History Channel's "The Dark Ages"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montgomeryatty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montgomeryatty

Guest
Watched the History Channel’s “The Dark Ages” last night. Interesting. THC has a history of being a bit biased and/or careless with language, this documentary did the Church a great service by at least portraying it as the one bright light during the darkness of the Black Plague and the numerous bloody wars of the time. But at the same time, various voiceovers and historians on camera made some assertions I found a bit surprising. Now, I don’t need to be told that someone needs to document or verify their assertions to be taken credibly. I don’t doubt that if I looked, I’d find things to be slightly less “scandalous” than they were made to sound. But I’m turning to the good folks at CAF to help me, if you know, with what Paul Harvey likes to call “the rest of the story.”

One assertion stands out starkly in my mind: The show discussed the Peace of God and the Truce of God, explaining that nobles and knights were a bit too hasty to attack their local neighbors in those days to compel their allegiance. The clergy was so concerned that they culled together all of the venerated relics of the saints from all around the country, invited as many nobles/knights as possible together, and requested that they “make nice” with neighboring counties. It then asked them to swear an oath promising to abide by the Peace of God. On top of that, and I note that Wikipedia (FWIW) suggests a similar characterization, the local clergy used the assembled relics of saints to instill fear in the men, and to suggest that the mass of assembled saints would get revenge on these men if they broke their oath.

Is it Catholic teaching that saints have power of their own in heaven, either innately or through some sort of power given by God? Did the clergy actually suggest that the saints would “get them” upon violation of the oath? Or perhaps did they simply assemble the relics, ask them to swear to abide the the Peace of God, and let the men figure for themselves what the outcome would be if they dishonored their oath?
 
Didn’t watch the program last night because I was watching the Discovery Channel’s program on the Jesus Tomb.

In any case, I am glad to see the History Channel’s standards of scholarship are not better than the Discovery Channel’s. Having been a history major specializing in the Middle Ages and having done a year of Medieval Studies, I know of no reputable historians who claim the entire period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renissiance as being the “Dark Ages”. Yes the term is still used, but only to describe a relatively brief period of time between roughly (depending where you are in Europe) the latter part of the 5th century and the 7th or 8th Century. The term is not used to describe horrific conditions in the period but rather to describe the fact that little or no documents survive from that period (For example, that is the reason that Historians cannot conclusively rule out the existence of King Arthur).

Regarding the “power” of the saints. As far as I am aware, the Church ascribes no power to them except the power of prayer. That being said, I know that searing an oath on the relics of a saint was considered especially serious and thus breaking such an oath was more serious than the breaking of lesser oaths.

–
Bill
 
mchale said:
The term is not used to describe horrific conditions in the period but rather to describe the fact that little or no documents survive from that period
Click to expand...
Not surprisingly, that little fact was never mentioned during the two-hour show.

I watched the Simcha J______ and James Cameron production on the Exodus a few months ago, which was on THC I think. They made their theories sound very plausible, but I later happened across a Bibilcal Archeology Review article slamming it as pop archaeology and a load of fluff. So I saw no reason to watch the Tomb of Jesus propaganda this time . . . . I mean, besides the fact that it was discredited nearly 30 years ago. I’m sure it was humorous though . . .
 
Hi Montgomery,

Th expression “Dark Ages” was once used by anti-Catholics to describe the MIddle Ages (c. 450 - c. 1500) as under priesty obscurancy. No real historian uses it. For many decades now, the Middle Ages have been recognized as fundamental in the evolution of Western Civilization.

In a more restricted sense, some might use the term to describe the centuries from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (AD 476) to the crowning of Charlemagne (800). These centuries were very unstable, due to the barbarian invasions, but it was the Church that civilized the invading tribes, and Charlemagne represents the perfect integration of the old (Roman and Christian) with the new (Germanic tribes).

All in all, people who are serious about history avoid the term.

Verbum
 
I love the History Channel (I have a degree in History), but tune out when they broadcast shows having to do with morality (the various “history of sex” type shows) and ANYTHIING having to do with Christianity/Catholicism. (Many other things are watched with a grain of salt) -I can’t stand hearing their **Revisionist **history anymore.

One important lesson I learned in a required 3 semester history class called “Historiography”, was how easy it is to change peoples views and perceptions about ANYTHING, based on the historical facts one chooses to highlight, and the slant taken, as long as it is done consistantly, over a long period of time.

Think the difference in peoples perception of American Indians 60 years ago, “savages”, “stupid”, “brutal”, “drunks”, and “liars” are words that come to mind. That was because people were taught ONLY negative facts, taken out of context, with a liberal dose of stereotyping thrown in This was further entrenched by American culture- old Cowboy and Indian movies, etc. All these things were done to justify taking their land, the relocations, etc. (not that the indians were blameless, this is just a general example). -It all worked by playing with the historical record.

How do we remember American History having to do with Indians now?

Take this same lesson, and apply it DIRECTLY to how modern culture, and “academia” treat Christianity in general, and Catholicism in paticular. -See my point?
 
Verbum/Siena,

Thanks for the good observations, but as I noted in my opening post, I’m well aware of THC’s revisionism, carelessness, and/or its ability to move the goalposts around to propagandize. Just posted to ask for more info on the relics issue.
 
Montgomery-

Unfortunetly, I can’t talk directly to your question, I was trying to educate all those who might read this thread.
 
Montgomeryatty said:
Verbum/Siena,

Thanks for the good observations, but as I noted in my opening post, I’m well aware of THC’s revisionism, carelessness, and/or its ability to move the goalposts around to propagandize. Just posted to ask for more info on the relics issue.
Click to expand...
I think the second poster is right. The Saints have no power to inflict harm (nor the desire - there is no evil in Heaven), unless of course, you ask them to pray that God’s Will be done, and his Will involves some sort of suffering. They might be less willing to pray for you, but thats about it.
 
I watched THC’s show last night and thought, as did the OP, that it was far better in it’s depiction of the CC that many of it’s other shows.

In regards to the question about the use of relics, I might have missed the exact words that described the oaths taken by Knights over the relics of saints. The over all impression of the scene was clear. The CC was doing their best to stop the excessive violence of the time.

A couple of other good points. Some statements about the CC of the time:
  1. They did not attribute the fall of Rome to Christianity. It was the corruption and mismanagement of the empire
  2. In regards to witches, they correctly stated the CC argued against their existence as a leftover pagan superstition.
  3. They depicted the monasteries were oasis of civility and learning.
There were some statements by “guest” historians who made some misguided statements that were not corrected. One stated that excommunication automatically sends a person to hell. There was no mention of the possibility of reconciliation. Another guest said correctly that some young adults placed in monasteries and convents did not want to be there and tired to escape. She left the impression that most or even many felt this way.

While the overall depiction of the CC was good, the show was primarily concerned with secular wars, kings and plagues. IMHO, they seriously deemphasized the role of the Church during the time.
 
Verbum said:
In a more restricted sense, some might use the term to describe the centuries from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (AD 476) to the crowning of Charlemagne (800). These centuries were very unstable, due to the barbarian invasions, but it was the Church that civilized the invading tribes, and Charlemagne represents the perfect integration of the old (Roman and Christian) with the new (Germanic tribes).
Click to expand...
They did point out that Charlemagne was the brightest spot in those times but argued that after his death, the resuscitation of Europe was set back by the Viking marauders.

THC was also sure to point out that Charlemagne continued violent expansionist policies and converted people under threat of violence. They put much less stress on the same practices implemented by the Mores.
 
Well, I guess, you also have to take into consideration that the Moors, once back in Spain, didn’t really force the conversions. If you look at a town like Toledo, Jews Christians and Muslims all lived there peacefully under Muslim control
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top