12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...


Relatively speaking, medieval Europe would be more hospitable to science than Islam, but that had little to nothing to so with Christianity or Islam

It had much to do with Christianity in Europe, the Church did not encourage or promote non-religous study. And they did not encourage education or scholarship amongst the people, quite the opposite. The Church was very much keeping scholarship in the hands of the Clergy, Europe's nobility was mostly ignorant and illiterate.

And beyond the Church, society itself was quite superstitous and backwards. It was not a culture that was conductive towards scholarship. The nobles and elites, who are traditionally the wealthy patrons that promote scholarship and science, did not do so on any signoifgant level before the rennisance. They were still barely out of the dark ages.

It wasn't until the rennisance, and the reformation, that the climate became more and more favorable towards scientific discovery.

I know the Christian Church gets a bad wrap and I have contributed to that, but a lot of what you are saying here is what the people of the Renassiance said and what 19th century Renaissance propagandists like Jacob Burckhardt claimed.  People like Burckhardt were those who claimed what Columbus "proved" the world was round because Europeans living in the "Dark Ages" were too damn ignorant to know the world wasn't flat.  That's patentely not true.  The reason why Columbus had a hard time getting sponsored because Europeans knew damn well the world was round and further knew it was too damn far for a direct voyage from Iberia (and they were right).

European society, more particulary urban society, was far more educated and literate than is given credit for.  The Divine Comedy, published in 1308 or so - before the Renassiance, before Humanism, before the Protestant Reformation - was published in the vernacular, not Latin, for an educated audience.  Dante's work was just the prime example of a flourishing, literate society that read and exchanged non-religious ideas.  Marco Polo's Travels is another famous example.

As for the European nobility, consider Frederick II (1194-1250).  He basically gave the Pope the middle finger throughout his entire life, spoke six different langauges, a German Emperor who lived in Sicily and promoted Sicilian literature so much that it would profoundly influence the developemnt of the modern Italian language, enlisted Muslim bodyguards, like to dress in the Arabic style, employed jews to translate Greek and Arabic works, wrote a treatise on falconry (an art forbidden by the Chruch), and promoted laws that were based on reason rather than religious superstition.

Science did not automatically become favorable in European society.  Whenever that was, and KoP is right that "medieval" is too broad and the early modern period is more accurate, it had long roots that extend to what is commonly thought of as the "Dark Ages."  By almost every measure of an advanced civilization, urbanism, literacy rate, economic activity, population growth, intelellectual advancement, etc., the "Dark Ages" was a superior society than the supposed founder of secularism, modernism, and science - the Renassiance.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 septembre 2011 - 10:38 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Those particular cases you mention Joy are in Italy, which maintained constant trade contacts with the Byzantines, and later on as they rose up, the Arabs. People often forget the role Byzantium had as a center of culture and knowledge, and what impact that had on the Italian city states who had trade with it.

Then there are the Moors in Spain, The Bulgarian Empire and the Normans.

However in the "Catholic nations" as we might call them today, things stood differently. I speak of the Carolingian Empire ( and it's direct succesors ), Hungary and Poland of course. Then there's the Papal States and the Kingdoms of Spain. 

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 24 septembre 2011 - 11:15 .

[Pro_Consul]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I don't think religious conservativism is necessarily opposed to science, at least in a medieval Islamic context. As I said, even the most conservative schools of thought either encouraged or did not mind science, they just opposed metaphysical philosophies.

I know. I was speaking of Christian religious conservatives, specifically the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages. And it was during the latter part of this time frame that Islamic cultures were undergoing their own scientific renaissance of sorts, precisely because they were not enforcing a conservative orthodoxy by means of the power of their respective states. And it was largely regular trade with these Islamic cultures that eventually helped to give rise to the so-called Renaissance in Christian controlled (and formerly Christian controlled) European states. 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

What ultra-conservative schools do is cause stagnation in religious thought, which is what Islam suffered from and still suffers from (which is not to say that there was no religious innovations in all those past centuries. Just that they were minimal). But there is no necessary and direct corrolation between that and material sciences.

There can be, and often is, when that religious conservatism is married to political control. When stagnation of thought becomes state policy, then all types of innovation suffer, not just religious innovation. But when those conservative schools are not in political control, when they must at best share authority with other schools of religious thought and/or with secular factions, then overall stagnation is not likely. In fact, the interactions of power exchange among a variety of such diverse groups can itself be a catalyst for creating an environment in which innovation of all kinds can flourish. It is when a conservative faction, not necessarily even a religious type of conservatism, attains the ability to wield the power of the state unchecked that innovation gets curbed or even stifled. 

[Addai]

What? I'm not even going to engage in this. People simply need to study the actual history of science, and not the versions tainted by polemics. Modern science was nurtured in and promoted by religious institutions, and it was also challenged by them. There were no "dark ages." Science- natural philosophy- was nurtured in medieval Europe, and so were the arts and humanities. Modernism did not invent these things. Protestants hindered them, if anything, by introducing a severely pietistic streak. The fact that neither Protestantism nor the Inquisition took full hold is what saved modern scholarship. A secular consensus was forced that allowed no one viewpoint to predominate.

Egad. I'm sorry I started this. I should have PM'ed KoP that link.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 septembre 2011 - 03:53 .

[Addai]

Pro_Consul wrote...
I know. I was speaking of Christian religious conservatives, specifically the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages. And it was during the latter part of this time frame that Islamic cultures were undergoing their own scientific renaissance of sorts, precisely because they were not enforcing a conservative orthodoxy by means of the power of their respective states. And it was largely regular trade with these Islamic cultures that eventually helped to give rise to the so-called Renaissance in Christian controlled (and formerly Christian controlled) European states. 

No, you're wrong.  The Golden Age referred to in the article is in the early and high middle ages.  The Islamic renaissance was already dying out in the 13th century.   It's true that the re-discovery and dissemination of classical Greek texts helped foster the western Renaissance- those works were introduced, translated and disseminated in Europe by the Catholic Church, BTW-  but this was long after what people consider the golden age of Islamic science had already declined.  The Arab flowering certainly helped, because it had helped to preserve those works and bring them to Spain.  Costin is also right that the Byzantines had a role, and the flight of Byzantine scholars into Italy after Constantinople fell was one factor in bringing about the western Renaissance.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 septembre 2011 - 04:15 .

[Addai]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
It had much to do with Christianity in Europe, the Church did not encourage or promote non-religous study. And they did not encourage education or scholarship amongst the people, quite the opposite. The Church was very much keeping scholarship in the hands of the Clergy, Europe's nobility was mostly ignorant and illiterate.

Skadi, I'm surprised at you.  The Church certainly did promote study of other fields besides religious doctrine.  Agriculture, languages, the arts, architecture, even military science.  They had lost touch with a great deal of classical works, so they were starting somewhat blind, but it is simply wrong to say that the medieval age was a cesspit of ignorance.  And whatever education existed in Europe at all was due to the Church.  Only nobles and the wealthier peasants could afford it, but this is true of all agrarian societies.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 septembre 2011 - 04:14 .

[Costin_Razvan]

And whatever education existed in Europe at all was due to the Church.

Which coupled with the persecution endured by some scholars due to the policies of certain Bishops/Popes led to the belief that the Church as a whole was against advances....now while I do not care to know much about what was studied in Catholic Churches/Monateries I do know for a fact about the broad fields of studies in Orthodox Churches....well at least here in Romania.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I agree that the Church was not the source of ignorance if there was one. I think it's more due to political and economic reasons. Europe in the medieval ages was comprised of weak fragmented polities that couldn't do much, with a land that was not that prosperous nor integral in what was then international trade (mostly Mediterranean and the silk routes). I think that is a more important reason as to why Europe before the late middle ages / early modern period, was unimpressive and clearly inferior in almost all aspects, when compared to its southern / eastern counterpart, than the predominance of the Church.

