patrick.net

Why not?
It meets Dan's definition of the brain.
All you need is memory, storage, processor, and an on/off switch...

Heraclitusstudent says

or that my car could actually be sentient

SoftShell says

Why not?

It meets Dan's definition of the brain.

All you need is memory, storage, processor, and an on/off switch...

Heraclitusstudent says

or that my car could actually be sentient

Of course a computer system in a car could be sentient, but that does not mean that any car today is remotely sentient.

Uhhh, this car is....
a cop wouldn't do this intentionally....
http://www.youtube.com/embed/SzDfMPe40n8

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Why not?

It meets Dan's definition of the brain.

All you need is memory, storage, processor, and an on/off switch...

Heraclitusstudent says

or that my car could actually be sentient

Of course a computer system in a car could be sentient, but that does not mean that any car today is remotely sentient.

Reality says

So what's your great idea for crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior among the 20% of the population that suffering from various degrees of sociopathy?

Teaching morality, opportunities and law enforcement.

Reality says

The Romans couldn't really afford the professional standardized imperial army either. The Roman Imperial army was a ponzi scheme just like any bureaucracy: the bulk of the pay was in the pension plan: a promise of a plot of land to settle on the frontier after certain number of years of service.

They paid for it for about 500 years. Many more centuries in the Eastern Empire. Roman soldiers received all their equipment, regular wages, and the land grant. Did medieval common soldiery receive regular cash wages, organized and delivered by officials?

If there was no more land, how did both the Eastern and Western Emperors settled Federated German Tribes on Roman Land, while requiring them to honor any Roman holdings already there (which is where the Gallo-Romans came from)? That means there was not only good land for the tribes, but also for those Romans already there.

Valens gave the Goths half of Thrace; the reason they revolted is a story that explains, I think, the Collapse. The Roman Aristocracy ripped off the Goths, taking the tools and seed sent by the Emperor for them and selling it to them at a high price, levying fake taxes that went into their own pockets, and debt enslaving them, which caused them to revolt.

Constantine and Diocletian passed laws to tax colonii (tenant farmers) and forbidding them to leave the estates they currently worked on, to prevent them from leaving - to virgin lands, perhaps? This is the origin of Western Feudalism, by the way. A landlord's dream, tenant farmers who can never bid their labor out for the best return, and who are paying the taxes instead of the estate. Tax Evasion was a science among Latin landowners.

Which leads us to:
Reality says

Eventually people lost all faith in the Roman army pension with benefits model, which had to be replaced by the 1099 independent contractor model, aka Feudalism: bring your own tools to do the work of chopping up people in cold blood.

The Limitanei, a force of border soldiers created in the later empire, got lands during their service, near their station on the frontier. The origin of serfdom I dealt with earlier.

Reality says

Harold lost at Hastings in the classic way infantry loses to cavalry: lack of mobility. Harold's infantry did not break initially because of losing, but breaking ranks in order to pursue what they thought was easy victory, and got easily picked off piece meal by Will's combined arms forces.

Harold's Army had pulled off a forced march, fresh from a victory over a Danish pretender's army. Even so, Harold's Army fended off the Normans all day long easily - it wasn't until the King was hit by an (un)lucky arrow when his army started to lose heart.

Reality says

In other words, Vickings were the Cavalry of the Sea, engaging in hit-and-run cost-effective cavalry tactics.

Vikings were considered Pagans outside Christendom, and had never been part of any Classical Domain.

They were stunningly effective because these so-called mobile cavalry armies didn't exist until after the Vikings raided.

Reality says

The decisive factor was the arabs not having winter clothing, so they had to finish the campaign before the pending winter. Otherwise, they could easily bypass Chuck's stationary defense, and they should have (from a pure tactical/strategic point of view). Also, the greedy invaders were loaded down with loot from previous victories.

The decisive factor was Heavy Frank infantry fighting in close formation, which the unsupported Arab Cavalry could not break.

VD Hansen has a great account of this battle in his book "Carnage and Culture", I strongly recommend it.

