History questions not worth their own thread V

[Masada]

I'm just kidding. But it was certainly one of the more amusing things I've seen this week.

EDIT: I do wonder if I could dramatise it and become the next Dan Brown...?

 

[PhroX]

It would have been better with more Batman. But that's true of everything.

Except, oddly enough, the most recent Batman films.

 

[H4run]

I also think about Dan Brown when I read that comic.

I was wrote on my commentary "I don't expect this coming from you Masada" but I deleted it as I think that is not a good sentences to open the commentary, that said I kind like strange seen you referring that things, I see it more likely come out from the Christian member of this forum.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm just kidding. But it was certainly one of the more amusing things I've seen this week.

Check out some of his other comics - it quickly goes from amusing to depressing to downright terrifying.

 

[Masada]

Oh, I'm familiar with Chick lit. I just thought I'd link to one particularly awful example of it. Comedic relief and all that.

 

[Plotinus]

I can claim back, that both the Iconoclast and Protestant appearance are the effect of the influence of Islam toward Christianity, I see this claim far more logical eventhough I never bother or discuss about this, but in comparison I think that more valid than the claim in your's link. And what do you think about that Masada?

It's interesting that you should raise that. It seems very reasonable to suppose that Iconoclasm might have been influenced by Islam and its proscription on images, especially given the time and place when it arose. The odd thing is that, as far as I know, there's no evidence that there was any such influence. My own guess is that there's a common human tendency, particularly among monotheists, to be suspicious of any form of veneration of things that aren't God. So it's a strict monotheism that leads to opposition to the veneration of images, or even images at all, in Islam, Iconoclasm, and some forms of Protestantism, but it does so independently.

 

[H4run]

Correct me if I'm wrong Plotinus but I think they just doing the 10th commandementh which are :

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

I think they just want to be Christian as how the Christian should be according to the bible.

While protestant, also their view regarding the Church and Priesthood is somewhat similar to Islam than other Christian sect. But yeah, this things not really interest me most, unless I make my future Thesis with a title like "The possible list of influence of Islam toward western civilization". But beside that I don't see how this can benefit me or my belief.

 

[Ajidica]

What that is I don't even.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Dachs]

It's interesting that you should raise that. It seems very reasonable to suppose that Iconoclasm might have been influenced by Islam and its proscription on images, especially given the time and place when it arose. The odd thing is that, as far as I know, there's no evidence that there was any such influence. My own guess is that there's a common human tendency, particularly among monotheists, to be suspicious of any form of veneration of things that aren't God. So it's a strict monotheism that leads to opposition to the veneration of images, or even images at all, in Islam, Iconoclasm, and some forms of Protestantism, but it does so independently.

Yeah, I've often run across bald assertions that iconoclasm, especially in its eighth- and ninth-century Byzantine iterations, was a result of contact between Christianity and Islam. But such claims never really get beyond assertion. I think you made a bigger post on this a few years ago with more specifics, but aren't there a few decent reasons that militate against iconoclasm being a "Muslim borrowing"?

 

[Plotinus]

Correct me if I'm wrong Plotinus but I think they just doing the 10th commandementh which are :

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

I think they just want to be Christian as how the Christian should be according to the bible.

That may be so - it may at least be what they think they're doing - but then the question is: why do those Christians follow that commandment and other Christians not do so? In the case of the Iconoclasts, I don't think there's any reason to think that they were more "biblical" in general than the Iconophiles. So even if that commandment were their justification for their position (and I'm not sure that it was), we'd still need to ask why they picked up on it and the other lot didn't.

Yeah, I've often run across bald assertions that iconoclasm, especially in its eighth- and ninth-century Byzantine iterations, was a result of contact between Christianity and Islam. But such claims never really get beyond assertion. I think you made a bigger post on this a few years ago with more specifics, but aren't there a few decent reasons that militate against iconoclasm being a "Muslim borrowing"?

Well, obviously the major reason is that one lot were Christians and the other lot were Muslims, and if Christians are going to start taking ideas from Muslims, why stop there? Why would an eighth-century Christian think the Muslims were right about not having images in the first place, and having thought so, why would he not go on and take all their other ideas too? Toynbee thought that the Byzantines were terribly impressed with the Muslim military successes of the time and presumably thought that their lack of icons had something to do with it, but while I can't claim to understand the Byzantine mind at the best of times, the logic of that one's really a bit beyond me. At any rate, at least in the case of Constantine V, a possibly more plausible case could be made for attributing his iconoclasm to his leanings towards Monophysitism, which involved a distaste for the reverence of anything human.

 

[H4run]

That may be so - it may at least be what they think they're doing - but then the question is: why do those Christians follow that commandment and other Christians not do so? In the case of the Iconoclasts, I don't think there's any reason to think that they were more "biblical" in general than the Iconophiles. So even if that commandment were their justification for their position (and I'm not sure that it was), we'd still need to ask why they picked up on it and the other lot didn't.

Interesting question Plotinus, I think you know more the answer than me, but as you ask me I will try to answer. I remember having discussion with one of my Japanese friend, he told me (if any forum member found my statement invalid do tell it if any of you found it valid and know the reference do share me the reference) that in Budha there is a prohibition to make an idol or to worship idol. As Indian Budhist also not known to make idol like what we found in China or Japan.

At the time Budhist spread to Bactria (if I'm not mistaken) the Greek population who convert to Budhism start making sculpture and statue, later on the Chinese adopt Budhism from them and as in China there already tradition and believe that great man who die became "god" and been worship, this new type of Budhism also easily adapt even mix with local Chinese culture, tradition and believes. And now we see most of Budhist making a statue of Budha which are contradicting with the very principle teaching of Budha.

