Will there be a chance of a union between Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire? Also, a healing of the Schism?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Were there any chance at all for this to happend historically?
Union of the Empires? I'd say no - not a snowball's chance in hell
Union of the Churches? I don't know? With only a few years since the final division of the churches (wasn't that in 1054?) there could be a chance. Will we see it in the game? Only P/S knows...
1. No, not likely to happen. Both emperors usually refused to recognize the other one..
2. What schism are we talking about? between orthodoxy and catholicism? My answer, maybe..I have forgotten which Byzantine emperor who travelled to Venice to try to whip up some support for a war and had to recognize the Pope as being number one..it didn´t last long but that´s another story..
Come on - most of the time Western Europe will be arguing over its own Pope let alone recognising some Greek as HRE.
Seriously - there might be a chance of a unified church (maybe as a supremely sucessful Byzantine or Latin player) but there were too many people enjoying the fruits of division to make this a likely outcome
Seriously - there might be a chance of a unified church (maybe as a supremely sucessful Byzantine or Latin player) but there were too many people enjoying the fruits of division to make this a likely outcome
There were many times that the Empires were going to be under one monarch.
Charlemagne, after his coronation at Rome, had sent envoys to Constantinople with proposals of marriage with Empress Irene (797-802). She wouldv'e accepted had she not been deposed.
Constantine, son of Basil I (867-86), had been crowned co-Emperor and had married the daughter of ( Western) Lewis II. Had he lived, he would have united not Eastern and Western Empires under his sway.
Zoe, niece of Basil II (976-1025), was to marry Otto III, but he died at age twenty-two. If they had produced a son, being that Basil had no heir, their son would have inherited both Empires.
The would-be successors would just always die...
The two churches always worked towards union. Union could have been achieved, had people agreed to a change of the rites done at their church. Also, there were many hot-headed emperors and popes.
Charlemagne, after his coronation at Rome, had sent envoys to Constantinople with proposals of marriage with Empress Irene (797-802). She wouldv'e accepted had she not been deposed.
Constantine, son of Basil I (867-86), had been crowned co-Emperor and had married the daughter of ( Western) Lewis II. Had he lived, he would have united not Eastern and Western Empires under his sway.
Zoe, niece of Basil II (976-1025), was to marry Otto III, but he died at age twenty-two. If they had produced a son, being that Basil had no heir, their son would have inherited both Empires.
The would-be successors would just always die...
The two churches always worked towards union. Union could have been achieved, had people agreed to a change of the rites done at their church. Also, there were many hot-headed emperors and popes.
So, all we need for the Roman Empire to reappear is for all the nations of the Western European "Empire" to recognise the Emperor as something more than a clown in a fancy outfit and for the corrupt churchmen to break out in a fit of brotherly love
First of all, all your examples are otside the time frame of CK. Secondly, given the arguments over the sucession of the HRE when it was between the German and Italian nominations, do you really think that the electors would stand for a Greek as Emperor!
In an extreme case it might be possible for the Eastern Emperor to be HRE as well. But for it to be hereditary - forget it!
Originally posted by Derek Pullem
So, all we need for the Roman Empire to reappear is for all the nations of the Western European "Empire" to recognise the Emperor as something more than a clown in a fancy outfit and for the corrupt churchmen to break out in a fit of brotherly love
First of all, all your examples are otside the time frame of CK. Secondly, given the arguments over the sucession of the HRE when it was between the German and Italian nominations, do you really think that the electors would stand for a Greek as Emperor!
Well, in two of the cases, it would have been the Eastern Empire having to accept a Westerner as Emperor, but likely that would have been as tough or tougher. The best possibility was the Zoe-Otto marriage, as Zoe actually did became Empress later. If they had been skillful, especially after Basil II died and it was obvious that Zoe was the heiress-presumptive of Constantine VIII, they might have been able to place their agents in Constatninople to ensure their succession upon Constantine's death. But it still would have been tough - the populace might have revolted against the idea and still have tried to place Theodora on throne...
I think it should be possible to have an official unification of the Empire, if Byzantium is very successful (Captures Rome, and forces the Pope to crown him at sword point) or converts to Catholicism when it's in a significantly better position than the Council of Florence (And preferably while the HRE and the Pope are unfriendly). It should be almost impossible to make it stick though.
I think that the key point is that "It should be almost impossible to make it stick though." I agree completely with these sentiments. The forces pulling any reunified Church or Christian superstate apart would be too strong after a generation or two to resist - unless there was a dynasty of Alexander the Greats at hand which, with the best will in the world, can hardly be attributed to the Byzantines or the descendants of Charlemagne
Well, if the crusades don't get off topic and start pillaging Constantinople, then it might have worked.
Yeah, it is possible, just very difficult. But why not, the final break came only in 1025 (is that right date, where pope and patriarch excommited each other). Beside, both are christian and similar (more similar between them than Catholic with protestant.) So, it would be hard, I repeat myself.
Empire: Even if Manuel or another had succeeded in entering Rome and proclaiming a union of the Empires, it would immediately disintegrate because:
1) If the Pope & Lombards cant work with another Latin as Emperor, what makes you think they'd ever get along with a decadent, perfumed, perverse, effeminate Greek? And that is exactly how the West saw the Byzantines.
2) The Germans would NEVER have accepted this as they saw it as their God-given RIGHT to wear the HRE crown passed down from Charlemagne. The German king would NEVER cede this right no matter what. Even if the Germans couldnt eject the Greeks by themselves, which they could, then
3) The Normans would also NEVER accept this state of affairs, and just about the only thing they and the HRE agreed on was the Greeks must be kept out of Italy (sans Conrad III, but he was seeking to crush the Normans, not let the Greeks unite the Empires). An alliance of German & Norman, both already heavily entrenched in Italy, would make it nearly impossible for the Byzantines to succeed for any length of time.
Church: The Byzantine Emperor had alot more power over the Eastern Church than the HRE had over the Western. The only way he'd ever be willing to concede this would be to unite the Empires and in that case see above. Even if it happened, it wouldnt take long before Pope and/or Emperor overstepped his boundaries and the whole thing would come crashing down when the Pope recalled the Germans.
However, should it be possible in the game? Yes. Military success overrides everything else until the 20th c. So if a Basileus somehow managed to conquer the Normans, eject the Germans, and hold on to Italy, sure, he should have the option. Historically, it couldnt have happened, but who knows, assuming the Turks were crushed, Outremer a vassal, and Venice neutralized in the Adriatic, theres a slim chance he could pull it off...
1) If the Pope & Lombards cant work with another Latin as Emperor, what makes you think they'd ever get along with a decadent, perfumed, perverse, effeminate Greek? And that is exactly how the West saw the Byzantines.
2) The Germans would NEVER have accepted this as they saw it as their God-given RIGHT to wear the HRE crown passed down from Charlemagne. The German king would NEVER cede this right no matter what. Even if the Germans couldnt eject the Greeks by themselves, which they could, then
3) The Normans would also NEVER accept this state of affairs, and just about the only thing they and the HRE agreed on was the Greeks must be kept out of Italy (sans Conrad III, but he was seeking to crush the Normans, not let the Greeks unite the Empires). An alliance of German & Norman, both already heavily entrenched in Italy, would make it nearly impossible for the Byzantines to succeed for any length of time.
Church: The Byzantine Emperor had alot more power over the Eastern Church than the HRE had over the Western. The only way he'd ever be willing to concede this would be to unite the Empires and in that case see above. Even if it happened, it wouldnt take long before Pope and/or Emperor overstepped his boundaries and the whole thing would come crashing down when the Pope recalled the Germans.
However, should it be possible in the game? Yes. Military success overrides everything else until the 20th c. So if a Basileus somehow managed to conquer the Normans, eject the Germans, and hold on to Italy, sure, he should have the option. Historically, it couldnt have happened, but who knows, assuming the Turks were crushed, Outremer a vassal, and Venice neutralized in the Adriatic, theres a slim chance he could pull it off...
I definitely think both unions should be possible, but neither should last long. No territory that large should last because of the size of the territories the vassals will be controlling will make them very powerful as well. Unless of course you have a large number of smaller vassals in which case it should be even less stable because of the constant squabbling between them. Similarly the church should be able to reunify, but just like the roman catholic church split and had several internal struggles a unified "catholic" church would have the similar struggles and mostly likely split, or similar to the papacy, lose influence.
unmerged(2920)
Dark Surcouf ne meurt jamais
no it is not, the final breakdown happened in 1025 but the tentions where from way before. even if the patriarche of constantinople admit to reunite the churchs he will be put of by the bishop and archbishop of the east. it is not only a matter of influence of pope and patriarch but influence of west and east. the reunification of the empire was not possible even just before 1025. and the excommunication of th pope and the patriarche of 1025 is not the first one that happened, it happened before several time (the first one is around 500 if i remember well). it is official that it is not possible to reunite the churchs in 1025 but in teh fact it is impossible from more than 100 or 200 years before.
True, I also have heard of the excommitment of several partriarch, like in 700's over the icons. I forgot what name the pope was but I rmbr that Byz emperor was Leo, right? I always think that as severing the link between the Churchs.
The iconoclastic controversy did not cause the "final" break. It was a major disagreement, but so were many things. It was resolved anyhow. The "final" break in 1054 did not mean there was no chance of reunion. It just meant that no one really tried. The excommunications of 1054, if my memory serves me right, was actually put down by a few unwanted bishops in Constantinople who did so in the name of a dead pope. The Byzantines had more serious matters at hand than theological quarrels.
Hmmm.....maybe it should be possible to heal the two and reunite them both i.e. if you occupy both Rome and Constantinople.....but very difficult....close to imposible.....but not quite imposible....