Here is a Roman author writing about the Franks in the mid 500s:

The military equipment of this people [the Franks] is very simple .... They do not know the use of the coat of mail or greaves and the majority leave the head uncovered, only a few wear the helmet. They have their chests bare and backs naked to the loins, they cover their thighs with either leather or linen. They do not serve on horseback except in very rare cases. Fighting on foot is both habitual and a national custom and they are proficient in this. At the hip they wear a sword and on the left side their shield is attached. They have neither bows nor slings, no missile weapons except the double edged axe and the angon which they use most often. The angons are spears which are neither very short nor very long. They can be used, if necessary, for throwing like a javelin, and also in hand to hand combat.[25]

http://tinyurl.com/lzbogms

Heavy Cavalry is rare in Western Europe until after 1000AD, and not of much account in the Dark Ages. I would agree Heavy Cavalry is a major part of Eastern warfare during this time.

SoftShell says

Most people at one time believed the earth was flat.

How'd that work out for them?

That worked out very well for people who never traveled, which was most of humanity for a long time.

That goes to show that knowledge must be revised and refined all the time, not that sticking to pure logic is a practical position.

SoftShell says

a cop wouldn't do this intentionally....

That was attempted murder. The cop should either get the death penalty or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Had the victim or a bystander shot the cop to death, the shooter should not be prosecuted because self-defense and the defense of other innocents is perfectly good justification for killing someone, including any cop, who is currently attempting murder.

SoftShell says

Uhhh, this car is....

a cop wouldn't do this intentionally....

As I said: you are not serious.

The point being that your assertion:

Heraclitusstudent says "Basically you are denying the obvious that most people would agree on."

means nothing as what "most people agree on" has changed dramatically throughout history.

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

Most people at one time believed the earth was flat.


How'd that work out for them?

That worked out very well for people who never traveled, which was most of humanity for a long time.

In this post, no, I'm not.
The bigger question is: Why would you state the obvious?

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

Uhhh, this car is....


a cop wouldn't do this intentionally....

As I said: you are not serious.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

So what's your great idea for crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior among the 20% of the population that suffering from various degrees of sociopathy?

Teaching morality, opportunities and law enforcement.

That works for 80% of the population, but not the 20% suffering from various degrees of sociopathy and are willing to take their chances against law enforcement for extraordinary gains. Criminal enterprises are often high profit opportunities as law enforcement essentially remove competition from non-sociopathic 80% of the population. What makes the math even more enticing for the sociopathic is that Law enforcement can only catch about 20% of criminals; any law enforcement system more draconian than that tend to attract sociopaths into the ranks of the law enforcement itself.

So once again, the result is 20% of the population are willing to take chances against law enforcement, 80% of that (i.e. 16% of the entire population) can get away with it! What do you have up your sleeves to curtail that 16%? You don't have one! That's the role for religions in society. That's why when human societies go through cycles of unbelieving, they are quickly followed by futile attempt to grow even bigger government to make up for the lack of catchment curtailing the 16%. Such attempts always fail, and then the society falls apart, going through periods of turmoil and then give rise to a new religion that roughly 80% of the population can believe again, and thereby reducing that 16% to 3% or so. At that level, society can function again.

thunderlips11 says

They paid for it for about 500 years.

No. The Crisis of the 3rd century took place as early as 200 years into the Empire. In fact, the Roman soldier became dependent on their generals for pay as early as the late Republic period. That's why the old Republic transformed into the Roman Empire.

thunderlips11 says

If there was no more land, how did both the Eastern and Western Emperors settled Federated German Tribes on Roman Land, while requiring them to honor any Roman holdings already there (which is where the Gallo-Romans came from)? That means there was not only good land for the tribes, but also for those Romans already there.

By then, it was late in the Empire, the Roman population had abandoned frontier lands and flocked to Rome for the dole. The federated German tribes were being hired as 1099 frontier defenders.

thunderlips11 says

Constantine and Diocletian passed laws to tax colonii (tenant farmers) and forbidding them to leave the estates they currently worked on, to prevent them from leaving - to virgin lands, perhaps?

Not "virgin lands" but entering free agent labor market.

thunderlips11 says

Harold's Army had pulled off a forced march, fresh from a victory over a Danish pretender's army. Even so, Harold's Army fended off the Normans all day long easily - it wasn't until the King was hit by an (un)lucky arrow when his army started to lose heart.

No. Harold's shield wall was being picked apart due to his own infantry running off to chase retreating opponents in the mistaken belief that they were winning. Once seeing that, William's men deliberately rode up to then retreated from the shield wall, drawing away more and more elements of the infantry shield wall to be defeated in detail. Harold being shot happened later and forestalled any chance at rallying a doomed cause.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

In other words, Vickings were the Cavalry of the Sea, engaging in hit-and-run cost-effective cavalry tactics.

Vikings were considered Pagans outside Christendom, and had never been part of any Classical Domain.

They were stunningly effective because these so-called mobile cavalry armies didn't exist until after the Vikings raided.

They were using high mobility hit-and-run "Cavalry Tactics" just like modern helicopters do, except their specific technology was the long boat. Perhaps you do not understand what the common military term "Cavalry Tactics" mean: using high mobility to probe and find enemy's weak spots then maximize exploitation, avoid head-on collisions with the enemy's strong points.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

The decisive factor was the arabs not having winter clothing, so they had to finish the campaign before the pending winter. Otherwise, they could easily bypass Chuck's stationary defense, and they should have (from a pure tactical/strategic point of view). Also, the greedy invaders were loaded down with loot from previous victories.

The decisive factor was Heavy Frank infantry fighting in close formation, which the unsupported Arab Cavalry could not break.

It's idiocy to try breaking heavy infantry with light cavalry charging head-on, in any military rules of engagement. The cavalry army in that case should have avoided the head-on collision, but used their high mobility to cut off and starved/exhausted Chuck's infantry infantry, just like what Saladdin would do to the crusader army at the battle of horns. However, the Arab army at Battle of Tours did not have much choice because they were not provisioned for the coming winter, so their ability to stay in the field was limited. The commander took a gamble (probably hubris due to their earlier successes), and lost.

thunderlips11 says

Heavy Cavalry is rare in Western Europe until after 1000AD, and not of much account in the Dark Ages. I would agree Heavy Cavalry is a major part of Eastern warfare during this time.

Not sure why you bothered with the long quote on Frankish infantry of the late Roman time. Heavy Cavalry were around during Roman time, as in Knights and the Equestrian order. They were just not cost-effective, and nearly useless when sent up against opponents with powerful projectile weapons (like Crassus' doomed campaign). After Rome fell, all armies became vassals of the local 1099 free agent warlords. So they had to go through several stages in the arms race. Heavy cavalries were not useful until opponents use light cavalries and don't have strong projectile weapons.

Reality says

That works for 80% of the population, but not the 20% suffering from various degrees of sociopathy and are willing to take their chances against law enforcement for extraordinary gains. Criminal enterprises are often high profit opportunities as law enforcement essentially remove competition from non-sociopathic 80% of the population. What makes the math even more enticing for the sociopathic is that Law enforcement can only catch about 20% of criminals; any law enforcement system more draconian than that tend to attract sociopaths into the ranks of the law enforcement itself.

What a bunch of crap. There is not one hint of logic in what you are saying.
Let's see:
- so 20% of humanity suffers from incurable sociopathy?: Where do you get these numbers from, I wonder? So according to you 1.4 billions human beings must be manipulated en masse or bring down humanity to chaos? This is a gratuitous assertion supported by nothing. What can I say: you're a doomsayer of the human spirit.
- Criminal enterprises: they always existed in any regime, religious or not. The mafia existed for a long time in Italy among very religious people. If your talking of corruption, it existed on a massive scale in regimes like monarchies.
- Furthermore regimes are typically not brought down by criminality. This was certainly not the case for the examples of 'atheism' you cited above (communism, french revolution). Criminality is never eliminated but kept in check by law enforcement.

This sudden rant about criminality is logically unrelated to both religious and atheist regimes. Unrelated unsupported assertions. You're not exactly bringing a logically well constructed argument to prove your point.

SoftShell says

what "most people agree on" has changed dramatically throughout history.

So what? As almost every knowledge we have can be found later to be incorrect. Using that as an argument to say we don't know what we know is stupid.

SoftShell says

In this post, no, I'm not.

Indeed I don't think you were serious in most of your posts. It's hard to tell at what point you started being sarcastic. The thread was fairly serious at the start though.

In one sentence you say almost everything we know can be found later to be incorrect, and in the next sentence I verify that, and you call it stupid.
You are indirectly slamming your own post.

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

what "most people agree on" has changed dramatically throughout history.

So what? As almost every knowledge we have can be found later to be incorrect. Using that as an argument to say we don't know what we know is stupid

Yeah, I took a little sidetrack to irritate Dan with the police abuse video...
I know he likes those videos...

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

In this post, no, I'm not.

Indeed I don't think you were serious in most of your posts. It's hard to tell at what point you started being sarcastic. The thread was fairly serious at the start though.

