New Cumulative General History Quiz

[Adler17]

Alone is VERY near, but unfortunately it is Justinian I. So Superisis gets the credit. Although all were not answering the second part of my question completely:
Justinian´s Codex Iuris Civilis is containing nearly all sources of Roman law which are known today. It survived the dark ages. Only a small book out of a huge libary of the lost works of the other juristical works are known today. And that´s why he is damned by some jurists who say due to his policy the other works were doomed.
Sorry, Alone but it was not Justinian II.
Superisis, your question.

Adler

 

[thetrooper]

Seems that Superisis forgot this thread. I am cheeky enough to post the next question:

The Visigoth leader Alaric I died in 410 AD. Who became their new leader?

 

[Adso de Fimnu]

The Visigoth leader Alaric I died in 410 AD. Who became their new leader?

Odoacer? (???)

 

[thetrooper]

Nope.

Odoacer, also known as Odovacar (435-493) was the half Hunnish, half Scirian chieftain of the Germanic Heruli.

Close in time, not in tribe...

 

[HolyEmperor]

My guess would be Euric... I know he was VISIgoth, but not the time hr reigned, so...

 

[thetrooper]

Nope.

Under Euric the Visigothic kingdom reached its greatest extent. Euric was succeeded by his son Alaric II.

 

[HolyEmperor]

Seems that Superisis forgot this thread. I am cheeky enough to post the next question:

The Visigoth leader Alaric I died in 410 AD. Who became their new leader?

Was that (the successor of Alaric) the one that was with Aetius?

 

[thetrooper]

@HolyEmperor: you are closing in now...

 

[superisis]

bloody hell, where are my history notes from 3 years ago?

I should have known this one.

 

[HolyEmperor]

@HolyEmperor: you are closing in now...

Woud it then be... Adolphus (at least he assumed this name when he travelled to Gaul, I believe). I think in English his name was Atauulph or Atauulf...

 

[thetrooper]

Bravo HolyEmperor!

It was Ataulf.

Go ahead, you may ask the next question.

 

[HolyEmperor]

Thanks, thetrooper, that one was very hard to remember, it was more like... well a guess!

My question is:
When did the very first schism beetween the patriarchal sees of Rome and Constantinople happened, and why did it happened?

I'll be giving hints as necessary...

 

[superisis]

Pater noster...

 

[Akhhorus]

Thanks, thetrooper, that one was very hard to remember, it was more like... well a guess!

My question is:
When did the very first schism beetween the patriarchal sees of Rome and Constantinople happened, and why did it happened?

I'll be giving hints as necessary...

1054 ad.
The reasons:
The filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Roman church

the use of unleavened bread in the West vs. leavened bread in the East for the Eucharist

disputes in the Balkans over whether the Western or Eastern church had jurisdiction

the concept of Caesaropapism, a tying together in some way of the ultimate political and religious authorities, which were physically separated much earlier when the capital of the empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. There is controversy over just how much this so-called "caesaropapism" actually existed and how much was a fanciful invention, centuries later, by western European historians.

 

[HolyEmperor]

1054 ad.
The reasons:
The filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Roman church

the use of unleavened bread in the West vs. leavened bread in the East for the Eucharist

disputes in the Balkans over whether the Western or Eastern church had jurisdiction

the concept of Caesaropapism, a tying together in some way of the ultimate political and religious authorities, which were physically separated much earlier when the capital of the empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. There is controversy over just how much this so-called "caesaropapism" actually existed and how much was a fanciful invention, centuries later, by western European historians.

Sorry Akhhorus, but not by far...
First (and huge) hint:
It was before Heraclius! Meaning: It was before 641 AD.
Relations beetween Constantinople and Rome were cut off many times... just not permanently until the Great Schism. Actually the necessity of putting a Great means by itself that there were others...

 

[Birdjaguar]

My question is:
When did the very first schism beetween the patriarchal sees of Rome and Constantinople happened, and why did it happened?

I'll be giving hints as necessary...

How about Augustine's description of the trinity in his "city of god" which be began publishing about 410 AD?

 

[HolyEmperor]

You got the timing right, the schism did happen around 410. But I'm still waiting for someone to answer the "why" correctly AND to answer the exact time span, like from year XXX to year YYY...
Tomorrow I'll give the second hint!
But, since i told you got the timing right here goes a bonus hint: It happened during the papacy of Innocence I.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You got the timing right, the schism did happen around 410. But I'm still waiting for someone to answer the "why" correctly AND to answer the exact time span, like from year XXX to year YYY...
Tomorrow I'll give the second hint!
But, since i told you got the timing right here goes a bonus hint: It happened during the papacy of Innocence I.

Well that would pont to the Nestorian Heresey and the battle over the the single or dual nature of christ. Over this issue the coptic churches split from the fold. The controversy begain in 325 in Nicea and ended in 451 at Chalcedon.

 

[jonatas]

couldn't the Arians be possibly involved during this time frame? my memory of this period of history is really fuzzy ....

 

[Akhhorus]

Sorry Akhhorus, but not by far...
First (and huge) hint:
It was before Heraclius! Meaning: It was before 641 AD.
Relations beetween Constantinople and Rome were cut off many times... just not permanently until the Great Schism. Actually the necessity of putting a Great means by itself that there were others...

but they still considered themselves One church until 1054. Its a matter of sematics.