Day 59 - Thrown For a Loop
Today in WHAP we had a free period...free of clicker quizzes.
Since one of the WHAP classes didn't take a clicker quiz, we had the option to take or to not take the quiz today, to which the class voted not to take it. We voted on if we wanted to talk about the Crusades or the Byzantines, to which the class voted the former. Mr. Profitt then asked us all to write a question about the Crusades, and he called upon me to ask mine, which was "Could the Crusades happen now?" The short answer to that is probably not, but we ended up going into more detail for the rest of the class on background information on the topic, which eventually explained just how it couldn't happen today because of the difference in the kind of power the Pope had back then and has now.
So first, Rome was essentially being destroyed culturally and physically at the same time, with the process of the Byzantine empire splitting happening. This whole situation started when Diocletian, a roman empire, divided Rome into two parts since the whole thing was too difficult for one person to effectively rule. It was divided by having one person, the head honcho (the "Augustus") rule over one half, along with an assistant to the Augustus (the "Caesar"). He then posed the question over whether this kind of system would work in the USA, to which the answer was a resounding NO. To provide some reasoning for this, we stated how just in general the divide between two areas like that will automatically lead to conflict, especially in border disputes. This is an igniter in the divide.
As soon as Diocletian died, Constantine takes over and re-unites the empire, as well as moving the capital to Constantinople. He patronizes Christianity in the empire and appoints 5 bishops over Rome to rule as religious leaders, of which the bishop of Rome has the most power. Eventually, he dies and then Theodosius takes over. He turned Rome into a Christian theocracy in which he is the head of the religion. As the Huns and other Germanic people move into Rome, the West ends up falling apart from the East, and while the East stays intact, it can't really help the West or it would be putting itself at risk.
Fun Fact: Constantinople never fell in battle, with even Attila deciding not to attack the city once an earthquake cracked a wall. They also used Greek fire, a flame that would't go out in water. I looked it up trying to get some pictures, but it seems like the recipe to make it was closely guarded and no one knows how to now. Probably a good think quite frankly.
Anyways, as the Pope who is currently living in Rome, he is forced by the civilians to attempt and make peace with the Germanic people invading, as they have respect for the religion. He makes peace most notably with the Franks, and their leader Clovis. In this case, Clovis asks the Pope for sanctioning, and in return he will give Pope an army and says anyone he conquers he will force to convert to Christianity. The Pope said yes, as many sane people would. Class ended right about now, but to tie this all up with the original question, the Pope gained his army and a large amount of his power during this time. Eventually then, the Pope, who was a revered figure not only by his people but by all the people Clovis conquered, had a large amount of power and if he so chose had the voluntary backing of most of the people, along with his army to fight others if he felt compelled to.
After showing how he could do it back in the old days, I think it's pretty obvious how he couldn't launch a crusade now because
a. He has no army
b. While Catholicism is a very popular world religion, I don't think he could raise the kind of support he had back then even if he wanted to in order to get people to fight for him.
c. Even if he chose to and somehow had enough support to raise up some foot soldiers, technology has progressed to more than swords and spears, which at the time were much easier to acquire than getting perhaps a bomb or a tank today. My point with this is that even if he gets a whole bunch of people with guns going to attack (Mr. Profitt's example) North Korea, they (or another intervening country) could easily stop them with superior weaponry that couldn't be acquired in mass amounts by civilians.
A long post today, but entries have been short this week and I don't have any HW to worry about due the next day, so I treated myself to a long blog. Until Monday!
Since one of the WHAP classes didn't take a clicker quiz, we had the option to take or to not take the quiz today, to which the class voted not to take it. We voted on if we wanted to talk about the Crusades or the Byzantines, to which the class voted the former. Mr. Profitt then asked us all to write a question about the Crusades, and he called upon me to ask mine, which was "Could the Crusades happen now?" The short answer to that is probably not, but we ended up going into more detail for the rest of the class on background information on the topic, which eventually explained just how it couldn't happen today because of the difference in the kind of power the Pope had back then and has now.
So first, Rome was essentially being destroyed culturally and physically at the same time, with the process of the Byzantine empire splitting happening. This whole situation started when Diocletian, a roman empire, divided Rome into two parts since the whole thing was too difficult for one person to effectively rule. It was divided by having one person, the head honcho (the "Augustus") rule over one half, along with an assistant to the Augustus (the "Caesar"). He then posed the question over whether this kind of system would work in the USA, to which the answer was a resounding NO. To provide some reasoning for this, we stated how just in general the divide between two areas like that will automatically lead to conflict, especially in border disputes. This is an igniter in the divide.
As soon as Diocletian died, Constantine takes over and re-unites the empire, as well as moving the capital to Constantinople. He patronizes Christianity in the empire and appoints 5 bishops over Rome to rule as religious leaders, of which the bishop of Rome has the most power. Eventually, he dies and then Theodosius takes over. He turned Rome into a Christian theocracy in which he is the head of the religion. As the Huns and other Germanic people move into Rome, the West ends up falling apart from the East, and while the East stays intact, it can't really help the West or it would be putting itself at risk.
Fun Fact: Constantinople never fell in battle, with even Attila deciding not to attack the city once an earthquake cracked a wall. They also used Greek fire, a flame that would't go out in water. I looked it up trying to get some pictures, but it seems like the recipe to make it was closely guarded and no one knows how to now. Probably a good think quite frankly.
Anyways, as the Pope who is currently living in Rome, he is forced by the civilians to attempt and make peace with the Germanic people invading, as they have respect for the religion. He makes peace most notably with the Franks, and their leader Clovis. In this case, Clovis asks the Pope for sanctioning, and in return he will give Pope an army and says anyone he conquers he will force to convert to Christianity. The Pope said yes, as many sane people would. Class ended right about now, but to tie this all up with the original question, the Pope gained his army and a large amount of his power during this time. Eventually then, the Pope, who was a revered figure not only by his people but by all the people Clovis conquered, had a large amount of power and if he so chose had the voluntary backing of most of the people, along with his army to fight others if he felt compelled to.
After showing how he could do it back in the old days, I think it's pretty obvious how he couldn't launch a crusade now because
a. He has no army
b. While Catholicism is a very popular world religion, I don't think he could raise the kind of support he had back then even if he wanted to in order to get people to fight for him.
c. Even if he chose to and somehow had enough support to raise up some foot soldiers, technology has progressed to more than swords and spears, which at the time were much easier to acquire than getting perhaps a bomb or a tank today. My point with this is that even if he gets a whole bunch of people with guns going to attack (Mr. Profitt's example) North Korea, they (or another intervening country) could easily stop them with superior weaponry that couldn't be acquired in mass amounts by civilians.
A long post today, but entries have been short this week and I don't have any HW to worry about due the next day, so I treated myself to a long blog. Until Monday!
Comments
Post a Comment