What is "western civilization", /int/?
Where does it begin, and where does it end?
Start with the Greeks
>>332393
western civilization is literally just Europeans
>>332393
Germanic people should all perish
>>332404
That would be absolutely terrible
Central and Western Europe, America, and Australia are the heart of Western civilization. Russia is the black sheep of the family. Latin America is the adopted child.
>>332393
>Our culture, as compared to other cultures, is one of directedness and will; Spengler refers to it as Faustian. We see our religion as requiring us to convert others. Our art has a perspective, a point of view and direction. Our music is directed toward a tonal center. Our science is about forces and changes. We apply it to change our world. Our mathematics goes beyond the static geometry of the Classical world to deal with the calculus of tendencies and averages.
>>332427
Each High Culture has as a distinguishing feature a "prime symbol" or soul, generally derived from its religion, which permeates its art, science, and politics:
Egyptian: the "Path" (preoccupation with the sequential passages of the soul)
Classical: the "point-present" (preoccupation with the neighborhood, the domestic, the space of immediate visibility: Euclidean geometry, two-dimensional painting and relief-sculpture, lack of facial expression of Grecian statues)
Western: the "Faustian" soul (upward reaching for the absolute/infinite, as in the vertical style of Gothic cathedrals and classical music)
>>332393
>mfw that map is probably of british origin
>mfw virtually every intellectual achievement in the british isles was achieved by people outside the confines of western civilization
>>332424
>colonies
>the heart of western civilization
>wtf
>>332427
>welshman
>>332448
Yes, because their populations are almost entirely of Western and Central European descent.
I don't consider the Greeks "western". They were in the near eastern neighborhood. It's like calling Lutherans a Jewish sect.
>>332470
retarded fucker...
>>332470
In a euro centric (as in focusing on Europe) view they are eastern. On a world view, they are western.
>>332470
The Greeks literally invented the "west".
Our culture, western culture, almost completely comes from Greek culture.
>>332459
And so fucking what ? The core of western civilization is western europe, the americas are but an offspring of it.
>that random cutoff of austria and moravia in op pic
>>332481
No, "our culture" is a distorted rendition of Greek philosophy and society because of western intellectuals masturbating to them.
It's not the same as the Greeks laying the actual foundation for it. The Greeks didn't give a fuck about the people who actually inhabited most of Europe and didn't directly impose themselves on them unlike the Romans.
>>332481
>The Greeks literally invented the "west".
No they didn't. There was no concept of "the west" during ancient times, how could the Greeks have invented it? Western culture was heavily influenced by ancient Greece, that doesn't make Greece (ancient or modern) Western.
>>332482
I'd say westernized countries not of direct European descent countries are the ones you should be the ones you should making a distinction over.
>>332507
*are the ones you should be making a distinction over
>>332516
There were Greek colonies in Spain and France I suppose
>>332516
You forgot about southern Spain...
>>332393
'Western Civilization' is the civilization of (western) Europe.
It begins with Greece. It ends with the zionist-sanctioned European caliphate.
>>332516
>Europe at the time, outside of Greece and Italy, was uncivilized.
That's my problem. There's no real foundation or connection. Western intellectuals could've picked up Buddhism instead of Plato and it wouldn't make East Asia "the beginning of western civilization".
>>332552
But that didn't happen and Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian morality are the foundations of Western civilisation
>>332552
What the fuck are you talking about? The history of Europe starts with the minoan civilization, and from then on Greece went on to become the heart of what sets the West apart from India, Iran or China...
Tragedy and Comedy
Sports tradition
Euclidean geometry
Architecture styles
Warfare tradition
Philosophy
Christianity
Western canon starts in Greece.
>>332594
Again there's a difference between "Greeks colonized Europe and brought their culture and institutions with them which evolved into present-day Western civilization" and later independent adaptions of Greek society.
We build neoclassical buildings and statues in white marble because they were interpreted as such while they were actually colored.
What was so special about Greece anyway? Why did they leap ahead of everyone else?
>>332393
It starts with the Allies after WW2 and ends with the collapse of the USSR
>>332393
Begins and ends with white people.
Culture and nations are determined and shaped by the peoples that give rise to them.
It begins in the 10th century in France.
It ends with the whole world basically, but core areas have historically been Western Europe (Italy, Iberia, Britain, Netherlands, Germany).
>>332648
Contact with the Near East
>people still think Hellenic and Western civilsations are one and the same
That's a Renaissance myth. They're two different civilisations, separated by almost a thousand years. Westerners have always been extremely Greco-Romanboo (but then so have Near Easteners), but Western culture was something fundamentally different. Just look at medieval art and you can see it's original and completely disconnected from Hellenic art. The same goes for every aspect of civilisation. It's only Renaissance Italians who rejected the previous 1500 years of history and tried to delude themselves into believing they were the direct continuation of the Romans.
>>332947
But how did they get ahead of the Middle East?
From the Coronation of Charlemagne to the end of the first WW1.
Anybody who thinks that western civilisation started with the Ancient Greeks (Who had more in common with Indians than they did with Celts or Germans) Is Historicity illiterate
>>333011
The Carolingian Renaissance was really just an imitation of Byzantine art, culture, politics etc though.
It was a fundamental step since it reconnected the West to civilisation and did many other things necessary to create the right conditions for a civilisation to emerge in Western Europe, but I don't think you can talk about a Western civilisation until the West started creating things that were fundamentally new, which happened in the 10th century.
