Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 40

[cahn]

I'm trying to use my other account at least occasionally so I posted about my Yuletide gifts there, including the salon-relevant 12k fic that features Fritz, Heinrich, Voltaire, Fredersdorf, Saint Germain, Caroline Daum (Fredersdorf's wife), and Groundhog Day tropes! (Don't need to know canon.)

Comments

Pope Gregory vs Henry IV: the Byzantine version

[selenak]

Having discovered there's a copy right free version of Anna Comnena's Alexiad online, I dipped into it for bits and pieces, not having time for more and due to the podcast knowing where to look for particular highlights. This is Anna summing up the Investiture Controversy. Bear in mind that while we refer to them as the Byzantines, the people in question only ever referred to themselves as Romans. They were the one true Roman Empire in unbroken continuity from Augustus onwards. For that matter, they also were the one true church. As for those barbarians in the north got up to... Important from a Byzantine pov is also that the Normans were a constant threat - not just because they nabbed Sicily, but also with Robert Guiscard invading the other side of the Mediterrannean, and then Robert's son Bohemund, with whom Anna's Dad Alexios has a very special long term enemy and occasional ally kind of relationship. So, first, here is Anna introducing Robert Guiscard, the Norman to make all over Normans, except possibly William the Conquerer, look like wannabes:

This Robert was Norman by descent, of insignificant origin in temper tyrannical, in mind most cunning, brave in action, very clever in attacking the wealth and substance of magnates, most obstinate in achievement, for he did not allow any obstacle to prevent his executing his desire. His stature was so lofty that he surpassed even the tallest, his complexion was ruddy, his hair flaxen, his shoulders were broad, his eyes all but emitted sparks of fire, and in frame he was well-built where nature required breadth, and was neatly and gracefully formed where less width was necessary. So from tip to toe this man was well-proportioned, as I have repeatedly heard many say. Now, Homer says of Achilles that when he shouted, his voice gave his hearers the impression of a multitude in an uproar, but this man's cry is is said to have put thousands to flight. Thus equipped by fortune, physique and character, he was naturally indomitable, and subordinate to nobody in the world. Powerful natures are ever like this, people say, even though they be of somewhat obscure descent.

And this is Anna explaining how Robert's rise was aided by a certain Pope and barbarian Emperor simultanously duking it out:

Meanwhile, an event occurred which is worth relating, as it, too, contributed to this man's reputation and good fortune. For I hold that the fact that all the rulers of the West were prevented from attacking him, tended very materially to the barbarian's successful progress. Fate worked for him on all sides, raised him to kingly power, and accomplished everything helpful to him. Now it happened that the Pope of Rome [*Gregory VII] had a difference with Henry, King of Germany [Henry IV], and, therefore, wished to draw Robert into an alliance, as the latter had already become very notable and attained to great dominion. (The Pope is a very high dignitary, and is protected by troops of various nationalities.) The dispute between the King and the Pope was this: the latter accused Henry of not bestowing livings as free gifts, but selling them for money, and occasionally entrusting archbishoprics to unworthy recipients, and he also brought [34] further charges of a similar nature against him. The King of Germany on his side indicted the Pope of usurpation, as he had seized the apostolic chair without his consent. Moreover, he had the effrontery to utter reckless threats against the Pope, saying that if he did not resign his self-elected office, he should be expelled from it with contumely. When these words reached the Pope's ears, he vented his rage upon Henry's ambassadors; first he tortured them inhumanly, then clipped their hair with scissors, and sheared their beards with a razor, and finally committed a most indecent outrage upon them, which transcended even the insolence of barbarians, and so sent them away. My womanly and princely dignity forbids my naming the outrage inflicted (in them, for it was not only unworthy a high priest, but of anyone who bears the name of a Christian. I abhor this barbarian's idea, and more still the deed, and I should have defiled both my pen and my paper had I described it explicitly. But as a display of barbaric insolence, and a proof that time in its flow produces men with shameless morals, ripe for any wickedness, this alone will suffice, if I say, that I could not bear to disclose or relate even the tiniest word about what he did. And this was the work of a high priest. Oh, justice! The deed of the supreme high priest! nay, of one who claimed to be the president of the whole world, as indeed the Latins assert and believe, but this, too, is a bit of their boasting. For when the imperial seat was transferred from Rome hither to our native Queen of Cities, and the senate, and the whole administration, there was also transferred the arch-hieratical primacy. And the Emperors from the very beginning have given the supreme right to the episcopacy of Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon emphatically raised the Bishop of Constantinople to the highest position, and placed all the dioceses of the inhabited world under his jurisdiction.

Re: Pope Gregory vs Henry IV: the Byzantine version

[cahn]

...I think I am going to have to get to this place in the podcast and then come back to this :P

What did he do to Henry's ambassadors??

(It turns out listening in the car is a great move, because I am in the car either dropping off or picking up kids a LOT these days. I got to hear about Theophanu and Adelheid and am at Otto III! Although for the next two weeks I won't have the car with the decent sound system, so though I will probably be able to listen a bit more, I will probably retain even less than is my wont with podcasts.)

Re: Pope Gregory vs Henry IV: the Byzantine version

[mildred_of_midgard]

...I think I am going to have to get to this place in the podcast and then come back to this :P

That one is the Byzantine podcast, so you now have two podcasts to listen to. ;)

I am so far behind on the podcast, but I'm hoping to finish up my Barbarossa-period reading this weekend, and then I can start listening, bring myself up to Frederick II, and then fall behind again as I start reading along.

It turns out listening in the car is a great move

Awesome! I'm delighted I stumbled on this podcast, I've now gotten three people hooked!

Re: Pope Gregory vs Henry IV: the Byzantine version

[selenak]

I wondered about the ambassadors, too, because I don't remember that he did something unspeakable from the podcast, and googling doesn't mention anything, either. Now Anna writes about something that did not happen within her life time, and which she can't know but from third or fourth hand sources - unlike later events - , but I'm intrigued that this is how a Byzantine writer presents the tale, especially since all the German and Italian monks who write after good old Henry IV has duked it out with the Pope for decades are anti Henry and pro Pope. (This, btw, is due to the fact this is the FIRST conflict between Pope and HRE of this magnitude. By the time it's Frederick II's turn to get excommunicated (repeatedly), this is an old hat, the powerplay motivation is blatant, and thus there are are some clerical chroniclers on his side as well.) So I find it intriguing that evidently Byzantine historians were alll "Eh, both were awful" about Henry and Gregory. ("Hildebrand, false monk!" as Henry's letter says, memorably quoted in the German podcast.)

Anyway, if I had to guess, Anna is insinuating the ambassadors got castrated. Which, like I said, I don't recall happening, but who knows? Maybe I missed something.

Re: Pope Gregory vs Henry IV: the Byzantine version

[mildred_of_midgard]

I was assuming castration too, but like you, I don't remember that at all! And I read a few books and articles quite recently on Henry IV and the so-called investiture controversy, and I'd think I'd remember!

I'm intrigued that this is how a Byzantine writer presents the tale,

Agreed, it is interesting that this is how the Byzantines, gougers-of-eyes and removers-of-noses, tell it. ;)

Re: Pope Gregory vs Henry IV: the Byzantine version

[selenak]

:) Though it was just high profile wannabe Emperors and very noble rebels who got the noses and eyes treatments, not envoys. I mean, Lieutward of Cremona (Otto I's envoy who was supposed to bring home an imperial bride) bitches a lot about how snobby everyone treated him, but he doesn't fear for his life. For that matter, come the Crusades, one of the many things that made the Crusaders so distrustful of the Byzantines was that they exchanged envoys with the Turks and treated them respectfully. I mean, you have to consider that Alexios I. Komnenos did want military help against the Turks, but not in the sense of annihilating them. He wanted Nicea and Antioch back. (Not Jerusalem. His army wasn't nearly large enough to garnison and defend Jerusalem, see earlier posts about the civil wars depleting them.) And the Turks were already an established factor by that time. What Byzantium did and had done successfully to other enemies in the past centuries - like the Bulgars, the Rus, the Varangians - was after various wars to integrate them into the Empire and employ them. For that matter, there were some Turks already fighting for the Emperor (and there had been for the previous wannabe Emperors.) There were even some Mosques within Constantinople itself. Imagine you're a member of the First Crusade, where the preachers have very successfully dehumanized the Turks and presented the situation in the Middle East as Muslims torturing and slaughtering Christians on a daily basis, and then the fall of Nicea goes thusly:

Crusaders: *besiege Nicea, fight skirmishes, win skirmisches*

Alexios: *negotiates with Turkish garnison*

Turkish garnison, which includes the wife and children of the Sultan: *surrenders to the Emperor*

Alexios: Rejoice, we can take the city without further bloodshed! Nicea, location of the very first Christian Synod, is once again part of the Byzantine Empire!

Crusaders: But - we wanted to sack it!

Alexios: No way. Nicea has been in Turkish hands for only 20 years. Most of the people inside are former countrymen of mine. No sacking. Thanks, fellows, and have some gold from me for your kind efforts, but I got it from here.

Crusaders: Can we at least ransom the Sultana?

Alexios: Nope. The Sultan is going to stay around. He's my enemy today, but tomorrow I might need him against the Normans. For example. So I'm going to host the Sultana and her kids in the palace for a few weeks and then send her home free of ransom.

Crusaders: What kind of Christian Emperor are you anyway?

Mind you, that's the Empire in a post crisis state where Alexios knows he has to rebuild a lot, and at peak power, who knows what would have happened, but still. Mutilation is something you do to your high profile competition, not to envoys, if you're a Byzantine Roman Emperor.

You might even do it to your own child, though, which is what Romanos I. Lekapenos did with his illegitimate son Basil, to ensure he would not be a danger to his legitimate offspring. The irony is that Basil - who grew up to be one of the most powerful eunuch officials of the Byzantine Empire and managed to serve and survive several Emperors in a row - did not betray Romanos, but his legitimate sons did.

Re: Pope Gregory vs Henry IV: the Byzantine version

[mildred_of_midgard]

not envoys. I mean, Lieutward of Cremona (Otto I's envoy who was supposed to bring home an imperial bride) bitches a lot about how snobby everyone treated him, but he doesn't fear for his life. For that matter, come the Crusades, one of the many things that made the Crusaders so distrustful of the Byzantines was that they exchanged envoys with the Turks and treated them respectfully.

No, not for their lives, but Barbarossa's envoys were, at least according to Latin accounts, locked up by Isaac II Angelos:

The following day they described their imprisonment as shameful and dishonourable, how they had been robbed of their belongings, had endured hunger and the filth of the dungeon, but above all had been exposed to the scorn and derision of Saladin's ambassadors, for it was to them [Saladin's ambassadors' that the basileus had given valuable horses that they [Barbarossa's ambassadors] had given him [the basileus] as gifts from Barbarossa, and they [Saladin's ambassadors] mounted the horses right before their [Barbarossa's ambassadors's eyes and demonstrated their riding skills.

Source, Görich's biography of Barbarossa. It's not mutilation, though, it's true!

You might even do it to your own child, though, which is what Romanos I. Lekapenos did with his illegitimate son Basil, to ensure he would not be a danger to his legitimate offspring. The irony is that Basil - who grew up to be one of the most powerful eunuch officials of the Byzantine Empire and managed to serve and survive several Emperors in a row - did not betray Romanos, but his legitimate sons did.

*facepalm*

Henry II of England*: I tried keeping my sons from knowing what the succession arrangements were, so they wouldn't look forward to my death...so they started to feel insecure and revolted against me. Why is being a royal father so hard?

FW: Tell me about it. Not a single god-fearing offspring!

* Aka the Lion in Winter, cahn.

Re: Pope Gregory vs Henry IV: the Byzantine version

[mildred_of_midgard]

And this is Anna explaining how Robert's rise was aided by a certain Pope and barbarian Emperor simultanously duking it out:

But note, cahn, that she doesn't refer to him as barbarian emperor, but as "King of Germany". This is like Fritz referring to MT as "Queen of Hungary": it means she doesn't recognize Henry's title of emperor. The Byzantines didn't recognize any Roman emperors other than their own, because, as selenak explained, they saw themselves as the continuation of the Roman empire. Which, in their view, had never fallen, only shrunk and moved its capital. As Anna herself explains in the very end, where she also doesn't acknowledge the papal claims to supremacy:

nay, of one who claimed to be the president of the whole world, as indeed the Latins assert and believe, but this, too, is a bit of their boasting. For when the imperial seat was transferred from Rome hither to our native Queen of Cities, and the senate, and the whole administration, there was also transferred the arch-hieratical primacy.

The refusal of the Byzantines to acknowledge the Germans as emperors was a big deal in foreign policy and definitely hampered the Crusades.

Re: Pope Gregory vs Henry IV: the Byzantine version

[selenak]

The refusal of the Byzantines to acknowledge the Germans as emperors was a big deal in foreign policy and definitely hampered the Crusades.

This is also why when Otto (I) wanted a Byzantine princess for his son, as in, an Emperor's daughter, Nikephoros Phokas was all "NO WAY, German" and John Tsimitskes (his nephew, who murdered and replaced him and then scapegoated Theophano the older, with whom he may or may not have had an affair, but whom definitely took the fall for him) a few years later was more diplomatic and did send a bride, but Theophanu the younger was his niece, not his daughter, plus hadn't been born in the purple at all, what with both Nikephoros and John being military ursurpers.