why did they hate each other

why did they hate each other

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Frankish King decided to build parallel Bishoprics in Orthodox lands.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >stinky german savages claim to hold the title to your empire
    Imagine if an amerishart president claimed to be the king of the british empire, theres your answer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They didn't?

      Because some germans in "lost, no mans land", decided to claim a title you still had.
      And, then they are stupid enough, to call you the weird ones, for refusing to accept that.
      And then, you are remembered in history, with a name that you never used, in part, because of them.

      >Greek LARPers angry at German LARPers
      Ok. That's not what happened at all though. Charlemagne thought that Pontiff of Rome had power and influence over the rest of the Roman Empire and he only took the title from him because he thought he would get the rest for free. He kept it only to keep the claim for his heirs. Otherwise he probabably wouldn't have bothered with more than the Kingdom of Francia/Germany title otherwise. By the time of the Salians the HRE crown was about trying to establish authority over the breakaway Western Francia. Eastern Rome was forgotten.

      The animosity and LARPing that you homosexuals are trying to act out didn't actually play out irl. No one cared.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Im not larping.
        It a clear fact that the hre was trying to get the title at the cost of deligitimazing the east:
        >The inhabitants of the empire, now generally termed Byzantines, thought of themselves as Romans (Romaioi). Their Islamic neighbours similarly called their empire the "land of the Romans" (Bilād al-Rūm), but the people of medieval Western Europe preferred to call them "Greeks" (Graeci), a term with connotations of effeminacy and deception.[1] The adjective "Byzantine", which derived from Byzantion (Latinised as Byzantium), the name of the Greek settlement Constantinople was established on, was only used to describe the inhabitants of that city; it never referred to the empire, which they called Romania—"Romanland".[2]

        >After the empire's fall, early modern scholars referred to the empire by many names, including the "Empire of Constantinople", the "Empire of the Greeks", the "Eastern Empire", the "Late Empire", the "Low Empire", and the “Roman Empire".[3] The increasing use of "Byzantine" and "Byzantine Empire" likely started with the 15th-century historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles, whose works were widely propagated, including by Hieronymus Wolf. "Byzantine" was used adjectivally alongside terms such as "Empire of the Greeks" until the 19th century.[4] It is now the primary term, used to refer to all aspects of the empire; some modern historians believe that, as an originally prejudicial and inaccurate term, its use should be halted.[5]
        Everyone called them Romans minus the west.
        The west called them Graeki as an insult.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because some germans in "lost, no mans land", decided to claim a title you still had.
    And, then they are stupid enough, to call you the weird ones, for refusing to accept that.
    And then, you are remembered in history, with a name that you never used, in part, because of them.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >stinky greek sodomites claim to hold the title to your empire
    Imagine if an amerishart president claimed to be the king of the british empire, theres your answer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Low quality bait

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >aren't part of the roman church and does not own rome
        >romans
        Pick one

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The church are the only romans.
          ????
          Are you braindead?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you are part of a non-Roman church you aren't Roman.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you are part of a non-Roman church you aren't Roman.
            Tell that to the Romans that went east to the new city of Rome, Constantinople.
            Im sure they would be happy about you telling them that.
            Also, the orthodox church and the catholic curch were the same until the 1000AD or so.
            So you are wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Also, the orthodox church and the catholic curch were the same until the 1000AD or so.
            I'm glad that you acknowledge that the patriachs (a non-European concept) are in fact an illegitamate breakaway from the authority of the Pontiff (the high priest of Rome).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In 1054 they just acknowledged what had already been true for centuries.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The Roman high priest, descendend from Romans ruling in actual Rome said the Translatio Imperii is valid and Latin speaking Romans living in Rome maintained this position for a thousand years giving power to the strong Germanic Imperium.
            >The dysfunctional Greek speaking court of the East opposes this because they want power over a stronger, more developed region that they are too weak to take (and instead beg for help and military aid from against some sandBlack person upstarts).
            >1000 years later LARPers with a B average GPA in history become Byzaboos and then suck up Putin's alt history cum, regurgitating the same old impotent cope of being weak, but demanding that the West hands over everything to the poor East Europeans just, well, because ok?

            Actual Ancient Romans would find this behaviour extremely cucked and pathetic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you? The Church is literally the only institution of ROME which has continuity with Ancient ROME.

            The Greek LARPers are not relevant to anything.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >does not own rome
          The emperors of the hre didn't either

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In the early days the Pope was considered a vassal, in his role as a secular prince, of the HRE.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But that ended quickly so my point stands

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It wasn't until the 12th century that the Emperor gave up any claim to authority over Pope.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Claim don't mean anything; you can claim whatever you want

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, but it fluctuated, one Pope was the Emperors b***h the next one wasn't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, but it fluctuated, one Pope was the Emperors b***h the next one wasn't.

