For fun/stress relief: History Trivia Game

[thedig13]

Constantine did not get baptized as a Christian until he was on his deathbed. This was a very common practice in the Roman World... the idea was to go to heaven with a clean slate.

Didn't he simultaneously make Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire while he was being converted?

[oseirus]

Well how do I address this? Firstly no I do not hate Ken Burns per se. Do I like that he oversimplifies things? Of course not but at least he gets to the heart of the matter. This need to entertain is a problem I truly get but it shouldn't come at the expense of valid knowledge and information. I know I sound like an elitist sitting in his ivory tower looking down on the common folks but really history IS fun. I mean how badass is the story of the Manhattan Project? Why is there a need to insert "secret" government plots and aliens into this story? Fate of the world in balance, a fight between good and evil, a race against time, the ultimate weapon ever known to man. It is a chilling, scary and kind of neat story by itself. Let the history channel tell it and it is some murky story that leaves you wondering what you had been told in school was nothing but a pack of lies.

[oseirus]

Didn't he simultaneously make Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire while he was being converted?

No

[thedig13]

No

Can we elaborate? I'm sure I heard something along those lines from somebody/somewhere at some point in time.

[CageFree]

Can we elaborate? I'm sure I heard something along those lines from somebody/somewhere at some point in time.

Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which declared a toleration policy. It wasn't until Theodosius ca. 380 that Christianity became the official religion.

There are many questions as to Constantine's true beliefs. The theory I tend to subscribe to, based on all of my reading, is that he believed in Jesus much like he believed in other gods at the time... he was not an "exclusive" Christian.

So why get so involved in the church? (i.e. Council of Nicaea) - because after the third century crisis, the Roman bureaucracy (which had been in the hands of provincial aristocrats) had broken down. The Church's hierarchical organization, and its presence in major urban centers, presented a viable opportunity to re-establish the system. Local elite began to assume positions as bishops in order to regain their political influence, and bishops were, until the 5th century, bureaucrats more than spiritual leaders.

Also, keep in mind that there was no such thing as Catholicism at the time. It was Christianity.

[thedig13]

Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which declared a toleration policy. It wasn't until Theodosius ca. 380 that Christianity became the official religion.

There are many questions as to Constantine's true beliefs. The theory I tend to subscribe to, based on all of my reading, is that he believed in Jesus much like he believed in other gods at the time... he was not an "exclusive" Christian.

So why get so involved in the church? (i.e. Council of Nicaea) - because after the third century crisis, the Roman bureaucracy (which had been in the hands of provincial aristocrats) had broken down. The Church's hierarchical organization, and its presence in major urban centers, presented a viable opportunity to re-establish the system. Local elite began to assume positions as bishops in order to regain their political influence, and bishops were, until the 5th century, bureaucrats more than spiritual leaders.

Also, keep in mind that there was no such thing as Catholicism at the time. It was Christianity.

Just a quick question -- later in the 1500s, when Protestantism emerged, the (spiritual) descendants of these Roman "Christians" became "Catholics," and, today, usage of "Christianity" implies "Protestant". Wouldn't it be more proper/accurate, then, to refer to the Ancient Romans of the time as Catholics (especially as the descendants of these Roman "Christians" are now known as the "Roman Catholic Church")? Or is there some reason we refer to the Romans as "Christian" when, in fact, the modern "Catholic" can trace his spirital/religious roots to the Roman, which is something that the Protestant-Christian can't do in the same manner?

Just wondering.

Edited February 13, 2012 by thedig13

[Loimographia]

If memory serves (insert obligatory disclaimer about my memory here) Constantine legalized Christianity where it had been outlawed before. He *did* exempt Christians from certain taxes and duties, making it advantageous for the upper class to convert. This could in turn be misconstrued as making Christianity the "official" religion of the state. It most certainly was not, but given his (deathbed) conversion and reputation as "the first christian emperor" makes it easy to get that impression.

