IW idea; Anglo-Orthodox Alliance

[combatmedic]

What if the faction of English bishops pressing for communion with the Orthodox Church manage to get their way in 1538/9? The 'reformers' suffer an even bigger defeat at this point than they suffered in OTL. Henry finds Orthodox Caseropapism compatible with his own role as supreme head of the English Church.

Over the next couple of reigns, England develops stronger political, military and trade ties with Orthodox Russia.

After that things get hard to predict.

I dunno. European and world politics are going to play out differently. Imagine the British Empire allied with the Russian Empire- a great land-sea power alliance. Maybe by the 19th century the Eastern seaboard of North America is British and the West Coast is Russian? The Church of England is now 'Anglo-Orthodox' in character and organization.



Does anybody have ideas or comments about this timeline?

[jason taylor]

Britain and Russia have had several alliances of convenience. However their cultures and interests were to disparate to try uniting them into a single state and the difficulty of communication between them would make it impractical. It is hard to see how they could help each other enough to make a long-term federation viable, even though the fact that they were often on opposite sides from a central european enemy could make for a useful alliance in a general European war(a power on the opposite side of an enemy is more likely to be concerned about your enemy then about you, making it a good ally in some cases).

For instance, Britain had almost no interaction with Poland, and Sweden was as likely to be an ally as an enemy. Turkey was an enemy of Spain and therefore Britain's animosity toward the Infidel Saracens might be somewhat muted. Likewise Russia couldn't care less about how North America was divied up. Britain didn't have the manpower to help Russia on land and Russia didn't have the technology or port facilities to help at sea. Russia had few ports and these were often frozen making military or naval assistance in either direction impractical; the best either could do was military auxiliaries on either part plus subsidies from Britain. The one exception was when an enemy was right between them.

In general alliances between Russia and Britain could often be useful but an attempted long-term federation would quickly fall apart.

[pawsplay]

What about Germany? With Germany divided between Lutherans, Catholics, and mass murder, there might be some wiggle room in there for Russia and England to ally with sympathetic German states. A bold Anglo-Russo-Germanic alliance erodes the Catholic cause in Germany. There is no thirty years war, instead a number of years of steady conflict that lead to a status quo with Germany in submission; Germany is divided into Protestant and Orthodox states, with Catholic regions as politically dependent on their conquerors. During the Dutch unrest, the Orthodox-united states seek to weaken Spain by recognizing the Dutch republic. Instead of the Eighty Years War, Germany becomes a proxy war between the English power and the Spanish power, with Russian incorporating its holdings into a new empire.

After that, uh, the Protestant-Catholic conflict subsides and fizzles out as religion takes on an increasingly nationalistic tone. With Russia in a position of strength, Polish princes never take Moscow, and the succession of Ivan's son Feodor is settled after a brief disorder with the election of a new Tsar. The Romanovs never take power, Russia becomes a first-class superpower, and England Spain eventually settle into an uneasy peace. The Americas become a head to head between Spain and England, with dangerous skirmishes in northern Mexico. With their masters distracted, a German Republican movement after the Dutch ignites, and within years, the states secede. The majority form an alliance with a position of religious toleration, join diplomatically with the Dutch Republic, and now find themselves in great danger of a sea war with England.

[Fwibos]

I am certainly not educated enough to make a point, but what if America was settled by Catholics from Europe fleeing this massive Theocratic Orthodox Alliance? It would change the nature of America somewhat, I think

And what is France up to during this. Surely it would seek to aid catholics in Switzerland and West German States?

Just spitballing here.

[Michele]

Jason, I hope you don't mind if I substantially disagree.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Britain and Russia have had several alliances of convenience. However their cultures and interests were to disparate to try uniting them into a single state and the difficulty of communication between them would make it impractical.

Yes, but the very point of the original poster is to make them culturally more attuned. It is quite daring to imagine Orthodox England, but then again this happens at a time when it was quite daring to imagine non-Catholic England. After they've both been Orthodox for a couple of centuries and their royals have intermarried, the cultural differences can have been reduced.
Note BTW that the Russian upper classes historically opted for foreign cultural grafting. French as the language, German technology, Italians for architecture... It's not so far-fetched that they replace most of this with English sources.

As to the difficulty of communication, that depends. Suppose this British-Russian alliance squashes Sweden in one of the Northern Wars, an early one? That would skew the history of Northern Europe and allow easy contact between England and Russian possessions that weren't in our history.

It is hard to see how they could help each other enough to make a long-term federation viable, even though the fact that they were often on opposite sides from a central european enemy could make for a useful alliance in a general European war(a power on the opposite side of an enemy is more likely to be concerned about your enemy then about you, making it a good ally in some cases).

I don't think one should use "could" in this sentence. That's a fact of history, and those two powers fought on the same side against a continental European power in
- WWII,
- WWI
- the Napoleonic Wars.

For instance, Britain had almost no interaction with Poland, and Sweden was as likely to be an ally as an enemy. Turkey was an enemy of Spain and therefore Britain's animosity toward the Infidel Saracens might be somewhat muted.

Actually, Britain was usually an ally of Sweden, which helped keep Russia in check at times. I can think of the Seven Year's War, and of a period of war-on-paper during the Napoleonic Wars, when Britain was at war with Sweden. What other occurrences do you have in mind?
OTOH there are several more important wars in which they fought on the same side.
...But not if the Granduchy of Sweden is now a tributary of the Czar, of course...

Likewise Russia couldn't care less about how North America was divied up.

Mostly. Not at all times, however. As you know, Alaska was a Russian colony. What about the settlement in California? Consider how one or more of these settlements would compete with the old British rival, Spain, which wanted a monopoly all over that coast.

Britain didn't have the manpower to help Russia on land and Russia didn't have the technology or port facilities to help at sea. Russia had few ports and these were often frozen making military or naval assistance in either direction impractical; the best either could do was military auxiliaries on either part plus subsidies from Britain.

But that's the beauty of it. We can entirely forget about a British long-standing alliance of any sorts with any power that really made a bid for serious sea power. The Kaiser's attempt at that is the first issue that landed Britain on the anti-German side in WWI. Napoleon tried to neutralize the British dominance, and see what befell him, with British sea power and Russian land armies. The Spaniards and Dutch were competitors at sea, and the British made alliances with them only when Britain was very clearly the senior partner in such an alliance, otherwise they fought them.
But the Russians are unlikely to ever try.

The one exception was when an enemy was right between them.

Which means often, either in actual history (see above) or potentially, especially with Britain's global strategic lift capability. The Sweden and Turks might easily be put in between. For Spain, you'd need the Royal Navy to move foreign manpower around, but that was the Royal Navy happened to do time and again in history.

In general alliances between Russia and Britain could often be useful but an attempted long-term federation would quickly fall apart.

Well, why not a long-term alliance. Of course there are, way down the line, areas of friction; we all know about the Great Game in Central Asia. But then again, consider the century-old alliance of Britain with Portugal - a maritime nation with plenty of colonial possessions, so it should have been at odds with Britain just like the Spaniards (or, for a shorter time, the Dutch). They managed to work out an alliance and keep it.

[ULFGARD]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

What if the faction of English bishops pressing for communion with the Orthodox Church manage to get their way in 1538/9? The 'reformers' suffer an even bigger defeat at this point than they suffered in OTL. Henry finds Orthodox Caseropapism compatible with his own role as supreme head of the English Church.

Over the next couple of reigns, England develops stronger political, military and trade ties with Orthodox Russia.

In this timeline, when Ivan the Terrible proposes to Queen Elizabeth she actually accepts.

After that things get hard to predict.

I dunno. European and world politics are going to play out differently. Imagine the British Empire allied with the Russian Empire- a great land-sea power alliance. Maybe by the 19th century the Eastern seaboard of North America is British and the West Coast is Russian? The Church of England is now 'Anglo-Orthodox' in character and organization.



Does anybody have ideas or comments about this timeline?

I think this would have some very interesting ramifications for N. American settlement, the various wars against the Ottoman Turks, etc.

It would, as noted, quite possibly change all of the European alignments in Europe... It might also have a very serious impact on English history (no Puritans, so no English Civil War, or at least a VERY different one). One other possibility no one has mentioned: with a powerful cultural block on the East and West of Europe, there is a distinct possibility that Europe might fall into a very different sort of religious warfare: Orthodox vs. Latin. Or it might find a way to heal the schism (doubtful, but they're still trying today).

Lots of interesting ways things could play out that would be plausible...

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Michele

Jason, I hope you don't mind if I substantially disagree.



Yes, but the very point of the original poster is to make them culturally more attuned. It is quite daring to imagine Orthodox England, but then again this happens at a time when it was quite daring to imagine non-Catholic England. After they've both been Orthodox for a couple of centuries and their royals have intermarried, the cultural differences can have been reduced.
Note BTW that the Russian upper classes historically opted for foreign cultural grafting. French as the language, German technology, Italians for architecture... It's not so far-fetched that they replace most of this with English sources.

As to the difficulty of communication, that depends. Suppose this British-Russian alliance squashes Sweden in one of the Northern Wars, an early one? That would skew the history of Northern Europe and allow easy contact between England and Russian possessions that weren't in our history.




I don't think one should use "could" in this sentence. That's a fact of history, and those two powers fought on the same side against a continental European power in
- WWII,
- WWI
- the Napoleonic Wars.



Actually, Britain was usually an ally of Sweden, which helped keep Russia in check at times. I can think of the Seven Year's War, and of a period of war-on-paper during the Napoleonic Wars, when Britain was at war with Sweden. What other occurrences do you have in mind?
OTOH there are several more important wars in which they fought on the same side.
...But not if the Granduchy of Sweden is now a tributary of the Czar, of course...



Mostly. Not at all times, however. As you know, Alaska was a Russian colony. What about the settlement in California? Consider how one or more of these settlements would compete with the old British rival, Spain, which wanted a monopoly all over that coast.



But that's the beauty of it. We can entirely forget about a British long-standing alliance of any sorts with any power that really made a bid for serious sea power. The Kaiser's attempt at that is the first issue that landed Britain on the anti-German side in WWI. Napoleon tried to neutralize the British dominance, and see what befell him, with British sea power and Russian land armies. The Spaniards and Dutch were competitors at sea, and the British made alliances with them only when Britain was very clearly the senior partner in such an alliance, otherwise they fought them.
But the Russians are unlikely to ever try.



Which means often, either in actual history (see above) or potentially, especially with Britain's global strategic lift capability. The Sweden and Turks might easily be put in between. For Spain, you'd need the Royal Navy to move foreign manpower around, but that was the Royal Navy happened to do time and again in history.




Well, why not a long-term alliance. Of course there are, way down the line, areas of friction; we all know about the Great Game in Central Asia. But then again, consider the century-old alliance of Britain with Portugal - a maritime nation with plenty of colonial possessions, so it should have been at odds with Britain just like the Spaniards (or, for a shorter time, the Dutch). They managed to work out an alliance and keep it.

And I admitted they could often be useful to each other -when there was a Central European enemy in between. In such cases each would simply fight its own war and in doing so would naturally converge on the mutual enemy needing little coordination to do so.

The problem was the numerous interests each had that the other would consider a distraction. A comparison would be America and England; one little mentioned reason they pulled apart was because interests were disparate. That problem had been brewing for ages. Notable examples were Louisburg being returned to the French after the War of the Austrian Succession after provincial forces had spent a long time reducing it. The disposition of Louisburg was an important matter to American security but was merely a line item to England, which could be given back for minor concessions. Conversely the seven years war was forced on England unwillingly largely through border disputes in the Ohio valley when most Englishmen had not even heard of Ohio. All this despite similar cultures and political traditions. This problem was obsolete by the War of Independence, as the Iroquois confederacy which was the main threat had to few resources to compete without France(or an equivalent ally controlling Canada), and Spanish America always seemed to ignore North American wars for some reason. However the memory of this problem combined with the new problem of the sudden lack of need for defense from England worked in the same direction in a paradoxical way. The War of Independence could in fact be analogous to a sort of geopolitical "withdrawl syndrome".

This compares strongly with the situation that would have been between England and Russia. A federation between them would have necessarily got Britain involved in conflicts with Sweeden, Poland, and the Ottoman Empire against it's own interests. It would equally have brought conflicts with France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic against Russia's interest. Each would have resented the other's being unwilling and/or unable to provide aid outside the other's pariochial sphere of influence and each would have resented the other's particular demands and these said disparate interests were so numerous that such clashes were inevitable.

That is the problem. Not that Russia and Britain never had overlapping interests; they often did. The problem was that they had to many separate interests.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Fwibos

I am certainly not educated enough to make a point, but what if America was settled by Catholics from Europe fleeing this massive Theocratic Orthodox Alliance? It would change the nature of America somewhat, I think

And what is France up to during this. Surely it would seek to aid catholics in Switzerland and West German States?

Just spitballing here.

Much of North America WAS settled by Catholics. The French settlement of Canada and the Irish immigrant wave weren't fleeing from war or persecution like others, though they might be considered to be fleeing from poverty. Maryland was closer to the paradigm described being originally conceived as a reservation for English Catholic minorities.

[jason taylor]

As for Sweeden Michele, there really were few examples of either direct cooperation or direct enmity between Sweeden and Britain(the example that comes to mind of the first was the loaning of naval force by Britain to Charles XII for the elimination of Denmark from the anti-sweedish coalition which was threatening British access to northern waters at the beginning of the Great Northern War.

However it is easy to see how Sweeden could have become a major consideration. A substantial policy shift in a Westward direction(an attempt to build a Scandinavian empire for instance) could have brought Sweeden to British attention. That such a shift was possible was shown by intervention in the Thirty years war; that affected Britain little, but that could easily have changed. Almost all Sweedish policy was oriented eastward, however that seems accidental. Sweeden could easily have taken more interest then it did in a westerly direction; it's geographic position allowed either direction.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

What if the faction of English bishops pressing for communion with the Orthodox Church manage to get their way in 1538/9? The 'reformers' suffer an even bigger defeat at this point than they suffered in OTL.

My immediate feeling is that this makes little long term difference. By this point the branches of the Orthodox Church are effectively independent anyway - they don't share revenues or hierarchies, their states aren't allies (often quite the reverse) and even the doctrinal agreement occasionally gets pretty stretched. And we all know how solid the Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist blocks were during this period. And this isn't an era of much stability of Churchs, so there'll be another different "reform" movement along in a few years to shake everything up again anyway.

Henry finds Orthodox Caseropapism compatible with his own role as supreme head of the English Church.

Over the next couple of reigns, England develops stronger political, military and trade ties with Orthodox Russia.

In this timeline, when Ivan the Terrible proposes to Queen Elizabeth she actually accepts.

I think if you add these additional change points then the probable outcome is England dissolves into a civil war early, and some of the Thirty Years War moves west. Not that the English crown might not have *wished* it could build an absolutist state on the Russian model as much as it wished it could build one on the French, but I don't think Henry or Elizabeth could pull it off.

I dunno. European and world politics are going to play out differently. Imagine the British Empire allied with the Russian Empire- a great land-sea power alliance. Maybe by the 19th century the Eastern seaboard of North America is British and the West Coast is Russian? The Church of England is now 'Anglo-Orthodox' in character and organization.

I actually doubt you *get* a British Empire. Worsening the Wars of Religion by involving Orthodoxy and moving some of the conflict to England at a point when it's still a second tier power doesn't seem likely to do good things for it. I suspect eastern North America is mostly French, though possibly with some English Protestant minorities decended from the inevitable refugees. Though it could be (Spanish) Hapsburg easily enough, especially the changed politics allows a successful reconquest of the Netherlands, or a conquest of England.