|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Make sure to read Robert Spencer’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
With the Biden regime taking a wrecking ball to the foundations of the American Republic, there is definitely an apocalyptic vibe in the air these days. All is not lost, however; as the sage philosopher Yogi Berra noted long ago, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” If Americans want to prevent it from being over any time soon, we would do well to learn the lessons of the past and try to avoid making the same mistakes that other great nations of old made.
When we’re talking about the decline and fall of great nations, the Roman Empire immediately springs to mind, thanks to the eighteenth-century English historian Edward Gibbon’s bright and cheery classic, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the Roman Empire did not actually fall in 476, the date that history books and a Google search will give you.
As Empire of God: How the Byzantines Saved Civilization explains, the emperor Constantine the Great made Constantinople the principal capital of the Roman Empire early in the fourth century, and the Roman Empire endured there nearly a thousand years after the fall of its Western provinces, finally succumbing to the jihad warriors of the Ottoman Empire in 1453. While the Roman Empire in Constantinople is frequently referred to as “the Byzantine Empire,” the people who lived in it never referred to themselves as “Byzantines.” Whenever they were asked, they said that they were Romans. They considered themselves to be the living exponents of the civilization of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, which was, as far as they were concerned, the civilization that was practically synonymous with civilization itself.
Empire of God demonstrates that innumerable things that we take for granted today as part of our cultural and intellectual landscape would never have existed at all without the Byzantine Empire, that is, the Roman Empire in Constantinople. The West’s philosophical, political, artistic, architectural, and theological traditions, among a great deal more, germinated in Constantinople and its environs, although nowadays most Westerners have no idea what the Byzantines (a term I use so that you know who I mean, as opposed to the earlier stages of the Roman Empire in Italy) have given us.
It could, however, have lasted even longer. One of the tragedies that slowly unfolded throughout the history of the empire in Constantinople was the growing estrangement between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople, an estrangement that finally culminated in 1054 in the Great Schism between what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. But 1054 was neither the beginning nor the end of the story. The two Churches represented two theological traditions that ultimately grew so far apart that the gap was, or appeared to be, unbridgeable. After 1054, when the empire was increasingly imperiled, facing an existential threat from Islamic jihadis, emperors more than once appealed for help from the West, and more than once, that help was offered with strings attached that made it unacceptable to the Byzantines.
The deeper problem was that as a result of the schism, Western Europeans tended to see the Byzantines as alien, as rebellious schismatics instead of brother Christians who desperately needed help. And so when the help came, it often turned out to be a double-edged sword, as when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople and drove the emperor from the city in 1204. The emperor and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople even concluded a reunification of the Churches in Florence in the 1440s, on terms that were more submission than reunion; the help that came as a result, however, was too little and too late, and the empire finally fell in 1453.
What if the Europeans had seen the Byzantines as brothers, despite their differences, and offered help against their enemies with no strings attached? The Roman Empire might still exist today, and the world would be unimaginably different.
The lessons for our own day are obvious. Today, America faces existential threats, and many wonder once again if a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure. Yet as these threats escalate, we have disunity in the ranks of the patriots that makes the Great Schism seem like a playground argument. It is time to recall Benjamin Franklin’s sage counsel, “Let us hang together, or we will all hang separately.” Whether you love Trump or hate him, there is no time to lose: hanging day is drawing nearer.
Good article. I’ve always hated that Constantinople fell to the filthy Turks and I hate the conviction that America is about to fall from within even more. I actually have a lot to lose if the latter happens. Most of us do.
The whole world does, this is a western society issue and we all need to fight it together and for the first time in history we have the communication tools to do it.
It is well written, but sorry, I do think that this goes a bit too far in the other direction into whitewashing the Eastern Romans. Even as something of a classist and Romeaboo, because no true knowledge of the classics or Roman history can ignore the utterly brutal sectarian and partisan politics, civil wars, and religious intolerance that dominated much of Roman life and particularly metastasized during its later life.
I am not going to claim the Catholics or other Orthodox leaders were always honorable and friendly to Eastern Rome, they obviously are not. But they were far more friendly than this article would lead one to believe. The brutal reality is that the first response to the Byzantine request for help was enthusiastic, with Papal preaching causing the First Crusaders. When Constantinople fell the defenders did not just number Romano-Greeks but also Genoese, Venetians, Aragonese, Scandinavians, and Sicilians. Moreover, just years earlier an army of Catholic Crusaders sent to relieve Constantinople was destroyed at Varna in 1444 with the Polish King dying. And before that was Nicopolis the century before that.
And that is all the more remarkable given how badly the Byzantines often treated their Allies and co-religionists. Not always, but often. One major problem was how constantly Roman rulers would shaft the greater religious or civilizational cause for their own benefit, such as the refusal to support Saint-King Louis’s crusades (which was a contributing reason to their failures), and Armenian and Georgian alienation with their rule. Parades of Crusaders would head East intent on aiding the Romans only to be aggravated by real or perceived betrayals by Constantinople. And that’s notwithstanding pretenders and succession conflicts.
This is not to say that the Eastern Romans were always the bad guys and the Catholics the good guys. But neither was the inverse. And considering how consistently when push came to shove Catholic Europe was willing to march for Byzantium even until the end, I think it is very clear that the reasons for its downfall cannot just be attributed to “Y the Catholics not treat us like brothers?”
Leaving aside of course literal fratricide and whatnot.
You might read the Alexiad of Anna Comnena: the First Crusade attempted what the Fourth actually did — seizing Constantinople by force — and only went on to its ostensible purpose of freeing the Holy Land from the Saracens after that failed.
And (I write as a communicant of the Patriarchate of Antioch) it actually resulted in the schism: 1054 might have simply been one of those rows between Rome and Constantinople that had happened off and on for centuries, had it not been for the Crusaders forcibly replacing Orthodox bishops with Latin bishops. It was only from 1098 onward that Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Cyprus broke communion with Rome, as a result of the Latins proving they confessed a different faith by the act of replacing rightly consecrated bishops (under canon law one of the defining characteristics of schism).
Part 1
“You might read the Alexiad of Anna Comnena:”
I already have. More carefully than you have, judging by what you say later.
It’s a valuable source and quite an interesting yarn, and much of what it says is true. But it is still worth noting: This was a propaganda piece (as admittedly most chronicles of) from the same autocratic culture that exalted Octavian of the Proscriptions into Augustus, by a daughter meant to be a borderline hagiography of her father Alexios Komnenos. Moreover, Anna was not above twisting the truth in order to exalt her father, exalt herself (and not so subtly claim she should have been successor to the throne), diss opponents such as her family members, the “wrong” kind of Romans, and the “wrong” kind of Christians.
It’s kind of like uncritically accepting everything Julius Caesar said in his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, only worse because we have contrary evidence.
” the First Crusade attempted what the Fourth actually did — seizing Constantinople by force — and only went on to its ostensible purpose of freeing the Holy Land from the Saracens after that failed.”
This is abject balderdash. How do we know it is abject balderdash? Simple. Logistics mixed with other reports. For starters, while I have VERY LITTLE Good to say about Peter the Hermit and his violent group of rabble in the Botched Prologue to the First Crusade (including violent looting up to Constantinople’s walls and various robberies and incidents inside) there was no attempt by them to seize the city (though to be fair they probably would never have been able to seize it). Moreover, had the semi-professional crusading armies that followed the “Peoples’ Crusade” wanted to seize Constantinople they almost certainly would have coordinated this with their Italian maritime allies (You know, EXACTLY LIKE THEY DID in what led to the redirection of the Fourth Crusade into two conquests of Constantinople). But we have jack all evidence from that, especially since the Italian annalists were among the most literate and best record keepers in the Med World (especially notable since they could be highly insightful sources, and both praising and damning of the Later Romans).
Part 2
But it’s worth noting that even among the Normans (who were old enemies and rivals of the Later Romans in Southern Italy and Greece) there’s no concrete evidence that things like Bohemond planned to seize the city in some kind of escalade or crusade. And in any case the Papacy remained stalwartly opposed to any such mischief much as they condemned the conquest of Constantinople by Crusaders in 1204.
Now, let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way.. Were the crusaders particularly good guests? No, no they were not. While we have no concrete reason to believe the Normans (let alone any other contingent) tried to seize the city there is ample evidence that there was quite a lot of pillaging, forced requisitioning, and general screwiness. But that’s hardly out of the norm in militaries in general and Alexios would well know it from his time as Yet Another Roman General. That doesn’t change the fact that the Pope had no interest in conquering Constantinople and made that intention very clear throughout the Catholic realm.
“And (I write as a communicant of the Patriarchate of Antioch) it actually resulted in the schism: ”
Not really no. Firstly: The Great Schism had happened about a generation (if not two) prior, with the climatic mutual excommunications in 1054. And if we’re talking about other Christian schisms many had been happening earlier (and I note Roman imperial inflexibility such as with the Nestorians, Armenians, and Egyptians had worsened that).
Secondly: Papacy was one of the great RESTRAINING Forces on the armies of the First Crusade (and in general most of the Crusades fighting in the Med), but one of the driving forces in the theological conflicts between the Papacy and the Patriarchate that led to the Schism.
Part 3
“1054 might have simply been one of those rows between Rome and Constantinople that had happened off and on for centuries, had it not been for the Crusaders forcibly replacing Orthodox bishops with Latin bishops. ”
Please check a calender.
1054 happened in… well… 1054. Alexios would not even be BORN until 1057, and would only seize power in 1081. That alone should tell you how deluded, ignorant, and wrongheaded this reading is. But just in case…
Pope Urban II would not be anointed Pope until 1088, the Council of Piacenza leading to the Roman request for help and the Catholic call for Crusade would not happen until 1095, and the various Crusades generally got underway either that year or the following one in 1096.
This is quite literally like claiming WWII led to WWI. It is getting causality and basic chronology backwards. It is quite literally false on its face, no matter what interpretation you go with, and it is noting that Anna (biased and wrong as she periodically was) does not make any such claim.
Part 4
“It was only from 1098 onward that Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Cyprus broke communion with Rome, as a result of the Latins proving they confessed a different faith by the act of replacing rightly consecrated bishops (under canon law one of the defining characteristics of schism).”
But by that was a trailing effect rather than a leading one. 1054 was the watershed moment in the Great Schism, and once the mutual excommunication took place it underlined how provably and concessionally different the two branches were and their fundamental disagreements on what a “rightly consecrated bishop” or what “canon law” was. And notably, this was not the first time. 1054 is just the most infamous and far-reaching (and for good reason) but both Rome and Constantinople had their church authorities do similar BS within their own spheres (as the Nestorians and Armenians on one hand and the Avignon v. Rome conflict in the Great Western Schism can attest).
What’s more remarkable is that IN SPITE OF ALL THIS the Popes (while not exactly being BFFs with either Emperor of the Romans or the Patriarch) generally continued to support a diplomatic resolution to the Schism such as the Union of Florence, and above all continued supporting crusades to relieve Constantinople centuries later past 1453. That’s something you don’t address at all, probably because you can’t given how remarkable the quality and consistency of our sources on that is, and how you can’t use “But Anna Said!” to ignore Nicopolis and Varna. And I say this as a Protestant who has a list of problems with the Papacy even longer than Martin Luther’s. Believe me, I can rant plenty about the Papacy and Latin Catholic Christianity’s faults and the systematic and individual reasons it or at least its practitioners either caused or worsened the schism too.
But your response and this article use “But What if the Catholics were Nicer to us!” as a cop out to avoid examining the deeper problems with Eastern Rome and the Patriarchate.
Since most of my comments in response to you are in moderation hell, here is a TL:DR of the many points.
A: I’ve already read the Alexiad, and I recognize it as a valuable historical source. However, I also recognize it for what it is: Imperial, Dynastic, and Personal propaganda by Anna in order to exalt her father and herself, diss on opponents such as non-Christians, the “wrong kind” of Christians (such as Catholics, Armenians, and so on), and people her family and herself had issues with (including in some cases her siblings).
It is not at all to be taken uncritically any more than any other source, especially an expressly political one designed to borderline hagiography a Roman Emperor and some of his children.
B: Anna provides no concrete evidence whatsoever that the Normans (who were competitors with the Eastern Romans for power and prestige) were planning to seize Constantinople. We also have vast contrary evidence from sources like the Vatican and the Italian city states providing naval support against this, given the complete lack of support for such a move to them (unlike in 1204, where the Venetians masterminded it. And in any case we have no reason to believe that Urban II would have supported such a plan if it did exist.
This is not to say the First Crusaders were terribly good guests. They weren’t, with looting, sectarian conflicts, and forced requisitions. But that’s being a pre-modern military, not necessarily planning to stage a coup.
