Medieval vs. Modern mindset

[Stravo]

I'm reading a book on the history of Knights (if you never know what to get me for a present anything to do with knights is a big plus) and I run across this paragraph that made me sit back and think.

In essence the paragrpah broke down the way medieval - particularly early medieval society looked on itself as opposed to the way we look upon ourselves now.

Modern society looks at itself as the culimination of millennia of western civilization and thought. We are the end product of a long proud tradition.

Medieval society saw itself as having fallen from a great pinnacle of accomplishment and were always looking back to that time as inspiration and a measuring stick for their success. All the great medieval lords and kings were trying to recreate a new Roman empire.

It was a very thought provoking insight to me. Here we are looking at ourselves as the height, the pinnacle, the logical outcome of thousands of years of civilization, it doesn't get better than us. But back then people looked back as the past being the best time, the pinnacle and they were living a life significantly less glorious and wonderful. They were the end result of a great fall.

Just wanted to share that insight with other fans of medieval era and see if you agreed with that generalization.

[salm]

It was a very thought provoking insight to me. Here we are looking at ourselves as the height, the pinnacle, the logical outcome of thousands of years of civilization, it doesn't get better than us. But back then people looked back as the past being the best time, the pinnacle and they were living a life significantly less glorious and wonderful. They were the end result of a great fall.

why do you think that modern society thinks as the end of a process of itself? doesn´t modern society think that it´s in a process getting better and better?

[Stravo]

why do you think that modern society thinks as the end of a process of itself? doesn´t modern society think that it´s in a process getting better and better?

But if you stop someone now and ask them if we're currently living in the best of times that person will invaribaly say yes. What the medieval person would think is that Rome - centuries before his time - was the best of times.

[Stofsk]

But if you stop someone now and ask them if we're currently living in the best of times that person will invaribaly say yes. What the medieval person would think is that Rome - centuries before his time - was the best of times.

I know very little about that period of history, but isn't that pretty much right? I mean, Rome would have been the best of times compared to the squalor of the medieval period, right?

[salm]

But if you stop someone now and ask them if we're currently living in the best of times that person will invaribaly say yes. What the medieval person would think is that Rome - centuries before his time - was the best of times.

ah, that´s what you meant. yeah, that´s probably true for most people besides the one´s in their midlife crisises who think that back in the days everything was better.

[Darth Wong]

Nothing in medieval Europe could compare to the grandeur of the Roman Empire. They couldn't even match the Romans on simple public health issues; people in leading European cities threw out their feces into the fucking rivers and streets, for fuck's sake. So it's not surprising that they would view themselves as the inheritors of the detritus of a once-golden age.

What's interesting is that this medieval "good old days' mentality is still present today, largely among religious folk.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

What's interesting is that this medieval "good old days' mentality is still present today, largely among religious folk.

Inquisition, anyone?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Nothing in medieval Europe could compare to the grandeur of the Roman Empire. They couldn't even match the Romans on simple public health issues; people in leading European cities threw out their feces into the fucking rivers and streets, for fuck's sake. So it's not surprising that they would view themselves as the inheritors of the detritus of a once-golden age.

What's interesting is that this medieval "good old days' mentality is still present today, largely among religious folk.

I always think of when George Lucas made the comparison in Star Wars with the Old Republic being the Roman Empire which then fell and the Empire/New Republic being the remnants of that age. At least, that was his excuse for technology differences and social order.

It is odd how the so called Dark Ages didn't show any pick up from where the Romans left off. Think how far we'd be now if Rome hadn't fell and instead was split into the nations we know now.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I look back at the olden days with longing, when the politicians at least appeared honest, the press gave us news, and a dollar got you more than one hooker.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Nothing in medieval Europe could compare to the grandeur of the Roman Empire. They couldn't even match the Romans on simple public health issues; people in leading European cities threw out their feces into the fucking rivers and streets, for fuck's sake. So it's not surprising that they would view themselves as the inheritors of the detritus of a once-golden age.

What's interesting is that this medieval "good old days' mentality is still present today, largely among religious folk.

I always think of when George Lucas made the comparison in Star Wars with the Old Republic being the Roman Empire which then fell and the Empire/New Republic being the remnants of that age. At least, that was his excuse for technology differences and social order.

Don't know much about social order but IIRC Imperial tech ain't as backward compared to OR's, unlike medieval society which couldn't even match the Roman Empire.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I guess it would be a very depressing lifestyle knowing that the great achievements and accomplishments--the legacy of generations past and such a life, were gone.

It must have sucked knowing that the future was bleak and the past rich.

[Petrosjko]

There are definitely elements of nostalgia present in our society, though. Those who harken back to the '50s as an ideal era of social stability, for example.

Personally, I am of the opinion that we're at a pinnacle and heading up. It's rather invigorating.

[LadyTevar]

I guess it would be a very depressing lifestyle knowing that the great achievements and accomplishments--the legacy of generations past and such a life, were gone.

It must have sucked knowing that the future was bleak and the past rich.

I think that's another reason why the Church became such a focal point. Not only was it 'The Last of Rome', but it offered a hope for future rewards in heaven.

[Jalinth]

It is odd how the so called Dark Ages didn't show any pick up from where the Romans left off. Think how far we'd be now if Rome hadn't fell and instead was split into the nations we know now.

How innovative was Rome? It never seemed to make any great technological strides - just borrowed from wherever (from Carthage's ships to the Greeks "please insert invention here"). It had great engineers for the day - amazing road nets, public works, and other systems that weren't duplicated for more than a millenia.

I think we'd be behind if Rome never fell. Large empires tend toward stasis - obviously, since for them, change risks them losing their dominating position. So we might only be at the 16th century Venetian level if Rome still lived.

[Stark]

Rome included within its civil service and borders basically the most educated and intelligent men in Europe. Romans THEMSELVES were hardly innovative, but the 'Roman' empire was hardly Italian anymore. Who cares where they got their ideas from; they accepted new things, something noone did (in Western Europe anyway) for almost a millenia after the fall. Well, the corruption, abandonment, whatever. Go the Roman Empire! If only they'd had a decent economist

[Lusankya]

There are definitely elements of nostalgia present in our society, though. Those who harken back to the '50s as an ideal era of social stability, for example.

Personally, I am of the opinion that we're at a pinnacle and heading up. It's rather invigorating.

How can we be at a pinnacle and still be heading up? Isn't that a bit of an oxy-moron?

I like to think that we've just hit the foothills, and there's a rocket pad at the top of the mountains ready to take us wherever we want to go once we get there.

[weemadando]

It'd be nice if certain parts of modern society stopped trying to pretend that its not the 1950's. Or worse, 900CE.

[Bellator]

Nothing in medieval Europe could compare to the grandeur of the Roman Empire.

That's a common believe, but not entirely accurate. Rome and it's empire had serious problems, and especcially later medieval kingdoms surpassed them in many ways.

And looking back to antiquity was something still very widespread in renaissance days (likely even more so than in medieval times), where societies and technologies had far surpassed those of the Romans.

It's because Rome's become partly mythical. A place of learning, with marble buildings and wise and powerful rulers. The pinnacle of civilization, technology, and virtues. Sadly, Rome was far from all that. [/b]

[The Vodka Vindicator]

A surviving roman empire would cause everything to stagnate. The reason china stagnated was because it was ruled by only one nation with no major incentives to innovate.

[Darth Wong]

A surviving roman empire would cause everything to stagnate. The reason china stagnated was because it was ruled by only one nation with no major incentives to innovate.

No, China stagnated because of a sociopolitical movement which can largely be attributed to a single misguided emperor. He literally pulled back explorer ships, persecuted scholars, and clamped down on all progress. Before him, China was arguably the most advanced civilization on Earth.

[Darth Wong]

That's a common believe, but not entirely accurate. Rome and it's empire had serious problems, and especcially later medieval kingdoms surpassed them in many ways.

In what ways did which medieval kingdoms surpass the Roman Empire?

[HemlockGrey]

A surviving roman empire would cause everything to stagnate. The reason china stagnated was because it was ruled by only one nation with no major incentives to innovate.

That's a simplistic way of looking at it. For a long time after the overthrow of the Mongols China wasn't stagnated. It steadily advanced until it was poised on the brink of an industrial revolution in the early 1400's, and the legendary voyages of Zheng He brought massive Chinese trading fleets as far west as Africa, Arabia, and the Red Sea.

However, then the empire suddenly reversed itself and withdrew into isolation, but it was by no means a sure thing.

[Enigma]

That's a common believe, but not entirely accurate. Rome and it's empire had serious problems, and especcially later medieval kingdoms surpassed them in many ways.

In what ways did which medieval kingdoms surpass the Roman Empire?

Probably in diseases.
Maybe medieval europe improved sword making and armour?

[Perinquus]

Nothing in medieval Europe could compare to the grandeur of the Roman Empire. They couldn't even match the Romans on simple public health issues; people in leading European cities threw out their feces into the fucking rivers and streets, for fuck's sake. So it's not surprising that they would view themselves as the inheritors of the detritus of a once-golden age.

What's interesting is that this medieval "good old days' mentality is still present today, largely among religious folk.

Well, that's not entirely true (though it is mostly). The great cathedrals rivalled almost any of the Roman public buidings in grandeur. The economic life of northern Europe during the late middle ages was in some ways as or even more vital than the economic life of the Roman Empire in its heyday. And in fact there had been a surprisingly great number of technological innovations, from stirrups to horse collars that permitted animals to draw far heavier loads, to crop rotation, to plate armor, to the mouldboard plow, to gunpowder, to metallurgy (the Romans could produce a steely iron, but could not consistently produce good quality steel, as medieval Europeans could), to the sternpost rudder, etc. etc.

But it is true that education was more widespread in the Empire than in medieval Europe, that the rule of law and security from foreign invasion were greater within the Roman limes (when the Empire was strong) than in medieval Europe. It's also true that many medieval people looked upon the often still working Roman aqueducts, and the great network of Roman roads, and thought such things the work of supermen.

[Bellator]

In what ways did which medieval kingdoms surpass the Roman Empire?

What Perinquus said. Late medieval Europe surpassed the Roman Empire in many ways.