Which peoples could have plausibly chosen Latin Christianity over Greek Orthodox?

Which peoples could have plausibly chosen Latin Christianity over Greek Orthodox?


  • Total voters
    47

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Which peoples/nations could most plausibly have chosen Latin Christianity over Greek Orthodox in medieval times?

a) Serbs
b) Bulgarians
c) Vlachs - Wallachian branch
d) Vlachs - Moldavian branch
e) Vlachs - Transylvanian branch
f) Slavic Macedonians
g) Greeks
h) Kievan Rus
i) Novgorod Rus
j) Vladimir Rus
k) Galich Rus
l) Georgians
m) Armenians
 
Before anyone answer this version of your poll, could you define what you mean by Latin Christianity vs. Greek Orthodox? You're really using two non comparable terms to contrast the divisions of Christianity. Are you talking about submitting to the authority of the Pope in Rome vs. the Patriarch in Constantinople? Are you talking about autocephaly? Or do you simply mean which Rites would be used, regardless of affiliation?

You know the usual expression "Comparing Apples to Oranges?" This poll is "Apples to Citrus."
 
Armenians A) are very notably not Greek Orthodox, and B) did have fairly close contact with the Latin church.
 
Come on guys you know what he means, Orthodox east as opposed to Roman Catholic west.

As far as I'm aware, Transylvania historically had a Catholic majority, so that's definitely plausible that the region could remain Catholic. Boost Hungarian influence (butterfly Mongols from attacking Hungary), and you could have Catholicism spread deeper into Bosnia, Serbia, Wallachia and Moldavia for sure.

Under Poland-Lithuania, Belarus and west Ukraine had Catholic majorities too.

Armenia is, as the others said, not Greek Orthodox but rather Armenian Apostolic (Oriental Orthodox), and I really can't see any way in which Armenia or Georgia could ever be Roman Catholic. Greeks is possible I suppose if the Latin Empire survives.
 
Bulgaria is really easy, historically it came down to the wire on which rite they'd follow and to whose authority they'd submit. In the end they got an autocephalous patriachy and followed the Eastern Rite, but if the Pope had been less obfuscating towards (and I can't remember his name here, can someone help me out? He was a chronicler of the Ottonians and hated the Eastern Emperor, and I think he was from Pavia) a certain priest, the Bulgarians could've become Roman Catholics. I believe the King of the Bulgarians was interested in it at the time, but the Eastern Emperor was able to act in the absence of action from the Pope.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Bulgaria is really easy, historically it came down to the wire on which rite they'd follow and to whose authority they'd submit. In the end they got an autocephalous patriachy and followed the Eastern Rite, but if the Pope had been less obfuscating towards (and I can't remember his name here, can someone help me out? He was a chronicler of the Ottonians and hated the Eastern Emperor, and I think he was from Pavia) a certain priest, the Bulgarians could've become Roman Catholics. I believe the King of the Bulgarians was interested in it at the time, but the Eastern Emperor was able to act in the absence of action from the Pope.

This is very interesting. I would suspect that a Roman Catholic Bulgaria would almost inevitably lead to Roman Catholic Vlach, Serb and Slavic Macedonian peoples and use of latin script for all their languages.

Now the straits and Constantinople itself would have remained under ERE and Orthodoxy. So this leaves conversion of Kievan Rus to Orthodoxy likely. However, if we go by the thinking in Harry Turtledove's "islands in the sea", Bulgaria's adoption of Latin Christianity could have knock-on effects extending to a Latin Christianity Russia as well.

I suppose the Bulgarians might have been receptive toward the western version of Christianity at the time because the Frankish Empire was fairly large and powerful at the time, but not so close they were fighting, whereas the Bulgarians had fought and beaten the ERE several times.

Of course, when the ERE under Basil comes back to crush the Bulgarians in th 10th century, it's going to be even nastier for the latter. And, there may be a lot of outrage against the the ERE for the act, perhaps leading to some Serbian and Magyar "crusades" against the ERE.

I don't see a reason why there would not be an ERE resurgence defeating the Bulgarians (and tag-teaming them with Sviatoslav's pagan Russia), so that will be a poor advertisement for Latin Christianity in Russia.

It's interesting to me that that the formal schism is not dated until 1054, because there were clearly differences in terms liturgy and sense of identity going back to the the 8th century, as stories about competition for Moravian and Bulgarian adherence to western or eastern churches attest.

