Neagu Djuvara and his oppinions

OK, you want to talk "architecture"...
In Russia, The Orthodox churches built in Orthodox style are small. The lay palaces built in Western (Baroque, Gothic, Saxon) style are immense and solid.
This how it looks in Russia:
Orthodox architecture= stunted, limited, arcane, inward looking.
Lay architecture = lavish, large, cosmopolite, progressive, open towards the "outside" Western style (not inspired by the local "church" architecture).
This clearly points towards a split between the religion and the "flock"
Even in Romania, Orthodox church architecture is seen as "sacred" and "untouchable". If anyone built their house in church style, they will be laughed at or may be excommunicated. In the West, you can see thousands of buildings built in the same architectural style as the church next door, be that Gothic, Baroque, Romanesque, etc. That is "sharing the cultural riches", that is a benefit for the humanity gained from architecture, building technology, building tools, building materials, building geometry, building structural engineering.
None of that when it comes to the Orthodox architecture. There is an obvious aloofness and parochialism (in the sense of not sharing) when it comes to the Orthodox architecture. Orthodoxy, never opened any place of learning on par with their Western counterparts where one could learn architecture, the mathematics needed to build a building, the physics needed to keep the building up, the chemistry to make the cement and the paints, etc. Catholic/Protestant churches opened and sponsored hundreds of such places of learning, even if it was with the intention to benefit from the knowledge imparted by these places of learning. And when Neagu Djuvara speaks of the lack of benefit from Orthodoxy, I think he means that!

BUT, before we get bogged-down again in yet another "sideshow of clowns and bearded women" , let us stick to the "main event": the fact that the Orthodox Church missed the Renaissance with all its wealth of knowledge. THAT remains the issue.

Radu

As i said previously, situations was diferent. In western Europe most of the peasents was serfs, here most was free men. They had weapons, Stefan cel Mare even issued a decree with days when they need to train, and each village needed to send to army a number of troops. They fight for their family and land first, not because their noble order them to that. They was if you wish a half-professional soldiers, and quite able to fight in our autochtonous style and tactic

Diferent styles, again. Actualy we usualy defeat the "western style" armies, and even turks was quite succesful. When the firearms become more and more dominant is the moment when we fall back, because we didnt had posibility the arm and train a large enough army in that style. Even so, Mihai Viteazul was able to have quite succesful campaignes with rather small armies (and made mostly by professional soldiers) vs larger enemies troops

I am sory, you cant compare skrimishes betwen nobles with full scale invasions of imperial armies. And by percent, i think the fights here, mixed with peace periods when taxes was needed to be paid (so again slowing the development) are more damaging that the bigger scale wars you mentioned, which was punctual anyway. Not to mention that we was rather small and with a smaller base (as population or economy) compared with some of the western powers back then. And they fight among them, as similar cultures, sharing similar values (or close), they didnt had such an alien great power at the borders, as we had.

Plus that, by the time when turks made their last effort to reach farther in Europe, it was a coalition of powers who fight with them, a real, military help, not just apreciation letters or admirative comments as our leaders usualy received

you seem to think the "romanian principates" were engaged in a few century long continuus campaign against the turks.
what exactly is the difference if a village gets burned down every 10 years by the turks or by someone else?

I don't want to talk architecture, for the reasons I mentioned several times before. But if I do consider architecture then I see no point in separating between religious and lay architecture, because they were both built by people of a certain religion. Russia has reached an apex of power and has plenty of large and beautiful cities. Yet it is Orthodox.

Please go back and read what Djuvara said. He doesn't merely say Orthodoxism hampered or slightly retarded/delayed development, he says it prevented it.

Djuvara's position is also untenable because this kind of "determinism" can lead to various results which are no longer acceptable today. For example, one could say skin color determines development. Countries with white majorities are significantly more developed than those without such majorities and most (if not all) underdeveloped countries have black majorities. Hence, a conclusion a-la-Djuvara might be that black skin color prevents progress. Please refute this.

I am not talking about the religion of the builders. Ignore "religion" for a second.
"Architecture", "art", "science", "medicine" is the "end product". What I want you to concentrate on is what the medieval people man had to do in order to attain that "end product". The medieval man had to develop new techniques, sciences and skills they did not have before. Because of that, the medieval times witnessed an explosion in knowledge. There is clear evidence that at that time the Orthodox Church did not care to invest in knowledge while the Catholic/Protestant Churches did. THAT is what I am aiming at. And when I mention of those religions, I am referring to administration, not catechism.

As I said three times before (this is the fourth now) I never made a case based on the superiority of any religion. I was talking about history, not about any kind of "xyz...ism" or condescending theory.

Radu

At every 10 years? Just Stefan cel Mare had 48 battles in 47 years, and the list can go on with others. As well, you cant compare some little countries as Romanian ones back then who fight usualy against larger (or much larger) ones, or among them, with bigger powers in west, who fight vs similar enemies, and didnt have to fight longer wars on all the teritory

Neither had at every 10 years all villages burned down by the neighbour noble as you seem to imply

Actualy the catolics and protestants distroyed more then impulsionate the knowledge, many things from ancient roman empire was forbiden or forgoten, and revived gradualy or similar achivements was reached again just in industrialization era. Without the Catholic Church (and later even protestant one) involvement the world would be more advanced today

On the other side, Orthodox Church see her true meaning in the world, the spirituality, and didnt interfere in science or try to impose a harsh control on life of the peoples.
You didnt see in Orthodox countries peoples tortured and burned on stakes because they said the Earth evolve around the Sun, nor acused of witchcraft if they used medicinal herbs, or if a gelous neighbour said it saw how they speak with the devil at night.

The "more fertile" ground in Italy had nothing to do with Catholicism, but with the fact that there were funds available there and no Ottomans, while the Empire was on the verge of disappearance. It's like a peasant growing wheat for 20 years on the same field and then the field gets flooded by the river, permanently, and he starts growing on a different field. It doesn't mean that the old field was worse, just that it became unavailable. These people did not arrive at a level by chance, but were the products of a 1000 years of civilization. Some of the Greeks that made history in the West, were not even something special in Constantinople, but because of their education (yes, the "backward" Greek Orthodox secular education) they were good enough to teach at the great universities of the West.

You say that the Orthodox Church has no history on patronage of the arts, yet I already mentioned the fact that the early Catholic painting, mosaics and architecture was inspired from Byzantine art, which itself is mostly ecclesiastic art. Byzantine painting, chanting, architecture, survive even to our day. How could this have happened without patronage of the Orthodox Church? Please explain, for I cannot see other theories.

You ask where are the monuments. Monuments are built by strong prosperous states or cities. There were none of those left on the map of Orthodoxy in the 15th century, up until the emergence of Russia in the 18th century. What had been built until then was mostly destroyed by the Ottomans in the territories they occupied.

Circular

Something like this?!
Anyway, the very nature of the Orthodox doctrine (tolerant, rather "mellow") did not (and does not) encourage competition, conflict, thus "succesuri"!
The first time I've heard this theory I was in college, at an informal discussion with a young (then) assistant. I wish I remembered more of his arguments, but among them was this one:
"the Orthodox Church / Doctrine was always about avoiding conflicts, and - as Marx said once - contradiction is the engine of progress" (I might not be very accurate, but this was the jist of the idea).

So again, no actual argument. Btw, South America & Central America are Catholic (and mildly protestant lately), right? What good did that do to them? Doesn't make you think that just maybe there are more important factors to be taken into account than just religion?

So MMM, no reaction to this yet?

I already said it four times, I am saying it the fifth time:
I am not making a case based on the superiority of one church over another. I was referring to the fact that the Orthodox East missed the explosion of knowledge brought about by the Renaissance and all the related benefits. That is all. Please do not understand from that that I somehow imply that Catholics/Protestants are smarter. I lived many years among them and trust me, they ain't no architects... some of them can barely speak.

Victor, if the Orthodox Church had a history of art patronage BEFORE the fall of Constantinople, why did they not engage in a similar patronage of the arts AFTER the fall of Constantinople? The church continued to exist.

Radu

At every 10 years? Just Stefan cel Mare had 48 battles in 47 years, and the list can go on with others. As well, you cant compare some little countries as Romanian ones back then who fight usualy against larger (or much larger) ones, or among them, with bigger powers in west, who fight vs similar enemies, and didnt have to fight longer wars on all the teritory

Neither had at every 10 years all villages burned down by the neighbour noble as you seem to imply

history is very much larger than Stephen, a handfull of larg(er) battles and a multitude of skirmishes.

we were talking about what degree of peace the west enjoyed while "they deveoped". there was no peace in central and western europe. who managed to develop, developed not because the absence of war and destruction, but despite it.

The fact is that the Ottoman Empire was the great power of its day and this region of Europe bore the brunt of its pressure. Then it fell under its influence, was exploited by it and as the Empire decayed it brought it down with it. And yes, the West was aware that this region was a buffer. It doesn't mean it "took advantage" or "has a debt," but I think it was obviously a benefit, not a loss for it. How large of a benefit is speculation.

