Archaeologist: "Jesus" predated Jesus

[Suraknar]

'Yes, Ancient Greeks evaluated other peoples based on cultural achievement. Which even if, a certan degree of cultural superiority existed, that same culture made it so that Ancient Greeks were not destroyers of worlds, their goal not to subjigate but rather to educate.'

The Greeks didn't invade places to improve living standards there. Their goal was to subjugate. The Greeks didn't evaluate other peoples on cultural achievement particularly. They evaluated them on Hellenic thinking and actions. I sincerely doubt that many Greeks believed the Persians were superior to themselves, although you could argue that the Persians were culturally superior to the Greeks. It's a matter of perspective really. Most Greek authors, I suspect, saw HellenicIdeas=CulturalAchievement.

It is a matter of Historical perspective based upon the understanding of Historical Events. To me not having read about Greek massacres of the peoples they invaded is a strong indication of their motives and intentions. Reading about their efforts on cultural devellopment of the regions they invaded points out to a deeper motive than a simply subjigate and rule over.

'Furthermore, the behavior of the Ancient Greeks and the Byzantine Greeks was different, while in both instances of history the same hellenic fervor existed, the Bysantine Greeks were by then holding on to Roman values, following the Roman Paradigm, and of cource a Christian Perspective.'

The Byzantines also considered themselves the heirs of the Roman empire.

It goes without saying, Constantinopole was the new capital of the Empire when founded, and later the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, if the West was beaten militarilly and fell, that does not mean that the East did not continue. Now, if religious interests of Rome wanted to emphasis their lineage to the Roman Empire, the fact that the Eastern part was still there, did represent some political issues. That does not mean however that the view of the Byzantines, seeing themselves as the true heirs of the roman empire was wrong. It was only wrong from the eyes of the west as it went against its own interests and own claim. Political problem.

'As such, I think it is important to make that distinction when contrasting the Hellenic world with Islam, we have to put Hellenic ways of doing things under the Byzantine context, and comparing Ancient Hellenism directly with Islam or vice versa, is not a fair comparison, as there is difference of context.'

Is that different to comparing Christian motivations and methods of expansion with Islamic ones?

Yes it is different, this reply as in relation to Adrian II questions, in comparing Ancient Greeks with islam, I am pointing out that doing so is not fair, and that it would be more fair to compare Greeks of the Christian Period rather than Greeks of the Ancient period against Islam. I am doing this by bringing up points to substantiate my view, points that are shared between Christian Greeks and islam and not share between Ancient Greeks and Islam. Points that you take out of that context in some of your replies friend.

Cheers!

EDIT: For the finer points between the contention of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I suggest this thread :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80681

I posted this to discuss Game mechanics, but it does contain Historical Information, and if you wish to comment on it bring it in this thread please.