Andrea[s] Matranga is discussing Slavic serfdom. If I am reading this thread right, Ivan III and - more so - IV rediscovered the Byzantine Theme.
The Empire requires a stable border. The Empire needs to supply the border-marches. So: force the peasants to stay there, to supply the marcher boyars, or dynatoi if you're Greek. Then keep those dynatoi under your own feet.
Meanwhile - I'll continue - the Tsar must offer to those peasants, hope. Suppressing dynatoi will do that; but - more so - promising the serfs that you, the Tsar, are best suited to support them. The Altar supports the Throne, always. This society cannot (easily) support a Church as might correct the Tsar. Disunity doesn't just mean bouts of internal strife; it can mean Turks. (Or Mongols, or Arabs.) Maybe a Comnenid can live with Seljuqs. Paleologoi cannot survive Ottomans.
Suppose lawless tribes vanish. Does Byzantine-Slavic "Orthodoxy", crypto-Monothelete as it is, have the flexibility to adapt? The events of AD 1917 rather lead us elsewhere.
But once upon a time Catholicism, crypto-Nestorian as it is, had to deal with lawless tribes, in North Africa. Where was our defence over the 600s in Africa? - how did it go for the Oriental Church in Iran...?
No comments:
Post a Comment