Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
There was nothing like the industrial or scientific revolutions anywhere >else. In fact, some parts of the world were barely above caveman level even >in the 1500's. China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO >progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before. Little had >changed. Had Europeans not existed, we would be subsistence farmers, dying >on average at 35 and existing instead of being able to really live. A
nothing world. Thank goodness Europe existed.
Just think, had the bubonic plague wiped out all the Christian Europeans,
the Americas would've remained undiscovered, with "noble savages" still >running around and the entire Eastern Hemisphere forever stuck in a medieval >time warp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEYwXLpBpfI
Had there been no plague, though, things wouldn't have been much better: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1aULu6BqNs
PhantomView wrote:
----snip----
Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.
Almost all of that was European anyway: the knowledge and science of
the Ancient Greeks, transmitted to Rome, then to Persia when Justinian forbade teaching by pagans, then to Islam when the Arabs conquered
Persia. There was as well a little from China and India.
Islam is in fact responsible for *nothing* good. Even their
architecture was derived from that of Ancient Rome. And India.
----snip----
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
----snip----
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.
Almost all of that was European anyway: the knowledge and science of
the Ancient Greeks, transmitted to Rome, then to Persia when Justinian forbade teaching by pagans, then to Islam when the Arabs conquered
Persia. There was as well a little from China and India.
Islam is in fact responsible for *nothing* good. Even their
architecture was derived from that of Ancient Rome. And India.
Although I think that Islam is overrated for politically correct reasons,
I think this goes too far. Islam did some of the medicine, discussions of physics, mathematics, etc.
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
I am not sure, later era of the Roman Empire was technologically
advancing faster.
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Phil McGregor wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Ned Latham wrote:
Phil McGregor wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Evidently you didn't bother to read the REST of what I said.
"Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages."
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:33:24 -0600, Byker wrote:
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
On Sat, 07 Dec 2019 21:12:24 -0600, Ned Latham
<nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
By the early medieval period slavery was gone (or going) almost
everywhere in the Mediterranean world and its peripheries ... replaced
by Serfdom, which was more efficient, economically speaking, and that,
too, was being replaced, albeit slowly, by the end of the medieval
period in most places.
Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages.
Phil McGregor wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
Phil McGregor wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
It had *everything* to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Evidently you didn't bother to read the REST of what I said.
Wrong. I read it and dismissed it.
"Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages."
Irrelevant. The advances that later lifted Europe above the rest of the
world were made before Christianity became the State Religion in the 4th >century. Progress was then suppressed in every area of human endeavour
that had aspects worrying to Christian dogma until the Renaissance.
Even then, it continued trying to suppress progress.
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 10:32:25 +1100, Phil McGregor <aspqrz@tpg.com.au>
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2019 21:12:24 -0600, Ned Latham >><nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
By the early medieval period slavery was gone (or going) almost
everywhere in the Mediterranean world and its peripheries ... replaced
by Serfdom, which was more efficient, economically speaking, and that,
too, was being replaced, albeit slowly, by the end of the medieval
period in most places.
Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages.
I have heard that proposition before, and to a degree
it may be a factor. However the most common impetus
for new and better sci/tech is MILITARY power. Rome
always wanted that, even after they went Christian.
No, there was something else holding back the innovators.
Not sure exactly what though. I suspect the way money
and rewards and markets were organized was involved,
a structural barrier buried in the system.
PhantomView wrote:
Phil McGregor wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
By the early medieval period slavery was gone (or going) almost everywhere in the Mediterranean world and its peripheries ... replaced
by Serfdom, which was more efficient, economically speaking, and that, too, was being replaced, albeit slowly, by the end of the medieval
period in most places.
Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the early, usually expensive, stages.
I have heard that proposition before, and to a degree
it may be a factor. However the most common impetus
for new and better sci/tech is MILITARY power. Rome
always wanted that, even after they went Christian.
No, there was something else holding back the innovators.
Not sure exactly what though. I suspect the way money
and rewards and markets were organized was involved,
a structural barrier buried in the system.
True, to an extent. However, the problem was that the money, the real
money, was held by a landowning class (those of Senatorial status) or
a commercial class (the Equites) whose main aim was to make enough
money to buy enough land to become a member of the Senatorial Class
... and there was, therefore, an inherent prejudice against anything
that wasn't based on agriculture or rural activities.
THAT was the main 'structural barrier.'
The think was, landholding was both profitable AND safely so for the
simple reason of Slavery ... innovation outside of Agriculture was
risky and, as noted, expensive, and uneconomic, during the early
stages.
You could also argue that Rome's fairly rapid expansion to a very
large size made the status quo, socially AND technologically, more
stable as, as far as 'industry' was concerned, even low productivity
slave workers could swamp innovation and, in any case, low
productivity manufacturing methods ON AN EMPIRE WIDE BASIS coupled
with the strategic position of the Mediterranean to transport said
production cheaply and almost risk free with no internal customs
barriers meant that, again, in the initial stages of technological development the expensive tech was swamped again.
Ned Latham wrote:
Phil McGregor wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
Phil McGregor wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
It had *everything* to do with it.
I disagree with your unsupported personal assertion.
Christianity onlly started to be a factor from the early 4th century,
by which the Empire was 3 centuries old and, the late Republic, which
had an Empire even if it wasn't one, adds another century to that.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Evidently you didn't bother to read the REST of what I said.
Wrong. I read it and dismissed it.
With no justification other than your unsuppoted personal assertion.
Which is, of course, entirely valueless.
"Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the early, usually expensive, stages."
Irrelevant. The advances that later lifted Europe above the rest of the world were made before Christianity became the State Religion in the 4th century. Progress was then suppressed in every area of human endeavour
that had aspects worrying to Christian dogma until the Renaissance.
Twaddle. Absolute total utter tosh.
Even then, it continued trying to suppress progress.
Twaddle.
I'm hardly an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, but your
unsupported personal assertion simply doesn't fly and smacks of
nothing more than sectarian hatred.
SolomonW wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that
situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had
not been seen before.
Almost all of that was European anyway: the knowledge and science of
the Ancient Greeks, transmitted to Rome, then to Persia when Justinian
forbade teaching by pagans, then to Islam when the Arabs conquered
Persia. There was as well a little from China and India.
Islam is in fact responsible for *nothing* good. Even their
architecture was derived from that of Ancient Rome. And India.
Although I think that Islam is overrated for politically correct reasons,
I think this goes too far. Islam did some of the medicine, discussions of
physics, mathematics, etc.
If you examine the basis of those claims, you'll find that they all lie
in compendia of ancient knowledge put together by Persian scholars in
the tenth and eleventh ccnturies. Muslims, yes, but not originators.
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
I am not sure, later era of the Roman Empire was technologically
advancing faster.
Only in areas that weren't a problem for Christian dogma.
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 19:25:18 -0600, Ned Latham
<nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
Phil McGregor wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
Rubbish. Slavery was central to Ancient Mediterranean economies
throughout the entire period of innovative thought all the way
from pre-Classical times in Greece to the Roman Empire's "Silver
Age" and beyond.
Evidently you didn't bother to read the REST of what I said.
"Slavery made mechanical and industrial innovation uneconomic in the
early, usually expensive, stages."
Which, of course, makes YOUR statement 'rubbish' ...
Phil McGregor
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 22:24:38 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:33:24 -0600, Byker wrote:
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
"SolomonW" wrote in message news:1c8v9did0xqr5.1sj7wnasexcfg.dlg@40tude.net...
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:33:24 -0600, Byker wrote:
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But for the "White Christian thieves" they'd still be in the Bronze Age, if not the Stone Age.
Although Europe represents only about 8 percent of the planet's landmass, after c.1492, Europeans conquered or colonized more than 80 percent of the entire world. There are many possible explanations for why history played
out this way, but few can explain why the West became so powerful for so long.
Example: China has provided a vast amount of intellectual property to the world. Too bad their emperors and their edicts kept them in the Middle Ages 500 years longer than the West. Mustn't upset the delicate yin and yang of things by such trivial concepts as innovation! What separates the West from cultures like China and the Islamic world is the idea of PROGRESS.
