The Heavy Plough- Rome's Answer?

[MerryPrankster]

LA,

Given how much trouble the Bible records Paul getting into on his travels, people often DID try to "do him in in instant."

Thing is, the Bible also describes Paul as a Roman citizen, which in one episode helped him get out of trouble (there's reference to a governor panicking because he had "put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains").

And why would Paul go travelling into non-Jewish areas to preach to Gentiles? If you think God wants you to do something, that's a powerful motivator.

I think you're projecting your own ideas onto Paul--you wouldn't do such a thing, so you think Paul would not have *really* done such and thing and therefore *must* have been making it up. Your paradigm is blinding you.

 

[MerryPrankster]

About the conquest of Germania affecting Christianity, if Pontius Pilate ends up on the Oder and some other governor is in Judaea, that would affect how Jesus's story turns out.

Jesus refers to Pilate killing some people and mixing their blood in with the sacrifices--if a less homicidal governor is in charge, Jesus might refer to another incident if He wished to make the same theological point.

A more significant butterfly would be when Jesus is brought before the governor and accused of treason and sedition. A different governor might man up and kill Him without claiming he was pressured into it, or tell the Sanhedrin to stuff it and prevent anyone from molesting Jesus while He was in Jerusalem.

If Jesus is killed by a Jewish mob (which would have probably stoned him or used weapons), Christianity might become even MORE anti-Semitic than in OTL, as it would be Jews and not Romans killing Him.

However, if Jesus is killed upon accusation by the governor with much less involvement by the public (let alone a mob claiming "His blood be on us and our children"), there might be even less anti-Semitism, as the involvement of (some) Jews would be much more oblique.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

LA,

Given how much trouble the Bible records Paul getting into on his travels, people often DID try to "do him in in instant."

Thing is, the Bible also describes Paul as a Roman citizen, which in one episode helped him get out of trouble (there's reference to a governor panicking because he had "put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains").

I wonder how a Romanized Jew, supposedly from a family whom supported the reigning regime, would be serving as an agent of the ultra-orthodox strictly provincial Sanhedrin?

And why would Paul go travelling into non-Jewish areas to preach to Gentiles? If you think God wants you to do something, that's a powerful motivator.

Just because his god is telling him what to do, doesn't mean non-Jews have to listen to him. They have their own gods.

I think you're projecting your own ideas onto Paul--you wouldn't do such a thing, so you think Paul would not have *really* done such and thing and therefore *must* have been making it up. Your paradigm is blinding you.

I would never force others to change religions. Not because I'm afraid to, but because its arrogant and dishonest to force, terrify, or guilt people into doing so. Whether or not Paul preached among the "Gentiles", I really think that no one would travel to a Celtic country, pontificate to them, and live to tell the tale. Either he never went there, or he just didn't make any headway (due to language barriers), only stayed a while to observe their customs, and just wrote about his "success" to encourage future proselytisers. I tell you what, Merryprankster! Its a shame that the Celts never wrote down anything. Because I would love to hear the Trogmi, Tectosages, and the Tolistobogii's accounts of some Hebrew traveller coming to their country, and give them permission to worship Jesus. I wonder what they would have to say about this occurance?!

I'm being "blinded by my" paradigm? Nice way to say I'm crazy.

On a slightly seperate note, I think I should apologize to Matthias Corvinus (and only him) if I just led us into a religious debate. I didn't intend for this.

 

[MerryPrankster]

When I said "blinded by your paradigm," I meant that you weren't considering the possibility of other points of view.

My apologies if you thought I was calling you insane.

BTW, didn't the Romans crack down on violent behavior and establish the "Pax Romana"?

Perhaps the reason Paul didn't get into more trouble than he did is because the Romans would have dropped the iron fist on anyone who infringed on their monopoly of violence. Bonus points if Paul was a Roman citizen.

Just because a culture has its own gods doesn't mean they'll stick to these gods. There are parts of eastern India where the Baptist Church is dominant--these people were animists a century or so ago.

