How many people in the East were born in Rome

Post 100bc how many Romans were born in Rome?

>> No.42879918

>>42879181
His argument was that because Germany got beat, that they were pissed off by terms of surrender, which pretty m8ch bankrupt and weakened the German state.
You'll notice that this never happened again in World War 2, but instead was split between capitalist powers and Russia, insuring that it wouldn't happen again.

>> No.42879988

>>42869553
They'd still have a shit ton of problems. It'd just be that so would Europe.

>> No.42880500

>>42867302

CARACALLA PREDATES THE BYZANTINE TRANSFORMATION BY CENTURIES.

FFFFFFFFFFF-

>> No.42880505

>>42879813
How many Byzantines even spoke Latin?
How many Emperors even spoke Latin?

>> No.42880559

SERIOUSLY, DID NO ONE HERE STUDY ANCIENT HISTORY EXCEPT FOR ME?

>> No.42880842

>>42879918
>which pretty m8ch bankrupt and weakened the German state
Well, yes, it did.

By taking away a shitton of land Germans considered German. Along with population, industrial capacities, historic cultural areas, key production chain links, trade routes and strategic points.

>> No.42880869

>>42880559
Apparently so.

It always befuddles me as how people can look at the entirety of history and try to frame it in the current political context.

Seriously, the one history lesson you need to know is that everyone was an asshole to everyone at one point, which has formed into a indecipherable web of bullshit that stretches all the way from pre-antiquity.

>> No.42881144

http://12byzantinerulers.com/

I'll just leave this podcast here so people can educate themselves on the awesomeness that is the Imperium Romani Orientis.

>> No.42881216

>>42880842
I should continue and say that because of this, it led to allot of people being bitter, and when the system of money passing failed to keep the Wiemar Republic afloat along came the nazis and the fascists to help out the people.

No one ever mentions how well those economic machines were foe their time, not even /pol/ing here but nations going through the depression often were envious of the Germans and the Italians.

>> No.42881229

>>42873090
>Rumania

As a Romanian I feel triggered tbh.

>> No.42881235

>>42880505
I'm fairly sure most Kings and Emperors in Europe could speak latin, but that does not make them romans.

>> No.42881253

>>42881229
>bumanian detected
Xd :^)

>> No.42881257

>>42867302
Byzantine can be a adjective you tit

>> No.42881315

>>42869883
No, it wasn't. The eastern empire was a distinct political entity that diden't speak the same lanauge or rule itself remotely like the western empire. By the 7th century the fact that they called themselves "Romans" was pretty fucking irrelevant, the empire had nothing to do with the long dead Western empire.

>> No.42881454

>>42880869
Y-Yeah, but those guys over there were assholes to MY ancestors so they're the bad guys of history!

>> No.42881749

>>42880505
>>42881235
Correct, that had a lot to do with the Church making Latin the lingua franca in Europe, which persisted until at least 1515 (when Francis I passed an edict that stated all laws and matters of organization/governance would take place in Parisian French rather than Latin, making him the first European ruler to ditch the Latin language). In the Orient (which stretches as far east as India) the lingua franca had always been Greek.

>>42881315
>By the 7th century the fact that they called themselves "Romans" was pretty fucking irrelevant, the empire had nothing to do with the long dead Western empire.
Other than being a direct continuation of the common root of both the Eastern and the Western empire, it had nothing to do with the old Romans, right? I guess we should stop calling Alfred the Great the greatest English king, considering he had nothing to do with the Normans or the Angevin Empire that were created later, and spoke something that doesn't even resemble modern English.

>> No.42881814

>>42872648
London is and always will be a shit hole.

>> No.42881884

>>42881749
Byzantium was a political continuation of Rome, but not a cultural one.

>> No.42882248

>>42881884

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that you might just as well call the Catholic church "The Roman Empire" as the Byzantines.
As Rome broke apart, there were loads of places that then claimed to be Rome's successor, but we don't call them the Roman Empire either. To do so would be confusing; calling the ERE the "Byzantine Empire" is just clearer all around.

>> No.42882394

>>42882248
>As Rome broke apart, there were loads of places that then claimed to be Rome's successor
The East Romans never claimed to be Rome's successor, they claimed to be Rome full stop and that was a very valid claim indeed.

>> No.42882697

>>42882394

I'd dispute "very valid" when we're talking about a bunch of non-Romans with a non-Roman culture who didn't speak Latin. They had a legalistic claim, as the Roman Empire split itself and put part of its power into Byzantium, but they are still a clearly distinct entity from the Roman Empire proper.

>> No.42882709

>>42867332
I hope we don't. It would be awful.

>> No.42882739

>>42882697
>implying that Greece hadn't been the cultural, intellectual, and financial center of the Roman empire for nearly the entirety of its existence

>> No.42882758

>>42867302
"Eastern Roman" Empire.

You don't even hold Rome, greekboi.

>> No.42882826

>>42882739
They still weren't roman.
We distinguish between countries, empires and states for a variet of reasons.
Take for example the status of Ethiopia in the late 19th century. It was considered the oldest country in the world. Now clearly others had been around for longer, but for various reason were not considered to be the same nation as they had been. France for example had gone through the revolution. We distinguish different periods of France as different states, often with their name. The Frankish Empire, French Empire, Republic. Same with say... Germany. It has been continuously Inhabited since before the roman empire by germans. In some ways the current state is a direct descendant of the HRE. We do not consider them one and the same.
Byzantium stands.

>> No.42882867

>>42881144
English Fashion: French

FUCK. That literally shot my keks out.

>> No.42882872

>>42882826
>We distinguish between countries, empires and states for a variet of reasons.
You can't get any more anachronistic. The irony here is that you mention the French Revolution, where that distinction became the clearest. Prior to that the only prequisite to being French was simply being a vassal of the king of France. Whatever language you spoke (for 75% of them at least it wasn't Parisian French) didn't matter, nor did your culture or even your religion. It was only after the Revolution that we see the French arise as a distinct cultural and linguistic group (which was pretty much the aforementioned Parisians enforcing their language and culture on everyone else).

It's not wise to apply those same standards to the late Middle Ages. The East Romans were Romans by virtue of being ruled over by a Roman Emperor. Hell, even during the days of the late unified Empire a tiny minority of Roman citizens actually spoke Latin, and an even more microscopic minority actually lived in Rome proper.

Nobody questioned the Romanness of the East Romans because the standards by which it can be questioned are anachronistic as hell.

>> No.42882904

>>42882872
But by the late middle Ages Byzantium was not Roman and not an empire.

It could back up its status as Roman until the 9th century, then it became irrelevant as a roman empire.

>> No.42882927

>>42882872
I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or not.
Yes it's anachronistic, but the point is we do it to everyone. We call it he Byzantine Empire because after the fall of the west (or actually sometime before it) it was, culturally, a distinct entity from the old roman empire.
Going solely by political measure, The ERE was actually true Rome even when the WRE was still a thing. That would make actual Romans be non-romans. Looking back that's ridiculous.

>> No.42883846

>>42882904
>until the 9th century, then it became irrelevant as a roman empire.

And completely ignore the Komnenian Restoration?

>> No.42883930

>>42881144
Is that a real old document?

>> No.42883946

>>42873764
It helped that the Peoples Crusade got there first and were basically a bunch of murdering, marauding farmers without much in the way of actually military power. Except for Emicho, but the Hungarians took care of his foolishness.

>> No.42883998

>>42879218
>Europe had a TON more warfare and killing compared to Muslim world in XXII century and earlier.

That's not true, though. Muslim history is characterized and defined by its violence and hatred of anyone not Muslim. Again, you're only airing out your ignorance of history in general and your disgusting fetishism of one of the most violent, regressive cultures on the face of the Earth.

>> No.42884020

>>42871500
> what New York and Los Angeles are today: the heart of the worlds academics, arts, culture and finances.

If you're trying to dickwave this, it's more likely London fits all of those more than New York.

>> No.42884084

>>42883998
>What is the Teutonic Order in Eastern Europe?

Look, I'm not saying your wrong in your assertion that Muslims were excessively violent towards non-Muslims, mostly because I don't have reliable statistics. What I am saying though, is that European history is rife with examples of the same. Look at the Roman persecution of Christians, the Iconoclasm crisis in the Byzantine Empire, and then the Crusades, the Reconquista, the Inquisitions against Protestants who were Christians who held different beliefs, not to mention the Hussite Wars.

There's as much to be said for European intolerance as there is Muslim and every time someone puts their tinfoil hat marked /pol/ on they always forget the Islamic Golden Age that actually benefitted mankind. Over shadowed by the Muslim world's later history with Europe, though it may be.

>> No.42884092

>>42880559
>>42880869
No but I wanted to actually be able to get a JOB when I got out of Uni, so history courses were right out.

>>42881144
>Reigned By - Pole: Doesn't Matter

>> No.42884107

>>42883946
Not the last time Hungarians had to mop up batshit crusaders, either...

>> No.42884117

>>42884084
>Look at the Roman persecution of Christians
Nowhere near as many killed as were by Muslims
>then the Crusades
There was literally nothing wrong with them
>the Reconquista
See above
>the Inquisitions against Protestants who were Christians who held different beliefs
Between 3 and 5 thousand Protestants were executed across all of Europe over a 300 year period. That's nothing.

>> No.42884125

>>42872648
You can't deny that Los Angeles, through the power of Hollywood, has a grip on global culture like no other city

>> No.42884148

>>42879218
I'm not sure how you view multiple warring caliphates, internal sectarian violence along religious and tribal lines, and the occasional genocide to be peaceful. The Islamic golden age existed, but it was more due to a brutal crackdown from a dictatorial caliphate than anything else. That, and it was fairly brief as the Mongols wrecked their shit incredibly thoroughly due to the Caliphate killing the diplomats sent to them - an act considered barbaric in the extreme at the time and especially insulting.

>> No.42884152

>>42884125
>Being the Basileus was the closest we ever got to having a god emperor of mankind

>> No.42884216

>>42883846
>And completely ignore the Komnenian Restoration?
A failed experiment abandoned by future Emperors when they started looking east instead of west. One of the key points of Alexius' political ambitions was creating and keeping close political ties with western Europe as they had more common ties than their unreliable eastern neighbours.

>> No.42884250

Quit being pretentious. There are plenty of historical designations that only came about after the fact. Calling it the Byzantine Empire distinguishes the area and time period of the Roman Empire we're talking about.

>> No.42884287

>>42884084
>always forget the Islamic Golden Age that actually benefitted mankind.

You mean the Golden Age brought about by the brutal conquest and extermination of non-Muslims and the theft of their art, science, and culture?

>BUT YUROP
Fetishism at its worst. I never said Muslims were unique in their barbarism, I merely pointed out that they were. Then your pained anus has to whine about Europe.

Fuck you and fuck Islam.

>> No.42884352

>>42884287
>>42884117
And people actually want a /his/ board.

Reminder that we're not mature enough to not let a single thread devolve into shitposting.

>> No.42884574

>>42884352
>Correcting historic fetishism
>"shitposting"

>> No.42884627

>>42884574
I wasn't fetishising anything. My underlying point is that, regardless of faith, creed, whatever name you call god, human beings are absolute counts to each other and will use any fucking excuse to ruin someone else's day, like /pol/ posting anywhere other than /pol/ for example. The only reason they need is to annoy the shit out of everyone else.

>> No.42884667

>>42871190
>Be german
>Get your empire brought by a fucking SPANIARD

>> No.42884686

>>42873057
The Mongols are also the reason you don't hear about central Asia being important for anything after 1300 or so.

>> No.42884695

>>42884627
>Humans are assholes
>---
>Discussing history is shitposting
Please give me details of that logic leap, I want to laugh.

>> No.42884714

>>42884627
I'm not sure responding to a political argument someone else started is being an absolute cunt and ruining someone's day.

If someone's hot opinions are so fragile that mere harmless disagreement is going to ruin their day, maybe that's their problem.

Also contrary to your perspective, douchery is not equally distributed across mankind...

>> No.42884721

>>42871026
>But then you get the Byzantine fondness for naming people "Co-Emperor"...
To nip succession crises in the bud.

>> No.42884739

>>42884627
>human beings are absolute counts to each other

>> No.42884743

>>42884714
That map is shit for so many reasons llisting them is a waste of time. here is one - Spain.

>> No.42884750

>>42884084
>There's as much to be said for European intolerance as there is Muslim

Hundreds of years ago, anyway.

>> No.42884772

>>42884743
It does say Crusades, not Inquisitions.

>> No.42884779

>>42872192
He was just a dude who wanted to do his job.

>> No.42884794

>>42884772
Yes and that's just another way that map is shit. I'm all for arguing history but posting pictures so stupid, outlandish, misinformed and biased is just... NO.

>> No.42884816

>>42884794
The Spanish Inquisition wasn't a "Christian Conquest Battle" either, and the map's fair enough to not include equivalent internal purges of Islam either.

>> No.42884826

>>42884794
>MUH INQUISITION

I smell a redditor

>> No.42884836

>>42881216
The German economy was a Jenga tower. Hitler had deep debt spending and refused to use international banking so the economy could only be supported by eating land and using their surplus until it ran out. Taking Austria, Czechia, and Poland wasn't motivated by racial philosophy, it was purely financial.

>> No.42884845

>>42884826
>>42884816
You plebs, I said nothing about inquisition. What I did say is SPAIN. As in if after muslim conquests it wasnt conquered back it would be quite sunny in madrid.

>> No.42884869

>>42884794
kek, go back to Reddit you pussy. The Inquisition was 90% Black Myth come up with by Protestants because they hated Spaniards.

>> No.42884871

>>42884772
Most of the Crusades had large Iberian components. As mentioned previously, the Second Crusade even saw the capture of Lisbon.

>> No.42884883

>>42884714
What about all the land taken by Christians which weren't Crusades? Germany and the Baltic should be a blood bath.

>> No.42884884

>>42867302
It's like Feudal System. Everyone knows it's a bullshit term, but we keep on using it because of inertia even if it's just to go 'This term is stupid.'

>> No.42884889

>>42884845
Eh, generally when people talk about Spain with reference, they refer to the Reconquista and Spanish Inquisition alike.

Not to mention it seems the intent of the map was to catalog European incursions into the Middle East and vice versa.

>> No.42884896

>>42884845
>sunni in madrid

kek'd

>> No.42884897

>>42884883
>What about all the land taken by Christians which weren't Crusades

I think its just an attempt at putting the Crusades into perspective.

>> No.42884911

>>42884889
As I said, those 2 maps side by side show so much bias and stupidity. If what you said was true than why first map has dots all over Iberia and Southern France

>> No.42884914

>>42870754
Except it worked absolutely fine up until the European powers, under pressure from the US and the USSR were forced out of the region.

>> No.42884925

>>42884911
Muslims invaded Southern France and were only driven out by Charles Martel, Charlemagne's pop.

>> No.42884926

>>42884883
Also, that's just not even including all the Crusades. Where's Nicopolis?

Not to mention, this seems to imply that each typically counted Crusade consisted of a single battle.

>> No.42884953

>>42884925
Please use full context when answering. The obvious implication of the question was:
>Why the first map has dots there and second does not?
I'm not disputing the conquests just saying that that map is shit way to depict them.

>> No.42884956

>>42884911
Fair enough, I'd like to see an equivalent that just compares apples to apples. Here we go

>> No.42884959

Fun fact: I never even knew what the Byzantine Empire was until my twenties, because at my school we were only taught the names eastern and western Rome. So I went around thinking the Byzantine Empire was some kind of ancient shit related to Babylon or something.

>> No.42884970

>>42884956
Are you stupid? Do you really not understand what is the problem with that picture after all that was posted in response to the first post of that picture? You are either stupid or baiting.

>> No.42884984

>>42884970
Relax, its just a quick and dirty fix. Hence why I said I'd like to see one that compares apples to apples.

