What if, contemporarily to the ecumenical council of 870 in Constantinople, Ermengarde of Italy and Constantine of Byzantium formalized their marriage and created a solid bond between the kingdom of Italy and the Eastern Romans? This would pacify the orthodox extremists who claimed Charlemagne and his children to be illegitimate emperors, as the only daughter of the Emperor in the West is marrying the first-born of the Emperor in the East, as well as consolidate Italy as an actual crown and not a mere component of the Holy Roman Empire. It could bring the Pope closer to the other great patriarchs, as now they're all under Byzantium's jurisdiction or at least heavy influence, and it would prevent Italy's disappearance at the hands of Otto the Great a century down the line.
870 - A Marriage to end the Schism
- Thread starter Simone nel Pozzo
- Start date
Sadly, it is more complicated than that and steeped in politics. The Wikipedia article on the Photian Schism is a good starting point.
The gist of it is that it's about quite a bit more than "just" the matter of Empire (which still was more of a concern in Byzantium than it was in the West, who saw it as more or less settled and a bit less urgent) and more about Church politics, especially on areas where Roman and Constantinopolitan authority conflicted due to it being either newly Christianised (Slav people) or claimed by both (Czechia, most of the Balkans, South Italy), with various political actors openly exploiting the division to achieve their own goals.
The Bohemian Slavs warmly welcomed Byzantine monks, their learning, and gold to prop up their own Christianisation, but submitted to Rome backed by the close and threatening Frankish state; Bulgaria extorted a lot of support from the Pope to challenge the upstart Greeks, but ultimately fell square into the Orthodox area for similar, if more offensively minded, pragmatic reasons.
Point in case, Otto II's marriage with Theophano didn't really change things.
The gist of it is that it's about quite a bit more than "just" the matter of Empire (which still was more of a concern in Byzantium than it was in the West, who saw it as more or less settled and a bit less urgent) and more about Church politics, especially on areas where Roman and Constantinopolitan authority conflicted due to it being either newly Christianised (Slav people) or claimed by both (Czechia, most of the Balkans, South Italy), with various political actors openly exploiting the division to achieve their own goals.
The Bohemian Slavs warmly welcomed Byzantine monks, their learning, and gold to prop up their own Christianisation, but submitted to Rome backed by the close and threatening Frankish state; Bulgaria extorted a lot of support from the Pope to challenge the upstart Greeks, but ultimately fell square into the Orthodox area for similar, if more offensively minded, pragmatic reasons.
Point in case, Otto II's marriage with Theophano didn't really change things.
Last edited:
The example is invalid, as that marriage would not have resulted in a personal union between the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire; if Ermengarde and Constantine had married, Constantine would have inherited the Kingdom of Italy or at the very least strong claims upon it on Louis the Younger's death.
Otherwise, I see what you mean; the situation is more complicated than what I'd anticipated.
Last edited:
870's reality is not Crusader Kings (or the 1600s) and nobody would have cared for such a "personal union" any more than it suited their own ambitions nor would it have been respected any further than that mantained by actual force of arms (which is to say, very little).
My question is not whether or not it would have happened, which I also know to be severely unlikely in the best of scenarios, but what would have happened had it been enforced by Byzantium and maintained for at least a couple centuries.
It doesn't really address the issue of "illegitimate emperors" because that's not a position held only by Orthodox extremists. "There is only one Emperor, and he rules from Constantinople." had nothing to do with the schism.
Whether or not it would mean anything for Italy's future (and the empire's) really depends on how much is spent on making it so, as Evil Crusader noted.
I don't think this is quite nothing changes, but I don't think it addresses either religious or - for want of a better term- political-philosophical issues.
Whether or not it would mean anything for Italy's future (and the empire's) really depends on how much is spent on making it so, as Evil Crusader noted.
I don't think this is quite nothing changes, but I don't think it addresses either religious or - for want of a better term- political-philosophical issues.
I will admit I am loath to discuss blank historic checks, which I consider "at least two centuries of control" as.
Roughly speaking though it's as good an age as ever for Byzantium to re-integrate Italy, as the Vikings and Magyars are bound to happen and distract various potential enemies of the Empire that could move south-eastwards.
I'd expect the Empire to shift its attention to the Balkans rather than Anatolia, to secure at least one avenue of attack into Italy, and a large degree of Bulgaria screw; the Pope goes back to being a honorary first among peers and probably the Great Schism is posticipated if not outright averted for a long while even as the Papacy does better than OTL due to no saeculum obscurum.
The Mediterranean that emerges will see Byzantium as the Empire, though one poised to stay on the defensive as its size makes it harder for it to stay together, with the Frankish heirlooms instead reacting away from Rome and likely forging their own legacy going forwards.
At which point we find the Turkish incursions; (sorry for forcing you into a "blank historic check", as you called it, but a union or a strong bond would have to outlast the Ottonian dynasty's Italian and Imperial ambition while at some point being broken, for which I see the Turkish wars of the mid-11th century as an excellent opportunity for Italy to dip - two centuries was a pondered amount of time) in my opinion the Eastern Roman Empire would have not managed to fend off the Seljuqid menace even with Italy on the backseat providing manpower and supplies.