Rome is abandoned. The Emperor creates a Frankish patriarchate whose see is in Aachen.
I can't see the last two for two reasons. Neither area had a pre-Roman Greek population (besides Massalia) that survived in large numbers. Also, both had multiple geographic degrees of separation from Greece, while Italy only had the Adriatic.Southern Italy, much of Spain, and Southern France
Instead of having the pope creating the 'holy roman' empire, the eastern empire is still viewed as the roman empire...not even as a successor state, but the roman empire itself.
How will this affect history?
For that to happen, you'd need a bunch of other things to have happened:
Say, around 500, the Pope makes an about face, rejects the claim to supreme and universal jurisdiction, and bows to Constantinopole's supremacy (LOL as if) and ends up with about as much power as the patriarchs of Alexandria or Antioch. The Latin liturgy is jettisoned and replaced by the one sung in Greek, as in New Rome. Southern Italy, much of Spain, and Southern France become integral parts of the Empire. Germanic tribes beyond are left to their own devices, as they are very peripheral to Constantinople, perhaps remaining Arian (har har har!) or heathen for a few more centuries.
Unfortunately (for him), the Pope finds himself squarely in Frankish territory. Different chiefs put up their own men for the seat of Peter. Eventually, the Pope is called to Constantinople, where he retains a ceremonial titular see and basilica--but lacks any power or jurisdiction. Rome is abandoned. The Emperor creates a Frankish patriarchate whose see is in Aachen. After a while, through missionary work, the other Germanic tribes are granted their own national churches, a la the Bulgarians. (Goodbye Protestantism.)
The rise of Frankish Orthodox Christianity, Visigothic Orthodox Christianity, etc., each having jurisdiction over their own mini-empire and each granted liturgy in their own languages, has the effect of isolating them from the OTL Roman heritage. Roman law, the Latin language, and many of the elements we associate with Western Christianity and Western culture (medieval universities) are lost to history as Constantinople asserts more control over ecclesiastical and political matters in the areas of the West where the Emperor has control. Caeseropapism is the order of the day, as is the Justinian Code. Islam is not nearly as successful. The East remains mostly Christian and *fabulously* wealthy compared to the squalid West. War with Persia is a constant threat.
Then comes the 10th century, when in OTL the Holy Roman Empire begins. Not sure what would happen.
Instead of having the pope creating the 'holy roman' empire, the eastern empire is still viewed as the roman empire...not even as a successor state, but the roman empire itself.
How will this affect history?
Say, around 500, the Pope makes an about face, rejects the claim to supreme and universal jurisdiction, and bows to Constantinopole's supremacy
I think it was given ecumenical primacy/honor with Constantinople I in 380ish, then formally made a patriarchate at Chalcedon around 450.Was the Bishop of Constantinople even a patriarch by 500? I seem to remember that was something he only got later.
Promethean said:Probably no HRE butterflies you see. Long time lurker Skokie?
I can't see the last two for two reasons. Neither area had a pre-Roman Greek population (besides Massalia) that survived in large numbers. Also, both had multiple geographic degrees of separation from Greece, while Italy only had the Adriatic.
Theodoric said:Wasn't Rheims more or less the Capital of the Frankish domain at that time? Or am I overinflating the importance of Clovis' baptism?
rcduggan said:One problem with your POD: until the 7th century, the Eastern Roman Empire still spoke Latin. Due to that fact, the rest doesn't make much sense. Plus, with no schism, there is no distinction between eastern and western Christianity, and thus no Orthodox Church.
Jaded_Railman said:Was the Bishop of Constantinople even a patriarch by 500? I seem to remember that was something he only got later.
Hello. No, I've been lurking since Saturday. What's an HRE?
Just to clarify: I didn't mean that the inhabitants of those areas were Greeks (the Greeks who did settle there had settled long, long before and had long since been subsumed beneath other cultures), just that they would remain an integral part of the Empire. It happened in OTL. For a time, under Emperor Justinian, Constantinople controlled exactly those areas (save for southern France).
RE language: Depends who you mean. Latin (and Greek) was a bureaucratic language in the East, but not the language of daily life. Greece and parts of Asia Minor spoke Greek. Syria, Palestine, Jordan and parts of Asia Minor spoke Syriac (Aramaic). Egypt spoke Coptic. Latin was probably a third language, after the local one and Greek.
RE schism: The Great Schism between East and West had not yet taken place, but that doesn't mean there weren't major rifts in the church--and not just between East and West, but in every which direction. The first major schism saw the rupture with East Syriac Christianity (called Nestorianism; survived in Persia). The second major schism was the "Monophysite" schism in 451, within the boundaries of the Empire; the Copts in Egypt (and their daughter church in Ethiopia), the West Syriacs or Jacobites in Cilicia/Syria, and the Armenians severed ties with Constantinople and Rome. Constantinople then assigned Greek "dummy patriarchates" (called melkite or "royalist" in Semitic languages, since they were the Emperor's men) to the seats of Alexandria and Antioch (eventually they didn't even live in those cities; they just hung out in Constantinople).
sAlready in the 4th and 5th centuries there were stirrings of Papal supremacy, universal jurisdiction, yadda yadda yadda. This did not sit well in New Rome, where the Patriarch was so close to the Emperor--who wielded great temporal and spiritual power (he was the only one who could call an ecumenical council). There were also (to our minds) really trivial differences in liturgy that caused huge scandal and sowed the seeds of mutual suspicion and jealousy between East/West that would lead to schism or at least make it almost inevitable.
Yep! Not only was he a patriarch, but he was aiming for top dog. As was Rome. As were, probably, Alexandria and Antioch. Christians have been fighting each other from virtually the beginning.
Short hand for Holy Roman Empire.
The manner and condition of those territories is very important however, which is why I suggested what amounts to "No Gothic Wars POD".
Latin was the language of government, but Greek was the daily language of the Empire's core territories (I would say Syria and Egypt became non-core with their mass adherence to heresy).
(I think) The point he was making was that the main split between the Emperor in Constantinople and the Pope in Rome over actually theology hadn't occured, and wouldn't for several centuries. Since the POD challenges one to have the Pope recognize the Byzantine Empire as the actual Roman Empire, the break-aways of the Syrians and Egyptians are immaterial.
The splits over theology came long after splits over power occured. The stirrings of Papal supremacy had started yes,
but if you have a different (preferably no) Gothic Wars, then the Empire can reassert itself in Italy, and thus bring the Pope into line.
While the various Patriarchs of Constantinople were no doubt ambitious, the real struggle was not between the various Patriarchs and the Bishop of Rome, they were between the Bishops of Rome and the Emperors in Constantinople over whom would control the Church.
The fact that throughout much of this struggle the Pope remained physically out of reach of the Emperor's power contributed (IMO) mightily to the Pope's assertions of control. Put Rome in the Empire's power for an extended period of time, and the Papacy in Rome might be supreme among the Christian Churches, but it will be recognizing Constantinople as the Roman Empire, and taking cues from the Roman Emperor.
Theological splits were later, yes. But liturgy was a bone of contention since the 300s. The West used unleavened bread, which the leavened-breaded Easterners thought was a form of Judaizing. It should not be forgotten that liturgy was much often more important than theology in the East (if it can be said that they had a "theology" as the one that was developed in the West, which has often been criticized by Easterners as spiritually dead and legalistic).
It points to broader cultural rifts that were emerging since the 4th century. Not to mention the fact that the thought of old crap Rome being above glorious New Rome would eventually be sorted out in a deleterious way to the Pope. I think the Emperor would gladly allow Rome to be a cow pasture (even worse than in OTL) and rule a Greekified Italy directly through a Metropolitan in Ravenna, expanding the jurisdiction of New Rome to include the West. Old Rome would have gotten its just deserts for being such a whore, and all that jazz.
I agree with all your points here, except the last.
Instead of having the pope creating the 'holy roman' empire, the eastern empire is still viewed as the roman empire...not even as a successor state, but the roman empire itself.
How will this affect history?
The old Rome was the seat of the Republic, the thing that the whole she-bang is named after. Though Rome might be old, it is still the Seat of St. Peter, the Rock upon whom the Church was built.
Constantinople is the secular seat of the Empire, but there is no way that the Patriarch of Constantinople can become the head of the whole of the Nicean Christian world. The Constantinople Patriarch is not one of the Apostolic originals, and is clearly a creature of the Emperor. Furthermore, the leverage given to the Empire through the Church is going to be significant, but if the Papacy is ended in Rome, then that leverage will be largely lost, as a Church ruled from Constantinople will be too far away to be able to directly oversee Western Christiandom.
I think Constantinople is the best secular capital one could hope for, strategic, ridiculously strong. But it is not Rome. It is Greek, quite foreign to the West, and it will not be able to exert the kind of pressure on the West that the Empire needs to exert in order to meet the challenge provided for.
So you don't think that Constantinople's control of Italy = Constantinople's control of the Papacy?