if your saying offmap china gets overrun by "korean" or "japanese" armies who then start invading the rest of the actual map
id support that
but only if the koreans were kitsune, and the japanese catgirls, because the animal kingdoms already seem to trigger so many, adding in "anime waifus" would make their heads explode
You mean like this?
I haven’t been in church for a while but I’m quite sure in christian lore he never bleed into the holy grail at the last supper. He shared his wine with his fanclub not his blood.
Extra Heresy:
It was in fact that, but first, transubstantiation says that the wine turned into his blood unless you're a filthy heretic, and second in subsequent legends Joseph of Arimathea picked up the cup after the last supper and used it to pick up the blood after crucifixion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Grail
In the late 12th century,
Robert de Boron wrote in
Joseph d'Arimathie that the Grail was
Jesus's vessel from the
Last Supper, which
Joseph of Arimathea used to catch
Christ's blood at the
Crucifixion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Arimathea#Holy_Grail
Since the 2nd century, a mass of legendary detail has accumulated around the figure of Joseph of Arimathea in addition to the New Testament references. Joseph is referenced in apocryphal and non-canonical accounts such as the
Acts of Pilate, a text often appended to the medieval
Gospel of Nicodemus and
The Narrative of Joseph, and mentioned in the works of
early church historians such as
Irenaeus (125–189),
Hippolytus (170–236),
Tertullian (155–222) and
Eusebius(260–340), who added details not found in the canonical accounts.
Francis Gigot, writing in the
Catholic Encyclopedia, states that "the additional details which are found concerning him in the apocryphal
Acta Pilati ("Acts of Pilate"), are unworthy of credence."
[4]
Hilary of Poitiers (300–367) enriched the legend, and Saint
John Chrysostom (347–407), the
Patriarch of Constantinople, was the first to write
[5] that Joseph was one of the
Seventy Apostles appointed in Luke 10.
During the late 12th century, Joseph became connected with the
Arthurian cycle, appearing in them as the first keeper of the
Holy Grail. This idea first appears in
Robert de Boron's
Joseph d'Arimathie, in which Joseph receives the Grail from an apparition of Jesus and sends it with his followers to Britain. This theme is elaborated upon in Boron's sequels and in subsequent Arthurian works penned by others. Later retellings of the story contend that Joseph of Arimathea himself travelled to Britain and became the first Christian bishop in the Isles, a claim Gigot charactierizes as a fable.
[4][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Nicodemus
As the Church historian
Eusebius of Caesarea (writing
c. 325) shows no acquaintance with this Gospel, historians assume that it postdates this time. Eusebius was aware of related texts: the "Letters of Pilate" referred to by Justin and Tertullian as well as an anti-Christian text called
Acts of Pilate, which was prescribed for reading in schools under the emperor
Maximinus during the
Diocletianic Persecution.
[8] "We are forced to admit that [the Christian
Acts of Pilate] is of later origin, and scholars agree in assigning it to the middle of the fourth century."
[2] Epiphaniusrefers to an
Acta Pilati (
c. 376), but the extant Greek texts show evidence of later editing.
Naming of New Testament figures
The Gospel of Nicodemus names several minor New Testament figures who were not named in the canonical texts; for example, the soldier who speared Jesus on the cross is named as
Longinus and the two criminals crucified beside Jesus are named as
Dimas and
Gestas.
Honestly this speaks more about Latvian education system than about historical periods.
The concept of Middle Ages starting in 476 and ending in 1453/1492 is based on Italian Rennaissance cliches... and is pretty outdated for several centuries or at least decades.
Don't get me wrong, our Czech education system sucks in this regard as much as Lithuanian... but at least - as far as I know - it is taught that the real middle ages have started with introduction of Feudalism, division of power between the Church and lay rulers... and gradual emergence of cities as independent socio-economic force - neither of which existed before 10th century.. in some early forms probably from 9th.
That is the general look at things. Then there are other than West-European perspectives. We have seen Finnish/Scandinavian, in which Middle Ages start around 1000 AD. In Central Europe the date for the true middle ages is around the Lechfeld, Creation of Ottonid empire or foundation of regional states such as Poland, Bohemia and Hungary - which is 9th-11th century. Times before that belong to the Migration period, which has very little to do with this game's mechanics.
