I'm sure that this has come up before but... Why does BYZ always convert to Catholic? That never happened before I installed the patches.
-
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.
AFAIK, it's the first option for that event, so 85% of the time they will convert. Don't worry though, because if they survive they have another event to convert them back to orthodox.
I think it's supposed to represent the fact that historically, byzantium sought out help from the west, who would only considered helping if constantinople would convert to catholicism. Ofcourse, it was a lose lose situation for them, and in game terms it doesn't make much sense for them to convert, but if the ottoman's annex them while they're catholic, i think you get a free casus belli.
I think it's supposed to represent the fact that historically, byzantium sought out help from the west, who would only considered helping if constantinople would convert to catholicism. Ofcourse, it was a lose lose situation for them, and in game terms it doesn't make much sense for them to convert, but if the ottoman's annex them while they're catholic, i think you get a free casus belli.
I used to take advantage of the glitch that allowed you to click on and off of a province to instantly get the monthly cannon fire. But that got old so I use cheats now.Jayavarman said:1439 IIRC.
You played on 1.00?
The Council of Florence brought the Byzantine Church (Eastern Orthodox) back into communion with the Church of Rome during the 1430s partly due to the want of Western help to fight against the Muslims, one of the Greek Orthodox bishops, a man named Mark of Ephesus, refused to accept the council (Eastern Orthodox considered and still do consider Catholics to be heretics despite having very minor differences in theology) and went back to Greece and to the horror of the Byzantine emperor convinced all the peasents to hate Catholics, so long story short the one bishop (who is now a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church) ruined the reunion of East and West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
In game all this drama is summed up by the Byzantines becoming Catholic only to go back to being Orthodox after a decade or so.
An interesting sidenote is that Byzantine Catholics still do exist today, I am one of them my particular branch, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, followed Constantinople back into becoming Orthodox in the 1450s only to rejoin the Catholic Church a second time (this time for good) in 1596 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Catholic_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
In game all this drama is summed up by the Byzantines becoming Catholic only to go back to being Orthodox after a decade or so.
An interesting sidenote is that Byzantine Catholics still do exist today, I am one of them
my particular branch, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, followed Constantinople back into becoming Orthodox in the 1450s only to rejoin the Catholic Church a second time (this time for good) in 1596 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Catholic_Church
Last edited:
Alexandro, you're facts aren't straight and your account isn't very accurate according to the links you supplied. Also, You give Mark too much credit. He didn't "convince the peasants" of anything, as they and the "elite" civil servants already rejected it. Also, there were other bishops that spoke out against it. Wikipedia itself isn't very reliable because in your first link it says that Mark was the one that refused to sign, yet in this LINK many other bishops refused to ratify it as well.
Also, i think your position is inherently biased, and you come across like you have a problem with the eastern orthodox faith. That could be just me though, but you seem to have a real problem with Mark being a saint, even though you're claim that he was the only one who rejected the council of florence and "ruined" the union has just been shown to be false.
Also, i think your position is inherently biased, and you come across like you have a problem with the eastern orthodox faith. That could be just me though, but you seem to have a real problem with Mark being a saint, even though you're claim that he was the only one who rejected the council of florence and "ruined" the union has just been shown to be false.
The leaders of the Byzantine delegation to Ferrara-Florence were the Emperor John and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph. Joseph was a fervent supporter of reconciliation among the churches and full communion between them under the primacy of Rome. By the time of the Council, however, he was very old; two days after the council documents were signed, he passed away.
After Joseph died, Mark of Ephesus wrote his allies in Constantinople, stating his opinion that the Patriarch was not of sound mind at the time he signed the documents. His evidence for this -- and make what you will of it -- was that the teachings of the Council endorsed beliefs that Mark believed to be heresy. In Mark's opinion, Joseph would NEVER have signed them while in his right mind; since Joseph did endorse them, he MUST have been crazy, his enthusiastic participation in their formulation notwithstanding. (Unless, of course, the documents were forged . . . which is a whole 'nother argument that there isn't enough evidence to settle conclusively.) Additionally, Mark felt that the Latins had applied financial pressure to speed the negotiations along when the Pope refused to help pay for the upkeep of the many hundreds of servants the bishops had brought with them from Byzantium. This transformed the Council from an honest deliberation to an occasion of coercion. Consequently, he felt free to disregard the authority of Joseph, and reject the union that the Patriarch had made.
