Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Salus Maior]

Did he really? Wow that's awesome xD when did this happen?

1988, back when he and Paisley were MEPs.

Amazing. I like him even better now (and he was in the Austrian resistance).

[Lady Victory]

Ugh.

What?

The Habsburgs weren't any different from any other contemporary royal/noble/imperial family; they lived in excess luxury won through betrayal, exploitation, and war just like all the rests. They were just more successful than others and went out of their way to flaunt their piety so they get put on an even higher pedestal. That more 'traditional' Christians are always so inclined to practically worship people who lived extravagantly while their subjects labored in poverty just happens to get my goat is all. It's all the more hypocritical when they then complain about aristocrats and civilian politicians living decadent and hedonistic lifestyles.

Really, though, it's the Occidental-centrism that gets me. "Europe and Christendom will always be in debt to!", right. Because as we all know Europe and Christendom don't extend beyond the borders of Catholic countries.

[Karolengia]

Really, though, it's the Occidental-centrism that gets me. "Europe and Christendom will always be in debt to!", right. Because as we all know Europe and Christendom don't extend beyond the borders of Catholic countries.

This just sounds like a you problem. Maybe try asking somebody what they believe instead of making an assumption.

[Lady Victory]

Really, though, it's the Occidental-centrism that gets me. "Europe and Christendom will always be in debt to!", right. Because as we all know Europe and Christendom don't extend beyond the borders of Catholic countries.

This just sounds like a you problem. Maybe try asking somebody what they believe instead of making an assumption.

Enlighten me, then: what does Lutheran Finland or Orthodox Bulgaria owe the Habsburgs?

[Vlad Tepes Stan Account]

Define laboring in poverty as the Habsburgs reigned over centuries in various countries which saw different levels of prosperity not only within each realm over the years but also between one another.

[Vlad Tepes Stan Account]

This just sounds like a you problem. Maybe try asking somebody what they believe instead of making an assumption.

Enlighten me, then: what does Lutheran Finland or Orthodox Bulgaria owe the Habsburgs?

Habsburgs played a pretty big role in weakening the Ottoman Empire and supported a number of Bulgarian uprisings. Before the ascension of Russia, the Habsburgs were the only ones that Orthodox South Slavs could rely upon to support their cause for independence.

[Karolengia]

This just sounds like a you problem. Maybe try asking somebody what they believe instead of making an assumption.

Enlighten me, then: what does Lutheran Finland or Orthodox Bulgaria owe the Habsburgs?

All of the Christian world owes the Habsburgs a great debt because it was them who prevented Christendom from falling to the Ottomans. Had they not defended Europe then, there would be no Lutheran Finland today.

[Tarsonis]

Enlighten me, then: what does Lutheran Finland or Orthodox Bulgaria owe the Habsburgs?

All of the Christian world owes the Habsburgs a great debt because it was them who prevented Christendom from falling to the Ottomans. Had they not defended Europe then, there would be no Lutheran Finland today.

Ultimate victory however, belongs to Sobieski

[Salus Maior]

What?

The Habsburgs weren't any different from any other contemporary royal/noble/imperial family; they lived in excess luxury won through betrayal, exploitation, and war just like all the rests. They were just more successful than others and went out of their way to flaunt their piety so they get put on an even higher pedestal. That more 'traditional' Christians are always so inclined to practically worship people who lived extravagantly while their subjects labored in poverty just happens to get my goat is all. It's all the more hypocritical when they then complain about aristocrats and civilian politicians living decadent and hedonistic lifestyles.

Having wealth doesn't make people evil. It's how they use it.

And there are plenty of monarchs who used it well for the benefit of the poor, and in line with their vocation as Christian heads of state.

[Sundiata]

The Habsburgs weren't any different from any other contemporary royal/noble/imperial family; they lived in excess luxury won through betrayal, exploitation, and war just like all the rests. They were just more successful than others and went out of their way to flaunt their piety so they get put on an even higher pedestal. That more 'traditional' Christians are always so inclined to practically worship people who lived extravagantly while their subjects labored in poverty just happens to get my goat is all. It's all the more hypocritical when they then complain about aristocrats and civilian politicians living decadent and hedonistic lifestyles.

Having wealth doesn't make people evil. It's how they use it.

And there are plenty of monarchs who used it well for the benefit of the poor, and in line with their vocation as Christian heads of state.

But if a monarch does not live like the poor, how much of a king or queen are they?

[Suriyanakhon]

Enlighten me, then: what does Lutheran Finland or Orthodox Bulgaria owe the Habsburgs?

All of the Christian world owes the Habsburgs a great debt because it was them who prevented Christendom from falling to the Ottomans. Had they not defended Europe then, there would be no Lutheran Finland today.

How would the Ottomans have reached Finland?

[Lady Victory]

Define laboring in poverty as the Habsburgs reigned over centuries in various countries which saw different levels of prosperity not only within each realm over the years but also between one another.

I mean until the Industrial Revolution the average person (the peasantry) in the West tended to have a very low standard of living, particularly in comparison to society's wealthiest (the nobility in monarchical realms) who often lived in excess. That isn't to say capitalism suddenly made poor people rich, but rather it afforded the average person a better standard of living than the preceding feudal model did (though I admit that it wasn't much of an improvement).

Though on reflection I may have exaggerated a bit. My point was rather that as members of the upper echelon of feudal society the Habsburgs wanted for nothing while their subjects would've had to prioritize basic survival over living as a result of the system they lived in. The Habsburgs aren't to blame for feudalism, obviously, but the monarchist system they benefited from and helped to maintain (as all monarchists of the time did) is and it's part of the reason for my disdain for monarchism and my personal belief that it is an un-Christian system by default.

Enlighten me, then: what does Lutheran Finland or Orthodox Bulgaria owe the Habsburgs?

Habsburgs played a pretty big role in weakening the Ottoman Empire and supported a number of Bulgarian uprisings. Before the ascension of Russia, the Habsburgs were the only ones that Orthodox South Slavs could rely upon to support their cause for independence.

Which was neither out of the goodness of their heart nor because they sympathized with their struggle. The Ottomans were vile and anyone who opposed them gets a pat on the back from me, but it was neither altruism nor Christian brotherhood that drove the Habsburgs to oppose the Ottomans; it was sheer politics. A rival empire in the region didn't bode well for the Habsburg Monarchy. We saw how Austria was quick to gobble up as much of the Balkans as it could and how said imperialism was later reviled by the non-Catholics of the region. Russia did the same thing in Eastern Europe and, to a lesser extent, the Balkans.

Bulgarians ultimately owe nothing to the Habsburgs, though. Aid means little without victory and if there was any Habsburg plot to support Bulgarian independence it didn't seem to succeed in much the same way that Russian attempts to secure Greek independence did not succeed.

Enlighten me, then: what does Lutheran Finland or Orthodox Bulgaria owe the Habsburgs?

All of the Christian world owes the Habsburgs a great debt because it was them who prevented Christendom from falling to the Ottomans. Had they not defended Europe then, there would be no Lutheran Finland today.

As threatening as the Ottoman Empire was this idea that it would have taken over all of Europe is pure fantasy. It certainly wouldn't have been the death of Christendom, which I'd like to remind you extends beyond the boundaries of the European continent.

That the Ottomans would have been able to expand beyond Vienna is doubtful given they were already having supply, morale, and cohesion problems in their armies by the time they put Vienna under siege. Even if they had worked out these issues they already controlled a very large degree of territory comprised of a great many different religions and ethnicities; every one of which they treated like dirt. That the Ottoman Empire managed to last as long as it did is honestly surprising considering just how many of it's subjects had nothing but contempt for the House of Osman.

