geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Jun 1, 2005 13:01:13 GMT -5
Wouldn't the Greeks have been more used to an imperial king in the vein of Byzantium instead of a feudal one? Because after all the medieval history of Greece is largely that of Byzantium. The eastern Roman empire is a sleeping period for greeks. Even when that pecular religious feudalism followed the fall of the eastern roman empire, it was a situation much different than western feudalism.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Jun 3, 2005 0:40:53 GMT -5
The Greek monarchy was too new to be an established part of Greece or be imbued with the ideas of kingship unique to the Western Roman successor states developed over centuries. European countries (with few stand-alone exceptions) had monarchies, many of which were foriegn. Usually these were mere figureheads, necessary to facilitate diplomacy etc., in Europe. This same Danish line married into the Romanov dynasty and ruled over Romania. Just interesting that the Nordicist propagandists never seized on this fact. I suppose because Phillip is British and they are slighty beneath the un-Nordic Germans that conquered Greece; plus they are race-traitors because they challenged the Aryan race. ROFL.
|
|