What if Constantine never converted?

[samcster94]

What is likely to happen to the Roman Empire if Constantine never converts to Christianity??? I know he was a Sol Invictus follower, making him a monotheist. I do wonder how Christianity evolves, albeit I know Islam cannot exist in TTL(albeit Manicheans might have a better shot and maybe Zoroastrian offshoots).

 

[Alex Zetsu]

That depends... does he still cannibalize the budget? His building of Byzantium in excess of normal development cost the equivalent of 3 years of the empire's revenue (I think some of the engineers jacked up the prices. If an itemized version of the spending survived, we'd be like "no way an amphitheater costs this damn much"). You know what would be a better use of those funds? Saving up so that the currency doesn't get debased in the future.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

I find it likely that his sucessor converts. There's a good chance the next Emperor is either a Mithraist or Pagan, through. Maybe Constantius II converts in his place.
By now, Christianity was no longer persecuted, so I find it quite likely it will become the main religion of the Empire. Wherever it will become State Religion or Pagans will be persecuted, that can be butterflied. Even if the Emperor becomes a Christian, a good question is wherever he will join the Orthodoxy or become an heretic - like an Arianist. Manichean Rome would be interesting, too.

A tolerant Christian Rome would be VERY interesting.

I do wonder how Christianity evolves, albeit I know Islam cannot exist in TTL(albeit Manicheans might have a better shot and maybe Zoroastrian offshoots).

Why not? There is a school in western scholars that considers Islam a Christian Heresy born outside Christendom, an offshot of Arianism that turned into its own thing.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Strictly speaking, I think Roman sun-worship was henotheistic (i.e., believing in the existence of multiple gods, but worshiping one of them as supreme) rather than monotheistic.

As for Christianity, Constantine's conversion was a major boost to it, although TBH I think the importance of imperial patronage has often been exaggerated. For one thing, Christianity had done quite well for itself over the previous three centuries; for another, most of the fourth-century emperors were Arians, but Arianism itself was a spent force in the Empire by the end of century, indicating that imperial support wasn't the be-all-and-end-all of religious success. So, if Constantine hadn't converted, I'd expect Christianity to continue its previous trajectory of steady but modest expansion; it won't do as well as it did IOTL, but it will still be a major religious force at the fall of the Empire.

Speaking of which, it's interesting to consider what a different religious makeup would mean for the fall of Rome and the following centuries. Of course, without a Christian Roman Empire, the religion would have less cultural cachet, so the barbarians might be slower to convert; on the other hand, assuming that secular education declines much as IOTL the Church would be left as the only real source of literate administrators, so we might see the post-Roman rulers patronising the Church and even converting themselves. In the long run, then, Western Europe might end up Christianising anyway, although the different circumstances would have a potentially major impact on the way people view their past -- in particular, later writers would probably remember Rome as this great, oppressive tyranny overthrown by pro-Christian liberators, rather than as the ideal empire against which other states should measure themselves.

As for Constantine himself, without his religious reforms he'd probably be much less well-known than IOTL. Most likely he'd be remembered as just another late antique emperor. Maybe he'd get credit for completing Diocletian's transformation of the empire -- it's often difficult to tell whether a given reform was enacted by Diocletian or Constantine, although Constantine's importance in religious history has tended to overshadow his other contributions IOTL. Outside of history geek circles, though, I don't think he'd be very widely known.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

I doubt that Christians back then amounted even half of the population of the empire. I really doubt that Christianity was destined to become the official religion, it s more probable to just see it become an accepted cult among others

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I doubt that Christians back then amounted even half of the population of the empire. I really doubt that Christianity was destined to become the official religion, it s more probable to just see it become an accepted cult among others

Probably not even half. However, it did have several factors favouring its expansion, the biggest of which were probably (1) its members actively sought to win converts, unlike most pagan cults, and (2) it had both a system of theological doctrine which could appeal to intellectuals and a system of cultic praxis which could appeal to everybody. Most pagan cults were very much centred on orthopraxy (doing the right thing, worshipping in the right way) rather than on orthodoxy (believing the right things), meaning that, whatever benefits they offered, they couldn't really provide a satisfying comprehensive explanation of life; there were philosophical schools which could offer such an explanation, but for obvious reasons only the well-educated could really be part of them, limiting their potential appeal to the top few percent of society. Julian realised this, and his sun-worshipping religion was an attempt to provide a religion which could compete with Christianity both in providing an intellectual explanation for life and in providing a set of rituals which everybody could participate in, though it withered away pretty quickly after Julian himself died.

