I think that in modern times we dramatically underestimate how important religion was to almost everyone even the most powerful. It just doesn't compute to the modern secularist viewpoint that all but the most religious in Western society possess, This shows in how religion and the Catholic Church (or its expys) in particular is portrayed in modern media especially in the English speaking world. Most priests and bishops are shown in media as venal, power-hungry, unbelievers who are only in it because they see it as a way to exploit the dumb peasantry. This really isn't true as if Christian faith was that weak it never would have lasted as long as it has.
WI/AHC: European leaders converting to Islam to circumvent Church authority
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
True, I don't think people will choose death over circumcision, though a King who just wants to reduce the Church's power in his lands would probably go for an option that doesn't require him to cut off part of his most sensitive organ.
Bonus points if the dumb peasantry, nobles, and basically everyone is openly cynical and disbelieving, but the Church is still allowed huge social and political power, because Reasons.
Well, I'll be honest. I don't see that happening, what the monarch gains by converting to Islam is much less than if he compromises with the church or simply kills the cleric who is irritating him. Perhaps local leaders from Balkan regions like Albania dominated by an Islamic power. But other than that there is no real reason for conversion, in the same way that there is no real reason for the Ottoman, Egyptian, Tunisian, Moroccan sultans to convert to Christianity.
Tbt I was open to wherever the conversation lead. In my head, I imagined a situation where polities such as the Kingdom of Asturias or maybe some of the minor lordships in southern France and Italy might consider switching to Islam if they started to chaffe under Catholic authority. I guess that focuses more on a reduction of religious influence, but a reduction focused on papal power more than religion itself.
A country on the borders of Islam might convert, I think, albeit I don't think they'd convert solely to reduce Church power in their lands (though that might be one motivation among several). I don't think a country in the heart of Christendom would be very likely to, on the other hand.
had to much bad blood with the arabs/berbers to work
Gets club by the king
Maybe one of the italian islands when the muslims control the Mediterranean. Any conversion on the mainland will end in assassination or annexation by neighbors.
It is easier to demand the right to choose a bishop. or formally complain to the pope that cleric x is not welcome in the kingdom because of y and z.
I believe you are very deeply overestimating how tilted was the balance for a Medieval ruler.
They quite never 'chafed', rather they appreciated the free support, at worst they hungrily eyed all that wealth tied up in monasteries and eventually encroached up to those and hoped the Bishops would not try to be anything less than totally subservient. Or in more modern times, resented the heavy-handed influence of the Jesuits. But that's a Modern Era problem, never a Medieval one.
But wasnt the Church pretty much a 5th column? Bishops and their titles owed their power to Rome, not the feudal lord. If an upstart bishop wanted to play political shenanigans, there wasnt much said lords could do to stop them? Being the member of a different religion would negate that issue
This depends on the power of the country, the king, the church. Whether the bishop is loyal to the pope or the king. Is the Pope liked by the elites in this country? How do most priests behave? Among other factors, these factors make it difficult for you to have a fifth column as you write. Now the closer you are geographically to the Papal States, the more influence the pope will have. But this did not stop the French, Austrians, Spanish and other powers from telling the Pope to be quiet or simply making the Pope stumble and break his neck. Or even elect an Anti-Pope. Church power was strong until it wasn't. Without the support of the elites, the church could only count on the masses, who unfortunately are not very strong in this era.
Yes, and the king (or noble) could ask for donations from the church if necessary. It wasn't a one-way street.
They could do several things. From killing the bishop or causing it to have an accident to formally complaining to the church about what the bishop is doing. A formal complaint from a king was no small feat. It was something serious. And the church took this seriously. Because it knew the danger that the bishop posed to the institution and its relationship with the kingdom. Weck the most important kingdoms could chose their own bishops or could accept/deny the papal appointment.
Yes, it would negate this problem and create another 50 that are much more deadly. From revolts by nobles against the king to being murdered by members of their own family.
I'm not sure how you see this as negating that issue? The bishop has less reason to cooperate and consider the wishes of a Muslim ruler than one of his own faith, especially those into politics (which is not to say "not sincere about their faith").
You could simply revoke and liquidate his lands. I'm sure the Umayyads did that after the Iberian conquest
Overall, I think you have the bad gist about religion and politics in the Medieval times.
Outside of that issue, Bishops would at worst happen to endorse rival claimants, giving them more authority than a non-Church noble would, but still be bound by the widespread caesaropapist assumptions and unable to lay the claim to authority themselves.
That the Church was a 5th column was quite possibly true in the context of the Investiture Controversy, but not much anywhere else; most of the other time and places Bishops owed their power to Church politics that often mirrored the secular ones, being manned by the same noble families.
Outside of that issue, Bishops would at worst happen to endorse rival claimants, giving them more authority than a non-Church noble would, but still be bound by the widespread caesaropapist assumptions and unable to lay the claim to authority themselves.
Obligatory "Pdox games are built different" here. The Muslims took over a lot of Christian land, but seldom outright stripped them of their properties or rights, rather preferring to levy an extra tax and restricting certain behaviors (doing processions, keeping wealth in churches); if only because more overt oppression also proved more dangerous. And besides, that Bishop probably is related to various nobles you still need to keep on your side, so liquidating him (and going through the trouble of finding competent administrators) probably bides poorly for your overall situation.
Evil Crusader addressed this well enough, I think. If you're in a strong enough position to seize church lands without consequences, you're in a strong enough position that most bishops are going to see working against you as not a great idea anyway, Christian or Muslim.
That wouldn't really be a case of converting to Islam from Christianity though as that was a period where the Kyivan Rus' was converting away from Slavic Paganism.
Last edited:
A lot of the "taboos" in Islam are an instant NO to the majority of European cultures. Things like no alcohol, no pork, severe fasting during days, not keeping dogs as companion pets, things like those could seem like minor issues, but were highly incompatible with the traditions and habits your average European used to have.
And why specifically Islam? It was easier to pick any of the regional cults (like Catharism) than pick something more foreign. Or even convert to Orthodoxy and name one Cardinal/Bishop as the new Patriarch of [Insert your preferred Diocese here] and start from there.
And why specifically Islam? It was easier to pick any of the regional cults (like Catharism) than pick something more foreign. Or even convert to Orthodoxy and name one Cardinal/Bishop as the new Patriarch of [Insert your preferred Diocese here] and start from there.
Even in OTL when pagan states converted to Christianity, you often saw the noble revolting, Denmark saw two pagan revolt against a Christian kings (Harald Klak and Harald Bluetooth), in the second revolt Denmark stayed Christian afterward but with the pagans being free to practice their religion, Norway too had trouble with adopting Christianity. But this was with a much less organized pagan religion, and the pagans mainly wanted the right to practice their religion in peace. A Christian king have to deal with far less religious pragmatic and tolerant estates and population, and these estates are the main military power of the king.
I would say that for most Christian states converting to Islam is around as possible as Obama successfully declaring himself president for life in 2016.
I would say that for most Christian states converting to Islam is around as possible as Obama successfully declaring himself president for life in 2016.