@goat2x

[Deleted member 10913]

@goat2x seems like your thread is gone. Idk why. This here is my proper response.

You had Persia and China in the east but it doesn't matter since Rome is no longer around. The pagan roman empire started 27bc and fell in the 5th ccentury. Any big glory it had was in these time. You can count the years rome was a republic and that's another 500. Every nation they faced were pagan like themselves, the moment they faced monotheists they lost. The Huns themselves had elements of monotheism again they lost to them. Keep in mind despite being a powerfull cavalry force they couldn't hold the land they conquered. So in the end your conquest doesn't mean much if you can't keep the land. The wars Huns had with Byzantines failed. They couldn’t siege Constantinople. The wars caused damage but it didn’t contribute to their demise like it was the case with western Rome.

Pagan rome declined for various reasons, You can’t deny that their laws weren’t a big factor. Despite both being Christian the society in western Rome wasn’t. Neither did they have strong family laws like the east. Their women being treated as shit was one of the reasons Christian visigoths were favored despite being barbarian. The Visigoths saw an increase in population afterall.

In essence paganism in Rome and later Western Rome was the same. Idk how you came with the conculusion that it isn’t.

Last points you mention is that religious texts came up with race mixing. Idk were you get this from. If we talk about religion you should’ve quoted the text itself. In all of human history ‘mixxing’ happened. The moment you migrated to another state the chance was big that you marry from that tribe. It happened more in pagan then any other. Rome is an example of this not a counter argument against religion. The moment a people became religious one could only be in their community if they accepted their faith. Even then approvel of family members was needed.

Lastly you state that Islam proposed some tyranny on women. This is not the case. Indeed our system is not equal it is in matter of fact a complimantery system not tyrannic. You find some aspects in favor of women and the other in man. That is how the normal state of the world was until the west came with 'equallity'. We don't hold tyrannic views for women. Forced garments is for men not to get exploited or provoked by women.

 

[Deleted member 8576]

HeyHey

 

[goat2x]

this article basically sums up my arguement.

Fall of the Western Roman Empire

To many historians, the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE has always been viewed as the end of the ancient world and the onset of the Middle Ages, often improperly called the Dark...

www.worldhistory.org

it says that i said , western rome wasnt pure pagan. just read it.

if you dont agree with it i understand, the huns were very succesful against the byzanthine empire, they constantly recieved gold and other gifts from them, in vain, so your explanation is quite deceptive.
"Battle of Chersonesus"
Attila planned to attack constantinaple but he never did, so it didnt fail

i have never mentioned racemixxing in my post.

never mentioned islamic tyranny on women either, i just stated the obvs, that they hold women less value of a man

 

[Deleted member 10913]

it says that i said , western rome wasnt pure pagan. just read it.

The point is they weren´t as Christian as eastern rome. It was rather weak, only the capital had the Christian faith. Still many didn´t act accordingly. in the 4th century did Christianity become the state religion. Most population that resided in the borders of eastern Rome was already Christian prior to that. This wasn't the case in western Rome.

i have never mentioned racemixxing in my post.

some previous post you did if i recall correct but i could be wrong.

never mentioned islamic tyranny on women either, i just stated the obvs, that they hold women less value of a man

Same value as in the same religious demands(mostly) and judgement. So basically in the view of God we are equals but man hold guardianship over women. Husbands have over wives, Fathers have on daughters, if not brothers over sisters. Son's don't have authority on their mothers however.

 

[goat2x]

The point is they weren´t as Christian as eastern rome. It was rather weak, only the capital had the Christian faith. Still many didn´t act accordingly. in the 4th century did Christianity become the state religion. Most population that resided in the borders of eastern Rome was already Christian prior to that. This wasn't the case in western Rome.

some previous post you did if i recall correct but i could be wrong.

Same value as in the same religious demands(mostly) and judgement. So basically in the view of God we are equals but man hold guardianship over women. Husbands have over wives, Fathers have on daughters, if not brothers over sisters. Son's don't have authority on their mothers however.

1, Yes but many factors contributed to that, i think that post adresses it pretty good, many historians put weakening of man bc of that. (and it gives value to my post that indeed it wasnt the same as in ancient rome.)

2, no, i havent mentioned racemixxing i talked about assimilation and accepting other races into your society,causing downfall.

3, A men just worths more in muslim society, gets more inherition, his court hearing worths more, he can have multiple wives etc.

If you agree with these i agree.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

3, A men just worths more in muslim society, gets more inherition, his court hearing worths more, he can have multiple wives etc.

He basically has more responsibilities. A man would be 'worth' more if he didn't have any obligations but he has that is the argument.

, no, i havent mentioned racemixxing i talked about assimilation and accepting other races into your society,causing downfall.

I understand your point now, I was mistaken at first. The problem is that Rome was for it's most existence an empire. So if you don' t accept the other people that inhabit in your land then they will fight you. If you do fight them there is always a chance that you lose and this is what happened at the end.

Yes but many factors contributed to that, i think that post adresses it pretty good,

I can't read it man. idk why i'm in Turkey. The site doesn't work. I read a book however on the collapse of western rome. The biggest factor was that the tribes rome didn't accept converted to Christianity. They became stronger and the romans became weaker. I argue that these tribes became stronger once they moved away from paganism. There is never one factor at play but in my opinion the societies that turned Christian became stronger then them. This leaves pagan laws not in a favorable place.

 

[TsarTsar444]

Correlation =/ causation

Pagan Romans trashed the monotheistic Persians and destroyed their capital 4 times, occupied Messapotamia from them which was the Persian core.

The Pagan Germans also were a huge torn in the Romans

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Correlation =/ causation

Pagan Romans trashed the monotheistic Persians and destroyed their capital 4 times, occupied Messapotamia from them which was the Persian core.

The Pagan Germans also were a huge torn in the Romans

Persian were by no means 'monotheists' maybe they had elements of it but that's it. The pagan germanic tribes turned Christian and became stronger before the occupied Italy. Man do you honestly believe that pagan roman laws were better then Christian laws let alone our own laws?!

 

[TsarTsar444]

Persian were by no means 'monotheists' maybe they had elements of it but that's it. The pagan germanic tribes turned Christian and became stronger before the occupied Italy. Man do you honestly believe that pagan roman laws were better then Christian laws let alone our own laws?!

Jfl Persian practiced Zoroastrianism which is 100% monotheistic

"Zoroastrianism exalts an uncreated and benevolent deity of wisdom, Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord), as its supreme being.[4] The unique historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5][6][7][8][9] messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[10] Christianity, Islam,[11] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism.[12]"

And majority of German tribes like the Saxons, Angles, Franks, Alemani, Burgundians, Longobardi became Christian after Western Roman Empire was already dead

 

[Deleted member 10913]

And majority of German tribes like the Saxons, Angles, Franks, Alemani, Burgundians, Longobardi became Christian after Western Roman Empire was already dead

None of them were stronger then Visigoths and Ostrogoths,

may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[10] Christianity, Islam,[11] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism.[12]"

This has no backing lmao.

"Zoroastrianism exalts an uncreated and benevolent deity of wisdom, Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord), as its supreme being.[4] The unique historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism

Man you quote from wiki and fail to also quote this jfl

Scholars and theologians have long debated on the nature of Zoroastrianism, with dualism, monotheism, and polytheism being the main terms applied to the religion

Indeed to this day it's debated because. They worshipped many things, the most noteworthy is fire. I can point out to Zeus and say that Romans were monotheists. It doesn't make sense. Persians worshipped many deities even IF their 'supossed' religion taught otherwise which i doubt it did. Pagan Rome only dominated like minded societies, The Huns were more Monotheist then every other Iranian and in that war they lost.

 

[goat2x]

He basically has more responsibilities. A man would be 'worth' more if he didn't have any obligations but he has that is the argument.