>> No.42884993

>>42871500
>One could say that Islam is almost the exclusive reason why the Middle East is in the state it is in today.

And Islam is itself is heavily built on ancient greek philosophy. But about Islam being inherently violent more than any other religios ideology, see pic.

>atheism is a guud boy
>he dindu nuffin

>> No.42885009

>>42884993
>Atheism goin to atheist church
>Bout to get his life on track

>> No.42885015

>>42884993
>And Islam is itself is heavily built on ancient greek philosophy.
>Who is Al-Ghazali?

>> No.42885030

>>42871500
>Islam is almost the exclusive reason why the Middle East is in the state it is in today.

Islam or no, the Middle East always, ALWAYS, finds a reason to rickity wreck itself.

>> No.42885032

>>42884959
Which state?

>> No.42885035

So, has anyone run any historical campaigns explicitly set in the eastern roman empire, or inspired by it?
A few campaign ideas I had
>Fourth crusade or its immediate aftermath. Take up service with one of many contenders to the broken roman throne and/or eventually try to seat yourself there.
>1453, last stand.
>Southern italy in the 11th century. Ether play as a band of second sons from normandy trying to earn a place for themselves in the world or be part of the Catepanate
>Venetian trading simulator
>Reinvent greek fire, infiltrate the far east to steal the secret of silk, be a part of a late embassy to the west to seek aid
>Maiming rivals to improve your claims
>2fast2Hippodromius

>> No.42885037

>>42884956
Where's the Bulgarian crusade?

>> No.42885038

>>42884993
Keyword there is "religious ideology" I suppose, though not sure why a proud Christian is being lumped in with two atheists. And of course while Hitler was (publicly and politically, anyway) Christian, nobody lumps, say, Saddam's actions with Islamic extremism.

>> No.42885040

>>42885015

Was al Ghazali be able to travel in time 400 years and influence the Prophet and the Rashiduun?

>> No.42885050

>>42885037
Silly anon, Bulgarians don't count. They're not Europeans, therefore they can't Crusade.

>> No.42885058

>>42884117
>There was literally nothing wrong with them
Look, I'm going to ignore the whole "murdering people because they happen to hold a city significant to your religion" minefield and focus on something even some Christians at the time thought was excessive.

The siege of Jerusalem ended with a massacre of epic proportions. Women, children, people who surrendered, virtually everyone was killed. By contrast, when Saladin took back the city, he was considerably more merciful in allowing people to leave and even granting Christian pilgrims the right to visit. Meanwhile, you had shit like Richard the Lionheart agreeing to release prisoners, only to murder them all in front of the Muslims just to be a dick.

Not saying the Muslims did nothing wrong either, but the crusades were pretty much full of unjustified shit.

>> No.42885063

>>42881216
That was because of how good the Germans and the Italians were at propoganda.

People ALSO were jealous of the well oiled economic machine the Soviets had at the time.

The German Economy, even in the mid-30s saw declining wages and outright food shortages. The only reason people weren't on food cards was the Nazis thought that would be politically damaging, so they decided it would be better for food shortages to be more rampant and to let hoarding happen. Even when basic needs started being met again, the economy was such a mess and poorly diversified that a pineapple was considered a fancy engagement gift.

Workers saw their wages decrease, and their hours increase.

Corruption and bureaucratic redundancies were rampant, and the nepotistic and lawless nature of the regime put idiots in charge of the economy with limitless power:

(see for example, Ribbentrop's promise to sever trade connections with China, who was the primary exporter of Tungsten to Germany. Ribbentrop thought they could just import it from Japanese occupied China. Not realizing the Japanese occupied regions produced no tungsten. Cue industrial shortages, shut downs, wage losses and hasty, unbalanced trade agreements).

Not to mention one of the most iconic fuck ups of the 20th century, was an example of how badly the Nazis ran the economy. Remember the Hindenburg? Yeah, a result of politicians deciding they didn't NEED to import Helium.

>> No.42885066

>>42885040
>Muhammad
How was he influenced by Greek philosophy? He was barely literate and even got many basic facts about Christianity and Judaism wrong. Explain his Greek influences.

>Rashiduun
Of course under those Caliphs there was some Greek influence, but that ended with Ghazali. If we have 400 years of Greek influence and close to a thousand years of complete denial of even basic causality, then it's safe to say that overall Islam has been a shitty influence on what was once the craddle of civilization.

>> No.42885068

>>42869981
Mehmed, my son

>> No.42885075

>>42885038

Yes religion or something similar to it, can cause good people to do horrible things. Islam doesn't really stand out alone here. As for atheism, I think it was GK Chesterston who said something like: "Without religion state becomes religion." I think this is a good explanation, one can see clear Messianic elements in the communist movements. There is a prophet, holy symbols, rudimentary explanation of what is good and evil and so on. This is true for liberal parliamentary democracies aswell.

>> No.42885076

>>42885035
>2fast2Hippodromius
Considering how much influence the demes held, that's not even that bad an idea.

>> No.42885088

>>42885075
>Yes religion or something similar to it, can cause good people to do horrible things.

Cuck detected tbh.

>> No.42885090

>>42885038
>nobody lumps, say, Saddam's actions with Islamic extremism.
The thing about Saddam is that he was, as is always the case with Middle Eastern dictatorships, the lesser of all evils. It's such a painfully obvious recurring character that I have to wonder whether American politicians are stupid or actively want instability in the region.

Dictators keep the house of cards together, without them it devolves into sectarian violence and Sharia law.

>> No.42885108

>>42871500
>One could say that Islam is almost the exclusive reason why the Middle East is in the state it is in today.

Or one could blame the Mongols, since they pillaged it like no other group that came before them.

>> No.42885123

>>42884984
Sadly it wouldn't be possible without a tonn of work. Here is something that resembles sanity
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O3RzWnDWio0J:https://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/the-crusades-step-by-step-through-a-spectacular-mess
For some reason site died after I wisited it for me so link is to chache.

>> No.42885126

>>42885108
What is more likely, that the complete destruction and sacking of one intellectual center ruined the region forever, or that the ideology that is alive and kicking to this very day ruined it? There's nobody alive who remembers the Mongols, but there are millions alive who feel the direct influence of Sharia law.

Or do you think that avoiding the sack of Bagdad would somehow change the very nature of Islam itself?

>> No.42885127

>>42867302

Speak greek. Are greeks. Fuck little boys like greeks. Orthodox like greeks.

But they're ROMAN!

Cato the Elder was right...

>> No.42885138

>>42885127
>Fuck little boys like greeks

When did they do this?

>> No.42885164

>>42885127
Roman nobility language in the late empire was Greek. But a outsiders. especially after formation of HRE did refer to Basilea Rhomanoi as Imperium Grecorum (pardon my spelling) as a form of insult.
Byzantium is useful historical term, people need to stop bitching about it.

>> No.42885170

>>42884956
That is incredibly dumb. It lists all Muslim battles but only the crusades. Okay, so what about the Reconquista, the Scandinavian slave raids post-Christianization, the Hungarian crusade, the shitloads of battles in the Baltic region to spread Christianity, the whole Holy Roman Empire deal, the 30 Years War, and a bunch of the other wars motivated by Christianity?

It's like having a map of the battles fought in Crimea as opposed to all the wars the US has ever fought to show that Russia is a benevolent benefactor and the US consists of nothing but violent expansionist warmongers.

>> No.42885195

>>42885170
If we can include all those can we include the Ottoman Empire for the muslims? :^)

>> No.42885196

>>42885138

All the time anon, all the time...

The research of original Byzantine literature disclosed many instances of child sexual abuse in all social classes even in the mediaeval Byzantine society which was characterized by strict legal and religious prohibitions.

http://his.library.nenu.edu.cn/upload/soft/haoli/115/437.pdf

>> No.42885208

>>42885126
>do you think lobotomizing a culture has an affect on how they grow?

