Ask A Historian

[Clueless Morgan]

To what degree do you think the continued advancements in science and technology (whatever they were) in the Eastern Roman Empire had on the scientific revolution? (The Eastern empire, after all, never fell in the same way the Western empire did.) Or do you think we were in a state of a complete do-over when the scientific revolution really kicked off in the mid-sixteenth century?

[Minimalist]

Do you think the dark ages were really dark or do you think it's an historical period like any other with ups, downs and averages? Do you agree that specialists and the common citizen overreact on the bad side of the dark ages?

The Dark Ages, particularly the five centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, were pretty much as bad as it gets in Europe.  The constant feuding between petty warlords along with the growth of the feudal system and the depredations of the church were enough to make the lives of the populace pretty miserable...unless you were in the top 1%.  You know, the model that modern corporate crooks think would be just wonderful.

Throw in the collapse of urbanization, commerce, education and sanitation and the situation seems pretty dire to me.

And then...halfway through this period...the Viking raids started!

[Minimalist]

To what degree do you think the continued advancements in science and technology (whatever they were) in the Eastern Roman Empire had on the scientific revolution?  (The Eastern empire, after all, never fell in the same way the Western empire did.)  Or do you think we were in a state of a complete do-over when the scientific revolution really kicked off in the mid-sixteenth century?

Directly?  Probably very little.  Thanks to Theodosius the church was firmly established in the East and their attitudes to learning anything aside from their holy horseshit ( sound like modern muslims, don't they?) is well known.  Further, and probably most importantly, the Eastern empire was under constant military pressure from various barbarian tribes, the Parthians and later the muslims until it finally fell in 1453.  They did develop "Greek Fire" as a sort of naval flamethrower that was instrumental in defeating several muslims naval threats.  Because of its location Constantinople could not be successfully besieged without control of the sea.  Gunpowder seems to have come to a wall-shattering surprise to them, though.

[Minimalist]

History in the sense that it reminded me of Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" speech.

We never fucking learn.


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-3...1714712248

The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report

We’ve heard of significant shortcomings before with the fighter jet that’s supposed to be America’s future, but this is just as bad as it gets. The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range.

A trillion dollars for this?

[Minimalist]

I spotted this on an Australian website.  The significance is that the alleged "liberal media" over here ( which is really controlled by the same bunch of corporate cocksuckers who run everything else ) has failed to report the story.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innova...7424702476

Pentagon, Lockheed Martin defend F-35 Lightning II’s lack of dogfighting performance

As the "defenders" note in the article:

The F-35A used for the flight testing was built specifically to test the aircraft’s ability to dogfight. It was fitted with a suite of sensors to measure the stresses placed on the airframe as the fighter was thrown about in high-stress combat situations.
But supporters argue the F-35 stealth fighter is not intended to be a dog fighter: It’s not supposed to get into the close one-on-one situation the testing entailed.

RELATED: Is the F-35 already obsolete?
“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual “dogfighting” situations,” a statement released on behalf of the F-35 Joint Project Office overseeing the contract.

Well, that's interesting because just 2 years ago:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/can-the...462ccd6745

The Air Force says it will have no choice but to send the sluggish stealth fighter into aerial battle

In the aftermath of the F-22's cancellation, the Air Force was forced to alter its plans and press-gang the F-35—originally meant as a ground-attack aircraft—into service as an air-to-air fighter. It was the only way for the flying branch to keep enough dogfighters in the air.

“Operationally, we have to have it,” says Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh. “The decision to truncate the F-22 buy has left us in a position where even to provide air superiority [we need the F-35], which was not the original intent of the F-35 development.”

To be clear, the F-35 has always had some air-to-air capability. But that latent dogfighting ability was mostly meant for self-defense—not for aggressively challenging another country’s fighters in the air.

I feel like a prosecutor questioning a witness.  Were you lying then or are you lying now?

And we are pissing away a trillion bucks on this flying pig.

[paulpablo]

Do you ever listen do Dan Carlin's hardcore history podcast?

Which country do you think will be the next big superpower?

How do you think America compares to older superpowers?

Do you think technology is making old school toughness obsolete?

[Minimalist]

No.  Never heard of him.

I'm not sure there will be one ( because of the reasons which you are hinting at in #4.) 

Fading due to the same reasons which brought down Britain.  Over-extended.  Confusing national interest for stability and pissing people off in the process.

I don't know about "toughness" but the potency of weaponry has reached the point where any small group gains an exaggerated degree of firepower just by having them.  That makes control of populations far more difficult.

[Minimalist]

An excerpt from Chapter One of Bart Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God."

Enjoy.

[i]One Remarkable Life[/i]

BEFORE HE WAS BORN, his mother had a visitor from heaven who told her that her son would not be a mere mortal but in fact would be divine. His birth was accompanied by unusual divine signs in the heavens. As an adult he left his home to engage on an itinerant preaching ministry. He went from village to town, telling all who would listen that they should not be concerned about their earthly lives and their material goods; they should live for what was spiritual and eternal. He gathered a number of followers around him who became convinced that he was no ordinary human, but that he was the Son of God. And he did miracles to confirm them in their beliefs: he could heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. At the end of his life he aroused opposition among the ruling authorities of Rome and was put on trial. But they could not kill his soul. He ascended to heaven and continues to live there till this day. To prove that he lived on after leaving this earthly orb, he appeared again to at least one of his doubting followers, who became convinced that in fact he remains with us even now. Later, some of his followers wrote books about him, and we can still read about him today. But very few of you will have ever seen these books. And I imagine most of you do not even know who this great miracle-working Son of God was. I have been referring to a man named Apollonius, who came from the town of Tyana. He was a pagan—that is, a polytheistic worshiper of the many Roman gods—and a renowned philosopher of his day. His followers thought he was immortal. We have a book written about him by his later devotee Philostratus.

Per Wiki:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

[Justtristo]

Assuming that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, who do you think might have written it?

[Minimalist]

Eusebius.  Based on the legal doctrine of cui bono ( who gains.)  Eusebius, writing an alleged 'history of the church' in the 4th century is the first to proclaim the TF in all its glory.  

Origen, writing 75 years earlier, never heard of it in spite of making specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews AND it would have been extremely beneficial to the argument he was trying to make.

Whereas Eusebius gives us plenty of ammunition for seeing his reason for writing his godboy into the story.

9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.

Eusebius  Ecclesiastical History  Book I  Chapter XI