Victory at Vienna doesn't belong to the Habsburg. That's simply undue praise they don't deserve. It was Jan III Sobieski, King of Poland, and his famed Winged Hussars who relieved Vienna. They are the heroes of that battle and deserve recognition as such. Calling it a "Habsburg victory" is giving credit where it isn't due.

[Lady Victory]

Having wealth doesn't make people evil. It's how they use it.

And there are plenty of monarchs who used it well for the benefit of the poor, and in line with their vocation as Christian heads of state.

But if a monarch does not live like the poor, how much of a king or queen are they?

They don't have to live like they're poor, but when they get to eat expensive bear meat every night while their subjects would be lucky just to have any meat at all on just on day of the week then you can't call that the Christian ideal.

All of the Christian world owes the Habsburgs a great debt because it was them who prevented Christendom from falling to the Ottomans. Had they not defended Europe then, there would be no Lutheran Finland today.

How would the Ottomans have reached Finland?

Better yet, how would they have reached the New World; where Christendom had already extended? People were living in Jamestown, Virginia by the time the Battle of Vienna was occurring. Yet they somehow owe the Habsburgs for... something.

[Sundiata]

]
They don't have to live like they're poor, but when they get to eat expensive bear meat every night while their subjects would be lucky just to have any meat at all on just on day of the week then you can't call that the Christian ideal.

I politely disagree, if a leader lives in luxury then so should the poorest of their subjects. It's easy to make one's riches an idol but any Christian ruler should be prepared to give all they have to the poor. I had a difficult time understanding this but it's true, we're called to be another Christ. We should be prepared to sacrifice our lives and everything we own for the poor, if necessary.

[Salus Maior]

Having wealth doesn't make people evil. It's how they use it.

And there are plenty of monarchs who used it well for the benefit of the poor, and in line with their vocation as Christian heads of state.

But if a monarch does not live like the poor, how much of a king or queen are they?

If everyone lived like the poor, who would be in any position to help the poor?

If everyone were a begging Franciscan, nobody would receive any alms because no one would be in a position to give them. Now, I'm not disparaging the Franciscans by any means, but it's not beneficial for everyone to make a vow of poverty. That's either a vocation, or a state of deprivation requiring aid. To be a monarch, or a head of state in general, is its own vocation with its own means of living in a Christian way.

As St. Francis de Sales puts it: "Is it fitting for a Bishop to want to live a solitary life like a Carthusian? Or for married men to want to own no more property than a Capuchin, for a skilled workman to spend the whole day in church like a religious, for a religious to be subject to every sort of call in his neighbor's service, like a Bishop is? Would not such devotion be laughable, confused, impossible to carry out?....True Devotion...not only does no harm to one's [lawful] vocation or occupation, but on the contrary adorns and beautifies it."

[Suriyanakhon]

But if a monarch does not live like the poor, how much of a king or queen are they?

If everyone lived like the poor, who would be in any position to help the poor?

If everyone were a begging Franciscan, nobody would receive any alms because no one would be in a position to give them. Now, I'm not disparaging the Franciscans by any means, but it's not beneficial for everyone to make a vow of poverty. That's either a vocation, or a state of deprivation requiring aid. To be a monarch, or a head of state in general, is its own vocation with its own means of living in a Christian way.

As St. Francis de Sales puts it: "Is it fitting for a Bishop to want to live a solitary life like a Carthusian? Or for married men to want to own no more property than a Capuchin, for a skilled workman to spend the whole day in church like a religious, for a religious to be subject to every sort of call in his neighbor's service, like a Bishop is? Would not such devotion be laughable, confused, impossible to carry out?....True Devotion...not only does no harm to one's [lawful] vocation or occupation, but on the contrary adorns and beautifies it."

To be fair to Sun, living like the poor doesn't mean having zero resources. The Hapsburg could very much have chosen not to live luxuriously and to have sold much of their jewels and paintings to provide for the poor and needy.

[Salus Maior]

To be fair to Sun, living like the poor doesn't mean having zero resources. The Hapsburg could very much have chosen not to live luxuriously and to have sold much of their jewels and paintings to provide for the poor and needy.

Isn't this just the "sell the Vatican" argument?

I mean, I'd say that the Habsburgs selling all their heirlooms would be culturally destructive to a priceless degree. That being said, Blessed Karl did sacrifice a great deal of his personal wealth to support his people during the war. Apparently to the point where his chamberlain had to point out there was no more money to distribute, to which he replied: “The need is so great, find the money from somewhere else and distribute that.”

[Salus Maior]

But if a monarch does not live like the poor, how much of a king or queen are they?

They don't have to live like they're poor, but when they get to eat expensive bear meat every night while their subjects would be lucky just to have any meat at all on just on day of the week then you can't call that the Christian ideal.

Your idea of monarchy really is just King John from the Disney Robin Hood.

[Sundiata]

They don't have to live like they're poor, but when they get to eat expensive bear meat every night while their subjects would be lucky just to have any meat at all on just on day of the week then you can't call that the Christian ideal.

Your idea of monarchy really is just King John from the Disney Robin Hood.

[Sundiata]

But if a monarch does not live like the poor, how much of a king or queen are they?

If everyone lived like the poor, who would be in any position to help the poor?

If everyone were a begging Franciscan, nobody would receive any alms because no one would be in a position to give them. Now, I'm not disparaging the Franciscans by any means, but it's not beneficial for everyone to make a vow of poverty. That's either a vocation, or a state of deprivation requiring aid. To be a monarch, or a head of state in general, is its own vocation with its own means of living in a Christian way.

As St. Francis de Sales puts it: "Is it fitting for a Bishop to want to live a solitary life like a Carthusian? Or for married men to want to own no more property than a Capuchin, for a skilled workman to spend the whole day in church like a religious, for a religious to be subject to every sort of call in his neighbor's service, like a Bishop is? Would not such devotion be laughable, confused, impossible to carry out?....True Devotion...not only does no harm to one's [lawful] vocation or occupation, but on the contrary adorns and beautifies it."

That's a fair point.

[Suriyanakhon]

To be fair to Sun, living like the poor doesn't mean having zero resources. The Hapsburg could very much have chosen not to live luxuriously and to have sold much of their jewels and paintings to provide for the poor and needy.

Isn't this just the "sell the Vatican" argument?

I mean, I'd say that the Habsburgs selling all their heirlooms would be culturally destructive to a priceless degree. That being said, Blessed Karl did sacrifice a great deal of his personal wealth to support his people during the war. Apparently to the point where his chamberlain had to point out there was no more money to distribute, to which he replied: “The need is so great, find the money from somewhere else and distribute that.”

The difference is that the Vatican is more of a museum than a royal palace even if someone lives there.

Does culture really matter compared to the living standards of the poor? While what Karl did was exceptional, it was very much not the norm throughout history. The reason for this is that monarchy requires an elitist hierarchy with people economically on top and other have-nots below, and it's understandable that some people like LV would see this as contradictory with Jesus' message of Christlike living.

[Salus Maior]

Isn't this just the "sell the Vatican" argument?

I mean, I'd say that the Habsburgs selling all their heirlooms would be culturally destructive to a priceless degree. That being said, Blessed Karl did sacrifice a great deal of his personal wealth to support his people during the war. Apparently to the point where his chamberlain had to point out there was no more money to distribute, to which he replied: “The need is so great, find the money from somewhere else and distribute that.”

The difference is that the Vatican is more of a museum than a royal palace even if someone lives there.

Does culture really matter compared to the living standards of the poor? While what Karl did was exceptional, it was very much not the norm throughout history. The reason for this is that monarchy requires an elitist hierarchy with people economically on top and other have-nots below, and it's understandable that some people like LV would see this as contradictory with Jesus' message of Christlike living.

And I would argue that her Nationalism is contrary to Christ's message.

But alas, I've been blocked by her for a while.

[Vlad Tepes Stan Account]

I mean until the Industrial Revolution the average person (the peasantry) in the West tended to have a very low standard of living, particularly in comparison to society's wealthiest (the nobility in monarchical realms) who often lived in excess.

Data on average height suggests otherwise as well as records from various eras. In the late 17th century England, a period in which there was a massive gap between the rich and poor in place, over half the population could eat meat every day, another 30% twice to six times a week and only 20% never. The 20% is who were considered to be in poverty by the standards of the time.

That isn't to say capitalism suddenly made poor people rich, but rather it afforded the average person a better standard of living than the preceding feudal model did (though I admit that it wasn't much of an improvement).

Then why were the most malnourished and impoverished workers factory workers until the mid-late 19th century?

Though on reflection I may have exaggerated a bit.

More than a bit.

My point was rather that as members of the upper echelon of feudal society the Habsburgs wanted for nothing while their subjects would've had to prioritize basic survival over living as a result of the system they lived in.

This isn't actually the case.

The Habsburgs aren't to blame for feudalism, obviously, but the monarchist system they benefited from and helped to maintain (as all monarchists of the time did) is and it's part of the reason for my disdain for monarchism and my personal belief that it is an un-Christian system by default.

Which is based upon a very inaccurate and Whig history view on pre-modern life. Funnily enough the people writing about it were just reflecting their own horrible period back onto the past, with an assumption it had to be worse when it wasn't.

Which was neither out of the goodness of their heart nor because they sympathized with their struggle. The Ottomans were vile and anyone who opposed them gets a pat on the back from me, but it was neither altruism nor Christian brotherhood that drove the Habsburgs to oppose the Ottomans; it was sheer politics.

What? The Austrians declared themselves the protectors of Christians in the Ottoman Empire which served as a way to limit injustices imposed upon Christian subjects in the Ottoman Empire. There were beyond a doubt many reasons driving Habsburg opposition to the Ottomans but to simply say that religious sentiment had none is asinine.

We saw how Austria was quick to gobble up as much of the Balkans as it could and how said imperialism was later reviled by the non-Catholics of the region.

Which doesn't change that they opposed the Ottomans for religious reasons? Also the Habsburgs were among the most tolerant of Orthodox Christians, especially after they obtained a significant Orthodox population. The Ukrainians were possibly the most loyal demographic in the Habsburg realm, if not at the top then certainly close to it. This is because the Habsburgs didn't persecute them unlike the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Russia did the same thing in Eastern Europe and, to a lesser extent, the Balkans.

The Russians waged numerous wars to help weaken the Ottomans and ultimately liberate most of the Balkans from their grasp, what on earth are you talking about?

Bulgarians ultimately owe nothing to the Habsburgs, though. Aid means little without victory and if there was any Habsburg plot to support Bulgarian independence it didn't seem to succeed in much the same way that Russian attempts to secure Greek independence did not succeed.

Translation: "I'm making up this standard because I don't want to be shown to be wrong."

[Vlad Tepes Stan Account]

I'm not sure if anyone is aware but being a pre-industrial farmer was incredibly labourous and if they were all half-starved to death then not much farming could actually be done on account of them not having the energy to do much other then keep their bodies running on fumes (it's hard as shit to work when even at that point let alone actually starving). They were eating and drinking by the fucking cartload. IIRC some have suggested that the average medieval peasant ate and drank like 3000-3500 calories per day and a lot of that would have been incredibly nutritious veg, nuts, and berries.

[Salus Maior]

IIRC some have suggested that the average medieval peasant ate and drank like 3000-3500 calories per day and a lot of that would have been incredibly nutritious veg, nuts, and berries.

Return to Peasantry?