Skallagrim
Well-known member
I pointed out that reading the first page would suffice. You're always at liberty to enter a discussion. Barging in without knowing anything about the topic and calling what others say nonsense is, ah... bad form.
History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
I pointed out that reading the first page would suffice. You're always at liberty to enter a discussion. Barging in without knowing anything about the topic and calling what others say nonsense is, ah... bad form.
King Arts
Well-known member
Thank you it started with Skall getting angry and just telling me to read it myself.
But can you explain what you mean by "Christendom as we know it" Again I would count the Roman Empire post Constantine, hell even pre Constantine I'd say Armenia started Christendom and as I know it it would be Constantine since the Roman Empire spread over Europe and Christinity with it. How in your view does Charles the one who formed Christendom? The limits of his kingdom was France, Germany and parts of Italy. Christianity also spread to Britain, and Spain which were outside of his empire. Also the Orthodox are also part of Christendom so the Eastern Roman Empire was also Christendom.
I quickly skimmed it. I did not see anything about Charlamagne, and Constantine and Christianity.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
No, it started with you calling something nonsense after 43 pages of discussion, without entertaining the possibility that there might be something to it that you didn't know. You don't even care to really ask genuine questions, you just start yapping.
You may have noticed that when someone asks me a question, it'not unknown for me to type out an essay in response.
The problem is that you're a bit of a dick, and you refuse to do anything yourself. The burden of educating you is not on me. The things you wnt to know have been discussed, and you can read them. If you'd asked like a normal person, I'd just have linked to the relevant posts.
Clearly, skimming isn't doing you much good. On the first page, you'll find considerable mention of what civilisations inherit from one another, and why the West isn't just a continuation of Rome; but that the West did inherit a religion from Rome; one that Rome merely adopted, but which became the very nucleus of the so-called Western civilisation... to the point that I argue that the modern and secular term "the West" is inadequate, and that this civilisation is properly called "Christendom". A point also argued by the historians Spengler and Toynbee (among others), to whom I already referred you.
If you'd done a bit more than skimming, you'd already know all of this. The problem is that you refuse to do any "catching-up" even though you're parachuting into the middle of a conversation; any you expect everyone else to drop everything and start repeating points that were discussed way back, purely for your benefit.
But that's not my job. (Well, actually, it is, but during office hours, I get paid handsomely for it. I don't do it for free; or rather, only when asked politely, by people I like.)
If you start out by acting like a dick, the result is that I just tell you to read back, because I've been over it, and what you don't know is your problem.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
If you want to understand that, I would suggest reading Henri Pirenne's Muhammad and Charlemagne.
But to sum it up, in the Roman era, Church was pretty much connected to the state. Emperor was head of the Christendom and essentially the Church - no different from Roman head priest.
But medieval - and thus modern - Christianity only came about because it decoupled itself from the state. This decoupling was the process which began with dissolution of the Western Roman Empire. But while it began there, popes still saw the Roman Emperor - now in Constantinople - as the temporal head of Christianity.
And this view continued until the time of Charlemagne. Trigger however was not Charlemagne himself, but rather crowning of the Empress Irene. Pope would not recognize her, and at the same time, he needed protection from Langobards. So pope basically cheated Charlemagne into being crowned a "Holy" Roman Emperor. Charlemagne in turn gave pope basically religious and even political independence from any and all temporal authority,
It is from then on that the Pope ceased being the head of the Church of the Roman Empire, and became head of the Catholic Church. And this decoupling of Church from the state then created the Western civilization as it is today.
So yes, Charlemagne was essential to creating not just Christendom but even Christianity as we know it. Without him, Roman Pope will have remained merely one of the five patriarchs - maybe one given greater respect, but one that was fundamentally no different from other four.
King Arts
Well-known member
I called it nonsense because it sounds like chauvanistic nonsense that claims Christendom is a "white mans"/Western European religion/culture. And anything to the east of Poland or Germany is not part of Christendom Because again it's not Russia is part of Christendom, Anatolia until 1400's was part of Christendom, etc.
I mean it was more complex than that there was conflict between popes usurping authority that was not theirs and in the papal states itself there was no decoupling of church and state. The church was the state. But I think I see the problem you are conflating the "west" with Christendom. And no the pope usurping power is not what led to Christianity today. The pope and the west's schism led away from the true church and into the reformation, and countless splinter schisms.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
I am not conflating "West" with "Christendom", but you cannot act as if events in the West had absolutely no impact on Christianity as a whole. Catholicism after all is part of Christianity. If there had been no fall of the Western Roman Empire, if pope did not become as powerful as he did and usurped what was essentially Roman Emperor's prerogative, there will have been no Great Schism and therefore also no Western Schism or the later (and much more significant) Protestant Schism.
So yes, pope usurping power is exactly what led to Christianity today. As I said:
Skallagrim
Well-known member
There's also the fact that we've had a whole discussion about the position of Orthodoxy, and the potential identification of Russia as a 'failed civilisation' that didn't manage to coalesce the Orthodox world into a unified whole... like, two pages back. So it's not like the relevance of the East-West schism in civilisational history has gone unaddressed.
But then... one would have to read the thread to know that.
There's also the fact that we've had a whole discussion about the position of Orthodoxy, and the potential identification of Russia as a 'failed civilisation' that didn't manage to coalesce the Orthodox world into a unified whole... like, two pages back. So it's not like the relevance of the East-West schism in civilisational history has gone unaddressed.
But then... one would have to read the thread to know that.
So if Islamic civilization is 200 years older then western one, then oh wow this is their pricip? That's honestly kind of sad and if they don't turn things around in the next 70 years or so...these guys are fucked because the Dominate is basically just one long painful decline isn't it?
Skallagrim
Well-known member
They have turned into an over-run remnant. Their own failures led to stagnation, and ultimately they were eclipsed by the West. They spent time under colonial rule or influence, and even after throwing it off, there's just very little left. If they were going to manage anything, it should have been a hundred years ago, and evidently, nothing of the sort occurred.
Toynbee noted that cvilisations can die by suicide, and Islam basically managed that. They had some help, as I noted, but once you turn against reason, nothing good awaits you afterwards.
Arguably, there can be perspectives for revival (i.e. European Muslims embracing reason and establishing a Euro-Islam that manages to triumph), but I see no indications of developments in that direction. I daresay that Islam is now irrelevant from a civilisational perspective. They can still do harm, but not as a competitor in the great game. Only as a violent thug who interrupts the proceedings from time to time.
In other words: they can fly planes into skyscrapers, but they can't form coherent philosophies or any new cultural forms. The formation of world-empires is entirely outside their scope of operations, now. If they try it, in a sad and atavistic attempt, what rolls out is ISIS. If they try building a national state with a coherent identity, they become something like Iran or Saudi Arabia: sad little oil-kingdoms that rely on a repressive religious police to maintain a rudimentary parody of order. More often, we just see a mess like Iraq or Syria or -- God help the poor fuckers -- Somalia. A mess of tribal barbarians, held together from time to time by strongmen whose only authority of that of naked force.
That is no culture, sir.
They were a culture, once. Disagreements and ethics aside, they were in several ways ahead of Christendom. After the initial looting phase, the Arabs did begin to digest the intellectual legacy of the Eastern half of the Classical World (much of which they'd gobbled up). But they turned onto a dead-end track, and now we may look upon the final result of that choice.
Not with hate, but with pity.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Admittedly there are parts of the Islamic world dramatically less shit than others. The Turks remain the hot blooded lunatics they’ve always been; Hashemite Jordan is an island of stability and, if I may be so bold, justice in a sea of anarchy; Morocco actually tries to be a functional country and succeeds half the time.
Amusingly enough, two of those countries are ruled by long established monarchies (and with the years comes legitimacy), and the Turkish Republic was founded by a brutal bastard who actually knew a thing or two about statecraft. Not very progressive eh?
Edit: I believe some Muslim countries, ruled by a strong hand, can stand to do very well. Not global empires or anything like that, but capable of attaining their own glory.
Amusingly enough, two of those countries are ruled by long established monarchies (and with the years comes legitimacy), and the Turkish Republic was founded by a brutal bastard who actually knew a thing or two about statecraft. Not very progressive eh?
Edit: I believe some Muslim countries, ruled by a strong hand, can stand to do very well. Not global empires or anything like that, but capable of attaining their own glory.
There's another aspect of those three countries you're missing: they all have a pro-Western government which brings them access to the economic wealth of the west. Morocco is a long standing* ally of the US and has consistently sided with the US in most geopolitical matters. Jordon likewise reoriented itself towards the west and away from Pan-Arabian "Interest" after one to many ass kicking's by Israel as well as a rebellion by Palestinians, and, of course finally Turkey who is outright a member of NATO...
-----------
* As in, Morocco was one of the first countries to recognize the US as an Independent country and one of the first countries to sign a treaty with the US after independence. US/Moroccan relations go back a long, LONG time and the Moroccan response to things like 9/11 and other Islamic aggression towards the US was along the lines of "give us the fuckers and we'll do things you're not allowed..." which is why a lot of CIA black sites used in the 'War on Terror' were located there. The Kings of Morroco didn't even BEGIN to flirt with Pan-Arabianism or anti-Western sentiment that is a hallmark of much of the rest of the Islamic world.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Another point in their favour! They aren’t run by raving lunatics who want to spend all their strength on a useless grudge against the United States.
Morocco is a bit of an odd “bro” as I understand it. They came to Gibraltar‘s aid when Franco was throwing a tantrum I believe. A friend of mine comes from there; Morocco helped keep Gibraltar supplied apparently.
Morocco is in an unusual position, they are arguably the westernmost province of the Islamic world, and due to geography that meant they were relatively isolated from the core of that world. Again, due to geography (the north Saharan deserts and the sparsely populated north African coast, they had a much stronger interest in the Atlantic and trans-Atlantic trade than any other Muslim nation and while they were part of the Islamic piracy of the Mediterranean, they were again the outer edge of it with what is modern Tunisia and Libya being the real heart of that activity.
Morocco's closest major neighbors via sea were Spain and Portugal, which had driven out the Muslims and became firmly Christian, and the Canary Islands, a major port of call for trade along the African coast and later part of the triangle trade with the Caribbean and North American colonies, was just off the coast of Morocco.
Thus, from an economic perspective, Morocco was already more western focused than Islamic world focused. They were at the very end of the Islamic trading routes and didn't bring much to that trade, but smack in the middle of one of the biggest western trade routes in history and served as a major port of call on the north/south run of the triangle trade (that is, the Europe to west Africa line of the trade).
They were eventually conquered and colonized by the French starting in 1912, occupied by Germany in the 1940s (from whence comes the classic film: Casablanca) though it appears the ruling monarchy never accepted French rule and worked to oust them from 1912 until Morocco achieved independence from France in 1956, upon which time the Sultan proceeded to set up a Constitutional Monarchy with a fairly powerful Monarch though not one without checks.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Europe wants an internet akin to what the Chinese have; more than a few leaders there have openly expressed admiration for the degree to which the CCP controls what information their people can access. They just don't want to have to go to the effort of creating their own; not when they can threaten the existing internet into compliance with their will.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
The European Union so badly wants to be a continent spanning empire, but none of its members from the lowest bureaucrat to the President herself is worthy of being called “Emperor.” And only Emperors found Empires.
These meanwhile are the breed of halfwit that squandered whatever was left of European power after 1945, and have now via mass immigration ruined the unity of the nations they have cast aside for the mad dream of a European superstate.
Damn them all.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
It's more like the Holy Roman Empire but without the cool flag.
DarthOne
☦️
Not really.
The holy roman empire defended europe from islamic invasions, they had a lot more respect for local customs and local autonomy, and lasted hundreds of years Id even say on the whole the government of the holy roman empire was more just and less intrusive then the EU.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Having gotten into Ancient Greek history more of late, I find it fascinating how it almost wound up taking Rome’s place. Cultural connections aside, and perhaps the Geography, Italia and Hellas were remarkably similar; a patchwork of city states, kingdoms and republics, with hairy barbarians in the north.
Something like the major conflicts of Rome happen in Greek history, with the titanic struggle against Persia being akin to the Punic Wars, and the Peloponnesian Wars having some surface similarities to the Samnite Wars.
There’s even a point where Hellenic civilisation dominates the known world after Alexander’s death.
But ultimately the Greeks never achieved the unity and dominion of Rome, at least not before Macedonia brought it to heel, and thereafter failed to consolidate its conquest before Alexander thunders East and he, and his Diadochi, ultimately squander Greece’s strength.
By contrast the Romans are a damn sight more methodical, pragmatic and bloody minded. And perhaps patient.
They took their time with Italia. That I think is ultimately what won them the world.
Something like the major conflicts of Rome happen in Greek history, with the titanic struggle against Persia being akin to the Punic Wars, and the Peloponnesian Wars having some surface similarities to the Samnite Wars.
There’s even a point where Hellenic civilisation dominates the known world after Alexander’s death.
But ultimately the Greeks never achieved the unity and dominion of Rome, at least not before Macedonia brought it to heel, and thereafter failed to consolidate its conquest before Alexander thunders East and he, and his Diadochi, ultimately squander Greece’s strength.
By contrast the Romans are a damn sight more methodical, pragmatic and bloody minded. And perhaps patient.
They took their time with Italia. That I think is ultimately what won them the world.
Europe could have easily been the masters of the world as well, but then fell into a couple of fratacidal blood baths that ruined the place as a world power just like greece.