Great Story from Iran

[Queequeg]

This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.

I think there is a middle ground.  Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars. 

[Siege]

That guy, Henri Pirenne, was kind of cool:

How involved Pirenne was in the Belgian resistance is not known. What is known is that Pirenne was questioned by German occupiers on March 18, 1916, and subsequently arrested. The occupying army had ordered striking professors at the University of Ghent to continue teaching. Pirenne's son Pierre had been killed in the fighting at the Battle of the Yser in 1914. The German officer questioning Pirenne asked why he insisted on answering in French when it was known that Pirenne spoke excellent German and had done postgraduate studies at Leipzig and Berlin. Pirenne responded: "I have forgotten German since 3 August 1914," the date of the German invasion of Belgium, part of Germany's war plan to conquer France.

[Razgovory]

This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.

I think there is a middle ground.  Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars.

A great deal of the Roman stuff was forgotten though.  Roman law didn't become common again in Europe until like the 10th century or so.  England never went back.  While west Europeans idolized and tried to emulate the late classical civilization it was emulation of the other.  The way a son looks up to a father in awe.  Western European, Eastern European, and Arab civilizations can all trace ancestry and influences back to the Classical Mediterranean civilization but they are not all the same civilization.  To say that Western civilization is the same as Mediterranean civilization would be to say the arab and eastern European civilizations are in fact off shoots and illegitimate heirs.

[Viking]

This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.

Pirenne's thesis is that while the Western Empire's political and military power does end the German Barbarians don't burn the villas and forums, they move into the villas and sell their stolen artifacts in the forum. He claims that the economic infrastructure of the Western Empire doesn't end til the 7th century, 200 years after the end of Romulus Augustulus. In that period the Catholic Church transmits Western Civilisation to the new rulers of Europe.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.

I think there is a middle ground.  Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars.

I'm a bit rusty on it but iirc it's more or less accepted that the Myceneans spoke greek. At least that is what the deciphering of lineair B (iirc) told us.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.

Pirenne's thesis is that while the Western Empire's political and military power does end the German Barbarians don't burn the villas and forums, they move into the villas and sell their stolen artifacts in the forum. He claims that the economic infrastructure of the Western Empire doesn't end til the 7th century, 200 years after the end of Romulus Augustulus. In that period the Catholic Church transmits Western Civilisation to the new rulers of Europe.

the Barbarians don't even 'end' the empire. Most, if not all, barbarian successor-states recognised the surpemacy of the empire (usually the west. Only the Ostrogoths saw their empire as being under the empire of the east iirc)) until well after the Empire ceased to be. The western empire was in effect the zombie of the times.

[Viking]

This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.

I think there is a middle ground.  Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars.

A great deal of the Roman stuff was forgotten though.  Roman law didn't become common again in Europe until like the 10th century or so.  England never went back.  While west Europeans idolized and tried to emulate the late classical civilization it was emulation of the other.  The way a son looks up to a father in awe.  Western European, Eastern European, and Arab civilizations can all trace ancestry and influences back to the Classical Mediterranean civilization but they are not all the same civilization.  To say that Western civilization is the same as Mediterranean civilization would be to say the arab and eastern European civilizations are in fact off shoots and illegitimate heirs.

Well I don't claim that western civilization is the same as mediterranian civilization or that arab or eastern european civilization is part of the greater western whole.

As for the Orthodox East, it got conquered by an outside civilization which did not adopt it's culture. The Franks learned latin, became christians and started drinking wine. The Turks didn't learn greek, they didn't convert and they kept their love of the flesh of goats and sheep. The same applies for the Mongols in Russia. None of the Western Institutions effectivly survived the Turkish and Mongol conquests. While the Patriarchate survived under the Turks in name, it didn't in practice. The Russian Orthodox church survived after the conquest of Kiev, but that as well didn't survive in as it was. You don't have the same sort of turmoil which overturns ALL institutions at once in the west as happened to the Orthodox East.

The Arabs however don't draw legitimacy from Rome/Greece/Israel at all. They have Arabia. Now the argument I'm expecting now is that somebody will mention the Arab speaking philosophers which studied and preserved the Greek Philosophers. Well, on the whole the Arab Philosophers (with one or two iberian exceptions) dealt with the ancient greeks ala carte. Selecting the parts which they felt were consistent with Islam, rather than dealing with the whole.

[Viking]

I'm a bit rusty on it but iirc it's more or less accepted that the Myceneans spoke greek. At least that is what the deciphering of lineair B (iirc) told us.

Linear B writes in proto-greek. That is correct.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Well I don't claim that western civilization is the same as mediterranian civilization or that arab or eastern european civilization is part of the greater western whole.

it might be handy to state that western civilisation as it came to be is based on the economical, political, technological and philosophical developments made by -generally- the peoples living in those lands that are part of the 2 great trade-networks of the Late Medieval and Early Renaissance periods. Basically the late Hansa-network and the Flanders-Northern Italy axis, but including London, Paris and a few other european metropolises of the time.
Add into that some flavour caused by an attempt to emulate an idealised classical period (first roman, then greek, and eventually a mix) as well as the christian component.
The end result is basically the place where:
the basic tools of modern capitalism were created (nothern italy, in lesser amount low countries -at least initially)
where the printing press was developed/spread
where the Reformation and Contra-Reformation faught their greatest battles
where the Renaissance began
where the age of science and reason began
etc.

In effect the birthplace of Western Civ is a pretty restricted area, neither catholic nor protestant, with a penchant for earning money and killing kings.

wether or not the above has any worth is debatable, but I'd wager that if were really able to say where western civ came to be it'd be pretty close to the region pointed at.

[Razgovory]

This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.

I think there is a middle ground.  Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars.

A great deal of the Roman stuff was forgotten though.  Roman law didn't become common again in Europe until like the 10th century or so.  England never went back.  While west Europeans idolized and tried to emulate the late classical civilization it was emulation of the other.  The way a son looks up to a father in awe.  Western European, Eastern European, and Arab civilizations can all trace ancestry and influences back to the Classical Mediterranean civilization but they are not all the same civilization.  To say that Western civilization is the same as Mediterranean civilization would be to say the arab and eastern European civilizations are in fact off shoots and illegitimate heirs.

Well I don't claim that western civilization is the same as mediterranian civilization or that arab or eastern european civilization is part of the greater western whole.

As for the Orthodox East, it got conquered by an outside civilization which did not adopt it's culture. The Franks learned latin, became christians and started drinking wine. The Turks didn't learn greek, they didn't convert and they kept their love of the flesh of goats and sheep. The same applies for the Mongols in Russia. None of the Western Institutions effectivly survived the Turkish and Mongol conquests. While the Patriarchate survived under the Turks in name, it didn't in practice. The Russian Orthodox church survived after the conquest of Kiev, but that as well didn't survive in as it was. You don't have the same sort of turmoil which overturns ALL institutions at once in the west as happened to the Orthodox East.

The Arabs however don't draw legitimacy from Rome/Greece/Israel at all. They have Arabia. Now the argument I'm expecting now is that somebody will mention the Arab speaking philosophers which studied and preserved the Greek Philosophers. Well, on the whole the Arab Philosophers (with one or two iberian exceptions) dealt with the ancient greeks ala carte. Selecting the parts which they felt were consistent with Islam, rather than dealing with the whole.

You used the term "unbroken line" if not to the mederiterranian civilization of Greece, Roman et al then to what?

[Sheilbh]

Well, on the whole the Arab Philosophers (with one or two iberian exceptions) dealt with the ancient greeks ala carte. Selecting the parts which they felt were consistent with Islam, rather than dealing with the whole.

So did the Christians for most of the period.  And before that other philosophers tended to only cite Aristotle or Plato when they agreed with their point in some way too.  When did Europeans stop dealing with the Ancient Greeks a la carte? 

The force of Arab philosophers of the time wasn't that they dealt with the Greeks' philosophy 'as a whole' which I think is almost impossible, but that they felt in a position to add and augment Aristotle's theory at a time when Europe wasn't.  Philosophically, with the exception of the divine Scotus, Europe was preserving Aristotle.

Although I know a Greek philosophy specialist who admires the Arabs and Catholics for their preserving and adding to the knowledge about Greeks but also roundly condemns them as having fucked up our view of Aristotle for centuries.

While west Europeans idolized and tried to emulate the late classical civilization it was emulation of the other.

This is true for the Medieval period.  It was emulation tempered by a view that the greatness of Classical civilisation wouldn't be regained.  By the Renaissance people start to see themselves more as equals with their classical antecedents and consciously preen in a classical fashion.  Actually many stop seeing the distance.  For example, I believe Montaigne who wrote a number of letters to Cicero as an equal.

I'm not entirely sure a phrase as large and all-encompassing as 'western civilisation' is terribly useful for any period of history.  I certainly don't think such a thing can be said to exist now.  The other period I would have a huge qualm about using the phrase in relation to would be the Medieval because I think 'western civilisation' is rather reductive of something that's actually far more interesting.

[Razgovory]

I dunno, but I got the feeling that the Renaissance was the worst in regards to the inferiority complex Europe had toward.  After all this is the point in time where they were damning their own great accomplishments of the high middle ages.  Aristotle was all the rage while mediveal writers were seen as rustics.  They seriously debated if they could ever attain the greatness of Greece and Rome up until the 17th century.

[Sheilbh]

I dunno, but I got the feeling that the Renaissance was the worst in regards to the inferiority complex Europe had toward.  After all this is the point in time where they were damning their own great accomplishments of the high middle ages.  Aristotle was all the rage while mediveal writers were seen as rustics.  They seriously debated if they could ever attain the greatness of Greece and Rome up until the 17th century.

The Renaissance named itself the 'rebirth' of civilisation and what the previous age the 'dark ages' and the 'Medieval' period (that is defined by being between Classical civilisation and the rebirth of Classical civlisation). 

I think the Renaissance is generally thought to include the 16th century, though it's different for different countries and different art forms

[Razgovory]

I don't know where I lost you here.