The Turks Saved Protestantism

[GregoryPalamas]

Where did I say you aren’t Christian? ROFL

There was nothing stopping the East from continuing to practice our liturgy prior to 1054 nor would there have been if the schism had never occurred. So, keep your friendly Arab Muslims if you wish. We’d rather not have them as overlords.

CDL

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is true that a delegation went to the West and agreed to certain terms. On returning home they were jeered because the terms were the complete loss of Orthodoxy - by accepting the leadership/headship of the Pope*

Turkish rule was a disaster. Roman rule would have been worse.

No, let’s say it the way it was. Delegations, including the Byzantine Emperors themselves, twice went to the West and PROPOSED reunification in exchange for military aid. There was a lot of negotiation the first time, and the Emperor might have meant it. But, as you say, when he returned home, the clergy went ballistic and the people opposed the deal and the Emperor reneged. On the second occasion, the Emperor proposed it and admitted to others that he didn’t mean to carry through on it. He was just trying to fool the West. This time, the West didn’t buy it from the beginning. Turkish conquest followed soon thereafter. Then it didn’t matter who opposed Islamification, and there was no negotiation. Constantinople became Islamic, and that was that.

It’s hard to see how Roman rule could have possibly been worse for Orthodoxy than Turkish rule. But believe it if you want.

 

[Montalban]

I’m well aware of the sack of Constantinople.

Then already you’re understating it. It wasn’t just ‘sacked’. It was captured and held for about 60 yrs.

But we all know the backstory and anyway, to say it was worse than the loss of Asia Minor is to say the loss of the entire 50 states would not be as bad as a riot in the District of Columbia. USA example, of course…

That’s not even close to a proper analogy. Constantinople wasn’t just the capital, it was the biggest city, the cultural centre, and it itself wasn’t the only part lost, the Latins set up a kingdom *based in *Constantinople. A better analogy would be if they’d taken New York and Washington. Only in this there wasn’t also a Chicago, and a Boston, and a LA also in the country.

They took much of Greece. Your sense of history is appalling.
Check out this rough map to get an idea of how far off the mark you are.

The Eastern Church was/is schismatic. We didn’t separate on the basis of theology or liturgy. Merely on the basis of the idea of papal supremacy, which Eastern emperors no longer found convenient.

irrelevant to this thread - unless you’re now looking for an excuse to justify 1204

 

[Montalban]

better roman then in schism! im sorry i couldnt help myself----

I’m sure certain forces compel you.

tacitus;2776572:

i dont get your statement. you would rather be a muslem then a christian?

It’s not the point. :yawn: normally I’d advise you to read the thread but for your sake here it is again…

The east had two options…

Turkish domination
Roman domination

Had we gone with Roman domination we may have even remained somewhat politically independent. But we’d have lost our religion. Religion’s more important.

We chose Turkish domination in preference because despite the 100’s yrs following of persecution, the church survived.

you must admit catholics are christians.

Where have I said otherwise?

and besides im pretty sure the crusaders were invited by the byzantines and secondly i believe they the crusaders were attackd first.

You obviously haven’t read the thread.
The crusaders were invited to bolster the Roman Empire. They were invited to fight for the Emperor. Instead, although they swore loyalty to him they established latin kingdoms in the east under the leadership of the Pope.

Go read the thread.

 

[Montalban]

There was nothing stopping the East from continuing to practice our liturgy prior to 1054 nor would there have been if the schism had never occurred.

Ther are so many condition in that I’ve no idea what it is you’re saying.

So, keep your friendly Arab Muslims if you wish. We’d rather not have them as overlords.
CDL

More emotive appeal!

 

[Montalban]

No, let’s say it the way it was. Delegations, including the Byzantine Emperors themselves, twice went to the West and PROPOSED reunification in exchange for military aid.

Which Emperors travelled west?

There was a lot of negotiation the first time, and the Emperor might have meant it. But, as you say, when he returned home, the clergy went ballistic and the people opposed the deal and the Emperor reneged. On the second occasion, the Emperor proposed it and admitted to others that he didn’t mean to carry through on it. He was just trying to fool the West. This time, the West didn’t buy it from the beginning. Turkish conquest followed soon thereafter. Then it didn’t matter who opposed Islamification, and there was no negotiation. Constantinople became Islamic, and that was that.

You simply want to gloss over the fact that the West demanded submission (in religion) as part of a condition for help.

It’s hard to see how Roman rule could have possibly been worse for Orthodoxy than Turkish rule. But believe it if you want.

I’ve noted why. Because we’d have lost our faith. It would seem that you guys think so little of yours that you can’t understand why I’d think losing my faith would be that big a deal.

 

[Montalban]

Here’s a low-down on the Crusades.

The Turks won a significant battle over the Romans at Manzikert (1071) (after having attempted and failed in 1054), taking an Orthodox heartland in Anatolia and establishing the Sultanate of Rum (or Rome).

The Roman emperor appealed to the West. Nothing happened.

About 20 yrs later a new emperor Alexis appealed for help and this time a Pope responded.

The Emperor made the crusaders swear to him - because the lands they were warring in were once Roman.

Instead the Latins set up foreign regimes in Jerusalem, and so on.

For the Romans some gains were made in Anatolia.

However the Crusaders had gone back on their word by setting up these new kingdoms.

And the Fourth Crusade attacked and beat the Romans leading to more foreign kingdoms - this time centred on Constantinople itself

So when seeking help against the Turks, you can understand why they’d not accept Roman domination.

It was only on that condition that Rome would give help. So Rome allowed the Turks to win.

Part of the reason why the Crusades were launched was to assist the weakening Byzantine Empire; the other reason was to re-open Jerusalem to Christian Pilgrims. Both of these reasons stem from the arrival of the Seljuk Turks whose newly found Islamic zeal and opportune timing resulted in the fall of Jerusalem in 1071 and a decisive victory at Manzikert. Though the Crusades assisted Byzantium in driving back some of the Turks, it also opened up Byzantium to Latin aggression which was not always directed at Byzantium’s enemies - most notably the Fourth Crusade, which sacked Byzantium and reduced Imperial power to the Nicaean Empire, Trebizond and Epirus. Much of the Nicaean Emperors’ efforts went into combating the Latins - even after Constantinople was returned to Byzantine rule, the Empire exerted much of its efforts into defeating its Latin neighbours, whose desires to liberate the Holy Land largely faded by 1291.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Byzantine_Empire#Crusades

 

[Brian_C]

My understanding of history is no more appalling than your ranting and use of melodrama and exaggeration.

Mazikert was no minor loss. After Manzikert, the Eastern Empire was like a brain dead patient. Sure, you can prop it up and keep the heart beating a while, but what’s the point? I don’t need an internet, user-edited encyclopedia to tell me that, either. I’m not here to defend every single, solitary action of the Crusades. But I’m not going to sit here and listen to the party line about how everything was paradise and peach cobbler in Constantinople until those darn crusaders showed up. It just wasn’t so.

 

[Brian_C]

Originally Posted by Brian_C

Just how is that irrelevant to this thread? One of your central points is to make papal allegiance sound like Rome wanted to turn everyone into Jehovah’s witnesses or something.

And if you want to avoid improper analogy, you might want to quit saying “Better Turk than Roman” as the residents of the Eastern Empire were quite happy to call themselves Roman.

 

[Montalban]

My understanding of history is no more appalling than your ranting and use of melodrama and exaggeration.

That’s your opinion. I’ve demonstrated your lack of history - especially when you compare the defeat of 1204 to taking a minor part of the USA (area), when in fact they took a major part of the empire; the tactical heart of it

Mazikert was no minor loss. After Manzikert, the Eastern Empire was like a brain dead patient.

And that terminology’s the product of a rant!

Sure, you can prop it up and keep the heart beating a while, but what’s the point?

Yeah, why bother. Rome had the right to go in and rip out the guts… it was just a carcass waiting for the scythe of Christian charity to cut through it.
ROFL! Your posts are even more devoid of fact each time.

 

[Montalban]

Just how is that irrelevant to this thread?

Unless it’s your point that the Eastern Empire deserved to be attacked in 1204

One of your central points is to make papal allegiance sound like Rome wanted to turn everyone into Jehovah’s witnesses or something.

Now there’s a non-sequiter. No. Roman allegiance was to turn everyone into Catholics

And if you want to avoid improper analogy, you might want to quit saying “Better Turk than Roman” as the residents of the Eastern Empire were quite happy to call themselves Roman.

They were Roman, as part of the Roman Empire, but not Roman as in Catholic! It’d be like the Canadian band the Guess Who singing “American Woman” about the USA keeping its hands of Canada, and you coming along and saying “Well Canada is in (north) America! I don’t get it - they’re Americans saying stay away America?” You’re easily confused!

 

[tacitus]

mountbaten what do you sat to southern italian resentment to byzintine rule? could it be byzintine is not the poor victim you make it out to be? maybe they deserved to get sacked. many italians from apulia sicily and calabria took part so.
stop whining.
1204 was justified indeed if byzentines believed your rubbish about better turk then roman then they deserved it–furthermore you got what you wanted as the turks did conqure them so.
knock it off

 

[Montalban]

mountbaten

M-O-N-T-A-L-B-A-N

what do you sat to southern italian resentment to byzintine rule?

If you’re talking about the attempts under Belasarius - general of the emperor Justinian to take control of southern and central Italy (and Africa too!) then you have a point. It was an act of aggression which the eastern empire saw as a ‘reconquest’ but wasn’t really because those lands had been part of the western empire - which had been separated from the eastern empire for a few centuries.

However Justinian was in the 500s. The Crusades were another 500 years later. So I don’t know what relevance it’s got to this thread.

could it be byzintine is not the poor victim you make it out to be? maybe they deserved to get sacked. many italians from apulia sicily and calabria took part so.
stop whining.

I’m not whining. I’m stating facts.

1204 was justified indeed if byzentines believed your rubbish about better turk then roman then they deserved it–

That was some centuries before.

furthermore you got what you wanted as the turks did conqure them so.

It’s not a complaint. We maintained our faith. You got the stain of reformation and splitting less than a century after we lost Constantinople.

knock it off

More emotive argument. Your argument’s all over the place. Knock it off!

 

[tacitus]

fisrt italians and italians form the south have long memories and it was resentment to byzintine economic and military control of the adriatic and much of the mediteranian which i speak off. not to mention byzintine cultural hegemony. so it is relevent. the sack was justified as you schismatics seem to have loyalties that laid with the turks to use your better turk then roman nonsense. so i suggest you get over it. its been a thousand years eh----and much has changed why go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on about it. it happened you deserved it its over now the turks smashed you and changed a beutifull christian capitial into a dirty muslem one but again better turk then roman eh.
so are you an irish orthodox lad if so you’d be the first i met.
tiocfaidh ar la
roma go brea!
eheh

 

[Montalban]

fisrt italians and italians form the south have long memories and it was resentment to byzintine economic and military control of the adriatic and much of the mediteranian which i speak off. not to mention byzintine cultural hegemony. so it is relevent.

Well, why didn’t they take revenge on Constantinople? The attack of the fourth Crusade was by Venice and Genoa (in northern Italy).

Even the first crusade - any army from Sicily, well it was a Norman held land so the Normans - themselves were foreign invaders.

You really need to brush up on history.

so are you an irish orthodox lad if so you’d be the first i met.
tiocfaidh ar la
roma go brea!
eheh

Who says I’m Irish Orthodox? This is part of your “I can’t debate using facts” approach!

