Thread: Rome before Christianity

Originally Posted by snapper

OK... The main objection seems to be whether religion is culture. Certainly for srtict Muslims it is. It dictates every part of their life and sometimes deaths. I am a Catholic and to a lesser extent my religion is part of me... I go to Church at least once a week and confess, I disagree with abortion, I don't need halal meat to enjoy supper etc etc. In a country where the overwhelming majority are Christian this becomes a culture very different from a country where 97% are Muslims; it shapes the laws and the frames the potential choices.

1) I know muslims who rarely attend mosque & don't eat halal, so your personal example is fraying a bit.
2) You are, by the standards the church would ideally enforce, a bad catholic. As recently as my grandparents adult life (and in some places it is still current) the church made dramatically greater demands of its flock with the expectation they would be obeyed & the preparedness to use some pretty nasty tactics to get there. I sincerely hope you are not reading your current version of catholicism back into pre-medieval times.

Certainly the British colonists in Australia forced aboriginal adoption in the 1950s but this was not an 'imperialist plan', merely a misguided attempt at homogenisation; 'education is profitable' etc.

I don't have the time or resources currently to correct all the mistakes & misguided assumptions that underpin your use of Australia as an example. You clearly didn't understand my reference even slightly (everything I mentioned was taking place in the 19th century & had little to do with the forced adoption policies of another century). Can I politely suggest you change examples to something you are better informed about. Whatever point you are trying to make this example is undermining it. Colonial authorities actively assisted in the religious indoctrination of indigenous Australians.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

The British did not always force (or 'persuade') people to convert, but not always isn't the same thing as not ever. In Australia people acting with either the authority or encouragement of the state did most definately convert aborigines under conditions I would equate to force -compelling them to live on church run missions & attend church schools which usually worked hard to strip them of their cultures & languages (religion included). I'm pretty sure similar things happened in canada. I would also be prepared to bet that similar things happened in other parts of the empire to varying extents.

To add to that, the last heir of the Sikh kingdom, Maharaja Duleep Singh was exiled to England at the age of 13 after the British annexed Punjab and converted to Christianity. In later years, he would re-convert into Sikhism but the British empire refused to recognize his conversion (for fear he would inspire a Sikh rebellion in Punjab against the British) and gave the man a Christian burial after his death.

Gents,exceptions aren't the rule.There was a certain evangelical zeal in the 19th century,as the empire expanded and the state could not have escaped this influence.But that's beyond the scope of the argument.No native religion was destroyed in the British Empire,not it was persecuted per se,IIRC.However,certain religious practices were not accepted,such as human sacrifices,slavery and the likes.If that's forcing Christianity onto other cultures so be it.
Spanish America was different to a certain extent(although many practices survived,or made their way into local version of Christianity),but if someone tells me he would have liked being next in line to Huitzilipochtli's altar,he's my guest .

Originally Posted by Mihais

No native religion was destroyed in the British Empire,not it was persecuted per se,IIRC.

Largely true for the Brits, not for the Portuguese or Spaniards however.

Yep.The question is if you would allow some practices and cultures to exist?There may be detractors of Christianity,but many of those are complete ignorants as to what it does and what it replaced.
With the risk of repeating myself,who's next in line to Huitzilipochtli's altar?The Indians of course can find their own native horror stories.You guys manage to turn everything into something related to India.Love you for this.

Originally Posted by Mihais

Yep.The question is if you would allow some practices and cultures to exist?T

A monotheistic religion was no impediment to the creation of a super state wrt to the Portguese, Spanish & Arabs.

Originally Posted by snapper

OK... The main objection seems to be whether religion is culture. Certainly for srtict Muslims it is. It dictates every part of their life and sometimes deaths.

So why have the numerous arab countries then ?

Arabs were arab before they were muslim.

Culture trumps everything.

Originally Posted by snapper

In a country where the overwhelming majority are Christian this becomes a culture very different from a country where 97% are Muslims; it shapes the laws and the frames the potential choices.

Still think this is a function of individual countries culture over anything else.

Think about Brits & Americans, both speak the same language or close enough, are they the same ? heh, no.

Culture dictates what/how you speak, how you dress, what/how you eat & drink. Religion makes up a much smaller part in comparison.

Originally Posted by Mihais

For eample,if you dig deep enough,the cultural clash between Islam and Christianity is nothing but the continuation of the ancient clashes between East and West.Greece vs Persia,Rome vs. Carthage,Rome vs. Parthia&Persia(once again) .

Culture again.

This one is very deep, Miahais, not heard it mentioned this way before.

Sam Huntington ?

Islam came off second best to Christianity when its spread dropped short of and failed to control the launch pads for trans-oceanic voyage and discovery and conquest and trade on the West.

And on the East it met and melted into India.

