What about a game about an Israel occupied Palestine?

It's called "the Roman province of Palestine", where Romans brought their culture and architecture and technology and religion.
The common folk were romanized, and spoke Greek like all Eastern provinces of the Empire.
Roman rule lasted six hundred years, more than half a millennium.

You could make one yourself if you weren't a hylic who can only consoom.

>>96546650
>occupied
Palestinian once meant Jew lol

>>96546686
i'd rather be a hylic than an untalented psychic sharing my mediocre implementations

occupied is a big word, large percentage of the population welcomed Roman rule because it was drastically less oppressive than Jewish rule

>>96546699
The remaining peoples are semites, Israelis are Khazar Jew-convert tribesmen that only did it for political gain with zero actual ties to the region

>>96546719
That's what makes the idea interesting to me. The pharisees were granted some degree of autonomy and there were also the pseudo-hippie galileans in the dynamic

>>96546645
That shit gets way too much attention, why not Roman occupied Illyria.

>>96546766
>pseudo-hippie
Fuck, I meant the opposite basically

>>96546671
It was called Judaea. Then Syria-Palestina.

>>96546699
No it didn't. The term comes from the Philistines, who are specifically a different ethnic group (probably from Mediterranean islands or possibly Cretans specifically) who settled in the region some time after the bronze age collapse. They were non-semitic.

>>96546735
The phoenecian, eblaite (syrian), ugaritic, aramaic, canaanite, arabian and hebrew were all semitic people. Whose language ultimately can be traced back to the akkadians. Ironically it's the hieroglyphs of egyptian that gave rise to the proto-alphabet of the semitic people in the sinai around 1900b.c.e., rather than the cuneiform of akkadian. Transmission of which lead to the latin alphabet.

So we're using a Semitic alphabet written in Egyptian characters to speak an Indo-European language. It demonstrates the extraordinary interconnectedness of Europe, Asia and Africa that gave rise to the modern world we're living in, here in North America.

What an amazingly interconnected, cross-continental world we live in!

>>96546671
No, the common folk were Hellenized, just like the Romans, which is why they spoke Greek, not Latin.

>>96546766
You're thinking of the Sadducees (although you actually mean the Sanhedrin), not the Pharisees. Although neither the Sadducees nor Pharisees existed for 90% of the Roman occupation.

The Sadducees were the official priests with (some degree of) independence. Which was destroyed with the second temple in 70A.D., after which there were no longer Pharisees nor Sadducees (nor a Sanhedrin), from which resulting diaspora would emerge Rabbinic Judaism. The Pharisees didn't have "autonomy" because they weren't the ones in political control. They were a buncha conservative businessmen. Or if they did, it was the same autonomy that any other businessmen had to conduct trade under Roman rule. The Sadducees were the official priests whose authority centered around the temple during the Herodian dynasty. Although the Pharisees, as influential business leaders, certainly represented an influential minority within the Sanhedrin.

>>96547433
Your historical knowledge is excellent. Do you also study the bible?

>>96546699
>lol
not fooling anyone

>>96547495
Not really. I read a lot of post-bronze-age history. Which inevitably overlaps a lot with canaanite religion. But I have never been interested in the religious aspects of it.

>>96547509
No matter, just curious. People don't appreciate how much their understanding of what actually happened back then has been subverted. Not always maliciously, it was just a long time ago.

>>96547499
>jew trying to play off his seethe with a "lol"
a tale as old as time indeed

>>96547530
>it was just a long time ago.
It very-much was--that's why I love the Latin alphabet so much. The alphabet from Egyptian characters developed for use by the people speaking the languages of Mesopotamia, spread to Greece throgh trade and into Rome and eventually our modern languages here in the USA. It's a direct line through all of human history (if you make a stopover for the importance of China and India in the British Empire that creates today's cultural hegemony).

History becomes very fucking cool if we can get over our identity politics long enough to understand that every single one of us is a direct product of five thousand years of the history of civilization, across the entire planet.

>>96547098
>No it didn’t
Israel’s former newspaper was called The Palestinian lol

>>96546699
It’s strange. As far as I learned in history class the term used to denote to all inhabitants of Palestine and with the advent of Zionism and the British Mandate even mostly to the Jews, such as Immanuel Kant, who referred to European Jews as "Palestinians living among us." Jews founded the Palestinian post, the Mandatory Palestine national football team represented the British Mandate of Palestine in international football competitions and was Jewish and in the 1940s the call to Free Palestine was a call for a sovereign Jewish state.

Nowadays there are no Jews that call themselves Palestinians, the term denotes to Arabs in the region and not Jews. The whole Palestinian nationality thing appears to be made up. A lie. It’s based on butthurt. The Jew Palestinians came out ahead so the other Palestinians are throwing a tantrum.

>>96547954
>Israel’s former newspaper was called The Palestinian lol
A. Nope
B. It was called the Palestine Post
C. It was an English-language newspaper published during the British Mandate, covering news in the region Called "The British Mandate For Palestine," hence the name
D. It was renamed "The Jerusalem Post" in 1950, less than 2 years after Israel came into existence

>>96547979
>Nowadays there are no Jews that call themselves Palestinians, the term denotes to Arabs in the region and not Jews.
There never were. Learn history. Palestine comes from Philistine, directly. The Philistines were people who migrated into the region after or during the bronze-age collapse, and were a non-semitic people. The hebrew people were canaanites, not philisitines. Those words exist specifically to distinguish the two.

>>96547979
weird how everyone who interacts with them "throws a tantrum." must be the antisemitism

>>96547979
>The Jew Palestinians came out ahead so the other Palestinians are throwing a tantrum.
That is a disgusting attempt to downplay a group of people fighting to stop themselves being forced off their homeland, herded into camps and genocided.

>>96547979
Cool but you still owe my country a $20 trillion refund, pedophile.

>>96546650
Not nearly fantastical enough for my liking tee bee haich

>>96546645
Good guy romans, protecting the rest of the world containing the disgusting and evil israeli creatures.

>>96547433
it makes me seethe that (((the enemy))) tried to rebrand the phonecian language as paleo hebrew

>>96548120
They left voluntarily after expecting Jews to be exterminated. The ones who stayed in Israel became Israeli Muslims. Some Arabs even fought for Israel. The Nakba isn’t actually as simple as “they kicked us all out!”.

Tell me. Why would Israel want to bring back in a people who chose their side? Why would Jews want to bring back in a people who expected them all to die?

>>96547980
>the newspaper wasn’t Palestinian it was Palestinian!
Okay
The point is Palestinian once meant Jew

>>96548186
The phoenician and judean people both grew out of canaanite society. They are basically the same people, seperated by a couple-hundred miles at the very most. Both spoke semitic languages.

>>96548195
The Romans applied Palestinian as an exonym for the region specifically to denigrate and exclude Judaeans after the harsh feelings resulting from the area's being turned from Judaean province into Syria-Palestine. Basically, the Jews kept rebelling so often that the Romans said "fuck it, we aren't going to admit that these people exist, any more." And Western Europeans continued using the word Palestine because they wanted to denigrate the Turks and Arabs, who called the region Southern Syria.

Jews referred to themselves as "Palestinian Jews" for a period of less than 3 decades for very specific, political reasons that were the legacy of Roman imperialism and the West's hatred for admitting that Muslims were the center of civilization for the thousand years we call "the dark ages" that we all just pretend nothing important happened, during, because reading about anyone non-western-european makes us seethe. "Palestinian" was never, ever, a word that meant "Jewish."

Israel never should have been made. Why would they - the Jews - make their home around a people who have historically wanted to kill them in truly horrific ways?

It was a dumb decision. BUT, Israel is here to stay, now, so Palestinians better just learn to live with it. There is no other way. I doubt a two state solution is even possible at this point.

>>96548219
Doesn’t matter. History doesn’t matter. They’re there to stay. Nations around the world throughout history have always been built on shaky ground. Israel isn’t at all unique. It was just a dumb decision to make it the Jewish homeland (“gee, who would have thought making our home right next to our worst enemy was ever a good idea, ever?”), when they had far better alternatives.

This is why I have zero sympathy for Palestinians. History doesn’t matter. They need to just grow up. For the sake of their kids. By God.

I agree with people like Christopher Hitchens. A horse shit nationalistic excuse to start a nation, but a democratic nation of western values nonetheless.

>>96548219
> "Palestinian" was never, ever, a word that meant "Jewish."
Similar to how Palestinians don’t actually exist? They’re no different from Jordanians.

>>96548240
I'm not interested in that argument, anon. I'm discussing anon's misconception that "Palestinian" at one time meant "Jewish." It never did.

>>96548187
I don't expect jews to do anything but what's good for jews. I'm simply not going to lie to myself and say that them trying to wipe out a people isn't genocide.

>>96548250
>It never did.
Before 1948 it did. Cope more.

>>96548240
>a democratic nation of western values nonetheless.
christ, the chutzpah on you fucks.

>>96548256
It’s not a genocide. If you call it one, then you can argue that America committed genocide against the Germans. Palestine has seen a massive jump in population.

>>96548262
I just gave you the actual history to correct your misconceptions right here: >>96548219 and here: >>96547980

Learn. Then speak.

>>96548266
You said “never”, and then said “for a brief three decades”. Europeans called Jews Palestinians. You’re also ignoring that Palestinians are genetically the same as Jordanians. Palestinians aren’t real.

JCSS is such a catchy musical. I wasn't raised christian and I still loved it and years later find myself thinking about the songs. I saw the pic and the initial riff started playing in my head.

You are simple retarded if you think zionists will leave palestinians alone if they just surrender. They're going to kill every single one of them and cry "im a victim, antisemitism is so strong nowdays", just like they've been doing for 80 years.

And if they get away with genocide and land theft, what could they do next? What if they go to where you live?

>>96548279
No, try reading it again. They called themselves "Palestinian Jews." Not "Palestinians." The difference was incredibly important.

Learn. Then speak.

>>96548274
Palestinian meant Palestinian. This includes both Jews and Muslims in the region.

>>96548296
Correct. Not Jewish. It referred to the people living in the British Mandate for Palestine. It was never, ever, synonymous with "Jewish." Which is what the incorrect anon I was correcting had claimed.

