I see - so when the lectures say Christians, they mean Catholics. Non-Catholic christians didn't exist until after the crusades. Something else to learn about someday....

For the Crusades, yes, “Christians” meant Roman Catholics.

In reality, there was always some schism or another.

Copts and the Abyssinian and Eastern Churches were early, permanent, splits.

I’m not sure which church was the early one in India. The Nestorian? Church I think I was the early one in Asia. (The Apostles went out into the world. I think James went to Ethiopia, and Thomas to India. Not sure.)

And the Roman Catholic Church of the era had armies, sacked cities, popes who were depicted as being damned by Dante, committed all of the same sins the aristocracy did, etc etc etc.

It was something very different than the Roman church which came out of the Reformation. (FYI, it was called the “Reformation” because the initial goal was to restore Rome, not destroy it.)

"Catholic" means "universal" (from old Greek) and is, unsurprisingly, a self-designation to set the "real" Church apart from all the splitters and heretics. What became known as today"s major Christian denomination emerged from a series of councils where clergymen from all over Christendom gathered to discuss what parts of scripture and teachings should be canonical after the faith had spread over parts of Europe, Asia and Africa for the first couple hundred years and developed some rather different doctrines. There were seven major ones between 325 AD, shortly after Roman emperor Constantin had (maybe, some would argue) converted to Christianity and made it legal, then privileged it, and 787.

In 1054 there was the Great Schism between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (also from old Greek: the right/correct opinion, i. e. everything that was agreed before that date). Also refered to as the split between the "Latin" Church under the Pope in Rome, and the "Greek" Church with its more decentralized regional organisation, though the Patriarch of Constantinople is commonly considered as primus inter pares among its leaders. However, there are also some older orthodox churches outside the Greek-Byzantine circle, like the orientals who split off after the Councils of Ephesos (431) and Chalcedon (451), and the Assyrians who parted ways in 424. Then there are the Eastern Catholic churches who are close to orthodox rites, but recognize the Pope as their spiritual leader.

It's complicated, even before we come to early heresies like the Gnostics, which survive in small numbers like in the Mandeans of Iraq.

Thanks. I feel I'm starting to drink from the fire hose now. Lots of information leading in different directions.

Complicated is a gross understatement especially for the uninitiated. What a box I've opened for myself.

quote:

"Catholic" means "universal" (from old Greek) and is, unsurprisingly, a self-designation to set the "real" Church apart from all the splitters and heretics. What became known as today"s major Christian denomination emerged from a series of councils where clergymen from all over Christendom gathered to discuss what parts of scripture and teachings should be canonical after the faith had spread over parts of Europe, Asia and Africa for the first couple hundred years and developed some rather different doctrines. There were seven major ones between 325 AD, shortly after Roman emperor Constantin had (maybe, some would argue) converted to Christianity and made it legal, then privileged it, and 787.

Yes. I'm a Catholic and I believe in the universal church. I'm also ecumenical in the hope that one day the various schisms and factions can reconcile and reunite.

The Church was instituted by Christ, but corrupted over time by the men who run it. Just remember, all men are sinful, some more so than others.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

"Catholic" means "universal" (from old Greek) and is, unsurprisingly, a self-designation to set the "real" Church apart from all the splitters and heretics. What became known as today"s major Christian denomination emerged from a series of councils where clergymen from all over Christendom gathered to discuss what parts of scripture and teachings should be canonical after the faith had spread over parts of Europe, Asia and Africa for the first couple hundred years and developed some rather different doctrines. There were seven major ones between 325 AD, shortly after Roman emperor Constantin had (maybe, some would argue) converted to Christianity and made it legal, then privileged it, and 787.

Yes. I'm a Catholic and I believe in the universal church. I'm also ecumenical in the hope that one day the various schisms and factions can reconcile and reunite.

The Church was instituted by Christ, but corrupted over time by the men who run it. Just remember, all men are sinful, some more so than others.

I believe one day the pure in heart will unite under Christ too. I think it is already happening as the division among the population evolves to choosing righteousness or evil.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
I don't really know who the vikings were other than I believe they are people from the northern europe region (scandinavia region?).

The Vikings are an early branch off the Germanic-tree. Europe generally is comprised of three major ethnic-linguistic groups: Germanic (basically the regions North of the Alps), the Latins/Romantic (those areas South of the Alps) and the Slavs (the areas East of the Alps); there are exceptions such as Celts, Greeks, Basque & Finns but that's a pretty general layout of who's who in Europe.

quote:

Don't know who the Slavs are.

Slavs are the people who occupied the areas from Poland Southward into the Balkans, and everything East to the Ural mountains. The Western Slavs are the Czechs, Poles and Slovaks, the Southern Slavs are Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Macedonians with the Bulgars being distant genetic relatives and the Eastern Slavs are Russian, Ukraine, & Belarusian. Religious wise is where you see the devisions how the wars came about, the Western Slavs were largely Catholic, Eastern Slavs were Orthodox and the Southern Slavs a mix of both Christian denominations and Islam which was a result of the Ottoman invasions. The Northern countries of Croatia & Slovenia are Catholic, Serbia and North Macedonia are Orthodox and Bosnia-Herzogovena, Kosovo, and Albania majority Muslim.

quote:

It sounds like Byzantines are actually a mix of various ethnicities (but largely Turks) and just grouped as people under a common government.

Sortof...the Eastern Roman Empire or, Byzantines were a very mixed society. Rome as well as earlier societies of antiquity all along the Mediterranean were pretty cosmopolitan, lots of trade resulted in the intermingling with peoples from all around. Keep in mind, that the Byzantines were largely Greek in culture. The Greeks & their culture held sway over a large chunk of the Eastern Mediterranean as their influence was felt far and wide. From the early Greek settlements that stretched all around the Black Sea and Eastern Med, to the areas of Alexander's conquests, Hellenism was the dominant culture and many of the outlying ethnic groups learned to assimilate to survive. Rome admired the Greeks, emulating and copying them endlessly, as early Christian liturgy and doctrine was in Greek, many of those early Greek settlements evolved to become major ports & cities under Rome, however they all retained their Greek language & culture.

The Turks are a recent migratory group that arrived from Central Asia as they were enslaved and driven by both the Mongols and Islamic forces. Influenced by past Persian empires, their different groups formed a confederation and later a more solidified group to become the Seljuk Empire conquering all of the Middle East and expanding their holdings throughout all of Asia Minor/Anatolia with the exception of Constantinople. The Byzantines weakened over the centuries lost all the Christian lands like Jerusalem to the Seljuks, hence the successive Islamic Caliphates which ruled the areas around the Holy Land.

Thanks, that's helpful.

I'm a little uncertain how we still maintain distinct ethnicities with all the conquering and mixing over the hundreds and thousands of years. It seems today that an ethnicity would be more about place of birth.

Interesting stuff.

Keep in mind that "viking" was an occupation... Not an ethnicity/ancestry.

(And even then, viking was typically a part time summer job.)

While it's generally associated in a broad sense with the Germanic/Norse peoples of Scandinavia, most Scandinavians of that period were not seafaring raiders, and not all seafaring raiders in Europe at the time were Scandinavian.


Referring to "the Vikings" as a people is similar to referring to Farmers or Bartenders as a people. If you asked someone to trace their lineage back several generations, you wouldn't expect them to reply that they discovered they're a quarter Spanish, a quarter Pirate, and half Accountant.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Keep in mind that "viking" was an occupation... Not an ethnicity/ancestry.

Really? I did not know that. Thanks.

Trivia: in Japan, "viking style" meal means a buffet. Not sure why....

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Keep in mind that "viking" was an occupation... Not an ethnicity/ancestry.


Referring to "the Vikings" as a people is similar to referring to Farmers or Bartenders as a people. If you asked someone to trace their lineage back several generations, you wouldn't expect them to reply that they discovered they're a quarter Spanish, a quarter Pirate, and half Accountant.

I was speaking in generalities but you're correct, I should've pointed out that Scandinavian's are a branch from the Germanic-tree, to which the majority of 'Viking' raiders/settlers/migrants were of Scandinavian descent. To which that brings up an interesting question, are the Jutes and Angles considered Germanic or, more precisely Scandinavian? They were originally from present day Denmark but, migrated to the Eastern shore of present day England.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
To which that brings up an interesting question, are the Jutes and Angles considered Germanic

Yep.

quote:

or, more precisely Scandinavian?

Kinda, but not really. The Jutes and Angles that migrated to England from the area of modern day Denmark, Holland, and northern Germany left a few hundred years before the later Norse peoples came to fully dominate the area that we now know as Scandinavia, and who we associate with Scandinavian culture. (Which itself is a broad ethnic/cultural group that initially consisted of a number of individual distinct northern Germanic tribes like Danes, Geats, Swedes, etc.)

The depth of knowledge here on Sigforum, including Corsair and RogueJSK, never ceases to amaze me.

quote:

The depth of knowledge here on Sigforum, including Corsair and RogueJSK, never ceases to amaze me.

I have neither breadth nor depth of knowledge, be it vocational or avocational.

Many here have breadth and/or depth. Not sure if it's vocational or avocational. Either way, it is enviable.

I'm still watching the lecture series but it's covered crusades #1-8.

I thought that the crusades we a singular event, religious and successful. I may be oversimplifying and incorrectly understanding, but it seems it was actually a series of events / undertakings that weren't necessarily religious in nature and was largely or wholly unsuccessful. At least the Eastern crusades.

Still many lectures to come covering things after the 8th crusade. But other than the intra Spain crusade, the crusades aren't coming across as something that was beneficial to the west.

It is a fascinating journey, history. But take some time to smell the roses eventually. Of course study events, conflicts, migration and how nature disasters and climate moved humanity, but take time on occasion to study the individual. Those are the roses along the way. Why did Hannibal hate Rome? ‘Why’ is the flavor of whom. Why was Caligula terrible and why did he build the Nemi ships. What happened to them? Where are they now? Who built the Colossus of Rhodes and why? Where is it now? Who were the characters in the Punic wars? The voyage through this period and before is potentially life long.

Sometimes I go to cemeteries and read the headstones of strangers. I do the math of their lifespan and superimpose history over it to get a glance at what their lifespan must have been like. I know. It’s weird. But I get a connection to people who lived and died, many times, before I was born. I see puzzle pieces assemble under my feet. This grave is mom, these tiny graves are her children who passed as infants. These two graves are twins. One died at two months and the other lived a full life and was buried next to his brother at the end. These are the roses.

It history, yes. But more importantly, it’s human history. And we are all brothers and sisters that way.

The "why"... why did some Norse go viking?

Well, you stay locked up all winter in one house with the extended family and farm animals. Tell me you're not ready to go kill somebody when you get out of the house!

I stumbled across Dr Bill Warner years ago who seems to be very knowledgeable on Islam and the crusades.

https://youtu.be/I_To-cV94Bo?si=K_k62lJtAducTgEv