Another kind of problems

 

Meanwhile, in the safest corner of Connectictut....

Across the Hajnal line

 

Is the Alt Right anti-Western on a very deep level? Who´s the real Were-West, I wonder? Another little conversation with ChatGPT. 

What is the Hajnal line?

Great question! The Hajnal line is a concept from historical demography and social history that helps explain differences in family and marriage patterns across Europe.

---

What is the Hajnal Line?

• It’s a geographical boundary in Europe identified by the Hungarian-born British demographer John Hajnal in 1965.

• The line roughly runs from St. Petersburg in Russia down southwest to Trieste (near Italy’s northeastern border).

• It divides Europe into two broad marriage and household systems that existed from the late medieval period through the early modern era (roughly 1500–1900).

---

What distinguishes the two sides of the Hajnal line?

Region	West & North of Hajnal Line	East & South of Hajnal Line
Marriage age	Later marriage, often mid-20s or later	Earlier marriage, often teenage years
Household structure	Nuclear families: small households (parents + children)	Extended, multi-generational households, often with kin networks
Marriage rates	Lower proportion married, more people stayed single or married late	Higher rates of early marriage
Family autonomy	Higher individual autonomy; less control by kin or community	Stronger kin control over marriage & family
Fertility and mobility	Lower fertility, higher geographical mobility	Higher fertility, lower mobility

---

Why does the Hajnal line matter?

• It helps explain cultural, social, and economic differences between Western/Northern Europe and Eastern/Southern Europe.

• The nuclear family system west of the line is linked to:

  • Greater individualism

  • Weaker kinship ties

  • Higher labor mobility

  • Early development of market economies and democratic institutions

• The extended family system east and south of the line supported:

  • Strong kin-based societies

  • Clan and lineage influence

  • Agricultural economies with limited mobility

---

How does this relate to your previous questions?

• The Hajnal line overlaps with the areas where the Catholic Church’s marriage restrictions and bans on cousin marriage were more strictly enforced.

• It reflects deeper historical and cultural divisions that help explain why Northwest Europe developed more individualistic, nuclear-family societies, while Southern and Eastern Europe remained more kin-based and clannish.

---

In short:

The Hajnal line marks a historical cultural divide in Europe between “Western” late marriage nuclear-family systems and “Eastern” early marriage extended-family systems.

---

If you want, I can show you a map of the Hajnal line or dive deeper into its implications for social structure, fertility, or economic history!

Things such as late marriage, more singles and lower fertility are often viewed as modern Western phenomena, but it seems they are much older according to Hajnal´s theory!

Exactly! That’s one of the most fascinating insights from Hajnal’s work. The patterns of late marriage, higher proportions of lifelong singles, and relatively lower fertility rates that we often associate with modern Western societies—especially post-Industrial Revolution—actually have deep historical roots going back many centuries.

---

Here’s why that’s interesting and important:

1. Historical Continuity
   Hajnal showed that these patterns were already well-established by the late medieval period (from about 1500 onward) in much of Northwestern Europe. So the “modern” Western family system is not a recent invention but rather a long-standing tradition.

2. Cultural vs. Economic Drivers
   These demographic patterns weren’t solely the product of industrialization or urbanization. Instead, they were tied to cultural norms, such as the Church’s marriage rules, inheritance practices, and social organization—like the emphasis on nuclear families rather than extended kin groups.

3. Social Implications
   The prevalence of late marriage and singlehood historically led to:

   • Greater individual autonomy, especially for young adults before marriage.

   • More economic independence for unmarried people (e.g., servants, apprentices).

   • Flexible social mobility—people moved to towns or new regions more easily when they weren’t tied down by large kin networks.

4. Contrast to Other Regions
   By contrast, in Eastern and Southern Europe, early marriage and extended family living supported very different social dynamics—more kin control, higher fertility, and less mobility.

---

So modern Western family structures and demographics are part of a long historical tradition, not just a response to industrialization or contemporary social change.

---

If you like, I can dig into how these older family systems influenced things like economic development, urbanization, or gender roles over time!

Isn´t it strange that the Catholic ban on cousin marriage led to greater openness in Northern and Western Europe (where the Catholic Church tends to be weaker) but not in Southern Europe (where the Church is stronger). Southern Europe still strikes me as very clannish or clan-based.

Yes, that does seem paradoxical at first glance—that the stronghold of the Catholic Church in Southern Europe (e.g., Italy, Spain) remained more clannish, while Northern and Western Europe, where Protestantism later broke away from the Church, became more individualistic and trust-based. But the apparent contradiction disappears when you look more closely at history, geography, and timing.

