«12. . .78910111213. . .2223»
pee pee poo poo
Augustus was an honorific, until like the Diadochi times, when you had the Augustus and the Caesars. No longer honorific at that point. I guess the Consuls could be renamed to Caesars, but that would be a little messy now, and a little cliche for us Roman regions. I've tried to strike a balance between Old Empire and Diadochi times in Roman history; keeping the Princeps as the head of the Assembly (senate), while also using multiple Consuls (like Caesars in Diadochi times) as regional government.
The only problem is that Mehmed never was, and never succeeded, in becoming a native Byzantine. He was a foreign power, and logic dictates that he should not be considered the rightful ruler to the Byzantine throne.
This is exactly the reason why I cordially - and I utterly mean it - have a disdain for the Dominate and its government system, what do you call, tetrarchy.
When I read Diocletian deciding to split the Empire into west and east halves it makes me believe that rather the decision to split the Empire to two I percieve that, rather holding them united in time of crisis the split had it done badly than good. Not that the Dominate is way despotic, but Roman emperors at that time are forced to share power with so-called co-emperors, another reason why I cordially - and still I mean it - dislike that period of the Empire very, very much. Just saying.
At least he's not Greek unlike the Byzantines, who are mostly ethnically Greek and less Roman. Last time the Byzantines stopped being Roman, the gap has widened between both eastern and western cultures in the Mediterranean since the death of Justinian and then the Schism of 1054, which compliments the reason why Greeks aren't Romans and Romans not Greeks.
Had the Orthodox Christians under the late Palaiologos dynasty managed to rally beside the 1438 Council of Florence-Ferrara to 'heal' the Great Schism they would have saved Byzantium from the Ottomans with the aid of the Catholic west. But it is too late. The Latins' squabbling and their inability to unify against the Ottomans as well as the Greeks' own defeat proved so much to Holy Byzantium that Greece, as had before in ancient Roman times, has been conquered by its former conqueror, but in the form of the Ottomans.
As I reiterated in Lewisham, Byzantine legacy exactly correlated with Panhellenism (which is far from Roman) as the Panhellenist movement revered that part of the Roman Empire in Greece where Orthodox Christianity superseded the old gods of ancient Rome.
So you might be guessing I might agree with Gennadius II Scholarius, the Archbishop of Byzantium, among others who recognized Mehmed as Caesar which upsets the West after they've cried buckets of tears for the city's downfall.
Mehmed knew the Iliad and yes, there are some evidences of him walking on the ruins of ancient Troy:
"Giovanni Mario Filelfo blamed the Greeks for their own defeat and the Latins for their inability to unite against Mehmed the Conqueror in his poetic work titled "Amyris," where he described the life and conquests of the sultan. In fact, he often praised the Ottoman sultan. He presented the sultan's victory over the Greeks as a triumph of justice, drawing attention to the fact that Mehmed II was a descendant of the Trojans. In the end, the revenge of the treacherous conquest of Troy by the Greeks was taken. Rodrigo Sanchez Arevalo also legitimized the Ottomans' defeat of Greece as the rightful revenge of Trojan descendants. "Historian Stefanos Yerasimos says Turks are actually brethren according to this Trojan rumor, which became widespread in the Renaissance. He says that it is also fictionalized that they are relatives of Aeneas, the founder of Rome, after they took over Istanbul; the empire did not disappear but simply stayed in the same family.""According to Spanish traveler Pero Tafur, the public in Istanbul said: "Turks will avenge Troy" in 1437, when he visited the city. During Istanbul's conquest, it was mentioned that the great Turk, Mehmed II, dedicated his victory in the name of revenge for the Trojan virgin who was raped at the Pallas Sanctuary.
Source: https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2019/01/30/trojans-ancestors-of-anatolian-civilizations/amp
The title padişah is Persian for "master king" (from pād + shah; the former being cognate with the Sanskrit pati), and ranks above shāhānshāh (king of kings). It is one of the Ottoman sovereign's main titles, besides the title of Khagan and Sulṭānü's-Selāṭīn.
By the way, if you are watching the 1984 film Dune, you'll notice that there is a universe-spanning empire known as the Galactic Padishah Empire which is ruled by the Padishah Emperor.
Demonos ministry of foreign affairs and Oldwick
Post self-deleted by Archduchess veronica de karnstein.
First, I made a mistake - I mixed up the Diadochi and the tetrarchy. Oops.
Second - It may look like I pretend to know the full extent of what happened after the fall of the West, but I don't. I'm merely a student to history, in the literal and philosophical sense. I see your reasoning with the claim that the Ottomans deserve to be called the continuation of the empire, and I do in a sense agree. The Ottomans deserve to be called as such. However, the Ottomans aren't Romans. The Byzantines, though Greek, were the legal and logical continuation of the Empire. I think Mehmed deserves the title Caesar; I look up to him as a scholar and ruler. But the Ottoman Empire is not the successor or the continuation of the Roman Empire. I haven't formed an opinion as of just yet on who was the continuation of the Empire.
Pee pee poo poo
Hello! We're glad to finally have an open embassy with y'all, people!
Here, have some Zapolyarny vodka from Imperiya Snezhnaya, Dandelion wine from Monsdtadt, some non-alcoholic beverages and freshly cooked cookies from all of our member states!
Greetings from the Aquatic Autonomous republic of Triph
we are happy to be invited into Aurrelius
The Ottomans aren't Roman, ethnically, and to mistake Roman for ethnic is claiming that the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne and his posterity in the West is more Roman than the Byzantine Empire or otherwise. But the Ottomans are, in spirit, more Roman than the Greeks as the Greeks of that time are more on Church liturgy and rites than on the classics (the Iliad and Aeneid) as their pagan ancestors. While the Eastern churches blatanly forsook classical Greco-Roman culture for mere abstractism and Christian dogma, ritual and tradition, the West is trying its best to imitate the classics, mostly Greek than Roman, which downpours even the very concept of myth.
While you only rely on historical facts very much that it adds up to the disregard of all myth as the most reliable source in history, I am convinced that myth is more powerful than fact. Not all facts are truth, although facts tend to be based on truth.
Yes, I am much of a history student, not in the literal and philosophical sense as you are, but rather divergent. I am more on mythological narrative than factual narrative, as I believe myths have the power to change the world as I comprehend it my way. I believe that the most boring thing when it comes to historical discussion is the abstract, complex, redundancy of historical fact, and that's the reason why I crammed out in class taking up notes over a long period of time.
When I say the Byzantines aren't Roman as the classical Romans I say they did not comprehend myth really carefully, just as any classical Roman was in the pre-Christian past. The Byzantines were so much on religious dogma that it became their myth, and are the worst in suppressing what is pagan even in uncivilized and/or un-Christianized areas, so are the Catholics in both the Dark and Medieval ages.
And if they were 'legal and logical' successors to Rome, does that omit out the mythical narrative that their champion, Achilles, laid siege to the city of Troy by an invading army of Greeks of various tribes? Byzantines should know that rather looking up to the Hermoniakos' Iliad as the only source of Trojan myth in their time, they should know that Troy is Rome's mythical successor, according to the Aeneid, thus leading them to be convinced that Byzantium is not a legal and logical successor to Troy let alone mythical.
Oh, and before the modern-day Hellennist irredentists ever try to stake a claim on Istanbul as part of their "Megali Idea"/Greater Greece plan, they must apologize to Troy first.
What are you going to debunk claims first, the Tsardom of Muscovy?
hi, i am the glitched islands of dellettia!
Hi
Welcome! Sorry for the late reply, was busy. Please make sure to join our Discord chat server, and consider joining the WA and endorsing Daskavia!
Welcome! Please make sure to endorse Daskavia, our WA Delegate!
Greetings Citizens! Please make sure to vote in our poll.
On The Poll, It Should Belong To Poland.
how about syrian crimea
/S
That's even worse!
Nie.
Hyperico Founder and Iwaku capitalists
exactly the joke
applauds dingoy
On the poll, it should belong to Lichtenstein
«12. . .78910111213. . .2223»
Advertisement