narkive is for sale. (interested) / (dismiss)
Discussion:
Had Europe never existed, the world would be stuck in the 14th century.
(too old to reply)
Byker
2019-12-08 01:33:24 UTC
Permalink
There was nothing like the industrial or scientific revolutions anywhere
else. In fact, some parts of the world were barely above caveman level even
in the 1500's. China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before. Little had
changed. Had Europeans not existed, we would be subsistence farmers, dying
on average at 35 and existing instead of being able to really live. A
nothing world. Thank goodness Europe existed.

Just think, had the bubonic plague wiped out all the Christian Europeans,
the Americas would've remained undiscovered, with "noble savages" still
running around and the entire Eastern Hemisphere forever stuck in a medieval
time warp:


Had there been no plague, though, things wouldn't have been much better:

PhantomView
2019-12-08 02:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
There was nothing like the industrial or scientific revolutions anywhere
else. In fact, some parts of the world were barely above caveman level even
in the 1500's. China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before. Little had
changed. Had Europeans not existed, we would be subsistence farmers, dying
on average at 35 and existing instead of being able to really live. A
nothing world. Thank goodness Europe existed.
Just think, had the bubonic plague wiped out all the Christian Europeans,
the Americas would've remained undiscovered, with "noble savages" still
running around and the entire Eastern Hemisphere forever stuck in a medieval
time warp: http://youtu.be/DEYwXLpBpfI
http://youtu.be/q1aULu6BqNs
Well, I am not sure they would be stuck there *forever* ....

However Europe was the perfect crucible at the perfect moment.
Activities were picking up and the dark age was ending and there
was a hunger for new ideas and ways to put them to use (mostly
for making money and slaying ones enemies). Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.

Without europe, most of the rest of the world would have continued
in its old patterns and ideas just as they had for many thousands
of years prior. Eventually there would have been an intersection
of ideas into an 'energized' environment (the advent/spread of
Islam *almost* qualified, but turned against itself too soon).

I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat. It
was 'energized' for a long time and imported ideas and tech
from a large area of the world. It even imported its religion.
But for some reason it never quite jumped over the threshold
to become what post-Roman europe became. Roman
creations were numerous and were applied, but never really
"went viral". Perhaps the legal and economic systems were
not in a state to assist inventors and innovative industries ?
Ned Latham
2019-12-08 03:12:24 UTC
Permalink
PhantomView wrote:

----snip----
Post by PhantomView
Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.
Almost all of that was European anyway: the knowledge and science of
the Ancient Greeks, transmitted to Rome, then to Persia when Justinian
forbade teaching by pagans, then to Islam when the Arabs conquered
Persia. There was as well a little from China and India.

Islam is in fact responsible for *nothing* good. Even their
architecture was derived from that of Ancient Rome. And India.

----snip----
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.

----snip----
SolomonW
2019-12-08 11:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
----snip----
Post by PhantomView
Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.
Almost all of that was European anyway: the knowledge and science of
the Ancient Greeks, transmitted to Rome, then to Persia when Justinian
forbade teaching by pagans, then to Islam when the Arabs conquered
Persia. There was as well a little from China and India.
Islam is in fact responsible for *nothing* good. Even their
architecture was derived from that of Ancient Rome. And India.
Although I think that Islam is overrated for politically correct reasons, I
think this goes too far. Islam did some of the medicine, discussions of
physics, mathematics, etc.
Post by Ned Latham
----snip----
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
I am not sure, later era of the Roman Empire was technologically advancing
faster.
Post by Ned Latham
----snip----
Ned Latham
2019-12-08 12:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.
Almost all of that was European anyway: the knowledge and science of
the Ancient Greeks, transmitted to Rome, then to Persia when Justinian
forbade teaching by pagans, then to Islam when the Arabs conquered
Persia. There was as well a little from China and India.
Islam is in fact responsible for *nothing* good. Even their
architecture was derived from that of Ancient Rome. And India.
Although I think that Islam is overrated for politically correct reasons,
I think this goes too far. Islam did some of the medicine, discussions of
physics, mathematics, etc.
If you examine the basis of those claims, you'll find that they all lie
in compendia of ancient knowledge put together by Persian scholars in
the tenth and eleventh ccnturies. Muslims, yes, but not originators.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
I am not sure, later era of the Roman Empire was technologically
advancing faster.
Only in areas that weren't a problem for Christian dogma.
SolomonW
2019-12-09 12:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SolomonW
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.
Almost all of that was European anyway: the knowledge and science of
the Ancient Greeks, transmitted to Rome, then to Persia when Justinian
forbade teaching by pagans, then to Islam when the Arabs conquered
Persia. There was as well a little from China and India.
Islam is in fact responsible for *nothing* good. Even their
architecture was derived from that of Ancient Rome. And India.
Although I think that Islam is overrated for politically correct reasons,
I think this goes too far. Islam did some of the medicine, discussions of
physics, mathematics, etc.
If you examine the basis of those claims, you'll find that they all lie
in compendia of ancient knowledge put together by Persian scholars in
the tenth and eleventh ccnturies. Muslims, yes, but not originators.
There is some original material there.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SolomonW
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
I am not sure, later era of the Roman Empire was technologically
advancing faster.
Only in areas that weren't a problem for Christian dogma.
Which areas would take be? By 400 CE the Western Roman Empire was pretty
homogenise
Ned Latham
2019-12-09 16:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SolomonW
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.
Almost all of that was European anyway: the knowledge and science of
the Ancient Greeks, transmitted to Rome, then to Persia when Justinian
forbade teaching by pagans, then to Islam when the Arabs conquered
Persia. There was as well a little from China and India.
Islam is in fact responsible for *nothing* good. Even their
architecture was derived from that of Ancient Rome. And India.
Although I think that Islam is overrated for politically correct reasons,
I think this goes too far. Islam did some of the medicine, discussions of
physics, mathematics, etc.
If you examine the basis of those claims, you'll find that they all lie
in compendia of ancient knowledge put together by Persian scholars in
the tenth and eleventh ccnturies. Muslims, yes, but not originators.
There is some original material there.
Islamists and novelists assert that. I don't regard them as credible. Every
such assertion that I've been able to check has turned out to be false.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SolomonW
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
I am not sure, later era of the Roman Empire was technologically
advancing faster.
Only in areas that weren't a problem for Christian dogma.
Which areas would take be? By 400 CE the Western Roman Empire was pretty
homogenise
Architecture, poetry and literature, timekeeping, the trades,
Byker
2019-12-09 20:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SolomonW
Which areas would take be? By 400 CE the Western Roman Empire was pretty
homogenise
Architecture, poetry and literature, timekeeping, the trades,
Don't forget the Eastern Empire, which flourished for another thousand
years...
Ned Latham
2019-12-09 21:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SolomonW
Which areas would take be? By 400 CE the Western Roman Empire was
pretty homogenise
Architecture, poetry and literature, timekeeping, the trades,
Don't forget the Eastern Empire, which flourished for another thousand
years...
I wouldn't say "flourished".

But they were a little more respectful of their ancestors' achievements
than the fallen West was.
Phil McGregor
2019-12-08 23:32:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Dec 2019 21:12:24 -0600, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.

The real problem was economic ... slavery.

By the early medieval period slavery was gone (or going) almost
everywhere in the Mediterranean world and its peripheries ... replaced
by Serfdom, which was more efficient, economically speaking, and that,
too, was being replaced, albeit slowly, by the end of the medieval
period in most places.

Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages.

Phil McGregor
Ned Latham
2019-12-09 01:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.

----snip----
Phil McGregor
2019-12-09 01:52:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 19:25:18 -0600, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Evidently you didn't bother to read the REST of what I said.

"Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages."

Which, of course, makes YOUR statement 'rubbish' ...

Phil McGregor
Ned Latham
2019-12-09 02:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
It had *everything* to do with it.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Evidently you didn't bother to read the REST of what I said.
Wrong. I read it and dismissed it.
Post by Phil McGregor
"Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages."
Irrelevant. The advances that later lifted Europe above the rest of the
world were made before Christianity became the State Religion in the 4th
century. Progress was then suppressed in every area of human endeavour
that had aspects worrying to Christian dogma until the Renaissance.

Even then, it continued trying to suppress progress.

----snip----
Phil McGregor
2019-12-09 05:31:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 20:05:41 -0600, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
It had *everything* to do with it.
I disagree with your unsupported personal assertion.

Christianity onlly started to be a factor from the early 4th century,
by which the Empire was 3 centuries old and, the late Republic, which
had an Empire even if it wasn't one, adds another century to that.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Evidently you didn't bother to read the REST of what I said.
Wrong. I read it and dismissed it.
With no justification other than your unsuppoted personal assertion.

Which is, of course, entirely valueless.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
"Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages."
Irrelevant. The advances that later lifted Europe above the rest of the
world were made before Christianity became the State Religion in the 4th
century. Progress was then suppressed in every area of human endeavour
that had aspects worrying to Christian dogma until the Renaissance.
Twaddle. Absolute total utter tosh.
Post by Ned Latham
Even then, it continued trying to suppress progress.
Twaddle.

I'm hardly an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, but your
unsupported personal assertion simply doesn't fly and smacks of
nothing more than sectarian hatred.

Perhaps you'd like to condemn the Papist heretics and the Pope as an
anti-Christ while you're at it?

(Me? Born and baptised a Presbyterian ... but an agnostic by choice).

Phil McGregor
Ned Latham
2019-12-09 10:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
It had *everything* to do with it.
I disagree with your unsupported personal assertion.
You just made a silly assumption.
Post by Phil McGregor
Christianity onlly started to be a factor from the early 4th century,
Wrong. Christianity was decisive at the battle of Milvian Bridge in 312,
and was taken into Government by the victor, Konstantinos. It had been
a factor since the middle of the 2nd.
Post by Phil McGregor
by which the Empire was 3 centuries old and, the late Republic, which
had an Empire even if it wasn't one, adds another century to that.
Oh, I see. You want Rome to have been innovative during (before?) late
Replublican times. I have news for you. They were.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Evidently you didn't bother to read the REST of what I said.
Wrong. I read it and dismissed it.
With no justification other than your unsuppoted personal assertion.
At this point your silly assumption has produced a stupidity. The reason
followed, but in your eagerness to spout "personal assertion", you didn't
take it in.

You're not one of those maleducated unfortunates who can't understand
English more than two or three words at a time, are you?
Post by Phil McGregor
Which is, of course, entirely valueless.
Try addressing the issues.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
"Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages."
Irrelevant. The advances that later lifted Europe above the rest of the
world were made before Christianity became the State Religion in the 4th
century. Progress was then suppressed in every area of human endeavour
that had aspects worrying to Christian dogma until the Renaissance.
Twaddle. Absolute total utter tosh.
If it's false, you should be able to prove it very easily. Let's see you
put your money where your mouth is.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Even then, it continued trying to suppress progress.
Twaddle.
You never heard of Galileo Galilei?
Post by Phil McGregor
I'm hardly an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, but your
unsupported personal assertion simply doesn't fly and smacks of
nothing more than sectarian hatred.
Try informing yourself.

----snip----
pyotr filipivich
2019-12-09 17:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Perhaps you'd like to condemn the Papist heretics and the Pope as an
anti-Christ while you're at it?
(Me? Born and baptised a Presbyterian ... but an agnostic by choice).
Ah yes. As I say "I was born and baptized a Presbyterian, and
thus predestined to believe in Free Will, and to become Eastern
Orthodox. Rally wasn't anything I could do about it."
Post by Phil McGregor
Phil McGregor
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
SolomonW
2019-12-09 12:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 19:25:18 -0600, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Evidently you didn't bother to read the REST of what I said.
"Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages."
Which, of course, makes YOUR statement 'rubbish' ...
Phil McGregor
I would say Roman society, I can think of slave societies that were
extremely technological
PhantomView
2019-12-09 03:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sat, 07 Dec 2019 21:12:24 -0600, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
By the early medieval period slavery was gone (or going) almost
everywhere in the Mediterranean world and its peripheries ... replaced
by Serfdom, which was more efficient, economically speaking, and that,
too, was being replaced, albeit slowly, by the end of the medieval
period in most places.
Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages.
I have heard that proposition before, and to a degree
it may be a factor. However the most common impetus
for new and better sci/tech is MILITARY power. Rome
always wanted that, even after they went Christian.

No, there was something else holding back the innovators.
Not sure exactly what though. I suspect the way money
and rewards and markets were organized was involved,
a structural barrier buried in the system.
Phil McGregor
2019-12-09 05:39:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 22:36:27 -0500, PhantomView
Post by PhantomView
Post by Phil McGregor
On Sat, 07 Dec 2019 21:12:24 -0600, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
By the early medieval period slavery was gone (or going) almost
everywhere in the Mediterranean world and its peripheries ... replaced
by Serfdom, which was more efficient, economically speaking, and that,
too, was being replaced, albeit slowly, by the end of the medieval
period in most places.
Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages.
I have heard that proposition before, and to a degree
it may be a factor. However the most common impetus
for new and better sci/tech is MILITARY power. Rome
always wanted that, even after they went Christian.
No, there was something else holding back the innovators.
Not sure exactly what though. I suspect the way money
and rewards and markets were organized was involved,
a structural barrier buried in the system.
True, to an extent. However, the problem was that the money, the real
money, was held by a landowning class (those of Senatorial status) or
a commercial class (the Equites) whose main aim was to make enough
money to buy enough land to become a member of the Senatorial Class
... and there was, therefore, an inherent prejudice against anything
that wasn't based on agriculture or rural activities.

THAT was the main 'structural barrier.'

The think was, landholding was both profitable AND safely so for the
simple reason of Slavery ... innovation outside of Agriculture was
risky and, as noted, expensive, and uneconomic, during the early
stages.

You could also argue that Rome's fairly rapid expansion to a very
large size made the status quo, socially AND technologically, more
stable as, as far as 'industry' was concerned, even low productivity
slave workers could swamp innovation and, in any case, low
productivity manufacturing methods ON AN EMPIRE WIDE BASIS coupled
with the strategic position of the Mediterranean to transport said
production cheaply and almost risk free with no internal customs
barriers meant that, again, in the initial stages of technological
development the expensive tech was swamped again.

Phil
Ned Latham
2019-12-09 10:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by PhantomView
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
By the early medieval period slavery was gone (or going) almost
everywhere in the Mediterranean world and its peripheries ... replaced
by Serfdom, which was more efficient, economically speaking, and that,
too, was being replaced, albeit slowly, by the end of the medieval
period in most places.
Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages.
I have heard that proposition before, and to a degree
it may be a factor. However the most common impetus
for new and better sci/tech is MILITARY power. Rome
always wanted that, even after they went Christian.
There was a similar pressure on innovation in public building too, and
advancement continued in those areas until well into the Christian
period. But by Manzikert (1071) even those areas had dried up.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by PhantomView
No, there was something else holding back the innovators.
Widespread ignorance. Much of what they needed to know from related
fields didn't exist any more. In Western Europe, blacksmiths, millers,
bowyers - tradies of all flavours, I guess - gradually improved their
tools and their skills and their product; and as much as they could
the armed forces did similar, but all of that was done without any
support or advice from the only well-educated people in society:
the Princes of the Church.
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by PhantomView
Not sure exactly what though. I suspect the way money
and rewards and markets were organized was involved,
a structural barrier buried in the system.
True, to an extent. However, the problem was that the money, the real
money, was held by a landowning class (those of Senatorial status) or
a commercial class (the Equites) whose main aim was to make enough
money to buy enough land to become a member of the Senatorial Class
... and there was, therefore, an inherent prejudice against anything
that wasn't based on agriculture or rural activities.
Everyone's main aim was to become Emperor. Money was only one
consideration; effective muscle was never off the table, and
that means that both Emperor and wannabe had similar priorities
as far as military preparedness goes.
Post by Phil McGregor
THAT was the main 'structural barrier.'
The think was, landholding was both profitable AND safely so for the
simple reason of Slavery ... innovation outside of Agriculture was
risky and, as noted, expensive, and uneconomic, during the early
stages.
It was risky. It always was, and probably always will be, risky.

