WI: Julian the Apostate not killed in Persia

DaVinciCode · Feb 25, 2012

Julian the Apostate was well known in Roman history for being the last pagen Emperor of Rome. However, he was killed fighting in Persia in 363. Let's say that, for whatever reason, he does not get wounded. How does this affect his campaign and Rome?

The Spitfire017 · Feb 25, 2012

Rome was very Christianized by this point, and Julian wasn't really liked for his mission to bring back pagan Rome. If he did survive he most likely would try to continue his program of reviving paganism, and I can see him eventually be kicked out or assassinated.

Malta · Feb 25, 2012

The East and a few Urban centers in the West were partiall Christianized by this point. In Gaul and the Germanies, Julian fought against a Almanni chief who had converted to the Isis mystery faith. He opposed his fratricide happy family members and secured Gaul against attacks, then lead a atl successful campaign to beat Rome's main rival? He would be quite popular. The only ones who would be sour with his reign of course would be the Christian (namely those sects he kicked out their bureaucrats).

Upon his return he would have consolidated his reign and went to work on containing Christanity and probably inventing his own religious take.

The Spitfire017 · Feb 25, 2012

King of Malta said:
The East and a few Urban centers in the West were partiall Christianized by this point. In Gaul and the Germanies, Julian fought against a Almanni chief who had converted to the Isis mystery faith. He opposed his fratricide happy family members and secured Gaul against attacks, then lead a atl successful campaign to beat Rome's main rival? He would be quite popular. The only ones who would be sour with his reign of course would be the Christian (namely those sects he kicked out their bureaucrats).

Upon his return he would have consolidated his reign and went to work on containing Christanity and probably inventing his own religious take.

The OP said if he doesn't die, which doesn't mean that he would be successful in Persia. He still might have lost his military campaign.
Even if he was to become popular in Rome, Christianity was still a sizable portion of Roman citizens. It could cause a lot of social and religious conflicts.
Now, I honestly don't know a lot about this period of Roman history but, would you say that the Roman empire would have lasted longer if Julian the Apostate survived and continued his program of pagan revival?

CandyDragon · Feb 25, 2012

The Spitfire017 said:
The OP said if he doesn't die, which doesn't mean that he would be successful in Persia. He still might have lost his military campaign.
Even if he was to become popular in Rome, Christianity was still a sizable portion of Roman citizens. It could cause a lot of social and religious conflicts.
Now, I honestly don't know a lot about this period of Roman history but, would you say that the Roman empire would have lasted longer if Julian the Apostate survived and continued his program of pagan revival?

I hate to be so coarse by: CHRISTIANITY DID NOT CAUSE THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

Escalating intereligious strife by supporting paganism would destroy the empire from the inside

DaVinciCode · Feb 25, 2012

The Spitfire017 said:
The OP said if he doesn't die, which doesn't mean that he would be successful in Persia. He still might have lost his military campaign.
Even if he was to become popular in Rome, Christianity was still a sizable portion of Roman citizens. It could cause a lot of social and religious conflicts.
Now, I honestly don't know a lot about this period of Roman history but, would you say that the Roman empire would have lasted longer if Julian the Apostate survived and continued his program of pagan revival?

Forgot about that. Assume the campaign is mildly successful.

The Spitfire017 · Feb 25, 2012

CandyDragon said:
I hate to be so coarse by: CHRISTIANITY DID NOT CAUSE THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

Escalating intereligious strife by supporting paganism would destroy the empire from the inside

I know!!!!!!!!! It was a lot more than that. (I prescribe to the military theories for collapse) I am a classics major, but the fall of the Western Empire is not my specialty. Late Republic-Early to mid empire is.

The King of Malta seemed to say that if Julian did survive, his pagan revival program would not have caused the inter-religious conflict that you're talking about. I think it would have caused a lot more problems for Rome rather than stave off the Empires collapse.

Malta · Feb 25, 2012

The Spitfire017 said:
I know!!!!!!!!! It was a lot more than that. (I prescribe to the military theories for collapse) I am a classics major, but the fall of the Western Empire is not my specialty. Late Republic-Early to mid empire is.

The King of Malta seemed to say that if Julian did survive, his pagan revival program would not have caused the inter-religious conflict that you're talking about. I think it would have caused a lot more problems for Rome rather than stave off the Empires collapse.

Rome was still weak towards economic, demographic, and political decline. Even without Christanity the Empire would have fallen eventually. I think it would have been better off because the Empire was not fully Christian by the point, perhaps 30% or less. It would have been far better for Christanity to not have flourishe and leave a legacy of inter-relious strife that had very much marked the reign of Julian's uncles. He knew to simply deny Christanity a access of power and it would have destroyed itself what with it's various sects and a seeming desire fr each to proove try we're the only truth (plus without a forcible political figure to endorse one sect they would remain fractured and plural) or settled down amongst the empire's many faiths and gods.

The Spitfire017 · Feb 25, 2012

King of Malta said:
Rome was still weak towards economic, demographic, and political decline. Even without Christanity the Empire would have fallen eventually. I think it would have been better off because the Empire was not fully Christian by the point, perhaps 30% or less. It would have been far better for Christanity to not have flourishe and leave a legacy of inter-relious strife that had very much marked the reign of Julian's uncles. He knew to simply deny Christanity a access of power and it would have destroyed itself what with it's various sects and a seeming desire fr each to proove try we're the only truth (plus without a forcible political figure to endorse one sect they would remain fractured and plural) or settled down amongst the empire's many faiths and gods.

Every Empire falls, its obvious. And you answered my question I had: you think Rome would have survived and staved off decline for a little while longer if Julian managed to complete his program. I think it is possible for Christianity to go "United we stand, divided we fall" in the face of Julian's pro-pagan policies and fight back because they still have a sizable population of Roman Christians.

Malta · Feb 25, 2012

What? I think Rome would have been burned by Barbarins more or less on schedule either Christanity or Paganism. They certainly didn't have such a attitude when their were Emperors prior to Christian Emperors, they fought amongst themselves always. Even when in power or out of power. Shall we take the fist fight between Christian priests in Nazereth (I believe) this last Christmas as a example?

Elfwine · Feb 25, 2012

The Spitfire017 said:
Every Empire falls, its obvious. And you answered my question I had: you think Rome would have survived and staved off decline for a little while longer if Julian managed to complete his program. I think it is possible for Christianity to go "United we stand, divided we fall" in the face of Julian's pro-pagan policies and fight back because they still have a sizable population of Roman Christians.

Maybe not united we stand, but certainly not heading towards its doom.

Julian grossly overestimated the strength sentiment for "paganism" as some coherent alternative (at best, its a multitude of alternatives) to Christianity.

Did Julian ever really do anything to address Western Rome's weaknesses, besides writing badly about how Christianity was a bad influence?

Malta · Feb 25, 2012

Elfwine said:
Maybe not united we stand, but certainly not heading towards its doom.

Julian grossly overestimated the strength sentiment for "paganism" as some coherent alternative (at best, its a multitude of alternatives) to Christianity.

Did Julian ever really do anything to address Western Rome's weaknesses, besides writing badly about how Christianity was a bad influence?

He underestimated the popularity of traditional Hellenic Paganism, which in part was idealized by his own belief in turning back the clock, but Paganism was strong just evolved, see the prevalence of the Mystery cults. One of the Almanni chiefs he fought had converted to the Isis cult before he defeated them. People believe he was going to go full on with the times with his Pagan church idea.

He reorganized the Bureaucracy and the Tax system. Made plans to rebuild infra structure in certain provinces. Defeated several raids across the Rhine and went over in kind.

Elfwine · Feb 25, 2012

King of Malta said:
He underestimated the popularity of traditional Hellenic Paganism, which in part was idealized by his own belief in turning back the clock, but Paganism was strong and evolved. People believe he was going to go full on with the times with his Pagan church idea.

And yet strangely, after he dies, we don't see any significant opposition to the continued Christianization of the Empire.

Using opposition to mean a force capable of opposing it, not merely arguments and philosophers.

That sounds like overestimating the popularity of what he's trying to advocate to me.

He reorganized the Bureaucracy and the Tax system. Made plans to rebuild infra structure in certain provinces. Defeated several raids across the Rhine and went over in kind.

But did his reorganization actually do any good?

Blame it on reading too much Dilbert, but reorganization - even with the best of intentions - is not the same as success.

MerryPrankster · Feb 25, 2012

I guess it depends on how much of a tool he is. The only actual infringement on the rights of Christians I can recall is forbidding their schools from teaching Homer--the rest of the time, it was taking away legal privileges, not denying rights.

Someone in an earlier version of this thread suggested he try to cast himself as a fair broker in the Arian/Athanasian controversy.

CandyDragon · Feb 25, 2012

MerryPrankster said:
I guess it depends on how much of a tool he is. The only actual infringement on the rights of Christians I can recall is forbidding their schools from teaching Homer--the rest of the time, it was taking away legal privileges, not denying rights.

Someone in an earlier version of this thread suggested he try to cast himself as a fair broker in the Arian/Athanasian controversy.

He forbade Christians from teaching philosophy altogether, IIRC. He also, I think, destroyed a few Christian shrines while in Antioch, but I can't quite remember.

Malta · Feb 25, 2012

Elfwine said:
And yet strangely, after he dies, we don't see any significant opposition to the continued Christianization of the Empire.

Using opposition to mean a force capable of opposing it, not merely arguments and philosophers.

That sounds like overestimating the popularity of what he's trying to advocate to me.

But did his reorganization actually do any good?

Blame it on reading too much Dilbert, but reorganization - even with the best of intentions - is not the same as success.

Several attempts actually. It was only with Theodosius the extreme persecution leapt several stairs and violence erupted.

Julian was a man who was a more the. Able military commander, won the confidence of his own troops who he cared for, managed to keep himself alive by hiding his own skill and capability under constant threat of death by his uncle, judged fairly, dismissed the flatters and corrupt ministers in the system, and more as he was quite the moral figure in contrast to his family. He was rash
and bold.

Elfwine · Feb 26, 2012

King of Malta said:
Several attempts actually. It was only with Theodosius the extreme persecution leapt several stairs and violence erupted.

What attempts would those be? Most of my reading on this period is so Eastern-centric that what we see in the West is mentioned only when it attracts attention from Constantinople.

Julian was a man who was a more the. Able military commander, won the confidence of his own troops who he cared for, managed to keep himself alive by hiding his own skill and capability under constant threat of death by his uncle, judged fairly, dismissed the flatters and corrupt ministers in the system, and more as he was quite the moral figure in contrast to his family. He was rash
and bold.

I smell Gibbon in this, particularly the last.

CandyDragon · Feb 26, 2012

Elfwine said:
What attempts would those be? Most of my reading on this period is so Eastern-centric that what we see in the West is mentioned only when it attracts attention from Constantinople.

I smell Gibbon in this, particularly the last.

Boethius was also a late example of conversion to paganism from Christianity. I don't recall any serious attempts to repaganize the West. Christianity really completely overwhelmed paganism, there were a few pagan practices left behind in Christian culture , but I don't believe pagans ever mounted serious opposition, after Constantius, to Christianity, and the only time it could really be reversed, IMO, is with Constantine, who himself kept the title of Ponitifex Maximus.

CandyDragon · Feb 26, 2012

CandyDragon said:
Boethius was also a late example of conversion to paganism from Christianity. I don't recall any serious attempts to repaganize the West. Christianity really completely overwhelmed paganism, there were a few pagan practices left behind in Christian culture , but I don't believe pagans ever mounted serious opposition, after Constantius, to Christianity, and the only time it could really be reversed, IMO, is with Constantine, who himself kept the title of Ponitifex Maximus.

Ammianus Marcellinus was pagan too, he was a Julian fanboy.

Cuāuhtemōc · Feb 26, 2012

Oh really? In the west, I seem to recall a large number of the Roman population in the western half of the Empire renouncing Christianity and returned to practicing the old pagan religions during the dawn of the barbarian incursions during the fifth century. It sort of helps that the barbarians that were inflicting destruction upon the Empire were Christians. Granted, someone could certainly exploit that.

Christianity was far from entrenched in the West. It was more so in the East.