Literally every time I hear the word Constantinople, I can not help to sing to myself the lyrics from the famous They Must Be Giants Song, entitled Istanbul. (It is actually a song. I suggest YouTubing it if you haven't heard it.
Continuing on though, I will actually be discussing Constantinople and its influence by leader Constantine over the Christian Religion.
To start off with, as Jamie a few other of my peers have mentioned, Rome fell in about 476. It was about this time that the Byzantine empire was on the rise. (Constantinople was its central city). Constantinople's leader, Constantine, had previously been a Roman emperor, and had also converted over to Christianity. Due to his success as an emperor, he also managed to influence not only Constantinople's ideals towards Christianity, he also brought the ideas to the places he managed to conquer during his time. This can be noted in the Strayer Text (Ways of the World: A Brief Global History, Vol 1: to 1500 by Robert W. Strayer, if you wanted to look it up)
Strayer says the emperor in Constantinople claimed to "Govern all creation as God's worldly representative" and that he was "peer of the Apostles" he also mentions how the peoples attempted to "imitate the awesome grandeur of what they thought was God's heavenly court". Because of the ornate decorations and churches Constantinople had erected, a Russian leader, Price Vladmir, sought Christianity out as a way to unify his people, while linking to other communities and people.
The Byzantine empire was a diverse culture, pulling in parts from Roman and Greek culture, and had a few different religions in it. Ultimately, Constantine and the city of Constantinople played a large role in the spread of Christianity.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Constantine Unites Romans With Religion
Constantine served as the first Christian emperor of Rome during the 300s C.E. After his predecessor, Diocletian, brought back the old Roman gods in an attempt to restore Roman traditions, Constantine ended the persecution of Christians during his reign and encouraged the spread and unification of the religion throughout the empire.
This video from the History Channel's website explains that Constantine recognized that the Roman population was divided between several religions and races. He felt that he could bring unity to the empire by bringing all of the Christian groups together to work through the disputes that separated them from one another.
It was at the Council of Nicaea that Constantine gathered all of the Christian bishops in the Roman empire to unify Christians' views on issues such as the Trinity, Jesus' divinity, and the date of the Resurrection of Jesus. After much debate, the representatives from the different Christian groups agreed upon a universal doctrine that became known as the Nicene Creed, which laid out the core beliefs of Christianity.
While I can agree that a unification of the Roman Christian population would have been beneficial to the empire at this time and although I am not Christian, I am unsettled by the fact that these religious debates and discussions were led by an emperor rather than a religious leader within the Church.
Medico Della Peste (The Plague Doctor)
After a few days of debating a topic, my interest was finally piqued while watching an episode of "Ghost Adventures". Set in Italy, the show was investigating an island where plague victims were taken to die.
First, I was interested because of the basic topic, the plague, which was the topic I had chosen for my critical book review. Second, I have a love for Italy, and third, I was interested to know more about the masks they showcased on the TV show.
The masks were very creepy, and if you have ever seen a carnival festival (maybe depicted on T.V, or a video game) you might recognize it. This mask in particular resembled a bird. A typical face covering accented with a long beak.
Here is a good picture:
Click me!
Thought of by French physician Charles de Lorme in order to ward off the contagion, the mask originally had spectacles in order to protect the eyes, and the long beak was stuffed with aromatic herbs, in order to ward off the bad scents.
Parallel to this, in the book I read for my critical book review "The Black Death: A Natural and Human Disaster in Medieval Europe", explains the use of herbs during the plague. It was believed that the bad air, or odor from the plague and dead unburied bodies would also hold the contagion, and breathing good smells would keep that away, so many families burned incense, and used herbs to help 'ward off' the plague.
In the picture posted above, you can also see a small picture of the outfit worn with the mask in the background. This is thought of as a primitive form of a hazardous material suit. Doctors wore a long leather or wax-like material overcoat, leather boots, and a shirt that covered their neck or a head covering in order to expose the least amount of skin possible. As well as gloves, the doctors also used a cane to push away victims who came to close to them, and a hat to show they were a doctor.
This website used for information, pointed out something I hadn't thought of. It is wondered how often these suits were actually worn, since it is known that many doctors fled the areas, or refused to help for fear of being infected themselves.
Today, you can buy these mask replicas in both traditional white style as used during times of the plague, or you can get something with more flair, painted for decoration or costuming; Although now, knowing the history behind the masks, I find them no longer festive, but creepy and macabre.
These are the links for information I used in my post
Wikipedia
The Plague Doctor
Picture of the Mask
First, I was interested because of the basic topic, the plague, which was the topic I had chosen for my critical book review. Second, I have a love for Italy, and third, I was interested to know more about the masks they showcased on the TV show.
The masks were very creepy, and if you have ever seen a carnival festival (maybe depicted on T.V, or a video game) you might recognize it. This mask in particular resembled a bird. A typical face covering accented with a long beak.
Here is a good picture:
Click me!
Thought of by French physician Charles de Lorme in order to ward off the contagion, the mask originally had spectacles in order to protect the eyes, and the long beak was stuffed with aromatic herbs, in order to ward off the bad scents.
Parallel to this, in the book I read for my critical book review "The Black Death: A Natural and Human Disaster in Medieval Europe", explains the use of herbs during the plague. It was believed that the bad air, or odor from the plague and dead unburied bodies would also hold the contagion, and breathing good smells would keep that away, so many families burned incense, and used herbs to help 'ward off' the plague.
In the picture posted above, you can also see a small picture of the outfit worn with the mask in the background. This is thought of as a primitive form of a hazardous material suit. Doctors wore a long leather or wax-like material overcoat, leather boots, and a shirt that covered their neck or a head covering in order to expose the least amount of skin possible. As well as gloves, the doctors also used a cane to push away victims who came to close to them, and a hat to show they were a doctor.
This website used for information, pointed out something I hadn't thought of. It is wondered how often these suits were actually worn, since it is known that many doctors fled the areas, or refused to help for fear of being infected themselves.
Today, you can buy these mask replicas in both traditional white style as used during times of the plague, or you can get something with more flair, painted for decoration or costuming; Although now, knowing the history behind the masks, I find them no longer festive, but creepy and macabre.
These are the links for information I used in my post
Wikipedia
The Plague Doctor
Picture of the Mask
Friday, November 13, 2009
East Vs. West - The First Reformation
Rome's mysterious sister lay in Constantinople.
For a very long time the two were one, the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Church, separated by political and geographic differences. Yet, over time, relations between the two bodies began to grow sour. Various minor disputes over church doctrine, administrative structure, even practices wedged themselves into a further divide. However, the biggest dividing factor was the fall of Rome in the West. With this decisive action perpetrated by "barbarians," "Rome" continued, yet in two different factions. The Goths took over, seeing themselves as continuing the Roman tradition, while at the same time, in the east, Byzantium continued the Roman Empire - in their thinking at least.
This is a link that gives a great overview of the Eastern Empire and the feelings held by it. From here we see the "last nail in the coffin" so to speak, as Justinian (the Eastern Emperor) had wanted to reclaim the West, as he saw himself as ruler over the entirety of Rome. However, soon the Vatican claimed the West. His subsequent military failures only proved to strengthen the Vatican's claim as these attempts drained the East of much needed resources and all but destroyed Italy; because of limited resources, and the barbarian nuisance, the East could not hold onto the West. After the death of Justinian, all hope of reconquering the West were lost and would remain so.
For a very long time the two were one, the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Church, separated by political and geographic differences. Yet, over time, relations between the two bodies began to grow sour. Various minor disputes over church doctrine, administrative structure, even practices wedged themselves into a further divide. However, the biggest dividing factor was the fall of Rome in the West. With this decisive action perpetrated by "barbarians," "Rome" continued, yet in two different factions. The Goths took over, seeing themselves as continuing the Roman tradition, while at the same time, in the east, Byzantium continued the Roman Empire - in their thinking at least.
This is a link that gives a great overview of the Eastern Empire and the feelings held by it. From here we see the "last nail in the coffin" so to speak, as Justinian (the Eastern Emperor) had wanted to reclaim the West, as he saw himself as ruler over the entirety of Rome. However, soon the Vatican claimed the West. His subsequent military failures only proved to strengthen the Vatican's claim as these attempts drained the East of much needed resources and all but destroyed Italy; because of limited resources, and the barbarian nuisance, the East could not hold onto the West. After the death of Justinian, all hope of reconquering the West were lost and would remain so.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Byzantines: An Often Overlooked Empire
Looking at the course of history, one can easily argue that the Roman Empire truly did fall in 476 BCE. From some of my previous posts, it is clear that many historians would say that the Roman Empire itself fell in 476 and that was the end of it. However, there are many more who would say that the Roman Empire continued to hang on to its last legs until 1453, when Constantinople finally was seized. But why would there be those distinct differences? Why would historians frequently disagree with the actual date? Should it not be clean cut when an empire as powerful as the Roman Empire fell?
Some of the main reasons for the differences in the date are simply because while the main Roman Empire did fall, some part of it still hung on. The idea of the actual Roman Empire did not last past 476. It merged into something new: The Byzantine Empire. Some historians would argue that it was still part of the Roman Empire, as Constantinople was the capital of the eastern half of the Empire. But when examining the Byzantine Empire, it is clear that there are many differences between the two cultures. For reference, here is a pretty detailed outline that expands from just before the fall of the western half of Rome, to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453.
This website gives a pretty detailed explanation of Byzantium, which later became the western capital of the Roman Empire. It identifies the fact that the Byzantine Empire was different than the Roman Empire, as it was more commercialized and a more urban center than the Roman Empire had been. One of the key phrases that stood out when reading this website is the fact that: "Not everyone understood or spoke Latin." Latin was the accepted language of the Roman Empire, whereas with the Byzantine Empire, Latin was not so widely spoken. Byzantium was a place that was filled with economic wealth and success. It was known throughout Europe and it was a trading center of the world, especially due to its geographical location. Here there is a map depicting where Constantinople existed. This is the same city that was once Byzantine and that essentially became Byzantine again after the decline of the Roman Empire.
I suppose the main question that I leave any readers with is this: would it be safe to consider the Byzantine Empire a different empire completely? There were many cultural, religious, economical and societal differences between the Byzantine Empire and the once proud Roman Empire that dominated the Byzantine capital for centuries. Did the Byzantine Empire continue to exist even after the power of Rome left its city walls?
Some of the main reasons for the differences in the date are simply because while the main Roman Empire did fall, some part of it still hung on. The idea of the actual Roman Empire did not last past 476. It merged into something new: The Byzantine Empire. Some historians would argue that it was still part of the Roman Empire, as Constantinople was the capital of the eastern half of the Empire. But when examining the Byzantine Empire, it is clear that there are many differences between the two cultures. For reference, here is a pretty detailed outline that expands from just before the fall of the western half of Rome, to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453.
This website gives a pretty detailed explanation of Byzantium, which later became the western capital of the Roman Empire. It identifies the fact that the Byzantine Empire was different than the Roman Empire, as it was more commercialized and a more urban center than the Roman Empire had been. One of the key phrases that stood out when reading this website is the fact that: "Not everyone understood or spoke Latin." Latin was the accepted language of the Roman Empire, whereas with the Byzantine Empire, Latin was not so widely spoken. Byzantium was a place that was filled with economic wealth and success. It was known throughout Europe and it was a trading center of the world, especially due to its geographical location. Here there is a map depicting where Constantinople existed. This is the same city that was once Byzantine and that essentially became Byzantine again after the decline of the Roman Empire.
I suppose the main question that I leave any readers with is this: would it be safe to consider the Byzantine Empire a different empire completely? There were many cultural, religious, economical and societal differences between the Byzantine Empire and the once proud Roman Empire that dominated the Byzantine capital for centuries. Did the Byzantine Empire continue to exist even after the power of Rome left its city walls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)