Comments by "Iain Rendle" (@iainrendle7989) on "Charlemagne: Is This The Dark Age's Greatest King? | Charlemagne | Chronicle" video.

Or learn German.......as this was originally a German documentary, produced by a German company for a German TV company, operating and transmitting in Germany......but yes it should be in English, as everyone in the world speaks English!!!!!!!!
7
No it isn't, it was not even really named originally as it was more or less a trading station for the Greek colony that was set up by Byzas (if the folklore is accurate), though the romans made it more of a commercial entity......it then became the Capital of the Eastern Roman Empire......named after Constantine when he made the relative small trading town into his Capital in 330CE......you know that famous Roman Emporer. The people of Byzantium termed themselves Roman, even though they popularised a variant of Greek after the fall of the Roman empire as the language of the hierarchy and administration.
3
@sebe2255 If we are talking 'today' then it is not Greek either, it is Turk and other tribes of the steppes that migrated to Anatolia from the area known now as Turkistan, during the mongol empire expansion, and was to became citizens of the Ottoman Empire. My point was that it is not 'greek' but an amalgamation, as the Roman Empire absorbed and subsumed what was a greek colony, both its people and its culture, which Rome did brilliantly well and why it was such a powerful empire. However using your argument that it does not matter that its origins are Thracian, though it existed as such for 'hundreds of years', and became a roman city and was such for 'hundreds of years' then how is it that those before and after, though they controlled it for hundreds of years as well, are irrelevant and you just say it is a greek city. No it is not.....it was a Greco-Roman city.......Constantinople the capital of the Eastern 'Roman' Empire. Also from contemporary records of the people living at the time of its existance and through out 5th Century to 14th Century CE, they referred to themselves as Romans (not Greeks) and referred not to the Byzantium empire but the Roman Empire......or are the people that were alive at the time and those recording their own living history during this time wrong. Look up Romania 'of Rome' and you will read that the people of Constantinople and its territories used this terminology to describe themselves.....and this is recorded in the contemporary histories that survive. Next major look up the word Hellenism and see what it means, the ask an anthropologist how the greek culture of the ancient greek colonies of asia minor, including what would become Constantinople and compare to the culture of the empire from the mid 5th to mid 14th Century and see if the say it is Greek or Greco Roman or the further Hellenism after rise of the religeous city of Rome, which if you are aware of such things have similarities but have much more differences and divergence. Up until the early part of the 6th Century, Latin was the main administrative and language of Constantinople, but with the fractous relationship with Rome and the catholic church, as well as the Holy Roman Empire (Franks snd Germanic rulers who constantly controlled Rome and the Pope), then started the Hellenization of the city and state to create a separate identity of the eastern roman empire (Romania). Koine becoming the official languge, though Latin was still used for quite a while by the normal people, in 610....or at least the first surviving official document is thought to be from that date. So in a nutshell....orginally Thracian, then a greek colony, then a roman territory, then the Roman Empire split, then Constantine merged the empire again and built New Rome, the empire fell finally, Constantinople still classed itself the Roman Empire and continued, The Catholic Rome arose, both wanted to take over the mantle of authority and control of the original Roman Empire, Constantinople broke further from Rome and gradualky Hellenization of the City/Empire was used to separate the two contenders for what was Rome until the Ottoman put paid to any further issue.
3
Or the viewer should realise that this is all the documentaries rolled together in to one and if they have watched the individual documentaries that have already been published it is probably not very wise to watch it in the longer format, but not sure if need to dislike!!!!!
3
@darkwitchofthenorth5785 It was never Latin......whatever that is other than a Language!!!!! The Romans took over and adopted much of ancient greek philosophies, education, culture, idiologies as well as their colonies and territories, ie Asia Minor (which included the original town and surrounding lands that would become Constantinople), Egypt, the Levant etc.
