A thought provoking essay but the idea of Britain being reunited with EU in the face to a common enemy (Trump) is too steep a climb for me. As with Brexit, Trump divides people. It’s not hard to find fault with his behaviour and rhetoric yet only those blinded by prejudice fail to recognise some powerful home truths amongst his inarticulate rambling.
I have often wondered if England might never have been considered a core part of Latin Christendom had Harold Godwinson won at Hastings because he was regarded as an illegitimate usurper by the Pope.
In the alternate timelines where the Anglo-Saxons won at Hastings, I can see England remaining more oriented towards Scandinavia than the historic Frankish realms on the continent. Also, better relations with Constantinople for sure as in our timeline, there was clearly enough of an affinity between Constantinople and the Anglo-Saxons for the former to host the exiles in places like the Varangian Guard.
"It could never be done politically, but that never stopped a sense of common identity that first united around the idea of ‘Christendom’, possibly the first English word to achieve international dominance - crīstendōm originating in Wessex sometime in the ninth century. Later, and with the age of discovery and then the Enlightenment, this idea of a civilisation came to be called ‘the West’."
Wow, I didn't know that about the origin of "Christendom". I did know about how Carolingian miniscule was developed by Alcuin of York in terms of Dark Age English inventions.
"Europeans felt a common bond when surrounded by alien peoples in dangerous environments, but their primary identity was always with their nations, regions or cities, and it took tens of millions of deaths in the 20th century for European leaders to finally abandon these murderous loyalties. "
The original idea behind the European Coal and Steel Community, which later became the European Economic Community and then the European Union, was by a Frenchman who, after three big wars between France and Germany over the previous century, didn't want the old halves of the Frankish Empire fighting again (particularly in a world where Marxism-Leninism now dominated half of the continent and much of the broader world):
"The Schuman Declaration had the stated aim of preventing further antagonism between France and Germany[5] and among other European states[6] by tackling the root cause of war through the establishment of common foundations for economic development.[7] Schuman proposed the formation of the ECSC primarily with France and Germany in mind: "The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries."[6] Portraying the coal and steel industries as integral to the production of munitions,[8] Schuman proposed that uniting these two industries across France and Germany under an innovative supranational system (that also included a European anti-cartel agency) would "make war between France and Germany [...] not only unthinkable but materially impossible""
"Oswald Mosley was once Britain’s most passionate Europhile." He loved Europe so much he married his wife at the home of a German politician, with an Austrian present who went on to attempt to unite the continent!
"The early sense of Christian identity noted by Fulcher arose because the new European civilisation, born on the borderlands between Latin and Germanic speakers not far from where today’s EU capital is based, was weak and vulnerable compared to the far more sophisticated Islamic civilisation which controlled the Mediterranean."
I recently finished a fascinating book I received for Christmas about the largely forgotten theological conflict of Late Antiquity between Monophysites and "Two Natures" Christians. The author details how the contingent triumph of the latter played a key role as to why Christianity's ancient heartlands of Egypt and the Levant were lost to the Persians and later the Muslim Arabs in the 7th Century. He speculates that had the Monophysites been victorious, with the lack of premature death of one emperor (Theodosius II), the Christian world would likely have remained centered on the South and (especially) East of the Mediterranean and what we would call the heartland of "Europe" would have remained peripheral and possibly even largely Arian!
England has had a historic ambivalent ambiguous relationship with Europe, and continues to do so. Russia has also had an ambiguous ambivalent relationship with “Europe” and the dividing line has been contested for centuries, and is still being currently contested.
Trump is doing “Europe” a great favor(either purposefully or not, always difficult to tell with Trump) putting them through a Foreign policy “boot camp”. They need to extensively “toughen up” in a myriad of areas.
I think that he maybe, although his main impact is to drive European voters towards the mainstream parties who are least likely to do anything about it.
It's worth noting that the ultra-Remainer, belligerently progressive newspaper the New European has changed its name to 'The New World'. They may have thought that, what with the Overton window shift on immigration, 'European' now had an identitarian ring to it.
In America October 12th is a federal holiday called "Columbus Day". It is also, supposedly, the date (on or about) of the Battle of Tours. I used to joke to work colleagues, "what are you going to do on Charles Martel Day". When I got quizzical looks, I would say, "Look, if Columbus hadn't discovered America, you would be back in Europe, but if it hadn't been for Charles Martel, you would be speaking Arabic". By the way, I highly recommend Ed's "The Path of the Martyrs: Charles Martel, The Battle of Tours and the Birth of Europe"
"Who ever heard such a mixture of languages in one army?’, wrote the 11th century priest Fulcher of Chartres as he witnessed the procession of the First Crusade: ‘There were Franks, Flemish, Frisians, Gauls, Allobroges, Lothringians, Alemanni, Bavarians, Normans, Angles, Scots, Aquitanians, Italians, Dacians, Apulians, Iberians, Bretons, Greeks and Armenians."
Scandinavians were still absent at this point. Even though they had converted to the faith, they were probably still considered too much the Other at this point to be trusted by the realm of Latin Christendom. Same with the Magyars.
It is worth noting that "Scots" would have likely referred to the Irish at this point in time:
I think the way the word 'Europe' is used is the key.
For my part, I have always been careful to observe the distinction between Europe and 'Europe®'. The first Europe is a thing of inescapable rapture and sempiternal longing most particularly to us Germanics ('Kennst du das Land, wo die Zitronen blühn') while the latter is a late-stage managerialist greyscape.
I have long noticed that the term Europe® is used by Eurocrats in the same cajoling and exclusionary way that 'The Church' has historically been used by Roman Catholics.
And we who do not subscribe to the preposterous Claims of Supremacy of either organisation resent being told we are outside the communion.
That said, if at any point the Brussels commissars did decide to vote to abolish themselves and reinstate the Holy Roman Empire, with Charles III (&VI) assuming the Reichskrone at the hands of the Pope in St Peter's Basilica and enthroned at Aachen and Frankfort in the presence of the assmbled Imperial Diet and Electors - my enthusiasm for the 'European Project' could as good as be guaranteed.
This is why I liked the idea of a via media, an associate membership of the EU, the Anglican position of being neither entirely one thing nor the other.
It is a clever idea but I would argue that one cannot be an 'associate member' of organisation claiming what either the Roman Church or the European Union claim about themselves.
It is simply a false starting point.
As with 'Anglo-Catholicism' and Rome, it eventually dawns on the High Churchmen that the Vatican doesn't 'do' complementarianism.
Similarly, for Britain to seek 'associate' status with Brussels is to misunderstand what the EU claims, fundamentally and axiomatically, for and of itself.
In her eyes our claims to European-ness are "absolutely null and utterly void" until and unless we accept the moral and legal Supremacy of the EU 'ab initio'.
"This is not new. Oswald Mosley was once Britain’s most passionate Europhile..."
Here is one alternate history you may be interested in where Mosley stays with the Labour Party and eventually becomes PM. His friendship with Mussolini means that Nazi Germany is contained in an "Austrian War" followed by an earlier European Federation!
In many ways, the really bloody disastrous years between 1871 to 1945 were kind of a second Carolingian Dark Ages where the decline of France (especially in terms of population growth) meant it could no longer dominate the European continent against Russian and especially German rivals. Hence, the inability for one group of historic Franks (France) to dominate another (Germany) was at the root at 1871, 1914, and 1940 and all that came after!
A thought provoking essay but the idea of Britain being reunited with EU in the face to a common enemy (Trump) is too steep a climb for me. As with Brexit, Trump divides people. It’s not hard to find fault with his behaviour and rhetoric yet only those blinded by prejudice fail to recognise some powerful home truths amongst his inarticulate rambling.
Yeah I don’t see us rejoining, and I’m not sure future shape Europe will be in. I’m going to speculate in a follow-up easy but who knows.
