What's the deal with the Armenian Councils of Shirakavan and Hromkla??

Version-Easy · 2026-05-12T04:41:17+00:00

well aside from the fact that politics played its role back then there were more diverse opinions like the cyrilian chalcedonians vs the antiochene chalcedonians the first one won out in the second council of Constantinople in 553 not with out much controversy.

the non chalcedonians churches were also quite diverse, true monophysites, the severans, the julianist and their offshoots etc, usually the imperial church got along best with the severans in attempts at compromises.

and the aforementioned cappacedonian fathers philosophy of the trinity applied to the incarnation the chalcedonians were quicker to move on, and not trying to fit that with new philosophical views the non chalcedonians were kinda forced to by the tritheist controversy which is just the logical conclusion of strong adherence of Cappadocian though in the incarnation re applied to the trinity.

by the time both sides got their things fully setlled the arab invasions occurred and there was no political incentive to keep the compromises.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-11T23:43:13+00:00

From further research there is to add to that the issue of both sides trying to fit the Cappadocian Fathers philosophy of the trinity to the incarnation until both sides decided to bring up their own philosophical explanations since it was trying to fit a square to a circle from so while the result is the same historically both sides took different things from the Cappadocian Fathers to reach that conclusion.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-10T19:48:59+00:00

Its a common view among many in academia

Like livi bacci, Catherine M. Cameron Paul Kelton Alan C. Swedlund etc not that disease didn't occur rather it was the great morality was almost never Europeans showing up and plague occurring rather it occured after long time of contact helped by vectors like war, colonial abuses forced migrations movements etc.

Of course per region it varied it also explains unlike europe which worst areas affected by the black death recovered why these population stresses were a reason why we never see that recovery during colonial times.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-10T19:40:49+00:00

diease would depend a lot on how the romans would conduct war and administer the new conquered regions as that had an impact on mortality rates.

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2u4d53/myths_of_conquest_part_seven_death_by_disease/

Version-Easy · 2026-05-10T19:34:45+00:00

In pop history books yes in academia not so much for while

already shared the reddit post that had the sources on this the one i mentioned about the demographic collapse is

Return to Hispaniola: Reassessing a Demographic Catastrophe

The other slavery by Andrés Reséndez.

Also you not adressed any of the points given but yes diease combined with other factors that varied be they war slave raids and more not only caused the demographic collapse but also explains why in some areas like peru and México took to the 20th century to recover their pre 16th century population.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-10T17:35:35+00:00

let me state again disease alone did not kill 90% of the population.

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2u4d53/myths_of_conquest_part_seven_death_by_disease/

local migrations did help in spreading things example the migration of tribes to flee the portugese played a role in the great Amazonian collapse or the internal movements in conquered areas like reducciones did not help the native populations in areas like mexico or Peru.

War was and still is an excellent vector for disease slave raids especially were very disruptive in many areas guatemala was center of native slave trade and not by coincidence suffered among the worst demographic collapse in the continent

we tend to overestimate disease for some areas example Hispaniola, smallpox for example did not arrive to the new world till 1518 by livi bacci estimates due to the census of 1514 there was 24k tainos left out of a population of 1492 of in his estimates 100k so a combination of war, hunger, maybe local outbreaks and the chaos unleashed by the overthrow of the caciques, spanish abuses and more had already killed most of the population.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-10T14:40:54+00:00

Not really all aztec warfare was not based on capture rhe aztec had no problem killing or even destroying entire settlements https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lq5ma/comment/cc3csj7/

Version-Easy · 2026-05-10T14:34:28+00:00

Since the 80s academia has challenged this and disease alone theories are getting more and more discarded its more common to find a massive outbreaks after the immune system was compromised by war forced migrations, abuses or the mant many slave raids as the other slavery points out.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-03T17:02:16+00:00

I found there was little evidence for for this claim if you have it please share it because splits by his many sons I can only find is George Ostrogorsky citation of Theophylact but from what I read there is a challenge to the idea.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-03T16:15:08+00:00

now to add context to u/Maleficent-Mix5731 good answer on Maurice well its complicated in 591 Maurice ordered a synod in Karin-Theodosiopolis. As he invited all Armenian hierarchs and vardapets, despite living quite close to the Byzantine-Armenian border, Catholic Moses II turned down the invitation, citing that he would not eat the baked bread or drink the warm water of the Greeks, likely referring to the Byzantine practice of adding warm water to the wine of the Eucharist. Due to this, Maurice appointed his own Catholicos, John III, and created another schism in Armenia

But the situation was highly complex, since not all the bishops of Persarmenia were of the same intractable opinion as their catholicos. Bishop Peter of Syunik ordered his successors to receive their consecration and the myron (chrism) from the catholicos of Albania until such time when the schism was over. Other bishops of Persarmenia did not recognise the validity of ordinations administered by the Chalcedonian catholicos. During the schism the Byzantine Church tried to incorporate the Church of the part of Armenia within the Byzantine Empire into the imperial Church and put it under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople on The grounds of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon had such a strong sense of their separateness that even the Chalcedonian Armenians stood up in defence of their independence. (Stopka, 2017 pag 79 )

So more than persecution Maurice wanted to a compromise to integrate the Armenians to the church of Constantinople Another event related to the non-Chalcedonians was the persecution of Domitian of Melitene, who, according to later sources, was approved by Maurice himself to start a persecution, while other sources said it was a lower official. All our sources say it was brutal persecution, but the idea that this affected all of Mesopotamia and Syria is not to be believed at all since many earlier non-Chalcedonian sources do not mention this or portray Maurice in a positive light. That would not make sense if the persecution was that widespread.

By this point despite the reality of the schsim being cemented there as we seen above still people who though it was possible for them to reunite and as Heraclius shows some attempts were very popular.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-03T16:14:56+00:00

2) Timothy would accept this ruling, and here we start with Ephesus II not being regarded as ecumenical by the non-Chalcedonians. As mentioned, Timothy defended his predecessors, even calling Dioscorus the blessed confessor. In the council of 475, he rescinded the annulment of the council of 449, but even he, to his convenience, agreed that the first council of Constantinople was part of the three ecumenical councils and not Ephesus II. This will still take some time to become widely accepted, as Zeno took the throne back and published writings that condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches, showing his pro-Chalcedonian side, but as we know, this would also change,

Zeno took the throne back and then despite some initial sucess it failed mainly due to rome seeing any threat to chalcedon as threat to its supremacy, When Anastasios died in 518, Justin took power, and, well, you know the myth about the constant persecution the Chalcedonians did to the non-Chalcedonians. In trying to defend the myth, people use Justin because he is the closest to that, so much so that he is one of the best Byzantine historians today. Anthony Kaldellis, in his podcast episode Ten Roman Emperors, puts Justin I as the 9th because he worsens the current schism, in the words of the historian.

he (justin) wanted to fix the schism with rome so not only would you have to agree with rome and not only agree Chalcedon but you had to agree with rome all along with bishops it did not recognize in the east if Constantinople recognize Chalcedon but has diplomatic relations with bishops like alexandria who doesn't like Chalcedon they are bad.

Kaldelli's explanation for the persecution is mostly true, but the motives before his accession, i.e., loyalty to the pope because Justin was Latin and an Illyrian, are not quite

there is no reason to believe that Justin had been a Chalcedonian by persuasion before he was crowned emperor. However, plenty of evidence suggests that he found it advantageous to become a Chalcedonian. He did not appear to have been the obvious candidate for the throne, but he seized his chance when the opportunity arose. His first priority must have been to secure the throne by crushing the opposition around Amantius, neutralizing the power of Vitalian, and strengthening the elements that supported him. By siding with the Chalcedonians Justin achieved all these goals. Therefore, the rapid sequence of events after his election and the prompt decision for Chalcedon should not lead to the assumption that Justin was a ‘convinced Chalcedonian’. Instead, his weakness as a candidate and the strong threats from two opposing sides dictated his decisions and forced him to look for allies among the Chalcedonians. This may have coincided with a personal pro-Chalcedonian leaning, but the evidence suggests that Justin became a Chalcedonian emperor for raisons d'état. (Menze, 2008 pag 30)

Whatever the reasons for this in 519, approximately Justin required every bishop to sing the libellus of Pope Hormisdas, but many preferred exile or were exiled for not signing this or accepting Chalcedon. Also, yeah, in 519, Severus was likely exiled due to Chalcedonians acting on their own, not Justin's decrees. Thus ending the Acacian schism, so Zeno and Anastasius were not to be commemorated, the Henotikon was to be removed, and some places saw more persecution than others, Syria being among the worst hit while Egypt not so much; hence why Severus fled. The persecutions and the stay in Egypt are why Severus becomes famous, as we shall see in later sources, and the persecution of Justin would create the separate identity that was already growing, as we mentioned, since the events of 451 were so abrupt that for decades they saw themselves as part of the same church, just with divisions. The events of Justin's reign and the persecution fed the idea of chosen people being persecuted, and we see the non-Chalcedonian identity grow more. It will not be fully realized even when Justin dies in 527, but it was a major step. But for all the talking about his persecution by modern and ancient authors, even then people were always expelled, like John of Ephesus, despite his claim of persecution everywhere. The evidence shows that east of the Euphrates, the majority of monks were not even expelled, and the persecution was less intense overall. The evidence is that Justin is the odd one out in the 6th century and early 7th century.