Reality says

My answer for how to prevent one organized religion from gaining too much hold on the other 80% of the population is quite simple: let many different religions thrive and prosper in the same society, so there is no particular religious mono cultural conformity bias for the bulk of the society.

Having several religions, historically, was a recipe for civil war. Examples are easy to find.

We refuted the moral argument and you haven't given any other reason why manipulating people, and deceiving them about "God" or afterlife would, in any way, be a requirement to maintain civilized societies.

Why would we need to maintain a heavy propagandist machinery that serves no obvious purpose other than maintaining its own existence and that in the process damages people ability to think critically?

SoftShell says

In one sentence you say almost everything we know can be found later to be incorrect, and in the next sentence I verify that, and you call it stupid.

You are indirectly slamming your own post.

Well, you're not being agnostic about mine, so you slammed yours too.

What???
I'm not a student of HerClit, so could you put it in laymen's terms?

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

Well, you're not being agnostic about mine, so you slammed yours too.

Heraclitusstudent says

What a bunch of crap. There is not one hint of logic in what you are saying.

Let's see:

- so 20% of humanity suffers from incurable sociopathy?: Where do you get these numbers from, I wonder? So according to you 1.4 billions human beings must be manipulated en masse or bring down humanity to chaos? This is a gratuitous assertion supported by nothing. What can I say: you're a doomsayer of the human spirit.

The 20% number is probably under-estimate, as supposedly over 40% of young male in this country have arrest record.

Who said anything about being manipulated en masse? If you choose not to believe, leave other people who want to believe alone. Think about the institution called marriage: more than half of marriage fail, and vast majority of of the other half can barely tolerate each other in their old ages. Yet, people take life-long vows to get married. In most cases, they are not lying or manipulating each other or themselves when taking those vows. . . and marriage as an institution (regardless state or religious recognition or not) does give advantages to the offsprings that they bring up. If you don't want to get married, then don't. Don't get in the way of others indulging in it. IMHO, the chances of after-life may well be much higher than "live happily ever after" in a marriage; that's just my personal opinion.

Heraclitusstudent says

- Criminal enterprises: they always existed in any regime, religious or not. The mafia existed for a long time in Italy among very religious people. If your talking of corruption, it existed on a massive scale in regimes like monarchies.

Monarchies existed in both religious and atheistic context.

Even the mafia knows the need for allowing religion among members in order to have a relatively stable "society." Mafia is a form of government.

- Furthermore regimes are typically not brought down by criminality. This was certainly not the case for the examples of 'atheism' you cited above (communism, french revolution). Criminality is never eliminated but kept in check by law enforcement.

You are kidding yourself if you think criminality can be kept in check by law enforcement alone. The typical law enforcement catch less than 20% of criminals. The vast majority cases of theft and frauds are not even reported; among those reported, only a small fraction ever get solved by the law enforcement. Most regimes do eventually get brought down by corruption and attendant inefficiencies. The exact manifestation of it can be losing wars due to the same inefficiencies, and morale failure like the soviet union: people just got tired of the corruptions and duplicities that they witnessed every day, even for people among the management and leadership, especially their children losing faith in the system.

Heraclitusstudent says

This sudden rant about criminality is logically unrelated to both religious and atheist regimes. Unrelated unsupported assertions. You're not exactly bringing a logically well constructed argument to prove your point.

You are not comprehending the logic only because you are a knee-jerk certainty-zealot, just like a religious fundamentalist, incapable of thinking outside your own narrow perspective.

If you really think about it, less than 20% of criminals ever get caught, what's the law enforcement's real effect on the society? (besides being an extremely expensive burden). It serves as a warning, and puts up a myth that if you commit crime, you will get caught. That myth make people self-police. It is this self-policing that holds the society together! Likewise, religions make believers self-police. It's a very cost-effective institution in that regard, especially when it is self-funded without tax subsidty.

Heraclitusstudent says

Having several religions, historically, was a recipe for civil war. Examples are easy to find.

No. Having government endorsement for any particular denomination of religion or atheism over other denominations is a recipe for civil war and wars of aggression. Societies that embrace the freedom of religion (i.e. an agnostic government not endorsing any denomination, not even atheism, while allow believers and nonbelievers be themselves) do not go to civil war for religious reasons.

