Where are we now ? and...how did we get here ?

As Churchill once said.. "Never in the history of human conflict, have so many owed so much, to so few".. so it is in our present historical position.

We owe so much also, to the determined and military genious of Charles Martel, which saved the Franks from Muslim domination, and paved the way for his grandson 'Charlemagne' to shape the warring tribes of Saxons, Angles, Lombards, Avars and gave birth to 'proto- Europe'

BATTLE OF TOURS in 732 won by Charles "the Hammer" Martel, though massively outnumbered by the Pagan infidel Muslims, set the stage for the great reformer and nation builder, his grandson ....

CHARLEMAGNE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne for a full treatment of this towering ruler and refomer.

Look at his political, educational, financial and organizational reforms. He might even be called "Father of the Renaissance".

His battles with the Moors of Spain were but a small paragraph in a small chapter in his large book of greatness. Europe (and we) owe so much to this great man, -he deserves far more than this short mention today.

"The Moorish rulers offered their homage to the great king of the Franks in return for military support. Seeing an opportunity to extend Christendom and his own power and believing the Saxons to be a fully conquered nation, he agreed to go to Spain."

Strange twist you make on this Charlemagne who spent most of his life at war with one group or another

Dear Carsten, glad you took the trouble to read the link, well done.

But your singling out the fact of his military exploits at the expense of his many reforms is a little bit needless and pointless.
EVeryone was at war in those days, tribe against tribe all over.
Life was a succession of war and peace as each tribe took it upon itself to unite all the others under 'their' dominion.

Can I recommend a re-evaluation of Charlemagne ? yes.. he had his down side, divorcing some wives for no apparent reason, and the merciless slaughter of 4500 Saxons. A Saint he was not, nor a messiah, but a king, and a worldly one at that. He gave us no 'revelation', but he based a lot of what he did 'on' the revelation of Christ, and the only verse in the new Testament which supports his actions is Romans 13:1-5 -Paul delcares that "All authority is from God" It was Charlemagne who saw it as his calling I presume to establish an authority for the greater good of mankind.

While it is not for me or you to be his judge in the eternal sense, we can still reflect on his historical contribution to the unity and cultural growth of mankind in the European area. Without him the renaissance and enlightenment could not have occurred.

Just as it can be said that Modern Arabia and the spread of Islam could not have occurred without the unifying efforts of Mohammad, the same can be said of Charles Martel and particularly Charlemagne.

Unfortunately, the historical imperitives and goals of these 2 branches of civilization are at odds. Hence is it most important for us, to know from whence we came. and that is the point of my thread.
cheers.

When it comes to twaddle you take the cake boaz.
All this christian nonsense, the world would be a better place without the rot you blather and all your religous cohorts.
OPEN your eyes USA the most religous western country also the most warlike, the most murders, tne most social injustice, the most crime need I go on .
India most relgious eastern country and they don't give a crap about each other.
The middle east more relgious bigots per square inch than you would find anywhere, Jew and Muslim alike.( Knew you would love that)
England ,Spain, Italy are all better places since they gave piety away likewise the rest of Europe.
Have a look at yourself bigoted , narrow minded, aggressive.
If it had of been up to the church there would be no Renaissance, no Enlightment they kept the peasants ignorant so they could have power over them.
Why do you think the Salvos go to pubs? because the pagan drunks are more generous than the miserable "christians".
You are forever bagging muslims, read a bit more history (take your blinkers off)and you will see that they have given the world a lot, don't you realize that Christianity, Islam and Judaisam are all branches of the same rotten tree, you are like little kids fighting among yourselves.
I could write a big book about ungood stuff you freaks have got up to over the centuries, and nonsense in the bible written by people with absolutely no scientific knoweldge. trying to make sense of the events and the world around them, if they were alive today they would say "now that makes sense" and you try to hold this up as wisdom, what a joke, don't you realize how stupid you look.
BAH you make me sick bluddy hypocites.

Alanpoi, I dont feel quite as strongly as you, but you make several good points.

Most of our knowledge about the ancient world would be lost were it not for muslim scholars who had preserved much of the knowledge and several texts. Christian leaders at various times throughout history have ordered the destruction of anything that doesnt fit with their thinking of the way the world should be (including people).