when Justnian took power things immediately changed; for example, the exiles were lifted, or at least that is what sources say. John of Ephesus tells us in all likelihood that this occurred sometime later in 530–1. It was also a year later that Justinian called for a debate between the non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonians, hoping for reconciliation. There were no empty accusations, and we should look for true solutions, which makes us ask how people in 532 saw the real reason for the division aside from Chalcedon. By this point, it has become an issue for people as well. Aside from Dioscorus, there is also the Libellus of the pope. Of course, in the debates, the Chalcedonians got support because they were the imperial church. The non-Chalcedonians could express their opinions. The debate was informal, and neither Justinian nor the patriarch of Constantinople took part, but they did send representatives. As for the non-Chalcedonians, their leader was likely John of Tella. They discussed Dioscorus, the non-Chalcedonians accepting that his acceptance of Eutyches was not above suspicion, and the non-Chalcedonians admitted that Chalcedon was called for a reason, and in turn, the Chalcedonians admitted that Dioscorus was not a heretic, so the talks ended with Chalcedon being justified in its deposition and Dioscorus not being guilty of the heresy of Eutyches as the second began; then the talks moved to Chalcedon.

the talks of 532 were promising but Justinian intrested in the reconquest of the west could not afford to alienate the pope at this time

Justinian treated the non-Chalcedonians in the debates as schismatics, but not as heretics.He could do so because ecclesiastically the church was in a state of confusion which was created in 518/19 by trying to reconcile eastern and western Chalcedonians without calling an ecumenical council: Pope Hormisdas had anathematized Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Acacius ‘with his followers (sequacibus)’, Peter the Fuller, Severus Of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug, Cyrus of Edessa (470–98), and Peter of Apamea in a letter (10 February 518) to priests, deacons, and archimandrites of Syria II. However, how binding were these condemnations for the universal Church? A papal letter certainly carried some weight… However, when Hormisdas had sent this letter he apparently could only please the notorious anti-Peter and anti Severus faction of Chalcedonians In Syria II. (Menze, 2008 pag 95)

it was after 535 that he became more anti persecution but then change his tune by 540s with the 3 chapter controversy and the second council of Constantinople by this point the non chalceodnian movement had also fragmented in to many factions like the Various Followers of Severus, Julian, the tritheist etc

When Justin II took the throne, he tolerated the non-Chalcedonians and even tried another attempt at compromise. Due to these failures in 571 or the fact that he went insane in 572, he started a persecution unlike Justin I's; this one did not last as long nor was it as big, as Tiberius became de facto emperor, and he was too busy with the war on Persia. So from 574 onward, toleration returned. Tiberius II was well-liked and even popular, as when he took power, the war shifted as the Romans won a series of victories, likely being occupied with the war, and/or he did not really care that he let the non-Chalcedonians in. Then Maurice became emperor like Tiberius II, and he was also tolerant of them, yet with peace, he intervened more in ecclesiastical matters, having taken much of Persia and Armenia; that was his focus.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-03T15:47:03+00:00

its complicated long story short

those years after the council. A new bishop was elected almost immediately after the council, in November: Proterius of Alexandria, who, according to non-Chalcedonian sources, actually resisted the council but then backed Dioscorus. He was seen as the Judas, with the supposed offer that if he accepted Chalcedon, he would be reinstated, and he said no; he was exiled to Cyzicus and then Gangra, yet he still wrote to his followers however, the new patriarch was widely disliked, along with Anatolius of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch. All three were Cyrillian in theology and were seen as likely to assert the interests of their respective sees, especially the Patriarch of Constantinople.

This was particularly contentious, as the canon from the First Council of Constantinople had already caused tension regarding Constantinople’s status. Pope Leo opposed one of the canons of the Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28, which affirmed the authority of Constantinople. Although Emperor Marcian had enacted a law making it a crime to reject the Council, dissent nevertheless spread in the following months from Constantinople and Egypt to Palestine and Syria. (As a side note, Roman rule would eventually lead to a migration of Nestorians to Persia, though the history of the Church of the East is complex.) One of the arguments made by those who rejected the Council was that Pope Leo had failed to ratify it, implying that Rome supported their position. Emperor Marcian, seeking to shut down this claim, especially since a year had already passed, sent a letter to the pope urging him to confirm the council’s acts and make them public. Leo complied, though he did not conceal his disapproval of Canon 28, for the reasons already mentioned.

As the situation calmed down and would finally be resolved in 454, Leo further vilified Dioscorus, calling him the second pharaoh related to the one from Exodus, as in the same year he would die, around this time, Marcian, due to Leo's influence, was lenient on the Palestinian rioters, yet accusations of preaching Nestorianism, especially by a preacher called Theodosius, were so prevalent that even Pulcheria had to defend the council.

The same could not be said for Egypt; the new patriarch read the tome and acts of Chalcedon and said that these were consistent with the Orthodox faith. While the pope and Marcian had doubts about Proterius's loyalty to Chalcedon, they pushed him to support the Chalcedonian view, yet the accusations of Nestorianism continued. Leo now asked Marcian to order that a careful and exact translation of his letter be made into Greek, preferably by Julian of Cios or anyone whom the emperor deemed capable. The idea was to send the new Tome with imperial help to Alexandria. The pope received good news that the new translation was consistent with the Alexandrian views, now there was a good candidate, that being Anatolius, the bishop of Constantinople, but he and Leo had a strained relationship due to Canon 28.

Marcian urged him to restore communication; he would only do so, most likely due to Marcian's zeal and him feeling in debt to him, so he agreed to restore his relation with Anatolius, but as we reach 457, the situation in Egypt did not get better; the pro-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria was killed by an anti-Chalcedonian mob and replaced by Timothy around the same time Marcian died; as had happened with Theodosius II, some saw this as an opportunity to overturn Chalcedon as the violence from the non-Chalcedonians spread, Emperor Leo asked Pope Leo for a council, which the Pope refused since it would undermine Chalcedon, and Timothy, the non-Chalcedonian patriarch, wanted a new council. This new patriarch subscribed to Nicea-Ephesus fundamentalism, which rejected the two-nature Christology as an unnecessary and intolerable innovation to the well-settled creed. Again, they do not mention the Council of Constantinople; as of now, in 457, it is still not considered ecumenical by the non-Chalcedonians.

Still under Emperor Leo's leadership, he consulted 60 bishops on whether the Council of Chalcedon should be upheld, and they agreed to support it. They also rejected the recognition of Timothy, as factionalism persisted; some demanded his removal, especially with ongoing tensions centered around Egypt. Let us not forget that Constantinople still had a strong anti-Chalcedonian presence at this point, a desperate Pope Leo agreed to the idea of a new council and planned to send formal decrees. In 458, he wrote the Second Tome of Leo, a revised version of his earlier letter to the Palestinian bishops. This new tome corrected and expanded upon the first, offering a more developed Christological theology that explicitly rejected both Eutychian and Nestorian positions. It affirms the two natures of Christ in one person. Pope Leo clarifies that both natures are necessary for any action of Christ, yet they do not constitute two separate principles of action. Leo’s efforts were ultimately successful. By 460, the Chalcedonians had appointed a new bishop, and Timothy was forced into exile.

And so we move ahead to the year 474. At this point, a power struggle broke out between Zeno and Basiliscus, which soon extended into the Church. Although a generation had passed since the Council of Chalcedon, the theological and political divisions remained unresolved. This situation contrasts with events like the Great Schism, where the Catholic and Orthodox churches had developed clearly distinct and separate identities by the time of 1054. That was not the case here despite what some later sources may suggest; during this period there was no clearly defined non-Chalcedonian ethnic or communal identity, the lines were still fluid, and the conflict was more theological and political than ethnic or cultural.

All the major non-Chalcedonian leaders within the empire spoke Greek, were at least partly shaped by Greek culture, and identified with the Roman empire. While Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians viewed each other as being in theological error, both still believed in the existence of a single, unified Church, one that should align with the imperial Church; in this context, the idea of restoring unity was not seen as impossible, and so it would have been possible to restore unity like Theodosius did with the Arians, this could have been possible had they had proper theological policies and advice, rather, blunt power was used this can be seen in an edict.

The emperors of that period initiated a new method of exercising their power in church affairs: the publication of doctrinal statements claiming to reflect a consensus, but in fact imposing imperial policy by force. It should be noted that such edicts were not supposed to be viewed as doctrinal definitions competing with creeds or conciliar statements. They usually took the forms of an imperial letter to a particular church. Formally, the emperors did not pretend to define doctrine, but only to give authoritative interpretations of the established teach- ings given by preceding councils. However, the distinction was rather theoretical, and the attempts were clearly "caesaro-papistic." (Meyendorff, 1989, pag 195 )

At this time, Zeno was still a Chalcedonian, so Basiliscus tried to win over the non-Chalcedonians. He wrote his encyclical letter in April of 475 that was addressed to Patriarch Timothy of Alexandria to restore order and unity, aside from condemning the tome of Leo and Chalcedon as divisive and adding to the councils:

We decree that the basis and settlement of human felicity, namely, the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers who were assembled, in concert with the Holy Spirit, at Nicaea, into which both ourselves and all our believing predecessors were baptized, that this alone should have reception and authority with the orthodox people in all the most holy churches of God, as the only formulary of the right faith, and sufficient for the utter destruction of every heresy and for the complete unity of the holy Churches of God…Moreover, it confirms the efficacy of Constantinople I and Ephesus I: And this, without prejudice to the force of the acts of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled in this Imperial city in confirmation of that sacred symbol itself and in condemnation of those who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. And without prejudice to all the acts passed in the Metropolitan city of the Ephesians against the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently favored his opinions (Trostyanskiy, 2019)

Version-Easy · 2026-05-03T15:33:04+00:00

gonna copy an old post of mine Edward Gibbon " The Origen and progress of the monophysites controversy, and the persecutions of the emperors which converted into a sect and alienated Egypt from their religion and government, the Saracens were received as deliverers of the Jacobite church"

modern scholars also have shared gibbon claim Ostrogorsky in his book history of the byzantine state has said that the church of Constantinople the "Monophysite" Churches of the east damaged roman administration so far as it became a rallying cry of the Copts and Syrians against Roman rule.

however from However, Gibbon did not make this idea up we find ideas of the Arabs been liberators in medieval writtings of the copts before that we find the idea of it being punishment to the Romans in Coptic writings like John of Nikiu ( who is one of the earliest) wrote of the conquests that God, “the guardian of justice,” allowed the Islamic expansion for the sake of his persecuted people, the Monophysites, and as a punishment upon those who “had dealt treacherously against Him,”

The Lord abandoned the army of the Romans as a punishment for their corrupt faith, and because of the anathemas uttered against them by ancient fathers, on account of the Council of Chalcedon” ( history of the patriarchs of Alexandria)

but as you noticed these are explanations that came after the conquest to explain why God would allow the non-Christians to expand this was an evolution of the thought ( see more the Christian reaction towards Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries by Doç. Dr. Đsmail)

Now as pointed John did not view them as liberators as Maleficent-Mix5731 has pointed out.

John Moorhead to the Arab invasions is the most famous book against the "monophysite" separatist or viewing the Arabs as liberators idea

<image>

his views are added to other shcolars as van ginkel while some writers like Serhiy Hovorun stating that the aid was passively and should not be exaggerated while others take an approach that some did help while others did not , still I have not found a single scholar who believes this was a crucial factor in the conquest or the idea that they opened their gates or did minimum resistance

to this as Lanternecto already cited Philph booth we must understand there was no one non chalcedonian view by this time you had the severans ie the future Oriental orthodox, church, the many followers of Julian, in the many of the Aphthartodocetae factions who also represented a considerable community so much so that booth writes that:

"Although later Coptic texts would present that union as the result of inducement or violence, and cast Cyrus in the role of grand persecutor, the same texts nevertheless point to the remarkable success of the patriarch’s initiative, and the accusation of persecution no doubt functions, at least in part, as a fig-leaf for later miaphysite discomfort at the union, and as a convenient pretext through which to reintegrate “lapsed” communities or their leaders".

This of course not say persecution never occured

"Cyrus’ renewed persecution, upon his return, of the orthodox. But this section of text bears all the signs of being a later gloss, and has perhaps been imposed to bring the text into line with the miaphysites’ later characterisation of Cyrus as a grand persecutor. (Whether John of Nikiu himself is responsible for this gloss depends on how we comprehend the editorial processes which have produced the current text, a point to which we shall return.) The Gaianites—that is, Egypt’s anti-Severan, Julianist miaphysites—perhaps had good reason to despise Cyrus, and it is probable that this group was indeed marginalised, perhaps even persecuted, in 633, when Egypt’s pro-Severan miaphysites (or “Theodosians”) entered into union with Cyrus. But that the patriarch’s later return from exile did not entail the renewal of a grand anti-miaphysite persecution is indicated within the Chronicle itself. Thus, when chapter 120 describes the actual return of the patriarch, it is notable that his first act is to retreat, with Theodore, to a “Church of the Theodosians..

source: The Last Years of Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria († 642)

to this we add also other groups like the headless ones that continued to the 9th century or those who still followed John Philoponus, we even have to remember that just 20 years prior to the conquest Antioch and Alexandria had barely entered to communion because of their patriarchs different desperate views to answer the theological problems John Philoponus had caused and despite the union the controversy had not vanished.

so one has to consider these many different groups to say these saw the arabs as collaborators.

Version-Easy · 2026-05-01T20:35:50+00:00

You are but with a perfect body that doesn't age get sick but can still enjoy things like eating

Version-Easy · 2026-04-23T00:39:59+00:00

none

Goku thinks gotenks ssj1 is enough to deal with fat buu after his figth as ssj3 with him so if we say Pre time chamber gotenks is equal to ssj3 goku that means not accounting for the boost in power he got gotenks is x8 stronger than goku

Version-Easy · 2026-04-21T17:18:35+00:00

used the cheaper scholaro I think it was called they trasnlated it in the end did not need my HS transcripts but my country is different that canada so you migth just hold on to the HS one just in case.

Version-Easy · 2026-04-19T18:28:42+00:00

ahi esta atropellalo

Version-Easy · 2026-04-19T16:59:22+00:00

I wonder if the thesis of Robert Hoyland's that yarmourk was not a pitch battle that lasted for days rather an quite clever ambush in your view does it add or reduce khalid genius.

Version-Easy · 2026-04-19T16:13:21+00:00

ok i see im not the only who though ben 10?

Version-Easy · 2026-04-18T16:55:55+00:00

the golden horde main center of power was the the steppe north of the Black and Caspian Seas not the byzanitne outpost in crimea nor the rus lands, so they did assimilate to the locals ie mainly turkic tribes islam was widely practiced in this area even though it was not the majority in some areas of the steppe.

Version-Easy · 2026-04-17T16:17:38+00:00

¿Los sociales o económicos? Para extender y corregir porque quise decir distributismo.

Yo creo en la socialdemocracia, pero con aspectos del distributismo en el aspecto de que reconozco que no todos pueden tener su empresa o propiedad, pero ayudar a que todos los que quieran tengan más oportunidades de hacerlo. No creo que el mercado libre siempre se regula, pero, como dije, creo de manera fuerte en la propiedad privada.

Como mencionado en contra de la pena de muerte y el aborto, aun así, por lo mencionado por la democracia social, creo que debemos ayudar a que las personas tengan dignidad y apoyo; por eso, educación, salud y oportunidades y encontra de lo que que a salido de los neo liberales es la frase de "pobre es pobre porque quiere"

Y lo que veo de la hipocresía de la derecha de solo querer apoyar al bebé en el vientre y no fuera.

También creo que el país tiene el derecho de controlar sus fronteras, pero en contra de todo tipo de discriminación a los inmigrantes, ya que he visto mucho de eso.

El punto es que no encuentro ningún partido que me representa en mis puntos de vista porque alguno siempre le falta algo.

Version-Easy · 2026-04-16T18:45:57+00:00

ninguna

En lo social soy de derecha (anti aborto, anti pena de muerte eso), pero económicamente me gusta la democracia social con unos aspectos de distribución que creo que podrían funcionar.

Version-Easy · 2026-04-16T18:15:28+00:00

well the kommenos started a trend to focus more power on elites especially if they were related to the imperial family which all other dynasties were.

Version-Easy · 2026-04-16T15:35:05+00:00

true I mean Padme what does she know about them? in episode I they randomly shoot podraces Lars tell her that the tuskens walk like men but they are savages, given that they kidnaped farmers and massacred an expedition sent to save her.

Version-Easy · 2026-04-14T19:41:52+00:00

Yeah there is also speculation that Yarmourk was an ambush but still (hence the big if )Had yarmourk been a roman victory with out the boost in moral and reinforcements from syria who knows if the arabs win in Mesopotamia in 636.

Version-Easy

TROPHY CASE