[Quranic Reflection]: The universe is expanding

[Deesse23]

The Byzantines WERE Greeks, you boob.

The amount of lying and hypocrisy can be shown here from the mod. He name-calls me and lie about history when he confronted with the evidence from historical records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Greeks

The Byzantine Greeks were the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans of Orthodox Christianity throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. They were the main inhabitants of the lands of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire), of Constantinople and Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the Greek islands, Cyprus, and portions of the southern Balkans, and formed large minorities, or pluralities, in the coastal urban centres of the Levant and northern Egypt. Throughout their history, the Byzantine Greeks self-identified as Romans (Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, romanized: Rhōmaîoi), but are referred to as "Byzantine Greeks" in modern historiography. Latin speakers identified them simply as Greeks or with the term Romei.

In modern Byzantine scholarship, there are currently three main schools of thought on medieval eastern Roman identity.

    First, a school of thought that developed largely under the influence of modern Greek nationalism, treats Roman identity as the medieval form of a perennial Greek national identity. In this view, as heirs to the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though they knew that they were ethnically Greeks.
    Second, which could be regarded as preponderant in the field considers "Romanity" the mode of self-identification of the subjects of a multi-ethnic empire at least up to the 12th century, where the average subject identified as Roman.
    Third, a line of thought argues that the eastern Roman identity was a separate pre-modern national identity.The established consensus in the field of Byzantine studies does not call into question the self-identification of the "Byzantines" as Romans.

Western perception
Further information: Liutprand of Cremona and Massacre of the Latins
The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, by Eugène Delacroix, 1840.

In the eyes of the West, after the coronation of Charlemagne, the Byzantines were not acknowledged as the inheritors of the Roman Empire. Byzantium was rather perceived to be a corrupted continuation of ancient Greece, and was often derided as the "Empire of the Greeks" or "Kingdom of Greece". Such denials of Byzantium's Roman heritage and ecumenical rights would instigate the first resentments between Greeks and "Latins" (for the Latin liturgical rite) or "Franks" (for Charlemegne's ethnicity), as they were called by the Greeks.

Oh, and someone self identifying as "Roman" does not make you roman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
....else, until 1453 there would have been two *roman empires*.  


Tl;dr: The Byzantine empire was a continuation of the Roman Empire, but was through and through greek in religion and ehnicity.


Only someone with a black-and-white view of the world, a completely distortet one, and so narrowminded as Atlas would post such BS as he did (again, like in almost any post of almost any thread he participates in).

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The amount of lying and hypocrisy can be shown here from the mod. He name-calls me and lie about history when he confronted with the evidence from historical records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Greeks

The Byzantine Greeks were the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans of Orthodox Christianity throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. They were the main inhabitants of the lands of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire), of Constantinople and Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the Greek islands, Cyprus, and portions of the southern Balkans, and formed large minorities, or pluralities, in the coastal urban centres of the Levant and northern Egypt. Throughout their history, the Byzantine Greeks self-identified as Romans (Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, romanized: Rhōmaîoi), but are referred to as "Byzantine Greeks" in modern historiography. Latin speakers identified them simply as Greeks or with the term Romei.

In modern Byzantine scholarship, there are currently three main schools of thought on medieval eastern Roman identity.

    First, a school of thought that developed largely under the influence of modern Greek nationalism, treats Roman identity as the medieval form of a perennial Greek national identity. In this view, as heirs to the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though they knew that they were ethnically Greeks.
    Second, which could be regarded as preponderant in the field considers "Romanity" the mode of self-identification of the subjects of a multi-ethnic empire at least up to the 12th century, where the average subject identified as Roman.
    Third, a line of thought argues that the eastern Roman identity was a separate pre-modern national identity.The established consensus in the field of Byzantine studies does not call into question the self-identification of the "Byzantines" as Romans.

Western perception
Further information: Liutprand of Cremona and Massacre of the Latins
The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, by Eugène Delacroix, 1840.

In the eyes of the West, after the coronation of Charlemagne, the Byzantines were not acknowledged as the inheritors of the Roman Empire. Byzantium was rather perceived to be a corrupted continuation of ancient Greece, and was often derided as the "Empire of the Greeks" or "Kingdom of Greece". Such denials of Byzantium's Roman heritage and ecumenical rights would instigate the first resentments between Greeks and "Latins" (for the Latin liturgical rite) or "Franks" (for Charlemegne's ethnicity), as they were called by the Greeks.

Oh, and someone self identifying as "Roman" does not make you roman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
....else, until 1453 there would have been two *roman empires*.  


Tl;dr: The Byzantine empire was a continuation of the Roman Empire, but was through and through greek in religion and ehnicity.


Only someone with a black-and-white view of the world, a completely distortet one, and so narrowminded as Atlas would post such BS as he did (again, like in almost any post of almost any thread he participates in).

This is so clearly the case that it boggles me that Winter rejects it (though it shouldn’t). Throughout Roman history, subjugated people and Roman allies self-styled as ‘Roman’, but in context, this meant ‘legally Roman’ or ‘part of the Roman world’. Germans, for example, didn’t stop being Germans just because the various tribes got pounded into submission by Roman legions. They might have thought of themselves as Romans- in the sense mentioned above - and even been proud to do so (especially after the Caracalla debacle in the 3rd century CE), but they never stopped being Germans.

‘Just because your cat has kittens in the oven doesn’t make them biscuits.’ - Lincoln

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Rome, like The West™ has no particular factual or historic meaning to Winter. They're stand-ins for satan. That's why he believes that an actual discussion of rome is off topic, because he's not talking about rome when he uses the term.

We think we're having a historical discussion, he's trying to tell us about dryads in trees.

The same is true of his many magic book threads. The culture and history (and dare we say..science...) that lead magic book to adopt such a stance is lost on him, as the then-progressiveness of islam is lost on him...because he can't bring himself to accept the fact that the book has a history that didn't begin with a ghost in a cave. This is the tragedy of islam. It made the empire, then broke it. There was nothing more radical about islam than it's assumption of natural philosophy. Magic book told it's followers that none of the ridiculous shit other religions were selling was true. That god did things and made things pretty much as we see them. That there were no god-men. A demystification of the cosmos in relation to previous beliefs.

[Deesse23]

This is so clearly the case that it boggles me that Winter rejects it (though it shouldn’t).

His reasons are simple (yet stupid, again) and he clearly stated them in some previous threads/posts:

#1 The Muslims defeated the "Roman empire"
In order to "make this claim come true", he has to define the Eastern Roman Empire aka Byzantium as the Roman Empire, period. Otherwise the achievements of the early muslims would be dimished.
His view, not mine.

#2 Ottomans as successors or Rome, thereby
He worships the Ottomans* (amongst others, like the Mamluks) and clearly stated that he views the Ottoman empire as a succesion of the Roman empire, again, looking for historical/political legitimisation. This only works is the Byzantine Empire was the Roman empire.


Like usual: He has his (stupid) conclusions, and works backwards from there.


*by the way, in reference to the torture and cruelty insanity of a thread Atlass also created lately: It was the Ottomans who made it custom that future Sultans had to kill all their (even infant!) brothers and other male family members, in order to gain political legitimacy and power. They never bothered with clear rules of succession. The results can be seen all over modern Istanbul, namely those small, cute coffins of all the murdered young brothers of Sultans.  
Oh, and since spilling blood was so barbaric and unworthy of such high ranking nobles, they were usually, just like Viziers fallen from grace, strangeled with silk ties (which was coincidentally a similar practice of the Mongols who Atlass, in his distorted black-and-white-view of the world hates so much and despises as barbarians the oh-so-civilized Muslims defeated to save the world    ).

---

Rome, like The West™ has no particular factual or historic meaning to Winter.  They're stand-ins for satan.

I wouldnt go that far, for Rome for example. I dont recall him trash talking Rome. But he views those entities as mere pawns, acessories in the wider context of the rise and rule of Islam, which is his primary (and probably only) focus. Thats why its irrelevant to him if his definition and other *pesky details* about his views on Rome, Byzanium or "The West" are factually wrong. Its irrelevant, because the relevant parts is: Islam.

Completely self centered, intellectually uncurious and dishonest.

It made the empire, then broke it.

Pretty quickly, yes. Islam split faster than many other religions, into Sunni and Shia. A mere 50y after the death of The Prophet the first schism has happened and the first Caliphate (Rashidun) was gone.

 There was nothing more radical about islam than it's assumption of natural philosophy.  Magic book told it's followers that none of the ridiculous shit other religions were selling was true.  That god did things and made things pretty much as we see them.  That there were no god-men.  A demystification of the cosmos in relation to previous beliefs.

Agreed, it paved the way to many scientific observations and discoveries, yet also was the root cause of many an evil.

[WinterHold]

Look dear reader how bots under the authority of the mod BrianSoddingBoru4 changed the topic to discuss Rome, even though the op is about " [Quranic Reflection]:The universe is expanding"

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Look dear reader how bots under the authority of the mod BrianSoddingBoru4 changed the topic to discuss Rome, even though the op is about " [Quranic Reflection]:The universe is expanding"

Yeah, my scary authority. All of the other members are lowly minions who do my bidding. 

YOU’RE the one who brought up Rome in the first place. And got it wrong.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Look dear reader how bots under the authority of the mod BrianSoddingBoru4 changed the topic to discuss Rome, even though the op is about " [Quranic Reflection]:The universe is expanding"

This is the link to the bot who brought Rome to the table and tried to oversimplify/misrepresent the Byzantine Empire as the equivalent to the Roman Empire.

And this is what you the bot posted:

Roman emperor Constantine I
Names of Constantinople
Byzantium took on the name of Kōnstantinoupolis ("city of Constantine", Constantinople) after its refoundation under Roman emperor Constantine I, who transferred the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium in 330 and designated his new capital officially as Nova Roma (Νέα Ῥώμη) 'New Rome'.

As per usual you are trying to blame others for you derailing your own threads (because of your utter ignorance).
And fuck you for trying to bully people around, incuding mods.

[Peebothuhlu]

Look dear reader how bots under the authority of the mod BrianSoddingBoru4 changed the topic to discuss Rome, even though the op is about " [Quranic Reflection]:The universe is expanding"

No.

Look, dear reader, how the rest of chat is trying to correct Winterhold's poor understanding of history in a thread where the OP can't even be descent enough to answer direct questions relating to the actual OP.



Not at work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Look dear reader how bots under the authority of the mod BrianSoddingBoru4 changed the topic to discuss Rome, even though the op is about " [Quranic Reflection]:The universe is expanding"

No.

Look, dear reader, how the rest of chat is trying to correct Winterhold's poor understanding of history in a thread where the OP can't even be descent enough to answer direct questions relating to the actual OP.



Not at work.

Maybe Allah is ‘expanding’ the topic.

Boru

[Deesse23]

No.

Look, dear reader, how the rest of chat is trying to correct Winterhold's poor understanding of history in a thread where the OP can't even be descent enough to answer direct questions relating to the actual OP.



Not at work.

Maybe Allah is ‘expanding’ the topic.

Boru

Looks like the uni... topic was able to *expand* completely without divine intervention.