>>96548288
>They called themselves "Palestinian Jews." Not "Palestinians."
So they were Palestinian? A Palestinian Jew and a Palestinian Muslim are both Palestinian. Except the Jews don’t consider themselves Palestinian anymore.

>>96548266
They stole the name Israel, they'll steal the name Palestine, too. Den of vipers.

>>96548306
Here was the claim: >>96546699
>Palestinian once meant Jew lol
That has never, ever, been true.

>>96548304
>It was never, ever, synonymous with "Jewish."
It was synonymous with Jews if you were living in the time of Emanuel Kant, 1724 - 1804. Jews were seen as Palestinian. There’s history to this association that you’re ignoring.

>>96548319
Nope. What you are saying is simply false.

>>96547575
I had read that the greek writing system was invented to write the odyssey and was in zig zag, the way they prepared the fields. But now I'm having trouble finding a source going in detail, is that just a myth people spread because it sounded right?

>>96548314
>That has never, ever, been true.
No, it was true. The Jews considered themselves Palestinian, and Jews in Europe were seen as Palestinians in Europe.

You seem to have a stick stuck up your ass, buddy.

>>96548090
with that logic we should kill all 4channes.

>>96548323
Nope. Palestinian at one point meant a Jew or a Muslim or anyone from Palestine. Jews were seen as Palestinian.

>>96548324
The Mycenean Greeks had their own writing systems, linear A & B. Linear A may or may not have been a full language. It disappeared around the Bronze Age collapse and was replaced with the phoenician script. We're not sure about it's origins, nor entirely why it vanished. My guess is that, whatever you read, was probably referring to Linear B. The assumption has always been that the Iliad is a story from around the Bronze Age Collapse and, for all we know, it may have once been written in Linear B.

The issue is that Palestinians pretend that the Israeli aren’t essentially Palestinian themselves. This is why “Palestinian once meant Jew” pisses them off, since it implies they’re not unique.

In case OP sincerely though this was a good concept for a ttrpg, I hope the thread showed you why no one wants to make it.

>>96548341
>anyone from Palestine
Correct.
>Palestinian at one point meant a Jew
Incorrect.

>Jews were once Palestinian, and Palestinian at one point as much meant a Jew as it meant a Muslim
>Okay but they still aren’t Palestinian tho
Retarded general

>>96548358
Palestinian once meant or denoted a Jew as much as it meant or denoted a Muslim, sorry. Palestinians aren’t real and they definitely aren’t unique.

>>96548380
Nope. That's simply false. See >>96548358 and >>96548219

1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state.
2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state.
4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state.
5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.
6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state.
7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state.
8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state.
9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.
10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state.
12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state.
13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state.
14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state.
15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.
16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state.
17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state.
20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE.

File: linearb_chart.jpg (40 KB, 492x269)

40 KB JPG

>>96548324
Here's some Linear B, by the way. If the /pol/-anons can chill out long enough to let the thread not be about modern politics.

>>96548390
The term ‘Palestinian Jew’ says you’re wrong. That Europeans saw Jews in Europe as Palestinian historically says you’re wrong.

>>96548401
>20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE.
"Palestinian" is a Greek exonym for the Philistines. Who did, in fact, have city-states along the coast in the area exactly where present-day Gaza sits. Ironically, the Philistines were non-semetic people who were, themselves, probably Mycenean in origin.

“Palestinians living amongst us” — Emmanuel Kant on the Jewish problem in Europe

>>96548423
Doesn’t matter. Numerous different people have lived on that land throughout history and can all be considered Palestinian.

>>96548015
It has to be mentioned that the Romans renamed Judea ("Jew Land") to Syria-Palestina ("Assyrian & Philistine Land") after the big revolt in 70 AD as a middle finger to the remaining Jews, the Assyrians and Philistines being among their biggest historical enemies.

Palestinian isn’t really an ethnicity more than a geographical claim to territory.

>>96548426
He wasn't talking about Jews. He was talking about people from the region of Palestine.

>>96548436
I am not arguing about current politics--I don't care. I'm just saying that the people whose name gave rise to the term "palestine" did, in fact, have city-states in that region. History is neat.

>>96548407
wait, so it was syllabic like japanese?
mind blown, I though that was just from the chinese.
Thanks for the info.
You had to know this would turn into a shitshow.

>>96548442
Nice to run into someone who knows history. Yeah I'd mentioned that too, in >>96548219

>>96548456
I did. But it's still neat history.

>>96548451
>I am not arguing about current politics
Modern politics certainly care about people like you who point out the linguistic falsehoods that prop up our regime.

>>96548451
>He wasn't talking about Jews. He was talking about people from the region of Palestine.
Who happened to be Jews. Yes.

>>96548426
>Palestinians living amongst us” — Emmanuel Kant
Huh that's an actual thing.

>>96546645
Do it by your own lazy slob,
take for example GURPS, several history books for a proper worldbuilding , and it would be enough to play any character from samaritan fisherman to roman legionary or even Jesus himself.

>>96548473
Kant wrote that line in 1798. At which point Muslims and Christians pretty evenly split being the majority in the region. Jews were a minority.

>>96548451
>I'm just saying that the people whose name gave rise to the term "palestine" did, in fact, have city-states in that region

The Philistines had their own confederation of city-states, known as the Pentapolis (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron), starting around the 12th century BCE after their arrival in Canaan. The early Israelites, by contrast, were initially tribal groups, with a unified kingdom of Israel forming later under leaders like David, though the roots of their presence in the land go back to the Bronze Age. Therefore, the Philistine city-states, while established before the formation of a unified Israelite kingdom, do not actually have an earlier claim to the land than the Canaanites.

To be more clear. The Canaanites came first, with their people and culture established in the land for centuries before the Philistines, an Aegean (Greek) immigrant group, arrived around 1175 BCE during the Late Bronze Age Collapse. The Canaanites already occupied the land, and the arrival of the Philistines was a relatively later event, distinct from the pre-existing Canaanite culture.

The modern day Jew(Ashkenazim) also has a claim to being white/European after interbreeding with Germanic women for the last millennium.

>>96548511
Hey, you actually looked up history. I appreciate it. But I wasn't talking about who has "claim" to anything. It's land. Ain't none of us got any "right" to claim a damned thing. It's just land. It doesn't "belong" to any human being at all. It was here before us. It'll be here after we extinct ourselves.

>>96548524
>Ain't none of us got any "right" to claim a damned thing. It's just land. It doesn't "belong" to any human being at all.
the hands that typed this are brown or live in a gated community

>>96548539
Either we've all got the same rights or none of us have any that aren't handed down at the end of the barrel of a loaded gun. The notion that this identity politic has rights but that one doesn't? Incoherent and illogical, possible only through force. At which point it's a moot discussion of who has the "better" claim to "rights." Because it's just about who's holding the gun, anyhow.

>>96548625
>none of us have any that aren't handed down at the end of the barrel of a loaded gun.
Correct, which is why it's important that the nation and not its government hold the guns.

>>96548646
Not sure what we're talking about, any more. But if you're arguing that everyone should have equal rights, the whole planet over? I'm on board, anon. I don't think it's possible, but it's a nice dream.

>>96548524
Okay, but you’re basically just arguing about the origin of the P word.

>>96548674
People4 around the world already have equal rights. If they don't like their government they have the one god-given right that exists: to rebel. The vast majority of people simply prefer their government to the extreme discomfort of killing tyrants.

>>96546645
>>96548281
Man I fucking love JCSS.

>>96548695
Correct: that is exactly and specifically what I was talking about.

>>96547433
>So we're using a Semitic alphabet written in Egyptian characters to speak an Indo-European language.
two small corrections: I think the Greeks repurposed some unused consonant signs to write also vowels (absent in the previous alphabets); and you mean write, not speak (but the written form also influenced the spoken language, and vice versa, so they are not really independent).

>>96548401
THIS LAND IS MINE plays in your head manually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIdCsMufIY

>>96548767
Those are both right.

>>96548401
are you gonna take it in the chin when the sioux or whatever take over your house?

Fucking hasbara on /tg/ of all places. God, you people are sick in the head.

Nobodies made a game about Isreal because its a shithole situated between the actual regions that mattered.

>>96546645

Literally Lex Arcana

File: panoramic-view-of-the-fjo(...).jpg (86 KB, 612x408)

86 KB JPG

>>96549120
It's a pretty neat place with some cool history, anon. Semitic peoples were the inheretors of Akkad. They ruled Egypt in the 15th dynasty. Invented the alphabet that 85% of the world's population's speaks a language using. Originated the religions that 50% or 60% of the world's inhabitants follow. The area is a microcosm of global history as far back as history goes, between the empires of Egyptians and the Mesopotamians. The Greeks and the Persians. The Romans and the Arabs. The Catholics and the Orthodox. The Crusades. The Western World and the Middle East.

Plus? Deserts are really pretty. Let go of your identity politics. History is neat.

>>96548754
So you admit that the Jew is allowed to call themselves Palestinian since they have lived in the region for a lot longer than the people who arrived after them and made a name for the place.

and to think when I posted mentioning I liked the musical for a second I wondered if I'd get a warning for off topic
anyway, really fun musical if you're into 70's rock
https://youtu.be/URWa0rbB1Kw

>>96549285
What? Anyone can call themselves anything they want, Beauregard. I'm not in charge of what you call yourself. But that Palestinian was ever synonymous with "Jewish?" No, that has nothing to do with reality. It wasn't.

>>96549207
>Let go of your identity politics
As soon as "Palestinians" stop trying to kill me because they consider me to be Amalek.

>>96549404
Judas killed it in this musical.

>>96549436
>But that Palestinian was ever synonymous with "Jewish?" No, that has nothing to do with reality. It wasn't.
Keep believing that I guess.

>>96549459
I mean you've clearly got access to google and I've already disproved every single claim you've tried to use to connect the two. No: that wasn't the name of Israel's newspaper. And in 1800, the area was evenly divided between Muslims and Christians in terms of majority population, with Jews being the minority to both of them.

You're just flatly wrong, anon.

>>96549458
He gets the opening and ending songs for a reason. But Gethsemane is huge too, Jesus gets some bangers. What's The Buzz is probably the catchiest one.
Mandatory why compilation
https://youtu.be/CameSDK-2m8

>>96549483
>Jews call themselves Palestinian prior to Zionism getting its way
>A mid-18th century wig wearing man called Jews in Europe ‘Palestinians’
Okay.

