Hello all, this debate topic is in response to the most recent crash course video about the medieval period or more commonly known as the dark ages. Before we begin I want to tell you a few things about me
1) I am dyslexic I try to do my best with grammer and spelling but there will be problems and odd bits. I am sorry for your pain for having to read the mistakes but being dyslexic does not make me dumb or any other names someone might feel like calling me.
2) I have a two degrees in history. Along with a few other degrees. But one of them is in world history focusing on fudeal, imperial, and medieval periods.
3) I have writen one thesis already on the crusades. I am not euro centric but do feel the love for my fudeual periods. I actually focused on the crusades from the arab point of view, damn those franks. ;)
4) I am doing this because the discution in youtube lacks a certain level of understanding and education. It also had to many moder biases that missed the larger point.
5) I dispise blanket statements about history but will unfortunatly be making this simplified so will be using them insert dependent on time and place as you see fit.
Now onto the show. John simply comprese a highly complicated period that incompased most of the world during rouughly the same time. Crash course has had an amazing ability to be mostly correct and stay broad without giving into too many blanket statements.
The comments on the otherhand have missed the point as per usual youtube. I am going to list a few points for discution feel free to agree disagree with support.
1: serfs are the same as peasents. No actually they are not peasents is a general term discriping those of a certain social and money class. They where often free "men" bound to areas by laws and loyalty. They could go to court, own land, become nobiltiy through deeds and family ties. They where educated. Serfs where bound persons, bound to the land they works and often where very very poor and had little education. They could become free men. You could be born as a sefr or become a serf through the loss of wealth. Peasents and serfdom varied from area to area. Serfdom being most common in Russia. (Which went through its own vastly diffrent fudal period then the rest of Europe)
2: peasents where forced into the fudal system or where slaughterd. This again is a blanket statement that lacks variation for area and time. There are a few large examples that peasents where not helpless to the sword so to say. The "Peasents revolt" being the largest. We also still have law text and church documents of who sued who aften peasents suing their "lords", who bought what and married who. being under a king or a lord was part of their social system just as for us being under a congress or parliment. The fuduel system was a complicated intertwining system of loyalty, formal and verbal contracts, family relations, and friends. You do not whole out slaughter your ties, family, and firends or the people that feed you.
3: The church limited education to control the masses. This is just not true for the large part of the period. The churches control did expand over time. But the church was the heart of learning as where trade schools. You learned to read and write about mathmatics. Literacy was not as large of an issues as it is today. you needed to know enough to do your books and complete contracts, but math was more important. Yes access to the holy books where limited. But the monistaries where open to all boys (and some girls) and where most often free for anyone serf, peasent, or nobility. Also this statement is completly Eurocentric and ignores what was happening in the arab world or in China. But let us stay on topic. Also the church was a part of everyday life it was your meeting house, your fair ground, your hospiltal, ect. No one for the most part thought of it as evil, corrupt, or a limiter of freedom. Education as for most of the other areas of the world during this time was interlinked with religion.
Ok so those are just a few very broad points in a very large complicated series of events that we are still learning about today. As with all history I feel it is important to see the intricate parts then the easy blanket statements. We are still being effected by the medieval period today. What happened in the crusades lead to parts of the enlightenment, the black plague helped to construct part of the economic foundation for the industrial revolution. This is just in Europe not including Russia. Once you look into the middle east, Asia, or Japan it turns things on its head and gets oh so much fun.
Ok have fun I have said my peace. Debate, read, learn, enjoy, and keep it civil.
hehe I noticed that after you went there...how cool is this. alright well that's awesome....just don't forget to teach us about the dark ages Miss Ranseen :)
*is considering the possibility that my self-congratulatory state is a form of brown nosing to the teacher and wonders if I should throw a spit ball at the ceiling but probably won't because I now know the teach is martial artist with weapon training*
I have three main rules in my classroom: not texting(phones), turning your work, and no whining!
Keep on askign me question and I will keep on teahcing! Glad someone is happy to be taught.
Luther was around the same period but in germany. His was the first real break from the catholic church. He wasn't trying to break the church just mend it of its ways for he felt it had gone astray. His main point was that people should not have to go through someonelse to get to God or the religous works. Luther gave a large amount of power to the idea that the church could be questioned and that we can find our own way to god. An dthus begins the massing of sects that is protistantianism.
Whereas Henry was still going with the church but is own special way and it is destincly not protistantism. It was more like a business with Archbishops as the head maager making sure everyone knew where to go, what to say, and who to foolow the British royal house.
henry viii = localised theocracy?
I think it's merely an attempt at better organization of an earlier arrangement. Think of the relationship between the House of David and the tribe of Levi in Biblical times (not a good historical document I know, but bear with me). It's a clear fact that it is the royalty who are in charge of the whole system, not the priesthood. Just, try not to think about the overwhelming number of "intervention" the Abrahamic God did when they screw things up.
Correct if I'm wrong but the priests don't have to be the officials in charge in order for it to be a theocracy. Also I'm pretty sure the British monarch is also the head of the Church of England.
Also I need to clarify my use of the word 'localised' - I mean, as opposed to non-local rule of the papacy.