Has Russia, or preceding nation-states, ever been seen as the enemy of Catholicism? I don't get how on the one hand religion is worthless regarding Rus/Byzantine relations, but on the other hand is a key factor in European hatred :S I don't remember repeated invasions of Russia by the rest of Europe.
Russians would disagree with youOriginally Posted by Muskeato
Such will be the Commonwealths as the upbringing of their youth.
Jan Zamoyski, Foundation Act of the Academy of Zamość, 1600.
So you've forgotten then about the many wars Russia fought with Poland-Lithuania and Sweden, when those countries were considered Great Powers? The fact that the Vikings had separate words meaning "to raid England" and "to raid Russia" also seems to have slipped your mind. Then - I mention this only for completeness, since it was really a minor matter, which is why you didn't bring it up - there was that business with the nutty French adventurer, whatshisface Boney-bits. Probably you ignored the Crimean unpleasantness as being too modern, and the skirmishing in 1914 and 1941 likewise. In the Seven Years' War, it's true, Russia did the invading, so perhaps it doesn't count. I believe I could multiply the examples.
I think perhaps you were a bit too ready with the quip, there.
MP Megacampaigns :
The Great Game: CK, EU2, EU2 stats, Vicky, Doomsday.
There Will Be War: CK, EU3, Vicky, Arma.
Children of the Fatherland: Crusader Kings. Divine Wind I II Victoria 2 Final update 22-January-2013: Final Overview
All countries fight wars but some do so harder, harsher and more persistently than others...
Talking about flippant quips, I think you did not get his point. There were no religiously motivated invasions of Russia, nor did people single them out for being Orthodox, the way Byzantium was (according to some posters) the eternal archenemy of western Europe just for being orthodox and being themselves.
This was stated (by those posters) to support the theory that Byzantium, if it had survived as an empire, would play the same role in 14th-19th century as the Ottoman empire played, i.e. agressive hegemon and bogeyman of all good Christians, only to later become the sick man and eventually break apart. A theory promoted by Yasko (among others) and disputed by others (including me).
? No of course I haven't, but none of those wars against Russia were on religious grounds, which is apparently the reason Catholic Europe would hate the Byzantines so much. "whatshisface Boney-bits" didn't invade Russia because he hated the Orthodox Church and was a fanatic Catholic, neither did the Swedes, the Poles, the Germans, or anyone else I can think of.
I'm not saying that Russia was never invaded, and I'm not saying that a surviving ERE would never be invaded. I'm saying it doesn't seem to hold up that Catholic Europeans would hate it and invade it for religious reasons.
Basically, you took my final sentence completely out of context and ranted about it. Well done.
Well, really, how do we know catholicism and orthodoxy would remain as they were? Perhaps a powerful Byzantine state supporting Constantinople will make reconciliation an actual issue, rather than being a basis mostly for the east to get aid from the Catholics, in exchange for concessions. Perhaps the whole investiture controversy would be quite different with Byzantine scholars mightily agreeing and Byzantine Emperors supporting the Emperors... etcetera.
Never mind what the reformation would look like with the Orthodox churches free and spewin their own rhetoric to balance Papal and anti-Papal sentiment in the west.
ICQ #331727773
canonized on 11/08/2007
Overall Best WW player is Avernite with 7 wins overall (Dec 2006-sometime 2007)
jonti-h:No-one's perfect
General Jac: Except Avernite, that's why I kill him every game
Jopi: I'll vote Avernite. He's a hard player to read, and therefore always dangerous.
Avernite: Avernite is a very mean person because he always comes up with great ideas
We don't know, but it's all we really have to go off.
Ok, that'll teach me to respond to the top post on a page without reading what it was responding to.
MP Megacampaigns :
The Great Game: CK, EU2, EU2 stats, Vicky, Doomsday.
There Will Be War: CK, EU3, Vicky, Arma.
Children of the Fatherland: Crusader Kings. Divine Wind I II Victoria 2 Final update 22-January-2013: Final Overview
Haha, it's all forgiven.Ok, that'll teach me to respond to the top post on a page without reading what it was responding to.
If Byzantium had survived we'd all be speaking Greek by now! Plus we'd get really upset if someone put a whore on the throne.
I resent any "science" which tells me I can't have my cake and eat it.I am however a huge fan of quantum physics.
I'm have a hard time believing Byzantium survived to 1453. Already a miraculous achievement.
To suppose that it surivived with provinces like Egypt and Syria in its hands, then is to ask us to erase a huge chunk of history - everything from the 7th C. on would be different. The change is too dramatic.
For starters, the above quarrel about west versus east religion are probably beside the point. A Byzantium which had somehow held on to Egypt would be in good course to take Rome, and taking Rome, the Pope, and taking the Pope, the Church. There would be no western church - Catholicism would be as Byzantium defined it. The west might have a disunited collection of regional autocephalus variations, but they would be of no significance and probably wilt in time or fold under Orthodoxy.
This is too dramatic a "what if". The history of the world without an independent pope, or a Muslim conquest, would be a very, very different history.
"For the lust of the goat is the bounty of God" - William Blake
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln.
I like what you have said, it is all very interesting.
The two churches weren't even that far apart theologically. If at all. According to J.Norwich, the two churches were on their way to a real reconciliation, where the Byzzies would have accepted the pope as the spiritual leader of the church, before the schisma of 1054. But political conflicts, as well as clashing personalities, and the general incompetence of the ruling Byzantine dynasty at the time caused a fallout that could not be mended, before the crusades happened and the schisma became permanent.