Indeed, while one version of the Russian adoption of eastern Orthodoxy story shows Islam and Judaism as the main competitors the Rus rulers investigated, another account names the competitors as Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy and Islam. And the splendor of Constantinople's cathedrals to Germany's more austere Catholic churches accounts for the eastern version's greater appeal in Russia.

--So, Bulgaria joins Latin Christendom- that is going to change a lot of European history rather quickly, but even if many, many convergent outcomes occur (Bulgarians crushed by Byzantines and later recovering, Kievan Rus adopting Orthodoxy, western Crusades, Turkish Islamic conquest into the Balkans, emergence of Russia as a major power), the modern relationship of Russia and the Balkans will certainly be very different, and sentimental ties will not emerge between Russia and the Balkans slavs will not emerge over shared religion, but only over ethnolinguistic affinities, if that ever even becomes a thing in the 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st centuries. So, any Russian slavic brotherhood with Bulgarians or Serbs only runs as deep as Czech-Russian brotherhood.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Before anyone answer this version of your poll, could you define what you mean by Latin Christianity vs. Greek Orthodox? You're really using two non comparable terms to contrast the divisions of Christianity. Are you talking about submitting to the authority of the Pope in Rome vs. the Patriarch in Constantinople? Are you talking about autocephaly? Or do you simply mean which Rites would be used, regardless of affiliation?

You know the usual expression "Comparing Apples to Oranges?" This poll is "Apples to Citrus."

Dominus Novus, sorry about not providing a clear answer to your question so far in this thread or the parallel one. I was not trying to evade the question but since you're asking for precision I needed to take a little time to think about it.

In my definition, to qualify as Latin Christianity or Roman Catholicism the churches need to meet these conditions, 1) Papal Supremacy (at least where there is no schism dividing the west) 2) the Latin rite 3) Latin Liturgy and the Vulgate, 4) western rules on priestly celibacy and monastic practices.

So, any deviation on points 2, 3 or 4 (use of the eastern rite, use if Greek or Church Slavonic liturgy or non-imposition of priestly celibacy) would render a church Greek Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox in my categorization, even if down the road there is some kind intercommunion deal with or allegiance to the western Pope.

In OTL it seemed to me both sides were firm on matters relating to the eastern/western schism through the first half of the medieval period, but then the Papacy became more open to intercommunion or accepting ecclesiastical allegiance from some churches despite their following eastern or oriental/monophysite rites from the later Crusades era onward (with churches in Greece, Ukraine, Lebanon and Armenia for example).

That easier for you to follow D N ?
 
The Schism is formally dated at 1054 because that's when the Pentarchy was irreversibly broken, with the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicating each other. I think it was over the filioque to be precise, but the differences between the two had been widening since Charlemagne. After Charlemagne, the split is inevitable because the Pope exercised a power that the Emperor and Ecumenical Patriarchy believed was their right, to crown an Emperor. From there, the Pope's power grows and he's not happy with the status quo of the primus inter pares, and the Emperor/Patriarch of Constantinople aren't happy with the Pope's growing power either.

The de iure split in the church is 1054, while de facto they'd been drifting for centuries.
 
Dominus Novus, sorry about not providing a clear answer to your question so far in this thread or the parallel one. I was not trying to evade the question but since you're asking for precision I needed to take a little time to think about it.

In my definition, to qualify as Latin Christianity or Roman Catholicism the churches need to meet these conditions, 1) Papal Supremacy (at least where there is no schism dividing the west) 2) the Latin rite 3) Latin Liturgy and the Vulgate, 4) western rules on priestly celibacy and monastic practices.

So, any deviation on points 2, 3 or 4 (use of the eastern rite, use if Greek or Church Slavonic liturgy or non-imposition of priestly celibacy) would render a church Greek Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox in my categorization, even if down the road there is some kind intercommunion deal with or allegiance to the western Pope.

In OTL it seemed to me both sides were firm on matters relating to the eastern/western schism through the first half of the medieval period, but then the Papacy became more open to intercommunion or accepting ecclesiastical allegiance from some churches despite their following eastern or oriental/monophysite rites from the later Crusades era onward (with churches in Greece, Ukraine, Lebanon and Armenia for example).

That easier for you to follow D N ?

Yup. Thanks.
 
Bulgaria is really easy, historically it came down to the wire on which rite they'd follow and to whose authority they'd submit. In the end they got an autocephalous patriachy and followed the Eastern Rite, but if the Pope had been less obfuscating towards (and I can't remember his name here, can someone help me out? He was a chronicler of the Ottonians and hated the Eastern Emperor, and I think he was from Pavia) a certain priest, the Bulgarians could've become Roman Catholics. I believe the King of the Bulgarians was interested in it at the time, but the Eastern Emperor was able to act in the absence of action from the Pope.

The Byzantines will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, ever tolerate the Bulgarians going Roman Catholic. Because in the mid 800s Roman Catholicism means German missionary-clergy and Bulgaria is way too close to Constantinople for that to be tolerated.

Whether by outbidding the Pope (which is effectively what they did) or at the point of a sword, the Bulgarians if they go Christian will go Orthodox.

It's telling that nearly at the same time both the Moravians and Bulgarians tried to get Christianity from the distant Imperial power (Germans vs. Byzantines) to try and remain culturally independent of the nearer one. Both ended up following the Christianity of the nearer one because the nearer one was much better at exerting pressure than the more distant one.

Regardless of Bulgaria's orientation, Kievan Rus will go Orthodox as well. Byzantium is where all the money is.

The Armenians might have gone Catholic if the Crusaders had been less of a bunch of self-righteous jerks. However that is almost like making a Hitler that knows to stop when he is ahead.
 
The Armenians might have gone Catholic if the Crusaders had been less of a bunch of self-righteous jerks. However that is almost like making a Hitler that knows to stop when he is ahead.

I have to disagree with that point. Generally speaking, the Crusaders that stayed in the Holy Land and maintained diplomatic relations with their neighbors were no better or worse than those neighbors. When we think of the post-modern stereotype of a brutish Crusader, its generally those that did not have any intentions of staying in the region.
 

FrozenMix

Banned
Not too late for the Bulgarians though. While the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe was associated with struggles against the Communist oppressors for the entire Cold War, the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria was an infiltrated puppet of the regime, which is why its relevance is at almost zero as of today.

A major effort by the Catholic Church to penetrate Bulgaria might prove successful, much like it has in Korea and Nigeria as of late. The Church is not a dying entity but rather still proselytizing.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
On the Arrnenians:

The vast majority of Armenians are Oriental Orthodox meaning that they rejected the Formula of Leo at the Fourth Ecumenical Council and are in communion with the Coptics and Ethiopians

During the Crusades, a small Catholic Armenian group came into existence. There is also a large amount of Catholic (Latin) influence in their liturgy from this period

There is also a branch that is Eastern Orthodox, i.e. in communion with the Russians, Greeks and Georgians

On the Schism:

The main theological issue is about the organization of the Church- whether the Pope has supremacy (Latin) or if all Bishops are equal and differences are to be settled in Council (Orthodox). There is also the Orthodox belief that all churches within a given area should be under a single Bishop (The Orthodox are a bit lax on this when it comes to missionary work in areas with no established Bishop hence its chaos in North America) and that the Bishop is supreme in his diocese There is also Leo's claim to appoint a Bishop versus the complex Orthodox electoral system

The Filoque controversy is rather complex. The Catholic Church's position is the use of the clause in Latin is correct but in Greek heretical as the verbs have slightly different meanings. The Orthodox believe it to be heretical in all languages

The use of leavened (Orthodox) versus unleavened bread (Catholic) and the need for the laity to take communion in both elements (Orthodox) or if the wafer is sufficient (Catholic) was the issue that really brought things to a head

As to the poll question:

I doubt if any of the listed countries would change.

England could go Orthodox if William the Conqueror is defeated at Hastings. The Church in England hadn't accepted Leo's claims and Pope Alexander backed William
 
Last edited:
OK HOW could England go Orthodox!? I've seen that idea claimed before but to me it makes zero sense. William conquered England in 1066, a mere 8 years after the East-West schism. Even assuming that it would take several decades for Harold or whomever to go Orthodox, I can't see the Pope tolerating an Orthodox nation in the West. So chances are we'd see a papal bull excommunicating the King and declaring the throne vacant, not unlike what was done to Elizabeth I. The difference is this isn't the Protestant reformation: England would be the west's lone wolf. Not a pleasant position.
 

FrozenMix

Banned
OK HOW could England go Orthodox!? I've seen that idea claimed before but to me it makes zero sense. William conquered England in 1066, a mere 8 years after the East-West schism. Even assuming that it would take several decades for Harold or whomever to go Orthodox, I can't see the Pope tolerating an Orthodox nation in the West. So chances are we'd see a papal bull excommunicating the King and declaring the throne vacant, not unlike what was done to Elizabeth I. The difference is this isn't the Protestant reformation: England would be the west's lone wolf. Not a pleasant position.

Orthodox in terms of being all Greek and what not, no, that is not happening. That is basically impossible and would need a POD in the time of Justinian to make it happen.

But being schismatic, possibly based around the Celtic Church or just simply a lot like being Catholic but not owing allegiance to Rome (a lot like OTL Church of England) as by 1066, the English church had major disagreements with Rome over Simony and marriage of the Clergy, and these issues were getting worse. Its possible that the English church declare that the Patriarch was right in 1054, but that wouldn't make them Orthodox rather than just being Schismatic.

Keep in mind that the Papacy was supportive of William not because they saw some extreme injustice being perpetrated against him but rather because he promised to bring the English church firmly in line with Rome.

So yes, a surviving Saxon England likely breaks with Rome and finds itself in a very uncomfortable position. Whether this lasts or not, I have no clue. Maybe they make up, maybe the age of Crusading brings some VERY unwanted attention towards England, maybe England declares itself a province of the Roman Empire in exchange for something, I have no idea.

But its very possible that they break with Rome if William fails.
 
I imagine such an English breaking with Rome to be more like the French breaks with Rome.

As in, the King opposes the Pope until somesort of deal is reached based on the current relative power. Only for the deal to be effectively renegotiated when the power balance changes, perhaps.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Byzantines will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, ever tolerate the Bulgarians going Roman Catholic.

OK-

Because in the mid 800s Roman Catholicism means German missionary-clergy and Bulgaria is way too close to Constantinople for that to be tolerated.

The Byzantines didn't have any particular fear of Franks/Germans at the time though, right? On the other hand, they probably just want to control their cultural "backyard" in the Balkans.

Whether by outbidding the Pope (which is effectively what they did) or at the point of a sword, the Bulgarians if they go Christian will go Orthodox.

It's telling that nearly at the same time both the Moravians and Bulgarians tried to get Christianity from the distant Imperial power (Germans vs. Byzantines) to try and remain culturally independent of the nearer one. Both ended up following the Christianity of the nearer one because the nearer one was much better at exerting pressure than the more distant one.

This is a really nifty observation - I hadn't thought of Moravian and Bulgarian strategy that way. To an extent, the flirtation with the distant missionaries was maybe not a total failure, perhaps being critical for getting the Byzantines to grant Bulgaria an autocephalous church and for ensuring the West Slavs ended up with direct connections to Rome (and not just Germany).

Still, there's a what if there-

The Bulgarians miscalculate and try the Catholic route, and the Bulgaria gets wiped out or exiled in the Byzantine counterattack. inhabitants of modern Bulgaria may end up styled as "Thracians" and have a Greek, Slavic and Vlach cultural heritage mainly. Any surviving Catholic "Bulgarian" community ends up living in Transylvania or further afield.

Likewise, the Moravians dig in and stick hard to eastern loyalties, and being schismatics, nobody in western Europe or Rome minds when their lands become Lebensbraum for the East Franks. Or something similar happens if the Magyars pick Constantinople over Rome.

Of course such a catastrophic endgame for these peoples would likely accelerate the east-west split even more, and foreclose the slightest modicum of cooperation for activities like the Crusades later on.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
OK HOW could England go Orthodox!? I've seen that idea claimed before but to me it makes zero sense. William conquered England in 1066, a mere 8 years after the East-West schism. Even assuming that it would take several decades for Harold or whomever to go Orthodox, I can't see the Pope tolerating an Orthodox nation in the West. So chances are we'd see a papal bull excommunicating the King and declaring the throne vacant, not unlike what was done to Elizabeth I. The difference is this isn't the Protestant reformation: England would be the west's lone wolf. Not a pleasant position.

The final confrontation is brought about by Leo's assertion of a host of Papal rights- that the Pope and the Pope alone can install Bishops, call an Ecumenical Council and so forth. Orthodoxy is actually the default- you have to go Catholic by accepting Leo's decrees If the English Church simply remained as it was, it would have remained Orthodox

Sure, the Pope is going to go ape over the English Church sticking with the East. But he excommunicates Harold anyway (and the English Church ignores the decree) so that's not changing the immediate confrontation.

Where it goes is anyone's guess. Having an Orthodox Country in the West might start giving the Princes some ideas- after all Orthodoxy is much more pliant to the needs of the Prince so its got to be tempting to a lot of them. The Church-State power struggle could have a lot of interesting twists
 
Last edited:
Top