Were Byzantines Better?

Tunc abeuntes pharisaei, consilium inierunt ut caperent eum in sermone. Et mittunt ei discipulos suos cum Herodianis, dicentes : Magister, scimus quia verax es, et viam Dei in veritate doces, et non est tibi cura de aliquo : non enim respicis personam hominum : dic ergo nobis quid tibi videtur, licet censum dare Caesari, an non? Cognita autem Jesus nequitia eorum, ait : Quid me tentatis hypocritae? Ostendite mihi numisma census. At illi obtulerunt ei denarium. Et ait illis Jesus : Cujus est imago haec, et superscriptio? Dicunt ei : Caesaris. Tunc ait illis : Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari : et quae sunt Dei, Deo.

Victor D. Hanson: The Byzantine Empire and Immigration
PhilosophyInsights | 2.IV.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWR9lGEB7Xk

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I wonder, is he really that sure that "the West" fell and Byzantium "survived" 1000 years between 476 and 1453?

There is a reason why Charles the Great was crowned emperor in 800, on Christmas day.

First there had been the Iconoclasts. The Papal reaction to that was to give Venice leave to pay no more taxes to Byzantine Emperors. You don't need to finance a persecutor.

THEN "Emperor" Irene (Empress means only Empress a consort, not a reigning Empress, in Byzantium, the ruler's title is masculine even if it is a woman who is ruling, unlike in the West) makes Orthodoxy triumph over Iconoclasm.

Part of that triumph is beating her son in a military way. And after he is beaten, he is punished.

Now - here is the problem, in 800 people tended to think of that punishment as fairly barbaric. It was blinding, as Assyrians had done with a King of Judah (or so I recall).

When Iconoclasts were ruling, one could say "OK, when the Emperor is Orthodox, he's an authority again". But after Iconoclasm, the barbarism of blinding someone ... "well, no, rather not, actually".

I think it was the West which was more civilised in 800, despite certain accomplishments where it was behind Byzantium as yet (like in Greek or in Medicine or in some other ways).

1:12 - 1:53
"How did Western civilisation, Christianity, survive in that hostile climate in the East for thousand years after the fall of the West to that "black Tuesday" is what we say in Greece today of May 29 1453? And I think the answer is that what kept Byzantium alive was not their material riches, but people believed in a transcendence, in this case it was Christianity, the Hellenic language and Western civilisation, they thought ... they didn't think it was perfect, but they thought it was better than the alternative outside the Byzantine Empire, whether it was the Seljuk Turks later, the Ottomans, the Huns, whoever they were, they thought they were better than the alternative, and they were willing to make enormous sacrifices, and articulate that again and again ..."

[next phrase is garbled by the subtitling]

Now, I hope that as Christians they thought Hellenic language and Byzantine Empire better than the alternative, not that as Hellenoglots and Byzantines they thought Christianity "not perfect but better than the alternative".

If it was the latter, that explains why Byzantium became less civilised than Latin West.

For in the case of the Latin West, it was a question of : as precisely Christians they thought the Latin West not perfect, but better than the alternative, whether Islamic or even after a while Byzantine.

And on the principle given, you cannot take the material accomplishments of Byzantium as proof they were more civilised.

2:08 - 2:30
"if you don't believe that you are better than the alternative, nobody else will, and there is no reason for you to continue and it has to be plenty psychologically, and so all of you in this room, we have a duty, each according to our station, each day we have to say to ourselves, the United States is better than the alternative, and what in my own way can I do to remind people of that?"

Well, I don't think one has to believe one is better than the alternative if one isn't.

One Empress or Imperial princess (brother of Emperor) condemned Florence Council.

"But we must do that to save the Empire"
"I'd rather my brother lost my brother's Empire than we all lose the faith"

I don't think she was right about [Council of] Florence losing the faith, but her attitude was no breach of duty.

However, for the time being, US actually is better than most ... thank you, Donald! In part.

(adjusting the last words of quote, where my memory was not freshly accurate)

Of course, US would be better if you banned abortion.

Panos A

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
I wonder, is he really that sure that "the West" fell and Byzantium "survived" 1000 years between 476 and 1453

The Western part of the Empire disintegrated. The Eastern part which largely coincided with the Hellenic world continued for a millenium (3 times the duration of the previous Roman Empire) and it did so in a much more dangerous world than what the previous Empire of Rome had experienced. Show a little more respect to Byzantines.

There is a reason why Charles the Great was crowned emperor in 800, on Christmas day

LOL! Try now to explain why all his successors were not Emperors? Charles was crowned as "Emperor" only after the Pope wanted to create a new enemy against his arch-rival the Patriarch of Constantinople. Reality is that Charles himself did not even want the title knowing it would drag the ire of the real Roman Emperor at Constantinople, which it did : his envoy was bitch-slapped an sent back tied inversely on a donkey for having uttered little Charles as "Roman Emperor", and little Charles NEVER used the title. It is later western European re-writing of history (particularly the French...) who re-invented Charles as a "Roman Emperor" when he never really used the title. A bit like the Holy Roman Empire which supposedly was founded around the 11th century but the title itself appears well after 1204 (i.e. the date of the real demise of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, not 1453).

First there had been the Iconoclasts

Division between Popes and Patriarchs LONG PREDATED iconoclasm

The Papal reaction to that was to give Venice leave to pay no more taxes to Byzantine Emperors

On the contrary, Venice remained as a Byzantine protectorate well into the 1000s.

You don't need to finance a persecutor

Whom did Byzantines persecute in Italy? LOL!

THEN "Emperor" Irene (Empress means only Empress a consort, not a reigning Empress, in Byzantium, the ruler's title is masculine even if it is a woman who is ruling, unlike in the West) makes Orthodoxy triumph over Iconoclasm. Part of that triumph is beating her son in a military way. And after he is beaten, he is punished

The torture and eye-gouging was punishment for treason against the Emperor and/or the Empire. Her son had rebelled against her rule and planned to attack with rebel armies. Law was law and her son, once arrested was condemned. Corporal punishmen indeed is barbarous but - guess what : it was the inheritence of old Roman-era (i.e. Imperial Roman of Rome...Latin Rome....) laws. In fact medieval Greeks found such old laws barbaric but they were part of the fabric of the Empire for centuries and thus kept. Sounds interesting however that none among western European readers has problem with barbaric laws of the earlier Roman Empire and when a few of these survive as heritage in the Eastern Roman Empire ohhhhh the humanity, oooohhh the catastrophe! At any rate, last time I checked, the punishment for treason in Britain was hanging till near-death and then alive splitting apart (quartering!) with the torn body parts sent to the four corners of the kingdom as warning to future would-be traitors. This in 1600s-1700s, not in 700s. And Britain was of the most civilized lot in Europe at those times. Some sense of historic perspective is needed here.

Now - here is the problem, in 800 people tended to think of that punishment as fairly barbaric. It was blinding, as Assyrians had done with a King of Judah (or so I recall

No idiot, ONLY GREEKS tended to think that as fairly barbaric. The rest of Europeans tended to think of that punishment as quite light. Treason was punished with much more horrific torture in western Europe. See above Britain in the 1600s-1700s.

When Iconoclasts were ruling, one could say "OK, when the Emperor is Orthodox, he's an authority again". But after Iconoclasm, the barbarism of blinding someone ... "well, no, rather not, actually

Bliding as said was an old Roman Imperial law, remnant of the legacy of old Rome into the New Rome. It had nothing to do with Iconoclastic civil wars. Iconoclasts too enacted that law as far as I remember.

I think it was the West which was more civilised in 800, despite certain accomplishments where it was behind Byzantium as yet (like in Greek or in Medicine or in some other ways

West was more what? More civilized? Are you fucking out of your mind? When Charles rose to the throne, there were no more than 500 people (mostly Italian envoys by the Pope!!!) in the whole so-called "Empire" which had at least 20 million people!!!! That is 0,0% of the population! Writing had almost disappeared (not that it had been ever any popular there....) in the West and it was Charle's effort that rekindled interest in letters, one which passed through importing massive number of Italians but also Greeks (when intermmariage of nobilities intensified post-9th century). How does that compare with the Eastern Roman Empire which had the highest literacy rates that the world only saw again in the second half of 19th century in western Europe? Not to mention literacy rates among women (which Europe only got to reach in the first half of the 20th century...).

Look kid, you have absolutely no idea of the Eastern Roman Empire. Admit it and go back to read more on it or just stick to other chapters of human history which you may digest better.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Western part of the Empire disintegrated."

Was divided.

"The Eastern part which largely coincided with the Hellenic world continued for a millenium"

Never denied.

"(3 times the duration of the previous Roman Empire)"

241 BC - 476 AD

717 years is a third of 1000? And I am only counting from end of First Punic War. Since that was first time Rome was outside Appenine Peninsula.

"and it did so in a much more dangerous world than what the previous Empire of Rome had experienced."

It was dangerous for the Latin West too ... and not sure any of them was equal to Hannibal in II Punic War.

"Show a little more respect to Byzantines."

I showed as much respect as I owe. I have said the contrast between Roman Empire "falling" in the West and "surviving" in the East is overdone. You have showed nothing to the contrary.

"LOL! Try now to explain why all his successors were not Emperors?"


Succession of Imperial dignity in the restored West:
Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Lothair I, Louis II of Italy, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Guy III of Spoleto, Lambert of Italy, Arnulf of Carinthia, Louis the Blind, Berengar I of Italy,
38 years vacancy, [or not, see below]
Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor, Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, Lothair II/III, Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor (Barbarossa), Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor (the bad guy, like Nero in antiquity and Kopronymus in the East), Conrad IV of Germany, Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall, Rudolf I of Germany, Adolf of Germany, Albert I of Germany, Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor, Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor (the first of Habsburg dynasty), Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor, Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, Joseph I, Holy Roman Emperor, Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor, Charles VII, Holy Roman Emperor, Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, wife of Maria Theresia, Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor (second bad guy, but not so bad as Frederick II), Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, for whom:

Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser
Monomah1389 | 20.VII.2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06643umEJZg

and he changed name to Francis I of Austria, then:
Ferdinand I of Austria, Franz Joseph I of Austria, Charles I of Austria, also called Charles the Last. Ruled a few months longer than Nicolas II of Russia.

"Charles was crowned as "Emperor" only after the Pope wanted to create a new enemy against his arch-rival the Patriarch of Constantinople."

No, after restored Orthodoxy showed manners which in the West were considered as Barbarian. Like blinding in punishment.

"Reality is that Charles himself did not even want the title knowing it would drag the ire of the real Roman Emperor at Constantinople, which it did : his envoy was bitch-slapped an sent back tied inversely on a donkey for having uttered little Charles as "Roman Emperor", and little Charles NEVER used the title."

I wonder if the historian you have that from was a Byzantine who did not dare tell a truth which his emperor didn't like.

"It is later western European re-writing of history (particularly the French...) who re-invented Charles as a "Roman Emperor" when he never really used the title."

How come his son Louis the Pious used it?

"A bit like the Holy Roman Empire which supposedly was founded around the 11th century but the title itself appears well after 1204 (i.e. the date of the real demise of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, not 1453)."

It is easy to say "appears" if you ignore all previous appearances.

"Division between Popes and Patriarchs LONG PREDATED iconoclasm"

W a i t, you look like an adulator of that archenemy of God and men, Romanides, with his heterodox disciple Metallinos ...

The final excommunication was 1054. AFTER iconoclasm.

"On the contrary, Venice remained as a Byzantine protectorate well into the 1000s."

Protectorate is not territory. It was Byzantine TERRITORY until a Pope under iconoclasm gave them sovereignty or independence.

"The traditional first doge of Venice, Paolo Lucio Anafesto (Anafestus Paulicius), was elected in 697, as written in the oldest chronicle by John, deacon of Venice in ca. 1008. Some modern historians claim Paolo Lucio Anafesto was actually Exarch Paul, and his successor, Marcello Tegalliano, was Paul's magister militum (General: literally, "Master of Soldiers"). In 726 the soldiers and citizens of the Exarchate rose in a rebellion over the iconoclastic controversy at the urging of Pope Gregory II. The Exarch, held responsible for the acts of his master Byzantine Emperor Leo III, was murdered and many officials put to flight in the chaos. At about this time, the people of the lagoon elected their own independent leader for the first time, although the relationship of this to the uprisings is not clear. Ursus was the first of 117 "doges" (doge is the Venetian dialect development of the Latin dux ("leader"); the corresponding word in English is duke, in standard Italian duce.) Whatever his original views, Ursus supported Emperor Leo III's successful military expedition to recover Ravenna, sending both men and ships. In recognition of this, Venice was "granted numerous privileges and concessions" and Ursus, who had personally taken the field, was confirmed by Leo as dux[22] and given the added title of hypatus (Greek for "Consul".)"

Venice on Wikipedia, Origins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice#Origins

"Perhaps a native of Eraclea, Orso was elected Doge in 726 following the death of Marcello Tegalliano. The Venetian people had elected him against the will of the Byzantine Empire, a consequence of the Byzantines' unwelcome attempts to institute iconoclasm in the West. Virtually nothing is known of his life before his accession, though it is reasonable to assume that he was born in the latter part of the seventh century."

Orso Ipato on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orso_Ipato

Leaving out that Ursus Hypatus was first approved by the Pope at the time.

"Whom did Byzantines persecute in Italy? LOL!"

Even if iconoclasm did not extend to Italy, it was good for Venice not to pay taxes to iconoclasts in Byzantium.

"The torture and eye-gouging was punishment for treason against the Emperor and/or the Empire."

Yes, I know. And this is the precise thing where Latin Franks are MORE civilised than Byzantines. Gouging had been outlawed as punishment in Francia for centuries.

"Her son had rebelled against her rule and planned to attack with rebel armies. Law was law and her son, once arrested was condemned. Corporal punishmen indeed is barbarous but - guess what : it was the inheritence of old Roman-era (i.e. Imperial Roman of Rome...Latin Rome....) laws."

But in the Latin West, gouging had already been done away with.

"In fact medieval Greeks found such old laws barbaric but they were part of the fabric of the Empire for centuries and thus kept."

Those medieval Greeks were in fact influenced by Franks, who not only found them barbaric, but had abolished that.

"Sounds interesting however that none among western European readers has problem with barbaric laws of the earlier Roman Empire"

Oh, they had. Gouging was outlawed, enslavement of Christians was not only outlawed, but slaves already held were freed, centuries before Charlemagne.

Saint Balthild of Ascania:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balthild

"At any rate, last time I checked, the punishment for treason in Britain was hanging till near-death and then alive splitting apart (quartering!) with the torn body parts sent to the four corners of the kingdom as warning to future would-be traitors. This in 1600s-1700s, not in 700s."

After some hour of suffering the person died. Unlike a blinded man who remained blind for years.

"And Britain was of the most civilized lot in Europe at those times."

No.

Austria was not persecuting Protestants in as barbaric a fashion as England persecuted Catholics.

"No idiot, ONLY GREEKS tended to think that as fairly barbaric. The rest of Europeans tended to think of that punishment as quite light"

No, you are wrong. A traitor was killed or graced, but not spared in such as barbaric way as to be blinded for years.

"Blinding as said was an old Roman Imperial law, remnant of the legacy of old Rome into the New Rome. It had nothing to do with Iconoclastic civil wars. Iconoclasts too enacted that law as far as I remember."

Very possible, but as long as it was just iconoclasts, Latins could say "oh, well, heresy can't last that long, there came a Theodosius after the sons of Constantine". What was shocking was when somene actually NOT a heretic did a barbaric thing.

"When Charles rose to the throne, there were no more than 500 people (mostly Italian envoys by the Pope!!!) in the whole so-called "Empire" which had at least 20 million people!!!!"

Your information sounds garbled, what are you talking about, in a bit clearer terms?

"Writing had almost disappeared (not that it had been ever any popular there....) in the West and it was Charle's effort that rekindled interest in letters,"

Not true at all. What had happened was that Latin in Francia was less and less katharevousa and had been more and more dhimotikised, THEN Charlemagne did a radical katharevousisation of Latin, aided by Alcuin of York - who also brought in an older pronunciation, closer to the letters, but less comprehensible. What happened between 800 and 813 was as if your priest had started to read LXX and NT in Erasmian pronunciation, and so, in 813, the sunday sermon was introduced to translate from the new katharevousic Latin to the Latin spoken by the people.

