Ok with all the talk about things that don’t make sense in this world

[H20 Toie]

Granted lots of things in history seem to be out of whack
Prymids being so perfectly aligned
Massive construction


But something that has always confused me
How come we went from Roman times with so much knowledge then medieval times after that
Like someone just closed the library and kicked all the kids out and said figure out shit for yourselves

 

[Kachina26]

Granted lots of things in history seem to be out of whack
Prymids being so perfectly aligned
Massive construction


But something that has always confused me
How come we went from Roman times with so much knowledge then medieval times after that
Like someone just closed the library and kicked all the kids out and said figure out shit for yourselves

Religion?

 

[cofooter]

Granted lots of things in history seem to be out of whack
Prymids being so perfectly aligned
Massive construction


But something that has always confused me
How come we went from Roman times with so much knowledge then medieval times after that
Like someone just closed the library and kicked all the kids out and said figure out shit for yourselves

Lack of leadership, same thing is happening right now!

 

[bilz]

Plenty of misguided leadership.
Definitely down the wrong path.

 

[Travmon]

I have always said the same thing about hand tools . We developed all the basic tools 100 years ago during the Industrial Revolution and then not much new for 80 years and about the time gearwrench got popular all the other tool designers woke out of their coma and used some out of the box thinking. Some times life just has its lulls I guess ?

 

[dread Pirate]

The Romans knew to keep their aqueducts underground and covered to save evaporation and contamination. Yet here we are,,,,,,,,

 

[530RL]

Granted lots of things in history seem to be out of whack
Prymids being so perfectly aligned
Massive construction


But something that has always confused me
How come we went from Roman times with so much knowledge then medieval times after that
Like someone just closed the library and kicked all the kids out and said figure out shit for yourselves

Everyone has a theory but the two main changes between the Roman Empire and the Medieval times that followed was 1) there was no longer a single central power, and 2) the world went from accepting a polytheistic society to promoting a monotheistic society.

 

[angiebaby]

Political chaos after the fall of the Roman Empire, mostly. Feudalism developed with feudal lords, early castles, and many warring groups trying to take control of land. @Kachina26 is correct also. The Catholic Church took over, with its mysticism and denial of education for most. People were struggling to survive, so there was no time to focus energy on specialties such as engineering and art. Medicine was left to prayer; anything else was labeled as witchcraft. Europe was plunged into darkness, really, until the Black Death. Maybe a little earlier, but most historians agree that it was the plague that ushered in the Renaissance.

However, during this same period, Sub-Saharan African society flourished, as did much of the Middle East. The Muslim Golden Age is from the late 700s through the Crusades. They had universities, libraries, and beautiful architecture and gained a lot of land (this is when they took over most of Spain and Portugal). The Mayans had a complex and wealthy society in Meso-America during this time also. Great architecture, mathematics, written language, thriving agriculture, etc.

 

[fishing fool]

How is bigfoot??? There have not been any sightings in a long time.. Did covid kill bigfoot???

 

[azsunfun]

Rome collapsed from open society, trans shit comes to mind.

 

[DaveH]

Rome collapsed from open society, trans shit comes to mind.

you mean like when the crowd that says its pefectly OK to have a trans freak on a beer can are offended by black woman on a syrup bottle or indian on butter?

yeah....we are falling just like rome.

 

[angiebaby]

Rome collapsed from open society, trans shit comes to mind.

There are a number of reasons. That could be considered a contributor. Homosexuality is what I've usually read.

Inflation, immigration (specifically farmworkers not loyal to Rome), ongoing expensive wars, invading tribes on the borders, not enough money spent on infrastructure, the wealthy abandoning the cities for rural life, high taxes, urban decay, large welfare state, political corruption. All reasons. It makes for an excellent discussion in the classroom when the kids start to see the correlations on their own.

 

[monkeyswrench]

Everyone has a theory but the two main changes between the Roman Empire and the Medieval times that followed was 1) there was no longer a single central power, and 2) the world went from accepting a polytheistic society to promoting a monotheistic society.

I'm cunfuddled. So being under the rule of the Roman empire...a single central power...was different than being under the church?
Both were centralized, but with massive reach. I think the differences would be in how each "empire" chose to allocate their energies. Science and religion have butted heads since their inception. I think that the overall "power" was to be kept in control by guarding the knowledge, or only releasing what knowledge swayed the court of public opinion. (Not unlike modern times)
Rome, in a sense, seems to have pushed the idea that knowledge is power. The more of the world's workings that are known by a society, the more power that society will gain.

Hell if I know the answers. A time machine would make for some fascinating research though!

 

[angiebaby]

Hell if I know the answers. A time machine would make for some fascinating research though!

I think that's been done already

 

[monkeyswrench]

I think that's been done already
View attachment 1234268

Between Wyld Stallyns, and Quantum Leap...my Jr High history teachers

Most of my history info has been from reading in my 20's.

 

[MR HARLEY]

 

[EmpirE231]

Inflation, immigration (specifically farmworkers not loyal to Rome), ongoing expensive wars, invading tribes on the borders, not enough money spent on infrastructure, the wealthy abandoning the cities for rural life, high taxes, urban decay, large welfare state, political corruption.

What do these current events have to do with Roman history?

 

[530RL]

I'm cunfuddled. So being under the rule of the Roman empire...a single central power...was different than being under the church?
Both were centralized, but with massive reach. I think the differences would be in how each "empire" chose to allocate their energies. Science and religion have butted heads since their inception. I think that the overall "power" was to be kept in control by guarding the knowledge, or only releasing what knowledge swayed the court of public opinion. (Not unlike modern times)
Rome, in a sense, seems to have pushed the idea that knowledge is power. The more of the world's workings that are known by a society, the more power that society will gain.

Hell if I know the answers. A time machine would make for some fascinating research though!

Just a guess but I suspect most humans are more compliant with rulers who promote bread and circus over scripture and piousness.

 

[samsah33]

The Coral Castle makes no sense to me.

Coral Castle Museum

 

[monkeyswrench]

Just a guess but I suspect most humans are more compliant with rulers who promote bread and circus over scripture and piousness.

Ah, but there lies the rub. Either way, they were to kneel before their leaders to make any gains. They either followed their emperor...human looked at as a God, or followed their church leaders...person supposedly the voice of God.
Pretty sure you pissed off either leader, and you became part of the circus

 

[530RL]

Ah, but there lies the rub. Either way, they were to kneel before their leaders to make any gains. They either followed their emperor...human looked at as a God, or followed their church leaders...person supposedly the voice of God.
Pretty sure you pissed off either leader, and you became part of the circus

If they had only discovered Soylent Green back then they could have also been part of the bread.

 

[azsunfun]

Ah, but there lies the rub. Either way, they were to kneel before their leaders to make any gains. They either followed their emperor...human looked at as a God, or followed their church leaders...person supposedly the voice of God.
Pretty sure you pissed off either leader, and you became part of the circus

Ottoman empire didn't make it do to religion , and now, America do to lack of religion may fail.

 

[coolchange]

The Romans knew to keep their aqueducts underground and covered to save evaporation and contamination. Yet here we are,,,,,,,,

And they were smart enough to seal the aqueducts joints with poured lead. Leaders in the extra added ingredients list of nutrients. They all went crazy. Especially in those hot tubs.

 

[monkeyswrench]

And they were smart enough to seal the aqueducts joints with poured lead. Leaders in the extra added ingredients list of nutrients. They all went crazy. Especially in those hot tubs.

They may have all gone crazy...but at least they could build a road!

 

[clarence]

Science and religion have butted heads since their inception.

https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/stark_falseconflict-1.pdf

 

[coolchange]

But dam, those Roman’s knew how to make concrete!

 

[monkeyswrench]

https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/stark_falseconflict-1.pdf

That is probably the best article I've read from a Berkeley Grad...Maybe he was there before hippies? Stark was an interesting professor though. A PhD in sociology that made a career out of writing and teaching about theology.

 

[clarence]

He has written some great stuff:

Many books have been written about the success of the West, analyzing why Europe was able to pull ahead of the rest of the world by the end of the Middle Ages. The most common explanations cite the West’s superior geography, commerce, and technology. Completely overlooked is the fact that faith in reason, rooted in Christianity’s commitment to rational theology, made all these developments possible. Simply put, the conventional wisdom that Western success depended upon overcoming religious barriers to progress is utter nonsense.

In The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark advances a revolutionary, controversial, and long overdue idea: that Christianity and its related institutions are, in fact, directly responsible for the most significant intellectual, political, scientific, and economic breakthroughs of the past millennium. In Stark’s view, what has propelled the West is not the tension between secular and nonsecular society, nor the pitting of science and the humanities against religious belief. Christian theology, Stark asserts, is the very font of reason: While the world’s other great belief systems emphasized mystery, obedience, or introspection, Christianity alone embraced logic and reason as the path toward enlightenment, freedom, and progress. That is what made all the difference.

https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333/

For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery: Stark, Rodney: 9780691119502: Amazon.com: Books

For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery [Stark, Rodney] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery

www.amazon.com

 

[clarence]

https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/stark_falseconflict-1.pdf

TLTR

1. Science only began with Christianity because of its belief that the world was created by a rational God and so operated by rules which could be discovered.

2. The "Dark Ages" (and the "Enlightenment") is a myth. Technological progress was continuous. It was so named by anti-Catholic atheist positivists (liberal progressives) who sought to convince others the arc of history naturally moved from religion to science.

