I thought they were named after The Stig.
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.)
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.
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?
It also separates it from Orthodox, or Byzantine Eastern Europe.
Didn’t happen in the middle ages. Galileo was a Renaissance thing.
Logic, mathematics, geometry, philosophy, medicine, law, astronomy, and, yes, even theology.
Odesio
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.
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?
sqweels, meet ITR Champion. ITR Champion, sqweels. I don’t believe you two have met.
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 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.
I think you meant to add “white” in front of these.
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.)
I’m not really sure they had a concept of whiteness that would match the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries view of whiteness.
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.
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.
Sorry for my useless previous post, everybody had said the same previously. Once again I should read the whole thread first
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.
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.
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.
Cite, please.
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.