I understand your point now, I was mistaken at first. The problem is that Rome was for it's most existence an empire. So if you don' t accept the other people that inhabit in your land then they will fight you. If you do fight them there is always a chance that you lose and this is what happened at the end.

I can't read it man. idk why i'm in Turkey. The site doesn't work. I read a book however on the collapse of western rome. The biggest factor was that the tribes rome didn't accept converted to Christianity. They became stronger and the romans became weaker. I argue that these tribes became stronger once they moved away from paganism. There is never one factor at play but in my opinion the societies that turned Christian became stronger then them. This leaves pagan laws not in a favorable place.

1, thats not what i talked about

2,yes but you need assimilation process etc, you cant just accept thousands of goths and expect them to assimilate, and they didnt even force them to do anything really-

3, idk man, most of the things you say are failing to understand context or just historically inaccurate, most of the tribes were christian before like the germanic one, and rome was christian at the point of their fall,


these tribes goths, german, huns were ass fucking the western roman empire before

there are many factors contributing to the fall of western rome.




"
To Gibbon the Christian religion valued idle and unproductive people. Gibbon wrote in his book The History of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

A candid but rational inquiry into the progress and establishment of Christianity, may be considered as a very essential part of the history of the Roman empire. While this great body was invaded by open violence, or undermined by slow decay, a pure and humble religion greatly insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigour from opposition, and finally erected the triumphant banner of the cross on the ruins of the Capitol.”

He added that the Roman government appeared to be “odious and oppressive to its subjects” and therefore no serious threat to the barbarians.

Gibbon, however, does not single out Christianity as the only culprit. It was only one in a series that brought the empire to its knees. In the end, the fall was inevitable:
the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest, and as soon as time or accident has removed artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.

 

[goat2x]

None of them were stronger then Visigoths and Ostrogoths,

This has no backing lmao.

Man you quote from wiki and fail to also quote this jfl

Indeed to this day it's debated because. They worshipped many things, the most noteworthy is fire. I can point out to Zeus and say that Romans were monotheists. It doesn't make sense. Persians worshipped many deities even IF their 'supossed' religion taught otherwise which i doubt it did. Pagan Rome only dominated like minded societies, The Huns were more Monotheist then every other Iranian and in that war they lost.

The huns werent monotheist.

 

[TsarTsar444]

None of them were stronger then Visigoths and Ostrogoths,

This has no backing lmao.

Man you quote from wiki and fail to also quote this jfl

Indeed to this day it's debated because. They worshipped many things, the most noteworthy is fire. I can point out to Zeus and say that Romans were monotheists. It doesn't make sense. Persians worshipped many deities even IF their 'supossed' religion taught otherwise which i doubt it did. Pagan Rome only dominated like minded societies, The Huns were more Monotheist then every other Iranian and in that war they lost.

Lmao Vandals became christians after conquering Spain from the Romans and trashing them in France. And Ostrogoths weren't more powerful then the Franks

What no backing? Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion, its older then Judaism

Fail to quote what?

Dumbest shit i read, they were monotheists, end of story, they didn't worship the fire, fire was to them similar to the Kaba to Islam, they prayed towards the fire and the sun so the worshipers pray at unity same as in Islam.

And JFL Huns didn't defeat the Romans, they defeat weak Germanic tribes, and when they faced the Romans in battle at catalalounian fields, it ended in a tactical draw and a strategic defeat of the Huns. Only 2 years later the Huns were defeated by germans

 

[goat2x]

Lmao Vandals became christians after conquering Spain from the Romans and trashing them in France. And Ostrogoths weren't more powerful then the Franks

What no backing? Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion, its older then Judaism

Fail to quote what?

Dumbest shit i read, they were monotheists, end of story, they didn't worship the fire, fire was to them similar to the Kaba to Islam, they prayed towards the fire and the sun so the worshipers pray at unity same as in Islam.

And JFL Huns didn't defeat the Romans, they defeat weak Germanic tribes, and when they faced the Romans in battle at catalalounian fields, it ended in a tactical draw and a strategic defeat of the Huns. Only 2 years later the Huns were defeated by germans

"According to Jordanus, Attila followed no religion, although he was not care for the religion of his subjects if they do what he asked from them. But he believed in magic and spirits, the so called "Sword of Mars" was a clever idea from Attila to frighten enemy Romans that he was the favorite of the God of war."

"Religion. Almost nothing is known about the religion of the Huns. Roman writer Ammianus Marcellinus claimed that the Huns had no religion, while the fifth-century Christian writer Salvian classified them as Pagans."

 

[TsarTsar444]

Also the religion of the Huns is completely unknown

 

[Deleted member 10913]

,yes but you need assimilation process etc, you cant just accept thousands of goths and expect them to assimilate, and they didnt even force them to do anything really-

Did they do this then when they became Christian then? For a religious state you accept the people that convert to the faith the state has. How is it bad to accept people that convert. They're willing to accept your authority. If you don't do this as an empire you can't even exist. The Umayyads only lasted 90 years before rebellions took part. To expand you must incorporate people otherwise you won't be an empire. States that are willing to do what you as a state didn't want will surround you then it's over. You expand or you'll be expanded on.

most of the tribes were christian before like the germanic one, and rome was christian at the point of their fall,

The Goths converted and after they became stronger were they a thread to Rome. The people who were Christian before Germanic ones were in the eastern part of the empire. Even before Christianity became the state Religion, most of anatolia, Egypt, Levant and even carthage were Christian. Every province Eastern rome had was already Christian before it was accepted as a state religion. So I argue that the Christian faith was more stronger in these regions then in other places where they would at most be nominal Christians. The eastern Roman Empire was also in many ways stronger then it's western part. This is the basis. Pagans failed were Christians suceeded in.

To Gibbon the Christian religion valued idle and unproductive people

Can't say anything on this. Obviously those who were old enemies of rome might have been more contempt to be Christian which was also seen a thread.

valued idle and unproductive people

I don't know how Christianity valued these people & wether these were the first to become Christian. Egypt alone held the second strongest economy and was Christian way before any other Italian province. The only way rome could decline from Christianity was that they couldn't put an effective fight against it. Most eastern provinces were already Christian. These places grew economically stronger while the western part was stagnant. Every effort to fight against Christianity costed more energy then any advantage to the state.

The huns werent monotheist.

It's most likely that they were Tengriist but I never claimed they 100% were. I said that they were more likely to be monotheist then Persians.

"According to Jordanus, Attila followed no religion, although he was not care for the religion of his subjects if they do what he asked from them. But he believed in magic and spirits, the so called "Sword of Mars" was a clever idea from Attila to frighten enemy Romans that he was the favorite of the God of war."

If he was tengriist it's not like they followed any set of doctrines. They believed in one God and had Shamanistic rituals.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

What no backing? Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion, its older then Judaism

At most it's dualistic. They both hold good and bad as absolute. This is were Yin Yang orginally come from. To portray Persians as anything like Christians that rome couldn't fight against is foolish. At most they had elements which came from monotheism. That's it. I made the argument that rome never faced of any Monotheist state's thread and I stick by it.

Fail to quote what?

It's discussed by scholars wether the religion is monotheistic or not

Also the religion of the Huns is completely unknown

It's thought that Tengriism was their religion.

 

[goat2x]

Did they do this then when they became Christian then? For a religious state you accept the people that convert to the faith the state has. How is it bad to accept people that convert. They're willing to accept your authority. If you don't do this as an empire you can't even exist. The Umayyads only lasted 90 years before rebellions took part. To expand you must incorporate people otherwise you won't be an empire. States that are willing to do what you as a state didn't want will surround you then it's over. You expand or you'll be expanded on.

The Goths converted and after they became stronger were they a thread to Rome. The people who were Christian before Germanic ones were in the eastern part of the empire. Even before Christianity became the state Religion, most of anatolia, Egypt, Levant and even carthage were Christian. Every province Eastern rome had was already Christian before it was accepted as a state religion. So I argue that the Christian faith was more stronger in these regions then in other places where they would at most be nominal Christians. The eastern Roman Empire was also in many ways stronger then it's western part. This is the basis. Pagans failed were Christians suceeded in.

Can't say anything on this. Obviously those who were old enemies of rome might have been more contempt to be Christian which was also seen a thread.

I don't know how Christianity valued these people & wether these were the first to become Christian. Egypt alone held the second strongest economy and was Christian way before any other Italian province. The only way rome could decline from Christianity was that they couldn't put an effective fight against it. Most eastern provinces were already Christian. These places grew economically stronger while the western part was stagnant. Every effort to fight against Christianity costed more energy then any advantage to the state.

It's most likely that they were Tengriist but I never claimed they 100% were. I said that they were more likely to be monotheist then Persians.

If he was tengriist it's not like they followed any set of doctrines. They believed in one God and had Shamanistic rituals.

1, i dont really understand what u tryna say tbh.
2, ye but causation doesnt equal correlation , Christianity was atleast 70-80% 360 if we are being honest,

That doesnt mean anything like i said i can point out empires etc which were stronger during pagan years, we never seen a byzanthine pagan empire. But we did seen a pagan roman empire which was the strongest of them all,

there are many reasons why christianity could have caused the downfall or atleast didn help the romans
"Indeed Gibbon was not the first to notice the correlation. After the sack of Rome in 410, many pagans pointed the finger of blame at Christianity. They said that the empire had been safe all the time the sacrifices had been performed. Now, less than twenty years after the banning of the sacrifices, the Imperial City had been plundered by barbarians."
"Edward Gibbon reiterated this sentiment (he diminished the importance of the barbaric threat) when he claimed the rise of Christianity as a factor in the “tale of woe” for the empire. He held the religion sowed internal division and encouraged a “turn-the-other-cheek mentality” which ultimately condemned the war machine, leaving it in the hands of the invading barbarians. Those who discount Gibbon's claim point to the existence of the same religious zealots in the east and the fact that many of the barbarians were Christian themselves."
"The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313, and it later became the state religion in 380. These decrees ended centuries of persecution, but they may have also eroded the traditional Roman values system. Christianity displaced the polytheistic Roman religion, which viewed the emperor as having a divine status, and also shifted focus away from the glory of the state and onto a sole deity. Meanwhile, popes and other church leaders took an increased role in political affairs, further complicating governance. The 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon was the most famous proponent of this theory, but his take has since been widely criticized. While the spread of Christianity may have played a small role in curbing Roman civic virtue, most scholars now argue that its influence paled in comparison to military, economic and administrative factors."

another factor is competing against orthodoxy,

We can exercise this thought that either christianity makes a state stronger or not

but paganism didnt cause the fall of the western roman empire (your original point) thats for sure.
maybe few of the countries really rose on christianity but thats why i stated roman paganism,

There are no sources that Attila was tengriist(which isnt even monotheist), thats an old turkic-mongol religion, he was most likely atheist or pagan. thats what every scholar wrote.

 

[TsarTsar444]

At most it's dualistic. They both hold good and bad as absolute. This is were Yin Yang orginally come from. To portray Persians as anything like Christians that rome couldn't fight against is foolish. At most they had elements which came from monotheism. That's it. I made the argument that rome never faced of any Monotheist state's thread and I stick by it.

It's discussed by scholars wether the religion is monotheistic or not

It's thought that Tengriism was their religion.

Jfl 90% of scholars agree its Monotheists. Why are you coping i don't understand

 

[Deleted member 10913]

That doesnt mean anything like i said i can point out empires etc which were stronger during pagan years, we never seen a byzanthine pagan empire. But we did seen a pagan roman empire which was the strongest of them all,

No but Byzantines came to the same height as the pagan Romans did. They reconquered Italy, North Africa and Iberia. Only Franks and Britain remained untouched and this wasn't a big loss to begin with.

but paganism didnt cause the fall of the western roman empire (your original point) thats for sure.
maybe few of the countries really rose on christianity but thats why i stated roman paganism,

This is indeed my argument.. If anything the east should have collapsed then the Western part. Italy was always economically the strongest and Egypt came second place. Both parts of the empire had internal problems, different ethnicities, Large land that made administration difficult. The difference between West and the eastern part was that Christianity was rooted in the latter. The moment Christianity became the state religion it were the pagans themselves who were persecuted. This mainly happened in the Western parts of the empire. From this point on paganism itself holded Rome back. Eventually even the capital shifted. If Rome was successful in the past it's despite of paganism not because of it. Now you can say the same to Christianity but every state of eastern Rome was already Christian before the state even accepted it. Here Christianity was a contributing factor. The state's holded by the Byzantines became Christian organically not on state force. The power in the state was already shifting towards the Christian east, the onlything pagans could do was to convert and slow their decline. Even this wasn't done accordingly that they were able to compete with the east that had centuries of monastic traditions, deeply rooted Christian tradition that the West clearly lacked

 

[goat2x]

No but Byzantines came to the same height as the pagan Romans did. They reconquered Italy, North Africa and Iberia. Only Franks and Britain remained untouched and this wasn't a big loss to begin with.


This is indeed my argument.. If anything the east should have collapsed then the Western part. Italy was always economically the strongest and Egypt came second place. Both parts of the empire had internal problems, different ethnicities, Large land that made administration difficult. The difference between West and the eastern part was that Christianity was rooted in the latter. The moment Christianity became the state religion it were the pagans themselves who were persecuted. This mainly happened in the Western parts of the empire. From this point on paganism itself holded Rome back. Eventually even the capital shifted. If Rome was successful in the past it's despite of paganism not because of it. Now you can say the same to Christianity but every state of eastern Rome was already Christian before the state even accepted it. Here Christianity was a contributing factor. The state's holded by the Byzantines became Christian organically not on state force. The power in the state was already shifting towards the Christian east, the onlything pagans could do was to convert and slow their decline. Even this wasn't done accordingly that they were able to compete with the east that had centuries of monastic traditions, deeply rooted Christian tradition that the West clearly lacked

1, no they didnt come to same height as pagan romans.

2, you just fail to understand any other reason to fail than paganism

there were a lot of contributing factors.
just try to read this with vpn:

Fall of the Western Roman Empire

To many historians, the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE has always been viewed as the end of the ancient world and the onset of the Middle Ages, often improperly called the Dark...

www.worldhistory.org

Both western and eastern roman empires were christian at the fall, there were many differences between eastern and western roman empire, one of it was christianity, western roman empire was it at its weakest during christianity, its just a fact.
The nature of paganism and christianity can be argued aswell, paganism of roman empire were far more brutal and basically suited for great military, while christianity isnt.
also the opposite can be argued, once they made christianity their main religion everything fell apart,
they tried to prosecute pagans, they made unnceserary decision, they corrupted themselves etc.


This my last reply, this is pure mental masturbation now, we have just different opinions, agree to disagree. im gonna just do an overview

the western roman empire was greatly different in religion, traditions,laws etc than the ancient roman empire
i proved this already.

You cannot simply put the downfall of western roman empire because of paganism(there are many historians saying the inverted) there are many factors which caused it, barbarians were one of the few, who even ass fucked the byzanthines like crazy. (who knows if their positions were inverted)

and like i said i can bring on empires, kingdoms that were greater during paganism, compared to christianity times, correlationdoesnt equal correlation casuation

 

[goat2x]

also there isnt a single factor what ancient roman paganism lacked military power wise that christianity has.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

also there isnt a single factor what ancient roman paganism lacked military power wise that christianity has.

Yea but my original point was that pagan laws were not beneficial for family units. Atleast not better then any law from monotheism. While both being Christian you can't deny that the Byzantines viewed Christianity more serious then the Western parts. I still believe that because of this the Byzantines were able to succeed that the West didn't. They were monotheistly religious and the power balance sooner or later would eventually shift towards them. I will read the paper you send if I can open it. Indeed let's agree that we disagree. Then.