Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nukapei
Perhaps. But Midieval Europe (which I'm assuming we're talking about, the period from 350 CE to 1450 CE) was quite a bloodthirsty place. Now, albiet, a lot of "civilized" institutions that we still enjoy today (such as universities, representative government, etc.) were invented during this time period. However, many changes (both social and economic) ensured a very violent way of life.
For example, this was the time period when Christianity was really starting to become popular. Although some Christians were tolerant of the older, polytheistic religions, most violently opposed them (witch hunts, the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.). And even inside Christendom, different factions would disagree, sometimes violently, over specific doctrine (such as the Trinity, immortality of the soul, etc.).
|
Oh my, here we go, "C.E." and all.
I'm afraid that the picture most people have of the Middle Ages is influenced to an alarming degree by the remnants of the haze of Protestant prejudice over the Catholic past and the warped images presented by Hollywood.
First of all, I wonder at the seeming negative impostion of words relating your impression of the "popularity" of Christianity. While it is true that some newly converted kings or chieftains forced the remainder of their subjects to convert to Christianity, this was never a policy of the Church and was dissaproved of. Witch hunts, contrary to what you seem to think, were not symptomatic of Christianity but of the Pagan superstition that the Church fought constantly to dispell.
As to the Crusades, do you really think that in attempting to reclaim Palestine from Islamic occupation, Christian Europe was attacking an "Older, polytheistic religion"?
And concerning the Inquisition, that most wrongfully reviled segment of Catholic history, it ever and only had jurisdiction over (of all people) Catholics. It was originally established as an arm of the Spanish government during the Reconquisita when many Muslims were seen to convert to Christianity and there was a well-grounded fear that some of these might be "sleeper agents". An easy and sure way of avoiding trial by the Inquisition was simply to declare oneself to not be a Christian.
As the (earlier) very real threat of invasion diminished and the problem of heresy grew, the Inquisition was redirected to inquire into the beliefs of Catholics.
Under the authority of the Spanish civil government but staffed and operated by the clergy, or, in many instances, university lawyers, the Inquisition tested the faith of Catholics accused of heresy. Far from the usual mob of ignoble churls eager to condem that one invariably sees, the real Inquisition courts were almost a mirror opposite. Prisoners were accorded rights and priviliges that were almost fantastic by the standards of the day. For example: A conviction required the agreemen of at least two witnesses. Our courts only require one. The accused would be allowed to compile a list of all persons he or she felt might commit calumny against them, and and whose testimony would then be automatically thrown out. If convicted, the accused had multiple levels of appeal open to them, and the benefit of court-appointed lawyers to represent them. The accused could even have the judge replaced if he/she felt that said magistrate was too strongly dispositioned against them.
Inquisition jails were luxurious compared to the prisons that civil prisoners were held in, and there are many cases of accused thieves commiting blasphemy in the lay courts in order to have their cases transferred to the more merciful Inquisitors, and when the Inquisition itself was finally abolished, there were riots all over Spain in favour of its return.
I'm sorry this is so short. I really haven't the time to do this subject justice.