...yes? Lets not mince words here; the Mongols destroyed the Fertile Crescent. They cut the ancient irrigation canals and depopulated the peasantry. They burned all of the books of Islamic knowledge and killed the men who knew what was in them. The Mongols pretty much took the center of civilization in the Middle East and bombed it to the stone age. Of fucking course that's going to have an affect on the culture in the region.

>> No.42885219

>>42885075
>Islam doesn't really stand out alone here.

Other than in quantity and frequency within the past 250 or so years, anyway.

>As for atheism, I think it was GK Chesterston who said something like: "Without religion state becomes religion."

Yeah, but its really not valid. I don't really think you can lump the Nazis' behavior under atheism or Christianity, nor blame the Commie massacres and purges and famines on atheism, because I've genuinely never heard of anyone blaming the behavior of Islamic despots on Islam. Saddam Hussein is my favorite go to guy for this comparison, as he mumbled about Allah all the time in his public addresses, but I have yet to hear anyone calling him an Islamic terrorist or whatever.

Just about the only excesses by Islamic governments people actually blame on Islam are ones that are strictly, directly religious in nature (like executing missionaries and such).

Now, if it becomes mainstream to refer to Assad or Saddam and so forth as Islamic extremists (instead of guys who, one assumes, a muslim who uses extreme tactics) I will certainly debit NSDAP Germany, the Gommunists, etc. to atheism's account.

If possibly R9K shooter-guy turns out to be atheist we can credit atheism's account too.

>> No.42885231

>>42885208
And somehow 800 years wasn't enough to rebuild it? The Ottomans took the world's center of learning, made it their capital, dominated the Eastern Mediterranean to the point where they could muster more ships than any Christian monarch, yet this never led to an Islamic renaissance somehow? In the past 800 years they had the means to culturally and scientifically recover in spades so that's not the problem. In terms of cultural and scientific potential, the gain of Constantinople dwarfed the loss of Bagdad.

>> No.42885249

>>42885219
>past 250 years

Try 50. Radical Islam didn't really become a thing until the 1970s, specifically the PLO getting thrown out of Jordan in 1971 and all the various Arab states getting their asses destroyed in the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. Before then, Ba'athist (and Hashemite) Pan-Arabism was a much more prevalent uniting ideology. Even Saudi Arabia wasn't totally batshit until their King decided the proper response to hardliners seizing the fucking Grand Mosque was giving them more power in the country.

>> No.42885256

>>42885090

I wasn't arguing Saddam was bad, just that he and the members of his regime were (mostly) Islamic like the Nazis were mostly Christian and/or atheist and the Gommies were mostly atheist, but they weren't atheistic or Christian violence any more than Saddam (etc., any violent Islamic regime applies) were Islamic violence. They were just state violence.

>> No.42885279

>>42885231
Bear in mind that the Ottomans only ever really had sure control over what amounts to modern-day Turkey; anything past that was basically perpetually occupied territory. In that sense they didn't do much better than the Byzantines, who also never really controlled much more than Anatolia without military force.

"A house divided against itself" and all that jazz.

>> No.42885290

>>42885170
I'm definitely pro American (although as far as foreign policy I can't sympathize with the allegedly American interests in Syria) but if you're just discussing relative levels of aggression between the US and Russia, I really can't think of a single damn reason one would argue America isn't the nasty aggressive nation.

>> No.42885291

>>42885231
Dont know where youre getting this beyond out your ass- constantinople was a shell by the time it finally fell, barely 10% of its peak population were left

>> No.42885293

>>42885231
>and somehow 800 years wasn't enough to rebuild it?

Did the Greeks ever recover from the sacking of Constantinople in 1204? Did they ever recover the former glory of the Empire at any time after they recaptured the capital? And this was without the total destruction the Mongols did to the Iraqi farmlands; it's hard to keep an advanced civilization running if you don't have the means to feed the peasantry.

>> No.42885316

>>42885291
Not to mention it was a pretty cool place for a while under the Ottomans.

>> No.42885320

>>42885290
And Russia was just as aggressive when it had the capability to be so, which was his point. Only reason they took a "breather" for 20 years was because they didn't have the capacity to project their military anywhere beyond their borders during that time. They still largely don't; you'll notice the only nations they're acting aggressive towards are the ones they share a border with.

>> No.42885335

>>42885290
That's the fun thing about a stupid map like that: You could set it up either way!

You could place a dot for every single battle in the Crimea, Donetsk, Geogia and Chechnya, and every bombing in Syria, and then place that next to one dot on Iraq and one dot on Afghanistan. SEE! The Russians are totally worse!

>> No.42885347

>>42885231
>asks why the Arabs couldn't recover from the burning of Baghdad
>the sacking and decline of Constantinople was a major part of the decline and fall of the Byzantine Empire

>> No.42885352

>>42885195
The Map already includes the Ottomans, dumbass.

>> No.42885356

>>42885249
Nah, I was referring to the Barbary Pirates (250 years is just an offhand estimate), who are a good counter example when historical revisionists try to argue muslims were nice back before Murika and friends messed with them. Nasty fucking people.

>> No.42885391

>>42885293
No Greeks never did, and you know why? Because they weren't the same people that called themselves Rhomanoi. Neither of the 2 deserved to recover, because both cultures stagnated into shit. Look at greece and turkey right now, one has a dead economy, because culture is lazy, another bankrupt politics, because its still has too many oldguard sharia folks in power. States do not recover simply because they were once grand, they recover because a thousand events happens and because culture of the state allows it.
Noone knows when USA goes under or when Africa will become a superpower, because those aren't dependent on history alone.

>> No.42885408

>>42885320
That's basically a good point. Mine was that while aggression levels aren't the whole story, they are -a- story and certainly a fair point of comparison.

There are other metrics for comparing "badness" than aggression (otherwise, I hardly could be happy about my country's history) but if that's your sole issue then Russia is less bad than America.

One can, of course, acknowledge that a country being too corrupt to get out of the poorhouse, and being too much in the poorhouse to threaten the world much, is itself a pretty big demerit, though.

>> No.42885409

>>42885356
The Barbary Pirates were bad, yes, but they were merely an annoyance to Europe. They were allowed to persist because it was more beneficial to pay them to attack your rivals shipping than it was to stomp them out for good. America only stomped on them because it was more important for American shipping to be unimpeded than it was for them to take the odd British ship.

Besides, that wasn't exactly out of the ordinary for the time. The New World slave trade was still alive and kicking during the time the Barbary Pirates were running around. Europe was just aghast that somebody had the gall to do it to them.

>> No.42885422

>>42885320
I didn't knew that Russia shares a border with the Islamic State.

>> No.42885437

>>42885422
They do however have their only foreign major military base in Syria.

>> No.42885441

>>42885391
I'd be the last person to argue "multiculturalism" is a good thing, but I think one thing that will make it difficult for America to "fall" is the fact that it has no one government that can fail enough to bring the whole thing down and no one culture that can lead to stagnation and ruin.

What counterculture historians will instead refer to as the "Fall of the US" will, 99% likely, just be the eventual day that America stops flexing its muscles on the world stage.

>> No.42885443

>>42885356
I think the difference is that the Barbary corsairs were nasty fucking people who were Muslims, whereas folk like ISIS and al-Qaeda are specifically nasty BECAUSE they're Muslim - or their own twisted variation of it, anyway.

>> No.42885466

>>42885409
>Besides, that wasn't exactly out of the ordinary for the time.

More relevant than their badness to the discussion was their distinctly Islamic nature (non middle easterner captains could join, but they had to convert to Islam; they only targeted non muslims and freed slaves that converted to Islam), hence the bit about

>Other than in quantity and frequency within the past 250 or so years, anyway.

The New World slave trade had no analogous religious element.

>> No.42885477

>>42885441
Being nearly 5,000 miles from the nearest hostile nation doesn't hurt America's chances, either; nor does being ironclad allies with the second and third most powerful nations in the New World as well.

God Bless Canada, and Viva México.

Also the fact that America doesn't really have any ethnic homelands; well, not any ethnic homelands of anyone who could realistically try and take said homelands back. The Navajo are the largest Native American tribe and they amount to less than one percent of the total US population.

