Has Religion Slowed Scientific Progress Through History?

[innonimatu]

Well first we had the fractured state of Germany, which I'd hardly think allowed for any cohesive religious monopole on education.
Then in the 70s of the 19th century, so basically right after unification, Bismark led his so called Culture Wars, in which he not only tried to weaken Socialist movements, but also religious ones. Among other things he successfully pushed for a change of marriage law so to enable purely secular marriages (it's for some reason the only measure I remember).
So I think your temptation has merrit.

Interesting. It would also be interesting to compare when the state took over the function of recording the births and deaths and marriages of its population, in the several european states of that period. In Portugal waited until the Republic, in the years after 1910, to get rid of the catholic church's control over that. I can see it being a good proxy for dating the end of religious control over social life in each country.
I guess that the French did away with it right after their revolution. England was probably kind of a special case, with its state-controlled church.

The other landmark event I'd like to compare was the release of higher education from church control. Here in Portugal I guess I'd have ti put it put it in 1837, with the first copying of french model of the Grande École (in a very small scale ). France had started it the the late-1700s, England was spreading secular colleges (like the Mechanics' Institute of Manchester) throughout the country after the early 1800s and opened the first secular university in 1826.

 

[LightSpectra]

You're leaving out the fact that the ones doing the accusing in the first place were the church inquisitors themselves! So they offered a trial, it doesn't negate the evil they did in the first place by placing the charges!

No it wasn't. Peasants and nobility would sometimes accuse random folk of witchcraft/heresy (whether out of legitimate ignorance or because it was a convenient way to stir up mob power is irrelevant).

They were out of direct control by the Pope, but they were part of the church, directed and staffed by clergy who were part of the institution, usually with powerful and well-connected nobles at the top. So they weren't being used by the political power, they were the political power.

It has no bearing on this discussion if "religion" has slowed the progress of science throughout history if the particular we are talking about, i.e. the Spanish inquisition, wasn't a force of "religion" (as it would be if it were micromanaged, or at least obedient to, the Pope) but rather "well-connected nobles at the top" using the inquisition for political-economic purposes. The Spanish inquisition was a tool of the monarchy, with Catholicism being a facade rather than actual substance.

What were Isabella and Ferdinand's goals for Aragon-Castille? They wanted religious homogeneity because that's an easier population to tax and regulate, not because they themselves were fanatics. Otherwise they would've done more about their Papal censures.

The rest of your post is rambling religious bigotry combined with ridiculously outdated scholarship that I have no intention of combing through. 'At least England was fortunate enough to have Henry VIII burn homes and execute innocent people' is pretty hilarious.

 

[Domen]

Religious / Catholic character was only its secondary feature. Its primary feature was organization chasing anarchism, etc., & its supporters. To summ up: Inquisition was a structure defending "old" social-political-economic order in Europe against "new" order (revolution) or lack of such (anarchy). Religion was a pretext.

No. Absolutely not. Religion wasn't merely a pretext, and the Inquisition wasn't merely a tool of different powers. The Inquisition(s) was one of the main powers of its time, and its agenda was set by its religious dogmas first and foremost. It is true that the extent of its repression is probably exaggerated even today, and certainly was during the late 19th/early 20th century historical (and not-so-historical) works, but it was indeed a force slowing scientific progress. How could an institution so dedicated to censorship, to destruction of unauthorized knowledge, and to the maintenance of the Catholic Church's monopoly on education not be negative for scientific progress?

Christianity in general did that on several occasions in different places where there were no inquisitions (even in late 18th century "rational and liberal" England: the burning of Joseph Priestley's house and laboratory, for example) but having that institution dedicated to repression did more long-term damage than mobs excited by preachers with political agendas could do. Even where those political agendas did exist, however, they existed because some organized religion enabled them.

