And for shits and grins I came up with this preliminary map for what the Eastern Med. will probably look like around 1200 AD: (edit: Whoops forgot to edit something off the map... 
)
)A fractured HRE (a map of a WI)
- Thread starter Shadow Knight
- Start date
I'vee been delving a bit deeper into the Patarene issue, which appears to be a very complicated one: the Patarenes started as opponents to the simoniac clergy, as well as of the married or concubinous priests. Then things start to become complicated. There are at least 3 or 4 factions involved: the patarenes themselves, obviously; the Roman curia, which is supportive of the Patarenes up to a certain point (mostly for the anti-imperial stance in the fight for investitures), but for various reasons never commits completely to their support, and in 1089 reiterates that sacraments are always valid, even when given by simoniac priests; the imperial faction (and both Henry III and Henry IV are mostly interested in the revenues they can collected for the investitures of bishops, abbots and so on); a fourth faction is also there, which in our terminology we might define as silent majority (not so silent, actually): these people believe in a reform of the Church, but even more they believe in the sanctity of the social order. Their vision of the world recognizes three categories: clerics, on the top, who are the only channel to God; milites (= nobles), who defend the church and the people; laity (all the rest of the people) who are mostly workers and farmers, and must obey in all ways to the first two orders. What this fourth faction does not accept is that the church has given the laity the task of reforming the church itself.
It is a fascinating topic, and does not just include theological debates: most of it deals with riots, armed clashes, murders and ordeals by fire.
Remember that the bishops (and the arch-bishop of Milan in particular, since the arch-bishopry of Milan controlled a large number of episcopal seats in Northern Italy) effectively controlled a large part of the wealth available in this time and place. There is still a very strong resistence in accepting the pope as the true head of the church, not so much in doctrinal terms, but in practical ones: the larger arch-bishoprics or pathriarchates consider themselves almost independent, and are not willing to subordinate the accession to the episcopal seat to a confirmation from Rome.
I'll attach some links here which you should find quite inetresting:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/history/Faculty/buc/LANDULF.htm : it is a translation of a history of Milan in the late 11th century, written just a few decades after the fact
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.bonizo_bonitho.html?bcb=0 Life of Bonizo (or Bonitho) bishop of Sutri and Piacenza, Patarene
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/jfec/cal/papacy/coredocs/coredoc2.htm a church history (mostly deals with events between 1040 and 1070)
http://italy.peacelink.org/storia/articles/art_2589.html deals with the Patarene movement in Florence, and the struggle to depose Pietro Mezzabarba, the simoniac bishop of the city (another ordeal by fire!)
One of the most fascinating figures is certainly Erlenbaldo (Erlembald) Cotta, brother of Arnulf Cotta, who was a contender for the arch-bishopric of Milan.
After the assassination of Arnulf, his brother (who was a knight) became the effective leader of the Patarene movement in Milan, until he was killed himself in a riot in 1075 (but a riot can go many ways, you know: a more successful Erlembald...).
Our good friend Mathilda (who used to have a finger in each and any pie) was a supporter of Pataria, even if her role has been played down in the subsequent chronicles (Pataria was a close antecedent of the heretic movements led in the 12th century by Arnaldo of Brescia, by the Waldensis and probably even the Cathars: as such, it did not look good to the agiographer to mix the figure of Mathilda with what came to be considered later a heretic movement). The fact that Bonizo of Sutri became bishop of Piacenza with the support of Mathilda, and the strong roots that Pataria had in Florence (the most faithful Tuscan city for the Canossas) is for me a proof of this support: obviously the right to appoint the arch-bishop of Milan played a role. Remember that also Brescia was under the influence of the canossa, which might explain Arnulf of Brescia, and his role in Milan in the last decade of the 11th century (and also why Conrad was crowned in Milan).
Maybe the times were not yet mature for the victory of a reformist movement enjoying grass-root support: certainly it was different when Francis of Assisi created his order of friars. It was pretty close, though: and possibly these early reformers paid the price of an absolute political naivete, which played into the hands of the Roman church and the HRE. A bit more luck, or a bit more practicality maybe: Erlenbald looks like a strong leader.
I would like to tie in this spiritual reform (or revolt) with the insurrection of the minor nobles in our TL. Mathilda's reforms threaten the very basis of the social order, and not only on the material plane, but also on the spiritual one.
The aristocracy (the "milites") start to feel the danger of being swallowed by the rising mercantile classes, and to loose their role as leaders. Worse, they will have to accept the choice of the mobs also for their spiritual leaders, the bishops who are still in a much stronger position than it came to be in later centuries: to all effects, a bishop is the true representative of Christ; the pope is far away in Rome, but the bishops are present in every aspect of city's life. And they are walking cash-boxes. No surprise that the fight for investitures was so hard and long.
