Why did the Roman Empire so permeate the collective imagination of the West?

[Julielamar2]

[Exterminatore]

I don’t know that it did in minds of most people in the years following its downfall until more modern times.


Once we enter the medieval period like 90% or better of the populace we’re peasants. They were far too busy trying to survive and serving their lord than using time wondering about Ancient Rome. Most did not know how to read or write either. Unless they lived where Roman ruins were visible, the only things they heard of Rome were from the Bible and even then were focused on the moral lesson not so much the culture and overall history of the empire. They may have been familiar with Latin as well, the language of Rome, the language of the church, but how many knew it compared to the vernacular in their region is debatable.


That’s the peasants though.


The nobility did certainly to some extent, especially kings. I think this is because Rome up til then was one of the most powerful empires of all time disputably and certainly so in the west. Not to mention it lasted for hundreds of years. Certainly this would be something a ruler would find impressive and hope to mimic one day. In terms of Roman architecture it was excellent and we also find many churches and monasteries that we call “Romanesque” due to its quality. Meaning they echoed the Roman’s in terms of architecture and grandness. Other buildings also have these features as well. The Normans built many of such abbeys and monasteries, for example Mont St. Michele, and Abbey aux Dames in Caen. They built a cathedral Capella Palintina (Palentine Chapel) in Sicily which has Greek and Arab influences in it also. Westminster Abby was originally built by Norman craftsmen in the same style if I’m
Not mistaken, and was restored and rebuilt under Henry III. I think with the nobility, the Roman world would have been interesting to anyone interested in studying history as there were many writings for them to study. I’m sure they also admired their military prowess. Being a society heavily geared towards war medieval Europeans would have admired the Romans.


In preceding centuries I’m sure others like Napoleon and other rulers and generals admired them for the same reasons as their medieval counterparts and were fascinated how a people could conquer pretty much all of the know world. Additionally here we stand in 2021. In BC times the Roman’s we’re pulling off great feats of architecture and building, like the colosseum and aqueducts. They were a fully functioning republic and had complicated government and laws. Meanwhile, today, some people in the world still live in huts made of twinge, use Stone Age weapons, and have the most basic forms of government and laws, and the Roman’s were extremely advance compared to them today literally thousands of years ago.

[BCA6010]

The Roman Empire is basically the quintessential world power that all other empires and world powers are compared against, relative to their time. This is mainly due to not only being one of the largest in history, but also much longer-lasting than most others. After the Romans split into two empires, and later broke up into smaller kingdoms, every future attempt to recreate it failed, even though a European power under the name "Holy Roman Empire" existed off and on in various forms for hundreds of years afterwards, while the dwindling Byzantine Empire was the only true successor to the Eastern Roman Empire until its eventual defeat by the Turks.

Throughout its history, the Romans grew their borders through conquest to nearly the size of Alexander's Greece while enduring exponentially longer, existed as both a Republic and a monarchy, endured several civil wars, officially adopted an entirely new religion, and was also so prevalent that a lot of non-Romans actively attempted to immigrate and assimilate into the Empire, with varying degrees of success. There's basically no political scenario that the Romans didn't have to deal with at some point in their existence.

[FreyaRed]

Roman empire shaped the core of European cultures. Romulus and Remus were fed with milk by wolf-mother and didn't grow up as sheep.

[ChrisMaster69]

Before the romans there was not really any use of writing in Europe, a lot relied on bards, Druids etc.

Engineering was fairly basic, bridges were very limited, building was also not really that great tbh.

then the Romans arrived and started the ball moving on civilisation?

one of the biggest things the romans did with most far reaching impact, was killing off the Druids.

This pretty much destroyed Celtic society and paved the way for Christianity (even though it was not planned that way).

if the Druids had of still been around, then Christianity would have never taken root in France, UK, without that foothold it would have likely foundered or pushed east more than it did.