That is how Romance languages French and Provençal were invented.

[Note to linguists : as separate written languages, outside the standardised Latin, becoming new standards]

"one which passed through importing massive number of Italians but also Greeks (when intermmariage of nobilities intensified post-9th century)."

One of the intermarriages of course being a wife of the early Ottos ... it also passed through importation of Anglo-Saxons and Irish, since these also had changed the pronunciation of Latin less than in West Francia. If you can compare a pronunciation like in Italy to itacistic pronunciation, the one in Francia was more like a Pontic one.

"How does that compare with the Eastern Roman Empire which had the highest literacy rates that the world only saw again in the second half of 19th century in western Europe?"

Look, I was speaking of civilisation, as a moral thing. Not as a material or even cultural accomplishment.

As to "high literacy rates" it is a dubious measure of civilisation. It is used by Protestants, since they believe each faithful needs to read his Bible on his own, at least in theory, and it has led to the 20th C. which was a very Barbaric one.

"Not to mention literacy rates among women (which Europe only got to reach in the first half of the 20th century...)."

If you mean among farm women, tell me how many are known. If you mean among imperial and nobles, well, the rates of literacy are higher if you don't count the illiterate.

"Look kid,"

You are not my dad.

"you have absolutely no idea of the Eastern Roman Empire."

You are fortunately not my professor in Classics either.

"Admit it and go back to read more on it or just stick to other chapters of human history which you may digest better."

You might do well, though it is not a full request on my part, to follow similar advice about the Latin West.

Supplying information on Pope's opposition to Byzantine iconoclast rule in Italy:

"Paul was a senior Byzantine official under Leo III the Isaurian, serving as the strategos of Sicily, and then as the Exarch of Ravenna from 723 to 727."

Life

"Paul is first mentioned in 717/18. Theophanes the Confessor calls him the private chartoularios of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, while Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople calls him a loyal and close confidante (oikeios) of Leo's, and that he was experienced in military matters.[1][2] As a result, when the governor (strategos) of Sicily, Sergios, driven by a false message that Constantinople had fallen to the Arabs, declared a rival emperor in the person of Basil Onomagoulos, Leo named him as Sergios' replacement and sent him to Sicily to restore control. It was probably on this occasion that he was raised to the rank of patrikios, although Patriarch Nikephoros implies that he already held the title.[2][3]"

"He is commonly held to have been the same as the Sergios appointed as Exarch of Ravenna in c. 723, and consequently to have held the office of strategos of Sicily continuously until then. Although both suppositions are likely, neither is certain. If the identification is true, then Paul was responsible for the defeat of an Arab attack on the island in 720/21.[2][4]"

"As exarch, he had to face the resistance of the local inhabitants, led by Pope Gregory II, to the high taxation demanded by Leo. According to the Liber Pontificalis, the Emperor ordered Paul to either kill or imprison the Pope, but both failed and led to a renewed wave of rebellion against imperial authority in Italy; the Pope even anathematized Paul.[2] In 726/27, the Ravenna itself rose in revolt, denouncing both Exarch Paul and Emperor Leo III, and overthrew those officers who remained loyal. Paul rallied the loyalist forces and attempted to restore order, but was killed. The armies discussed electing their own emperor and marching on Constantinople, but when they sought the advice of the Pope, he dissuaded them from acting against the sitting emperor.[2][5]"

"According to John Julius Norwich, the person traditionally recognized as the first doge of Venice, Paolo Lucio Anafesto, was actually Exarch Paul. Moreover, Paul's magister militum had the same first name as the doge's reputed successor, Marcellus Tegallianus, casting doubt on the authenticity of that doge as well.[6]"

Paul (exarch) on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_(exarch)

I don't think John Julius Norwich is right, but if he is, the other version would have been by people wanting to give Venice part of the credit for opposing Leo III Isaurus.

Panos A

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Look I see you insist.

Fact one : Little Charles NEVER used the term "Emperor" himself. In his coins he noted himself as king of Franks and so did in papers coming out of his office. It was the Pope who gave the title without even Charles understanding a lot, other than not wishing to have the ire of the Empire, the actual Roman Empire. An envoy of his got punished for mentioning the term "Emperor" and that was it, end of story. Just like the case of the (un)Holy (un)Roman (un)Empire which is said to have started in the 1000s when the term appears well after 1200 and even then as a practical joke, the title "Emperor" for Charlemagne and any of his succesors was placed centuries after his era by western european historiography. All the rest is just your bullshit. I have no reason to talk more on that. Charlemagne's state was never an Empire. It was just a collection of feuds and it remained so until the rise, during Renaissance, of centralized monarchies in western but not central Europe.

Fact two : Claiming that Western Europeans were more civilzed than Eastern Romans because they had - what? LOL! - banned eye gouging as """""barbaric"""" while Eastern Romans maintained that ancient Roman (Latin Roman) custom of punishing traitors is ludicrous when Western Europeans were punishing traitors with far worse corporal punishments including that charming punishment of dismembering - for fucks shake, they were dismembering people for crimes less than treason in Britain well into the 1700s, 500 years after Renaissane and the humanistic movement took off in Italy, itself singlehandedly occuring as the natural result of the Greek intellectual transplant post-1204. I guess I have to tie your 4 limbs to four horses and then spank these beasts to tear you apart alive for you to understand that eye-gouging (which was more often than not bliding by heat, not literal gouging) would be something that you would prefer over that (and any other contemporary) Western European punishment.

You have to be an absolute retard to claim that "if Greeks of the Eastern Roman Empire considered some ancient Roman military traditions like eye-gouging punishment as barbaric, that had to be the influence of Franks" ... Hahahahahaha.... ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Do you have the slightest idea of who were the Greeks back then and who were the Franks? This is like trying to convince the world that humanism in Western Europe is fostered by ISIS fighters or something... Particularly the Franks were some of the most barbaric people in Europe at those times, far more barbaric than the kind-of-progressive Saxons of Britain and the curious Scandinavians. The Eastern Roman Empire was the most civilized Empire the world has ever seen, INCLUDING RECENT (Britain) AND MODERN (USA) ONES. The contribution of this Empire to world civilization is something that is not theoretical, nor does it concentrates on philosophical and scientific spheres but rather is something you feel each and every day when your own state is govern by Eastern Roman Law, and when you yourself it taught since a baby to mimick being an Eastern Roman, sitting on a table to eat with a fork and knife from a plate after having washed your hands first. These were not at all Western European thingies you know... and it is perfectly clear to me you learn this here, how could you know about it when 99,999% of Europeans ignore where they got their manners and eating habbits. You ignore all that, yet you pretend to be someone who knows. You know jackshit. Stick to your nations' history and quite pretending to be an expert.

If you disagree bring me here and now coins of Charlemagne with "Emperor" on them. Or something, anything, a legal tender document he personally signed as Emperor. Don't bring me your opinion or distortions written centuries after Charlemagne. And start paying some respect to the Empire that turned you from an animal into a human. Stop the insults and the comparison with... Franks. For fucks shake, this is an insult to humanity itself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Little Charles NEVER used the term "Emperor" himself. In his coins he noted himself as king of Franks and so did in papers coming out of his office."

He started ruling as King of Franks in 768, so it is easy to find coins without the Imperial title.

In cabinet des médailles, Bibliothèque nationale de France, there is an imperial denarius, with the text KAROLVS IMPAVG (Imperator Augustus).

Denier impérial en argent de Charlemagne, inspiré des modèles numismatiques romains. Au droit, le profil imberbe, le front ceint de lauriers, et l'inscription « KAROLUS IMP[ERATOR] AUG[USTUS] » (Charles, empereur auguste)[1],[2].Cabinet des médailles, BnF, Paris.

PHGCOM — Own work by uploader, photographed at Cabinet des Médailles, Paris. CC BY-SA 3.0

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#/media/File:Charlemagne_denier_Mayence_812_814.jpg

"It was the Pope who gave the title without even Charles understanding a lot, other than not wishing to have the ire of the Empire, the actual Roman Empire."

Nice story telling, but the coin says otherwise.

"An envoy of his got punished for mentioning the term "Emperor" and that was it, end of story."

Now, is that from Einhard or from a Byzantine chronicler, trying to appease a Basileus?

"Just like the case of the (un)Holy (un)Roman (un)Empire"

The Holy, Roman and also Empire.

Holy, since full imperial dignity was only available by coronation by the Pope, the lower status being King of Romans, a title born by Syagrius.

Holy, again, since some abbots and bishops replaced prefects, like bishop St Remigius had done between Syagrius and giving the keys to Clovis, like hermit and abbot St Severine had done up to the time of Odoacar entering what is now Austria.

Roman, since part of the population, including at times large parts of Italy, were under their control, and since they never lost a Latin speaking population, like in 1683 Eugene of Savoy was a vassal of the Roman Emperor and his subjects spoke Franco-Provençal, French and Provençal rather than German.

Empire, since a federation of lesser sovereignties, under a federal government, like ancient Roman Empire before and like US later (up to the Westphalian Peace, when Imperial sovereignty became a more nominal suzerainty).

And as you presumably pretend to be a Christian, it behoves you very ill to paraphrase the sentiments of the infamous Voltaire, father of modern totalitarianism.

"which is said to have started in the 1000s"

Otto I became Holy Roman Emperor on Februrary 2nd 962, succeeding Berengarius II of Italy, who had submitted to him in 961. The thing that changes is that the Germanic nation becomes the main one. If on your view Hellenic nation could do so, why not Germanic nation?

Hellenes had been part of Roman Empire since Magna Graecia was conquered, before First Punic War, but Germans at least since Domitian. Since before St John died or was translated from his grave, where he had laid himself down.

"when the term appears will after 1200, the title "Emperor" for Charlemagne and any of his succesors was placed centuries after his era by western european historiography."

Here is a seal by Otto I:

Sceau impérial d'Otton Ier (968).

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otton_Ier_du_Saint-Empire#/media/File:Siegel_Otto_I_968.jpg

OTTO IMP AVG

"All the rest is just your bullshit. I have no reason to talk more on that."

At least not until you get a grip ...

"Charlemagne's state was never an Empire. It was just a collection of feuds and it remained so until the rise, during Renaissance, of centralized monarchies in western but not central Europe."

An Empire was not a centralised monarchy. It was a collection of feuds. Constantine was vassal of the Emperor in Britain before he was Emperor in Constantinople.

"Fact two : Claiming that Western Europeans were more civilzed than Eastern Romans because they had - what? LOL! - banned eye gouging as """""barbaric"""" while Eastern Romans maintained that ancient Roman (Latin Roman) custom of punishing traitors is ludicrous when Western Europeans were punishing traitors with far worse corporal punishments including that charming punishment of dismembering. I guess I have to tie your 4 limbs to four horses and then spank them to tear you apart alive for you to understand that eye-gouging (which was more often than not bliding by heat, not literal gouging) would be something that you would prefer over the Western European punishment."

You still don't get the distinction between some hour of torture, supposing the dismembering of traitors was even done in 700's (I'd need to check) and supposing it was done before beheading, and full years of a life with clearly reduced quality.

"You have to be an absolute retard to claim that "if Greeks of the Eastern Roman Empire considered some ancient Roman military traditions like eye-gouging punishment as barbaric, that had to be the influence of Franks" ... Hahahahahaha.... ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Do you have the slightest idea of who were the Greeks back then and who were the Franks? This is like trying to convince the world that humanism in Western Europe is fostered by ISIS fighters or something..."

I think your comparison of Franks to ISIS makes it clear YOU have no clue on who they were.

"Particularly the Franks were some of the most barbaric people in Europe at those times, far more barbaric than the kind-of-progressive Saxons of Britain."

I see you prefer not giving examples ... Saxons had slaves, Franks hadn't.

"The Eastern Roman Empire was the most civilized Empire the world has ever seen, INCLUDING RECENT (Britain) AND MODERN (USA) ONES."

With eye gouging, with Bulgaroktonos gouging out both eyes from nine of ten and one eye from the tenth soldier of Bulgarian army (a Frank from Italy a few centuries later wrote "de multitudine non est sumenda vindicta", you don't revenge on a crowd), and with same Bulgaroktonos becoming, according to Psellos, that way, because, like Frederick II of Prussia, he was denied being who he wanted to be, by networks trying to make him "fit" the role.

And when we speak of gouging, how about your translating the title also found in Psellos on such contexts, like "spadarius" ?? A title not found at the Frankish court.

"The contribution of this Empire to world civilization is something that is not theoretical,"

Actually, giving good texts of Plato and Aristotle to Latins was kind of theoretical.

"nor does it concentrates on philosophical and scientific spheres but rather is something you feel each and every day when your own state is govern by Eastern Roman Law,"

In fact, Latin West has at least up to recent centuries provided more, for instance absence of slaves in Europe (yes, some Western states had slaves in colonies, but that was because colonies were anyway not governed by totally European laws : abolishing slavery in Louisiana brought Louisiana in line with France, not with Byzantium).

"and when you yourself it taught since a baby to mimick an Eastern Roman, sitting on a table to eat with a fork and knife from a plate after having washed your hands first."

The one thing which could be Eastern Roman on the list, exclusively at first, is the fork, but I thought it was an Italian invention, not a Byzantine one.

Indeed, you were right on that one:

"Les fourchettes actuelles sont apparues dans l'Empire byzantin, et sont arrivées vers 1056 en Italie, quand Théodora Doukas, la fille de Constantin Doukas, a été mariée au doge de Venise Domenico Selvo, et ont été diffusées comme une mode en Italie du Nord. L'ecclésiastique Pierre Damien blâme d'ailleurs ce raffinement apporté par la princesse byzantine."

"These were not at all Western European thingies you know..."

Indeed, St Peter Damian who was a trad preferred to eat:

• taking meat in left hand, with three fingers
• cutting it with a knife held in right hand
• washing hands after meal or even after each dish (but as he was a monk, this could have been sth he renounced for monastic simplicity)

If you have ever eaten a hamburger, sausage or chicken without fork, you have been taught to eat like a Latin Frank.

"and it is perfectly clear to me you learn this here, how could you know about it when 99,999% of Europeans ignore where they got their manners and eating habits"

It is fairly clear you indulge in a typical Byzantine (according to my experience) habit of overinterpretation.

"You ignore all that, yet you pretend to be someone who knows."

In fact, I didn't, I was of course willing to make Italy rather than Byzantium origin of the modern fork, but I checked. I did know a Western Medieval knight for centuries after 1056 was expected to use his fingers. I do not consider that as barbaric.

"You know jackshit."

Nice manners of a Byzantine, aren't they ...?

"Stick to your nations' history"

Which one of them? Sweden? I have a Swedish passport. Denmark? My grandfather is from Scania, which was Denmark up to 1660, sorry, 1658 (swapped treaty of Oliva for the relevant one of Roskilde). Austria? I was born there ... oh, wait, Vindobona is where Marcus Aurelius died, so, in that sense, I am in fact sticking to "my nation's" history.

"and quite pretending to be an expert."

I did not claim to be an accredited expert at history. But I think I have shown, I know more of Byzantium than you give me credit for and more of the Latin West than I could give you credit for so far.

"If you disagree bring me here and now coins of Charlemagne with "Emperor" on them."

I just did, if you click jpg links ...

"And start paying some respect to the Empire that made you from an animal into a human."

I am sorry, but if you think eating with fingers instead of with fork is being an animal, I think that on Byzantine laws, you may merit gouging if ever you act on such convictions to treasonal detriment of Franks.

Not to mention that you just insulted how your fellow Greeks eat the gyros.

II

Own to video

"We've never had a proximate country with so long a border, 1700 miles."

I am open to being wrong, but Mexican border used to be even longer before California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas left Mexico?

Or you mean, back then US was not that far West, so missed most of that border? (Florida was already sold by Joseph Bonaparte).

It seems you got that border by expanding.

Yes, I do think not having wages undercut is one reasonable reason to exclude immigrants.

Yes, I do think not having wages undercut is one reasonable reason to exclude immigrants.