>People who say that ERE diverged culturally from WRE are mistaken

They definitely aren't.

The ERE diverged from itself over a thousand years. Look at how many distinct phases fit into their culture. Heck, just look at...say... 400-800 ad.

Just like the West did from itself in a "how it started" "how it ended" fashion.

Both of those two entities diverged hugely over their life.

If you want to call them different names that's fine, if you want to call them the same, that's fine.

During WW2 when Army officers used to stay inside underground bunkers, did they also had toilets underground, or they did the numbers outside in wild or separate toilet? If the toilet / washrooms were also underground then how did the plumbing worked? How did they get rid of 'wastes'?

It’s not a useful term because it completely ignores the obviously prominent Roman aspects of the empire.

When I first encountered the term “Byzantine Empire” when I was younger, I had no idea what it was. It took me a surprisingly long time to recognise that it was at all connected to the Roman Empire. It’s unnecessarily confusing for laypeople (especially kids), imo, especially when there’s better terms to use.

I prefer to use “Eastern Roman”, as it places emphasis on the Roman characteristics of the empire while also distinguishing it some from “THE Roman Empire”.

[removed]

[removed]

Thing about it is, even though they were speaking Greek by the 7th century, they kept many of the old Roman institutions, and continued to think of themselves as Romans. Its the "Western View of Civilization" that chooses to ignore those facts in favor of seeing Byzantium as an "alien" monarchy. This is the same "Western" civilization that in 1204 sacked Constantinople just because a) they weren't Catholic, and b) they were the wealthiest state in Europe....then made half-hearted efforts to save them from the Ottoman Turks.

The West choosing to reduce the actual Roman Empire i.e: Byzantium to a mere Greek kingdom was the result of a conflict over which state could actually claim the mantle of Roman (Holy Roman or Byzantine). Holy Roman Emperors, despite being elevated from mere Frankish and Saxon kings by the popes, were only borrowing the name of Roman because the old Roman Empire was still fresh in the memories of many in the old western empire, particularly in the Frankish period. But because any actual Roman administration in the lands of Germania was confined to the extreme south and southwest of the region, they only had the influence of Rome to build on. Byzantium by comparison had all the legal, political, military and economic institutions from the former Roman Empire and an unbroken tradition of dynastic rule which had started with Caesar Augustus (Octavian) and continued even past the point in 476 when the last Western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was overthrown by a barbarian general.

Ok I wasn't aware that there were samurai and knights that didn't fight in wars

I would say though that ksatriyas were/are a much broader social class and included many sub castes and communities most members of which never even touched a weapon in their lives

150 years ago, New Zealand was British and “even after the creation of a New Zealand citizenship in 1948, New Zealand citizens also remained British subjects. The description ‘British subject’ did not appear on passports printed from 1974, and New Zealand citizens ceased legally to be British subjects on 1 January 1983.”

Breaching a condition of the contract would make the sale void and can be enforced by a court.

Limitations imposed on the initial transaction do carry over to third parties. For instance a factory consented by limiting the pollution emitted, can NOT emit more pollution just by being sold to a third party.

This particular item was a gift. It wasn't stolen.

The Byzantines second the motion but we're still waiting on word from the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and the Vandals.

quiz: list all countries invaded by Israel in the 6 day war question: what happened in 1989 in that one place in china I forgot then name pls correct me

I think in this case your beef is with the people who sold you something knowing it was not able to be sold.

Not with the original gifting party

It gets returned to Ngati Whatua

I think that's rather clear.

[removed]

This is very common amongst the art/artifact/etc trade. It's because they aren't white and are looked down upon. It's everywhere. It's disgusting and a large majority of museums and similar institutes are guilty of it and and they act like pretentious assholes about it.

Look at the British and the Smithsonian. Some of the worth for it.

[removed]

But this wasn't plundered and put in a museum it was a gift 150 years ago with a verbal request.

Wow. And that's the short version? No wonder I could never figure it out. I'm still confused.
Very complicated.

A verbal request about a gift 150 years ago in another country isn't a legally binding contract.

Also selling a gift to someone else doesn't mean the new owners then have to then give it to the original owners based on a request, or that it needs to be confiscated from the descendants of the receivers of the gift as they go to sell it. It's just a ridiculous concept with so many elements that stretch logic.

The whole premise of giving it back should simply be it's a nice thing to do, any kind of discussion of legality is nonsense.

Yeah but once someone else has it they are not privy to that condition.

If you brought a heritage house from someone whose grandfather was gifted it on the verbal request it stays in the family, is it your duty as the purchaser to take the financial hit and pass it on to the gifters ancestors, having not known these conditions beforehand?

I get it's a nice thing to do but there's zero legal obligation in either UK or NZ law, or any law in any country that I am aware of.

[removed]

Thanks! The less academic ones are much more accessible, in more ways than one, so I appreciate it.

To be honest, I wasn’t even thinking about the JSTOR one being behind a paywall, cause I was signed into my work email and I teach at a college, so it just let me in, hahah. So yeah, thank you!

[deleted]

Did they document what should happen to it if it leaves the families possession?

After a break from 476 to ~ 535, they controlled Rome for another 200 years. Constantinople was officially “New Rome.” They thought of themselves as “Romans.”