Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Overly Sarcastic Productions"
channel.
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith.
Aeschylus' goal was not to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but to promote Athen's legal sistem where, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail. When the votes of the judges are equally divided, Athena ALWAYS votes for the defendant.
BTW According to Euripides' version, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerellis9097 I'm sure that thinking "but we slaughtered just a few Venetians!" had been a great consolation for the citizens of Constantinopole during the sack, but the Venetians felt to be touched enough, and that's all that counts.
Sorry, but law and moral have nothing to do with this matter. There was nothing lawful or moral in the massacre, there was nothing lawful or moral in the various coup d'etat that made the Byzantine policies toward latin merchants wavy and unreliable.The massacre of the latins simply demonstrated to the Venetians that the Byzantine Empire was an unstable and unpredictable commercial partner, and that, if they wanted to carry on their business without being at the mercy of some mad emperor, they had to do it through THEIR ports and THEIR fortresses, not asking for permission. In the end, it had been the right move, so yes, the massacre, for the byzantines, backfired a little.
So ehe Empire of Nicaea, well after the Crusade, was able to defeat some Turks badly, but it's direct descendant was beaten by the Ottomans. That doesn't seem to indicate a responsability of the Crusade in the fall of the Empire. That without the 4th Crusade the Byzantine Empire would have been able to repel the Turks is only an ucronia one can choose to believe, but it's narrative, not reality.There is no proof or hint that, without the Crusade, the Empire would have not decayed, or exhausted itself in border disputes, or internal struggles.
Again, "legal"? In 1204? All the legality that was needed in international affairs, was that the stronger one took what he wanted. The Byzantines had never fought an expansionist war? The Byzantine Empire had been unable to hold its possessions in front of the Crusaders, and so had rightly been divided between them.
1
-
1
-
@tylerellis9097 Sorry , but the statement that, without the 4th crusade, Byzantium would have not been conquered by the Ottomans, a thing happened two and half centuries later is your, not mine, and you have not proved that. Is only a think you like to believe.
Sorry, but that's an idiocy. Have you dreamed about it last night? Who decides what "powers" have the right to put their mouth in the question? You? Who recognised the right of the Byzantines to conquer Gotic kingdom, or the Vandal one? And besides, The "powers" were perfectly fine in dividing among themself the Byzantine Empire, so it was fair game, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerellis9097 Sorry, but appealing to a supposed "common sense" in science is not relevant. As already said, the statement that, without the 4th crusade, Byzantium would have not been conquered by the Ottomans, a thing happened two and half centuries later is your, not mine. Your the statement, your the burden of the proof, and you have not proved that. Is only a think you like to believe. If you think what you said is "proof" then you simply don't know what a "proof" is.
The Byzantine Empire already lost Anatolia, and big and small parts of it, first than the 4th Crusade. There is no proof that the Byzantine trade had been damaged by the Venetians after the 4th Crusade more that it would have been without it. The Venetian fleet had been stronger than the Byzantine one since well before the 4th crusade.
1
-
1
-
Actually that's exclusively Ovid's version of the mith. He invented the whole rape and curse thing because he was writing a book called "metamorphosys", that was about shape-shifting miths (so he needed a shape-shifting, and, since the book was about changes, he didn't care about changing the miths themselves) and because he loved to depict autorities in a bad light, so, in his versions of the miths, gods always play with mortals without caring abouth them.
In the original Greek mith, Medusa was simpy born a monster, one of the three gorgons (along with Stheno and Euryale), that were daughters of Echidna and Typhon. Ironically, all three had the same aspect and powers, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
Aeschylus' turned it into an advertising for Athen's legal system. Even if the goal was not much to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but that, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1