In the Middle East the true milestone is Islamic expansion of the 7th century, from Byzantine perspective it would be either the era of Heracleitos or the Macedon dynasty?
But since the devs have made it clear, can we please once and for all abandon this nonsense about pushing the start date of this Medieval game to Late Antiquity?
Just read this every evening before you go to sleep:
This game really still has a lot of potential interesting things to explore which actually belong to the Medieval period of Crusader kings - with feudalism, powerfull church, cities, Islam, etc.
The concept of Middle Ages starting in 476 and ending in 1453/1492 (it's 1492 by the way) is based on Italian Rennaissance, and thus THE BEST EVER MADE AND NO FILTHY BARBARIAN CAN CLAIM TO BE BETTER. (and devil's kith and kin)
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/barbaro/
Nel Rinascimento, come conseguenza del rinato culto per l’antichità, il termine riapparve nella sua classica accezione,
indicando tutto quello che non era romano: quindi tutto il Medioevo, visto come eclissi della cultura, insieme ai popoli che tale eclissi avevano prodotto. Presso gli umanisti italiani l’espressione si colora di significato etnico-nazionale,
e diviene b. tutto ciò che è non italiano.
In the Renaissance, as a consequence of the reborn cult for antiquity, the term reappeared in its classical meaning, i
ndicating everything that was not Roman: therefore the whole of the Middle Ages, seen as eclipses of culture, together with the peoples that this eclipse had produced. To Italian humanists the expression is colored with ethnic-national meaning,
and becomes b. all that is not Italian.
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/barbari_(Enciclopedia-Italiana)/
Dai Greci del tempo ellenistico la significazione di barbaro come "straniero" politicamente e "rozzo, incivile" moralmente, passò presso i Romani, fra i quali ben presto assunse per l'orgoglio cittadino il senso di dispregio che ebbe solo in casi particolari per gli Elleni.
I Romani non aveano grande stima dei Greci loro contemporanei (Graeculi), ma sentirono la forza della loro civiltà e in questa stessa si sentirono talmente compresi da arrogare a sé il vanto dei Greci. "Barbari" quindi furono considerate tutte le nazioni non educate dalla civiltà ellenistica, o meglio greco-romana.
From the Greeks of the Hellenistic period the signification of the barbarian as a "foreigner" politically and "crude, uncivilized" morally, passed to the Romans, among whom soon assumed for the city pride the sense of contempt that it had only in special cases for the Hellenes.
The Romans did not have much esteem for the Greeks of their contemporaries (Graeculi), but they felt the strength of their civilization and in this they felt so well included that they arrogated to themselves the pride of the Greeks. "Barbarians" then were considered all the nations not educated by the Hellenistic civilization, or rather Greco-Roman.
Allargandosi l'Impero romano, il concetto di barbaro seguì le vicende politiche. Barbari furono considerati i popoli che erano fuori del confine dell'Impero, non vinti dalla civiltà romana e di costumi fieri, sanguinarî. Invece le popolazioni incluse nei confini furono considerate
peregrini o
provinciales con ordinamenti, leggi, concessioni particolari da cui erano esclusi i Barbari. Ma a causa delle incursioni sempre più frequenti e disastrose, anche i Barbari (
alienigeni) furono ammessi a godere dei diritti romani finché ne soverchiarono e distrussero per poco le istituzioni.
Barbaro da allora significò particolarmente "straniero, feroce" che non rispetta leggi ed istituzioni civili, nemico della patria e della religione.
By expanding the Roman Empire, the concept of barbarism followed political events. Barbarians were considered the peoples who were outside the border of the Empire, not defeated by Roman civilization and of proud, bloody customs. Instead the populations included in the borders were considered peregrine or provinciales with regulations, laws, particular concessions from which the barbarians were excluded. But because of the increasingly frequent and disastrous incursions, even the barbarians (alienigens) were allowed to enjoy Roman rights until they overwhelmed and destroyed the institutions for a short time.
Barbarian since then meant particularly "foreigner, ferocious" that does not respect civil laws and institutions, an enemy of the country and of religion.
Va aggiunto, del resto, che in qualche scrittore medievale, letterariamente più raffinato, rispunta il primo significato, etnico-culturale, del termine:
così Eginardo si scusa se egli, homo barbarus et in romana locutione perparum exercitatus, osa scrivere in latino (Mon. Germ., SS., II, p. 443) e Walafrido Strabone si confessa tedesco e quindi barbaro (Dicam tamen etiam secundum nostram barbariem, quae est Theotisca..., in Mon. Germ., LL., Capitularia regum Francorum, II, p. 481; v. anche De vita S. Radegundae, lib. I, cap. 13, in Mon. Germ., SS. rerum Merovingicarum).
Moreover, it should be added that in some medieval writers, literarily more refined, returns the first meaning, ethnic-cultural, of the term:
Eginardo apologizes if he, homo barbarus et in romana locutione perparum exercitatus, dares to write in Latin (Mon Germ., SS., II, p.443) and Walafrido Strabo confesses German and therefore barbarian (Dicam tamen etiam secundum nostram barbariem, quae est Theotisca ..., in Mon. Germ., LL., Capitularia regum Francorum, II, page 481, see also De vita S. Radegundae, chapter I, chapter 13, in Mon. Germ., SS rerum Merovingicarum).
ed è ora barbaro chi non rivive in sé il modo di sentire del mondo romano, sono barbari gli ultimi sopraggiunti nell'ambito delle civiltà europee, quei popoli che non possono mostrare i quattro quarti della loro nobiltà d'origine: i popoli dell'Europa settentrionale, scandinavi, moscoviti, slavi meridionali, turchi;
sono barbari i germani, ai cui progenitori gli umanisti - con sbrigativo semplicismo - muovono il rimprovero di avere uccisa la romanità, provocando il trionfo della barbarie. La distinzione su base religiosa è travolta; il sentimento e l'orgoglio italiano arrivano fino a tacciare di barbari quanti non sono italiani, ossia diretti discendenti di Roma.
and it is now barbarous who does not relive in himself the way of feeling of the Roman world, are barbaric the last arrived in the context of European civilizations, those peoples who can not show the four quarters of their nobility of origin: the peoples of Northern Europe, Scandinavian, Muscovites, Southern Slavs, Turks;
Germans are barbarians, to whose forefathers the humanists - with expeditious simplism - move the reproach of having killed the Roman world, provoking the triumph of barbarism. The distinction on a religious basis is overwhelmed; Italian sentiment and pride come to the point of calling barbarians who are not Italians, ie direct descendants of Rome.
Outdated you say?
Only if you're a humanist/illuminist/materialist/communist/relativist/postmodernist/atheists with an antichristianity agenda:
— Edward Gibbon.
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 38 "General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West"
Like other Enlightenment thinkers and British citizens of the age steeped in institutional anti-Catholicism, Gibbon held in contempt the Middle Ages as a priest-ridden, superstitious Dark Age. It was not until his own era, the "Age of Reason", with its emphasis on rational thought, it was believed, that human history could resume its progress.
[8]
Plus It was Petrarca who first introduced the dark age concept, and just before the Reinassaince:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)
The idea of a Dark Age originated with the Tuscan scholar
Petrarch in the 1330s.
[14][12] Writing of the past, he said: "Amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius; no less keen were their eyes, although they were
surrounded by darkness and dense gloom".
[15]
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secoli_bui
«Cos'altro è, poi, tutta la storia, con le lodi a Roma?»
(Francesco Petrarca)
"What else, then, the whole history, with the praises in Rome?"
(Francesco Petrarca)
Il concetto di
Secoli bui risale a
Francesco Petrarca nel
XIV secolo e fu originariamente inteso come una controversia radicale riguardante il carattere della letteratura latina moderna.
The concept of Dark ages dates back to Francesco Petrarca in the fourteenth century and was originally intended as a radical controversy concerning the character of modern Latin literature.
Also Justinian is the best Emperor of the Dark Ages until Charlemagne.
.png){kind=avatar}
.png){kind=avatar}
.png){kind=avatar}
