Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Is History Eurocentric?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Is History Eurocentric?
    Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 07:03

Ok, last (off-topic) reply.

India is way behind China.  It's the caste system.  However, I do agree India has great potential.  But the forcast for India is nowhere near that for China by 2050.

Confucianism = Meritocracy

Caste System = Just The Opposite

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of India.  Think it and Japan should get perminent seats on Security Council at the UN.  India gives Vietnam military aid, though mostly antiquated hand-me-downs.  Just not a big fan of their self-limiting caste system.  A strong India is good for the world, not just Vietnam. 

China started modernizing just after its disasterous war with Vietnam in 1980.  India has been a democracy since Ghandi/Nehru.  Compare the two now, and the two in 2050.  (Sorry, but no link for the forcast for now.)

There's a guy name Gordon Chang, a bona fide self-hating Chinese American/Amerasian, who wrote in 2000 about the "Coming Collapse of China".  He's quite the China basher; he's also a favourite of CNN's Lou Dobbs show.  He said, IIRC, that the Chinese economy would collapse by 2005.  He was basically using your line of argument.

http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Collapse-China-Gordon-Chang/dp/0812977564/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255182231&sr=8-1

I'm still waiting... Confused

Confucianism is far more potent and resilient than you realize.  Though in the past it was wholly self-limiting in the sense that it was backwards looking, i.e. its fundamental emphasis on tradition rather than innovation.  In the early 1800's, China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea, all had fierce internal debates about modernizing.  Only the Japanese made the right choice (to the detriment of Asia):  Keep the Confucian work ethic, but lose the emphasis on worshipping tradition.  This is the difference.

As for the 900,000,000 and growing Chinese peasants...  Well, they're more than willing to work harder than the typical Westerner and for much less.

Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 07:22
I have nothing to do with China bashers, but some arguments may have logic regardless of one's political views. I agree with many of your arguments. The caste system is holding India back, so is enormous rural population in China. China had already many millenniums when it played the dominant economic power on this planet. It will all depend how both India and China resolve their internal problems. When projections are made, they are based on the present and past which may have nothing to do with the future. The fact that Chinese peasants are willing to work for less, will not build prosperous society. Their buying power is limited and in long time mercantilism does not work.

You have idealistic view of Confucianism. The followers somehow simplified the original philosophy.

I don't like books with title like "Collapse of..." with their simplistic agendas. One can make the case for the collapse of Western world considering that our energy use is not sustainable. We came close to blowing-up this planet as well. One thing is sure, each system has weaknesses built in that eventually will lead to its demise, unless it evolves continuously.  It is how societies can evolve and change that insures their survival. In that area China has a lot going for it.


Edited by cavalry4ever - 10-Oct-2009 at 07:28
Back to Top
Hypocrisy View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 31-May-2009
Location: Smyrna
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
  Quote Hypocrisy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 11:33
I'll look this subject through another historical window. My answer is "partially". History is sort of Eurocentric. It mostly depends on which part of history you take on, though. If you consider the construction of humane traditions and the very inventions of handy tools, which occured quite earlier i would say, history simply originates in Asia. The dominant states were created in Asia. The newly developed technologies were carried through main trade routes that lie between Asia Minor and Asia. The oriental empires have led the world for centuries. Geographic expeditions, reform movements and the Renaissance initiated the era of information and technology.

That is a significant turning point in the recent history. European countries raised the rebellion flag against the prolonged, worn-out kingdoms. After they toppled the absolute monarchy and entered a new era, they transcended the Asian management traditions both financially and militarily in many ways. As they re-draw the map in Europe, another trend of destructive wars was sparked in terms of land. Many epic wars were fought on this continent. The authors made a lot of stories out of these epic battles. Most of current debates come about over the European history.

History is an assembled mechanism which was set up by the Asians and then followed by the westerners.

