The Senate was not a structure defined by the Western or Eastern Roman Empire, It existed within them. It also existed when Italy was ruled by the Osthrogoths and Lombards.

So yes, there was not only a Senate in the later Eastern Roman Empire, while East Rome controlled Italy, the Senatorial class of Italy and their Senate was also part of East Rome.

While the Roman Senate (Senate of Rome/Italy) itself disappears by the 7th century, East Rome retained its own senate for its own region.

Eastern Roman Empire is widely used by historians and Byzantine less favored today.

Our culture diverges from that 50 years before significantly.

Constantine himself was not Roman by origin, but of Illyrian descent with a Greek mother.

Roman was not a nationality by that point. Plenty of people up to the highest echelons could come from anywhere in the empire.

This idea that Romans ruled over non Romans was precisely not how things worked. As Romans settled through the empire after a few centuries they assimilated into their regional provinces and regional provincials assimilated into Roman elites. To the point to a whole row of Roman emperors coming from all over the place.

I don't think you know what the Eastern Roman Empire was or what Romans were. You also think 500 years of history are monolithic. Yes, Romans of 500 AD were culturally distinct from Romans 100 BC, including who could be Roman citizen and then even Emperor. It is still a continuation. That equally applied to all parts of the Roman Empire. Rome also never established hereditary dynasties so many people could gain Roman citizenship, even join the aristocracy and within centuries became Roman Emperors without having been born anywhere close to Rome.

Romans used Greek as the sophisticated language in the higher classes already in the republic. As such it was favored long before the "Fall of Rome" by Romans.

The division into West and East Rome was an administrative organization of the Roman Empire. As such East Rome was an uninterrupted continuation of the Roman Empire within its eastern administrative borders.

And that the Pope, who usurped imperial authorities or Germanic dynasties who grabbed territory did not accept Roman authority is somehow expected. Though even that is a simplification because apparently the West Romans did no see their empire fall when historians claim it did. They even complained about Justinians reconquest a as a needless civil war between Romans aka did not consider themselves under foreign rule.

>In fact, any economic growth and prosperity during the "Golden Years" is usually attributed to this massive rearmament drive.

"Usually"? I would question that assumption. In fact, the German "Golden Years" happened in the 20s, fuelled by western capital & lowering/restructuring/cancelling reparations and more importantly, before the nazis had taken over. And while some rearmament was going on, it was not a key factor in the economic growth of the era.

>Because the Belgian front sector was protected by large inundations which made German attacks difficult

For King and for country we

Are flooding the river

[deleted]

Right but that's not what allegedly happened here. I don't know the laws here but I'm guessing either a statute of frauds equivalent or rule against perpetuities equivalent would make this request non-binding.

You can legally bestow property on someone for just a “named person’s” lifetime. Then it’s required to be given to either an owner, their heirs, or a designated individual. It’s not uncommon.

Additionally there are more and more laws being made internationally in support of repatriation of indigenous artifacts to still existing peoples.

Did they have a Senate like the Western Empire did?

Thank you. Do you have a Twitter account or anything I can follow for when further developments occur?

The problem is, you defined "Roman" first using preconceived ideas and began assessing the Eastern Romans based on these ideas.

A Roman in the 1st century was primarily someone who spoke Latin, practiced Greco-Roman Paganism, and lived in Italy. A Roman in the 10th century was primarily someone who spoke Greek, practiced Orthodox Christianity, and lived in Asia Minor.

Both are unquestionably Romans. Both were recognized by their neighbors as Romans. In fact, up until the modern Greek nation state, most Greeks still identified as Roman, not Greek.

Ask an Arab, Turk, Armenian, or Persian what a Roman is, and they will describe the 10th century Roman. Ask a Western European or American, and they will describe the 1st century Roman. In truth, both are Romans, just from different time periods and geographies.

Easily actually.

You just take how many men you SHOULD have, and see how many are missing.

You ALWAYS have a running count on these numbers, because that's your manpower.

Think of it like this:

If I have a squad of 12 men, and two of those men get killed, I have to report that, THAT DAY. At the end of every day, I am passing back status updates on how many men, weapons, ammo, supplies etc etc I have, and what I've spent.

If I am a commander, and I send a force of 1,000 to go land on a beach, at the end of the day, I am going to get a report back on what my status and remaining unit strength is.

If I had 300 men killed, 150 injured, and 50 missing, that all has to get counted up by their units, reported up the chain, and tracked by their units, and the units above them, all the way up to me.
Because I need to know that of 1,000 men I sent to that beach, right NOW I only have 500 combat able men left.

This is how I stay aware of questions like:

• the Task Force still functional? Do they still have enough strength to keep working?

• Do they have enough men left to defend the beach they just took?

• If not, what do I do about it? Do I replace the whole unit with another healthy one? Or do I just send some spare men to replace their losses? Where can I get those spare men from? What numbers does everyone else have? Do I just accept that we CAN'T hold that beach, because we don't have the numbers to do it?

Meanwhile, the analysts, and war planners are getting those same numbers too, to answer questions like

-Based on our losses at Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, etc "approximately how many men does it cost to take an island?"

-Do we have enough men to take all the islands we need to? Is that plan possible? Is that plan acceptable? Even if we CAN sacrifice enough lives to take every island by force, are we WILLING to? Or do we need to look for an alternative plan? (see: Not invading the Japanese mainland by foot)

-What tactic/strategy changes resulted in more/less casualties? What's working, what's not working?

TL;DR:

WWII, WWI, and every war before it, as far back as civilization goes, armies have always kept running counts of deaths, because

Before a battle - "How many men do we have?"

After a battle - "How many men do we have left?"

are critical tactical/operational/strategic pieces of information. Every unit commander at every level would be tracking and reporting to the people above them.

*Note, the historical accuracy of OUR modern day estimates of those numbers will be affected by the quality and accuracy of the record keeping, and how long ago the records were taken.

*Second note, for a nice theatrical depiction of what we mean here, fast forward this video to 40:45

Does anyone know the average size of paper that was historically used for journals?

As in, what size paper did men use for their journals. Such as sailors, explorers, etc.

A significant matter is that the only ones considering Sunnis as the true successors of Mohammed as Sunnis. That does not make their position any more valid than that of Shia or any other sect of Islam.

The fact that your argument rests on the implicit assumption that Sunnisim is the right successor makes all your subsequent arguments moot.

Honestly not sure. I know there's such a thing as conditional inheritances, and an inheritance is... kind of a gift?

[removed]

I'm writing an essay about transparency and reform, and I want to use the Congo Free State as an example of a time when there was little to no transparency about what was going on, and how that changed (albeit slowly) when people gained knowledge about what was happening. As we learned it in school, though local Congolese did rebel against Leopold, they were usually swiftly and brutally crushed, and real change finally came when the Congo Reform Association helped leak what was happening to the outside world. Then, international and public pressure caused Leopold to reluctantly relinquish control. I would love to read a more in-depth account of what happened! Thank you all in advance!

Can you recommend a book that tells WWII from solely the British perspective?

I ended up looking through the entire voynich manuscript and reading the whole study. I'm sorry but there's no way to me that this is the answer..in the study the longest comparable encryption was like a page, and there was a suggestion that another work may have also been encrypted with no proof. Every other comparable manuscript only had small parts erased. None of them carried even nearly as much info. I could see some of the text being about the topic but the whole thing?

The work is way too long. There are no comparable works from the time that deal only with female anatomy or women's secrets. The illustrations of the women seem symbolic rather than too encode any information. If it's supposed to be hidden anatomical knowledge there's no need to include naked ladies in the first place. Also, i feel like there's an undeniable "spiritual" or "religious/esoteric" quality to the illustrations.

The plants are undoubtedly not real for the most part, syntheses of different plants. When reading the manuscript it does feel like the illustrator is using their fantasy a lot to construct the illustrations, if these were medicinal plants, there would not be so many of them and such long texts accompanying. It's nothing like similar medical or pharmaceutical treatises of the time in scope.

It's possible to imagine that there's some (maybe anatomic or procedural) information encoded in the illustrations of the interconnecting tubes, but then what are all the repeated illustrations of the women for, and if the purpose is to hide the

In the other examples of encryptions, erasures and censoring, it's always limited passages About certain things the author was too morally concerned to expose. It's hard to imagine that the whole thing contains taboo knowledge.

Isnt it true that right when this was written, was the beginning of curious valuable books that also pushed taboos such as sorcery, alchemy etc. What this seems like to me is someone painstakingly making an esoteric book to sell for a lot of money. The suggestion that the language-like qualities of the voynich can be generated by using a grid and writing syllables, seems so much more likely to me than that someone came up with a code that still hasn't been cracked.

Really my main question would be if you think it's real, why do you think we haven't been able to crack it? Humans are usually great at cracking deliberately encrypted things especially when they are encrypted without the help of technology. the manuscript is undoubtedly of European origin and while it's possible it's not encrypting a European language, you'd expect that we could crack any code someone came up with in the 1400's with this much time and effort going into it.

I can see this being an elaborate fake, it looks to me like an esoteric book of sorcery, which seem to have been popular at the time. And it was sold for a lot of money various times, so it likely worked.

I think it shows that from even their own origin myth the romans adopt Greek history/myth.

There's plenty of things showing romans were Greek fanboys, the most apparent being tutored by Greeks (as apparently you're no a true civilized Roman aristocrat if you don't own/pay for an expensive Greek tutor)

I'll concede that they probably didn't REALLY consider themselves Greek, that was just a poor exaggeration on my part

In medieval Europe some topics where just too risky for a person to write about (see Keagan Brewer's excellent overview on encrypted gynaecological or sexological texts in the time period the Voynich manuscript was written).

Yes, a lot of plants seem hard to identify, but so are other illustrations in other medieval manuscripts as well. And just think of a person copying an illustration from another source without any botanical background. Usually manuscripts were illuminated by specialists, but obviously including a third-party professional wouldn't have worked out if the author/copyist wanted to have it secret. So he or she went for the (less skilled) in-house option. The quality of the illustration is clearly way below the usual quality in herbaria of the time.

What also is often forgotten: Things vanish in hundreds of years. We just see a single manuscript here. No one knows if there used to be a couple of codices in this writing system and a small group of person was used to work with it.

https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3313/paper16.pdf

Yes, some papers elaborate on this, but the most recent studies on this (like the ones presented in November on the International Voynich conference) make clear that it is not some man-made gibberish.

It also makes absolutely no sense to spend such amount of time (and parchment) for such a hoax in the early 15th century. Who would be the audience? An early modern hoax made by alchemists to swindle Rudolph? This sounds imaginable, but not for the Voynich Manuscript which is without doubt a product of the early 15th century.