Look up also Guido (Wido) da Velate - imperial appointee to the arch-bishopric of Milan - and his successor, Godofredo (Godfrey) of Castiglione.
Giovanni Gualberto, for the Pataria in Florence.
It is a fascinating topic, and does not just include theological debates: most of it deals with riots, armed clashes, murders and ordeals by fire.
Remember that the bishops (and the arch-bishop of Milan in particular, since the arch-bishopry of Milan controlled a large number of episcopal seats in Northern Italy) effectively controlled a large part of the wealth available in this time and place. There is still a very strong resistence in accepting the pope as the true head of the church, not so much in doctrinal terms, but in practical ones: the larger arch-bishoprics or pathriarchates consider themselves almost independent, and are not willing to subordinate the accession to the episcopal seat to a confirmation from Rome.
I'll attach some links here which you should find quite inetresting:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/history/Faculty/buc/LANDULF.htm : it is a translation of a history of Milan in the late 11th century, written just a few decades after the fact
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.bonizo_bonitho.html?bcb=0 Life of Bonizo (or Bonitho) bishop of Sutri and Piacenza, Patarene
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/jfec/cal/papacy/coredocs/coredoc2.htm a church history (mostly deals with events between 1040 and 1070)
http://italy.peacelink.org/storia/articles/art_2589.html deals with the Patarene movement in Florence, and the struggle to depose Pietro Mezzabarba, the simoniac bishop of the city (another ordeal by fire!)
One of the most fascinating figures is certainly Erlenbaldo (Erlembald) Cotta, brother of Arnulf Cotta, who was a contender for the arch-bishopric of Milan.
After the assassination of Arnulf, his brother (who was a knight) became the effective leader of the Patarene movement in Milan, until he was killed himself in a riot in 1075 (but a riot can go many ways, you know: a more successful Erlembald...).
Our good friend Mathilda (who used to have a finger in each and any pie) was a supporter of Pataria, even if her role has been played down in the subsequent chronicles (Pataria was a close antecedent of the heretic movements led in the 12th century by Arnaldo of Brescia, by the Waldensis and probably even the Cathars: as such, it did not look good to the agiographer to mix the figure of Mathilda with what came to be considered later a heretic movement). The fact that Bonizo of Sutri became bishop of Piacenza with the support of Mathilda, and the strong roots that Pataria had in Florence (the most faithful Tuscan city for the Canossas) is for me a proof of this support: obviously the right to appoint the arch-bishop of Milan played a role. Remember that also Brescia was under the influence of the canossa, which might explain Arnulf of Brescia, and his role in Milan in the last decade of the 11th century (and also why Conrad was crowned in Milan).
Maybe the times were not yet mature for the victory of a reformist movement enjoying grass-root support: certainly it was different when Francis of Assisi created his order of friars. It was pretty close, though: and possibly these early reformers paid the price of an absolute political naivete, which played into the hands of the Roman church and the HRE. A bit more luck, or a bit more practicality maybe: Erlenbald looks like a strong leader.
I would like to tie in this spiritual reform (or revolt) with the insurrection of the minor nobles in our TL. Mathilda's reforms threaten the very basis of the social order, and not only on the material plane, but also on the spiritual one.
The aristocracy (the "milites") start to feel the danger of being swallowed by the rising mercantile classes, and to loose their role as leaders. Worse, they will have to accept the choice of the mobs also for their spiritual leaders, the bishops who are still in a much stronger position than it came to be in later centuries: to all effects, a bishop is the true representative of Christ; the pope is far away in Rome, but the bishops are present in every aspect of city's life. And they are walking cash-boxes. No surprise that the fight for investitures was so hard and long.
Look up also Guido (Wido) da Velate - imperial appointee to the arch-bishopric of Milan - and his successor, Godofredo (Godfrey) of Castiglione.
Giovanni Gualberto, for the Pataria in Florence.
In 1095, at the Council of Piacenza, and later at Clermont, Urban II again condemned the simoniac priests, abbots and bishops, and declared them reduced to laity. At least under a way of reading it: there were, IMHO, a considerable number of loopholes and if the simoniac priest or whatever fully submitted to the Holy See (and probably paid a substantial fine) he would probably be confirmed. The funniest one (in a way, at least) is the provision for concubinous or married priest: the women involved are sentenced to be sold into slavery, but I did not find any particular penalty (except maybe a slap on the wrist) for the priests themselves. Oh well, it was another age, I suppose.Shadow Knight said:
It is in general a political issue, even more than a religious one: in TTL, given the defiance of Clement III ["concubinous, simoniac, false priest"], I might anticipate a harder stance on the simony issue.
Great minds think alike, you should know.Shadow Knight said:Can I keep nothing from you...you ruined the surprise.
I agree on the Knight orders (Templars, Hospitalers, Teutonic Knights [I've got some plans for them.]) and have some ideas as to what their responsibilities will be, but if you've got any suggestions please offer them up.
Re Knight Orders: Templars and Hospitaliers make sense in TTL too; Teutonic Knights maybe a bit less (why should Urban recognise a national order of chivalry, as opposed to a catholic one?). I would rather create a new one (Peter's Host? Christ's Defenders?) under the direct control of the pope.
remember that I still root for Mathilda's Maidens
Nice map. I might say that Byzantium appears to be even too successful: are you planning to waver away the troubles of the 12th century?
And also the appetites of the Southern Italy Normans? Not to mention the traders from Pisa, Genoa and Venice (which might ultimately involve the kingdom of Italy)?
OTOH, I would have expected the crusaders to do better against Egypt: maybe not yet taking the kingdom, but certainly having the border much further to the west, and including the Sinai and Gaza in the Patriarchate (better than patriarchy, IMO) of Jerusalem.
By the same token, there should be Normans west of Egypt, in Cyrenaica.
And also the appetites of the Southern Italy Normans? Not to mention the traders from Pisa, Genoa and Venice (which might ultimately involve the kingdom of Italy)?
OTOH, I would have expected the crusaders to do better against Egypt: maybe not yet taking the kingdom, but certainly having the border much further to the west, and including the Sinai and Gaza in the Patriarchate (better than patriarchy, IMO) of Jerusalem.
By the same token, there should be Normans west of Egypt, in Cyrenaica.
The chronology of the crusade is fine, but there is an incongruence: if Mathilda set sails in July, she should be there in October, I suppose. Maybe she might set up a logistic basis on Cyprus, from where her fleet can supply Crusaders in Cilicia and Antioch. Limassol should be the right place for that.
It might - or it might not - result in a clash between crusaders and Cyprus Byzantines (which was after all what led Richard to conquer the island in the 3rd crusade, in OTL). Strategically, I always considered Cyprus necessary for the survival of the crusaders' states in the Levant.
And - frankly - I find this continuous good behavior of the crusaders toward the Byzantines a bit cloying.
It might - or it might not - result in a clash between crusaders and Cyprus Byzantines (which was after all what led Richard to conquer the island in the 3rd crusade, in OTL). Strategically, I always considered Cyprus necessary for the survival of the crusaders' states in the Levant.
And - frankly - I find this continuous good behavior of the crusaders toward the Byzantines a bit cloying.
LordKalvan said:
I can see a stronger stance, but might Urban II wait until Jerusalem has fallen before he makes his bulla against them? (Kind of how Lincoln waited until after Gettysburg to make the Emanicipation Proclemation.)
LordKalvan said:Great minds think alike, you should know.
Re Knight Orders: Templars and Hospitaliers make sense in TTL too; Teutonic Knights maybe a bit less (why should Urban recognise a national order of chivalry, as opposed to a catholic one?). I would rather create a new one (Peter's Host? Christ's Defenders?) under the direct control of the pope.
remember that I still root for Mathilda's Maidens
Well I was thinking of a smaller Teutonic Order that's more of an Imperial Guard type deal (Conrad as the Pope's Strator is setting a future trend...for how long we'll see). It's more of Conrad asking Urban II to let him form a small holy order in Germany to basically be his own personal holy guard and keep an eye on those pagans in the north east. But if you think that is stretching it I can do without it.
How about Defenders of the Holy Sepulchure as the Pope's personal holy troops?
As for Matilda's Maidens well don't give up on them yet.
LordKalvan said:
A little bit, but the area of central Anatolia that in OTL still remained the Sultanate of Rum is only partially held (or will be) Seljuk Turks will be able to raid almost all the way to Iconium on a regular basis, if not in numbers enough to retake the territory. (Its going to take the Byzantines awhile to rebuild the population numbers in those areas before full control can take place.)
And while things look good to Byzantines now, how else to teach them a bit of humilty but give them a civil war to distract them from getting too powerful.
LordKalvan said:
The Southern Italian Normans are going to be running into some problems of their own within the next few decades (remember that Kingdom of Carthage that popped up...doesn't get there peacefully).
