I mean, you don't even have to go that far back. Look at the Mongolian Empire. — schopenhauer1

Yes, military capabilities surely matter. But those conquered lands that the Mongol Empire briefly held united, didn't start then worshipping Tengri. The follow-up states took up Islam or in the case of China, the melted into the Chinese culture.

hat is to say, they had to be portable enough a society to be on the move. — schopenhauer1

Usually if people move, there is a reason for them to move. Usually if happy, people stay. And even if the people have had military prowess and capability but not much else, then they adapt as a ruling class to the local populace. Just think of the Normans in France.

If Christianity never existed, I could theorize that perhaps the Germanic warlords would have been exposed to Greco-Roman ideas through the natural discourse of cultural diffusion, trade, and intermarriage. — schopenhauer1

Usually the barbarians were not so barbaric as Romans and Greek thought them of being. I think they were already. It's just that we see the Roman Empire as this light surrounded by darkness, but I don't think it was so black and white. I

Yes, military capabilities surely matter. But those conquered lands that the Mongol Empire briefly held united, didn't start then worshipping Tengri. The follow-up states took up Islam or in the case of China, the melted into the Chinese culture. — ssu

That's my point! Paganism would have allowed for any number of pluralistic beliefs to flourish, just as the Germanic kingdoms of what became France, Spain, Germany, England, etc. (though probably something else if history was altered), could have cultural exchange with the Greco-Roman world of ideas, and it may have flourished, without needing churches or monasteries.

Usually the barbarians were not so barbaric as Romans and Greek thought them of being. I think they were already. It's just that we see the Roman Empire as this light surrounded by darkness, but I don't think it was so black and white. I — ssu

No, many Germanic tribes were already co-opted by Rome and were "Romanized" accordingly. That is again my point, that Christianity was not needed as some vessel to carry the values of Greece/Rome. In fact, if anything, it impeded earlier development of these ideas. The theory might go that Christianity made the "warring" Germanic tribes less "pillaging" and hence the formation of feudalism came about from the "ethics" that Christianity provided through the "values" of ethical monotheism. Christianity held the documents and the translations, and the universities and monasteries that continued these ideas in altered or suppressed fashion. But a flourishing of Greco-Roman ideas, and the switch from warring tribes to more sedentary feudalism with warring nobles under a king, could have happened anyways, simply by the settlements of Germans into more fertile land, and thus the yeoman village farmer, simply came under the control of various warrior-allies that then became dukes, knights, and other vassals that were loyal to the king. Or it may have taken a very different course, without the feudalism. Maybe it would have been confederations, proto-democracies, you name it.. The Middle Ages would have been something else. Maybe not so "middle" and simply more a continuation of Greco-Roman in a Germanic framework, straight up without the need for Church concordia and thought, retrofitted unto and hampering the natural development of Greco-Roman philosophy and sans the doctrine of the Christ and the orthodoxy and heresiology doctrines and debates that sidetracked it for a millennium.

Roman law and Greek philosophy.

Interesting debate between Stephen Pinker and John Mearsheimer on Enlightenment. I think that the moderator here isn't great, but both Pinker and Mearsheimer veer the conversation into interesting issues. As Pinker promotes the importance of Enlightenment and Mearsheimer his realism, it's fitting to the discussion of Western Civilization as the issue is so central to it:

Part 1:


Part 2:

That is fine but it has nothing to do with my point.

It's a direct supporting context for while British and American law is not alike.

If it isn't relevant to your point, your point was either extremely orthogonal or nigh impossible to grasp.

'tis no matter in any case.

The ultimate point is that English-speaking barbarians have nothing to do with Rome or Greece.

OP tried to prove otherwise by saying Yankland is connected to England and England is connected to Rome, which is obviously fallacious. Hope it is clear now :up: