Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

They were important, but Judaism has never become a truly dualistic religion in the way that Zoroastrianism and, to a lesser degree, Christianity and Islam have. Nor are angels nearly as important in Judaism as they are in Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam. They form an interesting facet of Judaism and are important in Kabalah, but that is about it.

That is about it - in OTL, where Persianisation (Iranisation?) was interrupted by the Greeks and replaced with Hellenisation. Here, it will continue uninterrupted, and though the 5th century is too early, the 3rd or even 4th might already see a Persia-compatible Judaism.

thus a people who have lost complete faith in themselves and their traditions.

Quite debatable - Zoroastrianism was undergoing a renaissance just then, from what I recall.

to an external faith

Not as external as Islam.

They are a people at the height of national egotism.

And after the zenith comes the nadir, at which point search for a new religion will begin. Judaism will be perfectly positioned to take its rightful place. ;)

rather than asking them, as Judaism does, to redefine themselves as members of a completely different people.

As already said, it didn't strictly ask for that just yet. That part was still under development.

converting to one not of Iranic origin

How much does origin matter in an explicitly multi-national empire (an Achaemenid Persia triumphant over Greece is likely to become more multi-national than ever before, both in reality and in ideology, and here an unifying religion - whether an Iranic Abrahamic monotheism or a redefined Judaism - would be very useful as a means of tying it all together; a national Iranic religion would be just as useless as pre-Iranisation Judaism)?

And much more plausible.

Still not quite as interesting, though.

Lastly, IMHO terms like "national psychology" are grossly overrated. But that's just my humble opinion.
 
Chapter 1: Earth’s Funeral Dirge


Wars of Heaven
Chapter 2: Mouth of Sheol



From the beginning, there have been there have been those “with itching ears” who gather to themselves those who would tell all sorts of gossip. Knowing this, you sent me to the East, to determine for myself what is gossip and what is truth, and discovering it, to report back to you. Having been in the region now for three months, I have diligently investigated these matters and now report to you only that which I have seen with my own eyes.

I have found the East shattered by long-standing feuds, which have been subsisting between its peoples, and which now are tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout.” I have found the foxes destroying the vineyard of Christ, so that among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden enclosed.” In the fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, it bears fruit as a hundredfold, but here the seed corn is chocekd in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of Righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars.

Everywhere I turn my eyes towards, there the children of God are suffering, experiencing “mockings and scourgings, yes chains and imprisonment.” “The are stoned, they are sawn in two, they are tempted, they are put to death with the sword, they go about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated.” For in the East the Augustus goes about “like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”

For none are spared, neither on account of age, nor sex, nor station, nor dignity. I myself saw this as I sojourned in Alexandria. There, the most blessed pope Timothy, who was beloved of all, not only for his love of the truth, but for his upstanding character, and his care for the widows and orphans, was accosted by the soldiers of the Devil. (Now these soldiers claim to be Roman, but are barbarians, having neither culture nor fear for God). And there, while he was comforting his flock before the altar of God, he was seized, and dragged away. At the sight of this, that such an elderly and venerable man treated so roughly, the people arose with one mind, and attacked the soldiers, seeking to free him. But Timothy, sought to calm the crowd, reminding them that even Christ suffered, and so, if they loved him, they would let him suffer as well, and so to “fill that which was lacking in Christ’s afflictions.” But the people did not heed these words, such was the righteous anger they felt, and raised such a tumult that the soldiers feared for their lives. And now they have hid pope Timothy, so that no one knows whether he is alive or dead. And in his place they have installed Decius, a blasphemer and hater of God. On account of this every day there are riots in the streets.

Now of this and many other things I have much to tell you, which I shall quickly do if the Lord grants me to safety in my journey so that I may speedily see you.

-Letter from Jerome to Pope Damasus, 383 CE



Ever so slowly, the number of men claiming the title of “Augustus” was being whittled down. In the west, Magnus Maximus and Ennodius had defeated Merobaudes and Valentinian II, while in the east, Richomeres had killed Ammanius, uniting the east under his rule. Meanwhile, another claimant to the title, Frigeridus, had renounced his claim, in return being made Caesar of Illyria and Pannonia and granted protection by Ennodius. One would think that this would be enough to cause peace to descend upon the war-torn Empire, but, of course, one would be wrong.