>>96547979
During the 1940s, the term "Free Palestine" was used by the Zionist movement to advocate for the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state in the mandated territory of Palestine, which they sought to create after the end of the British Mandate in 1948. While the region was called Palestine under British rule, the idea of a distinct Palestinian Arab national identity was less developed at the time, and the term "Palestinian" sometimes referred to Jews as well. The Zionist goal of a Jewish state was in direct opposition to the aspirations of the majority Arab population and eventually led to the UN's 1947 partition plan and the subsequent creation of the State of Israel.

“Palestinian” was later taken and used by Arab nationalists like Arafat. Interesting…

>>96549502
That's simply false, as I demonstrated with every "fact" I disproved.

>>96548219
>West's hatred for admitting that Muslims were the center of civilization for the thousand years we call "the dark ages" that we all just pretend nothing important happened, during, because reading about anyone non-western-european makes us seethe.
You mean the 1000 years that Byzantium and the Muslims were busy having nonstop wars with each other in buttfuck nowhere? While Europe quietly rebuilt for 100 years following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and then proceeded to completely advance beyond everyone else for the next 900 years? Goddamn, college rots people's brains so badly it's not even funny anymore.

cool /pol/ thread lads

File: its-free-real-sate.gif (2.41 MB, 480x360)

2.41 MB GIF

>>96549531
>During the 1940s, the term "Free Palestine"...
...sounds more like pic related.

File: 8e7.png (74 KB, 1024x1024)

74 KB PNG

you people really will let a bait thread hit bump limit wont you

>>96549585
>Byzantium
>Muslims were busy having nonstop wars
>in buttfuck nowhere
>the fall of the Western Roman Empire
>advance beyond everyone else
Jesus my man. A history book.

1. There was never a Western Roman Empire. When Odoacer beat Romulus Agustulus, Augustulus resigned as co-emperor, making Xeno the single, unified Emperor of the Roman Empire. Whose capital had been changed to Constantinople under Constantine, back when the city had been called New Rome.
2. The Arab Empire was majority Christian, and eclipsed the technological advancement of Western Europe dramatically. Bagdhad had gas-lit streets a thousand years ago, before the Mongols destroyed it.
3. Europe didn't "rebuild." It became a backwater for a thousand years.
4. It was the flood of "Oriental" ideas into Europe that caused the Renaissance, which is what saw Europe catch up.
5. The notion of a "Byzantine Empire" was invented in the 16th century by a German named Heironymous Wolf, whose sole goal in inventing that piece of propaganda was to claim "nuh uh, Ottomans didn't beat the Roman Empire, Germans did!" even though it was wholly false. Know what Odoacer did after conquering Rome? Got made a Roman Patrician and ruled Italy under Xeno, with the Senate's confirmation.

>>96549500
Camile Sesto's is so fucking good, he's fucking dying by the end
https://youtu.be/OTQqgnbQ1_4?si=2-Ngyo8ORWXZXCIs
>spaniards being stupidly passionate about christianity
checks out

>>96548271
>Zios on 4chan
website has fallen, pack it up

>>96549688
>3. Europe didn't "rebuild." It became a backwater for a thousand years.
Wow, they conquered the rest of the world despite giving them a thousand year head start? Those europeans sound like some kind of master race.

>>96549688
>1. There was never a Western Roman Empire.
Holy fucking hell dude you are on some unhinged schizo shit, fuck off and read a book some time.
>Bagdhad had gas-lit streets a thousand years ago, before the Mongols destroyed it.
Clearly not very advanced technologically if they lost to the Mongols, lel
>Europe didn't "rebuild." It became a backwater for a thousand years.
Imagine pretending to be a history scholar while also unironically buying into the myth of the "dark ages." Do you seriously believe Europe just magically turned into the dominant continent of the planet out of nowhere?
>It was the flood of "Oriental" ideas into Europe that caused the Renaissance, which is what saw Europe catch up.
Europe had already caught up 700 years before the Renaissance. The Muslims tried numerous times to conquer western Europe to only limited, and localized, success.
>The notion of a "Byzantine Empire" was invented
It's a convenient term for the eastern half of the Roman Empire that has been adopted by mainstream history because it's easier to say that than Eastern Roman Empire. You're not helping your case by playing semantics, you're just proving you've never set foot in a real history class in your life.

>>96549733
Your identity politics have blinded you to simple history. But yeah man: the Spanish took off like a gunshot after the Reconquista, which is how all those ideas that caused the Renaissance in Europe got there. They conquered the Caliphate in Spain and suddenly got thrust forward into the modern era.

>>96549756
>It's a convenient term for the eastern half of the Roman Empire that has been adopted by mainstream history
Your knowledge of "history" is about fifty years outa date, anon. "Byzantium" isn't "convenient." It's literal, intentional propaganda meant to aggrandize the Holy Roman Empire.

>>96549760
Wow, and I suppose Britain formed an empire that spanned the world because Spain kicked its muslim oppressors out, too? I feel like your academic rigor breaks down when you feel like reducing the successes of europeans.

>>96549706
Zionism is retarded as a foundation but Israel is there to stay. What else do you want me to say?

>>96549814
>Israel is there to stay.
As long as the US continues propping it up, which will happen as long as our congress is half dual-citizens and every member has an AIPAC handler. But it's cool, jews have never found themselves in what they felt to be an unassailable position and been wrong before.

>>96549756
>It's a convenient term for the eastern half of the Roman Empire that has been adopted by mainstream history because it's easier to say that than Eastern Roman Empire.
Convenient? Hmmm... let's consider that. Byzantium. Named after the city. Except the city wasn't named that. It was named Constantinople. But that sounded too Roman and reminded everyone of the great Christian emperor Constantine. So they had to go back further. But not to the previous name. Because that was New Rome. So how about the name before that? No, wait, that was Augusta Antonia. So not that name, either. Had to go back to the name before the name before the name of the city's actual name, in order to find one he liked. Yeah man: they called it "Byzantium" for "convenience."

>>96549828
>jews jews jews
you know, if we just ate the rich like I said, that would solve both our problems at the same time.

>>96549812
Again: you're blinded by your identity politics. Who is "reducing the successes of the europeans?" Admitting that other people did important stuff doesn't "reduce the successes" of anyone, anon. Europe did some important stuff, once the Mongols and black death cleared out their competition.

>>96549841
>the rich
Thanks but I'd rather target the bankers that create and maintain the monetary system! I wonder if any small percentage of the world is over represented among both them AND "the rich"?

>>96549860
Those lucky europeans! They just took over the entire world because every misfortune befell everyone else. The bantu were JUST about to invent the wheel when they got hit by the mongols again.

>>96549865
So you want to leave the rich in power, with as many middlemen as they need, to simply let them assume the same parasitic roles as the jews?

>>96549878
Really anon, your paranoia is about your insecurity and identity politics. Knowing history doesn't take anything away or "reduce" the parts of history that you like. It's just what happened.

At this point Israel’s sole purpose is to make sand people seethe. I’m serious. They own like 0.1% of a sandy ass waste and for some reason it pisses off the 99% to no end.

It’s sort of like that one spastic kid in school who keeps getting relentlessly bullied. Eventually you realIe the kid is a real immature weirdo with strange interests, and you’re suddenly like “well, maybe he deserved to get the shit beaten out of him”. Lmao.

>>96549898
>It’s sort of like that one spastic kid in school who keeps getting relentlessly bullied. Eventually you realIe the kid is a real immature weirdo with strange interests, and you’re suddenly like “well, maybe he deserved to get the shit beaten out of him”. Lmao.
Summarizes Muslims nicely. Except prop up their numbers so they’re the majority.

File: Eat-The-Reich-PDF-front-c(...).jpg (85 KB, 600x737)

85 KB JPG

>>96549841
at least post this to pretend to be on topic

>>96549865
how did the nazis keep building stuff when every bank and financer is jewish?

>>96549930
>when every bank and financer is jewish
Modern banking really comes about as a result of the Dutch East India Company.

If you're interested in history.

>>96549882
You're right, it's pure coincidence that jews keep doing this.
>>96549898
>they just coincidentally are involved with passing immigration laws like hart cellar designed to change nations' demographics
>they just coincidentally run NGOs that import foreigners into western nations
>they just coincidentally pass military intelligence and technology to the soviets and then to china and ensure there is multipolar conflict in the world
>they just coincidentally exert influence over media to make a pariah of anyone that criticizes them without anonymity
They've just, by some big coincidence, had problems with every other group of people they've ever dealt with for their entire history. Must be that damn antisemitism, so pervasive. Maybe we need to listen to the ADL more. Hmm, I wonder what event led to their creation.

>>96549959
Well, the jews control of banking is actually a historically interesting example of a functional system that became broken when it was no longer in use.
You see, back in monarchist days, it was popular to allow jews into your country to get the benefit of usury, then reclaim any money invested and drive them out once you were done enjoying such banking benefits. This was incredibly stable and prevented jewish rise to power for near a thousand years.
In the transition to republics and representative monarchies, however, this tradition was lost, and we no longer have a designate out-group to make our financial flunkies.

So really it's an entirely predictable effect of a system nobody bothered to actually study.

>>96549986
>actually those poor bankers were victims, they just wanted to farm and the aristocracy forced them to handle money and charge interest

>>96550010
I just described to you a stable and effective system, and you somehow used that to shriek that you were a victim, someone help, someone help

You don't want solutions, you want to cry until someone fixes it for you.

>>96549959
Do you really think the self-hating, nation destroying Jew isn’t indistinguishable from the self-hating, nation destroying white man? White people just allowed immigration to happen. The Jews who all foster immigration are more white than not. They’re Ashkenazim.

Gee, why would the Jews just foster immigration of a people who have historically wanted to kill them all? It’s almost like they shot themselves in the foot. Their greatest host body to date - America - won’t be replaceable for a long fucking time. Why would they sicken it willingly, if not misguidance?

Good Lord. You people convinced that the Jews are purely sinister rather than it being a mix of misguided hubris are hilarious.