They also brought the following to societies that never really had them.

sanitation.
central heating (principles of it)
Actual roads
Bureaucracy that writing thing, keeping records etc.
Plumbing

but the most important thing was Latin, that greatly influenced language and was the language used for centuries afterwards and is still taught.

additionally Laws / Legal system is a huge legacy from the romans

https://dailyhistory.org/How_has_ancient_Rome_influenced_European_law

[bean2k21]

Thanks for posting everything I was too tired to write. I believe the Romans give us a sense of comfort in knowing that human beings could be ingenious that many years ago. But, it's rather sad isn't it? That we still do so many things as they did.

[Brokenheartedx]

There was no uk in roman times... England and wales was britainia and scotland was caledonia... And they never conquered caledonia...

[ChrisMaster69]

@Brokenheartedx erm as I live in spitting distance of the wall I am aware of that, it was lazy typing, at the time I could not be arsed typing out British isles lol.

[MrCommodore]

For two reasons
1. Modern democracy of the West is modelled on the Roman Empire ruiling template (The senate, the Emperor/president etc). If we remove the word "Roman" from its title, it could maybe be argued that a modern manifestation of the Empire exists today in the form of the collective West.

2. Religiously, the West is predominantly Christian, which was chosen as the Imperial religion to spread with the expansion of the Roman Empire. In fact the first major schism in Christianity coincided with the West (Rome)/ East (Constantinoble) split of the Roman Empire.

[asomeone]

All of the European colonizing powers are either on land that was originally part of the Roman Empire, or in the case of Russia have long identified with Rome for cultural/religious/propaganda reasons related to the fall of Constantinople, the last capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, to the Ottoman Turks, happening at around the same time the Grand Prince of Moscow achieved hegemony over the Eastern Slavs. Russians are Orthodox Christians, like the Byzantine Greeks, and for them Constantinople was the center of Christendom. Interestingly, the Turks also identified with the Romans, and Sultan of Rome became one of the titles of the Ottoman leader after the conquest.

[Lionman95]

Because the Roman Empire laid a foundation in terms of culture and language. Languages like Italian, French or Spanish developed from latin and still use many words that were originally latin. The romans ruled most of central Europe they ruled more and longer than any European superpower of the European continent.
Furthermore they developed and used philosophy, religion and answered social questions better than any other nation before them. They managed to rule a federal state without robbing the provinces of their wealth and money.
When the Roman Empire became Christian, they developed a strong connection between both.

[Anonymous]

Because the Roman Empire is arguably the most successful civilization in human history. They controlled most of the known world and had about 200 years of unprecedented peace and economic prosperity. They achieved what everyone else has tried to - failed to - before and ever since.

[Curmudgeon]

But they still fell apart. A cautionary tale it seems.

[Massageman]

Yup - once a civilization hits that 200 year old mark, they start to go down the drain!

[Opinion Owner]

@Curmudgeon All things must come to an end, sure, but no other civilization has ever had 200 years of uninterrupted peace. We can't seem to even go 10 without being in a war and we've never had economic prosperity in my lifetime. It's not a cautionary tale. It's a high score that no one seems to be able to beat.

[Opinion Owner]

@Massageman The Roman Empire actually lasted for about a thousand years. It's just that it had a 200 year period of uninterrupted peace and prosperity. Meaning there were no wars and extremely low rates of poverty for 200 straight years.

[Massageman]

After 200 years of prosperity, it seems that most cultures get TOO used to it, want more and more due to their greed, it catches up to the society and ppppffffhhhhhttttt.

[Soleil8000]

Longest western mythology, skill and courage to expand/take any fort by no force at all or minimal force and include it in their trading networks.
They built roads, essentially, which made trade much easier. It probably invented the concept of business and guilds/manufacturing of tools and products/was the first industrial revolution.

[AviatorTom]

The Roman Empire ruled the then-known western world (Europe and the Mediterranean) for 800 years. In that time, its ideas and technology became a basis for future societies.

[Neosporin]

Maybe westerners don't have big enough imagination haha just kidding

[Anonymous]

It's also the greeks... and the norse... and the celts. I wouldn't stay it's focused on the Romans, but the Romans did have a wider reaching empire and so those cultural remnants are there.

[Anonymous]

Rome... Is... Considered... One of the greatest countires... So... ... Ask ur history teacher why should u ask about Rome on gag?

