If Julian the Apostate lived a full life could the complete takeover of Christianity have been averted?

[Lady Visenya]

Julian's narrow slice of paganism (in a sea of paganism and the much larger slice of Christianity) was so intellectual and obtuse in a way that wasn't really going to be popular. Its most popular ideas were just "do Christianity without Christ" on the social level, but for actual practice it'd just be... idk, not super likely to catch on?

Because his brand of religion was for theologians, not the common man. Dude was a giant nerd.

You'd be better off replacing him with a reactionary pagan who isn't Julian. Because Julian himself was... for all that people look to him as some great pagan hope, not actually fit for the task he had in mind.

 

[Silver01]

Such as?

climate, change , a collapsing economy, lack of incentives to join the army, very unpopular laws and taxations while i some times exaggerated many romans would of the time would have agreed with some harsher comments that by the end the west was a parasitic regime that took more and gave little back to its citizens hence why some people were glad it collapsed all the troubles of the 5th century already exist or are set up by the time of Julian and the Huns pushing the goths are around the corner.

In fact Julian biggest obstacle will be in 370s, Shapur unless something occurs to him will live till 379, the goths show up depends if Julian allows them to cross or not but the problem is that Shapur is still alive and unlike the otl were was fine with a peace after the events of armenia this Shapur would want Nisibis and big portion of Mesopotamia Julian would between a rock and hard place

 

[Gloss]

Julian's narrow slice of paganism (in a sea of paganism and the much larger slice of Christianity) was so intellectual and obtuse in a way that wasn't really going to be popular. Its most popular ideas were just "do Christianity without Christ" on the social level, but for actual practice it'd just be... idk, not super likely to catch on?

Because his brand of religion was for theologians, not the common man. Dude was a giant nerd.

You'd be better off replacing him with a reactionary pagan who isn't Julian. Because Julian himself was... for all that people look to him as some great pagan hope, not actually fit for the task he had in mind.

I point to this quote which I think gives a positive take on Julian's project, insofar as Roman elites were concerned:

Heather talks about how the Antioch story is largely misleading given there is evidence of positive reception in other places at the time, in fact your first statement is basically wrong, there were definitely people that went along with Julian and people that were theoretically receptive to what Julian was trying to create.
Good reason to quote:

Spoiler

An acid test of the viability of Julian’s religious policies for many modern commentators, however, was the emperor’s lengthy stay in the city of Antioch, from July 362 to April 363. The headquarters for his upcoming Persian campaign, Antioch also had one of the oldest Christian communities in the Empire, and Julian’s plans for pagan revival brought him into direct conflict with it. Just outside the city lay a famous shrine to Apollo, long a source of oracular guidance. But, in 351 a church had been built there to contain the remains of a former bishop of Antioch, Babylas, martyred in the Empirewide persecution of Christians instituted by the emperor Decius in the 250s. Its specific purpose was to neutralize the oracular powers of Apollo’s shrine and silence the god. Taking exception to this, Julian ordered the martyr’s remains to be exhumed and returned to Antioch but, shortly afterwards, and much to Julian’s fury, a fire broke out at the shrine, destroying its temple. This was only one in a sequence of disputes between the emperor and the citizens of Antioch, prompting Julian to write a satirical tract the Misopogon or Beard Hater (the title refers to Julian’s preference for a beard, which was a traditional attribute of a classical philosopher) which he had posted up in the city. Not surprisingly, historians have tended to see Julian’s experiences in Antioch as clear evidence that his religious experiment was doomed to failure, with or without his early demise in Persia.

This is too hasty a conclusion. Many cities of the Empire did not have anything like such well-established Christian communities as Antioch; twothirds of them (1,200) had not even had a bishop just a generation before Julian came to the throne. There were also other issues at play in Antioch besides religion. The concentration of Julian’s huge expeditionary army of well over fifty thousand men in and around the city caused price rises and food shortages: it was these, as much as his religious policies, that provoked hostility towards the emperor, particularly among the city’s ruling council. There’s also the problem that Antioch is, if anything, so well-documented that Julian’s travails there tend to swamp the broader run of evidence for how the Empire as a whole responded to his religious initiatives. [47]

