Fall of Rome: Effect on the reformation

The thread is about what kind of effect the fall of Rome in 1481 would have for the Reformation. The Ottomans take Rome, the Pope flees to Avignon and continues being pope there. The thread is NOT on the discussing whether it is possible if Rome can be conquered.

What kind of effect would it have on the reformation? I am not sure if it would butterfly away the reformation if the Papacy keeps being like they are: wealthy, indulgence etc. Now the fall of Rome may be seen as a divine act by the reformists which would only strengthen their cause. Another question is if this will butterfly away Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII Anglican Church.

I am open to ideas that contradicts the strengthening reformation. So tell me you views.
 
the papacy for one would not likely go to france , since it was do to france that this fiasco of the 14th and 15th century shcisim ended , i see more posible that he goes to the HRE
 
I think it will weaken the motivation to split. Erasmus, who was highly critical of the church and who had at first much sympathy for Luther, broke in the end with Luther because he was of the opinion that the Turkish threat demanded unity of the Christian world. If that threat is even bigger than in OTL and thus more urgent and direct for the european political figures, more may follow Erasmus line.
Secondly, if the Pope get's more and earlier dependent on the Emperor or any other worldly leader, the pressure on him to start internal reforms will only increase. You could see an earlier Catholic reformation.
And lastly if the Papacy insists that the indulgences trade is for the reconquest of Rome instead of it's embellishment, their PR will be so much better than OTL.
 
The thread is about what kind of effect the fall of Rome in 1481 would have for the Reformation. The Ottomans take Rome, the Pope flees to Avignon and continues being pope there. The thread is NOT on the discussing whether it is possible if Rome can be conquered.
I suppose you're referring to the Ottomans incursions into Southern Italy like where they captured Otranto right? The problem is that even if they managed occupy large parts of Southern Italy, they would most likely be pushed back. They would also be stretched from their geographic core. Here the Catholic world is quite united, and Venice and Genoa were the primary sea powers. Such an expansion into Italy would threaten the Venetian sea colonies as well as the Genoese ones. This might unite both powers to put aside their squabbles and unite in opposition to them. The Venetian Navy as well as the Aragonese Navy which were major sea powers in the Western Mediterranean would also have to be defeated. Otherwise Ottoman troops could be cut off from reinforcements. There's also the matter of Spain, France and the Holy Roman Empire. Aragon considered Southern Italy and Sicily as part of its backed. France and the HRE felt the same about Northern Italy. In order for the Papal states to ejected out of Rome, this would require a massive invasion and the submission of the Italian city states which were pretty well fortified. These states might band together to fight the Turks. The Italian states of Northern Italy which were loosely under the HRE might appeal to the Holy Roman Emperor for protection. The same would be true for the Pope. The Hungarians would also be alarmed at this expansion as to secure a route into Italy, The Ottomans would have to make major incursions into the Balkans. This might frighten the other German states and make them more likely to unify around the Emperor to protect them. This might ironically work to help the HRE politically and the Catholic world which was not yet divided. The Reformation for example was started from the corruption that was fostered in the Renaissance papacy. But if the pope was ejected from Rome, and an Islamic power tried to capture the most Important Christian city of the era. This would create a major response. Rome was a huge center of Christianity especially after Constantinople fell. So the Reformation would likely be butterflied away here.
 
I suppose you're referring to the Ottomans incursions into Southern Italy like where they captured Otranto right? The problem is that even if they managed occupy large parts of Southern Italy, they would most likely be pushed back. They would also be stretched from their geographic core. Here the Catholic world is quite united, and Venice and Genoa were the primary sea powers. Such an expansion into Italy would threaten the Venetian sea colonies as well as the Genoese ones. This might unite both powers to put aside their squabbles and unite in opposition to them. The Venetian Navy as well as the Aragonese Navy which were major sea powers in the Western Mediterranean would also have to be defeated. Otherwise Ottoman troops could be cut off from reinforcements. There's also the matter of Spain, France and the Holy Roman Empire. Aragon considered Southern Italy and Sicily as part of its backed. France and the HRE felt the same about Northern Italy. In order for the Papal states to ejected out of Rome, this would require a massive invasion and the submission of the Italian city states which were pretty well fortified. These states might band together to fight the Turks. The Italian states of Northern Italy which were loosely under the HRE might appeal to the Holy Roman Emperor for protection. The same would be true for the Pope. The Hungarians would also be alarmed at this expansion as to secure a route into Italy, The Ottomans would have to make major incursions into the Balkans. This might frighten the other German states and make them more likely to unify around the Emperor to protect them. This might ironically work to help the HRE politically and the Catholic world which was not yet divided. The Reformation for example was started from the corruption that was fostered in the Renaissance papacy. But if the pope was ejected from Rome, and an Islamic power tried to capture the most Important Christian city of the era. This would create a major response. Rome was a huge center of Christianity especially after Constantinople fell. So the Reformation would likely be butterflied away here.
Read the OP again. I will only discuss the reformation. If I wanted a thread on whether it was plausible or not I would have asked for it.

The Roman Papacy centred in Avignon after the fall will not suddenly change into a pious place without corruption or any other 'ungodly' acts. It could help unite for the momentum (read: remain faithful). As soon as they found out Avignon is not better than what Rome used to be it may change their view.
 
I think it will weaken the motivation to split. Erasmus, who was highly critical of the church and who had at first much sympathy for Luther, broke in the end with Luther because he was of the opinion that the Turkish threat demanded unity of the Christian world. If that threat is even bigger than in OTL and thus more urgent and direct for the european political figures, more may follow Erasmus line.
Secondly, if the Pope get's more and earlier dependent on the Emperor or any other worldly leader, the pressure on him to start internal reforms will only increase. You could see an earlier Catholic reformation.
And lastly if the Papacy insists that the indulgences trade is for the reconquest of Rome instead of it's embellishment, their PR will be so much better than OTL.
Seems fine. What about Henry? Will he still create the Anglican Church if his divorce is not accepted? If he was married to Catherine of Aragon of course...

And Calvin? Would he be butterflied away? There are more reformers than Luther. Luther could be butterflied if the Church reforms somewhat.
 
Wasn't Avignon Papal territory? If they go to the HRE, where would they go?
yes it was papal land wich to be fair the french crown would maybe accept them but i think the papacy would fear the becomcing puppets but yeah , even so if they go to avignon they most likely will be envolved in the conflict over burgandy 6 years later since maxemilian and the french crown had their conflicts.
the reformation could be posponed or accelerated , since
1 if the papacy are sheltered while the ottomans go on to invade italy they can claim
2 the HRE make an antipope to challenge the french pope seeing this another western shicim like that of the 14th century happens
3 the pope would try to unite the HRE and france ie making the french king the HR emeperor and thus with the turks comming to his lands he would attack them
4 the turks take the seat of catholisim thefore the people unite agains them , thus no reformation

i dont know how the wars would change with the pope in france , and maxemilian later charles V with the turks in rome
 
Last edited:
I can't see a way that some sort of Reformation can be avoided, with the emergence of rationalism and wider Biblical study raising questions about the more 'superstitious' aspects of the Catholic Church's practices. Not to mention the advent of the printing-press to quickly publicise and distribute critical material. I think it's almost inevitable that something resembling the 'five solae' will emerge.

What you might see is a stronger attempt to prevent a schism (from either side of the debate) in light of the greater Turkish threat - unless it becomes a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. IIRC, the early Reformers were of interest to the Ottomans because of their mutual iconoclasm, amongst other things. There were certainly attempts to establish friendly relations even with Elizabethan England, though there was never a question of Protestantism calling itself a denomination (or, indeed, several denominations) of Islam.
 
I mean, there was no reformation in Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism or Islam, though to be fair, in the case of Buddhism and Daoism, there was always Confucianism which did serve to point towards a more "rational", quasi-atheistic worldview that kept Buddhism and Daoism largely in check, even in the periods of Vajrayana dominance.
 
If Rome fall to the Turks, the Reformation is pretty unlikely as the corruption of the Church will be a smaller problem, I’m pretty sure that Luther would have tolerated indulgences if the money had gone to reconquer lost Christian territory and free the Christians of these lands and not to bling for corrupt clergymen. With the central authorities weakened we would likely also have seen greater tolerance for greater heterodox theological debate. The German princes would also be more likely to join behind the emperor if the Turks was seen as a greater threat.
 
Seems fine. What about Henry? Will he still create the Anglican Church if his divorce is not accepted? If he was married to Catherine of Aragon of course...

And Calvin? Would he be butterflied away? There are more reformers than Luther. Luther could be butterflied if the Church reforms somewhat.
As for Henry, that was in my eyes an entirely political affair. The divorce was not granted because Catherine was the sister of the man who had just sacked Rome and thus had the pope by his balls.

As for the reformation in general, there are more and more church historians that claim that the reformation was well underway before 1500. They point to the consiliarism of the 14th century and f.i. Hus as protoreformer(there were more) I see still a discussion about grace emerging in the 16th century with roles both for Luther and Calvin, and their ideas and those of catholics will be widely spread through pamflets over large parts of Europe, but without political backing a great break like in OTL will not happen. Still there will be lots of unrest and possibly revolts until the Church gets its act together. In my eyes that means the improvement of pastoral care, the most important change of the council of Trent.
 
Top