The dominance of the Church stood as an obstacle to the rise of modern states that made Europe rise on its feet, so naturally it had to be weakened. However the difference between obstacle and root cause is subtle, but it's there imo. I think the Church stood more as an obstacle to the full rise of Europe (despite promoting some scholarship), than a cause of its past inferiority.

The latter accusation is, as Joy said, a piece of Renaissance propaganda, as well as the whole appellation of "dark age" . They looked to Rome a the example and everything that came after it as worthless. While I'd agree that Europe certainly declined after Rome and was inferior compared to others for a very long period, I wouldn't say it was an age of complete ignorance and weakness.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 septembre 2011 - 04:24 .

[Joy Divison]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Those particular cases you mention Joy are in Italy, which maintained constant trade contacts with the Byzantines, and later on as they rose up, the Arabs. People often forget the role Byzantium had as a center of culture and knowledge, and what impact that had on the Italian city states who had trade with it.

Then there are the Moors in Spain, The Bulgarian Empire and the Normans.

However in the "Catholic nations" as we might call them today, things stood differently. I speak of the Carolingian Empire ( and it's direct succesors ), Hungary and Poland of course. Then there's the Papal States and the Kingdoms of Spain. 

Excellent point.  "Europe" is not just France, England, and occasioanlly Spain as is taught in most US Western Civ classes.  Byzantium is almost always treated as a non-European entity and my students are amazed they called themselves Romans.  Mediterrean Europe had much more in common with the Islamic World which it was more connected and was much more advanced than Northern and Western Europe.  In was these paritcular European lands which laid the groundwork for the economic, scientific, and political-military accomplishments made in northwest Europe centuries later.  If one is going to say that Northern Europe lacked the economic, political, and cultural institutions and was a largely "backward" society in the 12th century or so, I will agree because it mostly was, but that is not "Europe."

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And whatever education existed in Europe at all was due to the Church.

Which coupled with the persecution endured by some scholars due to the policies of certain Bishops/Popes led to the belief that the Church as a whole was against advances....now while I do not care to know much about what was studied in Catholic Churches/Monateries I do know for a fact about the broad fields of studies in Orthodox Churches....well at least here in Romania.

The cases that people often cite are during the Counter-Reformation or the lead-up to it, when the RCC was circling the wagons.  An interesting case study is Copernicus, who was a churchman himself and was encouraged by the Pope to publish his work.  By the time it came out, however, he had become embroiled in political infighting and a preface note was added by a Lutheran polemicist who had overtaken its printing.  This is part of what led to its controversy.  So it's a good example that this is not a case of "Catholics hated science."

The whole "religion is against science" and "the dark ages were evil" canards were promoted in the 19th century by some dudes who did really bad history.  They're incidentally also the ones who perpetuated the idea that Byzantium was decadent and not worth historians' time.  I don't like them.  Their fallacies would have died out by now but unfortunately you have people like Richard Dawkins and the like who are perpetuating the view, and I'm afraid we'll continue to hear these silly things trotted out for a while yet.  Ironically by people who claim to be all about free thought and rational inquiry.

[Pro_Consul]

Addai67 wrote...

Skadi, I'm surprised at you.  The Church certainly did promote study of other fields besides religious doctrine.  Agriculture, languages, the arts, architecture, even military science.

 

It was not nearly so open as your words seem to imply. The Church only promoted fields of study that, in their view, benefited the Church. Agriculture led to less famine and more taxes and tithes collected - check. Languages led to more missionary work and better dissemination of Church doctrine to other lands; but the Church did not encourcage or foster this kind of multilingual education in their flock, only in the clergy. The Church sponsored and fostered the development of arts that promoted their ideals, and little else. The Church promoted architecture only insofar as it enabled grander cathedrals and more palacial residences for the princes of the Church. As for military science, the Church did very little at all in this regard. What development there was was driven not by Church interest but by feudal secular authorities.

