Alternatives to Christianity in a world without Rome

In this timeline, Rome was destroyed by Gauls in 387 BC. As a result, the Parthians control the Levant and Egypt. Christianity is butterflied away because:
1. Jesus was killed by the Romans
2. Centuries of oppression of Jews by Greeks and Romans led to Jews looking for a messiah. The Parthians were tolerant towards the Jews, so it would not be a messianic religion.
3. Christianity takes elements from various religious practices in the Roman Empire, including but not limited to ritualized dining, the imperial cult (Christians say Christ is king for a reason), Constantine’s solidifying of Christian doctrine, Latin and Greek as liturgical languages, Christmas being celebrated on the same day as a holiday dedicated to Sol Invictus, and the generation of saints, which evolved from Greek pagan hero cults.
4. Due to the POD being 387 BC and the butterfly effect, there is very little change that Jesus or Paul the Apostle are born.
5. Due to the Parthians’ religious tolerance, there would not be a fixation on martyrdom.

What would a religion that, as Christianity would spread around the Roman Empire, spread around the Parthian Empire, look like?
 
personally i don't see a religious upheaval on the magnitude of Christ as inevitable, and Zoroastrianism was still popular among successive persian dynasties up until the conquest by the arabs. but Mithras and some form of sun worship seem the most common in the west
 
personally i don't see a religious upheaval on the magnitude of Christ as inevitable, and Zoroastrianism was still popular among successive persian dynasties up until the conquest by the arabs. but Mithras and some form of sun worship seem the most common in the west
How was it not inevitable?
 
No Rome in the West, it comes out of the firmament that's more Celtic and Carthaginian. Neither is dominant but then, the Greeks in the middle there is plenty of room for evolution. As AltoRegnant has said things are stable in the east. In the West there are lots of interesting interactions.

Perhaps a rebel Druid's ideas take off among the Greeks who write it down and filter it through neoplatonism or Stoicism and Carthaginian merchants spread the new faith, whatever it is

That's kinda what happened with Christianity in a warped way, just with different actors.
 
Want to point out the first POD is literally how my religion started.

Look, Christianity took off because it was extremely attractive and still is to the poor - the downtrodden of society. In the climate of Rome, this was fertile ground for the seeds of faith to sprout, because Roman views on poor people were awful.

In any case, congrats for basically planet-busting all of European history. Worth noting is that it’s likely we’d still see the Jews spread out across the continent - but now they lack the protection the Catholic Church afforded them. Granted, that protection wasn’t what one would consider stellar but it was still there, at least. And without a centralized authority in Europe policing everyone, we’ll see a lot of violence and conflict everywhere. Genocides for everybody!

Now, could a religion take off in the place of Christianity? No, it couldn’t, because Christianity is a really good thing for poor people to have as it says “hey, you? You matter and are loved!” Perhaps we’d see the spread of Zoroastrianism, but I doubt we’d see Mithraism take off, as that was, well... a cult that was insular.

Congrats!
 
Zoroastrianism would be most popular on Persian heartlands but there wouldn't be dominant religion. Egyptians would pracitse their own ancient religion, Greeks would worship their own religions, Jews continue with their monotheist religion etc. Any religion wouldn't spread lot of outside of their countries. And even Parthians probably won't survive very long. Any dynasty can't and Parthians would fall eventually sooner or latter.
 
Want to point out the first POD is literally how my religion started.
What I mean by "alternatives to Christianity in a world without Rome," I don't mean: what would Christianity be like without Rome, I mean what proselytizing religion could spring up in Judea under the Parthian Empire, spreading throughout it as Christianity spread throughout Rome.
 

LeoII

Banned
Could there be Christianity without Rome? Jesus, if he existed, did so in a time of Roman rule over Judea, when the Romans were taking issue with the Hebrews monotheistic beliefs. He was killed by the Romans, executed in an infamous and memorable way that was sort of iconic Roman. They had crucified Spartacus's followers too. So without Roman rule, without Roman polytheism and tendency to worship men as gods or god-blooded clashing with Hebrew and later Christian monotheism, would there really be Christianity? For all we know, even if Jesus existed under the Parthians and they killed him, the religion could have been swallowed up into Zoroastrianism as a whole, with God the Father becoming another name for Ahura Mazda, Satan another name for Ahriman, and Jesus becoming another name for Mithra.
 
Want to point out the first POD is literally how my religion started.

Look, Christianity took off because it was extremely attractive and still is to the poor - the downtrodden of society. In the climate of Rome, this was fertile ground for the seeds of faith to sprout, because Roman views on poor people were awful.

In any case, congrats for basically planet-busting all of European history. Worth noting is that it’s likely we’d still see the Jews spread out across the continent - but now they lack the protection the Catholic Church afforded them. Granted, that protection wasn’t what one would consider stellar but it was still there, at least. And without a centralized authority in Europe policing everyone, we’ll see a lot of violence and conflict everywhere. Genocides for everybody!

Now, could a religion take off in the place of Christianity? No, it couldn’t, because Christianity is a really good thing for poor people to have as it says “hey, you? You matter and are loved!” Perhaps we’d see the spread of Zoroastrianism, but I doubt we’d see Mithraism take off, as that was, well... a cult that was insular.

Congrats!
On one hand, and as a Catholic myself, yeah. No Christianity means all of European history goes kaput. Amd there's also the fact that the other premise is no Rome, which also leads to European history becoming unrecognizable.

Still, I can't help but think that in the void left by no Rome and no Christianity, parallel ideas could take their place, though in very different forms. Certainly, compassion to the poor is not unique to Christianity, though the form it took in the Abrahamic tradition of God Himself, the active Creator of All, caring about the world and its inhabitants, would not be present.

Also, no Rome and no Church may mean Jews have no protection, but it'd also mean they wouldn't need said protection. The Roman Empire was brutal against non-assimilating Jews, and only became harsher with the mandate of a new Israel superceding the old. The ghost of genocidal Rome haunts the Church. So... IDK.
 
Want to point out the first POD is literally how my religion started.

Look, Christianity took off because it was extremely attractive and still is to the poor - the downtrodden of society. In the climate of Rome, this was fertile ground for the seeds of faith to sprout, because Roman views on poor people were awful.
The idea that Christianity took over because it was good to the poor is not proven, it's built on a chain of assumptions and could easily be thrown away as circular logic given that the evidence for such a sizeable Christian community by 300 CE is controversial to begin with, so trying to explain a controversial figure with unproven theories is just pointless.
Also interesting how one of the societies with verifiable amount of upward mobility even for slaves, where the state took care of the poor in Rome and some other big cities through grain doles, with widespread culture of elite charity(euergetism) and where even low class people could become emperors or gain important positions in the army supposedly had "awful" view of poor people.

In any case, congrats for basically planet-busting all of European history. Worth noting is that it’s likely we’d still see the Jews spread out across the continent
Jews wouldn't necessarily spread to begin with to places like Gaul and Central Europe, in our timeline the formation of the Ashkenazi community happened through miniscule populations in the thousands and while we don't have perfect knowledge it seems to me impossible to argue that that Ashkenazi community is mostly descendant from the pre-migration period Jewish community in the region, most likely there are hundreds of very small Jewish communities that simply were assimilated over the centuries and only the most connected and largest ones survived.
- but now they lack the protection the Catholic Church afforded them. Granted, that protection wasn’t what one would consider stellar but it was still there, at least. And without a centralized authority in Europe policing everyone, we’ll see a lot of violence and conflict everywhere. Genocides for everybody!
Not sure where this comes from, Christians didn't show better tolerance for Jews basically ever in the entire history of Christian Europe, this argument is simply completely devoid of any proof.
After the Kitos war and Bar Kochba rebellion Jews had a place in Roman society and even if they were seen with hostility by many people they still weren't under constant threat of violence as far as we can see.
Now, could a religion take off in the place of Christianity? No, it couldn’t, because Christianity is a really good thing for poor people to have as it says “hey, you? You matter and are loved!” Perhaps we’d see the spread of Zoroastrianism, but I doubt we’d see Mithraism take off, as that was, well... a cult that was insular.
There is again 0 proof that religions that are supposedly better for the poor spread more, it might "sound" reasonable but that's not a proof, I saw concrete rebuttals of the idea that lower castes in India disproportionately converted to Islam to escape the caste system.
Christianity has been the religion of very hierarchical, unequal, violent, intolerant, slave-owning societies for centuries, maybe people should actually acknowledge that instead of treating it as a footnote.
 
Last edited:
The idea that Christianity took over because it was good to the poor is not proven, it's built on a chain of assumptions and could easily be thrown away as circular logic given that the evidence for such a sizeable Christian community by 300 CE is controversial to begin with, so trying to explain a controversial figure with unproven theories is just pointless.
Also interesting how one of the societies with verifiable amount of upward mobility even for slaves, where the state took care of the poor in Rome and some other big cities through grain doles, with widespread culture of elite charity(euergetism) and where even low class people could become emperors or gain important positions in the army supposedly had "awful" view of poor people.


Jews wouldn't necessarily spread to begin with to places like Gaul and Central Europe, in our timeline the formation of the Ashkenazi community happened through miniscule populations in the thousands and while we don't have perfect knowledge it seems to me impossible to argue that that Ashkenazi community is mostly descendant from the pre-migration period Jewish community in the region, most likely there are hundreds of very small Jewish communities that simply were assimilated over the centuries and only the most connected and largest ones survived.

Not sure where this comes from, Christians didn't show better tolerance for Jews basically ever in the entire history of Christian Europe, this argument is simply completely devoid of any proof.
After the Kitos war and Bar Kochba rebellion Jews had a place in Roman society and even if they were seen with hostility by many people they still weren't under constant threat of violence as far as we can see.

There is again 0 proof that religions that are supposedly better for the poor spread more, it might "sound" reasonable but that's not a proof, I saw concrete rebuttals of the idea that lower castes in India disproportionately converted to Islam to escape the caste system.
Christianity has been the religion of very hierarchical, unequal, violent, intolerant, slave-owning societies for centuries, maybe people should actually acknowledge that instead of treating it as a footnote.
Okay, while I’m not expert on the subject, I can safely point out cases where Christian bishops did protect Jews from persecution. During the Peoples’ Crusade, multiple bishops moved to protect their Jewish populations from Count Emicho and his brigands. And another thing, I have a source that does back up my initial claims a little - from Julian the Apostate himself.

When Emperor Julian ("the Apostate") wanted to revive pagan religion in the mid-300s, he gave a most helpful insight into how the church spread. This opponent of the faith said that Christianity "has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers and through their care of the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar and that the [Christians] care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help we should render them."
And for my source? Christianity.com, so go ahead and take a look. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say Christianity’s encouragement of charity led to the helping of the poor by many Christians, but that’s still fairly attractive. I haven’t finished reading the article yet, but I do need to ask - where’s the sources for your claims?

Another point, Jews were still driven from their homeland by the Roman Empire. Hard not to say they weren’t accepted under such circumstances.

But I don’t think we should turn this into a debate derail.
 

kholieken

Banned
There are cult of Cybele from Anatolia and cult of Isis from Egypt, both likely to spread in Levant.

Alternatively some Zoroastrian offshot like Mazdak, Mani, or other prophet could arise.

Greek mystery cults like cult of Orpheus or Pythagorean might spread in Levant/Mesopotamia.

some local gods in Levant might develop "international" cult under pressure of Hellenistic/Zoroastrian faith : Baal, Ashera, etc.
 
And for my source? Christianity.com, so go ahead and take a look. I haven’t finished reading the article yet, but I do need to ask - where’s the sources for your claims?
What claims exactly? If you've read the scholars that first popularized the claims that Christianity grow because high birth rates or high conversion among poor people and women, like Rodney Stark, you would realize they don't actually prove their assertions, they merely cherry-pick anecdotes(kinda like your own source does by just mentioning Julian's quote made a generation into Christianity being showered by imperial support) or use very small sample sizes and assume that these isolated points imply a larger trend of Christianity being somehow so much more favourable to poor people or even to women, which is just moving far ahead of the evidence and which are used to support a mathematical model of growth of the Christian community which is not empirically determined to begin with, hence the circular logic.
The very base assumption that people "pick and choose religions based on objective criteria or how much the religion panders to them" is not a fact and has to be argued for.

Anyway the article is like 2 unsourced paragraphs, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up.
 
Last edited:
I mean what proselytizing religion could spring up in Judea under the Parthian Empire
So you want Christianity without Jesus? I don't think that's hard. There were some religions at that time that were trying the same thing. The Mandeans, for example, follow John the Baptist's teaching instead of Jesus's, so it's not hard to see one analogue for an alternate Christianity with an alternate Jesus who lived under the Parthian Empire, or even under some Greek Kingdom.
But, in the other hand, Christianity was one of the very few religions that did proselytism and that was open to literally everyone. Your average ancient religion was more about cults and rituals that you had to take and to be trained in their mysteries for it to achieve some kind of enlightenment in order to be part of the community. And on top of that, some of those you had to be of some specific tribe or to have a specific ethnic background to access.
 
What claims exactly? If you've read the scholars that first popularized the claims that Christianity grow because high birth rates or high conversion among poor people and women, like Rodney Stark, you would realize they don't actually prove their assertions, they merely cherry-pick anecdotes(kinda like your own source does by just mentioning Julian's quote made a generation into Christianity being showered by imperial support) or use very small sample sizes and assume that these isolated points imply a larger trend of Christianity being somehow so much more favourable to poor people or even to women, which is just moving far ahead of the evidence and which are used to support a mathematical model of growth of the Christian community which is not empirically determined to begin with, hence the circular logic.
The very base assumption that people "pick and choose religions based on objective criteria or how much the religion panders to them" is not a fact and has to be argued for.

Anyway the article is like 2 unsourced paragraphs, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up.
Was on mobile so it looked longer. And, counter-point, do you have actual proof during these early periods Christianity didn't benefit the poor? As in actively held them down? Same with women. Because, need I bring up the quote of Julian the Apostate? Here's the full thing, from the letter he wrote to a high priest;

The Hellenic religion does not yet prosper as I desire, and it is the fault of those who profess it; for the worship of the gods is on a splendid and magnificent scale, surpassing every prayer and every hope. May Adrasteia pardon my words, for indeed no one, a little while ago, would have ventured even to pray for a change of such a sort or so complete within so short a time. Why, then, do we think that this is enough, why do we not observe that it is their benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism? I believe that we ought really and truly to practise every one of these virtues. And it is not enough for you alone to practise them, but so must all the priests in Galatia, without exception. … In every city establish frequent hostels in order that strangers may profit by our benevolence; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money. I have but now made a plan by which you may be well provided for this; for I have given directions that 30,000 modii of corn shall be assigned every year for the whole of Galatia, and 60,000 pints of wine. I order that one-fifth of this be used for the poor who serve the priests, and the remainder be distributed by us to strangers and beggars. For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galilaeans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort, and the Hellenic villages to offer their first fruits to the gods; and accustom those who love the Hellenic religion to these good works by teaching them that this was our practice of old.
The article was onto something at least. So we have words from an actual opponent of Christianity that they were supporting the poor, and before you bring up the further point again, Julian makes mention of having made amends for the persecution brought upon them by his predecessor.

I had imagined that the prelates of the Galilaeans were under greater obligations to me than to my predecessor. For in his reign many of them were banished, persecuted, and imprisoned, and many of the so-called heretics were executed … all of this has been reversed in my reign; the banished are allowed to return, and confiscated goods have been returned to the owners. But such is their folly and madness that, just because they can no longer be despots, … or carry out their designs first against their brethren, and then against us, the worshippers of the gods, they are inflamed with fury and stop at nothing in their unprincipled attempts to alarm and enrage the people.
Context behind this one is that Constantius II promoted Arian heresy and began persecuting everyone. And that, evidently, was still going on.

But that's beside the point that this probably isn't the best place for this kind of debate, and honestly, I'm tried and want to go read Silence by Shusaku Endo, which I'm willing to take as something of a source concerning Catholic arrival in Japan given it was meticulously researched. Not a legit one, but a starting point.
Greek mystery cults like cult of Orpheus or Pythagorean might spread in Levant/Mesopotamia.
Actual question; why would it? To my understanding, those cults tended to be rather insular.
 
Was on mobile so it looked longer. And, counter-point, do you have actual proof during these early periods Christianity didn't benefit the poor? As in actively held them down? Same with women. Because, need I bring up the quote of Julian the Apostate? Here's the full thing, from the letter he wrote to a high priest;


The article was onto something at least. So we have words from an actual opponent of Christianity that they were supporting the poor, and before you bring up the further point again, Julian makes mention of having made amends for the persecution brought upon them by his predecessor.


Context behind this one is that Constantius II promoted Arian heresy and began persecuting everyone. And that, evidently, was still going on.

But that's beside the point that this probably isn't the best place for this kind of debate, and honestly, I'm tried and want to go read Silence by Shusaku Endo, which I'm willing to take as something of a source concerning Catholic arrival in Japan given it was meticulously researched. Not a legit one, but a starting point.

Actual question; why would it? To my understanding, those cults tended to be rather insular.
I'm sorry but one single quote doesn't support an entire thesis, otherwise you might as well accept the thesis that Christians are cannibals because some Romans called them such.

Instead of pushing the burden of proof can you actually show how the Roman empire became better for the poor or more egalitarian by 400 CE compared to 300 CE exactly?
 
Last edited:
Another point, Jews were still driven from their homeland by the Roman Empire. Hard not to say they weren’t accepted under such circumstances.
It's hard to separate Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and even Protestant Christianity from the legacy of the Roman Empire, persecution against the Jews included. There is a long tradition of persecuting Jews within the Roman-descended churches, from Little St. Hugh to the ghettos.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Lots of what-ifs in the West
- would a strong Greek ruler take on the Carthaginians over time?
- would a federation of Italic people drive out the Gauls?
- do the Carthaginians spread over more of Iberia?
If the Carthaginians reach the Bay of Biscay, maybe they then erect settlements in Britain.
Marius implied the Gauls had some form of written language (probably acquired through contact with the Greeks) so this would develop.

Why am I talking about the West? Because it is not going to exist in isolation from the East.
 
Top