FireStryker Living History Forum : Modern perception vs historical

my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

»	FireStryker Living History Forum » Living History » Re-inventing the Medieval » Modern perception vs historical

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: Modern perception vs historical

Trollope
Member
Member # 2020

posted 03-21-2008 08:54 PM

For a lack of really 'authentic' films out there that portray historical accuracy, I still really enjoy "Kingdom of Heaven" even with all it's shortcomings and misrepresentations. That being said, I have a point of discussion from a scene in that movie. When Balian is in Jerusalem and visiting in private with the Hospitallier (H), the H gives his theory on religion. (I'll not go into it here, gives you a reason to watch the movie

Would his opinion have been considered blasphemy or could that have been a general consensus among those with common sense? To me, seeing what a strangle-hold the church had on every facet of life up until the Reformation, I have a hard time believing if that type of thought would ever have crossed an early medieval man's mind. What's others opinions?

--------------------

Now is greater than the whole of the past.

Registered: Jul 2007 | IP: Logged

Woodcrafter
Member
Member # 197

posted 03-22-2008 11:25 AM

So to discuss an admittedly non-authentic, non-historical movie not everyone has seen, you refer to a theory you will not disclose with people you reason still need to see the film...

Since Hospitalliers were not answerable to anyone, their religious views could be anything. The church had nominal say over most of western Europe, but that did not stop the rise of many minor christian religions, so you cannot say the church (tm) had a strangle-hold on every facet of life for any century. Especially with regions of France given over to the Albergensians (who allowed female priests) and many 'cults' to the Virgin, etc.

As the christian church definition of a 'cult' is any religion that does not follow the preachings of Jesus, the christian church it's self is a cult. Jesus preached the worship of God, not of Jesus. Once he bought the farm, Peter came along and preached the worship of Jesus, and that is what the christian cult does today.

I have always considered medieval man to be as religious as those people during the Klondike gold rush, or during the Dirty Thirties (1930s).

--------------------

Woodcrafter
14th c. Woodworking

Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Trollope
Member
Member # 2020

posted 03-25-2008 03:01 PM

"So to discuss an admittedly non-authentic, non-historical movie not everyone has seen, you refer to a theory you will not disclose with people you reason still need to see the film..." Hmmm, strange reaction. I thought forums were for discussions, not attitudes.

Sooo to attempt to add to a forum that hasn't had alot of action recently, let me give the quote and try to explain in a much better manner to my learned friend what the content of my idle banter really is. For anyone reading this for the 1st time, I am submitting this topic for the pure enjoyment of getting a discussion going. So please take it as so.

"I put no stock in religion. By the word of religion I've seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'the will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. And goodness? What God desires is here (mind) and here (heart). What you decide to do every day, you'll be a good man or not."

I am very aware that this is not an historically correct movie, but am just curious of others thoughts out there if they may think that it was possible for the medieval man to possess such a thought.

--------------------

Now is greater than the whole of the past.

Registered: Jul 2007 | IP: Logged

Kent
Member
Member # 161

posted 03-26-2008 03:31 AM

Hi --
This is actually a discussion of an idea, not a movie -- the idea was just sparked by a scene.

The Middle Ages covered roughly 500 years (1000 to 1500 C.E.) and an entire continent (heavily populated and as culturally diverse as any back then). My guess is that, given the wide distribution of people, the wide variations in Church control over those people at different times over that half-millenium, and the extremes of famine/plenty, war/peace, education/ignorance, and position/class, virtually any opinion was a possibility. They say that there are no athiests in foxholes, but that may have been a very different thing back then.
Just my 2 cents
Kent

Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)

Hop To:

Copyright � 2000-2009 Wolfe Argent Living History. All Rights reserved under International Copyright Conventions. No part of this website may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission of the content providers. Individual rights remain with the owners of the posted material.