Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mr Nobody wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:


As for Hilter, he was an incompetent military strategist, a master orator and a very hate filled man. He led his country into ruin and got an entire generation of people killed and then some. Reapplying his ideals is only going to repeat history... again.

The fact we should remember is that without support Hitler would just just be a surname on the bottom of some very poor paintings. A man who could be noted only for a failed attempt at a putsch.

Well, he started out as a pretty good leader, being one of the first countries to put restrictions on smoking, helping bring the country out of poverty. Many other leaders thought he was a good guy and they even had the Olympics in Germany during his reign.

Then he went crazy and started a war with everybody at once.

The Olympics were decided long before he came to power and I think it was stated they wouldn't of given Germany them if he was in charge then

I think one of the key things to keep in mind is that Catholicism was not really that different from any other world religion in the past. It's easy to judge them by modern standards as the epitome of evil, but comparing them to the Nazi's is horribly narrowsighted.

At best, the Papacy had limited oversight. Many of the 'Inquisitions' were taken under local initiative, sparked by power struggles between secular and religious authorities and deeply rooted into tensions going all the way back to the Roman Empire. Even the crusades had some of that. Take witch hunts in 15th century Germany. The Pope got that started, not necessarily because he cared about witches, but because he didn't like how the church in Germany was more under the Holy Roman Emperor's control than his (and the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor went at it like two old married people who'd grown tired of each other after the first ten years). Throw in a very zealous witch hunting Inquisitor and a Pope who wants to flex his metaphorical muscle against the Holy Roman Emperor and you get a bunch of people being burned at the stake. Not so much malice on the part of the church as tragic uncaring.

It's just not comparable to a specific targeted execution, where officials at the top initiated everything and have oversight to make sure they didn't miss anyone they wanted dead or suffering.

A little Off-Topic.

I just finished "Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder. It's a comparative study of both the crimes of the Nazis and the Soviets, and how they interrelate. Amazing read if you want a look at mass killing from a different perspective. Really well written and fact checked. For me it was huge departure from some of the other books I've read about the subject as the author has this ability to really make statistics hurt. Several times I had to put the book down and walk away. Not because of overly descriptive stories about the atrocities (which are most assuredly in there), but rather his use of statistics. Its much more personal than some of the other things I've seen. And at the end you see why he went that route. Overall a really, really good book.

This is not a sudden thing.

In particular Anti Semitism has been around for many years preceding the rise of Hitler and the NSDAP programme. In Europe in particular Jews have been scapegoated for many centuries. As have other elements of society, including gypsies.

 GalacticDefender wrote:
The Catholic Church opressed Europe for centuries. They burned people at the stake for believing different ideas than theirs, they rejected all new ideas, and they held back our technology for over 2 centuries. They church was every bit as evil as the Nazis. The numbers have probably been lost to time, but the number of people executed by the Catholic church easily numbers in the millions, and in many cases they were executed in the absolute most brutal way imaginibale(Arguably. But fire would be a terrible way to go). Think of how many people that could have otherwise been progressive "renaissance men" that were killed by the Catholic Church.

The Japanese were just as evil as the Nazis. It was so messed up that the soldiers were instructed to "Use local provisions" when in China. Yes, they ate people, after raping them to death with bayonets.

And anyone who tries to say otherwise is trying to censor history to make themselves feel better for being human.

I will agree with you on the Japanese part.

The Catholic part... sure, some Catholics have done wrong but your facts are way off the mark. Millions put to death? Really? From your vehemence, I take it you can't be swayed by facts but I'll try anyway.

I'm by no means defending the crimes perpetrated by the Catholic church in its 2000ish years of existence, but your numbers are way off on casualties and you fail to recognize that the Church played a huge part in preserving knowledge that was lost from sucessive barbarian invasions as well as from the slow grinding down of the Byzantine Empire by centuries of Muslim aggression. If you call this "censoring history" then I would love to know where you were taught this knowledge and why you accept it so conclusively.

In regards to holding back technology/science, I'll leave you these lists of close minded, anti-science individuals from across the centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists

Also, if wikipedia isn't your style : http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html

A humorous, modern/secular take of the Catholic church and its attitude towards science on the first part.

If I can help you with any other misperceptions you have, please list them.

 NELS1031 wrote:
Also, if wikipedia isn't your style : http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html

Huh. Well my respect for Cracked has gone up a bit. But then my lack of respect was pretty petty to begin with

Love the bit about knights. The only meaner people in the Mediterranean were the Seljuks

 LordofHats wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:
Also, if wikipedia isn't your style : http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html

Huh. Well my respect for Cracked has gone up a bit. But then my lack of respect was pretty petty to begin with

Love the bit about knights. The only meaner people in the Mediterranean were the Seljuks

I really enjoyed that article, gelled with everything in my Medieval history class this last semester.

Yep. Love they're choice for #1. That's probably the greatest historical myth period imo. If you look back and eliminate all the women who died in child birth and all the children who died before the age of 16, you realize human life expectancy, really hasn't changed that much. A healthy adult man or woman would live upwards to 70+ so long as they were fed and didn't get pillaged

It is worth noting that everything probably did stink a whole hell of a lot more though. Regardless of individual bathing habits, sewage and modern waste management were fascinating concepts. Add in that the primary non walking mode of transport or heavy hauling put out a lot of feces per mile and you have a gakky situation in the making.

#2 just makes me angry. It reminds me of my most hated thing in the middle ages. De Troyes of the Court of Marie of France, the Countess of Champagne. First off he's the creator of Lancelot, arguably the worst part of the legend of King Arthur (this is twelfth century mind you, also a french addition to English legend/history/mythology bites? Shocker eh?) Well any way De Troyes was an poet in the days when that was in all reality useless and you had to do a lot of tail kissing to survive. In his case the Countess Marie, Marie was disappointed with the men in her courts (specifically the knights) they all acted like knights usually did in the middle ages, and Marie wanted them to behave more like a romance novel. So she told De Troyes to put quill to paper and write some poems for her with adventure and romance, emphasizing chivalry and what came to be called "Courtly Love".

Courtly Love if you look into it can basically be blamed for why human courtship sucks today in much of the west.

It is however to be noted that the web of political and social intrigue greatly favored the ladies of the court, giving them a rather impressive amount of political power to exercise in the case of higher ranked nobles at court.... like a countess for example.

Some of the rules of courtly love as cited here: http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/rules_of_love.html

1. Marriage should not be a deterrent to love. (Kinda makes sense, love was a relatively new concept still, especially in the higher social circles where marriages were most often political in nature.)

2. Love cannot exist in the individual who cannot be jealous.

3. A double love cannot obligate an individual.

4. Love constantly waxes and wanes.

5. That which is not given freely by the object of one's love loses its savor.

6. It is necessary for a male to reach the age of maturity in order to love. (...I'll buy that actually. Takes awhile for that whole frontal lobe thing to kick in for us)

7. A lover must observe a two-year widowhood after his beloved's death. (Remember, this isn't your wife, or even a girlfriend, this is your piece on the side)

8. Only the most urgent circumstances should deprive one of love.

9. Only the insistence of love can motivate one to love.

10. Love cannot coexist with avarice.

11. A lover should not love anyone who would be an embarrassing marriage choice.

12. True love excludes all from its embrace but the beloved.

13. Public revelation of love is deadly to love in most instances.

14. The value of love is commensurate with its difficulty of attainment.

15. The presence of one's beloved causes palpitation of the heart.

16. The sight of one's beloved causes palpitations of the heart.

17. A new love brings an old one to a finish.

18. Good character is the one real requirement for worthiness of love.

19. When love grows faint its demise is usually certain.

20. Apprehension is the constant companion of true love.

21. Love is reinforced by jealousy.

22. Suspicion of the beloved generates jealousy and therefore intensifies love.

23. Eating and sleeping diminish greatly when one is aggravated by love.

24. The lover's every deed is performed with the thought of his beloved in mind.

25. Unless it please his beloved, no act or thought is worthy to the lover.

So remember, do thinks ye olde school. Infidelity and jealousy are the ticket!

Edit: I was grabbing dates and stuff for this off the wiki, and they had a line that some scholars actually think this is an origin point for BDSM. Rereading these rules I'm gonna have to give that the "plausible" stamp.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
also a french addition to English legend/history/mythology bites? Shocker eh?)

...the entire English aristocracy was French. At the time you speak of, they still spoke French and knew barely any English.

How's that history course going?

And those "myths" are dubious. Other than "everyone in the middle ages smelled" they weren't really known to me. Everyone as a kid is told that knights were awesome and cool, then when you get a little older you learn the truth. Those guys were an entire class of land-owning people, of course they weren't all living saints. But the idea of "chivalry" is a lot more child-friendly than the Sack of Byzantium.

They also deliberately wrongly define the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages were dark because they came after the Roman Empire. Culturally and economically, Dark Ages Europe was a shadow of its former self - Europe would only return to Roman era levels of sophistication by the 19th century.

Also I agree with Hitler about not smoking and being nice to animals.

 BryllCream wrote:


How's that history course going?

And those "myths" are dubious. Other than "everyone in the middle ages smelled" they weren't really known to me. Everyone as a kid is told that knights were awesome and cool, then when you get a little older you learn the truth. Those guys were an entire class of land-owning people, of course they weren't all living saints. But the idea of "chivalry" is a lot more child-friendly than the Sack of Byzantium.

They also deliberately wrongly define the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages were dark because they came after the Roman Empire. Culturally and economically, Dark Ages Europe was a shadow of its former self - Europe would only return to Roman era levels of sophistication by the 19th century.

Um, that is the wrong definition of the Dark Ages. It's the one the Enlightment folks loved because it made them feel more awesome, but then they also weren't as good at historical study just yet. The Dark Ages were over by the 10th century. Most historians of the period won't even use the term anymore because its too loaded with ideas contrary to known facts. By the time the Crusades were launched in 1095, Western Europe had surpassed Rome in most ways (in the words of Kenneth Harl, Europe went into the Crusades in the Romanesque and emerged from them in the High Gothic).

Western Europe (depending) had achieved an economic parity with the late Empire by the 10th century (Northern Italians had gotten there way sooner) and the population had recovered from the big plague that swept Gaul, Iberia, and Britannia in previous centuries. Education was more limited, but hardly unheard of. The idea that it took hundreds of years to catch up to Rome is a horribly outdated idea. By the end of 12th century Western Europe had surpassed Rome by any meaningful measure. Economics, technology, art. The Dark Ages ended when the Carolingians came to power and restored a modicum of order to Western Europe that evolved into Western Christendom.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
As others have, said, the events of that particular part of human history are not unique. During the first crusade, I believe, the Templars gathered every single Jewish inhabitant, forced them into a synagogue and burned it to the ground, killing anyone who escaped.

Well, that's a horrible yet perpetuated misconception. The burning happened, but during the first crusade (1096 - 1099) by secular crusaders when they first reached Jerusalem. The Templars were founded in 1119, who allowed the muslims to pray within the walls of their fortress and eventually negotiated for the jewish so they could pray at whow is the wall of lamentations.

Even on antisemitism, St Bernard, founded or the order of the Cister which rules were followed by the Templrars said that "He who hits a jew is hitting Jesus himself".

Now, go on with nazis, just wanted to make that one thing clear.

 LordofHats wrote:

Um, that is the wrong definition of the Dark Ages. It's the one the Enlightment folks loved because it made them feel more awesome, but then they also weren't as good at historical study just yet. The Dark Ages were over by the 10th century. Most historians of the period won't even use the term anymore because its too loaded with ideas contrary to known facts. By the time the Crusades were launched in 1095, Western Europe had surpassed Rome in most ways (in the words of Kenneth Harl, Europe went into the Crusades in the Romanesque and emerged from them in the High Gothic).

Well urbanisation was far higher in Roman Europe, especially Latium. And while they lacked the crop development of the middle ages, they also had access to prime agricultural land (Egypt) and factories/industrial developments that would not be seen again until the 19th century.

Here's a graph of global lead production, according to greenland ice sheet records:


Note the huge spike in Roman times.

Similar production levels are reported for iron, copper, gold and silver (for reference, the amount of silver in Ancient Rome was 5 to 10 times larger than the amount of silver in Europe and the Arab world in 800AD).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita#Roman_and_Byzantine_Empires
GDP per capita hovers around $600 (1990 dollars). Now if we take the assumption that GDP per capita was about 50% higher in Italia than the rest of the empire, our figure for there is about $900.

