History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why was the Byzantine Empire always the enemy of the Catholics and the Crusades?
They were both Christian right?
 
Why was the Byzantine Empire always the enemy of the Catholics and the Crusades?
They were both Christian right?
The Byzantines weren't "always the enemy of the Catholics and the Crusades." They were allied as often as they were at loggerheads. In fact, if you'll remember correctly, it a Byzantine Emperor (Alexius I) requesting assistance from the Catholic Pope against the Muslim Turks that was the proximate cause for the Crusades beginning.

Also, simply both being Christian doesn't mean anything. After all, the Mamelukes and Seljuks were constantly fighting each other, and they were both Muslim. In addition, the Crusader states routinely allied with one of those Muslim powers against the others, and sometimes Christian Crusader princes allied with Muslims against other Christian Crusader princes. The Crusades were far from a black and white, Muslim versus Christian issue my friend.
 
What was race science in Nazi Germany called? I've heard of people getting PhDs in it but what exactly were they majoring in?
 
I'd imagine that you're thinking of eugenics.
 
Eugenics isn't necessarily restricted to the study of races as thought of by Nazis, but the study of races in general - However, it does have a very negative stigma associated with it due to the Nazis themselves, so it's not widely studied.
 
What was race science in Nazi Germany called? I've heard of people getting PhDs in it but what exactly were they majoring in?
The term you're looking for is "Racial Hygiene," or perhaps "Racial Classification." Dr Mengele had a degree in the former.
 
And it wasn´t science - more like fraud. (As any facts that didn´t comply with their theories were ignored.)
 
And it wasn´t science - more like fraud. (As any facts that didn´t comply with their theories were ignored.)
Exactly. "Aryan Physics," which ignored Einstein's theories on the basis that he was Jewish and therefore couldn't understand physics somehow, was equally stupid.
 
Exactly. "Aryan Physics," which ignored Einstein's theories on the basis that he was Jewish and therefore couldn't understand physics somehow, was equally stupid.

Probably not so good for transfer credit after the war then :lol:
 
The Byzantines weren't "always the enemy of the Catholics and the Crusades." They were allied as often as they were at loggerheads. In fact, if you'll remember correctly, it a Byzantine Emperor (Alexius I) requesting assistance from the Catholic Pope against the Muslim Turks that was the proximate cause for the Crusades beginning.

Also, simply both being Christian doesn't mean anything. After all, the Mamelukes and Seljuks were constantly fighting each other, and they were both Muslim. In addition, the Crusader states routinely allied with one of those Muslim powers against the others, and sometimes Christian Crusader princes allied with Muslims against other Christian Crusader princes. The Crusades were far from a black and white, Muslim versus Christian issue my friend.

In addition to this, it was pretty well known that the Popes wanted jurisdiction over Eastern Christendom and were willing to use force to get it, and paying a Jizya would be preferable to being forced into heresy. Hence, "Better a turban than the Pope's tiara."
 
_random_ said:
In addition to this, it was pretty well known that the Popes wanted jurisdiction over Eastern Christendom and were willing to use force to get it, and paying a Jizya would be preferable to being forced into heresy. Hence, "Better a turban than the Pope's tiara."

The Popes did want jurisdiction over the Eastern Church. Violence however wasn't needed. The Emperor's were content to dangle that carrot of their own initiative whenever there was a perceived need and availability of Papal friendly forces. Moreover, the Greeks didn't make the choice between Papal or Turkish suzerainty. The latter forced it on them. Saying otherwise is nonsense.
 
John V Palaiologos' rule (1341 - 1357) shows how warm relations could still be even as the Empire tottered. Among his first acts was writing to Pope Innocent VI asking for troops, which were granted provided he united the two Churches. He did so. The remainder of his rule could be summed up as missed opportunities, heartfelt longing for Western intervention and sometimes both at the same time. He managed to squander the gains that Count Amadeo VI of Savoy made for him in 1367-68. With the situation worsening he ran off to Rome in 1369 looking for more help. That failed, he got imprisoned by the Venetians, bailed, made more appeals and generally made a fool of himself all over Europe looking for aid. The important point to take out of this is that John V was looking to use these Western forces against the Turk. He just failed to do much with what was given to him.
 
Why was the Byzantine Empire always the enemy of the Catholics and the Crusades?
They were both Christian right?

Basically everything Lord Baal said, and also remember emotions were still rather raw after the Great Schism.
 
...and also remember emotions were still rather raw after the Great Schism.

Not as much as you'd think. Theophylact of Ohrid, writing a few decades later, shows no awareness that any schism even existed. The "Great Schism" is more a convenient marker for historians than something that people of the time were especially excited about. If Catholic and Orthodox hated each other after it, they'd already been hating each other for a long time before; and if they cooperated before it, they continued to cooperate after it too.
 
Among his first acts was writing to Pope Innocent VI asking for troops, which were granted provided he united the two Churches. He did so.
John V united the two churches? Didn't he only proclaim his personal conversion to Catholicism?
 
You can tell that Dachs isn't here otherwise we'd be talking about Ioannes V instead. :)
 
Lone Wolf said:
John V united the two churches? Didn't he only proclaim his personal conversion to Catholicism?

I'm pretty sure he promised to, and nothing much ever came of it. And the Catholicism was after that.
 
I'm pretty sure he promised to, and nothing much ever came of it. And the Catholicism was after that.
This. He ordered the church to convert to Catholicism, but they managed to drag out the process long enough for it to not be done. The leaders of the Eastern Church did that a couple of times, actually. I'm sure Plotinus and Dachs would know more about that than I.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom