WI: Heptarchy, The Seven Heads of the Church

In OTL, we had five patriarchs of the Early Church: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and, Rome. What if it were increased to seven, adding Carthage and another major city? I'd imagine this would be due to two of the disciples changing their routes and heading to Carthage and the other city. It would be interesting to see the impact of two additional western patriarchs to balance out the four in the East.
 
Last edited:
My suggestions for the remaining seat: Paris, Aachen or Vienna.


Carthage is spot on but this would very likely be anachronistic, Aachen being quite insignificant except 800-813 (the glory is stolen by Trier, Mainz or Köln), Vienna before 1300, or Paris before ~ 1100 (even today the archbishop of Lyons is Primat des Gaules).

If this happened between, say, Constantine and Theodosius, then the candidates would rather be the most populated cities: Thessalonica, Corinth, Nicea, Syracuse, Milan; maybe Naples, Tyre, Smyrne. Note that Nicea, Syracuse and Milan also have politics for them (having been seat of an Emperor) while Corinth has St. Paul. Another possibility (but purely political) would be Ravenna.


Or go for broke and include Chennai (because of St. Thomas)! :)
 
Carthage is the clear choice for a sixth Patriarch, but the issue is where a seventh would be. Anywhere in the Italian Peninsula would challenge Rome's position, while outside would be too vulnerable to external threat. The other big issue is that each of the Pentarchs are tied to one of the Apostles - St. Peter in Rome, St. Andrew in Constantinople, St. Mark in Alexandria, and so on. You'd need a much more western focus by the early apostles, or a later break in tradition, to get western Patriarchs.

That said, the political ramifications would be interesting. The Patriarch of Rome being the only Latin patriarch set against four Greek patriarchs contributed a lot to the idea of Papal Primacy instead of the "first among equals" idea that flourished in the east. A Patriarch of Carthage (and somewhere else) would force the Popes into a weaker spot, since they can't claim the entirety of the west as their domain.
 
Picking Nits

Santiago de Compostella would be a great choice, but I think the legend of St. James' relics only derives from the 9th Century? You'd need a much earlier location.

What about Crete?

With the legends about Joseph of Arimathea, even Londinium might qualify (which would or would not give Apostolic excuse for Henry The Womanizer.
 
If there are apostles heading to the West, I think we might actually be more likely to see either 6 (just adding Carthage), 9 (including Corinth, one in Hispania and one in Gallia) or possibly more to account for ones going east. I say this as I think this is undoubtedly a situation where we need some sort of early plan for where people will go. As an aside St. Paul's connections with Corinth are probably why Greece was initially included with the Patriarch of Rome, so adding that one would be rather logical really).

If you do just want 7, I think either Lyons (arguably the chief city of Gaul), Marseilles (as a major port city) or Narbonne (both a port and the capital of Gallia Narbonensis). Personally I think the latter is the most likely.

That would give a division for the western Patriarchates of:

Rome- Italia, Raetia, Alpes, Pannonia, Noricum, Dalmatia with Greece as a point of dispute.

Carthage- definitely Africa, probably parts of Hispania rather than the whole.

Narbonne- Gaul, Britain, probably Germania and parts of Hispania.
 
While Latin-Greek mixed words can ond do happen, the clear precedent is the term "heptarchy" with an h.

That said, let's look at the dioceses of the Roman Empire around 400:
800px-Roman_Empire_with_dioceses_in_400_AD.png


Rome, Constantiople, Antioch and Alexandria are diocese capitals, and Jersusalem (as patriarchal see) actually was added a bit later.
Ephesus has a good claim, as has Salonica.
Carthage is an obvious addition.

For Spain, we have an interesting situation: Carthago Nova (Cartagena) is old and the capital of Hispania Carthagiensis. More relevant might be that it is the capital of the ERE Provincia Spaniae. But the same time, the Visigothic kingdom started to treat Toledo as the primacy see of (their part of) Iberia, for exactly the reason that it was not ion Constantinople's hands. I guess if the Heptarchical construction has to have legs, then a ERE-backed system with sees in Cartago and Cartageno will be more resilient.
For Gaul, Burdigala/Bordeaux and Trier are too far out, IMO. Arelate/Arles is not only close to the Med, wikipedia says that the[FONT=&quot] "city reached a peak of influence during the 4th and 5th centuries, when Roman Emperors frequently used it as their headquarters during military campaigns. In 395, it became the seat of the Praetorian Prefecture of the Gauls, governing the western part of the Western Empire: […]. At that time, the city were perhaps home to 75,000 - 100,000 people. It became a favorite city of Emperor Constantine I, who built baths there, substantial remains of which are still standing. His son, Constantine II, was born in Arles. Usurper Constantine III declared himself emperor in the West (407–411) and made Arles his capital in 408.Arles became renowned as a cultural and religious centre during the late Roman Empire. […]. It was also a key location for Roman Christianity and an important base for the Christianization of Gaul."

[/FONT]I would say that Arles would be a good secondary option for the see of a "Patriarch of the Gauls, Britons and Germans", with the "Patriarch for the West" in Cartago responsible for Africa and Spania.
 
If it wasn't because it might be a bit to exposed on the rim of Christianity of the time, Reims might have been a good choice. But I'd say Arles or Marseilles
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Can I suggest a potentially mad choice? Somewhere in Ireland or Britain. Since the Romans only control Britain, setting up a seat in Britain could lead to easier conversion, but would create another strong, cultural institution in the North.

Now, I don't know which city, Londinium, Eburacum, *shrug* - but I imagine that most if not all of them would likely be the poorest of the Heptarchy, but it'd be quite secure.