In fact, the "true" figure is probably even greater than that. Those GDP figures are calculated based on food production - essentially dismissing anything that's not food. As can be seen, the Romans had huge material production, easily surpassing pre-industrial Europe. The fact that the state was the largest consumer of these products (since ordinary people by and large couldn't afford them) doesn't make this any less impressive.

According to this table, Western Europe surpassed it shortly before 1500 (about 500 years after the dark ages). And that's the wealthiest part of Europe.

 LordofHats wrote:

Western Europe (depending) had achieved an economic parity with the late Empire by the 10th century (Northern Italians had gotten there way sooner)

Whoops. See above, it took until the 15th century for Western Europe to catch up economically with the Roman Empire. Note that Western Europe does not catch up with the Italian peninsula until the 17th century.

 LordofHats wrote:
Education was more limited, but hardly unheard of. The idea that it took hundreds of years to catch up to Rome is a horribly outdated idea. By the end of 12th century Western Europe had surpassed Rome by any meaningful measure. Economics, technology, art. The Dark Ages ended when the Carolingians came to power and restored a modicum of order to Western Europe that evolved into Western Christendom.

Whoops. See above.

Also note that there wasn't a single European state until the 19th century that had anything like Rome's complex legal system and governmental efficiency.

 NELS1031 wrote:

 GalacticDefender wrote:
The Catholic Church opressed Europe for centuries. They burned people at the stake for believing different ideas than theirs, they rejected all new ideas, and they held back our technology for over 2 centuries. They church was every bit as evil as the Nazis. The numbers have probably been lost to time, but the number of people executed by the Catholic church easily numbers in the millions, and in many cases they were executed in the absolute most brutal way imaginibale(Arguably. But fire would be a terrible way to go). Think of how many people that could have otherwise been progressive "renaissance men" that were killed by the Catholic Church.

The Japanese were just as evil as the Nazis. It was so messed up that the soldiers were instructed to "Use local provisions" when in China. Yes, they ate people, after raping them to death with bayonets.

And anyone who tries to say otherwise is trying to censor history to make themselves feel better for being human.

I will agree with you on the Japanese part.

The Catholic part... sure, some Catholics have done wrong but your facts are way off the mark. Millions put to death? Really? From your vehemence, I take it you can't be swayed by facts but I'll try anyway.

I'm by no means defending the crimes perpetrated by the Catholic church in its 2000ish years of existence, but your numbers are way off on casualties and you fail to recognize that the Church played a huge part in preserving knowledge that was lost from sucessive barbarian invasions as well as from the slow grinding down of the Byzantine Empire by centuries of Muslim aggression. If you call this "censoring history" then I would love to know where you were taught this knowledge and why you accept it so conclusively.

In regards to holding back technology/science, I'll leave you these lists of close minded, anti-science individuals from across the centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists

Also, if wikipedia isn't your style : http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html

A humorous, modern/secular take of the Catholic church and its attitude towards science on the first part.

If I can help you with any other misperceptions you have, please list them.

To whoever made their earlier post saying that Catholics gave people a chance to convert, well, I fail to see the moral distinction between "Die" (the Nazi's policy), and "Join us or die" (The Catholic policy)

I did not mean put to death strictly by outright execution. I meant the deaths they caused through conquest, war, and yes, execution. Also keep in mind that the world's population was significatntly less in the middle ages.

There was one man who was burned at the stake for suggesting that God may have created life elsewhere in the universe. If you do not call that evil and counter to human progress, then I'd love to hear your argument. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet )

There were indeed a great many Catholic scientists. Gregor Mendel, the discoverer of genetics, was a catholic monk. This does not justify or make the actions of the Catholic Church as a whole any less evil. And of course you probably know that the Catholic Church put Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life after he discovered the moons of Jupiter. Another example of anti-scientific ignorance and censorship on the Church's part.

You provided examples of scientists who were members of the catholic church, though still did good things for human progress. Well, here is an example of a scientist who who worked for the Nazis, then went on to help us get to the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

Honestly I fail to see how the leadership of the Catholic Church was any less evil than the Nazis or Japanese.

If you give it an honest assessment, "Join us or die" is a better option than "Die"

We can agree they did commit actions that were morally wrong. But to say the Catholic Church is anything like they used to be is wrong.

At the time, the Church was as much, if not more so, a political organization as it was a religious one. The Church had its own standing army, and could easily call upon the armies of many of the kingdoms in Europe. The threat of excommunication for a king was a political weapon. The Pope could excommunicate you and now your subjects could freely disobey you. No king wanted that.

Still, this is better than the atrocities that were commited by the Nazis and Soviets.

Why are we giving China no mention in the Bloodbath rankings? I saw something on this awhile back.

China Communist Regime, 1949- present, (62 years of Dictatorship) Bodycount 60 million + (10 times greater than Nazi Germany)

Soviet Union Communist Regime, 1922-1991 (69 years of Dictatorship) Bodycount 35 million + (6 times greater than Nazi Germany)

Nazi Germany, 1933-1945 Socialist regime 12 years of Dictatorship: Bodycount 6 million +

China is number one in this regard.

 Zakiriel wrote:

Nazi Germany, 1933-1945 Socialist regime

I hate it when people make this claim. National Socialism is about as Socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, for the people, or a republic.

If we're going to be that nitpicky it should be clarified that Communist China and Russia were never truly Communist systems.

If we're going incredibly strictly and defining Communism as what was envisioned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their original Communist Manifesto, then no, they weren't.

The point being they were what they were. And people died.

 BryllCream wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
also a french addition to English legend/history/mythology bites? Shocker eh?)

...the entire English aristocracy was French. At the time you speak of, they still spoke French and knew barely any English.
.

Which has what to do with a piece of Pre-Roman Celtic Mythology that said Frenchmen added what is quite arguable the worst character/part of the story to?

I also agree with Lordofhats, and my professor for that matter about your definition of the Dark Ages being innsccurate. Read something other then Renaissance era historians and those influenced by them for slightly less biased opinions on the so called "dark ages". I recommend The Waning of the Middle Ages by Huizinga for a nice wrap up of cultural progression leading into the Renaissance.

 GalacticDefender wrote:
To whoever made their earlier post saying that Catholics gave people a chance to convert, well, I fail to see the moral distinction between "Die" (the Nazi's policy), and "Join us or die" (The Catholic policy) I did not mean put to death strictly by outright execution. I meant the deaths they caused through conquest, war, and yes, execution. Also keep in mind that the world's population was significatntly less in the middle ages.

Your numbers still don't add up. Again... Millions killed? Really?

What wars of conquest did the Catholic church engage in? (Crusades? What else?)

 GalacticDefender wrote:
There was one man who was burned at the stake for suggesting that God may have created life elsewhere in the universe. If you do not call that evil and counter to human progress, then I'd love to hear your argument. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet )

Your facts are wrong. Bruno's views towards Christianity/religion in general were the cause of his execution, not his scientific views. Barbaric by todays standards yes, but you have to omit crucial historical facts for his execution to fit your viewpoint.

 GalacticDefender wrote:
There were indeed a great many Catholic scientists. Gregor Mendel, the discoverer of genetics, was a catholic monk. This does not justify or make the actions of the Catholic Church as a whole any less evil.

But it conclusively disproves your statement that the Church was a repressor of science.

Evils done by members should not poorly reflect on the whole, when it contradicts the mission of the whole. Judging isolated incidents and projecting it onto the whole of something is a simplistic and stunted mindset. Using the privilege of hindsight to do it, without referencing historical norms of the time/place is poor scholastic form.

 GalacticDefender wrote:
And of course you probably know that the Catholic Church put Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life after he discovered the moons of Jupiter. Another example of anti-scientific ignorance and censorship on the Church's part.

Again wrong. Galileo was given celebrity status in Rome after he discovered Jupiters moons. He was put on house arrest, after a lengthy trial in which he could defend himself (a testament to Catholic jurisprudence), because of his views on heliocentrism. His insistence that it was more than a theory, but indeed fact and couldn't prove it (using the scientific method of his time), was what got him into trouble. Galileo also wrote one of his best works while on house arrest, so he was never truly stifled in his scientific endeavors. Indeed, he had a high up Catholic clergyman who sponsored him.

