Podcasts about Holy Roman Emperor

In the twelfth century, Pope Alexander III received a letter from Prester John, a legendary Africa priest king rumored to be as powerful as the Great Khan. The letter made fantastic claims about the Prester's lands and power and may have been a hoax but then Alexander's own physician brought him news that he'd met the Prester's representative in the Holy Land. Could the Prester be the Pope's solution to his political squabbles with the Holy Roman Emperor?

fWotD Episode 2946: Andrea Navagero Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Thursday, 29 May 2025, is Andrea Navagero.Andrea Navagero (1483 – 8 May 1529), known as Andreas Naugerius in Latin, was a Venetian diplomat and writer. Born to a wealthy family, he gained entry to the Great Council of Venice at the age of twenty, five years younger than was normal at the time. He dedicated himself to editing classical Latin manuscripts at the Aldine Press printing office, garnering a reputation as a scholar and a skilled writer. In 1515, at the request of the general Bartolomeo d'Alviano, he was appointed the caretaker of a library containing the collection of the scholar Bessarion; this library would later become the Biblioteca Marciana. At the same time, he was designated official historian of the Republic of Venice.As a result of his high standing in Venetian scholarly circles, Navagero was named the Venetian ambassador to Spain in 1523 and navigated the volatile diplomatic climate caused by the conflict between Charles V – the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain – and Francis I of France. During this time, he provided many highly detailed descriptions of Spanish cities and landmarks. He was imprisoned by Charles in December 1526, but released in a prisoner exchange the following April; before returning home to Venice, he traveled to Paris to acquaint himself with the royal court of Francis. By the time Navagero arrived back in Venice in September 1528, he had grown disillusioned with politics and wished to return to editing manuscripts and cultivating his prized gardens. Much to his dismay, he was appointed ambassador to France in January 1529. After traveling through the Alps to meet Francis I in Blois, he fell gravely ill and died on 8 May 1529.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:36 UTC on Thursday, 29 May 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Andrea Navagero on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Nicole.

fWotD Episode 2942: Rhine campaign of 1796 Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Sunday, 25 May 2025, is Rhine campaign of 1796.In the Rhine campaign of 1796 (June 1796 to February 1797), two First Coalition armies under the overall command of Archduke Charles outmaneuvered and defeated two French Republican armies. This was the last campaign of the War of the First Coalition, part of the French Revolutionary Wars.The French military strategy against Austria called for a three-pronged invasion to surround Vienna, ideally capturing the city and forcing the Holy Roman Emperor to surrender and accept French Revolutionary territorial integrity. The French assembled the Army of Sambre and Meuse commanded by Jean-Baptiste Jourdan against the Austrian Army of the Lower Rhine in the north. The Army of the Rhine and Moselle, led by Jean Victor Marie Moreau, opposed the Austrian Army of the Upper Rhine in the south. A third army, the Army of Italy, commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte, approached Vienna through northern Italy.The early success of the Army of Italy initially forced the Coalition commander, Archduke Charles, to transfer 25,000 men commanded by Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser to northern Italy. This weakened the Coalition force along the 340-kilometre (211 mi) front stretching along the Rhine from Basel to the North Sea. Later, a feint by Jourdan's Army of Sambre and Meuse convinced Charles to shift troops to the north, allowing Moreau to cross the Rhine at the Battle of Kehl on 24 June and defeated the Archduke's Imperial contingents. Both French armies penetrated deep into eastern and southern Germany by late July, forcing the southern states of the Holy Roman Empire into punitive armistices. By August, the French armies had extended their fronts too thinly and rivalry among the French generals complicated cooperation between the two armies. Because the two French armies operated independently, Charles was able to leave Maximilian Anton Karl, Count Baillet de Latour with a weaker army in front of Moreau on the southernmost flank and move many reinforcements to the army of Wilhelm von Wartensleben in the north.At the Battle of Amberg on 24 August and the Battle of Würzburg on 3 September, Charles defeated Jourdan's northern army and compelled the French army to retreat, eventually to the west bank of the Rhine. With Jourdan neutralized and retreating into France, Charles left Franz von Werneck to watch the Army of Sambre and Meuse, making sure it did not try to recover a foothold on the east bank of the Rhine. After securing the Rhine crossings at Bruchsal and Kehl, Charles forced Moreau to retreat south. During the winter the Austrians reduced the French bridgeheads in the sieges of Kehl and the Hüningen, and forced Moreau's army back to France. Despite Charles' success in the Rhineland, Austria lost the war in Italy, which resulted in the Peace of Campo Formio.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:16 UTC on Sunday, 25 May 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Rhine campaign of 1796 on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Kimberly.

I was delighted to talk to the historian Helen Castor (who writes The H Files by Helen Castor) about her new book The Eagle and the Hart. I found that book compulsive, and this is one of my favourite interviews so far. We covered so much: Dickens, Melville, Diana Wynne Jones, Hilary Mantel, whether Edward III is to blame for the Wars of the Roses, why Bolingbroke did the right thing, the Paston Letters, whether we should dig up old tombs for research, leaving academia, Elizabeth I, and, of course, lots of Shakespeare. There is a full transcript below.Henry: Is there anything that we fundamentally know about this episode in history that Shakespeare didn't know?Helen: That's an extremely good question, and I'm tempted now to say no.Helen told me what is hardest to imagine about life in the fourteenth century.I think it's relatively easy to imagine a small community or even a city, because we can imagine lots of human beings together, but how relationships between human beings happen at a distance, not just in terms of writing a letter to someone you know, but how a very effective power structure happens across hundreds of miles in the absence of those things is the thing that has always absolutely fascinated me about the late Middle Ages. I think that's because it's hard, for me at least, to imagine.Good news to any publishers reading this. Helen is ready and willing to produce a complete edition of the Paston Letters. They were a bestseller when they were published a hundred years ago, but we are crying out for a complete edition in modern English.Henry: If someone wants to read the Paston Letters, but they don't want to read Middle English, weird spelling, et cetera, is there a good edition that they can use?Helen: Yes, there is an Oxford World's Classic. They're all selected. There isn't a complete edition in modern spelling. If any publishers are listening, I would love to do one. Henry: Yes, let's have it.Helen: Let's have it. I would really, really love to do that.Full TranscriptHenry: Today I am talking to the historian, Helen Castor. Helen is a former fellow of Sydney Sussex College in Cambridge. She has written several books of history. She is now a public historian, and of course, she has a Substack. The H Files by Helen CastorWe are going to talk mostly about her book, The Eagle and the Hart, which is all about Richard II and Henry IV. I found this book compulsive, so I hope you will read it too. Helen, welcome.Helen: Thank you very much for having me, Henry.Henry: You recently read Bleak House.Helen: I did.Henry: What did you think?Helen: I absolutely loved it. It was a long time since I'd read any Dickens. I read quite a lot when I was young. I read quite a lot of everything when I was young and have fallen off that reader's perch, much to my shame. The first page, that description of the London fog, the London courts, and I thought, "Why have I not been doing it for all these years?"Then I remembered, as so often with Dickens, the bits I love and the bits I'm less fond of, the sentimentality, the grotesquerie I'm less fond of, but the humour and the writing. There was one bit that I have not been able to read then or any of the times I've tried since without physically sobbing. It's a long time since a book has done that to me. I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't read it, but--Henry: I'm sure I know what you mean. That's quite a sentimental passage.Helen: It is, but not sentimental in the way that I find myself objecting to. I think I really respond viscerally to this sentimentalising of some of his young women characters. I find that really off-putting, but I think now I'm a parent, and particularly I'm a parent of a boy [laughter]. I think it's that sense of a child being completely alone with no one to look after them, and then finding some people, but too late for a happy ending.Henry: Too late.Helen: Yes.Henry: You've been reading other classic novels, I think, Moby Dick?Helen: I'm in the middle of Moby Dick as we speak. I'm going very slowly, partly because I'm trying to savour every sentence. I love the sentence so much as a form. Melville is just astonishing, and also very, very funny in a way I hadn't expected to keep laughing out loud, sometimes because there is such humour in a sentence.Sometimes I'm just laughing because the sentence itself seems to have such audacity and that willingness to go places with sentences that sometimes I feel we've lost in the sort of sense of rules-based sentences instead of just sticking a semicolon and keep going. Why not, because it's so gorgeous and full of the joy of language at that point? Anyway, I'm ranting now, but--Henry: No, I think a lot of rules were instituted in the early 20th century that said you can and cannot do all these things, and writers before that point had not often followed those rules. I think what it has led to is that writers now, they can't really control a long sentence, in the sense that Melville and Dickens will do a long sentence, and it is a syntactically coherent thing, even though it's 60, 70 longer words. It's not just lots of stuff, and then, and then. The whole thing has got a beautiful structure that makes sense as a unit. That's just not obvious in a lot of writing now.Helen: I think that's exactly right. Partly, I've been reading some of the Melville out loud, and having just got onto the classification of whales, you can see I'm going very slowly. Those sentences, which are so long, but it's exactly that. If you read them out loud, and you follow the sense, and the punctuation, however irregular it might be in modern terms, gives you the breathing, you just flow on it, and the excitement of that, even or perhaps especially when one is talking about the classification of whales. Just joyful.Henry: Will we be seeing more very long sentences in your next book?Helen: I think I have to get a bit better at it. The habit that I was conscious of anyway, but became acutely so when I had to read my own audiobook for the first time is that I think I write in a very visual way. That is how I read because mostly it's silent.I discovered or rediscovered that often what I do when I want to write a very long sentence is I start the sentence and then I put a diversion or extra information within em dashes in the middle of the sentence. That works on the page because you can see spatially. I love that way of reading, I love seeing words in space.A lot of different kinds of text, both prose and poetry, I read in space like that. If you're reading to be heard, then the difficulty of breaking into a sentence with, whether it's brackets or em dashes or whatever, and then rejoining the sentence further down has its own challenges. Perhaps I ought to try and do less of that and experiment more with a Melvillian Dickensian onward flow. I don't know what my editor will think.Henry: What has brought you back to reading novels like this?Helen: I was wondering that this morning, actually, because I'm very aware having joined Substack, and of course, your Substack is one of the ones that is leading me further in this direction, very inspiringly, is discovering that lots of other people are reading and reading long novels now too. It reminded me of that thing that anyone with children will know that you have a baby and you call it something that you think only you have thought of, and then four years later, you call and you discover half the class is called that name. You wonder what was in the water that led everybody in that direction.I've just seen someone tweet this morning about how inspired they are by the builder next door who, on the scaffolding, is blasting the audiobook Middlemarch to the whole neighborhood.Henry: Oh my god. Amazing.Helen: It's really happening. Insofar as I can work out what led me as opposed to following a group, which clearly I am in some sense, I think the world at the moment is so disquieting, and depressing, and unnerving, that I think for me, there was a wish to escape into another world and another world that would be very immersive, not removed from this world completely. One that is very recognizably human.I think when I was younger, when I was in my teens and 20s, I loved reading science fiction and fantasy before it was such a genre as it is now. I'm a huge fan of Diana Wynne Jones and people like that.Henry: Oh, my god, same. Which one is your favorite?Helen: Oh, that is an impossible question to answer, partly because I want to go back and read a lot of them. Actually, I've got something next to me, just to get some obscurity points. I want to go back to Everard's Ride because there is a story in here that is based on the King's square. I don't know if I'm saying that right, but early 15th century, the story of the imprisoned King of Scotland when he was in prison in England. That one's in my head.The Dalemark Quartet I love because of the sort of medieval, but then I love the ones that are pure, more science fantasy. Which is your favorite? Which should I go back to first?Henry: I haven't read them all because I only started a couple of years ago. I just read Deep Secret, and I thought that was really excellent. I was in Bristol when I read it quite unwittingly. That was wonderful.Helen: Surrounded by Diana Wynne Jones' land. I only discovered many years into an obsession that just meant that I would read every new one while there were still new ones coming out. I sat next to Colin Burrow at a dinner in--Henry: Oh my god.Helen: I did sort of know that he was her son, but monstered him for the whole time, the whole course of sitting together, because I couldn't quite imagine her in a domestic setting, if you like, because she came up with all these extraordinary worlds. I think in days gone by, I went into more obviously imaginary worlds. I think coming back to it now, I wanted something big and something that I really could disappear into. I've been told to read Bleak House for so many decades and felt so ashamed I hadn't. Having done that, I thought, "Well, the whale."Henry: Have you read Diana Wynne Jones' husband's books, John Burrow? Because that's more in your field.Helen: It is, although I'm ashamed to say how badly read I am in medieval literary scholarship. It's weird how these academic silos can operate, shouldn't, probably don't for many, many people. I always feel I'm on horribly thin ground, thin ice when I start talking about medieval literature because I know how much scholarship is out there, and I know how much I haven't read. I must put John Burrow on my list as well.Henry: He's very readable. He's excellent.Helen: I think I can imagine, but I must go into it.Henry: Also, his books are refreshingly short. Your husband is a poet, so there's a lot of literature in your life at the moment.Helen: There is. When we met, which was 10 years ago-- Again, I don't think of myself as knowledgeable about poetry in general, but what was wonderful was discovering how much we had in common in the writing process and how much I could learn from him. To me, one of the things that has always been extremely important in my writing is the sentence, the sound of a sentence, the rhythm of a sentence folded into a paragraph.I find it extremely hard to move on from a paragraph if it's not sitting right yet. The sitting right is as much to do with sound and rhythm as it is to do with content. The content has to be right. It means I'm a nightmare to edit because once I do move on from a paragraph, I think it's finished. Obviously, my editor might beg to differ.I'm very grateful to Thomas Penn, who's also a wonderful historian, who's my editor on this last book, for being so patient with my recalcitrance as an editee. Talking to my husband about words in space on the page, about the rhythm, about the sound, about how he goes about writing has been so valuable and illuminating.I hope that the reading I've been doing, the other thing I should say about going back to big 19th-century novels is that, of course, I had the enormous privilege and learning curve of being part of a Booker jury panel three years ago. That too was an enormous kick in terms of reading and thinking about reading because my co-judges were such phenomenal reading company, and I learned such a lot that year.I feel not only I hope growing as a historian, but I am really, really focusing on writing, reading, being forced out of my bunker where writing is all on the page, starting to think about sound more, think about hearing more, because I think more and more, we are reading that way as a culture, it seems to me, the growth of audiobooks. My mother is adjusting to audiobooks now, and it's so interesting to listen to her as a lifelong, voracious reader, adjusting to what it is to experience a book through sound rather than on the page. I just think it's all fascinating, and I'm trying to learn as I write.Henry: I've been experimenting with audiobooks, because I felt like I had to, and I sort of typically hate audio anything. Jonathan Swift is very good, and so is Diana Wynne Jones.Helen: Interesting. Those two specifically. Is there something that connects the two of them, or are they separately good?Henry: I think they both wrote in a plain, colloquial style. It was very capable of being quite intellectual and had capacity for ideas. Diana Wynne Jones certainly took care about the way it sounded because she read so much to her own children, and that was really when she first read all the children's classics. She had developed for many years an understanding of what would sound good when it was read to a child, I think.Helen: And so that's the voice in her head.Henry: Indeed. As you read her essays, she talks about living with her Welsh grandfather for a year. He was intoning in the chapel, and she sort of comes out of this culture as well.Helen: Then Swift, a much more oral culture.Henry: Swift, of course, is in a very print-heavy culture because he's in London in 1710. We've got coffee houses and all the examiner, and the spectator, and all these people scribbling about each other. I think he was very insistent on what he called proper words in proper places. He became famous for that plain style. It's very carefully done, and you can't go wrong reading that out loud. He's very considerate of the reader that you won't suddenly go, "Oh, I'm in the middle of this huge parenthesis. I don't know how--" As you were saying, Swift-- he would be very deliberate about the placement of everything.Helen: A lot of that has to do with rhythm.Henry: Yes.Helen: Doesn't it? I suppose what I'm wondering, being very ignorant about the 18th century is, in a print-saturated culture, but still one where literacy was less universal than now, are we to assume that that print-saturated culture also incorporated reading out loud —Henry: Yes, exactly so. Exactly so. If you are at home, letters are read out loud. This obviously gives the novelists great opportunities to write letters that have to sort of work both ways. Novels are read out loud. This goes on into the 19th century. Dickens had many illiterate fans who knew his work through it being read to them. Charles Darwin's wife read him novels. When he says, "I love novels," what he means is, "I love it when my wife reads me a novel." [laughs]You're absolutely right. A good part of your audience would come from those listening as well as those reading it.Helen: Maybe we're getting back towards a new version of that with audiobooks expanding in their reach.Henry: I don't know. I saw some interesting stuff. I can't remember who was saying this. Someone was saying, "It's not an oral culture if you're watching short videos. That's a different sort of culture." I think, for us, we can say, "Oh yes, we're like Jonathan Swift," but for the culture at large, I don't know. It is an interesting mixed picture at the moment.Helen: Yes, history never repeats, but we should be wary of writing off any part of culture to do with words.Henry: I think so. If people are reporting builders irritating the neighbourhood with George Eliot, then it's a very mixed picture, right?Helen: It is.Henry: Last literary question. Hilary Mantel has been a big influence on you. What have you taken from her?Helen: That's quite a hard question to answer because I feel I just sit at her feet in awe. If I could point to anything in my writing that could live up to her, I would be very happy. The word that's coming into my head when you phrase the question in that way, I suppose, might be an absolute commitment to precision. Precision in language matters to me so much. Her thought and her writing of whatever kind seems to me to be so precise.Listening to interviews with her is such an outrageous experience because these beautifully, entirely formed sentences come out of her mouth as though that's how thought and language work. They don't for me. [chuckles] I'm talking about her in the present tense because I didn't know her, but I find it hard to imagine that she's not out there somewhere.Henry: She liked ghosts. She might be with us.Helen: She might. I would like to think that. Her writing of whatever genre always seems to me to have that precision, and it's precision of language that mirrors precision of thought, including the ability to imagine herself into somebody else's mind. That's, I suppose, my project as a historian. I'm always trying to experience a lost world through the eyes of a lost person or people, which, of course, when you put it like that, is an impossible task, but she makes it seem possible for her anyway and that's the road I'm attempting to travel one way or another.Henry: What is it about the 14th and 15th centuries that is hardest for us to imagine?Helen: I think this speaks to something else that Hilary Mantel does so extraordinarily well, which is to show us entire human beings who live and breathe and think and feel just as we do in as complex and contradictory and three-dimensional a way as we do, and yet who live in a world that is stripped of so many of the things that we take so much for granted that we find it, I think, hard to imagine how one could function without them.What I've always loved about the late Middle Ages, as a political historian, which is what I think of myself as, is that it has in England such a complex and sophisticated system of government, but one that operates so overwhelmingly through human beings, rather than impersonal, institutionalized, technological structures.You have a king who is the fount of all authority, exercising an extraordinary degree of control over a whole country, but without telephones, without motorized transport, without a professional police service, without a standing army. If we strip away from our understanding of government, all those things, then how on earth does society happen, does rule happen, does government happen?I think it's relatively easy to imagine a small community or even a city, because we can imagine lots of human beings together, but how relationships between human beings happen at a distance, not just in terms of writing a letter to someone you know, but how a very effective power structure happens across hundreds of miles in the absence of those things is the thing that has always absolutely fascinated me about the late Middle Ages. I think that's because it's hard, for me at least, to imagine.Henry: Good. You went to the RSC to watch The Henriad in 2013.Helen: I did.Henry: Is Shakespeare a big influence on this book? How did that affect you?Helen: I suppose this is a long story because Richard II and The Henriad have been-- there is Richard II. Richard II is part of The Henriad, isn't it?Henry: Yes.Helen: Richard II. Henry, see, this is-Henry: The two Henry IVs.Helen: -I'm not Shakespearean. I am. [laughs]Henry: No, it's Richard II, the two Henry IVs, and Henry V. Because, of course, Henry Bolingbroke is in Richard II, and it--Helen: Yes, although I never think of him as really the same person as Henry IV in the Henry IV plays, because he changes so dramatically between the two.Henry: Very often, they have a young actor and an old actor, and of course, in real life, that's insane, right?Helen: It's absolutely insane. I always separate Henry IV, parts I and II, and Henry V off from Richard II because it feels to me as though they operate in rather different worlds, which they do in lots of ways. My story with the Henry ad, now that we've established that I actually know what we're talking about, goes back to when I was in my teens and Kenneth Branagh was playing Henry V in Stratford. I grew up very near Stratford.At 15, 16, watching the young Branagh play Henry V was mind-blowing. I went a whole number of times because, in those days, I don't know how it is now, but you could go and get standing tickets for a fiver on the day. More often than not, if there were spare seats, you would get moved into some extraordinary stall seats at-- I was about to say halftime, I'm a football fan, at the interval.Henry V was the play I knew best for a long time, but at the same time, I'd studied Richard II at school. The Henry IV plays are the ones I know least well. I'm interested now to reflect on the fact that they are the ones that depart most from history. I wonder whether that's why I find them hardest to love, because I'm always coming to the plays from the history. Richard II and Henry V actually have a lot to show us about those kings. They bear very close relationships with a lot of the contemporary chronicles, whereas the Henry IV ones is Shakespeare doing his own thing much more.Particularly, as you've just said, making Henry IV way too old, and/or depending which angle we're looking at it from, making Hotspur way too young, the real Hotspur was three years older than Henry IV. If you want to make Hotspur and how-- your young Turks, you have to make Henry IV old and grey and weary with Northumberland.Back in 2013, the really intense experience I had was being asked to go for a day to join the RSC company on a school trip to Westminster Hall and Westminster Abbey at the beginning of their rehearsal process, so when David Tennant was playing Richard II and Greg Doran was directing. That was absolutely fascinating. I'd been thinking about Richard and Henry for a very long time. Obviously, I was a long way away from writing the book I've just written.Talking to actors is an extraordinary thing for a historian because, of course, to them, these are living characters. They want to know what's in their character's mind. They want to know, quite rightly, the chronological progression of their character's thought. That is something that's become more and more and more and more important to me.The longer I go on writing history, the more intensely attached I am to the need for chronology because if it hasn't happened to your protagonist yet, what are you doing with it? Your protagonist doesn't yet know. We don't know. It's very dramatically clear to us at the moment that we don't know what's happening tomorrow. Any number of outrageous and unpredictable things might happen tomorrow.The same certainly was true in Richard II's reign, goes on being true in Henry IV's reign. That experience, in the wake of which I then went to see Henry IV, parts 1 and 2 in Stratford, was really thought-provoking. The extent to which, even though I'd been working on this period for a long time, and had taught this period, I still was struggling to answer some of those questions.Then I'd just had the similarly amazing experience of having a meeting with the Richard II cast and director at the Bridge Theatre before the Nicholas Heitner production with Jonathan Bailey as Richard went on stage. That was actually towards the end of their rehearsal process. I was so struck that the actor playing Bolingbroke in this production and the actor playing Bolingbroke in the production back in 2013 both asked the same excellent first question, which is so hard for a historian to answer, which is at what point does Bolingbroke decide that he's coming back to claim the crown, not just the Duchy of Lancaster?That is a key question for Bolingbroke in Richard II. Does he already know when he decides he's going to break his exile and come back? Is he challenging for the crown straight away, or is he just coming back for his rightful inheritance with the Duchy of Lancaster? That is the million-dollar question when you're writing about Bolingbroke in 1399.It's not possible to answer with a smoking gun. We don't have a letter or a diary entry from Henry Bolingbroke as he's about to step on board ship in Boulogne saying, "I'm saying I'm coming back for the Duchy of Lancaster." The unfolding logic of his situation is that if he's going to come back at all, he's going to have to claim the crown. When he admits that to himself, and when he admits that to anybody else, are questions we can argue about.It was so interesting to me that that's the question that Shakespeare's Richard II throws up for his Bolingbroke just as much as it does for the historical one.Henry: Is there anything that we fundamentally know about this episode in history that Shakespeare didn't know?Helen: That's an extremely good question, and I'm tempted now to say no.Henry: When I left your book, the one thing I thought was that in Shakespeare, the nobles turn against Richard because of his excesses. Obviously, he really dramatizes that around the death of Gaunt. From your book, you may disagree with this, I came away thinking, well, the nobles wanted more power all the time. They may not have wanted the king's power, but there was this constant thing of the nobles feeling like they were owed more authority.Helen: I think the nobles always want more power because they are ambitious, competitive men within a political structure that rewards ambition and competition. The crucial thing for them is that they can only safely pursue ambition and competition if they know that the structure they're competing within will hold.The thing that keeps that structure rooted and solidly in place is the crown and the things that the crown is there to uphold, namely, particularly, the rule of law because if the rule of law starts to crumble, then the risk is that the whole structure collapses into anarchy. Within anarchy, then a powerful man cannot safely compete for more power because an even more powerful man might be about to roll into his estates and take them over. There have to be rules. There has to be fair competition. The referee is there on a football pitch for a reason.The king, in some senses, whether you want to see him as the keystone in an arch that supports a building or whether he's a referee on a football pitch, there are reasons why powerful men need rules because rules uphold their power. What goes wrong with Richard is that instead of seeing that he and the nobles have a common interest in keeping this structure standing, and that actually he can become more powerful if he works with and through the nobles, he sees them as a threat to him.He's attempting to establish a power structure that will not be beholden to them. In so doing, he becomes a threat to them. This structure that is supposed to stand as one mutually supportive thing is beginning to tear itself apart. That is why Richard's treatment of Bolingbroke becomes such a crucial catalyst, because what Richard does to Bolingbroke is unlawful in a very real and very technical sense. Bolingbroke has not been convicted of any crime. He's not been properly tried. There's been this trial by combat, the duel with Mowbray, but it hasn't stopped arbitrarily, and an arbitrary punishment visited upon both of them. They're both being exiled without having been found guilty, without the judgment of God speaking through this duel.Richard then promises that Bolingbroke can have his inheritance, even though he's in exile. As soon as Gaunt dies, Richard says, "No, I'm having it." Now, all of that is unlawful treatment of Bolingbroke, but because Bolingbroke is the most powerful nobleman in the country, it is also a warning and a threat to every other member of the political classes that if the king takes against you, then his arbitrary will can override the law.That diagnosis is there in Shakespeare. It's the Duke of York, who in reality was just a completely hopeless, wet figure, but he says, and I've got it written down, keep it beside me.Henry: Very nice.Helen: Kind of ridiculous, but here it is. York says to Richard, "Take Herford's rights away and take from time his charters and his customary rights. Let not tomorrow then ensue today. Be not thyself, for how art thou a king, but by fair sequence and succession?" In other words, if you interfere with, and I know you've written about time in these plays, it's absolutely crucial.Part of the process of time in these plays is that the rules play out over time. Any one individual king must not break those rules so that the expected process of succession over time can take place. York's warning comes true, that Richard is unseating himself by seeking to unseat Bolingbroke from his inheritance.Henry: We give Shakespeare good marks as a historian.Helen: In this play, yes, absolutely. The things he tinkers with in Richard II are minor plot points. He compresses time in order to get it all on stage in a plausible sequence of events. He compresses two queens into one, given that Richard was married to, by the time he fell, a nine-year-old who he'd married when he was six. It's harder to have a six-year-old making speeches on stage, so he puts the two queens into one.Henry: You don't want to pay another actor.Helen: Exactly.Henry: It's expensive.Helen: You don't want children and animals on stage. Although there is a wonderful account of a production of Richard II on stage in the West End in 1901, with the Australian actor Oscar Asche in it, playing Bolingbroke. The duel scene, he had full armour and a horse, opening night. It was a different horse from the one he rehearsed with. He gives an account in his autobiography of this horse rearing and him somersaulting heroically off the horse.Henry: Oh my god.Helen: The curtain having to come down and then it going back up again to tumultuous applause. You think, "Oscar, I'm wondering whether you're over-egging this pudding." Anyway, I give Shakespeare very good marks in Richard II, not really in the Henry IV plays, but gets back on track.Henry: The Henry IV plays are so good, we're forgiven. Was Richard II a prototype Henry VIII?Helen: Yes. Although, of course, history doesn't work forwards like that. I always worry about being a historian, talking about prototypes, if you see what I mean, but--Henry: No, this is just some podcast, so we don't have to be too strict. He's over-mighty, his sense of his relationship to God. There are issues in parliament about, "How much can the Pope tell us what to do?" There are certain things that seem to be inherent in the way the British state conceives of itself at this point that become problematic in another way.Helen: Is this pushing it too far to say Richard is a second son who ends up being the lone precious heir to the throne who must be wrapped in cotton wool to ensure that his unique God-given authority is protected? Also describes Henry VIII.Henry: They both like fancy clothes.Helen: Both like fancy clothes. Charles I is also a second son who has to step up.Henry: With wonderful cuffs and collars. He's another big dresser.Helen: And great patrons of art. I think we're developing new historical--Henry: No, I think there's a whole thing here.Helen: I think there is. What Henry does, of course, in rather different, because a lot has changed thanks to the Wars of the Roses, the power of the nobility to stand up independently of the crown is significantly lessened by the political effects of the Wars of the Roses, not at least that a lot of them have had their heads cut off, or died in battle, and the Tudors are busy making sure that they remain in the newly subjected place that they find themselves in.Henry then finds to go back to Hilary Mantel, a very, very able political servant who works out how to use parliament for him in rejecting those extra English powers that might restrain him. I do always wonder what Richard thought he was going to do if he'd succeeded in becoming Holy Roman Emperor, which I take very seriously as a proposition from Richard.Most other historians, because it's so patently ridiculous, if you look at it from a European perspective, have just said, "Oh, he got this idea that he wanted to become Holy Roman Emperor," but, of course, it was never going to happen. In Richard's mind, I think it was extremely real. Whether he really would have tried to give the English crown to Rutland, his favorite by the end of the reign, while he went off in glory to be crowned by the Pope, I don't know what was in his head. The difference with Henry is that the ambitions he eventually conceives are very England-focused, and so he can make them happen.Henry: Is there some sort of argument that, if the king hadn't won the Wars of the Roses, and the nobility had flourished, and their sons hadn't been killed, the reformation would have just been much harder to pull off here?[silence]Helen: I wonder what that would have looked like, because in a sense, the king was always going to win the Wars of the Roses, in the sense that you have to have a king. The minute you had someone left standing after that mess, that protracted mess, if he knew what he was doing, and there are arguments about the extent to which Henry VII knew what he was doing, or was doing something very different, whether or not he knew it was different, but there was always going to be an opportunity for a king to assert himself after that.Particularly, the extent to which the lesser landowners, the gentry had realized they couldn't just rely on the nobility to protect them anymore. They couldn't just follow their lord into battle and abdicate responsibility.Henry: Okay.Helen: That's an interesting--Henry: How much should we blame Edward III for all of this?Helen: For living too long and having too many sons?Henry: My argument against Edward is the Hundred Years' War, it doesn't actually go that well by the end of his reign, and it's cost too much money. Too many dukes with too much power. It's not that he had too many sons, he elevates them all and creates this insane situation. The war itself starts to tip the balance between the king and parliament, and so now you've got it from the dukes, and from the other side, and he just didn't manage the succession at all.Even though his son has died, and it really needs some kind of-- He allowed. He should have known that he was allowing a vacuum to open up where there's competition from the nobles, and from parliament, and the finances are a mess, and this war isn't there. It's just… he just leaves a disaster, doesn't he?Helen: I think I'd want to reframe that a little bit. Perhaps, I'm too much the king's friend. I think the political, and in some senses, existential dilemma for a medieval king is that the best of all possible worlds is what Edward achieves in the 1340s and the 1350s, which is, fight a war for reasons that your subjects recognize as in the common interest, in the national interest. Fight it over there so that the lands that are being devastated and the villages and towns that are being burned are not yours. Bring back lots of plunder. Everybody's getting richer and feeling very victorious.You can harness parliament. When things are going well, a medieval king and a parliament are not rivals for power. An English king working with parliament is more powerful than an English king trying to work without parliament. If things are going well, he gets more money, he can pass laws, he can enforce his will more effectively. It's win-win-win if you're ticking all those boxes.As you're pointing out, the worst of all possible worlds is to be fighting a war that's going badly. To fight a war is a big risk because either you're going to end up winning and everything's great, or if it's going badly, then you'd rather be at peace. Of course, you're not necessarily in a position to negotiate peace, depending on the terms of the war you've established.Similarly, with sons, you want heirs. You want to know the succession is safe. I think Edward's younger sons would argue with you about setting up very powerful dukes because the younger ones really-- York and Gloucester, Edmund of Langley and Thomas of Woodstock, really didn't have much in the way of an estate given to them at all, and always felt very hard done by about that. John of Gaunt is set up very well because he's married off to the heir of the Duke of Lancaster who's handily died, leaving only daughters.Henry: That's the problem, isn't it, creating that sort of impact? John of Gaunt is far too rich and powerful.Helen: You say that, except he's unfeasibly loyal. Without Gaunt, disaster happens much, much, much earlier. Gaunt is putting all those resources into the project of propping up the English state and the English crown for way longer than Richard deserves, given that Richard's trying to murder him half the time in the 1380s.Henry: [laughs] For sure. No, I agree with you there, but from Edward III's point of view, it's a mistake to make one very powerful son another quite powerful son next to-- We still see this playing out in royal family dynamics.Helen: This is the problem. What is the perfect scenario in a hereditary system where you need an heir and a spare, but even there, the spare, if he doesn't get to be the heir, is often very disgruntled. [laughs] If he does get to be the heir, as we've just said, turns out to be overconvinced of his own-Henry: Oh, indeed, yes.Helen: -specialness. Then, if you have too many spares, you run into a different kind of problem. Equally, if you don't have a hereditary system, then you have an almighty battle, as the Anglo-Saxons often did, about who's actually going to get the crown in the next generation. It's a very tricky--Henry: Is England just inherently unstable? We've got the Black Death, France is going to be a problem, whatever happens. Who is really going to come to a good fiscal position in this situation? It's no one's fault. It's just there wasn't another way out.Helen: You could say that England's remarkably-- See, I'm just playing devil's advocate the whole time.Henry: No, good.Helen: You could say England is remarkably stable in the sense that England is very unusually centralized for a medieval state at this point. It's centralized in a way that works because it's small enough to govern. It's, broadly speaking, an island. You've got to deal with the Scotts border, but it's a relatively short border. Yes, you have powerful nobles, but they are powerful nobles who, by this stage, are locked into the state. They're locked into a unified system of law. The common law rules everyone. Everyone looks to Westminster.It's very different from what the King of France has been having to face, which has been having to push his authority outward from the Île-de-France, reconquer bits of France that the English have had for a long time, impose his authority over other princes of the realm in a context where there are different laws, there are different customs, there are different languages. You could say that France is in a much more difficult and unstable situation.Of course, what we see as the tide of the war turns again in the early 15th century is precisely that France collapses into civil war, and the English can make hay again in that situation. If Henry V had not died too young with not enough sons in 1423, and particularly, if he'd left a son who grew up to be any use at all, as opposed to absolutely none-- what am I saying? I'm saying that the structure of government in England could work astonishingly well given the luck of the right man at the helm. The right man at the helm had to understand his responsibilities at home, and he had to be capable of prosecuting a successful war abroad because that is how this state works best.As you've just pointed out, prosecuting a successful war abroad is an inherently unstable scenario because no war is ever going to go in your direction the entire time. That's what Richard, who has no interest in war at all is discovering, because once the tide of war is lapping at your own shores, instead of all happening over there, it's a very, very different prospect in terms of persuading parliament to pay for it, quite understandably.You talk about the Black Death. One of the extraordinary things is looking at England in 1348, 1349, when the Black Death hits. Probably, something approaching half the population dies in 18 months. If you're looking at the progress of the war, you barely notice it happened at all. What does the government do? It snaps into action and implements a maximum wage immediately, in case [chuckles] these uppity laborers start noticing there are fewer of them, and they can ask for more money.The amount of control, at that stage at least, that the government has over a country going through an extraordinary set of challenges is quite remarkable, really.Henry: Did Bolingbroke do the right thing?Helen: I think Bolingbroke did the only possible thing, which, in some senses, equates to the right thing. If he had not come back, he would not only have been abandoning his own family, his dynasty, his inheritance, everything he'd been brought up to believe was his responsibility, but also abandoning England to what was pretty much by that stage, clearly, a situation of tyranny.The big argument is always, well, we can identify a tyrant, we have a definition of tyranny. That is, if a legitimate king rules in the common interest and according to the law, then a tyrant rules not in the common interest, and not according to the law. But then the thing that the political theorists argue about is whether or not you can actively resist a tyrant, or whether you have to wait for God to act.Then, the question is, "Might God be acting through me if I'm Bolingbroke?" That's what Bolingbroke has to hope, because if he doesn't do what he does in 1399, he is abandoning everything his whole life has been devoted to maintaining and taking responsibility for. It's quite hard to see where England would then end up, other than with somebody else trying to challenge Richard in the way that Henry does.Henry: Why was he anointed with Thomas Becket's oil?Helen: Because Richard had found it in the tower, [chuckles] and was making great play of the claims that were made for Thomas. This is one of the interesting things about Richard. He is simultaneously very interested in history, and interested in his place in history, his place in the lineage of English kings, going all the way back, particularly to the confessor to whom he looks as not only a patron saint, but as in some sense, a point of identification.He's also seeking to stop time at himself. He doesn't like to think about the future beyond himself. He doesn't show any interest in fathering an heir. His will is all about how to make permanent the judgments that he's made on his nobles. It's not about realistically what's going to happen after his death.In the course of his interest in history, he has found this vial of oil in the tower somewhere in a locked drawer with a note that says, "The Virgin gave this to Thomas Becket, and whoever is anointed with this oil shall win all his battles and shall lead England to greatness," et cetera. Richard has tried to have himself re-anointed, and even his patsy Archbishop of Canterbury that he's put in place after exiling the original one who'd stood up to him a bit.Even the new Archbishop of Canterbury says, "Sire, anointing doesn't really work like that. I'm afraid we can't do it twice." Richard has been wearing this vial round his neck in an attempt to claim that he is not only the successor to the confessor, but he is now the inheritor of this holy oil. The French king has had a holy oil for a very long time in the Cathedral of Reims, which was supposedly given to Clovis, the first king of France, by an angel, et cetera.Richard, who is always very keen on emulating, or paralleling the crown of France, is very, very keen on this. If you were Henry coming in 1399 saying, "No, God has spoken through me. The country has rallied to me. I am now the rightful king of England. We won't look too closely at my justifications for that," and you are appropriating the ceremonial of the crown, you are having yourself crowned in Westminster Abbey on the 13th of October, which is the feast day of the confessor, you are handed that opportunity to use the symbolism of this oil that Richard has just unearthed, and was trying to claim for himself. You can then say, "No, I am the first king crowned with this oil," and you're showing it to the French ambassadors and so on.If we are to believe the chroniclers, it starts making his hair fall out, which might be a contrary sign from God. It's a situation where you are usurping the throne, and what is questionable is your right to be there. Then, any symbolic prop you can get, you're going to lean on as hard as you can.Henry: A few general questions to close. Should we be more willing to open up old tombs?Helen: Yes. [laughs]Henry: Good. [laughs]Helen: I'm afraid, for me, historical curiosity is-- Our forebears in the 18th and 19th century had very few qualms at all. One of the things I love about the endless series of scholarly antiquarian articles that are-- or not so scholarly, in some cases, that are written about all the various tomb openings that went on in the 18th and 19th century, I do love the moments, where just occasionally, they end up saying, "Do you know what, lads? Maybe we shouldn't do this bit." [chuckles]They get right to the brink with a couple of tombs and say, "Oh, do you know what? This one hasn't been disturbed since 1260, whatever. Maybe we won't. We'll put it back." Mostly, they just crowbar the lid off and see what they can find, which one might regret in terms of what we might now find with greater scientific know-how, and et cetera. Equally, we don't do that kind of thing anymore unless we're digging up a car park. We're not finding things out anyway. I just love the information that comes out, so yes, for me.Henry: Dig up more tombs.Helen: Yes.Henry: What is it that you love about the Paston Letters?Helen: More or less everything. I love the language. I love the way that, even though most of them are dictated to scribes, but you can hear the dictation. You can hear individual voices. Everything we were saying about sentences. You can hear the rhythm. You can hear the speech patterns. I'm no linguistic expert, but I love seeing the different forms of spelling and how that plays out on the page.I love how recognizable they are as a family. I love the fact that we hear women's voices in a way that we very rarely do in the public records. The government which is mainly what we have to work with. I love Margaret Paston, who arrives at 18 as a new bride, and becomes the matriarch of the family. I love her relationship with her two eldest boys, John and John, and their father, John.I do wish they hadn't done that because it doesn't help those of us who are trying to write about them. I love the view you get of late medieval of 15th-century politics from the point of view of a family trying to survive it. The fact that you get tiny drops in letters that are also about shopping, or also about your sisters fall in love with someone unsuitable. Unsuitable only, I hasten to add, because he's the family bailiff, not because he isn't a wonderful and extremely able man. They all know those two things. It's just that he's a family bailiff, and therefore, not socially acceptable.I love that experience of being immersed in the world of a 15th-century gentry family, so politically involved, but not powerful enough to protect themselves, who can protect themselves in the Wars of the Roses in any case.Henry: If someone wants to read the Paston Letters, but they don't want to read Middle English, weird spelling, et cetera, is there a good edition that they can use?Helen: Yes, there is an Oxford World's Classic. They're all selected. There isn't a complete edition in modern spelling. If any publishers are listening, I would love to do one. [chuckles]Henry: Yes, let's have it.Helen: Let's have it. I would really, really love to do that. There are some very good selections. Richard Barber did one many years ago, and, of course, self-advertising. There is also my book, now more than 20 years old, about the Paston family, where I was trying to put in as much of the letters as I could. I wanted to weave the voices through. Yes, please go and read the Paston Letters in selections, in whatever form you can get them, and let's start lobbying for a complete modernized Paston.Henry: That's right. Why did you leave academia? Because you did it before it was cool.Helen: [laughs] That's very kind of you to say. My academic life was, and is very important to me, and I hate saying this now, because the academic world is so difficult now. I ended up in it almost by accident, which is a terrible thing to say now, people having to-- I never intended to be an academic. My parents were academics, and I felt I'd seen enough and wasn't sure I wanted to do that.I couldn't bear to give up history, and put in a PhD application to work with Christine Carpenter, who'd been the most inspiring supervisor when I was an undergraduate, got the place, thought, "Right, I'm just going to do a PhD." Of course, once you're doing a PhD, and everyone you know is starting to apply for early career jobs, which weren't even called early career jobs in those days, because it was a million years ago.I applied for a research fellowship, was lucky enough to get it, and then applied for a teaching job, utterly convinced, and being told by the people around me that I stood no chance of getting it, because I was way too junior, and breezed through the whole process, because I knew I wasn't going to get it, and then turned up looking for someone very junior.I got this wonderful teaching job at Sidney Sussex in Cambridge and spent eight years there, learned so much, loved working with the students. I was working very closely with the students in various ways, but I wasn't-- I'm such a slow writer, and a writer that needs to be immersed in what I was doing, and I just wasn't managing to write, and also not managing to write in the way I wanted to write, because I was becoming clearer and clearer about the fact that I wanted to write narrative history.Certainly, at that point, it felt as though writing narrative history for a general audience and being an early career academic didn't go so easily together. I think lots of people are now showing how possible it is, but I wasn't convinced I could do it. Then, sorry, this is a very long answer to what's [crosstalk] your question.Henry: That's good.Helen: I also had my son, and my then partner was teaching at a very different university, I mean, geographically different, and we were living in a third place, and trying to put a baby into that geographical [chuckles] setup was not going to work. I thought, "Well, now or never, I'll write a proposal for a book, a narrative, a book for a general readership, a narrative book about the Paxton family, because that's what I really want to write, and I'll see if I can find an agent, and I'll see if I," and I did.I found the most wonderful agent, with whose help I wrote a huge proposal, and got a deal for it two weeks before my son was due. At that point, I thought, "Okay, if I don't jump now, now or never, the stars are aligned." I've been a freelance medieval historian ever since then, touching every wood I can find as it continues to be possible. I am very grateful for those years in Cambridge. They were the making of me in terms of training and in terms of teaching.I certainly think without teaching for those years, I wouldn't be anywhere near as good a writer, because you learn such a lot from talking to, and reading what students produce.Henry: How do you choose your subjects now? How do you choose what to write about?Helen: I follow my nose, really. It's not very scientific.Henry: Why should it be?Helen: Thank you. The book, bizarrely, the book that felt most contingent, was the one I wrote after the Paston book, because I knew I'd written about the Pastons in my PhD, and then again more of it in the monograph that was based on my PhD. I knew having written about the Pastons in a very academic, analytical way, contributing to my analysis of 15th-century politics. I knew I wanted to put them at the center and write about them. That was my beginning point.The big question was what to do next, and I was a bit bamboozled for a while. The next book I ended up writing was She-Wolves, which is probably, until now, my best-known book. It was the one that felt most uncertain to me, while I was putting it together, and that really started from having one scene in my head, and it's the scene with which the book opens. It's the scene of the young Edward VI in 1553, Henry VIII's only son, dying at the age of 15.Suddenly, me suddenly realizing that wherever you looked on the Tudor family tree at that point, there were only women left. The whole question of whether a woman could rule was going to have to be answered in some way at that point, and because I'm a medievalist, that made me start thinking backwards, and so I ended up choosing some medieval queens to write about, because they've got their hands on power one way or another.Until very close to finishing it, I was worried that it wouldn't hang together as a book, and the irony is that it's the one that people seem to have taken to most. The next book after that grew out of that one, because I found myself going around talking about She-Wolves, and saying repeatedly, "The problem these queens faced was that they couldn't lead an army on the battlefield."Women couldn't do that. The only medieval woman who did that was Joan of Arc, and look what happened to her. Gradually, I realized that I didn't really know what had happened to her. I mean, I did know what--Henry: Yes, indeed.Helen: I decided that I really wanted to write about her, so I did that. Then, having done that, and having then written a very short book about Elizabeth I, that I was asked to write for Penguin Monarchs, I realized I'd been haunted all this time by Richard and Henry, who I'd been thinking about and working on since the very beginning of my PhD, but I finally felt, perhaps, ready to have a go at them properly.It's all been pretty organic apart from She-Wolves, which was the big, "What am I writing about next?" That took shape slowly and gradually. Now, I'm going to write about Elizabeth I properly in a-Henry: Oh, exciting.Helen: -full-scale book, and I decided that, anyway, before I wrote this last one, but I-- It feels even righter now, because I Am Richard II, Know Ye Not That, feels even more intensely relevant having now written about Richard and Henry, and I'm quite intimidated because Elizabeth is quite intimidating, but I think it's good, related by your subjects.[laughter]Henry: Have you read the Elizabeth Jenkins biography?Helen: Many, many years ago. It's on my shelf here.Henry: Oh, good.Helen: In fact, so it's one of the things I will be going back to. Why do you ask particularly? I need--Henry: I'm a big Elizabeth Jenkins fan, and I like that book particularly.Helen: Wonderful. Well, I will be redoubled in my enthusiasm.Henry: I look forward to seeing what you say about it. What did you learn from Christine Carpenter?Helen: Ooh. Just as precision was the word that came into my head when you asked me about Hilary Mantel, the word that comes into my head when you ask about Christine is rigor. I think she is the most rigorous historical thinker that I have ever had the privilege of working with and talking to. I am never not on my toes when I am writing for, talking to, reading Christine. That was an experience that started from the first day I walked into her room for my first supervision in 1987.It was really that rigor that started opening up the medieval world to me, asking questions that at that stage I couldn't answer at all, but suddenly, made everything go into technicolor. Really, from the perspective that I had been failing to ask the most basic questions. I would sometimes have students say to me, "Oh, I didn't say that, because I thought it was too basic."I have always said, "No, there is no question that is too basic." Because what Christine started opening up for me was how does medieval government work? What are you talking about? There is the king at Westminster. There is that family there in Northumberland. What relates the two of them? How does this work? Think about it structurally. Think about it in human terms, but also in political structural terms, and then convince me that you understand how this all goes together. I try never to lose that.Henry: Helen Castor, thank you very much.Helen: Thank you so much. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

Send us a textWe are going to take a small detour from the history of modern Greece to wrap up the story of the Fifth Crusade. When we left the Fifth Crusade, John of Brienne had returned to Europe to gather more men for the cause. But while he was trying to gain support, the crusader holdings in Egypt fell. And still the Holy Roman Emperor had not arrived, did he? Well, this crusade follows the story of the Roman Emperor Frederick II. Otherwise known as the 6th Crusade. The German Emperor finally had the crown he had dreamt of his whole life. He was now ready to march his entire army south, to the Mediterranean Sea, and sail across the waters to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, where he was going to make the deal of a lifetime, and return Jerusalem to the Crusader States.The History of Modern Greece Podcast covers the events from Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and the fall of Constantinople in 1453, to the years under the Ottoman Empire, and 1821 when the Greeks fought for independence... all the way to the modern day.Website: www.moderngreecepodcast.comMusic by Mark Jungerman: www.marcjungermann.comCheck out our 2nd Podcast: www.antecedors.com

Not gonna transcript this, but bottom line enjoy your Easter when it comes, hiatus is continuing, current target for getting back to regular schedule is 6/29/25 (5th anniversary of the show). There will still be some new collab stuff coming out including a special on the fascinating 1769 conclave where the Holy Roman Emperor showed up in person while pretending to not be the Emperor, which will be on the History of Aotearoa New Zealand feed of all places: https://open.spotify.com/show/6VnykMReqvxl9QJMmzlN28?si=cb53cd96a14e4618

We welcome a new ruler to the kingdoms of Leon and Castile - King Alfonso X.  This very ambitious monarch commences his reign by attempting to become the next Holy Roman Emperor. 

Send us a textIn our second episode of John of Brienne, the King of Jerusalem, we follow him on his adventures to Egypt. The Austrians and the Military Orders have followed him to the city of Damietta. This city, at the mouth of the Delta, was the key to gaining a foothold in the Delta Nile. Once the crusaders had control of Cairo, the entire Ayyubid Caliphate was doomed to collapse. But first they needed to wait for the Holy Roman Emperor to arrive with his mighty army.The History of Modern Greece Podcast covers the events from Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and the fall of Constantinople in 1453, to the years under the Ottoman Empire, and 1821 when the Greeks fought for independence... all the way to the modern-day.Website: www.moderngreecepodcast.comMusic by Mark Jungerman: www.marcjungermann.comCheck out our 2nd Podcast: www.antecedors.com

Full Text of ReadingsEighth Sunday in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 84The Saint of the day is Saint Agnes of BohemiaSaint Agnes of Bohemia's Story Agnes had no children of her own but was certainly life-giving for all who knew her. Agnes was the daughter of Queen Constance and King Ottokar I of Bohemia. She was betrothed to the Duke of Silesia, who died three years later. As she grew up, she decided she wanted to enter the religious life. After declining marriages to King Henry VII of Germany and King Henry III of England, Agnes was faced with a proposal from Frederick II, the Holy Roman Emperor. She appealed to Pope Gregory IX for help. The pope was persuasive; Frederick magnanimously said that he could not be offended if Agnes preferred the King of Heaven to him. After Agnes built a hospital for the poor and a residence for the friars, she financed the construction of a Poor Clare monastery in Prague. In 1236, she and seven other noblewomen entered this monastery. Saint Clare sent five sisters from San Damiano to join them, and wrote Agnes four letters advising her on the beauty of her vocation and her duties as abbess. Agnes became known for prayer, obedience and mortification. Papal pressure forced her to accept her election as abbess, nevertheless, the title she preferred was “senior sister.” Her position did not prevent her from cooking for the other sisters and mending the clothes of lepers. The sisters found her kind but very strict regarding the observance of poverty; she declined her royal brother's offer to set up an endowment for the monastery. Devotion to Agnes arose soon after her death on March 6, 1282. Canonized in 1989, her liturgical feast is celebrated on March 6. Reflection Agnes spent at least 45 years in a Poor Clare monastery. Such a life requires a great deal of patience and charity. The temptation to selfishness certainly didn't vanish when Agnes walked into the monastery. It is perhaps easy for us to think that cloistered nuns “have it made” regarding holiness. Their route is the same as ours: gradual exchange of our standards—inclinations to selfishness—for God's standard of generosity. Click here for more on Saint Agnes of Bohemia! Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media

In 1513, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk—Henry VIII's best friend and notorious rogue—caused an international incident by flirting with Margaret of Austria, a duchess and regent of the Habsburg Netherlands. It all started as innocent courtly love, but Brandon took things too far when he stole a ring from Margaret's finger and refused to return it. Even worse? Henry VIII jokingly hinted at marriage between them! The result? Rumours of a scandalous betrothal shocked Europe and upset Margaret's father, the Holy Roman Emperor. Poor Margaret had to explain herself, while Brandon walked away with no consequences. But this wasn't the first time Brandon caused scandal. From secret marriages to broken promises, he seemed to leave controversy in his wake wherever he went. Was Margaret just another victim of Charles Brandon's recklessness? And did Henry VIII let his best friend get away with too much? Dive into the full story of Margaret and Brandon's ill-fated flirtation—and the scandal that followed—in my latest video! #TudorHistory #HistoricalScandals #CharlesBrandon #MargaretofAustria #RoyalDrama #OnThisDay #CourtlyLove #HabsburgHistory #HistoryMysteries #TudorCourt

According to legend, François Grimaldi and his brother Ranieri executed a bold plan to seize control of Monaco's iconic rock on 8th January, 1297. Disguised as Franciscan monks seeking refuge, they gained access to the fortress under false pretenses… only to reveal their true intentions by overpowering the guards and taking the stronghold. The House of Grimaldi remains the monarchy of the microstate, over seven centuries later. Monaco's appeal has always revolved around its strategic rock. Since ancient times, this geographical feature has served as a vital lookout and defence point over the Mediterranean. It wasn't until 1297, amid the turbulent Guelph and Ghibelline conflicts—where local loyalties were deeply entangled in the rivalries of the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor—that the Grimaldis seized their opportunity. Their success against Genoan control marked the start of an initially turbulent history, with Monaco's sovereignty repeatedly contested until the principality solidified its independence. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly reveal that Monaco, now synonymous with wealth, was in fact once the world's poorest country; explain where the ‘Carlo' in ‘Monte Carlo' comes from; and question whether ‘The Grimaldi Curse' can really be evidenced… Further Reading: • 'How the Grimaldis came to live on the Rock' (Monaco Life, 2023): https://monacolife.net/how-the-grimaldis-came-to-live-on-the-rock/ • ‘The Basics; Why Is Monaco A Country?' (The New York Times, 2005): https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/weekinreview/the-basics-why-is-monaco-a-country.html?searchResultPosition=27 • ‘MONACO: MONTE CARLO: 700TH ANNIVERSARY OF GRIMALDI DYNASTY' (AP Archive, 2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1M8H-XcOMo Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

By 1520, Europe found itself in an interesting moment. The most significant leaders in the endless jostle for power and influence were all young kings - Henry VIII in England, around 30 years old; Francis I in France, around 26 years old; and Charles V as King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, at about 20 years old. You can imagine how potentially unstable an axis of entitled, army-commanding young kings might be, but it's noteworthy that there were cooler heads with bigger visions than wars of conquest moving pieces on the field of politics even then. Henry's England was still something of a third wheel in the spheres of influence of the era, but both Francis and Charles were eager to count the island nation as an ally in their machinations against each other. Henry's right hand man, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, had the idea that it could be possible to produce an enduring peace among the Christian nations, particularly in light of the growing threat of the Ottoman Empire. Following the 1518 Treaty of London, a non-aggression pact between most of Europe's states, Wolsey wanted to showcase both the majesty and the (largely imaginary) friendship between England and France, resulting in a three-week-long summit between Henry VIII (and many thousands of courtiers, artisans, soldiers, and others) and Francis I (and many thousands of courtiers, artisans, soldiers, and others) on a large turnip field outside of Calais, then an English holding. The two sides spent months ahead of the June meeting building elaborate, but fake, castles, stadiums and other infrastructure to house, feed, and maintain the influx of people, horses, livestock, and goods that were soon to arrive. The Cloth of the Field of Gold was heralded as an event of great import, and Henry VIII would consider it a high point of his reign, but as we know, the dream of a peaceful Europe would not be realized for many centuries to come, and even now, remains a fragile and threatened thing. Listen ad-free at patreon.com/trashyroyalspodcast. To advertise on this podcast, reach out to info@amplitudemediapartners.com. Sources Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII, by Karen Lindsey (Amazon) The Distinctive 'Habsburg Jaw' Was Likely the Result of the Royal Family's Inbreeding (smithsonianmag.com) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As Philip the Good expanded his reach into the Holy Roman Empire, some Imperial Princes greeted him as a new ally, but others saw Burgundian expansion as a threat. Sigismund of Luxembourg, the Holy Roman Emperor, fell into the latter category, and throughout his long career he was a determined, if mostly ineffective opponent of Burgundy. Time Period Covered: 1421-1437 Notable People: Philip the Good, Emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg, Rene of Anjou, Antoine de Vaudemont, Louis de Chalon Prince of Orange, Jean de Neufchatel, Arnold of Egmond Duke of Guelders, Adolph I of Cleves, Frederick of the Empty Pockets Notable Events/Developments: Battle of Anthon, Battle of Bulgneville, The Hussite Wars

If you've ever been to Prague, you'll have noticed that there are many places and institutions that bear the name Charles - all of them because Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV was responsible for their creation. Furthermore, almost every great medieval building you've seen in Prague was commissioned by him. But Charles IV was also an incredibly skilled politician, and a devoted religious man who sought relentlessly to restore the glory of the Empire, and the papacy to Rome from Avignon.In this explainer episode, Dr. Eleanor Janega tells the story of this man whose rise to power was a bit of a surprise, given his humble origins.Gone Medieval is presented by Dr. Eleanor Janega. This episode was produced by Rob Weinberg. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.Gone Medieval is a History Hit podcast.Enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original TV documentaries that are released weekly and AD-FREE podcasts. Sign up HERE for 50% off your first 3 months using code ‘MEDIEVAL'You can take part in our listener survey here >

A basic introduction to the wine of the Czech Republic, this episode explores some of the history, regions, grapes and some of the unique wine styles. Resources from this episode: Books: The Oxford Companion to Spirits and Cocktails [Kindle Edition], Wondrich, D & Rothbaum, N., (2022) Websites: Bohemia Sekt: https://www.bohemiasekt.cz/en/about-us/ Brittanica: Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Preidel, H. (6 September 2024) https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-IV-Holy-Roman-emperor Czech Journalist: Exploring the Wine Regions of the Czech Republic, Svobodova, V. (2 October 2023) https://www.czechjournal.cz/exploring-the-wine-regions-of-the-czech-republic/ Czechology: St. Martin's Wine, (24 October 2023) https://www.czechology.com/st-martins-wine/ Eating Europe: Where to Drink Burčák (Young “Wine”) in Prague, Dunn, K. (21 August 2014) https://www.eatingeurope.com/blog/where-to-drink-burcak-in-prague/ Národní Vinařské Centrum (National Wine Center of the Czech Republic): Classification of Still Wines https://www.vinarskecentrum.cz/en/o-vine/klasifikace-ticha-vina Národní Vinařské Centrum (National Wine Center of the Czech Republic): Wine Regions in the Czech Republic https://www.vinarskecentrum.cz/en/o-vine/vinarske-regiony-v-cr Vína z Moravy Vína z Čech: https://www.vinazmoravyvinazcech.cz/en Visit Czechia: https://www.visitczechia.com/en-us/czech-convention-bureau/group-activities/gastronomy-ideas/a-sparkling-world-of-bohemia-sekt Wine Enthusiast: Devastated by Communism, Czech Wine is Making a Comeback, Honova. N. K. (9 January 2024) https://www.wineenthusiast.com/basics/region-rundown/czech-wine-guide/ World Atlas: The History of Czechoslovakia and Why it Split Up, Kershner, E. (18 June 2020) https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-history-of-czechoslovakia-and-why-it-split-up.html World Atlas: Maps of Czech Republic (2021) https://www.worldatlas.com/maps/czech-republic Glass in Session Episodes Relevant to this Episode: S2E2: Behind Botrytis - Beautiful Wines from Ugly Grapes https://glassinsession.libsyn.com/s2e2-behind-botrytis-beautiful-wines-from-ugly-grapes S3E1: Asti DOCG - Bubbles in the New Year, Decade, and Season! https://glassinsession.libsyn.com/s3e1-asti-docg-bubbles-in-the-new-year-decade-and-season S3E4: Wine from Dried Grapes https://glassinsession.libsyn.com/s3e4-wine-from-dried-grapes S9E3: Ice Wine/Icewine/Eiswein (Baby?) https://glassinsession.libsyn.com/s9e3-ice-wineicewineeiswein-baby S16E1: Austrian and German Sekt https://glassinsession.libsyn.com/austrian-and-german-sekt-s16e1 S16E3: Belgian Wines and PIWI Grapes https://glassinsession.libsyn.com/belgian-wines-and-piwi-grapes-s16e3 S16E6: Aquavit: The Spirit of Scandinavia https://glassinsession.libsyn.com/website/aquavit-the-spirit-of-scandinavia-s16e6 Glass in Session® swag mentioned in this show: https://www.teepublic.com/user/glass-in-session   Glass in Session® is a registered trademark of Vino With Val, LLC. Music: “Write Your Story” by Joystock (Jamendo.com cc_Standard License, Jamendo S.A.)

fWotD Episode 2649: Alice of Champagne Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia’s finest articles.The featured article for Monday, 5 August 2024 is Alice of Champagne.Alice of Champagne (French: Alix; c. 1193 – 1246) was the queen consort of Cyprus from 1210 to 1218, regent of Cyprus from 1218 to 1232, and regent of Jerusalem from 1243 to 1246. She was the eldest daughter of Queen Isabella I of Jerusalem and Count Henry II of Champagne. In 1210, Alice married her stepbrother King Hugh I of Cyprus, receiving the County of Jaffa as her dowry. After her husband's death in 1218, she assumed the regency for their infant son, King Henry I, but her maternal uncle Philip of Ibelin became the actual head of state administration as bailli (governor). Alice began seeking contacts within her father's counties in France to bolster her claim to Champagne and Brie against her cousin, Theobald IV, but the kings of France never acknowledged her claim. After a dispute with Philip of Ibelin, she left the island in 1223. She married Bohemond, heir apparent to the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli, but their marriage was annulled on grounds of consanguinity—they were too closely related according to canon law. In 1229, she laid claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem against the infant Conrad (the son of her niece Queen Isabella II of Jerusalem and the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II) who was absent from the kingdom, but the High Court of Jerusalem rejected her claim. When her son reached the age of majority in 1232, Alice abdicated her regency and departed for France to claim Champagne and Brie. She subsequently renounced her claim and returned to the Holy Land.In 1240, she married Raoul of Nesle who was about half of her age at the time. The High Court of Jerusalem proclaimed Alice and her husband regents for Conrad in 1243, but their power was only nominal. Raoul of Nesle left the kingdom, and Alice, before the end of the year. Alice retained the regency until her death in 1246.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:18 UTC on Monday, 5 August 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Alice of Champagne on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Ruth.

Send us a Text Message.       King Richard and King Phillip left Western Europe for the long journey by sea to the holy land; they made a few stops along the way, including the casual conquest of the island of Cyprus. Meanwhile, back in Germany, the Holy Roman Emperor also decided to go on the Crusade, and he marched by foot through the Byzantine Empire and Anatolia... following the footsteps of the First Crusaders. One of the greatest military victories of the Third Crusade was carried out on the way to the holy land when Emperor Frederick Barbarossa captured the city of Iconium.       The History of Modern Greece Podcast covers the Greek people's events from the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Greek War of Independence in 1821-1832, through to the Greco-Turkish War from 1919 to 1922 to the present day.Website: www.moderngreecepodcast.comMusic by Mark Jungerman: www.marcjungermann.comCheck out our 2nd Podcast: www.antecedors.com

Full Text of ReadingsSaturday of the Fourteenth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 388The Saint of the day is Saint HenrySaint Henry’s Story As German king and Holy Roman Emperor, Henry was a practical man of affairs. He was energetic in consolidating his rule. He crushed rebellions and feuds. On all sides he had to deal with drawn-out disputes so as to protect his frontiers. This involved him in a number of battles, especially in the south in Italy; he also helped Pope Benedict VIII quell disturbances in Rome. Always his ultimate purpose was to establish a stable peace in Europe. According to eleventh-century custom, Henry took advantage of his position and appointed as bishops men loyal to him. In his case, however, he avoided the pitfalls of this practice and actually fostered the reform of ecclesiastical and monastic life. He was canonized in 1146. Reflection All in all, this saint was a man of his times. From our standpoint, he may have been too quick to do battle and too ready to use power to accomplish reforms. But granted such limitations, he shows that holiness is possible in a busy secular life. It is in doing our job that we become saints. Click here for quotes from some of our favorite saints! Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media

Saturday of the 14th Week in Ordinary Time Optional Memorial of St. Henry II, 973-1024; born in Hildesheim, Bavaria; became Duke of Bavaria when his father died in 995, and emperor when his cousin Otto III died in 1002; crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Benedict VIII; also miraculously cured by St. Benedict; wanted to be a Benedictine, and lived as an oblate Office of Readings and Morning Prayer for 7/13/24 Gospel: Matthew 10:24-33

The Holy Roman Empire is broke, but Faust and Mephistopheles “solve” the Emperor's problem by inventing wealth that only exists on paper—in short, by inventing modern finance, based not on material wealth like gold but symbolic wealth like money. It is fake alchemy, a con job. It is also the world of modern finance. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/michael-dolzani/support

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the canonical figures from the history of political thought. Marsilius of Padua (c1275 to c1343) wrote 'Defensor Pacis' (The Defender of the Peace) around 1324 when the Papacy, the Holy Roman Emperor and the French King were fighting over who had supreme power on Earth. In this work Marsilius argued that the people were the source of all power and they alone could elect a leader to act on their behalf; they could remove their leaders when they chose and, afterwards, could hold them to account for their actions. He appeared to favour an elected Holy Roman Emperor and he was clear that there were no grounds for the Papacy to have secular power, let alone gather taxes and wealth, and that clerics should return to the poverty of the Apostles. Protestants naturally found his work attractive in the 16th Century when breaking with Rome. In the 20th Century Marsilius has been seen as an early advocate for popular sovereignty and republican democracy, to the extent possible in his time.With Annabel Brett Professor of Political Thought and History at the University of CambridgeGeorge Garnett Professor of Medieval History and Fellow and Tutor at St Hugh's College, University of OxfordAnd Serena Ferente Professor of Medieval History at the University of AmsterdamProducer: Simon Tillotson In Our Time is a BBC Sounds Audio ProductionReading list: Richard Bourke and Quentin Skinner (eds), Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2016), especially 'Popolo and law in Marsilius and the jurists' by Serena FerenteJ. Canning, Ideas of Power in the Late Middle Ages, 1296-1417 (Cambridge University Press, 2011)H.W.C. Davis (ed.), Essays in Mediaeval History presented to Reginald Lane Poole (Clarendon Press, 1927), especially ‘The authors cited in the Defensor Pacis' by C.W. Previté-OrtonGeorge Garnett, Marsilius of Padua and ‘The Truth of History' (Oxford University Press, 2006) J.R. Hale, J.R.L. Highfield and B. Smalley (eds.), Europe in the Late Middle Ages (Faber and Faber, 1965), especially ‘Marsilius of Padua and political thought of his time' by N. RubinsteinJoel Kaye, 'Equalization in the Body and the Body Politic: From Galen to Marsilius of Padua' (Mélanges de l'Ecole Française de Rome 125, 2013)Xavier Márquez (ed.), Democratic Moments: Reading Democratic Texts (Bloomsbury, 2018), especially ‘Consent and popular sovereignty in medieval political thought: Marsilius of Padua's Defensor pacis' by T. Shogimen Marsiglio of Padua (trans. Cary J. Nederman), Defensor Minor and De Translatione Imperii (Cambridge University Press, 1993)Marsilius of Padua (trans. Annabel Brett), The Defender of the Peace (Cambridge University Press, 2005)Gerson Moreño-Riano (ed.), The World of Marsilius of Padua (Brepols, 2006)Gerson Moreno-Riano and Cary J. Nederman (eds), A Companion to Marsilius of Padua (Brill, 2012)A. Mulieri, S. Masolini and J. Pelletier (eds.), Marsilius of Padua: Between history, Politics, and Philosophy (Brepols, 2023)C. Nederman, Community and Consent: The Secular Political Theory of Marsiglio of Padua's Defensor Pacis (Rowman and Littlefield, 1995)Vasileios Syros, Marsilius of Padua at the Intersection of Ancient and Medieval Traditions of Political Thought (University of Toronto Press, 2012)

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the canonical figures from the history of political thought. Marsilius of Padua (c1275 to c1343) wrote 'Defensor Pacis' (The Defender of the Peace) around 1324 when the Papacy, the Holy Roman Emperor and the French King were fighting over who had supreme power on Earth. In this work Marsilius argued that the people were the source of all power and they alone could elect a leader to act on their behalf; they could remove their leaders when they chose and, afterwards, could hold them to account for their actions. He appeared to favour an elected Holy Roman Emperor and he was clear that there were no grounds for the Papacy to have secular power, let alone gather taxes and wealth, and that clerics should return to the poverty of the Apostles. Protestants naturally found his work attractive in the 16th Century when breaking with Rome. In the 20th Century Marsilius has been seen as an early advocate for popular sovereignty and republican democracy, to the extent possible in his time.With Annabel Brett Professor of Political Thought and History at the University of CambridgeGeorge Garnett Professor of Medieval History and Fellow and Tutor at St Hugh's College, University of OxfordAnd Serena Ferente Professor of Medieval History at the University of AmsterdamProducer: Simon Tillotson In Our Time is a BBC Sounds Audio ProductionReading list: Richard Bourke and Quentin Skinner (eds), Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2016), especially 'Popolo and law in Marsilius and the jurists' by Serena FerenteJ. Canning, Ideas of Power in the Late Middle Ages, 1296-1417 (Cambridge University Press, 2011)H.W.C. Davis (ed.), Essays in Mediaeval History presented to Reginald Lane Poole (Clarendon Press, 1927), especially ‘The authors cited in the Defensor Pacis' by C.W. Previté-OrtonGeorge Garnett, Marsilius of Padua and ‘The Truth of History' (Oxford University Press, 2006) J.R. Hale, J.R.L. Highfield and B. Smalley (eds.), Europe in the Late Middle Ages (Faber and Faber, 1965), especially ‘Marsilius of Padua and political thought of his time' by N. RubinsteinJoel Kaye, 'Equalization in the Body and the Body Politic: From Galen to Marsilius of Padua' (Mélanges de l'Ecole Française de Rome 125, 2013)Xavier Márquez (ed.), Democratic Moments: Reading Democratic Texts (Bloomsbury, 2018), especially ‘Consent and popular sovereignty in medieval political thought: Marsilius of Padua's Defensor pacis' by T. Shogimen Marsiglio of Padua (trans. Cary J. Nederman), Defensor Minor and De Translatione Imperii (Cambridge University Press, 1993)Marsilius of Padua (trans. Annabel Brett), The Defender of the Peace (Cambridge University Press, 2005)Gerson Moreño-Riano (ed.), The World of Marsilius of Padua (Brepols, 2006)Gerson Moreno-Riano and Cary J. Nederman (eds), A Companion to Marsilius of Padua (Brill, 2012)A. Mulieri, S. Masolini and J. Pelletier (eds.), Marsilius of Padua: Between history, Politics, and Philosophy (Brepols, 2023)C. Nederman, Community and Consent: The Secular Political Theory of Marsiglio of Padua's Defensor Pacis (Rowman and Littlefield, 1995)Vasileios Syros, Marsilius of Padua at the Intersection of Ancient and Medieval Traditions of Political Thought (University of Toronto Press, 2012)

What if I told  you that there exists a secret society dating back to Charlemagne, first Holy Roman Emperor. Advisers, almanacists and court painters possessing a scientia which ever since has governed PR, a  hermeneutics, Pythagorean mysticism and Kabbalah numerology mishmash. They taught Louis III how to entertain the people with tales of Vikings, which still run on Bernays's Netflix. They stood on the receiving end of the crusade's plundering of the Islamicate libraries which stockpiled their bookshelves with far away, long gone Byzantine loot. If you're thinking here is Marcus with another far-out theory from his isolation in the Alps, then you're ofc right to do so, but I wonder, do you know that Hegel during his most savage critique dedicated a whole dismantling chapter against this lodge orders claim to knowledge? Isac Newton rubbed his hands at their robbery, John Dee kept copies of their work,  Ben Franklin even took to writing under a pseudonym which carried the name of one of their most influential Magus. And I'm not talking about the Freemasons, Illuminati or the Rosicrucians. Did you ever  stop to wonder why paintings of the Baroque Caesars seem to follow you around with their gaze in the "open to the public" castles? Who interpellated the Panoptic vision in the soul of the commoner? Faith and destiny was their ware, just like today's neuroscience. Brains are still calculated in cm3, IQ is a speed test of that supposed engine, yet the real onto-intentions of that mechanics lies resting in old diaries of the intelligentsia who   mapped the Systema Natura during the industrial espionage of the Age of Exploration. Come with us now on a journey through time and space, to the world of the greatest trick the White Devil ever pulled.

Frederick Barbarossa (which literally translates as “the red beard”) was one of medieval Europe's most famous rulers. Originally from Swabia, Germany, he grew up and united almost 1600 German states and micro-states, was crowned Holy Roman Emperor, went on two crusades, was excommunicated, supported an anti-pope, reconciled his relationship with the Pope once more and built diplomatic relationships with royal houses across Europe, from Byzantium to the British Isles. Travel to Peru and Germany with me here Check out our sister podcast the Mystery of Everything Coffee Collab With The Lore Lodge COFFEE Bonus episodes as well as ad-free episodes on Patreon. Find us on Instagram. Join us on Discord. Submit your relatives on our website Podcast Youtube Channel Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Edict of Worms condemned Luther's writings as heretical and prohibited their publication, distribution, and possession within the Holy Roman Empire. The edict effectively excommunicated Luther from the Catholic Church and sought to suppress the spread of his ideas and ...

Charles V, The Holy Roman Emperor of the House of Habsburg, was at once King of Spain, Archduke of Austria, Lord of the Netherlands and Duke of Burgundy. With a lineage supposedly stretching back to Noah's Ark, and a name born in Ancient Rome, the Habsburgs are one of the most influential dynasties in all of European history, shaping and changing the course of nations and empires. The first great Habsburg, Rudolph, was made King of the Romans in 1273, though it was from 1500, through a series of tactical marriages, that their ascendancy truly began. Key among these was the marriage of Maximilian I, Charles V's grandfather, to the powerful heiress Mary of Burgundy. The resulting gigantic Habsburg dominion would eventually split into two dynastic branches, located in Spain and Vienna, forging remarkable, multinational empires, that dominated central Europe until the twentieth century. But is there any truth to the claim that the Habsburg's notorious proclivity for inbreeding resulted in genetic deformities that would see the downfall of the family? In this week's episode, Dominic and Tom are joined by none other than Eduard Habsburg-Lothringen, to discuss his illustrious family's tumultuous history, its most famous members, strange death rituals, romantic legends, and the seven rules he's derived from the stories of the House of Habsburg. EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/restishistory Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee!  *The Rest Is History LIVE in 2024* Tom and Dominic are back onstage this summer, at Hampton Court Palace in London! Buy your tickets here: therestishistory.com Twitter: @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Producer: Theo Young-Smith Assistant Producer: Tabby Syrett Executive Producers: Jack Davenport + Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's Thursday, April 18th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Ugandan Christian convert likely killed by Muslim son A Christian woman in Uganda died last week after refusing to renounce her faith. Sadly, her son is suspected of killing her. Sulaina Nabirye came to Christ in February. One of her relatives told Morning Star News, “During the month of Ramadan, she complained of her son pressuring her to stop attending church and revert back to Islam since he was studying to become an imam. … When she refused to convert back to Islam, he stopped visiting her at her house and threatened to chase or even kill her.” Psalm 116:15 says, “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints.” New Zealand eager to deny churches tax-exempt status New Zealand is considering stripping churches of their tax-exempt status. Churches there have enjoyed the status since the 1600s. But now Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is looking to axe it as cultural pressure mounts against churches. Christian identification has been declining in New Zealand in recent decades. Over half of the population now identifies with no religion. And only 37% claim to be Christian. America's deficit spending not fiscally sustainable The International Monetary Fund released its latest world economic outlook report. The global economy is expected to grow 3.2% this year and next year just like it did last year. The U.S. economy is seeing stronger-than-expected growth while Europe is facing weaker-than-expected growth.  However, the International Monetary Fund did warn that U.S. growth is driven by deficit spending that is “out of line with long-term fiscal sustainability.”  Senate Democrats dismiss charges against Homeland Security Secretary On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives sent two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate. He was facing a trial on charges of refusing to enforce U.S. immigration law.  However, the Democrat-controlled Senate killed both articles of impeachment yesterday.  Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas was livid. Listen. CRUZ: “When it comes to the Constitution, the Democrats concluded that Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas defying federal law, ignoring the text of the statute, deliberately releasing criminal illegal aliens over and over and over again, that's just hunky dory. You can't impeach him for that. Every Democrat just voted. “By the way, every Cabinet member, guess what? You've just been given a blank slate: ignore the law. When Democrats are in charge of the Senate, the entire Cabinet could ignore the law. It is no longer impeachable, in Democrat Wonderland, when a member of the Executive branch openly defies the law.” It's the second time in U.S. history that the Senate has received articles of impeachment against a cabinet secretary. Wiliam Belknap, who served as Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant, was impeached on March 2, 1876, for his role in the trader post scandal. However, he was acquitted by the Senate. Supreme Court to take up emergency room abortion case The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear another abortion case involving emergency rooms. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires emergency rooms to provide medical care for patients. The Biden administration is trying to make abortion part of that required medical care even in states where it is banned. A federal appeals court has already ruled that doctors in Texas are not required to perform abortions under the act.  15 states upset with Bank of America's political and religious discrimination On Monday, fifteen states sent a letter to Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach is leading the coalition. Together, they are calling out the bank for religious and political discrimination.  The letter stated, “Your discriminatory behavior is a serious threat to free speech and religious freedom, is potentially illegal, and is causing political and regulatory backlash.” Alliance Defending Freedom scores businesses on an index for free speech and religious liberty. Last year, Bank of America tied for the lowest score among commercial banks.   Private school students more civically engaged than public school peers A new study in the Educational Psychology Review found that private school students are more likely to be engaged citizens than public school students. The study measured civic outcomes in students through several factors, including political participation, civic knowledge and skills, and voluntarism. The report noted, “Religious schooling seems to play a positive role in shaping civic outcomes. We find positive effects across various definitions of religious private schooling.” Martin Luther: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God” And finally, today is the anniversary of when Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms. The Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, called the imperial diet, a formal deliberative assembly. The assembly called on Luther to recant his teachings of church reform. On April 18, 1521, he uttered these immortal words that would characterize his work and the work of many others during the Reformation: LUTHER (from “Luther” movie): “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason, and not by popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot, and I will not recant. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”  That audio clip was taken from the 2003 movie “Luther.” Isaiah 8:20 says, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Thursday, April 18th in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Milanese Princess Bona Sforza married the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Sigismund the Old, in Krakow Cathedral on 18th April, 1518 - making her the first Italian Queen of Poland, and one of the world's most powerful women. There followed a 29-course wedding feast, a bawdy consummation ritual …and decades of resentment, as the Polish aristocracy came to terms with the influence she would have upon her husband's decision-making. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly explain how Sforza's heritage transformed the Polish diet forever; consider if there is an accurate portrait of her in existence; and reveal the betrayal that led to her untimely death… Further Reading:  • ‘Bona Sforza – Ambitious Queen Of Poland Was Betrayed And Murdered' (Ancient Pages, 2019): https://www.ancientpages.com/2019/01/21/bona-sforza-ambitious-queen-of-poland-was-betrayed-and-murdered/ • ‘Pursuit: The Queen who defied the Holy Roman Emperor' (The University of Melbourne, 2020): https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-queen-who-defied-the-holy-roman-emperor • ‘Poland's Italian Queen - The Life of Bona Sforza (1494 - 1557)' (Oliwier Brzeziński, 2016): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlZ6JDkQmDI Love the show? Join

"I cannot and will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.…Here I stand, I can do no other” The Diet of Worms in April 1521 was a clash of the old world and the new, and one of history's most dramatic confrontations. An epic showdown that would resound through the ages, it saw the celebrity professor Martin Luther summoned to the imperial free city of Worms on the banks of the Rhine by the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, to defend his radical beliefs. And though promised safe conduct, Luther's life had never been in greater danger. He arrived in the city to huge, overexcited crowds, like Jesus entering Jerusalem. Then, a scene of terrifying suspense, as the gaunt monk in his plain black cassock entered a vast, torch-lit hall, filled with Europe's greatest magnates bedecked in their finery. Would Luther's rhetorical brilliance and passionate defence save his life and the future of protestantism, or would he doom himself to a fiery execution? Join Tom and Dominic as they discuss one of the most groundbreaking moments of western history: Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, and the extraordinary twist of fate which saw the most famous man in Europe inexplicably vanish from the face of the earth. Defenestrated dogs, malevolent poltergeists, and scatological furores abound...  *The Rest Is History LIVE in 2024* Tom and Dominic are back onstage this summer, at Hampton Court Palace in London!  Buy your tickets here: therestishistory.com Twitter: @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Producer: Theo Young-Smith Assistant Producer: Tabby Syrett Executive Producers: Jack Davenport + Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Did a Holy Roman Emperor add 297 years to the early Middle Ages so he could begin his reign in the year 1000ad? We try and find out!

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the infamous assault of an army of the Holy Roman Emperor on the city of Rome in 1527. The troops soon broke through the walls of this holy city and, with their leader shot dead early on, they brought death and destruction to the city on an epic scale. Later writers compared it to the fall of Carthage or Jerusalem and soon the mass murder, torture, rape and looting were followed by disease which was worsened by starvation and opened graves. It has been called the end of the High Renaissance, a conflict between north and south, between Lutherans and Catholics, and a fulfilment of prophecy of divine vengeance and, perhaps more persuasively, a consequence of military leaders not feeding or paying their soldiers other than by looting. WithStephen Bowd Professor of Early Modern History at the University of EdinburghJessica Goethals Associate Professor of Italian at the University of AlabamaAnd Catherine Fletcher Professor of History at Manchester Metropolitan UniversityProducer: Simon TillotsonReading list:Stephen Bowd, Renaissance Mass Murder: Civilians and Soldiers during the Italian Wars (Oxford University Press, 2018)Benvenuto Cellini, Autobiography (Penguin Classics, 1999)Benvenuto Cellini (trans. Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella), My Life (Oxford University Press, 2009)André Chastel (trans. Beth Archer), The Sack of Rome 1527 (Princeton University Press, 1983Catherine Fletcher, The Beauty and the Terror: An Alternative History of the Italian Renaissance (Bodley Head, 2020)Kenneth Gouwens and Sheryl E. Reiss (eds), The Pontificate of Clement VII: History, Politics, Culture (Routledge, 2005)Francesco Guicciardini (trans. Sidney Alexander), The History of Italy (first published 1561; Princeton University Press, 2020)Luigi Guicciardini (trans. James H. McGregor), The Sack of Rome (first published 1537; Italica Press, 2008)Judith Hook, The Sack of Rome (2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004)Geoffrey Parker, Emperor: A New Life of Charles V (Yale University Press, 2019)

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the infamous assault of an army of the Holy Roman Emperor on the city of Rome in 1527. The troops soon broke through the walls of this holy city and, with their leader shot dead early on, they brought death and destruction to the city on an epic scale. Later writers compared it to the fall of Carthage or Jerusalem and soon the mass murder, torture, rape and looting were followed by disease which was worsened by starvation and opened graves. It has been called the end of the High Renaissance, a conflict between north and south, between Lutherans and Catholics, and a fulfilment of prophecy of divine vengeance and, perhaps more persuasively, a consequence of military leaders not feeding or paying their soldiers other than by looting. WithStephen Bowd Professor of Early Modern History at the University of EdinburghJessica Goethals Associate Professor of Italian at the University of AlabamaAnd Catherine Fletcher Professor of History at Manchester Metropolitan UniversityProducer: Simon TillotsonReading list:Stephen Bowd, Renaissance Mass Murder: Civilians and Soldiers during the Italian Wars (Oxford University Press, 2018)Benvenuto Cellini, Autobiography (Penguin Classics, 1999)Benvenuto Cellini (trans. Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella), My Life (Oxford University Press, 2009)André Chastel (trans. Beth Archer), The Sack of Rome 1527 (Princeton University Press, 1983Catherine Fletcher, The Beauty and the Terror: An Alternative History of the Italian Renaissance (Bodley Head, 2020)Kenneth Gouwens and Sheryl E. Reiss (eds), The Pontificate of Clement VII: History, Politics, Culture (Routledge, 2005)Francesco Guicciardini (trans. Sidney Alexander), The History of Italy (first published 1561; Princeton University Press, 2020)Luigi Guicciardini (trans. James H. McGregor), The Sack of Rome (first published 1537; Italica Press, 2008)Judith Hook, The Sack of Rome (2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004)Geoffrey Parker, Emperor: A New Life of Charles V (Yale University Press, 2019)

Full Text of ReadingsSaturday of the Second Week of Lent Lectionary: 235The Saint of the day is Saint Agnes of BohemiaSaint Agnes of Bohemia's Story Agnes had no children of her own but was certainly life-giving for all who knew her. Agnes was the daughter of Queen Constance and King Ottokar I of Bohemia. She was betrothed to the Duke of Silesia, who died three years later. As she grew up, she decided she wanted to enter the religious life. After declining marriages to King Henry VII of Germany and King Henry III of England, Agnes was faced with a proposal from Frederick II, the Holy Roman Emperor. She appealed to Pope Gregory IX for help. The pope was persuasive; Frederick magnanimously said that he could not be offended if Agnes preferred the King of Heaven to him. After Agnes built a hospital for the poor and a residence for the friars, she financed the construction of a Poor Clare monastery in Prague. In 1236, she and seven other noblewomen entered this monastery. Saint Clare sent five sisters from San Damiano to join them, and wrote Agnes four letters advising her on the beauty of her vocation and her duties as abbess. Agnes became known for prayer, obedience and mortification. Papal pressure forced her to accept her election as abbess, nevertheless, the title she preferred was “senior sister.” Her position did not prevent her from cooking for the other sisters and mending the clothes of lepers. The sisters found her kind but very strict regarding the observance of poverty; she declined her royal brother's offer to set up an endowment for the monastery. Devotion to Agnes arose soon after her death on March 6, 1282. Canonized in 1989, her liturgical feast is celebrated on March 6. Reflection Agnes spent at least 45 years in a Poor Clare monastery. Such a life requires a great deal of patience and charity. The temptation to selfishness certainly didn't vanish when Agnes walked into the monastery. It is perhaps easy for us to think that cloistered nuns “have it made” regarding holiness. Their route is the same as ours: gradual exchange of our standards—inclinations to selfishness—for God's standard of generosity. Click here for more on Saint Agnes of Bohemia! Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media

In this week's episode, I discuss why I decided to return to the character of Caina after twenty-nine novels. This week's coupon is for the audiobook of GHOST IN THE INFERNO as excellently narrated by Hollis McCarthy. You can get the audiobook of GHOST IN THE INFERNO for 75% off at my Payhip store with this coupon code: WINTERINFERNO The coupon code is valid through March 14th, 2024. TRANSCRIPT 00:00:00 Introduction and Writing Updates Hello, everyone. Welcome to Episode 189 of the Pulp Writer Show. My name is Jonathan Moeller. Today is February the 23rd, 2024 and today we are talking about the return of Caina Kardamnos. Before we get to our main topics, we will have Coupon of the Week and then an update on my current writing projects. First up, let's do Coupon of the Week. This week's coupon is for the audiobook of Ghost in the Inferno, as excellently narrated by Hollis McCarthy. You can get the audiobook of Ghost in the Inferno for 75% off at my Payhip store with this coupon code: WINTERINFERNO and that is WINTERINFERNO. The coupon code is valid through March the 14th, 2024. So if you find yourself needing an audiobook to break up the winter doldrums and weather, we've got one ready for you. So now for a progress update on my current writing projects. I'm pleased to report that Sevenfold Sword Online: Leveling is out at Amazon and Kindle Unlimited, since I have found that LitRPG books tend to do the best while they're in Kindle Unlimited. It is going a little better than expected, which is nice, and if you want to check out the book, you can read it at Amazon. My main writing project now is Ghost in the Veils, hence The Return of Caina Kardamnos title for this episode and I am 25,000 words into it, which puts me on Chapter 6 of 21. I am also 31,000 words into Wizard Thief, the second book in the Half-Elven Thief series and that should come out after Ghost in the Veils. I'm also 3,000 words into Cloak of Titans, the next Nadia book. So the order these will all come out in is Ghost in the Veils needs to come out first because it has recording slot scheduled for the middle of April. So it needs to be done and out by then. I will finish Wizard Thief after that and then Cloak of Titans. In an audiobook news, the recording and proofing for Shield of Storms' audiobook is done, and it's currently working its way through quality assurance on the various platforms, so hopefully it should be available on your audio platform of choice before much longer. 00:02:07 Reader Comments and Questions Now, before we get to our main topic, let's have a few questions and comments from listeners and readers. Reader NK asks: Hi, I would like to know what LitRPG is. Haven't come across it before and also do we need to complete reading the Sevenfold Sword series before Sevenfold Sword Online to better enjoy this story? In answer your question NK, LitRPG is generally defined as a story that uses the conventions and structures of online role-playing games like MMORPGs. They can be either fantasy or science fiction or blend a bit of both. Typically in these stories, either the protagonist is magically zapped into a game world or is playing the game while trying to balance some sort of crisis in both the game and real life, which is the approach I took for Sevenfold Sword Online. In answer to the second half of your question, Sevenfold Sword Online isn't actually connected to Sevenfold Sword. The premise is that it's 700 years in the future and that an evil corporation has built a hit virtual reality MMORPG using the books of a long dead author (i.e. me) as source material for the setting. In hindsight, I wish I had made the setting completely unconnected to anything else I had written, because it seems to confuse some readers, but too late now I suppose so, hopefully that will answer your question. Now we have a question from reader Justin. For context for that question, I recently had to get a new desktop computer after my old one died and this is in fact the first podcast episode I am recording using the new computer. So if it sounds really weird, I blame the computer, or more accurately, I probably should blame Windows 11. But anyway, with that in mind, here is our question from Justin: Good luck to you with your new computer. I switched to laptops for my computing needs. The lower power draw and portability are handy when you're going off grid. I'm used to you working on three series at once. You put that up a notch. Is this to reduce burnout and possibly writer's block? In answer to that question, the reason I got a desktop was because I do a lot of cover design and graphic design, which is not always the greatest on laptops because that needs a lot of processing power, a lot of RAM, and perhaps most importantly, a lot of storage. In answer to the writing question, the only thing that's changed is I'm not doing a Ridmark and Andomhaim book every other month. I am going to keep writing Ridmark and books set in Andomhaim but I've been writing a Ridmark/Andomhaim book every other month pretty much since summer 2013, so I'd like to change it up a little bit and do more of other things. So while I am going to continue the Shield Wars series and I am going to write Shield of Darkness soon, I'm not going to start writing it until after Cloak of Titans is done, if you remember my order of projects from earlier in the show. I don't feel at risk of burnout or getting exasperated with writing. I just have been writing Ridmark and Andomhaim setting for so long that while I would like to continue writing that I would like to write more of other things as I go along. 00:05:08 Main Topic: The Return of Caina Kardamnos Now to our main topic: the return of Caina Kardamnos. As I mentioned earlier on the show, I'm now 25,000 words into Ghost in the Veils, which puts me also at chapter six in the second book of the Ghost Armor Series, the immediate sequel to Ghost in the Serpent from late 2023. I have to admit that when I finished Ghost in the Sun in the Ghost Night series in 2021 (I believe that was), I thought I was done with Caina. The reason for that was I just didn't have any idea of what to where to go or what to do with the character after Ghost Night. Part of that, I admit, was that Caina had become powerful and influential and I am cynically suspicious of people like that and wasn't sure I could write someone like that as a protagonist. Though that was less a concern as I went on since writing Ridmark and Tyrcamber, and Dragontiarna and then Dragonskull and the Shield War gave me a good bit of practice. So I finally had a good enough idea to return to Caina as a protagonist, and I think it was a confluence of four different ideas. The first idea was perhaps the most obvious one: what if Caina found out she had stepchildren? There are lots of potential story dynamics with stepchildren, but I thought the most interesting setup would be if Kylon had children he didn't know about and the mother Kalliope Agramemnos had kept them secret from him, except Kylon loves Caina and Kalliope is in awe of Caina. So Caina, out of necessity, becomes the linchpin holding this family together, since neither Kylon nor Kalliope can stand each other. There are a lot of potential character arcs and conflicts that can be generated in the inherent tension of that situation. The second core idea came from medieval nobles. If you've read any histories of medieval Europe, one of the main themes of the Middle Ages is that men primarily wielded the political and military power. But some women, by sheer force of will, charisma, tenacity, and cunning came to wield great power themselves. There are in fact quite a few examples. Probably the most famous one nowadays would be Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was married to two different kings and the mother to two more or three (depending on how you count and if you include Henry II's eldest son, Young Henry, as the actual king or not). She kept her son Richard on the throne of England during his captivity after the Third Crusade and she was one of the chief architects of his release. Had Eleanor lived longer, and her son John listened to more of her advice, probably King John's reign would have been more successful and he would not be remembered primarily in the United States as the cowardly Prince John from that one animated Disney movie with the anthropomorphic animals. Perhaps the most successful example is Margaret Beaufort, who basically engineered her son Henry VII's ascension to the English throne at the end of the Wars of the Roses, and then served as one of his primary advisors for the entirety of his reign. In fact, she even outlived Henry VII by a year and then lived long enough to advise her grandson Henry VIII for the first year after he became king. A less successful example and contemporary with Margaret Beaufort, would be Margaret of Anjou, wife of King Henry VI and mother of his heir. Margaret of Anjou was one of the driving forces behind the Wars of the Roses but lost everything when her husband and son were killed and she died in poverty in France while her enemy Edward IV ruled in England. Blanche of Castile was her son Louis IX's regent when he went on crusade. Countess Matilda of Tuscany helped force the settlement in the Investiture Controversy and the Holy Roman Emperor, the southern dukes of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Pope all wanted Matilda as their ally. Perhaps the most striking example would be Sichelgaita of Lombardy, wife of the rapacious Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard. Guiscard started out as a penniless, landless knight and ended up conquering Sicily and a lot of Italy. He was known as greedy, cunning, and ruthless. His eventual tomb had the epitaph “Here lies Guiscard, the terror of the world.” It seems that Sichelgaita was in every way suited to be the wife of a freebooting warlord like her husband. Guiscard fought a lot of wars and Sichelgaita usually donned armor to battle alongside him. At the Battle of Durham in 1081 Guiscard's troops started to break and run while fighting the soldiers of the Byzantine Empire. Sichelgaita rode after the fleeing troops, berating them for their cowardice, and evidently the prospect of her displeasure was so fearsome that Guiscard's troops turned around and won the battle. It should also be known at this point in her life, Sichelgaita was in her forties and had borne Giscard eight children, so clearly a very resilient lady. So now that Caina is powerful and influential maybe historical events like these can provide inspirations for plot lines. Caina would still occasionally put on a shadow cloak and go out and break into places because this is, after all, a fantasy novel. The third idea was that someone must be in charge. I mentioned earlier that I had misgivings about writing protagonists with power and influence, but I've come to realize that is an incomplete view. The thing about power and influence is that someone is going to be in charge. It's just human nature. No matter how something is organized, someone must be in charge and bear the burden of leadership, and hopefully it will be someone with an eye on the greater good. I've thought about this concept a lot in 2023. I know several people in 2023 who, after much agonizing, left some of the traditional helping professions like medicine and education not because of dislike of the admittedly stressful work, but because the leadership was so stupid and so malicious as to create an unsustainable work environment. Like a leader can be stupid and well-intentioned, and a leader can be malicious and clever and an organization can still function, but stupidity and malice together are unsustainable. Alas, the contemporary United States and United Kingdom have no shortage of malicious and stupid leadership, but that's beyond the scope of the podcast about writing. So in the end, someone is going to be in charge, someone is going to have to wield power and influence. Hopefully it is someone who will act in the name of the greater good (I already did some of that with Caina in Ghost in the Council towards the second half of the Ghost Night series). That can make, in my opinion, for in a compelling protagonist. Fourth and finally, fantasy creatures. Way back in the 2000s when I was originally trying to sell the first Caina novels, all the agents and publishers fulminated on how they didn't want to see any novels with traditional fantasy creatures like elves and orcs and dwarves and serpent men and so forth. So when I wrote the kind of books I wrote them without any of that, which continued when I moved into self-publishing, though I was always a little sore about that, even years later. Now I think I have a firm enough grasp on the setting that I can introduce some traditional fantasy creatures into the Caina books, hopefully in a way that makes sense within the context of Caina 's very well-established world. So those four ideas came together for Ghost in the Serpent, and we shall hopefully see more of them in Ghost in the Veils. So that is it for this week. Thank you for listening to The Pulp Writer Show. I hope you found the show useful. Our reminder that you can listen to all the back episodes on https://thepulpwritershow.com and many of them now have transcripts (note: Episodes 144-189 currently have transcripts). If you enjoyed the podcast, please leave a review on your podcasting platform of choice. Stay safe and stay healthy and see you all next week.

0:00 Intro0:48

In many countries where polygamy is practiced, Kings and emperors have had harems of hundred or even thousands of wives and concubines. It's good to be the King. But in Europe, Christianity has reigned for a millennia and the church is pretty sticked on their one woman at a time policy. But that didn't stop a handful of monarchs from taking multiple trips down the aisle. Royal brides were under a lot of pressure to produce as many heirs as possible, and they died often in childbirth or because their bodies were warn out from constant pregnancy. If a monarch wasn't getting the heirs he wanted from his wife, or if he had grown tired of her and she hadn't done him the courtesy of dying, there was always divorce or even murder to clear the throne for another consort to take her place. Many rulers managed to marry 3 times, but today we'll be counting down 6 serial monogamist monarchs who had 4 or marriages. Philip II, King of Spain, 1527 – 1598, 4 wives William the Silent, Prince of Orange & Ruler of The Netherlands, 1533 – 1584, 4 wives Ferdinand VII, King of Spain, 1784 – 1833, 4 wives Władysław II Jagiełło, King of Poland & Grand Duke of Lithuania 4 wives Henry VIII, King of England, 1491 – 1547, 6 wives Ivan the Terrible, Tsar of Russia, 1530 – 1584, 6-8 wives Honorable Mentions: Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor, 4 wives, 5 Concubines Casimir III the Great, King of Poland, 4 wives Catherine Parr, Queen of England, 4 Husbands Join me every Tuesday when I'm Spilling the Tea on History! Check out my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/lindsayholiday Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100091781568503 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/historyteatimelindsayholiday/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@historyteatime Please consider supporting me at https://www.patreon.com/LindsayHoliday and help me make more fascinating episodes! Intro Music: Baroque Coffee House by Doug Maxwell Music: Butterflies in Love by Sir Cubworth #HistoryTeaTime #LindsayHoliday Please contact advertising@airwavemedia.com if you would like to advertise on this podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seven hundred years ago, Italian scholar Marsilius of Padua helped lay the foundation for our modern ideas of popular sovereignty. In his book Defensor Pacis, written in the context of an ongoing battle in church-state relations, he anticipated the idea of separate spheres for Church and state.   Though tensions over the balance of power between Church and state were probably inevitable, it took surprisingly long for them to develop. In the Roman Empire, the state regulated religious practice. Christianity was an illegal religion in the Empire for nearly 300 years, but when legalized, a precedent was set for the Church to operate separately from the state. For centuries, the two sides cooperated without much fundamental conflict.  In the Latin West, questions about the relationship between Church and state arose at the end of the eighth century. In 799, Pope Leo III was accused of a variety of crimes. He appealed to Charlemagne, the king of the Franks, for judgment. Though unsure whether he had jurisdiction over the Pope, Charlemagne acquitted Leo. Since this suggested Charlemagne was over the Pope, Leo decided to redress the balance by crowning Charlemagne emperor on Christmas of 800, implying papal authority over that office.  After Charlemagne, both the Church and the state suffered serious decline for nearly a century. The title of emperor fell into disuse, and the papacy descended into a period of moral degeneracy. In the late 900s, with the aid of Church reformers, the Germanic King Otto I managed to centralize enough power to be named Holy Roman Emperor. He and his successors deposed a series of corrupt popes and appointed reformers in their place.  These reforming popes soon found their dependence on the emperor both theologically and politically problematic. Politically, by playing around with the rules and making deals with the emperor's enemies, they managed to loosen the papacy from imperial control. Theologically, they began to argue that as the eternal is superior to the temporal and the spiritual to the physical, the Church is superior to the state and the pope to the emperor. In effect, this meant the Church was over the state. The logic was that, since the civil government was established by God to enforce righteousness, and the pope was the vicar of Christ on Earth, he should be arbiter of what is righteous, and secular rulers must obey. If they failed to do so, the pope claimed the right to depose them, even the Holy Roman Emperor.  Unsurprisingly, the Holy Roman Emperors disagreed with this logic. An early conflict was over who should name and install bishops. Since Otto I, bishops had been part of the imperial government, and emperors had insisted on their right to pick the bishops. The popes argued that bishops are primarily ecclesiastical offices and should be appointed and installed by them. This issue came to a head when Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Emperor Henry IV and tried to depose him, while Henry also tried to depose Gregory and even invaded Italy to make it stick. The issue was eventually resolved by their successors. But the basic question of whether the pope was over the emperor or the emperor over the pope continued to fester, sometimes resulting in war, excommunications, and the appointment of anti-popes.  In the context of these conflicts, Marsilius of Padua wrote his book. He took the imperial side, arguing that the Church had no jurisdiction in secular matters. It should interpret Scripture and define dogma, while secular affairs were the responsibility of the civil government, whose members were to be elected or appointed by the most important citizens. In the same way, he believed that clergy, including the pope, should be elected by the people or their representatives.   Even within the Church, papal authority was limited since supreme authority was vested in Church councils called by the emperor. Marsilius also argued that tithes should be eliminated, Church property should be seized by the government, and clergy should live in holy poverty. Marsilius's work was supported by prominent Franciscans, including William of Ockham, who championed the ideal of apostolic poverty, and was later promoted by Thomas Cromwell to support Henry VIII during the English Reformation.  Defensor Pacis was an important step in advancing ideas of popular sovereignty and democracy, though it implicitly supported imperial authority. Despite its anticlericalism, it made important contributions to ideas about the proper relationship between Church and state. Given current debates about Christendom and Christian Nationalism, studying historical works like Defensor Pacis could enrich our understanding of the place of the Church in civil society.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

The Gospel must be preached to all nations because God has elected some from every tribe, language, people, and nation to be in heaven. - SERMON TRANSCRIPT - Turn in your Bibles if you would, to Mark, chapter 13, and you can also turn as well to Matthew 24. We're going to be looking at both of those places. The Scripture reveals that despite all of its swirling complexity, human history has a purpose. We are moving to a destination. We're going somewhere with all of this. It's not just random chaos, but God has a plan and a purpose. The destination the Bible reveals, to which we're going, is a perfect universe, a perfect world free from all sin and a beautiful radiant city. The New Heavens and the New Earth are that perfect universe and that radiant city is called the New Jerusalem. The Bible reveals that the light source of that new universe and of the New Jerusalem, according to Revelation 21 and 22, is the glory of God, the glory of God. Revelation 21:23 says, "The city”[the New Jerusalem] "does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it for the glory of God gives it light and the lamb is its lamp." Again, in the next chapter, Revelation 22:5 it says, "They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light." But what is that? What is the glory of God? In my studies and my meditations, I've thought a lot, it's an important topic. I believe the glory of God is the radiant display of the attributes or the perfections of God. Sometimes it's just brilliant light, as 1 Timothy 6:16 says, "God dwells in unapproachable light." Well, think about that, unapproachable light. How amazing must that be? For this reason, the Seraphim in Isaiah's vision were constantly covering their faces, though they had no sin or guilt, but just in that unapproachable light, the presence of the glory, they were covering their faces. For this reason also, the theophanies, or the displays of God, where God shows up in human history are frequently attended by overpowering light, like in Ezekiel's vision of the likeness of the glory of God by the Kibar River east of Babylon. Ezekiel 1 says, "High above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. And I saw from what appeared to be his waist up, He looked like glowing metal as if full of fire. And that from there down He looked like fire and brilliant light surrounded Him, like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell face down." So radiant, light, brightness connected with the glory of God. Also at the time of the birth of our Lord in Bethlehem, an angel appeared to shepherds outside Bethlehem and it says in Luke 2:9-10, "There were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over the flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified." This was a glory of the eye, not of the mind or heart. It was just bright light, and it stunned the shepherds that night. But the glory of God is seen not just in brilliant light, sometimes it's in the radiant display of the perfections of God, the attributes of God woven into the tapestry of historical events. That takes the eye of faith to see it, but it's there. The attributes of God woven into the tapestry of history. The perfections of God, attributes of God, include His wisdom, His power, His love, compassion, justice, patience, kindness, mercy. These are attributes. God has ordained history, the story of history, for this reason to put Himself on display in the sequence of events and unfolding history. He put Himself on display in a history, a story, that He predestined before Christ began, written in His own mind before time began. The sequence of events, this history, has all been written out by the author of history and it's intrinsically connected with the Christ event, the story of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself said in Revelation 22:13, "I am the alpha and the omega. I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end." History is linear, and Jesus is history. Jesus is what the story is all about. The radiant display of the glory of God in heaven, I believe, will consist in part in a retelling of His mighty works in saving His people from their sins and in their individual context all over the world, across the centuries, a retelling of the mighty works of God and saving sinners. I believe it's the most glorious thing God has ever done. His glory is greatly on display in salvation. Revelation 7:9-10 says, "After this, I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes, and they were holding palm branches in their hands, and they cried out in a loud voice, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb.'" "The radiant display of the glory of God in heaven, I believe, will consist in part in a retelling of His mighty works in saving His people from their sins and in their individual context all over the world, across the centuries." Here's a multitude, a huge quantity of people, from all over the world, every imaginable context, standing around the throne of God in heaven praising God for salvation. The specific stories of these individual people that make up these millions from every nation on Earth, will bring infinite and eternal glory to God. A few verses later, Revelation 8:13, "Then one of the elders asked me, 'These in the white robes, who are they and where did they come from?'" As I've said many times before, that story will take forever to tell fully. It is so complex, but it is woven through with light, it’s woven through with glory. "These redeemed," who are they and where do they come from? Well, how long do you have? We have all eternity. So, pull up a chair and let's hear the story of how God redeemed this one and that one and the other one from all over the world. Heaven will be filled with the stories of the greatness of God put on display in the amazing tapestry of history that He wove in every century. This is the story of missions. The spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ from Jerusalem to the ends of the Earth across every generation of history, that unspeakable glory as before us this morning. We're going to focus just on two verses of scripture. Mark 13:10, right in the middle of our Mark study, and then a parallel verse, Matthew 24:14. Mark 13:10, "And the gospel must first be preached to all nations." Matthew 24:14, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations and then the end will come." I want to tell you something about the science of Bible interpretation. The Gospels, there are four of them, three of them basically take the same approach to the life of Jesus. Matthew, Mark ,and Luke. They're called synoptic because they see things from about the same perspective. Then the fourth Gospel, John, comes at it from a different perspective, but they all tell the same thing. We believe that all scriptures God-breathed is perfect, so therefore these are four perfect accounts of the life of Christ, but they have some differences with one another. When we have those differences between, let's say, Matthew and Mark, we harmonize. We don't pit them against each other, we put them together. We try to harmonize, and that's not always easy to do. Generally, I look on it as a two-for-one sale. I'm going to take both statements here as true, and if one of them tells me one thing, He said that and that's true, and if one of them tells something else, He said that, and I just harmonize, I put it together. I. Context: Jesus’ Prediction of the Destruction of the Temple Let's talk about the context here. We're moving through the Gospel of Mark. Mark 13 is Jesus's description of the history of the end of the world and the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the end of the world. It came from a statement Jesus made in Mark 13:2: "Not one stone will be left on another. Everyone will be thrown down." This was a prediction of the destruction, at least of the Temple, but probably really of the whole city of Jerusalem and focused on the temple. It was the final week of Jesus's life. Things were hurdling to a conclusion, the dramatic turbulent events culminating in His arrest and His trial before the Jewish leaders. His condemnation by them is being handed over to Pontius Pilate for condemnation by the Romans and then His crucifixion by Pontius Pilate and the Romans. So that's where we're heading. Jesus has given a seven-fold denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees, the spiritual leaders of the Jewish nation. It's fully depicted in Matthew 23. It's just quickly summarized in Mark. But it culminates in this statement in Matthew 23: 38-39, "Jesus says, 'Behold your house is left to you desolate.'" This is a very important statement—your house is left to you desolate. “Desolate” means “empty." The reason I'm saying that is, "For, I tell you, you will not see Me again until you say ‘Blessed is He comes in the name of the Lord.’" “Not seeing Me again” is the essence of your desolate house. That's what makes your house desolate. Then Jesus dramatically walked out of the Temple, never to return again. The disciples came up at that moment and chose that moment to talk about how beautiful the Temple was. We shouldn't be surprised at this. This is what the disciples, the apostles were like, frequently off message. This is who we are as well. “As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, teacher, what massive stones, what magnificent buildings.’ ‘Do you see all these great buildings?’ replied Jesus. ‘Not one stone here will be left on another, every one will be thrown down.’" That must've been incredibly distressing to them. They come to Him later, privately, when He's out of the city, He's up on the Mount of Olives, across the Kidron Valley, they're out of the city and they're there. As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, Matthew 24:3, “The disciples came to Him privately. 'Tell us,' they said, 'When will this happen and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?’" Matthew 24 and Mark 13 cover roughly the same ground, but Matthew 24, in much more detail. There's almost nothing found in Mark 13 that's not found in Matthew 24, and there are other things besides in Matthew 24, so I have my eye on both. Matthew 24 has the full question the disciples asked and the fuller answer that Jesus gives. The three parts of the question in Matthew 24 are, "Tell us, when will this happen?" And, "What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" The complexity of Matthew 24 and of Mark 13 comes in discerning and kind of to some degree, unweaving the tapestry of Jesus's answer. What is He talking about right now in this part? Is He talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 870 AD by the Romans? Is He talking about the end of the world? What is it? They weave it through. Jesus, I believe, is giving a history of the world between His First and Second Comings. It's bigger than just the destruction of the Temple. Just to tell you, if you look at Mark 13:10, a key word for me in that is the word “first.” First. "This gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations." First before what? Before the destruction of the temple? That didn't happen. So clearly, Jesus's scope is bigger than the destruction of the Temple. He's looking at, I believe, all history, from the First to the Second Comings of Christ, and He's traveling and traversing that history. Look at verses 5-13, Mark 13. Jesus has said to them, “Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name claiming I am He and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. There'll be earthquakes in various places and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. You must be on your guard. You'll be handed over to local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of Me, you'll stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them." Here's our focus verse, verse 10, "And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given to you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents, and have them put to death. Everyone will hate you because of Me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Last week, we traced out those thirteen verses and looked at the whole answer. Just to summarize, it begins with a warning against false teaching. He goes from that to a prediction of the ordinary convulsion of events of history, wars and rumors of wars. That happens in every generation, almost every year of history, nation rising against nation, kingdom against kingdom. That's all the time. There'll be famines, earthquakes, various places. He calls all this the beginning of birth pains. The birth pains means a terrible convulsion or pain resulting in something beautiful and wonderful. We're heading to a good destination, but we have a lot of pain to go through first. That's what “beginning of birth pain” means. Then He mentions persecution. They will be handed over to the local councils. They'll be flogged in synagogues. These will be opportunities for them to be witnesses to Him. They will testify to Jesus. "On account of me, you'll stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them." The flow of human history is a canvas on which the masterpiece of redemptive history is being painted. These commonplace convulsions, wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, arrests, trials, all of that is being sovereignly controlled to accomplish the spread of the Gospel, to accomplish the salvation of God's people, to accomplish the glory of God. That's what's going on here. It's amazing how God controls history even down to the micro-level, to achieve His purposes. I found a number of years ago a great example of this in the life of John Calvin. John Calvin is a great reformer who spent most of his life in Geneva, a great theologian, tremendous leader. However, he was not originally Swiss. Geneva is a city in Switzerland. He was French and he was basically a refugee, a religious refugee running for his life because he believed in the Reformation. The Catholic King of France was persecuting what they called Lutherans, and he was running for his life. By this time, he had already written a significant theological work, and he was on his way to the French city of Strasbourg. He had in mind a quiet life as a scholar. He was going to be quiet in his room and eat little bowls of gruel and write theology books, and that was going to be his life. That would've made him happy. He was that kind of person. At any rate, he was a scholar but already well known. Amazingly, en route to Strasbourg, he couldn't go there because an obscure war had broken out between the King of France and Charles the Fifth, the Holy Roman Emperor. It's not at all one of the most famous wars ever. It's one of those wars and rumors of wars that Jesus talked about. But as a result, the straight road to Strasbourg was blocked with troop movements. So here, this fleeing man, this refugee has to divert through the city of Geneva. At any rate, there he is in Geneva, and William Farel, who started a Reformation work there hears that Calvin is there, and he thinks this is just the guy that we need for the Reformation here in Geneva. He was right, but Calvin had no such intention. When Farel came and said, "I want you to work here in Geneva," he said, "No, no, I'm going to go have a quiet life writing books in Strasbourg." He didn't say it just like that, but it probably went something like that. After Farel tried to persuade him and wasn't successful, Farel rose up in what Calvin called intemperate zeal and threatened him with the judgment of God if he chose a quiet life of academia rather than taking part in the Reformation in Geneva. Calvin was wired to fear that kind of thing and said, "Okay, I guess I'll stay in Geneva,” and he did. He was there most of the rest of his life. What's my point? Wars and rumors of wars for a purpose. "Are you saying that God orchestrated a war between Catholic King Francis of France and Catholic King Charles the Fifth, so that John Calvin would end up in Geneva and not Strasbourg?" Yes, that's what I'm saying, and other things too. Other things too, but at least that. That's what God does. Isn't it amazing that history has a purpose? Even as it seems to be churning and random and destructive, God is at work in the midst of all of it. The central work of all of this is, "You will be witnesses for me. You'll be my witnesses. You are going to proclaim this gospel." Look at verse 10, "And the gospel must first be preached to all nations." The power of the Holy Spirit is central to this mission. He said, "Do not worry ahead of time what to say, what to speak. It will not be you speaking, but the Holy Spirit." The Spirit is the driving orchestrator and force of the spread of the gospel, the third person of the Trinity, that is His role and He's extremely good at his job. As Acts 1:8 says, "You'll receive power when the Holy Spirit comes in you and you'll be My witnesses in Jerusalem and Judea, Samaria to the ends of the Earth." In the midst of all this, there'll be a tremendous amount of pain for the witnesses, painful betrayals, family relationships will be compromised. Your own closest relatives will turn their backs on you. "Everyone will hate you because of Me," Jesus says. Intense persecution, and that's what makes this journey so glorious. The courage, the boldness, the suffering, the willingness to pay the price. That's the story. That's big picture. II. A Command in Mark Let's zero in on the command, Mark 13:10, “And the gospel must first be preached to all nations." In Mark's version, Mark 13:10, it takes a command form, effectively. It's a command in Mark. It uses the Greek word “dei”, which means “it is necessary,” but that's frequently a command, a sense of a command. It is necessary for the Gospel first to be preached to all nations. What is the Gospel? The Gospel is the message of the kingdom of God with Jesus as the King of the kingdom of God. He's the centerpiece, he is the King, he's the Lord, he's the Savior. The Gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ and all that that means. That's what the Gospel of Mark has been unfolding all along. It's a message about the kingdom of God, that God is King. "What is the Gospel? The Gospel is the message of the kingdom of God with Jesus as the King of the kingdom of God. He's the centerpiece, he is the King, he's the Lord, he's the Savior. The Gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ and all that means." The kingdom is the spiritual realm where the subjects of the King are delighted to have God as their King, and they're pleased to obey Him and to follow Him. They're delighted about it. God's sovereignty over rebels is a different matter, but the advancing kingdom of God has to do with individuals who throw down their weapons of rebellion and come in gladly under the kingship of Christ. The Gospel is, as we've said before, God, man, Christ, response. That God created the universe, the heavens and the Earth, and as the Creator, He has the right to make laws and rules by which we live our lives. God, the Creator, God the King, God, the Lawgiver and God the Judge. That's God. Man, we are created in the image of God to have a relationship with Him, to have a love relationship with Him and to love each other, but we have sinned. We have broken the two Great Commandments. We have not loved God with all of our hearts, all mind and strength. We have not loved our neighbor as ourselves. We have sinned. Therefore, we stand under God's judgment, physical death, eternal death in hell. Christ is God's answer to that problem. The Son of God, fully God, fully man, born, took on human flesh. We celebrate it this time of year. He lived a sinless life under the laws of God. He died in our place as our substitute, a transfer of guilt effected. When we believe in Jesus, our guilt put on Jesus, He dies in our place, His righteousness is given to us, and that's the white robes that we're going to stand in on Judgment Day and for all eternity. The imputed righteousness of Christ, that's what Christ came to do. Then the response, we need to repent of our sins, turn away from our rebellion against God the King. Believe in Jesus, trust in Him, and we'll receive forgiveness of sins. That's the Gospel: God, man, Christ, response. It is necessary for that message to be preached, to be proclaimed to all nations. That's what He's saying. That has to happen first, before the end of the world. That's what first, first is tied to the end of the world. Why? Why is it necessary? Why don't I give you four reasons, four reasons why it is necessary for the Gospel. Let's keep it simple, because Christ the King commanded it. We'll start there. Christ told us to do this. These were his last words before He ascended back to heaven. The Great Commission, so-called, which is a commandment to all of His followers, to make disciples of all nations, is in all four Gospels, a different version but in all four Gospels and in Acts. The most famous version is Matthew 28, "Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and Earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I'm with you always to the very end of the age.’" To all nations in all eras of history, that's the Great Commission. It is necessary, therefore, that this happened because it is the will of God and of Christ for us. Secondly, it is necessary because the Gospel is the only way for sinners to be forgiven and reconciled to God. There is no other way. There is no other plan. The Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. Or as it says in Romans 10:12 -15, "There is no difference between Jew and Gentile. The same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on Him, for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then, can they call on one they have not believed in and how can they believe in one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they're sent?" As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring Good News?’” That's the logic of missions. It's a logical work that Paul does in Romans 10, using a series of rhetorical questions, assuming negative answers. The statement is made worldwide, anyone in any nation on Earth who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus in faith will be saved. But how can someone call on someone they've not believed in? They can't do that, can they? No, of course, they can't. No one can believe in someone they've never heard of, can they? No, of course they can't. And no one can hear without someone preaching or proclaiming the message. No, they can't. Absolutely not. And no one can do that preaching unless they're sent out. Hence, the need for missions. That's the logic of missions, and it's the answer to why it is necessary for this Gospel to be proclaimed. Thirdly, it is necessary for the Gospel to be proclaimed to all nations because God has chosen people in every tribe and language and people and nation. They're called the Elect, chosen before the foundation of the world. God wants those people reached. Jesus said in John's Gospel, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. They must be brought in, and there'll be one flock and one shepherd." Those are people, not just Jews, but all the ends of the Earth. God has people out there. There will be people from every tribe, language, people, and nation. It's been ordained. They were chosen in Christ before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless and they have to be brought in, and the only way they're going to be brought in is by the preaching of the Gospel. That's the third reason. The fourth, it is necessary for the Gospel to be preached for the maximum glory of God. That's the ultimate reason for everything. It is for the glory of God that this be done. Ephesians 1:11-12 says, "In Him we're also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him, works out everything in conformity to the purpose of His will, in order that we who are the first to hope in Christ might be for the praise of His glory, that we might be, exist, for the praise of His glory and that we might praise His glory, that we might ourselves notice His glory.” So we will be glory, and we will see glory, and we'll praise Him for it. That's the reason why. Or again, in Romans 15:9, "That the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy." So those are four reasons why it is necessary for the Gospel to be preached. To whom should the Gospel be preached? What we've already said, to all nations. To all nations, the Greek is “panta ta ethne”. The word “ethne” is from which we get the word “ethnic”, and that's the key. We as Protestants, as Evangelicals, we have had a progressive, growing understanding of missions over the last 500 years. Little by little by little, we've understood more and more clearly our obligation in this matter. For the first three centuries, the church just exploded all over the Roman Empire. People were going everywhere preaching the gospel. Apostles, non-apostles, everybody, and it was spreading everywhere. It went as far north as Scotland, it went as far south as Sub-Saharan Africa. There's clear evidence of this. It went as far east as India. It went as far west as Tarshish, which is like Gibraltar. It was all over the place, and the Gospel was spreading. However, once the Dark Ages fell and politics wove together with some form of Christianity, Christendom came about. We had the Crusades, which are the most abhorrent misconstrued incident of mission that's ever been in history; we still paying the price. But there was this mixture of church and state, and it was a mess. To make matters worse, the Gospel itself, for the most part, was lost in a false “gospel of works" religion. The Dark Ages fell, but praise God, the Reformation came and scraped away all that darkness and the Gospel was reclaimed. The Gospel of justification by faith alone, apart from works of law, was shining in those Protestant churches, Lutheran churches, Calvinist churches, the Anabaptist churches. But those folks weren't doing missions initially. They were really just trying to survive. Missions, at that point, was done mostly by Roman Catholics through the Jesuits, who were spreading the power of the Pope and of their Catholic kings, like the King of Spain and the King of Portugal to distant places like Japan and other places. But they didn't bring the true Gospel with them. Meanwhile, the Protestants continued to establish doctrine and to reach their own countries, but not doing missions. But God worked in Protestant churches, little by little, a clearer understanding of our obligation concerning missions in four key steps. The first step, or insight, comes from William Carey. He was a Baptist, a cobbler, a blue collar guy, and he wrote an incredible work called An Inquiry into the Obligation Christians Have to Use Means for the Evangelization of the Missions to the Heathen. Heathen will be pagans or lost people. He was a trailblazer in Protestant missions. The insight is that we Protestants should do missions. We should go to distant lands and share the Gospel. Not just the Jesuits should do that, we should do it. That was step one. Step two came from a leader named Hudson Taylor. Hudson Taylor was a missionary to China. He went on his first missionary trip and just like most missionaries did in the mid-nineteenth century, he stayed on the coastlands such as Shanghai, port cities. He had a vision for the inland regions of China, teeming hundreds of millions of Chinese that had no hope of hearing the Gospel. He founded something called the China Inland Mission. So step number two is, we need to get off the coast and go into the dark heart of Africa, the dark heart of India and of China, and find people there who have no physical access to the Gospel. Step two, inland missions. Step three came from a leader at the end of the 19th century into the beginning of the 20th century named Cameron Townsend. He was a missionary in Latin America and South America. He was working with some tribal people, and they were doing all of their work in Spanish, the trade language. At one point, one of these tribal men said, "If your God is so smart, how come he doesn't speak my language?" Good question, right? Good question. So Cameron Townsend started a ministry called Wycliffe Bible Translators to get the Bible into the heart language of people all over the world, and that work continues to this very day. Insight number four came in the middle of the 20th century from a missionary leader named Donald McGavran, and he began to see that the issue wasn't reaching political nations, like nations that are represented at the United Nations. It had to do with understanding the word ethne as a people group, a group of people characterized by a language and a culture and a heritage and a self-identifying focus. And so that started the people group conception of the work. “Panta ta ethne” means to all people groups. Now, how many people groups are there in the world? No one knows, only God knows. It's very difficult to see lines of border and demarcation between people groups. Donald McGovern did his work in India, and there are probably at least 5,000 people groups, if not more, in India, but there's a lot of overlap. Joshuaproject.net, which you can go and check that out, they say 17,446. As an MIT engineer, I'm like, "I don't think there's that many significant figures." I would say roughly 18,000. or roughly 16,000. I don't think we can get down to 17,446. However, there's a lot. There's a lot of people groups. IMB has a smaller number of people groups. Then you go to the next level, which is “unreached people groups.” What are unreached people groups? It's defined as less than two percent evangelical in that nation. When I was a missionary to Japan, the Japanese were the largest unreached people group in the world, less than two percent evangelical. Since then, they've been superseded by another group. But that's a people group. That's what “unreached” means. “Unengaged,” another U is added, meaning, as far as the IMB knows, there is no effort to try to reach that people group. There's no one working on that, as far as they know. So you've got the UUPG, which is unengaged, unreached people groups. That's the focus. That's where the work should go. It is necessary for us to do that, for the church to do that. It is necessary for us to reach them with the Gospel. And this stands as a permanent command from our Lord and King Jesus Christ. "If you love Me, you'll keep my commandment." That's Mark 13:10, the command. III. A Prophecy in Matthew Look over at Matthew, where it comes across as a prophecy, or perhaps a promise. I'm okay with either one. Look what it says in Matthew 24:14, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as the testimony in all nations and then the end will come.” So prophecy, promise. What is Jesus saying there? "And this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as the testimony of all nations, and then the end will come." The preaching of the Gospel to every tribe, language, people, and the nation is as guaranteed as the end of the world is. They're equally guaranteed. It's going to happen. This is a remarkable assertion by Jesus, more remarkable than not one stone left on another. Picture Jesus on that tiny little rocky outcropping there in the Mount of Olives surrounded by a band of followers that were frequently off message. You know those guys. Surrounded by a very small number of people saying, "This thing that we're doing here is going worldwide, everyone on Earth will hear about this." All peoples on Earth, all peoples, all nations will hear. That's incredible. Effectively, then, “the Jewish conception of their own kingdom will end, the Messianic kingdom, and My kingdom will be established and will reign for all eternity." That's awesome. How does He know that? He knows it because He's God, but He also knows it because the Old Testament scripture predicted that this would happen. God willing, next week, we'll look at Isaiah 49, but in Luke 24, "This is what is written. The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day. And repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." It's going to happen. Which scriptures? Many. There are many scriptures. But I'm going to look at Isaiah 49 next week. Isaiah 49, 1 and 6, "Listen to me, you islands, hear this, you distant nations." Islands and nations, distant nations. God says to Jesus, "It is too small a thing for You to be my servant, to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make You," [Jesus] "a light for the Gentiles that you may bring My salvation to the ends of the Earth.” Jesus is actually not saying anything different than Isaiah the prophet said or that many other prophecies gave. Friends, this is a great encouragement. How does a team play if it's guaranteed, if they think they're absolutely going to win? They're going to play better than if they think they're going to lose. How does an army fight if they think ultimate victory is guaranteed? They fight better. We are going to win because Christ is going to win. This gospel is going to win. The task seems difficult. 3,150 unreached, unengaged, unreached people groups. None of them are easy to reach, or they would've been reached. They're in very difficult situations or places. I went through and thought about some of our units. If you guys don't know what the word “units” means, it means either a married couple, like a family or single. That's why we use the word units because some of them are single men and women, but sometimes family. We call them a mailing address or a group, a family unit. That's what we mean by it. I was reading about units in Turkey, 1.29 million practice Shia Islam. They speak North Levantine Arabic, a significant minority in Turkey. Their goal is to keep their Arabic culture alive in the secular Muslim state of Turkey and pass that on to their children and grandchildren. They mix elements of Sufism, which is Islamic mysticism and Shia Islam. Then we've got Thailand, where we have some units, I won't say their names, but they're there working, and there are people there that are following a certain flavor of Theravada Buddhism. Then in Bangladesh, overwhelmed with poverty, where we have another family unit there. People there are practicing Sunni Islam. They're tragically poor, and they're in darkness, in the grip of darkness. When we think about how difficult it is, and how long it takes to learn a language well enough to share the Gospel in it, and how long it takes to learn a culture, and how long it takes to make friendships, and then that whole journey, and then how long it takes to see one person cross over from darkness to light, that's the challenge in front of us. We need to be encouraged. Remember the lesson of the fig tree that we preached on a number of months ago? Mark 11:23-24, "Truly, I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he has said will happen, will be done for him. Therefore, I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." Mountain moving, faith-filled prayer is made for the Great Commission. That's the mountain that needs to be moved. Remember what I said about prayer at that time. Prayer is not you giving God an idea He didn't have before or persuading Him to do something He didn't want to do. That's not what prayer is. Prayer is you learning from Scripture what God is doing in the world and asking Him to do what He has decreed and ordained to do but hasn't done yet. That's what it is. God has decreed and ordained that people from every tribe and language and people and nation will be standing in those white robes around that throne. That's what He's decreed. It is encouraging to see the progress of the Gospel. Those other signs, wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, those don't mark anything. They're characteristics of every generation. But the progress of the Gospel, that's like a ticking clock to the end of the world. If you were to put dots on a map all over the world of what we would consider to be healthy Bible-believing, gospel-preaching churches in the year 1550, where would you put the dots? It would be almost all Central and North Europe, 1550. If you advance 50 years later, [1600] you would see more dots in those same areas, but still nowhere else. If you put dots where you had healthy Bible-believing, gospel-preaching churches in 1650, by then you would have to add some North American colonies, in Virginia, and New England, and other places, and more over Europe, but nowhere else [1650]. If you advance another 50 years, many more dots up and down the 13 colonies. Many more dots in Europe, and nowhere else. By 1750, by then you had the Great Awakening, lots of dots all over the 13 colonies that eventually became the United States of America. You have some dots in the Caribbean where some Moravian missionaries went and sold themselves into slavery to preach the Gospel to the slave population there. Then, of course, Central and North Europe, some in the Catholic areas in Europe as well, but nowhere else. By 1800, William Carey's in India. So you put a dot there. But all the rest, just more dots in those same areas. As the new country of the United States spreading westward, there's more dots there, et cetera. In 50 more years, unbelievable. The 19th century, called the great century of missions, and they started to explode. By this time you've got Hudson Taylor in the inland regions. You've got dots in China. You've got a lot more dots in India, definitely dots in Burma. Because by the time Adoniran Judson finished his work, there were 25,000 baptized Burmese Christians. Now in 1850 there are dots all over. And by this time you can start putting them in Sub-Saharan Africa and other places. Add another 50 years, 1900, the great century of missions has ended. You got churches all over Asia, Mongolia, India, Burma, South America, Sub-Saharan Africa. In 50 more years, post-World War II, you've got the Gospel spreading to the islands of South Pacific, Irian Jaya, and Papua New Guinea. Soldiers that had fought there then went back to some of those places with the Gospel. Remarkable. 50 years later, the year 2000, the map's covered with dots, the entire world map. There's not a political nation on earth that doesn't have a healthy church. Not one. All the nations, I don't know how many nations are in the United Nations,230 some odd, all of them have some healthy church planted. But still, you've got those unreached people groups. So big picture, I can't tell you this progression without smiling. We are winning, the Gospel's spreading. The Holy Spirit is good at His job. He puts a compulsion on people, and they go where He wants them to go, and they lay down their lives as He wants them to, and the Gospel spreads. But there's still work to be done. I'm not going to burden you with statistics, that would be hard to communicate. But there's been a kind of a flattening of mission endeavor over the last 10 or 15 years. It's a little discouraging as you look, and it's just a narrow window, but missionary thinker Ralph Winter said, "More of the same will not get it done.” The burden is laid on churches like us and many other churches around the world to recommit ourselves to missions, recommit ourselves to the work left to be done, and to give sacrificially as we are called to do. IV. Applications First and foremost, if you're here listening to this mission sermon, but you came in here not a Christian, your work is to believe in Jesus. No point in talking about missions if you're lost. First and foremost, you've heard the gospel: God, man, Christ, response. I'm calling on you while there's time, repent and believe in Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. If you're already a Christian, understand both the command in Mark 13 and the promise or the prophecy in Matthew 24. Take it seriously. This is the command laid on us, but rejoice in the sovereignty of Christ to get it done. Be confident in the final outcome. The Lord is going to win. He will be glorified. I'm looking forward to all eternity of hearing those stories. It's going to be phenomenal. Pray confidently in the spirit of Matthew 9 for more laborers, laborers in the harvest field. Churches like ours send out two precious commodities to the mission field: people and money. That's what IMB does. We gather people, and we gather money from Southern Baptist churches and point them strategically in directions. The Lottie Moon Christmas offering that we take every Christmas, our goal is $150,000. The Southern Baptist Convention exists in part for that. It was originated for that, and it's why we do. It's the crown jewel, I think, of our cooperation with Baptist churches all over the country. We pool resources to do a job too big for any one church to do. We couldn't afford to send very many fully-supported missionaries, just one church, to these various places. So we pool resources with thousands of churches. Truly, 100% of the money you give to Lottie Moon goes to missions. I was a trustee for nine years. What that means is we take more money in than Lottie Moon. It takes more money than Lottie Moon to put those missionaries on the field. I don't know how they tag dollars that go... Whatever, it gets pooled. The point is, the budget is bigger than the Lottie Moon offering. Where does the rest of the money come from? It comes from something called the Cooperative Program, where throughout the year, 12 months a year, we pool resources and a chunk of that goes to missions as well. A hundred percent of your giving goes, and our goal is $150,000. What I always say to you as a member of this church is engage, pray about your financial giving. We also have the opportunity through our home fellowships and through just your own initiative to get to know our friends that are serving overseas. We live in an iPhone or a smartphone world. You can contact them and be with them real-time. I FaceTime with these folks. You can find out what they're going through, support them, pray for them. I'm going to end this time now in prayer, and then we can get ready for the Lord's Supper. Father, thank You for the message that we have heard, the Gospel message of the Gospel going to the ends of the Earth and to the end of time. Now as we turn our hearts to the Lord's Supper, we thank You for the Word that we've heard and for the ordinance we're about to partake in. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Philip Augustus, King of France, faced off against an alliance that included the Holy Roman Emperor, the King of England, and the leading nobles of the Low Countries. In this episode of Bow & Blade, Michael and Kelly discuss this important battle and how it changes Western Europe. You can support this podcast and Medievalists.net on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/medievalists 

