Jomsvikings, Norwegians, and Vinland! A TL

Information about the Pope’s half-brother Harald (OTL Harald III of Norway)

John XX’s brother, Harald, was a wanderer to whatever his fancy was. At first, he was a warrior like his half-brother with the Jomsvikings. Next, he was a priest under Óláfr in Níðárós. After that began to bore him, he decided to go to Constantinople to join the Varangian Guard with a group of men in 1033. He makes that his living for 9 years, until he is imprisoned by Empress Zoe (who doesn’t know who his brother is) for misappropriation of funds. Her husband, Constantine IX, lets him go, but won’t let him leave the country after Harald asks to go home. Hatred develops between the two parties, and eventually Harald secretly escapes in the dead of night and travels disguised as a merchant until he reaches Saxony. He then rights a letter to his half-brother </SPAN>Óláfr who is now a Cardinal Protopriest. He tells him of his time in Constantinople, and his half-brother begins to despise them for their deeds, unbeknownst to his fellow clergy. Harald becomes a Jarl in Norway after the letter and a bodyguard for King Tryggve and his son Óláfr II.

Pope John XX’s Papacy

When Óláfr becomes Pope John XX in 1047, he is looking for any excuse to excommunicate the Byzantine Empire, not only for their treatment of his family, but also for the differences between their churches. For the beginning of John’s pontificate there is no reason, and instead he restructures the Church. He gives the Pope more power, and sends a lot of missionaries to what we now call Finland, and also the Middle East in Jerusalem and other important cities.

However, eventually the Pope gets a reason to excommunicate the Byzantines in 1054. When the Patriarch of Constantinople writes a letter to the Western Church condemning them for their “Judaist” practices and their use of unleavened bread, John XX feels that this is sufficient enough for even to call a Crusade against the heathens, saying “The infidel will keep converting honest Christians into so called “Orthodox” Christians. We must destroy them before they do so in the name of God. I ask all of the true Christendom to fight the Byzantines and enforce Catholicism on their heretical views.” While some of the western clergy feels this has gone too far, most of Europe is ready to fight the non-Catholics as a way to get back at the major superpower of the day and vengeance for their earlier invasions i.e. Justinian I’s invasion. The armies of Christendom ignore Novgorod, (who has also joined the Byzantines in becoming Orthodox) leaving the Norse to deal with them, as they aren’t as important.

The First Crusade and Events Right Afterwards

The biggest major world leader supporter of the First Crusade is Duke William of Normandy, who is a friend of the Pope’s. (Instead of Pope Leo IX, who didn’t approve of William in his marriage to the Princess of Flanders Matilda. Pope John XX tends to be friendlier to the Viking nations during his Papacy, and Normandy is one of those nations.) Duke William amasses an 18,000 (16,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry) man Crusader army to fight the infidels, while the rest of Christendom amasses 14,000 under various kings. The next biggest army is the French army under King Henry I, whom has an 8,000 man army. The two leaders have had an unstable relationship in the recent past, but the Crusade brings back their friendship that they had in 1047, and the two work closely together. Other participants include a Norwegian-English coalition of 4,000 men under Jarl Harald (given permission to have the funds for the army by King Óláfr II of Norway) and the Anglo-Saxon Prince Edward II (brother of Edmund II and uncle to King Edward III, or Edward the Exile in OTL), the Pope’s half-brother, and a Kievan Rus-Polish-Hungarian coalition army with another 2,000 under Mieszko II’s son Mieszko III. The Holy Roman Empire is the only Catholic country that decides not to participate at all in the Crusade; even the Spanish kingdoms lend funds to the Pope for the Crusade. (Likely due to the presence of the Empress Theodora)

The crusader armies reach Constantinople in a year. The Norman army during the journey conquered Byzantine Italy, and the Rus-Polish-Hungarian forces conquer much of Greece. The Crusader armies have over double the military force outside of Constantinople than the Byzantines have in it; 32,000 to around 15,000. However, this balance is near equaled when they have to face the prospect of their walls. Many perish, including Mieszko III of Poland. (His son Boleslaw II is now King of Poland) The unquestionable leader of the force is William, and slowly he leads them to victory in Constantinople. The losses: the Crusaders 25,000, the Byzantines 12,000.

After the victory, almost all of the Crusader armies leave, except for William and his Normans, and Jarl Harald, who became a friend of William as well during the Crusade, partly because of their viking heritage. William wishes to rebuild the Byzantine Empire into a Catholic Empire, breathing life back into the dying Empire. With Papal support he is allowed to rebuild Byzantium as a completely Catholic nation again, with all of the conquered Crusader territories except for Southern Italy, which is now ruled by the Norman Kingdom of Naples. He first systematically murders all of the major Greek Orthodox leaders and all of the members of the Macedonian dynasty within the empire, sparing just Theodora, Empress of the Holy Roman Empire.

Almost ironically, two weeks after hearing of Catholicism’s victory in the First Crusade, Pope John XX dies at age 60. His successor is Pope Honestus I, who was a minor Italian supporter of Pope John XX.

On a different note, I will update my previous post to include a brief history of Poland during Tryggve’s reign, which I realized I forgot while in the middle of writing this one. :eek:

Please give me comments! :)
Crusade!? immediately after schism? I can't believe it working that fast. One day Hans is told to love his Eastern brothers, and the next to raise troops against the heretical miscreants? ??? I really think you need to let the hostility build. Also, just 'cause the Pope has a bee in his bonnet doesn't mean that 10s of thousands of people will sign up.

OTL the Crusades were all about 'reclaiming the Holy Land'. Suppressing heresy was the Inquisition's job (to oversimplify). Even the 4th Crusade, which took Constantinople wasn't about heresy - originally, it was about the Italian transport refusing to take them to the Holy Land until they'd taken Jerusalem.

I'm not saying you can't have a Crusade (you do have the example of the Albigensian crusade in OTL, although wasn't structured like the Outremer ones), what I am saying is you can't have one so fast. The pope has to get people behind him.
 
Crusade!? immediately after schism? I can't believe it working that fast. One day Hans is told to love his Eastern brothers, and the next to raise troops against the heretical miscreants? ??? I really think you need to let the hostility build. Also, just 'cause the Pope has a bee in his bonnet doesn't mean that 10s of thousands of people will sign up.

OTL the Crusades were all about 'reclaiming the Holy Land'. Suppressing heresy was the Inquisition's job (to oversimplify). Even the 4th Crusade, which took Constantinople wasn't about heresy - originally, it was about the Italian transport refusing to take them to the Holy Land until they'd taken Jerusalem.

I'm not saying you can't have a Crusade (you do have the example of the Albigensian crusade in OTL, although wasn't structured like the Outremer ones), what I am saying is you can't have one so fast. The pope has to get people behind him.

I was worried about something like this.

Hostility has been building up between Rome and Constantinople for hundreds of years, just like in OTL. IOTL, Pope Leo IX died during the Schism, and a Papal election was going on during it, which obviously weakened the ability a bit for Christendom to strike back. This also makes it more likely for a crusade. If you ask me, a former mercenary warrior, extreme missionary Pope who has the background of a former poor priest/soldier like a common man in Europe in those days would have a solid amount of support, and would've been likely to try and save Christianity. And if that same man told you that you're afterlife will be saved if I go on this mission, than I'll set off in a heartbeat, especially in a medieval frame of mind. And actually, relations between east and west were on an upswing before the real schism. ITTL, there was no upswing in relations, and actually relations were down with Pope John XX and his hatred for the Byzantine Empire.

The first crusade was called to save Christendom from the Turks by the Byzantine Emperor. This first crusade was to save Christendom from a new branch of Christendom. The "Bee in his bonnet" analogy also could describe many Catholics in Europe, as they didn't like Byzantium much either. The Byzantines were much richer than they were, and they saw themselves as superior to the remnants of the West Roman Empire.

It is debatable IMHO that Constantinople is part of the Holy lands. After all, it is the second Rome. While not part of the life of Jesus Christ, it is certainly at the same status of holiness as Rome, and if say Rome were captured by Muslims in this Time Period, there probably would be a Crusade. Besides, you have to remember that ITTL that there have been no crusades as of yet, so you can't define it the same way. I can understand why you would disagree, but this is just my opinion.

The Pope has been in power for 7 years. I think (if that's what you mean) that that is enough time to gain support from people. He has saved Christianity from the Papal disputes of the 1040s. I think he is a well enough respected guy to gain support from the average person.

A heretic is someone who believes that while their church believes in the right God, they believe in it the wrong way; their doctrine is wrong. I would have to believe that an Eastern Orthodox clergy member could be described as a heretic by a Roman Catholic in that sense. While not the traditional heretic, it can still describe one.

Sorry if I'm jumping around from point to point, but I'm putting down points as I think of them.
 
Last edited:
Hostility has been building up between Rome and Constantinople for hundreds of years, just like in OTL. IOTL, Pope Leo IX died during the Schism, and a Papal election was going on during it, which obviously weakened the ability a bit for Christendom to strike back. This also makes it more likely for a crusade. If you ask me, a former mercenary warrior, extreme missionary Pope who has the background of a former poor priest/soldier like a common man in Europe in those days would have a solid amount of support, and would've been likely to try and save Christianity. And if that same man told you that you're afterlife will be saved if I go on this mission, than I'll set off in a heartbeat, especially in a medieval frame of mind. And actually, relations between east and west were on an upswing before the real schism. ITTL, there was no upswing in relations, and actually relations were down with Pope John XX and his hatred for the Byzantine Empire.
Certainly there was bad blood between the hierarchies. Certainly it resulted in schism. That this pope might want to do SOMETHING about it, I can certainly see. However, to get a Crusade, or at least one that works :))), requires enthusiasm on the part of the Crusaders. Taking back the Holy Land from the Infidel, yes, kings will line up to go.

Attacking Constantinople because they don't recognize the Pope is all-powerful? Umm... Remember, the various Kings had there OWN power struggles with the Papacy, they are not going to be enthused at the idea of a Crusade to increase the Pope's power, which this basically is.

Take some random noble in Europe. Is he annoyed with the arrogance of the Greeks? Yes. Does he believe that they are heterodox? Yes. Does he believe they are actually heretical? Ummm... OK, he can be convinced that. Would he go fight them if someone else paid the way? Possibly. Would he MORTGAGE HIS POSSESSIONS to go? No way, no how.

The cost of shipping and supplying an army from Western Europe to Constantinople is HUGE, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to pay the cost. OTL, freeing the Holy Land, that got EVERYONE excited, and kings essentially mortgaged their countries to take part.

Besides, if you want to take Constantinople, have fun. Those walls are huge, and not takeable with Western military tech. OTL, it took a couple of hundred years of learning more modern warfare tactics, AND traitors within the walls for the West to take the city, no?

So... No, I don't think this is feasible.


As for 'sake of one's soul - it's a heck of a lot cheaper and less dangerous to walk to e.g. Santiago da Compostela or Rome than it is to outfit you and a couple of knights and a herd of peasants and ship them across the known world.


The first crusade was called to save Christendom from the Turks by the Byzantine Emperor. This first crusade was to save Christendom from a new branch of Christendom. The "Bee in his bonnet" analogy also could describe many Catholics in Europe, as they didn't like Byzantium much either. The Byzantines were much richer than they were, and they saw themselves as superior to the remnants of the West Roman Empire.
Ummm... Actually, no. As several of the Byzantophiles on the board have pointed out, the whole concept of 'crusade' is foreign to the Byzantine mindset. What the emperor asked for was some western help to defend against Turks. The declaration of Crusade and the change of target was not at all desired by the Byzantines.


It is debatable IMHO that Constantinople is part of the Holy lands. After all, it is the second Rome. While not part of the life of Jesus Christ, it is certainly at the same status of holiness as Rome, and if say Rome were captured by Muslims in this Time Period, there probably would be a Crusade. Besides, you have to remember that ITTL that there have been no crusades as of yet, so you can't define it the same way. I can understand why you would disagree, but this is just my opinion.

The Pope has been in power for 7 years. I think (if that's what you mean) that that is enough time to gain support from people. He has saved Christianity from the Papal disputes of the 1040s. I think he is a well enough respected guy to gain support from the average person.
:confused:Constantinople in the Holy Land. Hunh? Not at all. That's one reason it wouldn't work for a Crusade. As for it being Second Rome, it was holy to the ORTHODOX, not to Catholics. They wouldn't care at all. Alexandria, one of the Ancient patriarchies, or even Antioch, maybe. Constantinople. Nope, no way. Nothing like Rome, not even close. Not a little bit. Not to the West.




A heretic is someone who believes that while their church believes in the right God, they believe in it the wrong way; their doctrine is wrong. I would have to believe that an Eastern Orthodox clergy member could be described as a heretic by a Roman Catholic in that sense. While not the traditional heretic, it can still describe one.
Getting Westerners to believe the Orthodox are heretics is certainly possible. That I'll buy.

Sorry if I'm jumping around from point to point, but I'm putting down points as I think of them.
Because of the jumping around, I may have misunderstood some of your points. If some of my replies are orthogonal to your intent, that may be part of the reason:)
 
If the Pope wants to nibble at Byzantium's borders by making a general call to Western Christendom to help Venice expand its holdings in Illyria, or Austria and/or Hungary to expand south, THAT would be doable. He could even call it a crusade, but you won't get the King of France to show up.

He could even get Naples, say, to possibly try to take the Peloponese, I suppose, which AFAIK was a fairly poor and poorly defended part of the Empire.

What you're not going to be able to do is to strike successfully into the very heart of the Empire. And a military man like John XX should know that.

Things called crusades are possible. What I understand you to want isn't.
 
All very good points, but I'm still not convinced. :):p

Certainly there was bad blood between the hierarchies. Certainly it resulted in schism. That this pope might want to do SOMETHING about it, I can certainly see. However, to get a Crusade, or at least one that works :))), requires enthusiasm on the part of the Crusaders. Taking back the Holy Land from the Infidel, yes, kings will line up to go.

Well first off, the Orthodox Christians could very well be seen as infidels to the Catholics. An infidel, according to Wikipedia, is someone who "knowingly held beliefs that contradicted Catholic dogma." Orthodox Christians certainly fit that category.

The main enthusiasm of the average Crusader was that to save his afterlife by taking back the holy lands, and if a Pope in that mindset told you to take Constantinople or else you'll rot in hell, you'd do it. Why in the world would they choose to leave their families voluntarily to join a volunteer army where it's likely you'll end up dead?

Plus, it doesn't hurt that it is against a bunch of rich heathens that you're fighting.

Attacking Constantinople because they don't recognize the Pope is all-powerful? Umm... Remember, the various Kings had there OWN power struggles with the Papacy, they are not going to be enthused at the idea of a Crusade to increase the Pope's power, which this basically is.

Yes, the Kings had power struggles with the Papacy, and many during this time, like the Holy Roman Empire. But why then, were Crusades still getting lords to sign up for 9 crusades? They saw that it raised the authority of the Pope.

It's because at this time, like it or not, the Pope was number 1 to many people. He was the one who "loans" you the power to rule. You piss the Pope off, you piss your people off. A smart king would much rather keep the Pope on his good side rather than on his bad side. While some rulers did fight the Pope and question their superiority, they usually didn't fare to well i.e. Henry IV and the Saxon revolts.

Take some random noble in Europe. Is he annoyed with the arrogance of the Greeks? Yes. Does he believe that they are heterodox? Yes. Does he believe they are actually heretical? Ummm... OK, he can be convinced that. Would he go fight them if someone else paid the way? Possibly. Would he MORTGAGE HIS POSSESSIONS to go? No way, no how.
The cost of shipping and supplying an army from Western Europe to Constantinople is HUGE, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to pay the cost. OTL, freeing the Holy Land, that got EVERYONE excited, and kings essentially mortgaged their countries to take part.

They are fighting for the RICHEST CITY IN THE WORLD! The Pope I would believe could convince nobles that winning the Crusade would more than pay for the trip, and fill the coffers at home. It's a gamble; you win you're set for life. You lose, well you're not. I can see lords taking the gamble.

Plus, I'd imagine it'd be cheaper than going to Jerusalem, as it's closer to most of Christendom. And there's a lot more money in Constantinople than there is in Jerusalem.

Besides, if you want to take Constantinople, have fun. Those walls are huge, and not takeable with Western military tech. OTL, it took a couple of hundred years of learning more modern warfare tactics, AND traitors within the walls for the West to take the city, no?

Yes, you're completely right about that. However, in OTL's sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade, the crusaders had 20,000 men to the Byzantines 30,000 men. In TTL, the Crusaders had OVER DOUBLE the amount of men as the Byzantines had total, and were led by a great general in William the Conqueror. (though I'm not sure of his sieging ability, I'd assume it'd be around the same tier) I'm not sure who exactly would be leading the counterattack in Constantinople, I'm sure he wouldn't have been as good. I'd assume it'd be Constantine IX, who is not on par with William the Conqueror.

While they have the ridiculous walls and Greek fire and such, I don't know if that would be enough to stop 30,000+ men united by a great general against what’d I say, 15,000. Plus, they could always use fire like what happened in the 4th Crusade, and end up (though I think accidentally IOTL) burning down Constantinople.

I think that I'll make the siege last a little longer, as that'd make it more realistic.

As for 'sake of one's soul - it's a heck of a lot cheaper and less dangerous to walk to e.g. Santiago da Compostela or Rome than it is to outfit you and a couple of knights and a herd of peasants and ship them across the known world.

Yes, that is true, but then how would any of the Crusades have anybody join them if everyone thought like you? The basis of getting people to join the Crusades was not for walking for years and fighting in giant battles that you'll die in, it was for your souls to be saved. Popes back then obviously could convince people that being in the Crusades was more important than walking to Rome. Plus, would it really be closer for Hungarians to walk to western Spain than Constantinople? ;)

Ummm... Actually, no. As several of the Byzantophiles on the board have pointed out, the whole concept of 'crusade' is foreign to the Byzantine mindset. What the emperor asked for was some western help to defend against Turks. The declaration of Crusade and the change of target was not at all desired by the Byzantines.

Right, that's what I said, or at least meant. :confused:

I quote from my earlier statement "The first crusade was called to save Christendom from the Turks by the Byzantine Emperor."

While the Byzantine Emperor didn't ask for them to continue on to Jerusalem and stuff, the Crusade was initiated by the Byzantines to save them from the Turks.

:confused:Constantinople in the Holy Land. Hunh? Not at all. That's one reason it wouldn't work for a Crusade. As for it being Second Rome, it was holy to the ORTHODOX, not to Catholics. They wouldn't care at all. Alexandria, one of the Ancient patriarchies, or even Antioch, maybe. Constantinople. Nope, no way. Nothing like Rome, not even close. Not a little bit. Not to the West.

You have to remember that Constantinople a year before the schism was still Catholic. While not like Western Catholics, the Pope was still technically in charge of them. In this case, it can still be seen as a Second Rome to Western Christianity; where else would it be? Paris? London? Naples? No, it wouldn't.

Alexandria wouldn't be considered important enough at all to be a Crusader target, the richest city in the world would be. Obviously it was holy to the Orthodox; AFTER the great Schism. As this is during the Schism, I can see it still mattering to Catholics a lot that it is in a different religions hands.

This is just my opinion, and you'll likely come back with another comeback to all of these counterpoints. I just hope that I'll come back with more stuff again. :) I think for now we can agree to disagree, unless you come back with something that I just can't counter.

Maybe I'll write another post tonight for you to nitpick at that instead. :):rolleyes:
I'm really not an expert on this time in history at all; a couple weeks ago all I could tell you about Vikings is that they went to Vinland and wore horned hats. So, I'm really glad for your help! :)
 
You'll all kill me, but I guess it is ASB. :(

I really wanted Pope John XX to have a big role in the Crusades, but didn't want him to live to an ASB age, so I had this happen. Plus, I loved the idea of William the Conqueror as a crusader.

I've thought about it, and I really like this idea for a TL, so I'm going to delete that last update and make a new one, that's hopefully less ASBish. Forgive my stubornness and foolishness, I just wanted to stick to an idea, and that was probably the wrong one. The only problem is that I have no idea how to expand it from here as of now. I'll update it when I have a good, not ASB, idea. I'm sorry for that pointless argument.
 
Top