I don't have time for lengthy debate at the moment, but let's just quote one fragment from Konik's book which explains who started executions of heretics - was it Church / Religion or was it State / Politics:

"(...) First stakes under the feet of heretics started to burn in Orlean during the reign of king Robert II (972 - 1031) and at his command, despite firm protests of Church dignitaries. In 1150, during the revolt and riots caused by heretics in Cologne, St. Bernard condemned the lynches commited by mobs and the death penalty imposed on rebeliants-heretics [by secular authorities - Domen]. He recommended to fight against heretics with reason (capiantur non armis, sed argumentis), not with weapons. In case such kind of fight didn't bring intended results, there was always excommunication or canonical penalties or banishment [as alternatives to stakes - Domen]. In the light of these facts it is hard to support the nowadays popular thesis, that it was Church authorities who were responsible for laying the grounds for persecutions of traitors and heretics, encouraging magnates to join this bloody carnage. (...)"

In general Konik in his book proves that Catholic church was against as harsh penalties for heretics (and such), as death penalty. Stakes were thus state-sponsored - not church-sponsored (fight against heresy was also church-sponsored - but church did not support bloody & cruel measures, at least initially).

Another fragment:

"(...) In the [European] Middle Ages, the state and all social structures, were based on authority of the Church, creating a subtle, but delicate, weave. Law and administration, economy and politics, science and education, art and culture, morality and organization of life - all this was regulated by rules originating from / derived from Christianity. Religion was the central binder of the then world [Europe]. Appearance of deviations - caused by various reasons - from religious orthodoxy was automatically becaming a threat for the entire social and political system. Heresions - which is hard to understand by a modern human - were capable of destroying the balance of Medieval world, hampering the development of civilization or even causing regress of centuries of its development. It was fully a real danger - doctrinal disputes had a completely different impact on real life of societies [than they have today - Domen]. Consent to undermining the authority of the Pope, to ideological destabilization, would be equal to undermining the foundations of the construction of the then world. So when Church decided to bring to life the Holy Inquisition, an institution, the task of which was to maintain religious integrity, it was without a doubt done in the interest of entire civilization. Today Catholics are ashamed of the Inquisition and are willing to apologize for its existence. The Myth of Bloody Inquisition has obscured the facts. (...)"

 

[Traitorfish]

In that, at lest, England was fortunate to have Henry VIII seize the church's wealth. English nobility, I expect, would then not push their sons and daughters into the clergy to the same extent. Or did they? I expect that fewer man-hours put into worthless (for science) theology did meant more put into industry and just scientific curiosity. Southern Europe's universities remained distressingly focused on theology and law, and solely that, well into the 19th century.

Actually, English universities were pretty dreadful well into the nineteenth century, and the clergy was a popular destination for second sons until the decline of agricultural prices over the course of the century drove their income (based on fixed "tithes", in practice a form of income tax on land-owners) to levels below what they were willing to put up. Most scientific work had very little to do with the universities, the theoretical or natural stuff being the domain of dabbling enthusiasts, and practical work taking place in the technical colleges or by privately-funded laboratories. It's only when the French and Germans developed a modern higher education system that it occurred to the English that something similar might be a good idea. What you're describing better describes Scotland, where the Presbyterian system drove a surer wedge between the gentry and the church, and at the same time produced an education system worth a damn.

 

[Domen]

In Poland it was king Boleslaw I the Brave - not Church authorities - who ordered to knock out the teeth of those who didn't observe the fasts. However, Boleslaw himself was by no means observing rules of the new religion. It is said that he had several wifes at one time (of course only one of these wifes was "official") - which means he continued old pagan traditions. But, of course, he cared about his people observing religious rules, because religion was an instrument of political power over his subjects for him. Religion was also integral part of what we would call today state / public administration - and it was the case in most of European states at that time. This is what I wrote about nationalization of religion by Theodosius I already on the previous page.

Even where those political agendas did exist, however, they existed because some organized religion enabled them.

It is ridiculous to say that political agendas exist because religion enabled them.

If there was no religion they would have find another pretext to create political agendas and something else to base them upon.

Theodosius I accepted Christianity as national religion of the Roman Empire because he saw its potential as instrument of exerting political power.

And also because it would increase his popularity among his subjects (most or large part of whom were already converted to Christianity).

But as I wrote Theodosius "subjugated" this religion - at Constantinople he reduced Christianity into certain legal and organizational framework.

For example it was chosen which Gospels are "true" and which Gospels are "false". The Emperor nominated himself the Head of the Church as well.

 

[Plotinus]

Arguably, the first Christian heretics to be executed for heresy were Donatists in the fourth century - long before the Middle Ages.

Priscillian is often cited as the first person to be executed for heresy, but although he was a heretic and he was executed, he was actually executed for sorcery.

Priscillian was certainly executed by secular authorities rather than religious ones. In the case of the Donatist martyrs, however, I don't think one can draw such a distinction. The main figures behind the deaths were Paulus and Macarius, commissioners sent by the emperor Constans, so one might blame the secular authorities rather than the ecclesiastical ones - but the emperor Constans was a Christian. It's a mistake to draw a clear distinction between the actions of political rulers and those of ecclesiastical ones, and say that the former are "political" and the latter are "religious", in each case exclusively. A political ruler is perfectly capable of doing something for religious reasons, just as an ecclesiastical leader is quite capable of doing something for political ones.

Theodosius I accepted Christianity as national religion of the Roman Empire because he saw its potential as instrument of exerting political power.

And also because it would increase his popularity among his subjects (most or large part of whom were already converted to Christianity).

What evidence do you have for these claims? Why are they better explanations for Theodosius' actions than the simpler one, which is that he was brought up as a Christian and was a sincere believer?

Personally I'm wary of the common claim that Constantine or his successors endorsed Christianity because they thought it would be an effective tool for exerting political power. The whole history of the fourth century shows that it was exactly the opposite: it was a divisive religion, consisting of a number of squabbling sects, which forced the emperors to devote their precious time and attention to trying to resolve problems. Far from consolidating power, it diffused it, as the existing political classes were suddenly joined by a whole host of bishops and other ecclesiastics who, given legitimacy by the state, siphoned power away from it. Sometimes that was deliberate, as when Constantine set up the episcopal audience, giving bishops the ability to judge civil cases, thereby freeing up the state legal system to handle more urgent and important matters. But while that was a sensible move, one can hardly say it increased the emperor's power.

I don't think any emperors of the time thought in terms of "national religions" in the first place, either. That's a modern notion. Theodosius never officially made Christianity the religion of the empire, any more than Constantine did. All he did was enact various pieces of legislation that in effect made it the official religion. And he didn't do it at the Council of Constantinople in 381, either - he did it throughout the 390s, a much later period of his reign.

 

[Domen]

Heresy was an act of betrayal against the Roman Emperor - who was the Head of the Church. And Theodosius accepted the framework of the religion he created - we can say that he participated in creation of Christianity in its post-381 AD form. Any deviation from this framework, any deviation from religious orthodoxy in its shape established by the Emperor (after consultations with Church dignitaries) = undermining the Emperor's authority. Later Roman Emperor was replaced by the Pole and / or by the Holy Roman Empire (and Byzantine Emperor in the East) as the Head of the Church.

Arguably, the first Christian heretics to be executed for heresy were Donatists in the fourth century - long before the Middle Ages.

Religious persecutions had a long tradition in the Roman Empire. Before Christianity was accepted as national religion of the Roman Empire, this state persecuted Christians and Jews. Later it persecuted Christian heretics and pagans. All of this done by state (religion was the instrument of which) - not by religion. The Head of the Catholic Church was the Roman Emperor. Political interest criss-crossed with religious interest.

Since Konik's book is concentrated on Medieval, he wrote about first stakes in the Middle Ages (which were initiated by king Robert II).

 

[Plotinus]

I think you're reading attitudes of the later empire back into the time of Theodosius. I don't think they had it worked out nearly as clearly as that at that time.

 

[Domen]

Well, maybe it was a simplification. But the final result of work beginned by Theodosius was as I wrote.

So maybe Theodosius had actually honest intentions - but in such case, it did not turn out as he would like it to be, in the end.

 

[LightSpectra]

Something frequently missed in these conversations is that it's not case that all Christians are either devoutly faithful, or contrariwise were nonbelievers that used their affiliation to benefit socio-politically. There's a level in between these two, which is someone who genuinely believes Christianity to be true but nevertheless doesn't always act according to its moral precepts. People like Charlemagne and Theodosius are among this category, most likely.

That being said, I endorse most of what Domen has written.

 

[Mize]

I'm in no way as well versed in history as the lot of you here, but LightSpectra's last post sparked a thought. I cannot accept as a fact that the elite, the ruling class at least in the christian world, were taking religion that seriously. As the better-educated and more intelligent (comparatively) folk of their time, I imagine their outlook on religion as a social phenomenon very similar to ours today. It is a tool to consolidate a society and keep it in check, that exploits man's intrinsic fear of death and search for meaning. Religious taboos have shaped our sense of morality and social behaviour since well before organized religion began. One might argue that these taboos aren't neccessarily of religious origin, rather social, but for the AD's the concepts kind of merge.

In this sense christianity's spread throughout Europe was beneficial for both the consolidation of new states and their integration with the rest of the christian world. Yes it did eventually emerge as a rival to the state, but the spread of religion in those societies also had a very positive effect on knowledge and literacy. Ethics and divine right aside, religion set a standard for language and is also very much associated with the spread of institutionalized education and literature. This is not really scientific progress per se, but it surely paved the way for it.

 

[LightSpectra]

I cannot accept as a fact that the elite, the ruling class at least in the christian world, were taking religion that seriously.

It's impossible to know for sure but it seems that many nobles and "elites" took it very seriously. There's plenty of canonized saints with aristocratic or royal titles, albeit less than those without.

As the better-educated and more intelligent (comparatively) folk of their time, I imagine their outlook on religion as a social phenomenon very similar to ours today.

"Ours?" There's plenty of intelligent and educated people that are legitimately faithful, thanks.

It is a tool to consolidate a society and keep it in check, that exploits man's intrinsic fear of death and search for meaning. Religious taboos have shaped our sense of morality and social behaviour since well before organized religion began. One might argue that these taboos aren't neccessarily of religious origin, rather social, but for the AD's the concepts kind of merge.

This is why I hate the word "religion." Very few "religions" actually care about most of these things, and certainly not in the same way as each other.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Don't assume that just because ideas aren't currently fashionable they must necessarily be ruled out of court. Peter Harrison is currently conducting a research project investigating whether there is, in fact, room for the notion of "progress" in history. He may prove to be wrong but that doesn't mean the questions aren't legitimate.

How very meta of him.

 

[Mize]

It's impossible to know for sure but it seems that many nobles and "elites" took it very seriously. There's plenty of canonized saints with aristocratic or royal titles, albeit less than those without.

Point taken. Perhaps I chose my words incorrectly in my previous post. I'm not saying that all nobles, elites, whatever were being hypocrites by simply using christianity to increase their political power. Certainly many of them were genuinely pious. The point I'm trying to make is that the introduction of christianity on the state level, its institutionalization, is a decision usually dictated by political and geopolitical reasons, not moral ones. And it is a decision made by the highest possible authorities and the noblest of the noble.

"Ours?" There's plenty of intelligent and educated people that are legitimately faithful, thanks.

Sorry about that "ours" thing. And what you said here is something I edited out of my previous post, out of fear that I'd just go on rambling on the topic forever. Most western scientists up until the late 20th century, save maybe a few, were probably genuinely faithful. And that's exactly my point. Knowledge and belief were pretty much the same thing for the better part of recorded history, save the last several centuries, where science and empiricism really took off. So it is absurd to claim that religion was stifling progress. It was progress.

This is why I hate the word "religion." Very few "religions" actually care about most of these things, and certainly not in the same way as each other.

And that's exactly why I'm only touching upon the subject of Christianity, and not other religions. Of course Judaism and Islam are always present by proxy.

 

[LightSpectra]

The very first Christians were all Jewish, and Judaism -- until very recently -- was almost entirely uninterested in what happens after death. So saying that Christianity was established to exploit "fear of death" is ridiculous.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've never understood why there has to be this strict dichotomy between faith and manipulation. Isn't it possible that pre-modern aristocrats both made use of religion for their own ends, and that they were also (at least in a significant number of cases) sincere believers? The God you believe in doesn't have to be the God that you publicly espouse.

By way of comparison, look at the Marxist-Leninist states; nobody can deny that state ideology was as much, but it seems equally probable that most of the nomenklatura, and certainly the apparatchik, were more or less sincere Marxist-Leninists- if only, and this may be key, because it didn't occur to them to be anything else. Stalin lied through his teeth about how the sovet and profkom systems worked; Stalin also wrote sincere (albeit crap) essays on dialectical materialism. I don't see why something similar couldn't be at work when it comes to religion.

