Ancient Egypt had a lot of dynasties. About thirty, give or take. And unlike dynasties in other countries, we don't even call them by unique names. We just say "First Dynasty, Second Dynasty," etc.
Some of these dynasties are super important. Some are unimportant, but contained important rulers or coincided with important events. Others are not important in any way.
In this post, I'll highlight the three that I think are important to come up, by themselves, as answers.
(1) The Third Dynasty
This is the first dynasty of the "Old Kingdom", the classic Egyptian civilization. It was also the dynasty under which pyramid building began. Its most notable ruler was Djoser, the first king to build a step pyramid. Another notable figure was Imhotep, the chancellor who designed the pyramid. Imhotep was also an early pioneer in medicine. He later became a god in the Egyptian religion.
(2) The Fourth Dynasty
This is the dynasty under which the Great Pyramids at Giza were built. Its rulers, therefore, include the three kings who built the three pyramids: Kufu, Khafra, and Menkaure.
But there are other notable Fourth Dynasty figures!
Sneferu: the father of Kufu and founder of the fourth dynasty. He built three pyramids, including the famous "bent" pyramid. He was the first king to build a non-stepped pyramid.
Hetepheres: a common female name during this dynasty. If you hear a question about a pharaoh having a daughter or wife named Hetepheres, you can be sure that you are in the fourth dynasty.
Djedefre: OK, putting this guy here is kind of a stretch. But he was the older son of Kufu who was pharaoh before Khafra. He built a big pyramid on a hill near Giza, but very little of it survives, due to it being plundered for stone during the Roman and Arab periods.
(3) The Eighteenth Dynasty
Probably the most famous Egyptian dynasty, and the only one I would consider writing an ACF Fall tossup about. This is the dynasty that began the Egyptian New Kingdom by expelling the Hyksos (a good Hyksos clue: they allegedly banned hippopotamus hunting, one of many evil and oppressive acts that later historians would accuse them of).
Tons of famous pharaohs here, including:
Hatsepshup: the most famous female pharaoh
Thutmosis III: Hatsepshut's son, who greatly expanded Egyptian military power
Amenhotep III: Considered the peak of Egyptian power, influence, and diplomacy
Ahkenaten: Religious reformer who attempted to institute monotheism; was married to Nefertiti; did all sorts of crazy things and may have had all sorts of physiological disorders
Tutankhamen: restored the old Egyptian religion, only intact royal tomb to be discovered
An important set of documents from the 18th Dynasty are the Amarna Letters. These are named for the new (and later abandoned) capital that Akhenaten established. They are a record of Egyptian diplomacy with the Levant during the reigns of Amenhotep III and Ahkenaten. Not only are these important to Egyptologists, they are also important to people who study the Mitani and other Ancient Near Eastern polities. Also, they are written in Akkadian, not Egyptian (Akkadian was a lingua franca of the ancient world). This is important because vowels are written down in Akkadian, but not in Egyptian. Thus, the Amarna letters give us our best glimpse of what vowels were like in Ancient Egyptian.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Mutually Assured Destruction: Why the Cold War Got Gentler after 1963(ish)
In the 1950's, you had two delivery mechanisms for nuclear warheads: strategic bombers and liquid fueled rockets.
Strategic bombers were planes that dropped bombs; this was the delivery mechanism used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each superpower had thousands of bombers. In a nuclear war, they would be sent to fly over the other superpower and drop bombs. Anyone who has been on an international flight - even a supersonic one - could tell you that this would take a while.
Liquid-fuel rockets were early ICBMs. Their fuel was corrosive, which meant you couldn't store fuel in them. You had to actually fill the rockets up with fuel before you launched them. This meant that you couldn't really launch a surprise attack: you'd have to spend about a day fueling all of your rockets and THEN launch them. So if the other side saw you filling your rockets with fuel (say, from a spy plane or satellite), then they'd probably guess you were getting ready to nuke them. Why else would you be pumping a multi-million dollar asset full of corrosive liquid?
So a nuclear war in the 1950's would have looked a bit like this: the aggressor would start fueling their rockets and launch their airplanes. Hours before the first mushroom cloud, the other side would catch wind of this and launch their own planes and start fueling their own rockets (except that since the other side's rockets were probably aimed at your rockets, you'd be kind of screwed if you didn't catch them fueling in time). Each side would attempt to shoot down the bombers of the other side using fighter jets or missiles.
The important thing to take home about this is that in the 1950's, you could still realistically dream of WINNING a nuclear war. If you launched your rockets early enough to destroy the other guy's rockets before they could be fueled, AND if you managed to get your bombers not shot down while shooting down most of his bombers, you could reduce the other superpower to a smoldering ruin while only losing a few of your own major cities.
With each side able to be optimistic about their chances, they were free to escalate tensions.
But by the late 1960's, things had changed. There were two big innovations: the solid-fuel rocket and the ballistic missile submarine.
Missiles now had solid, non-corrosive fuel that could be stored inside the missile with no ill effects. So now, instead of spending hours filling your missiles in fuel, you could just press a button and send them on their merry way to Moscow or New York (it would take about 30-40 minutes for them to get there). And you now had submarines filled with nuclear missiles: submarines that could hide anywhere in the ocean. And you still had bombers.
This combination of bombers, missiles, and submarines is called the Nuclear Triad. With its advent, your chances of realistically winning a nuclear war dropped dramatically.
No longer could you hope to wipe out the other guy's missiles before they could launch. Even if they only detected your incoming missiles 5 minutes before impact, they still had time to press that button. The process could even be automated: a computer could be hooked up to seismic equipment and programmed to press the button for you if it detected seismic activity consistent with a nuclear holocaust of your cities.
Even if you DID destroy the other guy's missiles, you still had to shoot down his bombers AND sink all of his submarines. Basically, you would have to launch three separate attacks on the other superpower, each involving different strategies, equipment, and branches of your armed services, and win ALL of them. Failing to destroy even just one leg of the nuclear triad meant the destruction of your homeland.
With each side no longer having hope of winning a nuclear war, tensions relaxed. Beginning in the late 60's, you saw a series of arms control agreements in which both superpowers agreed to cut their arsenal or ban certain kinds of weapons. These treaties included the Nuclear Test Ban, SALT I, the ABM Treaty, and the INF Treaty from my last post.
Strategic bombers were planes that dropped bombs; this was the delivery mechanism used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each superpower had thousands of bombers. In a nuclear war, they would be sent to fly over the other superpower and drop bombs. Anyone who has been on an international flight - even a supersonic one - could tell you that this would take a while.
Liquid-fuel rockets were early ICBMs. Their fuel was corrosive, which meant you couldn't store fuel in them. You had to actually fill the rockets up with fuel before you launched them. This meant that you couldn't really launch a surprise attack: you'd have to spend about a day fueling all of your rockets and THEN launch them. So if the other side saw you filling your rockets with fuel (say, from a spy plane or satellite), then they'd probably guess you were getting ready to nuke them. Why else would you be pumping a multi-million dollar asset full of corrosive liquid?
So a nuclear war in the 1950's would have looked a bit like this: the aggressor would start fueling their rockets and launch their airplanes. Hours before the first mushroom cloud, the other side would catch wind of this and launch their own planes and start fueling their own rockets (except that since the other side's rockets were probably aimed at your rockets, you'd be kind of screwed if you didn't catch them fueling in time). Each side would attempt to shoot down the bombers of the other side using fighter jets or missiles.
The important thing to take home about this is that in the 1950's, you could still realistically dream of WINNING a nuclear war. If you launched your rockets early enough to destroy the other guy's rockets before they could be fueled, AND if you managed to get your bombers not shot down while shooting down most of his bombers, you could reduce the other superpower to a smoldering ruin while only losing a few of your own major cities.
With each side able to be optimistic about their chances, they were free to escalate tensions.
But by the late 1960's, things had changed. There were two big innovations: the solid-fuel rocket and the ballistic missile submarine.
Missiles now had solid, non-corrosive fuel that could be stored inside the missile with no ill effects. So now, instead of spending hours filling your missiles in fuel, you could just press a button and send them on their merry way to Moscow or New York (it would take about 30-40 minutes for them to get there). And you now had submarines filled with nuclear missiles: submarines that could hide anywhere in the ocean. And you still had bombers.
