Europe's Roman Hangover: Theo- And Geo-Political Cauldron Of Conflicts

It is convenient to point at events in immediate line of sight to attribute cause and effect for a conflict. But that could be misleading. Real reasons are often buried under a debris of time and history and ooze out intermittently as bloody conflicts just like subterranean lava spews out of volcanic fissures causing damage to life and land. Analysts can go horribly wrong; politicians can err in geopolitical affiliations and economists can put to risk livelihoods for the lack correct understanding.

Conflict in Europe needs to be understood in context of their history. Uneducated involvement can hurt. In colonial times the world had no option but to get involved in Europe’s battles making it into a world at war twice over with devastating impact on the unsuspecting and unconcerned. Indian casualties alone from Gallipoli to Siam were significant not to mention the economic losses. Now that the colonial era has ended, it would be prudent for India and the world to be circumspect about Europeans fighting before jumping in and taking sides.

Europe has been an active conflict zone for over two millennia and Ukraine is only the latest in its tiring list. Most European conflicts are as much about Geo-Politics as they are about Theo-politics. Ukraine is not just about military boots and warheads but also about a rift between Orthodox church of Moscow and Constantinople over jurisdiction of Kyiv or between the Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church or even about the fact that west of Dnieper thinks differently from settler on its east. Theo-politically Ukraine has been at loggerhead amongst its own, especially since end of communist era. Oil, arms race, economic hegemony, ideology are mere symptoms.

Contemporary Europe was once a single large Geo-Political unit. While its history can be traced to even before Caesar crossed the Rubicon, beginning of first millennia when Rome transitioned from a Republic to an Empire can be a convenient starting point to reflect on its contemporary conflicts. Within 200 years of its beginning, under Trajan, the Roman Empire covered vast swathes of land extending from Britain & Iberia in west to Asia Minor and Levant in east together with the southern Mediterranean coast that is North Africa. But this single vast Geo-Political unit would fragment into many feudal bickering units over the next 300 years never to rise again as one and regain the glory that was the Empire.

Size matters. Ever since first cracks split the empire, Europe has been at battle amongst its own to re-establish perhaps that Single-Blue Eyed-Blonde Haired-Caucasian-Geo-Political unit. Area wise in today’s context it would be second largest after Russia. “Rome” itself transformed from being a geographical placeholder to an imperial sobriquet. “New Rome” was attributed to Constantinople and “Third Rome” was Moscow. In modern times as annexation looks increasingly impossible, alliances like EU, NATO, Warsaw Pact etc. seem like Europe’s surrogate attempts at unification driven by nostalgia. But the goal remains elusive, yet it seems Europe lives in a Roman hangover.

A hangover that has led to many battles, lives lost, and blood spilt even till recently into the modern era. Napoleonic wars after all were one man’s dream from erstwhile western empire to be emperor again and Crimean war was an attempt by Tsar from the east to take a shot at Constantinople the lost capital.

One strong ingredient in the attempt to bind ethno-culturally disparate tribes of Europe into a single homogenous entity was religion. State and church have been intertwined in Europe and always moved in a coordinated manner through the millennia to accomplish their complementing mutual objectives to gain “Share of Territory” and “Share of Souls”.

Most European conflicts have been religion infested civil wars fought along predictable fault lines. Ukraine for example is situated on one such fissure that has existed from medieval times. Who fights on which side and why is easy conjecture for those who know. And for those who don’t, imperial history offers many hints.

Large size resulted in the Empire coming under pressure of its own weight. Disparate pagan tribes, unequal in status with those of a pure Roman bloodline made up the empire. Internal politicking and anarchy together with external attacks by Goths, Franks, Germanics, and Sassanians was unrelenting. So much was the instability that in 3 AD emperor Diocletian divided it into four regions, two each to the west and east of Rome, the tetrarchy, for efficient management.

In addition to effective control, need for a unique glue would be felt to bind the empire. Christianity would be that glue. Rise of Empire and spread of Christianity is almost coterminous. Beginning in the Levant, Christianity spreads by taking into its fold those who find the covenants of Judaism rigid and converting disparate pagans to their monotheistic faith. As the Empire administratively reorganises, the Church spreads by setting up centres ring-fencing the Mediterranean at Jerusalem Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople and then entering mainland at Ravenna, Milan, Lyon etc. with a Bishop as centre head.

