new leftist gaslight has dropped
As soon as you glorify trying to succeed or success in any way a group of miserable blue haired gender goblins will seethe uncontrollably.
>replacing the rotten with the good>leftist
Reminder the wojaks have gone on 3x as long as it took for ragecomics to die and there's no end in sight.
>>17988807It's playing with dolls for incense, so of course it's going to run and run. Look! This time they're dressed up as little Romans and knights!
>>17988810I live proudly knowing I have never made a ragecomic, pepe or jak in my life.
>>17988790Wasn't it alt-chud's gaslight that dark ages weren't that dark actually?
>>17988807We need to back to TRAD ragefaces, wojaks are woke and degenerate.
>>17988879Advice animals or nothing.
>>17988871Dark Ages were bright, it's the (((Enlightenment))) that was bad.
>>17988901This.
>>17988790>>17988871>>17988901Christian right-wingers prefer the middle ages, pagan right-wingers prefer Rome. This proves that "right-wing" is a meaningless term because those two ideologies are polar opposites.
>>17988912as a neutral observer i consider both to be simply different phases both of which had certain positives and negatives neither necessarily being better than the other
>>17988912Those aren't even ideologies, they're tonal differences.
Pagan antiquity creates a measure of safe detachment; there's no controversy to really be had reading about the Egyptian New Kingdom or Cyrus the Great. By the time one reaches medieval history it starts to get a little too close to modern conceptions of religion and nation states and people don't like that.
>>17988871I wonder how you'll fell when you find out that the Romans cause the dip?
>>17988790It was. Was it better than Rome in 10 AD? No. But it was a heck of a lot better than the chaos that ruled in the West during Ricimers dictatorship and in the interregnum after his death. Odoacer's dissolution of the Western Emperorship was necessary at that point. We have all these maps but they do not reflect of the Empire actually looked in say 450 and 550 in the minds of the people. Rome having fallen is relative, since Rome wasn't the capital anymore anyways. No one in 476 thought Rome had fallen, not until Justinian's propaganda convinced the Eastern citizens of this fact which lead to the reconquest. When did Rome stop being the most important city in the Empire? 330 when Constatine founded New Rome? 402 when Ravenna became the capital? Maybe even 313 when Mediolanum became the capital? By 700 it was no longer the most populous city in Italy. Rome fell before the Roman Empire, but by the 800s Eastern Rome had certainly become Byzantium and scarcely resembled even late Roman institutions. The city may have fallen. New Rome may have fallen. But the Roman Empire? It dissolved until people no longer thought of the Roman Empire as existing but as passed and past. The empire was simply so universal, so expansive, so long lasting in its multifarious iterations that Rome became the basis through which barbarian kingdoms experienced the western world as a whole. Where the Romans thought in frontiers and hellenism in the east, where they lived in a world shaped still by the ancients. The basis for european civilization budded in the seedbed that were Roman ruins.
>>17988912Roman Republic = BasedRoman Empire = CringeDark Age = CringeMiddle Ages = BasedModernity = BasedPost Modernity = Cringe
>>17988958Pre-Davidic Israel = BasedDavidic Israel = Based Maccabean Israel = BasedMedieval Christendom = BasedEarly Modern Puritanism = BasedEverything else = Cringe
>>17988969Medieval Christendom is the only good one on your list. The rest are vomit tier.
>>17988871What did the Romans invent?
>>17988807Because they're tied to culture wars in the West. Rage comics had no intrinsic political subtext, it was just le goofy meme humor with funny faces
>>17988974Sinner mentality
>>17988978Crucifixion and pederasty
>>17988978Christianity, foederati system, tectonic plate theory, etc etc.
>>17988790I can somewhat believe it, 90% of rome's population were subsistence farmers who suddenly didn't have to pay taxes to a corrupt governor, the problem is that the 10% of the empire's population that was made up of urbanites all died, and that urbanites make up like 90% of modern day's west's population
>>17988790Fall of late WRE meant>lower taxes>less large-scale wars>power becoming more localized>more trade barriers>less slavery>deurbanization, people leaving industries and turning to farming>less social stratification>less money for arts and infrastructure>falling literacy>increasing influence of the church which was no longer under state controlYou are terminally brainrotted if you relate this complexity to modern left/right politics.
I am mixed on this issue because the fall of rome wasn't the same everywereLike there was plenty of places were it was bad that it fell but others benefited.
>>17988790although he is right
>>17989008No one benefited.
>>17988912My favorite ones are those who use the migration period to oppose modern migration and identify with the Romans being overran by barbarians, then talk about how today's Western civilization must be defended from the modern barbarians, not realizing that Western civilization has been created by those barbarians that "destroyed the superior Roman civilization". They are likely even descendants of those Germanic peoples being American, French, British etc.
>>17989019I think you're confused: Plutarch complains that slavery undermines the middle class that was the backbone of Roman culture and represented actual Romans, while the slaves represented mostly stock imported from the near and middle east. The "barbarians" you're referring to are the Goths who were in large part foederati and civilizationally equivalent and compatible.
>>17989019It's all the Huns fault Huns were the real barbarians.
>>17988984>pederastyProjection by East Meds who themselves invented pederasty and after migrating to Rome projected their ways onto the Romans.
>>17988983Better to piss in the sink, that sink in the piss.
The real issue here is that the middle ages as a field of research tries to knit together very different trends isolated from one another by the Carolingian period. The early part that can rightly be called the dark ages sees depopulation and population replacement in peripherical regions from Britain to the Balkans. Contrary to popular narrative one of the biggest losers of the dark ages was Christianity itself as it lost ground to both Islamic arabs and pagan slavs and steppe newcomers. Pic related is something like the nadir of Christianity with a lot of former late roman territories lost most of said losses to be islamized and never regained and while slavs would eventually be converted this was not what someone living at the time would have predicted. However, the vast majority of medieval historians focus on Carolingian and post Carolingian typically called High and Low middle ages. The early periods before Carolingian times are understudied and Late Antiquity historians typically come closest to it but they always end up focusing on the eastern mediterranean.Then halfassed mass schooling takes in and has the average joe mix it all into a 1000 years dark ages followed by renaissance and enlightenment, leaving fertile ground for contrarian takes such as pitting roman period versus medieval period history which makes near zero sense if you try to get into post Carolingian history in many of these places given the obvious cultural continuity especially through Christianity.
>>17989069Was the end of the Dark Ages really due to the Carolingians? They did engage in centralization but a lot of their policies were really stupid, and their empire collapsed long before you really start to see recovery around 1000 AD.
>>17989079I think the inflexion point is closer to 900 AD. 800 too optimistic, 1000 too pessimistic
>>17988790Really? Other than for the new elites, the majority of the population lived worse than they did under the Romans. Taxes hardly changed, the majority of the population became legally inferior and no longer had access to a reliable court system. Wars became war more common and destructive to the local community, unlike Roman civil wars, Visigothic and Merovingian civil war was even more common and bloody, with participants deliberately targeting rural land to destroy to prevent their enemy from having them, which Roman civil wars avoided lest they lose support. They were ruled by an unsympathetic ruling class which did not give away wealth or patron public works both rural and urban unless they happened to be their favourite city. Unlike the Roman Empire, people did not receive tax breaks in case of poor conditions. The introduction of serfdom and bondage created a massive class of unfree men that did not exist beforehand. Any opportunity to actually rise in status that was not as a bishop ceased to exist.A Roman living in the 6-7th centuries lived a worse, more unstable and violent life than a Roman in the 4th. The economic collapse that occurred in the 5th century would not start to reverse until the 11th and not until the 12th did large cities start becoming economically viable again.
>>17988790He's right, and it was largely thanks to the Islamic golden age.
>>17988978Concrete, the calendar, modern juris prudence.
>>17989004>>deurbanization, people leaving industries and turning to farmingUrbanites starved to death, anon
>>17988790This is just a fact, dumbass.Late Rome was a horrific place of constant civil war, rampant slavery (and child slavery) famine, no freedom of career or movement, and persistent economic collapse.The medieval world didn't come about because things 'got bad' for over a thousand years, it was just people forming institutions which were better suited to their new circumstances and cultures.
>>17989468I disagree. I think that late WRE was super cool. It's just really a shame it died.
>>17988810very reddit take
>>17988790muh leftists
>>17989019aspergers: the post
Say what you want both the Late Roman and medieval period are kino to read about, and that's just Western Europe not including Byzantines. Need the 4 hour Heraclius' Persian war Epic.
>>17988978sex with women
>>17988790compared with late rome? most likely yeahhigh middle ages in particular seemed to be the most peaceful period after pax romana until ww2better than pax romana? not really
>>17988790the immediate post roman period was pretty bad, but after things settled down, a random peasant living in like 900 was so much better off than a roman slave in 300
>>17988790rome was at its best when it was a republic that was tolerant of gayness, accepted many religions, and accepted people of different cultures so long as they obeyed the roman staterome was a shithole rife with civil war and rampant decline when it was worried about borders, refused to admit the goths, persecuted gays and was christianthere isn't a single right wing friendly interpretation of rome that comprehends even the most rudimentary facts about the nation's existence.
>>17990132Rome was probaly at its most tolerant during the Empire though.Romans were not gay either btw
>>17990137they weren't 'gay' in any modern sense, but gay sexual relationships were more normalized as a part of society, and when the empire christianized it outlawed male-male sex were happening during the crisis of the third century. rome literally became anti-gay at the same time the empire was starting its first major stumbles and decline.it's really not proof of much except that tolerating gay sex is completely irrelevant to the health of a society. reactionaries have no leg to stand on when they whinge about cultural issues.
Nobody knows what Europe was like after Rome fell because nobody alive experienced it and we have little written accounts by the peasantry to go off of, and we can't rely on the testimony of nobles who lived hedonistic domestic lives away from the peasantry. All we have are the opinions of historiographers, and any historiographer worth their salt usually makes it pretty clear when they're just stating their personal opinion.
>>17990145Not entirely true, we know a good amount at least about the decline in productivity after the decline of Rome due to archaeological evidence.https://acoup.blog/2022/01/14/collections-rome-decline-and-fall-part-i-words/There's a good series of blog posts, but the long and short is that, while we don't have much written record, the evidence is clear that animals and people got shorter, and far less 'stuff' was being produced in late Rome and after the final sacking of Rome.We also know from counting shipwrecks that the amount of trade across the Mediterranean collapsed precipitously in the 3rd-4th centuries and on.So the OP is right that people who downplay the fall of Rome as not being very catastrophic for quality of life are wrong.
>>17990140Raping little slave boys is desirable to you?
>>17990152>people who downplay the fall of Rome as not being very catastrophic for quality of life are wrong.the order is backwards though. life didnt' go to shit because rome fell, rome fell because life was going to shit, and that was entirely on the back of the roman elite being retards obsessed with their degenerate hedonism with a dash of climate change
>>17990155>that was entirely on the back of the roman elite being retards obsessed with their degenerate hedonism with a dash of climate changeIf this was true, then all of the cultural backlash against degenerate hedonism in the late empire should have helped. But none of it did. In fact, it just accelerated the decline.Again, you're objectively mistaken about the actual basic facts of Roman history if you do not know this.If you give any weight to hedonism as a major factor in Rome's rise or decline, you are just a fucking moron who should never comment on history.
>>17988790Leftists don't glaze the middle ages.
>>17988790>muh leftistsWhat about this title or thumbnail is even remotely lib/left coded? If anything the common lib/left trope is that Christianity caused Rome to fall and ushered in the dark ages.
marx was quite fond of the gracchi, caesar was a progressive and the optimates were basically always the villains in roman history, so why would leftists dislike it? yeah it has many regressive elements, they were imperialistic, but so was every preindustrial nation. Yes fascists love rome, but ultimately that is because they are mostly illiterate
>>17988807I feel like they would’ve peaked around 2020 and died a normal death if basedjaking hadn’t taken off around the same time. The sharty keeps it alive by churning out new ‘jaks regularly.
>>17988790Medievalists are lefties now?
>>17988790>leftistNein. Death to medoids.(Just joking; I don't hate Meds. But being anti-Rome isn't leftist.)
>>17988879>normies
>>17990179>other people are mostly illiterate>imma project modern political terms onto things from 2000 years ago
>>17988807And that's a good thing
>>17990155>and that was entirely on the back of the roman elite being retards obsessed with their degenerate hedonismThe Roman elite in the Late Empire was more puritan than in centuries beforehand.
>>17988807Wojak is the platonic ideal of what ragecomics were.
>>17988790Leftists have no reason to love post Roman Europe.It was characterized by small states, warlordism, oligarchy, and capitalism.
>>17988790leftist are pro medieval?better question: what does leftist even mean?
>>17989022>slaves represented mostly stock imported from the near and middle eastThat's not really true. The biggest influxes of slaves came after the Punic and Gaulic wars, so those slaves were Celts and North Africans, but that lead into Rome's peak of power. Most slaves from the East came from Anatolia but there was a huge slave trade in the Balkans too. Slave tradets also imported slaves from outside the empire, those were mostly from accross the Danube, so those were Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Thracians etc. There is no evidence that the majority of the slaves came from the mid-East, for example, Syria and Palestine didn't even have large slave markets. And the most thought-after slaves were always Greeks, at least among Roman elites.
