Catholic Byzantium

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.
Indeed, that's why I think the change should be gradual. Things have been sour for quite some time between the churches, but if the actual Schism is delayed, the continuous losses against the Muslims will ease the Byzantines into accepting the Pope. It will not happen overnight, but as they continue to become more and more reliant on Western military support, there may be a compromise they can accept.
 
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.
Do you have any sources to indicate that it was a common, or even a single mention of it by Greeks within Constantinople?
Turbans were since much earlier though, and were a hallmark of Arabic/Islamic cultures. And yes, the quote of Notaras is found in a relatively contemporary historian, Doukas, who is generally considered a reliable authority. Modern historians consider that Notaras most likely did not say it, but that it does reflect what the anti-Unionists thought.

One cannot exaggerate the depth of anti-Latin animus after 1204. Most emperors were realistic enough to accept that some kind of union was necessary, not only to gain Western support, but also to stave off the repeated Latin plans to launch an anti-Byzantine crusade as well, but the populace and even the elites were dead set against it. Just look at Michael VIII's attempts: he had the nimbus of being a 'new Constantine', having recovered Constantinople from the very same Latins, but as soon as he proposed a church union, even his own family turned against him.

Historically, it was also comparatively easier for a Byzantine to be accepted into the Turkish/Muslim world, especially the 'border region' of Anatolia, where identities were more fluid, and Islam more 'tolerant' and syncretic, than as a Catholic Latin. Let's not forget that the early Ottoman state had a lot of Byzantine renegades in its leadership, whereas the Latin states in Greece practiced a sort of cultural (and implicitly racial) apartheid.
 
@
Turbans were since much earlier though, and were a hallmark of Arabic/Islamic cultures. And yes, the quote of Notaras is found in a relatively contemporary historian, Doukas, who is generally considered a reliable authority. Modern historians consider that Notaras most likely did not say it, but that it does reflect what the anti-Unionists thought.

One cannot exaggerate the depth of anti-Latin animus after 1204. Most emperors were realistic enough to accept that some kind of union was necessary, not only to gain Western support, but also to stave off the repeated Latin plans to launch an anti-Byzantine crusade as well, but the populace and even the elites were dead set against it. Just look at Michael VIII's attempts: he had the nimbus of being a 'new Constantine', having recovered Constantinople from the very same Latins, but as soon as he proposed a church union, even his own family turned against him.

Historically, it was also comparatively easier for a Byzantine to be accepted into the Turkish/Muslim world, especially the 'border region' of Anatolia, where identities were more fluid, and Islam more 'tolerant' and syncretic, than as a Catholic Latin. Let's not forget that the early Ottoman state had a lot of Byzantine renegades in its leadership, whereas the Latin states in Greece practiced a sort of cultural (and implicitly racial) apartheid.
My point: turbans were not a cultural marker of Islam in this point. It was simply an item wore in rural or military situations out of necessity. Byzantine armies wore turbans when campaigning, as did Latin armies. Turbans in this period are nigh common across the Mediterranean world, not a cultural marker of Islam. If I am not mistaken, other more derogatory terms and or signals-motifs that were more correct were used by Latins for the Muslim world (such as the association to circumcision).

I do not deny anti-Latin animus, even long before 1204. However, it can be exaggerated too, can it not? Especially when we consider the nationalistic takes that we often receive on this forum from our Greek and otherwise Balkan friends.

Eastern Anatolia? You refer to these lands which provided the basis for Safavid sectarianism within the Ottoman realm? I doubt that the Christians in Greece would have preferred the sectarian millenialism of the Safavid and their zeal. The syncretic elements that existed at times in regions of the Mid East, remained tolerant and peaceful as part of 'al-Istaraaj' namely the notion that when one is weak, one appeases, tolerates and accommodates; yet in power one destroys all enemies in a rush. We see the Safavid were the image of such 'hiyal' (subterfuge, diplomacy, etc).

No, I believe that Greeks who preferred the Ottoman rule, had some legitimate reasons, not related to the 'tolerant and syncretic' eastern regions or Sufi groups. Ottoman authorities, offered a more statist and localized church structure without excessive interference. For those who hated the Papacy, the Ottomans are their natural friend, surely.

However, it is not efficient imo to label new Papal policies per Council of Florence with Venetian, Genoese and otherwise Latin holdings in Greece. With a defeated and rapidly receding Ottoman state, the Papacy would be able to enforce Florence sessions 7 and 8 upon the Latin and Greek states, essentially nullifying the schism of 1054. This would remove religious distinctions, in theory.
 
No, I believe that Greeks who preferred the Ottoman rule, had some legitimate reasons, not related to the 'tolerant and syncretic' eastern regions or Sufi groups.
With the 'border region' of Anatolia I don't mean eastern Anatolia, obviously: this area has no relevance to Byzantium. In this timeframe, I mean the borders of the Turkish ghazw in western Anatolia. Border societies are generally acknowledged to be more fluid and to differ in their culture from the metropolitan norms. And yes, the reasons why many Greeks went over to the Ottomans were many, including the initially lower taxation and the general centrifugal tendencies of provincial society in late Byzantium, but I cannot but note that the early Ottoman society was much more flexible and syncretic (and remained so in the Balkan countryside largely until the 19th century) than the contemporary Latin one; this is a story that permeates the Latin-Greek-Turkish relationship (even modern nationalists grudgingly acknowledge this) throughout the period. When faced with a choice between the Venetians and the Ottomans, as late as 1715, for example, most Greek peasants chose the latter, and not just for taxation reasons. The Ottoman 'yoke' was generally much lighter than that of the Latins.

the Papacy would be able to enforce Florence sessions 7 and 8 upon the Latin and Greek states
The Papacy was unable to enforce its will on anything IOTL, I don't see how TTL would be different. Granted, a succession of Catholic Byzantine emperors might, if graced with military victory, manage to establish the Catholic faith as the main Byzantine faith, but it would take a long time, and require a lot of effort. The proto-modern Greek national identity arose after 1204 very much as the antithesis of the Latins, and this is a development that can not be reversed or re-chanelled easily. Above all, IMO, it would also require a complete transformation of the political balance between Byzantium and the Latin powers, chiefly Venice and Genoa. As long as the maritime republics have a stranglehold on wealth, the Greeks will resent them. That is why any post-1204 POD is *very* dubious at best.
 
With the 'border region' of Anatolia I don't mean eastern Anatolia, obviously: this area has no relevance to Byzantium. In this timeframe, I mean the borders of the Turkish ghazw in western Anatolia. Border societies are generally acknowledged to be more fluid and to differ in their culture from the metropolitan norms. And yes, the reasons why many Greeks went over to the Ottomans were many, including the initially lower taxation and the general centrifugal tendencies of provincial society in late Byzantium, but I cannot but note that the early Ottoman society was much more flexible and syncretic (and remained so in the Balkan countryside largely until the 19th century) than the contemporary Latin one; this is a story that permeates the Latin-Greek-Turkish relationship (even modern nationalists grudgingly acknowledge this) throughout the period. When faced with a choice between the Venetians and the Ottomans, as late as 1715, for example, most Greek peasants chose the latter, and not just for taxation reasons. The Ottoman 'yoke' was generally much lighter than that of the Latins.


The Papacy was unable to enforce its will on anything IOTL, I don't see how TTL would be different. Granted, a succession of Catholic Byzantine emperors might, if graced with military victory, manage to establish the Catholic faith as the main Byzantine faith, but it would take a long time, and require a lot of effort. The proto-modern Greek national identity arose after 1204 very much as the antithesis of the Latins, and this is a development that can not be reversed or re-chanelled easily. Above all, IMO, it would also require a complete transformation of the political balance between Byzantium and the Latin powers, chiefly Venice and Genoa. As long as the maritime republics have a stranglehold on wealth, the Greeks will resent them. That is why any post-1204 POD is *very* dubious at best.
The Papacy was certainly able to enforce its will in otl, I am not sure which alternate realm you refer to when you say that they did not enforce their wills. We agree, that the Papacy had a decline in authority after 1378 and 1414-1419, however this is no matter. The 1439 council and other Papal moves from Florence till Alexander VI, were attempts to reassert Papal authority back to the extents it held in the reign of Boniface VIII. Papal successes and enforcement of policy did occur, within Italy especially under Alexander VI, as Machiavelli noted, the Papacy was able to turn Papal fortunes from a country in shambles back into the preeminent power in Italy. In several swoops, re-utilizing Papal powers not used since the Western Schism, the Papacy silenced the rogue Roman barons, enforce Papal temporal authority over the Duchy of Spoleto and the Marches using Cesare Borgia and subterfuge. Likewise, outside of the Papal direct realm, the Medici were affirmed as friendly agents, Ferrara came under Papal influence and away from Venice, Venice was pushed out of Ravenam and Ancona and the Sforza were cajoled into a more seemly position.

The Papacy was able to rebuild a semblance of Papal temporal authority with only the support of a few cities, no ultramontane support and using only legal and spiritual authorities to cajole into position entities which no other state in Europe could tame. If events fall more into the favor of the Papacy and they begin to reach a temporal power once more resembling Innocent III (in Italy) and have a better reaction to the Reformation, they will be able to enforce whatever they please, surely. Especially ones that benefits the secular lords of Europe, such as sections 7 and 8 of Florence.
 
Last edited:
the Papacy was able to turn Papal fortunes from a country in shambles back into the preeminent power in Italy
You said the magic words: "in Italy", where the Papacy was a) a temporal power and b) it could involve itself directly in the diplomatic relations of the various Italian states, who all acknowledged its authority and themselves tried to win its backing. But the topic of this thread is not Italy, or Western Europe, but the Balkans and the Levant; and here the writ of the Pope did not carry far. Even the papal interdictions against trade with the Muslims were frequently disobeyed, land the inability of the Papacy to organize any effective or long-term Crusading movements post-1204 is a recurring theme. What 'crusades' and holy leagues there were were more the result of local Latin powers (chiefly Venice) coalescing with Papal sanction, rather than initiatives deriving from the Pope himself.
 
You said the magic words: "in Italy", where the Papacy was a) a temporal power and b) it could involve itself directly in the diplomatic relations of the various Italian states, who all acknowledged its authority and themselves tried to win its backing. But the topic of this thread is not Italy, or Western Europe, but the Balkans and the Levant; and here the writ of the Pope did not carry far. Even the papal interdictions against trade with the Muslims were frequently disobeyed, land the inability of the Papacy to organize any effective or long-term Crusading movements post-1204 is a recurring theme. What 'crusades' and holy leagues there were were more the result of local Latin powers (chiefly Venice) coalescing with Papal sanction, rather than initiatives deriving from the Pope himself.
All political entities have power that surges forth from a heartland of power. The Roman Republic projected political force from a location that they firmly held, so too was the case for the Papacy. When the Papacy was lords over Italy and not small entities, as they were in 1415, it permits them to more thoroughly back their temporal authority over England, France, the Empire and so forth.

For instance, Peter Anascarid king of Castile was deposed by Urban V. Urban V, had from his predecessors asserted a relatively powerful realm in the Occitan region, becoming its strongest feudal lord, in a way mimicking the old County of Toulouse in power. Nevertheless, Urban V with a powerful realm was able to issue interdiction upon Peter of Anascarid and then took to declaring Henry of Trastamara king of Castile and sending him with an army of Crusaders, not different from the ones that Urban V had sent in the Balkans as part of the Savoyard crusade or of crusaders sent to Egypt that sacked Alexandria.

When the Papacy held their allodial lands, it possessed the power in essence to carry weight directly outside of legal and its otherwise indirect holdings (namely, the 35% of Europe under his demense).

Interdictions of trade were applied by the Papacy with reservation for the realities of the matter. In otherwords, the Papacy reserves rights to enforce all legal renderings, it is not a ruling that the Papacy held as being constant or obligatory. (this is a major distinction; for in Sharia and other laws, laws are obligatory and not determined by context or levels by which one enforces them) When Innocent III issued said rulings, he made such with the context that simply, should the Papacy declare a trade relation invalid, this is permitted by custom. However, this does not mean that Innocent III was ruling that all trade with non-Papal mandated states was forbidden, quite the contrary. And even so, Venice was technically not entirely a Papal subject in the same way that say, France was in the opinion of Innocent III, so rulings and interdiction apply differently to them.

I disagree, Papal crusades after 1204 were very effective. None would argue the central factor that the Papacy held in crusades to depose Latin monarchs, to push towards greater colonization/settlement/expansion in Iberia and the fundamental role that the Papacy held in the blocking of Mongol adventurism into Europe. Later, the Papacy was launching crusades against Latin and Muslim states consistently with varied success. Simply due to not always succeeding, does not deny the powers that the Papacy held, it was not a power to be trifled with as Venice would learn, surely.

Surely, if we permit the Papacy to resurge in Italy, Venice will be an after thought as they were in otl, an inferior power in comparison to the 'big fish' of Europe;the Papacy, France, Empire, England, etc... It is difficult to even conceive that the Italian states ruling parts of the Balkans would be able to maintain Balkan integrity when the Papacy is handing their land titles to Hungary, the Empire and waging overt war with them in the peninsula.

Regarding Byzantium, they have an incentive for friendship with the Papacy. There is little reason for them to not at least make friendly terms with them and enter mutual assistance.
 
Last edited:
Top