TheRPGSite

Christ dies as a child falling down a well or run over by horses and the effect would be? Yes, I concede the point that he was protected by God but what would be more human?

Alt:
When Christ is rounded up, they get all the disciples and their friends too. (Aside: I always thought it strange they did not do this). All are crucified. No disciples, effect?

Rise of Mithraism/Sol Invictis instead of Christianity? Some of the other mystery cults more easily accepted like Cult of Isis?

Would we still have a monotheistic set of religions? Was the march towards a monotheistic religious view inevitable?

Alt Question:
What if Christ had been a loner? Meaning, no disciples. Would it mean he would not have had as big a bang?

Thanks,
Bill

The effects would be so broad I don't think you could accurately model the outcome in anything resembling a sensible matter. For example the early U.S school system was established by Christianity. (Up to and including the University level.) Reading and Writing would likely be limited for example, because of the drive to spread "the Word", in a very specific sense that helped spread reading and writing to more people. (albeit it later became more common only in Church's/societies higher echelons.)


A lot of knowledge would have been lost during the Black Plague (albeit we might not have had as severe a Black Plague if it weren't for Christianity.)

It's a huge change that doesn't trickle down through history but literally changes the course of civilization as we know it. (That isn't even being overly dramatic.)

I don't think Mithraism would have flourished for sure simply because it was a very insular cult (met in secret, had certain requirements for membership) and so on--at least for what little we know on it that survived as more than rumor and myth. Christianity didn't have strict requirements (At least in the early years of its foundation) anyone of any class, culture etc could be accepted by Paul's spreading of his beliefs.

Science may take a big hit, or might excel madly (Since many of the innovations came from the Middle East and were brought back to Western Civilization by various pilgrims, crusades, and so on.)

With no Christianity, there is a strong likelihood of there being no Islam. That changes the face of the world as well.

No missionaries spreading disease, and culture (regardless of whether it was wanted or not), no spreading of knowledge of agriculture/water to poor natives (but no subjugations in the name of faith.)

It may very well look like a world of competing primitive tribal cultures with a few small pockets of vastly superior technology/knowledge. (Depending on the given cultures imperative to spread itself to everyone or not.)

Most likely you'd have an advanced China, Advanced Middle East, primitive, Africa, Advanced Central/South America surrounded by more privative nations. (And the level of Advancement could be anywhere from horse and cart and iron, on up to space travel, its just too hard to predict how much the drive to spread faith and protect faith in early Christians really shaped so much of the outcome fo history.)

Christianity divide mankind, but it also create a drive for many centuries of a mono-culture aspect--that is "Christians" as a group may have bickered, warred and fought, but they due to faith, created a more common front against non-Christian cultures.

It is roughly on par a change with saying "What if racoons evolved instead of humans apelike ancestor?"


(Note you probably could get a much equivalent change of culture by changing a singular Roman Emperors, Constantine I's,  faith.)

bill, you've been reading my mind :tinfoil:  that's part of the experiment i'd like to run.  take the premise that christianity doesn't take off; who are the "powers" of the time?  who would likely step in to a power vacuum as rome declines?  

the history major in me wants to do so much research on the time.  i don't think i'd ever get around to running anything with it.  maybe a side project?

If it helps, maybe we could restrict the time frame to the Fall of the Roman Empire. Obviously, Christianity had a big effect there. What would be the effect of a Rome with no Catholic Church to preserve it?

Does that help some?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAlt Question:
What if Christ had been a loner? Meaning, no disciples. Would it mean he would not have had as big a bang?

Tell you what.  Let's leave the mere existence of Jesus out of the question.  Let's just fast-forward to the year 312, and when Constantine looks up to the sky at Saxa Rubra and sees the message "In this sign conquer," it's something other than a cross (or any other Christian symbol).  I think that was the real make-or-break point for Christianity, and without the support of the to-be emperor himself, it may well have died out as a forgotten fringe cult of Judaism.

!i!

So many variables to consider, but I think the clearest change, which Silverlion alluded to above, would be that Western civilization would have a markedly different relationship toward the Near East specifically [edit: I meant to type "generally"] and toward Jerusalem specifically...unless Constantine had converted to Judaism. As well, Western Europe itself would probably have been much more markedly split between North & South, due to the lack of Rome as a religious center for the entire region. In short I think the cultures of Greeks, Latins, and Celto-Germans which had been brought together under the Roman Empire would have gone their own ways much more radically than they did, whether or not Islam had come onto the scene to interrupt the Mediterranean lines of communication.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaTell you what.  Let's leave the mere existence of Jesus out of the question.  Let's just fast-forward to the year 312, and when Constantine looks up to the sky at Saxa Rubra and sees the message "In this sign conquer," it's something other than a cross (or any other Christian symbol).  I think that was the real make-or-break point for Christianity, and without the support of the to-be emperor himself, it may well have died out as a forgotten fringe cult of Judaism.

!i!

i guess we'd have to assume that he sees something, right?  or that could be another turning point.  but i get what you mean.  what other "thing" could he interpret it to be?  meaning, what were the other religious beliefs of the period?  was there any eastern influence to speak of?

Quote from: HinterWeltIf it helps, maybe we could restrict the time frame to the Fall of the Roman Empire. Obviously, Christianity had a big effect there. What would be the effect of a Rome with no Catholic Church to preserve it?

On the other hand, Christianity had a negative effect on the ability of the Empire to preserve itself politically, basically due to the accident (at least I can't find a good reason other than bad luck) of all the big German tribes converting to Arianism, which inhibited their assimilation with Roman society. Since the military depended on "frontier people" and "barbarians" to fill its ranks, and since government was increasingly dominated by soldiers, the Arian/Orthodox split exacerbated a split between military and civilian, and between formal authority and actual power...leading ultimately to the sequence of Stilicho/Ricimer/Odoacer: all powers behind the throne who could never ascend to "respectable" power within the Roman system because of their religion and ethnicity.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOn the other hand, Christianity had a negative effect on the ability of the Empire to preserve itself politically, basically due to the accident (at least I can't find a good reason other than bad luck) of all the big German tribes converting to Arianism, which inhibited their assimilation with Roman society. Since the military depended on "frontier people" and "barbarians" to fill its ranks, and since government was increasingly dominated by soldiers, the Arian/Orthodox split exacerbated a split between military and civilian, and between formal authority and actual power...leading ultimately to the sequence of Stilicho/Ricimer/Odoacer: all powers behind the throne who could never ascend to "respectable" power within the Roman system because of their religion and ethnicity.

that's a twist.  so if the emperor saw an Arian symbol?  maybe a conversion that would be more inclusive to the germanic tribes?

Well, it still would have been a cross...

Edit: wait what was I thinking? Arianism postdates the Battle of the Milvian bridge, and the symbol IIRC was a Chi Rho...

Anyway, yes, if Arius had won out in the Council of...whichever council it was, then things might have been different. Even if the Empire fell apart anyway, the difficulties between the Arian rulers and Orthodox subjects in many of the post-Roman kingdoms helped make them very "brittle" which probably contributed to their defeat at the hands of the Franks and Justinian's armies.

but would those difficulties have been as severe, if there was no "orthodoxy" to compete with the arians?  maybe the arians would become the dominant force of the region, a unifying force, or at least something to provide some kind of mutual cultural identity, possibly preventing such a defeat vs the franks?

There would have been no Arianism without Christianity, Arianism was simply one branch of Christianity (a majoritarian one, at one point).

In any case, this is a question that scholars of Early Christianity spend their entire careers debating.

Personally, I think there's a few important things to consider:

1. The real issue is not Jesus. Jesus didn't do very much, he wasn't much of a success in his own lifetime.
Jesus could still have lived and died exactly as he did historically and Christianity could still have been nothing more than one of countless short-lived minor jewish sects, if only it was PAUL who fell into a well as a young boy.

2. PAUL, and not Jesus, is the singlemost important figure in the development of "global" christianity.  It was Paul who turned Christianity into something more than an obscure Jewish cult.  At the time Paul came along, the remaining disciples were living in Jerusalem, led by James (Jesus' brother), and had no interest in doing anything with the gentiles. Their belief was that you had to be jewish to follow Jesus, and required circumcision.  Paul's idea, that Jesus was meant for the gentiles as much as the jews and that you didn't need circumcision to be a christian; along with his eloquent and very broad amount of writing, is what led to the creation of Christianity as an empire-wide phenomenon.  Without him, the Christian sect would have been a minor jewish group that would almost certainly have died out after the destruction of the Temple in 69 AD.

So, let's assume for a moment that Jesus is never around, doesn't become a teacher, etc etc. No Christ.

If Paul is still around, its likely he would still have had the stroke or the midlife crisis or whatever the fuck hit him on that road to damascus, and he would have ended up creating something similar to Christianity but with some other teacher.  Who would that teacher have been? That's very hard to know.

Paul was a classic "disciple come lately", ie. someone who takes an already-dead religious teacher and completely reinterprets his teachings to create his own charismatic sect around that now-dead authority figure. Sort of like a cult leader who doesn't have enough personal confidence or charisma, or for whatever reason would rather be "High Priest" than be the gib man himself.

Paul at the time that he was "converted" had been obsessing with persecuting the Christians, and then did a full 180º into following them, having "seen the light".. This is also a very common conversion experience; its far more common for someone who is an obsessed critic of a religious leader or movement to be turned into a disciple than for someone who is just blase.  So in all likelihood, Paul would have found some other minor group to persecute, and have created a similar but slightly different religion out of that. Instead of Jesus Christ, it might have ended up being Jacob Christ or Levi Christ or Barrabas Christ or Matthew Christ or whatever.

Given how little of Jesus' actual teaching really mattered to Paul, its entirely possible that the differences between the historical Christianity and whatever would replace it would be anything more than just aesthetic. It was Paul who put almost all the emphasis on the idea of resurrection instead of teaching; Paul felt that the idea of a God on earth who was born, died, and raised from the dead was what was important, not the things Jesus actually said or taught; and he frequently said things that if you read them you'd think would probably end up being a bit at odds with the things we think Jesus actually said (based on the gospels and related sources).

3. Now, what if both Jesus AND Paul hadn't existed? This would cause a number of issues of divergence.

First, who would Nero blame the fire of Rome on? The Jews might have been a good choice, they were very hated in the Roman empire; Nero probably picked the Christians only because they were a very recent and little-understood new "jewish cult" that a lot of gentiles were also getting into, and we know that Christianity wasn't the only one of those kinds. There was a whole fad for a while in the 1st century of "hebraized gentiles"; Greeks and Romans who would go to the Synagogues, and practice under Jewish teachers (indeed, a few decades later there would be a big scandal when one of the Emperor Domitian's cousins would end up becoming a "Judaic Gentile" under the Rabbi Akiva).  

Second, there is the question of whether or not one of the other "eastern mystery cults" would have managed to take the place of Christianity in western history. I'm not sure if this would have happened or not; what might have come about is that something like Sol Invictus or Mithraism might have changed enough, become universal enough, that it could have.  Both of these religions suffered from some serious limitations that made them less successful than Christianity; without Christianity around they might have adapted to become more universal, then again they might not have.

The other possibility is that Plotinus' philosophy (Neoplatonism), which was largely created as an effort to "reform" Roman paganism to make it more popular against the incursions of eastern religions (Christianity as well as the other cults), might have been more succesful and evolve into a full-blown philosophical-religion in the style of buddhism.  In our own history, Plotinus' teachings failed to gain many inroads against Christianity, which had a warmer human message that was more appealing; but if Christianity was out of the running, Neoplatonism might have been more succesful than either Sol Invictus (which was appealingly familiar to Romans but suffered from some of the same problems that old Paganism suffered from, that is, not sophisticated enough and not offering enough to the common man) or Mithraism (that was far too limited, secretive, and restrictive to be acceptable to the masses, it was closer to the Roman version of Freemasonry than an actual full-blown religion).  If Neoplatonism had developed its concept of the Oneness and the quest for happiness into a kind of "universal enlightenment" it might have had enough popular appeal to become the new "Great Religion".

In terms of the Collapse of the Roman Empire, its likely that if any of those three religions I mentioned had been dominant in the 3rd and 4th centuries instead of Christianity, it might have strengthened Rome's fortitude in the face of its difficulties. On the whole, Christianity served to hasten the collapse of the western Roman empire.  Rome would have collapsed anyways, but it might have done so somewhat later, and the dark age that followed might not have been as long or as devastating to Europe as it was.

In the longer term it becomes harder and harder to figure out the course of history without Christianity.  For example, what would Mohammed's religion have looked like without Christianity to act as one of its major influences?
What would medieval Europe have looked like if it didn't have a force like the Catholic Church serving to both unify it on the one hand, and to keep it stagnant on the other?  Its very hard to guess.

RPGPundit

PS: you'll note I don't even consider Gnosticism as a contender.  Gnosticism predated Christianity, so it would still have existed, but it would never have replaced Christianity for the same reasons that Gnostic Christianity failed against Pauline Christianity. Its concepts made it pretty inevitably the perennial "also ran" of the great religious conflicts of the end of the classical world.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn any case, this is a question that scholars of Early Christianity spend their entire careers debating.

(snip awesomeness)

Dude, I love when you make posts like this instead Swine bullshit. You have helped me come around with some ideas for a game ;) We'll see.

check out

http://www.alternatehistory.net/

They have a go at answering this and many similar questions.

Quote from: RPGPunditPS: you'll note I don't even consider Gnosticism as a contender.  Gnosticism predated Christianity, so it would still have existed, but it would never have replaced Christianity for the same reasons that Gnostic Christianity failed against Pauline Christianity. Its concepts made it pretty inevitably the perennial "also ran" of the great religious conflicts of the end of the classical world.

You've piqued my curiosity.  Care to expound on this?

Quote from: BrantaiYou've piqued my curiosity.  Care to expound on this?

Let's see if I can explain... Gnosticism was basically the New Age Fad of the classical world.  It was like Reiki or something.
It was mocked by both erudite christians and erudite pagans.  

It was too weird, too life-rejecting (I mean, any religion where the Christians could accuse you of being life-rejecting must be very bad indeed), too (pseudo-)intellectual, and far too metaphysical (what with its ideas about dozens of dimensions, and orders of angelic beings, and ineffable names, and having to memorize all this shit before you even stand a CHANCE of being saved) for popular consumption. On top of that, the Gnostic movement was about as divided as the modern-day wiccan or new age movements are; it seems like everyone and their uncle was Grand High Poobah of the Gnostic Church, and they each had a different theory as to how many different dimensions there were, the exact names of the angels, and just who the fuck the "Demiurge" was (as well as some other equally deep differences).

Note that there are certain texts and certain movements that are today erroneously lumped in with the Gnostics, but in fact share few qualities with Gnostic thought.
The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is not "gnostic" in any way. It is rather a mystical work very much within jewish thought but influenced by hellenistic (especially epicurean) philosophy.

Anyways, Gnosticism, like most "metaphysical" movements out there, just lacks too many of the basic building-blocks of good sensible religion to be really viable as a largely-accepted belief system. It can appeal to many people, the way New Age or Wiccan ideas can appeal to many people today, but most of those won't be the sort of people who have what it takes to make an actual religion out of it, to pursue it beyond the "fad" or "fashionable" stage.

RPGPundit

Yeah, that makes sense.

hey pundit, you're the religion guy.  what do you think of this take?

http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/ijhnbb.htm

(thanks for the AH link, stumpydave)

Quote from: beeberhey pundit, you're the religion guy.  what do you think of this take?

http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/ijhnbb.htm

(thanks for the AH link, stumpydave)

Well, for starters I think the suggestion that the Talmud would not have been compiled were it not for Christianity.  The Talmud was an conscious effort to preserve the Jewish intellectual body of work.

The rest of his assertions are pretty good, mimicing my own suggestion that Neoplatonism could have replaced Christianity; and I think that given the Islamic world's respect for Plotinus' writings, its entirely possible that whatever form Mohammed's religion would have taken could have been based on a Neoplatonic influence in place of a Christian one.

RPGPundit

But did Neoplatonism have saints? Shrines? Faith healing? Basically all the stuff to make a religion for the common folks? (You'll note that even Buddhism picked up a heavy accretion of that stuff as it expanded out of its homeland.) Basically how much of the funky coolness, festivals, and sacrifices that was Greco-Roman syncretic paganism got wrung out in the course of making Neoplatonism?

What a coincidence. On my Paris vacation I picked up two recent books by Paul Veyne ("The Greco-Roman Empire," and "When Our World Became Christian"--this one's about Constantine), whose general awesomeness & pertinence to the subject I can't begin to sing.

So, I'll just say: Lots of great points by Pundy, ditto on Gnosticism (do you like Jonas, Pundy?). But I don't think (and I'm really just an amateur throwing this out) that Neoplatonism or Sol would have had any chance.

When it comes down to it, the former is an academic, hyper-elite philosophy with a lot of Grecian cachet but little, well, zip. Compare the Gospels and the Enneads--no contest. And the cult of Sol is an abstraction in a different way. It's a construct. It's Emperor propaganda (hate the term, can't think of a better one), and a soldier religion at best, without grounding in traditional Greco-Roman religion.

And that I think is the real question: without Jesus & Co. around to destroy it, how long will Roman polytheism last? Maybe forever. It had been around for a millennium or whatnot, and it's not like it was nearly dead when Constantine seized power.

Quote from: HinterWeltChrist dies as a child falling down a well or run over by horses and the effect would be? Yes, I concede the point that he was protected by God but what would be more human?

... ok ... fasten your safety belts.

From the original post there is this little bit about "God".  Ok so let me take it from there and run with this for a few minutes.  

