Another "dark age"

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
There was a chance for another "dark age" many times through the past 2 centuries. Hell, there is a good chance we are entering another dark age now as we speak. It's just we aren't aware of it because the process is too slow for the evidence to pile up until it reaches the critical point where we would realise our society is actually breaking up piece by piece. (But it could take a century or two until this collapse materializes, so it would be pretty damn hard to pile up the evidence before it's too late to do anything about it.)

<massive text wall snipped>!

Well, here we are.

Even after a warning rattle, right back to the same thing.

We'll go with straight out of the gate.

We divorce you.

To Coventry with you.
 
Well, here we are.

Even after a warning rattle, right back to the same thing.

We'll go with straight out of the gate.

We divorce you.

To Coventry with you.
May I ask what he got banned for? Just so that I understand the rules better since I didn't see anything that warranted a ban. If somebody gets banned, I might as well learn from it.
 
May I ask what he got banned for? Just so that I understand the rules better since I didn't see anything that warranted a ban. If somebody gets banned, I might as well learn from it.
Shitposting obnoxious walls of texts, with several "culturalist" undertones but CalBear said he overlooked this giving the first issue.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
May I ask what he got banned for? Just so that I understand the rules better since I didn't see anything that warranted a ban. If somebody gets banned, I might as well learn from it.
There are eight automatic, or viturally automatic Banning events

They can be found here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/forum-rules-and-guidelines.173163/

In this case the primary reason was trolling straight out of the gate (i.e. shortly after signing up). There were a couple secondary reasons that, in other circumstances would have been a Kick or perhaps a warning, namely what appeared to be support for slavery (apparently the Roman empire failed because they stopped actively acquiring slaves) and a fairly well developed sense of religious bigotry.

In this particular case a previous thread by the poster had been locked with an admonishment to stop trolling.
 
He does go on to define it, but in a very unorthodox and problematic way whilst casually insulting people who dont agree for not thinking.

Well, of course there is nothing new in redefining the old definitions but that gloom and doom scenario (or rather what I managed to read of it before giving up) does not look serious enough to argue. :openedeyewink:
 
They can go even further : making the society this violent will educate generations of fanatics hoping for a religious war to kill those demons called "protestants"

AFAIK, Inquisition (Dominican Order) was not too much into "educating the masses" (this niche was taken by the Jesuits) and its main death toll were not the Protestants who appeared centuries after the office was created. As far as fanaticism goes the Protestants had been just as "good" as the Catholics. But, the worst case scenarios, Wars of Religion in France and the 30YW did not produce collapse of the societies.
 
Well, here we are.

Even after a warning rattle, right back to the same thing.

We'll go with straight out of the gate.

We divorce you.

To Coventry with you.

Is Coventry that bad? The list of places in the UK that I visited is quite short: London, Norwich, Windsor and Peep's Ford (if I remember the name correctly). It seems that I missed something quite interesting. :'(
 
AFAIK, Inquisition (Dominican Order) was not too much into "educating the masses".
Medieval Inquisition was fairly divided among Franciscans and Dominicans, depending on regions (for instance, southern France Inquisition was more dominated by Dominicans, but in Italy it was more Franciscan based). Giving that these orders based a lot of their legitimacy on popular predication, while it can't really be considered as education in the modern or even contemporary sense...There was the idea to widespread religious views on a popular scale (pretty much as heretics predicators did) and giving religion played a massive role into popular culture and self-identity...
 
There are eight automatic, or viturally automatic Banning events

They can be found here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/forum-rules-and-guidelines.173163/

In this case the primary reason was trolling straight out of the gate (i.e. shortly after signing up). There were a couple secondary reasons that, in other circumstances would have been a Kick or perhaps a warning, namely what appeared to be support for slavery (apparently the Roman empire failed because they stopped actively acquiring slaves) and a fairly well developed sense of religious bigotry.

In this particular case a previous thread by the poster had been locked with an admonishment to stop trolling.

Just to understand the "acceptable limits": so would it be OK to say that the Roman state had been heavily based upon the slavery and that shortage of the new slaves was one of the factors contributing to its demise? [I'm not sure that this actually was a case but ...]
 
Just to understand the "acceptable limits": so would it be OK to say that the Roman state had been heavily based upon the slavery and that shortage of the new slaves was one of the factors contributing to its demise? [I'm not sure that this actually was a case but ...]
Other than being factually wrong?
Eventually, the issue about "maintaining slavery would be a good thing" because "it may be kind but effectively destroyed social network" is more debatable but frankly strikes me more as outright dumb than supporting slavery as such in this case : it's true than how they put it is disturbing in light of religious/cultural bigotry IMO, but in a different context...IDK.
 
I know there’s really no point in asking this, since he’s been banned, but did @The Atheist Series really just argue that the printing press was invented earlier and the Catholic Church supressed it? I’d quote him but I’m on a mobile device right now, and trying to selectively trim down one of his posts is not worth it.

Anyway, I don’t think he was trolling, but his view of history is just so far off all the evidence that its basically indistinguishable from trolling - or just good old fashioned conspiracy theorizing.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Just to understand the "acceptable limits": so would it be OK to say that the Roman state had been heavily based upon the slavery and that shortage of the new slaves was one of the factors contributing to its demise? [I'm not sure that this actually was a case but ...]
You can say just about anything as long as it is factual and isn't advocating genocide, slavery, or various forms of bigotry.

As an example: It is perfectly fine to say "Slavery was vital to the Southern Economy in 1860" since that is a demonstrable fact that can be supported by economic data. It is much LESS acceptable say "The Southern Economy should have been allowed to continue slavery indefinitely" although one might be able to make a case on the economics. It is entirely unacceptable to say "African Americans were better off as slaves than as freedmen & women, and slaves were treated pretty well anyway" (odd as it sounds someone tried to make that case here; he was spectacularly unsuccessful).
 
Other than being factually wrong?

It does not matter. The point is that is possible to say something without implication that you mean that that "something" is good or bad. BTW, the Roman state had been heavily based upon the slavery. It is an undeniable fact which has nothing to do with my approval or disapproval. For the record, I do not think that slavery is a good thing or even a productive one (OTOH, experience of being enslaved by my dog is rather enjoyable and I'm quite productive in performing my "duties": providing her with a food, rubbing her head, etc. :openedeyewink:).

Eventually, the issue about "maintaining slavery would be a good thing"

This is a completely different issue which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. BTW, "good thing" may imply 2 seriously different things depending upon the context: (a) that slavery is a good thing in general (hopefully, there is no need to even comment on that) or (b) that slavery was economically good for maintaining the OTL Roman Empire (which is highly questionable but at least debatable).
 
You can say just about anything as long as it is factual and isn't advocating genocide, slavery, or various forms of bigotry.

As an example: It is perfectly fine to say "Slavery was vital to the Southern Economy in 1860" since that is a demonstrable fact that can be supported by economic data. It is much LESS acceptable say "The Southern Economy should have been allowed to continue slavery indefinitely" although one might be able to make a case on the economics. It is entirely unacceptable to say "African Americans were better off as slaves than as freedmen & women, and slaves were treated pretty well anyway" (odd as it sounds someone tried to make that case here; he was spectacularly unsuccessful).

Thanks, I got the idea.

There was a funny mockumentary based upon a premise that South is victorious, Lincoln is hanged and the slavery keeps existing. The part about the (good) treatment was based upon the cost estimate: IIRC, it was said that a slave cost something like an expensive car and as such was taken a good care off. Don't remember the title but it was quite funny movie even if a little bit too long. Did that <whoever> try the similar argument? :)
 
I know there’s really no point in asking this, since he’s been banned, but did @The Atheist Series really just argue that the printing press was invented earlier and the Catholic Church supressed it? I’d quote him but I’m on a mobile device right now, and trying to selectively trim down one of his posts is not worth it.

Anyway, I don’t think he was trolling, but his view of history is just so far off all the evidence that its basically indistinguishable from trolling - or just good old fashioned conspiracy theorizing.
I didnt notice the printing press specifically, but he seems to think that everywhere but the UK was feudal theocracies at the time of the French Revolution, and that somehow Catholicism (a somehow united political force) was primed to destroy a class that had been in existence since the 11th century...
 
With the decline of the roman empire in western europe the level of urbanization and societal organization declined rapidly.

But the west recovered, new cities sprung up and states again became centralized and advanced. No large-scale decline like this ever happened again, but what if it did? Could a long time of neglect and warfare lead to larger states again collapse in Europe and be replaced by smaller local governments?

Preferably this should happen after the 17th century.
Maybe a massive war in Europe featuring the Timurids ?
 
There are eight automatic, or viturally automatic Banning events

They can be found here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/forum-rules-and-guidelines.173163/

In this case the primary reason was trolling straight out of the gate (i.e. shortly after signing up). There were a couple secondary reasons that, in other circumstances would have been a Kick or perhaps a warning, namely what appeared to be support for slavery (apparently the Roman empire failed because they stopped actively acquiring slaves) and a fairly well developed sense of religious bigotry.

In this particular case a previous thread by the poster had been locked with an admonishment to stop trolling.

I thought he was saying that the unsustainable nature of slavery had caused the collapse of the economy because eventually they couldn't get enough slaves and they didn't adapt?
 
I didnt notice the printing press specifically, but he seems to think that everywhere but the UK was feudal theocracies at the time of the French Revolution, and that somehow Catholicism (a somehow united political force) was primed to destroy a class that had been in existence since the 11th century...

On a second read, I think he's proposing that, in this alternate timeline, the Catholic Church would be able to suppress the printing press. He just segued from talking about his theories about the Roman economy and the middle ages into the timeline without much to distinguish where one ended and the other began. Never mind that the level of control needed to be able to suppress a technology like the printing press requires the printing press. And never mind that it was Catholics who were buying all those Gutenberg bibles (since there were no Protestants yet).

You know what this all reminds me of? Have you ever read that satirical post-modern paper that was submitted to peer reviewed journals that was complete nonsense? That.
 
Well, somehow China did not end up as a huge territory of the smoking ruins so the outcome probably would not be as tragic as you are assuming. Besides, with the general Mongolian policy regarding religion and religious institutions, it is probably reasonable to assume that quite a few of these libraries would be spared, being in the monasteries (if you are talking about Europe). Not that they had some genetic hate toward the educated people: their usefulness in administration and military technology was obvious and they had been employed, sometimes in the very high positions, starting from Genghis' reign.

Then, there are 2 additional factors:

(a) If anything, the Mongols were not creating an administrative havoc routinely associated with the Dark Ages (an idiotic term invented by Petrarch to show his attitude toward the people and cultures not well versed in Latin). If anything, it was rather other way around: centralized uniform administration of the hugely different territories.

(b) The Mongolian empire provided easy communications between the territories that were only marginally aware of each other. Which means that the knowledge could be spread more easily.

Then, of course, OTL disintegration of the Mongolian Empire did not result in the cataclysms you described and there is no reason to assume anything of the kind.

It is difficult to argue that the Mongols did not have a major effect on population centres when the result of their Imperial ambition created a minor ice age whose actual influence was felt across the world. We can consider written histories suspect in their biases, but pure scientific evidence points to a massive reduction in human population in the time of Mongol expansion. It is also hard to imagine that building an empire results in few casualties. An empire of such scale as the Mongols led to the destruction of many nations and peoples such as Khwarezmia and the Tanguts sudden sharp end. Deserts and forests swallowed regions of previouly intense agricultural usage leading to an environmental event that outstripped the effect of the Black Death on the environment.

The dissolution of such a huge empire that allowed communication across great distances would be seen as a fall back into isolation. The instabilty caused by civil wars, succession wars and wars of independence would be catastrophic. The collapse of the empire would be far more damaging than the expansion and all empires end.

I am not saying there were no benefits to the Mongolian Empire, but it would be hard to argue in its favour if they are invading you. While their enlightened attitude to religious freedom was remarkable for the time they lived in they were still brutal conquerers with some ingeneous rulers. The story of the siege of Kuju always sticks in my head as a sign of both the Mongols honour in saluting the garrison commander and their terrifying resourcefulness in boiling their prisoners alive to use their human fat as explosives.
 
Top