(And "uneconomic, during the early stages", whatever that means.)
Post by Phil McGregor
You could also argue that Rome's fairly rapid expansion to a very
large size made the status quo, socially AND technologically, more
stable as, as far as 'industry' was concerned, even low productivity
slave workers could swamp innovation and, in any case, low
productivity manufacturing methods ON AN EMPIRE WIDE BASIS coupled
with the strategic position of the Mediterranean to transport said
production cheaply and almost risk free with no internal customs
barriers meant that, again, in the initial stages of technological
development the expensive tech was swamped again.
Not even close. Because the Christians detroyed almost everything that
was a problem for Christian dogmna, no-one but the military ever
found a use for petroleum, which they found in the Middle East.

No scholar ever investigated it, or made a learned suggestion: about
the only thing the scholars were interested in wrt the military was
whether some new weapon or other was fit for use against Christians.

Rome was innovative for a long time. They learnt hydraulic engineering
from the Etruscans and they expanded that into city-wide water supply,
drainage and sewage (they even had public toilets). They learnt the
Greek spear-armed phalanx too, from the Etruscans, then developed the
gladius-armed legion-cohort. It was they who invented laying roads on
foundations, and underwater-setting cement.

But as Christianity befogged people's minds, all that went away.
Byker
2019-12-09 16:31:55 UTC
Permalink
"Phil McGregor" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Sat, 07 Dec 2019 21:12:24 -0600, Ned Latham
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Ned Latham
Post by PhantomView
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
By the early medieval period slavery was gone (or going) almost everywhere
in the Mediterranean world and its peripheries ... replaced by Serfdom,
which was more efficient, economically speaking, and that, too, was being
replaced, albeit slowly, by the end of the medieval period in most places.
The Plague hastened the process:

Byker
2019-12-10 14:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Indeed it did ... in most places ... there were, of course, exceptions ...
and some places (Poland, Russia amongst others) managed to institute (at
least partially) the so-called 'second serfdom.'
To this day Russian apologists equate their abolition of serfdom with the
American emancipation of slaves at around the same time...
SolomonW
2019-12-08 11:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
Byker
2019-12-08 16:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But for the "White Christian thieves" they'd still be in the Bronze Age, if
not the Stone Age.

Although Europe represents only about 8 percent of the planet's landmass,
after c.1492, Europeans conquered or colonized more than 80 percent of the
entire world. There are many possible explanations for why history played
out this way, but few can explain why the West became so powerful for so
long.

Example: China has provided a vast amount of intellectual property to the
world. Too bad their emperors and their edicts kept them in the Middle Ages
500 years longer than the West. Mustn't upset the delicate yin and yang of
things by such trivial concepts as innovation! What separates the West from
cultures like China and the Islamic world is the idea of PROGRESS.

Why was there was no Thai Leeuwenhoek, no Korean Galileo, no Chinese Newton,
no Indian Leibniz and no Turkish Tycho Brahe?

GREAT articles: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3769

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/Hsu/newton.htm

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/03/curious-civilization.html
SolomonW
2019-12-09 12:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But for the "White Christian thieves" they'd still be in the Bronze Age, if
not the Stone Age.
Although Europe represents only about 8 percent of the planet's landmass,
after c.1492, Europeans conquered or colonized more than 80 percent of the
entire world. There are many possible explanations for why history played
out this way, but few can explain why the West became so powerful for so
long.
Example: China has provided a vast amount of intellectual property to the
world. Too bad their emperors and their edicts kept them in the Middle Ages
500 years longer than the West. Mustn't upset the delicate yin and yang of
things by such trivial concepts as innovation! What separates the West from
cultures like China and the Islamic world is the idea of PROGRESS.
Why was there was no Thai Leeuwenhoek, no Korean Galileo, no Chinese Newton,
no Indian Leibniz and no Turkish Tycho Brahe?
GREAT articles: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3769
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/Hsu/newton.htm
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/03/curious-civilization.html
May be if Chinia has a few centuries more, there would have been.
PhantomView
2019-12-09 02:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.

I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.

This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
SolomonW
2019-12-09 12:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Ned Latham
2019-12-09 16:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Japan underwent radical changes after Admiral Perry's "visit".
PhantomView
2019-12-10 02:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Similar in the "social order" perspective, but not
when it comes to innovation/tech/invention.

It is *extremely* impressive how quickly Japan went from
being an essentially medieval nation to becoming a powerful
force in the world .... barely two generations between
sharpening swords and animal-drawn carts to whipping
the Tsars pacific fleet. That is NOT China .... despite some
similarities there is a different dynamic in Japanese culture.
SolomonW
2019-12-10 09:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Similar in the "social order" perspective, but not
when it comes to innovation/tech/invention.
It is *extremely* impressive how quickly Japan went from
being an essentially medieval nation to becoming a powerful
force in the world .... barely two generations between
sharpening swords and animal-drawn carts to whipping
the Tsars pacific fleet.
Again that is society, Japan a few hundred years earlier was one of the
leaders in gunpowder technology.
Post by PhantomView
That is NOT China .... despite some
similarities there is a different dynamic in Japanese culture.
China went through rapid advancement in this period too. The big problem
they faced was their enemy Japan was advancing faster.
PhantomView
2019-12-11 02:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Similar in the "social order" perspective, but not
when it comes to innovation/tech/invention.
It is *extremely* impressive how quickly Japan went from
being an essentially medieval nation to becoming a powerful
force in the world .... barely two generations between
sharpening swords and animal-drawn carts to whipping
the Tsars pacific fleet.
Again that is society, Japan a few hundred years earlier was one of the
leaders in gunpowder technology.
The Samuri protested that firearms undermined the diginity
of their warrior class - the discipline, the mindset, the skills.
Of course they also threatened the Samuri class itself ... if
anyone could be an effective killer then why HAVE a warrior
class at all ?

It might be argued that the later rise of a conventional army
did indeed cause an imbalance in the long-established
social harmonic. Without the Samuri there was a void ...
and the conventional military filled it with a vengance - but
could not replace its philosophy and mindset and role as
a building-block of the society.

It may be worth watching another ancient highly-structured
and balanced society ... India. As the caste system decays
expect more and more imbalance in the social harmonics.
This may not be so terrible, OR we might see an Imperial
India take shape. Most likely though ... chaos and death
and civil wars. Societies are like a tall building, each part
must support the others. Tampering with the balance can
have serious consequences.
Post by SolomonW
Post by PhantomView
That is NOT China .... despite some
similarities there is a different dynamic in Japanese culture.
China went through rapid advancement in this period too. The big problem
they faced was their enemy Japan was advancing faster.
Japan never invaded China until the 1930s, although there
were some unpleasantries before that - most notably over
Korea.

China tried to invade Japan more than once however.
SolomonW
2019-12-11 07:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Similar in the "social order" perspective, but not
when it comes to innovation/tech/invention.
It is *extremely* impressive how quickly Japan went from
being an essentially medieval nation to becoming a powerful
force in the world .... barely two generations between
sharpening swords and animal-drawn carts to whipping
the Tsars pacific fleet.
Again that is society, Japan a few hundred years earlier was one of the
leaders in gunpowder technology.
The Samuri protested that firearms undermined the diginity
of their warrior class - the discipline, the mindset, the skills.
Of course they also threatened the Samuri class itself ... if
anyone could be an effective killer then why HAVE a warrior
class at all ?
It might be argued that the later rise of a conventional army
did indeed cause an imbalance in the long-established
social harmonic. Without the Samuri there was a void ...
and the conventional military filled it with a vengance - but
could not replace its philosophy and mindset and role as
a building-block of the society.
It may be worth watching another ancient highly-structured
and balanced society ... India. As the caste system decays
expect more and more imbalance in the social harmonics.
This may not be so terrible, OR we might see an Imperial
India take shape. Most likely though ... chaos and death
and civil wars. Societies are like a tall building, each part
must support the others. Tampering with the balance can
have serious consequences.
Guns level out the playing field.
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by PhantomView
That is NOT China .... despite some
similarities there is a different dynamic in Japanese culture.
China went through rapid advancement in this period too. The big problem
they faced was their enemy Japan was advancing faster.
Japan never invaded China until the 1930s, although there
were some unpleasantries before that - most notably over
Korea.
Actually check out the first Sino-Japanese war. This was the war, that
started the fall of imperial China.
Post by PhantomView
China tried to invade Japan more than once however.
Long time earlier.
Byker
2019-12-11 18:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Guns level out the playing field.
After Commodore Perry's visit, Japan went straight from the Middle Ages to
the Industrial Revolution, without the moderating influences of a
Renaissance, a Reformation, or an Age of Enlightenment -- with predictable
results...
Robert Woodward
2019-12-12 05:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by SolomonW
Guns level out the playing field.
After Commodore Perry's visit, Japan went straight from the Middle Ages to
the Industrial Revolution, without the moderating influences of a
Renaissance, a Reformation, or an Age of Enlightenment -- with predictable
results...
That might explain Russia as well, but not Germany.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Ned Latham
2019-12-12 09:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Byker
Post by SolomonW
Guns level out the playing field.
After Commodore Perry's visit, Japan went straight from the Middle
Ages to the Industrial Revolution, without the moderating influences
of a Renaissance, a Reformation, or an Age of Enlightenment -- with
predictable results...
That might explain Russia as well, but not Germany.
I don't think it explains either of them. The Japanese, the Russians
and the Germans were warlike peoples, with long histories and longer
traditions of warrior culture. Such cultures are authoritarian and
even totalitarian; governments, naturally, tend to be the same.

But the French were too, and the English, and the Spanish... all
of Europe, essentially. That's not what made the difference.
The difference I see is that the Japanese, the Russians and the
Germans had all recently suffered extreme humiliation at the hands
of external enemies.
pyotr filipivich
2019-12-12 18:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Byker
Post by SolomonW
Guns level out the playing field.
After Commodore Perry's visit, Japan went straight from the Middle Ages to
the Industrial Revolution, without the moderating influences of a
Renaissance, a Reformation, or an Age of Enlightenment -- with predictable
results...
That might explain Russia as well, but not Germany.
Russia began a policy of "Westernization", mostly technological,
but including some cultural elements, under Peter the Great in the
1600's. As with every effort to "modernize" (including those in
England, Western Europe, and North America), the results were uneven.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
Byker
2019-12-09 16:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
The worst political blunder of all time was the decision of the emperor of
China in 1433 to cut off his country from the outside world. In the wake of
that decision, China lost its position in the forefront of human
achievements and fell behind, over the centuries, to become a Third World
country, desiring to live in a "glorious past".

The Chinese education system was oriented toward the study of the Confucian
classics so students could write "eight-legged essays" about them. There was
a constant paranoia that advancements in science and technology would upset
the delicate yin and yang of things. There was no institution equivalent to
a university where original research was prized. The best a scientist could
hope for was to create a playtoy that would amuse the emperor...
PhantomView
2019-12-10 02:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by PhantomView
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
The worst political blunder of all time was the decision of the emperor of
China in 1433 to cut off his country from the outside world. In the wake of
that decision, China lost its position in the forefront of human
achievements and fell behind, over the centuries, to become a Third World
country, desiring to live in a "glorious past".
The Chinese education system was oriented toward the study of the Confucian
classics so students could write "eight-legged essays" about them. There was
a constant paranoia that advancements in science and technology would upset
the delicate yin and yang of things. There was no institution equivalent to
a university where original research was prized. The best a scientist could
hope for was to create a playtoy that would amuse the emperor...
An environment that smothered sci/tech innovation.

Perhaps their bad experiences with the Mongols contributed
to the desire to shut out foreign ideas and influences ? Was
the "Chinese way" THAT fragile ?

Hmm, I remember in the late 90s some FSU prof declared
that every time Madonna (Ciconne) wore her 'bra' on the
outside she was threatening western civilization. If western
civ is THAT fragile then I guess it deserves to fall ........
Loading...