The challenge is to make Orthodox Christianity the state religion of France.
The challenge is to make Orthodox Christianity the state religion of France.
Greek Churches in the time of Justinian didn't differed fully from Latin Churches.
The main difference was essentially that the head of the said church was on the imperial court, and that the others were on the royal courts. It's not like the exarchates churches led a ground for Orthodox rites afterwards (even disregarding that we're arguing about "Let's make a pesant revolutionnary being in charge of a country in 1400, and let's assume that it makes the country turning communist 600 years after" scale of PoD-consequence).
Hell, if something, attacking what was probably your main support, religiously speaking, in the region would end with a Byzantine Spania-like multiplied by 10 : frontal opposition, including identitary, and removal of most administrative (including religious) features once taken back.
I don't really see which facts you're talking about, to be honest.While the Byzantine state was an excellent vehicle for Orthodoxy, the fact that it survived in regions where the Byzantines were ousted from and morphed into their own versions and developed their own state apparatus for Orthodoxy.
Except that in these case, it answered to a political necessity : Georgian states were often clients of the Empire, and put on a leash including religiously; as for Russia we're more close of a political entity trying to emulate an imperial model to structure itself (sort of mix between mimetism and political program). Eventually, it was the result of geopolitical situations and diplomacy from the Empire whom religion was only a part of it.Georgia and the Balkans are prime examples of this, and even Russia can be argued has similarities in planting Orthodoxy in a foreign land and allowing it to grow.
Then your view is awfully outdated. First, "Barbarians" were deeply romanized at this point (and were such since the IIIrd century at least) along Late Imperial lines.France in my view is ripe for this as it has a barbarized populace of many tribal backgrounds in a transient, agrarianizing state that equates religion for politics and power in the short run.
Again, for all that matters, you don't have a real difference between Latin and Greek Churches at this point. At the very best, it was a liturgic difference that most wouldn't have really noticed.The fact that they have the power over Latinized Romano-Gauls means that they can use Orthodoxy for their own means and even gain Byzantine support.
Well first, you didn't have something as an "Arian Church".Wouldn't a surviving Arian Chruch, being closer to Constantinople than Rome and a later communion between regular Eastern Orthodox Church and the Arians do the trick?
There's no good source about him being Homean, and every source we have point out the contrary (especially the fact he was baptised, when Homean baptism was considered valid by Orthodox and never made again when converted).Say Clovis I staying Arian, instead of joining up with the roman rite