Ancient Rome and Today: How To Screw Women

Now, I know I am preaching to the choir, so to speak, but I would like to point out some similarity between what I perceive is happening now in the US and what happen 8 centuries ago in the Roman Empire.

I have done Classical Studies in my high school. That means that I studied latin and greek, among other things. My teacher of latin and greek gave us a book to read. The title, roughly traslated in English, is:
Tacita Muta, Histories of Roman Women from Tacita to Sulpicia by Eva Cantarella.

It is a rather in deep study of the role of women during ancient Rome.
You may not know it, but one of the way that Roman manage to keep the women subservient was by glorifing their status as Mothers. Differently from in ancient Greece, roman women had an active role in the education of the future citizens.

Now, when women, around the First Century before Christ started to get more and more freedom, men started to get allarmed. And how they tried (and, in the end, succeed) to reign them back to the heart? Of course. By making the role of Mother seems the Most Wonderful Thing a woman could aspire to. I would like to point that it had come to a point in which there was a female "lawyer", and female poets. Women were going out of the House. They -which is most important- could inherit like men. A young widow had a lot of freedom.


It is an interesting book, and made an interesting discussion about the true role of Motherhood, and how society had, in the past, put an astonishing amount of importance on that biological function... to fuck up women.
We were 17 years old, more or less. It was interesting.

I do think that something like that is happening now in the US. Another thing that made me think is that both in the Ancient Rome and in Today US, the backslash of Motherhood happened when an Empire is starting to swagger.

What do you think?

(PS: I absolutely suggest the book if you can find it, or any other by Eva Cantarella. My teacher suggested to read the one about capital punishments in ancient Greece and Rome, as well, and it is a very interesting read)

_______________________

“I was talking about children that have not been properly house-trained. Left to their own impulses and indulged by doting or careless parents almost all children are yahoos. Loud, selfish, cruel, unaffectionate, jealous, perpetually striving for attention, empty-headed, for ever prating or if words fail them simply bawling, their voices grown huge from daily practice: the very worst company in the world. But what I dislike even more than the natural child is the affected child, the hulking oaf of seven or eight that skips heavily about with her hands dangling in front of her -- a little squirrel or bunny-rabbit -- and prattling away in a baby's voice.”


― Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove


lib'-er-ty: the freedom given to you to make the wrong decision, based on the reasoned belief that you will normally make the right one.

I agree with this. I see so much of the mentality that motherhood=sainthood these days it isn't funny. Why being a mother entitles someone to special treatment, to not have to follow rules, etc. It also falls in line of how many dictatorships have tried to do the same thing in order to increase population.

I fear for the future.

JD

I think I kow the book you're talking about. I read in depth books about women in Roman sociey and I was thinking the same thing. You're absolutely right. Turn women into breeding machines and dairy cows to keep them chained to the house and subservient.

Truth be told, I am up here in Canada (yeah yeah, amongst the igloos), and I have not been too out and about in the world for much of my life. However, judging from what I have been reading so far, it seems to be the case that all this propaganda and glorification about motherhood that seems to be so prevalent in the United States is an inherently sinister and misogynistic agenda aimed to keep women in an inferior state.

Quote
PeaceNLI
I think I kow the book you're talking about. I read in depth books about women in Roman sociey and I was thinking the same thing. You're absolutely right. Turn women into breeding machines and dairy cows to keep them chained to the house and subservient.

The trick is, turn them into breeding machine and dairy cows and pretend to woship them, tell them they are doing TMIJOTW, that what they should do is grow and educate their children and nothing more...
Remind you of something? SAHMOOO? Homeschooling?

_______________________

“I was talking about children that have not been properly house-trained. Left to their own impulses and indulged by doting or careless parents almost all children are yahoos. Loud, selfish, cruel, unaffectionate, jealous, perpetually striving for attention, empty-headed, for ever prating or if words fail them simply bawling, their voices grown huge from daily practice: the very worst company in the world. But what I dislike even more than the natural child is the affected child, the hulking oaf of seven or eight that skips heavily about with her hands dangling in front of her -- a little squirrel or bunny-rabbit -- and prattling away in a baby's voice.”


― Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove


lib'-er-ty: the freedom given to you to make the wrong decision, based on the reasoned belief that you will normally make the right one.

Quote
t.

Quote
PeaceNLI
I think I kow the book you're talking about. I read in depth books about women in Roman sociey and I was thinking the same thing. You're absolutely right. Turn women into breeding machines and dairy cows to keep them chained to the house and subservient.

The trick is, turn them into breeding machine and dairy cows and pretend to woship them, tell them they are doing TMIJOTW, that what they should do is grow and educate their children and nothing more...
Remind you of something? SAHMOOO? Homeschooling?

Yes, it DOES remind me of this. And the sad part is that women are voluntarily going along with all of it, letting themselves be dairy cows, giving up careers, freedom, independance, and autonomy becuase they're buying into the cultural bullshit that a women isn't a woman unless she breeds and becomes the Almighty Helicopter Moo.

Quote
PeaceNLI

Quote
t.

Quote
PeaceNLI
I think I kow the book you're talking about. I read in depth books about women in Roman sociey and I was thinking the same thing. You're absolutely right. Turn women into breeding machines and dairy cows to keep them chained to the house and subservient.

The trick is, turn them into breeding machine and dairy cows and pretend to woship them, tell them they are doing TMIJOTW, that what they should do is grow and educate their children and nothing more...
Remind you of something? SAHMOOO? Homeschooling?

Yes, it DOES remind me of this. And the sad part is that women are voluntarily going along with all of it, letting themselves be dairy cows, giving up careers, freedom, independance, and autonomy becuase they're buying into the cultural bullshit that a women isn't a woman unless she breeds and becomes the Almighty Helicopter Moo.

I'm really enjoying this post, t. Thanks for making it, I had no idea that this type of thinking had been a part of Roman society. Which makes it all the more frightening. If it worked once, it can work again:

Quote

Now, when women, around the First Century before Christ started to get more and more freedom, men started to get allarmed. And how they tried (and, in the end, succeed) to reign them back to the heart? Of course. By making the role of Mother seems the Most Wonderful Thing a woman could aspire to. I would like to point that it had come to a point in which there was a female "lawyer", and female poets. Women were going out of the House. They -which is most important- could inherit like men. A young widow had a lot of freedom.

And today's idiot women are buying it hook, line, and sinker. Not only are they buying it, they are leading the charge against women who don't buy it. In my own personal experience. the pressure to abandon my career aspirations and breed is BY FAR coming most strongly from women. Most men who hear I don't want babies react with "That's kind of weird. Whatever, though." Most women who hear I don't want babies start to froth at the mouth. "You don't want babies!?!?! WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T WANT BABBIES! BABBIES ARE THE BEST THING A WOMAN CAN DO!!!!!"

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Not every ejaculation deserves a name" - George Carlin

Quote
LoveToLurk
And today's idiot women are buying it hook, line, and sinker. Not only are they buying it, they are leading the charge against women who don't buy it. In my own personal experience. the pressure to abandon my career aspirations and breed is BY FAR coming most strongly from women. Most men who hear I don't want babies react with "That's kind of weird. Whatever, though." Most women who hear I don't want babies start to froth at the mouth. "You don't want babies!?!?! WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T WANT BABBIES! BABBIES ARE THE BEST THING A WOMAN CAN DO!!!!!"

As a man, I must say that those women -who spread the bullshit about babies- are absolutely fucked in the head. I thought that all this "feminism" stuff in North America was about granting women freedom to be out and about outside of the house, and yet, there are women who are leading the regression in women's freedom of choices like that?
WHAT. THE. FUCK. :goggle

I'm sure you are far more educated in the classics than me, but let's not forget that the women of Sparta played a large role in public life. The men were often off at war, boys were sent to military camps around the age of 6 to prepare them to be warriors leaving much of the day to day running of life to elderly men who had outlived military service and women. There was no pedo beefing because the boys were off at military camp. I'm not saying the treatment of boys was OK or positive but I do think the role of women in Sparta was rather radical and positive for the time.

LoveToLurk, I would suggest you that book, it is VERY interesting in this regard.

Evilchildlessbitch, yes, women in Sparta (and possibly in other city, like Creta during the minoic period) had more freedom than Athenians women. When I talk about "greek women" I mostly talk about Athenians because it is the one city we have most documents about. Sadly, very few is left about Spartas and other cities. But you are right that the women seems to have fared worse in Athene than in pratically all other ancient Greek cities.

It is indeed a frightnening thought. Also, there was a great emphasis on "the ancient value" and "tradition". Augustus, trying to reign back the fall of moral, ensued public punishment for women who were found to be against the traditional values. Ironically enough, he had to punish his own daughter, Julia, who was a truly badass woman. For him, women shouldn't go to the "dinner" with men (dinner were complicate affair in ancient Rome) neither should they see the games or other things.
And, of course, there was the sexual part. Respected matron were starting to put themselves on the prostitute registry to get more freedom! I kid you not.

A way in which Roman tried -and succeed- to reign women back was throught indoctrination and the use of Role Model, mostly mythical. Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, is a good example. It is a vomit-inducing story about this mother who, when asked what were her favourite jewelery, showed her two sons which were "the most precious thing she had". Women were bombarded with the thought that THAT was what they had to be. Because, well, Cornelia's sons grew up to become two of the most important figure of the late-republic time, and of course it was because of MOMMY. Are YOU like Cornelia? That was pretty much what was said.

And now it is being said again. Remind me of a certain person up in Alaska.

_______________________

“I was talking about children that have not been properly house-trained. Left to their own impulses and indulged by doting or careless parents almost all children are yahoos. Loud, selfish, cruel, unaffectionate, jealous, perpetually striving for attention, empty-headed, for ever prating or if words fail them simply bawling, their voices grown huge from daily practice: the very worst company in the world. But what I dislike even more than the natural child is the affected child, the hulking oaf of seven or eight that skips heavily about with her hands dangling in front of her -- a little squirrel or bunny-rabbit -- and prattling away in a baby's voice.”


― Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove


lib'-er-ty: the freedom given to you to make the wrong decision, based on the reasoned belief that you will normally make the right one.

Very interesting parallels, T.

Many of us here have long criticized women who get an expensive university degree, often in a field that is highly in demand or pays quite well, only to throw it all away to leave the workforce to "start a family" several years later. The MRS degree is alive and well. Then these same women say "But it's all worth it to become a mother" and, of course, "Being a mom is The Most Important Job In The Worldâ„¢."

In the meantime, we have shortages of doctors and veterinarians in areas of the US because many of the med and vet school slots are taken by these women who receive preferences in admission and financial aid, only to quit later for the almighty sprog.

Perhaps it's biological. Perhaps it's the result of propaganda or persuasion about how great or important moodom is, as this thread discusses. But I can certainly say it's nonsensical. If you plan to leave work to sprog anyway, skip the degree and just find a spouse.

If women are so stoopid that being given all this freedom and opportunity leads to throwing it all away, then I don't know what to say. No one is forcing them to sluice 'n moo.

I like to read ancient history, I am getting this idea that "Christianity" is pretty much a template for Fascist Capitalism.

Christianity is a false religion invented by the Romans. Notice the difference in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Also, the Old Testament was completely redone. At the earliest times and then even more in the Middle Ages (more emphasis placed on obedience to authority in the rewrite commissioned by King James of England.)

The Roman Catholic Church is responsible for this bastardization of Judaism. It's all way off. There was no such person as "Jesus Christ". This is a title, not a name.
It could be hundreds of different people vying for *political* power. Which one was it?

How to piss off a hard core Catholic who has some historical knowledge: Ask them who Jesus Barabbas was

Yes, they shoved together a whole bunch of people, added mystical powers to this person - this comes from Greek and Roman mythology, then claimed this invented being was 'resurrected' - which is a bastardization of Egyptian burial rites.

Its all *bullshit*. Simple history, anyone can read it.

This will tell you why Jews are persecuted also - The Holy Roman Empire does not want this knowledge getting out. People will loose faith and be less pliable.

This is also why certain conspiracy minded Bible Thumpers distrust the Free Masons - which is essentially a form of Judaism. They know, too. What do you think the Crusades were for? To shut up the Knights Templar who had unearthed certain info the Catholic Church desperately wanted hidden. Knights Templar = First Free Masons. They invented that and secret rituals to conceal what they knew. Those 'secrets' of the Masonic Temple you always wondered about? Here ya go.

Also why the Catholic Church guards the Dead Sea Scrolls and various others very carefully. And won't allow anyone to see or study them. This is why.

Muslims don't see Jesus in a mystical light, either ~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Another group of people the Catholic Church and other hard line Christians don't like too much. They do give "Jesus" a bit more credit than (non existent) he deserves though, and make a half a prophet out of him, so often Christians would tolerate Muslims. But only so much.

The Romans *purposefully* invented all this crap and made "Jesus" some Super Hero - to control people. This was done by design.

Now - how this relates to Fascism and Control is - just think about it. The various ideology in "Christianity".

God made Adam and Eve. Eve was a sinner who gained knowledge. What does that mean? Do not think or ask questions. Intelligence = bad. Obey. Do not question.

Woman can be redeemed of sin through child bearing. Be fruitful and multiply. Multiply. Why was *that word* chosen? This denotes expanding of the population exponentially - which is something those looking to capitalize off of them would want. Why not - be fruitful and have a good time of it? Or - be fruitful and make a nice famblee for yourself? Why multiply? Why that word - which connotes someone thinking of expansion for their own gain.

