Hi Mike, I have not read your second part. (I was busy with this one.)
I hope that I have not offended your religious sensibilities. It seems that you are saying that Christianity built western civilization, with lots of positive influences. In the modern era, it might seem so. But then when you look into the past and when we look at culture, like the truly admirable statues and paintings of the Renaissance, we lose sight of many things.
In particular, the fact that all the cultural content of the Renaissance was created by the work of several dozen talented artists and humanists fascinated by antiquity, at a time when manslaughter was a daily occurrence for Western Europeans, and it took on massive proportions. But neither Raphael's Sistine Madonna nor Michelangelo's David will tell historians anything about the atrocities of the Borgia papal family or the violence perpetrated by the Sforza dukes. Therefore, for a person interested in what really happened, it is preferable not to confuse works of culture and architecture with the system of behavior of the ethnos that created that culture.
Christian behavior on the ground, was war. Even WWI and WWII. How about now? These are all Christians, or Abrahamic Religion if you include Israel.
So can we say, that what Jesus taught was good in theory but bad in practice?
Unless you want to be continually bamboozled, I believe you have to judge everything by actual results, and not by unfulfilled promises, and with a litany of excuses. (Like politics today.) But in some instances Christian practices seem to have made a difference. What are those instances when it worked?
One instance is where there was a major homogeneity. We constantly extol the glory of diversity, but that is because diversity is what we already have. The Japanese don't have diversity, and they don't think they need it.
Diversity can be good and it can work, if there is prosperity, but somewhat equally distributed. With the rise of the billionaires, that is less and less likely, and that result is racism. We are told that the "brown-skins" are taking our jobs, so we're poor. I am not talking to the privileged, but to the growing poor, who have a racist tendency.
Can Christianity counter racism? Not so far in 2,000 years. Perhaps prosperity coupled with Christianity could make a difference. But guess what, Christianity is what has always driven colonialism, exploitation, and inequity, because we have the only true God. Exactly the same now with what they call the "Rules Based World Order".
I'm not religious (atheist actually) so I don't have religious sensibility. I ascribe to Joe Henrich's ideas expressed in his book WEIRDest people in the world that proposed that the Catholic church's prohibition of polygamy and cousin marriage (what he calls the marriage and family policy) was responsible for the development of WEIRD psychology, which is a prerequisite for the development of capitalism and the dynamism of the West for five centuries after 1500.
The original positive system - Christianity, which overlapped the Gnostic phantasmagoria, and a new push of the 6th-7th centuries, which created Islam as a worldview, and Islam stopped the existence of Iranian anti-systems – the Zindiks. In Byzantium, the anti-system developed in the 9th century in Asia Minor, on the border with the "Muslim world". From there it spread to the Balkans, where the Bulgarians and Slavs, who accepted the Greek education, created their own Bulgarian kingdom. Here the anti-system was called Bogomilism and disappeared only after the passionate push of the 13th century, it was displaced by the Ottomans. But the fate of the Manicheans of Provençe was much more complicated. They died only in the XIII century, but infected Western Europe with their worldview, where the disgusting social institution - the Inquisition - appeared.
In the 10th century Manichaeism spread to Languedoc and merged with similar teachings in Bulgaria. Manichean preachers in southern France and even in Italy so electrified the masses that at times even the pope was afraid to leave the fortified castle in order to avoid being insulted in the city streets by the excited crowd, among whom there were also knights, especially since the feudal lords affected by the propaganda refused to subdue them.
In the second half of the eleventh century the Manichean doctrine spread to Lombardy, where the vices of the higher clergy caused legitimate indignation among the laity. In 1062 the priest Ariald spoke out in Milan against the marriage of priests, but met with the resistance of Archbishop Guido and was killed. The struggle continued, with the archbishop and his successor supported by Emperor Henry IV, the secret Satanist, and supported by the reformers, Popes Alexander II and Gregory VII. In the twelfth century the Manicheans, called Patarenes in Italy, spread throughout all the cities as far as Rome, with the peasants being the least inclined to heresy and the nobles and priests, i.e. the most passionate part of the population of the time, being the most active heretics.
In Languedoc, which was under the shadowy patronage of the kings of Germany, the city of Albi became the center of Manicheanism, and because of this the French Manicheans became known as Albigensians, along with their Greek name of Cathars, which means "pure". By 1176 most of the nobility and clergy of Languedoc had become Cathars, while a smaller portion, and the peasants preferred to remain silent and not protest.
In fact, the Albigensian war was by no means akin to a popular revolt in 1358 France, nor was it a feudal skirmish between Toulouse and Paris, nor was it a national war between the Provençalians and the French. Unlike many patriarchal and plebeian anti-church movements, the Cathars were socially diverse, belonging to no single class, which contributed to the successful spread of the doctrine, not constrained by social and ethnic boundaries.
