AHC: a native christian kingdom in India or Indonesia

I was thinking less as partners of the Portuguese within Portuguese territory and more as neighbors and allies. The Portuguese have their own territories and a small polity next door is claimed and ruled by the StTCs, the Portuguese accept them as handy allies who are heretics rather than heathens and pagans.

Edit: sorry Flocc, I didn't realise it was you.

Hello!

My gut feeling is that this isn't particularly practical. Catholicism did have a genuine base among the lower castes (as testified by the large numbers who converted to it- Roman Catholics in Kerala outnumber all the St Thomas Christian factions put together), and the Portuguese were actively hostile towards the Surianis (StTCs), even though through doing so they were alienating a population with a pivotal economic role and undermining their own trade position. Why give concessions to an economically powerful but hostile minority when you have a larger group, specifically beholden to you, to work with?

IOTL the Portuguese don't seem to have made much political use of the converts and the Suriani seem to have actively worked with local Hindu aristocracies to undermine Portuguese dominance (leading to a gradual ebbing of Portuguese influence in Kerala).

If we're considering alternative courses of action, the path of least resistance, so to speak, is to rely more on the converts, rather than on doing a 180-degree turn on your attitude towards the Suriani.
 
The problem with that is I'm a Catholic and having more Catholics sounds boring, The one thing history isnt short on is catholic kingdoms. Having a homegrown Indian Christian kingdom tracing its ancestry to St Thomas himself is way cooler to me.
 

fi11222

Banned
I think that it is quite feasible to have a Christian Arab Kingdom in South India in the 6th Century.

At that time, the Nestorian Church based in Iraq had a lot of reach in Asia, including India. There were extremely active trade contacts between the west coast of India and the Persian Gulf. In many ways, the Persian Gulf + Northern Indian Ocean had become a sort of Mediterranean of the East form at least the early Common Era.

One possible POD would be the conflict between the Lakhmid Arab king Al Numan III and Khosrau II in the 590s. One can imagine a scenarion in which this king, or some of his relatives, is expelled from Mesopotamia by the Sassanid monarch and goes on to found a Nestorian Christian Arab kingdom in Gujarat or the Konkani coast. It would be a sort of Eastern Christian Al-Andalus. The political situation in India, after the disintegration of the Gupta Empire, would allow this quite easily. Except for the Cholas, no major Indian state was ever very interested in overseas trade and therefore no one cared about who set foot on the western coast of India except very local actors.

After that, one could imagine many ways in which this Christian Arab Indian kingdom goes on to become a local power and even a regional one by having it play a role in resisting Islam's expansion into India from the Xth century onwards.
 
The problem with that is I'm a Catholic and having more Catholics sounds boring, The one thing history isnt short on is catholic kingdoms.

But history is short on Catholic kingdoms in India, for very good reason. Which is what makes this scenario very hard.

Except for the Cholas, no major Indian state was ever very interested in overseas trade

No, not at all. The Cholas were just the strongest of the Indian trading empires. Quite frankly, India, especially the south, but also Bengal and Gujarat, held quite strong trade links with the rest of the world. And India's whole black water taboo has been greatly exaggerated.
 

fi11222

Banned
No, not at all. The Cholas were just the strongest of the Indian trading empires. Quite frankly, India, especially the south, but also Bengal and Gujarat, held quite strong trade links with the rest of the world. And India's whole black water taboo has been greatly exaggerated.
I am just saying that Indian princes, appart from the Cholas, do not seem to have had a particularly keen interest in maritime trade. Of course, trade did take place on a large scale and Gujarat and Bengal were always indeed major hubs. But mostly without political involvement. Most major Indian powers through the centuries (Guptas, Kushans, Mauryas, Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, ... even Vijayanagar) are land-oriented polities. Their capitals are never on the coast and they do not have a navy. That is why it was possible for the Western powers to open trade outposts up and down both Eastern and Western coasts coast in the 16th and 17th centuries without disrupting the balance of power on the subcontinent in a major way.

The same applies here and this is what would make a 6th century coastal Nestorian Christian Arab kingdom plausible.
 
Last edited:
OTL in 1889, the Ahmadi sect of Islam formed in Northern India. Ahmadis follow most of the pillars of Islam except for the belief that the prophet Mohammed was the last profit. Instead, Ahmadis believe in a 700 year cycle of prophets
They also hold Jesus Christ (born 600 years before Mohammed) as a major prophet. They also believe that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross, but was secretly hustled to India where he married, sired children and eventually died of old age. Ahmadis believe that Jesus devoted the last part of his life (maybe 30 years) to studying Islam and a Budism and finding common beliefs.
Today the majority of Ahmadis live in Pakistan or the North Indian states of Jamu and Kashmir. Foreign tourists are discouraged from visiting J&K because of recent political violence. Sadly, Mainstream Muslims dislike Ahmadis and treat them as heretics.
 
I think that it is quite feasible to have a Christian Arab Kingdom in South India in the 6th Century.
...Except for the Cholas, no major Indian state was ever very interested in overseas trade and therefore no one cared about who set foot on the western coast of India except very local actors.

These local actors are still relatively organised trading kingdoms. How do the Lakhmids manage to come in and take over?
 
The problem with that is I'm a Catholic and having more Catholics sounds boring, The one thing history isnt short on is catholic kingdoms. Having a homegrown Indian Christian kingdom tracing its ancestry to St Thomas himself is way cooler to me.
Fair enough :D The trouble is that limiting yourself to the Suriani means you have extremely limited numbers to work with.
 
Anyways, to get a Christian Indian kingdom, perhaps the easiest way is to have a Christian Persia. Avoid the Sassanid reforms of Zoroastrianism, and that's the likely result.

So, the Sassanids had this cadet branch known as the Indo-Sassanids, or Kushanshahs, in the hinterland of the Sassanid Empire. So long as the Christian Persian kingdom is large enough, such a kingdom can exist in the Persian hinterland.
 
By supporting one against the other for example.

See, but to do this you have to come from a position of some power. In the scenario you posit, you've got some guy who's already lost a succession struggle back in Arabia.

One possible POD would be the conflict between the Lakhmid Arab king Al Numan III and Khosrau II in the 590s. One can imagine a scenarion in which this king, or some of his relatives, is expelled from Mesopotamia by the Sassanid monarch and goes on to found a Nestorian Christian Arab kingdom in Gujarat or the Konkani coast. It would be a sort of Eastern Christian Al-Andalus.

How is this any sort of power base to launch a takeover? It's not as if Al Numan has machineguns or dragons.
 

fi11222

Banned
@Flocculentio: The power base is the Christian population that already exists along the West coast of India by that time. A charismatic leader, accompanied by a few hundred followers could easily gather a substiantial clientele within that segment in a few years. He could then use this as a starting point to recruit a small army which he would put in the service of a local magnate. Preferably one which is struggling to keep his throne and would welcome any help. Then he could act as the Normans did in Southern Italy and Sicily in the Middle Ages and carve out a principality for himself as Robert Guiscard did.
 
How about a stronger Portuguese presence in India and instead of becoming combative with Indian Christians they give them preferential treatment as a tool for conversion. As Portuguese power grows one of the local Indian states converts to Christianity to ensure their political and military support.
hmm stronger Portugese Indian Empire, due to no Brazil and more investment out east. Napoleon invades the peninsula and wins, Portugal's monarchy went into exile in Goa, not Rio and as Napoleon won never went home. Portugal is effectively relocated to India. Over time becomes a strongly catholic indo-portugeese nation, at the heart of an Asian empire including bits of Indonesia and china.
 
Do you also plan to have a butterfly genocide ITTL?
well it would probably only take two different decisions. the Vatican rules wholly in favour of Spain when asked to rule on South America, and another less able British general gets sent to the peninsula, there were plenty of them after all.
 
well it would probably only take two different decisions. the Vatican rules wholly in favour of Spain when asked to rule on South America, and another less able British general gets sent to the peninsula, there were plenty of them after all.

Hapsburg Spain having all of South America would clearly have massive effects that would mean no Napoleon.
 
Top