Alternate History Thread II...

[Symphony D.]

Martin Luther would still have his 99 Theses and there would still be the Reformation, I just think it would be stronger.

Rather presumptuous about him still coming to be given all these sweeping changes occuring.

Also, I'm no great expert on religious matters, but it seems to me that religious sects closely related to one another are just as likely to slit each others throats as they are with vastly different ones. The hostilities between individual Protestant factions, to say nothing of Protestants versus Catholics, would lead me to believe no matter how much was "copied" from the Irish, were such a thing to occur, it'd in no way make them allies. It's somewhat presumptious to assume a Protestant movement even occurs anyway given the changes, particularly if the Nords break away and do their own thing; in such an instance the Catholics would likely examine their policies and make changes. Even if it does, that by no means guarantees they'd see the Irish as allies (nor would it do much geopolitically even if they did).

 

[das]

If they don't have the support of the Pope and the West, I would think it more likely that the Turks would kill off the Byzantines, perhaps even earlier creating a stronger more Eurocentric Turkish Empire. Then again, Byzantine history is not my strength.

NO NORMANS. That means that the Byzantines are capable of dealing with the Turkics on their own; if they aren't, chances are that Crusades WILL occur simply to maintain a balance of power (as technically was the case in OTL to a certain extent).

either in communion with Rome or seperate, I prefer the later seeing as the Norse kings would likely want the excuse to eliminate the Pope from their political affairs

Technically they could simply secularize...

I mean, there is no reason to assume that the indulgences etc. that corrupted Catholicism provoking Martin Luther's and others' protests would simply disapear.

With respect narrowing down the causes of the Reformation to the indulgences is... a bit of an oversimplification. It was all far more complex than that. Agree with Symphony, ofcourse.

While you seem to think that the monasticity of the Celtic Rite makes it inherently introvert, I disagree.

I have perhaps exaggerated its introverty, but the facts remain facts, its simply not aggressive enough to make any permanent gains outside of Ireland, not without some other PoDs than this. Chances of it spreading far, or even seriously influencing a hypothetic Reformation even if it does occur, are rather low.

 

[Israelite9191]

Byzantium never had the support of the Pope and the West after the Great Schism anyway; by not really having to fight there (and have Manuel Comnenus lose that army to William the Bad), the Byzantines can concentrate on the Sultanate of Rum as opposed to the lost-cause West.

That was Manuel's main failing anyway: he counted on the Western Church too much, and diddled around with Italian politics while letting the Turks rearm after defeats in the 1150s - his best chance to annihilate the Seljuks. By the time of Myriocephalum, the Byzantines had let a major chance slip away from them.

That's interesting. It is nice to learn new things. As I said, Byzantine history is not my expertise.

NO NORMANS. That means that the Byzantines are capable of dealing with the Turkics on their own; if they aren't, chances are that Crusades WILL occur simply to maintain a balance of power (as technically was the case in OTL to a certain extent).

Do you really have to re-iterate what Dachs just said?

Technically they could simply secularize...

Technically they could, but this is Midieval Europe, not the Enlightenment. I don't see anyone in Medieval Europe conpletely seperating Church from State. I mean, even the Scandinavians had vastly popular fanatics like St. Olaf (horrid man, shoved live snakes down the throats of Heathens who refused to convert).

With respect narrowing down the causes of the Reformation to the indulgences is... a bit of an oversimplification. It was all far more complex than that. Agree with Symphony, ofcourse.

Why do you think I said "etc."? I know perfectly well that there were many different factors, I just didn't want to take the time to list them all out. The main point is that the Church would still have had many flaws. I mean, it took a massive reformation of theology in the bulwork of Western Christendom, the Holy Roman Empire, to even get the Church to start the counter-reformation. I doubt the Norse Church, which I believe would most likely have seperated and seperated for political reasons like the Anglican Church rather than theological ones, would cause a large enough shift in Rome's practices to prevent the Reformation.

I have perhaps exaggerated its introverty, but the facts remain facts, its simply not aggressive enough to make any permanent gains outside of Ireland, not without some other PoDs than this. Chances of it spreading far, or even seriously influencing a hypothetic Reformation even if it does occur, are rather low.

