Would the Germanic tribes have converted to Christianity if Rome had not?

Actually, the title of this thread simplifies the question I am trying to ask. Whenever someone posts a thread asking about the possibility of the Vikings or Slavs or Balts retaining paganism, it will inevitably be argued that the prestige, organization, and theology of Christianity would make such a scenario very difficult to achieve. That said, was it inevitable that the Germans and other tribal peoples of Europe would have eventually adopted whatever religion became dominant in the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity? Would the same argument apply in the case of Manichaeism, Mithraism, the cult of Sol Invictus, Neoplatonic Hellenistic monotheism, or any other religion that could have plausibly become dominant in the Roman Empire? And to flip things around, could Christianity still have become popular among the Germanic tribes had Rome remained strictly pagan?
 
Not certain but highly probable. After all, even without Imperial support the Church had been growing steadily for several centuries, and there is no reason for that growth to stop just because the Empire has collapsed.
 
No, I don't think so, I don't tbink it is even certain the East in Roan territories would convert either, to the kind of degree that it did IOTL at least.

I don't think the Germanic tribes would have necessarily converted, especially if the types or religions in Rome didn't allow for such formal conversions or if they didnt incentivize it. This is especially the case if Germanic grouos were stronger during the early 4th century, ehich they may have been without Constantine.
 
Nope. The main motivation for conversion was that it made you (as a ruler) part of the civilised world and also safer from Christian rulers (as Christians in theory, aren't supposed to fight Christians, so long as they're the right sort of Christian). If Christianity isn't the religion of power in Rome/post-Roman states, then that motivation isn't there, and you may as well continue to practice the faith of your ancestors, relatives and subjects.
 
I think it's possible, even if this tls christianity would not bring prestige and contact with the civilized mediterranean, it would still have the benefit of one god one ruler, which many kings saw as a benefit.
 
Just as the state power of Rome worked against Christianity until the conversion of Constantine, it worked for it afterwards, first in Rome proper and then in fostering missionizing. A lot of the large areas of conversion were from the top down, the king/tribal leader etc being converted and then that polity becoming nominally Christian. Of course it took a long time to stamp out the religious practices of the local cults, sometimes by direct state intervention backing the Church and sometimes by incorporating them in to Christian practice. Absent the Roman state fostering Christianity, protecting missions, and more I doubt there will be wholesale conversions. The "Christian" example of Rome is not there, and absent the power of the state behind the church you won't see the sorts of efforts to stamp out other religions - Christianity had an exclusivity drive not seen in other Roman Empire religions and with the state behind it was able to enforce that exclusivity.

While you see conversions, yes. Will Christianity essentially replace all pagan religions throughout the Empire and near neighbors, no.
 
Didn't the various Gothic tribes practice Arianism at the time? A different form of Christianity that Rome had? Early Christianity was quite varied prior the Middle Ages.
 
I would go with, not just no, but so unlikely that Sealion looks like a hopeful prospect in comparision.

In the mid to late 200s Christianity was just being noticed by most Romans. Before it had been a weird cult, like Wicca and Early Mormonism. Like such weird cults, the had an impressive conversion rate by percentage. Going from 1000 members to 2000 members is easy in 30 years. Keep it up for 150-200 years and you can build up some real numbers, like what Christianity did.

But that level of growth levels out at a certain point, where they become respectable like the Mormons, get percecuted as threat like Falun Gong in China, or just kinda hang out like the 7th Day Adventists and don't really grow because people feel like they heard your message and find the people who are knocking on doors....annoying. The fourth option is have things go just right and take over.

In the 250s and the late 290's Christianity had it's first real percecution. In both cases half the congregations defected (and mostly later came back), but in both cases they were fairly light and stopped shortly. Just enough to get them few martyrs to write legends about later. But the point is they were starting to get institutional push back and could have been pushed into non existence or becoming the cult of a few isolated villages like the Yazidis or Samaritians 1700 years after their heyday.

But Rome had a quirk. In that a lot of people, particularly socially influential people, would worship whichever Gods the Emperor favored. Imagine if 40% percent of Americans would have converted to Mormonism had Mitt Romney had been elected president. That's not something that happens in our society. Then you have 50 years of Christian Emperors and generations being brought up Christian at first because it's "respectable" and increasingly buying into the exclusivivity.

Eventually you get a Civilized=Respectable Romans=Christian. The Germans wanted to be seen as civilized and respectable so they drank the Christian kool aid as part of the package. If Christianity is not part of the package, that among other things, emphasizes Jesus as King of Kings (which is attractive to German rulers), and the Church as a transmitter of civilized culture, the attraction of Christianity is negligeble.
 
Just as the state power of Rome worked against Christianity until the conversion of Constantine, it worked for it afterwards, first in Rome proper and then in fostering missionizing.


Was there any significant missionary activity under the Empire? Afaik, most conversions outside the former Imperial borders took place only after its collapse, Clovis wasn't converted until 496 though his people had lived for generations right on Rome's Rhine frontier. Ireland's conversion may have started while the WRE still existed, but even that happened only after Britain had been abandoned. It looks to me as though the Empire's fall helped the spread of Christianity rather than hindering it, because its adoption no longer implied subordination to a foreign ruler.
 
Last edited:
That said, was it inevitable that the Germans and other tribal peoples of Europe would have eventually adopted whatever religion became dominant in the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity? Would the same argument apply in the case of Manichaeism, Mithraism, the cult of Sol Invictus, Neoplatonic Hellenistic monotheism, or any other religion that could have plausibly become dominant in the Roman Empire?

Maybe in the case of Manichaeism, but Mithraism had strict entry conditions which would make it hard to spread beyond a small percentage of the population, Neoplatonism is a philosophy rather than a religion, and Sol Invictus would probably end up just being equated with the Germanic equivalent in a sort of interpretatio barbara.

And to flip things around, could Christianity still have become popular among the Germanic tribes had Rome remained strictly pagan?

Possibly. You don't get to be the world's largest single religion by being bad at converting people.

But Rome had a quirk. In that a lot of people, particularly socially influential people, would worship whichever Gods the Emperor favored. Imagine if 40% percent of Americans would have converted to Mormonism had Mitt Romney had been elected president. That's not something that happens in our society. Then you have 50 years of Christian Emperors and generations being brought up Christian at first because it's "respectable" and increasingly buying into the exclusivivity.

The problem with that explanation is that, if Christianity's rise was just a matter of following the Imperial fashions, we'd expect Arianism to become the mainstream branch of Christianity, because most of the 4th-century emperors were Arians. Instead the population as a whole seems to have favoured Trinitarianism.
 
Maybe in the case of Manichaeism, but Mithraism had strict entry conditions which would make it hard to spread beyond a small percentage of the population, Neoplatonism is a philosophy rather than a religion, and Sol Invictus would probably end up just being equated with the Germanic equivalent in a sort of interpretatio barbara.

And most of these philosophies were "boys clubs" with little place for women. This may have been a big deal, as anecdotes survive of Christian mothers teaching the Faith to a son while the Pagan father's back was turned. Indeed Constantine himself may have been such a case, as iirc his mother Helena was a Christian, but to the best of our knowledge his father wasn't, though tolerant of them.
 
And most of these philosophies were "boys clubs" with little place for women. This may have been a big deal, as anecdotes survive of Christian mothers teaching the Faith to a son while the Pagan father's back was turned. Indeed Constantine himself may have been such a case, as iirc his mother Helena was a Christian, but to the best of our knowledge his father wasn't, though tolerant of them.

Aside from anything else, a religion which only men can join is by definition never to get beyond 50% of the population to join it.
 
The problem with that explanation is that, if Christianity's rise was just a matter of following the Imperial fashions, we'd expect Arianism to become the mainstream branch of Christianity, because most of the 4th-century emperors were Arians. Instead the population as a whole seems to have favoured Trinitarianism.

Trinitarianism came out on top in the end, but I haven't seen mention of the population taking a stand favoring one side or the other until the 380's. The argument seems to be a Bishops argument. To quote Everett Ferguson,

"The great majority of Christians had no clear views about the nature of the Trinity and they did not understand what was at stake in the issues that surrounded it."

So when a Arian or Semi Arian was in power, most people just went along with the powers that be and Trinitian Bishops were exiled, and vice versa. In fact the only sign of popular support either way was some rioting in 381 in Constantinople supporting the Arian Bishop from the previous emperor (Valens) was exiled.

There is very little evidence that anyone but the Emperor, his Court, and the Bishops were active participants in the "debate". The only reports (that I know of) come from the Trinitarian Church that won, so it is easy for them to paint themselves as the majority after the fact when truthfully, it is very hard to tell.
 
Trinitarianism came out on top in the end, but I haven't seen mention of the population taking a stand favoring one side or the other until the 380's. The argument seems to be a Bishops argument. To quote Everett Ferguson,

Attempts to impose Arian bishops led to riots in several cities, including Alexandria and Rome, in both of which places things got bad enough for the Emperor to restore the previous, Trinitarian, bishop whom he'd tried to depose. The man on the street might not have been able to articulate the issue as clearly as Athanasius or Arius (though since this was a period of prolonged and widespread theological debate, it wouldn't surprise me if the average believer was more theologically aware than modern historians usually give him credit for), but it's false to say that they were just passive participants who went along with whatever their betters decided.
 
Attempts to impose Arian bishops led to riots in several cities, including Alexandria and Rome, in both of which places things got bad enough for the Emperor to restore the previous, Trinitarian, bishop whom he'd tried to depose. The man on the street might not have been able to articulate the issue as clearly as Athanasius or Arius (though since this was a period of prolonged and widespread theological debate, it wouldn't surprise me if the average believer was more theologically aware than modern historians usually give him credit for), but it's false to say that they were just passive participants who went along with whatever their betters decided.
That may well have been more about people being pissed that their bishop, the one they know and like, was being replaced by a stranger for a reason they thought was stupid by a power far away that they felt shoudn't be interfering in what they would consider the internal affairs of their community.
 
That may well have been more about people being pissed that their bishop, the one they know and like, was being replaced by a stranger for a reason they thought was stupid by a power far away that they felt shoudn't be interfering in what they would consider the internal affairs of their community.

It certainly shows that they were prepared to defy an Emperor (surely a risky thing to do) if they felt sufficiently strongly about an issue. Which in turn suggests that had they been determined to stay Pagan they probably could have done. An Emperor didn't automatically get his own way in such matters.
 
Actually most germans converted to arianism simply because when Rome decided to send missionaries it had an arianistic emperor in power.

However that is another interesting bit. Some here say that the germans converted to be part of the civilized world of rome and that it would provide some protection. The problem is that they (most of them) ended up the wrong kind of christian and stuck with it even when it became evident that was the case. That made them heretics in the eyes of the romans and to many thats worse than being pagan. So if it was a "wanted to join the club" conversion why didnt they adapt to the new rules?
 
Last edited:
Actually most germans converted to arianism simply because when Rome decided to send missionaries it had an arianistic emperor in power.

However that is another interesting bit. Some here say that the germans converted to be part of the civilized world of rome and that it would provide some protection. The problem is that in they (most of them) ended up the wrong kind of christian and stuck with it even when it became evident that was the case. That made tham heretics in the eyes of the romans and to many thats worse than being pagan. So if it was a "wanted to join the club" conversion why didnt they adapt to the new rules?


It may have been part of a wider pattern.

In his Study of History Toynbee mentions that from about 350AD Germanic Barbarian in Roman service started retaining their German names rather than Latinising them. They seem (for whatever reason) to have become less keen to assimilate and keener to retain their separate identities. Th religious preference may have been related to this.
 
Top