WI: Julian the Apostate remains Christian?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

Like the title says. Suppose Julian continues the trend of Christian emperors and remains a faithful Christian. Suppose also that the energy he used in reforming paganism had then gone into spreading Christianity.

What impacts would this have on the Roman Empire?
 
What trend? The only Christian emperors before him were Constantine and the triarchy of Constans/Constantine II/Constantius II (Constantine's sons).
 
Like the title says. Suppose Julian continues the trend of Christian emperors and remains a faithful Christian. Suppose also that the energy he used in reforming paganism had then gone into spreading Christianity.

What impacts would this have on the Roman Empire?
Given that his time spent on the throne of the united Empire was quite short, I'd say his impact would be extremely limited.
 
In the short term, it'd probably be a bit better for the Empire: civic paganism was already moribund by the time Julian came to the throne, and trying to resurrect it was never going to be anything more than a waste of Imperial time and effort. In the long run, I doubt it would make much difference: the factors that led to the fall of Rome were already in place by Julian's time, and saving the Empire would require far more than simply changing the religion of one of the Emperors.
 
If he stays Christian he'd probably have been an Arian, as his predecessor was. It as his brief reign that cleared the way for a non-Arian to be chosen after him. So Arianism retains the upper hand longer.
 

Deleted member 67076

Given that his time spent on the throne of the united Empire was quite short, I'd say his impact would be extremely limited.
True, yet could the Christianization of Rome be sped up by his efforts to a noticeable degree?
 
Only because he died. So what if he didn't die in battle? What might he do then?

That is a much bigger POD than his theological leanings.

Personally, I find his economic policies far more interesting. Though, his idea of undermining the state Christianity by enforcing religious liberty was quite clever.
 
That is a much bigger POD than his theological leanings.

Personally, I find his economic policies far more interesting. Though, his idea of undermining the state Christianity by enforcing religious liberty was quite clever.

Indeed. I'd assume butterflies because of him keeping to Christianity means he probably won't die in battle, at least not the one he did OTL.
 
Though, his idea of undermining the state Christianity by enforcing religious liberty was quite clever.

Well, "enforcing religious liberty"... and banning Christians from holding certain jobs and officially discriminating against them when choosing high-ranking bureaucrats and army officers.
 
I would be content with a Christian Emperor who remembered that his prime duty was maintaining the ban on infanticide and the early form of welfare that stopped parents from selling their children to slavery that Constantine instituted, not stomping down on innocent female astronomers.

The ban on infanticide and actively trying to help poor parents was probably the redeeming aspect of the Christian Roman Empire.
 
I would be content with a Christian Emperor who remembered that his prime duty was maintaining the ban on infanticide and the early form of welfare that stopped parents from selling their children to slavery that Constantine instituted, not stomping down on innocent female astronomers.

The ban on infanticide and actively trying to help poor parents was probably the redeeming aspect of the Christian Roman Empire.

If that's a reference to Hypatia, she was killed by an angry mob, not an Emperor or government official, and her death had nothing to do with the Christianisation of the Empire (Alexandria had been a notorious hotbed of mob violence for centuries before Constantine's time, and Hypatia's death was for political reasons -- supposedly she had been working to prevent the reconciliation of the Bishop of Alexandria with the [Christian] City Prefect -- not religious ones).
 
If that's a reference to Hypatia, she was killed by an angry mob, not an Emperor or government official, and her death had nothing to do with the Christianisation of the Empire (Alexandria had been a notorious hotbed of mob violence for centuries before Constantine's time, and Hypatia's death was for political reasons -- supposedly she had been working to prevent the reconciliation of the Bishop of Alexandria with the [Christian] City Prefect -- not religious ones).

Ah; guess popular history is terrible as always.
 

Spengler

Banned
I would be content with a Christian Emperor who remembered that his prime duty was maintaining the ban on infanticide and the early form of welfare that stopped parents from selling their children to slavery that Constantine instituted, not stomping down on innocent female astronomers.

The ban on infanticide and actively trying to help poor parents was probably the redeeming aspect of the Christian Roman Empire.
Yeah just so you know that you'll find more factual accuracy in Braveheart then you'll find in Agora.
 

Red Orm

Banned
I would be content with a Christian Emperor who remembered that his prime duty was maintaining the ban on infanticide and the early form of welfare that stopped parents from selling their children to slavery that Constantine instituted, not stomping down on innocent female astronomers.

The ban on infanticide and actively trying to help poor parents was probably the redeeming aspect of the Christian Roman Empire.

I don't know, I'm no fan of Christianity but it also did lead to an end to chattel slavery (of Christians admittedly, but they came to be almost 100% of the population) in Europe and usurped the unpopular paganism while retaining Neo-Platonic ideas that led directly to Protestantism and humanism. Many more redeeming qualities than just that.

Well, "enforcing religious liberty"... and banning Christians from holding certain jobs and officially discriminating against them when choosing high-ranking bureaucrats and army officers.

Interesting, I didn't know that Julian's zealousness went down to the army as well. A Christian Julian would surely make better choices as far as officers are concerned, resulting in better advisers and no Persian foray (or at least, a Persian foray when he is more ready).
 
I don't know, I'm no fan of Christianity but it also did lead to an end to chattel slavery (of Christians admittedly, but they came to be almost 100% of the population) in Europe and usurped the unpopular paganism while retaining Neo-Platonic ideas that led directly to Protestantism and humanism. Many more redeeming qualities than just that.



Interesting, I didn't know that Julian's zealousness went down to the army as well. A Christian Julian would surely make better choices as far as officers are concerned, resulting in better advisers and no Persian foray (or at least, a Persian foray when he is more ready).

Still a very high chance of invading Persia per OTL for political reasons. He had been crowned in the West by his local western forces in Germany. He needed to beat up the Sassanids to shore up the loyalty of the eastern army and various political factions.
 
I don't see why. Plenty of Roman Emperors invaded Persia, Christian as much as pagan.
The timing might have been altered, due to no debacle in Antioch. If he lives longer, you keep the Constantinian dynasty on the throne, either likely with Procopius or some son. That alone has a lot of butterflies. If Julian can have a somewhat successful Persian campaign, then when the Goths are at the Danube, he has the forces on hand to successfully manage the crisis and resettle them, like he did the Franks earlier in his career. No destructive Gothic wars, no destructive reign of Theodosius and no Theodosian dynasty. That alone has massive butterflies.
 
Top