Byzantine Empire exists for 1,000 years

West generally overlooks anything Eastern, its leftover from Cold war.

Just think about how many movies about chinks, niggers, mudslimes etc. you know, and how many movies you know about Slavs. Luckily we aren't niggers or mudslimes and we can make our own movies.

China is much more fascinating than Eastern Europe tho. Don't delude yourself.

it isn't

>
>northern crusades
>kievian rus
>mongol invasion
>PLC and sobiesky
>hussites
Each of these would deserve its own movie

True. This alone proves that it is not a conspiracy of silence against orthodoxy. It's just too much history to deliver to normies that don't even like history as it is.

China is super fun
There's the Warring kingdoms period
Several invasions
That whole opium ordeal
The warlord period
And more!

I also quite like the idea of the Mandate of Heaven

It unironically is, Boris. Barring Russia/Poland there's nothing really decent. Whereas in China it kicks off from the war of unification and to everything afterwards. The culture is much more exotic too desu.

Jews don't like the Byzantines.

Unpopular opinion: history shouldn't even be taught in schools. Only grammar and math.

If people want to learn history, chemistry, etc., they can go to college and actually learn it. However, kids should go to college way earlier than today, like when they're 15, so they can resume their life with 20.

This extended school system fails to educate them in these subjects and is only holding people back from the job market for a few extra years.

You sound like one of those guys in history class that invariably asks "when are we ever gonna use this?"

I kind of agree with you. I don't remember a lot about the stuff I had to learn in school but wasn't really interested in. Even as it relates to history, I only remember vaguely what exactly was covered because as a teenager I didn't really care about it all that much (Plus all history teachers at my high school were teaching history in addition to their main subject). Only later when I wanted to know about history myself and started to read about it on my own, did I actually learn stuff in a way that stuck with me.
That being said, I still think that having at least a mandatory intro course to a variety of subjects is crucial for young children to learn what might interest them.

Not an argument.

The Byzantine Empire actually gets used a lot as a trope of a vestigial empire in a lot of media. Besides that, most of its thousand years were spent losing territory and power and trying to hold on to what they had.

What a dumb as shit (please don't be hurt by this, this is only coming to me so I can impress my Veeky Forums friends) opinion. The whole point of shcool is to have you swim around in a wide breadth of subjects for your child mind to mature the best it can, and so that you can figure out what you'd like to do later on in life. The stated point of schools are to palliate for inequalities in the upbringing you'd have from your parents, and so that all kids can be close to chemistry, history, physics, etc... even if they're not taught about it at home.

If you never learn those things at school, poor kids never realize the possibilities there are to a career, and we stagnate in terms of how many people are reaching for higher education.

No one gives a shit about slavs boris

>i never heard anything about eastern history, hence it must be boring
There is shitload of fascinating stuff in eastern history, whether we are talking national history, world-changing events, or history of the region as a whole

Or it can have the exact opposite effect and a subject you were previously interested in, now becomes completely unattractive because a bad teacher made it seem so unappealing that you now have no more interest in it.
Or the curriculum might dictate to the teacher to cover a part of the subject that is really boring to you (e.g. a specific period or country in history, certain books in literature, etc.) and as a result you start to lose interest.
Or other kids in a class, that is actually teaching you things you are interested in, keep disrupting or ask stupid question and it becomes much harder to learn something than it would be if those people just wouldn't have to attend the class.

Plus many of these classes don't just let you figure out what you are interested in, at least where I grew up I had to learn French for 9 godforsaken years and I could have told you that it's the last thing I would ever want to study or have anything to do with after year one... Most subjects you have to attend for many years before you even have to option to chose between classes and I assume that most children could tell you after a year or two what interests them.
Also the idea that it helps in any way to alleviate inequalities seems doubtful to me. The single biggest predictor as to whether somebody will graduate from a university is still the level of education of their parents and school does very little to change that.

>Or...
>Or...
>Or...
Now of course that's why I made it a point to write out that having all those subjects be taught was "stated the point" of the school, but I think it's true that it rarely ever happens like that. That's the nightmare with school, that no child is ever going to be the same, so the best there is left is to try to cater to the majority of them who function the same, and dismiss the ones that don't.

>I assume that most children could tell you after a year or two what interests them.
Honestly that depends. Children are going to change at such an incremental level that it's hard for them to know what they'll like a year from now, and I doubt it's something we'd like to leave in their youngs. Also, it's easiest to learn something while you're in your younger years, which is we thrust so many unappealing subjects on children, since we know how daunting it would be to catch up when you'd grown up and had a more muted cognitive capacity for learning. We have to capitalize on their brains being malleable as fuck, and have to spend it on things we think are universally going to be useful (maths, litterature, languages, etc...).

>somebody will graduate from a university is still the level of education of their parents and school does very little to change that.
Yeah I guess so. At least in France, there's the idea that school is where equaltiees are left at the door, but of course that's highly idealistic, and especially hypocritical since we don't don uniforms for school.

leave in their hands*

Fucking Andronikos fucked everything up.

>The predominance of the Italian merchants caused economic and social upheaval in Byzantium: it accelerated the decline of the independent native merchants in favour of big exporters, who became tied to the landed aristocracy, who in turn increasingly amassed large estates.[1] Together with the perceived arrogance of the Italians, it fueled popular resentment amongst the middle and lower classes both in the countryside and in the cities.[1]

The religious differences between the two sides, who viewed each other as schismatics, further exacerbated the problem. The Italians proved uncontrollable by imperial authority: in 1162, for instance, the Pisans together with a few Venetians raided the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, causing much damage.[1] Emperor Manuel subsequently expelled most of the Genoese and Pisans from the city, thus giving the Venetians a free hand for several years.[7]

In early 1171, however, when the Venetians attacked and largely destroyed the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, the Emperor retaliated by ordering the mass arrest of all Venetians throughout the Empire and the confiscation of their property.[1] A subsequent Venetian expedition in the Aegean failed: a direct assault was impossible due to the strength of the imperial forces, and the Venetians agreed to negotiations, which the Emperor stalled intentionally. As talks dragged on through the winter, the Venetian fleet waited at Chios, until an outbreak of the plague forced them to withdraw.[8]
Latins were literal didnus