AH Challenge: Unholy See
- Thread starter Nicole
- Start date
HueyLong said:
Ahem....
Unholy Roman Empire timeline. The "unholy" comes from an alternate Reformation.
Thande
Donor
I don't see why. After all, there have been plenty of Christian groups throughout the ages (Cathars, Puritans) who think that the cross is a symbol of evil. Just have the word 'holy' exclusively associated with Catholicism (which I believe was how Midgard did it) and you're away.HueyLong said:
HueyLong said:
Not evil or ASB-ish - in my TL the word used was "unholy", but the meaning was quite different from OTL - let's just say it had Gnostic Reformation, and "Unholy" Empire meant the same thing as "Worldly" Empire. In Cathar belief (which in TTL was at the core of Reformation), the world was unholy, and only the heavens were pure and free of sin - thus, for celestial kingdom of God, there is an unholy kingdom of men. A Gnostic Christian Empire with nationalist tendencies and strong anti-Catholic bias (see TL) would actually use this term to signify its worldly superiority, and lack of claim over ecclesiastic status (unlike HRE, or any Catholic empire of the time).
Alcuin
Banned
Self-Styled "Unholy See"
I can imagine three reasons why a Mediaeval state might call itself "Unholy".
1) The state adheres to some form of Gnosticism or Manichaeism, which has at some point between the time of John the Baptist and the present (whenever that is) adopted the philosophy of Valentinus, a Gnostic scholar who believed that God was not sufficiently powerful to influence the world and that Satan and His Archons controlled the world. Valentinus once said (in our world) "If anyone tells you he has supernatural powers, he is either a liar or a demon". Given the temporal power of the Roman Church, such a group might well set itself up as "The Unholy See" in opposition (in this case, the Unholy See would be based in Syria, Bulgaria, or perhaps around Babylon.)
2) The state was formed after a successful peasants' revolt. There were many times in the Middle Ages where groups of peasants began almost openly worshipping Satan and mocking the church. (Usually in times of famine or plague when "God had abandoned them"). It wouldn't take much for a nobleman, down on his luck, disgusted at some excess or other, to take on the mantle of Prince of the Holy See, Gilles de Reyes, for example, after the execution of Joan of Arc. Alternatively, a peasant messiah, like Jan van Leyden might consider renaming the Anabaptist state of Muenster as "The Unholy See"?
3) The state was formed by those persecuted by the Holy Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. It was secular, rather than actually Satanic but took the name in a self-conscious attempt at mocking the Church. Perhaps it might consist of Jews, Cathars, Moslems and the elite of Tolosian society (such as Raymonde of Toulouse) who tolerated those the Pope would rather see burned.
This is not an attempt by the way, just some ideas that I hope might inspire somebody.
HueyLong said:
I can imagine three reasons why a Mediaeval state might call itself "Unholy".
1) The state adheres to some form of Gnosticism or Manichaeism, which has at some point between the time of John the Baptist and the present (whenever that is) adopted the philosophy of Valentinus, a Gnostic scholar who believed that God was not sufficiently powerful to influence the world and that Satan and His Archons controlled the world. Valentinus once said (in our world) "If anyone tells you he has supernatural powers, he is either a liar or a demon". Given the temporal power of the Roman Church, such a group might well set itself up as "The Unholy See" in opposition (in this case, the Unholy See would be based in Syria, Bulgaria, or perhaps around Babylon.)
2) The state was formed after a successful peasants' revolt. There were many times in the Middle Ages where groups of peasants began almost openly worshipping Satan and mocking the church. (Usually in times of famine or plague when "God had abandoned them"). It wouldn't take much for a nobleman, down on his luck, disgusted at some excess or other, to take on the mantle of Prince of the Holy See, Gilles de Reyes, for example, after the execution of Joan of Arc. Alternatively, a peasant messiah, like Jan van Leyden might consider renaming the Anabaptist state of Muenster as "The Unholy See"?
3) The state was formed by those persecuted by the Holy Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. It was secular, rather than actually Satanic but took the name in a self-conscious attempt at mocking the Church. Perhaps it might consist of Jews, Cathars, Moslems and the elite of Tolosian society (such as Raymonde of Toulouse) who tolerated those the Pope would rather see burned.
This is not an attempt by the way, just some ideas that I hope might inspire somebody.
HueyLong
Banned
They might say Worldly, but considering the fact that they would have to deal with other states, Unholy would not be used. The leaders would most definitely render themselves as Holy, and on the international scene, they would not declare themselves unholy.
Of course, an alternate meaning or translation is a problem with this challenge. If unholy and holy are far different than they should be, does it still meet the challenge?
Of course, an alternate meaning or translation is a problem with this challenge. If unholy and holy are far different than they should be, does it still meet the challenge?
My thought was one of the Gnostic sects that already said that the Jewish/Non-Gnostic Christian God was in fact a devil or some other evil being might go a step further, associating terms like "Holy" in wide usage among Catholics with the devil- thus leaving them with the term "Unholy" to show that they do not worship the "holy" god....
Alcuin
Banned
HueyLong said:
Suppose, one of the Messiahs of 15th century Germany chose instead to declare himself the Antichrist. His followers might genuinely believe that Satan was going to manifest openly in order to lead them. Might they not call themselves Unholy in order to fulfil Prophecy?