Was it? Ottomans were well accomplished, but they took 200 years to take over an empire that had been declining for centuries, and that had been betrayed by its supposed allies. Claiming Ottomans were militarily above Europe feels to me a bit like claiming Goths were militarily superior to Romans. War and history aren't made based on who's stronger like a game, it is full of opportunism. — Lionino

They were militarily above Europeans because after the Roman empire the Ottoman empire were the first to have a standing professional army which requires a centralized bureaucracy. European troops were recruited from the local populace. They were also among the first to employ gun powder in an effective way, integrating it relatively early in their army.

As to the claim of "administratively behind", I won't even bother with that, as it can't be measured in any significant way, and I don't think anyone here has read the slightest bit on Ottoman governance (and governance of every other European kingdom of the same time). — Lionino

Of course it can be measured. For instance by looking at the scale of the economy and effectiveness of taxation, the strength of centralized administration and so on. As for Ottoman governance and no one reading anything of it, that is a bit of a tricky claim, I at least read 'Turkey a Modern History' by Erik Jan Zürcher which deals mostly with the latter Ottoman empire and the emergence of modern Turkey, but also treats the Ottoman Golden age. Moreover I read quite a bit on state institutions, not only of Turkey.

If Ottomans were militarily superior to Europe, they would not have been beaten by Austria. — Lionino

That is like saying if Europeans were superior why did they lose Jerusalem. There is more than technological superiority, for instance the length of supply lines. In the beginning of the modern period (16th century) the ottoman empire was huge, far bigger than the European states, but even they cannot reach everywhere. The same goes for the Mongolian khanate.

You went as a tourist. Everything seems better as a tourist, especially when we come from our small towns. But by chance you were lucky and did not see some resident foreigner fighting the police or harassing locals/tourists. In any case, whatever, replace Hague with Paris or Brussels or whatever undeniably dumpy European capital, the point stands. — Lionino

I did not come as a tourist. Why do you think did? I might live there no? Why do you think I live
in a small town? (The Hague might be considered a small town, but Istanbul is not)

I don't know what threatening to oneself means. Someone said the East was more advanced than Europe until recently. That is nonsense. Let's read up some history.
What's next, someone is gonna bring the Islamic Golden Age? Totally don't look up where that Islamic golden knowledge came from, stop before that part so you can prove yourself right. — Lionino

Of course you know what it means. In fact, you understood me well. What is wrong with the Islamic Golden Age? And what is wrong with the Islamic golden age being inspired by the works of ancient Greek philosophy? I do not hold onto the thesis that everything was either this or that. Philosophy, mathematics, strategy and what not are products of intermingling. You like to hold on to some sort of European exceptionalism claiming that somehow it has fixed borders and what not. In my view history itself is a social construction, as is Europe.

Jesus Christ, you have no clue what you are talking about. You don't even need genetic studies, which I have to refute your claim, to prove that wrong. Think: did the Spartans not leave any children behind? — Lionino

Ohh they certainly did, who intermingled with Turkish children, Albanians and what not. The point is that there is no trace of ancient greece in any of the Greek people currently alive. Just like there is no trace a Roman in any Italian. People mingle. The only thing that is real is the stories they tell, but they are precisely that, stories, usually used to aggrandize some sense of national pride. "I am Greek and not Turkish", even though their ancestry may well be similar. You do the same, trying to save some image of a pristine 'Europe', essentially the same through eternity and somehow essentially Greek and Roman.

The article I linked previously already says that many experts think the story was taken from Abrahamics. If experts think so, it can't be "very doubtful", in fact it is very likely given the great coincidences. Furthermore, even if you are right about Efe, your argument doesn't prove your case: — Lionino

Maybe it is not convenient to believe that an ancient group of pagans actually had something worth while before the "civilized" people arrived, That sounds familiar, Indians, Africans, American Indians, Aboriginals were all just savages remember that had little to offer the "civilized" people.