We refuted the moral argument

No you have not. You knee-jerkers keep thinking that I somehow was suggesting religions make people more morale then proceed to debate that. That's not the point that I made at all. I'm not even talking about what positive or negative effect religion may have on a well adjusted person. However, when dealing with people who are amoralistic, perhaps even sociopathic, the promises of reward and punishment offered by religions are much more cost-effective than those offered by tax-funded law enforcement alone, statistically speaking.

and you haven't given any other reason why manipulating people, and deceiving them about "God" or afterlife would, in any way, be a requirement to maintain civilized societies.

First of all, it's not manipulation per se, but simply letting those who do believe to promulgate their ideas. As to the effect of religions on the maintenance of civilized societies, it's more than just "reasoning" but factual observation proves the point: fall of civilizations and dark ages take place when people lose faith in the old faith. Civilizations only recover after the adoption of new faiths.

Why would we need to maintain a heavy propagandist machinery that serves no obvious purpose other than maintaining its own existence and that in the process damages people ability to think critically?

First of all, I do not advocate government tax funding of any religion at all. However, it would be even more stupid to waste taxpayer money on eradicating all religions. As for why some of the society's resources go to religions by individual choices, why do we have entertainment? why do have psychotherapists? why do we allow alcohol?

Reality says

Not sure why you bothered with the long quote on Frankish infantry of the late Roman time.

The Mid 500s is a century after the collapse of the Western Empire, well into the Merovingians. The Dark Ages.

The Middle Ages didn't start at 1000AD, not even medievalists propose that.

EDIT: I said "Eastern" by mistake.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

Not sure why you bothered with the long quote on Frankish infantry of the late Roman time.

The Mid 500s is a century after the collapse of the Eastern Empire, well into the Merovingians. The Dark Ages.

The Middle Ages didn't start at 1000AD, not even medievalists propose that.

The Eastern Empire did not collapse until the 14th century. In any case, I don't see the relevance of quoting a Roman's biased view of the crudeness of Frankish military. Whatever they were doing, the Franks were on their way to dominate Western Europe militarily while the WRE was about to be wiped off the map. That particular author apparently also belong to the school of knowing the benefit of everything but the cost of nothing. Perhaps the Franks' military simplicity allowed for individual initiative, just like the early Roman Republic soldier with a simple short sword winning "impossible victories" against over-developed mechanistic Greek armies.

Reality says

The Eastern Empire did not collapse until the 14th century.

That was a careless error on my part. In any case, the 500s are well after the collapse of the Western Empire, and thus the Dark Ages, by any Medievalists' reckoning.

I'm gonna get back to responding for your posts, but check this out:.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio
1.6 Billion, B for Billion, Gallons of Olive Oil, imported in massive, professionally made on an industrial scale and stamped with the various Maker's Marks, Amphorae. Just from circa 140-250AD.

You got any site in Western Europe in the Middle Ages that can match that?

There's just no way that the Dark Ages were anything like the Roman Empire in commerce, industry, agriculture, population, organization, military strength, etc. It's like comparing the PeeWee League to the 1986 Mets.

thunderlips11 says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio

1.6 Billion, B for Billion, Gallons of Olive Oil, imported in massive, professionally made on an industrial scale and stamped with the various Maker's Marks, Amphorae. Just from circa 140-250AD.

You got any site in Western Europe in the Middle Ages that can match that?

There's just no way that the Dark Ages were anything like the Roman Empire in commerce, industry, agriculture, population, organization, military strength, etc. It's like comparing the PeeWee League to the 1986 Mets.

Roman Empire was the reason why the Dark Ages came along. Just look at those discarded Dressel 20 amphorae, they were not built to be re-useable like in the private sector probably because those containers were used primarily for the government dole and government subsidy olive oil to the bureaucrats and military.

What Roman Empire enjoyed, the prosperous commercial world of the Med, was the result of the previous Republic period and the maritime trade networks built by the Greeks and Carthagenians.

Reality says

Likewise, religions make believers self-police.

Reality says

the promises of reward and punishment offered by religions are much more cost-effective

That's the heart of your discourse and it is desperately weak.

Where is the evidence of criminals or sociopaths self-policing based on their religious beliefs? The greatest criminal organizations, such as the mafia, are made of mostly religious people. That apparently doesn't prevent them from reveling in vice. Mexico is a very religious country, and nonetheless has very high murder rates. Why is that?

The same applies to leaders of states pretending to believe religious teachings. G.W Bush cited Jesus as the philosopher that influenced him the most, but never bat an eye about sending people to their deaths.

