Great schism before 1054

[papabless17]

Why in 800 start date the church is already divided? Is this how it was in reality and got formaled in 1054 or just free interpretation so people would easily understand that?

[brownacs]

It doesn't seem like they've scripted religious denominations splitting/emerging so you have to start with all the sects (barring unreformed/reformed) that you want to exist in 1453. Christianity's not the only problematic one: Al-Ash'ari, founder of the eponymous school, wasn't born in 867 (it's also not really a religious denomination but more a school of theological interpretation) and the Isma'ili/Nizari split wouldn't happen for about 200 years to name two random things off the top of my head.

[dwarfpcfan]

not to mention locations being religion holy sites that were not considered special at the dates they are, see canterbury in 867 as a catholic holy site, which is absolute nonsense that is just in the game to make holding england as a pagan norse more challenging

[brownacs]

Originally posted by dwarfpcfan:

not to mention locations being religion holy sites that were not considered special at the dates they are, see canterbury in 867 as a catholic holy site, which is absolute nonsense that is just in the game to make holding england as a pagan norse more challenging

There aren't many good candidates for Catholic holy sites in the west (to differentiate Catholicism from the eastern variants) in the earliest start date. Jerusalem and Rome, fine, but the rest are all a bit debatable. The old cathedral in Cologne wasn't consecrated until 870, making it dubious that it was a major Catholic pilgrimage site in 867, and Santiago was a small church (the cathedral wouldn't be built until the 12th century after the church was destroyed by the Cordoban Caliphate). And yeah Canterbury's also 12th century really. I think it goes back to the religions being immutable so if you want somewhere to be a Catholic holy site in 1453 then it has to be one in 867 even if it doesn't really make sense.

[Seek and Find]

Originally posted by brownacs:

There aren't many good candidates for Catholic holy sites in the west (to differentiate Catholicism from the eastern variants) in the earliest start date.

Hogwash. Glastonbury in Somerset goes back to the first century AD.

[brownacs]

Originally posted by Seek and Find:

Hogwash. Glastonbury in Somerset goes back to the first century AD.

That's debated. The evidence says definitely 6th century (500 CE) but any earlier is conjecture based on a single source written 1000 years later (1130 CE). EDIT: I'm instinctively cynical that there would have been a church 4,000 miles away from Israel within a century of Yeshua's supposed death. Never say never, but would require some quite incontrovertible proof before I accepted that as fact. If it was that old, it'd be one of the first churches.

And sure, I'm not saying there were no churches in Europe (I didn't even say there were no pilgrimage sites/contenders; I said 'not many') in the 9th century but I don't think an Italian proto-Catholic would've considered the small wooden church in Glastonbury to be a major pilgrimage site.

[Darrenb209]

Originally posted by brownacs:

Originally posted by dwarfpcfan:

not to mention locations being religion holy sites that were not considered special at the dates they are, see canterbury in 867 as a catholic holy site, which is absolute nonsense that is just in the game to make holding england as a pagan norse more challenging

There aren't many good candidates for Catholic holy sites in the west (to differentiate Catholicism from the eastern variants) in the earliest start date. Jerusalem and Rome, fine, but the rest are all a bit debatable. The old cathedral in Cologne wasn't consecrated until 870, making it dubious that it was a major Catholic pilgrimage site in 867, and Santiago was a small church (the cathedral wouldn't be built until the 12th century after the church was destroyed by the Cordoban Caliphate). And yeah Canterbury's also 12th century really. I think it goes back to the religions being immutable so if you want somewhere to be a Catholic holy site in 1453 then it has to be one in 867 even if it doesn't really make sense.

In regards to Cologne, I doubt it's any one factor that made it a Holy Site unless it was the need for a Holy Site in Germany, in which case it becomes the natural choice; It was the provincial capital of Germania Inferior for the Romans and it's first Bishop was a personal friend of the Emperor who converted Rome. There are a number of churches in the city that were themselves converted Roman structures and have been active since said conversion.

For Santiago... well, it's complicated and you can basically say it happened in stages for each start date. In the 867 start date it was a pilgrimage route but only really for Iberia; the first records of non-Iberians travelling the route date to the mid-1000s. It also only became a massive pilgrimage route when the system became organised in the 12th century, in time for the final start date.

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by papabless17:

Is this how it was in reality and got formaled in 1054

Pretty much. The Latin and Greek churches had significant differences long before the schism.

What historians consider the "Great Schism" was simply the action of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicating each other, which represented a culminations of hundreds of years of hostilities between the two, not the start of said hostilities. In my opinion, CK3 would be not be more correct by pretending that the Latin and Greek Christianity were united until 1054.

[armyissue69]

CK3 is, really.... simply.... a game. AND, it's is definitely not a historical representation of how things unfold as...once the Green Light (Play Button) is given...anything goes. CK3 allows any player to take liberties within religious frameworks to remake or establish new, etc. You can yourself remove ecumenism any time as long as you meet requirements.

Now that those statements were made, I should turn your attention to the PBS/Great Courses Selection where you can learn about the rise and fall of a great many cultures during the dark/middle ages.

There were numerous instances of protestants and catholics warring against each other and slaughtering entire towns...Wanna know how dumb people were then?? People would place their faces into the toilet seats to inhale the air because they thought this prevented the plague...don't believe me? watch the England from from fall of rome to the norman conquest by Jennifer Paxton (AMAZING)

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by armyissue69:

CK3 is, really.... simply.... a game. AND, it's is definitely not a historical representation of how things unfold as...once the Green Light (Play Button) is given...anything goes. CK3 allows any player to take liberties within religious frameworks to remake or establish new, etc. You can yourself remove ecumenism any time as long as you meet requirements.

Now that those statements were made, I should turn your attention to the PBS/Great Courses Selection where you can learn about the rise and fall of a great many cultures during the dark/middle ages.

There were numerous instances of protestants and catholics warring against each other and slaughtering entire towns...Wanna know how dumb people were then?? People would place their faces into the toilet seats to inhale the air because they thought this prevented the plague...don't believe me? watch the England from from fall of rome to the norman conquest by Jennifer Paxton (AMAZING)

Not like anyone got any brighter in a thousand years. We just had a worldwide pandemic and some of the beliefs and 'cures' were no better or crazier than sticking your head in the toilet.

You could argue that Christianity was already divided into irreconcilable pieces by the Council of Nicaea (325AD) - so to pick a specific date for the great schism is almost just personal preference or deferring to a historian to pick it for you in the long history of differing on doctrine and jurisdiction in Christianity. Like deciding Protestant Reformation starts with Luther's Theses.

Constantinople quit answering to Rome long before any schism date you want to pick.

[brownacs]

Originally posted by Darrenb209:

In regards to Cologne, I doubt it's any one factor that made it a Holy Site unless it was the need for a Holy Site in Germany, in which case it becomes the natural choice; It was the provincial capital of Germania Inferior for the Romans and it's first Bishop was a personal friend of the Emperor who converted Rome. There are a number of churches in the city that were themselves converted Roman structures and have been active since said conversion.

For Santiago... well, it's complicated and you can basically say it happened in stages for each start date. In the 867 start date it was a pilgrimage route but only really for Iberia; the first records of non-Iberians travelling the route date to the mid-1000s. It also only became a massive pilgrimage route when the system became organised in the 12th century, in time for the final start date.

Apologies, I kinda half-arsed that (having had this conversation several times now). I used to write long breakdowns of everything wrong with Islam which is more my speciality but, as the kids say, cba.

Cologne makes sense if we have to have the same holy sites in 1453 as we do in 867 but Maastricht would probably be my pick for an 867 German pilgrimage site/holy site if they could change. Cologne becomes a major pilgrimage site in the 12th century ish I think thanks to Barbarossa's donation of the (supposed) bones of the Three Wise Men.

Santiago was one of my picks in a previous iteration of this conversation but yeah, like you said (and like I said), it's debatably a major pilgrimage site in 867.

I also focused on the cathedrals because our Christian holy sites = cathedrals in this game hence my mentioning that Santiago's wouldn't be built until the 12th century and that construction on Cologne's hadn't finished.

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

Not like anyone got any brighter in a thousand years. We just had a worldwide pandemic and some of the beliefs and 'cures' were no better or crazier than sticking your head in the toilet.

You could argue that Christianity was already divided into irreconcilable pieces by the Council of Nicaea (325AD) - so to pick a specific date for the great schism is almost just personal preference or deferring to a historian to pick it for you in the long history of differing on doctrine and jurisdiction in Christianity. Like deciding Protestant Reformation starts with Luther's Theses.

Constantinople quit answering to Rome long before any schism date you want to pick.

Generally 867 will be given as the point of no return (thanks to the Photian schism although that schism was partially resolved) but yeah it's arbitrary. Could also make an argument for 1054 as the formal end of the process.