EB and the West [Archive]

SigniferOne

08-07-2007, 19:34

Since the thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89378) on Romans in EB became closed, I didn't have a chance to participate in it further. Having much respect for Shigawire I lamented his participation in it, at which point he demanded I define what Westernism is, and what qualities, in what way, would be classified in EB as anti-Western. Please note, this is not a diminution of the time and efforts put into the mod, which command from me nothing but the greatest respect and attention. This is an observation of EB since its earliest beginnings in 2004, since my ancient arguments with Psycho V and debates with Khelvan and Urnamma. I don't know what I could hope to achieve in this sub-forum, preaching to a highly hostile crowd, except that paullus wrote a highly intelligent post in the Romans thread, and I regretted not having a chance to respond to him; I still harbor hope of convincing Shigawire also.

In response to what follows, I would like to hear a more substantive response than "we put the most time into the Romans, so your argument is moot". If you spit on the Roman values and achievements, and spend 17 months researching proper lists of cognomens, that is not in any way better than despising the very core of Nazi Germany, and devotedly researching the minutae staff of the Waffen SS and proper structure of the Hitlejungend. The responses (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1626630#post1626630) in the Roman thread (celebrations (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89517) on Cannae etc) show beyond any doubt that Roman culture and values hold a dismal place in the EB team, no matter what a more well-intentioned member of that team would want to believe. The only remaining question is why.

------

Westernism, briefly, constitutes a set of characteristics, some which are merely normative, and some of which are qualitative; namely, some Western qualities are simply Western heritage without a judgment of better or worse, and others are characteristics of quality you can use to determine worth in relation to other nations.

I'll stick to the ancient times, since that is more appropriate to our debate. The following characteristics define the ancient (classical) west --

in literature:
-formalized philosophy
-formalized oratory
-formalized grammar
-formalized architecture
-formalized algebra and geometry
-formalized engineering
-formalized medicine

in art:
-fully formed ideal of man
-fully formed sculptural technique

in government:
-fully formed free government
-a fully developed bureaucracy and compendious administration
-national hatred for self-submission
-distrust and constant replacement of politicians
-politicians, people administering by choice and subject to check

in philosophy:
-fully formed notion of virtue
-fully formed view of reason and emotion
-fully formed view of pleasure
-fully formed view of personal happiness
-fully formed guide to life

Here's what's not a qualitative difference of the ancient West: music. If you've ever heard reproductions of ancient music, they sound hardly different from oriental music or from egyptian music, or semitic music. So that music is not specifically Western; nor is it anti-Western; it's just music simply, not a degree of comparison in those times and in that state of development. It is completely different and primitive compared to the Western music, as brought to bear by J.S. Bach in 1600s. Similarly ancient painting; it is only in some parts fully Western, and mainly only proto-Western, Pompeii and Apelles included; Western painting only first springs in full form with the perspective and vanishing point of Donatello and Masaccio.

Now, a note about non-classical societies in the West: race does not determine culture. Just because people lived in the same area where a typically Western culture later flourished, does not mean they themselves were Western or had qualities of that kind.

Celtic societies, were not Western. Just like Mycenean Greeks were not Western. They did not possess anywhere near the number of qualities for comparison (being a more primitive society), and the qualities they did possess were not Western, but otherwise. At best, you could say that some Celtic properties were proto-Western, whether that be from constant interchange with Romans/Greeks, or from some internal driving force for change, it doesn't matter. Germanic societies were plainly non Western. In fact, Germanic societies were anti-Western, which is shown in what happens to Western qualities when Germanics take over -- those qualities have no value, are quickly destroyed or forgotten.

The pro-Celtic movement and pro-Germanic movements that EB is so proud and so full of are the result of the 19th century racist movements that were no longer satisfied with the Western culture in the West. Prior to the 19th century, no one would even think of having Celtic pride. Classical (western) heritage was the only thing that mattered. Celtic and Germanic myths were swiftly overturned and destroyed by the Classical Prometheus and Jupiter. As late as 1950s, a character in a movie without even thinking it exclaimed, "By Jove! I don't know what you mean!" Romans, even not Greeks, were the profound teachers of the West prior to the 19th century. Seneca, not Plato, was judged by Joseph Addison as the greater philosopher, whatever you may think of that. But still, Greeks were highly respected, and Romans revered beyond measure; all other peoples in Western lands were despised and looked down on; descendants of Celtic people despised Celtic culture. Now the race is on to overturn this value hierarchy, to bring racial qualities above cultural qualities, under the banner of cynicism and skepticism. And EB is in many ways the herald, and on the forefront of that.

abou

08-07-2007, 19:43

The crux of your argument rests on the thought that the Celts and Germans lacked the qualities you mention above. Recent scholarly work has shown that not to be the case. Because of that, your whole argument (as harsh as this may sound) is null, regardless of how long you make it.

SigniferOne

08-07-2007, 20:01

I don't think you've read my post properly:

Celtic societies, were not Western. Just like Mycenean Greeks were not Western. [..] At best, you could say that some Celtic properties were proto-Western, whether that be from constant interchange with Romans/Greeks, or from some internal driving force for change, it doesn't matter. Germanic societies were plainly non Western. In fact, Germanic societies were anti-Western, which is shown in what happens to Western qualities when Germanics take over -- those qualities have no value, are quickly destroyed or forgotten.

Urnamma

08-07-2007, 20:16

Since the thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89378) on Romans in EB became closed, I didn't have a chance to participate in it further. Having much respect for Shigawire I lamented his participation in it, at which point he demanded I define what Westernism is, and what qualities, in what way, would be classified in EB as anti-Western. Please note, this is not a diminution of the time and efforts put into the mod, which command from me nothing but the greatest respect and attention. This is an observation of EB since its earliest beginnings in 2004, since my ancient arguments with Psycho V and debates with Khelvan and Urnamma. I don't know what I could hope to achieve in this sub-forum, preaching to a highly hostile crowd, except that paullus wrote a highly intelligent post in the Romans thread, and I regretted not having a chance to respond to him; I still harbor hope of convincing Shigawire also.

It's actually rather interesting to be thought of as anti-western, considering that I am often considered the opposite in professional circles (at least as regards philosophy).

In response to what follows, I would like to hear more substantive responses than "we put the most time into the Romans, so your argument is moot". If you spit on the Roman values and achievements, and spend 17 months researching proper lists of cognomens, that is not in any way better than despising the very core of Nazi Germany, and devotedly researching the minutae staff of the Waffen SS and proper structure of the Hitlejungend. The responses in the Roman thread (celebrations on Cannae etc) show beyond any doubt that Roman culture and values hold a dismal place in the EB team, no matter what a more well-intentioned member of that team would want to believe. The only remaining question is why.

Granted, some things are over the top, and some posters can be as well. However, what is generally objected to is the theory that romans are somehow superior to everyone culturally and militarily. This is the opinion of many, and it is a rather unfortunate and dim one. I am no cultural relativist, but the Romans and Greeks do not need 95% of all things attributed to them, their cultural achievements stand out enough.

Westernism, briefly, constitutes a set of characteristics, some which are merely normative, and some of which are qualitative; namely, some Western qualities are simply Western heritage without a judgment of better or worse, and others are characteristics of quality you can use to determine worth in relation to other nations.

I am not quite sure why it has to be an -ism, but I digress.

I'll stick to the ancient times, since that is more appropriate to our debate. The following characteristics define the ancient (classical) west --

Alright.

in literature:
-formalized philosophy
-formalized oratory
-formalized grammar
-formalized architecture
-formalized algebra and geometry
-formalized engineering
-formalized medicine

Grammar should not be up there, as it is a unique characteristic to every formal language. Semites had formalized grammar long before Romans or Greeks. Note that these languages based their alphabet on the Phoenician.

I suppose the Architectural styles of the Near East and Egypt (formalized and updated for thousands of years) are not formal enough for you?

Medicine, likewise, could more accurately be considered a Greek/Phoenician development, as each built off the achievements of the other.

in art:
-fully formed ideal of man
-fully formed sculptural technique

Wrong again on the second. Note that early Greek styles were borrowed from the established Egyptian technique.

in government:
-fully formed free government
-a fully developed bureaucracy and compendious administration
-national hatred for self-submission
-distrust and constant replacement of politicians
-politicians, people administering by choice and subject to check

The first is certainly untrue, and begs the question 'what is free government?' Is it a government in which 51% can vote themselves the property and liberty of the other 49%? A national hatred of self-submission existed among Celts too.

in philosophy:
-fully formed notion of virtue
-fully formed view of reason and emotion
-fully formed view of pleasure
-fully formed view of personal happiness
-fully formed guide to life

No real argument here, as I am fond of saying: 'the Greeks invented rational thought'.

Here's what's not a qualitative difference of the ancient West: music. If you've ever heard reproductions of ancient music, they sound hardly different from oriental music or from egyptian music, or semitic music. So that music is not specifically Western; nor is it anti-Western; it's just music simply, not a degree of comparison in those times and in that state of development. It is completely different and primitive compared to the Western music, as brought to bear by J.S. Bach in 1600s. Similarly ancient painting; it is only in some parts fully Western, and mainly only proto-Western, Pompeii and Apelles included; Western painting only first springs in full form with the perspective and vanishing point of Donatello and Masaccio.

Ok... Have you ever seen frescoes and funerary portraits?

Now, a note about non-classical societies in the West: race does not determine culture. Just because people lived in the same area where a typically Western culture later flourished, does not mean they themselves were Western or had qualities of that kind.

I don't think anyone has said this.

Celtic societies, were not Western. Just like Mycenean Greeks were not Western. They did not possess anywhere near the number of qualities for comparison (being a more primitive society), and the qualities they did possess were not Western, but otherwise. At best, you could say that some Celtic properties were proto-Western, whether that be from constant interchange with Romans/Greeks, or from some internal driving force for change, it doesn't matter. Germanic societies were plainly non Western. In fact, Germanic societies were anti-Western, which is shown in what happens to Western qualities when Germanics take over -- those qualities have no value, are quickly destroyed or forgotten.

Which is why the legal systems of the United States and Great Britain (among others) are based on Germanic laws?

The pro-Celtic movement and pro-Germanic movements that EB is so proud and so full of are the result of the 19th century racist movements that were no longer satisfied with the Western culture in the West. Prior to the 19th century, no one would even think of having Celtic pride. Classical (western) heritage was the only thing that mattered. Celtic and Germanic myths were swiftly overturned and destroyed by the Classical Prometheus and Jupiter. As late as 1950s, a character in a movie without even thinking it exclaimed, "By Jove! I don't know what you mean!" Romans, even not Greeks, were the profound teachers of the West prior to the 19th century. Seneca, not Plato, was judged by Joseph Addison as the greater philosopher, whatever you may think of that. But still, Greeks were highly respected, and Romans revered beyond measure; all other peoples in Western lands were despised and looked down on; descendants of Celtic people despised Celtic culture. Now the race is on to overturn this value hierarchy, to bring racial qualities above cultural qualities, under the banner of cynicism and skepticism. And EB is in many ways the herald, and on the forefront of that.

This is asinine to me. We're not pro-germanic, we're pro-'not making them into stereotypical slathering cavemen'. Note that being 'proud' of celtic culture was a good way to get yourself killed during the Norman and English rule in Ireland.

Being obsessed with everything western is interesting, and largely missing the point. One cannot be Aristotelean and Platonic at the same time (Despite Boethius' attempt). You've ignored the Judaic and Christian elements in Western culture as well, which I find rather fascinating. I think that perhaps we ought to discuss singular facets of what makes the Romans and Greeks so superior to everyone else in every way, rather than painting with broad brush strokes. I'm willing to discuss it with you, if we keep it civil.

