Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The Third Rome Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 21:14 |
Moscow. What role did the tsar play in ruling over christian people, particularly his role over western european kingdoms? were they servants to the tsar. what is the third rome?
the intuitive scholar will see how this topic relates to napoleon and today, and everything in between.
|
|
pytheas
Samurai
Joined: 14-Dec-2004
Location: Wales
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 12:17 |
riiiiiiiight.....
|
Truth is a variant based upon perception. Ignorance is derived from a lack of insight into others' perspectives.
|
|
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 22:04 |
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2004 at 20:15 |
So...you're saying if tsar=ceasar, then Moscow=Rome?
I assume Constantinople was 2nd Rome?
When did the tsar rule over christian people? I though that was the Pope, and Russia followed the Eastern Orthodox Church.
When did the tsar rule over W. European Kingdoms?
While I don't consider myself an intuitive scholar, I don't see how someone that does could possibly see how your "questions" could possibly relate to Napolean, today, or anything in between.
What I'm trying to say is: clarify.
Edited by shortej
|
|
Christscrusader
Baron
Joined: 13-Nov-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2004 at 20:39 |
Now Athens.
|
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Dec-2004 at 18:12 |
Originally posted by shortej
When did the tsar rule over christian people? I though that was the Pope, and Russia followed the Eastern Orthodox Church.
|
I have trouble believing this. The Eastern Orthodox Church is not Christian.?
Every tsar has ruled over Christian peoples. As far as I'm aware, the title 'tsar' was first applied to the ruler of Bulgaria in or around the eighth century (top of my head - somewhere thereabouts) as the slav equivalent of caesar, and also around the time the Bulgarians converted to Christianity (Orthodox) under the influence of - and sometimes subject to - Byzantium.
I don't think the title was ever used by non-Christian Slavs.
As for the Russian Tsar ruling over Roman Catholics, the answer is yes in Poland. Also I think the Moravians of Western Ukraine were in communion with Rome.
(As a matter of passing interest, the first language other than Latin, Greek and Hebrew authorised by the Pope for translating the Bible was what is now known as Church Slavonic.)
|
|
dark_one
Baron
Joined: 04-Sep-2004
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 454
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Dec-2004 at 22:29 |
Well the Czar was considered the Divine Ruller of Russia, so he
was the main guy in religion especially after the elimination of the
Patriarch. As far as I know Poles were catholic despised us for
imposing our belief system on them, soIm assuming if we ever rulled one
of the western kingdoms it would be the same. COuld ahve stated stuff
clearer. Moscow is refferred to as the third Rome also because it was
(suppsoedly) build on seven hills. pretty sure that's not true though.
|
|
mongke
Samurai
Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 18:11 |
Moscow for most of history was unworthy to be considered the third rome. Just look at the "city" from say 900 to 1400. What did it amount to? Just a trading settlement???
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 18:27 |
And Byzantum, before having a capital built on top of it, was just a
fishing village, didn't stop it from becoming the 2nd Rome though.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 18:43 |
Moscow was considered the third Rome by many, such as the monk Filofei:
"The Apollinarian heresy caused the downfall of old Rome. The Turks
used their axes to shatter the doors of all churches of the Second
Rome, the city of Constantinople. Now [in Moscow], the new Third
Rome, the Holy Ecumenical Apostolic Church of your sovereign state
shines brighter than the sun in the universal Orthodox Christian faith
throughout the world. Pious Tsar! Let [people of] your state know that
all states of the Orthodox faith have now merged into one, your state.
You are the only true Christian ruler under the sky!"
A lot of the third Rome ideal was created by the Romanov Dynasty. They
believed they were sucessors to the second Rome (Constantinople). Of
course they considered the Rome at that time unworthy of being "Rome"
because they wre catholic and not orthodox.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
Sikander
Pretorian
Joined: 12-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 17:25 |
think it was the Russian Gran-Duque Basil III, Ivanovitch that said "two Romes have fallen, but now a New Rome has arise, and this one shall never fall". This Rome, of course, was Moscow,
Since the Rurikid royal family (the Russian royal family, of scandinavian origin) had blood ties with the Paleologii, by the marriage of Sophia Paleologos (daughter of Contantine XI- the last roman Emperor) with Ivan III, father of Basil III, the Russians monarchs considered themselves entitled to the title of Tzar, or Ceasar, and to be the leaders of Christiandom (of both the Ortodox and the scismatic Roman churches).
Basil was the father of Tzar Ivan IV Grozny (the Terrible).
Best
Sikander
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2005 at 20:50 |
it seems some people are getting it. as to napoleon: the old saying "those who win the wars write the books." look into the the coronation process of rulers. the only rulers to crown themselves were the czars, and of course napoleon. then look at how napoleon brought down the holy roman empire or as i like to call it the greater roman empire--the western lands ruled from moscow. the first step of course took place when the transfer of the capitol of the greater roman empire went from spain about 1700 to austria. napoleon then came and drove a wedge through europe that would lead to his ultimate goal conquering moscow (the third rome). then look at russia's role in protecting the middle east throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. they were not colonizing the world, but protecting the christian people.
"the world belongs to those who forsee possibilities before they become obvious." --some great thinker.
"war is the quickest and most effective way to change the commonly held beliefs of a society." kant
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2005 at 12:07 |
you are a very weird person...
|
|
tzar
Baron
Joined: 02-Jan-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 472
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2005 at 13:51 |
Excuse me, maybe I'll sound a little funny for some of you, but i thought Tarnovgrad was called "The Third Rome and Second Constantinopolle" If there is any other Rome, it will be fourth!
We haven't strong evidences for our thesis, but there are some descriptions of Tarnovgrad by some ancient travellers who called it Third Rome, because of the big cultural apogee of the town and Bulgaria during the 14 century and economic and politic decline of Byzantium at the time
A little support of my thesis is that link but there aren't any evidences!
http://www.vtarnovo.hit.bg/aboutvt_e.html
|
|
Inquisitor Dei
Immortal Guard
Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: Vatican City State
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 13:35 |
There was just one Rome. The others were just mere impressions.
|
"I am the way, the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father but through me."
--John 14:6
|
|