You would be very wrong to believe that. Bathing went out of fashion only very late, and in no small part due to pressures of the church that viewed public baths as places of sexual promiscuity (and not without reasons, I might add). Also, some ludicrous medical theories about the ills of bathing were promoted (your humors would escape your body uncontrollably or something)
But for most of the middle ages, bathing either in public baths in towns or in the privacy of one’s home was much appreciated (and expected). For instance, if I’m not mistaken, Charlemagne had baths in his palace of Aachen and is said to have liked swimming there a lot. I’m not going to say that the average serf showered every day, but being transported in time, I would expect a medieval “middle-class” urbanite inviting me over to look fresh and smell good. While I wouldn’t expect the same thing during the 17th century.
The Church itself usually did. Most, although not all, of the religious massacres, during the middle ages were conducted by secular authorities, and fairly mildly condemned by the Church. For instance, if you read the medieval papal bulls about Judaism, they generally say something like, “The Jews killed Jesus, and God knows they’re horrible people and good Christians shouldn’t have anything to do with them. But, it’s not their fault they’re cursed and damned, so Christians shouldn’t hurt them or stop them from practicing their religion, and the state shouldn’t let people bother them. Just leave them alone, and God will take care of them. Of course, if they want to convert, that’s great!”
A lot of it had to do with two things. First, there was the little ice age and deforestation, which made it harder to get wood to heat baths. Second, there was the black death, and that scared people off of public gatherings generally. People got scared about disease being spread in bathhouses. The Church was ambiguous on it…some monks and hermits said that bathing was sinful, but you have clergy that owned bath houses and comments by clergymen that bathing is a healthy habit that should be done more often.
As an example, but if you are unaware, it was punishable by death to refuse baptism.
The Teutonic Order also had the Popes authority to wage war against the “Pagans” and they launched typically annual crusades in to parts of Eastern Europe.
I think it was in the 13th century where the pope approved torture for use.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but why are these examples wrong? I’ve toured a 15th-century, water-powered paper mill in France. Can I tour one from before the middle ages anywhere else on earth? Can I see any evidence that any existed before they were invented in western Europe? The same questions could be asked for water-powered fulling mills. Is there actual evidence that they were built elsewhere before being built in western Europe? Crop rotation: the medievals certainly had a three-field rotation system, where they planted with one crop one year, then a different crop, then left the field fallow. Is there any evidence that the ancient Romans had such a system? All I’ve read on the subject says the Romans simply planted a crop, then left the field fallow, then planted the same crop. And the heavy, wheeled plow: is there any actual evidence that the Romans had it?
The medievals did create three field rotation. There’s some evidence the Romans had the heavy mouldboard plow, but it didn’t become popular until the middle ages.
Here’s what you said: “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.” I find nothing in your cite that would justify that statement about the Catholic Church taking great joy in murdering anybody. Try again.
I’m sure you’re right, ITR champion. I’m sure it was more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger and with great sadness that medieval Christians put people to death for refusing to be baptized. Which I would imagine was a great comfort to the people who were being killed.
Reading the rest of this thread I feel that is is probably more productive for you to go pick up a few real books vs. doing research for you, you may want to look at the indulgences that were awarded for “gods work”. Unfortunately I know how hard it is to see the evils of those you hold in great esteem.
There were people in Europe during the middle ages, so of course there was technological advancement, but the rate was tiny compared to before and absolutely tiny compared to the massive advances in knowledge and culture coming out of Baghdad at the time.
There is a reason almost all the stars in the sky that are named have Arabic names.
When Europe was retreating to an agrarian state Al-Khwarizmi was inventing algebra!
I am not sure why it is an issue that our ancestors had a slow period.
Okay, you say that “there were people in Europe during the middle ages, so of course there was technological advancement”. I’m not sure I follow your logic. The existence of people does not necessarily mean technological advancement. Numerous cultures existed for millenia at a stone-age level of technology. Static technology is the norm in human history. When a civilization jumps rapidly forward, as medieval Europe did, it calls out for an explanation.
Next you say “the rate was tiny compared to before”. Once again, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. From the dawn of western civilization to the fall of Rome there was little technological progress. Ancient Greece produced lots of philosophers but few significant inventions. The Romans excelled at construction but not much else. Besides the aqueducts, and the roads, and the colliseum, and the walls, and the fortresses, what have the Romans ever given us? So I really wonder how you’d justify your claim that the rate of technological advancement in medieval Europe was “tiny” compared to its predecessors.
As for comparing European to Islamic achievements, that of course depends on how you rank things. To an average person, technology that makes more and better food is probably worth more than naming stars, and technology that means more and better clothing probably outranks solving quadratic equations. If you’re a member of the ruling elite, I guess it’s a matter of personal preference. (Saying that “Europe was retreating to an agrarian state” is odd since all societies on earth were agrarian at that time, but as mentioned already, Europeans put a lower percentage of labor into agriculture than others.) Even if one preferred theoretical work to practical technology, medieval Europe still produced plenty. Jean Buridan theorized about the motion of objects and came up with the essence of Newton’s first law of motion, as well as dismissing the Aristotlean claims that vacuums are impossible. Nicole de Oresme invented coordinate geometry (long before Descartes) and fractional exponents in algebra. He also answered objections to the theory of the earth moving, did work on mathematical limits, found that white light is composed of all the colors, and explained the refraction of light in the atmosphere for the first time.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=wikipedia]
The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Catholic Church to eliminate the Cathar heresy in Languedoc…
The Cathars were given the opportunity to return to Catholicism. Most did. The 140 who refused were burned at the stake.
[/QUOTE]
An entire town slaughtered. But I guess the OP will come back and argue that unless the Pope was there personally clubbing heretics like seals it doesn’t count.
And let’s look at what that stand-up Aquinas guy had to say:
Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?
I nominated the papal legate Arnaud-Amalric of Citeaux in the “most evil bastage” game thread :). Not that he’s going to win by any stretch of the imagination - too much larger-scale competition in the category of evil. But as the probable originator of the charming meme of *“kill them all and let God sort them out”**, I felt he deserved a nomination at least.
More specifically he is credited with saying “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”
Did you really just discount the Islamic bright period as elitist as a defense of the mid-evil Catholic church?
Really?
While all the industries that depended on trade dissipated and as literacy declined and as people left the towns to turn to a feudal existance how many people do you think actually spoke Latin?
I think you are trying to fight the anti “Dark Ages” fight…that fight has been over for a long long long time.
If it is even used it is used to describe the massive reduction in writings and art from that time.
If you are arguing there was not a reduction of the scope of education and that by the 6th century teaching and learning was not centered on the study of the bible you are just plainly wrong.
Many of the examples you offer even as enhancements were after the 10th century, where even the historical use of the label “Dark Ages” was not applied.
No, I did not. First of all there is “mid-evil Catholic church”; presumably you got confused and wanted the term “medieval”. Second, I’ve mentioned the church fairly little in this thread, though others have. Third, and most obviously, I was responding to your claim that technological progress was “tiny” in Europe in the middle ages compared to that of Baghdad. I’m challenging you to defend that claim.
This thread isn’t about only the dark ages, but rather about the the medieval or middle ages period, as stated clearly in the title and many other places. This period lasted roughly 500-1500 AD, which obviously means that it contains a lot more than just the 6th century. Hence for you to focus on the 6th century only proves nothing. To justify your claims, you’ll have to show that all technological progress in Europe from 500 to 1500 AD was “tiny” compared to previous technological progress and to that of the Islamic Empire in the same period. Good luck.
[ul]
[li]Are you seriously proposing gunpowder was invented in various remote parts of Europe simultaneously?[/li][li]Are you seriously using “useful information could not have spread quickly” as one of the premier proofs of your thesis that Europe was NOT backward and ignorant?[/li][/ul]
Good point. And from one of the SDMB’s champions of Christianity, no less.
Your sticking the qualifier “water powered” in front of everything. But that wasn’t in your OP.
Again, your requalifying what you originally said. You said “crop rotation”, not specifically the three-field system.
My point was your vastly over-stating your case in the OP by claiming a bunch of inventions to Medieval Europe that obviously didn’t develop there. Now your dialing back the claims in your OP to particular improvements to technologies developed outside or prior to Medieval Europe. The Medieval Europeans developed neither water power nor textile mills, for example, but they did combine them.
If you want to claim the Medieval Europeans made important improvements on several technologies they learned from other people, I’d certainly agree. And I think most people would, the idea that the Medieval period was a technological dark-age is pretty out-dated, I don’t think its as widespread as you think it is (and you still don’t seem to have been able to find an example of the idea your supposedly responding to anywhere on this board).
