Posted December 14, 2019
Ikaros_Nekros: And what's your point?
That you don't understand history?
Because the fall of Rome is more connected to the christianity's acceptance and dominance than to the "moral decadence" you talk about.
Just to remember, the empire's peak was with it's morally and sexually dubious emperors, like Nero, Caligula, and Trajan.
LootHunter: Peak of what? Debauchery and tyranny? This is exactly lordhoff's point - "the enlightened world" you're so eager to bring will see common folk living in poverty, while elite will stagnate in their own bubble, while the states of US and Europe will grow weaker up until a new "alt-right" or whatever radical movement will take over and reshape all those coutries, llike Christian Church did with Roman Empire. That you don't understand history?
Because the fall of Rome is more connected to the christianity's acceptance and dominance than to the "moral decadence" you talk about.
Just to remember, the empire's peak was with it's morally and sexually dubious emperors, like Nero, Caligula, and Trajan.
Ikaros_Nekros: The post-iluminism historians that believed human progress was stoped during the "middle age".
And just to remember, the Roman Empire was far more progressive in it's views than the right wing fools that claim to know some history say.
They were libidinous, accepted transsexualism and prostitution, and didn't have the identity of European. For they, the rest of the Europe, were a bunch of uncultured barbarians.
LootHunter: You're just contradicting yourself. Either "middle ages" were times of ignorance and barbarism after the fall of "progressive" Roman Empire, or they were time of progress under Christianity. You can't have it both ways. And just to remember, the Roman Empire was far more progressive in it's views than the right wing fools that claim to know some history say.
They were libidinous, accepted transsexualism and prostitution, and didn't have the identity of European. For they, the rest of the Europe, were a bunch of uncultured barbarians.
In first place, when i said the peak of the empire, it was it's peak. Of it's culture, economics and military. They were tyranical? Yes, Although they where not as such they were later portrayed. If you research, even the christian persecution was not so global in the empire during those days, but was exagerated later by christian historians - there are only two primary sources (this mean that was wrote during those times, and not later) about any persecution to christians, both refer to only local actions, and not along the empire, all the others sources come from the hands of the christian, long after.
But of course the empire was a government, and government is a way to power, so corruption and very serious social problems existed: altough hunger where no so widespread, but slavery was. The rich, and the governors - that was also rich - could do anything they wanted, and so on... The same as today, to be sincere witth you.
About the middle ages, there was a huge loss in quality of life and in free intelectual thinking. But researches in many fields, medicine, philosophy and astronomy for instance, was kept. But it should bow to the will of the church particularly in the late Middle Ages. The notion of the "night of the western civilization" is wrong, because of this implicate that progress, especially scientific, stopped, and that is not true. The influence and mold of the church during the middle ages was both good, and bad, and there are many sides of the question, too many to a simple forum in a game.
And for the third appointment you made, i was refering to the view the romans during its height had of the cultures that didnt born in Rome, or where completely absorbed by the Empire. The term barbarian, comes from greek "barbaroi" and means all that are not greek. The word was later adapted to latin, barbarius, that means outsider, foreign. Later, about the XVI century, the term got another meaning, the modern one, to the describe something or someone rude, uncivilized, and savage. So, to the romans, the nordics and christians where barbarians, although the christians, during the twilight years of the empire, where absorbed, and later officialized. The irony is that the officialization was so late in the empire's life, that there is modern historians, particularly the ones i described in my other post, who believed the christianity was solely guilty to bring the downfall of the empire.
And to end my argument: I dont intend or want to bring the Roman Empire back. That i leave to the italian ultranationalists, aka fascists - the most basic definition of fascim is "ultranationalist populism". They where all about bringing the Roman Empire back during WWII. What i say is: the idea that the so-called decadent emperors lead to the downfall of the empire is wrong, and that the empire was strong at this moment, culturally, ecomonically and militarily. Second, the problem of debauchery and that the elite will stagnate in their own bubble is universal to any system of power. Be it captilalism, feudalism, absolutism, or any system that has a vertical structure. The church was not better than the romam empire, they where all living a life of luxury and confort at the expense to its subjects. As the CEO's and presidents in our modern days.
Power is the problem. With it come privileges, and with privileges come inequality. And this is the root of the evils that persist to this day.
I hope now i became more clear.
And again, thank you for elucidating some problems of my rhetoric. Although some things you misunderstand, i understand i was a llittle confusing.
Post edited December 14, 2019 by Ikaros_Nekros