My overall conclusion is that history should be taken into account as a whole. Wink
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 12:45
Hypocrisy (I like this) - this is very good and thoughtful post. I will use term "Westerners" encompassing all societies evolving from and continuing European model. I agree about Westerners transcending their teachers (in some areas). The problem is that Westerners often forget that they stand on the shoulders of civilizational giants. We tend to look down at societies that are not on the same development level as we are, forgetting that not long ago we were at exactly same level or worse.We tend to ignore the contribution of many cultures to our civilization. 
Some of societies we look down on, provided us with tools to advance ours and then declined. We look at religious fanaticism as if it is product of other societies, forgetting that we shelter, to this day, the same caliber of fanatics, but manage to keep them under control. The driving force for our development was warfare and because of this we focus on technology to the detriment of other human endeavors. 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2009 at 17:32
If I may presume to interject an outsiders viewpoint, I would suggest that "certainly" history is Eurocentric! A very obvious fact, since for the last 300 years or so, most all historical writing has been done by people who called Euro-Asia as their homes. Thus most all history has been written in English, German, French, Italian, Russian,or take your pick of about a dozen other languages.

You see, I take a very different view of the so called "Indo-European" language history as is now accepted by 99.9% of modern historians and linguists! Thus, I would suggest that Persian, or Proto-Persian or Indo-European is not an East to West Phenomena, but a West to East one!

It is mostly a result of misdating of documents, coins, and the desire of etymologists to attempt the regression of language rather thas recognize that language can also "digress!" Therefore, one persons desire to show how language has "progressed" from the basic form, to a more advanced form, can also show how a "progressed form" can "regress" to a less developed one!
Early Latin is not either "early" nor is it Latin, except in the sense of a language to be used only by the "learned", and those in power, as a "common language" designed not to be either read nor understood by the masses! But, printing and religious wars caused its undoing! Greek can but be considered not as evolutionary but created!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Tk101 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 18-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
  Quote Tk101 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2009 at 20:08
Originally posted by Hypocrisy

If you consider the construction of humane traditions and the very inventions of handy tools, which occured quite earlier i would say, history simply originates in Asia



For clearification, i'm sure human traditions and society likely originates in africa with the earliest humans that have existed.  while its true some of the most advanced ( both technologically and socially) advanced civilization existed in asia,human history didn't commence there.  Human creativity, handy tools and the like are found in the earliest human societies in humanities birthplace.  human history originates there as well.

no attack intended by the way


there is only one truth
- Conan
[IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG]
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2009 at 00:10
Originally posted by opuslola

If I may presume to interject an outsiders viewpoint, I would suggest that "certainly" history is Eurocentric! A very obvious fact, since for the last 300 years or so, most all historical writing has been done by people who called Euro-Asia as their homes. Thus most all history has been written in English, German, French, Italian, Russian,or take your pick of about a dozen other languages.

You see, I take a very different view of the so called "Indo-European" language history as is now accepted by 99.9% of modern historians and linguists! Thus, I would suggest that Persian, or Proto-Persian or Indo-European is not an East to West Phenomena, but a West to East one!

It is mostly a result of misdating of documents, coins, and the desire of etymologists to attempt the regression of language rather thas recognize that language can also "digress!" Therefore, one persons desire to show how language has "progressed" from the basic form, to a more advanced form, can also show how a "progressed form" can "regress" to a less developed one!
Early Latin is not either "early" nor is it Latin, except in the sense of a language to be used only by the "learned", and those in power, as a "common language" designed not to be either read nor understood by the masses! But, printing and religious wars caused its undoing! Greek can but be considered not as evolutionary but created!



Not 99 percent. more less than it.

this historians are most of europan , a little persian.
Most of Turk, indian historians dont accept the theory and shows its weak points. Dont tyr to propogandate peoples here.
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2009 at 07:09
opusiola - you made good point. Languages such as Aramaic, Yiddish are good examples of some of these ideas. What we think was the "proper" language of a given group of people, may not have been really language of that group.
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2009 at 00:46
You know Cavalry4ever, that somehow this has turned out wrong.
This new thread makes it seem like I'm kind of supporting an Eurocentric view, but that is pretty far from the case. I only disagree about the timeframe, but nothing else.
My point, as I already wrote, perhaps not in a clear way, is that it is difficult to quantify exactly at what level of advancement some random society in the past had achieved. I do not disagree with the fact that many European advancements are based on inventions made by others, in other cultures (which I also pointed out).
I just think you go way to far the other way, denying any kind of advancement up until 1700, which is wrong, IMHO.
 
(For some reason, the initial posts in this thread are not in the correct order, I have no idea why?)
 
But, on topic, there sure was a lot of Eurocentrism going on in the past, and there still is. It was probably unavoidable at the time, since it simply originates from ignorance about the world outside of Europe, and probably also at some point the feeling of superiority by Anglo culture - just read "The White Man's Burden." It describes the thought behind modern Eurocentrism very well, the idea of culture based Anglo-superiority.
Today, it's mostly fringe groups that are hardcore Eurocentrists, but I believe it's mostly what is written in Europe/US that is Eurocentric, which is only natural. There are obviously a lot of non-Eurocentric material written all over the world.
I don't really know what they teach in history class in the US, but in Europe it is primarily European history, for very obvious reasons. And not only that, it is the nations history that is the primary focus.


Edited by Jams - 16-Oct-2009 at 00:47
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2009 at 09:27
Jams, I like your posts and as long as we have good discussion, without personal comments, I have no problem with it. 
If we all agreed on everything, there would  be no need to have a discussion. The order got messed up when I moved these threads, as discussion progresses this will not be as important.
My problem with Eurocentricity is in the portrayal of Europe as a beacon of civilization. Any major negative impact gets glossed over and minor achievement exaggerated. It is often subtle. Most of time is by deemphasizing achievements of other cultures and not providing comparative history with other part of world. If you look at textbooks, Europe is the center of the planet and there are some peripheral civilizations around it. How many people know the contribution of Arab and Jewish philosophers to European civilization. Without them, Europe would not be able to reconnect to its past. 

Some examples of trivializations of other cultures:

Good example is architecture. Just think what was written about Gothic Architecture. There is no mention that it is after all pretty primitive architecture and its only merit is that Europeans figured out that roof creates lateral forces that have to be compensated for. Most of these guys where clueless about architectural concepts behind building such as as Pantheon. Which itself was based on oriental concepts.

Another one is about human sacrifice. I remember mention of it in diverse books characterizing Incas or Aztec cultures as primitive because of it. But burning people alive on stakes, cooking in oil and disemboweling for entertainment, was always characterized as less evil and presented as whitewashed "mistakes".
This is not to say who was smarter and what kind of better things they did, but this aggrandizement of everything European leads to stuff like white supremacism and other nonsense. What is interesting about Europe is how many other cultures and civilizations it took to create it.


Edited by cavalry4ever - 16-Oct-2009 at 12:29
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10112
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2009 at 14:00
Cavalry4Ever wrote-
 
Good example is architecture. Just think what was written about Gothic Architecture. There is no mention that it is after all pretty primitive architecture and its only merit is that Europeans figured out that roof creates lateral forces that have to be compensated for. Most of these guys where clueless about architectural concepts behind building such as as Pantheon. Which itself was based on oriental concepts.

Another one is about human sacrifice. I remember mention of it in diverse books characterizing Incas or Aztec cultures as primitive because of it. But burning people alive on stakes, cooking in oil and disemboweling for entertainment, was always characterized as less evil and presented as whitewashed "mistakes".
This is not to say who was smarter and what kind of better things they did, but this aggrandizement of everything European leads to stuff like white supremacism and other nonsense. What is interesting about Europe is how many other cultures and civilizations it took to create it.
 
 
 
 
Trivialization? Most of these guys were clueless? Primitive?
 
These are personal opinions, care to source and reference any of this?
 
 
 
But burning people alive on stakes, cooking in oil and disemboweling for entertainment, was always characterized as less evil and presented as whitewashed "mistakes".
 
I have never seen these activities characterized as less than evil.  I can imagine however, an author giving them less emphasis than the organized ritual murder of 30,000 captives.
 
 
 
 
      


Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2009 at 08:51
 The domed structures are inherently more difficult to build  than gothic structures. The first built domed church, which could match on some level, engineering of the Pantheon, was Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore. it had to be built using bricks because Europeans "forgot" how to make concrete. The Pantheon was built using light weight concrete. Any engineer building domed structure would have no problem understanding gothic structure, but opposite is not true. If you Google that church you can find its history and the fact that there were few people understanding concepts behind its dome at the time ( I am refering here here about Santa Maria del Fiore). The similar to Pantheon structure could not be built in Europe until 1756 when concrete was reinvented, but that concrete would be inadequate to do it. The  Roman concrete had very similar mechanical properties to Portland Cement. Portland Cement was first used in 1840. So another Pantheon could not be built in Europe until 1840. It is interesting that this corresponds also to the time when Europe snapped back from it religion induced stupor.