Yes, facts are facts and I believe you are ignoring a serious number of facts. It is true that it is doubtful that the Irish Church (if we are to call it this) could spread exponentially among the Europeans, but I do believe it would have an effect on the Reformation, if not on all the Protestant theologians directly then at least on Martin Luther. Martin Luther had no real desire at first other than reformation of the Catholic Church whose practices had become extraordinarilly corrupted. Martin Luther, should the Celtic Rite have survived as an Irish Church, would have seen two examples in western Christnedom: the by far dominant Latin Church and the less dominant but theologically "purer" and less corrupted Irish Church. Of course, he would have had problems with the Irish Church's higher level of tolerance and acceptance of women, but it would have seemed to him a model on which to build. While it is true that the Reformation would still have taken its theological course mostly the same, there would have undoubtably been some changes, perhaps a higher focus on monasticism and an even higher focus on education of the commoners. I also believe that "inspiration for example" would have allowed the Reformation to be more succesful in Germany and other areas. Over time the Protestants and Irish Christians would likely polarize, as the Protestants began to focus on the formentioned "faults" of Irish Christianity, perhaps creating an even more conservative brand of Protestantism on the Continent.

I would also argue that the influence of Irish Christianity would be felt through education. As I mentioned, the Irish monasteries and convents acted as schools for the nobility and later on in Ireland and the British Isles as schools for the second sons and daughters of the farming class and merchant class. The Irish monasteries in the Celtic Rite acted similarly to the Jesuit schools, educating lay people alongside religious. However, unlike the Jesuit schools where the education was generally limitted to the wealthy who payed for the education the Irish monasteries offered education to anyone, as long as they worked like the monks and earned their way. This would create a more highly educated populace in Ireland than elsewhere as well as an Irish educated intelligentsia on the Continent. Furthermore, a survival of the Celtic Rite style monastic tradition would create an overflow of monks and friars, too many for Ireland to hold forcing friars out as missionaries (which is how the spread of the Celtic Rite in the Early Middle Ages occured in the first place), similar to how you suggest a large population in Ireland would force colonists out to settle new areas. Thus the influence of the Celtic Rite is further enhanced on the Continent.

 

[Symphony D.]

Martin Luther, should the Celtic Rite have survived as an Irish Church, would have seen two examples in western Christnedom

Again, why are you so insistent that there will even be a Martin Luther, any analogue thereof, or even remotely similar conditions within the Catholic Church given the enormous changes from OTL occuring as a result of this PoD? The PoD is 1035. Luther didn't post his Theses until 1517 OTL. That's over 475 years in which things can, and will, dramatically change, rendering any presumptions about the state of the Church based on its temporal equivilent in our own timeline rather quite moot.

 

[das]

Do you really have to re-iterate what Dachs just said?

Re-read Dachs' post, then re-read my post.

Technically they could, but this is Midieval Europe, not the Enlightenment. I don't see anyone in Medieval Europe conpletely seperating Church from State.

Noone said that they would have to do that completely; as for doing it in all but in name, I cannot see that being too unlikely.

Why do you think I said "etc."? I know perfectly well that there were many different factors, I just didn't want to take the time to list them all out. The main point is that the Church would still have had many flaws.

Technically that doesn't change anything. These flaws had little to do with the success of the Reformation itself. I maintain that the political situation of the time was far more important than any "flaws".

I doubt the Norse Church, which I believe would most likely have seperated and seperated for political reasons like the Anglican Church rather than theological ones, would cause a large enough shift in Rome's practices to prevent the Reformation.

Why do you cling on to the deterministic viewpoint of the Reformation's inevitablity? It was not inevitable in any way. In OTL it took a variety of coinciding events and trends to cause the Reformation; and several crucial trends have been pretty much cancelled in this world. So, there. I suspect there won't be any Renaissance in this world neither, btw.

but I do believe it would have an effect on the Reformation, if not on all the Protestant theologians directly then at least on Martin Luther.

The very existance of any of the Protestant theologicians in this world is extremelly unlikely. And the same goes for Martin Luther.

I do agree that an alternate Celtic Rite Church would exercise some limited theological influence on the various mainstream and heretical theologicians, at least in Western Europe. But I maintain that it is most probable for Ireland to remain isolated, and for such influence to be limited and distorted.

less corrupted

And what makes you think so? All it needed was time...

Furthermore, a survival of the Celtic Rite style monastic tradition would create an overflow of monks and friars, too many for Ireland to hold forcing friars out as missionaries

which will be killed by the Inquisition or by angry mobs, whichever comes first, and frankly I won't miss them, but that's just me. Avalon is a much better place for missions. None of these corrupt Latiners, for one thing...

 

[Israelite9191]

Re-read Dachs' post, then re-read my post.

Sorry, my mistake.

Noone said that they would have to do that completely; as for doing it in all but in name, I cannot see that being too unlikely.

Technically that doesn't change anything. These flaws had little to do with the success of the Reformation itself. I maintain that the political situation of the time was far more important than any "flaws".

A lot of people on this forum underestimate the power of faith in history. It is true that other politics often work hand in hand with faith, but without faith things like the Reformation, the Crusades, etc. would never have happened. Deep down the Reformation was a religious movement, its leaders supported it for religious reasons, and the masses flocked to it for religious reasons. I am sorry, but you can not attribute the success of the Reformation entirely or mostly to politics. Likewise, in the Middle Ages, the Scandinavians nor anyone else, would have seperated Church and State. In OTL the Church and State even to this day remain united (admittadly in name only), but throughout the Middle Ages and especially after the Reformation gave the Scandinavian countries there own Churches the Church and State were united. As for the Reformation never happening, I know it would be nice to be able to just cross take it out, but you would need a different POD or more than one POD to eliminate the Reformation. It was going to happen, and a large Norse Empire was not going to change that.

Why do you cling on to the deterministic viewpoint of the Reformation's inevitablity?

See above.

I suspect there won't be any Renaissance in this world neither, btw.

This I agree with.

The very existance of any of the Protestant theologicians in this world is extremelly unlikely. And the same goes for Martin Luther.

Again, see above.

I do agree that an alternate Celtic Rite Church would exercise some limited theological influence on the various mainstream and heretical theologicians, at least in Western Europe. But I maintain that it is most probable for Ireland to remain isolated, and for such influence to be limited and distorted.

I agree that any influence would be limited to the West, I also agree that politically Ireland would remain isolated, and most likely idea would only flow out of Ireland with limited flow coming in. However, I believe that the influence a survival of the Celtic Rite would have on education (through a Jesuit-esque education system of monasteries) would be quite large among the European elite and merchant classes. Imagine the Jesuits plus all of Western and Northern Europe (not just Western European Catholics) as a source and no fees. I would also imagine a largely very well educated Irish populace, creating a stirring pot of (mainly local) ideas, so if any Renaissance takes place at all, I would imagine it taking place among a well educated Ireland as opposed to a mercantile Italy (of course it would be much smaller, more localized, and to a lesser degree if it happened at all).

And what makes you think so? All it needed was time...

With the decentralized hierarchy, a much smaller populace to work on and decidedly liberal (compared to Rome) theology makes corruption a lot harder. Of course it would come eventually, I just doubt it would occur on nearly the same scale.

which will be killed by the Inquisition or by angry mobs, whichever comes first, and frankly I won't miss them, but that's just me. Avalon is a much better place for missions. None of these corrupt Latiners, for one thing...

Perhaps on this you are correct, although I was immagining a small movement made of small communities of religous "heretics" taking route in areas angered by the Latin Church, not a large scale mass conversion.

 

[Symphony D.]

As for the Reformation never happening, I know it would be nice to be able to just cross take it out, but you would need a different POD or more than one POD to eliminate the Reformation. It was going to happen, and a large Norse Empire was not going to change that.

So, a time period greater than that between the fall of the Byzantine Empire, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, is not enough in your estimation for a vastly divergent timeline to alter significantly or eliminate the Avignon Papacy, papal schism, the existance of John Wycliffe, John Huss, Martin Luther, the potential course and effects of the Black Death (should it occur at all; even ignoring what, precisely, it actually was), the complete lack of the Hundred Years' War, however the Mongol Invasion differs, on and on and on?

There is almost half a millennium between here and there. I do not comprehend this stubborn refusal to contemplate the background diverging so significantly as to render the entire situation around which the Reformation occured moot, especially when the PoD predates the earliest rumblings of the Reformation by three hundred years. Of course, if you want to keep ignoring the points I raise, feel free.

 

[North King]

Something like the Reformation would have been raised; I agree with Israelite. It was inevitable that someone would try to fix the ugly beast that the Catholic Church had been; there were plenty of movements that would support that.

And I also agree with Israelite that there was little chance for a western civilization to turn secular. That really doesn't happen in civilizations in that era; there has to be some other philosophy to become the guiding ideology of a nation, and nationalism isn't going to be around for hundreds of years.

 

[Symphony D.]

Hrm. So if the Sabaean agricultural system hadn't broken down and they hadn't been conquered by the Himyarites in the 1st Century AD, and instead had gone on to build an Arabian empire, it's likely that Muhammad or someone very much like him would have still popped up in or around 610 with a brand new take on Monotheism and something very much like Islam would appear anyway?

Come on now. It's called alternate history for a reason. You change X, X changes Y, Y changes Z. The rotten state of the Catholic Church as well as the political crises surrounding it prior to the Reformation are very much products of the circumstances before and altering those circumstances likewise alters the end result. To presume the exact same things or even similar things will play out after five centuries of divergence is just plain silly.

I don't agree with the secularism or any of that but I do believe in something called cause and effect enough to believe that should some of the events this PoD produces pan out (not to mention other events it simply alters or erases) it will alter the political and religious geography of Europe sufficiently to either modify or prevent the Reformation. The notion that the Catholic Church would, presuming a Nordic breakaway, just take the loss of the whole of Northern Europe lying down and go on its merry little way is ludicrous.

 

[Cuivienen]

The Reformation wasn't just Martin Luther. There were far earlier antagonists as well: John Wycliffe and the Lollards in the 14th century, Jan Hus and the Hussites in the 15th century, etc. Almost from the Great Schism there was a general malcontent with the rule of the Catholic Church; Martin Luther simply had the advantage of a good political situation and the printing press. Something like the Reformation was bound to happen eventually even if it didn't involve Luther himself or came at a later or earlier point in time.

 

[Israelite9191]

Of course the Reformation would be altered, it would be altered to be stronger for various reasons I have stated already. Is it so hard for you to believe that this is a possible effect of the cause? The one most important thing that this POD does not change about religion in Europe is the fact that the Catholic Church was becoming a behemoth. By the time of this POD the Catholic Church was already the strongest force in Europe. Even with a united Northern Empire, the Catholic Church would still have continued growing and growing, and thus corrupting and corrupting. Eventually, by about the time of the OTL Reformation, things would have gotten so bad that a Martin Luther would come a long and demand change. Perhaps the Reformation would be delayed due to the strength of other centers of Christendom forcing it to reform, but the Reformation was already coming by the time of this POD. Besides, when are we assuming this break away of the Norse Church? I was assuming (as was originally suggested) that it would occur with or slightly before the Reformation, not well in advance.

Sabea is a whole other situation, where the Polytheistic Sabeans were replaced with the Monotheistic Himyarites, thus giving inspiration for Mohammed. Also, the period during after Sabea was a time of rapid advancements when compared to the European Middle Ages. While in the European Middle Ages the Church was practically the sole force moving forward, and moving forward at the speed of a glacier towards ever more power starting with the Council of Milan (?), the period during and after Sabea, especially in the Middle East where the Middle Ages continued to be a time of rapid advance, forces were constantly changing. There was no behemoth like the Church running things, the closest was Abysinia which was practically removed from power permanantly by the Himyarites. Rapid change means more of a change to an alt-hist as opposed to OTL. SInce there was no rapid change of the kind in Europe, there is much less of a change.

EDIT: Not that by change I am not refering to the kind of constant political shifts from one fief to another that occured in Europe, but rather societal change.

 

[Symphony D.]

I wonder if the NESing forum has decided to mass block me, since nobody seems to want to read what I say.

So, a time period greater than that between the fall of the Byzantine Empire, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, is not enough in your estimation for a vastly divergent timeline to alter significantly or eliminate the Avignon Papacy, papal schism, the existance of John Wycliffe, John Huss, Martin Luther, the potential course and effects of the Black Death (should it occur at all; even ignoring what, precisely, it actually was), the complete lack of the Hundred Years' War, however the Mongol Invasion differs, on and on and on?

Again, why are you so insistent that there will even be a Martin Luther, any analogue thereof, or even remotely similar conditions within the Catholic Church given the enormous changes from OTL occuring as a result of this PoD? The PoD is 1035. Luther didn't post his Theses until 1517 OTL.

1517 - 1035 = 482 Years
Avignon Papacy = 1305 - 1378
Papal Schism = 1378
John Wycliffe = 1320 - 1384
John Huss = 1369 - 1415
Martin Luther = 1483 - 1546

PoD Predates Earliest Occurences By: 270 Years
Difference from Earliest Occurences to Martin Luther is: 212 Years

As a benchmark, 270 years is the difference between: the first European colony being established on the Mississippi, and man landing on the Moon; A Midsummer Night's Dream being written by Shakespeare, and the American Civil War ending; Charlemagne's defeat of the Avars and William the Conqueror becoming King of England.

As might be noted from the above examples, quite a lot can happen in that amount of time.

I'd also like to note that Indulgences, which were quite a large part of Martin Luther's rails, weren't "corruption" per se. The Church was broke and needed cash for St. Peter's Basilica. Apparently in its monolithic stature it ran out of money. They also only began to be sold in 1517, the same year Luther filed his theses. There is nothing within the radical nature of this PoD that does not prevent, say, the Council of Constance from reaching a more satisfying conclusion, or the Church from not running out of cash. The Reformation is not a simple inevitable, foregone conclusion, I'm sorry. There's no such thing as fate, or an absolutely irreversible trend in history. I don't entirely agree with das's conclusions but nor do I agree at all in the assumption that something simply must happen especially when there is quite ample opportunity for it not to.

 

[das]

A lot of people on this forum underestimate the power of faith in history.

Myself included. Meanwhile, you overestimate that power. Positions cleared out, then?

but without faith things like the Reformation, the Crusades, etc. would never have happened.

The Crusades were hardly caused by religion, they were first and foremost caused by the Middle Eastern geopolitical situation. Religion seriously came into all this a bit later.

Deep down the Reformation was a religious movement, its leaders supported it for religious reasons, and the masses flocked to it for religious reasons.

Define "its leaders", please. If you mean the religious leaders that tried and failed a thousand times previously until finally they found coincidental support of POLITICAL leaders who had actually achieved something, yes, yes they were.

Likewise, in the Middle Ages, the Scandinavians nor anyone else, would have seperated Church and State.

Not QUITE separated. But, again, the Scandinavians distanced the Church - or, at least, Rome - from power as much as possible in OTL. That is technically what I meant; I suppose that calling it secularism is quite an exaggeration, sorry.

Again, see above.

It would seem that you stubbornly refuse to understand what I and Symphony are getting at. WHAT MARTIN LUTHER?

I also agree that politically Ireland would remain isolated

Politically it actually wouldn't necessary be all that isolated; it will inevitably maintain SOME degree of contact with the outside word. Culturally and religiously, it is far more isolated, at least after a while.

I suspect it might go like this - after the initial flurry of the missionaries that you had suggested, there would be furious theological debates, a breakdown and a general reaction against them in the greater Catholic world. Angry mobs, inquisitions and so forth. Eventually the two cultural worlds - that of Ireland, and that of the rest of Europe - would close to each other (well, ofcourse not completely, that is virtually impossible, but for all purposes). The Irish would crush Latinists in their lands, the Catholics would fight the Hibernian Heresy. Bilateral hatred and so forth.

would also imagine a largely very well educated Irish populace

Was it very educated in OTL at the highest point of the Celtic Rite? I rather doubt the likelihood of Ireland becoming the focus of a renaissance; if anything, from the zenith (whether political, economic or cultural), there is an inevitable reccesssion to the nadir.

Also, why do you assume that the Celtic Rite will not at all change after centuries of being left to its own ways? Or the Roman Rite, for that matter? I put it to you that this world will have a radically different religious history. The very survival of the Celtic Rite and the subsequent war of theologies is bound to utterly change everything. In what ways exactly is up to debate. There still might be a Reformation, but to assume that it would be similar to the OTL one at all is nonsense, as the Roman Church too will be completely different from OTL.

With the decentralized hierarchy, a much smaller populace to work on and decidedly liberal (compared to Rome) theology makes corruption a lot harder.

Not at all. Firstly, decentralized hierarchy is but natural for a young movement; and it is also natural for it to grow more centralized. A much smaller population only helps; its far easier to control. As for liberalism, it too is natural for younger cultures and spiritual movements; it simply hadn't enough time to move towards a more consolidated, and thus conservative, model. Also, why the assumption that liberalism and corruption don't fit? Corruption goes with everything.

It was inevitable that someone would try to fix the ugly beast that the Catholic Church had been; there were plenty of movements that would support that.

Oh, someone would try alright, but the chances of it going practically in the same way as the OTL Reformation are near to nil. Why won't it, say, be a succesful reform WITHIN the Church itself? Or a heresy brutally rooted out, complete with a prolonged Dark Age? Or something else. The one thing I don't see as likely is Martin Luther, defying common sense, genetics and the butterfly effect. He was a pretty defiant man, I know, but that can only get you this far...

There were far earlier antagonists as well: John Wycliffe and the Lollards in the 14th century, Jan Hus and the Hussites in the 15th century, etc.

Almost from the Great Schism there was a general malcontent with the rule of the Catholic Church

The PoD is 11th century. After the Great Schism, the Catholic Church was indeed in crisis that demanded reform from above or revolution from below (in our world, a little of both happened). But the PoD is BEFORE the Great Schism, and the chances of the Great Schism happening in this world, with a radicall different political and theological history, are not very high. That event in itself was a bit of a fluke...

 

[ThomAnder]

Symphony, people tend to ignore what they can't rebuff in a discussion/debate

 

[Swissempire]

Das write the Canute Alt-History NOW!!!

 

[Israelite9191]

The PoD is 11th century. After the Great Schism, the Catholic Church was indeed in crisis that demanded reform from above or revolution from below (in our world, a little of both happened). But the PoD is BEFORE the Great Schism, and the chances of the Great Schism happening in this world, with a radicall different political and theological history, are not very high. That event in itself was a bit of a fluke...

Das, I believe Cuivenen was refering to the East-West Schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which in theolgocial terms is called the Great Schism.

Firstly, decentralized hierarchy is but natural for a young movement; and it is also natural for it to grow more centralized. A much smaller population only helps; its far easier to control. As for liberalism, it too is natural for younger cultures and spiritual movements; it simply hadn't enough time to move towards a more consolidated, and thus conservative, model. Also, why the assumption that liberalism and corruption don't fit? Corruption goes with everything.

Everything you say is true, but what I am saying is that combine all three and corruption is much delayed. It would come, it would just come later.

Was it very educated in OTL at the highest point of the Celtic Rite? I rather doubt the likelihood of Ireland becoming the focus of a renaissance; if anything, from the zenith (whether political, economic or cultural), there is an inevitable reccesssion to the nadir.

Actually, while the Celtic Rite did not last long enough in OTL to create the necessary infrastructure, if it lasted past the OTL conquest of Ireland by the Anglo-Normans, then the right infrastructure would have taken shape. Just as the Jesuits founded modern schooling by offering education to rich laymen, the Irish here would have founded a kind of modern education. Now, I am not suggesting that there would be 100% literacy or anything like that, I am only suggesting that a compartively quite large educated middle class would develop. Just as noblity kept one son to be a noble, sent one son to the Jesuits becom a priest, and sent the third son to be educated by the Jesuits, the Irish would be keeping their first born to inheret the land, and their second son to be educated by the monks (or possibly a third to become a monk) (this also helps to break down feudalism, as land won't be divided upon inheritence). The key difference between the Jesuits and the Irish is that the Jesuit education was open only to the nobility and the rich, while the Irish education (due to its lack of fees) would be open to the entire populous. Perhaps rather than a Renaissance, we would have an early development of an educated city-dwelling middle class in Ireland? Of course this is speculation.

I suspect it might go like this - after the initial flurry of the missionaries that you had suggested, there would be furious theological debates, a breakdown and a general reaction against them in the greater Catholic world. Angry mobs, inquisitions and so forth. Eventually the two cultural worlds - that of Ireland, and that of the rest of Europe - would close to each other (well, ofcourse not completely, that is virtually impossible, but for all purposes). The Irish would crush Latinists in their lands, the Catholics would fight the Hibernian Heresy. Bilateral hatred and so forth.

I completely agree with this.

Not QUITE separated. But, again, the Scandinavians distanced the Church - or, at least, Rome - from power as much as possible in OTL. That is technically what I meant; I suppose that calling it secularism is quite an exaggeration, sorry.

