False. The first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity was Constantine, who moved the capital to what is now Istanbul. That decision led to the decline of the Roman Empire. Christianity caused the Roman Empire to fall, not last.
Hah, that’s quite the oversimplification. The majority of modern historians now disagree with that thesis, which was made by Gibbon back in the 18th century. Most now view the rapid conversion as an effect, rather than a cause, of the decline of the empire. The empire literally split into three during the Crisis of the 3rd Century, and Diocletian was forced to implement the tetrarchy and again split the empire East/West in an attempt to govern its unwieldy provinces. The Roman Empire had ceased to be a stable political entity long before the adoption of Christianity. Third century rome was a chaotic mess; the decline and fall had already begun. All of this took place before Constantine rose to power in the 4th Century. It could even be argued that Constantine actually created a brief period of stability within a system that was already collapsing.
The poster you are replying to is obviously crazy, but he’s not wrong in claiming that the stability of the empire in the first couple centuries was crucial to the spread of Christianity. His convoluted point isn’t that Christianity built the empire; rather that it is a result of it. You are getting it backwards.
Point taken. As long as we agree that other dude is crazy, I’m good.
Europeans had three victories: * Crusades. * Genghis Khan was not able or maybe he didn't try to conquer Europe in its entirety. * Hannibal was not able to conquer Europe in its entirety and was eventually forced to retreat if I correctly recall his history.
While the Crusader States were in some ways a workshop for colonial policies, I wouldn't really call the Crusades a "win" for European powers in the long term. Main benefit was probably that it stopped feudal lords from killing each other for a generation or two.
Not getting ransacked and oppressed by the Mongol armies was a definite advantage. For example, Baghdad was sacked and never really recovered - their population didn't rebound to pre-Mongol sack levels until the 20th century. Russia, the most backwards part of Europe, was under Mongol domination for centuries.
Hannibal was not really African in the way we would use the term today - he was from the same cultural sphere as his Roman enemies. In Ancient times, you can think of the Mediterranean Basin as more of a "continent" than Europe or Africa was during the same period.
The Aztecs would practice human sacrifice, and the Africans practiced so much slavery. In fact, that's how Europeans obtained slaves: by buying captured Africans from African slave traders.
Because the Europeans were naturally cruel. Before the Europeans, the indigenous peoples of Africa and the Americas live peacefully amongst each other and were not used to violence and exploitation. Read some history .
which is why I mentioned following it with other material. it’s important to educate yourself on contrasting views. diamond raises many valid points that are worth consideration
European colonialism was driven by the engine of capitalism. That was the main difference between Europe and the rest of the world that was conquered. Your empire can only go so far when all you do is conquer and then tax your new subjects to try to maintain your empire. But when empire is created hand in hand with capitalists, each new outpost is an opportunity to exploit the colony for raw materials and labor which provides growth in capital markets. And unlike the pre-colonial empires, the European colonial system would invest in their colonial subjects to help create demand for goods that the capitalists were selling. The Mongols did not care whether their subjects bought tea made in Karakorum. But the Brits were happy to sell Indians British tea and made lots of money through expanding markets to their colonial subjects. And the military machine required for empire was also a great benefit to the capitalists who build the ships, guns, and made cannon balls, etc. Of course, the problem with the colonial model is that it needed to keep its subjects mostly in poverty with no ability to develop their own capital markets. So, you have a massive disparity in wealth in colonial countries with colonial masters and their local commissars living like kings while everyone else was exploited.
The Aztecs would practice human sacrifice, and the Africans practiced so much slavery. In fact, that's how Europeans obtained slaves: by buying captured Africans from African slave traders.
Diamond started with a premise he wanted to defend and then walked the cat backwards to cram everything into the hole he already dug.
I did say that GG&S is intellectually dishonest. I absolutely agree that he started from an unjustifiable place and then worked to support it.
But that does not change my opinion that "it nevertheless gives several good reasons (or at least hypotheses) for why the Euros conquered most others."
Diamond started with a premise he wanted to defend and then walked the cat backwards to cram everything into the hole he already dug.
I did say that GG&S is intellectually dishonest. I absolutely agree that he started from an unjustifiable place and then worked to support it.
You children are clueless. Diamond has his faults, but indeed weapons, horses and diseases decimated native population across "conquered" lands. The invading whites were filthy, never bathing, barely whipping after dumps .... white males protected the diseases they carried.
What was so different that they could? Europe was a backwater part of the world through medieval times. How it did spring board to dominating the world?
Not sure if people will want to hear this, but Christianity is the reason. It provided a worldview that eventually allowed for free markets and stable political systems to evolve and flourish. Human rights, concern for the poor, an eternal sense of right and wrong, disdain for public and private corruption, are products of Christianity, and were necessary inputs for world-class civilizations.
Before Christianity, Western Europe and America were backwaters, populated by primitive people who had no chance to build civilizations that would last.
Fantastic question, by the way.
Christianity is the correct answer. The alternative is mass starvation and execution under the jackboot of jewish Marxism/Chinese communism. Your ability to ponder and ask the question in the first place means you are doing so under a tolerant Christian civilization.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.