(As-of-yet-unnamed) Gothic Empire TL

I've finally finished the remade flowchart of European rulers I mentioned previously. I don't think it looks as nice as the last one, and it's also arguably less "complete", even though it covers a lot more ground.

Kings.png


I've also realised I might need to redo India, which is a region I have been desperately trying to avoid at all dealing with, as I know basically nothing of Indian history. Oh, well; expect some more retconning of the 815 AD world map.
 
Last edited:
Disclaimer: I'm currently working out of a laptop with just a trackpad, that's why there aren't any maps or graphics in this post. This is also mostly going to be a sort of "thinking out loud" post, the ideas here require a bit more fleshing out before I'm sure of them, but the end result is probably going to be somewhat similar, unless someone here can give me a good reason that this definetly doesn't work.

India:
India turned out to be a lot easier of a fix than I had feared. As far as I can tell, the Pratihara dynasty rose to prominence primarily because of their success in fighting off the Arab invaders in the 8th century, after the conquest of Sindh and the destruction of the Hindu Chacha dynasty. No Arab conquest of Persia means no Arabs in Sindh in the 8th century means no one for the Pratiharas to get rich defeating. No Pratiharas means no challenger to the Pala capture of Kannauj, who thus expand their rule across the entire Gangetic Plain by the middle of the 8th century.
I can't really find specifics about how or why exactly the Rashtrakuta dynasty that ruled Deccan came to prominence. Their first ruler was a general of the Chalukyas who overthrow the Maharaja in 753 CE after helping defeat the Arab invaders. If someone knows more about this then do sound off, but as far as I can tell their rise also hinged on fighting off Arab invaders, so they're at least going to be weaker ITTL than they were IOTL, which means even less challenges for the Pala.
So, all in all, we end up with a big ol' Buddhist-preference (they also patronized Shaivism but the Pala kings were afaik almost all Buddhists) empire dominating the entire Gangetic Plain, from their border with the Shahis of Kabul in the west to Bengal and Assam in the east. They'll definetly be able to check the advance of the Kabulis , and once they're in charge of the richest part of India I don't see much purpose to them attempting to tangle with empires further south, so establishing dominance over the Tibetans and Burmese and expanding Buddhist influence might be their primary goal. Maybe they grow more exclusivist regarding their Buddhism and stop patronizing Hinduism, although I think that's a lot less likely. So, a mostly Buddhist mandala emanating out from Bengal across the Gangetic Plain, up the Tibetan Plateau, and down into Indochina and Nusantara?

The Oghuzes
As of the last WIP post (i.e 930 CE), the Oghuzes are a mostly irrelevant confederation of tribes just east of the Caspian Sea ruled by a Yabghu. However, with the collapse of the Uyghur Khaganate and the establishment of the Western Uyghur Khanate in the Balkash basin, and the growing ambitions of the Varazids of Samarkand, things are about to change. By the 970s, the Western Uyghurs have subjected the tribes of the OTL Kazakh Steppe - the Kimeks and Cumans and Kipchaks and such - and are pressuring the Oghuzes, while the Varazids have crossed the Oxus river, defeating the Ispahbudhanids and relegating them to a small territory south of the Great Wall of Gorgan. The Oghuzes are at this point still mostly Steppe pagans, but some of the clans had been convinced by missionaries from Persia to convert to Christianity, specifically of the East Syriac variety. After a brief conflict regarding the succession of the Yabghu, most of the Oghuzes decide to seize the opportunity of a weakened Khazar Khaganate to the west (due to Rus' incursions) and migrate. In 981, the Khazar capital of Atil is sacked, and the rulers flee to Sarkel. Sarkel is then subsequently sacked the following year, and the Khaganate's rulers are captured and executed. With their state effectively decapitated, the Khazars fracture into a conglomeration of fiefdoms in the north Caucasus. This display of force by the newborn Oghuz Khanate convinces the Pechenegs - located around the lower Dnieper, east of the Magyar-controlled Etelköz, and until then tributaries of the Khazars - to unite under the former's banner, forming the Khaganate of the Twenty Arrow People, referring to the twenty tribes of the Oghuzes and Pechenegs now under their banner, also called the Oghuz Khaganate or the Yeva Khaganate, after the ruling Yıva clan. The Yıva were one of the Turkic tribes to convert to Christianity, which means that this state is from birth at least nominally Christian.
In 1000 CE, the Yeva Khaganate sack the great trade city of Kiev, until then controlled by the Rus' peoples. This is a crucial turning point in the history of the steppe, as the enormous wealth flowing north along the Dnieper and Volga trade routes by way of the Rus' is now rerouted. Expelled from their fairly recently-conquered capital of Kiev, the Rus' become isolated further north and, much like the Khazars, reduced to a collection of squabbling princedoms. The developing core of the Rus kingdom shifts away from Kiev back to Smolensk, Novgorod and Polotsk, and many of the east Slavic peoples move along with it to escape the raids of the Turks.

The Turks grow to be allies of the Romans, due to both good relations built by the trans-Black Sea trade, as well as a wide array of common enemies; Bulgars, Magyars and Slavs. Already having a large Christian population, most significantly the ruling class, also helps relations between the two. The Yeva rulers agree to allow Roman missionaries to begin work with other tribes; by 1021 the Roman Orthodox bible is translated into the Oghuz language (known as the Oghuz or Turkoman bible), and by 1084, Kiev is granted the status of a Metropolis within the Orthodox Church, autonomous under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, while the Khagan Temür II (aka. Temür Khilij) proclaims Roman Orthodoxy the official faith of the Oghuz state, and adopts a system of double naming and titulature, becoming both Khagan Temür II and Emperor Thomas I (chosen due to A) Temür and Thomas kinda sound the same and B) the original christian faith of the Oghuz was that of the Church of the East, whose traditional founder and patron saint was Thomas the Apostle, who is thus also the patron saint of the Christian Turks). This results in dissatisfaction among some more pagan tribes, but the integrity of the empire is not significantly threatened, as the majority of the state's subjects already had within them significant Orthodox leadership, or at least Christian.

Soon after arriving in eastern Europe, the Turks come into conflict with the Moravian Kingdom over sovereignty of the western Slavic peoples, many of whom, like the east Slavs, begin to migrate away from the Turks, moving further west and putting pressure on the Germanic Frankish Empire, opening up a new front in the Papist-Eastern conflict.
 