Urnamma

08-07-2007, 20:17

abou

08-07-2007, 20:22

My bad.:shame:

Urnamma

08-07-2007, 20:31

A note to potential posters... please do not make inflammatory comments on this thread, nor attack anyone with silly arguments. Perhaps we can learn something from a reasoned debate and conversation on EB's depictions and goals.

Tellos Athenaios

08-07-2007, 21:23

in literature:
-formalized philosophy
-formalized oratory
-formalized grammar
-formalized architecture
-formalized algebra and geometry
-formalized engineering
-formalized medicine

in art:
-fully formed ideal of man
-fully formed sculptural technique

in government:
-fully formed free government
-a fully developed bureaucracy and compendious administration
-national hatred for self-submission
-distrust and constant replacement of politicians
-politicians, people administering by choice and subject to check

in philosophy:
-fully formed notion of virtue
-fully formed view of reason and emotion
-fully formed view of pleasure
-fully formed view of personal happiness
-fully formed guide to life

And we have a winner! ... Ancient China.

Oh, before you start aguing against it, all of philosophy, all of government, all of lterature and all of art applies just as much, or even more to China in those days than to any state whatsoever in 'Europe'.

There's just one exception, and that is the brief Ch'in dynasty - and then we're mostly talking about the first and only real Emperor. Granted Chinese kings or emperors didn't really submit to the judge or people like some Celtic kings appear to have done - but neither did the Roman emperors, or the Diadochi kings / emperors, now did they?

dezzerx

08-07-2007, 21:51

Signiferone, you make it sound to me that if you value Germanic or Celtic culture and if you are proud of what your Germanic or Celtic ancestors achieved that you are a racist.

And yes, I am proud of my ancestors and their culture. I do not however hate other peoples or races.

You talk about the qualities of a culture as if a people with a culture with some lesser qualities should just toss aside their culture and accept the one with the "better" qualities? If they don't do so, theyare just being racist and blind to the truth?

I am proud, tho not overly proud so I become blinded from the truth, of my Germanic roots and will remain to be so.

oudysseos

08-07-2007, 23:00

Although Signifer's post is long and detailed, I have to agree with Abou. I am going to try and be rational, but I found much of what Signifer had to say deeply offensive and full of cultural prejudice.

The whole argument is ( by the standards of Western Classical Philosophy and Logical Thinking ) poorly structured and full of weird assertions not supported by scholarship. The argument fails totally if it can be demonstrated that Signifer's list is not original or unique to Western Culture, and Urnamma has already done an excellent job in doing just that. Not much to add there, but I do have to say that I had a huge laugh at algebra being attributed to the ancient classical west. Look it up. Even wikipedia gets that one right.

And that bit about music is pure ignorance and personal prejudice. He thinks music prior to JS Bach sounds 'semitic', 'oriental' or 'egyptian' (what is semitic music supposed to sound like? How do you objectively define something as sounding 'semitic'?), therefore it can't be 'westernism'. Never mind the huge importance of their own music to people like Socrates, Plato, Euclid. Never mind the pivotal role the investigation of musical phenomena played in developing geometry (but not algebra :pleased: ) Never mind that the 'oriental' sounding music of ancient greece was an integral and inalienable part of the 'western' drama of ancient greece that contributed so much to philosophy and those 'fully formed' notions of virtue, pleasure, and personal happiness. Purely circular reasoning through and through.

Actually, Signifer's ignorance about algebra is a perfect illustration of the wishful thinking that informs his definition of what it means to be western: he has picked out the things that he thinks are admirable or impressive and claims them for western culture, regardless of their actual origin. Anything else is non-western, regardless of where the Celts (f'r instance) actually lived and followed their highly developed material culture, or how much of that 'non-western' culture influenced the development of 'westernism'. But hey, don't believe me- ask Herodotus, who often attributes much of greek culture and science with oriental origins. And he was born in Turkey.

Which is a good segue to what is really the main thing wrong with Signifer's post. Most of what he values as 'westernism' (political and ethical philosophy, science, law, art, engineering etc etc) was transmitted to the west through eastern sources (as latin translations of arabic or persian translations of latin or greek originals) (does he even know who Abu Musa Jabir or Ibn Rushd or al-Farabi or Ibn Sina were?), so who is now to say what is western and what is eastern? Hell, for a long time if you wanted to read the defining works of 'westernism' first you had to learn ARABIC. Without the availability of 400,000 books captured from the Moors at Cordoba, or the works plundered by crusaders from Constantinople and the mid-EAST, there would have been no Renaissance, and no 'westernism'.

Gaah. Trying to keep calm. Trying not to resort to adhominem attacks. Would be so satisfying. Must resist.

Ahem. Sorry. Dude, Signifer, with all due respect, your concept of western culture is terribly outdated. Thankfully, serious scholarship and popular history have moved on. To everyone else, try

Barbarians, Terry Jones
Black Athena volume One: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985, Martin Bernal
Empires of the Word:A language History of the World Nicholas Ostler
Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture, Walter Burkett (this one really upsets Signifer's apple cart)
The Ancient Celts , Barry Cunliffe

Obviously don't take any of these books as the whole truth and nothing but the truth: everyone has a perspective of their own that informs their work. Make your own judgments, just try to base them on the facts, and not on what you wish the facts had been.

Bootsiuv

08-07-2007, 23:24

What is "fully formed free government"? I live in America in the 21st century, and we don't even have a fully formed free government. I don't think such a thing has ever existed, to be honest. Many of the things you speak of as "fully formed" have been constantly evolving over the course of time. Even today, many of the things you speak of continue to evolve.

Do you have a "fully formed" concept of happiness? Or reason and logic? These things simply do not exist. Happiness is relative to many things, one being personal opinion. How it can be fully formed is beyond me. The same can be applied to almost all of the other things you speak of. If these ideas were fully formed, we would still be using them exactly as the ancients did.

Your argument also indirectly implies that easterners did not have "fully formed" concepts and thoughts. As far as I can tell, the Mesopotamian cultures (Sumeria, Babylon, etc.) and Egypt are considered more eastern than western in those times. Those civilizations were writing, conducting the business of rather centralized gov't (some times more than others), and building great monuments and art 2000 years before the Mycenaen Greeks. I can't help but think you're seriously underestimating the contributions these and other ancient eastern civilizations gave to the Greeks, who in turn gave them to the Romans.

Westernization in ancient times was mostly eastern ideas and logic which had been adapted to western life.

Shigawire

08-07-2007, 23:51

My wish to have SigniferOne define to me what Western-ism is started when he PM'ed me and called most of EB's - and "even" some of my own - comments as "anti-Western." (though he conveniently did not cite quotations)

Being a student of propaganda, my radar went up on the word "anti-Western", as a word identical to those used in totalitarian societies to quell dissent.
That is why the definition was very interesting to me.

Now, with public discussion, the truth can be gleaned.

oudysseos

08-08-2007, 00:18

"Romans, even not Greeks, were the profound teachers of the West prior to the 19th century. Seneca, not Plato, was judged by Joseph Addison as the greater philosopher, whatever you may think of that. But still, Greeks were highly respected, and Romans revered beyond measure; all other peoples in Western lands were despised and looked down on; descendants of Celtic people despised Celtic culture"

I've been trying to make sense of this statement for half an hour but it's just meaningless, unparseable drivel. It's so disjointed that the term 'non-sequitur' seems totally inadequate. I'm not trying to be insulting, I just can't make heads nor tails of the words. Why does the opinion of an obscure English whig politician and society flibbertigibbet from the late seventeenth century have any bearing on anything? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

"A man must be both stupid and uncharitable who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side."

"There are three sides to every story -- your side, my side and the right side."

-J. Addison

Urnamma

08-08-2007, 03:42

Although Signifer's post is long and detailed, I have to agree with Abou. I am going to try and be rational, but I found much of what Signifer had to say deeply offensive and full of cultural prejudice.

The whole argument is ( by the standards of Western Classical Philosophy and Logical Thinking ) poorly structured and full of weird assertions not supported by scholarship. The argument fails totally if it can be demonstrated that Signifer's list is not original or unique to Western Culture, and Urnamma has already done an excellent job in doing just that. Not much to add there, but I do have to say that I had a huge laugh at algebra being attributed to the ancient classical west. Look it up. Even wikipedia gets that one right.

And that bit about music is pure ignorance and personal prejudice. He thinks music prior to JS Bach sounds 'semitic', 'oriental' or 'egyptian' (what is semitic music supposed to sound like? How do you objectively define something as sounding 'semitic'?), therefore it can't be 'westernism'. Never mind the huge importance of their own music to people like Socrates, Plato, Euclid. Never mind the pivotal role the investigation of musical phenomena played in developing geometry (but not algebra :pleased: ) Never mind that the 'oriental' sounding music of ancient greece was an integral and inalienable part of the 'western' drama of ancient greece that contributed so much to philosophy and those 'fully formed' notions of virtue, pleasure, and personal happiness. Purely circular reasoning through and through.

Actually, Signifer's ignorance about algebra is a perfect illustration of the wishful thinking that informs his definition of what it means to be western: he has picked out the things that he thinks are admirable or impressive and claims them for western culture, regardless of their actual origin. Anything else is non-western, regardless of where the Celts (f'r instance) actually lived and followed their highly developed material culture, or how much of that 'non-western' culture influenced the development of 'westernism'. But hey, don't believe me- ask Herodotus, who often attributes much of greek culture and science with oriental origins. And he was born in Turkey.

Which is a good segue to what is really the main thing wrong with Signifer's post. Most of what he values as 'westernism' (political and ethical philosophy, science, law, art, engineering etc etc) was transmitted to the west through eastern sources (as latin translations of arabic or persian translations of latin or greek originals) (does he even know who Abu Musa Jabir or Ibn Rushd or al-Farabi or Ibn Sina were?), so who is now to say what is western and what is eastern? Hell, for a long time if you wanted to read the defining works of 'westernism' first you had to learn ARABIC. Without the availability of 400,000 books captured from the Moors at Cordoba, or the works plundered by crusaders from Constantinople and the mid-EAST, there would have been no Renaissance, and no 'westernism'.

Gaah. Trying to keep calm. Trying not to resort to adhominem attacks. Would be so satisfying. Must resist.

Ahem. Sorry. Dude, Signifer, with all due respect, your concept of western culture is terribly outdated. Thankfully, serious scholarship and popular history have moved on. To everyone else, try

Barbarians, Terry Jones
Black Athena volume One: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985, Martin Bernal
Empires of the Word:A language History of the World Nicholas Ostler
Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture, Walter Burkett (this one really upsets Signifer's apple cart)
The Ancient Celts , Barry Cunliffe

Obviously don't take any of these books as the whole truth and nothing but the truth: everyone has a perspective of there own that informs their work. Make your own judgments, just try to base them on the facts, and not on what you wish the facts had been.

Black Athena is something -I- take major offense to. That is just tripe.

There are plenty of wonderful things about ancient greece and rome... but what I take offense to is when people attribute more than the massive amount they did!

tk-421

08-08-2007, 04:02

it's just music simply, not a degree of comparison in those times and in that state of development. It is completely different and primitive compared to the Western music, as brought to bear by J.S. Bach in 1600s.

That's really a rather simplistic view of the development of music. First of all, your dates are wrong. Born in 1685, Bach wasn't doing a whole lot of composing in the 1600s. More importantly, saying that Bach "brought to bear" "western" music not only ignores contemporaries of Bach like Handel, Telemann, Vivaldi, and Albinoni - all of whom we're more prominent in their day than Bach - but it also discredits all those who came before. Have you ever heard church motets and oratorios from the the late 16th and 17th centuries? Although generally not as complex as the extreme contrapuntal music of Bach (although you should note that Bach was not the first to write contrapuntal fugues and such), there is nothing "primitive" about them. Not to discredit Bach, his compositions were very important to the development of music, but any argument that states that all that is good in music stems from Bach and all that came before is "primitive" is fundamentally flawed.

artavazd

08-08-2007, 04:13

This may sound very simplistic, but most indo-european cultures shared similarities between them including music. People forget that all the way to western china there were indo-european speaking people ( Tocharians) One can not look at the contemporary cultures of the world and think that it has always been that way. What is Turkey today was one of the main centers of what is now "westernism) For example traditional Armenian music has similarities with Celtic music.

KARTLOS

08-08-2007, 06:56

And we have a winner! ... Ancient China.

Oh, before you start aguing against it, all of philosophy, all of government, all of lterature and all of art applies just as much, or even more to China in those days than to any state whatsoever in 'Europe'.

There's just one exception, and that is the brief Ch'in dynasty - and then we're mostly talking about the first and only real Emperor. Granted Chinese kings or emperors didn't really submit to the judge or people like some Celtic kings appear to have done - but neither did the Roman emperors, or the Diadochi kings / emperors, now did they?

free government? yeah thats right. i would have expected more from an eb member than crass sinophilia.

KARTLOS

08-08-2007, 06:58

KARTLOS

08-08-2007, 07:00

KARTLOS

08-08-2007, 07:08

Without the availability of 400,000 books captured from the Moors at Cordoba, or the works plundered by crusaders from Constantinople and the mid-EAST, there would have been no Renaissance, and no 'westernism'.

i agree with much of what you are saying, but i think you have certainly overstepped the mark here. it would be very hard to convincingly argue that without those events the renaissance would never have happened. the paucity of knowledge in western europe is often exagerated for starters.

p.s you should be ashamed to reference black athena. if the copy is your own i suggest you burn it.

artavazd

08-08-2007, 07:51

p.s you should be ashamed to reference black athena. if the copy is your own i suggest you burn it.

I had a professor in college he was African American and a Racist He would say things to the caucasian students that if a caucasian teacher had said things like that to black students he or she would have been fired and most likely gone to prison on the charges of hate crimes. He was not a history teacher, but an instructor in the teacher credential program. He asked me my ethnic backgroun I told him I'm Armenian, and this dumbass said well you know that about 500 years ago your people were about the same color as me, until they mixed with whites!!! My first reaction was shock. I thought to my self how can a college profesor be this dumb! I started giving him a little history lesson and this guy starts jumping from topic to topic he first says that well the sicilians which is the center of italian civilization was african. I refute that then he talks about Greece and the greeks being black refering to "black athena" I refute that then he asks me how old are you? I tell him my age 23 and he says well Im 60 ive been around u knowww. I laugh at him i told him you can be 160 and you'll still be wrong. Infront of the entire class I offed to make a deal with him. I told him in the 3000 years of Armenian history if he can find one source that relates armenians to africans I would drop the class with an F but if he doesnt than the entire class gets an A. This idiot waved me off trying to act profesional telling me lets get back to the subject

KARTLOS

08-08-2007, 08:08

artavazd

08-08-2007, 08:33

If it wasnt for the quota system he probebly wont even be there

the sad thing is non of the caucasian students said anything to defend themselves. This idiot was insulting everyone including females in the class. After the whole incident There were somestudents that came up and told me they appricated what i did, and said that they were afraid of being called a racist if they said anything. It is sad very sad

oudysseos

08-08-2007, 08:53

A. Black Athena is highly controversial, politicised ( the author is a marxist ), and not particularly well written.
B. Martin Bernal is clearly completely and totally bonkers, often just plain wrong and obviously a total asshole.
Also he lets his desire to prove his case overcome his respect for the truth. Hardly a unique sin, eh Signifer?
C. Anyone who ignores or burns books/ideas because they don't like the author or the conclusion is a bit of a f***wit.

In fact I disagree with a lot (most) of what Bernal writes, yet some of what he says about the history of classical scholarship is not worthless. I could wish that his argument had been made by someone nicer and with a higher regard for good scholarship. For me the difficulty is that classical Greek culture is so central to western culture that it is nigh impossible to have any kind of objective perspective on it. That's precisely why I have read some of Black Athena (sorry, Martin, I skipped a lot of your ranting), because I like to think that I'm grown up enough to entertain another point of view, and I think that you're not entitled to disagree with a book until you have read it. If this was Third Reich Total War I would encourage people to read Mein Kampf. Recommending a book is not the same as endorsing its views.

And hey, you know what, I have almost precisely the same reaction to the first post of this thread- I think it's badly written, shows poor scholarship and has an obvious political agenda. But I don't think that Signifer should be burnt or ignored. And it may come as a surprise to him but I do agree that there is something called Western Culture and that it has great value (after all my degree is in classics). I just don't think that he has shown that he knows what it is.

KARTLOS

08-08-2007, 09:02

C. Anyone who ignores or burns books/ideas because they don't like the author or the conclusion is a bit of a f***wit.

. That's precisely why I have read some of Black Athena because I like to think that I'm grown up enough to entertain another point of view, and I think that you're not entitled to disagree with a book until you have read it.

.

but now you have read it surely you can burn it? it would be cleansing for your soul, you could consider it a sacrifice to the spirit of common sense!

oudysseos

08-08-2007, 09:18

KARTLOS-:hijacked: Let's not make this about Black Athena. I think everybody should have a look at it and make up their own minds.

Mea Culpa, I was (only very slightly) overstating the importance of Muslin scholarship to the renaissance in order to make a point.
I was annoyed at Signifer's didactic tone and his wildly unfounded assertions about the definition of the ancient classical west (his redundancy). His inclusion of algebra as one of the achievements of Graeco-Roman civilization is just the most obvious example of his cultural prejudice and his willingness to claim other people's accomplishments as 'westernisms' own.
The ironic (for Signifer) part is that regardless of their own cultural background people like Muhammad bin Musa al-Khwarizmi (that's the algebra guy), ibn Sina or Ibn Rushd were totally in love with Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy and Archimedes and kept them alive for us. We owe the survival of most of the important texts of westernism to easterners! Without Muslim scholars we would have no Aristotle. And we only have what they though was good enough to translate into arabic, so how western are we now?
The same applies to medicine- another one of Signifers defining characteristics of westernism that he GOT TOTALLY WRONG.

**Goes away and has a nice cuppa**

Hey well how bout them Twins, eh?

But seriously, It is difficult to overestimate Western Culture's debt to the East. I know it's only wikipedia, but still have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th_century

Kinda hard to find a sentence without an arabic name in there. Anyone feeling slightly humble and less Romano-centric?

keravnos

08-08-2007, 09:31

Black Athena... or how a way of depicting figures on vases (which was abandoned later as artistic styles changed), became a rallying flag for African Americans with an agenda and a set goal in mind.

I never did get that. There were major, MAJOR empires that thrived in "Black" Africa (to differentiate from people of Lower Egypt and Mediterraneand coast who aren't) at any one point. Meroe/Nubia, Axum, Many kingdoms in the area of Niger, and best of all Great Zimbabwe.

Why not embracing your culture fully, and be proud of it and go mind-raping young students about people who had absolutely no relation to what you are saying, instead?

a small guide to how NOT to be a historian.

1. take an artistic method (black figures over white background) as in the below vase of 5th century BCE)
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/circe.jpg
Circe offers cup to Odysseus; end 5th century BCE
swine-man in background. Ahtens, National Archaeological Museum

or even later ones who have men painted as black and women painted as white (another way to create antithesis on people who were basically wearing the same clothes)
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/athena_birth2.jpg
birth of Athena from Zeus. Greek
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art

or... as pointed to by this hellenistic painting,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/cassandra3.jpg
Men were outside tilling their fields, brandishing their wares, being soldiers and generally earning a living, thus getting a tan while the women were "protected" indoors without much rights but an obligation to have a family white was a desired quality back then when female beauty was on display (It is not generally known but Ancient greek women were treated much like property). Whereas Pahlavan and Saka women were generally treated in a much better light, with Sarmatians according to Herodotos having an armoured contingent of ONLY women warriors.

2. Project your own bias-goals into it. However wronged one must feel to have his ancestors snatched from their own continent and brought to another land to live and die for many generations as slaves, WHICH IS DEAD WRONG, no doubt about it, it doesn't give those people the right to assume false identities, or try to find "hidden secrets" where there aren't any!!!

3. Lie, lie, lie to keep your own little moment of "Look mom I'm famous!" known to the world, blatantly disregarding things like the fact that there were other methods of drawing figures, like the following ones...(later than the one shown above)
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/aegisthus2.jpg

and
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/tragicvase.jpg

or even white on white with colour (different artistic style)
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/charon2.jpg

There are basically thousands upon thousands of examples, as there are thousands upon thousands of ancient greek vase fragments which can depict what I am saying. A book on art can also be far more precise than I will ever be. Still, it is kind of sad to see art history being turned into " they live among us" kind of conspiracy theories.

So...how were "black" africans depicted back then?
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/africanwoman.jpg
found in London, British Museum

Basileus Seleukeia

08-08-2007, 10:28

people like that deserve to be shot, there should be no place for them in a university. political correctness gone mad indeed.
Kartlos, for yourself's sake I hope that you were drunk when you wrote this. Saying that racists deserve to be shot is the same thing as saying that one "race" has to be entirely killed. The sole wish of killing somebody for his political intentions is a shame. Btw, if a policeman would read this, he would be forced by law to get as many information about your location and give it to the police. well, everyone here would be forced by law.
I do not want to defend racism, I hate it, but countering that with a murderous rage is simply the wrong way. Seriously, that Professor should be kicked out of the university, but surely nothing worse, as even to those subjects, human rights apply.

Treverer

08-08-2007, 11:26

Kartlos, for yourself's sake I hope that you were drunk when you wrote this. Saying that racists deserve to be shot is the same thing as saying that one "race" has to be entirely killed. The sole wish of killing somebody for his political intentions is a shame. Btw, if a policeman would read this, he would be forced by law to get as many information about your location and give it to the police. well, everyone here would be forced by law.
I do not want to defend racism, I hate it, but countering that with a murderous rage is simply the wrong way. Seriously, that Professor should be kicked out of the university, but surely nothing worse, as even to those subjects, human rights apply.
Seconded!

Krusader

08-08-2007, 12:15

I don't have any voodoo mod powers, but can someone who do please split up this thread, because this is about EB and anti-westernism, NOT Black Athena.

Shigawire

08-08-2007, 12:26

Thirded!

Great post Keravnos. About that African Supremacist, it's scary to think that he has a job.. He should be sacked with immediate effect. I find their method of argumentation equally as annoying and retarded as the White Supremacists'. Has anyone ever been to IMDB on the forum for Hannibal The Conqueror (upcoming movie trilogy)? There is a rife collection of these black supremacists in those forums, trying to promote the idea that Hannibal should be played by a black man.. Indeed, there were plans that Denzel Washington was going to play him for a while.

If they are that sloppy about ethnicity of famous characters, why don't we just make a movie where Arnold Schwarzenegger plays Louis Armstrong? Makes an equal amount of sense to me it does.

Ok, rant mode off.

now that you have read it would you agree that it is a definition used uniquely by signifier 1?

Yes. Not to be condescending (it's hard), but it is precisely the kind of definition I expected of him to make. Just as certainly as he believes he can convince me, I equally believe he is perfectly capable of relapsing from his untenable and outdated position to the position of serious scholarship.