---

🕰️ 1. The Church’s Marriage Ban Originated Early and Was Strongest in Northwestern Europe

While the Catholic Church officially banned cousin marriage across Christendom, the strength of enforcement and local compliance varied enormously by region.

• The ban started with papal decrees in the early medieval period (500s–800s).

• But Northern and Western Europe (e.g., France, Germany, England, the Low Countries) had weaker tribal or clan structures to begin with, making Church intervention more effective.

• In Southern Europe (especially the Mediterranean), older Roman, Greek, and tribal kinship patterns were more entrenched, and local elites often ignored or worked around the ban.

📌 In short: The rules were universal, but the uptake was not.

---

🧱 2. Stronger Kinship Systems in the Mediterranean

Southern Europe historically maintained:

• Tighter family networks

• High rates of informal cousin marriage, even when technically banned

• “Amoral familism” (trust mainly within family)

• Strong clientelism and patronage systems

• Extended family households and clan-like loyalties

These traits helped preserve clannishness, even under formal Catholic influence. In practice, canon law didn’t always change lived behavior.

---

📈 3. Protestantism Inherited and Deepened Church-Driven Trends

In Northern and Western Europe:

• The Church's marriage reforms had taken stronger root by the time Protestantism emerged.

• The Protestant Reformation (1500s):

  • Strengthened individual Bible reading, weakening family-mediated religious transmission.

  • Encouraged literacy, nuclear families, and civic institutions.

  • Abolished clerical celibacy, drawing religious leaders into family life.

  • Further reduced extended kinship dependence and promoted moral universalism.

So in a sense, Protestantism was the next phase of the Church’s anti-clan agenda.

📌 Ironically, the regions that later broke with Rome had already internalized the Church’s anti-kinship reforms most deeply.

---

🧬 4. The “WEIRD” Thesis

Joseph Henrich and others argue that Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) cultures are partly a product of:

• The early medieval Church’s disruption of kin-based social organization, especially in northwest Europe.

• A shift toward individualism, monogamy, and moral universalism.

• Greater trust in institutions over families.

Southern Europe, while Catholic, retained denser kin networks, lower generalized trust, and slower adoption of impersonal civic institutions.

---

🧭 5. Summary Table

Region	Church Influence	Kinship Disruption	Individualism	Clannishness
Northwest Europe	High (early & effective)	Strong	High	Low
Southern Europe	High (but less effective)	Weak	Moderate	Higher
Eastern Europe	Mixed (Orthodox/late Catholic)	Weak	Low	High

---

🧠 Final Thought

So it's not strange once we realize:

• Formal religious control ≠ cultural change,

• Enforcement matters, and

• The Church’s deepest cultural transformation occurred not where it was strongest politically, but where it successfully disrupted clan structures.

Would you like a visual map of cousin marriage rates historically or a comparison to the Middle East or South Asia, where cousin marriage is still common?

Why were clan structures weaker in Northwest Europe even before the Church ban on cousin marriage?

Excellent question—and a key one for understanding the broader picture of cultural and institutional evolution in Europe. The relative weakness of clan structures in Northwest Europe before the Church's intervention is still debated, but historians and anthropologists point to several likely, interacting factors:

---

🏞️ 1. Geographic and Ecological Factors

• Dispersed settlement patterns in Northwestern Europe (e.g., scattered farms, isolated villages) made large, tightly knit kin groups harder to maintain.

• Compared to more densely populated river valleys or Mediterranean plains, Northwest Europe lacked the ecological and economic conditions that favored extended family-based agriculture (like irrigation farming, which requires collective labor).

• The land and climate in Northern Europe often required more mobile or flexible social structures, weakening rigid kinship ties.

---

⚖️ 2. Post-Roman Political Fragmentation

• After the fall of the Roman Empire, much of Western and Northern Europe (especially Britain, France, and Germany) fragmented into smaller political units.

• These societies often developed feudal systems based on loyalty to lords, rather than clan loyalty.

• In contrast, Mediterranean and Eastern Europe often retained stronger urban continuity or tribal affiliations, maintaining lineage-based loyalties.

---

👑 3. Germanic and Celtic Traditions

• Many of the Germanic and Celtic societies in Northwestern Europe had tribal structures, but these were often based on loose affiliations, not formal patrilineal clans like those in the Mediterranean, Middle East, or East Asia.

• There was often more egalitarianism among free men, and less rigid kin-based hierarchy.

• Kin groups existed, but they weren't as central to political, legal, or economic life as in the Mediterranean world.

---

🛐 4. Early Christian Penetration

• Christianity entered parts of Northwestern Europe relatively early (5th–7th centuries), and without a strong pre-existing centralized kinship system to resist it.