What about Satan?  Hmmm... lets take this from his point of view.  There he is in all his infernal glory, demons stomping through the underbelly of hell, the flames rising around him, looking in the icy glass pool around his burning hot belly and seeing the image of the world above where man is sinning away merrily, all to his grim delight.

And lo - here comes the Son of GOD!  Oh my.  He's going to redeem mankind and save the world!   This is bad bad bad! (Good good good, but you know Satan, always seeing things upside down).  And then just as young Jesus is stepping out into the court yard at the tender age of 9, there's a bad die roll.  Woopsie.  A critical Fumble!  What's this?  Did he just slip down the well?  And die?   OMG!  

Fantastico!  This is really unbelievable!!  And so Satan roars with delight and the world shudders in some incomprehensible way to the core of humanity's being.   There is no redemption coming.  The Roman Empire will not fall, and the Caesar will remain unthwarted, and humanity will not learn that there is a narrow gate to heaven.  It will be as it ever was, to the Strong goes the Power.  The ideals of brotherly love and compassion will falter on in the cradle and perish.   And the rule of the Strong over the weak, the Law of the Wolf, will reign supreme.  Forces will come into play that never had the chance, and mankind descends into madness and horror.   But slowly.  We go a hundred years.  The Roman Empire get stronger.  There is no mercy.  The Empire grows.  It invades the far reaches of Africa.  It follows Alexander to India.  Another few hundred years and even the great Chinese Empire is under threat and invaded.  Soon the world is under the dominion of the One Great Emperor.   Satan himself.   And there is great dread laughter.  And the human race ... I leave to your imagination.

Sorry about that.  It was just too tempting.

:P

- Mark

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd that I think is the real question: without Jesus & Co. around to destroy it, how long will Roman polytheism last? Maybe forever. It had been around for a millennium or whatnot, and it's not like it was nearly dead when Constantine seized power.

Interesting points but it was my understanding from a number of books I have read that the big reason Christianity could make such inroads into Roman society had a lot to do with a cultural search for a more fulfilling religion/spiritual explanation. I think it was the Cult of Isis that first introduced the idea of forgiveness through supplication to the Romans. I think, eventually, if Christianity did not dominate the scene, you would end up with some other religion close to it. Perhaps a tempering of Mithraism in the form of blending with Sol Invictus. I agree with your on neoplatonism, just have a rough time imagining it as appealing to the common man. Still, I think the Romans had grown beyond the original pantheons and that is one of the big reasons that Christianity could be adopted by Constatine for the Empire despite not being a Christian himself.

Interesting thread though.

Bill

Quote from: VBWyrde... ok ... fasten your safety belts.

From the original post there is this little bit about "God".  Ok so let me take it from there and run with this for a few minutes.  



Sorry about that.  It was just too tempting.

:P

- Mark

I am asking nicely, please do not bring that into this thread.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltInteresting points but it was my understanding from a number of books I have read that the big reason Christianity could make such inroads into Roman society had a lot to do with a cultural search for a more fulfilling religion/spiritual explanation. I think it was the Cult of Isis that first introduced the idea of forgiveness through supplication to the Romans. I think, eventually, if Christianity did not dominate the scene, you would end up with some other religion close to it. Perhaps a tempering of Mithraism in the form of blending with Sol Invictus. I agree with your on neoplatonism, just have a rough time imagining it as appealing to the common man. Still, I think the Romans had grown beyond the original pantheons and that is one of the big reasons that Christianity could be adopted by Constatine for the Empire despite not being a Christian himself.

Interesting thread though.

Bill

Bill, I think this argument is a reasoning backwards from assumed results: Christianity was inevitable; what made it so? Answer: some "spiritual zeitgeist," "it was in the air," "Rome ripe for the picking." In order to prove that, people would have to show how at some point Romans abandoned the old gods *consistently and in droves* for Isis etc.

Personally, I think all it took was Constantine, which was a hell of a lot, and who, says Veyne, was absolutely a Christian. And all it might have taken to reverse it may have been Julian sticking around longer. Who knows!

However. Veyne (who, being French, is of course a happy atheist) makes a "great" case for Christianity's appeal: It was like a modern bestseller. Like Rousseau's Heloise or Goethe's Werther, it produced a longing in you that you didn't know you had (because you actually didn't have it), but which from now on you had to satisfy.

At one and the same time you learned you had a soul (and a personal one, not the neoplatonist, universal one) AND that it was in danger of damnation AND that God deeply cared for that not to happen. So, personal salvation was the thing, as you put it for Isis. You're being loved, and you're scared. Also, all other gods are false.

One last thing: I'm an art historian, not a historian, so I know the visual record, not the written one. Late Roman art (not coins), especially religious art like all those thousands of funerary sarcophagi, was overwhelmingly polytheistic. No Sol, no Neoplatonism, a tiny number of Mithras reliefs (the Near East is always a different matter, I mean the heartland). Over and over again people put their fate in the hands of the old gods--and then in the hands of Christ. So, where I'm coming from there are only those two contenders.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhen it comes down to it, the former is an academic, hyper-elite philosophy with a lot of Grecian cachet but little, well, zip. Compare the Gospels and the Enneads--no contest. And the cult of Sol is an abstraction in a different way. It's a construct. It's Emperor propaganda (hate the term, can't think of a better one), and a soldier religion at best, without grounding in traditional Greco-Roman religion.

And that I think is the real question: without Jesus & Co. around to destroy it, how long will Roman polytheism last? Maybe forever. It had been around for a millennium or whatnot, and it's not like it was nearly dead when Constantine seized power.

Two points here: First, to address your second paragraph, the accepted academic consensus is that Roman Paganism was on the way out already by the time that Christianity came around.  Christianity got to become what it did because it filled a niche, it was at the right place at the right time (even though it was, in fact, a kind of odd choice to supplant paganism; the fact that it succeeded in spite of that oddness is more evidence that it was really in a fertile time/place to have had the incredible success it did).

The emperors from Augustus onward were deeply concerned with the moral collapse of "roman religious virtues"; the common man in Rome felt very badly served by Roman Paganism, which had by that time evolved into a very decadent very corrupt institutional religion that did a lot to serve the state and those in power but very little to serve the regular person (not unlike the Catholic Church today, some would add-- this is something that can't be emphasized enough to many of those who might read this with a bias of thinking of Christianity as a stodgy conservative religion; the message of Christianity at that time was extremely radical, it was the hip new thing to get into).

And it wasn't like Greco-Roman religion was in a great strong place and somehow this one weird religion wormed its way in there; no, there was a HUGE influx of "strange mystery cults from the east" (including Sol Invictus, Mithraism, the Gnostics, the cult of Isis, the Bachus cults, and COUNTLESS others). Just like in our time, in our place, all kinds of foreign religions, sects, and spiritual movements have found ample ground in the western world (be it Buddhism and Hinduism, fringe sects, scientology, raelians, reiki, wicca, crystal healing, feng shui, etc etc), Rome in the 1st-3rd century AD found itself in the same situation.  Many many people were desperate for something new that gave them more meaning and felt more personally accesible to them than the boring, sometimes oppresive, totally out-of-touch religion that they grew up with.

So there's no doubt in my mind that SOMETHING would have replaced Greco-roman paganism more or less at the same time that Christianity did, had Christianity never come about; and that something would probably have been a kind of monotheism (or at the very least some kind Pan-entheism or Monism; "Oneness" was the hot new idea that almost all of the most succesful cults of this period had in common).

As to the second point: Neoplatonism never got the chance or time to develop into a wider sort of populist religion because by the time it arose (early in the 3rd century AD) it was "too little, too late"; christianity had already taken that slice of the pie, so it spent its entire brief history as a coherent movement fighting the rising tide of Christian triumphalism.
If, as we are postulating, Christianity had never come to exist, Neoplatonism would have had more breathing space, and instead of being drier sort of "hinayana buddhism of the west" it could easily have developed into a more populist "mahayana buddhism of the west", had it only had the chance to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe Roman Empire will not fall, and the Caesar will remain unthwarted, and humanity will not learn that there is a narrow gate to heaven.  It will be as it ever was, to the Strong goes the Power.  The ideals of brotherly love and compassion will falter on in the cradle and perish.   And the rule of the Strong over the weak, the Law of the Wolf, will reign supreme.  Forces will come into play that never had the chance, and mankind descends into madness and horror.   But slowly.  We go a hundred years.  The Roman Empire get stronger.  There is no mercy.  The Empire grows.  

You have an utterly bizzare conception of both the Roman Empire's character as a state (it was actually far more open and equanimitous than, say, the British Empire ever was), and the conception of Roman values.

Methinks you should read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations to get some idea of what Roman moral thought was really like. It was certainly not "the law of the wolf"; that was, in fact, exactly what they saw themselves (the light of civilization and the one shining hope of mankind) as fighting against (barbarism).

RPGPundit

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBill, I think this argument is a reasoning backwards from assumed results: Christianity was inevitable; what made it so? Answer: some "spiritual zeitgeist," "it was in the air," "Rome ripe for the picking." In order to prove that, people would have to show how at some point Romans abandoned the old gods *consistently and in droves* for Isis etc.

Personally, I think all it took was Constantine, which was a hell of a lot, and who, says Veyne, was absolutely a Christian. And all it might have taken to reverse it may have been Julian sticking around longer. Who knows!

However. Veyne (who, being French, is of course a happy atheist) makes a "great" case for Christianity's appeal: It was like a modern bestseller. Like Rousseau's Heloise or Goethe's Werther, it produced a longing in you that you didn't know you had (because you actually didn't have it), but which from now on you had to satisfy.

At one and the same time you learned you had a soul (and a personal one, not the neoplatonist, universal one) AND that it was in danger of damnation AND that God deeply cared for that not to happen. So, personal salvation was the thing, as you put it for Isis. You're being loved, and you're scared. Also, all other gods are false.

One last thing: I'm an art historian, not a historian, so I know the visual record, not the written one. Late Roman art (not coins), especially religious art like all those thousands of funerary sarcophagi, was overwhelmingly polytheistic. No Sol, no Neoplatonism, a tiny number of Mithras reliefs (the Near East is always a different matter, I mean the heartland). Over and over again people put their fate in the hands of the old gods--and then in the hands of Christ. So, where I'm coming from there are only those two contenders.

Well, I am not even that close to a history degree. ;) However, the sources I have read all say Constantine converted on his deathbed and therefore was not a Christian during his life. However, it is a minor point.

As to looking to the old gods, I wont argue. As you pointed out, it had been around for generations and people do not just dump their parents beliefs because and in an instant. Generally, they are searching for something. Now, culturally, the Romans were conservative but when religions fell in line with their tolerances, it was adopted or adapted to some degree. Again, the faiths you point to as not being referenced would not have simply due to the lack of popularity. I, nor anyone, can say definitively what religion would have filled the gap but I do think something would have. Partly it seemed the natural evolution that the Romans were progressing on and partly this desire to find better definitions of their spiritual world.

I totally agree with you that Constantine was critical. Still, imagine if he, say, threw himself behind stoicism and saw Sol Invictus as a tool to carry it to the masses. I am just supposing here. It could have been a different religion, a philosophy. Whatever it might be, Constantine could have used it like Christianity, to rejuvenate the Empire. There are interesting possibilities. I do not think, though, that it would have just reverted to Jupiter and the Gang. As I have said though, that really seems more opinion than anything at this point. ;)

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditYou have an utterly bizzare conception of both the Roman Empire's character as a state (it was actually far more open and equanimitous than, say, the British Empire ever was), and the conception of Roman values.

Methinks you should read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations to get some idea of what Roman moral thought was really like. It was certainly not "the law of the wolf"; that was, in fact, exactly what they saw themselves (the light of civilization and the one shining hope of mankind) as fighting against (barbarism).

RPGPundit

I was, of course, posing this from the Christian point of view.

- Mark

Quote from: VBWyrdeI was, of course, posing this from the Christian point of view.

- Mark

The hell you were?

Quote from: BrantaiThe hell you were?

Hell yeah!

Actually I thought this was a really interesting scenareo.  The devil takes over the world: What do your Characters do?  There's a lot that could be done with this, especially if you take the Fae into account.  I'm even tempted to write this one up as a game setting.   I think it's pretty DAMN awesome.  ;)

- Mark

:confused:

I think we're not quite getting you, dude.  

The Christians had a lot of stuff they respected about the Greco-Roman philosophers, you know.  They certainly didn't see the Roman empire as "Evil" as such; they did see it as degenerate and misguided, but you'll note that once they took over they weren't actually TRYING to dismantle the Roman empire (it just happened due to their incompetence).

Back then, you had to be a madman to think that Rome as a concept or in practice was worse than the alternative.  Today, you'd have to be an ignorant ideologically-confused cretin.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWeltWell, I am not even that close to a history degree. ;) However, the sources I have read all say Constantine converted on his deathbed and therefore was not a Christian during his life.

Not converted--baptised! But he professed his faith long before that in words & deeds. I mean, he personally attended the Council of Soandso and advised/regaled the bishops in details of doctrine, he wrote lots of "sermons" which he would deliver to his court and what not.

As for the general issue, also raised by Pundy: Short of some actual historical number-crunching (%age of mystery religion/Sol temples vs. %age of Olympian gods through 3rd and 4th centuries), which may or may not exist, and I'd honestly love to hear about it--other than that, what's at stake is a huge & interesting question:

What drives change in history?

Will there first be a "need," which will then be filled by an object/ideology/whatever designed to fill it? Or will something utterly new erupt onto the scene, and change the terms of the need equation altogether?

BTW... that also works for RPGs. Was there a need for D&D in 1974? Of course not. There was a need--but only from the moment it was published, not earlier.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNot converted--baptised! But he professed his faith long before that in words & deeds. I mean, he personally attended the Council of Soandso and advised/regaled the bishops in details of doctrine, he wrote lots of "sermons" which he would deliver to his court and what not.

O.k. Pierce, I get you. A misunderstanding on my part. Yes, he did Christian works in his life. And yes, the practice was in place to "convert" or be baptized on your deathbed. So, I think it is just semantics.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs for the general issue, also raised by Pundy: Short of some actual historical number-crunching (%age of mystery religion/Sol temples vs. %age of Olympian gods through 3rd and 4th centuries), which may or may not exist, and I'd honestly love to hear about it--other than that, what's at stake is a huge & interesting question:

What drives change in history?

Will there first be a "need," which will then be filled by an object/ideology/whatever designed to fill it? Or will something utterly new erupt onto the scene, and change the terms of the need equation altogether?

Again, need here is being interpreted differently by each of us, I believe. To me, need means there must be an interest coupled with an opportunity. A hundred years ago there was plenty of interest in oil but no real opportunity to exploit it. So, there was no need. Now, there is interest and opportunity.

I think most folks would say opportunity is equal to need and I can see that in some cases. This is not always the case though. There were plenty of religions that had opportunity to grow but there was no interest in what they offered. You could call interest by a number of things like public appeal or common elements.

To me, from my reading, Christianity offered what interested the Romans. It offered a general appeal of "You to can be saved and all you have to do is believe in me" kind of salvation and answers. Yes, there is more to that but I think that is the core of it.

Now, the question is, would another religion step into that role or would it end up be Christianity with a different name? Would it be several cults servign different parts of the Empire? Earth mother religions? They certainly had the basis of a common element, Mom always loves you and accepts you. ;)

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBTW... that also works for RPGs. Was there a need for D&D in 1974? Of course not. There was a need--but only from the moment it was published, not earlier.

See, I believe there was a need. If there wasn't we would all be on Chess boards arguing opening gambits. ;) The need is not always a conscious one. I do not think there were people walking around in the 60s saying "Gee, I really want to role-play!...whatever that is?". However, the elements were there. People want to be entertained and this was a creative way of doing it.

In the end, I think we are closer on these points that our words allows us to be.

Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditI think we're not quite getting you, dude.  

The Christians had a lot of stuff they respected about the Greco-Roman philosophers, you know.  They certainly didn't see the Roman empire as "Evil" as such; they did see it as degenerate and misguided, but you'll note that once they took over they weren't actually TRYING to dismantle the Roman empire (it just happened due to their incompetence).

Back then, you had to be a madman to think that Rome as a concept or in practice was worse than the alternative.  Today, you'd have to be an ignorant ideologically-confused cretin.

RPGPundit

If you read this:

http://personal2.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/docs/city.htm

You will see that I adopted the Augustian viewpoint on the topic and extrapolated from there.  You will notice that you are both right and wrong in this case.  I think that Augustine at least would have approved of my projection (if he could possibly choke down the premise).   Other Christians perhaps would not.  Most, however would agree that had Christ died as a child the world would be doomed to fall into Satan's hands.  I'm pretty sure of that one.  I simply provided an Augustian based pattern by which that might have happened based on the premise presented, giving it a Christian spin because it is a Christian topic (Christ Jesus).  

For myself I simply think that the concept could make an interesting world setting.  If I go ahead with it I'd do it something like this:

The Fae (Fey) are semi-fallen angels who were caught midway between heaven and hell (which is one of the classical Christian theories about the Fey/Faerie), and so they form a kind of halfway house for mankind in their dire distress.  The Characters might start out by escaping "The (truly) Evil Empire", hooking up with the Fey, entering the OtherWorld (Tir Na Nog) and hiding out from Satan's forces while they plan for counter attacks and raids.

Of course you guys seem to have this predilication for attacking anything that doesn't immediately coincide with your viewpoints, making it somewhat unpleasant to try to contribute.   Oh well.   I'm really getting the feeling that this is not the friendly little forum I was told about.  I'm trying to state my views and thougths openly and I keep getting attacked as if I am The Enemy.  Its funny.  But not fun.

