WI: The Roman Empire becomes a Christian theocratic regime

[Mario]

Let's assume with the right PoDs that the Roman Empire might have embraced Christianism as the only official religion earlier than IOTL (preferably, avoiding both Diocletian reformation or other divisions of the Empire, and the foundation of Constantinople) with the Pope assuming the role of Emperor or vice-versa, meaning that the effective political ruler is the same as the maximum and undisputed religious authority, converting the Empire into a theocratic regime.

Which could be the consequences in the long term? How this kind of regime would deal with the Germanic invasions, the wars with Sassanian Persia and maybe an analogue event of the rise of Islam in Arabia?

 

[frustrated progressive]

I mean, it essentially did-the effective head of the Christian Church by the late fourth century was the Emperor.

 

[Byzantion]

Let's assume with the right PoDs that the Roman Empire might have embraced Christianism as the only official religion earlier than IOTL (preferably, avoiding both Diocletian reformation or other divisions of the Empire, and the foundation of Constantinople) with the Pope assuming the role of Emperor or vice-versa, meaning that the effective political ruler is the same as the maximum and undisputed religious authority, converting the Empire into a theocratic regime.

Which could be the consequences in the long term? How this kind of regime would deal with the Germanic invasions, the wars with Sassanian Persia and maybe an analogue event of the rise of Islam in Arabia?

What if the Roman Emperor gives the Bishop of Rome power ?

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

This does not necessarily directly answer the OP's question, but I think that this thread is as good an opportunity as any to share this interesting thought courtesy of @Skallagrim...

I don't think it was truly similar to the Chinese sense of cohesion, in that the Romand lacked enough of a cultural commonality to survive long-term political fracturing. If your Empire falls apart and its cultures soon cease to identify as "Roman", then there is already something lacking (compared to the Chinese situation). It has often been noted that the c. 500-year Han dynasty has remarkable similarities to the c. 500-year (Western) Roman Empire, right down to the division into two distinct periods with a period of crisis in between. So why did China "fall back together again", while Rome didn't? I hardly think that blaming the one element that created unity in the post-Roman world makes logical sense. On the contrary: I think Rome spent too long, and expended too much energy, on attempting to cling to its dying traditions and resisting Christianity.

Allow me to venture that if Rome had whole-heartedly embraced Christianity much sooner, and simply transmuted its belief in the divinity of the Emperor in a notion that the Emperor was divinely ordained by God... then we might have seen a Christian Rome "falling back together", too, in the end. In such a scenario, the religion and the empire would have been more intrinsically tied together. Christianity would have been more of a "truly Roman thing", and the figure of the Emperor would have been more central and essential to a Christian understanding of the proper world-order.

This would create a scenario where Christianity would be even more thoroughly enmeshed in Roman political culture, which could eventually create something more akin to an actual Christian theocracy at some point.

 

[Well]

Let's assume with the right PoDs that the Roman Empire might have embraced Christianism as the only official religion earlier than IOTL (preferably, avoiding both Diocletian reformation or other divisions of the Empire, and the foundation of Constantinople) with the Pope assuming the role of Emperor or vice-versa, meaning that the effective political ruler is the same as the maximum and undisputed religious authority, converting the Empire into a theocratic regime.

Which could be the consequences in the long term? How this kind of regime would deal with the Germanic invasions, the wars with Sassanian Persia and maybe an analogue event of the rise of Islam in Arabia?

For an earlier conversion of the Roman Empire, could Alexander Severus be the POD? IIRC, his mother was a Christian and according to wiki, he seems to be quite interested in the faith himself. In OTL, Alexander lost the loyalty of his legions when he tried to buy off the German invaders at the Rhine. The soldiers defected to Maximinus and killed the emperor and his mother. Perhaps the POD is a Constantine-style dream that persuades the normally unmilitary Alexander to instead make battle. He wins a famous victory, and in the aftermath credits it to Christ. Alexander was only 27 when he died in OTL; his could be a long reign that completely transforms the empire into a Christian state (that is, if he's very lucky). Instead of the Decian persecutions of OTL, the young faith suddenly finds that it has friends in very high places. The development of OTL's papacy is interrupted, with the Roman emperor taking on the role of father of the faithful instead. Perhaps Alexander could even have himself 'adopted' as a son of Jesus, which would be pretty shocking to OTL ears, but could provide the foundation for a Roman Christian monarchy. I'm hand-waving here, but you get the idea. An earlier conversion might allow for a better integration of Roman and Christian culture, because there would never have been focussed, state-sponsored persecution (as opposed to semi-official harrassment) as under Decius in OTL.

 

[Kerney]

I think an earlier 'conversion' would identify Christianity as a threat. It would leave the Pagans in a stronger position to push back.

If they pushed back against a known state threat, they'd probably wipe out Christianity.

The otl persecutions of Christianity were half assed, being just severe enough to make martyrs but then let them off.

If the Empire Strikes back hard, Christianity is going down.

 

[Sertorius126]

For an earlier conversion of the Roman Empire, could Alexander Severus be the POD? IIRC, his mother was a Christian and according to wiki, he seems to be quite interested in the faith himself. In OTL, Alexander lost the loyalty of his legions when he tried to buy off the German invaders at the Rhine. The soldiers defected to Maximinus and killed the emperor and his mother. Perhaps the POD is a Constantine-style dream that persuades the normally unmilitary Alexander to instead make battle. He wins a famous victory, and in the aftermath credits it to Christ. Alexander was only 27 when he died in OTL; his could be a long reign that completely transforms the empire into a Christian state (that is, if he's very lucky). Instead of the Decian persecutions of OTL, the young faith suddenly finds that it has friends in very high places. The development of OTL's papacy is interrupted, with the Roman emperor taking on the role of father of the faithful instead. Perhaps Alexander could even have himself 'adopted' as a son of Jesus, which would be pretty shocking to OTL ears, but could provide the foundation for a Roman Christian monarchy. I'm hand-waving here, but you get the idea. An earlier conversion might allow for a better integration of Roman and Christian culture, because there would never have been focussed, state-sponsored persecution (as opposed to semi-official harrassment) as under Decius in OTL.

Alexander’s mother wasn’t christian, like the rest of her family, she descended from a line of Syrian high priests devoted to the worship of Elagabalus, and it’s safe to say that’s the faith she grew up with and followed for the rest of her life.

Unlike her nephew, however, she was an open minded person, and took great care for her son to be surrounded by eminent intellectuals of all branches. She was tolerant towards Christians, as was her son, but Alexander,vspent his whole reign openly displaying himself as a staunch adherent of Roman values and a worshipper of Roman gods, Jupiter and Juno especially, because his cousin’s fate proved something important, no Roman wanted an emperor openly worshipping some abstruse deity from the East. The empire wasn’t yet ready for Christianity to take such a role in the empire’s religious life.

 

[Mario]

I think an earlier 'conversion' would identify Christianity as a threat. It would leave the Pagans in a stronger position to push back.

Well, it depends on the 'how it is done'. Traditional Roman Paganism was already in decline by the time of the Severan dynasty, to the point that many Roman elites accepted the extravagant cult of the Sun brought from Emesa, while other Eastern cults (Isis, Sabbazio, Mitras...) were also very popular. As @Well appointed in his comment above, during the rule of this dynasty is a good time for introducing Christianity as an official religion, as many Roman high classes missed some religious 'order and unification' opposed to the proliferation of such amount of extravagant Eastern cults.

 

[Sertorius126]

Well, it depends on the 'how it is done'. Traditional Roman Paganism was already in decline by the time of the Severan dynasty, to the point that many Roman elites accepted the extravagant cult of the Sun brought from Emesa, while other Eastern cults (Isis, Sabbazio, Mitras...) were also very popular. As @Well appointed in his comment above, during the rule of this dynasty is a good time for introducing Christianity as an official religion, as many Roman high classes missed some religious 'order and unification' opposed to the proliferation of such amount of extravagant Eastern cults.

They accepted such cults as long as it was clear that traditional Pagan deities still held precedence. Elagabalus was hacked to pieces and thrown in a river because he forced Romans to worship some Rock with extravagant and embarassing rites.

 

[Mario]

They accepted such cults as long as it was clear that traditional Pagan deities still held precedence. Elagabalus was hacked to pieces and thrown in a river because he forced Romans to worship some Rock with extravagant and embarassing rites.

Cult of the Sun was on the rise since the reign of Septimius Severus and those Syrian women, and Elagabalus managed to keep it four years because in that odd dancings he offered free food to the masses, as simple as that. Even some of the senators participated in such things.

Elagabalus was killed mostly because he was truely incompetent managing the praetorians and the soldiers, and they revolted against him. I think if he would have been wiser keeping the praetorians and soldiers happy with gifts and privileges, his reign would have lasted longer and the masses would be happy receinving free food while dancing around that stupid rock.

 

[Sertorius126]

Cult of the Sun was on the rise since the reign of Septimius Severus and those Syrian women, and Elagabalus managed to keep it four years because in that odd dancings he offered free food to the masses, as simple as that. Even some of the senators participated in such things.

Not 4 years, Elagabalus truly seized power only once Macrinus was killed in late 218, only in his journey to Rome he’d face revolts by the III Gallica and the IV Schytica, ironically the very legions that ensured his victory over Macrinus, which he had left in Syria, then by legions in Nicomedia led by Caius Castinus Septimius and by legions on the Danubian frontier led by Triccianus, one of Macrinus’ adherents. All this significantly slowed him down so that he would reach Rome in middle 219 and die in March 222, thus little less than three years.

None of the senators were happy to participate, in fact, in one of the rarest occurences in Roman history, when Elagablus asked the Senate to take away the rank of Caesar from Alexander, which he himself had granted him, all senators refused, all of them. No emperor before had ever been defied this way. There’s nothing more telling than that.

As for the people, there were way less outlandish ways to distribute congiaria, apparently Elagabalus would throw live animals from his palace, and some people died because of that. I think they’d rather have a more traditional emperor who gave them food the traditional way.

Elagabalus was killed mostly because he was truely incompetent managing the praetorians and the soldiers, and they revolted against him. I think if he would have been wiser keeping the praetorians and soldiers happy with gifts and privileges, his reign would have lasted longer and the masses would be happy receinving free food while dancing around that stupid rock.

The pretorians were paid handsomely by Julia Moesa, that wasn’t the issue. When they first assaulted Elagabalus, in late 221, they imposed several things on him, most importantly to get rid of his low born confidants, asecond, to behave like a decent Roman and third, to not touch Alexander with one finger. There was no request for additional pay, the Pretorians could be bought, but they still had dignitas, and their emperor was ashaming the whole empire with his attitude.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

They accepted such cults as long as it was clear that traditional Pagan deities still held precedence. Elagabalus was hacked to pieces and thrown in a river because he forced Romans to worship some Rock with extravagant and embarassing rites.

Elagabalus was pretty nuts anyway, if he'd promoted his rock god but otherwise been sane and competent I think he'd have survived.

 

[Sertorius126]

Elagabalus was pretty nuts anyway, if he'd promoted his rock god but otherwise been sane and competent I think he'd have survived.

But Elagabalus went way overboard with it. Marrying a Vestal? Placing the rock above the statue of victory? Removing the palladium from its sacred place? There was a limit to how much an emperor could defile tradition, Elagablus not only surpassed it, he threw up on it and made some weird dance moves afterwards.

Elagabalus saw himself first as a priest to his god, then as an emperor, it’s the whole reason why we call him Elagablus in the first place, and thr same reason that inevitably doomed him.

 

[wcv215]

This would create a scenario where Christianity would be even more thoroughly enmeshed in Roman political culture, which could eventually create something more akin to an actual Christian theocracy at some point.

So...Byzantium.

 

[Dolan]

Well, there is a story where Caligula, of all people, converted to Christianity.

pinging @Geon

 

[Mario]

So...Byzantium.

Certainly, Byzantium approached this ideal far closer than, let's say, the Carolingian or the Holy Roman Empire in the West, however it failed in two key points:

- The Patriarch of Constantinople was never the undisputed supreme head of the Church before the Schism of 1054, and even after that this is debatable. Anyway, his authority only was enforced in the Greek-Asian core, not even in the whole Eastern part (while the Pope 'dominated' the Western part without challenge until the later Western Schism).

- While the West mostly stuck to a single doctrine until the late Middle-Ages, the East was constantly divided by relevant heresies and destructive internal conflicts like the iconoclastic one. The rift with Nestorians and Monophysites alienated most of the Levant and Egypt, making the Muslim Arab occupation easier than if the religious unity had been preserved.

The success of a Christian theocratic Rome would have required more religious unity in one side and a more undisputed head of the Church (not five Patriarchs and so).

 

[Tanc49]

I'll try something, possibly around Constantine.
Say, he does well enough, "by this sign conquer" and all but there some harder dissent in some provinces, both civil and military.
Moved by the need to fully consolidate his powers, he, or whichever heir he hasn't killed yet, goes full messianic and proclaims an internal crusade.

He's not just guided by God, he's a new Prophet, here to accomplish the kingdom of God on Earth.

 

[piratedude]

Why not have Aurelian be the first Christian emperor? I mean, being "restitutor orbis" gives quite a lot of cred to that weird eastern religion. The bonus being that he, unlike elagabalus, knew not to step on powerful people's toes with his beliefs, and probably would only pass an edict declaring toleration for Christians rather than tryingto up end the roman religious order completely. There will probably be a number of people who would accuse him of not really being a Christian (that still happens with Constantine after all), but he can pave the way for increasingly more zealous Christian emperors

 

[Well]

Alexander’s mother wasn’t christian, like the rest of her family, she descended from a line of Syrian high priests devoted to the worship of Elagabalus, and it’s safe to say that’s the faith she grew up with and followed for the rest of her life.

Unlike her nephew, however, she was an open minded person, and took great care for her son to be surrounded by eminent intellectuals of all branches. She was tolerant towards Christians, as was her son, but Alexander,vspent his whole reign openly displaying himself as a staunch adherent of Roman values and a worshipper of Roman gods, Jupiter and Juno especially, because his cousin’s fate proved something important, no Roman wanted an emperor openly worshipping some abstruse deity from the East. The empire wasn’t yet ready for Christianity to take such a role in the empire’s religious life.

That's probably true. My idea was to hand-wave Severus Alexander into a brilliant Augustus-type figure who reigns for half a century and completely restructures the Roman religious structure in the process, beginning with the vague and personal tolerance of OTL, followed by an edict of toleration, personal conversion and culminating in a Caesaropapacy by the end of his rule. I think a successful reign of such a length could basically result in anything the author wanted; the issue is, as you say, getting Alexander to survive that long without being overthrown, especially if he's wearing away at traditional Roman religion. My knowledge of the period isn't great, but I know of no evidence to suggest that Alexander was another Augustus in waiting.

Out of curiosity, what do you think made the empire 'ready' for Christianity in the 4th century?

Well, it depends on the 'how it is done'. Traditional Roman Paganism was already in decline by the time of the Severan dynasty, to the point that many Roman elites accepted the extravagant cult of the Sun brought from Emesa, while other Eastern cults (Isis, Sabbazio, Mitras...) were also very popular. As @Well appointed in his comment above, during the rule of this dynasty is a good time for introducing Christianity as an official religion, as many Roman high classes missed some religious 'order and unification' opposed to the proliferation of such amount of extravagant Eastern cults.

The issue is, as Sertorius points out, that Christianity doesn't look like 'order and unification' opposed to the popularity of Eastern cults; it was an Eastern cult. It's much more likely that *Alexander Severus is remembered as OTL's Elagabalus for trying to impose his personal cult on Rome than as OTL's Constantine. That said, there's a tendency in AH to discount the unlikely as the impossible. Whilst unlikely things happening regularly strains credibility, plenty of unlikely things happened in OTL.

Why not have Aurelian be the first Christian emperor? I mean, being "restitutor orbis" gives quite a lot of cred to that weird eastern religion. The bonus being that he, unlike elagabalus, knew not to step on powerful people's toes with his beliefs, and probably would only pass an edict declaring toleration for Christians rather than tryingto up end the roman religious order completely. There will probably be a number of people who would accuse him of not really being a Christian (that still happens with Constantine after all), but he can pave the way for increasingly more zealous Christian emperors

Sounds persuasive, particularly if the form of Christianity that Aurelian gently promotes is more syncretic than OTL's.

 

[Mario]

Sounds persuasive, particularly if the form of Christianity that Aurelian gently promotes is more syncretic than OTL's.

One important thing to consider is that in that scenario Christianity would have some differences compared to IOTL, not only theological (it should have been more tolerant in some points and more theologically flexible, allowing diversity of opinions about i.e. the nature of Christ in order to do not fall in constant divisions) but also in their organization (more centralized, no Patriarchs, less prominent bishops, less autonomy for them).