Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1928108" data-attributes="member: 7240">Dr Strangemonkey,I think you're dealing with a strawman rather than my post. I never used the word genocide nor did I state that it was the policy of any medieval society to commit it. What I said was that medieval states which conducted themselves according to the Ostiensian doctrine (and I agree that these doctrines are more a useful form of categorization in hindsight than a conscious policy at the time) did not see any intrinsic value in the cultures they conquered. I am not suggesting some kind of premodern holocaust here. What I was suggesting was that premodern people did not seek to preserve cultures different from theirs and, in fact, worked to assimilate members of other cultures to their cultural values. The reason I made this initial point was to argue that the idea that not killing women and children because such an act would destroy the culture is an inappropriate one for D&D characters to have in most games. At no point did I state that medievals committed genocide; what I suggested was that medievals, generally, sought to destroy/assimilate those things that we moderns regard as the components of culture: language, customs, relgion, etc.Furthermore, I am not suggesting that there are no examples outside the High Middle Ages of conversion by choice as a missionary policy. But I would argue that such policies arose not out of choice but out of necessity. Early medieval Christians used whatever means they had at their disposal to effect conversion; often, force of arms was not an available means. Certainly, you are correct that the first wave of crusader states did not attempt to convert the moors; subsequent crusaders did make such an attempt. This was an important factor in the loss of Christian territories in the Holy Land. But I'm really not here to argue the minutia of medieval history. Conversion by treaty, mass baptism, proxy baptism, missions... these were all tactics used by Christians. From reading penitentials, it is clear that cultural difference was seen by medieval Christians as a refuge for pagan thought. Even the heroes of consensual, culturally sensitive conversion strategies like Gregory the Great and Cyril and Methodius did not perceive themselves as preserving culture. They simply pursued consciously gradualist policies in order to achieve the ultimate goal of making the peoples of pagan lands like themselves, in part because the military option was unavailable. Also, I really question your idea that any pre-modern people understood genocide as we do -- or that even if they did, that they could possibly have had the resources to carry it out. What examples are you citing of the Romans committing genocide? Certainly the Romans could disperse people -- the diaspora was certainly created by Rome but I think this is one of the strong cases for the absence of pre-modern genocides.Anyway, I don't think our positions are that far apart. Neither of us is suggesting that anybody was carrying out genocide in the Middle Ages. Neither of us is suggesting that cultural or biological diversity were values held or espoused by medieval people. Both of us recognizes many consensual conversions and many that were less so. Perhaps we could leave it at that.</blockquote>

Verification