>> No.42885506

>>42885441
I feel you are mistaken, I am not an expert, but nowdays america is far more culturally united than most folk realize, it can be noticed in everything, its not multicultural, but rather one culture with a lot of subcultures. African-american, asian-american, etc all share more than just a citizenship. America is already quite under way to stagnation, with perversion of capitalist ideals being the cause. Some argue rome started its fall when Carthage was razed. Only time will tell how fall of USSR will impact america long term.

>> No.42885525

>>42885443
Membership involved conversion, only infidels were targeted for slavery, and converts were freed. One could probably argue (though I wouldn't) the crimes of the Barbary Pirates were more soundly Islamic than those of the Islamic State, since a hell of a lot of the victims of IS are other muslims.

At a minimum, IS's religious justifications rely on a obscure set of points (stuff pertaining to the Caliphate, Islamic eschatology, and takfirism) than those of the Barbary Pirates (very very very roughly, they're unbelievers, go nuts). Both are Islamic, but IS's specific motives are a lot more difficult to relate to.

>> No.42885533

>>42885290
The idea was that it's dumb either way. Doing it the opposite way and showing every battle the Soviet Union fought compared to, say, the battles the US has fought over the last 20 years would be equally dumb.

The point was that if we were to show every single battle allegedly motivated by religion in the history of humanity on a map, we'd pretty much just have to paint the entire thing.

It's almost as if humans are inherently violent regardless of religion or race, and that unlike other animals we have access to means that make killing and subjugation extremely effective on a large scale. Hell, if we're going there, there's a case to be made that the reason western Europe advanced so rapidly compared to other regions in the world is that because there was so much violence and warfare they were forced to develop more advanced weapons and strategies. Again, not saying other regions weren't violent, but a lot of them were considerably more stable than Europe.

>> No.42885543

>>42885477
I suppose it depends on how many years it takes to consider something an ethnic homeland.

>> No.42885559

>>42885543
See: The Israel - Palestine conflict.

>> No.42885623

It's been nearly 70 years since the Middle East was free of European powers.

What stopped the Pan-Arab parties that had power for a good 20/30 years from redrawing the territory lines or exchanging populations?

>> No.42885636

>>42867302
"Holy Roman" Empire.

>> No.42885643

>>42885623
They were in power, that's what. Why should they give up land? They want more power, land, wealth and security- right?

>> No.42885648

>>42885506
I'm not even commenting on Asian/African Americans etc., who I am not going to even pretend to know about.

>but nowdays america is far more culturally united than most folk realize

Pew Research has done a pretty convincing job compiling the data on how Americans are becoming more factionalized and opposed, and city vs rural Americans tend to have very, very different cultural attitudes and beliefs.

Likewise, southwest vs southeast is very different, individual states tend to be very different, I don't need to point out how extremely distinct NH vs NY or CA vs AZ are, etcetera.

Its been said before and I definitely agree that the USA isn't really comparable to any one other country, its more analogous to the USSR or EU.

There is just plain no single American culture to stagnate, though there are American cultures which have stagnated.

>> No.42885663

>>42885623
It took Europe a couple of hundred years to recover after the sacking of Rome. Large portions of eastern Europe are still kinda fucked after the Soviet Union dissolved. The South are still butthurt over the civil war.

Just saying.

>> No.42885668

>>42885643
So what worked under the European empires collapsed under native rule because the people who grabbed power were too selfish to fix the problems they bitch about. Gotcha.

Living standards in a huge chunk of the middle east and sub-saharan Africa are lower than they were in the 1960s. Decolonization was the worse thing we did to the Yuropoors after WW2 and the worst thing we did to their colonies.

>> No.42885687

>>42885668
>So what worked under the European empires collapsed under native rule because the people who grabbed power were too selfish to fix the problems they bitch about. Gotcha.
They're not the guys bitching about it. It's like with India- that whole Pakistan-India thing was driven much more by the Indian Congress and Pakistani government dick-swinging than it was by the British. The people who lose out from bad boundaries are the people actually fighting, not the people in charge.

And everyone's selfish, anon. The only reason they "worked" under imperial rule was because they didn't- there was just a guy with a big stick who could either sort shit out without cultural politics and feelings getting in the way, or who could smack the fuck out of anyone when they eventually erupted into violence.

>> No.42885690

>>42885623
They tried several times. There were at least two multinational confederations based on Pan-Arabism. The Iraqi Revolution broke up the Jordan-Iraq Confederation, and the Yemen Civil War helped break up the Egypt-Syria-Yemen one. That one was finished off by the Six Day War, and Ba'athist Pan-Arabism was finally destroyed in the Yom Kippur War.

As it turns out, people don't like to follow regimes that keep getting them into wars they horribly lose.

>> No.42885709

>>42885648
Well perhaps I'm wrong then. My point was the ruling class of america largely shares the same cultural veiws, and thus can stagnate, two party system (from outsider perspective) has become utterly irrelevant, because policies of both parties are too influenced by capital of their campaign donors, who are largely profit oriented companies with little regard for long term repercussions. Again not an expert could be full of shit.

>> No.42885735

>>42885533

>It's almost as if humans are inherently violent regardless of religion

I don't know what "inherently violent" means in this context or what sort of litmus test could disavow this notion, but just because violence happens all over the place does not mean its equally distributed -- it most certainly is not.

>The point was that if we were to show every single battle allegedly motivated by religion in the history of humanity on a map, we'd pretty much just have to paint the entire thing.

I seriously doubt religiously motivated WARS are nearly prevalent enough. Likewise if you were to make a map of religiously motivated, but non state sponsored violence, it probably would not be equally distributed either.

>there's a case to be made

Yes, but it would be strictly speculative -- we have no data on exactly how violent things were back then in practical terms, what the murder rate was like, etcetera. I would speculate that, just as if you went by per capita murder rates, the Wild West was an era of peace and understanding, that war-filled ol' Europe probably didn't compare as a whole to high population density cities nowadays.

So to wrap it up I'd say that while you can find atheists and theists in general doing all sorts of violence, that specifically religiously motivated violence (as opposed to state sponsored violence, though there's PLENTY of that too) is not something remotely equally distributed.

>> No.42885754

>>42885559
Ugh.

>> No.42885775

>>42885709

As the current election shows, there's an excellent chance that the old model of oligarchical special interest groups throwing money at candidates and the media electing them for the public is fading fast, and I would largely credit the internet taking over where TV left off.

Americans are starting to become interested in candidates based off what fits their ideals and self interest alike, instead of who the 'respectable' candidate is.

>> No.42885810

>>42885687
This. If you want a fair comparison, look at Yugoslavia and how well that shit worked out for Europe. And that was in the 90s, mind you, not some ancient conflict.

As it turns out, forcibly drawing borders heedless of cultural, ethnic or religious groupings tends to fuck people once you're no longer there to keep order, because the only thing keeping these people who actually don't have very much in common and might very well resent each other in place is the threat of you cracking down on them.

So for people going "well, Europe did it and it worked", no it didn't! The times we tried it in Europe it inevitably collapsed into infighting and violence.

There's also the fact that in the case of the European colonialists, they generally took a large part of the infrastructure and know-how with them when they peaced the fuck out, leaving people without a functioning state. Imagine all your country's government employees just moved to another country. How long until there would be riots and violent fights over who would take their place? Not to mention the issues of who would supply power, handle sewage, maintain the infrastructure, and having very few people who knew how the stuff you needed even worked.

>> No.42885820

>>42885810
Don't forget that the construction of roads would become impossible

>> No.42885844

>>42884993
>talks about Atheism
>Posts a Roman Catholic who made prayer in school mandatory

>> No.42885880

>>42885735
While interesting, your argument misses 1 point. There are no such thing as religiously motivated wars. Let me explain what I mean - all wars are for profit, be it territorial gains, security, prestige, resources or w/e. There for split between state sponsored war and religious war would be impossible. Wars are more about power, in all its forms, and less about ideology. Both sides have something to gain and something to lose, aside from religion, ideology or w/e, there for there can be no way to draw a line between "religious" and "state" sponsored wars war. Modern notion of a nation state alone would be nigh impossible to apply to anything earlier than late Middle Ages.
>>42885775
Well, if that is true, I should take another look at trends of USA politics, been a while.

