Just how hostile were Europeans towards Tengrism, anyway? Though whatever their level of hostility, it could undoutbedly increase if Tengrists were actually sitting on the Holy Land.
Without the Islamic conquests, just how long do the Byzantines hold onto Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, and the Maghreb?
- Thread starter WolfBear
- Start date
Just how hostile were Europeans towards Tengrism, anyway? Though whatever their level of hostility, it could undoutbedly increase if Tengrists were actually sitting on the Holy Land.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Maybe, though I couldn't predict things that far out from the POD nor whether such a crusade/crusades might be ultimately successful. Worth noting that the Gokturks might not remain Tengrist forever, them converting to some other religion (Nestorian Christianity perhaps, or Buddhism, or even Manichaeism as the Uighurs did for a while - as @History Learner said Zoroastrianism seems to have been on the way out this late into Sassanid times) is possible as well.
I think the Donatists were a spent force by the 7th century - their heyday was in the 4th and 5th, but by the 600s they had been more or less broken by successive Roman (peaking with Saint Augustine of Hippo's efforts to combat their influence), Vandal and then Roman (again) persecutions, with whatever remnants of Donatism that managed to endure in the remote corners of Roman Africa being swallowed up by Islam afterward historically. Of course, without Islam around I'm loath to suggest that a late-game Donatist comeback is impossible, but it does seem unlikely to me.
Worth noting that some Romanized Berber monarchs did help the Byzantines in Carthage fight off the rising tide of Islam for some time: Kusaila and Dihya were both pretty strong leaders who seem to have held out for many years and given the Rashidun armies a good fight IRL. However, although they were Christian they don't seem to have been Donatists - they had good working relationships with the Byzantines and I've never seen any source note them to be of a Donatist persuasion, which I'm sure some Byzantines would've made note of if they had been forced into working with 'heretics'. Rather, I think the Mauro-Romans would've more or less been aligned with Rome in any conflict with Constantinople (drawing their theology from the mind of Cyprian, Augustine, etc. rather than the defeated Donatus Magnus, and further indicated by their support for the anti-Monothelite Gregory against Heraclius' Monothelite grandson Constans II). Kusaila (for example, you can substitute another Berber monarch or ambitious Mauro-Roman patrician like Gregory here) trying to get the Pope to crown him Caecilius I of a restored Western Roman Empire, and using that as his excuse to both kick the Visigoths' door down and to push into Italy, seems to me the likeliest cause for a collapse of Byzantine temporal & ecclesiastical authority in the west.
As an aside, no Islam means the African Romance culture & language which dominated in Roman Africa's coastal cities won't be wiped out. A Christian Berber king or imperial usurper who sets his capital at Carthage (IMO the most logical place for it) will probably embrace that Romance culture himself, rather than impose the opposite and try to Berberize his wealthier & more populous urban subjects. Overall I think most of the Maghreb ITL will likely resemble an extension of southern Europe, and grow culturally closer to Spain and Italy (where their most obvious trading partners & allies against the Byzantines are located) than say, the Saharan Tuaregs - African Romance was identified as being close to Sardinian by Arab chroniclers, and apparently underwent betacism like Spanish did.
As with a Donatist comeback, I'd prefer to never say never re: the Byzantines managing to carve more bits off their rivals in moments of weakness. But I do think it wouldn't be easy, hence the difficulties in shifting the Roman-Persian border either way in most of their past wars. Again, not ruling it out (I actually have the ERE expanding eastward in one of my own timelines) but it'd require a good bit of luck on their part and great misfortune on that of the Sassanids, who though beset with extremely bad luck in the mid-600s IOTL, may or may not have gotten over it by the time the Romans too have recovered from Khosrow's war.
Likewise in the west, where the Visigoths have already driven the Byzantines out of Hispania (for good, at least historically) in the late 6th century and the Lombards really did a number on their Italian possessions around the same time. IMHO these setbacks have shown the real limits to Byzantine expansion westward and would be tough for the empire to overcome (beset as it was with plagues, Avar/Slavic incursions and the Persian war), at least within a timeframe that I could still reliably make predictions of without just creating a full-on TL.
I don't think I was even around (at least as more than just a Guest) before that fellow got banned, but such weird statements and his rather combative way of phrasing them gives me the impression of someone who gets his jollies out of being a contrarian.
Anyway, I'm also skeptical of Mazdakism being able to revive Zoroastrian fervor. Seems to have had too much opposition to its doctrines among the Persian elite, who were very much running the show in the empire by the time of the unfortunate Yazdgerd III. Mazdakism's strong emphasis on egalitarianism & common ownership lends to it a revolutionary character, hence why its successors (like the Khurramites) were often in rebellion against the established powers in Persia - I don't really see them making a comeback since Kavadh I got burned after playing with Mazdak, unless a Sassanid civil war or two (such as the one plaguing Yazdgerd's reign after Heraclius' final victory, for example) turn downright apocalyptic for Persia and create the opening for a Mazdakite leader to attract a huge following against the warring nobility.
How did Western Christians feel about Nestorian Christianity?
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Didn't interact often enough with them to form much of an opinion beyond 'ah, heretical' IIRC - the Nestorians were on and beyond the other end of the Roman world after all. Historically the crusaders certainly appreciated the aid of Nestorian Mongols like Kitbuqa against Islam enough to even overlook the heresy bit, sometimes even conceiving of Mongolia as the mythical land of Prester John.
Interesting. So, Nestorian Gokturks are unlikely to be seen as that much of a threat by Western Europeans, I would presume? Even if they do eventually conquer the Holy Land from the Byzantine Empire.
I would say if they converted to Nestorianism and conquered the Holy Land then relations with the west and also the Orthodpx world would depend on three factors.
a) Especially in the short term if they maintained the Mongol religious tolerance and didn't discriminate against pilgrims from other Christian churches the latter might view them kindly and both, but especially the Orthodox because they were currently markedly weaker, might seek friendly relations if not alliances with them.
b) In the longer term internal politics would also be important. How does the Mongol empire handle what's a largely heterogeneous religious situation with probably still a Muslim majority? This would relate as well to its perceived strength which could prompt some to think its vulnerable to some looting at least. One of the factors for the crusades was that it allowed the western powers to remove a lot of violent men, including a lot of younger sons who had little/no chance of inheriting land from causing trouble locally. Also if it becomes stable the Mongol/Nestorian state would be wealthy and especially if it also secured Egypt, which would protect its SW border, the empire would be very wealthy and as the Ottomans did after 1516 secure pretty much a monopoly over the spice and silk routes.
c) Also in the longer term either the Catholic and Orthodox churches would have to drastically chance their stances as being the 'one true faith' or ultimately to be prompted by religious interests into conflict with the Mongols. Because that stance isn't accepting with allowing 'heretics' to rule the holy city especially.
FWIW, Steve, I was actually thinking of there not being an Islam at all in this TL.
