(January 11, 2013 at 10:18 pm)jonb Wrote: The Roman Republic and Empire stifled development. It did not advance anything.

Yeah....yeah....







The better question to ask is how far the barbarian invaders and, far worse, the fucking church set humanity back.

(January 11, 2013 at 11:36 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Here's a thought:

Observation: Pain and failure can be excellent teachers if we know how to learn from them. There's a saying, when you succeed, you tend to party and when you fail, you tend to ponder. It's sometimes pain, dissatisfaction, and failure that can inspire people to make changes and ultimately succeed through those changes.

Observation: For whatever reason, Western Civilization was the first to make the leap from an agrarian economy to industrialization. While other cultures seemed content with traditional ways, Europe, or at least parts of it, seemed ready to try something new.

I would offer that it was the catastrophic failure of Western Civilization that we know as "The Dark Ages" that ultimately led to the success of industrialization and that next leap forward for humanity. As Europe was exposed to outside cultures, such as the Middle East or the Far East, it brought into focus how primitive they were by comparison. Old traditional ways of landed aristocracy were eventually cast aside in favor of urban industrial capitalism.

Had European civilization not failed, had Rome endured, would they have held on to traditional ways as other civilizations had. Would Rome have embraced the industrial revolution?

Depending on if Christianity managed to become the religion of the Roman Empire, if not, then yes.

Because Rome did endure in the East as the Byzantine Empire, however it never went through an scientific revolution. Despite having much more access to ancient scientific works than the west had.

That was because the Christians had no interest in ancient science or it's works. Indeed they were opposed to it, there are New Testament verses which condemn science (1 Timothy 6:20 and 1 Corinthians 1:22 for example). This is because they unlike their modern counterparts saw it's discoveries directly contradicting scripture.

(January 11, 2013 at 11:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The better question to ask is how far the barbarian invaders and, far worse, the fucking church set humanity back.

Who put the church in position to hold onto their own power? Was that in the so called 'Dark ages' or During the Empire?

Almost impossible to distinguish between the Late Empire and the Dark Ages.

The one constant are greedy priests and a rapacious church.

(January 12, 2013 at 12:04 am)Minimalist Wrote: Almost impossible to distinguish between the Late Empire and the Dark Ages.

The one constant are greedy priests and a rapacious church.

Well I have often said the Popes are the heirs of the Roman Emperors at least in the west.

(January 12, 2013 at 12:04 am)Minimalist Wrote: Almost impossible to distinguish between the Late Empire and the Dark Ages.

The one constant are greedy priests and a rapacious church.

Better iron and steel, Iron ploughs, being able to grow on clay soils, average hight of people increasing.

Ken Humphrey's discussion on the criminal fucks who were the early "popes."


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/papal-princes.htm

Quote:Damasus I gained the papal throne in circumstances that Christians would rather not talk about. By the second half of the fourth century the city of Rome had lost most of its imperial grandeur and competing clerics 'protected' their own territories within the city. When Pope Liberius died in 366 AD, an ambitious presbyter named Damasus had his sights on the papal throne. Unfortunately for Damasus, a rival presbyter called Ursinus got in first and had his supporters elect him pontiff. Not one to give up easily, Damasus had himself declared pope a week later, and the two rival claimants locked horns.

To better his rival, Damasus had his partisans besiege the Ursinus gang, holed up in the basilica of Mary Major. Unable to break in, they climbed onto the roof of the building, forced a hole and began raining masonry onto the heads of their rivals. When the Ursinus clan capitulated after three days, one hundred and seventy seven dead and dying were brought out from the wrecked church. And thus the one true pontiff emerged. Ursinus himself, however had not been taken and the gangland rivalry would last another fifteen years, from time to time arbitrated by the pagan city prefect and forcing Damasus to move about the city with a bodyguard of armed gladiators.

Praise fucking jesus!

It was also mentioned in this thread about slaves. The Roman conception of a slave was something you owned,and you could do with as you willed. Early medieval was that a surf belonged to the land, and by owning the land you had duties to look after it and those on it. Yes a few rich men might debate issues, but we are not talking about anything near the same conception of what the word means.

It was well into the 18th century before Europe got back to the levels of sophistication it had under the Romans.

(January 11, 2013 at 11:58 pm)Justtristo Wrote:

(January 11, 2013 at 11:36 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Here's a thought:

Observation: Pain and failure can be excellent teachers if we know how to learn from them. There's a saying, when you succeed, you tend to party and when you fail, you tend to ponder. It's sometimes pain, dissatisfaction, and failure that can inspire people to make changes and ultimately succeed through those changes.

Observation: For whatever reason, Western Civilization was the first to make the leap from an agrarian economy to industrialization. While other cultures seemed content with traditional ways, Europe, or at least parts of it, seemed ready to try something new.

I would offer that it was the catastrophic failure of Western Civilization that we know as "The Dark Ages" that ultimately led to the success of industrialization and that next leap forward for humanity. As Europe was exposed to outside cultures, such as the Middle East or the Far East, it brought into focus how primitive they were by comparison. Old traditional ways of landed aristocracy were eventually cast aside in favor of urban industrial capitalism.

Had European civilization not failed, had Rome endured, would they have held on to traditional ways as other civilizations had. Would Rome have embraced the industrial revolution?

Depending on if Christianity managed to become the religion of the Roman Empire, if not, then yes.

Because Rome did endure in the East as the Byzantine Empire, however it never went through an scientific revolution. Despite having much more access to ancient scientific works than the west had.

That was because the Christians had no interest in ancient science or it's works. Indeed they were opposed to it, there are New Testament verses which condemn science (1 Timothy 6:20 and 1 Corinthians 1:22 for example). This is because they unlike their modern counterparts saw it's discoveries directly contradicting scripture.

You are reading too much into it. It was capitalism that prompted and supported industrial revolution, not the dark ages. West was not the only civilization showing signs of advancement to capitalism before the 18th century. The Chinese was moving along its own capitalist path during 11-12th century. The west was simply lucky in that it was not overrun by the Mongol invasion before capitalism moved very far along.

---

(January 12, 2013 at 12:46 am)Minimalist Wrote: It was well into the 18th century before Europe got back to the levels of sophistication it had under the Romans.

Only if your cherry pick the evidence. In the real foundations of the modern world, such as westphalisn state, war, industry, commerce, finance, transportation, knowledge of the world and universe, systematic science, etc, etc the 18th century Europeans were well on the path to modernity compared to whom the Romans would be hopeless iron age yokels.

---

(January 11, 2013 at 10:18 pm)jonb Wrote: The Roman Republic and Empire stifled development. It did not advance anything.

No, it's more like the advancements made by the Romans were too practical to impress the simpleton scribes of the dark ages or to tickle the fancies of the airy romantic. So you underestimate their potential importance.