>> No.42885881

>>42885320
Georgia and the 2nd Chechen war were both 100% justified on Russia's part

>> No.42885905

>>42885881
Irrelevant. They're still only deploying their military in countries they share a border with, or, in the case of Syria, have a massive military base in.

>> No.42885917

>>42885905
My point is that they werent the aggressors in those

>> No.42885929

>>42885917
They sure as shit weren't no innocent victim. They got lucky as shit that they were able to goad the Georgians to go full-retard and fire the first shot.

>> No.42885948

>>42885929
How is it Russia's fault that the Georgians keep trying to ethnically cleanse people?

>> No.42885961

>>42885948
>>42885929
Keep it civil or go back to /pol/ assholes.

>> No.42885966

>>42885961
Why the fuck would I go to that nazi infested shit hole?

>> No.42886008

>>42885966
Because if this shit continues the thread will get chopped, and I for one don't want that.

>> No.42886022

>>42886008
Those posts you quoted are quite civil.

>> No.42886030

You know I think Byzantine Empire has some relevance. It is hard to really imagine them as the "Roman" Empire when they lacked Rome the entire time.

>> No.42886032

>>42886022
And how long do you suppose discussion of ethnic cleansing will stay civil on anonymous image board.

>> No.42886043

>>42886032
Well then you should have worded yourself differently.

>> No.42886049

>>42870064
Highly underrated post.

>>42870332
>When the Roman Empire split into east and west the west got Rome the east Constantinople
>split

So one was the Roman Empire and the other was the Constantinople/Byzantine Empire.

>> No.42886065

>>42871012
I can actually chime in on this one! For much of its history, maybe even from the point they broke from the Mongols, Russia wished to reclaim Constantinople from the vile Muslims for Christianity (especially Orthodoxy) and become the "Third Rome." They would likely not have called themselves Romans, though.

>> No.42886083

>>42869965
Who cares. They called themselves what they called themselves.

>> No.42886100

>>42886083
Yes, but what people called themselves and what we call them is completely different. Just like weapons- so many kinds of sword have been called something amounting to "big sword" or even just "sword" and yet we distinguish between them. Again, lucerne hammers and bec-de-corbin would probably have generally both been called pollaxes. But what's useful for people of the period is fucking migraine-inducing for historians now, so we rename them to aid communication.

>> No.42886108

>>42871388
Nahua people. Except I actually do prefer Aztec and Byzantine because I'm not a colossal faggot and respect the idea that terminology changes. I bet these fags would cry about AD and BC over CE and BCE because "Ohh nobody used CE back theeeeen!"

>> No.42886131

>>42886043
Yeah, you are probably right, but this thread is fun and losing it would be a pity.
>>42886049
>So one was the Roman Empire and the other was the Constantinople/Byzantine Empire.
No, the one was WRE another was ERE the split was administrative, because managing state that huge was impossible without constantly chancing civil war. Greece was a region, the greek word Hellenic(greek) wasnt in use ERE use everyone just called themselfs Romans(Rhomanion, I believe). I still agree that term Byzantine is useful and people hating on it are crybabies.

>> No.42886137

>>42871500
>One could say that Islam is almost the exclusive reason why the Middle East is in the state it is in today.

I think it was a terrible place before Muhammad. I feel that it's the geography, not the faith, that makes people in that desert go insane.

>> No.42886181

>>42885219

>Other than in quantity and frequency within the past 250 or so years, anyway.

That is the problem of statistics. What is put in and what is left out in the calculations? To reach that conclusion (i.e Islam is always more violent than any other ideology) we have to ignore violent political events in Europe conducted by states like WW1, WW2. What about the american civil war, how many Americans died fighting each other compared to how many Americans died fighting moslems for the next 1000 years? Similar cases can be made for political violence in Asia and South america.

If you want to prove that Islam is by itself makes it adherents more violent you need better tools than statistical data. Because statistical data is always blind to material situation, economy, geography, politics and so on.

>Yeah, but its really not valid.

That is because you didn't understand my point. There needs be some kind of BIG CAUSE that makes humans transcend their petty morals and do great and horrible things. Religion or something like religion (which is what Hitchens/Dawkins style new atheism is) does this. I argued for Marxism having religious aspects too.

>I have yet to hear anyone calling Saddam an Islamic terrorist

This is very interesting thing to discuss. I understand what you mean but in this case, who have you listened to? There was a wonderful text from an Iranian/British social scientist which I can't google up now that IRAN DEAL is a scourge upon search engines. If I remember right Saddam was whipping up anti persian sentiments in Iraq and in the sunni arab world prior to the Iran-Iraq war (example it was called Qādisiyyat-Ṣaddām). If we asked a member of the Iranian Sepahe Pasdaran who fought at the time, he would probably call him a sunni extremist.

>> No.42886225

>>42872984
They took the Caliph out of town, to some nothing village nearby, rolled him in a rug, and trampled him to death with horses.

>> No.42886278

>>42886108

Nope, I cry over CE and BCE because they're stupid bullshit politically correct terms that are supposed to replace perfectly fine terms.

>> No.42886299

>>42879181
>And by Treaty of Versailles you mean exactly WHAT

I would say the fact that like 90% of it was directed at hurting Germany, who did not even begin WW1 in the first place. It was such a bad treaty the USA did not even accept it, though the President tried to because they tossed in his little League o' Nations at the end there. America and Germany remained at war until like 1929.

>> No.42886310

>>42886278
As someone who gives about zero fucks about political correctness, CE and BCE are way more convenient to remember than CE and AD.

>> No.42886330

>>42880505
How many English kings spoke English?

>> No.42886364

>>42886137
Hush. It's culture that decides the success of a state, not economics silly.

>> No.42886379

>>42886310
You mean CE and LG

>> No.42886396

>>42875034
Fucking Treaty of Versailles.
>Woodrow Wilson: Hey guys let's agree we're all to blame here and work together to prevent future wars.
>The irrelevent Frenchfag and Limey: No, It's all Germany's fault.
>Twenty years later WW2 breaks out because of Frenchfag and Limey's dumbassery.

>> No.42886415

>>42881144
>Animal comparison: Russian: Donkey

I love this chart.

>> No.42886435

>>42886379
>LG
Wut?

>> No.42886488

>>42886330
All of them.

The ones that didn't weren't really English.
>>42886278
What a tard.

>> No.42886638

>>42884084
>What is the Teutonic Order in Eastern Europe?

A group of low-grade knights with amazing combat bonuses against non-Christians.

>> No.42886798

>>42884884
What is wrong with Feudal System?

>> No.42886881

>>42885231
I don't think you fully appreciate the scope of just how thoroughly and completely the Mongols fucked the world, especially during Genghis' rule. They obliterated nations in Central Asia - so that they would have sufficient grazing land for their horses. When they destroyed Khwarizm two of the Great Khan's sons chased the king of the place to the Black Sea where he died of exhaustion. Having never seen the place, the two little assholes decided to make a circuit of the whole Sea - and demolish 20 countries in the process. The only reason they didn't invade India is the climate difference between the Indian subcontinent and their cold, native Mongolia. They gave exactly one chance for people they invaded to surrender, and then they -obliterated- the culture. Kiev before the Mongols was the center of Russian culture. This has never been true since. They were the worst people the world has ever seen, bar fucking none.

>> No.42886917

>>42885090
>American politicians are stupid or actively want instability in the region

They can be two things.

>> No.42886988

>>42886881
Which is why they're so fucking awesome.

Seriously, damn son. Their whole strategy revolved around tactical genocide. When your options are literally surrender without a fight or YOU ARE ALL GOING TO FUCKING DIE you can see why the Mongols did so well.

