Afrocentric history...anything to this?

[TragicMonkey]

The whole point of the Rennaissance, for example, is the rediscovery of a lot of stuff that was known quite well to classical Romans.

Was it really a rediscovery of stuff that had been forgotten, or was it a change in attitudes that inspired new iterations of an older style? What exactly did the Romans know and the Renaissance people know that the medievals did not? Besides a fondness for marble columns and nudes in art?

 

[I Ratant]

The Renaissance people were free of the rules of the Church, which had no interest in finding out anything new, as everything that anyone needed to know was in the Book!
With access to different Books, and interpretations of those, then the thinkers were able to get the human progress started again.

 

[drkitten]

Was it really a rediscovery of stuff that had been forgotten, or was it a change in attitudes that inspired new iterations of an older style? What exactly did the Romans know and the Renaissance people know that the medievals did not? Besides a fondness for marble columns and nudes in art?

Both. For example, a lot of the Greek classics were rediscovered during the Renaissance, in part because of the fall of Byzantium and in part from the ending of the Crusades, both of which made "eastern" scholarship (Greek and Arab, much of which had derived from the Greek) more accessible to scholars in the West, notably in Italy and France.

Just as an example, Plato was essentially unheard-of prior to the fall of Byzantium, although Aristotle was well-known and the bedrock of many Church teachings. Something similar could be said about Galen; indeed, much of Galen's work is only known to us in Arabic translation as the original Greek has been lost, but the Arab physicians preserved it in translation. Tertullia was almost unknown until the 15th century. The Roman Corpus Juris Civillis was lost in the West but preserved in Byzantium. Even half of Aristotle's work, such as the Poetics, was lost and rediscovered.

 

[drkitten]

The Renaissance people were free of the rules of the Church, which had no interest in finding out anything new, as everything that anyone needed to know was in the Book!

Actually, that's utterly wrong.

The rules of the Church were what kept science and scientific progress alive during the Dark Ages; the idea that the Church is hostile to science is a post-Renaissance development. One of the key attributes of medieval scholasticism is an effort to tie Christian scholarship to all the books to which they had access. And the idea that "everything that anyone needed to know was in the Book" is actually 19th century fundamentalism.

The problem is that they had so few books. E.g., they had a fair collection of Aristotle, but no Plato, which is why Augustine and Aquinas are such type-specimens of Aristotelian philosophy.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Both. For example, a lot of the Greek classics were rediscovered during the Renaissance, in part because of the fall of Byzantium and in part from the ending of the Crusades, both of which made "eastern" scholarship (Greek and Arab, much of which had derived from the Greek) more accessible to scholars in the West, notably in Italy and France.

Just as an example, Plato was essentially unheard-of prior to the fall of Byzantium, although Aristotle was well-known and the bedrock of many Church teachings. Something similar could be said about Galen; indeed, much of Galen's work is only known to us in Arabic translation as the original Greek has been lost, but the Arab physicians preserved it in translation. Tertullia was almost unknown until the 15th century. The Roman Corpus Juris Civillis was lost in the West but preserved in Byzantium. Even half of Aristotle's work, such as the Poetics, was lost and rediscovered.

But anyway, those are particular works of literature. Of course particular books may fade in and out of public awareness over time. But I was talking about "things known"--it sounded like you were saying the Romans knew about refraction and the medievals didn't, or something like that. Achievements, discoveries, things of that nature tend not to be forgotten. Not because people are particularly intellectual, of course, but because such things are useful. The wheel hasn't had to be reinvented no matter how many civilizations vanish.

 

[TragicMonkey]

E.g., they had a fair collection of Aristotle, but no Plato, which is why Augustine and Aquinas are such type-specimens of Aristotelian philosophy.

They may not have had many copies of Plato's works lying around, but they certainly didn't forget his teachings. They evolved into Neoplatonism, which never really went away since. And while not as strong an influence in Christianity as Aristotelian ideas, Neoplatonism had its contributions.

 

[ddt]

Even half of Aristotle's work, such as the Poetics, was lost and rediscovered.

Except, of course, the part where Aristotle discussed humour, which was lost in a medieval fire in a library in a monastery.

But anyway, those are particular works of literature. Of course particular books may fade in and out of public awareness over time. But I was talking about "things known"--it sounded like you were saying the Romans knew about refraction and the medievals didn't, or something like that. Achievements, discoveries, things of that nature tend not to be forgotten. Not because people are particularly intellectual, of course, but because such things are useful. The wheel hasn't had to be reinvented no matter how many civilizations vanish.

A lot of Roman engineering stuff was lost and only much later rediscovered. For instance, the Romans had very good concrete, and that hasn't been rediscovered until the late 19th Century.

 

[TragicMonkey]

A lot of Roman engineering stuff was lost and only much later rediscovered. For instance, the Romans had very good concrete, and that hasn't been rediscovered until the late 19th Century.

That would be a good example...if the 19th century counted as the Renaissance.

But is everyone sure it really was forgotten? I mean, the Byzantines did their share of construction, didn't they? Did they use different concrete?

 

[ddt]

That would be a good example...if the 19th century counted as the Renaissance.

It seems I overstated it a bit, but still the rediscovery does not go back to the Renaissance. But then, it was meant as an example of engineering which was not rediscovered in the Renaissance. Wiki says, FWIW:

Some have stated that the secret of concrete was lost for 13 centuries until 1756, when the British engineer John Smeaton pioneered the use of hydraulic lime in concrete, using pebbles and powdered brick as aggregate. However, the Canal du Midi was built using concrete in 1670.[10] Likewise there are concrete structures in Finland that date back to the 16th century.[citation needed] Portland cement was first used in concrete in the early 1840s.

But is everyone sure it really was forgotten? I mean, the Byzantines did their share of construction, didn't they? Did they use different concrete?

Or did they stop using concrete? I don't know.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I wish I'd gone to a better college. The history of construction technology would be a pretty interesting course. Although I might not have thought so when I was 18, so maybe it's moot.

eta: Although a history of construction workers I probably would have signed up for, if not actually pursued a minor in.

 

[drkitten]

But anyway, those are particular works of literature.

Only if you consider medicine (Galen) and law (Justinia) "literature."

But I was talking about "things known"--it sounded like you were saying the Romans knew about refraction and the medievals didn't, or something like that.

Sure.

Here are some examples of medical findings from Galen that were not generally known in medieval Western Europe.


* Arteries are filled with blood rather than the vague life providing substance inhaled into the body called pneuma
* Chest expansion from diaphragmatic and thoracic muscle action precede ventilation rather than the reverse
* Urine is formed by the kidneys, not the bladder
* The spinal cord and spinal nerves control specific neuromuscular functions
* Voice control originates in the recurrent laryngeal nerve, not in the heart
* The heart is the origin of blood vessels, and the brain the source of nerves, not the converse
* Sensory nerves are distinguishable from motor nerves

Achievements, discoveries, things of that nature tend not to be forgotten.

This simply isn't true, I'm afraid. Even useful stuff can be forgotten when you don't have time to learn it because you're too busy earning a living. The Fall of Rome destroyed a huge leisure class that had time for learning. Literacy rates dropped across the (Western) empire, so anything that involved learning from books became very difficult.

We lost a great deal of engineering knowledge, for example, both in terms of how to build roads (the old Roman roads were much better than anything that the medievals could build -- the medievals couldn't do the large-scale infrastructure), but also in terms of basic knowledge, because Euclid's Elements was not available except in Greek or Arabic translation. The first Latin translation wasn't made until the 12th century....

 

[TragicMonkey]

Only if you consider medicine (Galen) and law (Justinia) "literature."

I'd argue that the law books of one civilization aren't relevant at all to another, which would have its own laws.

Sure.

Here are some examples of medical findings from Galen that were not generally known in medieval Western Europe.


* Arteries are filled with blood rather than the vague life providing substance inhaled into the body called pneuma
* Chest expansion from diaphragmatic and thoracic muscle action precede ventilation rather than the reverse
* Urine is formed by the kidneys, not the bladder
* The spinal cord and spinal nerves control specific neuromuscular functions
* Voice control originates in the recurrent laryngeal nerve, not in the heart
* The heart is the origin of blood vessels, and the brain the source of nerves, not the converse
* Sensory nerves are distinguishable from motor nerves

And don't forget Galen's work on the four humors regulating human temperament, and how the liver generates half the blood while the heart generates the other half, and the presence in humans of that nerve thing giraffes have. Where would medicine be without those ideas?

