No Constantine conversion
- Thread starter kek
- Start date
He was baptised on his death bed. That's not exactly the same thing, especially at this point in time. Baptism was the only mechanism in early Christianity for the forgiveness of sins, and since it was a one-time-only deal, it wasn't unheard of for followers to hold off until the very last moment. Sounds like cheating, to be sure, but there you are. Just because he wasn't baptised until his death bed doesn't necessarily mean he didn't consider himself (or wasn't considered) a Christian.
It's kind of tricky to estimate the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire before Constantine, because most Christians tended to keep a low profile for obvious reasons of personal safety. Personally, I tend to see Constantine's conversion as more of an act of personal faith than a political expediency, and I'm not convinced that Christianity was destined to rise to dominance without him. I think it far more likely that without a Constantine figure, Christianity would have remained a distinct minority religion, certainly not going away, but sitting, at best, at the fringes of European and near Eastern society. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that Christianity was a real growth enterprise prior to Constantine, and even less to support the contention that it was a grass roots affairs to which either Constantine or one of his successors would have had to appropriate, one way or the other.
This would have had significant knock-on effects for both Christianity and the rest of the Roman world. In the former case, the Church would never have developed the well-defined power structure that it did in OTL. It would have been a more localized affair, without quite the same focus around the twin poles of Rome and Constantinople, and you might not even get a strictly formalized New Testament. For the rest of society, the big changes would come into play after the fall of the Roman Empire. After the decline of Roman political authority, it was Christianity that really stepped into the void, providing some degree of European shared culture. If something else doesn't step into that role, Europe is likely to become even more fractured under various different forms of Germanic paganism. Some tribes may make a conscious effort to "Romanize" their faiths, but you really don't convert to Roman paganism in the same sense you convert to Christianity or Islam (assuming, of course, that some other religion doesn't ultimately supplant the traditional Roman state religion).
From what I've read while Constantine was somewhat ambiguous on the matter of religion he did show considerable favouritism toward Christianity and hostility towards the older faiths. For instance he dealt the pagan religions a considerable blow by looting their temples of much treasure and relics, both to glorify his new capital and provide the gold for his new coinage, which did help restore confidence in the treasury. This not only showed antagonism towards the pagans but also would have meant considerable loss of prestige.
Seem to have been differing reports on how quickly the Christians turned to open persecution themselves. Have read that by about 390 they were forcibly closing the last temples in much of the east. Also the very dodgy character who is thought to have formed the origin of the legends of St George was dismissed from his position in Egypt in Julian's time. The church later claimed this was persecution but I have also heard that the character was so corrupt and grasping that both Christians and pagans celebrated his removal.
Having just come across this thread I think Hendryk's suggestion is very accurate. Have often suspect that if Christianity or a similar faith hadn't risen to power you might have seen something like a version of Confucianism and the Chinese imperial system emerging in the European/Med area. Especially if, without Christianity, the empire have managed to pull through the various disorders and invasions more successfully than OTL, which is far from impossible. Whether that would have been good in the longer run I don't know however.
Steve
Seem to have been differing reports on how quickly the Christians turned to open persecution themselves. Have read that by about 390 they were forcibly closing the last temples in much of the east. Also the very dodgy character who is thought to have formed the origin of the legends of St George was dismissed from his position in Egypt in Julian's time. The church later claimed this was persecution but I have also heard that the character was so corrupt and grasping that both Christians and pagans celebrated his removal.
Having just come across this thread I think Hendryk's suggestion is very accurate. Have often suspect that if Christianity or a similar faith hadn't risen to power you might have seen something like a version of Confucianism and the Chinese imperial system emerging in the European/Med area. Especially if, without Christianity, the empire have managed to pull through the various disorders and invasions more successfully than OTL, which is far from impossible. Whether that would have been good in the longer run I don't know however.
Steve
When I first read the thread opening a thing came to my mind
which just Rocano and Seancdaug have started to discuss:
Constantine had himself christened on his death-bed.
Whether he was in Christian faith then I do not know,
but I think that question does not concern subsequent history.
However, I am quite convinced that he was not of Christian faith
for the most time of his reign.
Why do I think so?
Well, there is no real turning point in his life (wrt his personal attitudes),
and not even a legend of how he changed his behavior.
Recall that he had managed persecution of Christians;
if he wished to be considered a Christian later on,
people would have expected more of him than changing shield ornaments.
Moreover, he let himself depict in Rome in the traditional sort
of rulers' monuments, with clear allusions to Jove.
And of course having one's wife and son butchered
and then send one's mother to the Holy Land to pour oil on troubled water
is not exactly what Christians may have expected from a new convert.
I think Christians did approve of the support from the throne,
but did not consider him as one of them,
until his baptism. It seems that Constantine as a believing Christian
is perception by later generations.
More accurate historical arguments welcome ;-)
================================
To make a long story short,
where has the POD gone?
"Constantine did not convert" would mean OTL in my (and Rocano's) opinion.
So I take the liberty of modifying it as follows:
WI Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians,
but did not patronize the Church;
in particular, did not attend Nicea, and did not have himself
christened?
================================
1. First family of possible TLs:
One of his successors may well have returned to persecution.
This yields another three options:
a) Constantine appears with delay, b) a no-Edict-of-Milan TL (with delay),
and c) all below TLs with delay.
Note that delay may well change a lot of things,
as the peoples inside and beyond Roman borders may develop
according to the OTL. But I did not think a lot about that.
=================================
To understand what happened if Constantine had not intervened
with the establishment of the Church, we should first ask,
why did he intervene?
The TL will much depend on what we think were the main reasons.
In my opinion, there are two main aspects:
- Christianity must have been already wide-spread,
well into influential cicles of Roman society.
Otherwise Constantine and Licinius would not have stopped
the persecution. No doubt Christians constituted a minority,
by in important areas, like the city of Rome and in some Greek cities,
they must have amounted to more than 5%.
I cannot see how they could have made persecution spurious.
Of course, this goes with the fact that Christians were stubborn,
and many stuck to their beliefs in spite of discrimination.
On the other hand:
- Christianity was quite new, and still developping.
Hence Constantine saw a chance (he was right)
to influence this process and use the Church
as a tool to stabilize his power.
=================================
2. Concentrating on the last point,
without Constantine perhaps Nicea would have ended
without result.
This might prove a test case:
Christian communities recognize that they do not agree on many
behalfs. Consequence: Not necessarily schisms,
but different opinions in different communities for almost
all relevant questions.
I do however expect that that communities would hold together
more than in OTL after 1054.
Of course, Church would not adopt so much of a hierarchy as
it did in OTL. But we should not underrate the links which
already existed among Christians.
For instance, in disagreement with Seancdaug's posting,
the New Testament had already develloped to pretty much the
current shape. The most probable non-common alternate NT
would be the West going without the Revelation and the East without
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Does that change so much?
Not politically, and certainly not in the short run, I think.
Moreover, a predominant position of the Bishop of Rome had
already developped, though only with marginal influence compared
to later popes. Some historicians even claim that higher authority
of Rome was already acknowledged around 100 AD, taking the Epistle
of Clemens as evidence.
Even if they overdo it a bit and even if the bishop of Rome
would not be able to impose the standards of his community
to the rest of the world, his position would be the most prestigious
in Christianity.
But on the other hand, the grave of Peter is certainly not enough
to maintain that situation if Rome would cease to be the most significant place.
In a TL where a metropolitan centre different from Rome comes about
that functions as a meeting point for people form many different regions,
perhaps the centre of the Christian world would have migrated there, too.
But as many before have posted, I agree:
The typical secular privileges of the Church would not be thinkable of.
There would be no legend of St. Sylvester, no alleged Donation of Constantine,
no Papal State, no great role model for the medieval kings.
Unless there were another Constantine, more similar to that of OTL to come.
=========================
Let us turn the Constantine's first motivation:
He tried to tame Christians.