And so Islam got land-locked. I believe that Spain was the tipping point in that medieval war of harvest of the souls of Earth.

Don't think you ever put it in those terms. The fight over Islam has been the fight over the middle east and its wealth and if you look at the conquerors involved, then it is not a case of Islam spreading but the Peoples of the Steppes (Turkic and Mongols) spreading from their poor lands into rich areas.

In which case, why would a Turk army spread pass golden Baghdad to the mud huts of Poland?

Originally Posted by Double Edge

A monotheistic religion was no impediment to the creation of a super state wrt to the Portguese, Spanish & Arabs.

Never said it was.I only said that in certain contexts the pragmatic reasons aren't the primary reasons.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

So why have the numerous arab countries then ?

Arabs were arab before they were muslim.

Culture trumps everything.

Egyptians weren't Arabs before.Libyans,Algerians and the rest of NA weren't either.
Mid East has periods when it's divided and periods when it's united.Shall I remind the current shape is the result of Europeans dividing the last unifier,the Ottoman empire and taking the spoils.Things move in cycles.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Still think this is a function of individual countries culture over anything else.

Think about Brits & Americans, both speak the same language or close enough, are they the same ? heh, no.

Culture dictates what/how you speak, how you dress, what/how you eat & drink. Religion makes up a much smaller part in comparison.

Culture first and foremost tells you how to think and what to feel.You're in effect reducing the human being at the stage of an animal,if all you could find is eating and drinking.Btw and a bit off-topic.I often heard chaps,either in direct conversations or in the media telling how great multiculti is.They could find so many types of exotic food right at the corner,you know what I'm sayin'
Well,the Ottomans were the middlemen in introducing potatoes,corn,tomatoes,tobacco,coffee,chocolate.Th e Americans invented the blue jeans and Picatinny rails for rifles.I use all of the above,less tobacco and coffee.I'm neither Turk,nor American and Aztec even less.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

This one is very deep, Miahais, not heard it mentioned this way before.

Sam Huntington ?

Nope.Me when I was a even younger than now.When I grew older I found some 19th century scholasr made the comparisson before.Dead bastards don't let me have an original thought.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Don't think you ever put it in those terms. The fight over Islam has been the fight over the middle east and its wealth and if you look at the conquerors involved, then it is not a case of Islam spreading but the Peoples of the Steppes (Turkic and Mongols) spreading from their poor lands into rich areas.

In which case, why would a Turk army spread pass golden Baghdad to the mud huts of Poland?

And before those the Scythians and the Persians/Parthians getting the wealth of Babylon.Same game.

Originally Posted by Mihais

Shall I remind the current shape is the result of Europeans dividing the last unifier,the Ottoman empire and taking the spoils.

The counter to colonialism or empires is nationalism. You could say the colonials divided up the countires but its the nationalists that kept it that way. Nationalism was the idea missing in antiquity. This idea of Imagined communities

Originally Posted by Mihais

Things move in cycles.

What is the counter to nationalism ? multi-culturalism ? something else ?

It seems you leave open the chance of empires forming again. That boundaries can be dissolved if a suitable pretext is found.

Originally Posted by Mihais

Culture first and foremost tells you how to think and what to feel.

Was trying to stay away from the thinking bit because then its generalising the whole group. There's limits here. Wanting a unique state to call their own would be an example of the majority thinking in the same way. Going beyond that is tricky.

Originally Posted by Mihais

You're in effect reducing the human being at the stage of an animal,if all you could find is eating and drinking.

Language, arts & literature would be primary but eating & drinking is more accessible.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Don't think you ever put it in those terms. The fight over Islam has been the fight over the middle east and its wealth and if you look at the conquerors involved, then it is not a case of Islam spreading but the Peoples of the Steppes (Turkic and Mongols) spreading from their poor lands into rich areas.

In which case, why would a Turk army spread pass golden Baghdad to the mud huts of Poland?

I think a combination of short term vision, opulence and greed dulling the hard yards called for by universal Jihad.

Added to the fact that they made the fundamental navigational error of looking East. They would have had way better (and more complete) a chance of taking on the mud huts and caves of Europe.

And the world would probably have looked a lot different today. Though to be fair the Ottomans did reach as far as Spain at their peak. Though too little too late. The centurial window of opportunity had passed.

They had no choice but to look East. Their enemies were coming from the East.

Originally Posted by vsdoc

Added to the fact that they made the fundamental navigational error of looking East. They would have had way better (and more complete) a chance of taking on the mud huts and caves of Europe.

not because lack of trying.

Originally Posted by vsdoc

And the world would probably have looked a lot different today. Though to be fair the Ottomans did reach as far as Spain at their peak. Though too little too late. The centurial window of opportunity had passed.

to be fair ottomans did not existed in the 8th century.