EDIT:  Oh, and to those who have been kind and helpful, thank you.  I do appreciate that.  But as it goes I think I'm going to fade from this Forum.   It is just a bit too unpleasant an atmosphere.  Maybe there's another place to go where people are quite so ... harsh?

- Mark

Quote from: VBWyrdeOf course you guys seem to have this predilication for attacking anything that doesn't immediately coincide with your viewpoints, making it somewhat unpleasant to try to contribute.   Oh well.   I'm really getting the feeling that this is not the friendly little forum I was told about.  I'm trying to state my views and thougths openly and I keep getting attacked as if I am The Enemy.  Its funny.  But not fun.

- Mark

Mark,
I cannot speak for others, but I mostly asked you to stop because you are not proposing alt history as a theology or fantasy setting. I was hoping to hear what people think would happen if the Christian institutions and faith were absent, not "Christianity is irrefutable and if Christ is not here then poof! the devil appears". I am trying to be reasonable and hope I am appearing as such. I just believe you are as off topic as if someone asked for help on the early Roman Catholic Church and someone told him that the One True Way was Buddhism.

Does that make sense or do you think your posts are on topic?

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltMark,
I cannot speak for others, but I mostly asked you to stop because you are not proposing alt history as a theology or fantasy setting. I was hoping to hear what people think would happen if the Christian institutions and faith were absent, not "Christianity is irrefutable and if Christ is not here then poof! the devil appears". I am trying to be reasonable and hope I am appearing as such. I just believe you are as off topic as if someone asked for help on the early Roman Catholic Church and someone told him that the One True Way was Buddhism.

Does that make sense or do you think your posts are on topic?

Thanks,
Bill

I was not understanding that from the original post.  But then maybe I am at fault.  I apologize.  I didn't get what you were driving at.  

EDIT:  

Quotebecause you are not proposing alt history as a theology or fantasy setting.

I guess this is the part that's confusing to me.  I thought my suggestion is exactly that, and alternate history and fantasy world setting.  So, I am confused.  But that's ok.  I think I simply do not understand the cultural norms in theRPGSite and so it's easy for me to mis-step.  Again, no offense intended.

- Mark

If Jesus wasn't around and Paul was looking for messiahs, he could do worse than John the Baptist. The Mandaeans chose the latter, for example.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI was not understanding that from the original post.  But then maybe I am at fault.  I apologize.  I didn't get what you were driving at.  

EDIT:  

I guess this is the part that's confusing to me.  I thought my suggestion is exactly that, and alternate history and fantasy world setting.  So, I am confused.  But that's ok.  I think I simply do not understand the cultural norms in theRPGSite and so it's easy for me to mis-step.  Again, no offense intended.

- Mark

No harm done. I mistyped though. What I meant was that you were proposing more of a fantasy/theological setting and I was hoping for an alt-history discussion. Personally, I think your idea for a setting has merit and would suggest you start another thread. I think you could get some good discussion based on a fantasy setting approach to the topic.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltNo harm done. I mistyped though. What I meant was that you were proposing more of a fantasy/theological setting and I was hoping for an alt-history discussion. Personally, I think your idea for a setting has merit and would suggest you start another thread. I think you could get some good discussion based on a fantasy setting approach to the topic.

Thanks,
Bill

In all fairness to VB, I thought his idea was cool too, and couldn't figure out why you, one of the cooler more open people here, reacted as you did.

so maybe the issue here is the difference/distinction you are drawing between alt-history and fantasy/theological setting.  I'm truly curious cause I saw VB's conjecture as just a different take on the subject; but I'm no expert on these things so I was confused.

Quote from: James J SkachIn all fairness to VB, I thought his idea was cool too, and couldn't figure out why you, one of the cooler more open people here, reacted as you did.

so maybe the issue here is the difference/distinction you are drawing between alt-history and fantasy/theological setting.  I'm truly curious cause I saw VB's conjecture as just a different take on the subject; but I'm no expert on these things so I was confused.

James,
Initially, I thought he was just crack-potting. If you can't see the possibility of that in his first post then you wont be able to understand why I asked him to stop.

Let me see if I can sum up. I was hoping to have a discussion about history, the effects of change, and his post is more about fantasy elements. Well, everyone seemed to be rolling with the history part and then pop! a fantasy/theological post that could easily be interpreted as "You bad people, you would be damned if not for our lord and savior". I was hoping to avoid that and discuss the effects of a powerful organization on the world not the bogey man and his faeries. That sounds hash but I am trying to draw a contrast.

Honestly, like I said, I think if you approach it as a fantasy setting it would be a great thread. Heck, I think a link back to this one would be a valuable source for that thread. However, I do not think the discussion of the rise of Satan is appropriate to a historical discussion except from a myth POV. Now, if you wanted to argue that a Satan figure would gain prominence, well, I think you would be wrong because Satan with out Christ is like milk with out cookies.

I am only one person in the thread though, I could be so wrong and everyone would rather talk about that in this thread.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltHonestly, like I said, I think if you approach it as a fantasy setting it would be a great thread. Heck, I think a link back to this one would be a valuable source for that thread. However, I do not think the discussion of the rise of Satan is appropriate to a historical discussion except from a myth POV. Now, if you wanted to argue that a Satan figure would gain prominence, well, I think you would be wrong because Satan with out Christ is like milk with out cookies.

Yeah, I think I just took it as Satan was the "myth" behind an evil cult done sprung up in the absence of Christ.  People were looking for something - and they got something they didn't bargain for.

Which I can totally see, now, after your explanations (even before this last one) as to how that could be seen the way you did - that's all.

Quote from: HinterWeltI am only one person in the thread though, I could be so wrong and everyone would rather talk about that in this thread.

No, I think your idea of two threads is good.  It's just confusing because the default assumption inherent in this thread is Jesus' Godhood as myth - which is perfectly cool with me, but I could see someone looking at it differently.

Quote from: HinterWeltJames,
Initially, I thought he was just crack-potting. If you can't see the possibility of that in his first post then you wont be able to understand why I asked him to stop.

Let me see if I can sum up. I was hoping to have a discussion about history, the effects of change, and his post is more about fantasy elements. Well, everyone seemed to be rolling with the history part and then pop! a fantasy/theological post that could easily be interpreted as "You bad people, you would be damned if not for our lord and savior". I was hoping to avoid that and discuss the effects of a powerful organization on the world not the bogey man and his faeries. That sounds hash but I am trying to draw a contrast.

Honestly, like I said, I think if you approach it as a fantasy setting it would be a great thread. Heck, I think a link back to this one would be a valuable source for that thread. However, I do not think the discussion of the rise of Satan is appropriate to a historical discussion except from a myth POV. Now, if you wanted to argue that a Satan figure would gain prominence, well, I think you would be wrong because Satan with out Christ is like milk with out cookies.

I am only one person in the thread though, I could be so wrong and everyone would rather talk about that in this thread.

Bill

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from now.  As for the thread I think I'm content to stuff this one in my back pocket for now.  I seriously think this is an interesting idea and I'm going to spend a little more time putting the concept together before I post more about it.   The Fae aspect is one thing, but there are all of the other historical implications as well.  I really like the alternate history ideas, and drummed up something a while back about a What If the Vatican had forseen scientific advancement as something that they needed to control instead of surpress... and that one turned out to be really interesting too.  I am thinking that I'm going to create a setting between two parallel universes that compare both of these ideas with the players criss crossing between them, through Tir Na Nog.   That would be sufficiently bizzare and fascinating and thought provoking for my game.  Anyway, thanks for the seed idea.   Very cool.

Please go ahead and continue the thread without me.  I'm going to be wracking my brains to put this together.  Thanks.  And sorry for the confusion.

- Mark

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf Jesus wasn't around and Paul was looking for messiahs, he could do worse than John the Baptist. The Mandaeans chose the latter, for example.

Yes, I thought of that; and its certainly a possibility, however the stricter and more evident asceticism of John the Baptist's belief system as compared to Jesus' might not have made it as easy to convert into a Pauline "gentile" model.

RPGPundit

I'm enjoying reading the back and forth on this topic between 2 or 3 of you.

 Got a question that connects to this all (at least I think it does)

 What would be the ripple effect of No Christanityaround into the late 19th or even mid 20th century?  Heck, even the agreed-upon way that we measure centuries is based on Christianity . What would be the replacement way of denoting the passage of decades and centuries? Any candidates?

 This might mostly be a question for Pundit and Hinterwelt, based on what they have been posting.  You two seem to be the most well read on the topic.

 Lets say a team of "adventurers" via some sort of machine stumbles into this timeline circa what would have been our 1960s - what would they see and experience?

- Ed C.

Quote from: VBWyrdeYeah, I can see where you're coming from now.  As for the thread I think I'm content to stuff this one in my back pocket for now.  I seriously think this is an interesting idea and I'm going to spend a little more time putting the concept together before I post more about it.   The Fae aspect is one thing, but there are all of the other historical implications as well.  I really like the alternate history ideas, and drummed up something a while back about a What If the Vatican had forseen scientific advancement as something that they needed to control instead of surpress... and that one turned out to be really interesting too.  I am thinking that I'm going to create a setting between two parallel universes that compare both of these ideas with the players criss crossing between them, through Tir Na Nog.   That would be sufficiently bizzare and fascinating and thought provoking for my game.  Anyway, thanks for the seed idea.   Very cool.

Please go ahead and continue the thread without me.  I'm going to be wracking my brains to put this together.  Thanks.  And sorry for the confusion.

- Mark

Just so you know, one of the reasons, I am sure, that James thought it ironic for me to object is because of Roma Imperious. It is very much an alternate histroy/fantasy RPG as you describe. That is one of the reasons I woul dfind such a setting interesting.

So, yeah, sorry if I came off as harsh, just trying to stay on track.

Bill

i'm glad you did, bill.  i have a low tolerance for religion and that post tripped my  :mad: triggers.  i too had understood this to be an alt-history discussion, not a theology class.  

everybody's coming up with amazing stuff, tho.  i'm going to do a helluva lot more research before if can run my alt-hist version.  :what:  :raise:

Quote from: KoltarI'm enjoying reading the back and forth on this topic between 2 or 3 of you.

 Got a question that connects to this all (at least I think it does)

 What would be the ripple effect of No Christanity around into the late 19th or even mid 20th century?  Heck, even the agreed-upn way that we measure centuries is based on Christianity . What would be the replacement way of denoting the passage of decades and centuries? Any candidates?

Possibly the Roman calendar. Here is a pretty good Wiki on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_urbe_condita) called Ab Urbe Condita or from the founding of the city. However, it would most likely be supplanted by the Julian calendar but both might be contenders. AUC is figured from 753 BC so 1960 would be 2713 AUC but was not very common with Romans. It was more common to reference Emperors or Consuls who ruled, so 14 Vestinius would be the 14th year of the rule of Vetinious.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar) has its problems too. By 1960 it would be seriously messed up without some intervention (rediculous numbers of years added or just rearranged). I am not sure if the Gregorian would have come about without the church. I defer to Pundit and others on this. In the end, I think they would need to come up with something better than what they had ( the problem mostly being how they figured quarter days in the year not the starting point of the calendar).

Quote from: KoltarThis might mostly be a question for Pundit and Hinterwelt, based on what they have been posting.  You two seem to be the most well read on the topic.

 Lets say a team of "adventurers" via some sort of machine stumbles into this timeline circa what would have been our 1960s - what would they see and experience?

- Ed C.

Well, others have pointed out just how big a task that would be. You would have vast changes. In the near Roman times, Emperors were influenced, arguably the Empire collapsed due tot he influence of Christianity but much of its knowledge survived and a power structure was also in place to mount, at least in part some sort of organization against invaders (mind you, not terribly effective). Regardless, you rapidly run into the realm of fantasy since you need to make some choices on what routes would be followed, what pressures exerted. For instance, say the Empire holds on (I question that but it is one of those choices I mention) and maintains order. There is some archaeological evidence of colonies in Germania. Roman influence increasing (Rome was a very attractive trade partner) and now you have, IMHO, there real hope, converting to a trade Empire. Social assimilation of other cultures. Make you enemies you. That works sometimes and other not. Again, if we choose to have it work you have a much slower expanding empire than finds recruits for the Legions that think of themselves as Roman. That said, unless they come on China in a particularly weak state (say after some really terrible earthquakes or something like the Three States period) their natural xenophobia will protect them from this type of assimilation.

By 1960, assuming the Empire still exists (although I doubt how they would fair against Islam (although would they exist without Christianity, that is one for Pundit), the Caliphates and the Golden Horde not to mention the Vikings) you might have colonies on the new world looking to assimilate the Indians, all of Africa either trade dependent or outright conquered and either outright war in Asia or a serious cold war where states are being "fought" over with trade alliances and sneaky dealings.

Now, take it an entirely different way, and say that the Western Empire falls on schedule or there about due to internal corruption and external pressures from barbarians. How much influence did the Church have in Byzantine? Quite a bit but I am not as up on the Eastern Empire so it will leave that to others. Either way, the Church would not have repositories of information in Ireland and a lot of progress would be hosed. A darker age? maybe. Shorter, could be too.If you start assuming that the Dark Ages (yeah, historians hate that phrase) ended sooner and you had a renaissance in say, 900-1000 CE then it is possible you would have a higher Tech by the 1960s.

Essentially, it is really hard to say what it might be like but you can make a lot of plausible scenarios.

Does that help at all? I feel like I talked in circles. :(

Bill

One thing that bothers me, is how would this loss impact the rise of democracy?

Quote from: SilverlionOne thing that bothers me, is how would this loss impact the rise of democracy?

Good damn question.

Well the idea of some form of democracy started with the Greeks. And the Romans did borrow and adapt a LOT from the greeks.
I'd say the concept might still survive...but whether anybody tried it on a national scale would be tough to say.

Thanks Bill for the long answer. The mental exercise alone on this is pretty cool. Also, it could help some of us make more believable settings for future games.

- Ed C.

Quote from: SilverlionOne thing that bothers me, is how would this loss impact the rise of democracy?

I don't know that there is a one-to-one connection. The idea of the Republic was alive and well within the Empire. This was a form of representative democracy so I do not think people would loose the knowledge. Plus, as long as you paid lip service to the Empire, they would often let you rule yourself depending on a couple of factors. Now, the origin of modern democracy and the path of development would be an interesting read. I must say, I am not well versed on that part but I see parallels with elements Norse culture, Celtic and Germanic and, of course, Greek and Roman.

I guess it also depends on what you mean by Democracy.  For instance, just the concept of one citizen, one vote or a more comprehensive representative republic. Also, just the function of the democracy or the  legal system behind and supporting it. The Romans had an egalitarian judicial system just not a egalitarian punitive system. Again, if we assume a non-static Empire assimilating and surviving for a long period we would see a number of changes. Looking to the Eastern Empire, we can draw some parallels with the influence of eastern nations and cultures on the Byzantines. If the Western Empire survived, you might see an Emperor that could be voted out (given enough time). The concept was not foreign. You might even see something resembling the parliamentary system of modern countries. I do not know that you would see the kind of system that we have int he US but it might happen (or at least come close).

Interesting stuff. What do you think? Close or am I way off.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, I thought of that; and its certainly a possibility, however the stricter and more evident asceticism of John the Baptist's belief system as compared to Jesus' might not have made it as easy to convert into a Pauline "gentile" model.

RPGPundit

The asceticism would be a useful means of differentiation between these pseudo-Mandaeans and ordinary Romans. IIRC, many of the ascetic aspects of early Christianity (chastity!) did this historically, so it's plausible that a more extreme version could have taken off.

Theologically, it'd be really interesting to build your belief system on the basic idea of the herald as redeemer. Probably more of an intense focus on the parousia and charismatic works of faith that result from it.

Quote from: KoltarI'm enjoying reading the back and forth on this topic between 2 or 3 of you.

 Got a question that connects to this all (at least I think it does)

 What would be the ripple effect of No Christanityaround into the late 19th or even mid 20th century?  Heck, even the agreed-upon way that we measure centuries is based on Christianity . What would be the replacement way of denoting the passage of decades and centuries? Any candidates?

Well, the further away you get from the point of divergence the harder it gets to give any kind of a single accurate guess, especially with something as significant as the rise of Christianity, anything you were to guess about the 19th or 20th century (or hell, even the 9th or 10th century) would be pure conjecture.

However, if Christianity didn't come along, as far as the calendar was concerned there'd basically be two possibilities:

1. We'd still be basing our calendar on the date of the foundation of rome.
In which case you'd need to add 753 to the year (so this year would be the year 2760 of the roman calendar).

2. There'd be a new calendar based on whatever religion replaced Christianity.  If it was Neoplatonism, you could theoretically create a date based on the birth year of Plotinus (the year 205 AD, so this year would then be the year 1802 of the "neoplatonist calendar").


RPGPundit

In terms of the lifespan of the Roman Empire and the advancement of technology:

I would say that if Christianity had never come to pass, Rome would still have fallen.  That was ultimately pretty inevitable.  If something other than Christianity came along, the Roman Empire might have lasted longer, but it would still have fallen apart, perhaps later.

If the new religion had not been quite so antithecal to non-religious knowledge, its possible that the "dark age" that would have followed the collapse of the Empire would have been shorter and that a recovery would have been quicker to a higher level of technology.

