Germans didn't use the Latin script before Christianization and Goths used their own liturgy for a while dsspite being a small minority.You are right. But it was not only the Catholic Church. Entire Western Europe saw things like that.
However, that kind of symbolic political position can easily change. After all, the Catholic Church still exists now and the current pope does not claim the Roman Empire still exists.
If you want to reject Rome's legacy to the point of not using Latin scripts anymore, you need to transform much more than simply the Catholic Church.
New/weak states emerging in/near the cultural space of decayed states frequently associate themselves with the former civilization as a means of legitimacy.What trends?
Using that logic all of Europe would have been Mesopotamian, Hittite or Egyptian influenced indefinitely or would have cared about those places ideologically but that is clearly not the case.New/weak states emerging in/near the cultural space of decayed states frequently associate themselves with the former civilization as a means of legitimacy.
Anglo-Saxon Britain hardly had that much continuity with what happened before, at the very least nominally.If they hadn't built their fiefs on the carcass of the western empire? Maybe. But I don't see any real way they could have escaped Rome's shadow earlier.
What's hard to see is such a sect acheiving major political influence.The Romans killed Christ. It's not hard to see some Protestant sect breaking from Rome away using that ideology.
Because the Manchus didn't adopt hieroglyphics and worship cats, it would be inaccurate to say that they built their legitimacy on the emulation of a preexisting civilization?Using that logic all of Europe would have been Mesopotamian, Hittite or Egyptian influenced indefinitely or would have cared about those places ideologically but that is clearly not the case.
Anglo-Saxon Britain hardly had that much continuity with what happened before, at the very least nominally.
Also just because you are influenced by Rome doesn't mean you actively carry out its legacy or archon back to its motifs and features. There was already a dissociation between West and East caused by mere political conflicts, you can easily find examples of people both in Italy and Byzantium effectively "forgetting" or rejecting various parts of Roman history or identity.
In fact it's less about "escaping" and more about not having people actively reviving and consciously arching back to Roman times like Renaissance era people and Neo-classicists did.
Some of the early Protestant sectaries were quite hostile to anything "Romish", with iconoclasm, discouraging the use of the "Devil's tongue" Latin, etc...The Romans killed Christ. It's not hard to see some Protestant sect breaking from Rome away using that ideology.
While still using Roman letters, grammar, punctuation, a religion that came from the Roman Empire even if reformed, and political institutions either already existing or inspired by republican Rome....The Romans killed Christ. It's not hard to see some Protestant sect breaking from Rome away using that ideology.
But had Latin as an official language from the 11th century all the way until 1844.Didn't the Kingdom of Hungary for most of their history celebrate their claimed "hunnic ancestry"?
Not from a medieval POV, from which it was the evil Jews (tm), who were out for Jesus' blood ("His blood be on us and our children.") and forced poor old, reluctant to execute Jesus, Pilate's hand.The Romans killed Christ. It's not hard to see some Protestant sect breaking from Rome away using that ideology.
There is a difference between being inspired what came before and consciously copying its architecture, using its language and trying to identify yourself with them after a millennium.Because the Manchus didn't adopt hieroglyphics and worship cats, it would be inaccurate to say that they built their legitimacy on the emulation of a preexisting civilization?
By around 800 CE despite Charlemagne the concept of "Rome" was very nuanced, from "Introduction: Early medieval Romanness - a multiple identity":My major nitpick is: to reject is much harder than to never adopt. Both for the nations themselves, and the general consensus of the elites.
By the year 500, there was a strong identification of Rome with universal supremacy (which was itself strongly tied with Christianity); the ones who less bought in, like Islam and its Caliphate, simply never adopted the legacy in the first place and instead founded a model of their own, only adopting select elements via cultural osmosis. It could however be argued they ended up claiming and incorporating the Iranian legacy to some extent instead. I also agree that France generally was the least obsessed with Roman legacy, but they still fit in the heavily Roman-ispired romance culture, down to language and religion.
Thus, you either need something that breaks down the old Latin culture more dramatically (centering groups more on their own legacy than on reclaiming less-desirable Roman glory) or, failing that, have a strong group develop a very strong national identity and system before conquering one or more European places, entering the system without having the cultural and political incentives most OTL players had.
Most political institutions from the early modern period were largely directly descendant from medieval ones with hardly any connection to Classical Rome, claiming descent or claiming inspiration from Republican's Rome is hardly much above the level of Poles trying to connect themselves and their early modern institutions to Sarmatians.While still using Roman letters, grammar, punctuation, a religion that came from the Roman Empire even if reformed, and political institutions either already existing or inspired by republican Rome....
But the Christian theological perspective is that this death (and subsequent resurrection) was essential to happen, hence the name "Good Friday".The Romans killed Christ. It's not hard to see some Protestant sect breaking from Rome away using that ideology.
If you're admitting that societies evolve from what came before, then you're accepting that you have no argument with respect to a medieval European society outright rejecting Roman legacy.Most political institutions from the early modern period were largely directly descendant from medieval ones with hardly any connection to Classical Rome, claiming descent or claiming inspiration from Republican's Rome is hardly much above the level of Poles trying to connect themselves and their early modern institutions to Sarmatians.
Like I said before there is a difference and the way you are defining terms is frankly completely useless to the discussion at hand.If you're admitting that societies evolve from what came before, then you're accepting that you have no argument with respect to a medieval European society outright rejecting Roman legacy.
Huns could probably do it then. Attila built himself an incredible legend in the years after his death and his empire united a sizable portion of the Germanic peoples. They had their own script (either Runic or Gothic work here) and if his empire survives as a powerful entity stretching over much of the Danube and Rhine basins then you have an alternative to the Roman legacy.I think the best example of a state that did reject the Roman legacy is the Caliphate, which despite absorbing huge swathes of former Roman territories mostly overwrote the previous imperial legacy. So with that in mind if you were to take a people from outside the former Roman territory, and gift them with an independent script and religion, then unify them and send their armies off on waves of conquest you could probably get a similar result. The Norse, Germans, Baltics or Goths could all be prime candidates for this scenario.