The same Catholic Church whose dictates were repeatedly ignored by both the common people and the nobility?
Hard and soft power. You really don’t get it. Well, better than you just being a troll
I’ll try to be as literal as possible for you. Rome split. The pieces continued to act like Rome behaviorally. The remaining institution of Rome, the Roman Catholic church, had incredible power over many of these pieces, even growing power for a time, then later soft influence, over most of Europe known as the holy Roman empire. The soft power of the church faded with the rise of capitalism.
We still act like Rome. The behaviors never ended. That’s the through line
Hard power is the ability to impose one’s will by force; soft power is the ability to impose one’s will by persuasion or subtlety. In no case does it mean “Utterly failing to push an objective forward”. That is a lack of soft power.
Rome split. The pieces continued to act like Rome behaviorally.
In what sense? Your entire bizarre view of Rome is based around an idea that their assimilative institutions were somehow more rigid and formalized than previous ones. European polities after the fall of the Western Empire not only lacked any rigid assimilative institutions, they often rejected assimilation altogether, and numerous ethnicities were born of the lack of institutions capable of assimilating or even maintaining cultural hegemonies in the post-Roman polities.
The remaining institution of Rome, the Roman Catholic church, had incredible power over many of these pieces,
No.
then later soft influence,
The hard power of the Papal States was minimal and regional at best, quarreling with other Italian states and sometimes the borders of the HRE; the only Europe-wide power the Catholic Church had was always soft power.
, over most of Europe known as the holy Roman empire.
…
The HRE was not most of Europe, even at its height as the Carolingian Empire.
The soft power of the church faded with the rise of capitalism.
The soft power of the Church died in the Thirty Years’ War, as increasingly centralized states began to deal with issues of pluralism and national unity; itself derived from the Protestant Reformation. The soft power of the Church was dead in the most backwards states of Europe even before the bourgeoisie became ascendant.
We still act like Rome. The behaviors never ended. That’s the through line
Your core objection to the unique influence of Rome was that it ‘conquered’; you defined conquest by assimilative processes, but your points have absolutely nothing to do with cultural assimilation or, for that matter, reality.
It’s like you understand every era by the definition at the end of it. And soft power is soft because it can be denied - it’s just influence.
Let’s go back to the source then… Who had institutionalized assimilation before the Romans? I don’t just mean there was assimilation…I mean a group comes in and converts others into becoming them in a systematic fashion
It’s like you understand every era by the definition at the end of it. And soft power is soft because it can be denied - it’s just influence.
Okay cool, so your argument is now nothing more than “soft power exists”, not “The Catholic Church had any serious amount of soft power”, fan-fucking-tastic, glad you’ve spent all this time to say absolutely nothing.
Let’s go back to the source then… Who had institutionalized assimilation before the Romans? I don’t just mean there was assimilation…I mean a group comes in and converts others into becoming them in a systematic fashion
The Ancient Hebrews, for one, whose process of assimilation was far more ritualized and rigid, and mandatory for existence in the polity, than Rome’s. The Assyrians. Han China in the Warring States period.
Hard and soft power. You really don’t get it. Well, better than you just being a troll
I’ll try to be as literal as possible for you. Rome split. The pieces continued to act like Rome behaviorally. The remaining institution of Rome, the Roman Catholic church, had incredible power over many of these pieces, even growing power for a time, then later soft influence, over most of Europe known as the holy Roman empire. The soft power of the church faded with the rise of capitalism.
We still act like Rome. The behaviors never ended. That’s the through line
Hard power is the ability to impose one’s will by force; soft power is the ability to impose one’s will by persuasion or subtlety. In no case does it mean “Utterly failing to push an objective forward”. That is a lack of soft power.
In what sense? Your entire bizarre view of Rome is based around an idea that their assimilative institutions were somehow more rigid and formalized than previous ones. European polities after the fall of the Western Empire not only lacked any rigid assimilative institutions, they often rejected assimilation altogether, and numerous ethnicities were born of the lack of institutions capable of assimilating or even maintaining cultural hegemonies in the post-Roman polities.
No.
The hard power of the Papal States was minimal and regional at best, quarreling with other Italian states and sometimes the borders of the HRE; the only Europe-wide power the Catholic Church had was always soft power.
…
The HRE was not most of Europe, even at its height as the Carolingian Empire.
The soft power of the Church died in the Thirty Years’ War, as increasingly centralized states began to deal with issues of pluralism and national unity; itself derived from the Protestant Reformation. The soft power of the Church was dead in the most backwards states of Europe even before the bourgeoisie became ascendant.
Your core objection to the unique influence of Rome was that it ‘conquered’; you defined conquest by assimilative processes, but your points have absolutely nothing to do with cultural assimilation or, for that matter, reality.
It’s like you understand every era by the definition at the end of it. And soft power is soft because it can be denied - it’s just influence.
Let’s go back to the source then… Who had institutionalized assimilation before the Romans? I don’t just mean there was assimilation…I mean a group comes in and converts others into becoming them in a systematic fashion
Okay cool, so your argument is now nothing more than “soft power exists”, not “The Catholic Church had any serious amount of soft power”, fan-fucking-tastic, glad you’ve spent all this time to say absolutely nothing.
The Ancient Hebrews, for one, whose process of assimilation was far more ritualized and rigid, and mandatory for existence in the polity, than Rome’s. The Assyrians. Han China in the Warring States period.
Yeah ok bro. These are totally the same things.
How about we say you win, since my goal was to be understood and we’re never getting there