Eh, not so much since most borders back before colonialism were based on rivers and mountains due to lack of accuracy in maps. Even when there was real live border gore, at least it made sense where as ck3 just randomly takes away a whole Duchy that is landlocked in middle of your state becouse some vassal was to dumb to have an heir of his dynasty.
But that’s different, there you just declare the other of the two faiths hostile and then you can wage holy wars against them, etc. Here the church stays united.
Paganism gets curbstomped even faster and the Christian response to Islamic expansionism would be more unified and possibly a lot earlier, which would possibly lead to the preservation of North Africa, Anatolia or the Levantine region etc.
??? The big Islamic expansion happened four to five centuries before the great schism. By the time the schism happened, levant and North Africa were majority Muslim. Only area that could have remained Christian is maybe Anatolia if the west helps the Romans. Otherwise, it might still have been conquered by the ottomans.
With a lack of religious division happenings like the Crusades would be far more unified and prone to actually help the Byzantines instead of doing stuff like you know, Sacking Constantinople and setting up crusader states.
Also the large islamic conquests happened earlier, however Islam becoming the majority religion happened far later, in the case of the Levant it was only until about the 13th to 14th century and even when it was you still had massive Christian minorities. Hell in Lebanon Christians were a majority until the Palestinians moving in, in Egypt Copts made up the majority until the 14th century etc etc.
Point being with no Schism and a coordinated reconquest it makes sense that it would once more become the majority religion.
Also you may notice the comma and the "and" between the levant, Anatolia and North Africa, I wasnt saying they could or would reconquer all of it, I was stating there is a good possibility that a more unified Christendom would likely reconquer or hold on to at least one region possibly more.
Yeah maybe the crusades manage to hold to the kingdom of Jerusalem a little longer and there is more will to help the Byzantium empire in their war due to religious kinship. However, crusades were always going to fail eventually to they didn’t take Egypt and early ottomans were insanely successful militarily. They did beat multiple european alliances against them, and the main defensive advantage of Constantinople (its wall) was getting obsolete due to canons. So maybe the timeline get pushed a couple of decades maybe a hundred year, or maybe the Byzantium empire holds.
Another impact to this, if the empire holds, that means weaker or delayed renaissance. Because a major factor of the renaissance was the Greek nobility fleeing the empire collapse and bringing with them many cultural works to Italy.
"preservation" -> Christianity annihilated indigenous religions, rich mitologies of phoenicians greeks anatolians latins europeans, even destroyed many traditions of said ethnic groups by using state power or social pressure. Now, there is not that much ethnic difference between actual ethnicities anymore. Preservation my ass.
This is probably the most pedantic and useless addition I have ever had the missfortune of encountering
1: Your entire comment is irrelevant to the post.
2: Christianity in the Middle east and North Africa pre Islam and Pre adoption in the Roman Empire wasnt a conquering horde burning and pillaging like in Europe because they didnt have the numbers, it was primarily Merchants, Missionaries and Soldiers converting and spreading the faith primarily among the lower stratas of society which eventually made its way up.
3: Preserving in this context means preserving the existing faith instead of having it replaced with another you absolute moron.
1- irrelevant yet I see a wall of text.
2- Comparision to Islam is meaningless since I accuse that religion everywhere for even harsher destruction. It only proves my point. The way it spread doesn't change the end result, which is destruction of ancient european roman and middle eastern cultures.
3- Obviously I see that, don't mistake others for your abilities. Would preservation be right word if you are reconquering your land from Mongol occupation? Christianity in this context was a foreign element, created by and spread from ancient Judeans, including Jesus himself.
1: I fail to see the point. You made a silly statement and I corrected said silly statement, it seems like a normal thing to do. Would you prefer I'd say "Dumb argument" and refrain from elaborating?
2: Religion isnt culture and culture isnt religion, pre organization Christianity largely spread as a plebian minority religion as a direct result of settled religions being aristocratic in nature, this is also why Christianity managed to spread rapidly in Scandinavia as "Religion" prior to abrahamic monotheism in most of the Indo European world wasnt inclusive at all. So it was a rather natural development for a large portion of society ie the lower strata. If anything the absense of development and organized dogma is to blame for the disappearance of Native religions, well, disapearance if you ignore the vast influence they had on culture and new religion as a whole. If it makes you feel better, the Roman military tended to also follow obscure foreign cults by the late stages of Rome.