You’ve looked at my signature and missed that it’s Scots-Gaelic, not Irish ROFL

This is the Hail Mary in Irish

Go mbeannaíthear duit, a Mhuire, lán desna grástaibh, tá an Tiarna it fhochair. Is beannaithe tu idir mhnáibh agus is beannaithe toradh do bhroinne, Íosa. A Naomh-Mhuire, a Mháthair Dé, guigh orainn-ne peacaigh, anois is ar uair ár mbáis.

This is the Hail Mary in Scots-Gaelic
Fàilte dhut, a Mhoire, tha thu làn de na gràsan; tha an Tighearna maille riut: is beannaichte thu am measg nam mnà, agus is beannaichte toradh do bhronn, Iosa. A Naomh Mhoire, a Mhàthair Dhè, guidh air ar son-ne na peacaich a-nis agus aig uair ar bàis.

Slan leat go feoil mo chara (Farewell my friend - in Irish)

 

[Brian_C]

Unless it’s your point that the Eastern Empire deserved to be attacked in 1204

No. Simply continuing to point out that you imply alligence to Rome was something foreign and different that the Eastern Church had never practiced.

Now there’s a non-sequiter. No. Roman allegiance was to turn everyone into Catholics

No it’s not. See above.

You’re easily confused!

Just as you seem to be about the Eastern Church prior to 1054. But hey, better confused than Turk, right?

 

[Montalban]

No. Simply continuing to point out that you imply alligence to Rome was something foreign and different that the Eastern Church had never practiced.

That’s you downplaying things again. It wasn’t allegience. It was submission that Rome wanted.

As I’ve pointed out the previous occassions Westerners swore to help us they carved up territory and ran it themselves - as Catholic lands.

And that’s what the Pope wanted - submission.

Just as you seem to be about the Eastern Church prior to 1054. But hey, better confused than Turk, right?

That’s the cleverest thing you’ve said. Pity the rest of your posts are made up with mock history, downplaying events, etc.

I particularly like your analogy about the ‘sack’ of Constantinople to being a tiny area equal to Washington DC.

I note you’ve not acknowledged how very wrong you were on that.

 

[tacitus]

i think this is off topic a bit. but i get alot of eastern orhtodox resentment thrown at me because of the sack. the reason why the osuth of italy didnt attack is they did not have much power to do so. venice and genoa did. the idea that byzentine was and is allways the forever victim of western aggresion is bogus. i brought these facts up to illustrate that the sack did not happen ina vacume. it wad deserved.
as for my irish. yeah i was mistaken as i am new to irish gealic.
so are you mountbaten a scotish orthodox? i if you are your the first i met.
and os i have a question would a scotish orthodox football lover support the glasgow celtics–thenhoys or the rangers?
mmmmmm?
i wonder?

 

[Brian_C]

Well, why didn’t they take revenge on Constantinople? The attack of the fourth Crusade was by Venice and Genoa (in northern Italy).

Even the first crusade - any army from Sicily, well it was a Norman held land so the Normans - themselves were foreign invaders.

You really need to brush up on history.

Foreign invaders who freed Sicily from Muslim rule at the request of the Pope. Foreign invaders who peaceably ruled Sicily for many years.

 

[Montalban]

Foreign invaders who freed Sicily from Muslim rule at the request of the Pope. Foreign invaders who peaceably ruled Sicily for many years.

I don’t deny this at all. But you missed the point, and the counter.

It was tacitus’ point that the crusaders of southern Italy would remember the fact that the Byzantines had attacked them 500 years prior. I pointed out that the southern Italians exchanged rulers and were then ruled by Normans.

So his theory should be that the southern Italians fought the Byzantines because they’d been attacked by the Normans - and it doesn’t work.

And to continue…

…but the Pope would only consider sending aid in return for a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the See of Rome. Church unity was considered, and occasionally accomplished by imperial decree, but the Orthodox citizenry and clergy intensely resented Roman authority and the Latin Rite
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Roman_Empire#Reconquest_of_Constantinople