Paulician Byzantine Empire

I was reading Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and got the following idea.

What if the Paulicians had been able to seize control of the Byzantine Empire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulician

According to Gibbon, the long-oppressed Paulicians rebelled against the Empire with the aid of the Muslims and defeated the Imperial forces repeatedly, but their general was killed and their military efforts fell apart.

What would have happened if they'd won? Given how they'd been oppressed and seized control by force, they might initially be quite revengeful.
 
I think Gibbon has overstated the Paulicians' ability... in fact, the Paulicians pretty much defected en masse after they've had enough, and by then, they were not quite capable of being a concerned threat. So perhaps you need to have the Amorian dynasty take a more lenient approach with them, and instead of Basil I, having a Paulician rise in his place.
 
I think Gibbon has overstated the Paulicians' ability... in fact, the Paulicians pretty much defected en masse after they've had enough, and by then, they were not quite capable of being a concerned threat. So perhaps you need to have the Amorian dynasty take a more lenient approach with them, and instead of Basil I, having a Paulician rise in his place.

Haven't seen you in awhile. Welcome back.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
If we apply a little handwavium and assume that they could take control, we probably end up with an even smaller Roman Empire. At any rate, a Paulician on the throne would be disasterous.

Just a n00b's perspective
 
Moreover, they would be considered rank heretics by the rest of Christianity. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are very similar doctrinally - the main cause of the split was Rome's insistence on absolute primacy (and the filioque clause). Adoptionist Christology would pretty much guarantee a crusade from the west, IMO.
 
Moreover, they would be considered rank heretics by the rest of Christianity. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are very similar doctrinally - the main cause of the split was Rome's insistence on absolute primacy (and the filioque clause). Adoptionist Christology would pretty much guarantee a crusade from the west, IMO.

Were they in any condition to pull a Crusade at the time?
 
Were they in any condition to pull a Crusade at the time?

There was sufficient talk about a Crusade around 830s or so in OTL, after the Muslims inflicted a major defeat on Emperor Theophilus. Of course, we know that it came to nothing, and that the Empire managed to not only recover, but also to fight back with some success, but technically, a Crusade two and a half centuries earlier could have been plausible, even if its ultimate success would have been in doubt.
 
From Paul, we have the notion of the katechon, or restraining force ...

'And now you know what is holding him [the anti-christ] back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.'

Now, Carl Schmitt described OTL's Byzantine Empire thusly:

Carl Schmitt (1944) said:
“The East Roman, Byzantine empire, which ruled from Constantinople. was a coastal empire. It has at its disposal a powerful fleet, and possessed a secret weapon: the so-called Greek fire. Yet it was reduced to a completely defensive position. Nevertheless, it was able to achieve something that the empire of Charles the Great – a purely land power – was unable to achieve; it was a true 'restrainer,' a katechon ... Despite its weakness, for many centuries it 'held back' Islam, and thereby prevented the Arabs from conquering all of Italy. Had it not been so, just as in North Africa, where every trace of Christian culture was destroyed, all of Italy would have been incorporated into the Islamic world.”

Perhaps in TTL, the Byantines would consciously assume the role of katechon ... in which case, who would they see as the anti-christ?
 
From Paul, we have the notion of the katechon, or restraining force ...



Now, Carl Schmitt described OTL's Byzantine Empire thusly:



Perhaps in TTL, the Byantines would consciously assume the role of katechon ... in which case, who would they see as the anti-christ?

Well, there are really only the two options... the Franks in the West, or the Muslims in the East. Unless you count the Slavs in the North too, making it three options...
 
... in which case, who would they see as the anti-christ?

As midgard said, not many options. Possibly the Franks, or the Germans in the Holy Roman Empire (being seen as usurpers of the legitimate Roman Empire). Also likely, the Muslims, or the Turks when they invade. If the wars with Bulgaria continue, it could be them too.

If this Paulician empire is still around when the Mongols come invading, maybe Genghis Khan will be seen as the Antichrist.
 
Or, it can be a generic "Beast from the East" - after all, it is mentioned in the Book of Revelations, and this IS where much of the invasions that really threatened the Empire came from. Persia/Parthia, Arabs, Huns, even Avars/Slavs (earlier in their migration), then Turks, Bulgars... that creates ample precedent.
 
There was sufficient talk about a Crusade around 830s or so in OTL, after the Muslims inflicted a major defeat on Emperor Theophilus. Of course, we know that it came to nothing, and that the Empire managed to not only recover, but also to fight back with some success, but technically, a Crusade two and a half centuries earlier could have been plausible, even if its ultimate success would have been in doubt.

So have Theophilus be killed in one of the many battles he fought against the Arab Caliphate in Anatolia? With his death a time of chaos (ala post-Manzikert) occurs, and the Empire loses central Anatolia to the advancing Arabs.

The Eastern Empire sends urgent pleas for aid to the West, where feuding Carolingian princes are busily destroying Charlemagne's Empire. So lets say that the timeline is exactly post-Manzikert, and the West finally decides to send a major crusade in about 860.

The Crusade is an attempt to staunch the blood that three decades of near-constant warfare have released. Various Carolingian princes set off to fight in the East, and the exit of these princes from the scene eases the violence in the West.

I don't know if people think this is all that plausible, but I would think that under these conditions the Franks might actually fight as allies of the Emperor, rather than as a totally independent force (ala OTL Crusaders). I don't know if the Arabs would have been able to settle into Anatolia as the Turks did OTL, so its possible that central Anatolia is open for settlement. Even if it isn't and the Franks just march into the Holy Land. There was a breakdown of central authority at this time in the Middle East as the Abbasids began to decline, just as there was a similar breakdown of authority OTL as the Seljuk Turks fell apart.

So how does a Frankish Syria, 200 years early sound?
 
Intriguing article from Tom Nairn, over at OpenDemocracy:

Byzantium: always an Empire said:
Judith Herrin's introduction points out how decisive was Byzantium's resistance to various invasions from the east - above all that of the 7th century CE (common era), when the first great expansion of Muslim power threatened the city. Had the Arabs succeeded then, they would undoubtedly have colonised "throughout the Balkans, into Italy and the West....at a time when political fragmentation reduced the possibility of organized defence." The north shore of the Mediterranean would have been "converted" as well as the south, there would have been caliphates in the Baltic, as well as the Levant and today's Mesopotamia.

By preventing this, the crossroads metropolis "made Europe possible...allowing small units time to develop their own strengths" and eventually repel the invaders. Developing nation-states like France, Spain and England were given the chance to consolidate and arm, and a century later turned back the invaders, and confined them, on the northern shores of the Mediterranean, to one part of Iberia. Thus the magnificent capital of the eastern empire shielded everyone to the west and north: "Without Byzantium there would have been no Europe."
 
Bump, to save myself from having to create a second, similar thread.

According to many sources, the Paulicians of Anatolia (in the 860s and 870s lead by the warlord Chrysocheir from their capital of Tephrike) planned on converting Bulgaria to Paulicianism. They had had a significant presence in Thrace since the eighth century. Also, the turbulent religious environment in Bulgaria in the 860s - Frankish missionaries competed with both Papal and Byzantine monks, all with conflicting agendas, and Bulgarian pagans strove to preserve the old order - facilitated the spread of Paulicianism. The khan, Boris, also wavered between Latin and Greek Christianity several times in the 860s.

So what if the mission goes through, and c. 871 Boris receives a great Paulician mission at his capital of Pliska. Their doctrine is simpler than that of the Franks, Romans, or of the Byzantines. They promise that Boris will be allowed to control the church himself, as the Paulicians never developed a supreme authority figure like the pope or patriarch. All that is asked is that Boris adhere to the Paulician doctrine and aid efforts to spread it throughout Bulgaria.

One of the major benefits of course, is the complete liberation of Bulgaria from Byzantine influence, Boris's greatest desire. He would be able to increase his power as a ruler sanctioned by god rather than just a "first among equals". The boyars would be more content with this brand of Christianity, as their anti-Christian sentiment stemmed in OTL from a fear of Byzantine influence.

The Byzantine emperor of the time would undoubtedly launch an invasion of Bulgaria upon hearing the news - he did so in OTL in 864 when Boris converted to Catholicism. But the Bulgarians were more than a match for Byzantium. The only reason Michael III won in 864 was because Boris's army was away in the northwest, fighting Moravia. The full Bulgarian army could probably defeat the Byzantine forces and cement Paulicianism in Bulgaria.

Another major issue: the Byzantine offensive launched against Chrysocheir in 871, which lead to the fall of the Paulician state within ten years. A Paulician Bulgaria would probably ally with its brethren. Could the forces combine to destroy the Byzantine Empire and divide it up amongst themselves?
 
Top