>>126641
Late REPUBLICAN Rome you mean, right? Because otherwise it lasted 1500+ years after that event.

>>126642
i'm not a rome otaku

>>126643
You don't need to be to know basic stuff like that.

Republic: 509 BC–27 BC
Empire: 27 BC–AD 395 (unified)
AD 395–476/480 (Western)
AD 395–1453 (Eastern)

I was wrong too. ALMOST 1500 years, not over.

>>126644
Another western Roman emperor was crowned in 800. His empire got the coup de grace by Napoleon.
Part of the Eastern Roman royal family took charge of Russia. They were deposed during WW1.
Wales is still officially a Roman principality, last I heard.

>>126644
Technically it's still going because it was folded into the Vatican.

The Muslims taking over Constantinople had a better claim to being the heirs of Rome than the Vatican ever did.
The distinction between worldly rule and the church is a core feature of Christianity, anyway.

didn't know we had ancient Romans here to blog about their daily lives

Rome is the birthplace of Western civilization, and thus, the birth of blogging

Maybe a mod should move all the Rome/Christianity stuff to another thread? I feel like it's going to attract more posts.
And I recognize that I am part of the problem.

Catholicism is NOT Christianity

Deleted by cool-guy from >>>/qa/125141 Post No. 126563 from thread 125141

>>126564
Skill issue lmao

Deleted by cool-guy from >>>/qa/125141 Post No. 126565 from thread 125141

>>126651
¥ protestant, most likely baptist niggery
The Catholic Church is Christian and saying otherwise is like claiming the Sun isn't a star.

Deleted by cool-guy from >>>/qa/125141 Post No. 126566 from thread 125141

>>126653
this is is true

>>126651
>>126652
>>126653
I guess these posts were part of the general Rome/Christian stuff so I "undeleted" them from /trans/
Well, the middle one was just caught up in it and I don't feel like messing with it

>>126655
but I do think it speaks poorly when I confused it for trolling since "___ is not real ___" is a template religious "shitpost" and seeing it on /qa/ of all places is quite unpalatable when my personal opinion of the blog thread lately is already so very low

By the way, as far as I am concerned, Rome fell in the 500s during Justinian (emperor of Eastern Rome)'s ill-fated efforts to reunite the empire.
Before this Roman war on Rome and Italy in general, the urban lifestyle and culture of the Roman empire continued in the Italian cities despite the loss of political power*.
The war ruined those cities and turned them into medieval-sized towns whose could only gaze in wonder at the ruins of what once was.
No matter what the legends say about Vandals or other Germanic barbarians ransacking Rome and destroying it. In fact, the eternal city endured the assaults of those outsiders. It was Romans that brought and end to it.
The fall of Rome was an inside job.

* The military power had been surrendered to foreigners long before the political power was lost.

>>126656
quads

>>126644
Okay, this is not basic, so it's time to flex my historical knowledge:
>>126657
>By the way, as far as I am concerned, Rome fell in the 500s during Justinian (emperor of Eastern Rome)'s ill-fated efforts to reunite the empire
The Western Roman Empire by definition fell when Romulus Augustus, the child emperor, was deposed by the leader of the Gothic foederati Odoacer. Odoacer did not proclaim any Western successors, so that's considered as the end of the Western Roman Empire as a political entity. He was proclaimed as King of Italy by the Eastern emperor Zeno, so his kingdom was a "client state" so to speak. His rule is seen as beneficial for the most part because he maintained the Roman political structure, cooperated with the Senate and even led campaigns against the more 'barbarian' Goths such as his campaign against the Rugians in Noricum. However, this meant that he was getting too powerful and Zeno increasingly saw him as a rival, so he conspired against him with Theodoric, another Gothic foederati, to assassinate and depose him. Odoacer and his followers were then killed by Theodoric and his army of Goths. You can argue that Zeno was stupid as hell in doing this, because Theodoric started threatening the power of Constantinople even more and demanded more territory and independence. He replaced a small problem with a much bigger one. The result was that popular sentiment against the Goths was really poor in Italy and the Eastern provinces at the time. The subsequent Ostrogothic Kings, being successors of Odoacer, also acted in a similar manner and Italy was caught in a struggle for power with them at the time.

