Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[Amenhotep7]

@das

Love the timeline! But I think perhaps Belisaurus may have gone on to conquer just a bit. The gold and tin and silver and whatnot in Iberia just has to be irresistable, no? And with the Visigoths in their weakened state, he could have tried a coup d'etat, or invade, no?

But if you don't think it's feasible, then at least elaborate a bit more on what happens in the new Roman Empire during the Viking Age.

 

[das]

ome peoiple just say "rm eis Rome" when it moves to the eastern area of its empires, and eventually losses all italy, so sush on the Sudan topic

rm eis? Thats too weird even for you, Xen.

Even if so - Axum appeared AFTER 0 BC. You just lost out four thousand years, Xen...

indeed- but I only said ti was really stable for the periods of those several emperors

Yes, but one could find such a period in Sassanid Persia, for example. And those were just five emperors.

Dunno- can you repeat the question?

I said that Constantine wasn't all that hostile to the polytheists. Admittedly, the Christians did get many important posts... but still.

though the fact that he did what he did, soldidifed a real presence of these religions into the time of charlemagne (and well, well beyond), giving his shot reign is somthing clear enough, IMO to show if he had lived his life fully, he may have lead a successful re-birth.

Btw - what was the name of your source? I never thought Roman polytheism survived into Charlemagne's time in sufficient numbers to be noticed. And problem is, there was no way he could live his life fully - he antagonized too many people.

well, i'm a polytheist, so from my stand point, his efforts worked just fine

Except I think Christians "slightly" outnumber the Roman polytheists.

id imagine mos tof those "neo pagan" dickheads, fro all that i hate them, woudl probabley, as well as all the other true polytheists runnign around in europe- do a search, alot of them have websites, why?

Well, duh. Because that reviving ancient cults makes people stand out. Being a Christian isn't very fun, because, well, its been done already. (Though I didn't find a lot of such sites yet. But I'm sure there are a lot of those after I found a sheep-based religion site long ago, complete with elements of Stalinism and Buddhism. ALMOST no exaggerations.)

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

Could you pronounce THAT?

And so a Polytheist and an Atheist continue to discuss the rise of Christianity in Rome...

 

[das]

Love the timeline! But I think perhaps Belisaurus may have gone on to conquer just a bit.

Its called "not overstretching resources while facing a still-powerful and very hostile Byzantine empire to the east". And the rest of his heirs chose to consolidate their gains rather then conquer more territory that was poverty-stricken and would potentially become the Italian Empire's ruin.

Italy, as was said, is stagnating, partially due to weak rulers and corruption in the heart of the Empire. Otherwise, it still is profiting from the trade, fending back occasional Viking raids and time to time supports different factions in Frankish nation courts, to avoid being invaded.

 

[Xen]

rm eis? Thats too weird even for you, Xen.

Even if so - Axum appeared AFTER 0 BC. You just lost out four thousand years, Xen...

i said comes close, didnt i

Yes, but one could find such a period in Sassanid Persia, for example. And those were just five emperors.

I never said you couldnt do it for any othe rnation- I wa spointign out that wonderful littler period in Roman history- all said, its hardley unique, in fact its rather common, and the same sor tof thing happend ( good successroship) for the first half of the roman empire- take when claudius came to power- yes, hus predessor was assaniated, sure- but his actual comign to manner was a rather transition, wasnt it- well he did end up havign to invade britian to consolodate his power, and essentially show he had enough gonads to rule rome, but still, i think most would have that anyway- the britions were threating the security of gallic provinces by egging on the gaul sinto occasional rebellion- and helping then in those efforts.

I said that Constantine wasn't all that hostile to the polytheists. Admittedly, the Christians did get many important posts... but still.

he may not have been activlly hostile to polytheists- but then agian, he sure iddnt disuade hostility either- consent by silence.

