If Rome never became Christian, and the western provinces still fell to the barbarians in the 5th century AD, what would happen from here? Would a pagan Byzantine empire be more enduring than OTL's Christian empire, or would 'Imperium Romanum' be totally crushed in the 7th and 8th centuries and replaced with 'al-Khilafah al-Rum'?
Islam vs. Pagan Byzantine Empire
- Thread starter George Carty
- Start date
For onething I'm sure there wouldn't *be* an Islam as we know it if the Roman Empire had stayed pagan. Of course there are other positions on this.
Secondly, I would guess that the West would fare worse in a pagan environment, the East slightly better. The Arabs could still become something of an unlikely conqueror (though without Islam, I'd expect that to look more like the Frankish invasion of Gaul and never reach much further than Syria and Palestine - heh, where they might be converted to Judaism
). However, we'd need to define baselines to speculate here. Frex, is there no Christianity, or is it still persecuted, or was it never, due to its insignificance? Are there other monotheistic religions (except Judaism)? What shape does Roman paganism take - state-syncretistic, unregulated, or organised along Julian's lines? Is the Sassanid empire in this TL more solidly Zoroastrian, or are the Christian and Jewish populations replaced by more Manichees, Mandees and Buddhists?
Sounds cool, though.
Secondly, I would guess that the West would fare worse in a pagan environment, the East slightly better. The Arabs could still become something of an unlikely conqueror (though without Islam, I'd expect that to look more like the Frankish invasion of Gaul and never reach much further than Syria and Palestine - heh, where they might be converted to Judaism
). However, we'd need to define baselines to speculate here. Frex, is there no Christianity, or is it still persecuted, or was it never, due to its insignificance? Are there other monotheistic religions (except Judaism)? What shape does Roman paganism take - state-syncretistic, unregulated, or organised along Julian's lines? Is the Sassanid empire in this TL more solidly Zoroastrian, or are the Christian and Jewish populations replaced by more Manichees, Mandees and Buddhists? Sounds cool, though.
The East was more heavily Christian than the West in OTL; Western Rome could have conceivably stayed pagan much longer than Eastern Rome.
However, Christianity need got be gotten rid of. If Julian the Apostate lives for a much longer period of time, he could theoretically revive paganism to the point where it's a big competitor with Christianity.
A Byzantine Empire divided on religious lines could present a weakness that the Arabs could exploit; after all, the Monophysite Christians (persecuted by the Orthodox in Constantinople) welcomed the Arab conquerors in OTL. The division is simply more drastic in TTL.
However, Christianity need got be gotten rid of. If Julian the Apostate lives for a much longer period of time, he could theoretically revive paganism to the point where it's a big competitor with Christianity.
A Byzantine Empire divided on religious lines could present a weakness that the Arabs could exploit; after all, the Monophysite Christians (persecuted by the Orthodox in Constantinople) welcomed the Arab conquerors in OTL. The division is simply more drastic in TTL.
As suggested in the earlier post, Julian's survival past 363 AD could have made a major difference; however, I do not see total elimination of Christianity or its reduction to fringe status at this late date. Not to mention that, should Julian have prevailed and had paganism as the official religion of the Empire even in the VIIth century, the unifying force that Christianity presented during Persian wars of Heraclius (who is sometimes considered as "the first crusader" due to his use of Christian rhetoric to unify his Empire against the Zoroastrian Persians) would not have been there; with a large and far-flung empire paganism, due to its relatively flexible nature, would also not be able to provide a centralized focal force for the population to rally around.
Another alternative is an earlier POD, possibly somewhere in the Ist or IInd centuries, where Christianity either never fully develops, or stays a regional religion... say there is no exile of Jews from Palestine after rebellions in Judea in 67-71 AD. As such, one potential outcome is that the fledgling Christian community stays relatively confined to Palestine and Syria, and does not spread out to the rest of the Empire in meaningful quantities as in OTL. In other words, Christianity would be a fringe cult, worshipped in parts of the Middle East, but not anywhere else. That would still allow for either Islam or something very similar to it to develop due to the strong presense of monotheists in the area, but could leave the rest of the Roman world relatively untouched.
Providing Byzantium is still pagan it is likely to be somewhat more tolerant of various religious minorities as long as they are willingly accepting Roman supremacy - with Christians being an insignificant minority as opposed to OTL (where much of the persecution happened due to the fact that the Christians refused to sacrifice to Fortune of Rome for the Empire's preservation, therefore the Emperors of the IIIrd century had frequently associated Christianity with dissention and a potential source of insurrection), and most pagans having no qualms about offering sacrifices for the well-being of the Empire, the Empire would be relatively cohesive, and better able to present a unified front against an enemy with a hostile attitude to anyone not believing in one god. Ironically enough, Christians and Jews would be more likely to side with the invaders, who, after all, are also monotheistic. I would imagine, however, that overall the Empire might do better in the short run, but in the long run the differences between different regions could lead to further fragmentation, especially once the Roman/Byzantine military power is reduced and/or collapsed.
Another alternative is an earlier POD, possibly somewhere in the Ist or IInd centuries, where Christianity either never fully develops, or stays a regional religion... say there is no exile of Jews from Palestine after rebellions in Judea in 67-71 AD. As such, one potential outcome is that the fledgling Christian community stays relatively confined to Palestine and Syria, and does not spread out to the rest of the Empire in meaningful quantities as in OTL. In other words, Christianity would be a fringe cult, worshipped in parts of the Middle East, but not anywhere else. That would still allow for either Islam or something very similar to it to develop due to the strong presense of monotheists in the area, but could leave the rest of the Roman world relatively untouched.
Providing Byzantium is still pagan it is likely to be somewhat more tolerant of various religious minorities as long as they are willingly accepting Roman supremacy - with Christians being an insignificant minority as opposed to OTL (where much of the persecution happened due to the fact that the Christians refused to sacrifice to Fortune of Rome for the Empire's preservation, therefore the Emperors of the IIIrd century had frequently associated Christianity with dissention and a potential source of insurrection), and most pagans having no qualms about offering sacrifices for the well-being of the Empire, the Empire would be relatively cohesive, and better able to present a unified front against an enemy with a hostile attitude to anyone not believing in one god. Ironically enough, Christians and Jews would be more likely to side with the invaders, who, after all, are also monotheistic. I would imagine, however, that overall the Empire might do better in the short run, but in the long run the differences between different regions could lead to further fragmentation, especially once the Roman/Byzantine military power is reduced and/or collapsed.
carlton_bach said:For onething I'm sure there wouldn't *be* an Islam as we know it if the Roman Empire had stayed pagan. Of course there are other positions on this.
Secondly, I would guess that the West would fare worse in a pagan environment, the East slightly better. The Arabs could still become something of an unlikely conqueror (though without Islam, I'd expect that to look more like the Frankish invasion of Gaul and never reach much further than Syria and Palestine - heh, where they might be converted to Judaism
Sounds cool, though.
What it would be interesting are different influences on islam. Instead of Judaism and Christianity you have Judaism and local religions. Zoroatrism was close to monotheism. Perhaps somebody claims to be real messiah but instead of new tastament's message of love you get messiah sent on earth to continue eternal struggle between light (God) and dark (Satan). Of course anybody who doesn't acknowledge this guy as messiah is part of dark and must be killed and their lands conquered. With exception of Jews who only need some time to get around realising the truth and Zoroatrians who prophesized His comming anyway.
Leo Caesius
Banned
That sounds like Manichaeism. The Manichaeans were much more insidious than that, however - they liked to assume the form of the dominant religion in whatever culture they encountered, and take control from within (a sort of "Trojan Horse" religion). To this day there are Manichaean temples in southern China dedicated to the "Buddha of Light," which for all intents and purposes have completely assimilated to the Buddhism of the surrounding population. Many Chinese secret societies, however, continue to preserve the traditions of the White Lotus Society, which was apparently a Manichaean offshoot.aktarian said: