AHC: Most Powerful Possible Orthodox Church

Your challenge is to come up with a way for the dominant and more powerful church to be the Orthodox with many more regions that where catholic OTL being Orthodox.
Required New Orthodox States: Hungary, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Croatia, and Sicily
Bonus Points: Orthodox Poland, Golden Horde, and Germany

POD: Cannot predate 711 ad
 
Here's one: Hunnic Empire splits into Pannonian Hungary and Volga Hungary a la Bulgar Empire. Volga Hungary takes the place of OTL Volga Bulgaria and converts to Orthodoxy after Vladimir converts to said religion. Sweden on the other hand, here's the thread I made: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=221757

Golden Horde, simple PoD: Berke dies earlier, allowing Sartaq to consolidate the Orthodox (or Nestorian) Christian religion among the Tatar. Heck, you could even have all of Italy go Orthodox simply by a successful Byzantine conquest of the Italian Peninsula. Ditto with Croatia, although they might end up being assimilated into Serb culture. Lithuania, knock on effect by Orthodox Golden Horde: have Jogaila or Svitrigaila convert to Orthodoxy. The latter can take the throne of Lithuania, and if my hunch is right, you could even have the Lithuanians proselytize the Orthodox faith to the Baltic Prussians. Germany, impossible unless you want a Western Rite Orthodoxy. All PoDs above would take place in 800s AD.
 
Your challenge is to come up with a way for the dominant and more powerful church to be the Orthodox with many more regions that where catholic OTL being Orthodox.
Required New Orthodox States: Hungary, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Croatia, and Sicily
Bonus Points: Orthodox Poland, Golden Horde, and Germany

POD: Cannot predate 711 ad

An "Orthodox" Denmark, Poland, Italy, Germany and Sicily is not Orthodox Church but an Eastern Catholic Church, a Roman Catholic Church that has split with a 'Gallican' Catholic Church but reunited or remained united with the Greek Orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:
An "Orthodox" Denmark, Poland, Italy, Germany and Sicily is not Orthodox Church but an Eastern Catholic Church, a Roman Catholic Church that has split with a 'Gallican' Catholic Church but reunited or remained united with the Greek Orthodoxy.
So, how is this NOT Orthodox? OK, so as opposed to "Greek Catholic" (i.e. Uniates using Eastern Liturgy, but under the Pope), we might have "Latin Orthodox".

But that's not at all given.

Given a PoD as early as 711, all Scandinavia could easily have been evangelized from Byzantium rather than Rome. As could Poland.

Sicily was already in the Byzantine rule, and probably Liturgy.

Even Germany wasn't fully RC at that point. Conversion efforts out of England were already in process, but the main conversion effort was by Charlemagne after the PoD.

The EASIEST way to get an 'Orthodox' most of Europe would be if the Synod of Whitby (664) had gone the other way, making England follow Celtic Christianity rather than allegiance to Rome. But, that's before the stated cut off date.

If some early English king decided to go with Byzantium instead of Rome (presumably over power issues) that would help. Of course, by the time England was united it's too late for the English evangelization of the continent to help with 'orthodoxification'.

Byzantine evangelists got all the way to Iceland iOTL, trying to convert people to the 'true doctrine', so if we just have them be more successful, we could get the whole north Orthodox.
 
So, how is this NOT Orthodox? OK, so as opposed to "Greek Catholic" (i.e. Uniates using Eastern Liturgy, but under the Pope), we might have "Latin Orthodox".

But that's not at all given.

Given a PoD as early as 711, all Scandinavia could easily have been evangelized from Byzantium rather than Rome. As could Poland.

Sicily was already in the Byzantine rule, and probably Liturgy.

Even Germany wasn't fully RC at that point. Conversion efforts out of England were already in process, but the main conversion effort was by Charlemagne after the PoD.

The EASIEST way to get an 'Orthodox' most of Europe would be if the Synod of Whitby (664) had gone the other way, making England follow Celtic Christianity rather than allegiance to Rome. But, that's before the stated cut off date.

If some early English king decided to go with Byzantium instead of Rome (presumably over power issues) that would help. Of course, by the time England was united it's too late for the English evangelization of the continent to help with 'orthodoxification'.

Byzantine evangelists got all the way to Iceland iOTL, trying to convert people to the 'true doctrine', so if we just have them be more successful, we could get the whole north Orthodox.
The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church did not split until after the 11th century there were two rites, the Greek Rite and the Latin Rite, so it is not an Orthodox Church if most of Europe accepts the Greek Rite, we will end up with a Greek dominated Christianity not Latin dominated if the Greek Rite prevailed and it will be in no way called Orthodox, I think Byzantine Catholic Church is the best name for that, just with the pope in Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church did not split until after the 11th century there were two rites, the Greek Rite and the Latin Rite, so it is not an Orthodox Church if most of Europe accepts the Greek Rite, we will end up with a Greek dominated Christianity not Latin dominated if the Greek Rite prevailed and it will be in no way called Orthodox, I think Byzantine Catholic Church is the best name for that, just with the pope in Constantinople.
No, because, although the formal split didn't happen until the 11th century, as you say, Rome (in the person of the Pope) clearly claimed absolute authority over the church. And there were other divisions. The Filioque clause being item 2 on the agenda.

It is a lot more complicated than the language of worship - which wasn't set in stone, either. Some of the Slavic Orthodox used Old Church Slavonic, for instance. I'm not sure when Russian was used in the Russian church.

Heck, even in the west, there were local churches that used the vernacular in their rites, and were still in Union with Rome.

As I say, the Byzantine missionaries in Iceland were there, and weren't trying to make Iceland loyal to Rome. (Admittedly, trying to figure out who sent them and just what their agenda was is difficult - what "Ermski" is supposed to mean - Armenian? ?? and why they claimed to be bishops...) This was pre-1000, by a bit, in the days when Iceland was still pagan.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
The Roman patriarchs never get uppity and continue to acknowledge the legitimate authority of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch as Primus inter Pares.
 
The Roman patriarchs never get uppity and continue to acknowledge the legitimate authority of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch as Primus inter Pares.

The Church of Rome was always recognised as Primus inter pares, the great schism arose over the Pope claiming to be Primus.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
The Church of Rome was always recognised as Primus inter pares, the great schism arose over the Pope claiming to be Primus.
No it wasn't; the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was seen as the Primus as his was the oldest patriarchate (St. Andrew).

The Popes claimed to be Primus because they got swollen heads from being the top churchmen in the West and then used the excuse of St. Peter founding their see to claim ecclesiastic supremacy.

If another patriarchate had been established in WE, you might be able to curb Papal bullishness enough to keep them in the Church.
 
No it wasn't; the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was seen as the Primus as his was the oldest patriarchate (St. Andrew).

The Popes claimed to be Primus because they got swollen heads from being the top churchmen in the West and then used the excuse of St. Peter founding their see to claim ecclesiastic supremacy.

If another patriarchate had been established in WE, you might be able to curb Papal bullishness enough to keep them in the Church.
Say WHAT?
Jerusalem is much older than Constantinople, in terms of age of churches/ Patriarchies. And Peter was the 'head of the Church', and Popes, as his successors, had that authority.

Among ORTHODOX churches, the Ecumenical Patriarch is primus inter pares, but that has far more to do with being in the capital of the Roman Empire than it has with Apostolic seniority.

No, in all the stuff I've read, the Orthodox were will to concede seniority to the Pope, but no authority. That is, in those times when they were actually talking and trying to paper over the cracks. I'm sure more extreme claims have been advanced at other times.
 
No it wasn't; the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was seen as the Primus as his was the oldest patriarchate (St. Andrew).

The Popes claimed to be Primus because they got swollen heads from being the top churchmen in the West and then used the excuse of St. Peter founding their see to claim ecclesiastic supremacy.

If another patriarchate had been established in WE, you might be able to curb Papal bullishness enough to keep them in the Church.

From The Orthodox Church News Magazine
Editorial of Nativity/Theophany 2007
Volume 43

The reality is different—at the same time simpler and more complicated. There is, and always has been, an Orthodox consensus that the bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among all the patriarchs and bishops of the Christian West and the Christian East—when there is no schism between Rome and the Orthodox Churches. When the unity of the Christian West and the Christian East was lost (approximately in the 11th century), the primacy of honor among the Orthodox Churches passed on to Constantinople, where it remains.
Thus, from the Orthodox point of view, the primacy which the bishop of Rome has depends on the full unity of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox, unity comes before primacy.
 
Say WHAT?
Jerusalem is much older than Constantinople, in terms of age of churches/ Patriarchies. And Peter was the 'head of the Church', and Popes, as his successors, had that authority.

Among ORTHODOX churches, the Ecumenical Patriarch is primus inter pares, but that has far more to do with being in the capital of the Roman Empire than it has with Apostolic seniority.

No, in all the stuff I've read, the Orthodox were will to concede seniority to the Pope, but no authority. That is, in those times when they were actually talking and trying to paper over the cracks. I'm sure more extreme claims have been advanced at other times.

Yes Jerusalem and Antioch are the oldest patriarchates, and yes the Patriarchate of Rome has always been recognised as having primacy of honor, after the schism the title passed to Constantinople which should theoretically be locum tenens of Rome and have all Orthodox believers in the West under its jurisdiction, but this theory is not supported at all in the modern orthodox church, as diasporic branches of the various national branches are prefered over ecumenical patriarchate authority.
 
I suppose one way you could achieve a powerful Orthodox church is sometime between the fall of the Western Empire and the rise of Islam is to have the Emperor die without and heir and have the Patriarch of Constantinople take control of the reins of power. Should he survive a coup attempt or achieve some great victory in battle he could claim that it's clearly Gods will for the church to run the empire. With a church run empire there is a fair chance that Mohammed could be convinced to support the empire as they would no doubt be seeking to convert the Arabs.
 
No, because, although the formal split didn't happen until the 11th century, as you say, Rome (in the person of the Pope) clearly claimed absolute authority over the church. And there were other divisions. The Filioque clause being item 2 on the agenda.

It is a lot more complicated than the language of worship - which wasn't set in stone, either. Some of the Slavic Orthodox used Old Church Slavonic, for instance. I'm not sure when Russian was used in the Russian church.

Heck, even in the west, there were local churches that used the vernacular in their rites, and were still in Union with Rome.

As I say, the Byzantine missionaries in Iceland were there, and weren't trying to make Iceland loyal to Rome. (Admittedly, trying to figure out who sent them and just what their agenda was is difficult - what "Ermski" is supposed to mean - Armenian? ?? and why they claimed to be bishops...) This was pre-1000, by a bit, in the days when Iceland was still pagan.
Yes, an Orthodox Iceland is possible but a Greek Rite Christianity that controls even Rome cannot be called Orthodox, the right term for this Eastern Christianity or in that case Greek Rite Christianity or Byzantine Church.


The Roman patriarchs never get uppity and continue to acknowledge the legitimate authority of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch as Primus inter Pares.

The Church of Rome was always recognised as Primus inter pares, the great schism arose over the Pope claiming to be Primus.

No it wasn't; the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was seen as the Primus as his was the oldest patriarchate (St. Andrew).

The Popes claimed to be Primus because they got swollen heads from being the top churchmen in the West and then used the excuse of St. Peter founding their see to claim ecclesiastic supremacy.

If another patriarchate had been established in WE, you might be able to curb Papal bullishness enough to keep them in the Church.

Say WHAT?
Jerusalem is much older than Constantinople, in terms of age of churches/ Patriarchies. And Peter was the 'head of the Church', and Popes, as his successors, had that authority.

Among ORTHODOX churches, the Ecumenical Patriarch is primus inter pares, but that has far more to do with being in the capital of the Roman Empire than it has with Apostolic seniority.

No, in all the stuff I've read, the Orthodox were will to concede seniority to the Pope, but no authority. That is, in those times when they were actually talking and trying to paper over the cracks. I'm sure more extreme claims have been advanced at other times.
Eastern Christianity
From The Orthodox Church News Magazine
Editorial of Nativity/Theophany 2007
Volume 43

Yes Jerusalem and Antioch are the oldest patriarchates, and yes the Patriarchate of Rome has always been recognised as having primacy of honor, after the schism the title passed to Constantinople which should theoretically be locum tenens of Rome and have all Orthodox believers in the West under its jurisdiction, but this theory is not supported at all in the modern orthodox church, as diasporic branches of the various national branches are prefered over ecumenical patriarchate authority.

I suppose one way you could achieve a powerful Orthodox church is sometime between the fall of the Western Empire and the rise of Islam is to have the Emperor die without and heir and have the Patriarch of Constantinople take control of the reins of power. Should he survive a coup attempt or achieve some great victory in battle he could claim that it's clearly Gods will for the church to run the empire. With a church run empire there is a fair chance that Mohammed could be convinced to support the empire as they would no doubt be seeking to convert the Arabs.
Yes, it is not an Orthodox Church but a Greek Rite Christian Church* or Byzantine Church.
 
Top