3663
3664

History (i.imgur.com)

hexag1 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Droconian -16 ポイント-15 ポイント  (37子コメント)

I like to to think that empires don't rise and fall, they just change names and political party. This species is too young to assume otherwise. Look at rome, look at China. Same rule applies. Romans are the same as Italians. Chinese citizens are nearly identical today.

[–]afxaloha89 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (27子コメント)

Romans and Italians are very very very different, I know you dont care but thats VERY offensive to modern Italians.

[–]chezlillaspastia 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's weird, I would think the Romans would be the ones offended

[–]afxaloha89 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Completely agree

[–]StarWarz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (23子コメント)

Lolwut? It's not like when the Roman empire fell all people in Italy moved out or got killed. Most of the Italians today are direct descandants of the ancient Romans. And they are damn proud of their Roman ancestry. If you knew just a little bit about history you'd have known that Mussolini was very good at using that to his advantage...

[–]afxaloha89 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Your theory doesn't even make sense, when did the Roman Empire fall?

[–]StarWarz -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

476, why?

[–]elos_ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Why do you say that? The Roman Empire existed until 1453. They even reconquered a significant swath of Western lands.

[–]Forest-Gnome 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That would be eastern rome/byzantine empire.

[–]elos_ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

"Byzantine" is a term coined in the 19th century by historians; it did not exist at the time of the states existence. Neither did "Eastern Roman" -- that's another distinction made by modern historians. All it was called was the Roman Empire...because it was. Half the Roman Empire collapsed, the other half survived and even thrived for many of it for a thousand years.

[–]Forest-Gnome -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You keep copy-pasting that same bullshit. It doesn't make it true. Byzantine has been recorded in use by Constantine himself so shove your copy pasta up your ass.

[–]elos_ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No he did not. Lmao. Where the fuck did you hear this? Also what of my post is copy pasta? Just because I'm capable of forming a post longer than 2 sentences doesn't mean I'm pasta'ing. Like I said in my other post replying to this -- it was a term coined by 18th and 19th century thinkers to describe the life style of those living in the land which was known for its decadence. That's literally what the term "Byzantine" meant -- excessive decadence shown in Byzantium, a city which later became Constantinople. However the empire was still Roman in name and identity.

[–]StarWarz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because the Western Roman Empire fell in 476. The one that was governing Italian peninsule at the time. Which is what region we are talking about here...

[–]elos_ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Roman Empire extended beyond the Italian Peninsula. In fact it was centralized at what would later be called Constantinople/Istanbul and would survive (and thrive) for another thousand years.

[–]StarWarz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I know that. I never said that was the only region they were governing. The West Roman Empire was governed from Rome though.

[–]DuvalEaton 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Well really it feel in 1453, the Western one "fell" in the 470s but the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire kept chugging along for the next millennium.

[–]elos_ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

"Byzantine" is a contemporary term -- it was invented in the 19th century by historians. Up until its fall in 1453 it was called "The Roman Empire" by everybody.

[–]DuvalEaton 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Would it be inaccurate to refer to it as Byzantine then, just curious?

[–]Super_Deeg 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In a sense, no. It's like talking about the Hundred Years' War; it wasn't really a war, and it certainly didn't last a hundred years, but it works as a blanket term. Similar to the Eastern Roman Empire.

[–]elos_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The other reply has it right. It's just a term we use so in that sense it's incorrect. Just make no mistake; they were called Romans, they identified as Romans, they were Romans.

[–]StarWarz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

TIL

[–]Forest-Gnome -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Again, no it's not. Constantine himself had referred to it as such.

[–]elos_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What? No he did not, where in the ever living shit did you hear that from? Montesquieu and his contemporaries invented the word to use it to describe the life style of those they saw living in the "Jewel of the Empire" -- dishonesty, dissimulation and decadence. That's literally what "Byzantine" means. The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. You may be referring to the city of Byzantium which would be renamed Constantinople but the term "Byzantine Empire" or calling the Romans anything but Roman was an action taken after the fact by Victorian era historians.

If you're going to talk about something you have literally no knowledge of don't actively make shit up when backed into a corner.

TL;DR: You're conflating "Byzantium" with "Byzantine Empire". Byzantium was a city which was renamed Constantinople and was referred to by Constantine. "Byzantine Empire" is a term invented by historians much later on; the people of the time referred to themselves as the Romans.

[–]elos_ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're acting like there's some direct lineage from Italy at 0AD to 2014AD...which isn't true. You're also acting like the Roman Empire didn't exist until 1453...which it did. If anything the Germanic invasions into Italy, the Justinian incursions and conquests into Italy, and Islamic influence on the region kind of debunks this. Italian is thoroughly disassociated with Roman just as much as French is disassociated with Gaul. Citing Mussolini isn't a fair example because everyone wants to pretend they were descendants of the Roman Empire. Russia, the Ottomans, Germany...they all did it too dude.

[–]StarWarz -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Roman empire existed till 1453, but not in Italy... But yeah, direct descandants was probably not the best term to use. A lot of mixing up happened over 1500 years, but they're still (mostly) descandants of the people that used to live there 1500 years ago. And Italian is definitely not as far disassociated to Latin as French is to Gaul. Both French and Italian are descended from Latin, while Gaul is a Celtic language. The reason for this is that when Rome invaded what is now modern France they also made Latin the official language there.

[–]elos_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Roman empire existed till 1453, but not in Italy

So I guess all those Anatolians and Far Easterners didn't reconquer and resettle Italy. Huh. I also guess they didn't cling onto these territories and continue to breed in them with their Eastern genes and lineages until the turn of the millennium. They really only lost their foothold in Italy after the First Crusade but after that it doesn't really matter as your point is void -- the 5th to 11th century it was conquered by what was in many respects an Eastern power. So in that sense even if we stop the timeline at 1100 this fantasy of ethnic purity from 476 AD to 2014 AD is crushed.

EDIT: I'm just going to copy from a great post below because it pretty much sums up why this is crap.

Do you realize just how many invasions and attacks have been there for the Italians?! The northern Italian areas saw the pre-Roman 'barbarians.' The Romans themselves took incredible amounts of slaves. Many of these Roman slaves eventually won their freedom. Many of them were integrated into society. To be 'Roman' was not to be of a certain race (though it was important), but more importantly it was the acceptance of a certain set of ideals/values.

THEN came the Germanic and Hunnic tribes. THEN came Lombards from lower Scandinavia! THEN came the Greeks/Roman Empire (Byzantines)! THEN came the Franks! THEN came the Moors and Muslims from North Africa! THEN came the Normans! THIS is all from the first millennia CE

Venice built its riches upon slave trade during the Carolingian period (8th/9th centuries) and created the name 'slaves' (deriving from Slav/Slavoneis) as we know it today.

Italians are virtually nothing like the Romans of the Empire.

[–]MrAquarius -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look up my response above. What is perceived and remembered is not necessarily what actually happened.

All of Indo-Europeans are most likely related to the Romans. That is a mute point. Not all Italians are directly related (look at my post above)

[–]Droconian -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really? My cousin and I are Italian, and we don't care. The same type of people, same ethnicity.

[–]MeloJelo 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Uhh. . .they're really not the same in millions of ways. Probably more different than the same unless you're looking at race or something.

[–]LukaCola 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You know how I know you don't study history...?

[–]MrAquarius 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

NO! NO! NO! NO!

Do you realize just how many invasions and attacks have been there for the Italians?! The northern Italian areas saw the pre-Roman 'barbarians.' The Romans themselves took incredible amounts of slaves. Many of these Roman slaves eventually won their freedom. Many of them were integrated into society. To be 'Roman' was not to be of a certain race (though it was important), but more importantly it was the acceptance of a certain set of ideals/values.

THEN came the Germanic and Hunnic tribes. THEN came Lombards from lower Scandinavia! THEN came the Greeks/Roman Empire (Byzantines)! THEN came the Franks! THEN came the Moors and Muslims from North Africa! THEN came the Normans! THIS is all from the first millennia CE

Venice built its riches upon slave trade during the Carolingian period (8th/9th centuries) and created the name 'slaves' (deriving from Slav/Slavoneis) as we know it today.

Italians are virtually nothing like the Romans of the Empire.

I will not comment on China, as I do not know enough about it. But what I will say is that there is huge amount of dialectic diversity within mainland China. There have been migrations, famines, and wars that have shifted many people around. Many other reasons I don't know about as well.

Sorry to be so harsh. This is a pet peeve of mine.

[–]BEST_NARCISSIST 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The interests and motivations of the states stay the same, but the citizens and power structures change dramatically. Germany has alternatively been trying to unify itself and dominate Europe for almost a thousand years, but now they have merkel and the EU instead of the Karlings and the HRE.

[–]DuvalEaton 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Uhhhh, I don't think it's very historically accurate to equate the Karlings and Holy Roman Empire as "German" institutions.

[–]BEST_NARCISSIST 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Shhhhhhh I'm trying to look smart

[–]Danyboii 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How do you know this species is to young? Are you basing that on observations of another older intelligent species?

[–]StarWarz -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well yeah off course, most people in Italia are direct descandants of the Romans and the same applies for the Chinese. When an empire falls it's not like suddenly the entire population of the empire gets killed or moves. It's all about the change in power.

[–]elos_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And when we're talking about thousands of years between this with many different peoples invading and taking over and mixing that falls out. It's just as erroneous as saying the French today are direct descendents from the Gauls...