Earth if no Dark Ages?

[D Toccs]

Nice deflection.

Guess you don't like being called on your comments. Fair enough. Not everyone likes confrontation.

Alright fine, I'll address each one of your ignorant points.

The middle east were still riding camels until they struck oil. Hardly much to trouble the scientists there.

This statement is incredibly wrong. Modern mathematics and chemistry among other things were developed in the Middle East while Western Europe was in the Dark Ages.

For hundreds of years during the middle ages Baghdad was one of if not the most advanced cities in the world.

Greece peaked about 2000 years go. Since then all they have perfected is corruption and greed.

Again wrong. You are equating the Hellenic Greek civilization of the Ancient times to the be all and end all of Greek development.

The Eastern Roman Empire which didn't fall and kept progressing, was dominated by the Greeks. It included all of Greece, the Middle East and Egypt.
This Greek dominated Eastern Roman Empire flourished well into the 1500s.

The Asian countries are so notoriously insular that they pretty much got stuck in a cultural loop and sure, they did progress in some areas, but the lack of information sharing made any progression beyond those earlier discoveries impossible.

This statement shows a complete lack of understanding about Asian history. Numerous civilizations rose and fell over the centuries and significant progress was made.
China invented gunpowder and navigated the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean sending trading convoys to as far away as Africa.

You say that they were all "notoriously insular" yet China was sending envoys to Rome in times BC and had regular trade relations with Middle Eastern. Southeast Asian and Central Asian civilizations.
The various civilizations of India were trading partners with Middle Eastern, East African and Southeast Asian societies since the dawn of civilization.

Trade relations with neighbors and cultural development were very prolific in Asian civilizations, in stark contrast to the picture you painted with your statement.

It is quite obsurd to think that without the dark ages, we would not be further along than we are now. But congratulations, you are the first person I have ever heard say that. Some points for being creative I guess.

Now I had written your initial post off as just inflammatory comments designed to start an argument or possibly just a failed attempt at humor.
What is Absurd is that it seems you actually believe the ignorant things you said, given the fact that you so rudely challenged me to answer them.

Given your statements I think that the reason you have never heard anyone say that we would not be further along without the Dark Ages, is because you don't listen when people are talking about history.

Now that I have addressed your points, and to avoid hijacking the thread, I will not be continuing this pointless argument with you.

[Puddle-Jumper]

Its difficult to judge.. like they would have had a boost in some areas but not in others, like in medicine for example, TJ is not a doctor, dispite her ability to diagnose ALS with only an army medics training... some things would have to be rediscovered. So really the society for hundreds of years was probably very imbalanced technology wise, very advanced computers, but only rediscovering the basics of genetics for example.

[Phenom]

Alright fine, I'll address each one of your ignorant points.



This statement is incredibly wrong. Modern mathematics and chemistry among other things were developed in the Middle East while Western Europe was in the Dark Ages.

For hundreds of years during the middle ages Baghdad was one of if not the most advanced cities in the world.



Again wrong. You are equating the Hellenic Greek civilization of the Ancient times to the be all and end all of Greek development.

The Eastern Roman Empire which didn't fall and kept progressing, was dominated by the Greeks. It included all of Greece, the Middle East and Egypt.
This Greek dominated Eastern Roman Empire flourished well into the 1500s.



This statement shows a complete lack of understanding about Asian history. Numerous civilizations rose and fell over the centuries and significant progress was made.
China invented gunpowder and navigated the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean sending trading convoys to as far away as Africa.

You say that they were all "notoriously insular" yet China was sending envoys to Rome in times BC and had regular trade relations with Middle Eastern. Southeast Asian and Central Asian civilizations.
The various civilizations of India were trading partners with Middle Eastern, East African and Southeast Asian societies since the dawn of civilization.

Trade relations with neighbors and cultural development were very prolific in Asian civilizations, in stark contrast to the picture you painted with your statement.



Now I had written your initial post off as just inflammatory comments designed to start an argument or possibly just a failed attempt at humor.
What is Absurd is that it seems you actually believe the ignorant things you said, given the fact that you so rudely challenged me to answer them.

Given your statements I think that the reason you have never heard anyone say that we would not be further along without the Dark Ages, is because you don't listen when people are talking about history.

Now that I have addressed your points, and to avoid hijacking the thread, I will not be continuing this pointless argument with you.

You forgot to thank Google for that post.

[Vanek26]

I think you are both right in a way.

The Dark Ages likely slowed us down, since a large area - Western Europe - wasn't contributing to science.

Same time, Middle East was able to carry on, so the impact isn't that big. But I feel like there was an impact.

[GoodSmeagol]

"It is easier to get where you are going when you know where you have been."
Eli Wallace


I think this line answers why they were able to advance as much as they were portrayed to have in 2k years.

[An-Alteran]

I am an Engineering Major.
Before that, I was a history Major.
What can you say, I have eclectic tastes.

There is a lot in this thread that shows a great deal of historical ignorance.

I feel it is my duty to correct the record:

The idea that religion is the enemy of progress is a modern 20th century myth devoid of historical backing, besides a few token anecdotal tales.

The idea that the Dark Ages were caused by religion or intellectual disinterest in learning is also false.

They were cocktail product of war breaking apart the Romans Empire, Plague, and subsistence living.
Nothing more.

The idea that only until recently we believed the earth was flat is complete myth invented as an anecdote in the 20th century to push various secular political agendas. We have known the earth to be round since before the Greeks.

2000 years ago they thought disease was magic.

Entirely incorrect.
The Greeks and many other cultures had very advanced medical knowledge.
Not as advanced as ours today, but easily more advanced than ours 150 years ago.

Some ancient cultures from that time period even had brain surgery techniques and other marvels.

they couldn't even forge proper iron and steel didn't even exist.

Entirely incorrect.
The Roman Empire was forged with steel.
Their weapons, armour, ect. weres steel and iron.

The Chinese also had advanced metallurgy.

there are thousands of simple principles we have developed over time that 2000 years ago were unimaginable.

Yes, but not the ones you named.

Mass production techniques existed in the early Byzantine Empire long before they collapsed.

Roman and Greek technology and mechanical innovation was astounding.

They even invented a steam engine but never used it because slave labour was too deeply ingrained.

The Greeks even had working portable analog computers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

also the Dark Ages weren't that dark. it wasn't significant in terms of science but it was in terms of culture.

This is very true.

The "Dark Ages" were largely "Dark" because of the horrible diseases which swept Europe over that period as well as the lasting aftermath of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire followed several centuries later by the Islamic aggression which ultimately destroyed the Byzantine Empire after provoking the crusades.

Ultimately, the Muslims invaded and destroyed a huge portion of Western Civilization including much all of Northern African civilization. They pierced deep into Spain and even into France. In the East, the Byzantines collapsed and Italy was threatened.

The early crusades (and reconquest of Iberia) prevented the destruction of European civilization in both the Western and Eastern regions. Unfortunately, the later crusades were as bad as the Muslim invaders and one crusade even invaded and destroyed fellow Europeans! That is why the crusades are perceived so negatively today.

The crusades actually insulated central Europe from much warfare. That is why the great cultural centres of Europe were largely in central Europe. France, Italy, ect.

When Spain and Portugal became nation-states, this also jump-started cultural and technological development.

We might be considerably less advanced. The Roman Empire wasn't particularly scientifical inovative.

Yes they were. Their architectural technology and techniques were astounding. As were their many mechanical innovations.

One of the main "cause" of stagnation in the Dark Ages was because religion had an such upper hand on custumes the daily lives.

Completely false.

The Christian Religion was the only institution holding Western Europe together after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
It had an incredible unifying force for both the Byzantine and Western regions.

Furthermore, much knowledge (including vast troves of early literature from the Greeks and Romans) that would have been lost was preserved by monks in Monasteries.

The Muslims also preserved a great deal of such writings.

Yes, I fully believe that we'd have a much higher level of technology if things like religion and the Inquisition had never happened.

The inquisition had little if any effect on anything that would effect technological progression.
Even in spite of the persecution of men like Galileo (based, actually, on traditional Greek beliefs regarding the world that the Church held to be true) such disruption of development was minor.

Religious oppression caused huge gaps in technology and still does in some places ion this planet.

This is simply not true.

Every major modern scientific fields was founded by Christians.
The Muslims before the crusades were huge traders in advanced math and what could be described as sciences.
The very religious Chinese society was also very advanced.

Today, unfortunately, because of colonialism, Arabic society has been left in tribal bickering and as such has been largely left behind by modern society. This didn't have to be the case.

Instead we get fairytales for grownups, that instill a culture with fear, mass murder and other atrocities, not to mention its has been used many times for the wrong people to claim power.

Germany was the cultural centre of the modern world.
It was a huge bastion of science and progress.
Guess what resulted from all their success?
The fascist National Socialist party.
A militant leftist socialist political juggernaut.

Be careful who and what you blame for atrocities.

Not a definite outcome for sure, but religion has always been the antithesis of science.

Then please explain why all of the modern fields of science and academic learning were founded and progressed in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries by Christians? Almost all the early modern scientists were theologians.
The entire modern academy was invented by Christians.
Oxford, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, ect. ad infinitum.

I think you are both right in a way.

The Dark Ages likely slowed us down, since a large area - Western Europe - wasn't contributing to science.

Same time, Middle East was able to carry on, so the impact isn't that big. But I feel like there was an impact.

The issue is not if you "feel" like there was an impact. The issue is if there was one.

There was not any discernible impact.

The dark ages were a necessary step the stages of growth for western civilization.

After the plagues and wars, competition and commerce reestablished the need for development and all the old knowledge was rediscovered progressively and rapidly, along with many new innovations.

Also, what we understand as 'scientific methodology' was invented by the theologians in the Western European Academy in the 17th and 18th century and highly progressed significantly in the 18th and 19th centuries of Anglo-centric progress and the new American intellectual centre.

None of this would have occurred if the so-called 'dark-ages' had not occurred.

[Wayston]

There were a lot of inventions during the dark ages, if anything it was the Roman civilisation that very stagnant. The problem with the "dark ages" in Europe is that scientific progress was piecemeal and fragile for a long time. When someone invents an improved plow in say Ireland, it would not necessarily reach say Brandenburg until after many decades. Perhaps a big advantage of the renaissance is that the Italy regaining some of its status as market square of the European continent meant a lot of information was passing through there as opposed to slowly being dissemenated haphazardly. That is just me thinking out loud though.

I do think that there is a significant distinction between the type of scientific progress in Europe and the middle east. In Europe science tended to be very applied and practical, an improved furnace here, a new type of still there, and of course a nice printing press to top it all off. In the middle east there seems to have been more interest in abstract, fundamental sciences such as astronomy and mathematics. For Europe this is quite understandable, since most abstract science was to some extent or another under the control of the church which had little interest in fancy ideas (christianity was however instrumental in conserving and distributing the sources of the roman world when the roman empire collapsed! it's certainly not a black and white picture), whereas the European climate in general posed more day to day challenges for survival where quality of life could be significantly improved through practical inventions.

I also find the explanation very interesting that until the renaissance in Europe we lost the Aristotelian works and were only able to conserve the Platonic philosophy, whereas in the middle east they were able to conserve the Aristotelian way of thinking and a lot more sources in general. The middle east also had the advantage of proximity to India (which for example invented the number 0, which then reached Europe through the middle east - this is one abstract invention that had extremely practical financial repercussions, because it greatly improved the speed and accuracy of compound interest calculations for banking) and also China, where they were already running around with stuff like crossbows at a time when the rest of the civilising world hadn't even realized the advantages of heavy plate armour to think of a good weapon to counter it.

Ultimately though there's a time and place for everything. People develop through confrontation with challenges, but adversity in general will slow you down significantly (say the black plague whiping out half of your population, or Vikings roaming your lands). It's also very important to be able to build on a predecessor's ideas. If there are no predecessors yet, or if you don't have access to their knowledge, then that will also slow you down.

[Steelbox]

Dr. Toccs and An-Alteran green for you guys for a good civilizided discussion. What we can extract from this discussion is that bad this are not necessarily bad. Also the Nazi, its undisputed about the atrocities they made. But it is also undisputed the advancements they did in medical field. Again i dont agree with theire methods just the some results of its.

[jsonitsac]

Technology doesn't exist as a linear progression from point a to point b. Likewise, this whole "dark ages holding us back" notion ignores the fact that there is more to the world than just western Europe. Keep in mind it was the Greeks who invented the steam engine. The Chinese and the Arabs had intricate mechanical devices. Likewise, there wasn't really a conflict between science and religion in those days. It's a bit hard to be conducting inquiries into the natural world when there is a lack of central authority and Vikings happen to be attacking the local villages.

So bringing it back to Novus. What I think helped them out the most was the fact that pretty early on they had an educational system. Probably more than anything else, institutional learning, which can provide people with the tools to conduct the kind of high level thought needed for more efficient technologies, is what managed get their civilization going as far as it did in 2000 years.

[Infinite-Possibilities]

You know the very episode previous to this talked about long ages of religious strife on in the planet's history, so it's not as if their history was completely different to ours.

[Nemises]

this is a myth! i mean it didn't affect earth. every culture had there "dark age" and europe had its.

During that time many innovations were made in science in the middle east and asia. look it up.

[Nemises]

Not entirely true. Europe was far beyond other civilizations for a long time; the dark ages allowed the rest of the world to catch up quite a bit. If Europe had no dark ages, we would be several hundred years more advanced by now.

The indus valley civilization and mesopotamia civilization had 'planned cities' with roads and sewage drains while people had nothing of the sort in europe and did i mention egypt and greece ? These regions also stagnated due to periods similar to europes 'dark ages' and due to military invasions.

To think that europe is the place where scientific knowledge was pursued is pure ignorance. maths, medicine, science all have there roots in other regions of the world aswell.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

The fascist National Socialist party.
A militant leftist socialist political juggernaut.

Loved your post but this is wrong. Hitler hated socialists he saw them as one step away from communists. The Nazi where a far right group and their ideology was that the German people where stabbed in back by parties like socialists into giving up the war. If you called Hitler a socialist I think he would killed you. He claimed to be for the workers but frankly he did so they would vote for him instead of the KPD or the SPD.

The Nazis weren't really fascists they just used the as basis for their aims of winning back the land the lost in WW1. There was only one real fascist leader ever his name was Mussolini.

Sorry to go Off Topic.

[An-Alteran]

Loved your post but this is wrong. Hitler hated socialists he saw them as one step away from communists. [Nazi] ideology was that the German people where stabbed in back by parties like socialists into giving up the war.

An initial point must be made: Hitler and the Nazis are often hard to understand en toto because they were not always consistent. Many positions were made for political gain rather than actual conviction.
This is why they could claim in public to believe in 'god' and be 'christian' while at the same time take over most of the Christian Churches and replace Bible's with Nazi propaganda and forcing the weak-willed clergy to capitulate and teach Nazi ideology.

National Socialism had a deep intellectual pedigree in the irrationalist movement where truth doesn't really matter and 'feeling' and 'experience' are the prime drivers.

Sure, Hitler opposed the Communist party. He identified them as Jewish (his main scapegoat).
And pure "Red" Socialism was hardly his ideal either.
Also, Communism sought to dissolve national identity. This was deplorable to Hitler.

However, National Socialism is still a form of socialism. The difference is that instead of the "working man" being the centre of focus and propaganda, the "German national identity" itself is the centre of loyalty.
That is why it was 'National Socialism'.

National Socialism and all Fascism strongly opposed the so-called "bourgeoisie".
They held a deep disdain for capitalism, seeking profit, a free-market, big-business, and democracy in general.
These are all trademarks of Socialist philosophy.
These are all true of both Fascism and Communism.

The main issue, practically speaking, was Communism's popularity and thus its potential political opposition.

Communism and Naziism were in fact closely related, philosophically.
Their intellectual roots were very closely related.
They were bitter rivals; they were not philosophical opposites.
Think of it as a battle between Red-Bolshevik Socialism and Brown National Socialism.

In both National Socialism and Communism, the central government controls the means of production and a disregard for the individual in favour of the community.
This is more a leftist ideal.

The main different between the two was Naziism's radical racial nationalism.
A strong 'German' 'Aryan' identity, as opposed to mere community, was the ideal.

In Communism, the workers theoretically hold the power and everything is, theoretically, owned by the workers and thus the corporate figurehead: the Communist party. Though in reality the workers have no power at all.

In National Socialism, the common man exists for the service and good of the Nation as a whole and National racial pride is itself the central unifying theme.

As an anecdotal piece of evidence, I recently listened to a speech by Hitler where he apologized for destroying the Communist party after he came to power, but justified it by saying He destroyed all political parties.

If you called Hitler a socialist I think he would killed you.

Then I would be in good company. ;-)

He claimed to be for the workers but frankly he did so they would vote for him instead of the KPD or the SPD.

He was for the workers, in as far as the workers existed for the good of the Aryan Race and the German Nation. National Socialism.

The Nazis weren't really fascists they just used the as basis for their aims of winning back the land the lost in WW1. There was only one real fascist leader ever his name was Mussolini.

Well, no. They were Fascists. They were just racist fascists.
This did make a huge difference in a lot of decisions and actions they made.

Other Fascist groups were not into ethnic cleansing.
Cultural cleansing to some degree, yes, but not ethnic cleansing.

The Nazi where a far right group,

This is a very common myth.
Their ideals were largely right in line with most leftist movements.

Though, real Fascism also greatly supported traditionalism and nationalism.
The Nazis were a little different, though.
National Socialism did support "tradition" in name but not in substance.
National Socialism invented its own mythical "ancient Aryan" traditional ideals and promoted these.

The opposite of such leftist movement would be some form of extreme libertarianism.
They wouldn't be much of a political power-house though, since they would despise highly centralized government.

[Nemises]

Nazis were as far away from the left as anyone can be.

Infact they were right wing.