+ Reply to Thread
Page 514 of 893 FirstFirst ... 14 414 464 504 512 513 514 515 516 524 564 614 ... LastLast
Results 10,261 to 10,280 of 17846

Thread: Random News Article Discussion II

  1. #10261
    Discovered Stowaway BatrozX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Narnia

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon Rin View Post
    The AFA's claim that they've caused $10 Billion in damages is what they claim is the result of lost sales from their boycott as a whole, not just the bomb.
    Oh- well THAT makes more sense then. lol

    Anyway knowing how many closed minded people there are I'm not surprised it has gone this far. And the fact that I don't find it surprising is a pretty scary thing. One would normally expect an issue like this to get less attention as time goes by but it just keeps escalating. Pretty fucked up.

  2. #10262
    Chief Warden of Yo Mama Jabberwok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    My Rightful Throne (not porcelain)

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Rule of thumb: the more vaguely wholesome the organization's name sounds, the worse it is.

    If you get dunked on in the dream, you get dunked on in real life

  3. #10263

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Was the bomb related to the transgender thing at all? Not that I'm saying there couldn't be a connection but maybe it was some kind of prank or something?


  4. #10264
    Discovered Stew Femme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    A very special place

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Muhammad Ali's memorial service was so moving. I'm simply awed by how much the world loved him.
    Hidden:



  5. #10265

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    ISIS is practically eliminated from Libya.


    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Told y'all people were chicken littling about the Libyan presence. It was a weak sideshow surrounded by enemies.

  6. #10266

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ack/?tid=sm_fb

    Very unfortunate. I hadn't listened to her when she was on "the Voice", but I had seen some of her videos on Youtube years back, she was a pretty good singer. The guy took himself out after shooting her.
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey King View Post
    A magical strange Twilight Zone episode where no other education is offered, and the only option is Bill Nye the Science Guy videos

  7. #10267
    King of Little Sisters ~ Chrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Still trying to climb Wano's waterfall

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey King View Post
    Bulgaria is like a reverse Hungary. A steppe nomad tribe rolled into some random part of Eastern Europe, took control and established a local dynasty. But the culture and language of the kingdom ended up reflecting the majority conquered population rather than that of the rulers. Which is actually how it usually works (see: Mongols and Manchus becoming culturally Chinese after taking over China each).
    During the lifespan of the Byzantine Empire, including during the invasions and conquests from the Bulgarian Empire against them, that process of it really becoming a Slavic entity was well under way. I think by the time of the largest extent under Simeon I that I posted, that some form of early South Slavic had even become the official language.
    Yes, I know very well what happened in Bulgaria. It started happening around the reign of Michael III, when the Bulgar Khan converted to Christianity in order to create an actual state by imitation of their neighbours. A steppe elite can't stay a steppe elite for long when they settle down and create a state. It eventually weakens and vanishes. It happens to almost everyone, like you said. It's interesting how the Magyars were able to keep their origins in their culture until today's Hungary, actually.




    Then I really don't see what significance you're trying to attribute to the Iconoclast controversies that is so massive.
    The significance of Iconoclasm is to the identity of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not to the East-West schism per se. The date of the defeat of Iconoclasm is still celebrated today in the first Sunday of Lent, if I'm not mistaken, as the "Triumph of Orthodoxy". But back then, Eastern Orthodoxy was equal to the Roman Empire. Which meant that those years were a kind of formative stage in the Byzantine identity, establishing it as an Icon venerating people. It was a philosophical and very political discussion about how to cope with the losses to the Arabs and the constant disasters for the empire and a way to bring the whole population into the imperial fold and keeping the remaining people under the empire thinking and acting in unisson.

    Did it?
    How? Catholicism is pro-icons. The Greek church was pro-icons. It seems the Armenians mostly were not.
    The west looking at the church in Constantinople would have still been seeing pro-icon policy. The Icon controversies were two periods against the otherwise norm. One that didn't leave evidence AT ALL of it ever happening. Greek Orthodox Christianity is even more icon obsessed than the Catholic church. I think even so is the Armenian Orthodox church.


    The bolded is the exact legacy it left. It's true that the Pope was "happy" to see that his brothers had come to their senses and allowed veneration of icons again, but the Catholic church doesn't have a tradition around them remotely similar to what the Orthodox has. My uncle is an extremely catholic fellow, and the other day, when I told him I visited a Russian Orthodox Church, the first thing he metioned was "Icons". That's because they're an integral part of the Orthodox tradition, and something that was strengthened a great deal by the reaction to Iconoclasm. Irene's council, in its attempt to revoke Constantine V's council (the one who started Iconoclasm officially), ended up creating this huge deal about Icons and almost creating a new practice that wasn't there before. Icons were important but not nearly as important as they would become after the whole controversy.

    Those dynasties got started by the usual Game of Thrones style subterfuge. Not being appointed due to importance.
    They rose through military prominence. Anatolia was the military stronghold of the empire. Like many times before in Roman history, when times were tough, the Generals rose to power. It's kind of a repeat of the 3rd century crisis, except that this time the emperors came from inner Anatolia and not from the Balkans.

    If the Slavic invasions made Greece lose importance, how didn't the Arab invasions do the same to Anatolia exactly? I don't see Thessaloniki experiencing particularly different circumstances environment wise in terms of stability. In fact it probably had it better due to the Slavs mostly being migrating tribes with occasional small kingdoms. Versus the Arab tidal wave.
    Becase Greece was left out of imperial control, mostly. Only Laconia, Attica and Euboeia were left by the late 700s, as you can see in the map. Yes, Attica was still pretty important and the most cultured center of Greece. I know that. But how can you compare a place that was practically lost to a place where imperial control was much more tightened? The situation was vastly different. If you study the history of the empire from the late 600s to the late 800s, it's mostly dealing with Anatolia. Because it was the only huge chunk of land left of the empire! That's all I've been saying this time. It was the bulwark that protected the capital from being conquered by the Arabs, it was heavily militarized, it was where resources came from and where resources were allocated from. Where do you think Constantinople got their food from? Thessaloniki and the rocky Chalcidice that was left in the west?


    I've mostly been talking about stuff since the Arab invasions onward. So I haven't been talking from past the 10th.
    Thank you. That's what I said a few posts ago. This whole discussion comes from a misunderstanding where each of us is focusing on different eras. Now I just want you to agree that before the 10th century, things weren't as clear cut as you make them out be later. You're absolutely right about what you're saying about the 10th century onwards, but you completely disregard that it only became so after the turbulent centuries of the Arab raids (7th-9th centuries.)


    I wasn't saying it was culturally Greek, I was saying that the core of the empire revolved around that northern tier of modern Greece into what is now Northwest Turkey.
    Again, only by the 10th century onwards. The core of the Empire was Constantinople, until they managed to recover that territory and link the capital with the second largest city, Thessalonica. You can't have a core there whent that territory is out of control of the state.


    Sorry? How is it dumb? You're making a fallacious sort of argument here based on place of leader origins somehow refocusing an entire country. You also keep taking about these dynasties like they were some ancient established Armenian families who took control of the Byzantine Empire....when they were military leaders of common origin who worked their way up and grabbed opportunities at the crown when they saw them.
    And they did so after already being brought in from the hinterlands to serve the emperors in Constantinople. You make it sound like the courts and power were sitting out in Anatolia, and Anatolian nobility was passing around the crown.
    The situation really has its comparisons to medieval and early modern Iran, which had a ton of Shahs and dynasties and whatnot of Turkic origin. From peripheral buffer zone areas. While there are examples of that leading to big alteration of Persian culture? For the most part no, it was a sign of ethnic minority military border areas being rough and tumble and producing generals. But the nature of Iran was Persian as all heck.

