To me it is that people think of history in terms of nations and states, instead of local identities and personal loyalties.
It's the poisoning of modern society by ideology. People are simply incapable of comprehending that post-1789 ideologies can't be applied for most of human history.
>>1093978
Yeah I agree but 1789 was not the beginning of it.
>>1093983
bourgeois ideologies began at the French Revolution.
Your average peasant didn't care about nation states, but your average middle class fuckstick certainly did. The average middle class fuckstick became increasingly important during the Renaissance and, after Napoopan's rise and fall, the most important component of society.
>>1093991
>middle class existed in the Renaissance
>>1093991
Well I am actually curious who do you define as the middle class of the Renaissance and early modern period
>>1093997
Those making three ducats or more per year.
>>1094004
Again, those terms are incredibly anachronistic for that time. The people you could possibly point to as "bourgeois" or "middle class" only share a handful of characteristics that our modern middle class carry.
>To me it is that people think of history in terms of nations and states, instead of local identities and personal loyalties.
I think the guy who made that map is on the same page as you since it doesn't have Asturias
>>1094011
It's not the 16th century Venetian banker's fault that modernity has redefined the middle class definition. That doesn't mean he wouldn't be middle class for his time, falling between nobility and serfs. It's a middle of relative orientation, not of relative distance.
>>1094011
What in the fuck do you mean by "modern middle class"? Please tell me you've read Poulantzas.
>>1094029
So then you are saying the middle class was an extremely small but important class
>>1094050
kek
>>1093970
everything people say about history who aren't giving accurate representations of the ideas of respected historians.
>>1093970
A concept of nationalism has always existed even in antiquity, this misconception is an actual personal pet peeve of mine. When Vercingetorix called all the Celtics to his banner, it was on the basis of nationalism against Roman aggression.
>>1093970
>Alexander
>great
>>1094056
Sure, definitely not the 60%+ that we think of today. More like the bourgeois capitalists before they were named as such.
>>1094090
so bankers and merchants
>Everything in the middle ages was drab and colorless
>>1094082
Greater than you my friend.
>>1094165
>the world had any color before the 1930s
>the Achaemenid empire was a magical paradise ruled by ultraliberal shahanshahs who only had voluntary subjects, didnt have slavery and generally adhered to the principles of 20th century human rights
>the Han/Tang/Song could have industrialised
>the colonisation of the Americas was a genocide
>precolonial Sub-Saharan Africa had no political organisation beyond a village level
>Africa/the Middle Easts contemporary political misery is due to the borders drawn by European colonisation
>American troops made the difference on the Western Front and led to Germany's final defeat in WWI
>America was irrelevant in WWI
>WW2 was inevitable after the treaty of Versailles
>Turks aren't a kind of bipedal insect demon summoned from the netherworld by shamans from the Altai mountain range
>the Crusades were a form of proto-colonisation
>the Mongol invasions were what led to the Middle East falling behind Europe
>the Islamic Golden Age was a 5 century long blossoming of science and technology, with specifically the library of Bahdad being a first rate knowledge and research center
>the Germans suprised the French by bypassing the Maginot line, making it irrelevant
>there was no meaningful technological progression between the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the industrial revolution
>there was no meaningful technological progression during the middle ages
>>1093987
No they did not. The bourgeois ideologies are what caused the French Revolution and came along much earlier.
>>1094404
>>there was no meaningful technological progression during the middle ages
yeah, they invented a slightly refined waterwheel design and it actually worked too
>>1094404
>America was irrelevant in WWI
America kind of was irrelevant militarily. America's contribution to the war from a purely campaign contribution was diminutive. The spring offensive, which was Germany's last gasp, failed without any substantial American support.
The massive war loans and the moral boost of America's entry were certainly a shot in the arm for the cause of the allies though.
>>1094404
>precolonial Sub-Saharan Africa had no political organisation beyond a village level
No one thinks that you just have misconceptions about what the word tribal implies
>>1094444
What about all that trade though
>>1094444
nice quads
The supposed legitimacy of Isreal and all events leading to its creation.
>>1093987
Right, there was no consciousness of self for the middle classes before 1789, the French Revolution sprang out of nowhere, the American Revolution took place in a time warp the English Whig Party (and probably the House of Commons as a whole) are revisionist history, the Protestant Reformation had no class dimension, etc.
>>1094080
>A concept of nationalism has always existed even in antiquity
But not nation states. Which is what OP is about
>When Vercingetorix called all the Celtics to his banner, it was on the basis of nationalism against Roman aggression.
Nope. More like just rights as free men.
Wanting to rule all of Gallia got you branded as a fucking tyrant by the other Celtic tribes and confederations.
>>1093970
Apart of the national feels and flag stuff of the modern era, there really isn't that much of a substantial difference in that sense between a modern state this days and the Empire of Charlemagne.
You can easily replace concepts that apply today for concepts that applied backed and basically fulfilled the same task.
Say, the feels and flags of today as simbols of pertaining to a special snowflake community, aka nationalism; you have that with the church and christian proselytizing in Charlemagne's Empire.
>>1094444
Quads of truth.
