Byzantines were so primitive…

Home Forums History Byzantines were so primitive…

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #172244
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Byzantines were so primitive…

    • #172245
      Anonymous
      Guest

      everything other than Constantinople was a dump

      • #172246
        Anonymous
        Guest

        No

        • #172250
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Ravenna is as impressive as Instanbul

          • #172251
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Probably more impressive in terms of surviving Byzantine mosaics.

      • #172249
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Fuck no.
        Thessalonika, Nicaea, Amorion were bigger than freaking Paris which was the largest in Western Europe.

      • #172257
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >what is Thessaloniki

        • #172267
          Anonymous
          Guest

          What’s left in Thessaloniki today? Either the Turks destroyed everything memorable or the Byzantines never built anything worth preserving.

          • #172268
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Are you really scrotebrained or you just wanna shitpost?

          • #172278
            Anonymous
            Guest

            The walls and some byzantine churches

          • #172291
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Woke af on the perimeter of the old city walls, it was quite a large city for its time

          • #172293
            Anonymous
            Guest

            True. The much older and scattered Hellenes left more memorable things than this supposed great 1000 year empire.

            >"Its general aspect presents a disgusting picture of imbecility[…] Rebellion on the part of generals, depositions of the Emperors by their means or through the intrigues of the courtiers, assassination or poisoning of the Emperors by their own wives and sons, women surrendering themselves to lusts and abominations of all kinds […] till at last—about the middle of the fifteenth century (a.d. 1453)—the rotten edifice of the Eastern Empire crumbled in pieces before the might of the vigorous Turks." —Hegel

            • #172302
              Anonymous
              Guest

              but ottomans were worse in all aspects he mentioned?

            • #172322
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Thank you for this anon. With this extract of yours my interest in Hegel vanished.

          • #172294
            Anonymous
            Guest

            There are quite a few remaining Byzantine structures and artworks in Thessaloniki. Nothing in the Byzantine world really compares to the grandiosity of Constantinople, but there is still plenty to see.
            https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/thessaloniki

        • #172289
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Built up by french investors

    • #172247
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Their culture was pretty freaking stagnant

      • #172248
        Anonymous
        Guest

        That’s not really an argument.
        I’m not a Byzantine shill, but if their culture was woke af (which it was) then stagnation is fine.
        Stagnate awesome is still awesome.

        […]

        The problem with Byzantium really started around Justinian.
        Read the secret history.

        • #172266
          Anonymous
          Guest

          kys

        • #172274
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Read the secret history
          >muh floating head
          >muh naked goose feeding

          Procopius was a salty snake who didn’t like Justinian.

          • #172292
            Anonymous
            Guest

            You’re a dishonest scrote. Everyone can only point to those two things in the secret history and the author himself says “yeah I don’t know about this shit; but a trusted friend and good source told me so I’m adding it”

      • #172312
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What was egyptian culture then if byzantine was stagnant?

    • #172252
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Byzantines were so primitive…
      nobody ever said that lol

      • #172255
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Anti-Christians say it all the time

        • #172258
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Anti-Christians on top of being mentally ill most of the time are also illiterate and low IQ

          • #172259
            Anonymous
            Guest

            True

        • #172271
          Anonymous
          Guest

          nah, those say Byzantines were decadent, that U 100% agree with. but nobody said they were primitive. just they could be better without christianity.

          • #172272
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Atheist and LARPagan societies are historically the apex of human degeneracy

            • #172288
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >t. christcuck
              stop projecting

        • #172275
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Do Christscrotes purposely make up dumb strawman arguments just so they can dunk on people they disagree with?

          • #172280
            Anonymous
            Guest

            They do.

          • #172319
            Anonymous
            Guest

            They do.

            You guys are dishonest freaking trannies if you purposely ignore the Anti Christian sentiments, which in most cases, are usually the basis for their Byzantine hate threads.

        • #172307
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Do you have any examples?

    • #172253
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Byzantines lived on the corpse of a civilization

      • #172254
        Anonymous
        Guest

        If the Byzantines lived on a corpse, what must they have been doing in western Europe, living inside a corpse maybe?

    • #172256
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >What changing anything from the Late Roman Era?
      >NO FUCK YOU FUCK OFF

    • #172260
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Such deplorable cavemen!

      • #172261
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Byzantium was really a futuristic society surrounded by a bunch of ugga buggas. It’s so ironic that there was a coordinated effort in the 19th century to degrade it by fresh out of the caves westerners.

        • #172264
          Anonymous
          Guest
          • #172277
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >the kings are not permanent rulers, but they select men of merit; if an extraordinary calamity visits the country or if wind and rain come at the wrong time, he is deposed, and another man is put in his stead
            classic

    • #172262
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Constantinople has been a shithole most of the time barring some periods like
      Constantine/Justinian pre volcano/Mehmet reviving the city
      Its the paris of its times, i wouldnt be suprised if their was a Constantinople-syndrome like
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome

      • #172265
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Mehmet reviving the city
        Subtle roach bait, nice

        • #172269
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Is it wrong?
          Istanbul was the absolute peak of the city. Only scrotebrained Byzanchud will disagree

        • #172320
          Anonymous
          Guest

          it’s not bait tho, the city (as a whole, buildings, infrastructure, trade, city life) flourished under roaches, much more than after its reconquest by byzantines from the latin empire
          of course, the massacred byzantines in 1453 would have kind of disagreed with this statement

    • #172263
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Said no one ever

    • #172270
      Anonymous
      Guest

      byzantines are their own civilization. surely they weren’t roman. neither roman nor western.

      • #172326
        Anonymous
        Guest

        looks like a Roman one to me but with Christianity at the center.

    • #172273
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Byzantines were so primitive
      Nobody with an IQ higher than 60 has ever said anything even remotely comparable to this

    • #172276
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >There is another history even more ridiculous: that is Byzantine history. This unworthy collection contains only declamations and miracles: it is the disgrace of the human mind, just as the Greek empire was the reproach of the earth.

    • #172279
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No one calls them primitive. But they were certainly a decadent and increasingly pathetic society in constant decline.

      • #172281
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >constant decline
        Meme created by westoids who lived as serfs up until the 19th century and then started to LARP as ancient Greeks immediately when they learned how to read and write (which was supposedly some kind of a huge achievement for them)

        • #172282
          Anonymous
          Guest

          He’s right. Most of Byzantine history was spent losing territory and changing dynasties through violence.

          • #172285
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Every political entity’s history in the era of humanity ever was spent losing territory and changing dynasties through violence
            The difference with Byzantines is that they lived for a longer time than all of them and they also hold more power than all of them, surpassed only in modern time by the USA

            • #172286
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >>Every political entity’s history in the era of humanity ever was spent losing territory and changing dynasties through violence
              It happened in the Byzantine empire far more frequently than in any other place in Europe at the time.
              >The difference with Byzantines is that they lived for a longer time than all of them
              What? The Byzantines stopped existing in 1453, most European countries at that same time are still around today.
              >surpassed only in modern time by the USA
              USA has existed or less than 300 years.

              • #172290
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >It happened in the Byzantine empire far more frequently than in any other place in Europe at the time.
                The European states had very short lives and they were usually tied to some dynasty, meaning that they died when their ruler died. The rest of the population were mere serfs.
                >What? The Byzantines stopped existing in 1453, most European countries at that same time are still around today.
                Not as the same entity. Otherwise we can say that Byzantium is still around today as well.
                >USA has existed or less than 300 years
                I meant in terms of world domination. After the Byzantine/Roman empire died, only the British (forgot to mention them) and now the USA surpassed them on superpower status and cultural domination.

                • #172321
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >The European states had very short lives
                  Not at all, most lasted hundreds of years and many are still around today.
                  >The rest of the population were mere serfs.
                  You are very mistaken if you think serfdom didn’t exist in the Byzantine Empire.
                  >Not as the same entity.
                  What do you mean by "entity"
                  >I meant in terms of world domination.
                  The Byzantine empire was not even close to dominating the world.
                  >superpower status and cultural domination.
                  If you mean this instead of world domination, then France and Germany would also have count as well.

                  • #172324
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >would also have count as well
                    wouldn’t that unintentionally include spain as well?

                    • #172325
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      You’re right, forgot about that one.

    • #172295
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >ITT coping byzaboos
      The byzantines funneled all resources into Constantinople

      • #172296
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Actually I think most of the empire’s resources went toward maintaining the armed forces and trying to prevent civil wars.

        • #172297
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >maintaining the armed forces and trying to prevent civil wars
          the theme system lumped the maintenance onto the locals and the soldiers were no longer paid and civil wars were rarely prevented

          • #172298
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >lumped
            dumped

          • #172301
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Yeah that’s where most of the resources went, the local paying for their own defenses, especially in the minor cities like Thessaloniki, Nicea, Trebizond etc. And it doesn’t mean that this worked, it just means that’s what resources were spent on.

            • #172305
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >force locals to defend themselves. "reward" them with local land. Tax them once they successfully set up their farms. A few decades later the aristocracy and provincial magnates buy up all the land and create plantations cutting out the little guy
              As long as Constantinople got its taxes it didn’t give a single shit about what happened elsewhere. You’re also forgetting some things exclusive only to Constantinople like it’s silk trade

              • #172309
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >as Constantinople got its taxes it didn’t give a single shit about what happened elsewhere
                I gotta say I really disagree with this assessment. I would say the court in Constantinople would alternate between looking inwardly and looking outwardly, and usually that is dependent on the sate of the empire itself. And of course Constantinople is the wealthiest city due to things like trade, but the economy of the city is not what I would consider the majority of the resources of the empire.
                This is a weird line of thinking you are trying to take me on, I’m pretty confused by this.

                • #172311
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >tinople would alternate between looking inwardly and looking outwardly
                  no it wouldn’t. It was always inwardly unlike a provincial magnate started acting out forcing Constantinople to look outward

                  • #172313
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    What do you call the times when emperors would launch and/or lead military expeditions? Basil II comes to mind.

                    • #172314
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Basil II comes to mind
                      you mean the guy whose reign was followed by Constantinople partying themselves to destruction? The Bulgar conquest the incomplete as Bulgaria was incorporated without breaking Bulgarian identity which would come back to haunt the byzantines

                      • #172315
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What are you going on about? I asked if you thought he represented an inward or outward looking individual.

                      • #172316
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        he’s an example of someone who thinks he’s outward but actually inward as he leaves the empire to his scrotebrained sis

                      • #172317
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Do you have some kind of strange agenda when it comes to the Byzantines? You are saying things that make no sense.

      • #172304
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Let’s not pretend that wasn’t a major reason rome fell

        • #172306
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Let’s not pretend that wasn’t a major reason rome fell
          In the case of Rome it was Italy that received gibs from the provinces rather than one city and has time passed those special privileges were mostly taken away

          • #172310
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Rome was succing the whole empire dry, especially the fertile east. It started failing when logistics failed and routes were broken by invaders

    • #172299
      Anonymous
      Guest

      why do Byzaboos receive so much flak?

      • #172300
        Anonymous
        Guest

        they’re annoying

      • #172303
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Every type of -boo eventually receives flak because

        they’re annoying

      • #172308
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Edward Gibbon looked disgusting–double chin protruding–in his red coat before Parliament of Great Britain. Very very disrespectful.

      • #172323
        Anonymous
        Guest

        because there’s a 45% chance they’re here because of Dovahchud.

    • #172318
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’m sorry, but an Empire that constantly produces men like Justinian I and II, Anastasius, Maurice, Belisarius, Narses, Heraclius, Constans II, Leo the Isaurian, Constantine Kopronymos, Nikephoros, Bardas, Patriarch Photios, Basil the Macedonian, Romanos Lekapenos, John Kourkouas, Nikephoros and Leo Phokas, John Tsimiskes, Bardas Skleros, Nikephoros Ouranos, Basil II, George Maniakes and Basil Boioannes could not be anything but utterly B A S E D and there is quite literally nothing you can do to convince me otherwise

    • #172327
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Byzantium consistently fielded a smaller army then Albania in its last 100 years of existence

      • #172328
        Anonymous
        Guest

        In it’s last 100 years of existence it had zero economic power and a puny population base, smaller even than Albania

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id