In the Albigensian Crusade, the Papal States and France vs. Cathar States (the anti-system) 1208- 1229 (I think often call the peasant wars, but peasants were not the driving principle, and it was not a class war), up to one million were killed.
England and France were at war for 100 years, 1337 - 1453, (2.3 to 3.5 million deaths). Can you imagine; your grandfather and your grandson fought in the same forever-war. That was your Christian culture's only stereo-type of behavior for a century. (Did they ever get out of that mind-set?)
Then the French Religions war 1562 - 1598. Catholics vs. Protestants (Huguenot), 3 million killed.
There may be a misconception that Catholics were better, kinder, more honest, nobler than Cathars (Albigensians). This view is just as wrong as the other way around. People remain themselves, no matter what ethical doctrines are preached to them. And why is the concept that one can buy absolution with money donated for a crusade, better than the call to fight against the “material world”? And if one doctrine is better than the other, for whom is it better?
The dates of this huge negative movement, (and its many branches), overlapped to the dates of Cluny and Cistercian that you mention. You would have to really look closely to see where they were intermixed and infected by each other.
___________
The Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic psychology began with further development of the colonies. All the criminals, the brigands, and the lawless were sent to the colonies, OR they went there to seek their fortune where the laws couldn't touch them. This brought a modicum of peace to society, plus riches poured in from the colonies. You said the same, also about the Crusades, “By redirecting intra-elite violence to an external party, the crusade movement likely played a role in Western European nation-building”. So did the colonies.
The Roman pope did declare a Crusade against Orthodox; and Poland, Germany and Lithuania carried it out. Poland, vs Sweden, Russia, 1655 - 1667, 3 million killed (This is the pope’s Catholics crusade against Orthodox).
“Eastern Rome”, Constantinople, lasted about 1,000 years more than Western Rome. So, the Orthodox was a much stronger foundation than the Latin Pope. (Popes were very corrupt in every sense of the word, selling indulgences to finance themselves and the crusades.
Like I say, I don’t know IF positive influences of the Church could be held separate from its negativity? You say young people pursued careers in religion and academics, there was commerce and industry? But not much, right? Weren’t 90% on the land? Some security guilds in London and communes in Italy, were they militias? You have to say, people like liked combat, otherwise how did they raise so many armies.
I don’t really see how peoples communes and guilds built commercial life. I think “Capital” built commerce and subjugated the commoner. Then the guilds were an answer to that subjugation. Neither do I see any limitation on nepotism that is still practiced to this day.
You have provided a very stimulating article, and I thank you for that.
Hello Mike Alexander, Congratulations on taking on a big project. I like to deeply look into many things myself. With such a big subject it may be easy to leave out a few important transitions. I have studied a certain amount of ancient history, and I find little or nothing in it that would be applicable to how we think today. If anything, we are continually repeating the same mistakes.
Part 1
Starting out with Hoel's “gossip trap” is an interesting way to put it. Yes, you have to surmise some reason why there could be no development for so inconceivably long of a time? It is not at all because of temperature shifts, because those were of 100's of years duration, time enough to change something. Yes, I have heard of the Dunbar number. It is also intuitive. (I don't know 150 people now. Way less in fact.)
I never believed primitives lived in tranquility. If there was easy food and no intruders, then their own chieftains and witch doctors probably made all the difficulties. How did mankind escape the gossip trap? If one group managed to do it, and built larger numbers, then the others would be forced to, in order to counterbalance their "weight". You say the same thing further down the line.
(What will you say about the Native American Tribes?)
In war, the most effective weapons prevail, even over larger numbers. In a warrior society, all the young boys would be in military training, and with hunting, and weapons-use since early childhood. Their ideals would be to die on the battlefield with glory and heroism. Maybe they would make it to 25 years old.
I believe religion started from superstition and beliefs of spirits and goblins. I see the main impetus is "bribery", (they call it worship). I would bribe the gods to protect me and send me some rain, and I would bribe the goblins to stay away. That is called making a sacrifice. I don't think there was any other ideology in paganism. I believe pagan religions were like favorite local foods, there were different rituals for every locality. Many 100's or even 1,000's of varieties. Later those in power thought it useful to subordinate the commoner to their goals, thus a hierarchy of the powerful formed.
You mention that religious organization and power structures created ever larger ethnos/civilizations.
But if you think about it, when defensive weapons dominated, there were at the most, fragmented city-states. Only advances in offensive weapons created larger domains, when they could lay siege to a castle. And I am talking way before gunpowder. Different kinds of compound bows, and warrior practice to be able to shoot arrows at full gallop.
The curved saber was superior to the heavy armor and heavy drought horses. The steppe tribes had bread fast horses and of course the Arabians had excellent horses. Chinese horses were almost like mules, and first used for war chariots. The Steppe tribes could descend on the Chinese and slice them to ribbons with one stroke. The Mongols dominated the known world, and taught the Russians to use sabers.