It was actually fairly common practice among leaders, in general in late antiquity/early middle ages, to claim adherence to multiple religions; it was pretty much just hedging their bets ("one of these gods is bound to exist, I'll just pray to all of em!"). Christianity didn't become the state religion of Byzantium until 380, under the rule of Theodosius the First (had to look that one up curses for not remembering as much of my Byzantine class as I ought! If any of this is wrong, please step in)

Edited February 13, 2012 by Loimographia

[CageFree]

Just a quick question -- later in the 1500s, when Protestantism emerged, the (spiritual) descendants of these Roman "Christians" became "Catholics," and, today, usage of "Christianity" implies "Protestant". Wouldn't it be more proper/accurate, then, to refer to the Ancient Romans of the time as Catholics (especially as the descendants of these Roman "Christians" are now known as the "Roman Catholic Church")? Or is there some reason we refer to the Romans as "Christian" when, in fact, the modern "Catholic" can trace his spirital/religious roots to the Roman, which is something that the Protestant-Christian can't do in the same manner?

Just wondering.

No, because both Protestants and Catholics can trace their beliefs back toward this period. This is when basic ideology developed... it wasn't just about rituals and hierarchical organization.

Using Catholic for this period is simply anachronistic. It makes no sense in the context of ancient times. It'd be like saying that Spaniards can't trace their origins to Rome because the Ostrogoths invaded and took over.

Catholicism was first created as a term after the Council of Nicaea, but it first came into use in contrast with the Orthodox Church (The Great Schism), rather than with Protestantism.

Edited February 13, 2012 by teachgrad

[CageFree]

If memory serves (insert obligatory disclaimer about my memory here) Constantine legalized Christianity where it had been outlawed before. He *did* exempt Christians from certain taxes and duties, making it advantageous for the upper class to convert. This could in turn be misconstrued as making Christianity the "official" religion of the state. It most certainly was not, but given his (deathbed) conversion and reputation as "the first christian emperor" makes it easy to get that impression.

It was actually fairly common practice among leaders, in general in late antiquity/early middle ages, to claim adherence to multiple religions; it was pretty much just hedging their bets ("one of these gods is bound to exist, I'll just pray to all of em!"). Christianity didn't become the state religion of Byzantium until 380, under the rule of Theodosius the First (had to look that one up curses for not remembering as much of my Byzantine class as I ought! If any of this is wrong, please step in)

Just a nitpick but it wasn't just Byzantium... although the Roman Empire was divided into two halves for administrative purposes, it was still the Roman Empire. In fact, the Byzantines called themselves Romanoi, and continued to do so until the fall of Byzantium in the 15th century.

[Kelkel]

Kim Jong-Il revolutionized film and opera in North Korea. Apparently, he knew exactly what scenes were needed and how to put them together in order to tell a compelling story. Well, that's what the official accounts say

[thedig13]

No, because both Protestants and Catholics can trace their beliefs back toward this period. This is when basic ideology developed... it wasn't just about rituals and hierarchical organization.

Using Catholic for this period is simply anachronistic. It makes no sense in the context of ancient times. It'd be like saying that Spaniards can't trace their origins to Rome because the Ostrogoths invaded and took over.

Catholicism was first created as a term after the Council of Nicaea, but it first came into use in contrast with the Orthodox Church (The Great Schism), rather than with Protestantism.

If memory serves (insert obligatory disclaimer about my memory here) Constantine legalized Christianity where it had been outlawed before. He *did* exempt Christians from certain taxes and duties, making it advantageous for the upper class to convert. This could in turn be misconstrued as making Christianity the "official" religion of the state. It most certainly was not, but given his (deathbed) conversion and reputation as "the first christian emperor" makes it easy to get that impression.

It was actually fairly common practice among leaders, in general in late antiquity/early middle ages, to claim adherence to multiple religions; it was pretty much just hedging their bets ("one of these gods is bound to exist, I'll just pray to all of em!"). Christianity didn't become the state religion of Byzantium until 380, under the rule of Theodosius the First (had to look that one up curses for not remembering as much of my Byzantine class as I ought! If any of this is wrong, please step in)

Thanks for the mini-lesson. Sadly, my understanding of history from the Classical Age until the Mid-Medieval Era is relatively deficient, and this was pretty enlightening for me.

I appreciate it.

[maeisenb]

No, because both Protestants and Catholics can trace their beliefs back toward this period. This is when basic ideology developed... it wasn't just about rituals and hierarchical organization.

Using Catholic for this period is simply anachronistic. It makes no sense in the context of ancient times. It'd be like saying that Spaniards can't trace their origins to Rome because the Ostrogoths invaded and took over.

Catholicism was first created as a term after the Council of Nicaea, but it first came into use in contrast with the Orthodox Church (The Great Schism), rather than with Protestantism.

I think you meant the Visigoths, but overall well done.

[CageFree]

I think you meant the Visigoths, but overall well done.

Yeah, I did. Ostrogoths went to Italy. Thanks!

[oseirus]

Thanks for the mini-lesson. Sadly, my understanding of history from the Classical Age until the Mid-Medieval Era is relatively deficient, and this was pretty enlightening for me.

I appreciate it.

And just as a final clarification, Catholics, Orthodox and protestants are all Christians with some practicing the correct way (NOT THE First Church of Springfield and the other deviant practioners Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism) and some practicing the wrong way (see cf, from before) ... end of the day same religion

[oseirus]

Kim Jong-Il revolutionized film and opera in North Korea. Apparently, he knew exactly what scenes were needed and how to put them together in order to tell a compelling story. Well, that's what the official accounts say

I don't like the tone that this is written in ... it's as if you're questioning the life of Dear Leader ... be very careful KK!

[thedig13]

And just as a final clarification, Catholics, Orthodox and protestants are all Christians with some practicing the correct way (NOT THE First Church of Springfield and the other deviant practioners Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism) and some practicing the wrong way (see cf, from before) ... end of the day same religion

Interesting. I've always understood the differences between the three to be rather prominent. Certainly, they worship the same entities and read from the same scripture, but their method of practice and (historically) their politics seem to be a major point of division between all three collectives.

[New England Nat]

Well how do I address this? Firstly no I do not hate Ken Burns per se. Do I like that he oversimplifies things? Of course not but at least he gets to the heart of the matter.

So the way my adviser puts it, Ken Burns lies.The pictures he often uses to illustrate stories often have no relation at all to the narration. In one case in his Western miniseries he uses pictures of some random family to illustrate a diary from the 1820s, so that the viewer is left feeling that they know the family involved. When in fact there are no pictures of the family.

In a description of the pleblo revolt he uses paintings to show the spanish side of the story, fine so far, and than 1900 era pictures of native americans to illustrate that side several centuries earlier. THus native americans are timeless with no change in culture.

I kind of see her point. At least with the aliens you know what you are buying when you watch that. We've lionized Ken Burns. Does that mean I still don't watch Ken Burns, of course not.

[crazedandinfused]

So the way my adviser puts it, Ken Burns lies.The pictures he often uses to illustrate stories often have no relation at all to the narration. In one case in his Western miniseries he uses pictures of some random family to illustrate a diary from the 1820s, so that the viewer is left feeling that they know the family involved. When in fact there are no pictures of the family.

Ok, my girlfriend is getting her MLS and apparently elements within the archival community criticize Ken Burns for precisely this. It's been a hot topic in our house, and it really sticks in my craw, so it's cool to see it brought up here.

I really don't think the criticism is fair. First of all, he's doing public history and he's trying to relate history to a mass audience - he's not writing a dissertation. Anything that makes history more accessible, I'm all for.

Secondly, he's a filmmaker, and images aren't always available. Last night I was watching his Mark Twain documentary and he was treating Twain's travels in the Mid-East. He didn't have an image of Twain at the Pyramids so he used some random image of a mustachioed, late 19th century man. Would archivists prefer that he just leave the screen blank? I don't see what the problem is. Again, he's not writing a dissertation.

I think it's nitpicking and I really don't think it's right to criticize the one person trying to inject some history into an intellectually neutered and de-historicized popular culture because he doesn't live up to the rigorous standards of the archival community. Again, he's an artist not a scientist. I don't think it's fair to import scientific standards into his craft.

That was cathartic. I will now step down off my soapbox.

Edited February 13, 2012 by crazedandinfused

[CageFree]

I "reached my quota of positives" but I wanted to give crazedandinfused a thumbs and big toes up.

[New England Nat]

Ok, my girlfriend is getting her MLS and apparently elements within the archival community criticize Ken Burns for precisely this. It's been a hot topic in our house, and it really sticks in my craw, so it's cool to see it brought up here.

I really don't think the criticism is fair. First of all, he's doing public history and he's trying to relate history to a mass audience - he's not writing a dissertation. Anything that makes history more accessible, I'm all for.

See, I can understand the debate about what images he does and doesn't have. However, I absolutely think that the characterization of Native Americans as versus Spanards is a very different complaint. There are similar complaints from both western historians and environmental historians about his national parks documentary having to do with his treatement of wilderness and native american removal.

That said, my adviser is an expect on the visual image so it's not surprising she comes down on the side of the archivist. She's also huge advocate of public history and she doesn't think that innacuracies in public history should be given a pass just because it's public history.

Edited February 14, 2012 by New England Nat

[SapperDaddy]

Interesting. I've always understood the differences between the three to be rather prominent. Certainly, they worship the same entities and read from the same scripture, but their method of practice and (historically) their politics seem to be a major point of division between all three collectives.

The differences are much more stark now, after they've been separated for a few hundred years and had time to develop on their own. Even practices took time to evolve. For instance, the Czech Hussites, an early "protestant" sect, were basically Catholic and mostly upset that the the Eucharist ceased to be presented in both kinds (wine and wafer) to the masses, with only the priest partaking of the wine. After the death of Jan Hus in 1415, the church, as it was, split into factions, with some coming back into communion with Rome when they were allowed the Eucharist in both kinds, while other factions became increasingly radical and eventually sided with the followers of Martin Luther.

I think by the simplest definition, a Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. You can make plenty of arguments as to who is orthodox and who is not, which creeds one needs to follow in order to be considered what particular flavor of Christian you are talking about.

[crazedandinfused]

See, I can understand the debate about what images he does and doesn't have. However, I absolutely think that the characterization of Native Americans as versus Spanards is a very different complaint. There are similar complaints from both western historians and environmental historians about his national parks documentary having to do with his treatement of wilderness and native american removal.

That said, my adviser is an expect on the visual image so it's not surprising she comes down on the side of the archivist. She's also huge advocate of public history and she doesn't think that innacuracies in public history should be given a pass just because it's public history.

I think those are very fair points. At the same time, I think that perhaps the viewer is potentially more discerning than we give them credit for. Maybe he/she would recognize that those are pictures of Native Americans, hence they are not fully accurate depictions of them in the 17th century. I don't know that it's necessarily an inaccuracy if an artist relies on a subjective interpretation to place the image in its proper context. Maybe it is. Still, it might behoove him to put some sort of disclaimer at the beginning or end. But that's difficult to do with film. That's why I'm happy I'll write books - that almost nobody will read..........

[oseirus]

So the way my adviser puts it, Ken Burns lies.The pictures he often uses to illustrate stories often have no relation at all to the narration. In one case in his Western miniseries he uses pictures of some random family to illustrate a diary from the 1820s, so that the viewer is left feeling that they know the family involved. When in fact there are no pictures of the family.

In a description of the pleblo revolt he uses paintings to show the spanish side of the story, fine so far, and than 1900 era pictures of native americans to illustrate that side several centuries earlier. THus native americans are timeless with no change in culture.

I kind of see her point. At least with the aliens you know what you are buying when you watch that. We've lionized Ken Burns. Does that mean I still don't watch Ken Burns, of course not.

No I completely agree with the whole critique but the two reasons Mr. Burns gets a pass is because a.) I love the name "Mr. Burns" and b.) his phenomenal work Baseball. I know that is a rather shallow reason but I am a sports fan and that is the easiest way to buy my affections it would seem

[New England Nat]

No I completely agree with the whole critique but the two reasons Mr. Burns gets a pass is because a.) I love the name "Mr. Burns" and b.) his phenomenal work Baseball. I know that is a rather shallow reason but I am a sports fan and that is the easiest way to buy my affections it would seem

I love Baseball, I'm also a fan of his series "The War". But it's maybe because those two aren't areas I know so much about. I've heard there are issues with the Civil War but I've never had that much contact with historians of the civil war.

[New England Nat]

... that almost nobody will read..........

I will say that there is a professor in my department that just published a book and he's joking about how no one is going to read it/buy it. I totally understand, it's hardly his first book, but I also think he has no idea that this one is I think different...

It's Hendrick Hartog's history of inheritance and old age btw.