How would you change history?

[Dachs]

The Romans were too adament to allow anyone who wasn't Roman born into their society.

 

[LightSpectra]

Not sure : Without Christians, maybe not monotheim as "dominant" religion in the Empire. The others religions were far more tolerant, and monotheists have the habit to be more loyal to their priests than to their country.

lol at "other religions were more tolerant than Christianity." Which ones? Judaism, perhaps, which had not been the state religion of any nation for a millennium. Otherwise, who?

Christianity was a big blunder to the liberties and to the progress in the Empire.

Au contraire, the Catholic Church was the primary sponsor for the formulators of human rights and scientific achievements; as monks were the primary scientists in the Middle Ages, and the Church established several universities and observatories.

 

[Karalysia]

lol at "other religions were more tolerant than Christianity." Which ones? Judaism, perhaps, which had not been the state religion of any nation for a millennium. Otherwise, who?



Au contraire, the Catholic Church was the primary sponsor for the formulators of human rights and scientific achievements; as monks were the primary scientists in the Middle Ages, and the Church established several universities and observatories.

Greco-Roman polytheism, Roman mystery religions such as Mithra, Zoroastrianism. And really pretty much any polytheistic, animistic, shamanistic, and "pagan" religion.

 

[Dachs]

Greco-Roman polytheism, Roman mystery religions such as Mithra, Zoroastrianism. And really pretty much any polytheistic, animistic, shamanistic, and "pagan" religion.

Tolerance is burying foreigners alive because totally unrelated foreigners are beating your armies?

 

[Karalysia]

Tell that to Julianus.

He never attempted to destroy Christianity only remove it from the elite.

 

[Dachs]

He never attempted to destroy Christianity only remove it from the elite.

So...what was the point behind closing the Antiochene cathedral?

 

[LightSpectra]

The Roman state religion was so tolerant, they only massacred Jews and Christians like, twelve times for not deifying the emperor.

It's difficult to say anything general about "pagan religions" because they're all different. Christians certainly suffered persecutions in Germania and Lithuania prior to their Christianization, though others -- such as various Native American cultures -- were very accepting of missionaries.

 

[Plotinus]

Not sure : Without Christians, maybe not monotheim as "dominant" religion in the Empire. The others religions were far more tolerant, and monotheists have the habit to be more loyal to their priests than to their country.

Christianity was a big blunder to the liberties and to the progress in the Empire.

I don't really see how traditional Roman pagan religion could be considered "far more tolerant" than Christianity, given that it tortured and executed people for failing to follow it. Roman Christians did not start doing that until the time of Justinian. Despite the formulation of various laws proscribing variant forms of Christianity or other religions in the latter half of the fourth century, Christianity was, in practice, a far more tolerant religion than traditional Roman paganism ever was.

Roman paganism was far more syncretistic than Christianity was, of course. But it's a mistake to suppose that that means it was more tolerant.

As for Julian, he certainly wished to eradicate Christianity if at all possible. He merely sought to do so through non-violent means.

 

[HistoryFan]

I'd beg Benedict Arnold not to switch sides. He was truly a war hero for the AMERICANS. Not a bad guy, he got screwed over so many times, eventually enough was enough! And now he's the punch line of school kid's jokes.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

I would make Archduke Ferdan not exsist so that WW1 would'nt happen, WW2, and so forth.

 

[LightSpectra]

I would make Archduke Ferdan not exsist so that WW1 would'nt happen, WW2, and so forth.

The notion that WWI would've been entirely averted hadn't it been for Gavrilo Princip is a bit silly. There's a reason the assassination is called the "powder keg" of the war: because it was really a result of several decades of militarism, nationalism, alliances, protectionism, diplomatic gaffes, revanchism, imperialism, so on and so forth.

 

[Squonk]

Julianus was a graeco - roman monotheist... sort of.

 

[Dachs]

The notion that WWI would've been entirely averted hadn't it been for Gavrilo Princip is a bit silly. There's a reason the assassination is called the "powder keg" of the war: because it was really a result of several decades of militarism, nationalism, alliances, protectionism, diplomatic gaffes, revanchism, imperialism, so on and so forth.

The notion that WWI was inevitable because of all that junk, flying in the face of a list of integrative and deterrent developments over the past several decades, is a bit silly.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I would make Archduke Ferdan not exsist so that WW1 would'nt happen, WW2, and so forth.

That would just mean that WWI would've been all the more destructive just a few years later.

 

[LightSpectra]

The notion that WWI was inevitable because of all that junk, flying in the face of a list of integrative and deterrent developments over the past several decades, is a bit silly.

The Balkans were only getting more restless, the French more frustrated by Germany, and the British more intimidated by a threat to their naval power. Perhaps if miraculously nothing set the war off in 10-20 years, the situation might've started to improve.

 

[Dachs]

I'm sure that's what they said about 1962 in an alternate universe where JFK lost it, too.

The Balkans were heating up, true, but in the last few decades things had started moving towards war without ever getting there in other contests. After Siam, Egypt, and Fashoda, it looked like the French were going to go ape[crap] on the UK. Never happened. The French weren't really 'getting more frustrated' with Germany - not sure where you're getting that from. And even Churchill admitted that the naval arms race with Germany didn't really matter after 1912.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Tell that to Julianus.

Or you know. Socrates. I loved when a philosophy professor told me with a serious face that the reason the middle ages produced no one on par with Socrates was because the Greeks were more tolerant.
"Didn't the Greeks have Socrates put to death for his teaching?"
"Yes...But until they did that, they were tolerant of him."

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Balkans were only getting more restless, the French more frustrated by Germany, and the British more intimidated by a threat to their naval power. Perhaps if miraculously nothing set the war off in 10-20 years, the situation might've started to improve.

Britain was always threatened by somebody's navy and France was no more frustrated then it had been for the past 40 some-odd years. The very fact that the news of the assassination was met by such an underwhelming response shows that no one was thinking war was "innevitable."

 

[Lord Baal]

Or you know. Socrates. I loved when a philosophy professor told me with a serious face that the reason the middle ages produced no one on par with Socrates was because the Greeks were more tolerant.
"Didn't the Greeks have Socrates put to death for his teaching?"
"Yes...But until they did that, they were tolerant of him."

Some people shouldn't be allowed to teach.

About WWI: Dachs is pretty much correct. Even Princip's assassinatinon of Ferdinand needn't have resulted in an actual war, and certainly not one of such scale. The British had to actually interpret their treaties pretty imaginitively to get into the war, and Austria could always have, you know, not invaded Serbia. Once the war started, it was always going to be big, but it could easily have been avoided.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Some people shouldn't be allowed to teach.

He was a great teacher otherwise he just had a bit of the old misty eyed romanticism for the Greeks. Perfectly acceptable considering the man was 90 years old.