Edited by cavalry4ever - 20-Oct-2009 at 10:05
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2009 at 09:38
Hello Cav..! RE, the above post!

http://www.destination360.com/europe/italy/pantheon

"A precarious moment in the history of Pantheon was the fall of the Roman Empire. But unlike many institutions at the time, the Roman Pantheon managed to escape destruction as Barbarians flooded the city. Historians disagree as to why the conquerors elected to preserve this building while destroying so many others, and thus their motives may forever remain a mystery. Regardless, it was the pivotal moment in Pantheon history."

I propose that the darkness of the "Dark Ages" is more of an artifical creation than reality! As you can read above; "their (the barbarians) motives may forever remain a mystery." Yes, like a lot of other things, mystery plays a large part in our current understanding of the past.

Just why would the "barbarians" ignore the Pantheon and reportedly destroy or try to destroy everything else in Rome? Why did they not take all of the bronze?, and why would a Pope do it when it reportedly also stood as a Roman Catholic church?

And, why would the Pope take all of the bronze from the ceiling and walls, and not the easist part, IE, the great doors? All mysteries!

That is unless the Pantheon is but an example of the so called "Neo-Platonist" times?, or even later? From what sources do we arrive at the certain evidence that the Pantheon was "conceived by Marcus Agrippa and completed 150 years later by Hadrian?" Is it the incised words found over the entrance that proves it? Or is it found within ancient documents? Or is it mostly found in reportedly "copies" of reportedly ancient documents? Has there ever been any 14C tests done?

Here is what Wikipedia has to say; "In the aftermath of the Battle of Actium (31 BC), Marcus Agrippa built and dedicated the original Pantheon during his third consulship (27 BC). The form of Agrippa's Pantheon is debated.[5] Augustus's Pantheon was destroyed along with other buildings in a huge fire in 80 AD. Domitian rebuilt the Pantheon, which burned again in 110 AD.[6] Not long after this second fire, construction started again, according to a recent re-evaluation of the bricks dated with manufacturer stamps.[7] Therefore, the design of the building should not be credited to Hadrian or his architects. Instead, the design of the extant building might belong to Trajan's architect Apollodorus of Damascus.[7] The degree to which the decorative scheme should be credited to Hadrian's architects is uncertain. Finished by Hadrian but not claimed as one of his works, it used the text of the original inscription ("M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT", standing for Latin: Marcus Agrippa, Lucii filius, consul tertium fecit translated to "'Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, Consul for the third time, built this") on the new facade, a common practice in Hadrian's rebuilding projects all over Rome. How the building was actually used is not known." Hadrian was surely a very modest emperor, was he not?

From the above quote it seems that now Trajan has become the builder! Is this another mystery? Some historians believe that Hadrian and Trajan were the same person, and their names merely a version of "Adrian?" The great octagonal "portus" at the mouth of the Tiber river, is also attributed to these men!

It would seem that there had to have been built a huge wooden mold within the current dome, to hold up the setting concrete? Or, was a mould made of bronze, set upon the wooden supports, and the concrete spread over the bronze? I am sure some modern engineer has made it his business to explain the construction, but I have not seen it!

It is even thought that the pagan statues stood within it when it was used as a Catholic Church? Were they?, or are they later additions?

Have any tombs been found under the floors? Were there later burials there?

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome-pantheon

"The Pantheon was maintained and restored by the emperors Septimus Severus (193-211) and Caracalla (211-17). During its two centuries as a functioning temple, statues of gods filled the niches. Animals were sacrificed and burned in the center; the smoke escaped through the only means of light, the oculus.

After Christianity replaced paganism in Rome, the Pantheon was abandoned for a time. Public pagan worship was prohibited in 346 and most pagan temples were closed in 356. Fortunately, a decree of 408 ordered that temples were to be put to new use; thus some have been preserved and were used as secular buildings.

The Pantheon remained unused until the Byzantine emperor Phocas (602-10) gave it to Pope Boniface IV (608-15). In 609 AD, the Pantheon was consecrated as a Christian church." (it is thus assumed that this structure remained, reportedly, unused and not repaired for about 200 or more years!)

"It was the first pagan temple in Rome to be Christianized, although the practice had been common in the East since the 4th century. The church was dedicated to the Virgin Mary and all the martyrs, thus continuing the tradition of a "catch-all" place of worship.

As part of the consecration in 609, an altar was placed in the main apse opposite the entrance, with an icon of the Virgin and Child placed above it. Legend has it that Pope Boniface transferred 'cartloads' of martyrs' relics to the newly consecrated church, but this is unlikely. At that time, the presence of human remains inside a city was an Eastern practice frowned upon in Rome. The earliest documented transfer of relics into Rome is in the 640s (by popes of Eastern origin) but the practice did not really become accepted in Rome until the 8th century. Future excavations may reveal whether the legend is based in fact or not."

(It seems there are other mysteries from the above? Were in fact the "bones" or "relics" of numerous saints or famous personages realy interred here? It seems that so far, no one has looked!)

"In 667, the Pantheon was stripped of its golden roof tiles and looted of anything of value, but the building was partially restored by Pope Benedict II (684-85). It was subsequently robbed and restored again several times." (we are not told how often it was robbed and restored or by whom? Were the "bones and relics" looted during these times?)

"In the 16th century, Michelangelo came to the Pantheon to study its dome before he began work on the dome of St. Peter's (whose dome is 2 feet smaller), and the Pantheon's roof was stripped of bronze for use in Bernini's baldacchino in St. Peter's. In 1563, the bronze doors were restored."

You might well notice all of the so called "restorations!", if that is what they really described?, even the "bronze doors were restored.", in 1563! What if they were not restored in the sense of cleaned up and polished, etc., but doors themselves were built and installed?

The above site also says; "Monumental tombs are set into the walls of Pantheon, including that of the artist Raphael (on the left side as you enter). Vittorio Emanuele II, first king of a unified Italy, and his successor, Umberto I, are interred here as well."   

The site even says that the roof was covered in "gold tiles" and the "bronze doors were once covered in gold!" As well the site also states; "The portico (porch) is made of 16 monolithic Corinthian columns topped by a pediment. The inscription M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIUM·FECIT means: "Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, during his third consulate, built this." Now, does this inscription really describe its initial building, which was reportedly destroyed, or did Hadrian place this inscription upon his rebuilt structure? Another mystery!

Regarding Raphael, Wikipedia says; "Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino[2] (April 6 or March 28, 1483 – April 6, 1520[3]), better known simply as Raphael, was an Italian painter and architect of the High Renaissance, celebrated for the perfection and grace of his paintings and drawings. Together with Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, he forms the traditional trinity of great masters of that period.[4]" So, he could not have been interred in the Pantheon until after 1520!

Wikipedia also tells us this;

"Since the Renaissance the Pantheon has been used as a tomb. Among those buried there are the painters Raphael and Annibale Carracci, the composer Arcangelo Corelli, and the architect Baldassare Peruzzi. In the 15th century, the Pantheon was adorned with paintings: the best-known is the Annunciation by Melozzo da Forlì. Architects, like Brunelleschi, who used the Pantheon as help when designing the Cathedral of Florence's dome, looked to the Pantheon as inspiration for their works.

Pope Urban VIII (1623 to 1644) ordered the bronze ceiling of the Pantheon's portico melted down. Most of the bronze was used to make bombards for the fortification of Castel Sant'Angelo, with the remaining amount used by the Apostolic Camera for various other works. It is also said that the bronze was used by Bernini in creating his famous baldachin above the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica, but according to at least one expert, the Pope's accounts state that about 90% of the bronze was used for the cannon, and that the bronze for the baldachin came from Venice.[11] This led the Roman satirical figure Pasquino to issue the famous proverb: Quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt Barberini ('What the barbarians did not do, the Barberinis [Urban VIII's family name] did')" (Interesting isn't it? Barberinis and barbarians? I wonder about the confustion of the two words?)