(and the Baptists did not have any kind of state force backing them--if they were Anglicans, you could make claims of forcible conversion by the Raj, but they're not)

About language barriers, didn't everyone in the Eastern Mediterranean speak Greek as well as their local language? That would provide a medium of mutual intelligibility between the Galatians and Paul.

About Paul being on the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin included the Sadducees who IIRC were collaborationists. If the Sanhedrin were willing to include toadies of the Roman government, someone whose father was a Roman supporter but whose son, despite having the citizenship, might be less enthusiastic could be tolerated.

Besides, Paul might not have been a very high-ranking member of the Sanhedrin, if he was even one at all.

And Paul did not FORCE anyone to change their religion. If there was force being used at all, it was people attempting to use force on him for offending them. He may have gotten on people's nerves, but in the scale of victimhood, it was him who was being victimized (being assaulted for speaking his mind), not the Gentiles he was preaching to.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Now, if you don't want a religious debate, how about we think of possible butterflies from the Roman conquest of Germania?

I touched on the possibility of a different governor of Judaea than Pontius Pilate. What sort of redistribution of known officials can we get with a Roman Germania?

Also, have we settled on a POD or is this simply "come up with a situation"?

If we need a POD, would "No Teutoberger Wald" be good or would "Romans avenge Teutoberger Wald and conquer all Germania in the process" be better?

IIRC the Romans waged several punitive campaigns in Germania after Teutoberger Wald, so they didn't just give up.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Since I just apologized for perpetuating a religious debate on a thread about improved agriculture, which implies I don't wish to persue it here any further, then I would thank you, Merryprankster, if you didn't make me go back on my word. If you want to discuss religion with me any further, you better relay it in the form of a Private Messege. This goes for everyone else. I feel responsible for taking this thread off track, so I want to reverse the damage, if no one has a problem with that?!

 

[MerryPrankster]

Since I just apologized for perpetuating a religious debate on a thread about improved agriculture, which implies I don't wish to persue it here any further, then I would thank you, Merryprankster, if you didn't make me go back on my word. If you want to discuss religion with me any further, you better relay it in the form of a Private Messege. This goes for everyone else. I feel responsible for taking this thread off track, so I want to reverse the damage, if no one has a problem with that?!

I posted a post about the possible butterflies from a Romanized Germania after the religious post.

What OTL officials do you think might have different careers in the event of the Roman conquest of Germania?

Also, how would the Roman conquest of Britain be affected by the Roman conquest of Germania? Claudius could easily get the necessary "military street cred" slapping down some rebellious Germanic tribes and might not need to conquer Britain.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

What OTL officials do you think might have different careers in the event of the Roman conquest of Germania?

Its hard to say who would have a different course to their career if they were posted in a pacified Germania. When was it conquered/reconquered? Does Germanicus meet with even more success against the northern tribes than OTL? Was someone more militarily competent than Varus given the Imperial Legateship, so that the uprising by Arminius died on it's arse? Perhaps Arminius died in a battle or skirmish way back when he commanded a auxillery unit? Whats the POD?

Also, how would the Roman conquest of Britain be affected by the Roman conquest of Germania? Claudius could easily get the necessary "military street cred" slapping down some rebellious Germanic tribes and might not need to conquer Britain.

One reason for the invasion of Britain by Claudius, was to give him more credibility as a ruler. Another reason might have been because of Britain's mineral wealth at the time. If Britain wasn't conquered, it still would have been a collection of states, mostly dependent on Rome for foreign goods.

I don't know just how easy it was to slap down the Germans. Plenty of chieftains and younger members of the nobility had probably served in the Roman military. Other than having an enemy that sends it's warriors to learn their craft from you, Germania is heavily forested, so ambushes could be a frequent problem.

One reason that they could have occupied Magna Germania could have been to control the source of the Amber route that stretched all the way to Greece.

I think Claudius and his successors probably felt that Britain was perhaps easier to control than Germania.