Does that mean we could have built cathedrals/lavish architecture? I don't think so. We have to keep in mind that in 1500 the Romanian principalities had the following population: Transylvania - around 1 million, Tara Romaneasca - around 300,000, Moldova - around 400,000. They were mainly agrarian and they were peripheral to the new trade routes.

The wars they fought brought no gain. They fought simply to resist the Ottoman Empire. Winning a battle didn't bring any advantage. No advantageous position to control highly profitable trade, no colony, no nothing. Only the certainty of an Ottoman follow-up. The resources they lost in these wars were a complete waste. Maybe it would have been better for them to align with the Ottoman Empire from the start and join its forces going into Europe.

I said it before and I repeat: I am not looking for blame or excuses. I am describing the reality as it is.

Let me put it this way: If I said "There is snow outside", you could tell me a multitude of reasons why there is snow outside (cold front from Siberia, global warming, location, bla, bla) but that does not get rid of the reality that there is still snow outside.

So, telling me "why" the Orthodox Church missed the Renaissance matters little. The fact still remains that the Orthodox Church missed the Renaissance. And this happened across the entire breadth of the Orthodox Church, from the Russian North to the Greek South, where there were varying degrees of riches and wealth and not all of it under Ottoman rule. So, it seems that wealth or rule were not really the issue. To the objective eye, it is evident that the Orthodox Church did not see any benefit in investing knowledge.

But here is the point that you seem (or pretend) to miss: This is not about the trinkets and gadgets, cathedrals, Pietas or Madonnas of the Rocks. I said it before and I say it again. The cathedrals and works of art are the end products. What was learned during the process of building the cathedral or studying human anatomy in order to get a more realistic David represented a wealth of knowledge that could be used in other fields, and THAT is what made all the difference.

Let me put it this way, Imperialist. You claim to be an educated man with a university degree. The degree diploma that you can frame and hang on a wall is a "symbol". It symbolises all that you learned in university for the previous four years. There is no denial that at the end of your stint in the university, you learned a lot and as a result you became smarter than you were when you went in. All that knowledge that you gained can be used in a multitude of ways, and you are cleverer than your neighbour because of what you learned. You can get a better job and perform better in it than your neighbour. You may be able to make more sense of a book than your neighbour. You can understand the allegories in a poem better than your neigbour. You can make sense of philosophy better than your neighbour. In fact, you appreciate philosophy and a good book. All of that because you spent four years learning and growing your mind. You put a value on growing your mind. And whatever you learned, you can share with others, who will in turn become that much cleverer, and who in their own right may tell someone else and so on and so forth. But your neighbour does not put a value on learning. He is happy in his little world of drunken stupor, he picks fights with random punters and goes bragging every time he knocks someone else's tooth. He could get a degree diploma on the internet if he wanted one. To him, that degree diploma would be just something to wave it in front of everyone's eyes and pretend to be clever. In fact, he will put that diploma on the inside of the windscreen of his "A-seis". But he would be just as dumb. He thinks that going to college for a piece of paper is stupid, he laughs at anyone who reads books (you can download the movie with bredpit from the torrents), and thinks that philosophy is gay.

THAT is the same with the "cathedral". That is just a "symbol" of what the people who built it learned during that time when they built it. The cathedral, for all its might, is just a trinket. Forget the trinket! Think of what was needed to build it. Think of what it symbolises. All of that stuff that was needed had to be developed from scratch. THAT, my learned friend, is knowledge. And knowledge is power. And the Catholic Church did not ignore that. Museo Vaticani shows that they cared for knowledge, gathered it and used it. There is no equivalent of Museo Vaticani in the Orthodox Church.

Radu

@Victor: I was away for a few days so I couldn't possibly answer (again) to your challenge. Anyway, right now couldn't add many (any) important things to what Radub and Dragos wrote already. Perhaps the Orthodoxy is not the most important factor in our becoming as a people or in our "retarded ways" , but it is an important one nevertheless.
@udar: study a little more beyond the "patriotard" view of history. I'd recommend to you Lucian Boia's books...

thanks, in fact i did read some of his writings a while ago, and i wasnt that impresed. Some things are correct and common sense, but some are just rubish. Actualy i think there is a historian from Cluj University who pretty much demolished many of Boia "ideas" in his book.

There is another thing i observed, similar in a way with what happened in the 50's, when some historians received indications from Moscow how to rewrite history. Now some of them seem to receive indications from some EU departments i think, for the same reason, to rewrite history. Problem is that sometimes the history is more close to reality just as it was know, and dont need to be rewrited or "demythized" to look "good" for the new political concepts.