• 114 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio

Here's a thread where fellow viners can discuss history with one another !

#2 Edited by turel_hash_ak_gik (350 posts) - - Show Bio

whose history?

#3 Posted by TotalBalance (724 posts) - - Show Bio

As the OP shouldn't you come up with some starting topic to get the discussion going?

#4 Posted by Edamame (27937 posts) - - Show Bio

Which topics?

#5 Posted by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio
#6 Posted by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio

Ok

Do you think the roman empire actually ended in 1453 ?

#7 Posted by turel_hash_ak_gik (350 posts) - - Show Bio

@consolemaster001: the number sounds about right, if memory serves. but a more in depth answer is no. the way things were ran back then was kept. the empire was officially gone but locally things kind of remained the same, more or less. the roman empire was made up of principates each run by a man appointed by the cesar right?

#8 Posted by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio

@turel_hash_ak_gik: I guess

The two big differences were that the Western romans were catholic and spoke latin and the Byzantines were orthodox and spoke greek.

#9 Posted by Fallschirmjager (15033 posts) - - Show Bio

@consolemaster001: The Byzantine Empire did. But they no longer resembled the Roman Empire as we think of it. They were more greek - even if the "linage" was that of ancient Rome.

Online
#10 Edited by TotalBalance (724 posts) - - Show Bio

@consolemaster001 said:

Ok

Do you think the roman empire actually ended in 1453 ?

I personally put the end of the true empire at 476 which was the fall of the Western Empire which was in my opinion the true center of roman culture and power and with its fall came the end of the Roman empire. Although the Byzantine empire continued for much longer I don't consider it to be a true continuance of the Roman Empire.

The influence of the Western empires cultural power is testified to by the fact that with its fall came the dark ages.

#11 Edited by MaccyD (3512 posts) - - Show Bio

This thread is genius!

Presuming the late date is by counting the Byzantine Empire as a last remnant of the Roman Empire?

#12 Posted by turel_hash_ak_gik (350 posts) - - Show Bio

@consolemaster001: odd. the great schism was in 1054. wonder why they changed their official religion after the fall?

#13 Posted by turel_hash_ak_gik (350 posts) - - Show Bio

oh and since nero burned rome to the ground is he the last cesar?

#14 Posted by MaccyD (3512 posts) - - Show Bio

@turel_hash_ak_gik: I doubt he burned the entire city to the ground, stories such as that are usually exaggerated by the historians of the time.

#15 Edited by TotalBalance (724 posts) - - Show Bio

oh and since nero burned rome to the ground is he the last cesar?

Not at all in fact! Nero may have allegedly burnt much of the city of Rome to construct a great palace for himself but the empire continued on long after. Nero reigned from 54-68 AD, the height of the roman empire was reached in the mid 100's AD long after Nero's time.

#16 Edited by Squares (4865 posts) - - Show Bio
#17 Edited by turel_hash_ak_gik (350 posts) - - Show Bio

@maccyd: exaggerated sure but there's always a seed of truth in every lie.

#18 Edited by turel_hash_ak_gik (350 posts) - - Show Bio

@totalbalance: oh right. forgot about traian. decebal and traian.

#19 Edited by Dragonborn_CT (20514 posts) - - Show Bio
#20 Posted by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio
#21 Posted by Dragonborn_CT (20514 posts) - - Show Bio

@consolemaster001: You are welcome, comrade. I am aiming to become a history teacher in the future too ;)

#22 Posted by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio

@dragonborn_ct: Awesome ! Good luck man !

"You get an F...as in FUS RO DAH !!!!"

#23 Posted by Crom-Cruach (8736 posts) - - Show Bio

@consolemaster001 said:

Ok

Do you think the roman empire actually ended in 1453 ?

I personally put the end of the true empire at 476 which was the fall of the Western Empire which was in my opinion the true center of roman culture and power and with its fall came the end of the Roman empire. Although the Byzantine empire continued for much longer I don't consider it to be a true continuance of the Roman Empire.

This is just false. The byzantine empire was the center of roman culture since at least the third century AD when the Roman empire was split in two by Diocletian under the tetriarchy. From then on it was the eastern roman empire that was the true roman center, being richer, more stable having control of all the best provinces and the strongest armies. From the 3rd century onward, the Western empire was being invaded and taken over by various barbarian tribes while the true center of culture was byzantium which not only was the most powerful nation in Europe all the way to the late 10th century. In fact after the roman Empire was split in two, it was reunified from the forces of Byzantium when Constantine the great made it his capital, then reunified again under Theodosius the great in 395 AD.

If anything the Roman empire was long dead in the west far before it died in the East. Which is why all the Emperor from the third century onward considered the Eastern portion the real center of power compared the west.

#24 Edited by MaccyD (3512 posts) - - Show Bio

@crom_cruach: Power-wise maybe, but its culture was no longer Roman and had become a Greek influenced state, it even got rid of Latin for its official language and replaced it with Greek.

#25 Edited by Crom-Cruach (8736 posts) - - Show Bio

@maccyd said:

@crom_cruach: Power-wise maybe, but its culture was no longer Roman and had become a Greek influenced state, it even got rid of Latin for its official language and replaced it with Greek.

That's not true, while they eventually (not right away) switched to the greek language, the bureaucratic system, army structure and political system was roman. If anything, they were far more roman then what was left of the western roman empire by the third century where they had to contend with petty barbarian warlords and cutting up land grants and titles for them.

#26 Posted by TotalBalance (724 posts) - - Show Bio

@totalbalance said:

@consolemaster001 said:

Ok

Do you think the roman empire actually ended in 1453 ?

I personally put the end of the true empire at 476 which was the fall of the Western Empire which was in my opinion the true center of roman culture and power and with its fall came the end of the Roman empire. Although the Byzantine empire continued for much longer I don't consider it to be a true continuance of the Roman Empire.

This is just false. The byzantine empire was the center of roman culture since at least the third century AD when the Roman empire was split in two by Diocletian under the tetriarchy. From then on it was the eastern roman empire that was the true roman center, being richer, more stable having control of all the best provinces and the strongest armies. From the 3rd century onward, the Western empire was being invaded and taken over by various barbarian tribes while the true center of culture was byzantium which not only was the most powerful nation in Europe all the way to the late 10th century. In fact after the roman Empire was split in two, it was reunified from the forces of Byzantium when Constantine the great made it his capital, then reunified again under Theodosius the great in 395 AD.

If anything the Roman empire was long dead in the west far before it died in the East. Which is why all the Emperor from the third century onward considered the Eastern portion the real center of power compared the west.

Byzantine was not truly Roman though, The Eastern Empire was dominated by Christianity and the cultural changes that brought along with it. Empires are not only about land held, they are about culture. The Roman empire as known to Emperors like Augustus and Trajan died with the fall of the west. The progress of science and culture also slowed with the demise of the Western empire which is why its collapse is considered the beginning of the dark ages, even the Byzantine empire which existed on for many hundreds of years past the western empire failed to advance human knowledge and culture anywhere near as much as the former unified empire. In my opinion the Byzantine Empire is NOT a continuation of the Roman Empire but something entirely different, Similarly to how the Holy Roman Empire is not considered a continuation of the Roman Empire. An argument could be made that it was in fact Christianity that represented the cultural end of the Roman Empire in which case its death in my opinion would be even before 476.

#27 Posted by AllStarSuperman (19890 posts) - - Show Bio

To MuCh HiS StOrY?!?! i HaTe ScHoOl! WhY? dId I cLiCk On ThIs ThReAd?!?!?!?!

#28 Edited by Crom-Cruach (8736 posts) - - Show Bio

Byzantine was not truly Roman though, The Eastern Empire was dominated by Christianity and the cultural changes that brought along with it. Empires are not only about land held, they are about culture. The Roman empire as known to Emperors like Augustus and Trajan died with the fall of the west. The progress of science and culture also slowed with the demise of the Western empire which is why its collapse is considered the beginning of the dark ages, even the Byzantine empire which existed on for many hundreds of years past the western empire failed to advance human knowledge and culture anywhere near as much as the former unified empire. In my opinion the Byzantine Empire is NOT a continuation of the Roman Empire but something entirely different, Similarly to how the Holy Roman Empire is not considered a continuation of the Roman Empire. An argument could be made that it was in fact Christianity that represented the cultural end of the Roman Empire in which case its death in my opinion would be even before 476.

This is just so full of innacurrate statements it's mind boggling. First off no it not die with the west because all the systems put in place that created Byzantium were created before the fall of the West when the tetrarchy was enabled in the third century by Dioclentian. When the west fell, byzantium continued using those systems. So yes it was roman.

Second that knowledge failed to advance and that there was even a dark age is false completely when you look at scholarly research, in fact scholars and experts don't even use the term dark age because not only is it innacurate. It's an almost purposefull misinformation. Anyone who says other wise needs to read this:

http://mises.org/daily/2404

Third christianity did not cause the fall of the roman empire. The fall was economical and political, based around an inability to properly manage structures that were falling appart in the west because of how unwieldy they were becoming in the face of massive human migrations.

So yes the Byzantine Empire was roman, the fact that they used the greek language does not change that.

#29 Posted by SOG7dc (6713 posts) - - Show Bio

Let's be honest....te revolutionary war wasn't really a revolution in any sense. It was a civil war and we succeeded in seceding. And we really had no ground to stand on as far as making a real and true case for secession aside dim admiralty courts....and we did throw away sugar that was actually cheaper than the tea we were getting from central America....and we did effectively bankrupt one of englands most important businesses....and we isn't want to pay like 1% of our yearly income in taxes because we didn't have representation in parliament......which is bad but without a rep we still only had to pay 1%....and that 1% went to pay the britih troops to prtect us from native americans.....damn Americans back then were spoiled back then lol. Let the discussion begin

#30 Posted by kuonphobos (4882 posts) - - Show Bio

I believe it is true that the Byzantine Empire was an extension of the Roman Empire. At it's core it carries much of Roman culture well beyond the fall of Rome in 476 AD.

But I also think it is true that the Byzantine Empire eventually became significantly important in itself to warrant it's own special place in history.

However I believe there was a point somewhere between Belisarius and 1453 when the citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire stopped thinking of themselves as Romans and started thinking of themselves as Byzantines. When this occurred is anyone's guess.

#31 Edited by TotalBalance (724 posts) - - Show Bio

@totalbalance said:

Byzantine was not truly Roman though, The Eastern Empire was dominated by Christianity and the cultural changes that brought along with it. Empires are not only about land held, they are about culture. The Roman empire as known to Emperors like Augustus and Trajan died with the fall of the west. The progress of science and culture also slowed with the demise of the Western empire which is why its collapse is considered the beginning of the dark ages, even the Byzantine empire which existed on for many hundreds of years past the western empire failed to advance human knowledge and culture anywhere near as much as the former unified empire. In my opinion the Byzantine Empire is NOT a continuation of the Roman Empire but something entirely different, Similarly to how the Holy Roman Empire is not considered a continuation of the Roman Empire. An argument could be made that it was in fact Christianity that represented the cultural end of the Roman Empire in which case its death in my opinion would be even before 476.

This is just so full of innacurrate statements it's mind boggling. First off no it not die with the west because all the systems put in place that created Byzantium were created before the fall of the West when the tetrarchy was enabled in the third century by Dioclentian. When the west fell, byzantium continued using those systems. So yes it was roman.

Second that knowledge failed to advance and that there was even a dark age is false completely when you look at scholarly research, in fact scholars and experts don't even use the term dark age because not only is it innacurate. It's an almost purposefull misinformation. Anyone who says other wise needs to read this:

http://mises.org/daily/2404

Third christianity did not cause the fall of the roman empire. The fall was economical and political, based around an inability to properly manage structures that were falling appart in the west because of how unwieldy they were becoming in the face of massive human migrations.

So yes the Byzantine Empire was roman, the fact that they used the greek language does not change that.

Much of Europe incorporated many Roman systems, hence why its considered the progenitor of western culture. Just because Byzantium used similar systems of governance does not mean it is truly Roman.

I will admit that I have been proven partially wrong on the dark ages portion, however it is still an understood historical fact that Europe lost a fair amount older knowledge for a few hundred years due to their inability to translate many scientific documents which were written in Greek.

When I said Christianity killed the empire, I meant it killed the empire's culture not literally caused it to collapse. Christianities tenants were contrary to many of the Empires cultural ideas and social structures. The Roman empire was so successful in expanding because it succeeded in incorporating the cultures it conquered fairly effectively, it even allowed some degree of religious tolerance. In contrast to the Christian policy of later empires (including the Byzantine empire) which was essentially, convert or die.

#32 Edited by Crom-Cruach (8736 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos said:

But I also think it is true that the Byzantine Empire eventually became significantly important in itself to warrant it's own special place in history.

Yes, as it was up until about the 11th century the richest and most powerful state in Europe. That it was very, very important politically and economically on it own is related to the fact that it was an extension of the roman state. It is true that as time passed, it underwent significant changes but neither of these things change that yes it was an extension of the roman state. It inherited the systems of the roman empire. Unlike the Western portion of Europe that was conquered and divided by barbarian tribes.

#33 Posted by WillPayton (9141 posts) - - Show Bio

As the OP shouldn't you come up with some starting topic to get the discussion going?

This thread is too broad and unfocused. Nothing good can come from it.

#34 Posted by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm going to get a little off topic here but.

IMO (and i can't stress this enough) The Axis Powers only lost WW2 due to being outnumbered.

Battle of France:

German casualties: 157,621

Italian casualties: 6,029

Total: 163,650

Allied casualties: 2,260,000

Both sides were roughly the same size.

Operation Barbarossa

Axis casualties: 5,178,000+

Soviet Union and her allies: 10,651,000

That's more than Twice

#35 Posted by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio

@totalbalance said:

As the OP shouldn't you come up with some starting topic to get the discussion going?

This thread is too broad and unfocused. Nothing good can come from it.

It seems to be going along quite nicely.

#36 Posted by WillPayton (9141 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@totalbalance said:

As the OP shouldn't you come up with some starting topic to get the discussion going?

This thread is too broad and unfocused. Nothing good can come from it.

It seems to be going along quite nicely.

Famous Last Words

#37 Posted by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio
#38 Posted by explodingpineapple (837 posts) - - Show Bio

What do you think is the most interesting war? Thanks.

#39 Posted by MaccyD (3512 posts) - - Show Bio

@consolemaster001: I knew WW2 would pop up...it's like the goddamn Batman overshadowing everything else in history :P

#40 Edited by consolemaster001 (4938 posts) - - Show Bio

@maccyd said:

@consolemaster001: I knewWW2 would pop up...it's like the goddamn Batman overshadowing everything else in history :P

Haha

What do you think is the most interesting war? Thanks.

Tie between WW2 ans WW1

#42 Posted by MaccyD (3512 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame: The axis lost because they were in no condition to compete with US after the Operation Barbarossa. Soviets won the war, not US.

#43 Posted by Perethorn (3212 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:
@consolemaster001 said:

The Axis Powers only lost WW2 due to being outnumbered.

Operation Barbarossa

Axis casualties: 5,178,000+

Soviet Union and her allies: 10,651,000

That's more than Twice

The Axis Powers lost because the United States got involved. They simply could not compete with American industrial power.

Also, with regards to the underlined, those Soviet casualties amount to at least 25 million. Other researchers have even higher estimates.

USA didn't do much in Europe. Most of what they were in was in the Pacific War against Japan.

Germany and Italy lost because Hitler was an idiot.

#45 Posted by Pyrogram (35043 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:
@consolemaster001 said:

The Axis Powers only lost WW2 due to being outnumbered.

Operation Barbarossa

Axis casualties: 5,178,000+

Soviet Union and her allies: 10,651,000

That's more than Twice

The Axis Powers lost because the United States got involved. They simply could not compete with American industrial power.

Also, with regards to the underlined, those Soviet casualties amount to at least 25 million. Other researchers have even higher estimates.

USA didn't do much in Europe. Most of what they were in was in the Pacific War against Japan.

Germany and Italy lost because Hitler was an idiot.

He was a genius whether you like it or not. What a foolish thing to say, how was he an idiot?

#46 Edited by MissyMoxie (60 posts) - - Show Bio

I have a history question ...

How much do you think that people are the product of their times and how much do you the times are the product of the people?

Or to put another way, does the world get thrown into war by the actions of men, or is it an inevitable outcome of trends?

#47 Edited by Perethorn (3212 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram said:

@perethorn said:

@edamame said:
@consolemaster001 said:

The Axis Powers only lost WW2 due to being outnumbered.

Operation Barbarossa

Axis casualties: 5,178,000+

Soviet Union and her allies: 10,651,000

That's more than Twice

The Axis Powers lost because the United States got involved. They simply could not compete with American industrial power.

Also, with regards to the underlined, those Soviet casualties amount to at least 25 million. Other researchers have even higher estimates.

USA didn't do much in Europe. Most of what they were in was in the Pacific War against Japan.

Germany and Italy lost because Hitler was an idiot.

He was a genius whether you like it or not. What a foolish thing to say, how was he an idiot?

Military speaking. If he focused all his force on GB instead of go out for Russia, he would have won the War

#48 Edited by MaccyD (3512 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame: You forgot France, do not underestimate the resistance. Soviets were already pushing back the Germans, D-Day simply sped up the process.

Forgive my first response, it sounded like you were saying US pretty much won the war on its own. :P

#49 Posted by Pyrogram (35043 posts) - - Show Bio

@perethorn: Explain that logic. He would have had to go over seas, expend resources defeating the entire British Navy (one of the strongest in the world) and then defeat the British Army? Prior to having defeated the french. Explain that logic?

#50 Posted by henrik (562 posts) - - Show Bio

It would be better if the germans won ww1(no Hitler, Stalin, trianon)