Yeah.
Anyway, this is my first post here, and it looks like people get banned for pretty much no reason, but I had this idea and I'd like to discuss the possibility of it actually happening.
The premise is that the Roman Empire collapses sooner, probably during the Crisis of the 3rd Century (and when I mean collapse, I mean entirely collapse). There is no savior that appears, or maybe all of Rome's heroes die trying, and the empire is lost.
Of course, the immediate successor (politically and economically) is Byzantium, but we'll focus on Gaul for now. Now, given what the Empire of Gaul actually managed to achieve (nothing) in OTL, it wouldn't be unrealistic to call it there and have the west essentially disappear from history, but lets say that the nature of the collapse puts Gaul in a better spot than they were, and they remained entirely unchallenged for their initial rise. Christianity is, of course, still expanding into the Empire at this time; knowing the trends of history, huge, terrible events usually cause people to challenge their beliefs, so the faith might actually spread a little faster in the parts of the Empire that were hit the hardest. By the time the Christian religion converts most of Italy, the Gallic empire has collapsed (due to my skepticism on whether or not it could survive it's next few leaders), maybe even a couple different times. By whatever means, the tribes are no longer united.
Here is where I might see some objective backlash. I'm a student of Theology, and have never tried to put my ideological biases toward it, but there's a clear cultural or genetic link between north/western Europeans and Protestantism. Excluding France (and even they had the Huguenots), all north/western European countries are Protestant and share the same general complaints against Catholicism (quite socially restrictive, dislike of large or mandatory tithes, less focus on the 'collective' aspect of church and more on the personal side, not open to self-guided progression through faith). If what I've said before had actually happened, I think Gaul would become a new pocket of Christianity.
Charlemagne, if he would even be born, would grow up in a 7th century, Christianizing Gaul with an ancient, yet strong culture of respect and adoration toward the long-gone Roman Empire (signature of the Gauls' common opinion of Rome). Having converted to Christianity in OTL, and given it's practical utility in unifying the faiths of his people, doing so would be well in the cards.
Charlemagne proceeds to unify Gaul under the Frankish Empire, spreading Christianity among the tribes-- a Christianity that quickly bears little resemblance to the Greek Orthodoxy (given that there would be no prelude nor reason to stifle eastern theological differences, since there is no western power base in Rome, a Christianity similar to eastern "Orthodoxy" would be the default, based in Byzantium). Since the regions of contact between Gaul and Byzantium are essentially just Italy at this time, and with Italy being controlled by various tribes who opportunistically invaded during the collapse (or some minor level of Byzantine control), there's not much motivating the two to really care about each other. Unless Charlemagne seeks to conquer Italy, which would only occur should it be untouched by the Greeks, eastern and western Christianity instead diverge here, with "Celtic Catholicism" taking prominence in the Frankish Empire (or New Empire of Gaul). Speaking theologically, this strange version of Catholicism would still magnify the Roman aesthetic, but in a less prominent way, taking features and organizational structures and Gallicizing them. With this, I call back what I said about western Europeans. I think the main difference between eastern and western Christianity, in this timeline, would be a split between Orthodoxy (correct thought = salvation) and Orthopraxy (correct action = salvation), respectively. This seems to fit well with Gallic culture and north/western European tendencies.
Without too much further writing, I'll extend the timeline up to about 1400, between 800 and which, a very different variety of Northern Crusades happen. The Teutons are converted-- perhaps less violently due to the nature of "Celtic Catholicism"-- to the faith as the new Empire spreads into Prussia. The Huns (who were never fully defeated) and Slavs are dealt with slower than OTL, but wouldn't remain an obstacle for long. The Carolingian dynasty, rather than repeatedly splitting the land obtusely, might make the more logical decision (especially in this timeline) to keep the different tribes as reorganized, Christian kingdoms, with descendants of Charlemagne on the thrones of those most directly conquered by the Franks, and loyal, local leaders allowed to keep their own under pretense of conversion... and there you have it, Protestant HRE-- or at least, something kind of like the HRE. Probably not what you were expecting, maybe it's contrived, but I'm interested to hear everyones' thoughts. I've made a quick map to show what I was thinking of while writing, descriptions/borders subject to change.
Oh yeah, and the black plague might shake things up, OR, it might be far less lethal (Gauls are more spread out, pagans were usually described as cleaner than Christian peasants), accelerating the need for colonization once the word of Norwegian explorers got further south. Imagining a Celtic, Protestant HRE colonizing the Americas is a little too tempting.
Anyway, this is my first post here, and it looks like people get banned for pretty much no reason, but I had this idea and I'd like to discuss the possibility of it actually happening.
The premise is that the Roman Empire collapses sooner, probably during the Crisis of the 3rd Century (and when I mean collapse, I mean entirely collapse). There is no savior that appears, or maybe all of Rome's heroes die trying, and the empire is lost.
Of course, the immediate successor (politically and economically) is Byzantium, but we'll focus on Gaul for now. Now, given what the Empire of Gaul actually managed to achieve (nothing) in OTL, it wouldn't be unrealistic to call it there and have the west essentially disappear from history, but lets say that the nature of the collapse puts Gaul in a better spot than they were, and they remained entirely unchallenged for their initial rise. Christianity is, of course, still expanding into the Empire at this time; knowing the trends of history, huge, terrible events usually cause people to challenge their beliefs, so the faith might actually spread a little faster in the parts of the Empire that were hit the hardest. By the time the Christian religion converts most of Italy, the Gallic empire has collapsed (due to my skepticism on whether or not it could survive it's next few leaders), maybe even a couple different times. By whatever means, the tribes are no longer united.
Here is where I might see some objective backlash. I'm a student of Theology, and have never tried to put my ideological biases toward it, but there's a clear cultural or genetic link between north/western Europeans and Protestantism. Excluding France (and even they had the Huguenots), all north/western European countries are Protestant and share the same general complaints against Catholicism (quite socially restrictive, dislike of large or mandatory tithes, less focus on the 'collective' aspect of church and more on the personal side, not open to self-guided progression through faith). If what I've said before had actually happened, I think Gaul would become a new pocket of Christianity.
Charlemagne, if he would even be born, would grow up in a 7th century, Christianizing Gaul with an ancient, yet strong culture of respect and adoration toward the long-gone Roman Empire (signature of the Gauls' common opinion of Rome). Having converted to Christianity in OTL, and given it's practical utility in unifying the faiths of his people, doing so would be well in the cards.
Charlemagne proceeds to unify Gaul under the Frankish Empire, spreading Christianity among the tribes-- a Christianity that quickly bears little resemblance to the Greek Orthodoxy (given that there would be no prelude nor reason to stifle eastern theological differences, since there is no western power base in Rome, a Christianity similar to eastern "Orthodoxy" would be the default, based in Byzantium). Since the regions of contact between Gaul and Byzantium are essentially just Italy at this time, and with Italy being controlled by various tribes who opportunistically invaded during the collapse (or some minor level of Byzantine control), there's not much motivating the two to really care about each other. Unless Charlemagne seeks to conquer Italy, which would only occur should it be untouched by the Greeks, eastern and western Christianity instead diverge here, with "Celtic Catholicism" taking prominence in the Frankish Empire (or New Empire of Gaul). Speaking theologically, this strange version of Catholicism would still magnify the Roman aesthetic, but in a less prominent way, taking features and organizational structures and Gallicizing them. With this, I call back what I said about western Europeans. I think the main difference between eastern and western Christianity, in this timeline, would be a split between Orthodoxy (correct thought = salvation) and Orthopraxy (correct action = salvation), respectively. This seems to fit well with Gallic culture and north/western European tendencies.
Without too much further writing, I'll extend the timeline up to about 1400, between 800 and which, a very different variety of Northern Crusades happen. The Teutons are converted-- perhaps less violently due to the nature of "Celtic Catholicism"-- to the faith as the new Empire spreads into Prussia. The Huns (who were never fully defeated) and Slavs are dealt with slower than OTL, but wouldn't remain an obstacle for long. The Carolingian dynasty, rather than repeatedly splitting the land obtusely, might make the more logical decision (especially in this timeline) to keep the different tribes as reorganized, Christian kingdoms, with descendants of Charlemagne on the thrones of those most directly conquered by the Franks, and loyal, local leaders allowed to keep their own under pretense of conversion... and there you have it, Protestant HRE-- or at least, something kind of like the HRE. Probably not what you were expecting, maybe it's contrived, but I'm interested to hear everyones' thoughts. I've made a quick map to show what I was thinking of while writing, descriptions/borders subject to change.
Oh yeah, and the black plague might shake things up, OR, it might be far less lethal (Gauls are more spread out, pagans were usually described as cleaner than Christian peasants), accelerating the need for colonization once the word of Norwegian explorers got further south. Imagining a Celtic, Protestant HRE colonizing the Americas is a little too tempting.