2
@darkwitchofthenorth5785 Well done you can copy and paste from Wikipedia......therefore you should of read it lasted for 57 years, but a bit more searching on google would give you more and greater information to make an informed comment. However that aside there is no such thing as Latin, other than the language, which derives from the peoples and area that later became Rome. What you are referring to is the adjective of the word latin as applied in this case is 'of or relating to the Roman Catholic Church' and if you read the rest of the Wikipedia post and information in the Encyclopedia Britannica then you would see that intention was to make it a separate Roman Empire (other than the Frankish/Germanic one already in existance) and subject to control of Rome with a Catholic emperor to counter both the influence and power of the Holy Roman Empire (which had its foot on the Papalcies neck) and of the Eastern Orthodox church and its Emperor. Usage of the word is the same as Italy, Spain, Portugal etc being termed Latin countries.....they are not Latin but rather their languages are said to derive from the Latin language. Remember the original people that spoke latin and built Constantinople were Romans, not Latins. The heirarchy of the people living in the city were of Roman and Greece descent until the fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, and never termed themselves Latins. The Flemish kings of 'the latin empire' termed themselves french or frankish and not latin. Also if you read any of the contempory histories of the time there is no mention of Latin Empire, because it was a constructed term used by renaissance historians much later in history to distinguish that period of history of the Roman Empire of the East or the Western Roman Empire, same as Byzantine Empire.....there was no such thing in the contemporary histories, as again a constructed term later in history. So other than fact of it being 'of the roman catholic church' then latin had nothing to do with Constantinople because the kings enthroned were from Flanders and spoke French and not latin. So I repeat what I said initially and add to that Latin in an Uncountable Noun and the term you used it in an adjective form which is different. Hope this help........
2
Speaking Latin had nothing to do with Christianity, I learnt Latin but that does not make me a Roman Catholic, my native language is English and that did not make me Anglican.....so that is just stupid to link the two and make such an untenable comment. The Romans worshipped a huge pantheon of gods before Constantine and even after him ie change of main religion to Christianity, to which they worshipped in their native language ie Latin. So how does that fit in to your argument, are those other beliefs christian as the were worshipped in Latin, because using your last comment that is exactly what should be the case, because they were worshipped for centuries in Latin. Sorry but your whole basis is incredibly flawed and does not hold up to even a modicum of challenge, so could I suggest that you do greater research in to these areas (and do not just copy stuff from Wikipedia because that is not the ultimate source of knowledge), as this will allow you to possess a more rounded knowledge/awareness and help you to understand causality and how it fits into events and history. Just a suggestion remember that writen history is never 100% factual but always inline with the view and slant of the Author, but also names, terms, social view used by future historians is inline with their current thinking and those of their contempories of the day, which colours or taints much of these texts. This can be seen by how much writen history has been challenged and forced to be re-writen in light of more authoritive research (which will be challenged itself in years to come) and proven to be inaccurate or flawed.
2
@darkwitchofthenorth5785 Sorry but where in any of my comments did I say any such thing but it shows the point that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.....and you have proven that in abundance. You are using terms that were constructed by historian well after the events to hang a name on a specific period, event etc and to not realise this makes your arguments inaccurate and lazy. Three examples 'World War 1 was called the Great War until 1939 and World War 2 was not used until after Sept 1945, or going further back the Elizabethan age was coined several hundred years after her reign.......did they call the 100 year war at the end of that period or the war of the spanish succession.....they are all made up terms by later historians and nothing to do with contemporsry writing. So in a nutshell you cannot use a epoch termed in this case 'Latin Empire' many years after its end, and not in any histories or writing in the period of its existance and try and use this as your argument that Constantinople was 'latin'. Maybe I should teach history, but on what is shown as your understanding and knowledge of the subject then you got an 'F' and a big red line through most of what you wrote because it is rubbish.
2
@darkwitchofthenorth5785 Sorry but engage your brain......because something is given a title by someone in a history book writen after the event does not mean that title was what was used at the time that they are writing about. As an example Native Americans never termed themselves 'Native Americans' for 2 reasons....1 They did not have a word for 'Native' 2 There was no suvh thing as America and certainly they did not have the word America in their tongue, this is certainly the case when the history books termed them Red Indians......oh look the terminology has changed and the history books have been changed to the new terminology but still not correct. Oh yes and if you read the histories of the Spanish, French and British colonialists the terms were different again. The 'Latin Empire' only existed as a description or terminology well after the period that it refers to and therefore should not be used in the way that you did i.e. the city was latin......because the word has never been used on this basis...... However I am now bored trying to enlighten the unenlightened or to bring understanding to those that cannot think for themselves but regurgitate wikipedia as if that is their knowledge.......sad indictment of the modern world.
2
@darkwitchofthenorth5785 Please highlight exactly when I contradicted myself as I am certainly open to correction and also when I made out that you invented the terminology 'the latin empire'. I did pull you up on your usage of the word 'latin' as refered to Constantinople, because it is an assertion that is inaccurate and erroneous.
2
@darkwitchofthenorth5785 my god am I not writing in plain english......read what I wrote. It is a made up terminology by people (historians etc) writing about an epoch some 400 years plus after the event, and made up a terminology to label a particular period of history. The contempory accounts ie the information writen down by people alive at the time or close to the date of living eye witnesses make no reference to 'the latin empire'. There are no records from that period in any of the Vatican records that mention anything termed 'the latin empire' and only one reference from the 20th century when it says ' the period referred to The Latin Empire'........so even the Catholic church which it was part of that 'empire' has no contempory record of any such terminology. It's that simple enough for you to understand.......it is a made up terminology, same as 'the tudor period' 'the plantagenants' 'the georgian period' - the people living at the time of these epochs did not refer to those periods by those names....they were all made up terminologies by people who lived hundreds of years after the event.? Best example the reference to the British as Anglo-Saxon or the period as Anglo-Saxon......no such thing existed and no such people existed. First reference was in something called the 'Anglo-Saxon Chronological' writen many centuries after the period it is supposedly a history of. There was never anyone called Anglo-Saxons, there were the Saxons, Angles, Jutes, and other germanic tribes who immigrated/invaded the eastern and southern parts of England, but also included Friesens, Celts etc within those lands. It is a made up name used for a period of time by someone writing later in history that wants to put a name to something.......so on this basis I am termed Anglo-Saxon, but my DNA shows that I am actually more Celtic and Scandinavian (74%), and not Anglo-Saxon. Hope this helps you to understand that your statement that Constantinople was 'latin' is inaccurate because there were no people called 'latin' and the later use of a made up name for a specific epoch should not be used as any justification for wrongly terming the city 'latin'........it is the same as terming Istanbul or the Ottoman empire as the Muslim empire.....
2
@sebe2255 Please actually read what I wrote.....I stated that its origins were a greek colony, then taken over by the Romans and expanded into a large trading centre city and then became New Rome and later Constantinople. This was nothing different to most of Asia Minor......though started off as greek colonies, were subsumed into the Roman Empire, as were the Greek city states themeseves some 500-600 years before Constantine and the culture was also taken over and Romanised. Little of what was ancient greek remained but rather became what anthopologists term Greco Roman, as it mutated into a polymorph culture, and this in essence what the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire became.
2
@sebe2255 Did I say different, please read what I wrote. However if you want to go back in history then you should term it Thracian as they were the original peoples to construct a town/port/trading post/city there and no the Thracians were not Greek, same as the Macedonians were not greek. If you look at the architecture, the administration, structure, laws, the heirarchy of Constantinople/Byzantium then you will see that main influence is from the Roman Empire control and involvement......and main aspects of the culture was more of roman origin than the original greek colonisation, though some parts certainly remained, but if this was from the original colonisation or the subsuming of the majority of the greek culture by Rome in the preceeding 600+ years prior to it becoming the New Rome is open to different opinions.
2
@darkwitchofthenorth5785 Tell me where I wrote any such thing.....what I pointed out was the fact that you termed the city 'Latin' and this is an error, as the noun Latin refers to the Language, also there were no such people as 'Latins' at this time as the original tribe that were part of those thst founded Rome and became Romans were from the area Latium, not asia minor, and spoke 'Latin'. The term 'the Latin Empire' was first used in the 16th century CE (400 years after it existed), as was the term Byzantium and were not contemporary terms i.e. used at that specific time. Instead do a search for Frankokratia, Romaniae or Romania (which was a commoner term for their empire 'of Rome') and you will finally understand what I was saying all along........ie a made up name some 400 years after the event should not be then applied to the city or the populous as the basis is erroneous and flawed......ie the city was never 'Latin' because the term 'Latin Empire' was invented 400 years after the event and at the time of the event no such term existed by the people ruling the Empire or the people living there.......at any time before or after.
2
@sebe2255 For FS that is not what I said.......it has nothing to do with Greece coming under the control of Roman, however only someone born in Rome of roman ancestory was allowed to be termed Roman, so no Greek would call himself a Roman. Look up Hellenization and Constantinople, and you will see that the city adopted the culture and language so as to differentiate the 'eastern roman empire' and the Rome of the Catholic church (and western kings of the Holy Roman Empire) after the animosity between the two parts of the original empire over the previous 100 years plus. Prior to circa 610 CE the official and administrative language was Latin. Therefore Constantinople was subject to Hellenization and becoming Greek, rather than being Greek in its entirety, even the name Byzantium derives from this.
2
@sebe2255 Simple because in the contempory writing of the people living in the empire at the period between 330CE through to 1453CE referred to themselves as 'Roman' and not 'Greek'. So if they term themselves as Roman and it is in scripts and texts writen through this period by the citizens living there, and official documents from them to other states throughout the levant, egypt, europe and the muslim caliphates......who do you think is right? Them terming themselves Roman for 1100 years or you terming them Greek, without any ratoonal provided or evidence......it is very simple!!!!!!!
2
@darkwitchofthenorth5785 Latin never meant Christanity.......where do you get such drivel from......buy a dictionary!!!!!!!!
1
@sebe2255 Stop being a moron.....look up Hellenization and what it means, and then reference Constantinople with Hellenization and then finally you will learn the difference between them being Greek by heredity or by choice. Yes the language used in 1100CE was Koine, but I am not sure what relevance that is? I have not said that the area which Constantinople was built was not part of the Ionian colonisation, which is recorded and documented. However Constantinople was constructed by the Romans, whilst the area was under the control of the Roman empire, whether the people of the area could trace their ancestry back to Greece or any of the other group of people that colonised that area, even after the Ionians.
1
@sebe2255 Stop talk cuk. Constantinople was a Roman city created by Constantine, a Roman Emperor, and initial named as New Rome as the imperial cspital of the Roman Empire, and later capital of what we know as the Eastern Roman Empire, and after the fall of the western roman empire.....the capital of the roman empire. The area on which it stood may have been a Ionian colony, and the town destroyed to make way for the city was from this period but the control of the area by Greece was centuries before and the had land taken over by many other cultures before Rome conquered the lands. Look up the histories of Asia Minor and Anatolia and you will see the different conquests and migration through out this area....including the European side. In regard to someone being biased or rather poorly read on the subject then I would suggest you do a search for 'Hellenization in the Byzantium Empire' 'Hellenism and the shaping of the Byzantine Empire' 'A Hellenic Alternative: The Emergence of Greekness in Byzantium' 'Hellenism in Byzantium - Cambridge University Press'. Or are all these academically recognised authors wrong and you are right......please point me to the academic paper that you authored that justifies your argument and premise, or any other authority work of academia value that supports your view. Then you might see who is biased and blinkered or just out right wrong in your supposition and argument. Byzantine Empire is a made up term from the 19th century germany.....the people of thatbempire termed it 'the Roman Empire' and themselves as Romans, and this can be seen (yes in original languages of Latin and Koine, depending when scribed) in the texts still available to be read in the Vatican Archives, the British Museum, the Smithsonian museum and others, but those contemporary writers in Constantinople were also wrong.....according to you.....they were greek. You also de realise that Greece derives from a Roman word, so even the civilisation you talk about is named from a latin word ie Roman ......just an amusing bit of information.
1
@sebe2255 Sorry but what is 'stop coping' in reference to and if I am 'coping' to what do you believe that I have to 'cope' to. Also I am not a 'bruv' to anyone that I am aware and not even my actual brother would term me 'bruv'. You do realise what a complete and utter moronic idiot you now sound....the Eastern 'ROMAN' empire......the clue is in the name 'Roman' the term used by Dioceses initially to describe the area of the divided roman empire. The people of Constantinople never refered to themselves as the Greek Empire or Hellenic Empire or Ionian Empire or Athenian Empire and certainly not the Byzantine Empire......it was the eastern Roman empire, and then after fall of the western empire element just 'the roman empire'. The text written by those living there at the time referred to themselves as 'Romans' right through to its capture by the Ottoman turks, this is not open to a debate it is in black and white (well actually different colours) it is undeniable fact or were they wrong as well......just asking for a friend!!!!!! Look up the words 'Imperium Romanus' and 'Rhómania' which are found on many documents from Constantinople referring to themselves and the area they controlled, let alone how they viewed themselves. Even one of the titles used by last emperor before its demise of yhe empire was Caesar. So please do yourself a favour and learn how to do research to actually learn past a grade 6 education......there is something called the internet, google and even wikipedia is a starting point which holds a huge treasure of knowledge. You can even use the 'dark web' because orginally it was a repository for universities and education centres to hold the huge content of academic papers, thesis etc writen over the years, and held in digital format. You will amaze yourself that you can raise your standing of knowledge and understand above ignoramus, possibly.
1
@sebe2255 You are proof of the decline of the education system and the intellectual regression across the world, and epitomise the de-evolution of the human race over the last 25 years.
1