>Daniel McSorley wrote:
>Chicken and the egg- the oarsmen of the triremes were numerous and drawn
>from the non-landed classes of Greece, and they demanded and got political
>power. Some philosophers of the times referred to them derisively as the
>mob, following their whims, so in answer to your question, I don`t think
that was necessarily so.
I dont that it is a case of the chicken and the egg. A man must have some ideas before he acts, even to make a boat with oars or demand anything from anyone. Your premise about the philosophers is true but lets clarify that
it is limited to some as you said. As for saying it was necessarily so,
this is like saying it cannot be otherwise concluded and I did not say this,
for as far as I am concerned there is nothing in the realm of ideas that
cannot have more than one possible conclusion, including this argument.
The mongols conquored most of Asia and into eastern Europe with the
stirrup, their recurved bows, and no concept of chivalry. Chivalry
doesn`t necessarily follow from having horse-mounted warriors, though it
>did in Europe, and it might have in the Mongol Empire had they lasted long
>enough to get stable.
>
Again with the necessarily so logic. I agree that chivalry is not necessary
to the cultural development in direct relation to the stirrup. However the
mongols had their own form of culture and honor system like all cultures.
It may not have been based on chivalry but it was their and the warrior was
the center of the theme.
>In Europe, chivalry developed after the mounted warrior became
>predominant. When a stirrupped (is that a word? heh) horseman became the
>most powerful military unit, social and political structures developed to
>support him, giving him land and wealth to provide the horses and
>expensive equipment he needed. The chivalric ideal came rather later.
>
After the success of the sitrrup? Okay but didnt the romanticism keep the stirrup alive in culture? Even if I yield that chivalry was an effect of the stirrup, the stirrup didnt come about a priori.
> > >The printing press knocked down monolithic religion in
> > >western Europe.
> >
> > OK, but it was the ideas that the presses brought to others that brought
> > the change.
>
>The ideas had been around for quite a while. The Catholic church had no
>shortage of detractors, from a few centuries AD on, but it wasn`t until
the means of disseminating the ideas came along that anything happened
about it.
Yes, but it was the ideas that made the change in the minds of the people.
The currency of how ideas get spread is a tool not a cause of change. The
press in its infancy originated as an idea.
When you have a weapon, and are oppressed, it`s not a political ideology
>that makes you kill your oppressor.
>–
Yes it is, feminism, marksism, afro-centrism, dramatism, and cultural
critiques are forms of ideological criticism that all developed from
oppression. Through these ideologies a person can look at the world and as
a result change their view and become motivated to make change, e.g.
revolutionaries pointing guns at their oppressors.
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.