How to get Christendom back?

[liberal_friend]

Christendom was destroyed in much of Europe in the 16th century by Protestants…and in the rest of Europe in the 19th century by socialists and liberals.

How can we get it back? How can we return Europe (and America) to Christendom?

 

[ej1111]

*Who knew that the “neo-cons” were really liberation theologists? Using violence around the world to awaken oppressed people to the true gospel of capitalism and democracy. *

Awesome quote. You have helped me clarify my thinking about this.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

liberal friend:

Christendom was destroyed in much of Europe in the 16th century by Protestants…and in the rest of Europe in the 19th century by socialists and liberals.

How can we get it back? How can we return Europe (and America) to Christendom?

Christendom was in a bad way by 1300 - Protestantism may have aggravated a few problems, but it’s hard to think of any for which it is uniquely responsible.​

Christendom took centuries to grow, and it depended on a pre-scientific, pre-critical world-view. It was a balance of forces - it could absorb some things without being fundamentally changed (up to a point); but if they passed a certain critical mass then its days were numbered. It was not a Greek-using society, but a Latin one. Latin survived the growth of the vernacular literatures for so long because it had status - which it has largely lost. It is not as supple as English or French - unless we ignore the Renaissance, and go back to the sort of Latin of which Cicero would probably not have much approved: the kind St. Thomas writes. Society would have to be vastly different, for the medieval situation to be practicable again. Mediaeval society was very violent, and not too stable. Not something to long for, IMO.

AFAICS, it’s far better to avoid yearning for the past - we live in the present, and must live in the society of the present to do the work we are called to. ##

 

[adventistnomore]

How do we win scoietyback?

I think we should ask how can we “bring back” the milions upon milions of nominal Catholis in the US. If they were truly devoted to their faith: that’s 54 million right there.

 

[Hildebrand]

liberal friend:

Christendom was destroyed in much of Europe in the 16th century by Protestants…and in the rest of Europe in the 19th century by socialists and liberals.

How can we get it back? How can we return Europe (and America) to Christendom?

It was not only Protestants, but monarchs and cardinals and Catholic lay people.

What Cardinal Richelieu did to France by centralizing power in the hands of the monarch and seeking what was good for the French monarch over the good of Christendom and the good of the French people… harmed Christendom more than any one protestant, IMHO.

Catholic kings and queens did not need to go along with the protestants into the idea of state over church, and absolutism. I blame them, not the protestants.

 

[Cockney_Clive]

The concept of “Christendom” was probably more honoured in the ideal than in the reality. Christendom was essentially the Carolingian empire of Charlegmane who became the first Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas day 800. Thus was the Holy Roman Empire born (this was news to the Holy Christian Emperor in Constantinople btw; in the East the Roman Empire still existed) which, through a network of diplomacy, the Church, Latin, a common currency, the existence of a military super-power in the west, etc, could, with good reason call itself “Christendom” - the Christian Kingdoms of a united Europe. It doidn’t last. Before 1050 the idea of Christendom was being seriously strained by the development of the Feudal system among other factors.

By 1300 you have a patchwork of larger or smaller Feudal Kingdoms across Europe each of which is vying with another to be the big honcho in the yard and each expecting “It’s own” church to support the local ruler against the centre i.e. Rome and the Pope. Finally, the Renaissance of late 15th century brings in its wake new political ideas from Classic Greek texts.

The decline of Feudalism and the ascendance of merchant capitalism (as early as 1380 in England) is the true knife in the guts for Christendom. Feudalism dies away and we get something closer to the modern nation state. Nationhood and nationalism are born, together with the modern hobby of tax evasion. The Kings and the merchants in Spain, France, England, other places begin to resent having to pay taxes to the Pope. The merchants resent paying taxes to the King but that is a seperate topic!

