I was interested in known how civilized was Europe in the medieval era, that is between 950 and 1400! Compared to the rest of the world how was it state!

Europe was more technologically advanced during Roman times than during the dark ages. Europe was artistically more colourfull during the dark ages due to the lack of central organisation. The diversity is really quite fascinating. Nowadays most differences are being swept away by mainstream media unfortunately.

I would like to point out that not Europe, but the middle east has always been most advanced in technology, state structures and often art too.

Yes, Europe was far behind technologically during the Dark Ages. But art, too, suffered during the Dark Ages. I'm not sure what you mean by more colorful, but European art did not fully recover, like European technology and civics, until the Renaissance began in Italy.

This depends on the period. For the most part, you are right. However, there are periods where Indian states, and even Chinese states, were more advanced that middle eastern states. Some of this has to do with the middle east being almost constantly assaulted by barbarians.

I was pointing towards the diversity of cultures and the mingling of cultures in arts. That was far more colourfull in the middle-ages. It was a colourfull period, if not as rich as the roman era.

You make a good point. I guess it also depends on what one calls technologically advanced. The Chinese were first to invent gunpowder for instance. However I think that overall speaking the middle-east has always been a few steps ahead of China. Then again, I am no genius when it comes to history. The reason I have for stating the above is that I do not know of any period until the opium wars where China had a chance to really build a society after the warring states period.

Now, to get to your question:
Do you want a philosophical history or something more like the history of wars?

Just in terms of how civilized they were! The issue that I have is what and how do we define a civilized human at that time! I guess civilization is time dependent!

In my opinion civilization is a really special thing which exists with freedom of the people who then choose to work together. That means that at this moment in the world no civilization can be found; but slavery.

I do not agree on your "definition" of valuable art.

You seem to think that only what people call "civilised" cultures provide "valuable" artforms.

And, most strangely, that it was the christian church who stimulated that.

In my opinion you could not be more wrong. I do appreciate your viewpoint though and I know a lot of people think the same things. I disagree with most of your thoughts in this and I know better than some of your thoughts in this.

My oinion on art and culture is that when allowed to evolve freely most diverse and colourfull expressions sprout out of the ground. At the end of the Roman empire suppressed cultures from all over Europe came sprouting from the ground again, singing their own songs and creating their own sculptures, paintings and such.

When new cultures came in from the east even more influences were added and cultures began to mix into something new.

That was the moment when the catholic church stepped in. Because of the chaos and uncertainty it was easy to gather followers and small strongholds from which to start converting the whole of Europe.

When certain groups of people prooved "unconvertable" they were executed; genocide was frequently used. This suppressed a lot of art and culture untill a certain "darkness" had encovered the souls of the "saved". The curch went much further then anyone can imagine I think: burning and banning of books, executing of pagans and heithens with their sacriligious symbols and ways (read: art and culture). The church managed to ban out enlightened thought untill the seveteenth century by these tactics. After that the people had gained enough of a base with science to be able to denounce the church because it had been feeding them lies for centuries and therefore could flourish again.

Strengthwise I think you have a point and the christian church indeed is very important. But I know better than to think thatthe church has advanced science, art, culture or philosophy for that matter. The inquisition should tell you enough.

In my opinion civilization is a really special thing which exists with freedom of the people who then choose to work together. That means that at this moment in the world no civilization can be found; but slavery.

Yes, Europe was far behind technologically during the Dark Ages. But art, too, suffered during the Dark Ages. I'm not sure what you mean by more colorful, but European art did not fully recover, like European technology and civics, until the Renaissance began in Italy.

Until the Renaissance, that's exactly what Catholic Europe lacks - culture, or more accurately, refined culture. Barbarians filled the power vacuum created by the fall of the western Roman Empire.

The only exception to Europe's general backwardness would be, as far as I can tell, military progress.

Odd, considering I did not give one.

Uncivilized people can produce great art. Again, this is history and we can always find counter examples, but we can generally say that the more civilized a people, the greater their achievements in the arts.

Also, valuable is your word, not mine.

And, most strangely, that it was the christian church who stimulated that.

Yes, the Catholic Church is responsible for most of the art in Europe prior to the Renaissance. Before the Renaissance, the Church was just about the only group with enough money to fund the arts and learning.

I do not agree on your "definition" of valuable art. You seem to think that only what people call "civilised" cultures provide "valuable" artforms. And, most strangely, that it was the christian church who stimulated that. In my opinion you could not be more wrong.

The problem is that the songs were war chants, there was little painting and fewer sculptures from these suppressed people. The Franks were not great artisans for their time. Nor were the Britons. Nor were any of the Germanic tribes like the Lombards and Burgundians who invaded those Roman lands.

They didn't gather followers and form strongholds so much as they wheeled and dealed in smoked filled rooms for power, and sometimes for survival.

Didymos Thomas, I am going to try debating with you one more time. If you don't change the way you debate I am going to stop. You do not read my arguments and you deny having made your own. On top of that you seem to enjoy namecalling.

I was pointing something out to an inquisitive mind, you see. Namely the fact that mainstream history (and anything mainstream) is not correct.

All you do is quote mainstream history as is anyones right to do. It is incorrect in the sense that it does not reflect history as took place.

One can easily read up on this seeing as there is a large opposition in Europe. Is there also opposition to any mainstream in America?

I do not care about your position in this, but the arguments you make are for one thing flawed, sometimes untrue and for another thing you do not address the points I do make.

The most important of which is that there are several views on this, of which you are voicing the mainstream opinion.

The reason that it is mainstream is beacause it is being taught in schools and "the main-stream" believes it to be true. The problem with "main-stream" is that these people are not the brightest of the bunch; but merely mediocre (not that there is anything wrong with that). I, for one, have a problem believing mediocre books over the books of specialists.

It was ment to nuance a remark and place it within a different context. It was ment to show that one's civilization is anothers repression and destruction.

- When examining the facts of the history of Europe (as far as we know any facts) it is clear to see that it is the Chirstian Church who suppresses, murders, destroys any culture not sanctioned by the church. Throughout the dark ages the Christian Church has committed several genocides (well documented ones, no less). The inquisition suppressed a lot of opinions. I could name a long list of philosophers who died by their hands and an even longer list of works that were not or posthumously published. Try to remeber that the "free" cultures all had music, paintings, sculptures and whatnots of their own. That is the colourfullness I was speaking of. The "darkness" of the drak ages is the christion church by almost all accounts (the other accounts are servents of this church).

- After the great movement of peoples from the steppes which moved a lot of peoples in Europe more different cultures than ever before were present in Europe. These cultures also had great things to offer. Most of them were swept away by christian doctrine over the years.

- I think the most important point I was making is that scientific development or urban sizes are no standard for culture; nor for civilization. America for instance is quite technologically advanced and has great urban locations; but no culture. I, personally, rank America among the lowest forms of civilizations ever to have existed. This is an opinion and no fact. It refelcts the way I view things. All values reflect the way things are viewed and not the way things are. I hope no Amreicans will take offense at my opinion. I am nuanced enough to value certain specific Americans regardless of the country they were born in.

- You may not have given any firm definitions, but I am sure you handle a set of ideas as definition. A few (of many examples):

Although I must admit that you have not given any explanation of words as "backwards" or "barbaric". If it is the same as mainstream then I must come to the conclusion that it means something along the lines of "different".

I would like to point out that "greatness" in art for instance has no bearing on the level of any other kind of the society whence it came. I bet you know this.

I do not appreciate Hermeneutics. These people use their "goals" to allow themselves to reshape real meanings to fit their own selfish bills.

If you would study the cultures you name as examples you would find that they also worshipped Freya for instance and that the reality of the matter is that these tribes became warlike because of the threat Rome posed. It s also the explanation why this part of their culture is overstudied.

Besides that I would like to note that it is not your place to value any culture by your standards.

The point of this remark is to show that it is not what happens in a culture, but what it means to the culture. The height of a culture can only be measured in their own standards.

- The Christian Church did, in fact, create religious strongholds to spread the word of the Lord. The pope placed into position more than one King to accomplish this. Feel free to read up on the churches "colourfull" history if you disagree. Oh, did you ever think to consider that we just may mean the same thing so nicely set apart in this quote?

- The reason I used the word "enlightenment" is because of the historical period in Europe called "The Enlightenment". Apart from that I am also saying that the Christian Church preached (and still does) pretty backward ideas. There is a reason why it is called the "dark ages", mind. That reason is the Christian Church repressing any and all unsanctioned art or science in my opinion.

If you wish to make the difference between saying the church being a boon for art, science, culture, etc and saying it was more refined than some other cultures, and helped the people of those cultures along by conversion and through the churches research centres (religious institutions), go right ahead.

the middle east has always been most advanced in technology, state structures and often art too.

That was certainly true during the 'dark ages' and early middle ages. Muslim scientists and philosophers had advanced astronomy, navigation, mathematics, philosophy, and medicine to levels not seen in Europe until 500 years later. Calculus was invented at least twice independently by Muslim mathematicians centuries before Liebniz and Newton ever lived. The advances made in European technology, science, math, and philosophy happened in large part because of cross-fertilization with Muslims, especially in the Crusades, in the reconquest of Spain, and mostly in the mercantile world of the mediterranean.

The thing of it is that you were responding to some of my remakrs. You thought they ment something else than what I did mean with them. Since then I have been trying to get back on track. I also pointed out what you were doing however and that made you spiral out of your ego. I maybe should not have made the remarks on account of your reasonings, but I figured you might learn something from the way I look at things. No harm done otherwise.

I did at no point say that Europe fell behind in any way. I do not think so either. The point I was trying to make was that there is no realistic value for saying someone "fell behind", was more or less refined or anything like that.

Different things will surface due to different "stimulations". All things have different values from different viewpoints.

What I did say is that the "dark ages" was a colourfull period where a lot a different things surfaced and disappeared. The disappearing was due to a common factor unfortunately. The main thought in this (diversity and the inability to judge) have been unaddressed by you. That is why I said you did not address any of my points.

The reason I brought out the mediocre is because I am well aware that the sings I say are contradicted by a lot of history books and other points can be well argued. However only the "main-stream" books would claim a certain "truth" which is one of its kind. (<-- That might explain my position on the kind of book). I hope you understand of this that I was saying this because I knew you would not agree with me and that just that fact was the entire reason for saying it. We were trying to illustrate something to an eager mind, remember?

Well, lets bury the hatchet and be done with it. Or else I will throw down the gauntlet and wait untill you pick it up.