>> No.42887030

>>42886988
Oh no, yes. Despite their complete disdain for sieges (Genghis abandoned the conquest of China to siege engineers because it was boring) they were strategically ahead of everyone they met. Apart from the tactical genocide thing, they set up outposts with horses throughout their territory, so that messengers could carry messages faster than any group could move, and they used sophisticated communication lines with their almost entirely mounted military to swiftly coordinate their devastating attacks. They avoided sieges simply by attacking too fast to get into a situation where such a thing was necessary, or by luring their opponents into an open engagement where they would dominate.

Then they abandoned their warlike pagan faith and collapsed in on themselves.

>> No.42887071

>>42887030
They collapsed for the standard "fuck, now we're ruled by people who grew up in the empire and are more concerned with ruling as much of the already conquered empire as possible rather than expanding the empire" problem, rather than a simple change in religion.

>> No.42887214

>>42886396
>Irrelevant Frenchfag and LImey
How fucking stupid are you? Britain and France irrelevant back then? They were the fucking world back then in more ways than one. Also, the British weren't in favor of punishing the Germans more severely, only the French were. The end result: a very lenient punishment for Germany, one that wasn't enough to militarily hamstring them.

Ever wondered why there was no Austrian revanchism or Turkish revanchism? Because those countries were destroyed to the point of being irrelevant backwaters that were less important than even Belgium. Had Prussia befallen the same fate there would be no WW2.

For fucks sake, I can smell the American brand stupidity eminanting from your post. I really hope I'm being trolled hard here and you're not unironically THAT stupid.

>> No.42887235

The official name of Constantinople was Nova Roma, Rome. Konstantinoupolis was simply a nickname that became popular. The Orthodox Patriarch is still called the Patriarch of Nova Roma to this day. The Eastern Romans held a 'Rome' until it was finally captured by the Turks, they have every right to consider themselves Romans.
And that's if you forget that the territories that made up the eastern empire was given full Roman citiznship before the split, which their decendents inherited.
And that's if you ignore the fact that after the Western Empire fell, the sole surviving Eastern empire formally reunited the Empire, so legally there was only a single united Roman Empire.
And that's if you ignore the fact that before the empire was split Roman nobility had such a hardon for Greek culture that they almost all spoke Greek and needed bilingual slqves to translate Latin so they could understand it. They were fucking Greek weeabos who tried to be more Greek than the fucking Greeks.

But none of that matters because we need Latin purity.

>> No.42887240

I want to remind people that from the times Rome conquered egypt more people spoke greek in the Empire then Latin, this did not change until the fall of Constantinople

Daily reminder that the Western Empire was the retarded and poor brother of the east

Daily reminder that People in Western Rome after Odoacer considered Constantinople Rome.

Daily Reminder that most of Roman nobility spoke greek from the third Punic war

Daily Reminder that Co-Emperors were a regular thing from the second emperor onwards

Daily reminder that most Romans were not Italian after 100 BC

Daily reminder that almost no Emperor after Nero was an Italian

>> No.42887297

>>42887240
Don't you have some little boy to pederast all over?

Or is that what's happening to you right now? It'd explain the elementary school level of knowledge and immense butthurt.

>> No.42887377

>>42883998
>That's not true, though
What war in the Middle East was as destructive as the Thirty Years War?

>> No.42887400

>>42884287
>You mean the Golden Age brought about by the brutal conquest and extermination of non-Muslims and the theft of their art, science, and culture?

None of which is reflected in the archaeological record which shows the Arab Conquests almost a non-event when it comes to destruction layers.

>> No.42887408

>>42877311
/gsg/ the board

>> No.42887603

>>42887240
>Daily Reminder that most of Roman nobility spoke greek from the third Punic war
Wait, what? What does the Third Punic War have to do with Romans learning Greek?

>> No.42887614

>>42885466
>The New World slave trade had no analogous religious element.

Mediterranean Christian piracy did. The Barbary corsairs were not a unique existence.

>> No.42887707

>>42886488
You don't have to be English to be the king of England.

>> No.42887726

>>42887707
Of course not.

But that's not what anon asked. He asked how many *English kings* there were.

>> No.42887798

>>42886181
>If you want to prove that Islam is by itself makes it adherents more violent you need better tools than statistical data. Because statistical data is always blind to material situation, economy, geography, politics and so on.

Statistics can be very useful if you don't leave things out. Other factors can be counted. The problem here is that the other anon isn't using stats but instead ignoring context and anything that might complicate the simple argument he was trying to make. Most people trying to justify a political platform stop as soon as their biases are confirmed.

For example, Venetian records in the 16th century show that only 1/3 of their stolen shipping fell prey to Barbary corsairs. Another 1/3 fell to Slavic pirates in the Adriatic, and a further 1/3 fell to Protestants and rivals from Genoa and Florence.

>> No.42888002

>>42871190
So, since the average person in Finland doesn't consider religion important, I guess we're the Unholy Roman Empire then?

>> No.42888069

>>42871662
The Ottomans also practiced the age-old tradition of "we conquered you, now we're going to act like you a fucktonne". Plus, they were literally run by Greeks for a great deal of time.

>> No.42888148

>>42877311
>mix between /pol/ and /int/

>> No.42888157

>>42883998
That's why Indonesia is killing of religious minorities right? No, you are dumb and need to die

>> No.42888195

>>42887603
Nothing, it was allready popular before that, but during that period people started to speak it more than latin. I named the war because that gives you a timeframe

Nobles that is.

>> No.42888196

>>42888157
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Indonesia#Human_rights_aspects

As far as Muslim countries go Indonesia is probably one of the better ones (probably because its religious minorities are just so damned numerous and local majorities in some cases) but their recent record is by no means clean.

>> No.42888329

>>42886137
>I think it was a terrible place before Muhammad. I feel that it's the geography, not the faith, that makes people in that desert go insane.

You're not wrong about either point. The history of the 5th and 6th century Middle East is full of religious violence and chaos in all levels of society. And geography (and its effect on economics) is probably the biggest reason why no state really survived for long in the region, just dynasty after dynasty. The unstable climate affected rivers and irrigation, which in turn affected agriculture, which in turn affected trade, and which ended up shifting centers of regional power around every century or two. The only places in Mesopotamia that were somewhat stable was Egypt and lower Iraq. The only problem was, these two places were hugely vulnerable to invasion.

>> No.42888394

>>42888196
But it's also unrelated to the religion.

>> No.42888425

>>42888196
Most Muslim majority nations don't have clean records recently, but that's also an important point. There used to be huge numbers of religious minorities in the Middle East and South Asia, and it's only in the last century that things drastically changed.

For a supposedly most violent and hatefully xenophobic culture, Islam had a lot of non-Muslims within its borders for most of its history.

I don't think the original point the other anon made was wrong though. The list of known conflicts in Europe dwarfs the ones in the Middle East between 600AD and 1800.

>> No.42888786

>>42888425
I think the decline of minorities is also a thing that has sprung from better means of tranportation.

>> No.42888813

>>42888786
What.

>> No.42888910

>>42888813
From the 20th century onwards the invention of the train and the steamship made transportation of persons and goods easier across distances previously very large. This made education, and conversion easier. Because of this minorities were coerced to leave their faith/religion and join the minority. Small regions were swallowed by the larger country.

Think of the popularisation of Parisian french above other regional languages in France only on a world wide scale.

Mind you I am not just talking about the middle east but about all of the world

>> No.42888914

>>42888425
>For a supposedly most violent and hatefully xenophobic culture, Islam had a lot of non-Muslims within its borders for most of its history.

And those non-Muslims were treated as chattel and non-citizens, "dhimma" or "slave."

That's like saying Nazi Germany wasn't all that bad because it had a lot of Jews in it. But you're interested in fetishizing Islam, not discussing actual history, so it's not really worth the time correcting you.

>> No.42888930

>>42888813
He probably means with the cost of travel becoming incredibly cheap in the 19th century thanks to steam power, minorities started immigrating rather than stay and weather whatever storm was coming (or already making landfall).

