To answer your questions " We are always thought that the West wanted to bring back the Roman empire and they missed it a lot, but how can you say that and think about invading or destroying the Eastern part of it?"

The idea that the Western states wanted to restore the Roman Empire is a complex one. It's true that the Western states did idealize the Roman Empire and sought to emulate its political and cultural achievements. However, their actions towards the Byzantine Empire, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, were often motivated by more practical considerations such as political power, economic gain and religious differences. The Byzantine Empire was seen as a rival to the Western states, and their efforts to invade or conquer it were driven by the desire to expand their territories and influence. This does not mean that the Western states did not acknowledge the Eastern Roman Empire as the true descendants of Rome, it's more that their actions were driven by other factors.

Additionally, the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire had grown increasingly distinct over time, with different cultures, languages, and religions, which further contributed to the Western states' view of the Byzantine Empire as a separate entity. The idea of "restoring" the Roman Empire likely referred more to the idea of re-establishing a powerful, centralized state in the Western parts of the former empire. The actions of the western states towards the Byzantine Empire were driven by a combination of practical considerations and the idealized image of the Roman Empire, rather than a genuine desire to restore the Eastern Roman Empire as it was.

Sadly, slavery is ancient. Slavery has been know in every century in which the conquest and invasion of one nation has overtaken another.

The horrors of slavery are quite acceptable to the Biblical god. American slave owners used Leviticus 25:44-46 to justify owning other human beings.

>“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Dr. Henry Louis Gates discussed slavery among African tribes in his documentary on Africa and was highly criticized for mentioning it. It shouldn't suprise anyone though. It seems no culture is immune to this disgusting practice. American Indigenous tribes also held captured enemy war slaves long before the Europeans showed up. Humans are horrible to each other sometimes.

[removed]

The ancient Greeks themselves considered the Trojans (of the Trojan War era) to be Greeks. Dionysius of Halicarnassus even stated that Troy was ‘as Greek as any true Greek city’ (something like that; I don’t remember the precise wording). This belief is displayed in the Iliad too, where the Trojans are presented as having the same language, culture, and religion as the Greeks.

Obviously this doesn’t fit the reality of the Mycenaean era, since the Greeks only settled Troy from c. 900 BCE. But then, plenty of chronological information about the Trojan War actually places it post-900 BCE (like the evidence from Ctesias).

What? By who? The Trojans/Wilusians were more closely related to the Luwianians and Hittites than the Minoan or Mycenaean. Linguisticly, religiously, and culturally they are in no way considered to be Hellenic.

The US government was of two minds about indigenous people. They'd establish treaties and then break them as the treaties became inconvenient.

Nobody could stand in the way of land speculators. This is what's behind Andrew Jackson's ( apocryphal ) "Mr Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it" concerning Worchester v. Georgia.

The Mexican government could declare El Norte theirs but they really couldn't hold it. By the time railroads could be built it was too late for Mexico to pursue claims. Even then; fly over the border now. You see settlements that seem logistically untenable.

The incredible thing about the Texicans is that they simply refused to admit defeat against the Commanche. S. C. Gwynne's "Empire of the Summer Moon" outlines the persistent pattern of this phenomenon of memory loss in detail. There's some credibility to the theory of Walker Colt also having a hand in subjugating the Comanche. The Rangers really were hired killers first and foremost. This continued through the 20th century, with Frank Hamer leading the team that assassinated Bonnie and Clyde.

Looking for sources on the All Russian Military Union (ROVs) in South America. Cant seem to find anything on English Portuguese or Spanish about their activities

Though the Trojans themselves were considered to be Greek.

My primary issue with all of this is that Eastern Rome was the direct political continuity of the empire, it wasn't a successor state, it wasn't the "empire of the Greeks", it was the direct line from Rome and onwards. Using a term that didn't even exist during the time of the empire just seems wrong, and frankly a little disrespectful.

I wonder why I couldn’t find it anywhere else. Maybe it’s because I was using google to do the search? Anyway, that’s neat stuff, thanks for the assistance! I got curious after a discussion elsewhere and decided to go looking for some more info that led me to the Syrian depiction and later the aforementioned linked image. It looked like a canvas painting to me almost, since it has what appears to be a name at the bottom.

How did the Germans recover from the capture of part of the Hindenburg Line after the Nivelle Offensive (1917)? Was that a major issue for them?

Good question! I almost forgot about the whole thing till I got taxed for not voting last year, had the fine framed and everything :)

Cost more than the fine which sucks though.

Well played Mr.Newton.

This argument almost argues that the United States is destined to fail as well. Executive orders are able to be made by the President, and while they can't single-handedly dissolve the legislature, depending on the nature and purview of SCOTUS, executive orders can basically be whatever they want them to be. The American constitution also seems just as difficult if not more difficult to amend than in the Weimar Republic (given our own fractured nature and pluralistic voting system). Would you argue that the U.S. has inherent problems, making its collapse inherent in the absence of major reforms? And if not, what would you say are the main differences between the likelihood of the 2 democratic systems' odds of failure?

I meant Nazi Golden years. Or the "Good Years" who many who lived in the Third Reich call the mid 1930s. All associated with the economic prosperity during that period.

Paper size was very variable, so there's no firm answer. However for a written-only journal it would probably be an octavo or smaller binding simply for compactness' sake and ease of use without a writing surface. The sizes would have varied, but an octavo was approximately the height and width of a mass market paperback (thickness, of course, varied). For anyone not carrying all their own gear (sailors, aristocrats with porters, etc), they would have wanted bigger pages, especially for maps and sketches, so it would have been about the size of a modern sheet of printer/typewriter paper.

One good example are the various notebooks carried by the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804-1806. They carried a number of 4in x 6in notebooks (approx 10cm x 15cm) with many loose pages. accompanying.

I mean, borders are a bit complicated

Point remains that we have a general assimilation of more and more provincial elites until we have Roman citizenship apply to a wide breadth of people.

At the same time the title emperor to the Roman was never the same exclusive title it became in the Middle Ages and later so someone holding a title of imperium did not mean it needed to be someone from a specific bloodline. They always saw it in a more complex political organization, that is why we have emperors seemingly splitting the empire. To them this was obviously an office of high prestige, but it was an office with administrative and military power, not some blood right. And they never saw this as breaking the Roman Empire apart, but making administration or military organization easier.

A reverse image search on TinEye shows that it's indeed a fresco from the Nunziatella catacombs in Rome.

However, Wikimedia Commons shows two images from the Nunziatella catacombs and seems to label both of them as frescos of Jesus.

The Quora user's errs, though, in putting a date of c. 3rd century on the frescoes (no one seems that certain and the range could be anywhere from the 3rd to 6th century) and saying that's it definitely the "original depiction of Jesus". There are other depictions of Jesus definitely from the 3rd century such as a slab showing the adoration of the Magi and a fresco from the Catacomb of Callixtus. One of the oldest known depictions of Jesus is actually a painting from a church in Syria that is dated to around 232 CE.

[removed]

[deleted]

[deleted]

It's funny, but there were no emperors exactly from Greece. where roman emperors were born

I have a painting I can’t identify, perhaps someone here can assist? The claim is it’s from Rome and a depiction of Christ as detailed in a Quora post. Sadly I can’t find a better version of the image anywhere.Link

With no relevance to the structure of the Roman Empire as a political Entity.

The entire point is: Yes, Cultural differences persisted, including between Illyria and Africa, Africa and Italy, Gaul and Spain, Spain and Greece.

And emperors and other high officials came from all those places.

The ethnic groups may have been mixed. But linguistic and cultural differences persisted.

Illyria, for example, was Latin-speaking.