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.