Before then, except for true nomadic migrations, most minorities escaping someplace else were the upper class and sometimes the more willing middle classes. The rest didn't have the will or means to uproot themselves except in the most dire circumstances.

>> No.42888960

>>42871662
>they didn't practice Roman traditions in any way, also they were Islamic. Ottomans came from the Seljuk Turks which who were just invaders from central Asia. They had little to no legitimacy.
Not him but none of that makes their claim iilegitimate. If I conquer an empire I effectively own that empire.Just because you knew them longer doesn't mean you have a right to their titles.

>> No.42889007

>>42888914
>And those non-Muslims were treated as chattel and non-citizens, "dhimma" or "slave."

What. None of those things are remotely the same thing. Most non-Muslims were not slaves, and were certainly considered citizens in that they were tax-paying subjects with right to property and judicial arbitration.

>That's like saying Nazi Germany wasn't all that bad because it had a lot of Jews in it. But you're interested in fetishizing Islam, not discussing actual history, so it's not really worth the time correcting you.

Come the fuck on. If all you're going to do is insult someone for having a different opinion, how were you ever interested in discussing history in the first place. How is being objective and neutral, rejecting moral judgments, 'fetishizing' something?

>> No.42889089

>>42889007
>Different opinion
You're deliberately misrepresenting history and defending it under the guise of "opinion." Non-Muslims were treated horribly under Muslim rule - India is the only example one needs to cite. You aren't interested in discussing history. At all. Here's why:

>tax-paying subjects
Under threat of death. If they didn't pay taxes and they weren't Muslim, they were essentially fair game. It was called jizya. Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.

>right to property and judicial arbitration.
Which were both severely limited. Property was still the domain of the caliphate and judicial arbitration operated under different rules for non-Muslims, like their testimony only being worth half that of a Muslim citizen for one example.

You are completely ignorant of the history you so ardently claim to seek neutrality in. You're fetishizing Islam like /pol/tards fetishize Teutons.

>> No.42889123

>>42871662
>Ehh, they didn't practice Roman traditions in any way, also they were Islamic. Ottomans came from the Seljuk Turks which who were just invaders from central Asia. They had little to no legitimacy.

With how many early Ottoman ministers and marcher lords were themselves ex-Byzantines, it's interesting to see how much of their institutions became Ottoman ones. Later Ottoman historians however took these traditions through a Turko-Persian filter removing much of their Roman and Balkan origins as they had no interest in a Roman identity. That's what makes the Ottomans not Roman at the end of the day, despite all their cultural and political inheritance from Byzantium.

As for the Seljuks, they were invaders as much as the Slavs and Bulgars once were. But by the time the Ottomans rose Seljuk Turks had been living around, in, and sometimes as part of the Byzantine Empire for a few hundred years.

>> No.42889293

>>42889089
>You're deliberately misrepresenting history and defending it under the guise of "opinion." Non-Muslims were treated horribly under Muslim rule - India is the only example one needs to cite. You aren't interested in discussing history. At all. Here's why:
So there we go. I offer a different opinion, and I'm misrepresenting history. If I wasn't interested in discussing history, how else was I going to discuss it? By taking your opinion as fact first and foremost? I'm not sure you fully understand what a discussion is supposed to be.

>Under threat of death. If they didn't pay taxes and they weren't Muslim, they were essentially fair game. It was called jizya. Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Oh, I see. So you're saying if anyone else in pre-Modern times refused to pay taxes, they weren't threatened with violence, right? The refusal to pay taxes regardless of the religions of the taxer and the taxed came with implied retribution without mediation. Everyone paid taxes, including Muslims and Jews living in Christian European states, and even then that did not always guarantee their safety.

>Which were both severely limited. Property was still the domain of the caliphate and judicial arbitration operated under different rules for non-Muslims, like their testimony only being worth half that of a Muslim citizen for one example.

Property was the domain of the absolute monarch? You don't say? So I guess no one ever owned their own property. Except they did, and they had a tax specifically targeting said property called kharaj. And of course judicial arbitration operated under different rules for non-Muslims. People wanted to be subject to their own religious laws, not those of others. Two Christians settling a dispute would want a priest, not a rabbi, to choose between them. Every single religious minority in Europe or Asia that could ask for their own courts received them.

>> No.42889374

>>42889089
>>42889293
(cont)
And you only ever got limitations when crossing religious boundaries in disputes. Yes, Muslims had the advantage in their own courts. That's when rules like weight of testimonies regularly came into play - when a minority was testifying in a case involving Muslims. It did not apply to their own courts, and it's an advantage every pre-modern state imposed in its heirarchy. The ruling religion held the 'Supreme Court' rank, the rest holding court in their own districts. That wasn't a Muslim thing, it was universal no matter where you went.

>You are completely ignorant of the history you so ardently claim to seek neutrality in. You're fetishizing Islam like /pol/tards fetishize Teutons.
No. It's quite clear you're just hostile to anyone that doesn't believe as strongly as you do that Muslims in history were a unique evil, that they weren't just people like everyone else in the world then and now, and you've done nothing so far to justify you saying I'm either ignorant of history, or maliciously lying about it.

It's frankly ironic how much you keep accusing others of fetishizing Islam.

>> No.42890070

>>42870754
That's the standard blame European colonialism for everything excuse but it's historically wrong.

The Europeans didn't do it haphazardly at all. Most of the countries and provinces of the modern mideast are roughly analogous to Ottoman vilayets and those were in existence for a hundred years under Muslim rule. Previous to that the Ottomans also carved their imperial sub-units into eyalets which were *more* arbitrary (and often intentionally divisive) to maintain control over their varied peoples.

So if you want to blame someone (and conveniently absolve the murderous regimes and people of the current time of their crimes), blame the Ottomans.

>> No.42890231

>>42885663
>Large portions of eastern Europe are still kinda fucked after the Soviet Union dissolved.

Large portions of eastern Europe were fucked BECAUSE of the Soviet Union, not because of its dissolution, you ignorant fuck. One look at COMECON trade flows should tell you which way the gold flowed.

>> No.42890573

>>42889293
>>42889374
Amen to you my brother

>> No.42890602

>>42890070
It's not that I dispute your claim or anything, but do you have a good source on that, i'd like to read more on it.

>> No.42890619

>>42890070
Modern borders aren't all that analogous to Ottoman vilayets though. Almost all modern states in the region that are unstable are those that used to be several different vilayets before being glued together by French or British administration.

It's neither colonialism nor Ottoman administration that was the problem. It was the importation of the European nation-state (and of political army officers) onto Ottoman administrative districts that were never subject to the authority of other administrative districts. The local and tribal autonomy that held each vilayet together suddenly vanished in place of a unified law directed from another, now dominant vilayet. Still, something could have worked out if local army officers with political aspirations didn't seek to overthrow the democratic institutions left behind to handle this sort of thing and strong arm everyone to follow their lead for decades.

>> No.42891059

>>42890619
What you're describing is a process that many nation-states have undergone. The world is not a collection of tiny provinces. Most nation-states are composed of provinces glued together with various minorities. What is Bavaria and Prussia? Brettany? Scotland? Nation-states need scale if they are to survive in an anarchic international system.

It's very unlikely that a dissolution of mideast states into tiny provinces would generate peace. After all, the greatest current threat to the mideast is the bloodthirsty and pan-Islamic daeshis, who recognize no borders except those of the global caliphate. A separation of Syria into Druze/Alawite/Sunni statelets (as the colonial French initially tried to do) would not have prevented the current slaughter, it would have simply made it easier.

>> No.42891159

>>42890619
They are roughly analogous. The orange blob in the middle of this map is about the same area as modern Syria. "Syria" in green ont he map is modern-day Jordan. Iraq was indeed put together from 3 vilayets, but that worked fine until Saddam's dictatorship. You'll notice "Kurdistan" on the map was separated into 3 vilayets by the Ottomans. The allies after WW1 tried to create a unified homeland for the Kurds but Kemal's Turkey prevailed militarily.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action