So in many and various ways the monarchs of Europe begin to encourage more independence from their “own” churches and they expect “their” bishops to support the nation against the Pope. And so you can begin to understand that what King Henry VIII was about was more than a hissy fit over a Papal refusal to grant a divorce. That was the excuse but it wasn’t the reason. The reason for Englan’s breaking away from Rome, and the (more importantly) creation of a National Church was a process of creating a nation state called England, free from foreign domination (the Catholic, Roman Church) and therefore more free to act independently in European politics.

 

[Hildebrand]

Cockney Clive:

The concept of “Christendom” was probably more honoured in the ideal than in the reality. Christendom was essentially the Carolingian empire of Charlegmane who became the first Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas day 800. Thus was the Holy Roman Empire born (this was news to the Holy Christian Emperor in Constantinople btw; in the East the Roman Empire still existed) which, through a network of diplomacy, the Church, Latin, a common currency, the existence of a military super-power in the west, etc, could, with good reason call itself “Christendom” - the Christian Kingdoms of a united Europe. It doidn’t last. Before 1050 the idea of Christendom was being seriously strained by the development of the Feudal system among other factors.

By 1300 you have a patchwork of larger or smaller Feudal Kingdoms across Europe each of which is vying with another to be the big honcho in the yard and each expecting “It’s own” church to support the local ruler against the centre i.e. Rome and the Pope. Finally, the Renaissance of late 15th century brings in its wake new political ideas from Classic Greek texts.

The decline of Feudalism and the ascendance of merchant capitalism (as early as 1380 in England) is the true knife in the guts for Christendom. Feudalism dies away and we get something closer to the modern nation state. Nationhood and nationalism are born, together with the modern hobby of tax evasion. The Kings and the merchants in Spain, France, England, other places begin to resent having to pay taxes to the Pope. The merchants resent paying taxes to the King but that is a seperate topic!

So in many and various ways the monarchs of Europe begin to encourage more independence from their “own” churches and they expect “their” bishops to support the nation against the Pope. And so you can begin to understand that what King Henry VIII was about was more than a hissy fit over a Papal refusal to grant a divorce. That was the excuse but it wasn’t the reason. The reason for Englan’s breaking away from Rome, and the (more importantly) creation of a National Church was a process of creating a nation state called England, free from foreign domination (the Catholic, Roman Church) and therefore more free to act independently in European politics.

Charlemagne’s instructions to his son, Louis, in 813, on the occasion of his bestowal of the crown upon him, intrigues one to ponder on the world we would live in were one of our Presidents to be given such commands, and were he to respond as did Louis, “With the help of God’s grace, I will do all this.” For Charlemagne had exhorted his son, “Before all things to love and honor God; to keep His commandments; to protect the Church; to love her bishops as his own children; to show kindness to the princes of his own blood; to regard his subjects with the same parental feeling that he would his own offspring; to provide for the poor; to raise to office and positions of trust only such as were distinguished by integrity and holiness of life; to chastise offenders with a view to draw them from their evil ways and insure their eternal welfare; and to be the protector of the religious and the comforter of the poor.”

catholicism.org/popes-chap5.html

Can you explain the idea of feudalism as a source of the weakening of Christendom, I never heard that thesis before.

I thought before circa 1050, the whole “Investiture Scandal” was a major source of the division between the sovereigns (there were no monarchs around 1000 as French historian Regine Pernoud points out) and the pope. Pope St. Gregory VII wins over the sovereigns, but a few centuries later, the popes lose the power to appoint local bishops, among other powers, to the monarchs.

 

[puzzleannie]

we could start a grass-roots movement with Catholic lay faithful returning to Mass and the sacraments, obeying Church precepts and the commandments, including laws on marriage on family, praying and reading scripture as a family, and raising good CAtholic kids, that should about do it. From good Catholic families good solid priests and religious will come to serve the Church and set an example of holiness and virtue.

 

[MMG]

Right on, puzzleannie

 

[philipmarus]

Latin survived the growth of the vernacular literatures for so long because it had status - which it has largely lost. It is not as supple as English or French -

According to Webster’s Dictionary supple means “flexable and easily bent.” And this is a good thing.? No wonder there so many problems in the Liturgical translations by ICEL.

Christendom was in a bad way by 1300 - Protestantism may have aggravated a few problems, but it’s hard to think of any for which it is uniquely responsible

I can think of plenty.

Mediaeval society was very violent, and not too stable. Not something to long for, IMO.

Man has not changed a bit.If you think our modern world is so improved over those “primitive people” in the Middle ages -
Just read the news.

 

[Hildebrand]

philipmarus:

Man has not changed a bit.If you think our modern world is so improved over those “primitive people” in the Middle ages -
Just read the news.

:yup:

Our century, the 20th Century, was far more violent than any other century or even previous time periods.

The imperialist activities by the “enlightened” European Powers of the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s were not very violent and barbaric?

And not too stable? The lower class people and middle class people of the Middle Ages had much more stability than our present lower and middle classes. They had steady employment, they had vacation days (Sundays and Holy Days), they lived near their families, etc. If you like change, instability, and excitement, you would hate to be an average Middle Age worker (I always thought the attack on their life was “it was dull and boring back then”). Their work was hard, but I prefer their work over the work of miners and factory workers of the early industrial period to the previous turn of the century. I’d also prefer it over being a hired farm hand in the 1800s and early 1900s because once you could no longer work, you were dispensable. Talk about unstable. Ever read Steinbeck?

There was no real conscription/draft of the common people during the Middle Ages. Talk about taking away one’s rights and forcing them to be a slave to the state - conscription is high up there.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Christendom has been on a steady retreat and under attack since around AD 400 or so, certainly since AD 635.

The world was all small city-states, not nation-states as we know them today and in the 20th century.

I found it instructive to look at the way St. Augustine died in the 400’s. The “Germans” invaded north Africa via Spain and he was killed in one of the sieges in what is now Tunisia. The Goths, Visigoths, Vandals and such did terrible things to what is now Italy.

Then in AD 635 the Muslims came out of Arabia and conquered north Africa and the Holy Land. And went up into what is now Turkey.

From AD 711 until AD 1491, a war raged through Spain.

From roughly 1000 to 1200, there were crusades into the Holy Land and other crusades into Spain to try to stop the military spread of Islam.

In the 1300’s, the Mongols invaded from the East into Europe.

Somewhere in there, the Swedes invaded from the northwest.

There is a book, “How the Irish Saved Western Civilization”… because all of Europe was “dechristianized” for several hundred years.

Then in 1571, there was the Battle of Lepanto and around 1683, the battle of Vienna.

Around 1805, the battles in North Africa against the Barbary Pirates who had virtually depopulated the coastal regions of Europe with their raids to seize galley slaves.

In the early 1900’s, the Muslims sided with Germany and when the Germans lost WW1, the victorious British and French carved up the middle east.

In the 1930’s the Muslims again sided with Germany and lost again.

They’re back.

This is not going to be easy, folks.

Christians need to return to prayer and devotions, fasting and more prayer. For starters.

How about we start by re-instituting “no meat eating on Friday” (no exceptions).

And getting rid of the practice of having ushers “escorting people to Communion” at Sunday Mass. They have a tendency to humiliate people who are not properly disposed to receiving and those people then choose to stay home rather than be at Mass, to avoid either being embarrassed or having to commit a sacrilige by going to Communion unworthily.

 

[Hildebrand]

Al Masetti:

And getting rid of the practice of having ushers “escorting people to Communion” at Sunday Mass. They have a tendency to humiliate people who are not properly disposed to receiving and those people then choose to stay home rather than be at Mass, to avoid either being embarrassed or having to commit a sacrilege by going to Communion unworthily.

I would like for things to go back to the days when not everyone went to communion. You only had to go up to communion once a year for your Easter obligation.

It would prevent the rampant sacrilege going on right now and would avoid the feeling that everyone HAS to go to communion or something is wrong.