Women are under the rule of men. That takes care of half the population, doesn't it? Get one half to rule the other half.

God made man in his own image. Man is the head of woman. Hey guy - YOU are like US - your rulers. Trick them via flattery. Same as calling a worker a "Manager" which is often an empty title and the worker is still a peon.

Adam and Eve fucked up in Eden and now they must work. You fucked yourselves, it's your own fault, get to work.

People must be married, one man one woman (sometimes a man can have more than one wife). This is so that all men can get a wife and they don't all go to Alpha Males only. It also locks them into breeding.

A wife's duty is to care for the home. Unpaid labor. Got that department covered. For free! And the men are thus freed up to work for the rulers. And the women are turned into breeding cows that produce more laborers and breeders for the rulers.

Look familiar?

Some other stray thoughts - I was thinking about Jews and it occurred to me - why is it that Christians and Capitalists see usury (making interest off of money lending ) as distasteful - downright sinful even - but profiting off of human labor is not sinful? Making money off money is bad, but making money of people is OK? I ran this by my Mom today and she got what I was saying and said - well - it's because they don't like Jews. (Jews were often forced into money lending as they were rootless people wo weren't big into farming or other trades. Also, as outcasts most of the time - they were forced to do the worked that others disdained.)

Could it also be because - the rulers did not want others acquiring wealth? Possibly becoming a threat to them, possible rivals? Jews have also always been known as more 'intellectual' types - and the rulers don't like that at all. We can see this to this day, all over the world, including among certain Bible Thumpers in the US South who don't like eggheads, geeks, etc. They want you stupid. Muslims have always been suspect in this regard too, as they placed more regard on learning. And thank Jah for them doing that - because they were the knowledge keepers during the Dark Ages.

In line with the above - there is some thought out there that the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. Or, not in the way thought. It is a fact that they had accumulated power and government positions in sections of Egypt, that became a bit threatening and the Egyptians kicked them out. It is believed that those who built the Egyptian Pyramids were actually skilled laborers who were paid well - not slaves at all. And it has been demonstrated that the stones would not have to be hauled in as giant blocks, simple cement aggregated blocks could be easily cast in place.

Most of Ancient History as we are told is FALSE. The *actual history* is even documented. They - those who rule off of "Christian" ideology - starting with the Roman Catholic Church - do not want this information getting out.

And again, consider some of the tenets of "Christianity" - looks alot like Capitalism, doesn't it?

Consider this too - any place that Catholicism gets into (or other hardline religions) - the society goes to shit. Latin America, as example. The society becomes overpopulated and quickly goes to many poor peasants and a few wealthy rulers. You can say the same for fanatical Islam, also, which is of course a sim religion based off of Abraham.

I would add that people should look at the Middle East - especially younger people or those not well versed in History. The Middle East as we know it today *was not always like this*. And in fact - only went bad recently. Late 1970s if memory serves. The governments of various countries were *threatened by* various radical Muslim groups - attacked by them. They decided to 'throw them a bone' - and allow them into government positions. And an inch quickly became a yard ~

The ME was not always like this. It was 'enlightened' and moderate and had been for centuries. The hard core, clamped down, Fascist rule we see today - this is recent.
Several of my older relatives did live in Iraq. Jews. Everyone mingled, there was no problem, and it was all mostly 'Western'. The only free states left are Israel and Lebanon. Some parts of Palestine and to some degree Iran. Iran *used to be* like a 'Holiday' destination - it's very scenic. Other relatives did live there too. I have only been to Israel.

Yes, to whoever said - this can happen here / anywhere - your effing right it could! Look at the ME! It WASN'T like this! It was nice. People were free. Radical Religious types got in and took it over. I remember reading an article recently about an (educated) Iranian woman, who had been living elsewhere - she said - look at this - we could be like Tokyo, - she was musing on what might have been. It was sad.

This is an interesting concept to read up on also - an economic theory (has been proven) - in ME oil producing countries that function as welfare states (no other industry) - as oil prices go up - peoples rights decrease. When they go down - they government must allow the people to work and create in other industries to gain revenues. You can Google that and read more, this is long enough as it is. It's rather self explanatory though.

I'm rather rusty on History. You can read more of course on any of these points. I have contemplated studying History, I'm getting rather burnt out on work. Maybe I will undertake a more formal study of this all. Had some (required) in school, and do like to read on my own. Most of it has been highly 'airbrushed' in current rulers' favor.
But of course *the truth* is out there. And the rulers know it too, and fear it.

