Historian here - masters' degree in byzantine shift from roman nobility to grecian royalty and a doctorate in anadolia...

historian here - masters' degree in byzantine shift from roman nobility to grecian royalty and a doctorate in anadolia as the gateway to european underbelly (14th-16th century)

if you have any questions about anything, i can spare a few minutes.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent#Administrative_reforms
amazon.com/Normans-Sicily-1016-1130-Kingdom-1130-1194/dp/0140152121
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

are the monks who live and study on mount athos legit?
is it a /pure/ form of christianity?

how the hell do you measure purity of a schism that bred its own sects between it? if you can, i suggest you visit athos for its otherworldy visages but it's just garden variety apostate behavior in a beautiful landscape. in arameic deserts there are even more hardcore purists.

Should the Turks give Constantinople back?

>anadolia

no, the downfall of byzantine state was due to crusader pillaging, ottomans actually improved the quality of life in the region.

How do you feel knowing you can make 0 moneyz with shit degree like that

nah i have a decent salary working for a ngo

Is there a city in the region named after a virgin that isn't Mary?

Are there any recognized works which give a comparison between the constitutional government of the U.S. and the constitutional governments of Greek poloi, Rome, and perhaps even Carthage (or other Phoenician city states)?

I am interested in detailed, modern, secular, non-marxist comparisons and contrasts of the scope of constitutional government, concepts of due process, and the layman's understanding of patriotism at the times of their respective foundings.

have no idea. probably. romans gave tons of cities female names.

can you give me a quick rundown of how and why political power was centralized into the imperial court?

also do you see any parallels between byzantium and the modern u.s.?

were greeks white ?

Based on what you know about history, do you believe whites will exterminate jews this century?

And if not that, do you think liberals are going to be butchered for their uncompromising nature?

OI why was my comment deleted? WTF DID THE MODS SHOAH MY COMMENT

My question was: Do you think that jews will be exterminated this century based on historical trends? And if not, do you think liberals will?

no unless you mean some sort of pop-history. this is because in non-marxist view the historical context is king. that would be like writing a work that seriously compares serbian uprising at the beginning of 19th century with remove kebab period (and there are indeed such works done in bosnia atm proving that nationalism can go hand in hand with post modernism). the reason you won't see these comparisons is because, funny enough, psychology actually does play a small part when making a comparison. you have to keep in mind that ancient world lived under a veil that makes it hard to distinguish fiction from reality. in fact the ancient man, by all records often failed to make such distinction himself, there are tons of reports of roman soldiers saying that great god pan helped them cross the river, that they talked to bacchus during a feast etc.

even if america reverted to the simplest form of nationalism and tyranny found in, say, some european feudal states and dominions it would still be far more complex situation than what was outlined in plato's republic. even slave states of today like saudi arabia and qatar have much more complicated facets.

tldr america took a lot of its titles from ancient world (from senate onwards) but even during era of slavery it didn't really have a plebeian-patrician system like ancient rome. and then there's the whole pre-christian concept of sexuality influencing daily life and politics.

simply put, the constantinople was too big of a power magnet and the empire was fading fast in the east circa 780AD. it never really managed to form a centralized state because unlike western roman empire it never had a long period of raiding free prosperity. schism had a lot to do with this. constantinople was always the crown jewel and many dynasties wanted the crown.

>also do you see any parallels between byzantium and the modern us

no because united states have unique geostrategical position making them nearly (cont)

I'm not OP, but one conclusion I have seen drawn is that centralized, autocratic power was more or less accepted by the Romans as necessary for efficient administration.

Efficiency in administration was required because the empire had grown too large and too unstable to be governed democratically (as we would say, although again this depends on speculating about the opinions of the rank and file).

The imperial court itself was a creation of Caesar Augustus, formerly Octavian, either a nephew or a cousin of Julius Caesar (I can't remember, though in a quote I recall he expressly says of Julius that he is an uncle, hopefully incest did not make it both).

Centralization and formalization of the court was handled in a very organic and loose fashion, and the downfall of the Roman empire is partly attributed to the failure of its emperors to sufficiently formalize the right of ascension (or whatever the fuck the British royals call it).

tell me about the identity of the average Byzantine. Did they really consider themselves Romans? How educated was the average person about the history of Rome and Augustus etc

(cont)
invulnerable. byzantines also had vikings as a special forces unit while united states frequently use mexicans as front line soldiers. not really a comparison. and then there's all monarchy vs democracy thing.

very much so

no and no, future belongs to islam and chinese, financial decline of the west and consolidation of slavic nationalism.


>Centralization and formalization of the court was handled in a very organic and loose fashion, and the downfall of the Roman empire is partly attributed to the failure of its emperors to sufficiently formalize the right of ascension (or whatever the fuck the British royals call it).

no, the dynastic order in the final decades of the empire was firmly established but the economy never recovered from the crusader pillaging of constantinople in 13th century.

>Did they really consider themselves Romans?

of course, they were romans, there was no identity to be acquired, byzantium is eastern roman empire. average person was illiterate, but most dynasties took great pride in old roman families even though of course after 7th century they were mostly drawn from greek and later even serbian families.

Do you know where Atlantis is?

Thanks for the answer, I can appreciate how a complete, objective analysis would require context and how context would make apples and oranges of different constitutional governments.

That said, are there any pop-history books you might recommend?

I still hate the Turks more.

Really.

in plato's book

your best guess is crete

>no and no, future belongs to islam and chinese, financial decline of the west and consolidation of slavic nationalism.

How do we stop this?

I think treating militias as a kind of social club and opportunity for shooting practice would be a small change with big pay offs.

>That said, are there any pop-history books you might recommend?

people's history of united states is pretty good although it loses the bigger picture along the way. also i'd reccommend babchenko's one soldier's war as the best war book in existence.

you don't. i mean you can hope for some superbug armageddon (virus i mean)

Give me some secret info, your best knowledge on the Crusades carried on by my country. I'm referring to the "minor Crusades" as I discovered them to be named, of the balkan area carried on more as a defensive response to the constant roach push of the Ottomans.

>anadolia
what do you mean by this

How much debt do you have for History masters meme degree?

4th crusade, who was in the wrong really?

what was the influence of Genoa

forgot to mention

>I think treating militias as a kind of social club and opportunity for shooting practice would be a small change with big pay offs.

what you're suggesting is what is probably going to happen in western europe at some point and accelerate its downfall. in fact civil war is inevitable in every multiculturalism state after its military collapses due to financial failure. i mean it happened in yugoslavia and it wasn't even multicultural when genetics are concerned.

>defensive response

there you have it, you were too busy with mongol and ottoman invasions to do any serious pillaging. you were also late to the party in that regard. i mean the most interesting part of that period is the order of the dragon and it was a defensive league at that point.

and to be clear, the serbian king who joined actually fought with ottomans versus the crusaders then joined their side a decade later. not so simple times.

a valley in turkey where armies amass. when you live in a country with small military you can hear about a movement that will bring pillage and destruction in ~6 months.

zero, university in serbia is free if you are dilligent and not studying for a meme degree like economics.

Why do Muslims suck

the west

loansharking

importing black death

pretty influential state

Thank you for your response, much appreciated!

because of tribalism, oil and rejection of other cultural influences with ataturk being the sole exception. unfortunate geographical position centered around the world's most valuable resource doesn't help them.

np

Hi. Have you thought of becoming a history teacher? I'm looking into becoming one. Is every history course you've taken fun? Or is it normal for some to be boring as hell?

Why was the Byzantine Empire such a failure?

it's boring as hell because you have to learn economy to properly judge motivations shaping the political climate of the certain era.

best way to start is to learn about medieval italy and its states.

it wasn't a failure by any means, it had majestic and unique culture that drew rapists and pillagers from western hellholes and asian steppes.

Was Hitler right?

I'm considering studying to become a history teacher. Should i? Or is it too pointless? Would you have chosen a different path if you could?

((Improved))
By depopulating thrace? Imposing harsh taxes on christians? Forcing christian children to convert and into the army? Pilaging and looting monasteries that couldnt pay their (((taxes))).
You can stick your degree in your ass.

i am incapable of doing stem so ...

>Imposing harsh taxes on christians

t. orthodox priest

Right, is there any truth to the whole "Byzantine diplomacy" saying?

That they accused others of what they were going to do or were doing themselves?

Or is this just another myth like the crusades?

byzantian diplomacy is a well documented method of political intrigue.

>myth like the crusades

crusades weren't a myth

Was imperial russia the descendent of the Byzantine Empire

the double headed eagle

Mean more in the sense that "muh muslims were peaceful" way its commonly served, that it was unprovoked and such.

Still, wanted to ask that was the byzanthine dickery somehow different, was it overexaggerated compared to its neighbours? Or was it just par of the course at that time and region?

no, byzantine empire had no descendents except in iconography.

well the crusaders came to loot and pillage before the arabs started serious incursions into europe. that being said, byzantines failed to crush nascent arab military power and later on wasn't ready at all for the big army going "through" its territory to "liberate" jerusalem.

it isn't really that much different from the roman practices when dealing with barbarian tribes but it was well documented and adjusted for the times. both romans and byzantians were eventually defeated by less advanced nations and tribes. byzantium literally had a bureau for dealing with barbarians.

>Ottomans actually improved the region
[Citation fucking needed]

HOW CAN I GET A JOB LIKE YOURS?

I fucking love history

>ottomans actually improved the quality of life in the region.

Probably a little outside the timeline you studied, but are Procopius's hidden histories considered 100% legit?

From my readings on the Byzantines the main reason they collapsed were constant civil wars relating to succession which gave outside enemies the opportunities to fuck them over.
The Alexiad seems to be a litany of revolt and outside invasion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent#Administrative_reforms

>Procopius's hidden histories considered 100% legit?

no, archaeology has to work in conjunction with psychology when applied to works of ancient historians.


byzantine civil wars were somewhat borne out of prosperity in a sense that it made more sense to carve out a piece of cake in already established system than to go to eastern deserts or western forests to seek your own. the army itself was very much mercenary based so byzantium was in a sense pre-garibaldian italy.

Now you mention it, many of the revolts of smaller areas were carried out while the main army was engaged fighting elsewhere.
I was also interested to read the Emperors were just as likely to confirm their taking of the province in exchange for fealty and leave it semi-autonomous.
Was paying bribes to the barbarians for temporary truces a good policy, or did it contribute greatly to their downfall?
Robert Guiscard, badass, or biggest badass of all time, can you recommend any books on him?

He seems to have gone from nothing to having his kids ensconced in houses of royalty by power of his mighty dong alone.

>Was paying bribes to the barbarians for temporary truces a good policy, or did it contribute greatly to their downfall?

great policy, they pacified them and often made them seek regular jobs in the empire. byzantium downfall came from organized armies unlike what happened with western roman empire.

amazon.com/Normans-Sicily-1016-1130-Kingdom-1130-1194/dp/0140152121

Thanks, will grab a look at it.

John Norwich is a GOAT writer, hadnt seen this one.