Yeah thats his biggest flaw, he wasn't willing to jump on the bandwaggon of any of the non-christian religious movements of his era and so his traditional paganism was just continuing long discredited practices and favouritizing a tiny minority. Whats needed is for him to adopt something like Neo-Platoism that could be integrated into the Roman Cult in order to reform it into something more worthwhile and appreciable to your average citizen or Sol Invictus (both of which are fun and AH-y enough to try, Neo-Platoism for being like a Roman version of Budhism and Sol Invictus for being the major "road not taken" by history in terms of european religion). Those are the only ones I could see working since the other major choices Mithraism, Manichism, and what he wanted OTL where impossible for various reasons (only popular with the soldiers, too connected to the Persians and completely out of touch respectively..)
Julian the Apostate: The last pagin roman emperor,what if he survived?
- Thread starter Archon of Thessaly
- Start date
Yeah thats his biggest flaw, he wasn't willing to jump on the bandwaggon of any of the non-christian religious movements of his era and so his traditional paganism was just continuing long discredited practices and favouritizing a tiny minority. Whats needed is for him to adopt something like Neo-Platoism that could be integrated into the Roman Cult in order to reform it into something more worthwhile and appreciable to your average citizen or Sol Invictus (both of which are fun and AH-y enough to try, Neo-Platoism for being like a Roman version of Budhism and Sol Invictus for being the major "road not taken" by history in terms of european religion). Those are the only ones I could see working since the other major choices Mithraism, Manichism, and what he wanted OTL where impossible for various reasons (only popular with the soldiers, too connected to the Persians and completely out of touch respectively..)
I think Julian did have some fuzzy neo-Platoistic ideas, but fuzzy is not good enough.
Even if he does join one of these, none of them are particularly powerful and dominant - that's not to say Christianity was, but Justinian is going to have non____ pagans as well as Christians as not of his faith with whatever that leads to.
I don't see his reign being remembered as a great success. Maybe not a disastrous failure, but more remembered for his piety than his statesmanship at best.
Even if he does join one of these, none of them are particularly powerful and dominant - that's not to say Christianity was, but Justinian is going to have non____ pagans as well as Christians as not of his faith with whatever that leads to.
I don't see his reign being remembered as a great success. Maybe not a disastrous failure, but more remembered for his piety than his statesmanship at best.
What was the west like in terms of religion in the 4th century? If Julian gets his act together and creates a pagan Church or back a pagan group like the Neo-Platoism eliphas8 mentioned or Sol Invictus would a revival of paganism in the west be possible? Maybe further down the road after Julian's death the empire is divided again, with a Pagan Emperor in the West and a Christian Emperor in the East. Now that sounds cool
.
.What was the west like in terms of religion in the 4th century? If Julian gets his act together and creates a pagan Church or back a pagan group like the Neo-Platoism eliphas8 mentioned or Sol Invictus would a revival of paganism in the west be possible? Maybe further down the road after Julian's death the empire is divided again, with a Pagan Emperor in the West and a Christian Emperor in the East. Now that sounds cool
Me and Archon said that at the beginning of the thread.
And Elfwhine I do agree its difficult, its just that in that situation it becomes far less impossible which given his overall competence for his very short reign is a sign he could well pull it off to a degree (I could never see the east turning away from christianity at that point but the west is in my opinion far more likely to see a shift.
Julian pissed off waaay to many people for any reforms he could put into place to stick. He was confrontational with people and was constantly moralizing about traditional roman practices. He just tended to rub too many people the wrong way at the same time.
Also I would argue that after Constantine is too late to curb the power of the church, once they get a taste of legitimacy, they're not going to give it up. No to mention the mob is going to eat their dogma up, especially since the mob is mostly poor, urban people and the Early Church engaged in numerous charitable works in the cities.
You also have to consider that almost all of Julian's immediate family were christian to some degree (Being the family of Constantine and all) So any potential heir would most likely come from them.
Also I would argue that after Constantine is too late to curb the power of the church, once they get a taste of legitimacy, they're not going to give it up. No to mention the mob is going to eat their dogma up, especially since the mob is mostly poor, urban people and the Early Church engaged in numerous charitable works in the cities.
You also have to consider that almost all of Julian's immediate family were christian to some degree (Being the family of Constantine and all) So any potential heir would most likely come from them.
What overall competence do you have in mind exactly?
Julian's reign didn't really last long enough for me to feel confident asserting he was especially capable.
And Gibbon's description of him is biased (anti-Christian).
I also seem to recall reading somewhere that Julian had frequent dreams where he was visited by the Pagan incarnation of the City of Rome or some such thing. That doesn't seem like someone who is particularly stable to me. In fact it seems like the precurser to hallucinations.
Thats what I was thinking myself. I can't see Constantinople,for instance, changing its churches to Temples to Jupiter and Juno but I can definitively see Rome (the city) restoring the old Religion. I wonder how the relations between the Western and Eastern Courts would be like with two different religions, not to mention what would happen when and if the West falls. Would the pagan Church's Pontus Maximus become like the Pope in the middle ages? Would Justinian's reconquest of the west take on a more religious tone?
Who were some notable Christian generals who could potentially cause trouble for Julian or a pagan successor? All this talk about how "he's just going to get killed by a Christian" needs an actual perpetrator.
Jovian was Julian's successor OTL and a Christian, but his initial policies seemed to be oriented toward religious freedom than favoritism of one religion. Then he started issuing persecutory edicts and then he died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovian_(Emperor)
However, he didn't seem to have any beef with serving under Julian in the first place and he might have been made emperor by mistake in the first place.
There's also Valentinian, but he seemed more concerned with the various barbarian problems than any kind of religious policy and he was flexible enough to appoint a co-emperor rather than stand his ground on being the sole power, so he might not have been willing to pick internal fights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinian_I
Given how he banned the Olympic games and was generally quite pushy (to say the least) re: religion, Theodosius I could be an issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I
However, he wouldn't be old enough to cause trouble for a generation and a longer-reigning Julian might change his personality and career significantly.
Jovian was Julian's successor OTL and a Christian, but his initial policies seemed to be oriented toward religious freedom than favoritism of one religion. Then he started issuing persecutory edicts and then he died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovian_(Emperor)
However, he didn't seem to have any beef with serving under Julian in the first place and he might have been made emperor by mistake in the first place.
There's also Valentinian, but he seemed more concerned with the various barbarian problems than any kind of religious policy and he was flexible enough to appoint a co-emperor rather than stand his ground on being the sole power, so he might not have been willing to pick internal fights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinian_I
Given how he banned the Olympic games and was generally quite pushy (to say the least) re: religion, Theodosius I could be an issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I
However, he wouldn't be old enough to cause trouble for a generation and a longer-reigning Julian might change his personality and career significantly.
There is hinted in the historical accounts of " christian officers" involved in his death. Obviously he didnt mention then, so its clear that even if a christian general bumped him of, a christian fanatic might ( like the mad monks to assasinated henery the 8th of france and his predeccesor.)
Maybe, maybe not. Henry VIII of France, being a fellow Christian, might not have seen that coming, but Julian, knowing the hostility of the Church, might be more careful.
I suggested the list of near-future Roman emperors to flesh out a potential religious civil war or coup.
Alternatively, Julian might reign for a long time without serious internal challenge, but due to his personality and various problems, his "pagan alternative to Christianity" project fizzles. As he's old and dying, he just says "screw it" and names Valentinian or some other competent Christian as his heir, with some agreement as to the position of any children he may have fathered by then and religious freedom for pagans.
He is almost certainly going to fail at a pagin revivel yes, but he migh just secure religious freedome. This will still have HUGE butterflies.
How is he going to secure religious freedoms?
Even if his successor agrees, what keeps them from reneging after he's dead?
Or their successor from doing away with it?
The successor in my scenario would be taking over after Julian reigned for decades, not only a few years a la Jovian.
Institutional inertia or more pressing problems like barbarian invasions that produce more institutional inertia, since the emperor might be too busy to conduct religious persecution, giving the new status quo even more time to settle.
I have trouble seeing someone like Julian dying of old age . But even if he does, so?
And it's not even a matter of active persecution, just revoking the edict of tolerance and favoring Christians over pagans.
That is not going to be enough to ensure the triumph of Christianity, I think. A rollback is going to be hard, but the church even as late as the 350s was not fated to take over the Roman Empire. Without the imperial authority (and swords) to back up its orthodox teachings, without the systematic empowermewnt of its officers at the expense of traditional authorities, and without the destruiction of all public displays of pagan identity, it would be a major religion, but not the only one. (Even with all that help, it struggled with paganism inside the Empire until the eighth century).
One thing is certain, though: if the government favours Christianity over paganism, persecution will happen. Once the Christians had the assurance of impunity, there was no need for government action., You just stepped back and let the likes of St Cyril and St Shenute do their thing. So even an impartial government would need to put resources into upholding interreligious peace. Orthodox Christianity does not play well with others.
Is there anything to Christianity doctrinally that makes it innately violent, or is that something resulting from the "Constantinian shift"?
If you look at what Jesus and company actually said, there's nothing in there endorsing conversion by force. If anything, it's a pacifistic religion that became violent in spite of, not because of, its ethical teachings.
I'm not saying it would ensure the triumph of Christianity, just that it might well render Julian's efforts moot whether he reigns for three years or thirty.
And if persecution will happen whether or not the government does it, why does the Church need imperial authority and swords actively on its behalf as opposed to merely passively?
A few things:
1. Julian's reforms were mostly aimed at winning back the ruling class for traditional religion. Greece proper, Rome, and large swathes of Europe and Africa were still unChristianized at this point. Also, he was making structural reforms to traditional religion to allow it to compete with Christianity, e.g. creating charitable organizations and creating provincial high priests to ensure the upkeep of temples and the maintenance of pagan holidays and sacrifices. This actually led to lots of friction with pagan elites who weren't used to a permanent clergy and also opposed his moralizing measures.
2. He wouldn't have been able to save the empire at this point, I think. The future of a Julianic world isn't an eternal Roman Empire, but more or less what we see in our time, with barbarian kingdoms in the West and a continuing Empire in the East. The difference is that Europe with be a patchwork of pagan and Christian. The model will be India's mix of Hindu and Muslim rather than solid pagan or Christian continent.
3. I don't see any further Constantinian emperors after Julian. His successor will be a military officer or a court functionary if they're lucky.
4. Julian's reforms were bigger than religion. His policies completely upended court structure, and would likely have completely altered the makeup of the imperial administration. More literati, half-barbarian officers, senatorial types; fewer lawyers, clerks and clergy, household staff wielding political power. Those are the really interesting butterflies. I'm not sure whether it would have quickened or slowed the collapse, or how it would affect court makeup of the sub-Roman kingdoms or the Eastern Empire.
1. Julian's reforms were mostly aimed at winning back the ruling class for traditional religion. Greece proper, Rome, and large swathes of Europe and Africa were still unChristianized at this point. Also, he was making structural reforms to traditional religion to allow it to compete with Christianity, e.g. creating charitable organizations and creating provincial high priests to ensure the upkeep of temples and the maintenance of pagan holidays and sacrifices. This actually led to lots of friction with pagan elites who weren't used to a permanent clergy and also opposed his moralizing measures.
2. He wouldn't have been able to save the empire at this point, I think. The future of a Julianic world isn't an eternal Roman Empire, but more or less what we see in our time, with barbarian kingdoms in the West and a continuing Empire in the East. The difference is that Europe with be a patchwork of pagan and Christian. The model will be India's mix of Hindu and Muslim rather than solid pagan or Christian continent.
3. I don't see any further Constantinian emperors after Julian. His successor will be a military officer or a court functionary if they're lucky.
4. Julian's reforms were bigger than religion. His policies completely upended court structure, and would likely have completely altered the makeup of the imperial administration. More literati, half-barbarian officers, senatorial types; fewer lawyers, clerks and clergy, household staff wielding political power. Those are the really interesting butterflies. I'm not sure whether it would have quickened or slowed the collapse, or how it would affect court makeup of the sub-Roman kingdoms or the Eastern Empire.
Also, what effects on Christianity? Julian's interruption was massively important for the eventual triumph of Athanasian Christianity over Arianism. Without the state apparatus suppressing heretical sects, Christianity could much more diverse. Could we see a set of Monophysite realms in the Middle East at odds with an Arian minority living among pagan majority European kingdoms?
Judaism, also, might be affected if Julian's somewhat mad plans to restore the Jerusalem temple pull through. Judaism, contrary to stereotype, did in fact proselytize during the imperial years.
Judaism, also, might be affected if Julian's somewhat mad plans to restore the Jerusalem temple pull through. Judaism, contrary to stereotype, did in fact proselytize during the imperial years.