What have we learned so far Veeky Forums?

Not exactly. He was asked to not teach it as fact and in response he called the Pope an idiot.
>Galileo: Hey check out this sick Heliocentric model of the universe that's totally factual all other models are wrong
>Pope: That's neat and all but how do you explain the Stellar Parallax problem?
>Galileo: REEEEEEE FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU IDIOT
The same Pope was his patron and friend, so it was kind of a dick move on Galileo's part.

Galileo wasn't really persecuted for science.

He got into a personal and philosophical fight with the Pope, and then insulted the Pope at length in his book. At the same time he was being kind of an arrogant prick, and insisted that his cosmological theories were indisputable fact, despite not being able to prove them. So this was used by the Pope as an excuse to censor him.

It really was a personal thing, since Galileo didn't actually claim anything that hadn't already been discovered before, and nobody before him had gotten into trouble over it.

Well having different school systems inside a single country is retarded, how can anyone even know what a diploma is worth if it's different everywhere?

I know what OP meant but for some people that dont understand and will start rambling about witch hunting and Galileo

sounds like you learned to stop thinking

Yeah, ACADEMIC positions. The average pleb believes otherwise.

>Um what about Galileo?
Fucking kill yourself. Galileo's heliocentric model wasn't even fucking correct, and he couldn't account for the stellar parallax while there was at least one geocentric model of the solar system that accounted for Galileo's observations of Venus. He was persecuted for teaching his model as absolute fact when he was only permitted to teach it as a competing theory (the others had not all been discredited), and for writing a book insulting the pope. Galileo should have been burnt at the stake, but the pope at the time had been friends with him for years so went easy on him.

Who gives a shit about what they think?

Nina does, for one.

...

Meh, in my opinion both sides of ww1 were clearly war-mongering villains vying for power. Germany was no different from Britain and only their loss portrays them badly.

WW2 is a whole different story though

That Austria-Hungary wouldn't have "collapsed anyway" if it wasn't for the war.

history is a spook and so is Veeky Forums

>the Germans were clearly the bad guys in WW1, and the Versailles treaty wasn't too harsh but far too lenient
T. Foch.

You do have a point, but I don't completely agree with you

Not him. I believe Versailles was just about right, the problem is nobody fucking bothered enforcing it and just gave Germans a break every time they overstepped their boundaries. Once Germany grew too strong it was already too late.

Versailles wasn't as harsh as Trianon, which created a bunch of new, relatively weak states in Europe, which allowed Hitler's early expansion with "muh Germans" Casus Belli. I remember someone on /int/ once posted the gdp per capita of each cunt in Europe in 1938, I think this idea gets even more clear when Germany's gdp per capita was thrice of Poland, twice of Czechoslovakia and neighbouring countries, only smaller than the UK and some other meme countries.

Both Trianon and St. Germaine you mean. It wasn't just Hungary who got partitioned.

True, thanks for the correction. Austria basically retained their historical such borders, no? Minus sudtirol and Slovenia + Burgenland

>the Renaissance was a scientific dark age which interrupted the medieval scientific revolution

nice meme bro

everything you learned is wrong

The would have federalized for sure, past that it's hard to see what might have happened. They may well have ended up going full Kosovo.

The Ottomans on the other hand would have crumbled

>Rome produced nothing of value in science or art, and was also unstable and mismanaged

did you miss the huge mosaic thread from a few weeks ago?

>These are pretty mainstream academic positions

"le renaissance dark ages" is absolutely not a mainstream position.

What's up with this renaissance-halted-scientific-advancement meme?

They didn't lost south tirol until ww2

>Bullshit
>Bullshit
>Well they weren't the best ever, but they weren't shit.
>Bullshit
>Bullshit (though yes the puritans turned up during the renaissance and tried to ruin everything, bringing back witch trials and such)
>Bullshit

some guy back in I think December started a thread about how scholasticism was the best thing ever and the renaissance ruined everything. The people arguing against him were incompetent and he ignored the good counter-examples that didn't show up until late in the thread. He was basically going full retard with the Continuity Thesis.

>Because the middle ages started in the 12th century.
>This totally wasn't the foundations of the renaissance forming.

The High middle ages were okay. But its the last 200 years out of a thousand, They didn't just go 'fuck it lets have an age of reason' one day in the 1300s

Kek, really.

If we are talking about what a majority of Americans think, a Majority also thinks the world is

No it doesn't, stop memeing.

>Americans think the world is less than 10 years old.
Nice one user.

You're wrong.

>incorrect shitpost

>Butthurt shitpost

But it's not incorrect in the slightest. Literally everything the OP said was bullshit.

>did you miss the huge mosaic thread from a few weeks ago?
Was any of it more than just pure imitation of Greek shit?

>"le renaissance dark ages" is absolutely not a mainstream position.
It's not formulated like that, but it's the inevitable consequence of the discovery of the late medieval scientific revolution. It's quite obvious that scientific revolution was interrupted and that it took 300 years for science to pick up again where it had left off.

>let's just pretend the Renaissance started in the 12th century now
lmao

And I guess it ended in the 15th.

"Bullshit" is not an argument.

*** corrections to op
>Roman culture is the basis of much of modern Western Culture (by where it is derived, back to Greece, then Phonecia, then Mesopotamia) by means of Romanization and then Christianization
>England and France were GERMAN colonies (Where the fuck do you think the Franks and Saxons are from?)
>The Church didn't nearly persecute science as much as people say but really are you going to say that horse shit that the renaissance wasn't important? That was the beginning of modern Urbanization, modern Economics, and modern Politics and lead to Europe becoming "first world"

Well, Pantheon by itself is a masterful work of art not copied from Greece.

>by means of Romanization and then Christianization
Yeah. Doesn't change the fact that Rome itself didn't produce much culture.

>England and France were GERMAN colonies
Germany or Germans didn't even exist. In its earliest form it was created out of territory conquered by the French.

>the beginning of modern Urbanization, modern Economics, and modern Politics
Can you even define any of those things and how they relate to the Renaissance?

Why do you keep posting these threads?
Yet again you demonstrate you've learned nothing but how to bait a board full of people who know nothing

I wouldn't exactly call that Roman architecture.

"Late Roman" architecture like the Pantheon, with its round domes, was created by Syrian and other Eastern architects. It actually belongs to a new, Eastern civilisation, which spread over the Roman Empire together with Christianity. It's the beginning of what would become Byzantine culture and Islam.

You mean like yourself?

>cum in a jar, drip blood on it daily and keep it in a pile of warm shit
>this will create a miniature, magical servant for you

The height of renaissance scientific thinking everyone.

I'm unaware of any pre-Roman mosaics with this level of depth and sophistication.

And yes the late medieval period experienced a scientific revolution, but advancements in Aristotelian physics are not the sole hallmark of scientific progress. Copernicus and Tycho contributed tons to our understanding of the universe in ways that Aristotelian physics could not. Vesalius' anatomy was far more detailed and accurate than that of Mundinus. The printing press was crucial to the spread of scientific ideas from Italian city-states to the rest of Europe, ensuring that advanced scientific ideas weren't lost or ignored.

The Gothic scientific revolution happened precisely because of the birth of non-Aristotelian physics, Copernicus and Tycho certainly didn't start that (and only scratched at Aristotle's cosmology, not his physics).

>Gothic scientific revolution

the what now?

50 SOVEREIGN STATES REEEEEEEEEEEE

We wuz scientists n shiet!

ARRRGGGGHHH
Christfag detected.

The Gothic Era is the late Middle Ages.

>>Because the middle ages started in the 12th century.
>>This totally wasn't the foundations of the renaissance forming.

If the glorious Renaissance started in the 12th century now, that means it was started by the Catholic Church in France. You cool with that?

>>England and France were GERMAN colonies

There was no Germany and no Germans back then, if you were to say GERMANIC, okay, but not fucking German.

Versailles WAS too lenient.

If the French and British would have executed every man, woman, and child in Germany, the bodycount would have been substantially lower than the number killed in WW2. From a utilitarian standpoint, complete genocide of the German people would have been a moral necessity.

At the very least, the allied powers should have reduced the German male population and dissembled the German state.

kek

No but seriously undoing German unification would have been a good move.

I expected more people to disagree with OP desu.

Glad Veeky Forums isn't as dumb as I thought.

Catholics aren't Christian

retard.

Yeah I wasn't counting the people who literally don't know how to say more than two syllables.

Then just say late middle ages instead of making up a term nobody else uses to describe a phenomenon most people are unaware of.

It's still false to say that science did not advance during the renaissance.

>From a utilitarian standpoint

Ah yes, the good old anglo autism, because their infantile brains can't comprehend anything but the most simplistic cost-benefit models.

>If the French and British would have executed every man, woman, and child in Germany, the bodycount would have been substantially lower than the number killed in WW2

i know you are trolling but this kind of notion needs to be snuffed out before any retard seriously considers it

doing this would set an example to the world that after any conflict it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to eliminate not only your enemies but also anyone peripherally related to them. now that this is ingrained into the public conciousness do you think anyone will ever sue for peace ever again? ww2 would have been the last war humanity would have ever fought if that were the case

People don't think of the civic advancements the Romans made as culture? Like the advancement of democracy, bureaucracy and the rule of law? Sure they where based on mainly Greeks but everything is derivative. Virgil wrote that the Roman task wasn't to make fine sculptures and great works of art, but to bring justice and peace to the world under Roman rule. Like an ancient white man's burden.

It's not even utilitarian. You really think that removing a nation would stop large European wars? You think that if whites where genocided we'd end racism and bring out world peace too?

I think its pretty exemplary If all the Romans did was maintain Greco-culture while also making refinements to it. Not to mention technological advancements like aqueducts, plumbing, and bridge building

>b-but every Roman technological advancement was based on an existing Greek technology

>completely ambiguous y axis

Kek

>the Germans were clearly the bad guys in WW1

What the fuck kind of opinion did you have in the past if this is supposed to have enlightened your erroneous thinking?? The German Reich being the bad guy is in fact as mainstream and deluded as it gets, so congratulations on having established a simplistic Anglo-Saxon mindset enforced upon history after their victory.

I'm very convinced of the fact that the Romans made numerous advancements, like I think was evident from my post. The civic ideas I listed definitely had Greek or other influences. I listed those because it seemed in the thread like people equated culture with the fine arts. I wanted to add political philosophy to the list. That they had influences doesn't invalidate the advancements in the slightest, only a moron would think that. You can hardly compare the application of Greek civic ideas within a city state to the Roman applications to a vast empire.

>>"le renaissance dark ages" is absolutely not a mainstream position.
>It's not formulated like that,

The OP literally states "the Renaissance was a scientific dark age"

You've seriously never heard of the Gothic Era? Gothic art and architecture doesn't ring a bell?

>Romans
>advancing democracy
lmao

Yeah having an all-powerful God-emperor who can make you get raped by a horse for his amusement until he gets murdered and replaced by the Praetorian or the Germanic guard sure sounds like my idea of democracy.

Germans being the bad guys is much more of a continental position than a British one.

The Romans didn't even make technological advancements, they were just competent engineers.

And only in civil engineering I might add, specifically building infrastructure.

The mainstream position nowadays is some bullshit "everyone was equally responsible and the true culprit is nationalism" propaganda. The fact the Germans were full Nazi tier is totally swept under the rug.

It's not formulated like that by academics you dolt. Which doesn't mean it's not true.

Quality shitpost

There was 500 years of republic before the empire, I'm sure you're aware. When I was talking about democracy, do you think I was talking about the Emperor? Don't pretend to be an idiot needlessly, there are other boards for that.

I learned about the hyperwar.

How was the Roman republic democratically superior to the democracy in Athens for example?

>It's not formulated like that by academics you dolt. Which doesn't mean it's not true.
argument from authority

We have a true memeposter here

You either don't know what "argument from authority" means, or you're not capable of following a simple conversation. If English is your mothertongue consider killing yourself.

The direct democracy in Athens was great but the amount of free men in Athens where counted in tens of thousands and the citizens of Rome where counted in millions. Athenian methods would be impossible in Rome. The system with collective voting for important issues and a tribune for example where systems that made good reasonable applications of democracy to such a vast amount of citizens.

OP here, Rome made achievements mostly in two things: politics and civil engineering, I never denied that.

All I said is that it didn't achieve much in art or science, and generally speaking it's highly overrated. It just strikes me as absurd how highly Rome is valued and how everyone is fighting over its heritage, when most major Western countries have each on its own achieved more that Rome ever did.

argumentum ad hominem

Keep posting logical fallacies,it shows you have no arguement

You're a fucking idiot. Do you even have a point or are you just shitposting aimlessly?

Could be, though I was also alluding at the US with the reference to Anglo-Saxon opinion.

We should make the distinction between your regular people's mainstream and historians' mainstream position before arguing past each other.

Anyway, insinuating that Germans were Nazi tier in any sort of WWII-understanding of the term is laughable - there were indeed some ultra-nationalistic "blood and soil" völkisch ideologies in circulation. Also, there is no denying the fact that most German intellectuals of the time considered the German "Kultur" (culture in English, obviously - but it carries particular connotations) superior to the Western "Zivilisation".

But - and that's a big BUT - it would be inane to ignore what those tendencies were fueled by. The German Reich was basically surrounded by nations which envied Germany its newly attained status of supremacy (Russia, France, British Empire) and were uncomfortable with having a superpower in their midst wanting to have a piece of the cake. The British Empire was the country most keen on thwarting any further growth of Germany, especially after the German fleet was dramatically expanded at the end of the 19th century. Britain feared it might lose its naval supremacy, in spite of Germany solely striving for an equilibrium in terms of power in order to ensure that national interests can be maintained - as ALL of the surrounding countries were already doing!

Kaiser Wilhelm II's overly assertive and prideful rhetoric can certainly be blamed, but when looking at his and Germany's political goals, you would have to be pretty damned biased to claim it was warmongering or even Nazi. There is more than ample evidence to substantiate the fact that Britain was certainly not less responsible for the outbreak of the war. Not that I blame them - I would also think twice before letting a growing superpower at my doorstep gain even further strenght and influence, better a war now while you still have the upper hand

Thats what your doing,im trying to raise the standards on this board beyond your level of "my memes are more powerful"