[anylolone]

Same reason the macedonian, egyptian, persian, babilonian, etc...

[dragoblack]

Ask england and the roman catholic church. Both did the same

[ElizaPam]

It's the most overrated empire ever

[Anonymous]

Roman Reigns created with help of Brock Lesner and John Cena ( by the way you can't see him )

[Gwenhwyfar]

I like the Republic better

[OfDeath]

Lol do your own homework.

[Twalli]

The Roman Empire is part of Western Civilization

[OddBeMe]

I think the Crusades did more.

[Exterminatore]

I think you’re right. Good point.

[OddBeMe]

Learning hygiene from the saracens saved Europe.

[Exterminatore]

I happen to be a medievalist. I study medieval history, specifically European medieval history for fun. When I say study, I don’t mean casually read or watch the history channel. I mean study. Hard. In depth. That subject fascinates me to no end. I study everything about it. Rulers, peasants, wars, politics, technology. Literally everything and have taken several college classes on it. In fact I’ve considered becoming a professional medievalist to teach it, and may still do that but more as a hobby as it’s really the only place I can discuss it with anyone. Frankly it’s an obscure topic that few know much about.

That said your incorrect. Medieval Europeans in the early medieval period, most especially the peasants had horrendous hygiene. This is because the Catholic Church (primarily in the British isles) equated bathing to overindulgence. Additionally the only day in that geographic area peasants had “off” in the early medieval period was Sunday, and so far as church officials were concerned, Sunday was the lords day and bathing or any work and pretty much most recreational activities were not allowed. However, by the time of the first Crusade which technically started in 1095 with Pope Urban ll sermon in Claremont France things had changed in regards to hygiene. By that time the Europeans did know about proper hygiene and practiced it with some regularity. I exclude the Vikings from all this by the way as they were actually know to have excessively good hygiene, even by todays standards believe it or not and did bath regularly.

Now what the did get from the Saracens that probably saved many lives and helped to limit suffering was medical technology. The Saracens knowledge of medicine was far superior to those of Christian Europe.

In fact, on the 3rd crusade, Saladin probably actually saved Richard l (Richard the Lion heart) king of Englands life. Surprisingly Saladin had great respect for Richard as a warrior, military leader, and king despite the fact they

[Exterminatore]

We’re bitter rivals on the battle field. Richard had fallen ill and was close to deaths door. Saladin had his emissaries bring him figs to eat and also sent his personal physician to bring him back to health. I find that absolutely remarkable considering the fact Richard along with several of the nobility for France and Germany (not United at that time) were invading their lands and quite frankly slaughtering them. They’re were in fact unstoppable by the Saracens. Richard was so feared by the Saracens that Saracen mothers would often tell their children to behave, otherwise “the king of England will get you” referring to Richard as he was a renowned warrior in both Europe and the Levant. He never directed his armies from the rear, rather he would often lead the charge and there are many accounts from both the crusaders and Saracens of him cutting his adversaries to pieces and not only being fearless but the most ferocious warrior on the field.

Please forgive me as I way digressed from my point, but I am a total nerd when it comes to this subject line and sadly have no one to discuss this subject with which fascinates me endlessly.

There were many other technologies they also got from the Saracens. The crusaders managed to establish holding in the Levant, which were the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the County of Tripoli, the county of Edessa and Antioch in Syria, collectively known as the Crusader States or Outremer (French meaning over seas). They also held Cyprus. Those states lasted for over 200 years and while the crusaders and Saracens often did fight each other…oddly enough they never missed the opportunity to barter and exchange technology. Eventually the last Crusader state, the County of Tripoli fell to the Mamaluks under the leadership of Bibars, who was probably the greatest Muslim military leader of his time in 1289.

[Exterminatore]

All that said, if you care to discuss it, and I would not be surprised if you didn’t as frankly most people do not care for this subject at all, the crusades have been horrendously taught in what they teach in high school here in America and most of Europe and likewise in college. A very distinctive liberal spin has intentionally been added to the subject to malign the crusaders and their intents. Typically the basic story line is the mean evil crusaders swept down out of Europe to kill Muslims for fun and steal their land. This is absolutely a tremendous lie. What actually happened was the Seljuk Turks were conquering large pieces of the Byzantine. Alexious Komenos I the Byzantine emperor appealed to Pope Urban II for help. The empire was in great danger of being over run. Once that happened there would be little to stop the Seljuk Turks from marching into Central Europe and conquering it. Additionally they were harassing, robbing, torturing and killing pilgrims who were traveling to Jerusalem which was held by the Fatamid Empire of Egypt. The reports of the harassment of pilgrims found in history are in fact highly disputed. I myself question whether they are accurate or propaganda, but no one including me disputes the Byzantine Empire was on the ropes. By this time the Moors had already conquered most of Spain starting in 711 and also had conquered Sicily in 872. So there was very legit reason for the rest of Europes nobility to be quite concerned they’d be next. However Urban II sales pitch for the crusades was more directed at helping their Byzantine Christian brothers and retaking Jerusalem for the pilgrims which had been under Muslim control for roughly the preceding 400 years. The pope also declared a planetary indulgence for all who participated in the first crusade and declared anyone who died participating earned an immediate trip to heaven. This was in fact not at all biblical and is one of my many grievances against Catholicism. None the less,

[Exterminatore]

The crusades were really more of a defensive war fought offensively and careful historical analysis shows that yes, it would have been highly likely the Seljuks would have invaded Central Europe and may well have succeeded had they not fought those wars. The Seljuks were renown horsemen and vastly outnumbered any armies in Europe at the time.

The Catholic crusaders swore an oath of fielty to Alexious Komenos l and were to return any lands they reconquered to the Byzantine empire on their way to conquer Jerusalem. However, the welched on their oath to him and kept the lands for themselves. At Edessa Baldwin Count of Balongia was invited in by the Armenian Christians. The ruler of the city did adopt him as son in order that he would become the next ruler of that County. It is very likely given historical records Baldwin murdered the man who adopted him is so though and that is quite vile so far as I’m concerned. Antioch was captured and kept by Bohemond of Toranto, a Norman warlord. They could not break it with a siege. He made a deal with the other leaders of the first crusade that if he could get them in, he got to keep the city. Unbeknownst to them he had a secret turncoat named Farooz a Christian who left a tower unguarded enabling them to conquer the city. As for Jerusalem they finally conquered it in 1099. Godfrey of Boullion was the main leader there. Godfrey was made Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (advocate or defender of the Holy Sepulcher) (the Holy Sepulcher being where Christ laid before being redirected) Godfrey was a very pious man and refused to be crowned king in the city where Christ had did, and according to Christian prophesy the city where Christ will rule from over the earth in the future. He said that he would not wear a crown of gold where Christ wear a crown of thorns, so effectively Godfrey was not a king in name but more of a regent. Religious duty was a major reason also for the crusades in the minds of those who fought them. We know this for

[Exterminatore]

Fact as remarkably there are many letters from the crusaders to their homelands indicating the deep religious reasons they participated, particularly from the Norman Stephen of Blois to his wife Adela which have survived to this day.

So it is very false to say they invaded to kill Muslims for fun and steal their lands as it is taught in HS social studies class. Any lands they reconquered with the exception of Jerusalem were very recently conquered by the Seljuk Turks from the Byzantine empire. What the crusaders are guilty of is breaking their oaths to Alexious Komenos I and not returning the lands to him, but rather keeping them for themselves.

[OddBeMe]

@Exterminatore sure, but the Normans still slaughtered them because the Pope said “God on our side, kill the savages.”

[OddBeMe]

And they slaughtered everyone in the cities they sacked.

