Alternate History Thread III

[North King]

Dunno about that, there are arguments to be made over the scientific method and much else of european society being at least contingent on the Christian world-view, a world without Christianity or Islam would be very different from our current one, and hard to create from our perspective...

Not quite. Christianity was the manifestation of our cultural beliefs, not the other way around.

 

[silver 2039]

@Strategos sounds intreasting...are you going to make that into a NES?

 

[LittleBoots]

Not quite. Christianity was the manifestation of our cultural beliefs, not the other way around.

Bah. Defend that.

 

[das]

It would be intreasting to preseve the classical civillizations and the polythestic religons....

Its pretty hard to preserve any elements of human culture, at least in an unchanged state. The classical civilisations for one thing would have probably been overran regardless, though possibly assimilating the invading barbarians.

Well not terribly...you can just extrapolate Mithras, Nordic religions, Zoroastrianism, etc.

Etc indeed. Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and Buddhism seem to be the most prospective religions. I do believe that something could be made out of Slavic polytheism, as it was certainly evolving and taking on more organised forms. Sadly the Vikings mostly ruined all that in OTL...

Without Christianity, they would not have suffered as many defections, leading to a stronger party that could have possibly set their own agenda, which would mean over time an increasing likelihood of negotiation with the Romans.

I don't think there were all that many defections, after all Christianity was completely marginal back then.

3) Religious plurality would have dominated, with the latest eastern mystery religions being popular in the cities. Many of the most popular religions would incorporate anti-material world strains which would have lead to either extreme indulgence or extreme denial on the part of their adherents. There would be more focus on religious “tolerance” without much of the religious bickering that occurred post-Constantine.

However, for how long can that last? I suspect that more populist religions would still eventually rise to predominate. An evolved version of some mystery religion, or perhaps Judaism or Zoroastrianism.

It is highly unlikely that they would care about Plato or Aristotle, or the like, so if the right conditions are met, there is a good possibility of completely losing Greek and Roman knowledge and art (without the Catholic Church to preserve it).

In the west, yes, but in the east I'd imagine that the knowledge would still be preserved to some degree (considering that the east was already good at preserving bits and pieces of past civilisations).

The Arabs probably would still create an empire, though without religion holding it together it wouldn’t last long.

I wouldn't say it was held together by religion (after all, it was if anything DESTROYED by religion - well, that and warlords, and eventually barbarians - and instead was held together by the civil service system adapted from the Persians).

Maybe if Romans began persecution and genocide of Jewish people, then Christianity might not have been born.

So basically you want an earlier Judean rebellion?

Had the fight not been taken to the romans, the Hashmonaim would remain in power.

Only, they would have either become puppets of the Romans or would have been attacked by the Romans anyway, making your point kinda moot.

 

[The Strategos]

@silver: No, no plans at the current time.

I don't think there were all that many defections, after all Christianity was completely marginal back then.

If you consider the New Testament to be at least somewhat historically reliable (and for the sake of argument lets suppose for now it is) most of the early Jewish converts were from the Pharisaic party. Which only makes sense, of writing about the similarities between early Jewish Christianity and Pharisees there has been no end. An argument could easily be made that the reason early Christianity was persecuted by Judaism was because it was taking so many followers from the traditional powers. And it was evidently strong enough among the Jews in Rome that it caused a riot in 49 CE, leading Emperor Claudius to issue a dispel all Jews from Rome (Suetonius, Claudius 25.4 and yes, I do realize this is a debated passage, but I am reasonably confident if you tried to call me out on it, I could successfully defend the fact that it refers to Christ[ians]).

However, for how long can that last? I suspect that more populist religions would still eventually rise to predominate. An evolved version of some mystery religion, or perhaps Judaism or Zoroastrianism.

Excepting Judaism, without Christianity all religions, bar none, would be syncretistic, not demanding exclusive loyalty (with possible exceptions being the higher ranks of some mystery religions, because they were, well mysteries, we can’t say for sure). There is no reason for one to rise to predominate because there is no reason for people to choose only one. And that’s only in the cities. The countryside would hold fast to their traditions just as fiercely, if not more fiercely as they did in OTL. Excepting the golden words of poets, “Zeus” and other gods were regional deities associated with rocks, rivers, and local shrines, not a universal concept.

In the west, yes, but in the east I'd imagine that the knowledge would still be preserved to some degree (considering that the east was already good at preserving bits and pieces of past civilisations).

I suppose it would depend on invasion patterns and how long an eastern empire could last. I think that the east’s success in preservation was do as much to the fact of a relatively stable and continuous empire than any differences in the behavior of the west vs. east.

I wouldn't say it was held together by religion (after all, it was if anything DESTROYED by religion - well, that and warlords, and eventually barbarians - and instead was held together by the civil service system adapted from the Persians).

Religion provided a thread of cultural continuity in all new conquests and motivated the learning of Arabic so that one could read the holy text, which provided linguistic unity. Leaders were endowed with religious significance, defusing the possibilities of rebellions. Religion provided motivation not only to conquer, but to incorporate, they were after lasting conversions, which would naturally lead them to undertake projects to ensure their religion’s lasting hold on the area, projects of both religious and civil nature. In addition, their leaders were elected, not succession by blood. Taken all together, without Islam, I would argue, there would be more rebellions, earlier, combined with succession wars. Thus, the Arab Empire would be just like other “barbarian” empires, fast growing, initially successful, that were victims of their own success and quickly imploded within a generation or two.

 

[das]

bar none

Not even Zoroastrianism? Though it was syncretic with the traditional Persian beliefs, or rather an evolutionary development of said beliefs.

There is no reason for one to rise to predominate because there is no reason for people to choose only one.

Wouldn't say. Already the fact that Christianity could ascend like it did in OTL points to the existance of reasons for just that. Admittedly Christianity was a fluke to some extent, but the aforementioned reasons would not simply disappear with it. Although it would probably take some state support, so as long as Rome is so decentralised I agree that chances are low of any strongly-organised and populistic religions rising to serious prominence. Still, some general striving to reunite the Empire might want to propagate such a religion.

I think that the east’s success in preservation was do as much to the fact of a relatively stable and continuous empire than any differences in the behavior of the west vs. east.

Actually I speak about the Middle East historically. I'd also imagine that as long as the Greeks survive they would maintain at least some of their cultural legacy. Barbarians may be assimilated given some time.

Religion provided a thread of cultural continuity in all new conquests and motivated the learning of Arabic so that one could read the holy text, which provided linguistic unity. Leaders were endowed with religious significance, defusing the possibilities of rebellions. Religion provided motivation not only to conquer, but to incorporate, they were after lasting conversions, which would naturally lead them to undertake projects to ensure their religion’s lasting hold on the area, projects of both religious and civil nature.

True (except for the rebellions; as I had already mentioned, the worst rebellions faced by the Arabs were religious - Islamic religious, furthermore - in nature, and religious factors did go a long way to undermine the Caliphate). However, I still say that religion was not the only thing holding the empire together (incidentally, mightn't the Arabs pick up a version of Judaism? There were precedents even before Khazaria, I think, and Judaism would thrive well in the post-Arabic environment unless it is wiped out first, which would be very hard to achieve considering OTL Jewish persistance). The Arab Empire was doomed either way, as shown by its OTL collapse, and in this world it would have less cultural continuity. Incidentally, Arabic people might evolve like the European Germannics did in OTL, adapting scraps of local culture (from east to west: Persian, Syrian, Jewish, Hellenistic Egyptian and Romano-Berber) and forming more unique regional cultural identities.

 

[Cuivienen]

6) Without Christianity, Islam most likely wouldn’t form. The Arabs probably would still create an empire, though without religion holding it together it wouldn’t last long.

etc., etc.

I disagree that the Arabs would still have created an empire. They needed a strong unifiying figure to do so, and, without a religion uniquely their own, it is highly unlikely that they would have united. What i would instead expect is a still-backward Arabian peninsula, but with the most renowned mercenaries in the world, hired out throughout the Mediterranean, Middle East and India.

The Romans probably would have been able to hold together at least some of their territory without internal religious disputes making the situation worse, though obviously Britannia, Lugdunensis and Tarraconensis would still be lost, and probably Syria-Palaestina as well. Still, I imagine the Romans "surviving" as a ring of loosely connected city states around the Mediterranean, each theoretically owing homage to an Emperor in Rome.

 

[das]

Well, thus far the Roman situation has been developing quite realistically in that althist. Not sure if internal religious disputes would be their main weakness, though.

 

[The Strategos]

Not even Zoroastrianism? Though it was syncretic with the traditional Persian beliefs, or rather an evolutionary development of said beliefs.

Zoroastrianism was relatively syncretistic when it moved to India, and one could argue that Manichaeism was the western syncretistic form.

Wouldn't say. Already the fact that Christianity could ascend like it did in OTL points to the existance of reasons for just that. Admittedly Christianity was a fluke to some extent, but the aforementioned reasons would not simply disappear with it. Although it would probably take some state support, so as long as Rome is so decentralised I agree that chances are low of any strongly-organised and populistic religions rising to serious prominence. Still, some general striving to reunite the Empire might want to propagate such a religion.

Emperor worship worked out just fine as the unifying principle until Constantine. But I’m not arguing that there won’t be state supported religions, in my “Eternal Wait” timeline, I have Mithras as the “official” religion of the east. But just because something is “official” does not mean that it would be empire wide. Just look at “Sol Invictus” the official (i.e. state sponsored) religion of the Roman Empire under several Emperors including Elagabalus, who first introduced it, and Aurelian. Yet it never really became the dominant religion of the realm at any point. Later on Arianism also enjoyed the status of “official” religion of the Empire (and even later as the official religion of various “barbarian” successor kingdoms) yet it too didn’t survive.

Actually I speak about the Middle East historically. I'd also imagine that as long as the Greeks survive they would maintain at least some of their cultural legacy. Barbarians may be assimilated given some time.

There is a difference between preserving “cultural legacy” and preserving, say Aristotle. Just think of how many of his works we’ve lost even with the efforts of Muslims and Christians copying his works in various monasteries.

True (except for the rebellions; as I had already mentioned, the worst rebellions faced by the Arabs were religious - Islamic religious, furthermore - in nature, and religious factors did go a long way to undermine the Caliphate). However, I still say that religion was not the only thing holding the empire together (incidentally, mightn't the Arabs pick up a version of Judaism? There were precedents even before Khazaria, I think, and Judaism would thrive well in the post-Arabic environment unless it is wiped out first, which would be very hard to achieve considering OTL Jewish persistance). The Arab Empire was doomed either way, as shown by its OTL collapse, and in this world it would have less cultural continuity. Incidentally, Arabic people might evolve like the European Germannics did in OTL, adapting scraps of local culture (from east to west: Persian, Syrian, Jewish, Hellenistic Egyptian and Romano-Berber) and forming more unique regional cultural identities.

My only point was that the Arab Empire wouldn’t last as long or cover as wide of an area. I think you agree with me on this main point and we are just arguing about or respective reasons for thinking this. In which case I’ll say half of my reasons are right and half of yours are right and call a truce.

I disagree that the Arabs would still have created an empire. They needed a strong unifiying figure to do so, and, without a religion uniquely their own, it is highly unlikely that they would have united. What i would instead expect is a still-backward Arabian peninsula, but with the most renowned mercenaries in the world, hired out throughout the Mediterranean, Middle East and India.

You could say the same thing about the Mongols, or the Huns, or a host of other tribes that were disunited, became united under one leader who built a large empire, and (relatively) quickly imploded. I’m not saying the Arabs would unite at the same time as they did in OTL, but I would be mildly surprised if they didn’t eventually unite, no matter how briefly.

The Romans probably would have been able to hold together at least some of their territory without internal religious disputes making the situation worse, though obviously Britannia, Lugdunensis and Tarraconensis would still be lost, and probably Syria-Palaestina as well. Still, I imagine the Romans "surviving" as a ring of loosely connected city states around the Mediterranean, each theoretically owing homage to an Emperor in Rome.

Internal religious disputes weren’t even close to being as important as individual generals deciding they wanted to be Emperor and tribes outside of the realm deciding they would rather be inside the realm, and then rebelling once they got inside. With or without Christianity, these two things wouldn’t change. Internal religious disputes were more of a factor in Byzantine Empire.

 

[North King]

Bah. Defend that.

Feel free to attack it.

Religions rarely define a nation's culture; usually, a religion is formed as an expression of one part of that culture. The greater freedom of thought of the Renaissance sparked the Reformation, not the other way around. Buddhism was a focus of the beliefs of wandering Indian ascetics who already existed prior to the religion. On a more basic level, Animism was adopted mostly because people relied so heavily on the earth that they grew to regard it as holy.

 

[silver 2039]

No, no plans at the current time.

Would you mind if I modded it then?

 

[Cuivienen]

Internal religious disputes weren’t even close to being as important as individual generals deciding they wanted to be Emperor and tribes outside of the realm deciding they would rather be inside the realm, and then rebelling once they got inside. With or without Christianity, these two things wouldn’t change. Internal religious disputes were more of a factor in Byzantine Empire.

You are vastly underestimating the impact of the "Arian controversy" on ancient Rome. Constantius II's ability to rule was severely reduced by his Arian beliefs, which he attempted to impose on the rest of the Empire. Many of the revolts started during his reign were, at least ostensibly, attempts to restore the edicts of the First Council of Nicaea. Had they ot occurred, Constantine's peace would have been further ingrained into the society of the time, much like Augustus's long and peaceful reign brought Rome out of the chaos of the collapse of the Republic. (Similarly, Julian's attempts to return the empire to a pagan society were far more detrimental to the realm than any wars occurring during his rule.)

Assuming that everything goes more or less the same as historically up until Constantine's supposed conversion at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, which is is an easy assumption to make given the relative irrelevance of Christianity until that time, a no-Christianity timeline sees a reunited and rejuvenated Roman Empire under Constantine.

Constantine's reforms during his reign greatly reduced the power of the military and of generals to seize power, and, more importantly, served a period of calm during the past chaos could be put behind Rome. Would Rome have been able to resist the Huns and all of the other barbarian nations? Not entirely, of course, but enough for the Empire to survive, united, in both East and West. (I could see a later split emerging a couple of centuries down the line, though.)

 

[LittleBoots]

Admittedly Christianity was a fluke to some extent

Amen.

Religions rarely define a nation's culture; usually, a religion is formed as an expression of one part of that culture. The greater freedom of thought of the Renaissance sparked the Reformation, not the other way around. Buddhism was a focus of the beliefs of wandering Indian ascetics who already existed prior to the religion. On a more basic level, Animism was adopted mostly because people relied so heavily on the earth that they grew to regard it as holy.

Sorry, I was more contentious than I should have been. However, I do feel that since you asserted something, you should have to defend it without someone necessarily attacking it. Either way, I'll drop the issue. Sorry for the interruption

 

[The Strategos]

Would you mind if I modded it then?

Not at all, I’m about halfway done writing about the great Hunnic invasion which should bring it down to ~500-550 CE and which should be done by Sunday. How much longer would you like me to continue?

You are vastly underestimating the impact of the "Arian controversy" on ancient Rome. Constantius II's ability to rule was severely reduced by his Arian beliefs, which he attempted to impose on the rest of the Empire. Many of the revolts started during his reign were, at least ostensibly, attempts to restore the edicts of the First Council of Nicaea. Had they ot occurred, Constantine's peace would have been further ingrained into the society of the time, much like Augustus's long and peaceful reign brought Rome out of the chaos of the collapse of the Republic. (Similarly, Julian's attempts to return the empire to a pagan society were far more detrimental to the realm than any wars occurring during his rule.)

Of course, the three sons of Constantine fighting each other was only because of religious differences, it had nothing at all to do with personal ambition. And Magnentius’ revolt against Constans and later fight against Constantius II was popular because of Magnentius' non-Arian beliefs, except oh wait, Constans wasn’t Arian either. And then when Magnentius was defeated by Constantius II at Battle of Mursa Major which resulted in about 54,000 men that didn’t in any way reduce the ability of the Roman Empire to withstand future invasions. And then there was Silvanus’ “coup” which resulted from his enemies at court faking a letter which made him seem as if he were attempting to win support in Rome. And lets not forget Julian’s own rebellion which started when some of his troops revolted at Constantius’ command to transfer elements of his Gallic army, which were busy fighting off the Franks to the east where Constantius was fighting the Sassanids.

Assuming that everything goes more or less the same as historically up until Constantine's supposed conversion at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, which is is an easy assumption to make given the relative irrelevance of Christianity until that time, a no-Christianity timeline sees a reunited and rejuvenated Roman Empire under Constantine.

Constantine's reforms during his reign greatly reduced the power of the military and of generals to seize power, and, more importantly, served a period of calm during the past chaos could be put behind Rome. Would Rome have been able to resist the Huns and all of the other barbarian nations? Not entirely, of course, but enough for the Empire to survive, united, in both East and West. (I could see a later split emerging a couple of centuries down the line, though.)

No, it wouldn’t parallel OTL until Constantine for several reasons

1) It is possible (and is one of the many unnamed departures in my timeline) that Nero, without Christians to blame, would actually have received blame for the burning of Rome (as he had before he made Christians a scapegoat) and a revolt happen much earlier than 68 CE, which would change who became emperor later. You may respond he would just find another scapegoat, but who? One of the reasons Nero’s propaganda was believed was because, as Tacitus records, Christians practiced abominations and were haters of humankind (Annals 15.44). Jews? If so that might have sparked the Jewish revolt two years earlier, which would have profound effects on the Empire if it effects either Vespasian or Titus.

2) It’s effects on Judaism, chiefly the Jewish War, as I’ve previously laid out both in point one and elsewhere (and was half-heartedly argued against by das).

3) Plain old butterfly effect

 

[das]

Religions rarely define a nation's culture; usually, a religion is formed as an expression of one part of that culture. The greater freedom of thought of the Renaissance sparked the Reformation, not the other way around. Buddhism was a focus of the beliefs of wandering Indian ascetics who already existed prior to the religion. On a more basic level, Animism was adopted mostly because people relied so heavily on the earth that they grew to regard it as holy.

That's simplifying things a bit, isn't it? Still, generally it is true, though I would have changed "formed" in the first sentance to "adapted".

I also rather doubt that freedom of thought was more important than the general rise of social tensions and the concentration of the Papacy on temporal issues, but one can't deny it as a factor.

 

[North King]

That's simplifying things a bit, isn't it?

Not especially. More generalizing than simplifying.

Still, generally it is true, though I would have changed "formed" in the first sentance to "adapted".

I wouldn't; people form religions based on the mindset they already have. Unless you honestly believe that they copy down the words of god word for word, which I... do not.

 

[das]

However, personal mindsets tend to be extremelly diverse. I am talking about widely-accepted religions, which are those religions that fit the needs of the society in question most (but are, in their initial form, a product of a single person or a small group of people). That is what I mean.

 

[silver 2039]

Not at all, I’m about halfway done writing about the great Hunnic invasion which should bring it down to ~500-550 CE and which should be done by Sunday. How much longer would you like me to continue?

Hmmm...I think post-Hunnic invasion would be intreasting. Does Europe have a Dark Age after the Huns come in?

 

[das]

Read the althist, its already in a pretty horrid state. A bit like China of the 1920s (yes, I still am searching for the perfect OTL analogy).

 

[Azale]

Heres one I was thinking of after watching a show on Emperor Caligula...what if Germanicus had accepted to overthrow Emperor Tiberius instead of honorably refusing?