The first differnce is that eastern Europe still had the Roman empire in existance- the so called Byzantine empire -realy Eastern Roman Empire was the Eastern Roman empire that had not yet fallen. Constaninople was the major regional power. The fall of the Roman empire in the west was a major reason for the Pope of Rome to gain civil athority and rule a segment of Italy and play an important role in reginal politics which were the Role of the Emporor in constantinople.
In Eastern Europe the church lack politcal power as each nation had it's own national Orhtodox church and a patriarch that was the first amoungst equals and the local ruler having clear athority. Next the threats faced by the East while spain was driving the Muslims out, the eastern Roman empire was being invaded by the Turks and Russia was over ran by the mongols. The Turkish invation resluted in Constantinople asking for assitance since they had cash but lacked troops this resulted in the Crusades. The west fromed military orders which were fighting monks - an idea that was alien in eastern Europe, since while the govenrments may have killed a lot of people monks and clergy were not allowed to do so.
Also the crusades showed an other differince between Constantinople and the west. Where the western fudal socioty was built on warfare and military might Constantinople maintained it's self by playing politics
so it would uses it's funds and limited man power to keep its neighboors balanced agaisnt each other to prevent any of them from geting to strong. This was distruped when the crusaders sacked constanople and took alot of loot.
After the fall of Kiev to the Mongols two Russian teritories remained the Repulic of Novogord and the Dutchy of Moscow
both faced threat from the Mongols and the Kingodms of Poland and the so called Holy Roman Empire- which laucned what was called the Norhtren crusades against the pagans in the area the tarters and Russians.
|
12-04-2007, 05:22 AM
Linear Mode
