Vrylakas' Eastern European History-Question-a-Day Quiz
- Thread starter Vrylakas
- Start date
A_Bashkuev
King
Pawpaw wrote:
hungarian and german
You also got the German part right.
Now what was the other language? Hungarian would only become a predominant language in Budapest in the following two decades leading up to World War I, due partially to migrations and partially to assimilation. As a hint, the other language was spoken by a group of people who were former denizens of Poland, long since conquered and absorbed by Russia, who were migrating to Budapest en masse in the 19th century.
Well, you confused me - I was sure - German & Magyar due to...
This is mine reasoning: I knew that Magyar wasn't really strong part of any urban population till XX century & Gypsy predominance more usual for modern Romania - not Hungary, but... I'm afraid Ruthenians (or "rusins") drived out from "Polish Ruthenia" were rather minority for Budapest; Slovaks living regions more in the north 7 Jews speaking on Yiddish... No, main part of them driven from Russia in Alexander III rulership went into German & USA, due to very harsh anti-Jewish sentiments in Ausrto-Hungary in end of XIX century - why trying to change campfire for oven??? Well, Jews (& Yiddish) could be right answer, but I'm sure that Jews in 1900 were already thinned down enough in Budapest region & couldn't get enough demographic support from Russia due to absence of meaningful emigration by this route: for example Khasidites (I'm not sure about right English pronunciation of followers of Leeb Meerson) were more repulsed by Austrian rules then Russian attitude. That is that.
hungarian and german
You also got the German part right.
Now what was the other language? Hungarian would only become a predominant language in Budapest in the following two decades leading up to World War I, due partially to migrations and partially to assimilation. As a hint, the other language was spoken by a group of people who were former denizens of Poland, long since conquered and absorbed by Russia, who were migrating to Budapest en masse in the 19th century.
Well, you confused me - I was sure - German & Magyar due to...
This is mine reasoning: I knew that Magyar wasn't really strong part of any urban population till XX century & Gypsy predominance more usual for modern Romania - not Hungary, but... I'm afraid Ruthenians (or "rusins") drived out from "Polish Ruthenia" were rather minority for Budapest; Slovaks living regions more in the north 7 Jews speaking on Yiddish... No, main part of them driven from Russia in Alexander III rulership went into German & USA, due to very harsh anti-Jewish sentiments in Ausrto-Hungary in end of XIX century - why trying to change campfire for oven??? Well, Jews (& Yiddish) could be right answer, but I'm sure that Jews in 1900 were already thinned down enough in Budapest region & couldn't get enough demographic support from Russia due to absence of meaningful emigration by this route: for example Khasidites (I'm not sure about right English pronunciation of followers of Leeb Meerson) were more repulsed by Austrian rules then Russian attitude. That is that.
Alex_Bashkujev wrote:
Well, you confused me - I was sure - German & Magyar due to...
This is mine reasoning: I knew that Magyar wasn't really strong part of any urban population till XX century & Gypsy predominance more usual for modern Romania - not Hungary, but... I'm afraid Ruthenians (or "rusins") drived out from "Polish Ruthenia" were rather minority for Budapest; Slovaks living regions more in the north 7 Jews speaking on Yiddish... No, main part of them driven from Russia in Alexander III rulership went into German & USA, due to very harsh anti-Jewish sentiments in Ausrto-Hungary in end of XIX century - why trying to change campfire for oven??? Well, Jews (& Yiddish) could be right answer, but I'm sure that Jews in 1900 were already thinned down enough in Budapest region & couldn't get enough demographic support from Russia due to absence of meaningful emigration by this route: for example Khasidites (I'm not sure about right English pronunciation of followers of Leeb Meerson) were more repulsed by Austrian rules then Russian attitude. That is that.
You got it Alex. It was indeed Jews, Polish and Russian Jews. You need to remember that while anti-Jewish feeling was indeed strong in the Habsburg empire, it manifested as job and housing discrimination. In Russia, anti-Semetism in the late 19th century manifested as violent pogroms; Budapest was the lesser of two evils. To boot the city had a humming middle class and was growing exponentially, so that it could easily absorb large numbers of immigrants. Budapest also for some odd reason became a magnet for Armenians fleeing the Ottomans. Budapest was fairly cosmopolitan by Central European standards (Metternich's slander notwithstanding), and Jews living in the city rapidly assimilated over a few decades' time, so that by the 1930s few Budapest Jews could understand Yiddish. A famous Hungarian poet of the day, Radnoti Miklós (who wrote in Hungarian), said: "I am not a Hungarian Jew, but a Jewish Hungarian!" Assimilation for Jews in Hungary was much faster than in Poland, or any of the surrounding countries.
Polish and Russian Jews had begun to splinter in the late 18th century (Frankists, Litvaks, Hassidim, etc.), and the collapse of the medieval shtetl system in occupied Poland created the impetus for many to migrate.
Good job - German and Yiddish were the correct answer. In 1900 Buda, the nobility spoke Hungarian (though in polite company they tended to speak either German or French), while the middle class of Pest was mostly German or Jewish. Most newspapers published in the city were indeed published in German or Yiddish.
Next question:
On 15. July 1410, a bunch of Poles, Lithuanians, Germans, Tartars, Russians, Czechs, Hungarians, Moldavians, and included sprinklings of some English, French, Italians, Swedes, Scots, etc. all met along Lake Lubien between three local villages; Grünwald, Stebark and Lodwigowo. What were they doing, and what was the result?
A_Bashkuev
King
Oh, it's rather simple - for not depriving of others from this fun my answer would be rather equiocal:
Their doing had most important impact on East European History. For example - German papers in late 1914 named similar activity as "Tannenberg Revenge" or "Second Tannenberg" due to fact that in Order History this place had name of Tannenberg.
Am I right?
A-Bashkujev wrote:
Oh, it's rather simple - for not depriving of others from this fun my answer would be rather equiocal:
Their doing had most important impact on East European History. For example - German papers in late 1914 named similar activity as "Tannenberg Revenge" or "Second Tannenberg" due to fact that in Order History this place had name of Tannenberg.
Am I right?
Well I knew you would get this one.... I'll let others try to answer.
Oh, it's rather simple - for not depriving of others from this fun my answer would be rather equiocal:
Their doing had most important impact on East European History. For example - German papers in late 1914 named similar activity as "Tannenberg Revenge" or "Second Tannenberg" due to fact that in Order History this place had name of Tannenberg.
Am I right?
Well I knew you would get this one.... I'll let others try to answer.
A_Bashkuev
King
Oh, by the way - main persons in this "activity" were Ulrich von Junginen (died in process) & Marcus von Vallenrode (survived); Wladyslaw Jogaila (or Jagiello) & Vitautas (forget his name) - (survived both).
Oh, another thing - Lituanians name this place as Zalgiris.
Oh, another thing - Lituanians name this place as Zalgiris.
So, they must have been mercenaries, can't be another reasonable explanation for all those nationalities, surely?
And the German guy who died was probably a Teutonic Knight (which I suppose is a redundant way of saying that the German guy who died, was German
)
And German papers calling the Battle of Tannenberg which Hindenburg (and Germany) won, 'Tannenberg revenge'.
So there must have been a battle which the Teutonic Knights lost.
Were they fighting Poland? Most likely!
More than that, Watson, I cannot say.
And the German guy who died was probably a Teutonic Knight (which I suppose is a redundant way of saying that the German guy who died, was German
)And German papers calling the Battle of Tannenberg which Hindenburg (and Germany) won, 'Tannenberg revenge'.
So there must have been a battle which the Teutonic Knights lost.
Were they fighting Poland? Most likely!
More than that, Watson, I cannot say.
Polymath wrote:
So, they must have been mercenaries, can't be another reasonable explanation for all those nationalities, surely?
And the German guy who died was probably a Teutonic Knight (which I suppose is a redundant way of saying that the German guy who died, was German )
And German papers calling the Battle of Tannenberg which Hindenburg (and Germany) won, 'Tannenberg revenge'.
So there must have been a battle which the Teutonic Knights lost.
Were they fighting Poland? Most likely!
More than that, Watson, I cannot say.
That's all that needs to be said. Poles call it the Battle of Grünwald, Germans the Battle of Tannenberg, Lithuanians the Battle of the Zalgiris River. Whatever you call it, it was one of the epic battles that shaped Eastern European history. It was a major confrontation between Poland-Lithuania and the Teutonic Order, ostensibly over territory but in reality over the fate of northern Eastern Europe. Figures on the forces involved and casualties from the battle vary widely, but conservative estimates claim the Order had about 32,000 while the Polish-Lithuanian allies had about 50,000. Similar estimates claim that when it was over, about 80% of the Order's forces lay dead on the field, with 50 of its 60 commanders among the dead. The Order would survive this mauling and continue to maintain its pseudo-state in the Baltic for another few decades until another war with the Poles and Lithuanians (Thirteen Years War; 1454-1466) that would end with the Order's complete conquest by Poland, but the post-1410 Teutonic Order was a mere shadow of its former self. The end result was that by defeating the Order, Eastern Europe was saved from an early incorporation into the medieval German political sphere.
The Teutonic Order still exists BTW. Gradually the Teutonic Order was taken over by the Habsburgs and had become a largely ceremonial order by the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1918, at which time its military aspects were disbanded. It survives today headquartered in Vienna as a purely Catholic religious organization (website here). The Order, though effectively destroyed as a military threat in 1410, remained a powerful and potent symbol of German imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe for centuries afterward. In 1945, months after most fighting in Poland had ceased, the Soviets trained their artillery on the old fortress ruins of Marienburg (the Order's capital), destroying its Medieval gothic church and exquisitely decorated warehouse; these were only restored in the last few years by the Polish government as a museum and are once again open to the public, though in imperfect form.
Good job Polymath!
BTW Alex, as I understand Friedrich von Wallenrod did not survive the battle.
Next question:
Since the collapse of the USSR and Ukraine's independence, there's been a drive for the creation of a separate Ukrainian Orthodox church, independent of Moscow. Obviously this ruffled some feathers in Moscow, and one church official was heard to exclaim to a newsreporter that the Ukrainian church leaders were a bunch of "Tikhonites". What did his slur mean?
Bonus: What's the other major church popular in Ukraine, especially western Ukraine, that was banned by Stalin and had its world headquarters in New Jersey from the 1930s to the 1990s?
So, they must have been mercenaries, can't be another reasonable explanation for all those nationalities, surely?
And the German guy who died was probably a Teutonic Knight (which I suppose is a redundant way of saying that the German guy who died, was German )
And German papers calling the Battle of Tannenberg which Hindenburg (and Germany) won, 'Tannenberg revenge'.
So there must have been a battle which the Teutonic Knights lost.
Were they fighting Poland? Most likely!
More than that, Watson, I cannot say.
That's all that needs to be said. Poles call it the Battle of Grünwald, Germans the Battle of Tannenberg, Lithuanians the Battle of the Zalgiris River. Whatever you call it, it was one of the epic battles that shaped Eastern European history. It was a major confrontation between Poland-Lithuania and the Teutonic Order, ostensibly over territory but in reality over the fate of northern Eastern Europe. Figures on the forces involved and casualties from the battle vary widely, but conservative estimates claim the Order had about 32,000 while the Polish-Lithuanian allies had about 50,000. Similar estimates claim that when it was over, about 80% of the Order's forces lay dead on the field, with 50 of its 60 commanders among the dead. The Order would survive this mauling and continue to maintain its pseudo-state in the Baltic for another few decades until another war with the Poles and Lithuanians (Thirteen Years War; 1454-1466) that would end with the Order's complete conquest by Poland, but the post-1410 Teutonic Order was a mere shadow of its former self. The end result was that by defeating the Order, Eastern Europe was saved from an early incorporation into the medieval German political sphere.
The Teutonic Order still exists BTW. Gradually the Teutonic Order was taken over by the Habsburgs and had become a largely ceremonial order by the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1918, at which time its military aspects were disbanded. It survives today headquartered in Vienna as a purely Catholic religious organization (website here). The Order, though effectively destroyed as a military threat in 1410, remained a powerful and potent symbol of German imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe for centuries afterward. In 1945, months after most fighting in Poland had ceased, the Soviets trained their artillery on the old fortress ruins of Marienburg (the Order's capital), destroying its Medieval gothic church and exquisitely decorated warehouse; these were only restored in the last few years by the Polish government as a museum and are once again open to the public, though in imperfect form.
Good job Polymath!
BTW Alex, as I understand Friedrich von Wallenrod did not survive the battle.
Next question:
Since the collapse of the USSR and Ukraine's independence, there's been a drive for the creation of a separate Ukrainian Orthodox church, independent of Moscow. Obviously this ruffled some feathers in Moscow, and one church official was heard to exclaim to a newsreporter that the Ukrainian church leaders were a bunch of "Tikhonites". What did his slur mean?
Bonus: What's the other major church popular in Ukraine, especially western Ukraine, that was banned by Stalin and had its world headquarters in New Jersey from the 1930s to the 1990s?
It was the critical battle betw the Teutonic Knights and the Poles and Lithuanians - the name for which differs, depending on which nationality you're talking to - which would in the long run decide the fate of the Baltic area. At the end of it, almost the entire leadership and most of the knights of the Teutonic Order were slain. The Teutonic Knights would never challenge the Poles and Lithuanians for contest of the region again.
BTW, I cheated, having read Vrylakas' thread on it somewhere.
Add: D'oh! A bit late I am, posting...
BTW, I cheated, having read Vrylakas' thread on it somewhere.
Add: D'oh! A bit late I am, posting...
Nixon wrote:
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church was the name of that church based New Jersey, I think.
Ah, you know you get a half-point here because although this group is not really the ones I was looking for, they fit the bill as I described it. The UAOC is a sort of exarchate formed from an early 20th century movement to form a separate Ukrainian Orthodox church, but the group I was looking for had much more intimate ties to the West, and as a hint was connected most famously (infamously if you're Russian) to Josef Slipyj of WW II. Nice job though Nixon.
XIII wrote:
It was the critical battle betw the Teutonic Knights and the Poles and Lithuanians - the name for which differs, depending on which nationality you're talking to - which would in the long run decide the fate of the Baltic area. At the end of it, almost the entire leadership and most of the knights of the Teutonic Order were slain. The Teutonic Knights would never challenge the Poles and Lithuanians for contest of the region again.
BTW, I cheated, having read Vrylakas' thread on it somewhere.
Add: D'oh! A bit late I am, posting...
Right as usual, and that's no problem because cheating is allowed. No problem being a little late; I jumped the gun a bit when I got in early to work this morning and decided to answer the first post I saw.... At least you made the honest effort to cheat.
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church was the name of that church based New Jersey, I think.
Ah, you know you get a half-point here because although this group is not really the ones I was looking for, they fit the bill as I described it. The UAOC is a sort of exarchate formed from an early 20th century movement to form a separate Ukrainian Orthodox church, but the group I was looking for had much more intimate ties to the West, and as a hint was connected most famously (infamously if you're Russian) to Josef Slipyj of WW II. Nice job though Nixon.
XIII wrote:
It was the critical battle betw the Teutonic Knights and the Poles and Lithuanians - the name for which differs, depending on which nationality you're talking to - which would in the long run decide the fate of the Baltic area. At the end of it, almost the entire leadership and most of the knights of the Teutonic Order were slain. The Teutonic Knights would never challenge the Poles and Lithuanians for contest of the region again.
BTW, I cheated, having read Vrylakas' thread on it somewhere.
Add: D'oh! A bit late I am, posting...
Right as usual, and that's no problem because cheating is allowed. No problem being a little late; I jumped the gun a bit when I got in early to work this morning and decided to answer the first post I saw.... At least you made the honest effort to cheat.
The church is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with patriarchate in Kyev. There were two Ukrainian churches in the United States, which were subsequently merged. The Metropolitan, Mstyslav, became Patriarch of Kyev due to Ukraine's independence in 1990.
Hope I am right.
EDIT: The Iosef Slipyj you talk about, wasn't he victim of the mass deportations of the CCCP, and put in a camp in Siberia for almost two decades? Oh well, I don't know much about, as you can hear.
Hope I am right.
EDIT: The Iosef Slipyj you talk about, wasn't he victim of the mass deportations of the CCCP, and put in a camp in Siberia for almost two decades? Oh well, I don't know much about, as you can hear.
Incarnatur Est
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 37
When Metropolitan Sergius, acting head of the Russian Orthodox Church declared his - and the Church's - loyalty with the Soviet government (effectively a sell-out) in 1927, a number of Church leaders, notably Patriarch Tikhon, refused to follow. They broke of into a secret splinter Church - the "Catacombs Church" that was persecuted by both the official Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet authorities. Most of Tikhon's followers ended up in Siberia, but the "Catacombs Church" managed to survive the Soviet Union nevertheless, only to be reviled and abused by the offical church heirarchy when it emerged into the light again in 1990. It is quite revealing that offical Orthodoxy still thinks this is an insult.
A curious re-run of the Old-faithful Schism and the resulting oppression during the Czars, really, although the reasons where different. Not the only pattern repeating itself in Russia.
I'd guess you're talking about the Uniates?
Nixon wrote:
The church is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with patriarchate in Kyev. There were two Ukrainian churches in the United States, which were subsequently merged. The Metropolitan, Mstyslav, became Patriarch of Kyev due to Ukraine's independence in 1990.
Hope I am right.
Well, not the Ukrainian Orthodox Church per se. Incarnatur Est got it right, the Ukrainian Uniates were the persecuted church I was looking for. The Uniates ("Greek Catholics") were a breakaway sect of the Orthodox church who (under Polish tutelage in 1596) who kept their own rites but recognized the authority of the Pope in Rome. The Habsburgs similarly were able to convince a group of Romanian Orthodox in Transylvania to a similar deal but that church has fared less well since the collapse of communism.
EDIT: The Iosef Slipyj you talk about, wasn't he victim of the mass deportations of the CCCP, and put in a camp in Siberia for almost two decades? Oh well, I don't know much about, as you can hear.
Yes indeed! He was the Uniate leader, called a Cardinal by Rome but a Patriarch by the Uniates themselves.
Incarnatur Est wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Next question:
Since the collapse of the USSR and Ukraine's independence, there's been a drive for the creation of a separate Ukrainian Orthodox church, independent of Moscow. Obviously this ruffled some feathers in Moscow, and one church official was heard to exclaim to a newsreporter that the Ukrainian church leaders were a bunch of "Tikhonites". What did his slur mean?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Metropolitan Sergius, acting head of the Russian Orthodox Church declared his - and the Church's - loyalty with the Soviet government (effectively a sell-out) in 1927, a number of Church leaders, notably Patriarch Tikhon, refused to follow. They broke of into a secret splinter Church - the "Catacombs Church" that was persecuted by both the official Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet authorities. Most of Tikhon's followers ended up in Siberia, but the "Catacombs Church" managed to survive the Soviet Union nevertheless, only to be reviled and abused by the offical church heirarchy when it emerged into the light again in 1990. It is quite revealing that offical Orthodoxy still thinks this is an insult.
A curious re-run of the Old-faithful Schism and the resulting oppression during the Czars, really, although the reasons where different. Not the only pattern repeating itself in Russia.
Yes! Exactly! Spot on I.E.!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonus: What's the other major church popular in Ukraine, especially western Ukraine, that was banned by Stalin and had its world headquarters in New Jersey from the 1930s to the 1990s? [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd guess you're talking about the Uniates?
Yes!
Next question:
What early Christmas present awaited the Romanian people on the eve of the Western Christmas in 1989?
The church is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with patriarchate in Kyev. There were two Ukrainian churches in the United States, which were subsequently merged. The Metropolitan, Mstyslav, became Patriarch of Kyev due to Ukraine's independence in 1990.
Hope I am right.
Well, not the Ukrainian Orthodox Church per se. Incarnatur Est got it right, the Ukrainian Uniates were the persecuted church I was looking for. The Uniates ("Greek Catholics") were a breakaway sect of the Orthodox church who (under Polish tutelage in 1596) who kept their own rites but recognized the authority of the Pope in Rome. The Habsburgs similarly were able to convince a group of Romanian Orthodox in Transylvania to a similar deal but that church has fared less well since the collapse of communism.
EDIT: The Iosef Slipyj you talk about, wasn't he victim of the mass deportations of the CCCP, and put in a camp in Siberia for almost two decades? Oh well, I don't know much about, as you can hear.
Yes indeed! He was the Uniate leader, called a Cardinal by Rome but a Patriarch by the Uniates themselves.
Incarnatur Est wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Next question:
Since the collapse of the USSR and Ukraine's independence, there's been a drive for the creation of a separate Ukrainian Orthodox church, independent of Moscow. Obviously this ruffled some feathers in Moscow, and one church official was heard to exclaim to a newsreporter that the Ukrainian church leaders were a bunch of "Tikhonites". What did his slur mean?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Metropolitan Sergius, acting head of the Russian Orthodox Church declared his - and the Church's - loyalty with the Soviet government (effectively a sell-out) in 1927, a number of Church leaders, notably Patriarch Tikhon, refused to follow. They broke of into a secret splinter Church - the "Catacombs Church" that was persecuted by both the official Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet authorities. Most of Tikhon's followers ended up in Siberia, but the "Catacombs Church" managed to survive the Soviet Union nevertheless, only to be reviled and abused by the offical church heirarchy when it emerged into the light again in 1990. It is quite revealing that offical Orthodoxy still thinks this is an insult.
A curious re-run of the Old-faithful Schism and the resulting oppression during the Czars, really, although the reasons where different. Not the only pattern repeating itself in Russia.
Yes! Exactly! Spot on I.E.!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonus: What's the other major church popular in Ukraine, especially western Ukraine, that was banned by Stalin and had its world headquarters in New Jersey from the 1930s to the 1990s? [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd guess you're talking about the Uniates?
Yes!
Next question:
What early Christmas present awaited the Romanian people on the eve of the Western Christmas in 1989?
Kennelly
Starfleet Admiral
'Overthrown' is a bit too euphemistic,as he was shot on December 25th.Didn't they even broadcast it on TV?
Kamilian1 wrote:
Democracy! The overthrow of Nicolae Ceasescu (sp?) by a massive revolution in Romania as a result of the domino-like disintegration of the rest of the Soviet Bloc which lead to democratization and free elections.
Kennelly wrote:
'Overthrown' is a bit too euphemistic,as he was shot on December 25th.Didn't they even broadcast it on TV?
You both got it right, though Kennelly was more to the point. Nicolae Ceausescu was convicted by an ad hoc tribunal and executed by gunfire on the Western Christmas Eve, 1989. The major concern was the ferocity with which his supporters in the secret police, the Securitate, were resisting so he was hurredly executed and Romanians that evening were treated to the grisly video of his death - to prove to one and all that the tyrant and his wife were indeed dead.
Good job guys.
Next question:
What was peculiar about the religion of medieval Bosnia-Herzegovina in its pre-Islamic days?
Democracy! The overthrow of Nicolae Ceasescu (sp?) by a massive revolution in Romania as a result of the domino-like disintegration of the rest of the Soviet Bloc which lead to democratization and free elections.
Kennelly wrote:
'Overthrown' is a bit too euphemistic,as he was shot on December 25th.Didn't they even broadcast it on TV?
You both got it right, though Kennelly was more to the point. Nicolae Ceausescu was convicted by an ad hoc tribunal and executed by gunfire on the Western Christmas Eve, 1989. The major concern was the ferocity with which his supporters in the secret police, the Securitate, were resisting so he was hurredly executed and Romanians that evening were treated to the grisly video of his death - to prove to one and all that the tyrant and his wife were indeed dead.
Good job guys.
Next question:
What was peculiar about the religion of medieval Bosnia-Herzegovina in its pre-Islamic days?
It was heretical.
Read it once in a book on Bosnian history, but can't remember more exactly than that.
XIII wrote:
It was heretical.
Read it once in a book on Bosnian history, but can't remember more exactly than that.
Yes - there is controversy about how widespread such beliefs were but Bosnian Christianity was heavily influenced by Bogomilism, a Bulgarian heretical belief supposedly derived from the Zarathushtraean sect in Persia. Bogomilism resembled Christianity in a lot of ways but also had some critical differences, like dispelling the Christian belief in a single all-powerful creator god and believing good and evil were relatively equal forces in the world, forever struggling to control it. Some scholars - though not all - assert that Bogomilism is the underlying influence behind the Cathars of the Pyrennes, whom France and the Church combined to destroy in the mid-13th century.
Bosnia, a mountainous kingdom, was able to resist outside attempts to impose orthodox (lowercase "o") Christianity, despite much nashing of teeth in both Rome and Constantinople. There is a large collection of letters from various papal and patriarchal legates angrily denouncing the Bosnians as heretics, but it was just beyind the power and anyone to do anything about it...until the Ottomans showed up in the mid-15th century...
Good job K-D!
Next question:
A group of people showed up Central Europe in the late 9th century, fleeing a Bulgar-Pecheneg attack, and immediately set up house. They were also partially fleeing from their previous association with a Jewish empire (although most of its subjects were really Christians or Moslems). Western Christian Europe immediately took notice of these people. Who were they, what empire were they fleeing and why was Western Europe so interested in them?
It was heretical.
Read it once in a book on Bosnian history, but can't remember more exactly than that.
Yes - there is controversy about how widespread such beliefs were but Bosnian Christianity was heavily influenced by Bogomilism, a Bulgarian heretical belief supposedly derived from the Zarathushtraean sect in Persia. Bogomilism resembled Christianity in a lot of ways but also had some critical differences, like dispelling the Christian belief in a single all-powerful creator god and believing good and evil were relatively equal forces in the world, forever struggling to control it. Some scholars - though not all - assert that Bogomilism is the underlying influence behind the Cathars of the Pyrennes, whom France and the Church combined to destroy in the mid-13th century.
Bosnia, a mountainous kingdom, was able to resist outside attempts to impose orthodox (lowercase "o") Christianity, despite much nashing of teeth in both Rome and Constantinople. There is a large collection of letters from various papal and patriarchal legates angrily denouncing the Bosnians as heretics, but it was just beyind the power and anyone to do anything about it...until the Ottomans showed up in the mid-15th century...
Good job K-D!
Next question:
A group of people showed up Central Europe in the late 9th century, fleeing a Bulgar-Pecheneg attack, and immediately set up house. They were also partially fleeing from their previous association with a Jewish empire (although most of its subjects were really Christians or Moslems). Western Christian Europe immediately took notice of these people. Who were they, what empire were they fleeing and why was Western Europe so interested in them?
Magyars? Arpad founded their state around 896 and subsequently waged terror campaigns into heartland Europe, threathening to subdue other European nations, before the Franks hit the brakes around 955 when the Magyars had penetrated deep into Germany. The fled from the crumbling Judaic state of Khazaria at the Volga delta. They were highly developed, was that why the West Europeans were interested in them? It was only a couple of hundred years after, they finally embraced Christianity, I believe.
