Christendom is totally divided with constant wars. The values are not uniform and christen philosophy was never particularly great. Rejection of most of those values defines modernity.
That said, yes Romanization was real, but it impacted small population and it mostly suck in the Med, and did not spread to far into places like Britain. Making a connection between the Roman Empire and current Europe is quite a stretch. Much of the Empire was not even in current EU countries, Turkey, Egypt and all the richest parts.
Yes it did. Two times the British garrisons took matters into their own hands and hailed their own Augustus. The last time, they haieled Constantin III who went to Gaul to fight barbarians and then bargained recognition from the court in Ravenna as co-ruler. I think this shows that the Britons did see themselves as Romans and that they cared about the Empire as a whole.
>Much of the Empire was not even in current EU countries, Turkey, Egypt and all the richest parts
Sure, muslim countries are not children of the Roman Empire. The empire was, pretty much but not only, a container for hellenized mediterraneans, kind of what Islam rejects.
> Sure, muslim countries are not children of the Roman Empire. The empire was, pretty much but not only, a container for hellenized mediterraneans, kind of what Islam rejects.
That is bullshit. The current muslim countries actually have a lot of Roman influence. First of all, the Eastern Empire had dealings with Muslims 1000 years after the west fell. Caliphate took over many of the Roman institutions when they took over North Africa and the Levant.
You can not compare current Islamists with Islam at that time.
Like what? All I can think of is anti-roman influence. It's very hard to settle that in a short answer but I think Islam is almost the opossite of hellenism and "roman influence".
>First of all, the Eastern Empire had dealings with Muslims 1000 years after the west fell
The same dealings the Western Empire had with the Huns. We are not calling the Huns as heirs of the romans right? It was a hostile relationship from day 1.
Also there's the ex-communist countries for a more recent cultural split.
Is that really the case? Seems more like wishful thinking to me. Christianity was spread globally through missionaries. liberal enlightenment - not so much.
Colonialism? Or else why does the UN extend throughout the globe?
The founders of Christianity were Jews. Early churches were in Ethiopia, Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and, yes, Rome and Greece. It was a very multi-cultural movement.
(edit: strictly speaking, the Eastern Roman Empire didn't exist yet by that name. It was the eastern part of the Roman Empire)
Whilst the anatolians had sort of a partial continuity into Islam by the middle of the millennium, a process that completed with 19th-20th century genocides of ottoman christians. (Off-topic: I'm reading into comparative genetic reseach about anatolian/near-east peoples, of which I'm a member, which suggests that there is a continuous people since the paleolithic here, that is divided differently at different times in the history because of culture replacements of imperial origins, i.e. Parthian, Armenian, Greek, Roman, Muslim and Turkish empires. But especially the Turkish-speaking, the Armenian-speaking and the Kurdish-speaking peoples seem to be genetically very close to suggest common origin, whereas Anatolian turkish-speakers are genetically closer to brits than central-asians.)
Why wasn't Christianity more popular among the Jewish people? The Bible has some theological answers to that question. I wouldn't consider a Greek heritage to Christianity to be a main cause of that though. Jesus and the apostles were all Jews, after all.
So many shifts and things have happened since christianity enters the european continent that it can't hardly be the foundation of the common european identity. Just look at who started the EU in the 50's and led us to believe in an european dream.
Point given: it's an argument used to antagonize proponents (nationalist leaders and `muslims`(whatever that group really is)).
Just wanted to check, were they:
Rome / Constantinople?
Henry the 8th can divorce / not divorce?
Martin Luther says the church is corrupt / not corrupt?
This belief, and a horrid past (and present) of exploiting, plundering, murdering, etc all over the world, from the Crusades and colonial times to the Holocaust and onwards, is what makes it one of the most bloody and backwards "achievements of the human species".
Some exhibits from the "greatest achievement of the human species":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Congo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War
A lot of civilizations at worse were at war with some other. This list is like a cancer spreading over the whole planet -- including some of its "achievements" that can wipe out the whole planet literally, like nukes.
The Holocaust, for example, doesn't leave much to trivialize. Plus at least those other civilizations had a lot of excuses (ignorance etc). Most of those things in the list have done in the era of "lights" and "science" with no excuse but pure greed.
>I would argue that the character of a culture is not set by its lowest points but by how it claws its way back towards the light of liberté, égalité, fraternité
I would argue that liberté, égalité, fraternité is just a way of seeing the world of a particular culture, not the be all end all of morality and civilization.
Plus it has been a hypocritical slogan for centuries, one used to beat other peoples to make them "civilized" or "bring democracy" (the white man's burden), when underneath it was profits and greed doing the work.
You know very well he is celebrating where this has taken Europe and not the brutal aspects of its history, which, if you're honest, you'll agree are present in all cultures, especially when they rise materially and technologically above neighboring ones. If you stand by your statement, would you prefer to have western civilization go back to pre-roman times? Was it less bloody and more civilized than present-day Europe? C'mon.
I think the cultural roots go to Greece, not Rome. Rome basically was a logistical and administrative juggernaut but I'm not aware of anything new they created - Roman law being the only exception, I think, which created basis for the laws in a large group of european polities.
After Rome, there was the period which is called the dark ages, but probably mostly only looks like that in the context of the exceptional developments which started after it.
1400:s europe finally was done with dark ages, and the energetic cities embraced innovations from around the world (including material from greece antiquity preserved in the muslim civilization).
The catholic church did not really do much to help that progress. You will notice that e.g. industrialization was fastest in the countries where the church did not have as much power - the mostly protestant ones. Big parts of what we call 'western civilization' was innovated ny guys despite the stifling effect of the church on sapient inquiry.
In the border regions where a bunch of tiny polities that imitated and admired the developments of biggest neighbours.
My point is, just saying 'rome and christian culture' is giving undue prominence just to a one cultural development that moulded europe.
If it wasn't for the West, humanity would still be mired in dirt, poverty and ignorance.
If the bulk of technological accomplishments of recent centuries were made in European and European-derived countries in recent centuries... well, that's because those happened to be the affluent regions of the times, the result of being the ones that colonized and ran roughshod over the rest of the world. But there's no reason to suppose non-white people were/are somehow intrinsically less capable of innovation.
The GP didn't say that they were.
Whoops! Redundancy it's too late to edit. Oh well...
If you have some basic ideas about human history you should know that the Arab world helped preserve a great deal of classical knowledge from the Greek/Roman Era while the "Western Civilization" f*cked itself so hard in a cultural regressive "Dark Ages".
All human inventions are progressively built on past discoveries and you should be ashamed for only taking things at their face value.
Even when one of those kings (Charlemagne) nearly united all of the roman lands together it collapsed into in-fighting.
There is almost a thousand years of cultural difference between each of the member states of the EU. I think in the future a political union will happen, but it takes all of europe to be united as a people, to have common cause and that is a long way off. Today every member of the EU still fights for their national interest.
I think Yes Minister said it best https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVrN-gkzVYI
The one that used to be called the Roman Empire, then Christendom, and is now called Western Civilisation. It is also arguably the greatest achievement of the human species.