Religious freedom?

[Vellos]

Fleugs,

Broadly true but, as Haerthorne noted, not entirely.

Interfaith marriage (certainly a bit more than tolerance) was reasonably common in liminal areas such as southern Italy, northern Africa, Iberia, the Byzantine states. Incidents and isolated areas of religious freedom are to be expected in medieval society: the problem is when they are normal.

[Haerthorne]

If you're going to go and say "religious freedom did not exist back then" it leads onto the question, "does true religious freedom exist today, or is it just varying degrees of tolerance?". Perhaps the title is a poor one, but whilst we must keep away from simply imposing modern conceptions on medieval ones, it is vital to recognise that neither now nor then were these things truly set in stone.

... and whether you view humans as intrinsically moral creatures or creatures who use morality because it is beneficial to do so, the result is often the same (we're all bound tightly by social norms after all).

[Gloria]

Well, I apologize for using the term "religious freedom" to address a concept that I am familiar with.  The concept was used to ask a question in a forum where most people were born after 1960.  It was, therefore, not used in a medieval setting.

But I can rephrase my questions. 
How is a noble from the Battlemaster world expected to react if his or her liege is of a different religion? 
Would a region lord offer an oath to a noble of a different religion?  Should such noble accept it?


The BM World is different because no religion existing in real life is allowed there.  And a medieval setting is impossible to replicate once you eliminate Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

[egamma]

Well, I apologize for using the term "religious freedom" to address a concept that I am familiar with.  The concept was used to ask a question in a forum where most people were born after 1960.  It was, therefore, not used in a medieval setting.

But I can rephrase my questions. 
How is a noble from the Battlemaster world expected to react if his or her liege is of a different religion? 
Would a region lord offer an oath to a noble of a different religion?  Should such noble accept it?


The BM World is different because no religion existing in real life is allowed there.  And a medieval setting is impossible to replicate once you eliminate Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Then ask like this:
How would a Christian knight react if his liege were a Jew?
Would a Muslim lord offer an oath to a Jewish knight?

I doubt such scenarios would exist.

[Chenier]

Then ask like this:
How would a Christian knight react if his liege were a Jew?
Would a Muslim lord offer an oath to a Jewish knight?

I doubt such scenarios would exist.

I very much believe they did. Though they were exception, and not the rule.

From my understanding, in many cases the monarchs or a small elite of the nobles would convert to christianity, but their subjects did not follow for quite some time. And then sometimes the next rulers were not of that faith, but everyone under them remained the same. This occurred on peripheral regions of a faith's spread, where it mixed with others.

[J-Duds]

Well, I can think of 1 historical example:  Rodrigo Diaz "El Cid" (1050-ish?).  Long story short, you have a christian knight that chose to serve a muslim (who treated him as an equal) and in turn accepted both christian and muslim vassals.  I agree that you probably won't find a muslim knight serving in the papal states.  But in places like the Iberian peninsula, where no one religion had complete hold for very long, you'll find such instances of tolerance/acceptance.

As far as jewish nobles in particular, I can't think of any.  I always assumed that since they were pretty much the go-to scapegoat for natural disasters and the like that declaring yourself to be one was like painting a giant target on yourself.  Plus there were the laws against letting them own land or have positions of legal authority. 

[vonGenf]

As far as jewish nobles in particular, I can't think of any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazaria#Conversion_of_the_royalty_and_aristocracy_to_Judaism

I always assumed that since they were pretty much the go-to scapegoat for natural disasters and the like that declaring yourself to be one was like painting a giant target on yourself.

Well, that's not a bad description, but it still happened!

[egamma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

Jews were basically latecomers to Europe. The lord was there, and the peasants were there. When the Jews moved in, they were freemen, but they couldn't get anyone to sell land to them--so they didn't 'fit' into the feudal society. So Jews moved into cities and towns and became artisans, bankers, etc--whatever didn't require land.

This is a little simplistic, of course.

[Vellos]

Then ask like this:
How would a Christian knight react if his liege were a Jew?
Would a Muslim lord offer an oath to a Jewish knight?

I doubt such scenarios would exist.

I am quite confident they did exist. Maybe not Christian/Jew. But certainly Catholic/Orthodox, or Catholic/Arian, or Christian/Pagan, or Christian/Muslim. They were not the usual practice, of course. But they did exist.

[Geronus]

The term 'religious freedom' in our current society implies a society that grants its citizens the right to follow any religion of their choosing or none at all, with formal, legal protections associated with this right.

Obviously this concept is fundamentally alien to a medieval European society. Religious tolerance is a much better term, but you have to remember that most medieval European societies were both ethnically and culturally homogenous. Uniformity of religious belief and worship were heavily reinforced by the weight of monolithic national cultures up until the arrival of the Reformation, but that came after the Medieval era and occurred during the early Renaissance.

During the Middle Ages, exposure to other beliefs and ways of doing things was extremely limited outside of major international trading centers for most Europeans. The comparatively cosmopolitan Muslim and Eastern Orthodox societies around the edges of the Mediterranean (including pre-Reconquista Spain and the Byzantine Empire) were very different in character and should not be used as examples to assert that religious diversity was normal. In the vast majority of medieval Europe, it was not.

[Vellos]

The term 'religious freedom' in our current society implies a society that grants its citizens the right to follow any religion of their choosing or none at all, with formal, legal protections associated with this right.

Obviously this concept is fundamentally alien to a medieval European society. Religious tolerance is a much better term, but you have to remember that most medieval European societies were both ethnically and culturally homogenous. Uniformity of religious belief and worship were heavily reinforced by the weight of monolithic national cultures up until the arrival of the Reformation, but that came after the Medieval era and occurred during the early Renaissance.

During the Middle Ages, exposure to other beliefs and ways of doing things was extremely limited outside of major international trading centers for most Europeans. The comparatively cosmopolitan Muslim and Eastern Orthodox societies around the edges of the Mediterranean (including pre-Reconquista Spain and the Byzantine Empire) were very different in character and should not be used as examples to assert that religious diversity was normal. In the vast majority of medieval Europe, it was not.

True. Not every realm should be like those exceptional cases. But some certainly could be, and probably more places fit those exceptions in BM than in real medieval Europe.

One factual critique I'd make is your reference to "monolithic national cultures." That just ain't so. A person from southern France might not even share a real common tongue with a Parisian. Latin was universal for the highly educated. Rather, there were homogenous local cultures united by a monolithic Catholic (and, by extension, European) culture. The point about homogeneity is still valid, though.

[Chenier]

True. Not every realm should be like those exceptional cases. But some certainly could be, and probably more places fit those exceptions in BM than in real medieval Europe.

One factual critique I'd make is your reference to "monolithic national cultures." That just ain't so. A person from southern France might not even share a real common tongue with a Parisian. Latin was universal for the highly educated. Rather, there were homogenous local cultures united by a monolithic Catholic (and, by extension, European) culture. The point about homogeneity is still valid, though.

Except that in BM, you have a ton of religions bordering each other everywhere. So since "border regions" mixed faiths a lot (relatively) in the real world, and that almost all realms in BM share a border with a realm of another faith, it's hardly surprising that people are so often soft on the issue. Other than Sanguis Astroism, I don't think any one religion has ever gained a significant contiguous spread so that any realm would be surrounded by nothing but fellow faithful.

[Vellos]

Except that in BM, you have a ton of religions bordering each other everywhere. So since "border regions" mixed faiths a lot (relatively) in the real world, and that almost all realms in BM share a border with a realm of another faith, it's hardly surprising that people are so often soft on the issue. Other than Sanguis Astroism, I don't think any one religion has ever gained a significant contiguous spread so that any realm would be surrounded by nothing but fellow faithful.

Hemaism maybe? Eretzism? Verdis Elementum?

SA is, though, the only clear-cut example of a religious hegemony.

[Bedwyr]

Except that in BM, you have a ton of religions bordering each other everywhere. So since "border regions" mixed faiths a lot (relatively) in the real world, and that almost all realms in BM share a border with a realm of another faith, it's hardly surprising that people are so often soft on the issue. Other than Sanguis Astroism, I don't think any one religion has ever gained a significant contiguous spread so that any realm would be surrounded by nothing but fellow faithful.

Magna Aenilia Ecclessia managed it at one point, though it's a fairly poor example given the "theology" of the religion.  The realm of Greater Aenilia was surrounded by Arcaea, Ethiala, Cathay, and Zonasa, and MAE had a strong presence if not dominance in all of those realms.

[Chenier]

Hemaism maybe? Eretzism? Verdis Elementum?

SA is, though, the only clear-cut example of a religious hegemony.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Hemaist Sint is bordered by OG (Estahism/Golden Feather, historically) and Heen (Qyrvaggism/bunch of other minor faiths, historically). Eretzist Enweil was bordered by qyrvagg Riombara, Qyrvag/Teroist Fwuvoghor, Omniovist/whatever Plergoth/Vlaanderen, Valentic Khthon, Druidic Avalon, etc. Verdis Elementum is the only faith of the list to be dominant in more than one realm, but all of the realms in which it is present borders realms where others are dominant, such as SA north of Caerwyn, and the national faiths in all directions from D'Hara's ports (Triunism, Estianism, and whatever the others that remain may be).

I'm not familiar at all with MAE. But if we are invoking realism and historical authenticity, Greater Anelia would be the only place where religious tolerance would be out of place.