Btw - what was the name of your source? I never thought Roman polytheism survived into Charlemagne's time in sufficient numbers to be noticed. And problem is, there was no way he could live his life fully - he antagonized too many people.

serch amazon.com for "western roman empire"- after a few pages, you see the name of a book that litteralyl says it all its title- i have to go on to amazon later today (never checked out the shopping basket, and i had to re-start the computer, so everythign i had was lost) and I'll end u; searchign under that same term agian, if I find it, i'll tell you

Except I think Christians "slightly" outnumber the Roman polytheists.

true- though many of thosefanatical protestant christians seem to think differentlly

regardless, we're still here

[/quote]
Well, duh. Because that reviving ancient cults makes people stand out. Being a Christian isn't very fun, because, well, its been done already. (Though I didn't find a lot of such sites yet. But I'm sure there are a lot of those after I found a sheep-based religion site long ago, complete with elements of Stalinism and Buddhism. ALMOST no exaggerations.)[/quote[/b]

well, Novaroma.org is a bit of a stop, but they dont practice my particuler branch (I suppose I weave in too much logic and neoplatonism for thier likes, the traditional yuppy bastards)

I also found one a time a site for hellenic polythiems that looked liek everythign bad about disco coem to life, and put intot he bacground of the web site. i didnt end up looking at it.

[/quote]
Could you pronounce THAT?[/quote]
beats me- i wanted to put the Latin term for "dont **** with us", but I'm saving that for the ag eof nationalism in North Kings NES, so i can make it my national motto

And so a Polytheist and an Atheist continue to discuss the rise of Christianity in Rome...

better us then a Chrisitian and a Muslim.

 

[das]

i said comes close, didnt i

Far from close enough. As has been said.

I never said you couldnt do it for any othe rnation- I wa spointign out that wonderful littler period in Roman history- all said, its hardley unique, in fact its rather common, and the same sor tof thing happend ( good successroship) for the first half of the roman empire- take when claudius came to power- yes, hus predessor was assaniated, sure- but his actual comign to manner was a rather transition, wasnt it- well he did end up havign to invade britian to consolodate his power, and essentially show he had enough gonads to rule rome, but still, i think most would have that anyway- the britions were threating the security of gallic provinces by egging on the gaul sinto occasional rebellion- and helping then in those efforts.

So, what you're trying to say is that Rome's system was a stable one, and admit that other nations achieved the same effects with a less stable system?

he may not have been activlly hostile to polytheists- but then agian, he sure iddnt disuade hostility either- consent by silence.

You have to admit that Constantine DID have some remarkable achievements.

true- though many of thosefanatical protestant christians seem to think differentlly

Only the protestant ones? The only one of major Christian churches that isn't going as big on it is the Orthodox one. And thats because its Russian-based now, I believe that the Constantinople-based one still was/is going on and on and on about it.

regardless, we're still here

Hard not to notice on CFC.

well, Novaroma.org is a bit of a stop, but they dont practice my particuler branch

Neoplatonism and the like was not as spread out as the more mystical variety. For reasons, see the upper part of my sig.

better us then a Chrisitian and a Muslim.

Guess so. Though an Atheist and a Confucianist seem to be an ideal version to me, as neither were involved in it.

 

[Xen]

Far from close enough. As has been said.[/quote[ bu tcloser then all others

So, what you're trying to say is that Rome's system was a stable one, and admit that other nations achieved the same effects with a less stable system?
[/quote]
no, i'm sayign that Romes sytem was ****, but under the right conditions, it worked wonderfully.

You have to admit that Constantine DID have some remarkable achievements.

like make the entire empire crumble? ha. he was a great general- but a terrible emperor- the empire woudl have been better off split into 4 subnations by that point, joined by the allaince of Diocletians commonwealth.

Only the protestant ones? The only one of major Christian churches that isn't going as big on it is the Orthodox one. And thats because its Russian-based now, I believe that the Constantinople-based one still was/is going on and on and on about it.

actually that was an imcomplete statement on part, sorry- the full thing shoudl; have somthing to the effecto protestants think that catholics are more "roman pagan" then anything 'christian"- bull**** to me, a jesus yuppy is a jesus yuppy.

 

[das]

no, i'm sayign that Romes sytem was ****, but under the right conditions, it worked wonderfully.

As did all other systems that survived. This proves my argument that Roman Empire, in part due to its ruling system, was, after 1st Century AD, pretty much doomed, Christians or no Christians.

like make the entire empire crumble? ha. he was a great general- but a terrible emperor- the empire woudl have been better off split into 4 subnations by that point, joined by the allaince of Diocletians commonwealth.

I believe that Constantine reunited it, for a while at least. And the four subnations scheme... that one actually sounds nice, if it could be pulled off. Problem is, somebody will always try to reunite it.

 

[Xen]

As did all other systems that survived. This proves my argument that Roman Empire, in part due to its ruling system, was, after 1st Century AD, pretty much doomed, Christians or no Christians.

not really- it could have been, just as easilly, that the tetrachy survived, and rome dissunfied into 4 smaller states, each oen having a higher chance at beign able to defend itself, because it own borders and needs were so much smaller, for a military it would self-support.


[/quote]
I believe that Constantine reunited it, for a while at least. And the four subnations scheme... that one actually sounds nice, if it could be pulled off. Problem is, somebody will always try to reunite it.[/QUOTE]

and I belive the empire shouldnt have been reunited- that it was reunifacation that actually created the condition sfor the empire to fall, and a cultural regression obviouslly didnt help matters.

as for re-unifacation, not always- thier only one time in roman history when a real schism occured, and that wa sunder aurelian- palmyra schismed forcefully, and had to be re-conqoued- the 'gallic' empire didnt- and while it was re-conqouredm, all evidence points to its emperor actually invite aurelian to re-qonqoure it, an setting himself up for defeat, because he feared political instability, therefore, putting the western most provinces back into directlly romes hands was the best overall option for him, as he coudl live out the remainder of his life in a nice little villa -which he did, IIRC- but the gallic empire, the self prcliamed defender of Roman civlization in the western most provinces of the empire, did very, very well militarilly- and it likelly that it coudl have survived, if its emperor had not thought that he would have been better off in a villa, rather then the hea dof a state that would have, upon relfection aided all rome to survive 9of course he was right- thier were many plots to assasinate him- dosent stop the fact that an indipendent nation woudl have helped rome as a whole survive)

 

[das]

not really- it could have been, just as easilly, that the tetrachy survived, and rome dissunfied into 4 smaller states, each oen having a higher chance at beign able to defend itself, because it own borders and needs were so much smaller, for a military it would self-support.

Four states? I doubt it. Two of those states, if I understand the division that you suggest, will probably be crushed by the Arabs, if not as easily as in OTL. I think that the survivors would have collapsed only further. Ofcourse, eventually, the surviving parts of the Empire could be reunited, or some of them at least...

and I belive the empire shouldnt have been reunited- that it was reunifacation that actually created the condition sfor the empire to fall, and a cultural regression obviouslly didnt help matters.

Either way - the Empire fell. Then it was reunited. And because it was reunited, it fell. So there isn't much left of your original argument that if not for Christianity, theEmpire would have survived.

 

[das]

What if Harold Hardrada of Norway and William of Normandy both suceeded in England, and, after an indecisive war, were forced to divide it equally between each other (southern Norman England and northern Norwegian England)?

 

[Xen]

Four states? I doubt it. Two of those states, if I understand the division that you suggest, will probably be crushed by the Arabs, if not as easily as in OTL. I think that the survivors would have collapsed only further. Ofcourse, eventually, the surviving parts of the Empire could be reunited, or some of them at least...

one of them would probably be absorbed by one of the other (that one being Illyricum, if I remember the name correctlly)- the "orient" could hold its own agiast the arabs; after all, witht he right strategy, and resources, the ottomans were able to do it, so its noy like the o****ry side is lacking in what it needs- if the orient- mind you this is extreamlly unlikelly- can keep a flexible military, AND, not piss off the local populace, then they would be able to match the arabs

[/qoute]
Either way - the Empire fell. Then it was reunited. And because it was reunited, it fell. So there isn't much left of your original argument that if not for Christianity, theEmpire would have survived.[/QUOTE]
A)the topic has hadley stayed on christianity and it effects, we've weaved through allt he other causes, and havent really touched on christianity at all

B)quote me when I said the empire woudl survive had chrstianity not arisen; I still feel that chrsitanity was a lynchpin in tyh eempires fall- but not that thr empire would nothave fallen if thier was none- though thiers a chance that perhaps it might have pulled itself out of the muck, and re-asserted itself, we dont know.

 

[das]

can keep a flexible military, AND, not piss off the local populace, then they would be able to match the arabs

Not pissing off the local populace is the hard one. As usual.

A)the topic has hadley stayed on christianity and it effects, we've weaved through allt he other causes, and havent really touched on christianity at all

I said, before the beginning of the argument, that Christianity was far from being crucial to the collapse of the empire. You said it was. I pointed out the other reasons.

B)quote me when I said the empire woudl survive had chrstianity not arisen; I still feel that chrsitanity was a lynchpin in tyh eempires fall- but not that thr empire would nothave fallen if thier was none- though thiers a chance that perhaps it might have pulled itself out of the muck, and re-asserted itself, we dont know.

as for chrsitianity splitting up the empire, you need to do some reserch das- historically constantine screwed the empire by outlawing many professions ot non-christians, including work on such needed work places liek blacksmithing, as well as government jobs-[...] and crippled the empire, as usurper emperors attempted to resotre the old ways

 

[Xen]

yes, it crippled the empire, and wasa pretty significant peice in its falling- but it snot th empire couldnt have fallen without christianity, and its no sure thing that the empire woudl have pulled out of its declien either; quote vetoed- if that sthe closest thing you have to me saying what you said i said, you have no argument for me saying it, when i didnt say it. so stop saying it

 

[das]

yes, it crippled the empire, and wasa pretty significant peice in its falling

No it wasn't!

but it snot th empire couldnt have fallen without christianity

Which is precisely what I was saying. So?

if that sthe closest thing you have to me saying what you said i said,

I said in the beginning that Christianity was not crucial in the collapse of the Roman Empire. Then you argued with me about it, only to say that it was not crucial in the collapse of the Roman Empire? Right...

you have no argument for me saying it, when i didnt say it.

So when you DID say it, I have an argument and when you DIDN'T say it, I don't have an argument. Thanks for clearing it out.

 

[Xen]

No it wasn't!

Indeed it was! crippilign the empire by forwarding a schicm of belifes is harldey the right way to go, and th epopuylarity of Julian shows that many were more then devoted tot he old ways, well after constantine, and that Julian offered them a chance to get thier voice heard- his death caused the schism to worsen, as to convert all those "pagans" a new form of church in the west was formed; so now, instea dof having one empire, disunfied between two belifes, you have one empire diunfied by two major belifes, but inside of that, disunfied by another two, as the patriarch of rome began claimign more power.- to think that religion, and particuler christianity, and it nigh constant schicms didnt have a a major impact in the fall of the empire is fgoolish- the fact that thier is still a barrieri between greek Orthidox, and catholoscism is testiment enough fo the religious termoil caused by christianity, and that was only in an dof itself.

 

[das]

Indeed it was!

No it wasn't!

crippilign the empire by forwarding a schicm of belifes is harldey the right way to go

Schism of Christianity happened much later, Xen.

th epopuylarity of Julian

Popular people don't get killed by their own bodyguards.

his death caused the schism to worsen, as to convert all those "pagans" a new form of church in the west was formed

It was formed as a separate church due to the Iconoclasm.

o think that religion, and particuler christianity, and it nigh constant schicms didnt have a a major impact in the fall of the empire is fgoolish

Christianity only acted as a catalyst of sorts. Perhaps without it, though, the Empire would have collapsed earlier. Perhaps later. Christianity's nonexistance will NOT save the Empire.

 

[Xen]

Schism of Christianity happened much later, Xen.

but the seeds were lain far before the actual schism happend


Popular people don't get killed by their own bodyguards.[/quote]
he wasnt pose the question in the history forum, where I posted a thread long since washed away inrto the delted sector of ol dthreads in this forum- thier a very substantial basis that he was poisoed by a ocnspirarcy from the christian church- who, obviouslly, werent his body guards.

It was formed as a separate church due to the Iconoclasm.

and the perpetual wantign of power from the patriach- eventual pope- of rome- whch was based on mithraic tradition mind you, since the head of the Mithriac-Roman religion also, just happend, bby divine coinicdence (obviouslly) to be stationed in rome, and called the pope. but then, that has nothign to do with western chrsitiandom being forced to adopt a completlyl differt form to appeal to the locals, anthier by creating a shcism within the church, and driving the eastern and western sections fo the empire further apart from oen another, well before the full seperation happend. of course not- couldnt be, after all christianity had no impact on th empires fall.

Christianity only acted as a catalyst of sorts. Perhaps without it, though, the Empire would have collapsed earlier. Perhaps later. Christianity's nonexistance will NOT save the Empire.

not all by itsefl- but it woudl have certinalyl helped the empire get back on its feat without all those rifts- seperate Roman nation, unfied by a relitivlly common culture are one thing- a schism in a single empire, where a growing difference in regional culture is another thing, and it was a mjahor impactor in the fall of the empire.

 

[das]

but the seeds were lain far before the actual schism happend

Yes. When Christianity appeared. When there are two people of the same religion, there are at least three different viewpoints on that religion.

who, obviouslly, werent his body guards.

Technically, there is an opinion that he was killed by the Persians. And conspiracies... sorry. That rarely works out.

and the perpetual wantign of power from the patriach- eventual pope- of rome

Or, rather, the lack of the Eastern Roman Emperor's control over the Pope, as opposed to the control over the clergy "back home".

driving the eastern and western sections fo the empire further apart from oen another, well before the full seperation happend.

You do realize that by the time the Pope became of serious influence, the Western Roman Empire was already separate from the Eastern Roman Empire, right?

not all by itsefl- but it woudl have certinalyl helped the empire get back on its feat without all those rifts-

The Greeks still exist, despite the lack of Christianity, and aren't 100% Roman. Here's a rift for you. The Huns exist as well, and still push the "barbarians" into Roman territory. That was one of the important reasons of the Empire's collapse, speeding it up by possibly more then a century or even two.

 

[Xen]

Yes. When Christianity appeared. When there are two people of the same religion, there are at least three different viewpoints on that religion.

right- but th emajor seeds were lain when Rome became an important center for the christian relgion

Technically, there is an opinion that he was killed by the Persians. And conspiracies... sorry. That rarely works out.

the christians claim he was struck by lightin gin th emiddel of a battle with the persians- hardley a basis for fact- and thiers also the little thing about late roman history- conspiracy is almost always the answer to everything.

[/quote]
Or, rather, the lack of the Eastern Roman Emperor's control over the Pope, as opposed to the control over the clergy "back home".[/quote]
so? dosetn matter to me why it happend- only that it did happen, and it was christianity that caused it- you certinalyl dont see anythign liek that happenign while the traidtional roman religion was the main, or for the period SOl Invictus was the patron of the empire.


[/quote]
You do realize that by the time the Pope became of serious influence, the Western Roman Empire was already separate from the Eastern Roman Empire, right?[/quote]
correction- by the time the pope became a serios influnce out side italy- which, just happend to be by the time of constantine, the only real province worth noting in the west anyway, as it influcned the res to fthe west; and while this didnt mean pope power, at first, it did mean that a seperaration between the east and italy would -as it duelly did- becoem a pseraration between all fo the west and east

[/quote]
The Greeks still exist, despite the lack of Christianity, and aren't 100% Roman. Here's a rift for you. The Huns exist as well, and still push the "barbarians" into Roman territory. That was one of the important reasons of the Empire's collapse, speeding it up by possibly more then a century or even two.[/QUOTE]

the greeks seemd to be rpoud of thier roman citizens hip (looks at the Byzantine empire callig itself roman), and the huns were delt with even in the sad state the empire was- a stronger Rome, or a stronger colatition fo Roman states would have been able to smack the huns back faster, and far more effectivlly then the barelly bale feild army in the west was able to repulse the Huns in OTL.

 

[das]

right- but th emajor seeds were lain when Rome became an important center for the christian relgion

Please tell me how Mithraism would have been better, btw.

Roman Empire was beginning to stagnate when Christianity was yet another tiny Hebrew sect.

the christians claim he was struck by lightin gin th emiddel of a battle with the persians

I mean that he was struck by a Persian sword on his head rather then by a lightning. Not that it matters, IMHO.

so? dosetn matter to me why it happend- only that it did happen

Not a very serious approach. Empires collapse for reasons, you know.

you certinalyl dont see anythign liek that happenign while the traidtional roman religion was the main, or for the period SOl Invictus was the patron of the empire.

Because those religions were more decentralized, and because there was no viable figure to play the part of the Pope. Technically, it could have been possible with Mithraism...

But you have to realize that religious factor is not the only one.

becoem a pseraration between all fo the west and east

So you think that if the Pope failed to rise to prominence, Roman Empire would have been reunited?

the greeks seemd to be rpoud of thier roman citizens hip

So what? They still were different. Eastern Roman Empire was distinct culturally from Western Roman Empire, even without Christianity. In fact, as you already said, Christianity was split due to there being DIFFERENT people in the west and the east.

the huns were delt with even in the sad state the empire was

Yes. Bribed off, largely.

And Huns were not as important (if they had ANY importance at all) as the dinamo effect that they started. The "barbarian" migration into Roman territory which effectively sped up the Empire's fall.