• In contrast, clan and family honor were deeply entrenched in Southern Europe and the Middle East.

• This meant that Church norms, like the cousin marriage ban, had less resistance and could reshape society more easily in the North.

---

⚔️ 5. Feudalism vs. Kinship

• The rise of feudalism created a society based more on contracts of loyalty between individuals and lords, rather than inherited group identity.

• This system encouraged:

  • Individual landholding

  • Personal allegiance to monarchs or nobles

  • Legal systems not governed by clans

Feudalism diluted kin-based solidarity by creating vertical ties (lord-vassal) that cut across family and clan lines.

---

🧬 6. Cultural and Demographic Fragmentation

• Frequent migration, invasions, and demographic turnover (e.g., Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Franks) disrupted kin continuity and discouraged large kin group consolidation.

• The Black Death in the 14th century also weakened extended family lines, especially in the North.

---

🧭 Summary Table

Factor	Effect on Clan Structure in Northwest Europe
Dispersed agriculture	Less need for tight family cooperation
Tribal, not clan-based roots	Weaker formal kinship systems
Feudal contracts	Vertical ties over horizontal (kin) ties
Early Christianization	Easier Church influence on marriage patterns
Migration & war	Disrupted long-term kinship cohesion

---

🧠 Final Thought

So to sum up:

Northwest Europe may not have had especially strong clans to begin with, which made the Church's kinship-disrupting reforms easier to implement—and in turn laid the foundation for the rise of more individualistic, institution-based societies.

If you’re interested, we can compare this to regions like the Arab world or South Asia, where strong patrilineal kinship structures persisted despite the presence of organized religion and external empires. 

Stimulus diffusion

 

John Michael Greer´s readers seem to be history nerds, since they wanted him to expand on an off-the-cuff comment he made a few years ago on the strength of the Ottoman Empire during the early 16th century! Ooookay. Not Richard Wagner, then? So here we go. I also asked ChatGPT to comment on some of the points raised in JMG´s essay (see long chunk of text below the link). Good luck! 

A case study in stimulus diffusion

Can you compare the size and strength (military, economic, political) of the Habsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire during the early 16th century?

Certainly. During the early 16th century—roughly from 1500 to 1550—the Habsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire were two of the most powerful and expansive states in Europe and the Mediterranean. Here's a comparative overview across military, economic, political, and territorial dimensions:

---

1. Military Strength

Ottoman Empire

• Standing Army: Included the elite Janissaries, one of the earliest modern standing armies in Europe.

• Navy: Dominant in the eastern Mediterranean. Admiral Hayreddin Barbarossa secured naval supremacy over much of the Mediterranean in the 1530s and 1540s.

• Victories: Major success at the Battle of Mohács (1526), defeating Hungary and opening Central Europe to Ottoman expansion.

• Tactics & Organization: Advanced logistics, use of firearms, and effective command structure.

Habsburg Empire

• Military Composition: Relied heavily on levies, mercenaries (like the German Landsknechts), and feudal contingents.

• Navy: Weaker than the Ottomans in the Mediterranean; more focus on land power, especially in Europe.

• Conflicts: Engaged in the Italian Wars and a long-running struggle against the Ottomans in Hungary and along the Austrian frontier.

Verdict: The Ottoman military was stronger, especially in terms of organization, professionalization, and naval power during this period.

---

2. Economic Power

Ottoman Empire

• Controlled vital trade routes between Europe, Asia, and Africa.

• Cities like Istanbul, Cairo, and Aleppo were major economic centers.

• Agricultural base was strong, supported by a complex timar system (land grants in exchange for military service).

• Taxation and plunder from newly conquered territories (e.g., Mamluk lands, Hungary) boosted revenues.

Habsburg Empire

• Wealth came from Spain’s American colonies (after Charles V inherited the Spanish crown in 1516), but massive silver imports only became substantial in the late 16th century.

• Controlled rich regions like Flanders, parts of Italy, and the Rhineland, with developed economies.

• Faced chronic financial problems due to continuous warfare and reliance on borrowing.

Verdict: Roughly balanced, with the Ottomans having a broader internal economic base and the Habsburgs increasingly dependent on colonial wealth (which had not yet peaked in the early 16th century).

---

3. Political Structure and Power

Ottoman Empire

• Highly centralized under the Sultan (e.g., Suleiman the Magnificent), with a unified administrative and legal system.

• Bureaucracy was efficient and backed by the devshirme system (recruitment of Christian boys for state service).

• Political stability was relatively high during Suleiman’s reign.

