Yes, he planned a campaign in Greece taking occasion from the troops he wanted to gather in Corinth, but nothing was definitely set yet. TTL Constantine looked for military glory, he felt at the moment Italy was out, Anatolia was out of the league as well, so his only accessible target at the moment was Greece. And his intention was to strike at the same of the council which will start in the next chapter.
If the Second Rome falls...
- Thread starter RyuDrago
- Start date
Yes, he planned a campaign in Greece taking occasion from the troops he wanted to gather in Corinth, but nothing was definitely set yet. TTL Constantine looked for military glory, he felt at the moment Italy was out, Anatolia was out of the league as well, so his only accessible target at the moment was Greece. And his intention was to strike at the same of the council which will start in the next chapter.
About point 2, Arianism could have been weak in France, but not in Germany; the Frank clergy looked surely in that direction more than their internal house at the time.
About point one, I have eventually to recheck my fonts.
It was not weak, it was unexistant. Frankish Germany was christianised around the VI/VIIth century for the first row, and mostly during Peppinids. There was virtually no Arians there, but either Latin Christianism or Germanic Paganism.
Uhm, as I said, I have to review my fonts, eventually I will revise the wrong part tomorrow, but it not should change the event which interest me more for TTL which is the Franks using the filioque term at the time.
Probably, but at this time, Papacy never used "filioque" (and wouldn't up to XIth century), that was mainly used in Spain (without real impact after the Islamic conquest) and in Francia without real officialisation.
So re-reading your update, the emperor shouldn't even hear about it in a roman mass.
For this I created the escamoutage of the Lombard bishops pressuring the Pope to use the filioque at the wedding scene to not compromise further to the Greeks.
But Lombards didn't used the filioque as well.
It was essentially a Spanish and Frankish feature (Maybe British as well, but I'm not sure about it) and not an institutionalised one (As in, not systematical use of filioque in the Credo, even for Visigoths) and was probably diversly used in Francia depending of the region. Basically it became systematical only during Charlemagne's reign.
Last edited:
However, the Lombard clergy must had been at knowledge of the fact the Frank used the filioque in the VIIIth century, considering the correspondance from Rome to France had necessarily to pass from North Italy, plus with the Benedectine network the issue must had been introduced as well. My concept idea here was the Lombards introduced it in open spite to the Byzantines and reaffirm a sense of unity and at the same time of distance from a Papacy apparently more aligned to the Imperial autority.
About the Toletan council, seeing you have been right about its regional character, still there isn't mention of popes which contested it, or at least I didn't found it, hence could remain the concept it wasn't neither accepted or contested by Rome. I will revise the issue of the arianism into the Frank kingdom changing the line in somewhat like "As however towards the end of VII century Arianism was considered defeated, the use of the filioque remained ingrained into the Frank and Iberian clergy. Still, Rome didn't took position to declare the removal of the term or confirm it. At the same time, through the communications between the Alpes, the Lombard clergy came at knowledge as well of the Frank use of the filioque, albeit didn't implemented it not feeling any necessity. But now, with an Imperial autority resurgent in Italy and a menace of the expansion of the Greek rite, that decision started to be questioned again."
Hi, im a big fan. WELL DONE MY FRIEND WELL DONE. FANTASTIC TL.
Ok i want to ask you how large will the empire be in this TL?
Sorry but I can't reveal it. I have a first general idea across the Middle Ages, but I had already gave some hints over certain expectations and directions.
But did the Frankish clergy actually used the filioque in the credo when we know for certain that Visigoths only partially did?
The real first traces of it dates from Charlemagne's decision on that matter : before, the principle was more or less accepted but not really systematized.
Giving that Papacy not only didn't used filioque but actually rejected it up to the XIth century, my take is that it would do more for pissing Papacy and putting it in Imperial's arms than anything else.
Assuming that Lombard clergy was ready to use flilioque at the contrary of their OTL usage.
Councils were essentialy a realm thing, with popes having little to nothing to do with it. It became such only after Carolingian re-organisation of Latin church.
You may confuse councils with oecumenical councils were popes had indeed something to say, but quite rare.
We know, as in for certain, that papacy even during Charlemagne's reign refused to add the filioque.
I'll let that sink a second : even during a period where papacy was no better than a puppet institution, they refused to abide to that.
Thing is filioque adoption by Latin Christianism isn't directly tied with Arianism, but to diverse regional features. It was a consideration relativly present in Alexandrine or Roman tendencies, but formulated for different reasons.
Arianism in Spain (or rather, achieving Arianism), and refusal of Monothelism in Gaul or Britain (It's possible that Adoptianism issue played a role as well).
But there wasn't such problem in Late Lombard Italy that furthermore, beneficied from a direct access to Roman or Eastern conceptions on it.
I can convene it's for Charlemagne the filioque was effectively testimonied for the first time OTL but as you just said the principle had to be presented before in the Franks.
But Charlemagne promoted the filioque in spite to the Byzantine among the other reasons, to differentiate his Empire from the Eastern One, TTL there are the Lombards to do it more early to reply somehow to a growing Greek Church advance and to differentiate themselves from an Imperial resurgence in Italy TTL.
Even if on a national (Iberian-Visigothic level), the council of Toledo mentioned still was organized into the supposed sphere of the Patriarchate of Rome, so the Popes in theory should have voice on matter, in a way or another. However I stated TTL the Popes remained outside the matter so far, which could be intended as not interested or because they didn't have power to intervene.
Yes I agreed as well on this. But I don't honestly see the Papacy as a puppet in hand of Charlemagne, starting from the fact the HRE was a Papal and not a Carolingian invention, and Rome was never considered as HRE territory; or that Charlemagne had an act of vassallage from the Pope. Moments of puppetization from the Papacy came more later.
Hm honestly I feel impossible to reply to this, not having proper knowledge on the matter.
Don't agree entirely with you. A people under crisis of being assimilated or conquered seek where it could to propose unifying elements and in opposition to the enemy. Maybe I should had use other element of unity from the Lombard side, but considering at the time the most strong element possible was the religious unity...
However, I will reduce the relevance of the filioque issue TTL for the moment, but the early introduction of the issue will remain nevertheless. As there aren't proofs before Charlemagne the Franks could have or less sticken with it, I'll going with the assumption TTL they did.
The theological principle, yes. Its full exclusive formulation (as in, in opposition to other Nicean Credo formulation), however, seems to date from Charlemagne's reign at the exception of XIIth Council of Toledo that nevertheless remained a Visigothic council
It was less for spite on Byzantine than to answer them, in a more complex process. Precedently, the filioque presented few if any real opposition for eastern churches, but for some reasons, Byzantine clergy (Tarasios, namely) wanted to precise that the Son proceeded from the Father.
Then you had a regional council at Cividale about confirming filioque as a valid theological concept, with Charlemagne using it in the credo.
The use of such in Latin monasteries in Palestine created some havoc and Nikephoros I asked Leo III about it. Charlemagne takes care of it (assuming that it's the role of the emperor to deal with that, not the pope) and gather an eucumenical council (something popes never did so far) that ended with the validity of filioque, validity that the popes specifically refused to accept.
It's more of a ping-pong game than an unilateral decision.
Namely, ITTL, if the iconoclast crisis is treated differently, maybe Taraisos (or another patriarch) doesn't see the need to insist on this, leading to more room for filioque supporter to either find a compromise with Greeks (by exemple, arguing that it's only a specification proper to latin) or deal with its disappearence more easily.
Furthermore, differences between Greek and Latin churches before the IXth century were quite tiny. Essentially liturgical and organisational. It's ironically the tentatives to make Roman church a Carolingian equivalent of Constantinople's that huges differences began really to appear.
What's even more fun, is that clergy formerly or still part of Greek churches, as Theodore of Tarsus, were in favour of filioque addition.
Unless Romans try to impose a Greek-speaking church over Latin-speaking church for giggles (and assuming both were monolithic blocks at least in Western Christianity, that they weren't), the different would be...well, moot.
No they wouldn't, whatever in theory or in practice.
The powers of the roman pope were really, really, REALLY limited before Carolingians, and Visigothic councils were specifically about the Visigothic Kingdom (religiously and politically), not Christianity as a whole.
Councils of Toledo were really particular in the Early Middles Ages in this regard, it's the more achieved form of a "national church" organised as a religious-political council for the king.
Other provincial synods, as Frankish ones, didn't go that far on this regard (I searched a bit of Britain, and it seems that British clergy added filioque to credo in 680 while I didn't find an equivalent for Franks while I gladly concede that it may have been under frankish non-instutionalised custom. But I'll point out it was needed a full eucumenical synod to really make it fully). For instance, in the same council that saw the clear addition of filioque in the credo (the XIIth), the newly titled primate of Toletum gained the right to consacrate bishops named by the king himself. Not the pope.
(A detail but Carolingian Empire =/= HRE. That's two different things)
Well, for starters, Charlemagne decided who was going to be pope or not. Every theological or organisational decision was made by the emperor (that was crowned at his own demands, not imposed over him by the pope) whatever in acceptence as filioque, or rejection as adoptianism.
I'll advise you to look at the Admonistio Generalis regarding carolingian conception : in short, comparing himself to Josias, he argues that he's responsible of his people salvation. He, not the pope.
As for Pontifical lands, they were clearly considered as part of the empire, that they kept their original administrative divisions and conceptions isn't a mark of independence (Italy kept Lombard features, by exemple), and they were as well under the authority of Charlemagne (by the envoy of missi by exemple) than Spoleto.
Precisely : going to such a radical and probably half-assed (I'll explain it below) change would do more for breaking Lombard religious unity, and therefore unity alone.
Remember, Italian clergy (whatever Lombard, Roman, etc. The only exception I can think of is Paulinius of Aquilea, but it seems that he did imposed a new stance there) didn't used the filioque in creed.
Accepting a frankish custom when Franks were as much bitter foes of the Lombards (Lombards generally allied with rebelling Frankish "vassals" as Romans (Aquitains) or Bavarians) would have been seen as as much problematic than complying before Greeks.
You could find another way to strengthen religious difference, but the difference between Latin Church (critically in Italy) and Greek Church didn't led too much room to that safe for a radical theological change that may threaten as well religious unity, and certainly not please the pope. At all.
A political stance may be as much interesting, as in the IOTL Lombard formulation of "King of All Italy" as title (that could make ERE feel quite threatened there or at least pissed), or forcing Aquilean patriarchates to comply before Pontifical authority (they refused to do so IOTL) : such move would eventually mean that Lombards kings put themselves under the religious authority of the roman pope instead of Aquilean patriarchate as they did IOTL.
It would be a dangerous move, as threatening the "independence" of the Lombards. It's the biggest move favouring Lombards-Pope that I could think about, still.
But by dealing swiftly with monothelism and iconoclasm, and putting ERE in "roman orthodoxy", you removed much of the things that could have favoured a Lombard-Pontifical agreement.
Chapter eight
Across 735, the council of Corinth finally started. Constantine inaugurated it with a solemn act hoping all the best for the achievement of the assembly, hoping a solution will be finally founded over the issue of the icons.
The council was more tormented than expected, or at least in certain parts. The Paulicians refused any mediation which didn’t involve the destruction of the icons and the Bishops of Asia Minor and Anatolia came divided. Despite the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople were generally united over the defence of the icons, still within their own camps there were internal divisions due to the growing murmurs of the Greeks over the apparently growing issue of the filioque in North Italy and in the Frank territories. Gregory III managed to dodge the subject stating it was a limited matter in the same lands of the Franks and the Lombards and not taken as absolute truth; still, the few Frank and Lombard bishops present, as it was explained them the elaborations of the Cappadocian fathers, weren’t so willing to turn down the Agostinian theology: stating in their limited comprehension of the Greek they reserved still doubts over the issue. But they convened in the end the priority was to solve the issue of the icons, so that matter in the end passed over, or at least for now.
Still, it was the occasion for the Greek delegates to take address about that particular issue, and for the Latin ones to have the opportunity to have a somewhat improved knowledge of the Greek rite theology; but the barrier language, the persisting difficulty of communication within Europe and the Mediterranean and the constant age of warfare prevented a further comprehension between the two sides. At the same time, while the Papacy renewed its ties with the Empire and the Orthodoxy, it however strained - not definitely, but surely created further incomprehensions - for various years the relations with the Lombard and in a less extent, with the Frank clergy. Not over the issue of the filioque in itself, but for the scarce defense showed in favour of the Agostinian theology.
The council took a decisive steer with the arrival of one of the most prominent oriental theologians of the time, the Syrian John of Damascus, which convinced a large majority, also between various doubtful bishops of Anatolia, it was not necessary to destroy the icons, by differentiating the relative veneration towards the object (prokintesis) from the absolute one towards God (latreia), and condemning any wrong interpretation from the owner of the icon and the common people which could lead to idolatry; of which the clergy had the moral duty to prevent. Still, the major problem came from the die-hard iconodules, the ones which in truth supported the veneration of the icons to gain an economical profit, and wanting to keep it intact. Constantine instead was against its preservation, considering the intention of the council was to establish the icon in itself wasn’t a direct intermediate with God so the believer didn’t have to pay a donation for it; naturally from that point the Paulicians regained some strength for their argumentations, stating how the icons were an affair for the owners taking lucre from an unaware extortion to the believer. In the end the iconodules retained the possibility to ask contributes to the visitors coming to see the icon in question, at condition to not force them to do so a definition which could have been all and nothing, because the Paulicians stated an able preacher could be able to convince the believer to give some money for him or the community which hosted the icon.
The Paulicians so retreated from Corinth refusing to recognize the deliberations, starting to make a more active predication in Anatolia and Constantinople against the wealthy bishops which venerated the idols like the ancient pagans. In the Eastern part of the Empire that message took place between the poor people, reduced in indigence by the constant Arab raids and the continue taxations; plus, the Muslim aniconism surely influenced greatly the Paulician ideology, which brought the latter to seek contacts with their neighbours in search of support, missing the Imperial one at home.
However, as the Council of 735 reaffirmed the iconodule principle over the iconoclast one, Constantine considered the issue settled for the moment, and moved in direction of Athens to complete the preparations of his campaign of subjugation of the northern and central regions of Greece. The initial advance into Boeotia was quite encouraging, the various tribes and semi-nomadic populations were rather fragmented and without a relevant leadership, but the more he proceeded north, the more Constantine was forced to see his army reduced by the garrisons left behind to keep under control those barbarians. However, the Emperor managed to reach Larissa at least, which opened its doors to the Byzantine liberators.
Constantine freed a relevant chunk of Epirus and Thessaly in 736, but due to the moderate manpower at disposal across the Empire at the time, pushing further to north risked to weak too much his armies. Plus, with his personal disappointment, he received news about the impossibility from Atravasdos to further detach new troops from Anatolia, to not weak further the Imperial positions in the region. Despite the Frank victory at Poitiers, the Arab juggernaut seemed unaffected at the time by the sudden halt of its expansion into Europe, so the Anatolians were still busy to keep in check their neighbours and prevent where possible their raids. Plus, Anatolia itself in the previous years weakened itself sending important contributes in term of men in South Italy: soldiers which however after the Lombard defeat remained in Apulia and Lucania, making or new families or calling their old ones to settle in those regions.
As the Anatolian contribute, albeit still relevant, started to decline into the Empire, the Italian one, which however was more an amalgam of populations so different between them (Roman descendants, Roman-Barbarian heritage, emigrated Greeks, submitted Lombards, Anatolian settlers), started to become more important. Yet, at the time the barrier language and the presence of two types of Churches present (albeit the religious differences were less marked than in the successive centuries) didn’t contribute to generate a sense of cohesion which could have been really useful for the Empire. Constantine V in fact despite his bilinguism and his growing interests towards the Italian affairs still supported the use of Greek as major administrative language across the Empire, considering that effectively the majority of his subjects spoke that language.
Especially the Southern Lombards fatigued to accept to stay under Imperial rule: the Byzantines preserved their own possessions, but in various cases throw them out from the administration of the conquered regions, and now forced to pay the Imperial taxes. Still, the Southern Lombards remained a minority incapable to seriously harm the Imperial domain in the South; part of them decided to emigrate in direction of Benevento or Spoleto.
The two Duchies of Longobardia Minor were however far from enjoy a period of peace. Thrasimund II, now ruling a country independent from Pavia, was intentioned to unify Spoleto and Benevento in a “Kingdom of the Southern Lombards”, searching support from the Pope and within the Beneventine people as well. Gregory III, albeit not hostile to the project, hesitated however to support it, to not irritate both Liutprand and Constantine; the Duke of Spoleto however managed to increase a growing rally for independence in the neighbour Duchy, which despite Sutri felt its ties weakened year by year.
In 738, a civil war erupted in the Duchy of Benevento, which the troops of Thrasimund jumped it invading the country as well. Liutprand requested the permission to the Empire to have transit rights across the corridor, but Constantine, which was still in Greece to reorganize the territory. The Emperor decided to make of Peloponnese its own Theme, reorganizing the one of Hellas merging into Attica, Boeotia, and Thessaly in a single region, and merging Southern Epirus and Aetolia in a third Theme called Nicopolis from the city where it was supposed to be the administrative centre, despite soon it was decided Naupaktos was a more suitable capital. Like South Italy however, the Slavic presence remained quite strong and created difficulties and endemic revolts, which stunted any possibility for the successive Emperors to march further into North.
Besides Constantine felt at the time enough secure with the death of Kormeisy in the same year, believing the Bulgar expansion after the reunion with the Keramisians was finally satisfied: but the reign of the successor of Kormeisy, Sevar, proved it otherwise…
However, Constantine was enough satisfied of the campaign in Greece, and interested to the evolution of the situation in South Italy decided to return to West: the fact he decided to celebrate a triumph in Rome over instead of Constantinople created surely more irritation in the population of the latter, starting to believe the Emperor wanted to restore the authority of capital to the Eternal City, fear consolidated by the fact Irene and Maria seemed at that point definitely settled in the Palatine, which after a decade of works was enough habitable for a small court. The complex was far from being restored to its former splendour, neither probably will be because it was too vast and besides the cultural tastes of the period were changed drastically from the classical age so no matter what it will result impossible to rebuild it under the original schemes; considering also the Palatine started to see at the time the rise of a defensive wall with towers which absorbed buildings and ruins around in the process of realization.
Constantine underestimated how his protracted absence affected in negative the population of Constantinople. Despite the city in itself recovered largely after the siege, enjoying of the peace around its surroundings, still certain sectors of the local economy suffered, starting with the one related by the maintenance of the Imperial court, drastically curbed since the prolonged absence of the Imperial family by over fifteen years; proceeding with the one related by the entertainment, as across the reign of Constantine the core of the celebrations for the victories of the Empire were held in Rome rather than Constantinople; and also the artistic production suffered as well, due of the uncertainty of that market regard to the issue of the icons, but also because artists and engineers were called in Italy to work in Rome or in Naples.
The city started to look with more attention - and expectation - to the figure of the Patriarch Germanus, which prestige received a surge after the success of the Council of Corinth. At the same time, the Senate of Constantinople started to take a more proactive role in the administration of the city (and from there, of Thrace) as well, also in reply to growing contacts between the Emperor and the Roman aristocracy – besides mostly of Eastern derivation, at that point, being the ancient native Senatorial class decimated – to bring to a renewed life the Senate of Rome.
In the meanwhile, the Anatolian themes continued to remain compact under the rule of Artavasdos, which managed in the meanwhile to further secure his position obtaining from Anna a son, named Nikephoros; at the same time he started to promote the career of his elder son Niketas (born from an earlier marriage). The Kouropalatos initially had intention to call him Leo, and so Anna, but Constantine stated clear to them it was to his son and his son only to take the name of the greatfather. It could have been a reasonable claim, but Constantine presented the request with a certain arrogance with in the East wasn’t so well viewed, so increasing the general sympathy towards the Anatolian general, which at least sometimes came in Constantinople to visit the Patriarch and cure the affairs of the city.
It seemed that Artavasdos however didn’t have intention to seek a rupture with Constantine for his own benefit, considering also the Imperial fleet was absolutely loyal towards the Emperor (so any eventual intention of revolt will remained confined in Anatolia), but as he started to enter into an advanced age, he started to search support to secure the power of his family in the East. The intention of the Kouropalates was to pass his title to his son to give him a solid basis to start his career, while with the suggestion to better coordinate the armies in Asia Minor, he started to petition to Constantine the institution of an “Esarchate of Anatolia” of which he should be the first holder.
Constantine reflected well over that request. He was well aware of the risks to give Artavasdos and his scion so much power, making of which the historians later called the “Eastern Isaurics” the second powerful family of the Empire and the de facto ruler of Anatolia; but to another side, he evaluated his brother-in-law, advanced in the years, shouldn’t have still for much, while his nephew was a little child and surely Anna will not make nothing to oppose his brother, plus as he retained as for the case of the Ravennate Esarch the power to choose the successor and remove him, in the end agreed to the request; but with a series of decrees he made of the Kouropalates a more civilian authority than a military one, albeit with a great decisional power over the internal affairs of Constantinople; despite to balance the charge he further concede tithes and duties to the Patriarchate, in order to force the future Patriarchs and Kouropalates to watch each other not overstepping their own camps.
Constantine however was unaware in that way to divide the Empire into three definite governments: one under the Imperial authority in Italy and Greece proper, a civilian-religious one in Thrace centred on Constantinople, and a military one in Anatolia…
Last edited: