Jump to content

Anyone else really hate the Militant Faith?


Recommended Posts

The Dark Ages and Inquisition, while no fun for Europe, didnt do squat to humanity as a whole.

ok.

all the Christians did was repress/execute almost every forward thinking scientist in Europe during that time.

if you spoke about anything that contradicted Bible, you were done.

it is common theory, not just mine, that humanity as a whole would not have survived those years if not for the advancements (medical/scientific) made in the Middle East, where free thinking ideas were more permissible, when the Christians were telling everyone they needed to pay, literally, for their sins and that Kings were hand picked by God.

200 million people (~60% of European Population) died as a result of the filth and lack of sanitary practices, so yes, the Dark Ages were terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who were these suppressed/executed scientists? Or biblical literalists? The medieval church was big on interpretation of the bible and lively debate was common on most issues continually.

Read modern historians on medieval science. You might get a surprise. David Lindberg is the standard work on the subject.

The Black Death was not caused by bad hygiene. And as the sources show us, medieval hygiene was hardly the parody you present.

I really despair sometimes. People seem stuck in the 18th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the story because it reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition/Dark Ages.

A period that almost destroyed humanity.

Only this time, we are kind of forced to "cheer" for the extremist terrorists.

the spanish inquisition was some 500 years after the end of the "dark ages"

and it is pretty overblown as far as most terrible things go.

edit

ok.

all the Christians did was repress/execute almost every forward thinking scientist in Europe during that time.

if you spoke about anything that contradicted Bible, you were done.

it is common theory, not just mine, that humanity as a whole would not have survived those years if not for the advancements (medical/scientific) made in the Middle East, where free thinking ideas were more permissible, when the Christians were telling everyone they needed to pay, literally, for their sins and that Kings were hand picked by God.

200 million people (~60% of European Population) died as a result of the filth and lack of sanitary practices, so yes, the Dark Ages were terrible.

pretty much none of this is true. for one, the forward thinking scientists of the time, were mostly christian monks. at least in europe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok.

all the Christians did was repress/execute almost every forward thinking scientist in Europe during that time.

if you spoke about anything that contradicted Bible, you were done.

it is common theory, not just mine, that humanity as a whole would not have survived those years if not for the advancements (medical/scientific) made in the Middle East, where free thinking ideas were more permissible, when the Christians were telling everyone they needed to pay, literally, for their sins and that Kings were hand picked by God.

200 million people (~60% of European Population) died as a result of the filth and lack of sanitary practices, so yes, the Dark Ages were terrible.

Because humanity IS European, right? That is just the first flaw of your point of view. Second, they didn't execute or repressed thinking foward people, they actually encouraged their monks to study. While they were no paragon of virtue, and indeed went after people with heretic thinking, they were far more willing to gather knowledge and incorporate it into their own dogma.

Tell me how humanity would have died out even if 90% of European population died. While Europeans indeed were responsible for a great deal of technological advancement, that doesn't means they were the only ones with the the potentiality to do. How do you know if in 300 years the Japanese or Chinese or Lybians or Guarani or Inuit or Incas would not evolve technologically to the level of Europeans?

Also, I think you are reading the wrong books, with non factual information. To be honest, the view of European Medieval Era as deep shit was just a casual assumption of Modern thinkers and philosophers who were taking Greek, Roman and other classical works as magnum opera of mankind, and dismayed cause similar was not produced during the medieval ages.

Backing to the Faith Militant. No, I don't really hate them. I am not fond of Church Corps or Church, Inc but they actually add flavor to the history. We saw nobles fighting petty quarrels, at cost of peasant lives, so it is nice to see they actually have a mind, united by whatever reason.

What is the difference between serfdom and slavery? Some would say that in slavery a man is has his mind free, while a serf is caged by the illusion of liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We saw nobles fighting petty quarrels, at cost of peasant lives, so it is nice to see they actually have a mind, united by whatever reason.

It always kind of bothers me how casually many readers seem to have the same kind of attitude to the commoners that the protagonists - mostly nobles - have. So this is also kind of at the heart of my argument with the original post. Nobody cares one fig for the smallfolk- they are almost a resource. Yet the High Sparrow seems to have their well-being in mind. So far...

What is the difference between serfdom and slavery? Some would say that in slavery a man is has his mind free, while a serf is caged by the illusion of liberty.

It is a pretty clear legal definition in medieval times. A slave is property. As any property, he can be bought and sold. His children belong to his owner. He cannot be killed outright (although this was the case in early classical slavery) but still lives under constraints the serf does not. He cannot own property (although there were exceptions). He can be beaten at his owner's discretion. He has very few rights in court and cannot bear cases to court.

A serf is tied to the land under certain obligations - the land belongs to the seigneur, and a portion of his harvest is taxed. He can not abandon his land without the seigneur's consent, nor can the children that inherits his land. The lord cannot sell him - he can give away or sell the land and the serf with it, although the new lord cannot evict the serf from his livelihood. He can own property. He keeps and can sell his surplus. If he accumulates enough surplus, he can buy his land and turn into a freeholder. However, this makes little economic sense unless he has a very reliable surplus as the lord is responsible for his upkeep if disaster strikes. He can perform military duties - indeed, the lower orders of german chivalry originated from unfree military serfs.

So we're talking about a practical and legal difference between a serf and a slave, not merely an illusion of liberty. This, of course, is in regards to the archetypical medieval european serf. Other societies had practices we often term serfdom although it might be closer to a slavery status or farther from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always kind of bothers me how casually many readers seem to have the same kind of attitude to the commoners that the protagonists - mostly nobles - have. So this is also kind of at the heart of my argument with the original post. Nobody cares one fig for the smallfolk- they are almost a resource. Yet the High Sparrow seems to have their well-being in mind. So far...

It is a pretty clear legal definition in medieval times. A slave is property. As any property, he can be bought and sold. His children belong to his owner. He cannot be killed outright (although this was the case in early classical slavery) but still lives under constraints the serf does not. He cannot own property (although there were exceptions). He can be beaten at his owner's discretion. He has very few rights in court and cannot bear cases to court.

A serf is tied to the land under certain obligations - the land belongs to the seigneur, and a portion of his harvest is taxed. He can not abandon his land without the seigneur's consent, nor can the children that inherits his land. The lord cannot sell him - he can give away or sell the land and the serf with it, although the new lord cannot evict the serf from his livelihood. He can own property. He keeps and can sell his surplus. If he accumulates enough surplus, he can buy his land and turn into a freeholder. However, this makes little economic sense unless he has a very reliable surplus as the lord is responsible for his upkeep if disaster strikes. He can perform military duties - indeed, the lower orders of german chivalry originated from unfree military serfs.

So we're talking about a practical and legal difference between a serf and a slave, not merely an illusion of liberty. This, of course, is in regards to the archetypical medieval european serf. Other societies had practices we often term serfdom although it might be closer to a slavery status or farther from it.

I believe I was talking something more poetical than that. Thanks (?) anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly has the High Sparrow done that warrant your dread so far?

Then you should know the riot was a big deal.

The last time there was a major faith-secular conflict in Westeros, they got seven years of war and massive unrest everywhere - and a lot of the nobility sided with the Faith. That was with a Targaryen king with dragons for support. Somehow I think even The Lord Oaf of Highgarden would think twice about that.

The last time, the High Septon and most of the guys were not located in one place (KL) though we aren't sure of the disposition of forces and lots of nobles were probably helping them because they hated the King as well. Every noble should recognize the danger this precedent sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always kind of bothers me how casually many readers seem to have the same kind of attitude to the commoners that the protagonists - mostly nobles - have. So this is also kind of at the heart of my argument with the original post. Nobody cares one fig for the smallfolk- they are almost a resource. Yet the High Sparrow seems to have their well-being in mind. So far...

I agree but also the BwB at least until the hanging Frey's obsession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time, the High Septon and most of the guys were not located in one place (KL) though we aren't sure of the disposition of forces and lots of nobles were probably helping them because they hated the King as well. Every noble should recognize the danger this precedent sets.

The nobles, as is evident from the many nobles the Warrior's Sons attract, are hardly of one mind on this. And a king or noble that tries to kill off the High Sparrow and the Swords & Stars in King's Landing will probably experience the same problem Maegor the Cruel did when he did exactly that - he burnt down the main sept in King's Landing and killed the Sword leadership in judicial combat. He got most of the church leadership and a few years later it seems he also assasinated the High Septon. So a new one was elected and the church dug in.

You view this as some sort of church vs state conflict. The truth it that it is not. The High Sparrow's rhetoric is directed toward the nobility that make the people suffer during their wars, not against the noble class as such. This causes conflict with the noble houses they confront - so far the Lannisters and Tyrells - but the others might just as easily side with the faith. The civil wars might be winding down, but as we know, there are many nobles that would support a Faith in open conflict with the (now soon to be defunct) Lannister-Tyrell alliance rather than indiscriminately kill members of the organization that they, after all, view as their spiritual leadership. Those that have no moral qualms could just as easily side with the Faith for practical reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nobles, as is evident from the many nobles the Warrior's Sons attract, are hardly of one mind on this. And a king or noble that tries to kill off the High Sparrow and the Swords & Stars in King's Landing will probably experience the same problem Maegor the Cruel did when he did exactly that - he burnt down the main sept in King's Landing and killed the Sword leadership in judicial combat. He got most of the church leadership and a few years later it seems he also assasinated the High Septon. So a new one was elected and the church dug in.

You view this as some sort of church vs state conflict. The truth it that it is not. The High Sparrow's rhetoric is directed toward the nobility that make the people suffer during their wars, not against the noble class as such. This causes conflict with the noble houses they confront - so far the Lannisters and Tyrells - but the others might just as easily side with the faith. The civil wars might be winding down, but as we know, there are many nobles that would support a Faith in open conflict with the (now soon to be defunct) Lannister-Tyrell alliance rather than indiscriminately kill members of the organization that they, after all, view as their spiritual leadership. Those that have no moral qualms could just as easily side with the Faith for practical reasons.

Show me a precedent where a religious movement seized control of the justice system and that worked for the benefit of anyone outside the church. I am not sure what kind of freedoms existed in areas of the HRE governed by the Livonian or Teutonic Orders but there existence was pretty war fueled so I can't imagine it was fantastic.

So there may be nobles deluded into thinking this will be fantastic, but look at what Cersei went through for, supposedly, sleeping with some guys after Robert died. Now, her trial by combat for killing the High Septon is coming up, the Walk was because she slept around. Oh, yay. Now, I hate Cersei as much as the next guy, but that's troublesome no matter how you look at it.

Meanwhile have we seen what all the sparrows around town are doing regarding brothels and whatnot? I don't have the book with me, but I can imagine that it won't be tolerated, and thus the restrictions on the common folk will begin as soon as he establishes his position at the top of the food chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a precedent where a religious movement seized control of the justice system and that worked for the benefit of anyone outside the church. I am not sure what kind of freedoms existed in areas of the HRE governed by the Livonian or Teutonic Orders but there existence was pretty war fueled so I can't imagine it was fantastic.

So there may be nobles deluded into thinking this will be fantastic, but look at what Cersei went through for, supposedly, sleeping with some guys after Robert died. Now, her trial by combat for killing the High Septon is coming up, the Walk was because she slept around. Oh, yay. Now, I hate Cersei as much as the next guy, but that's troublesome no matter how you look at it.

Meanwhile have we seen what all the sparrows around town are doing regarding brothels and whatnot? I don't have the book with me, but I can imagine that it won't be tolerated, and thus the restrictions on the common folk will begin as soon as he establishes his position at the top of the food chain.

We are taking about a work of fantasy and not reality. Second show me a precedent when any group seized control of a justice system that benefited anyone really outside the group. The point about the Faith Miliant is that they existed for a long time in Westeros. The only reason they stopped is that the Targs promised to always defend the Faith.

When the rulers of the kingdom are murdering septons and not protecting the people is it odd to you that people would rebel against that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate them. I don't cheer for them either. The High Sparrow seems to be a truly devout man concerned with the well being of people, especially the small folk. What has the faith done so far that wasn't prompted by Cersei? She was the one stupid enough to deal with them. She was also stupid enough to fabricate evidence against Marjaery that backfired onto her. The Faith did not seek to persecute them, but did so when it was served to them on a platter.

So what have the Faith done so far in the books that is so horrible? I don't like the implications this will have for the long term, but right now they don't seem to be abusing the power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate them. I don't cheer for them either. The High Sparrow seems to be a truly devout man concerned with the well being of people, especially the small folk. What has the faith done so far that wasn't prompted by Cersei? She was the one stupid enough to deal with them. She was also stupid enough to fabricate evidence against Marjaery that backfired onto her. The Faith did not seek to persecute them, but did so when it was served to them on a platter.

So what have the Faith done so far in the books that is so horrible? I don't like the implications this will have for the long term, but right now they don't seem to be abusing the power.

:agree:

No offense to the people on this forum but I get the sense of a lot of people don't like religion in real life and are projecting it onto the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree spear of dorne it appears that many flat out don't like or trust religious institutions of any stripe and it's bleeding into their reaction to the faith of the seven. There are many parallels between what has occurred in the books and what has happened historically. As times become more difficult people turn more to their faith looking for answers and hope. This is a common human response to the atrocities that war brought to the Seven Kingdoms. With this rise in religious devotion the Faith of the Seven grows stronger and with the restoration of the Faith Militant by Cersei they now have the power to enforce their scripture. something that they severely lacked in regards to the nobility.



The most current example in our world would be the rise of militant Islam in the face of the Arab Spring, and the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I'll state outright the parellels end very quickly and this is no place to discuss such politics but I simply use it as a real world example to how people react when times become difficult.



The Faith Militant defend the faith and the small folk from the abuses of the nobility an idea which is foreign in our world because religion is treated differently today than it was in our past.



Also, The Medieval era was not backwards. Technology was lost, yes. Democracy disappeared, true. However, there were still many highly educated people around Western Europe. The Carolingian Renaissance should be a good historical example. However, shortly after that the Viking Era began which forced many people to focus much more on military protection which led to the rise of the Medieval Kingdoms of Europe.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end it's not really about religion, it's about people. The High Sparrow is a misogynist, who happens to have a lot of power, and yes, at this particular time he is defending the small folk. Can someone clear up for me how Cersei's walk helped that? Gave the common folk something to cheer at and throw some rotten food at? Umm, yay?



We are looking at history (i.e. the Teutonic Order), because that's what we have to do for context. Until George writes it we are speculating, and that requires context.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democracy disappeared a long way before the middle ages. Mostly because there was none in our modern sense of the word. The democratic greek city-states excluded ninety percent of their population from voting and the roman republic was, to a large extent, an aristocratic republic and later a more plutocratic one, before it turned back into good old despotism. The popular assemblies never died out entirely in smaller forms (many early and high medieval kingdoms had a system where the free populace "elected" their king even if the average peasant had as much influence on that as an average roman pleb had on who became a senator) and our modern democratic traditions are a hybrid of new ideas that cherry-picked from an idealized version of roman republicanism and early modern, medieval and pre-medieval popular assemblies.





Show me a precedent where a religious movement seized control of the justice system and that worked for the benefit of anyone outside the church. I am not sure what kind of freedoms existed in areas of the HRE governed by the Livonian or Teutonic Orders but there existence was pretty war fueled so I can't imagine it was fantastic.



So there may be nobles deluded into thinking this will be fantastic, but look at what Cersei went through for, supposedly, sleeping with some guys after Robert died. Now, her trial by combat for killing the High Septon is coming up, the Walk was because she slept around. Oh, yay. Now, I hate Cersei as much as the next guy, but that's troublesome no matter how you look at it.



Meanwhile have we seen what all the sparrows around town are doing regarding brothels and whatnot? I don't have the book with me, but I can imagine that it won't be tolerated, and thus the restrictions on the common folk will begin as soon as he establishes his position at the top of the food chain.





If you lived under canon law in the middle ages, you lived under a legal system that was far more lenient in its punishments than secular law, and far more concerned with investigating your case to find out the truth of the matter.. Church courts, with their inquisitorial system, are the basis of the court system of several countries today, with the best examples being italy and france. My knowledge of the judicial system of the baltic order states isn't detailed, but they were all independent entitiies under canon law in regards to the main church organization and run as military states in a very different manner than the church states of the HRE and Italy. When the Teutonic Order secularized itself with the advent of protestantism, the "new" secular rulers greatly increased their hold on the free and enserfed peasantry, which resulted in several revolts. So in general, being under canon law was a pretty sweet deal.



So far, little mention has been made in the book as regards to the sparrows over morality as I recall it. Our POVs are nobles, and mainly concerned with the effect the High Sparrow has on them.



As I mentioned earlier, in a patriarchal society where inheritance is passed to the oldest son, there is a LOT of concern over adultery. Tywin Lannister sent his father's mistress on a far more harsh version of the Penance Walk than the Faith did to Cercei. So blame Westeros for that one, not the Faith.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, in a patriarchal society where inheritance is passed to the oldest son, there is a LOT of concern over adultery. Tywin Lannister sent his father's mistress on a far more harsh version of the Penance Walk than the Faith did to Cercei. So blame Westeros for that one, not the Faith.

I did say in the end that my problems with the faith in this case largely stem from the fact the HS is a misogynist and so was Tywin to be fair, so ya, it's a human problem rather than a faith based problem in this case. The HS Cersei had killed was probably a decent guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...