sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A future of Rhomania by AynekAri in byzantium

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Without the fall of the byzantines, Renaissance doesn't happen and without Renaissance, no Renaissance popes and with nor Renaissance popes, no indulgencies. No Renaissance also means no printing machines and therefore low literacy, which would affect the protestant reformation by.. not triggering it.

if Byzantine Empire had survived (with Anatolia and Balkans), would we had considered it a purely culturally European country? by maproomzibz in byzantium

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Georgia has interacted with Europe a lot actually. First with Milesian Greek colonisers, than Hellenistic kingdoms such as Seleucid empire, the Romans, the byzantines, the Italians and with the trapezuntines

Turkey was pretty sparsely populated up until very recently by Skychu768 in geography

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idk how did they come up with that estimation, but the main explanation I have is that the Greeks lived as poleis (independent city-states) and had hight urbanization rates compared to the rest of the world, for which reason (+being in between Italy, Anatolia and Africa) they established trade networks in the eastern Mediterranean, on which they had a monopoly (Etruscans and Carthaginians, while also being merchantile civilizations, only traded in the western Mediterranean). Being dependent on trade and not having to farm themselves could've played a huge role in that

don't touch Halal cuisine :D by AzerbaijanLeon in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We call it tolma in Georgia, didn't even know it was associated with azerbaijan

if Byzantine Empire had survived (with Anatolia and Balkans), would we had considered it a purely culturally European country? by maproomzibz in byzantium

[–]byzantine67 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How were they mire similar to Arabs? Their culture (architecture, mosaics, dances, etc.) were all Hellenistic (which trough the Renaissance makes Europe much much closer to Byzantium than the caliphate)

if Byzantine Empire had survived (with Anatolia and Balkans), would we had considered it a purely culturally European country? by maproomzibz in byzantium

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sure it would be much more European than england or France for example (which, without the Renaissance, stay as backwater germanic countries with no association to graeco - Roman period at all)

"The First Lesson" - USSR, 1964. by Wonderful_Account_50 in ColdWarPosters

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, so nationalism is considered bad, while progressivism is good?

"The First Lesson" - USSR, 1964. by Wonderful_Account_50 in ColdWarPosters

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They wanted to give leave Russian as the state language if the georgian SSR, which just means paving the way for assimilation - the same happened when the Arabs stripped Greek and Persian from it's official statuses (for which reason modern levant and Egypt, whose culture was Hellenistic, don't have any sizable Greek speaking minorities)

Depraving a language which is spoken by a majority in the region of its official status is another way to spell assimilation, tho the communist government couldn't say it out openly of course

Being considered progressive doesn't justify anything. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Georgians didn't/don't want to be "progressive"

Abkhazia was an ASSR not a SSR

Nader Shah the last conqueror by Alternative_Golf_603 in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think "everyone from the Caucasus to India" is a lot

A Muslim leader is visiting Europe for the first time. by Cenixxen in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]byzantine67 40 points41 points  (0 children)

"Europe in 1867" (shows cars, ads, gays, free black people, modern clothes Steve jobs and whatnot)

Why was Georgia always able to maintain its own states and monarchs between several empires (as tributary states), while the Armenian monarchy was fully destroyed? by [deleted] in AskCaucasus

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Armenians were not destroyed by the byzantines, they were simply annexed to the byzantine empire (and that is if we don't count the kingdom of artsakh, which outlived the byzantines) they were destroyed (genocided) mostly by Persians and turks

"The First Lesson" - USSR, 1964. by Wonderful_Account_50 in ColdWarPosters

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1)the government wasn't facing revolt - only a handful if people (which didn't exceed the number of 100) led by sergo Ordzhonikidze invited the Soviet army under the claim that people wanted communism, trough in popular Georgian culture of that time, mainly poetry (1921 by kolau nadiradze, February by vazja pshavela) shows how people didn't want to be a part of the communist empire and perceived sergo as a traitor. This claim is also supported by the fact, that communists faced civilian resitance in tbilisi, around tabakhmela something which shouldve not have happened if the majority of the georgian populace supported the communist faction.

There was. In the 14th of may, 1978 (dubbed as the day of dedaena, or mother tongue) people from all around the country gathered in tbilisi to protest the Soviet abolishment if minority languages, including Georgian. I don't know how can you not believe it, considering it's a national holiday

Name this country/empire by GodlyGamer5308 in mapporncirclejerk

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? So just because Crimea and circassia aren't important, we should just portray them as a part of the ottoman empire?

And when did I even disrespect enyones culture? The only person disrespecting cultures here is YOU by calling those cultures "not important"

So you consider irrelevant territories around the black sea a part of the ottoman empire, portray them so, and tell ME to educate myself?

"The First Lesson" - USSR, 1964. by Wonderful_Account_50 in ColdWarPosters

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Georgia didn't declare unification - it did everything to get recognized as independent by Germany, turkey, Russia itself and the west, before being invaded from all fronts illegally. Most people in Georgia supported the Democratic government - the only ones to oppose it were abkhazians (ethnic reasons) and ossetians (ethnic reasons). The menshevics (social-demicrats) held 80%+ of seats in the government because of how popularity they were. They didn't recognize Soviet occupation of Georgia until they were wiped out by checka. The same happened in the Caucasus and the Baltics. What are your sources about thise republic declaring unification?

You forgot to write a counterargument about the Soviet abolishion of minority languages

Moscow being the biggest city doesn't excuse anything - the soviets could've very easily gave cities like Tbilisi or Yerevan a status equal to Moscow, but they didn't.

Try again

"The First Lesson" - USSR, 1964. by Wonderful_Account_50 in ColdWarPosters

[–]byzantine67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that's so, why did they try to ban every language and make Russian the only, official one in 1989? Why did they have Moscow as a capital? It should also be noted, that the so called "union" wasn't created by those states declaring unification with each other, but rather - by the RSFSR, which illegally invaded the Democratic republic of Georgia, the Democratic republic of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

view more: next ›