|
Zetaman
Jan 4, 2009 12:16:07 GMT -5
Post by Novus Dis on Jan 4, 2009 12:16:07 GMT -5
Against Greeks? I think you mean against the opinion of Hellenic philosophers whose opinion and beliefs have become obsolete. Greeks created the greatest empire on earth, the Eastern Roman Empire (now known as the Byzantine Empire). For that creation alone I will never be "against Greeks" but also because the Greek people as a whole have fought beside (or have helped in some way) the Serb people through our constant turmoils.
|
|
|
Zetaman
Jan 4, 2009 12:18:44 GMT -5
Post by SKORIC on Jan 4, 2009 12:18:44 GMT -5
^ Greatest empire? Their greatest empire was Aleksander the greats. Eastern roman empire was created pretty much because Rome split into 2...
|
|
|
Zetaman
Jan 4, 2009 12:50:28 GMT -5
Post by Novus Dis on Jan 4, 2009 12:50:28 GMT -5
No, it was created before the fall of the Roman Empire because the WRE couldn’t control the areas that became the ERE. The ERE was Greek in everything but name. And Alexander’s territory was slightly more than the territory held by the ERE but his empire fell apart as soon as he died. The ERE lasted a millennia and still exists today in the form of culture (most of Serb culture is derided from ERE culture).
|
|
|
Zetaman
Jan 4, 2009 15:18:29 GMT -5
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 4, 2009 15:18:29 GMT -5
.
Plus Armenians, Vlachs, Slavs, and others.
We can thank the Greeks for inviting the Bulgarians and the Serbs in the Balkans--things wouldn't have been the same without you; and letting the Gypsies pass into Europe. Oh, and calling on the Turks.
|
|
|
Zetaman
Jan 4, 2009 15:37:31 GMT -5
Post by rusebg on Jan 4, 2009 15:37:31 GMT -5
They also invited the Magyars. Even some Vikings and Catalans, although they couldn't settle here. But you know, it is not such a bad thing. After all, you wouldn't like this place without its rich history, would you?
|
|
|
Zetaman
Jan 4, 2009 20:02:25 GMT -5
Post by adolfkarderi on Jan 4, 2009 20:02:25 GMT -5
Against Greeks? I think you mean against the opinion of Hellenic philosophers whose opinion and beliefs have become obsolete. Greeks created the greatest empire on earth, the Eastern Roman Empire (now known as the Byzantine Empire). For that creation alone I will never be "against Greeks" but also because the Greek people as a whole have fought beside (or have helped in some way) the Serb people through our constant turmoils. how can u be against Hellenic philophers? obsolete? since wehn are Plato and Socrates "obsolete"? anyway i think Alexander the Great's Empire was greater, i also think he was half Illyrian(Albanian lol) i dont care if anyone agrees with me or not thats waht i believe. but of course he spread Greek culture so hes considered Greek and i dont expect anyone to consdier him Albanian lol.. the Byzantine Empire was a very prospersous time I dont know if it was the greatest though
|
|
|
Zetaman
Jan 4, 2009 20:04:47 GMT -5
Post by adolfkarderi on Jan 4, 2009 20:04:47 GMT -5
. Plus Armenians, Vlachs, Slavs, and others. We can thank the Greeks for inviting the Bulgarians and the Serbs in the Balkans--things wouldn't have been the same without you; and letting the Gypsies pass into Europe. Oh, and calling on the Turks. hahaha i'm with you brother!! these non-indegenious peopel invaded our anceint lands! of course the slavs, Hungarians and Turks(maybe even the gypsies!) also accomplished more then Albanians and Romanians put together!! but they also f**ked up a whoel lot more!!
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 5, 2009 1:52:56 GMT -5
Well, when someone tries to do something, there is always the danger he might screw up from time to time. But it is much better than just sitting and doing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 5, 2009 2:45:51 GMT -5
Oh oh, looks like Anittas has returned, along with his self-righteous arrogant bulls**t!
|
|
|
Post by markosijekira on Jan 5, 2009 4:24:34 GMT -5
Alexander’s kingdom was very important as it broke the old order and spread Greek culture, but as an empire it stood barley a few decades. The eastern roman empire, for all it's faults and bitter civil wars was a beacon of civilization and wealth and power for many centuries after the collapse of the western half of the Empire, when London and Paris, once beautiful Roman provincial capitals had fallen into ruin and barbarism inhabited by barley a handful, Constantinople was mega city of a million. Because the empire endured as long as it did, much knowledge from the empires past, and the knowledge from the ancient times was preserved. Of course the Eastern Empire was only a shadow of its former self compared to what it was in the gold age of the Pax Romana
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 5, 2009 4:32:15 GMT -5
In actuality the city of Byzantium never had such a high population. The city was constantly under siege, the empires resources were too scarce to hold such a place together. Estimating population size of ancient sizes is always an EXTREMELY difficult thing and numbers are heavily based on speculation, so you can get such claims. But the reality is that the city lacked the kind of passivity that Pax Romana Rome had. The population sizes of late classical cities had also fallen considerably, even though Byzantium remained an urban based empire. My estimate would be around 300-400,000, which is still very impressive for that time.
|
|
|
Post by markosijekira on Jan 5, 2009 5:05:09 GMT -5
It was under siege 11 times in a thousand years, that’s not exactly a lot. of the 11 sieges the city was breached in two of them, by crusader treachery and the final Ottoman assault. But it's biggest problem wasn’t invading armies it was the constant unrests from within, mostly due fighting for possession of the throne, and of course the blues and green factions in the early period. You are right, it is difficult to estimate populations from that time period, and written records can be counted on to be accurate.
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 5, 2009 5:19:19 GMT -5
Its not just about direct sieges, the area of Thrace was under constant attacks, not to mention various threats. It was also logistics, in order for Rome to reach a population of a million, it needed over a dozen aqueducts, along with grain shipments from Egypt, Carthage and Sicily. On top of that the wealth and resources of a Med empire from Spain to Mesopotamia. It was a very very artificial city in that respect. The city also, when at its peak, had all of Italy secure and saw almost no threat (it didnt even have walls at this time outside of the traditional walls dating back to a time when it was much much smaller, the Servian walls, its first major one was under Aurelian). By contrast Constantinople faced numerous threats whether it was the Huns, the Slavs, the Bulgars, the Persians, the Arabs, the various other Turkic peoples, etc. etc. (these may not have always manifested themselves in direct siege, but the fear of it would have well been in place) In order to keep itself save the city stopped the usage of aqueducts and began focusing on internal water supply via cisterns, which limited population growth. On top of that the grain shipments which once came in from northern Africa died out with the Arab conquest and even earlier on grain supply from the areas became less and less fruitful.
The city's major focus on a military and defense constricted its size considerable.
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Jan 5, 2009 5:21:21 GMT -5
Hey guys I just farted a little.
|
|
|
Post by markosijekira on Jan 5, 2009 5:43:32 GMT -5
I have not considered the threats and water supply, I stand corrected sir, very good analysis.
|
|
|
Zetaman
Jan 5, 2009 12:09:35 GMT -5
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 5, 2009 12:09:35 GMT -5
Rome held Mesopotamia for one year only.
|
|