History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

It depends where Hannibal crossed, but from North Africa to Carthagena isn't far.

The Vandals transported most of their tribe - elderly, women, sick, children, and livestock, around 100,000 strong, from Spain to North Africa across a month or so, using mostly fishing boats.
 
If the elephants were already present in Carthaginian Spain, they could very easily have been shipped across the Straits of Gibraltar which would only be a few hours.

If they were already present in Spain, he wouldn't have had to ship them at all. He went by land from Iberia to Rome, and wouldn't have to transport them for the final battle since there already were elephants in North Africa.

If he needed to get them to Spain, it's not all that far from North Africa to Spain, and he had years to prepare.
 
It depends where Hannibal crossed, but from North Africa to Carthagena isn't far.

The Vandals transported most of their tribe - elderly, women, sick, children, and livestock, around 100,000 strong, from Spain to North Africa across a month or so, using mostly fishing boats.
Try dividing that number by 100. Not even Peter Heather, when he is channeling his inner UKIP member, placed the Vandal force that ended up in North Africa much over 10,000.
(And that is without getting into the whole argument of what the "Vandal force" actually was!)

If they were already present in Spain, he wouldn't have had to ship them at all. He went by land from Iberia to Rome, and wouldn't have to transport them for the final battle since there already were elephants in North Africa.

If he needed to get them to Spain, it's not all that far from North Africa to Spain, and he had years to prepare.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Looking at my post now it is clear it devolved into a sort of word salad.
 
"Ptolemaic Egypt clearly invested a great deal of resources into the logistics of elephant transportation" is perhaps the most perfect WH-y sentence I've ever read.
 
No.
 
Did someone tell you that?
 
During the Middle Ages, were the countries of Europe puppets of the Catholic Church?
Did someone tell you that?
The British public education system? Protestant chauvinism is very deeply rooted in the British historical narrative, even those parts of it concerning the pre-Reformation era. (Agincourt still somehow manages to be cast as a battle between good Protestant yeoman and decadent Catholics aristocrats, a century before Luther.) A relic of segregated education, I suppose.
 
Yes. They gave it as a reason why Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church, so that England wouldn't be a puppet of the pope like all the other countries in Europe, especially France and Spain.


The Catholic Church had a lot of influence. That's not the same thing as control. If it had control, then there wouldn't have been multiple kingdoms and countries, but rather only a single empire.
 
I doubt Henry Six Wives would have left the Catholic Church if the Pope had given him that anullment. And possibly if his wife hadnt been the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain it could have happened. But that's just speculation.
 
Yes. They gave it as a reason why Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church, so that England wouldn't be a puppet of the pope like all the other countries in Europe, especially France and Spain.

That's not why he did it at all. Given that the Tudors are about the only monarchs we learn about in school, you'd have thought that they'd get that right at least.
 
Having a lot of influence is still different from being a direct puppets. Many kings and princes said 'no' to the Church, and the Church could do little as it had little real secular power, even in the age of the militant orders.

The Church could, however, fight back socio-culturally, especially by excommunications and the like; but that wasn't always a be-all end-all card. It sure was exhausting, however, to keep seeing the church and a secular power ***** and fight each other for centuries on end, that's for sure.
 
We have this funny ol' King of Aragon, Peter the Catholic, which is a very ironic moniker because he died fighting to defend his Cathar vassals against the Albigensian Crusade authorised by the Pope as induced by France.
 
This topic may be worth its own thread, but it's just based on something I spotted on Twitter, so... is it remotely plausible that this quote (from History Of Christianity in the 20th Century) is true?

“Since both the initial conversion of Scandinavia and its Lutheran reformation were top-down processes initiated by monarchies, the possibility exists that the majority of Danes & Swedes NEVER became Christians at a level more profound than that of formal collective adherence.”
 
This topic may be worth its own thread, but it's just based on something I spotted on Twitter, so... is it remotely plausible that this quote (from History Of Christianity in the 20th Century) is true?

“Since both the initial conversion of Scandinavia and its Lutheran reformation were top-down processes initiated by monarchies, the possibility exists that the majority of Danes & Swedes NEVER became Christians at a level more profound than that of formal collective adherence.”


Don't stop there. By that standard 9/10ths of people of any religion have done no more than go through the motions because they were forced to. But if the first generation goes to the church because they were commanded to, does that generation have no people who legitimately converted? And if the second generation was brought up in the church, and taught the doctrine as if it were true, do none of them grow up having honest faith?

Now personally I would think that if adherence to the form of the religion is mandatory, then you'll get a lot of people who follow the form, but don't believe the spirit of it. But saying that that may be true for many people is a different thing from saying that it is true of all, or even most, of the people.
 
This topic may be worth its own thread, but it's just based on something I spotted on Twitter, so... is it remotely plausible that this quote (from History Of Christianity in the 20th Century) is true?

“Since both the initial conversion of Scandinavia and its Lutheran reformation were top-down processes initiated by monarchies, the possibility exists that the majority of Danes & Swedes NEVER became Christians at a level more profound than that of formal collective adherence.”

Within the parameters set by the quote? No, certainly not. Especially given that that invalidates, like, virtually all Christians.

e.g. consider these passages from Bede:

CHAPTER XV

THE PROVINCE OF THE EAST ANGLES RECEIVES THE FAITH OF CHRIST. [A.D. 627.]

EDWIN was so zealous for the worship of truth, that he likewise persuaded Eorpwald, king of the East Saxons, and son of Redwald, to abandon his idolatrous superstitions, and with his whole province to receive the faith and sacraments of Christ. And indeed his father Redwald had long before been admitted to the sacrament of the Christian faith in Kent, but in vain; for on his return home, he was seduced by his wife and certain perverse teachers, and turned back from the sincerity of the faith; and thus his latter state was worse than the former; so that, like the ancient Samaritans, he seemed at the same time to serve Christ and the gods whom he had served before; and in the same temple he had an altar to sacrifice to Christ, and another small one to offer victims to devils; which temple, Aldwulf, king of that same province, who lived in our time testifies had stood until his time, and that he had seen it when he was a boy. The aforesaid King Redwald was noble by birth, though ignoble in his actions, being the son of Tytilus, whose father was Uuffa, from whom the kings of the East Angles are called Uuffings.

Eorpwald was, not long after he had embraced the Christian faith, slain by one Richbert, a pagan; and from the time the province was under error for three years, till the crown came into the possession of Sigebert, brother to the same Eorpwald, a most Christian and learned man, who was banished, and went to live in France during his brother's life, and was there admitted to the sacraments of the faith, whereof he made it his business to cause all his province to partake as soon as he came to the throne. His exertions were much promoted by the Bishop Felix, who coming to Honorius, the archbishop, from Burgundy, where he had been born and ordained, and having told him what he desired, he sent him to preach the word of life to the aforesaid nation of the Angles. Nor were his good wishes in vain; for the pious husbandman reaped therein a large harvest of believers, delivering all that province (according to the signification of his name, Felix) from long iniquity and infelicity, and bringing it to the faith and works of righteousness, and the gifts of everlasting happiness. He had the see of his bishopric appointed him in the city Dommoc, and having presided over the same province with pontifical authority seventeen years, he ended his days there in peace.

CHAPTER VII

HOW THE WEST SAXONS RECEIVED THE WORD OF GOD BY THE PREACHING OF BIRINUS; AND OF HIS SUCCESSORS, AGILBERT AND ELEUTHERIUS. [A.D. 635.]

AT that time, the West Saxons, formerly called Gewissae, in the reign of Cynegils, embraced the faith of Christ, at the preaching of Bishop Birinus, who came into Britain by the advice of Pope Honorius; having promised in his presence that he would sow the seed of the holy faith in the inner parts beyond the dominions of the English. where no other teacher had been before him. Hereupon he received episcopal consecration from Asterius, bishop of Genoa; but on his arrival in Britain, he first entered the nation of the Gewissae, and finding all there most confirmed pagans, he thought it better to preach the word of God there, than to proceed further to seek for others to preach to.

Now, as he preached in the aforesaid province, it happened that the king himself, having been catechized, was baptized together with his people, and Oswald, the most holy and victorious king of the Northumbrians, being present, received him as he came forth from baptism, and by an alliance most pleasing and acceptable to God, first adopted him, thus regenerated, for his son, and then took his daughter in marriage. The two kings gave to the bishop the city called Dorcic, there to settle his episcopal see; where having built and consecrated churches, and by his labor called many to the Lord, he departed this life, and was buried in the same city ; but many years after, when Hedda was bishop, he was translated thence to the city of Winchester, and laid in the church of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul.


CHAPTER VIII

HOW EARCONBERT, KING OF KENT, ORDERED THE IDOLS TO BE DESTROYED; AND OF HIS DAUGHTER EARCONGOTA, AND HIS KINSWOMAN ETHELBERGA, VIRGINS, CONSECRATED TO GOD. [A.D. 640.]

IN the year of our Lord 640, Eadbald, king of Kent, departed this life, and left his kingdom to his son Earconbert, which he most nobly governed twenty-four years and some months. He was the first of the English kings that of his supreme authority commanded the idols, throughout his whole kingdom, to be forsaken and destroyed, and the fast of forty days before Easter to be observed; and that the same might not be neglected, he appointed proper and condign punishments for the offenders. His daughter Earcongota, as became the offspring of such a parent, was a most virtuous virgin, always serving God in a monastery in France, built by a most noble abbess, called Fara, at a place called Brie; for at that time but few monasteries being built in the country of the Angles, many were wont, for the sake of monastic conversation, to repair to the monasteries of the Franks or Gauls; and they also sent their daughters there to be instructed, and delivered to their heavenly bridegroom, especially in the monasteries of Brie, of Chelles, and Andelys. Among whom was also Sethrid, daughter of the wife of Anna, king of the East Angles, above mentioned; and Ethelberga, natural daughter of the same king; both of whom, though strangers, were for their virtue made abbesses of the monastery of Brie. Sexberga, that king's eldest daughter, wife to Earconbert, king of Kent, had a daughter called Earcongota, of whom we are about to speak.




CHAPTER XXI


HOW THE PROVINCE OF THE MIDLAND ANGLES BECAME CHRISTIAN UNDER KING PEADA. [A.D. 653.]

AT this time, the Middle Angles, under their Prince Peada, the son of King Penda, received the faith and sacraments of the truth. Being an excellent youth, and most worthy of the title and person of a king, he was by his father elevated to the throne of that nation, and came to Oswy, king of the Northumbrians, requesting to have his daughter Elfieda given him to wife; but could not obtain his desires unless he would embrace the faith of Christ, and be baptized, with the nation which he governed. When he heard the preaching of truth, the promise of the heavenly kingdom, and the hope of resurrection and future immortality, he declared that he would willingly become a Christian, even though he should be refused the virgin; being chiefly prevailed on to receive the faith by King Oswy's son Aifrid, who was his relation and friend, and had married his sister Cyneherga, the daughter of King Penda.

Accordingly he was baptized by Bishop Finan, with all his earls and soldiers, and their servants, that came along with him, at a noted village belonging to the king, called At the Wall. And having received four priests, who for their erudition and good life were deemed proper to instruct and baptize his nation, he returned home with much joy. These priests were Cedd and Adda, and Betti and Diuma; the last of whom was by nation a Scot, the others English. Adda was brother to Utta, whom we have mentioned before, a renowned priest, and abbot of the monastery of Gateshead. The aforesaid priests, arriving in the province with the prince, preached the word, and were willingly listened to; and many, as well of the nobility as the common sort, renouncing the abominations of idolatry, were baptized daily.

Nor did King Penda obstruct the preaching of the word among his people, the Mercians, if any were willing to hear it; but, on the contrary, he hated and despised those whom he perceived not to perform the works of faith, when they had once received the faith, saying, "They were contemptible and wretched who did not obey their God, in whom they believed." This was begun two years before the death of King Penda.



CHAPTER XXIV

KING PENDA BEING SLAIN, THE MERCIANS RECEIVED THE FAITH OF CHRIST, AND OSWY GAVE POSSESSIONS AND TERRITORIES TO GOD, FOR BUILDING MONASTERIES, IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE VICTORY OBTAINED. [A.D. 655.]

AT this time, King Oswy was exposed to the fierce and intolerable irruptions of Penda, king of the Mercians, whom we have so often mentioned, and who had slain his brother; at length, necessity compelling him, he promised to give him greater gifts than can he imagined, to purchase peace; provided that the king would return home, and cease to destroy the provinces of his kingdom. That perfidious king refused to grant his request, and resolved to extirpate all his nation, from the highest to the lowest; whereupon he had recourse to the protection of the Divine goodness for deliverance from his barbarous and impious foes, and binding himself by a vow, said, "If the pagan will not accept of our gifts, let us offer them to Him that will, the Lord our God." He then vowed, that if he should come off victorious, he would dedicate his daughter to our Lord in holy virginity, and give twelve farms to build monasteries. After this he gave battle with a very small army against superior forces: indeed, it is reported that the pagans had three times the number of men; for they had thirty legions, led on by most noted commanders. King Oswy and his son Aifrid met them with a very small army, as has been said, but confiding in the conduct of Christ; his other son, Egfrid, was then kept an hostage at the court of Queen Cynwise, in the province of the Mercians. King Oswald's son Etheiwald, who ought to have assisted them, was on the enemy's side, and led them on to fight against his country and uncle; though, during the battle, he withdrew, and awaited the event in a place of safety. The engagement beginning, the pagans were defeated, the thirty commanders, and those who had come to his assistance were put to flight, and almost all of them slain; among whom was Ethelbere, brother and successor to Anna, king of the East Angles, who had been the occasion of the war, and who was now killed, with all his soldiers. The battle was fought near the river Vinwed, which then, with the great rains, had not only filled its channel, hut overflowed its banks, so that many more were drowned in the flight than destroyed by the sword.

Then King Oswy, pursuant to the vow he had made to our Lord, returned thanks to God for the victory, and gave his daughter Elfieda, who was scarce a year old, to he consecrated to Him in perpetual virginity; delivering also twelve small portions of land, wherein earthly warfare should cease, and in which there should be a perpetual residence and subsistence for monks to follow the warfare which is spiritual, and pray diligently for the peace of his nation. Of those possessions six were in the province of the Deiri, and the other six in that of the Bernicians. Each of the said possessions contained ten families, that is, a hundred and twenty in all. The aforesaid daughter of King Oswy, thus dedicated to God, was put into the monastery, called Heruteu, or, "The island of the Hart," where, at that time, the Abbess Hilda presided, and, two years after, having acquired a possession of ten families, at the place called Streaneshalch, she built a monastery there, in which the aforesaid king's daughter was first a learner, and afterwards a teacher of the monastic life; till, being sixty years of age, the blessed virgin departed to the nuptials and embraces of her heavenly bridegroom. In that same monastery, she and her father, Oswy, her mother, Eanfleda, her mother's father, Edwin, and many other noble persons, are buried in the church of the holy Apostle Peter. King Oswy concluded the aforesaid war in the country of Loidis, in the thirteenth year of his reign, on the 15th of November, to the great benefit of both nations; for he both delivered his own people from the hostile depredations of the pagans, and, having cut off the wicked king's head, converted the Mercians and the adjacent provinces to the grace of the Christian faith.