The real question is whether the Black Death would still have occured, on time, the way it did in our time.  If not, the modern day in this alternate timeline might have ended up finding us technologically much further behind than in our own timeline, because there would have been less need to innovate.
If so, however, we might find that the tech level would be higher now than what it is in our timeline, because there wouldn't have been a need to relearn stuff that was lost in the dark ages, and industrialization could have occured a few centuries ahead of time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SilverlionOne thing that bothers me, is how would this loss impact the rise of democracy?

If what you're asking is "how important was Christianity itself to the development of democracy"? The answer is: not fucking much. Christianity as a religious ideology is fundamentally anti-democratic; the development of democracy in our timeline was a product of the Enlightenment, which was a struggle against institutional religion.

Of course, the real question is: if there was no christianity, what events would have happened after that; and would those events have necessitated the creation of democracy?

Its really too hard to do anything other than make shit up here: you could say that without christianity, feudalism never developed, and you had instead a system of senates and emperor-kings; so democracy could have arisen as a kind of refomation toward a Republican system against the Tyranny of emperors. I mean fuck, the real-world American Revolution took as its inspiration the "ideals" of Republican Rome. Cinncinatus, the great hero of the Republic, was the role-model for George Washington.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe asceticism would be a useful means of differentiation between these pseudo-Mandaeans and ordinary Romans. IIRC, many of the ascetic aspects of early Christianity (chastity!) did this historically, so it's plausible that a more extreme version could have taken off.

Theologically, it'd be really interesting to build your belief system on the basic idea of the herald as redeemer. Probably more of an intense focus on the parousia and charismatic works of faith that result from it.

Of course, the idea of John the Baptist as the "Herald" for Christ was something that was invented by Christians.  

The real John the Baptist was a sect-leader in his own right, who's followers did NOT accept Jesus as the messiah (and who's followers continued to flourish in greater numbers than Christ's for the first hundred years or so after the two founders' deaths).  Rather, if John the Baptist was a "herald" for anything, it was as a herald of the Apocalypse.  The Baptist's cult was much more of a doomsday cult than even Jesus' was, John's whole deal was to get the fuck out of the cities, go into the wilderness, wear sackcloths and REPENT because the end was near.  He was the 1st century's David Koresh.

Jesus was probably an early disciple of John's who broke off and went his own way, preaching a far more moderate movement.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit..........
Its really too hard to do anything other than make shit up here: you could say that......... without christianity, feudalism never developed, and you had instead a system of senates and emperor-kings; so democracy could have arisen as a kind of refomation toward a Republican system against the Tyranny of emperors. I mean fuck, the real-world American Revolution took as its inspiration the "ideals" of Republican Rome. Cinncinatus, the great hero of the Republic, was the role-model for George Washington.

RPGPundit

True...but Pundit "making shit up" is half the fun of coming up with an alternate timeline setting.  Although I do like if the made up shit seems pretty plausible.  

Cinncinatus - gee I wonder what city got named after him?
 Oh yeah - the city I'm living in.  Nice to see a reference to him.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarTrue...but Pundit "making shit up" is half the fun of coming up with an alternate timeline setting.  Although I do like if the made up shit seems pretty plausible.  

I totally agree, I LOVE alternate history, as long as it is plausible, like you said.

QuoteCinncinatus - gee I wonder what city got named after him?
 Oh yeah - the city I'm living in.  Nice to see a reference to him.

To quote the famous Marc Antony: "I'm not interested in politics, you people play too rough for me. No, I just want to serve out my term as Consul, then retire to the countryside to till my lands and fuck my slaves... just like old Cinncinatus did!" :D

RPGPundit

Quote from: beeberthat's a twist.  so if the emperor saw an Arian symbol?  maybe a conversion that would be more inclusive to the germanic tribes?

In RL history Constantine was Arian which is why he pardoned Arius, invited him to communion and allowed the orthodox bishops who opposed him to be sent into exile. Regarding the rule of his sons:

"The whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian" -St. Jerome

So whatever religion takes over the world needs to have some wide-spread bishop support, not just Constantine's luv or they'll end up like the Arians. ;)

Anyway, for alt-history purposes, any contenders for fastest tech advancement? I'm for a Neo-Pythagoreans. Right out of the box they've got E=mc^2 (albiet qualitative), evolution (albiet solar powered) and mathematics as trancendent truth.

(They also believed in the existance of ten planets, which sounds much less impressive now that Yuggoth got plutoed. :( )

Quote from: HinterWeltAlt:
When Christ is rounded up, they get all the disciples and their friends too. (Aside: I always thought it strange they did not do this). All are crucified. No disciples, effect?

Jesus still appears to the three women at the tomb (perhaps with the twelve "resurected" disciples at his side?) and the Church is a Matriarchy. The Eucharist is not recorded since that was a 12 disciples only event. The Gosples as we know them are never written, instead what Mary overheard is commited to paper. St. Peter dies in infamy, his third denial of Christ still fresh on his lips....

QuoteAlt Question:
What if Christ had been a loner? Meaning, no disciples. Would it mean he would not have had as big a bang?

Speaking historicaly, how can anyone be a "big bang" without disciples? I think at the very least he would have needed a scribe to preserve his memory. With neither oral nor written history he would have been forgotten. (Aha! If he was a villian figure -- THEN he could be remembered without disciples.)

Wow, this is what I get for not coming around for a few days. As a Classicist,  I can't believe I missed this one.

Quote...the accepted academic consensus is that Roman Paganism was on the way out already by the time that Christianity came around. Christianity got to become what it did because it filled a niche, it was at the right place at the right time...

That was the consensus several decades ago, and going back probably as far as Gibbon or further. But that view isn't taken seriously anymore. On the one hand, if pre-Christian religion was "on the way out," it makes on wonder why Theodosius and Arcadius and all those righteous Christian emperors had to constantly legislate against it on pain of death. Enough people were refusing to change their ways that the first several generations of anti-pagan edicts were practically unenforcible, such that in the long run it took no small amount of violence and repression to convert the populace (which still wasn't entirely accomplished until around the time of Charlemagne, himself a great fan of the convert-or-die method).

On the other hand, for the past 25 years scholars have been making a conscious effort to identify and discard the "Christianizing assumptions" that have colored our perception of pre-Christian religion. Many of these assumptions are anachronistic and fail to take into account how much of our concept of "religion" tacitly assumes Christianity as the model and therefore doesn't apply to the radically different world-view held by pre-Christian people. A preoccupation with belief is one such example (which leads modern people to denigrate religious traditions that are based primarily on ritual and lacking theology or requisite beliefs). Simon Price led the way in this respect with his revival of the study of the Roman imperial cult as a genuine, and quite normal, religious institution (as opposed to the cynical, un-Roman sham it was previously assumed to be).

In fact, the notion of different "religions" is largely a post-Christian phenomenon. Ancient people didn't think of themselves as following one "religion" or another. Indeed, there isn't even a word for "religion," as we understand it, either in Latin or in ancient Greek. There were traditional practices determined largely by culture and location, but there was no real standardization, and the adoption of various practices was quite fluid by modern standards. The rules for sacrifices were static, but those were surprisingly similar even across cultural lines, so it didn't appear that other nationalities practiced other "religions," so much that their local rituals simply varied in the particulars. Not surprising, since even cults dedicated to the same god would differ quite a lot in practice from one city to another.

Where you get the real differences in world-view in the pre-Christian world is among the various schools of philosophy, not the popular religion. But your average chap had little to do with philosophy; it was mostly a matter for the educated elites and a few wandering sages. What Christianity did was meld religion and philosophy together, such that we today tend to expect them to come in a package deal, whereas in ancient times "religion" was completely independent of philosophy (although not always the other way around). By coincidence, Buddhism accomplished the same thing, and it's likely that Neo-Platonism would have evolved into something similar if given the chance.

The importance of the "mystery cults," on the other hand, is typically overstated (particularly Mithraism, which as the pundit pointed out is analogous to Freemasonry). The important thing to remember regarding the mystery cults is that they existed firmly within the mainstream religion of the time. They weren't a "replacement" thereof, and they couldn't stand alone. They merely provided an optional esoteric side to the popular religion for those who were into that sort of thing.

BF, could you suggest a couple of titles that may reflect current thinking re: the  "assumptions" you mentioned?

BF; the view you are taking is a typical marxist post-modernist view that puts way too much of an emphasis on the question of "the masses"; projecting on a whole other level  (ie. that some kind of class consciousness existed at this time, and, to be utterly callous about it, that what the average shit-slopper in the classical world did mattered).

The fact is that the Pagans were called "pagans" because they were the ignorants of the countryside. Those anti-pagan edicts you referred to obviously indicated that there wasn't a wholesale abandonment of paganism; that's obvious.  But these things are processes, no one was suggesting that there was a sudden and total conversion.

Its just like how, today, many people would suggest that Christianity is a relic on its way "out".  Certainly, its influence has been on a regular and steady decline for the last 300 years at least.  However, if you look at the day-to-day picture you still have the vast majority of the western world at least nominally declaring themselves Christians, and blocs of Christians with enormous political and social influence.  There is a "culture war" being fought, that in reality has been going on ever since the Enlightenment, one that has had some ups and downs but as an overall trend it is one that Christianity has been steadily losing.

The process by which Christianity overwhelmed Paganism took about 900 years all in all. But by the time of Constantine it was clear that the power-elite of the Roman world had shifted in favour of Christendom, and from that moment onwards Paganism became more and more the religion of the ignorant and uneducated, the country-folk, the rednecks with backwater ideas and mentalities. The culture war continued, but it was one Paganism would steadily lose at until the end.

I also understand what you're trying to say vis-a-vis your claim that there used to be philosophy and religion, and that Christianity was the "package deal". But I don't think that's totally correct either.

Before, what you had was popular religion and philosophical religion. You had the religion of the masses (the common worship of the gods and ancestral spirits) and you had the religion of the elites (the mystery schools and the esoteric philosophical schools).  Certainly, from Pythagoras onwards you had the greek philosophical tradition deeply connected to the concept of the mystery cult and religious matters, and if there is any error in conception by modern historians (at least until these last few years) it had been in failing to grasp just how religious greek philosophy was (blame this on people wanting to imagine that Socrates and Plato were these really Modern secular positivist thinkers).

What Christianity did that was really different was that it brought popular religion and philosophical religion together all in one framework, so you really had two religions in one; the common man didn't have to worry about more than participating in the mass and the sacraments, and Jesus was all about being the good shepherd that would heal your sickness and promise you heaven, and to the educated Christianity was this complex philosophical system that they could wax metaphysically about to no end.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit... if there is any error in conception by modern historians (at least until these last few years) it had been in failing to grasp just how religious greek philosophy was ...

Well, it's best not to overstate this.  

Aristotle's philosophy was hardly 'religious' in nature ('God' was necessary simply for metaphysical reasons, and was completely indifferent to human beings).  And the Epicureans were outright materialists (according to them, only 'matter and motion' existed, atoms were the basic building units of the universe, souls did not exist, there was no afterlife, etc.).

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, it's best not to overstate this.  

Aristotle's philosophy was hardly 'religious' in nature ('God' was necessary simply for metaphysical reasons, and was completely indifferent to human beings).  And the Epicureans were outright materialists (according to them, only 'matter and motion' existed, atoms were the basic building units of the universe, souls did not exist, there was no afterlife, etc.).

Epicurus did believe in a soul made of finer particles than the rest of the body that perished when the person did. The gods were composed of similar particles, IIRC. However, you're right that he was strongly critical of philosophically contemplating the gods and that it is a bit peculiar to call him religious.

On the other hand, the Academy certainly seems to've devoted a great deal of time to God, as did the Stoics, and the Neo-Platonists. It would be best to amend the statement Pundit made to "[latter] Greek philosophy". However, many of those thinkers (especially the later Academics and the Neo-Platonists) were influenced by Christianity.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineEpicurus did believe in a soul made of finer particles than the rest of the body that perished when the person did. The gods were composed of similar particles, IIRC...

Sure, I should have said that 'immaterial souls' did not exist according to the Epicureans.  What they meant by 'souls' was something like what we would call 'minds' (or something like that) today.  Lucretius has a number of arguments that (purport to) show that the very idea of non-material or non-physical consciousness makes no sense.

As for the gods, they were also purely material beings who had no interest in human affairs.  Really more like powerful 'aliens' than anything that we would recognise as 'gods'.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine... It would be best to amend the statement Pundit made to "[latter] Greek philosophy"...

That would seem to be unfair to Aristotle and his followers, who weren't especially concerned with 'religious' matters or any form of mysticism.  Also, the Epicureans were a very important philosophical school even during Roman times (e.g. Lucretius).

Quote from: beeberBF, could you suggest a couple of titles that may reflect current thinking re: the  "assumptions" you mentioned?

The Simon Price work I was thinking of is his book Rituals and Power, about the imperial cult in the Eastern (i.e. Greek-speaking) empire. It has a section specifically on this topic, pointing out the effect of what he called "Christianizing assumptions" in the study of ancient religion. It is now considered the seminal work in that area. A good example of the next generation of thinking along these lines is Ittai Gradel's Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, which is a radical reevaluation of the subject as a normal and legitimate feature of religious practice in Rome itself. In this sense it's a challenge to the old way of thinking represented by L. R. Taylor, et al., which was the unquestioned orthodoxy prior to the mid-20th century. The shift in thought goes beyond the study of the imperial cult, but that subject does provide an interesting point of contrast in how it is perceived by both camps. In fact, for centuries no one undertook a serious study of emperor-worship because the prevailing "Christianizing assumptions" led people to assume it wasn't a "legitimate" religious phenomenon to begin with.

Of course, Classics being a relatively "slow" discipline, it takes a generation or two for new ways of thinking to filter down into non-specialist sources. Your average high school Latin or ancient history textbook, for example, is a pretty good reflection of the state of the discipline as it was 50 years ago.

BF, is it possible to summarize what's positive about these pre-religous Roman "religions"?

In other words, I know how they were un-Christian--no Church, no doctrine, no holy writ, no salvation, and so on). But that's a string of negations. Could one come up with a similar one composed of affirmations?

What was salient, moving and intuitive about worshipping a pantheon?

Quote from: RPGPunditBF; the view you are taking is a typical marxist post-modernist view that puts way too much of an emphasis on the question of "the masses"; projecting on a whole other level  (ie. that some kind of class consciousness existed at this time, and, to be utterly callous about it, that what the average shit-slopper in the classical world did mattered).

Perhaps this view has its origins in Marxist thought, I don't know. But it's not considered specifically Marxist anymore. These days it's called good historical methodology. For example, if I tried to publish a book like Burkert's Greek Religion today (which uses only literary and philosophical sources and eschews archaeological and epigraphical evidence), I'd be torn to pieces for trying to present an idealized picture of the "religion" having little to do with what people actually practiced. And a practicum-based definition of "religion" is by far the dominant one in Classics, and history in general, so what people actually did is the whole point. This is in keeping with the primary sources, which seem unconcerned with matters of belief as compared to the proper performance of ritual. That's a huge difference between Christianity and what came before it.

QuoteThe fact is that the Pagans were called "pagans" because they were the ignorants of the countryside.

...

The process by which Christianity overwhelmed Paganism took about 900 years all in all. But by the time of Constantine it was clear that the power-elite of the Roman world had shifted in favour of Christendom, and from that moment onwards Paganism became more and more the religion of the ignorant and uneducated, the country-folk, the rednecks with backwater ideas and mentalities.

"Pagans" also means "the lower classes" in general, as the working-class shit-shovelers living in the floodplain of Rome itself were called pagani, as well. Of course, there's a fair amount of propaganda in that designation. Yes, with the brief exception of Julian, the imperial family were Christians at least from Constantius onward. That didn't hold true for all the elites, however. The Senate continued to be largely pagan for a surprisingly long time, as did anyone who was into Greek philosophy, etc. Indeed, one wonders how much of Christian theology was worked out to appeal to this class of literati who initially rejected Christianity for its perceived anti-intellectualism.

Regardless, there was a pagan elite comprising much of the actual upper classes of Roman society, whereas the emperors were, if anything, throwing their lot in with the lower classes by proclaiming Christianity the state religion. Of course, championing the poor while antagonizing the aristocrats was typical behavior for Roman emperors (particularly the ones later painted as "mad" by historians of the Senatorial class). That very tension between the emperor and the aristocrats is characteristic of the politics of the Roman Principate in in general.

Quote...if there is any error in conception by modern historians (at least until these last few years) it had been in failing to grasp just how religious Greek philosophy was (blame this on people wanting to imagine that Socrates and Plato were these really Modern secular positivist thinkers).

Too true. I've encountered people who want desperately to see those guys as presaging either Christianity or modern secular thought. Both are dead wrong, of course. They couldn't possibly have been more "pagan"--and quite devout, too, by all accounts. Part of the confusion is due to a desire to see modern values, such as secularism and church-state separation, in ancient Greek thought. Ironically, the latter is a Christian invention (yeah, somebody tell the Fundamentalists that). Ancient Greeks had no concept of "religion" as something in and of itself that you could separate from politics, economics, patriotism, family life, etc. It pervades everything, including philosophy.

QuoteWhat Christianity did that was really different was that it brought popular religion and philosophical religion together all in one framework, so you really had two religions in one; the common man didn't have to worry about more than participating in the mass and the sacraments, and Jesus was all about being the good shepherd that would heal your sickness and promise you heaven, and to the educated Christianity was this complex philosophical system that they could wax metaphysically about to no end.

That's largely true. But it was also true of the pre-Christian "religion," as well. The state cult demanded a particular set of public rituals, but there was always the opportunity to follow a school of philosophy or engage in various esoteric initiatory practices. What Christianity did was weld religion and philosophy together such that you couldn't really have one without the other. Sure, Joe the peasant might not understand much of the theology and the meaning behind the sacraments, but he's assured that there is in fact a greater meaning to things and that his place in the world likewise has a meaning. It also comes with ideas about how life should be lived, what we ought to believe, where we come from, where we're going, whether we have souls, what constitutes divinity, and that sort of thing. All that stuff was entirely the province of philosophy in the pre-Christian world, not religion per se. But it's impossible to imagine Christianity without it.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBF, is it possible to summarize what's positive about these pre-religous Roman "religions"?

In other words, I know how they were un-Christian--no Church, no doctrine, no holy writ, no salvation, and so on). But that's a string of negations. Could one come up with a similar one composed of affirmations?

What was salient, moving and intuitive about worshipping a pantheon?

Excellent question, but very difficult and necessarily drawing on a number of assumptions based on what physical evidence we have. There are also the obvious difficulties of approaching a radically different world-view from the point of view of Christian values. But here goes...

• The religious practices of the pre-Christian world represented a tradition going back into prehistory. Unlike "revealed" religions with a founder and a specific teaching, they had no known beginning. We have no idea why certain ritual specifications were called for in certain circumstances, and it appears that ancient people didn't know either. But that was the way it had always been done, and there's a certain sense of being a part of something greater and older than oneself. The (originally) brightly-colored marble temples and statues of later antiquity only serve to emphasize this, using lasting beauty in art to demonstrate the community's pride in their tradition, and by extension their collective identity.
  
  
• These practices were performed by one's ancestors and by heroes going back to the mythic age. A lot of rituals were "explained" with myths, even though the myth is almost certainly a much later addition. But to an ancient person, to stand on the same spot where Demeter or Heracles or Theseus once stood and reenact an event they too experienced... Well, it must have been a powerful feeling--not unlike what Christians feel when they walk the path of Jesus to Calvary (except they got to experience it much more often).


• The rituals perpetuated a sense of community and continuity, reaffirming one's place in the larger order of things. There were rites for everything from household functions to matters of state, involving adults, children, masters, slaves, women, just about everyone. They were seen as upholding the social order and encouraging filial piety and good citizenship. In fact, the loss of this  was one of the major criticisms of Christianity and why it was initially deemed "impious."


• Following that logic, the rituals also reaffirmed the relationship between mortals and gods. The line between the two wasn't nearly as clear as it is in Christianity, and indeed certain humans were worshiped as divinities, which said more about their status than anything else. Being more of a job description than anything, a "god" was simply a being of infinitely higher status who could be serve as patron for a worshiper and thereby engage in mutually beneficial relationship in return for divine worship. Sacrifices (typically consisting of food shared between mortal and god) served to reaffirm this relationship and encourage the superior party to look out for the best interests of the inferior party. In this way, rituals such as prayers and sacrifices provided a standardized means of communicating with the divine and maintaining a positive working relationship.


• While it's not accurate to describe non-monotheists as worshiping a set "pantheon," since the number of divine beings is theoretically infinite, one does have a multitude of beings to petition, each holding influence over a particular subset of phenomena. If one doesn't seem to like you, you can always try another. Can't have too many powerful patrons on your side, right? It's very important to remember that gods weren't worshiped simply because they existed. There being an infinite number of them, you'd never get around to them all. No, they were paid respects and offerings because they were powerful and generally benevolent and, if you honored them with the established rituals handed down since time immemorial, they could be persuaded to do favors for you. There being no official belief on the nature of souls, the afterlife, end-of-the-world, etc., these favors were typically of a very immediate and practical nature.
  
  
• Lastly, it's important to remember that mythology had surprisingly little to do with ancient religion as it was actually practiced. So even though ancient Greeks read Homer and considered it a divinely inspired work, they still recognized that the gods were not nearly as anthropomorphic as they were depicted in literature. In Christianity, the mythology is fused irrevocably with the religion, such that many Christians don't even recognize it as such. To the ancients, myth certainly had its place, but one mustn't mistake it for religious dogma or anything more important than the actual performance of rites and sacrifices--nearly all of which predate the mythology by centuries, if not millennia. Keep this in mind (as opposed to what you saw on Xena or learned in middle school), and it shouldn't surprise you that the largest temple complex in antiquity was lovingly dedicated to Samian Hera, for example. After all, if the gods were truly believed to be "petty and cruel," nobody would have bothered worshiping them in the first place--much less crafting breathtaking works of art in their honor. On the contrary, they could pretty much be counted on to help you out, so long as you offered them some token favor in return.

very useful info, BF.  thanks for taking the time to write it all!  i'll check those two titles out when i get back up to campus in the fall.

All this is very interesting and seems to chime in principle with what Veyne is saying about the relations between the Romans and their gods--that they were somewhat modern international relations between two countries, one of which finitely more powerful than the other (as you may know, Veyne's a very sophisticated thinker, but he likes simple examples).

So, unlike in Christianity, these were relations that were "contractual" and "occasional": you made a special sacrifice to Apollo and were entitled to expect some support in return (a safe journey, a healthy child...). If that didn't happen, relations could sour, as they do internationally: people apparently pelted Apollo's temple with stones--as they would a foreign embassy--when the much beloved Germanicus died.

I'm wondering though whether much didn't change historically from truly ancient Greece to the late Roman empire. I know those aniconic wooden things--but those are strictly Greek, right? I wonder if Roman religion wasn't unwaveringly anthropomorphic. (I want it to be that, coz quite frankly those wodden sticks creep me out. :D )

Quote from: AkrasiaThat would seem to be unfair to Aristotle and his followers, who weren't especially concerned with 'religious' matters or any form of mysticism.  Also, the Epicureans were a very important philosophical school even during Roman times (e.g. Lucretius).

I think BF sums it up well. Even philosophers who were not particularly concerned with the gods as a philosophical topic were still practitioners. The Epicureans, to avoid charges of atheism, no doubt practiced the rites like anyone else, and that was what was important to their fellow Greeks and Romans, not what they believed.

Quote from: Black FlagOn the other hand, for the past 25 years scholars have been making a conscious effort to identify and discard the "Christianizing assumptions" that have colored our perception of pre-Christian religion.

I would argue that people also underestimate the assumptions we make about morality in pre-Christian societies.  Many of the things that modern Western society simply assumes are right and wrong (even among those who think of themselves as seculuar) were often not considered the same way in pre-Christian European societies, nor are they always in non-Christian societies even today.  

People should be just as amazed that Western civilization determined that slavery was wrong and has tried to stop it globally as they are ashamed that Western civilization once practiced it and wonder where that idea came from.  And while the story of Adam and Eve as well as the writings of Paul were certainly used to promote unequal treatment of women, women were also treated better by Christianity than by many other religions of the day, which is why so many of the early Roman converts to Christianity were women.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine... The Epicureans, to avoid charges of atheism, no doubt practiced the rites like anyone else, and that was what was important to their fellow Greeks and Romans, not what they believed.

Actually, for the most part, they didn't engage in standard rituals.  They also regarded women and slaves as equals, and acted as such.  While an important philosophy, Epicureans weren't 'mainstream' in the Ancient World (unfortunately).

Quote from: John MorrowPeople should be just as amazed that Western civilization determined that slavery was wrong and has tried to stop it globally as they are ashamed that Western civilization once practiced it and wonder where that idea came from.  

Pardon? I fail to be amazed by the fact that different eras have held different values. To be interested in history is not to to give up your own values in the process.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityPardon? I fail to be amazed by the fact that different eras have held different values. To be interested in history is not to to give up your own values in the process.

Correct, but I think people's own values often give them assumptions that can warp their understanding of those differences as well as cloud their understanding of how different various elements of Western civilization, including Christianity, are from what might exist without those elements.

If you really want to know what were the "good bits" about pagan pre-christian religions in the greco-roman world, you only need to see what parts of pagan worship the Christians ended up stealing.  Those were the good bits; the ones that worked so well that the church couldn't just abandon them, and had to make up christian facades for adopting them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaActually, for the most part, they didn't engage in standard rituals.  They also regarded women and slaves as equals, and acted as such.  While an important philosophy, Epicureans weren't 'mainstream' in the Ancient World (unfortunately).

Diogenes Laertius paraphrases Epicurus as saying:

"He will be fond of the country. He will be armed against fortune and will never give up a friend. He will pay just so much regard to his reputation as not to be looked down upon. He will take more delight than other men in public festivals.

The wise man will set up votive images. Whether he is well off or not will be matter of indifference to him."

Both are standard religious acts in the Greco-Roman world.

In his last will, also preserved by Laertius, Epicurus provides for a yearly memorial for himself and his dead relatives by the members of the Garden - a perfectly ordinary religious rite amongst the Romans and Greeks.

Now Laertius does say Epicurus was against divination (which was a common enough thing to argue against - Cicero, Plutarch and Porphyry all did the same), and provides us with a letter where Epicurus is critical of much that is said about the gods by the public (like Herodotus, Xenophanes, and Socrates/Plato are, amongst others), but he mentions in that letter that one still ought to maintain a "holy belief" towards them.

There are scattered references all through the various testimonies that Epicurus encouraged his followers to revere the gods, but simply not to pray to them for benefits or to participate in superstitious practices. That certainly was unusual, but it hardly makes him irreligious. Nor does it seem to've panned out into avoiding participating in rites, other than the specific kinds listed above. As I quoted earlier, Laertius is of the opinion that the Epicureans find it fine to enjoy festivals and to revere images of the gods, so long as one isn't praying for them to actually do anything.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine... As I quoted earlier, Laertius is of the opinion that the Epicureans find it fine to enjoy festivals and to revere images of the gods, so long as one isn't praying for them to actually do anything.

In other words, the Epicureans were the Anglicans of the Old World?  :p

Quote from: AkrasiaIn other words, the Epicureans were the Anglicans of the Old World?  :p

Well, did the Epicureans have rhythm? Instant CoE lithmus test ;)

Kudos for the D.L. quote, Pseudo. He's our major source on Epicurus and many others (technically a secondary source, but he seems to have copied whole swaths directly from the original texts).

Yes, Epicureans had no problem participating in traditional rites, and they were ardent believers in the gods. The main sticking point is that they didn't believe sacrifices worked--which is to say that they believed the gods existed in a state of bliss and perfection so far removed from us that they couldn't even perceive us directly. That's pretty subversive from the standpoint of traditional religion, which is primarily interested in preserving good relations with the gods as patrons. And Epicureans did suffer a certain amount of character assassination on account of their perceived impiety (though not nearly as much as the Christians). But like the Stoics, who were basically pantheists and tended to interpret the gods in terms of allegory, Epicureans could take part in public observances out of a love of tradition or a sense of community. And as Pseudo mentioned, proper performance of ritual was considered much more important than what the participants actually believed about it.

That's actually what got the early Christians in so much trouble. Nobody really cared what they believed or what they did in private, but their refusal to participate in public rites--coupled with a propensity towards outright blasphemy--was seen as both impious and actively subversive, not to mention a potential danger to society as a whole. From the ancient perspective, it meant they were opposed to tradition, civilization, community prosperity, family values, etc. They were seen in much the same way people see Muslim extremists in the West today. Epicureans were viewed more like how religious people view atheists--i.e. assumed to be selfish and amoral but probably not a danger to anyone but themselves.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo, unlike in Christianity, these were relations that were "contractual" and "occasional": you made a special sacrifice to Apollo and were entitled to expect some support in return (a safe journey, a healthy child...). If that didn't happen, relations could sour, as they do internationally: people apparently pelted Apollo's temple with stones--as they would a foreign embassy--when the much beloved Germanicus died.

That's not a bad analogy, actually. For the ancients, it was very much a patron-client relationship, and they even used much of the same vocabulary to describe it. On the one hand, there's a party of superior status who can be convinced to use said status to occasionally help out a party of inferior status in exchange for token gifts that reinforce his status as the superior party (even if he doesn't need the gifts, he still enjoys the attention). On the other hand, you have the inferior party who is happy to pay respects to the superior party in order to gain some benefit thereby and maybe move up in the world by association.

The Roman patron-client system pretty much worked that way, and relations with the gods were just a logical extrapolation of mortal institutions. It also explains why certain mortals--such as kings, emperors, slave-owners, heads of household, and other "patron" types--were routinely paid divine honors as if they were gods. To the worshipers, these guys were "gods" in the sense that they occupied a greatly higher status, had immense power over others, and could be persuaded to use that power benevolently in exchange for being honored in this way. There being no theology, there was no set definition of "god" outside of this sort of relationship. Now, Apollo is a being who can heal the sick--well, see if he can be persuaded to cure that fever of yours in exchange for a votive offering. Or you can promise to invite him to the barbecue next time you roast an ox (i.e. sacrifice).

Interestingly, most such offerings actually occurred after the favor was granted by the god. If you wanted something, first you would pray to one or more gods (or offer it to whatever god might be listening), you'd call them by their various names and titles, expound upon their mythic deeds, etc., and then make your offer. If the god held up his end, you'd then be obliged to make whatever gift you had promised. Of course, if the god says "no" (i.e. you don't get what you want), you're under no obligation. But if he helps you and you default on this obligation, then you might be actively punished--or, more likely, your future prayers would simply be ignored. Nobody wants to deal with a deal breaker, after all. And even though they're generally benevolent, gods are dangerous folk to have angry with you. Indeed, Apollo was equally capable of inflicting sickness...

QuoteI'm wondering though whether much didn't change historically from truly ancient Greece to the late Roman empire. I know those aniconic wooden things--but those are strictly Greek, right? I wonder if Roman religion wasn't unwaveringly anthropomorphic. (I want it to be that, coz quite frankly those wooden sticks creep me out. :D )

Good question. It used to be thought that archaic Roman religion was basically pure animism, and that they adopted iconic representations from contact with the Greeks. This idea is no longer fashionable, particularly because we haven't a shred of evidence depicting Roman religion prior to Greek influence. Sure, we know a lot of gods were probably "native" to Roman culture, others were adopted from the Etruscans (who also had a lot of contact with the Greeks), and still more were adopted once Greek culture came to be seen as hip among cultured Romans.

The short of it is that, by the time the Romans started writing things down and building in marble and stone, they had already absorbed a large amount of Greek thought and practice. Sure, there were discernible differences, but there was no ancient idea of "Roman religion" versus "Greek religion" as separate things. The differences in practice were seen in the same way as the differences between the various Greek city-states (which could be quite substantial). And the core sacrificial rituals (i.e. the really important part) are nearly identical.

As far as representation, gods in Greece or Rome could be represented in a variety of ways--some of them anthropomorphic, some abstract, some in the form of a plant or animal identified with the god. Sometimes there was just a sacred stone or tree. A particular temple of Apollo comes to mind in which the divine image was a single Corinthian column (i.e. a column with a stylized acanthus plant as the capital). In Athens, even with the lovely gold and ivory statue of Athena in the Parthenon, the most popular image of the goddess was this ancient, rough wooden thing.

Of course, you have to keep in mind that, other than priests, people didn't normally enter the temples to see the divine images. Sacrifices were held on an altar outside, while inside was both the house of the god and a treasury for the temple's assets. It might also house municipal funds, etc., since priesthoods were often also bureaucratic positions related to the local government. And it goes without saying that they didn't have pews or sermons or the like, since there were no teachings to impart. If you wanted to "butter up" a certain god, you could always procure a little image of some kind for your home alter; the only thing you really needed a priest for was as a resident expert to ensure sacrifices were done according to the preferences of the god in question.

Quote from: Black FlagThat's not a bad analogy, actually. For the ancients, it was very much a patron-client relationship, and they even used much of the same vocabulary to describe it.

Since the discussion has moved into the popular appeal of religion, it's worth noting that the cult of the saints often worked the same way.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSince the discussion has moved into the popular appeal of religion, it's worth noting that the cult of the saints often worked the same way.

One of my former professors was from Greece, and I remember her mentioning a particular saint who had the power to help out in a particular way (I can't remember the specifics). And the traditional way to solicit his attention was to say a rhyme, promising to bake his mother a cake. Then if he did his thing, you'd be obliged to bake a cake and dedicate it to his mom. No joke.

Fundamentalist movements within Christianity have often criticized the cult of the saints as being essentially pagan in nature. They're right, of course, but they're wrong in assuming that's a bad thing. Much of what "works" in Christianity is pagan in origin; if you were to actually strip away all semblance of pre-Christian practices from Christianity, the resulting skeleton would be too abstract to support an actual religious tradition.

All of popular religion is essentially votive in nature. The average person just wants some means of approaching the powers that be and getting them to lend a hand now and then. The rest is just philosophy.

Its worth noting that by a HUGE margin, the vast majority of the early artistic images of Jesus (prior to the 4th century) were NOT of Jesus on the cross, or resurrected.  They were of Jesus healing the sick, or as the good shepherd.  That was the Jesus that appealed to the rank and file of the early christians, apparently.

RPGPundit

QuoteThe average person just wants some means of approaching the powers that be and getting them to lend a hand now and then. The rest is just philosophy.

Right, so...I don't think we've really compared apples to apples in the issue that's haunting this thread: why did traditional Greco-Roman paganism fail, and why was Christianity the replacement?

(Not that I expect to answer those questions in an afternoon.)

I suppose another way of thinking about this is to ask who the decision makers were. Average people? "Intellectuals"? Soldiers? Emperors?

Quote from: Elliot WilenRight, so...I don't think we've really compared apples to apples in the issue that's haunting this thread: why did traditional Greco-Roman paganism fail, and why was Christianity the replacement?

(Not that I expect to answer those questions in an afternoon.)