 

[Urcea]

Christianity will eventually overtake the Empire; Constantine was a product of this, not a driver

That depends... does he still cannibalize the budget? His building of Byzantium in excess of normal development cost the equivalent of 3 years of the empire's revenue (I think some of the engineers jacked up the prices. If an itemized version of the spending survived, we'd be like "no way an amphitheater costs this damn much"). You know what would be a better use of those funds? Saving up so that the currency doesn't get debased in the future.

yeah that sounds about right for a public infrastructure project

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Probably not even half. However, it did have several factors favouring its expansion, the biggest of which were probably (1) its members actively sought to win converts, unlike most pagan cults, and (2) it had both a system of theological doctrine which could appeal to intellectuals and a system of cultic praxis which could appeal to everybody. Most pagan cults were very much centred on orthopraxy (doing the right thing, worshipping in the right way) rather than on orthodoxy (believing the right things), meaning that, whatever benefits they offered, they couldn't really provide a satisfying comprehensive explanation of life; there were philosophical schools which could offer such an explanation, but for obvious reasons only the well-educated could really be part of them, limiting their potential appeal to the top few percent of society. Julian realised this, and his sun-worshipping religion was an attempt to provide a religion which could compete with Christianity both in providing an intellectual explanation for life and in providing a set of rituals which everybody could participate in, though it withered away pretty quickly after Julian himself died.

The Christians also had a system of privileges and exemptions for the clergy that proved to be a massive incentive for anyone willing to desert his duty as soldier or as curiales. Under Christians emperors (basically everyone after Constantine except Julian) it was also much easier to gain imperial favor as a christian rather than as a pagan and this prompted opportunistic conversions. Christians were not destined to convert every pagan especially without imperial patronage and the use of force, and even a lot christians were just superficially christianized (still celebrating pagan rituals in the V, VI and VII century despite calling themselves christians). The fact that the christian clergy in the IV century was the main responsible for charitable duties was also a big factor that won them the populace. The intellectual explanation was useful with the aristocracy, prone to intellectual speculations, but i doubt the rurals really cared about the philosophy of a religion.

 

[Atamolos]

I'd say Christianity would still do rather well. Modern estimates have placed Christians as making up around 10-15% of the Roman population around the time of Constantine's conversion, and that was concentrated considerably in the East of the Empire (Alexandria, Galatia, Asia Minor, etc.). Roman paganism had been on the decline since at least the mid-2nd century, so even without his conversion, a decent portion of the highly urbanized Eastern Empire would be Christian, at by the 5th century, it's likely that at least 1/3 of the Eastern Empire's population would be some form of Christian

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The Christians also had a system of privileges and exemptions for the clergy that proved to be a massive incentive for anyone willing to desert his duty as soldier or as curiales. Under Christians emperors (basically everyone after Constantine except Julian) it was also much easier to gain imperial favor as a christian rather than as a pagan and this prompted opportunistic conversions. Christians were not destined to convert every pagan especially without imperial patronage and the use of force, and even a lot christians were just superficially christianized (still celebrating pagan rituals in the V, VI and VII century despite calling themselves christians). The fact that the christian clergy in the IV century was the main responsible for charitable duties was also a big factor that won them the populace. The intellectual explanation was useful with the aristocracy, prone to intellectual speculations, but i doubt the rurals really cared about the philosophy of a religion.

The idea that Christianity caused everybody to desert the army and government in favour of the Church is a Gibbon-inspired myth: monks and priests were only ever a very small percentage of the population, and not enough to cause any sort of strain on military or bureaucratic recruitment. And the "flight of the curiales", as it is called, was caused by the fact that service on the curiae had become an onerous and unpleasant burden rather than a source of pride (so onerous and unpleasant, in fact, that a law of the Valentinianic period literally uses enrolment in the curiae as a punishment for certain crimes).

Intellectual explanations might not have had much direct influence with the common people, but the aristocracy could still be influential by, for example, patronising churches, encouraging their servants and tenants to convert, and so on. And of course, the more aristocrats are Christian, the more likely it is that a Christian will end up as emperor, with results no doubt much like IOTL. So, I think a religion that could appeal both to unphilosophical rustics and to educated aristocrats would be at a considerable advantage compared to a religion that only appealed to one group or the other.

 

[Maoistic]

-Edward Gibbon
You mean the reactionary colonial proto-fascist sycophant of the Roman Empire? The fact that people even today still make a lot of apologia for Roman proto-colonialism and proto-fascism has always caused revulsion in me. Many go as far as to even justify slavery in the Roman Empire. I had a friend who did that and you see that stuff in places like Historum. If Christianity helped cause the carving and partition of the Roman Empire by Germanics, Slavs and Arabs, then that should be seen as a good thing.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

-Edward Gibbon
If Christianity helped cause the carving and partition of the Roman Empire by Germanics, Slavs and Arabs, then that should be seen as a good thing.

