You agree a term commonly used by historians is a good term. Wow what a revelation.

The Ottoman massacres of the Bulgarians in the lead up to the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 were also widely reported on and caused outrage across Europe. Disraeli, an ardent believer in real politik, tried to calm some of these tempers and even tried to support the Ottomans diplomatically because he feared that a Russian attack would leave the Tsar's in control of the Bosporus Straits. For this Gladstone, tore into him and made Disraeli's position untenable.

Similarly, the first Opium War was widely condemned by the liberal press in Britain, as well as the opposition. Not that that did much good for China in the long run...

>other peoples called them Roman

Depends. Arabs called them Romans because they saw a continuity in the East between Roman and Byzantine rule. In the West, there was no such continuity and medieval Europeans called them just Greeks.

>but latin speakers were always present

By the 10th century the only Latin speakers in the Empire were a few Vlach/Aromanian sheperds in the Balkans.

>latin was till widely used

By the time of Heraclius, Latin was only used in offical military documents, something he got rid of because it was literally just something left from old imperial administration which wasn't useful in an empire where Greek was the majority language as well as the lingua franca.

Because reddit uses markdown I’m pretty sure it takes one extra newline

[deleted]

[deleted]

• Colonialism and imperialism were significant historical events that had a profound impact on many parts of the world. There were a variety of contemporary reactions to European colonialism in Africa, India, China, and other regions during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

One of the most notable reactions to colonialism was the rise of anti-colonial and nationalist movements. These movements sought to resist and overthrow colonial rule and establish self-government. In Africa, figures such as Mahatma Gandhi in India and Nelson Mandela in South Africa became leaders of anti-colonial movements and fought for independence.

Additionally, many intellectuals, scholars and activists around the world heavily criticized and spoke out against colonialism, they argued that colonialism was unjust and detrimental to the colonized peoples and cultures. They also stated that it was a violation of human rights and they called for the end of colonial rule.

There were also a variety of religious and spiritual leaders who spoke out against colonialism and imperialism, including figures such as Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore.

Books that can provide more in-depth information on contemporary reactions to colonialism include:

"The Anti-Colonial Moment in Africa: Metropolitan Anti-Colonialism and the Struggle for the Post-Colonial State" by Crawford Young

"Imperialism: A Study" by J.A. Hobson

"The Scramble for Africa" by Thomas Pakenham

"Indian Nationalism: A History" by John H. Kautsky

These books provide an in-depth look at the various reactions to colonialism, including the rise of anti-colonial and nationalist movements, the views of intellectuals and activists, and the role of religion and spirituality in resistance to colonialism.

The question of the state of Arabic literature and culture during the Ottoman Empire is a complex and nuanced one, and there are differing perspectives on the matter. The editors of "Desert Songs of the Night" present one perspective, which is that Arabic literature was almost completely lost from view under Ottoman rule, and that it was only through the influence of Western civilization, as represented by Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, that a resurgence in Arabic literature and culture occurred.

However, this perspective is not without its criticisms. Some scholars argue that this narrative of a stagnant and ossified Arabic culture under Ottoman rule is a product of Orientalism, which is the tendency to view the cultures and societies of the Middle East and North Africa as exotic, backward, and in need of rescue by the West. These scholars argue that the Ottoman Empire was a diverse and dynamic society, and that Arabic literature and culture were not in a state of decline.

Furthermore, the idea of a "Arabic Renaissance" or "Nahda" is not a simple matter and it's not only as a result of the influence of Western civilization, but also a product of internal factors, such as the emergence of a new urban middle class, the growth of printing and publishing, and the increased availability of education.

Additionally, The Ottoman Empire had a long history of literary and cultural achievements in the Arabic language, and there was a vibrant tradition of poetry, prose, and scholarship that existed alongside the dominant Turkish language culture of the court.

In conclusion, the state of Arabic literature and culture during the Ottoman Empire is a complex issue, and one that cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of decline and rescue by Western civilization. It's important to consider the multiple perspectives and factors that contributed to the development of Arabic literature and culture during this period.

This is my recollection too, and that the term Byzantine empire is an anachronism made by historians

People who say that ERE diverged culturally from WRE are mistaken. WRE copied Hellenic culture and old Greek language was spoken in Rome by the aristocrats. Basically, Greek part of Empire is culturally original.

The Russians were effectively out of range from German cities for a long time, since they had very few strategic bombers, preferring two engine bombers instead; those strategic bombers they did have mostly targeted cities around the Baltic, aiming for railway junctures, airports, and the like.

I don't think they ever did enough damage to be meaningful, though: the Russian strategic bombing regiment dropped 144,750 kilograms of ordinance total during 1941 (before losses basically grounded them,) while the US dropped 1,510,463 kilograms of bombs in a single raid on Toyko in 1945.

Unsurprisingly, when the Soviets decided they DID need something bombed, they would ask the Western Allies to do so, though this was generally rare.

But I thought the Germans had broken the British Naval codes in early 41?

I agree. I just threw in an estimate from a source that has honestly no validity as a reliable source. I totally agree about the problems with using CPI, you should always use a variety of measures such as proportion to GDP or purchasing power. Any historical estimate is going to be questioned because all methods produce different results and each have both advantages and disadvantages. I've seen graphics that have put Mansa Musa or Julius Caesar as the richest person in history, but you can't ever make an apples to apples comparison

Nothing is more complex or as beautiful as this manuscript. I have had a fascination with it since I was a teen.

Sotheby is also fairly well known for trying to sell artifacts that they know have dubious origins, have fake provenance or no provenance until they're caught in hot water.

If this story doesn't gain attention, the sale will just go through and they can continue their money laundering.

Disagreed. They called each-other Roman, other peoples called them Roman, the change of language was gradual but latin speakers were always present and latin was till widely used, they are quite literally The Roman Empire evolving into the middle ages.

Byzantium is what historians named it.

If they call themselves Roman and others called them Roman in their own time and after why would scientists name them anything else aside from marking it as a different period of Rome?

It’s just a term we use to mark the period like the Republic, the Monarchy and the Empire.

Yes but by the time of Alexios I, governments were totally different.

The Kshatriya, the warrior part of the caste system.

It might feel like an overly simple answer, but what being a knight or samurai actually meant would also change massively over the centuries, and the common definition of 'minor landed nobility' often doesn't fit, so we need to be that broad to be accurate.

I was saying this aswell until about a year ago, then I attended a history lecture.

While there are truths here including a genocidal attack on the moriori in the mid 1800s. The people that first arrived in New Zealand were in actual fact the ancestors of the Maori people.

I had thought that genocide had happened hundreds of years before, but your comment made me look it up and it apparently happened in the 1830s, so that definitely brings a lot of skepticism rightfully into play.

But, a few things:

1. The main object discussed in the article is a war club; the Moriori were (sadly, for them) pacifists.

2. If it was made originally by a Maori, it doesn't matter what their ancestors did to whom. Does it matter that ancient Egyptians slaughtered Nubians when discussing Britain holding ancient Egyptian artifacts?

3. There are NZ provisions for returning lost artifacts to the remaining surviving Moriori people already, too. They're distributed differently.

The suckiest part is that the genocide was so recent, but people have been slaughtering each other since there have been people, so it really shouldn't invalidate ownership of all objects of any group's cultural history.

That was found to be untrue. Here. And here.

their culture diverged from the original roman culture, I agree with that but they are definetely the most direct descendent of the roman’s. plus their form of government was much closer to rome’s than fuedal europe.

[removed]

[removed]

Best book on modern Ireland (North and South)?