Copernicus came up with the theory of heliocentrism and nothing happened to him. No one that uses Galileo as an example of the Church's so called anti-science repression can answer why that contradiction exists when they frame it like you did. Like your example of Bruno, you need to omit important facts for Galileo's trial and arrest fit your narrative.

 GalacticDefender wrote:
You provided examples of scientists who were members of the catholic church, though still did good things for human progress. Well, here is an example of a scientist who who worked for the Nazis, then went on to help us get to the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

So someone that was forced to join the Nazi party and put up appearances of loyalty to it (according to the article you linked) somehow taints our space program? What were we supposed to do? Repress his scientific knowledge or kill him? Aren't you condemning the Church for doing that?

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Honestly I fail to see how the leadership of the Catholic Church was any less evil than the Nazis or Japanese.

It must be hard to see when all of your facts are wrong or distorted.

Apologies if I come off as snarky or rude, but your factual errors needed to be pointed out and corrected. Anything less is censoring history.

Do you require any more illumination?

 baxter123 wrote:
Just as a side have any of you figured out that Buddhism is really the only older religion I think of that hasn't started a war.

Sorry to burst your bubble-- there were at least a couple periods in Japanese history where there were highly militant sects of, among others, Buddhists. While not organized or long enough to really be categorized as war, Buddhists have definitely been responsible for initiating battles.

Here is a recent report from the liberal bastion of West Point that looks at the increase of far-right extremism in the USA, including neo-nazis, if anyone is interested.

You really can't shrug off the crusades and the MANY massacres attendant to it if you're talking about Catholicism's history. In Europe and in the Middle East the Crusades were pretty brutal. During the massacre after the first crusade conquered Jerusalem one knight wrote that so many of the local civilians were put to the sword (christian, jew, and muslim alike) that the city streets were knee deep in blood obviously a slight over exaggeration, but that's some serious killin'

Note the Catholic Church didn't make the crusaders do what they did. The majority of crusading knights were bored secular knights that joined up because it was an opprotunity for advancement. It was getting to the point where there wasn't any land for a new knight to have for his own.

Knights were also, more often than not, fairly arrogant and violent individuals. They joined the crusades for the opprotunity to get fame and fortune in a distant land. They weren't shining examples of christian morals.

Of course what they did was really no different than what most conquoring armies would do to the lands and people they captured. it just had that one extra bonus that they were foreign infidels with a totally different culture and the Church didn't object to their wholesale slaughter.

The Pope probably wouldn't have cared one way or another what happened to the people that were living in the holy land at the time.


It also needs to be noted that the Muslims were no better behaved towards their opponents than the Crusaders were. Muslim culture in general was a very agressive expansionist power that had been encroaching towards Europe for some time.

 BryllCream wrote:
Well urbanisation was far higher in Roman Europe, especially Latium.

Does a higher Urban population really matter? Urban density may have been higher in Roman Europe, but as a measure of prosperity it's not really a meaningful measure. Especially if we account for the fact Western Europeans couldn't have access to the large population centers of Byzantium or the Near East. If we cut it back just to Western Europe, the Europeans were much father along during the Middle Period than they had been under Roman Rule, baring probably France where the population was shifting North.

Perhaps I should clarify the context of what I mean. I'm not talking about the whole of the Empire. That's something of a pointless comparison as inevitably the Empire had a far greater landmass and access to far more resources. I'm referring specifically to Roman Europe and Post-Roman Europe.

Note the huge spike in Roman times.

Noting that it's a chart of world lead production, and Rome wasn't the only prosperous civilization in the world at the time, I find the chart suspicious. The wikipage using it says its a chart of lead levels in Ice Cores, but is that really a real measure of a preindustrial age? What is the measure being used for it? A quick look on the net leads me to an talk of an article (and only one article) from some scientists working out of Greenland who claimed Roman and Carthaginian Silver mines and smelting processes flooded the atmosphere with lead, so is this just a chart of silver production/lead byproduct? And that article claims atmospheric lead had reached Roman levels by the 15th century not the 19th. But the article is from 2007. No one has corraberated their evidence and no other work seems to have been done to look into the matter from what I can tell (I'll look).

The Middle East and Byzantium certainly maintained a very high level of production which just doesn't sync with that chart. China would suffer little drop off until the 2nd century AD and certainly recovered. IMO, while I lack any means to disprove the chart, I find its presentation highly dubious (so take that for what it's worth ). The chart seems almost too convenient for anyone arguing that Rome had achieved a status greater than anyone until a recent times, which is frankly, absurd. It doesn't mesh with anything we know. While we can debate the Middle Ages comparative to Rome, at least by the 15th century Europe had vastly surpassed Roman Europe in everything by far.

(for reference, the amount of silver in Ancient Rome was 5 to 10 times larger than the amount of silver in Europe and the Arab world in 800AD).

Now that would sync with the chart but it's only a single metal and I've seen Roman Iron production numbers range from the ludicrously low to the ludicrously high so I don't think there's any consensus on Roman mining. Is there any other data you can find? I actually do want to know but the chart provide above is so ambiguous. Going off to see if I can find a more detailed data set XD

GDP per capita hovers around $600 (1990 dollars). Now if we take the assumption that GDP per capita was about 50% higher in Italia than the rest of the empire, our figure for there is about $900.

GDP for the typical peasant in Europe circa 1100 was $1000 US. Don't know what year for the dollar value. My source for it was published 2011.

In fact, the "true" figure is probably even greater than that. Those GDP figures are calculated based on food production - essentially dismissing anything that's not food.

There's a reason for that. Food can be effectively measured through archeology (and tax records). It also by far formed the basis of all world economies until the early modern period and remained the key economic core of most of the world until the mid-19th century. It forms a basis by which economic prosperity can be measured across the world.

Also note that there wasn't a single European state until the 19th century that had anything like Rome's complex legal system and governmental efficiency.

One of Europe's first Universities in Bologna was started to study law. Law codes in Europe were definitely behind Rome during the Crusades but come the reign of the absolute monarchs starting in the late 16th century, most law codes had long produced a mix of Roman and Germanic traditions.

Roman government was incredibly corrupt by the Imperial Period. Probably far more corrupt than any later European system for a very long time (when you're working in Feudalism the regional nature makes corruption something of a voided issue). Tax farming is probably one of the most wasteful means of gathering taxes anyone can come up with but the Roman's weren't rolling in options. If anything in terms of tax collection Feudalism and the manor system was vastly more efficient.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Honestly I fail to see how the leadership of the Catholic Church was any less evil than the Nazis or Japanese.

While the Catholic Church might have put 'millions' of people to death. Let's at least recognize that if they did, it took them 1000 years to do it. Nazi Germany beat that record in 10. Does that make it better

Grey Templar wrote:Note the Catholic Church didn't make the crusaders do what they did. The majority of crusading knights were bored secular knights that joined up because it was an opprotunity for advancement. It was getting to the point where there wasn't any land for a new knight to have for his own.

There are a lot of reasons for the Crusades. The Pope was more than happy to show up the Patriarch when the Emperor called for aid. The Holy Roman Emperor was more than happy to show who the real emperor of Rome was, knights wanted to exert their authority, gain glory, kings wanted pillaging knights, especially Normans, off their lands, and some real religious conviction probably goes in there too.

Of course what they did was really no different than what most conquoring armies would do to the lands and people they captured. it just had that one extra bonus that they were foreign infidels with a totally different culture and the Church didn't object to their wholesale slaughter.

This is a common myth. Much of the population in the Middle East at the time of the 8 Canonic Crusades, were still Christians. Muslims were a minority, and the Seljuk Turks were pretty much unpopular with everybody. But yeah, no one in Europe really cared or complained because they thought everyone was a Mouhammadan. The Byzantines complained but they were kind of like

"Sweet the Europeans are here to help us take back Anatolia!"
"Hey Byzantine dude"
"Hi!"
"Bye, off to take back the Holy Land!"
"Yeah- Wait, what! No come back! You're supposed to help us!"

The Pope probably wouldn't have cared one way or another what happened to the people that were living in the holy land at the time.

Agreed.

