# Reconsidering our view of medieval Catholic Europe **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2011, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959 "2011-06-01T14:27:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/21 "2011-06-01T16:56:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The only point of that quote was that the person who made it must have been unaware of innovations that occurred in the middle ages. Thats not what the blurb you quoted said. He said all pre-modern, agricultural people had similarly difficult lives, from ancient Egypt on up. I’m sure the poster wasn’t claiming that there was no innovations from Ancient Egypt to the beginning of the modern age. His point is that despite those innovations, most people were still required to spend most of their time doing difficult agricultural labor. > [@](#): > > Water-powered ones originated in Europe, as I said. Well, you said they were all hand powered, but there were animal powered ones outside Europe, and possibly water-powered ones as well. Again, just flip through wikipedia, many of the things you claim are European inventions were invented outside Europe. Your not being well-served by the book your using as a source. It appears to be pretty far outside the general scholarly opinion. (hey, I just looked up another one. Windmills, both for irrigation and milling, were invented in Persia/Middle-East.) ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/22 "2011-06-01T17:02:38Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > They’re related, but you can have one without the other. Feudalism is the relationship between landowners. I have land, you want land, so I give you some of my land, and in exchange you take an oath to support me in legal disputes, be loyal to me, and fight for me if I ever need you to, and that system developed in Europe a few hundred years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That makes sense. Ignorance fought, nitpick acknowledged. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/23 "2011-06-01T17:04:39Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > I like the idea that moving from using gunpowder for fireworks to using it for cannons is an example of how European culture was superior. I think it’s important to note that **ITR champion** is not arguing that Europe is or was superior culturally to China. Only that the commonly held view that Catholic Europe was a backward place devoid of culture, learning and technological development is false. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/24 "2011-06-01T17:07:53Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I think it’s important to note that **ITR champion** is not arguing that Europe is or was superior culturally to China. Only that the commonly held view that Catholic Europe was a backward place devoid of culture, learning and technological development is false. Well, he’s claiming it was "a period of innovation the likes of which had never been seen before in human history. " which is a little stronger then simply not being devoid of learning and technological development. I’d agree with your statement, but not with his. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/25 "2011-06-01T17:10:42Z")
Why the qualifier **Catholic** Medieval Europe? Why not just say Medieval Europe wasn’t as stagnant as it is commonly held to have been. It’s not as if the church has anything to do with the steady progress of technology and inventions of new ones. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/26 "2011-06-01T17:16:22Z")
Part of the problem here is that many people equate “The Dark Ages” (themselves not nearly as dark as they are often painted), which are standardly dated from the fall of Rome in 475 to about 1100 AD, with the “High” and “Late” Middle Ages, from about 1100 to 1500. During the “Dark Ages” Europe and its economy was still suffering from the depredations of barbarian invaders, the last major group being the Vikings, and the aftereffects of the breakup of the empire. However, from about 1100 on, things had settled down a lot. There were new levels of prosperity, and there was a major renaissance (not to be confused with _The Renaissance™_) in learning and culture [in the 12th century](http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=the+renaissance+of+the+twelfth+century&oq=the+renais). Of course, all these periodizations are rough and ready, but to lump the whole period in Europe between the fall of Rome and _The Renaissance™_ together as The Middle/Dark Ages is seriously and quite unnecessarily misleading. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/27 "2011-06-01T17:27:21Z")
I find it strange that this discussion focuses on who invented what rather than on what technology was widespread in which society at what time. Case in point. The Chinese have not invented much in the last 200 years or so. Yet, their society nowadays is quite technologically advanced and not “ignorant” by any means. That’s because instead of inventing technologies they successfully imported and used the inventions of others. You don’t find the Chinese self-flagellating over it and writing politically correct fantasies in history textbooks either. So why should we look down at the medieval Europeans for allegedly doing the same thing with technologies that originate outside of Europe? All the more so given that they have not just imported existing tools and used them as is like a black box (maybe until Stuxnet worm showed up and they got pwned) but rather continually improved them, sometimes even to a “revolutionary” degree, ever since. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/28 "2011-06-01T17:44:17Z")
> [@villa](#): > > You are aware of the structure of feudalism, aren’t you? Where serfs were tied to the local barons by law, and were required to provide him with military and work service? Thought the word is often misused, a serf was not the same thing as a slave. slavery, by definition, is the system where one human being can own another, and the owner buys, sells, and uses slaves however he pleases. In ancient civilizations this typically extended to the right to kill the slave. The actual conditions of serfdom in the middle ages varied with place and time we can’t cover all the details here, but it was definitely not slavery. The serf’s labor was split roughly 50/50 between the Lord and the serf’s own property. While it was true that the serf was required to work the lord’s property, it was also true that the lord couldn’t steal the serf’s property or deny the serf the right to work for his own benefit. [This page gives an overview of the system](http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/serfs.htm). While lords could buy land and the serfs came with the land, lords could not simply buy people and squeeze whatever labor they wanted out of it. The more important point for this thread is percentages, though. Medieval England was 40-60% serfs. By contrast, for instance, ancient Greek cities were up to 80-90% slaves. Medieval Europe spawned a large, vibrant middle class, especially in the cities, and it was from that middle class that most innovations came. > [@](#): > > And if the Catholic Church was such a spur to innovation, why did the huge industrial advances later come in Protestant countries? I’m not arguing that “the Catholic Church was such a spur to innovation”. I’ve never said that. I would argue against the hypothesis that there’s some sort of special ‘Protestant work ethic’ that was never found among Catholics. For sure the industrial revolution begain in England. However, it was not something totally new, but a continuation of process that began in the middle ages. From the thirteenth century onwards, the English had the most political and economic freedoms of any country, and that was already spurring innovation before the Reformation. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/29 "2011-06-01T17:54:16Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > The Persians and others were using heavy shock cavalry long before paired, hard stirrups were in use. How did that work? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/30 "2011-06-01T18:02:55Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Well, you said they were all hand powered, but there were animal powered ones outside Europe, and possibly water-powered ones as well. Again, just flip through wikipedia, many of the things you claim are European inventions were invented outside Europe. Your not being well-served by the book your using as a source. It appears to be pretty far outside the general scholarly opinion. > > (hey, I just looked up another one. Windmills, both for irrigation and milling, were invented in Persia/Middle-East.) Okay, I was wrong to say paper mils outside Europe were hand-powered; some were animal-powered. Does that affect the argument in any way? The water-powered mills were the big innovation in paper-making, as well as in cloth-fulling, sawing, ore-pounding, and many other areas. As for windmills I never said they were invented by Europeans. I said: “They also used windmills much more often than anyone else ever had.” Countries such as the Netherlands that didn’t have the right landscape for water mills were equally innovative in applying windmills. I remain one of the members of the obstinate minority who thinks that reading books is still preferable to reading Wikipedia, where much is unreferenced, incorrectly referenced, or reports unsure or ambiguous data as fact. Dr. Stark’s book may not be in total agreement with all historians, but broadly the consensus among historians has shifted away from the “dark ages” view of medieval Europe. It’s pop culture that hasn’t yet caught up. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/31 "2011-06-01T18:11:03Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And if the Catholic Church was such a spur to innovation, why did the huge industrial advances later come in Protestant countries? > > I’m not arguing that “the Catholic Church was such a spur to innovation”. I’ve never said that. I would argue against the hypothesis that there’s some sort of special ‘Protestant work ethic’ that was never found among Catholics. For sure the industrial revolution begain in England. However, it was not something totally new, but a continuation of process that began in the middle ages. From the thirteenth century onwards, the English had the most political and economic freedoms of any country, and that was already spurring innovation before the Reformation. there is a much easier way to account for both the alleged “Protestant work ethic” and innovations in northern Europe. Namely, that instead of “Protestant work ethic” there is “German work ethic” and/or “German-related people work ethic”. Likewise, instead of Protestant innovations there are German / Northern European innovations. When you look at it through the prism of ethnicity, it will stop being surprising that areas that are now called “Germany”, “Netherlands”, “Belgium” and “England” did so much technical and economic innovating over the centuries under all sorts of religious, political and ideological regimes. I think one major exception to the rule would be the period during and immediately after the 30 years war in Germany. But even then, while “Germany” was laid waste on an unprecedented scale other northern European nations like Netherlands and England were doing super. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/32 "2011-06-01T18:21:10Z")
and while we are on the topic of the Catholic church and the Dark Ages, I will point out that long before there was any “Protestant work ethic” there was such a thing as Catholic monks work ethic. Medieval monastery was the closest Europeans got to the modern ideal of a highly organized factory with continual production and continual work. Which is a lot more efficient way of doing many things worth doing than the sort of sporadic work effort done by medieval peasants during the agricultural cycle. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/33 "2011-06-01T18:23:29Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > How did that work? Freakish thighs, mostly. Also U-shaped saddles that locked the pelvis in place or that you could brace your back with. ---
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/34 "2011-06-01T18:27:25Z")
Not everyone is sold on Stark’s thought exercise: [http://www.powells.com/review/2006\_02\_02](http://www.powells.com/review/2006_02_02) > [@](#): > > “Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect,” concludes Rodney Stark in his new book, “most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand-copied scrolls.” I had always known that Jesus Christ was a pretty important person, but I had not quite realized that were it not for him, there would be no one to buy Rodney Stark’s books. The rest of the review covers the many flaws in Stark’s reasoning and research, or lack of it. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/35 "2011-06-01T18:31:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Okay, I was wrong to say paper mils outside Europe were hand-powered; some were animal-powered. Does that affect the argument in any way? It effects your argument that most of the examples in your OP are wrong. Gunpowder, the spinning wheel, paper mills, textile mills, stirrups, heavy plows, crop rotation, etc. > [@](#): > > I remain one of the members of the obstinate minority who thinks that reading books is still preferable to reading Wikipedia, where much is unreferenced, incorrectly referenced, or reports unsure or ambiguous data as fact. . Not all books are created equal, yours appears to not, in fact, be preferable to wikipedia, or at least, your summary of it isn’t. Again, I’m not arguing that there wasn’t innovation during the period in question, but it wasn’t some golden age of invention. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/36 "2011-06-01T18:41:15Z")
It’s like the donkey-fucker joke. It doesn’t matter how many advances one can attribute to the medieval Catholics, but you suppress _one_ Galileo…! ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/37 "2011-06-01T18:44:09Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Why the qualifier **Catholic** Medieval Europe? Because in the 18th and 18th centuries there were plenty of Protestant thinkers who liked to argue that Catholicism was the source of ignorance, superstition and fear during the middle ages. In short, a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda. > [@](#): > > It’s not as if the church has anything to do with the steady progress of technology and inventions of new ones. You mean besides founding numerous universities, preserving works of literature and educating many Europeans? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/38 "2011-06-01T19:09:30Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > How did that work? > [@Kobal2](#): > > Freakish thighs, mostly. Also U-shaped saddles that locked the pelvis in place or that you could brace your back with. Saddles with high cantles and pommels as per **Kobal2** is a major part of the answer, but also at times things like grounding straps wrapped around the horse or attached to the saddle. It was the high saddle that apparently makes the single biggest difference in terms of stability in the charge. Where stirrups come in more handy is in added stability during melee, i.e. when swinging a sword. It was also useful for mounted archers, as it could allow you elevate a bit. But useful isn’t necessary in this case - we know mounted archers and heavy shock cavalry pre-date stirrups by at least centuries and possibly more than a thousand years. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/39 "2011-06-01T19:26:48Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > You mean besides founding numerous universities, preserving works of literature and educating many Europeans? Really? They taught metalworking in the universities? And masonry and engineering and agriculture? I didn’t know that. Or was it Theology… ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/40 "2011-06-01T19:34:49Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Saddles with high cantles and pommels as per **Kobal2** is a major part of the answer, but also at times things like grounding straps wrapped around the horse or attached to the saddle. It was the high saddle that apparently makes the single biggest difference in terms of stability in the charge. > > Where stirrups come in more handy is in added stability during melee, i.e. when swinging a sword. It was also useful for mounted archers, as it could allow you elevate a bit. But useful isn’t necessary in this case - we know mounted archers and heavy shock cavalry pre-date stirrups by at least centuries and possibly more than a thousand years. But cataphract cavalry in those days didn’t charge at the gallop but at the trot. Of course because it was indeed more difficult to keep a seat when your legs were clad in armour and/or the sides of the horse were. Stirrups were also very handy for mounting the horse. That’s why they are called that in the first place. Stig ropes or mounting ropes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959.md?page=3)