Last edited:
Last "ideas post" ended up being more fleshed out than intended (the "Christian Turkish Empire" thing had been percolating for a while), so here are some actually bullet-point ideas that are probably going to end up happening (this is me putting off doing southeast Asia and Nusantara in 930):
  • Succession-related troubles in the Germanic Empire, a la what happened to the Carolingian Empire after Louis the Pious. The pressure placed on the empire by the Turkic invasion and subsequent Slavic migration westward (sidenote: these migrations aren't going to end up with a Slavic-majority German region, in fact they're not going to move that far west as a whole, it's more of a concentration of Slavic peoples on the eastern frontier than a total migration, but increased population density means increased political centralisation means more centralized states starting to appear). I think I might have a war between a Neustria-based monarch and an Austrasia-based monarch over the succession of imperium resulting in an increased decentralization of the empire as a Papacy-mediated peace results in the formal dissolution of the Kingdom of the Franks (Neustria, Austrasia and parts of Aquitania; see previous post about the Frankish empire) into the Kingdom of Neustria and the Kingdom of Austrasia under the Empire of the Germans, Romans and the Whole of the West. HRE covering all of France, Germany and bits of England let's goooooo.
  • The Varazids of Samarkand are going to become the next Big Thing in Iran and Turan. Seizing all of Turan south of the Aral Sea (the Uyghurs are going use the steppes north of the Aral Sea as their base to try and go back into the Mongol Steppe and Xinjiang) by the 960s, tussling with the Kabul Shahis and establishing hegemony over the great cities of Khorasan in order to start a conflict with the Spandiyadhians of Rayy by the 990s, and then the Kawusids and Surenas, probably controlling all of the Iranian Plateau and Khorasan by the 1020s, at which point they start to come into conflict with the Sasanians, just in time for...
  • An East Syriac Christian Kingdom of Assyria. This is something I teased way back in post #9, and which has been sitting as something I wanted to happen in the first half of the 1000s for a while. I've already established that, during the great Iranian Civil War of the last quarter of the 700s, the Catholicos of the Church of the East (full title: Patriarch of The Cities of Seleucia & Ctesiphon and Catholicos of all the East on the Holy Apostolic See of Saint Thomas of the Apostolic Church of the East) threw support behind the shahrab (satrap) of the Sasanian province of Asoristan - a faithful of the Church of the East himself - and proclaimed him King Aram I of Nineveh and the Syrians. Aram became a piece in the mosaic of tributaries established during the reconsolidation of Sassanid Iran. Then, with the Varazids bearing down and a general decentralization of power due to weakening authority in Sasanian Mesopotamia, the successor of Aram I sees an opportunity. The Sasanians are going to lose Mesopotamia as a result of some disastrous battle with the Varazids somewhere in the negihbourhood of the Zagros mountains, but the Varazids are not themselves going to be able to capitalize on them for reasons I have yet to elaborate on (West Uyghur raiding?). This leaves Mesopotamia - one of the wealthiest region in the world - almost completely unprotected by imperial authority. Aram's successor, King Eliya, rapidly moves an army on Ctesiphon (at this point known better as Mahoza, 'The Cities'), sweeping aside the remaining Sasanian garrisons in the region and establishing a Christian empire with very close ties to the Eastern Church. Following the capture of Ctesiphon, Eliya is crowned by the Catholicos under a new title: Qisar Eliya I of Ashurayu & Beth Nahrain - Emperor of Assyria and the Land Between the Rivers, the first independent Syriac empire since the infamous Fall of Nineveh, some 1600 years before.
  • The Later Tang are going to gradually stabilize through the middle of the 900s, and start (re-)conquering down south after 950, starting with Nanping and parts of Wu, then Wuyue and parts of Chu. Insert a war with the Khitans that results in the Shatuo Tang regaining the Sixteen Prefectures, increased imperial authority over the Western Protectorate, and annexation of the Tangut territory, and we reach a peak of the Later Tang by the time their third emperor dies somewhere in the first quarter of the 11th century. The Southern Han, having been slightly more successful in their efforts against the Viet-controlled Jinghai region, manage to become the dominant force in southern China. However, with the death of the third emperor the Han (the ethnicity this time, not the dynasty) aristocracy have finally had enough of Turkic rule and instigate a coup (don't mind the specifics, I'll figure it out). Maybe a decade and a bit of war between this new Han dynasty and the Later Tang before the latter is firmly destroyed and Shatuo Turks are purged from the administration. I'm probably going to have this new dynasty be this TLs Song, i.e very important and advanced but more limited in direct territorial control than previous dynasties.
  • Papism spreading through to the Lechites (non-Czechoslovakomoravian West Slavs) as they are sandwiched between orthodox Turks, orthodox Moravians and papist Germans, spreading via Baltic Sea trade (and warfare) to Scandinavia, the Baltic peoples, and maybe even eventually the Rus'? They firmly reject Roman Orthodoxy; perceptions among the aristocracy, still wary about this whole Christianity thing at the time of Vladimir's conversion, was that the Turkic invaders were sent by the gods to punish the Kievans for their conversion and subsequent repression of paganism. The Turks converting to Roman Orthodoxy would have further galvanized opposition to that faith in the eyes of the Rus', and moving the "centre of gravity" of their state further north, away from Kiev, would presumably bring them closer to the cultural sphere of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea, which existed in the periphery of the Germans. So, Papist Russia and Orthodox Turkey-in-Ukraine? Might have the Russian keep a more institutionalized form of paganism further into history, although that might be a bit ASB.

That's some of the plans, now I need to actually do Indochina and Indonesia for the 930 map...
 
Last edited:
this all sounds absolutely fascinating, i think i have never seen the idea of a christian syrian empire done, do you also have something for japan in mind ?
 
this all sounds absolutely fascinating, i think i have never seen the idea of a christian syrian empire done, do you also have something for japan in mind ?
As you know, Japan has a rather... Isolationist streak. It's also about as far away from the place where the PoD happens you can get while still (kinda) being in Eurasia. Long and short of it, Japan hasn't really been affected by the PoD, at least not yet, and they probably aren't going to be for a while. Generally speaking, East Asia as a whole has so far been relatively unaffected by the PoD, with the exception of China where the Later Tang dynasty has managed to survive for much longer than IOTL.
 
Have you considered having the Rus avoid Christianization and just keeping a more organized form of paganism? Lithuania only converted so the king could inherit Poland really late in history. I see no reason Russia couldn't hold on longer. And historically knightly orders found Russia to be a very tough nut to crack
 
Last edited:
Have you considered having the Rus avoid Christianization and just keeping a more organized form of paganism? Lithuania only converted so the king could inherit Poland really late in history. I see no reason Russia couldn't hold on longer. And historically knightly orders found Russia to be a very tough nut to crack
There is a reason - Russia is corny too big, and as a result is too connected with international processes. In general, first you need to decide whether northern trade will develop - for if not, then there is a risk of lack of centrifugal processes in the Eastern Slavs. As for "organized paganism" - it makes sense only if there is no Christianity and Islam. Otherwise, it is just an empty construct.
 
Have you considered having the Rus avoid Christianization and just keeping a more organized form of paganism? Lithuania only converted so the king could inherit Poland really late in history. I see no reason Russia couldn't hold on longer. And historically knightly orders found Russia to be a very tough nut to crack
I mention this in the last point of post #63. Getting ruined by the Turks and losing access to the river trade of the Black Sea just about a decade after Vladimir's conversion could galvanize Pagan opposition, as the Pagan aristocracy might weaponize those events as "punishment from the gods" against Vladimirs repression of the old faith in favour of this foreign religion, and losing the southern territories where (afaik) Christianity had a stronger presence could mean Vladimir losing that backing. I'm not sure if a more institutionalized form of Slavic Paganism is too ASB - as mentioned I am considering that - but they'll at least definetly resist Christianization for a lot longer than OTL.

I like the idea of an institutionalized Pagan Russia, but I also really like the idea of a Papist Russia border an Orthodox Turkey; there's just such a wonderful irony there. Tough choice. Either way, to respond to @WotanArgead, Russia is going to be a lot smaller ITTL, at least in terms of eastward expansion - at least going to be confined to the territory of the OTL Kiev Rus' state, but without the southern part. I'm probably not going to have an equivalent of the Mongol Empire here either, at least not on the same scale, which means both the old Rus' states as well as the Volga Bolghars (who ITTL are Zoroastrians) surviving.
 
Last edited:
I mention this in the last point of post #63. Getting ruined by the Turks and losing access to the river trade of the Black Sea just about a decade after Vladimir's conversion could galvanize Pagan opposition, as the Pagan aristocracy might weaponize those events as "punishment from the gods" against Vladimirs repression of the old faith in favour of this foreign religion, and losing the southern territories where (afaik) Christianity had a stronger presence could mean Vladimir losing that backing. I'm not sure if a more institutionalized form of Slavic Paganism is too ASB - as mentioned I am considering that - but they'll at least definetly resist Christianization for a lot longer than OTL.

I like the idea of an institutionalized Pagan Russia, but I also really like the idea of a Papist Russia border an Orthodox Turkey; there's just such a wonderful irony there. Tough choice. Either way, to respond to @WotanArgead, Russia is going to be a lot smaller ITTL, at least in terms of eastward expansion - at least going to be confined to the territory of the OTL Kiev Rus' state, but without the southern part. I'm probably not going to have an equivalent of the Mongol Empire here either, at least not on the same scale, which means both the old Rus' states as well as the Volga Bolghars (who ITTL are Zoroastrians) surviving.