I think the same goes with Christian, as for Abrahamic religion, to worship the other beside God himself is a grave sin, and making idolatry like the pagan, and kneeling and praying to something that we made by our own hand it itself idolatry. We call this process of religious contamination in Islam as bid'ah or religious innovation, which is new element that outside from the doctrine of religion and contradict with it very basic doctrine been adopt and made as part of religion and became a paradox. As Christianity not clean from this bid'ah so do we muslim and the jew (Judaism) also in the same position, this is the main reason of religious splitting and sect which we called in Islam as fitnah, or separation, division. It is between the origin or orthodox with its variation.

 

[Pangur Bán]

It's interesting that you should raise that. It seems very reasonable to suppose that Iconoclasm might have been influenced by Islam and its proscription on images, especially given the time and place when it arose. The odd thing is that, as far as I know, there's no evidence that there was any such influence. My own guess is that there's a common human tendency, particularly among monotheists, to be suspicious of any form of veneration of things that aren't God. So it's a strict monotheism that leads to opposition to the veneration of images, or even images at all, in Islam, Iconoclasm, and some forms of Protestantism, but it does so independently.

http://www.hs.ias.edu/files/Crone_A...deo-Christianity_and_Byzantine_Iconoclasm.pdf
Though it's partially the other way about, surely? Islam incorporated and allied itself to the widespread criticism of such representation, and Islam in turn increased the power of the idea that those guys were right to criticize such images.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Dachs left me morbidly curious in the Jared Diamond thread with this snippet:

such as the claims that anthropogenic climate change destroyed the Western Roman Empire.

So what is this theory about?

 

[Dachs]

Dachs left me morbidly curious in the Jared Diamond thread with this snippet:



So what is this theory about?

A load of horse dung.

About two and a half years ago, there was a spate of news articles about a short paper published in Science analyzing tree-ring climatological data points for the late classical period. The authors correlated "wet and warm" periods with eras of Roman prosperity and "dry" periods with Roman decline, and suggested that these political changes could be explained by the effect of the altered climate on agriculture, which formed the foundation of the Roman economy.

The problems start to arise with an even cursory critical reading of the article. Firstly, the authors noted that the dry periods began in earnest in the third century, a period of political crisis in the Roman Empire. Problematically, the so-called Third Century Crisis has mostly been abandoned by classical historians over the last few decades for a variety of reasons. And insofar as there is still a sense of the Roman Empire undergoing serious conflict in the third century, there is almost nobody who believes that this was connected to economic issues. So the correlation isn't even there in the first place.

Secondly, even if we agree that the climate changes might have had something to do with the Crisis of the Third Century - and there is no reason to do so - then one would have to explain why the Roman Empire underwent a period of economic and political prosperity in the fourth century, a historiographical trope that by contrast is very well supported by archaeological evidence and textual data. The climate was, supposedly, getting less conducive to agriculture, but at that time, across the empire, there was an agricultural boom (esp. in North Africa, Britain, and Syria).

Thirdly, the authors' explanation is superfluous, because we already have a perfectly sound explanation for the collapse of the unified Roman state in Western Europe. Even if there is considerable disagreement about the mechanics of this collapse (e.g. between the supporters of Walter Goffart and those of Walter Pohl, or between those who highlight "barbarians" as causative agents and those who describe "barbarian" migrations as effects), the fundamental consensus remains: the Roman Empire ceased to exist because of a myriad of civil wars that tore the country apart and left periphery and core fragmented and antagonistic.

There isn't really much room in that explanation for a climatological element, except possibly with the "barbarians". Sometimes climate changes are employed to explain migratory activity in history, but the mechanics of this are usually shoddy and unconvincing. Sometimes we will see claims that climatic optima cause population surpluses which cause political turmoil which causes relocation en masse, but the individual links in this chain are not substantiated. To complicate matters, sometimes the opposite argument is put forward: poor climate conditions cause population collapses which are staved off by...relocation en masse. Effectively, any climate whatsoever is used to explain migratory activity: good climate, bad climate, changing climate, unchanging climate, and so on. This should set off alarm bells in readers' heads.

And then there are the issues with determining whether migratory activity even took place at all but that's another story entirely...

 

[Phrossack]

I've heard similar arguments put forth by scientists about the beginning of the Mongol conquests. They really don't know what they're talking about once they venture into military/political/economic history.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I've heard similar arguments put forth by scientists about the beginning of the Mongol conquests. They really don't know what they're talking about once they venture into military/political/economic history.

What arguments are you referring to? The one where Genghis Khan supposedly caused a little global cooling or something?

 

[Phrossack]

What arguments are you referring to? The one where Genghis Khan supposedly caused a little global cooling or something?

Didn't hear of that. No, it was something about how high rainfall strengthened the Mongol herds and enabled them to conquer more land. Or maybe there was less rainfall and it drove them to conquer more land. Can't remember, and as Dachs noted any climatic factors can be (mis)used to explain such things.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Didn't hear of that. No, it was something about how high rainfall strengthened the Mongol herds and enabled them to conquer more land. Or maybe there was less rainfall and it drove them to conquer more land. Can't remember, and as Dachs noted any climatic factors can be (mis)used to explain such things.

Ah, I see how someone would try to argue that.

 

[Phrossack]

I'm not sure how Chinggis Khan would have reduced global temperatures in that odd theory you mentioned earlier. The only clear and widely accepted historical case of pre-industrial man having a major effect on climate is the cooling effect pirates had.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete