Were the Orthodox Involved in The Crusades?

Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
288
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I know that they were victims of it, like with the Sack of Constantinople in 1204. But I'm wondering if the Orthodox had at any point in time participated in The Crusades, as in helping the Catholics fight the Muslim invaders. According to Wikipedia (which I understand is not necessarily the most accurate source of information), "The Crusades were originally launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the expansion into Anatolia of Muslim Seljuk Turks", so I figure that at some point in time, the Orthodox were participants. Were they ever? I'm just curious.
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
The Roman/Byzantine Emperor called to the Pope of Rome to send troops to help reclaim lands lost to Muslims. So yes, there was an open invitation and things got out of hand. What he often got where mobs of poor, starving peasants, not soldiers.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Other than the earlier fighting and request for help from the Roman See, I don't think they really had much at all to do with the Crusades.
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There were FOURTEEN Crusades across more than 350 years of history, maybe we're going to have to be a bit more specific ;)

Three thread which are connected across all that time

1) The Real Politik of Mediterranean geopolitics

2) money (i.e. control of pilgrimage and trade networks)

3) chauvinism (on the part of all parties involved)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
288
Reaction score
0
Points
0
HabteSelassie said:
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There were FOURTEEN Crusades across more than 350 years of history, maybe we're going to have to be a bit more specific ;)
True; I guess I'm just curious mainly about the First through Ninth Crusade. I did more research, and found out that the Byzantine Empire was involved in the First Crusade and the Second Crusade. The Fourth Crusade is where things went downhill between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church due to the Sack of Constantinople; it's very unfortunate that the attack occurred, especially because the Catholics and the Orthodox Christians were fighting together at the beginning.
 

Cognomen

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
2,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Archdiocese of Baghdad, Kuwait and Dependencies
HabteSelassie said:
Three thread which are connected across all that time

1) The Real Politik of Mediterranean geopolitics

2) money (i.e. control of pilgrimage and trade networks)

3) chauvinism (on the part of all parties involved)
Add

4) Feminist political theory (i.e. men tend to resolve conflicts through violence, hence why most weapons, even modern ones, are phallic)
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
christian7777 said:
I know that they were victims of it, like with the Sack of Constantinople in 1204. But I'm wondering if the Orthodox had at any point in time participated in The Crusades, as in helping the Catholics fight the Muslim invaders. According to Wikipedia (which I understand is not necessarily the most accurate source of information), "The Crusades were originally launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the expansion into Anatolia of Muslim Seljuk Turks", so I figure that at some point in time, the Orthodox were participants. Were they ever? I'm just curious.
From the recent books I've read, it seems mostly what the Orthodox had done was the Emperor calling for assistance from the West. The Roman Empire didn't seem to participate in any of the fighting. There were the major crusades which we've numbered, but even prior to the First Crusade (as it's called) there was the People's Crusade which didn't end too well because it was simply peasants/serfs and they were very unruly and untrained. The Roman Emperor actually told the peasant crusaders and their leader that the Sultan's troops were far to trained for the peasants to go against and instead of listening to the Emperor they marched on and failed miserably. A little later the bulk of the actual troops arrived for the "First Crusade" and were more successful against the Sultan.

You could consider the Roman Empire's military activities a part of the Crusades, but really I would say there were more in self-defense.

One of the agreements was supposed to be that ANY land taken by the Crusaders would be returned to the Roman Empire. However, some of the crusaders chose to directly defy this. Personally the Pope should have excommunicated them and allowed the Roman Empire and Western Crusaders to attack those defiant Crusaders, most especially Godfrey of Bouillon.

So in a way, yes, the Roman Empire did participate, but not in the same way as the Western Crusaders did. For the Roman Empire it wasn't a holy war, but a war of reconquest.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cognomen said:
HabteSelassie said:
Three thread which are connected across all that time

1) The Real Politik of Mediterranean geopolitics

2) money (i.e. control of pilgrimage and trade networks)

3) chauvinism (on the part of all parties involved)
Add

4) Feminist political theory (i.e. men tend to resolve conflicts through violence, hence why most weapons, even modern ones, are phallic)
I thought weapons were designed for efficiency and destructive capability.
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Kerdy said:
Cognomen said:
HabteSelassie said:
Three thread which are connected across all that time

1) The Real Politik of Mediterranean geopolitics

2) money (i.e. control of pilgrimage and trade networks)

3) chauvinism (on the part of all parties involved)
Add

4) Feminist political theory (i.e. men tend to resolve conflicts through violence, hence why most weapons, even modern ones, are phallic)
I thought weapons were designed for efficiency and destructive capability.
Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhht. And rockets are designed that way because it's "aerodynamic".
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
Feminist political theory (i.e. men tend to resolve conflicts through violence, hence why most weapons, even modern ones, are phallic)
So if thats true, if/when a woman becomes president, every weapon will be redesigned like a pint of Ben and Jerry's and a twilight novel?