If you mean specifically distanced from Rome, then yes. The Scandinavians, in my mind, would likely set up two seperate churches (a Swedish and an Anglo-Norse) controled from home. Perhaps rather than a Martin Luther type starting a Reformation, the secession of Northern Christendom might spark reformists elsewhere to act. Perhaps we might have an Ignatius Loyola type, someone wanting reform and willing to work within the Church spring up. However, with the change of the Church, perhaps to an even more (if that is possible) anti-heresy pro-inquisition stance someone like Ignatius Loyola would be forced, against his will, to work outside the Church. This could give us a Spanish based Reformation dividing Christendom into a North Christian Scandinavia and Britain, a Celtic Ireland (and later America), an Orthodox Eastern and Central Europe (further strengthened by a strong Byzantium, perhaps keeping the Uniates and Hungary away from Catholicism), a "Protestant" Iberia and France, and a Catholic Italy, Germany, Poland (although maybe not Poland since this could be Swedish), and Holland.

Another interesting thought, what would the religious situation in Africa be? Without the Crusades, the European powers (ie Spain in this case) might have a little more power and will to go after North Africa earlier on. Now, I doubt West Africa could be kept from going Muslim, but possibly a Christian Mahgreb. This is purely speculation and my knowledge of the region is shaky, so if someone sees it differently, please say so.

@Symphony-

Sabea is a whole other situation, where the Polytheistic Sabeans were replaced with the Monotheistic Himyarites, thus giving inspiration for Mohammed. Also, the period during after Sabea was a time of rapid advancements when compared to the European Middle Ages. While in the European Middle Ages the Church was practically the sole force moving forward, and moving forward at the speed of a glacier towards ever more power starting with the Council of Milan (?), the period during and after Sabea, especially in the Middle East where the Middle Ages continued to be a time of rapid advance, forces were constantly changing. There was no behemoth like the Church running things, the closest was Abysinia which was practically removed from power permanantly by the Himyarites. Rapid change means more of a change to an alt-hist as opposed to OTL. SInce there was no rapid change of the kind in Europe, there is much less of a change.

I wonder if the NESing forum has decided to mass block me, since nobody seems to want to read what I say.

What am I, chopped liver?

 

[Symphony D.]

Your Post: Aug 08, 2006, 01:58 PM
My Post: Aug 08, 2006, 02:00 PM

I also don't care about poorly crafted examples that have no bearing on the discussion. I said that to illustrate how foolish saying something MUST HAPPEN is, not to come up with a perfect analogy. You are also still refusing to comment on anything I say other than to needle me for not doing so. My final comment on this particular topic, since we can't seem to be bothered to have a real discussion is:

1517 - 1035 = 482 Years

Roughly 8% of the whole of recorded history sits between the PoD and the events you describe. Your utter inflexibility in believing history might change at all in such a span defeats the whole purpose of alternate history at all.

 

[Israelite9191]

Symphony, read what I have said. Also, you are being more than a little rude. This is supposed to be a polite conversation about what might happen if Canute's Empire had survived, not "let's all listend to Symphony." For a conversation to work you have to listen to what other people say. I politely responded to you, and you ignored me claiming that noone listens to you. Either grow up and learn how to have an intelligent, polite conversation or just stop.

I am being flexible, I am just being flexible in the opposite direction that you have. If you read my last post to das I am admitting that while I feel the Reformation would still happen, it would be a different Reformation. Furthermore, the Middle Ages were a time of rather stagnant social development, technological development, etc. in Europe. While it may be a very long amount of time, the amount of change that occured during that time period is miniscule compared to the amount of change in your other comparrisions of 482 years. I mean, a German peasent from 1517 would very readily recognize the lifestyle of a peasent from 1035. Until the Renaissance and Reformation, very little changed socially in Europe. Furthermore, you were the one who brought up Minaea, not me.

 

[Symphony D.]

Furthermore, the Middle Ages were a time of rather stagnant social development, technological development, etc. in Europe. While it may be a very long amount of time, the amount of change that occured during that time period is miniscule compared to the amount of change in your other comparrisions of 482 years. I mean, a German peasent from 1517 would very readily recognize the lifestyle of a peasent from 1035.

The same could be said for somebody living in Constantinople in 0400 or 1400. The "common man's perspective" has absolutely nothing to do with the surrounding political or religious climate whatsoever. It was a stagnant time period? You're discounting paper, the printing press, crossbow, trebuchet, the development of early guns and cannons, fortifications, windmills and waterworks, blast furnaces, gothic cathedrals, "arabic numerals", Magna Carta, the works of Thomas Aquinas... yeah, very little happened in that time period.

How about how much the map changed?

There is massive opportunity for things to go so radically different in this time period as to eliminate the Reformation entirely. Who knows, maybe the Ottomans take Vienna, unifying Europe in fear, or the Black Death lands in Asturias first instead of Marseilles and the entire upper echelon of the Church is wiped out, and they then have to rebuild, as some really simple examples. Amongst a million other possibilities. The notion the Middle Ages was just a bunch of Knights cavorting about between Castles with not much at all happening until the Renaissance is a thoroughly modern misconception and not at all reflective of the time period. They certainly weren't "the middle" ages to the people who lived in them, and to just wave away the possibilities inherent with "Oh, nothing happened back then" is absurd.

This is the point I have raised time, and time again, with supportive evidence, and it is when my main point is repeatedly ignored (for example, as I just said, Sabaea was an example to show that changing one event changes subsequent events) that I get a little annoyed. I don't like having to type the same things over and over.

 

[das]

Das, I believe Cuivenen was refering to the East-West Schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which in theolgocial terms is called the Great Schism.

Sorry, got the schisms mixed up. But that one was of extremelly limited actual importance anyway.

Everything you say is true, but what I am saying is that combine all three and corruption is much delayed. It would come, it would just come later.

And indeed it will come later. But we have time, don't we?

On education - you speak of Jesuits as an example. One of the best cases of Jesuits having good (virtually unchallenged) control over education is Paraguay. Did they have any of that (well-educated middle class) in the end? I really doubt Ireland would have any renaissance or any wonders of education. I suspect that though the elite will probably be somewhat more educated than its European counterparts, lower than that the effects won't be as well-felt. To get an educated middle class, you actually NEED a middle class, but there isn't any practical reason for strong, large middle class to develop in Ireland, at least in the Middle Ages.

Okay, on the Church... The idea is not that it will be more anti-heretical; the idea is that it will simply enter an anti-heretical frenzy earlier than in OTL, especially in Western Europe threatened by Celtic subversion. So the 11th-13th centuries will see the highest point of the Inquisition's equivalent; after that, I can imagine an attempt at reform going terribly wrong Gorbachev-style, with the loss of Scandinavia. I am a bit sceptical about other countries. Though if France had survived it might have used the opportunity to get a national church as it de facto did in OTL (Gallicanism). Then again, pretty much nobody apart from the far northerners has much to gain from breaking with Rome, while the drawbacks of such an action are pretty obvious.

Though perhaps the Slavic Catholics (Poles, Czechs) might use the opportunity if anything like their OTL crisis of faith happens after the HRE's collapse. Not sure.

Another interesting thought, what would the religious situation in Africa be? Without the Crusades, the European powers (ie Spain in this case) might have a little more power and will to go after North Africa earlier on. Now, I doubt West Africa could be kept from going Muslim, but possibly a Christian Mahgreb. This is purely speculation and my knowledge of the region is shaky, so if someone sees it differently, please say so.

Actually, the Crusades greatly assisted Spain (see Lisbon). I was rather hoping to get a stalemate there so that an Andaluso-Moroccan power could compete with the Europeans in the New World, but that may be a bit too much... Not sure, will have to think the Spanish situation over. Lots of factors affecting it. Like the Norse that may raid it, the contact with Ireland and ensuing use of Irish mercenaries...

you ignored me claiming that noone listens to you.

Technically, I suspect that was a cross-post. Or so it seemed to me back then, anyway.

Furthermore, the Middle Ages were a time of rather stagnant social development, technological development, etc. in Europe.

Technological, yes. Though throughout the whole time several important advances were achieved; the greatest Medieval European contributions to civilization were indeed largely theoretical and philosophical. But social? That was a time of great social change and conflict, and furthermore, a defining time period in European history. So, agree with Symphony on that point, though also agree that some other periods of such lenght had seen even more dramatic and radical changes. Medieval changes weren't often as dramatic, but had a greater long-term effect, one might argue.