If no Islam, maximum realistically possible spread of Christianity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists

My favorites being: Roger Bacon, William of Ockham, and Ramon Lul

It's not all that hard to have a few bright sparks when you enforce your monopoly on education and intellectual achievement via the bonfire with every possible abetting connivance of the state (which seamlessly blends into the church hierarchy and vice versa). It's not like you could be a public scholar and a non-Catholic in medieval Catholic Europe. It was the same in Orthodox Europe by the way.

Only the Muslim world was somewhat better and even there it all depended on the whims of the current ruler, or perhaps more accurately the ruler's spiritual mentor. There was a strong decline in published scholarship and philosophy in the Muslim world far before the Ottomans even appeared on the scene compared to the "golden age" of the 8-10th c.
 
It's not all that hard to have a few bright sparks when you enforce your monopoly on education and intellectual achievement via the bonfire with every possible abetting connivance of the state (which seamlessly blends into the church hierarchy and vice versa). It's not like you could be a public scholar and a non-Catholic in medieval Catholic Europe. It was the same in Orthodox Europe by the way.

Only the Muslim world was somewhat better and even there it all depended on the whims of the current ruler, or perhaps more accurately the ruler's spiritual mentor. There was a strong decline in published scholarship and philosophy in the Muslim world far before the Ottomans even appeared on the scene compared to the "golden age" of the 8-10th c.

Yes, of course scholarship in the church was the result of threatening every secular scholar with burning at the stake. That's not totally unsupported garbage at all. (sarcasm):rolleyes:

Intellectuals flocked to the church because it was one of very few options, in fact usually the ONLY option, if you wanted an education. This was because the church happened to be the only place with lots of money that was interested in furthering education at the time, not because they shut down everyone else with death threats. When secular rulers became interested in scientific advancement (an event commonly referred to as the renaissance) they began to fund secular scientists, something that the church did nothing to attempt to stop. Why? Because they really had nothing against new knowledge in general or other people making discoveries. It may be helpful to look at all of the renaissance scholars who were not persecuted at all before making outrageous claims about how the church monopolized education by murdering everyone and anyone who attempted to learn through other channels.

It's also rather creepy how you are alluding to a shadow "Spiritual mentor" controlling every Muslim ruler's opinions on science, as though they can't make up their own opinions, but then you weren't showing allot of concerns for facts before that either.
 
Yes, of course scholarship in the church was the result of threatening every secular scholar with burning at the stake. That's not totally unsupported garbage at all.

You had that almost right, you know. Up until the sarcasm. The scholarship was the result of the de-facto monopoly on resources and censorship, and the monopoly was the result of state-supported violence. What's there to dispute? My glib delivery of the facts? I do apologise ever so profusely.

I realize that everyone is busy congratulating themselves about dispelling the misconceptions about the dreadful dung ages and all, but let's not allow the sentiment to get in the way of history, shall we?

Intellectuals flocked to the church because it was one of very few options, in fact usually the ONLY option, if you wanted an education.

Yes. And prior to state Christianity, that wasn't the case. The old system collapsed and the system that replaced it - and which Christianity had a big impact on - wasn't anything to get excited about, in the most polite and objective terms possible...at least until the 13th c., generously.

t may be helpful to look at all of the renaissance scholars who were not persecuted at all before making outrageous claims about how the church monopolized education by murdering everyone and anyone who attempted to learn through other channels.

It might be helpful to look at it, indeed. I did and my conclusion is as I stated it. I think you're trying to make a distinction between Church-directed violence and state-directed but religiously-tinged violence, and I don't see why you should be attempting this. They're hardly separable at that point.

It's also rather creepy how you are alluding to a shadow "Spiritual mentor" controlling every Muslim ruler's opinions on science, as though they can't make up their own opinions, but then you weren't showing allot of concerns for facts before that either.

It's not my fault that your apologetics get in the way of your history, you know. No need to be this angry.