Early Christianity and Rome had a fractious relationship. Two of Christs closest apostles, Peter and Paul, were even executed by emperor Nero in Rome. But in time a convenient handshake would be made and later cemented by emperor Constantine when he became the first Christian emperor in 4 AD which would aid achieving mutually complementing objectives of “Unification of Souls” and “Unification of Empire”, a model that Europeans continued to deploy into colonial times and beyond.

This twin strategy took root in Latin speaking west, but the empires Greek speaking east continued to play truant. To bring order, Constantine built a new administrative capital at Constantinople, a “New Rome,” on the site of modern Istanbul and lay the foundation of an early church that would later be the grand Hagia Sophia. Ironically, this endeavour to unify would instead make two power centres emerge and sow seeds for political and ecclesiastical schism between the Empires west and east.

A decisive sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 5AD begins the decline of the western Roman empire. Romulus, the last emperor to rule from Rome shifts the imperial insignia to the economically richer New Rome. Power vacuum slips the west into petty skirmishes and bloody battle between warlords for two centuries. Its eastern part makes one last attempt at unification under Justinian who briefly succeeds but soon gives up and gets busy protecting his half. Hereafter the empire would be restricted to the east with little connection to Rome. But tug of war to control a transcontinental Europe would continue up to modern times.

Though the Empire collapses in the west, the Church at Rome manages to retain its significance through some deft manoeuvring by its Bishop. Deriving legitimacy out of association with the imperial capital, its apostolic connection and by playing arbiter in conflicts of other churches the church at Rome manages a position of primacy for itself in matters of liturgy and appointment of bishops in the western Latin half. This centralised authority with its own network of bishops would prove politically significant in future.

First ramification of this would be experienced as early as 7AD. Rashidun Caliphate had begun to spread Islam. Within a century Umayyads had captured the Mediterranean coast and had pushed into mainland Europe through Spain. The responsibility of a counter would fall on the emerging Carolingian, Charlemagne. But military would only be half a solution for on offensive was an integrated “Sabre & Soul” strategy of Islam. Effective counter would require similar strategy. It is not coincidental that during this period the Bishop of Rome crowns Charlemagne as the “Emperor of The Romans” at an elaborate religious ceremony in Rome on Christmas. Divine legitimacy would make Charlemagne’ strategy complete and he would successfully go on to unify land and soul under his banner. Rome’s endorsement was significant even after its fall centuries earlier.

While the church and State combined effectively in the west, the same couldn’t be replicated in east which was also was under pressure from the Arabs. The reason could be the distributed influence of eastern churches because of their city-based federal structure unlike the centralised influence of the church at Rome.

Warring Carolingians with interesting epithets like “Fat”, “Simple”, “Bald”, “Young”, “Stammerer, “Child” etc. occupy much of western Europe’s history for the next few centuries. Territorial arrangements finally settle, and contours of modern Europe begin to emerge. A Frankish West a Germanic East and a Central Sliver that includes the Italian peninsula and Balkans are the broad divisions. Divine mandate to rule still emanates from

Rome though and the Germanic Ottoman dynasty are anointed “Holy Roman Emperors” taking over from the Carolingians to restore Rome.

Correspondingly the east, also under pressure from Seljuks is forced to look north and find new lands to conquer and souls to convert. Slavs, Magyars, Bolgars, Kazars and the Kievan- Rus territories made up of Nordic settlers would be their target. Military and marital alliances are made, and churches established. Missionaries Cyril and Methodius from Constantinople even invent a new script, Cyrillic, that makes it convenient to evangelise these new people in a familiar language. Imperial conversion of Boris of Bolgars, the Duke of Bohemia and Vladimir of the Kievan-Rus help in converting their populations.

But by now irreconcilable ecclesiastical difference in matters of liturgy have emerged between the centralised Church at Rome and the eastern churches. In 1054 the two churches officially split, the Grand Schism, with the west calling itself the Roman Catholic church with its Papal seat at Rome and the east calling its churches the Orthodox church with the Patriarch of Constantinople being a first amongst equals. Contrasting political fortunes of both halves and that there was no powerful Roman emperor to mediate could have played a role in the schism.

For a brief period, after the schism, the two did combine, towards a stated objective to free Jerusalem from Muslims which began the era of Crusades. While the grand goal itself could not be achieved, crusades did manage to excite religious sentiments and helped initiate campaigns to convert the unconverted. Later crusades though degenerated into an opportunity to pillage and loot. The fourth crusade in fact resulted in ruthless plundering of the eastern Christian Constantinople itself by the crusaders for pecuniary reasons.

Aside from crusades, this was also a period of intense politico-religious churn in west. Church and state were in conflict over appointment of church administration. It was custom that Kings within the Holy Roman Empire appointed bishops who in exchange anointed them with divine decree. This convenient arrangement was challenged by the Pope demanding independent central authority. A pushback to this purported overreach by Rome resulted in not just Papal authority being questioned but even in spawning three different Popes at the same time. Matters would settle but not before another round of sacking of Rome by the Nordic mercenaries invited by Pope to counter the pushback. The powerful Habsburgs would rise around this time and would shape much of Europe thereon through marital and military alliances. Correspondingly eastern Rome continued to be pounded by Turks till 1453 when the famous Hadrian’s walls would be breached and Constantinople, “New Rome” would fall to the Muslims....

.... And the Roman Empire would finally cease to exist but the Roman hangover would continue.

Imperial baton would pass to Moscow the “Third Rome”. The Grand Duchy of Moscow had managed to survive and later thrive after the Mongols had sacked Kievan-Rus lands. The principality had grown into an independent kingdom which had with help of Cossack mercenaries covered significant lands right up to the Pacific on the opposite side. Its king “Ivan the Terrible” (“Tremendous” to many) would arrogate to himself the title “Tsar,” a Slavic variation of Roman 'Caesar'. Orthodox Christian Patriarchy of Moscow would be established and would look upon itself as protectors of faith since the Patriarch of Constantinople was now a mere figurehead under Ottomans.

The west now slips into an era of extreme violence and religious anarchy in 16^th century. Famine and bubonic plague has left common people battered, hoping to find respite in faith. But resentment against the catholic church was high primarily because of its collusion with nobility and over interference in every aspect of social life. A fresh edict tipped the resentment over to anger and later anarchy. The matter was about selling indulgence, a certificate of salvation in afterlife in exchange for a little donation to church. German monk Martin Luther took serious exception and protested which spawned a massive movement that questioned the Catholic church’ interpretation of the Bible and demanded reform.

Invention of the printing press helped increase the reach of Bible and its release from exclusive clasp of clergy. Famously called Protestant Reformation, it democratised scriptures and allowed personal interpretation of faith. That and Luther’s teachings led to creation of new Protestant Churches and its alternate variations separate from the Catholic church.

The movement snowballed into unmanageable civil unrest and anarchy in the Holy Roman Empire.

A truce was attempted at Augsburg on the principle “Faith of King would be Faith of People” but this, rather than cooling down incinerated the situation. It was impractical for people to change faith each time their king changed. Or handover possessions and move to kingdoms of their faith. Economic situation was as it is bad. Constrained in Mediterranean, new sea-trade routes were explored, Americas discovered, and much gold was flowing in leading to inflation. At stake was also the issue of significant tracts of church lands that Bishops of either faction would have to let go.

All came to boil when messengers of the Catholic Habsburg king where physically thrown out of a window by the Protestants in Prague. Famously called defenestration, it triggered one of the bloodiest religion-infested civil wars in western Europe. The Thirty Years War. Peace would finally be negotiated at Westphalia in mid 17^th century and religious Christian minorities would be tolerated in all kingdoms. Compromise acts of territory reallocation would see emergence of modern Europe.

Era of nationalism and colonial expansion would begin. The ensuing Napoleonic era would see another round of Roman Hangover to unify the continent. The French, Russians, Germans all harboured a latent desire to unify and rule the vast swathes of land that Trajan, Diocletian, and Constantine had once ruled.

But the modern era with its industrial and cultural revolutions, colonisation would make the world bigger and complex. Old ways would transform. Rebellion against monarchy, serfdom, and feudalisms would give way to the revolutions of 1854 and increased public participation which in turn would give rise to brand new “isms”; Marxism, Socialism, Communism and the like. Ottomans would finally weaken after 500 long years and once again bloody fighting would begin amongst Europeans along their oldest fissure, the Balkans. That the Bulgarian king dreamt of getting coronated in Constantinople as late as 1915 speaks a lot about longevity of Roman nostalgia amongst Europeans.

Until the stage is set for another Europe initiated World War with a megalomaniacal “Blue Eyed Blonde Haired” dream to unify Europe.

That dream may perhaps be Utopian, but Europe remains a cauldron of Geo-Political and Theo-Political conflict in attempting to realise it. A tiny spark in any corner of the continent is reason enough for all of Europe and its ethnic Caucasian branches around the world to jump in and take sides. Jury is still out on when and how the sparks will stop or if they would stop at all.

But till they do it is best for the world to be prudent, circumspect, not get involved and allow Europe the space to reconcile with its Roman Hangover.