Is ours a Christian civilization?

[Beerina]

One thing, I thiink, that gets lost in discussions of the cause of the Renaisance is the contribution of the Middle Ages to cif=vilization. I recall from the history I was taught the impression that the middle ages were this grim, benighted time. Then, suddenly, the Renaisance happened and people got civilized again. Certainly there was a great acceleration of civilivation then; but one shouldn't forget the contributions of what went before.

Among the achievements of the middle ages are: harnessing of horse, wind and water power, and with the latter two the basics of machinery (gears, ratchets pulleys etc.); the three field agricutural system - vastly superior to Classical Civilization's two field system; the institution of the Arabic numeral system and lower case letters; Gothic architecture, whic featured such innovations as the Gothic arc, vaulted cielings and the flying buttress. We should also remember that mny of the major cities of Europe were founded in the middle ages. Among these are: Vienna, Hamburg, Heidelburg, Berlin, Prague, Crackow, Warsaw, Novgorod, Kiev, Moscow, Dublin, Trondheim, etc. London went from being Roman fortress to a major city, and Paris from a village of mud huts to the home Notre Dame Cathedal.

Of all these acheivements, only Gothic architecture and lower case letters seem to be influenced by Christianity. Lower case letters derive from the Irish half-uncials, an inadvertant gift from Itih monks copying Classical manuscripts, along with the Bible. The technology enabling Europeans to fully utilize the horse - horse shoes, stirrups and the horse collar - seem to have been brought west by the Huns and Avars. Being able to utilize horses, rather than oxen, to plow fields probably mde th three field system possible. The Arabic numeral system, which actually originated in India, was brought by Arab traders, although it was snactioned by one of the popes ca. 800.

No one denies progress went on, but some of the "big things", like the zero, and horse accoutrement, came from outside.


I wonder if there is such a list of general human progress, and where it originated. Is there actually a dearth coming from Europe for the "dark ages"?

 

[TimCallahan]

No one denies progress went on, but some of the "big things", like the zero, and horse accoutrement, came from outside.


I wonder if there is such a list of general human progress, and where it originated. Is there actually a dearth coming from Europe for the "dark ages"?

Yes, a lot of it did come from outside. The horse accoutrements were most likely brought in by such invaders as the Huns and Avars. Ironically, the disorganization of the west made it more open to new ideas brought in from without, including the numeral system we call Arabic (though it originated India).

One of the strengths of Western Civilization is its openess to change. I think much of this results from the geography of Europe, which makes it possible for numerous small nations in close proximity to exist independently. Thus, if one government was resistant to a new idea, another might be open to it.

 

[stilicho]

Sure it has been under the sway, but I think that European civilization is of many things, and at current date I wouldn't call it a christian civilization anymore then I would call it a roman civilization.
The real christian civilizations are likely outside of Europe.

In the epoch from roughly 500 AD to 1500 AD you could argue that it was both. The Renaissance (or, more likely, the exposure to ideas not confined to the European continent) and the Enlightenment each served to undermine Latin and Christian influence.

You could easily argue that "the West" hasn't been primarily a Christian civilisation for over 200 years. Certainly in the last 100 years.

Even during the millenium of so-called Christian supremacy there were a lot of cracks in the facade. Popular tales (not so much literature) were frankly irreligious and full of dragons, trolls and (as I recall) huts supported by chicken-leg stilts. I don't remember any of those things being described in the scriptures and certainly not in the same way. The Church figured greatly in the political arena but the whole period is one of continual if not steady erosion of clerical power. The investiture controversy, the crusades, the conversion of the Slavs, the Lateran council (arms limitations) and so forth demonstrate that the Church was as much a substitute for political or military unity/consensus as anything else. Although monarchs played the religion card frequently, some like Frederick II and Enrico Dandolo were probably not terribly faithful. But "they" saw themselves as Christians so I suppose we'll have to take their word for it.

Just as an exercise, try to imagine the President of the USA or the Prime Minister of the UK using Pope Urban's speech at the Council of Clermont (1095) to gather support for a military adventure in, say, Afghanistan. How would this go over?:

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins."

 

[stilicho]

I wonder if there is such a list of general human progress, and where it originated. Is there actually a dearth coming from Europe for the "dark ages"?

I'd read an economic history of the middle ages by Jean Gimpel that suggested there was continued industry and development during that time but most of his examples are from the High Middle Ages, well after the development of scholasticism.

Europe was no different than anywhere else in the world, though, with innovations appearing at an irregular and leisurely pace until the Enlightenment. It's hard for us today to even imagine a time when you could live to be 100 years old literally without seeing anything new.

 

[TimCallahan]

Just as an exercise, try to imagine the President of the USA or the Prime Minister of the UK using Pope Urban's speech at the Council of Clermont (1095) to gather support for a military adventure in, say, Afghanistan. How would this go over?:

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins."

I think Bush could have used this, with a few alterations: "All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in the War on Terror, shall have immediate remission of taxes."

 

[TimCallahan]

Europe was no different than anywhere else in the world, though, with innovations appearing at an irregular and leisurely pace until the Enlightenment. It's hard for us today to even imagine a time when you could live to be 100 years old literally without seeing anything new.

I think that, for whatever reason, Europe -well before the Enlightenment - was more open to the adoption of new technologies than were other regions. One example of this would be the use of gun-powder and firearms. If anything, the Islamic world had earielr access to both, yet failed to devolop them to the degree the Europeans did.

A stunning example of this is the Battle of Lepanto, fought off the west coast of Greece in 1571, between the fleet of the Ottoman Empire and an allied Christian fleet from Spain, the Republic of Venice and other Italian city states. The Spanish were the mainstay of the allied fleet. Both fleets began the battle with approximately 300 ships. When the battle ended, the allied Christian fleet had lost 12 galleys sunk and one captured - total losses of less than 5% of their fleet. The Turks had lost 113 galleys sunk and 117 captured, meaning they had lost over 75% of their fleet.

The reason for the Spanish / Christian victory was firepower. The Christian galleys had five cannon mounted on their bows; the Turkish galleys had three. In addition, the Christian fleet had other types of ships, two of which were particularly notable: galleasses and galleons. Whereas galleys were propelled by sail and oars, and used ramming as a major battle tactic; Galleons were entirely propelled by sail and their sides were lined with two decks of cannon. Galleasses were midway between galleys and galleons, having oars but also consderable ordinance. In addition,the crews of the western fleet had more arquibuses than the Turks, who relied more on the bow.

Considering that the technology of firepower was available to both sides and that the Ottoman Empire was at the height of its power at the time, being the wealthiest and most powerful state in the region, the question that comes up is this: Why did't the Turks invest more heavily in the new technology? I believe it was because of what I've mentioned before - taking a page from Jared Diamond - that the geography of Europe favored the development of of several independent states, which as many different approaches to accepting new ideas; whereas the Muslim world was usually dominated by a single empire, or at best by only as many as five separate states, usually less. At the time of Lepanto the only Muslim state facing the West was the Ottoman Empire.