As for corruption, countries like Poland, where 95% of the population is very catholic, are nonetheless highly corrupted. The same could be said of Pakistan and many other countries. Why is that?

Your entire thesis seem utterly unsupported by facts.

Reality says

The 20% number is probably under-estimate, as supposedly over 40% of young male in this country have arrest record.

Arrested for what? DUI? And a majority of these 40% are religious anyway, right?

Again where do you pull your numbers from? 20% sociopaths seems like an imagined figure. The idea that sociopaths ready to become criminals threatens civilization is just bizarre. Most people don't become criminals simply because the understand that they are part of a community and ultimately what hurts the community hurts them. Or they identify with the victims. Most people given the opportunity will develop a productive trade and not take an even 20% chance to end-up in prison. They don't need to believe they will end-up in hell.

Reality says

Mafia is a form of government.

Good one. Are criminals a form of government or are they threatening civilization? I'm starting to wonder.

Reality says

By then, it was late in the Empire, the Roman population had abandoned frontier lands and flocked to Rome for the dole. The federated German tribes were being hired as 1099 frontier defenders.

The estate holders don't seem to have fled, who had the most to lose. While those with the least to lose ran hundreds of miles away over a chaotic landscape to large cities where the dole that depended on imports could no longer be had, as the Vandals controlled North Africa and Spain and would only sell to their Roman enemies at top dollar (denarii?)

Reality says

No. Harold's shield wall was being picked apart due to his own infantry running off to chase retreating opponents in the mistaken belief that they were winning. Once seeing that, William's men deliberately rode up to then retreated from the shield wall, drawing away more and more elements of the infantry shield wall to be defeated in detail. Harold being shot happened later and forestalled any chance at rallying a doomed cause.

Didn't William move his archers around to encircle the shield wall, and thus the Saxon's weaker armor and shieldless flanks and backs exposed?

But let's say what you say is what happened. It still means that infantry, not cavalry, determined the outcome. It was only because the Shield Wall became disorganized - either by breaking off to pursue or by faltering morale or exhaustion (fighting right after a forced march on a hot day) - that the Cavalry could act. William didn't use his cavalry until that happened.

Even Late Medieval Armies were largely infantry and I can't think of any major battle where unaccompanied medieval cavalry beat an opposing army, unless it was against some peasant revolt. The famed French Cavalry was massacred at Courtrai by Flemish Burghers. They also failed at Crecy, Agincourt and Poiters. Or at Bannockburn, when the English foolishly and contemptuously charged at Robert the Bruce's infantry, who had no heavy horse, but utterly smashed the English, killing 30+ Lords and countless English Knights. Not to be confused with his later ancestor, Lenny the Bruce.

And these are all "Heyday of the Armored Knight" battles.

In any case, the stirrup didn't penetrate the West until 900-1000AD. While well trained men could chase or ride down individual infantry, and wield light arms, they could not bear shields or heavy lances without the stirrup to help them resist impact shock.

Horses simply aren't suicidal and they won't charge a steady, compact mass of men, instead rearing or turning at the last minute - no matter how well trained - and tossing their riders into pole arms to be impaled.

As for Equestrian rank, that was a title stetching way back into several centuries BC, and in late antiquity one could well be Equestrian without ever touching a horse, much less being a trained cavalryman. It was a rank which one needed wealth, not military skill, to attain.

This all being said, the late middle ages were dominated by fortifications and sieges, which is why the French beat the English despite losing every major battle in the 100 Year's War, and almost all the decisive Crusading Battles were sieges.

Reality says

What Roman Empire enjoyed, the prosperous commercial world of the Med, was the result of the previous Republic period and the maritime trade networks built by the Greeks and Carthagenians.

I think it's more because ceramic pots are too heavy to ship back empty; they were used as ballast even in the 19th Century. Don't metal shipping containers pile up in the US from abroad?

Also, ceramic pots take on the flavors of what was in them. That's why glassware was beloved of the Romans. Hey, where IS all that beautiful Dark Ages glassware?
http://ancientglass.wordpress.com/historical-glass-periods/glass-of-the-middle-ages/

Looks like when the Dark Ages began, Western Europeans stopped making glassware for a long while.

Reality says

A classic case was inviting the far away Otto I to Rome to reduce the local warlords controlling lands around Rome, preventing the rise of a Rome based reunification power.

Wasn't there a King who was excommunicated while on Crusade?