Overall, the response to Julian’s religious initiatives was decidedly mixed, in the proper sense of the word. Surviving inscriptions, for instance in the Greek city of Pergamum, show that a number of local communities responded positively, while major repairs were also undertaken of the temple to Hadrian, part of the old imperial cult, at Ephesus. We know, too, that a number of individuals such as a widely ridiculed teacher of rhetoric in Constantinople called Hecebolius changed their religious allegiance back again to fall in line with Julian’s preferences, perhaps prompted by the Emperor’s edict against Christian teachers. Such ‘re-conversions’ shouldn’t cause too much surprise. Not every Christian conversion was powered by the same kind of intense reflection as that of Augustine, and the same kind of moderate, ‘belief in the Highest God’ religious sensibilities which made it possible for Bishop Gregory Nazianzen’s father to switch painlessly from Neo-Platonic pagan monotheism to Constantine’s Christianity could easily work in the opposite direction. Taken as a whole, the responses to Julian’s letters show the full range of possible reactions. Christian-dominated city councils like Antioch’s refused to do anything; pagan councils Gaza of course, but also Batnae and Emesa responded with huge enthusiasm; others still, like that of the Thracian city of Beroe, made enthusiastic noises in their official statements without actually doing anything specific much the most sensible response to a sudden policy change at the centre in a oneparty state. [48]

All of which suggests that Antioch is in fact misleading as a case study in the amount of hostility Julian’s initiatives generally provoked. The emperor clearly faced substantial difficulties in trying to unite the many different pagan cults of his Empire, but there were nonetheless plenty of positive pagan responses to Julian’s policies, and plenty of signs, too, that many others were happy enough to identify the ‘Highest God’ in whichever way the incumbent emperor saw fit: central protagonist of the Judaeo-Christian biblical canon, or Neo-Platonic ‘One’. And Julian, of course, had the same range of mechanisms of cultural constraint available to him as his immediate Christian predecessors. The promotion and demotion of city communities and particular individuals remained powerful tools of patronage. Had Julian been able to exercise them over a longer timescale, particularly if he’d managed to pass on power to a non-Christian successor, at a time when the imperial bureaucratic expansion was still gathering pace, there’s no obvious reason why these tools would have been any less effective when employed in a paganizing direction than they had been in generating Christian compliance. After all, very similar mechanisms of patronage and constraint would later turn Christian elites into Muslim ones across most of the former eastern Roman Empire and that was a much greater leap of faith altogether.

Overall, Julian was offering his own amalgam of elite-level pagan theology, combined with an institutional reorganization of cultic practice inspired by the functioning of Christianity and its greater emphasis on priestly piety. In a very real sense, this was no more than a variant on what contemporary Christianity was itself offering. In the fourth century, as we have seen, a developing relationship with classical culture and the structures of Roman imperialism turned the faith along some new paths. Its new authority structures mimicked, and were reinforced by, those of the Empire, and its belief systems were being transformed by its intellectual encounter with classical philosophy and the grammarians’ techniques of literary analysis. In effect, both post-Nicene Christianity and Julian’s revamped paganism were new combinations of Christian and non-Christian cultural forms and the defining structures of the Roman imperial system. That being so, it is not immediately clear that Julian’s version of the mix was so inherently inferior that it was bound, by definition, to lose out to its Christian rival or not, at least, in the mid-fourth century. At this point, the new Christianity of the late Roman world remained only half-formed; its congregations were still riven with fierce disputes over doctrine and discipline, while almost all of the Empire’s peasantry remained pagan, the bulk of the temples firmly open. [49]

 

[PecuTheGreat]

There is nothing "international" about being directly influence by a close hegemonic civilizations, by the 4th century CE Greek influence was 100% connected to Rome, especially as the Sassanids reject this influence and

Greek was still the Language of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Lingua Franka of even further afield. Most of the traders and diplomats Ethiopia dealt with, they dealt with in Greek.

Aside from this, the Sassanids threw out Greek in a reaction rejection of their history of Conquests, the Ethiopians suffered no such trauma so kept it for as long as it was the langauge with which they dealt with Mediterraneans, Egyptians, Near Easterners, Persians and intermediaries between them.

independent Hellenic states in the East died out 3 centuries prior.

But Hellenic Influence didn't.

It was not majority Christian

Doesn't need to be and wait a minute, they'll already be converted by the time Julian's Emperor.

Julian would certainly crackdown on missionary activity.

Why would he? His crackdown on Christianity wasn't violent but subverse. How do you subversively crack down on Missionary activity?.

It doesn't matter what Christian narratives exactly claim when you can read between the lines,

Yes, like read the lines that Frumentius wasn't the first Christian in Ethiopia.