Zzelda, fantastic and intriguing post! hankyou

There is so much to learn and gain by unplugging from the church/government 'unholy' alliance. We talk so much about breeders and how they feed, and have always fed, the machines of tyranny and consumerism. Something that organized religions have perfected.

Zzelda - Amen brother/sister

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby. And don't think maybe, if you can't feed your baby."
- The wisdom of the late Michael Jackson
"The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children." - Paul Ehrlich

Zzelda, I am afraid I have to disagree.

You see, Roman said such things about women CENTURIES before Christianity come around. And I mean, many centuries. 7 or so.
The story I retold about Cornelia is based in the late Roman Republic, and broadcasted values that were EVEN MORE ancient.

We have documents in which is it clearly stated that the women's prestige in ancient Italy was strongly tied with her ability not only to *have* children but to *educate* children which are even more ancient.
This is the Great Difference between Roman Culture and Greek Culture. In most Greek Culture (even Sparta one) women had children, of course, but the EDUCATION of the sons were on the men (often, on the City-State). In Roman Culture, the education on sons rested A LOT on the mother.

And this is a key fact.

Let me explain why: in two words, to educate someone in something you must know that thing yourself first.
So if women must educate their sons, if their VALUE lies exactly in the fact that it is the women that grow them up to be Citizens (capital required), then they must know those things as well.

But knowing things, being educated, make you more likely not only to want to educate your sons to be Citizens, but to want to be a Citizen yourself. And women COULDN'T be true citizens.

Hence the need to glorify the status of Motherhood beyond the biological function of shitting the loaf. Cultures that do not require women to be educated do not glorify motherhood so much. Greek cultures, again, didn't.

Motherhood was a golden cage.

The anecdotal story of Rome is riddled with stories about strong Mothers who stopped their men (husbands or sons) when they were being idiot, reminding them of the Civic Duties. Even the wife of ROMOLO HIMSELF stopped him doing war! And we must not forget Coriolano mother.

I can't speak about the role of women in Judaism. All I know is that the idea of Motherhood=Best Things a Woman Can Do is completely Roman, and predate Christianity by many centuries.

Also, I am afraid to say that the idea that Christianity "trapped" women is untrue as well.
In fact, the early Christianity liberated a lot of women, at least if we try to see it in their point of view.


Let me explain it: Christianity invented something that did not existed before. It invented all-female monastery.

Now, to US the idea of living in a monastery is the opposite of freedom, but this is a major difference in the frame of mind of us VS people who lived almost two millenia ago.

Lets try to see thing as THEY would have seen them.
To be a respectable woman back then meant having to get married at age 14, more or less, and having sprog after sprog.
The only "excape route" was prostitution. So your choice was being a whore or a mother. But only the role of Mother was respectable. Only mothers were worthy.
Christianity invented a third choice, a second way in which a Woman could be Respectable but not a mother. And she could have a culture, and live aside from the men. She could be free from men.

Also, when the Roman Empire broke down, Monasteries became place in which Culture was preserved. The daughter of Pipino (the King before Carlomagno... Charles the Great? Karl the Great? I don't know how he is called in English) was given a monastery by the King and she made it a center of Arts.

For both men and women in the Middle Age and late roman empire (which isn't the period of great darkness that the self-proclaimed "Illuminst" would love us to believe) living in a Monastery meant not having to break your back in the fields. It meant eating well twince or thrince a day. It meant getting an education.
It was an awful lot.

Of course, in later time things changed dramatically, but if we see the time between the first centuries before Christ and the 800, more or less, this was the frame in which we must contextualize. It is also true that men tried times and times again to put female monasteries under the thumb of various (male) clergy, with alternate success. Women fought all the time for the right of their own monasteries.
Now, for us, it seems incredibly stupid. How can that be considered freedom? But all the ancient Word (at least, Western Ancient Word) had no concept of absolute Freedom. You had freedom to do something, not Freedom. You were free to do, free from, free to, but never Free. You always had somebody highter than you to whom you had to give respect and somebody lower than you to whom you receive respect. There was no such thing as a peer-to-peer relationship. It WASN'T IN THEIR MIND.

In the word of Peter Dickenson:
"We are looking into our [..] past, which is like looking at a group of people far off across a flat, hot plain. The rising air wavers and changes. Light bends as if it were passing through invisible lenses. The people seem to dwindle, stretch, vanish, stand clear for a moment, and distort again. We are looking through lenses of time,, right at the edge of imagination's eyesight."
We are looking at the past. In that past, no woman would have thought herself as "same of man". No woman would have asked for that. As no man would have thought himself as "same of woman".