Habsburg Empire

• A dynastic conglomerate, especially under Charles V, who ruled over Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, the Netherlands, and parts of Italy.

• Power was fragmented; Charles had to contend with independent princes in the Holy Roman Empire, and frequent revolts.

• Bureaucratic cohesion was weaker due to the diversity of territories.

Verdict: The Ottomans had a more unified and centralized political system; the Habsburgs had greater breadth but less cohesion.

---

4. Territorial Extent and Influence

Ottoman Empire

• Controlled the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, parts of North Africa, and by mid-century, large parts of Hungary.

• Expansion continued into Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

Habsburg Empire

• Ruled over Spain, the Low Countries, parts of Italy (Naples, Milan), Austria, and were Holy Roman Emperors.

• Charles V also inherited the Americas and began overseas expansion.

Verdict: Habsburgs had a wider global reach, but the Ottomans had more contiguous and manageable land-based territories with stronger regional dominance.

---

Summary Table

Category	Ottoman Empire	Habsburg Empire
Military	Superior, especially on land/sea	Strong but fragmented
Economic	Strong internal base, trade routes	Wealth growing from colonies
Political	Centralized, unified rule	Dispersed, dynastic patchwork
Territory	Large, contiguous empire	Wider but fragmented & global

---

Conclusion:
In the early 16th century, the Ottoman Empire was stronger militarily and more cohesive politically, with significant regional dominance in the Mediterranean and the Balkans. The Habsburg Empire, while vast and rising in global influence (especially under Charles V), was more challenged by internal fragmentation and financial strain. However, their colonial wealth and dynastic reach laid the foundation for long-term power.

Would you like a map comparison of their territories around 1520–1550?

Who was stronger during the second half of the 16th century (1550-1600)?

From 1550 to 1600, the balance of power between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Empire shifted in subtle and complex ways. While both remained major powers, their relative strength evolved, especially as the Habsburgs consolidated overseas wealth and the Ottomans began to face more internal and external challenges.

---

1. Military Strength (1550–1600)

Ottoman Empire

• Still formidable, but signs of military overextension began to appear.

• Fought the Long Turkish War (1593–1606) against the Habsburgs, which drained resources.

• Navy declined in dominance after the Battle of Lepanto (1571), a major defeat by the Holy League, led by Spain and Venice.

• Continued to field strong land armies, especially in the Balkans and eastern Mediterranean.

Habsburg Empire

• Military power grew, especially through Spanish forces and increased use of firearms and fortifications.

• Spanish Habsburgs (Philip II) achieved naval supremacy with victory at Lepanto.

• Infantry (Spanish tercios) became the gold standard of early modern warfare.

• More professionalized and disciplined armies compared to earlier decades.

Verdict: The Habsburgs became militarily stronger, particularly at sea and in Western Europe, though the Ottomans remained powerful on land in the East.

---

2. Economic Strength

Ottoman Empire

• Still wealthy, but began to feel strain from continuous warfare, especially against Persia and the Habsburgs.

• Inflation (due to influx of New World silver into global markets) destabilized the economy.

• Some decline in the efficiency of tax collection and the timar system.

Habsburg Empire

• Enormous influx of silver from the Americas, especially from Potosí and Mexico.

• Still faced serious debt and financial mismanagement (Philip II declared bankruptcy several times).

• The Spanish economy was overstretched, particularly due to military commitments in the Netherlands, Italy, and against England.

Verdict: The Habsburgs had more wealth, but it was unevenly managed and tied up in military expenditures. The Ottomans had a more sustainable economy early on, but began to falter by century’s end.

---

3. Political Structure and Stability

Ottoman Empire

• Suleiman the Magnificent died in 1566; successors (Selim II, Murad III) were competent but not of Suleiman's caliber.

• Power gradually shifted to the imperial court, viziers, and the harem (the so-called "Sultanate of Women").

• Signs of bureaucratic decay and court intrigue emerged.

Habsburg Empire

• Philip II of Spain (r. 1556–1598) centralized power significantly in Spain.

• However, faced major challenges:

  • The Dutch Revolt (1568–1648).

  • The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 by England.

  • Ongoing wars in Italy and the Mediterranean.

Verdict: Both empires faced growing internal pressures, but the Ottomans remained relatively more stable internally; the Habsburgs were increasingly challenged by rebellion and overstretch.

---

4. Territorial and Global Influence

Ottoman Empire

• Continued expanding in Eastern Europe, North Africa, and against Persia.

• Held a dominant position in the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Levant.

• Less active in the Atlantic or global trade.

Habsburg Empire

• Spain (under Philip II) was the dominant global empire, with vast territories in the Americas, the Philippines, and major European possessions.

• Controlled Portugal and its empire from 1580 to 1640, adding Brazil, Africa, and Asian trade routes.

Verdict: The Habsburgs (especially the Spanish branch) had far greater global reach and influence, while the Ottomans remained a regional superpower.

---

Summary Table (1550–1600)

Category	Ottoman Empire	Habsburg Empire
Military	Strong on land, declined at sea (post-1571)	Strengthened army/navy, more modern military
Economic	Still strong, but weakening	Wealthy from colonies, but in chronic debt
Political	Centralized but facing internal decay	Increasing centralization, but rebellion-ridden
Global Power	Dominant in the Eastern Med/Middle East	Dominant globally, especially after 1580

---

Conclusion

In the second half of the 16th century, the Habsburgs (especially Spain under Philip II) surpassed the Ottomans in military modernization, global reach, and economic wealth (despite financial strains). The Ottoman Empire remained strong, but its relative power plateaued, while early signs of internal strain and imperial overreach began to show.

Overall, the Habsburgs were stronger globally, while the Ottomans were still formidable regionally, especially in the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean.

Would you like a timeline or map showing key developments between 1550 and 1600?

Is there any evidence that the Protestant reformers were inspired by Islam, or is that just a hypothesis?

The idea that Protestant reformers were directly inspired by Islam is mostly a modern hypothesis, not something strongly supported by direct evidence from the time. However, there are some indirect connections, parallels, and contextual interactions that have led scholars to explore the idea more seriously in recent decades. Here's a breakdown:

---

1. Direct Influence? Very Limited Evidence

There is no conclusive primary-source evidence that major Protestant reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Ulrich Zwingli were intentionally inspired by Islamic theology or political models in shaping their religious views. The core doctrinal reforms—like sola scriptura (scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), and rejection of papal authority—came from internal critiques of Catholic theology and practice, not from Islamic sources.

---

2. Indirect Influence: Some Contextual Interactions

Luther and the Ottoman Turks

• Martin Luther wrote extensively about the Ottomans, especially during the 1520s and 1530s, when the Ottomans were threatening Central Europe.

• He viewed Islam as a scourge sent by God to punish Christian corruption, but also criticized Catholic militarism against the Ottomans, saying that the Turks should be resisted not as “infidels” but as unjust aggressors—hinting at a more rational political theology.

• Some scholars argue that his view of Islam as a monotheistic religion with strong legal and political unity made him rethink the relationship between church and state—but this influence is highly indirect.

Islam as a Mirror

• Some European intellectuals and reformers used Islam as a negative foil to critique the Catholic Church—e.g., comparing papal power to that of the Sultan or calling the papacy “Antichrist” in ways that echoed critiques of Islamic despotism.

• Islam’s rejection of icons, strong emphasis on scripture, and unity between law and religion sometimes invited comparisons with Reformed Protestantism, especially in Zwinglian or Calvinist circles.

• However, these comparisons were more polemical or rhetorical, not clear indicators of theological borrowing.

---

3. Later Scholarship and Hypotheses

Recent historians and political theorists have speculated on structural or philosophical parallels:

• Max Weber and others noted similarities between Islamic legalism and Calvinist discipline, though not in terms of influence.

• Some scholars explore how the presence of the Ottoman Empire in Europe created a geopolitical alternative to Christendom, potentially empowering Protestants by weakening the ideological monopoly of the Catholic Church.

• In the 20th and 21st centuries, some have suggested that Protestant views on iconoclasm, anti-clericalism, or the unity of law and faith might have parallels in Islam, but again, this is analogical, not documentary evidence of influence.

---

4. Key Limitation: Lack of Transmission Mechanism

For genuine intellectual influence to occur, there must be a mechanism of transmission—translations, discussions, shared texts, correspondence, etc. In the early 16th century:

• Islamic theology was not widely available in Europe in translation.

• Most knowledge of Islam came from polemic, hearsay, or travelers' accounts, not scholarly exchange.

• Arabic and Islamic legal or philosophical texts were mostly confined to Spain and southern Italy and were studied by Catholics, not Protestants, at this time.

---

Conclusion

• Direct inspiration? No strong evidence.

• Indirect influence or parallel development? Plausible in some rhetorical, political, and structural ways.

• Modern scholarly hypothesis? Yes—mainly in the form of comparative historical analysis, not documentary proof of inspiration.

So, while it's intellectually stimulating to explore Islam as a contextual factor or mirror for the Reformation, it's not historically accurate to say that Protestant reformers were inspired by Islam in any direct, substantive sense.

Would you like a list of modern scholars who explore these comparative angles in more detail?