The pope betrays the autocephalous church in favor of a pope, with self ascribed divine powers under St. Peter’s soul somehow passing to him as the most “important” apostle and becoming “divine”.
It’s not only the the islamics and ottomans that took down the Byzantine empire. It’s also the pope. That crusader attack that happenstance slipped and fell and “accidentally” attacked the Byzantine empire, smells like Betrayal or like “Epstein didn’t kill himself”. Pope gave a nice little apology.
But the bigger point is that - the pope is the beginning of Neo aged western globalism, and ruling behind the shadows.
This very concept thriving leads to - independance of state and even averts Western Europe’s later religious independance wars of Catholic and Christian.
Autocephaly was a concept of nationalism - independent nation building - populist rule for the people - by the people of each region.
It stands for every single independance freedom movement - before it even needed to happen... this one act of the fall of Byzantine the true arbiters of our values - this is litteraly what USA fought for that led to independence in 1776..
While you are correct, the Byzantine, as we know them, knew themselves only as Roman. The entire concept of Byzantium is a modern invention designed to sheer the West from its roots. To save Rome one must go further back than the pope and cut slay the serpent like Hardrin.
Byzantine was a term used later and not by the east Roman Empire itself...
But it’s still important to understand that east Roman Empire and west Roman were still two distinct entities with different emperors.
East Rome was basically the region of greece and west Rome was the Italian region.
Also the church first formulated by Constantine was indeed called the Catholic Church... but... it has nothing to do with Catholicism of today. The original Catholic Church can only be found today (with autocephalad rule) in the modern day faith Christian Orthodoxy.
Christian orthodoxy is no different today as it was back then.
The terms Byzantine and even Catholics... has to be used under its modern day meanings - not out of correctness.. as you mentioned - but because the deception and changing meaning of Words and their understanding would cause people to be too confused, to get the correct message across.
So yes - subversion is a thing.. they succeeded.. and we can no longer revert because in explaining the correct message - people would be lost in their inability to understand. As such - what is dialogue if you say correct terms - but people understand a different history and reality to what actually happened.
What I'm saying is that to save Rome you would have to go back to a point where even the concept of Byzantium would not exist. You'd have to go back to Hadrian or Trajen. The very concept of a papal church would have to be annihilated. The split that divided Rome would have to be stopped, the pratorian guard would have to be decimated, the Antonine Plague would have to be prevented and the Germans would need a good solid knot jerked in their tails. All this before the blasted Khan gets there.
I always just make it a point to call out that the Byzantines never really existed and that it is simply Rome. Perhaps is a pretentious quirk, but I detest modern reductionism and revisionism.
Byzantine did exist though - even if the name wasn’t that..
The split of the empire was necessary for the formation of nations. The east Roman Empire had the template that even patriotic Americans hold to today - even if they don’t know it. Again americas war of independence would not even exist as an idea - they could have just played ball under the British.
Less power for monarchs meant they were often more interested in the prosperity of their own kingdom rather than exploiting another to appease another group.
As for the formation of Rome - that’s unavoidable. It was always going to happen. In a different version of history - Rome would lose to the Macedonians and the empire Alexander had established... and Rome would have simply been Macedonon.
Byzantine is an important step in representation of your own peoples, by taking power from an already established super power...
The formation of the two emperor system however is also a bit of a happenchance. Cards fell into place - where there was more than one claim to the throne - and each took a part of the empire, splitting one royal family into two.
Nope.
The pope betrays the autocephalous church in favor of a pope, with self ascribed divine powers under St. Peter’s soul somehow passing to him as the most “important” apostle and becoming “divine”.
It’s not only the the islamics and ottomans that took down the Byzantine empire. It’s also the pope. That crusader attack that happenstance slipped and fell and “accidentally” attacked the Byzantine empire, smells like Betrayal or like “Epstein didn’t kill himself”. Pope gave a nice little apology.
But the bigger point is that - the pope is the beginning of Neo aged western globalism, and ruling behind the shadows.
This very concept thriving leads to - independance of state and even averts Western Europe’s later religious independance wars of Catholic and Christian.
Autocephaly was a concept of nationalism - independent nation building - populist rule for the people - by the people of each region.
It stands for every single independance freedom movement - before it even needed to happen... this one act of the fall of Byzantine the true arbiters of our values - this is litteraly what USA fought for that led to independence in 1776..
https://www.britannica.com/topic/autocephalous-church
While you are correct, the Byzantine, as we know them, knew themselves only as Roman. The entire concept of Byzantium is a modern invention designed to sheer the West from its roots. To save Rome one must go further back than the pope and cut slay the serpent like Hardrin.
https://youtu.be/3kQRKhvxh34
Byzantine was a term used later and not by the east Roman Empire itself...
But it’s still important to understand that east Roman Empire and west Roman were still two distinct entities with different emperors.
East Rome was basically the region of greece and west Rome was the Italian region.
Also the church first formulated by Constantine was indeed called the Catholic Church... but... it has nothing to do with Catholicism of today. The original Catholic Church can only be found today (with autocephalad rule) in the modern day faith Christian Orthodoxy.
Christian orthodoxy is no different today as it was back then.
The terms Byzantine and even Catholics... has to be used under its modern day meanings - not out of correctness.. as you mentioned - but because the deception and changing meaning of Words and their understanding would cause people to be too confused, to get the correct message across.
So yes - subversion is a thing.. they succeeded.. and we can no longer revert because in explaining the correct message - people would be lost in their inability to understand. As such - what is dialogue if you say correct terms - but people understand a different history and reality to what actually happened.
What I'm saying is that to save Rome you would have to go back to a point where even the concept of Byzantium would not exist. You'd have to go back to Hadrian or Trajen. The very concept of a papal church would have to be annihilated. The split that divided Rome would have to be stopped, the pratorian guard would have to be decimated, the Antonine Plague would have to be prevented and the Germans would need a good solid knot jerked in their tails. All this before the blasted Khan gets there.
I always just make it a point to call out that the Byzantines never really existed and that it is simply Rome. Perhaps is a pretentious quirk, but I detest modern reductionism and revisionism.
Byzantine did exist though - even if the name wasn’t that..
The split of the empire was necessary for the formation of nations. The east Roman Empire had the template that even patriotic Americans hold to today - even if they don’t know it. Again americas war of independence would not even exist as an idea - they could have just played ball under the British.
Less power for monarchs meant they were often more interested in the prosperity of their own kingdom rather than exploiting another to appease another group.
As for the formation of Rome - that’s unavoidable. It was always going to happen. In a different version of history - Rome would lose to the Macedonians and the empire Alexander had established... and Rome would have simply been Macedonon.
Byzantine is an important step in representation of your own peoples, by taking power from an already established super power...
The formation of the two emperor system however is also a bit of a happenchance. Cards fell into place - where there was more than one claim to the throne - and each took a part of the empire, splitting one royal family into two.