Frumentius came from the Levant and the vector of conversions was merchants, this process would easily be stopped as Ethiopia took centuries to really Christianize.

And why would Christian merchants influence coming from the Levant stop because of Julian?. I am yet to see any of his policies targetted against Christian merchants.

And everywhere kinda took centuries to Christianize, however Royal inscriptions stopped mentioning Pagan gods since Ezana. How much more secure indication does one need?.

Right one narrative being accurate means all other narrative are accurate, that's not really how it works. The very narrative you think supports your positions mentions Roman born Christians every other sentence.

I said Rome the State. Rome the State not converting doesn't really do anything to the Archbishop of Alexandria.

The timeline certainly indicates that more than it does for Armenians(but even the Armenian case is debatable, certainly there is the possibility for Christianity to fail taking over even there if either Rome or the Sassanids cracks down on them.

The timeline is 10 years after Constantine's conversion the Ethiopians converted. What sort of hyper rapid cultural transformation will lead to in 10 years the Ethiopians to adopt a new religion and throw out Old Gods and Tradition(Ezana stopped referring to Pagan gods in his inscriptions) in 10 years?.

It took longer for the Ehiopians to start using Greek and even then didn't adopt Greek religion just Greek terminology for their God(Maher). But somehow, by ur hypothesis they go from barely knowing what Christianity is to making it the state religion and dropping their old religion all because they heard the King of the Greeks converted 10 years ago.

It doesn't match the pattern of the Hellenic adoption at all, no one stopped worshipping Maher for Ares while Ezana(the first King that converted) did stop worshipping Maher for Christ.

 

[Gloss]

Greek was still the Language of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Lingua Franka of even further afield. Most of the traders and diplomats Ethiopia dealt with, they dealt with in Greek.

Aside from this, the Sassanids threw out Greek in a reaction rejection of their history of Conquests, the Ethiopians suffered no such trauma so kept it for as long as it was the langauge with which they dealt with Mediterraneans, Egyptians, Near Easterners, Persians and intermediaries between them.

I'm not sure how this changes what I said.

But Hellenic Influence didn't.

By 300 CE? Do you really think that Ethiopians got all the Greek influence prior to the Romans and not in the 3 centuries of Roman rule in the East?

Doesn't need to be and wait a minute, they'll already be converted by the time Julian's Emperor.

And everywhere kinda took centuries to Christianize, however Royal inscriptions stopped mentioning Pagan gods since Ezana. How much more secure indication does one need?.

Conversion is not a one way street, especially not at a state level, if any kind of pagan resistance exists or if any kings decides that he doesn't like Christianity in this timeline they have more means to reject it or to have said resistance succeed.

Why would he? His crackdown on Christianity wasn't violent but subverse. How do you subversively crack down on Missionary activity?.

It wasn't violent but it certainly wasn't subverse, he tried banning Christians from some professions for example.

Yes, like read the lines that Frumentius wasn't the first Christian in Ethiopia.

Still Christianity was spread by outsiders in the 4th century, there doesn't seem have been a huge community that forced the king to convert, he did so when the Romans were already outwardly Christian at the imperial level.

And why would Christian merchants influence coming from the Levant stop because of Julian?. I am yet to see any of his policies targetted against Christian merchants.

He ruled as Emperor for 3 years, maybe we shouldn't pretend to be able to know the ramifications of his policies for a fact based no the absence of evidence of a 3 year long rule 1650 years ago, I know this is might sound crazy.

I said Rome the State. Rome the State not converting doesn't really do anything to the Archbishop of Alexandria.

? How can you possibly thinks this is true? The ability of missionaries, priests and bishops to communicate at long distances, have the revenues and political power to convert people abroad or maintain authority is mostly dependent on what the states lets them do.
This becomes evidently clear when reading about the privilegies Constantine gave to the church which also involved long distance communication using imperial systems.

The timeline is 10 years after Constantine's conversion the Ethiopians converted. What sort of hyper rapid cultural transformation will lead to in 10 years the Ethiopians to adopt a new religion and throw out Old Gods and Tradition(Ezana stopped referring to Pagan gods in his inscriptions) in 10 years?.

It took longer for the Ehiopians to start using Greek and even then didn't adopt Greek religion just Greek terminology for their God(Maher). But somehow, by ur hypothesis they go from barely knowing what Christianity is to making it the state religion and dropping their old religion all because they heard the King of the Greeks converted 10 years ago.