>>1093970
>instead of local identities and personal loyalties.
But that's wrong too. Both are modern outlooks on life. Before ww2 it was all about ethnicity. It didn't matter what state you were in, what mattered is the language you spoke and the gods you worship. All greeks saw each other as kin, as compatriots, as a nation, even though they were divided in city states. Same with the vedes of India and the celts and the germanics, etc. etc.
This concept also existed afther the great migrations fucked europe beyond repair. New identities were formed that exist to this day. Italians were italians no matter what state they belong to, etc. etc.
This concept that your people are the people you share a country with is a new, modern concept. Like austrians are austrians and germans are germans and not the same people. Or like italian americans are american and not italian. These are modern and new concepts, same as the "there is not such thing as ethnicities, this is a 19th century invention" - another modern view of the world.
>>1096053
Genuinely good post.
I've been trying to tell folk this for a long time now, glad someone understands.
>>1094404
>>Africa/the Middle Easts contemporary political misery is due to the borders drawn by European colonisation
Maybe not everywhere, but in a lot of places. Igboland and Yorubaland could have actually been decent if they hadn't been lumped in with the useless Hausas-Fulani. And who thought that gigantic Congo blob was a good idea?
>>the Crusades were a form of proto-colonisation
Depends on what you mean by this. Early Iberian colonialism was basically seen as an extension of the Reconquista and the crusades, so in some ways the crusading ideology of Western Europe was a precursor to colonialism. Still, the Crusades themselves were no different from any other kind of medieval conquering that everyone was doing.
>>1096053
>Or like italian americans are american and not italian.
You're right for most of your post, but in this case you ignore that America is (was, perhaps) really good at assimilation and most Europeans have lost their former cultural traits, making anything more than being Anglo-American pretty laughable.
>>1096053
Not true regarding Italians. Italy was a complete clusterfuck of city-states that all had different mutually unintelligible dialects and VERY local loyalties. Even today there are a million stereotypes about the people of rival cities (Florentines are vain snobs, the Pisans are... etc)
The ruling classes were roughly divided between HRE and the papal states but they still frequently fought each other. There was no great yearning for an Italian state until the 19th century.
It's only in modern history (and even 70 years ago only 50% of Italians spoke italian as a first language) that the "Italian language" (that came from the Florentine dialect) became a thing.
People don't realize the multitude of regional dialects that have been assimilated into one uniform language as a result of political centralization and state education and just how different these dialects could be, to the point where you could have difficult understanding someone from the same country.
The enlightement misconceptions plague us to this very day. Look at the misconceptions about the middle ages:
>everyone was either a lord or a peasant (which morphed to complete absurdity when people use "peasant" as a synonym of commoner)
>filth was everywhere, nobody washed
>people hated science and philosophy
>all of the nobility and royalty was inbred and morally and sexually depraved
>inquisition burned thousands of witches every day
Ironically the early modern period was more like this description.
>>1098269
>lord or a peasant
Generally true tho.
That is If by lord you mean to include all the noble classes (which included all the bishops etc)
There was a small merchant middle class.
The peasants/serfs/villeins constituted the remaining 90% of the population in Europe and were divided into innumerable levels of freedom and property ownership.
Oh and there was an underclass as well but seriously, most people were farmers who 'rented' land from a landlord in return for various feudal dues. Even in urbanised areas like the north of Italy.
>The Rwandan genocide was anything but a myth
>>1098269
>middle ages have very little middle class
>middle classes have little social or technological progress
>middle ages have no concept of sanitation
Daily reminder that if somebody spergs out defending the Middle Ages or gets triggered by the term Dark Ages, they are most likely a Christfag remembering that period where everyone was forced to think like them.
>>1098494
>what are burghers
>what is the clergy
>>1098588
You realize that early modern period, especially the 17th century, was far more "Christfag" than the middle ages? Complete with Catholic absolutism, devastating religious civil wars and protestant witch burning.
I genuinely hate retards like you who look for an agenda behind everything.
>>1095457
>the Protestant Reformation had no class dimension
When I encounter someone who says this seriously I just give up
>>1098600
tiny fractions of the population
>>1093987
I'll take "the Dutch Republic and why anon is wrong" for $1000, Alex
>>1098640
Not that tiny, and incredibly powerful
>>1094404
>the colonisation of the Americas was a genocide
Yep, let's just blame the diseases and call it a day, right?
>>1098640
Hardly. In the 1400s Prague had around 100 000 people out of 1 million living in entire Bohemia. That's hardly "tiny fraction."
Taking one minor detail and blowing it way out of proportion, for example the "no one bathed in medieval europe" meme stems from a single quote by a renaissance quack doctor.
>ancient greece/rome/china could have industrialized earlier, the greeks even had functional steam engines
An early industrial revolution is unlikely if not outright impossible without considerable progresses within metallurgy. The improved Bessemer process among other things meant cheaper and more manageable steel, something the old Greeks did not have. Laying down mile after mile of train track was beyond the budget of any king and the technique to make the trains themselves simply did not exist.
>>1098897
Didn't China already have something like the Bessemer process?
>>1096053
I get what you are saying but look at it like this just because the Greeks saw themselves at a people it didn't make them feel any loyalty for each other. A significant portion of the Greeks fought wit the Persians. Also with the Italians there was so much internal fighting and local rivalries. I am not denying that there were definitely ethnic identities but that didn't ensure any sort of unity.
The honest truth is that we are both simplifying it is always very situation dependent and can change rappidly,
>>1098913
It's been around since the 10-11th century IIRC, but it wasn't as effective as the European method, which slashed the production costs of steel by 70-80% AFAIK. It's more or less what made steel cheap enough to kickstart the industrial revolution.
Similiar story with the printing press - it was only viable because at the time paper was relatively cheap to make compared to how much it used to cost to produce - you can forget about e.g Egypt inventing the press because papyrus is just too expensive to warrant large-scale printing for the masses.
>>1093970
Intelligence services do not "run" the world.
They are the high priests of today's society with access to forbidden knowledge, i.e. intel/military technology that is more around 30 years more advanced than plebs, great training, etc.
>>1098987
I thought the reason printing didn't work well in China was because their language has a billion letters which makes it much more expensive and time consuming to do.
Anyway I guess your point makes sense, but I'm still a bit confused. Wasn't the industrial revolution going on long before the Bessemer process? Or was European metallurgy already more advanced before then?
>>1098966
>>1098176
Not true. They were seen by themselves AND the outside world as a nation, even in the middle ages. Venetians, Romans, Florenines, etc. were all seen as italians, even though there was no italy.
Just because they had local rivalries and wars, i don't see how this negates anything I've said. People are people, they will disagree and fight and feud. No nation on earth has been spared from this. Even today there are rivalries and stereotypes between cities and regions within countries.
Again your modern outlook on the world is affecting you views on history. Borders are/were meaningless, what matters is the blood, culture, language, etc. That's what mattered to people then.
Again, a modern outlook on the world, these people warred with eachother, therefore they are different.
Two brothers fight, therefore they are not related?
Or alternately an african lion is born in north america therefore it's a cougar?
>>1098019
yeah thanks, glad to see someone else understands this. I think it's mostly anglo countries that have this modern, very american view on the world and history, even the brits have been affected, now they don't identify as "english" anymore, they refer to themselves as "white".
>>1098141
I don't see what's laughable about it. It's good that they are loyal to their new homeland, but to me it's not good to forget their roots. But that's just my opinion.
>>1098694
Ok so by the 1400's I'll concede that you had 10% in Prague. However, really the early and high middle ages had tiny tiny middle class populations in most of Europe. Your choice of time period and location is pretty exceptional.
>>1100630
I'm not talking about borders I'm talking about language. I think you're underestimating how splinted the region was, how comparatively isolated the populations were and how linguistically different they were. A Sicilian would not have understood a thing a Venetian was saying.
I don't believe you when you say that "people were seen as Italians". City and region took precedence long before anyone identified as Italian.
>>1098622
Why? I don't know much about the Reformation, but from at the very least a superficial look it seems like a valid argument to make
>>1100658
It's funny because there still is an element of an "american" ethnicity in certain white communities. Especially those that didn't experience massive immigration after the American Revolution. I agree though, the modern nation-state is an inversion of itself whereas just being a citizen of the state makes you a part of the nation. I blame two things, massive immigration to western countries and the negative view towards extreme nationalism after WW2.
>>1094404
>>Africa/the Middle Easts contemporary political misery is due to the borders drawn by European colonisation
>>WW2 was inevitable after the treaty of Versailles
>>the Mongol invasions were what led to the Middle East falling behind Europe
>>specifically the library of Bahdad being a first rate knowledge and research center
>>the Germans suprised the French by bypassing the Maginot line, making it irrelevant
Care to back any of these up?
>>1100807
Not him, but the middle east was always very heterogeneous, especially under the ottomans. How are you supposed to properly create nations states when the country is nothing but desert with over half the population living in a city that is 40% Sunni, 20% shia, 20% Christian, 10% jew. If anything, idealistic Arab nationalism fucked up the middle east by ignoring ethnic and tribal divisions.
>>1100807
Originally the Maginot line was supposed to cover the whole border but Belgium wouldn't let France do that. So they planned the entire time on having to meet the German army in Belgium.
>>1100630
Well I never denied their being an identtiy but what I am saying is that identity didn't mean as much as you make it seem. Most people wouldn't fight or care about some larger Italian ideal.
Also you act like culture was put into neat dividing units. The city states of northern Italy shared very little culture with Sicily. And Like I said identities changed over time.
>>1100765
No, you are wrong.
Yes, people spoke diverse dialects, those dialects exist today, they are not unique to Italy.
Yes it was splintered politically, not culturally, they were all connected to each other and they moved freely from city to city.
>I don't believe you when you say that "people were seen as Italians".
then you have no idea what you're talking about, famous Italian composers, merchants, artists, etc. were called Italian by their contemporaries, not "piedmontian" or "lombardian" or "milanian" or whatever.
>>1101319
I'm not sure what exactly what you're trying to say here? That people were people and had their own interests and struggles and weren't drones living their life for the borg collective? Well no shit, genius.