Rudolf II, the Holy Roman Emperor, was an obsessive collector — of art, of rare and expensive artifacts, of scientific equipment, of natural curiosities. (He claimed he had a siren's jaw and a phoenix feather.) But religious tension and foreign invasion was tearing his empire apart at the seams, and Rudolf's response was to retreat further into his own private world.Support Noble Blood:— Bonus episodes, stickers, and scripts on Patreon— Merch!— Order Dana's book, 'Anatomy: A Love Story' and its sequel 'Immortality: A Love Story'See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we discuss Martin Luther's theological breakthrough that set the stage for the Reformation. He did not set out to start a movement, but rather wanted to debate with integrity and honesty the malpractice of the Roman Catholic church. This desire led him down a path that pit him against the Catholic church, the Pope, and the Holy Roman Emperor himself. Luther's breakthrough reverberates through history until this day. Join us as we talk about his life, theology, and famous insults.  Website: thatllpreach.io Instagram: @thatllpreachpodcast Show Notes Luther's Reformation Breakthrough by Ryan Reeves The Real Difference Between Catholics and Protestants with Guillaume Bignon Still Protesting: Why the Reformation Still Matters by D.G. Hart Reformation as Renewal by Matthew Barrett

Sandwiched between two legendary Holy Roman Emperors -- his father, Frederick Barbarossa, and his son, Frederick II -- Henry VI, who was not legendary, and who died at the age of 31 (his dad died at 67 and his son at 55; lots more time to rack up legendary activities), nevertheless managed to acquire a nickname  -- "The Cruel" -- in large part because of his belief in the efficacy of torturing political opponents in public. Besides discussing Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, Anne explains how many Crusades there were and why Henry was all set to go off on Crusade #3 1/2 when he died, and Michelle is delighted to tell you ALL about that time when Henry didn't die, with the rest of the nobles at a meeting, when the floor broke and they all fell into the cesspit. Well, Henry didn't. He was either hanging onto a window or having a side meeting in another room. She's got a poem, too, written in Latin. But she reads it to you in English.

It is the cage match of the century! Who will win?  Pope Gregory VII vs King Henry IV.  Join us as we figure out just how this multi-excommunicated king finally becomes the Holy Roman Emperor.

This week Beau and Carl chat about the European wide conflict that was sparked by the death of a Holy Roman Emperor who left no male heirs; The War of the Austrian Succession. From Frederick the Great in Silesia, to the field of Culloden in Scotland, the balance of power in Europe was reworked yet again.

When we hear the word Renaissance, we normally think of 14th and 15th-century Europe. But this word was used for other times in history. The 9th century was another important time of discovery and learning - particularly at the court of the powerful Charlemagne, king of the Franks, later known as Holy Roman Emperor. How did he get that title? Did he really have a pet elephant and a favorite cheese shipped to his door from Italy? Join Lucy, Linus, and Mina as they travel back to Charlemagne's court to discover all this and more with the expert guidance of the Reverend Dr. Robert Evans, Chaplain at Radley College in Oxford, England. And don't miss a riddle presented by Alcuin, an important teacher at Charlemagne's court. Try answering it without looking it up! Here's the riddle: “Three there have been: one never born and once dead; another once born, never dead; the third once born and twice dead.”   Show notes https://www.placefortruth.org/blog/alcuin-of-york-%E2%80%93-more-than-a-scholar https://www.medievalists.net/2015/08/questions-and-answers-with-alcuin/ More puzzles by Alcuin (for older children) https://www.medievalists.net/2016/02/can-you-solve-alcuins-puzzles/

Full Text of ReadingsThursday of the Fourteenth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 386The Saint of the day is Saint HenrySaint Henry’s Story As German king and Holy Roman Emperor, Henry was a practical man of affairs. He was energetic in consolidating his rule. He crushed rebellions and feuds. On all sides he had to deal with drawn-out disputes so as to protect his frontiers. This involved him in a number of battles, especially in the south in Italy; he also helped Pope Benedict VIII quell disturbances in Rome. Always his ultimate purpose was to establish a stable peace in Europe. According to eleventh-century custom, Henry took advantage of his position and appointed as bishops men loyal to him. In his case, however, he avoided the pitfalls of this practice and actually fostered the reform of ecclesiastical and monastic life. He was canonized in 1146. Reflection All in all, this saint was a man of his times. From our standpoint, he may have been too quick to do battle and too ready to use power to accomplish reforms. But granted such limitations, he shows that holiness is possible in a busy secular life. It is in doing our job that we become saints. Click here for quotes from some of our favorite saints! Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media

Today on the Almanac, we remember the election of Charles V to the title of Holy Roman Emperor in 1519. — Show Notes: ·       Support the Podcast Network Fundraiser ·       1517 Podcasts ·       The 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts ·       1517 on Youtube What's New from 1517: ·       The New Quest for Paul and His Reading of the Old Testament by Timo Laato ·       Finding God in the Darkness: Hopeful Reflections from the Pits of Depression, Despair, and Disappointment by Bradley Gray More from the hosts: ·       Dan van Voorhis SHOW TRANSCRIPTS are available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac CONTACT: CHA@1517.org SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play FOLLOW US: Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (gillespie.media).

It's Wednesday, April 19th, A.D. 2023. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@theWorldview.com)   By Jonathan Clark India's hostility to Christianity The Supreme Court of India is hearing two cases on anti-conversion laws this month which target Christian evangelism. Peter Machado, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bangalore, brought one of the cases last week. He hopes the high court will require states with anti-conversion laws to disclose records of religious violations. Machado warned that locals use such laws to target Christians.  India's Supreme Court will hear another case next Saturday. A Hindu activist behind the case wants the government to bring anti-conversion laws to all 28 of India's states. Currently, 12 states have such laws.  India is ranked 11th on the Open Doors' World Watch List of nations where it is most difficult to be a Christian.  India to become most populated country In other news from India, the country is expected to overtake China as the most populous nation this month. Both countries have over 1.4 billion people. China has been the most populated country since at least 1950. However, India's population is younger and has a higher fertility rate. Meanwhile, China's population is aging under the effects of its previous one-child policy. India's demography is expected to give it significant economic potential in the years to come.    Disney's documentary on Pope which affirms homosexuality Disney released a new documentary earlier this month called “The Pope: Answers.” It features Pope Francis talking with ten young people from around the world about hot button issues. Notably, the Roman Catholic leader did not condemn sexually perverted lifestyles when asked about the subject. He said, “All persons are the children of God, all persons. God does not reject anybody. God is a father. And I have no right to expel anyone from the Church.” But, concerning those who practice sexual immorality, the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:5, “Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Disney rolls out Homosexual “Pride Nite” Speaking of Disney, the company's California-based amusement park, Disneyland, announced plans for its first “Pride Nite” on Monday. The announcement came hours after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called for new regulations on Disney's Florida-based amusement park, Disney World.  DeSantis has been working to end Disney's special self-governing status in the Sunshine State. The feud between DeSantis and Disney goes back to when the company opposed a Florida law that protects young children. The law bans teaching about sexually perverted lifestyles in early grades of public schools.  Governor Ron DeSantis signed the Heartbeat Protection Act Governor DeSantis has also been busy on the anti-abortion front this past week. Last Thursday, the Republican governor signed the Heartbeat Protection Act into law. The bill passed the Florida Senate on April 3 by a vote of 26-13. It then passed the House last week by a vote of 70-40. The law bans the killing of unborn babies once a heartbeat is detectable with some exceptions. A heartbeat can typically be detected around six weeks of pregnancy.  Anniversary of Martin Luther's stand against Pope Leo X And finally, this week is the anniversary of Martin Luther's appearance at the Diet of Worms in 1521.  The Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, called Luther to the assembly to give account for his views on reforming the church. A year earlier, the Roman Catholic Pope, Leo X, issued a Papal bull, condemning many of Luther's teachings. At the assembly on April 18th over 500 years ago, Luther was called upon to recant his so-called heresies. Listen to this exchange taken from the movie Luther. Charles V: “Will you recant or will you not?” LUTHER: “Unless I am convinced, by Scripture and by plain reason, and not by popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the Word of God.  To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me.” (courtroom erupts with affirmation) Such was the spirit of the Reformation into which Luther and many others would pour their lives. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Wednesday, April 19th in the year of our Lord 2023. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Margaret of Austria. In her life Margaret was the duchess of Savoy, regent for the Holy Roman Emperor, princess of Spain, *kinda* queen of France. So, yeah. She's kind of a big deal. Join us as we drink our Habsburg margaritas and get into this fascinating life. Story starts around 7:30 Doing dry January? So is Katy! So, make a mocktail with us with this mocktail-friendly tequila. Queens podcast is part of Airwave Media podcast network. Please contact sales@advertisecast.com if you would like to advertise on our podcast.Want more Queens? Head to our Patreon, check out our merch store and follow us on Instagram! Our awesome new intro music is thanks to @1touchproduction ! Some fun sources: https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2013/06/28/margaret-of-austria-duchess-of-savoy-and-regent-of-the-netherlands/ https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2015/04/10/juan-prince-of-asturias/ https://www.creativehistorian.co.uk/blog/read_185134/unlucky-princesses-margaret-of-austria.html https://hekint.org/2019/02/25/the-king-who-bumped-his-head/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices