Strayer 10, Christendom

18/10/2014

Something old, Byzantium as the new iteration of the Roman Empire, something new, Russia; something borrowed, Orthodox Christianity; Something blue, er. um, Germanic faces! (You know, like Braveheart)

Make it happen folks, I'm praying for your salvation.

37 Comments

Bingham

18/10/2014 04:14:50

Lauren was asking about this idea specifically in class. Green, in his new series does a nice job not only of explaining historiography, but also just what we mean by "the West."

http://youtu.be/nosJVTuCHFk?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNjasccl-WajpONGX3zoY4M

James O.

18/10/2014 06:30:14

Hey guys. Had a quick question concerning Kievan Rus. It is my understanding that this fledgling civilization became largely associated with Eastern Orthodoxy/Byzantium, who disliked the veneration of icons (were iconoclasts). Why is it then, that Strayer says one of the characteristics Kievan Rus adopted from Eastern Orthodoxy was a strong veneration of icons when they clearly disapproved of the practice?

Adele

21/10/2014 11:26:23

Bingham explained in 8th period today that their views towards veneration of icons shifted, and so did the Roman Catholiscism views. Eastern Orthodoxy came to have a strong veneration of icons. The photo above is actually Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Cartholic

Adele

21/10/2014 11:28:09

Just realized Bingham answered below. Disregard the post above.

James O.

18/10/2014 06:33:55

Also had a quick question on one other thing. What does Strayer mean when he references "the reunification of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres after 1500" in the intro paragraph before the section on Western Christendom:Constructing A Hybrid Civilization? Were they separate at one point or am I missing something obvious?

Bingham

18/10/2014 09:00:51

James. You need to read carefully. Iconography as it's called, was a facet of byzantine eastern orthodoxy, but it became controversial within the society, and a criticism from Roman catholicism. It persisted in Russia.

Strayer is using the term "reunification" to highlight the anthropological fact that the "discovery" of the "new world" was in fact a reuniting of a species that had left Africa and then developed independently. Get it?

James O.

18/10/2014 09:24:32

Yes! Thank you!

Lorenz

18/10/2014 14:02:54

Hey Mr. Bingham, for deBlij, you gave us a reading strategy that was something like, highlight the Evidence, Commentary, and Main Idea? Is that right, or am I excluding something?

Bingham

18/10/2014 14:35:54

Pretty much. Find the assertion in the para (gist). Then the specific evidence that supports it. Then the analysis, i.e. the significance or the "so what?"

Lorenz

19/10/2014 00:47:21

Ok, I think I get it. Thank you Mr. Bingham.

Isabella Jarosz

19/10/2014 07:06:20

Here's my stab at MQ2: How did Eastern Orthodoxy differ from Roman Catholicism? Even though it's not what the question is asking, I also included the similarities I got between the two here, in case we get a question that requires both sims and diffs. Let me know if I'm missing something.
DIFFERENCES:
Eastern Orthodoxy
-emperor assumed role as head of state and head of church; church treated as government department: appointed emperor as patriarch of church, who sometimes made decisions about doctrine, called councils into session, and generally treated the church as a government department
-Latin abandoned for Greek, which remained the basis for Byzantine education
-sought to formulate Christian doctrine in terms of Greek philosophical concepts
-icons in Church: too easily become "idols", distracting from the adoration of God himself; participated in iconoclasm
-allowed to have beards and permitted to marry
-bread leavened with yeast
-leaders sharply rejected the growing claims of Roman popes to be the sole and final authority for all Christians everywhere

Roman Catholicism:
-some degree of independence from political authorities
-Latin was language of the church and of elite communication
-disagreements w/ Eastern Orthodox about the nature of the Trinity, and the relative importance of faith and reason
-iconoclasm was highly offensive; icons actively worshipped and adored
-priests shaved and were supposed to remain celibate
-used unleavened bread
-believed that Roman popes should be the sole/final authority for Christians everywhere
-tried to maintain links to classical world, as illustrated by the spread of Christianity, use of Latin among elites, and various efforts to rebuild the Roman Empire

SIMILARITIES:
-both derived from Christianity in the Roman Empire
-followed teachings of Jesus
-church hierarchy of patriarchs
-followed the Bible
-bishops and priests were authority figures
-belief in the Holy Sacraments
-missionary impulse
-intolerance towards other religion, especially expressed in their common fear of Islam
-belief that the other (i.e. Roman belief of Orthodox, and vice versa) was not a true Christian

Isabella Jarosz

19/10/2014 07:07:55

Also, if anyone answered MQ1 (In what respects did Byzantium continue the patterns of the classic Roman Empire? In what ways did it diverge from those patterns?) or the MQ: How did the historical development of the European West differ from that of Byzantium in the postclassical era?, could you please post those on here? I'm having some difficulty with them. Thanks.

Allie Elkhadem

19/10/2014 07:30:23

I also struggled with MQ5 (How did the historical development of the European west differ from that of Byzantium?) but here's my answer.

- The RCC had greater independence from the state compared to the EOC of Byzantium
- The west was more rural while Byzantium was more urbanized
- the social organization of the West was sharply divided between the superiors and the subordinates. In Byzantium there was not as sharp of distinctions (were there even any serfs in Byzantium?); Byzantium was more stable than Western Europe
- There was less trade in the West while trade flourished in Byzantium
- There was no centralized state in the West while Byzantium was extremely centralized

Isabella Jarosz

19/10/2014 07:38:40

Thanks!

Bingham

19/10/2014 08:28:22

Yeah, looks good.

Bethany

20/10/2014 15:19:32

For this question, do we need to mention how Western Europe and Byzantium switched roles? How Western Europe started to flourish as time went on, while Byzantium declined?

IsaJ

19/10/2014 07:38:08

Also MQ6: What replaced the Roman order in Western Europe?

Allie

19/10/2014 08:03:55

Here's what I got for this one.
- A series of regional kingdoms arose replacing Roman authority (no centralized government)
- However, some Germanic rulers did try to create political unity
- Serfdom replaced Roman slavery
- Roman social structures where replaced with warrior elites and vassals and serfs
- Church and nobles reinforced each other while still competing for power

Allie

19/10/2014 08:05:16

Also Germanic rulers did embrace Roman ideas like laws and fines

Allie

19/10/2014 07:17:45

Okay here are some of my answers to some margin questions. Please comment anything you think I'm missing.

1. In what respects did Byzantium continue the patterns of the classical Roman empire? In what ways did it diverge from those patterns?

Continuity
- roads
- taxation systems
- military structures
- centralized authority
- imperial court
- laws
- christian church
- struggle with persian empire

Change
- much smaller territory
- reformed administrative system with generals having more regional authority in provinces
- combination of church and state

2. How did Eastern Orthodoxy Christianity differ from Roman Catholicism?
- R.C.C was more independent from political authorities; E.O.C was tied to the state
- Latin remained the primary language of the RCC while Greek replaced Latin in EOC
- Byzantine thinkers (EOC) thought about Christianity with classic Greek philosophy in mind and this didn't occur in RCC
- RCC & EOC disagreed about important ideas like icons and the trinity
- EOC priests/leaders could get married while RCC priests were celibate
- unleavened bread (RCC) vs. leavened bread (EOC) (is this important enough to answer this question?)
- EOC did not believe that the pope was the sole authority while the Catholics did

7. In what ways was European civilization changing after 1000?
- change was caused by lack of invasion and warmer climate
- increased population growth
- more active changing of the environment: cutting down more trees, draining marshes, more areas for cultivation
- increased long distance trade especially with Byzantium and Islam
- urbanization expanding with populations of towns and cities growing
- towns attracted new groups of people
- women lost urban work roles in 15th century that they had gained between the 11th and 13th centuries
- religious life provided new possibilities for women (religion provided some education and freedom)
- growth of territorial states with more effective governments that had obedient subjects. Monarchs began to consolidate their authority

Elizabeth

19/10/2014 07:56:01

It looks good, but I would have added that some of the new groups of people organized themselves into (occupationally based) guilds, introducing a new and more productive division of labor into European society and that technological progress, such as the invention of wind and animal- powered grain mills, may have contributed to the decline of opportunities for women.

Elizabeth

19/10/2014 08:14:51

Here's what I have for MQ6) What replaced Roman order in Western Europe?
•A series of regional kingdoms, led by Germanic peoples who had already been substantially Romanized, arose to replace Roman authority
•The warrior elite of landowning lords exercised political, social, and economic authority; lesser lords and knights swore allegiance to greater lords or kings and became their vassals, frequently receiving land and booty in exchange for military service
•At the bottom of the social hierarchy, Roman-style slavery was gradually replaced by serfdom
•Serfs had the most secure lives because in this unstable society without Roman authority, ties to kin, manor, and lord constituted primary human loyalties
•The Roman Catholic Church took over some of the empire’s political, administrational, educational, and welfare functions instead of being separated from state authority

Bingham

19/10/2014 08:34:09

I'll do a big Pic fo ya;

How did Byzantium and Western Europe interact with each other and with the larger world of the postclassical era?

Byzantium and Western Europe interacted frequently; for instance, in the 500s C.E., the Byzantine emperor Justinian succeeded in conquering parts of Western Europe in his effort to reconstitute the Roman Empire.

The two societies were both Christian, which led to frequent interactions, disputes, and ultimately a schism between the two confessions (you know, confessions of faith? Christians, help me out here. Huh?).

The revival of Western Europe after 1000 C.E. brought it into a closer trade relationship with Byzantium.

The crusading movement in Western Europe inspired hundreds of thousands of Western Europeans to travel to the eastern Mediterranean and even led to the sack of Constantinople by Crusaders in 1204 C.E.

In terms of the wider world, Byzantium and Western Europe were both part of the Eurasian long-distance trade network. Byzantium participated actively throughout the period, while Western Europe did so increasingly after 1000 C.E (not so much before).

Both interacted with the Islamic world through military conflict, trade, and the exchange of ideas.

Both had a profound impact on Eastern Europe, especially through their promotion of rival versions of the Christian faith.

Allie

19/10/2014 09:45:45

Confessions of faith are statements about essential religious doctrines. Is that correct?

Bingham

19/10/2014 10:52:18

Yep, that's the idea - sort of a verbal or written confirmation of the doctrine.

Allie

19/10/2014 08:51:11

On page 292 in the yellow book (under the section pluralism in politics), Strayer states that the multicentered political system " drove the 'gunpowder revolution'". What is the gunpowder revolution? I looked it up online and confused myself? Can someone please explain this to me?

Bingham

19/10/2014 11:00:57

It will become clear later, but short version: competing states in Western Europe led to frequent warfare, warfare led to a strong demand for militarily advantageous technologies, Chinese gun powder was showing up on the trade routes, but not really in a weaponized form (more like fireworks) but a fusion of iron bell casting technology common in Christian Europe led to the "invention" of the cannon. Thus the "gunpowder revolution". Somewhat ironically, we'll talk later about three "gun powder" empires. Empires built on the military advantage of gun powder; the irony is that they were all Islamic! Eventually however, this technology will become part of the story of the "rise of Europe" on the world stage.

Allie

19/10/2014 10:36:49

BP #5: How did the history of the Christian world in the postclassical era compare with that of Tang & Song dynasty in China?

1. Christianity provided a measure of central commonality for the diverse societies of western Eurasia, much as Chinese civilization & Buddhism did for East Asia
2. The world of European Chistendom was deeply divided, both politically and religiously in a way that the Chinese world was not
3. Like the Buddhist establishment in China, the church later became extremely wealthy, with reformers often accusing it of forgetting its central spiritual mission. However unlike China, the state never stopped supporting Christianity.
4. With more people many new lands had to be opened for cultivation in a process paralleling that of China.
5. Both in the Christian world and China religious life provided new opportunities for women.
6. Both experienced territorial growth
7. In both China and the Christian world urban professions for women lessened. However, in the Christian world there was a period of time when there was increased urban opportunities for women similar to that of the Tang dynasty in China.
8. Although commerce was far more extensive in China than in the developing Christian world, the powerful Chinese state favored landowners over merchants & actively controlled/limited merchants far more than the newer authorities in Europe.
9. Both China & the Christian world used religion to justify their legitimacy & their actions
10. European society and values were more militarized than China which gave greater prominence to scholars/bureaucrats.

Bingham

19/10/2014 11:03:00

Well done. That's an interesting question, huh? And a classic WHAP question, big comparisons!

Bethany V.

19/10/2014 14:29:58

Haha I noticed that he kept making comparisons between European civilization and China, so I flipped to the end of the chapter, and sure enough I discovered this question. I kinda like this whole predicting what strayer is going to ask thing! I'm really starting to understand how Strayer only includes something if it's relevant.

Bethany V.

19/10/2014 14:33:09

Is that question also supposed to point out change over time? Like so we can see how the cultures have changed since we last compared them in ch. 4? That's just a shot in the dark, I just find it interesting how Strayer likes to compare Roman civilization to Chinese civilization

Bingham

19/10/2014 23:51:16

Bethany, to your previous point above; "predicting" is a great approach to reading of this type. of text - sort of an extension of the "Q" in SQ3R. That consistent narrative style is rare in a textbook and one of the main reasons I selected Strayer. Now if you could only figure out what I'm going to put on a test.....would this be a question I'd narrow down to to pick five?

To your second question; well, there's always change right? I mean it's history. But I think the interregional (there's that word) comparison is the point.

Isabella Jarosz

19/10/2014 14:44:02

So, the MQ asking "What lasting impact did the Crusades have in world history?" is a trick question, no? He discusses what impact interaction with the Islam world had, but isn't that a different thing?

Isabella Jarosz

19/10/2014 14:58:17

Or, I guess what I'm trying to say is, the question implies what the direct impact the Crusades had on world history. However, the text implies a more lasting impact in the indirect things the Crusades did (interaction with the Islam world). Would you answer this MQ by saying "Well, while there was no direct impact, there was an indirect impact through interaction with the Islam world, which is bla bla bla"?

Bingham

20/10/2014 00:07:44

It's great that you're asking yourself these kinds of questions. This is your mind learning to process in an academic context. The heart of your thinking is, "what is the author's intent." which is the core inquiry in the social sciences.

You correctly inferred that the immediate consequences were minimal (world historically speaking), but that the long range consequences are significant. Animosity and knowledge from Islam sure, but there's more. Think about timing: expansion of Western Christ. exactly as EO and Byzantium are declining. Well, the hell with it, I'll give you a complete answer.

The Crusades…

…begin an expansion of the influence of Western Christendom at the same time that Eastern Christendom and Byzantium were declining.

…stimulated the demand for Asian luxury goods in Europe.

… also allowed Europeans to learn techniques for producing sugar on large plantations using slave labor, which had incalculable consequences in later centuries when Europeans transferred the plantation system to the Americas.

…made possible for Muslim scholarship, together with the Greek learning that it incorporated, to flow into Europe.

…hardened cultural barriers between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. And, Christian anti-Semitism was exacerbated. (You know where that’s going)

… set in place European empire building, especially in the Americas, continued the crusading notion that “God wills it.”

…have also, in many instances, been politically or ideologically significant when the worlds of Europe and Islam have collided over the past two centuries.

Jackson Wagner

23/10/2014 12:29:03

While this may not be pertinent to the Margin or Big Picture questions, I was wondering why Strayer briefly mentioned the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by the crusaders, but never mentions anything else about it throughout the chapter. Is this a case of choosing the most important events to focus on, or did the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders just not have much of an effect in the long term?

Bingham

23/10/2014 13:53:51

Well I'm sure it was a big deal if you lived in Constantinople in the 13th century. But in our world history context it only serves to illustrate the rift within Christianity exacerbated by the crusades. Byzantium live on for more than two centuries, but the reckless nature of Western Christianity grew for beyond, as we'll see.

Strayer 10, Christendom

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories