Differences between Western(Catholic-Protestant) and Orthodox civilisations.

[Aberdeen]

Byzantine architecture made great stylistic and technical advances over Roman architecture and greatly influenced Medieval and Renaissance architecture in the west and Ottoman architecture in the east. The church of Hagia Sophia, which is now a museum, remains one of the greatest architectural gems of the world. Anyone who isn't aware of this probably shouldn't try to discuss the differences between Catholic and Orthodox culture.

 

[Yetos]

You try to prove that Constantinalples was more developed than the freshly estabilished states of the west in early medieval age. But who debated it? Its architecture was post-classic ugly and primitive, if you compare it with classic roman architecture.

Many British and French miners worked in african mines during the colonial times, but it did not mean that africa was more developed than France and Britain in the 19th century. The material culture and technology of slavic balkan states in the 13th century was similar to the early medieval western European level. Very primitive. What will be your next weird fairy tale? Was africa more developed than its European colonizers? )))

hmm.

I really do not understand you.

First which West architecture?

as engineer I give you 2 temples,

St Marco in Venice
Notre Dame in Paris,

what common have except they are temples?
what West architecture?
there are 3 major tottaly different Architectonical styles in the West.

so be more specific,

the Gothic style with nose roofs,
the Italian style like St Marco and St Peter pre or close to baroque,
the far North West style with wood and iron like net or nerves as in Notre dame paris
etc etc

I link photos to understand the diferences

http://www.sights-and-culture.com/London/Westminster-Abbey-4141.jpg

http://www.blugoldmarchingband.com/images/basilica-san-marco-venice_12561.jpg

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/3907183.jpg


now lets see the byzantine style

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IRDXD-2K_YA/S9lC05CQdXI/AAAAAAAAAAc/BPCMa-rlX-U/s1600/hagiasophia2.jpg

http://static3.depositphotos.com/10...photos_2127965-Byzantine-Church-in-Fodele.jpg

some slavic

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Pokrovsky_Monastery_(Kiev)_Pokrov_Church.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Russian_Orthodox/st_basils_cathedral.jpg


as you see the architecture of temples is not divided in Catholic and orthodox,
but in style, materials, and the engineering methods,

except the common basilica, which is based upon Roman court buildings,
all the rest are according different criteria, mainly based in geographical area,
and not in believes.

 

[Stears555]

Who talk about 19. century?

In Europe in 1000 year Gross domestic product per capita was about $400, northern and south areas were similar.

In China then GDP per capita was higher (about $450).

About 1000 years (from 400 to 1400) GDP per capita in China was higher than in Europe.

Formal split between Roman Catholic and Orthodox church was 1054 due to political reasons.

Western Europe begin to grow after 1300, Balkans and Asia minor lagg due to Ottoman occupation.

And you didn't answer about #53.

Wrong. Decline of Byzantine Empire started in the 11th century. Even various mountain turkic hordes were able to defeat them. Economy of Byzantines totally collapsed after they exterminated the latinus minority population of the city.

Western European economy did not grow signifficantly due to the 100 years of war. 14th century was the century of wars, there were no such a century in medieval era, when such a great numbers of battles and wars started.

You can not prove the high development of balkan slav states, because they were african level of development. Majority of their society was shepherd nomad, their countries were wooden countries, where wooden palaces and wooden churches represented the country. Very few stone buildings existed in the slavic balkan.

 

[Stears555]

hmm.

I really do not understand you.

First which West architecture?

as engineer I give you 2 temples,

St Marco in Venice
Notre Dame in Paris,

what common have except they are temples?
what West architecture?
there are 3 major tottaly different Architectonical styles in the West.

so be more specific,

the Gothic style with nose roofs,
the Italian style like St Marco and St Peter pre or close to baroque,
the far North West style with wood and iron like net or nerves as in Notre dame paris
etc etc

I link photos to understand the diferences

http://www.sights-and-culture.com/London/Westminster-Abbey-4141.jpg

http://www.blugoldmarchingband.com/images/basilica-san-marco-venice_12561.jpg

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/3907183.jpg


now lets see the byzantine style

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IRDXD-2K_YA/S9lC05CQdXI/AAAAAAAAAAc/BPCMa-rlX-U/s1600/hagiasophia2.jpg

http://static3.depositphotos.com/10...photos_2127965-Byzantine-Church-in-Fodele.jpg

some slavic

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Pokrovsky_Monastery_(Kiev)_Pokrov_Church.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Russian_Orthodox/st_basils_cathedral.jpg


as you see the architecture of temples is not divided in Catholic and orthodox,
but in style, materials, and the engineering methods,

except the common basilica, which is based upon Roman court buildings,
all the rest are according different criteria, mainly based in geographical area,
and not in believes.

Face with the reality:
Romanesque style Gothic Style and Renaissance architecture are Western. Byzantine Empire (and its post-classic primitive ugly architecture had no impact in these styles)
Byzantine style is closer to the midle easters styles than to the Western.

The russian medieval churches (little hovel like buildings) are more similar to mosques than to the Western architecture.

