Does Europe and Rome become more like China without Christianity?

Deleted member 67076

Without Christianity does Rome end up surviving longer
No. Probably the other way around if anything given how Christianity was a major factor in how the Eastern Romans survived for so long and how the Western Romans were able to bind regional elites by offering third sons a job outside the army or the government, and after Constantine, the bureaucracy.
Rome can be taken over by invading barbarians but could they end up assimilating to Roman culture like invaders of China did?
They did this. The Germanic peoples (and also Altaic tribesmen and Iranic Alans) who invaded were extremely Romanized by the time their troops were strong enough to contest Romans in battle. Exposure to the Roman markets at the frontiers and Roman prestige drove enough wealth generation to have the frontier groups emulate the Romans as much as they could. Actually gaining power in the empire led them to further adopt Roman custom in dress, language (Gothic was dying out by the 500s), religion, and so forth.

The thing that stopped this was Justinian and later the Caliphate's invasions.
Could Rome go through warring states periods before going into periods of long unification and peace?
Arguably this is the Justinian era.
Could you have both the Western and Eastern Empires do this at the same time if both stay separate?
No, the power base of the empire was always in the East. Theodoric the Great had to use a ton of soft power to keep his tenuous hold in Spain after spending decades rebuilding Italy and couldn't contest the Franks enough to secure Gaul.

What happens with the rest of Europe and the mediterranean region in the coming centuries if a pod like this is possible?
You get the main "anchor" of economic activity remaining further south into the Mediterranean basin for longer. Of course the heavy plow will still cause a major revolution in the North Sea and later the Baltic, but for the forseeable future Late Antiquity doesn't stop. The Empire gets more bureaucratic and effective, but its losing its edge in manpower and economic parity to the northern neighbors which leads to a more overstretched frontier so long as Persia remains strong.
 

Deleted member 67076

Religion in Rome was done out tradition and symbolism more then personal beliefs. The Romans did see practicing religious ceremonies as good for your spirit and neglect of it as bad but they did not relate that to a strict belief system like Christianity. Stoicism thought made Romans very pragmatic and rational about the physical and spiritual world.
OK this is blatantly wrong and a rereading of outdated Gibbonite historiography that's been disproved for centuries. The Romans were absurdly superstitious people, much like everyone else in the ancient world. Down to having rituals invoking enemy gods and adopting them into their pantheon before battle and a belief the entire world was supernatural in the extreme. Stoicism was not state policy nor was it the average view of your heavily tribal legionnaire whose primary look in the battlefield would be a bunch of howling, chanting, and frenzied swamp hicks charging out to slog through an entire day's worth of fighting (and that was before you got to the veterans who were sent in after them through Post Marian reforms).
Romans considered Christianity Superstitio for its dogmatic nature.
Christians were considered atheists for their lack of ritual and superstition, not superstitious.

Religion in Rome was done out tradition and symbolism more then personal beliefs. The Romans did see practicing religious ceremonies as good for your spirit and neglect of it as bad but they did not relate that to a strict belief system like Christianity.
This flies in the face of the absurdly complicated rituals and rites Roman religion had. Christianity is a simple and flexible belief system, hence why it spread. The Romans on the other hand had to constantly rewrite history with their synchretism after they massacred local priests again and again (see: all of Gaul, Africa).

In a empire built off keeping the peace and paying your taxes this isn’t good. Western Rome was much more pagan and less Christian then the east once Christianity came into power. Many people in Gaul and other places only tolerated Roman rule because it was convenient for them. Roman could be brutal but if you keep the peace and paid your taxes they often left you alone.

This is not true. I find the Romans fascinating as much as anyone here but the Roman Empire was a colonial extraction machine based on subjugation and enslavement of local peoples, imposition of heavy tribute, enforcement of settlements with the new Roman colons created to be a built up aristocracy propped up by the military and an incredibly potent cultural Romanization campaign in order to enforce their culture on locals. There's a very good reason you don't start seeing Gallic senators centuries after the conquest and why Vulgar Latin spread so fast (it was either do business in Latin or die).

Its also why emperors such as those who tried to emulate Eastern Cults (Elagabalus, Septimus Serverus, arguably Caligula, and beyond) were seen as radical, insane, and quickly deposed. Dominitian's transformation to the Dominate was only able to happen after the near total breakdown of imperial authority and political norms.
Early Christian empires were often so busy fighting themselves over religious issues it made them easier targets for invasion. Every Roman Empire under Christian leadership has been plagued with religious violence and conflict from within. Look at the late Western Empire, Eastern Empire,
Find me a single revolt in the late Western Empire that was started because of Christianity and not a political issue.

The Late Western Empire was /less/ prone to sporadic violence than the Principate, but its civil wars were more devastating due to the increased centralization of the empire as a result of it bureaucratic apparatus being developed. In other words, the empire functioned as a proper one party state rather than a glorified mafia protection racket/colonial settlement scheme and the risk/rewards for being emperor grew. There are less civil wars happening in the 400s than the 300s, and less regional revolts than the 200s or the first century. If anything regional homogenization starts kicking in en masse around this time period (that actually might be a cause for why the destructive civil wars happened, because people wanted the rights afforded to them as Romans).

The only reason this become so dangerous is Theodosius the Great's civil war which shredded the manpower of the Western Roman Army, and the sudden deaths of strongmen Stilicho in 406 and Constantius III in 421. In other words, like with every one party state, whenever a seat is open its a brutal slog to secure power. These are political issues and not religious.

Christian infighting is an incredibly overrated issue and the whole notion of the proud, skeptical, and rational Pagans against the dogmatic and fanatical monotheists is the worst trope in historiography.
 
Top