WI: Europeans Find a Christian People?

Zagan

Donor
Suppose European explorers find a small Christian people somewhere in Africa or Asia in the age of European colonialism.

Would they treat them differently / better just because they were Christians?

Would they still conquer them? Enslave them? Consider them inferior because of their race?

Would they try to correct their percieved heretical views? (a small far away Christian community is sure to have some important dogmatic differencies from mainstream Christianity)
 
Suppose European explorers find a small Christian people somewhere in Africa or Asia in the age of European colonialism.

Would they treat them differently / better just because they were Christians?

Would they still conquer them? Enslave them? Consider them inferior because of their race?

Would they try to correct their percieved heretical views? (a small far away Christian community is sure to have some important dogmatic differencies from mainstream Christianity)
They did,they are called Ethiopians.
 
When we consider that the Portuguese maintained diplomatic ties to Erhiopia after discovery as a counter to the Mamluks and Ottomans, and that they also converted the king of Kongo to Christianity quite early on, and maitained diplomatic relations (eventually vassalizing the kingdom) there as well, we can consider these historical relations as a blueprint.
 
And in India was too small christian community on early Christian centuries. But I am not sure did it survive to 16th century.

Actually, it's likely you didn't have noticable Christian communities in southern India (especially Kerala) before the VIth century. At least, it's when are present the first unquestionable clues about presence, and these were dependent of syro-oriental Patriarch of Babylon, hinting at the absence of real autonomous church, strong enough to stand on its feet.

Their survival up to the XVIth century is essentially tied to an absence of proselytism and clash with Deccan/Tamil cultures. So it survived, but in fairly limited numbers.

How were they treated historically, in order to answer the OP (which is incidentally, interesting if weirdly worded, so I'd say it would be a good idea to not close it)?
Well, more or less the same way Oriental churches were dealt with : acknowledgement of pontifical authority and parallel conversion to catholicism (creating schisms between Syro-Patriarchal, Syro-Apostolic, and Syro-Malabar).

So acknowledgement of a form of spiritual kingship, but various answers from formal catholicisation, to conversion to Catholicism proper, and all the middle-way reactions.
 
Nitpick-it would have been the Patriarch of Selucia-Ctesiphon. Incidentally, flocc here is from a Nasrani family isn't he?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
There were Nestorian Churches in China when Marco Polo went there, but that was earlier than the Age of Discovery.
 

jahenders

Banned
While true, the instance doesn't prove the rule. It would, of course, depend on how strongly "Christian" the people were, how orthodox their views were, whether they were willing to align with pope, or why they weren't already aligned somewhat with the pope.

If they were pretty dominant and pretty orthodox, I think it would color the European view. It might not with the original slavers, but the Catholic church would probably get somewhat involved when they became aware, send emissaries, and probably moderate (to some degree) slaver/settler behavior.

They did,they are called Ethiopians.
 
Top