In a world where the Roman Empire never existed would christianity still exist?

[Lothal]

Probably not. Rome had a hand in creating Christianity.
Even if someone like Jesus exists in this new TL the religion they create will be different from the Christianity we know.

agreed. The situation that lead to the rise of teachers such as Jesus pretty much required the Romans. Its important to note that Jesus was not the only messianic figure teaching at the time, he was just the only to not cause an open revolt disregarding the scuffle at the Temple. In Judaism prophets come to return Judaism to the right path away from idolatry/others in the Temple, foreign donination, or towards a better understanding of the religion.

The one thing that IMO that could lead to a Christian style faith is that the teachings of the time were pulling towards apocalypticism, with the next Messiah that was either a son of David or son of man. I think a more oppressive Iranian dynasty could give the social circumstances that could cause this feeling. Another thing is that the Jewish population was very large already outside the borders of Israel with Alexandria, Cyrene, Antioch, and Cyprus having a large enough Jewish population for their regions to be totally devastated in the Diaspora Revolt.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

What replaces the Roman Empire? If a bunch of small city-states or kingdoms. If its replaced by say a Carthage Empire maybe?

Maybe the Etruscans. Although that might take an earlier POD.

 

[Lalli]

Maybe the Etruscans. Although that might take an earlier POD.

True. Prior of Gallic invasion Etruscans were already severely weakened and probably doomed to extinction/assimilation by other peoples.

Probably Italy would remain just as bunch of city states formed by Greeks, Italic tribes, Etruscans and Gauls.

 

[kholieken]

What replaces the Roman Empire? If a bunch of small city-states or kingdoms. If its replaced by say a Carthage Empire maybe?

Probably several Empires, dividing Med among them.

Etruscan or Carthage couldn't just "replace" Rome. Roman Republic is highly unusual with maintaining large percentage of population in near constant war for centuries. There are reason why successor of Romans (Byzantine, Umayyad, or Ottoman) only unify part of Med. Roman unification of all Med under one regime is highly unusual episode in history.

 

[Kerney]

True. Prior of Gallic invasion Etruscans were already severely weakened and probably doomed to extinction/assimilation by other peoples.

Probably Italy would remain just as bunch of city states formed by Greeks, Italic tribes, Etruscans and Gauls.

I think this hits on another in that Rome unified, not perfectly but more than it would be, the Mediterranean world. Without them or someone like them the cultural divide would (most likely) Celtic-Punic in the west and Greco-Persian in the East w/ Italy/Sicily being the borderlands of those worlds.

Any "Jesus like" figure would have to deal with that divide. Sure, you could argue another alt-Empire would arise. But whose to say it won't have it's center in Gaul, spread the wonders of Celtic Civilization through Italy and Germany as recorded in it's Punic based script, with Classical civilization being as foreign to "Western" Civilization as Egyptian and Persian is to us?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Probably several Empires, dividing Med among them.

Etruscan or Carthage couldn't just "replace" Rome. Roman Republic is highly unusual with maintaining large percentage of population in near constant war for centuries. There are reason why successor of Romans (Byzantine, Umayyad, or Ottoman) only unify part of Med. Roman unification of all Med under one regime is highly unusual episode in history.

Carthaginians couldn't. With the right POD, I think the Etruscans could build an empire resembling Rome.

 

[Nivek]

Carthaginians couldn't. With the right POD, I think the Etruscans could build an empire resembling Rome.

Nah estrucans destroyed themselves,if anything there not Rome analogue at. all

 

[Brady Kj]

The situation that lead to the rise of teachers such as Jesus pretty much required the Romans.

That's interesting. Why did it require the Romans?

 

[Kerney]

That's interesting. Why did it require the Romans?

Because Rome unified the culture in the Mediterranean and the unified culture and the top down authority to encourage/enforce that Constantine and his successors provided was essential for that level of dominance Christianity eventually achieved. Think how either military conquest or centuries of cultural interaction to overcome the cultural divides that was needed to spread the faith throughout Europe.

Think about starting Judea and having to do that in Greece, North Africa, Gaul, Egypt, you name it, especially without top down support/cohersion.

 

[Metempsychosis]

That's interesting. Why did it require the Romans?

In addition to what @Kerney said, the machinery of assimilation that the Romans had, as opposed to the more hands-off approach of the Persians, antagonized the Jews, making them yearn for a Messiah. This could also be achieved by an alt-Diadochi state, but it'd make the cult far more local, spreading with the Eastern Mediterranean diaspora at most.

 

[Brady Kj]

That makes a

In addition to what @Kerney said, the machinery of assimilation that the Romans had, as opposed to the more hands-off approach of the Persians, antagonized the Jews, making them yearn for a Messiah. This could also be achieved by an alt-Diadochi state, but it'd make the cult far more local, spreading with the Eastern Mediterranean diaspora at most.

That makes a great deal of sense. If the Persian Empire had a hands-off approach, people wouldn't likely react against it with the same zealous spirit.

Because Rome unified the culture in the Mediterranean and the unified culture and the top down authority to encourage/enforce that Constantine and his successors provided was essential for that level of dominance Christianity eventually achieved

As for what Kerney said, I agree that the Roman Empire was necessary for Christianity to expand westward with drastic success and develop an hierarchical church that dominates Europe. However, it's possible to imagine a Christianity that is less European and to imagine a Christianity with fewer people.

 

[Deleted member 90563]

And even if there were a Christ-like figure IATL, there would also need to be a Paul equivalent to make this new religion accessible to gentiles.

 

[Don Corleone]

In addition to what @Kerney said, the machinery of assimilation that the Romans had, as opposed to the more hands-off approach of the Persians, antagonized the Jews, making them yearn for a Messiah.

This is a very important point.

Dr. Henry Abramson mentioned the tension with Rome in one of his lectures. There were multiple reasons.

1) The Roman pantheon was more civic than spiritual. Not worshiping the gods was like not standing for the anthem.

2) Circumcision was viewed as barbaric.

3) Not working 7 days a week was viewed as lazy.

 

[Aluma]

And even if there were a Christ-like figure IATL, there would also need to be a Paul equivalent to make this new religion accessible to gentiles.

To be fair the two figures could be embodied by the same person depending on how long they live

 

[Belisarius II]

Alexander was born in 356 BC - he wouldn't exist in such a scenario.

His father, Philip II of Macedon was born in 382 BC - he wouldn't exist either.

Could the Macedonians (or some other Greek state) still have tried anyway? Sure.

Would they have succeeded? Maybe. Alexander's successes were as much based on luck as on military strategy.

Why would the destruction of Rome in 387 BC abort the rise of Macedon? Rome had very little interaction with the Greek States for about another 100 years.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Why would the destruction of Rome in 387 BC abort the rise of Macedon? Rome had very little interaction with the Greek States for about another 100 years.

Doesn't matter - fertilisation is a random process.

Besides, any number of random events could happen during the intervening period.

 

[Aluma]

Why would the destruction of Rome in 387 BC abort the rise of Macedon? Rome had very little interaction with the Greek States for about another 100 years.

Butterfly purism
The idea that the POD automatically erases anyone who would have ever existed after it even if they had no interaction with the affected country and are even in the other side of the world
The logic is that the odd of the same spermatozoid fecundating the same egg after a historical change is impossible, and they apply that to the entire world

 

[Aluma]

Doesn't matter - fertilisation is a random process.

Besides, any number of random events could happen during the intervening period.

...or they could not
There's no record of time changing for obvious reasons, so assuming everything would be randomized because one atom moved right instead of left is just that, an assumption
We could have maximum butterflies or the universe could follow the same chain of events with insignificant alterations like what happens in fatalist time travel histories, or anything in between really, we wouldnt know

 

[Analytical Engine]

...or they could not
There's no record of time changing for obvious reasons, so assuming everything would be randomized because one atom moved right instead of left is just that, an assumption
We could have maximum butterflies or the universe could follow the same chain of events with insignificant alterations like what happens in fatalist time travel histories, or anything in between really, we wouldnt know

Some things would be totally different, some things would be the same.

Philip could be thrown off his horse, or never meet Alexander's mother (assuming she's even born to begin with). Or little Alex could catch a disease and die age 3.

Like I said, any number of things could happen.

 

[Gloss]

...or they could not
There's no record of time changing for obvious reasons, so assuming everything would be randomized because one atom moved right instead of left is just that, an assumption
We could have maximum butterflies or the universe could follow the same chain of events with insignificant alterations like what happens in fatalist time travel histories, or anything in between really, we wouldnt know

We can't know but to me it seems fairly obvious that chaos theory fully applies here, especially the longer we go, the fertilization argument alone makes it an extremely strong theory.

In an AH forum like this any such types of fatalism shouldn't even be a thing honestly.