Mad Renaissance STGOD

[Academia Nut]

That sounds exactly like the historical schism. That issue was resolved in 1418, what rationale is there for the resolution to fail in this scenario? If the Romans didn't kick the Pope out entirely, I don't see how the schism wouldn't have been resolved. Pretty much every power preferred a single pope, which is why the whole matter did not last and eventually they went back to the one. The extra Pope won't last without state support, and such will be withdrawn once a majority has settled on one, as was the case historically.

Well, there is already a couple of historical spanners in the works with Rome deciding that they want to go SPQR again and conquering/allying with the entire Italian pennisula and somehow coming into possession of Constantinople (better have an impressive story to that one General Havoc), and the Normans never losing control of the Kingdom of Sicily to the Holy Roman Empire and later the Kingdom of Aragon. This throws all sorts of political weirdness into the batch, especially since the Sicilians control Tunisia which means they will have a significant minority of Muslims under their control which means that having a weak pope is to their advantage to keep anyone from poking them over the whole 'heresy of indifferentiation' thing.

Actually, it might be a good time to start discussing some of the mutual backstory. The big point of divergence for the Norman Sicilians is that during the Norman conquest they discovered a cache of Archimedes writings, prototypes, and models outside Syracuse during their conquest of the island. This wealth of knowledge brought not just improvements in technology, but brought in Byzantine (and later even Islamic!) scholars interested in the ancient works, and with them brought increased trade, which the Norman kings encouraged, leading to great prosperity that they leveraged for all it was worth. They quickly had a large navy to protect their merchant ships, which let them actually hold the coast of Tunisia despite repeatedly getting kicked out of the interior by various jihads. Tunisia proved lucrative when combined with some of the technology developed from Archimedes work.

The early influx of classical work probably helped remind the people of Rome of the role they once played and contributed to their reemergence as the power from a thousand years prior.

[Cavalier]

That sounds exactly like the historical schism. That issue was resolved in 1418, what rationale is there for the resolution to fail in this scenario? If the Romans didn't kick the Pope out entirely, I don't see how the schism wouldn't have been resolved. Pretty much every power preferred a single pope, which is why the whole matter did not last and eventually they went back to the one. The extra Pope won't last without state support, and such will be withdrawn once a majority has settled on one, as was the case historically.

I think the rationale is that the Roman Republic swallowed up the Papal State and established control over their own Pope, so there was an aggressive new power in place of the Church's own temporal holdings. Seeing a unified Church as an independent actor may have been desirable, but seeing it as the pawn of an unpredictable new empire was worse than accepting the continued disunity. So the Avignon Schism continues to the present day, with adherence to the Popes largely determined by regional patterns of animosity and rivalry.

[Lys]

This throws all sorts of political weirdness into the batch, especially since the Sicilians control Tunisia which means they will have a significant minority of Muslims under their control which means that having a weak pope is to their advantage to keep anyone from poking them over the whole 'heresy of indifferentiation' thing.

The Spanish committed the heresy of indifferentiation for centuries and nobody outside of Spain cared. If the Pope had deigned to care, the Spanish Kings and Queens were in the habit of telling him to mind his own business.

Cavalier's explanation, however, makes sense. This may entirely prevent Protestanism, since if you don't like one Pope and his church, you can always switch to the other.

The big point of divergence for the Norman Sicilians is that during the Norman conquest they discovered a cache of Archimedes writings, prototypes, and models outside Syracuse during their conquest of the island. This wealth of knowledge brought not just improvements in technology, but brought in Byzantine (and later even Islamic!) scholars interested in the ancient works, and with them brought increased trade, which the Norman kings encouraged, leading to great prosperity that they leveraged for all it was worth. proved lucrative when combined with some of the technology developed from Archimedes work.

So you found writings, models, and prototypes that were 500 years old when the Principate fell, and over 600 years old when the Western Roman Empire began to crumble. Some how I'm not impressed. The level of technological sophistication of Rome around the early 5th century was achieved once again by European civilization in the 14th. Which means that I do not believe that Archimedes' actual notes and prototypes, miraculously preserved through 1200 years, would have been all that wondrous in the 11th. Not to mention that the majority of Archimedes' works were never actually lost, and the knowledge in the ones that were was preserved in the works of others.

While it can be a neat historical footnote that some of Archimedes' stuff was recovered, I do not buy it as the basis upon which to build a prosperous nation. Especially because the whole bit about interaction between Byzantine and Islamic scholars, increasing trade, and prosperity was pretty much exactly what happened in Sicily after the Norman conquest. Without any hidden caches of technology that wasn't actually more advanced than what they already had.

All that you really need is for the Normans to have more luck with their rulers in the late 12th century. From then on the Sicilian Throne never passes to the Hohenstaufens which results in a better 13th century and no Angevin conquest, which in turn negates the need for any War of the Sicilian Vespers and no Aragonian rule. Congratulations, you've been the pre-eminent power of the Central Mediterranean for three or four centuries, and you did it with your own living hands instead of Archimedes' dead one.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Which means that I do not believe that Archimedes' actual notes and prototypes, miraculously preserved through 1200 years, would have been all that wondrous in the 11th. Not to mention that the majority of Archimedes' works were never actually lost, and the knowledge in the ones that were was preserved in the works of others.

Instead of being shanked in the siege, Archimedes escaped and went into hiding. The Normans found his tomb, which contains many of the things that were lost, and some stuff our modern history books just dont record. Like using mirrors and a fresnel lense to do rapid prototyping in layers of melted sand.

[frigidmagi]

May I futher remind the lady and gentlemen that this STGOD takes place in a universe where Da Vinci's helicopter actually works. There's some weird things afoot.

[Lys]

Yes, the laws of physics were rewritten. I'm trying not to think about how exactly they were rewritten because if I do I'm going to get a headache. I can generally accept mad machinery and clockpunk aesthetic. I think it's neat, even if by its nature it can't make sense.

That said, I still find it intellectually and philosophically offensive that you can found a country on the genius of a man who died twelve centuries prior. They found Archimedes' tomb? Cool. Where there interesting things in there? I'm sure there were. But this is all part of the greater East-West exchange that was occurring in the 11th century, an exchange that Sicily had the great fortune of being a hub for. As I see it, the will of the living is far more important than the hand of the dead, no matter how transcendent their genius.

There's also the matter that I have a general impression of the crazy stuff inherent the Mad Renaissance theme starting with, well the Renaissance. Not in the 11th century.

I will also repeat what I said earlier. I do not think it's my place to forbid anyone anything, and I'm not trying to. I will however briefly voice criticisms when I see things I don't agree with.

[Cynical Cat]

There isn't a problem. The Normans founded a kingdom anyway in real life, without cool stuff from Archimedes. The 12th Century is really when a lot of the stuff we associate with the Renaissance started happening, to a degree in which it is frequently referred to as the Twelfth Century Renaissance. There's nothing wrong or inconsistent with it being an origin point and source of ideas that aren't fully realized until some time latter.

[Lys]

That's pretty much exactly what I said. My objection is on a perceived emphasis on Archemedian influence being a major factor in the rise of the Kingdom of Sicily. Instead of something a historian would passingly note as an interesting part of a larger process.

[Cynical Cat]

My apologizes. It seemed you were complaining more about the existence of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily rather than the fetishization of certain thinkers. Since the whole game is about the ridiculous fetishization of people like Archimedes and Da Vinci, you're kind of screwed if you continue playing.

[Lys]

Yes I noticed, but it's easier to tolerate when the wonder forging geniuses being fetishized are still alive, or at least recently dead. Which is why I made no complaint about the man from Vinci. It's damn rare to have everything exactly to one's liking, so I do try to compromise.

*pokes Cynical Cat*
Hey you playing or just making drive by commentary? Game needs players, and you could be one!

[Cynical Cat]

I am most definitely not playing.

[Comrade Tortoise]

That's pretty much exactly what I said. My objection is on a perceived emphasis on Archemedian influence being a major factor in the rise of the Kingdom of Sicily. Instead of something a historian would passingly note as an interesting part of a larger process.

There are a few things you are not considering. The first is that science/engineering is not a linear ladder like enterprise. Instead, it is an evolutionary process that spawns off different research traditions. It is a vast oversimplification to say that the technological abilities of the medieval world had caught back up to Rome by a certain period across the board. Sure, in some areas of technology it had, but in other areas, like a lot of architecture, it had not.

The lost works of archimedes are not being stolen wholesale in this case. Sure, the death ray is there (and no one in real life ever mimicked that, if it existed at all), but it never saw civilian use. In this case, the basic idea is being harnessed to create an engineering tradition, the starting point was the rediscovery of that death ray, and the principles discovered through the use and application of his inventions have gone on to create whole new traditions in their own tight.

In the case of Leonardo for example, all I have done is provide the most commonly known of his insane designs in the hope that someone (or even me) thinks "Ok. What happens now?" and expands upon the engineering tradition it creates. It just so happens that this is taking place during the zenith of a neo-classical revival, and many of the original inventors and visionaries are actually alive to see their designs used and themselves contribute to the advancement thereof.

[Cynical Cat]

It is a vast oversimplification to say that the technological abilities of the medieval world had caught back up to Rome by a certain period across the board. Sure, in some areas of technology it had, but in other areas, like a lot of architecture, it had not.

By the High Middle Ages they were ahead in architecture.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Sans concrete, yes, and it depends on what sorts of architectural achievements. Flying buttresses yes. Epic free-standing domes (as opposed to little free-standing domes) took until the late middle ages/renaissance transition.

[Charon]

My understanding of the situation is that the whole "Oh the Medieval period was backwards" is for the most part a misnomer. Technology didn't disappear, maybe in some ways it didn't advance as fast, but mostly we still continue to see great engineering feats (usually in the East, admittedly) but this has less to do with understanding the technology and more to do with having the manpower, infrastructure, and money to be able to do it. Up until this period most kingdoms were still exceedingly feudal and didn't have the centralization in order to pull off great feats of engineering.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Well, there were a few things lost that did actually set them back. Concrete for example was lost until the 1750s, and without it there are things (like domes) that are much harder to build. Other things stagnated or were lost for cultural reasons. For example, medical science. They were unwilling to do what was necessary to go Beyond Galen in terms of anatomy. I would be willing to bet though that their knowledge of medicinal plants was far in advance of the romans, dependent on location of course.

[Academia Nut]

It wasn't a 'discover Archimedes work then become mega-prosperous' thing in this setting, it was a 400 year process that started with the discovery of the cache and the biggest thing was an influx of scholars interested in examining the artefacts. Those scholars were wealthy individuals, and the Norman kings and nobility saw them bringing in trade and riches to make their lives more comfortable and realized that they wanted more of that. They built up trade networks and encouraged scholarship. The discovery of Archimedes cache was primarily a catalyst towards other things. However, the whole 'death ray' idea, while not being particularly practical did have that sort of mythical appeal that had kings and dukes spend money trying to get to work. Ultimately it did not pan out as the weapon they dreamed it would, but there was one really, really big consequence of all that research into optics.

[youtube][/youtube]

While not quite how I envision the Sicilians actually doing things, they have taken the concept of Archimedes death ray, which is to say focusing sunlight to heat up a target, and run with it to the point where they can circumvent a lack of natural resources by using solar ovens instead of charcoal furnaces in the production of lots of things, especially glass. Lots of glass, cheap and plentiful that they can supply to other markets.

[Charon]

The Spanish committed the heresy of indifferentiation for centuries and nobody outside of Spain cared. If the Pope had deigned to care, the Spanish Kings and Queens were in the habit of telling him to mind his own business.

Cavalier's explanation, however, makes sense. This may entirely prevent Protestanism, since if you don't like one Pope and his church, you can always switch to the other.

Yeah, we sort of overestimate the strength of the Papacy, especially by the late 1400's. By that point a number of nations had enough power and the Popacy was weak enough that when the Pope called for a crusade they could in essence go "Nah, that's alright. I think we'll sit this one out. Good thought though." This will especially be true in a world where we've got two Popes.

I won't say that the presence of two Popes will make it that Protestantism will not appear. The Printing Press had as much to do with the rise of the Protestant movement as Luther did and the existence of a second voice of God on earth might be enough to convince people that this whole Pope thing is nonsense and I'm gonna go do my own thing.

On that note. What happened with Eastern Orthodoxy? Did that schism still happen? Sort of important for matters in the East if I do end up playing.

[Cynical Cat]

Sans concrete, yes, and it depends on what sorts of architectural achievements. Flying buttresses yes. Epic free-standing domes (as opposed to little free-standing domes) took until the late middle ages/renaissance transition.

Free standing domes weren't lost, they were used widely in the east. Advances weren't confined to architecture. Agriculture in particular benefited from a number of advances (Roman farming techniques sucked at heavy soils), the fireplace, the wheel barrow, etcetera. And you're wrong about concrete. The Canal du Midi was built a hundred years earlier using it and it was used in the Byzantine Empire.

[Cynical Cat]

Also, the Papacy's strength is constantly over rated. It gets in struggles with monarchies over the investiture of bishops because it wants power it doesn't have, not because it can make kings their bitches. The Investiture Crisis ended up with compromises, by the way, which meant that both kings and popes had a role to play in appointing bishops. The Papacy only really gets control of the church after having multiple popes, because each pope is cut off from revenues and power and squeezes what he can get harder. That solidifies later, but that's post Medieval. Dealing with kings has always been negotiation, with one of the papacy's powers being to make you look bad. And that doesn't always work.

[Lys]

I am quite aware that technology is not like in a video games where there is a clear linear progression between less advanced and more advanced. However, it is possible to make judgements about overall level of technological sophistication from examining a number of criteria. Some of these aren't just knowledge, but also the existence of physical and social infrastructure to use it. Generally any two societies that are on an even technological footing will have differences in what areas are more or less advanced. There will also be differences in how they can use their technology depending on available material, manpower, and intellectual resources. But you can still make across the board comparisons about whether there is overall parity or disparity, even if the various details will differ in any number of ways.

I think that you can say that in general 14th century Europe was about as sophisticated as Rome ever was. Some things were better, some things were worse. And certainly in the 15th century the number of things that were more advanced outweighed the number of fields that were not.

Yeah, we sort of overestimate the strength of the Papacy, especially by the late 1400's. By that point a number of nations had enough power and the Popacy was weak enough that when the Pope called for a crusade they could in essence go "Nah, that's alright. I think we'll sit this one out. Good thought though." This will especially be true in a world where we've got two Popes.

The power of the Papacy could wax and wane. For example in the 12th century after divorcing from the Emperor the power to appoint Popes, and the success of early Crusades, the Papacy was ascendant. In the 15th century, however, it was once again on the wane due to a number of factors. Included among them are the ultimate failure of the Crusader States in the Levant, the brutal and seemingly unending war between the Christian states of England and France, the sheer pettiness and rampant corruption associated with Papal politics in Italy, and general Papal over reach in the use of the Papacy's temporal powers. Taken with the with the rise of more powerful and centralized monarchies western Europe, and you a drastic decrease in Papal power and influence, which the Western Schism certainly did not help.

The Papacy still had considerable power, mind, but much of it was "soft power", and it had to work in conjunction with the monarchies of Europe. In this period the Popes were largely more circumspect about exercising what temporal power remained to them. Later with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation the Papacy would loose all power in areas that were Protestant, but gained influence in areas that remained Catholic. Then the brutal mess of the Thirty Years War mostly ended the matter in favour of cautious tolerance, and Papal power has been on the wane ever since.

On that note. What happened with Eastern Orthodoxy? Did that schism still happen? Sort of important for matters in the East if I do end up playing.

Presumably Orthodoxy is still around. Removing the Great Schism would do a number of wide ranging and unpredictable things to the history of European sphere. If we want to maintain some level of recognizability, the Schism should stay.

[Cynical Cat]

For example in the 12th century after divorcing from the Emperor the power to appoint Popes,

While the Papacy was in ascendance in the 12th Century, their was no "divorcing from the Emperor the power to appoint popes". He never had it. Henry III did dispossess three rival popes in the wake of Benedict IX and appoint Clement, but appointing a pope at sword point had been done before and would be done again and it was mostly done by Romans (one of the reasons the Papacy fled to Avignon. Roman city politics were brutal.) The 12th Century marks the successful imposition of papal power in a number of areas, such as the aforementioned Investiture Crisis which increased papal power (by splitting authority to invest bishops instead of it being an entirely monarchical operation) and the struggle against the power of the Stauffen family (who produced several powerful Holy Roman Emperors including Frederick Barbarossa) by assassinating them.

The papacy's biggest problems were its lack of "hard" power and its own corruption which lead to multiple reform movements and schisms. Soft power could and was use successfully against them as well (their are certain things expected of a Christsian cleric and forgiving of a penitent is one of them so a penitent king could muscle them into position before the nuts and bolts of the deal were hammered out). Some if coopted (Franciscans), some it helped exterminate (the Albigensians), some it murdered (John Huss) and some lead to Protestantism (including John Huss). The failure of the Crusader States didn't hurt the Papacy much because they weren't involved, but the rapid fall of disrepute of the Crusader movement did.

[frigidmagi]

Given that Derek controls the Holy Land *shakes fist* I think we can say the Crusader Kingdoms fell in this timeline to.

[Comrade Tortoise]

BTW: I bumped up starting military. Let me know if upkeep on all those units gets really really high.

[Charon]

Given that Derek controls the Holy Land *shakes fist* I think we can say the Crusader Kingdoms fell in this timeline to.

*looks at what Derek took* No he doesn't.

Jerusalem is in 492. He took 493 and 494. And everything North of that is still unclaimed.