# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/41 "2011-06-01T19:38:19Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > 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. I thought they were named after The Stig. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/42 "2011-06-01T20:25:49Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > 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. Another thing is that the Catholic church was just as strict and fanatical in the 16th and 17th centuries as it was during the Middle Ages, and yet there was still a great deal of innovation in Catholic Europe during the Renaissance. Why is it that Catholicism can supposedly be blamed for the backwardness of the Middle Ages, but cannot be blamed for the advances that took place in Spain, Portugal, France and the Holy Roman Empire? It’s not like the Catholic Church collapsed as soon as the Renaissance “began” (as if it could be described as “beginning” at one time or another at all.) ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/43 "2011-06-01T20:25:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. I never said they were the same thing. But the position of the serf had many similarities to that of the slave. When people in medieval Europe wants something, they didn’t tend to go out and hire people to do it. In fact, there was heavy control of labor. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. It isn’t so much that the Catholic Church wasn’t a spur to innovation, it is that it retarded it. There’s a correlation in Europe between economic development and the degree of Catholicism. Now it is also possible that poverty leads to a greater degree of devotion to Rome, but I don’t think the correlation can be denied. Might the English freedoms have come at least partly from historically looser ties to Rome? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/44 "2011-06-01T20:43:21Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > 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. > [@Odesio](#): > > 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. > > You mean besides founding numerous universities, preserving works of literature and educating many Europeans? It also separates it from Orthodox, or Byzantine Eastern Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/45 "2011-06-01T21:35:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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…! Didn’t happen in the middle ages. Galileo was a Renaissance thing. ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/46 "2011-06-01T21:44:57Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Really? They taught metalworking in the universities? > And masonry and engineering and agriculture? > > I didn’t know that. > > Or was it Theology… Logic, mathematics, geometry, philosophy, medicine, law, astronomy, and, yes, even theology. Odesio ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/47 "2011-06-01T22:27:12Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > 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. Even with that, you’re still wrong. The “Dark Ages” were dark because the new semi-barbarian societies were not terribly learned and did not create a lot of writing or records. Later historians called them Dark because they were almost literally “in the dark” on the subject. However, it was also a time of massive economic and social rearrangement - and growth. During the Dark Ages, Europe as we know it finds its strongest roots. Never again would the Med dominate a hostile and barbaric frontier. New centers of power - Mercia, Anglia, Paris, and many Dutch, Danish, and German cities formed. the Slavic peoples spread throughout the east. The Vikings stole trade, create new trade links, and both destroyed and reinvigorated whole nations. Meanwhile, the newly-fragmented powers of Italy and Spain began fighting for power and prestige and wealth, and in the process started developing new identities. And yes, many new inventions developed. The Roman world was essentially static, which was perhaps the most fundamental reason it collapsed. They could argue over who got the biggest slice of pie, but not how to grow it. The new Christians Europe was not, and it grew. The first foundations of capitalism and free markets were born. Agriculture improved again and again. Metal goods increased greatly in quality and availability. But social improvements also happened. The Church exercised a great deal of influence over everyday life, and it’s shown most clearly in the slow improvement in warfare. At the beginning of the period, war was incredibly brutal and cruel. Yet without any specific economic changes which demanded it, the Church successfully persuaded people that first monks, then children and women, and finally unarmed men, were not fit victims of war. Slavery largely vanished, and the often-uneasy balance of power between churchmen against nobles and even kings usually kept the worst forms of oppression. Christianity did not say every man was right, but it did say he could be right, and that mattered. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/48 "2011-06-01T23:23:30Z")
I think the OP is top-heavy with Catholic apologism. A generalized atmosphere of ignorance and superstition and conservative social order held in place by a powerful Church does not preclude any and all inventions. Given that were talking about hundreds of millions of people over roughly a millennia, there are bound to be some innovations, and the OP named a relatively small number of them. But I don’t think technology is the entire issue, and I don’t think anyone is saying that there was 0% societal advancement and that the Catholic Church is 100% to blame. So fine, the Dark Ages weren’t entirely pitch black. OTOH, I seem to recall hearing that the Church wasn’t too keen on the printing press. Is that right? ---
**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, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/49 "2011-06-01T23:52:06Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > I think the OP is top-heavy with Catholic apologism. sqweels, meet ITR Champion. ITR Champion, sqweels. I don’t believe you two have met. ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/50 "2011-06-01T23:59:29Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > But cataphract cavalry in those days didn’t charge at the gallop but at the trot. Well, the problem here is that the Greek-derived term “cataphract” has been applied to just about all heavily armored eastern cavalry over a ~1,500 year period. But that obscures a lot of variation. The version you are thinking of here are late Byzantine cataphracts from the late 9th/early 10th century ( the trot in tight formation derives from Leo VI’s _Tactica_ - though I believe it says to _advance_ at a trot to maintain said tight formation, there may have been acceleration before final contact ), who probably _did_ have stirrups by that point. But plenty of cataphracts seem to have used a fast charge, at least at the point of contact. Ammianus Marcellinus describes two 4th century ( pre-stirrup ) Roman soldiers being skewered on a single Sassanid lance from the force of the strike - even allowing for a little exaggeration, that doesn’t seem to imply an advance at a trot ;). And here is a [frieze](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/firuzabad/firuzabad.JPG) showing cataphracts in combat from a Persian source detailing the victory of the Sassanids over their former Parthian overlords in the early 3rd century. They look like they are in full charge. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/51 "2011-06-02T01:41:18Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Yet without any specific economic changes which demanded it, the Church successfully persuaded people that first monks, then children and women, and finally unarmed men, were not fit victims of war. I think you meant to add “white” in front of these. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/52 "2011-06-02T03:31:58Z")
One good rough guide to a culture’s level of civilization is the importance it places on bathing. How did medieval Catholic Europeans rank in that regard? (From what I’ve read, they were very rank indeed.) ---
**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 2, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/53 "2011-06-02T03:46:00Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I think you meant to add “white” in front of these. I’m not really sure they had a concept of whiteness that would match the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries view of whiteness. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/54 "2011-06-02T03:47:00Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > **Gunpowder**. The Chinese were the first to invent gunpowder, but for centuries used it for fireworks. Medieval China had some cannons but not many. Recent research has shown that cannons were used widely throughout Europe by the early 1300’s, making it unlikely that Europe got gunpowder from China, and more likely that it was invented separately in Europe. Europeans were also much more innovative in inventing smaller, better cannons and eventually hand-held firearms. > . I’ve doubts about this one. As far as I remember, the first use of cannons in Europe was by the Mongols when they reached Central Europe. Can’t remember the name of the battle. I think it was in Hungary. If I’m correct about this, it’s dubious that an european would have invented gunpowder right at this moment. Also, yes, the Chinese used cannons much more sporadically than the Europeans immediately began to do (they also used rockets, by the way, and more commonly). However, I would guess that this is more related to very different military situations. The typical European ennemy was standing in a castle or fortified town maybe 200 kms away. They rarely had to, say, pull their cannons 2000 kms away and then attemp to catch up with raiding nomad cavalry. Note again that this is a mere guess on my part. Also, on the other hand, the Mongols did use artillery against the Chinese defending fortified towns. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/55 "2011-06-02T03:56:26Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m not really sure they had a concept of whiteness that would match the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries view of whiteness. Indeed - white may be the wrong word. But the Church certainly didn’t spread the idea that Jewish or Arab non-combatants should be spared the sword. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/56 "2011-06-02T04:01:49Z")
Sorry for my useless previous post, everybody had said the same previously. Once again I should read the whole thread first > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yeah, the idea that they were “Dark Ages” where nothing much happened except plagues and death seems to be a common misconception. I don’t think it’s very common on this board. And even in the genral population, I’m not convinced it’s as common as it used to be. It seems to me that the works of historians who put the middle-ages under a new light (and this not anything new. Historians who did this work are now dead or retired) have made their way to the schoolbooks and pop-history. By they way, I’ve on my shelves a book about the history of China where, early on, the enthusiastic author presents a list quite similar to that of the OP, except of course that he attributes tons of inventions to the Chinese (besides the obvious gunpowder, paper, etc…). I’m too tired and lazy to pull it tonight, but I might post that list later if the thread goes on. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/57 "2011-06-02T04:15:46Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > That seems to be the attitude taken by most Straight Dope users and most other people, though certainly not by everyone. It matches up pretty well with what i was taught when I was in school. And that’s the particular instance of misinformation that I’m trying to address with this thread. I think the post you quote mainly address a different issue (even though it’s still wrong about barely any progress being made from the antiquity to the 19th century, of course). It’s centered about the issue of quality of life. I wouldn’t exchange my place with that of Ramses II, for instance. I think I have it much better than him. And despite all the progresses made in between, I would perceive switching places with, say, Louis XIV as being only marginally better. That’s of course because our quality of life has so dramatically improved during the last 150 years that from our perspective it doesn’t make much difference. And if we replace mighty kings with mere peasants, I wouldn’t know if those living in 17th century France had it better or worse than the Egyptians, progress or not. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/58 "2011-06-02T04:23:21Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I think you meant to add “white” in front of these. I think pre-pending “Catholic” would be more correct. The Catholic church had no issue providing women children and men in Northern and Eastern Europe the ‘civilized’ choice of convert or die. I find it revolting how they seemed to take great joy in murdering those men, women and children. ---
**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 2, 2011, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/59 "2011-06-02T04:27:50Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The Catholic church had no issue providing women children and men in Northern and Eastern Europe the ‘civilized’ choice of convert or die. Cite, please. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959/60 "2011-06-02T04:36:53Z")
Presumably a reference to the Saxon Wars of Charlemagne in the Early Middle Ages and the crusades of the Teutonic Knights in the High Middle Ages. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconsidering-our-view-of-medieval-catholic-europe/583959.md?page=4)