@Putin
I'll adress these one by one
1) I do not dispute the the Macedonian conquest led to the spread of Hellenic culture, I just also think that it ended the development of Hellenic culture, since there were no longer city-states to fight for prestige by housing great thinkers. If you take post-Alexandrian Hellenic culture, then it was simply destroyed by the Roman Republic just before becoming an empire, and also just before Christianity. The Parthians helped with Seleucia. This, I think adresses your point about Alexander spreading Hellenic culture and the comment about the downfall of Athens not being the downfall of Greek civilisation. I accept that you have a different view. I think it stems from a disagreement about the Romans themselves.

Next, about the Byzantine Empire, I view it as Byzantines being unstable and spending the latter half of their existence paying off the people from the Levant and from Persia so that they could wage war against serbians and bulgarians. It was not condusive to learning, and for some reason major public institution like the universities that popped up in Europe never developed. I blame politics, since assassination ain't cheap. Otherwise I do not have a real explanation for this, though.

Next, about the Muslims, they did not only translate Greek texts, they did not repress Greek ideas and they did build off of them. Often through also translating Indian works, and through observations of their own. There is no end of renowned scholars in either the major cities that I mentioned or just in the capitals of the taifa's in spain, many of which had enlightened rulers with high incomes. A mixture of southern French knights and the Christians from the area messed that up a bit, though.

The Mongols were responsible for much of the devastation of the areas, and so were the Mamluks in their conquest of the crusader kingdoms that were left. But the Crusaders were kinda ahead of the Mongols and operated in different areas. The Mongols destroyed everything up to Baghdad, and the Crusader troops destroyed much of the Levant. Later, in the Mamluk conquest, the Levant was destroyed again. In between, wars between crusaders and local muslim rulers didn't help either.

"I just also think that it ended the development of Hellenic culture, since there were no longer city-states to fight for prestige by housing great thinkers."

I disagree - You had competition from Bactria, the Ptolemaic kingdom, Attalid, the Antigonid. Cities like Pergamum, Alexandria, Damascus, Antioch, etc, all flourishing. I mean Alexandria alone negates the view that Greek cities were no longer capable of producing great cultural achievement.

As for housing great thinkers and schools - you had Diogenes and his Stoics; the Skeptic and Epicurean schools. I think Greek culture was developing quite progressively. Indeed, it was this hotbed of ideas that was able to produce Christianity (which I think is a blend of Stoic & Cynic philosophy, mostly Stoic). You had Euclid, Eratosthenes, Herophilos, etc.

"they did not only translate Greek texts, they did not repress Greek ideas and they did build off of them."

How can this be said. Look at the case of Avarroes, one of the philosophers that the Islamic Golden Age people like to hold up as the exemplar of Islamic achievement? He was banished and his works were burned. He had no school. Most of the examples of 'great Muslim scholars' were non-Muslims who lived in Muslim lands. For example, Constantine of Carthage, who translated Greek medical texts into Arabic & Latin. Or Moses Maimonides, also not a Muslim. And most of what was done was transmission of work from other civilizations to the West, not original contribution. But the Muslims get the credit nonetheless, for example in their transmission of Hindu numerals. Other work was of a speculative nature than the Muslim rulers never bothered to apply.

Considering their supremacy on the world-stage for a good 4 or so centuries, and their inheritance of all of this vast knowledge from the Hindu and Greek civilizations, it is remarkable how little that was new was produced.

Alexandria was certainly a burgeoning center, but not one destroyed by Christianity. I agree that things were produced later as well, but the areas where we speak of the Dark Ages are not those where we speak of Hellenic culture. Interestingly enough, and in line with your argument is the fact that when the Muslims conquered these centers (apart from Pergamum, and Antioch changed hands a lot) they continued part of this tradition.

Averroes may have been banished, his works burned, but that is something of an isolated occurrence of religious thinking defeating non-theistic thinking. But while most of the rulers in the area were very much devout, most also accepted diversity. Medicine flourished, for example, many causes of blindness were regularly treated in Muslim areas. Arab histories are also up to the standard set by the Greeks. They also helped define the scientific method. Their works were largely theoretical, though, and thus often not really visible, but they expanded knowledge nonetheless.
The non-Muslims in Muslim lands participated in Muslim culture, and worked in Arabic. I would class them into the Arab/Muslim world. Their participation is in a way a continuation of the Greek ideal. Original contributions are perhaps not as well known as those of the Greeks. Perhaps because schools do not teach the history of medicine as thoroughly as they do the history of mathematics, physics or astronomy. The Greeks also benefit from being the 'first'. The Greeks established many of the sciences, and we learn about the people who started them. After that we learn only about people who did something spectacular, like Avicenna, Copernicus, Galileo. In my experience, most of what is studied in schools ends at the Rhine, and then in the Austrian Alps. Greece gets an honorable mention as the origin of culture.

Could you not say, that Christian concepts of political organization contributed to the lack of centralization in western Europe which you say is the primary cause of the Dark Ages? What I mean is - didn't the primacy given to Ecclesiastical authority undermine the development of strong independent polities, which was only rectified in the Renaissance period?

You could say, but it would be far from the primary reason at all. Feudalism itself most undermines centralization, since the various lords all have different rights and responsibilities set out in immense complexity by written law and tradition. Also, inherent in feudalism is a blurred principle between what we would think of today as "public" and "private" spheres. Most obviously in the case of land, where a lord owed his land and power to his family inheritance independently of what the "state" said or did. It's hard to make France into a strong polity when the King of England legitimately owns half the country outright by virtue of inheritance, or do the same in Germany where the stem duchies all had secure titles to their own areas and significant powerbases there.

Did the Church play some role? Undoubtedly. But you were never going to get the centralized polities in that time period even if Mithraitism or Isis worship had won out over Christianity. There were more important independent factors at work.

42 Days until the Most Wonderful Time of the Year......the Greed Show

Enjoy, Christians and dirty rotten pagans alike!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38-t54JlDnw

"Christian concepts of political organization"


Illiterate buffoon. PLease tell me what these "Christian concepts of political organization" are? Because when *I* read the Bible, I see "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars"

IN fact, the Christian concept of political organization is to follow the rules of the appointed rulers, whomever they may be.

Once again, Putin simply has *zero* idea of what he is talking about.

If you want to talk about what corrupt humans did under the guise of Christianity, that is not Christian. That is corrupt humans co-opting something for their own perverted use.

LIke, for example, teachers cop-opting the guise of a teacher in order to get close to children to rape them. So...all teachers are rapists, right?

Oh...and all Communists are mass murderers...don't want to forget that one, right Putin the Rapist Mass Murderer?

Don't you get it, krellin? Christianity HAS to be the source of every problem. Opiates and all that.

Yes, Krellin is such an example of what Jesus would do.

Yes I know....stupid me.

The notion that the pope was the representative of god and therefore all oaths drew their validity from the pope, and by that fact the pope could absolve subjects of any obligation to kings it disapproved. Admittedly the papacy only began using this power in the 11th century or so.

Wow....you'd think by reading this idiot Putin that the Pope actually ruled the world. A good many Kings and men saw the Pope as just another political figure, not a representative of god. The Pope had what influence men gave him, not god.

A great deal of Christianity doesn't really give a shit what the Pope says, including a good number of Catholics.

So once again, Putin paints with a disgustingly perverse and distorted brush in order to try to vilify something he doesn't like.

You are the most intellectually dishonest person I know, without a doubt.

So tell me, Putin, are all Communists mass murderers or not?

Answer the question, damn it, and whenyou inevitably say, "NO" then tell me why you don't have the intellectual integrity to admit that not all Christians are represented by the perverse actions of perverse Popes.

The sad thing is, Putin, you *might* be interesting to talk to if you weren't such a lying sack of shit. You give the appearance of someone with a pretty broad depth of knowledge about a lot of subjects....it's just that you let your vile hatreds for everything cause you to lie about everything and distort facts to fit your fucked up personal beliefs and philosophies.

It's really quite sad, actually.

Pay attention, Krellin. I'm talking about the Dark Ages, not today. And yes at that time the papacy did represent Christianity and did, in effect, control Europe. The Reformation hadn't happened yet.

You never bother to pay attention to what is being said. You just shout insults because you need attention. Sorry I gave it to you, but you're a little noodge that just won't go away, and sometimes people buy the nonsense you say.

Putin - I don't care what perversity you are speaking of.

ARE COMMUNISTS MASS MURDERS OR NOT? Answer the question.

I don't pay attention to what YOU say because you are a liar. YOU are a perverse fool.

So answer the question. Because YOU like to say "All Christians are xyz" because you can find one person that did one thing. Fuck you, you lying sack of shit...

ARE COMMUNISTS MASS MURDERERS OR NOT?

"I don't pay attention to what YOU say because you are a liar."

You are a marvel to behold. You don't read and lie about what people say, but you accuse people of lying and intellectual dishonesty with every breath that you take. It's really astounding.

@ Jack_Klein: I don't think Krellin would make a good Jesus.


Jesus Faces the Sanhedrin

57 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. 58 But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end.

59 Now the chief priests, the elders,[g] and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, 60 but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none.[h] But at last two false witnesses[i] came forward 61 and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’”

62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

64 Jesus said to him, "FUCK YOU, LIBTARDS! YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY"

Ahhhh....I just realized I still have the Jackass Klein muted. Thanks, Jamie, for reminding me of that pleasantness in my life.

<Whistles and strolls away, content that Jack Klein's vile spew is not appearing anywhere around me. Suspect that Jackass Klein is probably typing one-handed because he has a hard-on for Putin again...>

Putin....man up, bitch, and answer the questions posed to you.

I thought you whistled and strolled away?

"Don't you get it, krellin? Christianity HAS to be the source of every problem. Opiates and all that."

So much for the muting. Invictus's fake muting lasted for less time than Draugnar's near daily fake mutings.

@Jamie....I lied. I am Putin. I lie.

@Putin - you ridiculous illiterate fucktard - I have Jackass Putin-whacker-offer Klein muted. Good lord but you are a stupid moron.

Are you gonna just insult my muting choices or are you going to address what I said about feudalism?

Feudalism was an attempt at greater centralization, not less, to coordinate against cavalry-based steppe armies or Viking raids and the like. It did not develop until the 10th or 11th century. So claiming that feudalism is why centralized states did not develop after the fall of Rome makes little sense.

Is the time window right after the fall of Rome? Where does it say that here?

One need just look to the HRE to see how feudalism kept a centralized polity from forming, especially in the early years before the Habsburgs made the office of emperor effectively hereditary.

Could you not say, that Christian concepts of political organization contributed to the lack of centralization in western Europe which you say is the primary cause of the Dark Ages? What I mean is - didn't the primacy given to Ecclesiastical authority undermine the development of strong independent polities, which was only rectified in the Renaissance period?

What Christian concepts of political organization are you referring to, Putin? Did these concepts detract from centralization in the east? I've not read anything to support this. Decentralized, feudalistic ideas eventually made there way east, and took root amongst some of the larger aristocratic families in the empire. There was certainly nothing inherently Christian about this.

Feudalism was an attempt at greater centralization? How so? I agree that it was in response to the endemic viking and steppe tribe raids of the time, but I don't see how it was a step towards greater centralization.

The transition from western roman empire to the so called dark ages was marked by both christian and pagan volkswanderung and settlement in western europe. The political structures that developed had less to do with Christianity than the tribal cultures of northern europe. The anglo-saxon kingdoms for instance were pagan until well into the seventh century.

A more relevant question is whether christianity played a role in the fall of roman authority. That has more weight behind it and Gibbon himself promoted to this idea quite a bit. I think there is some archaeological evidence that indicates a long social organizational decline prior to the final conquest but to what degree that is due to christianity can probably never be known.

We do know that the empire was dependent on a professional army whereas the germanic peoples valued the ability of every adult male, apart from slaves, being able and willing to take part in violence when need arose.

Anyway, feudalism was a later development.

Wow. I didn't realize Krellin feared me so much.

Well, thats a nice warm feeling.