Which historical period fascinates you the most? Ancient? Medieval? Early Modern? Or Modern?

[LinusLinothorax]

I can develop a great appetite depending on what mod I am currently into. Extreme cases were with EB and Vae Victis, Invasio Barbarorum, Broken Crescent and Hellenika.

[MagusCaligula]

Indeed. I think that abrahamic religions are "badly designed" insofar as they all start with proclaiming that god is omniscient, and that this holy book is 100% true, and that god has a plan for everything. Of course the result is that anything which contradicts the book must be wrong, which has obvious negative consequences. Compare this to e.g. the greek conception of gods as basically just humans with superpowers. They were not omnipotent nor omniscient. Gods could be wrong, thus greek religion is more compatible with science.

The movie "Agora" about Hypatia of Alexandria shows very well the consequences christianization of the Roman Empire had in the old "pagan" world and how aggressive it was against philosophy, astronomy and science in general. I recommend that movie to anyone who didn't watch it yet, is very good in general in my opinion.

[Genghis Skahn]

Indeed. I think that abrahamic religions are "badly designed" insofar as they all start with proclaiming that god is omniscient, and that this holy book is 100% true, and that god has a plan for everything. Of course the result is that anything which contradicts the book must be wrong, which has obvious negative consequences. Compare this to e.g. the greek conception of gods as basically just humans with superpowers. They were not omnipotent nor omniscient. Gods could be wrong, thus greek religion is more compatible with science.

Not to mention that religions descended from Jewish Monotheism have that totally friendly "All other gods but me are false" tenant, which has resulted in the mass extinctions of indigenous religions in the worst case, and in the best case has made peaceful co-existence with other religions difficult.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Not to mention that religions descended from Jewish Monotheism have that totally friendly "All other gods but me are false" tenant, which has resulted in the mass extinctions of indigenous religions in the worst case, and in the best case has made peaceful co-existence with other religions difficult.

I think that two additional tenets of monotheism are necessary to produce such results: 1. proselytism - the need to convert other people to the true religion, 2. interest in what the person thinks, no only what the person does. The Jewish faith didn't produce such bad results as Christianity or Islam because it was not proselytic - they didn't care if the other people would go to hell. The "roman paganism" religion would leave the people in peace as long as their deeds (ie sacrifices) would cheer the community gods (they didn't bother about actual beliefs, it was the matter for philosophers). As the Christians 1. bothered with thinking (plus alignment between thinking and doing sacrifices: it produced their martyrs, but it also prompted them to forbid others from doing sacrifices), 2. cared about the fate of those others (potential proselytes), 3. though they have 100% true faith - the result was: no other religion could exist along.
However, what's fascinating in early Christianity is the urge for unity combined with wild disparity of actual belief.

[Rail93]

Hard call. Every period is fascinating. I like history as a whole. Only if I was forced to choose I would say (and everything is really close) History of Greece > modern > ancient > early modern > medieval (excluding totally awesome martial and scientific history of East Roman Empire, which counts as history of Greece). Every period has meh nad Great moments. Why modern? Easiest to.observe hence you learn from it The most

[BHL 20]

Eh, in 1000 years when Christianity will be long dead people will be just as emotionally detached from it as you guys are from paganism. The Carthaginians had a nasty religion but nobody demonizes it today. That really goes for everything in history. That's also the reason why I'm not a fan of modern history. At the moment it's impossible to look at WW1 and WW2 without demonizing certain leaders and branding others as heroes. Meanwhile, in antiquity you get figures like Julius Caesar who ruined hundreds of thousands of lives for mostly selfish reasons, and although we can make logical arguments about what he did we aren't emotionally attached to them thus we can look at things objectively. The fact that movies can be made with Caesar as the protagonist, and they're not controversial makes this evident. One of the the things I like most about learning history is that you can gain insight from this kind of objective perspective, and then apply it to current situations.

[selv]

Eh, in 1000 years when Christianity will be long dead people will be just as emotionally detached from it as you guys are from paganism. The Carthaginians had a nasty religion but nobody demonizes it today. That really goes for everything in history. That's also the reason why I'm not a fan of modern history. At the moment it's impossible to look at WW1 and WW2 without demonizing certain leaders and branding others as heroes. Meanwhile, in antiquity you get figures like Julius Caesar who ruined hundreds of thousands of lives for mostly selfish reasons, and although we can make logical arguments about what he did we aren't emotionally attached to them thus we can look at things objectively. The fact that movies can be made with Caesar as the protagonist, and they're not controversial makes this evident. One of the the things I like most about learning history is that you can gain insight from this kind of objective perspective, and then apply it to current situations.

This reflect my view and why I have no favorite period, from a realistic perspective. No matter the excuses, armies pillages, rapes and murder in any time just the same. Antiques peoples may had less 'gods' problems but they knew very well the concepts of negative ethnicities, cultures and all that. Power is the only true religion of human kind, it just wears different dresses sometimes but you can reconize it anywhere anyway. And I doubt that the slaves that actually did the work on the great buildings of antiquity were finding them 'wonderful', even more when they were buried with 'their' king I bet.

But you know, I decided to vote for the modern era, just because I like loosers.

[MagusCaligula]

I find it curious how most people seem to focus on wars and conflicts when looking into history. I personally what interest me the most is the lifestyle. The tv series I like the most is "Rome" by HBO not so much because of the wars and battles present (which are actually very good and realistic) but how they show the lifestyle not just of the high classes but also the common people. Regarding religion, believes are the foundation of a civilization/culture but what really matters is the lifestyle of a society based on it. Is it better to live in the beauty of the natural world and in harmony with it, or is it better to live in an artificial world made by Man with machines, pollution and ugly buildings that reach the sky. I would rather live in a world with trees, rivers, mountains and wildlife.

[MagusCaligula]

The Carthaginians had a nasty religion but nobody demonizes it today.

No idea why you think it was "nasty", but they certainly didn't destroy all other peoples temples and killed others for not follow their believes. Anyway it was actually demonized by Abrahamism as it was everything "pagan".

[MagusCaligula]

And I doubt that the slaves that actually did the work on the great buildings of antiquity were finding them 'wonderful', even more when they were buried with 'their' king I bet.

Archaeology shows that the vast majority of the workers in antiquity were not slaves, but even the ones that were slaves were pagan too so I doubt they would despise the temples they built to their Gods

[QuintusSertorius]

No idea why you think it was "nasty", but they certainly didn't destroy all other peoples temples and killed others for not follow their believes. Anyway it was actually demonized by Abrahamism as it was everything "pagan".

Baby-sacrifice was real, they've found evidence of mass graves of infants near Carthaginian temple complexes.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Baby-sacrifice was real, they've found evidence of mass graves of infants near Carthaginian temple complexes.

Afaik, there's ongoing dispute what do the graves actually mean. There's a serious hypothesis that it was a burial custom, not related to sacrifices of any kind.

[Sarkiss]

Afaik, there's ongoing dispute what do the graves actually mean. There's a serious hypothesis that it was a burial custom, not related to sacrifices of any kind.

one theory states that it was the remains of already dead that were gathered there - stillborn etc.

in either case, i could never quite grasp how and why this supposed Carthaginian practice of sacrificing their own highborn firstborns (provided it existed) is considered more contemptible/awful than human sacrifies other communities practiced (i.e. Roman practice of sacrificing foreigners, Vikings human sacrificies etc)?

[QuintusSertorius]

one theory states that it was the remains of already dead that were gathered there - stillborn etc.

in either case, i could never quite grasp how and why this supposed Carthaginian practice of sacrificing their own highborn firstborns (provided it existed) is considered more contemptible/awful than human sacrifies other communities practiced (i.e. Roman practice of sacrificing foreigners, Vikings human sacrificies etc)?

Human sacrifice is pretty universally awful, but deliberate killing of children is even moreso.

[Darkan]

Human sacrifice is pretty universally awful, but deliberate killing of children is even moreso.

I would point out that it mostly depends on the mentality/customs/religious beliefs in different times. Where today we see and believe that every life is precious and has meaning, (in most places on earth), things were different in the past. From children with diformities who would not be able to contribute to their city/community (in war, politics, farming, etc.), all the way to the "sacred" status of those that did reach adulthood, views related to human sacrifice have always differed. This is yet another thing that makes history more than just the study of past events.

[NosPortatArma]

I would point out that it mostly depends on the mentality/customs/religious beliefs in different times. Where today we see and believe that every life is precious and has meaning, (in most places on earth), things were different in the past. From children with diformities who would not be able to contribute to their city/community (in war, politics, farming, etc.), all the way to the "sacred" status of those that did reach adulthood, views related to human sacrifice have always differed. This is yet another thing that makes history more than just the study of past events.

but also, that since life is so precious -speaking of functioning babies here, males, who very typically most valued- there really is no greater gift to sacrifice to a god than that. So in times of extreme crisis, it really does make sense for a people which genuinely believe in such gods, to sacrifice their children. of course it doesn't make any sense at all to modern people.

[Rendon]

I'm curious what the contemporary view of it amongst non child-sacrificing cultures was. What did the Romans or Greeks think of Carthaginian (or Phoenician? not sure if it stretches that far back or is unique to Carthage) religion.

[MagusCaligula]

I don't know if they sacrificed children or not, there is no proof of that. However sacrifice requires exactly something that is important, so when something is sacrificed is because it is important not because it is disregarded. Animal sacrifice was common everywhere, human sacrifice not so much. However it's not that the Gods would demand a sacrifice, it was the people of a certain culture that would believe that sacrificing something would appease the Gods. There wasn't a "Carthaginian religion", just a Pantheon. As an example Astarte is the same as Aphrodite but the Greeks didn't sacrifice children to her did they? Unlike christianity, there isn't exactly a code of laws on what you should or not do in pagan pantheons. So the interpretation of what the Gods wanted varied with each culture.

[Roma_Victrix]

I don't know if they sacrificed children or not, there is no proof of that. However sacrifice requires exactly something that is important, so when something is sacrificed is because it is important not because it is disregarded. Animal sacrifice was common everywhere, human sacrifice not so much. However it's not that the Gods would demand a sacrifice, it was the people of a certain culture that would believe that sacrificing something would appease the Gods. There wasn't a "Carthaginian religion", just a Pantheon. As an example Astarte is the same as Aphrodite but the Greeks didn't sacrifice children to her did they? Unlike christianity, there isn't exactly a code of laws on what you should or not do in pagan pantheons. So the interpretation of what the Gods wanted varied with each culture.

This begs the question if there was ever a Christian law code in existence, aside from law codes that were simply inspired or influenced by Christian thought, theology, and Church dogma. It's true that the Eastern Roman Corpus Juris Civilis made Christianity the state religion of the empire, but its not exactly a Christian law code per se. In fact, there's really not much of a precedent in Christianity for something like the Islamic Sharia law code, or even Judaic Halakha law, which draws no distinction between civil and religious law at all.

[MagusCaligula]

This begs the question if there was ever a Christian law code in existence, aside from law codes that were simply inspired or influenced by Christian thought, theology, and Church dogma. It's true that the Eastern Roman Corpus Juris Civilis made Christianity the state religion of the empire, but its not exactly a Christian law code per se. In fact, there's really not much of a precedent in Christianity for something like the Islamic Sharia law code, or even Judaic Halakha law, which draws no distinction between civil and religious law at all.

The dogma itself states that all those "pagan" Gods are nothing more than fallen angels/demons and that everything related to them must be destroyed. The same dogma demonizes also idolatry meaning that all that art made by Man to honor the Gods was also demonic. All the dogma is based on moral doctrines and very aggressive against something that doesn't follow it, so you can't just say it's a matter of interpretation.

I mean the base of Abrahamism is exactly that there is only one true God and that all those Gods humanity have been worshiping are nothing more than angels who rebelled against him.