Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and the doctrine.

[Fedor]

The man that wrote this is either insane or genius. You decide.

 

Franks, Roman, Feudalism, and the doctrine. Long read.... http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.fran...doctrine.01.htm

 

Charlemagne's Lie of 794 And the Primitive Greek Romans. http://www.romanity.org/romans.htm

 

Examples of the science of ethnic cleaning of roman history. http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.21.en.the_..._history.01.htm

 

What, If Anytihing, Is A Byzantine? http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what...yzantine.01.htm

Edited December 7, 2007 by Fedor

[Kosmo]

Insane. I did not read all but it's insane.

[Andrew Dalby]

What, If Anytihing, Is A Byzantine? http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what...yzantine.01.htm

 

This page is basically correct. (I haven't checked all the details, just the main points.) People in what we call the Byzantine Empire called themselves "Romans" (Romaioi, Romei) and thought of their Empire as Roman. In medieval times the name Romania meant "the territory of this same eastern Roman Empire, especially the southern Balkans and Greece".

 

Added later: I notice that this is a different author from the other three pages. This page is by Clifton R. Fox, and his stuff looks OK to me.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Andrew Dalby

[Gaius Octavius]

Kosmo, what is insane about the paper? It seems to me that he is attempting to present the Eastern Church's point of view as regards the Holy Ghost. Spirated or Generated? I'm not qualified to vouch for his history or theology, but I don't think that he is insane.

 

As Dr. A.D. said, he is certainly correct about the use (or misuse) of the term Byzantine.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Andrew Dalby]

Examples of the science of ethnic cleaning of roman history. http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.21.en.the_..._history.01.htm

 

OK, this is is one of the pages by John S. Romanides. On the basis of this page I would say that Romanides uses ancient sources cleverly but often arrives at conclusions that are completely mistaken.

There are three ways in which he could improve. First, he needs to learn something about archaeology, linguistics and ethnology: he is making arguments that would depend, for their validity, on these sciences, and he writes as if they scarcely existed. (In fact, material rather like his was written in the 17th century, before these sciences had developed.) Second, he needs to use his common sense about evaluating ancient source material. To use any written source you need to say to yourself, before accepting an assertion as fact, "What made the author say that? How did he know? Could he have known, in fact? Is he guessing? Is he repeating someone else's information? Is he pushing an argument? Is he building a hypothesis to see if others can knock it down? Is he making hidden assumptions that might be false?" Third, Romanides needs to say to himself, "Am I interpreting sources in a particular way because it suits my theory?" We all do that: we just have to know and admit that we are doing it.

 

So, to get anything useful out of this page, one would have to look at every cited source afresh, apply those sciences where relevant, and apply common sense.

[Fedor]

What, If Anytihing, Is A Byzantine? http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what...yzantine.01.htm

 

This page is basically correct. (I haven't checked all the details, just the main points.) People in what we call the Byzantine Empire called themselves "Romans" (Romaioi, Romei) and thought of their Empire as Roman. In medieval times the name Romania meant "the territory of this same eastern Roman Empire, especially the southern Balkans and Greece".

 

Added later: I notice that this is a different author from the other three pages. This page is by Clifton R. Fox, and his stuff looks OK to me.

 

I agree also with Clifton R. Fox about the Byzantine empire. The people that lived in the empire called themselves Romans. It was a mistake for me to post this link since most people on here agree with many of the points that were made by the professor.

 

Here is a short insight by George D. Metallinos

 

"After the Frankish alteration of Western Europe it's social development was carried out on a racial basis. The rights of the conquerors were imposed through the feudal system, which however was not based on land-ownership as in the East, but of racial character. A class of nobility was created and was considered "noble by nature". The barbaric conquerors declared themselves "nobles". The other class was that of the subjects, those enslaved to the nobles. This very small minority conquers the entire west and transforms the Romaic people into slaves on their own land."

[Kosmo]

Kosmo, what is insane about the paper? It seems to me that he is attempting to present the Eastern Church's point of view as regards the Holy Ghost. Spirated or Generated? I'm not qualified to vouch for his history or theology, but I don't think that he is insane.

 

As Dr. A.D. said, he is certainly correct about the use (or misuse) of the term Byzantine.

 

I was talking about the first link.

There the author speaks insane things about the roman-arab alliance against the visighots and roman revolts against the franks. Also the way he sees the church and the conflict beetwen the nascent orthodox and catholic churches it's wrong. The pope was more often then not at odds with the emperor after Justinian and that had little to do with franks.

Fedor you gave us too much homework. If you want I will go more in depth when I have time both to read and comment but you asked genius or insane and for me the first piece it's insane.

 

PS Byzantines were romans!

[Gaius Octavius]

Please try to understand that the author is probably thinking and writing (his translation) in Greek. If I am not gravely in error, the whole point of the paper is the Filioque(?) problem; First Among Equals and Supreme Pontiff; the Sacraments, and the validity of synods and Councils. Unfortunately, I don't think that he did a good job, (in English), on any of these counts.

[Fedor]

Rome And Romania

27 BC- 1453 AD Emperors of the Roman and the so- called Byzantine Empires.... John S. Romanides.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/frame_friesian_en.htm

Only about half way through the whole thing. I must say the maps are very interesting, actually the whole thing is very interesting.

 

This is from the end of the link......

"The Fall of Constantinople, on May 29, 1453, is one of the most formative, epochal, colorful, and dramatic episodes in world history. As the final end of the Roman Empire, it was a much more revolutionary and catastrophic change than the "fall" of the Western Empire in 476, in which power remained in the same hands of the current magister militum. That the greatest Christian city of the Middle Ages should pass to Isl

Edited December 7, 2007 by Fedor

[Gaius Octavius]

There is a pretty good clickable map of the Empires expansion and contraction in the above site.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Segestan]

The man that wrote this is either insane or genius. You decide.

 

Franks, Roman, Feudalism, and the doctrine. Long read.... http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.fran...doctrine.01.htm

 

Charlemagne's Lie of 794 And the Primitive Greek Romans. http://www.romanity.org/romans.htm

 

Examples of the science of ethnic cleaning of roman history. http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.21.en.the_..._history.01.htm

 

What, If Anytihing, Is A Byzantine? http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what...yzantine.01.htm

 

 

These views are founded in Greek propaganda. The consequence of this version of 'Greek History' is founded in the agents of the Christian Church, conquering Imperial Rome from within, having the advantagous position of historian age upon age. . Why did Not the Greeks and Macedonians themselves speak these views? Because they never existed! Why did not men like Caesar and many other Romans not claim this fictitious Greek origin? Because they were Roman! How easy to attempt a re-writing of the lives of the dead!

They cannot speak for themselves; therefore we must defend for them best we can.

 

This is Clearly a view of Roman history that contradicts and attempts, through false pretext , to abolish even the memory of an entire ethnicity... the Sons of Mars. Had there been any truth in this fairly tale history Roman arms would have freed Greek cities not raised them to the ground!