I meant nothing creepy at all. Spiritual mentorship was a big part of Muslim education for gentlemen and royalty and even common people. There were serious political struggles between religious schools of thought. There's nothing nefarious meant, other than to say that by aligning with such and such teacher (and often that happened early in life and education, though some exceptions have notably changed their views significantly as years went on), a Muslim prince strongly signaled whose ideas would dominate. And that had political fallout.
 
Last edited:
You had that almost right, you know. Up until the sarcasm. The scholarship was the result of the de-facto monopoly on resources and censorship, and the monopoly was the result of state-supported violence. What's there to dispute? My glib delivery of the facts? I do apologise ever so profusely.

I realize that everyone is busy congratulating themselves about dispelling the misconceptions about the dreadful dung ages and all, but let's not allow the sentiment to get in the way of history, shall we?



Yes. And prior to state Christianity, that wasn't the case. The old system collapsed and the system that replaced it - and which Christianity had a big impact on - wasn't anything to get excited about, in the most polite and objective terms possible...at least until the 13th c., generously.



It might be helpful to look at it, indeed. I did and my conclusion is as I stated it. I think you're trying to make a distinction between Church-directed violence and state-directed but religiously-tinged violence, and I don't see why you should be attempting this. They're hardly separable at that point.



It's not my fault that your apologetics get in the way of your history, you know. No need to be this angry.

I meant nothing creepy at all. Spiritual mentorship was a big part of Muslim education for gentlemen and royalty and even common people. There were serious political struggles between religious schools of thought. There's nothing nefarious meant, other than to say that by aligning with such and such teacher (and often that happened early in life and education, though some exceptions have notably changed their views significantly as years went on), a Muslim prince strongly signaled whose ideas would dominate. And that had political fallout.

Sorry for the sarcasm, you aren't the first person toting the whole "the church stifled science through burning" baggage on this thread, the last one having been warned for insulting religion. I'm not angry, I'm just amused that there are still people here who think that the church killed/stifled science, despite the fact that such is totally unsupported and indefensible.

That said, no, you are still blaming religions for monopolizing education (not to mention your crazy assumption that they did so by force), rather than crediting them for reestablishing it where there was none to be had, so you are in the wrong. To put it bluntly, when the Roman Empire fell there wasn't any formal education to be had unless you were very rich, and the church came into this situation as the only large, wealthy, literate organization with any desire to educate anyone on anything, so of course they were able to monopolize education. There wasn't competition to begin with, they didn't strangle it.

Prior to state sanctioned Christianity, in most places (the Frankish, Gothic, and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms) there was nothing. In Byzantium, secular education declined under the church, but there wasn't a deliberate murderous attempt to kill it, it declined because of external political and economic factors that the church was better equipped to deal with more than anything else.

To the bold, no, I am not attempting to make a destinction, I am telling you that secular learned persons did not face opposition from either source on the basis of their learning. Some of them faced opposition for other reasons, personal grudges were popular in all walks of life, church or otherwise, but there simply aren't the large number of cases that you are imagining of the church burning people at the stake for attempting to learn from other sources. They burned plenty of people for heresy, and more than a few because of corruption and misunderstandings, but seeking intellectual knowledge was never opposed.

Do note that I'm not claiming that the dark ages weren't an intellectually poor time, just that, between the total collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and it's replacement with warlike semi-civilized states, plus the associated decline in economy, standards of living, and international trade and travel, the church is an unlikely culprit for the decline in secular education.

I still say that insinuating that the mentor had de facto control over the policies of Islamic rulers is wrong. I would say that Islamic leaders were not any more likely to be influenced in policies of state by their spiritual mentors than by any others of their advisers and associates.
 
Sorry for the sarcasm, you aren't the first person toting the whole "the church stifled science through burning" baggage on this thread, the last one having been warned for insulting religion. I'm not angry, I'm just amused that there are still people here who think that the church killed/stifled science, despite the fact that such is totally unsupported and indefensible.

.... Is it a possibility in a world where the church has NO external enemies that threaten its holy lands and stimulate technology development that the church would label scientists as 'truth-seekers' and burn them at the stake? Yes it is.

Warning, the following section contains facts about the fate of some heretic's in the middle ages that could be offensive or sensitive to some of this form's Christian members.












Botulf Botulfsson (died April 1311) was accused by the Catholic Church of heresy after having denied that the wine and bread of the communion was literally the blood and body of Christ. (not really science as we know it, BUT close enough in that era)

John Wycliffe (died in 1384) All of Wycliffe's writings were ordered surrendered to the archdiocesan chancery for correction, and he obeyed, declaring that he condemned the errors in those writings. After his death The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. (Wycliffe in addition to being a priest studied the sciences and math at Oxford, and clearly had published theories or ideas about the world that offended someone in the church)


So yes, contrary to the claims of some of those on the forums the Catholic Church did go after those who's pursuit of science resulted in the Church feeling threatened by their theories... Sometimes the Church was threatened by a theory years after the individual who presented it died. There are few examples on the internet, but in a world where there is no external enemy that threatens Christian holy lands it is conceivable that this list would be much longer.
 
Botulfsson was an uneducated peseant, and there was nothing "close" to science about his case. It was all theological, and he was, by Catholic definition, a Heretic. Absolutely nothing about him was scientific, and the theological sence of "literal transformation" that he was opposing is not the same as bread changing into a piece of flesh with skin cells and blood vessels. If you think that the medieval church was capable of believing that, then you truly have no idea of what you are talking about.

John Wycliffe was also not a scientist, and he is on record as comparing the Pope to the Antichrist, among other things. He even had his own entirely religious heretical sect, the Lollards, inspired by his teachings. Again, he was, by definition, a heretic, there was nothing related to science about it. He opposed the church by calling high ranking clerics servants of Satan, and you think he was doing so because of science?

I'm not opposing you because of religion. I'm opposing you because you are factually incorrect. A quick internet search will tell you the same.
 
I have to agree with Avitus.

Botulf Botulfsson and John Wycliffe were charged with Heresy for a reason and it wasn't because they pursued science.

A Christian can be a complete fundamentalist who doesn't believe in modern science and NOT believe in transubstantiation, which is what Botulfsson did. As Avitus also implies, the theology of transubstantiation is quite a bit more complex than "Catholics believe that the bread turns into morsels Christ's delicious thighs in their mouths."

He was not the last to deny transubstantiation either, notable cases being later Protestant reformers.

Botulfsson was not charged for "pursuing truth" or "science." He was charged for denying what was a core part of Catholic theology (still is) in a time when Heresy was viewed as a cancer to be cut out.
 

Mookie

Banned
One thing to consider is how the two faiths spread. With few exceptions wasn't Islam spread "by the sword" through the conquest of new territory by powerful and largely unified Islamic states, followed by missionary evangelism and conversions of subject populations? Except for the European conquest of the new world, Christianity often spread through the work of missionaries who proceeded the assertion of European state authority. Also, there was much more competition and outright conflict between various Christian sects and states. I'm not sure Islam was so fractured during its period of expansion.

Bottomline, I don't believe Christianity would necesarily come to dominate many areas that became Islamic in OTL, especially Central Asia and South Asia.


Islam didnt spred with the sword. Islam and Christianity have different traditions. Christianity inflitrated existing governments. Jesus never had a country to run. Islam for large part of history is government.
If Jesus founded a kingdom, and then that kingdom conquered and expanded, would that mean that Christianity is spread by the sword, or that state of Christ is spread by the sword?
 
If Islam couldn't spread throughout China through the Mongols I don't see why Christianity would either.

I don't know probably because after Genghis Khan died the empire was broken apart between his descendents? And that the mongols that controlled China didn't convert to Islam? The ones that converted where the Golden Horde and Ilkhanate.The Genghis wasn't even Muslim.
 
Top