Late Republican Rome

[Eddie Teach]

The fact that anything at all was lost was due to those non romanized germanic tribes. Most of the deficiencies the medieval world had compared with the ancients are due to that upheaval, not due to the acceptance of Christian philosophy. Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.

[Agelastus]

The fact that anything at all was lost was due to those non romanized germanic tribes. Most of the deficiencies the medieval world had compared with the ancients are due to that upheaval, not due to the acceptance of Christian philosophy. Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.

It was not a German mob that burned the Great Library of Alexandria. In whole or in part on more than one occasion if I recall Grumbler's amplification of an old post of mine correctly.

[Razgovory]

Am I a serious person?

Serious person are defined as people who aren't Grumbler.  Mostly because Grumbler has annoyed me recently.

[Razgovory]

The fact that anything at all was lost was due to those non romanized germanic tribes. Most of the deficiencies the medieval world had compared with the ancients are due to that upheaval, not due to the acceptance of Christian philosophy. Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.

Romans religious sensibilities were not like ours.  Their religion was extremely political and civic in nature as opposed to Western religious ideas which focus more on the individual.

Many works were lost well before any Germans over ran the scene.  Before the printing press works just got lost.  Hell, entire fields of art were lost.  The Greeks had a painting tradition that is almost completely lost.  They used to paint on wooden boards in a way similar to painting on Canvas.  Since wood rots only a few survive and those were uncovered in Egypt where the climate preserved them.

It's actually somewhat shocking that so much of our knowledge of the Classical world relies on so few sources.

[grumbler]

Am I a serious person?

Serious person are defined as people who aren't Grumbler.  Mostly because Grumbler has annoyed me recently.

Aww, pooor Waz. 

What should annoy you is that you fucked up any cred you might have had on the topic by trying to portray Claudius, of all people, as an exemplar of Roman antisemitism.  Still, if you'd rather blame me than accept the truth, I'm cool with that.

[alfred russel]

Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.

Maybe, but those aren't minor in their effects! If I'm subject to a legal system with trial by ordeal, an economic system held back by religious prohibitions on banking, high duties that must be paid to religious instititions, and a variety of religious thought crimes enforced with penalties including being burned alive, I might not dismiss this as just a misplacement of the place of religion in society. Of course then there is the bizarre fetish with chastity, and who knows how many people were forced into convents and monastaries against their will.

Large portions of Europe were turned over to the Church for administration: the city of Rome itself and the surrounding areas essentially transformed into a theocracy.

[Razgovory]

Am I a serious person?

Serious person are defined as people who aren't Grumbler.  Mostly because Grumbler has annoyed me recently.

Aww, pooor Waz. 

What should annoy you is that you fucked up any cred you might have had on the topic by trying to portray Claudius, of all people, as an exemplar of Roman antisemitism.  Still, if you'd rather blame me than accept the truth, I'm cool with that.

Perhaps it should, but I don't really care what you say.

[Razgovory]

Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.

Maybe, but those aren't minor in their effects! If I'm subject to a legal system with trial by ordeal, an economic system held back by religious prohibitions on banking, high duties that must be paid to religious instititions, and a variety of religious thought crimes enforced with penalties including being burned alive, I might not dismiss this as just a misplacement of the place of religion in society. Of course then there is the bizarre fetish with chastity, and who knows how many people were forced into convents and monastaries against their will.

Large portions of Europe were turned over to the Church for administration: the city of Rome itself and the surrounding areas essentially transformed into a theocracy.

The medievals did create a fairly sophisticated banking system.  Don't know about the Romans though.

[Queequeg]

The focus of medieval christian learning on theology is better than ignoring learning altogether, but still crappy.

I think the choice was pretty clearly between "theology and preservation of the Classics" and "nothing", not "theology and preservation of the Classics" and "5th Century BC Athens."  False choice.  Society almost completely collapsed.  It took centuries to recover. 

You are comparing Uganda to Sweden. Western Europe was a backwater of the Roman Empire that depended on trade with the East for much of it's grain and 'industrial' goods.  Almost all of the education centers were in the East, or were staffed by Greeks.  Without access to either the goods or learning of the East, a collapse was inevitable.  The fact that you had millions of Germans pouring in from beyond the Rhine frontier certainly made things a whole lot worse. 

The fact that people were a great deal less educated or moral in this period should not be a surprise.  They were still recovering from the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in the recorded history of Europe. 

Don't tell me it was just because they were cut off from traditional centers of civilization.

See: above.  Millions of Germans.  Complete collapse of trade.  No access to traditional centers of erudition. 

Why was the secular heritage lost and the religious maintained?

You are probably overstating your case a bit.  The Byzantines didn't really loose much of this.  Neither did the Arabs.  Again, I think the peculiarly dramatic decline of the West had a lot more to do with it's dependence on the East in the Roman period.  The Renaissance was made possible in part by the fact that the West finally *did* have access to centers of learning and wealth in the East, in the form of cultural and economic contact with the Islamic world and the mass exodus of Byzantines. 

[Queequeg]

AR, what Classical period are we comparing to what Medieval period?  I think that, as Joan mentioned, the High and Late Medieval periods were, if anything, a great deal more innovative than the post-Augustine Roman Empire.  Even if one could make the argument that the Roman moral system was somehow superior, I think it is pretty clear that by 1200 Europe was starting to break out of the intellectual malaise typical of Romans and Byzantines, and that the Islamic world was about to enter (and has, for that matter, yet to exit).

[Queequeg]

It was not a German mob that burned the Great Library of Alexandria. In whole or in part on more than one occasion if I recall Grumbler's amplification of an old post of mine correctly.

No one knows who finally burned it down.   I've read that it was likely the Arabs; they destroyed a ton of Sassanian centers of learning.

Also, to accuse the Eastern Romans/Byzantines of not appreciating Classical learning is to reveal total and utter ignorance of Byzantine/Eastern Roman history and society.  Your average Byzantine scholar before 1205 could likely quote Classical works that have been lost to the world for centuries. 

[alfred russel]

You are comparing Uganda to Sweden.

Fair enough. When Eddie Teach posts that "Uganda morality >>>>>> Swedish morality" I'm going to take exception to that as well.

And then I trust you will come along and say that it isn't a fair comparison, because it is like comparing the classical world to the medieval one. 

[crazy canuck]

If Raz has read Euthyphro he is going to stay well clear of that question.

That is if he read it and understood it.

Perhaps.  I don't understand his concept myself (hence the question), but it scarcely seems possible that Raz can steer clear of, or misunderstand, his own concept! 

You are the perfect Socrates to Raz's Euthyphro.  Just replace piety with seriousness and all it works quite well right down the Raz's certainty that he knows exactly what he is talking about and your inquiry to learn that what it is he thinks he knows.

Not sure what made me think of it but the structure of your questions to Raz reminded me of that particular dialogue.

[alfred russel]

AR, what Classical period are we comparing to what Medieval period?  I think that, as Joan mentioned, the High and Late Medieval periods were, if anything, a great deal more innovative than the post-Augustine Roman Empire.  Even if one could make the argument that the Roman moral system was somehow superior, I think it is pretty clear that by 1200 Europe was starting to break out of the intellectual malaise typical of Romans and Byzantines, and that the Islamic world was about to enter (and has, for that matter, yet to exit).

As has been pointed out already, the discussion is even more pointless than most because the times periods are so long and the geography so large. Not to mention how vague the terms are.

I'd refer this to Eddie, who was the one that posted "Medieval morality >>>>>> classical morality." I was assuming medieval meant western europe and excluded byzantium (if byzantium is included, the discussion becomes even more pointless than I thought as they were distinct). Since the discussion was regarding christian morality, Eddie almost certainly meant to exclude the islamic world. Just by the course of the discussion in the thread, classical seems to have been limited to Rome before Constantine.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm somewhat coming around to Marty's suggestion on the topic. Romans were complete shits to anyone who wasn't Roman. Medieval Christians were complete shits to anyone who wasn't Christian. Of course, the Romans had quite a bit more contact with "the other" so much more frequent chances to demonstrate their shittiness.