Jump to content

History Thread!


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

I don't know much about the Byzantines, but I highly recommend this Youtube miniseries-

All their videos are great for any history geeks. The First Crusade, Admiral Yi and Sengoku Jidai (Japanese Warring States period) series' are especially recommended.

How has Jace never seen this? What an awesome contribution to society, an informative and engaging history lesson. Do you know if there's some kind of tribute I can donate to for these guys to keep doing what they do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, maarsen said:

Yukle I took up your advice and for the past few weeks have been reading up on Byzantium. I have to say that the history is absolutely fascinating and thanks for the advice. 

I have just read that the marching bands that the US are so fond of during football halftime shows are an imitation of the Jannisaries music and parades. Muslim culture at the heart of America.

I'm sorry that I didn't also encourage you to delve deeper into the Romans of the East. There's SO MUCH incredible material, and thanks to how long it managed to survive we have unprecedented levels of detail through which to look at the lives of people who shaped Europe for a thousand years.

And the fact that so few of even the brightest westerners appreciate the contributions to their history from these Greek speaking Romans, even calling them 'Byzantines', is just another layer under which some of the most incredible stories in history lie. The term Byzantine itself comes from 18th century racist scholars who sought to associate themselves with the Western Rome (white people) they so idolized without suggesting a link to the Eastern continuation of the failed Republic and totalitarian state.

And the only reason those western scholars had half the material available to them regarding Caesar, Scipio, and all those Greek philosophers they so admired was because while those precious white former Romans were busy scrabbling out petty kingdoms in the dirt, in the east were the Emperors of Rome continuing to maintain a state of culture and intellectual advance.

In other words, ungrateful assholes sought to denigrate the same people who reeducated his ancestors about their lost cultural heritage when western Europe decided to slow down on acting like vicious animals long enough to listen to civilized peoples. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

How has Jace never seen this? What an awesome contribution to society, an informative and engaging history lesson. Do you know if there's some kind of tribute I can donate to for these guys to keep doing what they do?

They've got patreon. There's actually a few really good history video makers on YouTube, I think people assume the content will be lower quality, but it's way better than the constant stream of "nazis, nazis, nazis!" you get on tv (when the history channel isn't showing Storage Wars or talking about aliens).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I'm sorry that I didn't also encourage you to delve deeper into the Romans of the East. There's SO MUCH incredible material, and thanks to how long it managed to survive we have unprecedented levels of detail through which to look at the lives of people who shaped Europe for a thousand years.

And the fact that so few of even the brightest westerners appreciate the contributions to their history from these Greek speaking Romans, even calling them 'Byzantines', is just another layer under which some of the most incredible stories in history lie. The term Byzantine itself comes from 18th century racist scholars who sought to associate themselves with the Western Rome (white people) they so idolized without suggesting a link to the Eastern continuation of the failed Republic and totalitarian state.

And the only reason those western scholars had half the material available to them regarding Caesar, Scipio, and all those Greek philosophers they so admired was because while those precious white former Romans were busy scrabbling out petty kingdoms in the dirt, in the east were the Emperors of Rome continuing to maintain a state of culture and intellectual advance.

In other words, ungrateful assholes sought to denigrate the same people who reeducated his ancestors about their lost cultural heritage when western Europe decided to slow down on acting like vicious animals long enough to listen to civilized peoples. 

Don't be sorry. I did delve deeply. I just finished a book called Istanbul by Bettany Hughes. It was a history of Constantinople from first founding to the present day. Lots of  Roman history was in there. And yes it was all you said it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Y'all member back in 1204 when those crusaders decided to sack Constantinople? Sad. 

Yeah, there are some valuable lessons to take away from that entire debacle: 

1. Don't exterminate the Catholic minority living in your empire. 

2. But if you do, at least try to convince any later claimant to the throne to not hire an army of Catholic crusaders to help him take it back. 

3. But if he does, at least make sure that he pays said crusaders what he has promised them when all is said and done, instead of trying to run them out of the country. Otherwise they might get angry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yeah, there are some valuable lessons to take away from that entire debacle: 

1. Don't exterminate the Catholic minority living in your empire. 

2. But if you do, at least try to convince any later claimant to the throne to not hire an army of Catholic crusaders to help him take it back. 

3. But if he does, at least make sure that he pays said crusaders what he has promised them when all is said and done, instead of trying to run them out of the country. Otherwise they might get angry. 

4. Catholic dogs are good for nothing but persectution, their entire cult thrives off of feeling denigrated. Hell, the proper Orthodox Christians were just trying to be friendly!

5. Fuck Venetians. Fucking animals, I'm glad that their city is falling into the swamp they keep trying to rebrand as a romantic waterway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

4. Catholic dogs are good for nothing but persectution, their entire cult thrives off of feeling denigrated. Hell, the proper Orthodox Christians were just trying to be friendly!

5. Fuck Venetians. Fucking animals, I'm glad that their city is falling into the swamp they keep trying to rebrand as a romantic waterway.

Seems like those dogs could fight better than your off-brand Romans though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love History. In fact, before I became an avid reader, the History Channel was were I lived. I went to college to be a History teacher, that didn't work out to well, lol. I love it though. 

I've read a good deal on WWII, Lincoln, Kennedy and few other books about random events. Id love to read more and this thread has just gave me a lot of options to try. Thanks for the thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Seems like those dogs could fight better than your off-brand Romans though. 

 

The nerve! To suggest that good Christian Romans would raise a hand to those they thought cared for the word of Chryst, even being mongrels from the west, is disturbing and in poor taste sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, A True Kaniggit said:

*cough* Massacre of the Latins *cough*

SLANDEROUS LIES!

There were a bunch of Catholics who were murdered in or around the area that might have been under the dominion of the Roman Empire, but what the biased Vatican Media has refused to address is the fact that many more Catholics were actually saved by virtue of not being murdered at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

 

And the fact that so few of even the brightest westerners appreciate the contributions to their history from these Greek speaking Romans, even calling them 'Byzantines', is just another layer under which some of the most incredible stories in history lie. The term Byzantine itself comes from 18th century racist scholars who sought to associate themselves with the Western Rome (white people) they so idolized without suggesting a link to the Eastern continuation of the failed Republic and totalitarian state.

And the only reason those western scholars had half the material available to them regarding Caesar, Scipio, and all those Greek philosophers they so admired was because while those precious white former Romans were busy scrabbling out petty kingdoms in the dirt, in the east were the Emperors of Rome continuing to maintain a state of culture and intellectual advance.

In other words, ungrateful assholes sought to denigrate the same people who reeducated his ancestors about their lost cultural heritage when western Europe decided to slow down on acting like vicious animals long enough to listen to civilized peoples. 

This might be really dumb- the Byzantine's weren't white?

I do agree that just calling it the "Byzantine Empire" seems like a poor name, because it was founded by Romans, influenced by Romans, and they called themselves Romans and carried on many Roman traditions. As I understand it, there were significant differences, with more Greek influence, so "Eastern Roman Empire" seems fair to me.

It's an interesting question of identity- like when history books stop referring to "English settlers/colonists" and start talking about "Americans" as soon as they start rebelling. In Britain as well, people had adopted Roman culture for centuries when they left, in certain urban areas people certainly still considered themselves "Roman", yet no one really thinks of them that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

This might be really dumb- the Byzantine's weren't white?

I do agree that just calling it the "Byzantine Empire" seems like a poor name, because it was founded by Romans, influenced by Romans, and they called themselves Romans and carried on many Roman traditions. As I understand it, there were significant differences, with more Greek influence, so "Eastern Roman Empire" seems fair to me.

It's an interesting question of identity- like when history books stop referring to "English settlers/colonists" and start talking about "Americans" as soon as they start rebelling. In Britain as well, people had adopted Roman culture for centuries when they left, in certain urban areas people certainly still considered themselves "Roman", yet no one really thinks of them that way.

To the first, the answer is basically yes. To my knowledge damn near all of top society were some distillation of Greek. Actually, the Eastern Roman Empire's refusal to collapse is why there are a lot of Turks who have genetic features that you don't really see mixed very often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

To the first, the answer is basically yes. To my knowledge damn near all of top society were some distillation of Greek. Actually, the Eastern Roman Empire's refusal to collapse is why there are a lot of Turks who have genetic features that you don't really see mixed very often.

Where are you from? In England Greeks are definitely considered white- and I'm pretty certain most Greeks consider themselves white.

Yeah, a lot Turks are quite fair. Even as far as Iran, a lot of persians have a lighter skin tone than a lot of Italians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Where are you from? In England Greeks are definitely considered white- and I'm pretty certain most Greeks consider themselves white.

Yeah, a lot Turks are quite fair. Even as far as Iran, a lot of persians have a lighter skin tone than a lot of Italians.

I'm from as far west as west goes in America. Except Hawaii, I guess. It's long been my understanding that the desire for differentiation came because of the ERE's abundant... I don't even know what descriptive to use... Asian? population. There were a lot of Armenians and similar peoples who frequently existed within the bounds of the ERE. Arab? Is that the word I'm looking for? That doesn't make sense, the most 'Arabian' population to ever live in that area would be the Turks so...

 

You know what I mean, there were a lot of ERE places where people had dark skin and 'Middle Eastern' features. So yeah, a lot of brown people and the associated decadence that has always been the West's impression of the East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mankytoes said:

This might be really dumb- the Byzantine's weren't white?

That's not a dumb question. The answer is: yes and no and we're not 100% sure. Throughout its height its elites were but not its populace at large. That's more a reflection of long-term dynasties than anything else, though.

It's important to note that ethnic groups do not necessarily look the same over time, even if nobody else migrates into their areas, environmental factors and genetic mutations still change appearance over time. If this wasn't the case, then we'd all still be really dark, as the first humans were.

Rome had a very high level of mixed-ethnic internal migration for an ancient civilisation. For instance, the Parthian and the Sassanid Empire that supplanted Parthia to its east were mostly Persian. When the Muslim conquests came through, most Persians were displaced by ethnic Arabs (Iran is still a majority Persian country).

Rome didn't really see "race" as a concept until the fall of the West, when it seemed to become an issue that ethnic Germanians were in positions of power. Nonetheless, Rome's history is full of examples of ethnic diversity. Rome's policy was that of incorporation: more often than not they pacified conquered areas by requiring new conscripts to the Legions, which was then rewarded with citizenship and new infrastructure. The Legions in particular meant a lot of internal movement as legionaries often travelled far and wide. Similarly, slaves were sold throughout the Empire so Rome was fairly cosmopolitan. While not as mixed as modern societies, all cities would have had several ethnic groups, including those from the other side of the Mediterranean.

The Latins, who were the first Romans, probably had olive skin; it would be a stretch to call them white. Similarly, the Hispanics and Greeks they conquered. Descriptions of Macedonians of the time seem to refer to them as pale, so they were probably white. Such ethnic groups now are probably not as dark as their ancestors were; the result of so many Illyrians migrating into their homelands (what we would call the Caucasus).

The Egyptians and other North Africans they conquered had brown skin or were black. The Moors was a name given to an ethnic group of very dark people from North Africa. Illyrians, Celts, Britons, Germanians, Gauls and other large populations were white (and usually had large populations). Goths began to enter the empire in the 200s, as did Arabs; the former white, the latter not. Huns began to migrate in small numbers by the 400s, but probably not in large numbers since very few people in the region appear to look Asiatic or of Hunnic descent (Huns were white-skinned but usually considered "Asian").

We also know that most Emperors probably had olive skin, and at first all were ethnically Latin. However, there are some emperors who almost certainly weren't white.

Emperor Septimius Severus and his heirs were probably black and the short-lived Philip the Arab was an Arab (Who'd have thought?). Persians made up a significant ethnic minority in the east, as did Jewish people although neither group had any of their people in a major leadership position that I know of. In any case, the bulk of the East's richest provinces of Syria and Egypt weren't white.

Constantine was probably white, from what we know of his heritage, but a large proportion of his subjects weren't. The Eastern Roman Empire included very few areas that weren't major trade corridors, so the logical consequences of this occurred: large ethnic diversity. Of course, the Arab conquests saw the Eastern Empire lose Egypt, Syria and African provinces. Nonetheless, they still tended to trade with the Caliphates that defeated them.

Over time, feudalism rose in Western Europe, though, and migration began to die down. It's sad, but the Western Empire's successor-states were less cosmopolitan than what they replaced. And, indeed as others have pointed out, they tended to boast this fact as a sign of superiority over the "Byzantine" Empire, which was fairly multicultural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Yukle said:

Rome didn't really see "race" as a concept until the fall of the West, when it seemed to become an issue that ethnic Germanians were in positions of power. Nonetheless, Rome's history is full of examples of ethnic diversity. Rome's policy was that of incorporation: more often than not they pacified conquered areas by requiring new conscripts to the Legions, which was then rewarded with citizenship and new infrastructure. The Legions in particular meant a lot of internal movement as legionaries often travelled far and wide. Similarly, slaves were sold throughout the Empire so Rome was fairly cosmopolitan. While not as mixed as modern societies, all cities would have had several ethnic groups, including those from the other side of the Mediterranean.

The Latins, who were the first Romans, probably had olive skin; it would be a stretch to call them white. Similarly, the Hispanics and Greeks they conquered. Descriptions of Macedonians of the time seem to refer to them as pale, so they were probably white. Such ethnic groups now are probably not as dark as their ancestors were; the result of so many Illyrians migrating into their homelands (what we would call the Caucasus).

The Egyptians and other North Africans they conquered had brown skin or were black. The Moors was a name given to an ethnic group of very dark people from North Africa. Illyrians, Celts, Britons, Germanians, Gauls and other large populations were white (and usually had large populations). Goths began to enter the empire in the 200s, as did Arabs; the former white, the latter not. Huns began to migrate in small numbers by the 400s, but probably not in large numbers since very few people in the region appear to look Asiatic or of Hunnic descent (Huns were white-skinned but usually considered "Asian").

We also know that most Emperors probably had olive skin, and at first all were ethnically Latin. However, there are some emperors who almost certainly weren't white.

Emperor Septimius Severus and his heirs were probably black and the short-lived Philip the Arab was an Arab (Who'd have thought?). Persians made up a significant ethnic minority in the east, as did Jewish people although neither group had any of their people in a major leadership position that I know of. In any case, the bulk of the East's richest provinces of Syria and Egypt weren't white.

Constantine was probably white, from what we know of his heritage, but a large proportion of his subjects weren't. The Eastern Roman Empire included very few areas that weren't major trade corridors, so the logical consequences of this occurred: large ethnic diversity. Of course, the Arab conquests saw the Eastern Empire lose Egypt, Syria and African provinces. Nonetheless, they still tended to trade with the Caliphates that defeated them.

Over time, feudalism rose in Western Europe, though, and migration began to die down. It's sad, but the Western Empire's successor-states were less cosmopolitan than what they replaced. And, indeed as others have pointed out, they tended to boast this fact as a sign of superiority over the "Byzantine" Empire, which was fairly multicultural.

It's interesting stuff. I know Greeks weren't so much racist as "non-Greekist"- as far as they saw it, they were surrounded by white savages, black savages, brown savages. I guess Romans were a bit similar- Rome=civilisation. The way they incorporated conquered people as citizens suggests they weren't that bothered about "purity" or anything.

Drifting into modern racial politics a bit, but again, I'm assuming you aren't European- olive skinned Mediteranians definitely consider themselves white, and some would be quite offended at the suggestion they aren't.

It is pretty shocking to the modern mind that there was probably a black/mixed race Roman emperor. I guess that says something about our society.

I guess in appearance, but in strict genetic terms, the way the Romans moved all the soldiers around, plus the natural increase in migration from people living in the same empire, must have had a permanent effect. Like in Britain, we might have been considered mono-racial for centuries until recently, but really we're probably all a bit British, Anglo-Saxon, Norman, Irish, Norse, etc. We might just considered all of those to fall under "white", but back when those people migrated, they were definitely different catagories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Drifting into modern racial politics a bit, but again, I'm assuming you aren't European- olive skinned Mediteranians definitely consider themselves white, and some would be quite offended at the suggestion they aren't.

Haha, middle-Eastern ethnic Arab, but nationally Australian. ;) 

I know what you mean, I suppose it depends on viewpoints. From descriptions of the time, as well as paintings, Latin people were possibly darker than current Italians, which still isn't necessarily relevant. This is guesswork, of course, but various skin-coloured pigments were used in paintings and they seem to show Italians are darker than they are now, similarly most north Africans (Numidians seemed to be very dark, while modern Algerians and Libyans aren't).

But being "white" is also a legacy of the times of social Darwinism, when "white" was equal to "superior" and "black" meant "slave." Today it's hard to shake the idea that skin colour and race are closely tied, but race is a fluid and made up concept. There weren't really any connotations attached to skin colour in Roman times, rather the racism they expressed focused on your birthplace. If you were born within the Empire to Roman citizens then you were civilised. If you became a citizen in your lifetime but your parents weren't, you were a second-class upstart. If you were born out of the Empire, then you were a barbarian.

Rich Roman nobles moved into the provinces to escape the overcrowded cities. Usually their first step was to marry into wealthy families within the provinces to tie their interests to their own causes and to consolidate power. You couldn't be too picky about skin-colour if you wanted to gain any real power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...