Why was there was no Thai Leeuwenhoek, no Korean Galileo, no Chinese Newton, no Indian Leibniz and no Turkish Tycho Brahe?
GREAT articles: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3769
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/Hsu/newton.htm
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/03/curious-civilization.html
PhantomView wrote:
SolomonW wrote:
Byker wrote:
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Ned Latham wrote:
SolomonW wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
PhantomView wrote:
Pouring classical,
arabic and far eastern philosophy, science and tech into that situation allowed for an energetic reaction the likes of which had not been seen before.
Almost all of that was European anyway: the knowledge and science of the Ancient Greeks, transmitted to Rome, then to Persia when Justinian forbade teaching by pagans, then to Islam when the Arabs conquered Persia. There was as well a little from China and India.
Islam is in fact responsible for *nothing* good. Even their architecture was derived from that of Ancient Rome. And India.
Although I think that Islam is overrated for politically correct reasons, I think this goes too far. Islam did some of the medicine, discussions of physics, mathematics, etc.
If you examine the basis of those claims, you'll find that they all lie
in compendia of ancient knowledge put together by Persian scholars in
the tenth and eleventh ccnturies. Muslims, yes, but not originators.
There is some original material there.
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
I am not sure, later era of the Roman Empire was technologically advancing faster.
Only in areas that weren't a problem for Christian dogma.
Which areas would take be? By 400 CE the Western Roman Empire was pretty homogenise
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:33:24 -0600, Byker wrote:
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
I am at a bit of a loss to explain why Rome missed the boat.
Christianity stultified it.
Christianity had little or nothing to do with it.
The real problem was economic ... slavery.
By the early medieval period slavery was gone (or going) almost everywhere
in the Mediterranean world and its peripheries ... replaced by Serfdom,
which was more efficient, economically speaking, and that, too, was being replaced, albeit slowly, by the end of the medieval period in most places.
Perhaps you'd like to condemn the Papist heretics and the Pope as an >anti-Christ while you're at it?
(Me? Born and baptised a Presbyterian ... but an agnostic by choice).
Phil McGregor--
Which areas would take be? By 400 CE the Western Roman Empire was pretty
homogenise
Architecture, poetry and literature, timekeeping, the trades,
Ned Latham wrote:
SolomonW wrote:
Which areas would take be? By 400 CE the Western Roman Empire was
pretty homogenise
Architecture, poetry and literature, timekeeping, the trades,
Don't forget the Eastern Empire, which flourished for another thousand years...
"PhantomView" wrote in message >news:sfdruep844qmnrvf7bum98qpll9klutetd@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 22:24:38 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:33:24 -0600, Byker wrote:
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
The worst political blunder of all time was the decision of the emperor of >China in 1433 to cut off his country from the outside world. In the wake of >that decision, China lost its position in the forefront of human
achievements and fell behind, over the centuries, to become a Third World >country, desiring to live in a "glorious past".
The Chinese education system was oriented toward the study of the Confucian >classics so students could write "eight-legged essays" about them. There was >a constant paranoia that advancements in science and technology would upset >the delicate yin and yang of things. There was no institution equivalent to
a university where original research was prized. The best a scientist could >hope for was to create a playtoy that would amuse the emperor...
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 21:51:21 -0500, PhantomView wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 22:24:38 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:33:24 -0600, Byker wrote:
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:33:23 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 21:51:21 -0500, PhantomView wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 22:24:38 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:33:24 -0600, Byker wrote:
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Similar in the "social order" perspective, but not
when it comes to innovation/tech/invention.
It is *extremely* impressive how quickly Japan went from
being an essentially medieval nation to becoming a powerful
force in the world .... barely two generations between
sharpening swords and animal-drawn carts to whipping
the Tsars pacific fleet.
That is NOT China .... despite some
similarities there is a different dynamic in Japanese culture.
Indeed it did ... in most places ... there were, of course, exceptions ... and some places (Poland, Russia amongst others) managed to institute (at least partially) the so-called 'second serfdom.'
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 21:58:41 -0500, PhantomView wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:33:23 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 21:51:21 -0500, PhantomView wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 22:24:38 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote: >>>>
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:33:24 -0600, Byker wrote:
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period.
But not as fast as would be expected.
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles,
keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Similar in the "social order" perspective, but not
when it comes to innovation/tech/invention.
It is *extremely* impressive how quickly Japan went from
being an essentially medieval nation to becoming a powerful
force in the world .... barely two generations between
sharpening swords and animal-drawn carts to whipping
the Tsars pacific fleet.
Again that is society, Japan a few hundred years earlier was one of the >leaders in gunpowder technology.
That is NOT China .... despite some
similarities there is a different dynamic in Japanese culture.
China went through rapid advancement in this period too. The big problem
they faced was their enemy Japan was advancing faster.
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:03:22 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 21:58:41 -0500, PhantomView wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:33:23 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2019 21:51:21 -0500, PhantomView wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 22:24:38 +1100, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:33:24 -0600, Byker wrote:But not as fast as would be expected.
China, India, etc., so called "civilizations" had ZERO
progressive spark. Their evolution had ceased 1000 years before.
China was technologically growing for much of this 1000 year period. >>>>>
I once heard it explained that there was a confluence
of Confucian and Taoist perspectives that encouraged
people to "let things be" ... just fulfill your traditional roles, >>>>> keep the old world going, do not rock the boat.
This put the brakes on Chinese sci/tech.
Well Japan has the same perspectives and it is not like that.
Similar in the "social order" perspective, but not
when it comes to innovation/tech/invention.
It is *extremely* impressive how quickly Japan went from
being an essentially medieval nation to becoming a powerful
force in the world .... barely two generations between
sharpening swords and animal-drawn carts to whipping
the Tsars pacific fleet.
Again that is society, Japan a few hundred years earlier was one of the >>leaders in gunpowder technology.
The Samuri protested that firearms undermined the diginity
of their warrior class - the discipline, the mindset, the skills.
Of course they also threatened the Samuri class itself ... if
anyone could be an effective killer then why HAVE a warrior
class at all ?
It might be argued that the later rise of a conventional army
did indeed cause an imbalance in the long-established
social harmonic. Without the Samuri there was a void ...
and the conventional military filled it with a vengance - but
could not replace its philosophy and mindset and role as
a building-block of the society.
It may be worth watching another ancient highly-structured
and balanced society ... India. As the caste system decays
expect more and more imbalance in the social harmonics.
This may not be so terrible, OR we might see an Imperial
India take shape. Most likely though ... chaos and death
and civil wars. Societies are like a tall building, each part
must support the others. Tampering with the balance can
have serious consequences.
That is NOT China .... despite some
similarities there is a different dynamic in Japanese culture.
China went through rapid advancement in this period too. The big problem >>they faced was their enemy Japan was advancing faster.
Japan never invaded China until the 1930s, although there
were some unpleasantries before that - most notably over
Korea.
China tried to invade Japan more than once however.
Guns level out the playing field.
"SolomonW" wrote in message news:zy8isusejj83.1ln8zsase71oj.dlg@40tude.net...
Guns level out the playing field.
After Commodore Perry's visit, Japan went straight from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution, without the moderating influences of a Renaissance, a Reformation, or an Age of Enlightenment -- with predictable results...
Byker wrote:
SolomonW wrote:
Guns level out the playing field.
After Commodore Perry's visit, Japan went straight from the Middle
Ages to the Industrial Revolution, without the moderating influences
of a Renaissance, a Reformation, or an Age of Enlightenment -- with predictable results...
That might explain Russia as well, but not Germany.
In article <IpmdnfKQe7xIs2zAnZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@supernews.com>,
"Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
"SolomonW" wrote in message
news:zy8isusejj83.1ln8zsase71oj.dlg@40tude.net...
Guns level out the playing field.
After Commodore Perry's visit, Japan went straight from the Middle Ages to >> the Industrial Revolution, without the moderating influences of a
Renaissance, a Reformation, or an Age of Enlightenment -- with predictable >> results...
That might explain Russia as well, but not Germany.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 68:17:54 |
| Calls: | 6,655 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,332,031 |
| Posted today: | 1 |