These characteristics of ancient Rome were inherited by the Eastern Romans and the Church.

Seriously speaking, because of the influence of Greek culture and the fact that they learned a lot of Persian things, Eastern Rome has many differences from ancient Rome in this regard.

For example, the most intuitive is to directly look at the change of name. In ancient Roman times, women did not have a "name" in the strict sense of the word, and generally directly used the feminine of the clan name as their own address.

For example, Caesar's daughter, because the clan name is Julius, her own name is Julia; The same is true of Octavian's sister, so it is called Octavia. If there are two daughters in a family, they are called by size, for example, Anthony's two daughters are directly called Antonia Big and Antonia Jr.

If there are more, the order number is after the clan name, the eldest daughter is called Maxima, the second daughter is called Secunda, the third daughter is called Tertia, and so on. For example, Brutus had three sisters, and because they belonged to the family of Junius, they were called Unius the First, Junius the Second, and Uneuus the Third.

However, this kind of serial number naming, whether transliterated or paraphrased, is quite strange. Therefore, Guo Kang tends to translate directly as "You eldest sister", "You second sister", and "You third sister". I think that's a better fit......

After marriage, Roman women did not change their names and still used their patronymics. This is also the most direct manifestation of patriarchy. Changing to follow her husband's surname should have only appeared in the barbarian era.

Of course, these habits were limited to Latins at first. Like the Etruscans next to Rome, women had their own personal names. It's just that later these ethnic groups gradually became Romanized, and they also adopted Roman habits.

In this case, it is impossible to evaluate the advanced and backward. Etruscans, Romans, Germanic peoples, who had more "advanced" customs? There's no comparison.

In the same way, the patriarchy of Rome and the systems of other tribes cannot be so directly compared. It is equally pointless to force who is more advanced.

If you have to compare, the Romans still have at least one "program", and many barbarians are in a state of nothing, so they rely on the church to make up for them. From this point of view, in terms of "whether the theory is perfect", everyone can open the gap.

The "East", primarily Persia locally, was superior to Rome in the perfection of its theoretical system; Rome, on the other hand, was stronger than the barbarians. Later, Rome did continue to learn from the East and improve its political structure.

However, it is important to note that the use of a new theory does not mean that the original theory must be abandoned. In imitating Persia, the Romans apparently did not abandon their traditions, and until now, there is a very strong cultural atmosphere that is unique to Rome.

On the contrary, Guo Kang suspects that this strong sense of "substitution" and "rebellion" is the unique culture of the barbarians. Especially after Protestantization, it can be said that it is very obvious.

Many of the practices that were preached in later generations were admired not because they had some ability to bring benefits to the people, but because they opposed the original church rules, and were therefore called "advanced."

Some men like little boys. This phenomenon is extremely common in Eurasia, and in many civilizations people regard it neither as glory nor as shame. Find a Persian or a Greek, they might feel like it's 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 promote it, even to the point of exaggeration. Even within the church, in fact, there is no control over this hobby, and scandals have been breaking out from ancient times to the present, and people with a "modern consciousness" do not regard them as like-minded people.

It's not hard to see why. The whole Protestant movement, or "apostasy" movement, was an opposition to the churches of the past. In fact, they don't have much theoretical innovation, basically just turn the original theories 180 degrees and then use them. The core of the sect is not to create new doctrines, but to oppose the original ones.

Because this habit is not only manifested in the face of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but also within Protestantism, this reversal is constantly occurring. The renewed Protestantism will completely negate the old Protestantism, and then it will continue to go on and on.

At that time, the most extreme doctrine was the Protestant generation of the older generation, who preached fundamentalism and opposed the corruption of Catholicism, so they directly filled the extremism.

The new generation of Protestantism, on the other hand, does not zero out this extreme, but jumps directly to the opposite extreme—they promote the opposite as if they were revenge, and as a result, they can only jump back and forth between the two extremes.

Now that I think about it, this may have been the root cause of the disease since Roman times. Whether it was the Roman Empire or later the Church, the "guidelines" formed by the "canons", or social norms as consensus, were too narrow in scope and too fragile in themselves. And the later barbarians, in this regard, are even worse.

It is not easy for any civilization to get out of the trap. For them, it's even more so. In fact, no matter how much the barbarians jumped, they couldn't jump out of the scope that the church opened up back then.

Of course, this is not their special case. Guo Kang also watched the Seris people tinkering around, but he couldn't get rid of the world's view.

You must know that since the era of letter history, there have actually been two ways of organizing the Central Plains state: either it was the Zhou Dynasty and the mode of contention between the Chinese states; Either it was created by the Yuan Dynasty, and it transcended the clan and region, and multiple Ulus coexisted side by side. Until Guo Kang's time, the world was still not Yuan or Zhou, or these two were in effect.

This is the case in the Central Plains, and Europe has no choice.

As a result of their situation, once there was a problem with the theoretical system at that time, the opponents had only one way to go. And as long as they oppose it, they tend to completely reverse the existing order. It's like two people on a narrow road, they can't avoid the side, they can only bump hard.

After a long time, the thinking of the barbarians naturally has problems, and they have become "diodes" one by one......

Purely internally, this is not serious, anyway, everyone has long been used to it. However, with the strength of the barbarian tribes in modern Europe, the barbarian culture also began to be exported in all directions. In other civilizations, this kind of performance begins to be embarrassing.

The long-term inertia of thinking leads to the believers of barbarian culture who will only "swear back". Even if he is in a place where there is no "old religion" at all, he will follow the original routine and "swear" a set of "rebellions" first. In the eyes of outsiders, this is equivalent to the output of air, which is obviously problematic......

(End of chapter)