True. The much older and scattered Hellenes left more memorable things than this supposed great 1000 year empire.
>"Its general aspect presents a disgusting picture of imbecility[...] Rebellion on the part of generals, depositions of the Emperors by their means or through the intrigues of the courtiers, assassination or poisoning of the Emperors by their own wives and sons, women surrendering themselves to lusts and abominations of all kinds [...] till at last—about the middle of the fifteenth century (a.d. 1453)—the rotten edifice of the Eastern Empire crumbled in pieces before the might of the vigorous Turks." —Hegel
There are quite a few remaining Byzantine structures and artworks in Thessaloniki. Nothing in the Byzantine world really compares to the grandiosity of Constantinople, but there is still plenty to see.
https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/thessaloniki
That’s not really an argument.
I’m not a Byzantine shill, but if their culture was based (which it was) then stagnation is fine.
Stagnate awesome is still awesome.
[...]
The problem with Byzantium really started around Justinian.
Read the secret history.
You’re a dishonest homosexual. Everyone can only point to those two things in the secret history and the author himself says “yeah I don’t know about this shit; but a trusted friend and good source told me so I’m adding it”
Byzantium was really a futuristic society surrounded by a bunch of ugga buggas. It's so ironic that there was a coordinated effort in the 19th century to degrade it by fresh out of the caves westerners.
>the kings are not permanent rulers, but they select men of merit; if an extraordinary calamity visits the country or if wind and rain come at the wrong time, he is deposed, and another man is put in his stead
classic
Constantinople has been a shithole most of the time barring some periods like
Constantine/Justinian pre volcano/Mehmet reviving the city
Its the paris of its times, i wouldnt be suprised if their was a Constantinople-syndrome like
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome
>There is another history even more ridiculous: that is Byzantine history. This unworthy collection contains only declamations and miracles: it is the disgrace of the human mind, just as the Greek empire was the reproach of the earth.
It's because Byzantium was sensationalized by the nuFrench. They told the crazy gossip stories about Byzantium because they thought it was fresh and funny, kind of like how nuAtheists talked about banana memes because some bald fat jobless guy joked that god made bananas as female masturbation tools. It wasn't really funny but they were too far up their asses to admit it wasn't so they kept repeating it. Same thing happened in France.
Losing territory didn't matter as much for the Byzantines since the Empire was basically Constantinople itself.
As long as the City was intact they could always recover as we saw.
So many defeats, so many territorial losses, but they kept coming back. Till 1204.
>As long as the City was intact they could always recover as we saw.
No, they couldn't. Each time they recovered, they ended up with less than what they had lost. They lost a lot, recovered a little, lost a lot, etc, until all they were left with was Constantinople itself.
In this way, they were the Anti-Rome. While Rome started as one city and gradually conquered a huge empire, Byzantium started with a huge empire and gradually lost it until they were a mere city-state.
>constant decline
Meme created by westoids who lived as serfs up until the 19th century and then started to LARP as ancient Greeks immediately when they learned how to read and write (which was supposedly some kind of a huge achievement for them)
>Every political entity's history in the era of humanity ever was spent losing territory and changing dynasties through violence
The difference with Byzantines is that they lived for a longer time than all of them and they also hold more power than all of them, surpassed only in modern time by the USA
3 years ago
Anonymous
>>Every political entity's history in the era of humanity ever was spent losing territory and changing dynasties through violence
It happened in the Byzantine empire far more frequently than in any other place in Europe at the time. >The difference with Byzantines is that they lived for a longer time than all of them
What? The Byzantines stopped existing in 1453, most European countries at that same time are still around today. >surpassed only in modern time by the USA
USA has existed or less than 300 years.
3 years ago
Anonymous
>It happened in the Byzantine empire far more frequently than in any other place in Europe at the time.
The European states had very short lives and they were usually tied to some dynasty, meaning that they died when their ruler died. The rest of the population were mere serfs. >What? The Byzantines stopped existing in 1453, most European countries at that same time are still around today.
Not as the same entity. Otherwise we can say that Byzantium is still around today as well. >USA has existed or less than 300 years
I meant in terms of world domination. After the Byzantine/Roman empire died, only the British (forgot to mention them) and now the USA surpassed them on superpower status and cultural domination.
everything other than Constantinople was a dump
No
Ravenna is as impressive as Instanbul
Probably more impressive in terms of surviving Byzantine mosaics.
Frick no.
Thessalonika, Nicaea, Amorion were bigger than fricking Paris which was the largest in Western Europe.
>what is Thessaloniki
What's left in Thessaloniki today? Either the Turks destroyed everything memorable or the Byzantines never built anything worth preserving.
Are you really moronic or you just wanna shitpost?
The walls and some byzantine churches
Based on the perimeter of the old city walls, it was quite a large city for its time
True. The much older and scattered Hellenes left more memorable things than this supposed great 1000 year empire.
>"Its general aspect presents a disgusting picture of imbecility[...] Rebellion on the part of generals, depositions of the Emperors by their means or through the intrigues of the courtiers, assassination or poisoning of the Emperors by their own wives and sons, women surrendering themselves to lusts and abominations of all kinds [...] till at last—about the middle of the fifteenth century (a.d. 1453)—the rotten edifice of the Eastern Empire crumbled in pieces before the might of the vigorous Turks." —Hegel
There are quite a few remaining Byzantine structures and artworks in Thessaloniki. Nothing in the Byzantine world really compares to the grandiosity of Constantinople, but there is still plenty to see.
https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/thessaloniki
Built up by french investors
Their culture was pretty fricking stagnant
That’s not really an argument.
I’m not a Byzantine shill, but if their culture was based (which it was) then stagnation is fine.
Stagnate awesome is still awesome.
The problem with Byzantium really started around Justinian.
Read the secret history.
kys
>Read the secret history
>muh floating head
>muh naked goose feeding
Procopius was a salty snake who didn't like Justinian.
You’re a dishonest homosexual. Everyone can only point to those two things in the secret history and the author himself says “yeah I don’t know about this shit; but a trusted friend and good source told me so I’m adding it”
>Byzantines were so primitive...
nobody ever said that lol
Anti-Christians say it all the time
Anti-Christians on top of being mentally ill most of the time are also illiterate and low IQ
True
nah, those say Byzantines were decadent, that U 100% agree with. but nobody said they were primitive. just they could be better without christianity.
Atheist and LARPagan societies are historically the apex of human degeneracy
>t. christcuck
stop projecting
Do Christgays purposely make up dumb strawman arguments just so they can dunk on people they disagree with?
They do.
Byzantines lived on the corpse of a civilization
If the Byzantines lived on a corpse, what must they have been doing in western Europe, living inside a corpse maybe?
>What changing anything from the Late Roman Era?
>NO FRICK YOU FRICK OFF
Such deplorable cavemen!
Byzantium was really a futuristic society surrounded by a bunch of ugga buggas. It's so ironic that there was a coordinated effort in the 19th century to degrade it by fresh out of the caves westerners.
>the kings are not permanent rulers, but they select men of merit; if an extraordinary calamity visits the country or if wind and rain come at the wrong time, he is deposed, and another man is put in his stead
classic
Constantinople has been a shithole most of the time barring some periods like
Constantine/Justinian pre volcano/Mehmet reviving the city
Its the paris of its times, i wouldnt be suprised if their was a Constantinople-syndrome like
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome
>Mehmet reviving the city
Subtle roach bait, nice
Is it wrong?
Istanbul was the absolute peak of the city. Only moronic Byzantroony will disagree
Said no one ever
byzantines are their own civilization. surely they weren't roman. neither roman nor western.
>Byzantines were so primitive
Nobody with an IQ higher than 60 has ever said anything even remotely comparable to this
>There is another history even more ridiculous: that is Byzantine history. This unworthy collection contains only declamations and miracles: it is the disgrace of the human mind, just as the Greek empire was the reproach of the earth.
It's because Byzantium was sensationalized by the nuFrench. They told the crazy gossip stories about Byzantium because they thought it was fresh and funny, kind of like how nuAtheists talked about banana memes because some bald fat jobless guy joked that god made bananas as female masturbation tools. It wasn't really funny but they were too far up their asses to admit it wasn't so they kept repeating it. Same thing happened in France.
Losing territory didn't matter as much for the Byzantines since the Empire was basically Constantinople itself.
As long as the City was intact they could always recover as we saw.
So many defeats, so many territorial losses, but they kept coming back. Till 1204.
>As long as the City was intact they could always recover as we saw.
No, they couldn't. Each time they recovered, they ended up with less than what they had lost. They lost a lot, recovered a little, lost a lot, etc, until all they were left with was Constantinople itself.
In this way, they were the Anti-Rome. While Rome started as one city and gradually conquered a huge empire, Byzantium started with a huge empire and gradually lost it until they were a mere city-state.
>surpassed only in modern time by the USA
Of course the Byzaboo would be some moronic mutt.
No one calls them primitive. But they were certainly a decadent and increasingly pathetic society in constant decline.
>constant decline
Meme created by westoids who lived as serfs up until the 19th century and then started to LARP as ancient Greeks immediately when they learned how to read and write (which was supposedly some kind of a huge achievement for them)
He's right. Most of Byzantine history was spent losing territory and changing dynasties through violence.
>Every political entity's history in the era of humanity ever was spent losing territory and changing dynasties through violence
The difference with Byzantines is that they lived for a longer time than all of them and they also hold more power than all of them, surpassed only in modern time by the USA
>>Every political entity's history in the era of humanity ever was spent losing territory and changing dynasties through violence
It happened in the Byzantine empire far more frequently than in any other place in Europe at the time.
>The difference with Byzantines is that they lived for a longer time than all of them
What? The Byzantines stopped existing in 1453, most European countries at that same time are still around today.
>surpassed only in modern time by the USA
USA has existed or less than 300 years.
>It happened in the Byzantine empire far more frequently than in any other place in Europe at the time.
The European states had very short lives and they were usually tied to some dynasty, meaning that they died when their ruler died. The rest of the population were mere serfs.
>What? The Byzantines stopped existing in 1453, most European countries at that same time are still around today.
Not as the same entity. Otherwise we can say that Byzantium is still around today as well.
>USA has existed or less than 300 years
I meant in terms of world domination. After the Byzantine/Roman empire died, only the British (forgot to mention them) and now the USA surpassed them on superpower status and cultural domination.
>ITT coping byzaboos
The byzantines funneled all resources into Constantinople
Actually I think most of the empire's resources went toward maintaining the armed forces and trying to prevent civil wars.