We should always, always remember that we are looking throught a lens, when we look at the Past.



FROM NOW ON, IT IS AN OT. SORRY, FEEL FREE TO SKIP.
_______________________________________


A word about "Falling Empire turns to Extremism in Religion".

This does seem to be true. I know no hard data nor scientific evidence, but it is indeed the case. It happened during the Falling of the Western Roman Empire, and it happened at the Fall of Ottoman Empire, but I disagree about the whole "come from the Government part". In the Ancient time, government was nothing like what we have now.
To think that the Roman Emperor Costantine, or any other, and I include Augustus in the number, could have had such a capillary control on the Empire as to ensure such policies is extremely improbable (I don't say impossible as a matter of principle, but I would otherwise).
It just wasn't possible counting the technology of the time. Same with the Ottoman Empire. Heck, part of the Ottoman Empire that wasn't Ottoman Empire anymore turned to extremism back then!
Same with the Early Church. When the only thing you had to pass information was a very fast horse and a lot of bandits between point A and point B, not to mention invading hordes and assorted perils the possibility that you could keep such a thight reign is dubious at best.

I think that is more of a psychological or sociological thing than a political one. People see what their secular strenght weakening, so they turn to God. And they turn to God an awful lot!
This in turn make the Religious Leader more vocal, because they have got more power. In a democracy, it means that the Religious Leader have a change to become Government. Otherwise, it means that the Government have to deal with increasing annoying and powerful Religious Leader(s). This bring on changes in a way to please the Religious Leader(s).
This is my observation, I have no paper or such about it, mind you

___

And this bring on the third point: the Allegiances Between Church and Government.

Which didn't exist before Protestantism.
Hold on a moment!

What I mean is that, up to 1500, Church and Empire butted head considerably. There were occasional moment in which both wanted the same things (Charles the Great and Costantine, to name two), but it was a rocky relationship at the best time.

The Empire (because for all the Medieval Time the myth of the Empire remained strong inside the mind of people, and they tried and tried to recreate it) needed the confirmation of the Church, as the only power who could confirm it. And the Church was also the only power who stopped the various little or big warlords from completely tear each other to shreds*. But it wasn't an allegiance and it sure as Hell wasn't a plaesant relationship of tea and biscuit. Of course, in the State of Rome, the Church was the Government. Both only there.
(About Charles the Great, there is an interesting bit lost to history. A legend if you will. It stated that the Merovingios, the Kings of France before the Carolingios, thought themselves the descendant of Jesus. No, it wasn't Dan Brown who invented the idea that Jesus had kids with Mary of Magdala. It was hard for the Carolingios to counterattack such a belief, and they did so by, yes, temporal allegiances with the Roman Church which said that Jesus had no children. So the Merovingios couldn't be Jesus heirs. It might or not be true, mind you. Bot the fact that Jesus and the Magdalena had fun and the fact that the Merovingios were their heirs. But it is interesting to know)

Dante's work, the Divina Commedia, illustrate this beautifully. In all Italy, in the 1200s, people killed each other on whevever there was a primate of the Empire over the Church or the Church over the Empire (secular vs religious autority, in two words). The two fractions were called guelfi and ghibellini. Dante had to go on exile from Florence after his faction lost.
In the middle of the Middle Age, the primate of the Church wasn't AT ALL a smooth point.
It was the time of Frederick the Great, and you can see why it bothered him.

Now, we all can see the problem: the Church was in the way of the creation of what we know now as the National State. In short, the Church saw itself an one entity which gave power to one Empire. Period. Other "Princes" (NOT kings) could only exists as vassals to the Emperor. One Emperor because One God, you see? So it had to be done, for them.
Which went well when the aforementioned Princes weren't very king-y and had not a very clear idea of "State".
But when things got more settled, there were less barbarian hordes and even the threath of Islam wasn't so much a threath anymore** very powerful people started to get annoyed at the metaphorical chains that the Church had on them.

Enter Martin Luther, the War of Religion and, in the end cuius regius eius religious.
Protestantism gave Government a way to get away from Rome. A way to make their own Religion. Now, people followed Protestantism for a lot of very good reasons (everybody knows how nasty the Roman Church was), and I am sure some Very Powerful Persons were honestly converted. I am equally sure than a lot of them thought that the possibility of not having all those annoying orders from Rome was definitively a bonus. Like -maybe?- Charles the Great allied himself with Rome to overthrown the Merovingios-Heirs-Of-Christ, so a lot of Princes allied themselves with Protestantism to owethrown Rome.
History repeats itself. It is also called "History bites you in the ankles".
Not all of them were equally successful, mind you. France never managed to have their own religion (even if some Kings did try). Other were.


___________________________________________________________________________


Now, of course we can say that ALL the documents EVERYWHERE are false. Including the one that were in the hands of the Muslim, or the Czar of Russia, or the Bizantine Empire (all place where the Church and the Western Governments couldn't put their hand on).
I suppose we could.
And I am NOT denying something is being hidden by the Church and/or by some Government(s). I suspect it is true, but I also believe what the source tell me. And frankly, as many Jews have pointed out: anybody who believes in a Jew Cospirancy doesn't know how much Jews argue with each other. Same with the Catholic Church. Still, a lot of documents, passed in the hands of various reputable scientists and historians, tell us things.
But buying in those Cospirancy Theories is, well, absurd. History is more complicated than that. Not to mention that I can't understand how Government could be so good at keeping silent people, considering their abysmal score in a lot of other things.
Or, as a Jewish friend of mine said:
"I am a Orthodox Jew. And I am still waiting the Great Sages to tell me what I should do"



___________________________________________________________________________
If somebody is interesting about my source, I can put a full bibliography here becuase, well, it would be too much, but I suggest:

Any book on John Keegan if interested in the control of warfare by the Church during the early middle time.
Eva Cantarella (already mentioned) about the role of women in Rome.
LeGoff for anything at all about medieval time. There is a book about him in specific about the freedom of choosing the monastery life for women, but I don't know its title in english. Also very interesting his books about the clash of Pope and Emperor.

___________________________________________________________________________



*The Church in Medieval Time set the standard about when and how you could make war. Think it is nothing? Think AGAIN. Every system who can destroy itself, an a lot of system can, have to find a way to stop it or either end up as Easter Island. The Church said you couldn't make war on sunday or on holy days. It said some weapon were forbidden. It said you shouldn't kill women and children. Now, people did all those things (some more than other) but it was technically forbidden and if caught could be punished. The baron who followed William in the invasion of England in 1066 had to feast for an year to purge from this sin, did you know that? And tradition says a Pope stopped Attila from getting too near Rome. That was a role of the Early Church people often forget about.
When all Hell break lose is when those chains get broken, either because it went against "other" (IE crusades) or because the Order itself went broke (IE the War of Religion). Same happened during IIWW. The ideas of "Pacta sunt Servanda" and that a leader could do what the heck he wanted to its people ("Who remember the Armenians?") had held from 1600s -after the war of religions themselves- to Hitler. Then he broke them. Even if i blame Clausewitz more.
War between a system of war-control and another are the worst. Because there is, well, no control. I wrote my bachelor thesys on the Control of War in Ancient and Moder Time. I strongly suggest the works of Keegan (I think John Keegan, but I can find the reference is anybody is interested) if you want to read more.

** Crociates were many things. Among the things they were, it was a way to unite all the warring princes of Europe against something "else" and a way for the Pope to show his power. At a certain point, it became obvious that people weren't very interesting in crociates anymore because 1. It was clear it was a lost cause, 2. Pilgrims were welcome in Jerusalem anyway, 3. They had other things to do at home and 4. Islam was merringly butchering iself up, so it wasn't a threat anymore.

_______________________

“I was talking about children that have not been properly house-trained. Left to their own impulses and indulged by doting or careless parents almost all children are yahoos. Loud, selfish, cruel, unaffectionate, jealous, perpetually striving for attention, empty-headed, for ever prating or if words fail them simply bawling, their voices grown huge from daily practice: the very worst company in the world. But what I dislike even more than the natural child is the affected child, the hulking oaf of seven or eight that skips heavily about with her hands dangling in front of her -- a little squirrel or bunny-rabbit -- and prattling away in a baby's voice.”


― Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove


lib'-er-ty: the freedom given to you to make the wrong decision, based on the reasoned belief that you will normally make the right one.

t -

I think we are thinking along the same lines - my idea being that "Christianity" is a Roman invention. It is all their ideas, they re wrote others' history to reflect their own thinking and added their own ideology. Which of course came from their own history and governmental ideas.

Anyway, I just came across a hot one on Truu Moo, calling for Fat Cows to repent their sins! eyes2
Here's a link to c&p ~
http://www1.truuconfessions.com/channels/Mom/confessions?page=10

Here is the OP, just for context, I saw the eyeroller in the comments -

Quote
#703516
I get that I'm fat because of my food choices - I'm not in some kind of denial, checking my thyroid every few months or anything, but what I don't get is how to manage the cravings. Why can't I be satisfied with a normal meal? Do skinny people sit around physically craving ice cream? I don't think they do - I think they go thru life without thinking about it much. How do I get there?

Here is the ridiculous comment on that, bold mine -

Quote

I understand, OP. I really, really do. I couldn't manage portion sizes at all (and still don't at home) but I have made just a few small goals. One rule- no junk after 8 pm. If I am hungry, I have a bowl of cereal. I do eat junk at 7:55 quite often though. Also, I don't want to be the fat girl at the birthday party. I used to sit around watching them cut the cake and trying to time it so that I'd be in the right place at the right time to get the big corner piece, and I'd ask DH to "take his home" so I could eat it in the car since he's allergic to dairy, rather than saying "no, thank you." I spent a lot of time in prayer and it has helped so much. Are you Christian? If so, Read Solomons song from the bible to yourself, not once or twice but daily. Close your eyes and imagine that the one who created you is speaking directly to you. Imagine His adoration of your body and apologize for mistreating it. I'm not some over-the-top religious nut but I have found a lot of value in looking at what society thinks of me, what I think of me, and what our maker thinks of me. I also plan for the day by putting food in the crock pot and packing a lunch, allowing treats as desired on top of that and keeping very busy. If all else fails, try eating as you please but forcing yourself to exercise 4+ times/wk.

APOLOGIZE TO THE CREATOR! FOR BEING A FATASS!!!

REPENT, YOU TUB!

Jesus F. Christ.

eyes2 eyes2 eyes2

Yeah. Talk about brain washing.

Duh-hood is revered in religions and society too. Christian men have to breed or be labeled weird and possibly child molestors. Frankly, I don't care if moos want to go back into the home as long as all women are not expected to do so and women's rights are not eroded. Of course, it doesn't work that way.

I just wanted to point out that duhs are really patting each other on the back lately for breeding as well. Go to an internet forum geared toward men and soon enough they will be talking about how proud they are of their kyds, and telling the CF guy how great it is to be a dad.

Apologizing for being overweight? I have now seen everything.
If they think God is so great, why don't they pray at night to have him make them skinny by morning.....
.....it didn't work? Really? I wonder the fuck why...eyes2

~~~~~~~~~~~
I miss my little feather baby.

Saying Christianity is an invention of the Roman is a lot like saying that Italian (my language) is an invention of the Roman as well. It is a tad bit more complicated.

Christianity has a lot of ideas that aren't Roman at all. Nor Jewish. Forgiveness, for one. Romans thought forgiveness was the worst form of weakness. Greek thought that Forgiveness was foolish. Judaism thought that Forgiveness wasn't for Human. Christianity has a central dogma in Forgiveness.

Also, self-sacrifice. Romans or Greeks had nothing like the idea of giving yourself for another person. For the State, yes. But for other people? Nope. Neither did Jewish. For a Jew back then (I don't know now) the idea was presumption. Hubris. It wasn't on you to choose to die in the place of somebody else. Or for someone else sins.

Romans were aggressive people. In a frightening way. Their whole concept of "love" was based on rape. No, I am neither joking nor exagerating. It is true. A little city up some hills did not become an Empire by being nice with its neighboors.

As a matter of fact, Christian ideas were so utterly un-roman like that it was the only religion they tried to bash down.

There is something of Roman in Christianity, certainly. But not the core ideas. The Core ideas are utterly unroman. The only thing that come close to the aforementioned value in all the Ancient Word might be the words of Zarathustra (the prophet, not the book by Nietzche) and the religion of Ahura Mazda*. Might be close, mind you.



And what I was more concerned here was drawing a paragon between what happened to women in the Empire (before it became Christian) and what I see happening now, than talking theology^^



___________

*Accidentally, the oldest monotheism still alive. Beats Judaism by centuries.

_______________________

“I was talking about children that have not been properly house-trained. Left to their own impulses and indulged by doting or careless parents almost all children are yahoos. Loud, selfish, cruel, unaffectionate, jealous, perpetually striving for attention, empty-headed, for ever prating or if words fail them simply bawling, their voices grown huge from daily practice: the very worst company in the world. But what I dislike even more than the natural child is the affected child, the hulking oaf of seven or eight that skips heavily about with her hands dangling in front of her -- a little squirrel or bunny-rabbit -- and prattling away in a baby's voice.”


― Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove


lib'-er-ty: the freedom given to you to make the wrong decision, based on the reasoned belief that you will normally make the right one.