|
FuhrerHat posted:And that's why it's called Istanbul. It's called Istanbul because it means "to the city" in an old version of Greek, and was nicknamed that for a long time. To be proper you should've said "That's why it's not called Constantinople anymore" 
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Tias posted:Try a bit harder, will you? The dude literally left his kid to die in a prison camp, and his wife shot herself in the head after he humiliated her repeatedly in front of guests. (USER WAS SENT TO A CORRECTIVE LABOR FACILITY FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
The Roman Empire fell about 563 years ago. Edward Gibbon began writing about the fall of the Romans a little over three hundred years after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The Roman Empire fell about 563 years ago. Edward Gibbon began writing about the fall of the Romans a little over three hundred years after the fact. That depends on what you mean by "the Roman empire." Did you mean the actual, original one or the successor states? Or the Holy Roman Empire, which wasn't actually Roman at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The Roman Empire fell about 563 years ago. Edward Gibbon began writing about the fall of the Romans a little over three hundred years after the fact. The Roman Empire is alive and well in the form of the Vatican. Granted, it's territory has shrunken somewhat from its glory days. Nessus posted:Wasn't there some last ditch hope of Goebbels and co. involving Roosevelt dying which was actually rooted in some German history, where an enemy monarch died or got iced and was replaced by his heir who was much, much friendlier to Germany? During the 7 years war (aka the French and Indian war), Prussia was getting turbofucked by a coalition of Russia, Austria and France. Then the Russian monarch died and the Russian heir Peter the something or other made peace with the Prussians, giving them the much needed respite to go on and win the war. When Roosevelt died, the Nazis expected the Allies to fall apart because there was seriously no way the arch-imperialist powers would keep an alliance with a loving communist country going, right? Turns out they didn't, but the alliance held long enough to finish the war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The Roman Empire fell about 563 years ago. Edward Gibbon began writing about the fall of the Romans a little over three hundred years after the fact. I'd really like it if The Fall of the Roman Empire was about Fellini. This annoys me: The HRE was, in fact, both holy, Roman, and an Empire. Suck it, Voltaire! Holy: There was some confusion regarding the papal succession during this time, so the HRE had as much legitimacy as the Roman party. Roman: The emperors considered themselves successors to the Roman Christian Emperors of old, with translatio imperii and everything. Empire: They were ruled by an emperor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Those definitions are really stretching reality. Holy: Charlemagne got the crown by holding the pope at sword point. I'd debate the legitimacy of threatening the pope to get your title. Roman: The HRE was mostly germania countries. A lot of people claimed to be successors to Rome but the HREs was pretty drat tenuous. Emperor: The emperor bit especially is off because the HRE was more of a loose confederacy rather than an Emperor with absolute power. Yes he called himself emperor but names mean little in the face of actual power. RagnarokAngel has a new favorite as of 15:11 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
I've been wrong before. It's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Tasteful Dickpic posted:I'd really like it if The Fall of the Roman Empire was about Fellini. Multiple nations over the years have claimed to be the continuation of the Roman empire. The Roman empire itself didn't fall so much as decline and fracture. There were the Western and Eastern Roman empires which went on to form their own legacies. The fall of Constantinople could have been argued as the fall as the Byzantine empire was basically a successor state to Rome. But then that didn't even necessarily mean the "fall" as Mehmed II was like "lol we's Romans now, I'm sittin' on Rome's throne, bitches!" The Holy Roman Empire wasn't even remotely Roman. They were German as hell. The connection to Rome came from the fact that there were strong political connections between the Pope and the Emperor. It also wasn't really even an empire. Yeah they had a guy who was called "the emperor" but he had little centralized power over the other states. Generally he was the head of one state that was "elected" by heads of the other states. "Elected" isn't the term to use as it tended to be dynastic. Even so the various kingdoms under the empire were less subjects of an emperor and more a big conglomeration of alliances that agreed to not dick each other over too hard. It also wasn't at all an actual continuation of the Roman empire. It was multiple centuries after the western empire fell apart that one of the popes look at Charlamagne and was like "hey bro you is an emperor now lol." A lot of the Romanization of lands that had been occupied by Rome but no longer were was because people admired the gently caress out of Romans. Rome was big, prosperous, and powerful so people kept trying to recapture that legacy because they wanted to be big, prosperous, and powerful. Germanic tribes especially that hadn't been conquered once Rome