Behold, the DESERTS OF IUDEA, the birthplace of Western civilization.
Behold, the DESERTS OF IUDEA, the birthplace of Western civilization.
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Western civilization was founded on Avengers (2012) opening weekend.
The ancient Greeks and Romans were not western no matter how much larpers will try to cope and seethe. They considered themselves closer to Africans than they did to Celts/Germanics. The West did not exist before the Early Middle Ages.
So you agree, the deserts are the spiritual navel of Western civilization
"Africans" in terms of Egyptians and Carthaginians, yes. Likewise those societies had much more in common with Rome and Greece (and Persia and Assyria) than with Nilotic tribes down south. This isn't surprising at all considering Rome and Alexandra only have a sea between them, while the Germanics and Celts were much further North
Yes, so the concept of "Europe" did not exist then. The idea of "Europe" only grew out of Latin Christendom.
Our civilisation directly based upon their writings and achievements
It's based on them as well as other peoples. It's not a direct continuation.
It’s not a direct continuation. Western Europe nearly lost all connection with the Romans and Greeks when the western empire collapsed. The only thing they had was Christianity in terms of continuation. And in places where there was no Christianity (like in Anglo-Saxon England) that connection to Romans and Greeks completely disappeared and didn’t re-emerge until they too converted to Christianity as well.
And big deal. The Rome of Julius Caesar's time was a few centuries removed from being a couple of Iron Age hill forts.
It is a big deal when people keep wewuzzing as ancient Greeks and Romans, ignoring how the spread of their influences and Christianity occurred simultaneously throughout Europe, and having a white guilt-esque depression over Rome's fall.
For Gothic art yes, putting aside of a bad quality ripoff of Constantinian basilicas, architects often pushed tropes from Solomon temple on the design of their Cathedrals.
I really like this retarded "argument", where is magnificent architecture in Christian Africa? lmao
>where is magnificent architecture in Christian Africa
Where is magnificent architecture in pre-Christian Scandinavia?
Nowhere, European architecture begins with Greeks. Your deserts are irrelevant
They were relevant in getting Northern Europeans to develop their own distinct civilization
two words: arch technology
It began with Semites, Egyptians a d Minoans (anatolian)
Pagan Europeans wouldn’t never developed anything like gothic architecture if left to their own devices.
>Pagan Europeans wouldn’t never developed anything like gothic architecture if left to their own devices.
ESL christfag IQ, everyone
Cope harder homosexual. The reason it happened is, surprise surprise, Christianisation.
Yes, without christhomosexualry, surely European civilisation, well-known for millennia for its architectural and cultural achievements, would have just magically regressed and continued in a sub-Saharan African manner.
You’re a moron. (Although being Christian in the current year already strongly presupposed that.)
Your realize most of Europe lived in tribal pastoralist societies right? Before Christianisation? Why would Roman influence spread all over Europe the way it did without religion? Use your mutt head larper.
It already did long before Christianity
Is that why we see great cities and temples among the Germanic pagans?
It simply wouldn’t have, there would not be the incentive. Rome would collapse, much more of its legacy would be lost as a result of the complete absence of any institution like the church which could mediate between the two peoples. More regions would revert to like how they were before Roman rule, like Britain or Noricum or northern Iberia. And in a significantly smaller part of the former empire, the barbarians would become like the Romans.
>inb4 muh Christianisation caused romes fall
This idiotic remnant of the 18th century has been thoroughly debunked by any credible historian. Constantine’s conversion gave western Rome a second wind and extended its shelf life for a while, but it’s pre-existing problems (since at the latest the crisis of the third century) proved too catastrophic to bear.
Also, recall how the Christian Alaric damaged very little during his “sacking” of Rome, compared to the pagan Radagaisus who was hellbent on destroying it. There was zero commonality between him and the Roman.
>It simply wouldn’t have, there would not be the incentive. Rome would collapse, much more of its legacy would be lost as a result of the complete absence of any institution like the church which could mediate between the two peoples. More regions would revert to like how they were before Roman rule, like Britain or Noricum or northern Iberia. And in a significantly smaller part of the former empire, the barbarians would become like the Romans.
Cool fanfiction bro
It’s pointless to argue whether Greco-Roman influence would have spread without Christianity because it’s 100% pure speculation without any facts backing either option.
He doesn't because he is an illiterate retarded who thinks mudhut is peak kino architecture, just the fact the oldest religious buildings made with stone in many countries in the North and East of Europe were linked to the Christian and commisions, says a lot about all the knoledge that came alongside monks and missionaries.
>Why would Roman influence spread all over Europe the way it did without religion?
It already did
>Is that why we see great cities and temples among the Germanic pagans?
The Germanics were Christian for well over a century before the end of the Western Empire. Their society didn't change because of Christianity, it changed because they entered Roman lands and adapted to their way of life and society. Which has nothing to do with Christianity, the same thing would have happened without it.
>It already did
Not nearly to the extent that it later would under Christianity. I'm not saying that if everyone was pagan, there'd be zero Roman influence in Germany. I'm saying that it wouldn't be nearly as much as we had as a result of Christianization. Again, no incentive.
>The Germanics were Christian for well over a century before the end of the Western Empire. Their society didn't change because of Christianity, it changed because they entered Roman lands and adapted to their way of life and society. Which has nothing to do with Christianity, the same thing would have happened without it.
Refer to what I said here
And if everybody was pagan, said influence would not spread all over Europe like it did.
>where is magnificent architecture in Christian Africa
Putting aside Africans never needed to copy Mediterraneans on a try to develop their own artistic styles, Christian Africans carved the stone, didn't used bricks for their buildings, ethiopian architecture is by far among the most original architectonic stiles since it sprouts from the ground, in fact they are considered typical samples of Rock-cut architecture.
Now, considering that North Europe lacked of an history, artistic style and identity prior to Christian missionaries, you should be more thankful to them, nothing but a dog biting his master's hand.
I mean the first gothic like architecture can be found outside of Europe like in Christian Armenia actually
Instead you can just look at Georgian and Armenian Christian architecture. The pic was a Gothic like church built in the 11th century Armenia before any Gothic churches were first built in Europe.
The entire purpose of Gothic architecture was religious in nature. Its stated purpose was to convey Christianity to the masses.
Oh no no no no
> A ... study by J. Baltrusaitis, Le problème de l'ogive et l'Arménie, calls attention to interesting similarities with Gothic art other than the pointed arches and vaults, and the clustered piers seen in the churches of Trdat of Ani.
> These common features are the use of wall-ribs or arches, and of cross ribs which bear the weight of the stone web.
These structural features, which are characteristic of Gothic art, appear in a number of Armenian monuments from the end of the tenth through the thirteenth century...
> ...there are, nonetheless, such points of similarity that Baltrusaitis wonders whether these experiments of the Armenian architects should not be taken into consideration along with the other factors which contributed to the creation of the Gothic style, and whether the European church-builders did not profit "from the lessons of a mature art the renown of which had spread far beyond its frontiers......"
Gothic art was the pinnacle of western civilization btw. Classical architecture is a snoozefest.
>Gothic art was the pinnacle of western civilization
Baroque in any case
Umm in that case (Notre Dame), funnily yes.
> When designing Gothic cathedrals, medieval builders drew on sacred measurements laid out in the pages of the Bible. This manuscript reveals that, to the builders of Notre Dame, the dimensions of Solomon's Temple were profoundly important: 30 cubits to the first level, and 60 cubits to the second level. These numbers are built into Notre Dame.
But how israeli was solomon's temple architecturally speaking? What is "israeli architecture"? How israeli was this "israeli architecture"?
The Roman writer Dio says
> “That the israelites are distinguished from other nations by their whole mode of living, but particularly by the fact that they do not honor any of the other gods, adoring only one and with great fervor. The Temple in Jerusalem is very large and beautiful. The day of Saturn on which they fulfill a number of particular rites and refrain from doing any serious work is consecrated to the Sanctuary."
Did you read that? Solomon temple was “Large and beautiful” to the Romans.
The Roman writer Tacitus on German temple architecture
> They [Germans] conceive it unworthy the grandeur of celestial beings to confine their deities within walls, or to represent them under a human similitude: woods and groves are their temples; & they affix names of divinity to that secret power, which they behold with the eye of adoration alone.
> It is well known that none of the German nations inhabit cities; or even admit of contiguous settlements. They dwell scattered and separate, as a spring, a meadow, or a grove may chance to invite them. Their villages are laid out, not like ours in rows of adjoining buildings; but every one surrounds his house with a vacant space, either by way of security against fire, or through ignorance of the art of building. For, indeed, they are unacquainted with the use of mortar and tiles; and for every purpose employ rude unshapen timber, fashioned with no regard to pleasing the eye. They bestow more than ordinary pains in coating certain parts of their buildings with a kind of earth, so pure and shining that it gives the appearance of painting. They also dig subterraneous caves, and cover them over with a great quantity of dung. These they use as winter-retreats, and granaries; for they preserve a moderate temperature; and upon an invasion, when the open country is plundered, these recesses remain unviolated, either because the enemy is ignorant of them, or because he will not trouble himself with the search
>Solomon temple was “Large and beautiful” to the Romans.
Built by Greek architects. Those goatfuckers could barely come up with a tent lmao
behold, the pinnacle of israeli architecture
the second temple was built under the achaeminids and expanded by herod
That's the temporary one they used when they were nomads. Read the damn book, you stupid heathen nagger.
>he thinks Christianity is the same as the Bible
Constantinople was bigger and better on any conceivable metric than all the cities of the west put together.
Without Constantinople there wouldn't have been no "renaissance" and nothing downstream of it.
Spain's greatest painter was a literal Greek from Constantinople. Entire rows of humanists were Byzantine.
Basileia Ton Rhomaion > Rome, western cope notwithstanding.
unironically yes, it was the church who financed those buildings and promote those styles
Yeah. Idiot doesn’t know his history. Gothic architecture literally derives from an Abbot of a monastery. And who could be more Christian than monks and abbots?
> In the 12th century, the Abbot Suger rebuilt portions of the abbey church using innovative structural and decorative features. In doing so, he is said to have created the first truly Gothic building.
Nah I’m positive Suger or his relatives would’ve done the exact same thing if they were all pagans, because they were based Faustian spirit EVROPEANS. Gothic architecture is just something inherent in Frankish/Gaulish blood
Western society exists today because of Jerusalem and Athens.
Western society exists because of Greco-Romans, Semites, and Germanic barbarians. Without one you’d get something totally different.
That's nice Ben Shapoopy, you can return to your semitic deserts any time now.
Ancient Greeks and ancient israelites were equally foreign to the ancient Germanics and Celts. Keep coping and larping.
you mean SYRIA PALAESTINA?
Even the greeks were semitic.
>Not afraid of scholarly controversy, Gordon challenged traditional theories about Greek and Hebrew cultures. In the 1960s, he declared his examination of Cretan texts in the Minoan language corroborated his long-held theory that Greek and Hebrew cultures stemmed from a common Semitic heritage. He asserted that this culture spanned the eastern Mediterranean from Greece to Palestine during the Minoan era. Gordon's student, Michael Astour, published the most comprehensive treatment of this controversial thesis in his monumental Helleno-Semitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece (1965).
>Gordon also held that israelites, Phoenicians, and others crossed the Atlantic in antiquity, ultimately arriving in both North and South America. This opinion was based on his own work on the Bat Creek inscription found in Tennessee and on the transcription of the alleged Paraiba inscription from Brazil, as well as his assessment of the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone.
Larpers will always keep pretending that the EVROPEAN Greeks were closer to snowniggas in the bumfuck forests of Northern Europe than they were to their literal next door neighbors who they constantly traded with.
They are Mediterraneans, this dumb tugging war between MENAgroids with Nords about southern europeans is stupid, the identity is Mediterranean.
Semites are Mediterraneans as well
No, you aren't, Mediterranean is a term exclusive for Southern European as Baltic is a term exclusive for 3 nations not counting Germs, Poles and Scandinavians.
That pathetic MENA try of link themselves to Southern European is not taken never seriosly because everybody knows is inferiority complex moving them to trying to be Southern Europeans.
Lol no it isn't. Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine be are all Mediterranean countries along with all the north African states . Turkey also although they are not arabic
You aren't mediterraneans and no matter how much you cope on that, you are and will always be a MENA, a totally different culture and ethnicity.
Mediterranean means Southern European, thats why Portugal is considered a Mediterranean country despite being located in the Atlantic while Balkan slavs and you MENAs aren't despite having access to Mediterranean coast.
Other terms as peninsulars could be used, but since the term Mediterranean have been used since 19th century to refer Southern Europeans, it will stay like that.
Lol nope. Mediterraneaneans Mediterranean and I'm not MENA. You sound like a teenager
*Mediterranean means Mediterranean. It's never exclusively referred to southern Europe
>Abdul making all this chimput because you aren't Mediterranean
Even by your virgin racial definition Abduls are Mediterranean
Nice I got the IDF activated again, you joomers are pathetic lmao
Cope, goyim. We are the true hellenes. Always were, all along.
WE WUZ GREEKZ N SHIETTT
Thank God I am not a Gayreek
Why do you always spell it like that?
Because the Roman rendering instils fear into every joomer reading it. 70AD nevar4get!
Because iudea delenda est
There can be no poetry after Masada.
That's not Latium
People claiming that christianity and the church saved the legacy of antiquity always came off to me like those women who are reassured in the love of their abusive husbands whenever it happens that they slap them only twice rather than thrice. They only burnt some books, they only condemned 90% of works to oblivion by intentionally not copying them so that they could write even more israeli fanfiction, monasteries became the cemeteries of only a handful of legions, and so on.
Just stop simping for your abuser because you can't imagine anything better.
Stop getting your history from Buzzfeed. And you will never be an ancient Roman or Greek larper.
>And you will never be an ancient Roman or Greek larper.
I am just that. Deal with it.
You are a delusional tranny.
This is false there was direct continuity with the Romans. The barbarians didn't genocide the Romans or whatever, in most of the former empire they were a tiny ruling class and it took several centuries for the locals to lose their sense of Roman identity. The Greek connection did die off though I agree. The main thing with Christianity is like I said, the church can unite the Romans and barbarians, promoting the massive Roman influence we later see all over Europe. This just would not have happened with paganism. Christianity also provided an incentive for Romans to GO OUT deep into northern Europe, spreading Christianity as well as their culture.
Those tiny Roman ruling class you are referring to were mostly Christian bishops like Gregory of Tours and Isidore of Seville, which seems to be the only people who kept important positions after barbarians took power.
By tiny ruling class I was referring to the Germanic barbarians in places like Italy, Spain, North Africa, and southern France. There were a significant amount of local Roman elites who worked with the barbarians, including bishops and various patricians. This is especially clear with Merovingian Frankia.
My main point was that the church was the crucial institution that could mediate between these two peoples and eventually unite them. If neither side was Christian, much more of the former empire would be like Britain or Austria, where the Roman influence collapsed completely.
It’s technically Galilee.
w-whoa dood isn't the middle east one huge desert?
>people lived in deserts
Agriculture and civilization spread to Europe from the Fertile Crescent and there's nothing you can do to change this fact
This is low quality bait but it's worth saying christians do not claim western civ began in Palestine or with Christianity
Dirk you need to
>Stop jacking off to trannies
>Stop reacting with AWOOOGA BOOBA pepe eyes to tranny pictures
Barbarians and Romans in the late Roman Empire were united by Greeks…through their mutual hatred of them. They were considered culturally foreign and alien.
> Thus, in the year 467, one had the remarkable spectacle of a Greek-speaking emperor, Anthemius, being sent from Constantinople to take over the shattered remains of the Roman West. But he encountered considerable opposition and even abuse on the grounds he was a Greek and therefore alien. A particularly striking instance is a letter allegedly written by one of Anthemius’ Roman enemies, Arvandus, to Euric, king of the Visigoths, urging him not to make peace with the "Graecus imperator.” One needs to be fully aware of the ironic and insulting tone of those words, which sound deceptively grandiose if we translated literally as “Greek emperor.” The implication is that it is quite preposterous that Rome and the West should be ruled by a Greek speaker and, they need to be compared with the more obvious insulting term applied to Anthemius: Graeculus (“the week Greek.”)…the Roman west was discovering it had more in common with the Germans than with the “Greeks,” and within a decade it was to drop out of the empire entirely.
> Anthemius told Ricimer that he wished his daughter hadn’t married a “skinclad barbarian.” Ricimer in response dismissed Emperor Anthemius as a ‘Galatian’ or a ‘little Greek’ (Graeculus).
> We also find a clue in the western hagiographer Ennodius, who preserves for us the most detailed information we have on the final quarrel between Anthemius and Ricimer. At a certain point he describes the attempts of the Ligurian aristocracy to persuade Ricimer to accept the mediation of the saintly Epiphanius, for Ricimer has protested that Anthemius is of such ferocious temper that he hesitates to go into his presence. The latin is not clear as one might wish but merits extermination: “est nobis persona quem venerari possit quicumque, so est catholicus et Romanus, amare certe, si videre mereatur, at Graceculus.” The gist of this seems to be that even a “Graeculus” (a “wretched Greek”) could not fail to love this man if he deserved to see him, but only a “catholicus et Romanus” could possibly venerate him.
Seriously doubt that claim, Germanics at the power and mixobarbaroi mutts didn't wanted Greeks, real Latins wanted them, thats why Eastern Roman Army was received as liberators by Baetica inhabitants when they arrived and expelled the Visigoths.
Keep coping, Graeculus.