Holy crap. I don’t even know where to begin to address **New Deal Democrat’s **claims. It’s like trying to kill a zombie whale.
Just swim slowly away.
Dude. Two things.
Firstly, “To the best of my knowledge this is not happening” is not a refutation of JARED FREAKING DIAMOND, who wrote a damned BOOK on this subject and won a damned Aventis Prize for Best Science Book, not to mention another little thing called a Pulitzer.
“Here are several scientific citations that this is the case” is a start…but that’s not what you’re saying. You appear to be saying you feel like they do poorly. Well, I feel like you’ve lost this argument. If you don’t need to prove your claim, I don’t need to prove mine.
Secondly, even if you were right, it’s well understood that cultural bias/testing bias has a major influence on the test results of cultural “out groups,” to say nothing of Stone Age out groups.
I really don’t want to fall down the New Deal Democrat well, but all the same, here is some interesting stuff people might enjoy. I read an article recently that attempted to formalize Jared Diamond’s intuition and test it empirically. The piece is called Biogeography and long-run economic development and you can find it here.
From the article:
This piece is a pretty unusual application of formal theory to an extremely broad and long-term economic phenomenon. But the model itself has some problems. In an effort to keep the math simple and the problem tractable, the authors make some very strong simplifying assumptions. For example, they impose a constant duration on the length of agricultural era of human history before the switch to industrialization. This lets the authors express the relationship between income and initial biogeographic resources neatly and explicitly. This is handy and the authors sort of show that it holds up empirically, but I don’t personally think it is very satisfying. All the same, it’s kind of a neat paper.
I didn’t even realize this thread was ancient nor that I posted so much to it ten years ago. Weird.
Ever read any KJ Parker, especially the Engineer Trilogy? It is about an engineer in a pseudo-Byzantine society who works for a state arms manufactory. The government does something terrible to him and he plots relentless revenge. It’s not steampunk and it’s not quite Rome, but it might do the trick for you.
Oriental immigrants, for whom English is a second language, usually perform better in American schools than whites who were born here.
From the following chart you can see that they average much better on the SAT in mathematics, and that they are catching up in reading comprehension.
Well it seems, Rome went off the Rails with regard to morals, and became very much involved in pleasure seeking outside the family and therefore the family structure fell apart, causing moral break down all over society, and system failed before it got up to steam.
North Korea and South Korea have average IQs of 106.
Jared Diamond said that natives of New Guinea were more intelligent on the average than whites in Europe. He presented no evidence for that what so ever. Culture can change in a generation. Innate ability levels take hundreds and even thousands of years to change.
catholic monks destroyed culture of the ancients, seeing it as satanic and brought in art supported by popes who wanted to counteract beautiful art of the celts ect,ect,
It’s a good thing the church stepped in to counteract that moral degradation.
Oh, wait…
D’oh.
I grew up blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on pagan immorality. Then I was reminded that the fall happened after the Empire adopted Christianity as its official religion. That does not necessarily mean that pagan immorality did not contribute. It may have been that the rot was so advanced that Christianity could not restore the rugged virtues that earlier had enabled Rome to conquer much of the West.
Anyway, the Eastern Roman Empire, also called the Byzantine Empire, survived until the fifteenth century. The Holy Roman Empire, which may be seen as a restoration of the Western Roman Empire, survived until the nineteenth century. Both of these were thoroughly Christian.
Good grief - do you even realize that calling the HRE a restoration of the Roman Empire is so far from being correct that historians tell a very old joke about it? “The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.”
Voltaire by way of Barbara Streisand, but that’s close enough to being a historian. 
The Holy Roman Empire was named after the Roman Empire and was considered its continuation. This is based in the medieval concept of translatio imperii.[7]
The French Enlightenment writer Voltaire remarked sardonically: “This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.”[8]
The history of the Holy Roman Empire goes back to the time of Charlemagne when he was crowned emperor of Rome in 800. At that time Charlemagne’s realm consisted of what is now Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, and northern Italy, including Rome.
New Deal Democrat–tell us the truth!
You are Jared Diamond, aren’t you?
In a blonde wig and dress (for a disguise) of course…
While the HRE’s and their hagiographers certainly made that claim, objectively it is hard to call it an actual continuation of the WRE considering the 324 year gap between Romulus Augustus’ deposition and Charlemagne’s crowning ;). The Byzantine state was a seamless continuation of the ERE, not so with the Western Empire IMHO. This is putting aside the fact that technically the HRE was only established in 962 by Otto I. But I would say that the HRE was in fact a continuation of the Carolingian Empire, so that’s even more of a nitpick.
Calling it a restoration is more arguable, but considering the HRE’s very Germanocentric nature, I probably wouldn’t go quite that far either. I think calling it a successor state to the WRE is on safer ground. Which might seem like a bunch of semantics, but in my mind at least there is a difference.
We did a GQ on the HRE recently, but like I said there I do think the old ‘neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire’ thing is a little glib and not entirely accurate. At least for the empire part in the early centuries of its existence - at one point I’d argue it actually was imperial. But it is still a great little quote and entirely apropos for the state in the latter stages of its evolution :).
Emperor Michael did recognize Charlemagne’s title, though.
True, though Nicephorus never did. Unfortunately for the Byzantines and their notions of imperial dignity they were going through a low period right when the Carolingians were peaking. Michael had his hands full with the Bulgars and was hardly in a political position to sneer at those barbarian Franks ( though I’m sure he did 
). Plus it netted him the minor concession of Venice et al over which Nicephorus and Charlemagne had been at violent loggerheads.
And Zeno recognized Theodoric after what we call the fall of the west. Eastern recognition is probably not the best denoter of legitimacy.