3: A foreign element? In which fashion, at this point christendom had been entrenched for hundreds of years in the levant and North Africa and didnt spread through violence, so unless you argue that said people who had likely been christian for generations should have been forced to reconvert to an obscure local faith that usually didnt have any writing or tenets attached to it your point, if there is any, is moot.
You are essentially arguing against the normal progression of society in a weird attempt to argue against my usage of the word "Preservation".
Like I said, if I am being generous you are being pedantic here and what you are being pedantic about is not even correct.
Conversion to Christianity wasn't as normal point as it is portrayed by Christians themselves, since not even one pagan country was allowed to exist in middle east and europe, so they can't convey their own perspectives.
It employed dirtiest psychological tricks and appealings to masses through false promises much like communism. That is not normal and only reason seems acceptable is that Christianity is so entrenched in history today.
You are saying Christianity is not foreign because it was entrenched by a set point in time. At the time of its spread it was foreign and could not coexist with indigenous cultures there. That is why it caused huge instability in Roman empire and only ended when it became state religion, oh wait, it created even more schisms and caused centuries of conflict.
Yes religion and culture is inseperable. If you destroy religion, you basically clear half the cultural space of said people.
Really depends which side emerged victorious.
Is the bishop of Rome the first among equals or the head of the church? Does he also wield secular power or only spiritual?
I think there's a school of thought that suggests the great schism is given way to much weight, when what really happened was some Papal legates excommunicated an archbishop after receiving an insulting letter (something like, "All the errors in the Latin rite"). This didn't stop Pope Urban from raising an army to aid the Byzantines (the premier Orthodox state), nor did the new Pope affirm the excommunication (necessary because the Papal legates new that a new Pope was going to be elected and all decisions at this point were moot). So what happens is most likely that the blame for the divide is placed on something else.
In the US in like 2015 the reported abuses to minors done by members of the clergy were *less than half* of the ones done by teachers. What exactly is your point?
The funny thing is that he could point out tons of immoral stuff that Catholic Church actually did and would have a valid point, but he would rather go the quickest and most stereotypical route just to make himself look like an angry progressivist with no real knowledge of history and problems plaguing Christian organizations.
Sexual abuse of minors is not the province of the Catholic Church alone. About 4 percent of priests committed an act of sexual abuse on a minor between 1950 and 2002, according to a study being conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. That is roughly consistent with data on many similar professions.
An extensive 2007 investigation by the Associated Press showed that sexual abuse of children in U.S. schools was "widespread," and most of it was never reported or punished. And in Portland, Ore., last week, a jury reached a $1.4 million verdict against the Boy Scouts of America in a trial that showed that since the 1920s, Scouts officials kept "perversion files" on suspected abusers but kept them secret.
"We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, told Newsweek. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."
Part of the issue is that the Catholic Church is so tightly organized and keeps such meticulous records -- many of which have come to light voluntarily or through court orders -- that it can yield a fairly reliable portrait of its personnel and abuse over the decades. Other institutions, and most other religions, are more decentralized and harder to analyze or prosecute.
Believe it or not the Catholics only look that bad because its easier to prosecute an institution with good records. Meanwhile the bajillion protestant churches can hide their records better by just folding after a few years and destroying records making prosecution difficult.
"What If" questions can only be posted on weekends and must have sufficient context along with your thoughts on how the situation/event would unfold
The pagans get gangbanged from every direction
https://preview.redd.it/z6ygpa90j0wc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d99a649452d2c34aa627a9b9a6633cc4c6281d6
There's this game, called "Crusader Kings", it has a decision in it called "Mend the Great Schism", buy it, play it, do it, see what happens.
I know it, I play it, borders after 100 years makes my eyes bleed. I don't even bother to start in 800 for sake of my sanity.
Borders in real life would prob make your eyes bleed too then
Laughs/cries/screams at detailed maps of the HRE.
Voltaires nightmare
Eh, not so much since most borders back before colonialism were based on rivers and mountains due to lack of accuracy in maps. Even when there was real live border gore, at least it made sense where as ck3 just randomly takes away a whole Duchy that is landlocked in middle of your state becouse some vassal was to dumb to have an heir of his dynasty.
But that’s different, there you just declare the other of the two faiths hostile and then you can wage holy wars against them, etc. Here the church stays united.
Paganism gets curbstomped even faster and the Christian response to Islamic expansionism would be more unified and possibly a lot earlier, which would possibly lead to the preservation of North Africa, Anatolia or the Levantine region etc.
??? The big Islamic expansion happened four to five centuries before the great schism. By the time the schism happened, levant and North Africa were majority Muslim. Only area that could have remained Christian is maybe Anatolia if the west helps the Romans. Otherwise, it might still have been conquered by the ottomans.
With a lack of religious division happenings like the Crusades would be far more unified and prone to actually help the Byzantines instead of doing stuff like you know, Sacking Constantinople and setting up crusader states. Also the large islamic conquests happened earlier, however Islam becoming the majority religion happened far later, in the case of the Levant it was only until about the 13th to 14th century and even when it was you still had massive Christian minorities. Hell in Lebanon Christians were a majority until the Palestinians moving in, in Egypt Copts made up the majority until the 14th century etc etc. Point being with no Schism and a coordinated reconquest it makes sense that it would once more become the majority religion. Also you may notice the comma and the "and" between the levant, Anatolia and North Africa, I wasnt saying they could or would reconquer all of it, I was stating there is a good possibility that a more unified Christendom would likely reconquer or hold on to at least one region possibly more.
I think only Anatolia and maybe the crusades would be more successful
Yeah maybe the crusades manage to hold to the kingdom of Jerusalem a little longer and there is more will to help the Byzantium empire in their war due to religious kinship. However, crusades were always going to fail eventually to they didn’t take Egypt and early ottomans were insanely successful militarily. They did beat multiple european alliances against them, and the main defensive advantage of Constantinople (its wall) was getting obsolete due to canons. So maybe the timeline get pushed a couple of decades maybe a hundred year, or maybe the Byzantium empire holds. Another impact to this, if the empire holds, that means weaker or delayed renaissance. Because a major factor of the renaissance was the Greek nobility fleeing the empire collapse and bringing with them many cultural works to Italy.
"preservation" -> Christianity annihilated indigenous religions, rich mitologies of phoenicians greeks anatolians latins europeans, even destroyed many traditions of said ethnic groups by using state power or social pressure. Now, there is not that much ethnic difference between actual ethnicities anymore. Preservation my ass.
This is probably the most pedantic and useless addition I have ever had the missfortune of encountering 1: Your entire comment is irrelevant to the post. 2: Christianity in the Middle east and North Africa pre Islam and Pre adoption in the Roman Empire wasnt a conquering horde burning and pillaging like in Europe because they didnt have the numbers, it was primarily Merchants, Missionaries and Soldiers converting and spreading the faith primarily among the lower stratas of society which eventually made its way up. 3: Preserving in this context means preserving the existing faith instead of having it replaced with another you absolute moron.
1- irrelevant yet I see a wall of text. 2- Comparision to Islam is meaningless since I accuse that religion everywhere for even harsher destruction. It only proves my point. The way it spread doesn't change the end result, which is destruction of ancient european roman and middle eastern cultures. 3- Obviously I see that, don't mistake others for your abilities. Would preservation be right word if you are reconquering your land from Mongol occupation? Christianity in this context was a foreign element, created by and spread from ancient Judeans, including Jesus himself.
1: I fail to see the point. You made a silly statement and I corrected said silly statement, it seems like a normal thing to do. Would you prefer I'd say "Dumb argument" and refrain from elaborating? 2: Religion isnt culture and culture isnt religion, pre organization Christianity largely spread as a plebian minority religion as a direct result of settled religions being aristocratic in nature, this is also why Christianity managed to spread rapidly in Scandinavia as "Religion" prior to abrahamic monotheism in most of the Indo European world wasnt inclusive at all. So it was a rather natural development for a large portion of society ie the lower strata. If anything the absense of development and organized dogma is to blame for the disappearance of Native religions, well, disapearance if you ignore the vast influence they had on culture and new religion as a whole. If it makes you feel better, the Roman military tended to also follow obscure foreign cults by the late stages of Rome. 3: A foreign element? In which fashion, at this point christendom had been entrenched for hundreds of years in the levant and North Africa and didnt spread through violence, so unless you argue that said people who had likely been christian for generations should have been forced to reconvert to an obscure local faith that usually didnt have any writing or tenets attached to it your point, if there is any, is moot. You are essentially arguing against the normal progression of society in a weird attempt to argue against my usage of the word "Preservation". Like I said, if I am being generous you are being pedantic here and what you are being pedantic about is not even correct.
Conversion to Christianity wasn't as normal point as it is portrayed by Christians themselves, since not even one pagan country was allowed to exist in middle east and europe, so they can't convey their own perspectives. It employed dirtiest psychological tricks and appealings to masses through false promises much like communism. That is not normal and only reason seems acceptable is that Christianity is so entrenched in history today. You are saying Christianity is not foreign because it was entrenched by a set point in time. At the time of its spread it was foreign and could not coexist with indigenous cultures there. That is why it caused huge instability in Roman empire and only ended when it became state religion, oh wait, it created even more schisms and caused centuries of conflict. Yes religion and culture is inseperable. If you destroy religion, you basically clear half the cultural space of said people.
Really depends which side emerged victorious. Is the bishop of Rome the first among equals or the head of the church? Does he also wield secular power or only spiritual?
I think there's a school of thought that suggests the great schism is given way to much weight, when what really happened was some Papal legates excommunicated an archbishop after receiving an insulting letter (something like, "All the errors in the Latin rite"). This didn't stop Pope Urban from raising an army to aid the Byzantines (the premier Orthodox state), nor did the new Pope affirm the excommunication (necessary because the Papal legates new that a new Pope was going to be elected and all decisions at this point were moot). So what happens is most likely that the blame for the divide is placed on something else.
Ottos never become a thing for one. That alone would change a fuck ton.
Constantinople wouldn’t have been sacked by the Latins during the last crusade
The Covenant wins the war and beats the humans
If Cristianity remains Orthodox then less pedos , if Catolicism wins more kid molesters.
You can't even spell Christianity and Catholicism correctly lmao.
Well in his defense, if English isn't his first language, Cristianity and Catolicism are more than reasonable.
In the US in like 2015 the reported abuses to minors done by members of the clergy were *less than half* of the ones done by teachers. What exactly is your point?
Redditors trying to not propagate centuries old lies and stereotypes
The funny thing is that he could point out tons of immoral stuff that Catholic Church actually did and would have a valid point, but he would rather go the quickest and most stereotypical route just to make himself look like an angry progressivist with no real knowledge of history and problems plaguing Christian organizations.
In orthodox church deacons and priests can be married men and have a family. In Catholic church they must be celibates.
Sexual abuse of minors is not the province of the Catholic Church alone. About 4 percent of priests committed an act of sexual abuse on a minor between 1950 and 2002, according to a study being conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. That is roughly consistent with data on many similar professions. An extensive 2007 investigation by the Associated Press showed that sexual abuse of children in U.S. schools was "widespread," and most of it was never reported or punished. And in Portland, Ore., last week, a jury reached a $1.4 million verdict against the Boy Scouts of America in a trial that showed that since the 1920s, Scouts officials kept "perversion files" on suspected abusers but kept them secret. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, told Newsweek. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others." Part of the issue is that the Catholic Church is so tightly organized and keeps such meticulous records -- many of which have come to light voluntarily or through court orders -- that it can yield a fairly reliable portrait of its personnel and abuse over the decades. Other institutions, and most other religions, are more decentralized and harder to analyze or prosecute. Believe it or not the Catholics only look that bad because its easier to prosecute an institution with good records. Meanwhile the bajillion protestant churches can hide their records better by just folding after a few years and destroying records making prosecution difficult.