Comments: 24
Burksaurus [2019-07-05 01:03:53 +0000 UTC]
This is amazing.
π: 0 β©: 0
parisa108 [2017-11-08 13:46:13 +0000 UTC]
Woah!
π: 0 β©: 0
lavenderl [2016-01-20 04:26:17 +0000 UTC]
Wonderful as always! Β I especially like her confident expression. Β AllΒ those little details are exquisite.
π: 0 β©: 0
OberstJurten [2016-01-18 21:38:04 +0000 UTC]
Very beatiful!
π: 0 β©: 0
Sebistara [2016-01-18 17:32:56 +0000 UTC]
A real Girlfriend:
>Calls you to battle
>Texts you "Deus Vult!"
>Wants to unite the roman people under byzantine rule
>Gest jealous when you claim Rome is the hegemon of all roman people
>Is overproductive of the states in asia minor
>Loves you, but only if you love Byzanz
π: 0 β©: 0
aristi1982 [2016-01-17 19:47:52 +0000 UTC]
Very cool Gin!
π: 0 β©: 0
Yukow [2016-01-17 18:29:21 +0000 UTC]
Great drawing! She's really beautiful! I love the details!
π: 0 β©: 0
Wolfenstein2552 [2016-01-17 18:22:21 +0000 UTC]
More Byzantine artwork, I love it!!Β
π: 0 β©: 0
cpmcpm13 [2016-01-17 18:12:23 +0000 UTC]
Cool picture, well done
π: 0 β©: 0
jeandulin [2016-01-17 17:45:14 +0000 UTC]
As for me, Byzantine are no longer Roman since they adopted Christian religion: the cultural gap is too important, like Gaul and FranceΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
TheAstronomicon In reply to jeandulin [2016-01-17 17:50:25 +0000 UTC]
This is empirically incorrect. Byzantine is a modern historical notation not one that occurred in reality. It was never called the Byzantine Empire, its people were never called Byzantines. They were the Roman Empire and their citizens were Romans. Rome was Christian long before the fall of the West and the survival of the East. They are no less Roman because they were Nazarene.
π: 0 β©: 1
jeandulin In reply to TheAstronomicon [2016-01-17 18:11:06 +0000 UTC]
And French aren't Gaulish, nor their descendants as the republican mythology tends to say...
Roman identity was founded on the classic religion; the cultural mutations were too important, and yes, the Christian cult was the motor element of the mutation: it changed clothes, architecture, minds; even the language changed: fake Greek instead of Latin... Rome died, spiritually, in 391, or even with ConstantineΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
TheAstronomicon In reply to jeandulin [2016-01-17 18:43:00 +0000 UTC]
It's nice to see you've decided your Truth despite the wrongness of it. Carry on.
π: 0 β©: 1
jeandulin In reply to TheAstronomicon [2016-01-17 19:07:02 +0000 UTC]
Dude I study byzance in university so...
π: 0 β©: 1
TheAstronomicon In reply to jeandulin [2016-01-17 23:10:39 +0000 UTC]
I teach the classes, you can sit down now.
π: 0 β©: 1
jeandulin In reply to TheAstronomicon [2016-01-17 23:39:37 +0000 UTC]
Lol...
Im bored of the Christian theories that they continue Roman Empire while they're one of the causes of its downfall man...
end of the discussionΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
AMELIANVS In reply to jeandulin [2016-12-12 15:35:46 +0000 UTC]
You are clearly not interrested in unbiassed history at all.What you are doing are mere philosophical constructs not History.And mainly it shows massive disrespect to the Roman history and Romans themselves.
π: 0 β©: 1
jeandulin In reply to AMELIANVS [2016-12-12 16:22:42 +0000 UTC]
I would rather consider that we are opposed concerning historiography of Byzantine/late Roman Empire, as some call it: I personally consider that we should call Ancient Rome Roman Empire, until Theodosius-Justinian (yes I'm large in my chronology)
But medieval civilization, Christianized, Greek speaking and based in former Pars Orientalis should be called "Byzantine"
Even themeselves stopped to call themeselves "Romans" in early 1400's
I don't see where I "disrespect" Romans. Everything changed between years 300-600, Justinian was the last Latin speaking emperor Heraclius even changed "Imperator" to "Basileus", Rome was no more in Byzantine obedience after year 800
π: 0 β©: 1
AMELIANVS In reply to jeandulin [2016-12-14 18:34:16 +0000 UTC]
I will replay in detail when I get a time on it.
π: 0 β©: 1
jeandulin In reply to AMELIANVS [2016-12-14 19:39:27 +0000 UTC]
As you wish; but saying I'm not considering Byzantine civilisation as the actual Roman one (without breaking of continuity line) don't mean I consider them as no completely Romans. I consider in fact the Byzantine civilisation as the heir of Roman one, on some aspects, like Russians and a few others people (Greeks, for instance) would be Byzantine heirs (Russian tsar in years 1400 married a Byzantine imperial princess, and many traits of Byzantine civilisation traveled to Russian Empire, even their eagle is inherited of Byzantine)
π: 0 β©: 1
AMELIANVS In reply to jeandulin [2017-12-25 13:57:20 +0000 UTC]
Marriage to imperial Roman princes was nothing so significant at that point although Russians loved to use it to support their ideology of themselves being a "Third Rome" during reign of Tsars.But in reality there was nothing unique or exclusive on it just for the Russians only since last medieval Roman dynasty of Palaiologos family have it as prt of its survival policy that it married its female members to as many powers as possible in search of support and protective alliances.Almost all houses of Europe during high middleages had been given brides from Palaiologos dynasty and even some Muslim monarchs!Really nothing so exclusive on it.
π: 0 β©: 0