I could have sworn I read it in the works of the historian JM Roberts, but I can’t find it now.
At that particular point in time, that would have been just begging to have a Crusade called on their ass, which continentals eager to get in the Pope’s good book (pun intended) would have been only too happy to run headlong into. Ask the Lithuanians or Cathars how fun fun fun their experience was. Or if you want Christian on Not-The-Right-Christian action, ask the Byzantines themselves (although, granted, that one wasn’t exactly called by the Pope, rather the crusaders happened to pass by on their way to the Levant and figured, what the hell.)
I dunno… I sort of like it.
That’s unlikely, and ahistorical. What actually happened in reality, when the celtic Church was independant for long stretches, was that as soon as contact was restored Papal emissaries reunited the churches. No Crusades involved.
Edit: Crusades were called in for armed, aggressive heretics already fighting with Christians. The Lithuanians were an expansionist tribe, while Cathars, for example, were rather different than the occaisional popular depiction as peaceful flower-children.
The Celtic Church as imagined by modern English & Anglophiles was a proto-Presbyterian Christianity, free from Popish decadence.
Indeed, communications between Rome & Those Islands got sketchy during the times once called The Dark Ages. (And the very first missionaries to the Sassenach were Irish; “Celtic” sounds much more tasteful.) Eventually, communications were restored & things were sorted by the Synod of Whitby & similar administrative beanfests.
No crusades required.
In reality, I believe, it differed from Rome only in one or two minor points, such as the date of Easter or the proper shape of a monk’s tonsure.
But, it certainly would make a difference, if the Celtic Church remained institutionally independent of Rome. (The Church of England is Catholic except for that, isn’t it?)
See The Wheels of If, by L. Sprague de Camp, for an AH where the Synod of Whitby came out the other way. (The possibility that the RCC wouldn’t just take that lying down is never mentioned.)
I don’t really know what your question is. In the Welsh legend, Peredur is the son of Efrawg. Efrawg sounds like Caerefrawg (Efrawg’s Fortress), the Welsh name for the city of York, so some people have suggested that the Peredur in the legend is from York.
Yes, I know. But some of the advocates for “Celtic Christianity” imagined a non-Roman Christianity dating back to Joseph of Arimathea (“And did those feet?”). Thereby excusing the break with Rome as merely a return to roots.
And I failed to mention the non-Irish Apostle to the Saxons, Augustine. Enchanted by Angelic Anglos in a slave market, he came straight from Rome.
I’ll have to look this up. What would the RCC have had power to do back then?
(None of which has much to do with Little Curtis’s fantasy of a Nordic Christianity; but we’ve got history & legend & SF on our side!)
Yes, but the key word here is “imagined.” As in, fictional.
That imagined past lives not just in Alternate History. But also in some of the more conservative Protestant churches–such as the one that shaped Our Little Curtis.
(I just went to Amazon & got the book you mentioned–bound with a “sequel” written by H Turtledove!)
I know, but Qin seemed to be positing a defiant Celtic Church that would essentially be a pre-dawn of Protestantism and/or Anglicanism. A CC that would have sent those papal emissaries packing, possibly with their teeth in their hats. Don’t think that would have gone quite as smoothly as he figures.
Or, what Bridget Burke says.
It’s worth pointing out that at the time of the conquest, Normandy was definitely not France. It was not well-integrated either politically or culturally. The French king was technically the suzerain of the duke of Normandy, but the duke was not necessarily subordinate. William the Conqueror cut his teeth fighting the French and amassing a dream team of half-brothers, bastard cousins, and adventurers whom he brought to England. There is very good evidence that there was still a school of Norse rhetoric in Bayeux in the mid 11th century, and there is tons of great evidence that suggests the strong connection between the Normans and their Norse homeland. As many people probably spoke some flavor of Norse in western Normandy in the mid-11th century as spoke French. The 11th century historian Dudo of St. Quentin emphasizes this northern connection in his contemporary history.
Eh, you wouldn’t see a giant crusade - the Coptics and various Eastern Rite mostly got along fine with Catholicism. You might see a civil war, though, with political figures and churches within Britain lining up on one side or another.
Of course they’re not the same: you start with Despotism, and Feudalism allows you to build Knights units.
The Hussites didn’t, and they were pretty close to Qin’s idea I think. Of course, they weren’t exactly passively resisting, but that’s sort of my point: they got stepped on, didn’t take it lying down, bam. 15 years of massacres and a good crushing a couple hundred years later.
The Coptics & Orthodoxes got along sort of okayish with Rome because they didn’t threaten or take away from the Pope’s authority & power - he never had any in those corners of the world to begin with. Not in the age of crusades anyway. But you take a Catholic stronghold and try to eke it out of the fold… well, that’s another story entirely.
The Normans certainly brought Feudalism. Billy the Bastard’s loss would delay this organizational innovation, but not stop it. With more organic growth its likely the Kings power would be limited right off the bat so no need for the Magna Carta. Angle Land would certainly still be Christian (even though Harold was actually Orthodox) but it’d probably be a much easier going Archdiocese, possibly limited or no Crusade involvement, siding with the Protestants early with little division in the country along religious lines. Going farther out is really difficult to tell.
One sure thing though, without English monarchs having hereditary titles to French lands the couple century boners the English nobles had for fighting on the continent wouldn’t have existed.
If no one succeded in an invasion later I think England’s course would be very much like Ireland.
I would tend to think the same.
Why? There was “organic growth” in France.
What do you base that on? Are you assuming a more purely Tuetonic England would have a cultural predisposition to side with Luther, or what?
You mean, like Ireland in a timeline where England never invaded it, or what?
And how would Harold Godwinson have been Orthodox?
It’s a somewhat fringe viewpoint primarily of the Orthodox church that flows from the idea that most everything pre-Great Schism ( 1054 ) was Orthodox. In this view it was Papal scheming that brought low the properly Orthodox nations such as Germany and England, England by way of the Papal-sanctioned Norman invasion that brought an end to the reign of the last Orthodox king of England, Harold.
It’s more than a bit of a stretch IMHO. Here’s one online paper that put forward the argument - pdf link.