So no, what you said is wrong. Justinian was simply freeing Italy from Gothic tyranny. The Goths had no popular support past Odoacer. However, the wars, plagues and natural disasters ravaged the peninsula at the time (they even believed God himself was punishing them at the time), so this in turn allowed the Lombards, an even worse problem originally from Scandinavia which weren't even Christiniazed unlike the Goths, to move in and opportunistically take parts of the peninsula for themselves. It's worth noting that they never took Rome/Lazio or Venice from the Byzantines/Eastern Romans though. Then the Franks who were more integrated into Roman culture and Christianity come around and crush the Lombard Kingdom in Italy, with Charlemagne getting crowned by the Pope in Rome as "Holy Roman Emperor" for his efforts. I don't want to get too in-depth into what happens afterwards, but the HRE became a loose confederation of states which were mostly independent from each other over time, leading to the Italian city-states and then the Renaissance. This was specially true in Germany which was a massive unorganized clusterfuck until the Kingdom of Prussia.

The Italian city states (specially Venice, it was the longest lasting republic in the world, it lasted 1100 years), France and the Spanish Empire can all be considered successors of the Western Roman Empire in a way. And the Russian Empire could be considered a successor of the Eastern Roman Empire since it was where the crown was moved after its conquest by the Ottomans in 1453, which is why they called their emperors "tsar" (caesar). In my opinion Venice is the coolest one out of the bunch, it's pretty much an unbroken line of succession, but I'm probably a bit biased on this since I'm Italian (from the North even, someone from the South would probably not like Venice as much). "Doge" doesn't sound as cool as "tsar" though. I have to give that to the Russians.

>>126659
Small correction here:
>In my opinion Venice is the coolest one out of the bunch, it's pretty much an unbroken line of succession
I mean not in the way that it's an unbroken succession from the WRE (Veneto/Venice was also part of the Ostrogothic Kingdom after all). It's technically a successor of the ERE/Byzantines since they held it until the Franks came around. Then the Byzantines appointed a pro-Byzantine ruler after the Franks failed to conquer it. Yes, that's right. Venice wasn't always hostile to them. It was the Great Schism of 1054 that led to the deterioration of the relationship between Venice and Constantinople.

>>126659
>The Western Roman Empire by definition fell
I did not say "Empire".
>Justinian was simply freeing Italy from Gothic tyranny.
"simply"?
No. He "freed" Italy from Gothic tyranny by ruining it. He wrecked the aqueducts, ended the food imports and made it impossible for Rome to support its own size. That was the end of Rome.
>Charlemagne getting crowned by the Pope in Rome as "Holy Roman Emperor" for his efforts.
Your quotation marks make it seem like you're too much under the influence of renaissance philosophers.
Charlemagne's empire, and later the eastern parts as united under Otto, were not the same sort of clusterfuck as the later edition.

>>126661
>No. He "freed" Italy from Gothic tyranny by ruining it. He wrecked the aqueducts, ended the food imports and made it impossible for Rome to support its own size. That was the end of Rome.
Are you talking about the city of Rome only or what? If so, it's not very relevant anyway. Rome was an irrelevant depopulated city by that time. The actual seats of power were in Mediolanum (Milan) and Ravenna. They did take good care of Ravenna. That city has a rich Byzantine heritage. It was a big blow to them when they lost it to the Lombards.
>Your quotation marks make it seem like you're too much under the influence of renaissance philosophers.
No, it's because it wasn't called that during that time. It only started being referred that way around 1254.
>Charlemagne's empire, and later the eastern parts as united under Otto, were not the same sort of clusterfuck as the later edition.
I was not referring to that period. I did say I wasn't going to get too in-depth about it. The Italian city-states were only really de-facto independent from it after the Treaty of Venice in 1177.

>>126662
This is a pretty good map about Charlemagne's empire if you can read French.

This discussion is not very appropriate for a board such as /secret/ now that I think. I'm pretty much being a history teacher here.