It also needs to be noted that the Muslims were no better behaved towards their opponents than the Crusaders were. Muslim culture in general was a very agressive expansionist power that had been encroaching towards Europe for some time.

Actually the Abbasid Caliphate had largely ceased expansion. There were those guys in Spain but no one really seemed to care about them except the Spanish You're thinking of the later Ottoman Empire which was the Islamic power that really pushed to take Europe and fought the wars with the HRE and its allies in the Balklands. The Muslim armies hit Byzantium at its peak and lost and kind of didn't get much farther before their own internal issues stalled their westward expansion and halted it.

The Fatamids were actually allies to the Byzantines in the enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of way. It was the Fatamids who signed a Treaty with Basil II that assured the protection and safety of Christian pilgrims that grew the Pilgrimage trade. The Seljuks however came it, took over the Abbasid Caliphate, converted, and started a war against the Fatamids that disrupted pilgrimages and was a major social spark for the Crusades. The Abbasids weren't even trying to take Anatolia from the Byzantines. They thought the empire was too strong. They actually took the most ruthless Seljuk tribes and put them on the Byzantine frontier because they were afraid the Byzantines would attack them while they fought the Fatamids (and because those tribes had a habit of raiding the cities in the Middle East). Turns out those tribes went into Anatolia to raid and took the place over in an 'oops didn't mean to do that' kind of way.

The real irony though is that when the Crusaders arrived in the Holy Lands, the Fatamids successors, the Ayyubids had a nominal control over the Sultan who ruled the region and were reinforcing their former treaty with the Byzantines

NELS,

The number of deaths is widely debated (do a search for yourself) but many estimates put the number of deaths caused by the Catholic church to be well over a million. When taking into account the various inquisitions and holy wars that were waged before adequate records were kept, I believe these estimates are quite accurate. The very lowest estimates I have found are well over 8000, and seem to only refer to those directly executed by the church and not killed in a crusade or war. Regardless, even 200 innocent people killed by an organization because of pure ignorance is enough to call that organization evil, is it not? The Catholic church tried to eliminate all who believed differently than them. They were much like the Nazis, though Instead of trying to create a "master race", they tried to create a "master religion".

@NELS "Again wrong. Galileo was given celebrity status in Rome... Etc"

This is completely incorrect. He was considered heretical for beilieving in Copernican ideas. He stood on trial for accusitions of heresey. The Catholic Church conclusively proves in this case that they are actively participating in the repression of science. He did indeed end up better off than Bruno and was celebrated in Rome however, and for that bit I'll give you credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair



@NELZ "Your facts are wrong. Bruno's views towards Christianity/religion in general were the cause of his execution, not his scientific views. Barbaric by todays standards yes, but you have to omit crucial historical facts for his execution to fit your viewpoint."

In my opinion, there is no difference whatsoever between burning someone over religious ideals or scientific ideas (Which appear to be one in the same in Bruno's case). Burning people simply for their difference of opinion is abhorrent, in all cases.


@NELS "So someone that was forced to join the Nazi party and put up appearances of loyalty to it (according to the article you linked) somehow taints our space program? What were we supposed to do? Repress his scientific knowledge or kill him? Aren't you condemning the Church for doing that?"

No, not at all. I'm saying that the fact that there have been people who have done good things, but were affiliated with an evil group, does not make that group good, or less evil. Gregor Mendel and Von Braun were incredible people who did significant good for humanity.


And yes, of course Catholics today don't believe in executing those different from them. But that does not make the Catholic Church of the dark ages less guilty for their actions. Honestly I don't even know how one can argue that the Catholic Church was progressive.

@Lordofhats

"While the Catholic Church might have put 'millions' of people to death. Let's at least recognize that if they did, it took them 1000 years to do it. Nazi Germany beat that record in 10. Does that make it better?"

No, it doesn't. The Catholic Church was every bit as evil as the Nazis. They just did a better job of taking over the world.

I don't think anyone is saying the Church was progressive back in the so called Dark Ages. They just weren't as repressive as we have been led to believe. At least not universally.

The Church wasn't some well oiled machine keeping Europe under its thumb the whole time. That really didn't start till the late middle ages/early rennaissance. They were a diverse group with plenty of infighting amongst themselves over major issues.