Why is the Byzantine era so underused in film and tv?

How is the west being against Byzantium not a legit response? Most westerners have no idea that the eastern part of the Roman empire survived until the 15th century, they think that Rome fell in the 5th century. This is owed to the fact that the Pope acknowledged Charlemagne as a Roman emperor and called the Byzantines Greeks. Additionally this highlights the divide between the Catholic and Latin west vs the Orthodox and Greek east

don't argue with blue pill holes

>Most westerners have no idea that the eastern part of the Roman empire survived until the 15th century
Congratulations, this is the stupidest thing I’ve seen on Yea Forums all week

>Why is the Byzantine era so underused in film and tv?
Americans are too uneducated to understand who and where when Byzantium is mentioned

Attached: 1276872623217.png (429x410, 10K)

Emperor I can assure you that our walls will hold.

This, it's not some culture war shit, most Americans literally don't know who or what the Byzantines were.

n-n-no u!
brilliant response.

hollywood can't even do medieval western europe properly

I didn’t say anything like “no u” only that you’re comment was stupid

>it makes the Christian's inarguably look like the heroes

Attached: 1557086070000.jpg (754x721, 63K)

>Those crusaders were heroes
Sacking a christian holy site makes the crusaders heroes?

to be fair, Americans really don't know shit about the first Rome other than gladiators and it was big, but those shows and movies still do incredibly well. I won't accept the theory that the audience is just too dumb to "get it." There are plenty of stories and battles that would make for some top tier tv or film in the Byzantine history, so why is no one using it?

not him, but if your post is flat out wrong and just shitty banter... what do you want him to say?

The West is mostly Catholic and Protestant and Jewish. Something Orthodoxy has shat on throughout all history.

>still no argument

Attached: think.png (2688x2688, 173K)

>Orthodox
>Christians
Nice try, Andreas

Orthodox are the original christians. Catholics are a split off the way protestant was a split off of catholicism.

The crusaders also sacked a Catholic city beforehand just to pay off Venetian debts.

Give your evidence that most people living in Western Europe didn’t know that the Byzantine Empire existed

Why not a movie about the Seleucid Empire?

Attached: 234342234.png (558x2173, 641K)

Justinian's reign would make for some great TV. They probably avoid it because it will increase anti muslim sentiment, calls to return constantinople to the greeks

You’re delusional, Andreas, both versions of Christianity split from each other at the same time
That was wrong of them to do so, but they redeemed themselves by taking Constantinople

>Justinian reign
>Muslims

Literally only because the bishop of rome thought he should have more power than he had.

Nonsense, into the 11th century there westerners dreaming of reuniting the west and east Romes

mmm I think Constantine XI would be the one who would probably have the most shots to fire at Muslims. Justinian I looked to the west far more than the east.

This is just retarded. The Western Kings and Byzantines were exchanging embassies and marriages up until 1453

And he was right, Byzantines were practicing heresy in the highest levels of government throughout their history, how could they be defenders of the faith if they didn’t even practice it?

You go ask your average person in a western country if they know about it

Unless if you're reffering to the Middle Ages. In that case you're retarded for thinking that this was the original argument and missed the point completely

Oh that’s my bad, I misread your post

And the catholic church wasn't committing heresy?
That is very naive of you.

>whatabout

No they weren’t.

Americans are kike-worshipping evangeloids

Most ignorant person ITT.

Give examples of the Catholic Church committing heresy at the same time the Byzantines were

Because it would remind people that most of the Middle East and Anatolia was Christian for almost one-thousand years and thus would seriously disrupt the whole “lol stupid bigoted fanatical crusades were fundamental Christians conquering otherwise peaceful people, it’s lile a prelude to colonialism” myth that has sprouted ever since the original enlightenment era revision of what the crusades actually were, beginning as just an attempt to show the follows of organised faith but cemented in the common imagination over time to form the current revisionist binary and simply incorrect view of the Middle East, the crusades and Christianity in general.

How about you give claims that the Orthodox church was committing heresy since you made the claim first.

Iconoclasm

>I don't know anything about history

The Crusades weren't heroic at all, they were heinous genocides in the name of a god that doesn't exist.

The pope even sent children to war at one point.

>short period of history negates the entirety of the rest

>eastern romans/Greeks fighting wave after wave of every kind of Zerg that Asia spawned as well as every hungry little shit from the balkans
>still last for a thousand years
>Europe loses half its territory to kebabs as soon as Byzantium falls

Most under appreciated empire ever

>a god that doesn't exist
Prove it.

>duuude, murican's don't know shhhiiiieeettt
>that's dumb, people know who the Byzantines were
>brooooo i'm right just think about it!! XD
You're getting out what you're putting in here.

Attached: lol3.jpg (349x642, 52K)

>have multiple chiefs, all working together for Our Lord
>one decides he is above the rest and makes his own thing
>but everyone else is wrong
Hmmmmm

I don't need to prove someone else's claim.

That's what I thought.

>prove a negative

Attached: 8d6.jpg (645x729, 81K)

>The pope even sent children to war at one point.

It's something special when you can claim something with no evidence, be completely wrong, yet still speak of it like it's fact.

>95% of humanity believes in some form of God
>God's not real yo
>prove it
>I..I don't have to

Because it would destroy the jewish narrative of "muh evil crusades". The Eastern Roman Empire was literally on the defensive against islamic invasion from war hungry caliphates through its entire existence and it was in a constant state of war, so you really can't circumvent that

They made a game about the Byzantines (Assassin's Creed) and it was the biggest bullshit ever. The Byzantines presented as decadent, amoral "templars" while the Ottomans as the opposite - the moral, the righteous and honorable people. imagine this bullshit because that's what you get if a film is made about them.

Attached: 220px-John_II_Komnenos[1].jpg (220x370, 50K)

BYZANTINE GENOCIDE

BEST DAY OF MY LIFE

Attached: 0x0-mehmed-the-conqueror-the-man-who-brought-glory-back-to-istanbul-1527883511724.jpg (500x664, 74K)

t. retard

If your referring to the children’s crusades none of those got papal approval, and even there extent and historicity is in debate

Funny that enlightened atheists like you are always so quick to shit on the crusades for retaking land that was Christian for 1000 years in the name of a fake God but not the Muslims who entirely through war and blood conquered and converted those lands in the first place 600 years before. If your going to be some intellectual all seeing atheist above us all at least be consistent and recognise that at least originally the east came to Christianity under the Romans largely peacefully, but was conquered by Muslims in blood, leading to an obvious and expected Christian response.

I gave you an example of heresy, now you give me an example of the Catholic Church committing heresy

Which God is it? Everyone you ask has a different answer. They can't all be right

What's the proof of gods existence?

Was a good game tho.

>The pope even sent children to war at one point.

ya fuck ya'll niggas, just gonna make shit up too. That crusade that happened where them fucking black mambas killed Achilles and flew kites to Prester John's kingdom was gangsta shit

Lol they let half the Christian world fall to Islam and got raped Arabs and Turks for most of their history.

video games are cucked.
in Wolfenstein old Breed they portray Henry the Fowler as some undead zombie nazi. sjw retardness

>They can't all be right
Why not?
If God can be anything, he can be everything.
>What's the proof of gods existence?
The universe exists.

Get some taste, shithead. It was an atrocious game, even discounting the horrible butchery of the times.

>Jewish
Don't think so.

Attached: hairy turk.jpg (500x396, 27K)

>if god can be anything
Who says he can be anything?

>they can all be right
contradicting theories can't both be right

Byzantines were mad that “Latins” were outjewing them, sacking the city doesn’t justify it but people on those days were very tribal and revengeful

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

Nice trips.
I literally don't give a fuck about history. I just liked the gameplay and the story.
It was a nice conclusion to Ezio.

>Who says he can be anything?
Practically every religion.
>contradicting theories
Who's to say God didn't tell some people shit and tell other people something entirely different?

Daily reminder the first Crusader Godfrey de Bouillon was Orthodox and went against the Vatican’s wishes.

Daily reminder St. George was Orthodox.

Daily reminder the Romans who converted to Christianity were all Orthodox.

Daily reminder the Vatican groomed and supplied Mohammad and helped to create Islam in order to kill Orthodox Christians throughout the Levant and Egypt (similar to what we see Western nations doing with ISIS).

Daily reminder Orthodox priests are allowed to fuck and have families.

>extent and historicity is in debate

There's no fucking debate, we know for a fact that the Children's Crusade never fucking happened. There WAS a popular movement by peasants in both Germany and France lead by 'children', the German boy was most likely a young man, 15, he would have been considered a young adult at the time. Both both movements garnered small backings, nothing even close to a fighting force. The French group never made it out of France before it fizzled and disbanded and most of the German group turned back at the alps, and those who didn't settled in Lombard Italy, there's no record of them even making it to the sea.

>the universe exists
That's not proof of a conscious creator. That's your claim.

>Withstand Persians
>withstand Arabs
>withstand steppeniggers
>withstand first Turks
All the while having other minor forces biting at their heels constantly. Empires would rise and attack Byzantium at their peak, putting constant pressure onto the empire while the singular enemies just got destroyed. They all wanted Constantinople

Greeks are Turks too

Then how else was the universe created? It didn't simply pop into being. That would be ludicrous.

wow
never go full retard m8

If you're talking about the sacking of Constantinople the Church literally had nothing to do with it. Venice saw an opportunity to fuck off one of their largest trade rivals in the eastern Med and jumped at the chance. Venice is living proof that you don't need to be a jew to be greedy.

>brown people instigating and getting btfo
gee, I wonder how that would be perceived now

Ottomans didn't make Anatolia any less Christian. The Greek Orthodox people were still there until the 20th century when the Ottoman Empire dissolved and the subsequent war between Greece and Turkey caused the mass migration of millions of ethnic greeks

Every religion has their own ideas you moron. Even Christianity is divided. Why do you think so many religious wars have been fought? Don't give me this "everyone is right" crap.

west Turks are Balkanized and Greeks are mostly stock Neolithic pre IE DNA

Byzantines are basically proto-Muslims. A weird mutt nation of Greeks and Arabs under a Western European banner.
Leftists won't like it because they are Christian and /pol/fags won't like it because they were brown.

Nothing that guy said is wrong. The "Imperium Graecorum" was seen by the west as illegitimate concerning its Roman claims. By the 11th century it was seen as heretical as well.

They lost Palestine, Syria, Egypt, all of North Africa, parts of Anatolia, and Sicily to Arabs, allowing them all to become vast majority Muslim except for Sicily.
Then they went and lost Anatolia and the Balkans to Turks

Nobody knows but it's wrong to assume a conscious being and assume that you're right. Let alone a conscious being with whom you can have a relationship.

Just because you apparently can't wrap your head around both sides in a conflict being right doesn't change anything.

>Byzantines are basically proto-Muslims
The Iconoclast Anatolians were.
>A weird mutt nation of Greeks and Arabs under a Western European banner
What does this even mean? There were hardly any Arabs in the core Byzantine territories.

Because it's the responsibility of gayreeks to tell their own stories. Just because they're too lazy to tell their own stories doesn't mean that the successor countries of the WRE have to do their job for them.

Why not? That's how 95% of the world sees it.

But how do you know they are right?

>promote it as a story of rome
>people wont understand why there arent any legions and golden ealges and caesars
>promote it as greek history
>people wont understand why there are no hoplites
>promote it as holy war crusade movies
>people wont uderstand why they look like muslims

Because it's an assumption that makes people feel better. Doesn't mean it's true

Attached: wenecja.jpg (1680x1050, 600K)

How does that change what I said? There have been very few states in history as pressured as them, every fucking inbred and their mom tried to conquer them

Doesn't mean its false either.
Until we know one way or the other its pointless to argue.
Why do you think they are wrong?

Because you said they withstood Arabs and Turks when they very clearly got heir asses kicked by them

based Vatican

Jelly seethe. Also St. George was a Greek. Anglos, even though they love St. George, practically have 0 relation to him. I think that part is really swell.

So what?

But they did, and there were the Seljuks too. They might have lost some land but you seem to hold them to some impossible standard of not losing any battles/land over hundreds of years.

Muslim nations bred Zerg hordes due to the wives being concentrated and having a massive amount of incels. And all of them attacked Byzantium.

Brb burning Arabs with Greek fire

This was a very good read.

Attached: shob.jpg (1546x2387, 962K)

Byzantium is reddit.

Dude their entire empire was conquered by them, you could not be coping harder if you tryed

They fought the biggest caliphates one after another, as well as multiple nations from North, South, East and West. And they survived. They only fell down due to internal strife derived from the flawed government system they inherited from Rome. It's pretty impressive all in all.

>And they survived.
They literally didn’t, their empire no longer exists. Cope harder

It's only pointless because religious claims are unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Conveniently.

An assumption is false until it is shown to be true. There is zero evidence of a conscious creator.

>religious claims are unverifiable and unfalsifiable
So is how the universe was created.

It makes me like St George even more :)

Because why make a movie about Byzantine era when you can make another Holocaust movie

Putin is heir to Rome

Are you autistic? Should I have been more specific and said "they survived for more than 1000 years in a constant state of warfare against mudslime hordes"?

But they didn’t, nearly their entire empire was conquered by them

That's why the only truthful thing we can say is "we don't know". Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong

>So is how the universe was created
not necessarily

>They literally didn’t
That user said
>caliphates
And it's true the Byzantines ultimately succeeded in defending themselves from the caliphs. The turks were another matter entirely.

...you talk to the universe?

By Ottoman Turks, after a thousand years of Asian Zerg faggotry. That’s a tremendous feat

He mentioned other nations from all directions as well

but we actually have evidence that the universe exists unlike any god

The only real crusade worth taking note of is the 1st Crusade.
That shit was biblical and displayed the power and zeal of faith and sacrifice in trying times as they push towards Jerusalem to retake it.
So, if you're going to write a show about the Crusades you better focus there initially.

Although, some anons are right about that would be in bad taste to run a show about it nowadays though due to high tensions all around.

Attached: Gustave_dore_crusades_bohemond_alone_mounts_the_rampart_of_antioch.jpg (800x1063, 235K)

Turks only started invading around the beggining of the 9th century. That’s about 450 years survived

catholic here,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

Bulgars, Normans, Serbs, and Venetians.

lolwut

The empire was practically more richer and stable during Basil II than Justinian's time. And up until Manuel I Komnenos (1180) the empire was by far the strongest military and economic power in Europe

Attached: Byzantium.png (800x450, 211K)

>bad taste
When would it have ever been in good taste? Just make the movie already.

There were wars against the slavs that were contemporary to the caliphates. Byzantium was basically finished off by Manzikert and don't let revisionists try to tell you otherwise. The Balkans were always a shitshow and the Empire depended on the relative stability of Anatolia. Once that was gone it was just a matter of time barring the Balkans magically becoming not the worst place in Europe.

>Strongest military power
>Takes 50 years to conquer Bulgaria

What about everyone else? Persians, Arabs, even Huns and that’s just on the east...

yeah? the bugmen alexander crushed under his boot without even stopping until his men told him it was getting gross? fuck off. greeks were so busy posturing against each other they didn't have the will to do anything but stand by and watch impotently as their empire collapsed

Pretty much every major loss in Byzantine history was caused by Greek traitors rather than actual effort on behalf of their enemies.
Commanders refused to show up for Yarmouk, commanders refused to show up for Manzikert, Nikephoros Botaneiates opened up Nikomedia to the Turks to bribe them to help him usurp the empire, a Greek commander ruined the reconquest of Sicily by rebelling, a deposed Angelos Emperor caused the Fourth Crusade, the Palaiologoi used the Serbs in their civil war against the Kantekouzenoi which let them take modern Greece, the Kantekouzenoi in turn allied with the Ottomans and opened up cities in Thrace to them as a bribe which let them overrun Europe.

Greeks were their own worst enemy.

This + it pushes the meme that Rome collapsed in the 3rd century, the dark ages, and ignores literally a thousand years of progress and Christian success

go back
I SAID GO BACK

Attached: 1511843380718.gif (320x201, 128K)

We do not have evidence on how the universe came into being.

Bulgaria was one of the strongest European nations back then, arguably in the top 5. The fact that they did manage to conquer them is impressive.

based bolt thrower
youtube.com/watch?v=nUqfASftDFs

Attached: 20170124223653_1.jpg (1024x768, 321K)

It's a lot of ground to cover (no pun intended) so a television series would be more adequate.

Attached: 1536005517_the-crusades-gerry-embleton.jpg (900x631, 130K)

Well we have some. Not enough to reach a full conclusion but there is some evidence. Most importantly we know the universe does indeed exist which puts it on a much stronger footing than any religious argument

Attached: 103837322107654.jpg (708x826, 567K)

ok?

They lost half their empire to Arabs and Persians

>Byzantium was basically finished off by Manzikert and don't let revisionists try to tell you otherwise. The
Nowhere near. The empire could have survived up to Andronikos III

This is just completely retarded

Very true

Nika Riots alone would make it absolute kino

Attached: 1558362692906.png (480x469, 293K)

To Arabs. Persia, another major power, was demolished by Byzantium

>2,000+ Greek civilians killed
And nothing of value was lost

No, the top 5 would have been Byzantium, HRE, France, the Scandinavian union, and Hungary

ALEXIOOOOOS WHERE IS MY MONEY

You’re just pulling things out of your ass at this point. The entire Persian empire was conquered by the caliphate

>This is just completely retarded
no way to describe it that doesn't make it sound retarded m8

Data from cosmic readings show a Big Bang like event but there is no evidence of a conscious creator with a purpose.

Purpose and meaning are human qualities that we often project onto other things

We have literally no evidence as to before the big bang.

>what is the 4th crusade.

>Byzantium was basically finished off by Manzikert and don't let revisionists try to tell you otherwise
This isn't even remotely true. By 1081 they lost every square inch of Anatolia, but within two decades they had reconquered most of their pre-Basil II lands, and in the mid 12th century they actually reconquered Bosnia, Serbia, and half of Croatia for the first time since Justinian:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sirmium
The rise of the abysmally bad Angelos dynasty in 1185 is what fucked them, so by 1204 the Empire was already in shambles and was about to disintegrate into rump states even if the Crusade didn't happen.

Attached: 1100.png (548x382, 293K)

sure. So a person saying "this is what it what it was like before the big bang" is equivalent to someone saying "the christian god exists", or any god exists for that matter

Meanwhile I never hear people claim they know what conditions were like before the big bang, but I hear people assert religious stuff all the time

Because they were done for after spending all their might fighting Byzantium. Arabs were an unexpected player to both byzantines and Persians. Heraclius decimated fighting force of Persia who was then easy prey

>France
No. France was very decentralized and weak at this time. The state existed only in name and the king wasn't powerful at all. In fact, most of the dukes were more powerful than him. It could barely defend itself from viking raiders. I wouldn't put it over Samuel's Bulgaria.
>the Scandinavian union,
wut? The Scandis at that time were mud dwellers. What union?
>Hungary
rump newly established state
>HRE
True
>Byzantium
True.

>Heraclius decimated fighting force of Persia who was then easy prey
That was after he had already been defeated and Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and most of Anatolia lost

Very true. Fuck the rest of you.

What the fuck does it matter? In the end he defeated the Persian kikes, got back all the territories, made them pay large tribute and return back everything stolen.

Look up the Moors who attacked and conquered Portugal, Spain etc. Then how the Norwegian chads responded like heroes and kicked them out. You fucking cuck lover. Deus vult nigger

>but I hear people assert religious stuff all the time
It pisses you off doesn't it.

Attached: pay debts.gif (450x379, 406K)

>sent children to war
better than letting them be raped and killed after all the men die.

> France was very decentralized and weak at this time.
No it wasn’t, it was one of the largest in terms of landmass and population. The King’s authority was weak, but he could still call upon a large amount of soldiers from his own land and all his vassals
>It could barely defend itself from viking raiders. I wouldn't put it over Samuel's Bulgaria.
But they did, and Samuel was defeated
>What union?
Union between Denmark, Norway, and England en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire
>rump newly established state
They were still a powerful force in Europe, larger than Samuels Bulgaria

So why isn't Yea Forums meme casting this movie?

Clint Eastwood as Dandolo

Cause all roles are Idris Elba.

Our jewish schools literally don't teach us anything about european history. We spend months on egypt and a few days on rome. The only thing we really learn about europe in my public education was the black plague for some reason. And then they teach about the conquistadors and how they genocided the natives, but never talk about how it was disease. I don't think they want us to know how important christianity was in western history. We spent more time learning about islam than any other religion. And our english class literally spent months on anne frank and the holohoax.
We spend a lot of time on american history but most of it is muh slavery and how mexicans were epic cowboys. A total waste of 13 years of life. College isn't any better.

I wouldn't say that, its just that the analogy you are trying to make doesn't even happen. There are no scientists telling people that they are certain about what it was like before the Big Bang, this just isn't a thing

>No it wasn’t, it was one of the largest in terms of landmass and population
yeah which it couldn't exploit due to that decentralization. that's why it got its ass kicked by the english a bunch of times despite england being nowhere close to their size

Yeah it pisses you off.
Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing so much on Yea Forums about "religionfags".

where'd you get your talking points? George Carlin?

Byzantines also fell due to not adopting early cannons due to them being too expensive

People claiming to know something they can't possible know pisses me off.

Especially when they sugar coat it with things like meaning of life, afterlife and divine justice.

this

Not until the 14th century

John Stamos as Justinian I.

History books and a basic understanding of western morality

So your mad that some people live happy lives with spiritual contentment while you are angry lonely and bitter in your mom's basement?

>basic understanding of western morality
you mean morality predicated on Christian values? get bent.

You realize there are a bunch of people here. I am not arguing "so much"

you need to be over 18 to post here, son

Attached: 1528693381495.jpg (600x450, 19K)

People who know nothing about history don't know anything about the Byzantines

People who know a little bit of history can't hide their dickriding of the Byzantines

People who know a lot of history understand that nearly every single tragedy to befall the empire was a result of autistic palace intrigue or imperial power struggles

Again with your subjectivity. They're not all happy and content. There is a lot of frustration and mental turmoil caused by believing things that aren't true.

It's not about how you feel, it's about what's true.

Yet you're the one who believes ancient fairy tales

>There is a lot of frustration and mental turmoil caused by believing things that aren't true
Then why do most normal people that believe in God live normal happy lives full of spiritual contentment?

>full of spiritual contentment?
WTF does this even mean? Spirits or ghosts or whatever are not even real

thousands of years of theological study and deep spiritualism is more real and meaningful than your moral relativism and materialism. I hope you find the way before it's too late, stranger.

Attached: 1548466274529.png (1283x717, 1.84M)

Finish high school then come back.

I don't get that impression. Most people I meet aren't spiritual or content, even if they believe in god.

Then move out of the big city.

> it wasn’t, it was one of the largest in terms of landmass and population
Doesn't matter how much landmass a territory has if the king can not excert his rights over his subjects. The French were weak at the time, they couldn't even manage to defend their borders from mere raiders.
>But they did, and Samuel was defeated
Sure, by the second strongest state Euroasia (the first being the Song dynasty of China)
>Union between Denmark, Norway, and England
You do realize that that "empire" didn't exist during Samuel's time? Not to mention the empire had approximately 10,000 men. Bulgaria could field 50,000 men easily and Samuel fought numerous battles with Basil and the Byzantines with armies numbering 20,000 men on each side. There's simply no comparison here. Bulgaria was far more developed economically and military than the pagan states of Scandinavia.
>They were still a powerful force in Europe, larger than Samuels Bulgaria
They weren't. Not at the time. The Bulgarians were far more powerful, evidenced by the fact that they experienced a great deal of difficulty in defeating a mere duke of Bulgaria while Samuel was fighting the Byzantines. They also feared the Pechengs who were practically vassals of Buglaria at the time, doing thier bidding.

Not those anons but they mean people who aren’t but blasted faggots who get mad at other people for not being an edgy atheist, unlike you

I'm pretty sure that they don't tell you ghosts are real in high school

What's theological study? Studying ancient texts that have been edited and translated countless times and pretending it's the perfect word of a supreme creator?

Funny because thats where most people live. Rural towns are the minority.

So being "Spiritually content" means to not contradict people when they say false things? Just being a sheep?

No but I'm pretty sure they explain what the word spirituality means.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire

>one of the strongest nations in europe
>collapses in less than 20 years of existence, due internal weakness

>christcuck mad the got demolished by chads

I what possible class do they cover spirituality in high school? Are you from the deep south? Did they also ban evolution from your school?

being full on larping christian crusader is the new fedora tipping atheist
both are shit

>>one of the strongest nations in europe
Nowhere near. Cnut conquered England because England at the time was basically negroid Africa level of civilization. They had no economy, no structure, nothing. Same way a mere duke like William the Bastard swooped down and took the whole thing. England was a shithole at the time.

It’s a concept you are clearly too infantile to understand (hence everyone keeps telling you to grow the fuck up) suffice to say it’s accepting that other people think differently than you and that’s okay

In a dictionary.

I agree, the guy I was replying to is the one who implied they were one of the top five strongest.

>suffice to say it’s accepting that other people think differently than you and that’s okay
I am pretty sure that that is not the definition of spirituality

>everyone has their own truth

You simply can't have 7 billion people walking around each believing their own version. Claims about the universe are either true or not.

>(hence everyone keeps telling you to grow the fuck up)
>if I keep calling you a child and pretend it makes sense and is different people maybe he will actually think he is a child

What is even going on with you?

>BELIEFS CANNOT BE SUBJECTIVE

We all think you are a child because you can't seem to look up the definition of a word in a dictionary.
You know, the skills you supposedly learned in school.

It's politically inconvenient and most of the potential viewers are too stupid to realize greeks still existed in the middle ages and the roman empire didn't collapse in 476

Stop calling yourself we

The Byzantines basically pulled Tiananmen square massacre beta version when they stopped the riots desu

I only said you are of an infintile mind set. Every other user seems to think you’re a child. You okay?

There's at least 2 people including myself calling you a child.
In english we refer to multiple people as "we".

They didn't really do all that much after the First Crusade. The empire was stagnant, and also not really an empire anymore.

It's been translated and edited to fit into the original message as best as possible. That's why the books that were omitted are considered gnostic. Orthodox don't necessarily recognize it as the absolute perfect word because we know that it's written by man who is flawed. Your point would be salient were you talking to a Protestant or its offshoots. Theological study is the process in which we solidify, understand, and defend our views against dissenters such as yourself. I'm no expert, but if you claim to be as open minded or enlightened as you are, I recommend you actually look up some of the philosophies behind Orthodox Christianity. There's an interesting video on youtube where a protestant visits a Greek church

Why are religious people so obsessed with ad hominem instead of arguing a point. Is it because none of their spiritual metaphysical mumbo jumbo is actually based in any evidence?

>The empire was practically more richer and stable during Basil II than Justinian's time

I don't know about that claim homie, that's a hard pill to swallow. Basil II did next to nothing about the corruption that was eating the Empire apart, yeah he enriched the state while Justinian almost bankrupted it, but his successors all had to deal with crippling bureaucracy and disloyal generals.

I would say Basil ruled the empire better but left it without much guidance , Justinian's reforms saved the empire, without his reforms infighting and corruption would have surely killed Byzantium before the Turks.

>WHY DOESNT EVERYONE THINK LIKE ME

>countless enemies on all sides
>chads
why do lesser peoples feel superior when all they ever have are greater numbers?

Its good because its old.

Experiences are subjective, facts about the world aren't. Know the difference.

t. retards
a stable society requires a commonality between all the people residing in it.

Religious people are usually quiet.
Its the fedora wearing atheists who run screaming their heads off that God doesn't exist.

>People who know a lot of history understand that nearly every single tragedy to befall the empire was a result of autistic palace intrigue or imperial power struggles

Like with almost any empire ever?

>it's good because it's old

So is slavery, witch burnings and dying from a tooth infection.

>they really didn't do that much after the First Crusade

The entirety of the Komnenid dynasty would like to talk to you. Nearly 80 years of burning cash to make the Crusader States and Hungary their bitch and then going bankrupt trying to invade italy (fucking again)

Tell that to liberals and blacks who cry about muh dibersty.

>calls others retards
>says the most retarded shit world view he can think of

God created big bang and let everything be,ñ. Checkmate faggot
>ib4 but Bible
Metaphorical, never literal

>Religious people are usually quiet.
That's the most blatant lie I've read today, and I've been on Yea Forums for at least an hour.

this. are there any other christians than the westboro baptist church that are parading in the streets, causing property damage, and throwing fits when they lose elections? Hell even starting a thread about a religious empire gets all these hoes mad

do you honestly belive this? Religious people are way the fuck more vocal about their beliefs because they are so much more socially acceptable. The large majority of atheists don't even tell the people around them they are atheists

Didn't know we had such simpletons here on /his/.

You can't possibly know what happened before the Big Bang

>are there any other christians than the westboro baptist church that are parading in the streets, causing property damage, and throwing fits when they lose elections
are you implying that atheists do this? What even is this comment?

This has to be b8.
No one persecutes atheists in first world countries.

>People claiming to know something they can't possible know pisses me off.
You are a faggot, no proof need it I just know it

Its all gaslighting. Which fits, considering we're talking about religious people.

weren't you mocking the very concept of homogeneity?
>says the most retarded shit world view he can think of
before I call you a faggot, explain why you believe a society can be stable when sharing the same space are a myriad of different tribes that have conflicting histories and who hold diametrically opposed moral and world views?

Attached: beforeicallyouafaggot.png (454x286, 148K)

I apologize to the Komnenids then.

>You can't possibly know what happened before the Big Bang
As much as you can't possible know what "God" really it is

not our fault you people cant procreate enough

Attached: getfucked.jpg (2928x2928, 357K)

>weren't you mocking the very concept of homogeneity?
No?

that is what I'm implying. liberals be mad and atheist. You sure you know what's going on, mate?

only like 4% of Americans are outwardly atheists, it is very much not socially acceptable. Obviously "persecute" is an absurd way to describe this and not something anyone said, but most atheists are not very comfortable talking about it, I am definitely not telling people I work with about it

Exactly, so anyone who has claims about god is wrong

papa Manuel forgives

Attached: Manuel_I_Comnenus[1].jpg (397x606, 115K)

see

>it is very much not socially acceptable
Just because it is not common doesn't mean its not socially acceptable.
In first world countries, no one gives a shit.

Nice argument there. Just what I expected from a religious moron

But I am not a "liberal", are you seriously going to paint the Hillary crowd as atheists?

Atheism is more of a libertarian thing, its associated with more educated logical types, not emotional feminine democrat ideology

Women are like 20% more likely to be religious than men

his successors literally removed bulgaria from the yoke of the empire by revoking the favoriable tax laws he gave to them thus giving them cause to riot, retard.

everything he did to stabalize the empire, reform the military and expand it was undone by retards being greedy.

you were mocking the very concept of a unified worldview. a morally and ideologically homogenous space. were you not the one who typed in response to

most westerners have never heard of it so it's not seen as something that can draw money

When will HBO fund a Byzantine/ium tv show?
I want that Rome feel again

>anyone who has claims about god is wrong
It's more complicate than that. Absolutism or literal sense yes, symbolically it can have some value, as you are not using "God" directly and symbolism doesn't have to be 100% ground in reality

No that was not me.

The first crusade was the only kino crusade. All the sequels were shitty.

you would be surprised

Do not want. You just need to read any westcuck "historian" to understand their deep rooted bias and hatred. They will pretend again that Imperium Romanum was a backwater corrupt shithole and their enemies were progressive liberators.

Attached: Justinian555AD.png (2111x1144, 216K)

It's not your fault sweetheart, God made you this way, maybe you sucking dicks have some usefulness in its divine plan

There's no way he can wipe properly with that hairy asscrack.
>t. hairy ass

liberalism is not compatible with christianity. they operate on very different moral frameworks. relatively speaking, liberals are more irreligious than people that hold more rightwing views. judging by that and the rhetoric you see from liberals, as a shorthand I can operate under the assumption that most liberals can be considered atheists or bad Christians. are you really going to paint the religious as not being educated and logical?

bruh then why'd you respond?

Attached: 1524600230447.gif (200x200, 1.89M)

That was me

>In first world countries, no one gives a shit.
This is flat out wrong, unless you don't consider the US a first world country.

I'm not arguing about what their successors did, I'm arguing about what they intended to leave behind for their successors. Justinian's main goal was to stabilize the Empire's inner failings, he recognized that for the Empire to succeed someone had to cut through the corruption court politics that was eating away at the unity of the empire.(and yeah I get it, Justinian had a conquest boner that drained the empire's funds, but given the fact that no one could have foreseen the rise of Islam his conquest boner was pretty justified)

Basil had literally no interest in imperial reform, he was a general, his main goal was conquest and suppression. He enriched the state though conquest and empowered the army, but he did nothing to solve the internal issues that were tearing the empire apart.

Cause its Yea Forums? Why the fuck wouldn't I respond when someone says something fucking stupid?

very cool

Attached: 1524350694731.jpg (750x1024, 57K)

I live in the US and I have never in my 38 years of life met someone that actually cared whether someone was religious or atheist outside of a politician.

ohhhh you're retarded. my mistake, user

Attached: 1528244218161.gif (225x225, 481K)

education correlates very strongly with being irreligious

Attached: importance-of-religion.png (600x344, 77K)

Attached: high school.png (750x595, 136K)

not him, but can't blame a nigga for shit he didn't do. Basil probably couldn't even pronounce the word reform, that nigga just swung a sword around

Attached: religious attendance.png (1484x1151, 697K)

That's mostly because colleges tear God out of your soul.

Attached: USA_HDI.gif (1667x982, 118K)

this
they should do heraclius

education in general does that. Religion only lives in a place of fear and darkness, knowledge drives it away

fair enough. I still object to the notion that they are illogical. And although education somewhat correlates with IQ, I still don't think it's fair to paint religious people as stupid. Being educated doesn't necessarily mean one is going to be smarter. I'd say nowadays being educated only correlates with being irreligious because they aren't properly educated on religion. Students are educated to oppose religion. I would know. I've been to University lol

How come normies don't even know why the Byzantine Empire is yet Byzantine threads on Yea Forums are always super active with every random user giving their two cents on Byzantine history?
t. actual Byzantinist

Turkish TV depicts them a lot. Obviously as antagonists but they don't hide the fact that they were basically minding their own business when the Sultan descended on them for the glory of Islam

Be careful your fedora doesn't fall off.

There is no problem with metaphors. There is a problem when people make factual claims about the nature of the universe

And what replaces religion is a constant chilling thought that you're basically an insect living a meaningless existence that will be over in a geologic second

what metric is "development" measured? I'm assuming it means urbanization? If that's the case, I'd say it takes a lot of foresight to know that settling too much land isn't too good for people.

Education is inherently opposed to religion. There is no university propaganda against religion specifically, its just that education teaches you real things and reduces the need for you to have a god to explain facts. This has been going on broadly with society for a few hundred years now as education abilities and our cumulative scientific knowledge increases.

Plus I think on of the very basic functions of education and universities should be to combat superstition and falsehoods

It's only meaningless if you live a meaningless life

Great ad hominem, because religious people totally are not know for their weird hats

There are actually
>people
this retarded browsing Yea Forums RIGHT NOW

Your life is objectively meaningless. You're literally just advanced bacteria clinging to the surface of Earth lol you aren't special because your personal perspective tricks you into thinking so.

it's good to have a certain amount of skepticism, but if you explore enough you come to realize Christ is the answer. In other words, let's say you're raised in religion. You question it, research other views, and come to the conclusion that you are at least agnostic. I'd say that at that point you're not finished. If you settle at atheism/agnosticism you haven't finished your research.

I don't consider it chilling at all
>what metric is "development" measured?
Its basically affluence and life expectancy. I don't remember all the factors that go in but it is not directly related to urbanization (though urbanization does in some ways qualitatively improve life). In generally the most urban areas, minority inhabited inner cities have very low development numbers, its mostly the suburban and semirural areas that have the highest scores as that is where most educated and productive people live. Just compare the midwest to the south, the south is a little less urbanized but way the fuck less developed

>There is no university propaganda against religion specifically
b8.

>objectively
Meaning is subjective not objective

And there is a massive difference between humans and bacteria. Complexity and consciousness

>it's good to have a certain amount of skepticism, but if you explore enough you come to realize Christ is the answer.
I assure you that exploration does not lead to this conclusion. Falling back to darkness does

>I'd say that at that point you're not finished. If you settle at atheism/agnosticism you haven't finished your research.
Almost no one has ever gone from being an atheist to a religious person, research and education and knowledge almost exclusively drive people away, not toward religion

I don't know what classes are supposedly full of propaganda, perhaps some humanities are like that but I mostly just took science classes and religion was never really discussed, we just learned stuff about how the universe works and those stuff happen to inherently contradict religious thought but I assure you my biochem class wasn't specifically set up to show intelligent design isn't true

here's your film bro
youtube.com/watch?v=yH5ccW1_DUg

clearly underage junior in high schools taking US His. B&N plz jannies

>Education is inherently opposed to religion
This isn't true. Some of the greatest scientists ever known were Christians.
>There is no university propaganda against religion specifically
absolutely false. I'll give you benefit of the doubt and just say that you may need to look a bit closer. take any history course
> education teaches you real things and reduces the need for you to have a god to explain facts
God speaks universal truths. Not things that are as trite as explaining exactly what an atom is. God is completely compatible with science.
>This has been going on broadly with society for a few hundred years now as education abilities and our cumulative scientific knowledge increases
Aside from getting rid of disease, does any of that really matter? People are unhappier than ever and are without meaning. Basic Nietzsche right here. If you operate without the immaterial and solely on the material, you will descend into nihilism where nothing matters. "We're all just star dust so fuck it. Life is just a coincidence! Fuck it." What's stopping someone from taking that sort of attitude and taking it to the next level? Life is meaningless? Where have we heard that before.
>Plus I think on of the very basic functions of education and universities should be to combat superstition and falsehoods
You've snuck in the premise that Christianity is based on superstitions and falsehoods. Prove it. Much of it is based on natural law. Genuinely curious in you take on this.

>I mostly just took science classes and religion was never really discussed
so how can you speak for the rest of uni?

There is not Byzantium after 1204