Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

The Third Rome

• Message 1. 

  Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Tuesday, 20th February 2007

  There is a lot of information about the so-called Third Rome.
  
  
  As far as I can see, the Italian capital was the first Rome, and Constantinople/Istanbul was the second. When the second Rome fell, some claimed that Moscow was the third Rome and worked hard to get that position.
  
  In the previous century, after 300 years Russian regime by feudal emperors, tsars, there was a coupe that restored the powers of Moscow and declared it a republic. The changes, in the period from Rasputin to Putin, seem to be what it took to restore it.
  
  However, I still wonder; is there a Third Rome?
  

  Link to this forum: The Third Rome

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 20th February 2007

  Since 1917 the Fourth Rome has been New York City.
  
  It's the Mecca of Capitalism.

  Link to this forum: The Third Rome

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 21st February 2007

  So it is not so much a fourth Rome as a second Mecca?

  Link to this forum: The Third Rome

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Thursday, 22nd February 2007

  Vizzer: Since 1917 the Fourth Rome has been New York City.
  -----------------------
  
  I’ve heard John Lennon say that too. He also proclaimed that his Japanese wife was a ‘nigro’ (edited due to houserules) along with all the other women of the world. I think the ‘Lucy in the Sky’ -lyric explains his perceptions.
  
  According to wikipedia:
  The idea crystallized with a panegyric letter composed by the Russian monk Philoteus (Filofey) in 1510 to their son Grand Duke Vasili III , which proclaimed, "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will not be a fourth. No one will replace your Christian Tsardom!"
  
  
  One might say that a monk’s statement isn’t more valid than a Lennon statement. On the other hand, it was the so-call Christian Rome that fell and rose as the third. Monks at that time could be messengers direct from the highest order. Certainly powerful persons took that very seriously and did realise it.
  

  Link to this forum: The Third Rome

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 5th March 2007

  Even in the beginning of the 3rd B.C. century (i.e. 200-300 B.C.) the idea of Rome as a capital city of the empire was already questioned as a number of Emperors seemed to snob the city. Diocletianus was one large figure that largely ignored Rome and preferred cities in the east as his base (hence certain historians view him as the first Byzantine Emperor though this 'who is first byzantine' will depend always on how you view it!). Konstantine, born and raised in the provinces also had no big love for the city of Rome and by that time the idea of changing once and for all the administrative center was solidified. The natural choice of course would be the east and what better than the city of Byzantio that was the passage of east to west and from north to south. The city was renamed as Konstantinoupolis (i.e. Constantine's city) to honour the Emperor. Of course, for many of the Roman citizens around the Empire that had an impact, even on the psychological side of it, hence they were often calling it New Rome and not so often 2nd Rome (as if they knew it would exist 3rd or 4th!). For foreigners that could not spell easily the name Konstantinoupolis, the name New Rome was also very convinient to mention. Hence, the name continued for some time.
  
  However, citizens of the Eastern Empire soon called the city simply as 'Polis' i.e. "The City", since for them, for better or for worse, it was the only city that matterred - and indeed it was the only city of nearly 1 million citizens in Europe followed by Thessalonica at 100,000 and the rest dropping below 50,000 (while in places outside the empire the largest towns reached hardly 10,000). Hence the term 'Polis', i.e. 'The City' became widespread all around Europe and Middle East - and no wonder for a city that in its time was mentioned as 10 times better than the city of Rome.
  
  Russians always admired 'The City' and even in their effort to conquer it they held more admiration rather than the jealousy and hatred that their cousin Bulgarians held. When they accepted the christian religion it was the time of the Schism, hence following the Eastern Romans, they opted for the orthodox belief. There is also a myth that says that the Tchar wanted to civilise his kingdom by introducing one of the great religions of its time and had sent ambassadors to China, India, Muslim Chalifate, the City and to Rome. The ambassadors came back and mentioned that they had visited many places but the only place that God really seemed to live among humans was 'the City' and hence Russians opted for the orthodox belief. That myth in those times was very real as the City was incomparable to anything else and naturally the Russians (like most) would want to affiliate themselves to it.
  
  Now, when Constantinople fell into the (very dirty) hands of crusaders it was also a difficult (really terrible) time for Russia as it was the invasion of the Mongolic tribes - they had even to move their capital from Kiev to Moscow - hence no time for such propagandas. However, when Constantinople fell once again to Ottomans, Russia was already standing on its feet and not only, it was already on its effort to expand and built its own empire (arguably painfully). As the largest part of orthodox people remained under the muslim control, Russians saw themselves as the only free orthodox and did not lose the chance to remind that it would be their duty to take the sceptre and continue - hence, they named Constantinople as the 2nd Rome that fell and so they named their capital Moscow as the 3rd Rome that was supposed to never fell.
  
  It also has to be reminded that this was purely a propaganda trick as Russians used it repeatedly in the following centuries during the numerous Russo-Ottoman wars. It has also to be said that the patriarchs in Constantinople never liked very much that idea of 2nd and 3rd Rome as it gave an increased status to the Russian patriarchs - and given the relative equality and freedom of patriarchs in the orthodox belief (unlike the catholic one that is centralised and overuled by one man) it remained for long an ambiguous issue.
  
  The continuation of that propaganda can also be traced today in the efforts of Russian patriarch Alexius (who represents the largest orthodox nation around the world) to bypass the patriarch of Constanople Bartholomew and who finds a lot of friends in that effort and funnily enough he finds for the first time many allies even in the church of Greece that is fed up with the inability of the largely controlled patriarchate of Constantinople to cope with the problems of the times.
  
  Hence, do not be surprised if those Russians come again with that title of "Third Rome" and the "holders of the scepter of orthodoxy" and such other things.

  Link to this forum: The Third Rome

  Report message5

Back to top