It doesn't match the pattern of the Hellenic adoption at all, no one stopped worshipping Maher for Ares while Ezana(the first King that converted) did stop worshipping Maher for Christ.

Ezana was clearly a pagan in his life, you seem to argue that there must have been already a large Christian community to explain the supposedly "rapid" conversion of the Ethiopians, but no such thing is needed.

If you have ACTUAL proof of this Christian influence before Constantine, feel free to provide it. I won't assume it to exist just because it's convenient to your theory.

 

[Gloss]

Greek was still the Language of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Lingua Franka of even further afield. Most of the traders and diplomats Ethiopia dealt with, they dealt with in Greek.

Aside from this, the Sassanids threw out Greek in a reaction rejection of their history of Conquests, the Ethiopians suffered no such trauma so kept it for as long as it was the langauge with which they dealt with Mediterraneans, Egyptians, Near Easterners, Persians and intermediaries between them.

But Hellenic Influence didn't.

Doesn't need to be and wait a minute, they'll already be converted by the time Julian's Emperor.

Why would he? His crackdown on Christianity wasn't violent but subverse. How do you subversively crack down on Missionary activity?.

Yes, like read the lines that Frumentius wasn't the first Christian in Ethiopia.

And why would Christian merchants influence coming from the Levant stop because of Julian?. I am yet to see any of his policies targetted against Christian merchants.

And everywhere kinda took centuries to Christianize, however Royal inscriptions stopped mentioning Pagan gods since Ezana. How much more secure indication does one need?.

I said Rome the State. Rome the State not converting doesn't really do anything to the Archbishop of Alexandria.

The timeline is 10 years after Constantine's conversion the Ethiopians converted. What sort of hyper rapid cultural transformation will lead to in 10 years the Ethiopians to adopt a new religion and throw out Old Gods and Tradition(Ezana stopped referring to Pagan gods in his inscriptions) in 10 years?.

It took longer for the Ehiopians to start using Greek and even then didn't adopt Greek religion just Greek terminology for their God(Maher). But somehow, by ur hypothesis they go from barely knowing what Christianity is to making it the state religion and dropping their old religion all because they heard the King of the Greeks converted 10 years ago.

It doesn't match the pattern of the Hellenic adoption at all, no one stopped worshipping Maher for Ares while Ezana(the first King that converted) did stop worshipping Maher for Christ.

I'll just quote scholars:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349018787_Negus_Ezana_Revisiting_the_Christianisation_of_Aksum

Spoiler

There is an argument, however, for a 337 appointment of
Frumentius; this has been claimed as far back as the 17th
century CE (Phillipson 2012:99). Notably that Rufinus
himself might have actively incited the impression that
would affiliate the appointment of Frumentius with the
reign of Constantine the great (Thelamon 1981:62). This
assertion although challenged as observed earlier has
significance in the corroboration of ecclesiastical historical
accounts. To locate the Christianisation of Aksum within
the momentum created by the establishment of imperial
Christianity is overly significant. This extendedly attaches
the narrative of Ethiopian Christianity within the complex
matrix that was consequent of Nicene orthodoxy as a factor
of imperial ecclesiastical dynamics. This theory gains
further credence in the perspective of the ensuant
ecclesiastical political nature of the relations between Rome-
Byzantine and Aksum.

Phillipson argues that apart from the numismatics,
inscriptions, further excavation has not substantiated the
Christianisation of Ezana at an early stage (Phillipson
2012:99). The support from additional archaeology can be
deduced in changes of outwards trappings of graves;
notably however, this observation was a royal phenomenon
(Chittick 1974). Phillipson asserts that Aksumite Christianity
can only to be traced to places that were under direct
influence of the monarch (Phillipson 2012:99). This he
argues to have been the case with even some elites, as
established by the Anza and Matara stelae which although
dated to be latter centuries after 340 CE are characterised
by the crescent-and-disc symbol (Anfray 1963:105–108;
Fiaccadori 2007). However, it should be noted that the basis
for dating the Anza and Matara stelae is purely epigraphic
comparison; hence, there is a possibility for the stelae
intrinsically belonging to the era preceding Christianity
(Phillipson 2012:100)

As regarding some of the burial evidence substantiates a
case for a syncretistic practice of blending Christianity
with the traditional religion as seen in the Brick Arches
tomb c 4th century CE (Phillipson 2000:31–133).
The previously mentioned tomb held funerary pottery that
was embellished with a synced cross-crescent and disc
symbol. However, as noted, these were all realities amongst
the aristocratic classes; the more concrete evidence for
the national adoption of Christianity is derived
from ethnoarchaeology. Ethnoarchaeology involves the
investigation of the social organisation, ethnological
features of a current ethnicity through its material culture
so as to connect with the past civilisations.