It is easy to blame the failure of peace on religion, for the various sides were quick to justify their actions by appealing to the conveniently silent Divine. But of course, as is often the case, the easy answer is usually the wrong answer, or at the very least an insufficient answer. That is not to say that religion did not play a part. In the east, Richomeres moved to consolidate his recently won Empire by removing homoousion supporting bishops and replacing them with his own bishops from the homoiousion party. In several places, this policy provoked severe riots, most notably in Alexandria. This religious policy also caused friction with the homoousion supporting West, friction which was only inflamed by the verbal and written attacks against the homoiousions by talented theologians such as Ambrose of Milan and Jerome.

There were, as was said, other factors to the lack of peace. In the east, Richomeres courted with disaster by inviting over Germanic tribes to bolster the Roman armies decimated by recent wars. While these tribes, most notably the Goths, gave him his victories, they also proved a liability. In their newly established kingdoms in Macedonia and Achaia, the Goths gave only lip-service to their oaths of loyalty to Richomeres, doing what they wished as often as what Richomeres wished. In addition, the West, specifically Ennodius, had legitimatized and given protection to Richomeres’ rival Frigeridus, leading Richomeres to believe that they would eventually declare Frigeridus the rightful Eastern Augustus. Lastly, there were the personal pride and ambition of everyone involved, for the previous wars had quickly weeded out anyone who was not willing to do anything to attain and keep the royal purple.

Thus it seemed inevitable that the Empire would be again torn asunder, and, as is usually the case, what seemed inevitable proved to be inevitable. Using the persecution as his pretext, Ennodius launched an invasion of the East. This attack took two prongs. The first was an invasion led by Frigeridus from Pannonia into Richomeres’ European realms. This attack was proclaimed to be the liberation of Roman lands from the barbaric rule of the Goths and their weak puppet Richomeres. This front, however, would prove to be diversionary to the main theatre of Egypt. There, Ennodius personally led an army to “liberate” Egypt, especially Alexandria, and cut off Richomeres’ from the riches of Asia. Facing him was Richomeres’ son Theudemeres while Richomeres faced off against his old rival Frigeridus.

In the north, things went badly for the Westerners. Despite all the talk of “liberating” the East from the barbarians, Frigeridus’ own army was comprised mostly of Alans. Meanwhile, Richomeres’ army depended upon his Gothic allies which had given him victory so many times before. These two armies met near their old stomping grounds at Marcianopolis. Though the battle ended in a bloody draw, during the course of the battle, Frigeridus was killed. Leaderless, his army turned from an army into raiders, wandering around the burnt over territory of Moesia in search of loot. Judging these remnants as little threat, Richomeres took the bulk of the army south to meet the threat to Asia, leaving his nephew Arbogastes in charge of hunting down the remaining Alans.

Richomeres had good reason to hurry south. In Egypt, the advancing Ennodius was greeted as a liberator. Facing an army before him and revolt behind his lines, Theudemeres abandoned Alexandria, slowly retreating northward. In Alexandria, Ennodius moved rapidly to consolidate his position, deposing the “Pretender Pope” Decius and elevating a favorite of the Roman pope, his secretary Jerome, to the position. Jerome moved with rapidness, using the repressed fanaticism of his Alexandrian supporters to “cleanse,” sometimes forcibly, the various churches of Alexandria and reclaim them for orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, Ennodius managed to force a battle upon Theudemeres at Pelusium. Ennodius placed his undependable Egyptian levies on his left against the equally undependable Asiatic levies of his opponent, while his centre was occupied by the veterans legions of his own wars. Finally, on his right, he stationed his Numidian cavalry, reinforced by Arabic mercenaries which faced Theudemeres’ own Gothic cavalry. In the battle, the Gothic cavalry scattered the opposing cavalry, while Ennodius centre was victorious over their opposites. Ennodius' troops, however, proved more disciplined as the Goths immediately went to sack Ennodius' camp, while his own centre moved to help his left, routing that group as well. The Goths, finding themselves abandoned by the rest of the army, retreated, Ennodius, respecting the still formidable power represented by the Goths, refusing to pursue them. During the retreat, however, it was discovered that Theudemeres was missing, presumably being killed when his center collapsed.