Well Russia would never become an empire nor its ruller would be allowed to have "tsar" title. No third Rome ideology.
Though expansionist Russia wouldn't "treat" Byzantine empire the save way it treated Ottomans, after all it was a land which gave them culture/orthodox christianity. The old trade road from Variags to Greeks could be revitalized and wouldn't have fallen into obscurity as it happened in real life with the decline of Byzantium.
Bulgarians and Serbs weren't that shy. Why should Muscovites be?
As for conquering, I'd consider Tzimiskes' campaigns in Syria and Basil II. I'm sure they would attempt to conquer at least territories important ideologically to begin with - Pentarchy/Italy - if they were in a position to. And wouldn't be shy to annex certain random vassals/neighbors outright if opportunity presented itself (which happened at the Balkans and with Armenia). Which could turn into an impressive chunk eventually. Manuel I arranged expeditions both to Italy *and* Egypt. So...
Now. No Seljuk Sultanate of Rum could've been very interesting. There's no need to reconquer Egypt or Syria really to be a major power. Even with Seljuks around the corner, Manuel's empire was just that. To the point of being recognized as a patron of crusader states. But I think the main vulnerability was the different environment when compared to the rest of Europe. Whereas over there dukes kept recognizing de jure kings till the latter managed to reassert their control, no one would cut Byzantines any slack. Every neighbor wanted its territory and would ultimately covet Constantinople (not only any powerful Muslim ruler - Bulgarians and Serbs dreamed of capturing it too at various times).
(I'm also intrigued with the self-consciousness people like Serbs, Vlachs, Croats, Bulgarians etc had. They keep saying that "nations" and "nationalism" is a 19th century invention. How do we call the self-awareness of the aforementioned... communities though?)
As for being all "narrowminded". Obviously, cultural exchange was happening. It's simply inevitable. But once again - as soon as the tensions because of it became too serious (which is probably unavoidable too), it was immediately exploited by its enemies. Come on. Expulsions and religious massacres in Europe kept happening centuries later.
The one thing I strongly disagree with is calling Byzantium stiff, rigid, incapable of change. All its history is about changing and adapting to the extremely fluid environment (not a century without a new major nomad/Rus banging on the door on one of the 5 fronts to begin with) and sometimes outright catastrophic events. And I'm sure there were enough people capable to stand up to the challenges presented by 1180-1204 crises. Basileia limited to primarily Hellenic territory might've even been a healthy and refreshing thing. Along with native levies as a result of dwindling fortunes. But that particular sack of Constantinople must've been the fatal blow. (Unless we consider Osman and his dynasty as something random and unique which could've not happened. Anatolia, balkanized for a few centuries between Muslim tribes - possible? Along with traditionally fractured Balkans - a nourishing environment... Or maybe if Constantinople wasn't recaptured in 1266 but rather when - in Ottoman fashion - Nicaeans firmly subdued Epiros and whatnot prior to the move against the City? Bulgarians were wrecked by Tartars at the time iirc, so... Who knows.)
Yeah, it is like all the talks about Germany winning WW2 -- what they did in history was already miraculous.
That being said, if Byz managed to remain strong, it would likely end up wasting all it strength trying to assert its superiority over Rome (while dealing with nomads from the East), thus ending up weakening itself...Sorry, I just don't see Byz doing as well as Ottoman did historically, short of drastic cultural/societal change. Best it could have done would surviving as a ramp state on life support (due to some political considerations), waiting for someone stronger to finally pull the plug.
would have been fun to see it survive to the present day as a few km˛ independent realm within Constantinople though, like the Vatican in Rome only with a batshit insane secular dude
I resent any "science" which tells me I can't have my cake and eat it.
As a few posters have alluded to this 'what if' rewinds too much history to be meaningful. How did it reconquer the balkans, the levant and egypt? At some point, such what ifs start to become wishful thinking. Like all countries, the Byzantine empire is going to have periods of internal instability, or strong stability, or great generals or poor generals as will its enemies. At what point does your alternate history reflect anything except 'i think this nation will go well/badly?'
The one thing you could say with some confidence is that there would be no main crusading movement. The byzantines are probably also looking at quite a few revolts in the levant and egypt (its pretty much guaranteed that they will antagonize the coptic church) Outside of that, are the Byzantines riding their luck up or down?
French and Austrians intermarried a lot. Still lots of wars.
I hardly see why Byzantium would want to meddle with the stuff north of the Black Sea.
The "crusades" against the Ottomans didn't lead to much. All in 14th-15th centuries, all failed. In the end, it was countries with a stake in the regions of Ottoman expansion that have done the fighting and finally beating the turks. Austria fought for Hungary, Russia fought for northern Black Sea coast (and later an exit to the med), Venice fought for its position in Northern Mediterranean.
I think Byzantium could form a comparatively big Greece+Anatolia nation-state in the end. But an empire wielding huge influence just doesn't seem likely. The same change of trade patterns that turned the shining cities of Bokhara, Samarkand and Baghdad into dusty, provincial backwaters and shifted Italy from Europe's forefront to its periphery would have made sure.
Last edited by almoravid; 20-04-2012 at 20:31.
I am a foreigner trying to improve my command of written English. If you see any orthographic or grammatical mistakes in my ramblings, please be so kind as to let me know.
Why exactly would a Byzantine nation (Anatolia + Greece at the very least) not hold a lot of influence in the world (middle ages and maybe the modern world)? I figured that a nation state like that would hold a lot of influence in the world, for several reasons: big population, strong economy, powerful navy and army and figured that Byzantium would hold a fair bit of influence in the world for those reasons.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
