[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?
- Thread starter inthesomeday
- Start date
- Status
Akka
Moody old mage.
Renaissance exact start is blurry, but the accepted consensus is that it came from Florence, and the main reason advanced for its start is the massive flight of Greek scholars following the fall of Constantinople.
You should try to get some education outside your political echo chamber, man. Seriously.
Lexicus
Deity
I'm pretty sure that this is an older popular history take largely rejected by professional historians of the period nowadays. I could be wrong though.
Akka
Moody old mage.
As usual.
Lexicus
Deity
Does anyone have anything interesting to read on this topic?
Maybe some biography of George Plytho Gemistos and his disciples in Italy?
Obviously there's not "one single cause" of the renaissance, but certainly the flight of many Greek scholars played a larger role in the movement that begun exactly as an artistic focus on classic greco-roman themes than "trade with the ottomans".
inthesomeday
Immortan
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 2,798
Actually Akka you're not wrong that I'm sort of bringing a materialist analysis here. I'd argue that attributing the "Renaissance" to an influx of philosophy is sort of wrong. I think it's more important to recognize that there was always an artistic/theological element of thought present in the northern Italian city states. The real thing that enabled this to become a "rebirth" of art and thought was the economic growth and influences of Eastern decadence that encouraged the ruling Houses to invest more wealth into art and luxury materials.
Well, since you seem to be perpetually confused by my posts, let's end this conversation.
We're done.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Moreover, we have to account for the fact that the Renaissance was already happening by the time Constantinople fell. Else, what do we make of the previous two centuries of Italian art and literature? Where do Dante and Petrarch and Pisano fit into all of this? Was Florence Cathedral just some big storage locker where they kept all their hand-embroider copies of that "Christian Dark Ages" chart?
The Renaissance was a process, not an event, and trying to pin its origins down to half-past two on a Tuesday makes an absurdity of European history for a century on either side.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
C'mon man! Everyone knows the renaissance started on a weekend!
Oh, wait, maybe that was football season...
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Given credit for what, really? It's not like some arab one fine day woke up and made it his life's mission to spread the knowledge of zero among the europeans. That kind of think just spreads naturally along trade routes! Sorry but you are the one fetishizing around the idea that "the arabs did this", whatever.
The two things "the arabs" did do intentionally were to conquer a big portion of the former byzantine empire, and to spread their own religion across that land. In that they acted pretty much as many other conquerors before and after. And it is true that had the arabs not conquered that land, then the persians, the byzantines, the mongols, or whatever people actually lived in that land would have done so. And btw, "the arabs" were not the actual population of Persia, you should probably say that the persians (or perhaps even the armenians) carried the idea of the zero from India.
As for the religion thing, a lot could be speculated about wether ih contributed to turning the mediterranean mostly from a unifying trade route to an area of division and near-constant warfare for 10 centuries. And keeping slavery into European thought, even as it declined first across western and northern Europe, and later eastern Europe. The Mediterranean was the main area in Europe where warfare remained tied to enslavement. Does that, under your logic, mean that slavery is another "technology" the arabs should be credit with transmitting from the classical world? Or was it just an accident or circumstances and geography, as I believe?
We should try to avoid projecting on people and events from the past out political ideas and biases of the present.
That is entirely false, looking at historical evidence. In europe the spaniards did pretty much the same thing the ottomans would do in the byzantine lands: the ottomans converted churches to mosques, the spaniards mosques to churches. And that was in a land where the arab invaders had previously converted churches to mosques, and the christian preachers had converted pagan temples to churches, and the romans had assimilates local gods and shrines, and so on.
In the americas there are innumerable buildings and artifacts prom previous civilizations left standing, where those civilizations managed to build non-perishable buildings. They razed some, often out or a desire to rebuild rather that just dismantle. That was as it always is. You are bent on demonizing some conquerors, and promote others as (comparatively) virtuous, and being called out for lack of a rational basis for that.
The wealth of the italian cities did not depend on trade with the ottomands. Their commercial privileges until the 15th century were mostly with the byzantines, and their trade with northern europe was possibly more important. Wool from Iberia and England was imported and worked in Florence, and the cloth reexported. Silk was acquired from the byzantines and traded, then the knowledge of how to make it locally was also obtained. Italian financiers got wealthy lending to the english, spanish, and french crowns. The Ottomans played a small role in all this, and later became a drain on the resources of Italy, though the constant warfare and pirate raiding across the mediterranian. In fact I (and this is my opinion) attribute Italy's relative decline after the 15th century to ottoman expansion in the Mediterranean.
inthesomeday
Immortan
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 2,798
I agree that the particular administration over a region doesn't really matter for that region's economic power, but at the dawn of the Italian Renaissance probably happened during Ottoman rule.
It is equally probable that civilization which had a rebirth originates from the steppes where the turkic people came from. Cause if you are going to be an edgelord you might as well go full edgelord 
Back in reality, though, all lands conquered by ottomans used to be home to prominent cities and wealth. Post turkic conquest the balkans tend to not be synonymous with that.
Back in reality, though, all lands conquered by ottomans used to be home to prominent cities and wealth. Post turkic conquest the balkans tend to not be synonymous with that.
inthesomeday
Immortan
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 2,798
I'm not really for commending the Ottomans as the empire that caused the Renaissance-- nor any empire, for that matter-- I'm just noting the fact that Eastern trade bringing new economic developments into the northern Italian city states is much more a significant factor that can be easily traced as the catalyst that brought about the conditions that enabled the "Renaissance" as we think of it. Some handful of Byzantine artists "bringing" it to Western Europe is a bit of absurd great man history.
I can't commend you on level of debate, m8. That said, i am sure you can find books on how the renaissance is tied to immigration of people from the falling Byzantine empire to Italy, which was a process of some centuries and didn't just happen in 1453. Since the fourth crusade, the empire was facing impending death, and only limped on for 250 years due to a legacy of civilian organization unique in Europe at the time. Debate doesn't work with iconoclasm of the kneejerk type.
inthesomeday
Immortan
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 2,798
It ain't a debate when it's history, m8.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Yeah, actually it is...unless you were there. The old saying is that 'history is written by the winners,' but the truth is that history is written by just about everybody. Some survives, some is lost only to be found, and some is lost forever. So we filter through what's available now and try to make some sort of mash up 'truth' out of all the varying accounts...most of which were no more reliable when they were written than the various 'factual accounts' we see of current events. The 'truth' that comes out of that mash up is pretty much total subjective interpretation.
In short, we debate.
In short, we debate.
- Status
Similar threads
