Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Why are there Catholics in 867?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings II 69866 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10587 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Lord Finnish said:
Actually the original plan was to put the Crusaders under Alexios, and the leaders of the expedition did swear fealty to him - and the two collabored in helping Byzantines take over many locations in Anatolia such as Nicaea. Ultimately the plan was that the Crusader army would take over the Holy Land and then return it to Alexios - but this didn't happen and the Byzantines were pretty pissed at their betrayal.

So it's not that the Orthodox didn't want to help the crusade, it's that the Crusaders didn't really want to help the Orthodox.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting if it were possible for a human player to mend the schism the other way around: crusade for the holy land and then swear fealty to the Byzantine Emperor in exchange for his conversion to Catholicism, making Orthodoxy a Catholic heresy.

Depending on circumstances, it could even be the smart decision. Taking Jerusalem is one thing; keeping it is another. With a strong ERE's protection, Jihading for it would be a much taller order.
 
You can do it the only way that makes sense, as the schism mending really doesnt, which is to conquer each province, and slowly convert/assimilate it.
Re-educate the locals to follow your traditions and not theirs, write in latin and be served solely by western trained priests and answer to western lords.
 
Aaronomus said:
It would be interesting if it were possible for a human player to mend the schism the other way around: crusade for the holy land and then swear fealty to the Byzantine Emperor in exchange for his conversion to Catholicism, making Orthodoxy a Catholic heresy.

Depending on circumstances, it could even be the smart decision. Taking Jerusalem is one thing; keeping it is another. With a strong ERE's protection, Jihading for it would be a much taller order.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea. I'm considering making a mod about Christianity with a possibility of mending the schism (from any angle), but couldn't think of a good way (Catholicism does NOT hold on to the Pentarchy ecclesiology).
 
LumberKing said:
Interesting idea. I'm considering making a mod about Christianity with a possibility of mending the schism (from any angle), but couldn't think of a good way (Catholicism does NOT hold on to the Pentarchy ecclesiology).
Click to expand...

The only way the schism could be realistically mended in the Pope's favor is to get the Byzantine Emperor's consent. And not by force, either; we all know how the Latin Empire worked out. Western Europe needs to offer something in order for the Orthodox world to want to convert.
 
LumberKing said:
Interesting idea. I'm considering making a mod about Christianity with a possibility of mending the schism (from any angle), but couldn't think of a good way (Catholicism does NOT hold on to the Pentarchy ecclesiology).
Click to expand...

it would have more to do with orthodoxy believes.
The pentarchy doesnt make sense as something to convince catholics to do as the greeks do, five orthodox priests and one of them an anti-pope give an order, Why would catholics listen?
But if Catholics hold the Pentarchy, and those five catholic penarchs all order orthodox policy, law, practice and doctrine to fall in line with Rome?

The Pentarchy is an Orthodox thing after all.

not saying it makes sense, but it makes more sense than the current Mend the Schism. Hey you hold that thing I don't care about and illegal occupy rome, of course I'll do everything you say because unlike you, I don't believe in the five sees you're claiming your authority to demand this from!
 
Orinsul said:
it would have more to do with orthodoxy believes.
The pentarchy doesnt make sense as something to convince catholics to do as the greeks do, five orthodox priests and one of them an anti-pope give an order, Why would catholics listen?
But if Catholics hold the Pentarchy, and those five catholic penarchs all order orthodox policy, law, practice and doctrine to fall in line with Rome?

The Pentarchy is an Orthodox thing after all.

not saying it makes sense, but it makes more sense than the current Mend the Schism. Hey you hold that thing I don't care about and illegal occupy rome, of course I'll do everything you say because unlike you, I don't believe in the five sees you're claiming your authority to demand this from!
Click to expand...

The point of holding the other four sees is to lend credibility and authority to the Patriarch of Rome. Consider: you're the King of England, and over the last century or so, the distant "Empire of the Greeks" has managed to reverse its loses against the Muslims. You've got to respect that, even if it means nothing to you directly. Next, they move north from Naples and rapidly subjugate Rome. They put a new Bishop in place of the Pope. Yeah, you can call him an antipope, but you gotta give this guy credit: all he's really doing is putting things back the way they used to be. So now you've got to choose a side: the Pope, or the Patriarch? So you look at the question rationally: which side benefits you more? Side with the Patriarch, and you'll get your own Autocephalous Patriarch, and your bishops will stop paying their taxes to the Pope. Plus, you get a free excuse to attack & take land from anyone who sides with the Pope. I'd take that deal. Who wouldn't? Zealous characters, that's who. And guess what? They don't. Zealous rulers will always stick with Catholicism. So does the HRE, since he relies upon the Pope for his legitimacy as the successor to the Roman Empire (most of his vassals will convert however, which is a problem for him).

The game actually manages schism mending quite well IMO.
 
Aaronomus said:
It would be interesting if it were possible for a human player to mend the schism the other way around: crusade for the holy land and then swear fealty to the Byzantine Emperor in exchange for his conversion to Catholicism, making Orthodoxy a Catholic heresy.

Depending on circumstances, it could even be the smart decision. Taking Jerusalem is one thing; keeping it is another. With a strong ERE's protection, Jihading for it would be a much taller order.
Click to expand...
Poland tried to do that to Russia once. Didn't end well...
 
In 867 the Photian schism was just "mended" but Photio's strong rejection of "filioque" has become the main point of the catholics vs orthodox controversy centuries later.
 
Achab said:
In 867 the Photian schism was just "mended" but Photio's strong rejection of "filioque" has become the main point of the catholics vs orthodox controversy centuries later.
Click to expand...

To bad you can't reinstate him later on as the Emperor, as happened in real life.
 
Aaronomus said:
It would be interesting if it were possible for a human player to mend the schism the other way around: crusade for the holy land and then swear fealty to the Byzantine Emperor in exchange for his conversion to Catholicism, making Orthodoxy a Catholic heresy.

Depending on circumstances, it could even be the smart decision. Taking Jerusalem is one thing; keeping it is another. With a strong ERE's protection, Jihading for it would be a much taller order.
Click to expand...
Byzantines did convert to Catholicism several times, but it was always so strongly opposed by the general public that it led nowhere. The Emperor alone can't convert the Empire.
 
Zusk said:
As the East-West Schism happened in 1053 shouldn't all Catholic Provinces be Orthodox? It is especially jarring that it is possible to "Mend the Great Schism" as a Orthodox nation before the Great Schism even happens.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't all Orthodox provinces be Catholic instead? Both statements are equally wrong and right; Chalcedonian might be better.
 
Last edited:
LumberKing said:
To bad you can't reinstate him later on as the Emperor, as happened in real life.
Click to expand...

Actually you can probably make Photios emperor somehow in CK2 but he was reinstated as the ecumenical patriarch historically, not sure if its doable ingame without modding.
 
Achab said:
Actually you can probably make Photios emperor somehow in CK2 but he was reinstated as the ecumenical patriarch historically, not sure if its doable ingame without modding.
Click to expand...

There should be a "nominate" feature for the next Patriarch where depending on whether there are courtiers with higher learning stat or not, your nominee become the next Patriarch. From what I hear, not too dissimilar to the nominate button when under Papal Investiture (minus the courtier part).
 
Zusk said:
As the East-West Schism happened in 1053 shouldn't all Catholic Provinces be Orthodox? It is especially jarring that it is possible to "Mend the Great Schism" as a Orthodox nation before the Great Schism even happens.
Click to expand...
Nope, all orthodox provinces should be catholic :angry:
 
Zusk said:
As the East-West Schism happened in 1053 shouldn't all Catholic Provinces be Orthodox? It is especially jarring that it is possible to "Mend the Great Schism" as a Orthodox nation before the Great Schism even happens.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt the notion of orthodoxism before the schism would be weird too anyway? I guess "christianism" should be it.
 
klinkvon13 said:
Wouldnt the notion of orthodoxism before the schism would be weird too anyway? I guess "christianism" should be it.
Click to expand...

Catholic means Universal, all people everywhere. Orthodox means true.
Outside of semantic convention of using the two words as shorthand, both churches use each word to mean themselves.
No no, neither word doesn't fit the notion of a theoretical united christendom, as both mean exactly that, a united a true christendom.
protestantism and the notion of religious nationalism doesn't exist in the era, all schismatics and all heresies, are in their eyes both orthodox and catholic.

Really, the schism wasn't a schism, but diplomacy. So really no change is needed or remotely desirable.
 
Aaronomus said:
The point of holding the other four sees is to lend credibility and authority to the Patriarch of Rome. Consider: you're the King of England, and over the last century or so, the distant "Empire of the Greeks" has managed to reverse its loses against the Muslims. You've got to respect that, even if it means nothing to you directly. Next, they move north from Naples and rapidly subjugate Rome. They put a new Bishop in place of the Pope. Yeah, you can call him an antipope, but you gotta give this guy credit: all he's really doing is putting things back the way they used to be. So now you've got to choose a side: the Pope, or the Patriarch? So you look at the question rationally: which side benefits you more? Side with the Patriarch, and you'll get your own Autocephalous Patriarch, and your bishops will stop paying their taxes to the Pope. Plus, you get a free excuse to attack & take land from anyone who sides with the Pope. I'd take that deal. Who wouldn't? Zealous characters, that's who. And guess what? They don't. Zealous rulers will always stick with Catholicism. So does the HRE, since he relies upon the Pope for his legitimacy as the successor to the Roman Empire (most of his vassals will convert however, which is a problem for him).

The game actually manages schism mending quite well IMO.
Click to expand...


This all of course assumes that the Pope would necessarily resist coming back under the political jurisdiction of the Emperor in Constantinople. Prior to the 11th century, some of the bishops of Rome were very much in the pockets of secular authority. A resurgent Greek Imperial presence in Italy, with the very real ability to protect the city of Rome, in combination with a dispute between the current pope and Holy Roman Emperor, could possibly see the current pope's allegiance switch from one defender of the faith to another IMO, and the Roman Emperor wouldn't even have to appoint an "anti-pope".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back