How to destroy the Papacy in the 11th Century?
- Thread starter Grouchio
- Start date
- Status
I am thinking the Normans or HRE possibly, they could do it I suppose. Try asking someone with more knowledge on the subject.
Western Europe is devestated by War, Famine and Pestelence following which the Moors and Eastern Roman Empire move in and take over and most of the survivors convert to either Islam or Orthodox Christianity.
Does it have to be in the 11th Century?
A POD in the 14th century with a Western Schism which doesn't get healed is probably your best for a divided papacy.
A POD in the 14th century with a Western Schism which doesn't get healed is probably your best for a divided papacy.
I was thinking more of a Heretical new, secular Church founded by either the HRE or said Normans. Maybe something with Bogomilist, Catharic, some Bid'ahist and Waldensian characteristics.
Yes it needs to. It's all for a massive ATL master-plan with several PoDs throughout Eurasia in the 11th-12th centuries. Howabout during the Investiture Controversy, as stated earlier?
One possible way could be to escalate one of the conflicts between the Bishop of Rome and one of HRE's (Urban II had this trouble, and he called the First Crusade), which ends with the papacy being destroyed. Excommunication only goes so far...Frederick II was excommunicated and it didn't bother him that much.
Or Byzantium wank after the schism between the churches of Rome and Constantinople, where the Byzantines somehow destroy the papacy in an all out war with Western Europe.
It would be pretty hard to destroy the papacy by the 11th century. They wielded a lot of power by then. An earlier POD perhaps. I can't really think of another way to destroy it besides warfare.
Or Byzantium wank after the schism between the churches of Rome and Constantinople, where the Byzantines somehow destroy the papacy in an all out war with Western Europe.
It would be pretty hard to destroy the papacy by the 11th century. They wielded a lot of power by then. An earlier POD perhaps. I can't really think of another way to destroy it besides warfare.
Go on... What sort of earlier PoD are we looking at? Can't be before Charlemagne though...One possible way could be to escalate one of the conflicts between the Bishop of Rome and one of HRE's (Urban II had this trouble, and he called the First Crusade), which ends with the papacy being destroyed. Excommunication only goes so far...Frederick II was excommunicated and it didn't bother him that much.
Or Byzantium wank after the schism between the churches of Rome and Constantinople, where the Byzantines somehow destroy the papacy in an all out war with Western Europe.
It would be pretty hard to destroy the papacy by the 11th century. They wielded a lot of power by then. An earlier POD perhaps. I can't really think of another way to destroy it besides warfare.
Given if an 11th century PoD is implausible.
I think that the best way to do it would be some kind of replacement system similar to how Orthodox churches worked where each kingdom got its own "patriarch" appointed either by the king or by a synod of bishops from that kingdom. It could possibly come about if something akin to the investiture conflict and the schism of 1054 coincided with one another leading to ecumenical council to reform the church.
1. Basil II leaves a competent successor or lives another decade, first Siciliy falls then most of Southern Italy. In response the Papacy starts saber-rattling but the HRE makes them concede a *lot* of power in exchange for protection. By the time the details are worked out the Eternal City is in the hands of the Byzantines, but the damage is done - a Byzantine "Pope" sits in Rome, the HRE "Pope" sits somewhere in the Empire (Aachen?) and another "Pope" likely arises somewhere else in response to the events above, perhaps Santiago de Campostela or ironically Canterbury. Basil II dies but the title passes on with the "reunified" church making its HQ in Constantinople, no 4th Crusade occurs and the Empire likely declines at a much later time, probably in the 16th or 17th century.
2. The call for the First Crusade was a calculated political move to promote Urban II as the real Pope in place of an HRE candidate. Make the HRE guy call for the Crusade first and get a lot of social capital for doing so, giving two Popes a greater equality of influence and potentially shattering the need for the Emperor to bow to Rome at all.
3. Henry IV or HRE and Alexios I of Byzantium unite to rout the Normans in Southern Italy. Guiscard leaves Durazzo earlier than OTL to march to Rome to free the Pope, Byzantine forces tie down a Norman army in Greece while Henry marches from Northern Italy. Bohemond loses earlier than OTL and Alexius, anxious to restore Southern Italy as a Byzantine province, prepares his army to sail to Bari. Guiscard is unaware of this as he is defeated by Henry and his army in northern Greece is defeated. Henry takes Rome while Alexius recovers much more than OTL by blind luck and crafty alliances, in the process he and Henry split the Norman holdings with the HRE taking back Sicily, Capua, and Benevento while Byzantines taking back Amalfi, Salerno, Calabria, and Apulia. Byzantine successes avoid the First Crusade and ironically results in a Turkish siege on Constantinople in the early 12th century.
2. The call for the First Crusade was a calculated political move to promote Urban II as the real Pope in place of an HRE candidate. Make the HRE guy call for the Crusade first and get a lot of social capital for doing so, giving two Popes a greater equality of influence and potentially shattering the need for the Emperor to bow to Rome at all.
3. Henry IV or HRE and Alexios I of Byzantium unite to rout the Normans in Southern Italy. Guiscard leaves Durazzo earlier than OTL to march to Rome to free the Pope, Byzantine forces tie down a Norman army in Greece while Henry marches from Northern Italy. Bohemond loses earlier than OTL and Alexius, anxious to restore Southern Italy as a Byzantine province, prepares his army to sail to Bari. Guiscard is unaware of this as he is defeated by Henry and his army in northern Greece is defeated. Henry takes Rome while Alexius recovers much more than OTL by blind luck and crafty alliances, in the process he and Henry split the Norman holdings with the HRE taking back Sicily, Capua, and Benevento while Byzantines taking back Amalfi, Salerno, Calabria, and Apulia. Byzantine successes avoid the First Crusade and ironically results in a Turkish siege on Constantinople in the early 12th century.
The Papacy simply had too much power by the 11th century...just look at the Crusades.
There was a time when the Roman Church, was in a vicarious position. They had power and prestige, but also could be easily victimized since they didn't have protection of Rome anymore. Before 1100, they always seemed to need some secular power to protect them. They also looked for rulers who could bring back the Roman empire. The march towards universal papal authority (at least in Western Europe) started with Charlemagne. He was the first protector of the church, and set a precedent for other secular rulers to follow.
Perhaps getting rid of him could lead to the Papacy being less secure down the road.
But its not like there wasn't opposition to that, just look at the investiture conflict. And the crusades really aren't a sign of papal power in my opinion, they where hardly controlled by the papacy in any direct way and in fact the first crusade was really the only inspiring show of force by the church there, otherwise the rest where either utterly humiliating (2nd crusade, 4th Crusade, 8th crusade) or "merely" failures (the rest). The real show of the churches power though is how effective they where in dictating the actions of the feudal nobility and discreditting secular rulers who go against them.
I wasn't trying to say that the Crusades were a pinnacle of Papal power either (just look at Frederick II). I was merely stating that I can't see the papacy being destroyed or a POD in the 11th century.
Still, when Urban II called for an army to take Jerusalem and help out the Byzantium Empire in1096, helped by certain people like Peter the Hermit, many in Western Europe, the nobility and the masses, answered his call. So, this shows that they did have a great deal of power and influence in that regard.
1. Edward the Confessor has a viable heir, either his nephew survives or a son of his own. England remains "schismatic" and irreverent of Roman claims to primacy over Christendom, at the same time recognizing the Byzantine Emperor as the sole true Emperor etc. Saxon England continues to enjoy frequent exchange with Scandinavia and Normandy, perhaps influencing the development of the Christian church in those territories too.
William the Bastard and his successors channel their energy east and southward against the Franks, perhaps seeing schism as a way of subverting French claims to overlordship and the Papacy's support/interference.
With no England to emigrate to, Norman meddling in the Mediterrenean could be even more significant than OTL. Cue greater contact with Byzantinium and possibility of alliances against the Papacy, perhaps the Hautevilles become Imperial subjects or even Byzantine Emperors instead.
William the Bastard and his successors channel their energy east and southward against the Franks, perhaps seeing schism as a way of subverting French claims to overlordship and the Papacy's support/interference.
With no England to emigrate to, Norman meddling in the Mediterrenean could be even more significant than OTL. Cue greater contact with Byzantinium and possibility of alliances against the Papacy, perhaps the Hautevilles become Imperial subjects or even Byzantine Emperors instead.
Well, I had a few extra PoDs in store for my ATL. First, Basil II has a son (Romanos I think) and successor as able-minded as he was around 1005. The Macedonian Dynasty remains at it's height under his stabilizing rule, and easily undergoes the Great Schism, almost identical to OTL. Second, Toghrul beg and his brother die besieging the city of Merv in 1029, thus butterflying away the Great Seljuq Empire. So there's no takeover of the Middle East, or a Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Third, I'm going to see if Henry IV, instead of being captured by the Archbishop of Cologne in 1061, escapes to Italy where he's captured by an Sicilian Emirate Fleet, which brings him to Cairo where he's held hostage by the Caliph, whilst studying the benefits of the Islamic world, and whilst staying a Christian, yet reformed. His changed personality and attitude towards the 'infidel' would surely make him condemn the Norman invasion of Sicily, and would surely ally himself with the Byzantine Empire. After returning to Germany and being crowned Emperor, he then begins his (ITTL much more radical) Investiture Controversy that screams heresy in so many ways it baffles everyone but Constantinople. Before he's excommunicated by the Pope, Henry manages to invite his German adversaries to a banquet in 1077 claiming to make a compromise, and orders his guards to slit their throats while drunk and puts all their heads on pikes branding them traitors to the Empire and supporters of papal tyranny. His remaining subjects have no choice but to obey his will as he proceeds to invade Northern Italy against the Papacy, while the Byzantines simultaneously invade Southern Italy against the Normans. In 1080, Henry IV manages to capture Rome and the Vatican and proceeds to slay the Pope and instead of electing a new Pope, abolishes the title altogether, destroying the Papacy forever! He then splits the Norman holdings with the HRE taking back Sicily, Capua, and Benevento while Byzantines taking back Amalfi, Salerno, Calabria, and Apulia. Finally, he proclaims a new church for the Holy Roman Empire and it's vassals; The Teutonic Protestant Church, led by the Emperor and his Patriarch of Cologne! Catholicism begins it's decline and dismemberment, and my first part of my radical medieval Europe and Asia is complete!
Does this seem like a logical idea?
Does this seem like a logical idea?
Which implies....what? That it's impossible to dismantle the Papacy? Too bad! Henry IV has sacked the place, his troops are looting and burning the city without mercy. It wouldn't be by a long shot that many Romans would be slaughtered in the sack, and they can't do a damned thing against their mighty conqueror! With the pontificate abolished and Rome burnt, the capital of Roman Catholicism has vanished! At least that's what Onyx and I are planning...
Which implies that the Roman people weren't 100% devoted to Papal rule and that a Rome with a somewhat Republican/oligarchic government under a consul isn't ASB. Further down on that page it talks about how both England and Germany were Orthodox in the 11th century, with England being brought down by Norman conquest and consolidation and Germany "by cunning dialectic and the fear of excommunication by the Pope". If both England and Germany can somehow remain Orthodox, and William the Bastard can somehow not be reconciled to the Papacy, it might be possible to bring about the downfall of the Papacy and fracturing of Roman Catholicism in the 11th/12th centuries.
- Status