I'm quite familiar with the history as well as the relative powers of kings & priests throughout the period along with the common misconceptions which remain popular. The facts are clear concerning the genocide waged against non-christians by christians. The fact that it was a regal power most frequently bearing the actual "rod of chastisement" is simply a matter of the means or mechanism adopted to effect the result. They were christian powers working to advance the promotion of what was seen as the christian agenda, and most commonly the outrages were ordained by church decree and sanctioned by religious office.
By the irony of their own doctrine: the blood on their hands.
Mark A. Baker
Except for the Crusades, most of the genocide in Europe were Christians against Christians, and all sides considered themselves in accordance with Christianity.
But that is the level of consciousness of groups rather than a consequence of the religion.
There are people today who have the same religion and read the same religious texts as those in past times yet we do not have the same consciousness about religion.
And that is not only a result of the Enlightenment alone.
We have nationalism which has in fact been responsible for genocides of a greater number (although that is due to the technological and administrative capacity to kill so many).
The killing is justified by means current in the culture---but those are not the driving force, just the paradigm.
I know you consider yourself knowledgeable on history.
You are to a degree.
But I can tell you've never been through the rigors of professional training in the field.
The difference is not just the amount of data, it is the juxtaposition of paradigms of consciousness in the various outlooks.
It is in the Hegel and Foucault and the Structualists and the post-Structualist and the post-modern and the pre-modern and the Marian, etc. etc..
I not trying to show off here because I know you know what I am referring to, but there are professional approaches and there are enthusiast approaches, just like in any other field.
I think you will find that almost all claims to certainty and definitiveness in the field of history are suspect, and those claims come from enthusiast rather than trained historians.
History is an on-going process.
The Anabaptist Jacques