Calling Byzantium a corrupt shithole makes it easier to rationalise the fact that they got conquered and humiliated by Turks. Portraying Byzantium as capable just places Turks in a better light.
The West only survived and grew because of its geographic advantage of being on the Western edge of Eurasia. Allowed it to be protected by Muslims and at the same time expend west into the Atlantic to colonize new lands. Yet look at the fruits of its culture and you will realize the West is Babylon
It's a natural progression. Starting from the enlightingment and the return to pagan and secularist movements.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Thinking the media's not engineering it
Catholics is the olny reason europe is divided. Without them Constantinople would be still cristian and europe would not have a thousand shitty microstates that were a shield for the papacy
People need top-down order otherwise they fall to chaos. Do you think magically trying to change minds will work? It hardly ever does.
>The West only survived and grew because of its geographic advantage of being on the Western edge of Eurasia.
Your point? Geographic advantages are a subject of their time, you could say that the eastern roman empire only survived because it's regions were richer and more urbanized on average, while western rome couldn't cope with economical issues because of its worse geography
Yes, but Byzies literally had civil wars within civil wars, they absolutely were a hilariously inept and corrupt frickhole.
The 30 years Byzie happenings after Manzikert reads like a comedy show.
Some of the most bizzarre and ludicrous stuff you will ever read.
No other faction comes even close to Byzantine self-harm hilarity
Catholics were evil colonizers who basically copied the Islamic method from the Muslims the encountered in Al Andalus. They forced people to be Christian with the sword. Meanwhile Orthodox Russia converted native tribes with peaceful missionary activies.
Also >Christian Europe
Hahahahahaha modern Western Europe is NOT Christian.
Catholics is the olny reason europe is divided. Without them Constantinople would be still cristian and europe would not have a thousand shitty microstates that were a shield for the papacy
Western culture is all about innovation. Non stop. While Byzantine culture was about preservation. Look at how byznatine art is pretty much unchanged. But Western European art keeps changing all the way to now where women birth paintballs from their veganas and call it at
>Theophylaktos, in his Defense of Eunuchs, identifies two kinds of castration: one, performed after puberty, which he holds to be akin to murder and an act against nature; castration "arranged for a young child by a concerned parent who is helping that child to fulfil God's plan for his life' is regarded, in contrast, positively." (122)
>Chapter seven (142-162) deals with the identification of eunuchs with angels, and chapter eight (163-183) deals with the "obvious" social role of Byzantine eunuchs as guardians of the imperial space. The final chapter (184-193) deals with social reproduction and integration.
>The castration of pre-pubertal males has certain physiological effects: the beard doesn't grow, the voice doesn't break, and the classic adult male v-shape of wide shoulders and narrow hips is not achieved (16). Associated with these physiological effects were certain "learned" attributes: manner of dress, mode of speech and way of walking. For the Byzantines, eunuchs spoke with soft effeminate voices, tended to lisp, spoke with their hands more than was seemly for men and had a characteristic "rolling gait." (6) For observers from western society, lisping speech, limp wrists and "hips set on gimbals" is indicative of another--very different--sexual/gender subset.
It's a shame most eunuchs were far more like fat unhealthy weirdos who did weird shit to get off if they had any sexual desires at all, rather than beautiful slender limbed femboys who want to be your wife(male)
Calling Byzantium a corrupt shithole makes it easier to rationalise the fact that they got conquered and humiliated by Turks. Portraying Byzantium as capable just places Turks in a better light.
The West only survived and grew because of its geographic advantage of being on the Western edge of Eurasia. Allowed it to be protected by Muslims and at the same time expend west into the Atlantic to colonize new lands. Yet look at the fruits of its culture and you will realize the West is Babylon
>Thinking the 1960s+ is the only history of the West
It's a natural progression. Starting from the enlightingment and the return to pagan and secularist movements.
>Thinking the media's not engineering it
People need top-down order otherwise they fall to chaos. Do you think magically trying to change minds will work? It hardly ever does.
>The West only survived and grew because of its geographic advantage of being on the Western edge of Eurasia.
Your point? Geographic advantages are a subject of their time, you could say that the eastern roman empire only survived because it's regions were richer and more urbanized on average, while western rome couldn't cope with economical issues because of its worse geography
Yes, but Byzies literally had civil wars within civil wars, they absolutely were a hilariously inept and corrupt frickhole.
The 30 years Byzie happenings after Manzikert reads like a comedy show.
Some of the most bizzarre and ludicrous stuff you will ever read.
No other faction comes even close to Byzantine self-harm hilarity
Catholics are the only reason Europe is Christian. It would have failed without things like the inquisitions.
Catholics were evil colonizers who basically copied the Islamic method from the Muslims the encountered in Al Andalus. They forced people to be Christian with the sword. Meanwhile Orthodox Russia converted native tribes with peaceful missionary activies.
Also
>Christian Europe
Hahahahahaha modern Western Europe is NOT Christian.
and guess what? The Middle East is Muslim and Europe is not.
Catholics is the olny reason europe is divided. Without them Constantinople would be still cristian and europe would not have a thousand shitty microstates that were a shield for the papacy
Western culture is all about innovation. Non stop. While Byzantine culture was about preservation. Look at how byznatine art is pretty much unchanged. But Western European art keeps changing all the way to now where women birth paintballs from their veganas and call it at
~~*Papacy*~~
historylet take
THIS!
WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WEST WOULD HAVE FALLEN INTO THE HANDS OF BARBARIC INVADERS FROM THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH
They should be thanking us for saving them
You’re brown.
He's still whiter than you
bump
they can't even beat armenia
So this... is the power of Rome... whoa...
Wait, they had a war? Thought both were friendly.
Second to none. No wonder Byzantium declined way before Turks horde come crushed in.
Holy based
Reminder that Byzantium had a proper sewer system when western ''european'' Black folks were sleeping on their own shit
Western Latins oil themselves, anon.
>Theophylaktos, in his Defense of Eunuchs, identifies two kinds of castration: one, performed after puberty, which he holds to be akin to murder and an act against nature; castration "arranged for a young child by a concerned parent who is helping that child to fulfil God's plan for his life' is regarded, in contrast, positively." (122)
>Chapter seven (142-162) deals with the identification of eunuchs with angels, and chapter eight (163-183) deals with the "obvious" social role of Byzantine eunuchs as guardians of the imperial space. The final chapter (184-193) deals with social reproduction and integration.
>The castration of pre-pubertal males has certain physiological effects: the beard doesn't grow, the voice doesn't break, and the classic adult male v-shape of wide shoulders and narrow hips is not achieved (16). Associated with these physiological effects were certain "learned" attributes: manner of dress, mode of speech and way of walking. For the Byzantines, eunuchs spoke with soft effeminate voices, tended to lisp, spoke with their hands more than was seemly for men and had a characteristic "rolling gait." (6) For observers from western society, lisping speech, limp wrists and "hips set on gimbals" is indicative of another--very different--sexual/gender subset.
Latins were transphobic chuds
It's a shame most eunuchs were far more like fat unhealthy weirdos who did weird shit to get off if they had any sexual desires at all, rather than beautiful slender limbed femboys who want to be your wife(male)