Christian Armenia with pagan rome

Let’s say that constantine does not convert and Rome remains pagan for hundreds more years.

Does being Christian help Armenia?
 
Let’s say that constantine does not convert and Rome remains pagan for hundreds more years.
Constantine's conversion is overstated in its making of conversion inevitable. For one thing the general demographic reasons for conversion would remain, regardless of his conversion, also is there any particular reason he doesnt convert, considering his Mother was Christian, along with his Sister, and several others, in his immediate family. These people could still have the effect of legalising Christianity, and patronising at Court.

On Armenia, what do you mean by "help", Armenia is and was backwards, mountainous and poor, none of this will change.
 
Constantine's conversion is overstated in its making of conversion inevitable. For one thing the general demographic reasons for conversion would remain, regardless of his conversion, also is there any particular reason he doesnt convert, considering his Mother was Christian, along with his Sister, and several others, in his immediate family. These people could still have the effect of legalising Christianity, and patronising at Court.

On Armenia, what do you mean by "help", Armenia is and was backwards, mountainous and poor, none of this will change.


Good points about Constantine, I guess the empire staying pagan due to some sort of reform movement like Julian the apostates which creates an institution that. Can resist Christianisation, there was a recent thread about it. It doesent even need to be rome in general just the elites and the state religion.

But your point that Armenia is and was backwards and poor seems a bit unsound.

To say that Armenia is destined since the 4th century to be poor is pretty ridiculous. In the last hundred years along its experienced a massive genocide, communist repression and an economic blockade from turkey.
 
Good points about Constantine, I guess the empire staying pagan due to some sort of reform movement like Julian the apostates which creates an institution that. Can resist Christianisation, there was a recent thread about it. It doesent even need to be rome in general just the elites and the state religion.

But your point that Armenia is and was backwards and poor seems a bit unsound.

To say that Armenia is destined since the 4th century to be poor is pretty ridiculous. In the last hundred years along its experienced a massive genocide, communist repression and an economic blockade from turkey.

To continue the points about Constantine, there is only so long that an elite can be a religious minority, before being overthrown, especially considering the violent nature of Roman politics.

Secondly, I am not suggesting Armenia is destined to be Poor, however I am not sure if it is possible for them to be able to gain any benefit from being the only Christian Nation in Europe, specifically because, compared to their neighbours, they have been weak and poor, and without some kind of access to the sea I don't see this changing a great deal. It might enable them to play Rome, off Persia better, as neither wants to piss off its Christians, but beyond that it would likely plod along until either one explodes, and seize territory in that situation.
 
Constantine's conversion is overstated in its making of conversion inevitable. For one thing the general demographic reasons for conversion would remain..

Yeah, the 5% to 10% that was Christian was really important in demographic terms. But if we were to go into it I'm sure you'd quote something like 20-30% and we both would think the other is absurd.

People debate back and forth on this sight the importance of Constantine's conversion to the success of Christianity. I've noticed that, regardless of the facts, and both sides quote 'facts' they genuinely believe, people's opinion on how important Constantine's conversion to Christianity's eventual dominance (personally I don't think it happens or happens to the same extent without it), I've noticed people's rational, well thought out opinion just happens to align to what they think of Christianity.

I don't think it's a case of anyone being dishonest, just that the ties to people's everyday lives are still very intimate 1700 years later.

So let's leave that argument to the side.

Assuming Armenia is Christian and without any close other country converting, if it isn't overwhelmed by Persia or Rome or Nomads, it plays a role similar to Khazaria at best, as a neutral place, or as an unimportant place. If it is overwhelmed, it makes the conversion of Rome less likely. Romans looks at and say "look what happens when you ignore the Pax Deorum." http://www.ancientpages.com/2018/05/01/what-was-pax-deorum-and-how-important-was-it/
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the 5% to 10% that was Christian was really important in demographic terms. But if we were to go into it I'm sure you'd quote something like 20-30% and we both would think the other is absurd.

The Numbers, I usually see is 7%-10%. But no what I mean by Demographic reasons is the reasons why people converted, which is in part related to demography. The clearest example of this is Women, and female infanticide. Christianity is, despite the protestations of modern feminists, far more Liberal and progressive than the paganism before it, specifically with regards to women. This is shown with the application of Death penalty to male adulterers, by the Byzantines, at times, and the total prohibition on abortion, and infanticide, which while continuing to occur raised the status of women, similar to Islam compared to Semitic paganism. This meant that the majority of converts were, and in many places continue to be, Women. This is shown with Constantine's Mother, or any Major Bishop of this period, who would have been born to a Christian couple, or a Christian mother, and rarely a pagan father. Other time this could have caused a shift in society, irregardless of Constantine.

Assuming Armenia is Christian and without any close other country converting, if it isn't overwhelmed by Persia or Rome or Nomads

Nomads seems a bit to generous, considering the Caucasus Mountains we're enough to deter the Mongols.
 
The Numbers, I usually see is 7%-10%. But no what I mean by Demographic reasons is the reasons why people converted, which is in part related to demography. The clearest example of this is Women, and female infanticide. Christianity is, despite the protestations of modern feminists, far more Liberal and progressive than the paganism before it, specifically with regards to women. This is shown with the application of Death penalty to male adulterers, by the Byzantines, at times, and the total prohibition on abortion, and infanticide, which while continuing to occur raised the status of women, similar to Islam compared to Semitic paganism. This meant that the majority of converts were, and in many places continue to be, Women. This is shown with Constantine's Mother, or any Major Bishop of this period, who would have been born to a Christian couple, or a Christian mother, and rarely a pagan father. Other time this could have caused a shift in society, irregardless of Constantine.

I've had people here tell me with complete sincerity that Rome was 40% Christian under Dioceltion so I assumed you were taking a more moderate version of that typical tact when people mention demography in relation to the late Roman Empire and give no other explaination for your reasoning, so that is what I read into your assertion.

As for your actual assertion, I'm more skeptical. Assuming the next century and a half goes with Emperors who vary from active persecutors to ones who ignore Christianity, I see half the children of Christians, particularly the aristocratic ones who wish to Rise and who have close pagan relatives, being pulled into the mainstream through marriage, weak faith in times of percecution (the second generation is always less devout), simply thinking their Mum is a bit of a wackjob (they way kid with parent with new agey parents might feel PD), maybe there's a conservative wave culturally in the face of German invasions or a hundred different reasons. Yeah, better womens standing has an attraction. So does marrying a rich husband who loves you. So does having a higher standing by particpating in the mainstream of society.

Basically, you have a wave. Not a tidal wave. You have the numbers of Christians rising to 15% by 450, but then an atl version of the German invasions happen, the Persians start pushing Zoroastrianism or whatever butterflies I haven't thought of happen and the chess board where Christianity was gaining is knocked over by a hundred other trends as Mars-Woden becomes the central cult of the Frankish Kingdom you suddenly find yourself living in, and the window of opportunity to make Christianity the dominant force in whatever civilization you are now apart of is gone.

And just maybe one of those buttflies is skiing horse cavalry or many less unlikely butterflies to bring nomads to the mountains (at least Armenia).
 
I think we should this from a more geographical perspective, I can see Christianity becoming entrenched in the East and if any split happens, I think the religion would become a plurality without some particular pagan revival(I'm thinking of a TL with no support for Christianity, not a Julianus-style early counter-revival), the West would stay more probably pagan, outside Africa.
 
Last edited:
As for your actual assertion, I'm more skeptical. Assuming the next century and a half goes with Emperors who vary from active persecutors to ones who ignore Christianity, I see half the children of Christians, particularly the aristocratic ones who wish to Rise and who have close pagan relatives, being pulled into the mainstream through marriage, weak faith in times of percecution (the second generation is always less devout), simply thinking their Mum is a bit of a wackjob (they way kid with parent with new agey parents might feel PD), maybe there's a conservative wave culturally in the face of German invasions or a hundred different reasons. Yeah, better womens standing has an attraction. So does marrying a rich husband who loves you. So does having a higher standing by particpating in the mainstream of society

Fundamentally you are ignoring three facts here. One is the relatively insular nature of Christians, for example it is permitted for a Christian too divorce their non-Christian spouse upon conversion, something that Paul clearly had people use. Secondly, Christians pulled from almost all walks of life, with some being rich, such as Widows who built large house churches, or urban poor, who were essentially their clients. Thirdly, in Roman Society it was legal for a daughter or son to refuse an appropriate match, by their Pater Familias. This is totally rejected in Christianity, were both sides must consent, and agree to highly stringent oaths, of conduct, which must be abided by. This then contextualises the abundance of stories of young female martyrs, who even though high class would likely want to escape from said system. These things fundamentally allowed for a population that choose to only engage partially and on its own terms, which helped contribute to a relatively tight community, that was likely more involved in charity than general society. In fact several authors posit that Christians had higher birth rates in part due to these factors and infanticide banning.

numbers of Christians rising to 15% by 450, but then an atl version of the German invasions happen, the Persians start pushing Zoroastrianism or whatever butterflies I haven't thought of happen and the chess board where Christianity was gaining is knocked over by a hundred other trends as Mars-Woden becomes the central cult of the Frankish Kingdom you suddenly find yourself living in, and the window of opportunity to make Christianity the dominant force in whatever civilization you are now apart of is gone.

I don't think this would be the case, fundamentally all of the Germanic tribes, barring the Frank's were converted, yes in part due to Constatine's sponsorship, but Ireland became Christian just by slave raiding and missionaries. So I don't see why this would still happen for the Germanic peoples.
 
As for your actual assertion, I'm more skeptical. Assuming the next century and a half goes with Emperors who vary from active persecutors to ones who ignore Christianity, I see half the children of Christians, particularly the aristocratic ones who wish to Rise and who have close pagan relatives, being pulled into the mainstream through marriage, weak faith in times of percecution (the second generation is always less devout), simply thinking their Mum is a bit of a wackjob (they way kid with parent with new agey parents might feel PD), maybe there's a conservative wave culturally in the face of German invasions or a hundred different reasons. Yeah, better womens standing has an attraction. So does marrying a rich husband who loves you. So does having a higher standing by particpating in the mainstream of society.

Basically, you have a wave. Not a tidal wave. You have the numbers of Christians rising to 15% by 450, but then an atl version of the German invasions happen, the Persians start pushing Zoroastrianism or whatever butterflies I haven't thought of happen and the chess board where Christianity was gaining is knocked over by a hundred other trends as Mars-Woden becomes the central cult of the Frankish Kingdom you suddenly find yourself living in, and the window of opportunity to make Christianity the dominant force in whatever civilization you are now apart of is gone.

Weren't most of the Germanic invaders, at least at the elite level, Arian Christians as opposed to pagans by that point?
 
Weren't most of the Germanic invaders, at least at the elite level, Arian Christians as opposed to pagans by that point?

All except for the Franks, however the Franks had a large Christian part to them.

Uhh, what part of a hypothetical PoD in 300s that butterflies Christian dominance like 99.9% of the time also prevents Arianism among the Germans as well isn't kinda so obvious it just goes without saying?
 
The Numbers, I usually see is 7%-10%. But no what I mean by Demographic reasons is the reasons why people converted, which is in part related to demography. The clearest example of this is Women, and female infanticide. Christianity is, despite the protestations of modern feminists, far more Liberal and progressive than the paganism before it, specifically with regards to women. This is shown with the application of Death penalty to male adulterers, by the Byzantines, at times, and the total prohibition on abortion, and infanticide, which while continuing to occur raised the status of women, similar to Islam compared to Semitic paganism. This meant that the majority of converts were, and in many places continue to be, Women. This is shown with Constantine's Mother, or any Major Bishop of this period, who would have been born to a Christian couple, or a Christian mother, and rarely a pagan father. Other time this could have caused a shift in society, irregardless of Constantine.
Where inter religious couples common in the Roman Empire?
 
Yeah, the 5% to 10% that was Christian was really important in demographic terms. But if we were to go into it I'm sure you'd quote something like 20-30% and we both would think the other is absurd.

I think the exact percentage of Christians in the year 300 is less important than the fact that they are growing very rapidly in number at this time. Whatever the number of Christians, it is considerably larger than it was 50 years previously, and probably vastly more than 100 years earlier. This despite various attempts by the Roman authorities to stop them.

The Roman government does not have to adopt Christianity ; it can remain pagan for a long time and the Christians can accommodate themselves to this (“Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s”). But by this point it almost certainly has to reach a legal accommodation with Christianity. It can’t have a growing share of its population permanently alienated from its rule. The Edict of Milan is common sense politics. If Constantine doesn’t issue it, probably a successor does.

As for Armenia, it can become a thorn in the empire’s side (a place to harbor Christian refugees) if this accommodation does not happen.
 
Uhh, what part of a hypothetical PoD in 300s that butterflies Christian dominance like 99.9% of the time also prevents Arianism among the Germans as well isn't kinda so obvious it just goes without saying?

Not really, the Armenia adopted Christianity before Rome, same with Eithopia, there is no reason they same can't happen with the Germans.

Where inter religious couples common in the Roman Empire?

Yes very common, Constantine himself was a product of this. As well as several important saints such as Augustine.
 
True the point still stands with Armenia, and likely Ethiopia still had Christians.
St Matthew allegedly preached there, but it appears their merchant class was Christian which is why established communities took some time to develop. It was not rare for nomads and merchants to worship once a year, usually a shortened lent and pascha (Easter). They probably left Ethiopia for Alexandria for that time.
 
Top