The other reason is the regions that each Patriarch controls - Constantinople noes northeast, Jerusalem and Antioch both go east, Alexandria south, Carthage SW, Rome.. Central/North, and then (for discussion terms) "Canterbury" goes NW or far North - covering Britainnia, Scandinavia in the future.

Plus, whilst Carthage is a big imposition on Rome, who would be unwilling to let another powerful seat emerge after Carthage (however pressure could be applied), having one in the backend of nowhere, that could be bribed (I mean convinced) to break ties in Romes favour would be advantageous.

Just some looser ideas.

EDIT : I had a slightly darker realisation, considering the willingness of the church to co-opt temples/festivals, etc - why not Salisbury - specifically Stonehenge?
 
Last edited:
EDIT : I had a slightly darker realisation, considering the willingness of the church to co-opt temples/festivals, etc - why not Salisbury - specifically Stonehenge?

Because despite what some 19th Century antiquarians would have you believe Stonehenge had probably not been used as a significant place of worship since the 4th Century BC?
 
Well, my post above was based on the idea that Justinians Pentarchy was a Heptarchy from the beginning. A Patriarch based in the British Isles during the mid-6th century would be strange.
616px-1800_Wilkinson_Map_of_the_4_Eastern_Churches_rectified.jpg


I assumed that Justinian would not want the Roman patriarchate to become too powerful, so Carthago and Cartago Nova (or Arelate) seem plausible.

If, OTOH we assume that the establishment/recognition of a Patriarchate becomes a diplomatic device to reward the conversion of a sizeable kingdom from Araianism/Nestorianism/Paganism to Catholic Orthodoxy (which was of course united OTL until the 11th century), then there might be a Patriarch of Toledo for (Visigothic) Spain and another one for the Franks. As many Frankish kings were buried in Paris, Clovis had been baptized in Rheims and his Synod concerning the reorganization of the church in Frankish lands was held at Orleans, those three places seem like the most plausible candidates for a Frankish Patriarchate.
The Anglosaxon Patriarch might, depending on the exact cousrse Christianization takes in this TL, reside in Canterbury or London.
 
I think placing Spain and possibly Sicily under Carthage and then having Britain, Gaul, And the Low Countries under Arles would work. I imagine in a scenario such as this if Islam didn't come about Arabia might fall under Jerusalem's Patriarch with Antioch spreading its influence in Mesopotamia and even Persia.

Have to wonder how the different Churches would develop, though, in terms of icons v statues, priestly marriages, language of the church, etc.
 
I would suggest Carthage as one. You'd have to have a POD where Donatism never happens though. In OTL it did have a bishop, and was very influential in christianity so its not far from reality.
 
Carthage is obviously the 6th choice.

The 7th choice? I would suggest Treverorum.

Yes, Treverorum is certainly an option, especially if the establishment of the patriarchates happens during the 4th century:
318 T was made the seat of the Prefect auf the Gaulish Provinces. 328 to 340 and 367 to 392 was T residence of Roman Emperors or Caesars. Estimated population 75,000 to 100,000, the biggest city north of the Alps (and one of the five biggest in the world known to the Romans).
407 mitgrating tribes crossed the Rhine and the Prefecture's capital was moved to Arelate. Treverorum was plundered by Franks for the first time in 413, and finally conquered by them in 475.
T might actually be a better choice than Arelate.
 
The other big issue is that each of the Pentarchs are tied to one of the Apostles - St. Peter in Rome, St. Andrew in Constantinople, St. Mark in Alexandria, and so on.

This is why Thessalonica is the perfect choice: a huge city, with political importance, and connected to St. Paul. (Yes he died in Rome, but Rome already has Peter so they will shut up). Secondary choice would be Corinth.

Other apostles: Philip (died in Hierapolis, close to Ephesus/Smyrna - also good choices; also Patmos is not too far); Bartholomew - Armenia (too out of the way); Thomas - India (...);


I really don't see any patriarchates in the “uncivilized” parts of the empire, for a lot of reasons:

- Christianity is not dominant enough in Gaul and Hispania before 476, and heresy is widespread there (arianism) - these bishops would be suspect;
- These provinces did not have that much influence on early Church (Irenaeus maybe, and that's about all);
- They are too “out of the way” to take part in councils etc.;
- Post 5th century (i.e. when the Pentarchy really gathered steam) these were outside the Empire, and elevating them to patriarchs is really asking for an autocephalous church under whatever Germanic, heretic king.

For all these reasons, I think that candidates are more or less limited to cities of the ERE, plus Carthage (post Belisarius) and maybe maybe Milan (IF St. Ambrose leaves a deep enough mark to make this an important bishopric pre 476). Some obvious “happy few” would be the cities where councils were held, which happen to include Nicea and Ephesus (and Chalcedon, but that's really a suburb of Constantinople).

tl;dr: seats are really limited to Carthage, Ephesus, Nicea, Thessalonica, Cesarea Cappadocia, Corinth, maybe Milan. (Interestingly, if you take all of these, you end up with a dodecarchy).
 
Last edited:
Historically there was a Patriarch of Aquileia in Northern Italy, from the VI to the XVIII century. Maybe it could be kept going? Maybe the Patriarch could be assigned a slice of Northern Italy, Germany and Croatia. It could be a target for an ambitious Holy Roman Emperor to control - hold Aquileia, set up your Patriarch and you got your clerical people under control in the HRE.
 
Can I suggest a potentially mad choice? Somewhere in Ireland or Britain. Since the Romans only control Britain, setting up a seat in Britain could lead to easier conversion, but would create another strong, cultural institution in the North.
Not quite the time frame you're looking for but I've read that there were a number of Anglo-Saxons in service to Byzantium. Maybe returning mercenaries could develop a British preference for Orthodoxy.
 
Top