WI: Constantine I dies at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge

I would imagine that Neoplatonism would be much as Confucianism primary the faith of the bureaucracy and elite, while Christianity would come to dominate urban population and while the uneducated peasantry would keep their own rituals and pray to the old pagan Gods. Likely the Neoplatonians would argue that the Christians God and their less well defined supreme being would be the same thing and the spirits the peasants pray too would be seen as ancestors, Saints and Angels.

In the west we would see the Empire slowly collapse in chaotic succesor states, while the Germanic invasion would be much slower, without the Huns pushing them, much more like the conquest of Britain than OTL invasions. Of course when the Hun arrive we may see the small invasion turn into full scale migration. But TTL East Roman are less likely to alienate the Visigoth refugees, stopping them from running amok and just settle down in along the Donau. The Roman succesor states in Africa, South Italy and Iberia may survive the first onslaugth (as Wales, Strathclyde and Cornwall did in OTL), and evolve into viable states or being reassimilated by the East Romans later on.

I venture that there would be a split in Christianity, between the Patriots (loyal to the pagan Emperor) and the Cryptochristians (the Orthodox.) Most "Christians" could even be Patriotic in TTL, but that does not necessarily mean that they will take over the state.

I think that the prosperous East will largely abandon the West (unless Maxentius is overthrown and some serious economic reform is imposed,) and the Germans (including the Goths, eastern and western) would overrun the West fairly quickly. There would be some butterflies (the Anglo Saxons stay in Germany, as the Britannic Legions do not need their help, which means a Celtic Britain under the Emperor Arcturus. Yay! :D )
 
So basically you're saying we would be looking at the evolution of classical paganism into a Greco-Roman version of Hinduism if the emperors (beginning with Constantine and culminating with Theodosius) had not intervened and made Christianity into the preferred state religion to the exclusion of all others.

You have some interesting (and appealing) ideas -have you considered putting them into writing outside of the internet?

I don't know about IMP CAES AVG, but I am writing a novella or short story based on this premise, called The Cryptochristians. I was inspired to write this because one of my Pentecostal friends (!) told me that Constantine changed the church (the so-called Constantinian Shift theory. I don't buy it; if there was a shift, it was the pagan exterminations under Theodosius.) In this story, I will write about the underground Orthodox Church, its Divine Liturgy, etc.
 
Latin in the Eastern Empire, and the Cosmopolitan Alphabet

This may be related to the "Let's develop a language" thread, but belongs here. What happens to Latin in the East? Will it die out even faster than OTL, or will it manage to survive, perhaps even transforming Koine Greek into something else? I'm not a linguist, but I think that there would be a lot of Latin loan-words into Greek; in fact, I venture that somebody would figure out that the Latin script is actually a derivative of Doric (Euboean) Greek. What would happen if someone tried to make a post-Latin isopsephy (or gematria, with 27 letters representing numbers from 1 to 900?) Here, then is the Cosmopolitan Alphabet:
 

Attachments

  • Cosmopolitan Alphabet.pdf
    107.1 KB · Views: 871
For why the Visigoth would be treated better, in OTL they was Arians, whom the Othodox Romans despised. Here they are just another tribe of Confederalis protecting the border, living in a area with relative low population and few urban areas and can be more or less left alone.


Actually the Eastern Empire was still Arian at this time. Valens' brother, the Western Emperor Valentinian I, was Catholic, but Valens himself was Arian.

Not that it really matters. The Romans despised barbs regardless of religion. The Visigoths' Arian faith did not get them decent treatment from Valens' minions, nor did Stilicho's Orthodoxy save him from Honorius'. He was so thoroughly Romanised that Theodosius had let him marry into the Imperial family, but that did him no good when the chips were down. The Goths were going to be treated like **** regardless of their (or the Romans') religion.

The feeling was probably mutual. Note that Christianity made hardly any progress outside the Empire until after its fall. It looks as though the barbarians were a bit uneasy about adopting the Roman faith in case it implied subjection to the Roman State. Even later Eastern Orthodoxy, which was no closely identified with the surviving Roman (Byzantine) Empire, made fewer gains than Catholicsm - probably for the same reason.
 
Not at all. OTL Byzantium had a renaissance during the Macedonian dynasty (900-1060 AD) when its territory doubled; it made inroads in the Levant and Italy. And, despite what the Christians did to scientists during this period (see John Philoponus,) the Byzantines managed to come up with Greek Fire (thank you Chemeia.)

With a religion more favorable toward science, we may have seen Greek Gunpowder instead.


Any thoughts on why it didn't happen in India?

Hinduism, after all, is basically Indo-European Polytheism "for grown ups", evolved into a sophisticated religion with the tenacity to shake off Buddhism rather as, on your TL, its Graeco-Roman version shakes off Christianity. And judging from the things that came out of India, like the "Arabic" numerals and the zero in mathematics, there was at least as much of a "scientific culture" in India as there ever was in the Roman Empire - probably a good deal more. So if that's all it takes, there should have been Indian astronauts by about AD 1000. Why weren't there?

Nor, afaik was there ever Indian gunpowder. There was of course Chinese gunpowder, but it didn't lead on to anything in particular. And what happened in Japan is even more revealing. They had gunpowder in the 16C - and then banned it because they didn't fancy having weapons around which gave a common soldier an even chance with a noble Samurai. Nothing like that happened in the West. Medieval Popes made occasional attempts to outlaw usury or the crossbow, but only to have their edicts evaded or just ignored. The only ones they were allowed to persecute (purely religious dissidents aside) were those like Galileo whose musings had no military or economic value to any Prince or state. Whenever westerners, in any century, were asked to choose between "Prophet" and profit, profit won every time - as it still does.
 
Any thoughts on why it didn't happen in India?

Hinduism, after all, is basically Indo-European Polytheism "for grown ups", evolved into a sophisticated religion with the tenacity to shake off Buddhism rather as, on your TL, its Graeco-Roman version shakes off Christianity. And judging from the things that came out of India, like the "Arabic" numerals and the zero in mathematics, there was at least as much of a "scientific culture" in India as there ever was in the Roman Empire - probably a good deal more. So if that's all it takes, there should have been Indian astronauts by about AD 1000. Why weren't there?

Nor, afaik was there ever Indian gunpowder. There was of course Chinese gunpowder, but it didn't lead on to anything in particular. And what happened in Japan is even more revealing. They had gunpowder in the 16C - and then banned it because they didn't fancy having weapons around which gave a common soldier an even chance with a noble Samurai. Nothing like that happened in the West. Medieval Popes made occasional attempts to outlaw usury or the crossbow, but only to have their edicts evaded or just ignored. The only ones they were allowed to persecute (purely religious dissidents aside) were those like Galileo whose musings had no military or economic value to any Prince or state. Whenever westerners, in any century, were asked to choose between "Prophet" and profit, profit won every time - as it still does.

Not being familiar with Indian culture, I cannot say if or why India did not discover gunpowder. I don't know what was taught at Nalanda University, as opposed to the Museum of Alexandria or even the OTL University of Constantinople. Nonetheless, the effect of State-sanctioned Christianity on science in the first millennium has been atrocious, to say the least. I scarcely imagine how a Neoplatonic or pagan state would have flayed Hypatia alive for being a mathematician. This was an era in the West when Prophet came before profit.

The Babylonians and Hellenists had zero as well; Claudius Ptolemy even used it in his calculations. Remarkably, it looked like the letter omicron or o, and given the Hellenistic influence at the time, probably made it to India! The problem was that the majority Aristotelean paradigm rejected the vacuum (although the minority Atomists did not!) and therefore zero (and the infinite, a problem Scholastic Christian theology in OTL is still grasping.)
 
So basically you're saying we would be looking at the evolution of classical paganism into a Greco-Roman version of Hinduism if the emperors (beginning with Constantine and culminating with Theodosius) had not intervened and made Christianity into the preferred state religion to the exclusion of all others.

You have some interesting (and appealing) ideas -have you considered putting them into writing outside of the internet?

Exactly, although the process would take centuries, and would quite possibly not unify to the extent that Hinduism ended up doing. It is still a major if, but it's a great possibility. Secondly, I am working on (and planning to someday post here), a time-line in which the Emperor Caracalla is not assassinated in 217 A.D., with all sorts of interesting consequences.
Thank you for your help. I never said that Neoplatonism is incompatible with the Greco-Roman religions, far from it, although I would venture that the henotheism and monism of Neoplatonism would be more attractive to the Emperor himself, in an attempt to give legitimacy to the centralization of power vis-a-vis the cults of the Pontifical College. Nonetheless the Emperor would allow the traditional religions to exist, even flourish, even though Neoplatonic thought would reign supreme (as a constitutional monarch reigns, but does not necessarily rule.) The notion that the Emperor is the Son of the Sun does not necessarily compete, but rather compliment, being the Living Son of the Good.

I hope this clarifies my position. :)

Ah, thank you. That does indeed clarify your position. Rather like how Septimius Severus’ and Marcus Aurelius Antonius ‘Caracalla’s development of the ‘oriental’ cult of Sol, and the incorporation of solar theology and astrology (i.e. through the construction of the so-called ‘Septizodium’) into an official imperial state cult served to offer flattering analogies to the imperial régime and its resplendent, sun-like leaders while also justifying the autocratic monarchic position of its rulers through identification with the solar and planetary cosmology, and nearly took charge of the entire pantheon.

A question: do you envision the creation of a formal Neoplatonic hierarchy and priesthood? One of the main assets in the legalization and incorporation of Christianity into the imperial religious system by Constantine (who, incidentally, continued in the construction of temples to the cult of dea Roma and the imperial family long after his supposed conversion.) was its rigidly hierarchical priestly system, which could be easily co-opted by state authorities. Neoplatonism, on the other hand, was mostly a private intellectual matter dabbled in by senators and the imperial élite. In fact, its very compatibility with the classical Græco-Roman pantheon, while making a simple matter of its adoption as the official ideology by imperial state authorities also means that it would not be the great asset that legalizing and co-opting Christianity was, since it would serve mostly to provide a thin philosophical veneer to the various religious cults traditions, and wouldn’t substantially alter the religious landscape of late antiquity in the manner of Christianity.

That is the reason why I would posit that the evolution of classical paganism into a species of henotheistic monotheism (if it occurs at all, which is simply one possibility) would be a more gradual, continuous syncretic process, with gradual incorporation of the traditional cult of dea Roma and the imperator, the imperial state solar cult, and the co-option with heavily syncretic cults like that of Jupiter-Helios-Serapis into a single system presided over by a henotheistic deity, with the emperor serving as his special earthly representative and the Roman imperial state and the pax Romana as a divinely-ordained temporal system. Philosophical doctrines like Neoplatonism and Stoicism would provide a firm backing for such a system among the intelligentsia and the senatorial and imperial élites, but they would not form the chief component.
 
Nonetheless, the effect of State-sanctioned Christianity on science in the first millennium has been atrocious, to say the least. I scarcely imagine how a Neoplatonic or pagan state would have flayed Hypatia alive for being a mathematician.


Have you a cite for Hypatia getting killed "for being a mathematician"? From what I can gather, she got caught up in some squabble between the Roman governor and the local Bishop.

As for the "effect" of Christianity on science, is there the slightest evidence for there having been any? Certainly, technological progress in the centuries after the Conversion of Constantine was negligible, just as it had been equally negligible in the centuries before, and would in all probability have continued negligible, whatever religion(s) they practised in Rome, or whether Hypatia died by violence or of old age. The Church had no motive for suppressing scientific progress, for the simple reason that there was virtually none to suppress.

If you want more scientific or technical progress, as far as I can see your best bet is to forget the Roman religion: just destroy the Roman Empire itself, at the earliest possible date, and make absolutely sure it is never restored - or better still find some way to stop it arising in the first place. As long as it was there, such progress simply didn't happen, under either Christian or Pagan rule.
 
Ah, thank you. That does indeed clarify your position. Rather like how Septimius Severus’ and Marcus Aurelius Antonius ‘Caracalla’s development of the ‘oriental’ cult of Sol, and the incorporation of solar theology and astrology (i.e. through the construction of the so-called ‘Septizodium’) into an official imperial state cult served to offer flattering analogies to the imperial régime and its resplendent, sun-like leaders while also justifying the autocratic monarchic position of its rulers through identification with the solar and planetary cosmology, and nearly took charge of the entire pantheon.

This is basically what happens in my ATL, yes. The Emperor was Pontifex Maximus (head of the Pontifical College of Greco-Roman cults, not the Pope, of course) in OTL even until Theodosius, if I am not mistaken. In The Cryptochristians, the Emperor will maintain this religious role and take over the Pantheon.

A question: do you envision the creation of a formal Neoplatonic hierarchy and priesthood? One of the main assets in the legalization and incorporation of Christianity into the imperial religious system by Constantine (who, incidentally, continued in the construction of temples to the cult of dea Roma and the imperial family long after his supposed conversion.) was its rigidly hierarchical priestly system, which could be easily co-opted by state authorities. Neoplatonism, on the other hand, was mostly a private intellectual matter dabbled in by senators and the imperial élite. In fact, its very compatibility with the classical Græco-Roman pantheon, while making a simple matter of its adoption as the official ideology by imperial state authorities also means that it would not be the great asset that legalizing and co-opting Christianity was, since it would serve mostly to provide a thin philosophical veneer to the various religious cults traditions, and wouldn’t substantially alter the religious landscape of late antiquity in the manner of Christianity.

I don't see Neoplatonism per se becoming a religion; rather, that the Solar cult and its hierarchy will co-opt the other cults and and become Neoplatonic, philosophically. (OTL Orthodox Christianity, too, felt the strong presence of Neoplatonism, whether it was compatible with the Triunity or no.)

That is the reason why I would posit that the evolution of classical paganism into a species of henotheistic monotheism (if it occurs at all, which is simply one possibility) would be a more gradual, continuous syncretic process, with gradual incorporation of the traditional cult of dea Roma and the imperator, the imperial state solar cult, and the co-option with heavily syncretic cults like that of Jupiter-Helios-Serapis into a single system presided over by a henotheistic deity, with the emperor serving as his special earthly representative and the Roman imperial state and the pax Romana as a divinely-ordained temporal system. Philosophical doctrines like Neoplatonism and Stoicism would provide a firm backing for such a system among the intelligentsia and the senatorial and imperial élites, but they would not form the chief component.

The Solar takeover of the Pantheon may take place more quickly than most suppose; indeed it was already taking place at the time of the Milvian Bridge, and Orthodox Christianity co-opted it, as is evident in the Nativity Troparion:

Your birth, O Christ our God,
dawned the light of knowledge upon the earth.
For by Your birth those who adored stars
were taught by a star
to worship You, the Sun of Righteousness,
and to know You, Orient from on High.
O Lord, glory to You.
 
Last edited:
Jumping in a little late...

Hello all.

First off, nice to meet you. I'm new here.

Some of this might be redundant, but if it is, consider it advocacy for those who have said it before.

As for the most important change -Christianity- I have a few facts here.
A pretty reliable estimate of population and Christianity's profusion I found in a book called "The Rise of Christianity" by Rodney Stark, a sociologist. He posits that the population of the empire as a whole is generally agreed by most scholars to be around 60 million at this time. Even at a growth rate of FORTY percent per decade since Christ, Christianity would still only have approx. 6.2 million converts, or 10.5% of the population.

Someone pointed out that the distribution of these people would be an important factor. I agree. A majority would have been in the east, and most would have been in urban areas.

Now if Constantine hadn't come along...would Christianity still have "triumphed"?
Difficult to say. For the most part I agree with several of the statements here:

IMP CAES AUG:
"Or equally, none of them. It is easy to forget that Christianity was pretty much the only active proselytizing religion of the time that could not fit comfortably within the larger structure of Graeco-Roman paganism."

Yup. No one else was actively looking for converts. And, likewise, most could syncretize. Christianity is exclusive, so it is very surprising that it was adopted.

Lysandros Aikiedes:
"The Christians did not have such a large following, but they were quite organized and hierarchal, so Constantine may have saw some use in that. Also just because its said to have "appealed to the lower classes of the empire", doesn't mean that every slave or pauper wanted to join them. "Salvation" in the Christian sense was an alien concept to Pagans."

Correct. If you think about the effect of Constantine's conversion and the subsequent ADOPTION of the religion, you kind of get a top-down conversion scheme. Not grassroots. Despite the appeal of salvation, the concept was indeed alien.

CHRISPI:
"While Licinius was more tolerant of Christians than Maxentius or Maximinus, it doesn't mean that he was sympathetic to them."

Yes. I think people look back on the events leading to Christianity and they seem inevitable and preordained. But the fact is, persecution was on and off since the beginning. It was not as if these edicts were heralding a new age where the Romans saw the writing on the wall. In fact, Licinius reneged on the Edict in 320, renewing persecutions. [Inicidentally, this served as a cassus belli for Constantine.]

With all that said, I think it is fair to say that, historically speaking, Constantine's actions as an emperor make him something of a loose cannon on par with Diocletian. Romans, as a general rule, do not take well to radical change. Compare the image of Caesar and his fate to that of Augustus and his.

Both Diocletian and Constantine did, in the OTL, affect radical changes, and they were successful (Diocletian's only briefly, of course). BUT, these were drastic times, and I think that is why the aristocracy et al was receptive. Also, at this point, the Emperor was a much more autocratic figure.

But I think that the Romans would be perfectly happy with an Emperor who DIDN'T rock the boat just the same. They are traditionalists, for the most part.

Here is my argument:
The Roman civilization historically adapted to change by retooling its existing system. The Republic was seen as a devolved Monarchy, the Principate was a palatable fiction of the Republic, the Dominate was a recognition of the authority of imperial power and dropped the pretense of republicanism altogether.

I would think that the "natural" course for the Roman system at this point would be to continue moving forward. The emperor was already seen as semi-divine at this point. The imperial cult had existed for centuries. Constantine associated himself, as many before him had done, with Apollo or Sol, etc. etc. In many other contemporary nations besides, monarchs were often treated as divine. It seems to me that Rome could easily have slipped into that path. Indeed Constantine did, in some ways, appropriate divinity by claiming to be sponsored or protected by Christ.

As for the immediate political landscape of Constantine's death/loss:
He was an amazing general. When he defeated Maxentius, it was against pretty long odds. And the entire period of the Wars of the Tetrarchy was just a damned mess. Alliance and counter-alliance, back and forth. The empire was in fourths (sometimes more), and the alliances made a checkerboard of it. Without Constantine to defeat everyone and unite everything, I think that the wars go on slightly longer, but in the end nothing is reunited. So in effect the Tetrarchy is a "failure" but doesn't collapse, per se. That is, the system didn't quite work as planned, but the empire is, at least for a while, split into parts that are -at least theoretically- more defensible and manageable.

The questions are:
With Constantine gone, which tetrarchs or usurpers will be left standing? Who has the potential? Do the emperors even want to fight each other or was Constantine just that greedy?

Which empires have any possibility of long term survival?

Several capitals already exist (Trier, Milan, Sirmium, etc.); are they enhanced as Constantinople was in OTL? [I don't think they would be to that level, Constantine was rather megalomaniacal in that sense.] Keep in mind that Maxentius was a prodigious builder. Constantine's basilica was actually built by Max. And it is known that Max. attempted to increase fortifications in Italy and improve his corner of the empire.

As far as religion, can a Tetrarchy claim to be vicars* of a single-god system (assuming any other emperor besides Constantine had any desire to embrace something like organized monotheistic religion)? Henotheist or whatever it is.... (Think a "college of popes"...not unlike the flamines. The idea of collegiate political and religious office are well-engrained and go hand in hand in Roman culture, so it is possible.)

Sorry for the long-winded post. Hope I didn't miss anything.

The reason I say this is because Constantine, as sole representative of God on Earth, couldn't very well be one among equals. So the other emperors had to go in order to justify his claim. One god. One emperor.
If you have a tetrarchy, how does that work?
 
.

IMP CAES AUG:
"Or equally, none of them. It is easy to forget that Christianity was pretty much the only active proselytizing religion of the time that could not fit comfortably within the larger structure of Graeco-Roman paganism."

Yup. No one else was actively looking for converts. And, likewise, most could syncretize. Christianity is exclusive, so it is very surprising that it was adopted.
Actually exclusivity in this sense HELPS a religion take over, even if it seems counterintuitive. Of course, it hinders it, too. But the 'we're right, everyone else is wrong' means that your adherents are more likely to be more energetic about spreading the faith. 'There's no one so fanatical as a convert'.
 
So what does everyone think of the idea of a tetrarchy that remains separate?

If Constantine wasn't around to conquer everything, could the others have done it? Did they have the desire? Would external factors prevent internecine war?
 
So what does everyone think of the idea of a tetrarchy that remains separate?

If Constantine wasn't around to conquer everything, could the others have done it? Did they have the desire? Would external factors prevent internecine war?

I think the most likely of outcomes might be -assuming the alliances happened already- Maxentius now has control of Constantine's territory. Allied with Maximinus, he either tries to eliminate Licinius (perhaps alone, as Maximinus is occupied on the frontier), or...sues for peace and recognition.

Maybe there is a sequel to Carnuntum. The usurper, erstwhile Augustus of the West, and Maximinus meet and approve each other Augusti of the West, "East" i.e. Europe, and "Asia" i.e. Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt.

For the sake of argument, let's say this happens. Now what? Can Maxentius hold off the invaders? I think it more likely the west, if anything, becomes a rump state. The two eastern empires seem likely to square off at some point, unless the frontiers keep them occupied long enough to leave each other alone.
 
Top