If he had not supported them, their distance to the Roman state
would have enabled them to continue kvetching about earthly power
in general and the emperor in particular.
This is what also happened later on in OTL and helped to disintegrate
the Western Empire. I think this is the central point in Constantine's
calculation: He successfully prevented Christians to undermine his
authority.
This takes us to another interesting ATL:
WI Constantine's successor's would have kept to his course,
without cancelling Christian privileges,
but still appearing traditionally Roman to the Senate elite in Rome?
I think that Constantine's tying the Church to the empire _plus_
his successors becoming Christians without any reservations
has accelerated the fall of West Rome.
If I am wrong, then perhaps the destructive role of the Church
is due the distrust to power which Apostata has reinflamed.
I am keen on reading more details from you;
and to cook some up myself!
____________
@rcduggan: What does ARR stand for?
which just Rocano and Seancdaug have started to discuss:
Constantine had himself christened on his death-bed.
Whether he was in Christian faith then I do not know,
but I think that question does not concern subsequent history.
However, I am quite convinced that he was not of Christian faith
for the most time of his reign.
Why do I think so?
Well, there is no real turning point in his life (wrt his personal attitudes),
and not even a legend of how he changed his behavior.
Recall that he had managed persecution of Christians;
if he wished to be considered a Christian later on,
people would have expected more of him than changing shield ornaments.
Moreover, he let himself depict in Rome in the traditional sort
of rulers' monuments, with clear allusions to Jove.
And of course having one's wife and son butchered
and then send one's mother to the Holy Land to pour oil on troubled water
is not exactly what Christians may have expected from a new convert.
I think Christians did approve of the support from the throne,
but did not consider him as one of them,
until his baptism. It seems that Constantine as a believing Christian
is perception by later generations.
More accurate historical arguments welcome ;-)
================================
To make a long story short,
where has the POD gone?
"Constantine did not convert" would mean OTL in my (and Rocano's) opinion.
So I take the liberty of modifying it as follows:
WI Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians,
but did not patronize the Church;
in particular, did not attend Nicea, and did not have himself
christened?
================================
1. First family of possible TLs:
One of his successors may well have returned to persecution.
This yields another three options:
a) Constantine appears with delay, b) a no-Edict-of-Milan TL (with delay),
and c) all below TLs with delay.
Note that delay may well change a lot of things,
as the peoples inside and beyond Roman borders may develop
according to the OTL. But I did not think a lot about that.
=================================
To understand what happened if Constantine had not intervened
with the establishment of the Church, we should first ask,
why did he intervene?
The TL will much depend on what we think were the main reasons.
In my opinion, there are two main aspects:
- Christianity must have been already wide-spread,
well into influential cicles of Roman society.
Otherwise Constantine and Licinius would not have stopped
the persecution. No doubt Christians constituted a minority,
by in important areas, like the city of Rome and in some Greek cities,
they must have amounted to more than 5%.
I cannot see how they could have made persecution spurious.
Of course, this goes with the fact that Christians were stubborn,
and many stuck to their beliefs in spite of discrimination.
On the other hand:
- Christianity was quite new, and still developping.
Hence Constantine saw a chance (he was right)
to influence this process and use the Church
as a tool to stabilize his power.
=================================
2. Concentrating on the last point,
without Constantine perhaps Nicea would have ended
without result.
This might prove a test case:
Christian communities recognize that they do not agree on many
behalfs. Consequence: Not necessarily schisms,
but different opinions in different communities for almost
all relevant questions.
I do however expect that that communities would hold together
more than in OTL after 1054.
Of course, Church would not adopt so much of a hierarchy as
it did in OTL. But we should not underrate the links which
already existed among Christians.
For instance, in disagreement with Seancdaug's posting,
the New Testament had already develloped to pretty much the
current shape. The most probable non-common alternate NT
would be the West going without the Revelation and the East without
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Does that change so much?
Not politically, and certainly not in the short run, I think.
Moreover, a predominant position of the Bishop of Rome had
already developped, though only with marginal influence compared
to later popes. Some historicians even claim that higher authority
of Rome was already acknowledged around 100 AD, taking the Epistle
of Clemens as evidence.
Even if they overdo it a bit and even if the bishop of Rome
would not be able to impose the standards of his community
to the rest of the world, his position would be the most prestigious
in Christianity.
But on the other hand, the grave of Peter is certainly not enough
to maintain that situation if Rome would cease to be the most significant place.
In a TL where a metropolitan centre different from Rome comes about
that functions as a meeting point for people form many different regions,
perhaps the centre of the Christian world would have migrated there, too.
But as many before have posted, I agree:
The typical secular privileges of the Church would not be thinkable of.
There would be no legend of St. Sylvester, no alleged Donation of Constantine,
no Papal State, no great role model for the medieval kings.
Unless there were another Constantine, more similar to that of OTL to come.
=========================
Let us turn the Constantine's first motivation:
He tried to tame Christians.
If he had not supported them, their distance to the Roman state
would have enabled them to continue kvetching about earthly power
in general and the emperor in particular.
This is what also happened later on in OTL and helped to disintegrate
the Western Empire. I think this is the central point in Constantine's
calculation: He successfully prevented Christians to undermine his
authority.
This takes us to another interesting ATL:
WI Constantine's successor's would have kept to his course,
without cancelling Christian privileges,
but still appearing traditionally Roman to the Senate elite in Rome?
I think that Constantine's tying the Church to the empire _plus_
his successors becoming Christians without any reservations
has accelerated the fall of West Rome.
If I am wrong, then perhaps the destructive role of the Church
is due the distrust to power which Apostata has reinflamed.
I am keen on reading more details from you;
and to cook some up myself!
____________
@rcduggan: What does ARR stand for?
Last edited:
True, but I'm not sure how this matters, ultimately. I don't think anyone is realistically going to hold Constantine up as the platonic ideal of a new Christian convert. Yes, he did a lot of things in his capacity as emperor that were, for want of a better word, "un-Christian." But so did a large number of Christian political leaders that came after Constantine.
I don't think it's a particularly useful distinction, honestly. At most, it shows the actions of someone who was still fairly new to Christianity and who by the realities of his position couldn't match the ideal.
Er, Constantine didn't initiate or manage any significant recorded persecution of Christians. The last major persecution was carried out under Diocletian. Licinius reneged on the Edict of Milan and started another persecution, but this was done without Constantine's approval and was a major factor in the war between the two. The worst thing that can be said about Constantine on that front is that he didn't (as far as anyone knows) speak out against Diocletian's persecution. But then, he probably wasn't a Christian at that point, and wouldn't have had much say in the matter anyway.
Granted, but I think it's a mistake to read too much into this, for a number of reasons. Exclusive religions were mostly unfamiliar to Romans: the idea that following one God (or group of gods) would preclude the following of another god(s) as well was effectively alien to the Greco-Roman tradition. As a new convert, Constantine would very likely have been groping towards this new order, and getting there realistically wouldn't have happened overnight. As it happens, the further you get into Constantine's reign, the fewer pagan symbols show up on his monuments and coinage.
The other, and IMO more important, thing to remember is that Constantine was a Roman emperor. The Roman emperor traditionally had social and religious responsibilities that he couldn't have abandoned overnight, even if he had wanted to. The majority of Roman society was still pagan, and this was even more true of the Senate, which remained strongly resistant to Christianity until the reign of Theodosius. Constantine could not have afforded to completely isolate these factions and had any hope of retaining the purple.
Again, baptism did not carry that same kind of symbolism during the time period. If Christians didn't think of Constantine as Christians before his death-bed baptism, I wouldn't be so sure that they thought of him as a Christian afterwards, either.
More realistically, though, I suspect they did think of him as Christian. Even though they may not have been happy with some of his actions, and might not have tolerated such actions in a man of lower station, the significance of patronage by a Roman emperor would have made up for that in all but the most dogmatic of believers.
