In Which A Moron Dismisses A Thousand Years of History

Olivia Munn dismissing the entire history of the Byzantine Empire as a bunch of lazy decadent oafs who contributed nothing to humanity. I have only ever vaguely heard of her before but I can only conclude that she is a moron who took a five minute skim of the Wikipedia entry for Byzantium and proceeded to dismiss a thousand years of them holding on against nearly-constant onslaught from all sides while retaining and preserving the knowledge and cultural legacy of Rome.

I think it was meant to be a joke...

It may be comedy but it wasn't funny. There is stuff you could make fun of them for (Iconoclasm and the various splits over minor differences in doctrine, for example) but saying they spent a thousands years getting fat is just ignorant bashing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29

Better or worse than?

Better, I guess. Yay, somebody is worse?

Oh, come off it. Munn is obviously making jokes, in particular they are aimed at gamers (obvious since it is on Attack of the Show). In most grand strategy games set during the medieval era, the Byzantines usually get destroyed relatively quickly (except CKII, instead they just have a civil war every few months).

Panzersharkcat wrote:

It may be comedy but it wasn't funny. There is stuff you could make fun of them for (Iconoclasm and the various splits over minor differences in doctrine, for example) but saying they spent a thousands years getting fat is just ignorant bashing.

The joke, whether its funny or not, is up to the person listening. I thought it was hilarious and I am a history major who is currently taking some classes that touch on the Byzantine Empire

Heraklea wrote:

Oh, come off it.  Munn is obviously making jokes, in particular they are aimed at gamers (obvious since it is on Attack of the Show).  In most grand strategy games set during the medieval era, the Byzantines usually get destroyed relatively quickly (except CKII, instead they just have a civil war every few months).

Did you see the hilarity on the link I posted, Hera?

Heraklea wrote:

Oh, come off it.  Munn is obviously making jokes, in particular they are aimed at gamers (obvious since it is on Attack of the Show).  In most grand strategy games set during the medieval era, the Byzantines usually get destroyed relatively quickly (except CKII, instead they just have a civil war every few months).

Isn't that just about every empire in CK2?

Heraklea wrote:

Oh, come off it.  Munn is obviously making jokes, in particular they are aimed at gamers (obvious since it is on Attack of the Show).  In most grand strategy games set during the medieval era, the Byzantines usually get destroyed relatively quickly (except CKII, instead they just have a civil war every few months).

Yeah, and she's coming off as a complete airhead talking out of her ass when she's doing it. Both she and the game designers doing that need to get smacked over the head with a history book. They lasted a thousand years. They should not be easy, especially if any of those games pit you up against somebody like Basil the Bulgar-Slayer or Heraclius.

Being an airhead and talking out your ass is the whole point to jokes. CK 2 is a SIMULATION of medieval politics. The AI isn't sophisticated enough to think like a human, if they were then we would officially be capable of inventing sentient AI. Besides, even though their joke about the Byzantine Empire was just a joke a lot of what they said was alluding to some kind of truth. The Byzantine Empire after Justinian could never really extend their power beyond their current borders until their death in 1453. The muslim Caliphate wiped out Byzantium's holdings in the middle east and even kicked them out of Sicily which they never recovered. They got smashed at the Battle of Manzikert which led them to begging for Medieval Europe to help which they did and the Crusades distracted the muslims for around 300 years. When the Venetians and Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople the Byzantine Empire simply existed and that was about it until the Ottomans conquered them in the siege of Constantinople in 1453. While the video was just a joke there are a lot of half-truths in there. Next time before you open your mouth and make an ass out of yourself actually watch the video with an objective mindset then criticize

*grumble grumble* Accidentally erased some of the stuff I typed up. Bleh. Whatever. No real point in arguing about the specific defeats Byzantium suffered.

Sacae wrote:

Being an airhead and talking out your ass is the whole point to jokes.

It depends on the joke.

Sacae wrote:

CK 2 is a SIMULATION of medieval politics. The AI isn't sophisticated enough to think like a human, if they were then we would officially be capable of inventing sentient AI.

That was in response to him saying the Byzantines get destroyed quickly in most games than a specific criticism of CK2. I don't really do RTS games (I am utterly incapable of fighting my way out of a wet paper bag in them). I was commenting more on how I find it odd they'd get destroyed quickly when they were one of the longest-lasting empires in history.

Sacae wrote:

Besides, even though their joke about the Byzantine Empire was just a joke a lot of what they said was alluding to some kind of truth. The Byzantine Empire after Justinian could never really extend their power beyond their current borders until their death in 1453. The muslim Caliphate wiped out Byzantium's holdings in the middle east and even kicked them out of Sicily which they never recovered. They got smashed at the Battle of Manzikert which led them to begging for Medieval Europe to help which they did and the Crusades distracted the muslims for around 300 years. When the Venetians and Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople the Byzantine Empire simply existed and that was about it until the Ottomans conquered them in the siege of Constantinople in 1453. While the video was just a joke there are a lot of half-truths in there. Next time before you open your mouth and make an ass out of yourself actually watch the video with an objective mindset then criticize

I did try to watch objectively. It just rubbed me the wrong way because even if there were half-truths in the video, such as the many defeats Byzantium did suffer, it was horribly inaccurate, overall. It just sounds like it was written by somebody who skimmed Wikipedia for five minutes and went on break. I will admit to being unfair to her, however. I don't think the hosts write their own material so it's not exactly her fault. She's only paid to read the stuff, after all.

@Burn: Funny...sad...incredibly scary. I have some mixed feeling.

@Pan: The Byzantines were an impressive empire during the early middle ages, but during the high and late middle ages when most of those games are set they were a shadow of their former glory. During the second millennium, most of their history was one loss after another. It's great they were able to last for a thousand years and all, but their history is not as amazing as you think. I do agree that she probably doesn't write her own stuff. She is not a comedian, though she has appeared a few times on the Daily Show.

Heraklea wrote:

@Pan: The Byzantines were an impressive empire during the early middle ages, but during the high and late middle ages when most of those games are set they were a shadow of their former glory.  During the second millennium, most of their history was one loss after another.  It's great they were able to last for a thousand years and all, but their history is not as amazing as you think.  I do agree that she probably doesn't write her own stuff.  She is not a comedian, though she has appeared a few times on the Daily Show.

Yeah. They truly started going downhill permanently after Basil the Bulgar-Slayer's death. They peaked again under him and then his immediate successors were morons who squandered it all.

Heraklea wrote:

@Burn: Funny...sad...incredibly scary.  I have some mixed feeling.

I think it's hilarious .

Those Renaissance thinkers were quite devious you know, and quite capable of making everything about "ancient" history up. Also, the Egyptians and Greeks are pretty much the same empire. You can tell by the pyramids.

What's scary for me is that there are people in our government who think this is actually accurate. Such delusional people should not be allowed in a ballot box, let alone in congress.

Yeah, this is one reason why I shifted to favoring monarchies over republics if we must have a state. (One of the others is that I believe hereditary monarchies tend to be less short-sighted than republics because a king can pass his realm down to his heirs while presidents and elected officials only care for their next term of office. Kings therefore have more incentive to pursue more far-sighted policies than presidents do.)

It has its downsides to, like kings constantly partying or being insane.

That's what regents are for. When King George III went nuts, the Prince of Wales took over his duties. Monarchs who went nuts also tended to do their nuttiness on a smaller scale. As an example, Nero was cruel only toward his family and the Christians, who were still a tiny minority. There are exceptions, like Genghis Khan's destruction of the Khwarazmian Empire, but the post-revolutionary period (from after 1776 or so) was far bloodier than the monarchical age. We can name more atrocities by kings because the full-blown democratic age didn't really take off until World War I. Between 1776 and 1914 could be considered its transitional period where monarchies were emasculated further and further. With six thousand years of history versus a mere two to three hundred, it's going to be easier to name cruel kings. Treading over old ground from a different thread, though. A quick read on this stuff if you care.

Still though there are way too many opportunities for corruption and ineffective government for a monarchy to be effective in the long run. Also unlike the period that was a prime for monarchs people can read now. Literacy is no longer a single digit number like it was in medieval europe. Things like social media, literacy, and ideals of freedom would kill an American monarchy within the year

Wait... are you making the claim that Democracies are effective and efficient, and that the literate masses make good political decisions?

Come now, governments are hotbeds of corruption by nature. Pan is expressing the belief that monarchs have more of an incentive not to let stupid short-term goals cloud their judgement. I would rather have a monarch manage social security than a term-limited president as well.

I think that the best form of government (if I am compelled to accept one) would be something more like a multi-party parliamentary system with a permanent or semi-permanent head of state. (To combine the best of both worlds, essentially.)

I'm saying if democracies are done correctly they can be. Stop people and corporations from funding campaigns and make voting compulsory and it will be much better than it currently is. Notice I said better not perfect

Compulsory voting! I shudder to think for whom the votes would be cast.

Personally I'm an anarchist.

Look at it this way compulsory voting will at least mean we know exactly where most people's opinion lies and hopefully this will mean some of them will actually turn the news on to at least know who the candidates are and maybe, a very BIG maybe, they will keep watching and become at least marginally informed voters. Oh and the Electoral College needs to go