    The iconoclast aspect is interesting sure. The one big thing that Turkic tribes did to change Iran was the Safavid dynasty establishing Shia Islam throughout the joint. Resulting in the modern circumstances. This was their stranger minority religious background relative to the dominant Sunni Islam of Iran at the time.
    It would sound like the Armenians and other Anatolian dudes attempted a similar sort of thing (though way less drastic). But hey, they completely failed?
    Yeah, now I completely agree with you! I didn't mean that some guy from Anatolia getting the throne would lead to refocusing the entire culture of the empire! Not at all! I'm arguing that it was a sign of the times! That Anatolia had become a central territory for the empire and heavily militarized and, due to that, the Anatolian themes started to push for more and more influence in the central running of the state and getting emperors in power. That's all I'm saying. During a couple of centuries, that's what happened. The legacy it left was the new Icon veneration, the reaction to the Anatolian generals attempt to influence official state and church doctrine. What you mentioned about Inner Anatolia/Western Armenia being left to their own deviced by the centre of power of the Empire and it leading to the Turkish conquests is what happened after all this mess. And it's really ironic. For 3 centuries, the empire focused on getting that region militarized, investing the few resources it had, reorganizing the entire provincial administration, managing to fend off the offensive from the most powerful state on earth (besides China?) at the time again, and again, and again. When the Caliphate started desintegrating and posing a less serious threat, the economy of the empire started recovering, the Iconomachy was buried, and the central state finally found a really stable political period (with the Macedonian dynasty), the emperors were able to focus on stregthening the central professional army loyal only to them, the so called Tagmata (who were actually created by Constantine V, one of the strongest Iconoclast emperors, from very Iconoclast armies from Anatolia, in order to help bring its influence into the central government, as well as allow the emperor to go on the offensive in Thrace, resulting in the conquest of most of it, as you can see in my previous map. They were a hotbed of Iconoclasm and glorified Constantine for quite a while, posing a threat to Irene's rule and physically threatening the Council which revoked Iconoclasm. In the end, most of them died in the Battle of Pliska against the Bulgars and their replacements would never again invoke that kind of memories). With the central power reinforced, no real threat in sight from the middle east, and the empire embarking on the renconquest of the Balkans, the Anatolian themes were kind of left to their own devices and lost influence, integrity, and power, turning into more a local, "feudal", militia. Which was easily overrun by the Turks.


    There's a "Macedonian" dynasty directly after the Amorian dynasty lol.
    But nevermind that because you're still trying to define everything based off dynastic origins. Which is further silly because that only describes the founders of dynasties, if you're lucky it might describe the successor. Even in this already flawed approach you're ignoring the later parts of the dynasties.
    Six monarchs ruled in the Isaurian dynasty. By monarch three the iconoclast tendencies were already vanishing. Past that monarch four is a son in law general from the Marmara sea area (so the core), and the sixth is an empress from Athens! Not of the bloodline, married into it as well.
    Three monarchs in the Amorian dynasty, and by number three (who ruled longest) you again have someone tossing aside Iconoclasm.
    Now you've kinda butchered everything. To begin with, the Isaurian dynasty (the name itself is wrong, since the first emperor, Leo III was a Syrian refugee. So ironic considering today's situation. But he ended up becoming strategos of the Anatolic Theme, so don't use that as an argument against me, his influence came from the Anatolian armies, his ethnic background doesn't matter). This dynasty had five emperors, not six, unless you count a short usurpation by... an Armenian general. Leo III, the founder, is slandered in history as an Iconoclast, although he most likely wasn't, or just slightly. Most of what is said about him is but a construction by comparison to Leo V and Michael II (the beginners of Second Iconoclasm, which was much more serious than the first one). His son, born and raised in Constantinople, Constantine V, was the real author behind the movement and became a rallying point for the entire thing after his death. Do you know the myth of King Sebastian in Portugal as a rallying point for national sentiment against the Spanish? Constantine was the same for the Iconoclasts. Then came Leo IV, who died very soon, after 5 years in power, leaving Irene to rule in their son's name. Constantine VI was never much of an emperor, with Irene authoring the entire policy behind his back, along with eunuch Staurakios. So, in effect, the dynasty had 3 emperors, Leo, Constantine, Irene. The first was so-so, the second was the mythical figure of Iconoclasm, the second is the mythical figure of Iconophily. Who do you mean the son-in-law from the Marmara area? And what do you mean the one who ruled the longest? That was clearly Constantine, the father of Iconoclasm (although Irene rivalled him, counting her time as regent).

    Next, the Amorian dynasty. The first guy was Michael III, an Anatolian general who murdered his friend Leo... the Armenian, to get the power. Next, he faced a rebellion from the... Anatolian themes, led by Thomas the Slav the third friend of the group, because Michael wasn't, apparently, Iconoclast enough. He wasn't a popular general as Leo was. His son, born and raised in the capital, Theophilos, was the new Constantine V. The second greatest Iconoclast emperor. Funny enough, Theophilos also ruled for a long time, though not nearly as much as Constantine. After the sack of Amorium, the second greatest city of the empire at that precise time, as I mentioned, the entire ideology of Iconoclasm was thrown out, since its greatest argument was... military victory. And until then, it had brought it. But after that enormous defeat, his son, Michael III (who didn't rule by himself, but had his mother Theodora and then his uncle Bardas as regents who actually did stuff) officially put an end to the controversy. That's the "Triumph of Orthodoxy". At this point, the Anatolian armies didn't have any legitimacy left in the fight and the central state was amassing wealth, stability, and a powerful central army. Thus begins the end of the period I'm talking about, and begins the one you're talking about... but it's not that linear.

