How Different Would Medieval Europe Be If The Church Had No Power?

[Exarch]

Throughout the middle ages, european politics has involved the church on some level or other..
but,
what if the church had no say in politics; that it was solely the kings and nobles who had all the power and the sway in the political arena.
imagine it, no fear of the political repurcussions of excommunication, no investiture controversy ie, HRE would be pretty powerful;...and no crusades either, perhaps constantinople/byzantium might still be standing?

Discuss

[Manoflooks]

How different would it be? Very.

It probably would have resulted in a whole different system, as it was religous faith that kept the oaths, and so the vassalage, together. The oaths would have been broken a lot, which would have resulted in a lot of chaos. I mean, look at the Battle of Hastings. Largely because of a broken oath. Not totally, though, I admit.

But thats more without christianity in general.

With the church just having no power...thats a tough question. Wars would have been way more common, which is saying a lot, without the threat of excomm. Same with the kings and how they rule:look at what the church did to henry(it was henry with 6 wives, right?). That sort of thing would have happened less, but more too, because the church, while, in my opinoin, was a huge cause of chaos and corruption, it did help. It helped to stabilize things, to have something at least as powerful as the king around to keep him(or her) in check.

[roy34543]

Not much. Probably a few less people killed here or there but generally the same, Most of europes buisness went about with a religous symolism but practical neccesity as it were.

[Oklop]

Less people burned at the stake.

Perhaps more advancement in science, especially astronomy.

[John I Tzimisces]

Less people burned at the stake.

Perhaps more advancement in science, especially astronomy.

Or perhaps none at all, considering the church was almost wholly responsible for the survival of certain ancient texts that would have otherwise been lost...

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Perhaps more advancement in science, especially astronomy.

No - there would be less advancement in science, especially in astronomy, because all the advancement in that area in the Middle Ages was done by churchmen. No churchmen going to Spain to seek out and bring back Ptolemy's Almagest means European astronomy would have lagged behind the rest of the world for hundreds of years. And that's just one example.

No guys, I meant not interfering with Galileo's work, burning Giordano Bruno and the like.

What have Bruno and Galileo got to do with the Medieval Church? Neither lived in the Medieval period - Galileo was a contemporary of Descartes FFS! Medieval? Hardly. Galileo was persecuted for disagreement with other scientists as much for his clash with the Church (and he had many churchmen on his side as well). As for Bruno, he was executed for religious heresies such as denying the divinity of Jesus, not for his science. That's a myth.

Not that either of them were anything do with the Medieval Period anyway.

And yes the church saved a lot of ancient texts but they were not exactly made publicly available now were they?

Yes, they were. Many of them became key texts in the universities and others circulated among the increasing numbers of lay people who were literate. Can you give me an example of the Church preserving a text but somehow keeping it out of the hands of lay people?

[Odovacar]

More violence, much less culture, if any..except oral heroic songs.
It's funny when someone say church was the cause of corruption in an age when feudal ties connected humans, and states in modern sense didnt even exist

[Oklop]

No guys, I meant not interfering with Galileo's work, burning Giordano Bruno and the like.

And yes the church saved a lot of ancient texts but they were not exactly made publicly available now were they?

[gaius valerius]

Odo makes a good point, the church was a valable source of power, both in its own right (a reform papacy claiming universal overlordship) as in the hands of others (monasteries as a source of power for secular lords, bishops as a source of power for the HREmperor). That's also the main problem of the OP: it states that the church was solely a bastion of power in its own right, yet totally ignores the fact that it was a very important tool in the powerplay of secular lords.

And yes the church saved a lot of ancient texts but they were not exactly made publicly available now were they?

By which you mean the invading Germanic tribes would have done a better job preserving them?

[Exarch]

Odo makes a good point, the church was a valable source of power, both in its own right (a reform papacy claiming universal overlordship) as in the hands of others (monasteries as a source of power for secular lords, bishops as a source of power for the HREmperor). That's also the main problem of the OP: it states that the church was solely a bastion of power in its own right, yet totally ignores the fact that it was a very important tool in the powerplay of secular lords.
?

well of course religion was a source of control over the serfs, i was wondering how different european society and culture would be if the church was not allowed arms and political power;
sp, i hazard a guess lithuania would still be pagan, since no teutonic order, no northern crusades, or any crusades for that matter.
in fact much of indigeneous european religions would still be around, and would thusly impact on the culture and development of said peoples

[hellheaven1987]

May be, but someone would still invade Lithuana since religious reason was more an excuse for that case.

[Randarkmaan]

I think Medieval Europe would be impossible to imagine without the church/religion having no power over people. But I think what you are thinking of is what if the church did not have independent power?

Actually I think it would not have been very good if this were true, secular rulers would have little limits on their power, if they became powerful enough they could do as they wish, form religion as they wanted to and they would not need to be approved by the church in order to rule.
I don't want to go on for long (In fact I won't make it long at all), but I've often thought that had it not been for the Catholic church being largely independent from the rulers of Medieval Europe, then I think we might not actually have had a separation of state and religion today (or at least not to the same extent as today). The countries were the rulers always had full control over religious life and never had a religious authority (on earth) over them usually were autocratic and despotic empires (Byzantium, Russia several , most or all of the Muslim states) and stayed that way. Though Europe eventually also entered a period with Absolute/Despotic monarchies, I think the that the great independent power of the Medieval Church (ironically) was essential for the development of the separation of church and state and later secularism in Western Europe.

[gaius valerius]

well of course religion was a source of control over the serfs, i was wondering how different european society and culture would be if the church was not allowed arms and political power;
sp, i hazard a guess lithuania would still be pagan, since no teutonic order, no northern crusades, or any crusades for that matter.
in fact much of indigeneous european religions would still be around, and would thusly impact on the culture and development of said peoples

It was more than merely a control over the serfs, as I said, it was the vital element of many social relationships, not just over serfs, but also over lords of all types, furthermore they were - untill the 12th century - the vital elements in the bureaucracy of proto-states.

And if they didn't invade countries for religions sake they'd find another reason. Furthermore you've totally lost me with your reasoning: what exactly do you mean with if the church had no power? Why would that imply that much of Europe's indigenuous religions would still be around? This in no way implies that secular sovereigns like Charlemagne wouldn't expand into the lands of the Saxons and convert the local populace. I don't see what the ""power"" of the church has to do with that. I doubt Europe would be a more pluralistic place cause your reasoning seems to imply that only the church as an institute was the driving force behind all these evolutions. That, I argue, is simply wrong.

[Odovacar]

No guys, I meant not interfering with Galileo's work, burning Giordano Bruno and the like.

While Galileo was right his argumentation according to contemporary standards was not. More like it was very problematic.
You can read the case in Feyerabend's Against method.

[Stalins Ghost]

It's impossible to say. The church was responsible for the survival of Roman/Greek culture in the west, so that would take away from a major point of judicial/social development. It'd take away from the concept of the God-given right of kingship as another aspect. There's a lot of things that would be different, and the only thing it's possible to comment on is which things required the church to facilitate their development. It's no use trying to say what would have taken its place.

[IronBlood]

perhaps constantinople/byzantium might still be standing?

No, I think that not since the Crusades started out as military campaigns to restore the Levant and other territories back to the Byzantine Empire from the Seluq and Rum Turks. Without the military support from the Crusaders the Empire might have been absorbed a bit sooner than 1453.

----

I would asume the political scene would be a bit more chaotic without church power, as in that day a blessing from the pope would strengthen a King's legitimate claim in ruling. Maybe without we might have seen more dynasties in various countries and succession as problematic.

Without the Pope's influence the Great Architectural treasures of the Vatican City and other works of art may have not been commissioned. No Sistine Chapel or rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica for that matter.

The Church might not have the power to establish the Inquisition to weed out heresies effectively, or even stop their growth at all. The Cather heresy in Southern France and the Hussites in Bohemia would still exist.

Also monasteries would be under the control of the Kings instead of the Church possible affecting their cultural output and research.

[Exarch]

No, I think that not since the Crusades started out as military campaigns to restore the Levant and other territories back to the Byzantine Empire from the Seluq and Rum Turks. Without the military support from the Crusaders the Empire might have been absorbed a bit sooner than 1453.

----

I would amuse the political seen would be a bit more chaotic without church power, as in that day a blessing from the pope would strengthen a King's legitimate claim in ruling. Maybe without we might have seen more dynasties in various countries and succession as problematic.

Without the Pope's influence the Great Architectural treasures of the Vatican City and other works of art may have not been commissioned. No Sistine Chapel or rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica for that matter.

The Church might not have the power to establish the Inquisition or weed out heresies effectively or even at all. The Cather heresy in Southern France and the Hussites in Bohemia would still exist.

Also monasteries would be under the control of the Kings instead of the Church possible affecting their cultural output and research.

interesting point
the cathars would've been a significant ethical force methinks

[Strattios]

Very difficult to say. While the church did slow many scientific advances, these were mostly at the end of the Middle Ages. The church was very positive in that it provided a large international base of knowledge from pre dark age technology. Plus, many militaristic branches helped economies. Europe probably would have been worse off as for the most part it was the church that kept technology up. If the crusades hadn't been launched at the Muslim nations, much technology would not have been brought back to Europe.

[D.B. Cooper]

First and foremost, no Crusades.

There probably wouldn't be any medieval universities, therefore philosophical advances would take much longer than usual. Critics of the Christian faith (namely Bernard of Clairveaux) might have a harder time making their views heard against a largely Christian population. Good thing or bad thing?

Bear in mind that although your model of the Church has no say in politics, a primarily Christian Europe would consider it a travesty that the lands of the Church had fallen into the hands of heretics (Muslims).

The list goes on and on...

[gaius valerius]

The Church might not have the power to establish the Inquisition to weed out heresies effectively, or even stop their growth at all. The Cather heresy in Southern France and the Hussites in Bohemia would still exist.

Also monasteries would be under the control of the Kings instead of the Church possible affecting their cultural output and research.

Right... but that would assume that only the church would install something as an inquisition... or that only the church would persecute other faiths... I guess not. And a lot of monasteries were under secular control (mostly through maffia-like practices).