Tellos Athenaios

08-08-2007, 13:29

free government? yeah thats right. i would have expected more from an eb member than crass sinophilia.

As I already implied: 'free' government wasn't really threre. However.
1) By the Han dynasty (that is right in the midst of the EB time frame) political offices were open to all Chinese of whatever background provided that you were not a woman. Your were only required to pass exams - which indeed required a good deal of studying, hence the most offices wouldn't be filled by people without money to do so. But it is a fact that even relatively poor people could make it up till Prime Minister.
2) The Chinese had, pehaps the first, poweful unions, and with poweful I mean like the French unions but on a local scale- if we don't agree we'll simply not cooperate till the politician (the Magistrate) turns round. The idea was that the central government in Bejing would send a Censor to the region to investigate what's wrong. These Unions (mainly merchants) had connections all over the 'empire' by virtue of the fact that each district had unions and unionsmembers.
3) I do not think Signifer One meant his "free" to be taken so litterally.
Because if he did, there is no such place to be found.

In Rome political power was kept strictly in the hands of a few powerful clans, for example. Despite the offices of Tribune, and Tribunes were mostly puppets of the Senate anyways.

In the Greek world most cities were ruled by a Tyrannos, a petty king without King-title. That was the only difference. Oh, but there were ekklesia's were there not? Yes, and just how much power exactly did they have? They couldn't even pass their own laws, they merely could give advice on law - propose that something be done about something.

But there existed a democracy in Athens, now did it? Oh yeah, and that democracy has been ruled by influential politicians since the Persian Wars. In effect pretty much Tyrannoi, but without the title and with a wee bit more political responsibility. But if you didn't agree with them you were thrown out of the city all the same. Just like Aristeides who was a political enemy of Themistokles. But it was a democracy: so you would be thrown out of the city by fixed ballots... :dizzy2: (And it wasn't even fraud, it was just like with the Roman Patronus-Cliens system in which it was custom obligatory that you, as a Cliens, voted as your Patronus wished you to.

I believe Singifer One has dismissed all other cultures as being non-Western. Hence my point: his list hardly applies to 'West' only. In fact it altogether applies better to far off countries such as China than to states in Europe back then. And that is what I tried to illustrate with my post you so conveniently brushed aside with one (mistaken) contemptuous remark. Never mind, that's why this is a debate - no?

Tellos Athenaios

08-08-2007, 13:32

as a belgium (if that is indeed what you are) are you not of mixed celtic/germainic roots?

No. Just like being Dutch doesn't mean that you're of mixed Celtic-Germanic roots. (Belgian tribes did live in the Netherlands, if you did not know.)

But the local Celts were all supplanted / wiped out by 'German' migrants.

The Persian Cataphract

08-08-2007, 14:57

I think Europa Barbarorum is clear with the intentions; We endeavour and dedicate ourselves accordingly to historical outlines within reasonable lines of esoterica, and "fill-in-the-blanks"-work. In other words, if there is a faction or a culture which has some "barbarous" or "antagonistic" innuendo, such as Roman mentality reminding of fascism (Which existed, to varying extent, among all cultures of this time), EB is not there to cater or censor history. History is a mixed bag of good, bad and the ugly; Sometimes almost predominantly the very ugly. Only by appreciating all aspects of history, while remaining intellectually honest could ever hope to understand history at the most rudimentary plane. EB does not accomodate itself to cultural relativism by any means, but we'd like to let historical evidence provide the pieces of the puzzle. We don't make any judgement by saying "this" or "that" is "barbaric" or "civilized", even if it sometimes is blatant. It's still all very much "Everyone is a barbarian to someone".

A pointer though, I loathe the terms "Islamic Science", "Islamic Art", and "Islamic Medicine"; Many of those achievements were accomplished by Iranian scholars and geniuses, and other works, among those of Averroës (Ibn Rushd) and the Iranian physician and philosopher Zakaria Ar-Razi were heretics, with the former discussing the "Omnipotence-paradox" very extensively and while the latter constantly made a mockery of the Qur'an by simple logical queries. Making use of the term "Islamic Science" equals cultural theft. It would be like calling Galileo's discoveries and support for the heliocentric worldly view a "Christian achievement" and that is a far cry from reality. Algebra, as formalized by Al-Khwarazmi, is a refined Iranian product based on previous Greek, Indian and Near Eastern mathematical influences. The Qur'an does not teach math, in fact in several instances it contains blatantly faulty math which fails basic addition and subtraction. Authorities such as the distinguished Iranologist Dr. Shojaedin Shafa (Formerly one of the Shah's historians and custodian of the royal libraries, on par with the late Prof. Shapur Shahbazi and the late Dr. Zarrinqub who wrote extensively on the fall of the Sassanian Iran in his "Two Centuries of Silence") have also lamented the usage of "Islamic Science".

The only reason why this concept formally exists is because Orientalists such as that sack of lard Bernard Lewis orgasm over the thought of a "Second Islamic Golden Age" in the Middle East in a most futile manner. They believe Islam was a catalyst and bolstered the progress. That alone is chauvinism. It implies that the Near East had no sophistication whatsoever when there is enough evidence proving the contrary. Conceptions such as the Parthian battery (Falsely dubbed the "Baghdad battery") pre-date the Voltaic pile by more than a thousand years. Yet by no means do we refer to Ancient Iranian science, non-religious literati (Or fragments rather) or architecture "Zoroastrian science".

So for the sake of everyone's sanity people, give credit where it is due. You may discuss "Anti-Westernism" until your throats go all dry, but I'm going to go all mad cataphract on people who rely on generalized designations. You have been warned.

Edit: I'm speaking in general terms here, not in any accusatory intent or manner. Point well taken, Oudysseos.

oudysseos

08-08-2007, 16:26

Persian Cataphract- Sorry if I wasn't clear, and I didn't mean to label anything as 'Islamic Science'.
In fact the point that I was trying to make is that such labels are meaningless: modern algebra derives from al-Kwarizmi, who built on previous Greek work, which itself built on Babylonian methods of calculation. To claim that algebra (or anything of that nature- the same argument applies to medicine, architecture, engineering etc) is a unique defining characteristic of western culture is plain pig ignorance. And I mentioned Avicenna and Averroes precisely because as non-westerners they (in The World According to SigniferOne) should not have been involved in things like medicine, philosophy, science etc. In fact they didn't seem to care that Aristotle was a westerner and they weren't, because of course the distinction (at least as Signifer puts it) is totally meaningless. Ideas, developments and culture flow back and forth across whatever invisible boundary between 'westernism' and 'easternism' Signifer has imagined to exist. Hell, it says in wikipedia that Averroes (not, I think, a westerner according to Signifer, even though he was born in Spain) is regarded as the founding father of secular thought in western europe.

Pre-empt number one: it would contradict his own criteria for Signifer to claim that Ibn Rushd, al-Kwarizmi and Ibn Sina are westerners and get out of the hole he dug himself into that way. To him that means Roman/Greek, and not just people who actually happen to live in western europe. See his (somewhat bizarre) comments on Celts and Germans.

Pre-empt number two: I do believe that 'Western Culture' does have meaning and value: it's just nothing like what Signifer thinks it is.

KARTLOS

08-08-2007, 17:45

KARTLOS

08-08-2007, 18:02

Thirded!

Great post Keravnos. About that African Supremacist, it's scary to think that he has a job.. He should be sacked with immediate effect. I find their method of argumentation equally as annoying and retarded as the White Supremacists'.
.

he will never be sacked this kind of thing is actively encouraged in america. there should be no place for this kind of thing in academia. It is in effect creating a new kind of aparthied/segregation -whilst non-black students pass through academia studying repectable courses and acquining useful skills, a percentage of balcks get siphoned of into learning this nonsense and acquiring no useful skills in the process other than heightened paranioa that anything else they are taugh is "White Lies". it certainly is political correctness gone mad, and more to the point black america is really shotting itself in the foot.

further to your mention of hanibal. when there was a reconstruction of tutenkamun made and i believe exhibited in LA, their were shrieks of protest from the black community that he wasnt a black man! I wonder what they would make of the fact that several pharoahs (including ramsess the great) have been shown to have red hair.

they should really find something else to be pride in and not resort to stealing other people history.

SigniferOne

08-08-2007, 19:19

Hi Urnamma,

It's actually rather interesting to be thought of as anti-western, considering that I am often considered the opposite in professional circles (at least as regards philosophy).Only insofar as Celtic or Germanic culture would be supported in opposition to Greek or Roman, much in the same way nascent Celtic movements in the West were anti-Western... I'm glad to hear about philosophy though, more on that in a second.

Granted, some things are over the top, and some posters can be as well. However, what is generally objected to is the theory that romans are somehow superior to everyone culturally and militarily. This is the opinion of many, and it is a rather unfortunate and dim one. I am no cultural relativist, but the Romans and Greeks do not need 95% of all things attributed to them, their cultural achievements stand out enough.Well look, we're not comparing Rome to China, since that's not the context for this thread or for the mod. Heck we're not even comparing it to Armenia or Persia, though it could easily sustain that comparison. We're simply comparing Classical civilization, a civilization which Europe accepted through ideas, without any racial connection, to Celtic or Germanic cultures which Europe need only accept through race. I know the official aim of EB is only to "portray quote barbarian unquote cultures in an accurate manner", but in truth the aim seems to be to put those on equal footing with the Classical culture. If you care for the Greek philosophy, you should bewail what the Germanics did to it (indifferently abandoned it); or what happened to Hypatia, even in Late Rome, by Roman and Greek people who no longer cared for Classical culture. Should I refresh what happened to Hypatia?

That's one of my pet peeves with EB (after the contempt for Roman culture): pro-Celtic people here are not happy to say Celts had some proto-Western features; they want to say Celts were just as good as the best of them, and in fact even better. This argument works only on people of their own race, and destroys a common European culture of ideals which is mostly Roman and in large part Greek. That's how all of this is anti-Western, that's where I'm coming from.

I am not quite sure why it has to be an -ism, but I digress.I was making a substantive from an adjective...

Grammar should not be up there, as it is a unique characteristic to every formal language. Semites had formalized grammar long before Romans or Greeks. Note that these languages based their alphabet on the Phoenician.Right we're not talking about a language people just inherited or developed by inertia. I'm talking about a rational, conscious, explicit formalization of a language, which explicitly specifies grammar rules, morphology, derivations, syntax, precisely what the Roman and Greek grammarians were doing. They had an explicit grammar, not something Semites or Celts did. Even if there's a Semitic example, it's more than likely Hellenistic, with Semites learning from the Greek example, just like Egyptians learned from them how to write history in the person of Manetho. But the point is that Greece and Rome were the fountainheads of these ideas, the greatest exemplars.

I suppose the Architectural styles of the Near East and Egypt (formalized and updated for thousands of years) are not formal enough for you?Not on the level of Vitruvius. Still, I don't want to carp on Egypt, even though it really hasn't shown much for development in its inconceivably long ancient existence. It was old, venerable, I'll leave it at that. Again, the primary comparison is with the Celts and Germanics.

Medicine, likewise, could more accurately be considered a Greek/Phoenician development, as each built off the achievements of the other.Not on the level of Celsus. It could be argued that Greeks had greater developments in Medicine, but I don't see how you could place Semites anywhere near Hippocrates and Erasistratus. These men were giants. Romans were giants in another way, which puts light on why Celsus is so important. Here is a casual remark from an old Latin textbook (Kelsey and Meinecke) that I still have:

Roman medicine at this time consisted of three general branches (see Celsus, De Medicina, Introduction 9): dietics, pharmaceutics, and surgery. Intelligent Romans like Cicero, Pliny, and Horace show a remarkable familiarity with a proper regimen of living, a field to which Roman physicians devoted much attention. Celsus (De Medicina, Books 1 and 2) discusses the proper use of exercise, food and drink according to their nutritive value and digestibility, the dietic and therapeutic value of water for promoting health (hydrotherapy), massage and friction, various kinds of baths, among them even warm oil-baths, and recommends a vegetarian diet. Cicero’s acquaintance with the theory and practice of medicine is also proved by a remarkable anatomical survey of the human body (De Natura Deorum 2.54, et seq.), exhibiting a grasp of things medical the like of which is rarely found among laymen even today.
In other words, the Roman achievement was the vast dissemination of medical knowledge out of hands of arcane doctors into hands of laymen, so that in the 19th century people could say the average person still didn't know as much about medicine as an ancient Roman. Need I remind you that even Celsus was not an arcane doctor either, and his On Medicine is but a small portion of the overall work that went into detail about rhetoric, agriculture, law, and military. So in other words he was a polymath, knew everything about everything, like Varro, Cicero, Pliny, etc etc. That is a very important intellectual achievement, even the Greeks didn't have a phenomenon like this. There is a reason why Roman writers were the teachers of the West, while few people read Bede or history of the Crusades. It is only in the 19th century, again, that the medieval era again becomes admirable.

Anyhow, you've addressed grammar, architecture, and medicine. Are you willing to grant me formalized oratory, philosophy, engineering, algebra and geometry?

Wrong again on the second. Note that early Greek styles were borrowed from the established Egyptian technique. You're right, I agree, but you yourself say that only the early Greek styles were imitated on the Egyptian, which was very impressive (Menkaure (https://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7461/p4090128uc9.jpg)). But Greeks and Romans took sculpture to the degree that the Egyptians never dreamed of. As a more salacious example, you have the Barberini Faun (http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/h/images/hellenis_sleepsatyr.lg.JPG). As an athletic example, you have the Two Wrestlers (http://ejmas.com/jcs/miscjcs03/Wrestlers1.jpg). As a statesmanly example, you have the Prima Porta (http://www.students.sbc.edu/smith04/AugPrimPort.jpg).

Still, are you granting me the "fully formed ideal of man" in sculpture? Since you're part of the mainstream, that won't be controversial to admit.

Also, as you said you are granting me all of philosophy:

No real argument here, as I am fond of saying: 'the Greeks invented rational thought'. But how many people on EB forum do you think will make that statement? To be honest, I was surprised (happily) that you did. Would you be willing along with me to explain to other members of EB the exceptional nature of Greek philosophy? Wait, wasn't it you who once put the Celtic druids on the level of Pythagoras? I hope not :( But this is the kind of thing I've come to expect here at least. :(

Ok... Have you ever seen frescoes and funerary portraits?Just briefly about this, since it's not important to argue. But yes I've seen the funerary portraits and some still life, that's why I said some ancient painting could stand with modern; but they lacked perspective and full control over lighting, which is why I'm more than willing to say most of it was proto-Western, as I'm not a fanboy interested in according everything to my favorite with no regard for measure or standard. I'd be perfectly willing to acknowledge faults or lackings, of which painting and music are an example.

Anyhow, let's not delve too much on this side issue.

The first is certainly untrue, and begs the question 'what is free government?' Is it a government in which 51% can vote themselves the property and liberty of the other 49%? A national hatred of self-submission existed among Celts too. Right, but only insofar as people in general don't like self-submission. Romans and archaic Greeks took no-submission to extreme, they almost formalized it and made it a book. Let's remember what happened to Alexander when he started demanding proskynesis. Let's remember what was Xenophon's highest show of respect to another man, in Anabasis -- to give another man your hand; a handshake, more trivialized nowadays but considered extremely important in those days. How did the Persians show faithlessness? They didn't care for the handshake, taking another man's hand but then betraying him the next day. I'm not taking about hatred of self-submission as it naturally exists in everyone, I'm talking about the highest extreme that it reached in Archaic Greece and in the Republic.

Incidentally, this is a pattern for my response to your post: you listed a number of things which existed, in principle, elsewhere; it's just that the Greeks and Romans took these to the highest extreme possible; that's why we call them the Classical culture, they're the epitome of those good values. Plus, some things you omitted challenging because they could not be found in other countries in any form. That is what forms the essence of the modern West, don't you see? All these classical values. That is why I'm writing all this.

A free government is one that is run by the people it governs; women didn't vote but they didn't have to die on the battlefield either. The point is, the Republic was the greatest example of free government until, momentarily, Florence, but more really until Glorious Revolution, and really not until American Republic. As I never tire saying, even in 1789 Americans would quote Polybius on proper government. Madison was unhappy with the constitutional convention because people wanted to implement the Roman Republic literally. That needs to be respected, and people who developed it, admired. None of the "oligarchy" nonsense popular in books today.

Which is why the legal systems of the United States and Great Britain (among others) are based on Germanic laws? The situation for law is far from simple, and not so clear cut as in your quote. In the late 1700s, John Adams, studying to become a lawyer, complained in his diary that he had no social life being imprisoned in his room "with Roman lawyers, and Dutch commentators". Roman law had a vast influence on all of Europe, as you know, and still a significant influence on Common Law that came separately. Furthermore, Common law is not really ancient Germanic, in the way that Feudal system is not Germanic. Just because it developed in the same people does not mean it originated from some primordial Germanic standards. In fact, medieval Common law really is not what built modern Europe; what did it were the commentaries by Coke and Littleton which were of stupendous influence upon Common Law, along with that monumental Dutch commentator whose name escapes me now. These are the men who built Common Law into what we know it as, and they lived in 1500-1600's, post Renaissance. Frankly, much of their commentary was based on Justinian, as were Adams' legal studies in America, in 1700s. Nobody read Jordanes to try to fish out primordial Germanic customs that would have some relevance.

This is asinine to me. We're not pro-germanic, we're pro-'not making them into stereotypical slathering cavemen'.I know. But do you see where I'm coming from, overall? I too don't desire slathering cavemen. But my stand is, if people don't know about one of the people, it's better they don't know about the Germanics than about the Romans. Even if I don't want Germanics to be misrepresented, I prefer Germanics turned into cavemen than Romans turned into cavemen. Don't you see? Because Romans had much more to teach the West than Brennus or Ariovistus did. And that's what this is all about, the continuity of a common Western culture in the West, when education about common classical facts is falling apart at the seams, and highly intelligent mods like EB are instead teaching people about true facts of Germanics and Celts. The priorities are inverted, see? People in EB are like, "oh someone else will teach them about Greece and Rome", while no one else does; and the very leaders of Roman faction in EB believe (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1626630#post1626630) their own faction to have little good to teach anyway.

Being obsessed with everything western is interesting, and largely missing the point. One cannot be Aristotelean and Platonic at the same time (Despite Boethius' attempt). You've ignored the Judaic and Christian elements in Western culture as well, which I find rather fascinating.well I haven't ignored them, it's merely that Christianity does not fall into the concept of Classical culture as it has existed in the West for 600 years. We can discuss its influence, both bad and good, but I think it would be missing the point. The point is about Classical education, about the struggle of ideas between cultural relativism and a cultural hierarchy; culture is nothing but a set of ideas, and knowing cultural hierarchy allows us to take in the ideas we deem the best, as the West has been doing since Petrarch, but is stopping to do today. I agree with you about Aristotle vs. Plato, having a degree in philosophy I'd be more than willing to discuss it too, in another thread. I didn't catch the relevance of it, though, to the current issue.

I think that perhaps we ought to discuss singular facets of what makes the Romans and Greeks so superior to everyone else in every way, rather than painting with broad brush strokes. I'm willing to discuss it with you, if we keep it civil.Sorry about writing a lot. What you said would be a welcome prospect, although as you can see from all of the EB replies after yours, a platonic Ideal rather than Aristotelian Observation :)

SigniferOne

08-08-2007, 20:02

Well, really there's no way I am going to respond to all the other posters here, nor do I have an inclination to. But I picked out oudysseos's post to respond to, as it seemed to me the most philosophical of all the others.

I am going to try and be rational, but I found much of what Signifer had to say [...] full of cultural prejudice.Thank you :)

The whole argument is ( by the standards of Western Classical Philosophy and Logical Thinking ) poorly structured and full of weird assertions not supported by scholarship. The argument fails totally if it can be demonstrated that Signifer's list is not original or unique to Western Culture, and Urnamma has already done an excellent job in doing just that. Not much to add there, but I do have to say that I had a huge laugh at algebra being attributed to the ancient classical west. Look it up. Even wikipedia gets that one right.Alright well, what I had in mind were the algebraic developments in 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, such as by Diophantus. I am well aware that the word "algebra" comes from the Arabic textbook, but am referring to the actual mathematics involved. Quoting from your wiki, which "gets it right":

Those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra#History) who support Diophantus point to the fact that the algebra found in Al-Jabr is more elementary than the algebra found in Arithmetica and that Arithmetica is syncopated while Al-Jabr is fully rhetorical. (emphasis mine)

Diophantus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diophantus) of Alexandria (Greek: Διόφαντος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς b. between 200 and 214, d. between 284 and 298 AD), sometimes called "the father of algebra", was a Greek mathematician of the Hellenistic period. He is the author of a series of classical mathematical books called Arithmetica and worked with equations which we now call Diophantine equations; the method to solve those problems is now called Diophantine analysis. The study of Diophantine equations is one of the central areas of number theory. The findings and works of Diophantus have influenced mathematics greatly and caused many other questions to arise. The most famous of these is Fermat's Last Theorem.

Refrain in the future from being rude and ordering me to look something up.

And that bit about music is pure ignorance and personal prejudice. He thinks music prior to JS Bach sounds 'semitic', 'oriental' or 'egyptian'That's not what I said. Nor could I possibly have said it, since the polytonal music of which JS Bach was the champion took its actual origins in 1100s in Christian monasteries. I said ancient Roman or Greek music sounds semitic, which I defined as close similarity to music that was actually semitic or eastern. Nor did I say it can't be 'westernism', I said it does not have enough distinguishing characteristics to be specifically Western, specifically Greek and Roman. It doesn't matter what influence it had on good people. How many incorrect assumptions are you going to attribute to me, and then lecture me on proper presentation of logical arguments?

Besides music is music, and even before it became polytonal in the West (the supreme achievement), it could still be good and resonate with people's feelings in its earlier stages.

Actually, Signifer's ignorance about algebra is a perfect illustration of the wishful thinking that informs his definition of what it means to be western: he has picked out the things that he thinks are admirable or impressive and claims them for western culture, regardless of their actual origin. Anything else is non-western, regardless of where the Celts (f'r instance) actually lived and followed their highly developed material culture, or how much of that 'non-western' culture influenced the development of 'westernism'. But hey, don't believe me- ask Herodotus, who often attributes much of greek culture and science with oriental origins. And he was born in Turkey.Let's not make a hyperbolic argument shall we? Herodotus doesn't attribute "much of greek culture and science" to oriental origins. He says the Babylonians had an astrolabe. The facts are that some of Eratosthenes' calculations were an improvement over old Babylonian observations. Herodotus doesn't say the drama came from the orient, it came from Aeschylus. He doesn't say history came from the orient; it came from Hellanicus. He doesn't say poetry came from the orient; it came from Homer. He doesn't say the Greek polis came from the orient; he says how the Greek polis defeated the orient. As you can see, I am no dolt; please produce a more intellectually sound response in the future, especially since I have not attacked you even once. As you might know, that is called ad hominem and is a logical fallacy, recommended for avoidance in the future.