No matter where you turn to look for examples of the Church promoting other fields of study, you will find only avenues of advancement which were of direct benefit to the Church itself. And anywhere you find fields of study which in any way undermined or contradicted the doctrines of the Church, you will find trials for heresy, inquisition, burning of artworks and manuscripts and a myriad other methods of intellectual suppression, both petty and gross. Certain fields of study not only stagnated but actively regressed during the Middle Ages due to their ill fit within the framework of Church dogma, medicine most notably. While the Church actively promoted a host of harmful misconceptions and superstitions about the causes and treatments of illness, malnutrition and other maladies, it also ruthlessly forbade the most basic tools of medical inquiry and study, e.g. dissection, clinical pharmacology and medical forensics. To be labeled a healer in the Middle Ages was a potentially dangerous piece of praise, with the danger more or less proportional to your level of success, at least wherever the Church reigned supreme.

This is not to say that the Church was at war with science, specifically. Rather it was at war with any product of thought that undermined its own supreme authority, whether it be scientific, political, cultural or economic. Certain sectors of science, like medicine, threatened the Churches claims about the nature of man and the world and so had to be suppressed, either subtly or brutally.  Certain political ideas which undermined the power of the Papacy to legitimize and delegitimize governments were similarly anathema. And heaven help the person or organization who tried to get between the Church and its ability to directly tax (tithe) its flocks as it saw fit.

Addai67 wrote...

They had lost touch with a great deal of classical works, so they were starting somewhat blind, but it is simply wrong to say that the medieval age was a cesspit of ignorance.  And whatever education existed in Europe at all was due to the Church.  Only nobles and the wealthier peasants could afford it, but this is true of all agrarian societies.

But try to remember that the Church was not born to an agrarian society. It was born in the civil wars of the Roman Empire, at the height of its scientific and cultural development. The Church initially gained power by being made the state religion of the most powerful and most advanced state around. But when that state collapsed and fragmented into a mulititude of smaller polities, the Church had to find a way to build a new kind of power base for itself. And though I won't go on and on about how they did it, we saw the end result: a hierarchy of power that was designed to keep education, religion, politics and economics all within some of measure of Church control in most of the nations of western Europe. And anyone who tries to make a case that the fall of Roman science and culture was not actively, if not always intentionally, abetted by the Church has their work cut out for them.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Pro_Consul wrote...



It was not nearly so open as your words seem to imply. The Church only promoted fields of study that, in their view, benefited the Church. Agriculture led to less famine and more taxes and tithes collected - check. Languages led to more missionary work and better dissemination of Church doctrine to other lands; but the Church did not encourcage or foster this kind of multilingual education in their flock, only in the clergy. The Church sponsored and fostered the development of arts that promoted their ideals, and little else. The Church promoted architecture only insofar as it enabled grander cathedrals and more palacial residences for the princes of the Church. As for military science, the Church did very little at all in this regard. What development there was was driven not by Church interest but by feudal secular authorities.

No matter where you turn to look for examples of the Church promoting other fields of study, you will find only avenues of advancement which were of direct benefit to the Church itself. And anywhere you find fields of study which in any way undermined or contradicted the doctrines of the Church, you will find trials for heresy, inquisition, burning of artworks and manuscripts and a myriad other methods of intellectual suppression, both petty and gross. Certain fields of study not only stagnated but actively regressed during the Middle Ages due to their ill fit within the framework of Church dogma, medicine most notably. While the Church actively promoted a host of harmful misconceptions and superstitions about the causes and treatments of illness, malnutrition and other maladies, it also ruthlessly forbade the most basic tools of medical inquiry and study, e.g. dissection, clinical pharmacology and medical forensics. To be labeled a healer in the Middle Ages was a potentially dangerous piece of praise, with the danger more or less proportional to your level of success, at least wherever the Church reigned supreme.

This is not to say that the Church was at war with science, specifically. Rather it was at war with any product of thought that undermined its own supreme authority, whether it be scientific, political, cultural or economic. Certain sectors of science, like medicine, threatened the Churches claims about the nature of man and the world and so had to be suppressed, either subtly or brutally.  Certain political ideas which undermined the power of the Papacy to legitimize and delegitimize governments were similarly anathema. And heaven help the person or organization who tried to get between the Church and its ability to directly tax (tithe) its flocks as it saw fit.