This combination of bombers, missiles, and submarines is called the Nuclear Triad. With its advent, your chances of realistically winning a nuclear war dropped dramatically.
No longer could you hope to wipe out the other guy's missiles before they could launch. Even if they only detected your incoming missiles 5 minutes before impact, they still had time to press that button. The process could even be automated: a computer could be hooked up to seismic equipment and programmed to press the button for you if it detected seismic activity consistent with a nuclear holocaust of your cities.
Even if you DID destroy the other guy's missiles, you still had to shoot down his bombers AND sink all of his submarines. Basically, you would have to launch three separate attacks on the other superpower, each involving different strategies, equipment, and branches of your armed services, and win ALL of them. Failing to destroy even just one leg of the nuclear triad meant the destruction of your homeland.
With each side no longer having hope of winning a nuclear war, tensions relaxed. Beginning in the late 60's, you saw a series of arms control agreements in which both superpowers agreed to cut their arsenal or ban certain kinds of weapons. These treaties included the Nuclear Test Ban, SALT I, the ABM Treaty, and the INF Treaty from my last post.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Intermediate Range Nuclear Missile Crisis
Tanks: I has it.
Leonid Brezhnev could have said this with a smile. For most of the Cold War, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies had far more tanks in Europe -- and far more artillery, infantry, and conventional forces of any kind -- than NATO did.
NATO accepted this. Instead of trying to beat the Soviet Union by matching the size of its conventional forces, NATO invested in small, precise nuclear weapons. These could be used like artillery, launched against opposing armies during a battle. In the event of a US-USSR war, the Soviet Union's massive tank columns would simply be nuked instead of engaged in tank-to-tank combat. This strategy took advantage of NATO's better technology; the Soviets could not build such precise nuclear weapons.
The result was deterrence: the Soviet Union could not hope to conquer Western Europe, and so the Red Army simply sat.
But in the late 70's, things began to change. The Soviets introduced a new missile: the SS-20. This was a relatively small, accurate missile, with a nuclear warhead big enough to wipe out a military base. They took about 8 minutes to travel from the USSR to West Germany. In theory, they could be used to launch a sneak attack that would destroy NATO's bases in Western Europe (and thus destroy NATO's small nuclear weapons) and allow the Red Army to march to the Atlantic unopposed.
NATO responded by deploying a new nuclear missile in Western Europe: the Pershing II. This was a modified version of the older Pershing missile, which was already deployed, but it had a longer range and - importantly - was more accurate. Similarly, it could get from West Germany to the Soviet fatherland in under ten minutes.
The Pershing II spooked the Soviet Union: its accuracy meant that NATO could reliably nuke targets inside the USSR in a short amount of time (for comparison, an American ICBM would take about 30 minutes to get to Russia). This might allow NATO to destroy Soviet bases or even to launch a decapitation strike against the Kremlin.
All of these small, accurate missiles in Europe threatened to disrupt the relative peace of the Cold War. If both sides now believed they had a shot at pre-emptively neutralizing the other side's conventional forces, both sides might be tempted to start a European war.
Both sides realized this, and in 1987 Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, abbreviated the INF Treaty. This treaty banned intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe. As a result, the SS-20 and Pershing II missiles were removed and disassembled.
With this, the status quo ante returned. The USSR was safe from conventional attack by NATO because of its much larger army. NATO was safe from conventional attack by the USSR because it still retained its smaller tactical nuclear weapons.
As a side note: one of the consequences of the intermediate range nuclear missile crisis was me. My father, a defector from Communist Poland, was living in Germany in the 1980's. He was happy there and planned to stay. Then, one day, he saw a large protest against the Pershing II missile. One of the protesters was carrying a sign that said "Better Red than Dead". My father couldn't disagree more with this sign; it disgusted him so much that he moved to the United States, where he met my mother.
Leonid Brezhnev could have said this with a smile. For most of the Cold War, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies had far more tanks in Europe -- and far more artillery, infantry, and conventional forces of any kind -- than NATO did.
NATO accepted this. Instead of trying to beat the Soviet Union by matching the size of its conventional forces, NATO invested in small, precise nuclear weapons. These could be used like artillery, launched against opposing armies during a battle. In the event of a US-USSR war, the Soviet Union's massive tank columns would simply be nuked instead of engaged in tank-to-tank combat. This strategy took advantage of NATO's better technology; the Soviets could not build such precise nuclear weapons.
The result was deterrence: the Soviet Union could not hope to conquer Western Europe, and so the Red Army simply sat.
But in the late 70's, things began to change. The Soviets introduced a new missile: the SS-20. This was a relatively small, accurate missile, with a nuclear warhead big enough to wipe out a military base. They took about 8 minutes to travel from the USSR to West Germany. In theory, they could be used to launch a sneak attack that would destroy NATO's bases in Western Europe (and thus destroy NATO's small nuclear weapons) and allow the Red Army to march to the Atlantic unopposed.
NATO responded by deploying a new nuclear missile in Western Europe: the Pershing II. This was a modified version of the older Pershing missile, which was already deployed, but it had a longer range and - importantly - was more accurate. Similarly, it could get from West Germany to the Soviet fatherland in under ten minutes.
The Pershing II spooked the Soviet Union: its accuracy meant that NATO could reliably nuke targets inside the USSR in a short amount of time (for comparison, an American ICBM would take about 30 minutes to get to Russia). This might allow NATO to destroy Soviet bases or even to launch a decapitation strike against the Kremlin.
All of these small, accurate missiles in Europe threatened to disrupt the relative peace of the Cold War. If both sides now believed they had a shot at pre-emptively neutralizing the other side's conventional forces, both sides might be tempted to start a European war.
Both sides realized this, and in 1987 Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, abbreviated the INF Treaty. This treaty banned intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe. As a result, the SS-20 and Pershing II missiles were removed and disassembled.
With this, the status quo ante returned. The USSR was safe from conventional attack by NATO because of its much larger army. NATO was safe from conventional attack by the USSR because it still retained its smaller tactical nuclear weapons.
As a side note: one of the consequences of the intermediate range nuclear missile crisis was me. My father, a defector from Communist Poland, was living in Germany in the 1980's. He was happy there and planned to stay. Then, one day, he saw a large protest against the Pershing II missile. One of the protesters was carrying a sign that said "Better Red than Dead". My father couldn't disagree more with this sign; it disgusted him so much that he moved to the United States, where he met my mother.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Franz Nopcsa: the Gay Hungarian Paleontologist who Founded Modern Albania
Baron Franz von Nopcsa was born into a wealthy noble family in Transylvania, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. When he was growing up, he and his sister discovered some fossils on their family’s estate. This sparked Franz’s life-long interest in the study of extinct beasts and the discovery of their remains; indeed, he decided to make Paleontology his profession.
Nopcsa became famous for fossils he discovered in his native Transylvania. Many of his discoveries dated from the Cretaceous Period (120 - 65 million years ago), during which Transylvania was an island (called Hateg Island).
The Hateg Island dinosaurs that Nopcsa discovered all had something in common: they were small. Indeed, many of them simply seemed to be smaller versions of other, better known dinosaurs.
Many scientists of the day explained this away by saying that Nopcsa had discovered juvenile specimens of other dinosaurs, but Nopcsa had a different idea. He put forth the theory of Island Dwarfism: that animals on islands evolved to be smaller due to fewer resources being available.
Nopcsa’s contemporaries scoffed at this notion of “island dwarfism”, saying that it was speculative, the product of a flamboyant and undisciplined mind. However, today Nopcsa’s theory is widely accepted. Many small island animals have been discovered, including miniature mammoths on Arctic islands, miniature hippos on Mediterranean islands, and even miniature human beings (Homo floresiensis) in Indonesia. Island Dwarfism is also the affliction suffered by the character “Mr. Tusks” in the popular online comic strip Dinosaur Comics.
After finishing his digs in Transylvania, Nopcsa decided to conduct some digs in Albania, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire. But he soon found more than just dinosaurs in Albania.
Nopcsa fell in love with the Albanian countryside and came to appreciate the culture of the Albanian people. He decided that Albania should become independent, and dedicated himself to liberating Albania from the Ottoman yoke.
Nopcsa organized rebellion in Albania and used his personal fortune to bring guns and other weapons to Albania. He even took up arms himself and personally led Albanians in battle against the Turks.
Finally, his hard work paid off. Under the 1913 Treaty of London, Albania became an independent state. (This treaty more broadly ended the First Balkan War).
It was decided that Albania should become a kingdom, but with no native dynasty, an outside monarch would have to be brought in.
Nopcsa very much wanted to be King of Albania. With noble blood and with ties to the closest Great Power (Austria-Hungary), he looked good on paper. There was only one problem: he was gay. Kings were expected to marry and produce heirs, and there was doubt that Nopcsa would do this.
Nopcsa tried to spin his homosexuality as an advantage. Since he found all women equally unattractive, he didn’t really care what woman he married and slept with. Therefore, he proposed selling the title of “Queen of Albania” to the highest bidder. Nopcsa would marry and impregnate whichever woman paid the most; he also proposed spending the winning bidder’s money on building roads and hospitals.
In the end, Nopcsa’s plan failed to convince the right people, and he was passed over for King of Albania. This was the beginning of the end for him.
A few years later, Nopcsa lost his family’s land when Transylvania (which had been Hungarian for nearly a thousand years) was annexed by Romania after World War One under the Treaty of Trianon. He was now poor, and for the first time in his life needed to work for a living instead of going around Eastern Europe digging for dinosaurs and leading rebellions.
Nopcsa moved to Vienna and taught Paleontology classes at the university, but he had a hard time adjusting to having a job. He fell into a deep depression, and died in a murder-suicide with his gay lover.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
The Partition of Hungary
I'm about to make a series of posts about Hungary (one of my favorite topics), but before I do so I want to go through some terms that a lot of people find confusing. The confusion stems from the somewhat chaotic aftermath of the Ottoman-Hungarian wars.
Everyone knows that in 1526, the Kingdom of Hungary was defeated by the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Mohacs, where the Turkish Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent won one of his greatest victories, and King Louis II of Hungary was killed. (Also killed was Pal Tomori, a bishop who served as Louis II's top general.)
It took a few decades for all of the fallout to settle, but in the end Hungary was partitioned three ways.
I. Imperial Hungary: Ottoman Control
The Ottoman Empire outright annexed much of Hungary. This is referred to as Imperial Hungary -- because it was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Most of modern-day Hungary (which, as any Hungarian nationalist will tell you, is far smaller than historic Hungary) fell into Imperial Hungary. Thus, Budapest, Szeged, and other major cities of modern Hungary were under direct Turkish rule.
While the term "Kingdom of Hungary" refers to both the entire Hungarian state prior to Mohacs and to the Habsburg-ruled successor state, the term "Royal Hungary" is used only to refer to Habsburg-controlled Hungary post-Mohacs.
Confusingly, historians often refer to Habsburg armies as "Imperial" armies, because of their allegience to the Holy Roman Empire. So you might read about Imperial armies invading Imperial Hungary.
III. Principality of Transylvania: Independent
But not all of Hungary fell under foreign control. Transylvania became an independent principality controlled by the great Transylvanian noble families (the Bathorys, the Bethlens, the Batthyanys, etc.). As with the king in pre-Mohacs Hungary, the Transylvanian ruler was elected for life. At first, the rulers of Transylvania claimed, in pretense, the kingship of Hungary (against the Habsburgs), but after 1600 they dropped these claims and simply called themselves "Prince of Transylvania" (fejedelem in Hungarian). However, many princes of Transylvania were ambitious and started or supported rebellions in Upper Hungary, with the goal of throwing off the Habsburgs.
Transylvania was to some extent an Ottoman client state. The Ottomans thought of it as a useful buffer state between them and the Austrians. Further, the Ottomans encouraged the spread of Protestantism in Transylvania; they figured that if they made the Hungarians non-Catholic, it would be more difficult for Austria to absorb the Hungarians in the future.
This three-part partition was in effect from roughly 1526 to 1699. Eventually, during the Great Turkish War, Eugene of Savoy conquered all of Hungary and Transylvania, and Austrian mastery over these areas was confirmed by the Treaty of Karlowitz. Subsequently, both Imperial and Royal Hungary became part of a unified "Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary" with the Habsburgs as hereditary monarchs. The Habsburgs also took the title of "Prince of Transylvania". Indeed, today in Vienna you can view the Transylvanian crown in the same museum that houses the Austrian crown jewels and the crown of the Holy Roman Emperor.
Everyone knows that in 1526, the Kingdom of Hungary was defeated by the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Mohacs, where the Turkish Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent won one of his greatest victories, and King Louis II of Hungary was killed. (Also killed was Pal Tomori, a bishop who served as Louis II's top general.)
It took a few decades for all of the fallout to settle, but in the end Hungary was partitioned three ways.
I. Imperial Hungary: Ottoman Control
The Ottoman Empire outright annexed much of Hungary. This is referred to as Imperial Hungary -- because it was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Most of modern-day Hungary (which, as any Hungarian nationalist will tell you, is far smaller than historic Hungary) fell into Imperial Hungary. Thus, Budapest, Szeged, and other major cities of modern Hungary were under direct Turkish rule.
II. Royal Hungary: Austrian Control
The Turks didn't quite annex all of Hungary, though. Large areas were annexed by the Hapsburg dynasty of Austria. These areas became known as Royal Hungary -- because the Habsburgs took the title of King of Hungary after the death of their relative Louis II and thus claimed these areas as king. This is confusing, because the Habsburgs are far more famous for being Holy Roman Emperors, and thus it seems that their part should be called "Imperial" Hungary. However, calling this area "Royal" Hungary is consistent with the traditions of Austrian imperialism. On paper, Austria never had an "empire" that it controlled. Rather, the Austrian empire was presented as many different independent countries, each of which just happened to have the same ruler.
Royal Hungary consisted mostly of "Upper Hungary" -- which today we call Slovakia -- as well as half of Croatia (the rest of which was part of Imperial Hungary). The capital of Royal Hungary was Bratislava (in Hungarian Pozsony, in German Pressburg), which makes Bratislava the only European city to have been capital of two different countries, both of which still exist.While the term "Kingdom of Hungary" refers to both the entire Hungarian state prior to Mohacs and to the Habsburg-ruled successor state, the term "Royal Hungary" is used only to refer to Habsburg-controlled Hungary post-Mohacs.
Confusingly, historians often refer to Habsburg armies as "Imperial" armies, because of their allegience to the Holy Roman Empire. So you might read about Imperial armies invading Imperial Hungary.
III. Principality of Transylvania: Independent
But not all of Hungary fell under foreign control. Transylvania became an independent principality controlled by the great Transylvanian noble families (the Bathorys, the Bethlens, the Batthyanys, etc.). As with the king in pre-Mohacs Hungary, the Transylvanian ruler was elected for life. At first, the rulers of Transylvania claimed, in pretense, the kingship of Hungary (against the Habsburgs), but after 1600 they dropped these claims and simply called themselves "Prince of Transylvania" (fejedelem in Hungarian). However, many princes of Transylvania were ambitious and started or supported rebellions in Upper Hungary, with the goal of throwing off the Habsburgs.
Transylvania was to some extent an Ottoman client state. The Ottomans thought of it as a useful buffer state between them and the Austrians. Further, the Ottomans encouraged the spread of Protestantism in Transylvania; they figured that if they made the Hungarians non-Catholic, it would be more difficult for Austria to absorb the Hungarians in the future.
This three-part partition was in effect from roughly 1526 to 1699. Eventually, during the Great Turkish War, Eugene of Savoy conquered all of Hungary and Transylvania, and Austrian mastery over these areas was confirmed by the Treaty of Karlowitz. Subsequently, both Imperial and Royal Hungary became part of a unified "Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary" with the Habsburgs as hereditary monarchs. The Habsburgs also took the title of "Prince of Transylvania". Indeed, today in Vienna you can view the Transylvanian crown in the same museum that houses the Austrian crown jewels and the crown of the Holy Roman Emperor.
Forgotten Reformers: Others in Brief
People sometimes ask me: "How can the names and deeds of minor Reformation figures be distinguished and memorized? How can they be recalled in five seconds or less?" I find it is helpful to understand that most reformers had discrete geographic roles. That is, in most major cities or polities that became Protestant, there was one guy who brought Protestantism to that city. Sometimes the same guy would bring Protestantism to two or even three different places; other times a single city would require two guys, often in succession, to become fully Protestant. Since this isn't a Reformation blog and I can't do a "Forgotten Reformers" entry on every single forgotten reformer, I thought I'd make a list of somewhat notable reformers and tell you a bit about where they were active, or other fun facts about them.
****
Andreas Osiander (Lutheran): Lead the reformation in Nuremburg, later went to Prussia and helped lead the Lutheran reformation there.
Johannes Honterus (Lutheran): Brought the reformation to Transylvania, where he preached to the Transylvania Saxons, ethnic Germans who lived mostly in the seven walled cities of Transylvania. The Hungarian population in Transylvania would later become largely Calvinist or Unitarian, while the Romanian population in Transylvania remained Eastern Orthodox.
Michael Agricola (Lutheran): Lutheran scholar from Finland. Translated the Bible into Finnish. Finland was part of Sweden at the time of the Reformation, which became Lutheran after the Stockholm Bloodbath.
Philipp Melancthon (Lutheran): Author of the Augsburg Confession, the creed of Lutheranism. Important figure in early Lutheranism.
Johannes Bugenhagen (Lutheran): German reformer, helped Melancthon write the Augsburg confession. Later went to Denmark to help the Danes organize their state-sponsored reformed church.
Johannes Oecolampadius (Calvinist): Brought the reformation to Basel. His last name means "house lamp" in Greek. His birth name was Johannes Hussgen. "Hussgen" sounds kind of like "Hausschein", which is the German word for house lamp. From there, it was only a short step to translating his sounds-like name into Greek.
The best way to remember this name is to note that "Oeco", house, is also the root of "economics", which originally meant management of an estate or farm. Hence, Xenophon's socratic dialogue on farm management is called "Oeconomicus". Then "Lampadius" sounds a lot like "lamp". You just have to memorize the -adius ending.
Theodore Beza (Calvinist): Successor of Calvin in Geneva; edited Calvin's writings, including Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Heinrich Bullinger (Calvinist): Successor of Zwingli in Zurich.
Ferenc David (Unitarian): After 1526, Transylvania became an independent principality ruled by the Hungarian nobility. Many Hungarian nobles adopted Calvinism or Unitarianism at this time. Ferenc David was an advisor to the Zapolya dynasty of Transylvania princes and urged them to establish freedom of religion in Transylvania. The result of this was the Edict of Turda, one of the first proclamations of religious toleration in all of Europe. Subsequently, many different denominations flourished in Transylvania, but especially Calvinism and Unitarianism (among Hungarians) and Lutheranism (among Germans).
Jerome of Prague (Hussite): The best friend and companion of Jan Hus. Along with Hus, he was burned at the Council of Constance
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Forgotten Reformers: Paul Craw
The Hussite movement is one of the most notable pre-Reformation attempts to reform the Catholic Church. But it's geographically limited -- indeed, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish Hussitry from Czech nationalism.
But there's one big exception: Paul Craw, a.k.a Pavel Kravar in Czech. He was the man who tried to spread Hussitry to Scotland.
Craw, a Taborite from Silesia, was sent to Scotland in 1431, during the reign of King James I. For reference, this was 16 years after the death of Jan Hus at the Council of Constance, and about 3 years before the Battle of Lipany ended the Hussite Wars in Bohemia.
Craw's mission in Scotland was probably related to the Council of Basel, which was in progress at the time. Craw's assignment was likely to make contact with Scottish Lollards -- followers of the earlier English reformer John Wycliffe -- and ally with them to create a united front at the council.
However, once in Scotland, Craw began preaching Hussitry to the people.
Paul Craw's preaching ran afoul of Henry Wardlaw, the Bishop of St. Andrews, and an important advisor to the king. Wardlaw was dedicated to ridding Scotland of Lollards, and Hussitry seemed an awful lot like Lollardry to him. With a monk named John Fogo servin as chief inquisitor, Craw was arrested and tried for heresy.
According to later Protestant historians, Paul Craw was condemned for the following deeds:
- denying transubstantiation
- opposing the confession of sins to priests
- opposing prayer to saints
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)