What have we learned so far /his/?

>>1442677
I see the joke you're trying to make but
>the Catholic Church not only never persecuted science, but is responsible for its extraordinary development in the West and for ending the Roman dark ages
>the Renaissance was a scientific dark age which interrupted the medieval scientific revolution, and all the common negative stereotypes about the Middle Ages, from witch burnings to poor hygiene, actually apply to the Renaissance (and to Protestants rather than Catholics)
>the Germans were clearly the bad guys in WW1, and the Versailles treaty wasn't too harsh but far too lenient
These are pretty mainstream academic positions

>>1442694
I don't know about academia, but they're definitely not popular positions. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people believe the exact opposite.

- All of Napoleon's wars were defensive

>>1442703
Pretty sure the majority of people take their history from sources such as History Channel.

>>1443144
Or the American school system

>the Catholic Church not only never persecuted science
Um what about Galileo?

I have to say I've found few interesting stuff so far. Some good books suggestions but that's it.

>>1443162
Thinking the American school system is all the same across the country is also quite ignorant.

>>1443178
Sure, but I went to supposedly the best public school in my state (NH) and learned a lot of the misconceptions that OP referred too.

Because of these gaps in my knowledge I'm honestly asking: Didn't the Catholic church force Galileo to recant his theories on the heliocentric model of the solar system?

>>1443266
*to

fuck

>>1443266
Not exactly. He was asked to not teach it as fact and in response he called the Pope an idiot.
>Galileo: Hey check out this sick Heliocentric model of the universe that's totally factual all other models are wrong
>Pope: That's neat and all but how do you explain the Stellar Parallax problem?
>Galileo: REEEEEEE FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU IDIOT
The same Pope was his patron and friend, so it was kind of a dick move on Galileo's part.

>>1443162
Galileo wasn't really persecuted for science.

He got into a personal and philosophical fight with the Pope, and then insulted the Pope at length in his book. At the same time he was being kind of an arrogant prick, and insisted that his cosmological theories were indisputable fact, despite not being able to prove them. So this was used by the Pope as an excuse to censor him.

It really was a personal thing, since Galileo didn't actually claim anything that hadn't already been discovered before, and nobody before him had gotten into trouble over it.

>>1443178
Well having different school systems inside a single country is retarded, how can anyone even know what a diploma is worth if it's different everywhere?

File: dark age myth.png (2MB, 1386x4653px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1386x4653px

>>1442677
>>1443162
I know what OP meant but for some people that dont understand and will start rambling about witch hunting and Galileo

sounds like you learned to stop thinking

>>1442694
Yeah, ACADEMIC positions. The average pleb believes otherwise.

>>1443162
>Um what about Galileo?
Fucking kill yourself. Galileo's heliocentric model wasn't even fucking correct, and he couldn't account for the stellar parallax while there was at least one geocentric model of the solar system that accounted for Galileo's observations of Venus. He was persecuted for teaching his model as absolute fact when he was only permitted to teach it as a competing theory (the others had not all been discredited), and for writing a book insulting the pope. Galileo should have been burnt at the stake, but the pope at the time had been friends with him for years so went easy on him.

>>1444156

Who gives a shit about what they think?

>>1444299
Nina does, for one.

File: 1468533251812.jpg (50KB, 749x517px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 749x517px

>>1442677

Meh, in my opinion both sides of ww1 were clearly war-mongering villains vying for power. Germany was no different from Britain and only their loss portrays them badly.


WW2 is a whole different story though

That Austria-Hungary wouldn't have "collapsed anyway" if it wasn't for the war.

>>1442677
history is a spook and so is 4chan

>>1442677
>the Germans were clearly the bad guys in WW1, and the Versailles treaty wasn't too harsh but far too lenient
T. Foch.

You do have a point, but I don't completely agree with you

>>1444469
Not him. I believe Versailles was just about right, the problem is nobody fucking bothered enforcing it and just gave Germans a break every time they overstepped their boundaries. Once Germany grew too strong it was already too late.

>>1444481
Versailles wasn't as harsh as Trianon, which created a bunch of new, relatively weak states in Europe, which allowed Hitler's early expansion with "muh Germans" Casus Belli. I remember someone on /int/ once posted the gdp per capita of each cunt in Europe in 1938, I think this idea gets even more clear when Germany's gdp per capita was thrice of Poland, twice of Czechoslovakia and neighbouring countries, only smaller than the UK and some other meme countries.

>>1444503
Both Trianon and St. Germaine you mean. It wasn't just Hungary who got partitioned.

>>1444522
True, thanks for the correction. Austria basically retained their historical such borders, no? Minus sudtirol and Slovenia + Burgenland

File: Vesalius_Fabrica_p178[1].jpg (2MB, 1029x1823px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1029x1823px

>>1442694

>the Renaissance was a scientific dark age which interrupted the medieval scientific revolution

nice meme bro

>>1442677
everything you learned is wrong

>>1444434
The would have federalized for sure, past that it's hard to see what might have happened. They may well have ended up going full Kosovo.

The Ottomans on the other hand would have crumbled

File: Zeugma-museum-mosaic.jpg (2MB, 2048x1532px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1532px

>>1442677

>Rome produced nothing of value in science or art, and was also unstable and mismanaged

did you miss the huge mosaic thread from a few weeks ago?

>>1442694

>These are pretty mainstream academic positions

"le renaissance dark ages" is absolutely not a mainstream position.

>>1442677
What's up with this renaissance-halted-scientific-advancement meme?

>>1444533
They didn't lost south tirol until ww2

>>1442677
>Bullshit
>Bullshit
>Well they weren't the best ever, but they weren't shit.
>Bullshit
>Bullshit (though yes the puritans turned up during the renaissance and tried to ruin everything, bringing back witch trials and such)
>Bullshit

>>1444729

some guy back in I think December started a thread about how scholasticism was the best thing ever and the renaissance ruined everything. The people arguing against him were incompetent and he ignored the good counter-examples that didn't show up until late in the thread. He was basically going full retard with the Continuity Thesis.

>>1444148
>Because the middle ages started in the 12th century.
>This totally wasn't the foundations of the renaissance forming.

The High middle ages were okay. But its the last 200 years out of a thousand, They didn't just go 'fuck it lets have an age of reason' one day in the 1300s

>>1444791
Kek, really.

>>1443162
If we are talking about what a majority of Americans think, a Majority also thinks the world is <10.000 years old.

>>1444865
No it doesn't, stop memeing.

>>1444865
>Americans think the world is less than 10 years old.
Nice one anon.

>>1444750

You're wrong.

>>1444775
>incorrect shitpost

>>1444914
>Butthurt shitpost

>>1444914
But it's not incorrect in the slightest. Literally everything the OP said was bullshit.

>>1444692
>did you miss the huge mosaic thread from a few weeks ago?
Was any of it more than just pure imitation of Greek shit?

>"le renaissance dark ages" is absolutely not a mainstream position.
It's not formulated like that, but it's the inevitable consequence of the discovery of the late medieval scientific revolution. It's quite obvious that scientific revolution was interrupted and that it took 300 years for science to pick up again where it had left off.

>>1444824
>let's just pretend the Renaissance started in the 12th century now
lmao

And I guess it ended in the 15th.

>>1444955
"Bullshit" is not an argument.

File: 10801676_415152588639223_1827019368451312246_n.jpg (50KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x960px

>>1442677
*** corrections to op
>Roman culture is the basis of much of modern Western Culture (by where it is derived, back to Greece, then Phonecia, then Mesopotamia) by means of Romanization and then Christianization
>England and France were GERMAN colonies (Where the fuck do you think the Franks and Saxons are from?)
>The Church didn't nearly persecute science as much as people say but really are you going to say that horse shit that the renaissance wasn't important? That was the beginning of modern Urbanization, modern Economics, and modern Politics and lead to Europe becoming "first world"

>>1446134
Well, Pantheon by itself is a masterful work of art not copied from Greece.

>>1446203
>by means of Romanization and then Christianization
Yeah. Doesn't change the fact that Rome itself didn't produce much culture.

>England and France were GERMAN colonies
Germany or Germans didn't even exist. In its earliest form it was created out of territory conquered by the French.

>the beginning of modern Urbanization, modern Economics, and modern Politics
Can you even define any of those things and how they relate to the Renaissance?

>>1442677
Why do you keep posting these threads?
Yet again you demonstrate you've learned nothing but how to bait a board full of people who know nothing

>>1446208
I wouldn't exactly call that Roman architecture.

"Late Roman" architecture like the Pantheon, with its round domes, was created by Syrian and other Eastern architects. It actually belongs to a new, Eastern civilisation, which spread over the Roman Empire together with Christianity. It's the beginning of what would become Byzantine culture and Islam.

>>1446241
You mean like yourself?

File: Paracelsus.jpg (167KB, 525x700px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 525x700px

>>1444586

>cum in a jar, drip blood on it daily and keep it in a pile of warm shit
>this will create a miniature, magical servant for you

The height of renaissance scientific thinking everyone.

File: Eros and Psyche zeugma.jpg (518KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1500x1125px

>>1446134

I'm unaware of any pre-Roman mosaics with this level of depth and sophistication.

And yes the late medieval period experienced a scientific revolution, but advancements in Aristotelian physics are not the sole hallmark of scientific progress. Copernicus and Tycho contributed tons to our understanding of the universe in ways that Aristotelian physics could not. Vesalius' anatomy was far more detailed and accurate than that of Mundinus. The printing press was crucial to the spread of scientific ideas from Italian city-states to the rest of Europe, ensuring that advanced scientific ideas weren't lost or ignored.

>>1446295
The Gothic scientific revolution happened precisely because of the birth of non-Aristotelian physics, Copernicus and Tycho certainly didn't start that (and only scratched at Aristotle's cosmology, not his physics).

File: goffic.png (41KB, 687x583px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 687x583px

>>1446310

>Gothic scientific revolution

the what now?

>>1444130
50 SOVEREIGN STATES REEEEEEEEEEEE

We wuz scientists n shiet!

File: BARBARIANS.jpg (4KB, 105x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 105x125px

>>1442677
ARRRGGGGHHH
Christfag detected.

>>1446317
The Gothic Era is the late Middle Ages.

>>1444824
>>Because the middle ages started in the 12th century.
>>This totally wasn't the foundations of the renaissance forming.

If the glorious Renaissance started in the 12th century now, that means it was started by the Catholic Church in France. You cool with that?

File: eyy.png (118KB, 277x272px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 277x272px

>>1446203
>>England and France were GERMAN colonies

>>1446203
There was no Germany and no Germans back then, if you were to say GERMANIC, okay, but not fucking German.

>>1442677
Versailles WAS too lenient.

If the French and British would have executed every man, woman, and child in Germany, the bodycount would have been substantially lower than the number killed in WW2. From a utilitarian standpoint, complete genocide of the German people would have been a moral necessity.

At the very least, the allied powers should have reduced the German male population and dissembled the German state.

>>1446548
kek

No but seriously undoing German unification would have been a good move.

I expected more people to disagree with OP desu.

Glad /his/ isn't as dumb as I thought.

>>1446327
Catholics aren't Christian

>>1447365
retard.

>>1447375
Yeah I wasn't counting the people who literally don't know how to say more than two syllables.

>>1446367

Then just say late middle ages instead of making up a term nobody else uses to describe a phenomenon most people are unaware of.

It's still false to say that science did not advance during the renaissance.

File: consequentialism.png (568KB, 874x1760px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 874x1760px

>>1446548
>From a utilitarian standpoint

Ah yes, the good old anglo autism, because their infantile brains can't comprehend anything but the most simplistic cost-benefit models.

>>1446548
>If the French and British would have executed every man, woman, and child in Germany, the bodycount would have been substantially lower than the number killed in WW2

i know you are trolling but this kind of notion needs to be snuffed out before any retard seriously considers it

doing this would set an example to the world that after any conflict it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to eliminate not only your enemies but also anyone peripherally related to them. now that this is ingrained into the public conciousness do you think anyone will ever sue for peace ever again? ww2 would have been the last war humanity would have ever fought if that were the case

People don't think of the civic advancements the Romans made as culture? Like the advancement of democracy, bureaucracy and the rule of law? Sure they where based on mainly Greeks but everything is derivative. Virgil wrote that the Roman task wasn't to make fine sculptures and great works of art, but to bring justice and peace to the world under Roman rule. Like an ancient white man's burden.

>>1446548
It's not even utilitarian. You really think that removing a nation would stop large European wars? You think that if whites where genocided we'd end racism and bring out world peace too?

>>1448443
I think its pretty exemplary If all the Romans did was maintain Greco-culture while also making refinements to it. Not to mention technological advancements like aqueducts, plumbing, and bridge building

>b-but every Roman technological advancement was based on an existing Greek technology

>>1442677
>completely ambiguous y axis

Kek

>>1442677
>the Germans were clearly the bad guys in WW1

What the fuck kind of opinion did you have in the past if this is supposed to have enlightened your erroneous thinking?? The German Reich being the bad guy is in fact as mainstream and deluded as it gets, so congratulations on having established a simplistic Anglo-Saxon mindset enforced upon history after their victory.

>>1448519
I'm very convinced of the fact that the Romans made numerous advancements, like I think was evident from my post. The civic ideas I listed definitely had Greek or other influences. I listed those because it seemed in the thread like people equated culture with the fine arts. I wanted to add political philosophy to the list. That they had influences doesn't invalidate the advancements in the slightest, only a moron would think that. You can hardly compare the application of Greek civic ideas within a city state to the Roman applications to a vast empire.

>>1446134

>>"le renaissance dark ages" is absolutely not a mainstream position.
>It's not formulated like that,

The OP literally states "the Renaissance was a scientific dark age"

>>1447735
You've seriously never heard of the Gothic Era? Gothic art and architecture doesn't ring a bell?

>>1448443
>Romans
>advancing democracy
lmao

Yeah having an all-powerful God-emperor who can make you get raped by a horse for his amusement until he gets murdered and replaced by the Praetorian or the Germanic guard sure sounds like my idea of democracy.

>>1448572
Germans being the bad guys is much more of a continental position than a British one.

>>1448519
The Romans didn't even make technological advancements, they were just competent engineers.

>>1449198
>>1448519
And only in civil engineering I might add, specifically building infrastructure.

>>1448572
The mainstream position nowadays is some bullshit "everyone was equally responsible and the true culprit is nationalism" propaganda. The fact the Germans were full Nazi tier is totally swept under the rug.

>>1449136
It's not formulated like that by academics you dolt. Which doesn't mean it's not true.

>>1446548
Quality shitpost

>>1449194
There was 500 years of republic before the empire, I'm sure you're aware. When I was talking about democracy, do you think I was talking about the Emperor? Don't pretend to be an idiot needlessly, there are other boards for that.

I learned about the hyperwar.

>>1449264
How was the Roman republic democratically superior to the democracy in Athens for example?

>>1449218
>It's not formulated like that by academics you dolt. Which doesn't mean it's not true.
argument from authority

We have a true memeposter here

>>1449304
You either don't know what "argument from authority" means, or you're not capable of following a simple conversation. If English is your mothertongue consider killing yourself.

>>1449284
The direct democracy in Athens was great but the amount of free men in Athens where counted in tens of thousands and the citizens of Rome where counted in millions. Athenian methods would be impossible in Rome. The system with collective voting for important issues and a tribune for example where systems that made good reasonable applications of democracy to such a vast amount of citizens.

>>1449321
>>1448443
OP here, Rome made achievements mostly in two things: politics and civil engineering, I never denied that.

All I said is that it didn't achieve much in art or science, and generally speaking it's highly overrated. It just strikes me as absurd how highly Rome is valued and how everyone is fighting over its heritage, when most major Western countries have each on its own achieved more that Rome ever did.

>>1449308
argumentum ad hominem

Keep posting logical fallacies,it shows you have no arguement

>>1449362
You're a fucking idiot. Do you even have a point or are you just shitposting aimlessly?

>>1449197
Could be, though I was also alluding at the US with the reference to Anglo-Saxon opinion.

>>1449210
We should make the distinction between your regular people's mainstream and historians' mainstream position before arguing past each other.

Anyway, insinuating that Germans were Nazi tier in any sort of WWII-understanding of the term is laughable - there were indeed some ultra-nationalistic "blood and soil" völkisch ideologies in circulation. Also, there is no denying the fact that most German intellectuals of the time considered the German "Kultur" (culture in English, obviously - but it carries particular connotations) superior to the Western "Zivilisation".

But - and that's a big BUT - it would be inane to ignore what those tendencies were fueled by. The German Reich was basically surrounded by nations which envied Germany its newly attained status of supremacy (Russia, France, British Empire) and were uncomfortable with having a superpower in their midst wanting to have a piece of the cake. The British Empire was the country most keen on thwarting any further growth of Germany, especially after the German fleet was dramatically expanded at the end of the 19th century. Britain feared it might lose its naval supremacy, in spite of Germany solely striving for an equilibrium in terms of power in order to ensure that national interests can be maintained - as ALL of the surrounding countries were already doing!

Kaiser Wilhelm II's overly assertive and prideful rhetoric can certainly be blamed, but when looking at his and Germany's political goals, you would have to be pretty damned biased to claim it was warmongering or even Nazi. There is more than ample evidence to substantiate the fact that Britain was certainly not less responsible for the outbreak of the war. Not that I blame them - I would also think twice before letting a growing superpower at my doorstep gain even further strenght and influence, better a war now while you still have the upper hand

>>1449366
Thats what your doing,im trying to raise the standards on this board beyond your level of "my memes are more powerful"

>>1449441
I think this thread is more about popular perception.

I don't see how it's laughable to compare imperial Germany to Nazi Germany in their war actions. Aside from the Holocaust, imperial Germany also committed a huge amount of war crimes, civilian massacres, broke every kind of convention, and as you alluded to the German racial superiority shit was definitely already present together with imperialism.

And how exactly would Britain be responsible for the war, considering it joined the last, only once Germany violated Belgium's neutrality? The other countries may have had many reasons to be weary of Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Germany which aggressively escalated the war.

>>1449454
Shut up already, your bait is shit.

>>1449173

No I have not heard the late middle ages referred to as "the Gothic Era." If I saw that in a paper I would assume it was referring to the Migration Period. Using what are purely art historical terms as names for historical eras really opens things up to misinterpretation.

>>1449544
It's really common you know. Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque... And for non-Western civilisations periodisation is almost universally based on art. Also "late Middle Ages" is vague as fuck, it could mean anything.

>>1449544
>>1449590
Well "Gothic" is a bad term since it was created as an insult by Renaissance Italians. But then again "Middle Ages" is meant to be insulting as well, not to mention "Dark Ages", really every word we have for that whole period is an insult.

In its own time, the Gothic style was simply called "French", so we can't call it that either.

>>1449544
Spengler uses "Gothic Era" in his periodisation. He also makes a very good argumentation against the traditional "Antiquity - Middle Ages - Modern Era" model. In fact he obliterates it, after reading that I can't understand how 100 years later we still use such an idiotic model.

Medieval science

>Robert Grosseteste
>"the real founder of the tradition of scientific thought in medieval Oxford, and in some ways, of the modern English intellectual tradition"
>"introduced to the Latin West the notion of controlled experiment and related it to demonstrative science, as one among many ways of arriving at such knowledge"

>Ramon Llull
>"surfaced manuscripts show his work to have predated by several centuries prominent work on elections theory. He is also considered a pioneer of computation theory, especially given his influence on Gottfried Leibniz"

>Thomas Bradwardine
>"distinguished kinematics from dynamics, emphasising kinematics, and investigating instantaneous velocity"
>"first formulated the mean speed theorem: a body moving with constant velocity travels the same distance as an accelerated body in the same time if its velocity is half the final speed of the accelerated body"
>"demonstrated this theorem — the foundation of "The Law of Falling Bodies" — long before Galileo, who is generally credited with it"

>Jean Buridan
>"proposed that motion was maintained by some property of the body, imparted when it was set in motion. Buridan named the motion-maintaining property impetus."
>"held that the impetus of a body increased with the speed with which it was set in motion, and with its quantity of matter"
>"Buridan's impetus is closely related to the modern concept of momentum"
>"anticipated Isaac Newton"

>Nicole Oresme
>"his method of figuring the latitude of forms is applicable to the movement of a point, on condition that the time is taken as longitude and the speed as latitude"
>"published what was taught over two centuries prior to Galileo's making it famous"
>"Oresme developed the first proof of the divergence of the harmonic series"
>"was the first mathematician to prove this fact, and (after his proof was lost) it was not proven again until the 17th century by Pietro Mengoli"

Renaissance "science"

Basically this >>1446266

>>1449590

>And for non-Western civilisations periodisation is almost universally based on art

I have never seen Chinese, Korean, Indian, or Japanese history periodized this way. The only civilizations I'm well-read on that are periodized primarily based on artistic styles are prehistoric Europe, ancient Greece, and Mesoamerica since they did not have overarching dynasties.

File: wow.png (118KB, 1039x1350px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1039x1350px

> Remember when science was good?
Can't believe people actually defending Memaissance. The golden age of science was an Islamic Golden Age.

>>1449712
>prehistoric Europe, ancient Greece, and Mesoamerica
And Indus Valley, and Minoan... and the pre-dynastic (that is to say pre-imperial) periods of Chinese, Indian, or Mesopotamian.

Western history doesn't have overarching dynasties either.

>>1449729
The "Islamic Golden Age" was Renaissance tier irrelevant for science.

>>1449508
Regarding the war crimes, I am not aware of anything particularly outstanding save from the "rape of Belgium" and the utilization of poison gas. The invasion of Belgium was certainly not gentlemanly, but Germany had clearly communicated in advance both to Belgium and to Britain that no military action will be taken and that the territorial integrity of Belgium is not to be violated. Hence, it was not an actual occupation, the country was "only" to be used as safe passage for the soldiers so that the French border defenses could be bypassed. IMHO a far cry from the Nazi methodology. Now, that the German army was met with heavy resistance which led to the death of many civilians is certainly true, but the depictions of atrocities in the Entente was vastly exaggerated for propagandistic purposes. The actual crimes committed are certainly not worse in scope than what Britain had committed not long prior in their violent suppressing of colonial uprisings (nowadays conveniently sweeped under the rug while being indignant at the "unspeakable" German WWI atrocities).

Just as a side note - Germany's treatment of the few colonies they had was in general notably better than in case of most other countries, accompanied by actual investment into the regions instead of being solely exploitative.

As for poison gas - in fact, France was the first to employ gas warfare. Yes, it was "just" teargas, but I found it worth mentioning. Also, as Germans started using the newly developed poison gas, the chemist who fervently argued for this, Fritz Haber, contended it would be more humane to end the war as quickly as possible by doing so. The reasoning being that while the gas itself might be lethal in case of heavy exposure, it would prevent further fighting by letting Germany win the war more quickly and thus avoid unnecessary carnage. Of course this is extremely apologetic, and I don't subscribe to his argument myself, but I think it's important to get the whole picture.

>>1449888
Also worth considering is that Germany itself had claimed that Britain had committed numerous war crimes, which was collected in an extensive report ("Völkerrecht im Weltkrieg"), but this was never pursued again after Germany's loss.

Re: racism - the sense of pride in Germany's culture is a very different beast when compared to the Nazi ideology of innate racial supremacy! It was more like a smug sense of having a better-organized society and a deeper understanding than those "decadent" Western democracies or the "despotic" Russia. As a result, that line of thought was inward-oriented toward the German Volk and how its community ("Gemeinschaft") can be refined and developed instead of being outward-oriented towards world domination as in the Nazi regime.

As for Britain and the escalation of war, it is no secret that long before actually entering the war, anti-German sentiment was prevalent there. I've read several speeches of British politicians at the time calling for a destruction of Germany in more or less direct terms. Also, only several months prior to the outbreak of the war, Wilhelm II invited both Czar Nicholas and King George (which were both related to him) to the wedding of his only daughter to Berlin amidst rising political tensions. His hope was to demonstrate unity and ensure peace by doing so and in his naivete, he actually believed he had achieved just that, as he radiantly confided to his wife shortly after the event.

A major mistake he actually committed was declaring unconditional support for Austria-Hungary after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, which was abused by the pompous and overconfident Austrian-Hungarians to create the ensuing calamity. Even then, just before the actual outbreak of the war, Wilhelm II was in contact via telegraph with both the Czar and King George as a desperate last resort to avert the war. As we know it failed, but it's just to show that the one-sided escalation on part of Germany simply isn't true.

File: jjkk.jpg (144KB, 827x665px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 827x665px

>>1449698
>Medieval science
5 guys in 1000 years

Now you know why it was called the dark ages

>>1449896
Five guys who founded modern science and started the Scientific Revolution.

The Renaissance: nothing.

File: hqdefault.jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

>The vikings were such shit warriors that they raided and settled most of Europe and even parts of North America and were recruited to be the personal guard of the Byzantine Emperors
My ancestors are smiling at me Imperial, can you say the same?

>>1449896
>The Renaissance: nothing.
Yes,didnt the inquisition burn Bruno and imprison Galileo? Your grasp of history is meme-tier as usual

>>1442677
>Germany and England were French colonies
Frankish, you mean. (unless you mean the Napoleon dynasty)
Everything else seems legit though

>>1449698
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries

sorry mate. GG

File: petrarca.png (320KB, 340x373px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 340x373px

>>1449698

>>1449698

>Bradwardine
>the foundation of "The Law of Falling Bodies" — long before Galileo, who is generally credited with it"
>Oresme published what was taught over two centuries prior to Galileo's making it famous
>Oresme developed the first proof of the divergence of the harmonic series (his proof was lost)

Maybe if they'd had access to a printing press they would've been credited with these things earlier :^)

>Buridan

John Philoponus developed the theory of impetus in the 6th century. It's almost as if Buridan's development of it was something of a... re-nascence of the idea.

>basically this

Go ahead and keep ignoring the original contributions and developments of Cardano, Bombelli, Tartaglia, Vesalius, Copernicus, Tycho, and countless other mathematicians, astronomers, and inventors. Also keep ignoring the widespread revival of ancient technologies like crankshafts and dry docks, as well as original inventions like piston pumps, the globe, marine astrolabe, muskets, coiled springs, and the related spring-powered clocks and gun locks since they get in the way of your meme-ing.

Also Latin got way better.

>>1449888

>the depictions of atrocities in the Entente was vastly exaggerated for propagandistic purposes
That's a meme, the more recent consensus is that it was excessively downplayed later on. The Germans killed tens of thousands of civilians in Belgium and destroyed entire towns, not by accident but by deliberate mass executions.

>Germany's treatment of the few colonies they had was in general notably better than in case of most other countries
You can't be serious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

Your two caveats on poison gas are pretty worthless. The Germans were the first to use lethal gas, which aside from being horrific and morally reprehensible, was banned by international treaties.

>>1449895

>that line of thought was inward-oriented toward the German Volk and how its community ("Gemeinschaft") can be refined and developed instead of being outward-oriented towards world domination as in the Nazi regime.
I don't see how it was inward oriented when, just to cite one random example, the most prominent German architect and historian of architecture (who actually built most medieval style castles in Germany around the turn of the 20th century) visited the Coucy castle in France, and commented that it was "an example of what can be accomplished by a superior Germanic master race ruling over the inferior Gaulish masses".

The Germans later dynamited that castle, which used to be the largest and among the most admired in Europe, for no strategic reason.

>Even then, just before the actual outbreak of the war, Wilhelm II was in contact via telegraph with both the Czar and King George as a desperate last resort to avert the war.
Germany declared war on and invaded Russia, and declared war on and invaded France, after demanding France hand over several cities in an absurd ultimatum. It then violated Belgium's neutrality which forced Britain into the war.

All your talk of supposed good intentions can't change the simple fact that Germany single-handedly escalated a war between Russia and Austria into a world war involving Germany, France, and Britain.


When you look more closely at Germany's behaviour in WW1, it becomes obvious the Nazis didn't just appear out of nowhere. Germany was already more than halfway there.

>>1449941
Yeah, they raided defenceless monasteries and villages, amazing.

Byzantines were retarded and desperate, they would have taken anyone to fight in their stead. Which is why the Crusaders had to go bail them out.

>>1447371
Hahahaha, you heretics never cease to amuse me, enjoy the hellfire.

>>1449744

>Indus Valley, and Minoan... and the pre-dynastic periods of Chinese, Indian, or Mesopotamian

All of these are civilizations for which we have few or none decipherable written records, which is why they're categorized according to their artistic and material culture instead of rulers. Doesn't sound too universal to me.

>Western history doesn't have overarching dynasties either.

The individual kingdoms sure do. Carolingian, Capetian, Ottonian, Habsburg, Tudors, etc. etc.

Given the butthut over calling post-Roman pre-Renaissance Europe "the middle ages" or "medieval" maybe we should start referring to European history according to the dominant dynasties so we can be as specific as possible and make the study of history even more daunting for plebs.

>>>>1449964
>mfw when nearly all major inventions in the dark ages where bring made by arabs edge lords actually believe the Renaissance was nothing meme and think the inventions in the dark ages were made mostly christian europeans

>>1449954
Your grasp of history is as bad as your quoting ability, and you're literally spouting fedora memes.

Bruno wasn't a scientist by any measure, he was a crazy cult leader. He's been rebranded a scientist by fedoras because one of his many insane claims happened to be the existence of aliens (along with claiming that God is Satan and Jesus was an evil sorcerer). And Galileo is significant for rediscovering the work of 14th century natural philosophers, but he didn't really do any science of his own, beyond making astronomical observations but still failing to prove the Copernican model.

>>1449956
After the 6th century, the Franks no longer existed as a tribe. From then on Frankish is just the medieval term for French (meaning inhabitant of Francia).

>>1450014
>but he didn't really do any science of his own, beyond making astronomical observations but still failing to prove the Copernican model.
>but he didn't really do any science of his, except all that science of his own he did and absolutely demolishing the heliocentric models of the time

>>1450024
>demolishing the geocentric models of the time

Damnit.

>>1449698
>>1446504
>>1444156
Bait see >>1449964 The WWW was initally created to spread Scientific information with credible Sources. Shitposting should be a crime.

>>1450014
I see your not denying the church silenced scientists,thats a start towards true enlightenment

>>1450020
France didn't exist as a nation yet either. I assumed the OP was talking about ethnicity.
Frankish customs more closely mimick modern German customs than modern French customs.

>>1450043
>Shitposting should be a crime.

When shitposting is outlawed, only outlaws will shitpost.

>>1449970

>Maybe if they'd had access to a printing press they would've been credited with these things earlier :^)
The printing press actually saved their works from being lost due to the destructive efforts of Renaissance humanists.

>John Philoponus developed the theory of impetus in the 6th century
Not really, what he called impetus was a quality that depletes over time, that's completely wrong in the way we view physics.

Buridan is the one who defined impetus mathematically, as the product of speed and mass (exactly how we define momentum), and discovered the law of inertia (commonly called Newton's first law). The idea that momentum is conserved and that in practice objects only lose speed because of air resistance or friction was revolutionary, and the resulting law is the foundation of modern mechanics. Defining it in precise mathematical terms is another huge step.

Also the other poster vastly understated the mathematical importance of Oresme, who for inventing the mathematical function, its graphical representation, and integration, and applying all of that to physical problems, can be considered the true founder of calculus.

As for your Renaissance names, there were a few relevant mathematicians and astronomers, although all of the former put together can't compare with the momentous steps taken by Oresme, and the latter weren't exactly scientists, they only made cosmological speculations. I wouldn't say nothing at all happened during the Renaissance, but it's undeniable that the wholesale rejection of medieval science by Renaissance humanists and the return to the unquestioned authority of Aristotle in the field of physics was a huge blow to progress and is the reason there was absolutely no progress in physics between Oresme and Galileo's rediscovery of Oresme 300 years later. The darkness in which physics had fallen in turn prevented calculus from making any progress either, since the two were initially closely linked.

>>1450009
That makes no sense though. Dynasties don't rule over the whole civilisation. But art styles do.

And if you actually look at the resulting periodisation, you'll realise changes in art styles reflect deeper changes in philosophy, politics, spirituality, etc, simply put they match eras of a civilisation.

>>1450024
But he didn't. His reputation at the time was based on his rewriting 14th century science. For the heliocentric model, he couldn't prove it. He just turned out to be right, but that's not science.

File: pure pottery.jpg (225KB, 680x1062px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 680x1062px

>>1442677

the Dark Ages actually happened

>>1450056
France existed as a country. French obviously refers to the people of France.

>Frankish customs more closely mimick modern German customs
No, I don't think the Franks wore sandals with socks, ate currywurst, or spent their life savings on expensive cars.

They did however have their capital in Paris, call their king "king of the Franks", crown him in Reims, and bury him in Saint Denis or Saint Germain, while having Sainte Genevieve and Saint Denis as their patron saints, as they continued to do until the Revolution.

>>1450045
You haven't provided an example of that happening.

Only Galileo can be considered a scientist, but what he was censored for was not science.

File: Anglo-Saxon helmet 7th century.jpg (172KB, 655x600px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 655x600px

>>1450100

File: Lindisfarne Gospels Chi Riho _.jpg (4MB, 2905x3793px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2905x3793px

>>1450100
>>1450114

>>1450043
Did you even check your own link? It shows that almost nothing happened during the Renaissance. Look at the 15th century, simply pathetic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy

I learned that no matter how many facts are found to prove otherwise, Egyptians were black and I'm racist for thinking otherwise.

>>1449996
>sacking their capital city is "bailing them out"
epic

>>1450111
>Only Galileo can be considered a scientist, but what he was censored for was not science.
Again with the meme opinions,the facts are the church imprisoned italies most famous scientist(yes,thats WHY he was friends with the pope)and burnt all his books. Does that not make it an example? or are you so willfully ignorant and biased that you cant see the wood for the trees.

The murder of Bruno -for holding an OPINION contrary to the church proves that the great thinkers of the Renaissance were terrorized into silence-another example is Copernicus, whose works wernt released til after his death,such was his fear of the inquisition.

File: no regression at all.png (563KB, 680x938px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 680x938px

>>1450114
>>1450125

wow some artists made some pretty things. I guess that means de-Romanization wasn't so bad for the majority of Britons after all.

>>1442677
>the Catholic Church not only never persecuted science, but is responsible for its extraordinary development in the West and for ending the Roman dark ages
>the Renaissance was a scientific dark age which interrupted the medieval scientific revolution, and all the common negative stereotypes about the Middle Ages...actually apply to the Renaissance (and to Protestants rather than Catholics)
I've never seen history so distorted to fit a desired Catholic narrative.

There were no serious advances in science, medicine, literature, mathematics, and philosophy for almost 800 years after the fall of Rome. I know the Catholic church loves to brag that they preserved the work of more advanced civilizations during their monopoly over all of European life; but they're silent about Rome managing a 10% literacy rate (even during the waning dominate torn apart by Christian generated divisiveness and factionalism), while the only literacy during medieval Europe were the upper rafters of the clergy and nobility.

Thanks to the printing press, the Protestant Reformation broke the stranglehold Catholicism had over European minds; and left the Protestant north with far higher rates in literacy, education, population, and material wealth than the paltry Catholic south by the end of the 17th century. This trend continued up until the end of the 19th as Britain and America had an 85% literacy rate in 1860, while Catholic Spain, Portugal, and Italy slugged along at just under 1/5th.

I don't think I've ever had any less respect for Catholics after your post. Between the constant sexual dysfunction and child rape, history of fascist sympathies in Europe, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, the lying and reversing of blame to cover for past crimes, and of course the perpetual self-pitying; I'm absolutely convinced you guys are scumbags.

>AD 381: Freeman
>When Jesus Became God: Rubenstein
>Reformation: MacCulloch
>Here I Stand: Bainton
>Church histories of Shelley + Ferguson

File: tri-barrel revolving arquebus ca 1507.jpg (65KB, 960x478px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 960x478px

>>1450074

Fine, how about this: the renaissance stalled the study of physics and astronomy but advanced technology, commerce, perspective in visual arts, cartography, and engineering?

>>1448006
But it would have saved lives

It was immoral to NOT slaughter every last German

>>1450478
protestantism has been even worse for science than catholicism

see young earth creationism

>>1450376
>Wasnt so bad for the Britons
>Entire populace kicked out by Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians
Not to mention that towards the end of the empire Britain actually saw an increase in construction and buiding

>>1450890
It's almost like Judeo-Christian religions are a cancer on our world...

>>1450020
Francia comes from Frank, not the other way around

>>1450926
*tips fedora*

File: 1935580_1022727034437264_2798778425123839331_n.jpg (17KB, 257x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 257x400px

>>1447774
dank meme

>>1442677
>Rome produce nothing of merit
all of my wut. Sure, they took much from the Greeks but they continued the tradition and definitely expanded it.
>G and GB were F colonies
Charlemagne was ultimately a Germanic just as the Franks and Alemannics were. Early Franks ruled by Merovingians were simply Franks and notions of a France as we know it came much much later.
Normans were produced by Vikings the French permitted to settle in Normandy in hopes that they would fuck off afterwards and be peaceful (though that obviously didn't work). Sure, there was interbreeding and cultural exchange, but to say that the French conquered England is ludicrous considering the Crown holdings at the time.
>Vikings were shit warriors
They were raiders, traders, and explorers. They explored the Americas and were likely to have gone as far as East Asia, while certainly were to have traded with the Middle East.
>Catholics were great for science
Yes and no, as a societal institution they were overall negtiave for the advancement, but they allowed for the continuation of science and allowed for many advances in science and philosophy. The scientific boom which can be attributed to protestants makes it clear that there were many faults to the catholic culture, though their monastic entities made for amazing harbors of knowledge and advancement.
>Renaissance was shit
sweet fuck you're deluded
>Germans were the bad guys in WW1
Sure, they itched for war, but to say they were the bad guys misrepresents everything of the era. Germany was a recent entity and had hopes to be at the same level of the colonial powerhouses that were France and GB. They were playing the conquer and assimilate everyone else to our norm game just like everyone else at the time. They wanted in on colonization and they sought to do it in Europe too. Hell, if you don't believe me look up the little known short lived Prussian colonies centuries earlier.

File: juden.gif (11KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 501x585px

>>1450478
>Rubenstein

>>1449895
>>1449888
The atrocities committed by the Germans in Belgium were nothing but false British propaganda to drive the USA into the war.
Come now, any halfwit should know this.

>>1450376
>Pagan germanic tribes invade British Isles, bringing societal collapse in it's wake
>"let's blame Christians instead"

>>1450312
That happened after over a century of them being complete and utter worthless cunts.

>>1450983
Well I think the main criticism is that Christianity produced endless, violent infighting over petty Christilogy debates, sapping civilization of its strength during times of crisis. Not to mention that many pagans were already christianized at this time. The great sackers of Rome (Alaric I, Ataulf, Genseric, and Odoacer) were all baptized Christians, along with most of their pillaging armies.

>>1450333
I already explained all of this.

Bruno was not a "great thinker" you delusional straw-grabbing fedora, he was an insane heretical cult leader, and even he was initially given a free pass when he recanted and only sentenced after relapsing. And again Galileo was not sentenced for science, but for making unscientific claims (although even that wouldn't have gotten him into any serious trouble if he hadn't personally insulted the Pope at length).

>>1450376
No, it just means your shitty meme pictures are completely worthless cherrypicking.

>>1451740
When you say "complete", are you talking about the crusades? Because conquering a politically divided territory, that already began losing ground to Muslim counterattack after only 40 years, isn't really finishing the job.

Also he's right, the crusades ended up more disastrous for Byzantium than the originally Islamic threat.

>>1450478
>There were no serious advances in literature
That's wrong.

>There were no serious advances in science, medicine, [...], mathematics, and philosophy for almost 800 years after the fall of Rome.
There were also no serious advances in those things for 700 years before the fall of Rome. Probably also the fault of the Catholic Church right?

>while the only literacy during medieval Europe were the upper rafters of the clergy and nobility.
Right, thanks to Catholic schools. So you're saying we would have been better off with no clergy or schools at all and 0% literacy.

>the Protestant Reformation broke the stranglehold Catholicism had over European minds
lmao now this is just pure Lutheran Sunday school brainwashing. How exactly did Protestantism increase literacy rates? By destroying Catholic schools and monasteries? By organising the burning of hundreds of thousands of people as "witches"? By starting two centuries of religious wars? More rural countries have lower literacy than more urbanised ones you formatted idiot.

>>1450495
It certainly brought progress in visual arts. But what progress happened in technology and engineering is just a continuation of medieval technology and engineering, nothing revolutionary or "rebirth"-like.

>>1450929
See >>1450020

>>1450980
>every halfwit should know these Nazi memes

>>1451764
Byzantium would probably not have survived the 12th century if it hadn't been for Crusader intervention. Really all the Crusaders did was keep a doomed empire alive artificially.

And if they wanted to be respected, they maybe shouldn't have been such arrogant assholes. Look up their treacherous behaviour towards the Franks all through the Crusades, or the massacre of the Latins.

>>1451743
>endless, violent infighting over petty Christilogy debates
You mean the Reformation?

Pretty sure Protestants did the Reformation, not the Catholic Church.

>>1451782
Alright first off you're an absolute liar, and I already answered these questions. Name any serious advancement in the STEM fields, literature, or philosophy before 1300 that wasn't taken directly from the ancients or Muslims; you won't find one thing that wouldn't have came about without the Catholic Church. The criticism that Catholics don't care about scripture has a bit of truth to it; before the 19th century Catholics didn't read the bible, and the clergy didn't bother to educate the laity. They didn't bother spreading knowledge and literature outside monastically walls, things that were done even before the printing press but collapsed under Christendom. Thanks to the Catholic Church the literacy rate was next to 0%. Also you're deliberately ingnoring all the atrocities committed by Catholics (auto de fe, forced conversions in the Americas, torturing and executions of religious dissenters in the south, etc.) to fit your narrative of "Catholic = good, Prods = bad"

You're not a serious adult, nor are you anything beyond a pseudo-intellectual

>>1451807
The conversation was about Ancient Rome, bro. About the time Christians were beating each other senseless in the streets of Antioch over Jesus being begotten or made, not the time beatings were happening in the streets of Frankfort over who should be able to read the bible.

>>1451804
I'm sure that justifies the pillaging of Constantinople, it was a dying empire after all that asked for help (just not expecting a "being put out of its misery" type of way) xdddd

>>1451782
>>1451743

>>1450953

>continued the tradition
Right, so they didn't produce anything relevant or new.

>Charlemagne was ultimately a Germanic
So? There are Germanic people in France, even today. Unless you're one of those people who claim France didn't exist until the Revolution, there is no reason to distinguish 8th century France from 13th century France.

>to say that the French conquered England is ludicrous
French people from all over France although mostly from Normandy (where people had some minor Danish ancestry from Danes immigrating there 160 years earlier) who spoke French and owed allegiance to the king of France conquered England and completely Frenchified it, turning it into a cultural extension of France for the following three or four centuries. These people were unanimously referred to as French right up until the 20th century when Brits decided to get all butthurt and pretend they got conquered by Vikings instead.

>were likely to have gone as far as East Asia
Sounds like extreme bullshit.

>they were overall negtiave for the advancement
Yeah creating a class of intellectuals, preserving all the ancient texts, and founding schools and universities sure held back science.

>The scientific boom which can be attributed to protestants
lmao you just went full Lutheran fairy tales. It's unbelievable how monolithically all Protestants seem to believe this nonsense, that's some top notch revisionist brainwashing.

>sweet fuck you're deluded
Sweet fuck you're out of arguments.

>They wanted in on colonization and they sought to do it in Europe too.
Yeah see that's the thing, France and Britain weren't invading other European countries to turn them into colonies.

>>1451837
>criticizes Rome for merely continuing/preserving intellectual tradition, instead of improving/expanding it
>praises the church for merely continuing/preserving intellectual tradition, instead of improving/expanding it

>>1444265
>shouldve been burned at the stake

Kys

>>1451811
How about you try to use your brain for critical thinking instead of childish insults.

>you won't find one thing that wouldn't have came about without the Catholic Church
That's because you don't know the history of Western science.

First of all it was the Church which founded all the places of learning and which maintained a class of intellectuals that could become academics. Without the Church there simply would not even have been any sort of setting for philosophy or science, and probably reading and writing would have been forgotten completely.

But beyond that, Catholic philosophy was absolutely central to the development of Western science, and in particular to that of the scientific method. To sum it up really quickly, the Catholic world view was that all the universe was created by a benevolent creator. This creator also gave us the capacity for reason. Being benevolent, he would not have given us that capacity while making his universe irrational. Therefore the universe works according to rational laws, like a mechanical clock made by a great clockmaker, and we are meant to use reason in order to understand those laws. This work is the best way to glorify God. Far from having anything to fear from reason, the Church should see it as the most reliable way of arriving at the truth, including the truth of Christianity.

(cont.)

>>1451935

This philosophy only emerged progressively, but by 1100 it was completely accepted by the Church, and laid the foundation of scholasticism. From then on all thinkers at the cathedral schools and universities had to be highly formed logicians, and natural philosophy (that is to say science) became the second most prestigious field after theology. All the precepts of the scientific method were born out of this. The belief in a logical universe governed by rational laws. The belief that all the universe can be translated into the language of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly the concept of the scientific theory.

This came about most prominently in 1277, when the Church intervened directly into academia by banning the teaching of Aristotelian physics as indisputable fact at the University of Paris. Not only did this free up scientific thinking which had previously been shackled to academic dogma, and make it possible for people like Buridan and Oresme to reinvent physics and maths (laying the foundation of modern science), but this and the general attitude of the Church towards science also forced scientists to be a lot more careful about making claims. Instead of claiming guesswork as absolute truth the way the Greeks did, they had to be much more humble and disciplined, and any claim had to be considered mere theory, that is to say one of several possibilities, which can be held as true in practice if it is supported by evidence, but which can never become dogma and can always be put back into question again based on new evidence. This is the key to the scientific method and to the perpetual cycle of questioning things again which made the scientific revolution possible.

So yeah no none of this would have happened without the Church.

(cont.)

>>1451938

>Thanks to the Catholic Church the literacy rate was next to 0%.
Thanks to the Catholic Church, nobles, clergy, and anyone who could either afford to pay tuition or who could get a scholarship (which were paid for by several religious orders to anyone who showed capacity for study), meaning literally anyone who had any interest in it, could receive an education. Without the Catholic Church literacy would actually have been 0%, and there simply would never have been such a thing as Western civilisation.

>Also you're deliberately ingnoring all the atrocities committed by Catholics (auto de fe, forced conversions in the Americas, torturing and executions of religious dissenters in the south, etc.) to fit your narrative of "Catholic = good, Prods = bad"
None of this has anything at all to do with science, you're just trying to change the subject now. I mentioned Protestant obscurantism and violence because that's the only sort of contribution I can think of Protestantism making to the world. While Protestants were still routinely burning "witches" in the 18th century, the Catholic Church had declared already in the 10th century that there was no such thing as witchcraft and that it was nothing but superstition. And if you were referring to the Albigensian Crusade, that was the work of the king of France who wanted to crush the rebellious South. Heresy was always an even more serious concern to secular authorities than to the Church.

>>1451811
literacy rates improving was probably from the invention of the printing press in the first place

>>1451822
Oh.

Well blaming Christianity for the "dark ages" is just bad chronology. Greco-Roman civilisation stopped producing any new science, maths, technology, or art since around 200 BC. Rome never did any of that in the first place. As for economics, the height of Roman economic activity was around AD, it already drops sharply during the first century AD, before Christianity had acquired any sort of relevance. Not even the Crisis of the Third Century, at which point the decline of Rome is glaringly obvious, can be in any way connected to Christianity.

>>1451827
Well, yeah, the massacre of the Latins alone justifies the pillaging of Constantinople.

Anyway blame the Venetians who weren't real Crusaders in the first place. But honestly as much as the Venetians were greedy Jews, the Byzantines had it coming.

>>1451853
But that's wrong, Catholicism massively improved and expanded fucking everything, see
>>1451935
>>1451938

And that's just about science, not even counting the enormous contributions of Catholicism to art, architecture, music...

This is the greatest thing everyone has learned on /his/

File: 1469133193798.png (47KB, 1854x280px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1854x280px

>>1452002
forgot the pic

>>1452006
Also Plato was Olympic MMA champion.

It's not Western civilisation though, it's Greco-Roman, there's a difference.

File: 1267268001999.jpg (22KB, 191x250px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 191x250px

Seriously, between the days of the Punic Wars and the fall of the Western Roman Empire, what were the biggest advancements and inventions? Were the soldiers who fought the Ostrogoths better equipped than the ones who fought Hannibal?

>>1449987
>The Germans killed tens of thousands of civilians in Belgium and destroyed entire towns, not by accident but by deliberate mass executions.

The civilian casualties amounted to about 6.000, where did you get your "tens of thousands" from? In most cases, the killings were reprisal actions aimed at franc-tireurs, many of whom were civilians who offered severe resistance to the German army (e.g. shooting with machine guns from church towers). This led to extreme agitation of the German army who were fearful of civilian attacks potentially from anywhere, which led to some unjustified overreactions.

The depiction of blood-thirsty, ravaging brutes in Belgium who made no distinction between men, women and children as presented by British and French war propaganda is a stark exaggeration. More recent inquiries into the matter definitely did not arrive at the "consensus" you're alluding to. Give me sources if you still think otherwise.

>You can't be serious.

Oh, please! Such genocides against rebelling factions in colonies were basically everyday business for every colonial power. Regarding the treatment of colonies I deliberately added "in general", well aware of such occurrences and the general sense of racial superiority which, again, was equally present in the other empires.

I was referring to the general investment policies in the colonies. Germany invested relatively much in the colonies and their education, often driven by scientists who conducted research there.

>Your two caveats on poison gas are pretty worthless.

Of course, when the French, whom you apparently favour, make (unsuccessful) use of tear gas in warfare, that's a-ok, and when the Germans escalate via lethal gas, that's unambiguously immoral? Not to forget that Germans were merely the first to develop such a gas and as soon as the other nations saw its potential did not hesitate even for a second before doing the same. Very shaky moral high ground there, if you ask me.

>>1452037
Nope. That's why they were a complete joke.

At the Catalaunian Plains, the Huns completely ignored the Roman troops and just focused on the Romans' Germanic allies instead. That's how irrelevant Roman fighting style had become.

>>1446239
>Germany or Germans didn't even exist. In its earliest form it was created out of territory conquered by the French.
Thats a French puppet state, not a colony

>>1451935
You still didn't name a single thing, friend

>>1451962
No it doesn't.

>>1444375
>Germany was no different from Britain and only their loss portrays them badly.
So Britain actively pursued war with Russia and invaded France and Belgium??

>>1452041

>The civilian casualties amounted to about 6.000, where did you get your "tens of thousands" from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Belgium

>Overall, the Germans killed 23,700 Belgian civilians and caused the deaths of an additional 62,000 via deprivation of food and shelter (not counting deaths from the Spanish flu).[5]

>In the 1920s, the war crimes of August 1914 were often dismissed as British propaganda. In recent years scholars have examined the original documents and found that large-scale atrocities were committed, and that the fabrications were incidental to the truth.[4]


>Such genocides against rebelling factions in colonies were basically everyday business for every colonial power.
No, they literally just happened in German Africa. The only other place where something as bad happened was Belgian Congo, but there it was more a question of Kafkaesque bureaucracy than targeted genocide the way the Germans did it.


>when the French, whom you apparently favour, make (unsuccessful) use of tear gas in warfare, that's a-ok, and when the Germans escalate via lethal gas, that's unambiguously immoral?
Yes?

One of those temporarily irritates your eyes, while the other burns up your brain from the inside and leaves you dead or severely crippled and brain damaged. Do you seriously not see the difference?


>as soon as the other nations saw its potential did not hesitate even for a second before doing the same
Well why the fuck would the Entente stick to international conventions if the Germans pissed all over them?

>>1452069
Yes it does.

>>1452057
Wow, why do I even bother with you idiots.

>>1451935
>First of all it was the Church which founded all the places of learning and which maintained a class of intellectuals that could become academics
These places already existed in the Pre-Christian world (Rome, Carthage, New Carthage, Alexandria, etc.) and the few that the church founded were dwarfed by Cordoba, Cairo,etc.
>the Catholic world view was that all the universe was created by a benevolent creator. This creator also gave us the capacity for reason. Being benevolent, he would not have given us that capacity while making his universe irrational. Therefore the universe works according to rational laws, like a mechanical clock made by a great clockmaker, and we are meant to use reason in order to understand those laws.
This is neither science, nor is this original to scholasticism. Ideas of the gods (or great god) being benevolent for mankind has been noted as early as Socrates and Plato; Socrates defended himself at his trial by saying he was obeying the dictates of the gods by following his rational conscious. Deism is not unique to Christianity either, nor has Christianity ever claimed to be Deistic.

I'm so tired of the reverse engineering of an organization that has always claimed to have the truth, since the beginning, while always harking back that "were growing in knowledge to be closer to god". Christianity is not a science, scholasticism isn't either a science or a serious philosophy; its just switching interpreting the bible to "being a metaphor" whenever it contradicts discovered natural truth, while at the same time always having the "great truth" so that when theologians are wrong, they weren't actually wrong they're just "more correct than before". Not that you'd understand.

>>1449991
>I don't see how it was inward oriented when, just to cite one random example

Your example is indeed random. I'll rephrase what I intended to express:

Inward-oriented "Kultur/Gemeinschaft" thinking => Germans have superior culture and heritage, but this superiority is not to be expressed as militaristic aggression towards neighbouring countries who are "inferior". Germans rather smugly ridiculed shallow Western civilization and aimed at further refining their own culture (hence inward-oriented). And don't even pretend that Britain and France didn't basically do the same - especially Britain with their self-entitled right to conquer the world. They equally ridiculed the Germans as being brutish and uncivilized and therefore inferior!

Nazis sought to occupy "Lebensraum", i.e. expressed their perceived racial superiority outwards towards other countries in the form of military invasions.

>Germany declared war on and invaded Russia, and declared war on and invaded France, after demanding France hand over several cities in an absurd ultimatum. It then violated Belgium's neutrality which forced Britain into the war.

You do know that it was Austria-Hungary which upon having obtained unconditional support of Germany, declared war on Serbia, which had an equivalent unconditional support of Russia? Thereafter, the Russians started mobilizing their forces - also to the German borders. As a reaction, Wilhelm II demanded an immediate stop of the mobilization from the Czar, who did not replay within 24 hours, upon which the Kaiser felt himself obliged to declare war and mobilize German troops to protect its Eastern borders.

The declaration of war on France occurred after the French also mobilized their troops following their Russian coalition partner and after several reports of French air bombings of Nuremberg and railway routes. The reports proved to be false after several days and a closer examination, but this was demonstrably not immediately evident.

>>1449895
German here, I have to disagree with some points you made

>As a result, that line of thought was inward-oriented toward the German Volk and how its community ("Gemeinschaft") can be refined and developed instead of being outward-oriented towards world domination as in the Nazi regime.
You know the saying "Am deutschen Wesen mag die Welt genesen" (The world shall thrive on German essence) which was popular during that time. That doesnt really fit with your narrative of inward-orientation of German nationalism, does it? Neither does the German desire to have a "place in the sun" - to get colonies.

>A major mistake he actually committed was declaring unconditional support for Austria-Hungary after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, which was abused by the pompous and overconfident Austrian-Hungarians to create the ensuing calamity.
Do you really thing German leadership was so retarded that it would let Austria-Hungary drag them into a war they didnt want? It was Germany in the first place who wanted the war - because of political isolation, and because they thought that a war now is better than a war later - and they persuaded Austria to escalate this dipomatic incident into a full out war

>>1449991
>All your talk of supposed good intentions can't change the simple fact that Germany single-handedly escalated a war between Russia and Austria into a world war involving Germany, France, and Britain.

And all your arguments only show that you immediately discard every point clearly displaying either that Germany overall was not overly keen on inciting the war as is usually portrayed or that other powers did basically the same. Germany wasn't fervently intent on preventing the war, either, but neither were all the other nations involved. So, your talk of single-handed causation is nothing but unconditional and unquestioning acceptance of the sole liability of Germany for the war which the Allies imposed upon it after the war.

>it becomes obvious the Nazis didn't just appear out of nowhere

The Nazism in its extreme form which appeared in WWII was only possible because of the public humiliation of Germany by the Allies following the war.

>>1452108
>These places already existed in the Pre-Christian world (Rome, Carthage, New Carthage, Alexandria, etc.)
No, they didn't. The Greeks had only a couple of academies which weren't proper schools, and Roman education was based on private tutoring which obviously only wealthy families could afford. None of this survived the fall of Rome.

Western education started with the cathedral schools founded under the reign of Charlemagne. The universities then grew out of them starting in the 12th century, while more Catholic schools kept being founded. All of Western education was created and run by the Church.

>This is neither science, nor is this original to scholasticism. Ideas of the gods (or great god) being benevolent for mankind has been noted as early as Socrates and Plato; Socrates defended himself at his trial by saying he was obeying the dictates of the gods by following his rational conscious. Deism is not unique to Christianity either, nor has Christianity ever claimed to be Deistic.
Try reading what I said again and paying closer attention. I said nothing about deism, and God being benevolent is only a small part of the reasoning I laid out.

>Christianity is not a science, scholasticism isn't either a science
What we call modern science isn't something universal and eternal. It's a very specific way of looking at the world which appeared in the West over the past few centuries, and which is unlike anything before. That's why it resulted in the unprecedented period of uninterrupted scientific progress that we rightfully call the "Scientific Revolution". And that specific way of thinking of science didn't just pop up out of nowhere. It's the product of philosophy, specifically of Catholic philosophy.

If you can, try leaving all your personal resentment out of this and being a little more open minded and critical of your prejudices.

>>1451938
>All the precepts of the scientific method were born out of this. The belief in a logical universe governed by rational laws. The belief that all the universe can be translated into the language of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly the concept of the scientific theory.
First let me say that the reason Catholic love Quantum mechanics is because it "disproves" the deistic model of the universe. The Universe isn't a "running watch" with perfect laws, they salivate over the idea that we knew far less than we thought we did, giving them plenty of room to insert Yahweh of the desert once again into the structure of the universe again. Also like I said before, scientific methods were being pursued in a primitive form since the ancients (Egypt, Greece), but didn't mature into a semi-serious pursuit until after the 30 years war, independent from the church.
>This came about most prominently in 1277, when the Church intervened directly into academia by banning the teaching of Aristotelian physics... Not only did this free up scientific thinking ... make it possible for people like Buridan and Oresme to reinvent physics and maths (laying the foundation of modern science), but this and the general attitude of the Church towards science also forced scientists to be a lot more careful about making claims.
That's not what happened, Aristotle was still used as the primer scientist up until the 16th century, by the Church. There's not even a commonly accepted account of what 219 academic articles Tempier condemned.

Also you're showing your hole in logic when you argue on one hand the church is growing closer to god and more open in free thought, while praising the same church that held Aristotle, Averroes, and Avicenna in such high ideals; obviously their students would also do so at some point as well. You're practically praising the church for resolving the problem they created in the first place.

>>1451938
>Instead of claiming guesswork as absolute truth the way the Greeks did
Lol
>they had to be much more humble and disciplined, and any claim had to be considered mere theory, that is to say one of several possibilities, which can be held as true in practice if it is supported by evidence, but which can never become dogma and can always be put back into question again based on new evidence.
Claiming to already have the absolute truth about creation, ethics, epistemology, etc. but admitting you're still working out the details which you guys are already right about in general is the opposite of humble.

>>1452128
>Serbia, which had an equivalent unconditional support of Russia
No, the support was by no means equivalent. Russia urged Serbia to accept the ultimatum.

>>1452155
>The Nazism in its extreme form which appeared in WWII was only possible because of the public humiliation of Germany by the Allies following the war.
Was it really?

Why was it nowhere to be seen immediately after the war? Or in the 20s? Why did their coup fail, why did they fail in the elections?

If it was "only" possible because of this supposed "humiliation", why did it have to literally take Great Depression for them gain power?

>>1452128
>but this superiority is not to be expressed as militaristic aggression towards neighbouring countries who are "inferior"
Well then something went very wrong somewhere, didn't it.

>Britain with their self-entitled right to conquer the world
Britain never made any plans to expand in Europe or colonising Germany and enslaving the Germans.

>Nazis sought to occupy "Lebensraum", i.e. expressed their perceived racial superiority outwards towards other countries in the form of military invasions
Lebensraum is a concept invented by Imperial Germany before WW1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

Face it, there is complete continuity between Imperial and Nazi Germany. Racial supremacism, Lebensraum, militaristic imperialism, it's all already there.

>You do know that it was Austria-Hungary which upon having obtained unconditional support of Germany, declared war on Serbia
Right so, without the German declaration of unconditional support, even the localised Austria-Russia conflict would most likely have been averted.

>The declaration of war on France occurred after the French also mobilized their troops
France only mobilised its troops after the Germans had made an ultimatum clearly stating that they would invade France if France didn't hand over several cities to German control.

>several reports of French air bombings of Nuremberg and railway routes
Poland attacking a German radio tower tier.

>>1451940
>and anyone who could either afford to pay tuition or who could get a scholarship (which were paid for by several religious orders to anyone who showed capacity for study), meaning literally anyone who had any interest in it, could receive an education. Without the Catholic Church literacy would actually have been 0%
It was actually close to 0% because NOT everybody was free to receive a serious education, it was neither cheap nor generously given out by the church, even to much of the semi-literate clergy.
>and there simply would never have been such a thing as Western civilisation.
Western civilization had already long existed, you're starting to sound like a raving lunatic.
>None of this has anything at all to do with science, you're just trying to change the subject now. I mentioned Protestant obscurantism and violence because that's the only sort of contribution I can think of Protestantism making to the world.
Can't think of the idea everyone being able to read the bible had no impact on the west. An idea the church didn't care much for even after the PP.
> the Catholic Church had declared already in the 10th century that there was no such thing as witchcraft and that it was nothing but superstition.
Name the documents and I'll show you why you're wrong.
>Heresy was always an even more serious concern to secular authorities than to the Church.
True, secular authorities wanted heresy crushed because it did serve as a very real political threat to their power, much of which rested on proper relations with the church. But if you're suggesting the church was just going to let "heretics" spread across Europe and resist them only through peaceful debate; you're deliberately ignoring the history of house arrests, fines, blackmail, intimidation, discrediting of religious dissenters, violence, torture, and legitimization of warfare against nonbelievers and Apostates

>>1451943
Doesn't explain why the Protestant North still dwarfed the Catholic south in it, even 300 years after it.

>>1452155

>Germany wasn't fervently intent on preventing the war, either, but neither were all the other nations involved.
Read the diplomatic cables. Germany did everything to escalate the war, France did everything to prevent it (short of actually giving in to the Germans' ludicrous demands). Britain wasn't even involved until Germany invaded Belgium.

>The Nazism in its extreme form which appeared in WWII was only possible because of the public humiliation of Germany by the Allies following the war.
It's actually the opposite.

The Germans weren't humiliated after WW1, and so they believed they hadn't really lost the war. No Entente troops ever set foot on German soil. Germany wasn't occupied at the war end. Right up until the end the Germans just heard propaganda about how they were close to victory, and suddenly they're told they lost. Of course it's easy for someone to then tell them it was the Jews that backstabbed them.

Germany should have been invaded and occupied. French and British troops should have marched triumphantly back and forth through Berlin. They should then have taken possession of German palaces and stayed there with their garrisons until every last cent of reparations was paid. That and more is what the Germans did in France in 1871. All the tragedies of WW2 could have been averted if the Entente hadn't wanted to be so nice and forgiving to the Germans, and beaten them to heel instead (the way the Americans did later).

>>1451952
>Greco-Roman civilisation stopped producing any new science, maths, technology, or art since around 200 BC
> it already drops sharply during the first century AD
Kek, alright Spengler. I'll wait for you to go into more concrete details.

>Not even the Crisis of the Third Century, at which point the decline of Rome is glaringly obvious, can be in any way connected to Christianity.
Yes it can. The constant infighting, the civil wars against "Pagan" citizens, and the church seizing a monopoly over social services, and the barbarians sacking the empire already being Christians are but a few.

Why didn't Theodosius move to protect the lives and property of his Pagan citizens despite wanting to? Ambrose told him not to resist the church claiming new properties, for Christ would reward a Christian empire.

Why was Athanasius exiled to Trier by Constantine in 356? Because he held control over Alexandria's various ports, and threatened to block the shipment of Egyptian grain to the rest of the empire, should the emperor allow the Arians to remain in communion with the church. He was perfectly comfortable with allowing countless numbers of starving and dead, just to win a Christological debate.

>>1451966
More vagueness I guess...

>>1452156
>No, they didn't.
Well if you ignore academies in Athens, Alexandria, and Carthage, I guess they must've not existed.

>Try reading what I said again and paying closer attention.
I understood it perfectly, because I hear the bullshit "growing closer to god" argument everytime I'm here.

>That's why it resulted in the unprecedented period of uninterrupted scientific progress
It was constantly being interrupted by Church politics.

>that we rightfully call the "Scientific Revolution". And that specific way of thinking of science didn't just pop up out of nowhere. It's the product of philosophy, specifically of Catholic philosophy.
Scientific revolution came after the 30 years war, friend, after both factions of Christianity were discredited and bankrupted for murdering of both people and minds.

>If you can, try leaving all your personal resentment out of this and being a little more open minded and critical of your prejudices.
So thin skinned. I bet you'll get mad if I make another pedophilia joke.

>>1452133
>German here
Filtered.

>>1452161
I've never heard of Catholics especially loving quantum mechanics. Catholics do like the Big Bang theory though, which was largely created by a Catholic priest.

>scientific methods were being pursued in a primitive form since the ancients (Egypt, Greece), but didn't mature into a semi-serious pursuit until after the 30 years war, independent from the church
I just spent two posts explaining what the basic principles of the scientific method are and how they were either created or revived by Catholic philosophy. There's a reason the scientific revolution didn't begin in Egypt but in Catholic Western Europe.

>That's not what happened, Aristotle was still used as the primer scientist up until the 16th century, by the Church.
You must be new here.

Aristotle was turned back into the supreme authority in physics by the Renaissance humanists, how many times does this have to be explained?

Here I'll put it in a simple terms as I can:

11th - 13th century: Aristotle, no progress
13th - 15th century: no more Aristotle, now there's progress
15th - 17th century: back to Aristotle, back to no progress
since 17th century: rediscovery of 14th century science, no more Aristotle, back to progress.

>You're practically praising the church for resolving the problem they created in the first place
It wasn't just a problem. Aristotle is great on logic, that's where his reputation came from in the first place. Around 1100 when Aristotle became the reference, that was progress, since it enshrined logic and reason. This is a good thing. But as a side-effect, his Physics turned into academic dogma. So in 1277 the Church intervened to break that dogma, and encourage people to think beyond it. This is significant not only because of that particular case in physics, but because more generally speaking it forced Westerners to think critically and realise that nothing should ever be turned into unquestionable scientific dogma.

>>1452156
>>1451935
While I agree with a lot of things you've said, one thing I don't agree with is the Church founding the University. These grew out of already existing guild systems and legally protected corporations of law students. This is why the cathedral schools of Charlemagne's era were just Greek style academies, and why universities (and the innovations that followed from them) came some 300-400 years later. What happened beginning in the 12th century was the cathedral school acquiring the legal rights and culture of the secular university student-teacher unions.

Incidentally, the opposite happened in the Islamic world at around the same time.

>>1452168
We're talking about science here, not ethics.

>>1452156
>No, they didn't
Or are you arguing that the Islamic world didn't dwarf the Christian west in knowledge so dauntingly, that ancient Greco-Roman texts had to be translated back from Arabic, because the Muslims preserved what the Christians didn't, at a more successful rate even during the "High Medieval Period" of the 13th century.

>>1452088
>>Overall, the Germans killed 23,700 Belgian civilians and caused the deaths of an additional 62,000 via deprivation of food and shelter (not counting deaths from the Spanish flu).[5]

This is at odds with every single source I've previously encountered. Those figures - whose authenticity I would like to see verified - were most certainly not a result of war crimes. It is universally accepted that the execution of about 6.000 civilians is considered as such. Counting other deaths which were a consequence of war itself is not part of the "rape" of Belgium and is more than biased. E.g. the Germans constructed an electrified fence which claimed the lives of 3.000 lives of people who attempted escape - that's not a war crime to be counted as perpetrated by the army.

Also, as it appears to me much of the wikipedia article you're referring is based on the Horne/Kramer book "German atrocities 2014", which is disputed among historians. In fact, the 2016 book by Gunther Spraul is a detailed source-critical examination of the Horne/Kramer book and refutes many of the claims made therein.

http://www.frank-timme.de/verlag/verlagsprogramm/buch/verlagsprogramm/bd-23-gunter-spraul-der-franktireurkrieg-1914/backPID/geschichtswissenschaft.html

>No, they literally just happened in German Africa.

Let's conveniently ignore the fact that the British were the first one to deploy the precursor to the concentration camps with 26.000 dead, not to mention the "scorched earth" policy which the Nazis also later adopted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Concentration_camps_.281900.E2.80.931902.29

>One of those temporarily irritates your eyes, while the other burns up your brain from the inside and leaves you dead or severely crippled and brain damaged. Do you seriously not see the difference?

That only happened rarely in case of prolongated exposure. In fact, the employment of gas was by far not as effective or super-harmful as it is often portrayed.

>>1452267
>Catholics do like the Big Bang theory though, which was largely created by a Catholic priest.
He couldn't even get that right, because the universe existed before the "Big Bang" (worst possible title for the event), at an infinitely small and condensed level, and has been accelerating in growth since.
>There's a reason the scientific revolution didn't begin in Egypt but in Catholic Western Europe.
The scientific revolution that we know and love began after the 30 years war in Europe, but advances in the STEM field were still being made in the ancient and Islamic worlds at a far greater pace, despite being tainted with pseudo-science at all turns. For instance medicine in Christendom and the Islamic world was as much based on anatomy, as it was astronomy (and even astrology). These would not meet our definitions of the scientific method, the church didn't start the scientific revolution; but we can still differentiate who were making the serious advances, and who were sincerely debating the nature of the trinity or who Mohammed's successor should be. You couldn't be more wrong.
>You must be new here.
Only to this stupid fucking meme. The Church's interpretation of the world was closer to Plato than Aristotle. Of course the church masqueraded behind having a sincere love of empiricism (as it still lies about today), but it's treatments of epistemology were far closer to rationalism than empiricism. For instance, it based it's Christology not from empirical study of scripture, but from inner reason and conviction of what Jesus must've been, despite what he said he was. And the hero-worshiping of Aristotle, which the Church almost always promoted, is not scientific. Again, you fucking retard, you're applauding the church for not really solving a problem they caused in the first place.

>>1452267
>It wasn't just a problem. Aristotle is great on logic, that's where his reputation came from in the first place. Around 1100 when Aristotle became the reference, that was progress, since it enshrined logic and reason. This is a good thing. But as a side-effect, his Physics turned into academic dogma. So in 1277 the Church intervened to break that dogma, and encourage people to think beyond it. This is significant not only because of that particular case in physics, but because more generally speaking it forced Westerners to think critically and realise that nothing should ever be turned into unquestionable scientific dogma.
Like I said, congratulating the church for not solving a serious problem they caused in the first place, you pseud.

>>1452088
>Well why the fuck would the Entente stick to international conventions if the Germans pissed all over them?

Actually, the utilization of gas was not even regulated in the Hague convention back then since such a weapon did not exist prior to the Great War. What was prohibited back then were chemicals used in bomb shells. So, stating it was 100% clear and utterly reprehensible to make use of a new weapon can only be stated in retrospect by the winning party.

My argument with France was rather that German gas retaliation can be seen as having been provoked. The fact that the German gas was several degrees more potent is certainly a significant factor to consider, but the very idea of gas utilization was not realized by the Germans.

>>1452275
Yeah, were talking about how the church isn't scientific because they claim to already have the revealed truth. The church's argument is basically...

>Any contradictions found in nature or physics of scripture/tradition must only appear to be contradictions, in fact they're actually meant to be discovered so we can be "more right" about the big truth we were already 100% correct about.

>>1452321
>So in 1277 the Church intervened to break that dogma

The Church did no such thing. The Church was condemning various works as heretical and against Catholic dogma, not encouraging any free thought. Any break from old physics dogma happened as an accidental result of the Church's condemnations, and was not any sort of plan to encourage anything but their own theological dogma.

>>1452345
That's what I said, I think you're trying to quote that other idiot whose trying to imply the church breathed a fresh air of open scientific/philosophical inquiry in the 13th century, that was somehow being stagnated so long by the secular world, despite the church having a near monopoly over education .

The church caused the problem.

>>1452201

>It was actually close to 0% because NOT everybody was free to receive a serious education, it was neither cheap nor generously given out by the church, even to much of the semi-literate clergy.
Everyone who had the money or the capacity could learn. Literacy was not 0%, but it would have been 0% without the Church.

>Western civilization had already long existed
lol, no. I assume you're one of those people who believe themselves to be ancient Greeks.

Western civilisation, as the name indicates, was born in Western Europe, during the Middle Ages. Not in the East. The popular belief that we're the same civilisation as ancient Greeks comes from Renaissance delusion by Italians who wanted to cosplay as ancient Romans. It's not credited by any historian who seriously studies civilisations. For example the Muslims are in their civilisation just as closely related to the Greeks as we are, are the Muslims Westerners now?

>Can't think of the idea everyone being able to read the bible had no impact on the west.
The only impact this had is that everyone now thought he could he could make up his own interpretations of the Bible, and Western Christendom became fractured into thousands of warring cults.

(cont.)

>>1452367

>Name the documents and I'll show you why you're wrong.

>The general desire of the Catholic Church's clergy to check fanaticism about witchcraft and necromancy is shown in the decrees of the Council of Paderborn, which, in 785, explicitly outlawed condemning people as witches and condemned to death anyone who burnt a witch. The Lombard code of 643 states:

>Let nobody presume to kill a foreign serving maid or female servant as a witch, for it is not possible, nor ought to be believed by Christian minds.[21]

>This conforms to the teachings of the Canon Episcopi of circa 900 AD (alleged to date from 314 AD), which, following the thoughts of Augustine of Hippo, stated that witchcraft did not exist and that to teach that it was a reality was, itself, false and heterodox teaching. The Council of Frankfurt in 794, called by Charlemagne, was also very explicit in condemning "the persecution of alleged witches and wizards", calling the belief in witchcraft "superstitious", and ordering the death penalty for those who presumed to burn witches.[22] Other examples include an Irish synod in 800,[23] and a sermon by Agobard of Lyons (810).[24]

>Pope Gregory VII, in 1080, wrote to King Harald III of Denmark forbidding witches to be put to death

etc

Even earlier than I thought.

(cont.)

>>1452133
>You know the saying "Am deutschen Wesen mag die Welt genesen"

Am deutschen Wesen mag die Welt genesen ist ein politisches Schlagwort, welches auf Emanuel Geibels Gedicht Deutschlands Beruf von 1861 zurückgeht. Geibel setzt sich darin für die Einheit Deutschlands ein und ruft die Einzelstaaten zur Einigung unter einem deutschen Kaiser, dem seit 1861 als König von Preußen regierenden Wilhelm I., auf, wie es nach den „Einigungskriegen“ schließlich 1871 auch geschah. Das deutsche Wesen, an dem die Welt genesen mag, ist als das geeinte deutsche Staatswesen zu verstehen, von dem eine Friedenswirkung auf das europäische Staatengefüge ausgehen werde.[1]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am_deutschen_Wesen_mag_die_Welt_genesen

The "Platz an der Sonne" is merely the desire to have a piece of the cake which other colonial empires had already benefitted from - i.e. to have an equal status among all the other European powers. I sincerely don't see where the vile aggression and militaristic tendencies are supposed to reside there.

>Do you really thing German leadership was so retarded that it would let Austria-Hungary drag them into a war they didnt want?

The picture is not so simple. There have been certain factions within the military which drove for war, and Kaiser Wilhelm II, due to his prideful and sometimes excitable nature, did not have a congruent stance on the matter. However, there are enough occasions in which he clearly expressed that a war is not desirable and would be destructive for the whole of Europe.

Also, Germany felt obliged to support the Austro-Hungarians due to their fear of them otherwise also joining the Entente, and underplaying the risk from a contemporary perspective would be foolish. Germany was already encircled by a coalition of powers who were more or less openly hostile towards Germany and losing its last ally would have been more self-destructive than risking a war.

>>1452372

>But if you're suggesting the church was just going to let "heretics" spread across Europe
When did I say that? The Church had an institution exactly for that, called the Inquisition. If there was an accusation of heresy the Inquisition would make an inquiry, collect evidence, interrogate witnesses (this btw is the invention of our modern judicial system), and if found guilty, a heretic would be allowed to recant. If later a heretic who had recanted relapsed, or refused to recant in the first place, he was convicted for heresy, and handed to secular authorities. The secular authorities could decide the punishment, but they almost always opted for death.

Heresy was a very dangerous thing, and when left unchecked and spreading it could plunge whole countries into chaos and violence. Just look at what happened when the Reformation went unchecked.

>>1452268
You're probably thinking of Bologna.

The University of Paris grew out of the cathedral school of Notre Dame, and other Parisian cathedral schools. Oxford I believe was founded when English students were banned from attending Paris.

>>1452278
>Muslims preserved what the Christians didn't

Actually, it were mostly Christians, specifically Syriac Christians, who transmitted Greek texts to Muslims.

http://www.aina.org/books/hgsptta.htm

>>1452278
The Muslims had translated texts they had found in the East. Those texts had never been in the West in the first place. What had been in the West was preserved by the Christians much more diligently than by the Muslims, who destroyed as much as they preserved.

In any case science isn't translating old books that were usually full of nonsense.

>>1452184
I didn't have any space left in my above post to elaborate further. Yes, economic necessity is the primary driver towards extremism, however the perception was that Germany suffered so severely economically due to the restrictions and reparation payments imposed upon by the Allies - which is not entirely false.

>>1450333
Saying Christianity is anti-science because Giordano Bruno and Galileo were persecuted for political reasons, is like saying the Enlightenment was anti-science because the Jacobins killed Lavoisier and persecuted Luigi Galvani.

>>1452367
>lol, no. I assume you're one of those people who believe themselves to be ancient Greeks.
These are the excellent rebuttals worth replying to.
>It's not credited by any historian who seriously studies civilisations.
Only if you call Robert Barron, Oswald Spengler, and Rodney Stark serious historians, you loon. There is no "consensus" of scholars that the medieval world started modern civilization, outside Benedictine monasteries. There has never been one on either side fully, but if there was a general leaning towards one or the other, its towards classical civilization having closer ideals to us than we do to the medieval.
>For example the Muslims are in their civilisation just as closely related to the Greeks as we are, are the Muslims Westerners now?
You're purposely ignoring other influences (Iranian, Arabic, Indian, South Asian, African, etc.) on the development of Islamic civilization, and the much greater emphasis they've put on religion over the past 400 years than the west did.
>The only impact this had is that everyone now thought he could he could make up his own interpretations of the Bible
Now anyone could read the Bible.
>Everyone who had the money or the capacity could learn
Barely anyone had either, both because of peasant poverty in a society with such a wealth gap. In fact, you're still lacking the 2nd even with access to the knowledge of the internet age.

Once again, you're an absolute liar.

File: civ1.png (17KB, 700x900px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 700x900px

how can i make this better?

File: civ2.png (14KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 700x400px

>>1452417

>>1452387
No, I'm thinking of all of them. Paris and Oxford grew not out of cathedral schools but, as you say, from student unions attached to them and given official legal privileges based on the model of a guild.

>>1452417
>>1452419
What is it?

>>1452317

>He couldn't even get that right, because the universe existed before the "Big Bang" (worst possible title for the event), at an infinitely small and condensed level, and has been accelerating in growth since.
I don't even know what you're referring to. The inflationary period? That's part of the Big Bang.

>The scientific revolution that we know and love began after the 30 years war in Europe
It started in the 14th century, it was interrupted by Renaissance humanism, and it continued again where it had left off when Galileo repopularised 14th century science, and with the help of Descartes giving a solid secular philosophical basis to the principles of the scientific method already elaborated in the 13th and 14th centuries.

By contrast, there were no scientific advances throughout the Roman era since the 3rd century BC, and Islamic advances were extremely rare and sporadic.

>Of course the church masqueraded behind having a sincere love of empiricism
Right, the Church secretly hated science, and only encouraged science as a ploy to fool 21st century imageboard atheists.

> And the hero-worshiping of Aristotle, which the Church almost always promoted, is not scientific.
As I've already explained, the Church didn't promote worshiping Aristotle, it promoted logic and reason. Since Aristotle was the master of logic, this also caused his physics to be worshiped in academic circles. The Church again intervened to put a stop to that, laying the foundation for modern science in the process.

>>1452321
Yes, the Church "caused" Western science's rationality and then its capacity for critical thinking, truly odious.

>>1452408
>Barely anyone had either, both because of peasant poverty in a society with such a wealth gap.

Peasant poverty didn't stop Sylvester II from rising into papacy and becoming a proto-scientist.

I will not say medieval society was egalitarian or peaceful. But those failings of medieval society were actively fought by the Church, who offered the only venue for peasant social climbing through it's schools, and tried to stop wars through peace and truces of God.

It's not the Church's fault that nobles didn't listened.

>>1452335
Theology =/= physics. The Church never claimed to already know physics, that's why it encouraged science.

>>1452419
>>1452417
>arabian

there is a reason its called islamic golden age and not arab golden age...

>>1452427
a chronological comparison of the main civilizations

>>1452359
Yes, clearly the Catholic Church is the reason science didn't advance since 200 BC, you gigantic mong.

>>1452420
Yes, but they wouldn't have appeared without the existence of cathedral schools before.

And they were still under Church authority, and almost entirely run by members of the clergy.

>>1452437
>arabs didn't have a culture before muhammad

>>1452190
>Well then something went very wrong somewhere, didn't it.
Nobody said Germany wouldn't defend its national interests when these were infringed upon.
>Britain never made any plans to expand in Europe or colonising Germany and enslaving the Germans.
Well, let me then extend my formulation to "Britain's self-entitled right to conquer the non-European world"

>Face it, there is complete continuity between Imperial and Nazi Germany. Racial supremacism, Lebensraum, militaristic imperialism, it's all already there.

Basically all of those elements were present in other European superpowers of the time. The fact that they won the war and their national pride was not humiliated as in Germany's case does not create the seeming continuity you would like to allocate solely to Germany.

>without the German declaration of unconditional support, even the localised Austria-Russia conflict would most likely have been averted.

Without Russian support of Serbia, the conflict could have been averted in equal measure. Also, as I said in a post above: "Germany felt obliged to support the Austro-Hungarians due to their fear of them otherwise also joining the Entente, and underplaying the risk from a contemporary perspective would be foolish. Germany was already encircled by a coalition of powers who were more or less openly hostile towards Germany and losing its last ally would have been more self-destructive than risking a war."

>Germans had made an ultimatum clearly stating
Source?

>Poland attacking a German radio tower tier.
I said myself that those turned out to be false after an examination. But the reports were not deliberately fabricated as in WWII, which is evident in all historical documents available. Put yourself in the shoes of the leadership back then - French have mobilized their troops, all hell breaks loose and you receive such a report from lower ranks - it is ignorant to claim from a modern, cozy perspective that this should have had no consequence!

>>1452372
Kek, then I'm glad Auto de fes weren't continuing up til the 18th century. People were merely being killed for the wrong belief, not for being capable of Satanic powers or other nonsense.

But wait that only works if you ignore the following people killed for witchcraft directly by the Catholic church:
>Agnes Bernauer (1435)
>Giovanna Bonanno (1789)
>Nyzette Cheveron (1605)
>Monk Jean Delvaux (1595)
>Matteuccia de Francesco (1428)
>Urbain Grandier (1634)
>Bertrand Guilladot (1742)
>Adrienne d'Heur (1646)
And that's just the simplest research of the ones we know about.

But I guess official church sanctions of execution for being in league with Lucifer doesn't count because "the Prods were killing more" & "the church passed edicts against this they routinely ignored"

Once again, you're an absolute liar.

>>1452408
>anyone I disagree with is a loon and a liar
Capital way to conduct a debate.

Since at this point you seem to have abandoned any pretense of serious discussion and your entire post is nothing but a collection of petty insults which don't even require a response, I suggest you go somewhere better suited to your brainless shitposting, like /pol/ or perhaps /b/.

File: greek mathematicians.png (34KB, 700x1364px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 700x1364px

>blaming Christianity for the decline of Greek science, and not Rome

>>1452447
>Yes, but they wouldn't have appeared without the existence of cathedral schools before.
No, they would have existed as the cathedral school was just one out of many institutions these student corporation that would become universities would attach themselves to and grow from. Paris and Oxford just happened to be attached to cathedrals as they were originally focused on theology, but others were founded for teaching and accrediting legal clerks.

Being under Church authority was the one major problem for Paris, leading to the condemnations of the 13th century.

>>1452441
Literally what?

>>1452437
>>1452448
I think he's thinking of Spengler's Magian civilisation.

I'd call it Near Eastern though, it didn't have much to do with Arabs.

>>1452390
>Ignoring the contributions of Muslim scholars because it doesn't suite your argument
Alright, Cletus

>>1452477
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm merely stating a historical fact. Muslims didn't come into Greek texts by pulling them out of their camel asses.

>>1452375
>this btw is the invention of our modern judicial system
No it's not, assuming you live in the English speaking world, it's based on English court conduct.

And in modern times people aren't put on trial for having "wrong belief"

Once again, you're an absolute liar

>>1452463
I'm just going to check the first of those names.

>Agnes Bernauer (1435)
>Duke Ernest, Albert's father, was infuriated by the threat to the succession posed by his only son's unsuitable liaison. While Albert was on a hunt arranged by his relative Henry of Bavaria-Landshut, Duke Ernest had Agnes arrested and drowned in the Danube River on 12 October 1435 near Straubing.[5][6]

I'm guessing the rest is similar bullshit. There were a few cases of local clergy going full retard during the Renaissance and imitating the Protestants, but it was never sanctioned by the Church.

>>1452469

>Paris and Oxford just happened to be attached to cathedrals as they were originally focused on theology, but others were founded for teaching and accrediting legal clerks.
Again, we're talking about Universities for their role in science here, not law.

>leading to the condemnations of the 13th century
Those are a good thing. Literally led to the foundation of modern science.

>>1452490
Once again sanctioned by the church.

Also if a Prod goes against his synod and commits a crime, do all dissenters of Catholicism get the blame? In your opinion they do.

>>1452470
I was being sarcastic. The Catholic Church didn't exist in 200 BC, so it can't be blamed for science never progressing beyond Aristotle until 1277.

>>1452494
>Again, we're talking about Universities for their role in science here, not law.
And we're talking about how they became universities, which was claimed to be because of the Church, which is false.

>Those are a good thing. Literally led to the foundation of modern science.
And was completely accidental and incidental to the aim of the Church to suppress heresy, if we even give Durham's outdated theory that much credit anymore.

>>1452429
You don't know what "rationalism" is, do you?

I wouldn't expect someone who's talking out of their ass as much as you are to.

>>1452487
It is, before the Inquisition trials still happened either by the judgement of a lord or through some variation of a duel.

>>1452500
No it wasn't.

>>1452505
That implies science stopped in 200BC, which no serious person would ever argue. It slowed with the collapse of literacy, and slugged under church monopoly of thought for the next 800 years.

>>1452513
This isn't Game of Thrones

>>1452515
Yes. It was.

>>1452510
>And we're talking about how they became universities, which was claimed to be because of the Church, which is false.
Oh for fuck's sake.

The point is that without the Church, none of that would even exist.

>And was completely accidental
So? That doesn't change the fact that it only happened thanks to Church intervention.

>>1450926
What's wrong with Judaism?

>>1452516
Name one significant scientific advancement in Europe after 200 BC and before the Catholic Scientific Revolution.

Ah but yes, the famous Catholic Church monopoly persecuting the Roman Republic and ancient Greeks for doing science.

>>1452525
>The point is that without the Church, none of that would even exist.
And that's patently false.

>So? That doesn't change the fact that it only happened thanks to Church intervention.
Yes it does. It changes how it's thanks to the Church, as if it should be thanked for being itself, as well as changes the assumption that without the condemnations nothing would change in the study of physics.

>>1452511
>>1452520
>>1452521
Let's try to keep the shitposting to a minimum shall we?

>>1452535
Right, so tell me a scenario in which modern science appears in Western Europe without the Catholic Church existing.

Remember there is no clergy, there are no monasteries, there are no schools. Nobody bothered to copy the old texts, and nobody would even know how to read them in the first place. People are either peasants or warriors. Explain how modern science, or even anything that could be called civilisation, appears in this context.

>>1443266
>Sure, but I went to supposedly the best public school in my state (NH) and learned a lot of the misconceptions that OP referred too.

You should've just gone to school one state south. In MA you'd get laughed out of the classroom if you went 'muh christian dark ages' and expected to be taken seriously. We also learned introductory historiography so that we could find bias in the secondary sources we were learning from.

>>1452555
Another religion would have moved in and probably done a similar job. It's not like the desire for religion would have up and vanished with Christianity. One of the other Eastern cults would have done it.

>>1452563
You just literally admitted it's all thanks to the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church hadn't done all that, another nearly identical religion would have had to.

>>1452568
I'm not the same guy you're arguing with. I think the Catholic church's presence was a wash. They preserved some texts, engaged in some thinking, but destroyed some other texts (Archimede's book on calculus, Against the Galileans, most Gnostic and Cathar texts, etc.), and surpressed some modes of thinking. I don't think they were the worst thing to happen to Europe, but I don't think they were the best.

>>1452555
There are cities, these cities are granted privileges and establish their own laws. These laws include their own privileges for corporate unions and guilds as was tradition before them. Foreign students from the countryside and from abroad seeking to learn law, philosophy, math, or any other subject from a notable master drawn to the city form a legal body they call a university to protect themselves where they would have little to now legal protection otherwise. Due to their accumulated wealth from student fees universities hire masters to teach and graduate their students, and expand their reach into other subjects according to demand. These universities, free from overt interference, explore natural philosophies and further it in competition with masters and universities in other cities.

Or, you know, exactly what happened in real life. The Church happened to exist and had its schools subsumed by these universities. They were not any more involved in their creation than any guild would have been.

The point was never that without the Church, none of what we have today would never exist. The point was that the Church was not involved in the formation of the university, but just interacted with it as they appeared, usually in a negative fashion.

>>1452573
this. so tired of catholic apologists and those that attack them

>>1452263
rude

>Also, Germany felt obliged to support the Austro-Hungarians due to their fear of them otherwise also joining the Entente, and underplaying the risk from a contemporary perspective would be foolish. Germany was already encircled by a coalition of powers who were more or less openly hostile towards Germany and losing its last ally would have been more self-destructive than risking a war.
Germany carries the blame for it, however. With having "Politik der offenen Hand", and blantally ignoring the interests of their potential allies.

Also, as far as I know, Austria-Hungary didnt want to start a war because of this event in the first place. It seems to mean that Germany kinda pushed them into it, because they wanted to have a war befor Russia becomes too powerful

File: gothic smile.jpg (99KB, 755x517px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 755x517px

>>1452579
>implying cities would even be formed without the Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_Truce_of_God

>"The Peace and Truce of God, by attaching sacred significance to privacy, helped create a space in which communal gatherings could take place and thus encouraged the reconstitution of public space at the village level ... In the eleventh and twelfth centuries many a village grew up in the shadow of the church, in the zone of immunity where violence was prohibited under peace regulations."

If it wasn't for the Church, the collapse of the Roman Empire would have hit Western Europe like the Mongol invasions hit Central Asia. Completely destroying urban civilization and leaving only a wasteland of strife and conflict behind.

>>1452573
>destroyed some other texts (Archimede's book on calculus, Against the Galileans, most Gnostic and Cathar texts, etc.)
I'm not sure what you mean by Gnostic and Cathar texts, but the Catholic Church didn't destroy any of those, you're thinking of the Eastern Church. The only one of those which has any scientific value is Archimedes' Palimpsests, which we know from a 10th century copy (made by Christians) which was later overwritten with religious text (again not by the Catholic Church, this happened in Jerusalem). It also didn't have anything to do with calculus, it merely offered a solution to geometrical problems using approximation, a problem which could nowadays be solved accurately by integral calculus.

Literally every instance of the Catholic Church supposedly hurting science is nothing but a meme.

>>1452599
Yeah, how could the cities of Venice, Pisa, Paris, London and so many others exist if it wasn't for a Church movement started centuries after their founding! I'm sure glad we had the Peace and Truce of God to protect all those VILLAGES that went on to produce major universities such as-

Oh wait.

>>1452601
>scientific merit

You assume that's the sole thing I care about. Suppressing any mode of thinking is bad. Also, it was absolutely the Catholic church that destroyed the Cathar texts, since they were located in France and Spain, and I'm pretty sure the split hadn't even happened yet during the time Gnostic texts were being destroyed. As for Archimede's text, it's pretty accepted that it was about calculus, and even if it was a copy made by the church, they sure weren't doing a very fucking good job of preserving an important scientific text, now were they?

>>1452579
Where would those masters come from? Remember there is no clergy. Where would any knowledge of philosophy or maths or even law come from? Remember the ancient texts are gone. And even in your impossible scenario, I still don't see how modern science appears.

>>1452612
>I'm sure glad we had the Peace and Truce of God to protect all those VILLAGES that went on to produce major universities such as-

Oxford

>>1452615
What "Cathar texts" do you mean? Heretical religious texts? Yes those were probably destroyed, how is that a huge loss?

And no, Archimedes did not invent calculus, if anything his work is kind of similar to very basic analytic geometry but lacked the calculus foundation to be anything more or to have any sort of potential to lead to anything more. Calculus requires a radically different way of thinking. And it was actually invented by Oresme, who was a Catholic priest.

> they sure weren't doing a very fucking good job of preserving an important scientific text, now were they?
It happened IN THE MIDDLE EAST, the Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. That text had never existed in Western Europe.

>>1452616
The same place they'd come from before there was ever a Church, combined with importing knowledge from abroad. But you're doing the same thing again - this was never a question about what would happen if the Church never existed, it was a question of where the university comes from.

>Impossible scenario
It's your impossible scenario, I just explained how the university came to be without any present hand of the Church being involved.

>>1452621
Oxford literally had a city charter in the 12th century, and before then was a castle town, not some village.

>>1452641
>It's your impossible scenario, I just explained how the university came to be without any present hand of the Church being involved.
No you didn't. Where do the masters come from? There is no clergy, people are either warriors or peasants, with maybe a few merchants. There's not even any reason to learn how to read and write, or anyone who could teach it.

>this was never a question about what would happen if the Church never existed
Yes it is, that's what this entire discussion is about. And universities wouldn't exist without the Catholic Church because all of Western civilisation wouldn't exist without the Catholic Church.

>>1452665
Masters come from the same place they came from in any other society that didn't have the Catholic Church: merchants and bureaucrats, of which there were plenty in Medieval Europe. It wasn't just clergy, warriors, or peasantry - this only existed in the countryside where there was little academics in the first place. In the city, merchants, lawyers, and officials abounded. Not incidentally, this is also where masters congregated of every kind of guild. You're trying to fall back on an absurdity, the scenario where there was no Catholic Church, to then push little half-truths about High Medieval social development that are far better understood by modern historians than 'the Church did it.'

>>1452703
> merchants and bureaucrats
Merchants didn't know how to read and write unless they learned to at Catholic schools. Bureaucrats belonged to the clergy.

>lawyers, and officials
Clergy.

I don't think you understand, the Catholic Church is the entire reason there were ever people who could dedicate themselves to any kind of intellectual pursuits rather than just fighting or farming.

>>1452703
You talk as if the guilds were atheist and didn't exist under the protection of the Church.

Actually, without the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, such independent social institutions would have been crushed by centralized government, as they were in most of East Asia and the Islamic world. After all, many monarchs who were enemies of the guilds, like Philip IV of France, were also enemies of the Church.

>>1452712
>>1452719
No, I understand all that. What I also understand is that this is simply because the Catholic Church dominated these positions, and that they would have existed without the Church as they clearly did outside of Western Europe.

What you and others seem to miss is that the Church dominated education and bureaucracy in Western Europe for some 800 years before the university appears. It wasn't the Church that guaranteed the institutions of the guilds and universities, it was the free city and its legal traditions. Which brings me to the point of all this: the Church was just like the Frankish nobility. Neither were responsible for the burst of scholarship that appeared beginning in the 12th century, but were centuries old traditional forces in society that the student-guilds had to overcome.

If the Church was at all responsible for what happened in the 12th century, it'd be just as responsible for what happened in the many centuries of little to no scientific advancement before then.

>>1452736
>and that they would have existed without the Church as they clearly did outside of Western Europe.
But they didn't.

Where were the scholars, officials, bureaucrats, lawyers, and universities of Easter Europe? Of Mongolia? Of Subsaharan Africa?

Scholarship doesn't just magically appear out of fucking nowhere.

> it'd be just as responsible for what happened in the many centuries of little to no scientific advancement before then.
Right, again the Catholic Church is responsible for something that started before 200 BC, makes sense.

>>1452736
Did powerful guilds and free cities existed anywhere but in Western Europe, though?

I understand the Muslim world had Tariqas, but they seem to be just religious societies, while the Indian Ocean was probably littered with city-states, but such a rich tradition of descentralized government, that once secularized became liberal democracy, was as far as I know, unique to the Latin West, which is understandable, considering the political doctrines of the Catholic Church.

>>1452741
I didn't say it appeared out of no where, but that the Church was no prerequisite. They obviously existed in the Middle East, China, and India.

>Right, again the Catholic Church is responsible for something that started before 200 BC, makes sense.
You seem to be having trouble following me. I'm saying the Church was not at all responsible for either things, only that the Church was an institution that reflected the world of Late Antiquity Western Europe, and once the Romanized Germanic kingdoms started to move beyond that world and form cities, laws, and economies of their own, and so begin to innovate in several fields of science and architecture, the Church had to adapt to it, and did not cause it.

>>1452755
Yes. I won't speak on China and India as I'm not as well-read on them, but in the Middle East the economy in nearly every major city was dominated by guilds (many of which in Europe as well as the MidEast were religious in nature on top of economic brotherhoods), and the only power individual princes had over them was issuing taxes and a market inspector to guarantee prices and settle disputes.

>>1452758
>They obviously existed in the Middle East, China, and India.
Because guess what. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN ORGANISED RELIGIONS

>form cities, laws, and economies of their own, and so begin to innovate in several fields of science and architecture
lmao, so now modern science was created by lawyers and economists?

>>1452772
>Because guess what. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN ORGANISED RELIGIONS
Which, again, adapted to these regions and took over education that was already needed and in demand. This only weakens the uniqueness of the Church in being any sort of cause for the establishment of the institution that created modern science. The Church only gave it its flavor, but was not any sort of foundation for it.

>lmao, so now modern science was created by lawyers and economists?
No more an absurdity than it being created by theologians. Modern science is amalgamated from dozens of traditions, some philosophical and others more practical. It was the expansive reach of the university which could grow in several directions from its original purpose that allowed this. Without it, the cathedral school of Paris would have only ever taught theology.

>>1452788
Wrong. All education, like all other intellectual endeavour, begins with religion. Each civilisation is founded on its religion. And so the West is founded on Catholicism. The particularities of Catholicism created the particularities of Western civilisation, like modern science.

>Without it, the cathedral school of Paris would have only ever taught theology.
The cathedral school of Notre Dame taught natural philosophy and gave it the second highest rank for the reasons I already explained. Natural philosophy was considered the "handmaiden" of theology. All academia begins with theology. Certainly not with fucking lawyers.

>>1452797
>Wrong. All education, like all other intellectual endeavour, begins with religion. Each civilisation is founded on its religion. And so the West is founded on Catholicism. The particularities of Catholicism created the particularities of Western civilisation, like modern science.

That sounds like a good OP for an entirely new thread, but not at all what I'm interested in anymore. You're arguing from this personal belief and not any legal history of institutions, so we're done here.

>>1447774
I'm Anglo and consistently oppose utilitarianism, >>1446548 is just a hyper-tier autist

>>1447735
I did an undergraduate history degree at Cambridge university and "Gothic" was used, what the fuck are you talking about?

>>1448519
If something isn't broken, why fix it? The Greek system was the best, it makes sense the Romans preserved it. Unifying Europe prepared a legal and political basis, as well as a linguistic basis, for modern nation-states.

>>1449996
Danelaw, Kingdom of the Isles, the Rus, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Baltic and Finland, Normandy, raiding as far as Spain, North Africa, the Caspian and Constantinople, still shit?

>>1446266
Have you tried it?

>>1450100
>posts art related pottery
>disregards >>1450114 and >>1450125 for posting art
>posts coin related art >>1450376
Nice cherrypicking, autist. Try studying actual history.

>>1450891
>entire populace kicked out
Entirely incorrect. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/24907-Genetics-of-the-British-and-Irish-people

>>1451837
New does not equal better or good.

The French nobility began to become more French as time went on, in the 8th century they were quite German.

The Norman invasion was a top-down reorganisation, not a displacement of people like the Saxon invasions.

By Edward III the "French" nobility of Britain were already starting to become Anglicised.

The Vikings reached the Caspain and Levant.

>>1452637
>how is that a huge loss?

Gee, I dunno, how is the loss of an entire religious and philosophical tradition because the Catholic church couldn't handle disagreement a huge loss, you fucking cunt?

This is something that always bothers me about these threads. You get apologists out of the woodworks to point out the good shit the church did, but they're never willing to admit the bad shit the church did either. If they deserve credit for the good shit, why don't they deserve blame for the bad shit?

>>1452665
>Yes it is, that's what this entire discussion is about. And universities wouldn't exist without the Catholic Church because all of Western civilisation wouldn't exist without the Catholic Church.

In the same sense Western civilization wouldn't exist if any of the things that happened in the course of its development hadn't happened.

>>1453063

>The French nobility began to become more French as time went on, in the 8th century they were quite German.
Not really, you'd think that because everyone thinks of Charlemagne. Charlemagne and his family were indeed Germanic (not German), but that's because they were the majordomos of Austrasia which was half Germanic, and originated from Herstal right on the linguistic border. In the rest of France the nobility spoke the language of wherever it was implanted, usually something Latin.

>By Edward III the "French" nobility of Britain were already starting to become Anglicised.
Correct, he was the first king to encourage that, but that process took a while.

>>1453088
Really, so you think every heresy should have been allowed to grow to Reformation tier proportions, each one of them causing an equivalent amount of wars, massacres, and persecutions and the deaths of millions, all so you can admire the religious diversity or some shit? Who's the fucking cunt here you fucking cunt?

>>1453094
Not really, at most it would exist in a slightly different form.

>>1453143
It was already becoming fashionable to be English due to the Angevin conflicts and then the 100 Years' War. So what if it took a while? You're mentioning that as if it somehow disproves my point. By Henry IV it was a second language.

No, I wouldn't think that because of Charlemagne. I'd think that because lots of the dukes in France were actually Germanic.

>>1453088
Ah, yes, because constant heresy and civil wars because of it is perfectly justified.

>>1453215
>You're mentioning that as if it somehow disproves my point.
I'm not sure what your point is, the post you replied to said it took 300-400 years, and you said it started with Edward III, which is 300 years after the Conquest. I just added that it took a while, so the post you replied to is correct.

>I'd think that because lots of the dukes in France were actually Germanic.
No, in Neustria, Burgundy, and Aquitaine, they spoke romance languages.

>>1452595
>Germany carries the blame for it, however. With having "Politik der offenen Hand", and blantally ignoring the interests of their potential allies.

Perhaps, but a powerful Germany as a concept in and of itself was extremely unpopular among the neighbouring countries, meaning that making alliance would have been an immensely challenging task and if possible, would have commanded an ungodly amount of concessions on Germany's part. Bismarck managed to do so for some time, but it's questionable whether in the long run he could have prevented an outbreak of some conflict or another considering the substantial growth of the Reich at the turn of the century.

The only blame which can be assigned to Germany without a hint of doubt is that it grew so powerful and wanted to be treated on equal terms with the other countries. Oh, those vile Germans, how dare they challenge the status quo of the European elite...

>Also, as far as I know, Austria-Hungary didnt want to start a war because of this event in the first place. It seems to mean that Germany kinda pushed them into it, because they wanted to have a war befor Russia becomes too powerful

That was indeed one of the considerations, but considering the "Serbien muss sterbien" attitude of Austria-Hungary, it would be somewhat naive to present them as the victims of German aggression. You yourself previously stated that it would be ridiculous to think the German leadership would let themselves be dragged into a war they didn't want.

Now I state the same for Austria-Hungary - as if Germany could dictate them to start a war although they themselves had no interest in such a conflict. Taking the documents I've skimmed thus far, Germany only demanded from Austria-Hungary a swift decision without suggesting what approach to take. Austria-Hungary's intention was to first finish the mobilization of their troops and only then to declare war. Due to the German inquiry, they only pushed the declaration of war a bit forward.

>>1450222
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy
did they?

>>1453238
Speaking a language to communicate with the people and actually being Germanic is different.