Well, I think as this thread has demonstrated, that's a difficult question to answer, and there isn't a single consensus about the causes; it varies not only within the field of history but within different fields depending on which perspective you take (history, classics, archeology, art history, religious studies, etc).

My opinion is still that, ultimately, it was that Christianity offered something (both to the common plebeian and to the intellectual, but not necessarily the same something) that paganism didn't, or at least didn't anymore.

QuoteI suppose another way of thinking about this is to ask who the decision makers were. Average people? "Intellectuals"? Soldiers? Emperors?

There were different people at different stages.  By the 4th century, it was the people in power who were making the decisions, and of course if Christianity hadn't been able to penetrate those upper levels of the power elite, it would never have made it.

But for the first two and a half centuries at least, the people who were defining christianity were the more common people, the outcasts, the ex-slaves, and the rogue thinkers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenRight, so...I don't think we've really compared apples to apples in the issue that's haunting this thread: why did traditional Greco-Roman paganism fail, and why was Christianity the replacement?

It's a faulty assumption (albeit one with a long history behind it) that Greco-Roman religion "failed" and was consequently replaced by Christianity. That's centuries of Christian propaganda talking, but the actual evidence doesn't support that view. Not to mention scholars of religion and anthropology don't subscribe to an evolutionary model of religious development anymore (wherein people were thought to naturally "progress" from animism to polytheism to monotheism as they gained in sophistication).

The shift from "paganism" (for lack of a better word) to Christianity wasn't a process of natural, peaceful evolution, as many Christians today would like to believe. It wasn't inevitable, and it certainly wasn't peaceful. And the mainstream religion of the day wasn't struggling in any discernible way until it lost state support in favor of Christianity and began to experience active persecution. And yes, the persecution suffered by non-Christians under the Christian emperors was at least as bad as what the Christians themselves had previously suffered, and it went on much longer. The main difference is that "pagans" never identified themselves as any sort of unified group and consequently didn't fare as well as the Christians, who were notoriously resistant to persecution and often willing to martyr themselves for their cause.

Moreover, ideas about the supposed decadence of classical religion derive from anachronistic assumptions about what the religion was supposed to look like in its ideal form, taking Christianity as the model of how a "real" religion should look. The fact is that it was functioning in late antiquity pretty much the same way it had always functioned. And most people weren't complaining one bit.

QuoteI suppose another way of thinking about this is to ask who the decision makers were. Average people? "Intellectuals"? Soldiers? Emperors?

This is the proper question. Certain (initially insignificant) segments of society adopted Christianity, probably out of a feeling of general disenfranchisement on account of the poor social mobility in the ancient world. It's also probable that the promise of a future in which everything would be made right appealed to a lot of the "nobodies" out there on the fringes. Such people were powerless individually, but there were lots of them, and there was always the fear that they would band together and cause trouble (remember Spartacus?). Early Christians also tended to be a law unto themselves, with the more radical among them carrying out acts that would be considered terrorist today. That gave them all a bad name for a long time, but it did get them the attention of the Roman state--for better or worse.

Constantine apparently decided that this untamed force could be used in a positive way, so he stopped the persecutions and tried to play both sides for a while (the multiple interpretations of the Chi-Rho, for example). But being one of the more autocratic emperors, it was natural for him to side with the underclasses against the Senate, et al., and that meant favoring the Christians. If it's true that a large segment of his army were Christians, that would also be an important factor. As the earliest emperors discovered, at the end of the day it's the army that matters. Constantine was also trying to hold together an empire that had got a bit too large to manage by himself, so he was looking to try something new.

So in the future generations (barring Julian) when the imperial family are Christians and the lowest levels of society are becoming increasingly Christian, what you have is a situation where the (pagan) middle is being squeezed on both sides. Many segments of Roman society managed to hold out for centuries, but the highly repressive policies of the Christian emperors systematically dismantled the old pagan power structure. On the one hand, the largely pagan Senate became increasingly extraneous. On the other, pagan intellectuals, teachers, bureaucrats, and others were being pushed out of their positions in favor of Christians (keep in mind the placing of loyal slaves and freedmen in administrative positions was a common tactic among emperors to begin with). Julian tried to reverse this trend, but he died before making any lasting change.

So within a few generations, everybody who was anybody in the Roman power structure was a Christian. Naturally, the ambitious middle classes followed suit. It's very similar to what happened in Vietnam under French rule, where by the 20th century the elites were almost entirely Catholic. That doesn't indicate that Buddhism "failed" in Vietnam, so much as it shows how state support of a particular religion--especially when coupled with active repression of the competition--can lead to widespread change in a population in a relatively short time. The same thing happened in Persia after the Muslim conquest. Was Zoroastrianism naturally inferior to Islam? There's no basis for saying so (although a Muslim would no doubt agree), but institutionalized favoritism towards Muslims led to the conversion of most of the population within just a few generations, such that the largest group of Zoroastrians now resides in India.

It's also important to remember that, prior to very recently, there was no "free market of religions" in which various creeds could compete on their respective merits. Most people throughout history had little or no choice in the matter, and there were almost always economic and/or political considerations involved. And when the guy with the army said, "We're all X now," Bob the peasant wasn't in a position to argue. Sure, Bob will try to be the best X he can, but that doesn't mean the teachings of X won his heart and mind by better appealing to his personal spiritual needs.

Ah, you're putting rather a lot of weight on a single infelicitous choice of words. I suppose I could have used "succumb" instead of "fail". Nevertheless, your account shows that in the social-political environment of ancient Rome, Christianity did have inherent competitive advantages, the most significant of which were exclusivity toward other cults, the concept of being a distinct "religion", and a proselytizing impulse (rather than exclusivity toward individuals). (The same goes for Islam in the areas conquered in its name.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenAh, you're putting rather a lot of weight on a single infelicitous choice of words. I suppose I could have used "succumb" instead of "fail". Nevertheless, your account shows that in the social-political environment of ancient Rome, Christianity did have inherent competitive advantages, the most significant of which were exclusivity toward other cults, the concept of being a distinct "religion", and a proselytizing impulse (rather than exclusivity toward individuals). (The same goes for Islam in the areas conquered in its name.)

Sure, I'll admit to possibly being oversensitive to that choice of words. Not because I identify as a "pagan" myself (I'll gladly share my thoughts on neo-pagans elsewhere), but because in the field of Classics one constantly encounters outmoded assumptions about how and why Christianity won out in Rome. And it's often an uphill battle separating genuine history from Christian triumphalism.

But yes, early Christianity's group identity turned out to be a strength in the end. They more or less invented the notion of "a religion" (as a single, self-contained entity taken as a whole and contrasted with other "religions"), as well as the notion of exclusivity, religious authority, etc. Non-Christians, never having thought of themselves as belonging to a particular group identity, found themselves totally unprepared for that battle. Not that early Christianity was all that cohesive, by any means. But the orthodox church created by Constantine and his successors was certainly more organized than anything else around. Among the non-Christians, each temple and shrine was effectively autonomous. So by the time they even realized they were fighting a war, they had already lost. Sure, Julian tried to rally his own particular brand of defense, but so much had already been lost that it was probably a futile effort to begin with.

Another "strength" of the Christians was their ability to turn any death into a martyrdom and gain inspiration therefrom. And being unafraid of other people's gods, Christians were perfectly willing to desecrate holy sites, burn books, etc. In fact, thanks to them, and to the general lack of religious scriptures and records in antiquity, we'll probably always have an incomplete picture of pre-Christian religion. The Christians succeeded in wiping out 99% of what was there, effectively erasing it from history. As you mentioned, Islam was extremely successful in that regard, as well. We know next to nothing about pre-Islamic religion in Arabia, precisely because of how well the Muslim converts eradicated all trace of it upon adopting the greater Islamic group identity. In this respect, they learned from the success of the Christians, although they managed to accomplish much more in a much shorter time.

Dubious "strengths," to be sure. But in real life, it's often not the "nice guys" who win such battles. That's not to say that the non-Christians were particularly "nice" or otherwise--it's impossible to characterize them in any particular way, their having no core ideology--but their relative tolerance and acceptance of individual predilection was much more in keeping with our current values than was the orthodoxy enforced by their Christian successors. Ironically, it's also part of what did them in.

In this, it's important to remember that the old school of thought--i.e. that Christianity won because of its inherent superiority--dates from a time in our recent history when such freedom and tolerance was often not seen as a good thing, and in which an overtly competitive, evolutionary model of history was favored. To give you an idea of the intellectual climate, it was also in this period that people openly interpreted Anglo-Saxon dominance of the globe as proof of the inherent superiority of the "Nordic race." It's also the age of "White Man's burden," and so forth.

I suppose it's a given that when the victors write their own history, they'll try to come up with why their victory was inevitable, etc.

BF, most of what you say in your last two posts I basically agree with. But the bit about Constantine doing the "natural" thing when he threw in his lot with the Christians: that's your British will to common sense coming thru.

I don't think there was anything natural, i.e. politically obvious, about an aspiring Emperor hooking up with what were then still 10 percent of the populace, and a lowly 10 percent at that. Christianity wasn't yet "the people," over against "those rich old farts in the Senate." It was a tiny subgroup of the people, and as such not useful for playing the populism card at all.

I think (= I'm persuaded by Veyne) that Constantine made a huge gamble based on a personal conviction. He actually did believe in the Christian god. (On top of that, of course, he was just as shrewd, paranoid and ruthless as the next Emperor. But the history of Christian kings tells us there's no contradiction here.)

So, if one asks what drives massive historical change in this instance, one ends up saying: power (the various strengths of Christianity you've outlined) harnessed to contingency (the wacky fact that a Roman Emperor, of all people, should see the light; aided & abetted by the other fact, that Julian died after three years, not thirty).

Black Flag: I have to wonder at this point, given your fairly particular writings in these last few posts, if you aren't personally allowing issues with Christianity to cloud your vision here.

You know that I personally am NO fan of Christianity (I certainly think it ultimately did more harm than good), and could give all kinds of criticisms of both historical and modern Christianity: But first and foremost I'm an historian, and I have to say that your work here seems absolutely drenched in bias.

First, while your statement that Greco-Roman paganism didn't fail in the light of Christianity's advances is technically true in one sense, in another, far more accurate sense, that's exactly what happened. Paganism FAILED. WHY it failed is a whole other question, but the fact that we're living a Christian (some would say post-Christian) society today and not a Pagan or post-pagan society is pretty well proof of that failure.

Next, as to your particular accounts of why this came to pass: according to you, Christians were nothing but disgruntled outcasts and maniacs... until suddenly Constantine showed up and made it the state religion.
Now, that doesn't sound very plausible does it?
It seems to me that you're INTENTIONALLY skipping the whole middle part of the story of Christianity's rise: by the time Constantine got ahold of it, the reason it was worth his while to bother with Chrstianity was that by that time Christianity was NOT the domain of looneys and outcasts, and was in fact in great vogue among considerable segments of the Roman intelligentsia, beaurocracy, and upper classes.

Christianity's strength was in its promise of "salvation", its metaphysical appeal, its philosophical appeal, its progressive thinking (yes, Christianity was the progressive and radical bleeding-heart liberal movement of its time), and its emphasis on creating a better society (the "City of God"); not just in its members fanaticism or its martyrdom.

There's really way more too it than "Christians bad, pagans good", which is just as stupid a position as "pagans bad, christians good". Either of these are just a product of projecting modern issues (and usually personal issues) to history rather than looking at what actually happened.

RPGPundit

but paganism didn't just fail, it was driven out.

any thoughts of bias aside, i think BF still has a convincing argument.  

things change, and christianity was around for the change at the right time, with the right drives.  but it shouldn't be looked on as the "natural evolution" of religion, just that it managed to combine religion and philosophy into one package.

Quote from: beeberbut paganism didn't just fail, it was driven out.

any thoughts of bias aside, i think BF still has a convincing argument.  

things change, and christianity was around for the change at the right time, with the right drives.  but it shouldn't be looked on as the "natural evolution" of religion, just that it managed to combine religion and philosophy into one package.

No one is looking at it as the "natural evolution"; that's not the issue; the issue is that the success of christianity wasn't something imposed in a world that didn't feel any need to change anything, it was a product of a situation that made such a change viable because of the instability of the current religious situation.

Christianity wasn't the one that was "doomed" to win, but something was bound to change at that time.

RPGPundit

it was better organized, that seems to be the major point to me, anyway

bowing out--religion gives me a headache :confused:

It might be worth noting that even biologists don't think of evolution in terms of "progress". Given that, think about what "evolution" might mean in terms of adaptation to a given environment.

I.e., I find myself agreeing with Pundit to a fair degree.

Quoteertain (initially insignificant) segments of society adopted Christianity, probably out of a feeling of general disenfranchisement on account of the poor social mobility in the ancient world. It's also probable that the promise of a future in which everything would be made right appealed to a lot of the "nobodies" out there on the fringes. Such people were powerless individually, but there were lots of them, and there was always the fear that they would band together and cause trouble (remember Spartacus?).

Even this suggests that there was something in Roman society at the time that made it ripe for Christian inroads.

Apologies for the sketchy post; I'm pressed at work.

I'll freely admit to being no fan of Christianity in general. I'll further admit to a certain amount of devil's advocacy. And while nothing I've said on the matter is patently untrue, it's also fair to say it's not the whole story. But that's a danger of analyzing history on webfora, isn't it?

Anyway, the early Christians were not all just a bunch of losers and maniacs, although that was the initial perception of them among educated Romans. No doubt there were some of both, but there were also lots of them who just wanted to do their thing and be left alone. The younger Pliny encountered many examples of such while governing in Bithynia and was of the opinion that they were mostly harmless and even seems to have felt bad about having to torture them (which was legally required when interrogating slaves, since they were expected to lie). On the other hand, there were folks who did go around setting fire to temples and such, and those ended up giving the rest a bad name--much like Americans' view of Muslims today is determined largely by the actions of a few extremists.

Now, the shift from a religion of slaves and foreigners to one of the bureaucratic elite isn't as big a jump as it sounds. By the time of Constantine, a considerable portion of the imperial bureaucracy was in the hands of slaves and freedmen, many of whom were foreign-born and could be quite well educated. Having been appointed and enriched by the emperor, they were naturally loyal to the monarchy and ultimately (if not openly) more important to the running of the state than was the Senate, which was comprised entirely of an exclusive class of native aristocratic families.

In this sense, to say that Christianity was popular among the elites of Rome bears qualification. The patrician families would have held out the longest, since much of their claim to nobility was tied up with divine ancestry, etc., which would have been undermined entirely. Moreover, they monopolized the priesthoods of the state cult, such as the flamines and the Arval brothers, which were prestigious bureaucratic positions in their own right. The equestrian class were generally aspiring to the senatorial class, so they have no interest in subverting the power structure, either. Both groups had been largely converted by the 5th century, but early on Christianity had nothing to offer them. If anything, it threatened the power structure on which their status depended.

But subverting the old, rigid power structure of wealth and lineage was a good thing as far as those beneath them in rank were concerned. And being "beneath" someone in Roman society doesn't necessarily mean you're an illiterate shit-shoveler. Remember this is a society in which a freed slave can grow to be wealthier than the average equestrian yet still not have the rights of a citizen or be able to run for office. Actually, many of them were pillars of the local economy and might even be responsible for the municipal infrastructure, etc. So in a sense, they constitute an elite class from the perspective of other foreigners and slaves, of which there were an increasing number, and perhaps even some poor Romans. And yet they're still disenfranchised, in a legal sense. In short, if Christianity caught on among wealthy freedmen (or was retained from their days as slaves), then it could very quickly claim the devotion of a wealthy and influential class of people--many of whom came to own their own slaves, who would naturally adopt the practices of their masters.

The problem with saying Christianity had the support of the elites is that the people we usually think of as the elite classes of Rome (i.e. the senatorial and equestrian orders) seem to be the ones who most uniformly denigrated it. Of course, another problem is that they're responsible for nearly all of the literature, being the only ones with sufficient leisure time to indulge in the arts. It's given that pretty much all of Roman literature has an aristocratic bias (hence their often unflattering depiction of the emperors, under whose authority they routinely chafed). So we know that Tacitus and Pliny and their peers had little good to say about Christians, but prior to Constantine's time we don't have much in the way of pro-Christian literature.

In that sense, Christianity seems to have mostly filtered up from the lower classes and down from the imperial family. The conversion of the latter was probably the deciding factor for the aristocrats, even though it still took many of them a long time to convert (the Senate was the embodiment of ultra-conservatism, after all). But imperial favor was quite an incentive, as was the threat of losing their status to a new Christian elite.

Was the native religious tradition decadent or broken? No, not unless it was "broken" from the start. There's no sign of it breaking down prior to the advent of Christianity. And even then it had to be actively pushed out of power and destroyed with great effort and over a period of centuries. Of course, that's probably not what Constantine intended to happen (of course, I can't claim to understand Constantine's mind, which is probably a good thing). He never openly embraced Christianity himself, and he seems to have thought like a pagan, probably aiming for a sort of syncretism that would bolster a sense of unified "Roman" culture. That did eventually happen (with the syncretism more incidental than intentional), but it was a harder and bloodier road than if they had somehow managed to coexist.

The intolerance and repression came with later generations of Christian emperors who decided the only way to unify the empire was to enforce a single way of thinking by any means necessary. And it wasn't just the "pagans" that suffered; lots of early Christian sects were wiped out in that period, as well--some of which (like Arianism) had previously been considered the orthodoxy. Another question that relates to all of this is to what degree early Christianity resembled the unified religion Constantine tried to create--and further, to what degree Constantine's vision had anything to do with what orthodox Christianity eventually came to be. My guess would be that we're dealing with two, if not three, very different things. At the very least, the official state Christianity of the Roman empire is clearly a different animal from what Pliny's slaves were practicing at night in a garden in Bithynia.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI don't think there was anything natural, i.e. politically obvious, about an aspiring Emperor hooking up with what were then still 10 percent of the populace, and a lowly 10 percent at that.

...

I think (= I'm persuaded by Veyne) that Constantine made a huge gamble based on a personal conviction. He actually did believe in the Christian god.

..

So, if one asks what drives massive historical change in this instance, one ends up saying: power (the various strengths of Christianity you've outlined) harnessed to contingency (the wacky fact that a Roman Emperor, of all people, should see the light; aided & abetted by the other fact, that Julian died after three years, not thirty).

Yeah, you might be on to something there. Although some aspects of Constantine's reasons might make rational sense, for the most part they most certainly don't. And either way, it was certainly a gamble, and tenuous at that. From a historical perspective this is confounding, since it makes it harder for us to trace the causes involved. But from a human perspective it's quite normal for people to act for reasons that seem "irrational" to the outside observer (i.e. the historian).

There may be more to this one observation than in a half-dozen of my long-ass posts. :p

Quote from: Black FlagWas the native religious tradition decadent or broken? No, not unless it was "broken" from the start.

Of course it wasn't. But it's certainly true that the Greco-Roman world had changed, perhaps in ways that subverted the foundations of the native religious tradition and provided fertile ground for new cults. Or which made a certain cult especially attractive to emperors. (E.g. the ability to use an empire-wide religious hierarchy for social control. Just a thought.)

Let's review who the early fathers of the Church (and a few early christian heretics) actually were, from the 1st century AD but prior to constantine:

-Marcion: a wealthy ship-merchant.
-Tertullian: son of an equestrian
-Dionysus of Alexandria: son of a wealthy plebiean family
-Clement of Alexandria: son of a wealthy plebiean family
-Justin Martyr: unkown, but he was a landowner of some wealth obviously
-Clement of Rome: freedman
-Anthony of the Desert: Son of a wealthy plebeian family

So we have a lot of rich plebs in there; these origins clearly give you some context into just which social groups were the big movers and shakers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBut first and foremost I'm an historian, and I have to say that your work here seems absolutely drenched in bias.

Bear in mind that the whole fields of archaeology and ancient history are drenched (or at least dipped) in bias because there are often a lot of missing details to be filled in.  In the September/October 2007 issue of Archaeology is an article about a pre-Constantine site of Christian worship in Meggido that seems to turn a lot of assumptions about Roman Christianity on their head.

"The find at Megiddo is a key piece of evidence in a radical rethinking of how Christianity evolved during its first three centuries, before it was backed by the might of empire.  Until recently, scholars had to rely on ancient texts that emphasize the vicious persecution of the church---think lions dining on martyrs in Rome's Colosseum.  A growing body of archaeological data, however, paints a more diverse and surprising picture in which Christians thrived alongside Jews and the Roman military.  These finds make this a 'definitive time in our field' since they appear to contradict the literary sources on which historians have long depended, says Eric Meyers, a biblical archaeologist at Duke University."

Maybe that interpretation is wrong, too (others suggest the site should be dated later), but it's always questionable to talk with absolute certainty about a period and situation for which the evidence is actually pretty sparse.  It's often not unlike judging life in the entire United States based on a half-dozen issues of the New Yorker.

The problem with historical academia is that it suffers from being "fashion conscious", like any other field.

There'll be fads where something new is discovered, and bearing in mind that professors are desperate to "publish or perish", to show some research that is so utterly revolutionary as to justify their tenure, so they'll blow some little tiny discovery out of proportion to "prove" that cleopatra was actually ugly, or that Augustus was actually dimwitted or wasn't dimwitted or whatever; and of course in the field of religious studies these things become especially acute; where the discovery of some little shard of text or some piece of pottery is given a significance that is utterly overblown just because its the newest thing.

So what you have to do to get some kind of a real idea is to look at the whole picture, and the weight of all the details, all the evidence, and try to interpret new evidence in the light of what fits with the rest of that evidence.  If you get thousands and thousands of images and references to cleopatra's beauty, and you get a couple of coins where she doesn't look particularly attractive, its probably just that the coins aren't very well made. You don't throw away all the previous scholarship just because they've found some new fucking pottery shard.

RPGPundit

Some well-made movie had the line : "The truth doesn't matter , they'll believe the legend. "


 Anyone ever read the Michael Moorcock SF novel "Behold the Man" ?
Many of the early christianity issue and birth pangs are discussed indirectky in there.

- Ed C.

Somewhere along this interesting thread, one sub-argument/question got lost:

At the time of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, how was Christianity represented among the Legionaries? And, maybe related to that, how many Germanic and other non-Italo-Greacan troops were among them?

Was there a correlation between "Barbarian" Legionaries and christianity at that point in time?

Christianity already had made the shift from pure pacifism to allow legionaries into the faith. Maybe the impact of that shift within Christianity has had far wider consequences than much of what has been talked herein so far?

QuoteWould we still have a monotheistic set of religions?

Christianity was NOT the first monotheistic religion therefore Judaism would still survive.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;500327Christianity was NOT the first monotheistic religion therefore Judaism would still survive.

Yeah, as an obscure, minor (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) religion that doesn't proselytize, doesn't spread, and doesn't even have a claim on being the cultural ancestor of the (alternate history) world's single greatest religion.


Anyway, another question: it's often said that polytheistic religions are inherently more tolerant and accepting of other religions than monotheistic ones (duh). How would the age of discovery and the eventual founding of overseas Empires have gone without Christianity? Would White Man have been any less of a jerk?

QuoteAnyway, another question: it's often said that polytheistic religions are inherently more tolerant and accepting of other religions than monotheistic ones (duh). How would the age of discovery and the eventual founding of overseas Empires have gone without Christianity? Would White Man have been any less of a jerk?

The tolerance of polytheistic religions is best described by the catholic missionaries slaughtered by pagans - saint Wojciech for example, if anything. Romans were tolerant of religions as long as they weren't trying to spread dissent in the Empire - that's why druids were purged in Britain (that, and human sacrifice).

As for Christianity's appeal in Rome - Pundit somewhat got it right. It was a religion beloved by slaves, as it abolished slavery. It's not rocket science. That's why it spread mostly in the "novau riche" (sp?) parts of Roman social structure.

If I remember correctly, Constantine the Great shifted to Christianity mostly because of a supposed "sign from God" during the battle of Milvian Bridge, in form of a comet, and he still only did that on a deathbed.

The discussion about Constantine had reached a much higher level already, Rincewind, did you read the thread?

As to my earlier remark, I just checked it and C.'s army at the Milvian bridge consisted mostly of Britons and other Barbarians. If anybody knows how farspread christianity was among Barbarians at that time, I would be interested to find out.

Quote from: Settembrini;500361The discussion about Constantine had reached a much higher level already, Rincewind, did you read the thread?

As to my earlier remark, I just checked it and C.'s army at the Milvian bridge consisted mostly of Britons and other Barbarians. If anybody knows how farspread christianity was among Barbarians at that time, I would be interested to find out.

Oh I suspected that I'd not say anything especially new on topic of Constantine - just wanted not to appear like I am sniping that one statement like some Christianity defender ;).

I'd say that the fact that Constantine was (supposedly) awaiting a sign from Christian God, suggests that there was a fair number of Christians in his army - otherwise, wouldn't he rather look to pagan gods, the ones that his troops believed in, and whose intervention'd certainly work well for morale of the army?

Christianity could certainly take a stronghold amongst Britons, since their native faith was pretty much crushed because of it's anti - Roman sentiment.

What I appreciate about this forum is that this thread has remained fairly civil (and intellectual) instead of devolving into a flamewar about Christianity ruining society.

It has been a while since I've read anything on the subject but seem to remember Ramsay MacMullen"'s christianization of the Roman Empire being pretty illuminating. Definitely recommend to those interested in (or debating on) the subject.

Quote from: Premier;500353Yeah, as an obscure, minor (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) religion that doesn't proselytize, doesn't spread, and doesn't even have a claim on being the cultural ancestor of the (alternate history) world's single greatest religion.

That was never the intention of Judaism though unlike other large religions who want more converts and the like.  Judaism is not minor either but then again, it is your personal opinion.

It's point of scholarly contention as to whether or not ancient Jews proselytized. They may well have. It's not at all safe to assume that what is presently true has always been so. That said, minor is certainly the case, and often persecuted. Judaism might fared better through the ages if Christianity had not been so powerful, but this is hard to say with any certainty.

Christianity had few certain strong advantages over Judaism even not just in spiritual matters.

For example, abandoning circumcision and wear requirements, such as not cutting the hair etc. etc by Fathers of Church.

Quote from: Rincewind1;500398Christianity had few certain strong advantages over Judaism even not just in spiritual matters.

For example, abandoning circumcision and wear requirements, such as not cutting the hair etc. etc by Fathers of Church.

Why are those advantages???

They are certainly advantages in terms of attracting converts.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;500401Why are those advantages???

1) Harder to identify the members of the religion, therefore making persecution harder.
2) There's no ban on any particular kind of food etc. etc, which makes following the principles of the religion simpler.
3) I really think that if you had a choice between circumcision and not, the choice is rather not that hard. I, for one, like my turtleneck.

Quote from: Rincewind1;500354The tolerance of polytheistic religions is best described by the catholic missionaries slaughtered by pagans - saint Wojciech for example, if anything. Romans were tolerant of religions as long as they weren't trying to spread dissent in the Empire - that's why druids were purged in Britain (that, and human sacrifice).

As for Christianity's appeal in Rome - Pundit somewhat got it right. It was a religion beloved by slaves, as it abolished slavery. It's not rocket science. That's why it spread mostly in the "novau riche" (sp?) parts of Roman social structure.

If I remember correctly, Constantine the Great shifted to Christianity mostly because of a supposed "sign from God" during the battle of Milvian Bridge, in form of a comet, and he still only did that on a deathbed.

Is there any source for the human sacrifice thing other than Ceasar's description of it?

It's not directly linked to the druids, but there is definitely archeological evidence of human sacrifice in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. The bog men are probably the most famous examples.

Quote from: Cranewings;500408Is there any source for the human sacrifice thing other than Ceasar's description of it?

My understanding is there is some archaelogical evidence and accounts other than caesar's (though I don't know how many are merely repeating caesar's claims later and how many are additional eye witness accounts).

Quite a few, including Caesar's contemporary, Cicero. Plino the Elder is synonymous with "I am pulling this out of my ass" when it comes to medicine of the Ancients, but he was a decent enough historian. Best that Pundit speak up on that topic. Though supposedly mainland Celts shared such practices with their British brethren, and druidism was mostly exterminated because druids actively stirred the population for rebellion.

It was not until 54 AD that druidism was banned and exterminated actively - many years into the Empire.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;500401Why are those advantages???

Surgically removing part of the penis.  On adult men.  Without anesthetic.  You tell me how it's not an advantage.

Quote from: Rincewind1;5004041) Harder to identify the members of the religion, therefore making persecution harder.
2) There's no ban on any particular kind of food etc. etc, which makes following the principles of the religion simpler.
3) I really think that if you had a choice between circumcision and not, the choice is rather not that hard. I, for one, like my turtleneck.

HA HA HA HA, as a practicing Jew, you are just too funny....LOL

Proof positive that 3 year old threads are more useful.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;500433HA HA HA HA, as a practicing Jew, you are just too funny....LOL

Keep on digging that hole for yourself.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;500433HA HA HA HA, as a practicing Jew, you are just too funny....LOL

What are you laughing about? All of Rincewind's points are valid.

1) The presence or non-presence of circumcision has been used to identify and persecute Jewish people in the past. It was done in the ancient world, and it's been done in the past century. In terms of gaining converts and spreading the religion during periods of persecution, it is definitely an advantage to forgo circumcision.

2) The requirement to eat certain foods can pose large problems for some of the very same reasons. It's more difficult to integrate with the dominant culture (or hide among it, if need be) if you cannot eat the same foods as people in the dominant culture.

3) When it comes to attracting adult converts, the requirement for circumcision is unquestionably a barrier for entry, and this has historically been the dividing line between a truly dedicated convert and someone who is simply a sympathizer.

Either keep to the original topic or say goodbye.

Quote from: Settembrini;500361As to my earlier remark, I just checked it and C.'s army at the Milvian bridge consisted mostly of Britons and other Barbarians. If anybody knows how farspread christianity was among Barbarians at that time, I would be interested to find out.

Not widespread at all.
 
The following is taken from the "original" Catholic Encyclopedia. The other two (or more?) Catholic Encyclopedias available online suffer from undocumented updates, additions, and deletions to the text.
 
Original Catholic Encyclopedia  (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Constantine_the_Great)
In all directions new and vigorous national forces began to show themselves. Only two policies were possible: either to give way to the various national movements, or to take a firm stand on the foundation of antiquity, to revive old Roman principles, the ancient military severity, and the patriotism of Old Rome. Several emperors had tried to follow this latter course, but in vain. It was just as impossible to bring men back to the old simplicity as to make them return to the old pagan beliefs and to the national form of worship. Consequently, the empire had to identify itself with the progressive movement, employ as far as possible the existing resources of national life, exercise tolerance, make concessions to the new religious tendencies, and receive the Germanic tribes into the empire. This conviction constantly spread, especially as Constantine's father had obtained good results there from. In Gaul, Britain, and Spain, where Constantius Chlorus ruled, peace and contentment prevailed, and the prosperity of the provinces visibly increased, while in the East prosperity was undermined by the existing confusion and instability. But it was especially in the western part of the empire that the veneration of Mithras predominated. Would it not be possible to gather all the different nationalities around his altars? Could not Sol Deus Invictus, to whom even Constantine dedicated his coins for a long time, or Sol Mithras Deus Invictus, venerated by Diocletian and Galerius, become the supreme god of the empire? Constantine may have pondered over this. Nor had he absolutely rejected the thought even after a miraculous event had strongly influenced him in favor of the God of the Christians.
In deciding for Christianity he was no doubt also influenced by reasons of conscience—reasons resulting from the impression made on every unprejudiced person both by the Christians and by the moral force of Christianity, and from the practical knowledge which the emperors had of the Christian military officers and state officials. These reasons are, however, not mentioned in history, which gives the chief prominence to a miraculous event. Before Constantine advanced against his rival Maxentius, according to ancient custom he summoned the haruspices, who prophesied disaster; so reports a pagan panegyrist. But when the gods would not aid him, continues this writer, one particular god urged him on, for Constantine had close relations with the divinity itself. Under what form this connection with the deity manifested itself is told by Lactantius (De mort. persec., ch. xliv) and Eusebius (Vita Const., I, xxvi-xxxi). He saw, according to the one in a dream, according to the other in a vision, a heavenly manifestation, a brilliant light in which he believed he descried the cross or the monogram of Christ. Strengthened by this apparition, he advanced courageously to battle, defeated his rival, and won the supreme power. It was the result that gave to this vision its full importance, for when the emperor afterwards reflected on the event it was clear to him that the cross bore the inscription: HOC VINCES (in this sign wilt thou conquer). A monogram combining the first letters, X and P, of the name of Christ (XPIMTOE), a form that cannot be proved to have been used by Christians before, was made one of the tokens of the standard and placed upon the Labarum (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Labarum) (q.v.). In addition, this ensign was placed in the hand of a statue of the emperor at Rome, the pedestal of which bore the inscription: "By the aid of this salutary token of strength I have freed my city from the yoke of tyranny and restored to the Roman Senate and People the ancient splendor and glory." ...

I, for one, am going to take a stab at a four year old question that wasn't touched in the Alt History catagory, the presence or lack of Islam in a world where christianity never existed.

Now, without a doubt Mohammed would have lived. From a purely secular view of the world (that is, no Allah driving him, no God protecting Jesus...) in line with the original thread, he would still have been a moralizing guy experiencing some visions.   Would he have gone straight monothesist out the box?

That's really a sharp question, as many of his earlier influences were strongly bastardized monothesist philosophies that could be called bastardized christianity.   I think he would have continued on a similar path he did, however, even lacking the monothesistic influences in Mecca. I'll address this in a bit.

The key point is that Mohammed was in a political conflict with the ruling tribe of Mecca (which was a religious pilgrimage site even before Islam) and was driven out of Mecca with his followers for that reason, not for his beliefs.

In the secular world view, Mohammed would still have been a political agitator with followers and would still be driven from Mecca by The Man, and simple geography would put him in Medina as a result.

In Medina at the time was a large and old Jewish community. We can argue, as some historians do, about the authenticity of the Medinan Jews, but they can and would exist without christianity, and Mohammed would have met them, learned from them, and allied with them and ultimately betrayed them as he did.

Thus I think it safe to say that Islam would have existed, and probably in a form not too dissimilar in the gross details, as it does today in this alternate history.  Lacking those early monotheist teachers in Mecca there would probably be some changes in the underlying mythology of Islam, maybe less emphasis on a single all knowing God, maybe not.  But ultimately, whatever drove Mohammed in his teachings and the ultimate form of Islam owes far less to christianity than to mohammed himself.


Thus, how a lack of christianity influences the rise and spread of Islam is far more relevant than a question about wether or not Islam would exist.

And that is about as far as I care to dive into creating Alt History. I love reading it, but I prefer to leave the work to experts.

Malleus,

that is fine and dandy, but I am not sure the question as to wht the Barbarian Legionaries believed mostly at the time is adressed in the excerpt you posted. In fact, barbarian officers being christians is mentioned, right?

