You have said that The establishment a universal deity was the product of global imperial expansion. One thing to note is that pagan "religions" were not at all unified. They were all subject to local practice and local interpretation. Furthermore, they didn't really BELIEVE-IN any doctrine, but were just superstitious preventatives against imagined bad luck and misfortunes. Therefore they were always going to be fractured, and never could have a unified power to make bold moves. You said it; "they had no ideologically uniform command structures".
I am hearing you say this Latin Church had the power to grasp hold of people's emotionality so that they would throw themselves into a conquest such as the Crusades, and worse. (By the way, 80% of the crusaders died along the way and never made it to Jerusalem. And at most, 10% came back.)
Other researchers say that it was just the opposite. That in the birth and rise of every civilization, individual passions rise so high that they eventually become self-destructive. These passions feed upon each other. Because this excess energy was already the case in Europe of the 10th century, the pope made up the story of infidels to send all of these crazy people away, never to return. It pretty well worked, and Europe turned toward a productive stability. (Taking more than 100 years to calm down.)
You infer that charismatic preachers were able to tell stories of saints, replete with accounts of wonders that led to conversion of princes and nations to the Holy Church.
I don't know if people resisted changing religions, maybe that was before the period of the "Great Migration". When Goths migrated south at the end of the 2nd century, things changed. They were raiders, and sacked and plundered peaceful villages. (Really for 1,000 years), the main business in Europe was WAR, which allowed the continual capture of children to sell into the slave trade.
Therefore all peasant villages had a burning need for a central power to protect them. If that central prince said now we are changing faith, well, maybe half-hearted, but it got done.
Faith was for the most part not chosen individually because of charismatic preachers. Faith was changed by the rulers for political reasons, not for religious preference. All rulers and princes had opposition. Often the opposition tried to rally the population against the king with the old pagan faith. The sovereign may have chosen another faith to curtail the power of the opposing oligarchs.
In Tibet, after the 4th try they were able to install Buddhism to replace the BON religion. This gave more power to the king.
When the Mongols divided into Hordes some Hordes converted to Islam, to differentiate themselves politically. Same with other Steppe tribes, politically, to attract new allies. In Rome they chose Christianity. In Russia (Kiev) the Princes chose Orthodox, and they resisted the Polish, Germans and Lithuanians who had chosen Catholicism, (in many armed conflicts). The English Reformation began as more of a political affair than a theological dispute, when King Henry disavowed the Latin Church.
There's more of interest that you wrote, but I'll stop here for now.
Reply from author Thomas Wilkinson, sent to me to transmit,
„It would be absurd to attempt in any work to resolve all individual events (real or imagined) into one coherent theory. That is not the aim of this essay. We do not have access to the Past. We have only documents and artifacts many of which can be subjected to a chronological schematic and so analysed. Many documents and artifacts are also forgeries or fabrications which tell something about the putative authors but still do not give us the Past.
This essay focusses on a specific set of issues in contemporary affairs. It uses the interpretation of historical research as a medium. The point of any essay depends on the perspective of the author taken as a whole both in selection and assessment of material submitted in evidence.
All of the points made here may have their relevance in the context of other perspectives and other questions. Other authors may be pleased to pursue other questions. The one chosen here is specific enough to warrant the selection and assessment presented.
Hello Mr. Wilkinson and hello Mr. Brown. Thank you for this reply, which I can understand.
I come back only to ask, for me, a burning question, and not to further interact with this particular thesis. You both have a large body of work. My question can be directed to any and all of it.
Why do you want me to know what you are writing?
Seriously, this is an important question. You could just abdicate and say, "read it if you are interested, say goodbye if you are not." But I cannot believe that you devote your life to a work, without a vision and a goal, and you are not able to measure your results. OK, you count your "views", but which does not translate to movement in the real world. For now, I am not going to assume that you want me to know something, that I may not know. I am going to relate knowing with action.
So what is it that you want me to do?
I see "doing" in two realms. I could move to protect myself from all the risks that you enumerate. But I will assure you, without going into detail, (and I have not drilled a well, nor bought a generator); but I am fully protected from the crumbling of society. Everything that you possibly can imagine, and more.
The other realm is that I could "move to save the world". What would that look like? Are you a revolutionary? You write in a certain context, which also has its own probable outcomes, and no more . The paradigm seems to be:
""That destructive conquests were (are) made at the whim of evil and stupid rulers, (or their backers), to whom for some reason their kind and intelligent subjects obeyed, and for the sake of greedy bosses they allowed themselves to be killed in wars they did not need."" Such maxims are found in popular literature, but do they deserve discussion? For the mere fact that from such an angle it is impossible to explain why the offended did not resist the offenders. The common theme is that they were not intelligent enough, and that "brainwashing" is stronger that the human mind. And that must mean that he who says these things, is the intelligent one. We know where that leads.
Let concede that everything you write is all true. It is also very comfortable for your audience, because there is nothing to do about it; except sit on your couch and grumble. That is not your intended audience, right?
Why not write about something that can be done? I study ancient history, (and BTW I am not worried that it is all fabricated). It can be sorted out, by proper scientific methods.
I propose that most all subjugated populations were (and are) complicit in their subjugation. I can give plenty of examples, current and ancient, but I am not writing the article here.
At least that is an angle to investigate, where whatever you find, can be quickly put into practice. What I can DO, is to stop my complicity, when I realize it. Maybe your readership will go down? But maybe you'll get something done?
In what way are people responsible for their own subjugation?
Thanks for letting me know. Yes I was "reaching out" because knowing your dedicated work, most people would let it go.
I am not an expert about anything. I just read ancient history because it is so interesting. And not for that many years. Ancient history is actually how our populations (me) thinks, although buried very deep. I have settled on a Russian angle, but I could just as well translate Chinese books. The original motivation for my site was an understanding of our supposed adversaries. Adversaries to western power, not to me.
I also know about context as a "realm of possibility". Thus in certain contexts, there are limited or no possibilities. (Actually all contexts are limited by what we don't know.) We also say that since we can't know everything, we have to move forward with what we do know. I don't object.
Neither do I know any "answers". If a social system rewards faulty behavior, it can't be patched up. You can define the faulty behavior, but the result is widening inequality. All the mainstream can think to change it are give-aways. That is faulty right there, and nobody want's them, (in the short term yes).
What I am learning is we can't look to the past for solutions. We can only check the past for what not to do.
You have said that The establishment a universal deity was the product of global imperial expansion. One thing to note is that pagan "religions" were not at all unified. They were all subject to local practice and local interpretation. Furthermore, they didn't really BELIEVE-IN any doctrine, but were just superstitious preventatives against imagined bad luck and misfortunes. Therefore they were always going to be fractured, and never could have a unified power to make bold moves. You said it; "they had no ideologically uniform command structures".
I am hearing you say this Latin Church had the power to grasp hold of people's emotionality so that they would throw themselves into a conquest such as the Crusades, and worse. (By the way, 80% of the crusaders died along the way and never made it to Jerusalem. And at most, 10% came back.)
Other researchers say that it was just the opposite. That in the birth and rise of every civilization, individual passions rise so high that they eventually become self-destructive. These passions feed upon each other. Because this excess energy was already the case in Europe of the 10th century, the pope made up the story of infidels to send all of these crazy people away, never to return. It pretty well worked, and Europe turned toward a productive stability. (Taking more than 100 years to calm down.)
You infer that charismatic preachers were able to tell stories of saints, replete with accounts of wonders that led to conversion of princes and nations to the Holy Church.
I don't know if people resisted changing religions, maybe that was before the period of the "Great Migration". When Goths migrated south at the end of the 2nd century, things changed. They were raiders, and sacked and plundered peaceful villages. (Really for 1,000 years), the main business in Europe was WAR, which allowed the continual capture of children to sell into the slave trade.
Therefore all peasant villages had a burning need for a central power to protect them. If that central prince said now we are changing faith, well, maybe half-hearted, but it got done.
Faith was for the most part not chosen individually because of charismatic preachers. Faith was changed by the rulers for political reasons, not for religious preference. All rulers and princes had opposition. Often the opposition tried to rally the population against the king with the old pagan faith. The sovereign may have chosen another faith to curtail the power of the opposing oligarchs.
In Tibet, after the 4th try they were able to install Buddhism to replace the BON religion. This gave more power to the king.
When the Mongols divided into Hordes some Hordes converted to Islam, to differentiate themselves politically. Same with other Steppe tribes, politically, to attract new allies. In Rome they chose Christianity. In Russia (Kiev) the Princes chose Orthodox, and they resisted the Polish, Germans and Lithuanians who had chosen Catholicism, (in many armed conflicts). The English Reformation began as more of a political affair than a theological dispute, when King Henry disavowed the Latin Church.
There's more of interest that you wrote, but I'll stop here for now.
Librarian at library4conciliation.substack.com
.
Reply from author Thomas Wilkinson, sent to me to transmit,
„It would be absurd to attempt in any work to resolve all individual events (real or imagined) into one coherent theory. That is not the aim of this essay. We do not have access to the Past. We have only documents and artifacts many of which can be subjected to a chronological schematic and so analysed. Many documents and artifacts are also forgeries or fabrications which tell something about the putative authors but still do not give us the Past.
This essay focusses on a specific set of issues in contemporary affairs. It uses the interpretation of historical research as a medium. The point of any essay depends on the perspective of the author taken as a whole both in selection and assessment of material submitted in evidence.
All of the points made here may have their relevance in the context of other perspectives and other questions. Other authors may be pleased to pursue other questions. The one chosen here is specific enough to warrant the selection and assessment presented.
Dr T P Wilkinson
魏三唐
Hello Mr. Wilkinson and hello Mr. Brown. Thank you for this reply, which I can understand.
I come back only to ask, for me, a burning question, and not to further interact with this particular thesis. You both have a large body of work. My question can be directed to any and all of it.
Why do you want me to know what you are writing?
Seriously, this is an important question. You could just abdicate and say, "read it if you are interested, say goodbye if you are not." But I cannot believe that you devote your life to a work, without a vision and a goal, and you are not able to measure your results. OK, you count your "views", but which does not translate to movement in the real world. For now, I am not going to assume that you want me to know something, that I may not know. I am going to relate knowing with action.
So what is it that you want me to do?
I see "doing" in two realms. I could move to protect myself from all the risks that you enumerate. But I will assure you, without going into detail, (and I have not drilled a well, nor bought a generator); but I am fully protected from the crumbling of society. Everything that you possibly can imagine, and more.
The other realm is that I could "move to save the world". What would that look like? Are you a revolutionary? You write in a certain context, which also has its own probable outcomes, and no more . The paradigm seems to be:
""That destructive conquests were (are) made at the whim of evil and stupid rulers, (or their backers), to whom for some reason their kind and intelligent subjects obeyed, and for the sake of greedy bosses they allowed themselves to be killed in wars they did not need."" Such maxims are found in popular literature, but do they deserve discussion? For the mere fact that from such an angle it is impossible to explain why the offended did not resist the offenders. The common theme is that they were not intelligent enough, and that "brainwashing" is stronger that the human mind. And that must mean that he who says these things, is the intelligent one. We know where that leads.
Let concede that everything you write is all true. It is also very comfortable for your audience, because there is nothing to do about it; except sit on your couch and grumble. That is not your intended audience, right?
Why not write about something that can be done? I study ancient history, (and BTW I am not worried that it is all fabricated). It can be sorted out, by proper scientific methods.
I propose that most all subjugated populations were (and are) complicit in their subjugation. I can give plenty of examples, current and ancient, but I am not writing the article here.
At least that is an angle to investigate, where whatever you find, can be quickly put into practice. What I can DO, is to stop my complicity, when I realize it. Maybe your readership will go down? But maybe you'll get something done?
In what way are people responsible for their own subjugation?
.
Librarian,
Great comments and deep thinking. I subscribed to your Substack and will forward it to Irina Boyko (https://chinarising.puntopress.com/2021/08/05/irina-crutcher-boykos-running-blog-in-english-critical-articles-comments-and-analysis-about-the-ussr-and-russia-now-on-china-rising-radio-sinoland/).
Also, do check out my new non-profit foundation (www.seektruthfromfacts.org).
Thank you for reaching out. Jeff
Thanks for letting me know. Yes I was "reaching out" because knowing your dedicated work, most people would let it go.
I am not an expert about anything. I just read ancient history because it is so interesting. And not for that many years. Ancient history is actually how our populations (me) thinks, although buried very deep. I have settled on a Russian angle, but I could just as well translate Chinese books. The original motivation for my site was an understanding of our supposed adversaries. Adversaries to western power, not to me.
I also know about context as a "realm of possibility". Thus in certain contexts, there are limited or no possibilities. (Actually all contexts are limited by what we don't know.) We also say that since we can't know everything, we have to move forward with what we do know. I don't object.
Neither do I know any "answers". If a social system rewards faulty behavior, it can't be patched up. You can define the faulty behavior, but the result is widening inequality. All the mainstream can think to change it are give-aways. That is faulty right there, and nobody want's them, (in the short term yes).
What I am learning is we can't look to the past for solutions. We can only check the past for what not to do.
.
This article blew my mind! I suspect I will have to read it several more times to get a better grasp of all that has been presented here.
I agree Candice. Thomas is a great thinker and expresses himself very well.
Best, Jeff