WI: Julian the Apostate lives.

Teshuvah

Banned
Hello all! :)

I'm new to the AH board, so I thought I'd start off with a discussion of one of my favorite what-ifs: what if Julian the Apostate, the last non-Christian emperor of the Roman Empire, had lived another 20 years or so? Would he have succeeded in removing Christianity in his "pacifist" way, or would he adopt a more hardline approach? I wrote a timeline about this a while back, but it was very ASB.
 

Mr Qwerty

Are we assuming he doesn't attack Parthia or (somehow) wins there? Either way, I suspect the overall history wouldn't be much different. Christianity was already dominant and would pick up persecuting polytheists and heretics after he died. Might have affected the church/state dynamic a bit though.
 

mailinutile2

He is murdered before the year has expired.
Don't make the last pagan author's elegy fool you, the people hated him.
And after the parthian fluke, the army hated him as well
 

RyuDrago

I guess it was impossible. At Julian's times the Church was too involved in the Empire's affairs to accept the risk to return to an ante-313 situation; and hardly his successor could be a pagan.
 

Earl_of_Somerset

Banned
I dont think Julian even had a successor, wouldn't it just be another person realted to constantine who was christian to succede him?
 

mailinutile2

Jovian was chosen since he was in the army, he was quite popular, he was related to big "C", and he was able to strike a bargain with the persians which allowed the amy to get out from the mess Julian had put it
 

mailinutile2

RyuDrago said:
I guess it was impossible. At Julian's times the Church was too involved in the Empire's affairs to accept the risk to return to an ante-313 situation; and hardly his successor could be a pagan.
Click to expand...

Really, it is more than that.
Even letting aside the church influence (and that's a pretty big "Even"), most of the people at the time firmly believed in the immanent presence of the Divinity and judged the wordly affairs in terms of divine favour (if successful) or grudge (if not).
Divine Retribution was not an abstract concept or something to wait at the end of times, but a quotidian event that matter-of-fact men could clearly see in heartquakes, famines, pestilences and lost wars.
And how the Divinity related to the Empire depended ultimately from the Emperor.
Thus Julian was not simply preceived as someone sticking to outmoded traditions, and not even as an heretical wicked man.
Worse: he was perceived as a real and concrete danger for his population, since his foolish conduct risked to to bring the divine wrath against his subjects.
If you want a modern-day comparison, think what people would think of a POTUS which likes to fiddle with the rocket-launching Red Button.
 
Last edited:

MerryPrankster

Mailnutile2,

How many Roman citizens would take that position enough to act on it?

IIRC the Roman armies had no problem engaging in Christian rites under Christian empires and pagan rites under Julian, so they were rather...flexible. And it's them who'd be the main danger to him.
 

Mikestone8

Trouble is, it just puts things back to where they were under Diocletian and Constantrine. Even then, the Christian Church proved too deep rrooted for the government to suppress, hence the abandonment of the Persecution in 311, a year before the Milvian Bridge. Constantine then took the logical next step of "If you caint beat 'em, join 'em".

Julian can only put things back to where they were on the eve of the MB, but with the added disadvantage that Christianity has been top dog for fifty years, and two whole generations have grown up under Christian rule, so Christians are far more numerous and confident now than in 312. If Diocletian couldn't beat them, Julian certainly can't.
 

Earl_of_Somerset

Banned
I think is reign is doomed to be short. Too many christians were around at this time, i bet someone could start a coup and become emperor.
 

Basileus Giorgios

Generally agree with the comments that Julian was an unpopular and delusional ruler who'll be overthrown quite quickly anyway, but...

His survival doesn't mean a collapse of Christianity. His strategy was to let the faith destroy itself by refraining from sponsoring a single creed, and letting competing bishoprics go to war. In practice though, without Imperial support for one version, theological disputes are going to be cooled down a hell of a lot. A surviving Julian therefore is more likely to mean a more diverse, tolerant and generally succesful Christianity than OTL!
 

Mikestone8

MerryPrankster said:
Julian did not want to exterminate Christianity, though, but Diocletian did.

His task is a lot easier.
Click to expand...


How so?

If the Christian Church is too deeply rooted to eradicate, then only two choices remain. In the immortal words of Lyndon B Johnson, they must either be inside the tent p---ing out or else outside the tent p---ing in.

How long before one of Julian's successors decides that the former is preferable to the latter?
 
Last edited:

mailinutile2

MerryPrankster said:
Mailnutile2,

How many Roman citizens would take that position enough to act on it?

IIRC the Roman armies had no problem engaging in Christian rites under Christian empires and pagan rites under Julian, so they were rather...flexible. And it's them who'd be the main danger to him.
Click to expand...

Many.
Just read the historians to see how incredibly superstitious they were.
And the thing is even more evident if you consider that the historians themselves were rich, educated peoples.
Also Julian was hated by the christians, but was somewhat of an embarassing for the pagans too.
The traditional religion was trying to slow or reverse its decline by adopting some of the principles that made the christian faith so popular, and reviewing its ritual from the old animal sacrifice toward a more intimistic and "felt" prayer ritual, using some of Apollonius of Tyana preaching as a basis.
Julian flatly refused that position, and his obsession for mass animal sacrifices (holocausts) was realy not understood by his subject (even pagan ones), who, expecially among lower class strata, ridiculized him referring to him with the nickname of "the butcher".
 
Last edited:

MerryPrankster

mailinutile2 said:
Many.
Just read the historians to see how incredibly superstitious they were.
Click to expand...

And they can all die at the hands of the legions if they try to storm his palace.

The army didn't revolt when he had them commit pagan rites, after all, and as one of the Severans said, it's their opinion that matters.
 

mailinutile2

MerryPrankster said:
And they can all die at the hands of the legions if they try to storm his palace.

The army didn't revolt when he had them commit pagan rites, after all, and as one of the Severans said, it's their opinion that matters.
Click to expand...

The army was supertitious as well.
Even more, it had a tradition of being it, from the ancient time pullarius and going on.
They stood with him while he was winning but there were many bellies aching
 

Mikestone8

mailinutile2 said:
The army was supertitious as well.
Even more, it had a tradition of being it, from the ancient time pullarius and going on.
They stood with him while he was winning but there were many bellies aching
Click to expand...


And does the Roman Army matter in the long run? It's not going to exist forever.

Within another fifty years it will be composed mainly of Berbarians, who may not all be Christian (though quite a few are) , but in any event have little interest in traditional Roman polytheism. If they want a heathen religion they already have theirn own.
 

MerryPrankster

Mikestone8 said:
And does the Roman Army matter in the long run? It's not going to exist forever.

Within another fifty years it will be composed mainly of Berbarians, who may not all be Christian (though quite a few are) , but in any event have little interest in traditional Roman polytheism. If they want a heathen religion they already have theirn own.
Click to expand...

Julian ruled from Constantinople. That did not happen, to my knowledge in the East for quite awhile afterward.

(Everyone inviting the Turks in to use them against their enemies. Post-1071.)
 

Mikestone8

MerryPrankster said:
Julian ruled from Constantinople. That did not happen, to my knowledge in the East for quite awhile afterward.
Click to expand...


So did Theodosius rule from Constantinople. Didn't stop the Western Empire falling during his sonss' reign. No reason to think Julian's sucessors do noticeably better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top