Earlier Cincersionnto Chriatianity

Well, assuming an earlier emperor cincersionnto himself to Chriatianism :)p), you'll have certainly more resistance from pagan elites. It could lead to a more organised answer to that, and have not one but many Julianus Apostasius equivalent.

An harder christianisation is almost certain and, why not, pretender using (among other pretext) the traditional roman rites.
 
Last edited:
I've heard it suggested that Emperor Philip the Arabian (244-249) may have been a Christian, but if so it had no obvious effect on his policies, and he didn't last long enough for anyone to be certain.

Basically, before the 3C crisis, Christians were too few for it to be at all likely, and until that crisis was over, it wouldn't have achieved much even if it did happen, since Emperors during the crisis period generally didn't reign long enough to have much of an impact.
 
I've heard it suggested that Emperor Philip the Arabian (244-249) may have been a Christian, but if so it had no obvious effect on his policies, and he didn't last long enough for anyone to be certain.

Even before him, Septimus Severus had in the collection of gods he revered, pictures of Yahwe, Jesus, Mani.
It was already part of an orientalo-superstitious syncretism, not really a conversion per se.

Now, it's true that our concept of what is conversion, is largely due to how it happened for Rome. Maybe having a different way to have a christian emperor would do it even if it doesn't fit OTL definition?
 
The Senatorial elite were among the last to convert to Christianity. There was a big to-do between the Emperors and the Senate over the pagan Altar of Victory, for example.

A Christian Emperor is going to face more senatorial resistance unless he treads very carefully. And the earlier in the Empire it is, the stronger the Senate is vis-a-vis the Princeps.
 
Top