(does he even know who Abu Musa Jabir or Ibn Rushd or al-Farabi or Ibn Sina were?)Great men.

Gaah. Trying to keep calm. Trying not to resort to adhominem attacks.I hope so.

tk-421

08-08-2007, 20:11

I know. But do you see where I'm coming from, overall? I too don't desire slathering cavemen. But my stand is, if people don't know about one of the people, it's better they don't know about the Germanics than about the Romans. Even if I don't want Germanics to be misrepresented, I prefer Germanics turned into cavemen than Romans turned into cavemen. Don't you see?

What are the specific things that you object to in EB's portrayal of of the Romans? How exactly have they been made into "cavemen"?

The Persian Cataphract

08-08-2007, 20:17

Right we're not talking about a language people just inherited or developed by inertia. I'm talking about a rational, conscious, explicit formalization of a language, which explicitly specifies grammar rules, morphology, derivations, syntax, precisely what the Roman and Greek grammarians were doing. They had an explicit grammar, not something Semites or Celts did. Even if there's a Semitic example, it's more than likely Hellenistic, with Semites learning from the Greek example, just like Egyptians learned from them how to write history in the person of Manetho. But the point is that Greece and Rome were the fountainheads of these ideas, the greatest exemplars.

*cough*Pâzhênd movement in Sassanian Êrânshahr*cough*

The Middle Persian language clearly has an explicit formalization:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Misc/Daryaee2.gif

“May you be immortal, these wines are all good and fine, the wine of Transoxania, when they prepare it well, the wine of Herat, the wine of Marw-Rud, the wine of Bust and the must of Hulwan, but no wine can ever compare with the Babylonian wine and the must of Bazrang.”

Taken from the fragment of "Xusrov i Kavatan ut Retak"

For an even earlier example to prove that the Middle Persian developed independently, here is an excerpt from the Gâthâ of Zardûsht:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Misc/Daryaee4.gif

"When, Wise One (Mazda), shall men desist from murdering?
when shall they fear the folly of that intoxicating drink (i.e., Haoma),
through the effects of which the Karpans (mumbling priests),
as well as the evil rulers of the lands torture our (good) intentions in an evil way?"

Additionally, here is a fragmented inventory dated Sassanian:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Misc/Daryaee3.gif

Here's a gift from me; A transliterated version of the Kârnâmag-î Ardeshîr-î Pâpakân for your reading pleasure:

http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/iran/miran/mpers/kap/kap.htm

The Bundâhîshn is equally a work of educational nature. If all these implications are not enough to put to death a Classicistic perception of allegedly "formalized" concepts (All of which ring true for Graeco-Romans but by no means in an exclusive nature) then quite frankly I do not know what does. All I know is that I've spent months trying to learn Pahlavî and by the gods I can safely conclude that it is the very basis of a number of Iranian languages spoken today.

Here you may read of the Pâzhênd movement that was intended to "cleanse" the language from foreign elements and updating the Pahlavî-Aramaic script:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazend

That takes a great understanding of the language. I would expect no less from a civilization that dedicated an entire caste to secretaries and scribes.

SigniferOne

08-08-2007, 20:33

What are the specific things that you object to in EB's portrayal of of the Romans? How exactly have they been made into "cavemen"?
Post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1626630#post1626630). Can he be expected to participate in a Roman faction and infuse into it all of the respect and admiration that, say, Petrarch would? Even if the sub-team might spend a lot of time researching cognomens, or making a sophisticated trait system of ethnicity. See my reference to Nazi Germany and somebody spending compendious amounts of time to research the Waffen SS and the Hitlerjungend. This person then continues with another post of brilliance: click (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1626749#post1626749).

He doesn't even know what the Circus Maximus is.

I refrained from pointing specific people out and making it personal to somebody, but you asked, and your sig seems to say you're in EB.

Persian Cataphract, thank you for an informative and reserved post. Allow me to take some time to read what you'd posted and get back to you. For now, let me just say that the explicit formalization of grammar I had in mind was different from what you'd posted. I had in mind something like Varro's Lingua Latina (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/L333.html):

twenty-five books in three parts: etymology of Latin words (books 1–7); their inflexions and other changes (books 8–13); and syntax (books 14–25). [...] section (books 4–6) which applied etymology to words of time and place and to poetic expressions; the section (books 7–9) on analogy as it occurs in word formation; and the section (books 10–12) which applied analogy to word derivation.

Foot

08-08-2007, 20:37

This is an incredibly interesting debate, I really have enjoyed. Not that I have the wealth of knowledge that many of the other posters here have demonstrated, still I would like to make a small number of points concerning various statements made throughout this thread.

Firstly, SigniferOne, if I may be so bold as to dissect your tapestry of arguments into smaller portions and pick one, you seem to make the claim that the political, philosophical and aesthetic cultures of the "West" are mostly (and I only say mostly, because one can never say entirely) derived from the works of Roman and Greek authors and thinkers. Well for the most part I agree with you, yet your statement is hardly outstanding or particularly astute. Roman law and society continued through the Early Church, which was itself a cross between Greek, Iranian and Semitic traditions (as far as I understand it) - whether the great leaps in thought were made in one place or the other, the Early Church certainly had this ancestry. This entire state of affairs is hardly surprising given the supremity of the Roman Empire in the West and that the Roman Church was ... Roman. The complete suppression of other cultures (for the most part successful, though there were and still are pockets of resistance) within Christendom demanded that only Christianity, with its ancestery of thought, was practised.

This is where I conceptually run into problems with your argument, as put here:

Incidentally, this is a pattern for my response to your post: you listed a number of things which existed, in principle, elsewhere; it's just that the Greeks and Romans took these to the highest extreme possible; that's why we call them the Classical culture, they're the epitome of those good values. Plus, some things you omitted challenging because they could not be found in other countries in any form. That is what forms the essence of the modern West, don't you see? All these classical values. That is why I'm writing all this.

The reason we call them the Classical culture is, I would argue, far more closely related to the fact that, not only was our collective historical conciousness (which is a really bad way of putting things) born of this culture, but to be quite honest it was the only culture of that age that the West had any knowledge of (enough to disseminate and interpret their ideas and ideals). The entire library of all discovered works by every other culture in this period, pales in comparison to the collected works of the Greek and Roman cultures. When we first discussed and evaluated the ancient world we were hardly looking at it with the objectivity so praised by the later enlightenment project. Even now we fight against a tide of roman and greek finds to unearth one coin of another culture from this period. I feel that your approach to history is marred by past evaluations, rather than giving full concious effort to removing the prejudices of 2000 years (and these are prejudices, our intellectual upbringing could be nothing but given the history of Christianity against foreign thought).

But that's hardly a fantastic point, and no doubt there shall be counter-argument after counter-argument in defence of your own thought.

However, what I do find rather disturbing is your use of a false dilemma (among other things) in your argument. Namely:

I know. But do you see where I'm coming from, overall? I too don't desire slathering cavemen. But my stand is, if people don't know about one of the people, it's better they don't know about the Germanics than about the Romans. Even if I don't want Germanics to be misrepresented, I prefer Germanics turned into cavemen than Romans turned into cavemen. Don't you see? Because Romans had much more to teach the West than Brennus or Ariovistus did. And that's what this is all about, the continuity of a common Western culture in the West, when education about common classical facts is falling apart at the seams, and highly intelligent mods like EB are instead teaching people about true facts of Germanics and Celts. The priorities are inverted, see? People in EB are like, "oh someone else will teach them about Greece and Rome", while no one else does; and the very leaders of Roman faction in EB believe their own faction to have little good to teach anyway.

In this section you continually state that it is better to know about the Romans than about the Germans (excuse my awful use of the word German to refer to people existing before a German state). I don't think you make it explicit, but I would argue that it is implicit in your argument here, that we can have either the Romans represented properly or the Germans represented properly, but not both.

Furthermore, in the same section quoted above you attack our presentation of the Romans and Greeks as not teaching anything about these two cultures. Well certainly our focus is not on any one people or faction, but I can tell you for a fact that the Roman and Hellenic factions have more active members and more EB space (equally text and resources etc) individually than any other faction.

In a final addition you seem to imply that we are indeed representing false facts about the Roman and Greek cultures, possibly in an attempt to "big up" the "barbarian" factions. If you want to argue individual facts about Roman and Greek factions within this time period, I'm sure we will only be too happy to discuss (as long as you don't ask about lorica segmentata). But just because your intepretative faculties, impressed as they are with a certain philosophical view, have evaluated the Romans and Greeks in a certain way, does not make our own facts about them false.

Finally, we are making a game about history in its many myriad forms, we are not trying to teach the intellectual, moral and aesthetic history of western culture.

Foot

keravnos

08-08-2007, 20:57

OK, signifier, let me say this LOUD AND CLEAR...

We at EB, however proud we may be of certain qualities of the factions we each are trying to make in as realistic way as we can...

We have NO illusions. We don't consider them divinely "touched", and we certainly wouldn't like to make them all-dominating, even if they did dominate all.

Had Alexander the Great died in battle either up to or in Gaugamela would any of the Hellenistic factions exist? Nope.

Had Caesar or a great many of the Romani not done anything significant wouldn't the Republic still reign supreme? Quite possibly. I am not the one to diminish such men but what the man you are trying to belittle is saying, is that the Romani by having such organisation, ruggedness, bloodiness and just picking up the pieces of the others' infighting, they became lords and masters of their empire.

I for one AM MUCH MORE IN FAVOR of someone who doesn't portray the Romani as SUPERMEN, but as a people who despite their many, many faults, PREVAILED. This is what happened in history, this is what happens here, or at least this is what we try to portray.

dezzerx

08-08-2007, 21:03

OK, signifier, let me say this LOUD AND CLEAR...

We at EB, however proud we may be of certain qualities of the factions we each are trying to make in as realistic way as we can...

We have NO illusions. We don't consider them divinely "touched", and we certainly wouldn't like to make them all-dominating, even if they did dominate all.

Had Alexander the Great died in battle either up to or in Gaugamela would any of the Hellenistic factions exist? Nope.

Had Caesar or a great many of the Romani not done anything significant wouldn't the Republic still reign supreme? Quite possibly. I am not the one to diminish such men but what the man you are trying to belittle is saying, is that the Romani by having such organisation, bloodiness and just picking up the pieces of the others' infighting, they became lords and masters of their empire.

I for one AM MUCH MORE IN FAVOR of someone who doesn't portray the Romani as SUPERMEN, but as a people who despite their many, many faults, PREVAILED. This is what happened in history, this is what happens here, or at least this is what we try to portray.

With fear of coming off as a fanboy of sort I must say, Well Spoken!

The Persian Cataphract

08-08-2007, 22:23

Persian Cataphract, thank you for an informative and reserved post. Allow me to take some time to read what you'd posted and get back to you. For now, let me just say that the explicit formalization of grammar I had in mind was different from what you'd posted. I had in mind something like Varro's Lingua Latina:

Only my pleasure.

You will however not find any written corpus that has sustained from Sassanian, let alone Parthian era that extensively deals with grammar, or any other extensive analysis of the language. However implications are many that speak for such enterprises (With intended plural emphasis). The aforementioned Pâzhênd-movement must have required a significant corpus of literati, and a great understandinging of many different languages in order to "filter" foreign elements and to deliberately "Iranicize" the language. In fact beyond how easily we are able to track the development of the Iranian core language in the four great dynasties of the Iranian empires, our most important factor to how the scribe culture of Ancient Iran had a lasting legacy is perhaps not surprisingly the Shâhnâmêh or the national epic of Iran, written by Ferdôwsî of Tûs.

This was during an age where Iran had endured a huge cultural calamity directly caused by the Islamic onslaught; Oral tradition remained strong enough and fragments must have been plentiful for Ferdôwsî had a special endeavour with his magnum opus: To restore the Iranian language and to cleanse it from Arabic elements, a goal he accomplished with honours. In fact, it is not audacious to even claim that the Shâhnâmê is the very incarnation of the basis behind the modern Persian language spoken today. This is what we call the Pârsî language. Today Iranians do not quite speak it, the language has declined lately by having a disproportionate ratio of Arabic loanwords, however it is clear that the entire grammar-system finds inspiration from the narrative of the Shâhnâmêh. That work alone has a macro-historical importance to everything that pertains to Iranian languages, and without it Iranians may verily well have been stuck with the language of the occupying force and creed.

So I ask you to have these factors in mind; Just because no corpus of literati specifically dedicated to grammar has survived, does not necessarily mean that a culture that bolstered science, the arts and clearly through caste-dedication, written works had no system or lingual frame-work. Clearly, with all indications and historical factors, we'd normally conclude the contrary, and at the same time assess the gravity of damage caused to Iranian culture by the hands of certain transgressor. We speak of a language with more than 800 years of prolific usage. Without any written basis, maintaining a language of such size (In all possible meanings and definitions) for a single century is a challenge; Transition between Parthians and Sassanians was relatively smooth. The answer? Your initial postulate seems unlikely, mildly put.

tk-421

08-08-2007, 22:34

Post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1626630#post1626630). Can he be expected to participate in a Roman faction and infuse into it all of the respect and admiration that, say, Petrarch would? Even if the sub-team might spend a lot of time researching cognomens, or making a sophisticated trait system of ethnicity. See my reference to Nazi Germany and somebody spending compendious amounts of time to research the Waffen SS and the Hitlerjungend. This person then continues with another post of brilliance: click (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1626749#post1626749).

You have already made clear that you disagree with the opinions of some of our members. But what exactly do you find wrong with their depiction in game? Which descriptions are historically incorrect? What traits and ethnicities are wrong? What's wrong with their UIs and and artwork etc? If you don't have specific examples of what is wrong with their portrayal in game, then basically what it seems like you are saying (even if you are not) is "EB depicts the Romans accuarately, but because I disagree with some developers' opinions of rather abstract philosophical ideas regarding the value of Roman culture and whatnot, EB is wrong in its depiction of the Romans."

Shigawire

08-08-2007, 23:28

Indeed, it is this vagueness which suicides your argument SigniferOne. You need to point to something in particular. For example, you still haven't pointed out to me personally what I said that was "anti-Western."
I'd be curious to know.

Zaknafien

08-09-2007, 00:14

I take alot of pride and happiness from my ability to teach people about Rome from my work in EB. I take offense to your statements, Signifer. The Roman faction workgroup is probably the most active of all our factions on the internal boards, and you can ask any EB member about how often I pester them with new ideas and features for the Roman faction.

oudysseos

08-09-2007, 09:29

SigniferOne, I regret the confrontational tone of my posts. I get carried away.

I was reacting to what I found to be serious errors of fact, arising, as I presumed, from willfull ignorance. I should not have been so quick to call you an eejit. I apologise.
I still find your argument to be founded on false premises, poor reasoning and serious errors of fact, but the biggest problem is that you explicitly accuse the EB project of being anti-western, yet have still to give one concrete example how the mod itself functions in that way.
I don't mean posts from Happy Cannae Day (say the last 2 words together quickly, eh?) as many of these come from people who are not members of the mod team. Are the devs responsible for the opinions of the people playing the mod? How, precisely and exactly, is the mod itself anti-roman or anti-greek?

Tellos Athenaios

08-09-2007, 21:25

Let's not make a hyperbolic argument shall we? Herodotus doesn't attribute "much of greek culture and science" to oriental origins. He says the Babylonians had an astrolabe. The facts are that some of Eratosthenes' calculations were an improvement over old Babylonian observations. Herodotus doesn't say the drama came from the orient, it came from Aeschylus. He doesn't say history came from the orient; it came from Hellanicus. He doesn't say poetry came from the orient; it came from Homer. He doesn't say the Greek polis came from the orient; he says how the Greek polis defeated the orient. As you can see, I am no dolt; please produce a more intellectually sound response in the future, especially since I have not attacked you even once. As you might know, that is called ad hominem and is a logical fallacy, recommended for avoidance in the future.

Hyperbolic? Hmm, might have to look it up for you but if anything becomes clear from Herodotos then it is his acknowledgement of foreign development - he even explains why in his opinion the Greeks had copied their entire Pantheon from Egytian examples. That is a rather large chunk of culture.

Also he specifically mentions the handles on shields being a foreign invention, IIRC a Lydian one to be precise. Also he attributes astrology & astronomy to Babylonians. IIRC he claims that they were the first to accurately measure time and date, and to incorporate it all into calendars.

While he certainly doesn't claim that all science comes from Greece, he certainly gives his audience the impression that Greek science is to a large extent based on "Barbarian" science. A rather audacious move, given the recently acquired bad blood between Greeks & Not-Greeks.

It is equally true, however, that in his vision other peoples often copied Greek inventions / designs and did some further thinkering with them.

As for history: according to Herodotos you best sources would be the local priesthood. He certainly doesn't claim that Hellenikos invented any such thing - anyone with even the slightest amount of education would've known better than that. Temples and Courts, that is where they expected to find sources on history.

Based on your last remark I think you either know jack of Herodotos' Historia or have a woefully wrong conception of the content of the books. He himself explicitly state what he is going to describe in his book in just one sentence - the very first one he makes.

Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι.

Quick, raw translation:

[This is] the record of the research by Herodotos from Halikarnassos, in order that the [following] events [will] not become forgotten among people[s] because of [passing] time, and that the great and wonderous deeds perfomed among Greeks [on one side] and among Barbarians [on the other side] [will] not become unknown of either and especially the reasons why they [have] waged war against eachother.

Now one simply can't summarise his work any better than that. For those three topics are precisely the thing he discusses. He doesn't describe "how the Greeks won, and the Persians lost" - in fact that is how he describes the rise to power of Persia. "How did the Persians win, and how did everyone else lose." Read his 'chapter' on the war between Kyros and Kroissos for example, or read about the sieges of Babylon by the Persians.

Quite frankly you may point out that oudysseos isn't correct - eventhough one could have quite an argument over that statement - but you, yourself SigniferOne show an even more worrisome lack of knowledge of what you're talking about. (And with that I mean Herodotos' "Historia")

oudysseos

08-10-2007, 00:11

Although I was willing to admit that I was a little quick off the draw, attitude wise, with Signifer, and also guilty of a (very) little hyperbole in relation to the influence of Persian/Arabic/Moorish scholars on the renaissance, I am pretty confident that Herodotus was very candid about the many cultural, religious and scientific debts that the Greeks of his day thought they owed to others. Whether or not he was actually right is another issue. Here's a few quotes.

Book 2 ca. line 109

...This was the way in which geometry was invented, and passed afterwards into Greece- for knowledge of the sundial and the gnomon and the twelve divisions of the day came into Greece from Babylon

Book 2 ca. line 58

It was the Egyptians too who originated, and taught the Greeks to use ceremonial meetings, processions, and processional offerings.

Book 2 ca. line 49

Melampus, in my view, was an able man who acquired the art of divination and brought into Greece, with little change, a number of things which he had learned in Egypt... The names of nearly all the gods came to Greece from Egypt...

There's lots more but I think ye get my drift. Herodotus is not the only weak link in Signifer's chain so I don't want to spend all night on just that.

Not that I or Herodotus or anyone reasonable would ever claim that "The Greeks" (a worrisome generalization as it is) didn't develop and advance some of scientific and/or cultural memes (you might want to look up memes- but it's not an order) that they thought were good and useful, just as al-Kwarizmi, ibn Rushd and ibn Sina did, and just as the renaissance translators and scholars did, and just as we (at least, scientists and academics- I'm just a chef and parttime musician) do today.
That, in my view, is what makes it so silly to try and set 'westernism' apart based on characteristics with multiple contributions from many sources. Science is the child of many parents, and not exclusively western ones, and the same applies to medicine, architecture, engineering, sculpture, grammar, oratory, ethics, and everything else.
Why is so important to you to claim these things solely for the west? The achievements of Greece and Rome are substantial enough without this kind of thing, and an attempt (such as EB) to make people aware of the cultures of the non-Roman contemporaries of Scipio in no way detracts from Graeco-Roman preeminence at the time. Nothing can, as it's all history and has already happened.

The shelves of Waterstones are filled with popular books on Greece and Rome- more than a single person could reasonably ever expect to read. What do you care if there's one or two on the Persians? How is anyone harmed?

Finally, I intend to put my thoughts together in relation to your statements about music and painting, as I find them quite disturbing.
But I have to ask, isn't calling polytonal music 'The supreme achievement' a purely subjective expression of your musical tastes? Schoenberg, Webern, Bartok, Copland, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Ornette Coleman and John Coltrnae might disagree with you. Oh, and by the way, 'polytonality' is the use of more than one key simultaneously, and is not particularly common, so that's probably not exactly what you meant. You probably meant polyphony. It may sound pedantic, but if you're a musician (I am, semi-professionally) that's a pretty big mistake to make.

Gotta go. The kids wanna play EB, not talk about it.

geala

08-10-2007, 11:43

After reading the thread and the related threads it still remains a mystery to me what should be changed in EB. I would be with you if you would want to change some Greek units :beam: but in the whole I am stumped. Because this feeling of helplessness I allow myself a not so systematic approach in the following thoughts.

It also remains a mystery why you are insulted when the feats of other cultures are mentioned. The Romans themselves were always able and willing to take from other cultures. They took a lot from the Greeks who took a lot from the east. For example the Roman law is influenced by the Rhodian law. They took from the western "barbarians" also, f.e. agrarian machines or iron working etc..

I question myself what western culture you want to defend? The current one? If you name the Germanic culture anti-western, what western culture is in your mind? Of course the Germanic culture is anti-western if the modern western system is your focus. But the Roman culture in this sense is also anti-western in many aspects. Think of the human rights for example. Is it allowed to the EB team to mention gladiatorical games? Should they mention that the broad introduction of Roman law in the 13th c. AD was the starting point for inquisitional inquiries and torture also? Together of course with the ability to judge more complicated cases and to serve the growing power of the state.

In my opinion the most important Roman heritage to the western world is the idea of a state ruled by a law made by specialists. That is a rather boring fact, but with many surprising aftereffects. Many other aspects came from a Greek, Christian and Jewish (so eastern) tradition. Wether they were (late) Roman or not is debatable. And after the fall of the empire a lot of new "barbarian" influences were added to the western culture. Otherwise try to explain the quite different evolution of the areas once in the Roman empire.

oudysseos

08-10-2007, 12:39

To me, the most important defining feature of western culture is the corpus of literature, art and music, sometimes called the Canon, or the Great Books. Mostly Dead White Guys, I'm afraid.
Of course, other cultures have their own collections of lit, so it's not the existence of literature in general that define the west, but this specific example.
Every culture, by definition, has social norms, ethical values and traditional customs that differentiate it from others. This is hardly surprising. But it's a bit weird to claim that grammar (just for one example) is a unique contribution of Graeco-Roman culture to human history. A brief study of Sanskrit knocks that one on the head- the Greeks neither invented grammar nor were its greatest exemplars (although we use their word for it).
But of course Greek/Roman grammar had great influence on the world's second most successful language, the otherwise largely germanic English. And the Roman alphabet (though totally semitic in origin) is probably the world's most prevalent (tho I don't have any figures to back this up). Of course the reasons why these things are true are seriously open to debate and might not be anything to be proud of.

mcantu

08-10-2007, 14:15

The Celt

08-13-2007, 02:08

If I take his comments correctly, he is not saying there is a problem with EB's representation of the Romans in the game...he is criticizing what he feels are dismissive comments by EB team members (some the Romanii team) towards the Romans, IMO
That and he doesn't like the fact that the Celtic and Germanic cultures(Awell as the Nomads, Iberians and the Getai)are being treated like actual human cultures rather than Roman inspired "Drooling Cavemen Whose Women We Are Free To Take". He even states that he'd prefer these so-called "Barbarians" be depicted as they are in Vanilla RTW then have the Romani get a similar treatment.(Which nobody sofar in the EB Team has made any sign of wanting to do!)

So sorry the Celts aren't the cowering mass of wussies you enjoyed slaughtering so much in RTW Siggy. :oops: This isn't the first time you've made outrageous claims on the Romans. And to you I say what I said to you at TWC:
IT IS JUST A BLOODY VIDEO GAME!
So what is so wrong about how EB and other mods depict the Gauls, Sweboz, Lusotanann, Getai, Casse, Gaels, and whatnot? What is it about how they show these peoples that upsets you? Since apparently there is nothing wrong with the Romans ATM. Or was it how they are discussed by the members of these boards that gets you riled up? Well sorry dude we ain't your Mommy we aren't gonna censor what we say so you can be happy and content.:yes: Also, like I said, were talking about a video game in the end here.:laugh4:
It's meant for entertainment rather than education.(Though EB does tend to do that on the side thankfully)And even then if you've got a problem with the fact that other people have different views then you do, then guess what? Your not going to believe this! But Everybody has a right to their opinion. Now, knowing you Siggy, you'll probably tell me that said opinions concerning Celts and Germans are wrong and should be stamped out of known memory. Well sure, fine, whatever, but don't expect all those archaeologists breaking their backs to prove the opposite to stand by you in your holy crusade for "Western Culture".

And lastly. If your going to get so worked up over how a bunch of guys you don't even know personally, depict cultures from way back when in a video game. Then I suggest you go see a bloody therapist.(Though make sure you see the right one. I can safely say that some of them might make your current "condition" worse.:smash: ) Because like I said, there isn't anything you can do about it.

That is all I'm gonna say in this topic. Flame me as you will. But I won't respond at all. As I have other things to do with my very precious time on this great green earth. Like you know, School, life, playing EB(:clown: ). See ya'll later.:2thumbsup:

Oh and one last thing "Quisque Est Barbarus Alio"

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

08-13-2007, 02:12

That was overly aggressive...

And watch the language.

The Celt

08-13-2007, 04:21

That was overly aggressive...

And watch the language.
*sigh* Alright, I may have gone of the handle with my phrasing. I'll edit it. But if you think that was "overly aggressive" well, to each their own.

Rundownloser

08-13-2007, 04:49

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/internet-argument-lose.php :laugh4:

The Persian Cataphract

08-13-2007, 15:20

When we thought the discussion was standing still, we find subjective absurdities such as this.

Well look, we're not comparing Rome to China, since that's not the context for this thread or for the mod. Heck we're not even comparing it to Armenia or Persia, though it could easily sustain that comparison.

Explain this. "Persia" as a whole, or more accurately the Greater Iran may not have had the great impact on general European culture like the Graeco-Romans, indeed, no man claims the contrary lest he be a fool. Nor do any of us in the team propagate for cultural relativism, but I'd say that given the miraculous survival of unsupported barrel vaults, the revolutionary application of a dome and other architectural feats, including giant citadels, circumvallation and castles of such impressive architectural qualities as the Dêzhbâr and the Arg-î Bam, the Hyrcanian defensive wall, and the peculiar Parthian battery... You must be joking me if you think Rome could "easily sustain comparison" with Persia. Even in spite of Islamic and Classicist attempts of downplaying the achievements and culture of Êrânshahr as an age and area of ignorants and barbarians, you will lose. Trajan's attempt at conquering Parthia is nothing compared to the crisis of the Byzantine empire when Shahrbarâz and Shâhîn of the Sûrên-Pahlavân had made themselves comfortable enough to sit firmly in Chalcedon, reaching as far as the backyard of Carthage. My enemies will not only lose, but their schools of thought will be crushed, and I will make sure of it.

I have not assumed the title Marzbân-î Jundîshâpûr for the sake of my own amusement.

Andronikos

08-13-2007, 20:04

Present European culture is based on ancient greek and roman culture, christianity and even on cultures of Celts, Germans and Slavs. (And on other ideas like enlightment, democracy...) So when somebody says that he is proud of being European (or westerner) he says that he is proud of heritage of all these cultures (perhaps westerner does not have so much with Slavs but let it be).

Imperator

08-13-2007, 21:37

Off topic:
If you don't mind my asking, what exactly does "Marzbân-î Jundîshâpûr" mean?

On topic:
First of all, despite my admiration for, and agreement with, many institutions and ideas that originated and existed in Graeco-Roman culture I don't think they alone constitute "Western Culture". "Western" is a modern term anyway, as in "The Western Powers" meaning Europe and (sometimes) the US. Nor would I go so far in my praise of Graeco-Romanism as to say that it excelled all other cultures in...well, everything. (Although I am something of an anti-cultural comparatist anyway.)
If a few EB fans or team members are bothering you with their cruel glee at the birthdays of Roman defeats, just remember this: the only reason they celebrate is because the Romans had a nasty habit of winning, and kept it up for a long time. Take it in the spirit it's intended. We all know the Romans were tough enough to subjagate and control much of the ancient world, so don't feel like a few jokes or uncomplimentary remarks are a sign of widespread anti-Romanism or Hellenism.
And if there is some problem with how anyone is portrayed, feel free to speak up, but I think the EB team has done the best job of any at maintaining a fair, scholarly attitude towards all factions.

Really, I don't understand what part of EB you object to. If you're happy debating the merits and nature of Graeco-Romanism, just say so (clearly there are many here who are happy to oblige).

The Persian Cataphract

08-13-2007, 22:56

Off topic:
If you don't mind my asking, what exactly does "Marzbân-î Jundîshâpûr" mean?

It means "Frontier marshal of Jundîshâpûr". It is a title I have assumed based on my ethnic origins, as well as Jundîshâpûr was the greatest academy-city of Êrânshahr, dignified by Chosroës I "The Immortal Soul". With this title, I have sworn to defend my heritage against enemies who seek to destroy it; Whether they be defenders of Islam who claim the heritage to be an age of ignorance, decadence and cultural squalor, or Eurocentric Classicists who dismiss the Iranian East as a den of ignorance, cruelty and barbarity. Forgive me for putting this bluntly, but my background is not a public matter. Only then could one truly understand the implications of the title, a different matter than some random kid putting something impressive for pretentious ends.

The Celt

08-13-2007, 23:43

It means "Frontier marshal of Jundîshâpûr". It is a title I have assumed based on my ethnic origins, as well as Jundîshâpûr was the greatest academy-city of Êrânshahr, dignified by Chosroës I "The Immortal Soul". With this title, I have sworn to defend my heritage against enemies who seek to destroy it; Whether they be defenders of Islam who claim the heritage to be an age of ignorance, decadence and cultural squalor, or Eurocentric Classicists who dismiss the Iranian East as a den of ignorance, cruelty and barbarity. Forgive me for putting this bluntly, but my background is not a public matter. Only then could one truly understand the implications of the title, a different matter than some random kid putting something impressive for pretentious ends.
Oh I get it! It's like if I put "Ranger of the Indian Frontier" on my title.(You'd only get it if your from Texas) :idea2: Very cool PC!
As for western ignorance. Yes, its always been something that gets under my skin. What really gets me, is when all these dumb kids say they're into "Asian" things, when really all they did was watch some Jackie Chan and Japanese Anime! It's really annoying when these kids show up at my Karate school.(Apparently because their "interested" in these "Ancient" martial Arts)And then they just stand around looking bored doing all the moves and forms sloppy and not paying attention to what the Black-Belts are saying! But after class they're all like "OMG Inuyasha Rocks! Final Fantasy 7 is teh awesome!" And then, if I mention something about Western or Central Asians(Take, for example, Persia/Iran.)and they reply thusly "oh yeah, those are the terrorists right? Bombed the towers? Speak Arabic ride camels?". And I of course just smile and nod.:no:

Sorry for the topic hijack(PC started it!) Maybe we can split this thread?:smash:

EasternScourge

08-14-2007, 01:13

Oh I get it! It's like if I put "Ranger of the Indian Frontier" on my title.(You'd only get it if your from Texas) :idea2: Very cool PC!
As for western ignorance. Yes, its always been something that gets under my skin. What really gets me, is when all these dumb kids say they're into "Asian" things, when really all they did was watch some Jackie Chan and Japanese Anime! It's really annoying when these kids show up at my Karate school.(Apparently because their "interested" in these "Ancient" martial Arts)And then they just stand around looking bored doing all the moves and forms sloppy and not paying attention to what the Black-Belts are saying! But after class they're all like "OMG Inuyasha Rocks! Final Fantasy 7 is teh awesome!" And then, if I mention something about Western or Central Asians(Take, for example, Persia/Iran.)and they reply thusly "oh yeah, those are the terrorists right? Bombed the towers? Speak Arabic ride camels?". And I of course just smile and nod.:no:

Sorry for the topic hijack(PC started it!) Maybe we can split this thread?:smash:
I'm sad to say I have a brother like that (except the karate and Final Fantasy part).He claims he loves "Japan",but all he really likes is Japanese Anime and such.Seeing that he loved it so much I asked him who the Tokugawa were.He just stood there clueless. I then went and explained to him that the Tokugawa clan was the clan that,during the feudal era Japan, eventually won out and became the shoguns (who were rulers in all but name I believe) of Japan.That was just a very broad and general explanation of it,but someone who clamied he loved Japan should have known that.

As for the views of Central and Western Asia,even though I am in no way as knowledgeable about as most of you,I know they aren't all ruthless barbarians and terrorists (only a small few were/are).They had some of the most cultured civilizations I know of (like the Persians,Arabians,India,and even the Mongols).And with such a cultured and quite noble background (I do know they weren't perfect,but no civilization is),people will have the nerve to just make broad statements such as "Islam is violent" or think all Asians are like the ninjas or martial artists in the movies.

Ignorance is poison to the mind and society.

Note:If any information is wrong in that post,please tell me.

The Celt

08-14-2007, 02:59

I'm sad to say I have a brother like that (except the karate and Final Fantasy part).He claims he loves "Japan",but all he really likes is Japanese Anime and such.Seeing that he loved it so much I asked him who the Tokugawa were.He just stood there clueless. I then went and explained to him that the Tokugawa clan was the clan that,during the feudal era Japan, eventually won out and became the shoguns (who were rulers in all but name I believe) of Japan.That was just a very broad and general explanation of it,but someone who clamied he loved Japan should have known that.

Yeah thats exactly what happened to me with my ex-girlfriend. We were talking about Haiku since she was, like your brother, loving Japan! So I started mentioning how Persian poetry has it's similarities to Haiku and how some cultural exchanges had been made between both cultures over time.(Not quite as detailed as that but you know.)Then of course I explained the Arab conquest and how Persia would be devastated for centuries. Her response? "Well....what does that have to do with Haiku?"........Ermmmm we stopped talking about Haiku....:inquisitive: I'll bet she doesn't know who Oda Nobunaga or the Imjin(sp?)wars are either...:shame: (Ofcourse, this is the same chick who states that most Asian people are short...)

PS:Again, anything wrong with this posts statements should be noted to the author.