Rhomania's General Crisis, Part 3.0: Evil Must Be Opposed
Previously on An Age of Miracles:
Thread One, to 1599
Thread Two, 1599-1660
The threads may end, but the fabric of the story of the Roman Empire and the Roman people continues...
There were many that opposed the agenda of the war hawks and the Regime of the Tourmarches, for various reasons. Some thought that expansionist programs were wasteful at best and actively dangerous at worse. Many war hawks wanted to force Serbia and even Hungary into a tighter orbit around Rhomania, although whether that meant vassalage or outright annexation varied depending on the person making the argument. This was to create a supposedly more secure buffer to protect Rhomania from another Theodor-style invasion.
Critics countered that these desires, which were hardly secret, alarmed and angered Serbians and Hungarians, only encouraging them to band together and to look west for aid, simply as a matter of self-defense. By 1660, the Serbians viewed the Roman garrison in Belgrade not as a defense against invasion from the north, but a dangerous threat to their independence in the event of an invasion from the east.
It was the same with Italy. The war hawks wanted to vassalize or conquer some or all of the peninsula (reestablishing the situation c.1500, during the latter years of Andreas Niketas, is the most popular model). There was the buffer zone argument, although here the desire for gold and glory was more open. Critics again countered that such desires only alienated Sicilians, Arletians, and Spaniards, creating enemies out of friends, and endangering the quite effective buffer of the Despotate of Sicily.
Other opponents frankly didn’t care about foreign policy. They were concerned about the various economic reforms that were to sustain the expansionistic policy. The ‘just economics’ legislations had centuries of history behind them, even if enforcement had often been spotty. Most opponents at this stage were not against the concept of market economies, but viewed the ‘just economics’ as important safeguards against corruption and abuse.
There was a good bit of variety within this broader group. Some thought it was necessary to protect the small folk from being gouged. Others viewed it as protection from everything eventually get monopolized by a few, probably due to political connections; this was an attitude that grew after the pattern of land speculation that followed the land sale reforms. Expanding one’s portfolio didn’t depend on political connections to the Tourmarches, but it did help. (Regional concerns factored much in this subset, since in this paradigm proximity to the capital would be decisive, seriously harming prospective competitors in, say, Antioch.) Still others had their sense of honor and fair play offended. If one couldn’t play and prosper in the commercial world without following just economics, then one shouldn’t be allowed to play at all, was their opinion.
To further complicate things, there were disputes over how to use the just economics, as opposed to just why to use them. Some liked the situation as it had been before the land reforms. Others thought that the existing laws needed to be better enforced. And still others thought they needed to be revised and expanded. The latter two groups also tended to be critical not just of the war hawks and Tourmarches, but also of Athena and her officials, since these issues had predated and grown noticeably during her tenure.
As the last bit shows, the war hawks benefited greatly from the disunity of their opponents. Athena and officials loyal to her would oppose the Tourmarches, but possibly for personal and procedural reasons. Others opposed to the Tourmarches on ideological grounds regarding just economics though have almost as much reason to be suspicious of the former group.
The most articulate group opposing the war hawks were the defensivists, but they were opposed on foreign policy grounds. Now some of them also opposed the war hawks for other reasons, whether on just economics or anger over the ‘personal clique’ aspect, but hardly all. This limited their ability for outreach. Furthermore, many defensivists were military or civil officials who rejected expansionism on pragmatic grounds. Gyranos and Plytos in particular recognized that they could be won around with the right arguments and evidence. They recognized that a failed war of expansion would be a very bad outcome that must be avoided, and worked to allay concerns over that outcome. Finally, given their positions and training, many defensivists might disagree with the chain of command, but they would loyally follow orders even if they disagreed with them. The Regime of the Tourmarches, although they were a personal clique without any institutional authority in and of themselves, were operating entirely legally (and were careful to do so for this reason). The signature of Herakleios III, as Autocrat, made anything legal, and they could get that.
The most vocal opposition to the war hawks came from the Orthodox Church. Some of it came from cynical self-interest; if the state demanded more resources for the sake of war, the Church and its vast portfolio was an obvious source. When war hawks directly encountered clerical opposition, they usually emphasized this angle. However, much opposition also stemmed from genuine ideological differences. Some opponents rejected calls for expansionism, while others were appalled at the removal of just economics. Still more objected to both.
Two of the most vocal critics are Bishops Manuel Rekas of the Princes’ Islands and Ioannes Grozes of Athyra. Both are rather minor sees but quite close to the capital, and the two spend much of their time in the capital, more than they should according to canon regulations. Much of that is spent preaching in the various churches. Most of their sermons are now openly political but they are critical of people’s attitudes and behaviors, which they see as the ultimate cause of the political issue. It is Bishop Rekas who makes the famous statement to the people of Constantinople: “Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you.”
One reason the duo of bishops can get away with spending more time in the capital is that their boss, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Adam II, is rather sympathetic to their viewpoints. Taking office under Athena, he is in his early 80s and in poor health. He is bothered by the rise of new rich men, not so much by their wealth per se but their disregard for charity for the poor and their lack of regard for ethics in accumulating said wealth. However, one of his supporters describes him as ‘having a good heart and a bad backbone’. He, especially in his condition, is not one to engage in direct confrontation.
Much more of a firebrand and a fighter, and much more explicitly a denouncer of the war hawks, is Father Andronikos Hadjipapandreou, a priest originally from Tyre and of mixed Arab-Greek ancestry. The Bishops’ criticism are more general, directed towards the populace as a whole, while Andronikos is ready to skewer specific individuals, such as a prominent dynatos whose tenements have low maintenance standards and high rents. The Father describes him as ‘a mangy wolf, ready to tear the bellies of infants to give himself a snack’.
Although Tyre is not that big of a city by Roman standards, young Andronikos was well acquainted with cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity by growing up there. Aside from the Greeks, there were Melkites, Sudanese (non-Ethiopian sub-Saharan Africans), Druze, Alawites, Maronites, Shia Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Latins of all types, Georgians, Armenians, and so on. As a young man, he felt a religious calling, but he is not dogmatic about specific theological doctrines. In his view, God is too vast and wondrous to be comprehended by any human mind, and so it is unreasonable to dogmatically stress details.
But there are some universals he does demand, and foremost of that is justice. As Andronikos notes, all faiths call God by different names, but they condemn lying, theft, and murder. And so the priest emphasizes good behavior, and demands that his listeners act justly and mercifully and humbly, for that is what God requires of them. There are no exceptions; a Basileus and a beggar are both subject to this divine law.
There is more to Andronikos Hadjipapandreou than just stern moralizing; he would not nearly be as popular as he is if that were so. Also as a young man, he was a skilled amateur pugilist with some noted wins to his credit. As a man of the cloth, he no longer engages in such activities but he happily sponsors local boxing matches to help fund charities, coordinating with local stars.
He is also known for his jokes and humor, which in modern terminology largely falls into the ‘dad joke’ type. The most famous is the following: I was purchasing sausages and I said to the vendor “I just wanted to thank you for your good service. I’ve been coming here for seven years and have always enjoyed your products.” The vendor looked at me and said “Seven years? And you’re still alive?” [1]
Andronikos lives an ascetic lifestyle, but he does admit to enjoying sausages, but his real passion and eccentricity is his ardent love of cheese. He is never without at least some cheese, constantly taking some out and nibbling on it, even while giving sermons. In fact, the nibbling becomes more frequent while he’s preaching. (He claims that in those cases it is to help with pacing, but then admits later it is to soothe his nerves during public speaking.)
The exception to the cheese-nibbling is when he is angry, extremely angry. One example is in 1657. At the time a priest has stirred up a mob to attack sodomites (homosexuals), blaming them for the terrible drought afflicting the area. Andronikos angrily argues the mob down, actually hurling his ball of cheese to the ground, showing how enraged he is, and the mob dissipates before causing any carnage.
This is not because Andronikos approves of homosexuality. He does not, considering it a grievous sin, but assault and murder are worse. He thinks that homosexuals are sick and must resist that urge, but judgment should be rendered by God, not men. In the meantime, he recommends a diet of cold fish and rice to help weaken their urges.
Given his willingness to face down an angry mob, he is clearly no coward, and when his sense of justice is offended, he will call out even the most powerful. Athena has been the target on at least two occasions, for what he considered laxness in enforcing just economic legislation.
But it is the war hawks that rouse his ire to full fury. To him, they are anathema to everything he believes. To him, they are evil “and evil must be opposed”. He damns them as a mix of avarice and stupidity, greedy for glory and gold and indifferent to the suffering and misery that sating their appetites will require. They “sacrifice the widow and the orphan, the poor farmer and laborer, to feed their god, the dread god of war, while their bellies grow fat and covered in medals”. They are “locust in human form, who devour all the land and leave it a howling waste. They claim to be the saviors of the Roman people. They lie. They will be their assassins.”
To this point, all of this activity, this political and ideological turbulence, has been restricted mostly to Constantinople and to the elite classes of the Empire. But there is much more to Rhomania than that.
May 2, 1660, the Holy Mountain of Galesion, Second only to Mt. Athos, Thrakesian Theme:
Konon sat down in the middle of his rocky cell, listening momentarily to the wind whistling down off the top of the mountain. The sound was a familiar one; he was a child of the mountains, of the peaks of Isauria. He had been named after the great saint and wonderworker who had brought that land to the faith of Christ, and like his namesake he sought God.
He began his breathing exercises. He had fasted, taking only of liquids for several days to purify himself; it had been three days since his last bowel movement. The only exception had been the special herbs to help for these moments.
He had no idea how long he sat there, but the shadows lengthened as he breathed, as he meditated on God, on his name, on his nature, his wisdom, his mercy, his justice, and his wrath.
His eyes were closed so he felt them before he saw them, the roiling heat from the flames surrounding him. He opened his eyes to see his cell ablaze, but this was no ordinary fire, for his cell was of stone, providing no earthly fuel. This was no natural fire, but it still took all of his will to resist the urge to flee as the feeling of the furnace rolled over him. It was pure flame, with not one trace of smoke, licking at his clothes, his flesh. This was not the first time he had seen the Holy Fire, but never with such intensity, with such power.
Then he saw it coming towards him, advancing through the flames, like the visions of Ezekiel. Wheels within wheels, with a hundred eyes on each rim, all lidless and reflecting the flames. This was not God, for no man could look on the face of God and live, but Konon knew he was in the presence of a Power.
The Power stopped before him, its hundreds of eyes fixed on him as the flames danced, the rocks creaking and cracking in the heat. He wanted to run, to hide himself from that terrible gaze, but held himself in place. Standing up, he looked at the Power, and asked the question.
The Power was silent, the only sound the crackle of the flames and of the stones. Konon furrowed his brow; he hadn’t known what to expect, but this certainly wasn’t it. Then the Power moved to the side, revealing a Man walking through the flames, halting to stand where the Power had been. Konon’s eyes widened in surprise, for he recognized the man. All Romans would recognize him, although the ascetic had certainly not expected to see him here. And yet, now, it seemed the most natural thing for him to be here.
Andreas Komnenos, Niketas, the Shatterer of Armies, the Good Emperor, gave him the answer to the question.
[1] Actual medieval joke.
Thread One, to 1599
Thread Two, 1599-1660
The threads may end, but the fabric of the story of the Roman Empire and the Roman people continues...
* * *
Rhomania’s General Crisis, part 3.0-Evil Must Be Opposed:
Rhomania’s General Crisis, part 3.0-Evil Must Be Opposed:
There were many that opposed the agenda of the war hawks and the Regime of the Tourmarches, for various reasons. Some thought that expansionist programs were wasteful at best and actively dangerous at worse. Many war hawks wanted to force Serbia and even Hungary into a tighter orbit around Rhomania, although whether that meant vassalage or outright annexation varied depending on the person making the argument. This was to create a supposedly more secure buffer to protect Rhomania from another Theodor-style invasion.
Critics countered that these desires, which were hardly secret, alarmed and angered Serbians and Hungarians, only encouraging them to band together and to look west for aid, simply as a matter of self-defense. By 1660, the Serbians viewed the Roman garrison in Belgrade not as a defense against invasion from the north, but a dangerous threat to their independence in the event of an invasion from the east.
It was the same with Italy. The war hawks wanted to vassalize or conquer some or all of the peninsula (reestablishing the situation c.1500, during the latter years of Andreas Niketas, is the most popular model). There was the buffer zone argument, although here the desire for gold and glory was more open. Critics again countered that such desires only alienated Sicilians, Arletians, and Spaniards, creating enemies out of friends, and endangering the quite effective buffer of the Despotate of Sicily.
Other opponents frankly didn’t care about foreign policy. They were concerned about the various economic reforms that were to sustain the expansionistic policy. The ‘just economics’ legislations had centuries of history behind them, even if enforcement had often been spotty. Most opponents at this stage were not against the concept of market economies, but viewed the ‘just economics’ as important safeguards against corruption and abuse.
There was a good bit of variety within this broader group. Some thought it was necessary to protect the small folk from being gouged. Others viewed it as protection from everything eventually get monopolized by a few, probably due to political connections; this was an attitude that grew after the pattern of land speculation that followed the land sale reforms. Expanding one’s portfolio didn’t depend on political connections to the Tourmarches, but it did help. (Regional concerns factored much in this subset, since in this paradigm proximity to the capital would be decisive, seriously harming prospective competitors in, say, Antioch.) Still others had their sense of honor and fair play offended. If one couldn’t play and prosper in the commercial world without following just economics, then one shouldn’t be allowed to play at all, was their opinion.
To further complicate things, there were disputes over how to use the just economics, as opposed to just why to use them. Some liked the situation as it had been before the land reforms. Others thought that the existing laws needed to be better enforced. And still others thought they needed to be revised and expanded. The latter two groups also tended to be critical not just of the war hawks and Tourmarches, but also of Athena and her officials, since these issues had predated and grown noticeably during her tenure.
As the last bit shows, the war hawks benefited greatly from the disunity of their opponents. Athena and officials loyal to her would oppose the Tourmarches, but possibly for personal and procedural reasons. Others opposed to the Tourmarches on ideological grounds regarding just economics though have almost as much reason to be suspicious of the former group.
The most articulate group opposing the war hawks were the defensivists, but they were opposed on foreign policy grounds. Now some of them also opposed the war hawks for other reasons, whether on just economics or anger over the ‘personal clique’ aspect, but hardly all. This limited their ability for outreach. Furthermore, many defensivists were military or civil officials who rejected expansionism on pragmatic grounds. Gyranos and Plytos in particular recognized that they could be won around with the right arguments and evidence. They recognized that a failed war of expansion would be a very bad outcome that must be avoided, and worked to allay concerns over that outcome. Finally, given their positions and training, many defensivists might disagree with the chain of command, but they would loyally follow orders even if they disagreed with them. The Regime of the Tourmarches, although they were a personal clique without any institutional authority in and of themselves, were operating entirely legally (and were careful to do so for this reason). The signature of Herakleios III, as Autocrat, made anything legal, and they could get that.
The most vocal opposition to the war hawks came from the Orthodox Church. Some of it came from cynical self-interest; if the state demanded more resources for the sake of war, the Church and its vast portfolio was an obvious source. When war hawks directly encountered clerical opposition, they usually emphasized this angle. However, much opposition also stemmed from genuine ideological differences. Some opponents rejected calls for expansionism, while others were appalled at the removal of just economics. Still more objected to both.
Two of the most vocal critics are Bishops Manuel Rekas of the Princes’ Islands and Ioannes Grozes of Athyra. Both are rather minor sees but quite close to the capital, and the two spend much of their time in the capital, more than they should according to canon regulations. Much of that is spent preaching in the various churches. Most of their sermons are now openly political but they are critical of people’s attitudes and behaviors, which they see as the ultimate cause of the political issue. It is Bishop Rekas who makes the famous statement to the people of Constantinople: “Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you.”
One reason the duo of bishops can get away with spending more time in the capital is that their boss, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Adam II, is rather sympathetic to their viewpoints. Taking office under Athena, he is in his early 80s and in poor health. He is bothered by the rise of new rich men, not so much by their wealth per se but their disregard for charity for the poor and their lack of regard for ethics in accumulating said wealth. However, one of his supporters describes him as ‘having a good heart and a bad backbone’. He, especially in his condition, is not one to engage in direct confrontation.
Much more of a firebrand and a fighter, and much more explicitly a denouncer of the war hawks, is Father Andronikos Hadjipapandreou, a priest originally from Tyre and of mixed Arab-Greek ancestry. The Bishops’ criticism are more general, directed towards the populace as a whole, while Andronikos is ready to skewer specific individuals, such as a prominent dynatos whose tenements have low maintenance standards and high rents. The Father describes him as ‘a mangy wolf, ready to tear the bellies of infants to give himself a snack’.
Although Tyre is not that big of a city by Roman standards, young Andronikos was well acquainted with cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity by growing up there. Aside from the Greeks, there were Melkites, Sudanese (non-Ethiopian sub-Saharan Africans), Druze, Alawites, Maronites, Shia Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Latins of all types, Georgians, Armenians, and so on. As a young man, he felt a religious calling, but he is not dogmatic about specific theological doctrines. In his view, God is too vast and wondrous to be comprehended by any human mind, and so it is unreasonable to dogmatically stress details.
But there are some universals he does demand, and foremost of that is justice. As Andronikos notes, all faiths call God by different names, but they condemn lying, theft, and murder. And so the priest emphasizes good behavior, and demands that his listeners act justly and mercifully and humbly, for that is what God requires of them. There are no exceptions; a Basileus and a beggar are both subject to this divine law.
There is more to Andronikos Hadjipapandreou than just stern moralizing; he would not nearly be as popular as he is if that were so. Also as a young man, he was a skilled amateur pugilist with some noted wins to his credit. As a man of the cloth, he no longer engages in such activities but he happily sponsors local boxing matches to help fund charities, coordinating with local stars.
He is also known for his jokes and humor, which in modern terminology largely falls into the ‘dad joke’ type. The most famous is the following: I was purchasing sausages and I said to the vendor “I just wanted to thank you for your good service. I’ve been coming here for seven years and have always enjoyed your products.” The vendor looked at me and said “Seven years? And you’re still alive?” [1]
Andronikos lives an ascetic lifestyle, but he does admit to enjoying sausages, but his real passion and eccentricity is his ardent love of cheese. He is never without at least some cheese, constantly taking some out and nibbling on it, even while giving sermons. In fact, the nibbling becomes more frequent while he’s preaching. (He claims that in those cases it is to help with pacing, but then admits later it is to soothe his nerves during public speaking.)
The exception to the cheese-nibbling is when he is angry, extremely angry. One example is in 1657. At the time a priest has stirred up a mob to attack sodomites (homosexuals), blaming them for the terrible drought afflicting the area. Andronikos angrily argues the mob down, actually hurling his ball of cheese to the ground, showing how enraged he is, and the mob dissipates before causing any carnage.
This is not because Andronikos approves of homosexuality. He does not, considering it a grievous sin, but assault and murder are worse. He thinks that homosexuals are sick and must resist that urge, but judgment should be rendered by God, not men. In the meantime, he recommends a diet of cold fish and rice to help weaken their urges.
Given his willingness to face down an angry mob, he is clearly no coward, and when his sense of justice is offended, he will call out even the most powerful. Athena has been the target on at least two occasions, for what he considered laxness in enforcing just economic legislation.
But it is the war hawks that rouse his ire to full fury. To him, they are anathema to everything he believes. To him, they are evil “and evil must be opposed”. He damns them as a mix of avarice and stupidity, greedy for glory and gold and indifferent to the suffering and misery that sating their appetites will require. They “sacrifice the widow and the orphan, the poor farmer and laborer, to feed their god, the dread god of war, while their bellies grow fat and covered in medals”. They are “locust in human form, who devour all the land and leave it a howling waste. They claim to be the saviors of the Roman people. They lie. They will be their assassins.”
To this point, all of this activity, this political and ideological turbulence, has been restricted mostly to Constantinople and to the elite classes of the Empire. But there is much more to Rhomania than that.
* * *
May 2, 1660, the Holy Mountain of Galesion, Second only to Mt. Athos, Thrakesian Theme:
Konon sat down in the middle of his rocky cell, listening momentarily to the wind whistling down off the top of the mountain. The sound was a familiar one; he was a child of the mountains, of the peaks of Isauria. He had been named after the great saint and wonderworker who had brought that land to the faith of Christ, and like his namesake he sought God.
He began his breathing exercises. He had fasted, taking only of liquids for several days to purify himself; it had been three days since his last bowel movement. The only exception had been the special herbs to help for these moments.
He had no idea how long he sat there, but the shadows lengthened as he breathed, as he meditated on God, on his name, on his nature, his wisdom, his mercy, his justice, and his wrath.
His eyes were closed so he felt them before he saw them, the roiling heat from the flames surrounding him. He opened his eyes to see his cell ablaze, but this was no ordinary fire, for his cell was of stone, providing no earthly fuel. This was no natural fire, but it still took all of his will to resist the urge to flee as the feeling of the furnace rolled over him. It was pure flame, with not one trace of smoke, licking at his clothes, his flesh. This was not the first time he had seen the Holy Fire, but never with such intensity, with such power.
Then he saw it coming towards him, advancing through the flames, like the visions of Ezekiel. Wheels within wheels, with a hundred eyes on each rim, all lidless and reflecting the flames. This was not God, for no man could look on the face of God and live, but Konon knew he was in the presence of a Power.
The Power stopped before him, its hundreds of eyes fixed on him as the flames danced, the rocks creaking and cracking in the heat. He wanted to run, to hide himself from that terrible gaze, but held himself in place. Standing up, he looked at the Power, and asked the question.
The Power was silent, the only sound the crackle of the flames and of the stones. Konon furrowed his brow; he hadn’t known what to expect, but this certainly wasn’t it. Then the Power moved to the side, revealing a Man walking through the flames, halting to stand where the Power had been. Konon’s eyes widened in surprise, for he recognized the man. All Romans would recognize him, although the ascetic had certainly not expected to see him here. And yet, now, it seemed the most natural thing for him to be here.
Andreas Komnenos, Niketas, the Shatterer of Armies, the Good Emperor, gave him the answer to the question.
* * *
[1] Actual medieval joke.
