WI: A Militant Christianity

What would be a way to transition the initial rise of Christianity to a more conquering attitude ( something similar to the initial rise of Islam in the Middle East and Africa) other than the obvious change of the teachings of Jesus, (though post Resurrection could be considered after his life)?
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
You are completely misunderstanding both the cases. Christianity came about in an empire in an urbanized setting. Islam came about in an entirely tribal setting. Totally ASB.
 
Arguably a militant Christianity formed around the time of the Crusades and continued until the end of the Thirty Years War.

Having Christianity start out militarized is difficult because it would have to take on the entire Roman Empire at its height. However, an early TL might have the Romans deport the Christians early on into the barbarian north, where they proselytize, causing Goths, Vandals, Huns, et al. to be the first to convert to Christianity. This could turn the Age of Migrations into quasi-holy wars.
 
Jesus becomes another failed messianic figure along the lines of Bar Kokhba. He dies in ignominy and his followers are scattered to the winds. The movement does not take root in either the Jewish community or among the Romans.
 
I would do these changes as early and as radically as possible. Remember that for the first few centuries of Christianity, they were outright pacifistic. Soldiering was considered an unchristian profession, and IIRC the first notable soldier Christian also gave up soldiering on his conversion.

Constantine changed the game by crediting the Christian god for his victory in battle. After that, Christianity rapidly no longer saw soldiering as anathema.

This, I would either have Paul VERY aggressively push for conversions in the Roman army, or I would have an early Christian Emperor, thus co opting the religion into the wider martial culture of Rome.
 
Arguably a militant Christianity formed around the time of the Crusades and continued until the end of the Thirty Years War.
.

I would agree with about the time of the Crusade it was there, I do not think it formed then, many of the later Roman emperors had such motives plus I do not see much of it in the Thirty Years War.

What do other people here think?

Having said this, I remember a study of German Soldiers in WW2 on the Russian Front and many of them were reported who were on the Eastern Front that they felt that they were fighting for Christianity
 
This, I would either have Paul VERY aggressively push for conversions in the Roman army, or I would have an early Christian Emperor, thus co opting the religion into the wider martial culture of Rome.
A Christianity thats popular in the legions would likely prevent the worst of the persecutions that were done by the various barracks emperors, not to mention that by being in the army it gets to travel alot, so a lot of spread vectors.

I'd also expect such a Christianity to really play up the Christ conquering hell and the devil bit.
 
You could have a highly dualistic Christian community: militant soldier believers who tame the land and make it safe for the "lambs", the greater body of Christian believers who are thus able to live in pacifistic, Christlike fashion.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
You could have a highly dualistic Christian community: militant soldier believers who tame the land and make it safe for the "lambs", the greater body of Christian believers who are thus able to live in pacifistic, Christlike fashion.
Monism and Dualism in terms of Religion and especially Christianity??!! Reminds me of my one of my legendary posts! :openedeyewink::coldsweat:
Yes,as a whole,Dualistic religions are inherently more prone to Violence.
 
Trinitarianism is also possible, with a kind of sacral kingship. You would have the father embodied in the warriors, magistrates, and particularly in the person of the emperor (And later, Christian kings). They guard and rule, and seek vengeance like the old testament God.

The Holy Spirit is represented by the clergy, who spread the word and knowledge of God, and best know His thoughts and desires.

The Son is represented by every one else, who are expected to live free of war and violence, embodying the gentleness and mercy of Christ.

It all reminds me somewhat of Hindu caste, but the Principate may be too late in the game for such a concept to take root.
 
I would agree with about the time of the Crusade it was there, I do not think it formed then, many of the later Roman emperors had such motives plus I do not see much of it in the Thirty Years War.
What do other people here think?

I would agree. I think a militant Christianity or at least political entities that used Christianity as a weapon emerged in the later Roman empire. Christianity had its basis in Judaism but almost immediately after Jesus' death it developed as an urban Roman religion. It's not going to suddenly sweep out the Roman authority because the Christians were Roman.

More recent interpretations of the Thirty Years War downplay it as a religious conflict. Religion was the initial cause of the conflict but once it started it was more a series of power struggles between the European powers than anything to do with religion directly.
 
What would be a way to transition the initial rise of Christianity to a more conquering attitude ( something similar to the initial rise of Islam in the Middle East and Africa) other than the obvious change of the teachings of Jesus, (though post Resurrection could be considered after his life)?

It's just not possible. Even if you could have Paul and other gentiles not take over the religion and reform it, the early Jewish Christians had no desire to conquer anything other than hearts and minds, one of the main reasons that Jews reject Jesus is because the Messiah they were expecting was either a Moses or a David figure of some sort which Jesus obviously wasn't, and even if they did the Romans had far too much strength to challenge. They also lacked the numbers that the successors of Muhammad had. This is like trying to fit a square peg in a hole because they're the same color
 
Conquering is going to be hard to pull off, for the reasons listed above, but if you want to get a Siege Mentality/protective militancy in place I think you could easily pull that off if the Germanic invaders had been Pagan rather than Aryan. As the Emperor's direct control of his Legion's slip and there's a need to try to secure outer regions by a force that isent going to leave its post to appoint its general Emperor, I could see Rome tasking the Church with raising "Mighty Fortresses for our God", setting aside land to be managed to supply early Templar forces set to defend the region, it's faithful, and the civic and ellessiastic records. As the Empire breaks down, this network of militas remain and develop a loose informal hierarchy in the West, acting as strong points of the Faith against the Wodinists until centuries of effort convert them (at least in the Med. Core and France). Of course, by then you have the Arabs starting to knock at the door...

In the east, this would certainly make the schisms more... interesting. The Church would be far more of an independent political force from the ERE if it has its own armed wings, fortresses (Which could have easily developed into citites) and major revenue streams. Or maybe theyre integrated into the Imperial military structure out there. Of course, in either case it would also run into more problems being allowed to continue operating if their areas are conquered...
 
Christianity was a messianic outgrowth of Judaism. There were numerous variants of this that were more militant, like the Bar Kochba revolt, but they all ended in complete destruction. Unlike Islam, which spread at the expense of exhausted empires and minor tribal states, Christianity and other messianic movements formed within one of the most powerful states ever known to mankind.
 
Christianity was a messianic outgrowth of Judaism. There were numerous variants of this that were more militant, like the Bar Kochba revolt, .

There is some militancy in Judaism another example to Bar Kochba is the earlier Maccabees. Christianity did inherit this too.

It's just not possible. Even if you could have Paul and other gentiles not take over the religion and reform it, the early Jewish Christians had no desire to conquer anything other than hearts and minds, .. and even if they did the Romans had far too much strength to challenge. They also lacked the numbers that the successors of Muhammad had.

I think if we can follow your logic, if this is a response to the conditions that Christianity faced, then as the conditions changed, then Christianity response will change. For example in the Baltic, pagans were forcefully converted to Christianity, those that refused were killed. Clearly, the early Jewish Christians desire not to conquer anything had changed.

I would agree. I think a militant Christianity or at least political entities that used Christianity as a weapon emerged in the later Roman empire. Christianity had its basis in Judaism but almost immediately after Jesus' death it developed as an urban Roman religion. It's not going to suddenly sweep out the Roman authority because the Christians were Roman. .

The Romans and Greeks changed the religion too.

More recent interpretations of the Thirty Years War downplay it as a religious conflict. Religion was the initial cause of the conflict but once it started it was more a series of power struggles between the European powers than anything to do with religion directly.

I would agree. I would say it has more to do with the growth of the modern states and the power of the king.
 
Many of you mentioned a more aggressive approach from Paul, but could the early Christians ever be recognized as the political leader of Roman Israel, allowing for a more complete conversion of the Jewish people to the Christian faith. Or, maybe even an early schism between militaristic followers of Paul and the other pacifistic apostles?
 
You are completely misunderstanding both the cases. Christianity came about in an empire in an urbanized setting. Islam came about in an entirely tribal setting. Totally ASB.
Tribalism doesn't necessarily connotate that pre-Islamic Arabia was a nomadic society. Increasing amounts of archaeological evidence show the existence of more sophisticated forms of mercantile existence and a history (through the Himyarites, as well as through expansive connections with both the Roman and Sassanid Empires) of centralized institutions that existed alongside clan and family units.
 
The militancy of the Maccabees and Bar Kochba had to do with liberation of the Jews from foreign control and suppression of religion. For reasons both theological and geopolitical, Judaism was not about forceful expansion of the religion, conversion and expanding adherents. Christianity has pretty much always been missionary, and has been militant at times. Islam started off both, and has never entirely lost militancy. Part of the issue is the definition of militant - is it only "conquering" territory and forced conversion, is it aggressive maintenance of theological purity through the chastisement of "heretics", is it the use of secular powers to protect missionizing and favoring the converted (see colonialism/imperialism)?

As noted it is much easier to be "militant" when the secular power(s) that might oppose you are weak and in decline, when they are strong such as Rome in the early centuries of Christianity doing things that oppose the secular power don't help. IMHO if you look at the major advances in Christianity in the late Roman period and after, a good deal of success was from converting the king/leaders, who then used their secular power to impose religion on their subjects.
 
You are completely misunderstanding both the cases. Christianity came about in an empire in an urbanized setting. Islam came about in an entirely tribal setting. Totally ASB.
Christian escaping the Empire and preaching to some tribes would help.
Christian Bedouins would raid the Sout-Eastern provinces of the Empire, but would likely not conquer them for a while.
 
Top