Girl, 16, hanged in Iran

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-25 07:19pm

I know about the Holy Roman Empire, greatly misnamed as it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. But how did we get from an Iranian girl's hanging to debating Rome anyway?

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-08-25 07:58pm

Joe wrote:I don't think so. Christian fundies in America have at least advanced to the 1950s, where Islamic fundies still have to get past 950.

Given that the Ottoman Empire conquered the Byzantines in 1453 largely attributed to the use of the cannon, I think that they were able to get past 950 AD. The Muslims were more technologically advanced than the Europeans through out the middle ages and didn't start falling behind until after the middle ages.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-25 08:10pm

ArmorPierce wrote:Given that the Ottoman Empire conquered the Byzantines in 1453 largely attributed to the use of the cannon, I think that they were able to get past 950 AD. The Muslims were more technologically advanced than the Europeans through out the middle ages and didn't start falling behind until after the middle ages.

We are talking social, not technological advancement. An example of how these two can differ would be that while the United States and Western Europe have technological parity, Europe is more advanced socially in some areas...

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-08-25 10:29pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Super-Gagme wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Oh damn, I was thinking of Rome again...
They are Rome.
Not really. They're called the Eastern Roman Empire, but except for a brief interlude under Justinian, Rome itself was never within Byzantine borders.

Rome became a concept when citizenship was extended to every free person in the Empire. Controlling the city of Rome was optional.

Constantinople was also known as New Rome, anyway.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-25 10:53pm

Constantinople was also known as New Rome, anyway.

And it was originally called Byzantium, thus the name of the Byzantine Empire. And it was later renamed Istanbul. So it's held many different names over it's history. But anyway...

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-08-25 11:00pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Constantinople was also known as New Rome, anyway.
And it was originally called Byzantium, thus the name of the Byzantine Empire. And it was later renamed Istanbul. So it's held many different names over it's history. But anyway...

There was no city there but rather villages/settlements and Constantine built it from scratch. He hand picked the perfect defendable position and built it, there may have been settlers there but no walls, no port, little villages.

Anyway, what is the point?

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-08-25 11:01pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Constantinople was also known as New Rome, anyway.
And it was originally called Byzantium, thus the name of the Byzantine Empire. And it was later renamed Istanbul. So it's held many different names over it's history. But anyway...

"Byzantine Empire" is a derogatory invention of 18th century historians, like Gibbon, who thought it was an evil cesspool of intrigue and murder. It was never used during its actual existance and Emperors, when they weilded real power, made it a point to expell diplomats who addressed them as the "Greek Emperor" or other nonsense. The Hellenized inhabitants of the Empire were every bit a Roman as being Roman meant being a citizen of the Empire. Up until the birth of Greek nationalism, there were no Greeks, only Romanoi.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-08-25 11:01pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:Constantinople was also known as New Rome, anyway.

Nova Roma

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-25 11:02pm

Super-Gagme wrote:Anyway, what is the point?

Actually, I meant to put that sentence in my post. Did I not? *Checks* Apparently not. Anywho, moving right along...

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-08-25 11:05pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Super-Gagme wrote:Anyway, what is the point?
Actually, I meant to put that sentence in my post. Did I not? *Checks* Apparently not. Anywho, moving right along...

Okay, I'll tell you the point. You said Theocracy caused the rapid collapse of the Roman Empire (nope), and it was very bad for a state (so far unjustified). Care to try again with that?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-25 11:15pm

Super-Gagme wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
Super-Gagme wrote:Anyway, what is the point?
Actually, I meant to put that sentence in my post. Did I not? *Checks* Apparently not. Anywho, moving right along...
Okay, I'll tell you the point. You said Theocracy caused the rapid collapse of the Roman Empire (nope), and it was very bad for a state (so far unjustified). Care to try again with that?

Let's try this again. Theocracy is bad for a state. See: Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan, and Iran, among others. There's your justification.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-08-27 04:39pm

I don't understand how a thread can go from being pissed off at Iran for arbitrarily killing it's own citizens, and the sadness of that, to nuking them all.....to slove the problems.