fell tended to be all "hey let's be like Romans!" ToxicSlurpee has a new favorite as of 15:23 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That depends on what you mean by "the Roman empire." Did you mean the actual, original one or the successor states? Or the Holy Roman Empire, which wasn't actually Roman at all? The Byzantine empire saw itself as the legitimate continuation of the Roman empire. The western kings up to Charlemagne did as well: Theoderic the Goth, for example, was invested by Constantinople to rule Italy in the name of the empire. It changed in 800, for two reasons. First of all the bishopric of Rome grew farther apart from the church in Constantinople, and they saw crowning Charlemagne as a good way to get some more political representation; secondly: for the first time, the Eastern empire was ruled by a woman, Irene. The Byzantines had no problem with empresses. However, the law of the Franks did not acknowledge female rulers, so in a sense, the imperial throne was vacant. Hence Charlemagne. It's quite possible to trace most European Tsars and Kaisars back to Constantinople. The Austrian empire was a direct continuation of the HRE, which was the continuation of the imperial title of Charlemagne. The Bulgarian tsar Simeon I got his title after a siege of Constantinople resulting in peace negotiations; the Serbian emperor crowned himself after both Bulgarian and Byzantine influence had waned and styled himself as the successor. The Latin empire ruled over Constantinople as a result of the fourth crusade, while fleeing Byzantines established empires in Trebizond and Nicaea. Hence the third/fourth/fifth Rome jokes. East and West were becoming alienated from each other. The schism between the Catholic and Orthodox only became official when an attempt at reconciliation failed in 1054. The East had become thoroughly hellenized by that point, while in the West, Greek was no longer understood. The fourth crusade of 1204 was aimed at liberating Jeruzalem for the umpteenth time, but the crusaders didn't progress beyond Constantinople - then already seen as not Christian. And even though the fall of Constantinople brought many experts over to Renaissance Italy, reviving the study of Greek, a bias existed against the non-latinate, non-Catholic, no-real-Roman Byzantines. So when someone like Edward Gibbon, a child of the Enlightenment, wrote about the fall of the Roman empire, he didn't even consider the Byzantines a successor to the Roman empire (after all, one of the reasons he believed it fell was due to the corrupting influence of Christianity. It'd be an understatement to say that religion dominated and permeated Constantinople). As an aside, one of the Seljuk Turk sultanates styled themselves (in Persian) the Sultanate of Rum - because it was found on Roman (former Byzantine) lands. The Byzantines called themselves rhoomaioi - Romans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:It's called Istanbul because it means "to the city" in an old version of Greek, and was nicknamed that for a long time. To be proper you should've said "That's why it's not called Constantinople anymore" Es tin polin Es tin pul Istanbul
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That depends on what you mean by "the Roman empire." Did you mean the actual, original one or the successor states? Or the Holy Roman Empire, which wasn't actually Roman at all? What about Romania? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
It's still Theseus's ship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:It's called Istanbul because it means "to the city" in an old version of Greek, and was nicknamed that for a long time. To be proper you should've said "That's why it's not called Constantinople anymore" Neat. Frankly though, I'm surprised it's not called Mehmetville.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Gold wasn't the most valuable metal in all cultures. In ancient Egypt iron was actually rarer. The only way the Egyptians knew how to get iron was from meteorites and iron meteorites smashing down in Egypt wasn't an everyday occurrence. This means that the iron dagger found in Tut Ankh Amon's tomb was probably more valuable than all the gold he was buried with. The Aztec called gold "teocuitlatl" which means excrement of the gods. To them gold was good for making jewellery but otherwise they considered it worthless. To them feathers from the quetzal bird was far more valuable, it was even used as currency. It was considered a crime to kill the bird so they had to capture it alive, pluck some feathers and then release it. When Cortez arrived he was given a cape made from quetzal feathers which was considered a royal gift, worth far more than any gold they had.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Catholicism has emraced the neo-tomist theology of integral humanism, which has a vastly superior record to liberation theology in terms of protecting the poor and working classes. Tias posted:Try a bit harder, will you? The dude literally left his kid to die in a prison camp, and his wife shot herself in the head after he humiliated her repeatedly in front of guests.       Agricola Frigidus posted:The Byzantine empire (...) The Byzantines (...) Byzantine influence (...) fleeing Byzantines(...) They were Romans. They were Romans when they expanded beyond the city of Rome, they were Romans when they changed from a Monarchy to a Republic to an Empire, they were Romans when they went from pagan to christian, they were Romans when they had a Mediteranean spanning empire where hte majority of the population never saw Rome itself, they were Romans when Greek became the de facto lingua franca and they were Romans when they were fighting for Constantinople. The Ottomans can be kinda considered Roman too, they certainly claimed themselves to be the successors of the Roman Empire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Gold wasn't the most valuable metal in all cultures. In ancient Egypt iron was actually rarer. The only way the Egyptians knew how to get iron was from meteorites and iron meteorites smashing down in Egypt wasn't an everyday occurrence. This means that the iron dagger found in Tut Ankh Amon's tomb was probably more valuable than all the gold he was buried with. The Aztec called gold "teocuitlatl" which means excrement of the gods. To them gold was good for making jewellery but otherwise they considered it worthless. To them feathers from the quetzal bird was far more valuable, it was even used as currency. It was considered a crime to kill the bird so they had to capture it alive, pluck some feathers and then release it. When Cortez arrived he was given a cape made from quetzal feathers which was considered a royal gift, worth far more than any gold they had. At one point aluminum (aluminium?) was worth more than gold by weight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:At one point aluminum (aluminium?) was worth more than gold by weight. Better than that; aluminum was worth more than platinum too. It was the most valuable metal for a long while. Which is an odd thing to think about with how cheap it is now. It's also the most abundant metal in Earth's crust and a major component of clay. The reason it was so expensive is because raw aluminum or an ore that was easy to smelt aluminum out of is obscenely rare. Eventually somebody figured out how to get alumina out of bauxite (and I think clay and feldspar too) and then drive the oxygen off of that to get raw aluminum. Which is handy; aluminum is stupidly useful. It's still not exactly easy or cheap to make aluminum but the metal stays pretty cheap because it's balls easy to recycle it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Mans posted:Another cool historical fact. This needs to die because no one that lived in the Roman Empire called themselves or their empire Byzantines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Rome had been a provincial backwater for a long time before that though, and Roman citizenship was universal at that point anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
I call them byzantine anyway because its a good way to differentiate out that period compared to earlier one it triggering spergs is just a bonus
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:I call them byzantine anyway because its a good way to differentiate out that period compared to earlier one It also artificially divides Eastern Roman history based on events that didn't even happen in the ERE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:I call them byzantine anyway because its a good way to differentiate out that period compared to earlier one you call it byzantine 'cause you're a dumb bitch who learns history from video games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Don't worry spergs will make mods where it's Basileia Rhomaion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Even when the game is in english
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
i hope paradox starts calling the USA "stupid bitch idiot fuckers" in their future games so that two years from now we'll have history expert goons come talk about the time stupid bitch idiot fuckers landed in Normandy to fight the Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Mans posted:i hope paradox starts calling the USA "stupid bitch idiot fuckers" in their future games so that two years from now we'll have history expert goons come talk about the time stupid bitch idiot fuckers landed in Normandy to fight the Holy Roman Empire. fixed
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
It'd be great if we could just ban anything Military and anything Roman from this thread, as either inevitably brings out people arguing about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
The Romans had a board game similar to backgammon called tabula. Unlike most ancient board games, we know the rules for it because the Emperor Zeno had such an extraordinarily bad game, he decided to record it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Being a Roman emperor was a really bad job And it was such a stressful job that you could literally die of anger quote:In the spring he decided to continue campaigning and moved from Savaria to Brigetio. Once he arrived on 17 November, he received a deputation from the Quadi. In return for supplying fresh recruits to the Roman army, the Quadi were to be allowed to leave in peace. However, before the envoys left they were granted an audience with Valentinian. The envoys insisted that the conflict was caused by the building of Roman forts in their lands; furthermore individual bands of Quadi were not necessarily bound to the rule of the chiefs who had made treaties with the Romans – and thus might attack the Romans at any time. The attitude of the envoys so enraged Valentinian that he suffered a burst blood vessel in the skull while angrily yelling at them, provoking his death[39] on November 17, 375.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Mans posted:Being a Roman emperor was a really bad job A related factoid that people may not be aware of since Rome became so idealized in western imagination was that there was a considerable number of civil wars and general strife during the whole course of its existence. Some of the more famous rebellions were led by people like Spartacus, Quintus Sertorius (defeated roman army after roman army, was on the verge of negotiating a recognized independence before assassination) and Arminius (best known for the Teutoberg massacre). The late 2nd century and 3rd centuries saw a civil war featuring 5 emperors, then another war with 6 Emperors and then another 50 year struggle loosely termed the crisis of the third century that featured 2 breakaway empires, the Gallic Empire and Palmyrene Empire, and a total of 26 legitimized Roman Emperors. Anyway another one of these rebellious-type dudes, Viriatus, led a longish insurgency (149-139BC) which saw the use of a combination of guerrilla and conventional warfares that severely bloodied Roman noses thanks to Viriatus's cunning. Like Sertorius he was on the verge of a recognized independence for his part of Hispania. More accurately he had achieved that goal with the signing of a real treaty. The issue was that some Romans considered such a treaty borderline treasonous to the empire and secretly opted to both resume hostilities and remove Viriatus quietly. When Viriatus sent some emissaries to Rome those people were bribed into becoming assassins for a large sum of money. After slaying Viriatus in his sleep the assassins returned for their reward and received only the reply of "Rome does not pay traitors," supposedly. Despite this powerplay move the area would not be fully quiet for several decades. Another rebellion was occurring simultaneous to this one in roughly the same area, the second Numantine War wherein a dude named Jugurtha served the Roman side of the conflict. Jugurtha, in turn, would go on to resist Rome in a war known as the Jugurthine War. Jugurtha similarly proved too canny for the Roman generals so Rome negotiated yet another betrayal, this one from one of his war allies (his father in-law Bocchus actually) that saw Jugurtha trapped, captured and later killed. Bocchus's lands were divided between his two sons upon his death who then fought with each other in the names of whoever was vying for the title of Roman Emperor at the time (e.g. one son would pick Octavian, the other Mark Antony). Not that it mattered since it all belonged to Rome after Bocchus II died. lol hard counter has a new favorite as of 09:21 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Speaking of Charlemagne, he's basically the reason that Ecclesiastical Latin exists. Dude was Emperor (or whatever, let's not quibble) and really getting into this whole "Christianity" thing. Holidays, divine rights, life everlasting? Great! But he was incredibly concerned that if people were pronouncing the old Latin prayers wrong, then God wouldn't be able to understand them, and everyone would go to Hell or whatever current dogma said would happen. So he established schools and such to teach the proper way to read and write Latin, so everyone (and ideally himself) could get in on that. The twist? Charlemagne couldn't read Latin. You can probably imagine how well that went. And for a fun fact that's much less likely to have been accidentally made up by me (  ) the Pope has his own Twitter account @Pontifex. He tweets in English and Latin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Dalris Othaine posted:Speaking of Charlemagne, he's basically the reason that Ecclesiastical Latin exists. Charlemagne couldn't read at all. He was a dumb illiterate motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Well yeah. That's what scribes are for, man!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Tasteful Dickpic posted:Well yeah. That's what scribes are for, man! He tried! The story i choose to believe because gently caress him is he slept with his study materials under his head so it'd be absorbed and he wouldn't be a dumb idiot anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
According to QI [citation needed], he also had an asbestos tablecloth, which he used to throw into the fire as a party trick, so maybe he wasn't all that... Great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
Heh, this fucker conquered half of Europe and established the political divisions of the continent for the better part of a millennium... What a retard! During classical antiquity the Chinese imported asbestos cloth from Europe as the most luxurious miracle, a cloth that could be washed by being thrown into fire. They also believed sea silk (thread made from mollusc filaments) was made out of wool of either furry fish or "sea sheep". Sounds like the Chinese were also not so bright, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Heh, this fucker conquered half of Europe and established the political divisions of the continent for the better part of a millennium... What a retard! drat who bought Charlemagne an account?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Heh, this fucker conquered half of Europe and established the political divisions of the continent for the better part of a millennium... What a retard! The political divisions of Europe: not retarded
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
All I'm saying is that if i had an asbestos tablecloth, I would also do party tricks with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:57
|
|