PP
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Phallic imagery and symbolism is not the sole world of men, women have a natural and biological attachment to these as well ;)

In other words, why should we think women would inherently have to change the phallic imagery of weapons, or assume this is male, when if anything, I might suspect the exact opposite to be true.  Excuse the crudeness of the pun here, but I think in this regard, naturally most women would prefer the sword and the men the sheath ;)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
36
Location
Omaha
FormerReformer said:
Kerdy said:
Cognomen said:
HabteSelassie said:
Three thread which are connected across all that time

1) The Real Politik of Mediterranean geopolitics

2) money (i.e. control of pilgrimage and trade networks)

3) chauvinism (on the part of all parties involved)
Add

4) Feminist political theory (i.e. men tend to resolve conflicts through violence, hence why most weapons, even modern ones, are phallic)
I thought weapons were designed for efficiency and destructive capability.
Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhht. And rockets are designed that way because it's "aerodynamic".
And you don't have to take FormerReformer's word for it!  Just look up the 28/32 cm NbW 41.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
FormerReformer said:
Kerdy said:
Cognomen said:
HabteSelassie said:
Three thread which are connected across all that time

1) The Real Politik of Mediterranean geopolitics

2) money (i.e. control of pilgrimage and trade networks)

3) chauvinism (on the part of all parties involved)
Add

4) Feminist political theory (i.e. men tend to resolve conflicts through violence, hence why most weapons, even modern ones, are phallic)
I thought weapons were designed for efficiency and destructive capability.
Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhht. And rockets are designed that way because it's "aerodynamic".
The fallacy of phallicy.
 

Zenovia

High Elder
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
777
Reaction score
0
Points
0
christian7777 said:
HabteSelassie said:
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There were FOURTEEN Crusades across more than 350 years of history, maybe we're going to have to be a bit more specific ;)
True; I guess I'm just curious mainly about the First through Ninth Crusade. I did more research, and found out that the Byzantine Empire was involved in the First Crusade and the Second Crusade. The Fourth Crusade is where things went downhill between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church due to the Sack of Constantinople; it's very unfortunate that the attack occurred, especially because the Catholics and the Orthodox Christians were fighting together at the beginning.
From what I gathered by historians is that the crusades were called by the Byzantine Emperor originally to help free the holy lands for the pilgrims.  The hope of the Emperor was that these lands would be restored to him, but somehow the princes and dukes that fought for them decided to keep them for themselves.  There was a real culture clash.  When the tens of thousands of crusaders went through the lands belonging to the Empire,  it created a great deal of  animosity, especially when the water and food given to them was being deliberately poisoned.  It freaked out the crusaders since in their minds they were helping the Christians, so they responded by bashing their heads in.  

I know that before the Fourth Crusade there was an ill fated Third Crusade in which the Patriarch and Emperor committed  treachery by telling the Turks exactly where the army would cross  the Bosporus.  The original reports were  that thirty five thousand Latins were killed in the city.  That might be an exaggeration though.  I read afterwards that the amount of Latins killed as well as the amount of Byzantines killed in the city by the crusaders in the Fourth Crusade was closer to five thousand.

Before the schism, all these second, third and fourth sons of kings and dukes, had no inheritance, so they would enter the Byzantine army and get land in Anatolia.  After the schism, the crusades was the only way they could get themselves an inheritance and yet still feel they were serving God.  After the Fourth Crusade they divided  the lands among themselves,  so that the southern part of Greece alone had three hundred and fifty castles.  There were so many crusaders, that when knights were needed to fight in the Holy Land, instead of having them sent from France, they would have them sent from the Peloponnese.

I wasn't aware that there were crusades after the Fourth, but they probably had to do with the commercial ambitions of Venice and the other Italian states such as Genoa and Ragusa that wanted to hold on to their colonies, as well as to help the Knight of Rhodes/Malta and take back the Holyland.     I know that in some places like Crete, the Greeks fought with the Venetians, while in places like Cyprus they were against the Venetians.  An excellent and very readable book on this would be Crowleys:  Empires of the Sea.  It gives one an idea of what was going on in the Mediterranean in order to stop the Ottoman advance.

 

 

Zenovia

High Elder
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
777
Reaction score
0
Points
0
primuspilus said:
Seige of Nicea in the 1st crusade. Orthodox didnt really assist the West, as they more or less outwitted them :)

PP
Or rather they tried to outwit them.  Seems the West gained in the end, since most of the area became colonies of Venice, Genoa, France, Catalans, Florentines, Ragusans, etc., before the advent of the Ottomans.  ???
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
South Carolina
FormerReformer said:
Kerdy said:
Cognomen said:
HabteSelassie said:
Three thread which are connected across all that time

1) The Real Politik of Mediterranean geopolitics

2) money (i.e. control of pilgrimage and trade networks)

3) chauvinism (on the part of all parties involved)
Add

4) Feminist political theory (i.e. men tend to resolve conflicts through violence, hence why most weapons, even modern ones, are phallic)
I thought weapons were designed for efficiency and destructive capability.
Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhht. And rockets are designed that way because it's "aerodynamic".
Of course not. Rockets are designed that way to perpetuate male domination.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
66
Location
CA
Cognomen said:
HabteSelassie said:
Three thread which are connected across all that time

1) The Real Politik of Mediterranean geopolitics
2) money (i.e. control of pilgrimage and trade networks)
3) chauvinism (on the part of all parties involved)

OFF TOPIC:

I  HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR "TAG LINE" - IF THAT IS THE CORRECT PHRASE - LISTED BELOW:

American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
There were THREE areas in which people were MURDERED on 9/11. You did not mention the HEROES from FLIGHT 93 that crashed in PA.  I am curious to know why. I know this is an old thread - but I am new to this site. Thank you in advance for answering my question.

 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,025
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
88Devin12 said:
From the recent books I've read, it seems mostly what the Orthodox had done was the Emperor calling for assistance from the West. The Roman Empire didn't seem to participate in any of the fighting. There were the major crusades which we've numbered, but even prior to the First Crusade (as it's called) there was the People's Crusade which didn't end too well because it was simply peasants/serfs and they were very unruly and untrained. The Roman Emperor actually told the peasant crusaders and their leader that the Sultan's troops were far to trained for the peasants to go against and instead of listening to the Emperor they marched on and failed miserably.
Right. The People's / "Children's" Crusade seems insane. I think we are thinking of the same one. Tons of peasants, very ill-equipped, just decided that on their own they were going to take down the Turks' army. The Turks naturally overwhelmed them and they surrendered and became slaves.


One of the agreements was supposed to be that ANY land taken by the Crusaders would be returned to the Roman Empire. However, some of the crusaders chose to directly defy this. Personally the Pope should have excommunicated them and allowed the Roman Empire and Western Crusaders to attack those defiant Crusaders, most especially Godfrey of Bouillon.

So in a way, yes, the Roman Empire did participate, but not in the same way as the Western Crusaders did. For the Roman Empire it wasn't a holy war, but a war of reconquest.
Right. Also the part about taking land by Crusaders was when thinks went sour with the Byzantines. First, the Byzantines asked for help in their war against the Muslims, then the Crusaders came and fought the Muslims, particularly in Turkey I think, and then the Crusaders decided that they were going to keep hold of the land. At that point the Byzantines were already having a hard enough time fighting the Turks, so for other Crusaders and the Byzantines to fight those land taking Crusaders would have been very hard.
 

Cognomen

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
2,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Archdiocese of Baghdad, Kuwait and Dependencies
Milagros-Casada said:
OFF TOPIC:

I  HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR "TAG LINE" - IF THAT IS THE CORRECT PHRASE - LISTED BELOW:

American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

There were THREE areas in which people were MURDERED on 9/11. You did not mention the HEROES from FLIGHT 93 that crashed in PA.  I am curious to know why. I know this is an old thread - but I am new to this site. Thank you in advance for answering my question.
Sorry about missing this question, Milagros-Casada.  You are indeed correct about Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania.  But there were no buildings involved there, and the plane wasn't assumptionated. 

Furthermore, I think the addition of yet another flight into the delegation's name might make NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®'s acronym a tad unwieldy.  Better to keep it succinct and catchy.
 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
Rockets, though undeniably phallic, are shaped the way they are for aerodynamic reasons.  Most rockets are multistage rockets.  This design is ideal for our technology because most of any rocket is a fuel tank, and so when you expend that fuel, you reduce the amount of fuel required to reach orbit by jettisoning the useless tank.  You also need smaller rocket motors because again, less power is required.  Now some aspects of rockets are arguably inefficient; an extreme speed is required to reach a stable orbit, but rockets do waste a lot of fuel in the first few seconds of flight moving off the launch pad.  Hence designs like the Space Ship Two where the rocket is launched from a "mothership" aircraft.  Note that neither Spaceship One or Spaceship Two are fast enough to achieve LEO let alone GEO where most satellites are.  And forget about the Moon or Mars.  So when you factor in the fuel required to do that, launch pad waste doesn't matter as much.

The Saturn V / Apollo rockets and the new Orion launch system use vertically stacked stages, with the spacecraft on top.  The Space Shuttle used a horizontal configuration, which was a design flaw that contributed to the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, in the former due to an SRB exploding next to the orbiter and in the latter case due to the orbiter being struck on the left wing by a piece of foam at an incredibly high speed.  So the more phallic Saturn V is also safer, and featured a fail safe cree Escape System which was a secondary rocket that could lift the crew module free from the rockets if a malfunction occurred; that would have saved the life of the Challenger crew had they been flying in a souped up Apollo spacecraft.  The new Orion has this and I'm pretty sure Soyuz also has it.

So please, let's not pollute the Faith forum with silly ideas about rocketry.  The reality is serious rockets for space flight look the way they do for a reason, and if that reminds you of a phallus, you are thinking too much about phalluses.  I myself hate it when people try to link every human activity to aspects of sexual behavior.  And I think it's profoundly Un-Orthodox, and an insult to the beauty of God's creation, which does include an elegant system of sexual reproduction for most animal species, but this system should be understood as part of that context alone, and not read into other concepts.  To do otherwise I think shows a lack of control over the passions, and is a form of, dare I say it, prelest.  You can bet the Church Fathers did not see phalluses everywhere; rather, they saw Truth, our Lord, and the human suffering caused by sin, of which preoccupation with genitalia is a form.
 

hecma925

Stratopedarches
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
19,896
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Age
159
Location
The South


Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeha!
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
253
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pilgrim2Heaven
Website
stranniki.blogspot.com
Greetings,

There were several foreshadowings prior to the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Crusade involvement being one.

Ceremonial presentation of the pagan double-headed eagle being part of that.

The Crusaders of the Holy Roman Empire had the double-headed eagle prior to the Byzantines.

Later, the Crusader influence tempted the Byzantine Empire and the pagan practice grew.

After the acceptance of the double-headed eagle in Byzantium their decline began.

It took centuries longer for the pagan double-headed eagle to infiltrate into Russia.

When they did accept that pagan symbol a similar ending of suffering befell Russia.

As we can see a pattern is created and history repeats itself again and again.

That makes a person wonder about such symbology today and where it all will end.

Many good historical books are available to glean from on this subject matter.

A worthy study if you ask me.

We are on to something.

forgive


 

Pravoslavac

High Elder
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Serbia
Orthodox were involved in Crusades as victims, first crusaders tried to Latinize them, and when crusaders were kicked out by Muslims, Muslims took revenge on Orthodox local population, to avenge for crusader crimes against Muslims. Latins slaughtered many monks in Cyprus for not obeying new Latin bishops. Antioch and Alexandria's patriarchates had to flee the Latins... etc... And of course, the fall of Constantinople. If it didn't fall in 1204, Turks wouldn't most likely take over it in 1453. And it was Latin Hungarian who sold the Turks big cannons to take down the walls of Constantinople in 1453. My People is right with these 2 saying "Never trust a Latin, even when they bring gifts." and "It is better to be tortured by Turks than taught by Latins."
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,221
Reaction score
79
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
wgw said:
Rockets, though undeniably phallic, are shaped the way they are for aerodynamic reasons.  Most rockets are multistage rockets.  This design is ideal for our technology because most of any rocket is a fuel tank, and so when you expend that fuel, you reduce the amount of fuel required to reach orbit by jettisoning the useless tank.  You also need smaller rocket motors because again, less power is required.  Now some aspects of rockets are arguably inefficient; an extreme speed is required to reach a stable orbit, but rockets do waste a lot of fuel in the first few seconds of flight moving off the launch pad.  Hence designs like the Space Ship Two where the rocket is launched from a "mothership" aircraft.  Note that neither Spaceship One or Spaceship Two are fast enough to achieve LEO let alone GEO where most satellites are.  And forget about the Moon or Mars.  So when you factor in the fuel required to do that, launch pad waste doesn't matter as much.

The Saturn V / Apollo rockets and the new Orion launch system use vertically stacked stages, with the spacecraft on top.  The Space Shuttle used a horizontal configuration, which was a design flaw that contributed to the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, in the former due to an SRB exploding next to the orbiter and in the latter case due to the orbiter being struck on the left wing by a piece of foam at an incredibly high speed.  So the more phallic Saturn V is also safer, and featured a fail safe cree Escape System which was a secondary rocket that could lift the crew module free from the rockets if a malfunction occurred; that would have saved the life of the Challenger crew had they been flying in a souped up Apollo spacecraft.  The new Orion has this and I'm pretty sure Soyuz also has it.

So please, let's not pollute the Faith forum with silly ideas about rocketry.  The reality is serious rockets for space flight look the way they do for a reason, and if that reminds you of a phallus, you are thinking too much about phalluses.  I myself hate it when people try to link every human activity to aspects of sexual behavior.  And I think it's profoundly Un-Orthodox, and an insult to the beauty of God's creation, which does include an elegant system of sexual reproduction for most animal species, but this system should be understood as part of that context alone, and not read into other concepts.  To do otherwise I think shows a lack of control over the passions, and is a form of, dare I say it, prelest.  You can bet the Church Fathers did not see phalluses everywhere; rather, they saw Truth, our Lord, and the human suffering caused by sin, of which preoccupation with genitalia is a form.
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
 

Fabio Leite

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
4,790
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Brazil
Website
vidaortodoxa.blogspot.com.br
Mor Ephrem said:
wgw said:
Rockets, though undeniably phallic, are shaped the way they are for aerodynamic reasons.  Most rockets are multistage rockets.  This design is ideal for our technology because most of any rocket is a fuel tank, and so when you expend that fuel, you reduce the amount of fuel required to reach orbit by jettisoning the useless tank.  You also need smaller rocket motors because again, less power is required.  Now some aspects of rockets are arguably inefficient; an extreme speed is required to reach a stable orbit, but rockets do waste a lot of fuel in the first few seconds of flight moving off the launch pad.  Hence designs like the Space Ship Two where the rocket is launched from a "mothership" aircraft.  Note that neither Spaceship One or Spaceship Two are fast enough to achieve LEO let alone GEO where most satellites are.  And forget about the Moon or Mars.  So when you factor in the fuel required to do that, launch pad waste doesn't matter as much.

The Saturn V / Apollo rockets and the new Orion launch system use vertically stacked stages, with the spacecraft on top.  The Space Shuttle used a horizontal configuration, which was a design flaw that contributed to the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, in the former due to an SRB exploding next to the orbiter and in the latter case due to the orbiter being struck on the left wing by a piece of foam at an incredibly high speed.  So the more phallic Saturn V is also safer, and featured a fail safe cree Escape System which was a secondary rocket that could lift the crew module free from the rockets if a malfunction occurred; that would have saved the life of the Challenger crew had they been flying in a souped up Apollo spacecraft.  The new Orion has this and I'm pretty sure Soyuz also has it.

So please, let's not pollute the Faith forum with silly ideas about rocketry.  The reality is serious rockets for space flight look the way they do for a reason, and if that reminds you of a phallus, you are thinking too much about phalluses.  I myself hate it when people try to link every human activity to aspects of sexual behavior.  And I think it's profoundly Un-Orthodox, and an insult to the beauty of God's creation, which does include an elegant system of sexual reproduction for most animal species, but this system should be understood as part of that context alone, and not read into other concepts.  To do otherwise I think shows a lack of control over the passions, and is a form of, dare I say it, prelest.  You can bet the Church Fathers did not see phalluses everywhere; rather, they saw Truth, our Lord, and the human suffering caused by sin, of which preoccupation with genitalia is a form.
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Time-travelling reason-cold-logic-minded but religious fanaticized and sex-crazied crusaders eating fast-food while they rode phallic rockets to pagan goddess Luna to submit her to atlanticist-white-western-christian-capitalist-jewish patriarchate and hence try to prevent the heart-centered loving rise of the oppressed matriarcal minorities, specially those moderate-majority-civilizan-exploding-for-self-defense harmless groups in the Middle-East and Africa, against the *mother*land of holy Russia and the maternal bossom of everhugging ecumenism and non-communist-but-socially-concerned nations. Because they hate women, the East and the poor. And puppies.
 

hecma925

Stratopedarches
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
19,896
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Age
159
Location
The South
Fabio Leite said:
Mor Ephrem said:
wgw said:
Rockets, though undeniably phallic, are shaped the way they are for aerodynamic reasons.  Most rockets are multistage rockets.  This design is ideal for our technology because most of any rocket is a fuel tank, and so when you expend that fuel, you reduce the amount of fuel required to reach orbit by jettisoning the useless tank.  You also need smaller rocket motors because again, less power is required.  Now some aspects of rockets are arguably inefficient; an extreme speed is required to reach a stable orbit, but rockets do waste a lot of fuel in the first few seconds of flight moving off the launch pad.  Hence designs like the Space Ship Two where the rocket is launched from a "mothership" aircraft.  Note that neither Spaceship One or Spaceship Two are fast enough to achieve LEO let alone GEO where most satellites are.  And forget about the Moon or Mars.  So when you factor in the fuel required to do that, launch pad waste doesn't matter as much.

The Saturn V / Apollo rockets and the new Orion launch system use vertically stacked stages, with the spacecraft on top.  The Space Shuttle used a horizontal configuration, which was a design flaw that contributed to the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, in the former due to an SRB exploding next to the orbiter and in the latter case due to the orbiter being struck on the left wing by a piece of foam at an incredibly high speed.  So the more phallic Saturn V is also safer, and featured a fail safe cree Escape System which was a secondary rocket that could lift the crew module free from the rockets if a malfunction occurred; that would have saved the life of the Challenger crew had they been flying in a souped up Apollo spacecraft.  The new Orion has this and I'm pretty sure Soyuz also has it.

So please, let's not pollute the Faith forum with silly ideas about rocketry.  The reality is serious rockets for space flight look the way they do for a reason, and if that reminds you of a phallus, you are thinking too much about phalluses.  I myself hate it when people try to link every human activity to aspects of sexual behavior.  And I think it's profoundly Un-Orthodox, and an insult to the beauty of God's creation, which does include an elegant system of sexual reproduction for most animal species, but this system should be understood as part of that context alone, and not read into other concepts.  To do otherwise I think shows a lack of control over the passions, and is a form of, dare I say it, prelest.  You can bet the Church Fathers did not see phalluses everywhere; rather, they saw Truth, our Lord, and the human suffering caused by sin, of which preoccupation with genitalia is a form.
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Time-travelling reason-cold-logic-minded but religious fanaticized and sex-crazied crusaders eating fast-food while they rode phallic rockets to pagan goddess Luna to submit her to atlanticist-white-western-christian-capitalist-jewish patriarchate and hence try to prevent the heart-centered loving rise of the oppressed matriarcal minorities, specially those moderate-majority-civilizan-exploding-for-self-defense harmless groups in the Middle-East and Africa, against the *mother*land of holy Russia and the maternal bossom of everhugging ecumenism and non-communist-but-socially-concerned nations. Because they hate women, the East and the poor. And puppies.
Sounds hawt.  I hope the ladies have headscarves.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
hecma925 said:
Fabio Leite said:
Mor Ephrem said:
wgw said:
Rockets, though undeniably phallic, are shaped the way they are for aerodynamic reasons.  Most rockets are multistage rockets.  This design is ideal for our technology because most of any rocket is a fuel tank, and so when you expend that fuel, you reduce the amount of fuel required to reach orbit by jettisoning the useless tank.  You also need smaller rocket motors because again, less power is required.  Now some aspects of rockets are arguably inefficient; an extreme speed is required to reach a stable orbit, but rockets do waste a lot of fuel in the first few seconds of flight moving off the launch pad.  Hence designs like the Space Ship Two where the rocket is launched from a "mothership" aircraft.  Note that neither Spaceship One or Spaceship Two are fast enough to achieve LEO let alone GEO where most satellites are.  And forget about the Moon or Mars.  So when you factor in the fuel required to do that, launch pad waste doesn't matter as much.

The Saturn V / Apollo rockets and the new Orion launch system use vertically stacked stages, with the spacecraft on top.  The Space Shuttle used a horizontal configuration, which was a design flaw that contributed to the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, in the former due to an SRB exploding next to the orbiter and in the latter case due to the orbiter being struck on the left wing by a piece of foam at an incredibly high speed.  So the more phallic Saturn V is also safer, and featured a fail safe cree Escape System which was a secondary rocket that could lift the crew module free from the rockets if a malfunction occurred; that would have saved the life of the Challenger crew had they been flying in a souped up Apollo spacecraft.  The new Orion has this and I'm pretty sure Soyuz also has it.

So please, let's not pollute the Faith forum with silly ideas about rocketry.  The reality is serious rockets for space flight look the way they do for a reason, and if that reminds you of a phallus, you are thinking too much about phalluses.  I myself hate it when people try to link every human activity to aspects of sexual behavior.  And I think it's profoundly Un-Orthodox, and an insult to the beauty of God's creation, which does include an elegant system of sexual reproduction for most animal species, but this system should be understood as part of that context alone, and not read into other concepts.  To do otherwise I think shows a lack of control over the passions, and is a form of, dare I say it, prelest.  You can bet the Church Fathers did not see phalluses everywhere; rather, they saw Truth, our Lord, and the human suffering caused by sin, of which preoccupation with genitalia is a form.
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Time-travelling reason-cold-logic-minded but religious fanaticized and sex-crazied crusaders eating fast-food while they rode phallic rockets to pagan goddess Luna to submit her to atlanticist-white-western-christian-capitalist-jewish patriarchate and hence try to prevent the heart-centered loving rise of the oppressed matriarcal minorities, specially those moderate-majority-civilizan-exploding-for-self-defense harmless groups in the Middle-East and Africa, against the *mother*land of holy Russia and the maternal bossom of everhugging ecumenism and non-communist-but-socially-concerned nations. Because they hate women, the East and the poor. And puppies.
Sounds hawt.  I hope the ladies have headscarves.
Ur on a roll. Thanks for the handful of laughs.
 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
Mor Ephrem said:
wgw said:
Rockets, though undeniably phallic, are shaped the way they are for aerodynamic reasons.  Most rockets are multistage rockets.  This design is ideal for our technology because most of any rocket is a fuel tank, and so when you expend that fuel, you reduce the amount of fuel required to reach orbit by jettisoning the useless tank.  You also need smaller rocket motors because again, less power is required.  Now some aspects of rockets are arguably inefficient; an extreme speed is required to reach a stable orbit, but rockets do waste a lot of fuel in the first few seconds of flight moving off the launch pad.  Hence designs like the Space Ship Two where the rocket is launched from a "mothership" aircraft.  Note that neither Spaceship One or Spaceship Two are fast enough to achieve LEO let alone GEO where most satellites are.  And forget about the Moon or Mars.  So when you factor in the fuel required to do that, launch pad waste doesn't matter as much.

The Saturn V / Apollo rockets and the new Orion launch system use vertically stacked stages, with the spacecraft on top.  The Space Shuttle used a horizontal configuration, which was a design flaw that contributed to the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, in the former due to an SRB exploding next to the orbiter and in the latter case due to the orbiter being struck on the left wing by a piece of foam at an incredibly high speed.  So the more phallic Saturn V is also safer, and featured a fail safe cree Escape System which was a secondary rocket that could lift the crew module free from the rockets if a malfunction occurred; that would have saved the life of the Challenger crew had they been flying in a souped up Apollo spacecraft.  The new Orion has this and I'm pretty sure Soyuz also has it.

So please, let's not pollute the Faith forum with silly ideas about rocketry.  The reality is serious rockets for space flight look the way they do for a reason, and if that reminds you of a phallus, you are thinking too much about phalluses.  I myself hate it when people try to link every human activity to aspects of sexual behavior.  And I think it's profoundly Un-Orthodox, and an insult to the beauty of God's creation, which does include an elegant system of sexual reproduction for most animal species, but this system should be understood as part of that context alone, and not read into other concepts.  To do otherwise I think shows a lack of control over the passions, and is a form of, dare I say it, prelest.  You can bet the Church Fathers did not see phalluses everywhere; rather, they saw Truth, our Lord, and the human suffering caused by sin, of which preoccupation with genitalia is a form.
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
I was responding to FormerReformer backing up Cognomen on the phallic nature of weaponry by explaining why rockets look the way they do and why we shouldn't regard them as phallic.  Because that's the only shape that functions for what they do, and that's the only way to launch satellites or manned spacecraft, most of which are not phallic, even remotely (e.g. the International Space Station).  And beyond that I think it's wrong to look at a piece of technology and say "that's phallic"; in some cases, there was such an intent, for example, the excessive hood length on most cars, but to say that most of not all weapons are phallic is just a bizarre statement, which you'll note was introduced into the debate by Cognomen on the grounds of feminist political theory.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,271
Reaction score
55
Points
48
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
Mor Ephrem said:
wgw said:
Rockets, though undeniably phallic, are shaped the way they are for aerodynamic reasons.  Most rockets are multistage rockets.  This design is ideal for our technology because most of any rocket is a fuel tank, and so when you expend that fuel, you reduce the amount of fuel required to reach orbit by jettisoning the useless tank.  You also need smaller rocket motors because again, less power is required.  Now some aspects of rockets are arguably inefficient; an extreme speed is required to reach a stable orbit, but rockets do waste a lot of fuel in the first few seconds of flight moving off the launch pad.  Hence designs like the Space Ship Two where the rocket is launched from a "mothership" aircraft.  Note that neither Spaceship One or Spaceship Two are fast enough to achieve LEO let alone GEO where most satellites are.  And forget about the Moon or Mars.  So when you factor in the fuel required to do that, launch pad waste doesn't matter as much.

The Saturn V / Apollo rockets and the new Orion launch system use vertically stacked stages, with the spacecraft on top.  The Space Shuttle used a horizontal configuration, which was a design flaw that contributed to the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, in the former due to an SRB exploding next to the orbiter and in the latter case due to the orbiter being struck on the left wing by a piece of foam at an incredibly high speed.  So the more phallic Saturn V is also safer, and featured a fail safe cree Escape System which was a secondary rocket that could lift the crew module free from the rockets if a malfunction occurred; that would have saved the life of the Challenger crew had they been flying in a souped up Apollo spacecraft.  The new Orion has this and I'm pretty sure Soyuz also has it.

So please, let's not pollute the Faith forum with silly ideas about rocketry.  The reality is serious rockets for space flight look the way they do for a reason, and if that reminds you of a phallus, you are thinking too much about phalluses.  I myself hate it when people try to link every human activity to aspects of sexual behavior.  And I think it's profoundly Un-Orthodox, and an insult to the beauty of God's creation, which does include an elegant system of sexual reproduction for most animal species, but this system should be understood as part of that context alone, and not read into other concepts.  To do otherwise I think shows a lack of control over the passions, and is a form of, dare I say it, prelest.  You can bet the Church Fathers did not see phalluses everywhere; rather, they saw Truth, our Lord, and the human suffering caused by sin, of which preoccupation with genitalia is a form.
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Cat jumped on the keyboard?
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,221
Reaction score
79
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
wgw said:
Mor Ephrem said:
wgw said:
Rockets, though undeniably phallic, are shaped the way they are for aerodynamic reasons.  Most rockets are multistage rockets.  This design is ideal for our technology because most of any rocket is a fuel tank, and so when you expend that fuel, you reduce the amount of fuel required to reach orbit by jettisoning the useless tank.  You also need smaller rocket motors because again, less power is required.  Now some aspects of rockets are arguably inefficient; an extreme speed is required to reach a stable orbit, but rockets do waste a lot of fuel in the first few seconds of flight moving off the launch pad.  Hence designs like the Space Ship Two where the rocket is launched from a "mothership" aircraft.  Note that neither Spaceship One or Spaceship Two are fast enough to achieve LEO let alone GEO where most satellites are.  And forget about the Moon or Mars.  So when you factor in the fuel required to do that, launch pad waste doesn't matter as much.

The Saturn V / Apollo rockets and the new Orion launch system use vertically stacked stages, with the spacecraft on top.  The Space Shuttle used a horizontal configuration, which was a design flaw that contributed to the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, in the former due to an SRB exploding next to the orbiter and in the latter case due to the orbiter being struck on the left wing by a piece of foam at an incredibly high speed.  So the more phallic Saturn V is also safer, and featured a fail safe cree Escape System which was a secondary rocket that could lift the crew module free from the rockets if a malfunction occurred; that would have saved the life of the Challenger crew had they been flying in a souped up Apollo spacecraft.  The new Orion has this and I'm pretty sure Soyuz also has it.

So please, let's not pollute the Faith forum with silly ideas about rocketry.  The reality is serious rockets for space flight look the way they do for a reason, and if that reminds you of a phallus, you are thinking too much about phalluses.  I myself hate it when people try to link every human activity to aspects of sexual behavior.  And I think it's profoundly Un-Orthodox, and an insult to the beauty of God's creation, which does include an elegant system of sexual reproduction for most animal species, but this system should be understood as part of that context alone, and not read into other concepts.  To do otherwise I think shows a lack of control over the passions, and is a form of, dare I say it, prelest.  You can bet the Church Fathers did not see phalluses everywhere; rather, they saw Truth, our Lord, and the human suffering caused by sin, of which preoccupation with genitalia is a form.
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
I was responding to FormerReformer backing up Cognomen on the phallic nature of weaponry by explaining why rockets look the way they do and why we shouldn't regard them as phallic.  Because that's the only shape that functions for what they do, and that's the only way to launch satellites or manned spacecraft, most of which are not phallic, even remotely (e.g. the International Space Station).  And beyond that I think it's wrong to look at a piece of technology and say "that's phallic"; in some cases, there was such an intent, for example, the excessive hood length on most cars, but to say that most of not all weapons are phallic is just a bizarre statement, which you'll note was introduced into the debate by Cognomen on the grounds of feminist political theory.
That was in 2012.  That discussion is now over. 
 
Top