Where does the Eastern Roman Empire, the continuation of Constantine, based in Constantinople, and surviving (and sometimes thriving), for 1000 years after the fall of the city of Rome stand into all this?
That part of the empire DID NOT subject itself to the 'authority' of the guy with the funny white hat. Not at all in fact.
There's another part of 'the church' that you completely ignore. The eastern part. Very little to do with the western part.
They also fought the Khazarians, the Arabs, christianized the Russians & the slavs, held the Muslims at bay for a long time and eventually succumbed first to the crusades (one of the actual purposes of those things in fact), and then to the turks.
A 1000+ year, VERY powerful state entity is completely ignored in your narration of events. They need to fit into the story somehow. They have been intentionally brushed aside by the 'western' version of history, but that is obviously by design.
Where does the Eastern Roman Empire, the continuation of Constantine, based in Constantinople, and surviving (and sometimes thriving), for 1000 years after the fall of the city of Rome stand into all this?
They may have declared independence, but they were still ruled by the same group of people. Perhaps there was a real schism, perhaps they were controlled opposition. In either case, it doesn't change the fact that it was the same Aristocratic group that ruled over it (hint, the Papacy were not the real rulers of The Church either). Just because cousins fight (literally cousins, they are all related), doesn't mean it isn't the same family.
There's another part of 'the church' that you completely ignore.
I didn't "ignore" anything. You can't really explain the whole world all at once.
They also fought the Khazarians
The "Khazarians" were just a Scythian tribe.
the Russians & the slavs
the "Russians" and the "Slavs" were also just Scythian tribes (at that time).
the Muslims
The Muslim religion was a creation of The Church, specifically to have a controlled opposition. The "Crusades" were a contrivance between two entities controlled by the same source, just like almost all wars.
the turks
The Turks were just a tribe of the Scythians.
You really can't understand how anything works until you understand the erasure of the Scythian Empire, the largest Empire in the world since the Younger Dryas.
A 1000+ year, VERY powerful state entity is completely ignored in your narration of events
Again, not "ignoring," just, there's a whole lot of stuff.
Don't get so huffy. Please ask questions, I'm happy to answer and send you to sources. I can back up everything I am saying with substantial evidence (except the Crusades, that one takes way to much context, so please don't ask about that one). Trying to do all of that all at once ain't easy.
They have been intentionally brushed aside by the 'western' version of history, but that is obviously by design.
This I agree with. I think in no small part because they were much closer to the Scythians.
I would also like to note that you didn't actually address anything I said. You only addressed what I didn't talk about. I will assume that you agree with me then.
Where does the Eastern Roman Empire, the continuation of Constantine, based in Constantinople, and surviving (and sometimes thriving), for 1000 years after the fall of the city of Rome stand into all this?
That part of the empire DID NOT subject itself to the 'authority' of the guy with the funny white hat. Not at all in fact.
There's another part of 'the church' that you completely ignore. The eastern part. Very little to do with the western part.
They also fought the Khazarians, the Arabs, christianized the Russians & the slavs, held the Muslims at bay for a long time and eventually succumbed first to the crusades (one of the actual purposes of those things in fact), and then to the turks.
A 1000+ year, VERY powerful state entity is completely ignored in your narration of events. They need to fit into the story somehow. They have been intentionally brushed aside by the 'western' version of history, but that is obviously by design.
They may have declared independence, but they were still ruled by the same group of people. Perhaps there was a real schism, perhaps they were controlled opposition. In either case, it doesn't change the fact that it was the same Aristocratic group that ruled over it (hint, the Papacy were not the real rulers of The Church either). Just because cousins fight (literally cousins, they are all related), doesn't mean it isn't the same family.
I didn't "ignore" anything. You can't really explain the whole world all at once.
The "Khazarians" were just a Scythian tribe.
the "Russians" and the "Slavs" were also just Scythian tribes (at that time).
The Muslim religion was a creation of The Church, specifically to have a controlled opposition. The "Crusades" were a contrivance between two entities controlled by the same source, just like almost all wars.
The Turks were just a tribe of the Scythians.
You really can't understand how anything works until you understand the erasure of the Scythian Empire, the largest Empire in the world since the Younger Dryas.
Again, not "ignoring," just, there's a whole lot of stuff.
Don't get so huffy. Please ask questions, I'm happy to answer and send you to sources. I can back up everything I am saying with substantial evidence (except the Crusades, that one takes way to much context, so please don't ask about that one). Trying to do all of that all at once ain't easy.
This I agree with. I think in no small part because they were much closer to the Scythians.
I would also like to note that you didn't actually address anything I said. You only addressed what I didn't talk about. I will assume that you agree with me then.