>>333011
Yes lets just ignore how western culture was built on the ideas of the Greeks and Romans, with half of Europe claiming to be new Rome.
>>333042
Claiming something doesn't make it so.
>"Africa begins at the Pyrenees" Dumas
>Dumas is half-black
>"Greece is all the Turkish vices"
>Byron dies fighting for Greek independence
>>333068
Dumas never actually said that.
>>333042
>Western Culture
>Ancient Greeks
The Greeks and Romans impacted many non-European civilisations, it does not mean that western civilisation for what we know it today comes DIRECTLY from the Greeks.
>>332924
>Western core not including Britain or Netherlands
shit opinions m8
>>333011
It's not about what they had in common, it's the idea of historical succession
>>332393
A meme
>>333085
But it does you colourblind fuck.
>>332481
They also invented the Eastern Europe.
And between the two Greece is decidedly more eastern.
>>332459
>niggers, spics, gooks and Jews
Yeah m8 sure.
>>333042
>Greek civilization was built on foundations set by Egypt and Mesopotamia.
>Therefore, Egypt and Mesopotamia were Greek.
That's basically what you're arguing.
>>332924
>that arbitrary bullshit division in Moravia
>>332924
Pooland, Baltics, Hungary, Slovenia, and Slovakia should be added to the Periphery. Other than that, pretty good.
This belief that we belong to the same civiliation as ancient Greece is related to the old "three eras" conception of history, which dates back to the 11th century, and which in its most common form goes: Antiquity - Middle Ages - Modern Era. To which we've since had to append nonsense like "Contemporary Era", "New Era" etc.
This stems from a belief in a linear history, and from ignorance about all ancient civilisations other than the ancient Greeks. When ancient Egypt became fashionable, it still worked, we just added that in between Prehistory and Greek Antiquity. But then we started becoming aware of Mesopotamians, Indians, Chinese, etc, and at some point it should become painfully obvious that this model falls apart, because as it turns out the surface of the Earth is more than one-dimensional.
So can we please stop with this nonsense?
>>333161
Might have used /pol/ lingo but it's still correct. I don't see how blacks or Mexicans are somehow European.
>>332470
"The west" isn't a geographical marker you autist, it's cultural
Western civilization is literally greeks > hellenes > romans > christendom, a more or less straight line in influence that permeated this civilization
>>333162
12th century actually, sorry.
Originally it went: the time of the Father - of the Son - and of the Holy Ghost, with the last one starting with the Crusades.
>>333176
>America
>not Western civilization
>>333193
Mesopotomians, Indians and the Chinese are not civilizations deeply influenced by graeco-roman thought
There's nothing wrong with the concept of western civilization
>>333201
But Muslims are deeply influenced by Greco-Roman thought. So are Muslims Western then?
>>333201
Near Eastern is. Are we part of the same civilisation as the Muslims? Because they're just as ancient Greek as we are.
>>333208
Muslims are fucking Muslims. Their culture is muslim culture, which is different from western culture, which is different from indian culture, which is different from iranian culture, which is different from chinese culture...
C'mon, it's not that hard to understand.
>>333212
So fucking what? The core of western civilization is mesopotamia and egypt, the rest of Europe and the Middle East 8 but an offspring of it.
>>333176
American culture is as much an offshoot of European culture 400 years ago as modern the cultures of modern European countries are. The native populations of most of North America and Australia were almost utterly displaced. The immigrants of those countries not from the European diaspora were subsumed by Western culture.
If you want to talk about offshoots of Western culture then I would look to Japan and South Korea.
>>333218
Which is different from Greek culture.
>>333218
That doesn't address what I said at all.
>>333225
Except it isn't. Greek culture (not the same as the greek nation) is at the heart of western culture.
>>333236
It's also at the heart of Orthodox and Islamic culture.
>>333235
What things about Muslims are influenced by the classics?
Not the architecture.
Not the social norms.
Not the family structure.
Not the warfare style.
Not the literature.
Not the art.
Not the religion.
Not the philosophy.
>>333236
No it's not. Western culture appeared in Western Europe around the 10th century. It's separated from ancient Greece both geographically and chronologically by almost a millennium. And the West has nothing more in common with ancient Greece than the Muslims do.
Should Russia be included in Western civilization? Their culture seems to have the same roots as what is general defined as Western civilization but diverging only in geography and political interests.
>>333218
>which is different from iranian culture
So what are Muslim Iranians then?
>>333259
None of that is significantly influenced by ancient Greece in the West either, except for philosophy which is the same for the Muslims.
>>333266
The main trait of Western culture is Christianity, which was developed by the Greeks. You can't just choose a point in history and say "now here is western culture, and the rest is not western culture"
>>332635
You are splitting hairs/pushing your personal idea of what it mean to be Western instead of taking a step back and looking at it from a historical pov.
The Greeks did not need to personally spread their culture to be the founders of western civ.
The Greeks were just being greeks, ie western. The Romans picked it up and was like oh fuck, this is dope shit let's take it, improve some/most and add our little twist to it. Their mark was mostly an imperial one (look at their rendition of the greek gods) which was how they were able to set the foundation of what it ment to be western a across europe. After they fell the rest of Europe scrapped togeather what they could from their ruins and here we are today
>>333273
It doesn't have the same roots at all. It's just Westernised in a colonial sense, but it has a strong native soul that resists against it. Russia is a civiliation struggling to be born.
>>333283
>Christianity was developed by the Greeks
Oh for fuck's sake...
And even if this wasn't utter bullshit, it would still apply to the Orthodox and Muslim world just the same.
>>332995
Their culture promoted free thought and sn open discourse of ideas. When you have a philosopher class you are going to get shit done
>>333259
M8, the Umayyads basically just copied the Eastern Romans. Their architecture, literature, philosophy, administration, institutions, and so on, were all Byzantine. They also adopted Persian culture in the Abbasid period, but that was limited to the east. Do you think that a bunch of barbarian Arabs just built a completely unique civilization out of nothing? No, they adopted the cultures they conquered just like the Franks did.
>>333293
AFAIK Christianity was invented by the Romans and Greeks after they stole it from a cult born from Hellenized Jews.
>>333285
You obviously don't know enough history to discuss this intelligently.
>>333259
>Not the architecture.
How is almost every mosque using Byzantine domes and arches not an example of Classical influence?
>Not the social norms
You mean besides the way women are treated
>Not the family structure
Besides the patriarch and his extended family living in the same complex complete with his household slaves.
>Not the warfare style
The Arabs were considered the most dangerous of Byzantine enemies because they most copied the Byzantine style of war.
etc.
>>333301
So did the Japanese, yet they aren't "western".
>>333273
Russia is either a unique civilization or a part of Orthodox civilization. Either way, it's not Western. It only seems Western because they adopted Western culture in the last few centuries, but they're no more Western than the Turks or Japanese in that sense.
>>333302
Christianity appeared in Judea. It then spread around the Mediterranean. It's in no way part of ancient Greek culture. Neither is Islam (which according to your logic is Greek too).
>>333283
>You can't just choose a point in history and say "now here is western culture, and the rest is not western culture"
Yes you can.
>>333319
What the fuck. Christianity is a Roman-Greek invention. The New Testament was originally written in Greek for fucks sake.
>>333285
>The Greeks were just being greeks, ie western
That's just circular reasoning now
>>333312
What the fuck.
What?
>>333304
Well when you can refute what I said maybe I'll take you opinion for something other than trash.
>>333311
I agree with you on the West and Hellenics being separate civilisations, but I just want to point out that the Hellenics and Byzantines/Muslims are also two separate civilisations. The Muslims had much in common with the Byzantines because they belong to the same Near Eastern civilisation, and the connections they appear to have to ancient Rome (such as religion or domes in architecture) are not actually Hellenic civilisation but "Late Rome", which was already the beginning of that Near Eastern civilisation.
>>333332
The Japanese adopted Western industry, administration, institution, warfare, etc. Yet they aren't more western than the indians.
>>333298
>When you have a philosopher class you are going to get shit done
Well, back then at least that is true. Getting shit done these days is relegated to investing in science. But they didn't have science back then.
>>333312
The West was brought to Japan. The Arabs were long periphery to, then part of, and finally conquerors of the old Roman Empire and the Hellenic World of the Eastern Mediterranean.
>>333334
>After they fell the rest of Europe scrapped togeather what they could from their ruins and here we are today
I'm not going to explain 1500 years of history to you just to show how absolutely idiotic this sentence is.
>>333319
Are you just taking the piss m8 or actually this uneducated?
>>332594
>>>332552
>What the fuck are you talking about? The history of Europe starts with the minoan civilization, and from then on Greece went on to become the heart of what sets the West apart from India, Iran or China...
>Tragedy and Comedy
>Sports tradition
>Euclidean geometry
>Architecture styles
>Warfare tradition
>Philosophy
>Christianity
>Western canon starts in Greece.
>>333330
All of these things were greek culture and over time those things spread and evolved to what we call western civilization. Albeit I did slap that post togeather quick while I was pooping so it did come out a shitty.
>>333286
If I'm not mistaken all of Russia's cultural roots comes from Eastern Roman Empire and most of their actual people are from further south and only built large cities like Moscow that far North because they were fleeing the Golden Horde.
>>333357
Your right Rome after its fall had no baring on the rest of Europe at all. What was I thinking
>>333366
All of those things are just as present in Islam as in the West.
According to your logic Muslims are Westerners.
>>333343
>Yet they aren't more western than the indians.
How? In what way are they not Western?
They adopted Western civilization entirely. They still have remnants of their original culture, but Japan today is hardly a Confucian society. They're Westernized.
>>333313
>Orthodox
>not Western civilization
But they are the freaking spawn of both Rome and Greece? How could they possibly get more Western?
>>333340
You can't separate The West and the Classics. The Classics may be their own thing on their own, but if you take away the classics from the west, then it's not the west anymore.
Western Culture is a collection of periods of the European tradition:
Classical culture -> Christianity -> Renaissance and humanism -> Enlightenment and liberalism -> Modernity
>>333355
Philosophy was proto science.
>>333383
We didn't build a civilisation out of staring at the ruins of the Colosseum.
>>333386
Japanese is just Western in administration and economy, but not in culture.
Their family structures are different, their social norms are different, their history is completely disconnected from western history, etc...
>>333387
So is Islam.
Western civilization is the product of continuous cultural development through the Carolingian, Romanesque, Gothic, and Renaissance periods. Orthodoxy, like Islam, never went through those. They're a separate branch of Greco-Roman civilization.
>>333385
Yeah and there is philosophy in China. but eastern philosophy was just as different to Western philosophy as we're that list compared to their counter parts in the middle east and the rest of the world.
>>333392
Western civilisations had several outside influences. These include Greco-Roman culture, Christianity, Germanic culture, some Celtic elements, perhaps more. Out of all this, a new civilisation was born around the 10th century. One which has almost nothing in common with ancient Greece other than some superficial elements of form.
Just like how ancient Greece was born out of influences from Egypt and Mesopotamia, but that doesn't make it the same civilisation as either Egypt or Mesopotamia.
>European tradition
Stop using expressions that have no meaning.
>>333424
I agreed with the first two sentences of your post, but calling muslims a separate branch of Greco-Roman civilization is just outright retarded.
>>333428
Islamic philosophy is even more based on Greek philosophy than Western philosophy is.
Face it if we're ancient Greeks, then so are Muslims.
>>333412
>family structures are different, their social norms are different
Do you think family structures and social norms in 12th century England were the same as those of ancient Greece?
>their history is completely disconnected from western history
Germanic history was completely disconnected from Greco-Roman history before they actually adopted their culture. Does that mean Germans aren't Western?
>>333438
It's exactly as retarded as calling the West that.
>>333377
No, The ancient Capital was in Kiev but the Rus extended all the way to Fennoscandia.
>>333450
>Does that mean Germans aren't Western?
On one hand, Germany did have a different development than the rest of Europe... as it was excluded not just from classical culture, but also liberalism.
>>333438
Why? They're a mix of Greco-Roman and Sassanid civilizations, but the Sassanid influence isn't as strong as the Greco-Roman.
>>333459
What I mean is that the West grew out of Greco-Roman culture, while becoming something completely new, not that they were actually the same as Greco-Romans.
>>333502
I don't think you can even say that it "grew out of Greco-Roman culture", considering that culture was long dead by the time the West started appearing, and that there were several other sources of influence (Christian, Germanic, Celtic).
>>333412
>>Their family structures are different
Not really. The only marked difference is the veneration of elders to a degree we do not see in the west, and this was largely due to Chinese influence via Confucianism. It wasn't as strong as on mainland Asia, but it was still present.
>their social norms are different
Not since the Meiji Restoration really. A lot of old Japanese customs were essentially thrown out in attempt to 'modernize' (read: westernize) the country. Modern Japan in many ways resembles America circa 1950 (though in other ways it feels distinctly alien). If I had to summarize very crudely the biggest difference between the west and Japan it would be that Japanese society is still very much governed by shame rather than guilt, and because of this they put a great deal of emphasis on maintaining outward dignity, as a result their social norms resemble conservative American ones from a few decades ago, especially regarding gender roles.
>their history is completely disconnected from western history
They've had dealings with the west for at least 400 years, that's a pretty significant chunk of time and indeed it was interaction with the west that shaped modern Asia, not just Japan. Though I will grant you everything which we think of as uniquely Japanese is a result of their isolation from the west.
>>333512
Western civilization grew when Frankish kingdoms adopted culture from the Mediterranean world which was very much rooted in Rome. I'm not saying the West was just a copy-paste of Greco-Roman civilization, but it grew out of it in the same sense that Greek civilization grew out of Egyptian and Mesopotamian influence. It didn't grow in a vacuum, it was a mix of different influences with Greco-Roman being the most important.
Greco-Roman culture was hardly dead by the time the West arose. It had changed hugely, but it never just collapsed. Civilizations change all the time without necessarily needing to be called a new thing. The West today is nothing like the West in the 10th century, but we call it the same thing because there was a continuous line of development.
>>332393
The concept called "Western Civilisation" is a relatively current phenomenon with it's most obvious formative years being the renaissance and enlightenment.
It is a cultural mode that tends to look to past examples of it's own ideals and values and naming them it's direct ancestors, thus creating a mythology for itself that ties it into the common understanding of European and world history by declaring itself the (spiritual) successor to the ancient Greeks (especially democratic Athens) and the Roman Republics and Empire.
Any discrepancy between the ideal western civilisation as it is conceived by those who identify with it and the practice of their daily lives is blamed on "the dark ages" where, in their minds, religion suppressed reason and science.
Western civilisation is an idea mostly held by the white peoples of Europe and North America and often recognized as excluding countries that may have adopted large parts of the associated culture like Japan and Russia.
In practice, a lot of what is considered "western" may be considered to have it's roots in the much maligned middle or dark ages as well as ancient Germanic cultures that are often seen as barbarians in order to stay in keeping with the Athens-Rome-Nasty Shit-Renaissance-Western Europe-USA USA USA USA narrative. Also, eastern cultures had an influence but there is much debate as well as smoke and mirrors about what this influence was in the name of (todays) politics.
>>333502
>>What I mean is that the West grew out of Greco-Roman culture
What you mean to say is the west grew out of Catholicism, since that's the only real link between Rome and the emergence of Western European culture. The barbarians who settled formerly Roman lands were converted by the Roman Church and after a few centuries of civilizing gradually picked up where the Romans left off.
If you look beyond superficialities, Hellenic and Western civilisations are actually about as different as two civilisations can be.
Hellenic culture ignores time. Western culture is obsessed with it.
Hellenic culture focuses on the point, the clearly defined physical shape. Western culture sees the universe as an infinite expanse.
Hellenic culture sees man as a victim of fate. Western culture sees man as a character who makes his own fate.
And many other examples. In fact the West is more similar to Chinese or Egyptian civilisations than to the Hellenic, even if it still differs from them fundamentally.
>>333573
What part of Western culture are you referring to? Cause it sounds like you're talking about Wester culture post-Enlightenment, which is sort of dumb because the whole point of the Enlightenment is that it completely changed the governing ideas of western society.
>>333518
>For once, the arabs conquered Egypt, Syria, North Africa and Spain, which had, at that point, historically being part of the greco-roman classical world.
Yeah, but once they conquered those areas they just adopted the local culture. Of course they had their own religion and ideology, but they couldn't administer their new empire without adopting the civilizations they conquered. Thus, they ended up deriving a lot of their culture from Greco-Roman culture, including architecture, philosophy, administration, etc. They also adopted Sassanid influence, and this had huge influence in the eastern Islamic world.
>It didn't "grew out of" it, but rather, things grew on top of what was already established.
That's kind of what I'm saying. I guess we just mean different things by 'grew out of it'.
>>333557
The West today actually is fundamentally the same as the West of the 10th century, and fundamentally different from ancient Greece or Rome. One has to look beyond the superficial and ultimately irrelevant, and to what drives a civilisation, what lies at the heart of it. See >>333573
This is an unfashionable statement in a time when the discourse is dominated by radical materialism, but the fact is that each civilisation is something unique, each follows a path that is its own.
Look at Cluniac art, or Gothic architecture, the earliest original styles produced in the West. And tell me how did those "grow out of" Greco-Roman art? What does a Gothic cathedral possibly have in common with a Greek temple that would justify postulating a blood relation between the two?
>>333588
I'm talking about all of Western culture, from its birth in the 10th century to today.
>>333622
>the earliest original styles produced in the West.
No, the earliest original styles produced in the West are the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian. Gothic is a style that came much later.
>>333573
What other characteristics does hellenic culture have?
>>333564
>What you mean to say is the west grew out of Catholicism, since that's the only real link between Rome and the emergence of Western European culture
Well yeah, but that's hardly a small link. The church was pretty much the basis for Western civilization in its early years. Western intellectual thought was derived from Christian Rome, as was architecture and art.
>>333638
Absolutely autistic.
>>333652
You're the autistic one saying that the West has nothing to do with the Classics just because some ex-pagans in France built shit differently.
>>333622
Gothic architecture developed from Romanesque architecture, which developed from Ottonian architecture, which developed from Carolingian architecture, which was derived from Byzantine architecture at Ravenna, which was derived from Late Roman architecture, which was derived from Imperial Roman architecture, which was derived from Greek architecture.
It's ridiculous to suggest that the modern Westerners have some kin of kindred spirit with medieval Franks. Civilizations can change hugely over time, what defines them isn't some mystic spirit but a common continuous cultural development. Tokugawa Japanese didn't have anything in common with Shang Dynasty Chinese, but they're both East Asian because of the continuous cultural development between the two.
There was also a continuous cultural development from Greece to the West, but we don't call them the same thing because there was also a continuous development from Greece to Orthodoxy and Islam.
I think you're treating civilizations too much like living things and not just as convenient categories for understanding cultures.
>>333728
>>333648
Well I summed up the fundamentals of Hellenic world view, but you can see it reflected in every aspect of Hellenic culture. From their religion, where the gods are literal physical bodies (although themselves subjected to fate), to their mathematics, which is geometry, the study of physical defined shapes. Or their art, which focuses on the outward shape of the human body as set in stone. Or their politics, based on the city-state, a clearly defined point in space. Or their tragedy, where figures are only defined by the role assigned to them by fate. Or their complete lack of historical consciousness where everything past a generation just dissolves into mythology.
All of this is to be contrasted with the infinity and eternity of the immaterial Catholic God, with the Western physical concepts of force and momentum and their mathematical infinite expressions in calculus, with the Gothic cathedrals stretching forcefully into the sky or with the depth of perspective in painting or polyphony in music, with dynastic politics, with Western tragedy, with the Western obsession with time that goes from our places of worship ringing every passing hour to our worship of history to the point of preserving ancient ruins, with fundamental Western concepts such as force or character which can't even be translated into ancient Greek, just as Hellenic concepts such as soma and ataraxia can't satisfyingly be translated into our Western languages.
The Greeks borrowed a lot from Egypt, Minoans, Phoenicians etc they were as much a part of a process of diffusion of culture as anyone else. So, I wouldn't call them the beginning of western civilization but certainly the culture that they transmitted via the Romans has been the most influencial in Europe.
The middle east was also heavily influenced by greek ideas but we don't call them western. So I don't agree that greek=western. I think the idea of Western civilization is something thought up much later on by smug Europeans who, looking at their empires and wealth and thought 'we Rome nao, we enlightened western civilization' in contrast to backward 'eastern' Slavs and Arabs
>>332924
>Portugal more western than Bohemia and Hungary
>>333756
There are just as many differences between the modern culture to post-carolingian culture, as there are with post-carolingian culture to classical culture.
>>333728
I think you don't understand what it is that drives a civilisation.
It's hard to understand for a modern man, because we've lost most of it. It's hard to understand what made people build those cathedrals because we wouldn't do anything like that today. But civilisations are living things, because they are the product of the human mind, not just random apparitions conditioned only by access to certain resources.
>Gothic architecture developed from Romanesque architecture
Nothing that defines Gothic architecture existed in early Romanesque architecture.
Look at early Western art. Actually look at it. Look at Cluniac art, or at the Lindisfarne manuscripts. There is nothing about this that relates to either ancient Greek or Byzantine art in any way.
>>333847
Can you name any such differences?
>>333876
To start with, humanism, the enlightenment and liberalism completely revolutionized western society and thought.
>>333873
You're imagining a civilization is some kind of magical state of mind shared by everyone living under a common culture. They're not. They're just groups of people who go through a common cultural, intellectual, and material development. There's no magical force 'driving' a civilization.
You can't seriously believe that an 11th century Frank has more in common with a modern Frenchman than an 11th century Moor.
>Nothing that defines Gothic architecture existed in early Romanesque architecture.
Gothic architecture is just Romanesque architecture with a different style of decoration and slightly different structure.
>Cluniac art
Like I said, Romanesque grew out of Ottonian art.
>Lindisfarne manuscripts
That's insular art. It has anglo-saxon style decoration along with Mediterranean style miniatures (pic related). It had some influence on Carolingian art but ultimately died off to be replaced by more Continental styles which were derived from Byzantium.
You seem to be just focusing in the differences between the West and Rome while ignoring all the similarities in order to support your preconceived ideas. You could use the same arguments to claim that China wasn't one civilization.
>>333967
Forgot the picture.
>>333986
And here's another produced by the same culture at about the same time.
>>333949
They never changed the fundamentals of our civilisation. Whatever the ideology they follow, Westerners always think of it as universal, infinite, eternal, all-encompassing. Radically different from the epicurianism or stoicism focused on the self, every Western ideology is just a stand-in for the omnipotent Catholic God. Even socialism, the most hostile to Christianity, is nothing but an atheist version of Catholicism.
As for Enlightenment, it's the direct continuation of medieval Catholic thought.
>>333967
Explain how until recently, the entirety of Western civilisation followed the same art movements, and created all art in the same style at any given time; with only minor regional variations. Is that also "magic"?
>Gothic architecture is just Romanesque architecture with a different style of decoration and slightly different structure.
OK you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, holy shit. If you live in Western Europe, go into a Romanesque church sometime, and then into a Gothic cathedral.
>Lindisfarne
Pic related is obviously what I'm talking about, that's what those manuscripts are remarkable for. Show me anything like that in Greece.
>all the similarities
Care to name some?
>>332393
up your ass and around the corner.
>>332397
I really don't care about a bunch of faggots like the so called "greeks"
>>332393
>>334097
>Explain how until recently, the entirety of Western civilisation followed the same art movements, and created all art in the same style at any given time
Mostly because they were connected by a common cultural, political, and intellectual tradition which meant that ideas were quickly transmitted from one area to another. Gothic art arose in France, and spread from there to other Western countries because the French were closely connected to other parts of the West. It couldn't so easily spread to, say, the Orthodox world because Orthodox Christians didn't have the same connection with Western countries that they did with other Orthodox countries. They weren't about to bring in French Catholic stonemasons from another region to built their Orthodox Churches. Of course, this eventually changed when the Russians started adopting Western architecture in the last few centuries.
>OK you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, holy shit. If you live in Western Europe, go into a Romanesque church sometime, and then into a Gothic cathedral.
I've seen plenty of Gothic Cathedrals. They have a unique style to them but they're clearly a development on Romanesque architecture. They use the same basic layout and design, but with pointed arches and more elaborate decoration. Just because it 'feels different' doesn't change that fact.
>Pic related is obviously what I'm talking about, that's what those manuscripts are remarkable for. Show me anything like that in Greece.
I don't know what point you're making here. Yes, insular art used a very different style of decoration. That's because it was pioneered in an area dominated by Anglo-Saxon art, so it adopted local styles. However, this was hugely different from the dominant styles in the rest of Western civilization, which was based on Byzantine art.
>all the similarities
Intellectual traditions based on Roman Christianity and Greco-Roman philosophy, art and architecture, etc.
>>333622
>fundamentally different from ancient Greece or Rome
only if you want to idealize pre-Christian Rome
Rome and the Catholic church are probably the most fundamental building blocks of western civilization and Ancient Greece is recognized for its influence on Rome. Anyone trying to say that Islam and the Arabs are as much a spawn of Ancient Greece as the West is is missing the point.
If it makes you feel any better, mentally replace all these kinds of references to be "Ancient Greece was the grandfather of Western Civilization".
The West is built up from a shattered and decentralized Rome and its northern influences. You can acknowledge that or not in saying it is a 10th century creation but I think it's silly not to recognize the effects Rome had on it and similarly silly not to recognize Ancient Greece's influence on Rome.
Lmao
Anyone who studies philosophy can plainly see how much we still suck off the greeks
Plato and Aristotle are pretty much the foundation of the entire western intellectual tradition, christianity in particular
>>332393
>this map and southern Italy
EYYYYY PAISAN
>>333094
It doesn't though. Britain =/= England.
>>332397
Do you have a pic like that but with the Romans?
All these moron in here thinking Islam is Western.
It was started by Arabs (who have not been part of the West before). They then conquered formerly Western countries, and of course were influenced by what they found. However, they also conquered Persia, as well as a spread Islam to formerly Buddhist and Hinduist countries. Is Indonesia now also Western, just because Byzantinian architecture had an influence on the Arabs in formerly Christian lands?
>>338137
>It was started by Arabs (who have not been part of the West before).
That's not a fair argument because most of Europe isn't ethnically Greco or Roman.
>>338137
>Is Indonesia now also Western, just because Byzantinian architecture had an influence on the Arabs in formerly Christian lands?
Yes, if one uses the same logic that says the Swedes are Western just because Byzantine architecture had an influence on the Franks in formerly Roman lands.
Arab-Persian Islam is one of three cultures, alongside the Greek-Slavic Orthodox and the Latin Frankish, that descend from Classical Greco-Roman influence. It's the Latin Frankish vein that eventually becomes Western.
>>332393
Did nobody in the thread realize he asked /int/ this question and not /his/?
>>338285
But A-rabs are dark skinned. Westerners are supposed to be white. How am I supposed to take credit for accomplishments of Western civilization instead of taking blame for my shitty lack of actual personal accomplishments if members of western civilization don't even look like me?
>>338386
>>338285
First of all, this has nothing to do with race. You should go back to /lit/.
Second, the Arabs were not part of the Western civilization at any time. "Arab-Persian Islam" did not descend from Classical Greco-Roman influences. Islam just integrated some of the pre-Islamic architecture etc in the formerly Christian/Zoroastrian/Buddhist/Hindu lands it conquered.
>>338386
>But A-rabs are dark skinned.
So are the Portuguese and the Spaniards but nobody challenges they're western.
>>338386
>>338492
>>338511
>But A-rabs are dark skinned. Westerners are supposed to be white. How am I supposed to take credit for accomplishments of Western civilization instead of taking blame for my shitty lack of actual personal accomplishments if members of western civilization don't even look like me?
I'm so fucking sick of reading shit on the internet that is supposed to be sarcastic but is actually just an idiotic act of what they believe other people to be arguing. You can actually find people arguing opposite sides of arguments with each other, each trying to act more dumb than the other. It's unbelievable.
I agree with this guy >>338492 you should go back to /killyourself/ before ever posting like that anywhere again.
>>338285
>Arab-Persian Islam is one of three cultures, alongside the Greek-Slavic Orthodox and the Latin Frankish, that descend from Classical Greco-Roman influence
This is where I disagree completely with this, more in line with the anon above. Arab-Persian Islam is influenced by Greeks and Byzantines, but did not descend from it. Islam descended from Judean religion, sure, and Judeo-Christianity obviously had a huge influence on what ultimately became of Greece, but that's nothing more than a common ancestor.
For example, as a contrast, do people believe the goths and germanic tribes previous to the fall of the WRE to be "western civilization"? I wouldn't, even though their Latin-Frank descendants eventually became the standard bearers. If they had swept through Rome and kept more of their norse mythology and culture I would be open to considering the west and Islam to similarly descend from Ancient Greece, but they didn't. It's impossible to make that distinction as you can with the Islamic civilizations.
Euros + diaspora.
>>339995
>If they had swept through Rome and kept more of their norse mythology and culture I would be open to considering the west and Islam to similarly descend from Ancient Greece, but they didn't. It's impossible to make that distinction as you can with the Islamic civilizations.
How do you distinguish between how much Germanic culture remained among the Franks and how much Semitic culture remained among the Arabs once both entered and dominated the Roman Mediterranean?
>>339995
>Arab-Persian Islam is influenced by Greeks and Byzantines, but did not descend from it.
What's the difference? Wouldn't it be just like how Renaissance Europe was influenced by, but did not descend from, ancient Greece and Rome?
>>340354
>Renaissance Europe
I think it did from Rome at least. It's not direct continuation in the sense of an unbroken chain of geographical states and culture like you could claim about the Persians and their ancestors, but western civ basically wouldn't exist if not for Rome and what Rome did. It would be something different.
The Arabs come from a region which was barely influenced by Rome or the Greeks and are influenced by the Byzantines because they were an emerging world power who was conquering Byzantine cities and acquiring Byzantine books and knowledge. Would Islam not have built mosques if it hadn't been for the Byzantines? Would Islam be a significantly different religion? How different would their culture, customs, and families be? I just don't see it. As different as it may be, Rome is also directly responsible for it. As different as it may be, the latter half of the WRE and a Julian era Rome with a real senate and consuls was similarly different.
Diocletian sowed the seeds of feudalism with some of his attempts at reform and taxation for example.
>>340340
>between how much Germanic culture remained among the Franks and how much Semitic culture remained among the Arabs
It's hard to say for sure but all of the northerners entering Rome mostly just wanted to be more like the Romans. They weren't conquerors entering to replace the government and religion with their own. Many or most of them became Christians, learned the language, settled on Roman lands, etc.
But the major point for me is that the Semitic influence predates (or is parallel but separate from) Ancient Greece, regardless of how much they influenced each other. If the Greeks helped spawn a civilization to the west only later to be under more middle-eastern influence again, it doesn't just retroactively apply to the whole Roman empire. It would be more like the Greeks cousins of Judea who were cousins or uncle or whatever to the Arabs.
More similar would be someone like the Berbers.
>>340600
>The Arabs come from a region which was barely influenced by Rome or the Greeks
While some influential and elite Arab tribes of the Caliphates did come from peripheries that only had meaningful contact with the Byzantines, I think you're mistaking the actual nature of what became Islamic culture. It wasn't born in Mecca and Medina and transplanted, it was born from the nomadic tribes of northern Arabia and Mesopotamia that had for centuries been in contact with both the Hellenic Successors and the SPQR, but also the Syriac population that had lived under Hellenic and Roman influence, both of which formed the bulk of Muslim society by the 9th century. So the answer to your many questions, of whether there would have been mosques as we know them, if Islam would have been a significantly different religion, and if their very cultures and customs would have changed, the answer seems to be yes.
>>340600
>But the major point for me is that the Semitic influence predates (or is parallel but separate from) Ancient Greece, regardless of how much they influenced each other.
But then doesn't the Germanic influence also predate Ancient Greece? It's hard to see how the Arabs did not also want to be more like the Romans either considering they used natives in their administration, designed the concept of the Caliph to mirror that of the Emperor, were noted for copying the Byzantine style of warfare and equipment, and minted coins in their fashion. If they also brought in peculiarities, then so did the Franks who had their own martial culture, inheritance law, and so on and so forth.
>>340688
>Mesopotamia
>It wasn't born in Mecca and Medina
How was it not born in Mecca and Medina? Islam spread from that region and even incorporated a lot of local traditions and customs into it, presenting them as new ideas straight from god. Like the Kaaba, for example.
Arabs themselves are said to have originated in Yemen. before roaming the Arabian deserts, and while they conquered it later, they were tribal desert nomads. They didn't move in to Mesopotamian villages and cities. I've never even heard of them or Islam outside of the Arabian peninsula until after Mohammad's death.
>>340749
>But then doesn't the Germanic influence also predate Ancient Greece?
No, not really. I mean, sure, a little bit, but what were they doing in 500 BC? We only know of them because of the Romans. We barely know anything about the Goths origins. They and the Romans fused together until it was basically impossible to distinguish Romans from who followed them.
Arabs conquered a region and everyone converted to their religion, and while they adopted and accepted some local customs, they didn't become Levantines. Do you think the civilization of the people who were living in the Palestine area descended from Ancient Greece? Mixed with it, yeah, but not descended from it. Greeks and Romans got their alphabet from the Phoenicians, not the other way around.
WRE cultures speak Roman languages, practice Roman religion, moved in to Roman cities. The Arabs and other middle easterners speak Arabic language, practice Arabic religion, and live in cities that pre-date the Romans, all while fighting wars against the people who claimed to be Romans. It's doubly so for Persia, which converted and changed its alphabet but kept major aspects of Persian culture and language.
>>332924
FRANCE IS THE BIRTHPLACE AND BIRTHPLACE OF ALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
FRANCE IS THE CAPITAL OF WESTERN EUROPE
WE WUZ CAROLINGIANS N SHIET
11/13/15 NEVER BAGUETTE
NEVER BAGUETTE
>>341515
>How was it not born in Mecca and Medina?
The Quran and perhaps the Constitution of Medina were from somewhere in the Hedjaz (and maybe Nabataea), but everything else about Islam from its script to its social order comes from Syria and Iraq. Islam did not burst out of Arabia fully formed, it was shaped and developed by its non-Arab converts outside of it. And while the Arabs were mainly from nomadic backgrounds, the cultural and political elite were very urbanized, agricultural, and even maritime people who settled not in the deserts of Syria and Iraq but its cities (or else they founded whole new ones as garrisons). And while the elite did literally move into Mesopotamian cities, its earliest preachers and semi-nomadic settlers did move into villages.
The timeline, basically, is in reverse. The desert and traditions and cultural icons like the Kaaba was retroactively adopted by a Mesopotamian, non-Arab, urbanized religious population that grew around the households of an Arab elite.
>>341515
>No, not really. I mean, sure, a little bit, but what were they doing in 500 BC? We only know of them because of the Romans. We barely know anything about the Goths origins.
That doesn't sound any different from the Arab situation: a tribal people we know little about until their sudden contact with Rome. What do you think the demographics were like of the Eastern Mediterranean on the eve of the Arab invasion? Since the plagues that crippled its Hellenic population the Eastern Roman administration in Syria and Egypt had become nativized by a Hellenized Syriac and Coptic population who were translating a record number of Greek texts and working within a once Greek dominated civil service.
The Germanic tribes also moved into cities that predate Rome, it's not as if Romans populated an empty West. They spoke Germanic languages and ruled over a hybrid culture of Romano-Celts, Romano-Iberians, etc. All the while fighting against people who claimed to be Romans, as the Byzantines did not relinquish Justinian's conquest peacefully.
Before Persianization at least, the only real difference I see is language, but even then Arabic is a language put down to paper not in Arabia but in Mesopotamia for the first time, developed from Aramaic which for a time had been a growing unofficial language of state.
>>341515
He's conflating the Christian Arab kingdoms allied against the caliphs like the Ghassanids (and the Lakhmids for the Sassanids).
The Ghassanids didn't convert to Islam on a large scale, they basically fled into Roman lands as Islam expanded, so their influence was negligible.
>>341683
There existed more than the Ghassanids on the borders of the ERE and Arabia. There's nothing here to conflate.
>>341656
The Germans who conquered Western Europe adopted Roman religion, language and customs.
The Arabs who conquered Persia and Middle East imposed Arab religion, language and customs on them.
Western civilisation did not start with the ancient Greeks but it sure has hell is inspired by it to an incredibly large extent.
>>332924
this a meme now?
>>339995
>I'm so fucking sick of reading shit on the internet that is supposed to be sarcastic but is actually just an idiotic act of what they believe other people to be arguing
I have some more sarcasm for you. I bet you are great at parties.
It was a joke, nigga.