Despite this, the entirety of the East did not fall immediately to Ennodius. One reason for this is that outside of Egypt, the homoiousion party reigned supreme in the East. Without the popular support he enjoyed in Egypt, Ennodius found it slow going against the heavily fortified cities of the East, as the homoiousion party rallied support against Ennodius, turning what Ennodius had planned on being a liberation of like-minded Romans into a war of conquest against a culturally different foe. In this task of conquest Ennodius faced the remnants of Theudemeres’ army, which was eventually reinforced by an army led by Richomeres himself.

What followed in the south was a stalemate. Both Emperors knew that they risked their lives and their Empires in a direct battle. Also, neither one of them had great confidence in their ability to win a battle, Richomeres because he was forced to rely so heavily on suspect troops, and Ennodius because he feared Richomeres’ reputation as a general. Thus, with neither one facing either problems at home, or supply problems which would cause them to act, they settled down to a stalemate. This stalemate was broken, not in the south, but in the north, by Richomeres’ nephew and now recognized heir, Arbogastes. By promising the raiding Alans large tracts of land in Pannonia, Arbogastes managed to convince the leaderless Alans to fight with him. With these troops, as well as his original troops, Arbogastes marched northward, invading the vulnerable West. Easily breaking through the West’s weakened defenses, Arbogastes seemed poised to march into Italy itself. This threat caused Ennodius to return with most of his army to Italy, leaving the defense of Egypt to his son, Julius.

Richomeres took this opportunity to launch a renewed attack on Egypt, smashing the weakened army facing him, killing Julius in the process. Jerome, the Patriarch of Alexandria, took over overseeing the defenses of Egypt, but as Richomeres approached Alexandria, resistance seemed futile, though Jerome refused all council to flee the city. Taking matters into their own hands, some of Jerome’s followers kidnapped the stubborn prelate, depositing him in the relative safety of the monks of the Egyptian desert. When Richomeres finally fought his way into Alexandria, he went on a rampage, making a river from the blood of all those he suspected of treason or who were labeled as leaders of the homoousion party.

But while all homoiousions rejoiced at this as a sign of God’s favor, it appeared as if God decided to rain down both blessings and cursings. For news further West looked increasingly grim. The other Western Augustus, Magnus Maximus, a firm persecutor of those he deemed “heretics” in his own lands, decided that he couldn’t risk the prospect of heretics prospering outside of his lands either. Thus, he declared war on Richomeres, enforcing his declaration with a large army. Arbogastes, finding himself facing not one, but two armies, was forced slowly backwards, losing the lands he had so recently gained. Meanwhile, the reconquest of Egypt was tying down large numbers of Richomeres’ troops, so that he could not afford to spare any to help his nephew.

As it so happened, Arbogastes received something almost as good as fresh legions, the attentions of Lady Luck. Perhaps because of personal jealousy, or some other reason, Magnus Maximus and Ennodius refused to cooperate with each other, though each maintained an army on the field against Arbogastes. Eventually, the gap between the two armies became wide enough for Arbogastes to attempt to use his interior lines to defeat first one enemy, before then turning on the other. The first one to receive his attack was Magnus Maximus, whose military reputation earned through the wars against Merobaudes proved to be greater than his actual skill. The rapid march of Arbogastes’ cavalry caught Magnus of guard. Despite that, however, the best of Magnus’ troops, led by his brother Marcellinus, fought a sharp action in an attempt to buy the rest of the army time to ready itself. However, outnumbered and outmaneuvered, Marcellinus’ delaying action failed, and the rest of the army, seeing their best troops scattered, themselves took to flight. In the retreat, Magnus was captured by Arbogastes’ fast moving cavalry, and put to death by the victorious general. Magnus’ son, Victor, proved to have little stomach for the fight and led the remnants of the shattered army back to his slice of the Empire.

This action left only Ennodius opposing Arbogastes. Ennodius, fearing that he would be caught of guard like Magnus was, immediately stopped and fortified his position. Arbogastes, however, in a series of forced marches managed to get behind Ennodius, coming between Ennodius’ army and Italy. Realizing that cut off from his territory, he now had to fight, Ennodius marched out to do battle. However, every step of his march, his army came under harassing attacks by the fast moving cavalry of his enemy, so that by the time the two main armies actually met, Ennodius’ army was low on morale and sapped of its strength. A quick charge by Arbogastes’ personal guard of loyal Franks broke the wavering soldiers, while the Alans and Goths pursued the fleeing enemy until dark.

Victorious in battle, with the enemy reeling, Arbogastes marched into Rome. However, instead of conquering it in the name of his uncle, he did something entirely unexpected, he made himself Augustus of the West.
 
Meanwhile, Ennodius managed to force a battle upon Theudemeres at Pelusium. Ennodius placed his undependable Egyptian levies on his left against the equally undependable Asiatic levies of his opponent, while his centre was occupied by the veterans legions of his own wars. Finally, on his right, he stationed his Numidian cavalry, reinforced by Arabic mercenaries which faced Theudemeres’ own Gothic cavalry. In the battle, the Gothic cavalry scattered the opposing cavalry, while Theudemeres centre was victorious over their opposites. Theudemeres’ troops, however, proved more disciplined as the Goths immediately went to sack Theudemeres’ camp, while his own centre moved to help his left, routing that group as well. The Goths, finding themselves abandoned by the rest of the army, retreated, Theudemeres, respecting the still formidable power represented by the Goths, refusing to pursue them. During the retreat, however, it was discovered that Theudemeres was missing, presumably being killed when his center collapsed.

Confusing passage, though maybe its just me reading it wrong. Why would Theudemeres' Goths sack his own camp, especially if his center is victorious? Or did it collapse, as implied later? Judging from later portions, it did.

Aside from that, a great and immersing read, as usual. Straightforward logic would suggest that this would result, ultimately, in an earlier fall of the Western Empire, but it might not be as simple as this.
 
Confusing passage, though maybe its just me reading it wrong. Why would Theudemeres' Goths sack his own camp, especially if his center is victorious? Or did it collapse, as implied later? Judging from later portions, it did.

Well the confusion just might be caused by the fact that except for the first instance, it should be "Ennodius" not Theudemeres. Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed it in the original.

Aside from that, a great and immersing read, as usual. Straightforward logic would suggest that this would result, ultimately, in an earlier fall of the Western Empire, but it might not be as simple as this.

It is not as simple as that, but it is not too much more complicated either.

For the hypothetical person who actually cares, the plan is right now for the next section I write to cover up to about 630 CE, which will obviously be a drastic jump compared to the time covered in the previous two sections. After that, there will be one or two more installments which will bring us up to some time between 700-1100 CE, the exact time not having been decided yet.
 
Will read your new installment as soon as I respond to this Strategos.
That is about it - in OTL, where Persianisation (Iranisation?) was interrupted by the Greeks and replaced with Hellenisation. Here, it will continue uninterrupted, and though the 5th century is too early, the 3rd or even 4th might already see a Persia-compatible Judaism.
I highly doubt that. Helenisation on Judaism, while having an important effect, is almost always exagerated. Judaism is very much a Judaic religion and that is not about to change. There would, of course, be more Iranic influence on Judaism than in OTL, but it would not go to the point of making Judaism basically a monothesitic Iranic religion. Iranic Dualism, for instance, would never be fully absorbed into Judaism. The basis of Jewish theology is simply to opposed to it.
Quite debatable - Zoroastrianism was undergoing a renaissance just then, from what I recall.
It is true Zoroastrianism was undergoing something of a renaissance, at least it was until the whole bloody nation was horribly easily conquered by zealous Muslims in a massive jihad.
Not as external as Islam.
The differance in degree of externalism here is minor. However, what is important is that Islam already had a rather Dualistic understanding and a heavily Iranisised system of theology. While the Jews as a culture were slightly more relatable to the Persians in Xerxes' era than the Arabs were to the Persians in the jihad era, the Muslim religion is much more in line with Iranic thinking than Judaism to the point of outweighing the difference in relatability. Additionally, as I pointed out, the national psychology/egotism of Persia in the two time periods is near polarity. Whether you like it or not, that fact is incredibly important here.
And after the zenith comes the nadir, at which point search for a new religion will begin. Judaism will be perfectly positioned to take its rightful place. ;)
Some form of monotheism? Yes. Judaism? No.
As already said, it didn't strictly ask for that just yet. That part was still under development.
I would beg to differ. Jewish identity was, indeed, more porous at that point in history than it is now, but that does not dispute the fact that Judaism even then demanded reidentification of cultural identity, something a country as egotistical as Persia never could do. If Judaism at that time did not require national reidentification of its converts, then it would have easily swept over the Middle East in OTL from the begining, rather then having to wait millenia for non-national variants (Christianity and Islam) to do the job for it.
How much does origin matter in an explicitly multi-national empire (an Achaemenid Persia triumphant over Greece is likely to become more multi-national than ever before, both in reality and in ideology, and here an unifying religion - whether an Iranic Abrahamic monotheism or a redefined Judaism - would be very useful as a means of tying it all together; a national Iranic religion would be just as useless as pre-Iranisation Judaism)?
This would definately be your best arguments, but it is still flawed. The Persian Empire, while multiethnic, was distinctly Iranian. The Persians strove to export their culture (though in a much nicer fashion than its predecessors in the Middle East) everywhere they went, and they were successful at it. Even in the early Alexandrine Empire the Persian culture triumphed, at least temporarily, over the Hellenic culture. Persia was seen as the cultural center of the world, its people the ones copied not the ones who coppied. In a TL where Persia does not fall to Alexander, this is even more true. Meanwhile, the Jews were the runts of the Middle East, constantly being conquered and dispersed, unable to contend with its neighbours for power or even to defend its own people. While Judaic religion would have been the perfect binding force of the Persian Empire, it would have had to be presented in a distinctly Iranic package.
Still not quite as interesting, though.
I actually find it more interesting. I would love, as an alt hist writer, to fashion a hybrid Iranic-Jewish religion and see where it goes. And, in any case, sometimes one has to sacrifice that which is interesting to have that which is realistic.
Lastly, IMHO terms like "national psychology" are grossly overrated. But that's just my humble opinion.
In some cricles you are entirely right. I mean, trying to define history by diagnosing nations with Oedipus and Electra complex is psychotic in and of itself. However, one can not simply dismiss the significance of national ego (is that term better for you?) because a few nuts take it too far. The psychology/ego of a nation is very important in terms of defining key aspects of cultural transmission and intermingling, which is exactly what we are talking about here.
 
The differance in degree of externalism here is minor. However, what is important is that Islam already had a rather Dualistic understanding and a heavily Iranisised system of theology.

I think you're massively overestimating the dualism of Islam and the monotheism of Judaism. Islam was strongly monotheistic, far more than Zoroastrianism: "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet." Doesn't leave much room for doubt. Judaism also definitely has strong beliefs on what quantify good and evil. I think Islam wasn't that much more similar to Persian beliefs than the Jews were.

I would still not think the Persians would accept Judaism, however, from the standpoint that Islam only was imposed on them because of conquest. A similar conquest of Persia by a Jewish state would have to occur.
 
I think you're massively overestimating the dualism of Islam and the monotheism of Judaism. Islam was strongly monotheistic, far more than Zoroastrianism: "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet." Doesn't leave much room for doubt. Judaism also definitely has strong beliefs on what quantify good and evil. I think Islam wasn't that much more similar to Persian beliefs than the Jews were.
You mistake what I mean. I agree with you that in terms of ditheism, Islam was no closer to Zoroastrianism than Judaism was. However, when I say Dualistic, I am not refering to the concept of two g-ds, but rather of the polarised and constantly waring good and evil (a strong force behind the jihads).
I would still not think the Persians would accept Judaism, however, from the standpoint that Islam only was imposed on them because of conquest. A similar conquest of Persia by a Jewish state would have to occur.
Very similar to what I was saying about national psychology. However, I would argue that it is possible for Persia to be converted without being conquered, it just would need to be in a much more vulnerable position psychologically (which, admittadly, is almost always produce through conquest).
 
Valid arguments all, Israelite, though I think you exaggerate the Iranisation of Islam. The possibilities of Dualism and suchlike in Judaism are debatable, but it would seem that, for instance, Persian influence resulted in a more negative view of Satan (as seen in Samuel).

Also, I still think you and NK are being too categorical about the impossibility of Judaism's peaceful spread in Persia. I still claim it would be possible (though by no means probable), given the right situation and the right contemporary religious leaders. Still, I do once again agree that Abrahamic Iranian religion is more likely, and interesting in its own right.

(which, admittadly, is almost always produce through conquest).

Who conquered Russia in the early 20th century? The Roman Empire in the 4th AD? And so on. Yes, it can be brought on by foreign conquest (but it can also unite the population around traditional culture in resistance) - but also by civil war, or by simple intense social strife. Not all that hard to achieve, in the long run.
 
Practical impossibility. ;) There are many more religions for it to convert to, and the advantages of Judaism for the Persians would be few.
 
here are many more religions for it to convert to, and the advantages of Judaism for the Persians would be few.

In 5th-3rd centuries BC, how many other religions are there for them to convert to? And would not, say, Hinduism be even less useful?
 
In 5th-3rd centuries BC, how many other religions are there for them to convert to? And would not, say, Hinduism be even less useful?

Zoroastrianism could simply be given more prominence. Otherwise, there are innumerable other faiths which never got recognized by the greater history of the world... Judaism simply is not all that practical for the Persians to convert to. It's a small minority religion on the fringe of their empire which has a number of restricting beliefs. Hinduism is more unlikely, yes, which is why I think they probably simply would not convert to anything unusual.
 
It's a small minority religion on the fringe of their empire which has a number of restricting beliefs.

As I already said a countless amount of time, they weren't quite so restrictive - or, at least, so settled on being restrictive - back then. Hellenic rule and subsequent reaction had a lot to do with that. With a stable Persian government Judaism may yet evolve into a proselytising faith. Or a different, Persian monotheism might arise.

Achaemenid-era Zoroastrianism strikes me as a bit too populist a faith to be good for an extensive, multinational and increasingly elitist Persian Empire. I agree it has pretty good chances of winning, but it is not the faith that would help preserve a greater Persian Empire, which seems to be the purpose here.
 
It's own weight, more or less. It was far too large for the wealth it had, and so fell to pieces after a long period of pressure. It's highly unlikely in my view that anything could have been done to save it.
 
Well, it seems to have been doing fine up to about 405-11 ish. Before that, people could legitimately call Rome a "success story".
 
Too large, cruddy rulers, deterioration of the Roman army, and more external pressures due to various barbarian peoples migrating in from Asia.
 
Well, it seems to have been doing fine up to about 405-11 ish. Before that, people could legitimately call Rome a "success story".

Even before then, however, the cracks were showing. The mere fact that massive parts of the empire could break off--the Gallic Empire comes to mind--even if they were recovered, shows its fragility, and combined with some serious economic issues... I don't see how Rome could have survived.
 
The point was effectively made quite a while ago that if you changed the outcome of the Teutoburg Forest, Germanica would in time have been pacified like Britain, perhaps to the Elbe, this being a period when Rome was still at its zenith in expansionary terms.

A stable Germanica would then send Germanic tribes fleeing in an eastward migration that would, in time displace all the proto-Slavs and send them scattering towards the Black Sea and the Urals. Obviously all of this will buy time for Rome to create a more stable (and smaller) frontier.
 
Oh, I don't know that breakaway states are such a big problem - the United States seems to have done well enough. ;) IIRC the Gallic Empire under Postumus and the rest was more of an arrangement where the central government was unable to take care of barbarian pressure, and so was outed until they came back in to reestablish order under Aurelian "the Restorer of the World". The same sort of thing happened when Honorius had to deal with Radagaisus in 406, and at the same time a swarm of Germanic tribes like the Suevi, Burgundians, and Vandals came across the Rhine frontier. Under those circumstances, Constantine "III" decided to take the British legions and seize Gaul for himself...

Azale said:
deterioration of the Roman army
How?
 
Breakaway states are not the cause of the fall, they are symptoms. The causes are that the empire was falling to pieces culturally and especially economically.
 
Top Bottom