We need less Presidents and Prime Ministers!

[EEL123]

I agree with you, but it is some interesting reading material if your bored.

True. Like watching Loose Change.

[GreekIdiot]

It so wasn't. Except if you are implying that the Dark Ages of the Western world weren't dark -which they decidedly weren't. Byzantium was by far the culturally (and scientifically) most vibrant place throughout the medieval ages. It just suffers from the same problem the medieval age over here still suffers - good (as in successful) propaganda. Whereas the term "Dark Ages" was forged by Protestant propaganda in order to discredit the Catholic time before, Byzantium was simultaneously described only as a corrupt, decadent place, merely shadowing the long gone glory of ancient Rome, and rightly dying under the Ottomans. Both were, of course, as modern historians usually show without much problems, compeltely wrong.

How if feudalism not bad? Theoretically, from the birth of Christ till the early onset of the European Renaissance nothing significant happened, except war, religion and war. How can an era not be categorized under the "waste of time" part of human history when it fulfills all those qualifications?

[EEL123]

Byzantium was by far the culturally (and scientifically) most vibrant place throughout the medieval ages.

I beg to differ. I would say that it was either China or the Middle East.

[EEL123]

Theoretically, from the birth of Christ till the early onset of the European Renaissance nothing significant happened, except war, religion and war. How can an era not be categorized under the "waste of time" part of human history when it fulfills all those qualifications?

Hear, hear. But why the hell are we discussing this here anyway? And I used to think that my digressions were bad.

[SelucianCrusader]

It so wasn't. Except if you are implying that the Dark Ages of the Western world weren't dark -which they decidedly weren't. Byzantium was by far the culturally (and scientifically) most vibrant place throughout the medieval ages. It just suffers from the same problem the medieval age over here still suffers - good (as in successful) propaganda. Whereas the term "Dark Ages" was forged by Protestant propaganda in order to discredit the Catholic time before, Byzantium was simultaneously described only as a corrupt, decadent place, merely shadowing the long gone glory of ancient Rome, and rightly dying under the Ottomans. Both were, of course, as modern historians usually show without much problems, compeltely wrong.

How if feudalism not bad? Theoretically, from the birth of Christ till the early onset of the European Renaissance nothing significant happened, except war, religion and war. How can an era not be categorized under the "waste of time" part of human history when it fulfills all those qualifications?

That's not quite true. Cathedrals like the one below require more than just religious faith to build. The arts, technology (both military and not) and philosophy (just think of Thomas Aquinas) were all constantly under development during the medieval era.



Feudalism served its purpose, to slowly integrate the barbarian warlords into functioning societies.

[EEL123]

That's not quite true. Cathedrals like the one below require more than just religious faith to build. The arts, technology (both military and not) and philosophy (just think of Thomas Aquinas) were all constantly under development during the medieval era.

Well, the development of the above was retarded significantly. Had there been no Dark Ages, we may gotten where we are several hundred years ago.

[GreekIdiot]

Feudalism served its purpose, to slowly integrate the barbarian warlords into functioning societies.

Exactly. It wasn't until the Renaissance that humans realized they are humans - then they started acting like it.

Building a cathedral requires a lot, of course, from science to politics to religious brainwashing (even more). Nothing more.

[Amazeroth]

It so wasn't. Except if you are implying that the Dark Ages of the Western world weren't dark -which they decidedly weren't. Byzantium was by far the culturally (and scientifically) most vibrant place throughout the medieval ages. It just suffers from the same problem the medieval age over here still suffers - good (as in successful) propaganda. Whereas the term "Dark Ages" was forged by Protestant propaganda in order to discredit the Catholic time before, Byzantium was simultaneously described only as a corrupt, decadent place, merely shadowing the long gone glory of ancient Rome, and rightly dying under the Ottomans. Both were, of course, as modern historians usually show without much problems, compeltely wrong.

How if feudalism not bad? Theoretically, from the birth of Christ till the early onset of the European Renaissance nothing significant happened, except war, religion and war. How can an era not be categorized under the "waste of time" part of human history when it fulfills all those qualifications?

And in the Renaissance the war stopped? From the beginning of known history until now all that happened was war and war and war (and then some). And all the time there were other advances, and there the medieval ages are not an exclusion. If you're only considering periods of peace periods of advancement, you really have no reason to single out the medieval ages as waste of time.

Feudalism is not worse than any other form of government, although if you value the idea of everyone having a say, like I do, it will be inferior to democracy. But other than that, 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.

By the way, the early onset of the European Renaissance was kicked off by Byzantine scholars and artists arriving in Italy due to the fall of Constantinople. No Byzantium, no Renaissance. But also, no Byzantium, no law system as we know it. Without Byzantium, no art, architecture, literature, philosophy, medicine, etc., neither for us or for the Arabs/Ottomans. Much of these goes for the Slavs as well. Byzantium was culturally and generally historically incredibly significant.

Byzantium was by far the culturally (and scientifically) most vibrant place throughout the medieval ages.

I beg to differ. I would say that it was either China or the Middle East.

China, yes, probably. But by "throughout the medieval ages" I also wanted to imply that Byzantium was the most advanced playe in the region where we do constant something like the medieval ages at the same time. The Middle East? Not a chance. Because all the scientific, philosophic, and otherwise worthwhile stuff that they got, they got from Byzantium. By the way, I forgot to mention that Byzantium also was about the richest country as well (although medieval Mali might have been even more wealthy).

That's not quite true. Cathedrals like the one below require more than just religious faith to build. The arts, technology (both military and not) and philosophy (just think of Thomas Aquinas) were all constantly under development during the medieval era. Feudalism served its purpose, to slowly integrate the barbarian warlords into functioning societies.

Exactly. Also, even if you don't agree with religion, you would have a hard time arguing that it didn't massively influence the mindset that later arrived at the idea of human rights, humanism, and just about all the values that made Europe a powerhouse later.

[Amazeroth]

Exactly. It wasn't until the Renaissance that humans realized they are humans - then they started acting like it.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. In the Renaissance, humans became self-centered, but the cultural advances were no more significant than before. If you really have to pick a period where humans realised that because they're humans, they maybe shouldn't kill each other all the time, either pick one of the hundred religions that already said so, or, if you want reason in the game, Enlightenment. But not ever the Renaissance.

Building a cathedral requires a lot, of course, from science to politics to religious brainwashing (even more). Nothing more.

So pretty much everything.

[EEL123]

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 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.

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.

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.