True. Like watching Loose Change.LNRulez01 wrote:I agree with you, but it is some interesting reading material if your bored.
True. Like watching Loose Change.LNRulez01 wrote:I agree with you, but it is some interesting reading material if your bored.
Amazeroth wrote: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.
I beg to differ. I would say that it was either China or the Middle East.Amazeroth wrote:Byzantium was by far the culturally (and scientifically) most vibrant place throughout the medieval ages.
Hear, hear. But why the hell are we discussing this here anyway? And I used to think that my digressions were bad.GreekIdiot wrote: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.GreekIdiot wrote:Amazeroth wrote: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?
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.SelucianCrusader wrote: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.
SelucianCrusader wrote:Feudalism served its purpose, to slowly integrate the barbarian warlords into functioning societies.
GreekIdiot wrote:Amazeroth wrote: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 wrote:I beg to differ. I would say that it was either China or the Middle East.Amazeroth wrote:Byzantium was by far the culturally (and scientifically) most vibrant place throughout the medieval ages.
SelucianCrusader wrote: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.
GreekIdiot wrote:
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.
Ah, yes, but the Dark Ages hindered the development of a centralised state. And therefore, they can be considered, politically speaking, a failure.Amazeroth wrote: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.
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.Amazeroth wrote:The Middle East? Not a chance. Because all the scientific, philosophic, and otherwise worthwhile stuff that they got, they got from Byzantium.
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.Amazeroth wrote:Without Byzantium, no art, architecture, literature, philosophy, medicine, etc., neither for us or for the Arabs/Ottomans.
Hehehe. But honestly, the prevalence of religious thought in those days, I think, is an argument against them having achieved anything useful.Amazeroth wrote:Also, even if you don't agree with religion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest