Goodreads: Lost to the West

Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire that rescued Western Civilization
Lars Brownworth

I grabbed this book years ago because I loved his podcasts. The book is just as fantastic. It's easy to read, digestible and Brownworth writes in a style that makes the history enjoyable to read. While this isn't an exhaustive study of the history of the thousand years of Byzantine history, its 300 pages are surprisingly chock full of information.

I read a few of the reviews on the book and found that most people generally seem to agree with me. The few negative reviews I read (why do I always read the negative reviews of books I like?) are silly in their criticism. They attack Brownworth for being not academic enough or for focusing too much on the Christian aspect of the Empire. These attacks stem from either an elitism that often insulates the people stuck in their ivory towers who have lost touch with people that exist outside of academia or those who are looking for any way to disagree with something Christian. I also am tired of hearing complaints about mentioning that Christopher Columbus discovered America. He did discover the new world and no amount of revisionist history will ever change that. Was what he discovered a barren wasteland? Of course not. But it was the Columbus voyages that forever changed the world. Do you want to argue over whether or not the pros outweigh the cons because of Columbus' voyages? There's something that you can have mixed feelings on. But, this book isn't about Columbus and I really shouldn't mention it; but, I'm growing tired of the constant wailing and whining about the whole Columbus thing. It happened. It changed the world as we know it. Yes, others came to the Western Hemisphere before Columbus, but it was his voyages that ushered in a new age, not the Vikings and not the pre-Columbian peoples. Besides that, if it hadn't been Columbus, the people whining about him would be arguing the same nonsense to fit their personal feelings by decrying the other Western European who would have taken Columbus' spot. For those complaining that the book isn't scholarly enough I suggest you go grab a text book; or, better yet, spend a lifetime learning Latin, Greek and Arabic and pick up only primary sources and leave the rest of us uneducated schmucks to enjoy our pop history. I'll end my rant there and move back to the book.

Some of the Emperors are well known: Justinian, Alexius, Theodosius, Constantine the Great, etc. Those parts I enjoyed; but, it was the lesser well known ones I found the most fascinating. I really enjoyed the sections covering the Isaurian, Nicephorus and Macedonian sections of the book. I found the probably apocryphal account of Syrian emir Sayf escaping the Byzantines by scattering gold coins behind him as he fled back to Aleppo. These little, dubious nuggets tell us more about history than verifiable, archeological facts as they speak to what the people believed at the time. Myths often contain as much truth as do bones dug up out of the ground when concerning civilizations.

After Rome, Istanbul has been my biggest dream destination to visit. This book reinforced that hope. It also drew my attention to Mount Athos: "Set on the stunningly beautiful Athonite peninsula, these twenty monasteries form an autonomous community- and they still fly the eagle flag of Byzantium". It sounds like a place of living history and I desperately want to visit now.

I highly recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in history, unless you're a scholar and can read Latin, Greek and Arabic or you have an axe to grind. In that case, read something else and write a better book.

Ecumenical Councils

(Originally written March 17, 2006 in 3 Subject)

Christological Controversies (100-325 AD)

Ebonites (Jewish Sect)

Modalism - anti-Trinitarian doctrine

Praxeas - identifies Father and Son as one (patripassianism)

Tertullian's response to patripassianism: "Praxeas has put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father!"

Paul of Samosata: Christ has homoousion (same substance) as God, but not is not a second person, an anti-Trinitarian doctrine

The First Four Ecumenical Councils (325 - 451 AD)

1. Council of Nicea (325 AD)

Arius (Arianism)
- "There was a time when Christ was not"
-Jesus the first of God's creation
-"Like" substance, but not the same as the Father
-Homoiousion with the father, not homoousion

Athanasius (Bishop of Alexandria)
-Christ has homoousion with the father
-This is where the phrase "one iota of difference" comes from

2. Council of Constantinople (381 AD)
-Appollinarius (Apollinarianism)
-supports homoousion, but denies that Christ has a human mind/spirit

Athanasius and Apolinarius were allies against Arianism, but Athanasius opposed Apollinarius

Gregory of Nazianzus- "What Christ has not assumed he has not healed; it is what is united to His Deity that is saved"

The verdict of the Council of Constantinople is that Christ is both divine and human

3a. Council of Ephesus (431 AD)
-Monophysite & Nestorian Heresies
- mono = one, physis = nature
-Monophysite Christology - Christ is one person with one nature
-Key issue is salvation
-Resolution - one person, two natures
-Mary is hailed theotokos "mother of God", contrary to the Nestorian claim of "mother of Christ"

3b. Robber Synod at Ephesus (449 AD)
-Monophysites out maneuvered by Leo I, bishop of Rome & other orthodox bishops
-Emperor Theodosius II then convenes 135 bishops who  excommunicate Pope Leo I
-A year after Theodosius II is dead and the new emperor sides with Pope Leo I

4. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)
-Council was moved to Chalcedon for security reasons
-More than 600 bishops in attendance
-Pope Leo I emissaries state "vere deus, vere homo"
-Eastern Bishops agree
-Result: Doctrine of hypostatic union becomes the orthodox view of the Person of Christ (Nicene Creed, article 2)

Christianity in Feudalism

(Originally written on February 13, 2006 in Book 24)

Western Empire's Barbarian Rulers

Britain controlled by Angles & Saxons
Gaul controlled by the Franks
Italy controlled by the Ostrogoths
Spain controlled by the Visigoths
North Africa controlled by Vandals

The conversion of Clovis (Frankish King) of the Merovingians to Catholicism allies the Roman Emperor (in Constantinople) to the bishops and Merovingians.

The Merovingians defeat the Arian Germanic tribes in Southern Gaul. The Visigoths (Spain) convert to Catholicism out of their best interest.

The Roman Emperor recognizes Clovis as the ruler of Gaul.

The Ostrogoths are defeated by Justinian and are driven out of Italy.

Between 500-1000 in Continental Europe we see an increasingly decentralized government and a move to a rural society.

Political stability in the west is obtained by forming a small clan around a great warrior.

500-1000

The political system was feudalism (which is debatable, but serves to identify it).

The political center is no longer the big city, but the castle.

Feudalism - king controls all the land in his territory, wars are fought on horses with your own horse and weaponry.

Only form of wealth is land.

The Economic collapse at the fall of Rome.

Knights are given a plot of land to fight for the king, which is farmed by serfs.

Barons are given large grants of land to the king. The Barons give land to the lower nobility.

Process of Feudalism

The Kings give Barons the land
The Barons give Kings knights
The Barons give lower nobility land
The lower nobility serve as knights under the Baron and fight for the king

A good king can control the powerful lords under them.

500-1000: decentralization, collapse and the rise of feudalism

A miniature ice age occurs in this time, causing lower agricultural output and thus, famine.

Peasants farm for the nobles. The nobility is the knights. The military is a military-aristocracy.

The king has homage paid to him by the high nobility.

The high nobility (Dukes & Barons) are obligated to provide the king with a certain number of mounted knights. They have to dish out some of some of their land granted to secure the said number of fuckin knights.

Wars occur on every level. King vs King, Barons vs Barons, Nobility vs. Nobility.

The knights under are obligated to serve their higher ups.

Economic Feudalism

Manorialism

The knights, the lower nobility, the nobility, the barons and dukes all have land. This land is worked by the peasants. The peasants do not fight in war or own land. They owe their lord their labor, a certain percentage of their crops and their tithe to the Church.

Traders facilitated by bartering goods.

The peasant class grows between 500-1000 in order to finance the nobility and warring aristocracy.

The late 800's see the Norsemen and Hungarian tribes wreak havoc upon the feudalistic system. The local lords have to fight and take back power from the king to survive.

These lords in turn become more powerful and the kings cannot reel them back in. It takes generations for the kings to reign in power.

Feudalism is not a caste system. Knights can rise higher and obtain land or more land. Noblemen can become Barons.

When missionaries come into these feudal territories they face the sever political instability, dealt with poor people and sometimes a lord may be pagan and kill the missionary.

Ireland

410 Romans leave Britain
430? Patrick (British missionary to Ireland) converts Ireland. Britain reverts to paganism out of the political instability.
563 Columba (Irish missionary to Britain)