Christianity w/o the Roman Dominate

What does Christianity look like in a world where the split of the Roman Empire into three parts during the Crisis of the Third Century lasted much longer? (These three are the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empire, and what I guess we can call the "Central Empire".) This means we don't get the persecutions (or reforms) of Diocletian or the empire wide "adoption" of Constatine; there's no Council of Nicea, and any equivalent would be smaller or much later than OTL; plus depending on how deep we want to get into this, there's also the massive changes to the Roman political and economic order to consider.

I should note that one of the recent discussions on a Third Century Collapse did end up getting into this, but I thought a thread explicitly dedicated to the topic might get more insight.
 
If the Empire becomes three-way split, it´s not exactly excluded that one of these parts adopts Christianity as state religion. Which one is relatively open, although I´d say the Gallo-Roman Empire is least likely. Whoever gets the Southern Anatolian Coast, the Levante and Egypt at least has the greatest Christian minorities.

If the Palmyrene Empire goes Christian, that might produce a backlash against Christians in the other two empires, as Christians will be seen as an integral part of the oriental culture which betrayed Rome. With Antiochia, Alexandria and Jerusalem, three important bishoprics (I don`t know if they were referred to as Patriarchs already) are in the Palmyrene Empire. I don`t think either of them would be elevated above the others (why would it); Rome would certainly not be considered the seat of the most important bishop.

Depending on when such an alt-Constantine happens in the Palmyrene Empire, there are a lot of interesting dogmatic developments happening there: whatever is on top during the time of official adoption is likely to become official dogma.

If neither of the three empires officially embraces Christianity, then Christianity remains a movement which actively distances itself from politics mostly, if it isn`t persecuted too harshly, and which continues to undermine the legitimacy of any politiy, on the one hand by denying its potential claims to universal or divine power, on the other hand by supplementing parallel structures of charity and dispute resolution which leave the actual state with little legitimacy left, except for military protection.
 
@Salvador79 An alt Constantine who oversees the bracing of Christianity in just the Palmyrene Empire is fascinating to think about; if they still have to worry about conquering / defending against the other two empires, they probably haven't established a Dominate, and will be less concerned with standardizing Christianity and the state religion than they are with rallying the empire to their cause. Whether this is enough to get the Docetists and Johnists* to get along, I couldn't say; that said, I expect our Palmyrene Empire will not want to alienate of their vast non-Christian population either, or at least other "eastern" faiths they can rally against the other empires, such as the Jews or the influential Cult of Emesa.

The Christian Church of TTL, even if legalized, could well be less politically dominant, less hierarchical, and less "Orthodox", and may even be less "patriarchal", if they see less need for things like doing away with deaconesses, etc.; so all in all, less "Roman". Plus, if the other two Romes are cracking down on Christianity even harder, the Palmyrene Christians, in the short term, will likely become all the more "patriotic" for their Caesar, making things like ecclesiastical discipline less necessary form our alt Cobstantine's point of view.

*not the right name I'm sure; referring to those Pauline (ie Gentile) Christians who worshipped Jesus "in the flesh"
 
@Salvador79 An alt Constantine who oversees the bracing of Christianity in just the Palmyrene Empire is fascinating to think about; if they still have to worry about conquering / defending against the other two empires, they probably haven't established a Dominate, and will be less concerned with standardizing Christianity and the state religion than they are with rallying the empire to their cause. Whether this is enough to get the Docetists and Johnists* to get along, I couldn't say; that said, I expect our Palmyrene Empire will not want to alienate of their vast non-Christian population either, or at least other "eastern" faiths they can rally against the other empires, such as the Jews or the influential Cult of Emesa.

The Christian Church of TTL, even if legalized, could well be less politically dominant, less hierarchical, and less "Orthodox", and may even be less "patriarchal", if they see less need for things like doing away with deaconesses, etc.; so all in all, less "Roman". Plus, if the other two Romes are cracking down on Christianity even harder, the Palmyrene Christians, in the short term, will likely become all the more "patriotic" for their Caesar, making things like ecclesiastical discipline less necessary form our alt Cobstantine's point of view.

*not the right name I'm sure; referring to those Pauline (ie Gentile) Christians who worshipped Jesus "in the flesh"
I like the idea, too.
No, certainly no Dominate in Palmyra. A lasting Palmyrene Empire would be fascinating in and of itself because it would have to solve the tension between the one source of power of its imperator - the legions, which are recruited from many different places, many of them not even from the East at least in the beginning - and the other source: the Arabian clans which run not only Palmyra, but the entire surrounding region and who control the trade networks and overland roads of a good portion of this empire.
I love myself a non-standardised Christianity. But I´m not so sure if a Palmyrene Empire wouldn`t want that, too. After all, what`s the point of publicly embracing Christianity if some of those whom you embraced don´t embrace you back, i.e. don`t care for the laws and regulations you issue?

In very broad strokes, I would imagine a Palmyrene Christianity to focus a lot more than OTL´s Christianity on ascetics. Deaconesses might be totally OK, on the other hand.

Christian refugees streaming into the Palmyrene East? Hmmm... that makes for a crowded Middle East, given how the Ma´rib Dam is collapsing around that time and lots of people are fleeing from South Arabia, too.
 
I love myself a non-standardised Christianity. But I´m not so sure if a Palmyrene Empire wouldn`t want that, too. After all, what`s the point of publicly embracing Christianity if some of those whom you embraced don´t embrace you back, i.e. don`t care for the laws and regulations you issue?
Wouldn't they have enough cause to embrace the "Rome" that fights the other two which are persecuting their fellow faithful (ie my previous point about *patriotism*)?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
other Empire (Gallic, Macriani, Memor, Gallienus) would have Christian minority too, some might even have Christian relatives, general or governor. so Persecution is not certainty, especially if they don't share border with Palmyrene, they might even support Christian as sign of cooperation/alliance with Palmyrene. and many Christian would also have no loyalty to Palmyrene 'Patriarch'. it would be interesting with each bishop give various respect/obedience to 'Eastern Patriarch', some might declare loyalty, some maintain relation but did not accept Eastern superiority, some might completely opposed to them.
 
I do not see the Palmyrene Empire being an enemy powerful enough to defeat the Sassanids when they come to take Syria. Anatolia was the key to the power of Byzantium and it was its manpower that gave Rome in the East the power to be the superior to Sassanid period Iran. Otherwise, the Palmyenes, will be reliant heavily on Arab mercenary, who will be divided in religion and in bloodline, both of which can be played upon by the Sassanids to pummel the thin Palmyrenes. It should also be noted the light demographics of the Palmyrene lands, primarily in the city, lacking vast rural farmer populations to draft from and without the benefit of horsemen and nomads the Sassanids can raise from their lands.

Also, why will Christian doctrine issues be any more healed? There will still be differing opinions and without the full power of later Byzantium, there is no way such a divided and glass canon of an empire, can hope to face the Sassanids in a sustained war or even rebellious Arabs to their south.
 
@John7755 يوحنا First, Palmyra did control central Anatolia, didn't they? Second, could they have at least have managed to match the Persians in the 290's, as Rome had OTL? If so, that at least holds the gate until Shapur II is ready to take them on in the 320's or 330's.
 
Lots of interesting doctrinal differences from that region: adoptionism, Arabici, Paul of Samosata, gnostic sects etc.

Sassanids are a great threat, but Palmyra controlled Egypt at some point, that's sufficient to fund whatever Army you want to send against the Sassanids, especially since the core Palmyrene forces appear to have been rather skilled, too. They're at home in this arid territory. The frontier is their homeland. But also, I'm not sure if the Sassanids would really seek to attack them. One can argue that their movement and dynasty were reactions to the threat of Roman imperialism. Maybe at this early stage, holding out against them a few times even if at some cost is enough to establish a mutually agreed border.
 
Lots of interesting doctrinal differences from that region: adoptionism, Arabici, Paul of Samosata, gnostic sects etc.

Sassanids are a great threat, but Palmyra controlled Egypt at some point, that's sufficient to fund whatever Army you want to send against the Sassanids, especially since the core Palmyrene forces appear to have been rather skilled, too. They're at home in this arid territory. The frontier is their homeland. But also, I'm not sure if the Sassanids would really seek to attack them. One can argue that their movement and dynasty were reactions to the threat of Roman imperialism. Maybe at this early stage, holding out against them a few times even if at some cost is enough to establish a mutually agreed border.

Egypt is already declining economically by this point and also is not the largest ground for troop raising. Thus, Palmyra must rely heavily on Arab tribes and mercenaries going forward. This is generally the case for regimes based in Syria since at least the Seleucid Empire. Most of this is due to the situation within the near east, west of Iraq, which is like I said, a smaller rural population and larger urban centers and or people groups that have marital skills.

People groups have different levels of martial skills based on three reasons:

1. Culture. If a culture has a particularly war like cultural trait or attitude, it makes them more inclined to military skills. Such as, the Pechenegs had a particular cultural attitude to war that was deep within their culture and outlook. Arab peoples of the Nejd are another example, who typically waged war intermittently the entire year except the hot summer months. It should be noted, one of the most major facets of this, is a tolerance culturally, for desolation and destruction of portions of their communities.

2. Political developments: This includes situations whereby a particular state or ruling class forbids or discourages a group to wage war. In times past, most people gained skills by militia and waging battle in their communities in skirmishes or just local practicing.

3. Geographic determinants: This includes harsh environments that bring out traits within groups that lends itself to war or hardiness. Armenians by virtue of their geography will be situated to war in the mountains of their homeland or that the Cumans will fight well in the open plains.

Think somewhat on these, and consider how the population of Palmyra fits into this.
 
I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but the ban on infanticide Constantine implemented OTL would not be as strictly enforced or widespread without a unified Dominate. The demographic consequences of this would be immense. That and for better or worse, Christianity's spread worldwide, sponsored by an otherwise exploitative West, was one of the reasons why most educated people today abhor killing babies who are fully out of the womb.

So more infanticide overall leading to less population growth and less necessity for new agricultural developments to keep up with population growth.
 
@Dragos Cel Mare Similar thought crossed my mind as well; but I'm more inclined to think that the lack of a forced population growth would actually be a good thing for the latter/former Roman Empire, at least in the near to medium term, since it will mean less constraint on increasingly limited resources. AIUI, the agricultural developments in Europe you're referring to didn't really take hold until the dawn of the Medieval Warm Period centuries after Rome fell.
 
@Dragos Cel Mare Similar thought crossed my mind as well; but I'm more inclined to think that the lack of a forced population growth would actually be a good thing for the latter/former Roman Empire, at least in the near to medium term, since it will mean less constraint on increasingly limited resources. AIUI, the agricultural developments in Europe you're referring to didn't really take hold until the dawn of the Medieval Warm Period centuries after Rome fell.

Wouldn't those be delayed even more, though, then?
 
Why would they, if the climate warms the sane as OTL? Plus, if there's more food per person, that's better for foreign trade, which itself is good for coming into contact with technologies (like better iron forging) that make these developments possible.

How likely is it that Anti-Infanticide teachings would become a worldwide thing, at least among the educated, then?
 
As per John7755's post, the Palmyrenes are liable to fall to a Persian onslaught at some point. Which, presuming the two Western Romes haven't adopted Christianity, means the great majority of Christians are within Sassanid territory.

How would the Persians approach their Christian population(possibly an outright majority of their population?)? They might be perceived as a threat, in which case the Persians are liable to encourage schisms- OTOH there's precedent in the Bible for Persians being perceived liberators of God's people from a hated oppressor. Perhaps the Roman state/s would be interpreted as a second Babylon- the Persians themselves have every reason to "encourage" such an interpretation.

Which might then lead to even greater persecution of Christians in said states, or perhaps the Romans encourage a schismatic sect much like Persia's OTL policy...

I'm wondering if this might also lead to the inclusion of different books if/when the Christian canon is standardized- even OTL canon has some anti-Roman themes, we might see some rabidly anti-Roman text in this alternate Bible*.

Also, perhaps the tendency of OTL Christians to blame Jews for killing Christ would be replaced by blaming Rome for killing Christ?

*If the Romans have sponsored a sect specifically rejecting the Persian-based Christianity, perhaps tjey'd reject that canon and favour a much more Rome-sympathetic canon. So, two Bibles with explicit national/imperial alignments.

The Roman church is liable to be far more antisemitic, blaming Jews rather then Romans for Jesus's death. Even moreso as a reaction to the Roman-blaming narrative on the East. Perhaps a far smaller population of European Jews, and a larger Middle Eastern Jewish population? The Persians are also liable to allow the Temple to be rebuilt...
 
Last edited:
Top