 

[Stears555]

Byzantine architecture made great stylistic and technical advances over Roman architecture and greatly influenced Medieval and Renaissance architecture in the west and Ottoman architecture in the east. The church of Hagia Sophia, which is now a museum, remains one of the greatest architectural gems of the world. Anyone who isn't aware of this probably shouldn't try to discuss the differences between Catholic and Orthodox culture.

Only in your fantasy. read my previous post.

 

[Aberdeen]

Only in your fantasy. read my previous post.

If you have no understanding of the subjects you're trying to discuss and don't want to learn from the things that various people are explaining to you, I think you belong on my "ignore" list.

 

[Stears555]

If you have no understanding of the subjects you're trying to discuss and don't want to learn from the thins that various people are explaining to you, I think you belong on my "ignore" list.

As I see Balkanic people try to rewrite the history without any proofs.

 

[Stears555]

Byzantine architecture had no impact on renaissance architecture. Why? Because Renaissance idolised the classic era Roman buildings of Italian peninsula, which was not corrupted by asian (persian and arabic) influences.

 

[John Doe]

You try to prove that Constantinalples was more developed than the freshly estabilished states of the west in early medieval age. But who debated it? Its architecture was post-classic ugly and primitive, if you compare it with classic roman architecture.

It's all relative.

 

[Stears555]

It's all relative.

if you are a blind man it is true.

 

[John Doe]

if you are a blind man it is true.

No, I'm serious, while it's obvious that 6th century Constantinople was not the marble city that was 1st century Rome, in comparison to other 6th century cities in Europe at the time (such as Paris or Trier), Constantinople was advanced, therefore it's all relative. Also if you compare it to other cities in west Eurasia at the time (such as Babylon or Jerusalem) it was quite advanced.

 

[Stears555]

No, I'm serious, while it's obvious that 6th century Constantinople was not the marble city that was 1st century Rome, in comparison to other 6th century cities in Europe at the time (such as Paris or Trier), Constantinople was advanced, therefore it's all relative. Also if you compare it to other cities in west Eurasia at the time (such as Babylon or Jerusalem) it was quite advanced.

Compare it with the mid 15th century italian and holland cities. But what about the primitive african-level medieval balkan slavic states?

 

[John Doe]

Compare it with the mid 15th century italian and holland cities. But what about the primitive african-level medieval balkan slavic states?

Are you suggesting that 6th century Constantinople can be compared with 15th century Florence and Amsterdam? By the early 15th century the Ottomans have surrounded Constantinople, which was holding only thanks to its walls, but its golden age was long gone, partially in thanks to the 1204 sack of Constantinople, which wasn't actually the target of the Crusaders at first, and that action only made the Turks stronger. Well I wasn't talking about Balkan Slavic states, I was trying to explain that there was a difference between them and Constantinople. BTW, it's quite ignorant to generalise all of African cities into the "primitive pool", what about bronze age Thebes? Golden age Carthage, or golden age Mali? the last one was literally flowing with gold, and even had a university.


P.S 6th century Constantinople had running water and sewers, something that 15th century Florence and Amsterdam still lacked.

 

[Stears555]

Are you suggesting that 6th century Constantinople can be compared with 15th century Florence and Amsterdam? By the early 15th century the Ottomans have surrounded Constantinople, which was holding only thanks to its walls, but its golden age was long gone, partially in thanks to the 1204 sack of Constantinople, which wasn't actually the target of the Crusaders at first, and that action only made the Turks stronger. Well I wasn't talking about Balkan Slavic states, I was trying to explain that there was a difference between them and Constantinople. BTW, it's quite ignorant to generalise all of African cities into the "primitive pool", what about bronze age Thebes? Golden age Carthage, or golden age Mali? the last one was literally flowing with gold, and even had a university.



P.S 6th century Constantinople had running water and sewers, something that 15th century Florence and Amsterdam still lacked.

I suggested that you can compare constantinaples of 1450 with the holland german English Italian cities of 1450. Byzantines were a decline civilization, withut original ideas and innovtion. It caused its tragic fate. It is no wonder: They had very high ratio of non-european origin immigrants and colonist, which were Transported during Alexander the great, during the Roman era and during the Byzantine population policiy. There was very low ratio of ancient Greeks. Constantinaples was the center of an ethnic Mordor.



Medieval shepherd societies of slavic balkan (where the income of the majority came from pastoring) were on african level. There are no churches palaces cities which are comparable to medieval west. There are no material proofs (archelological) that they were economically and culturally much more developed than africa.

 

[John Doe]

I suggested that you can compare constantinaples of 1450 with the holland german English Italian cities of 1450.

Oh, I see, yeah that's possible.

Medieval shepherd societies of slavic balkan (where the income of the majority came from pastoring) were on african level. There are no churches palaces cities which are comparable to medieval west. There are no material proofs (archelological) that they were economically and culturally much more developed than africa.

I'm not denying that, what I do have a problem with is taking all of Africa, by just saying Africa and comparing it with the medieval Balkans, because in that sense you can compare ancient Thebes/Carthage/Mali with the medieval Balkans, which is totally inaccurate, now if you want to compare MODERN day places in sub Saharan Africa with the medieval Balkans, that would make more sense.

 

[Stears555]

Oh, I see, yeah that's possible.



I'm not denying that, what I do have a problem with is taking all of Africa, by just saying Africa and comparing it with the medieval Balkans, because in that sense you can compare ancient Thebes/Carthage/Mali with the medieval Balkans, which is totally inaccurate, now if you want to compare MODERN day places in sub Saharan Africa with the medieval Balkans, that would make more sense.

Which balkanic slavic state or orthodox eastern slavic state was on the development level of medieval Hungary? None. There were massive 300 years of difference between medieval Hungary and them.

 

[John Doe]

Which balkanic slavic state or orthodox eastern slavic state was on the development level of medieval Hungary? None. There were massive 300 years of difference between medieval Hungary and them.

I'm not denying that, I also wont deny that I'm far from an expert on that subject.

 

[Garrick]

Wrong. Decline of Byzantine Empire started in the 11th century. Even various mountain turkic hordes were able to defeat them. Economy of Byzantines totally collapsed after they exterminated the latinus minority population of the city.

Western European economy did not grow signifficantly due to the 100 years of war. 14th century was the century of wars, there were no such a century in medieval era, when such a great numbers of battles and wars started.

You can not prove the high development of balkan slav states, because they were african level of development. Majority of their society was shepherd nomad, their countries were wooden countries, where wooden palaces and wooden churches represented the country. Very few stone buildings existed in the slavic balkan.

No, you don't read carefully, and you don't use sources.

I was very precise and used renowned author, Angus Maddison, you should read his book.

In the end of X century, situation in Europe was, according to Maddison (Contours of the World economy 1-2030 AD):

Gross domestic product per capita (1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars)

Year: 1000

$400
United Kingdom
Scandinavian countries
Greece
Balkan and East European countries (including Serbia and Hungary)

$410
Germany and Switzerland

$425
Austria, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Portugal

$450
Spain and Italy

$450
China

You can see only Spain and Italy were able to compare with China, others have lower GDP per capita and were fairy equal.

...
For 500 years after (1500 year) the difference between Western Europe and Balkans and Asia minor are noticeable, of course, Humanism and Renaissance spread of Western Europe but Balkan and Asia minor countries suffer Ottoman occupation.

 

[Stears555]

No, you don't read carefully, and you don't use sources.

I was very precise and used renowned author, Angus Maddison, you should read his book.

In the end of X century, situation in Europe was, according to Maddison (Contours of the World economy 1-2030 AD):

Gross domestic product per capita (1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars)

Year: 1000

$400
United Kingdom
Scandinavian countries
Greece
Balkan and East European countries (including Serbia and Hungary)

$410
Germany and Switzerland

$425
Austria, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Portugal

$450
Spain and Italy

$450
China

You can see only Spain and Italy were able to compare with China, others have lower GDP per capita and were fairy equal.

...
For 500 years after (1500 year) the difference between Western Europe and Balkans and Asia minor are noticeable, of course, Humanism and Renaissance spread of Western Europe but Balkan and Asia minor countries suffer Ottoman occupation.

Hungary is not Eastern european country.



Hungary (similar to Poland Czech Rep. Germany Switzerland Poland etc..) is a Central European country, and it is part of western (catholic-protestant) western culture.

See the old Encyclopedia Britannica from 1911:

HUNGARY (Hungarian Magyarorszag), a country in the south-eastern pertion of Central Europe,
http://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit13chisrich#page/894/mode/1up/search/hungary



See Modern Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/276730/Hungary

Hungary, Hungarian Magyarország, landlocked country of central Europe. The capital is Budapest.


German BrockHaus Encyclopedia
http://www.brockhaus.de/.files/pdf/enzyklopaedie/BE_Burg.pdf

Columbia Encyclopedia
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Hungary.aspx


French Larousse Encyclopedia
http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/pays/Hongrie/111520


Hungary is Central European: CIA World Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hu.html


Encarta Encyclopedia
http://web.archive.org/web/20091028125450/http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559741/Hungary.html

 

[Stears555]

No, you don't read carefully, and you don't use sources.

I was very precise and used renowned author, Angus Maddison, you should read his book.

In the end of X century, situation in Europe was, according to Maddison (Contours of the World economy 1-2030 AD):

Gross domestic product per capita (1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars)

Year: 1000

$400
United Kingdom
Scandinavian countries
Greece
Balkan and East European countries (including Serbia and Hungary)

$410
Germany and Switzerland

$425
Austria, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Portugal

$450
Spain and Italy

$450
China

You can see only Spain and Italy were able to compare with China, others have lower GDP per capita and were fairy equal.

...
For 500 years after (1500 year) the difference between Western Europe and Balkans and Asia minor are noticeable, of course, Humanism and Renaissance spread of Western Europe but Balkan and Asia minor countries suffer Ottoman occupation.

The vast majority of serbian population was shepherd, the agriculture was less imortant in slavic balkan. That's why cultural and infrastructural and societal development were so slow and backward in the slavic balkan. The bartel-trade was the dominant in slavic balkan until the late 18th century.