Podcasts about eastern empire

#LONDINIUM90AD: MICHAEL VLAHOS. FRIENDS OF HISTORY DEBATING SOCIETY. @MICHALIS_VLAHOS HEADLINE: From Dalmatia to Poland: Frontier Tensions, Roman Legacy, and the Danger of Miscalculation The discussion opens with Gaius (John Batchelor) in Londinium speaking to Germanicus (Michael Vlahos), who is in Dalmatia (the Dalmatian coast, modern Croatia), a frontier area of the former Roman Empire. Germanicus observes that this region, Ragusa, maintained its Roman continuity through the Middle Ages and was critical as it connected Italy and the Western Empire to Greece and the Eastern Empire. They reflect on Roman figures such as Augustus and Drusus(Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus), who fought in Germania. Drusus's son, Claudius, became a highly effective emperor who brought the empire to its maximal state, establishing Londinium. The conversation shifts to modern frontier tensions: the Russian probing of the Polish border using drones and warplanes, leading to NATO intervention and British assistance. Drawing on films like The Bedford Incident, they worry about accidental catastrophe due to miscalculation. Germanicus warns that tiny NATO states like the Baltics, driven by paranoia and insecurity, are acting "spasmodically and irresponsibly" and that the United Kingdom is acting like a "rogue state" aggressively pushing for conflict, creating a dangerous situation that could plunge Russia and the West into general war. 41 AD. CLAUDIUS BEGS

Born of humble stock, elevated to the purple to be a puppet of Aspar, the barbarian power behind the Eastern Empire's throne, Leo had other thoughts in mind. He had watched as other barbarian strongmen had brought the Western Empire to the brink of extinction, and he was determined that the East would not suffer the same fate. But how could you counter the men who controlled the army and the purse strings to save the Roman state?

On this episode of Two Mikes, Dr. Michael Scheuer and Col. Mike speak with Chad Stewart, author of the Britfield series—a bold, America First alternative to the indoctrination plaguing children's media. Stewart discusses the fourth book, Britfield in the Eastern Empire, which tackles real-world issues like economic collapse and AI threats through the eyes of young protagonists. He also announces a $50 million feature film now in pre-production, aiming to reclaim youth culture from woke propaganda and satanic symbolism with truth, values, and powerful storytelling.Follow Maverick Broadcasting Network on Pickax to catch the full lineup of shows and breaking news: https://pickax.com/maverickbroadcasting Protect your financial future with precious metals! Get your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from My Gold Guy today and take control of your financial destiny. https://mygoldguy.com/mbnIndulge in the finest quality with Prepper All-Naturals – sous vide, freeze-dried, and ready to savor today or in a decade. Order now using code MBN for a 25% discount. https://prepperbeef.com/freedomfirstbeefBe ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code MBN for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/mbn.Unleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Supermassive Black Coffee. Order now using code MBN and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://supermassiveblackcoffee.com

Author CR Stewart shares his latest book in his Britfield series: Britfield & the Eastern Empire, Book IV. The series is based on family, friendship, loyalty, and courage that is written for pre-teens, Y/A, and readers of all ages.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've caught up on The Remarried Empress and wow ... I have no words. Actually, I have a lot of words! Listen to this podcast episode for a breakdown of what's going on in the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire between episodes 156-181 of The Remarried Empress by Alphatart & Sumpul! https://www.patreon.com/girlwonder Connect with Girl Wonder:  My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/girlwonder My YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTk-JbxxAnf5TKyeCchNRHA twitter.com/girlwonderpod instagram.com/girlwonderpodcast Email: girlwondersquad (at) gmail (dot) com Buy me a coffee: http://ko-fi.com/girlwonderpodcast

Today, The Two Mikes welcomed back Chad Stewart, the author of the Britfield series of novels -- and soon movies -- for middle-schoolers. Mr. Stewart reported that the fourth book in his series -- titled Britfield and the Eastern Empire -- will be published in 2025, just as the lead characters -- Tom and Sarah -- reach age 15 and are learning the pros and cons of modernity as they are found in such things as AI and digital currencies. The first installment of seven Britfield movies also is scheduled to go into pre-production in November, 2026. Mr. Stewart noted that the movie will be set in the Christmas season. Mr. Stewart also said that the first three books in the series continue to do very well, and began to be published in Britain in June 2024.

Chad Robert Stewart is an international award-winning and bestselling author, educator, and global strategist. The Britfield book series (Award-winning of 34 separate categories) is transforming literature and education while bringing encouragement to children and families worldwide. The first live-action Britfield movie is projected to become one of the highest grossing films in cinematic history. With the launch of Britfield & the Eastern Empire, Book IV, Chad will be discussing Britfield's impact on education, literacy, creativity, and media. With the first of seven Britfield movies in pre-production, the Theatrical Play (April 2024), and the Global Book Tours (2024-26), it is estimated that Britfield will surpass the C. S. Lewis and Tolkien series in worldwide sales and impact. Chad is also the Founder of the prestigious Devonfield, a comprehensive company dedicated to the highest quality in film production, publishing and education, Chad's areas of expertise are writing, film and media production, global strategy, and international marketing. He received a Bachelor of Arts in British Literature and European History from Brown University; earned an M.B.A. from Boston College; and is pursuing a Master of Science in Advanced Management and a PhD in Technology and Strategy at Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University. Chad's contact info: media@Britfield.com.  http://www.britfield.com/  http://Authorvisit.britfield.com Challenges of Faith Radio made (10/1/24) top listener chart and leaderboards on Goodpods:      

Today, The Two Mikes welcomed back Chad Stewart, the author of the Britfield series of novels -- and soon movies -- for middle-schoolers. Mr. Stewart reported that the fourth book in his series -- titled Britfield and the Eastern Empire -- will be published in 2025, just as the lead characters -- Tom and Sarah -- reach age 15 and are learning the pros and cons of modernity as they are found in such things as AI and digital currencies. 

The first installment of seven Britfield movies also is scheduled to go into pre-production in November, 2026. Mr. Stewart noted that the movie will be set in the Christmas season. Mr. Stewart also said that the first three books in the series continue to do very well, and began to be published in Britain in June 2024. 

The books also are being translated and published in Polish; the first volume is already in book shops. Other foreign publishers are planning to publish the books in additional languages.  Mr. Stewart said that the first three volumes of the series continue to sell well and are being used by teachers in an increasing number of schools -- now numbering in the thousands -- in the United States. Just as important, Mr. Stewart said that he continues to receive letters from parents explaining how much their middle-schoolers enjoy the books and how much they learn from them. 

Often, the parents also say how much they enjoyed the books. Mr. Stewart noted that he and his crew love hearing this kind of thing because the Britfield series is meant to provide a positive experience for children and families to help counteract many of the current books for youngsters which often feature negativity, poor conduct, and leave the child disconnected from reality, feeling less than what he or she is because of a lack of superpowers or some other non-existent attribute, and often poison young minds with cultism or other deranged ideas.      The websites for Mr. Stewart's Britfield projects are: https://www.britfield.com/ and https://www.britfieldinstitute.org/Follow Two Mikes on Pikcax: https://pickax.com/twomikesFollow Freedom First Network on Pickax at https://pickax.com/freedomfirstnetElevate your meals with Freedom First Beef… even if you find yourself in the middle of the apocalypse! Use code TWOMIKES for 15% off and enjoy high-quality beef whenever you crave it – today or tomorrow! https://freedomfirstbeef.comBe ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code TWOMIKES for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/ffn.Protect your financial future with precious metals! Use code TWOMIKES to get your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from Genesis Gold today and take control of your financial destiny! https://pickaxgold.comUnleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Freedom First Coffee's Founders Blend. Order now using code TWOMIKES and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://freedomfirstcoffee.com

"In the Western empire, what was the last recorded Legion to take the field as a formed/cohesive unit? And the same question for the Eastern Empire." Join us on Patron patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast  

This episode there was no interview, but a dive into a game much discussed last episode and well as a good look at Rodger B MacGowan's lush new artbook cum autobiography.Here's the video version of the podcastHere's the audio version of the podcastVento Nuovo releases Blocks in the EastDevir Games updates the release scheduleThin Red Line Games announces new living rules for The Fate of AllBelated Happy 7th birthday to Fort Circle GamesNoble Knight is paying extra for your used RPG stuffNew game from Neva: Rebellion and PunishmentDon't forget the PUSHING CARDBOARD SWAG!Join us on our DISCORD CHANNELNoble Knight GamesThe best place to find out of print games without paying Ebay prices!Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the Show.

How can lessons from the fall of Rome help us navigate today's political landscape? Jeremy Ryan Slate is back on the 365 Driven podcast to explore the striking parallels between ancient Rome and modern America. Jeremy holds a master's degree in Roman History and he brings his expertise to this episode to draw parallels to modern America and the lessons we can learn from Rome's fall. Jeremy kicks off by examining the pivotal changes of 1913, including the introduction of the income tax, the 17th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve Act, and their lasting impact on American politics. Jeremy then dives into the significance of emperor worship and propaganda in Rome's transition from a republic to an empire, and shows how these historical events provide a perspective on our current political struggles. Jeremy then journeys through the extensive history of Rome, from its founding in 753 BC to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, and beyond to the Eastern Empire's collapse in 1453. Understanding Rome's evolution from kingdom to republic to empire offers rich insights into the factors that led to its decline, such as poor leadership, economic turmoil, and military crises.  You will learn about the decline of the Western Roman Empire and its financial and political woes, echoing modern federalism in the United States. Evaluating the stories of key figures like the Gracchi brothers, Gaius Marius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, and Julius Caesar, we can extract valuable lessons on reform, conflict, and power struggles. Additionally, Jeremy touches on the relevance of Roman history in today's social media-driven discussions and underscores the importance of community involvement and independent thought in navigating contemporary politics. Tune in for a compelling exploration of history that resonates powerfully with our present. Key highlights: The Decline of Empires and Republics Timeline of Rome's Changing Leadership Rise and Fall of Roman Empire Caesar's Rise to Power Roman Empire, Greek Influence, and Collapse Understanding Empires and Political Parties Connect with Jeremy Ryan Slate: Instagram: @jeremyryanslate Website: CommandYourEmpire.com Connect with Tony Whatley: Website: 365driven.com Instagram: @365driven Facebook: 365 Driven LinkedIn: Tony Whatley

PREVIEW: #ROME: Conversation upcoming next week from the second hour of the exchange with author Emma Southon re her new work, A ROME OF ONE'S OWN, re the women of Rome from the kingdom to medieval Rome in the Eastern Empire -- this excerpt about Augustus's daughter Julia and her suprising successful marriage to her father's best friend, Agrippa. undated Claudius A Rome of One's Own: The Forgotten Women of the Roman Empire  by  Emma Southon  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Ones-Own-Forgotten-Empire/dp/1419760181/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= The history of Rome has long been narrow and one-sided, essentially a history of “the Doing of Important Things.” And as far as Roman historians have been concerned, women don't make that history. From Romulus through the political stab-fest of the late Republic, and then on to all the emperors, Roman historians may deign to give you a wife or a mother to show how bad things become when women get out of control, but history is more than that. Emma Southon's A Rome of One's Own is the best kind of correction. This is a retelling of the history of Rome with all the things Roman history writers relegate to the background, or designate as domestic, feminine, or worthless. This is a history of women who caused outrage, led armies in rebellion, wrote poetry; who lived independently or under the thumb of emperors. Told with humor and verve as well as a deep scholarly background, A Rome of One's Own highlights women overlooked and misunderstood, and through them offers a fascinating and groundbreaking chronicle of the ancient world.

Rashta's cruelty has no bounds. Listen to this podcast episode for a breakdown of what's going on in the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire. We're discussing episodes 146-155 of The Remarried Empress by Alphatart & Sumpul! https://www.patreon.com/girlwonder Connect with Girl Wonder:  My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/girlwonder My YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTk-JbxxAnf5TKyeCchNRHA twitter.com/girlwonderpod instagram.com/girlwonderpodcast Email: girlwondersquad (at) gmail (dot) com Buy me a coffee: http://ko-fi.com/girlwonderpodcast

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/italian-studies

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

ORDER QUALITY MEAT TO YOUR DOOR HERE: https://wildpastures.com/promos/save-20-for-life/bonus15?oid=6&affid=321 Save 20% and get $15 off your FIRST order! Support your local farms and stay healthy! GET HEIRLOOM SEEDS & NON GMO SURVIVAL FOOD HERE: https://heavensharvest.com/ USE Code WAM to get FREE shipping in the United States! HELP THE WAM LEGAL DEFENSE FUND HERE: https://gogetfunding.com/wam-legal-defense/ GET YOUR APRICOT SEEDS at the life-saving Richardson Nutritional Center HERE: https://rncstore.com/r?id=bg8qc1 BUY GOLD AND SILVER HERE: https://kirkelliottphd.com/wam/ Josh Sigurdson reports on the false flags forcing the world into a violent global conflict as World War 3 approaches. Recently, leaked German government documents came out showing the step by step process that would bring NATO and the west into a world war with Russia following a loss by Ukraine. All the while, Iran, Yemen, Palestine and the east are quickly falling into an unstoppable conflict with Israel, the United States and the UK. All of the players have either been propped up by Israel or the United States in the first place. From Russia to Ukraine, from Iran to Israel, a country that created Hamas in the first place. This is a planned event to bring order out of chaos and force upon the public the technocratic "Great Reset." It's an excuse to force a CBDC onto the public as the western economies collapse by design and the Eastern Empire rises. Expect false flag attacks throughout Europe, continued pummeling of civilians in Gaza, complete destruction of the supply chain and energy grid and new fake "pandemics." Don't fall for either side. Support independence and humanity over eugenicists and globalist warmongers. The UK is out of stockpiles after sending them all to Ukraine. They're desperately recruiting for the Royal Navy. Ukraine is conscripting old men and young women. The US is out of money. Israel is backing both sides. When will people learn? Stay tuned for more from WAM! HELP SUPPORT US AS WE DOCUMENT HISTORY HERE: https://gogetfunding.com/help-wam-cover-history/ Buy HEALTHY organic coffee with your day's worth of antioxidants HERE: https://www.r1kln3trk.com/3PC4ZXC/FFJPPD/ GET AN EXTENDED FREE TRIAL FOR ICKONIC WHEN YOU SIGN UP HERE: https://www.ickonic.com/affiliate/josh10 BUY YOUR PRIVATE CLEARPHONE HERE: https://www.r1kln3trk.com/3PC4ZXC/F9D3HK/ LION ENERGY: Never Run Out Of Power! PREPARE NOW! https://www.r1kln3trk.com/3PC4ZXC/D2N14D/ GET VITAMINS AND SUPPLEMENTS FROM DR. ZELENKO HERE: https://zstacklife.com/?ref=WAM GET TIM'S FREE Portfolio Review HERE: https://bit.ly/redpilladvisor And become a client of Tim's at https://www.TheLibertyAdvisor.com STOCK UP ON STOREABLE FOODS HERE: http://wamsurvival.com/ OUR GOGETFUNDING CAMPAIGN: https://gogetfunding.com/help-keep-wam-alive/ OUR PODBEAN CHANNEL: https://worldaltmedia.podbean.com/ Find us on Vigilante TV HERE: https://vigilante.tv/c/world_alternative_media/videos?s=1 FIND US on Rokfin HERE: https://rokfin.com/worldalternativemedia FIND US on Gettr HERE: https://www.gettr.com/user/worldaltmedia See our EPICFUNDME HERE: https://epicfundme.com/251-world-alternative-media JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER HERE: https://www.iambanned.com/ JOIN our Telegram Group HERE: https://t.me/worldalternativemedia JOIN US on Rumble Here: https://rumble.com/c/c-312314 FIND WAM MERCHANDISE HERE: https://teespring.com/stores/world-alternative-media FIND OUR CoinTree page here: https://cointr.ee/joshsigurdson JOIN US on SubscribeStar here: https://www.subscribestar.com/world-alternative-media We will soon be doing subscriber only content! Follow us on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/WorldAltMedia Help keep independent media alive! Pledge here! Just a dollar a month can help us alive! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2652072&ty=h&u=2652072 BITCOIN ADDRESS: 18d1WEnYYhBRgZVbeyLr6UfiJhrQygcgNU World Alternative Media 2023