This statement really doesn't go along with your claim that they have unmixed DNA (most likely not true)... Besides, where did you get this information that they had contact with Egyptians? — Lionino

I know several Asians, Africans and even Americans, but we have not mixed our DNA. Maybe the little guys and gals thought the Egyptians were too ugly.

But here is a study for you to browse at your leisure and a quote from it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4163

Here we present a high-resolution study of the genomic diversity of and relationships between both Western and Eastern RHG and neighbouring AGR populations, with the aim of dissecting the intensity and tempo of the admixture processes and demographic events that have characterized the past history of these human groups. We find that extensive admixture between the RHG and AGR groups has occurred only recently, within the past ~1,000 years, indicating that the early expansions of Bantu-speaking people did not trigger immediate, extensive genetic exchange between two communities. Furthermore, our results support the hypothesis that the ancestors of these two populations already differed in their demographic success before the emergence of a farming-based lifestyle in Central Africa.

Are you suggestion that Egyptians knew the Hebrew myths because they contacted pygmies? :rofl: — Lionino

Are you suggesting the Pygmies knew about the Genesis story because of the christians arriving in their lands a thousand years after the birth of christ?

5 thousand years ago is modern times? I think you should give it a rest. — Lionino

Let me highlight what you said so that we do not get confused.

Moreover, most Pygmies now speak — Lionino

Don't mind us my people we just wrote the Bible. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, slay him. :rofl:

Greece was an inextricable part of Latin/Roman culture, from its inception to the fall of the West, yet Latins saying "Aristotle and Zeus and Perikles are my culture" would be awfully weird, Augustine, Jupiter, and Scipio are their culture instead. — Lionino

What is your point?
Beer drinking is a major part of European culture, but originated in Mesopotamia about 3500 - 3100 BCE.
Just because something came from another place does not mean it cannot be part of ones culture.

Yes, I am trolling, not the people who have no clue about history and anthropology who still feel comfortable to hurl nonsense at other people's cultures. — Lionino

When did this happen and who did it, I must have missed that bit.

I do. Culture isn't a recipe. — Lionino

But recipes are a part of culture. :roll:

So much sophistry. Go say that a Hungarian person, they will laugh at you. I don't even think you believe in what you are saying. "Harry Potter is part of Hungarian culture" is so absurd. — Lionino

But it is for at least these people
https://www.facebook.com/groups/harrypotterhungary/
https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g274887-d19126341-r934699361-The_MAGIC_Budapest-Budapest_Central_Hungary.html
https://grimmauld12.wixsite.com/alohomora/about

Maybe they disagree with your idea of culture as well.

That is wrong. The weather informs you as to what you may do (bring an umbrella), the weather is not part of one's culture (no it is not, drop the sophistry). The meaning of culture is clear, and it may be verified in a dictionary. — Lionino

You screwed up again, A lot of culture is based on things like the weather in the place you live, the terrain you live in, the vegetation in that area. People didn't eat what is not grown in the area they live in long ago, so their recipes are based on what was available. And as I have already pointed out to you recipes are part of culture.

If you don't know that, you don't know the very basics of Greek. Once again: people who have no clue about history and anthropology who still feel comfortable to hurl nonsense at other people's cultures. — Lionino

Once again "When did this happen and who did it, I must have missed that bit".

If I tell you how to handle the letter, you will not use this newfound knowledge to properly deal with the language, you will use it to improve your sophistry. — Lionino

Ahh, so now you are scared of sophistry. :rofl:

That is correct. A degenerate is one who does not live up to certain moral standards in their society. Romans and Greek generally had strong notions of honour, so it is not correct to say that did not care about abiding to their moral standards. A strong notion of honour is not something that I see in many countries that like to claim Rome and Greece — because they clearly don't care about their own moral standards. — Lionino

I think that you misunderstood, what I was trying to say is that they did not have the heads so far up their asses like lots of people today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art_in_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum

Romans might have been honorable in their today, but the question here is exactly what counted as honorable in their times?

Speaking of historical difamation, the "vomitorium". Ah, so wonderful, when people fabricated this fantasy that Romans had the custom of eating, then puking again to be able to eat more in feasts. This confusion stems from a kind of historical narcisism, where we take the word "vomitorium", which is indeed connected with "vomit", and transpose modern meanings to it. It turns out, the "vomitorium" that Roman writers spoke of had nothing to do with eating, it was just a kind of hallway in theaters: — Lionino

Seriously, did people actually believe that myth? Just goes to show how far spread ignorance is.

This is 100% word salad, I think you are the one who is trolling here. Refer to the dictionary for the meaning of 'culture'. — Lionino

Take your own advice.

But recipes are a part of culture. :roll: — Sir2u

Spare me your rhetorical diarrhoea.

But it is for at least these people
https://www.facebook.com/groups/harrypotterhungary/
https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g274887-d19126341-r934699361-The_MAGIC_Budapest-Budapest_Central_Hungary.html
https://grimmauld12.wixsite.com/alohomora/about — Sir2u

Nowhere there does it say Harry Potter is part of Hungary's culture. Again, spare me.

A lot of culture is based on things like the weather in the place you live — Sir2u

Elements of one's culture are determined by the weather, the weather itself is not part of one's culture.

I won't even continue, what a load of crap. These barbarians who think Romans would feel anything but disdain for them go as far as saying all the absurd nonsense you see in this thread. That I have to argue with so much dishonesty and bullshit is well past limits now.

These people have no ancient history of their own, their history is a fentanyl addict who died of overdose during COVID curfews, cross-dressing parades, and insane orange politicians. In their insanity they will defend every sort of violation of common sense, "hur dur the weather is part of culture", "hur dur recipes are part of culture", "hur dur we wuz romans n shiet u knowamsayan?", "hur dur hay rabdos sou kai hay baktaria sou. autai me parakelesan". Just barbaric, barbaric all the way through. They don't even know how to use periods.

Those are the same people who defend that men can become women and that 2+2=5. So if such basic concepts bewilder them so much, to ask them a proper understanding of history is like charging a cat with doing the taxes of a company.

Sparing them with the slighest bit of culture and civilisation is throwing pearls at hogs. They were barbarians 2000 years ago and they are barbarians today and will be barbarians forever — uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy (how can one do philosophy in a language that struggles with concepts as basic as "nation" and "woman"?).

Spare me your rhetorical diarrhea. — Lionino

This is a page meant for kiddies to learn from, maybe it will help clear your learning constipation.
https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/culture/399913

But I guess that Britannica could be wrong.

Nowhere there does it say Harry Potter is part of Hungary's culture. Again, spare me. — Lionino

Karate, Kung fu, tacos, apple pie, sushi, Soul food,the waltz, are some of many adopted parts of the American way of life. Does that make them any less part of American culture

Elements of one's culture are determined by the weather, the weather itself is not part of one's culture. — Lionino

I never said it was, maybe you should try reading carefully. What I said was that many customs are based on the weather, especially in farming. Is that not part of the culture then.
Or do you go skiing in the summer and swimming in the winter? The weather plays a big part in the culture of a people.

I won't even continue, what a load of crap. These barbarians who think Romans would feel anything but disdain for them go as far as saying all the absurd nonsense you see in this thread. That I have to argue with so much dishonesty and bullshit is well past limits now. — Lionino

So you do not believe what is before your eyes, instead preferring to maintain your ignorance to reality.
How many ancient Romans do or did you actually know? Because unless you can speak from first hand knowledge of the subject all I can say is that you are spouting undeniably ridiculous garbage. show us some proof that the Romans were as good and noble as you say they were or shut up.

These people have no ancient history of their own, their history is a fentanyl addict who died of overdose during COVID curfews, cross-dressing parades, and insane orange politicians. In their insanity they will defend every sort of violation of common sense, "hur dur the weather is part of culture", "hur dur recipes are part of culture", "hur dur we wuz romans n shiet u knowamsayan?", "hur dur hay rabdos sou kai hay baktaria sou. autai me parakelesan". Just barbaric, barbaric all the way through. They don't even know how to use periods. — Lionino

Tut TUT. did you never learn that personal attacks against members of a debating group are the ultimate sign of a badly defeated arrogant ignoramus. Especially when they take up jobs with the grammar police.

Those are the same people who defend that men can become women and that 2+2=5. So if such basic concepts bewilder them so much, to ask them a proper understanding of history is like charging a cat with doing the taxes of a company.

Sparing them with the slighest bit of culture and civilisation is throwing pearls at hogs. They were barbarians 2000 years ago and they are barbarians today and will be barbarians forever — uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy (how can one do philosophy in a language that struggles with concepts as basic as "nation" and "woman"?). — Lionino

As I said earlier you really should do more careful reading, I think that if you look you will find my opinion on men being women is clearly stated on a thread somewhere around the forum.

Oh, one last thing before I tell you to fuck off. Your free grammar lesson:

uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy

It is INCAPABLE, not uncapable (No, I am not going to put a period here just so that I can annoy you one last time)

Now fuck off.

So like most things, it was not the thing itself, but the principle behind it, in this case the lack of one, the dangers of blind indulgence, corruption and destruction of intellectual and moral values, and the resulting tendency of these things, especially when conducted in unison, to destroy societies and as a result end entire civilizations writ-large. — Outlander

I think you give sex far too much importance, as did Paul and others did after him.

I referred to indifference to sex in the Roman and Greek (perhaps I should use "Hellenic") world compared to what came later. It may be more accurate to say that sex didn't have the significance it came to have. Sexual relationships could be significant (like convenient marriages), but not so much the sexual act. I think that, then, people weren't as disturbed by it as they are now, particularly as to sex of certain kinds, it seems.

An example, ever been to the ruins of Pompey, or seen them on video? If so, you may have noticed the appalled reaction of some visitors, or the giggling of others, at the frequent depiction of the phallus and the occasional paintings or murals involving various sexual acts. Such things weren't thought forbidden or depraved at the time; a phallus could even be considered "lucky".

We come to attribute too much significance to what we think is forbidden, especially when we believe it's forbidden by God. This strikes me as particularly the case here in our Glorious Union. So we tend to see such as Anthony Comstock, Carrie Nation, Billy Sunday (who was it seems a good baseball player) and other preachers against purported vices of all kinds). We also see others who like to appear to glory in those vices thinking it makes them remarkable in some sense.

I think you give sex far too much importance, as did Paul and others did after him. — Ciceronianus

It could have been sorcery or addiction to shopping or marijuana or drunkenness, that was my point it wasn't what happened to be the most life-controlling it was the fact that it was. Whether the majority of society "viewed" it as good or bad or casual or not, I'm merely referencing the biological fact it's the easiest form of influence over a person's life, be they man or woman. I get your argument the person who engages in casual sex often and is in no short supply begins to view it as little more than reading a book or completing a puzzle, just another thing that happens, of no more significance that a cloudy afternoon or running into a neighbor at a local market, easily, as you're suggesting "the least important thing in the world and couldn't be further from the forefront of daily thought in one's mind", because it has already become a background controlling factor that has quietly influenced nearly all decision and indecision from as early as the person can remember despite, if asked, their honest belief of the opposite. That was my assertion, at least. The insidious nature of over-indulgence of the flesh and it's quiet, subtle as well as not so quiet and subtle controlling grip over man's destiny and most consequentially, society itself, whether it manifests as a conscious urge or theme one recognizes and responds to or has quietly become part of one's identity and character or community zeitgeist without it consciously being in people's minds as "important" or "occupying", ie. the measurable effect and influence remains pivotal whether or not it is viewed as such or even pondered at all, similar to unconscious bias.

Ciceronianus is your source on all things Roman. — BitconnectCarlos

I enjoy irony.

The insidious nature of over-indulgence of the flesh and it's quiet, subtle as well as not so quiet and subtle controlling grip over man's destiny and most consequentially, society itself, whether it manifests as a conscious urge or theme one recognizes and responds to or has quietly become part of one's identity and character or community zeitgeist without it consciously being in people's minds as "important" or "occupying", ie. the measurable effect and influence remains pivotal whether or not it is viewed as such or even pondered at all, similar to unconscious bias. — Outlander

Well, I disagree. I don't think there's anything establishing that indulging in sexual desires dominated political, social or economic decisions in antiquity, or influenced them in any significant sense.

I don't think there's anything establishing that indulging in sexual desires dominated political, social or economic decisions in antiquity, or influenced them in any significant sense. — Ciceronianus

Perhaps a better way to put it would be the following. The culmination of all human relationships (a man, no matter if it be a leader, a merchant, or an unskilled laborer, and his life companion) is influenced predominantly by... who you find attractive ie. who you want to have relations with. All decisions made are impacted and influenced by, if not in part, by what the person's significant other thinks. So sexuality is an omnipresent factor in every facet of activity or thought by default, if not in the background after being the sole or principle "cause" for setting up, basically every form of non-platonic relationship. So to expand on that, let's remove every person who already has a romantic partner, without forgetting sexual indulgence or attraction was at minimum a significant factor in establishing that relationship to begin with and as a result every act or failure to act that occurs after that point. So, no matter what position you are, a political leader, a relatively well-off merchant, or struggling laborer without such a partner, it is not unreasonable to suggest, you want to find either A.) a wife or B.) an attractive partner to have by your side to feel complete and not lonely. Fair? So, you will likely work to make that happen, be it as a leader either freeing up your time perhaps neglecting your job or perhaps bringing glory through conquest or some sort of socially-praised act that is likely to result in obtaining such a person. Or as a merchant, you might wish to open up another shop or start selling items that single women might buy so as to again, produce a result or environment where it is more likely for you to obtain such a person based on, sexual desire. Even the struggling laborer, why does he work? To eat and sustain himself yes, but also to be able to support and thus encourage the likelihood of finding, a romantic partner, to satisfy his sexual desire. Or perhaps it can be romanticized yes, absent of overwhelming physical desire, perhaps any one of these individuals just wants company from a fellow person, to raise a happy home and bring glory and honor to his family, those before him, and his empire. Guess what? 9 times out of 10 he's still going to prefer his partner to be sexually attractive to satisfy that primal urge every man and woman has, an urge that left unchecked will also 9 times out of 10 override logic or better judgement at least on occasion, often at the most unfortunate times. All is fair in love and war, after all. This is the "bulk" of my argument: Unchecked sexual desire makes logic and judgement go out the window like NO other thing can! No it is not "established" or "announced" when a man kills another man out of jealous rage, but also 9 times out of 10 there is a woman involved, which means the act was ultimately brought about by sexual desire.

So, not to get personal, it is none of my business, but I doubt you or anyone reading has not acted or chosen not to act based on the likelihood of said action or inaction resulting in gaining the attention, admiration, or affection of the desired sex for reasons beyond being a nice person. And we're intellectuals. So double or triple that for the average, especially relatively-uneducated citizenry in older times. Imagine if, instead, every action or inaction that affected other people was based on what is best for oneself and others intellectually and morally, instead of what appeases one's primal sensibilities, an appeasement that as I said earlier easily becomes confused with the Great virtues and values in life such as love, honor, etc.

I'm not even personally agreeing or disagreeing with anything, I'm sure you're right about what your asserting, I just find your reply as I happen to interpret it as glossing over a few very important underlying dynamics that seem to suggest, absent of education (theology or morality of any flavor), man is not first and foremost guided if not largely influenced by primal desire, the most prominent (or overlapping, universally connected? ie. likely to influence other emotions) of which being sexuality. I would find that a very difficult claim to defend to say the least.