WI: Prussia goes Orthodox

I was thinking, what if East Prussia or Baltic Prussia goes Orthodox before they were invaded by the Teutons, what would happen?
 
Depends on how deeply the Orthodox religion takes hold; see Lithuania and Gottschalk's kingdom for comparison.
 
I doubt the Russians would allow even tokenly Orthodox nation to be invaded and subjugated by western Christians.

Orthodoxy had already lost (at least from their pov) several fringe territories out of the great schism. For example, Hungary and Slovakia had Orthodox potential, yet went (or stayed ;)) with Rome. So did 50% of the Christians in Iraq and Syria and most Lebanese.
 
I doubt the Russians would allow even tokenly Orthodox nation to be invaded and subjugated by western Christians.

The Prussian Crusade happened in 1230-1280. There is no "Russia" as a state, only individual city-states who couldn't coordinate a response. Perhaps one or two nearby cities like Pskov might try something, but they still have the pagan Lithuanians between them.

The Russians aren't able to do anything. And since the Mongols are invading at this same time (1220-1240), the Russians will have other things on their mind.

Most likely, any Orthodox Prussian state would quickly become Latin rite because the most important lands around them (the Germans and Poles) are already Catholic, and most contact will be with Latin states. With any Christian Prussia, it'll be spared any invasion. The Teutonic Knights likely just begin with the Lithuanians and Balts and bypass Prussia anyway. Prussia may become the core of a Latin Baltic state.
 
I am certain that's a much later development.

I beleive you are thinking about the eastern rite Catholic groups in Ukraine, Ruthenia and Romania. These groups did re- join the Catholic church as autonomous rites in the 1500s or 1600s.

With Middle Eastern Catholics, the Marionites never severed ties with Rome. To my knowledge, Syrian Catholics never did either. The Chaldeans, however, broke ties with Rome, but that was in the 1600s. They later restablished them. In the end, to the chargrin of the Orthodox, a sizable number of the Middle Eastern Christians sided with Rome from day one of the schism.
The Russians aren't able to do anything. And since the Mongols are invading at this same time (1220-1240), the Russians will have other things on their mind.

Most likely, any Orthodox Prussian state would quickly become Latin rite because the most important lands around them (the Germans and Poles) are already Catholic
Good points
 
Last edited:
These groups did re- join the Catholic church as autonomous rites in the 1500s or 1600s.

If you mean 'were invented on the spot by the Latin schismatics and enforced upon the population by Polish landlords that had Ukraine transferred to the Crown from the Grand Duchy' ... Then yes. ;)

With Middle Eastern Catholics, the Marionites never severed ties with Rome. To my knowledge, Syrian Catholics never did either. The Chaldeans, however, broke ties with Rome, but that was in the 1600s. They later restablished them. In the end, to the chargrin of the Orthodox, a sizable number of the Middle Eastern Christians sided with Rome from day one of the schism.

1. Maronites yes; they were hostile to the Orthodox church's attempts at centralisation before the Crusades. They may have never ceased to be in communion with Rome, but specifically allying with the Pope over the local Patriarch didn't happen until the late 12th c.

2. Syro-Catholics are a post-crusader development where the Jacobite bishops (just like Melkite bishops) were offered the Latin alternative. The formal split dates from the 17th c. and didn't really take off in huge numbers until the 1800s.

3. The Chaldeans are a 17th c. splinter group of the Assyrian Church of the East.

None of these were Roman from the get-go in the sense you're implying.

The Prussian Crusade happened in 1230-1280. There is no "Russia" as a state, only individual city-states who couldn't coordinate a response. Perhaps one or two nearby cities like Pskov might try something, but they still have the pagan Lithuanians between them.

The typical coalition beating Germans up was Pskov, junior members of the Vladimir dynasty, Novgorodians and allied Lithuanians.

Pskov changed sides a fair bit. Lithuanians were unreliable and had their own political realities to consider. Polotsk was fragmenting beyond any usefulness.

The Russians might be able to defeat the German colonists militarily (and most times did), but they generally had no other plans beyond ravaging the land, then returning home. There were a couple of half-hearted attempts at siege, but they were never prosecuted successfully. The only differences were the princes of Gertsike and Koknese, and they were minor players with no support.

Prussians were even less unified than Lithuanians or Russians, and that was their big issue. You couldn't build partnerships with them.

Before Mongol invasions, Vladimir-Smolensk princes went through two rounds of a very vicious dynasic war as well that involved the other big power (Galich). So yes, the Russians will be busy.
 
Last edited:
If you mean 'were invented on the spot by the Latin schismatics and enforced upon the population by Polish landlords that had Ukraine transferred to the Crown from the Grand Duchy' ... Then yes.

Or those western Ukrainians and Ruthernians who got tired of domination by the Russians and the schismatic Russian Orthodox church. ;) Had the Russians allowed an Ukrainian Orthodox church earlier than say 1990...
3. The Chaldeans are a 17th c. splinter group of the Assyrian Church of the East.
Not according to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Catholic_Church
None of these were Roman from the get-go in the sense you're implying.
Roman, no. Catholic, yes. One can be "Catholic" and not be "Roman".
 
Last edited:
Or those western Ukrainians and Ruthernians who got tired of domination by the Russians and the schismatic Russian Orthodox church. ;) Had the Russians allowed an Ukrainian Orthodox church earlier than say 1990...

Untrue. There was a Lithuanian Metropolitan, which was used by the Catholic Grand Dukes very cynically as a political position. You can't blame Moscow for that one.

Of course they fought for the canonical territory, but that's no different from any hierarchs elsewhere.

There was no Russian domination at the time, and the two formulations are in no way equivalent. There really was Polish domination, though, and Catholic counter-reform movements targetted the Orthodox after a certain time period. The Uniate church is partial success story of those years.


Even according to your wiki article, here's what happened

"A new start of the Chaldean Patriarchate happened in 1672 when Mar Joseph I, Archbishop of Amid, entered in communion with Rome, separating from the Patriarchal see of Alqosh. In 1681 the Holy See granted him the title of "Patriarch of the Chaldeans deprived of its patriarch"."

Roman, no. Catholic, yes. One can be "Catholic" and not be "Roman".

In that case, the Melkite Church never stopped being Catholic at all, following the Universal Nicene Creed. The only ones separating themselves from the unviersal Catholic (and therefore right-worshipping Orthodox) formulation were the ones in Rome.

Psssh. If you're gonna do wars of religion, do them right ;)
 
I was thinking, what if East Prussia or Baltic Prussia goes Orthodox before they were invaded by the Teutons, what would happen?
Pretty impossible. The major force in the area, before the arrival of the Teutons, were the Polish. Having the Polish conquer Prussia might ensure the Catholicization of the region indefinitely.
 
Top