I have been reading Yves Renouard’s Avignon Papacy, and I was a bit confused about this. Quite possibly I am not understanding at all the motivations of the French kings. The impression that I got was that one moment, the French monarchy was encouraging the schism, and then a few decades later, they were desperate to end it. I am particularly curious about if this change had more to do with the fact that Charles V was succeeded by Charles VI shortly after the schism began, or with a changing political situation for France.
I wanted to ask medieval historians if the Avignon Papacy was caused by any theological differences or if any emerged over the course of the schism? And then, once the schism ended, did those doctrinal issues continue to pop up?
Obviously, the King of France was happy of having the Papacy in Avignon instead of Rome. I can guess that it was also the case for the King of Naples (Avignon being officially part of his duchy of Provence).
I also understand that the Kaiser was not happy about it, the same apply about most of the italian lords (and republics).
But what were the opinion of the kings of England, Scotland, Hungary, Castilla (for exemple) ?
In the early 1300s a conflict between the Papacy and the French Monarchy resulted in Phillip IV of France forcing the election of Clement V as pope, and moving the Papal Court to Avignon in 1309 and remaining there for nearly 70 years.
What if the Papacy remained there instead of moving back to Rome in 1378? How does this effect European and Church history?
Seriously, why can’t they model this in the game? I mean, they have Antipopes, but this was no antipapal situation. The popes legit were packed up and put in Avignon for 67 years and it all culminated into a mini-schism with 3 popes at the same time (who all excommunicated each other and went to war over it, if I remember correctly.) It was entirely in the time frame of the game, and EU3 even had Avignon as a papal holding and offered a way to give the pope a place of refuge if Rome was lost. It was a major event In Western Europe and one of the lead-ups to the reformation.
So what gives? Why doesn’t any of the mechanics show this?
I'd imagine this as similar in character to the event that restores The Knights in Malta. If the Papal States no longer exists, there should be an event which permits the owner of Avignon to cede said province to the papacy. The criteria would be that the owner of Avignon must be Catholic and not a republic, and that Avignon itself must be Catholic. Much lower (edited from "higher", written in error) MTTH if the owner is Defender of the Faith.
Historically, the Avignon Papacy began because of close ties between Pope Clement V (a Frenchman) and the King of France, and in the event that the Papal States no longer exist, it makes sense for the Pope to seek out a strong defender (most likely France). If the event is refused, then there may be a possibility for a Catholic bishopric to cede a province in the HRE or elsewhere.
Additionally, Popes shouldn't all have Umbrian culture. The Pope should be of an accepted culture of whichever country became papal controller upon their election.
EDIT: Yes, I know about the respawn. Please read again the last sentence in the second paragraph.
I've read about this many times, but I've never seen a motive supplied. It seems like a strange move, considering the history of Rome and the Holy See.
During my masters program for music theory and composition, I ventured into territory I never expected: Medieval and Renaissance music. I became interested in the 15th Century and learned about one of the glaring ironies of the Renaissance.
When you hear the word Renaissance, the first country you think of is Italy, of course. But though the Italians were at the forefront of Renaissance art, literature, poetry, and humanism, their musical development lagged behind during the entire 15th Century. The Italian city-states vigorously patronized music, but it was the Franco-Flemish northerners, the "oltremontani," who filled those posts and really steered the course of the mass, the motet, and the chanson. Through my research I found compelling evidence to suggest that a major reason for this was the Avignon Papacy. For some 67 years, between 1309 and 1376, the whole seat of Western Christianity was not in Rome, but in the south of France at Avignon. This placed it squarely between the academies of northern France, Burgundy and the Low Countries––and the humanistic temperament of Italian states to the south. The Avignon Papacy also changed its stance on the Ars Nova techniques from condemnation to outright encouragement, and began the practice of inviting northern musicians to perform in the papal chapel––which continued into the 16th Century. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that the Franco-Flemmings rode this wave of opportunity long after the papal enclave had returned to Rome. It also helps explain why it would not be until the appearance of the frottola and madrigal that Italians once again produced composers of note.
I'm curious to know what musicology enthusiasts think of this theory. It certainly couldn't have been the only reason for the ascendancy of the Franco-Flemish School, but I feel it was a significant one. What are your thoughts?
I bet it has something to do with the french Anti-Pope, but I want more info on this
I've been doing a lot of research via both my textbook and the internet, but I just don't understand the concept of this. Why did it even happen? And what exactly did Urban VI do that caused there to be a pope and an antipope? I'm just really confused, any help would be super appreciated.
My understanding is that the primary reason the papacy was in Avignon for a time is that the popes of the era were clients of the Kings of France, but I'm unclear on whether Avignon was part of France at the time.
If Avignon was not controlled by the Kings of France, why was it advantageous for them to keep the Popes there instead of in Rome (or somewhere actually in France)?
I've tried to figure this out on Wikipedia but different pages have conflicting answers (as well as dubious sourcing). The most coherent I've seen has Avignon in the Kingdom of Arles, within the Holy Roman Empire, during this period.
I mean, I would figure that most rulers at the time would have a major problem, given that it could theoretically lead to the church suddenly becoming a tool of the French king. What did the Holy Roman Emperor, for example, think of this? Did he try to prevent it, or was he ok with the Papacy being located in Avignon?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy
I'm wondering more about the longer term ramifications of this, rather than the small "how would it have happened" details.
And if so, why have we not done this yet?
I'm confused as to why someone would create a second papacy, and why this led to having three popes in the end. The only thing I can think of is that the French just really wanted to dominate the Papacy.
I really want to know why it was create, how it was returned to having one pope, and the consequences for having multiple popes.
I know there were from the Black Death (Such as more available land, and food and all that) and the 100 year war, but how about the Avignon Papacy? Did it effect the citizens positively at all? O.o
Hey all... I'm visiting Avignon this summer, and I want to understand a little bit more about the "Babylonian Captivity." Anyone have any recommendations for a decent book on this subject? Thanks for your help!