            >The Road to Canossa or Humiliation of Canossa (Italian: L'umiliazione di Canossa), or, sometimes, the Walk to Canossa (German: Gang nach Canossa/Kanossa)[1] was the journey of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV to Canossa Castle in 1077, and his subsequent ritual submission there to Pope Gregory VII.
            Average powerfull holy roman emperor dominating his vassal, the pope

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And only 7 years later Henry took Rome and installed his own Antipope.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    > not larping.
    You Black person you're talking about two dead empires with emotion.
    >It a clear fact that the hre was trying to get the title at the cost of deligitimazing the east:
    No fricking shit? The East was doing the same. Emperors wanted more power. Apparently this is shocking to LARPers.

    Btw we are speaking English so Byzantine is in fact the correct term, both in formal academic and informal contexts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Then call the HRE the "Aquaenian" Empire as well, you hypocrite.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what does aquaenian mean

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Old name of Aachen.
          He should call the HRE that, if he insist on calling the ERE the "Byzantine empire"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >WAAAH YOU SHOULD GIVE ME EVERYTHING I WANT, CHANGE THE DICTIONARY, CHANGE THE WHOLE WORLD, GIVE ME WHAT I WANT AND I GIVE NOTHING IN RETURN WAAAH!

            Yup, I can see why you're a limp wristed Byzaboo.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I love how im cqlled "Byzaboo" just for saying facts.
            You morons.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you are not in fact a Byzaboo, then why do you care about calling the empire Byzantine which is the correct English name for the Empire?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say that.
            This all started, with that one person saying, the church is the only "roman" thing in existence.
            While ignoring everything else.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But he was right. The senate was officially disbanded in 395. Collegiality and the Pontiff were the only Ancient Roman institutions that survived until the Pontiff reestablished the Imperium.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The epithet "holy" was not used by the ancients and therefore there is no need for a different term to distinguish them from the ancients.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The "Byzantines" also called themselves a similar name, now what?
          Are you actually going to apply the same logic on them, you hypocrite?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No they didn't?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes they did you liar:
            >The inhabitants of the empire, now generally termed Byzantines, thought of themselves as Romans (Romaioi). Their Islamic neighbours similarly called their empire the "land of the Romans" (Bilād al-Rūm), but the people of medieval Western Europe preferred to call them "Greeks" (Graeci), a term with connotations of effeminacy and deception.[1] The adjective "Byzantine", which derived from Byzantion (Latinised as Byzantium), the name of the Greek settlement Constantinople was established on, was only used to describe the inhabitants of that city; it never referred to the empire, which they called Romania—"Romanland".[

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They called themselves Romans, yes, and did not use a distinctive epithet like the revived WRE did. Therefore we call them Byzantine to distinguish them from the ancient ERE.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They called themselves Romans, yes, and did not use a distinctive epithet like the revived WRE did. Therefore we call them Byzantine to distinguish them from the ancient ERE.
            So you admit, you are also biased?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You cannot see reality with that strong bias you just admitted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What bias?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't see the bias you put on your posts, you are a moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I was just stating the reasons why the two empires are called what they are called, there's no bias in that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why? HRE is the valid English name for the HRE both in formal academic and informal contexts.

          You are welcome to go converse in Greek somewhere else, or better yet, appeal to opinion the dumb shitskin non-Europeans again.

          >"holy" is not valid because it wasn't a thing in antiquity.
          >continues to call them that
          moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Good thing we aren't discussing antiquity, but the HRE that existed in the medieval ages.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You just contradicted yourself, though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How so? We are the discussing the medieval empire, not the ancient one. Neither Byzantine nor the HRE is the same as Ancient Rome. First because Rome itself is vague. We can talk about a Roman Republic and a Roman Empire which began with Octavian and ended when the last roman emperor Romulus Augustus was defeated and his lands siezed by Odoacer.

            All else is a pathetic LARP that not even medieval Europeans cared for (they cared about the title and power only).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then why are you so obsessed with the idea of imperial prestige with the Hre?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am not. I don't consider Rome to be prestigious. Some like the Enlightenment, Cathedrals or even vertical windmill is far more impressive than anything the Ancient Romans ever did.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            just rope already.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Some like the Enlightenment, Cathedrals or even vertical windmill is far more impressive than anything the Ancient Romans ever did.
            What??
            Ok, im convinced you are just insane, now.

            Confirmed for basement dwelling Byzaboo. Yes, vertical windmills are more impressive than anything Romans built. The tallest thing Romans ever built was only 40m high. Less than half the height of Gothic Cathedrals.

            There was also zero progress in technology between Archimedes and medieval Europeans who automated large parts of agricultural and steel industries using windmalls.

            Romans are *yawn*, boring.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Romans are *yawn*, boring.
            Ok,you are indeed a schizo.
            You should go to a mental hospital.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >zero progress in technology between Archimedes and medieval Eur

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Surely you could name a single tech? Go on then.

            Remember: no counting the steel they got from Noricum, the lorica segmentata they got from Dacians etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the lorica segmentata they got from Dacians etc.
            Huh?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, this shitty, inflexible armour is not Roman. They got it from Dacians. Just like they got the Gladius from Celtiberians.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >source? It was revealed to me in a dream

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > The armor was originally used by the Parthians and possibly the Dacians, Scythians, or Sarmatians before the Romans used it. Some sets of armor similar to the lorica segmentata dating back to the 4th century BC have been found in archaeological sites located in the steppe.[1]
            The Lorica Segmentata isteppe armour. Yes, Romans themselves were originally steppe, but they did not produce it before the Steppe peoples did.

            >Later, during the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC, they found Hannibal's Celtiberian mercenaries wielding swords that excelled at both slashing and thrusting.[9] A text attributed to Polybius describes the adoption of this design by the Romans even before the end of the war, which canonical Polybius reaffirms by calling the later Roman sword gladius hispaniensis in Latin and iberiké machaira in Greek.[9] It is believed Scipio Africanus was the promoter of the change after the Battle of Cartagena in 209 BC, after which he set the inhabitants to produce weapons for the Roman army.[10][11]

            you're such a b***h holy shit

            >The romaboo who spends his entire life playing RTW and CK3 in a basement literally cannot comprehend that people don't care for his favourite faction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >possibly
            Lol; lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Romans couldn't even produce military grade steel, they had to buy it from the Celts.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it was real in my mind

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, and it was also real in real life:
            >Noric steel was a steel from Noricum, a kingdom located in modern Austria and Slovenia.

            >The proverbial hardness of Noric steel is expressed by Ovid: "...durior [...] ferro quod noricus excoquit ignis..." which roughly translates to "...harder than iron which Noric fire tempers [was Anaxarete towards the advances of Iphis]..."[1] and it was widely used for the weapons of the Roman military after Noricum joined the Empire in 16 BC.[2]

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you're such a b***h holy shit

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And, what is your point, here?
            You changed this thread going from the medieval empires, into this weird "romans didn't accomplish much" ahistotical point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My point is that I'm not emotionally attached to this argument, unlike Byzaboos who -for some bizarre reason- very much are. The objective truth is that the HRE is the closest true continuation of the RE. Neither the HRE nor the Byzantine Empire are actual continuations of the RE, but the HRE is the closest to being so of the two.

            This is the objective fact and the reasons as I outlined earlier are that the only continuous and legitimate institutions surviving from RE declared the Translatio Imperii as valid. All arguments I have seen against this are essentially emotional. So all that remained was to prove that you were solely arguing out of emotion with ad hoc claims at best.

            >ahistotical point
            How so. If they were so great then how come the two of you couldn't name 1 (ONE) fricking thing they invented off the top of your heads?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How so. If they were so great then how come the two of you couldn't name 1 (ONE) fricking thing they invented off the top of your heads?
            Because that should be self obvious to anyone who's well readed:
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology
            Don't ever speak again to me, you illiterate fool.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology
            You lazy fricking shit. You seriously could not remember one?

            Let me then proceed to discredit the entirety of you posting that wikipedia article in support of your cope.

            First paragraph, first sentence:

            >Types of power
            >The most readily available sources of power to the ancients were human power and animal power. Mechanical devices were developed to assist in the manipulation of objects which exceeded human strength - one such device being the windlass which used ropes and pulleys to manipulate objects. The device was powered by multiple people pushing or pulling on handspikes attached to a cylinder.

            The WINDLASS you say, hmmm

            >The Greek scientist Archimedes was the inventor of the windlass.[1]

            OH, OOOOOOPS!

            My seems my point in

            [...]

            Confirmed for basement dwelling Byzaboo. Yes, vertical windmills are more impressive than anything Romans built. The tallest thing Romans ever built was only 40m high. Less than half the height of Gothic Cathedrals.

            There was also zero progress in technology between Archimedes and medieval Europeans who automated large parts of agricultural and steel industries using windmalls.

            Romans are *yawn*, boring.

            stands.

            Shall I continue, or do you concede by your silence?

            1. Sarton, George (1959). A History of Science. Vol. 2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. p. 123.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Some like the Enlightenment, Cathedrals or even vertical windmill is far more impressive than anything the Ancient Romans ever did.
            What??
            Ok, im convinced you are just insane, now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            just rope already.

            >Romans are *yawn*, boring.
            Ok,you are indeed a schizo.
            You should go to a mental hospital.

            Also let's be real most of you have image of Roman tradition which is not actually Roman, but based on British depictions of Romans and is ultimately rooted in British naval and Prussian military tradition.

            Even the voice in your head of a Roman Centurion right now is speaking Received Pronunciation English, you have consumed too much entertainment and tricked yourselves into believing Romans were interesting when they were not.

            The Ancient Greeks were interesting, the Romans didn't accomplish much. They basically just reconquered the Hellenic world filling the gap of Macedonian decline.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why? HRE is the valid English name for the HRE both in formal academic and informal contexts.

        You are welcome to go converse in Greek somewhere else, or better yet, appeal to opinion the dumb shitskin non-Europeans again.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *