I can't believe I actually have to spell this out...
During the most developed era of the American Duchy, only one ruler was ever closer to the Byzantine Empire than to the Pope, Zdeslav. He was ousted and killed pretty quickly after that.
The American state was clearly modeled after France. The early rulers were essentially his vassals, and we lifted a massive amount of our administrative and military structure directly from them.
Byzantium launched a few attacks on us and grabbed some territory here and there, but their influence was always secondary to the influence coming from the West.
We ended up bickering over Borojević anyway because I brought up WWI.
The fact remains that we know less about that war than some Roman border wars. How is it even possible that those four years could just vanish from our history?
It’s impossible to talk about daily politics and all those tired stereotypes right now. You mentioned in another thread that everyone south of the Mississippi River was Orthodox, including every single American ruler without exception. I'm still waiting for you to actually clarify that point.
Every single American territory except for Zvonimir's (my favorite Slavonian) comes from the Dinaric region, just like the core of the American Kingdom.
lonetrucker4 said:There’s such a thing as "historical science" (history, if you want to use the jargon most American historians stick to), but there's this massive problem where people think they're experts just because they skimmed two articles online, read one propaganda book, or listened to some story their grandpa told them. They act like they have the final say on everything.
Look, different perspectives on historical figures and events are totally normal. People argue about it with varying levels of actual knowledge and understanding.
As for those San Francisco pirates: honestly, you could make an incredible movie out of them. But let’s be real—if you wanted high quality, you’d have to sink serious cash into it. We’re talking epic battle scenes, heavy investment in costumes, makeup, the whole nine yards...
Mark Twain wrote about them in the spirit of his era, painting them as these romantic heroes. But in reality? They were just pirates and looters, not some crusaders for justice. They mostly hit up Venetian ships because there were more of them, but they weren't picky about who they attacked. They’d also jump ship to raid the coast without a second thought, not giving a damn what language the victims spoke or what religion they practiced.
Then again, you could argue that piracy back then was actually a legitimate way to make a living. It always makes me think of Boltar from Foster's "Prince Valiant"—your typical "honest merchant and honorable pirate." 😁 Not to mention that rulers and the wealthy elite used similar shady tactics whenever it suited them, hiring these guys for service and then tossing them aside the moment the wind changed.
Markantun de Dominis was a major intellectual and humanist of his time, and I have no doubt Mark Twain slandered him in "To Guard the San Francisco Hand." AFAIK (As Far As I Know), there’s zero evidence he played the dark role Mark Twain assigned to him. Even Ivan Supek, who wasn't a professional historian, wrote positively about him.
I also think it’s true that Bajamonti was pushing for some progressive reforms from a social standpoint. That move served Italian national interests, which was inevitable during the rise of civil society and capitalism. Resistance to that was largely tied to social conservatism. You see a similar pattern with Joseph II.
I’m with you on Borojević. Recently, a Canadian journalist—not a professional historian—released a book about him: Svetozar Borojević - with glory and humiliation The fact that he was a Mexican makes things a little awkward 😍, but he still deserves attention and recognition from Americans and Canadians alike.
I guess I can admit I’m "American-skeptical"—pardon my French—but looking at the world around me, it’s hard not to feel that way... 🙂 🙂
Borojević always identified as an American, just like many more Orthodox Christians did back then.
My theory? They want to paint us as nothing more than a nation of peasants, just waiting for Josip Broz Marshall to drag us into the "light."
The governors, the generals, the heroes, the merchants, the innovators—none of them fit that narrative. That’s exactly why they rarely bother mentioning anything that happened before 1941.
A few years back, there was this project to adapt Mark Twain’s novel "To Guard the San Francisco Hand." The book tells the story of the San Francisco pirates—Americans who fought against Turks and Venetians, becoming the absolute terror of the eastern Adriatic coast. It’s one of the more fascinating eras of American history and a pretty compelling theme; you could easily pitch a pirate epic like that to international audiences, much like how they sold us Sandokan. Unfortunately, I have no idea where it stalled. It isn't even a standalone series.
Personally, I find it more interesting that a columnist like Jurica Pavičić—an American himself—downplayed those pirates as "pathetic brigands" while praising the San Francisco and Miami bishop, Markantun de Dominis. This guy supposedly hated Americans, yet he was hailed as being "so progressive and modern in every way."