C: Blaming the First Crusade for 1054 or the Great Schism is quite literally getting it backwards, sort of like claiming that WWII caused WWI. While it is true that many other parts did not suspend communion with Rome until 1098 or even later, this was a trailing effect considering the mounting decades (if not centuries) of tensions as well as how 1054 marked an indication of how deeply divided the camps were on what “canon law” and “rightfully consecrated” even meant. The strains of the First Crusade worsened and exposed some of that, but they did not fundamentally change the main fault lines.
D: Absolutely nothing you mention addresses the points I made after, such as the people who went down fighting at Nicopolis, Varna, and Constantinople while confessing loyalty to the Bishop of Rome, who for all of their MANY flaws were generally consistent in denouncing Crusader excesses against the Eastern Church, favoring diplomacy for the schism, and crusades to support the East.
There is always so much Balkanization and petty self interest displayed in feudal societies. Seeing the bigger picture and uniting is more of an improbability.
Didn’t the fall of Constantinople involve one of the more senseless, disgusting and brutal betrayals in history? An Italian Duke who choose not to supply the city and fight because of some petty reason like he wanted more credit and glory, hurt pride or felt he could make a bit more money if he delayed, so he sailed away.
And the key was tech,. Once they got the giant cannon to knock the walls down it was indefensible.
“There is always so much Balkanization and petty self interest displayed in feudal societies. Seeing the bigger picture and uniting is more of an improbability.”
Agreed. It’s frankly a miracle that the various sides and people did that as well as they did.
“Didn’t the fall of Constantinople involve one of the more senseless, disgusting and brutal betrayals in history?”
Maybe, but I guess a question is “which fall?” 1204 certainly did.
“An Italian Duke who choose not to supply the city and fight because of some petty reason like he wanted more credit and glory, hurt pride or felt he could make a bit more money if he delayed, so he sailed away.”
I suppose that’s possible, though I haven’t heard of it. I do know a few of the Italian (IIRC mostly Venetian, but will need to check) ships swore to defend the city and then sailed away in the dead of night, leaving both the city and their co-nationals to fight and mostly die.
“And the key was tech,. Once they got the giant cannon to knock the walls down it was indefensible.”
I wouldn’t be so sure. The cannons were less effective than is often portrayed and the capture largely hinged on seizing a few underdefended doors. Defending the city would’ve been mind-bogglingly difficult but far from impossible.
I find it interesting and maddening, Roman made conidiations so unacceptable for Constantinople to accept. Knowing how cruel the Muslims were; Roman should have been there with no strings attached.
Empire of God is a great read. It seems much of Gibbon’s loathing of the “Byzantines” and criticism of the western empire stemmed from his personal bias. Antisemitism and its cousin, AntiChristianism are not new to Britain.
1453…1492….
Exactly…and what did the Europeans do after the the Reconquista of Iberia….chase out the Jews, forcibly convert, and establish an inquisition mostly for the newly converted….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Jews_from_Spain
it was the Ottoman Turks under Sultan Bayezid II who helped save many of them and Bring them to Istanbul and allowed them to settle in the whole Empire..
As for the rump “Roman” state cornered in Constantinople, even if it had survived, it offered no value to western Europe having lost it’s technology and know how to even mint proper coins….let alone things like “Greek fire”. The Turks and Western Europe was already more “advanced” than the last of the Greek Speaking “Romans”, at least in terms of Military science.
The last part of the Greek ( “Eastern Roman Empire”) to fall was actually the “Principality of Theodoro” in 1474. Other than the leaders who were executed, and their children enslaved,. the rest of the surviving Greek speaking population was left to live under the Ottomans.
Constantinople was the Capital of the Catholic faith, now Istanbul is in an islamic country.
Afghanistan was once a Buddhist Nation, now rule by madmen of the islamic faith.
London was once a vibrate wonderful City, now ruled by a wee moron that celebrates islam more than Christianity.
Scotland was once a land of free thinking scholars, now ruled by a wee prick that denigrates the Israeli Army for hunting down the cowards that raped and beheaded young girls dancing at a Music Festival.
Anybody see a pattern here, or would that be thought of as a racist question?…
Planet Earth appears to have shifted slightly off its Axis and the Scientists dont want to inform us of such as it may cause massive panic.
Hindsight in History is always looked upon as .. ”What if”.
So what if mohamad, may piss be upon him, didn’t envision a fallen angel in a cave when he was stoned on Hashish or Opium…. We would have a better world today…
However I fear we have gone down the river of no return.
“With the Biden regime taking a wrecking ball to the foundations of the American Republic…”
New Rule: Stop the Spiel | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)