Theodahad's Thirty Pigs 535 to 536 The death of Amalasuintha triggered the Gothic Wars, wherein the Eastern Empire, under Justinian, attempted to claw back what it had lost in Italy. This episode follows the war up to  the siege of Naples by Belisarius in the autumn of 536. Transcript Instagram Sources Support the Show Title Music: "The Britons" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Sound effects from freesound.com    

Trump plays the left again and sends them huddling to discuss how to get out of the mess they've created. A bombshell letter proves Cohen's a liar.A Chinese immigrant rings the alarm bell about America's rapid embrace of communism in America. He says the left is behind it and they're emulating the CCP.China and Russia join forces to reduce America to ashes and create a new Eastern Empire. Meanwhile John Kirby threatens to sanction Uganda and take away their healthcare over a new law allowing the death penalty for gay rapists.Democrats aren't smart. Biden's latest Judicial Nominee proves the point; can't even define a basic legal maneuver.Another man steals an award from women. Transgenderism is a mental illness. Biden gets in another fight with a teleprompter and loses. Get full access to Drew Allen at drewallen.substack.com/subscribe

December 11: Saint Damasus I, Pope c. 305–384 Optional Memorial; Liturgical Color: White Patron Saint of Archaeologists A dynamic pope mentors Jerome and embellishes catacombs Damasus reigned in the era when the popes died in their beds. The long winter of Roman oppression had ended. The arenas were empty. Christians were still occasionally martyred, but not in Rome. The many popes of the 200s who were exiled, murdered, or imprisoned were consigned to history by the late 300s. The Church was not merely legal by Damasus' time but was established, by decree, in 380 as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The slow-motion crumbling of paganism was such that Christian Senators and Pope Damasus petitioned the emperor that a prominent and famed Altar of Victory in the Senate be removed. The request was granted. No more Vestal Virgins, pagan priests reading entrails, a Pontifex Maximus, or auguries either. The Church was in the ascendancy. As Rome's military prowess deteriorated and the Eastern Empire was theologically mangled by the Arian controversy, the Bishop of Rome's importance swelled. Pope Damasus rode the first wave of these historical and religious trends. He was perhaps the first pope to rule with swagger. Damasus was of Spanish origins, and his father was likely a married priest serving in Rome's church of the martyr Saint Lawrence. Damasus was probably a deacon in that same church. He was elected Bishop of Rome in 366 but not without some controversy. A rival was aggressively supported by a violent minority who defamed Damasus, though they never removed him. Damasus cared for theology and held two synods in Rome, one of which excommunicated the Arian Bishop of Milan, making way for Saint Ambrose to later hold that see. Pope Damasus also sent legates to the First Council of Constantinople in 381, which reiterated and sharpened the language of the Creed developed at Nicea in 325. Perhaps Damasus' greatest legacy is not directly his own. He employed a talented young priest-scholar named Jerome as his personal secretary. It was Damasus who instructed Jerome to undertake his colossal, lifelong task of compiling from the original Greek and Hebrew texts a new Latin version of the Old and New Testaments to replace the poorly translated Old Latin Bibles then in use. The Vulgate, as Jerome's work is known, has been the official Bible of the Catholic Church since its completion. Description automatically generatedRome's theological ascendancy made its bishop the Empire's primary source and focus of unity. This, in turn, led to accusations, first aired in Damasus' time, that Rome's prelates lived in excessive grandeur. One pagan senator said mockingly that if he could live like a bishop he would gladly become a Christian. Similar charges would hound Rome throughout history. But Damasus strictly enforced a decree prohibiting clergy from accepting gifts from widows and orphans, and he himself lived a holy life. He restored his father's house church, now called Saint Lawrence in Damasus. The church still reflects its origins and is found inside of a larger building, just where a house church would have been located in ancient times. Pope Damasus also left a beautiful legacy in Rome's catacombs, a legacy which has only been fully appreciated due to modern archeological excavations. Damasus was very devoted to Rome's martyrs and embellished many of their tombs with brief Latin inscriptions. The papal crypt in the Catacombs of Saint Callixtus still houses the original marble slab engraved with Damasus' moving eulogy to the popes and martyrs entombed nearby. The epitaph ends with Damasus stating that although he wished to be buried in that crypt, he did not want to offend such holy remains with his presence. But Damasus composed his most tender epitaph for his own tomb: “He who walking on the sea could calm its bitter waves; He who gives life to dying seeds of the earth; He who was able to loose the mortal chains of death, and after three days' darkness could bring forth the brother for his sister Martha; He, I believe, will make Damasus rise anew from his ashes.” Damasus was clearly a Christian first and a pope second. Saint Damasus, you led the Church with a mixture of theological acumen, administrative competence, holy witness, and artistic flourish. Intercede in heaven for all who exercise headship in the Church to lead Her with attributes similar to your own.