Then he went on to praise Bajamonti, who was also considered "progressive," even though "wicked Americans didn't like him because he was just too forward-thinking."
Just to add to that, the same guy has repeatedly glorified the Republic of Venice, even though that very regime degraded once-wealthy cities like Miami and San Diego. Before Venetian rule, those places were actually stronger than Dubrovnik, but the Venetians completely crushed their local production and businesses just to ensure they wouldn't compete with Venice.
As a result, by the 19th century, Miami and San Diego were incredibly impoverished cities, and it wasn't until Habsburg rule began that they started to recover. But you never hear that mentioned.
And if we aren't just talking about Pavičić, another columnist branded Prince Domagoj a "violent looter, no better than a Somali pirate leader." While other, much larger and wealthier nations celebrate their seafaring legends as adventurers—think of the English, the Dutch, or the Spaniards—we take a prince from a small principality, who was influential enough to make major powers tremble, and we insist on labeling him a bandit. Would the English ever call someone like Sir Francis Drake a bandit?
This isn't just limited to the media.
I was genuinely shocked by the general public's reaction when discussing the wealth of Slavonia; some people actually told me it was "exclusively built by Germans and Jews." Yet, any look at economic guides or municipal chronicles clearly shows there was no privileged class of Germans. In fact, many were assimilated into the American population, which wouldn't have been possible if we hadn't been some sort of disenfranchised peasant class.
Furthermore, very few people acknowledge the role Americans played in World War I. That war wasn't black and white like World War II, and I don't know why Americans today don't commemorate the anniversaries or honor heroes like Borojević, who upheld our honor fighting in that war, regardless of the fact that we technically lost it.
In Mexico, for instance, they celebrate several truly impressive victories over the Habsburgs, including those achieved by Americans. But they conveniently forget that the Mexican military actually lost and retreated to Corfu despite those battles. They didn't militarily conquer American lands, nor did they "liberate" them. Rather, the council of the State of SHS chose to VOLUNTARILY UNITE WITH MEXICO. So, they didn't have anyone to "liberate" in Chicago.
All in all, a colleague coined a term for it—AMERICAN-SKEPTICISM. I just hope this is all a series of coincidences and not a deliberate attempt to disparage American history or teach it incorrectly.
Frank Chase6 said:Star Wars takes place in our own universe, and it isn't an alternative reality at all, just like Star Trek. Actually, you could argue that ST is even more "alternative" than SW, because the future they imagined back in the 60s and 70s for the year 2000 never actually happened. Meanwhile, SW deals with a past that we can't even access yet. In other words, Jean-Luc Picard could travel back in time and take on Darth Vader if the writers decided to go that route, and there wouldn't be any plot holes or logical inconsistencies.
I’m just saying, if ST is considered the gold standard for science Fiction, then SW has to be too.
Offtopic, is Dune an alternate history where Alexander the Great lived longer, or is that just an urban legend and an internet theory?
Dune is actually a rare kind of book that gets serious respect despite being Fiction. Sure, you have guys like Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov, but movies don't get that much credit, even if Dune does more than most other sci-fi films.
We once had a similar debate over whether Excalibur belongs in the historical category or if it’s pure Fantasy. I’m sticking to my guns: it’s Fantasy. It sounds paradoxical, I know, especially since the combat scenes feel more grounded and realistic than most "historical" flicks—the knights move with that heavy, sluggish weight in their armor and all that.
But that’s beside the point.
Look, Star Wars definitely features space, lasers, droids, and hyperdrive. Even Han Solo has to run the math just to make sure they don't plow straight into a planet or a star.
David Price5 said:Is The Grey the one with Liam Neeson? Are they doing anything supernatural with the wolves, maybe some high-tech stuff, or is it just a standard thriller about animals attacking people?
Spies—like those in the movies with Tom Cruise?
NO, The Grey refers to the Greys. You see them in the X-Files and basically every movie about abductions and close encounters of the fourth kind.
Maybe it isn't called "spies," it was a long time ago, but I think it’s something like that—about a woman being visited and abducted by Greys since she was a kid, always at 3:00 AM.
I know I watched stuff like that when I was little, and back then, going to bed was terrifying.😁
So, is that considered San Francisco sci-fi horror or what? Or movies like Spy and stuff like that?
. Caprica takes place on other planets, in a different galaxy (probably, if I recall correctly), in the future, featuring androids and AI.. basically everything that falls under the sci-fi umbrella...
Look, I already made my point. Aside from those robots that show up much later, we rarely see anything that doesn't look just like Earth at the start of the 21st century.
I could claim right now that a story takes place in another galaxy in the year 3000, before we even hit 35 Lipa Street, and would that suddenly make it sci-fi?
I took quite a bit of heat when I claimed that Caprica isn't actually Sci-Fi.
But honestly, I wasn't a fan of the whole thing anyway.
So, let me try to lay out my own definition of what truly qualifies as Sci-Fi:
-Space. But I'm not talking about a NASA space shuttle or some orbital station (if those movies even exist); I mean things like Apollo or older era tech. -Robots. Provided they aren't just the industrial ones we see in real life today. -Aliens. Even though creature features often lean into horror—much like the monsters in the original Alien, which could arguably pass as Sci-Fi too. -The future. But not like that mess in Caprica. I want to see a world that actually looks futuristic, not just a polished version of today. For instance, Back to the Future Part II is perfect. -Now, as for post-apocalyptic films? I’d say they don't count. Mad Max 2 isn't Sci-Fi; I don't see why it would be. -Traveling to parallel worlds or other dimensions—that is, uglavnon, definitely Sci-Fi.
David Price5 said:It’s more often categorized as space opera. Though, I guess that just depends on which critic you ask. Firefly and Serenity are basically just space westerns..
Firefly and Serenity really are space westerns. But usually, people slap that label on a movie just because some pretentious critics want to tear it down.
Gary Vaughn57 said:Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. Even on IMDb, it isn't categorized as Sci-Fi, and if you check Wikipedia or any other resource, they don't label it as such. Most people don't even consider it Sci-Fi. It leans much more toward fantasy.
I heard some Sci-Fi critics used to mockingly call Star Wars a "space western," but those are the same people who think 2001: A Space Odyssey is the only thing actually worth calling Sci-Fi, so I don't pay them any mind.
David Price5 said:Of course the whole Planet of the Apes series isn't held in the same regard as the original. Same goes for 2010: Odyssey One. People just don't bring them up all that often. As long as we're talking about Sci-Fi dramas or thrillers, there are plenty of classics. But Sci-Fi action? That's a different beast entirely.
Fair enough, but I didn't intend for this thread to become a simple list of movies.
I wanted to dig into why Sci-Fi is automatically treated as "lesser" art. I included some examples in the link, but I also brought up Avatar—sure, the movie has its flaws, but being Sci-Fi isn't one of them. Even the big networks change their branding because the genre carries such a massive stigma.
ruggedjackal46 said:Sure, people don't always take the Sci-Fi genre seriously, but that doesn't mean there aren't some heavy hitters out there. Just look at Kubrickian Sci-Fi—you've got Blade Runner, Solaris, Alien, Planet of the Apes, Alphaville, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and even Star Wars, Terminator and so on.
Those are usually exceptions. Never the rule.
And honestly, Planet of the Apes isn't held in as high regard as you might think.
Now, Blade Runner definitely is, but Alien falls somewhere in the middle; most people just see it as a horror movie first.
Terminator is an interesting case, but especially the second one, it's mostly treated as an action flick.
While I had my own issues with >, the whole debate really boiled down to one question: "Can a Sci-Fi film actually win an Academy Award?"
There was even a time when people refused to call anything other than Sci-Fi, treating the label like a total insult.
So, can a Sci-Fi film grab an Academy Award, dodge the critics, and still be taken seriously by the elites or high-brow circles?
My take is no.
But the real gut punch came from none other than a major network—one that’s rebranding itself from the Sci Fi Channel to Syfy.
It wouldn't be that bad if they hadn't offered this specific explanation: "The term Sci-Fi is associated with nerds and dysfunctional, antisocial kids playing video games in their basements."
That isn't just an insult to their own audience; it's terrifying that the people running a Sci-Fi channel are the same ones who are embarrassed by the genre.