We need less Presidents and Prime Ministers!

[GreekIdiot]

They built upon what they got from the Byzantines, and therefore can be considered more advanced even if the basic, less developed, idea was stolen from someone else. Just like a wheel is not necessarily inferior to a log.

Inclined to agree with this.

But honestly, the prevalence of religious thought in those days, I think, is an argument against them having achieved anything useful.

Have to disagree with this. Think outside the box. It was not against them having achieved anything useful, it was just against what humankind managed to achieve after the fall of religion (in terms of influence).

[Amazeroth]

it is probably the most effective form of government in a time where technological limits and political mindset more or less hinder a centralised state.

Ah, yes, but the Dark Ages hindered the development of a centralised state. And therefore, they can be considered, politically speaking, a failure.

The centralized states before that had failed. And even in our days, the probably most successful country (yet), the US, is a federal state, so I don't think that it is possible to consider the centralised state automatically as an advancement.

The Middle East? Not a chance. Because all the scientific, philosophic, and otherwise worthwhile stuff that they got, they got from Byzantium.

They built upon what they got from the Byzantines, and therefore can be considered more advanced even if the basic, less developed, idea was stolen from someone else. Just like a wheel is not necessarily inferior to a log.

Well, by the time they built upon what they got, Byzantium was no more, so your point would be somewhat moot.

Without Byzantium, no art, architecture, literature, philosophy, medicine, etc., neither for us or for the Arabs/Ottomans.

Actually, many classical works were translated into Arabic and lost in the West. When the Renaissance happened, they were translated back from Arabic into Latin or Greek.

So? That really only goes to prove the importance of Byzantium.

Also, even if you don't agree with religion

Hehehe. But honestly, the prevalence of religious thought in those days, I think, is an argument against them having achieved anything useful.

Well, religion was prevalent until about 100 years before now. Unless you would argue that we only begun achieving useful stuff in the last 100 years, you would at least have to come to the conclusion that religion was not a big factor whenever usefulness or the lack of it can be considered. Sure, at times religion went against scientific advances (albeit the theoretical one, like Galileo), but it also furthered, for example, the arts in all their forms.

[EEL123]

The centralized states before that had failed. And even in our days, the probably most successful country (yet), the US, is a federal state, so I don't think that it is possible to consider the centralised state automatically as an advancement.

Well, by centralised state I don't mean a unitary state. I mean that you have a state with a coherent authority running it, not a disorganised splotch of rulers of varying degrees of power. The US states are not autonomous entities who have their own militaries and what not.

Well, by the time they built upon what they got, Byzantium was no more, so your point would be somewhat moot.

The so-called Islamic Golden Age began around 750. The Byzantine Empire lasted until 1453. That's a 700-year period where they existed together.

So? That really only goes to prove the importance of Byzantium.

By classical works I mean stuff earlier than that. Not Byzantine works.

Unless you would argue that we only begun achieving useful stuff in the last 100 years

No, but we were held back by religion. I never said that we didn't achieve anything useful, but without Tycho Brahe being burned at the stake, without Galileo being tried, without Darwin being treated with widespread scepticism, we would have achieve a lot more.

it also furthered, for example, the arts in all their forms.

Bleh, art. But that's my personal opinion, and I don't expect you to subscribe to it.

[Amazeroth]

The centralized states before that had failed. And even in our days, the probably most successful country (yet), the US, is a federal state, so I don't think that it is possible to consider the centralised state automatically as an advancement.

Well, by centralised state I don't mean a unitary state. I mean that you have a state with a coherent authority running it, not a disorganised splotch of rulers of varying degrees of power. The US states are not autonomous entities who have their own militaries and what not.

In that case, I agree. But still, feudalism was an advancement and a necessary adaptation, and the thing that led to centralised states again, so it was hardly a setback.

Well, by the time they built upon what they got, Byzantium was no more, so your point would be somewhat moot.

The so-called Islamic Golden Age began around 750. The Byzantine Empire lasted until 1453. That's a 700-year period where they existed together.

And for that period, Byzantium was the culturally, economically and scientifically more vibrant place (or at least equally vibrant). Of course not consistent over the whole 700 years, but for most of the time.

So? That really only goes to prove the importance of Byzantium.

By classical works I mean stuff earlier than that. Not Byzantine works.[/quote]

But the classical works that were translated into Arabic were translated because of the Byzantines. And, of course, further evolved.

