The most futile rebellion in history - Shakushain - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14281801
I agree with you Pot, about papacy its really hard to tell, they had the will to spread european culture which was chirstianity at that time but they had no will to unify europe itself into 1 people of sorts as Machiavelli pointed it out in regards to italy.

Napoleon did it , just not for long.


In all honest Napoleon wasnt that significant in that regard, he was spreading the Revolution and thats about it, papacy did a far better job. Simply put the papacy had the means but not the will, while napoleon had the will but used the wrong means.
#14281813
In all honest Napoleon wasnt that significant in that regard, he was spreading the Revolution and thats about it, papacy did a far better job.

For Napoleon, spreading the Revolution meant politically unifying Europe under French rule. He failed, for the same sorts of reasons that Hitler failed. If the careers of Napoleon and Hitler teach us anything, it's that any attempt to politically unify Europe must include both Britain and Russia.

And I dispute the idea that the Papacy lacked the will to politically unify Europe - the various Popes of the Middle Ages tried very hard to unify Europe under their control. It was the Papacy which did for the Holy Roman Empire, which it saw as a rival to that ambition.
#14281846
For Napoleon, spreading the Revolution meant politically unifying Europe under French rule. He failed, for the same sorts of reasons that Hitler failed. If the careers of Napoleon and Hitler teach us anything, it's that any attempt to politically unify Europe must include both Britain and Russia.

And I dispute the idea that the Papacy lacked the will to politically unify Europe - the various Popes of the Middle Ages tried very hard to unify Europe under their control. It was the Papacy which did for the Holy Roman Empire, which it saw as a rival to that ambition.



Regarding napoleon i agree thats why i said he used the wrong means. Papacy for most of its existance wanted to spread religion, thats about it, they didnt want to create a one unified entity of people just one religion, nor were intrested in creating some kind of holy christian super empire because it would have been a threat to the pope itself. A lot of strong feudal states had a habbit of defying the pope, so they didnt wish that to happen. Regarding the holy roman empire, emperors of the empire knew about that, specially Barbarossa, thats why they were threatened by the church.
#14281852
Regarding napoleon i agree thats why i said he used the wrong means.

I'm not sure what you mean by "used the wrong means". What other means could he have used?

Papacy for most of its existance wanted to spread religion, thats about it, they didnt want to create a one unified entity of people just one religion, nor were intrested in creating some kind of holy christian super empire because it would have been a threat to the pope itself.

That "holy Christian super empire" existed; it was called 'the Holy Roman Empire'. And the Popes did see it as a threat to their temporal power, which is why they ultimately destroyed it in all but name. The Medieval and Renaissance Popes saw themselves as the 'rightful' rulers of Christendom, not the kings or emperors. In fact, this failed attempt at unifying Europe under their spiritual and temporal rule saddled the Church with the Papal States and put them on a collision course with the rising tide of European (especially Italian) nationalism in the 19th century, which almost sank it for good. The Roman Catholic Church only survived into the modern era by letting the Papal States go (at gunpoint) and by finally abandoning once and for all any lingering ambitions they may have had to exert temporal power in European affairs.

A lot of strong feudal states had a habbit of defying the pope, so they didnt wish that to happen. Regarding the holy roman empire, emperors of the empire knew about that, specially Barbarossa, thats why they were threatened by the church.

Indeed, which ultimately led to the decline into comical insignificance of the Holy Roman Empire.
#14281866
Philby wrote:What is Europistan?


When i visited Germany it was full of Turks, France full of north africans and UK full of Pakistani. I doubt europes new muslim masters will care much about the old history of the former population. After all they show littler interest in the history of their former cultures.
#14281868
Akuma wrote:When i visited Germany it was full of Turks, France full of north africans and UK full of Pakistani. I doubt europes new muslim masters will care much about the old history of the former population. After all they show littler interest in the history of their former cultures.

Much like what the Yamato did to the the Ainu when they invaded from China.
#14281896
I'm not sure what you mean by "used the wrong means". What other means could he have used?


That is hard to answer, but ultimately he fell into the same trap Hitler fell(And i dont mean Russia). He just didnt have enough resources to go through with it, so that alone makes it a wrong mean. May be i am just riding a high horse here knowing what happened but it just seems to be unreasonable to think that france could control whole of europe militarily while the rest of europe outnumbered it several fold.

That "holy Christian super empire" existed; it was called 'the Holy Roman Empire'. And the Popes did see it as a threat to their temporal power, which is why they ultimately destroyed it in all but name. The Medieval and Renaissance Popes saw themselves as the 'rightful' rulers of Christendom, not the kings or emperors. In fact, this failed attempt at unifying Europe under their spiritual and temporal rule saddled the Church with the Papal States and put them on a collision course with the rising tide of European (especially Italian) nationalism in the 19th century, which almost sank it for good. The Roman Catholic Church only survived into the modern era by letting the Papal States go (at gunpoint) and by finally abandoning once and for all any lingering ambitions they may have had to exert temporal power in European affairs.


We were talking about Papacy having the will to create this state or to unify people under one banne. Holy Roman Empire was created by feaudal lords vaguely despersed in the region of modern germany and poland and then it was supported by the Papacy(Pun intended). I dont see this as a will from papacy to create 1 mighty people and 1 mighty empire. The papacies faul was that it didnt use its power in this regard.

Indeed, which ultimately led to the decline into comical insignificance of the Holy Roman Empire.


Exactly, if only Barbarossa moved the papacy to Lubeck and proclaimed himself pope(Caesar?), but we only can dream.... But no, he needed to get himself killed swimming
#14281972
It would be nice if you open your own topic for your history and don't here?

If it makes you feel better, Akuma, just think of us as the PoFo version of Admiral Perry.

Oh wait, that probably won't make you feel better, will it? Never mind.
#14282107
No, you are much more like Charles Lennox Richardson.

In that case, you won't mind if the Royal Navy bombards Kagoshima after my untimely demise, will you?

I find it astonishing that people are just accepti[…]

So how deadly is it?

That's every model then. Every model is incompl[…]

The response to the virus was lacking but at th[…]

So you can probably tell why doctors are takin[…]