The most concrete evidence for the general spread of
Christianity amongst the populous would be the cross-
shaped decorations on domestic pottery (Phillips 2000:77,
282; Anfray 1963:105–108). These markings became
prominent only towards the end of the 5th century and
beginning of the 6th century. Another piece of funerary
evidence is a tombstone dated to have been from the 6th
century. It was discovered at Gumala, North of Aksum,
which was carved with a Greek inscription and dually a
cross. The inscription identifies a 10-year-old as the buried;
Phillipson asserts that this implies a Greek speaking
community amongst the native Christians of Ethiopia
(Fiaccadori 2007). The existence of a generally Hellenised
form of Christianity cannot be completely ruled out in
the perspective of the Alexandrian contacts and the
existence of migrants from Egypt as a consequent of the
maritime travel.

It took until the end of the 5th century for Christianity to really spread, if you think that 20 year rule of Christian rule under a king that evidently was only able to spread the faith under places he had direct control, it becomes clear that you only need another king to either reject the faith, to simply not adhere to it strictly(for more syncretism) or for the Axumite nobility to mount some resistance(if they wish to do so) for the Christianization to be stopped.

 

[Silver01]

If you have ACTUAL proof of this Christian influence before Constantine, feel free to provide it. I won't assume it to exist just because it's convenient to your theory.

any way it doesn't matter by really matter by 360 to quote from Since coins of king Ouazebas were found in the occupation debris of a room buried under which were some of the broken fragments of the largest of the stelae at Aksum (de Contenson 1959; Munro-Hay, forthcoming), this, Aksum's largest monolithic monument, could have fallen as early as the reign of Ouazebas himself, very likely in the late fourth or early fifth century. The stele seems to have been the last of such monumental funerary memorials and possibly they went out of favour as Christianity spread, bringing with it new ideas about burial

also In Ezana's time intercourse with the Roman empire continued, but even if the conversion to Christianity (Ch. 10: 2) was designed to bring Aksum closer to Rome or Constantinople, it was not a policy which he followed slavishly.

We dont know how much the religion developed but yes it was very likely top down as the kings and preachers from Ethiopia or outside of like the 9 saints helped spread it

however if the pod is the persian war in 363 MHDYS is already king and already a Christian give the religion more time so it really depends if Ouazebas or the new king after MHDYDS continues with Christianity or not

 

[Gloss]

any way it doesn't matter by really matter by 360

What doesn't matter?

 

[herkles]

Julian's narrow slice of paganism (in a sea of paganism and the much larger slice of Christianity) was so intellectual and obtuse in a way that wasn't really going to be popular. Its most popular ideas were just "do Christianity without Christ" on the social level, but for actual practice it'd just be... idk, not super likely to catch on?

Christianity did not invent Charity, nor having priests and priestesses. the numerous polytheistic religions had charity concepts of their own, and of course their were priests before hand. Julian's policy and goals was not about copying Christianity but about rejuvenating polytheism to his ideal time of the early Empire.

 

[Silver01]

What doesn't matter?

I just edited pretty much by a 363 pod MHDYS already king and will be so until the some where unitl late 4th century so it really depends if Ouazebas or who ever is king after him ditches the religion

 

[Silver01]

Christianity did not invent Charity, nor having priests and priestesses. the numerous polytheistic religions had charity concepts of their own, and of course their were priests before hand. Julian's policy and goals was not about copying Christianity but about rejuvenating polytheism to his ideal time of the early Empire.

I think that was the biggest problem no? he tried to change things back the principate even the treatment of the emperor though the dominate had been a thing now nearly a century by the time he became emperor

 

[Gloss]

Christianity did not invent Charity, nor having priests and priestesses. the numerous polytheistic religions had charity concepts of their own, and of course their were priests before hand. Julian's policy and goals was not about copying Christianity but about rejuvenating polytheism to his ideal time of the early Empire.

I think Julian might have thought that connecting charity with priests themselves rather than having elites both engage in religious ceremonies and take religious offices while also engaging in public funding for charity/public projects might be something of a Christian-like innovation.

I think Julian was definitely copying Christianity in some aspect, but Christianity themselves had to be amalgamated into the existing Roman administrative system and society, it was not a one way street and I like how Heather puts in that both Julian and Christians were creating a mix of Christianity and existing Roman culture/religion.

 

[Gloss]

I just edited pretty much by a 363 pod MHDYS already king and will be so until the some where unitl late 4th century so it really depends if Ouazebas or who ever is king after him ditches the religion

Well I'm not sure how this Stele is particularly indicative of elite conversion but insofar as most of the populations goes, the quote above indicates that Christianity only became prominent in the late 5th century CE so there is 1 century for this to change.

 

[Silver01]

Well I'm not sure how this Stele is particularly indicative of elite conversion but insofar as most of the populations goes, the quote above indicates that Christianity only became prominent in the late 5th century CE so there is 1 century for this to change.

It meant the kings and those close to him were ditching their old traditions in the early 4th century or more accurately so its a matter of how successful is julian outside to Stop the kings converting aksum from the top down since Constantius while been a chirstian already had problems with the aksumites and they didn't abandon it Julian must be very successful to
1) convince the Aksmuites if they want closer relationship they have to leave Christianity as one of their religions especially if they have already 30 years from the first king and couple more from MHDYS, ( at best 2 decades more) which is entirely possible if the third king decides not to follow in the footsteps of the first two
2) stop the Christians from going to aksum

 

[Silver01]

well again going back to my point assuming Julian wins a smaller victory in 363 and he most likely gets screwed when goths get pushed to the empire and Shapur II likely attacks the romans, would giving Julian an extra 13 years be good enough to establish a system that outlast hims?

 

[Gloss]

It meant the kings and those close to him were ditching their old traditions in the early 4th century or more accurately so its a matter of how successful is julian outside to Stop the kings converting aksum from the top down since Constantius while been a chirstian already had problems with the aksumites and they didn't abandon it Julian must be very successful to
1) convince the Aksmuites if they want closer relationship they have to leave Christianity as one of their religions especially if they have already 30 years from the first king and couple more from MHDYS, ( at best 2 decades more) which is entirely possible if the third king decides not to follow in the footsteps of the first two
2) stop the Christians from going to aksum

Well it's more 23 years(340 CE is when official conversion happened) and I'm not sure how 23 years is enough time to say it's particularly unlikely to be reversed.
About 2) Julian and his successors doesn't need to stop all Christians from going to Axum, without Imperial patronage the ability of Christians to prosetelyze would be significantly diminshed, what took 150 years to happen(Christian becoming predominant, at least using one archeological metric) might take longer or even not happen, just like the Ethiopians never converted South Sudan or even Kenya to Christianity(or even a lot of Ethiopia)

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I'm not sure how this changes what I said.


By 300 CE? Do you really think that Ethiopians got all the Greek influence prior to the Romans and not in the 3 centuries of Roman rule in the East?

Starting from the Hellenic period and continuing till after the Arab Conquest. There's a part of the Monumentum Adulis as recorded by Cosmas that records the Asiatic campaigns of Ptolemy III and this was kept in well enough condition until he 2nd/3rd century by the Ethiopians. There's also another one discovered in the 2nd colonial era.
And there's no equivalent Latin inscription, so everything points to a long Hellenic Influence and nothing to a Roman specific one.(at least until Justinian).

Conversion is not a one way street, especially not at a state level, if any kind of pagan resistance exists or if any kings decides that he doesn't like Christianity in this timeline they have more means to reject it or to have said resistance succeed.

Ezana literally converted harder than Constantine and we have no Julian equivalent in Ethiopia, all things being equal, it sticks

It wasn't violent but it certainly wasn't subverse, he tried banning Christians from some professions for example.

Wasn't his justification for banning them from teaching the classics just him going "Well, since Christians are hostile to Paganism, they certainly won't be able to teach Pagan works like the classics".

I guess it is a bit in ur face. But I don't see how a similar policy would stop Christian merchants from having similar enough Influence in Ethiopia.

Still Christianity was spread by outsiders in the 4th century, there doesn't seem have been a huge community that forced the king to convert, he did so when the Romans were already outwardly Christian at the imperial level.

The recorded Haleographies that survive are of like highest ranking Churchmen. Rome had Syrian Popes up to the 400s at least and probably later and England had Continental Bishops for similarly long.

England especially is a good example. Nobody would say its Christainity was barebones by the time of the Heptarchy just because bishops came from the continent.

He ruled as Emperor for 3 years, maybe we shouldn't pretend to be able to know the ramifications of his policies for a fact based no the absence of evidence of a 3 year long rule 1650 years ago, I know this is might sound crazy.

I still don't see how stopping Christians from teaching the classics is stopping Christian traders or why he would even want to. If Christianity is a bad influence, why not have them weaken the neighbors?.

? How can you possibly thinks this is true? The ability of missionaries, priests and bishops to communicate at long distances, have the revenues and political power to convert people abroad or maintain authority is mostly dependent on what the states lets them do.

I still don't get how the state matters such here.

The conversion didn't occur under direct state support so I don't see how having a state that doesn't support Christianity matters.

Infact, given many of the 9 saints considered to have converted the Ethiopian inland are speculated to be at least Schismatics of some type why won't some policy of like house arresting the Patriarch of Alexandria not increase their numbers?.

Ezana was clearly a pagan in his life, you seem to argue that there must have been already a large Christian community to explain the supposedly "rapid" conversion of the Ethiopians, but no such thing is needed.

If you have ACTUAL proof of this Christian influence before Constantine, feel free to provide it. I won't assume it to exist just because it's convenient to your theory.

There isn't much literary evidence in this period. I might as well ask you to show me evidence they were Pagan without relying on the congecture of the religion before Christianity being Pagan. What evidence is there?.

Inscriptions mentioning Pagan gods?. Well those completely changed to the Christian God after Ezana.

The Conjecture that can be gotten is a fairly large Christian population in Aksum(the city) at least. Frumentius was made a Bishop metropolitan, as such that must have been a large Christian population.

We don't get any attempt at a Pagan revival after Ezana and the making of Christainity the official religion occured under his successor not his 3/4th like in Rome.

All this indicates a state whose Core was more Christian than Rome's core of Christianity.

Christianity did not invent Charity, nor having priests and priestesses. the numerous polytheistic religions had charity concepts of their own, and of course their were priests before hand. Julian's policy and goals was not about copying Christianity but about rejuvenating polytheism to his ideal time of the early Empire.

Sure but nobody did Charity or priest hierarchy in the Roman Empire as systematically as the Christians did and generally Charity was seen as duty to the citizens, like Sartun protected the poor of Rome as citizens of Rome. Christians made it more of a good in and of itself.

So in summary, they did it far better.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

well again going back to my point assuming Julian wins a smaller victory in 363 and he most likely gets screwed when goths get pushed to the empire and Shapur II likely attacks the romans, would giving Julian an extra 13 years be good enough to establish a system that outlast hims?

Yeah, especially given how rapidly Diocletian's, Constantine's and Constance's systems collapsed with their deaths, even if we give Julian cheat to have a reign as secure as either of these guys, his system would most likely end up like the rest.

Law of averages and all that.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

It meant the kings and those close to him were ditching their old traditions in the early 4th century or more accurately so its a matter of how successful is julian outside to Stop the kings converting aksum from the top down since Constantius while been a chirstian already had problems with the aksumites and they didn't abandon it Julian must be very successful to
1) convince the Aksmuites if they want closer relationship they have to leave Christianity as one of their religions especially if they have already 30 years from the first king and couple more from MHDYS, ( at best 2 decades more) which is entirely possible if the third king decides not to follow in the footsteps of the first two
2) stop the Christians from going to aksum

Well it's more 23 years(340 CE is when official conversion happened) and I'm not sure how 23 years is enough time to say it's particularly unlikely to be reversed.
About 2) Julian and his successors doesn't need to stop all Christians from going to Axum, without Imperial patronage the ability of Christians to prosetelyze would be significantly diminshed, what took 150 years to happen(Christian becoming predominant, at least using one archeological metric) might take longer or even not happen, just like the Ethiopians never converted South Sudan or even Kenya to Christianity(or even a lot of Ethiopia)

Okay, why are we acting like internal developments in the horn didn't matter.

Okay, where is the great and glorious Empire that Yemen was copying to go monotheist to Jew?.

Yemen had as much Hellenic Influence as Ethiopia ever had pre-Christianity, why didn't they then convert to Christianity? If the Ethiopians converted just to appease the Romans why were they Coptic not Chalcedonian?.

Or we can just accept that Yemen to Ethiopia has been 1/2 connected civilizations since D'mt and there was a general cultural shift towards Monotheism and Abrahamism in that period.

 

[Gloss]

Starting from the Hellenic period and continuing till after the Arab Conquest. There's a part of the Monumentum Adulis as recorded by Cosmas that records the Asiatic campaigns of Ptolemy III and this was kept in well enough contrition until he 2nd/3rd century by the Ethiopians. ThThereas also another one discovered in the 2nd colonial era.
And there's no equivalent Latin inscription, so everything points to a long Hellenic Influence and nothing to a Roman specific one.(at least until Justinian).

I don't think I have to explain how Romanization and Hellenization went hand in hand in the Easter half of the Empire, I think this is common knowledge.

Ezana literally converted harder than Constantine and we have not Julian equivalent in Ethiopia, all things being equal, it sticks

We don't exactly know a lot about Ethiopia, also evidence of absence of something in our specific timeline in a place where we don't know much doesn't prove that it won't or can't happen in another timeline.

Wasn't his justification for banning them from teaching the classics just him going "Well, since Christians are hostile to Paganism, they certainly won't be able to teach Pagan works like the classics".

Yes, but it's doesn't look like he was particularly done cracking down on Christianity.

I guess it is a bit in ur face. But I don't see how a similar policy would stop Christian merchants from having similar enough Influence in Ethiopia.

Well it's a bit convenient how Christians only started having enough influence after Constantine, totally a coincidence, right?

The recorded Haleographies that survive are of like highest ranking Churchmen. Rome had Syrian Popes up to the 400s at least and probably later and England had Continental Bishops for similarly long.
England especially is a good example. Nobody would say its Christainity was barebones by the time of the Heptarchy just because bishops came from the continent.

Well if for some reason the Franks ended up Pagan in the mid 7th century you would have a good argument that the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons could be stopped and reversed given it was largely mediated by said continental influence.

I still don't see how stopping Christians from teaching the classics is stopping Christian traders or why he would even want to. If Christianity is a bad influence, why not have them weaken the neighbors?.

Julian thought it was uniquely spiritually bad, not bad in all other ways.

I still don't get how the state matters such here.

It's not direct, but neither is it 10-times-remove:
The imperial government gives support to churches -> those churches have more resources to communicated with each other, provide funding for missionaries and enforce compliance -> those churches have more power to compel outside people to convert
Or:
The imperial government gives support to churches -> more people convert to these religions -> they spread their religion to other places.

Like I don't think it's controversial to say that the Islamic takeover of India was important in the conversion of South-East Asia through Arab and Indian mercantile presence.

The conversion didn't occur under direct state support so I don't see how having a state that doesn't support Christianity matters.

The quote from Goldensilver81 also mentions diplomatic relationship with Rome as possibly playing a role in the conversion, it's not really something we can dismiss easily.

Infact, given many of the 9 saints considered to have converted the Ethiopian inland are speculated to be at least Schismatics of some type why won't some policy of like house arresting the Patriarch of Alexandria not increase their numbers?.

They were schismatic in respect to whatever Arian or semi-Arian emperor might have been in power, but I don't think they were schismatic in respect to the Nicean consensus.

There isn't much literary evidence in this period. I might as well ask you to show me evidence they were Pagan without relying on the congecture of the religion before Christianity being Pagan. What evidence is there?.

I quoted something that explicitly says Christianity likely didn't become predominant until the late 5th century and that essentially it was limited to the royalty and whoever was closest to it for decades.

The Conjecture that can be gotten is a fairly large Christian population in Aksum(the city) at least. Frumentius was made a Bishop metropolitan, as such that must have been a large Christian population.

Maybe, but Axum was likely a miniscule part of the overall population.

We don't get any attempt at a Pagan revival after Ezana and the making of Christainity the official religion occured under his successor not his 3/4th like in Rome.

Why is making the religion official something that can't be reversed? If he could change his religion on a whim why can't any other king do the same?

All this indicates a state whose Core was more Christian than Rome's core of Christianity.

Well archeologically there is no evidence of this when we do have evidence of Christianity later on. If Rome was 1-2% or 5% Christian in 312 CE, I'm not sure on what basis you could claim a larger share of Axum was.

Sure but nobody did Charity or priest hierarchy in the Roman Empire as systematically as the Christians did and generally Charity was seen as duty to the citizens, like Sartun protected the poor of Rome as citizens of Rome. Christians made it more of a good in and of itself.

So in summary, they did it far better.

Well given literally everyone was a citizen in the 4th century, the distinction might be moot.
Ultimately it's clear that Christians have virtually never been particularly more moral than most other religious communities that lived alongside them in any given society, they might just have marketed themselves better.