Italy in the Migration Period – No Pope, No Christianity, No Islam

[Ερρίκος ο βάρβαρος]

I have a challenge for you that may require a somewhat liberal approach to butterflies. The main focus in this one is Italy during the Migration Period but in a world where Christianity (and consequently Islam) never took hold.

Let’s imagine that Christianity rises in the first-century as yet another Jewish apocalyptic movement but disappears into the dust of history somewhere in the second century, perhaps after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE). Saint Paul never had his theophany on the way to Damascus, and the Great Commission of Matt 28:16-20 was never thought, nor written, nor read.

From this counter-factual assumption I will ask you to imagine a timeline that basically follows the OTL history of the Roman Empire, except that Christianity (and Islam) is non-existent and the emperors will remain pagan in one form or another.

This means that Diocletian will establish the Tetrarchy, Constantine will remain pagan but still move the seat of the empire to Byzantium/Constantinople, Theodosius will divide the empire in 395, WRE will fall in 476, Clovis I will reign the Franks until his death in 511, Justinian will launch his campaigns against Persians, Goths and Vandals, and so on.

But that also means that the Empire will not be shaken by Christian doctrinal controversies, there will not be any rise of Islam, and there will not be a pope in Rome attempting to fill the void of secular stability in the West. This is a world where the Temples of the Gods remain intact and fully operating, and the air in every city and town is filled with smoke from sacrificial fires. There is no dominant religion. Instead, the syncretism of Hellenistic-Roman religion and culture widens and deepens well into the territories of the Germanic and Slavic tribes.

From this perspective I have the following question:
In which ways could one imagine the destiny of Italy following the Lombard invasion and conquest of the Italian peninsula if there is no pope in Rome and if the eastern provinces of the ERE (Egypt, Syria, Palestine) remain unthreatened during the seventh century (remember, there is no Islam).
- Would ERE successfully attempt to conquer Italy from the Lombards and hold if for a very significant period of time?
- Would the Merovingian Franks attempt to challenge ERE claims on Italy?
- How would the non-existence of a Papal State affect the rise and development of the Italian city states?
- Other possible senarios?

 

[SwampTiger]

The Church during this period had taken on the Roman organizational model. This allowed the Pope and the Church to acquire an authority and power along with its followers to impact the actions of the invaders, even without an army. The surfeit of various "mystery" cults and the periodic disruption of society between 100 BC and 400 AD would allow the rise of several of these new cults. If only one of these groups adopt the organization of the Empire and the Church, you could easily have an alternate religion replace Christianity.

The Arabic eruption into Eastern Rome and Persia was caused as much by population and cultural stresses as the rise of Islam. In addition, Islam was not just influenced by Christianity, but Judaism and other Middle Eastern religions. Islam, or something very similar would most likely arise in this ATL. The ATL leadership and theology would affect the impact of Arabic migration/conquest. Something will cause the northward migration of the Arabs.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Without Christianity Latin and Roman culture will stay the top unifying factor in the former western Roman Empire. Basically the barbarians assimilate more into local Latin culture and language then otl. One might even try to claim the title of Caesar or emperor. It’s like the mongols in China.

The western Latin dominated empire might still stay separate from more Greek dominated eastern empire who probably even stronger in long run then otl. Rome and Latin/Romance languages might still be unification elements in society. Also Christianity did hurt and destroyed many Roman martial traditions and loyalty.

Christianity often demonized the hell out of Roman society. Without that propaganda for centuries(dark ages) people will look at Rome as model and often the goal in Western Europe(who will take Rome place or make a “new” Rome). The collapse of empire or dark ages might be more like a warring states period in former western empire. Many former generals and barbarian contenders claiming to be successor state to Romans.

Latin language could be more like Chinese in regards to logistics and differences. Similar languages like Italian and French might form but be more Latinized and have a more Cantonese and Manchurian type relationship.

The German people might move more East depending on how much former western empires reunites and how the west and East empires both deal with them. Both might try to surround themselves with tributes or puppet states along the border as buffers. The west and East stay separate and East becomes even more Greek dominated while both start having Chinese type circles of development

 

[Ερρίκος ο βάρβαρος]

If only one of these groups adopt the organization of the Empire and the Church, you could easily have an alternate religion replace Christianity.

I don't understand the thing about an alternate religion to replace Christianity in this senario. In the OP, I gave you syncretist polytheism of the pre-Christian Graeco-Roman world as the operating religion in this timeline. This is one of the most fundamental assumptions of this game.

Islam, or something very similar would most likely arise in this ATL.

Ok, I can definitely see invasions of arabic tribes into Persian and even ERE territories, at least temporary, following the chaos of the Roman-Persian wars. But the Arabs were polytheists. They could have remained polytheists and still succesfully invading Roman and Persian provinces.

 

[Ερρίκος ο βάρβαρος]

Without Christianity Latin and Roman culture will stay the top unifying factor in the former western Roman Empire. Basically the barbarians assimilate more into local Latin culture and language then otl. One might even try to claim the title of Caesar or emperor. It’s like the mongols in China.

I totally agree!

The western Latin dominated empire might still stay separate from more Greek dominated eastern empire who probably even stronger in long run then otl. Rome and Latin/Romance languages might still be unification elements in society. Also Christianity did hurt and destroyed many Roman martial traditions and loyalty.

Christianity often demonized the hell out of Roman society. Without that propaganda for centuries(dark ages) people will look at Rome as model and often the goal in Western Europe(who will take Rome place or make a “new” Rome). The collapse of empire or dark ages might be more like a warring states period in former western empire. Many former generals and barbarian contenders claiming to be successor state to Romans.

Latin language could be more like Chinese in regards to logistics and differences. Similar languages like Italian and French might form but be more Latinized and have a more Cantonese and Manchurian type relationship.

The German people might move more East depending on how much former western empires reunites and how the west and East empires both deal with them. Both might try to surround themselves with tributes or puppet states along the border as buffers. The west and East stay separate and East becomes even more Greek dominated while both start having Chinese type circles of development

Interesting and valuable points! Thanks!

 

[SwampTiger]

I don't understand the thing about an alternate religion to replace Christianity in this senario. In the OP, I gave you syncretist polytheism of the pre-Christian Graeco-Roman world as the operating religion in this timeline. This is one of the most fundamental assumptions of this game.


Ok, I can definitely see invasions of arabic tribes into Persian and even ERE territories, at least temporary, following the chaos of the Roman-Persian wars. But the Arabs were polytheists. They could have remained polytheists and still succesfully invading Roman and Persian provinces.

I never said a new monotheist religious cult would develop, only a different cult may develop.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

I don't understand the thing about an alternate religion to replace Christianity in this senario. In the OP, I gave you syncretist polytheism of the pre-Christian Graeco-Roman world as the operating religion in this timeline. This is one of the most fundamental assumptions of this game.

Fair enough, but can we assume that some of the Neoplatonic influences that seeped into early Christianity would still be present in the surviving Hellenistic religion? Would the cult of Sol Invictus becoming the dominant faith of the Roman Empire satisfy this requirement?

Though I am no expert, my vague understanding is that the broad political and socioeconomic trends that made the heart of the Roman Empire vulnerable to barbarian invasion also made Romans more receptive to new religious movements, be they some variety of Christianity, Manichaeism, Mithraism, or something else entirely. That is, that you could probably not have one without the other to some extent. It is very possible that some form of Greco-Roman paganism could survive as the dominant religion in the Mediterranean, but it would probably reform into something very different from the paganism of the height of the empire.

 

[Ερρίκος ο βάρβαρος]

Fair enough, but can we assume that some of the Neoplatonic influences that seeped into early Christianity would still be present in the surviving Hellenistic religion?

Of course! Neoplatonism was an important philosophical movement. But it was also founded on firm polytheism. Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus and Damascius were all devout polytheists.

Would the cult of Sol Invictus becoming the dominant faith of the Roman Empire satisfy this requirement?

I don't get this fixation with "dominant faith"? Is that a necessity for this game to work? The cult of Sol Invictus was only one aspect of Roman religious life, favored by emperors such as Aurelian, Constantine and Julian the philosopher. In a pagan version of Late empire, it might have evolved to something like imperial cult, but that would not contradict any other form of cultic behavior. Polytheism means tolerance, pluralism and diversity. Only religions who dared to oppose that pluralism would be subjected to popular intolerance.

Though I am no expert, my vague understanding is that the broad political and socioeconomic trends that made the heart of the Roman Empire vulnerable to barbarian invasion also made Romans more receptive to new religious movements, be they some variety of Christianity, Manichaeism, Mithraism, or something else entirely. That is, that you could probably not have one without the other to some extent. It is very possible that some form of Greco-Roman paganism could survive as the dominant religion in the Mediterranean, but it would probably reform into something very different from the paganism of the height of the empire.

Sorry, I really don't know what you are talking about. Do you mean that it was the barbarian invasions that turned Romans into Christians? What's the evidence for that?

 

[Philip]

Though I am no expert, my vague understanding is that the broad political and socioeconomic trends that made the heart of the Roman Empire vulnerable to barbarian invasion also made Romans more receptive to new religious movements, be they some variety of Christianity, Manichaeism, Mithraism, or something else entirely

The Roman Empire was not open to new religious movements. Christianity and Manicheanism were scornfully tolerated at best. Mithraism acceptability stemmed from its claim to be an ancient Persian cult. Likewise the initial acceptability of Judaism was so to the antiquity of their practices.

 

[Gloss]

Without Christianity Latin and Roman culture will stay the top unifying factor in the former western Roman Empire. Basically the barbarians assimilate more into local Latin culture and language then otl. One might even try to claim the title of Caesar or emperor. It’s like the mongols in China.

The western Latin dominated empire might still stay separate from more Greek dominated eastern empire who probably even stronger in long run then otl. Rome and Latin/Romance languages might still be unification elements in society. Also Christianity did hurt and destroyed many Roman martial traditions and loyalty.

Christianity often demonized the hell out of Roman society. Without that propaganda for centuries(dark ages) people will look at Rome as model and often the goal in Western Europe(who will take Rome place or make a “new” Rome). The collapse of empire or dark ages might be more like a warring states period in former western empire. Many former generals and barbarian contenders claiming to be successor state to Romans.

Latin language could be more like Chinese in regards to logistics and differences. Similar languages like Italian and French might form but be more Latinized and have a more Cantonese and Manchurian type relationship.

The German people might move more East depending on how much former western empires reunites and how the west and East empires both deal with them. Both might try to surround themselves with tributes or puppet states along the border as buffers. The west and East stay separate and East becomes even more Greek dominated while both start having Chinese type circles of development

I'm baffled anyone could think anything like this, Christianity was not anti-Roman if anything it actively helped Latin stay the language of presitge and allowed the concept of Rome to survive beyond the survival of the Roman state in the West.

The post-Roman world would be far less Latinized without Christianity and Western Church. You couldn't be more wrong to say that the Church demonized Rome and that people didn't look up to it either.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

Without a common religious glue, barbarians would have less in common with the romans.

I suspect the Western Empire eventually becomes ladden with Æsir worshippers mixing that religion with the Greco-Roman Paganism, the Cult of Isis and Neo Platonism.

 

[Gloss]

Polytheism means tolerance, pluralism and diversity. Only religions who dared to oppose that pluralism would be subjected to popular intolerance.

Seriously? The Romans show many times religious intolerance against various groups, among other polytheist religions, you simply fail to understand that religious intolerance can manifest itself differently, you are looking for the same kind of intolerance Abrahamic religions showed against others while IMO polytheist intolerance would look more like ethnic intolerance than you'd think.

 

[kholieken]

Of course! Neoplatonism was an important philosophical movement. But it was also founded on firm polytheism. Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus and Damascius were all devout polytheists.

don't get this fixation with "dominant faith"? Is that a necessity for this game to work? The cult of Sol Invictus was only one aspect of Roman religious life, favored by emperors such as Aurelian, Constantine and Julian the philosopher. In a pagan version of Late empire, it might have evolved to something like imperial cult, but that would not contradict any other form of cultic behavior.

Empire would need some sort of unifying worldview among its inhabitants. Chinese Heaven Worship or India Hinduism did establish that, without eliminating smaller cults and deities.

Polytheism means tolerance, pluralism and diversity. Only religions who dared to oppose that pluralism would be subjected to popular intolerance.

Bullshit. Shivaism and Buddhism is quite capable to launch religious war. Look at Chola-Khmer/ Srivijaya war.

Sorry, I really don't know what you are talking about. Do you mean that it was the barbarian invasions that turned Romans into Christians? What's the evidence for that?

Romans united Empire, and prolonged peace contribute to : search for 'meaning' of life among upper class, mix of people of various culture who want unifying all encompassing worldview, weakness of military capability in interior, rich and cultured life that attract barbarian, etc.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

I wonder if a Pagan Rome invaded by barbaric germans, slavs and tartar/turkish invaders (like the Huns) would lead to a new religious intermixing. Perhaps a syncretism, or even a new religion entirely?

 

[WotanArgead]

- Would ERE successfully attempt to conquer Italy from the Lombards and hold if for a very significant period of time?

I don’t think - in fact this is a common cliche, but it’s groundless. The fact of the matter is that the expenditure of forces on Italy for the Romanians is essentially rather unprofitable - this region is difficult to keep, and it is under constant blow from the north. Much more beneficial is the concentration of forces in Egypt and the lands of the Fertile Crescent. Fortunately, this is a world without an Arab invasion, so I dare to suggest that, at least until the 11th century, the Eastern Mediterranean will be under the control of the Empire. But in any case, they will lose Italy.

Of course! Neoplatonism was an important philosophical movement. But it was also founded on firm polytheism. Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus and Damascius were all devout polytheists.

Rather, they sought rather a form of belief where the gods are either servants or emanations of a certain Absolute Deity (such as in Vaishnavism and Smartism).
In fact, I would not say that this is a good option - the Neoplatonists actively used occult and mystical teachings. Remember how many problems there were because the Catholic priesthood didn't refuse to recognize the ideas of the heliocentric model? But it isn't a part of dogma, and it contradicted only some theological concepts. Now imagine what will happen in a world where astrology is part of religious doctrine.

Without Christianity Latin and Roman culture will stay the top unifying factor in the former western Roman Empire. Basically the barbarians assimilate more into local Latin culture and language then otl. One might even try to claim the title of Caesar or emperor. It’s like the mongols in China.

The western Latin dominated empire might still stay separate from more Greek dominated eastern empire who probably even stronger in long run then otl. Rome and Latin/Romance languages might still be unification elements in society. Also Christianity did hurt and destroyed many Roman martial traditions and loyalty.

Christianity often demonized the hell out of Roman society. Without that propaganda for centuries(dark ages) people will look at Rome as model and often the goal in Western Europe(who will take Rome place or make a “new” Rome). The collapse of empire or dark ages might be more like a warring states period in former western empire. Many former generals and barbarian contenders claiming to be successor state to Romans.

Latin language could be more like Chinese in regards to logistics and differences. Similar languages like Italian and French might form but be more Latinized and have a more Cantonese and Manchurian type relationship.

The German people might move more East depending on how much former western empires reunites and how the west and East empires both deal with them. Both might try to surround themselves with tributes or puppet states along the border as buffers. The west and East stay separate and East becomes even more Greek dominated while both start having Chinese type circles of development

I'm baffled anyone could think anything like this, Christianity was not anti-Roman if anything it actively helped Latin stay the language of presitge and allowed the concept of Rome to survive beyond the survival of the Roman state in the West.

The post-Roman world would be far less Latinized without Christianity and Western Church. You couldn't be more wrong to say that the Church demonized Rome and that people didn't look up to it either.

In fact, there is a certain dialectic here - on the one hand, early Christian thinkers were ardent opponents of ancient culture, and later there were persecutions of pagan philosophers and vandalism in relation to cultural predecessors. On the other hand, later thinkers actively used the works of ancient philosophers, and the influence of Neoplatonism and Aristotle was significant. The main languages of the church are Latin, Greek, and Aramaic. During the period of cultural degradation in the post-Roman space, Christian monks acted as guardians of knowledge and culture. Here it must be borne in mind that in different regions there was a different situation. Since we are talking about Italy, I think that here the level of cultural stagnation will remain the same as OTL. The fact is that the Germans made up a relatively small percentage of the population, and this was mainly a military estate. The administrative apparatus mainly consisted of local ones. Moreover - many of these barbarians subsequently received a Roman education, and switched to Latin as a spoken language. After all, Italy is a highly urbanized cultural region.

 

[JanWellem]

I'm baffled anyone could think anything like this, Christianity was not anti-Roman if anything it actively helped Latin stay the language of presitge and allowed the concept of Rome to survive beyond the survival of the Roman state in the West.

The post-Roman world would be far less Latinized without Christianity and Western Church. You couldn't be more wrong to say that the Church demonized Rome and that people didn't look up to it either.

Indeed, the church even did its best to whitewash Pontius Pilate's role in the crucifiction of Jesus by depicting him as hesitent to condemn Jesus to death and even offering his release to the Jerusalem crowds gathered in front of the Antonia fortress as a traditional gesture for the passover holiday, an alledged custom not mentioned anywhere outside of Christian sources related to the Passion of Christ. In Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Pilate became the focus of a large group of New Testament apocrypha, largely expanding on his role in the Gospels. In many of these, particularly the earlier texts, Pilate was portrayed as a positive figure, in some, he even became a Christian martyr.