 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
GePap, certainly during its time the Roman Republic and later the Empire were the most advanced and powerful civilization the Earth had ever seen. I think there is no doubt that the Roman Empire laid the foundations of modern Western civilization. To the extent that the Roman civilization has become the dominant civilization in the world, that is how Rome dominated.
It is true that of the pillars of modern technology, patents came later. But one cannot dismiss their importance in the rise of Western technology. When the Japanese came to the West in the late 1800s to understand why the West was dominant, they concluded, among other things, that the most important reason for Western technological advancement was their patent systems, particularly those of Germany, England in United States. Today the best patent systems in the world are those of United States, Germany, England and Japan. It is not a mystery why most of the inventions and scientific breakthroughs today come from these countries.
But you are you may argue also that China and other countries also have patents. But the problem is that most other countries do not have reliable legal systems that will enforce patent rights. Thus it is the rule of law in combination with patents that brings the foundation of modern technology.
Here we can see the tie-in between Roman civilization, which founded society on the rule of law, and the dominance of Western civilization.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Well Scott Joplin made a fortune off of his ragtime compositions around the turn of the last century, so its at least 50 years older than Rock & Roll. |
Actually Stephen Foster made quite a bit of money off of his compositions too. In nineteenth century America the family piano, supplied with store bought sheet music, provided the mass entertainment of that era. Unfortunately he squandered it and died penniless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Maybe the critical question to ask is how did European culture come to evolve the characteristic of fostering innovation and exploration during the Renaissance when for centuries it had very much inhibited both?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Great, a link from the Intellectual Property Creatores.org. That'll be impartial for sure....
Dr. Strangelove's question begs to be answered. If you're going to include Greece and Rome in "Western Civilization," you probably ought to explain the 800 years or so of the Dark Ages, when innovation was anathema to the ruling church. Explain the Inquisition. Explain how Galileo's innovative ideas were fostered by Western civilization. Explain the rejection of Copernicus' ideas. Explain a period when a European who wandered twenty miles from home might not ever find his way home again, because there were no maps, and towns didn't even have names, while advanced civilizations with relatively advanced rule of law provided the opportunity for Asians and Middle Easterners to traipse across continents in pursuit of trade profits. Explain why Marco Polo was so stunned with what he saw when he left home.
How 'bout them Dark Ages, eh?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by debeest
If you're going to include Greece and Rome in "Western Civilization," you probably ought to explain the 800 years or so of the Dark Ages |
Rome and ancient Greece are plainly the base of the Western civilization. Latin was language of choice for educated masses until the reneissance and even after, most of the works copied by monks have been of Greek origin and so on.
quote:
when innovation was anathema to the ruling church. Explain the Inquisition. Explain how Galileo's innovative ideas were fostered by Western civilization. Explain the rejection of Copernicus' ideas. |
Do you know when Copernicus and Gallileo lived? By the time they appeared, the progress was rolling and could not be stopped.
Innovation being anathema to Church is also a myth.
quote:
Explain a period when a European who wandered twenty miles from home might not ever find his way home again, because there were no maps, and towns didn't even have names |
 What do you think Roman empire was, the rule of law like today?
Ofcourse towns had names, even better, if you were a Christian and knew latin you were home in all of Europe since nation states didn't exist. Hi I am Jacques from Paris and Hi I am John from London, no nations yet...
Anyway, if we take GGS for serous everything was solved by geography a couple thousands of years ago. However even if you discard geographic determinism you can see that even in the "dark ages", Europe was on a path to domination.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, but for a few hundred years the repository of most classical learning was in the Middle East. Baghdad was the centre of world culture for centuries, and it was only with the crusades that many important classical texts like the works of Aristotle were reintroduced to Western Europe.
The idea that Western civilisation was a single thread from the Greeks to us is ridiculous. It's more accurate to see it as different threads cross influencing each other - dying out in some areas and being transferred and reborn elsewhere. |
I find it the concept that Constantinople was completely bereft of ancient texts and classical knowledge. I hardly think it had lost all civilization even though it had lost much of its power.
However, as we all know, it was the contact between Constantinople and the West that brought about the Rennaissance, especially after its fall when most of its citizens of note, plus their books, etc., found their way to Italy and the West.
So, even though most of German-dominated Europe had indeed fallen into a dark age, islands of Roman civilization continued to exist, such as at Venice, Rome and Constantinople.
As well, when the Spanish took Cordoba, they found a major library that also had many of the classical texts.
But, just bringing back Roman civilization does not itself explain the tremendous advance in technology that took place in Europe from the late 1400's and on because, as we know, Rome was not known for rapid advances in technology outside of civil engineering. The explanation for the tide of technical advances include a patent system that protected inventions and the printing press that spread technical knowledge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
Ned, the printing press alone cannot be given all the credit. It had, after all, been invented in Korea, not the West. In fact, Korea is a very nice example of geography stifling a country. They invented the printing press and the ironcads centuries before the Europeans or Americans, but they couldn't expand either militarily or culturally because their neighbours were China, which was so much bigger than them that they couldn't be invaded and exerted a big cultural influence towards Korea, and Japan, which is a set of hard to conquer islands.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
GePap, Rome too had its days of tremendous expansion, but that did not translate into technical progress. Discovery of the New World was not different in kind from Roman expansion from from the conquest of Carthage to the conquest of Britain. Trade abounded. Wealth increased enormously. But still, there was only slow progress technically. |
Of course there was a difference. America offered very little in terms of opposition to expansion. The natives were not numerous, killed easily by disease, alcohol and steel weapons. Carthage fought much more, had a commercial empire to back her. The amount of space was much more limited too. Whenever a Roman conquered a country, it expanded the Roman borders and on these borders were people as advanced as the Romans in terms of warfare. In America, expanding the borders didn't increase the threat.
Additionnally, if you consider Roman times, Europe and North Africa under Roman conquest gained a bit of homogeneity, but there was not a big technological jump in any area. Whereas if you consider the Europe + America system, you realise that the biggest part of the system was underdevelopped until the 16th/17th century, and that the conquest indeed boosted the average technological level and population of the whole system a lot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
GePap, Rome too had its days of tremendous expansion, but that did not translate into technical progress. Discovery of the New World was not different in kind from Roman expansion from from the conquest of Carthage to the conquest of Britain. Trade abounded. Wealth increased enormously. But still, there was only slow progress technically. |
Huge differences- Rome was expanding into relatively a relatively "known" world. Most of their expansion was military conquest of old and settled lands, and most of Rome's wealth came from exploiting the rich and ancient eastern lands, not the un-empty west. Besides, the scope is nowhere the same. in 100 years Spain gained more terrain than it took Rome its entire history to amass- and gained greater amounts in wealth in a similarly short period of time. The Romans made citizens out of Greeks and Syrians and Egyptians, and life there went on mush like it had before the Romans came- life in the New World was utterly upturned, most of the people before died-and the rest made slaves or near slaves to feed an exploitation economy.
You also totally ignore that Rome did face serious military enemies. Rome was never able to make much headway vs. the Persian empire, a onstant enemy in the east. They were able to cross the Rhine only once- had to face growing barbarian invasions repeatedly, and large revolts in Britian and Judea. I did not see many European kings or generals falling to native armies- you do see Roman emperors carted away by the Persians.
The comparison is poor at best Ned, very poor. After all, the Persian empire, or Aexanders empires were bigger than Romes, and grew faster than Romes. In the case of the Hellenistic empires, they had the wealth of Greek civilizatio behind them as well.
No Ned, expansion by single political units in Eurasia do not compare in scale or importance to the opening of the Americas to exploitation by one group of Eurasians.
Also, you don;t seem to have a good idea of what it takes to advance technologically, and your theory that it all has to do with rule of law is weak- after all, rule of law by your theory did exsit in Rome, yet you say there was little technological advancement then....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
necessity is the mother of invention. |
This is just wrong. As already pointed out, some inventions have existed for a while before they became useful (worth the money). Others just came out of nowhere. For instance cars: No one worried about automobile cars at the beginning of the previous century. Railroads and horses wer perfect for everyone. There was no need for something new, except if you listened to the predictions that London would drown itself in horse dung by 1950. Still, cars arose, out of no necessity. They were invented while being useless, and later perfected into something actually useful. What was the need for a flying machine? Was it invented successfully by the Wright brothers because they needed it, while Leonardo da Vinci failed when he didn't? Or were they successful because they had better tools and materials available?
I don't deny that patents help foster innovation, but I think they are not important enough unto themselves.
As for the lack of competition with the natives in America, you must see that there was huge and fierce competition between the Europeans to seize that big cake overseas. England, France, Spain and Portugal fought one another, usually indirectly, to get the lion's share. The Netherlands later grew to become and remain an independant country thanks to the East Indies.
-By the way, this period is very very badly modelled in all civ games, since the war between the various European countries was more a war for the colonies than an outright war (civ3's privateer unit being the only, quite weak, attempt to model that which would probably require new diplomatic options).-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Huge differences- Rome was expanding into relatively a relatively "known" world. Most of their expansion was military conquest of old and settled lands, and most of Rome's wealth came from exploiting the rich and ancient eastern lands, not the un-empty west. Besides, the scope is nowhere the same. in 100 years Spain gained more terrain than it took Rome its entire history to amass- and gained greater amounts in wealth in a similarly short period of time. The Romans made citizens out of Greeks and Syrians and Egyptians, and life there went on mush like it had before the Romans came- life in the New World was utterly upturned, most of the people before died-and the rest made slaves or near slaves to feed an exploitation economy.
You also totally ignore that Rome did face serious military enemies. Rome was never able to make much headway vs. the Persian empire, a onstant enemy in the east. They were able to cross the Rhine only once- had to face growing barbarian invasions repeatedly, and large revolts in Britian and Judea. I did not see many European kings or generals falling to native armies- you do see Roman emperors carted away by the Persians.
The comparison is poor at best Ned, very poor. After all, the Persian empire, or Aexanders empires were bigger than Romes, and grew faster than Romes. In the case of the Hellenistic empires, they had the wealth of Greek civilizatio behind them as well.
No Ned, expansion by single political units in Eurasia do not compare in scale or importance to the opening of the Americas to exploitation by one group of Eurasians.
Also, you don;t seem to have a good idea of what it takes to advance technologically, and your theory that it all has to do with rule of law is weak- after all, rule of law by your theory did exsit in Rome, yet you say there was little technological advancement then.... |
Don't forget that Spain had its share of military challenges from France, the Ottoman Empire etc. Also it might be worth pointing out that the vast majority of technological improvements and scientific discoveries were not made in Spain or by Spaniards. It was in fact Spain's weakness economically that caused Spain's high water mark to be during the plunder phase of their campaigns in the Americas, and not during the economic exploitation of their newly conquered peoples. The Roman Empire in contrast made their money by economic exploitation and taking a piece of the increased action that their standards of law, weights and measures, technology and Pax Romana brought to their subjects. For the most part the parts of the world that the Romans ruled grew more populous and wealthy, which is not something that the Spaniards could proclaim with a straight face, even though they had a significant technological edge vs their American adversaries by comparison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
At some point -- 1450? -- people around the world might have asked, how can we explain Portugal's preeminence? Later -- 1550? -- they might have wondered why Spain predominated. At another time, they might have asked the same about the Netherlands. Later, France. Later, Austria-Hungary. Later, England. Later, the United States. Arguably, all of those countries represent Western Civilization. But at different times along the way, for hundreds of years, people would have had to ask why China, or Mongolia, or various Middle Eastern countries dominated. And they would also have had to ask, "Why are those Europeans so backwards? Once upon a time they had it all; how did they let it fall apart so completely?"
It's silly to discuss this as if western civilization's current dominance were a permanent feature rather than a historical fluctuation -- long by individual standards, but modest in terms of historical longevity.
The vast bulk of modern knowledge has been derived in recent times, inevitably, because knowledge increases at an increasing rate. Much of that knowledge has come from western countries, simply because western countries are currently on top of the heap. Western civilization's current position is largely a result of accidents of geography, particularly their having been in the best position to exploit the New World at the particular time when it became possible for any civilization to exploit the New World.
Or, of course, it could all be directly attributable to patent law....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I find it the concept that Constantinople was completely bereft of ancient texts and classical knowledge. I hardly think it had lost all civilization even though it had lost much of its power. |
Um, the Byzantine empire is not traditionally regarded as part of Western Europe. Many texts we have, for example Aristotle's Ethics were recovered from the Muslims. It's no coincidence that the Crusades resulted in the reintroduction of many Classical texts to Western Europe.
Baghdad was the centre of world learning at the time. Why do you think we use their numbers? Why do you think that most of the stars bear Arabic names?
Have you ever read the works of the Great Muslim philosophers like Al Ghazali and Averroes? Only Aquinas can compare to them and he got most of his ideas from texts which the Islamic world held in trust for the people of the world.
Look, the Crusades were not a case of the enlightened Westerners fighting uncivilised barbarians, it was the other way around.
quote:
However, as we all know, it was the contact between Constantinople and the West that brought about the Rennaissance, especially after its fall when most of its citizens of note, plus their books, etc., found their way to Italy and the West. |
And there was no cross fertilization between the Arab world and the Christian world in the hundreds of years before that?
quote:
So, even though most of German-dominated Europe had indeed fallen into a dark age, islands of Roman civilization continued to exist, such as at Venice, Rome and Constantinople. |
While the Arabs were busy running Alexandria, the successor to Athens as the centre of world learning. Hmmm...
quote:
As well, when the Spanish took Cordoba, they found a major library that also had many of the classical texts. |
Yes, which the Moors had established. CĂłrdoba was the birthplace of three famous philosophers: the Roman Stoic, Seneca, the Arab, Averroes, and the Jewish Maimonides.
quote:
But, just bringing back Roman civilization does not itself explain the tremendous advance in technology that took place in Europe from the late 1400's and on because, as we know, Rome was not known for rapid advances in technology outside of civil engineering. The explanation for the tide of technical advances include a patent system that protected inventions and the printing press that spread technical knowledge. |
It doesn't by itself. But the renaissance is in part characterized by new styles of thinking about political organisation which were spurred by the rediscovery of ancient texts. Who the hell do you think invented democracy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, when the Japanese studied the West to find out why we were so far advanced from the rest of the world, they concluded that the central reason was our patent systems, especially those of United States, Great Britain and Germany. |
They singled this out because they could reproduce it themselves. Whether or not geography was the ultimate cause, as Jared Diamond would say, was of no concern to them as they wouldn't be able to act upon it. If there were causes which are outside the human reach, the Japanese wouldn't consider them. If you scratch deeper, why did these patents law come to be, will you find geography?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-12-2003 03:09
|