>>96549986
>Well, the jews control of banking
The 10 largest banks in the world are all publicly-owned companies not controlled by any single individual or family. The top 4 are Chinese.

Your conspiracy simply has no basis in reality, anon.

>>96550026
man, I always get both sides screaming at me whenever I talk about jewish history.

>>96550030
Try relying on facts. There's nothing to scream about if what you say is simply true.

>>96549943
I just wanted to know how he justified three US companies financing a world super power if the only issue is the race of the bankers

>>96550040
You literally didn't even read enough of the post to describe a fact in it, anon.

>>96550010
>forbid Christians to handle money and charge interest
>wtf why are non-Christians doing this job instead
?

>>96550053
I read it, anon. You started with a wholly false, easily-disprovable claim, then made a bunch more.

Jews don’t control the banks. They are involved in banks. Jews don’t dominate the diamond trade. They price diamonds.

>>96550065
So you didn't read it, nor did you understand the point, nor did you read the previous post it was responding to talking about the disproportional representation of jews, which was the topic.

>>96550066
>Jews don’t dominate the diamond trade
De Beers, who you're probably trying to refer to, is a private company. They've lost a considerable amount of the market share over the last three decades or so, though.

>>96550079
You started your post with false claims. Then made more. Try it again with facts?

>>96550084
You didn't even read enough of the post to find the actual claims.

For some reason ten million Jews can compete roughly equally with one billion Indians and one billion Chinese in their areas of forte. That’s fucking crazy to me.

>>96550088
Hell, if I had made it 7 words in, that'd be further than you managed to type before posting false information.

File: Spoiler Image (164 KB, 1000x1548)

164 KB JPG

/po/thread in /tg/, fastest this board has been in days. Anyways there is a game inspired by Roman occupied Judea

Also, the 2000 version of JCS is superior to the 1970s version in literally every respect and I'm tired of pretending otherwise just because the shitty hippy version came out first.

Also, if you guys think we can't tell you're Jewish, you're not fooling anyone. You know who you are.

>>96550096
I don't see the point in jumping into an argument to be angry at a statement with no context or understanding.

>>96550102
I don't see the point of recycling idiotic conspiracy theories on the internet that can be easily disproved with a simple google search. So I guess we're at an impass, huh?

>>96550084
>De Beers, who you're probably trying to refer to, is a private company. They've lost a considerable amount of the market share over the last three decades or so, though.
Yes. Indians are more more influential than Jews in the diamond trade, which makes a lot of sense when you consider that India is the diamond capital of the planet, and Indians are fucking obsessed with gems, culturally and spiritually.

With the advent of technology that allows diamonds to be made in a lab… the Jews are moving elsewhere…

>>96550110
Not really, no. We don't actually disagree on any points, and I'm just marveling at your behavior now. Not much to argue.

>>96550120
Well, your comment was entirely predicated on a false conspiracy theory. So we seem to disagree on something pretty fundamental about your take on the topic, anon.

>>96550114
They’re still pissed about their stolen gems probably.

>>96550125
If you say so.

Reminder that Jews scored like twenty percent of all Nobels. No one else can compete with their brilliance pound for pound.

>>96550022
>White people just allowed immigration to happen.
They were explicitly lied to about the intentions hart-cellar and made the mistake of trusting their elected officials. Immigration policy wasn't determined by referendum.
>The Jews who all foster immigration are more white than not.
Not by their own reckoning.
>Gee, why would the Jews just foster immigration of a people who have historically wanted to kill them all? It’s almost like they shot themselves in the foot.
And yet they did.
>Their greatest host body to date - America - won’t be replaceable for a long fucking time
America went from its white population being above 90% to close to 50% in mere decades. A historical blink of an eye.
>Why would they sicken it willingly, if not misguidance?
The people they're importing will accept lower wages and lower standards of living, and an ethnically fractured society will not unite against a tyrannous government.
> You people convinced that the Jews are purely sinister rather than it being a mix of misguided hubris are hilarious.
Sorry, we just accidentally destroyed your nations to enrich ourselves!
>>96550057
Your argument reminds me of a chapter titled "the importance of being jewish," in (jewish) Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers." In it, he describes numerous slimy tactics that gentile lawyers would not engage in, frivolous lawsuits for the sake of muscling out competition rather than pursuing any actual legal merit. He then details how jewish lawyers had no such scruples, did such actions happily, enriched themselves, and plunged the nation into a litigious state of perpetual lawfare, changing the legal landscape forever more. This was said plainly, neutrally, with no acknowledgment of how damning it was for his own people. I've come to learn that this really is just your nature, I genuinely don't think you can help yourselves. What a shame. The whole world has never had to react to you before, this time will be interesting.

Good luck.

The diamond industry has a long-standing history of Jewish involvement, with many Jewish merchants working within and sometimes against De Beers' market-controlling practices. The narrative is one of Jewish merchants navigating a historically marginalized trade, and the De Beers' monopoly eventually declining due to shifts in the market and competition from lab-grown diamonds.

It’s a dying business.

>>96550162
>Not by their own reckoning.
There are white Jews and non-white Jews. Ashkenazi are white. Sephardim are not white. Einstein was white.

>>96550162
>and an ethnically fractured society will not unite against a tyrannous government
Wrong. The vast majority are against Israel and the Jews, now. They fucked up. They shouldn’t have brought in a race of low iq sand people who culturally want to kill all Jews, and befriend self hating white people who also want to kill all Jews, and eventually their own.

>>96550162
Eighty percent of Ashkenazim maternal ancestry can be traced back to roughly five Germanic women. It’s the greatest love story (unless rape?) never told. The Jew woo’d white women and superior white genetics made a superior offshoot of Jews known for having the highest IQs in the world.

>>96550162
>America went from its white population being above 90% to close to 50% in mere decades. A historical blink of an eye.
Actually it happened in one year. Literally the blink of an eye. Because in 1970, the USA added "Hispanic" to the census.

That's all that happened, anon. The propaganda you've been fed about declining "whiteness" is a lie. We just got more discerning in our bigotry. That's all.

>>96549898
It's the last bastion of European colonialism. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the locals reject it.
It's like redskins being angry that the Euros still claim their ancestral lands.

>>96550101
>Also, the 2000 version of JCS is superior to the 1970s version in literally every respect and I'm tired of pretending otherwise just because the shitty hippy version came out first.
it's way worse
the songs were made for a particular type of music, which included a certain view of religion, changing it weakens the whole.
But it's your taste in music and anyone debating what you like is retarded, I happen to prefer how one sounds over the other and I know it's a taste thing.

>>96550162
>The people they're importing will accept lower wages and lower standards of living
Do you really think it’s only Jews taking advantage of this situation? Because it’s mostly white politicians.

>>96550217
>It's like redskins being angry that the Euros still claim their ancestral lands.
Even though their way of life has been drastically improved in the long run? And they’re constantly given millions more in compensation moneys to waste on alcohol and drugs?

>>96550215
Whites aren’t dying out as fast as they’re saying (this is still disingenuous to say), but they’re not upkeeping their numbers fast enough to survive the long race, sadly. The whole white replacement theory isn’t really an agenda more than a statistical reality. Some groups just breed more, or have an incentive to have sex more. Muslims(Arabs) will always displace native populations. Always.

File: jew.png (261 KB, 2560x1520)

261 KB PNG

>>96550215
nta but why are you lying

>>96550238
The smarter you are, the less you feel like having kids. This is why the Jews are always around the same population and barely if ever grow.

>>96550259
Go ahead and google the things I said and learn, anon.

>>96550260
it's not innate intelligence, it's that you hit middle class and a comfortable way of life so sex isn't the only option you have to have a good time. That lowers accidental pregnancy. Than you have both partners working 8+ hours a day and knowing that a kid would ruin the economic stability they managed to get. That lowers intentional pregnancy.

If people had more time to fuck around they'd fuck more.

>>96550279
You can see a clear trend predating 1970 and in 1970 non-hispanic whites are still above 80%, you were simply wrong.

>>96550304
Anon: google it and learn. Hispanic was added to the census in 1970. That's flat-out fact. I don't know or care what your picture is.

>>96550295
If people weren’t punished for getting someone pregnant, or billed up the ass for it, we wouldn’t have so many whites women aborting future white people. Making having kids more of a negative than a positive is a huge contributor to why the white race is dying out. You’ll also notice that groups like blacks and Arabs don’t actually care about the same consequences white people are thinking about, also get paid free bucks by their governments, and as such are free to fuck and have as many kids as they want.

>>96550316
>I don't know or care what your picture is.
it's a picture that shows that as they incorporate new options the main one lowers, starting in 1970. Basically a picture proving your point even though he posted it.

>NO! Look at the decline in 1760
old census are not reliable data.

File: jew2.jpg (289 KB, 1332x1041)

289 KB JPG

>>96550295
>Than you have both partners working 8+ hours a day
an extremely modern invention.
>>96550316
>google it
Okay, faggot.

>>96550329
It’s definitely cultural. Arabs don’t care about how many kids they produce, while white people absolutely do care.

File: Screenshot 2025-09-15 175457.jpg (202 KB, 2402x689)

202 KB JPG

Does this help?

It's from census.gov. Showing you exactly when "hispanic" was added to the census.

>>96549207
>The area is a microcosm of global history as far back as history goes, between the empires of Egyptians and the Mesopotamians. The Greeks and the Persians. The Romans and the Arabs. The Catholics and the Orthodox. The Crusades. The Western World and the Middle East.
Exactly as I said, a shithole situated between more important people.

Also conflating the shithole of Israel (inbreds and rednecks of the region) as the inheritors of shit the Phoenicians (cool ass people) did is some very silly bullshit. Deserts are nice to look at for a short period but never to live in. And fucking up a desert to feed your Western European appetites for greenery is ultimate bullshit (aka modern Israel's idea of living in Palestinian territory, planting invasive species from Europe because they are Europeans).

File: suhyeon-hwang-roma-0520.jpg (748 KB, 1920x3119)

748 KB JPG

>>96550220
It's not just the music, though I do like "2000s rock ballad" better. Set design, costumes, acting, vastly improved. The one thing the older version had going for it was their version of Herod, and I DID like the fact they used actual ruins as part of the set, even if the cyclopean brutalist-Jerusalem from the 2000s movie was cooler as a whole. A taste thing, to be sure, but it captures the vibe a lot better. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that I like the vibe of the 2000s version better than the 70s version. Because I'm not a smoked out Woodstock hippy.

Anyways OP< if you want a game inspired by Roman Judea, just run a game set in Roman Judea, What's wrong with running a game set on Earth? Plenty do it.

>>96550349
>Also conflating the shithole of Israel (inbreds and rednecks of the region) as the inheritors of shit the Phoenicians (cool ass people) did is some very silly bullshit.
Hmm... no one made that claim, anon. Phoenicians and Jadaeans were both Canaanite. And they were contemporaries, so it'd be pretty silly to claim that one "inhereted" the culture of the other. They were neighbors who worshiped the same gods, until prolly around 400b.c.e or so.

>>96548240
>It was just a dumb decision to make it the Jewish homeland
Their holy book literally says their temple has to be on one very specific spot on the planet, damn the consequences.

>>96550347
And in 1970 the NON-HISPANIC white population was above 83%. So no, the white population didn't go from above 90 to close to 50 in one year, You were wrong.

>>96550379
Some Jews disagree. “Unless God himself comes down from Heaven it’s not our home!”. There ARE Jews out there that think it’s “not good enough” if God himself didn’t come down and TELL them to rebuild Israel.

>>96550398
Anon, before 1970, the census did not count "Hispanic." Now, in the 1940s, it had "Mexican." But guess what? Americans didn't consider themselves Mexican. But with the introduction of Hispanic, significant populations began to see themselves as an identity other than generically "white." These terms change, anon. What you think is a demographic shift is a linguistic and cultural one.

And if you'd educate yourself, you'd discover that.

>>96550365
I wouldn't jump to defend the set design and costumes of the original, they were going for something and I get it but it's not that cool.
>herod
I remember actually going to the bible to check who the fuck was Herod and what was his deal. He's the tiniest least important C character, how did he get his own song?
I like how they made him a classic musical producer kind of deal, an interesting mix of themes and context. But he had no right to get a song.

>>96550413
That's longwinded cope. You said in 1970, in one year, the percentage of White americans changed from above 90% to below 60%. That was incorrect.

Nothing in this thread is problematic. It’s just people talking about history. Why the fuck is that so terrible? This would be a regular university discourse in the 1900s. We used to go to university TO disagree, not necessarily to agree.

>>96550430
No, I didn't. Go read the posts I made, anon. I told you facts. I'm continuing to :)

Oh but I do need to make one correction: Mexican was on the 1930, not 1940, census.

>>96550439
wouldn't this fit on /his/ then?

>>96550439
then go make this thread in /fit/

>>96550441
>>America went from its white population being above 90% to close to 50% in mere decades. A historical blink of an eye.
>Actually it happened in one year. Literally the blink of an eye. Because in 1970, the USA added "Hispanic" to the census.

That was false.

>>96550453
>>96550465
Because it wouldn’t go on /his/, it would go on /pol/, and that’s why this mentality is so wrong. Discussing touchy or taboo subjects shouldn’t be shunted away to “bigotry”.

>>96550486
>Discussing touchy or taboo subjects shouldn’t be shunted away to “bigotry”.
go discuss them in /o/ then
this isn't your front page

>>96550468
Ah. I meant the shift. Not anon's specific 90% to close to 50%.

The shift away from such a large population of "white" happened because there starting being other options on the census.

In 1960, the options were: White, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian and Eskimo.

In 1970, it was all of those plus "Hispanic."

Guess what happened in 1970? A huge number of Hispanics suddenly appeared! Because we started counting them.

>That's longwinded
I'm sorry that history is more complex than a bumper sticker, anon.

>>96550498
That trend started before 1970. Do you genuinely believe that after hart cellar there was not a larger influx of non-white people into the US? I just want to know how jewish you're going to be about this argument so I know when to check out.

>>96550486
>Because it wouldn’t go on /his/
why not

>>96550530
>That trend started before 1970.
No, it didn't. We literally didn't count people as Hispanic until the 1970 census. See >>96550347. No. The change in the ethnic categories selected on the census didn't happen until after those categories were added to the census. Because you know: the time-space continuum.

>>96549959
>Maybe we need to listen to the ADL more. Hmm, I wonder what event led to their creation.
jesus christ i had no idea they were that bad lmao

>>96550532
Racial threads are always removed.

>>96550548
So your argument is that instead of the non-hispanic white population dropping 40% in 80 years, it dropped 30% in 40 years? That seems worse. Are you also just not gonna touch the hart-cellar thing? All of the racial trends were a result of people self-identifying, there was no change in foreigner influx?

>>96548834
I actually would assimilate if allowed in the event of that.
but SAAR it's more likely that this is going to be the other kind of indian

>>96548451
>history is neat.
what i find funnier is it's likely the result of the British Helleniboo culture.
they just decided to use greek/classical names for places.
very funny if they referred to it as Judea or Jersalem or somethin.

>>96550570
My argument, which I concisely stated all the way back here: >>96550215, is that the "demographic shift" you've been taught to fear is a result of changes in language and culture. Because the way we count the people changed. And that's what resulted in a different count of people.

>>96550588
>is that the "demographic shift" you've been taught to fear is a result of changes in language and culture.
Are you arguing that changes to immigration policy had no effect on it? Why are you outright ignoring the hart cellar parts of my posts?

>>96550578
>they just decided to use greek/classical names for places.
Nah unfortunately it was more insidious than that. It was specifically a snub against the Ottomans, who called the area Syria. The British said "well we'll call it what those good ole Romans did!" specifically to snub the Ottomans.

>>96550465
here
>>>/fit/76626704

File: Capture.png (27 KB, 146x224)

27 KB PNG

>>96550557
i wish

>>96550636
The Turkic language originated in the Northeast of Asia, really. And to be fair: all of us are just "mutts." You are directly related to every single human being currently alive on planet Earth.

>>96550607
likely a mix
>we get to snub the ottoman
>we get to use classical names
>we prevent arabs from getting mad
very british thinking because within the decade there were riots, terrorism, murder and a century long race war.
very british.

>>96550659
Yeah, that's probably true. Motivations are rarely one-dimensional.

>>96550653
yeah but how removed?
i'm sure the Sentinelese are some kind of strain.
populations before industrialization lived in relative Allopatry resulting in unique phenotypes but not anything else.

>>96546650
Palestine is too fictional even for an RPG

>>96550683
No idea. Seems like kind of a boring question. History and culture are a heck of a lot more interesting than tracing an exact family tree for every human being on Earth, just to precisely narrow down how many generations I'm supposed to go back to start hating other people.

>>96550683
You are genetically more related to any random human across the world, including the Sentinelese, than two tribes of chimps on the sides of the same river. Humans are remarkably genetically close.

>>96550704
>to precisely narrow down how many generations I'm supposed to go back to start hating other people.
And its mostly just a rationalization for a childish fear response about someone not looking like you. Pointless, stupid, and feeding the immaturity of weak people.

>>96550700
Hardeeharharhar

>>96550721
The difference between a normal human and a deformed monstrosity incapable of thought is often only a few genes. Genetic similarity means little.

The Jews are the closest thing to a race of wizards in real life.

>>96550757
I find this funny because I don't like playing wizards
t. jew

File: 1730256345607489.png (206 KB, 492x497)

206 KB PNG

>>96546645
>>96546650
>>96546735
>>96547433

>>96550588
>>96550548
>straight ignoring direct questions on changes to immigration policy
shameless jew, all you people had to do was keep slow-rolling palestine and your country would've lasted.

>>96546650
>>96546699
Fuck these posts

>>96550721
You are also more genetically similar to a stranger of the same ethnicity than your mixed race child.

File: 1713127489373701.jpg (900 KB, 1064x1357)

900 KB JPG

>>96550947
t.

>>96548219
>and the West's hatred for admitting that Muslims were the center of civilization for the thousand years we call "the dark ages"
>the center of civilization

Extreme exaggeration. It was the center of civilization 5000 years ago, before switching to southern Europe. Muslims proceeded to ruin that entire region with their aggressive expansionism, until the crusades and Reconquista happened and put them back in their place.

File: 1754525156054598.gif (1.18 MB, 276x232)

1.18 MB GIF

>>96550972
>battle of tours
umayyads still seething at charles the big

File: 1749844257764701.jpg (272 KB, 1080x1080)

272 KB JPG

>>96550978
shit i meant charles the hammer, my bad

>>96550972
When the first crusade captured Jerusalem, it was about 60% christian. Oh anon. If you think it had to do with Islam you've got so much left to learn. Start with finding out when the Roman Empire was destroyed and discover the Great Schism, then go from there. History simply isn't what you've been mistaught.

File: 1744261178838021.jpg (26 KB, 480x636)

26 KB JPG

>>96551009
>History simply isn't what you've been mistaught.
Why, because some sandnigger imam didn't teach me it? Fuck off Muhammad pigfucker.

>>96551009
>Start with finding out when the Roman Empire was destroyed
in 1453, destroyed by muslims.

>>96548219
>and the West's hatred for admitting that Muslims were the center of civilization for the thousand years
>center
>of civilization.
i mean this kinda reminds me of when my asian threads remind me the 80s economy was built on slaves.
yeah Islam absorbed a lot of well built civilizations (the exceptional persians, the north africans, the entire middle east) and then propelled their economy through slavery, conquest and imperialism.

the dark ages to my recollection comes from last medieval folks propelling the idea of modernity, that they had stepped out of an unenlightened period of regression and barbarism, something you're perpetuating right now uncritically.
you've traded Orientalism for Occidentalism uncritically.
islam as you note with the great schism co-existed within the roman sphere with Eastern rome, and a collection of other cultures, lot of either social decline, fundimentalism and sheer destruction. the golden age ended brother.
to say that someone was the centre of civilization is folly except China, the middle kingdom.
sorry you had to find out this was western piggu.

>>96549834
>>96549778
The sum of your arguments is nothing more than literal semantics, critiquing the etymology of common terms rather than the actual historical record that they are used to define. I would hazard a guess that you don't have a rebuttal for the actual evidence I brought up and had to attack verbiage instead. If this is the level of intellectual discourse that takes place in academia these days, there's no point even having universities anymore.

