Catholic Byzantium

What if the Byzantine Empire converts to Catholicism? Maybe they did so after the Crusaders enter Constantinople, or they voluntarily convert to gain support from the Papacy and fellow Catholic countries. Could a Catholic Byzantium stand against the Turks?
 
Not really seeing how they could do better because they're Catholic.

I think maybe you could put a spin on it: somehow delay the Schism for a few decades. As the Byzantines get into really big trouble, they would be less inclined to break up with Rome, and as things progress similar to OTL, and the Empire weakens, they could probably submit to the Pope later on. This also assumes the Fourth Crusade doesn't happen as OTL. With continued western support, Byzantium may be able to limp on, but will be aligned to the Catholic church similar to OTL Greek Catholics.
 
They tried doing that, but the population and the Orthodox Church wasn’t up for it.
Oh yeah we really didn't like latins after the fourth crusade,destroying the empire was the final straw the schism was final then ,you probably need a pod that is before 1204, furthermore relations between east and west werent good even before that
There is also the saying <<better the muslim/turkish turban than the papal tiara>>
The one who said it ended up dying by the sultan but you can infer what orthodox Catholics though about the matter of the schism(he was a noble but the people of the city and the clergy were up in arms as well by what Constantine xi did
 
Oh yeah we really didn't like latins after the fourth crusade,destroying the empire was the final straw the schism was final then ,you probably need a pod that is before 1204, furthermore relations between east and west werent good even before that
There is also the saying <<better the muslim/turkish turban than the papal tiara>>
The one who said it ended up dying by the sultan but you can infer what orthodox Catholics though about the matter of the schism(he was a noble but the people of the city and the clergy were up in arms as well by what Constantine xi did
But then you guys kept begging the west for help.......well into the 20th century against the Turks.
 
Oh yeah we really didn't like latins after the fourth crusade,destroying the empire was the final straw the schism was final then ,you probably need a pod that is before 1204
I disagree heavily. The Greeks were willing to compromise for support from the Catholics before and after the fall of Constantinople. Every Greek in Constantinople probably would've converted to Catholicism to avoid occupation by a Muslim power.
 
I disagree heavily. The Greeks were willing to compromise for support from the Catholics before and after the fall of Constantinople. Every Greek in Constantinople probably would've converted to Catholicism to avoid occupation by a Muslim power.
The phrase "better the turban than the mitre" existed for a reason...
 
I disagree heavily. The Greeks were willing to compromise for support from the Catholics before and after the fall of Constantinople. Every Greek in Constantinople probably would've converted to Catholicism to avoid occupation by a Muslim power.
Oh say ,how did the council of Florence go?you know perhaps we greeks were just shy thats probably why we didnt bow to the authority rome,also you seem seem to forget the reaction of the orthodox christians of the empire to that council(i have a statement that will shock you.....they didnt like it)(also I dont think you know what compromise means the people of the empire were willing to work with latins to defeat the ottomans,they werent willing to submit to them which is what would have happened if they accepted the council of Florence in their eyes)
 
Oh yeah we really didn't like latins after the fourth crusade,destroying the empire was the final straw the schism was final then ,you probably need a pod that is before 1204, furthermore relations between east and west werent good even before that
There is also the saying <<better the muslim/turkish turban than the papal tiara>>
The one who said it ended up dying by the sultan but you can infer what orthodox Catholics though about the matter of the schism(he was a noble but the people of the city and the clergy were up in arms as well by what Constantine xi did
Who supposedly said this? I doubt that a Greek person of that era would define an explicitly European Muslim as someone who wore a turban.... The Ottoman soldiery and leaders were not from Arabia and certainly far removed from wearing light robes and turbans for armor. Even in the Abbasid period, Turkic soldiery did not wear turbans and general Abbasid soldiery only wore such things when it was called for, such as the warm weather of the desert (note, Latin crusaders utilized turbans for the same reason; it was an item for military and societal use, not a cultural distinguishing feature).

The Ottomans by this period, were explicitly European in their Islam and interaction. They had long conquered Bulgaria and other lands and were by all Islamic metrics, a Rum or European entity.

I have heard this quote around, it has always sounded as if it was some sort of orientalist coining of what others said. In otherwords, rationally, I would not believe that this was said by someone in the 15th century.
 
Last edited:
It is attributed to loukas notaras the last grand duke of the roman empire
Yes, he most likely never said such a thing. It was likely something coined in far later eras when the idea of wearing a turban became a cultural marker, as opposed to pragmatic reactions to the sun and necessity to protect fairer skin and to likewise retain cool water on the skin.
 
Oh say ,how did the council of Florence go?you know perhaps we greeks were just shy thats probably why we didnt bow to the authority rome,also you seem seem to forget the reaction of the orthodox christians of the empire to that council(i have a statement that will shock you.....they didnt like it)(also I dont think you know what compromise means the people of the empire were willing to work with latins to defeat the ottomans,they werent willing to submit to them which is what would have happened if they accepted the council of Florence in their eyes)
From the perspective of Church hierarchy and secular elites (who were heads of the church in the Greek realms), it was a grand success, the Council of Ferrara and Florence that is.

Session 7 saw the act of unity decreed with the Greek Church. The Greek delegation debated and found compromise and agreement on all issues and a joint draft was formulated that decreed unity and commonality between the two churches, hence an act of unity. This included by extrapolation the Georgian representatives which were also present.

Session 8 affirmed the unity with the Greek churches by 'meeting in the middle' on theological issues and promulgating a paragraph of statement of commonality, that included the primacy and supremacy of Rome. Session 8 also decreed unity with the Armenian bishops who were present at the time, who assented to the paragraph in relation to Greek compromise.

Session 11 asserted the Papal position against Monophysitism and Monothelitism, and in the same phase rejected Mani, Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuesta (thus refuting both a hard and radical dualism of matter and likewise rejecting the harsh adoptionist-like dualism of Theodore of Mopsuesta and the so-called Nestorians). This then permitted them to affirm the commonality and love between them and the Copts and decreed the past tolerance and permission of ambiguity surrounding Miaphysitism (an accepted compromise).

Session 13 promulgated an edict defining the union with the Western Syriac churches. Some had already accepted unity with the Papacy since the 1080s, however with this council, the union was formalized by the delegation from the varied Syriac churches in the Levant. Issues of Nestorianism were addressed, as was Mani, who were both rejected in session 11 and again in session 13; however, an affirmation of agreement on the duality of natures was made with the Syriac churches, thus in a soft manner rejected the excessive interpretation of Constantinople II and eased any lingering resentment in Syria over the Three-Chapters.

Session 14 sent word of unity and agreement with the Eastern Syriacs, the Chaldaen and Iranian churches in the Aq Qoyunylu and Neo-Timurid realm(s). This affirmation had much in common with session 13.

The entire understanding of the Council of Florence was the restoration of universal Papal unity with the disparate and divided Churches under or endangered by the Islamic realms of the Mid East and Europe. It was not enforced, specifically due to the fear of Islamic rulers who saw it for what it was, an attempt to re-gather Papal temporal power and begin a push for crusades, wars and resumption of Papal authority in the Mediterranean and the Holy Land. Some scholars, such as Norwich described this as the Muslim rulers taking control of local churches so as to enforce a non-adherence to the Council.
 
Last edited:
The dutch too, there was the say 'rather turkish than papist' among the calvinist
Do note the context: the Dutch watergeuzen (essentially piratical rebels) wore badges with this creed to indicate how anti-Catholic they were. "Turkish" was used because "the Turk" was seen as an existential enemy of all Christendom in the popular imagination. The Dutch use of this phrase did not imply a desire for any kind of real alliance or association with the Turks, but was basically similar to saying (in a period-typical racist way) "I'd ally with the Devil himself before I ally with the Pope".

I suspect that real historical phrases like this (all made by people opposed to Rome but conveniently very far away from the Ottomans and thus never in a position to really make this choice) have been later applied to describe (a perception of) historical Byzantine opinions, and spuriously attributed this or that historical figure.
 
Not really seeing how they could do better because they're Catholic.

I think maybe you could put a spin on it: somehow delay the Schism for a few decades. As the Byzantines get into really big trouble, they would be less inclined to break up with Rome, and as things progress similar to OTL, and the Empire weakens, they could probably submit to the Pope later on. This also assumes the Fourth Crusade doesn't happen as OTL. With continued western support, Byzantium may be able to limp on, but will be aligned to the Catholic church similar to OTL Greek Catholics.
The Schism was not really a sudden event but more a recognition of the facts on the ground. Constantinople had never recognized the bishop of Rome as the sole head of the church. It was sort of a "let's agree to disagree" thing for a long time before it finally got to a point where that was no longer possible. You can delay the de jure schism but it de facto is going to be there. It will take a major POD for the Romans to actually pay homage to the pope.
 
I suspect that real historical phrases like this (all made by people opposed to Rome but conveniently very far away from the Ottomans and thus never in a position to really make this choice) have been later applied to describe (a perception of) historical Byzantine opinions, and spuriously attributed this or that historical figure.
Yeah, it's one thing to say "Better Turk than Pope" when the Turks are thousands of miles away, quite another when they're breathing down your neck.
 
But then you guys kept begging the west for help.......well into the 20th century against the Turks.
Not to mention, examples not from the Greek church, such as the Russian orthodox Church. When the Bolsheviks took control over said lands and there was discussions and confiscation of church lands for state incomes and the supposed requirement to feed the people; the Russian church turned to the Papacy. Even in 1919, the Orthodox clergy were going to an essential refugee Papacy, trapped in Rome. If this is the trend in the Eastern Churches this late, imagine how they were in times of the past when the theological opinions were much more similar.
 
Oh say ,how did the council of Florence go?you know perhaps we greeks were just shy thats probably why we didnt bow to the authority rome,also you seem seem to forget the reaction of the orthodox christians of the empire to that council(i have a statement that will shock you.....they didnt like it)(also I dont think you know what compromise means the people of the empire were willing to work with latins to defeat the ottomans,they werent willing to submit to them which is what would have happened if they accepted the council of Florence in their eyes)
I'd disagree with you. The Council of Florence didn't go that poorly, as you suggest. It was resisted by a large margin of the bishopric and citizenry, but has about just as many supporters. Saying the Orthodox Greeks would've converted to Catholicism rather than be out under Turkish domination was reaching, a tad, and my mistake. Were they willing to compromise? I recall Constantine XI contacting the pope in favour of union with the Catholic church in order to receive aid against the Ottoman's, but Europe was too busy with their own affairs to care. Seemed like he was willing to compromise.
 
Top