Historically Russia did well resisting crusader orders and with a pod this far back the concept of crusades are militant knightly orders may very well not exist in Europe. And those played a big role in Christianizing the Baltic. So with a lack of political pressure and nobility hostile to Christianity I see no reason paganism cannot be kept around in the Baltic and northern Russia in this timeline even without becoming more organized.
 
Last edited:
Also how does the Gothic church function hierarchy wise? Is it more like Eastern Orthodoxy with a handful of powerfull patriarchs or do like bishops have all the power?
 
Historically Russia did well resisting crusader orders and with a pod this far back the concept of crusades are militant knightly orders may very well not exist in Europe. And those played a big role in Christianizing the Baltic. So with a lack of political pressure and nobility hostile to Christianity I see no reason paganism cannot be kept around in the Baltic and northern Russia in this timeline even without becoming more organized.

Northern Russia may have been successful in resisting Christian military orders in the 13th-14th centuries but they had themselves already been long Christianized. I'd say the Baltic being the last largescale holdout for paganism in Europe has more to do with geography than with the determination of the Balts to hold to their indigenous religion, as Christianization had proceeded in their direction at a fairly steady pace: 700-800s in Germany and the Low Countries, 900s-1000s in Scandinavia and among the Western and Eastern Slavs, and finally the 1100s-1200s in the Baltic.
 
Had
Northern Russia may have been successful in resisting Christian military orders in the 13th-14th centuries but they had themselves already been long Christianized. I'd say the Baltic being the last largescale holdout for paganism in Europe has more to do with geography than with the determination of the Balts to hold to their indigenous religion, as Christianization had proceeded in their direction at a fairly steady pace: 700-800s in Germany and the Low Countries, 900s-1000s in Scandinavia and among the Western and Eastern Slavs, and finally the 1100s-1200s in the Baltic.
Has far has am aware their wasn't a popular Christian movement among the Balts hence the need for the crusades. They weren't interested it seems until the orders showed up.
 
Last edited:
Last "ideas post" ended up being more fleshed out than intended (the "Christian Turkish Empire" thing had been percolating for a while), so here are some actually bullet-point ideas that are probably going to end up happening (this is me putting off doing southeast Asia and Nusantara in 930):
  • Succession-related troubles in the Germanic Empire, a la what happened to the Carolingian Empire after Louis the Pious. The pressure placed on the empire by the Turkic invasion and subsequent Slavic migration westward (sidenote: these migrations aren't going to end up with a Slavic-majority German region, in fact they're not going to move that far west as a whole, it's more of a concentration of Slavic peoples on the eastern frontier than a total migration, but increased population density means increased political centralisation means more centralized states starting to appear). I think I might have a war between a Neustria-based monarch and an Austrasia-based monarch over the succession of imperium resulting in an increased decentralization of the empire as a Papacy-mediated peace results in the formal dissolution of the Kingdom of the Franks (Neustria, Austrasia and parts of Aquitania; see previous post about the Frankish empire) into the Kingdom of Neustria and the Kingdom of Austrasia under the Empire of the Germans, Romans and the Whole of the West. HRE covering all of France, Germany and bits of England let's goooooo.
  • The Varazids of Samarkand are going to become the next Big Thing in Iran and Turan. Seizing all of Turan south of the Aral Sea (the Uyghurs are going use the steppes north of the Aral Sea as their base to try and go back into the Mongol Steppe and Xinjiang) by the 960s, tussling with the Kabul Shahis and establishing hegemony over the great cities of Khorasan in order to start a conflict with the Spandiyadhians of Rayy by the 990s, and then the Kawusids and Surenas, probably controlling all of the Iranian Plateau and Khorasan by the 1020s, at which point they start to come into conflict with the Sasanians, just in time for...
  • An East Syriac Christian Kingdom of Assyria. This is something I teased way back in post #9, and which has been sitting as something I wanted to happen in the first half of the 1000s for a while. I've already established that, during the great Iranian Civil War of the last quarter of the 700s, the Catholicos of the Church of the East (full title: Patriarch of The Cities of Seleucia & Ctesiphon and Catholicos of all the East on the Holy Apostolic See of Saint Thomas of the Apostolic Church of the East) threw support behind the shahrab (satrap) of the Sasanian province of Asoristan - a faithful of the Church of the East himself - and proclaimed him King Aram I of Nineveh and the Syrians. Aram became a piece in the mosaic of tributaries established during the reconsolidation of Sassanid Iran. Then, with the Varazids bearing down and a general decentralization of power due to weakening authority in Sasanian Mesopotamia, the successor of Aram I sees an opportunity. The Sasanians are going to lose Mesopotamia as a result of some disastrous battle with the Varazids somewhere in the negihbourhood of the Zagros mountains, but the Varazids are not themselves going to be able to capitalize on them for reasons I have yet to elaborate on (West Uyghur raiding?). This leaves Mesopotamia - one of the wealthiest region in the world - almost completely unprotected by imperial authority. Aram's successor, King Eliya, rapidly moves an army on Ctesiphon (at this point known better as Mahoza, 'The Cities'), sweeping aside the remaining Sasanian garrisons in the region and establishing a Christian empire with very close ties to the Eastern Church. Following the capture of Ctesiphon, Eliya is crowned by the Catholicos under a new title: Qisar Eliya I of Ashurayu & Beth Nahrain - Emperor of Assyria and the Land Between the Rivers, the first independent Syriac empire since the infamous Fall of Nineveh, some 1600 years before.
  • The Later Tang are going to gradually stabilize through the middle of the 900s, and start (re-)conquering down south after 950, starting with Nanping and parts of Wu, then Wuyue and parts of Chu. Insert a war with the Khitans that results in the Shatuo Tang regaining the Sixteen Prefectures, increased imperial authority over the Western Protectorate, and annexation of the Tangut territory, and we reach a peak of the Later Tang by the time their third emperor dies somewhere in the first quarter of the 11th century. The Southern Han, having been slightly more successful in their efforts against the Viet-controlled Jinghai region, manage to become the dominant force in southern China. However, with the death of the third emperor the Han (the ethnicity this time, not the dynasty) aristocracy have finally had enough of Turkic rule and instigate a coup (don't mind the specifics, I'll figure it out). Maybe a decade and a bit of war between this new Han dynasty and the Later Tang before the latter is firmly destroyed and Shatuo Turks are purged from the administration. I'm probably going to have this new dynasty be this TLs Song, i.e very important and advanced but more limited in direct territorial control than previous dynasties.
  • Papism spreading through to the Lechites (non-Czechoslovakomoravian West Slavs) as they are sandwiched between orthodox Turks, orthodox Moravians and papist Germans, spreading via Baltic Sea trade (and warfare) to Scandinavia, the Baltic peoples, and maybe even eventually the Rus'? They firmly reject Roman Orthodoxy; perceptions among the aristocracy, still wary about this whole Christianity thing at the time of Vladimir's conversion, was that the Turkic invaders were sent by the gods to punish the Kievans for their conversion and subsequent repression of paganism. The Turks converting to Roman Orthodoxy would have further galvanized opposition to that faith in the eyes of the Rus', and moving the "centre of gravity" of their state further north, away from Kiev, would presumably bring them closer to the cultural sphere of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea, which existed in the periphery of the Germans. So, Papist Russia and Orthodox Turkey-in-Ukraine? Might have the Russian keep a more institutionalized form of paganism further into history, although that might be a bit ASB.

That's some of the plans, now I need to actually do Indochina and Indonesia for the 930 map...
May be Kiev even would be known TTL not as Kiev/Kyiv (Slavic ), but as Sambatas (Sarmatian-Roman name), or Kunagard (Varangian name)?
 
Northern Russia may have been successful in resisting Christian military orders in the 13th-14th centuries but they had themselves already been long Christianized. I'd say the Baltic being the last largescale holdout for paganism in Europe has more to do with geography than with the determination of the Balts to hold to their indigenous religion, as Christianization had proceeded in their direction at a fairly steady pace: 700-800s in Germany and the Low Countries, 900s-1000s in Scandinavia and among the Western and Eastern Slavs, and finally the 1100s-1200s in the Baltic.
This is also my view. A change in who controls the Dniepr, Volga and Dnestr trade routes isn't going to stop the steady march of Christianity. Delay, perhaps - significantly delay, even - but stop? Nah. The Rus' might (might) hold on to Paganism against the Orthodox Turks until the Swedes and Lechites and Germans get around to this TL's version of the Northern Crusades, or once Hansa-style Baltic Sea trade really picks up, but they're not gonna hold out indefinetly. No European paganism survived IOTL, either.

Also how does the Gothic church function hierarchy wise? Is it more like Eastern Orthodoxy with a handful of powerfull patriarchs or do like bishops have all the power?
Basically like the Eastern Orthodox church but without the pentarchy or the 'first among equals' stuff; all the patriarchs (thinking of having them be named 'popes' in stead; you know, 'fathers'?) are formally equal, although the patriarchs of Milan, Rome and Syracuse get more rep due to being apostolic sees and all. Originally, the church and state were deeply intertwined (especially during Athalaric and Theodemir II's reign), but as a result of the decline after the first imperial period, they became much more independent of eachother, although the emperor continued to have an important role (his decreased influence is more due to historical precedence of non-interference than formal rules against it). The first patriarchate outside of the Empire's boundaries was the Patriarchate of Compostela in Gallaecia, which was just seen as a sort of church exclave. After the decline of imperial authority in the 7th and 8th centuries and subsequent restoration in the 760s, the church became more decentralised, as parts of the empire began breaking away. The difference between these new states (Spania, Mauretania, Vandalia) and Gallaecia was that they were openly hostile to the Empire, while Gallaecia had always been a sort of junior-partner to Ravenna. Mauretania and Vandalia became part of a fully autocephalous patriarchate of Carthage (although the church in Mauretania maintained much closer contact to the rest of Occidentla Orthodoxy than Vandalia, resulting in the former becoming functionally a non-Patriarchal province of the church as Vandalia became isolated due to the Arab annexation of the region), while Hispania remained in a sort of limbo where there had been no formal recognition of the seperation within the church but where churchmen under the new kingdom had to operate independently. These regions would eventually come under the Patriarchate of Cordoba, established by Mauretanian king Massena the Great after his conquests of the region.

By the 10th century the church is about as independent from state authority as the Eastern Orthodox church was IOTL. Depending on which one we're talking about, the state may have more or less influence on church matters (for instance, the Empire has a lot of influence on the church within its borders; the petty kingdoms in southern Spain have very little influence on the church within their borders). All the different patriarchs are still formally equal (with the aforementioned fuzziness around Milan, Rome and Syracuse) - except for Carthage, who have been excommunicated for heresy (something about the specific nature of Christ's subordination to God; you know, the usual).
 
A thought occurs Arianism will probably spread to the West African states by Berber merchants like Islam was otl. This Arian church if I remember correctly use Gothic has a liturgical language. So in this timeline we will have some priest in the Sahel preforming rites in a Germanic language taught to his people by presumably Berber monks. Very strange indeed.
 
A thought occurs Arianism will probably spread to the West African states by Berber merchants like Islam was otl. This Arian church if I remember correctly use Gothic has a liturgical language. So in this timeline we will have some priest in the Sahel preforming rites in a Germanic language taught to his people by presumably Berber monks. Very strange indeed.
I'm thinking of having Occidental Christianity and Islam both spread to west Africa, resulting in fun conflicts
 
How different is Islam ITTL? Seeing as they mostly conquered christian territories. I've seen scholars argue that the conquest of Persia ensured that Islam became a wholly new religion.
 
Top