144 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Major League wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

- Ancient Semitic civilizations like Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians / Carthaginians, Canaanites, Israelites, Sabaeans....etc
- The Roman Empire (+ Byzantium)
- Early Islamic Caliphates: Prophet Muhammad's state, Rashidun Caliphate, Umayyad Caliphate (+ Umayyads in Spain), Abbasid Caliphate (including fragmentation era) and Fatimid Caliphate.
- Ottoman Empire
- Japan in the pre-Tokugawa era and during The Meiji Restoration.
- Early modern and modern Europe (15-16th century till 20th).

to bad the Romans really were thorough and destroying the Carthiginians.  I'd like to learn more about them.

Fun facts:

Carthage's real Phoenician name was "Qart Hadash." Anyone who knows Hebrew and / or Arabic would now that this means "New Town."

Hannibal's family name was Barca. "Barca" means lighting, similar to the Arabic word barq برق.

[Major League]

I should say Napoleonic France too. Really was interesting and the results of the war.

[GodWood]

Off topic really needs a "History thread".

Save me the trouble of lurking the Loghain thread hoping that it'll drift off topic.

[HoonDing]

The Empire of Alexander the Great.

[KnightofPhoenix]

GodWood wrote...

Off topic really needs a "History thread".

Save me the trouble of lurking the Loghain thread hoping that it'll drift off topic.

How come you didn't join in?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Major League wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

- Ancient Semitic civilizations like Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians / Carthaginians, Canaanites, Israelites, Sabaeans....etc
- The Roman Empire (+ Byzantium)
- Early Islamic Caliphates: Prophet Muhammad's state, Rashidun Caliphate, Umayyad Caliphate (+ Umayyads in Spain), Abbasid Caliphate (including fragmentation era) and Fatimid Caliphate.
- Ottoman Empire
- Japan in the pre-Tokugawa era and during The Meiji Restoration.
- Early modern and modern Europe (15-16th century till 20th).

to bad the Romans really were thorough and destroying the Carthiginians.  I'd like to learn more about them.

Fun facts:

Carthage's real Phoenician name was "Qart Hadash." Anyone who knows Hebrew and / or Arabic would now that this means "New Town."

Hannibal's family name was Barca. "Barca" means lighting, similar to the Arabic word barq برق.

"Qart Hadash"

Qart: قریه
Hadash: جدید

??

[Nameless one7]

Roman Empire

[GodWood]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Off topic really needs a "History thread".

Save me the trouble of lurking the Loghain thread hoping that it'll drift off topic.

How come you didn't join in?

The few discussions that have happened whilst I was online were on topics I only knew the bare bones of.

They were still fun to read though.

Modifié par GodWood, 25 février 2012 - 08:48 .

[Costin_Razvan]

- Carthage and the Seleucid Empire
- Roman Empire.
- Mongol Empire
- Holy Roman Empire.
- French Empire.
- British Empire.
- Early Japanese Empire.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Fun facts:

Carthage's real Phoenician name was "Qart Hadash." Anyone who knows Hebrew and / or Arabic would now that this means "New Town."

Hannibal's family name was Barca. "Barca" means lighting, similar to the Arabic word barq برق.

"Qart Hadash"

Qart: قریه
Hadash: جدید

??

حديثة  

[bmwcrazy]

Major League wrote...

United States of America.  Kicking ass and taking names since 1776 lol

+1 

[Addai]

Volus Warlord wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

You really have to specify when you're talking about "ancient Chinese." The dynasties were pretty diverse.

I don't much like any empire. They should mind their own damn business.

I have to say, this is one awesome response.

Psh hippie nonsense.

LOL  I am no hippie, sir.  That's blasphemy.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I don't much like any empire. They should mind their own damn business.

Expanding to gain ressources, increase power and ensure better security for their borders is minding their own business.

Minimal expansion for such reasons is not what many of them were about.  Political and religious megalomania- bringing the light of X inherently superior culture to Y barbarians- was what drove a lot of empire building.

[wizardryforever]

Well, this question is a little broad for my tastes, since it literally covers every group of people who had a name for themselves since the beginning of recorded history.

I've always found the Byzantines fascinating.  I thought that they seemed a bit like history's ignored empire, at least as far as history books and classes go.  Really, if it wasn't for them, and Charles Martel in Europe, the Islamic tide would have engulfed Europe the way it did with the Middle East and North Africa.  Of course, if it weren't for the Byzantines' own self-absorbtion, they could possibly have nipped the threat in the bud when they had the chance.  That would certainly make for a different version of history, and the ripples of their presence has dramatically shaped the world today.  Hell, there's even an insipid song about the renaming of their capitol city that was popular once.  Maybe? 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Expanding to gain ressources, increase power and ensure better security for their borders is minding their own business.

Minimal expansion for such reasons is not what many of them were about.  Political and religious megalomania- bringing the light of X inherently superior culture to Y barbarians- was what drove a lot of empire building.

I disagree. I believe they were used as justification rather than them being a causation. 
The cause is ultimately *always* material. Whatever comes next is added bonus and more often then not, justification (that they end up genuinely believing or just use for PR purposes).

[Addai]

They go hand in hand. The thirst for power and dominance feeds on whatever it can find.

[Addai]

wizardryforever wrote...

Well, this question is a little broad for my tastes, since it literally covers every group of people who had a name for themselves since the beginning of recorded history.

I've always found the Byzantines fascinating.  I thought that they seemed a bit like history's ignored empire, at least as far as history books and classes go.  Really, if it wasn't for them, and Charles Martel in Europe, the Islamic tide would have engulfed Europe the way it did with the Middle East and North Africa.  Of course, if it weren't for the Byzantines' own self-absorbtion, they could possibly have nipped the threat in the bud when they had the chance.  That would certainly make for a different version of history, and the ripples of their presence has dramatically shaped the world today.  Hell, there's even an insipid song about the renaming of their capitol city that was popular once.  Maybe? 

It was interfighting between Latin and eastern Christians that doomed them.

Thank Edward Gibbon for why modern historians sometimes still brush Byzantium off as not worth study.

[bEVEsthda]

My fav just has to be the expanding Persia under Cyrus.
Cyrus really created the first super power, and doing so he also created an empire that was good for people.
Much better than their conditions before belonging to Cyrus' Persia. He gave people peace, safety, stability and prosperity. Which is why it also was so easy for Cyrus. People plagued by wars and raiders of all kinds, wanted to belong to Persia.
Babylon was the natural early adopter.

Of course, after Cyrus,  everything went steeply downhill...  Darius, Xerxes,..  <brrr>   ...But you gotta respect Cyrus.

[wizardryforever]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Expanding to gain ressources, increase power and ensure better security for their borders is minding their own business.

Minimal expansion for such reasons is not what many of them were about.  Political and religious megalomania- bringing the light of X inherently superior culture to Y barbarians- was what drove a lot of empire building.

I disagree. I believe they were used as justification rather than them being a causation. 
The cause is ultimately *always* material. Whatever comes next is added bonus and more often then not, justification (that they end up genuinely believing or just use for PR purposes).

Well as usual I hold a position in between these two opposites.  You're both right, to a certain extent.  Sometimes wars and conflicts were started purely for religious or political purposes, and some opportunists jumped on the bandwagon for material purposes.  Or sometimes the conflict actually means more spent than gained, in a material sense.  Vietnam is a good example of the latter.

Of course, plenty of other conflicts do happen for material reasons first, and are then justified by those in charge using politics or religion or nationalism or what have you.  The Witch Hunts, for example, were property grabs disguised as religious persecution. 

[wizardryforever]

Addai67 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Well, this question is a little broad for my tastes, since it literally covers every group of people who had a name for themselves since the beginning of recorded history.

I've always found the Byzantines fascinating.  I thought that they seemed a bit like history's ignored empire, at least as far as history books and classes go.  Really, if it wasn't for them, and Charles Martel in Europe, the Islamic tide would have engulfed Europe the way it did with the Middle East and North Africa.  Of course, if it weren't for the Byzantines' own self-absorbtion, they could possibly have nipped the threat in the bud when they had the chance.  That would certainly make for a different version of history, and the ripples of their presence has dramatically shaped the world today.  Hell, there's even an insipid song about the renaming of their capitol city that was popular once.  Maybe? 

It was interfighting between Latin and eastern Christians that doomed them.

Thank Edward Gibbon for why modern historians sometimes still brush Byzantium off as not worth study.

I actually did a book review on the Byzantines for a Medieval History class, and I gotta say it was a number of things, but quite a lot of it was their own fault.  Extreme factionism within Constantinople made it such that the emperor had to either walk on eggshells or deal with constant riots in the streets.  Iconoclasm lead to all kinds of turmoil within the empire and between the emperor and the pope.  And of course, wars with the Sassanian empire (Persia, essentially) meant that both empires were weakened and unprepared for the Muslim tide that swept out of Arabia with a strange new religion.

Still, though, they held the line against the Muslims until 1453, when massive cannons breached the supposedly unbreachable walls of Constantinople.  There's a reason most historians consider 1453 to be the dawn of the Early Modern Era.

[Swoo]

wizardryforever wrote...

I've always found the Byzantines fascinating.  I thought that they seemed a bit like history's ignored empire, at least as far as history books and classes go.  Really, if it wasn't for them, and Charles Martel in Europe, the Islamic tide would have engulfed Europe the way it did with the Middle East and North Africa.  Of course, if it weren't for the Byzantines' own self-absorbtion, they could possibly have nipped the threat in the bud when they had the chance.  That would certainly make for a different version of history, and the ripples of their presence has dramatically shaped the world today.  Hell, there's even an insipid song about the renaming of their capitol city that was popular once.  Maybe? 

Ah, the Eastern Roman Empire, I've always been fascinated by them.

It's a shame because the Komnenean Reforms brought them back from the brink, and then their own rampant corruption in the nobility and generalship sunk them for good. The worst was you had Captains and nobles who were conscripting unskilled warriors to use in their garrisons for a fraction of the cost - or even creating phantom soldiers to put on the roster so they can pocket the 'man's' wages for themselves - and were woefully underprepared because of it when the end came. Forced to use heavily mercenary forces, they found themselves bankrupt and then without enough troops, outnumbered something like 11:1 IIRC.

The Seige of Constantinople is so interesting in that Orban came to the ERE first and offered his weaponry to them, but they didn't have the money to pay for them, so he went with Plan B. We saw what happened to Constantinople after that. What I didn't know is that the ERE did actually have some cannon-teams firing back during the seige, but since the walls weren't built with that type of warfare in mind the Romans did more damage to their own walls than they did to the enemy forces!

Plus, the ERE accidently set the whole Crusade-thing into motion. That was another thing that really screwed them over as well, as on two major occasions the Crusades turned on their Roman allies and snapped up ERE lands instead.

[Major League]

wizardryforever wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Well, this question is a little broad for my tastes, since it literally covers every group of people who had a name for themselves since the beginning of recorded history.

I've always found the Byzantines fascinating.  I thought that they seemed a bit like history's ignored empire, at least as far as history books and classes go.  Really, if it wasn't for them, and Charles Martel in Europe, the Islamic tide would have engulfed Europe the way it did with the Middle East and North Africa.  Of course, if it weren't for the Byzantines' own self-absorbtion, they could possibly have nipped the threat in the bud when they had the chance.  That would certainly make for a different version of history, and the ripples of their presence has dramatically shaped the world today.  Hell, there's even an insipid song about the renaming of their capitol city that was popular once.  Maybe? 

It was interfighting between Latin and eastern Christians that doomed them.

Thank Edward Gibbon for why modern historians sometimes still brush Byzantium off as not worth study.

I actually did a book review on the Byzantines for a Medieval History class, and I gotta say it was a number of things, but quite a lot of it was their own fault.  Extreme factionism within Constantinople made it such that the emperor had to either walk on eggshells or deal with constant riots in the streets.  Iconoclasm lead to all kinds of turmoil within the empire and between the emperor and the pope.  And of course, wars with the Sassanian empire (Persia, essentially) meant that both empires were weakened and unprepared for the Muslim tide that swept out of Arabia with a strange new religion.

