The root of Christianity

[steve_bank]

Are you a Catholic apologist? The RCC was always empire. They lost the power to physcally coerce in the 19th century with the rise of modern Italy. Not the History Channel. History. The Office Of The Imquistion existed through the 19th century, the name was chmaged around the turn of the century.

The popes were always about geopolitics power, and wealth. The Jesuits were the RCC legions., they enacted the cultural genoicde in the New World. Thomas Jefferson lied neither pope nor Jesuits, from a bio I read.

Pope Alexander VI divides New World between Spain and Portugal

Pope Alexander VI published a bull, 'Inter caetera', to divide the New World...

www.litencyc.com

Pope Alexander VI published a bull, 'Inter caetera', to divide the New World between Spain and Portugal. It decreed that all lands west and south of a meridian line 100 leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde islands rightfully belonged to Spain. However, it did not solve the tensions between the two colonising nations, partly since it failed to specify the lands on the other side of this line as Portuguese possessions. This led to Spain and Portugal clarifying matters in the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are you a Catholic apologist? The RCC was always empire. They lost the power to physcally coerce in the 19th century with the rise of modern Italy. Not the History Channel. History. The Office Of The Imquistion existed through the 19th century, the name was chmaged around the turn of the century.

The popes were always about geopolitics power, and wealth. The Jesuits were the RCC legions., they enacted the cultural genoicde in the New World. Thomas Jefferson lied neither pope nor Jesuits, from a bio I read.

Pope Alexander VI divides New World between Spain and Portugal

Pope Alexander VI published a bull, 'Inter caetera', to divide the New World...

www.litencyc.com

Pope Alexander VI published a bull, 'Inter caetera', to divide the New World between Spain and Portugal. It decreed that all lands west and south of a meridian line 100 leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde islands rightfully belonged to Spain. However, it did not solve the tensions between the two colonising nations, partly since it failed to specify the lands on the other side of this line as Portuguese possessions. This led to Spain and Portugal clarifying matters in the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas.

I just challenge the idea that the college of cardinals is an analogue of the senate. They are two completely different types of institutions. In every way they functioned differently. The senators were inherently powerful. Their power didn't come from being senators. It came from being rich. In the empire/principate the emperors kept the senators happy because they knew that the senators could break them. Without the church the cardinals would be nothing.

I also challenge the equation of pontifex maximus and the emperor. The glaring difference is that popes are chosen for life while the emperor is largely a meritocratic position. If he does a bad job the people will replace him. Why this difference? The whole point of the church is to never change and create continuity. It's almost impossible to fuck up the job of pope. The pagan pontifex maximus was a similar position. While emperors need to think on their feet, be decisive and ruthless.

While the pope ended up as a secular king over the papal states. Another accident of history. But a state with feudal knights and lords, in the position of the equities and senators. Not priests and cardinals.

I do agree that the Roman empire has a lot of its institutions preserved within the Catholic church. But it's a lot more subtle than its boss.

The Roman state was organised on institutions that were self governing and acted to strengthen the central government when they were acting in self interest. It was a smart bit of state building. The Catholic Church works the same way.

Both are legalistic. Both were governed by unbreakable laws even the emperors or kings couldn't violate.

There's a whole bunch of parallels

 

[DrZoidberg]

Another little detail is that in the church up to the crusades and the definite split between Eastern and western Christianity, the top jobs in the church was "the patriarchs". Their power shifted a lot over the years. But it was cooler to be a patriarch than a mere Pontifex maximus.

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453 then suddenly the Catholic pope became the most powerful job in all Christendom, so being pontifex maximus was now the peak of power in Christendom. Accident in history

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Sacrilisation of the State

Here's another interesting episode. An interview with the scholar on Byzantine, John Haldon.

Episode 130 – The Empire That Would Not Die with John Haldon

An interview with Professor John Haldon about his book “The Empire That Would Not Die: The Paradox of Eastern Roman Survival, 640-740.” In particular we discuss environmental research w…

thehistoryofbyzantium.com

The most interesting take away is what he describes as the "sacrilisation of the Byzantinian state". Between 640 and 740 (so the peak period when the Byzantinians are relentlessly being hammered by the Arabs) the Eastern church and the Byzantinian state start to fuse and become just one organizational unit.

What I find interesting in the description of this process is learning about how independent the church was up to this point. Constantine the Great wasn't a puppet master controlling the church. He acted more as a mediary, forcing the clergy to agree on stuff, but he didn't get involved on doctrinal matters. He let the bishops sort it out on their own.

The first Roman emperor who started putting his nose in it, was Justinian I (527 to 565 AD). In the Monophysitism debate. But his goal was to get the Monophysites and the Nicean Christian to agree on a compromise. It did not go well. Because there's nothing Christian clergy love more than being persecuted and martyred. His plan backfired. But he never stopped trying to find a theological solution to combine the two positions.

Monophysitism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A century later, after the rise of Islam, the emperors got involved in church policy on a regular basis and where a lot less delicate about it. The church actively participated in pushing through legislation to boost the empires ability to recruit soldiers. Up until this point the church was more focused on talking people out of becoming soldiers and joining the clergy. When Leo VI (800's) pushed through legislation limiting how much land priests was allowed to donate to the church, this was done without much fuss. The church agreed that the state needed that land to support the army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme... an arrangement,the soldiers' pay was reduced.

This development did not take place in the West. Where church and state were separated. While Christianity were state religions, the church rarely got involved in dynastic struggles and the kings didn't get involved in church politics.

By the time of the crusades the western and Eastern churches were very different organizations. The Eastern church, being a government arm, wielded a kind of power the pope could only dream of. While the papal states was a thing, up until Pope Alexander VI (1492 ) they barely had their own army. They relied completely for protection by their western Catholic benefactors. It's with Alexander VI the papal states start acting like other European Christian kings. Interestingly, something that coincides with the fall of Constantinople (1452), and the Byzantine clergy emigrating en masse to Italy. And we get a very different aggressive and muscular type of Catholicism.

 

[Politesse]

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not poetry either.

So... you are claiming that the law is literally being written on everyone's literal hearts? Is he going to use a scalpel, or Lasik?

 

[Hermit]

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not poetry either.

So... you are claiming that the law is literally being written on everyone's literal hearts? Is he going to use a scalpel, or Lasik?

No. Jeremiah did*. And he was wrong about that too.


* Although there is considerable debate concerning how much of the book consists of his work and how much of it was interpolated later.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have now reached the birth and rise of the Ottoman empire.

I used to think that the story of the rise of Islam was linear. It rose in Arabia, from the mind of Mohammed, spread across the Mediterranean chopping the remnants of the Roman empire in ever small pieces. But the story is way more complex.

As I have written above, after the rise of the Caliphate it self imploded, from the force of its own surprising success. Mirroring the success of Alexander the Great. Turning previously well run provinces into an ever increasingly dysfunctional mess. Step by step the Byzantine empire clawed back control until, under Basil II, (around 1000 AD) the Byzantinian empire was almost back to its size it had had prior to Mohammed. It still didn’t control North Africa. But it looked like it was only a matter of time.

After Basil II though, the empire descended into a series of civil wars. In the middle of all this Turkic step nomads (not united) start pouring down from the Asian steppes looking for pasture lands. These are nomadic and as such only value things they can carry with them. They have zero interest in conquering anything or ruling any empire. Their way of life is basically an extortion racket. They continually harass the farming community along their migration routes until they pay them off.

It’s good to explain the differences in cultures between step nomads and agrarian societies. In agrarian societies your neighbours can’t run away, and neither can you. Not without losing everything you own. You are forced to compromise and figure out ways to get along. This leads to stable conservative societies that care a lot about tradition and ritual.

Step nomads who don’t get along with their neighbours can just move. Life is fundamentally fluid and constantly changing. They have zero incentive to give a shit about anyone outside their tribe. But even that’s iffy. Alliances are constantly broken and reformed. Step nomads will make any promise and then wheel around and break them at the first opportunity. Because these extreme lack of trust between them, and the constant bickering and infighting, being able to rapidly fuck off when necessary was important to them. They could not afford to become sedentary. When they would besiege a walled city, after the city surrender, the step nomads would come in, remove all movable wealth, not take the remaining food (because they wanted to come back later), not unnecessarily kill anyone, let the rulers stay in power, and fuck off, until next time.

So here’s a bunch of Turkic step nomads on the Iranian plain harassing and annoying Byzantine settlements in Anatolia. So how did these guys end up forming one of the greatest empires in history?

It’s this guy who does it; Nikephoros III Botaneiates.

His emperor Michael the VII puts him in charge of protecting Anatolia from the Turkic raiders. He decides to make a play for being crowned emperor, dismantles the defences completely, talks the Turk Tzachas (it’s way more complicated than this, but let’s keep it simple) into joining him. In return Tzachas gets to control a bunch of Byzantine cities. Nikephoros III Botaneiates gambles that after he’s emperor it’ll be easy to just go in and retake the cities. The Turks aren’t sure what they’re supposed to do with these cities, but accept. In defence the Norman (Viking) mercenaries are hired led by Roussel de Bailleul, who culturally behave very similarly to the step nomads. 100% opportunistic.

The first chance the Normans get they turn on the Byzantinians and set up their own kingdom. Something they have already done in Sicily. They had no interest in keeping it. It was a tried and tested method, where they would seize land and then sell it back to the king. But the empire was broke.

In this mess the Bulgars smell Byzantine weakness and strike in the Balkans. Cutting off the emperor's last access to any cash.

Nikephoros III Botaneiates comes out on top and becomes the Byzantine emperor. But at a huge cost to the empire. There’s nothing they can do now to take back what they gave to the Turks. Their focus now has to be on

The Turks convert to Islam and copy the methods of rule from the Persians, Found the Seljuk Empire and start behaving like a settled empire. Nobody saw that coming. I’m sure, least of all, the Turks.

There you have it. The Muslims were destined to become a second rate group, slowly being gobbled up by their more organised neighbours, and then just before sliding irreversably into oblivion, they were revived at the last moment by a new empire, that seemingly popped into existence out of nowhere.

Nikephoros III Botaneiates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzachas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul

Seljuk Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2019/07/23/episode-195-king-of-the-ashes/

 

[Politesse]

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not poetry either.

So... you are claiming that the law is literally being written on everyone's literal hearts? Is he going to use a scalpel, or Lasik?

No. Jeremiah did*. And he was wrong about that too.


* Although there is considerable debate concerning how much of the book consists of his work and how much of it was interpolated later.

So, you are concretely claiming that Jeremiah meant this literally?

A literal incision on a literal heart?

 

[Hermit]

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not poetry either.

So... you are claiming that the law is literally being written on everyone's literal hearts? Is he going to use a scalpel, or Lasik?

No. Jeremiah did*. And he was wrong about that too.


* Although there is considerable debate concerning how much of the book consists of his work and how much of it was interpolated later.

So, you are concretely claiming that Jeremiah meant this literally?

A literal incision on a literal heart?

Sorry, my mistake. That was the result of a brainfade. I get them more often than I am comfortable with.

 

[steve_bank]

How do you know that Jeremiah wasn't drunk as a skunk when he was writing?
The assumption, without evidence, is that the writers of what we call the bible were sober rational people.

 

[Politesse]

How do you know that Jeremiah wasn't drunk as a skunk when he was writing?
The assumption, without evidence, is that the writers of what we call the bible were sober rational people.

Jeremiah wrote some pretty strange things, if it comes to that. But that's quite a limb to go out on just to defend literalist hermeneutics, which were a stupid idea to begin with. Atheists ought not be so foolish as to blindly defend the logic of religious conservatism, in my opinion. What's the point of nominatively leaving the church, if your mind is still enslaved to its dumbest and most regressive philosophies? If you want to be free, be actually free, not just superficially.