>>17990582I feel like a lot of anons use it as a placeholder for "retards who disagree with me" whenever OP spouts his retarded opinion. Just claim leftists, who are already retarded, disagree with your even more retarded opinion. Anyone who questions whether or not leftists actually espouse the opposite of what you say can just be labeled a leftist. It's basically the same formula as starting off a thread with "why do chuds..." and then totally misconstruing a right wing talking point.
>>17990580>capitalismthat's the most retarded take on the roman economy i've ever heard.
>>17991074I wasn't talking about the Roman economy. That's why I said "post Roman".Early middle ages about a small groups of social parasites overtaxing commoners and giving back no services. When moors, vikings, turks, arabs, and mongols attacked, these social parasites didn't even fight back because they feared losing their treasury and titles. It was a very capitalist era. Thats what made it suck.
>>17991120capitalism didnt' exist until the 1500s you retard
>>17988790Rome falling prevented Europe becoming a permanent bugmen slave state like China is today. It was the competition between disparate European states that drove Europeans to greatness and world conquest.
>>17988790This is much more of a christcuck rightoid opinion however, god I've debated enough to know.
>>17988871Can some anon post the meme version of that pic?
>>17991131There's no universally agreed date as to when capitalism emerged, retard.
>>17990095I don't know why but there's a certain amount of charm to the period in my opinion simply because its the massive continent spanning Roman Empire at its oldest and most mature phase. Its that hard to describe factor which draws me to the period, seeing the Empire not in its prime but as an old but still powerful force that has already weathered more than five hundred years of history. There's also the fact that Late Antique Rome, especially in the West, is kinda like a bridge between Classical Rome and Medieval Europe, and its really easy to see just how great an impact Rome had on subsequent European history by studying late antiquity. There was a book i read a while ago which said that when people in Medieval Europe looked back to Rome they were thinking about the Rome of Constantine, Valentinian, and Augustine, rather than the Rome of Cicero and Caesar. From my experience most people miss the obvious influence of Late Antique Rome on Medieval Europe because when people think about Rome's legacy they think about Classical Rome rather than Late Antiquity, and so the fact that something like Carolingian Art being a direct continuation of Late Antique Roman Art is missed since its just not what people are thinking about when they hear Rome.
>>17990565>The Roman elite in the Late Empire was more puritan than in centuries beforehand.Ironically the hedonistic Senators of the late Republic were more willing to fight and die for Rome than the morally uptight late Roman Senators who would rather live under barbarians than let the Roman government tax their massive estates. This was particularly galling given how the average senator of the Late Empire was actually better off than the average senator of the Late Republic.
Medieval Mindset is a catholic apologist who shills for rosary giftshops. Of course he will argue that Europe dominated by the Catholic church was better than Pagan Europe.
>>17989069>>17989079The "dark ages" is a colloquial term used among historians because the period has very little written history, so we say the historical record goes "dark" for a time after the fall of the western empire. Obviously this didn't apply to other regions where the historical record wasn't interrupted, like the eastern empire or Muslim controlled areas. But in the wake of the western empire's collapse there was a dearth of written records about what was going on. A lot of what we know comes from external sources or later sources writing about events centuries past. This is one reason why so many fables and legends were made about that era and repeated for a long time before real scholarship was able to debunk them.
>>17991221yeah there's a valid justification for the "dark age" terminology, but the problem is we use it to amplify so many misconceptions to the point where academia goes on to hypercorrect to the idea that there was no dark ages
>>17989022the majority of slaves in Rome were Punic and Gaul, the near east was practically untouched.
>>17991210The proto-Catholic church already dominated Europe before Rome fell
>>17990132>and accepted people of different cultures so long as they obeyed the roman stateAs subhuman cattle for tax collectors to bully, they didn't have universal citizenship until the 3rd century
>>17989150>A Roman living in the 6-7th centuries lived a worse, more unstable and violent life than a Roman in the 4th.Entirely Justinian's fault btw
>>17991707Complete opposite of the truth and you could have bothered putting in minimal effort into your lie.
>>17991707Plutarch complains about this explicitly. He said importing too many slaves was destroying the Roman middle class.
>>17992622There's a reason Caesar was a follower of Maurius and not Sulla
>>17988790Romans were the leftists, dumbass. They were all trooning out and having gay orgies while GermGODS were staying chaste, keeping to adult women and bringing the wrath of God down on the (t)Ro(on)man Empire
