Byzantium as THE Roman Empire

Hardly. Law matters, and the law in European states was made by and enforced by the local king. Your last comment is very patronising. The pope did not outrank the Roman emperor nor did they outrank a medieval king in secular matters.

If after reading my points, this is your conclusion, without any nuance, then you will not come to any understanding or compromise.
 
That sounds wrong for some reason,you mean the mongols and the qing if I understand rigth,and you are correct china didnt disappear it transformed into another entity but it was still china(also the didnt speak manchu,the tribes to the north east did)

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
 
Except in the cases where they repratedly demonstrated that they did
Except the numerous others where they didn't.

The pope is not emperor. They are a spiritual leader with considerable clout. They do not appoint local leaders, set local laws, or command the armed forces of European nations. At various times they held more power, at others less, based on how well they played the game. Just like all other rulers. Sorry I don't think we'll agree.
 
Tis a dubious claim to say that Muslim scholars and lawyers have a better understanding of Papal power and law than those within and under the Papacy does.

I have discussed this elsewhere before with other posters here who know these topics to large degrees. The conclusion that I make, is that in the Islamic world, we have still a level of continuity from Rome, especially via Christian populaces within its realm. We might say that Muslim scholars in the year 1396, had an archaic understanding, still seeing Europe as under a sort of Innocent III formulation, yet it is still the case, that they were extremely familiar withe the legal and political nuance of the Papacy through their subjects. The one point Muslims scholars were unaware of, was the nuance of internal complexity, they understood matters more in a grand scheme. This is similar to how European scholars viewed the Abbasid caliphate and rightly so as and overarching ruling entity over a vast and complex realm. Meanwhile, internally, the Abbasid ruled more of a confederate and composite melange of states and lords. My opinion is, both are correct, but in our own internal bias based on where we derive from, we tend to forget the overarching aspects and think only of internal complexity, due to our greater understanding of such topics by relation.

I when I entered the board in 2014, was speaking mostly on the Abbasid caliphate, I could not understand the opinion of many Europeans who would consistently view the Abbasid caliphate as a single absolute entity, when in fact it was essentially an Islamic and Arab, Holy Roman Empire. However, with reasoning, and compromise and enlightening, I have come to understand why and agree to these opinions whilst also highlighting the complexity of these entities.

But in brief, the Muslim lords could speak on the Papacy as they were outside observers, and had a valid source in their Christian populaces and through interactions in trade and warfare. The western world is not a huge place and the Muslim world inhabited the same world as that of Europe and the Papacy.
 
Last edited:
Except the numerous others where they didn't.

The pope is not emperor. They are a spiritual leader with considerable clout. They do not appoint local leaders, set local laws, or command the armed forces of European nations. At various times they held more power, at others less, based on how well they played the game. Just like all other rulers. Sorry I don't think we'll agree.

If you do not think that 'we' will agree, then do not continue to speak refuted points as if these are unanswered. Leave it as is, if you are sincere.
 
I have discussed this elsewhere before with other posters here who know these topics to large degrees. The conclusion that I make, is that in the Islamic world, we have still a level of continuity from Rome, especially via Christian populaces within its realm. We might say that Muslim scholars in the year 1396, had an archaic understanding, still seeing Europe as under a sort of Innocent III formulation, yet it is still the case, that they were extremely familiar withe the legal and political nuance of the Papacy through their subjects. The one point Muslims scholars were unaware of, was the nuance of internal complexity, they understood matters more in a grand scheme. This is similar to how European scholars viewed the Abbasid caliphate and rightly so as and overarching ruling entity over a vast and complex realm. Meanwhile, internally, the Abbasid ruled more of a confederate and composite melange of states and lords. My opinion is, both are correct, but in our own internal bias based on where we derive from, we tend to forget the overarching aspects and think only of internal complexity, due to our greater understanding of such topics by relation.

I when I entered the board in 2014, was speaking mostly on the Abbasid caliphate, I could not understand the opinion of many Europeans who would consistently view the Abbasid caliphate as a single absolute entity, when in fact it was essentially an Islamic and Arab, Holy Roman Empire. However, with reasoning, and compromise and enlightening, I have come to understand why and agree to these opinions whilst also highlighting the complexity of these entities.

But in brief, the Muslim lords could speak on the Papacy as they were outside observers, and had a valid source in their Christian populaces and through interactions in trade and warfare. The western world is not a huge place and the Muslim world inhabited the same world as that of Europe and the Papacy.

Well spoken and informative, thank you.
 

Femto

Banned
But legally still the USA.
Let's say if the US had annexed Mexico in the early 19th century and then later ASB made the British successfully invade, occupy and annex all core-regions of the US, leaving only Mexico as the last US-government controlled territory(now a Spanish-speaking country). I mean... maybe I would say that it isn't the same country anymore in the 20th century.
 
Let's say if the US had annexed Mexico in the early 19th century and then later ASB made the British successfully invade, occupy and annex all core-regions of the US, leaving only Mexico as the last US-government controlled territory(now a Spanish-speaking country). I mean... maybe I would say that it isn't the same country anymore in the 20th century.

If it has the same constitution and legal and direct continuity then it is still the USA.
 
Let's say if the US had annexed Mexico in the early 19th century and then later ASB made the British successfully invade, occupy and annex all core-regions of the US, leaving only Mexico as the last US-government controlled territory(now a Spanish-speaking country). I mean... I would maybe say that it isn't the same country anymore in the 20th century.
Except that Greece had been in the empire for Hundreds of years, Before even Gaul.

A better American equivalent would be if shortly after the revolution Canada became part of the United states, stuck around through thick and thin even while speaking Canadian french and being mostly catholic rather than protestant, and was the only part of the u.s. that hadn't collapsed or been conquered by today.
 

Marc

Donor
So, if the Roman Empire isn't esentially structured around dominant language, politics, religion, or economy, or military organization, or geography, what pray tell is it based on?
 
Top