[Exterminatore]

Yes and no. It was customary from ancient times until around the 1600’s that “civilians” were not off limits. There are many, many accounts of medieval combat and combat in many other people groups and time periods of civilians being slaughtered. This was common and accepted. Looking at it from a moral perspective I believe human life is precious. I believe it should always be spared whenever possible. For example ask an Erie Indian how they feel about the slaughter of non combatants. You can’t because the Iroquois completely wiped them out in the 1600s I believe. A total genocide of that people. Bear in mind I’m by no means justifying or excusing such barbarity. I’m just saying the world over excepted this manner of thing in those times. Frankly the many clergy who accompanied the crusaders ought to have strongly objected to doing so. There are no account historically if they did or did not. There are many accounts of the clergy condoning such things in European medieval warfare taking place in Europe and some even ordered it to take place. Particularly in Italy where a monk had mercenary Sir John Hawkard slaughter an entire village man, woman and child. A pope did also. His name escapes me at the moment. Pope Innocent the 4th I believe. Anyway, I find it to be revolting and greatly violating biblical doctrine to slaughter non combatants and most especially children.

On the note of the Normans, with the first crusade they were not the only people group who participated they were probably the most in number with Duke Robert II of Normandy being one of the major leaders of the first Crusade, and also Bohemind of Toranto, the leader of the Italio-Normans also contributing a significant number of men and himself not only being a major leader of the 1st Crusade but most also being undoubtedly the best of the leaders at tactics, but also probably being the greatest commander of the entire era.

There were many knights and peasants from Flanders, the various

[Exterminatore]

The various German provences, Byzantines, and knights and presents from various dutchies in Italy who were not Normans who participated as well as many Franks who were not Normans. Though Normandy is in France and the Duke of Normandy did swear fealty to the French king it is as if they were almost independent and their own entity. They even minted their own money, had their own version of the French language (Norman French), and some cultural differences as well.

None the less, I have digressed from my point, back to the slaughter of non combatants.

Particularly with Jerusalem, many of the non combatants who were slaughtered were in fact actually combatants. Here is another place where leftists have rewritten history and teach it to fit their agenda and narrative that the mean evil Europeans came to the Levant to steal land and plunder and kill Muslims for fun. Largely the Muslim sources claim the crusaders slaughtered all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. That is completely false. They did in fact roughly 2 days after the end of the battle slaughter many. Many however were allowed to leave or were ransomed. Tancred of Hauteville who after the battle became the Prince of Galilee for example gave his personal standard to a number who had surrendered to ensure their safety. They climbed into the Tower of David seeking refuge. Unfortunately several other subordinate crusaders climbed into the tower and massacred them and Tancred was furious about it.

Another lie regarding this matter is that the crusaders slaughtered any Christians, Muslims and Jews they found. That is absolutely false. The Muslim governor of Jerusalem expelled all Christians from the city prior to the crusaders arrival to prevent collusion as had happened at Antioch. On the Temple Mount, where the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqusa mosque stand the crusaders found a large number of both Jews and Muslims actively fighting. The crusaders slaughtered all of them and there are numerous accounts that the

[Exterminatore]

Blood ran so deep it was up to the knees of the crusaders and to the bridal of the horses any rode in on. In regards to Muslim defenders there were 400 elite Egyptian horsemen for the Muslims and roughly 20-25 thousand infantry. Many of those infantry consisted of peasants pressed into service or willing to fight without being forced to do so. Muslim accounts say the crusaders slaughtered 70K in the city. Almost all historians debate that figure and place the real number in between 35-45K. Still a tremendous number. Yes, the crusaders did in fact slaughter many non combatants including children. How many? No one knows. That said the majority they killed were combatants and 2 days later they killed many POWs as well. There are many, many accounts from Christian, Muslim and Jewish sources indicating significant numbers were either ransomed or were allowed to leave unharmed. We know this because there are a number of letters that have survived to this day written by the Jews who were allowed to leave requesting to ransom some who were not. So it is often told that the Crusaders indiscriminately slaughtered everyone. That is completely false.

Additionally the Muslims also did the exact same thing whenever they fought the any of the crusader states during that roughly 200 year period. For example when the Mamaluke Bibars retook Antioch in 1268 he slaughtered an overwhelming figure of Christians. He also took about 100K of them as slaves. This was common at the time in warfare. The Christian’s also took of the inhabitants as many for slaves as they desired. A large figure no doubt.

When Saladin retook Jerusalem in 1187, historical accounts from both sides seem to agree he slaughtered far less. He did ransom many. Any who could not afford the ransom or had no one to pay it for them were taken as slaves. He also allowed older people whether they could pay the ransom or not to go free, however 15,000 who were able bodied were taken as slaves. In this regard I have to say

[Exterminatore]

That Saladin was probably a better Christin (though he was Muslim) than many of the crusaders.

Another important fact to remember is that in both feudal Europe and the Muslim world Peasants were “drafted”. They were expected to fight for their respective lords as infantry.

When the first Crusade left Constantinople in it is estimated they had a combined force of roughly 70-80K with a few more joining after they had crossed into Seljuk territory. The grand total can be no more than 100K and of thar 100K many were women and children not capable of combat. The first place they attacked was Nicea. The Byzantines brokered a secret deal with the Saracen garrison to surrender the city to them and they took control of it because they did not think the crusaders would keep their oath. Anti Byzantine sentiment grew and by the time they had reached Antioch in 1098 the Byzantines knew the crusaders weren’t going to return reconquered lands. They withdrew their fighting men prior to that and ceased from aiding the crusaders with guides and supplies. That drastically reduced their fighting force. Many of the crusaders and those peasants not capable of combat died en route to Jerusalem from combat, starvation, dehydration and disease. Almost all their horses died. They did not arrive at Jerusalem with the Calvary in tact by any means and most of the knights had to ride donkeys. Additionally they killed many of their horses for food and many due to lack of water and drank their blood. By the time they had arrived at Jerusalem in July of 1099 the estimated strength of their fighting force was down to a mere 10k - 13K infantry and no more than 1,500 mostly horseless knights.

Why am I mentioning this. Well it may have been tactically necessary for them to slaughter all those POWs. First of the had besieged the city. Food was scarce and the Muslims poisoned all the wells. Not to mention many refugees fled the advancing crusaders to Jerusalem. As I already stated peasants in the

[Exterminatore]

Muslim world we’re expected to fight for their lords just as in Europe. Once the crusaders had taken Jerusalem Muslim forces across the Muslim world vastly outnumbered them in the millions. In fact one of the only reasons the crusaders weren’t crushed upon entering enemy territory at the very start is because the coalition of Muslim forces was very loose with various warlords not trusting each other and opting not to join the jihad against the crusaders. The crusaders who took Jerusalem knew very well should those forces be United they were already vastly outnumbered and would also have to fight those POWs who they knew doubt knew would be pressed into service against them. After siege of Jerusalem the crusaders lost roughly 3-5K in battle and all but roughly 400 nights remained. In the other Crusader states there wasn’t a vast army of Ally’s either and most definitely the Byzantines wouldn’t be of any help. Additionally they could not count on any reinforcements from Europe as either and even if they could at best it would take 2 or more years by land and maybe a year or more by sea to ready reinforcements. Not to mention the financial cost. The nobility were responsible for funding their own individual troops and supplying them. With the first crusade even the wealthiest of nobles had to literally sell everything they had to even gain enough money to participate. So reinforcements we’re not a possibility and they knew it and knew they were vastly outnumbered by even a modest coalition of Muslim forces.

In regards to the popes statements you mentioned, he did not say that. There are no original copies of the sermon he gave at Clairmont. In fact it’s likely he didn’t write one but rather just spoke without notes. The essence of what he said was copied by scribes and distributed throughout Latin christendom. Only 5 copies remain of what he said. None of them are identical. Various compilations of the 1st crusade were written. Some have rough accounts of what he

[Exterminatore]

Is supposed to have said. None are verbatim. One account does say he told the Christian’s to wrest that land from the wicked race in reference to Jerusalem but none mention wholesale or even partial slaughter. In the movie Kingdom of Heaven a priest can be seen telling crusaders killing infidels is the path to heaven but that is all Hollywood.

Certainly it is indisputable the pope was calling for an armed conflict against the Muslims, but not a wholesale slaughter of them.

Again, I do not and will not defend the taking of life where it is not absolutely necessary but I hope this helps explain what happened and why.

History concerning the crusades has been greatly maligned by liberal minded historians and often by the Muslims in regards to the slaughter. In regards to the slaughter non of the Christian sources deny it or down play it and there are a few that are suspected of having amplified it in their writings as a source of propaganda, trying to make themselves sound like they ought to be feared more greatly by their adversaries and igniting pride and a sense of can do among their own people able to read.

[OddBeMe]

@Exterminatore though the Romans kinda put Britain and Germania on the map, with blood. But that gets remembered.

[Exterminatore]

That’s true. Many different people groups and kingdoms and countries hard throughout time, but you hear no mention of any of it.

The crusades always get a bad rap. Particularly the ones in the Levant against the Saracens.

The crusades that should get a bad wrap never do. Like the Albigensian crusade that involved the slaughter of tens if not hundreds of thousands of Cathars. Catharism was a sect of Christian beliefs with yes, beliefs that were not at all biblical, but more importantly were not endorsed by Rome.

They simply slaughtered those people. They didn’t do it to defend Christendom. They didn’t do they to prevent the perception of a coming invasion. They didn’t even do it just to steal land or money or for conquest. They simply did it because Rome did not like nor agree with their beliefs and teachings.

I read the Bible and study it daily with the same zeal I have in medieval history…. actually quite a lot more that that even. I know you don’t believe in God nor read the Bible. Trust me when I say Jesus would not condone the slaughtering of peoples of different religions or of different beliefs and would condemn doing so. Frankly I find anyone who endorses or participates or did so historically in the mass killing of people simply holding a different doctrine or religious belief to be vile. I consider it to be not killing but outright murder and barbaric and think people who do so are far more worth of death than those whom they would persecute.

[jshm2]

Because it ruled most of it, dumbass.

[Julielamar2]

Stop being rude, at your age you should know respect

[Alexandrubaschet08]

What do you mean?

[Anonymous]

Ottoman fucked West roman empire 🤣

[t-8900]

No they didn't, they never even clashed. Wtf are you talking about? In fact Ottomans werent even around when the Roman Empire fell. The Turks invaded Byzantium which was already dying off on it's own over the last few hundred years. The turks try to take too much credit for things they really had almost no hand in lmfao.

[Opinion Owner]

@t-8900 Then why are the Greeks crazy? the history taught to you is not as much as we were taught

[t-8900]

Ummm wester Rome were ITALIANS. You guys messed with Eastern Romans, get it right. I know MY history and MY people's history better than you. If you know the history you know that they fought plagues, had infighting and power struggles, were basically completely bankrupt, and outsourced their army to foreign mercs. Beating them should have been a cakewalk. They were already losing their territory on their own well before the Turks arrived. Here's a comparison of a Rome worth boasting of beating:

sites.psu.edu/.../Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png

this is what y'all beat:


you see the issue with the claim "we beat the Roman empire" now? It's a mockery to the history. You guys beat up on a few thousand hold outs on lands they couldnt keep on their own lol. 20,000 Byzantines split into 4 armies... big deal lol. The Ottomans had an army 3 times that size by then and better cohesion. The Emperor had small armies parked in Greece/Macedonia and Anatolia. Compare that to the actual strength of the REAL Roman Empire: 260,000 strong. GLHF it would have never worked out for the Turks in those conditions unless we bring gun powder and later tech into the equation.

[Opinion Owner]

@t-8900 i write wrong i was will say east Roma so Byzantium. Sorry. İ mixed east west. But i know my ottoman history

[t-8900]

Then you know they were already very weak. The Venetians sacked them... little Venice lol. And you had Balkans and Hungary and you had pirates and then the plagues and the civil strife and bankruptcy. They were already gonna die out before the Turks arrived. The Turks just sped it along tbh. Byzantium was weak.

[Curmudgeon]

"Ottoman fucked West roman empire" - no that would be the EAST Roman Empire that suffered that fate.

The WEST Roman Empire was fucked by Huns, Vandals, Visigoths, OstroGoths, Lombards, Franks, Picts, Scots, Angles, Saxons, and I apologize at any other tribe I forgot about.