Celtic Church dominant in England?
- Thread starter Promethean
- Start date
Two more cents worth . . .
I would suspect that the Celtic Church would be a wee bit more resistant to the Viking invasions that soon followed. Part of the reason I think this is that the Irish had a strong warrior tradition and would have taken on the invaders in, shall we say, a bit more vigorous fashion. While in OTL, the Irish were a rather passive and didn't fight to the degree the Celtics would have is that the monastics (and parish priests) were more heavily influenced by the Roman tradition and were much more passive than a more traditional Celtic Church might have been.
On one hand, we would have in (OTL) the Roman/Augustinian "This world is sinful, it's not THAT important (an oversimplification, I admit), these invaders are God's judgment for our sins, so just lean on Jesus" vs a more traditional Irish/Celtic "This is God's world, we are enjoying it, these invaders are trying to prevent our appreciation of God's handiwork and we aren't going to take it!" Yes, this is also an oversimplification, but you get the idea . . .
Feel free to disagree & shoot holes in my thoughts!
Who said about the Irish, "Al our wars are gay, all our Loves are sad . . . "
Bobbo
I would suspect that the Celtic Church would be a wee bit more resistant to the Viking invasions that soon followed. Part of the reason I think this is that the Irish had a strong warrior tradition and would have taken on the invaders in, shall we say, a bit more vigorous fashion. While in OTL, the Irish were a rather passive and didn't fight to the degree the Celtics would have is that the monastics (and parish priests) were more heavily influenced by the Roman tradition and were much more passive than a more traditional Celtic Church might have been.
On one hand, we would have in (OTL) the Roman/Augustinian "This world is sinful, it's not THAT important (an oversimplification, I admit), these invaders are God's judgment for our sins, so just lean on Jesus" vs a more traditional Irish/Celtic "This is God's world, we are enjoying it, these invaders are trying to prevent our appreciation of God's handiwork and we aren't going to take it!" Yes, this is also an oversimplification, but you get the idea . . .
Feel free to disagree & shoot holes in my thoughts!
Who said about the Irish, "Al our wars are gay, all our Loves are sad . . . "
Bobbo
Grey Wolf
Donor
Hmmm, couldn't you have Saint Augustine not come and lead to the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons ? Then the Celtic remnants would be the only Christian tradition and gradually as the old ways die out, they could send missionaries into England and emerge dominant that way ?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
I don't think the Irish were that passive--I do recall them fighting the invaders and doing a rather poor job of it, at least at first.
The monastics got mauled a lot, but they were generally unarmed and taken by surprise.
The monastics got mauled a lot, but they were generally unarmed and taken by surprise.
Lots of fighting in Ireland which eventually led to the locals dominating the Viking Kingdom of Dublin. Doesn't seem that the Irish were passive, rather the contrary.
Grey Wolf:
IIRC, the Irish Christians, under Patrick & his successors did some extensive mission work in the Northwestern area of Britain, including Scotland, Wales and the area north of Hadrian's Wall. The Isle of Iona was one of the main centers of Celtic Christianity and still has a strong Scots/Celtic influence today. It is part of the (Scottish) Episcopal Diocese of Argyle & the Islands and the Diocese has done a lot of restoration there.
Add to this the traditional antipathy of the Scots, Welsh & Irish to this mix and we see a potential for a stronger resistance to Roman Christianity. And, as the Irish monks were more literate than the southern British & many European Monks at the time, the average man & woman on the farm & village possibly could have been more educated and critical-minded. How might this have affected the politics preferred by the Pro-Roman British rulers? Maybe more independence for the Celts? Less of a Roman influence on the Church? More centers of learning in Ireland, Wales & Scotland? Possibly even missions TO the Vikings? Remember, a Celtic Christianity would have been more to the liking of the Vikings than the Roman version.
What kind of butterflies could (some of) these ideas spin off?
Any thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
The whole World Wonders.
Bobindelaware
http://www.chesterton.org/qmeister2/20.htm
"For the Great Gaels of Ireland
Are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry
And all their songs are sad."
Actually, the Synod of Whitby is too late for the POD, Toynbee not withstanding. It's the timeline I am working on. 2 small credible PODs in the 6th century which butterfly away a lot. I accidentally wiped out Islam, for example.
BTW, the Irish/Celtic Catholic missionaries were all over Europe by the Synod, even established in Italy.
In the British Isles, a map of the Irish monasteries may be seen here: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/pre_norman_history/christianity.html
The information on both maps are fairly widespread.
I have been lurking for years. I think I understand how to behave, except I am not certain exactly what a wank TL is, though I am afraid mine is. I have geological, meterological data to factor in, though I am mainly interested in cultural/technological changes.
At least, here, I am among folks who understand how absorbing and fun it is to work out an alternate timeline. With friends and colleagues (IT), if one tries to explain, they back away slowly.
BTW, the Irish/Celtic Catholic missionaries were all over Europe by the Synod, even established in Italy.
In the British Isles, a map of the Irish monasteries may be seen here: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/pre_norman_history/christianity.html
The information on both maps are fairly widespread.
I have been lurking for years. I think I understand how to behave, except I am not certain exactly what a wank TL is, though I am afraid mine is. I have geological, meterological data to factor in, though I am mainly interested in cultural/technological changes.
At least, here, I am among folks who understand how absorbing and fun it is to work out an alternate timeline. With friends and colleagues (IT), if one tries to explain, they back away slowly.
hurricane_shoals
Welcome aboard and sounds an interesting TL your planning.
In answer to your question, while its arguable a matter of interpretation, a wank occurs when the writer of the TL shows a bias towards a particular nation or group. I.e. they make very few/no mistakes, win battles despite being drastically outnumbered, get key events, technological breakthrough just at the right time etc. Unless its fairly extreme it can be difficult to tell for sure. There have been some very wankish events in RL after all, like the Macedonian conquest of the Persian empire or the dramatic rise of Islam for instance.
I suspect your right that Whitby would be too late as a Celtic church dominated Britain would be very vulnerable to pressure from the continent, especially if still fairly isolated when the Vikings come along. However some interesting prospects.
Steve
Welcome aboard and sounds an interesting TL your planning.
In answer to your question, while its arguable a matter of interpretation, a wank occurs when the writer of the TL shows a bias towards a particular nation or group. I.e. they make very few/no mistakes, win battles despite being drastically outnumbered, get key events, technological breakthrough just at the right time etc. Unless its fairly extreme it can be difficult to tell for sure. There have been some very wankish events in RL after all, like the Macedonian conquest of the Persian empire or the dramatic rise of Islam for instance.
I suspect your right that Whitby would be too late as a Celtic church dominated Britain would be very vulnerable to pressure from the continent, especially if still fairly isolated when the Vikings come along. However some interesting prospects.
Steve
Thank you. I thought it was more like policy wank. Now I see it derives more from the original meaning of the term.
I agree that a Britain only Church would face enormous pressure from the continent. That is why the Celtic Church would have to dominate the continent and essentially marginalize the Rome-based Catholic Church. Remember, the Bishop of Rome was not that strong in the 6th century.
I think, as mentioned by posters above, the Vikings would find the Celtic version of Christianity more sympathetic, as would the Eastern Empire. As do I.
Here's my first POD. The man who would be Pope Gregory the Great was the secretary to Pope Pelagius II and his successor. OTL, both caught the Plague (part of the Plague of Justinian still working itself out.) The POD is Gregory dies from it, which is credible. Gregory was the real rehabilitator and strengthener who solidified the Bishop of Rome into the strong medieval Popes. He's the one who sent the mission to Britain to convert the Anglo-Saxons.
His death buys the Celtic Church more time to convert the Anglo-Saxons themselves. And we all know what they will do.
I have a candidate for Pelagius II's successor, a nephew of Gregory, who would have his family's power behind him. The little we know of him shows him as a bit weak and somewhat corrupt.
My belief/prejudice is that the RCC caused a lot of the darkness of the Medieval Ages ans was a horrible technology suppressor.
My biggest problem so far are all the repercussions.
I agree that a Britain only Church would face enormous pressure from the continent. That is why the Celtic Church would have to dominate the continent and essentially marginalize the Rome-based Catholic Church. Remember, the Bishop of Rome was not that strong in the 6th century.
I think, as mentioned by posters above, the Vikings would find the Celtic version of Christianity more sympathetic, as would the Eastern Empire. As do I.
Here's my first POD. The man who would be Pope Gregory the Great was the secretary to Pope Pelagius II and his successor. OTL, both caught the Plague (part of the Plague of Justinian still working itself out.) The POD is Gregory dies from it, which is credible. Gregory was the real rehabilitator and strengthener who solidified the Bishop of Rome into the strong medieval Popes. He's the one who sent the mission to Britain to convert the Anglo-Saxons.
His death buys the Celtic Church more time to convert the Anglo-Saxons themselves. And we all know what they will do.
I have a candidate for Pelagius II's successor, a nephew of Gregory, who would have his family's power behind him. The little we know of him shows him as a bit weak and somewhat corrupt.
My belief/prejudice is that the RCC caused a lot of the darkness of the Medieval Ages ans was a horrible technology suppressor.
My biggest problem so far are all the repercussions.
Actually the Wiki article looks decent (when I just checked it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity
Note that there wasn't a 'Celtic Church', in the sense of a separate hierarchy that had schismed from Rome. What happened was they were cut off and developed on their own. So the theology would actually be the same (functionally - but then the theology of the Romans and the Byzantines were essentially identical, too). Practice, however, had diverged.
The Irish had female abbots, certainly. St. Hild was one, for instance, over a double convent of men and women. Whether they had female priests, well,... That's a fine topic to argue over, over a pint or two.
<provides pint or three> They virtually have to have had female priests and bishops, since the church temporal was clearly subordinate to the church monastic - bishops answer to abbots and can be dismissed by abbots, with abbots answering (in vague theory; in practice abbots are pretty autonomous) to the abbot of the monastery that founded them. And bishops did not have parishes or cathedrals of their own - they spent about a week or two in each parish part of their 'circuit', then returned to their abbot to deliver a report and get any necessary rulings. As others have mentioned, it's easy to overstate just how sex-positive the Celtic church seems to have been, but it did appear to be keen on gender equality.
I agree that Whitby is too late to preserve the Celtic church; my personal vote for a PoD is for the expedition of Melittus in 601 to convert and rectify Britain. OTL he was rather conciliatory, permitting the retention of pagan practices (animal sacrifice) that weren't expressly forbidden by scripture and endorsing the conversion of pagan temples into Christian churches. Waylay a letter from the Pope so that it doesn't get to him in time, or replace him with a fire-and-sword man, and I think you can actually accelerate the conversion of Britain while simultaneously entrenching the idea that Romans are Not Nice People. I've only gone about as far as 750 with that one, but I have France and Italy answering to Rome, the British Isles and the Christian populace of Spain answering to Iona (Ovieda was a Celtic Christian monastery, and the Moors acknowledge the abbot of Ovieda as the head of Spanish Christendom), Germany about 50/50 and Scandinavia almost certainly going to be Celtic. Shouldn't be surprised if Byzantium eventually reabsorbs Rome under the circumstances.
I agree that Whitby is too late to preserve the Celtic church; my personal vote for a PoD is for the expedition of Melittus in 601 to convert and rectify Britain. OTL he was rather conciliatory, permitting the retention of pagan practices (animal sacrifice) that weren't expressly forbidden by scripture and endorsing the conversion of pagan temples into Christian churches. Waylay a letter from the Pope so that it doesn't get to him in time, or replace him with a fire-and-sword man, and I think you can actually accelerate the conversion of Britain while simultaneously entrenching the idea that Romans are Not Nice People. I've only gone about as far as 750 with that one, but I have France and Italy answering to Rome, the British Isles and the Christian populace of Spain answering to Iona (Ovieda was a Celtic Christian monastery, and the Moors acknowledge the abbot of Ovieda as the head of Spanish Christendom), Germany about 50/50 and Scandinavia almost certainly going to be Celtic. Shouldn't be surprised if Byzantium eventually reabsorbs Rome under the circumstances.
Afraid so, especially in the extreme cases
I don't know about dominating the continent. The Roman church is always going to have a lot of prestige, both because its the old imperial capital and because of Peter's alleged links with it. However definitely they need to get all of Britain into their sphere of influence and preferably parts of Germany and adjacent areas on the continent. One factor might be the Celtic church allowing greater autonomy, along with possibly a lack of Peter's pence and other tribune to Rome making it more attractive.
Possibly, although if Charlemagne's empire was butterflied, or at least its leader's behaviour and/or success modified you may not get a great Viking period, at least in the west. Have heard that his brutal campaigns against the 'old Saxons' both faced Scandinavia with isolation facing a hostile Christian world and that a lot of the early Viking raids were by refuggess from the Saxons, which motiovated some of their brutality against monasteries.
If so then if the changes mean no aggressive Frankish empire, which it might well, especially also if no Islam, then relations with the non-Christian world might be less tense. Also if both Celtic and Catholic spheres are competing them they may need to be less intolerant of non-believers.
Sounds like a quite practical POD that might well have the desired effect. Not only isn't there the initial mission to Kent but also the less organised church will mean its later to the competition so to speak. Furthermore, a weaker Catholic church and the mention you made of Islam being butterflied would probably mean that the Catholic church is also distracted by resisting influence from the empire.
That's a common believe and I think there's a good amount of accuracy in it. Not sure any of the other churches were any better, but then as a devout atheist I could be a bit prejudice there myself
Always the problem, the devil is in the details.
Steve
I have to agree that 664AD is far too late to prevent the ascendancy of the Roman Catholic church, and this is in large part due to King Edwin of Northumbria who not only brought about the conversion of the Bernicians and Deirans, but also brought pressure upon the East Anglian and presumably the Middle Anglian Kings to convert as well. Celtic Christianity only achieved prominence in the Kingdom of Northumbria because it was championed by the exiled sons of King Aethelfrith, Oswald and Oswiu, after the death of King Edwin between 334AD - 335AD, and its message reinforced by the successes these kings had in battle. By the time of the Synod of Whitby, the Roman Catholic conversion process has already been underway for close to forty years and the failure to establish a second archbishopric at York during the reign of King Edwin means that ecclesiastical authority has already too heavily invested with Honorius, Archbishop of Canterbury, by the time of your original POD.
Whilst this may lessen the threat posed by Danish and Norse raiders, I doubt that it will prevent raiders attacking England, Ireland or the rest of Europe, as when put into context the invasion of Saxony and the pressure this placed upon the Danes was only one of many factors that unleashed the Vikings upon the rest of Europe. It will not ease the burden placed upon the sparse agricultural lands of Scandinavia by the increase in population, and land is crucial. Not only is it vital to keeping everyone fed, but rewarding land to loyal followers is one of the primary methods in an early medieval society of maintaining the loyalty of powerful local Earls and their warriors. A lack of land and an increase in population will inevitably mean that Danish and Norse Kings will have trouble in keeping local Earls in check, and makes curbing the relative independence of their nobility more difficult. This is a recipe for internal conflict and ultimately there will be losers and these exiled nobles, with their bands of followers, will eventually begin seeking their fortunes overseas. It will also still leave you with the destruction of the Frisians as a naval power thanks to the expansionist policies of the Franks, and thereby opens up the coastline of Northern Europe to Viking raids. It also presumes that the Saxons will not find themselves in conflict for any prolonged period of time with the Danes with the Frankish conquest as well, and thereby trigger the Viking Age of their own accord.
Why though? It not as if the Anglo-Saxon version of the bible didn't have appeal to other Germanic societies, and they were able to successfully Christianize significant lengths of Frisian and German territory. I'd suggest finding a translated copy as it incorporated a number of concepts that the Vikings would find familiar, with a good example of this being its portrayal of figures such as Jesus and Judas.
This begs the question of why the Anglo-Saxons apparently failed to convert the Vikings, and the suggestion has been made that the English church adopted the attitude that had been espoused towards their ancestors by the Britons during the 5th and 6th Centuries - that being that you do not share the secret of eternal redemption and other 'Christian' knowledge with people that you consider to be heathen savages sent by the devil to scourge the earth.
You will also need to find some way of preventing Queen Bertha of Kent, and her relative King Chlothar II of Neustria, from petitioning this pope to send another mission to Britain with someone other than Augustine in charge.
Last edited: