Christianity without an Empire

By which I mean, what if the Roman Empire had disintegrated permanently before the OTL time of Constantine I (or, if you really want to push it, before the First Council of Nicea at the absolute latest), but with a PoD late enough that Christianity still becomes the dominant religion of the former Roman territory? How much could the "Christianities" practised in the various Roman successor states diverge from one another?
 
Good question. They would be closer to OTL than you think.

For one, unless you posit a huge disintegration of the Eastern empire, you still have Eastern Orthodoxy. ALL of the ecumenical councils in the early church were called by the EASTERN emperor and not considered binding unless the Eastern emperor ratified them (sorry Roman primacy types!)

Plus, even with the disintegration of Western Roman power, you still have Rome itself being an important city, with the Roman Bishop being a powerful figure somewhere there is a power vacuum. So, voila, you have ATL Roman Catholicism as well. You had a Bishop of Rome trying to flex jurisdictional might since the late 2nd century (Easter controversy), so your POD would actually have to be before the late 100s in order to make a different church provided that you include in your POD that Christianity becomes the dominant religion in former Roman territory.

But, this begs the question--how on Earth does Christianity become a majority former-Roman religion without a state entity imposing it? Islam is big because a state entity imposed it. The same is true of Christianity in Christian lands. It was literally against the law not to be a Catholic/Orthodox Christian. How do you get large scale Christianity without Roman or insert state entity here power?

Being that I don't want to ignore the whole point of this thread, I will say that if you want to avoid the ATL turning out almost identical to OTL, you would need a POD either very early (literally Roman disintegration before Christianity and a slow, but sure climb to dominance like Buddhism in south east asia) or Christianity imposed by Germanic tribes.

In the former, the Christianity apart from state actors would probably look a lot like modern Protestantism. It would have some level of doctrinal cohesion, but not like a state church.

In the latter, Christianity would be almost impossible to recognize. It would be essentially a Germanic Odin-Thor religion given new clothes. But, the Germans were never going to be able to take over Greece and Egypt. So, you would essentially end up with Eastern Orthodoxy and Arianism in the West, probably centered in Rome with a Pope.

If you want to avoid the existence of Eastern Orthodoxy with a post Jesus Christ Roman break-up, you would need something absolutely cataclysmic which would fragment Roman control in the are. But, who takes over? Were there enough Greeks to reassert themselves? WOuld it be like the post-Alexander the Great break up of the Persian Empire? In that case, you would have a different Christianity in each sphere suited to the whims of the emperor of the fragment of Greece/Egypt/Persia/Arabia/etcetera. If this occurs, it's anyone's guess how it develops.

I will say this--the Roman/Eastern/Oriental system of a priesthood, as long as there are state actors, is probably going to become solidified. This is not because states invented the priesthood (it was pretty much there by the late 100s early 200s.) However, the priesthood fit cultural norms of the time (every religion, including Judaism, had them) and it is only natural, when there are state actors involved, that the chief priests in the big cities are going to exert disordinate power and own more properties (which means, more power.) In this sort of enviornment, an monarchical episcopacy is pragmatic and a forgone conclusion.

The plurality of Bishops, which even Catholic historians admit was the original practice of the Apostolic Church, simply is too counter-cultural to last and IOTL it had pretty much disappeared by Ignatius' time.
 
Perhaps Rome's collapse would be interpreted by Christians as "God's punishment" for persecuting Christians, executing Christ, etc. I wonder how much the Christian tendency to blame Jews rather then Rome for Christ's execution was due to Rome's institutionalization of Christianity and the Catholic Church's Roman identity? Perhaps we'd see less romanticization of Rome in Christian societies?

For one, unless you posit a huge disintegration of the Eastern empire, you still have Eastern Orthodoxy. ALL of the ecumenical councils in the early church were called by the EASTERN emperor and not considered binding unless the Eastern emperor ratified them (sorry Roman primacy types!)
The OP didn't specify that only the Western portion disintegrates.

But, this begs the question--how on Earth does Christianity become a majority former-Roman religion without a state entity imposing it? Islam is big because a state entity imposed it. The same is true of Christianity in Christian lands. It was literally against the law not to be a Catholic/Orthodox Christian. How do you get large scale Christianity without Roman or insert state entity here power?
It might not be dominant throughout Roman territory, but it could be dominant in particular regions. IIRC Armenia was officially Christianized before Rome, and Christianity was the predominant faith in Mesopotamia despite the Sassanid's sponsorship of the Zoroastrian faith. So conversion by the leadership of regions in which they're particularly strong is definitely on the table.
 
I wonder how much the Christian tendency to blame Jews rather then Rome for Christ's execution was due to Rome's institutionalization of Christianity and the Catholic Church's Roman identity? Perhaps we'd see less romanticization of Rome in Christian societies?
Ignatius and then Justin Martyr were warning of Judaizing so I don't think a pre-constantine POD would change the perception of Judaism and its incorrect doctrines in light of Christ's revelation.

The OP didn't specify that only the Western portion disintegrates.

Granted, but what realistic POD will disintegrate both? If you get rid of Marcu Aeralis and replace him with a bunch of idiots during his reign, maybe you can get a western collapse some time in the third century. The East won't have Constantinople, so they will be less centralized, but it won't completely collapse. A claimant will probably take power over the whole, which begs the question, how do you get both to disintegrate?

Even if they both do, I postulated that you would simply get more Catholicisms/Orthodoxies as it pertains to ecclesiology and probably saint-worship. There would be more Christological diversity.


It might not be dominant throughout Roman territory, but it could be dominant in particular regions. IIRC Armenia was officially Christianized before Rome, and Christianity was the predominant faith in Mesopotamia despite the Sassanid's sponsorship of the Zoroastrian faith. So conversion by the leadership of regions in which they're particularly strong is definitely on the table.
As I pointed out, we would still probably end up with an ecclesiological structure very similar to what we have now, and if so, this will lead to doctrines and pratces roughly similar.
 
Christianity was a powerful movement in the late 3rd / early 4th century, no doubt about that, but I can only warn against exaggerating its size and powers.
It was perhaps the_single_most important challenge to official religious practices in several places, but it was still far from being the faith of a majority anywhere. While imperial cult and the Greco-Roman heritage were undoubtedly in a crisis, and Christianity`s rival opponents against these traditions were smaller than Christianity itself, all these non-Christian groups_together_still formed solid to overwhelming majorities almost everywhere even by 300 CE.
Coastal regions in the Eastern Mediterranean and parts of Anatolia, Syria and Mesopotamia were where Christianity was strongest, and here it was closest to becoming majoritarian.
Everywhere else, it was clearly a minority. In Armenia, a king converted - in the mountainous, disparate country that it was, this would never have equated with a conversion of "the Armenians", had it not been for the imperial Roman example which would follow soon after.

If Christianity had not been embraced as the Roman Empire`s state religion in the course of the 4th century, it could have remained the strong and growing, but largely avowedly anti-political social movement that it had been up to Constantine. What would really interest me would be how alt-Christianity would have reacted to what could easily have equated to a shock: the disintegration of its primary cultural enemy in the West, a pagan Roman Empire. What if the Roman Empire disintegrates in the 5th century anyway like IOTL and becomes replaced with German-Roman splinter states like IOTL, but Christianity hasn`t become a Roman state religion and is still a sect with a followership between 5 and 20 % in the formerly Roman West? How does Christianity react to the disapperance of the empire and its official cultural framework in opposition to which it has defined itself throughout all of its existence?
 
Christianity was a powerful movement in the late 3rd / early 4th century, no doubt about that, but I can only warn against exaggerating its size and powers.
It was perhaps the_single_most important challenge to official religious practices in several places, but it was still far from being the faith of a majority anywhere. While imperial cult and the Greco-Roman heritage were undoubtedly in a crisis, and Christianity`s rival opponents against these traditions were smaller than Christianity itself, all these non-Christian groups_together_still formed solid to overwhelming majorities almost everywhere even by 300 CE.
Coastal regions in the Eastern Mediterranean and parts of Anatolia, Syria and Mesopotamia were where Christianity was strongest, and here it was closest to becoming majoritarian.
Everywhere else, it was clearly a minority. In Armenia, a king converted - in the mountainous, disparate country that it was, this would never have equated with a conversion of "the Armenians", had it not been for the imperial Roman example which would follow soon after.

If Christianity had not been embraced as the Roman Empire`s state religion in the course of the 4th century, it could have remained the strong and growing, but largely avowedly anti-political social movement that it had been up to Constantine. What would really interest me would be how alt-Christianity would have reacted to what could easily have equated to a shock: the disintegration of its primary cultural enemy in the West, a pagan Roman Empire. What if the Roman Empire disintegrates in the 5th century anyway like IOTL and becomes replaced with German-Roman splinter states like IOTL, but Christianity hasn`t become a Roman state religion and is still a sect with a followership between 5 and 20 % in the formerly Roman West? How does Christianity react to the disapperance of the empire and its official cultural framework in opposition to which it has defined itself throughout all of its existence?

Well, it did not require to be a majority. Christianity only had to grow to such an extent that the ruler would deem it politically advantageous to convert. Like OTL.

Whoever would rule the Eastern Part, a ruler may decide, whether it's for conviction or convenience, to convert to Christianity. And that conversion would by itself lead to the growth of Christianity within that Eastern part, and also spur conversions in the neighboring realms. Then a neighboring ruler might convert because it might be better for diplomacy with the Eastern realm. Then that would hasten the conversion of people of his realm. Etc. etc.

So I'm still predicting that Christianity would be the dominant religion in such a scenario. But it would all depend on the rulers deciding to convert to Christianity, which given the Armenian example, isn't ASB.
 
Well, it did not require to be a majority. Christianity only had to grow to such an extent that the ruler would deem it politically advantageous to convert. Like OTL.

Whoever would rule the Eastern Part, a ruler may decide, whether it's for conviction or convenience, to convert to Christianity. And that conversion would by itself lead to the growth of Christianity within that Eastern part, and also spur conversions in the neighboring realms. Then a neighboring ruler might convert because it might be better for diplomacy with the Eastern realm. Then that would hasten the conversion of people of his realm. Etc. etc.

So I'm still predicting that Christianity would be the dominant religion in such a scenario. But it would all depend on the rulers deciding to convert to Christianity, which given the Armenian example, isn't ASB.
Of course it´s not ASB given OTL. It´s all well.
But don`t overlook lots of interesting paths for divergence. If Christianity only becomes a state religion in the East somewhere around the later 5th century, for example, how altered is the cultural identity of the minority of CHristians in the disintegrating West? And how does that exert influence on the East in turn, if at all?
Also, let´s not fool ourselves about the inevitability of the Constantine turn even in the East. Of course attempting to gain political power by basing oneself on Christianity is something that can`t be butterflied away, but that doesn`t mean a guarantee for a smooth transition into state religion like OTL. You could have a Christian peripheral post-Roman entity threatening the Eastern imperial core instead (think of a Christian Palmyra), or you could have warring imperial successor states with capitals at Alexandria and, for simplicity´s sake: Byzantion, with one of them posing as Christian and the other not, or, or, or...
 
It might not be dominant throughout Roman territory, but it could be dominant in particular regions. IIRC Armenia was officially Christianized before Rome, and Christianity was the predominant faith in Mesopotamia despite the Sassanid's sponsorship of the Zoroastrian faith. So conversion by the leadership of regions in which they're particularly strong is definitely on the table.

Yes, Armenia adopted Christianity at the beginning of the fourth century. The Kingdom of Aksum also converted around that time.
 
If Christianity had not been embraced as the Roman Empire`s state religion in the course of the 4th century, it could have remained the strong and growing, but largely avowedly anti-political social movement that it had been up to Constantine. What would really interest me would be how alt-Christianity would have reacted to what could easily have equated to a shock: the disintegration of its primary cultural enemy in the West, a pagan Roman Empire.

An earlier Roman disintegration would have not affected the high view of martyrs, and the development of Monkery to in effect act as an outlet for the ultra-devout. Monkery was a natural development from Eastern Mystery religions and Hellenistic views of virtues, and was originally a part of Gnosticism. So, I honestly do not think it would visibly be very different. You would literally need a POD before 100 AD that gets rid of Rome to avoid a Christianity that looks like Eastern Orthodoxy and Romanism.

What if the Roman Empire disintegrates in the 5th century anyway like IOTL and becomes replaced with German-Roman splinter states like IOTL, but Christianity hasn`t become a Roman state religion and is still a sect with a followership between 5 and 20 % in the formerly Roman West? How does Christianity react to the disapperance of the empire and its official cultural framework in opposition to which it has defined itself throughout all of its existence?

Like I said, it would look the same. It would essentially be like 3rd century Christianity. A strong, vibrant force that is growing centered in Rome. The Roman church would simply have too much money and pre-eminence by virtue of its historical position to not be the head of western Christiandom. You would need a POD that gets rid of the Monarchical Episcopacy, which would ahve to be very early. If you have the Monarchical episcopacy you will have Roman Catholicism, even with an early fall of Rome which never adopted Christianity.

Whoever would rule the Eastern Part, a ruler may decide, whether it's for conviction or convenience, to convert to Christianity. And that conversion would by itself lead to the growth of Christianity within that Eastern part, and also spur conversions in the neighboring realms. Then a neighboring ruler might convert because it might be better for diplomacy with the Eastern realm. Then that would hasten the conversion of people of his realm. Etc. etc. So I'm still predicting that Christianity would be the dominant religion in such a scenario. But it would all depend on the rulers deciding to convert to Christianity, which given the Armenian example, isn't ASB.

Being that in the East the same social and economic realities found in the west would also exist, I think it would still look a lot like Eastern Orthodoxy...Armenia, for example, is Eastern Orthodox though never properly Roman or Byzantine.

If Christianity only becomes a state religion in the East somewhere around the later 5th century, for example, how altered is the cultural identity of the minority of CHristians in the disintegrating West?

Almost no different. Ecumenism was IOTL an Eastern thing, not a Western thing. The West did indeed hold their own synods, but they were always local in nature an ITTL they would continue to be so, centering around Rome. In the East, they would have ecumenical councils over eastern controversies the same exact way as IOTL they had ecumenical councils over strictly-eastern controversies.
 
. You could have a Christian peripheral post-Roman entity threatening the Eastern imperial core instead (think of a Christian Palmyra), or you could have warring imperial successor states with capitals at Alexandria and, for simplicity´s sake: Byzantion, with one of them posing as Christian and the other not, or, or, or...
Yes, that's more in line with scenario I had in mind, FYI. With a Sassanid occupation of parts of the Levant thrown in.
 
Top