Unless you would argue that we only begun achieving useful stuff in the last 100 years

No, but we were held back by religion. I never said that we didn't achieve anything useful, but without Tycho Brahe being burned at the stake, without Galileo being tried, without Darwin being treated with widespread scepticism, we would have achieve a lot more.

We would, but it would be naive to believe that Brahe, Galileo and Darwin would not have met scepticism (although Darwin was a bit too late for the church to really hurt him), and indeed extreme scepticism, if religion wouldn't have been there. Scepticism of anything new seems to be a very common if not inherent trait in human beings (and of course a usually beneficial one), it hardly needs religion to manifest itself.

it also furthered, for example, the arts in all their forms.

Bleh, art. But that's my personal opinion, and I don't expect you to subscribe to it.

I have to ask, because I'm curious - do you really disregard all the arts, or just some forms?

[EEL123]

But still, feudalism was an advancement and a necessary adaptation, and the thing that led to centralised states again, so it was hardly a setback.

Not necessarily. Some centralised states have developed without feudalism. For example, the Mongol Empire was established without going through that transitional period. The reason it fell apart was because of what can be said to be similar to feudalism.

And for that period, Byzantium was the culturally, economically and scientifically more vibrant place (or at least equally vibrant). Of course not consistent over the whole 700 years, but for most of the time.

Once again, I beg to differ.

But the classical works that were translated into Arabic were translated because of the Byzantines.

No, the classical works were translated into Arabic because of the Arabs.

We would, but it would be naive to believe that Brahe, Galileo and Darwin would not have met scepticism, and indeed extreme scepticism, if religion wouldn't have been there. Scepticism of anything new seems to be a very common if not inherent trait in human beings (and of course a usually beneficial one), it hardly needs religion to manifest itself.

Religion is institutionalised scepticism of anything new (yet religious people seem to swallow unquestioningly what they should be most sceptical about (no, let's not go back to that)). Healthy scepticism is "I doubt it, but let's experiment and see who's right". Scepticism by the medieval church was "I doubt it, nothing will ever change my opinion, kill him". There's a difference.

I have to ask, because I'm curious - do you really disregard all the arts, or just some forms?

Art seems to be a bit of a pointless waste of time. Sure, it's nice to look at, but so what? There's surely more productive things to spend your time doing.

[Amazeroth]

But still, feudalism was an advancement and a necessary adaptation, and the thing that led to centralised states again, so it was hardly a setback.

Not necessarily. Some centralised states have developed without feudalism. For example, the Mongol Empire was established without going through that transitional period. The reason it fell apart was because of what can be said to be similar to feudalism.

I don't think anybody in their right mind would say that the Mongol Empire was a centralised state - at least in the sense of centralised state you used before. The reason it fell apart was not feudalism, but the lack of a system that could work in an empire that large and diverse.

But the classical works that were translated into Arabic were translated because of the Byzantines.

No, the classical works were translated into Arabic because of the Arabs.[/quote]

And where do you think did the Arabs get the classical works? Where do you think the classical works were "stored" until the Arabs came along? Remembering that between the rise of Islam and the Islamic expansion, and the fall of Western Rome, lie about 2-3 centuries? Centuries in which most of the Roman culture that was ever brought into Northern Africa was either destroyed (Vandals) or remained in Roman hands (Byzantium).

We would, but it would be naive to believe that Brahe, Galileo and Darwin would not have met scepticism, and indeed extreme scepticism, if religion wouldn't have been there. Scepticism of anything new seems to be a very common if not inherent trait in human beings (and of course a usually beneficial one), it hardly needs religion to manifest itself.

Religion is institutionalised scepticism of anything new (yet religious people seem to swallow unquestioningly what they should be most sceptical about (no, let's not go back to that)). Healthy scepticism is "I doubt it, but let's experiment and see who's right". Scepticism by the medieval church was "I doubt it, nothing will ever change my opinion, kill him". There's a difference.

Sure there is. But the Scepticism you claim was the one of the medieval church (which was a lot more tolerant than commonly thought - not that they didn't kill heretics, though, just not as much or as fervent as modern "common knowledge" would have you believe) is nothing religious. Fundamentalism will always be found within humans, regardles of religion.

I have to ask, because I'm curious - do you really disregard all the arts, or just some forms?

Art seems to be a bit of a pointless waste of time. Sure, it's nice to look at, but so what? There's surely more productive things to spend your time doing.

Well, I also meant music, literature, films, and all that stuff, not only the kind you look at.

[Hrafn]

Ah, yes, but the Dark Ages hindered the development of a centralised state. And therefore, they can be considered, politically speaking, a failure.

Why should having a centralized state be the measure of success?

Tycho Brahe being burned at the stake

He wasn't. He died from disease.

Art seems to be a bit of a pointless waste of time. Sure, it's nice to look at, but so what? There's surely more productive things to spend your time doing.

You're an unbelievably boring person.

[EEL123]

The reason it fell apart was not feudalism

No, the Mongols parcelled the place up between hierarchically arrange rulers, which is really what feudalism is. Therefore, only China, which achieved a good degree of centralisation (it already had a long time ago) remained a powerful state. The other little khanates became non-entities.

And where do you think did the Arabs get the classical works?

That is irrelevant. They translated them of their own volition. You can't really say that the Byzantines were responsible for it. If I translated one of your books, you can't really claim the credit just for having it.

which was a lot more tolerant than commonly thought - not that they didn't kill heretics, though, just not as much or as fervent as modern "common knowledge" would have you believe

I know. But that is still an unacceptable degree of intolerance.

Well, I also meant music, literature, films, and all that stuff, not only the kind you look at.

I'm not a big fan of music. Literature and film and the like are generally more for entertainment than art appreciation for me.

Why should having a centralized state be the measure of success?

It the most advanced stage of political development because a centralised state is capable of doing things that no other state can - enforcing order, establishing a military, regulating trade, providing services, etc. on any respectable scale.

He wasn't. He died from disease.

Then I'm thinking of someone else, whose name doesn't immediately come to mind. But some astronomer did get fried, I'm sure.

You're an unbelievably boring person.

You took some time to notice.

How is it possible for a discussion on government titles to suddenly degenerate into two concurrent ones about the Dark Ages and about art? This is nuts.

[Amazeroth]

The reason it fell apart was not feudalism

No, the Mongols parcelled the place up between hierarchically arrange rulers, which is really what feudalism is. Therefore, only China, which achieved a good degree of centralisation (it already had a long time ago) remained a powerful state. The other little khanates became non-entities.

If the Mongols had used feudalism - the kind that was used in Europe - the Mongol empire wouldn't have fallen apart. Because that's exactly what feudalism prevents when you lack the power, or, in the Mongols case, the organisational structure to keep a centralised state going.

And where do you think did the Arabs get the classical works?

That is irrelevant. They translated them of their own volition. You can't really say that the Byzantines were responsible for it. If I translated one of your books, you can't really claim the credit just for having it.

No, it isn't. If it were irrelevant were they got them from, it would be exactly as irrelevant that they (the Arabs) had or wanted them in the first place. Your line of argumentation was that the Byzantines were not that important for science, arts and culture in general because the classical works were preserved by the Arabs and retranslated when the Renaissance started. My point was that the Arabs did get them from the Byzantines first, which means that the Arabs wouldn't have been any more important than the Byzantines (for European culture).

which was a lot more tolerant than commonly thought - not that they didn't kill heretics, though, just not as much or as fervent as modern "common knowledge" would have you believe

I know. But that is still an unacceptable degree of intolerance.

Sure. I wouldn't argue against that.

He wasn't. He died from disease.

Then I'm thinking of someone else, whose name doesn't immediately come to mind. But some astronomer did get fried, I'm sure.[/quote]

You're probably thinking about Giordano Bruno. Although he didn't get fried for being an astronomer.

[EEL123]

If the Mongols had used feudalism - the kind that was used in Europe - the Mongol empire wouldn't have fallen apart.

They did, and contrary to your claims, they fell apart. Why did China remain an economic/cultural/scientific powerhouse even after the collapse of the rest of the empire? Because it was politically centralised.

My point was that the Arabs did get them from the Byzantines first, which means that the Arabs wouldn't have been any more important than the Byzantines (for European culture).

Well, the Byzantines became irrelevant as soon as the works were translated. And therefore, it can be said that during most of the mediaeval period, the Arabs were more significant.

Giordano Bruno

Hmm, I think so.