LordKalvan said:
1) Well that part will be sort of explained when I get to what happens around Jerusalem...hopefully it is plausible, if not the border can move. (i'll rename it tomorrow.) Remember the Venetians will be real interested in Egypt, but not all conquests are immediate nor involve violence (well at least initially)...of course I may change my mind later but that's what I got planned.
2) As stated above the Normans of North Africa/Sicily/Southern Italy are going to be having some problems. In the early part of this TLs 12th century they expand a bit westwards and push towards Cyrenaica in the West, but then their problems hit and most of the territory they gained (held loosely) will be lost and at several times the land connection between Tripoli (Libya) will be cut off from Carthage (will eventually be retaken).
Imajin said:
Couple of things that prevented this (well at the moment anywho). With the Seljuks being pushed out of Anatolia they concentrate on finishing the conquest of the Danishmends and the other smaller tribes in the area. The alliance with Mosul (instead of conflict as OTL) helped to stabalize them enough for them to consolidate. Now how long they can prevent the Armenians from breaking loose...
Yeah, another outside post!
Last edited:
LordKalvan said:
Damn I had this gut feeling it would only take her four months but wasn't sure. Since I don't want to do a retcon/edit I'll go with your suggestion and that say she established a logistic base in Limassol on Cyprus and at the moment it has not caused conflict with the Byzantines, but that may change.
LordKalvan said:And - frankly - I find this continuous good behavior of the crusaders toward the Byzantines a bit cloying.
Don't worry it will end soon enough...now I just have to write it in such as way as not too be crap.
I see your point. IMHO, our good Urban has 2 bees in his bonnet: one is certainly the Crusade, but the second is getting rid of the annoying (simoniac, heretic etc.) Clement in Ravenna. I can see him waiting until Ravenna falls, and Clement is bagged, but the issue of simony has nothing to do with the Crusade. Therefore, it might be sense to have the simoniac and libertine priests strongly condemned at Piacenza (with an ad-personam denunciation of the anti-Christ in Ravenna). Then at Clermont a sop for the misguided souls: simoniacs and libertines (and in general all opposers of the holy pontifex) get pardoned if they go crusading.Shadow Knight said:
PS: Urban is scheduled to meet his Maker in 1099. Another reason not to delay too much the hard stance against the corrupt clergy, unless you are granting him a few more years.
Good idea to have a kind of Swiss guard (or Varangian guard, given the time we are in). To put a lil more spice, this German Guard will be manned by third sons, hedge knights and general small fry in the nobility (which, if Conrad is smart, is another nice way to create a personal power base. I thought it was a bit early for a crusade against the pagans in the Baltic, though.Shadow Knight said:
Additionally, the pope (who is a holy man, but has to know that we all live in a fallen world) might consider interesting to take a form of insurance, by having this personal guard filled up with knights who are not from Italy (and so do not have any special tie to the Canossa or the Normans).
Maidens, Maidens!!! We want M-A-I-D-E-N-SShadow Knight said:As for Matilda's Maidens well don't give up on them yet.
I remember reading that once you have destroyed the agricultural worth of a region (like central Anatolia, which by now is mostly good for grazing herds and nomads) it is quite hard to bring it again within a civilised kingdom (and to have it supply a standing army). Maybe the Byzantines recognise this, and the reclaimed anatolian land beome a kind of buffer state, given to friendly nomads.Shadow Knight said:
Byzantium and civil wars are synonimous. But once a civil war starts, the nice, friendly Italian merchants are certain to become much less nice, and positively less friendlyShadow Knight said:
and a number of strongholds and islands will change hands.The Normans have always represented a major question mark for me: OTL, they were on the ascendancy for slightly over a century (during which not only the consolidated their holdings in Southern Italy, but conquered all of Sicily, made their own personal crusade in Tunis and Tripoli, tried a couple of times to conquer the eastern empire (and got very close to Constantinople), participated in the first crusade and esatblished their own principality in the Levant. Then suddenly (and without any immediately obvious reasons) they started to retreat; and when Henry VI arranged the marriage for his son, they had become a rich but not really aggressive kingdom. I'll be interested to see what you've in mind for them in TTLShadow Knight said:
In particular if the traders are good: they come in friendly and nice, corner the markets, offer money to borrowers, it is a bonanza for everyone. Then slowly they turn nasty.Shadow Knight said:
I'm here waitingShadow Knight said:
`Keenir said:you're welcome.
I apologize it took so long for me to post.
(I figured it was better than "great TL, write more!")
I know the feeling.
you're welcome.
I appreciate it, but just getting a "great TL, write more!" Is good enough for me now, since this is really my (with much appreciated assistance from LordKalvan) first full blown TL.
Wendell said:
Thanks! Probably a bit and that's just my fiddling with it to get it right.