Replies

I don’t find it odd. Given a religious monopoly (rather than a polytheistic model such as existed in pre-christian Rome and Greece), there is great incentive on behalf of its leaders to gather as many resources as possible to reinforce their position. And because these institutions produce nothing and are not taxed on the wealth they accrue, goods and services that would otherwise be available to the public are not. The effect is that the church eventually controls the public’s purse strings and supersedes government, and when government and church become one, the result is a parasitocracy which cannot sustain itself; the host dies.

Hmmm, sounds a lot like the modern Church of Global Warming Apocalypse, or at least what the GWA zealots would like to have after they shut up all naysayers. However, that account also strongly resembles Gibbons’ account of the Roman decline. For a more sensible account, see the Teaching Company course on the foundations of western civilization.

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=370&id=370&pc=History%20-%20Ancient%20and%20Medieval

excerpt from course description:

Illuminating Questions about Familiar Categories

Professor Noble suggests that many conventional historical categories and concepts can obscure as much as they reveal. By setting aside these ideas, you can open your mind to a broader and perhaps more accurate picture of history.

Did the Roman Empire really “fall”? What did people at the time experience? What exactly was being reborn in the Renaissance? Is it historically accurate to speak of the “Protestant Reformation”? Why do we think of the Middle Ages as just that—i.e., a time somehow sandwiched between two other (and presumably superior) times? Did the brilliant intellectuals and writers who clustered around the court of Charlemagne see it that way?