The Renaissance was a mistake (from a traditional standpoint)

Oberrheiner

Pelican
That's not the point.
Before invasion they were free tribes, after they were forced to live in cities and integrate into society.

This is the point where quantity was chosen over quality.
And unsurprisingly this is a core property of christianity (and islam) too, anybody can join and if they are in a position of strength you won't be given a choice.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
The Romans were extremely harsh in Gaul, outright genociding something like a quarter of men, but their Heleno-Italian civilization was an upgrade over the Celto-Frankish civilization. French civilization is a good blend of both.
We can literally say that up to million(s) of people died in the Roman invasion of Gaul.

It might have been related to the fact that Romans have been fighting Celts since 390 BC and conquered and destroyed them brick by brick. It was them that conquered and destroyed them entirely from Europe and the memory of the Celtic sack of Rome in 387 BC which the Romans never forgot . Only far northern Scotland remained.

The Illyrian Revolt which happened in today's Bosnia and Croatia in around 6 AD was the biggest menace Rome had faced since times of Hannibal and was endangering Rome itself. Romans displaced some of the tribes and mixed the others with other Illyrians but were half as harsh as in Gaul, probably because many southern Illyrians were already Roman citizens for a long time.

Rome was a civilisation , a civilisation which derived in large from non indeo European Etruscans, Rome's authentic civilisation mixed with influences from the hellenic world and Phoenicians.

Celts/ Gauls were not a civilisation. Like Germanic tribes, slavs, central asians ,Africans , they were a culture at best.
 
You know guys this micro-tracing of where things went wrong becomes a bit much. If we really want to, we can go all the way back to the fall because it's all downhill from there. This is the main problem, man's fallen nature.

I reject the modern notion of progress and constant evolution and progression but I also reject this uprising notion of constant decline.
The whole notion propped up by the Easterns that everything post schism is a bad thing is nonsense. The Renaissance was an achievement all around. The main downside of it was Humanism, which was the dominating philosophy. The art is unmatched, so is the poetry and sheer innovation.

For every good thing that happens twice as many bad things happen. One man's treasure is another man's trash and vice versa. It really depends on what your getting at here from which system do you conduct this analysis and so on and so forth.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
It was them [Romans] that conquered and destroyed them [Celts] entirely from Europe (...) Only far northern Scotland remained.

That's very questionable, and many specialists would disagree about that. Celtic languages obviously subsist to this day.

Rome was a civilisation (...)

Celts/ Gauls were not a civilisation. Like Germanic tribes, slavs, central asians ,Africans , they were a culture at best.

Typical Renaissance-centric propaganda. About every Western nation that separated itslef from the Church has a similar narrative : There is no civilization outside Imperial (i.e. decadent) Rome, everything outside it is nothing but a bunch of uncivilized barbarians, and we are the New Romans.

Unlike the oafish, degenerate Roman world where a lot of martyrs were neeeded to communicate the Christian medicine, there are virtually no martyrs in the Christianization of Ireland. The Irish peacefully made a synthesis of their own culture with Christianity and stayed a country of elite learning all throughout the middle ages.
 
Last edited:

ilostabet

Pelican
You know guys this micro-tracing of where things went wrong becomes a bit much. If we really want to, we can go all the way back to the fall because it's all downhill from there. This is the main problem, man's fallen nature.

I reject the modern notion of progress and constant evolution and progression but I also reject this uprising notion of constant decline.
The whole notion propped up by the Easterns that everything post schism is a bad thing is nonsense. The Renaissance was an achievement all around. The main downside of it was Humanism, which was the dominating philosophy. The art is unmatched, so is the poetry and sheer innovation.

For every good thing that happens twice as many bad things happen. One man's treasure is another man's trash and vice versa. It really depends on what your getting at here from which system do you conduct this analysis and so on and so forth.

I quoted St. Thomas precisely to show that this is not an East vs West thing, but a Tradition vs Modernity thing - for another incidental evidence of this one simply has to look at Eastern Churches in communion with Rome which keep Traditional art forms. Not styles, as there are many styles - one can produce traditional art in a Far Eastern style, like in the Book 'Life of Christ by Chinese Artists' (artists which, moved by the traditional wisdom conveyed through the traditional form, converted to Christ) but forms in the way St. Thomas - and everyone before modern times - used that word (this includes keeping canon with regard to doctrine, which was abandoned in the Renaissance progressively to give way to the artists' aesthetic sensibilities and personal fancies - the examples abound, but you can look at the Last Judgement or the Creation of Adam from Michelangelo as obvious examples of departure from this, and how this art can no longer function as 'the Bible of the poor', as the Western Church had always affirmed, that is, as a visual representation of doctrine, which traditional art always is).

So the problem of the Renaissance is indeed humanism, and the problem of Renaissance visual art is precisely because it is humanism in visual form - which is perfectly described, very presciently, by St. Thomas. Instead of the traditional doctrine, this art affirms humanism in its visual representations.

Tradition is not simply something 'handed down' from the past in terms of time, but handed down in terms of meaning - that is, coming from above, from higher principles, from God. The reason to criticize the Renaissance is not due to fetishism of the past, but because we value the eternal rather than the contingent. And perspective, games of shadows, anatomy are all characteristics of the contingent - the reason traditional art does not use such techniques is not because they didn't understand three-dimensional representation, but because not using it it affirms eternity, rather than contingency, in perfect conformity with traditional doctrine.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
That's very questionable, and many specialists would disagree about that. Celtic languages obviously subsist to this day.



Typical Renaissance-centric propaganda. About every Western nation that separated itslef from the Church has a similar narrative : There is no civilization outside Imperial (i.e. decadent) Rome, everything outside it is nothing but a bunch of uncivilized barbarians, and we are the New Romans.

Unlike the oafish, degenerate Roman world where a lot of martyrs were neeeded to communicate the Christian medicine, there are virtually no martyrs in the Christianization of Ireland. The Irish peacefully made a synthesis of their own culture with Christianity and stayed a country of elite learning all throughout the middle ages.
I am not going to debate with the 2nd half of your comment but regarding Celtic language, they survived only in regions where Romans didn't enter, Scotland and Ireland.

All the Celtic presence in mainland Europe from Iberia to southern Germany , northern Italy and Balkans was eliminated.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
A mtDNA study in 2004 stated that the Etruscans had no significant heterogeneity, and that all mitochondrial lineages observed among the Etruscan samples appear typically European
You didn't bother reading the link yet reply to it ? Or what did I miss here ?
 
Notice how I said Greeks Of Antiquity. The Ancient Greeks, were indo-europeans.

The Greeks of today are compiled of turks, slavs, south italian, anatolian and other groups in the balkans.

They are not the Ancient Greeks who were indo-european.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
afa97319407602020d905.png
 

Goni

Woodpecker
You didn't bother reading the link yet reply to it ? Or what did I miss here ?
I am not getting at all what you are trying to say.

I did not say Etruscans were not "Europeans " ( a label which had not much sense in the Bronze age or early iron age until the late Roman Empire).

I said they were not indo europeans , meaning they did not speak a indo European language and most reputable historians state they are probably the natives of Italic peninsula since the Bronze Age before indo europeans who brought Latin and Celtic invaded. Indo Europeans were probably an elite that invaded and subdued the natives, however that is largely unknown.

It is a linguistic label , not racial, despite that besides Armenian and Iranic, all languages in Asia and Africa are not indo europan.

The Roman Civilization and Empire was largely influenced by Etruscans.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
Greeks of Antiquity were Indo-European.

The Greeks of Today are a combination of things such as slavic and turkish etc etc

Notice how I said Greeks Of Antiquity. The Ancient Greeks, were indo-europeans.

The Greeks of today are compiled of turks, slavs, south italian, anatolian and other groups in the balkans.

They are not the Ancient Greeks who were indo-european.
If you are saying that modern Greeks are not much related racially and ethnically with ancient Hellens you are largely correct. More than slavic and anatolian, todays Greeks are in large assimilated Arvanites and Vlachs.

Arvanites were medieval Orthodox Albanian warriors that with or without permission of the Catalan duchy of Athens and Eastern Roman Empire colonised today's southern Greece in late 1200s and 1400s. Athens in 1833 when King Otto of Bavaria came waaa small village populated by them, They were heavily engaged in the war of 1821 known today as "Greek Revolution" with whom they fought the muslim Ottoman rulers, mainly Albanian Pashas and mercenaries.

Vlachs are a latin speaking people, vulgar latin mostly, a leftover or remains of the Roman Empire era, natives of the Balkans mostly. Today's Romanians are supposed to have originated by them in southern Balkans and came later to Transylvania. Their most known establishment was on Thessaly, it was called '' Great Vllahia'' in the 1200s. They are entirely assimilated on greeks since the region was given to the state in 1882. Besides Thessaly, they were in large numbers eastern Epirus and Macedonia. Many in Bulgaria and Hercegovina too,

So while, you might be correct that modern greeks dont have to do much with the ones of the ancient times, it is not correct to not call them indo europans, Albanians, Vlachs, Slavs are all indo europeans.

Again, indo european is a linguistic label, not racial. Armenians are indo europeans but they are dark and exotic. Hungarians are not, but they are mostly slavic, germanic genetically.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
Of course they are, but for some reason several people on this thread didn't notice.
Italic is not really a subdivision, because within Italic, you have several ones on ancient times such as Latin, Etruscan, Celtic, Umbrian, Messapian, Hellenic etc.

Latin and Umbrian which are supposed to be more authentic italic, are not more italic than etruscan and celtic in Italy for example.
 
If you are saying that modern Greeks are not much related racially and ethnically with ancient Hellens you are largely correct. More than slavic and anatolian, todays Greeks are in large assimilated Arvanites and Vlachs.

Arvanites were medieval Orthodox Albanian warriors that with or without permission of the Catalan duchy of Athens and Eastern Roman Empire colonised today's southern Greece in late 1200s and 1400s. Athens in 1833 when King Otto of Bavaria came waaa small village populated by them, They were heavily engaged in the war of 1821 known today as "Greek Revolution" with whom they fought the muslim Ottoman rulers, mainly Albanian Pashas and mercenaries.

Vlachs are a latin speaking people, vulgar latin mostly, a leftover or remains of the Roman Empire era, natives of the Balkans mostly. Today's Romanians are supposed to have originated by them in southern Balkans and came later to Transylvania. Their most known establishment was on Thessaly, it was called '' Great Vllahia'' in the 1200s. They are entirely assimilated on greeks since the region was given to the state in 1882. Besides Thessaly, they were in large numbers eastern Epirus and Macedonia. Many in Bulgaria and Hercegovina too,

So while, you might be correct that modern greeks dont have to do much with the ones of the ancient times, it is not correct to not call them indo europans, Albanians, Vlachs, Slavs are all indo europeans.

Again, indo european is a linguistic label, not racial. Armenians are indo europeans but they are dark and exotic. Hungarians are not, but they are mostly slavic, germanic genetically.

Are you sure Indo-European is a linguistic label?

I thought it was a racial.

Maybe I'm getting confused with the Aryans and Indo-Europeans.

Who were the peoples who used the veddas as their primary mythos ?
 
Top