The medieval era was much less violent than either the ancient or early modern era, in part due to religious laws. So please for once stop using medieval as an insult and admit Singer shouldn’t have done so.
-
The key thing is the comparative basis. Compared to *now* the Middle Ages were very violent. Compared to the late antique or early modern periods, it was probably less violent overall (with more, but substantially smaller, wars that tended to be less destructive).
I think you can get into an interesting argument as to if that has more to do with restrictions on violence against co-religionists or weaker state capacity, though both seem to play a role. It is striking that when the norms are broken, it tends to be in religious conflict.
-
-
Though, for the sake of caveating my own argument, the Hundreds Years War is the rare instance of a very destructive conflict in the Middle Ages (albeit on the door-step of the early modern) which is not a religious conflict. So they do happen, just less often.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Wasn't the sack of Jerusalem regarded as barbaric even by the standards of the day though?
-
It's not like it was a one off either: Montsegur, Constantinople. I actually didn't even bring up Jerusalem.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.