How do you see Genghis Khan?

1) When i say modern i mean that the english left their barbaric ways and became a strong and united kingdom that even the greeks, byzantines, went there to ask help against the turks.

2) Louis was a good emperor but not enought good to keep his empire united.
 
Just look the byzantine culture and towns and then see the anglo-saxon culture and towns.
 
1) When i say modern i mean that the english left their barbaric ways and became a strong and united kingdom that even the greeks, byzantines, went there to ask help against the turks.

What are "barbaric ways"? Why haven't you acknowledged that the Anglo-Saxons had a united kingdom before the Normans?

2) Louis was a good emperor but not enought good to keep his empire united.

He didn't try to. That wasn't his intent.

Just look the byzantine culture and towns and then see the anglo-saxon culture and towns.

Could we perhaps be a bit more specific than "my taste is clearly superior to your barbaric cretin taste"?
 
1) They have been united but when the normans attacked they were deafedet. I dont have anything against the anglo- saxons. they had a nice culture but that is. For me if normans didnt attacked england, england would have never became an empire.

2) The i hope he doesnt complain in his grave why his empire was divided.
 
1) They have been united but when the normans attacked they were deafedet.
Only just, and after a forced march across the country after having trounced a Norwegian army in Yorkshire only three weeks earlier.
 
Well thats history. Also even the roman empire had never been realy great because;

1) The poor where far too many than the rich.

2) They used barbarians for army.

3) Rome, even with all its empire, was a city state like Athens and Sparta, and a city state cant rule for too long the entire world.

Also the only true empires at medeival era where the arabs and chinese.
 
1) They have been united but when the normans attacked they were deafedet.

So what? Did the Nazis bring civilization to France because the French were defeated, indicating French inferiority? No. Of course not. Just the same, the Anglo-Saxons weren't defeated because they were inferior barbarians, but because they had just fought a massive engagement at Stamford Bridge on September 25, and then had less than a month to redeploy and prepare for the Norman invasion (Hastings occurred on October 14). Now, perhaps the Normans could've won anyway, but it's impossible to know, and it's certainly a ridiculous stretch to say the Normans only won because they were better.

I dont have anything against the anglo- saxons. they had a nice culture but that is. For me if normans didnt attacked england, england would have never became an empire.

Again, what do you base this on? Is it... nothing?

2) The i hope he doesnt complain in his grave why his empire was divided.

His empire wasn't divided in his grave. Furthermore, I don't see how this indicates the Carolingians were reckless barbarians compared to the Roman Empire. The Romans frequently ceded territory that was untenable. It doesn't mean they were destined to collapse; plenty of growing, expansive, belligerent and aggressive countries throughout the course of history over-extended themselves and withdrew briefly. Why was "German feudalism" :)crazyeye:) destined to fail?

What are "barbarians" and why are they inferior to the glory of the Roman Empire? Explain this to me. Seriously. Otherwise you're just coming off as a massive racist who thinks "Germans" are inherently inferior to Greeks.
 
I'm honestly a bit lost at what you are arguing. All I can gather is that somehow the Byzantines are epic, because the English got conquered by the Normans. Guess what: The Byzantines suffered greatly from the Normans.
 
I'm honestly a bit lost at what you are arguing. All I can gather is that somehow the Byzantines are epic, because the English got conquered by the Normans. Guess what: The Byzantines suffered greatly from the Normans.
And employed the English to fight them. It's a spiral of self-contradiction, sure enough.
 
I'm still trying to figure out what a barbarian is and why they're so bad outside of the context of hypernationalism.
 
Barbarian: People who we don't like, either because they don't fit neatly into our narrative or because they go against what our narrative tells us is how things should happen.
 
Well thats history. Also even the roman empire had never been realy great because;

1) The poor where far too many than the rich.

2) They used barbarians for army.

3) Rome, even with all its empire, was a city state like Athens and Sparta, and a city state cant rule for too long the entire world.
1) is true of every state in the history of the world ever

2) is wrong

3) is also wrong

nächst
 
It's funny that no historical records survive to that effect, then, given that numerous Englishmen served in the Varangian Guard. (A majority of the guard were English in the late 11th century, in fact, having seen a large influx of Godwin loyalists after 1066.)

That's an interesting subject for discussion. I wonder if anti-Norman circumstances had a lot to do with it. After all, they'd certainly have plenty of opportunities dealing with Normans in Southern Italy while working for Byzantium.

Some historians emphasize that the Normans "Europeanized" England, but all I see for the first century of Norman rule was economically inhibitive taxes, fairly poor kings (arguably Henry I's reforms outweigh his other errors, to be fair), and reckless, expensive adventures in continental France. From what is it based that England would've been diplomatically isolated if they weren't conquered? That seems like rubbish to me. The Carolingians, Ireland and England were exchanging bishops for a good period of time.

The way I see it is this:
The political system of England that led to Parliament strives from its isolated nature, which removes the need for a large, powerful standing army. William had nothing to do with that. However, he did break the power of the Barons and helped centralize rule. I can't say whether that would have happened otherwise. The tension between King and Parliament probably is a product of Norman centralizing forces. Furthermore, the strength of Parliament had to do with the need for money, which is related to English foreign military campaigns. Certainly, none of this was an intended byproduct but maybe it was only these circumstances that caused it.

However, as far as connections to the Continent, I agree. Scandinavian rule (such as that which existed with Cnut) would certainly have moved them from France and the mainland. But Norman rule wasn't necessary. They were already in the middle of a fairly involved process of Normanization anyway (where Norman aristocrats were invited to settle in Great Britain). I think that alone would have been a force pulling them to the Continent.
 
Linkman226 said:
Technically Christos is right. Considering the Byzantines spoke Greek, and barbaroi means those who don't speak Greek... a lot of Europe was barbaroi.

Woooo
. You don't speak Te Reo therefore you are not real people. :D

Louis XXIV said:
William had nothing to do with that. However, he did break the power of the Barons and helped centralize rule.

He centralised rule? Seems to me that he actually decentralised rule and let a sophisticated taxation system go to ruins while he was doing it.

Louis XXIV said:
The tension between King and Parliament probably is a product of Norman centralizing forces.

Or more proximate factors like the competence of the Monarch?

Louis XXIV said:
Certainly, none of this was an intended byproduct but maybe it was only these circumstances that caused it.

I literally do not see how a Parliament makes a country European...?
 
Well, we're all barbarians according to the great Celestial Empire of Zhōngguó.

Speaking of which, that's pretty close to Genghis Khan.
 
here is an example of how expediency overcomes the impedimentia of so far established history . One the entire literate population of the planet Earth must have heard at least once , one that took a head of state and other high ranking officals to the gallows for their complicity , one that was the irrefutable justification of an invasion of a country . When our time come we will learn how we gassed Halepçe . And Saddam's defence that Iranians did it to frame Iraq will not be funny , as entire ranks upon ranks of pundits and journos will explain it with scientific precision and unmatched hate at the duplicity . When our time come the present chief of staff will learn the whys and hows of why foreigners were so interested in him that the locals cleared his way to the top with 48 arrested flag ranks ; as Germans in the forums might have come across German media accounts of his responsibility about chemicals against the seperatists in 97-99 .

will not matter anything . Will be around shamelessly declaring the International Space Station under blockade . Lasers are passe .

bets are regularly placed on whether can ı write anything on topic . In my defence ı should say had Cengiz not existed , he would have been invented ; Orientalism existing only to supress Occidentalism .

was a museum guide , the society that run the museum had a low circulation history magazine , there was a book written by English travellers about what they saw on their overland trip to Eygpt in the 1800s when the Ottomans had joined the alliance against Napoleon , was only one with the combination of English language and spare time , yes , ı nearly or actually went to print in a legit magazine . Don't know which as ı was fired next week . My work was a simple translation of what they saw around my city and a brief personal rant on why people of their caliber never liked anything that was touched by the reeking stench of Turkishness . To cut it short , to the layman in the West the Church was the human civilisation , as the marriage of the clergy with the structures of the Roman Empire had produced a practically unbreakable bond on daily life and imagination . Those who opposed the Church on various reasons had to resort to the lowly trick of finding non-Christian equivalents of the Roman Empire to lol the guys and that was why China or Eygpt was liked by the Enlightened people ; though them being all white guys who also benefitted from the fruits of colonization and exploitation it was some tough sell . Finally them white guys re-read their classics and remembered the Romans had themselves admitted they had learned it all from the Greeks . The ancient godlike ones . The ones why we know Persia was a magnificient empire back in the day , because it was only gods that could bring Persia down . Byzantion they hated it to a man . Them being white men of Roman upbringing .

which meant we Turks had it very tough in the 1800s . To the conservatives we were heathen and worse , to the radicals we were occupiers of the sacred land and even worse . Hah und huh , r16 scholarship ! What else would you expect ?

the ethos still live in the cloak and dagger world . ı hear Cheney has just gone into print and he finds Rice naive . Yeah , why not , among others she was just trying to scare us rather than , you know , putting 6 feet under . It is an idiom , 6 feet thing . Not to be taken for real ; we will be left for scavenging dogs . Our turn will come and there will be people still thinking the bombs whistling down are meant only for monkeys and not them . My country made a name for standing for the weak , if you ever believe Turkish newspapers , thrusting a hand of friendship to our neighbours risking wrath of US and its ilk , and sure enough all the suits are now talking it was a trick , Wikileaks were proof that we had never betrayed Uncle Sam and we were converting the Syrians , removing them out of Iranian orbit . Saying this in 2009 made you a Zionist tool , a fool and an enemy of State , now they are bragging on TV . There is one who was in the paper and he said it was either going into Syria or else ( seperatists and their mighty power ) These are the people who call the shots in this pitiful wretched country that must surely be worthless . Even the dictatorial military releases tapes that if we don't behave them white guys will make us behave . Tell me , Young American , what do they say , was the distraction of 9 killed here and tons of bombs exported to Northern Iraq worth Trablus ? Not that we were like ever proppin' Kaddafi but it must be kinda those gas bombs we dropped back in '86 . Promise kiddo , we will be begging for mercy , in say , an hour .

history is an alteration of reality only when it suits the historian or rather the guy who foots the bill . Easy for me to say , since am neither . No historian in me and certainly no chequebook around .
 
1) I dont have anything against the germans.

2) Thanks to the normans england became from a barbarian kingdom to a glorius empire.
 
2) Thanks to the normans england became from a barbarian kingdom to a glorius empire.
But England hadn't been particularly "barbaric" for several centuries, and wouldn't be an empire of any description for at least another five. There's nothing self-evident about the Norman conquest which suggests that it was a keystone in the transition from the one to the other. (In fact, one of its longest impacts was the severe economic damage it did to England, because of the brutal methods of subjugation employed by the Normans, and their tendency to treat England as a colony of their continental holdings. It's quite possible that an independent England may have emerged as a major player at an even earlier date.)
 
Top Bottom