>Venetian masks, that women had to hold with their mouth (blocking the ability to speak) becoming fashion marked the first point in human history when women became quiet in large numbers>this is widely believed to be the event that sparked the renaissance, which led to the industrial revolution and all of modernity
>>216077472>Old Roman nobility is Etruscan stock>New Roman nobility was comprised of random Balkan Wars>Italy stays the most developed region in Europe despite Byzantine being the regional hegemonWere Venetians the real roman nobility? I swear I've read something about Roman nobles fucking off into monasteries after western Rome fell. Part of me thinks that was the real intention of patronizing Christianity.
>>216077512Why would the aristocrats be leaving their land holdings after the regime fell? Makes more sense in that some of them in the Venetian region sought to expand their fortunes through trade and as a bulwark against future bureaucratic coup like in Rome they created the oligarchic system
>>216077599That's exactly what Venice did however. They had a trade monopoly granted to them through a papal bull, then when Byzantine bureaucrats fled to Europe after the collapse you saw the rise of inter-religious conflicts. Venice was ruled by a 'Council of Ten' which was actually more like 17 people.
>>216078566It's amazing how long the Byzantines kept the romanasque bureaucratic system alive after the western regime's fall, while the rest of Europe fell to feudal system
>>216079347The bureaucratic system was post Roman republic, they had senators, but no entrenched bureaucracy. The eunuch ridden bureaucracy of Byzantine was considered more oriental or Greek than Roman. The senate didn't want to bureaucratize, so they receded into monasticism. Romans were very much into mystery cults like the ones of Orpheus, Osiris, Pythagoreas, or Dionysus. Even Freemasons today have the motto 'e pluribus unum' likely a reference to breaking apart pieces and reassembling them. There's tons of gods like this, Dionysus was torn apart into pieces and reborn and so was Osiris.
>>216079940Of course, I was talking about the entrenched Imperial bureaucracy that eventually led to the rise of Christianity, could you shed more light upon the monasticism thing, like how did it work, did every rich roman aristocrat funded his own monastery, and was it syncretic with early Christian sects
>>216077472>Some jew bankers yenta wife kept kvetching so he made her wear this contraption >Bank rolls it to make it popular>Women shut up for a whileWow ....jews have made good contributions towards mankind
>>216077512Venezia was founded by roman refugees fleeing from the germanic invasions
>>216080156You're familiar with Buddhism right? You know how there's monastic branches of it and then there's stuff like Lamas and Buddhist kings, and so on? Monastics and ascetics were the primary strain of Christians, you also had gnostics, but those were extremely elitist academics mostly. Before Nicene orthodoxy there was a unified church that split off into many different branches, some of these branches were monastic. Most of the monastic branches were associated with Syria and Egypt, they were also considered oriental and have very little to do with post-collapse monasticism. After western Rome collapsed they started reform systems and introduced mendicant orders like Benedictines, Cluniac reforms, then later on Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits. Particularly it was Augustine that laid the framework for the new type of monasticism where spiritual pursuits could not be infringed upon by temporal ones. It was a horribly one-sided practice early on because often bishops would have temporal power yet kings couldn't do anything to affect monastic orders. Because so many kings were illiterate they basically couldn't keep up with the divine law legalese and were content to ignore it, often to their disadvantage.
>>216080544So the former aristocrats became the leaders or bishops of these monastic orders, then they colluded to establish their own city states with an oligarchic system, while the Germanic kings kanged in the north
>>216080619Sort of. Bishops were like governors, the monasteries themselves basically were entirely unaffected by kings. And since the Germanic kings agreed to let them alone in exchange for backing and expertise provided by the church you had a lot of the usual stories about 'he was a rich noble of the highest order who gave EVERYTHING to join this mendicant order because of some spiritual revelation'. Bernard Clairveaux comes to mind, he's the guy who made the Knights Templar.
>>216077472>tf>tp
>>216080814And these "Bishops" during early pre feudal period answered to the Byzantine/Carloginian Emperors, and later became independent after Carloginians fell apart into numerous petty Kingdoms and Byzantines were driven out of Western/central Europe?
>>216080999No they just groomed child leaders and could be appointed by kings until 1054. When the church in Rome claimed that only they could appoint bishops and the Germanic kings just nodded along is about the time when you realized that the entirety of the 'feudal' system was compromised by the same people. Byzantine broke off entirely after this because they were still ruled by Balkan warlords, but for some reason they still trusted Venice.