Ah, Frederick II. Funny how those who rule Sicily or Naples near the Papal States get excommunicated often.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

Mafia is a form of government.

Good one. Are criminals a form of government or are they threatening civilization? I'm starting to wonder.

Politics is organized crime. Governments have their origins in organized plunder. Criminals, mafia (proto-government) and governments all threaten civilization with their plundering actions.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

Likewise, religions make believers self-police.

Reality says

the promises of reward and punishment offered by religions are much more cost-effective

That's the heart of your discourse and it is desperately weak.

Where is the evidence of criminals or sociopaths self-policing based on their religious beliefs? The greatest criminal organizations, such as the mafia, are made of mostly religious people. That apparently doesn't prevent them from reveling in vice.

The mafia (and its members) consider themselves the government, with territories! They operate on the same principles of "justified" initiation of violence and retaliations, just like government bureaucrats. When the mafia was religious in the old times, many of them did have strict code about not dealing drugs or not personally use drugs. On the topic of prostitution as vice, religious prescripts on both subjects are quite vague, probably because it was recognized a lot time ago that efforts to ban it would be quite futile.

Mexico is a very religious country, and nonetheless has very high murder rates. Why is that?

It would be even higher under the lucrative drug trade if not for the influence of religion. It's the corrupt state waging the drug war that's the problem. Many of the spontaneously organized local self-defense organizations to combat drug lords have very strong religious overtones.

Heraclitusstudent says

The same applies to leaders of states pretending to believe religious teachings. G.W Bush cited Jesus as the philosopher that influenced him the most, but never bat an eye about sending people to their deaths.

G.W was very much under the thumbs of Cheney and his crew when in office.

As for corruption, countries like Poland, where 95% of the population is very catholic, are nonetheless highly corrupted. The same could be said of Pakistan and many other countries. Why is that?

Poland and Pakistan are good illustrations of why having a state endorsing a particular brand of faith (or even atheism) is not a good idea. Most of the people just pretend to go along with whatever the government is promoting without much real personal conviction, in fact promoting duplicity. In case you did not know, the main appeal of Taliban to the local population was that they had real religious conviction and were not corrupt (or much less corrupt than those they displaced). Of course, Taliban's advocacy for theocracy would eventually lead to even more corruption. They fail to realize just like you do: that militantly religious people in a society trending towards secular materialism, and militant atheists in a society that is mostly religious are likely to be less corrupt not because of the -ism's that they believe but because they are the type of people who are willing to devote to their own convictions. State sponsorship of any faith would just dilute that zeal.

Your entire thesis seem utterly unsupported by facts.

Only when you use meaningless labels instead of looking at the real facts under the labels.

thunderlips11 says

Ah, Frederick II. Funny how those who rule Sicily or Naples near the Papal States get excommunicated often.

Exactly, the Church had its own interest to protect . . . which meant preventing too much concentration of power by any military leader.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

The 20% number is probably under-estimate, as supposedly over 40% of young male in this country have arrest record.

Arrested for what? DUI? And a majority of these 40% are religious anyway, right?

The point is not whether they are religious or not, but the high percentage of people suffering from various degrees of sociopathy. DUI is certainly anti-social behavior.

Again where do you pull your numbers from? 20% sociopaths seems like an imagined figure.

At least 20%, probably higher.

The idea that sociopaths ready to become criminals threatens civilization is just bizarre. Most people don't become criminals simply because the understand that they are part of a community and ultimately what hurts the community hurts them. Or they identify with the victims. Most people given the opportunity will develop a productive trade and not take an even 20% chance to end-up in prison. They don't need to believe they will end-up in hell.

Like I said, you are still not understanding my argument, but debating against a strawman of your own erection.

"Most" means 51% or higher. I'm willing to put that number as high as 80%. What do you do with the remaining 20%? Evidence seems to show that people who are willing to pull a quick one on others when opportunity arises is higher than 20%. When that tendency is translated into visible action unrestrained by religion in a atheistic society, the dog-eat-dot behavior seem to be manifest from far higher than 20% of the population.

thunderlips11 says

I think it's more because ceramic pots are too heavy to ship back empty; they were used as ballast even in the 19th Century. Don't metal shipping containers pile up in the US from abroad?

Ceramic pots of different sizes were recycled or broken down into shards for paving walking paths. The particular type of pots used by the government distribution network was the reason why they ended up in a huge pile, never recycled or even used as clay shards for path paving.