I don't think the roman empire deserved the partition by the barbarians, or at least they didn't deserve it more than any other ancient/medieval empire. Brutality and exploitation is something common in history and certainly not a monopoly of one single empire

 

[samcster94]

I'd say Christianity would still do rather well. Modern estimates have placed Christians as making up around 10-15% of the Roman population around the time of Constantine's conversion, and that was concentrated considerably in the East of the Empire (Alexandria, Galatia, Asia Minor, etc.). Roman paganism had been on the decline since at least the mid-2nd century, so even without his conversion, a decent portion of the highly urbanized Eastern Empire would be Christian, at by the 5th century, it's likely that at least 1/3 of the Eastern Empire's population would be some form of Christian

Ethiopia, Georgia etc ... had already converted without him.
I do think Christianity being a large minority in this alt-Empire would be interesting. Would it be anything like Muslims in India or Chinese Malaysians(where they aren't the majority or ruling but have a lot of power)??

 

[Atamolos]

Ethiopia, Georgia etc ... had already converted without him.
I do think Christianity being a large minority in this alt-Empire would be interesting. Would it be anything like Muslims in India or Chinese Malaysians(where they aren't the majority or ruling but have a lot of power)??

It more or less depends on the attitude of the emperor at the time. Christians could have held a number of local government offices, but they wouldn't achieve the status of legates, duces, or governors without direct appointment by the emperor. There would probably be a christian emperor eventually, probably by the 5th century at the latest, so there would probably be an interplay between Christianity, the various other Eastern cults (Sol invictus, Elagabal, etc.), and a fleeting and withering Roman paganism that would only hold on in the major cities of the West (and maybe the East) by sheer inertia.

 

[samcster94]

It more or less depends on the attitude of the emperor at the time. Christians could have held a number of local government offices, but they wouldn't achieve the status of legates, duces, or governors without direct appointment by the emperor. There would probably be a christian emperor eventually, probably by the 5th century at the latest, so there would probably be an interplay between Christianity, the various other Eastern cults (Sol invictus, Elagabal, etc.), and a fleeting and withering Roman paganism that would only hold on in the major cities of the West (and maybe the East) by sheer inertia.

A "Constantine" expy, but late. I think Christianity might develop differently theologically.

 

[Atamolos]

A "Constantine" expy, but late. I think Christianity might develop differently theologically.

Indeed non-converted Constantine would mean no ecumenical council at Nicaea and no official Christian canon, so a few centuries later, offshoots like arianism, gnosticism, and manicheanism would probably have stronger followings. We might even see something like the visigoths, vandals, and franks adopting different forms of Christianity as their states solidify in the ashes of the WRE

 

[Maoistic]

I don't think the roman empire deserved the partition by the barbarians, or at least they didn't deserve it more than any other ancient/medieval empire. Brutality and exploitation is something common in history and certainly not a monopoly of one single empire

The Roman Empire was the most exploitative state of the Mediterranean and Europe until the time of Constantine, there is simply no debating that. Between massive slavery, conquests, punitive expeditions and bloody "sports" and execution methods, no neighbouring state in the Mediterranean, not even the Parthians and Sassanids, rivalled it. I would argue that it wouldn't be until the 16th century, with the Renaissance and its sycophancy over Rome and Greece, that the brutality of the pre-Christian Roman Empire was revived in the Mediterranean and Europe.

 

[samcster94]

Indeed non-converted Constantine would mean no ecumenical council at Nicaea and no official Christian canon, so a few centuries later, offshoots like arianism, gnosticism, and manicheanism would probably have stronger followings. We might even see something like the visigoths, vandals, and franks adopting different forms of Christianity as their states solidify in the ashes of the WRE

Doscetism might have a following as an idea.

 

[CountDVB]

I find it likely that his sucessor converts. There's a good chance the next Emperor is either a Mithraist or Pagan, through. Maybe Constantius II converts in his place.
By now, Christianity was no longer persecuted, so I find it quite likely it will become the main religion of the Empire. Wherever it will become State Religion or Pagans will be persecuted, that can be butterflied. Even if the Emperor becomes a Christian, a good question is wherever he will join the Orthodoxy or become an heretic - like an Arianist. Manichean Rome would be interesting, too.

A tolerant Christian Rome would be VERY interesting.

Why not? There is a school in western scholars that considers Islam a Christian Heresy born outside Christendom, an offshot of Arianism that turned into its own thing.

The idea of Manichaeist Rome would definitely be very interesting, especially since they may be able to better interact with other religions than Christianity tends to.

 

[Maoistic]

The idea of Manichaeist Rome would definitely be very interesting, especially since they may be able to better interact with other religions than Christianity tends to.

Doubt so. Manichaeism is even more elitist than Christianity and had an utterly dualistic view of morality where everything evil was infected by Ahriman and had to either be transformed or destroyed, unlike the view of Christianity where Satan certainly controls mankind but everyone, even non-Christians, have the innate capacity to resist him and know God as Satan is not as all-powerful as Ahriman. Manichaeism is also arguably even more anti-Semitic since they probably held the Gnostic view that the Old Testament God is actually Ahriman himself. The idea that Gnosticism, and by extension Manichaeism, were almost a proto-Renaissance Protestantism simply has no validity, and all apologists of these religions should be ashamed of themselves for supporting religions that would have made Hadrian's anti-Jewish massacres look like a humanitarian mission by comparison.