Still, though, they held the line against the Muslims until 1453, when massive cannons breached the supposedly unbreachable walls of Constantinople.  There's a reason most historians consider 1453 to be the dawn of the Early Modern Era.

yea, i've heard 1453 to be linked to the beginning of the renassiance.

i think it had alot to do with their defeat at Manzikert and no expansion. with the defeat at Manzikert, the Byzantines lost Anatolia, and the grain and soldiers the area provided.  this cripled the byzantines and ended any chance of expansion.  they just had a limited military.

then in 1203 you had the sacking of Constantinople and the Venetians putting a Latin king  on the throne instead of a Greek.

with the ottomans of the rise and the byzantines in decline it was inevitable.

[mousestalker]

I'm with Addai67 with this one. I'm not really a fan of any ancient empire.

In the pre-industrial world life generally sucked ("nasty, brutish and short") unless you happened to be one of the top 5% or so. Even if you were in the top 1/20th things could get dire fairly fast if you or anyone in your family made a mis-step.

Life in the early (Augustinian) Roman Empire wasn't as awful as the rest as long as you could guarantee you would be a citizen and male.

Modifié par mousestalker, 26 février 2012 - 12:36 .

[Major League]

Addai67 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Well, this question is a little broad for my tastes, since it literally covers every group of people who had a name for themselves since the beginning of recorded history.

I've always found the Byzantines fascinating.  I thought that they seemed a bit like history's ignored empire, at least as far as history books and classes go.  Really, if it wasn't for them, and Charles Martel in Europe, the Islamic tide would have engulfed Europe the way it did with the Middle East and North Africa.  Of course, if it weren't for the Byzantines' own self-absorbtion, they could possibly have nipped the threat in the bud when they had the chance.  That would certainly make for a different version of history, and the ripples of their presence has dramatically shaped the world today.  Hell, there's even an insipid song about the renaming of their capitol city that was popular once.  Maybe? 

It was interfighting between Latin and eastern Christians that doomed them.

Thank Edward Gibbon for why modern historians sometimes still brush Byzantium off as not worth study.

damn Edward Gibbon, to bad i respect him to much lol

"History is little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind." Edward Gibbon

[Wentletrap]

Wow, a lot of Byzantine lovers in this thread.


The Byzantines have always fascinated me too, for their art and architecture, their long history, and their bridging of east / west and Christianity / Islam.


I’ve only read about them on wikipedia while at work, does anyone have any books to recommend?


There’s a lot of sad and colorful little stories sprinkled throughout their history, too.  A bunch seem to involve blinding... eww.  Glad I didn’t live in medieval times.


- In 1014, Basil II had 15,000 Bulgars blinded after defeating them in battle.  Every 100th man was spared an eye, so he could help lead his comrades back home.  The Bulgarian king Samuel supposedly had a heart attack upon seeing his blinded army and died a day or two later.


- after defeating the Byzantines at Manzikert, Alp Arslan asked the captured Byzantine Emperor:

Alp Arslan: "What would you do if *I* were brought before *you* as a prisoner?"

Romanos: "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople."

Alp Arslan: "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."

And of course, upon returning home, Romanos was deposed and blinded by his Byzantine subjects and died shortly after.


- A later emperor, John IV Laskaris, was deposed and blinded at the age of eleven by a rival for the throne.  (Poor kid).  The son of said rival visited him thirty years later at a monastery to ask for forgiveness, which he gave.


- The last Byzantine emperor, Constantine Palaiologos, died fighting at the Siege of Constantine in 1453.  He cast off his purple cloak, and jumped into the crowd to fight amongst his men, and was never seen again.  How sadly romantic!


- When Mehmet II conquered Constantinople for the Turks in 1453, he was all of 21 years old.  Before he entered the Hagia Sophia church, he sprinkled some dirt from the ground upon his turban as a show of respect.   (but then, he went ahead and destroyed the Church of the Holy Apostles, resting place of the Byzantine Emperors since Constantine, .  How amazing it would be if we could visit that church today...)  


Also, the poem Sailing to Byzantium, by Yeats, is awesome.

Modifié par Wentletrap, 26 février 2012 - 01:59 .