I can assure you, the histories recounting the conversion of the pagan Germans and Franks follow the same general path: Bishop/Saint converts king -> king punishes/eradicates idolaters and converts the nation. It should be kept in mind, though, when dealing with histories prior to the institutionalization of History as an academic discipline in the 18th and 19th centuries, that history wasn't really the same thing then as it was today, viz. a documentation of facts and an analysis of the causative impact of contingent forces/events. Rather, history was more akin to a literary genre; a didactic tool largely concerned with instilling moral truths through the examination of figures both great and infamous. Any given historian was writing for a particular audience and was expected to satisfy certain expectations regarding theme, trope and narrative.

This isn't to say that the things written in pre-modern histories are false or wholly fabricated. Rather, that it's more helpful to think of pre-modern history as something akin to modern documentary filmmaking or films which dramatize historical figures or events. The events and figures themselves are all real, and happened, or at least inasmuch as the stories which the author was reproducing were viewed as real and factual by the society whence the stories were drawn. However, the events and figures were compressed, embellished, and editorialized in order to satisfy specific tropes, and in order to highlight particular themes or moral truths (usually concerning piety, good rulership, and the power of faith, the church, the monarchy, etc.). To that end, certain characters might be inserted, aspects of a figure's personality might be emphasized, while others might be omitted, etc.
 
This topic may be worth its own thread, but it's just based on something I spotted on Twitter, so... is it remotely plausible that this quote (from History Of Christianity in the 20th Century) is true?

“Since both the initial conversion of Scandinavia and its Lutheran reformation were top-down processes initiated by monarchies, the possibility exists that the majority of Danes & Swedes NEVER became Christians at a level more profound than that of formal collective adherence.”
It all depends on what one considers 'becoming Christian' means. If a peasant goes to church and gets baptized, but then leaves offerings for the 'folk gods' and engages in 'pagan rituals' to bring fertility to the crops, are they "Christian"? I think the author might overstate the case a bit, but we have pretty clear documented evidence that 'folk beliefs' hung around in Italy until well into the 17th century and some Muslim chroniclers wrote about Egyptian peasants leaving offerings at the foot of the Sphinx in the 14th century.
 
This isn't to say that the things written in pre-modern histories are false or wholly fabricated. Rather, that it's more helpful to think of pre-modern history as something akin to modern documentary filmmaking or films which dramatize historical figures or events. The events and figures themselves are all real, and happened, or at least inasmuch as the stories which the author was reproducing were viewed as real and factual by the society whence the stories were drawn. However, the events and figures were compressed, embellished, and editorialized in order to satisfy specific tropes, and in order to highlight particular themes or moral truths (usually concerning piety, good rulership, and the power of faith, the church, the monarchy, etc.). To that end, certain characters might be inserted, aspects of a figure's personality might be emphasized, while others might be omitted, etc.

I do not accept that type of cultural relativism. There may be room for embellishment in folk tales and myths, but never, never in actual history. I once heard a historian say something along the lines of "there are no statistics in antiquity, only rhetorical flourishes with numbers". Well, in modernity they are called lies.

(Using documentaries as an analogy is also not making me any more sympathetic to them.)

It all depends on what one considers 'becoming Christian' means. If a peasant goes to church and gets baptized, but then leaves offerings for the 'folk gods' and engages in 'pagan rituals' to bring fertility to the crops, are they "Christian"? I think the author might overstate the case a bit, but we have pretty clear documented evidence that 'folk beliefs' hung around in Italy until well into the 17th century and some Muslim chroniclers wrote about Egyptian peasants leaving offerings at the foot of the Sphinx in the 14th century.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Did Scandinavians ever really passionate about Christianity, or was it perhaps viewed as some sort of the common cultural framework (for example, most Westerners believe that Greek statues were originally white, but aren't emotionally invested in this belief and basically shrug their shoulders when it is shown to be false).
 
Back
Top Bottom