Change is not always good.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There were probably several reasons why not everyone went to receive Holy Communion on Sunday. One reason was that we had to fast from midnight. And very few people had the physical stamina to endure no food or drink from midnight until late the following morning. If people wanted to receive Holy Communion they would have to go to the earliest Mass, usually 8am. And even a fast of eight hours… maybe ten hours by the time Mass was over and folks got back home. Actually since people ate dinner at around 6pm, then we are looking at a fast of around 16 hours. That’s a long time. In summer, the physical effects were far worse. It was common (before airconditioning) for people to faint from heat and hunger – they would pass out and had to be carried to the doors of the church where folding chairs were set up for them.

Anyway, that was one reason why people didn’t receive Holy Communion in the old days.

But really, when’s the last time anyone heard a homily preached about John 6, or about abortion, or about contraception, or even about some positive things, such as praying to the Holy Spirit, or the lives of some of the more notable saints. A couple of times, I have heard priests talk about the Ten Commandments being mandatory instead of being Ten Really Groovy Suggestions. But that’s about it.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

puzzleannie:

we could start a grass-roots movement with Catholic lay faithful returning to Mass and the sacraments, obeying Church precepts and the commandments, including laws on marriage on family, praying and reading scripture as a family, and raising good CAtholic kids, that should about do it. From good Catholic families good solid priests and religious will come to serve the Church and set an example of holiness and virtue.

Yes, puzzleannie!
And perhaps we could oragnize stands? Somethings like this?

** Looking for the real?
Heard of catholisism?
If you haven’t perhaps
you should take your time to
find out? **

 

[RobNY]

Hildebrand:

And not too stable? The lower class people and middle class people of the Middle Ages had much more stability than our present lower and middle classes. They had steady employment, they had vacation days (Sundays and Holy Days), they lived near their families, etc.

The lower and middle class people of today enjoy a wealth far exceeding that of ages past. While ‘stability’ in the sense of that in a capitalist society may be different than that of a feudal society, it’s undeniable that the basics about life *are *better. What did people live to? Forty at best? Surely there was more respect for religion in life.

If you like change, instability, and excitement, you would hate to be an average Middle Age worker (I always thought the attack on their life was “it was dull and boring back then”). Their work was hard, but I prefer their work over the work of miners and factory workers of the early industrial period to the previous turn of the century. I’d also prefer it over being a hired farm hand in the 1800s and early 1900s because once you could no longer work, you were dispensable. Talk about unstable. Ever read Steinbeck?

Of course I’ve read Steinbeck. Read that mammoth tale, *The Grapes of Wrath *for junior year. But to typify western life by the Great Depression is surely to take a caricature of it. Granted, farmers had it bad pretty consistently from the late 1800s onward, but that was due to the changning nature of farming due to technology, among other things. In the middle ages, nine tenths of the people worked the land. I believe a huge amount did so at the inception of America. (At least two thirds.) Right now I’d say we don’t have three out of every hundred people in agriculture work. No, of course being a farmer wasn’t particularly stable: there was a major shift in our economy from agrarian to industrial.

From 1000 to 1300 the population in Europe is estimated to have doubled. This made a major crunch on the people of Europe. Everyone pretty much would have been expected to have encountered a major incident of hunger. As the fabric of Europe was being stretched thinly, around 1300 we also had some famine problems, which exacerbated the problems that already existed with booming population and inadequate food. Work, by the way, was difficult to come by.

During the late middle ages, we also encounter everyone’s favorite buddy, the Black Death. Surely, this made starvation and joblessness rather tame by comparison. Starting in the late 1340s (I believe) this spread rapidly throughout Europe taking a staggering toll. It wasn’t until the 1600s that Europe really got over it. The causes of the Black Death were completely misunderstood, which didn’t help the problem either.

There was no real conscription/draft of the common people during the Middle Ages. Talk about taking away one’s rights and forcing them to be a slave to the state - conscription is high up there.

Conscription is and isn’t a problem. During Vietnam, obviously, there was widespread discontent with the draft. But there has always been. There were even riots in NYC during the Civil War on account of the draft. Conscription in WWII wasn’t controversial at all. I can’t say whether or not WWI conscription was controversial, I don’t know. The draft has never been liked, generally. Of course, while we’re running the line of people being forced to be a slave to the state, I move that we abolish all taxes (if you adopt a right-libertarian view of politics, it’s nearly impossible to not draw this, or very near to this conclusion politically from the philosophy, making decisions based on practicality is a whole different issue!). The idea of being a serf to a noble of course, was with its own problems. The growth of communism itself was based strongly on the old feudal remains in Europe (I believe engles commented that it would be near impossible for communism to take root in america due to the lack of feudal underpinnings). So, feudalism itself is its own evil (then again, so are *most *systems, we just need to choose the *best *one).

Gah, far too much rambling.

-Rob

 

[Hildebrand]

RobNY:

No, of course being a farmer wasn’t particularly stable: there was a major shift in our economy from agrarian to industrial.

The instability of the 1700s and especially the 1800 and early 1900s was caused by moving from rural areas to over-crowded, disgusting cesspools called cities. In the late Middle Ages, some people were kicked off their land by their overlords who used the “newly rediscovered” Roman Law as their permission slip for eminent domain (the same Roman Law that took away women’s right from holding positions of power, women’s right to vote in local elections, women’s right to own property, and a whole host of other issues - just remember Roman Law as making the rich richer and men “happier”. Roman Law - great for rich, white men). The land was used for grazing animals (especially sheep), a much more profitable enterprise. This is shades of our current 21st century problem with eminent domain which allows for displacing families so some wealthy person can get wealthier.

RobNY:

From 1000 to 1300 the population in Europe is estimated to have doubled. This made a major crunch on the people of Europe. Everyone pretty much would have been expected to have encountered a major incident of hunger.

You forgot to mention the reason for the hunger. It was not overpopulation. Maybe some radical environmentalists may argue that today. (Unless you are willing to say if we have massive worldwide famine because of climate change, the reason for the famine is that there was not enough condoms being used, not because of the climate change.)

But the real cause of the hunger was when global cooling hit Europe after 1300. Europe is still cooler today than it was in the Middle Ages. There were vineyards in Great Britain and Northern Europe before the regional cooling hit. The lower crop yields resulted in poor diet. Poor diet led to lowered immune system. Lower immune systems are not too good when you are trying to fight life-threatening illnesses.

“During the present millennium there was a period of relatively mild climate called the Medieval Warm Period, lasting from about 1000 to 1300 AD. As with the Little Ice Age, its timing and effects varied from region to region, and many experts doubt that the Medieval Warm Period was a truly global phenomenon. In East Asia, for example, temperatures were cooler.
Europe, though, enjoyed an undeniably balmy climate during the early medieval period. Agriculture flourished farther north and at higher elevations on mountains than is possible even in today’s warmish climate, and harvests generally were good.”

www-earth.usc.edu/geol150/evolution/images/littleiceage/LittleIceAge.htm

“Let us first examine the effect of climatic changes as indicated by plants and animals. The cultivation of grapes for wine making was extensive throughout the southern portion of England from about 1100 to around 1300 (Lamb 1965). This represents a northward latitude extension of about 500 km from where grapes are presently grown in France and Germany. Grapes were also grown in the north of France and Germany at this time, areas which even today do not sustain commercial vineyards. The grape production in England was more than that of local farmers for their own use. The amount of wine produced in England during this period was substantial enough to provide significant economic competition with the producers in France.”

grisda.org/origins/10051.htm

"The Earth’s climate is more stable during warming periods. The warming heats the polar regions more than the equatorial regions, reducing temperature differences and thus reducing the power of storms. For instance, Chinese court records indicate far fewer floods and droughts during the Roman Warming of the first century and the Medieval Warming of the 12th century than during the intervening cold Dark Ages and the recent Little Ice Age.

cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/may_19b_05.htm

 

[Hildebrand]

con’t

Here is the sum up of the above articles:

"The Medieval Warming prevailed from about A.D. 950 to 1300, bringing ample sunshine, milder storms and longer growing seasons. Food harvests were so good that Britain’s population rose from an estimated 1.4 million people in the late 11th century to 5 million in 1300. Europe’s total population increased from 40 million to 60 million—during a period when temperatures rose higher than today’s.

From 1300 to 1850, the planet shifted into the Little Ice Age. The good weather ended abruptly. During the summer of 1315, incessant sheets of rain fell from May to August throughout Europe, washing away much of the topsoil and beating crops to the ground. In late summer, the weather turned unseasonably cold, and the soft kernels of the few surviving grain plants were attacked by fungus. Across northern Europe, harvests were disastrous, and famine set in."

cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/may_19b_05.htm

RobNY:

Conscription is and isn’t a problem. During Vietnam, obviously, there was widespread discontent with the draft. But there has always been. There were even riots in NYC during the Civil War on account of the draft. Conscription in WWII wasn’t controversial at all. I can’t say whether or not WWI conscription was controversial, I don’t know. The draft has never been liked, generally. Of course, while we’re running the line of people being forced to be a slave to the state, I move that we abolish all taxes.

Taxes is the same thing as forcing a person to fight for a state that will probably result in your death? I’d take taxes over conscription. But sadly, in nations were there is conscription, there usually is both. Conscription isn’t a problem today in the United States. But I am covering world history/European history… or are we covering the history of the United States today vs. the history of the United States during the Middle Ages?

As Napoleon’s Army comes to your village in the Confederation of the Rhine to take young men to fight in his next campaign - Russia; ask yourself if taxes is worse than certain death in Napoleon’s 1812 Russian Campaign? (By the way, you are still being taxes in the 1800s, along with being drafted.)

 

[RobNY]

Hildebrand:

You forgot to mention the reason for the hunger. It was not overpopulation. Maybe some radical environmentalists may argue that today. (Unless you are willing to say if we have massive worldwide famine because of climate change, the reason for the famine is that there was not enough condoms being used, not because of the climate change.

Well, it was partially due to the sharply rising population which was happening as crop yields were falling. This isn’t exactly controversial, I mean, I’m talking about some of the basic stuff from my AP Euro textbook. Obviously, adverse changes in crop production coupled with intense population growth are going to put a strain on the system. (Nor do I think overpopulation will really ever be solely the problem, it’s obvious in current days we can produce enough food, what with the green revolution. Although I’m talking about modern and not medieval times now. But I think the earth is ample for feeding us, and certainly has been.) I had forgotten about the climate change, though, that’s fascinating stuff! I remember running into it briefly when reading about global warming. They don’t touch on that in school, of course.

But the real cause of the hunger was when global cooling hit Europe after 1300. Europe is still cooler today than it was in the Middle Ages. There were vineyards in Great Britain and Northern Europe before the regional cooling hit. The lower crop yields resulted in poor diet. Poor diet led to lowered immune system. Lower immune systems are not too good when you are trying to fight life-threatening illnesses.

Right. I’d never seen this integrated into the famine problems that Europe had. It’s very interesting. Of course, the Black Death sounds rather nasty anyway. Even with a good immune system, wouldn’t it still be quite dangerous?

My point wasn’t to really “argue” with you, but to put what I thought were the middle ages problems. I didn’t and don’t find them too rosy.

Taxes is the same thing as forcing a person to fight for a state that will probably result in your death? I’d take taxes over conscription. But sadly, in nations were there is conscription, there usually is both. Conscription isn’t a problem today in the United States. But I am covering world history/European history… or are we covering the history of the United States today vs. the history of the United States during the Middle Ages?

As Napoleon’s Army comes to your village in the Confederation of the Rhine to take young men to fight in his next campaign - Russia; ask yourself if taxes is worse than certain death in Napoleon’s 1812 Russian Campaign? (By the way, you are still being taxes in the 1800s, along with being drafted.)

Like I said, I was rambling. I wasn’t equating taxes to conscription. I was just seizing on some rather tangential idea that floated into my mind.

The whole climate bit was fascinating, though, and I’d love to read more about it.

 

[Hildebrand]

RobNY:

Well, it was partially due to the sharply rising population which was happening as crop yields were falling. This isn’t exactly controversial, I mean, I’m talking about some of the basic stuff from my AP Euro textbook. Obviously, adverse changes in crop production coupled with intense population growth are going to put a strain on the system. (Nor do I think overpopulation will really ever be solely the problem, it’s obvious in current days we can produce enough food, what with the green revolution. Although I’m talking about modern and not medieval times now. But I think the earth is ample for feeding us, and certainly has been.) I had forgotten about the climate change, though, that’s fascinating stuff! I remember running into it briefly when reading about global warming. They don’t touch on that in school, of course.

Yeah, of course. They would never talk about climate changing on its own, it all has to be the cause of man.

The Belgium Historian, Henri Pirenne, noted the economic growth took place before Renaissance in the 1100s and 1200s. More land was under cultivation (in Europe) in the year 1300 than ever before and ever after in history… The population at that time was able to be fed, clothed, housed, etc. Now there is debate whether Europe could sustain higher population and continued growth. But that point is moot because of the drought and famine that began during the early 1300s as a result of the “mini ice age” (regional cooling in Europe and other places).

RobNY:

Right. I’d never seen this integrated into the famine problems that Europe had. It’s very interesting. Of course, the Black Death sounds rather nasty anyway. Even with a good immune system, wouldn’t it still be quite dangerous?

My point wasn’t to really “argue” with you, but to put what I thought were the middle ages problems. I didn’t and don’t find them too rosy.

I was not arguing with you, but with your statements, which are the standard views of the middle ages: Dark, dreary, filled with sickness, death, famine, poverty, wars, blah, blah, blah. Did anyone realize people actually died during the Middle Ages? Wow, what a concept! And everything bad that happened over a period of a thousand years is taught as what happened during the Middle Ages! How about this, we teach Protestant History and only talk about death, disease, destruction, war, poverty, sickness, crazy people, etc.

The attacks on the “Middle Ages” is an attack on Christendom: the Crusades, the Inquisition against the Cathars, Popes vs. Emperors, etc - all these topics are so spun in the history books and by history professors, one is forced to come to the conclusion that the Middle Ages were dark years of history and the Catholic Church is an evil institution. It is all bull, and I am not talking about papal bulls.

For a defense of the Middle Ages (more-so about life in the Middle Ages, you can find defenses of the Church anywhere), I would recommend “Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths” by Régine Pernoud. I purchased my copy for $15 with tax at Borders.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898707811/103-3087605-1907807?v=glance

Everyone is correct in believing the 14th Century Europe as bad years to live in, as was 20th Century Europe (World War I, Spanish Influenza, Great Depression, Spain Civil War, World War II, Iron Curtain)

I view the 1300s as the beginning of the “Renaissance” and gradual end of the Middle Ages in Italy, spreading north and westward over the next two centuries. The “Renaissance” was a return to the practices and imitation of the Romans (and also Greeks). The belief that the Roman culture was the highest culture ever (art, architecture, lifestyle, government, etc) and all others are a sad second or third or last to it.

RobNY:

Like I said, I was rambling. I wasn’t equating taxes to conscription. I was just seizing on some rather tangential idea that floated into my mind.

The whole climate bit was fascinating, though, and I’d love to read more about it.

I would like to read about it too. :yup: Since it does not go along with the agenda of today’s liberals, you won’t find it many places. And the places you do find it, rarely will they come to any great conclusions.