    On to the Macedonian dynasty, which you so proudly boasted. Guess what, it wasn't Macedonian. I've already mentioned how at that period, the Theme of Macedonia had been founded, but it wasn't located near Macedonia. It was in southern Thrace. Thessalonica and the area nearby (which is just the Chalcidice, no Macedonia yet, as you argue), was actually ruled as an Archonate, an overseas territory, like Crete or Cherson in the Crimea. That Theme of Macedonia which was actually in Thrace is where Basil I, founder of the dynasty, came from. Now the even more funny part. Basil, unlike the General emperors which you say came to power through oportunism and not military influence (which is mostly wrong, as I've been explaining), did not come to power through political influence, as you'd like him to. Neither through military influence, because the european Themes... did not have any influence, unlike the Antolians. He came to power through, you guessed it, oportunism. He was a stable master who became friends with Michael III and, by a GoT-esque coup, murdered him and took the Emperorship for himself. Not the even funnier part. He was not from any prominent family from what you call the "core of the empire". He was from a peasant family. Said peasant family wasn't actually Macedonian. Not even Thracian. It was... wait for it... Armenian. An Armenian family deported like many others to repopulate Thrace after it was retaken from slavic tribes. No, the ethnic origin is not important, it's just funny.

    When you go live in Constantinople from the sticks, you become like the city before the city becomes like you.
    The Mongol Khans became like the Chinese, the Manchus became like the Chinese, hell we just talked about how even the Bulgars became Slavs.
    Completely agreed, well stated.


    It might if the nature of these dynasties coming to power showed political influence, rather than dudes using wars and battles to force previous emperors to abdicate.
    This isn't even political influence via the military, its just straight up coup de tats from opportunistic people.
    Uh... yes, it is. It's the very definition of military influence.


    Like I said, the main areas of Greece are still heavily represented there. Attica, Thessaloniki, and even most of the Thrace region. That big chunk of Balkan Greece may look impressive, but that's Epirus and Thessaly. Which have never been major centers of population or much of anything.
    It's Epirus, it's Thessaly, it's Central Greece, it's most of the Peloponnese. The only areas left were very small areas, mostly where a couple of big cities were. Athens, Thessalonica. Little more. Yes, they're the culturally important part, I never argued they weren't. I just argued that most of Modern Greece was out of imperial control and plagued by slavic tribes for the period I'm talking about. Which is still true.

    If you looked at a map of Portugal being taken over by invading Spaniards or something and someone implicated that lots of inland territory had been lost meant the loss of Portugal, while Lisbon, Porto and the coast in general were in Portuguese control? Would you not explain to that person that the map wasn't what it seemed?
    As a person who is not from Lisbon or Porto, or even Coimbra, I can't really agree. But it's not very comparable, because Greece was a small portion of the empire. If you had said something like "the Roman Empire losing Britain and northern and central Gaul but keeping coastal Gaul and Italy", I'd be more inclined to agree.
    Last edited by Chrior; June 11th, 2016 at 07:07 AM.

  8. #10268

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrior View Post
    Yes, I know very well what happened in Bulgaria. It started happening around the reign of Michael III, when the Bulgar Khan converted to Christianity in order to create an actual state by imitation of their neighbours. A steppe elite can't stay a steppe elite for long when they settle down and create a state. It eventually weakens and vanishes. It happens to almost everyone, like you said. It's interesting how the Magyars were able to keep their origins in their culture until today's Hungary, actually.
    Its not unheard of for less populated invaders to be able to alter the existing settled culture and change the local populace to their ways. We're talking Anatolia right now, and clearly Anatolia changed from Hellenic influence to Turkish as we know (after those Turks had already Persianized culturally on the way over lol).
    I think when the local culture changes it says something usually about an unsettled and culturally vulnerable area.

    The Pannonian Basin for instance being such a vulnerable shifting zone, may have had people who were less set in their ways and prone to change to begin with. Making the Magyarization easier than the Slavization of the Bulgars. The Magyars were the ones to finally firmly control the area.
    Likewise as we're both noting the borderland nature of interior Anatolia mixed with its disconnect from the Hellenic core in Constantinople (and more Hellenized coasts) made it also more easily Turkified. And Byzantine loss of control easier to begin with.
    The significance of Iconoclasm is to the identity of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not to the East-West schism per se. The date of the defeat of Iconoclasm is still celebrated today in the first Sunday of Lent, if I'm not mistaken, as the "Triumph of Orthodoxy". But back then, Eastern Orthodoxy was equal to the Roman Empire. Which meant that those years were a kind of formative stage in the Byzantine identity, establishing it as an Icon venerating people. It was a philosophical and very political discussion about how to cope with the losses to the Arabs and the constant disasters for the empire and a way to bring the whole population into the imperial fold and keeping the remaining people under the empire thinking and acting in unisson.
    Hmm, I suppose. But that feels like an importance very much at its time, and one that hasn't sent significant ripples outward. Modern Orthodox Christians don't really think in terms of contrast to Iconoclasts, so much as either Muslims or Catholics. And as Iconoclasm was an internal struggle that would seem more relevant to the Catholic tensions, but Catholics are pretty darn icon friendly as a Portuguese like you well knows.
    Perhaps I'd buy it as strong contrast with Sunni Islam, but then that never had to come down to details since there was inherent religious difference to begin with.
    Though heck, Shia Islam loves icons. And honestly I'm not sure how anti-icon Sunnis historically were compared to all the modern revisionist ultra-conservatism.
    Most Protestants hate that shit, but Orthodox Christians (let alone the Greeks) haven't really historically interacted with them much.

    I guess this confusion between us comes down to how I really read and devour my history on the basis of things that echo down toward modern times. And I don't find significance as much in stuff that kind of exists within a historical vacuum.

    The bolded is the exact legacy it left. It's true that the Pope was "happy" to see that his brothers had come to their senses and allowed veneration of icons again, but the Catholic church doesn't have a tradition around them remotely similar to what the Orthodox has. My uncle is an extremely catholic fellow, and the other day, when I told him I visited a Russian Orthodox Church, the first thing he metioned was "Icons".


    I'm from half-Catholic background myself (paternal), and yes, the extent of icon use in Orthodox churches outstrips what I've seen in my relatives churches. Its another level. But at the same time perhaps the difference seems less to me as an American because I'm also seeing more of that third stream of Protestantism, which with some exceptions tend to have exactly zero icons outside of Jesus. So if Orthodox Christians are Mercury, I'm seeing Protestant Pluto....which makes Catholicism look like Mars.
    They rose through military prominence. Anatolia was the military stronghold of the empire. Like many times before in Roman history, when times were tough, the Generals rose to power. It's kind of a repeat of the 3rd century crisis, except that this time the emperors came from inner Anatolia and not from the Balkans.
    I still think you're making it sound more organized and culturally significant than the "guys taking advantage in crisis" thing it was.
    Becase Greece was left out of imperial control, mostly. Only Laconia, Attica and Euboeia were left by the late 700s, as you can see in the map.


    And Macedonia's center, and much of Thrace. Also Crete.
    So....most of Greece as populated and settled.
    Yes, Attica was still pretty important and the most cultured center of Greece. I know that. But how can you compare a place that was practically lost to a place where imperial control was much more tightened?


    Honestly they're very similar situations. Shifting border zones with lots of fighting going on. With the Anatolian front being perhaps more threatening due to a more organized enemy. Also a front that was more relevant due to trade routes and having more civilized nations in its direction. With Europe still being toothless hick land with some Frankish upstarts at best.
    And I'm still not really talking about Attica anyway. My focus is on that area from Thessaloniki to basically what Turkey now calls the Marmara region.
    The situation was vastly different. If you study the history of the empire from the late 600s to the late 800s, it's mostly dealing with Anatolia. Because it was the only huge chunk of land left of the empire! That's all I've been saying this time. It was the bulwark that protected the capital from being conquered by the Arabs, it was heavily militarized, it was where resources came from and where resources were allocated from. Where do you think Constantinople got their food from? Thessaloniki and the rocky Chalcidice that was left in the west?


    And I've only been saying what I thought the core was.
    If you took a quick snapshot of the US, you'd see the Midwest region producing tons of food and even some factory goods (well...used to anyway). But a cultural/political core would be found still to be in that area around NYC and Washington DC....with other geographically peripheral cities providing the same such as Los Angeles.
    Again, only by the 10th century onwards. The core of the Empire was Constantinople, until they managed to recover that territory and link the capital with the second largest city, Thessalonica. You can't have a core there whent that territory is out of control of the state.
    Wait though...are you actually claiming there was any point of Eastern Rome (aside from the 4th Crusade mess) where Constantinople wasn't the core in of itself?
    So, in effect, the dynasty had 3 emperors, Leo, Constantine, Irene. The first was so-so, the second was the mythical figure of Iconoclasm, the second is the mythical figure of Iconophily. Who do you mean the son-in-law from the Marmara area? And what do you mean the one who ruled the longest? That was clearly Constantine, the father of Iconoclasm (although Irene rivalled him, counting her time as regent).
    I wrote that kinda sloppily in retrospect, the "longest" rule is in reference to the last Amorian, not any Isaurian.
    But more to the point...
    "The first was so-so, the second was the mythical figure of Iconoclasm, the second is the mythical figure of Iconophily"
    Yeah, my point is these dynasties and their Anatolian attributes didn't end up lasting very long once plugged into the core.
    Next, the Amorian dynasty. The first guy was Michael III, an Anatolian general who murdered his friend Leo... the Armenian, to get the power. Next, he faced a rebellion from the... Anatolian themes, led by Thomas the Slav the third friend of the group, because Michael wasn't, apparently, Iconoclast enough. He wasn't a popular general as Leo was. His son, born and raised in the capital, Theophilos, was the new Constantine V. The second greatest Iconoclast emperor. Funny enough, Theophilos also ruled for a long time, though not nearly as much as Constantine. After the sack of Amorium, the second greatest city of the empire at that precise time,
    Still not buying that Amorium was the "second greatest city" in the empire. You'd said important earlier and made a military case for that, which I disagreed with on some level. But "greatest" is a whole new can of worms.
    On to the Macedonian dynasty, which you so proudly boasted. Guess what, it wasn't Macedonian. I've already mentioned how at that period, the Theme of Macedonia had been founded, but it wasn't located near Macedonia. It was in southern Thrace.


    So....dead center in the area I've designated as the Byzantine core.
    Thessalonica and the area nearby (which is just the Chalcidice, no Macedonia yet, as you argue),
    What is your understanding of what Macedonia geographically is? Then and now alike? My point isn't even to be specific, but to point to that general area of major centers from Thessaloniki over to like..modern Bursa. The area around Thessaloniki to this day isn't particularly heavily populated. Like lots of Greece its very much cities surrounded by rougher terrain and water. I've been on the road between Thessa and Istanbul. And yeah there were two middle sized "cities" between Thessa and the Turkish border. Xanthi and Kavala. One of which was practically hanging off cliffs on the coast. I'm well aware the hinterland isn't some vast metro zone. But that was never my point. And ...that's Greece.
    was actually ruled as an Archonate, an overseas territory, like Crete or Cherson in the Crimea. That Theme of Macedonia which was actually in Thrace is where Basil I, founder of the dynasty, came from. Now the even more funny part. Basil, unlike the General emperors which you say came to power through oportunism and not military influence (which is mostly wrong, as I've been explaining), did not come to power through political influence, as you'd like him to.
    I never said he did? My point was the new dynasty came from the core region. Which it did.
    Neither through military influence, because the european Themes... did not have any influence, unlike the Antolians.
    Militarily they didn't.
    He came to power through, you guessed it, oportunism. He was a stable master who became friends with Michael III and, by a GoT-esque coup, murdered him and took the Emperorship for himself. Not the even funnier part. He was not from any prominent family from what you call the "core of the empire". He was from a peasant family. Said peasant family wasn't actually Macedonian. Not even Thracian. It was... wait for it... Armenian. An Armenian family deported like many others to repopulate Thrace after it was retaken from slavic tribes. No, the ethnic origin is not important, it's just funny.
    All of this helps my point. Thrace is part of the core region I identified. And Armenians being brought to live closer to the capital for various reasons from the hinterlands...does that not identify this area as core? Also I'd be very very careful when talking about "depopulating" and "repopulating". A lot of that talk is from older scholarship that sort of assumes this more homogenous invader/native narrative throughout a lot of things. It is more likely that the Slavs that came to settle were absorbed into the Empire then there being some ebb and flow game of Slavs pouring in, then running away, and the blank space being filled in with Byzantine subjects. As I understand it Basil's ethnic origins are uncertain, because of the area being so mixed with Slavs and yes Armenians and others.

