Obviously as the location of the city of Rome, empires claiming to be successors of the empire have tried to retake the city itself. The Byzantines were able to reclaim the peninsula temporarily but lost it to the Lombards and the Pope after separating the church ruled the city for centuries afterward.

If the Byzantines were able to retake and keep the city of Rome for another millenia, could the schism be avoided, how would the Holy Roman Empire be viewed, and what other effects would there be from being firmly under Byzantine control?
 
Last edited:
Obviously as the location of the city of Rome, empires claiming to be successors of the empire have tried to retake the city itself. The Byzantines were able to reclaim the peninsula temporarily but lost it to the Lombards and the Pope after separating the church ruled the city for centuries afterward.

If the Byzantines were able to keep the city of Rome for another millenia, could the schism be avoided, how would the Holy Roman Empire be viewed, and what other effects would there be from being firmly under Byzantine control?
If the ERE kept rome the HRE would never come about. It was created due to the Papacies insecurity with the lombards. IOTL the ERE was too weak to provide security and was having issues with the Pope due to Iconoclasm. Thus the Pope at the time believed that he couldn’t afford to rely on the Roman empire for protection which in turn led to the whole deal with Charlemagne.

A stronger ERE who managed to repulse the lombards would probably be in a better mental state enough even with the Islamic conquests that the concept of Iconoclasm wouldn’t come up. And with the Pope firmly under the Emperor influence he’s unlikely to be searching for any alternative patrons.
 
If the ERE kept rome the HRE would never come about. It was created due to the Papacies insecurity with the lombards. IOTL the ERE was too weak to provide security and was having issues with the Pope due to Iconoclasm. Thus the Pope at the time believed that he couldn’t afford to rely on the Roman empire for protection which in turn led to the whole deal with Charlemagne.

A stronger ERE who managed to repulse the lombards would probably be in a better mental state enough even with the Islamic conquests that the concept of Iconoclasm wouldn’t come up. And with the Pope firmly under the Emperor influence he’s unlikely to be searching for any alternative patrons.
I meant to say retake after losing it the first time, but would there be any significant developments if the Byzantines were able to recapture and keep Rome after the HRE was founded?
 
Last edited:
A stronger ERE who managed to repulse the lombards would probably be in a better mental state enough even with the Islamic conquests that the concept of Iconoclasm wouldn’t come up. And with the Pope firmly under the Emperor influence he’s unlikely to be searching for any alternative patrons.

I would not be that sure of that.

Certainly the Lombards and the Iconoclastic movement played an important role in the fact of the Papacy switching from ERE's protection to the Carolingian one, but they were not the only factors and maybe not the most important ones (in fact Rome had dealt with the Lombards for two centuries before and other uncomfortable religious movements coming from the East, like Monothelitism).
I think the main aim behind that change is the factual division between the Latin Nicene and the Greek Orthodox churches even if they were still formally in communion by that time. The Popes after Gregory fully realized their increasing irrelevancy in the East, where the other Patriarchs, specially the one in Constantinople, controlled the church there. There was the paradox that the Popes grew more irrelevant inside their own Roman Empire while their importance increased in the Western Germanic kingdoms as they abandoned Arianism (like in Visigothic Hispania) or embraced Latin Nicene Christianism like in Britain. So this dicotomy become more and more unsustainable, and the rise of the Carolingians gave them the opportunity to finally break ties with Byzantium and seek protection in their Western allies.
A stronger Byzantium holding Italy might delay this, but it is something that would happen sooner or later as the division of the Church was pretty irreversible by that time.
 
I meant to say retake after losing it the first time, but would there be any significant developments if the Byzantines were able to recapture and keep Rome after the HRE was founded?
You need very strong PODs for that to happen: the HRE is far more invested in keeping & holding Rome both for prestige and actual economic reasons (a power controlling Rome is able to march northwards and try to wrest away the rich North Italian cities) while OTL has shown how little practically did the Byzantines care about retaking Rome (they generally cared a lot more about Sicily than they did about Rome).

A Byzantium that remains in control of the whole Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans is the one that might want to hold onto Rome, and I agree there wouldn't be an HRE to begin with in that case.
 
You need very strong PODs for that to happen: the HRE is far more invested in keeping & holding Rome both for prestige and actual economic reasons (a power controlling Rome is able to march northwards and try to wrest away the rich North Italian cities) while OTL has shown how little practically did the Byzantines care about retaking Rome (they generally cared a lot more about Sicily than they did about Rome).

A Byzantium that remains in control of the whole Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans is the one that might want to hold onto Rome, and I agree there wouldn't be an HRE to begin with in that case.
I just thought that if the Byzantines were to get their act together they'd definitely try to retake Italy to show that they're still the Roman empire.
 
I just thought that if the Byzantines were to get their act together they'd definitely try to retake Italy to show that they're still the Roman empire.
In their mind they have always been Rome and never really needed to reinforce that anyways; the credible threat of Charlemagne when they still cared vanished shortly after, and the menace from the HRE was more of a geopolitical one which was settled with the marriage of Otto II and Theophanu.
Such a position they defiantly held even in the early 15th century, when the Patriarch reminded the Rus' that Byzantium still was the Second Rome and had to be respected as such despite its greatly diminished temporal status.
 
In their mind they have always been Rome and never really needed to reinforce that anyways; the credible threat of Charlemagne when they still cared vanished shortly after, and the menace from the HRE was more of a geopolitical one which was settled with the marriage of Otto II and Theophanu.
Such a position they defiantly held even in the early 15th century, when the Patriarch reminded the Rus' that Byzantium still was the Second Rome and had to be respected as such despite its greatly diminished temporal status.
So no one but Napoleon is going to get the HRE to face reality and finally change the name?
 
Honestly, it's not that crazy that the ERE retains Rome, Byzantine Papacy, etc.

Simply, a couple screws that compromise the Sassanid Empire, have Muhammad butterflied away, and we will end up possibly having this:

-ATL Heraclius attains to a worldwide union of churches in 636 as per OTL, where literally the moderate Miaphysites and the Nestorians were in union with the whole Byzantine Church and Rome (this has been called "the church union you never heard of."). Without Muslim conquest, Sophronius of Jerusalem and the future Popes of Rome (Honorius signed onto that council) will not break rank. It undoes the first great schism and without a Sassanid screw chances are the Byzantines will end up converting the Arabs to imperial Christianity.

-When the Arabs eventually get ascendancy, they will likely be like the Rus, Serbs, and Bulgars. They will score some big victories, but without the visceral religious hatred and the cultures feeling some pull to "imperium" (due to Byzantine Christianity having the Empire having some metaphysical importance, heck, even in Islam Constantinople attained to some measure of importance due to this), the Arabs will likely not make it as far, though they will likely be an equal power, perhaps taking as far as Carthage to Afghanistan if the non-Christian Sassanids fall apart.

-Hence, when the Franks attain to regional ascendancy ITTL, they will not have the force to push into Italy, as the Byzantines even with major losses are still not quite as weak. It may take until the Normans in the 11th century to push into Italy.

-This means the Byzantine Papacy lasted until the 11th century. At this point, it is highly likely that a lot of the religious changes to Christianity in the West (which are so profound, from statuary as religious objects, to unleavened break, to much more austere liturgical customs), will have already created some sort of schism so that the Normans would be representing a foreign force analogous to the Arians (though likely the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, a doctrine that Latin Christians in Rome rejected even though they knew full well of the term "filioque"). Hence, these "Filioquists" would represent foreign usurpers to Roman Christians and will be perceived as such by worldwide Christendom, which is still in union, with perhaps the exception of the Ethiopians (who were Julianists in the 7th century and would probably remain as such).

And so, the OP requires that Constantinople holds onto Rome until the 16th century, which while not metaphysically impossible would require considerably more butterflies that would significantly strengthen Constantinople inasmuch they can hold the Normans back as far north as Milan. Perhaps, with the weather warming and populations increasing in western Europe, if the Arabs are screwed a little more and the Byzantines never lose Carthage or, even better, Egypt, Rome by the skin of their teeth may be able to hold back the Normans.

For the next few centuries, instead of Crusades in the Middle East, there will be Crusades for the city of Rome itself. They will likely not be as religiously tinged and without some unifying religious principle (the city of Rome, though ecclesiastically important, would not be to the HRE schismatics) the HRE (which would never have this name without actually taking Rome, but the Franks and their Norman successors are HRE ITTL) would not be able to enlist support for the British isles, for example. Additionally, a stronger Byzantium can sow more discord in the west and there may be greater infighting amongst the Latin Europeans outside of the Ecumene.

Ultimately, Rome may gain independence from a faltering Constantinople or fall under the sway of ATL Turks (though a Constantinople strong enough to hold onto Rome until the 16th century probably lasts at least another century at minimum, probably even as late as 1848 or ATL Napoleon to be honest). However, such a Rome would be ideological Orthodox and Italy would be culturally "Eastern" instead of "Western" today.
 
Last edited:

Carter I'm Yog

Kicked
Banned
I think the main aim behind that change is the factual division between the Latin Nicene and the Greek Orthodox churches even if they were still formally in communion by that time.
Just nitpicking a bit here, but the counterpoint to "Nicene" is "Arian", not "Orthodox". The Orthodox Church is also Nicene, much like every other church that survives today that isn't some wild offshoot.
 
So no one but Napoleon is going to get the HRE to face reality and finally change the name?
Unless you heavily change history, I don't think so.
Throughout the Medieval period, the Imperial title was something incredibly important; a unique claim to universal dominion and (a measure of) Church control, and as such naturally both instrumental and desirable for a large realm and the ambitious (and/or arrogant) ruler governing it; they're not going to give it up unless they're forced by genuine poitical weakness like it happened between 924 and 962. Maybe you can have Liutprand provoke Nikephoros Phokas into action against Otto, and kill/capture him, but that would just make the HRE title stillborn.
After that, the ERE never was strong enough to be able to enforce its demands, nor really did it care anyways; even ambitious and western-minded Manuel Komnenos (who did wield more influence in Italy than any Byzantine Emperor since Justinian) went to Ancona, never wanted to directly hold Rome, and mostly focused on traditional Byzantine goals (recovering Southern Italy).
Any other polity would've just stolen the Imperial pretense for themselves (or just destroyed the Empire itself and annexed parts of it), until Mehmed the Conqueror; by then the title was slowly losing its old universal meaning, but he and his successors still did follow traditional Byzantine policy of denying the HRE the status of Emperor for more than a century, so if Mehmed lives longer and gets to South Italy, with a lot of luck, he may be able to score the outcome you desire (mostly by taking away the Pope).
 
Just nitpicking a bit here, but the counterpoint to "Nicene" is "Arian", not "Orthodox". The Orthodox Church is also Nicene, much like every other church that survives today that isn't some wild offshoot.
You are totally right.

The fact is that usually the adjective 'Nicene' is applied to the early Latin church in order to distinguish it from the Arian (which sometimes was also partly 'Latin', as well as Germanic), while for the Greek is mostly used the adjective 'Orthodox' to distinguish it from the Miaphysite and others, even if it is Nicene as well, as you already said.
 
Without Muslim conquest, Sophronius of Jerusalem and the future Popes of Rome (Honorius signed onto that council) will not break rank. It undoes the first great schism and without a Sassanid screw chances are the Byzantines will end up converting the Arabs to imperial Christianity.
i still belive that this compromise of Heraclius would not survive past him since even after his great victory againsr the persians it was hated and would die with him

-When the Arabs eventually get ascendancy, they will likely be like the Rus, Serbs, and Bulgars. They will score some big victories, but without the visceral religious hatred and the cultures feeling some pull to "imperium" (due to Byzantine Christianity having the Empire having some metaphysical importance, heck, even in Islam Constantinople attained to some measure of importance due to this), the Arabs will likely not make it as far, though they will likely be an equal power, perhaps taking as far as Carthage to Afghanistan if the non-Christian Sassanids fall apart.
there is no guarantee that the Arabs become asecdant also an arab empire that takes the levant and syria would also cause Heralcius compromise to die off
 
If they manage to take Rome I believe they'll take the rest of Italy eventually, probably even moving the government back there.

The Catholic Church won't rise Christianity changes, they'll probably eventually take the rest of Spain and some of France as well, they'll probably be able to push back the Muslim incursions too.

The Roman empire probably still exist, and Europe and the world by extension is a very different place.

They move north and pick off the German states one by one I imagine that they eventually reach the Baltic and North Seas, maybe even going so far as to include Denmark.
 
If they manage to take Rome I believe they'll take the rest of Italy eventually, probably even moving the government back there.
not happeing its more likely that an ambiouts general or a family members declares himself emperor of the west moving to italy especially after the gothic wars make no sense
 

Carter I'm Yog

Kicked
Banned
You are totally right.

The fact is that usually the adjective 'Nicene' is applied to the early Latin church in order to distinguish it from the Arian (which sometimes was also partly 'Latin', as well as Germanic), while for the Greek is mostly used the adjective 'Orthodox' to distinguish it from the Miaphysite and others, even if it is Nicene as well, as you already said.
I haven't read much about Germanic churches, but I just love the way everybody in Rome, in Constantinople, in Alexandria, in Antioch, in Jerusalem and in every other Roman Christian city was producing statements of theological dispute containing the words "the holy creed of Nikaea, to which nothing could be added and from which nothing could be subtracted" while insisting they are just "interpreting" the creed of Nikaea. Reminds me of the way Marxist-Leninists decry Second International Marxists as "revisionaries and reactionaries", "collaborators of the capitalist regimes".
So no one but Napoleon is going to get the HRE to face reality and finally change the name?
There is a reason the French and HRE constantly competed over "guardianship" of the Pope. Though this reminds me, why did the French insist on using Roi as their top title? Is it imperial in the French context?
If they manage to take Rome I believe they'll take the rest of Italy eventually, probably even moving the government back there.
Prbly need to butterfly the Gothic War. Italy, to be frank, was never the same after that, and certainly not suited for being any imperial core. Hell, one of published alternate history's earliest works Lest Darkness Fall focuses on our SI professor mitigating the impact of the Gothic War and making Belisarius king of Italy (last part IIRC).
i still belive that this compromise of Heraclius would not survive past him since even after his great victory againsr the persians it was hated and would die with him


there is no guarantee that the Arabs become asecdant also an arab empire that takes the levant and syria would also cause Heralcius compromise to die off
Prbly the same problem. Since all schismatic lands were lost, no need to compromise.
 
Though this reminds me, why did the French insist on using Roi as their top title? Is it imperial in the French context?
Because in European minds, there was but one Imperial title, that of Rome, with all the baggage attached.
The only French house that could've staked a claim on said title was the Carolingian dynasty, which had largely died out by year 1000 AD.
Thus it was not politically expedient, nor desirable for internal purposes, it would've brought enormous geopolitical challenges in directions that were not seen as core French interests (at least for the time), and most importantly embroiled France in tensions with both the Papacy and the German Emperors (which instead the Kingdom of France managed to use against each other).
 

Carter I'm Yog

Kicked
Banned
What about Constance of Sicily marrying Manuel I
I kind of doubt the marriage making Manuel's courtiers believe he "retook" Rome. Does the concept of personal union even exist in Roman political discourse?
The only French house that could've staked a claim on said title was the Carolingian dynasty, which had largely died out by year 1000 AD.
Oddly convenient then. Turns out you could be king and whack emperors on the head, well done France.
 
i still belive that this compromise of Heraclius would not survive past him since even after his great victory againsr the persians it was hated and would die with him


there is no guarantee that the Arabs become asecdant also an arab empire that takes the levant and syria would also cause Heralcius compromise to die off
Arabs were going to rise due to demographics IMHO.

As for the union, a Heraclean orthodoxy would essentially be "no debating over pie in the sky stuff." It was literally proto-ecumenism. The average rank and file probably approved of it which is why monotheletism persisted way past its expiration date. While not likely, this is alternate history, long term union was indeed possible.
 
Top