I think what you are saying is mostly true; however, people like Charlemagne and Cortez exist in a Christianity that was reimagined by Germanic warrior aristocrats after the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, something you also saw earlier with Constantine, an Illyrian warrior aristocrat.
Charlemagne's ancestors specifically (and famously) converted to Catholic, Chalcedonian Christianity, not one of the sects morphed to the convenience of the Germanic conquerors. They built an enduring connection to the Roman Church and built a church (and empire) at home under the influence and with the assistance of that Church. The Franks were very much orthodox Christians by the time of Charlemagne, unlike their Arian cousins in North Africa and Spain (at least early on, in the latter case).
While a form of Christianity (hard to call it fully formed, though, tbh) did spring up in Charlemagne's time catering to German warrior aristocrats (and their peasant foot soldiers -- Saxon society was complicated, as was Saxon warfighting), it did so in the Saxon lands, aimed at converted the Saxons, not the Franks, who had been Catholic Christians for centuries and centuries by this point.
They built an enduring connection to the Roman Church and built a church (and empire) at home under the influence and with the assistance of that Church.
something you also saw earlier with Constantine, an Illyrian warrior aristocrat.
Chalcedonian Christianity is already a Christianity controlled and morphed by domineering Indo-European warrior aristocrats. The Arian Goths you so despise often fought for Rome under the command of Illyrian commanders.
Arianism wasn't something created by the Goths or Vandals, nor something adopted for any reason other than it was the first Christian faith brought to them. It isn't actually anymore barbaric than regular Christianity, I've seen that claim here a few times and it always confuses me.
My point is that after the Germans took control of the Western world they changed the church from the inside, there wasn't any sudden break in theology, just a change in emphasis.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Charlemagne's ancestors specifically (and famously) converted to Catholic, Chalcedonian Christianity, not one of the sects morphed to the convenience of the Germanic conquerors. They built an enduring connection to the Roman Church and built a church (and empire) at home under the influence and with the assistance of that Church. The Franks were very much orthodox Christians by the time of Charlemagne, unlike their Arian cousins in North Africa and Spain (at least early on, in the latter case).
While a form of Christianity (hard to call it fully formed, though, tbh) did spring up in Charlemagne's time catering to German warrior aristocrats (and their peasant foot soldiers -- Saxon society was complicated, as was Saxon warfighting), it did so in the Saxon lands, aimed at converted the Saxons, not the Franks, who had been Catholic Christians for centuries and centuries by this point.
Chalcedonian Christianity is already a Christianity controlled and morphed by domineering Indo-European warrior aristocrats. The Arian Goths you so despise often fought for Rome under the command of Illyrian commanders.
Arianism wasn't something created by the Goths or Vandals, nor something adopted for any reason other than it was the first Christian faith brought to them. It isn't actually anymore barbaric than regular Christianity, I've seen that claim here a few times and it always confuses me.
My point is that after the Germans took control of the Western world they changed the church from the inside, there wasn't any sudden break in theology, just a change in emphasis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link