    Completely agreed, well stated.
    This is a super important part of what I'm saying here. So if you agree, I question how much we're disagreeing.
    Fundamentally for the Crisis of the Post-Arab period to be such a shift away from the core, this statement of mine can't really be true.

    Uh... yes, it is. It's the very definition of military influence.
    I said political influence though. A military that would be very much in control as a whole of politics and the goings on in the capital. Not a military that because of its military importance produces guys that grab the crown. I'm thinking like pre-WW2 Japan, where the military was practically a political party and one that exerted influence on the government heavily.
    It's Epirus, it's Thessaly, it's Central Greece, it's most of the Peloponnese. The only areas left were very small areas, mostly where a couple of big cities were. Athens, Thessalonica. Little more. Yes, they're the culturally important part, I never argued they weren't. I just argued that most of Modern Greece was out of imperial control and plagued by slavic tribes for the period I'm talking about. Which is still true.
    I'm defining the area by population centers, which...given we're talking people stuff (culture/politics/population) is what matters. The same goes for Anatolia, which yes larger areas show up on maps. But can you say you know how populous all that was?
    As a person who is not from Lisbon or Porto, or even Coimbra, I can't really agree.


    Where from?
    This is interesting though. I wonder if we're both injecting personal bias in here. I'm from a very very core area of the US (near to NYC and Boston alike). And I guess you are from an interior part of Portugal.
    I will admit to maybe using somewhat dismissive language toward non-core areas. Maybe even the use of "core" is bugging you.
    But it's not very comparable, because Greece was a small portion of the empire. If you had said something like "the Roman Empire losing Britain and northern and central Gaul but keeping coastal Gaul and Italy", I'd be more inclined to agree.
    What I'd said though was Thessaloniki and Istanbul and that general area.
    Everything I've seen suggests a long continuity for those as cities 1# and 2# from even before the Arab attacks.

  9. #10269

  10. #10270
    King of Little Sisters ~ Chrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Still trying to climb Wano's waterfall

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey King View Post
    Where from?
    This is interesting though. I wonder if we're both injecting personal bias in here. I'm from a very very core area of the US (near to NYC and Boston alike). And I guess you are from an interior part of Portugal.
    I will admit to maybe using somewhat dismissive language toward non-core areas. Maybe even the use of "core" is bugging you.
    I'm not gonna answer to every point you made because I think we're finally getting on the same page about things. I understand that I emphasized the pure territorial control of the empire, while you disregarded such things in favour of more urban and thus cultural areas. I'm from a coastal city 1 hour to the north of Porto, but far enough from the populational core (ha!) to be considered a backwater. It's in one of the poorest (if not the poorest) province of the country, Viana do Castelo. It has maybe 50 thousand inhabitants. And I'm the first generation of my family to be so lucky as to live in an actual city. My parents, grandparents and the rest are from a small village (if you can even call it that) in the middle of the most annoying to reach mountains you can think of (ok, not that much, but still annoying). The funny part is that just some 50 km to the south starts the most industrialized and productive region of the country, the second richest after Lisbon. It's a shame that things are like this, though, because the whole province is very beautiful and has tremendous potential. It's just extremely underused and underdeveloped. Have you ever visited Portugal, by the way? You seem like a well travelled fellow.