 

[Mize]

I don't like words being put in my mouth. I never said Christianity was established to exploit the fear of death. Yet the fact that in many cases it actually does exploit it seems to elude you.

I am well aware that the very first Christians were Jewish. And I wasn't quite aware of Judaism's lack of interest towards the afterlife, but if you're wondering why that is, you can refer to the last paragraph of my previous post. I am starting to lose interest in this argument, but it appears you for some reason have taken it personally, so I'll rephrase myself one more time in the hope of achieving some sort of understanding.

Early Christianity was a very powerful political tool, and later became a powerful political entity, mainly because anybody could become a Christian. You had to be a Jew to be a Jew.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There must be harmony among religion, philosophy and science. Otherwise they tend to supress each other. And man being very complex needs all of them to work properly....

 

[Yeekim]

By way of comparison, look at the Marxist-Leninist states; nobody can deny that state ideology was as much, but it seems equally probable that most of the nomenklatura, and certainly the apparatchik, were more or less sincere Marxist-Leninists- if only, and this may be key, because it didn't occur to them to be anything else. Stalin lied through his teeth about how the sovet and profkom systems worked; Stalin also wrote sincere (albeit crap) essays on dialectical materialism. I don't see why something similar couldn't be at work when it comes to religion.

I once heard an old-timer saying that the first time he met a sincere Communist was when he was allowed abroad after the thaw for first time and visited Finland.

 

[r16]

a detour to rant upon the quite convincing idea of lack of communications between Muslims and the developing/surging West .

this follows the thread to the end of page of 2 . Friday , the forum went down before ı could get to page 3 . Seems because there were many automated sell orders for the stock market and they waited until 2 in the afternoon under the claims of software problems now that it has been Nostradamused that there will be a crash in Turkey . Leading to an understandable if kinda funny paranoia .To repeat it one thousandth time it is not me doing it , stopping me surely stops nobody . There is a plan going on to destroy this country and CFC will survive our future empire . It will even survive America ...

in this juncture it would be really helpful for somebody to say it was also bad for them on Friday ...

so what goes in the spoilers ? Angelina , Gandhi , the stuff ...

Spoiler :

take the Montgolfier / hot air ballons . The concept "is" Portuguese in origin , invented by the King's science advisor who was also a bishop or something like that .His demonstrations in King's court could not be tested in full scale because of the secular opposition that Alexander the Great had used Griffons to ascend to the heavens and the new idea was clearly inefficient , what would happen if the air got cold as it was wont to , yeah , an immediate crash ... Can't verify what Alexander did or didn't but ı can sure assert Colin Farrell did not score with Angelina Jolie . Returning to the subject , ı have learned it from an Al Jazeera documentary that balloon kites are a national craze in the Portuguese speaking Brazil , but it took French paper industrialists to do the deed in 1783 .

moving East 1790ish at the latest , we have vague reports of Persians flying something similar to cross the Sea of Marmara , albeit over a narrow stretch , the finger pointing East you see in the maps . This Osprey title , which otherwise had a quite few insights into the late Ottomans understandably corrects Persians to Parisiennes . It has already been mentioned in the thread that people judge the past with understanding of today . Ottomans would not mix the two , Persians would be Acem , Farsi or whatever and ı don't even begin to be anything remotely knowledgeable about the period , while a Frenk was a Frenk .

we have the concept travelling from the source and the success news of Mongolfiers were sure fast enough . Yet of course , no evidence naturally . Would be long buried by Orientalism and else . Is the Portugese Church Catholic ? There you were ... Even for the most of the 20th Century .

the Catholic Church would have been a most progressive institution , but Anne Boleyn was so good in bed . Those who find their mate in a crowd have no right to complain about past indiscretions , though relationships suffer when the novelty wears off and for Henry , the ladies had families which meant endless calculations of power . Dumping / poisoning / accidenting female companionship was tough though not out of bounds , of a TV series ı readily remember Natasha Richardson as the last Queen and her horror on hearing the royal interest ... It fell to the Pope to provide a means of legal fun/power readjustment and it was leading to a mockery of the Church in the height of Re-formation . My reputation has reached such levels that ı doubt anybody will bother to remind that there had to be more reasons than mere lust on why England got a new church ; though the British successes in cornering a quarter of the globe also meant hand in hand advance against the Catholic Church representing the evils of too much belief .