Mike Isaacson: Rome gets sacked ONE TIME, and that's all these people can talk about! [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. Today we're talking with Edward Watts, professor of history and Alkaviadis Vassiliadis Endowed Chair in Byzantine Greek History at the University of California San Diego. He's here to talk to us about his book, The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a Dangerous Idea. The book is an extraordinary scholarly endeavor that managed to give a detailed and engaging history of 1700 years of Roman history in under 300 pages. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Watts. Edward Watts: Thanks so much for having me. It's exciting to be here. Mike: All right. Now, you are one of the rare guests on our show whose book was actually directed at debunking Nazi lies. Tell us what you had in mind when you were writing this book. Edward: So the thing that prompted me to write this book was a recognition that the history of Rome, and in particular the legacy of Rome as it relates to the end of Roman history, was something that was being repeatedly misused across thousands of years to justify doing all sorts of violence and horrible things to people who really in the Roman context had very little to do with the decline of Rome, and in a post-Roman context, had nothing really to do with the challenges that people using the legacy of Rome wanted to try to address. And in particular, what prompted this was the recognition after 2016 of how stories about the classical past and the Roman past were being used on the far right and the sort of fascist fringe as a way of pointing to where they saw to be challenging dynamics and changes, critical changes, in the way that society was functioning. What was happening was people were doing things like using the story of the Gothic migrations in the 4th century AD to talk about the need to do radical things in our society related to immigration. And the discussions were just misusing the Roman past in really aggressive ways as kind of proof for radical ideas that didn't really relate to anything that happened in the past and I think are generally not things that people would be willing to accept in the present. And Rome provides a kind of argument when it's misunderstood,when Roman history is misunderstood, it provides a kind of argument that people are not familiar enough with to be able to refute, that might get people who think that a certain policy is aggressive or inhumane or unnecessary to think twice about whether that policy is something that is a response to a problem that people need to consider. And that's just wrong. It's a wrong way to use Roman history. It's a wrong way to use history altogether. And it's a rhetoric that really needs to be highlighted and pointed to so that people can see how insidious these kinds of comparisons can be. Mike: Okay, so your book discusses the idea of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, which you say started before any such decline or fall in the late Republic. What was politics like in the Roman Empire before the myth of Rome's decline popped up? Edward: So this is an interesting question because the story of Roman decline actually shows up in some of the very earliest Roman literature that we have. So the very first sort of intact Latin texts that we have from the Roman period are things like the plays of Plautus. In one of the earlier plays of Plautus, he is already making fun of people for saying that Rome is in decline. And he's saying this at a time right after the Roman victory over Hannibal when there is no evidence that Rome is in decline at all. And yet we know that there are politicians who are pushing this idea that the victory over Hannibal has unleashed a kind of moral decline in Rome that is leading to the degeneration of Roman morals and Roman behaviors and Roman social structures in such a fashion that will disrupt the ability of Rome to continue. This is just not something that most people recognized to be true, but what we see when politicians in the third century and second century BC are saying things like this, they aren't particularly interested in describing an objective reality. What they're looking to do is insert ideas into popular discourse, so that people in the context of their society begin to think it might be possible that decline exists. So I think that when we look at Roman history before Roman literature, or before these pieces of Roman literature exist, we really are looking at much later reconstructions. But I think that it's fair to say that even in those reconstructions of stories about things like say, the sixth king of Rome, those stories too focus on how that particular regime was inducing a decline from the proper behaviors of Romans. So I think we could say that there is no before decline. Rome seems always to have been talking about these ideas of decline and worrying about the fact that their society was in decline, even when objectively you would look around and say there is no reason whatsoever that you should be thinking this. Mike: Okay. Now your book argues that this political framing helped politicians shape the politics of the Roman Empire in particular ways. So how did those who pushed this declensionist narrative change the Roman republic? Edward: So in the Roman republic, there are a few things that this narrative is used to do. In the second century, early second century BC, this narrative is used to attack opponents of a politician named Cato. What Cato tried to do was single out people who had been getting particularly wealthy because of the aftermath of Rome's victory in the Second Punic War over Hannibal and then its victories in the eastern Mediterranean against the Greek King, Philip V. And what Cato saw was that this wealth was something that profoundly destabilized society because now there were winners who were doing well economically in a way that the old money establishment couldn't match. And so what he's looking to do is to say that when you look around and you see prosperity of that level in the Roman state, this is a sign that things are actually bad. It's not a sign of things are good. It's a sign that things are deteriorating, and we need to take radical steps to prevent this. And the radical steps that Cato takes, and that he initially gets support for, involves very onerous taxes directed specifically against groups of people that he opposed. He also serves as the person who decides who gets to be in the Roman Senate, and he uses that position to kick out a lot of people on the basis simply of him deciding that they embody some kind of negative trajectory of the Roman State. And there's a reaction to this and Cato eventually is forced to kind of back away from this. As you move later in the second century, the narrative of decline becomes something that first is used to again justify financial policies, and then later, actual violence against officials who are seen as pushing too radical an agenda. And so this becomes a narrative that you can use to destabilize things. It doesn't matter if you're coming from what we would say is the right or the left, the kind of equal opportunity narrative that can be used to get people to question whether the structures in their society are legitimately in keeping with the way the society is supposed to function. Mike: Okay. So a lot of people have this misconception that Rome kind of snapped from being a republic to being governed by an emperor, but that's not really so. What was the imperial administration like and how did it change? Edward: The Roman republic was in many ways a very strong constitutional system that had a lot of things built into it to prevent one individual from taking over. Not only did it have a structure that was based on a kind of balance of power–and the description of that structure was something that influenced the Founding Fathers in the US to create the balances of power that we have–but in Rome, the administrative office that correlated to the presidency actually was a paired magistracy. So there were two consuls who governed together and could in theory check one another. What the decline narrative happened or allows to happen is that these structures begin to be questioned as illegitimate. And you get, starting in the later part of the second century and going all the way through the murder of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, a long set of discussions about how the Constitution is not functioning as it's supposed to, how the interests of everybody are not being represented by the representatives in the Senate and by the sorts of laws that are being put forward in assemblies. And you have a greater sense that there's an emergency, and an emergency that requires people to assent to an individual exercising more power than the structure really permits. And so this idea of decline heightens this sense of emergency and you have cycles every generation or so, where the sense of emergency gets greater and another constitutional structure snaps. Until eventually what you have is an individual in Julius Caesar, who is able to exercise complete and effective control over the direction of politics in the state. Mike: Okay. So for whatever reason, the assassination of Julius Caesar sticks strong in our cultural psyche, but reading your book it seems like assassinating emperors was kind of commonplace? Edward: It depends on the period. Yeah, there are definitely periods where the violent overthrow of emperors are somewhat common. I think with Caesar, what we have is the assassination. We're still when Caesar was assassinated in the final death throes of the Roman republic. And so it takes a while and a really brutal nearly 15-year-long sprawling Civil War for Rome to finally just accept that the republic as a governing structure is not really going to function in the way it had before. And the first emperor is Augustus. The first assassination actually occurs about 75 years after Augustus takes over. The first emperor that's assassinated is Caligula. Then you have moments of really profound peace and stability that are punctuated by these upheavals where, you know, in the year 68 the Emperor Nero commits suicide and this leads to a sprawling civil war in which four emperors take power in the course of a single year. Then things kind of calmed down. There's an assassination in 96, and no more assassinations for almost 100 years. And so you have these moments where the structures of the empire are very stable, but when they break, it breaks very seriously. It's very rare when an emperor is assassinated, that there's only one assassination and things kind of work out after that. And so generally, I think what this suggests is, if you have faith that the Imperial structure is working predictably, it's very, very hard to disrupt that. But if you have a sense that an emperor is not legitimate or is not in power or has taken power violently, there's a very serious risk that that emperor will in turn be overthrown violently, and something very serious could happen, even going so far as resulting in a civil war. Mike: Okay so one of the biggest myths surrounding the Roman Empire is that it fell in 476 AD, and that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages, but this isn't really so. What happened in 476 AD, and how did it become the legendary fall of Rome? Edward: Yes, so 476 AD is one of the greatest non-events in history. Because when we look at our history and our timeline for the fall of Rome, this is the date that stands out to us. But actually in 476, there's not a single person who seems to think that Rome fell on that day. What happens is in the middle part of the fifth century, the eastern empire and the western empire separated in 395. And in the middle part of the fifth century, the western empire has a very serious loss of territory and then a loss of stability within Italy. So that there are, in a sense, kingmakers who run the army and decide whether an emperor should be in power or not. And so you have a number of figurehead emperors, starting really in the 450s and going through 476, who are there, in a couple of cases at certain moments they do exercise real power, but much of the time they're subordinate to military commanders who don't want to be emperor, or in many cases are of barbarian descent and don't think they can make imperial power actually stick, and in 476, Odoacer who was one of these barbarian commanders overthrows an emperor in Italy and says, "We are not going to have an emperor in Italy anymore. Instead, I'm just going to serve as the agent of the eastern emperor in Italy." And for the next 50 years, there are barbarian agents–first Odoacer and then Theodoric–who serve in this constitutional way where they acknowledge the superiority and the authority of the emperor in Constantinople over Italy. And in practice, they're running Italy. But in principle, they are still affirming that they're part of the Roman Empire, the Roman senate is still meeting, Roman law is still used. It's a situation where only when the eastern empire decides that it wants to take Italy back, do you start getting these stories about well, Rome fell in 476 when these barbarians got rid of the last emperor and now it's our obligation to liberate Italians from this occupation by these barbarians. In 476, though, this is not what anyone in Constantinople or in Italy actually thought was going on. Mike: Okay. So both the east and the west of the Roman Empire eventually became Christian. How did this alter the myth of the declining Rome? Edward: So for much of Roman history, there is very much this idea that any problem that you have is a potential sign of the decline of Rome, and if you are particularly motivated, you can say that the problem requires radical solutions to prevent Rome from falling into crisis. But with Christianity, when the Roman Empire becomes Christian, there is no past that you can look back to say, "Well, we were better as a Christian empire in this time." When Constantine converts to Christianity, he's the first Christian emperor. And so it's very natural for opponents to be able to say, "Look, he made everything Christian and now things are going to hell ,and so Christianity is the problem." So what Christians instead say is what actually is going on here is we are creating a new and better Rome, a Rome where the approach to the divine is more sophisticated, it's more likely to work. And so for about 100 years, you have instead of a narrative decline, a narrative of progress where Christians are pushing a notion that by becoming Christian, the Empire is embarking on a new path that is better than it has ever been before. Not everybody accepts this. At the time of Constantine's conversion, probably 90% of the Emperor's still pagan so this would be a very strange argument to them. And by the time you get into the fifth century, you probably are in a majority Christian empire, but like a 50% majority, not like 90% majority. So there is a significant pushback against this. And in moments of crisis, and in particular after the Sack of Rome in 410, there is a very strong pagan reaction to this idea of Christian Roman progress. And Christians have to come up with evermore elaborate explanations for how what looks like decline in any kind of tangible sense that you would look at in the western empire is actually a form of progress. And the most notable production of that line of argument is Augustine's City of God, which says effectively, “Don't worry about this world. There's a better world, a Christian world that really you should be focusing on, and you're getting closer there. So the effect of what's going on in the Roman world doesn't really matter too much for you.” Mike: Okay. Now at one point, there were actually three different polities across Europe and Asia Minor all claiming the inheritance of the Roman Empire. How did this happen? Edward: There are different moments where you see different groups claiming the inheritance of Rome. In the Middle Ages, you have the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, which is a construction of Charlemagne and the papacy around the year 800. And the claim that they make is simply that there is the first empress of the Roman state who takes power all by herself in 797–this is the Empress Irene–and the claim Charlemagne makes as well that eliminates the legitimacy of the Roman Empire and Constantinople because there's no emperor. Therefore because there's no emperor, there's no empire and therefore we can just claim it. Another moment where you see this really become a source of significant conflict is during the Fourth Crusade when the Crusaders attack Constantinople and destroy the central administration of the eastern Roman Empire. After that point, you have the crusaders in Constantinople who claim that they are a Roman state. You have the remains of the Roman state that had been in Constantinople sort of re-consolidating around the city of Nicaea. You have a couple of other people who claim the inheritance of the Roman state inEpirus and Trebizond, and they all kind of fight with each other. And so ultimately, what you see is that the Roman Empire has this tremendous resonance across all of the space that was once Roman. So their empire at its greatest extent went from the Persian Gulf all the way to Scotland. And it went from Spain and the Atlantic coast of Morocco all the way down to the Red Sea. It's massive. And in a lot of those territories after Rome recedes, the legacy of Rome remains. So a lot of people who felt that they could claim the Roman legacy tried to do that, because it gave a kind of added seriousness and a more, a greater echo to these little places that are far away from the center of the world now, places like Britain or places like France or places like Northern Germany. And so you, in a sense, look like you're more important than you are if you can make a claim on the Roman imperial legacy. Mike: Okay. And so how do these would-be empires finally end up collapsing? Edward: So, each in their own way. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, it actually lasts for very long time. It's created under Charlemagne in 800, and it lasts really until the time of Napoleon. And it collapses because it's sort of dissolved because in Germany there was a fear that Napoleon might actually use the hulk of the Holy Roman Empire and the title of Holy Roman Emperor to claim a kind of ecumenical authority that would go beyond just what he had as emperor of France. The crusader regime in Constantinople is actually reconquered by the Nicene regime in 1261. So the Crusaders take Constantinople in 1204, and then these Roman exiles who set up a kind of Roman Empire in exile in Nicaea reconquer in 1261. And they hold Constantinople for another 200 years until the Ottomans take it in 1453. The other sort of small Roman states are absorbed either by the state in Constantinople or by the Ottomans, but ultimately by the end of the 1460s, everything that had once been part of the Eastern Empire in the Middle Ages is under Ottoman control. Mike: Okay. And so despite all of the polities that could have contended for the inheritance of Rome collapsing, Rome's decline still played a large part in political considerations across what was formerly the Roman Empire but now as an instructive metaphor. How was the decline of the Roman Empire leveraged to influence politics leading into the modern era, and who were the big myth makers? Edward: Yeah, there's a couple of really important thinkers in this light. One is Montesquieu, the French thinker who uses a discussion of Roman history to launch into a much more wide and expansive and influential discussion of political philosophy that centers really on notions of representation and sets some of the groundwork for what actors in the American Revolution and French Revolution believed they were doing. Montesquieu is really, really important in understanding 18th-century political developments. And I think it's impossible really to understand what the American Revolution and the French Revolution thought they were doing without also looking at Montesquieu. But now I think the more influential figure in terms of shaping our ideas about what Roman history looked like and what Roman decline meant is Edward Gibbon. Gibbon is also an 18th-century thinker. When he started writing a history of Rome, he started writing in the 1770s when he believed that there was a firm and stable European political structure of monarchies that could work together and kind of peacefully move the continent forward. And while Gibbon is working on this, of course, you know, the American Revolution happens, and the French Revolution happens, and his whole structure that he was looking to defend and celebrate with his Roman history disappears. And so his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire becomes a book that is extracted from its historical context. And it seems like it is an objective narrative of what happens. It's not objective at all. What Gibbon is trying to do is compare the failings of one large single imperial structure and the advantages of this kind of multipolar world where everyone is balanced and cooperative. But everybody forgets that that multipolar world even existed because the book comes out after it's gone. So what you have with Gibbon is a narrative that seems to be just an account of Roman history, and a very, very evocative one. I think most of the people now who have Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire on their shelf don't read it. But they know the title. They know the concept. This means that you have a ready-made metaphor for anything that's bothering you. You know, you can talk about the decline and fall of Rome. Just about everybody in the entire world knows that Rome declined and fell. And very few of them know much about why it happened or how it happened or how long it took. And so evoking the decline and fall of Rome allows you to kind of plug in anything, as my friend Hal Drake says, anything that's bothering you at a particular moment, you can plug in and say Rome fell because of X. And if you look at the last 50 years you can see lots and lots and lots of examples of X, lots of different things that bothered people that got plugged into the story of Rome fell because of whatever's bothering me that day. Mike: I am certainly guilty of having a copy of Gibbon on my bookshelf and not having read it. [laughs] So in talking about the modern appropriation of the memory of Rome, you of course talk about Fascist Italy. You reference Claudio Fogu, whom I absolutely love, check out his book The Historic Imaginary. How did Fascists wield the memory of the Roman Empire to justify their regime? Edward: Yeah, it's so, so seductive what is done in the city of Rome in particular. And there's a sense that I think is a very real sense that creating and uncovering and memorializing the imperial center of the Roman Empire makes real the experience of walking through it, and with the right kind of curation can make it feel like you're in a contemporary environment that's linked to that ancient past. And what Mussolini and his architects tried very very hard to do was create this, in a sense, almost Roman imperial Disneyland in the area between the Colosseum and the Capital line. So when we walk there, we see a kind of disembodied and excavated giant park with a large street down the middle running from the Colosseum along the length of the Roman Forum. But that was actually neighborhoods.  Before Mussolini, there were actual houses and shops and restaurants and people living there, and very, very long-standing communities that he removed with this idea that you were in a sense restoring the past and creating a future by removing the present. And I think that's a very good metaphor for what they were up to. What they were trying to do was create an affinity for the fascist present by uncovering this Roman past and getting rid of what they saw as disorder. And the disorder, of course, was real people living their lives in their houses. But the other thing that people, you know, when tourists visit this now, they don't know that history. They don't know that when they walk on the street alongside the Forum, they're actually walking on a street that is a 20th-century street created for Fascist military parades on the ruins of modern, early modern, and medieval houses. They just see this as a way to kind of commune with this Roman past. And the Fascists very much understood that aesthetic and how seductive that aesthetic was. Mike: Okay, so let's circle back to where we started with your motivation for the book. How are people invoking the fall of Rome now, and what are they getting wrong? Edward: I think that we see, again, this temptation to take what's bothering you and attaching it to Rome. And I think even if you just look over the last 50 years, you can almost trace the sorts of things people are anxious about in a modern context based on the things that are advanced for what possibly made Rome fall. So in the 70s and early 80s, there's lots of concern about environmental contamination and the effect that this is going to have on people's lives. And we get the story of Rome fell because of lead poisoning. I mean, it didn't. It's just ridiculous that you would think Rome fell because of lead poisoning when there is no moment that it fell, the place was active and survived for well over 1500 years when it was using lead pipes. There's no evidence whatsoever that this is true. In the 70s, Phyllis Schlafly would go around and say that Rome fell because of liberated women. I think that would be a very big surprise to a lot of Roman women that they were actually liberated, definitely in the 1970's way. In the 80s, and even into the 2010s, you have people like Ben Carson talking about Rome declining because of homosexuality or gay marriage. Again, that has nothing to do with the reality of Rome. There are other places where I think people come a little bit closer to at least talking about things that Romans might acknowledge existed in their society. So when you have Colin Murphy and others in the lead up to the Iraq War talking about the overextension of military power as a factor that can lead to the decline of Rome, yeah, I mean, Rome did have at various moments problems because it was overextended militarily. But most of the time it didn't. To say that the Romans were overextended militarily because they had a large empire ignores the fact that they had that large empire for almost 400 years without losing significant amounts of territory. So comparing Roman military overextension and US military overextension could be a useful exercise, but you have to adjust the comparison for scale. And you have to adjust the comparison to understand that there are political dynamics that mean that places that in the first century BC required military garrisons, in the third century did not. And so you're not overextended because you're in the same place for 400 years. At the beginning, you might need to have an extensive military presence in a place that later you won't. So I think that what we need to do when we think about the use of the legacy of Rome, is think very critically about the kinds of things that Rome can and can't teach us, and think very clearly about the difference between history repeating itself–which I think it doesn't–and history providing us with ideas that can help us understand the present. I think that's where history is particularly useful, and Roman history in particular is useful. Because it's so long, there are so many things that that society deals with, and there are so many things that it deals with successfully as well as fails to deal with capably. All of those things offer us lessons to think with, even if they don't offer us exact parallels. Mike: Okay, so we've talked a bunch about the fabricated history of Rome and the popular memory of Rome. What does the actual history of Rome and fears of Roman decline have to teach us about the present? Edward: I think the biggest thing that we can see is if somebody is claiming that a society is in profound decline and the normal structures of that society need to be suspended so the decline can be fixed, that is a big caution flag. What that means is somebody wants to do something that you otherwise would not agree to let them do. And the justification that they provide should be looked at quite critically, but it also should be considered that, even if they identify something that might or might not be true, the solution they're proposing is not something that you absolutely need to accept. Systems are very robust. Political systems and social systems are very robust and they can deal with crises and they can deal with changes. If someone is saying that our system needs to be suspended or ignored or cast to the side because of a crisis, the first step should be considering whether the crisis is real, and then considering whether it is in fact possible to deal with that crisis and not suspend the constitutional order, and not trample on people's rights, and not take away people's property, and not imprison people. Because in all of these cases that we see Roman politicians introduced this idea of decline to justify something radical, there are other ways to deal with the problem. And sometimes they incite such panic that Romans refuse or forget or just don't consider any alternative. That has really profound and dangerous consequences because the society that suspends normal orders and rights very likely is going to lose those rights and those normal procedures. Mike: All right. Well, Dr. Watts, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about the myth of the Roman Empire. The book, again, is The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome out from Oxford University Press. Thanks again, Dr. Watts. Edward: Thanks a lot. This was great. Mike: If you enjoyed what you heard and want to help pay our guests and transcriptionist, consider subscribing to our Patreon at patreon.com/nazilies or donating to our PayPal at paypal.me/nazilies or CashApp at $nazilies [Theme song]

In the mid 1400s, the head of the Byzantine Empire was a career politician with decades of experience who most people thought would be a capable leader. Instead, through a series of hilariously terrible decisions, he managed to take his already weak empire off the cliff, and into the dustbin of history, in just a few short years. And one of the ways he did that was by deliberately giving up the most strategic resource his empire possessed. We're seeing a similar story play out today-- the people with decades and decades of experience are doing all the wrong things to vanquish one of the most strategic resources in our modern world: energy. Think about it-- the people in charge have demonized an entire industry. They punish oil companies with creative taxes and insane regulations. They refuse to follow the law and lease federal lands to oil and gas companies. They drag their feet in the permitting process. They constantly antagonize energy companies and blame high fuel prices on the industry's “greed”. In short they do everything they can to destroy a critical resource that the nation depends on for growth and prosperity. This is our topic for today's podcast. We start off walking through the comical incompetence of Emperor Constantine XI from the Byzantine Empire… and then go through some key issues to know about in the oil and gas sector. In short, supply is tight… and probably not getting better. Demand is increasing. It's a really important trend to understand. But we leave with some good news. This is fixable, both long-term and short-term. But the short-term fix is going to rely on a few surprising characters from our past that may become some of the most exciting economies in the world. Open Podcast Transcription [00:00:00.610] Today we're going to go back in time to January 6 and the year 1449 to the city of Mistress and the Peloponnesian Peninsula of Greece. Now, at the time, Greece was a pretty important part of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine Empire, as you probably know, was really just the continuation of the the ancient Roman Empire that had been around for a really long time. And at its peak, the Roman Empire encompassed virtually the entire known Western world, from Hispania, North Africa, central and Eastern Europe, Britannia, all the way to the Dardanellesh and modern day Turkey. At a certain point in the third 4th century, there was a formal demarcation of the Roman Empire.   [00:00:40.510] And they said, you know what? There's going to be two empires are going to be an Eastern Empire that's based in Constantinople, modern day Istanbul, and a Western Empire that's going to remain in Italy. And the two empires were basically two different empires. They had two different emperors, imperial courts, imperial armies, their own palaces. Everything was totally separate and distinct.   [00:00:57.840] The thing is that while the Western Empire was in decline, right, the original Rome was in serious, serious decline. With the barbarian invasions and the tax farmers and the desertions and everything that they were suffering there, the Eastern Empire was thriving. It was growing. It was getting better and more powerful. And even by the time the Western Empire collapsed in 476, the Eastern Empire was really just getting started.   [00:01:19.380] It hadn't even peaked yet. The Eastern Empire wouldn't peak for more than a century after the fall of the west, and it stayed very powerful for a very, very, very long time. We can actually tell this because the Eastern Empire, they minted a special coin. It's called the gold solidus solidst coin. And the solids gold coin was something like reserve currency.   [00:01:38.610] It was like the US. Dollar. Today we're in the same way. You might have a merchant in India doing business with somebody in New Zealand, and they'd conduct that transaction in US. Dollars.   [00:01:48.810]

In the mid 1400s, the head of the Byzantine Empire was a career politician with decades of experience who most people thought would be a capable leader. Instead, through a series of hilariously terrible decisions, he managed to take his already weak empire off the cliff, and into the dustbin of history, in just a few short years. And one of the ways he did that was by deliberately giving up the most strategic resource his empire possessed. We're seeing a similar story play out today-- the people with decades and decades of experience are doing all the wrong things to vanquish one of the most strategic resources in our modern world: energy. Think about it-- the people in charge have demonized an entire industry. They punish oil companies with creative taxes and insane regulations. They refuse to follow the law and lease federal lands to oil and gas companies. They drag their feet in the permitting process. They constantly antagonize energy companies and blame high fuel prices on the industry's “greed”. In short they do everything they can to destroy a critical resource that the nation depends on for growth and prosperity. This is our topic for today's podcast. We start off walking through the comical incompetence of Emperor Constantine XI from the Byzantine Empire… and then go through some key issues to know about in the oil and gas sector. In short, supply is tight… and probably not getting better. Demand is increasing. It's a really important trend to understand. But we leave with some good news. This is fixable, both long-term and short-term. But the short-term fix is going to rely on a few surprising characters from our past that may become some of the most exciting economies in the world. Open Podcast Transcription [00:00:00.610] Today we're going to go back in time to January 6 and the year 1449 to the city of Mistress and the Peloponnesian Peninsula of Greece. Now, at the time, Greece was a pretty important part of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine Empire, as you probably know, was really just the continuation of the the ancient Roman Empire that had been around for a really long time. And at its peak, the Roman Empire encompassed virtually the entire known Western world, from Hispania, North Africa, central and Eastern Europe, Britannia, all the way to the Dardanellesh and modern day Turkey. At a certain point in the third 4th century, there was a formal demarcation of the Roman Empire.   [00:00:40.510] And they said, you know what? There's going to be two empires are going to be an Eastern Empire that's based in Constantinople, modern day Istanbul, and a Western Empire that's going to remain in Italy. And the two empires were basically two different empires. They had two different emperors, imperial courts, imperial armies, their own palaces. Everything was totally separate and distinct.   [00:00:57.840] The thing is that while the Western Empire was in decline, right, the original Rome was in serious, serious decline. With the barbarian invasions and the tax farmers and the desertions and everything that they were suffering there, the Eastern Empire was thriving. It was growing. It was getting better and more powerful. And even by the time the Western Empire collapsed in 476, the Eastern Empire was really just getting started.   [00:01:19.380] It hadn't even peaked yet. The Eastern Empire wouldn't peak for more than a century after the fall of the west, and it stayed very powerful for a very, very, very long time. We can actually tell this because the Eastern Empire, they minted a special coin. It's called the gold solidus solidst coin. And the solids gold coin was something like reserve currency.   [00:01:38.610] It was like the US. Dollar. Today we're in the same way. You might have a merchant in India doing business with somebody in New Zealand, and they'd conduct that transaction in US. Dollars.   [00:01:48.810]

Part 22 Unrest Leading To Renaissance Today we see the influence of the Church wane amidst both religious and societal turmoil and a brief look at two men rising in opposition to the Church. We are now in the 14th & 15th Century! The church has grown exponentially from the original 12 apostles of Jesus Christ. It has spread far and wide in the known world. However, this period in history shows that the Church is now declining rapidly – both numerically and in its influence. We look briefly today at the reasons for this. 1. Rapid Decline a. Avignon Popes (1309-1378) Firstly we look at that Agivnon Popes or as some term it “Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy.” Pressure from the French monarchy in conflict with the Papacy, caused the Papacy to move to Avignon, France from Rome in Italy. This was due to the elected Pope, Clement V refusing to move to Rome and remained in France, finally moving the whole of his court to Avignon in 1309. From here there were 7 successive Popes, elected by the French rather than Italians as before. b. Great Schism Now we have the ‘Great Schism' or the ‘Western Schism' occurred with the Catholic Church from 1378 to 1417. The Pope returned to Rome from France in 1377, after a riot in Rome to ensure that the next Pope was Italian in 1378. The French then elected a Pope of their own. There was much disputation and at one stage there were 3 Popes - the Avignon Pope: Benedict XIII; the Roman Pope: Gregory XII; the Pisa Pope: John XXIII. A Council was called by the Pisa Pope John XXIII in 1414 and agreement was reached as to the procedure of the election of a new Pope. All these events though caused a great loss of confidence in the Church. Wealth, corruption, immorality and the scandalous indulgences were rife throughout the Church, which led to much discontent and uncertainty. In the year 1453, Turkish Muslims attacked the Eastern Empire and the great Christian city of Constantinople fell. c. Bubonic Plague Bubonic Plague broke out in 1347 and killed one third of the Catholic west in 3 years. The Rise of national consciousness and strong monarchies developed in England, France & Spain resisting pressure from Rome. d. Rise in Personal Devotion There was in Northern Europe a growing movement around personal devotion to God, and therefore less reliance on the Church for spiritual insight. But more about that next week! It was also an area of global exploration with the likes of exploring greats of Magellan and Columbus. 2. Outspoken Critics of the Church There was also growing criticism of the church, particularly from within! John Wycliffe (1320-1384) - Wycliffe was a Priest in the Roman Catholic Church and a leading philosopher at Oxford University. He spoke out against church corruption, transubstantiation, confession to the priest and infallibility of the church & Pope. Many travelling bands of teachers and preachers were organised and sent out by him. Wycliffe is commonly described as the 'Morning Star of the English Reformation', who had a great desire to ensure that the Bible was made available to everyone in their own language. Therefore he initiated the translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible into English, and it was completed by his followers. He was protected by the English monarchy from Church persecution and inquisition. If you read your Bible in any language but Latin and the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek - you have much to be thankful to God for the life and work of John Wycliffe! They still do great work today and you can find out more by visiting their website: http://wycliffe.org.uk/ To get a hint of the disturbance to the Church caused by Wyclif, here are some of the things he said. Private confession... was not ordered by Christ and was not used by the apostles. Englishmen learn Christ's law best in English. Moses heard God's law in his own tongue; so did Christ's apostles. It is plain to me that our prelates in granting indulgences do commonly blaspheme the wisdom of God. Our clerics neither evangelize like the apostles, nor go to war like the secular lords, nor toil like labourers. The bread while becoming by virtue of Christ's words the body of Christ does not cease to be bread. The gospel alone is sufficient to rule the lives of Christians everywhere. Any additional rules made to govern men's conduct added nothing to the perfection already found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jan Hus (1374-1415) - The other main critic was the Bohemian man, Jan Hus. Hus was a priest in the Catholic Church and Rector of Prague University. Hus was strongly influenced by Wycliffe, and much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church hierarchy, he promoted personal devotion and piety; the supreme authority of the Bible; taught that the Church is the body of Christ and the head is Jesus Christ - not the Pope; and that only God can forgive sin, not the Church. Again, Hus was another man ahead of his time and one of the pioneers of the protestant church to come. Hus, because of his condemnation of much Church teaching and practise was imprisoned, tried, condemned and executed in 1415 following the Council of Constance. Again some quotes from this protesting pioneer: "Has not God himself instituted marriage, as a means to satisfy the craving for love in all men. ... For those are speaking lies in hypocrisy, who have a seared conscience, who forbid a life in marriage and abstain from foods which God has created (1 Timothy 4:1-5). I hold this to be the seed of iniquity and the root of all evil." “Many centuries have passed since the foundation of Christianity and bishops and priests have wedded and permitted themselves to be wed in honour and decency, until some Primates, Gregory VII (also called Hildebrand) and Innocent III, thousand years after the death of Jesus the Nazarene, conceived the thought to forbid marriage to priests, so that they would not love their families, would not honour their home and would be compelled to seek salvation under the wing of Rome only, remembering the protection which was to come from there against worldly powers.” Tap or click here to download this as an audio mp3 file

It is easy to focus on the church in the west. But the church also expanded to the east and south of Jerusalem.--To the south, Ethiopia has a long history in the church, including references in the Old Testament and New. Several Ethiopian churches have richly illustrated interiors and are excellent examples of how art was used in the early church.--In the east, while the Western Romain Empire was in decline and eventually fell, the Eastern Empire endured for approximately another 1000 years. It became known as the Byzantine Empire but was essentially an unbroken kingdom originating in the Roman Empire. In this empire, the churches at Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria all sent out many successful missionaries to the east.

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/environmental-studies

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/italian-studies

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

In this episode, Janakan Raj (Co-Founder) and Babitha Selva (Vocalist) of "Eastern Empire" share the story behind the South Asian music group. We discuss the inception and mission of the band, the role music plays in communities globally and in tying us to our roots, the symbolic significance of practices in Carnatic music, and more.Eastern Empire's Youtube Page: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheEasternempire/videosThis episode was brought to you by online learning community - Skillshare. Sign up for a free 30 day trial now: https://skillshare.eqcm.net/SIB

We're changing gears a bit to begin a series of podcasts considering the impact Christianity has had on the world. We'll unpack how the Faith has left its imprint on society. The Title of this episode is The Change - Part 1: The Sanctity of Life.Knowing my fascination with history and especially the history of Rome, a few years ago, someone recommended I watch a mini-series that aired on a cable network. While it was dramatic historical fiction, the producers did a good job of presenting the customs & values of 1st C BC Roman culture. While the series was suspenseful & entertaining, it was difficult to watch because of the brutality that was commonplace. And it wasn't put in merely for the sake of titillation or to make the shows more provocative. It was an accurate depiction of the time. More than once, I found myself near tears, broken over just how lost the world was. Several times I said out loud, "They needed Jesus!"Exactly! THAT was the very era Jesus was born into & the culture the Gospel spread in. How desperately the Roman Empire needed the life-affirming message the Early Church preached & lived.There's an old saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” When the early Christians came to Rome, we can be thankful they DIDN'T do what the Romans did. On the contrary, slowly but surely, with fits & starts, they eventually transformed the Greco-Roman world from rank paganism to a more or less Biblical worldview. Nowhere was that seen more clearly than in the change that was made to the sanctity of human life.During the early days of the Roman republic, the high value put on the family unit formed a moral base that lent a certain weight to the value of the individual. But as the idea of the State grew during the late republic, then blossomed in the Empire, people were evaluated in terms of what they could contribute to the State. That meant people on the bottom of the social scale had little to no value. The poor, women, and slaves became chattel; property to be used. Life became cheap. And the pagan gods bequeathed no real moral virtue into the Roman world. They were understood to be whimsical & selfish at the best of times, cruel in the worst.The Christian value of the sanctity or specialness of human beings was based in the Jewish view of man as created in God's image. There was a healthy Jewish population in the City of Rome itself & scattered throughout other major cities of the Empire. Early on, the unique Jewish view of man had infiltrated the Roman world where ever Jews were to be found. So different was this view of man from the paganized Greco-Roman worldview that many of the more enlightened Greeks & Romans had begun attending Jewish synagogues. If they stayed, they became known as God-fearers; Gentiles who believed in the God of the Bible, but hadn't become full converts to Judaism by being circumcised, baptized, & keeping kosher. They occupied a section in many synagogues, sitting by themselves to hear the teaching of Scripture. The book of Acts tells us some of Paul's most fruitful work was in this God-Fearer section of the synagogue.The Jewish idea of men & women being created in God's image took on new potency when the Gospel was preached, for it told of God becoming man. And becoming a man so He could go to the cross to ransom lost men & women; translating them from a destiny in hell to the glory of heaven. All this spoke of God's view of the value of human beings. If He would endure the passion & cross, it meant life was of inestimable value. Rather than life being cheap, it was to be honored and protected at all costs, regardless of its station or quality.One way the early Christian demonstrated this was the church's opposition to the widespread practice of infanticide. It was common to expose unwanted children soon after birth, either by drowning or leaving them on exposed where the elements or wild beasts would finish them. They were left to die for physical deformities, for being of the wrong sex, or simply because the parents couldn't afford another mouth to feed.Abandoning unwanted infants was quite common in the Greco-Roman world. In fact, the founding myth of Rome begins with 2 infant boys being tossed into the Tiber River. Romulus & Remus both survived to be suckled by a she-wolf, then raised by an elderly shepherd. It was their later struggle that founded the city of Rome, named for one of the brothers - Romulus.So in the city of Rome itself, parents would regularly leave unwanted children at the base of the Columna Lactaria. In later times, Roman parents would abandon their infants there to show grief over some national calamity, like the death of a beloved emperor. To put that in modern terms, imagine someone dropping off their 2 week old infant at a memorial for 9/11 - and just walking away; thinking that somehow shows solidarity with everyone's shock & grief. Yet that's what many Romans did with their newborns when calamity struck.Greeks also practiced infanticide by abandoning infants. They did so because it was woven into their mythology. The well-known Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex revolves around Oedipus who at only 3 days was abandoned by his father King Laius of Thebes. Ion, founder of Ionia was abandoned as an infant by his mother. Poseidon, Aesculapius, & Hephaistos were all abandoned infants. Even Paris who started the Trojan War was abandoned as a child. In Sparta, every newborn was brought before the elders for inspection. If the child was deemed weak in any way, it was abandoned.As shocking, is realizing in all the literature come to us from that time, nowhere is there a shred of evidence infanticide was wrong, or even questioned.Infanticide wasn't practiced just among the Greeks & Romans; other ancient societies practiced it as well. Plutarch said the Carthaginians had made infant sacrifice a regular occurrence. When building a new house or wall, they mixed the blood of an infant with the mortar, thinking it made the wall stronger. If a wealthy family had no new-born to offer, they'd buy one off a poor mother. Though we don't have a record of what was on the 12 Tablets that formed the basis of Roman Law & civilization, we know a good deal of what was in them from the quotes of later Romans. Cicero says it was part of Roman law to expose deformed infants. In the 1st C AD, Seneca, remarks in passing, without batting the proverbial eye, that deformed infants were routinely drowned. Infanticide was so common in the later Greek era that in the 2nd C BC, Polybius blamed a population decline on it. Because infanticide was so common, large families among both Greeks & Romans was rare. An inscription found at Delphi reveals that in a 2nd C sample of 600 families, only 1% had more than 1 daughter! Infanticide was practiced in India, China, Japan, Africa, the rainforests of Brazil, among the Inuit, & among the native North & Central  Americans.Early Christians balked not at calling infanticide, murder. To them, infants were creatures of God who bore His image no less than their mature counterparts. They'd heard of Jesus' attention to little children in Matthew 19. That passage is interesting because the disciples thought the children approaching Jesus weren't worthy of His august attention. In their attitude toward the little ones, contrary as it was to Jesus' own perspective, we catch of glimpse of how the Greco-Roman culture had influenced them. The pre-Roman Jewish culture put a huge emphasis on children. They were regarded as a great blessing from God. Children were God's promise of a future! Yet in the disciples' shooing the children away from Jesus, we see how the Greco-Roman devaluing of life had infected them.We ought to reflect on how the modern abortion debate may have affected our valuation of human life. The parallels to the current population decline among ethnic Europeans ought to be obvious & a sign of how the Judeo-Christian worldview has been gutted from Western civilization.The Didache, the standard catechism used by the Church in the 1st C tells Christians, "You shall not commit infanticide." It's condemned in the Epistle of Barnabas, written about 130. In AD 222, the 1-time slave turned bishop of Rome, Callistus expressed his dismay at the widespread practice of exposing unwanted infants.It was this & the very vocal Christian opposition to it that helped fuel the persecution the early church faced in so many places around the Empire. The Romans placed great stock in tradition and looked with suspicion on anyone who sought to change it. The Christians were doing just that with their radical ideas about how to treat the unwanted.While Christians opposed infanticide, they were unable to do anything about it as a social policy while they were an outlawed group. It wasn't until the Edict of Milan in AD 313 that they were able to even speak to official policy. Then, only 60 years later Emperor Valentinian, at the urging of Basil of Caesarea, outlawed the wicked practice of infanticide.But while they waited for the laws to change, early Christians didn't sit on their hands. They regularly went out to the hillsides where children were left exposed and took them into their homes, raising them as their own children. In Rome, Bishop Callistus organized people to roam the streets in the late evening, looking for abandoned children. He then placed them in the homes of parents wanting them. As far as we know, this was the first organized adoption agency, even though it was done on the sly. The famous martyr Polycarp's protégé, Benignus of Dijon, recused & nurtured abandoned little ones, ministering to the needs of children who'd been deformed because of botched abortions. Afra of Augsburg, a notorious prostitute before her conversion to Christ, began a ministry to the abandoned children of prisoners, thieves, smugglers, pirates, runaway slaves, and all sorts of ne'er-do' wells.No one should get the impression from this that following Valentinian's outlawing of infanticide & child-abandonment, there was an immediate, overnight end to the practice. Far from it. People in Europe & the Eastern Empire continued to off their off spring in large numbers. And Christians continued to adopt them. But as the influence of the Christian worldview spread, there was a deep & fundamental shift that took place in the way people viewed human life; all of it from cradle to grave. And where that respect for life settled in, infanticide evaporated. It got to the point where a single abandoned infant became a shocking event the news of which spread like wild-fire. And when desperation moved some young mother to abandon her child, where did she leave it? Not on a hillside to let it die. No. She left it on the doorstep of the local church because she knew her child would be taken care of.So it ought to be with the deepest kind of grief that we hear now about newborns being left in dumpsters & gas station restrooms. It seems we've regressed, not progressed; devolved, not evolved. Society has at any rate. And to think - there are people who actually rejoice that the Christian worldview has been cut loose from modern society.We have abortion, which is really just an earlier form of infanticide. Partial birth abortion isn't even that! If a woman doesn't make the appointment to rid herself of the unwanted before it's born, no problem; when in Rome, do as the Romans do.What's next? Gladiatorial combat? Oops - too late. // Slavery? Again, too late. It's already here.We'll be taking a look at many more ways the Christian Faith has impacted culture & civilization in the weeks to come.

In this episode I host Dr. Jeroen W.P. Wijnendaele on a complicated and fascinating subject and that is "Were the Byzantines actually Roman?" Was the Byzantine Empire Greek? Or was it Roman? We explore the very origins of "Byzantine" and "Byzantium" by starting off in the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium and then we watch as the Roman Empire expands while asking ourselves, what did it mean to be "Roman?" We take a journey into Byzantine studies and historiography as we ask "why did some in the West call the Eastern Roman Empire the Empire of the Greeks? Were there political motivations behind the framing of "Byzantine?" And more importantly, how did the Roman citizens in the Eastern Empire view themselves before and after the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire? As we journey through history and sources such as Anna Komnene and her awesome work known as the Alexiad we see an intimate portrait of a complicated subject and that is how the ancient and medieval peoples of the Eastern Roman Empire viewed themselves? Lastly, we arrive to the last two ultimate questions and that is "Is one term more accurate than the other?" And are there controversies within Byzantine Studies and should it evolve or change? ACADEMIA PAGE: https://ugent.academia.edu/JeroenWPWijnendaele TWITTER: https://twitter.com/_Dragases_ Buy his book The Last of the Romans: Bonifatius below! https://www.amazon.com/Last-Romans-Bonifatius-Warlord-Africae/dp/1474295991/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Jeroen+W.P.+Wijnendaele&qid=1618426985&sr=8-1 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/antiquity-middlages/support

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A long time ago in a galaxy not far from the nation's capital...It is a dark time for the Wizards. Before the John StarWallker's knee had been temporarily destroyed, a secret congregation of Lord Leonsis' minions visited Emperor Ernie Grunfeld's hidden base and unassumingly offered him the keys to Washington's galaxy (and an undisclosed compensation bounty) for the emperor's 16th year. Lord Leonsis knew not if the newly acquainted army of Wizards could stand up to the test of the rising Eastern Empire.Overcoming the Wizards' dreaded injuries, locker room rifts, perpetual downplaying of opponents, decrepit defense, and careless safeguarding the eternal rock, Old School Scottie Brooks and  Brattlequest Beal ushered the limping Wizards army into the Battle of the Eastern Empirs just as John Skywallker recovered from his battle wounds.The Wizards army fell predictably to the Beasts of the North whose emperor filled its army with a plethora of young, sharpshooting storm troopers. Yet Emperor Ernie survives yet again to the dismay of Washington galaxy dwellers. Noah Goetzel and Truth About It's Troy Haliburton explore the emperor's perplexing return... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Indiana Jones tells his father that he saw Sir Richard in person and that his shield pointed the way to Alexandretta. John Ingle is back one more time as we talk laundry, Grail Diaries and excriptions. Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/indianajonesminute Join us online at: http://www.indianajonesminute.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1011918448897040/ 

Think I'm on safe ground when I say à Those listening to this are mostly likely students of history. Your knowledge of the past is probably more comprehensive than the average person. And of course, the range of knowledge among subscribers to CS spans the gamut from extensive to, well, not so much. Yet still, more than the average.If asked to make a list of the main thinkers of the past; philosophers, theologians, and such like, of Western tradition, we'd get the usual. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Seneca, Cicero, Virgil. Clement, Origen, Augustine, Aquinas.A name far less likely to make that list is the subject of this episode.  Though he's not oft mentioned in modern treatments of church and philosophical history, his work was a major contributor to medieval thought, which was the seedbed form which the modern world rose.His full name was Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus. But he's known to us simply as Boethius.Born to a Roman senatorial family sometime between 475 & 80 in Italy, Boethius was left an orphan at an early age. He was adopted by another patrician, Memmius Symmachus, who instilled in the young man a love of literature and philosophy.Symmachus made sure Boethius learned the vanishing skill of literacy in Greek. With the split between the Eastern & Western Roman Empires now settled, and the Fall of the Western Empire to the Goths, it seems Greek, primary language of the East, fell to disuse in favor of Latin. In the West, Greek became increasingly the language of scholars and those suspected of lingering loyalty to the East.Nevertheless, Boethius' familiarity with the classics commended him to the new rulers of the West – the Ostrogoths. Their king, Theodoric the Great, appointed the 35 year old Boethius as consul. While the office of consul was technically linked to the ancient Roman Republican Consul, by the 6th C, it was an office far more of image than substance. Still an important position politically, but wielding none of the authority it once had. By Boethius' time, that is the early 6th C, being a senator meant little more than, “This is someone to keep your eye on as a potential future leader.” Being made a consul was like making the finals in the last round of the playoffs. But with an emperor seated on the throne, all rule and authority was concentrated in the royal court. A 5th & 6th C Roman Consul was more a political figurehead; a polite fiction; a nod to the glory of ancient Rome and her amazing feat of world conquest. From Augustus on, the Roman Senate and her consuls steadily lost place to the new imperial bureaucracy. After Augustus, who moved swiftly to relocate and consolidate all power within his executive office, Roman emperors turned to the Prefect of the Praetorian Guard as the new go to guy in executing Imperial policy. By the time of Boethius, that office had evolved into what was called the Magister Officiorum; head of all government and judicial services.When Boethius's term as consul was up, his two sons were appointed co-consuls in his place, one for the West, the other for the East. He was then promoted into the role of Magister Officiorum – the highest administrative position in King Theodoric's court.And that's where the fun begins. à Well, it wasn't so fun for Boethius. I probably ought to say; that's where the political shenanigans and devious machinations began. For it was there, serving Theodoric, that Boethius ran afoul of the ambitions of powerful men.They used Boethius' faith to bring him down.And here we're back to the old Arian-Nicaean Controversy. You see, while Arianism had been debunked and expelled from the Western Church long before all this, it found a home among the Goths of the East; the Ostrogoths, who now ruled what was left of the Western Roman Empire. King Theodoric was an Arian, as were his Ostrogoth pals, many of whom were jealous that an outsider like Boethius had the highest post they could aspire to. Oh, and don't forget that Boethius is fluent in Greek, the language they speak over in the Eastern Empire. Whose Emperor, Justinian I was openly known to aspire to reclaim Italy from Theodoric. Oh, and to add fuel to the fires of controversy & suspicion, those Easterners are also Orthodox, Nicaean Christians, people who've systematically wiped out Arians.Boethius' was doing a stellar job as Magister Officiorum, so they knew they couldn't attack him directly. They went instead after his less well-connected friends, accusing them of conspiring with Justinian in his designs on Italy. They knew Boethius would come to their defense, and that would be enough to cast a pall over his imperial favor. The ruse worked, and Boethius was arrested, hauled off to an estate in Pavia, where he spent a year in confinement, then quietly executed when the news cycle shifted to other more pressing matters. Ha! Today, the news cycle is down to about 5 days. Back then, it was several months.Now, you may be wondering, what does Boethius have to do with CHURCH history? I'm so glad you asked.Boethius' main contribution to history in general and to Church history in particular lies in his impact on the relationship between theology and philosophy. He's regarded by many as the last of the ancient philosophers.Boethius adored the ancient Greeks. It was his life's ambition, to translate the works of Plato and Aristotle into Latin. He died before he was able, but he made a good start. His singular contribution to history is his serving as a bridge between the classical and medieval ages for understanding Aristotelean thought, especially as it regards Aristotle's work in LOGIC. Boethius recast Aristotle's principles in terms that Medieval Europeans could grasp. His work then was foundational to many other theologians and philosophers for hundreds of years. One can argue that without Boethius, Roman Scholasticism, might not have happened, or at least it would have adopted a very different form. Boethius provided much of the vocabulary of medieval theology and philosophy. He's sometimes called “the first scholastic” because in his work titled Opuscula Sacra, written to defend orthodox theology, he applied Aristotelian logic, seeking to harmonize faith & reason – the great task of later Scholastics.But it was during his year of imprisonment in Pavia, as he awaited execution that Boethius wrote his most well-known volume, The Consolation of Philosophy, regarded as the single most influential work on Medieval and early Renaissance Christianity, & the last great Western work of the Classical Period.Written in 523, The Consolation of Philosophy presents a conversation between himself and Lady Philosophy, who's come to console him. It's essentially a theodicy; an examination of the age-old dilemma addressing the challenge posed by the dual proposition of the existence of evil & God's omnipotence and love. A theodicy seeks to answer the question: If the God of the Bible is real, why is there evil in the world; a potent question for a man like Boethius, an innocent man awaiting execution by the wicked.During Lady Philosophy's discourse, subjects like predestination and free will are examined. The Consolation isn't an overtly Gospel centered work. Jesus isn't even mentioned. A rather generic God is assumed; a deity who certainly aligns loosely with The God of Scripture; but a distinctive Christian Trinitarian God isn't defined. For this reason, some historian claim Boethius wasn't a Christian. But that assessment simply doesn't square with the rest of his life, his other writings, or why he was accused of treason. His enemies went after him precisely because his orthodoxy raised Arian suspicion.So, what are we to make of the Consolation's lack of Gospel content? Surely the answer is found in Boethius' intended audience. He wasn't writing to or for Christians, showing them how to link faith and reason. He wrote to convince pagans that real philosophy, the kind that led to a better life, the BEST life, doesn't flow in tandem with paganism. The best life is a moral life, where justice and moderation are virtues. It was no doubt Boethius' hope, once pagans realized pagan religion hindered a better life, they'd investigate Christianity, because at that time in Europe those were the only two options, the only available worldviews: Christianity & Paganism. Take down paganism, and people would move to the only thing left – The Gospel.

This episode of CS is part 3 of our series on The Crusades.A major result of the First Crusade was a further alienation of the Eastern and Western Churches. The help provided Byzantium by the crusaders were not what The Eastern Emperor Alexius was hoping for.It also resulted in an even greater alienation of the Muslims than had been in place before. 200 years of crusading rampages across the Eastern Mediterranean permanently poisoned Muslim-Christian relations and ended the spirit of moderate tolerance for Christians living under Muslim rule across a wide swath of territory. The only people who welcomed the Crusaders were a handful of Christian minorities who'd suffered under Byzantine and Muslim rule; the Armenians and Maronites living in Lebanon. The Copts in Egypt saw the Crusades as a calamity. They were now suspected by Muslims of holding Western sympathies while being treated as schismatics by the Western Church. Once the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they banned Copts from making pilgrimage there.Things really went sour between East and West when the Roman church installed Latin patriarchates in historically Eastern centers at Antioch and Jerusalem. Then, during the 4th Crusade, a Latin patriarch was appointed to the church in Constantinople itself.To give you an idea of what this would have felt like to the Christian of Constantinople; imagine how Southern Baptists would feel if a Mormon bishop was installed as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. You get the picture = No Bueno.Another long-lasting effect of the Crusades was that they weakened the Byzantine Empire and hastened its fall to the Ottoman Turks a couple centuries later. Arab governments were also destabilized leaving them susceptible to invasion by Turks and Mongols.A significant new development in monastic history was made at this time in the rise of the knightly monastic orders. The first of these was the Knights Templar, founded in 1118 under Hugh de Payens. King Baldwin gave the Templars their name, and from them the idea of fighting for the Temple passed to other orders. Bernard of Clairvaux, although not the author of the Templar rule, as legend has it, did write an influential piece called In Praise of the New Militia of Christ which lauded the new orders of knights.The Templars were imitated by the Hospitallers, who had an earlier origin as a charitable order. They'd organized in 1050 by merchants from Amalfi living in Jerusalem to protect pilgrims. They provided hospitality and care of the sick, and helped morph the word “hospitality” into “hospital.” Under Gerard in 1120, the Hospitallers gained papal sanction. Gerard's successor was Raymond de Provence who reorganized the Hospitallers as a military order on the pattern of the Knights Templar. The Hospitallers, also known as the Knights of St. John eventually moved to the islands of Rhodes, then Malta, where they held out in 1565 in a protracted siege against the Turks in one of history's most significant battles.Another important military order, the Teutonic Knights arose in 1199, during the 3rd Crusade.The knightly monastic orders had certain features in common. They viewed warfare as a devotional way of life. The old monastic idea of fighting demons, as seen in the ancient Egyptian desert hermits, evolved into actual combat with people cast as agents of evil. Spiritual warfare became actual battle. Knights and their attendants took the vows similar to other monks. They professed poverty, chastity, and obedience, along with a pledge to defend others by force of arms. While personal poverty was vowed, using violence to secure wealth was deemed proper so it could be used to benefit others, including the order itself. The Templars became an object of envy for their immense wealth.In studying the relations between Christianity and Islam during the Middle Ages, we should remember there were many peaceful interchanges. Some Christians advocated peaceful missions to Muslims. These peaceful encounters can be seen in the exchange of art. Christians highly valued Muslim metalwork and textiles. Church vestments were often made by Muslim weavers. Such a vestment is located today at Canterbury. It contains Arabic script saying, “Great is Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.”On the positive side, if there was anything positive to be gleaned from the Crusades, it did promote a greater sense of unity in Western Europe. Remember that one of the reasons Pope Urban sparked the Crusade was to vent the violent habits of the European nobles who were constantly at each other's throats. Instead of warring with each other back and forth across Europe, watering its fields with blood, they united to go against infidels “way over there.”The Crusades also led to increased prestige for the papacy as they were able to mobilize huge numbers of people.  The Crusades also stimulated an intellectual revival in Europe as Crusaders returned with new experiences and knowledge from another part of the world.After the 1st Crusade, over the next 60 years, Jerusalem saw a succession of weak rulers while the Muslims from Damascus to Egypt united under a new dynasty of competent and charismatic leaders. The last of these was Saladin, or, more properly, Salah ad-Din. Founder of the Ayyubid dynasty of Islam, he became caliph in 1174 and set out to retake Jerusalem.The king of Jerusalem at the time was (and warning: I'm going to butcher this poor guy's name) Guy de Lusignan. Let's just call him “Guy.” He led the Crusaders out to a hill on the West of the Sea of Galilee called the Horns of Hattin. Both the Templars and Hospitallers were there in force, and the much vaunted “true cross” was carried by the bishop of Acre, who himself was clad in armor. On July 5, 1187, the decisive battle was fought. The Crusaders were completely routed. 30,000 perished. King Guy, the leaders of the Templars and Hospitallers along with a few other nobles were taken prisoner. Saladin gave them clemency. The fate of the Holy Land was decided.On Oct. 2, 1187, Saladin entered Jerusalem after it made brave resistance. The generous conditions of surrender were mostly creditable to the chivalry of the Muslim commander. There were no scenes of savage butchery as followed the entry of the Crusaders 90 years before. The people of Jerusalem were given their liberty if they paid a ransom. Europeans and anyone else who wanted to, were allowed to leave. For 40 days the procession of the departing continued. Relics stored in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher were redeemed for the sum of 50,000 bezants. Named after Byzantium where they were the medium of exchange, the bezant was a gold coin of 5 grams.Thus ended the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. Since then the worship of Islam has continued on Mount Moriah without interruption. The other European conquests of the 1st Crusade were then in danger from the unending feuds of the Crusaders themselves, and, in spite of the constant flow of recruits and treasure from Europe, they fell easily before Saladin.He allowed a merely ceremonial Latin ruler to hold the title King of Jerusalem but the last real king was Guy, who was released, then travelled around claiming the title of king but without a court or capital. He eventually settled in Cyprus.We'll go into less detail for the rest of the Crusades as we finish them off over the next episode .The 2nd Crusade was sparked by 2 events; the Fall of the Crusader state of Edessa in Syria and the preaching of Bernard of Clairvaux. And note that the 2nd Crusade took place BEFORE the arrival of Saladin on the scene.Edessa fell to the Turks in Dec., 1144.  They built a fire in a large breach they'd made in the city wall. The fire was so hot it cracked a section of the wall a hundred yards long. When the wall collapsed, the Turks rushed in and unleashed the same kind of brutality the Crusaders had when they conquered Jerusalem.Pope Eugenius III saw the Turk victory at Edessa as a threat to the continuance of the Crusaders in Palestine and called upon the king of France to march to their relief. The forgiveness of all sins and immediate entrance into heaven were promised to all embarking on a new Crusade. Eugenius summoned Bernard of Clairvaux to leave his abbey and preach the crusade. Bernard was the most famous person of his time and this call by the Pope came at the zenith of his fame. He regarded the Pope's summons as a call from God.On Easter in 1146, King Louis of France vowed to lead the Crusade. The Pope's promise of the remission of sins was dear to him as he was stricken with guilt for having burned a church with 1300 inside. How grand to be able to gain forgiveness by killing more! He assembled a council at Vézelai at which Bernard made such an overpowering impression by his message that all present pressed forward to take up the crusading cause. Bernard was obliged to cut his own robe into small fragments, to give away to all who wanted something of his they could carry to the East. He wrote to Pope Eugenius that the enthusiasm was so great “castles and towns were emptied of their inmates. One man could hardly be found for 7 women, and the women were being everywhere widowed while their husbands were still alive.” Meaning most of the men set off on the Crusade, leaving the population of France with 7 women to every man. Hey – lucky them!From France, Bernard went to Basel, in modern day Switzerland, then up thru the cities along the Rhine as far as Cologne. As in the 1st Crusade, persecution broke out against the Jews in this area when a monk named Radulph questioned why they needed to go to the Middle East to get rid of God-haters and Christ-killers. There were plenty of them in Europe.  Bernard objected vehemently to this. He called for the Church to attempt to win the Jews by discussion and respect, not killing them.Bernard was THE celebrity of the day and thousands flocked to hear him. Several notable miracles and healings were attributed to him. The German Emperor Konrad III was deeply moved by his preaching and convinced to throw his weight to the Crusade.Konrad raised an army of 70,000; a tenth of whom were knights. They assembled at Regensburg and proceeded thru Hungary to the Bosporus. All along their route they were less than welcome. Konrad and the Eastern Emperor Manuel where brothers-in-law, but that didn't keep Manuel from doing his best to wipe out the German force. The guides he provided led the Germans into ambushes and traps then abandoned them in the mountains. When they finally arrived at Nicea, famine, fever and attacks had reduced the force to a tenth is original size.King Louis set out in the Spring of 1147 and followed the same route Konrad had taken. His queen, Eleanor, famed for her beauty and skill as a leader, along with many other ladies of the French court, accompanied the army. The French met up with what was left of Konrad's force at Nicea.The forces then split up into different groups which all reached Acre in 1148. They met King Baldwin III of Jerusalem and pledged to unite their forces in an attempt to conquer Damascus before retaking Edessa. The siege of Damascus was a total failure. The European nobles fell to such in-fighting that their camp fragmented into warring groups. Konrad left for Germany in the Fall of 1148 and Louis returned to France a few months later.Bernard was humiliated by the failure of the Crusade. He assigned it to the judgment of God for the sins of the Crusaders and Christian world.A little more about King Louis's wife Eleanor. Eleanor of Aquitaine was really something. In a world dominated by men, Eleanor's career was something special. She was one of the wealthiest and most powerful people in Europe during the Middle Ages.Eleanor succeeded her father as the ruler of Aquitaine and Poitiers at the age of 15. She was then the most eligible bride in Europe. Three months after her accession, she married King Louis VII. As Queen of France, she went on the 2nd Crusade. Then, with it's defeat and back in France, she got an annulment from Louis on the basis that they were relatives, then married Henry Plantaget, Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou, who soon became King Henry II of England in 1154. This despite the fact that Henry was an even closer relative than Louis had been and 9 years younger than she. They were married just 8 weeks after her annulment. Over the next 13 years Eleanor bore Henry 8 children: 5 sons, 3 of whom would become king, and 3 daughters. However, Henry and Eleanor eventually became estranged. She was imprisoned between 1173 and 1189 for supporting her son's revolt against her husband.Eleanor was widowed in July 1189. Her husband was succeeded by their son, Richard I, known as the Lion-hearted. As soon as he ascended the thrown, Richard had his mother released from prison. Now the queen dowager, Eleanor acted as regent while Richard went on the 3rd Crusade. She survived Richard and lived well into the reign of her youngest son John, known as the worst king in England's long history. It's this King John who's cast as the chief villain in the story of Robin Hood.The 3rd Crusade is referred to as the Kings' Crusade due to the European monarchs who participated in it. It was an attempt to reconquer the Holy Land from the Muslims who, under Saladin, had reclaimed the lands the Crusaders took in the 1st Crusade. The 3rd was for the most part successful but fell short of its ultimate goal, the re-conquest of Jerusalem.When Saladin captured Jerusalem in 1187, the news rocked Europe. The story goes that Pope Urban III was so traumatized, he died of shock. Henry II of England and Philip II of France ended their dispute with each other to lead a new crusade. When Henry died 2 years later, Richard the Lionheart stepped in to lead the English. The elderly Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa also responded to the call to arms, and led a massive army across Turkey. Barbarossa drowned while crossing a river in June, 1190 before reaching the Holy Land. His death caused great grief among the German Crusaders. Most were so discouraged they returned home.After driving the Muslims from the port of Acre, Frederick's successor Leopold V of Austria and King Philip of France left the Holy Land in August 1191, leaving Richard to carry on by himself. Saladin failed to defeat Richard in any military engagements, and Richard secured several key coastal cities. But the English King realized a conquest of Jerusalem wasn't possible to his now weakened force and in September of 1192, made a treaty with Saladin by which Jerusalem would remain under Muslim control, but allowed unarmed Christian pilgrims and merchants to visit the city. Richard departed the Holy Land a month later.The successes of the 3rd Crusade allowed the Crusaders to maintain a considerable kingdom based in Cyprus and along the Syrian coast. Its failure to recapture Jerusalem led to the call for a 4th Crusade 6 years later.The 3rd Crusade was yet another evidence of the European's inability to form an effective union against the Muslims. The leaders and nobility of Europe made great promises of unity when they embarked on a Crusade, but the rigors of the journey, along with the imminent prospect of victory saw them more often than not falling out with each other in incessant and petty squabbles.On Richard's journey back to England he was seized by the afore mentioned Leopold, duke of Austria, whose enmity he'd incurred in the battle for the city of Joppa. The duke turned his captive over to the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry VI who also had a grudge to settle. The Lionheart was released on the humiliating terms of paying an enormous ransom and consenting to hold his kingdom as a fiefdom of the Empire.  It's this hostage taking of Richard the Lionhearted that forms the backdrop for the tale of Robin Hood.Saladin died in March, 1193, by far the most famous of the foes of the Crusaders. Christendom has joined with Arab writers in praise of his courage, culture, and the magnanimous manner in which he treated his foes.Historians debate how many Crusades there were. It wasn't as though Kings Henry and Philip said, “Hey, let's make nice and launch the 3rd Crusade.” They didn't number them as historians have since. History tends to ascribe 9 as the number of Crusades, but then add 2 more by assigning them with names instead of numbers; the Albigenian and the Children's Crusades, which took place between the 4th and 5th Crusades.Generally, the 5th thru 9th Crusades are considered lesser armed movements while the first 4 are called the Great Crusades.We'll finish with a quick review of the 4th Crusade.Innocent III became Pope in 1198.  He called for the 4th Crusade which was the final blow that forever sundered the Western and Eastern churches, though that was certainly never his aim. In fact, he warned the Crusaders against it.Pope Innocent's plan was simply to destroy a Muslim military base in Egypt. The merchants of Venice had promised to supply the Crusaders with ships at a huge discount; one the Crusaders couldn't pass up. So in the summer of 1202, they arrived in Venice expecting to sail to Egypt. But there was a problem: Only a third of the expected number of warriors showed. And they came up with a little more than half the required sailing fee.A prince from the East offered to finance the balance under one condition: That the Crusaders sail first to Constantinople, dethrone the current Emperor and hand it over to him. They could then sail on their merry way to Egypt. Pope Innocent forbade this diversion, but no one paid him any attention.On July 5th, 1203, the Crusaders arrived in the Eastern capital. The people of Constantinople were by now fed up with Europeans meddling in their affairs and formed a counter revolution that swept the current emperor off the throne, but only so they could install their own fiercely anti-Crusader ruler. Being now shut out of his hopes, the would-be emperor who'd paid the Crusaders way to Constantinople refused to pay their way to Egypt, leaving them stranded in increasingly hostile territory.They were furious. Their leaders decided to try and make the best of it and called for a quick plundering of Constantinople. One of the Crusade chaplains proclaimed; in complete disregard for the Pope's wishes, “If you rightly intend to conquer this land and bring it under Roman obedience, all who die will partake of the pope's indulgence.”  That was like letting a rabid dog off its chain. For many of the Crusaders, this was not only an excuse to get rich by taking loot, it meant a license to do whatever they pleased in Constantinople.On Good Friday, 1204, the Crusaders, with red crosses on their tunics, sacked Constantinople. For 3 days, they raped and killed fellow Christians. The city's statues were hacked to pieces and melted down. The Hagia Sophia was stripped of its golden vessels. A harlot performed sensual dances on the Lord's Table, singing vile drinking songs. One Eastern writer lamented, “Muslims are merciful compared with these men who bear Christ's cross on their shoulders.”Neither the Eastern Empire nor Church ever recovered from those 3 days. For the next 60 years Crusaders from the Roman church ruled what was once the Eastern Empire. The Eastern emperor established a court in exile at Nicaea. Rather than embrace Roman customs, many Eastern Christians fled there. There they remained until 1261, when an Eastern ruler retook Constantinople.

This episode of Communio Sanctorum is titled, “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do.”In our study of the History of the Church, we get to examine some periods when the followers of Jesus did some amazing, God-honoring, Christ-exalting, people-blessing things. In future episodes, we'll take a longer look at how the Gospel has impacted history and world civilization for the better.But, we have to be honest and admit there have been too many times when the Church totally fumbled the ball. Worse than that, after fumbling, they stepped on and kicked it out of bounds!The danger I face as we deal with these atrocious moments in Church History is of being assumed to be hostile to the Body of Christ. When I speak about the abysmal career of some of the popes, some listeners assume I'm Catholic-bashing. Later, when we get to the Reformation era and take a look at some of the Reformers, I'll be accused of being a closet-Catholic!So I want to pause here and say à This isn't a podcast about me, but I need to use me as an example . . .As most of you know, I'm a non-denominational Evangelical pastor. I'm not a scholar, not even close. I'm just a guy who loves history and decided to share what he was learning about the history of the church with others because at the time CS began, there just wasn't a short-format church history podcast available. While I genuinely try to be unbiased in presenting the story of the Church, it's inevitable I'll slant the narrative at points. I've already made it clear that when I do offer mere opinion, I'll preface it with a warning, but infrequent side comments can still color the material. Even what adjectives I pick reveal bias.While I aim to be faithful in my own walk with God, my role in my family as a husband and father, and my calling as a pastor, I freely admit I'm still a man in process. I have many faults and a long way to go to be conformed to Christ's image. Keenly aware of how far I have to go is what causes me to wonder how God could use me! Yet use me He does, week after week, in my role as pastor. I'm such a flawed vessel, yet God keeps pouring His grace thru me. It's humbling.The point is this: While so much of Church History is flat-out embarrassing, God still uses the Church, still works by His Spirit through His people to accomplish His purposes. So when we see the Church stumble, regardless of what group it is, what era, what label is applied to those who mess up, let's not white-wash, edit, or redact. Let's tell it like it is; own it as part of our history, but remember that while man fails, God never does.From the late 9th to 10th C the position of Roman bishop once held by such godly men as Popes Leo and Gregory was turned over to a parade of corrupt nobles who were anything but.This was a time when the position of the pope was a plum political appointment, with the potential of gaining great wealth and power for the pope's family.  The intrigue surrounding the selection of the pope was vast and nefarious. An Italian heiress named Marozia [mah-RO-zee-ah], controlled the bishop's seat at Rome for 60 years. She was one bishop's mother, another's murderer and a third's mistress.  In what just about everyone recognizes as a low point for the Papacy, Octavianus, Marozia's grandson, celebrated his impending election as Pope John XII, by toasting the devil. Once in office, his behavior was far from saintly. The immorality that attended his term was legendary. Corruption of the office didn't end with his death. Reform was desperately needed and many called for it. But one man's reform is another's loss of power and access to wealth.Though the Western and Eastern halves of the Church had quarreled for centuries over minor doctrinal issues and who ought to lead the Church, they still saw themselves as one Body. That unity was doomed by many years of contention and the fragmenting of the world into conflicted regions brought about by the dissolving of the Roman Empire and constant invasion of outsiders. The emergence of Islam in the 7th C accelerated the break between East and West. We might assume the 2 halves of the old Empire would unite in face of the Islamic threat, and there were times when that seemed hopeful. But the reality was, Islam presented a threat across such a huge front, the various regions of Christendom ended up having to face the threat on their own.Between the 9th and 13th Cs, three separate challenges split Christianity into 2 disparate camps. Like taps on a diamond, each furthered the emerging rift until finally the break came.The first tap had to do with the Nicene Creed hammered out at the Council of Nicea all the way back in the early 4th C when Constantine was Emperor. In the 9th C, the Nicene Creed still stood as the standard formulation for how Christians in the East and West understood God. But the Spanish church added something they thought would make the creed clearer. The original creed stated, “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.” The revised creed of the Spanish church said, “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”This reflected the work on the Trinity that had been conducted by later Councils. Remember, the very first councils were consumed with understanding the nature of Jesus and settled on the doctrine He is both fully God and fully Man. They labored hard to find just the right words to say that. Then, they turned their attention to the issue of the Trinity, and after much labor settled on the wording that God is one in essence but three in person.  For most people, that was enough, but theologians have minds that want to go further. They debated over how to understand the divinity of God. Who actually possessed deity; all three equally? Or did one possess it, then shared it with the others?The Western Church centered held the idea divinity was co-equal and underived in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But relationally the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit then proceeds from both Father and Son. This seemed to accurately reflect the subordinate missions assigned the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity in the Bible.The Western Church adopted the revised Nicene Creed. The Eastern Church balked! Everyone agreed the Nicene Creed had been a work of the Spirit of God illuminating the minds of the Council to the Word of God. It was inviolable! How could Rome think to fiddle with it? And especially without consulting them? Why, at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the Bishops committed themselves never to change the creed.According to Eastern theologians, divinity dwelt only in the Father. The Father then shared the divine being with the Son and Spirit. They could not say the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” If the Spirit arose from "the Father and the Son," the Son would possess divine being co-equally with the Father.While there had been potential doctrinal rifts before, the East and West had always been able to reach a consensus. That historic consensus became increasingly distant as this debate, known as the Filioque Controversy, raged. Filioque is Latin for “and the Son.”In 867 Photius, bishop of Constantinople formally denounced the added phrase. Five years later, Pope Adrian II offered to drop the phrase “and the Son” from the Nicene Creed. Rome would drop the Filioque clause if the Eastern church accepted the Pope's supremacy over the Church. Photius declined. >> Tap 1.Get ready for Tap 2 …One day in AD 1048, three shoeless pilgrims—Bruno, Humbert, and Hildebrand walked together through the gates of Rome. Each in his own way would transform the Roman church.Bruno was elected Pope Leo IX. He immediately set about reforming the Roman church morally and theologically.  To keep priests from passing ecclesiastical positions to their children, he demanded celibacy. Next, he moved to extricate the Church from secular entanglements and obligations to European nobility. Bruno and his successor popes really believed God had given them authority over all Christians.The new bishop of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, refused to recognize Bruno as Pope. He closed every church in Constantinople loyal to Rome. Bruno then sent envoys to Constantinople to negotiate peace. His chief envoy was his friend Humbert. Before leaving Rome, Humbert wrote a bold notice in the Pope's name. This official church notice is called a bull. We get our word “bulletin” from it. A Bull was an authoritative announcement of intention to follow a particular course. It's based in the authority of the person who writes it or whose name it bears.Humbert made the journey from Rome to Constantinople, bull in hand. He arrived on July 16, 1054, marched into the Hagia Sophia while Communion was being observed. As one author says, Humbert's notice was a lot like a Texas longhorn: It had a point here, a point there, and a lot of bull in between. Condemned in the bull were the Eastern practices of allowing priests to marry, refusing to recognize baptism performed in Roman churches, and deleting the Filioque.For the record, the Roman church had allowed priests to marry for several centuries, the Eastern church did not refuse to recognize Roman baptism, and they absolutely did NOT DELETE the phrase” and the son” from the Creed – The Western Church had added it!Humbert threw the bull on the Communion table, turned his back on the priest, and walked out, knocking the dust from his sandals and yelling "Let God judge!" A deacon picked up the bull and chased after Humbert, begging him to take it back. Humbert refused.The Papal Bull was viewed by the Eastern Church as the proverbial gauntlet, thrown at their feet by the Pope. The options seemed clear; either submit to the Pope's undisputed authority over the Church, or be considered by Rome a breakaway church.Tap 2The third and decisive tap that sundered East from West was the Crusades, specifically, the 4th. I need to make clear we're only dipping a toe into the subject of the Crusades for now. They're a major part of Church History we'll spend a lot more time on in future episodes. For now, we're only looking at how the Crusades served to split the Western and Eastern Churches.But even before THAT, I'm compelled to remind everyone that when I refer to the Eastern Church, what I really mean is the Greek Orthodox or Byzantine Church; not the Church of the East we've looked at in earlier podcasts. For simplicity sake. Picture a map of the ancient world; that swath of the globe that includes to the far left, Spain and Northwest Africa, up thru England and Scotland. Now, put the Middle East with Mesopotamia in the center of that mental map, and at the far right, China and Japan.Now, draw a mental oval over Spain, the British Isles, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia; shade it blue – That's the Western Church, speaking Latin, and centered at Rome under the Popes.Next, draw another oval over all East Europe and West Asia; shade it Green – That's the Byzantine Church, speaking Greek and centered at Constantinople under the Patriarchs.Finally, draw a 3rd oval over The Middle East, Mesopotamia, Persia, Central Asia, India, China and all the way to Japan. Shade it red – That's the Nestorian Church of the East, that speaks mainly Syriac and is headquartered at Nisibis & Edessa under the leadership of the Metropolitans.Note how much larger that 3rd sphere is. It covers a territory and population much larger than the two to its west combined. Yet in the popular review of Church History, this Church of the East is often neglected. The reason for that neglect is a subject for a later episode.My point here is that when we speak of the break between the Eastern and Western Churches, let's be sure we understand that the description of the Byzantine Church as the Eastern Church isn't really accurate. It's only a description of the Byzantine Church as being to the geographic East of the Western, Latin Church.Now, back to our look at the 3rd tap that severed West from East . . .As we've seen in previous episodes, penance played a major role in the religious life of Medieval Christians. Many believed they could prove themselves worthy of God's favor by going on a “pilgrimage.” So pilgrims traveled to shrines containing the bones of saints and relics from the Biblical story.  European cathedrals were centers where these sacred items were kept. But the greatest pilgrimage of all, one taken by not a few sincere believers was to Jerusalem. Even today with modern forms of transportation, a trip to Israel is a major event requiring special arrangements and a significant investment. Imagine what it meant for a pilgrim of the 10th or 11th C!  They walked hundreds of miles, braved a risky voyage aboard a ship that traveled through stormy, pirate-infested seas. This was no Disneyland ride; there were real-deal pirates who'd slit your throat or sell you into slavery. Fun stuff.Pilgrimages became such a fixture of medieval society, to impede a pilgrim's journey was thought to imperil his/her salvation. So a whole trade developed in assisting pilgrims reaching their destination, whether it was some cathedral or holy shrine in Europe, or the great pilgrimage to the Holy Land.From AD 638, Muslims controlled Jerusalem and the routes leading there. They required pilgrims to pay special fees. So in 1095 in France, Pope Urban II responded by preaching one of history's most influential sermons. We'll go into the details later. For now, just know he said, “Your Eastern brothers have asked for your help! Turks and Arabs have conquered their territories. I or, rather, the Lord begs you … destroy that vile race from your brothers' lands!”The response astounded both the Pope and Europe's nobility. The crowd of commoners began to chant, “Deus vult = God wills it!” There was an immediate response of hundreds to go in relief of their imperiled brothers.  As the days passed, the fervor spread and soon, nobles and serfs set off on the Great Pilgrimage to liberate Jerusalem from the infidels. They sewed crosses onto their tunics and painted them on their shields. Nobles forged new swords and spears while commoners grabbed whatever might make for a weapon and set off. They agreed to gather in Constantinople. The First Crusade was off and running.Among the peasants that set out on the 1st Crusade was a large group who followed a monk known as Peter the Hermit. The swarthy monk had not bathed in decades. He rode a burro that, according to some bore a remarkable resemblance to its rider. Peter's preaching was even more powerful than his odor. In 9 months, he gathered 20,000 European peasants to fight the Eastern infidel. They caused immediate chaos when they arrived in Constantinople. Complaints of robbery poured into the Emperor's office. He knew the untrained peasants were no match for the Muslims who cut their teeth on conquest, but he couldn't let them linger in his city. So he ferried them across the river where they began pillaging the homes of Eastern Christians, straining relations between the Byzantine and Roman churches. 2 months later, these peasants marched straight into an ambush. Peter, still in Constantinople begging for supplies, was the lone survivor. He joined another army, led by European nobility. These Crusaders clashed with the Muslims in Antioch, then continued on to Jerusalem.On July 15, 1099, Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders. Near the Temple Mount, the blood flowed ankle-deep. Newborns were thrown against walls. Crusaders torched a synagogue and burned the Jews inside alive. To this day, this wholesale slaughter affects how Jews and Muslims perceive the Church.A couple more Crusader campaigns were launched, then in 1198 a noble became Pope Innocent III. He inspired the 4th Crusade that would finally divide the Byzantine and Roman Churches.The bottom line of the 4th Crusade is that it was more than anything, a commercial venture. The merchants of the powerful city-state of Venice agreed to supply the Crusaders with ships at the cost of 84,000 silver coins. They were then to sail to Egypt and destroy a key Muslim base that would open up trade.  In the summer of 1202, the Crusaders arrived in Venice expecting to sail to Egypt. But there was a problem: Only one-third of the expected number of Crusaders showed up, and they came up with only 50,000 silver coins.Not to worry, an ambitious Eastern prince who fancied himself someone who deserved a fate and station better than the one life had dealt him, offered to finance the crusade à get this: Under the condition the Crusaders sail to Constantinople FIRST and dethrone the current Emperor. Once that was done, they could be on their merry way. Pope Innocent III forbade the assault on Constantinople, but no one paid him any mind. On July 5, 1203, the Crusaders arrived in Constantinople. But the people of the city were quite over the mess these Europeans kept making of things and revolted. They pre-empted the Crusaders attempt to install their own emperor and instead selected a fiercely anti-Crusader ruler.The Crusaders were furious. They'd set out to destroy Muslims in Egypt and saw their side trip to Constantinople as a brief diversion. Now, they were stranded in the Eastern Capital. With the promise of plunder the motive for their venture in the first place, they decided to go to town on those they now deemed their enemies – the people and city of Constantinople. One priest promised the Crusaders if they died in the now “holy cause” of sacking the city, they had the Pope's blessing and would go immediately to heaven. The Pope had said no such thing; on the contrary, he'd forbidden the entire campaign. But people hear what they want, and the Crusaders took that priest's announcement as a license to do whatever they pleased.On Good Friday, 1204, with red crosses on their tunics, the Crusaders sacked Constantinople. For 3 days, they raped and killed fellow believers. The city's statues were hacked to pieces and melted down. The Hagia Sophia was stripped of its treasures. A harlot performed sensual dances on the Lord's Table, singing vile drinking songs. One writer lamented that the Muslims were more merciful than those who bore a cross on their garments.Neither the Byzantine Empire nor Church recovered from those 3 horrible days. The Crusaders ruled the Eastern Empire for the next 60 years. The Eastern emperor set up a new capital in nearby Nicaea, to which many of the people of Constantinople fled.  They remained there until 1261, when an Eastern ruler retook the City.Pope Innocent III tried to prevent the fall of Constantinople, but no one had listened. Afterward, he attempted to reunite the churches, but it was too late. After the 4th Crusade, the Church was shattered into 2 communions. Today we know them as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.And while there have been a few attempts to affect a reconciliation recently, the wight of history has served to keep them at odds.

This episode is titled Icons.Those with a rough outline of history know we're coming up on that moment when the Eastern and Western branches of the Church split. The break wasn't some incidental accident that happened without a lot of preparation. Things had been going sour for a long time. One of the contributing factors was the Iconoclast Controversy that split the Byzantine church in the 8th and 9th Cs.While the Western Church went through monumental changes during the Middle Ages, the Eastern Church centered at Constantinople pretty much managed a holding pattern. It was the preservation of what they considered orthodoxy that moved Eastern Christians to view the Western Church as making dangerous and sometimes even heretical alterations to the Faith. The Eastern Church thought itself to now be alone in carrying the Faith of the Ecumenical Councils into the future. And for that reason, Constantinople backed away from its long-stated recognition that the Church at Rome was pre-eminent in Church affairs.Another factor contributing to the eventual sundering of East from West was the musical chairs played for the Western Emperor while in the East, the Emperor was far more stable. Remember that while the Western Roman Empire was effectively dead by the late 5th Century, the Eastern Empire continued to identify itself as Roman for another thousand years, though historians now refer to it as the Byzantine Empire.  At Constantinople, the Emperor was still the Roman Emperor, and like Constantine, the de-facto head of the Church. He was deemed by the Eastern Church as “the living image of Christ.”But that was about to experience a major re-model in the brueha between the iconoclasts and iconodules; terms we'll define a bit later.The most significant controversy to trouble the Byzantine church during the European Middle Ages was over the use of religious images known as icons. That's the way many modern historians regard what's called the Iconoclast Controversy – as a debate over the use of icons. But as usual, the issue went deeper. It arose over the question of what it meant when we say something is “holy”.The Church was divided over the question of what things were sufficiently sacred as to deserve worship. Priests were set apart by ordination; meaning they'd been consecrated to holy work. Church buildings were set apart by dedication; they were sacred. The martyrs were set apart by their deeds; that's why they were called “saints” meaning set-apart ones. And if martyrs were saints by virtue of giving their lives in death, what about the monks who gave their lives à yet still lived? Weren't they worthy of the same kind of honor?If all these people, places and things were holy, were they then worthy of special veneration?The holiness of the saints was endorsed and demonstrated by miracles, not just attributed to them while they lived, but also reported in connection with their tombs, relics; even images representing them. By the beginning of the 7th C, many cities had a local saint whose icons were revered as having special powers of intercession and protection. Notable examples were Saint Demetrius of Thessalonica, the Christ-icon of Edessa, and the miracle-working icon of Mary of Constantinople.From the 6th C, both Church and govern­ment encouraged religious devotion to monks and icons. Most Christians failed to distin­guish between the object or person and the spiritual reality they stood for. They fell into, what many regarded as the dreaded sin of idolatry. But before we rush to judgment, let's take a little time to understand how they slipped into something Scripture clearly bans.The use of images as help to religious devotion had strong precedent. In pagan Rome, the image of the Emperor was revered as if the Emperor himself were present. Even images of lesser imperial officials were occasionally used as stand-ins for those they represented. After emper­ors became Christians, the imperial image on coins, in court-houses, and in the most prominent places in the major cities continued to be an object of veneration and devotion. Constantine and his successors erected large statues of them­selves, the remains of which are on display today. It was Justinian I who broke with tradition and instead erected a huge icon of Christ over the main gate of the palace at Constantinople. During the following century icons of Christ and Mary came to replace the imperial icon in many settings. Eventually under Justinian II in the early 8th C, the icon of Christ began to appear on coins.While the use of images as accouterments to facilitate worship was generally accepted, there were those who considered such practice contrary to the Bible's clear prohibition of idolatry. They weren't against religious art per se; only it's elevation into what they considered the realm of worship.The debate over icons was really a kind of doctrinal epilogue to the Christological controversies of an earlier time. àWhat was proper in depicting Christ and other Biblical persons? Can Jesus even be represented, or is the attempt to a violation of His divinity? Does making an image of Jesus enforce his humanity at the expense of his deity?And when does art, used in the service of worship, to enhance or facilitate it, interfere with worship because the object or image becomes the focal point?Though these questions may seem distant to those who hail from a modern Evangelical background, they may be able to get in touch with the challenge the Eastern Church of the 8th and 9th Cs faced by remembering back a little way to when some notable worship leaders raised concern about the modern worship scene with its fostering an environment of overblown emotionalism. Some phrased it as the “Worship of worship,” rather than God. Musical productions and concerts became events people turned out by the thousands for as they sought a spiritual thrill, a worship-high. One well-known composer of modern worship wrote a song that aimed to expose this trend called “The Heart of Worship.”Though the medium was different, in some ways, the recent worship of worship concern was similar to the concern of the Byzantine iconoclasts. In the ancient Eastern Church, the medium was the art of images. The more recent controversy centered on the art of music.By the 7th C, the most significant form of Eastern devotion was the cult of holy icons. While I could give a more technical definition or description of icons, let me keep it simple and say they were highly-stylized paintings made on wood. The images were of Jesus, Mary, saints, and angels. While there were primitive images used by Christians all the way back in the 1st C, we'd have to say Christian art began in earnest in the 3rd C. It was used either decoratively or depicted scenes from the Bible as a way to instruct illiterate believers.As mentioned, since the people of the Eastern Empire were already accustomed to showing deference to portraits of the Emperor, it wasn't much of a stretch to apply this to pictures of what were considered holy people. Since imperial portraits were often set off by draperies, people prostrated before them, burned incense and lit candles beside them, and carried them in solemn processions, it seemed inevitable that icons of the saints would receive the same treatment. The first Christian images known to have been surrounded by such veneration occurred in the 5th C. The practice became widely popular in the 6th and 7th. The reserve church leaders like Epiphanius and Augustine had shown toward the use of images at the end of the 4th C disappeared.It's important to realize that when it comes to icons and their use, there were really two tracks. One track was the way theologians justified or condemned them. The second track was that of the common people who had little interest in the fine points of theology involved in their use. The iconoclasts framed the issue from Track 2. They were skeptical of the illiterate masses being able to make a distinction between simply using an icon as a means to worship of what the image represented, and actual worship of the image itself. What seemed to prove their point was when some of these icons and religious relics were attributed with special powers to effect healing and work wonders.Pro-icon Church leaders maintained a misunderstanding of icons ought not prohibit their use. That would err into mere pragmatism.Emperor Leo III launched an attack on the use of icons in the first half of the 8th C. He was motivated by a concern the Church was engaging in the forbidden practice of idolatry, the very thing that had coast ancient Israel so much trouble. Perhaps the Eastern Empire's humiliating losses over the previous century, as well as a terrible earthquake early in Leo's reign, were evidence of divine judgment. If so, Leo was concerned the Empire would awaken to their peril, repent and amend their ways.Of course, Leo didn't come up with this on his own or out of the blue. There were many among the clergy and common people who questioned the use of icons as objects of religious devotion. But now with the Emperor's backing, this group of Iconoclasts, as they were called, became more vocal. Antagon­ism toward the use of icons grew, especially along the eastern frontier that bordered Muslims lands. Muslims had long called Christians idolaters for their use of religious images. Leo grew up in that region and had served as governor of western Asia Minor among several iconoclast bishops.The word iconoclast means a breaker or destroyer of icons because eventually, that's what the Iconoclasts will do; smash, break and burn the icons.After successfully repulsing the Muslim armies in their 2nd attack on Constantinople in 717, Emperor Leo III openly declared his opposition to icons for the 1st time. He ordered the icon of Christ over the Imperial Gate to be replaced with a cross. In spite of wide-spread rioting, in 730 Leo called for the removal and destruction of all religious icons in public places and churches.  The iconodules, as supporters of icons were called, were perse­cuted.In Rome, Pope Gregory III condemned the destruction of icons. The Emperor retaliated by removing Sicily, southern Italy and the entire western part of the Balkans and Greece from Rome's ecclesiastical oversight, placing them under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It was this, as much as anything, that moved the Pope to seek the support and protection of the Franks.Leo's son Constantine V not only continued his father's iconoclastic policy, he furthered it. He convened a council in 754 at the imperial palace at Hiereia, a suburb of Constantinople. The iconoclasts regarded it as the 7th Ecumenical Council, though it was only the Patriarchate of Constantinople that attended.Both iconoclasts and iconodules agreed that the divine in Jesus Christ could not be represented in pictures, but Jesus had 2 natures. The iconoclasts argued that to represent the human nature was to lapse into the dreaded Nestorianism but to represent both natures was to go against their distinction, which was the error of Monophysitism, and made an image of deity.The iconodules replied that not to represent Jesus Christ was Monophysitism.Note how these arguments illustrate the practice of debating new issues in terms of already condemned errors.Against pictures of Mary and the saints, the iconoclasts reasoned that one cannot depict their virtues, so pictures were at best a vanity unworthy of the memory of the person represented. “Surely,” they said, “Mary and the saints would not WANT such images made!”Other arguments by the iconoclasts were that the only true image of Jesus Christ is the Eucharist.Supporters of icons used arguments that were most effectively articulated by John of Damascus, an Arab Christian who wrote in Greek. John was a monk at the monastery of St. Saba in Palestine where he became a priest and devoted himself to study of the Scripture and literary work. Being outside the realm of Byzantine control, he was safe from retaliation by the Emperor and iconoclastic officials.John of Damascus was the most systematic and comprehensive theologian in the Greek church since Origen. His most important work is the Fountain of Knowledge, part three of which, titled On the Orthodox Faith, gives an excellent summary of the teaching of the Greek Fathers on the principal Christian doctrines. He also produced homilies, hymns, and a commentary on the NT letters of Paul. John of Damascus's Three Apologies against Those Who Attack the Divine Images took a fourfold approach to the issue.1st he said, it's simultaneously impossible and impious to picture God, Who is pure spirit. Jesus Christ, Mary, saints, and angels on the other hand, who've appeared to human beings may be depicted. The Bible forbids idols alone.2nd, it's permissible to make images. The Old Testament prohibition of images was not absolute, for some images were commanded to be made; take for instance the cherubim over the mercy seat and other adornments of the temple. John said that we're not under the strictures of the Old Covenant now. In fact, the incarnation of God IN Christ prompts us to make the invisible, visible. John set the incarnation at the center of his defense of icons, elevating the debate from a question only of practices of piety to a matter of theological orthodoxy. Since human beings are created with body and soul, the physical senses are important in human knowledge of the divine. There are images everywhere— human beings are images of God. The tradition of the Church allows images, and this suffices even without Scriptural warrant, he argued.3rd, it's lawful to venerate icons and images because matter isn't evil. There are different kinds of worship: true worship belongs to God alone, but honor may be given to others.4th, there are advantages to images and their veneration. They teach and recall divine gifts, nourish piety, and become channels of grace.John of Damascus is regarded by the Orthodox Church as the last of the great teachers of the early church, men universally referred to as the “Church Fathers.”Despite his arguments, Iconoclast emperors drove iconodules from positions of power and began vigorous persecution. Many works of art in church buildings from before the 8th C were destroyed. Constantine V took strong measures against monks, the chief spokesmen for images, secularizing their property and forcing them to marry nuns. Many of them fled to the West.The Popes watched all of this with interest and came in on the side of the iconodules. Some of the best formulations of the independence of the Church, arguing that the emperor was not a teacher of the church, were made in their letters.In the end, the iconoclasts sealed their defeat by refusing to give to pictures of Jesus the reverence they gave pictures of the Emperor. The reaction against iconoclasm finally set in after Constantine V.Constantine V's son and successor, Leo IV, was not an energetic iconoclast as his father and grandfather. His widow Irene, regent for their son Constantine VI, over­turned the dynasty's iconoclastic policy. At her bidding the Council of Nicaea in 787 and condemned the Iconoclasts, affirming the theological position taken by John of Damascus.They found, “The venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials . . . should be given due salutation and honorable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith that pertains alone to the divine nature”But that wasn't the end of iconoclasm. An Iconoclast block developed in the profes­sional military as a reaction to a series of military disasters, diplomatic humiliations, and economic problems the Empire experienced in the quarter-century after the 787 Nicaean Council. They interpreted all these set-backs as the judgment of God for the Empire's return to idolatry.Finally, Emperor Leo V decided that Iconoclasm should again become the official policy of his government. A synod of church leaders in 815 reaffirmed the position taken by the anti-icon synod of 754—except that they no longer regarded the icons as idols.With Leo V's death, active persecution of the pro-icon party declined for 17 years before bursting out again in 837 under the leadership of Patriarch John Grammaticus. Under his influence, Emperor Theophilus decreed exile or capital punishment for all who openly supported the use of icons.Theodora, the widow of Theophilus and regent for their son Michael III, decided he ought to abandon the iconoclastic policy to retain the widest support for his rule. A synod early in 843 condemned all iconoclasts, deposed the iconoclastic Patriarch John Grammaticus, and confirmed the decrees of the 7th Council.In today's Eastern Orthodox churches, paintings and mosaics frequently fill spaces on ceilings and walls. A screen or low partition called the iconostasis stretches across the front of the church, between the congregation and the altar area, for the purpose of displaying all the special icons pertaining to the liturgy and holy days.