At the great migrations Vikings, Celtics, Thervingi, Gauls, Visgoths, Ostrogoths, and others, rampaged through Eastern and Southern Europe. These tribes were raiders. If they could conquer a large city with riches, they could pay for their army. But even with sacking the villages, they captured all women and children and sold them into slavery. There was a network of slave traders from about 150 - 200 AD until maybe 1,400. So, these villages searched for consolidation with larger cities with a prince and a standing army. Then that prince had to pay for his army too. So he also had to engage in continual war and plunder.
Otherwise most all European consolidations were made by conquest. Charlemagne conquered everything, or his sons did.
I believe that all religious mass conversions were only for political purposes. For example, the king of Tibet was always held powerless by the nobles. The religion was called BON and was tied in with the nobles. The king (or several kings) tried 4 times to convert to Buddhism. Each time the nobles rallied that people back to the tradition of BON. Finally, it happened and the nobles were unseated. It had nothing to do with the qualities of Buddhism. It was purely political.
When the Mongols were breaking up after the death of Genghis Kahn, some of the factions converted to Islam. It had nothing to do with Islam, but just to politically differentiate one faction from another.
When Yarislov the Wise converted Kiev to Orthodox, it had nothing to do with Christianity. He needed allies, and Orthodox Byzantium was the powerful best bet.
When Henry the VIII forced the church to renounce Catholicism, it was strictly a move to shake loose from the pope, nothing to do about the Anglican, God, morals or religious tenants.
The Chinese did it too with Confucianism against Taoism, and/or the iChing philosophy.
You suggested that “Cooperation-promoting norms and institutions like government and religion enabled tribes and chiefdoms numbering in the thousands to scale up into states and empires a hundred times larger.” I suggest it was war, not cooperation.
Charlemagne the son of Pippin, became the king of the Franks in 768. (He was a devout Catholic and the Pope consecrated him as king). The Carolingian Empire is viewed in traditional historiography as a French dynasty, with the counting of kings beginning with Charlemagne. A more thorough conception was offered by Augustin Thierry, the French historian 1795 - 1856, who pointed out that the Carolingians exercised their dominion in the territory of modern France exclusively by brute force. Brittany, Aquitaine, Provence and Burgundy only recognized the Carolinian power because they were powerless to assert their independence. The Christian Carolingians destroyed the independence of Provence (737-739), destroyed Aquitaine (760-768), destroyed Lombardy (774), Bavaria (788), the Saxon tribe (797), took Barcelona from the Arabs (801) and defeated the Avars (802-803). Under Charlemagne's successors all these successes were nullified: the Danube and Elbe valleys were taken over by the Slavs, the "Spanish Brand" was separated from the empire, and the latter disintegrated into its component parts.
Some say that the Crusades were the pope’s vehicle for economic expansion. That seems a far-out way to categorize them. The Crusades, i.e., the first attempt at colonial expansion, ended in grand defeat on all fronts. In the Crusades up to 3 million were killed, which evolved into Christians vs. Muslims. At first the Crusaders had success, but then were mercilessly exterminated. Few if any came back. The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Latin Empire generally disappeared from the map of the world at that time. Only the Livonian Order survived, but it changed from a springboard of the European Crusader knightly advance, into a small feudal possession in a territory, which neither Lithuania nor Russia contested.
I don’t know about the Marriage-Family-Program of the Latin Pope. I have come to believe that the power-seeking Latin pope was the source of most European conflict. Neither do I know about the Monastery at Cluny, nor its expansion, nor the Cistercian monasticism adaption. Although I think the expansion to 1,000 abbeys in 100 years should be analyzed further. I think the Benedictines were very much enforcing austerity. Some Abbots relaxed the standard, and others split off to re-establish the tradition.
What’s missing is the mention of the Manicheans. They are Ismailism, Karmatianism, Marionite Pavlikianism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Bogomilism, Albigensianism, the Cathars and other similar ancient systems. Western Manichaeism had been in competition with Christianity since the late third century and was persecuted in the same way as Christianity under Diocletian. It’s where truth and falsehood are not opposed, but equated to each other, life-negation. Evil is eternal. This evil is all of the material world, including you and me, and only animated by the spirit, but enveloping it with the material. The evil of the world is the torment of the spirit in the tenets of matter; therefore, all material things are a source of evil. And if so, then evil is all things, including temples and icons, crosses; and the bodies of people. And all this is subject to destruction.
A few comments. The period of the "gossip trap" would be *before* there were chieftains or witch doctors.
It is true that better weapons tend to prevail. But for most of human history there weren't better weapons, technological change was *very* slow. I
Young men who run away from danger are more likely to reproduce, those who fight and die less so. Evolution largely weeds out the foolhardy and so you do not see a warrior ethic in small scale societies. There are wars, but then tend to consist of small-scale conflicts, typically ambushes by a larger group against a smaller one, similar to how chimps make war, except humans can throw objects with accuracy and force. Thrown rocks become thrown spears become bow and arrows.
War is a selection force for cooperation, What is an army, if not a collective of men closely cooperating with each other to defeat the enemy?
The ideas for how religion began that I find most plausible is the human tendency to see patterns where they are none and to attach supernatural explanations to them. Sometimes the explanations serve a secondary purpose that is beneficial, allowing the believer to so better in life. An example could be ritual used to purging evil spirits from food before cooking and eating it that has the side effect of removing a toxin that allows safe use of a foodstuff. Unbelievers (like European explorers) who ate the food without performing the ritual and become unhealthy. Another is beliefs that on some parts of an animal were suitable for hunters to eat, leaving other parts for others to consume. Such beliefs encourage food sharing which improved group survival and growth in numbers. And as you noted larger groups would have an edge in war.
Charlemagne had only one son, Louis the Pious, who succeeded him. When Louis died, the empire was split between his three sons. I think you may be confusing grandsons for sons.
Henry VIII broke from the church because he wanted to divorce his wife, which the pope would not allow. The Anglican church he founded was very similar to Catholicism (still is), as he had no doctrinal dispute, it was strictly political. But once he had done it he was able to dissolve the monastery and grab a nice pile of loot, so that might have been in the back of his mind too.
Thanks for the reply, I haven't really studied the time of Rome and before. Sometimes there is archaeological evidence about prehistoric living conditions, which I have heard about but haven't internalized, (I don't know it). It is a great conjecture about primitive conditions and why there was no advancement. I do intend to read Erik Hoel, to whom you pointed, but I have stacks of reading to do.
I studied the Huns, the Turks and the Mongols, all warrior societies. (That's why I asked about Native Americans on the plains. They didn't have horses though, so the difference.) I think that in those societies there would be no timid, who run from danger. They would be ostracized out of the community (which would be certain death to be on your own). American and Western social scientists believe in the "Individual" who preceded the group. So they might analyze that a single person could make certain choices. I believe that the group, family, clan, tribe, were consolidated way before the "individual" was acknowledged, or even existed as a word in the vocabulary. If you died on the battlefield at 25, you could already have 8-9 children with the wife. Mongols were married at 10, or even 8. Maybe they cohabitated at 13. If you won many battles you might have concubines. Then you could have sired 20-30 children.
Steppe people were cattle breeders. The steppes went through long periods of both wet and dry, 100's of years each. During the wet centuries grass grew as far as you could travel. Snow cover was light because on the lea side of the mountains, so herds could forage in the winter, and increase enough to support any population growth.
My one doubt and question about historical records, is how was it so easy to continually raise enormous armies. One way is the mercenary armies, which all of Europe, and Rome had many. You pay them. Even now ISIS jihads make 40-50 dollars a day, at home they might typically make $10/day. Turkey promised $100/day to go fight in Libya, (but finally paid only $40).
My theory is that ancient society was so stagnant on the subsistence farm, that the only way to get anywhere was to join the army. Fighting and killing must be "fun"? Winning armies were typically given a couple of days or a week to rand sack, rape and plunder the city they just subdued. They sent those riches home. Or most just drank and "partied" everything as they went. Westerns sanitize it and say "they took wives". No, they took concubines, or created "gang-rape" brothels.
Certainly there was the culture of military discipline, if you want to call that cooperation. Roman emperors complained that the army was soft, and they couldn't even mount their horse without a ladder. Nobody talks about the logistics necessary to operate a huge army year in and year out. Can we just blithely assume that they could just steal food as they moved along. Not until the first winning battle. Or horses were killed in battle, which would have been eaten.
They needed 1,000's of swords and spears. Who made good straight arrows? With cavalry you needed 3-4 horses for every warrior. You can't ride a war horse; it needs to be fresh for battle, (or you will loose). Did 100,000 army need 300,000 horses? Where did they get the fodder? There were winter campaigns too. Armies moved 1,000's of miles. All this makes it unbelievable. Also Chinese historians used only "round numbers". 100,000, or 400,000, or even a million army sometimes. Defeated and fleeing tribes can't win battles, they only disperse and hide in the mountains. To conduct war takes a prosperous society behind the military. That part is cooperation I guess, out of fear?
I feel there are many mysteries, that the historians don't confront.
Hi Mike, I have not read your second part. (I was busy with this one.)
I hope that I have not offended your religious sensibilities. It seems that you are saying that Christianity built western civilization, with lots of positive influences. In the modern era, it might seem so. But then when you look into the past and when we look at culture, like the truly admirable statues and paintings of the Renaissance, we lose sight of many things.
