What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost 1,000 years later?

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
> What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost 1,000 years later?

*Discovery and colonization (typo)

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
>> What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost 1,000 years later?
>
>*Discovery and colonization (typo)

By whom?

So first, what is the mechanism for the non-establishment of
Islam? Mohammed converts to Christianity? Is killed by bandits
raiding one of his caravans?
The Ethiopians cement their hold on Arabia by marrying one of his
great grand mothers, and the rest of the family converts as well?
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 6:25:44 PM UTC-7, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> on Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
> >> What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost 1,000 years later?
> >
> >*Discovery and colonization (typo)
> By whom?
>
> So first, what is the mechanism for the non-establishment of
> Islam? Mohammed converts to Christianity? Is killed by bandits
> raiding one of his caravans?
> The Ethiopians cement their hold on Arabia by marrying one of his
> great grand mothers, and the rest of the family converts as well?
> --
> pyotr filipivich
> "History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
> lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

What about Muhammad is born a girl?

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 6:25:44 PM UTC-7, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> on Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> >On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
>> >> What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost 1,000 years later?
>> >
>> >*Discovery and colonization (typo)
>> By whom?
>>
>> So first, what is the mechanism for the non-establishment of
>> Islam? Mohammed converts to Christianity? Is killed by bandits
>> raiding one of his caravans?
>> The Ethiopians cement their hold on Arabia by marrying one of his
>> great grand mothers, and the rest of the family converts as well?
>
>What about Muhammad is born a girl?

"Better" than he dies in infancy, for some values of 'better'..

Years ago, I asked my geek son in law if he knew the specs for the
Star Trek shuttles. His answers was "depends on the needs of the
plot."

So, what Point of Departure serves the Needs of the Plot?

Some plot devices "fold together" and can be pigeon holed into the
same storyline:
A) Change in Mohamed's lifetime:
1) Not born, born a girl, dies in infancy, dies before getting the
revelation.
2) grows up Christian / Jewish
2a) converts to Christianity/Judaism.
3) has his early revelations, dies of disease / battle
4) loses one of the early wars, Islam never becomes more than
local religion.
5) doesn't marry the rich widow.
6) marries a different widow and stays in Damascus.

B) Changes prior to his birth:
1) family/clan/tribe converts becomes Christian/Jewish.
2) the Roman empire adopts different variant on Christianity, or
is less willing to use Imperial Power to enforce Church discipline.
3) Ethiopia adds Arabia to their empire, moves the capital to what
is now Yemen.

C) Alien Space Bats
1) Climate changes renders all of Arabia habitable.
2) another meteor lands in Makka, destroying the entire city
"Nobody goes there, the gods smote the evildoers!"
How do you know they were evil doers?
"The gods smote them. QED."
3) Aliens instead of locating their star base in what is now the
Empty Quarter, do it in the middle of the peninsula.
4) the Chicxulub meteor lands in/near the Arabian peninsula,
making it a great hole in the ground.
5) the Vogon Constructor Corp puts that Hyperspace-By-pass in 1500
years earlier.

--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Tue, 08 Jun 2021 08:25:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 6:25:44 PM UTC-7, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> on Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
>>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>> >On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
>>> >> What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost 1,000 years later?
>>> >
>>> >*Discovery and colonization (typo)
>>> By whom?
>>>
>>> So first, what is the mechanism for the non-establishment of
>>> Islam? Mohammed converts to Christianity? Is killed by bandits
>>> raiding one of his caravans?
>>> The Ethiopians cement their hold on Arabia by marrying one of his
>>> great grand mothers, and the rest of the family converts as well?
>>
>>What about Muhammad is born a girl?
>
> "Better" than he dies in infancy, for some values of 'better'..
>
> Years ago, I asked my geek son in law if he knew the specs for the
> Star Trek shuttles. His answers was "depends on the needs of the
> plot."
>
> So, what Point of Departure serves the Needs of the Plot?
>
> Some plot devices "fold together" and can be pigeon holed into the
> same storyline:
> A) Change in Mohamed's lifetime:
> 1) Not born, born a girl, dies in infancy, dies before getting the
> revelation.
> 2) grows up Christian / Jewish
> 2a) converts to Christianity/Judaism.
> 3) has his early revelations, dies of disease / battle
> 4) loses one of the early wars, Islam never becomes more than
> local religion.
> 5) doesn't marry the rich widow.
> 6) marries a different widow and stays in Damascus.
>
> B) Changes prior to his birth:
> 1) family/clan/tribe converts becomes Christian/Jewish.
> 2) the Roman empire adopts different variant on Christianity, or
> is less willing to use Imperial Power to enforce Church discipline.
> 3) Ethiopia adds Arabia to their empire, moves the capital to what
> is now Yemen.
>
> C) Alien Space Bats
> 1) Climate changes renders all of Arabia habitable.
> 2) another meteor lands in Makka, destroying the entire city
> "Nobody goes there, the gods smote the evildoers!"
> How do you know they were evil doers?
> "The gods smote them. QED."
> 3) Aliens instead of locating their star base in what is now the
> Empty Quarter, do it in the middle of the peninsula.
> 4) the Chicxulub meteor lands in/near the Arabian peninsula,
> making it a great hole in the ground.
> 5) the Vogon Constructor Corp puts that Hyperspace-By-pass in 1500
> years earlier.

Here is a meta thought, if Muhammad never existed, would he be invented? I
do confess much of his life, even taking out the miracles I find
challenging to accept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

Checkout the section "Minority view of mythical figure".

> WolfBear
>
> What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have on the discover
> and colonization of the Americas almost 1,000 years later?

No Islam means the MidEast remains Christian, (along with some other
non-confrontational religions) which means trade between Europe and
the Far East isn't restricted, except maybe by the Sassanids in Iran who
can mostly be bypassed.

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/doc/opr/t253/e13/images/full/0195334012..pre-islamic-arabia.1.jpg

But no Islam also means no Crusades, where Europeans developed a taste
for Far Eastern spices and other products in a big way and this means no
pressure to develop better shipping to exploit sea trade routes around the
Muslim controlled MidEast, thus delaying the discovery of the Americans
until… whenever.

The Norse still discover Vinland but they still come up against the Medieval
Cold Period, which derails that.

As for the Indians in the Americas, they're still isolated and will still be
screwed by Old World diseases whenever the Europeans do around to
discovering them.

And barring some incidental contact such as by Polynesians, it'll still be
the Europeans who discover the Americas.

"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> on Wed, 9 Jun 2021
06:06:58 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> WolfBear
>>
>> What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have on the discover
>> and colonization of the Americas almost 1,000 years later?
>
>No Islam means the MidEast remains Christian, (along with some other
>non-confrontational religions) which means trade between Europe and
>the Far East isn't restricted, except maybe by the Sassanids in Iran who
>can mostly be bypassed.
>
>http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/doc/opr/t253/e13/images/full/0195334012.pre-islamic-arabia.1.jpg
>
>But no Islam also means no Crusades, where Europeans developed a taste
>for Far Eastern spices and other products in a big way and this means no
>pressure to develop better shipping to exploit sea trade routes around the
>Muslim controlled MidEast, thus delaying the discovery of the Americans
>until… whenever.
>
>The Norse still discover Vinland but they still come up against the Medieval
>Cold Period, which derails that.
>
>As for the Indians in the Americas, they're still isolated and will still be
>screwed by Old World diseases whenever the Europeans do around to
>discovering them.
>
>And barring some incidental contact such as by Polynesians, it'll still be
>the Europeans who discover the Americas.

There is a 'narrative' that had it not been for Columbus, the
Americas might have been discovered by John Cabot, working for the
English, "discovering" Newfoundland.
I'm aware that the Basque were suppose to have been fishing the
Grand Banks for cod from the thirteenth century (if memory serves).
But that is a 'trade secret', so less likely to be publicized anytime
soon.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Wed, 9 Jun 2021 20:46:04 +1000 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Tue, 08 Jun 2021 08:25:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 6:25:44 PM UTC-7, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> on Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>> >On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
>>>> >> What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost 1,000 years later?
>>>> >
>>>> >*Discovery and colonization (typo)
>>>> By whom?
>>>>
>>>> So first, what is the mechanism for the non-establishment of
>>>> Islam? Mohammed converts to Christianity? Is killed by bandits
>>>> raiding one of his caravans?
>>>> The Ethiopians cement their hold on Arabia by marrying one of his
>>>> great grand mothers, and the rest of the family converts as well?
>>>
>>>What about Muhammad is born a girl?
>>
>> "Better" than he dies in infancy, for some values of 'better'..
>>
>> Years ago, I asked my geek son in law if he knew the specs for the
>> Star Trek shuttles. His answers was "depends on the needs of the
>> plot."
>>
>> So, what Point of Departure serves the Needs of the Plot?
>>
>> Some plot devices "fold together" and can be pigeon holed into the
>> same storyline:
>> A) Change in Mohamed's lifetime:
>> 1) Not born, born a girl, dies in infancy, dies before getting the
>> revelation.
>> 2) grows up Christian / Jewish
>> 2a) converts to Christianity/Judaism.
>> 3) has his early revelations, dies of disease / battle
>> 4) loses one of the early wars, Islam never becomes more than
>> local religion.
>> 5) doesn't marry the rich widow.
>> 6) marries a different widow and stays in Damascus.
>>
>> B) Changes prior to his birth:
>> 1) family/clan/tribe converts becomes Christian/Jewish.
>> 2) the Roman empire adopts different variant on Christianity, or
>> is less willing to use Imperial Power to enforce Church discipline.
>> 3) Ethiopia adds Arabia to their empire, moves the capital to what
>> is now Yemen.
>>
>> C) Alien Space Bats
>> 1) Climate changes renders all of Arabia habitable.
>> 2) another meteor lands in Makka, destroying the entire city
>> "Nobody goes there, the gods smote the evildoers!"
>> How do you know they were evil doers?
>> "The gods smote them. QED."
>> 3) Aliens instead of locating their star base in what is now the
>> Empty Quarter, do it in the middle of the peninsula.
>> 4) the Chicxulub meteor lands in/near the Arabian peninsula,
>> making it a great hole in the ground.
>> 5) the Vogon Constructor Corp puts that Hyperspace-By-pass in 1500
>> years earlier.
>
>Here is a meta thought, if Muhammad never existed, would he be invented? I
>do confess much of his life, even taking out the miracles I find
>challenging to accept.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad
>
>Checkout the section "Minority view of mythical figure".

I recall when Robert Spencer's book came out.

"interesting" but I have not had time to read it.

"Maybe when I retire.."
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On 6/7/21 5:36 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have
> on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost
> 1,000 years later?

1492 - 632 = 860 years later.

The absence of Islam has so many knock-ons and butterflies
that it is impossible to say how the Age of Discovery would
happen, or even _if_ it would happen.

The Byzantine Empire _probably_ survives in better shape.
(It was nearly destroyed by Persia in the war just before
the advent of Islam.)

The Gothic Kingdom of Spain will last longer. The Mediterranean
should remain more peaceful.

When and if Western European mariners explore the Atlantic
is unknowable. The Norse voyages to Greenland and Vinland
are fairly probable, but unlikely to lead to anything more
than OTL.

One possible knock-on: Byzantium, holding Sicily and Sardinia,
might very well regain control of Italy, which puts the Pope
in a very odd position. The Bishop of Rome may be compelled
to give up claims of universal leadership, and accept the
status of a Patriarch, co-equal with several others. I doubt
that the Franks or Germans would make any great effort to
re-establish the Papacy.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:10:55 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/7/21 5:36 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have
> > on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost
> > 1,000 years later?
> 1492 - 632 = 860 years later.
>
> The absence of Islam has so many knock-ons and butterflies
> that it is impossible to say how the Age of Discovery would
> happen, or even _if_ it would happen.
>
> The Byzantine Empire _probably_ survives in better shape.
> (It was nearly destroyed by Persia in the war just before
> the advent of Islam.)
>
> The Gothic Kingdom of Spain will last longer. The Mediterranean
> should remain more peaceful.
>
> When and if Western European mariners explore the Atlantic
> is unknowable. The Norse voyages to Greenland and Vinland
> are fairly probable, but unlikely to lead to anything more
> than OTL.
>
> One possible knock-on: Byzantium, holding Sicily and Sardinia,
> might very well regain control of Italy, which puts the Pope
> in a very odd position. The Bishop of Rome may be compelled
> to give up claims of universal leadership, and accept the
> status of a Patriarch, co-equal with several others. I doubt
> that the Franks or Germans would make any great effort to
> re-establish the Papacy.
>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

What exactly did the Byzantines have against the Pope in particular?

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:10:55 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 6/7/21 5:36 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>> > What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have
>> > on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost
>> > 1,000 years later?
>> 1492 - 632 = 860 years later.
>>
>> The absence of Islam has so many knock-ons and butterflies
>> that it is impossible to say how the Age of Discovery would
>> happen, or even _if_ it would happen.
>>
>> The Byzantine Empire _probably_ survives in better shape.
>> (It was nearly destroyed by Persia in the war just before
>> the advent of Islam.)
>>
>> The Gothic Kingdom of Spain will last longer. The Mediterranean
>> should remain more peaceful.
>>
>> When and if Western European mariners explore the Atlantic
>> is unknowable. The Norse voyages to Greenland and Vinland
>> are fairly probable, but unlikely to lead to anything more
>> than OTL.
>>
>> One possible knock-on: Byzantium, holding Sicily and Sardinia,
>> might very well regain control of Italy, which puts the Pope
>> in a very odd position. The Bishop of Rome may be compelled
>> to give up claims of universal leadership, and accept the
>> status of a Patriarch, co-equal with several others. I doubt
>> that the Franks or Germans would make any great effort to
>> re-establish the Papacy.
>
>What exactly did the Byzantines have against the Pope in particular?

Do you want the ten minute homily or the two hour sermon?
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:10:55 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 6/7/21 5:36 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>> > What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have
>> > on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost
>> > 1,000 years later?
>> 1492 - 632 = 860 years later.

[...]

>> One possible knock-on: Byzantium, holding Sicily and Sardinia,
>> might very well regain control of Italy, which puts the Pope
>> in a very odd position. The Bishop of Rome may be compelled
>> to give up claims of universal leadership, and accept the
>> status of a Patriarch, co-equal with several others. I doubt
>> that the Franks or Germans would make any great effort to
>> re-establish the Papacy.
>
>What exactly did the Byzantines have against the Pope in particular?

It is complicated. The short form is that the Patriarch of the
West began to consider himself not just "first amongst equals", but
"first".
Factors involved were the loss of Imperial control of the Western
Empire, the cultural and linguistic differences increasing to the
point that the "latin" regions were increasingly isolated from the
Empire as a whole.
Unfortunately, the Roman Empire had been a sort of theocracy under
the Caesars, and Constantine (it can be argued) merely downgraded the
Emperor from "being the next god" to "being the stand-in for The Lord
Christ here on Earth" i.e., "Vicar of Christ". The downside of this
is that religious questions are identified with political issues: to
oppose the king is to oppose God and vice versa. Heresy and Treason
were interlinked.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On 6/12/21 8:26 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> What exactly did the Byzantines have against the Pope in particular?

The Byzantines (and other Eastern Catholics) objected
strenuously to the Pope's claim to be the universal
head of the Church, with ecclesiastical authority
over bishops and priests everywhere, and authority
over doctrine as well. Since the Eastern Catholics
had some hard doctrinal differences, each side
regarded the other as heretical.

Circa 1453, the Pope offered to summon a Crusade to
save Constantinople from the Turks - _if_ the Byzantines
would acknowledge papal supremacy. The Byzantines
refused: "Better the turban of the Turk than the tiara
of the Pope!" (I.e. they preferred material conquest and
oppression to having to profess heresy.)

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:41:30 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:10:55 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>> On 6/7/21 5:36 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>>> > What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have
>>> > on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost
>>> > 1,000 years later?
>>> 1492 - 632 = 860 years later.
>
> [...]
>
>>> One possible knock-on: Byzantium, holding Sicily and Sardinia,
>>> might very well regain control of Italy, which puts the Pope
>>> in a very odd position. The Bishop of Rome may be compelled
>>> to give up claims of universal leadership, and accept the
>>> status of a Patriarch, co-equal with several others. I doubt
>>> that the Franks or Germans would make any great effort to
>>> re-establish the Papacy.
>>
>>What exactly did the Byzantines have against the Pope in particular?
>
> It is complicated. The short form is that the Patriarch of the
> West began to consider himself not just "first amongst equals", but
> "first".
> Factors involved were the loss of Imperial control of the Western
> Empire, the cultural and linguistic differences increasing to the
> point that the "latin" regions were increasingly isolated from the
> Empire as a whole.
> Unfortunately, the Roman Empire had been a sort of theocracy under
> the Caesars, and Constantine (it can be argued) merely downgraded the
> Emperor from "being the next god" to "being the stand-in for The Lord
> Christ here on Earth" i.e., "Vicar of Christ". The downside of this
> is that religious questions are identified with political issues: to
> oppose the king is to oppose God and vice versa. Heresy and Treason
> were interlinked.

The Patriarch of the Byzantine was a paid official of the Byzantine
emperor. To those rulers in the West, this was a worry.

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:29:34 +1000 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:41:30 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:10:55 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/21 5:36 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>>>> > What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have
>>>> > on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost
>>>> > 1,000 years later?
>>>> 1492 - 632 = 860 years later.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> One possible knock-on: Byzantium, holding Sicily and Sardinia,
>>>> might very well regain control of Italy, which puts the Pope
>>>> in a very odd position. The Bishop of Rome may be compelled
>>>> to give up claims of universal leadership, and accept the
>>>> status of a Patriarch, co-equal with several others. I doubt
>>>> that the Franks or Germans would make any great effort to
>>>> re-establish the Papacy.
>>>
>>>What exactly did the Byzantines have against the Pope in particular?
>>
>> It is complicated. The short form is that the Patriarch of the
>> West began to consider himself not just "first amongst equals", but
>> "first".
>> Factors involved were the loss of Imperial control of the Western
>> Empire, the cultural and linguistic differences increasing to the
>> point that the "latin" regions were increasingly isolated from the
>> Empire as a whole.
>> Unfortunately, the Roman Empire had been a sort of theocracy under
>> the Caesars, and Constantine (it can be argued) merely downgraded the
>> Emperor from "being the next god" to "being the stand-in for The Lord
>> Christ here on Earth" i.e., "Vicar of Christ". The downside of this
>> is that religious questions are identified with political issues: to
>> oppose the king is to oppose God and vice versa. Heresy and Treason
>> were interlinked.
>
>The Patriarch of the Byzantine was a paid official of the Byzantine
>emperor. To those rulers in the West, this was a worry.

What rulers in the west?
The Patriarch of the West (aka the Bishop of Rome) was also a paid
Imperial Official, and had been since the 4-5th Century. It wasn't
until the general economic collapse accompanying the migration of the
Goths that the Clergy, along with other government employees, didn't
get paid. How many paychecks does one need to miss before one stops
expecting any more? It wasn't so much that you quit (or were fired)
as the job just stopped paying.

With the collapse of Roman Officialdom (remember, the Roman had
been in Londinium for four centuries when the Legions were withdrawn.)
"the West" was in 'Chaos'. The only "imperial" 'trans national'
organization left was The Church. And as had occurred before, priests
appealed to bishops for aid / guidance, Bishops to Metropolitans and
to Patriarchs. It is not difficult for the Patriarch to begin
thinking his authority extended beyond his diocese, for others to
accept any such claim; or for the Bishop of Rome to begin thinking
that his authority extended even over his fellow Patriarchs, and that
he was the one as "Vicar of Christ" who could speak "ex cathedra".
(Yes, I know, many of those doctrines didn't become formalized until
after the Great Schism. But that did not suddenly appear on the 16th
of July AD 1054, and many will argue that it didn't become
irreconcilable until 1204.))
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 08:42:56 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:29:34 +1000 typed
> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:41:30 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>>> WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
>>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:10:55 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/21 5:36 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>>>>> > What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have
>>>>> > on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost
>>>>> > 1,000 years later?
>>>>> 1492 - 632 = 860 years later.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> One possible knock-on: Byzantium, holding Sicily and Sardinia,
>>>>> might very well regain control of Italy, which puts the Pope
>>>>> in a very odd position. The Bishop of Rome may be compelled
>>>>> to give up claims of universal leadership, and accept the
>>>>> status of a Patriarch, co-equal with several others. I doubt
>>>>> that the Franks or Germans would make any great effort to
>>>>> re-establish the Papacy.
>>>>
>>>>What exactly did the Byzantines have against the Pope in particular?
>>>
>>> It is complicated. The short form is that the Patriarch of the
>>> West began to consider himself not just "first amongst equals", but
>>> "first".
>>> Factors involved were the loss of Imperial control of the Western
>>> Empire, the cultural and linguistic differences increasing to the
>>> point that the "latin" regions were increasingly isolated from the
>>> Empire as a whole.
>>> Unfortunately, the Roman Empire had been a sort of theocracy under
>>> the Caesars, and Constantine (it can be argued) merely downgraded the
>>> Emperor from "being the next god" to "being the stand-in for The Lord
>>> Christ here on Earth" i.e., "Vicar of Christ". The downside of this
>>> is that religious questions are identified with political issues: to
>>> oppose the king is to oppose God and vice versa. Heresy and Treason
>>> were interlinked.
>>
>>The Patriarch of the Byzantine was a paid official of the Byzantine
>>emperor. To those rulers in the West, this was a worry.
>
> What rulers in the west?
> The Patriarch of the West (aka the Bishop of Rome) was also a paid
> Imperial Official, and had been since the 4-5th Century. It wasn't
> until the general economic collapse accompanying the migration of the
> Goths that the Clergy, along with other government employees, didn't
> get paid. How many paychecks does one need to miss before one stops
> expecting any more? It wasn't so much that you quit (or were fired)
> as the job just stopped paying.

Well, the Pope coronated Charlemagne.

What we are looking at here is from
about the 6th century onwards.

>
> With the collapse of Roman Officialdom (remember, the Roman had
> been in Londinium for four centuries when the Legions were withdrawn.)
> "the West" was in 'Chaos'. The only "imperial" 'trans national'
> organization left was The Church. And as had occurred before, priests
> appealed to bishops for aid / guidance, Bishops to Metropolitans and
> to Patriarchs. It is not difficult for the Patriarch to begin
> thinking his authority extended beyond his diocese, for others to
> accept any such claim; or for the Bishop of Rome to begin thinking
> that his authority extended even over his fellow Patriarchs, and that
> he was the one as "Vicar of Christ" who could speak "ex cathedra".
> (Yes, I know, many of those doctrines didn't become formalized until
> after the Great Schism. But that did not suddenly appear on the 16th
> of July AD 1054, and many will argue that it didn't become
> irreconcilable until 1204.))

True but not relevant to the growing authority of the pope

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:48:26 +1000 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 08:42:56 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:29:34 +1000 typed
>> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:41:30 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>
>>>> WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>>On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:10:55 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/21 5:36 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>>>>>> > What effect would the lack of the creation of Islam have
>>>>>> > on the discover and colonization of the Americas almost
>>>>>> > 1,000 years later?
>>>>>> 1492 - 632 = 860 years later.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> One possible knock-on: Byzantium, holding Sicily and Sardinia,
>>>>>> might very well regain control of Italy, which puts the Pope
>>>>>> in a very odd position. The Bishop of Rome may be compelled
>>>>>> to give up claims of universal leadership, and accept the
>>>>>> status of a Patriarch, co-equal with several others. I doubt
>>>>>> that the Franks or Germans would make any great effort to
>>>>>> re-establish the Papacy.
>>>>>
>>>>>What exactly did the Byzantines have against the Pope in particular?
>>>>
>>>> It is complicated. The short form is that the Patriarch of the
>>>> West began to consider himself not just "first amongst equals", but
>>>> "first".
>>>> Factors involved were the loss of Imperial control of the Western
>>>> Empire, the cultural and linguistic differences increasing to the
>>>> point that the "latin" regions were increasingly isolated from the
>>>> Empire as a whole.
>>>> Unfortunately, the Roman Empire had been a sort of theocracy under
>>>> the Caesars, and Constantine (it can be argued) merely downgraded the
>>>> Emperor from "being the next god" to "being the stand-in for The Lord
>>>> Christ here on Earth" i.e., "Vicar of Christ". The downside of this
>>>> is that religious questions are identified with political issues: to
>>>> oppose the king is to oppose God and vice versa. Heresy and Treason
>>>> were interlinked.
>>>
>>>The Patriarch of the Byzantine was a paid official of the Byzantine
>>>emperor. To those rulers in the West, this was a worry.
>>
>> What rulers in the west?
>> The Patriarch of the West (aka the Bishop of Rome) was also a paid
>> Imperial Official, and had been since the 4-5th Century. It wasn't
>> until the general economic collapse accompanying the migration of the
>> Goths that the Clergy, along with other government employees, didn't
>> get paid. How many paychecks does one need to miss before one stops
>> expecting any more? It wasn't so much that you quit (or were fired)
>> as the job just stopped paying.
>
>Well, the Pope coronated Charlemagne.

An event which the Byzantines sort of accepted (if memory serves).
After all, the office of Western Emperor was empty, so setting the
title on someone "is a good first step" for the restoration of
Civilization.
>
>What we are looking at here is from about the 6th century onwards.

True. And disagreements between East and West were not as large
in the 6th C as they would grow to be. One of the problems is that,
as I mentioned, separation of Church and Sate was not even a notion at
the time, so Heresy and Treason were seen as flip sides of the same
coin: rebellion against God. It gets difficult to hold discussions
when the other side is so obvious on the side of the demons.

>> With the collapse of Roman Officialdom (remember, the Roman had
>> been in Londinium for four centuries when the Legions were withdrawn.)
>> "the West" was in 'Chaos'. The only "imperial" 'trans national'
>> organization left was The Church. And as had occurred before, priests
>> appealed to bishops for aid / guidance, Bishops to Metropolitans and
>> to Patriarchs. It is not difficult for the Patriarch to begin
>> thinking his authority extended beyond his diocese, for others to
>> accept any such claim; or for the Bishop of Rome to begin thinking
>> that his authority extended even over his fellow Patriarchs, and that
>> he was the one as "Vicar of Christ" who could speak "ex cathedra".
>> (Yes, I know, many of those doctrines didn't become formalized until
>> after the Great Schism. But that did not suddenly appear on the 16th
>> of July AD 1054, and many will argue that it didn't become
>> irreconcilable until 1204.))
>
>True but not relevant to the growing authority of the pope

Also true.

There is a lot of "inside baseball" in the conflict. In the West,
there was no Caesar, and the Patriarch of the West stepped into the
role, for better or worse. Understandable, however the other
Patriarchs didn't accept his claims to universal jurisdiction. Some
of the conflict in the early days was merely "the forms were not
followed". E.G., the amendment to the Creed made at the Synod of
Toledo circa 570ish.

Like I said, it gets complicated, and a lot of issues which were
merely differences of opinion sadly became Dogmatized and questioning
them became Treason, Heresy, Bad Taste, and "Just Not Done", even unto
this day. Sadly.

--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> on Mon, 14 Jun 2021 16:02:16 -0500
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On 6/12/21 8:26 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>> What exactly did the Byzantines have against the Pope in particular?
>
>The Byzantines (and other Eastern Catholics) objected
>strenuously to the Pope's claim to be the universal
>head of the Church, with ecclesiastical authority
>over bishops and priests everywhere, and authority
>over doctrine as well. Since the Eastern Catholics
>had some hard doctrinal differences, each side
>regarded the other as heretical.
>
>Circa 1453, the Pope offered to summon a Crusade to
>save Constantinople from the Turks - _if_ the Byzantines
>would acknowledge papal supremacy. The Byzantines
>refused: "Better the turban of the Turk than the tiara
>of the Pope!" (I.e. they preferred material conquest and
>oppression to having to profess heresy.)

Council of Florence, if we're thinking the same one. And the
laity decided that better to not go to this Latinized liturgy, even
during Great Lent, than risk their souls. The Greeks have voted with
their feet a number of times.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"