Constantine for example mostly reorganized the empire and legalized Christianity
Ok fair. But even at the time, it wasn’t a secret that christianity was extremely intolerant. Constantine legalized what both today and back then would be recognized as an extremely intolerant religion.
Charlemagne’s treatment of Saxons was considered controversial and heavy handed, even at his own time. Also, the Carolingian renaissance is considered very distinct from the renaissance of the 1200s.
The crusades are one of the very few events that even the Vatican has gone out to directly state was a bad and harmful idea.
Edit: what’s even the point of mentioning the reforms of either the last two??? It’s not like it excuses their crimes.
Christianity in many ways invented the concept of exclusion and religious intolerance. That simply didn’t exist in the ancient world. Bart D. Ehrman even cites it as the main reason christianity prevailed in the Roman empire.
I brought them up because my original comparison was between these modern ghoulish profligates and their ancient counterparts. I am very aware of the crimes of those I listed hell if I had the misfortune of somehow interacting with them the only one I wouldn’t kill out the gate would be Constantine, but for all their wrongs they still did good. Constantine held the Romans together and reformed the empire, Charlemagne set much of Europe down the road to recovery from western Romes collapse, and Saint Louis reformed the estates and arguably set france to become what it is today but these modern Bible thumpers have nothing but the cruelty.
I chose my monsters due to their contrast, if I wanted people I truly think were irredeemable I wouldve gone for the Spanish empire, the Teutonic Order, and fucking Belgium. All of whom spread the love and mercy of Jesus Christ all for power and gold.
Also I just realized my initial list gets increasingly French eugh.
Ok fair. But even at the time, it wasn’t a secret that christianity was extremely intolerant. Constantine legalized what both today and back then would be recognized as an extremely intolerant religion.
Charlemagne’s treatment of Saxons was considered controversial and heavy handed, even at his own time. Also, the Carolingian renaissance is considered very distinct from the renaissance of the 1200s. The crusades are one of the very few events that even the Vatican has gone out to directly state was a bad and harmful idea.
Edit: what’s even the point of mentioning the reforms of either the last two??? It’s not like it excuses their crimes.
Christianity in many ways invented the concept of exclusion and religious intolerance. That simply didn’t exist in the ancient world. Bart D. Ehrman even cites it as the main reason christianity prevailed in the Roman empire.
I brought them up because my original comparison was between these modern ghoulish profligates and their ancient counterparts. I am very aware of the crimes of those I listed hell if I had the misfortune of somehow interacting with them the only one I wouldn’t kill out the gate would be Constantine, but for all their wrongs they still did good. Constantine held the Romans together and reformed the empire, Charlemagne set much of Europe down the road to recovery from western Romes collapse, and Saint Louis reformed the estates and arguably set france to become what it is today but these modern Bible thumpers have nothing but the cruelty.
I chose my monsters due to their contrast, if I wanted people I truly think were irredeemable I wouldve gone for the Spanish empire, the Teutonic Order, and fucking Belgium. All of whom spread the love and mercy of Jesus Christ all for power and gold.
Also I just realized my initial list gets increasingly French eugh.