These characteristics of ancient Rome were inherited by the Eastern Rome and the Church.
Seriously speaking, due to the influence of Greek culture and the fact that it learned a lot from Persians, Eastern Rome was already quite different from ancient Rome in this regard.
For example, the most intuitive one is to directly look at the name changes. In the ancient Roman era, women did not have a "name" in the strict sense. They usually used the feminine version of their clan name as their own title.
For example, Caesar's daughter was named Julia because her clan name was Julius; the same was true for Octavian's sister, so she was named Octavia. If there are two daughters in a family, they will be called the younger one respectively. For example, Antony's two daughters will be called the elder Antonia and the younger Antonia.
If there are more, the numbers will be listed after the clan name. The eldest daughter will be called Maxima, the second daughter will be called Secunda, the third daughter will be called Tertia, and so on. For example, Brutus had three sisters. Because they belonged to the Junius family, they were named Junius First, Junius Second, and Junius Third.
However, this kind of serial number naming is quite strange regardless of transliteration or free translation. Therefore, Guo Kang prefers to directly translate it into "Sister You", "Sister You", "Sister You" and "Sister You". It feels like this is more appropriate...
After getting married, Roman women would not change their names and would still use their patronymic names. This is also the most direct manifestation of patriarchy. Changing to follow the husband's surname should only appear in the barbarian era.
Of course, these habits were limited to Latins at first. Like the Etruscans near Rome, women had separate personal names. But later on, these ethnic groups gradually became Romanized and adopted Roman habits.
In this case, there is no way to evaluate advancement and backwardness. Whose customs were more "advanced", the Etruscans, the Romans, or the Germans? There is no comparison.
In the same way, Roman patriarchy and the systems of other tribes cannot be compared so directly. It is also meaningless to forcefully say who is more advanced.
If you have to make a comparison, the Romans at least had an "outline", while many barbarians were in a state of not having one at all, and they relied on the church to make up for it later. From this perspective, we can widen the gap in terms of "whether the theory is perfect or not."
The "East"—mainly Persia for the local area—was better than Rome in terms of the perfection of its theoretical system; and Rome was better than a group of barbarians. Later, Rome did continue to learn from the East and improve its political structure.
But it should be noted that using new theories does not mean that the original theories must be abandoned. When imitating Persia, the Romans obviously did not give up their own traditions. Until now, there is a very strong cultural atmosphere unique to Rome.
On the contrary, Guo Kang suspected that this strong sense of "replacement" and "rebellion" was the unique culture of the barbarians. Especially after Protestantism, it can be said to be very obvious.
Many customs that were advocated in later generations were praised not because they had some ability to bring benefits to everyone, but because they opposed the original church rules, so they were called "advanced."
Some men like little boys. This phenomenon is extremely common on the Eurasian continent. In many civilizations, people regard it neither as an honor nor as a shame. Take a Persian or a Greek and they might feel like this is part of society.
However, because religious organizations oppose this kind of behavior, people in later generations will do the opposite and do everything possible to advocate it, even to the point of exaggeration. Even within the church, this kind of hobby cannot be controlled at all. Scandals have continued to break out from ancient times to the present, and people with "modern consciousness" do not regard them as colleagues.
This is actually not difficult to understand. The entire Protestant movement, or the "apostate" movement, was an opposition to the previous church. In fact, they don't have much theoretical innovation. They basically just turn the original theories 180 degrees and use them. The core of the sect is not to create new doctrines, but to oppose the original doctrines.
Because this habit is not only manifested in the face of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but also within Protestantism, this kind of reversal is constantly happening. The newer Protestantism will completely deny the old Protestantism, and then continue like this.
The most extreme doctrines at that time were those of the older generation of Protestants - they advocated fundamental doctrines and opposed the corruption of the Catholic Church, thus directly bringing extremes to the fore.
The new generation of Protestantism does not return this extremeness to zero, but jumps directly to the opposite extreme - they promote the opposite opinion as if with a vengeance. As a result, they can only jump back and forth between the two extremes.
Thinking about it now, this may be the root cause of the disease since Roman times. Whether it was the Roman Empire or the later church, the "gangchang", or social norms as a consensus, were too narrow in scope and too fragile in themselves. The later barbarians were even worse in this regard.
It is not easy for any civilization to break away from its rut. For them, it's even more so. In fact, no matter how many times the barbarians jumped, they could not escape the realm that the church had pioneered back then.
Of course, this is not their special case. Guo Kang also watched the Seris people tinkering and tinkering, but in the end he couldn't get rid of the world view.
You must know that since the Shishi era, there are actually two ways of organizing the countries in the Central Plains: either the model started by the Zhou Dynasty, in which the Chinese states competed for power; or the model pioneered by the Yuan Dynasty, which transcended clans and regions and had multiple Ulurus. The structure of thinking and thinking. Until the time of Guo Kang, the world was still either Yuan or Zhou, and these two were still in effect.
This is true for the Central Plains, and Europe has no choice.
Their situation meant that once there was a problem with the theoretical system at that time, opponents had only one way to go. And as long as you oppose it, it will often completely overturn the existing order. It's like two people on a narrow road. They can't move aside and can only hit each other head-on.
As time passed, the barbarians naturally had problems with their thinking. Each one of them became a "diode". They only recognized this end and that end, and never imagined that they could change the direction...
From a purely internal perspective, this is not serious, since everyone has long been used to it. However, with the strength of the barbarian tribes in modern Europe, barbarian culture also began to be exported everywhere. In other civilized environments, this behavior becomes embarrassing.
Long-term thinking inertia has led to believers in barbarian culture to only "swear rebellion." Even if he is in a place where there are no "old teachers" at all, he will follow the original routine and "pledge to rebel" first before talking about it. In the eyes of outsiders, this is equivalent to outputting to the air, which is obviously problematic...
(End of chapter)