    What I've been meaning about core was a different understanding of the word. I've been talking about Anatolia as a core territorial unit, in the sense that it was the only big cohesive chunk of land left in the empire, compared to scattered pieces of the Balkans/Greece/Italy and islands. When I finally understood what you were trying to convey, it all made more sense. Yeah, Constantinople was, at least until the 4th crusade, but even later, the core of the empire. It was absolutely impossible for the state to have survived the Arab conquests without the capital. Anatolia wouldn't have posed any resistance if it hadn't been turned into such an organized stronghold by the authorities in the capital. The tax system that kept the whole thing running was crucial. The city's impenetrability was also essential for its survival through the ages. I advise you to see Heraclius' campaigns against the Sassanids and how he basically abandoned Constantinople to its own devices. Meanwhile, the Avars launched a siege from European land and the Persians from the Borphorus and the city didn't budge. With barely anyone left inside to defend it. It's simply impressive. In contrast, we have the Sassanid resistance to the Arab conquests. Which was null. Why? Because the capital was in friggin' Iraq, in a flatland near the border with the Romans. Easy peasy. After Ctesiphon fell, the state basically crumbled away and the Arabs were able to divide and conquer Iran proper. One cannot understand the Eastern Roman Empire without understanding Istanbul. Which is a really funny twist of fate. A city that conquered the world (Rome) became but another city in a huge empire. But then, said empire became nothing, without its new capital city (Constantinople). And the state that began in the city of Rome and grew to encompass the Mediterranean and beyond shrinked back through a thousand years into just a single city again, but a different one. I can't stop marvelling about it.

    To conclude, what I wanted to say since the beginning was that despite inner Anatolia being weakened by the time of the Turkish conquest, it had actually been THE military heart of Romania, in its lowest times, while threatened by the Arab Caliphate. The state it was in by the time the Turks arrived was the result of the complacency of the capital's elites, disregarding the local Theme armies which had been invaluable, in favour of their own central professional army. Thus, a poor, sparsely populated region which was never much of anything to begin with, without the constant backing and focusing of the imperial attention and resources in order to maintain a buffer area, turned back into what it always was. Thank you for the discussion

    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Completely unrelated:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...mbodian-jungle

    Absolutely fantastic discovery that will be presented soon!

  11. #10271

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrior View Post
    I'm not gonna answer to every point you made because I think we're finally getting on the same page about things. I understand that I emphasized the pure territorial control of the empire, while you disregarded such things in favour of more urban and thus cultural areas. I'm from a coastal city 1 hour to the north of Porto, but far enough from the populational core (ha!) to be considered a backwater. It's in one of the poorest (if not the poorest) province of the country, Viana do Castelo. It has maybe 50 thousand inhabitants. And I'm the first generation of my family to be so lucky as to live in an actual city. My parents, grandparents and the rest are from a small village (if you can even call it that) in the middle of the most annoying to reach mountains you can think of (ok, not that much, but still annoying). The funny part is that just some 50 km to the south starts the most industrialized and productive region of the country, the second richest after Lisbon. It's a shame that things are like this, though, because the whole province is very beautiful and has tremendous potential. It's just extremely underused and underdeveloped. Have you ever visited Portugal, by the way? You seem like a well travelled fellow.
    I decently traveled on the other end of the Medd (well Portugal not technically being on the Medd aside).
    Greece, Turkey, Cyprus (both halves).

  12. #10272

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiq View Post
    I've often wondered about that myself; seems like being supported by people who only want you there so the world can end in fire (with you going to Hell in the process) would be somewhat off-putting
    3DS Friend Code 0044-2806-5284




  13. #10273

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II


  14. #10274
    Discovered Stowaway Bugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Hole in the ground

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    In other gun related news.

    (And yes this will go to the highest court.)

  15. #10275
    Just Legendary LegendarySSJ4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Somewhere close by

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II


  16. #10276
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

    And that statement doesn't even come close to expressing the loss and terror experienced by the victims and their families and loved ones.
    Everything's Eventual...


  17. #10277

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Oh geez.

    And to make matters worse, apparently the guy that did it is " Omar Mateen" and leans towards jihadi extremes. AND it was an LGBT nightclub.

    Outside of the senseless tragedy, this is going to get bad in the media and political circles fast.
    To support Viz hosting all Jump manga for FREE and day of release, Arlong Park will now support the official release.
    https://www.viz.com/shonenjump

    Official chapter discussions now start Sundays at Noon, EST.
    Please do not post threads when scan sites release their version, and just discuss those releases in the spoiler thread.

  18. #10278

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    And it happened in a swing state too. Could not have been more perfect for Trump and his ilk.

  19. #10279

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    So sad this is getting so much more common and so much worse as the time passes

  20. #10280

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Condolences to those that lost loved ones in this evil heinous act. There is no consolation but at least, the ones who were murdered will be remembered by those left behind, perhaps by the nation as a whole.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

     

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts