Rome, Christianity, and the Meteor

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3013146.stm

So what would happen if Constantine didn't declare Christianity the official religion of the Empire? This isn't a "no Christianity" what-if, mind you - the religion was already fairly well established and widely spread. But without official sanction, I doubt it would have spread as thoroughly to the ends of the Empire. The Western Empire would likely still have fallen, but perhaps its remnants would not be so completely unified by Christian culture. Or alternatively, by centralized Catholicism - Christianity might have remained a more diverse religion with no one branch managing to basically eliminate the others.

Rome, Christianity....

OK, I'll give it a Partial Try. What about Mithradism and/or Zorasterism. Would they still be important. How about the Gnostics? IF you have A LOT of religions, cults, sects,etc you might have a lot of problems especially if you offer a policy of Toleration for All .

For some reason I keep thinking of Central Asia before the Muslim conquest as a model. You'd have a number of faiths with their own cosmology and tradition, some overlapping, others not, and none of them tied into a state ideology (though some states will favor some over others). Nestorians, Mandeans, Manichees, Zorioastrians, Hindus, Buddhists...

What could replace Christianity as the glue holding the body politic together? You can't have the imperial cult any more - maybe some kind of Mandate of Heaven instead? Or a devotion to 'Romanism'?

Carlton,

That thought works. Without the Imperial cheese, Christianity is still VERY big in North Africa, Egypt, Turkey, the Middle East, and (maybe) some other places. I think those are going to stay Christian, and the missionary impulse means that Christianity will spread. However, it will spread, and the other competing faiths will probably stick around to some degree (Justinian closed down the Temple of Isis in Egypt--the cult of Isis would probably be one of the survivors).

On the matter of the body politic, I heard that the success of Christianity helped the Roman Empire survive for another 100 years. Without Christianity as ideological glue, the Empire could very well collapse early.

Due to butterflys and the fact that the christians are not there to kill any challengers we might get some other messiah popping up somewhere in Europe who does attract popularity with the rulers.

Matt Quinn said:

On the matter of the body politic, I heard that the success of Christianity helped the Roman Empire survive for another 100 years. Without Christianity as ideological glue, the Empire could very well collapse early.

Click to expand...

So it falls in 1353?

Scott,

Hee hee. I think they were referring to the Western Empire, which was in a lot more dire straits than the East.

Ian the Admin said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3013146.stm

So what would happen if Constantine didn't declare Christianity the official religion of the Empire? This isn't a "no Christianity" what-if, mind you - the religion was already fairly well established and widely spread. But without official sanction, I doubt it would have spread as thoroughly to the ends of the Empire. The Western Empire would likely still have fallen, but perhaps its remnants would not be so completely unified by Christian culture. Or alternatively, by centralized Catholicism - Christianity might have remained a more diverse religion with no one branch managing to basically eliminate the others.

Click to expand...

Acualty before Constantine declared relgious tolerance for Christianity there was very little division. Without this declaration we may see christians continuing outside of the Empire, having greater effects among the German and Scadnavian tribes prehaps? Goths recieved it very well in fact. If you see Rome continue to try and purge them a stronger Christian Persia is a possiblity as well. North Afirca also would have strong bases in it. With it not becoming officially santioned you may see the fall of Rome by the barbarins as a 'Liberation'. Leaders would still try to take advantage of Christianity and in the end....

It's a very complicated issue. Before Constantine, there were routinely rival claimants to the bishopric of Rome, with solid bases of support (the first time this happened, the Romans stepped in and sentenced both to hard labor in Sardinia); after the Roman government became involved, rival popes became vanishingly rare until long after the fall of the Roman empire, IIRC. With the support of the government, the church in the West became much more monolithic and more secular in outlook, IMHO. Groups like the logos school, the Montanists, the Donatists, the Arians, and many others - whose doctrines were espoused by many who were subsequently appropriated under the rubric "Church Fathers" - would in all likelihood survive in competition, at times friendly and at times not so friendly. The situation would be more like America over the last few hundred years, where religious denominations jockey for power, at times in collaboration and at times in competition.

For these reasons, we're unlikely to see such documents as the "Donation of Constantine" and others claiming secular authority in the West. The Church would remain distrustful of authority, which would have important ramifications for the its survival and its theology.

So there still might be more of a Donavist schism than before? Might sects like the Circumcisers still be around?

Othniel said:

So there still might be more of a Donavist schism than before? Might sects like the Circumcisers still be around?

Click to expand...

Circumcisers, Encratites, Judaizing sects, Gnostic sects, the whole lot, I suspect. Maybe not the Encratites. But you'd have a much more diverse, much broader spectrum of Christian belief. Also, the differences between these various denominations would be comparatively minor (akin to the differences between the various Protestant denominations or sects of Islam today) that Christians, in the long run, would be more unified, ironically, in their disunity. In all likelihood, there'd probably develop a sense of Christian identity which transcended dogma, which would be healthier, IMHO. Instead, in OTL we have a small number of Christian groups, often tied to political identities (the Roman church, Melchites in Syria, etc.) who have wedded their identity to a particular dogma and either appropriated or wiped out the sects to either side of them in the spectrum - giving the appearance of chasmic differences between them, which has pervaded intra-Christian dialogue for much of the past two millennia.

Just my 2 c.

Leo,

Makes sense.

Yes, makes sense, but only if the church was also not persecuted by the Empire in the first two centuries.

So much of the formal structure of the Catholic Church was geared, after 400, to mirror the administrative structure of the empire. Also, the various attempts to weed out heresies such as Arianism and gnosticism make sense particularly with respect to the relationship of the "church" to the Roman state, both initially as persecuted sect and then heirarchical governing religion. I suspect the councils leading to the athanasian and nicene creeds might have never occurred and the very detailed statements about Christ's identity and the nature of the trinity perhaps not adopted. I particularly like Leo's idea that Chistianinty would paradoxically be both more unified and more diverse without the need to adopt detailed doctrinal statements.

Written Testiment?

What type or form of written testiment would christians use today? Without the councils which required a unified test.

I have to think that in the long run it would make little difference. By the time Constantine made his declaration, Christianity was well on the way to taking over the empire, nor do I see any historical basis that the Christian Church would have been less ruthless in actions aimed at destroying non-Christian peoples.

Leo put his finger on the issue.

Would the lack of a Christian sect favored over all the others persist? Would a subsequent emperor have made the declaration, and would that emperor have been able to make it stick? I can imagine the Eastern Roman Empire(Byzantine) being more wary of religious disputes, perhaps leaving a third Christian faith in much of the Middle East and North Africa, but such caution would prior events that inspired the caution.

Arianism was too much of an elitist movement, dependant on a small minority of overlords, thus easy prey to Catholic preaching. Even if, as was the case, the movement against Germanic Arians was in for a surprise as to what really constituted being financially squeezed and otherwise oppressed.

Pelageanism was more attractive, from our perspectives, but carried with it the seeds of destruction for much of the church's power, prestige, and wealth as it then existed. Would the lack of a strong central church have enabled this, or other rival sects, to flourish?

Or would the inter-Christian squabbling between many sects have led to a general discrediting of the faith, leading to something else entirely?

Hmm, triumph of the Norse religion...

It's all good, except for the Norse thing...

I like the idea of multiple sects competing with each other (yet cooperating against other faiths). Keeps religion healthy and meaningful and the aspiritual secular.

I agree with Grimm Reaper on the long-term dynamic. Christianity was the coming thing, with far more voltage than any rival cult, and a very broad cross-section of appeal. Gnosticism, Isis, Neoplatonism, Sol Invictus, etc., appealed to particular groups; Christianity had something for everyone. It had penetrated the imperial household; if Constantine hadn't become Christian, some emperor would have pretty soon.

A lot of particulars might have depended on who, when, and how. I suspect theological controversies were almost inevitable in the East - Greeks loved to sit in the tavernas and argue, and Christian theology provided endless grist for the mill. Most of this might fly right past the Latin-speaking West.

If official adoption is later, or if Christianity becomes general without quite being made a formal state religion, the church may never become quite so centralized, as Leo Cassius suggests - for example, no one having authority to excommunicate local bishops. I'm not sure, though, that that makes it more unified. Once the other religions fall by the wayside, the Christian theologians will be left with no one to argue with but each other.

-- Rick

Except prehaps a group of other bishops.

I guess the consensus developing here is that the East would remain Christain but with the various 'heresies' still intact and thriving. The Western Empire would still fall and have Arian barbarians lording it over the Catholic majority. In fact very much the same as OTL. Yet why would the Arians devote thier energies to converting the Goths if they were not expelled from the empire? Would the Goths still convert if the prestiege of imperial christianity did not exist? If they did convert after conquering the west what brand of christianity would it be? What would the implications be if they converted to catholicism and identified more closely with their new subjects?

What would happen to Augustine if there was no state christianity? Would he still convert and would his ideology be the same? What about Ambrose? Without imperial patronage would the church still be attractive to the educated and civilized upper class? How would that change the look of the church?

Islam would not be welcomed in Egypt and Syria as liberators by the persecuted heretics because they would not be persecuted. Nestorians would not be important in Persia because they would not have been expelled from the Empire. Perhaps the religious dividing lines in the east would be more defined and ridgid.

Othniel said:

Except prehaps a group of other bishops.

Click to expand...

Even then perhaps only if they can convince the local clergy and laity to go along. After all, to depose a bishop requires ultimately the ability to go in with a couple of strongarm guys and physically eject him from the cathedral. If the Imperial government has not directly involved itself in church governance, strongarm guys may not be available.

Direct Imperial involvement is not a given, even if Christianity becomes the official religion. When paganism was still the official religion, a town's temples were build and administered, I believe, by the local government, and that system might have continued even when the temple became a Christian church.

-- Rick