Make sure you can define ceasaropapism and heresy.
So I've played around with FreeMind software and done a little something with Byzantium here.
They files were made on hella old versions of the program and will not open to any updated freemind platforms.
Wow, really? Did I mention that the reading check was more challenging because there's no test this week?
What?!? What happened?
No test means a somewhat more challenging reading check. Especially since it's clear everyone seems disengaged this weekend!
ceasaropapism referred to the intimate ties between the Church and the state as exemplified by the authority of the emperor to appoint the patriarch of the Church.
It also combined secular government with religious power, which made it superior to the spiritual authority of the Church.
Caesar over Pope, caesaropapism.
If anyone has downloaded the most recent software for FreeMind, the map you created doesn't show up properly. If you have anything before 9.0, it should work.
What did you think about my Byzantium map?
I couldn't see it, I have FreeMind 9.0. Is there any way it could be enlarged on the mindmaps page?
It's very helpful!
Just looked at it in PDF form, would you mind explaining the colors? I typically leave mine in black and white.
I liked it but I couldn't figure out the significance of the colors.
Heresy is a belief or opinion that contradicts orthodox religious doctrines.
What's the matter? No posts from last year to copy? This is making more sense. I may just postpone the DBQ, and do a regular test. Hmmmmmm.
That won't be necessary
So far, I've created two charts that show the differences between the Eastern and Western parts of Rome. One describes how their general societies differed, while the other describes how the sects of Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism differed. The second chart answers MQ #1.
"How did Eastern Orthodx Christianity differ from Roman Catholicism?"
Eastern Orthodox Christianity:
- emperor of Byzantium was both the head of the state and head of the church
-abandoned the traditional Latin language for Greek, which was used for education
-expressed Christianity in terms of Greek concepts
-believed reverence toward icons wrong, as people began to "idolize" them
-generally supported iconoclasm (the destruction of icons used in religious worship)
-Priests grew long beards and married
-used bread with yeast in Mass services
-Strongly rejected the idea that Roman popes had sole authority for all Christians
-Catholic church independent from state
-Latin remained the language of church and elites
-Popes great supported veneration, or respect, toward icons and found iconoclasm very offensive
-Priests shaved and remained celibate
-Catholics used unleavened bread in services
-Popes believed they were the sole authority of all Christians
Both: (I know this question didn't ask about both, but I believe the few similarities mentioned are important.)
-agreed on fundamental Christian doctrines
-political separation and rivalry caused the religious divergence experienced in both empires
I know that there isn't a test, but answering margin Questions helps me understand the chapter. I chose to do a bulleted list like this one because I find that it's easier to remember the characteristics of each religious sect, rather than whole comparisons. Any feedback is appreciated.
Mr. Bingham: Is our reading check still completely multiple choice, since we aren't having a test as of now?
This was great and really helpful. Thanks! I would like to know if it is still going to be multiple choice as well.
I'm going to try to answer one of the margin questions:
"In what ways was the Byzantine Empire linked to a wider world?"
- continued to fight with Persia like the Romans did
- although the Arabs conquered Persia and a considerable amount of Byzantine lands, it did not submit to them
- used "Greek fire" flamethrowers to hold off the Arabs, which soon became used in Chinese and Arab arsenals
- was central in long-distance Eurasian trade (linked to Western Europe, Russia, Central Asia, the Islamic World, and China)
- its currency, the bezant, was widely used as money and a status symbol
- the luxurious products of its craftspeople were in high demand and its silk production (based on China's) supplied much of the Mediterranean basin
- transmitted classical Greek learning to the Islamic world and the West
- gained control over Slavic-speaking people through Christianity and literacy
- Cyril and Methodius's Cyrillic alphabet allowed for religious texts to be translated and greatly aided in the conversion of Slavic-speaking peoples
Let me know if I missed anything!
"In what respects did Byzantium continue the patterns of the classical Roman Empire? In what way did it diverge from those patterns?"
- continued: roads, taxation system, military structure, centralized government, military structure, imperial court, laws, Christian church, referral to themselves as "Romans", forbiddance of Germanic dress and encouragement of Roman dress, ability to deflect Germanic/Hun invaders
- diverged: never reached the size of Rome, reformed administrative system that gave appointed generals civil authority
I think it also diverged in that rejected the notion of a Latin Christianity, which helped make the rift between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. They also had theological disagreements on the Trinity and sin. I'm not entirely sure if this is a divergence from classical Rome or just Roman Catholicism, but it was definitely a big shift from the Roman view of Christianity.
I also added:
-Incorporated Greek aspects into its culture
-Continued conflict with Persia
-A unified government system with an emperor as supreme ruler
-Byzantium practiced ceaseropapism, not Rome
-Eastern Orthodoxy provided a cultural identity for people of the Byzantine Empire
I just used colors to make the hierarchy clearer. No special significance.
ceasaropapism: the doctrine that the state is supreme over the church in ecclesiastical matters
heresy: An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member
Here's some good stuff:
okie dokie. MQ #6
What replaced the Roman order in Western Europe?
(side note: you can categorize so many of this chapter's MQ's answers into the spice themes.)
Politically: Regional kingdoms rules by German war lords (Visigoths, Franks, Lombards, and Angles and Saxons) replaced the Roman order, however, they retained the Roman written law and the Roman use of fines and penalties to provide justice in their new states.
Socially: Roman style slavery was replaced by serfdom, in which a debtor was bound to servitude as a peasant laborer that was forced to pay an insurmountable amount of money.
The Roman Catholic Church also showed prominent positions in social life, overtaking the Roman Empire's political, administrative, educational, and welfare functions.
In hindsight, the new German kingdoms kept some important aspects of the Roman Empire (the written law, and the basis of popes, bishops, priests, and monasteries on those of the Roman Empire, and the hierarchical relationships between classes) while also overtaking it and integrating their own culture into that of the Roman Empire.
Yeah, this is good. I would just add something more specific about feudalism, the reciprocal ties between greater and lesser lord and peasants. In your last para, you should be more specific about Otto I and the Carolingian Empire and Charlemagne's HRE, both attempts to sort of recreate the Roman Empire.
This is probably a stupid question, but is the classical Roman Empire synonymous with the western Roman Empire? Or did it just carry more of the traditions/characteristics of the classical empire?
Yes, for our purposes, it's the same thing.
What does Strayer mean when he writes in the beginning of the subsection called Political Life in Western Europe 500-1000,"in the early centuries of the postclassical era, history must have seemed more significant than geography, for the Roman Empire, long a fixture of the weatern Mediterranean, had collapsed"? And could someone define "embryonic imperial bureaucracy"? Thanks!
Hi Emily! I was just looking over that section and I think Strayer may be making fun of the Romans a bit with that statement. In that same paragraph he talks about how environmental factors contributed to the fall of Rome. The way I see it, he is making a statement that the Romans were focused on their legacy and affairs with other people rather than the damage their environment was taking. I may be taking this too lightly, so anyone can correct me!
I'm with you Chloe, I think the grand legacy of Rome overshadowed much of the more immediate geographic issues in the minds of the people that followed.
Embryonic as in newly forming.
I saw on the calendar that it says test:strayer 10. Did it say DBQ to start and now it's a test? Or was the DBQ originally listed as test?
Yeah, my teacher spidey sense says I need to test you on 10 more than expose you to your first DBQ.
I just discovered something magical in terms of outlines. http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/strayer2e/#810421__811444__
Whoa, that little Freemind thing is pretty neat. I Like the organization. It keeps things simple. Seems like the things in red and blue are the most important.
I'll attempt answering the margin question of page 442
What was the impact of the Crusades in world history?
1) They marked an expansion of the influence of Western Christendom at the same time that Eastern Christendom and Byzantium were declining.
2) They stimulated the demand for Asian luxury goods in Europe.
3) Allowed Europeans to learn techniques for producing sugar on large plantations using slave labor, which had consequences in later centuries when Europeans transferred the plantation system to the Americas
4) Muslim scholarship, together with the Greek learning that it incorporated, flowed into Europe.
5) Crusades hardened cultural barriers between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Christian anti-Semitism was exacerbated.
6) European empire building, especially in the Americas, continued the crusading notion that “God wills it.”
Did I cover it all or am I missing something?
On page 275 in the normal book, Strayer says that the Byzantine emperors took the offense against the use of icons in worship. On page 277, when he talks about the conversion of Kievan Rus, he says that they borrowed the extensive use of icons from Byzantium. Am I reading that wrong, or is he saying that the use of icons in Kievan Rus were from Roman Catholicism where they supported the use of icons?
Confusing I know. That's Strayer trying to be brief. Byzantium/Eastern Orthodox were in to icons in a big way. Then it became a controversy. The reasons are complex, but essentially there were some, including a sting of empowers , who opposed the ideas as idolatry . And of course, it has a fancy name, iconoclasm. Here's more...
Trying to give the first big picture question a go..
1) How did the histories of the Byzantine Empire and Western Europe differ during the era of third-wave civilizations?
Eastern Europe and Constantinopleare was not invaded. Western Europe and the old Roman Empire was destroyed. The dream is to rebuild it but they never are able to fully recreate the greatness of Rome.
Western Europe collapsed politicallyin the fifth century, never to come together again as asingle political entity,whereas Byzantium survived as a single politicalentity throughout the period.
The Byzantine emperor exerted greater control over the Orthodox Church. Caesaropapism defined therelationship between the Byzantine state and the Orthodox Church.
Western Europe had split control over the Roman Catholic church and the many separate and fragmented kingdoms.
The Byzantine Empire maintained a prominent role in thelong-distance trade networks of Eurasia throughout the period,whereas Western Europe’s role declined precipitously following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century,only to reengage with those trade networks after 1000.
After 1000, Western Europe’s influence in the Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe expanded, while theinfluence of the Byzantine Empire contracted, especially in the Mediterranean basin after 600 c.e.
The crusades changed Europe more than they changed the Holy Land. Increasein trade brought economic recovery and an end to the feudal system.
Am I close?
Very strong, well done Shaikha!
I think somebody needs to answer more big pic questions, like maybe Mr. 130 points Alexander!
I also added (though some of these are more general):
-the differences in religion, Latin Catholicism vs the Eastern Orthodox church. The East abandoned Latin for the Greek language, while the West retained the Latin language. There was also disagreements between cultural beliefs and elements, such as the worshiping of idols.
-West Europe was a hybrid civilization and culture while East Europe tried to maintain old Roman culture, even referring to themselves as Romans
-East Europe was substantially wealthier and urbanized than the rural and less developed West
I'm not sure, but you could also add that Byzantium used Greek reason before Western Europe started using it in combination with Christianity. This would seem like a good point, but I'm not sure if it's TRUE. Could someone explain about Greek reason in West Christianity vs in Byzantium because Strayer is a bit confusing
I think I answered Big Picture question 2?
What accounts for the different historical trajectories of these two expressions of Christendom?
While Catholicism rose in the west, Eastern Orthodox began in the east. Eastern Orthodoxy, originating in Byzantium, continued traditions of the Roman Empire, using the Greek language, aristocrats receiving Greek education, and adherence to Roman traditions enforced. Byzantium was significantly more urbanized and wealthy than the west, who declined until expansion in 1000. While Eastern Orthodoxy rose in a civilization with access to the Black and Mediterranean Seas a stronger military and diplomatic force, and centered around Constantinople, Catholicism was established in a highly localized and rural civilization. The Catholic monks were expected to remain celibate, unlike those in the east. The west formed a hybrid civilization with Germanic and Celtic barbarians around its rise, while Eastern Orthodoxy was the more Xenophobic of the two, a good example being the enforcement of Roman dress. Eastern Orthodoxy found great offense in the depiction of idols, and their doctrines were founded upon Greek philosophies.
I don't know if I got everything, but I hope it helps some....
Okay , this good stuff, but I don't think you're really answering the question . I see three key answers to "different trajectories " idea.
1. State control of the church vs. a powerful and independent church.
2. The stuff you mentioned about different Greek vs. Latin cultural differences, and
3. Orthodoxy spread to Eastern Europe at the hight of Byzantine power, while Catholosism spread, especially after 1000, to Northern Europe , Muslim west Europe , and even parts of Eastern Europe . Orthodoxy remained localized in a shrinking Byzantium, with the exception of its adoption in Russia .
Do you see that this is a comparison question?
I have a few answers fot the big question #3. How did Byzantium and Western Europe interact with each other and with the larger world of the postclassical era?
•Byzantine Empire continued long term struggle with Persian Empire which weakened both of them and was factor in Arab forces as they poured out of Arabian coast
•Greek fire which helps Byzantium keeps out Arabs and got adopted by china and Arabia
•Byzantium Empire fell to the Ottoman Empire
•Long distance trade into Asia
•Byzantium’s gold coins were used as currency in Mediterranean
•Byzantium transmitted their classic Greek heritage into the Islamic world and into Christian west
•Western Christendom had extensive coastlines and river systems that facilitated exchange in Europe. (connected to Byzantium?)
•Can you use the sub heading Accelerating change in the west, 1000-1300 as answers to this question?
Here was my approach...
•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.
•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.
•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.
Think this might be useful. Anything else y'all found?
How did Eastern Orthodox Christianity differ from Roman Catholicism?
•Emperor claimed to govern all creation as gods worldly representative saying he was the peer of the apostles and soul ruler of the world (Byzantium/ Eastern Orthodox
•Eastern Orthodox was caesaropapism ( Caesar over Pope)
•Bishops and priest brought Eastern Orthodox to every corner of the empire
•Monasteries in Eastern orthodox
•Eastern Orthodox legitimated the absolute rule of the emperor, he was a god anointed ruler/ reflection of god on earth
•The divergent of the religion reflected political separation and rivalry between both
•Difference between Greek (Byzantium) and Latin (Christendom)
•Veneration of icons???
•Priests in Catholicism were celibate while Orthodox could grow beards and marry
•Eastern orthodox rejected Roman Popes as sole and final authority for all Christians
For some reason I'm having a lot of trouble with the last big picture question. I get how the different societies adopted Greek thought in different ways, but Strayer doesn't talk much about the impacts that this had on these societies. Could someone help?
Good list Kathryn! A couple things, though. In reference to veneration of icons, Orthodox Christianity opposed icons and practiced iconclasm whereas Roman Catholicism had veneration for icons and supported their use. Also,
-Byzantium incorporated aspects of Greek philosophy into Orthodox Christianity more than Western Europe incorporated those aspects in Catholicism
-Orthodox christians used leavened bread for Mass, while Catholics used unleavened bread
Just for knowing sake, could the Byzantine model of appointing generals civil authority to make peasant armies be compared to the Western European duke/lord title and authority, who could and did muster their own armies? Could it perhaps also be compared to the Japanese dyamio?
Well, here's what I got for bug picture question number 5.
How does the history of the Christian world compare to that of Tang and Song China?
Very similar in that it is centralized, and fell to invaders. Never re-appeared though, unlike dynasties
Very different. Had no comparable class structure.
Thought of themselves as continuations of something old
Orthodox is comparable to Confucianism in the way it was used and treated by the state
Both are based off of trade
Had no centralized political system
Feudal system is very similar to class system
Catholicism is very similar to Buddhism in regards to it’s independence from the state, sheltering of women, and providing comfort in bad times
While both engaged in long-distance trade, Europe did not do so until after 1000
I also got that the Christian and Buddhist ideals offended other religions, in Christianity's case it being the east vs west. (Both Catholic and Buddhist monks were celibate, unlike those of Byzantium)
Both Buddhist and the Catholic church were extremely wealthy which led to criticism.
(Although I'm not sure this fits in the time period, I thought I'd add this)
Both Buddhism and Christianity spread with reports of miracles, which helped the religions spread further.
Try approaching it this way. Spice is good, but remember, there are units of analysis within each of those.
•The Western Catholic Christian world was less developed in comparison to Tang and Song dynasty China in that the former had smaller cities, weaker political authorities, a fragmented political structure, a less commercialized economy, and inferior technology. It was also a more militarized society, with more privileged cities and a more favorable environment for merchants. By 1500, however, Western Europe had come a long way in catching up and, though it depended more on borrowing than did its Chinese counterpart, deserves comparison to China
•The Orthodox Christian world was more similar to Tang and Song dynasty China in that it possessed comparable cities, a powerful emperor, a unified government, a professional bureaucracy, a commercialized economy, and a technologically advanced society.
When Strayer talks about Byzantine thinkers trying to formulate Christian doctrine in Greek philosophical terms, is he referring to Greek rationalism? And if so..how did they blend the secular ideas of the Greeks with Christian doctrine?
The Byzantine thinkers had developed an interest in Greek rationalism, yes. They used such thought to provide a rational foundation for faith. Strayer says, "Logic, philosophy, and rationality would operate in service to Christ." Although some people opposed this new emphasis on human reason, nothing really happened in terms of rebellion (from either side of the argument). These events only stimulated the seeking out of more Greek texts, particularly those of Aristotle, by European thinkers.
There's more to the Greeks than secularism. If you want to go deep, read some Aristotle . Things like classisifican, hierarchical structure, logical proofs, etc. and a long list of other qualities as with the stoics can apply within a religious institution. A church is much more than just the faith/dogma part.
So, if the Western Roman Empire and the Classical Roman Empire are pretty much synonymous, would the answer to the margin question, "In what respects did Byzantium continue the patterns of the classical Roman Empire? In what ways did it diverge from those patterns?" look something like this:
•Byzantine empire never reached same size as Roman predecessor
•Byzantium was more urbanized, was wealthier, and was more cosmopolitan.
•Byzantium had stronger navy, army, and merchant marine.
•Byzantium insisted on Roman-style clothing.
•Aristocrats trained in Greek to participate in ceremonies that kept their elite status.
I feel like I'm missing something major, anything that you could add is appreciated!
Oh, and all of the things that he mentions that were late Roman like road systems,laws, Christian church, etc.
When you say Western Roman Empire, do you mean the third-wave empire or the Germanic civilizations? Because they are different in some ways and similar in others so they're not really synonyms. Whichever you meant, your answers are still correct.
For the margin question about Europe unable to achieve political unity, Strayer mentions casually that geographic barriers contributed to an empire's emergence. This is really confusing me because I thought that during the Roman Empire the Geography of Europe helped maintain an empire because of all of the water (rivers&seas) and considering Europe has an east/west axis adapting to new lands shouldn't be too difficult right? What am I missing here?
Sorry; I meant the prevention of an empire emerging in Europe. My bad:/
Hmmmm. That's an interesting thought. The point about an east/west orientation has nothing to do with it though. That only applies to long-distance trading between civilizations. About rivers and seas, that's only along the perimeter of the Roman Empire. There aren't many rivers in this region, especially in current day Germany which was the majority of the empire. The things that separate all of the Germanic civilizations in the area are mountain ranges and forests. After Rome's collapse, agriculture became scarce so forests had the ability to flourish. Now that I think about it, does Strayer even directly say that rivers and seas helped to unify the empire? If so, I can't remember it.
An empire needs to be expansive and hove the means for communication and control. Western Europe was hemmed in by Byzantium and Islam
Hey, I'll try margin question number 5, I couldn't find much, so if I'm missing anything or have something wrong please leave a reply.
"How did the historical development of the European west differ from that of Byzantium in the post classical era?
European west historical development was on the sidelines of world history because of its location on the western end of Eurasia.
European west was removed from growing routes of world trade by the sea in the Indian Ocean commerce and by land across the silk roads to china and the sand roads to west Africa.
I think you can squeeze a lot of more detailed answers in here. Assuming that my approach to this question is correct, you can generalize about Byzantium while being more specific about Western Europe, where the most change occurred. So...
While Byzantium was relatively unaffected by the fall of the western Roman Empire, maintaining the same general political structure, economic activity, and power as before, civilization in Western Europe declined/changed drastically:
-centralized rule disappeared in favor of feudal regional kingdoms
-disease and war reduced the population
-cultivated land contracted, replaced by natural ecology
-society moved away from an urban setting to a more rural one
-long distance trade weakened as a result of the collapsing infrastructure and ruralization
-more primitive barter replaced the sophisticated money exchange in some areas
-literacy rates declined
-slavery was replaced by serfdom in the new feudal system
-the already diverse culture of W Europe became even more fragmented into local variations
-power rested in the hands of landowning lords, and even the few state rulers that existed had limited authority
-the Roman Catholic Church, with a hierarchy much like that of the Roman Empire's political structure, took over some of these political and other non-religious functions in Western civilization (either accounting for or resulting from the direct contrast to Eastern Orthodox caesaropapism)
After 1000 C.E., the positions of Byzantium and Western Europe switched, and Byzantium civilization/power began to decline due to military pressure from Arabia and to other pressures from rising Western European powers:
-agricultural growth in reverse of the de-cultivating trends from before
-increase in population
-reestablishment and expansion of long distance trade
-reurbanization of western society in former roman cities
-more productive division and specialization of labor
-increasing effectiveness of government at higher levels
-monarchs finally gained power to match their titles, and powerful, enduring states (centralization of power, but still not on the same scale as the unified Roman Empire), each with their own distinct culture
This "medieval expansion" reestablished some of the former power of the western Roman Empire, making the Byzantium-crushing Crusades possible.
There are more answers to this question, but these are the ones that pertain specifically to the successive rise and fall of Western European civilization.
I've found a way of studying that really helps me! After I have answered a margin question, I basically make a little visual representation with broad concepts to help me remember all of the details involved in the answer. Here is a picture of a few that I created for chapter 9 (copy and paste the links)...
So if you are struggling for a way to study, try this!
I guess I shall attempt Big Picture #3...
"How did Byzantium and Western Europe interact with the larger world of the postclassical era?"
-The Persians were an adversary to the Byzantine empire in political and military matters and their long term struggle allowed the Arabs to successfully invade both empires
-Byzantine was central in long distance trade with its coin, the bezant, reflecting high status
-Byzantium's luxury products in demand, silk derived from Chinese and supplied surrounding societies
-Byzantium preserved its Greek traditions and passed them off to the Islamic world and the West
-Its religious culture spread among Slavic peoples and a Greek alphabet was created for Slavic languages, thus the Bible could be translated and more people converted
-Western Europe was considered the least developed off the civilizations discussed
-West reconnected with trade system and got business ideas from Arabs, philosophy from Greeks, and math from India
-China was WE most significant source of borrowing (compass, gunpowder,etc.)
-went on expeditions to find sources of Asian wealth, its growth came with its larger role in trade and exchange
-Like China, Europe refined its technologies in agriculture and war through the new type of plow and windmill and through the use of gunpowder in cannons
I hope I got enough and please add some broader or more detailed points if needed.
Here's an acronym: MAC ALE (like the makeup company and the liquor)
Change: What was the impact of the Crusades in world history?
Asian luxury goods more popular
Crusades hardened cultural barriers between Eastern Orthodoxy & Roman Catholicism.
Allowed Europeans to learn techniques for producing sugar on Large plantations
European empire building
for the following question this is what I got...try singing it to the tune of happy birthday it really helps :)
Comparison: how did eastern orthodox christianity differ from Roman Catholicism:
-emperor that also acted as the pope
-network of bishops and priests relayed messages throughout the empire
-religion provided a cultural identity for the empire’s subjects
-influence on every aspect of byzantium
-growing religious divergence
-formulated christian documents in terms of greek philosophical concepts
-differences in theology
-abandoned latin for greek
-differences in church practices
-took offence to the use of icons
-priests did not shave
-bread leavened with yeast
prolly been asked already, I'll ask anyway. I thought E. Orthodoxy was highly opposed to iconography, yet you got ya boy Kiev Rus doing extensive use of icons. Didn't Kiev take after Daddy Byzantium?
I may very well be wrong about this, but I think that iconoclasm was just a period in Orthodoxy, and was removed after the Byzantine king saw how unpopular it was.
Margin Question #4:
How did links to Byzantium transform the new civilization of Kievian Rus?
-When searching for a new religion to unify the peoples of Kievian Rus and enter bigger trading/communication systems, Orthodox Christianity became a possibility to Prince Vladimir because of interactions between Rus and Byzantium
-Byzantium was accepted in Rus, in part by the splendor of the churches the Rus people admired
-Acceptance of Orthodox Christianity brought Rus into Orthodox world and away from realms of Roman Catholicism and Islam.
-Rus borrowed parts of Byzantine culture, incorporated them into their own culture
-Orthodox Christianity provided a more unified identity for Rus civilization and religious legitimacy for its rulers
-Rus saw itself as the "third Rome" and defender of true Orthodox Christianity
Comments, corrections, any of that jazz is welcome.
Bingham: This forum is for us to engage with each other publicly about where we are struggling with the coursework and to offer each other solutions for what works for us.
Why Geography Matters More Than Ever