Reconquista, the Crusades and ATL Ebionitism

Would Reconquista in the Iberian Peninsula and the Crusades in the Levant still happen if the invaders (Moors in the former, Saracens in the latter) followed Ebionitism instead of OTL Islam?

The POD, by the way, is the same as this thread.
 
Last edited:
The question you have to ask is how the Ebionites conquer the vast area achieved by the Arabs in our timeline. That very specifically came from fundamentals of Arab nomadic culture and the zealotry of Islam. I struggle to see how it comes from a small Jewish sect without any of the zeal in a sedentary society.

However, if we hand wave that away and just assume they're there. I think the Reconquista will still happen. Catholics were quite happy to wage holy war against the Cathars and pagans, so it will happen here. The crusades are more of a question: the crusaders did so under the agreement that any territory became the domain or vassals of the Orthodox Roman Empire. I can't see the same motivation existing for grabbing territory from (in the Catholic view) one heretical sect of Christianity to another heretical sect of Christianity.
 
Would Reconquista in the Iberian Peninsula and the Crusades in the Levant still happen if the invaders (Moors in the former, Saracens in the latter) followed Ebionitism instead of OTL Islam?

I cannot see why it shouldn´t. Much smaller differences than between Catholic Christians and Ebionites has lead to conflict.

The question you have to ask is how the Ebionites conquer the vast area achieved by the Arabs in our timeline. That very specifically came from fundamentals of Arab nomadic culture and the zealotry of Islam. I struggle to see how it comes from a small Jewish sect without any of the zeal in a sedentary society.

However, if we hand wave that away and just assume they're there. I think the Reconquista will still happen. Catholics were quite happy to wage holy war against the Cathars and pagans, so it will happen here. The crusades are more of a question: the crusaders did so under the agreement that any territory became the domain or vassals of the Orthodox Roman Empire. I can't see the same motivation existing for grabbing territory from (in the Catholic view) one heretical sect of Christianity to another heretical sect of Christianity.

The differences are much smaller between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism than between the latter and the Ebionites.
 
The question you have to ask is how the Ebionites conquer the vast area achieved by the Arabs in our timeline. That very specifically came from fundamentals of Arab nomadic culture and the zealotry of Islam. I struggle to see how it comes from a small Jewish sect without any of the zeal in a sedentary society.
Well, the invaders in this scenario are Arabs, just like in OTL, but their religion is different ITTL, although in OTL, there were speculations about Ebionite influence on early Islam.

The PoD is the same as this thread, by the way.
 
I cannot see why it shouldn´t. Much smaller differences than between Catholic Christians and Ebionites has lead to conflict.



The differences are much smaller between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism than between the latter and the Ebionites.

Sure, but I think they'd still be considered more Christian heretics than infidels. It's also easy to forget how much animosity there was between Catholic and Orthodox in our timeline: the pillage of Constantinople really shows how bitter it could be.
 
Sure, but I think they'd still be considered more Christian heretics than infidels. It's also easy to forget how much animosity there was between Catholic and Orthodox in our timeline: the pillage of Constantinople really shows how bitter it could be.


For quite some time The church considered Islam a iconoclast heresy. Only until modern times did The Church consider Islam a completely different religion. So, the fact that they are heretics has little effect on the coming crusade.

Also the pillage of Constantinople was not a representation of a dislike of Orthodoxy, but a intelligent use of the crusader armies disgruntled by pay and no boats to take them anywhere. The Venetians utilized this tension by using them to cripple one of their greatest rivals. We must remember that Pope Urban called the crusade in order to defend Byzantium and to save Christian pilgrims who's routes had been compromised by the Seljuk empire, who unlike the Fatmids were not open to allowing of pilgrims until the crusades were immennant.
 
For quite some time The church considered Islam a iconoclast heresy. Only until modern times did The Church consider Islam a completely different religion. So, the fact that they are heretics has little effect on the coming crusade.

Not by the point of the crusades, however. (Unless I'm mistaken.)

Also the pillage of Constantinople was not a representation of a dislike of Orthodoxy, but a intelligent use of the crusader armies disgruntled by pay and no boats to take them anywhere. The Venetians utilized this tension by using them to cripple one of their greatest rivals. We must remember that Pope Urban called the crusade in order to defend Byzantium and to save Christian pilgrims who's routes had been compromised by the Seljuk empire, who unlike the Fatmids were not open to allowing of pilgrims until the crusades were immennant.

It was both. It was clever tactics by the Venetians, but the fact the Catholics were willing to destroy the greatest city in Christendom that they went out there to theoretically defend shows the degree of tension.
 
Not by the point of the crusades, however. (Unless I'm mistaken.)

Oh yes, it was. "From that time to the present a false prophet named Muhammad has appeared appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy" -John of Damascus 746.

There are other examples of this up till the 1400s if you have the patience to read them. But most definately Islam was considered a heresy of Iconoclasm and Arianism mixed from what most European scholars of time thought.

It was both. It was clever tactics by the Venetians, but the fact the Catholics were willing to destroy the greatest city in Christendom that they went out there to theoretically defend shows the degree of tension.

The tension of not being paid yes, the dislike of orthodoxy I would say no. The crusaders of the 4th crusade were meant to go to Jerusalem, however they were forced to sit around because Venice wouldn't take them to Outremor. So essentially it was not some sort of tension that caused it, but it was the cunning of the Venetians who told a disgruntled and agitated army that the enemy was Byzantium and that they are the reason for the crusaders not being in Outremor.
 
We must remember that Pope Urban called the crusade in order to defend Byzantium.

This is a good point and shows that one maybe should not overstate the disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics at this time. Why would pope Urban ask Catholics to defend the Byzantine Empire if the Orthodox were heretics?
 
Top