I have no doubt that radical muslims are a threat, but so are radical christians. Both will find some justification within their holy books for their own actions - its all a matter of interpretation anyway.

CG and ALAN... I have to take issue with the view that the 'Church' kept the peasants ignorant.

Thats part of why Charlemagne was so important. The only place serious knowledge resided during the 'dark' ages WAS the monsteries. The Monks didn't run the show, and Charlemagne observed that unless education was made more widespread, the population would degenerate into barbarians. Look at what he actually did. He expanded education and made good use of the resources kept alive by the monks and monasteries. Had they not kept these things alive, the candle would have been snuffed out.

C.G. I disagree that we owe so much to Muslim scholars preserving this and that except that they may have preserved 'others' intellectual property for their own benefit. They, like all branches of mankind surely made original contributions, but I don't see their efforts as more outstanding than those of scholars under Charlemagnes rule. I don't even see the point of mentioning the 'Muslim' bit, pure historical coinidence right? A more appropriate term would be 'Arabic' scholars, rather than 'Muslim' Scholars because the knowledge was not connected to "Islam" but to the particular historical/geographical circumstances of a particular race..the Arabs.

Alan... while I see your passion about being anti religious, and ur welcome to your view (and to stand outside the next Catch the Fire prayer meeting at Festival hall giving out 'The God Delusion' by Dawkins :).... My thread here was not primarily about religion, but history and our historical debt to Charlemagne and his grandfather Charles Martel.

It is the Charlemagne primarily that the enligtenment and renaissance came because of his unparralelled social and educational reforms, not to mention the widespread peace and unity he enforced.(yes..I use the word 'enforced' because all 'peace' is based on the same truth) But his peace was not an 'oppressive and greed based' type..he appears to have felt a genuine and ambitious desire of the well being of the people at heart. After all, with the power he had, he 'could' have become like the pre-revolutionary French aristocracy.

Interesting point.

>>Charlemagne observed that unless education was made more widespread, the population would degenerate into barbarians<<

He was pretty much a lone voice, though. Look what happened when Caxton tried to translate the bible into English.

"...under the 1408 Constitutions of Oxford, it was strictly forbidden to translate the Bible into the native tongue. This ban was vigorously enforced by Cardinal Wolsey and the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More... Tyndale later wrote that the Church authorities banned translation into the mother tongue “to keep the world still in darkness, to the intent they might sit in the consciences of the people, through vain superstition and false doctrine, to satisfy their filthy lusts, their proud ambition, and insatiable covetousness, and to exalt their own honour... above God himself.” (British Library Online Gallery: Landmarks in Printing) http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/landmarks/tyndale.html

Six hundred and something years later. So much for the influence of Charlemagne.

But it was only ever a slender argument, wasn't it?

>>My thread here was not primarily about religion...<<

Yeah, right. Try to be honest with yourself for a change, Boaz. We all know that the only reason you picked this topic was to highlight...

>>...the determined and military genious of Charles Martel, which saved the Franks from Muslim domination... BATTLE OF TOURS in 732 won by Charles "the Hammer" Martel, though massively outnumbered by the Pagan infidel Muslims<<

Notice a theme here?

You may be able to kid yourself, Boaz, that you are providing an innuendo-free history lesson.

But please don't think we are so stupid as to be taken in by it. That's just insulting.

Pericles... in the spirit of many contributions make a good debate, thanx for that one of yours (the early bit about Tyndale etc)..the rest was just regrettable and empty personal abuse.

But I defend myself here. This thread is NOT "primarily" about religion. The decisive battle of Tours had a religious aspect to it, but given the Muslims were slashing/burning/pillaging and raping their way across western France, I see it more as simple survival.

You should have noticed that I have a number of 'pet' themes. One of which is Australian identity. In connection with that, I also promote an awareness of our position in..and connection to, history.

Lack of historical awareness is as dangerous to national identity as apathetic acquiecence.
I'm highlighting our connection to pivotal events, to encourage a sense of 'place' in history.

You are welcome to see it as otherwise, I can't do much about that.
cheers

It wasn't till the Industrial Revolution that education became widespread, and only then because the capialist's needed a literate workforce, 1000 years after Charlemagne.
In the last century the priests in Ireland still forbade the general population from reading the bible.As for monks keeping reading and writing alive, rubbish, they were keeping it to themselves, as they realised knowledge = power. If the population were educated we would have had 1200 years of literature instead of 500.
I rather suspect that Charlemange is a hero of yours because he slaughtered Muslims, who knows if he had lost we might never had the Dark Ages, Europe might have had an enlightened society as under the Moors in Spain.
As for Muslim hordes raping and pillaging, thats what they all did, Christian Muslim Pagans Calathumpians whatever, the spin you put on it Muslims are always the bad guys and the Christians are pure as driven snow, that is a load of old rubbish, and you ought to remember that what you are reading was written by the winners, so you can take what they write with as many grains of salt as you wish and a hefty dose of scepticism, example Germans eating babies during WW1.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

>>This thread is NOT "primarily" about religion. The decisive battle of Tours had a religious aspect to it, but given the Muslims were slashing/burning/pillaging and raping their way across western France, I see it more as simple survival... you should have noticed that I have a number of 'pet' themes. One of which is Australian identity.<<

Boaz, the battle of Tours was a thousand years before Australia was even thought of. What possible connection can it have with events ten centuries later on the opposite side of the world?

History is as history is. The "what if" game - "what if" Hitler had crossed the channel in 1940, "what if" Desdemona had said 'that hankie? it's in the laundry basket' - is always pointless.

So when you suddenly pop up, identifying one particular battle as being significant, how come you are surprised when I make the obvious connection to another of your "pet themes", insulting Islam?

>>the rest was just regrettable and empty personal abuse<<

Regrettable, perhaps. My only excuse is that you try my online patience with your continued snipings at Islam.

But not empty, I can assure you.

If indeed you were as naive and ingenuous in your choice of topic as you claim, then it should alert you to a disturbing facet of your subconscious as it selects material for discussion.

If on the other hand you posted it deliberately, with intent to use it as yet another anti-Islamic stick, then it served its purpose to alert you to the fact that I'm not about to let it pass unremarked.

Thanks to Pericles, Country Gal and alanpoi for injecting some sense into this daft thread - which is nearly as silly as Boazy's "cave sex" fantasy discussion.

Boazy's warped rendering of history is of similar order to his understandings of anthropology and philosophy - which is to say it is at best superficial, sloganistic and hopelessly selective. Fortunately, I don't think too many people take our favourite missionary too seriously outside this forum (which is undoubtedly why we are blessed with so many of his phantasmagorical rants).

CJ... 'ouch' :) again..

Alan... educational 'reforms' is what Charlemagne introduced..I'm just going by Wikipedia mate.. please have a read.

I'm not aware of Charlemagne slaughtering Muslims, it was Charles Martell who fought that decisive battle against much larger odds, and he only 'slaughtered' those who were in the process of attacking him.

As for 'the Christian good guys'... I'm under no illusions as to the 'Christian' qualities or lack thereof re Charlemagne and his grandpa Martell... they were warriors and kings, and I don't hold them up as wonderful examples of Christian character.

I hold them up as pivotal people in our stream of history. People who made crucial differences. The true nature and impact of the Battle of Tours is not declared by me, I'm reporting the assessment of historians.

Did the Monks deliberately deny the populace education? I doubt that, it was not there role to educate the public, thats the governments job right ?

Irish Catholics.. sure.. the Catholic church is not without historical blemish. No argument there.

"Christendom" is not squeaky clean, I've never claimed that,- I've stated the opposite. But we owe our freedom to choose Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism or any 'ism' today to the freedom purchased by Martel and the unity provided by Charlemagne and subsequent developments. Had Martel lost the battle of Tours, that choice would simply not exist, as it does not exist today in Saudi Arabia.
How many 'churches' are there in Saudi Arabia? thats right..ZERO.

We've had some dark times and periods since the day of Tours, but nothing compared to the darkness of never being able to choose which 'ism' to follow which would have resulted if he'd lost that battle.

Sadly, where Paul reminds the Galatians

Gal5:13 "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature"

We as a society have chosen to indulge, but at least we have that choice.