NationStates Jolt Archive

There was a legend of a Christian ruler and his kingdom existing somewhere in India or Central Asia in the Middle Ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John

Do you think it was theoretically possible for a country of Eastern Christians to exist 'somewhere over there' in the Middle Ages and to survive into the 20th Century, not unlike Ethiopia did (indeed, Ethiopia was for a time a candidate for the kingdom of Prester John)?

I think no--the pressure from the Islamic empires would have been irresistible... I have to admit, though, that I do not know the history of Central Asia very well.

There were plenty of Nestorian Christians to give the story of Prester John "legs".

Not the Armenians who were in the Middle East before they got overrun by the Turks? Otherwise, a fable to me.

There was a legend of a Christian ruler and his kingdom existing somewhere in India or Central Asia in the Middle Ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John

Do you think it was theoretically possible for a country of Eastern Christians to exist 'somewhere over there' in the Middle Ages and to survive into the 20th Century, not unlike Ethiopia did (indeed, Ethiopia was for a time a candidate for the kingdom of Prester John)?

I think no--the pressure from the Islamic empires would have been irresistible... I have to admit, though, that I do not know the history of Central Asia very well.
That kingdom was originally supposed to be in Africa. Best theory as far as I'm concerned is that somebody in Europe heard of some African kingdom fighting the moslems, and from that concluded that they must be allies of Europe and thus white and christian.

Not the Armenians who were in the Middle East before they got overrun by the Turks? Otherwise, a fable to me.

Armenians are still there, dude.

Not the Armenians who were in the Middle East before they got overrun by the Turks? Otherwise, a fable to me.
Certainly it was a fable. The question is, whether the existence of such country was 'possible but unlikely' or 'impossible'. :)

BTW, do you have in mind Armenia proper or the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia?

Certainly it was a fable. The question is, whether the existence of such country was 'possible but unlikely' or 'impossible'. :)

BTW, do you have in mind Armenia proper or the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia?

Armenian kingdom in Cilicia - before they had to flee North.

Could the legend relate in some way to the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of India

There's the Ethiopian connection (the Armenian one is a little shaky - Westerners were very aware of their existence - as much as they knew about the Byzanthium).
Then there's the heretic, but still Christian, Nestorians - there were stories that made the Mongols look Christian, based on accounts of Nestorian missions being tolerated by Chengis Khan and the crippling Mongol attack on Baghdad, which made them "unlikely to be Pagan" according to Crusader fantasies.

Could the legend relate in some way to the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of India
Not likely.

Armenian kingdom in Cilicia - before they had to flee North.
Cilicia was the result of (some Armenians) fleeing South, not the other way.

Not likely.why not?

Could the legend relate in some way to the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of India
Erm... With the so-called St Thomas Christians, you mean? Possibly, there is something in the 'Prester John' letter about the 'Patriarch of St Thomas'.

why not?
The Church had, perhaps, a connection to Nestorianism - but other Nestorians were closer and more important. The focus for the story was on the East (Central Asia) - the Pope even sent a letter to an unnamed Mongol Khan (a leader of the army of Chengis, probably) presumed to be the Prester (what he got for a response was "submit to my rule"). Then, as the Portuguese were seeking to subvert the Ottomans in the East, they bumped into Ethiopia, with it becoming a new Prester country.
India, scarcely nominated, might have appeared as a result of lack in geography skills on the part of Europe (for a while, India and Ethiopia were thought by some to be the same thing).

Erm... With the so-called St Thomas Christians, you mean? Possibly, there is something in the 'Prester John' letter about the 'Patriarch of St Thomas'.
About that: it is highly doubtful that Thomas ever got to India, of course. The fact that he is cited as the first leader of the Indian Church adds nothing to the debate - it is a latter and convenient tradition (Indians were most likely converted by Nestorians as they fled Byzanthine persecution); to Western eyes, his diocese was somewhere in the East (looking for it was the same as looking for Prester John).
A parallel: a tradition that is just as late and shaky claims Andrew baptised in Schythia - a vaguely defined region, from Bulgaria to the N. Caucasus. This led to him being disputed as a patron saint by both Romania (my country) and Russia (Romania and Russia don't even share a border, as I'm sure you know).

About that: it is highly doubtful that Thomas ever got to India, of course. The fact that he is cited as the first leader of the Indian Church adds nothing to the debate - it is a latter and convenient tradition (Indians were most likely converted by Nestorians as they fled Byzanthine persecution); to Western eyes, his diocese was somewhere in the East (looking for it was the same as looking for Prester John).
Nestorians were more likely to provide an inspiration for the legend, it is for certain, and the present Syro-Malabar Catholics deny that they have ever been Nestorians.

A parallel: a tradition that is just as late and shaky claims Andrew baptised in Schythia - a vaguely defined region, from Bulgaria to the N. Caucasus. This led to him being disputed as a patron saint by both Romania (my country) and Russia (Romania and Russia don't even share a border, as I'm sure you know).
Add Scotland to that... :)

Nestorians were more likely to provide an inspiration for the legend, it is for certain, and the present Syro-Malabar Catholics deny that they have ever been Nestorians.
Perhaps they were just as well, although this adds nothing (they weren't the focus anyway). They would deny it, since they are Catholic nowadays and Nestorians were heretic according to mainstream Christianity (they believed in two different persons "inside" Jesus).


Add Scotland to that... :)
Amen to that :) . You Russian?

Perhaps they were just as well, although this adds nothing (they weren't the focus anyway). They would deny it, since they are Catholic nowadays and Nestorians were heretic according to mainstream Christianty (they beliaved in two different persons "inside" Jesus).

I concur with that. But do you think that it was possible for some Christian kingdom like that to survive in Central Asia?

Amen to that :) . You Russian?
Indeed I am. :) A Muscovite, to be precise, although my father hails from Odessa; Odessa isn't very far from Romania, I'd say. :)

I concur with that. But do you think that it was possible for some Christian kingdom like that to survive in Central Asia?
No, not at all. It's just indiscriminate absorbtion of stories that showed Chengis to be a tolerant ruler (he allowed Christian missions at his court, and heretic Christians had a substantial presence in Central Asia beginning with Manicheists who baptised in China - if baptising is what they did). They got so carried away that they thought Mongols themselves were Christian. This was also the contribution of them "not getting along" (to put it mildly) with Muslims, especially after they unwittingly helped the Crusaders by whiping out the Caliphate and making Seldjuk rulers uncomfortable.

Indeed I am. :) A Muscovite, to be precise, although my father hails from Odessa; Odessa isn't very far from Romania, I'd say. :)
Indeed, not far away (except we both need a passport to get there :) ).
The reason I asked is that I guess you would be just as familiar as I with the vagueries of Eastern Orthodox discourse.

No, not at all. It's just indiscriminate absorbtion of stories that showed Chengis to be a tolerant ruler (he allowed Christian missions at his court, and heretic Christians had a substantial presence in Central Asia beginning with Manicheists who baptised in China - if baptising is what they did). They got so carried away that they thought Mongols themselves were Christian.
Indeed. There were some stories in the beginning of the 13th Century about 'King David', son of Prester John, who was going to Jerusalem on a 'pilgrimage' with a great Christian army. He turned out to be Genghis Khan; not very much of a Christian pilgrim.

I think that even if Nestorians had managed to set up a Christian state in Central Asia, it would have been overrun by Khwarezmia, or by the Mongols, or by Timur...

Indeed, not far away (except we both need a passport to get there :) ).
The reason I asked is that I guess you would be just as familiar as I with the vagueries of Eastern Orthodox discourse.
Probably... I have to uphold the honour of my family: my great-grandfather was a priest who headed a seminary in Odessa. :)

I think that even if Nestorians had managed to set up a Christian state in Central Asia, it would have been overrun by Khwarezmia, or by the Mongols, or by Timur...
Good point (although, excluding an end provoked by Timur: if it had survided until his time, it would've been a basis for stories developped arond the 1200s - just a minor cronological correction).
Anyway, I think larger-scale religious "experiments" were over with the end of the Khazar polity.

Probably... I have to uphold the honour of my family: my great-grandfather was a priest who headed a seminary in Odessa. :)
I have several priests in my family, just as well :) .

Good point (although, excluding an end provoked by Timur: if it had survided until his time, it would've been a basis for stories developped arond the 1200s - just a minor cronological correction).
Anyway, I think larger-scale religious "experiments" were over with the end of the Khazar polity.
Yes, I agree, but I was making a hypothesis that was not very much connected with the medieval fables, just a kind of 'what-if'.

Yes, I agree, but I was making a hypothesis that was not very much connected with the medieval fables, just a kind of 'what-if'.
Oh, okay. Sorry.
To go with the spirit of it, then, if it would've managed to survive Timur, I guess it would've became part of Russia at some point.

Oh, okay. Sorry.
Not at all. :) I've understood your assumption.

To go with the spirit of it, then, if it would've managed to survive Timur, I guess it would've became part of Russia at some point.
Yes, like Kartli-Kaheti (Georgia). Or it could have been a 'bone of contention' between Russia and Britain in the Great Game.

Or it could have been a 'bone of contention' between Russia and Britain in the Great Game.
That would indeed have been something! I guess it would've been even more problematic than the Afghan border.

That would indeed have been something! I guess it would've been even more problematic than the Afghan border.
The religious factor would have come into play; the successor to 'Prester John' would have to choose between the Russian Orthodox and the Anglicans. :)

The religious factor would have come into play; the successor to 'Prester John' would have to choose between the Russian Orthodox and the Anglicans. :)
I would predict a situation much like Armenia's: some would be "Prester John"-ian, some Orthodox and some Catholic.

I would predict a situation much like Armenia's: some would be "Prester John"-ian, some Orthodox and some Catholic.
The Indian 'St Thomas Christians' did approximately the same in RL, too. Some entered into communion with Rome, some with Canterbury, some with... dunno, with something else. :)

The Indian 'St Thomas Christians' did approximately the same in RL, too. Some entered into communion with Rome, some with Canterbury, some with... dunno, with something else. :)
Also (I mean, just for them siding with Rome/Constantinople-Moskow or remaining the same - not including Anglican influence) the Melkites, Egyptians and (I think) Assyrians. It's a great big world out there.
However, I don't think that communion with Canterbury means much (geopolitically, I mean). There aren't much requirements, and no common viewpoints have to be shared. It's just an umbrella.

Also (I mean, just for them siding with Rome/Constantinople-Moskow or remaining the same - not including Anglican influence) the Melkites, Egyptians and (I think) Assyrians. It's a great big world out there.
However, I don't think that communion with Canterbury means much (geopolitically, I mean). There aren't much requirements, and no common viewpoints have to be shared. It's just an umbrella.
I think that back in the times of the British Raj some religious leader in Southern India thought that entering into communion with the CofE was a good idea.

Well, they were certainly Christians in Central Asia at some point. Genghis Kahn used them to start uprisings against Muslim rulers in certain city states. One of his wives (the mother of Kublai Kahn) is believed to have been a Christian.
So they were there, but I doubt in enough force to have a kingdom.

I think that back in the times of the British Raj some religious leader in Southern India thought that entering into communion with the CofE was a good idea.
Yes, and I think they did it eventually (at least, some of them). They went through a Catholic-Jesuit phase that got sour when the Portuguese started exercising tighter controls (it happened in Ethiopia as well).
My post was quite confusing, I guess. What I meant to say was that the inevitable choice for the churches in Lebanon and Egypt did not include the Anglican/Episcopalian/Old Catholic Canterbury alternative, just the three "classical" ones (Roman-Catholic, Orthodox, sticking to what they previously were). I was writing the post, and didn't realise that a comparison with the Thomist Church is not perfect, so I included a sentence that made little sense to anyone not having the exact mindset I had at the time :) .

Yes, and I think they did it eventually (at least, some of them). They went through a Catholic-Jesuit phase that got sour when the Portuguese started exercising tighter controls (it happened in Ethiopia as well).
My post was quite confusing, I guess. What I meant to say was that the inevitable choice for the churches in Lebanon and Egypt did not include the Anglican/Episcopalian/Old Catholic Canterbury alternative, just the three "classical" ones (Roman-Catholic, Orthodox, sticking to what they previously were). I was writing the post, and didn't realise that a comparison with the Thomist Church is not perfect, so I included a sentence that made little sense to anyone not having the exact mindset I had at the time :) .
Ah, I see... Well, I'm almost asleep, no wonder I haven't understood it that way. :) Now I'm off to bed.

Ah, I see... Well, I'm almost asleep, no wonder I haven't understood it that way. :) Now I'm off to bed.
See you around.