So it is not incoceivable that among Constantine seeing the light, maybe the barbarian Legionaries were in favor of Christendom, or at least a sizable element.
So, where the Legions go, the Empire goes? In more general terms, there are many arguments supporting that hypothesis. I utterly just do not know if it could work for religion, too. So if anybody has some more insight, I gladly appreciate.

That would narrow down the underlying question of what is driving change in history to what happened with the Legions ethnically, socially and spiritually. It seems to me, a more attainable question than the general idea of the Empire being "ripe for (new) religion".

The ethnical and social changes in the roman military are way easier explainable by material and positive arguments than say, the whole of the society.

Quote from: two_fishes;5004423) When it comes to attracting adult converts, the requirement for circumcision is unquestionably a barrier for entry, and this has historically been the dividing line between a truly dedicated convert and someone who is simply a sympathizer.

This was in fact one of the first major conflicts of the early christian movement: James (Jesus' brother and leader of the community after him) and ALL of the other disciples agreed that gentiles could become followers of Christ but had to be circumcised, on the one hand.  Paul, a guy who had never actually met Jesus and had no authority in the early church and had in fact been actively persecuting Christians until a recent bout of sunstroke, was of the opinion that you did not need to be circumcised.

The argument was so intense that apparently the disciples wanted to kill Paul and he had to go into hiding.   Eventually he managed to get one guy over to his side, Peter, who was not in any way the leader of the church in Jerusalem (again, that would be James, Jesus' brother). What he did to convince Peter is up for debate, I personally think he played into the idea of a "universal religion" that transcended jewish mysticism on the one hand, and took advantage of maybe some jealousy or lust for authority on Peter's behalf on the other; Peter might have felt flattered by just how much Paul would actually NEED him, as Paul would be desperate for a real disciple to give his sect a sense of legitimacy.

Anyways, the rest is history; Christianity went from an obscure Jewish sect that very few were willing to join, into a huge and massively growing movement in only a couple of decades, because Paul said "you don't have to stop eating pork and you don't have to get your foreskins cut off, you just need to believe in Jeebus!".

RPGPundit

The Germans, including the significant numbers of barbarian troops in the legions by then, were very strongly Arian Christian.  At the time of Constantine, Arian Christianity was BY FAR the largest branch of Christianity, specifically because it had found great success spreading throughout the german territories.  Pauline/Proto-catholic christianity, on the other hand, was largely a small affair by comparison, popular among the successful elements of the plebeian class, while Mithraism/Sol Invictus was extremely popular among the proper Roman element of the Legions, particularly the officer classes.

RPGpundit

Thanks Pundit, if indeed the Germanic/barbarian Legionaries were mostly Arian Christians at the battle of the Milvian bridge, my hypothesis is at least plausible.

Quote from: HinterWelt;124763Christ dies as a child falling down a well or run over by horses and the effect would be?

Arguably minimal. There were a lot of monotheistic cults burbling along. One of them wins the memetic war instead, and the same socio-memetic pressures lead it to become dominant in Western Europe.

Arguably extreme, to the degree that it's pretty much impossible to predict what the world looks like today. The Roman Empire still falls, of course, but if we imagine Western Europe as a big box full of lots of disparate elements that was shaken up for a couple of centuries around the fall of the Roman Empire, after which a handful of those elements shot out in random directions to establish the Western world as we know it today... well, it doesn't take much imagination to realize that eliminating Christianity completely changes the contents of that box. There's really no way to figure out what shoots out instead or how it shoots out.

Quote from: Settembrini;500590Thanks Pundit, if indeed the Germanic/barbarian Legionaries were mostly Arian Christians at the battle of the Milvian bridge, my hypothesis is at least plausible.

I feel like I should clarify, that I could not qualify as definite the statement "most german legionaries were Arian Christians".

I'm certain that "most Arian Christians were germans"
That "most christians in 312 were Arians"
That "an extremely significant number of german (and other "barbaric european") legionaires were Arian Christians".

But I couldn't quite say and don't really think that the data I've seen conclusively proves that most of said german legionaries were Christians at all, at that time.
Its within the realm of the possible, though.
There's also the extremely likelihood that the spread of Arian christianity was not even; "missionaries" promoting the new religion may have ended up in certain villages, certain tribes, and certain legions; meaning that it could be that individual UNITS of barbarian legionaries were mostly or even entirely christian, while others were not.
Not being a roman military historian, I have very little offhand knowledge of what the composition of either Constantine or Maxentius' forces would have been like in 312; its possible if you want to attribute Constantine's moves to strategic/political expediency that he realized that most of HIS forces in particular were Arians, and that adopting a christian symbol/cause would make them fight better; I don't know.

RPGPundit

In short, Paul was the difference between messianic Judaism and contemporary Christianity.  Makes sense, though I don't know enough of the history of Christianity to tell if what Pundy says is true.  I do recall Paul being quite violently opposed to circumcision, however, lamenting that those advocating it did not "go the whole way" and fully castrate themselves.  Funny that we still practice it in America, though, but that's another can of worms.

Did Constantine ask for the usual pre - battle oracle divination? I am unsure if intestines divination was still in practice, but if Constantine did not ask for such, it'd be another signal that his force was, if not dominated by Christian troops, that Christian elements were at least very influential in it.

Pundit,

my hypothesis would not be as simplistic as assuming Constantine was a Christian just to please some of his Legions or parts thereof.
But that the Christianization of the empire itself would be a lot easier to explain once it was the Legions who where the main drivers of change.

So, let's stick with Constantine being a true believer*:
How can a whole empire be converted? Well, better have the backing of the Legions. Or in another way: Could Constantine take up a faith openly against the will of the Legions?

And my hypothesis is rather weak and says: the role of Christianity at 312 in the Legions seems very important, and it narrows many of the big questions down. If we can explain how Christianity gained foothold in the barbaric Legions, we might be a lot closer to a theory of how Christendom became the late Empires state religion.

Maybe in some version/interpretation/practice it had become a warrior's religion? Pundit what is your say on that? I have no clue about Arianism as a practice.

As to the makeup of the army at the Bridge:
Zosimus II, 15, I. says "C. had gathered troops from the dependent Barbarians, Germanic, Celts and Britannic".


(just to reinforce: BAPTISM just before death is AFAIK an insurance policy, he  was a Chrisitian and not a pagan way before his deathbed. Baptism, of  course and its point in life is a great theological problem to this very day. Compare how the Pope did away with Limbo just recently and why. Baptism  "washes away ALL your sins", so it is smart to postpone it, albeit a bit  of a gamble. Very common practice, though.)

Quote from: B.T.;500691In short, Paul was the difference between messianic Judaism and contemporary Christianity.  Makes sense, though I don't know enough of the history of Christianity to tell if what Pundy says is true.  I do recall Paul being quite violently opposed to circumcision, however, lamenting that those advocating it did not "go the whole way" and fully castrate themselves.  Funny that we still practice it in America, though, but that's another can of worms.

That's for completely different reasons.  The popularity of circumcision in north america today is a remnant of a certain fanaticism that came up only in relatively recent times (19th-early 20th centuries) when our obsession with hygiene led to the belief that circumcision was more hygienic, and especially that circumcision discouraged masturbation.   Neither of which, as I understand it, are strictly true; they were just products of victorian thinking.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Settembrini;500758Maybe in some version/interpretation/practice it had become a warrior's religion? Pundit what is your say on that? I have no clue about Arianism as a practice.

As to the makeup of the army at the Bridge:
Zosimus II, 15, I. says "C. had gathered troops from the dependent Barbarians, Germanic, Celts and Britannic".

Good quote.  As for the other bit, it has been one of the great obsessions of religious historians to ask exactly why Christianity, and more specifically Arian Christianity, enjoyed such popularity with the northern european roman provincials. Some have speculated that it was a more "warrior-friendly" christianity, but I've never totally bought the argument, or at least never seen something that I found sufficiently convincing.  I suspect that there's some piece of the puzzle that's missing there.

What I have no doubt about is that the ultimate success of Christianity is ironically very much connected to the success  of Arius (or more accurately, Ulfilas) in converting the european barbarians.  Not that it did much good to the Arians.

RPGPundit

I suspect a different monotheist religion would eventually overtake the Roman empire, possibly with less Jewish influence.  Without Christianity, if Islam existed it would be different too.

My best guess is that the Romans would have a Sol Invictus type monotheist religion, resembling a slightly more martial version of post-Nicaea Christianity, but probably with less deep-seated support.  It might not do as well at converting the invading northern barbarians (Germans), but I suspect they would still tend to convert over time, with a lot of syncretism - Sol Invictus would gain more elements of Thor than you see in Christianity.  It would also be less well suited for a things-going-wrong, collapsing Empire.  I disagree with Gibbon's view that Christianity itself significantly weakened the empire.  You would have a Sol-type martial religion for the elite, but mystery cults like Isis would still be widespread.

Eventually there would be a major invasion from the east by barbarians with their own monotheist or dualist religion, probably with heavy Zoroastrian influence.  The Germanic barbarians might be more likely to convert; the exact borders of east & west would certainly be different.

Whether it would "do worse" or "do as well" at handling the collapse of empire as Christianity did would depend less upon the theology of the alternate monotheistic religion, and more on whether it instituionally enacted something similar to what the Christian religion did in hijacking the bureaucratic management of the empire.  There is nothing in the theology of the Christian faith that made it so important in the dark ages that was more crucial than the mere fact that the structure of the Catholic church itself was basically the imperial bureaucracy co-opted in religious form.

That's why I don't have a problem in my Albion campaign presenting a world very similar to our own history's only with the Sol Invictus cult being the dominant european monotheistic religion; I simply assumed that they took over the role of Pontifex and the imperial bureaucracy in a very similar way to how Christianity did it.   So you end up with a fairly different (though in some ways similar) theology but an extremely similar institution of "the church".  Its just the Church of the Sun instead of the "church of the son of god".

RPGPundit

Just listened to a nice talk about the Pelagian controversy. Curiously, from the point of early Christian theology, the reverse of what we discuss here was sipposedly a major problem:

The Empire took up Christianity but Rome was sacked! The schock! Why did god put them into misery? That needed to explained away some way or the other.

Quote from: Settembrini;500542Malleus,
 
that is fine and dandy, but I am not sure the question as to wht the Barbarian Legionaries believed mostly at the time is adressed in the excerpt you posted. In fact, barbarian officers being christians is mentioned, right?

Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush. The Western barbarians followed Mithras, a warrior God with a magic lantern and knife, a love of caves, and a whole cosmology built around drinking bull semen. Constantine followed Mithras durring and after his miraculous Christian vision, as evidenced by Constantine's coinage and his death bed conversion. Mithras was a popular religion amongst the fighting men, but fataly unpopular with women.
 

QuoteSo it is not incoceivable that among Constantine seeing the light, maybe the barbarian Legionaries were in favor of Christendom, or at least a sizable element.

Constantine not so much. He presented himself as a tolerant guy and avoided becoming Christian until his deathbed. So there's not much pull there. But by all acounts, the honour that he gave to his devoutly Christian mother helped de-stigmatize the religion.
 

QuoteSo, where the Legions go, the Empire goes? In more general terms, there are many arguments supporting that hypothesis. I utterly just do not know if it could work for religion, too. So if anybody has some more insight, I gladly appreciate.

Early Christianity was based in the city, and it spread from the energy and prosparity of the cities to the country. There's alot of doom and gloom in the Evangelical Christian press right now because currently the situation is reversed -- currently Evangelical Christianity is strongest outside the cities.
 

QuoteThat would narrow down the underlying question of what is driving change in history to what happened with the Legions ethnically, socially and spiritually. It seems to me, a more attainable question than the general idea of the Empire being "ripe for (new) religion".
 
The ethnical and social changes in the roman military are way easier explainable by material and positive arguments than say, the whole of the society.

If I recall correctly, as the legionares returned to the cities they gradualy took up the religion of their wives, slaves, and neighbors, just as Constantine did on his deathbed.

Quote from: Rincewind1;500695Did Constantine ask for the usual pre - battle oracle divination? I am unsure if intestines divination was still in practice, but if Constantine did not ask for such, it'd be another signal that his force was, if not dominated by Christian troops, that Christian elements were at least very influential in it.

Constantine turned to Christianity for a miracle only after the oracles and priests from the popular religions pronounced doom. Christianity was his religion of last resort.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;501406Constantine turned to Christianity for a miracle only after the oracles and priests from the popular religions pronounced doom. Christianity was his religion of last resort.

I did remember reading about such a thing, but I wasn't sure. It all sounds a bit like a classic savvy tactician's trick to me then. Ancient warfare, similarly to Napoleonic, relied really heavily on morale, as it was needed to keep the discipline.

Quote from: Rincewind1;501410I did remember reading about such a thing, but I wasn't sure. It all sounds a bit like a classic savvy tactician's trick to me then. Ancient warfare, similarly to Napoleonic, relied really heavily on morale, as it was needed to keep the discipline.

I don't know how it really happened, but I always imagine him lining up all his false idols and going down the row giving each one the Conan prayer. "And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!"

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;501424I don't know how it really happened, but I always imagine him lining up all his false idols and going down the row giving each one the Conan prayer. "And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!"

It might had. In Constantine's case, there's an odd thing that they actually found a crater from a meteor that might've been the omen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3013146.stm

Otherwise, well...we all know that most of those "Famous Uplifting Speeches" were usually retconned in the chronicles :P.

Most of them were probably a variation of "Dogs, would you live forever?" combined with jokes about the other side.

Quote from: Settembrini;501265Just listened to a nice talk about the Pelagian controversy. Curiously, from the point of early Christian theology, the reverse of what we discuss here was sipposedly a major problem:

The Empire took up Christianity but Rome was sacked! The schock! Why did god put them into misery? That needed to explained away some way or the other.

Most definitely, but that's another story.  I could easily see a kind of christian triumphalism up till that point. It would have made sense, everything was going according to plan. They were being given the keys to the empire.  But then god turns around has has that empire go to shit.

End result? The City of God.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;501215There is nothing in the theology of the Christian faith that made it so important in the dark ages that was more crucial than the mere fact that the structure of the Catholic church itself was basically the imperial bureaucracy co-opted in religious form.

We-ell... I don't know how important it was that Christianity started as a pacifist & underdog religion with an emphasis on enduring suffering.  I do think though that Martial religions rely on Martial success.  A monotheism without a patiently-enduring-suffering aspect would thus seem likely to be less popular in a declining empire.  Also, at an earlier stage Christianity was initially popular with, and spread by, the educated urban women of the Mediterranean Roman empire.  I think its popularity with women was (and is) important to its success, and again a more purely martial religion won't have that aspect.  For all I know there may be evidence of Sol Invictus having those 2 aspects (enduring suffering, feminine) but I haven't seen it.

Finally, would Charles Martel have triumphed under the sign of Sol Invictus at Tours/Poitiers, fighting Zoroastrian Arab invaders? I have no idea.

Quote from: S'mon;501591Also, at an earlier stage Christianity was initially popular with, and spread by, the educated urban women of the Mediterranean Roman empire.  I think its popularity with women was (and is) important to its success

That's pretty highly contested. As far as I know there's no very clear evidence that Christianity was any more popular with women than any other movement or religion. A lot of early Christian literature featured women prominently, but that probably has a lot more to do with genre conceits--they bear a lot of resemblance to Greek Romance novels--than any historical circumstance.

Quote from: S'mon;501591We-ell... I don't know how important it was that Christianity started as a pacifist & underdog religion with an emphasis on enduring suffering.  I do think though that Martial religions rely on Martial success.  A monotheism without a patiently-enduring-suffering aspect would thus seem likely to be less popular in a declining empire.

A number of non-christian philosophies and hermetic theologies of the time had similar concepts.
I think that the traits you mention are over-emphasized for Christianity's success over certain other things, like the universality (as in, not just a male mystery or a female mystery, and spreading a message of spiritual equality between the lowest and highest of people) and deeply personal aspects of the faith (you didn't have to be a hero or a noble to be paid attention to by Jesus), and the intellectualism of the faith (there were many other new religions at the time that were intellectual, but this was a big selling point for a certain class of adopter).  I think mainly it was the spiritual promise of the religion that caused such appeal.

QuoteAlso, at an earlier stage Christianity was initially popular with, and spread by, the educated urban women of the Mediterranean Roman empire.  I think its popularity with women was (and is) important to its success, and again a more purely martial religion won't have that aspect.  For all I know there may be evidence of Sol Invictus having those 2 aspects (enduring suffering, feminine) but I haven't seen it.

Mithraism was exclusively male, but the Sol Invictus cult (which had many iterations over the years) had widespread male and female appeal.  It was adopted as acceptable to romans far earlier than Christianity, so it really didn't need to be spread around in secret.
Also there is no question that women were a very important demographic in early christianity, but there is a lot of question as to just how important, how much of the spread was due to that class of women you talk about.

QuoteFinally, would Charles Martel have triumphed under the sign of Sol Invictus at Tours/Poitiers, fighting Zoroastrian Arab invaders? I have no idea.

I would assume so; but I very much doubt that the Arab invaders would be zoroastrians.  My theory as applied in Albion is that another kind of monotheism (probably still inspired by judaism) would have taken hold in the arab world had Islam not arisen.

RPGPundit

Its like I never posted my analysis of how Islam would be largely recognizable to us if Christianity hadn't existed...

I know its not very sexeh alt-history wise, but I did think it was insightful and logically laid out.

Names would be different, some points of structure would change, most of the core values and "look" would be the same, yes.

RPGPundit