Hello, I've been playing Crusader Kings 2, a grand strategy video game that takes place in the Middle Ages. My question for you guys concerns the Great Schism (East-West Schism of 1054). Relax, if you have not played the game you can still help me. In fact I do not think that any experience with the game is at all necessary to answer this question.
So the original game starts in 1066, after the Great Schism. But there are two DLC's for it that set back the start-date, one to 867 and the other to 769 AD. Obviously, both of these start dates in the real world are pre-Great Schism. However in the game the Christian faith is split into the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church for each and every start date, 1066, 867, and 769. This is appropriate for the 1066 date of course, but with my limited knowledge it seems decidedly inappropriate for the other two.
The game does acknowledge that the Great Schism exists. If you play as the Byzantine Empire you can potentially "mend" the Great Schism. The fact that the developers have kept the game pretty damn historical and that they DO acknowledge the Great Schism in some form or another tells me that their decision to keep the churches split in the earlier starts wasn't a mistake. I have also done some research and discovered that the Eastern and Western Churches had ecclesiastical and theological differences well before the Schism (some sources claiming even as far back as Justinian I). However it is of course conceivable that the developers could have kept the faiths separated for gameplay or developmental reasons, or it could have simply slipped their minds.
So my final question for this thread is, was the developers' decision to keep the churches separate historically accurate? Was the Orthodox Church a thing before 1054? Was the Catholic Church?
I know that in the East they changed over from Latin services to Greek ones, but I'm not sure when that happened. Maybe the game chose to represent that split, since changing liturgical languages would naturally start to change the culture of the church?
Dylan Cruz
Pre-schism there was a definite rivalry between Greek and Roman traditions and spheres of influence, but it's not like you suddenly belonged to one denomination or the other after the schism, birth of the Catholic papist institution was a gradual process to centralize church rule and took decades
Jack Price
Cheers!
Discussion still welcome people.
Charles Foster
In earlier dates it shows the border between Greek and Latin rites, I guess.
Wyatt Flores
a lot of events fire for the Pope, like the formation of holy orders for other religions, because the pope is almost always around. If they were to remove the pope in 867, the Jomsvikings would never form, for instance.
Christian Taylor
I don't know why Orthodox Church is called Orthodox and Catholic is called Catholic, considering they BOTH claim to be Orthodox and Catholic (on top of being apostolic)
Luke Gutierrez
The differences between the churches existed but we're not official untill the 1503 split. Upon which the churches both fully split due to other conflicting claims So the answer to your question is yes, they're accurate in their depiction of the both split points of the church. The issue is ck2 is not very in-depth to actually give a in-between for religions in this situation. It's a binary choice and this does cause it to suffer from complete accuracy. The reason it's also kept from being a major player in game aspects u til that point is although the churches were seperate they were not split and had the same theological and political thought. When the split came it also shattered the union of these trains of thought and caused the theoretical side of the split
Asher Barnes
>historical accuracy in Paradox games Heh
Dominic Davis
There were clear differences since 8th century.
The Pope crowning Charlemagne as an emperor was a clear breach with the Constantinople.
David Evans
Tengri was the unifying religion of the steppe people Xiongu through Hun through Mongol end Manchu. (communism influx into mass demagogy hides truth like fascism in the west of true orchestra). Tengri means Sky God (or Father). >lmgtfy.com/?q=tengri 0.0
Orthodoxy seems to be founded from the Italic-Hellenistic-Anatolian transgression of centralised beaurocracy so probably before then. Papal states picked up power with the increased fiatisation of the money supply (go figure). Faith replaces technocratic oligarchy from a misvalued appropriation of rate of Empire expansion/consolidation cycles. If you use the currency, you're part of the empire. Simple. >first related 1.0
The church filled the vacuum left by overextension of foreign militeristic enterprise, the influx back home collapsed the system (USA anyone?). >followup gif related 1.1
It did however seem to stay highly fungible across the broard area of space (and time) showing the testiomny of strength to unparrarelleled for any other point in civilisation its unrivaledness that was the epoch of the Roman Empire for the time or area of affluence - use of currency and all the ideals that were floated and supported with its use, function & trade (you won't be able to say the thing for dollarydoos of fiat global reserve when the inevitable collapse happens - people can't less wipe their ass with a pixel nor use it to burn a fire.malthuse). >investmentwatchblog.com/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-silver-denarius-and-the-roman-empire/ (really interesting map progression showing silver content % over area as for the decline of the RE) 0
A
Adrian Garcia
Soon after this devaluement of the currency you got fractures into south west governments, religion split twine into Christian & Islam, and again twine into Catholocism, Orthodoxy (showing the lessered extent to which "faith" can hold together a land massed area of empire compared to hard tangible silver and we didn't even have electronics at this age, and again with the split of Islam into Sunni & Shia, which then turned to slave trade as hard currency rather than the devalued piss which was the bronze coated stuff, a monolithic representation of Her's former glory. Both splits were by Steppe people (Tengri) showing the penetration of opportunity required that holds together mass infantry legion empires by the more chaotic opportunisitic blitzkreig strike forces that were archers in the saddle out of the nomadic pastures of the steppe. >second related 2.0
Whats more, is the Roman Republic & Monarchy lasted with percent specie (money) silver content, where as once it hit Empire status (placation to pleb) it was a downhill road. America is again an extremely mirrored example, >doomed to repeat 3.0, 1.1
find out PP of USA in terms of 4grams of silver foundations of the multiple failed central banks of usa, aj, jfk
>play as Armenia >swear fielty to Byzantium >marry into the Imperial family and cuck them out of the throne >convert everyone to Miaphysitism >take Rome and enforce the one true form of Christianity
Hudson Wood
...
Mason Wood
The rivalry between Greek and Latin rites were already prevalent as early as IX century, where being converted by either was already making such countries fall into each of spheres of influence.
There is also the thing that in Latin rite, autonomous Kingdoms still could fall into influence of foreign powers by the sheer problem of lacking their own Arch-Bishopric (which required a Reliquary that contained a piece of a saint or other Holy item), and having their Bishops answer to Arch-Bishops in neighbouring countries, which in turn were answering to Pope. For Latin rite, there was strict hierarchy, and Pope was above all.
For Greek rite, it was less dependant on Ecumenical Patriarch and there was case of Autocephaly.
And then there is Oriental Orthodoxy/Miaphysitism, with Coptic Pope of Alexandria as the head, but also having independent Patriarchs in some countries.
Of course, Nestorian Christianity/Patriarchate of the East was also a thing.
Justin Phillips
In my game, the Byzantines have all but ended the Schism through strategic marriages and assassination. Not sure why this particular game had such amazing AI (they even got me a couple times, but revenge is a bitch).
I chose early on to be Orthodox over Catholic because of their early dominance. This is my question to the thread: why did the Byzantines NOT end up dominating Europe? I know it was a very old Empire by the time the Middle Ages came around, but it seemed to have such a strong economy, military, and traditions.
Evan Torres
Wewuz Simulator for Christcucks 2 more like
Oliver Davis
>why did the Byzantines NOT end up dominating Europe?
It tried re-asserting Roman authority under Justinian I, and a few Emperors after tried to bring back the glory days, but none were as successful as Justinian.
In Justinian's case, it was decimated by plagues (maybe smallpox, I don't remember), destroying the Empire's manpower and taxbase in a time when it was already overextended and emptying its treasury to fund the conquests in the West.
As time went on Western Europe became stronger and stronger, and it was harder to assert authority over them than it was for Rome originally when only weak tribal confederations or petty kingdoms were around. The Roman Republic was able to take on Gaul, but Eastern Rome couldn't take on the Frankish Empire.
It also had the problem of being surrounded by enemies. It was always fighting Persians in the East, and later on Arabs and Turks as well. To the North and West were hostile Germanic and Slavic tribes and soon kingdoms, as well as the Latins still mad over Eastern Rome burning its way through Italy in the name of "restoring it".
The West for the most part didn't really care for Eastern Rome either. The religious differences between them were obvious, but there were also cultural differences as well as the West became more influenced by Germanic culture. Eastern Rome was also a competitor for trade, as well as for Imperial authority. Eastern Rome recognized itself as the surviving legitimate Roman Empire, but in the West after Charlemagne that role was taken by the Carolingian and then the Holy Roman Empire, so they had no need to look to the East for Imperial legitimacy.
Henry Jenkins
> Was the Orthodox Church a thing before 1054? Was the Catholic Church?
They weren't, the great schism start with the mutual excommunication of 1054.
Brayden Cox
>"Eastern Rome"
Hudson Richardson
There were a clearly identified latin christianity and greek christianity long before 1054. The divergence began in times of Justinian, both for theological reasons (starting with the filioque) and for lets say political reasons (the Pope of Rome as supreme head of the Church vs the Patriarchs/Emperor duopoly of authority over Christianity). The gap only grew larger during the dark ages until the Papacy of Rome representing the West felt strong enough to defy the Byzantine Empire and excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Caleb Sanders
Plus Oriental Orthodox are different than Eastern Orthodox, but "oriental" means "eastern"