This simply isn't true, I'm afraid. Even useful stuff can be forgotten when you don't have time to learn it because you're too busy earning a living. The Fall of Rome destroyed a huge leisure class that had time for learning. Literacy rates dropped across the (Western) empire, so anything that involved learning from books became very difficult.

We lost a great deal of engineering knowledge, for example, both in terms of how to build roads (the old Roman roads were much better than anything that the medievals could build -- the medievals couldn't do the large-scale infrastructure), but also in terms of basic knowledge, because Euclid's Elements was not available except in Greek or Arabic translation. The first Latin translation wasn't made until the 12th century....

I can agree with some of this, but not all. What makes you say the medievals "couldn't do large scale infrastructure"? Their territory might not have been as expansive as the Roman Empire at its height (with the possible exception of Russia, of course), but they certainly had larger populations and managed to survive as nations--strong ones, that lasted longer than Rome managed, and usually with a much stronger sense of national identity.

And if you're talking about building projects, I'd say Gothic cathedrals require at least as much engineering knowledge as an aqueduct.

I don't mean to belittle the ancients, but I don't like people glossing over the accomplishments of the so-called "Dark Ages" either. Just because they were obsessed with some crazy religion doesn't mean they didn't accomplish a lot of neat things. (And if you want to be fair, both the "classicals" and the Renaissance people were obsessed with crazy religions also.)

 

[ddt]

I can agree with some of this, but not all. What makes you say the medievals "couldn't do large scale infrastructure"? Their territory might not have been as expansive as the Roman Empire at its height (with the possible exception of Russia, of course), but they certainly had larger populations and managed to survive as nations--strong ones, that lasted longer than Rome managed, and usually with a much stronger sense of national identity.

Most European states didn't come into being until the end of the Medieval Age (e.g., Spain, France), or even much later (Germany, Italy). Medieval kings didn't have the command over their subjects, especially the nobility, as the Roman administration had. Some who tried came into conflict with their barons, e.g., King John Lackland.

Only with a centralized administration - or at least, without outright competing and hostile regional administrations - large infrastructural projects like an efficient road net are possible.

And if you're talking about building projects, I'd say Gothic cathedrals require at least as much engineering knowledge as an aqueduct.

Those aqueducts used concrete. Apart from that, you're right, but don't forget that they were projects that tended to last a century or more to be built to completion.

 

[I Ratant]

Actually, that's utterly wrong.

The rules of the Church were what kept science and scientific progress alive during the Dark Ages; the idea that the Church is hostile to science is a post-Renaissance development. One of the key attributes of medieval scholasticism is an effort to tie Christian scholarship to all the books to which they had access. And the idea that "everything that anyone needed to know was in the Book" is actually 19th century fundamentalism.

The problem is that they had so few books. E.g., they had a fair collection of Aristotle, but no Plato, which is why Augustine and Aquinas are such type-specimens of Aristotelian philosophy.

.
Well, the hoi-polloi were kept in the dark by the clergy.. being uneducated serfs...
The Renaissance and the printing press opened the world of knowledge to the average guy.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Most European states didn't come into being until the end of the Medieval Age (e.g., Spain, France), or even much later (Germany, Italy). Medieval kings didn't have the command over their subjects, especially the nobility, as the Roman administration had. Some who tried came into conflict with their barons, e.g., King John Lackland.

Only with a centralized administration - or at least, without outright competing and hostile regional administrations - large infrastructural projects like an efficient road net are possible.

What? France has been around for quite a long time, even if you only count it as Charlemagne onward. And of course medieval monarchs had trouble with their nobles--but can you name a single Roman emperor who didn't have trouble with his Senate? Or his generals? Seems like every Tom, Dick, and Harrius in charge of some troops thought he could make himself emperor, and frequently did! But I was speaking more in terms of national identity--how Roman did people feel, from living in Roman territory? Some bits changed hands every generation. Restricting actual citizenship didn't help. A serf might not have had many rights, but he at least knew what nation he belonged to.

Those aqueducts used concrete. Apart from that, you're right, but don't forget that they were projects that tended to last a century or more to be built to completion.

A proper craftsman doesn't rush the job.

 

[I Ratant]

...
A proper craftsman doesn't rush the job.

.
And those medieval rulers used those Roman roads to move their troops.
Couldn't have built anything of similar quality..

 

[TragicMonkey]

.
And those medieval rulers used those Roman roads to move their troops.
Couldn't have built anything of similar quality..

We don't know that for sure because they didn't bother trying, they just used the ones tge previous occupants left. Much like how I have no idea whether I could do a better job installing ceiling fans or not, the apartment came with one so I have no need to make the attempt.

 

[drkitten]

.
Well, the hoi-polloi were kept in the dark by the clergy.. being uneducated serfs...

Hoi polloi were always kept in the dark, and the clergy had little to do with it. The problem is that the upper class -- the idle rich, if you will, who had the time to learn to read -- nearly vanished in the West with the fall of Rome.

It's not that the hoi polloi [sic] had had marvelous opportunities in pagan Rome. It's that there were more people who weren't hoi polloi, and therefore did have marvelous opportunities.

 

[drkitten]

What? France has been around for quite a long time, even if you only count it as Charlemagne onward. And of course medieval monarchs had trouble with their nobles--but can you name a single Roman emperor who didn't have trouble with his Senate? Or his generals?

But nevertheless, these Roman emperors and generals still managed to build roads, and Charlemagne didn't. The roads that Charlemagne did build were not nearly as good or as durable as the ones he inherited from the Romans.

Sounds to me like a loss of roadbuilding capacity.

 

[drkitten]

I'd argue that the law books of one civilization aren't relevant at all to another, which would have its own laws.

Shrug. You'd be wrong. One of the ways that you can tell you'd be wrong is that once the law code was rediscovered, it quickly became the basis for civil law all over Europe; it's the basis for civil law today, based on the Code Napoleanique..

And don't forget Galen's work on the four humors regulating human temperament, and how the liver generates half the blood while the heart generates the other half, and the presence in humans of that nerve thing giraffes have. Where would medicine be without those ideas?

So your argument is that because Galen's work contained errors, it was never lost? Or is your argument that because Galen's work contained errors, it didn't inspire the development of modern medicine when it was rediscovered by Paracelsus and his contemporaries?

I can agree with some of this, but not all. What makes you say the medievals "couldn't do large scale infrastructure"?

The fact that they couldn't do large scale infrastructure.

Their territory might not have been as expansive as the Roman Empire at its height (with the possible exception of Russia, of course), but they certainly had larger populations and managed to survive as nations--strong ones, that lasted longer than Rome managed, and usually with a much stronger sense of national identity.

But without the public infrastructure. No roads, no aqueducts, no major harbor developments, relatively little in the way of stone buildings outside of crude castles....

And if you're talking about building projects, I'd say Gothic cathedrals require at least as much engineering knowledge as an aqueduct.

Which proves my point. Gothic architecture came into existence only after the rediscovery of Euclid. In fact, "Romanesque," the predecessor to Gothic, architecture only came into existence at about the same time as Euclid was being rediscovered, because that was when the Roman building techniques were being rediscovered as well.

As Wikipedia puts it, "Despite the impression of 19th century Art Historians that Romanesque architecture was a continuation of the Roman, in fact, Roman building techniques in brick and stone were largely lost in most parts of Europe, and in the more northern countries had never been adopted except for official buildings, while in Scandinavia they were unknown." Romanesque architecture was an attempt to deliberately model Roman building styles instead of Byzantine,.... and wasn't very good precisely because they didn't have the wonders of concrete and wouldn't for another six hundred years.

I don't mean to belittle the ancients,

Well, you're doing a very good job of it.

but I don't like people glossing over the accomplishments of the so-called "Dark Ages" either. Just because they were obsessed with some crazy religion doesn't mean they didn't accomplish a lot of neat things.

Yes, but just because they accomplished some neat things doesn't mean that there hadn't been a hell of a lot of knowledge lost in the Fall of Rome that would not be rediscovered for a long time, in many cases post-medieval. The engineering marvels that the Romans built, such as entire stone cities, were possible in most cases only because it's so much faster to pour concrete than to dress stone.