In particular, the fact that all the cultural content of the Renaissance was created by the work of several dozen talented artists and humanists fascinated by antiquity, at a time when manslaughter was a daily occurrence for Western Europeans, and it took on massive proportions. But neither Raphael's Sistine Madonna nor Michelangelo's David will tell historians anything about the atrocities of the Borgia papal family or the violence perpetrated by the Sforza dukes. Therefore, for a person interested in what really happened, it is preferable not to confuse works of culture and architecture with the system of behavior of the ethnos that created that culture.
Christian behavior on the ground, was war. Even WWI and WWII. How about now? These are all Christians, or Abrahamic Religion if you include Israel.
So can we say, that what Jesus taught was good in theory but bad in practice?
Unless you want to be continually bamboozled, I believe you have to judge everything by actual results, and not by unfulfilled promises, and with a litany of excuses. (Like politics today.) But in some instances Christian practices seem to have made a difference. What are those instances when it worked?
One instance is where there was a major homogeneity. We constantly extol the glory of diversity, but that is because diversity is what we already have. The Japanese don't have diversity, and they don't think they need it.
Diversity can be good and it can work, if there is prosperity, but somewhat equally distributed. With the rise of the billionaires, that is less and less likely, and that result is racism. We are told that the "brown-skins" are taking our jobs, so we're poor. I am not talking to the privileged, but to the growing poor, who have a racist tendency.
Can Christianity counter racism? Not so far in 2,000 years. Perhaps prosperity coupled with Christianity could make a difference. But guess what, Christianity is what has always driven colonialism, exploitation, and inequity, because we have the only true God. Exactly the same now with what they call the "Rules Based World Order".
If there was prosperity, I believe every religion would find a smoother way of cooperation. No need for Christianity then, or among the many. So who is it that is sanctioning other nations to kill their prosperity? There are 88 pages of all the sanctions imposed on this US.gov website: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/MASTER-Sanctions-chart-508-Updates-Aug-2023.pdf
Thanks
.
I'm not religious (atheist actually) so I don't have religious sensibility. I ascribe to Joe Henrich's ideas expressed in his book WEIRDest people in the world that proposed that the Catholic church's prohibition of polygamy and cousin marriage (what he calls the marriage and family policy) was responsible for the development of WEIRD psychology, which is a prerequisite for the development of capitalism and the dynamism of the West for five centuries after 1500.
Thanks again for the Hoel link. I copied that article into Word and will study it, (10,000 words). He answers a lot of questions.
Part 2
The original positive system - Christianity, which overlapped the Gnostic phantasmagoria, and a new push of the 6th-7th centuries, which created Islam as a worldview, and Islam stopped the existence of Iranian anti-systems – the Zindiks. In Byzantium, the anti-system developed in the 9th century in Asia Minor, on the border with the "Muslim world". From there it spread to the Balkans, where the Bulgarians and Slavs, who accepted the Greek education, created their own Bulgarian kingdom. Here the anti-system was called Bogomilism and disappeared only after the passionate push of the 13th century, it was displaced by the Ottomans. But the fate of the Manicheans of Provençe was much more complicated. They died only in the XIII century, but infected Western Europe with their worldview, where the disgusting social institution - the Inquisition - appeared.
In the 10th century Manichaeism spread to Languedoc and merged with similar teachings in Bulgaria. Manichean preachers in southern France and even in Italy so electrified the masses that at times even the pope was afraid to leave the fortified castle in order to avoid being insulted in the city streets by the excited crowd, among whom there were also knights, especially since the feudal lords affected by the propaganda refused to subdue them.
In the second half of the eleventh century the Manichean doctrine spread to Lombardy, where the vices of the higher clergy caused legitimate indignation among the laity. In 1062 the priest Ariald spoke out in Milan against the marriage of priests, but met with the resistance of Archbishop Guido and was killed. The struggle continued, with the archbishop and his successor supported by Emperor Henry IV, the secret Satanist, and supported by the reformers, Popes Alexander II and Gregory VII. In the twelfth century the Manicheans, called Patarenes in Italy, spread throughout all the cities as far as Rome, with the peasants being the least inclined to heresy and the nobles and priests, i.e. the most passionate part of the population of the time, being the most active heretics.
In Languedoc, which was under the shadowy patronage of the kings of Germany, the city of Albi became the center of Manicheanism, and because of this the French Manicheans became known as Albigensians, along with their Greek name of Cathars, which means "pure". By 1176 most of the nobility and clergy of Languedoc had become Cathars, while a smaller portion, and the peasants preferred to remain silent and not protest.
In fact, the Albigensian war was by no means akin to a popular revolt in 1358 France, nor was it a feudal skirmish between Toulouse and Paris, nor was it a national war between the Provençalians and the French. Unlike many patriarchal and plebeian anti-church movements, the Cathars were socially diverse, belonging to no single class, which contributed to the successful spread of the doctrine, not constrained by social and ethnic boundaries.
In the Albigensian Crusade, the Papal States and France vs. Cathar States (the anti-system) 1208- 1229 (I think often call the peasant wars, but peasants were not the driving principle, and it was not a class war), up to one million were killed.
England and France were at war for 100 years, 1337 - 1453, (2.3 to 3.5 million deaths). Can you imagine; your grandfather and your grandson fought in the same forever-war. That was your Christian culture's only stereo-type of behavior for a century. (Did they ever get out of that mind-set?)
Then the French Religions war 1562 - 1598. Catholics vs. Protestants (Huguenot), 3 million killed.
There may be a misconception that Catholics were better, kinder, more honest, nobler than Cathars (Albigensians). This view is just as wrong as the other way around. People remain themselves, no matter what ethical doctrines are preached to them. And why is the concept that one can buy absolution with money donated for a crusade, better than the call to fight against the “material world”? And if one doctrine is better than the other, for whom is it better?
The dates of this huge negative movement, (and its many branches), overlapped to the dates of Cluny and Cistercian that you mention. You would have to really look closely to see where they were intermixed and infected by each other.
___________
The Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic psychology began with further development of the colonies. All the criminals, the brigands, and the lawless were sent to the colonies, OR they went there to seek their fortune where the laws couldn't touch them. This brought a modicum of peace to society, plus riches poured in from the colonies. You said the same, also about the Crusades, “By redirecting intra-elite violence to an external party, the crusade movement likely played a role in Western European nation-building”. So did the colonies.
The Roman pope did declare a Crusade against Orthodox; and Poland, Germany and Lithuania carried it out. Poland, vs Sweden, Russia, 1655 - 1667, 3 million killed (This is the pope’s Catholics crusade against Orthodox).
“Eastern Rome”, Constantinople, lasted about 1,000 years more than Western Rome. So, the Orthodox was a much stronger foundation than the Latin Pope. (Popes were very corrupt in every sense of the word, selling indulgences to finance themselves and the crusades.
Like I say, I don’t know IF positive influences of the Church could be held separate from its negativity? You say young people pursued careers in religion and academics, there was commerce and industry? But not much, right? Weren’t 90% on the land? Some security guilds in London and communes in Italy, were they militias? You have to say, people like liked combat, otherwise how did they raise so many armies.
I don’t really see how peoples communes and guilds built commercial life. I think “Capital” built commerce and subjugated the commoner. Then the guilds were an answer to that subjugation. Neither do I see any limitation on nepotism that is still practiced to this day.
You have provided a very stimulating article, and I thank you for that.
.
Hello Mike Alexander, Congratulations on taking on a big project. I like to deeply look into many things myself. With such a big subject it may be easy to leave out a few important transitions. I have studied a certain amount of ancient history, and I find little or nothing in it that would be applicable to how we think today. If anything, we are continually repeating the same mistakes.
Part 1
Starting out with Hoel's “gossip trap” is an interesting way to put it. Yes, you have to surmise some reason why there could be no development for so inconceivably long of a time? It is not at all because of temperature shifts, because those were of 100's of years duration, time enough to change something. Yes, I have heard of the Dunbar number. It is also intuitive. (I don't know 150 people now. Way less in fact.)
I never believed primitives lived in tranquility. If there was easy food and no intruders, then their own chieftains and witch doctors probably made all the difficulties. How did mankind escape the gossip trap? If one group managed to do it, and built larger numbers, then the others would be forced to, in order to counterbalance their "weight". You say the same thing further down the line.
(What will you say about the Native American Tribes?)
In war, the most effective weapons prevail, even over larger numbers. In a warrior society, all the young boys would be in military training, and with hunting, and weapons-use since early childhood. Their ideals would be to die on the battlefield with glory and heroism. Maybe they would make it to 25 years old.
I believe religion started from superstition and beliefs of spirits and goblins. I see the main impetus is "bribery", (they call it worship). I would bribe the gods to protect me and send me some rain, and I would bribe the goblins to stay away. That is called making a sacrifice. I don't think there was any other ideology in paganism. I believe pagan religions were like favorite local foods, there were different rituals for every locality. Many 100's or even 1,000's of varieties. Later those in power thought it useful to subordinate the commoner to their goals, thus a hierarchy of the powerful formed.
You mention that religious organization and power structures created ever larger ethnos/civilizations.
But if you think about it, when defensive weapons dominated, there were at the most, fragmented city-states. Only advances in offensive weapons created larger domains, when they could lay siege to a castle. And I am talking way before gunpowder. Different kinds of compound bows, and warrior practice to be able to shoot arrows at full gallop.
The curved saber was superior to the heavy armor and heavy drought horses. The steppe tribes had bread fast horses and of course the Arabians had excellent horses. Chinese horses were almost like mules, and first used for war chariots. The Steppe tribes could descend on the Chinese and slice them to ribbons with one stroke. The Mongols dominated the known world, and taught the Russians to use sabers.
At the great migrations Vikings, Celtics, Thervingi, Gauls, Visgoths, Ostrogoths, and others, rampaged through Eastern and Southern Europe. These tribes were raiders. If they could conquer a large city with riches, they could pay for their army. But even with sacking the villages, they captured all women and children and sold them into slavery. There was a network of slave traders from about 150 - 200 AD until maybe 1,400. So, these villages searched for consolidation with larger cities with a prince and a standing army. Then that prince had to pay for his army too. So he also had to engage in continual war and plunder.
Otherwise most all European consolidations were made by conquest. Charlemagne conquered everything, or his sons did.
I believe that all religious mass conversions were only for political purposes. For example, the king of Tibet was always held powerless by the nobles. The religion was called BON and was tied in with the nobles. The king (or several kings) tried 4 times to convert to Buddhism. Each time the nobles rallied that people back to the tradition of BON. Finally, it happened and the nobles were unseated. It had nothing to do with the qualities of Buddhism. It was purely political.
When the Mongols were breaking up after the death of Genghis Kahn, some of the factions converted to Islam. It had nothing to do with Islam, but just to politically differentiate one faction from another.
When Yarislov the Wise converted Kiev to Orthodox, it had nothing to do with Christianity. He needed allies, and Orthodox Byzantium was the powerful best bet.
When Henry the VIII forced the church to renounce Catholicism, it was strictly a move to shake loose from the pope, nothing to do about the Anglican, God, morals or religious tenants.
The Chinese did it too with Confucianism against Taoism, and/or the iChing philosophy.
You suggested that “Cooperation-promoting norms and institutions like government and religion enabled tribes and chiefdoms numbering in the thousands to scale up into states and empires a hundred times larger.” I suggest it was war, not cooperation.
Charlemagne the son of Pippin, became the king of the Franks in 768. (He was a devout Catholic and the Pope consecrated him as king). The Carolingian Empire is viewed in traditional historiography as a French dynasty, with the counting of kings beginning with Charlemagne. A more thorough conception was offered by Augustin Thierry, the French historian 1795 - 1856, who pointed out that the Carolingians exercised their dominion in the territory of modern France exclusively by brute force. Brittany, Aquitaine, Provence and Burgundy only recognized the Carolinian power because they were powerless to assert their independence. The Christian Carolingians destroyed the independence of Provence (737-739), destroyed Aquitaine (760-768), destroyed Lombardy (774), Bavaria (788), the Saxon tribe (797), took Barcelona from the Arabs (801) and defeated the Avars (802-803). Under Charlemagne's successors all these successes were nullified: the Danube and Elbe valleys were taken over by the Slavs, the "Spanish Brand" was separated from the empire, and the latter disintegrated into its component parts.
Some say that the Crusades were the pope’s vehicle for economic expansion. That seems a far-out way to categorize them. The Crusades, i.e., the first attempt at colonial expansion, ended in grand defeat on all fronts. In the Crusades up to 3 million were killed, which evolved into Christians vs. Muslims. At first the Crusaders had success, but then were mercilessly exterminated. Few if any came back. The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Latin Empire generally disappeared from the map of the world at that time. Only the Livonian Order survived, but it changed from a springboard of the European Crusader knightly advance, into a small feudal possession in a territory, which neither Lithuania nor Russia contested.
I don’t know about the Marriage-Family-Program of the Latin Pope. I have come to believe that the power-seeking Latin pope was the source of most European conflict. Neither do I know about the Monastery at Cluny, nor its expansion, nor the Cistercian monasticism adaption. Although I think the expansion to 1,000 abbeys in 100 years should be analyzed further. I think the Benedictines were very much enforcing austerity. Some Abbots relaxed the standard, and others split off to re-establish the tradition.
What’s missing is the mention of the Manicheans. They are Ismailism, Karmatianism, Marionite Pavlikianism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Bogomilism, Albigensianism, the Cathars and other similar ancient systems. Western Manichaeism had been in competition with Christianity since the late third century and was persecuted in the same way as Christianity under Diocletian. It’s where truth and falsehood are not opposed, but equated to each other, life-negation. Evil is eternal. This evil is all of the material world, including you and me, and only animated by the spirit, but enveloping it with the material. The evil of the world is the torment of the spirit in the tenets of matter; therefore, all material things are a source of evil. And if so, then evil is all things, including temples and icons, crosses; and the bodies of people. And all this is subject to destruction.
.
A few comments. The period of the "gossip trap" would be *before* there were chieftains or witch doctors.
It is true that better weapons tend to prevail. But for most of human history there weren't better weapons, technological change was *very* slow. I
Young men who run away from danger are more likely to reproduce, those who fight and die less so. Evolution largely weeds out the foolhardy and so you do not see a warrior ethic in small scale societies. There are wars, but then tend to consist of small-scale conflicts, typically ambushes by a larger group against a smaller one, similar to how chimps make war, except humans can throw objects with accuracy and force. Thrown rocks become thrown spears become bow and arrows.
War is a selection force for cooperation, What is an army, if not a collective of men closely cooperating with each other to defeat the enemy?
The ideas for how religion began that I find most plausible is the human tendency to see patterns where they are none and to attach supernatural explanations to them. Sometimes the explanations serve a secondary purpose that is beneficial, allowing the believer to so better in life. An example could be ritual used to purging evil spirits from food before cooking and eating it that has the side effect of removing a toxin that allows safe use of a foodstuff. Unbelievers (like European explorers) who ate the food without performing the ritual and become unhealthy. Another is beliefs that on some parts of an animal were suitable for hunters to eat, leaving other parts for others to consume. Such beliefs encourage food sharing which improved group survival and growth in numbers. And as you noted larger groups would have an edge in war.
Charlemagne had only one son, Louis the Pious, who succeeded him. When Louis died, the empire was split between his three sons. I think you may be confusing grandsons for sons.
Henry VIII broke from the church because he wanted to divorce his wife, which the pope would not allow. The Anglican church he founded was very similar to Catholicism (still is), as he had no doctrinal dispute, it was strictly political. But once he had done it he was able to dissolve the monastery and grab a nice pile of loot, so that might have been in the back of his mind too.
Thanks for the reply, I haven't really studied the time of Rome and before. Sometimes there is archaeological evidence about prehistoric living conditions, which I have heard about but haven't internalized, (I don't know it). It is a great conjecture about primitive conditions and why there was no advancement. I do intend to read Erik Hoel, to whom you pointed, but I have stacks of reading to do.
I studied the Huns, the Turks and the Mongols, all warrior societies. (That's why I asked about Native Americans on the plains. They didn't have horses though, so the difference.) I think that in those societies there would be no timid, who run from danger. They would be ostracized out of the community (which would be certain death to be on your own). American and Western social scientists believe in the "Individual" who preceded the group. So they might analyze that a single person could make certain choices. I believe that the group, family, clan, tribe, were consolidated way before the "individual" was acknowledged, or even existed as a word in the vocabulary. If you died on the battlefield at 25, you could already have 8-9 children with the wife. Mongols were married at 10, or even 8. Maybe they cohabitated at 13. If you won many battles you might have concubines. Then you could have sired 20-30 children.
Steppe people were cattle breeders. The steppes went through long periods of both wet and dry, 100's of years each. During the wet centuries grass grew as far as you could travel. Snow cover was light because on the lea side of the mountains, so herds could forage in the winter, and increase enough to support any population growth.
My one doubt and question about historical records, is how was it so easy to continually raise enormous armies. One way is the mercenary armies, which all of Europe, and Rome had many. You pay them. Even now ISIS jihads make 40-50 dollars a day, at home they might typically make $10/day. Turkey promised $100/day to go fight in Libya, (but finally paid only $40).
My theory is that ancient society was so stagnant on the subsistence farm, that the only way to get anywhere was to join the army. Fighting and killing must be "fun"? Winning armies were typically given a couple of days or a week to rand sack, rape and plunder the city they just subdued. They sent those riches home. Or most just drank and "partied" everything as they went. Westerns sanitize it and say "they took wives". No, they took concubines, or created "gang-rape" brothels.
Certainly there was the culture of military discipline, if you want to call that cooperation. Roman emperors complained that the army was soft, and they couldn't even mount their horse without a ladder. Nobody talks about the logistics necessary to operate a huge army year in and year out. Can we just blithely assume that they could just steal food as they moved along. Not until the first winning battle. Or horses were killed in battle, which would have been eaten.
They needed 1,000's of swords and spears. Who made good straight arrows? With cavalry you needed 3-4 horses for every warrior. You can't ride a war horse; it needs to be fresh for battle, (or you will loose). Did 100,000 army need 300,000 horses? Where did they get the fodder? There were winter campaigns too. Armies moved 1,000's of miles. All this makes it unbelievable. Also Chinese historians used only "round numbers". 100,000, or 400,000, or even a million army sometimes. Defeated and fleeing tribes can't win battles, they only disperse and hide in the mountains. To conduct war takes a prosperous society behind the military. That part is cooperation I guess, out of fear?
I feel there are many mysteries, that the historians don't confront.
.