What did the MA achieve?

[Tronscend]

Good Ladies and Sirs,

Spurred by a Milman question ....

Positing the MA as a historical "black box"
(Input/output known, "computation" not known)
what are the differences one can in a quick bonmot
at a cocktail party, describe as the outcome of the MA
when benchmarking at 525/fall of all antiquity,
compared to emerging Europe in 1492/1521?

IOW, what are the MA's in one sentence?

MVH,

T

[Erilar]

Anything about the period that could be crammed into a single sentence,
even a long academic German one, is going to be too superficial to be worth
composing.


--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[AlexMilman]

Interesting times (as in "Let you live in the interesting times")

Outcome:

A huge mess.

[Tronscend]

"Erilar" <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> skrev i melding
news:ji2vqp$v9r$1...@dont-email.me...

I could always go for something more extended.

- What has the Middle Ages ever done for us?

- Water power?

- Yes, obviously, of course, water power.
But apart from that, what has the Middle Ages ever done for us?`

- Windmills?

- Horse harnesses?

[Tronscend]

"AlexMilman" <alexm...@msn.com> skrev i melding
news:8cbb952d-64c5-452b...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

--Nah ... didn't the Mess begin in 1618?

T

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:08:20 +0100, "Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no>
wrote:

Canal systems?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Paul F Austin]

The Middle Ages restored political order in Western Europe over
distances greater than a man could ride in one day. There were
exceptions to the distance scale but political integration pretty much
defines the transition from the Middle Ages (extreme political
fragmentation, lots and lots of borders, law changing from county to
county) to the early Modern integrated states. Western Europe went from
Rome- the uber-state, through Dark Ages- the robbers are _always_ at the
door dammit, the Middle Ages- each neighborhood run by the local gang
lord to the Modern era- the capo di tuti capi whips the gangs in line
and many gangsters sleep with the fishes. England got an early start on
whipping the gangs, although the Scots were tough.

Alternatively, you can use William MacNeal's notion (from Plagues and
Peoples) of government as macro-parasites. Using the same trajectory
from the Fall, many different strains of macro-parasites competed to
consume the body politic and gradually, one strain in each major region
out-competed the others.

Paul

[MCGARRY]

>
> - Yes, obviously, of course, water power.
> But apart from that, what has the Middle Ages ever done for us?`

nothing.
We should have gone straight to the Rennaissance.





--
Audio Tour Guide d day Normandy
http://www.normandy-tour-guide.com
Driver guide Normandy
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Colin-McGarry-Normandy-Tour-Guide/191220338034

[Jantero]

There was a re-setting of the economic situation due to the Plague.



>
> MVH,
>
> T
>
>
>

[AlexMilman]

On Feb 23, 12:09 am, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> "AlexMilman" <alexmil...@msn.com> skrev i meldingnews:8cbb952d-64c5-452b...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

It was just a logical result of the earlier mess. Or rather a whole
combination of various messes (can it be plural?) left from the
earlier times. Of course, it can be argued that the Religious Mess was
a post-medieval thing but both in France and in HRE the wars of
religion became possible due to the leftovers of the medieval mess:
weak or absent central power.

Would the Wars of Religion be possible in France of Louis XIV where
descendents of the major 'actors' had been happy to be permitted to be
present at King's shitting? Would The Mess you are referencing to be
possible if an Emperor had a real power in Germany?

[Tiglath]

On Feb 22, 12:01 am, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:

This questions reminds me of my first post in this group back in Jun
99.

"In the History of Knowlege the author mentions that the Middle Ages
were a
time when we experimented with the coupling of church and state, and
theocracy, and it was a failure from which we have learned how
important it
is to separate these two.."

They ate me alive....

This was the first answer....

"Yes, "the coupling of church and state", started under emperor
Constantine in the fourth century AD, was a failure, since it lasted
only into the 19th century (may be until the early years of the
twentieth century), a pitiful 1500 years (without considering the
United
Kingdom, where it still exists ...) "

Looking at it now, I wonder if longevity of an institution is evidence
of great contribution to human happiness.

To be fair that answer (from Tilmann Chladek ) also included:

"No, seriously I would argue that the Soviet system, e.g., was a
failure,
since it lasted 74 years only.
But to argue that the medieval system is a failure is trickier. How do
you measure success? How do you measure failure? How long a system has
to exist in order to be called "successful"? Over 1500 years? Then the
jury is still out for the democratic system, the USA e.g., is only
about
220 years old, much less than the medieval states in Europe. (The
current German constitution is only 50 years old ...) "

I don't like much past 'what-if'' scenarios, but I can't help feeling
that the only reason we are here is that nuclear weapons were not
available to the medieval powers. So on the scale of human
happiness, much of the MA reads like a failure. Ancient times fare
only slightly better, due to the lack of Christianity and Islam, in my
view.

[Tronscend]

"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> skrev i melding
news:5910021c-c694-444a...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 22, 12:01 am, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> Good Ladies and Sirs,
>
> Spurred by a Milman question ....
>
> Positing the MA as a historical "black box"
> (Input/output known, "computation" not known)
> what are the differences one can in a quick bonmot
> at a cocktail party, describe as the outcome of the MA
> when benchmarking at 525/fall of all antiquity,
> compared to emerging Europe in 1492/1521?
>
> IOW, what are the MA's in one sentence?
>
> MVH,
>
> T

This questions reminds me of my first post in this group back in Jun
99.

/...../

They ate me alive....

This was the first answer....

"Yes, "the coupling of church and state", started under emperor
Constantine in the fourth century AD, was a failure, since it lasted
only into the 19th century (may be until the early years of the
twentieth century), a pitiful 1500 years (without considering the
United
Kingdom, where it still exists ...) "

------
- Well, just because a machine works, that doesn't mean that it produces
something good, useful, or even nice. Like, a guillotine.
Yes, the Coupling lasted for two milennia, but, as you say ....:
---

Looking at it now, I wonder if longevity of an institution is evidence
of great contribution to human happiness.

/.../

How do you measure success? How do you measure failure?

---
- Agree with TC there.
But all this goes to valuation.
We usually spool off Bronze Age and Iron Age as the ages dominated by the
technology of bronze and iron; Greeks invented Science and Propa ...
History; Romans built roads and wrote scripts for BBC television series. The
ages of invention and enlightenment saw invention and enlightenment, albeit
on the proto-stage, while it has come down to us to combine the two in the
Modern Consumer Culture.
The MA/DA, however, seem to be classified as a time when the wheels stood
still, or, even worse, when the crank kicked back. Nothing happend (apart
from a lot of events, of course), and so nothing came out of. And then
Luther coughed up the poisoned apple, everyone picked up their hand of cards
and the film resumed.
Truly?

I know, I know, historians don't work that way. Erilar is of course right
(but does that make me wrong?). I did specify cocktail parties, though; does
that mean that the MA are indefensible over margaritas?

I'd like to volunteer for one more knife-throwing act:
Part of the thaumazein stems from the 2 sensible pages in Crichton's
"Timeline", where he lectures on "time provincials": How the MA invented
money, markets, romantic love .... And to some degree a little leftover
Hegel, with his development theme.
I know, I know.
But still.
Truly?
----
... How long a system has to exist in order to be called "successful"? Over

1500 years? Then the jury is still out for the democratic system, the USA
e.g., is only about 220 years old, much less than the medieval states in
Europe. (The current German constitution is only 50 years old ...) "

----
- And agree with you above on this one.
----

I don't like much past 'what-if'' scenarios, but I can't help feeling
that the only reason we are here is that nuclear weapons were not
available to the medieval powers.

---
- Well, in all fairness to the medievals, I could think of a few Sargons
and - no offence (and strictly for-all-I-know) - Tiglaths, perhaps the odd
Kleon, Vandal, Hun, Frank, Pict, in short, most descendants of that Humanoid
Bone-Twirling Richard Strauss fan, whom I'd also rather not trust with the
Football.
---

So on the scale of human happiness, much of the MA reads like a failure.
Ancient times fare only slightly better, due to the lack of Christianity and
Islam, in my view.

---
Lucky for the Aztecs that nobody can be bothered to spell out
Chiconahuiheacatlism, I say. I'm fairly happy that they have no Sacre Coeur
(ah ah ah) Cathedral and World Mission in, say, Flint, Michigan. Nor, for
all that, would any Asatru EDU ("Hangem High") attract much support from
me. (Although ... imagine how great the movies about _those guys'_
theological schisms would be ... Kodak would run out of red ...).

What is your scale of human happiness?
Help and harm not? Maslow? According to need and ability?
Something in Hedonist? Or more Frankl, my dear, I give a damn?

T

[Tronscend]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
news:02ubk7doene42lrkv...@4ax.com...

Yes, obviously, of course.
But apart from that?

T

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:55:38 +0100, "Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no>
wrote:

Well, that was quite significant.

The early canal systems were not much more than improved navigation on
rivers as a result of construction of weirs etc but they did
facilitate the transport of goods away from the coasts. Prior to that
the transport of most goods over long distances required that they be
carried by packhorse. Wagons could be used only on some routes and
these tended to be impassable in the winter. The role of improved
transport in the development of commerce and general well-being is
frequently overlooked.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Tronscend]

"MCGARRY" <webma...@cpmac.com> skrev i melding
news:4f4a28b3$0$21492$ba4a...@reader.news.orange.fr...

> >
>> - Yes, obviously, of course, water power.
>> But apart from that, what has the Middle Ages ever done for us?`
>
> nothing.
> We should have gone straight to the Rennaissance.

Well, my version of "Civilization II" did not include "Get Out Of The Middle
Ages For Free" card.

But if ....
Is there any time where you could match a late Roman year with a more or
less seamless transition year sometime between, say 1400 and .... 1550? Or
could one go from the year of four emperors to the Italian Cities campaigns
of the Renaissance? From Marcus Aurelius to ... to .... Bavarius ille?
Wenzel the Lazy? Sigismund of Luxemburg? Or here?:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/HRR_1400.png

With figures such as Stilicho, Ricimer, Gundobad, Odoacer ...
... the similarity between Italo-German rulers of the 5th Century CE and
those of the 12th and 13th Century BE is .... pretty misleading?

What would the Birthers just pick up from Ricimer? Money instead of barter?
Kingship? Religion? Technology? Learning? Trade?

Or ... does history have this Incision, making the world post-MA
qualitatively so different from the pre-MA era that there could be no match?
(And if so, why and how?)

T

T

[Tiglath]

Amazing post... in a good way.




On Feb 27, 7:50 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> skrev i meldingnews:5910021c-c694-444a...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...

[Jantero]

Maybe I'm missing a point somewhere, but I think his reply wasn't quite
right.

Religions have been working their magic in varying degrees through
and/as government for most of recorded history, some being more
poisonous than others.

In ancient Mesopotamia, individual cities and regions often had their
own particular patron god who acted through whoever was the ruler.

If one city state conquered another, it was generally thought that the
loser's god had deserted them. That would suggest an emphasis on knowing
what your particular patron god wanted and then doing it to keep it
happy - a strong tie between government and religion - not much
separation long before Constantine.

For the Assyrians, the horrific punishments they meted out to rebelling
nationalities were religiously ordained because the rebels had sworn
oath's through their own gods, for allegiance to Assyria - a bad
violation of Assyrian religious tenets.

The Spartans didn't show up on time at Marathon because of a religious
holy day for them. The Athenians' (democratic) government prosecuted
Socrates partly for not respecting the gods enough. The pagan Romans
were always afraid of angering the gods, were always looking for omens,
had a war god, and liked to pretend that their wars were defensive in
nature, so as not to displease the gods. (As you know, Caesar's
campaigns into Gaul were sold as preemptive defensive measures.)

Less than a decade ago, US Pres. Bush used religious language in
explaining US government views and policy regarding adversarial nations
like Iran and North Korea - an "axis of evil".

An important question is the nature of the religion that's influencing
things.

The major difference that Christianity brought into the equation was a
hostility to people thinking for themselves and trying to figure out the
world around them.

During Franklin's time, his lightning rod invention was seen as
deterring god's will, as later would be inoculations for communicable
disease.

Philosophy and early scientific thinking flourished in pagan Athens, but
christianity didn't like that sort of thing.

This sums it up:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

" “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” (246) This question of
the relation between reason—here represented by Athens—and
faith—represented by Jerusalem—was posed by the church father Tertullian
(c.160–230 CE), and it remains a central preoccupation among
contemporary philosophers of religion.

“Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which
Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers
that faith is in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial
toward, reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of
natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism
holds—or at any rate appears to hold (more on this caveat shortly)—that
reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and
justification of religious belief. The term itself derives from fides,
the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.
“Fideism” is thus to be understood not as a synonym for “religious
belief,” but as denoting a particular philosophical account of faith's
appropriate jurisdiction vis-a-vis that of reason. "
xx

A measure of the usefulness of immersing a people in a religion that
emphasizes that supernatural beings created everything and determine
everything, can be had by looking at Moslems.

Good Moslems permeate their day-to-day thinking with references to a
supernatural being, and their fundamentalists would prefer a caliphate
theocracy as a form of government.

Just look at how successful they are in the modern world.

[bill]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:05:21 -0700, Jantero wrote:

> Good Moslems permeate their day-to-day thinking with references to a
> supernatural being, and their fundamentalists would prefer a caliphate
> theocracy as a form of government.
>

My understanding, and I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that
the Sunni Caliph would be a secular leader and this has been the case for
well over 1000 years.

The Shia still mourn the death of the Caliph Ali and require the return
of a Madhi for the restoration of the empire.

I have no idea what form of government the Sufi would like, but I'm sure
you'll tell me...

--
"Hopefully the fair wind will resume, or this may well take all day."

Admiral Collingwood on being becalmed under the guns of six French ships-
of-the-line at Trafalgar

[AlexMilman]

On Feb 29, 2:31 pm, bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:05:21 -0700, Jantero wrote:
> > Good Moslems permeate their day-to-day thinking with references to a
> > supernatural being, and their fundamentalists would prefer a caliphate
> > theocracy as a form of government.
>
> My understanding,  and I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong,  is that
> the Sunni Caliph would be a secular leader and this has been the case for
> well over 1000 years.

IIRC, at least in the case of the Ottomans, it was a combination of 2
different positions: Sultan was a secular leader but he also was a
spiritual one in his capacity of a caliph (AFAIK, most of the sultans
did not bother too much with the theological issues and quite a few of
them had been too serious drinkers to be credible Orthodox Muslim
theologians but this was convenient by the obvious practical reasons):
when the Ottomans transferred control over Crimea to the Russian
Empire, Sultan preserved 'spiritual control' as a caliph (not that it
did do him too much good but this was officially documented); after
the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist, caliphate was preserved for a
while in a purely spiritual capacity.

But, as far as "1000 years" are involved, for quite a while the
Sultans co-existed with the Abbasid ("shadow caliphate") Caliph in
Egypt (controlled by the Mamluks and purely spiritual figure) and
started using this title only from the early XVI century when the last
caliph officially transferred this title to Selim I so your number
probably should be cut in half. :-)

[Tronscend]

"Paul F Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net> skrev i melding
news:bdCdnU6pktubgtvS...@supernews.com...

I think the prize goes to this answer.
The tipping point where the Big Fish became so Big that the Nation State
took over as Geschichtstragendes Element.
Not that there weren't upheavals and attempts at late revisions
(still going on, to some degree).
So ... "The outcome of the Middle Ages was the domination of the Nation
State as prime agent of history".

Thx!

MVH,

T

[AlexMilman]

On Apr 12, 10:27 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> "Paul F Austin" <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> skrev i meldingnews:bdCdnU6pktubgtvS...@supernews.com...

This is a cliche of a questionable correctness. The dominating state
after (official) end of the MA was Hapsburg Empire, which was not a
Nation State even after it was split between Spanish and Italian
branches. You have to move end of the MA to mid-XVII century to get
dominance of a Nation State (France) in Europe and even at this time
national principle was anything but firmly established: Louis XIV
wasted enormous resources in the vain attempts to reach 'natural
borders' for France and the War for Spanish Succession resulted from
what looked as his attempt to create a multinational empire.

[Tronscend]

"AlexMilman" <alexm...@msn.com> skrev i melding

news:9c2a3acd-2739-4fae...@w5g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

> >> Positing the MA as a historical "black box"
> >> (Input/output known, "computation" not known)
> >> what are the differences one can in a quick bonmot
> >> at a cocktail party, describe as the outcome of the MA
> >> when benchmarking at 525/fall of all antiquity,
> >> compared to emerging Europe in 1492/1521?
>
> >> IOW, what are the MA's in one sentence?
>

---

This is a cliche of a questionable correctness.

---

- Sry, but I see your "(feudalism) in conversation" and raise you one
martini; c.f. the initial "bonmot at a cocktail party" above ...
----

The dominating state
after (official) end of the MA was Hapsburg Empire, which was not a
Nation State even after it was split between Spanish and Italian
branches. You have to move end of the MA to mid-XVII century to get
dominance of a Nation State (France) in Europe and even at this time
national principle was anything but firmly established: Louis XIV
wasted enormous resources in the vain attempts to reach 'natural
borders' for France and the War for Spanish Succession resulted from
what looked as his attempt to create a multinational empire.

----

Which goes to show that there is indeed an epistemological dialectic between
forests, trees and optimal viewing conditions.

However, I baked in the weasel word "tipping point", indicating that, like
fat bubbles on a stock pot, the smaller states coalesced into bigger ones
until there were just a few biguns left; this is a trend; and at some
point - the tipping point - the trend became dominant, unstoppable,
irreversible .... but not yet fully run.
So, while you are righter than me, I'm not wronger than usual;
to which I limit my modest ambition hereabouts. :-)

Last but not least, your point, while discarding one answer, does not
present a new one; not that I'm not thankful for having errors corrected,
but flashes of insight rank even higher.

MVH,


T

[AlexMilman]

On Apr 12, 11:41 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> "AlexMilman" <alexmil...@msn.com> skrev i meldingnews:9c2a3acd-2739-4fae...@w5g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

>
> > >> Positing the MA as a historical "black box"
> > >> (Input/output known, "computation" not known)
> > >> what are the differences one can in a quick bonmot
> > >> at a cocktail party, describe as the outcome of the MA
> > >> when benchmarking at 525/fall of all antiquity,
> > >> compared to emerging Europe in 1492/1521?
>
> > >> IOW, what are the MA's in one sentence?
>
> ---
> This is a cliche of a questionable correctness.
> ---
>
> - Sry, but I see your "(feudalism) in conversation" and raise you one
> martini; c.f. the initial "bonmot at a cocktail party" above ...

Ah, as such it is just fine by me. BTW, I prefer Scotch. :-)

But isn't it slightly too complicated? What about: "Starting from this
point, the national states began screwing up the international
states"? Simpler and easier to understand after massive intake of
whatever your favorite poison is.

(Also, factually correct because even Francis I managed to screw-up
Charles V more than once).

> ----
>
>  The dominating state
> after (official) end of the MA was Hapsburg Empire, which was not a
> Nation State even after it was split between Spanish and Italian
> branches. You have to move end of the MA to mid-XVII century to get
> dominance of a Nation State (France) in Europe and even at this time
> national principle was anything but firmly established: Louis XIV
> wasted enormous resources in the vain attempts to reach 'natural
> borders' for France and the War for Spanish Succession resulted from
> what looked as his attempt to create a multinational empire.
> ----
>
> Which goes to show that there is indeed an epistemological dialectic between
> forests, trees and optimal viewing conditions.

Surely. Never let the annoying details to stay on the way of a BIG
PICTURE.

>
> However, I baked in the weasel word "tipping point", indicating that, like
> fat bubbles on a stock pot, the smaller states coalesced into bigger ones
> until there were just a few biguns left; this is a trend; and at some
> point - the tipping point - the trend became dominant, unstoppable,
> irreversible .... but not yet fully run.

See my version above with a stress on 'began' and 'screwing up': it
does not require dominance (BTW, contrary to the popular perception,
the 1st successful anti-Spanish piracy attempt had been launched by
the French at the times of Francis I: IIRC, his captain managed to
capture some of Cortes' treasure). And, if Saxony can count as a
nation state, Maurice managed to screw up Charles on a really
'imperial scale'.

> So, while you are righter than me, I'm not wronger than usual;
> to which I limit my modest ambition hereabouts. :-)
>
> Last but not least, your point, while discarding one answer, does not
> present a new one;

I actually gave one earlier but ...

> not that I'm not thankful for having errors corrected,
> but flashes of insight rank even higher.

Well, I presented you with an answer that may make you happy. :-)