What I'm saying is that to save Rome you would have to go back to a point where even the concept of Byzantium would not exist. You'd have to go back to Hadrian or Trajen. The very concept of a papal church would have to be annihilated. The split that divided Rome would have to be stopped, the pratorian guard would have to be decimated, the Antonine Plague would have to be prevented and the Germans would need a good solid knot jerked in their tails. All this before the blasted Khan gets there.
I always just make it a point to call out that the Byzantines never really existed and that it is simply Rome. Perhaps is a pretentious quirk, but I detest modern reductionism and revisionism.
Byzantine did exist though - even if the name wasn’t that..
The split of the empire was necessary for the formation of nations. The east Roman Empire had the template that even patriotic Americans hold to today - even if they don’t know it. Again americas war of independence would not even exist as an idea - they could have just played ball under the British.
Less power for monarchs meant they were often more interested in the prosperity of their own kingdom rather than exploiting another to appease another group.
As for the formation of Rome - that’s unavoidable. It was always going to happen. In a different version of history - Rome would lose to the Macedonians and the empire Alexander had established... and Rome would have simply been Macedonon.
Byzantine is an important step in representation of your own peoples, by taking power from an already established super power...
The formation of the two emperor system however is also a bit of a happenchance. Cards fell into place - where there was more than one claim to the throne - and each took a part of the empire, splitting one royal family into two.
Rome falling sent the world spiraling into a dark age. The light of civilization was nearly snuffed out and we lost at least 800 years of progress after Constantinople fell into the hands of the Muslim hoard. Who knows what all we have lost because of that. Those fractured kingdoms barely threw back that same hoard and it wasn't until another empire, founded in the ash of Roman Britania, were those hoards finally put back into their sand huts. But not before they destroyed all of North Africa and kept Spain enslaved for 500 years. Rome breaking nearly cost us everything.
As with Rome, if America falls, the light of the world will go out. Maybe this time forever. If you believe that America is just Byzantine Britain then we've already lost. The barbarians are at the gates.
You have your history a bit garbled, my man. You've grabbed pieces of history far removed from each other and are mushing them together. Or at least that's what I'm taking from what you're saying here.
The West didn't attack the East. Well, I mean not after the 6th or 7th century. The West sent the crusades to save Constantinople. The first crusade was 500 years before "Byzantium" fell. It was a cluster fuck, no doubt, but it was a defensive action against Muslim invasions. America was founded on the ideals of Rome not Byzantium and The Papal States have never liked Britain.
My inference that you're saying America is the Byzantine to Britain being Rome. The issue arrives at the definition of Byzantine. The Byzantine were Roman in every respect of that word. They aren't seperate from Rome. They are Rome. They called themselves Roman and Rome was their dream. Hell, they attacked Italy multiple times trying to take it back. Rome was conquered by the Goths and ruled by Gothic kings for centuries. I think I understand what you're trying in say, but the message is all mixed up in allegory and we've long ago lost the plot of this conversation in minutia and semantics.
What I'm saying is that to save Rome you would have to go back to a point where even the concept of Byzantium would not exist. You'd have to go back to Hadrian or Trajen. The very concept of a papal church would have to be annihilated. The split that divided Rome would have to be stopped, the pratorian guard would have to be decimated, the Antonine Plague would have to be prevented and the Germans would need a good solid knot jerked in their tails. All this before the blasted Khan gets there.
I always just make it a point to call out that the Byzantines never really existed and that it is simply Rome. Perhaps is a pretentious quirk, but I detest modern reductionism and revisionism.
Byzantine did exist though - even if the name wasn’t that..
The split of the empire was necessary for the formation of nations. The east Roman Empire had the template that even patriotic Americans hold to today - even if they don’t know it. Again americas war of independence would not even exist as an idea - they could have just played ball under the British.
Less power for monarchs meant they were often more interested in the prosperity of their own kingdom rather than exploiting another to appease another group.
As for the formation of Rome - that’s unavoidable. It was always going to happen. In a different version of history - Rome would lose to the Macedonians and the empire Alexander had established... and Rome would have simply been Macedonon.
Byzantine is an important step in representation of your own peoples, by taking power from an already established super power...
The formation of the two emperor system however is also a bit of a happenchance. Cards fell into place - where there was more than one claim to the throne - and each took a part of the empire, splitting one royal family into two.
Rome falling sent the world spiraling into a dark age. The light of civilization was nearly snuffed out and we lost at least 800 years of progress after Constantinople fell into the hands of the Muslim hoard. Who knows what all we have lost because of that. Those fractured kingdoms barely threw back that same hoard and it wasn't until another empire, founded in the ash of Roman Britania, were those hoards finally put back into their sand huts. But not before they destroyed all of North Africa and kept Spain enslaved for 500 years. Rome breaking nearly cost us everything.
As with Rome, if America falls, the light of the world will go out. Maybe this time forever. If you believe that America is just Byzantine Britain then we've already lost. The barbarians are at the gates.
West Rome wanted east Rome to fall. It’s why they did nothing - and the crusaders attacked east Rome.
The popes apology and condemnation of the crusaders was nothing but a farce that has as much efficacy as the bullshit of the clintons and Biden.
I don’t get where I said america is Byzantine Britain.. I categorically said Byzantine empire represented 1776 which was American independance.
In as much - if you want an example of Britain as Rome.. that would be the papacy.
Today there are 3 major centralised power mechanisms of the world. It’s London, the Vatican and Washington.
What do you think this actually represents? http://www.getawaymavens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Washington-Monument.jpg
You have your history a bit garbled, my man. You've grabbed pieces of history far removed from each other and are mushing them together. Or at least that's what I'm taking from what you're saying here.
The West didn't attack the East. Well, I mean not after the 6th or 7th century. The West sent the crusades to save Constantinople. The first crusade was 500 years before "Byzantium" fell. It was a cluster fuck, no doubt, but it was a defensive action against Muslim invasions. America was founded on the ideals of Rome not Byzantium and The Papal States have never liked Britain.
My inference that you're saying America is the Byzantine to Britain being Rome. The issue arrives at the definition of Byzantine. The Byzantine were Roman in every respect of that word. They aren't seperate from Rome. They are Rome. They called themselves Roman and Rome was their dream. Hell, they attacked Italy multiple times trying to take it back. Rome was conquered by the Goths and ruled by Gothic kings for centuries. I think I understand what you're trying in say, but the message is all mixed up in allegory and we've long ago lost the plot of this conversation in minutia and semantics.