AHC: Eunuch Christian Church

The Council of Nicaea was half a century before the Gothic war; plenty of time to butterfly away the Gothic settlements.
I mean that the things that led to mass Gothic migrations in the first place (the cooling climate, Huns in the East, Rome being split in two by Diocletian, etc) are still happening, plus Rome still needs soldiers for its armies, which was already becoming a challenge. A disaster like Adrianapole is certainly avertable, but the overall factors leading to migration and demographic changes are already there.
 
i wonder what effect 'eunuch priesthood' have on lower orders: deacon, acolyte, lector, etc ? Putting 'real man' under eunuch not always acceptable and possibility of inappropriate relation between single man and eunuch. will lower orders bevome less important and less numerous ? can more women/nuns gain more places in lower order since eunuch-woman relation less troubling than eunuch-man relation ? or will church prefer to put married couple in lower order ?

I'd almost imagine that they'd be more numerous, since between the rate of death and the unpleasant nature of the process (compared to OTL's far more simple process), you'd see less priests and more deacons.

Castration with removal of the testes only is a good deal less risky than removal of all male genitals. Castration of male animals was common, and frankly the difference between that and castrating a human is not so much. Gelding of animals did not have a major complication/death rate - if it did it certainly would have been uncommon as losing valuable livestock is devastating. Removal of penis, scrotum, and testicles is a much larger deal, more likely to cause issues with severe bleeding. There is also the issue of urinary incontinence with removal of the penis.

I find a death rate for simple castration, which was performed electively in healthy individuals, quoted at 75% to be very high. At some slave depots in Africa there were "assembly lines" for castration with very experienced "operators". Would love to see the source for this death rate estimate. The end result of castration in terms of body habitus, sexual desires, and more depends on the age of castration: prepubertal, puberty, or adult.

I wonder if, assuming butterflies don't remove it, whether or not the Protestant churches will reject castration completely or in part. Also, if this becomes established, as one gets to more modern times (say 19th century and beyond) will castration before taking vows will fall out of fashion or be banned (like castrati for singing) - only being permitted for adults.

Evidently removing the testes is "safer" than removing the entire set of genitals. That 75% risk is high (as noted, this would be done with more care than with a prisoner or a slave), but even only the testes, when done with the instruments being used, with the poor knowledge of sanitation, that will result in many deaths. As I noted, this will produce saints. A typical story might involve someone who dies after being castrated, but as they lay him in the grave, he suddenly revives. And if you do die for real, if you lived a pious life beforehand, you'll probably get sainthood before long. All you ever wanted was to be a priest, you got your wish, you died in the process of becoming one, and miracles became associated with your corpse. Perhaps you even heal those suffering from illness and infection after being castrated. The religious potential is ridiculously huge.

Which version of castration the church would end up preferring would probably become a debate in of itself. My guess is the group which wants the removal of only the testes will win out. They'll have more clergy who survive anyway. The rate of death is still high. My guess is, the people would be castrated as adults, except for possibly monks who would be castrated as teenagers.

And this does completely sound like something any Reformation would reject. Think of it. You're a learned man, you think you can preach the Bible to others, and then you realise you have to be castrated to be an actually leader in the church? And if the more mainstream *Protestant sects do not, a major group will emerge which completely rejects castration.
 
And this does completely sound like something any Reformation would reject. Think of it. You're a learned man, you think you can preach the Bible to others, and then you realize you have to be castrated to be an actually leader in the church? And if the more mainstream *Protestant sects do not, a major group will emerge which completely rejects castration.
"Reformation" here meaning "reformist" movements in the church, many of which are likely to be called heretical, well before (like, centuries before) the 16th Century.
 
With PoDs after the Council of Nicea, could Christianity have developed a tradition of castration for men joining the clergy? And to be clear, my preference is for this to be within Trinitarian Christianity, or those who recite the Nicene Creed; difficult, I realize. It may, or might not, turn into a condition of being elevated to the priesthood, but should survive as a viable and accepted (more or less) path to spiritual growth, expressing devotion to God and the Church, etc.

If such a thing can be managed to survive for at least a few centuries, what would be the effect on Christianity and western civilization?
If they follow Francis of Assisi, maybe ? He regretted his decision but maybe it causes a general trend which becomes a doctrine . Francis becomes a Bernhard of Clarimoux like role model regarding monastry life which rules eventually applies for all priests.
 
Last edited:
If they follow Francis of Assisi, maybe ? He regreted his decision but maybe it causes a general trend which becomes a doctrine . Francis becomes a Bernhard of Clarimoux like role model regarding monastry life which rules eventually applies for all priests.

Wait, Francis of Assisi was castrated?! That's the first time I've heard anything about it.
 
I agree that castration, which medically means removal of the testes without penectomy (removal of the penis), under the conditions that existed during the time frame being discussed will result in some deaths due to uncontrolled bleeding or infection. The major issues do not have to do with instruments (the instruments of this period are not as different from modern instruments as you might think), or the surgical skill of the castrators who had significant experience. As noted the issues are uncontrolled bleeding and infection - at this time ligatures for vessels to control bleeding were not generally used, and of course use of antiseptics or sterilization was not used. While the relatively rich blood supply of this area could cause a problem with bleeding, these were smaller vessels which could be dealt with by direct pressure, a technique known and used at the time. This same blood supply mitigates against infection, although by no means eliminates it. It is worth noting that many surgical infections of the time, while causing suffering, would eventual end up healing - not all infections resulting in death by a long chalk.

Wars advanced trauma care from day one. Using that as an example, if we assume that castration becomes something being done not to prisoners or slaves who are, to some extent, disposable, but rather to "citizens" of value, you'll see efforts made to improve techniques. Again, remember that gelding of valuable livestock was widespread, and this skill can transfer. This doesn't mean you'll see some major overall advance in medicine, this requires a good deal of scientific advancement across the board. More widespread castration, both adult and childhood, of non-slaves/prisoners, on a voluntary basis for religious reasons, will result in better techniques and reduced mortality and morbidity.
 
So here's an image -- some centuries after our PoD in the 4th or early 5th century, the WRE still hasn't fallen; maybe there are still two Roman Empires, maybe they've found some way to tie the two together administratively, religiously, or what have you. The greater land that calls itself "Rome" finds itself (for a historical period) essentially run by eunuchs; not only do they fill the entirety of the (state) church's episcopate, but the emperor (or both emperors) is effectively a figurehead for imperial courts filled and run by ambitious cut men (a la Eutropius).

Questions of how the empire in the west survives aside, does this seem like a plausible scenario? (again, we're talking centuries after the PoD)
 
Top