"In 1747, the broad frieze below the dome with its false windows was 'restored,' but bore little resemblance to the original. In the early decades of the twentieth century, a piece of the original, as could be reconstructed from Renaissance drawings and paintings, was recreated in one of the panels."

Note again, another "restoration!" Just how do our historians know with any certainty that the restoration "...bore little resemblance to the original?" Have traces of the "original" been discovered? Or would the 18th century "restoration" which was reportedly based upon "Renaissance" drawings and paintings" have also shown numerous chronological problems? Another mystery it seems!

Wikipedia also says; "The building was originally approached by a flight of steps. The ground level in the surrounding area has risen considerably since antiquity.[4]" The same thing is reported to have happend to St.Pauls cathedral in London, which is considerably younger than the Pantheon! It is much the same for old roads or paths, before paving, which eventually came to be revealed because they exist below the current ground level!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Paul's_Cathedral

"St Paul's Cathedral is the Anglican cathedral on Ludgate Hill in the City of London and the seat of the Bishop of London. The present building dates from the 17th century and is generally reckoned to be London's fifth St Paul's Cathedral, not counting every major medieval reconstruction as a new cathedral. The cathedral sits on the highest point of the City of London, which originated as the Roman trading post of Londinium situated on the River Thames."

If my earlier remarks are correct, then St. Paul's Cathedral, even though built upon "the highest point in the City of London", and only consecrated in "1708" has also sunk, in relation to its environment which as actually raised up! Considering the numerous centuries from the last rebuilding of the Panthenon, it is a wonder that it is not buried under the rising environment outside its dome! Another mystery!

Oh, well, enough mystery for now! It is even silly for me to post this little essay at this site since it should be reserved for "Eurocentric" views! Sorry!

Edited by opuslola - 20-Oct-2009 at 09:53
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2009 at 10:29
When we say Eurocentric, we usually think about post-Roman, Christian and Colonial Europe. Amount of idiocies written about Romans and propagated to this day to prove Christian Europe superior, is quite large. Most of Roman achievements were forgotten in the fairly barbaric european Middle Ages. I like to refer to middle ages as religion induced stupor. Hardly basis to feel superiority.

We got reconnected to antiquity via Spain, thanks to Arab archives acquired during the "Reconquista". Without Arabs, Europe would not reconnect to its own past. Even with help, it took more than millennium before the level of civilization of antiquity was achieved. 

How many people give credit to Arabs for that?
How many people know that in middle ages, Arab Spain was a far more advanced than non-Arab Europe?
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10112
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2009 at 13:12
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

 The domed structures are inherently more difficult to build  than gothic structures. The first built domed church, which could match on some level, engineering of the Pantheon, was Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore. it had to be built using bricks because Europeans "forgot" how to make concrete. The Pantheon was built using light weight concrete. Any engineer building domed structure would have no problem understanding gothic structure, but opposite is not true. If you Google that church you can find its history and the fact that there were few people understanding concepts behind its dome at the time ( I am refering here here about Santa Maria del Fiore). The similar to Pantheon structure could not be built in Europe until 1756 when concrete was reinvented, but that concrete would be inadequate to do it. The  Roman concrete had very similar mechanical properties to Portland Cement. Portland Cement was first used in 1840. So another Pantheon could not be built in Europe until 1840. It is interesting that this corresponds also to the time when Europe snapped back from it religion induced stupor.
 
 
 
Hagia Sophia ? remember that one? 537 AD, brick and mortar, no concrete.  And it definitely is part of Europe.
 
 
 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2009 at 13:58
And it is built in an area of earthquake activity. There was a rather large one not far away when I was there in 1999, at Izmit! Fantastic, this enormous building surviing earth quakes for about 1500 years! Of course it does have a few butresses, but still how remarkable!

ST. Peter's in Rome, is but a child next to it!

What do you think are the odds that it (St. Peter's) will stand for 1000 years? Its predecessor(s) didn't last too long, but that is explained by its desertion during the Babylonian (Parisan) Captivity of the Papacy!

Funny how they actually used that name, IE, Babylon?

Edited by opuslola - 21-Oct-2009 at 11:30
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2009 at 16:51
Pantheon has the largest Roman dome, much bigger than Hagia Sophia's largest dome. Hagia Sophia is still a product of Roman Empire (Eastern). It took about one millennium to get European architecture to the level needed to built St. Peter (finished in 1590) and it was done with less advanced engineering and materials than Pantheon.
It also required geniuses of Renaissance to do it. The Renaissance is when Europe started finally reconnecting to antiquity, but it was still far behind, for long time. The Enlightenment was when it started surpassing it, but we are still using legal code based on Roman one. For a continent that considered itself the center of Universe, it was on underachiever side. Also St.Peter is second, the church in Florence I mentioned above is more significant, because it was first seriously domed church. 

It is interesting how modern Europe claims Roman or Greek heritage, yet it was clueless about it for most of its post-Roman existence and needed to receive it through another civilization.


Edited by cavalry4ever - 20-Oct-2009 at 16:53
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2009 at 19:15
I am surprised just how much emphasis you place upon the so called "Arabian gift of science to Europe", scenerio?

Just whom is responsible for this "gift" of information?

That is just what persons have let us know today, that it was because of the Arabs, that Europe found a new impetus?

Just how do we know it was not because of the Vandals?

Just what seperated the early "ARIANS" (Not Aryans, although I would suggest that they are related!) from the early "Arabic" Muslims?/ Saracens? (note that they all were against idols and representations!)

From what real evidence do we really connect the word "Saracen" with "Muslim?", just what could be the relationship with the term "Palaginism" with the word "palagic", meaning "From or within the Sea?", actually the "open Sea!" Possibly they were even sometimes refered to as "the People of the SEA?"

We must remember that the famous sculpture (dedicated to Rome), entitled "The Dying Gaul" was not a "Gaul" of France, or across the mountains, but the "Gaul" in Asia Minor! IE, a "Galatian! / Gaulatian?"

It seems those enemy's of Rome from Carthage and their ancestors supposedly from Tyre ? Sidon, etc. (oh, just what was their name? Oh, yes the Phoenicians!), as well as the Venetians and their Western "alter egos?" the Venets / Veniti, all lived mostly upon or mostly within the seas! (see Caesar's commentaries and other works which state that he could not trap them from their "sea lairs", etc.)

It also seems that the Vandals also occupied the same area of Africa!, as did both the Phoenicians and their offspring, as well as the Franks!

As well it seems this same area (in N. Africa) was also known as the home to the "Barbary Pirates" / "the Barbarian Pirates?"), which seem to be from Danish, Norse, Norman, Dutch or Viking stock, who harassed shipping in the Med. well into the 18th cent. CE!

Heck, even the USA fought them or paid them ransome!

Just compare those people(s) who reportedly "sacked Rome?", IE, the Vandals, the Saracens, the Goths, the Franks, etc.? Were they all Germanic? or rather "cousins?"

Note, I will not even get into the H R E!, nor the Hapsburg / Habsburg Empire!

Any people who are designated as being from "Iberia" have two things going in differing directions, at least according to our present consensual history?

Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 20-Oct-2009 at 20:10
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2009 at 09:57
Read  about the rise and fall of the Western Caliphate (VII - X centuries). It is a pretty interesting period in European medieval history. This fall was prepared ground for European Renaissance. You are mixing different periods and what you wrote above barely makes sense.  Arab great medieval civilization got destroyed from within by religious zealots. 

Speaking about domes. Hagia Sophia could be considered as a sign of decline of Roman engineering. It almost collapsed because walls could not support its dome. They had to be braced and fixed. This is probably why it lasted so long as its walls are more massive than it would be required.

Back to Top
Brasileiro View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 13-Nov-2008
Location: Brasil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote Brasileiro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2009 at 15:59
It is Eurocentric to even think that there is such a mythical continent Europe, which would be separated from the landmass of Eurasia (not only physically but culturally too). Europe is just a peninsula of Eurasia (and most of what constitutes "European civilisation" has been imported from abroad - agriculture, religion, writing system, etc). And yes modern historians are very Eurocentric (those from the self proclaimed "Western world"). Jared Diamond is highly Eurocentric, for instance.

Edited by Brasileiro - 21-Oct-2009 at 16:01
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.