Sennacharib I
Banned
Considering how influential he was, primarily in the founding of the city of Constantinople, what would have changed if he was never born?
What if Constantine the Great was never born?
- Thread starter Sennacharib I
- Start date
fdas
Banned
Hi, I see that you are a new member. The Help and Rules forum is for asking questions related to the site or the rules. For questions about history, post in the Alternate History Discussion Forums. In this case, you should use the pre 1900 forum.
Welcome, @Sennacharib I !
Regarding Constantine the Great, I think Christianisation of the Roman Empire might have been held up for several years or decades, but not indefinitely. Some Emperor will later see that the number of Christians is steadily rising. Persecution had already been given up on AFAIK, and some Emperor will declare himself a Christian.
However, it might well happen that, e.g., Arian Christianity or one of the other multiple branches of Christianity triumphs over OTL (Proto-)Catholic Trinitarianism.
The moderators will soon move the thread to the correct forum...
Regarding Constantine the Great, I think Christianisation of the Roman Empire might have been held up for several years or decades, but not indefinitely. Some Emperor will later see that the number of Christians is steadily rising. Persecution had already been given up on AFAIK, and some Emperor will declare himself a Christian.
However, it might well happen that, e.g., Arian Christianity or one of the other multiple branches of Christianity triumphs over OTL (Proto-)Catholic Trinitarianism.
The moderators will soon move the thread to the correct forum...
Nicean Christianity is unchallenged, but also less organized. The Monophysites will likely put up a better fight as a result.
Lastly, Christianity will be slightly less synonimous with Rome.
Lastly, Christianity will be slightly less synonimous with Rome.
Either his younger brother takes his place, or one of the challengers who rose up after his father's death does
Then some other emperor would have been like Constantine. People forget that Christianity was already very influential by the middle of the 3rd century with Philip the Arab and Severus Alexander having a lot of interest in it. Not to mention that it was Constantine's mother Helena who first converted to Christianity and convinced her son to promote it. The client kingdom of Osroene had also already converted to it by the 3rd century as well. It wasn't an inevitability that the empire converted to Christianity (see the contemporary example of Buddhism and Jainism in India and China), but it was inevitable to make great compromises. The only true way to prevent Christianity is to kill his family, kill the 12 Apostles and kill Saint Paul before they leave any of their teachings written.
I forgot that he moved the city to Byzantium, but I believe that any other emperor would have done so. The move to Byzantium was a logical choice due to its strategic position as a very well-defended city. This also doesn't mean it wasn't inevitable, but it seems like something the Romans were about to do by the end of the 3rd century.
If the split still happens, I'd think Alexandria would be the obvious choice for the ERE's new capital. If the City is lost to the Arab Conquests than the ERE likely disintegrates with the Strategoi of Asia Minor and/or the Balkans possibly managing to exist as independent kingdoms and/or Umayyad vassals.
No chance for Maxentius to win out against this new challenger then?
Another emperor could have supported a different faith though. Without the Council of Nicaea, Christianity remains splintered, and another sect could end up getting the imperial nod such as Arianism or Monophysitism. Alternatively you might see Gnosticism, Manichaeism, the Isis or Bacchus cult, Neoplatonism or the Sol Invictus cult winning out.
Even the move to Byzantium isn't certain. A different emperor might decide that building a city from scratch isn't worth it and keep the eastern capital in Nikomedia.
All those cults with the exception of Gnosticism and Manichaeism were already a part of Roman religion. They didn't need to "win out". Gnosticism and Manichaeism are too small and their doctrines simply didn't make them important contenders. Manichaeism failed everywhere it went and the same with Gnosticism, who may have left a big body of literature, but as a popular religion was a complete failure.
Sennacharib I
Banned
"Arcavius, post: 17626969, member: 116935"]If the split still happens, I'd think Alexandria would be the obvious choice for the ERE's new capital. If the City is lost to the Arab Conquests than the ERE likely disintegrates with the Strategoi of Asia Minor and/or the Balkans possibly managing to exist as independent kingdoms and/or Umayyad vassals."
I think that Antioch would be a more likely choice due to its central location and closeness to the frontiers with the Persians.
I think that Antioch would be a more likely choice due to its central location and closeness to the frontiers with the Persians.
In the long run I think Antioch is a little too close. The Persians were able, after all, to get pretty close to Antioch several times.
Remember that even in the WRE, the defensibility of the capital ended up mattering more than both its prestige and closeness to the front--hence why Ravenna was the final capital. Alexandria is much more defensible than Antioch--any invading force has to break through both the Sinai desert and the Nile marshes--and also more prestigious.
Egypt is too critical for feeding the major administrative cities for any Emperor to reasonably concentrate their bureaucracy there. That would open the floodgates for any imperial civil servants, even minor ones to potentially establish independent bases of support in the province. By governing Egypt from afar, the emperors were able to keep the administration of Egypt constantly changing without a permanent bloc among the senate or whatever administration apparatus emerges. If the capital was in Egypt, then there would be a permanent administrative cohort of bureaucrats permanently established in Egypt which would pose a constant threat to the legitimacy of the emperor. No sane emperor would move the capital to Alexandria