 

[dribble]

Political chaos after the fall of the Roman Empire, mostly. Feudalism developed with feudal lords, early castles, and many warring groups trying to take control of land. @Kachina26 is correct also. The Catholic Church took over, with its mysticism and denial of education for most. People were struggling to survive, so there was no time to focus energy on specialties such as engineering and art. Medicine was left to prayer; anything else was labeled as witchcraft. Europe was plunged into darkness, really, until the Black Death. Maybe a little earlier, but most historians agree that it was the plague that ushered in the Renaissance.

However, during this same period, Sub-Saharan African society flourished, as did much of the Middle East. The Muslim Golden Age is from the late 700s through the Crusades. They had universities, libraries, and beautiful architecture and gained a lot of land (this is when they took over most of Spain and Portugal). The Mayans had a complex and wealthy society in Meso-America during this time also. Great architecture, mathematics, written language, thriving agriculture, etc.

Except the Mayans we’re throwing children into sinkholes and decapitating people and cutting out there hearts to feed the gods.

 

[pronstar]

Religion?

I think that’s a huge part of it.

The Catholic Church suppressed a ton of knowledge.

But we should also consider Islam.
There was a time when the Middle East was really pushing the boundaries of knowledge, before it became corrupted.

 

[clarence]

I think that’s a huge part of it.

The Catholic Church suppressed a ton of knowledge.

But we should also consider Islam.
There was a time when the Middle East was really pushing the boundaries of knowledge, before it became corrupted.

That's the commonly held view, but incorrect.

 

[pronstar]

That's the commonly held view, but incorrect.

Wut be incorrect?

 

[angiebaby]

Except the Mayans we’re throwing children into sinkholes and decapitating people and cutting out there hearts to feed the gods.

And the Romans were crucifying people, having them fight lions or each other to death for entertainment. I'm not sure your point. Civilized societies aren't allowed to be brutal or violent?

 

[angiebaby]

TLTR

1. Science only began with Christianity because of its belief that the world was created by a rational God and so operated by rules which could be discovered.

2. The "Dark Ages" (and the "Enlightenment") is a myth. Technological progress was continuous. It was so named by anti-Catholic atheist positivists (liberal progressives) who sought to convince others the arc of history naturally moved from religion to science.

It's an interesting theory. I have not heard the argument that religion waned to make room for scientific knowledge (if that is what the author is arguing). Religion was still extremely powerful during the late Middle Ages, throughout the Renaissance, and into Enlightenment. The Catholic Church was at its height of power in the late 15th Century until Luther turned it upside-down. But even with the advent of the Protestant Reformation, the collective Christian churches remained in control of both citizens and political leadership.

However, I have heard that one reason that there was less scientific activity and exploration during what most historians call the Dark Ages or the Early Middle Ages is partly due to the superstitious culture of the Catholic Church coupled with a lack of records. Meaning that much of the activity was either not recorded or has been lost to time. It was more chaotic, and there was less trade from both the Near and Far East because of the wars and lack of stability in the region. Because there was SO MUCH scientific and artistic growth during the Classic Age and the Later Middle Ages/Renaissance, this time period appears dark in comparison.

Your suggested book looks like an interesting read. I'll add it to my queue.

 

[clarence]

Wut be incorrect?

The Catholic Church encouraged science to better understand God's handiwork. They did not suppress knowledge.

Science arose only in Europe, nowhere else. What Islam practiced was not science.

#29

 

[clarence]

I have not heard the argument that religion waned to make room for scientific knowledge (if that is what the author is arguing).

No, he's arguing that as the Catholic Church waned anti-Catholics sought to take credit for the science that the Church had ever supported.

However, I have heard that one reason that there was less scientific activity and exploration during what most historians call the Dark Ages or the Early Middle Ages is partly due to the superstitious culture of the Catholic Church coupled with a lack of records.

There was no such thing as the Dark Ages.

Your suggested book looks like an interesting read. I'll add it to my queue.

The linked article above gives most of the argument.

I'd recommend VDH's Carnage and Culture (making a similar argument) as a more encompassing read.

https://www.amazon.com/Carnage-Culture-Landmark-Battles-Western/dp/0385720386/

 

[JJ McClure]

Nero fiddled while Rome burned…
Ours fiddles kids while we burn.

 

[pronstar]

The Catholic Church encouraged science to better understand God's handiwork. They did not suppress knowledge.

Science arose only in Europe, nowhere else. What Islam practiced was not science.

#29

The catholic church also killed people who said the earth revolved around the sun.
And Islam (really the Middle East) gave us quite a few advancements in marh and astronomy.

They weren't always as shitty as they are today.
At least as I understand it.

 

[angiebaby]

Okay, @clarence, I began reading the article and had a question right away. Stark asks the questions, "Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else?" I'm wondering how he can possibly state that nowhere else in the world was practicing science of any kind. The Chinese had some amazing medical science going on, including the development of acupuncture, as well as great inventions such as plow, waterwheel for irrigation, and the creation of gunpowder. Muslims developed excellent mapping skills, and bar soap. They made advancements on ancient Greek mathematical ideas and developed amazing architectural buildings using engineering.

I think he is arguing that these other regions and earlier societies did not utilize the scientific method explained by Galileo. I have to disagree with the author. I think exploration and intentional inventions are technically practicing science. Even though the steps are not detailed, and perhaps some are even skipped, I would argue it is still scientific discovery. I believe it is the intention to explore and create or discover something new in the physical world that is science. Stark would disagree.

He claims on page 3 that the Europeans of the times invented mechanical clocks and compasses. Most scholars attribute these inventions to the Chinese. The Chinese invented the compass about 200 years B.C. They began using it for navigation in the 11th Century. The Europeans and Muslims advanced the evolution of the compass.

I guess my point is not that there was no scientific discovery between the fall of Rome and the late Middle Ages; there certainly was because humans are naturally curious beings. I just believe less of it was recorded and that the Church discouraged progress in medicine due to the belief system and the inability (by canon law) to study the human body. My point of this comment is that I disagree with his description of what "science" is. I disagree that it is only formal scientific experimentation. I believe science had been practiced for thousands of years before and worldwide. Stark's is a very Euro and Christan-centric viewpoint that is based, I believe, on his own personal biases, and he has found sources that corroborate his biased belief.

His theory is interesting, and I would like to read more than 3 pages, but it will have to wait for another time. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[angiebaby]

No, he's arguing that as the Catholic Church waned anti-Catholics sought to take credit for the science that the Church had ever supported.

I find it ironic that Galileo is the father of the scientific method, which Stark bases his whole argument on, yet the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for stating a belief that went against Church philosophy, specifically the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Don't you agree? Is this how the Church encouraged and supported science?

I agree the Church supported some aspects of science. But to make the blanket statement that it was the sole reason for science is a stretch, IMO. They definitely silenced the aspects of discovery that undermined their narrative. I guess no different that what happens today

 

[clarence]

The catholic church also killed people who said the earth revolved around the sun.

Nope.

I find it ironic that Galileo is the father of the scientific method, which Stark bases his whole argument on, yet the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for stating a belief that went against Church philosophy, specifically the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun.

There's no question the Catholic Church was an imperfect, political organization (as are all things human).

But the church imprisoned Galileo not for his belief (the Pope was initially supportive), but for his insistence that there was sufficient scientific evidence to prove it (there wasn’t) and (mostly) for the way he presented his argument (mockingly) and in a way possibly in defiance of an agreement he'd made with the Church.

No, The Catholic Church Didn’t Punish Galileo for Heliocentrism - Intellectual Takeout

If you’re going to pose as being objective, it’s always good to have your facts straight. Scientific American, clearly stung by criticism that the March for

intellectualtakeout.org

http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/Calhoun_ExaminingtheMythGalileoMartyr.pdf

 

[pronstar]

A I’ve read in some historical accounts, it seems Giordano Bruno was killed for pushing Copernicanism (sun as center of solar system) and he was burned at the stake. His tongue was nailed to his jaw to keep him from taking, but mercifully, a sack of gunpowder was placed around his neck.

Thereafter, the threat of being burned alive and/or excommunicated was enough to quash such heresy.

 

[clarence]

LOL

 

[pronstar]

LOL

I think we can each pick and choose historical accounts that support or refute our opinions all days long.

LOL

 

[Lumpy]

 

[Lumpy]

Now this.........

 

[stephenkatsea]

I still find it amazing that a significant portion of what is now the US, plus Mexico, all of Central America and all of South America (except Brazil) ended up speaking Spanish. I wonder how many languages in the countries were totally overcome by Spanish. Certainly the Catholic Church had much to do with it. But, there’s no way they covered the entire area. We’re talking continents. Don’t believe that has ever happened else where in the world.

 

[Lumpy]

The way things are going now...we shoulda taken the entire hemisphere during the U.S. expansion.

 

[pronstar]

I still find it amazing that a significant portion of what is now the US, plus Mexico, all of Central America and all of South America (except Brazil) ended up speaking Spanish. I wonder how many languages in the countries were totally overcome by Spanish. Certainly the Catholic Church had much to do with it. But, there’s no way they covered the entire area. We’re talking continents. Don’t believe that has ever happened else where in the world.

The Philippines also…back in the day, he who has the biggest navy and the will to colonize took all.

And Brazil speaks Portuguese, and Portugal is Spain’s tiny neighbor.

Then England took the reigns and colonized everything. But you’re right…the British empire was ruled by English speakers but the populations didn’t take up speaking English.