feasability of Eastern Roman religious tolerance....

I've been following some of the awesome Rhomanian tls (Eagle of the Bosphorus and Issac's Empire included) and was wondering if it would be possible pre 1204 to have a more religiously tolerant Eastern Empire. Especially considering Basil II's use of Monophysite populations and rule over a Muslim population in Syria, would it have been possible at all for the Rhomanians to have become "better" at ruling over non-orthodox populations (perhaps similar to the real life Ottomans)? This may be completely ridiculous, but it would have been interesting to see the Komnenoi stepping in for the house of Osman historically by retaking the Levant and perhaps Egypt in the long run (ie: a century or two down the road).
 

Philip

Donor
Toleration is possible, within limits. A pragmatic emperor conquering a large group of non-Christians would help it along. Well organized non-Christian (as opposed to non-Orthodox Christian) religions would probably have a better chance. Or course, there would be laws in place to protect Christianity's position.
 
Especially considering Basil II's use of Monophysite populations and rule over a Muslim population in Syria,
The thing about Basileios II's solution - an eminently reasonable one - was that it was inherently very ad hoc. Governmentally and even militarily, the new territories were not integrated into the existing Byzantine system. This was certain to work just fine so long as Nikephoros Ouranos and Basileios himself were running the show, but I can't see that becoming a more long-term solution. So somebody would have to figure out how to reform the eastern territories' governments, and it's six-five and pick 'em (and probably worse) whether the east would have, er, 'tolerant' administration or not after such a reform.
 
Arnold Toynbee would say that Byzantine Orthodoxy was inherently incapable of such a feat. :rolleyes:

More seriously, a reverse dhimma system or something quite close to it is workable for Jews and Muslims, more difficult for other Christians such as Monophysites or Nestorians, depending basically on politics about Catholics. I hardly see sustanained tolerance for any other group, like pagans or any Christian heresy. Of course, an ad hoc POD can be worked out, but the maximum realistic degree of tolerance I can see for the ERE is something on the lines of the Ottoman Empire (that, ammittedly, it is not so bad indeed).
 
Indeed. Where the Nazis had "Ein Reich, ein volk, ein fuehrer", the Byzantines had "1 empire, 1 church, 1 emperor" (not formally stated that way). The Church was functionally part of the State, and so people who weren't loyal to the Church weren't loyal to the State. (Especially when they were being persecuted.:))

So....
Basically, we'd have to split the Church from the State, and that would involve HUGE butterflies. You'd probably have to get rid of Constantine and his calling of Church Councils to unify Christianity for the unified Empire.

Edit: or if Islam takes over e.g. Mesopotamia and then Rome conquers them, so the bureaucracy is forced to deal with large numbers of Muslims.... Don't know.

Edit2: NB, Western Christianity isn't anymore tolerant of 'heresy' than the East is.
 
I don't think it was so simple as "those not loyal to the church aren't loyal to the state". If the Byzantines were that dogmatic about ideology, they would never have been able to deal with...anything...they did.
 
Indeed, it is just about the right POD. Although, that POD seems to be long before 1204. If you want this to happen after Rome is split into east and west and after the Islamic conquests, that may present a problem. Maybe the conquest of Persia fails, and Persia and East Rome briefly "team up" to beat back the Caliphate. Then, make the Eastern Med a Roman lake again, with enough Christian aristocracy left in the reconquered areas to create an effective government. Persia and Rome go back to fighting as they had long before the rise of Islam, with small Muslim minorities in each area that was reconquered, no muslim menace militarily, voila! Of course, this could make Islam truly Christianity 2.0 with enough strong doctrine to make it appealing but without a single ethnicity being associated with its spread.
Hhhmm, in this scenario, Rome may not stay Christian nor Persia Zoroastrian for much longer anyway . . .
Scipio
 
I don't think it was so simple as "those not loyal to the church aren't loyal to the state". If the Byzantines were that dogmatic about ideology, they would never have been able to deal with...anything...they did.
Except that they were that dogmatic.

Look at the problems they had dealing with monophysite Egypt. Or the Iconoclast/Iconodule controversy/civil war.

Seriously.
 
I guess the main stumbling block is Egypt, if the Romans can reconcile Chalcedonianism to Coptic theology somehow, they might have a chance to hold onto one of their richest lands. hmmmmmmm, lets say Manuel I retakes part of Egypt in his grand expedition of 1170 (which almost worked out too, if not for the Crusaders not wanting to play ball), how will a Komnenoi era government rule over an Egyptian population (say in Alexandria and Daimetta)...
 
From what I remember when it came to religious tolerance, the ERE was the middle ground between the high tolerance of many of the Moslem nations, and the intolerance of the medieval European kingdoms.
 
Top