I do object to your presentation of the church as a anti-science body of religious oppression over a 1000 years in all places on the continent.
You are making assumptions in favor of your own argument.
I never said that and I don't think it was the case. You have one very specific worldview and carry an idea of a particular opposing worldview you have decided, without evidence, that I have. Pause and re-examine our discussion, you are filling in the blanks yourself.
You talk about the Spanish Inquisition and other events from the 15th - 17th centuries and call it the middle ages.
I wasn't the one who brought up the Spanish Inquisition. You are playing games here. And most of what I was discussing was the Inqusition in relation to the Albigensian Crusade which was in the Medieval period (13th Century).
Secondly, you want to make the claim that the secular authorities were generally more just and "corrupted" by the ideas of the church, which is just balderdash.
I never said they were more just, show me where I said that? I said that they got their ideas of the legal viability of Torture from the Church.
For the most part, being a part of the church was like being part of the local bureaucracy of the current day. You might become a priest or a bishop by being a noble's second son, or a gifted peasant from a monastic or cathedral school. You may or may not be especially religious as a priest or a bishop, but you were generally a part of the local community and its primary form of social assistance.
Agreed.
Generally when new religious movements came in, they took over church property, killed various clergy and religious, and imposed their brand of religion over the local populace, usually at the behest of a local ruler. The Cathars were no exception.
This is spin. If the Cathars were forcing their beliefs on the people, as if they were some conquering army (like the Anti-Cathar Crusaders were), why did Catholics all over the South of France fight to the death to defend them?
No, but you are trying to whitewash the Cathars into ...(snip) all nice peaceful good guys who were destroyed by the evil Catholic Church.
Again, I never said they were good guys. I said the region was prosperous and thriving intelectually regardless of their presence. I said they were effectively laissez faires, do you refute that? I also specifcally pointed out that they were no better or worse than any other religious doctrine as far as I can tell.
I notice you take the highest number you can find for the amount dead, and then say it is even more than that. You telling me you don't have an axe to grind?
No, I think that is an accurate figure. I'm at least as well informed on this era as you are, even though you are trying to pretend you have expertise here that no-one else has. Once again your ASS-ume.
Torture wasn't rare under germanic law bucko, particularly with serious crimes that required ordeal.
"buko?" Seriously?
Trial by ordeal arrived after Christianity as I'm sure you are well aware, largely to replace dueling.
At least though you admit that medieval justice was not as cruel as most people make it out to be today. Most people are shocked when I tell them that for all but the most serious crimes, people paid fines according to their social class and income. Unfortuneately for you, the church largely punished by means of fines too.
This was the old Tribal law. The Roman law was all the torture etc.
As well, torture and capital punishment in church courts were generally reserved for recalcitrant offenders, wheras those who sought forgiveness were generally granted it. Excommunication was used like outlawry was in secular courts, to put oneself outside of the protection of the church court. It was often times not as effective.
Wheras in Tribal society outlawry had actually been effective. Once the structure became more hierarchical, Roman methods were selected in favor of the old "barbarian" ways.
Yes, that's what I'm saying the spanish inquisition was about. It was not a progom against the jews, it was a political purge and land grab of a conquered people
That is pretty much what a Pogrom is.
Pogrom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You obviously know very little about European Tribal traditions buddy. I'm the son of a farmer with a lot of land, and my grandfather has 105 descendants. Do you know what I could do to you under germanic law to somebody like you with that combination? Pretty much anything I damn well please.
Once again you ASSume. You don't know a thing about me and your interpretation of Tribal customs if charicteristically facile. You seem in this case to be ASSuming that A) I wouldn't have any family or property(actually I also have a large family) that B) that you would be more popular than I am, C) that I'm not part of say, a sworn brotherhood of some kind (I have a lot of close friends who are ex-military) or D) under the patronage of a powerful Chieftain (such as the Dark Age equivalent of my current employer).
And in additon to the unknown factor of how many allies each of us had, assuming I was a free man like 90% of society, whether or not your could oppose your will upon me would depend on which one of us could fight, since by Germanic Tribal law I could challenge you to a duel even if I didn't have as large of a family. And I'd be willing to take my chances, I have been studying martial arts and handling swords for twenty five years.
The truth is Tribal culture was very complex and the Assemblies rarely bent to the will of one family. In pagan tims European Clans tended to do their best to prevent accumulations of power.
And frankly I'd be delighted to go out to the island with you mate, if I didn't have to worry about legal consequences I'd do that on very slight provocation. I can think of a few institutions I'd like to challenge to Holmgang right now if I was allowed to.
So show me the facts. I looked at various court rolls when I studied medieval history in university. The most common punishments were fines, with excommunications being the primary tool to force people to come to the church court to make amends for fishing in the bishop's stream, or refusing to pay a certain tax for getting married.
You can't have it both ways, you already pointed out the secular authorities did the same (i.e. most punishments were fines). But they didn't conduct inquisitions.
Of course, heating up a tub full of hot water or hauling water without indoor plumbing was arduous and expensive, so people then didn't bathe every day like we do, especially in winter.
Thats why they used to have public baths for the common people, and it's also why so many very old European villages and towns are situated on hot springs. Look at a map of Germany and count how many towns have the name "baden" in them, it means bath.
Yes, because the rise of urbanization without adequate public sanitation and safety measures along with international trade had nothing to do with it in the least.
There were large towns, and internatonal trade way before the 14th Century.
Okay, give an example besides the crossbow.
That would be a long list! But just to cite one example relevant to this thread: upthread a few posts there is a very interesting discussion about Mnemonics. One of the leaders in the field during the Renaissance (not talking about the Middle Ages here) was Giodorno Bruno, who invented several sophisticated Mnemonic systems, among other things. As a result he was charged with heresy, blasphemy and burned at the stake for this innovation, among other reasons for his doctrine that there may be other worlds. In spite of seeking forgiveness from the Church as you so frequently suggest could be a panecea.
Or they disliked it because it was a particularly lethal weapon that killed people very efficiently. The ecclesiastical authorities also disliked tournaments because people died in them and tried to enforce some degree of peace by forbidding combat on certain days or excommunicating people who fought. All you've proven is that they had an abhorrence of a particular piece of military technology, not that they feared technology that they couldn't control.
This is still an excellent example, even though it's limited in scope. Because of course the notion that a Crossbow is any more lethal than a lance, a sword, or an axe is utterly laughable. The problem (from the point of view of the Church) is that it is the type of weapon which could be manufacturerd and distributed to urban militias who could fairly easily be trained to use it, as famously happened in many Italian towns such as Genoa, and further up into Switzerland etc.
The idea that it's due to tenderness or concern for human suffering is laughable.
Balderdash. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the period can see your agenda from a mile away. Religious thinking bad, leads to violence and irrational rejection of science right?
Wrong. I never said that. I'm not some fanatical humanist or materialist. I think mate that you are projecting your own creation in order to argue with your imagined enemies. Since you are making a lot of wild speculation about me, I'll make a guess about you: I suspect that when people disagree with you you assign them to a particular very specific category, and you "fill in the blanks" in your mind.
You are clearly reasonably well informed in pre-industrial European history. So am I. We can share what information we have, people here are probably more interested in that than in either of our opinions. Meanwhile please don't make assumptions about me, and I'll try to return the favor.
G.
Especially at higher levels of play. I have run, played in and helped out with games heavily flavored and influenced by medievalism. Have you thought about a different system for them? D20 Past? Modern? GURPS? Perhaps True20? (The latter may be a particularly apt match.)