I have often wondered if England might never have been considered a core part of Latin Christendom had Harold Godwinson won at Hastings because he was regarded as an illegitimate usurper by the Pope.
In the alternate timelines where the Anglo-Saxons won at Hastings, I can see England remaining more oriented towards Scandinavia than the historic Frankish realms on the continent. Also, better relations with Constantinople for sure as in our timeline, there was clearly enough of an affinity between Constantinople and the Anglo-Saxons for the former to host the exiles in places like the Varangian Guard.
It is debatable.
The Anglo Saxon church was conspicuous in its deference to Rome, particularly after the Synod of Whitby.
Equally, the idea of Romanitas was central to late Anglo Saxon ideas of legitimacy in Kingship in a way it never was in Scandinavia.
In Church and State the Anglo Saxon's craved Roman approval.
"It could never be done politically, but that never stopped a sense of common identity that first united around the idea of ‘Christendom’, possibly the first English word to achieve international dominance - crīstendōm originating in Wessex sometime in the ninth century. Later, and with the age of discovery and then the Enlightenment, this idea of a civilisation came to be called ‘the West’."
Wow, I didn't know that about the origin of "Christendom". I did know about how Carolingian miniscule was developed by Alcuin of York in terms of Dark Age English inventions.
"Europeans felt a common bond when surrounded by alien peoples in dangerous environments, but their primary identity was always with their nations, regions or cities, and it took tens of millions of deaths in the 20th century for European leaders to finally abandon these murderous loyalties. "
The original idea behind the European Coal and Steel Community, which later became the European Economic Community and then the European Union, was by a Frenchman who, after three big wars between France and Germany over the previous century, didn't want the old halves of the Frankish Empire fighting again (particularly in a world where Marxism-Leninism now dominated half of the continent and much of the broader world):
"The Schuman Declaration had the stated aim of preventing further antagonism between France and Germany[5] and among other European states[6] by tackling the root cause of war through the establishment of common foundations for economic development.[7] Schuman proposed the formation of the ECSC primarily with France and Germany in mind: "The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries."[6] Portraying the coal and steel industries as integral to the production of munitions,[8] Schuman proposed that uniting these two industries across France and Germany under an innovative supranational system (that also included a European anti-cartel agency) would "make war between France and Germany [...] not only unthinkable but materially impossible""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community
"Oswald Mosley was once Britain’s most passionate Europhile." He loved Europe so much he married his wife at the home of a German politician, with an Austrian present who went on to attempt to unite the continent!
Very interesting piece.
"The early sense of Christian identity noted by Fulcher arose because the new European civilisation, born on the borderlands between Latin and Germanic speakers not far from where today’s EU capital is based, was weak and vulnerable compared to the far more sophisticated Islamic civilisation which controlled the Mediterranean."
I recently finished a fascinating book I received for Christmas about the largely forgotten theological conflict of Late Antiquity between Monophysites and "Two Natures" Christians. The author details how the contingent triumph of the latter played a key role as to why Christianity's ancient heartlands of Egypt and the Levant were lost to the Persians and later the Muslim Arabs in the 7th Century. He speculates that had the Monophysites been victorious, with the lack of premature death of one emperor (Theodosius II), the Christian world would likely have remained centered on the South and (especially) East of the Mediterranean and what we would call the heartland of "Europe" would have remained peripheral and possibly even largely Arian!
https://www.amazon.ca/Jesus-Wars-Patriarchs-Emperors-Christians/dp/0061768936
England has had a historic ambivalent ambiguous relationship with Europe, and continues to do so. Russia has also had an ambiguous ambivalent relationship with “Europe” and the dividing line has been contested for centuries, and is still being currently contested.
Trump is doing “Europe” a great favor(either purposefully or not, always difficult to tell with Trump) putting them through a Foreign policy “boot camp”. They need to extensively “toughen up” in a myriad of areas.
I think that he maybe, although his main impact is to drive European voters towards the mainstream parties who are least likely to do anything about it.
It's worth noting that the ultra-Remainer, belligerently progressive newspaper the New European has changed its name to 'The New World'. They may have thought that, what with the Overton window shift on immigration, 'European' now had an identitarian ring to it.
Isn’t this all but wishful thinking as long as the EU is led and staffed (which is probably more important) by committed progressives?
In America October 12th is a federal holiday called "Columbus Day". It is also, supposedly, the date (on or about) of the Battle of Tours. I used to joke to work colleagues, "what are you going to do on Charles Martel Day". When I got quizzical looks, I would say, "Look, if Columbus hadn't discovered America, you would be back in Europe, but if it hadn't been for Charles Martel, you would be speaking Arabic". By the way, I highly recommend Ed's "The Path of the Martyrs: Charles Martel, The Battle of Tours and the Birth of Europe"
"Who ever heard such a mixture of languages in one army?’, wrote the 11th century priest Fulcher of Chartres as he witnessed the procession of the First Crusade: ‘There were Franks, Flemish, Frisians, Gauls, Allobroges, Lothringians, Alemanni, Bavarians, Normans, Angles, Scots, Aquitanians, Italians, Dacians, Apulians, Iberians, Bretons, Greeks and Armenians."
Scandinavians were still absent at this point. Even though they had converted to the faith, they were probably still considered too much the Other at this point to be trusted by the realm of Latin Christendom. Same with the Magyars.
It is worth noting that "Scots" would have likely referred to the Irish at this point in time:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/Scot
I think the way the word 'Europe' is used is the key.
For my part, I have always been careful to observe the distinction between Europe and 'Europe®'. The first Europe is a thing of inescapable rapture and sempiternal longing most particularly to us Germanics ('Kennst du das Land, wo die Zitronen blühn') while the latter is a late-stage managerialist greyscape.
I have long noticed that the term Europe® is used by Eurocrats in the same cajoling and exclusionary way that 'The Church' has historically been used by Roman Catholics.
And we who do not subscribe to the preposterous Claims of Supremacy of either organisation resent being told we are outside the communion.
That said, if at any point the Brussels commissars did decide to vote to abolish themselves and reinstate the Holy Roman Empire, with Charles III (&VI) assuming the Reichskrone at the hands of the Pope in St Peter's Basilica and enthroned at Aachen and Frankfort in the presence of the assmbled Imperial Diet and Electors - my enthusiasm for the 'European Project' could as good as be guaranteed.
This is why I liked the idea of a via media, an associate membership of the EU, the Anglican position of being neither entirely one thing nor the other.
It is a clever idea but I would argue that one cannot be an 'associate member' of organisation claiming what either the Roman Church or the European Union claim about themselves.
It is simply a false starting point.
As with 'Anglo-Catholicism' and Rome, it eventually dawns on the High Churchmen that the Vatican doesn't 'do' complementarianism.
Similarly, for Britain to seek 'associate' status with Brussels is to misunderstand what the EU claims, fundamentally and axiomatically, for and of itself.
In her eyes our claims to European-ness are "absolutely null and utterly void" until and unless we accept the moral and legal Supremacy of the EU 'ab initio'.
"This is not new. Oswald Mosley was once Britain’s most passionate Europhile..."
Here is one alternate history you may be interested in where Mosley stays with the Labour Party and eventually becomes PM. His friendship with Mussolini means that Nazi Germany is contained in an "Austrian War" followed by an earlier European Federation!
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=timelines:a_greater_britain
In many ways, the really bloody disastrous years between 1871 to 1945 were kind of a second Carolingian Dark Ages where the decline of France (especially in terms of population growth) meant it could no longer dominate the European continent against Russian and especially German rivals. Hence, the inability for one group of historic Franks (France) to dominate another (Germany) was at the root at 1871, 1914, and 1940 and all that came after!
https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/whatever-happened-to-france