>>96551190
What "evidence," anon? Yes: names of things are about semantic. You proposed a buncha names that historically never existed. Western Roman Empire? Never existed. Byzantine Empire? Never existed. Roman Empire? Did exist. Had various 1, 2, 3 and 4 emperors at various times throughout its first five centuries. After that just 1 emperor.

>>96551210
>What "evidence," anon?
Pretty much the entirety of my post, of which you ignored and instead hyperfocused on terminology.
>You proposed a buncha names that historically never existed. Western Roman Empire? Never existed. Byzantine Empire? Never existed.
They exist now as common terms used by modern historians to delineate time periods and separate empires in a way that is easy to follow. If you actually studied history, you would realize we use a lot of names like that, such as the Cretaceous period, even though no creatures back then called themselves cretaceans. Nitpicking terminology just proves you have no real argument of merit.

>>96551264
You are arguing with a jew. Bogging people down in semantics is his only strength. He will simply ignore parts of your posts he doesn't like and will eventually stop responding, and make the same argument again somewhere else in the future.

"Sometimes, I stood there thunderstruck."

>>96551264
Anon your posts >>96549585 & >>96549756 were wrought with falsehoods. Five of which I specifically corrected here: >>96549688

If you're talking about your second post here >>96549756, well then let's go through it:
>Holy fucking hell dude you are on some unhinged schizo shit, fuck off and read a book some time.
Not a factual claim to be evaluated by evidence.
>Imagine pretending to be a history scholar while also unironically buying into the myth of the "dark ages." Do you seriously believe Europe just magically turned into the dominant continent of the planet out of nowhere?
Not a factual claim to be evaluated by evidence.
>Europe had already caught up 700 years before the Renaissance. The Muslims tried numerous times to conquer western Europe to only limited, and localized, success.
A claim so radically nonspecific covering 700 years that.. jesus man, which part do you want me to address for "evidence" you claim it contains?
>It's a convenient term for the eastern half of the Roman Empire that has been adopted by mainstream history because it's easier to say that than Eastern Roman Empire. You're not helping your case by playing semantics, you're just proving you've never set foot in a real history class in your life.
Which I adid address, here: >>96549778. Your scholarship is woefully out of date. "Byzantine Empire" is now rejected by most modern historians, or at best used only with the asterisk that "hey this is just predujiced nonsense some german dude made up and doesn't refer to what you think it does."

So what evidence did you want me to respond to?

>>96551325
>good
More importantly, Rome was Great.

File: 1705173180123815.png (353 KB, 900x677)

353 KB PNG

>>96551336
>obsessed with the prejudice of the germans

>>96551336
"This is propaganda" "this never existed"

Holy shit anon what well thought out and convincing arguments

>>96551347
If it makes you feel better, his publisher was Swiss.

>>96551351
It didn't exist, anon. Odoacer defeated Romulus Augustulus. At which point Romulus sent a letter to Zeno with the Senate's approval stating that Augustulus was dissolving the co-emperorship held in the city of Rome, and handing sole control of the empire over to Zeno in Constantinople. Odoacer became a Roman patrician nominally ruling beneath Zeno. Heronymous Wolf, in the 16th century, invented the idea of a "Byzantine Empire" so that he could claim "well ackshully, there were two empires and the REAL one, the Germans defeated!" because he was writing propaganda for the Holy Roman Empire.

Go check my facts and get back to us, anon.

File: ere.jpg (61 KB, 490x458)

61 KB JPG

>>96551336
>"Byzantine Empire" is now rejected by most modern historians
No shit that's not what they called themselves; you're not special for knowing this. It's still a very useful term to distinguish the Roman Empire after the fall of the West.

Fucking dork.

>>96551434
That's not the conversation we were having, anon. It was not simply over the name of the place. It was over the entire framework of history that purports that the Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century. Which flatly, factually, did not occur. Some provinces were lost, over time. Others were gained. And then eventually all lost.

File: From Gaza with Love.png (1.39 MB, 774x1002)

1.39 MB PNG

>>96546650
There's an Interface Zero adventure set in Gaza

>>96551441
I wasn't referring to the general conversation, because I didn't read it. Just your nit-picking about "Err, actually 'Byzantium' is..."

Everyone with basic historical knowledge is aware of what you're saying. Everyone knows they called themselves "Romanoi." It's also irrelevant. "Byzantuim" is a useful, clarifying term, and does not entail
>pwejudice

>>96551488
Maybe read the conversation before weighing in, so you won't be confused about the topic?

>>96551501
>Maybe read the conversation
I don't think I shall.

>>96551520
Then continue on, anon. But what you thought you read isn't what anyone was talking about. Enjoy, I guess.

>>96551529
No, you were busy saying the us was always half white, mexicans just started seeing themselves as such in the 70s.

>>96551529
I glanced past: your comment on the sophistication pre-Mongol Baghdad are legitimate (granted this was mostly due to Islamized Persians). Your comment that "Palestinian" meant someone from Palestine (whether Muslim, Christian, or Jew), but was not a comprehensive term for all Jews is also correct. These are also beside the point regarding your "corrections" pertaining to the Byzantine Empire, because you knew exactly what Anon meant, and were trying to sound erudite.

>>96548344
>The assumption has always been that the Iliad is a story from around the Bronze Age Collapse and, for all we know, it may have once been written in Linear B.
The Iliad is set in the Bronze Age Collapse, but it was almost certainly written at the end of the Greek Iron Age

>>96551627
I mean, if that's how you wanna position "dispelling the eurocentric myth that the Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century," then I guess I'll just have to live with being erudite, anon.

>>96551639
The versions we have, sure. But if it's a story that's being told about the bronze age in the iron age, then it stands to reason that previous versions of the story go back to the time that the story is about. Don't you think? Otherwise, where would the story come from?

>>96551671
You understand the distinction between spirit-of-the-law and letter-of-the-law, right? The same applies to conversation. Anyone familiar with Byzantium in the first place knows that Imperial Rome was divided into Eastern and Western halves*, they know one capital was in Constantinople, and that the state centered on this capital persisted after the Western state ceased to exist**. They also know that this was legitimately Imperial Rome, and that technically, "Rome" didn't fall until 1453.

It's also fine to say "Byzantine Empire," because that creates a clear understanding that the subject is the Constantinople-based empire following 476, because even if there was technical continuity, the historical context is very different. It's not "eurocentic," which is almost always a bullshit accusation, since it is normal for people to center their own society as a frame of reference. (It's also interesting to learn that Constantinople isn't part of Europe).

*if they're passably knowledgeable, they'll know this wasn't the only instance of division
**they may also know that the city of Rome wasn't even capital in its final years, and that to many people at the time, even in the former territory in the West, weren't aware that (western) Rome *had* fallen.

>>96551772
>It's not "eurocentic," which is almost always a bullshit accusation
The term "Byzantine Empire" was invented by Heironymous Wolf to sell propaganda in favor of the Holy Roman Empire. You real think accusing literal German propaganda of being "eurocentric" is somehow off the mark? Would you prefer germanocentric?

>>96551671
Anon most likely meant to say "*beginning* of the Greek Iron Age, but...

It's unlikely there was a written Iliad prior to Homer. Yes, the story itself originates right before the BA-collapse, to an almost certainly real Achaean campaign against Ilium, but it was almost certainly transmitted orally. Mycenaean society had writing, but as best as we know, stories/religion was deliberately an orally-transmitted medium (there are reasons for this).

More significantly, is the fact that BA warfare is described in terms that would be alien to actual BA Greeks. The account is that of 800's-era Greeks transposing their own understanding of warfare onto the past (much like renaissance paintings depicting Greek or Biblical scenes with their own aesthetics). Even though oral transmission had high-fidelity, it wasn't as precise as a written document would have been.

>>96551785
> it is normal for people to center their own society as a frame of reference
You are not using "Eurocentric" as a neutral term (if you were, it would be superfluous). You are using it in an attempt to de-legitimize the notion of a "Byzantine Empire." (protip: it's not illegitimate)

>>96551814
>It's unlikely there was a written Iliad prior to Homer
Totally agree. Anon mentioned that he'd heard something about "the Greek alphabet" and writing the Iliad. So I mentioned "hey maybe they were theorizing about Linear B and the Iliad." Wasn't claiming that it happened. I have no idea what specific thing anon had heard, since anon couldn't clearly remember it either.

>Even though oral transmission had high-fidelity, it wasn't as precise as a written document would have been.
This has been pretty widely debunked in the last decade or so, by the by. Oral histories are actually really terrible at preserving information.

>>96551830
>You are not using "Eurocentric" as a neutral term (if you were, it would be superfluous).
Correct. I am using it to denote that the name of the Byzantine Empire was invented for nationalist propaganda purposes to intentionally obscure the facts of history. I am using it that way because it's exactly what happened. One dude was intentionally trying to deceive people with half-truths. That's literally what happened, anon.

>>96551336
also a history guy here.
i think you point sucks.
like when he brings up the dark age he is right, that's a myth
I know medievalists that would chew your neck off for it. and also they kind of end around the time that Islam is formed. at least by how people conceive of it. like would you consider the Carolingian revival? do you have to ignore eastern rome during this?
even during the conquest of eastern rome there were many different powrerful and educated christian nations.
i would say it would be unfair to describe the mediterranean as the center of western civilization at this time but it would be more accurate than that.
in the meantime Muslims were being savaged by mongols or falling into zealotry or being savaged by normans rand franks.
it's not cut and dry at all.
a lot of "civilization" really could be boiled down to dense urbanization leading to specialization and complex education.
I'm not understating the importance of the islamic scholastic tradition (which is to my knowledge also trying to rationalize the Greek philosophers to Islam) but like we also had the flight of the greeks and the plundering of their city during the crusades that contributed to some of it. along with northern nobles moving southwards and creating multi national kingdoms with their feet in the mediterranean for trade

>>96551785
you sound like a fucking moron.

>>96551874
Cool. Go check the facts and get back to us. You think the Carolingian revival was happening while the Muslims were being savaged by Mongols? I think there are a few more facts you might wanna check on, anon.

>>96551837
Depends on the oral tradition. "Hi-fidelity" is a relative term, in this case meaning "a lot more accurate than people would expect."

>>96551844
It's a rhetorical cudgel, and you know it. I don't expect you to acknowledge that, but you can't lie to yourself. The term "Byzantine Empire" was invented, that doesn't mean there wasn't a geopolitical entity which is aptly described as The Byzantine Empire. The West had fallen, and the world had changed. "Roman Empire" invites too much confusion, and "Eastern Roman Empire" is unnecessarily wordy and creates complications with the Eastern Empire while the West sill existed.

>>96551888
>It's a rhetorical cudgel, and you know it.
Absolutely. That is correct. I was intentionally using it as a cudgel to bludgeon misguided anon with some basic facts that he appears to have been utterly oblivious to.

>there wasn't a geopolitical entity which is aptly described as The Byzantine Empire
There absolutely was: the Roman Empire. Whose capital had been New Rome (Constantinople) since 330.

File: 1754715328621556.png (1.21 MB, 1000x1000)

1.21 MB PNG

>>96551671
>eurocentric

>>96551888
>The West had fallen, and the world had changed.
That's the problem, anon: The world DIDN'T change. Hell, Justinian even reconquered Italy, for a little while.

>>96551882
>do you think
no i don't.
like that's not even close to my point, are you like an idiot?
My point is you're making a SWEEPING claim about a very broad, section of history you don't define and you're mad that people think you're a jacksas.

>Go check the facts and get back to us
yeah, i mean the dark ages didn't exist, there are a lot of things going on. just fucking clarify you dense faggot.

also here's a word for you occidentalism.

>>96551936
>you're mad that people think you're a jacksas.
Anon I have absolutely no problem with you thinking anything you please, about me.

>>96551896
Not a cudgel against anon, but against the legitimacy of there being a predominantly Greek-speaking remnant of Imperial Rome based in Constantinople, which called itself the Roman Empire, but which can effectively be referred to as the Byzantine Empire. And again, I wasn't aware that Constantinople wasn't in Europe. If you would like more evidence that "Byzantine" isn't a-
>problematic
-term; no Greek, or any other eastern Christian (Byzantium wasn't exclusively Greek by any means) whose heritage is attached to Byzantium would be troubled by the designation, even if that word isn't in their historical lexicon.

Anyone objecting to "the Byzantine Empire" isn't objecting out of concern for academic integrity, but because they have an axe to grind.

>>96551964
>of there being a predominantly Greek-speaking remnant of Imperial Rome based in Constantinople
Correct. Against that.

It wasn't a "remnant" of anything. It was the legal seat of the Roman Empire, and had been since Constantine moved the capital in 330, 146 years before Odoacer ever showed up. Augustus Romulus' resignation from his role of Emperor was in-line with Roman law. In fact, if you wanna pretend there were two empires, then were there 4 when there were 4 emperors? Were there 3 when there were 3 emperors? No? Just this one time, the fifth split between multiple emperors, is significant? Why is that, anon? Because of eurocentrism.

>>96551976
Sorry: Romulus Augustulus, not Augustus Romulus. Ugh--I always mix that up.

>>96551964
>they have an axe to grind.
I absolutely do. I've been sharpening the everloving fuck out of it this entire thread.

Now try to point out where anything I said is factually incorrect. Yep: I'm arrogant and erudite and have an axe to grind and trying to make the anon I was demolishing feel stupid after the stupid things he'd said. And I'm right.

File: MG_0502.jpg (234 KB, 1024x680)

234 KB JPG

>>96551976
No roman empire has been legitimate since they closed the gates of Janus, least of which when they marched way from the mother city herself.

>all of this bullshit.
you know what i can be convinced.
>if you wanna pretend there were two empires,
if we can't consider them distinct political entities, please by all means break down your reasoning.
did they have a shared court?
did they have a unified logistics system?
explain this rather than schizoranting.
Do we have different courts that go with the emperors?
maybe different capitols?

>>96551864
He's a jew downplaying europe in every field he can. Europe was a backwater mess that paled in comparison to beautiful islamic civilization, but then europe got really lucky and every possible bad thing happened to its competitors and they took over the world on accident.

>>96552001
honestly you just sound like a nutbar because you keep repeating the same phrases over and over again.
you don't go into detail, you insist everyone is wrong
wait
>I was demolishing feel stupid after the stupid things he'd said.
you didn't, like i think you're illiterate because you're like.
>you listed all these all these events?
>huh i guess you think they happened all at once.

>>96548219
The Islamic Golden Age? More like the Persian Golden Age. Arabs contributed NOTHING.

>>96552014
Instead of whining about my tone? Try pointing out one fact I stated that's wrong.

>>96551908
You don't have anything left to say on this, so you're trying to pick at whatever threads you can find, but even that's not working. The world had changed. Not the earth-shaking, conspicuous collapse of pop-imagination, but this was already mentioned:
>many people at the time, even in the former territory in the West, weren't aware that Rome *had* fallen.

Nevertheless, the Roman Church was no longer associated with the power of a Roman state, thus setting the foundation for the Western tradition of religious and secular authority as not only separate, but as competing institutions. From this, we eventually have the emergence of the West as a distinct historical civilization.

It was a different world. The "Roman Empire" that still existed in that world had little to do with Rome itself, or the civilization that emerged out of the carcass of the Western Empire, hence... the Byzantine Empire.

>historians dedicate their entire lives to studying the Byzantine empire and have no problem calling it that
>retard spic tards on 4chin constantly chimp out and insist on calling it "eastern Rome"

>>96552036
>Nevertheless, the Roman Church was no longer associated with the power of a Roman state
What? The Great Schism didn't happen until nearly 6 centuries later.

>thus setting the foundation for the Western tradition of religious and secular authority as not only separate, but as competing institutions
What are you talking about? That happened because dude wanted to get his dick wet. Who the hell crowned Charlemagne? Why was it called the Holy Roman Empire? Anon you're going off the deep end.

>>96552034
>tone
are you retarded?
don't answer that rhetorical question.

you have massive issues with your logic because you'll say something true and then extrapolate off of it wildly.
you're insisting that "well this is just one political entity. no the 4 emperor system doesn't matter because... EUROPEANS."
was the capital in the big C. yes
but does that mean they weren't separate?
Did they have separate courts?
Did they have separate rulers?
Did they have separate administration and logistics?
Different army structures?
Would ordinary people notice they are the same?

like you're taking a swing at a long held concept in the historiography of Rome and that's not wrong in of in itself but you don't don't prove the point.
but like here, if we had a western coin and an eastern coin minted at the same year, would that have a different ruler stamped on them?
simple answer that question.

>>96552086
Anon you've stooped to name calling withoutn even once challenging a single historical fact.

>>96552086
>if we had a western coin and an eastern coin minted at the same year, would that have a different ruler stamped on them?
That one was an interesting question. Looks like the last coins minted in Rome were in 465 showing Libius Severus III. The next coins minted in Italy showed Theodric The Great in 493, but those were in Revenna. While in 476 Aelis Zenonis and Zeno both had coins minted with their image in Constantinople.

No idea what you think that proves, but it was neat to find out, thanks.

>>96551976
>It was the legal seat of the Roman Empire
Again, everyone knows this. It's irrelevant. "Remnant" isn't a term of disparagement; it's a literal description. Rome used to cover a larger area; it was divided variously (halves, quarters, whatever); after 476, only one of those portions *remained.* It periodically reclaimed some of the older territory, but it was still the only remaining successor of Rome.

>>96552001
I didn't say you were erudite; I said you wanted to sound erudite by nit-picking about the semantics of Byzantium.

>they have an axe to grind.
>I absolutely do.
You omitted the first half of my sentence. But that's enough of an acknowledgement on your part. Your motivation here isn't borne out of academic integrity, but out of a bizarre axe to grind against the (western) Europe.

>>96552165
>"Remnant" isn't a term of disparagement; it's a literal description
It's an incorrect one.

>I didn't say you were erudite; I said you wanted to sound erudite
Oh so now you wanna get all nit-picking about the specific words when it's the ones YOU use.

>>96552165
>(western) Europe
You meant to say (cuck) Europe. Now fluff my dick. This bull is about to fuck your wife.

>>96552072
I'm not taking about the schism of 1054. The church in Rome was formerly associated with the Roman state. Following 476, there was no Roman state (and referring to an Empire in the east that does not control Rome is misleading for historical discussion, hence: Byzantium), and the Roman Church becomes an institution of spiritual authority independent of and *at odds with* secular powers. This was distinct from Christian churches in the east and to this day, where there are national churches are conjoined with the state, even if officially secular.

It is also distinct from Islam, where by Islamic law (if not always practice), the state and faith are to be coordinating actors.

The coronation of Charlemagne was at attempt at establishing a state which could act as the instrument of the Roman church, but it was abortive. Medieval European history is in large part the history of power struggles between secular and spiritual authority, and not recognizing this conflict of powers as instrumental in both the development of a distinct Western Civilization, and the ascencion of Europe on the world stage, is historical illiteracy.

>>96552253
>Following 476, there was no Roman state (
There was, though. Odoacer was the Duke of Italy legally appointed under Zeno.

>>96552279
Yes, the Italian peninsula didn't devolve into an anarchic vacuum for the rest of time. And? Odoacer's Duchy/later Kingdom, or the Ostrogothic state which deposed him wielded control over the city of Rome. That isn't a Roman Empire. It's not a joint project between, even if there were attempts to make it so.The Medieval wars between Popes and "Roman Emperors" is proof that there was no such circumstance as what prevailed before, of what continued to prevail in the East. The secular/religious divide is crucial to the history of the west, and it does not happen without the ending of the Western Empire.

>>96552384
edit:
>It's not a joint project between
...between church and state

>>96552384
>And?
And one of us is saying verifiable facts and the other one is you. No mofugga, this isn't about "academic integrity." But it is about being right. And so far all you've done is call me names and bitch about my tone, because you can't challenge even one. single. fact.

>>96552412
The Duchy of Odoacer (later kingdom- he was crowned by his own men) isn't a "Roman state." It's a state that happens to occupy the territory of Rome. As was the Ostrogothic kingdom established soon after. The Church in Rome, and thus western Christendom takes a divergent historical course thereafter.

>>96546645
I DONT NEEEEEEEED YOUR BLOOD MONEY!

File: jcs.png (221 KB, 600x286)

221 KB PNG

>>96552533
>This isn't blood money it's a-
>-A fee!
>A fee nothing more.

>>96552086
He doesn't answer questions that challenge his statements.

>>96552412
Also, I only called you a name one (1) time, when I said that you were a "fucking dork" in my initial post in this thread. Everything else is from other Anons (I estimate you've engaged with 2-3 others since I've been here).

This was also never a discourse over fact, but meaning. Nobody disputes that the Empire in Constantinople was a continuation of the Roman Empire; the Byzantines called their Empire Rome, called themselves Roman, and even the Seljuks named their Anatolian realm "The Sultanate of Rum." In spite of this, it is suspect to call a state Roman when that state does not actually control the city of Rome.

Rome in name, Rome in legal continuity, but not in geographic reality. At least the Western Emperors in Aachen and later elsewhere had the sanction of the Bishop of Rome. "Byzantine" is a legitimate retrospective term, which does not entail any negative connotation (eastern Christians aren't upset by this), and with the benefit of establishing clarity.

>>96552659
> "Byzantine" is a legitimate retrospective term,
Have you considered that name was invented by e*ropeans and I consider them amalek and must undermine them at every turn?

>>96552668
brown

File: 4856bordo-01.png (380 KB, 5000x5000)

380 KB PNG

>>96552668
But Anon (wink), aren't the Byzantines also European and also Amalek?

>no grimdark doomer setting inspired by the Ottoman Balkans
Get to work Yugofags.

>>96552679
They've already been obliterated from the world by turkics, that head is severed, but rest assured I praise G-d for it every day.

File: afhf-D.jpg (9 KB, 259x194)

9 KB JPG

>>96552686
Period? Mid 1400's for maximum Dracula darkness?

File: thumb-1920-614288.jpg (290 KB, 1920x1080)

290 KB JPG

>>96546645
>What have the romans ever done for us?

>>96550259
>Population of the USA was 100% white in the 1600s
nigga they had slaves and Indians living among them, this graph is fucking retarded

>>96553077
>....the aqueduct?

>>96552686
>on the one hand Mehmed does take our children as slave soldiers and we have to pay extra tax
>on the other vampires are fucking scary and they're the ones fighting them

>>96551814
>Anon most likely meant to say "*beginning* of the Greek Iron Age, but...
800’s BC is the late Greek Iron Age, anon. I missed the original point about the written Iliad vs the earlier “original story”

File: IMG_5744.jpg (1.05 MB, 1242x1610)

1.05 MB JPG

God is real.

>>96546645
Because when you research that time period, you realise that the Jews started it.

>>96552659
>it is suspect to call a state Roman when that state does not actually control the city of Rome.
Incorrect. A single, unbroken, political state existed throughout time. The Roman Empire. It is not "suspect" just because they said "our capital is in this building instead of that one, now." That's a perposterous statement. The US capitol was constructed in 1783. The US white house in 1792. These are not the original, physical locations where the leaders of the US met during previous years. Is it therefore "suspect" to claim that the US had a continuous government with prior years? Of course not. What a ridiculous claim that would be. Physical space occupied does not determine the legitimacy of political cohesion.

>"Byzantine" is a legitimate retrospective term
It very much isn't. It is a propagandists term explicitly, specificly invented for the purpose of performing propaganda for the Holy Roman Empire. No, anon: that isn't legitimate. It's propaganda.

>>96554165
*1793

>>96554165
>>it is suspect to call a state Roman when that state does not actually control the city of Rome.
>Incorrect. A single, unbroken, political state existed throughout time. The Roman Empire. It is not "suspect" just because they said "our capital is in this building instead of that one, now."
But by the way, if you DO want to make that ridiculous and totally absurd claim that Rome has magical power determining whether or not the state controlling it is the Roman Empire? Then you need to go back to when Rome stopped being the capital, in 330. In 330, Constantine moved the Capital to New Rome (which would later be renamed Constantinople). So either you're arguing that the Roman Empire fell in 330, or you're... what? During the war of 1812, in 1814, British troops siezed DC. During that period, the US government did not control Washington DC. Did the government of the US get destroyed in 1814? Is the government since a different one? Of course not. Justinian, by the way, reconquered Italy in the 6th century.

>>96553239
slaves were brought to the colonies after their establishment, and indians did not live in the same settlements as colonists

>>96554203
it seems dishonest to compare losing rome and all of italy and the western portion of the empire to having a city captured temporarily during a war. but you've made a lot of bizarre semantic arguments in this thread, so carry on i guess

>>96554911
>it seems dishonest to compare losing rome and all of italy and the western portion of the empire to having a city captured temporarily during a war
Does it? What's your criteria, then? If it's not "continuity of government," what is the criteria you are proposing for how much territory or which territories must someone lose, before we consider the state to have changed hands? 30%? 10%? It can't just be the capital city, or the USA was destroyed in 1814. So let's here your "honest" definition, anon.

>you've made a lot of bizarre semantic arguments in this thread, so carry on i guess
No no: factual ones. Go ahead and point out one you think is "semantic," and I'll happily demonstrate to you that what you're pretending is a "semantic difference" is a difference of factual history.

>>96554850
>slaves were brought to the colonies after their establishment, and indians did not live in the same settlements as colonists
That's an important insight, anon. You're absolutely right: that data isn't a reflection of the reality of who lived where, but of how we counted them.

>>96554943
>>96554948
Does it bother you that your posts make it very easy to notice that you're jewish?

>>96554964
Sorry anon, but I'm not super interested in religion.

>>96554967
qed I suppose.

>>96554980
>Someone didn't engage with my claim
>Therefore my claim is true
Ah, the Kafka Trap!

>>96555015
My claim was that you are jewish, ethnically, and it drips from your posts. You dance around topics artfully. You demand hyper-specificity from your opponents but ignore arguments or questions that you don't feel you can answer in a satisfactory manner, to bog down and exhaust said opponent while you leisurely dissect the points you feel your can sufficiently muddy the waters on. You make claims with brazen conviction, a tone that suggests you are simultaneously holding a belief that is both historically repressed by some type of mainstream intelligentsia but also so blatantly obvious that anyone in history who disagreed with it was either a fool, had bad intentions, or both. You attempt to be both purely, apolitically academic in your points but also pour vitriol all over things you disagree with. And, most importantly, you feign not understanding what people mean when they say something to you.

>You're jewish (ethnicity)
>Well if I pretend you mean the religion, an entire post must be made clarifying your point.

You do this because, to you, discussions are battles to baffle and exhaust your opponent, instead of exercises to inform others and become more informed yourself. You are jewish. You may not acknowledge it, you may even deny it, you'll certainly feel no shame in having to obfuscate it because shame is beyond you, and you'll almost definitely trivialize this post with one or two lines of greentext to avoid engaging with it. But, you're jewish, and it's very, very obvious. People know.

>>96555081
Sorry anon, but I'm not interested in the reasons you think you can deduce my ethnicity and/or religion based on my sentence construction.

>You attempt to be both purely, apolitically academic in your points but also pour vitriol all over things you disagree with.
Incorrect. I succeed :)

>and you'll almost definitely trivialize this post with one or two lines of greentext to avoid engaging with it.

>>96555135
You wanted me to seriously and thoughtfully engage with your post in which you claim you can divine my ethnicity?

Seems like a pretty silly topic unworthy of anything more than dismissal, anon. Would you have preferred "nu uh!"

>>96555081
>>96555135
Anon is a based mind reader lol
>>96555142
That only applies when it's truly irrelevant but here it shows you are arguing disingenuously and that this behavior is directly related to who you are. As such you are attempting to dismiss something that completely blows your ass out.

>>96555170
>arguing disingenuously? You can't prove my intentions.
>Anyways here's why saying Byzantine is propping up german nationalists and committing a holocaust.

>>96555170
>>96555173
>Insults and claims of magical powers
It's almost as if you're aware that you can't challenge the facts.

The term "Byzantine Empire" was invented for the purpose of propaganda. That's simply a fact. And using it necessitates the lurking premise that it's a different empire than the Roman Empire. Which it wasn't.

Sorry that facts hurt your feelings, so much :(

File: Constantinople.jpg (196 KB, 992x748)

196 KB JPG

>>96554165
Anon you were responding to here.

Assume: the USA were to establish 51st, 52nd, and 53rd states outside of North or South America, and then all 50 current* states were to collapse/divide/come under different forms of government. Those 3 newer states, however, persisted, and maintained the constitutional republican form of government. They would still be the "United States of America," but the "America" part would be a bit questionable, since they aren't physically in the American continents.

*I guess Hawaii wouldn't matter, but whatever.

As for "propaganda"...

Hieronymous Wolf's intentions, whatever they may have been, are a separate matter. Because even were he attempting to de-legitimize the Constantinople-based Roman Empire and claim "Acktchyually, the Holy Roman Empire is the real heir, we wuz kangz an Romans an shiiet," he nevertheless coined a useful historiographical term.

Use of the word "Byzantine" in modern parlance does not constitute a bias against the Eastern Empire, nor a bias for the Holy Roman Empire, whose purported Roman legacy everyone regards as a meme. (No, the Empire of Otto I, Barbarossa, etc. was not Rome). No Greek, or other eastern Christian today, is bothered by the term "Byzantine," or sees it as a diminishment of their claim to KANGship. Because they would know that nominally and legalistically, it was Rome, but that in spirit, it was not the same Rome.

Basically, it's ALL we-wuzzing. The late Republic was already only dubiously Roman. The Empire was a mockery. The late, Christian Empire, with it's all-new form-language was a mockery-of-a-mockery or Romanness.

>>96555747
What you're saying is sensible and people understand what you mean by it. But because it could, conceivable, be more precise, he will continue to bicker and feign confusion despite knowing what you mean.

>>96555805
Right.

"Here is the meaning, the intent behind [thing]..."

"Err, but see, technically..."

Sort of like if God gives you rules by which to live, and instead of attempting to abide by those rules, you devise legalistic loopholes whereby *technically,* you're still following the letter of the law, even if in violation of their spirit.

>>96555855
I think you'll find that this chicken did that, actually. Don't worry, I'm taking care of him.

>>96555956
Kek. Lousy chicken...