Thank you, you said it better than I could.

The Church did promote education, but only in the few narrow fields that were supportive of its doctrine and rule. It supported art, literature, and studies that supported it. Anything beyond that was subject to persecution.

I didn't say medieval Europe were complete barbarians, either. They did build all those lovely grand gothic Cathedrals, such as the one in Salisbury and Cologne. However, in the context of civilizations existing at the time. Medieval Europe was well behind everyone else. And the Church played a major role in this. Not the only one, mind you, but probably the biggest, because they were the most powerful, stable entity of the period with the most influence.

To further clarify some terms, when I speak of:

Europe: I am refering to Western Europe and Northern Europe, the areas most dominated by the Western Roman Church, the Catholic one. The Holy Roman Empire, plus all neighboring lands also under the influence of the Church. Mondern day countries/regions I am referencing: Germany, France, England, ireland, Holland, Belgium, Northern Spain, Poland, Hungrary, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Austria, and later, the Scandinavian countries.

Eastern Europe was more difficult, because you didn't even really have muchreligous unity. Lithuana and its surroundings were still pagan, and would remain so until about the 1400s. Then you had some Muslims, especially in the Balkans. The primary Christian religion in existance elsewhere in eastern Europe was the Byzantine/eastern orthodox Church, which was quite different on many levels from the Western one.

Medieval period: I am refering to the years from 800-1400, roughly.

Italy: Was certainly unique from the rest of Europe. But Itally was also a fractured land of smaller principlaities and city-states. Who, as someone pointed out earlier, had alot of contact with the Byzantine Church, as well as contact through trade and several invasions, by the Muslim powers in the region. It is perhaps why the Rennisance (and the first great moder scientists and great artists) began in Itally, because of all the cross cultural influence.

The constant state of warring between neighbors in Europe explains part of the lack of progress, but when I compare it to other entities at the time, it still doesn't really explain enough.

Spain: Ever since the Muslims took over and established Al-Andaluz, they were constantly at war with their Christian neighbors in the north, yest they still maintained a very advanced, well developed civilization here.

The Byzantines were in a somewhat continuous state of war during its thousand year history. Yet they still remained alot more advanced than their western cousins. Perhaps because they decided to keep instead of destroy all those lovely Greek/Roman writings and histories. I know little about the nature of the Eastern Church, so I can't comment on their influence over things. Only that the Eastern Church did not seem to possess the same intellectual control that the western one did.

[Joy Divison]

Wherever Denis Diderot is buried, he is smiling in his grave that so many intelligent people are convinced the Church represented a bulwark of stifling conservatism that imbued masses and elites alike in superstitious nonsense and prevented humanity from exercising their rational minds and explore the arts and sciences.

[Addai]

Pro_Consul wrote...
It was not nearly so open as your words seem to imply. The Church only promoted fields of study that, in their view, benefited the Church. Agriculture led to less famine and more taxes and tithes collected - check.

People devote resources to solving practical problems- hey wow, what an incredible insight.  However, this is wrong as well.  The church also promoted learning because it was considered edifying to study all aspects of God's work, because all fields were God's work.  This was not a universal dictum, but a common one.

I'm not going to respond to any more, because you're speaking out of ridiculous bias.  I'm sorry to put it that way, but so it is.  And I'm not having that discussion. 

[Addai]

Joy Divison wrote...

Wherever Denis Diderot is buried, he is smiling in his grave that so many intelligent people are convinced the Church represented a bulwark of stifling conservatism that imbued masses and elites alike in superstitious nonsense and prevented humanity from exercising their rational minds and explore the arts and sciences.

Indeed.  Among the other little-known facts of the supposedly enlightened Renaissance is that it involved a lot of whitewashing and destruction of its own.  Iconoclasm came into fashion, of all types.  Works considered not Roman or Greek enough, too primitive, too European (northern Europe= bad, southern Europe= good).  Roman law was revived, extinguishing medieval customs that moderns would consider more enlightened (like female property and inheritance rights).  So modern people get to feel superior because in our current time period, they're finally beginning to solve the problems that modernity created for itself in the first place.  Our centuries have seen unprecedented brutality and banality, but the narrow-mindedness of a few Catholic churchmen is an offense against human dignity.

You might like the French archivist Regine Pernoud.  She has a great little book called Those Terrilble Middle Ages.  She describes being invited to a conference in Paris called "Were the Middle Ages Civilized":  "One hopes, for the moral comfort of the participants, that none of them, in order to return to his residence, had to pass by Notre-Dame de Paris. He might have felt a certain uneasiness. But no, let us reassure ourselves: an employed academic is, in any case, physically incapable of seeing what is not in conformity with the notions his brain exudes."

I love her.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 septembre 2011 - 07:30 .

[Pro_Consul]

Addai67 wrote...

I'm not going to respond to any more, because you're speaking out of ridiculous bias.  I'm sorry to put it that way, but so it is.  And I'm not having that discussion. 

So discussion is unilaterally ended because the one willing to entertain debate is guilty of "bias", as opposed to the one unwilling to entertain debate. I must admit that the irony of the situation fails to overcome my disappointment. But all good things must end, and this interesting and lively exchance of views is apparently no exception.

Sooo.....a slight shift in subject. I have been trying to envisage a future in which the decline of the West and the growing assertion of Islamic polities in global politics do not result in a resurgence of intolerance and large scale conflict. I am having trouble with that, and hoping someone here might have a more optimistic vision of the future than the ones which are bothering me currently. Is there hope for a relatively peaceful accomodation of these conflicting cultures and polities, or is such an accomodation in need of a fire in which it can first be forged?

[Joy Divison]

Well, I have to admit I'm not as up to date on Medieval scholarship as I should be since it is not my area of expertise, but the general sense I get from hanging around my colleagues who devote their life to studying this stuff is that the Medieval=Dark Ages, Church=suppressor of science and rationalism, and Renaissance=dawn of modernity are all antiquated notions that have been thoroughly and convincingly challenged the past 25 years.

If there is current research which substantiates the very strong assertions about the Church I am seeing in this thread, I would appreciate it more than just for the willingness to entertain a debate, but I have a professional interest as well.

Re: Decline of the West. Oswald Spengler wrote a book called The Decline of the West in 1918 and Paul Kennedy in 1987 was convinced by this time, Japan and China would be ascendant and the US in inevitable decline. I am unconvinced. I am also dubious that the increase in Islamic polities is any different from an increase in Indian, Brazilian, or Chinese polities or why it's increase must result in resurgence in intolerance. I'm not just being difficult here, what is special about the rise of Islam?

[KnightofPhoenix]

There is a rise in Islam?

It apparently growing as a religion has really little to do with the rise of Islamic polities, that I believe is non-existent. In fact, other than Turkey, Indonesia and maybe Iran (a big maybe), the rest are in continuous decline.

I don't see any rise of Islamic polities for decades to come.

[Addai]

Pro_Consul wrote...

So discussion is unilaterally ended because the one willing to entertain debate is guilty of "bias", as opposed to the one unwilling to entertain debate. I must admit that the irony of the situation fails to overcome my disappointment. But all good things must end, and this interesting and lively exchance of views is apparently no exception.

Oh, I admit I'm biased.  I'm not Catholic, I should say.  But I hate bad history, and you're speaking out of what I consider to be some of the worst historiography of the Middle Ages.  It's just not something I'm going to argue about, certainly not here.

For what I consider a fairer view, I recommend not only Regine Pernoud, but the works of Eamon Duffy on the impact of the Renaissance/ Reformation on the English middle class, and Johan Huizinga's book The Autumn of the Middle Ages which deals more with France and the Netherlands.

More on topic- or slightly less off topic - chapter 35 of The Arrangement just went up.  Hard as it is to believe, I'm almost done.  Planning one more chapter and an epilogue.

Modifié par Addai67, 26 septembre 2011 - 03:04 .

[Pro_Consul]

Addai67 wrote...

Oh, I admit I'm biased.  I'm not Catholic, I should say.

Irony abounds, since I am Catholic, born, raised and educated (mostly) in the Church. 

Addai67 wrote...For what I consider a fairer view, I recommend not only Regine Pernoud, but the works of Eamon Duffy on the impact of the Renaissance/ Reformation on the English middle class, and Johan Huizinga's book The Autumn of the Middle Ages which deals more with France and the Netherlands.

Thanks, I have noted those on my to-read list. In exchance, I would recommend a closer study of the history of medicine in the Middle Ages, and the effects of Christian theological developments on its practice and study, at least until the 12th century when Islamic medicine, based as it was on Roman and Greek medical knowledge, began to have an influence. The Black Death of course set that whole edifice on its ear, unfortunately, as the sheer magnitude and horror of the plague led people to adopt the only explanation available, God's wrath, since even the best of medical knowledge available anywhere in Europe was powerless in the face of such a monstrous pandemic. But that was no fault of the Church, of course, but rather just a fact of human nature when faced with inexplicable calamity.

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...

More on topic- or slightly less off topic - chapter 35 of The Arrangement just went up.  Hard as it is to believe, I'm almost done.  Planning one more chapter and an epilogue.

I always feel a sadness near the end of a good story, because I don't want it to end. Really, you've done a brilliant job weaving this story. I was surprised that you went ahead and put Loghain in the Wardens after having decided not to make Ellie one. I'm anxious to see how everything turns out.

[Costin_Razvan]

So you've chosen to go with the stupidity of the Landsmeet, fair enough. It's one to reconcincle two sides but you just had Loghain capitulate.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 septembre 2011 - 01:40 .

[Addai]

phaonica wrote...
I always feel a sadness near the end of a good story, because I don't want it to end. Really, you've done a brilliant job weaving this story. I was surprised that you went ahead and put Loghain in the Wardens after having decided not to make Ellie one. I'm anxious to see how everything turns out.

Thanks!  I'm kind of sad too!  Although happy to think of having free time again.  Heh.

I think Loghain joining the Wardens is a fitting compromise.  He tried to outlaw them, now he gets to see first-hand what being one means.  And he gets to be a warrior again, without even the option of feeling burdened by any political role.

@ Costin:  Loghain understands the need for a political rapprochement, even if he's not good at engineering one himself.  That was the theme of The Stolen Throne, with Rowan, and it's the whole basis of this story.  Also you know I don't think the Landsmeet is stupid.  I consider it, the Germanic thing, to be a good governance mechanic in a feudal system.

Modifié par Addai67, 26 septembre 2011 - 02:49 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Loghain has to capitulate to make it clear who is boss. I know Arcturus would not have accepted anything less than surrender and Loghain putting his fate entirely in his hands.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 septembre 2011 - 03:02 .

[Costin_Razvan]

That's not rapprochement, that's Anora/Loghain accepting all the demands of the Landsmeet...well almost all of them except not his death, and the Stolen Throne is pathetic in terms of politics, or are you going to tell me Gaider knows how to write politics. Laughable.

A song of Ice and Fire is good in terms of politics. There's real compromise, headstrong idiots ( Think of Stannis, Renly and Joeffrey ), backstabing, family betrayal, ransoming etc.

And by Germanic thing, you mean the Holy Roman Empire? You want to use that as an example of a good state? Need I remind you of the hundreds of thousands of people that died in the civil wars inside it or the petty grudges people still hold over each other because of the different states they come from inside Germany because of that?

Need I also remind you of the massive power Germany had once it was all united under a single centralized government because of Bismarck and how even after two world wars Germany still remains a very powerful state because of that unification?

Knight: In the situation your Warden taking over the state, yes, but that's not the case in Addai's fiction.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 septembre 2011 - 03:10 .