>>126659
Another small correction:
>The subsequent Ostrogothic Kings, being successors of Odoacer
I meant Theodoric.

Anyway, if you want to blame someone for it, blame Zeno, not Justinian. It was him who made Odoacer King and it was him who decided it was a good idea to later depose him in place of someone who turned out to be a much more ruthless and tyrannical ruler. The Gothic War is seen as a pyrrhic victory for the ERE, but it's mostly because of the plagues and natural disasters that happened at the time. Justinian couldn't have guessed that a plague was going to spread as a result of the war. They could've probably defended the peninsula against the Lombards afterwards if not that.

Also, Venice having such a rich heritage involving the Byzantines means that they have one of the best examples of Byzantine architecture; St Mark's Basilica. I visited it before. It's an astonishing piece of architectural feat. The Byzantine church in Ravenna with the famous mosaics depicting Justinian looks a bit basic in comparison.

>>126642
could you even call constantinople Rome?

>>126667
The people living there did it for a 1000 years. I'm sure you'll find a way to do the same.

>>126667
>>126668
It starts becoming debatable when they stop speaking Latin and make Greek the official language and even more so when the Great Schism (1054) happens. Up until the Justinian dynasty I'd say it was still Rome through and through, but when Heraclius changes the official language from Latin to Greek it becomes sort of debatable. There are Greek speaking communities in Southern Italy up to this day due to this since the Byzantines held it for quite some time.

>>126669
A development which I think it's interesting however, is that Italians started being Greeks and the Greeks started being Romans. Classical Greece was marked by having city-states just like post-Roman Italy (excluding Alexander's empire which was 'proto-Rome' of course). And it stayed that way for a very long time. Italy was only unified in 1861.

>>126671
See the resemblance?

>>126644
1. The continuity of Roman governance ended with the Fourth Crusade, not with the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople.
2. If you disregard direct continuity and consider successor states legitimate heirs to the title, the Roman Empire lasted ~1800 years after the time of Augustus.

>>126669
Greek was the lingua franca for a long time in Rome anyway, so that's more of a return to form than an abandonment of a fundamentally Roman element.

>>126644
¥ doesn't even have the Roman Kingdom written down
And you call yourself a trve romanboo.

but what about the ottomans

>>126644
¥ doesn't even have Aeneas' Odyssey
And you call yourself a trve romanboo

>>126686
Aren't Roman.
If we must really split hairs, the Russian were third Rome, which fell to the hands of the communists, and the last possession of the Russian Empire was Finland.
Ergo, Finland is the rightful heir to the Roman Empire, and Wales is still a province somehow.

>>126686
They're comfortable to sit on

>>126687
TRANSCENDIT FILIVS ROMAE
>>126688
roomalainen :----DDDD

>>126688
sirkku strongest roman empress

>>126688
While there are some arguments to be made that Moscow was a third Rome, there is no real argument that Finland is the rightful air to Rome, that's just a meme.

Ehh, I should probably expand on this. But basically the claim that Moscow had on Rome was through the marriage of the Grand Prince of Moscow to an air of the Byzantines. That claim was by blood and the Finns are not actually ruled by a bloodline that could claim to be an air to Rome, to begin with they aren't a monarchy.

Additionally Finland was not the last possession of the Russian empire. Alexander II was grand duke of Finland as well as being the emperor of Russia and when he abdicated he lost both titles and there was nobody who inherited the Duchy of Finland. It then eventually became an independent nation, in fact it was independent before the end of the war.
And the Duchy of Finland was the Duchy of Finland, it was a separate title that was held by the Emperor of Russia, one could ague that he he personally was an air to Rome but the Duchy of Finland was just another separate title he happened to have.

>>126654
it's not. he's just playing the boogeyman card because he has no argument since he never read the Bible a day in his life.

I think a return to city-states would do the western world a lot of good. We see a pattern in history where a large empire like Rome will fall then balkanize. A return to city-states would allow places like NYC and other large cities to govern themselves without imposing rule on surrounding city-states and regions. It allows for multiple cultures to develop and thrive. As long as the balance of power between the states remains mostly the same you don't see one conquering the others. At least not to a global extent.

I read a book a long time ago that talked about this. It was about a highly technological advanced culture split into city-states after its technological revolution. People worked from home in small shops they maintained. All products were locally produced or produced by craftsman in other regions and shipping in. The family unit was the basis of their society and different cities had different laws and customs. The cities were all banded together with a small bill of rights and agreement to defend each other. The society was expanding all over the galaxy because they'd developed higher than warp speed spacecrafts.

Doing this they had managed to escaped the Empire -> Fallen Empire cycle. They didn't consider themselves an empire even though they sometimes acted like one.

>>126658
NO THEYRE NOT!!

>>126723
If you really think the Catholic church is not Christian, does that mean that you think Christianity started in the 1500s with Martin Luther?

>>126724
>A return to city-states would allow places like NYC and other large cities to govern themselves without imposing rule on surrounding city-states and regions.
But that's wrong. A city-state is not just a city. It's also the surrounding region and villages, often including various other towns (and cities). Late Republican Rome was technically an imperial city-state, with territory stretching from the Atlantic to the Dead Sea. That's why we call the empire "Rome"—after the city.

But besides that, there is a massive problem with balkanization, and it's that it leads to more war. This is one of the reasons why we today have nation-states: to avoid mercenary armies squatting in the French countryside or Swedish reformists going sightseeing and murdering through Germany. Large countries may have friction at the borders, but overall, they have tended to be much more peaceful than patchwork maps. The simple truth is that the larger a country, the cheaper it is to defend it (relatively speaking). Territory is 2-dimensional, while a border is 1-dimensional. (In space, your territory is 3-dimensional, while your border is 2-dimensional, so the same rule would apply, except space is too big for non-fantastical interstellar empires.)

>>126732
>But that's wrong. A city-state is not just a city. It's also the surrounding region and villages
Sure because the city can't survive without the country side providing food. But you're really over simplifying things. City-states stood for a long time in Europe and the cultures they produced varied wildly. While they did war with each other from time to time for the most part they were peaceful and managed to co-exist. This type of Government allows more relative freedom in some respects. At the very least it gives you options. Where a large empire imposes its own set of laws upon all cultures within its borders and erases cultures as time goes on to make sure all subjects are more in-line with the central Government.

>But besides that, there is a massive problem with balkanization, and it's that it leads to more war.
Not really. Large empires have historically been like the current American empire. Where they engage in war constantly and colonize more and more land and peoples. Rome did the same. So did China and Japan and every other mid-large sized empire in history. The empire can not continue to exist without constantly fighting wars for more and more resources.

City-states typically don't require as many resources to support their citizens. Since they only occupy a small piece of land and don't have as large of a population. Wars are also most costly to fight and citizens have more say in fighting them.

Even if a city-state Governs an area surrounding it they don't Govern other city-states or areas outside of their own. Thus allowing for more general freedom at the individual level. It's easier for someone to integrate or even vanish into the forest where they can live alone away from any form of Governance. When there were city-states the various peoples and Governments were more likely to agree to disagree. Meaning they didn't try to impose their will on other cultures. At least not directly with force. But such city-states could agree to defend each other and engage in war together. War between city-states is more small scale than war between empires. Since they don't have as many people and slaves to throw into the meat grinder.

>>126740
>Where a large empire imposes its own set of laws upon all cultures within its borders and erases cultures
Interesting that you are so adamant about the diversity of city-states but treat all empires the same.
>Where they engage in war constantly and colonize more and more land and peoples. Rome did the same.
Yes, but those are border conflicts, which tend to be comparatively small, even if in absolute terms the numbers are bigger than inter-city conflicts.
The Pax Romana was not a period during which the empire was at peace. It was a period where the Roman people were at peace, because the borders were successfully defended (and even expanded) and hostiles kept at bay.
>Wars are also most costly to fight
Which is why they can't defend themselves as well as empires, making them more vulnerable. That's my point, yes.
Remember that Rome conquered its empire "in self-defense". Since you have to be on guard against all your neighbors at all times, everybody has to spend a lot of money on defense. When you see an opportunity to use that money to defeat one of those neighbors and thus enrich yourself and at the same time reduce the potential threat to yourself, that can be a strong motivator.
>they don't Govern other city-states or areas outside of their own.
Or they do, after conquering them. Even without real conquest though, the strong will typically have a strong influence on the weaker ones akin to the Imperial one that you described previously. In the German lands for example, the laws of one large city quickly spread to its surrounding cities, even those that were technically independent.
>It's easier for someone to integrate or even vanish into the forest where they can live alone away from any form of Governance.
No, that's a completely different issue. It's more to do with how densely populated the land is and how organized the government is. In the USA or Australia, you could go into the bush today, if you wanted to.
>Meaning they didn't try to impose their will on other cultures.
Sure they will. Why wouldn't they? That's like saying the EU isn't trying to set standards for trade.
>At least not directly with force.
And who's going to stop them?
That's such weird idealism.
>War between city-states is more small scale than war between empires.
But far more common.
>Since they don't have as many people and slaves to throw into the meat grinder.
If you look at the whole map, then the total number of city states (that would otherwise make up the empire) will in fact put more soldiers into the field at any given time than the empire would.
So, it's in fact the other way around. It's the empire that throws fewer people into the meat grinder - but to greater effect, because there are no inter-city wars.
Or, in honesty, there are fewer internal wars. Rome repeatedly demonstrated its capacity for civil war.

>>126740
>Even if a city-state Governs an area surrounding it they don't Govern other city-states or areas outside of their own.
How you can say these things seriously is beyond me. Anyone who claims to know anything about city states should at the very least be familiar with the Greek city states, or even the Mesopotamian city states, all of which were constantly at war with one another, constantly bickering and imposing their will and governance on others.

>>126744
They weren't at war with each other any more than empires are at war with each other today. The problem you have is you're so used to living deep within an empire that you do not see the constant wars. Trust me, everyone outside of your empire is suffering.

At least with city-states war was both personal and the population was directly effected by it. This made it much harder for leaders to engage in war. It also ensured that wars were either quickly resolved (relatively speaking) or quickly ended. There was no military industrial complex waging war just because it was good for business. There was no blissfully unaware population that didn't care about the Government waging war since it didn't directly effect them.

The Greek city-states might have been at war from time to time among themselves and engaged in in-fighting. But when an outside force came in they banded together as brothers. The Geek city-states is a great example of what I'm talking about. All of them had unique cultures and practiced different skills. Day-to-day life in each city-state was different. They worshiped different Gods. They ate different food. They practiced different trades. They traded in different resources. They wore different clothing. They had different mating rituals. They had different laws.

If you were alive back then it was possible to move to a different city-state and enjoy a culture that wasn't like your own. Even though you would be seen as an outsider is was possible to immigrate and integrate into a city-state and become a citizen (not all of course). It isn't like now where no matter how far you travel you're still under the control of your empire. Even when you're outside of it. Until a couple hundred years ago it was still possible to move away to some place and start a new life. It was still possible for unique cultures to exist and thrive. This isn't true anymore. The empires are so large now they're spread everywhere and have promoted their culture above all others. Now the children of those cultures do not practice them. Many times they don't even carry their native accent anymore.

A return to city-states or smaller states would solve a lot of problems culturally. People are in conflict these days because they can't practice their own ideas about freedom or develop their own culture. That's what empires do. They wipe out culture. Which is why they all fall. People want to engage in culture.

>>126724
>>126740
>>126746
I agree regarding the cultural aspect but that's the only possible benefit.

I'm not sure how much you know about Chinese or Japanese history but they are actually an argument against your point and not for it, the periods in which they were fragmented were always the bloodiest and they were the bloodiest by a long way.
The Sengoku Jidai was a period of near constant war all over Japan for over 100 years, once Tokugawa unified Japan there was very little fighting again until the Boshin war which was over 200 years later.
This was the same for China and it's alterations between waring states and unified nation. That's not to say unified China never fought wars, it did, all nations do, but they were far, far, far less bloody than the wars that were occurring during the warring states periods. Living in Japan or China during one of these eras, would have been hell.

These periods of fragmentation are periods of small nations waging constant wears with each other to try and consolidate power and then using that power they gain to wage more wars to consolidate even more power.
Yes, the population are directly involved but that's a contributing factor towards constant war, it does not prevent it. This kind of fragmentation means that hostile nations are not thousands of kilometres away, they are in the city next to you and the only way to make sure they don't invade your city is to invade their city first. It's a Jyaku Niku Kyou Shoku world.

There is also the nature of technology to think about. Our modern world benefits from scale and co-location of industries, that's why Tokyo, the Chinese conglomerate of cities around Shenzhen, Los Angeles, London etc are what they are. Fragmented city states don't lend themselves to modern society and in such a fragmented world, you would have rich costal cities like New York and Los Angles turn every state between them into poor vassal states, who only exist to provide them with cheap inputs.

>>126746
One more point I will add.

>The problem you have is you're so used to living deep within an empire that you do not see the constant wars. Trust me, everyone outside of your empire is suffering.
That's not true, Since WW2 Earth is actually the most peaceful it has ever been and the areas that aren't peaceful have predominately been fragmented areas, like Africa and Myanmar both of which are full of various tribes that don't get along with each other and are always competing for resources and political power.

>>126684
>Greek was the lingua franca for a long time in Rome anyway, so that's more of a return to form than an abandonment of a fundamentally Roman element.
But always together with Latin. Ruling classes spoke BOTH Latin and Greek while the masses in the Western provinces spoke primarily Vulgar Latin, which is how you end up with modern Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and Romania (people often forget they speak a Latin-based dialect as well). Masses in the East spoke Greek however, but the Greek language is only confined to Greece and Cyprus today because of the Slavic migrations to the Balkans.

>>126724
>>126746
>>126747
The only thing I'll comment on this is that it did seem like Italy was better off under city-states than as an unified nation. It's something that was working out for almost a thousand years. Don't fix what ain't broke. The only major problem with city-states is that they're often at the mercy of stronger powers. The Greeks unified under Alexander to fight off the Persian threat. Italian unification was somewhat necessary to fight off the Austrian Empire I suppose.

>>126746
>Trust me, everyone outside of your empire is suffering.
Which means that they would be well-advised to coalesce into empires as well.

>with city-states war was both personal and the population was directly effected by it.
Yes, they are suffering more.
Your conclusion that they would therefore have less suffering (because they would avoid war) is not logical and not supported by evidence either.
City states simply suffered more.

>All of them had unique cultures
Even when they were swallowed up by other city states, yes.
Do you perhaps think that all the different peoples in the mongol empire enjoyed the stereotypical mongol diet?
No, they didn't.

>It isn't like now where no matter how far you travel you're still under the control of your empire.
That should give you pause. It's not empires that you have a problem with, it's modern consumerism and cultural hegemony.
But city states would not be a functional defense against either of these things.

>A return to city-states or smaller states would solve a lot of problems culturally.
If countries as large and as shut off as Soviet Russia or Communist China couldn't stop their citizens from craving American goods, how do you suppose a single city will defend itself from this threat?

City states were somewhat insulated from each other. Without an overarching order, who would pay for an extensive and well-maintained road network? Who would secure the roads from the threat of bandits? What would happen upon the outbreak of war?
Inter-city trade was possible, but somewhat limited and costly.

>>126746
>If you were alive back then it was possible to move to a different city-state and enjoy a culture that wasn't like your own.
No. This is completely wrong and a fundamental misunderstanding of Greek society. Greek city states were more akin to tribal collectives. You did not simply move from one city state to another. This was why exile was so commonly imposed. If you "moved" from Athens to Ionia, you would have no political rights or access to any of the services afforded to citizens. You would have no one to see to it that you would receive a proper burial. You were completely disenfranchised, politically ostracized, and cut off from any semblance of having a home.

>>126724
>As long as the balance of power between the states remains mostly the same
You say this like it isn't the single most difficult task in international politics. It's been the explicit goal of the world's greatest powers since the 30 Years War and they've failed time and time again because the balance of power is always changing.

If Athens could use their economic superiority to force most of Greece into an "alliance" under their brutal rule, if Macedon could raze those who stood against their leadership, if Rome could use threats to vassalize all of Italy, what would stop NYC from becoming the oppressive overlord of the east coast? Even if you disregard that the countries that didn't balkanize could blow the whole thing off the face of the map with nukes without much fear of retaliation, it's much easier to offset a center of power through internal politics than through international politics.

>>126749
>Italy was better off under city-states than as an unified nation
It also had constant wars fought for profit and encouraged by increasingly powerful mercenary groups that integrated themselves into the power politics to no less an extent than modern military-industrial complexes. One of these mercenary armies ended up sacking Rome in a way that contemporaries described as far worse than the barbarian sackings of the classical period. Venice and Genoa drove each other to the brink of collapse because they were both fabulously wealthy and wanted to be double that. Also, most of it was under the control/influence of the Spanish/Germans for a long time.

By the time of Italian unification, Austria was not a threat. Its failure to homogenize all the ethnicities within it made it incredibly weak and basically tearing itself apart at the seams. Unification was a power play by the Piedmont-Sardinians only allowed because Austria couldn't fulfill its role as the peacekeeper anymore and some deft political maneuvering to make themselves look like they'd be good allies to France and Britain.

Oh, and Alexander "united" the Greeks by force of arms and went to Persia to conquer, not to defend. Even during the two Persian invasions of Greece, several cities sided with the Persians and when they stopped invading and started offering subsidies to subvert their neighbors they were all too happy to accept.

>>126766
Should we just burn all cities on principle?

>>126730
…you think Christianity started with Catholicism?

>>126768
I am asking what you think. To deny the Catholic church as part of Christianity puts a pretty big hole into its history, as far as I am concerned, so I am curious what that Christian history of yours looks like.

>>126766
>It also had constant wars fought for profit and encouraged by increasingly powerful mercenary groups that integrated themselves into the power politics to no less an extent than modern military-industrial complexes
They were instigated by other powers most of the time and they weren't that common compared to the clusterfuck happening in Germany at least. There was some animosity between them, but it wasn't as significant as what you're implying. They cooperated and traded with each other for the most part.

>One of these mercenary armies ended up sacking Rome in a way that contemporaries described as far worse
That was done by Habsburg bastards with Spanish and German soldiers, not Italians. There was only a minimal amount of "Italian mercenaries" in comparison and it's unclear how much. Most Italian city-states tried to maintain good relations with the Papal States. Like I said, the big disadvantage of city-states is that they're often at the mercy of stronger powers, in this case the Habsburgs which were holding tremendous power in Europe at the time.

>By the time of Italian unification, Austria was not a threat
Did you even look at my map? It was holding half of Northern Italy.

>>126770
The point is that in this glorious age of Italian City States, the majority of the region was not under the control of city states, even if you consider the Pope to be one. Mercenaries coming from other lands is a common thing, they are businesses that go where there is conflict.

Holding northern Italy doesn't make them a threat to the rest of it. Piedmont was specifically set up as a buffer state and the other powers wouldn't stand for aggression against it. Austria had a chance to eat up more at the Congress of Vienna and chose indirect rule instead. This was wise because they had a strong interest in positioning themselves as a protector of smaller states to keep the Germans on their side and because adding more rebellious Italians to the population would disrupt the delicate balance of ethnicities in their internal politics. Italy didn't band together to protect themselves from Austria, nor did they need to, they were conquered by other Italians as soon as the great powers were too preoccupied to keep protecting them from each other. Nationalist sentiment just made the transition much smoother than it could have been.

I just want to note that, contrary to common belief, Sicilian and the northern languages like Lombard are actually not part of the Italo-Dalmatian branch, and it makes sense for a speaker of Tuscan (Standard Italian) to be unable to understand them.

>>126769
…there isn’t any point to this conversation as I can tell you haven’t read the Bible. goodbye.

>>126773
Less informative an answer than I had hoped, but not below my actual expectations.

>>126771
>The point is that in this glorious age of Italian City States, the majority of the region was not under the control of city states
I don't understand what you mean by that. They were independent through most of their history. The HRE held no real power over them. The Habsburgs sacked Rome exactly because of that.

>Italy didn't band together to protect themselves from Austria, nor did they need to, they were conquered by other Italians
Yes, I suppose this is true as well. The Savoyards wanted ultimate power over the peninsula and they screwed Southerners over due to it. Most Southerners stick to their own regional identities due to this. They always say they're Sicilian/Neapolitan/etc first and Italian second. I think you're still downplaying Austria though, because the conflict with them lasted up to WW1, not just until the unification. Banding together against them was important.

>>126772
Yes, but they're all considered "Italian dialects" for political reasons. The most controversial one is Sardinian because it's absolutely not an Italian dialect by any means. Their language is the closest one to Latin. It preserved many archaic features.

>>126775
Not being able to pay your troops is not the same as ordering them to go on a tour of destruction.

>>126775
>Sardinian
You're right, I confused the two islands without rechecking... Shame on me.
And yes, it's identical to what happens in China and Japan where they're also called dialects even though there's a serious deal of variation. I wonder how unique Spain is in its acknowledgement of Asturian, Catalan, Galician, etc, as separate languages with their own institutions. Extremaduran apparently has some troubles, though.

>>126776
NTA, but wasn't it historically effectively the same?

>>126778
No? There are times when people like Augustus choose to pay their armies with the right to sack cities, but in this case it was a straight-up mutiny. The HRE were not in conflict with the Papal State and the army's leadership were trying to keep the men under control.

>>126777
Spain is interesting as well. It doesn't have nearly as much linguistic and cultural diversity as Italy since they were unified for much longer (Catalans are very loud with wanting independence though), but it has one of the few non-Indo European languages in Europe; Basque. Unlike Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian it doesn't pertain to the Finno-Ugric language family though, it's something much more unique. It's believed to be the language of the pre-IE expansion Early European farmers. Sardinians and Etruscans also spoke something similar to it before they were conquered by the Romans.

>>126781
Spain has comparable linguistic diversity with Italy, since while they don't have as many regional dialects like north Italy most of the languages there are actually used by (part of) the younger generations and have recognized standards and some form of institutional support for them. Granted, apart from Basque they're all slowly dying, but simply having institutions and recognized the grants their regional languages some prominence that is basically unknown in the rest of Western Europe. France and England murdered their regional dialects and Celtic languages, Germany doesn't recognize Low German at all, and so on.
The lower level of dialectal diversity in Spain is due to the Reconquista; the dialects from the northern kingdoms simply spread south.

>>126773
Dumb argumentative baptistshitposter

dumb baptistard
dumb baptard
dumb baptistshitard

bapped

What's everyone favorite emperor?

>>129228
Cicero

irreverent bump

>>130296
You did it!

love me some war trivia

>>130493
I had no idea those kind of fortresses existed as far as Russia. They're an Italian invention. Must have had something to do with Italian architects being employed to build a lot things in Moscow and Saint Petersburg: https://www.rbth.com/history/332444-how-italians-built-moscow-kremlin

>>126644
I consider it basic to separate the Principate and Dominate.
>>126661
In practice with a a couple notable counterexamples (Trier), there's no continuity in the Germanic Kingdoms with Roman civic life with most of what was left of Rome being the various churches themselves. Otherwise the story of the early middle ages is "Radical material simplification" as urban demographics imploded and became more rural and isolate.
>>126669
I think most scholarship agrees the end of antiquity in the ERE was in the 7th century. The Empire totally reconfigured itself doing away with Rome's traditional delineation between civic/military authority and centralized heavily around Constantinople. The ruralization and demographic disaster they had mostly avoided started in earnest after the loss of Egypt.
Thessaloniki, which remained an important second city in the Empire so it didn't get the worst of it, went from several hundred thousand people to 50,000 tops during this period. Really this period of history turns Constantinople into the last Roman city, and the rest of the now Byzantine Empire into its military periphery.