Now: if the Orthodox bishops had participated fully in the deliberations of the Council of Ferrara-Florence, and accepted its teachings, that would satisfy the requirements of an Ecumenical Council, the teaching of which would be binding on the faithful of all the rites and autocephalous churches of Christendom. (In Churchland, an Ecumenical Council is a VERY big deal.) On the basis of Mark's reports, however, the Greek bishops refused to accept Joseph's signature. Instead, they insisted on convening a synod of local bishops to review the documents, and consider the underlying issues de novo.
Participation in the Council had always been controversial among the clergy; after suffering the predations of Italians for centuries, the populace were hostile from the outset. No Latin theologians were invited to the Greek synod to explain the basis for union. Furthermore, in the face of public pressure, some of the theologians who had endorsed the Council recanted, and testified that they had "sold out" their faith to get their hands on the Pope's money. At this point, Ferrara-Florence was a dead letter in Byzantium. The Paleologi hewed to the union until their city fell, but it never caught on with the people. After the Ottoman conquest, it was quickly repudiated as invalid; if anything, the Orthodox remember it as an example of Latin trickery.
Catholics, on the other hand, think the agreements were fairly obtained; they consider the Council to be binding. Nobody doubts St. Mark's personal holiness. Neither does anyone question the sincerity of his beliefs. All the same, on the liturgical calendar of the Latin rite, no day has been set aside to celebrate his feast.
After Joseph died, Mark of Ephesus wrote his allies in Constantinople, stating his opinion that the Patriarch was not of sound mind at the time he signed the documents. His evidence for this -- and make what you will of it -- was that the teachings of the Council endorsed beliefs that Mark believed to be heresy. In Mark's opinion, Joseph would NEVER have signed them while in his right mind; since Joseph did endorse them, he MUST have been crazy, his enthusiastic participation in their formulation notwithstanding. (Unless, of course, the documents were forged . . . which is a whole 'nother argument that there isn't enough evidence to settle conclusively.) Additionally, Mark felt that the Latins had applied financial pressure to speed the negotiations along when the Pope refused to help pay for the upkeep of the many hundreds of servants the bishops had brought with them from Byzantium. This transformed the Council from an honest deliberation to an occasion of coercion. Consequently, he felt free to disregard the authority of Joseph, and reject the union that the Patriarch had made.
Now: if the Orthodox bishops had participated fully in the deliberations of the Council of Ferrara-Florence, and accepted its teachings, that would satisfy the requirements of an Ecumenical Council, the teaching of which would be binding on the faithful of all the rites and autocephalous churches of Christendom. (In Churchland, an Ecumenical Council is a VERY big deal.) On the basis of Mark's reports, however, the Greek bishops refused to accept Joseph's signature. Instead, they insisted on convening a synod of local bishops to review the documents, and consider the underlying issues de novo.
Participation in the Council had always been controversial among the clergy; after suffering the predations of Italians for centuries, the populace were hostile from the outset. No Latin theologians were invited to the Greek synod to explain the basis for union. Furthermore, in the face of public pressure, some of the theologians who had endorsed the Council recanted, and testified that they had "sold out" their faith to get their hands on the Pope's money. At this point, Ferrara-Florence was a dead letter in Byzantium. The Paleologi hewed to the union until their city fell, but it never caught on with the people. After the Ottoman conquest, it was quickly repudiated as invalid; if anything, the Orthodox remember it as an example of Latin trickery.
Catholics, on the other hand, think the agreements were fairly obtained; they consider the Council to be binding. Nobody doubts St. Mark's personal holiness. Neither does anyone question the sincerity of his beliefs. All the same, on the liturgical calendar of the Latin rite, no day has been set aside to celebrate his feast.