for the supposed scientific thinking that propelled Europe into the forefront because the influence of religion on everyday life was removed step by step by far thinking intellectual giants and their adroit followers does not necessarily compute . Religious authorities were left behind in the wild capitalism of the period , even when Capitalism was not even invented . Power depends so much on money , trade companies were more powerful than the countries that spawned them until the local markets developed enough taxes to allow the states to match . For the merchants who carried the risk who was a priest to take the largest part of the pie , threatening everlasting hellfire by witholding a prayer or two ? One constant for the humanity over the ages is very few people actually believe in God .

yet everybody fears the ruling system .

while their ever burgeoning wealth allowed those merchants to weather any church displeasure and counterattack whereever possible . Wealth was a new religion and it found adherents so easily , and you know people are like the grass , they bend to wind ...

a few years back , 15 to be precise , some sort of military intervention into politics was done and one reason was backwards , overly religious shopkeepers in Anatolia were now buying factories and raising great companies , and the secular system was in danger . Because the Islamists were getting rich . It stands to reason then why a particularly popular movie of the period no longer appears on TV these days . The tale of Hazerfan who copied bird wings to fly across the Bosphorus . Only to be exiled to Algeria because religious authorities stifled scientific thought . Not only this but they had the Sultan as some brute who wore braids to his long hair and drank like no other , you know the guy who banned alcohol to die of alcohol related liver ailments .

it is also a non-starter for Western oriented bunch , you know Hezarfen would have to examine birds to see they could glide without flapping and weighing a bird or two to establish a relationship between wing size and weight . We are talking of 1600s not the 1800s when the Western way was to be a revelation , a wonder never seen before .

Spoiler :

not claiming anything . Already in this thread , there has been the pertinent question where this Western Studies department was .

can't say . Only hearsay if not wild invention and hereby ı repeat that no claim of anything but Evrengzib of the Mughals , Auren something in English which ı can't spell without checking , was a break in the long running tradition of a certain tolerance right at the time the Western powers were about to get "into" India . He thought he could weather the inevitable storm , for he could guess the new Europeans were obviously a crowded bunch with bigger ships than the Portuguese , by imposing a severe Islamic acceptance . He failed and made it much easier for the British to get in , and stay in . What is to the Western Muslims to warn somebody else , now that the "Whites" are mere barbarians ? Panipat seems to be odd an place where invaders of India defeat the locals easily , 1526 had an Ottoman artillery detachment and even Gandhi was smug where the partition ethnic cleansing recovered the area for India . No Civ player would be surprised ı guess , about the preceding sentence .

once again no claims as my posts always end up bisected in the 180 degrees off direction when examined , but where were the university students doing research in the Ottomans when the West was leaping ahead ? They were robbing the villagers . For about two centuries . When Spanish gold and silver started flowing from the Americas it started a financial crisis in Europe which inevitably reached the Ottomans who generally made a hefty profit on transit trade to Europe . Add in local troubles and the situation got so out of hand that state legalized it for civilians to use weapons and apply violence against the state . You know , bandits would burn towns , to appease them their leaders would be appointed to state posts and state forces previously fighting them would become bandits themselves as it was a wise career choice . Banditry paid much better , was easier than hard work . It took some serious brutality to break the "romanticism" of the movement and Anatolia could barely recover until the Republic . The richer European section hardly survived unscathed , the word "derebeyi" for the local bigwigs who ruled their areas , in times in defiance to the state , describes feodality in Turkish .

once again ı must refer to the internal balances of the Muslim states , they were coalitions of the willing . Headed in the same direction when success kept the structure intact they regularly defy what's ascribed to them . When ı was in high school ı would be regularly confused by the Serbs . They hate Turks allright , they define themselves by their utter defeat in Kosova 1389 , they were dishonourable enough to murder a padishah under the guise of surrender yet what the hell they were doing in Ankara 1402 ? Helping Timur ? No , they were loyal to Ottomans when all the Turkish forces joined the invaders . And of course it would take an Osprey title to discover than it was Serbians who decided the outcome in Niğbolu 1396 and kept the Turks in Europe . Not in the curricula ...

so when the superiority of the West was clearly visible post 1700s , Ottomans had badly fallen out of sync and there were no more successes to bind the cracks . Humans are the same all over and Europeans had similar problems among themselves but they were on the verdamnter Atlantic and we were not . It was always possible for Europeans to export their excess capacity to kill some Natives and burn their villages to raise new towns , new centers , new wealth . And we had to fight to expand and our enemies , you know , were no lightweights , in case it wasn't geography itself . Expanding was the norm firmly in the mentality of everybody , whys and hows of it as explained by me is not on par with even these posts and will have to be redone . ı can't argue whether it was the disrupted flow of the Yellow River that prevented the use of the coal deposits that stopped China from matching the English Industrial Revolution , but ı sure can harp on how murderous Europeans were , when they faced people delayed by a century or a millenium . Anyways .

so when the West started rolling us back and success followed success as we were not able to offer more ; the very bulk of the Ottoman Empire was to be the chief defence , let them come , bleed them by pinpricks and maybe one day they will get bored and leave . It "never" worked , in the end it was downhill all the way . Pertinent question asked , why the Ottomans did not buy tech and stuff by playing one European to the other ? They tried but in the end of the day , a strong goverment would have meant elimination of the locals' priviliges of being de facto states within state . There was no need for study of balistics to make better weapons, now that the Europeans would sell the rifles to any chieftain , for a price . And didn't the new rifle made it possible to better rob the neighbour to pay for it ? The very mechanism that enabled Ottomans to rise so quickly by lucky coincidence at the time of the so called gunpowder empires later meant the Ottomans could not risk to modernise in proper speed . It was one thing to keep distant locales faithful to the Throne when "gunpowder tech was a state monopoly and other gunpowder empires were so ready to pounce on the powder-dry" , it was another to remold them into fully functioning parts of the state . It should be kept in mind a Sultan , the namesake of the founder of the Empire was de-throned , raped and killed in prison for attempting to cross the Bosphorus , less than a kilometer across in places , to raise a new army and further reforms . 1600s match Cardinal de Richelieu and his absolutist monarchy , right ? Or our kinda twins in the development race , the Russians who destroyed the power of Strel something to replace them with more loyal troops , while our Yeniçeris could not be bothered to fight if it wasn't seriously beneficial to them . On the day ı am keyboarding this , ı came across a TV documentary claiming they had lost the spirit of conquest and the good padishah replaced them with soldiers with the spirit of conquest . Unmentioned was the fact that the replacements still managed to lose to the Greeks and they practically lost the entire country by 1839 , leading to a stroke and the death of the mentioned sultan .

yeah , our twins the Russians , we are planning to have an astronaut by 2023 , while them Russkies went up there first , snubbing the American noses in the dirt . Now , that's never bad... No dissing , but them Russkies will probably fly to Mars one of these days .

back in the day when they reformed under Peter the Crazy we were equally backwards and they still ended up with the largest country in the world . For they could export their troubles into new lands and we could not . One day they couldn't expand anymore , similar to all great powers of the day . And then ...

they all became Godless Commies , with an agenda to liberate the world proletariat . Somethings never change .

negativist all the way ? Hardly , consider the French Canada where they had half the continent all the way from the ice to New Orleans achieved by an easy going colloboration with the Natives and they regularly outfought the British encroachment . By mobility and by alliance with the Indians and ı haven't ever watched Daniel Day Lewis' The Last of the Mohicans to the end after ı first saw it on theater . Though ı am the guy who credit Cugnot with the invention of driving under the influence , France was surely not backwards to Britain in the 1750s and the decision was reached only the by the big battalions modified to theater , available only because London decided there was nothing interesting in Europe but a lot of room expand in the French colonies overseas . And of course it led to American independence in the end , Pennsylvania having gone to war against a neighbour over Ohio Valley previously , ı guess . Mind you , Americans are supposed to have promised an Indian state , to cool European heads and all to keep attention away while they were weak .

politics decide far too many things and religion is simply an extension of politics in practical terms . What the science could not avoid was politics , not religion .

come on , say it . Say it that the nearly absurd above spoilered or not does not suffice , there has to be the totally absurd to finish it all ...

yeah here it is . The real question is :

how many starships does the Pope have ?