 

[steve_bank]

I will defend the right of anyone to use logic to justify beliefs of any kind, short of violating civil law. Even Pagan Christians.

 

[Politesse]

I will defend the right of anyone to use logic to justify beliefs of any kind, short of violating civil law. Even Pagan Christians.

If someone wants to make a logical argument, that's fine, but if that argument isn't even internally consistent, I'm going to point that out.

 

[steve_bank]

I will defend the right of anyone to use logic to justify beliefs of any kind, short of violating civil law. Even Pagan Christians.

If someone wants to make a logical argument, that's fine, but if that argument isn't even internally consistent, I'm going to point that out.

As I have said several times, singling out religion as illogical ignores the vast sum of illiogical human behavior.

I deate religion because that is what we all come here for, including theists.s. It is important to understand religion as an atheist when I interact with it in the world.

If yiu want illogical look at Russia invading Ukraine potenially leadingto a third European war and nuclear weapons.. LIMO logical and rational only apply to localized bounded situations. For example engineering or business decisions. Humans are fundamentally emotional and irrational, it has to do with brain chemistry and wiring. Emotions can chemically override logic in the brain.

Persoanlly I know I can not reduce what I hink to an absolute expression of logic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The First Crusade

The Mediaeval histories of the Crusade were all written after the fact and rearranged events in such a way to make it look like creating the Crusading states was the plan all along. The sheer number of knights and soldiers taking part in the crusade was far greater than any of the instigators could possibly have hoped for. There was no way pope Urban II or the Byzantinian emperor could have seen what was to come. But that’s not how the historians chose to portray it. It was seen as a black and white story of the treacherous Byzantinians and the pure and godly Westerners being taken advantage of. The reality was that the Crusades was an utter trainwreck from start to finish.

Context from a Byzantinian perspective.

Following the death of Michael VII and the usurpation of an emperor with zero claim to the throne and in a weak position, lots of generals get the idea that they can seize the throne. A quick succession of six emperors ends with Alexios Komnenos. There’s nothing special about him, other than that he manages to play the political game better than the others. His lack of specialness means that his position is amazingly weak. The Balkans is lost to the Pecheneg step tribes. Anatolia is lost to the Turks. Southern Italy and Siciliy has been lost to the Normans. At this point what the Byzantine emperor maintains control over is Greece, they barely have any army at all and they’re broke. The last remnant of the Roman empire was on the brink of collapse and everybody knew it.

Enter; Anna Dalassene, the mother of Alexios Komnenos. She talks sense into her son, bangs heads together and makes his son make peace with the ruling and rival families of the Byzantine empire. No small feat considering that these people have murdered eachothers dad’s, sons and daughters, have poked out inumeralby eyes of loved ones, tortured each other, and generally been dicks to one another. A truce is called and Alexios Komnenos can focus on fighting Byzantium's enemies.

His first order of business is to retake control of the Balkans. Nomad step horse archers was the most deadly and formidable force in the world at that point. Light infantry were completely screwed fighting these. Heavy infantry would last a bit longer, but were about as screwed. The horse archers would just follow them around for days, taking shifts to harass them, prohibiting them from sleeping or gathering provisions. All while they got plenty of sleep and food. Eventually the infantry army would just fall apart. The only thing that stood a chance against them was a combined force of heavy knights and heavy infantry. This is the birth of the Medieval army we’re so accustomed to from the movies and chivalric tales. Another effective weapon against horse archers were other horse archers. But that demanded that the rider did nothing else with their lives other than to live in the saddle and train with the bow. It was extremely technically difficult and took many years to master. The Byzantinians had at one point had horse archers in their army. But the civil wars had long since killed them off. For an agrarian economy, horse archers, just weren’t worth the cost.

So Alexios Komnenos scrapes together what money he has and hires 500 Norman heavy knights and they retake the Balkans. Yes, just 500. While amazingly expensive they are as formidable on the battle field.

He now controls the Balkans again, is broker than broke and needs to retake Anatolia pretty damn fast or he has no hope of holding onto power. Desperate times call for desperate acts. He turns to the pope in Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexios_I_Komnenos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Dalassene

 

[DrZoidberg]

Context from the popes perspective.

The pope in Rome, pope Urban II didn’t actually live in Rome. He’d been kicked out by Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor. Since the fall of the west Roman empire, central power had inexorably been migrating down the hierarchy. The Byzantinian emperor and Byzantinian patriarch together held absolute power in the empire. They could give and take lands as they saw fit. And did. In the west the guy at the top had very little power. Respect upwards was mostly empty words and the popes were increasingly ignored. If the popes got the idea in their heads that they could dictate matters for the European kings, the kings would just march on Rome and replace him with somebody more agreeable.

This is what had happened to pope Urban II. The Germany emperor Henry IV had put his own puppet pope on the papal throne, Gregory VII, and Urban was stuck in the South of Italy in a godawful mess of a situation. The Normans had only just seized southern Italy from the Byzantinian, with papal blessing. Let’s call it a viper nest. The people of Southern Italy were culturally Orthodox and followed the lead of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The rulers were culturally viking who cared little about anything but money and power. Their loyalties could not be weaker and would just opportunistically switch to whatever side paid the best. This is where the broke and isolated pope Urban found himself. Unless he got control over Rome again the Normans would just slit his throat and start dealing with the new German puppet pope in Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

 

[DrZoidberg]

Planning the Crusade

The idea for the Crusade was hatched shortly after the Muslims conquered Jerusalem. But nobody in the west cared. It would take centuries before Muslims were seen as anything but, yet another, heretical Christian version, of which Orthodox Christianity was one. So the idea to liberate Jerusalem from one group of Christian heretics for the benefit of another group of Christian heretics was seen as bizarre.

In 1095 yet another church council, (Council of Piacenza) was called for to mend the schism between the western and eastern churches. Gregory VII (the new puppet pope of the German emperor) had recently excommunicated the Byzantine emperor (Alexios Komnenos). The Byzantine delegation was asking for help against the Turks.

Pope Urban II here saw a golden opportunity. He could talk western knights to go on a crusade against the Turks. In return the Byzntinians would acknowledge him as the supreme patriarch of all Christains (west and east). His hope was that he could use these troops, in some way, to put himself back in power in Rome. His plan was a bit hazy on the details. The fact that there was no hope in hell that the patriarch of Constantinople would bow to his authority, nor said they would, didn’t seem to stop his scheeming.

What Alexios Komnenos was hoping for was 500 western heavy knights. More than that was just bonus. The Turks were step nomad horse archers, just like the Pechenegs. To defeat them he would need veteran heavy knights. Something he, at that time, couldn’t afford. He did not need any other troop type. He already had that himself.

A plan was formulated that 500 western heavy knights would join the Byzantine army in Constantinople, they would march along Anatolia and retake it for the Byzantine empire and end up in Jerusalem. Also this would be taken by the Byzantine emperor.

Council of Piacenza - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DrZoidberg]

Recruiting crusaders

Pope Urban II got out of his southern Italian vipers nest and travelled around Europe to the richest people in Europe to whip them up in a religious frenzy. He promised that if they took Jerusalem all their sins would be forgiven. Something the devout European knights sorely needed. The problem with the weak central powers of Western Europe was that it led to endless conflict and wars between the West European princes. The winners in these wars was neck deep in rivers of blood. The Bible was pretty clear on it’s stance on murder. In spite of these guys great wealth, many of them still had do sell everything they owned just to pay for the trip. It was super expensive. Many of them went into debt. Often to a degree they would never be able to pay back. Which is interesting considering that they were not promised anything in return other than just getting their sins wiped away.

Council of Clermont - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DrZoidberg]

The People's Crusade

This is where Peter the Hermit joins the story. Basically a scam artist. A poor simple priest from Amiens, he starts touring the continent claiming that the Middle-East is a land of milk and honey, and that anybody who joins him on this crusade would be supplied and richly rewarded by the Byzantinians. All lies.

A stream of tens of thousands of peasants, many women and children, started the long trek to Constantinople. They had nothing. No money. No food. No armour and barely weapons.

They attack and pillage along the way. Especially Jews are targeted. It was a long and arduous journey. It’s participants were most of the way starving.

The Crusade had been carefully planned to start 15 August 1096. Just after the harvest and food would be plentiful for the army. The people’s crusade shows up in May. well ahead of schedule. Not only that but they number around 100 000. The Byzantinian army that was going to meet the crusading knights hadn’t been mustered yet. There was little force that could control the mob.

The well organised Byzantines manage to keep them well fed, but once at Constantinople they didn’t quite know what to do with the peasant army. This unruly mob was useless against step nomads horse archers. The peasant army was attacking people and causing a lot of mischief. They couldn’t stay. They couldn’t be moved to Anatolia. And they refused to go home. The longer they stayed the more trouble they would cause and the more dangerous it would be for the Byzantinian emperor. He was hanging onto power (and his life) by a thread. He had to maintain control at any cost.

So he did the only thing he could do. He ferried them over to Anatolia and sent them against the Turks. Just the logistics of keeping them fed and from destroying everything in their path was hard.

Not only did the Turks have overwhelming military force, the Turks cleverly outmaneuvered the Crusaders managing to take most of them alive selling them as slaves. For profit. From the Turkish perspective this first wave of crusaders was the best thing ever. Peter the Hermit realized in advance that they were marching to their doom and cleverly got out before their defeat. He left on the ruse that he would go back for supplies. Everything indicates that he had no such intention. Once he returned to Constantinople he switched to his next gullible target. Based on later events it’s pretty clear that Peter the Hermit was nothing but a con man lying and manipulating his way to banquets and warm beds.

But it was a bad start for Byzantine - Western relations.

People's Crusade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Peter the Hermit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Civetot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DrZoidberg]

The princes’ crusade assembles

The heavy knights missed the deadline. Between November 1096 and April 1097, heavy knights (with retinues) started showing up on the Border of Byzantine empire. When they came they were met by Byzantine nobles who handed them big bags of gold which they could use to buy provisions at markets placed strategically along the route to Constantinople. They were treated well and given lavish gifts. While the Byzantine empire was on par with the Roman state 1300 years earlier, it was still the richest empire of Europe. And Alexios Komnenos made a point of demonstrating that. Once they got to Constantinople he made sure they swore allegiance to him personally. This was to make sure that they wouldn’t claim any lands. But would leave them to the Byzantines.

Godfrey of Bouillon, the richest landowner in France, swore no such allegiance. He was clearly there to get rich and carve out a crusader kingdom for himself. He had such a big army that his personal forces alone could have, at this point, conquered the entire Byzantine empire. Trouble was brewing for Alexios.

Then the Norman Bohemond shows up with his heavy knights. These are the very same guys who were the Norman mercenaries hired by the Byzantines to fight the Pechenegs, who then turned on the Byzantines, seized Kastoria, setting up their own kingdom inside the Byzantine border, which they then ransomed to the emperor. Now they were back. They didn’t go to Constantinople. They went back to Kastoria and started behaving the same way they did last time. All the time professing allegiance to Alexios Komnenos.

Not only was Bohemond greedy, ruthless and a complete asshole, he controlled the most powerful knights in Europe. He had fought Turks before and won. He spoke the languages of the area. If anybody could beat the Turks it was him. So even though Alexios knew that Bohemond wouldn’t honor any agreement, and would do whatever to get rich, he still needed to make him happy.

Eventually Alexios had to give up on getting the western knights to swear him personal allegiance, setting the stage for what became the Crusader States.

All-in-all the Crusading forces numbered around 100 000. 10 000 of those were heavy knights. The Turks wouldn’t stand a chance. This army was the optimal nomad step archer-killing machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

Godfrey of Bouillon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemond_I_of_Antioch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastoria