[quote=Xilaw]
What are you disagreeing with? You are practically repeating what we already established which is that no one questioned why someone is born to rule over others. Sure, rebellions happened, monarchs were killed, and crowns shifted hands, but at the end of the day those peasants that rose up would go back to their fields and just work for the next guy that comes along claiming he is destined to rule them. They accepted it as a normal thing because they never left their little bubble of ignorance. Progress of philosophy was crippled by Church who insisted that every new idea must be explained and be connected to God. Everything else was sacrilegious. You can clearly see the difference in philosophy of the Medieval ages and that of the Renaissance and the Enlightment, for example reading works of Machiavelli and Hobbes, who are mocking the way society works. If this was done in the Medieval times the author would be punished, most likely by death.
[/quote]

My point is that the idea of the divine right to rule of kings is as old as civilization, and not at all a characteristic of medieval society. In fact, the monarchies we typically associate with that kind of posturing came after the Renaissance. 

[quote=Xilaw]
I don't deny there has been civilizations in the Medieval Ages. It's called the Dark ages because scientific progress was relatively stagnant. Sure, it's not exactly historically accurate to call it Dark ages as it implies nothing significant happened. Obviously this is not true.
However, there was no progress in neither medicine nor literature (most of it revolved around religion), science was practically non-existent and anything that remotely went against contemporary standards was frequently dubbed witchcraft. Contrast to this is the Renaissance and the Enlightenment period when literature and art flourishes, science is still somewhat held back but is making break throughs in secret. Criticizing Church is slowly becoming acceptable. This is the era when Europe is slowly leaving it's conservative cocoon. We're talking about Europe here, I'd leave the Islamic world out of it, who by the way, was ahead of Medieval Europe in a lot of aspects, including mathematics, astronomy, astrology, anatomy, physiology, philosophy etc. We can see this by the fact that Europe had to  gather and translate old scripts from the Arabs, who unlike Europeans, wrote down and preserved literature of the ancient times and built upon the foundations laid down by the ancient Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, and other great civilizations.[/quote]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology]Wiki[/url]

Quite a long list.

[quote=Xilaw]
Sure, civilizations existed, but was there much progress in anything other than in art of warfare? It was a time of wars, poverty, famine, plagues and death. On top of that, it was an era of little to no hygiene. Byzantium can be somewhat excused as far as that goes.
[/quote]

Yup, the medieval period was characterized by these things. But how is that any different from any other pre-industrial period? From Rome to 18th century Germany, population growth was glacial, pandemics were epidemic, famine was the family friend of every peasant. The medieval period (and again, lumping together 1000 years of history under one period is a gross oversimplification) wasn't any more bleak or bright than previous or following eras.

[quote=Xilaw]
Papacy wouldn't be as strong as it was if the monarchs wanted all the power for themselves. Fact is, they acknowledged Pope as the religious leader. The Pope literally had the authority to stop two kings fighting each other and make them fight together against a common enemy which is the case with Crusades. This 'struggle' for power only culminated in the 16th century with the emergence of Protestant church and even then Kings only joined it for completely unrelated reasons, for example King of England converted because he wanted a divorce. King of Denmark converted because he needed the money from confiscating church lands after his country was broke following a civil war. By this time Europe was already largely in Renaissance period.
[/quote]

I'm not talking about religious dissidence, I'm talking about conflict for religious authority. Both King Henry and Emperor Henry engaged in ugly squabbles with the papacy over this.

[quote=Xilaw]
If I'm not mistaken, 17th century is 100-150 years after the Medieval ages. How is it anachronism?
[/quote]

It's an anachronism in that the church had nowhere near the authority to hunt down dissenters in the time period known for the divine right to rule of kings.