Would Christianity Rise w/o Constantine?

[Whiteshore]

The change certainly doesn't need to be completed either, the Western Empire could easily have gone before the transition was completed, leaving a much less Roman structure in many areas.

And on that note, as I mentioned before, the change being incomplete could mean it would be easier for a would-be Julian to reverse (or, more accurately, for something like the development of modern Hinduism as a reaction to the initial "golden age" of Indian Buddhism to occur).

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Let me try rephrasing my what I was going for in the OP -- the ascension of Christianity to predominance in the Roman World, specifically as experienced in early half of the Fourth Century, was more or less inevitable by the time Constantine was seeking to reunite it; as to what happens to said religion beyond this, that was always going to be a matter of how subsequent events developed. And so when looking at how the legacy of Constantine, and how history would be different had he not become the Great, the fate of Christianity, both in the short term and the long term, are not as important as one might first think.

What I wanted to see, first, is how much consensus, if any, there was around this idea. And if there was a reasonable level of consensus around it, it would then be worth asking -- how would Western Civilization be different without Constantine the Great?

 

[Evil Crusader]

See, the way I see it, the Partition of the Empire has already happened -- nobody prior to Constantine winning the Tetrarchy Wars (with the sole exception of Probus) had managed to solely govern the empire for any meaningful length of time since 249 (which, incidentally, was around the time of Rome's millennial celebrations, 247); and the closest thing to stability Rome knew of for nearly the past century was the period of split rule under Diocletian and Maximian.

The point being, Constantine was the exception -- he managed to unify the empire under his rule. And even then -- he then split it for a period between his sons, and it was the last one living who managed to unify it again for a time when he went to war against the usurper of his last surviving brother, which is how he was able to leave a united empire for his cousin, Julian. But even then -- when Valentinian pickled up the pieces from Julian's death in Persia and Jovian's quick death thereafter, he took one look at the state the empire was in, and was like "Yeah, there's no way one man can rule all this", before taking a page from Diocletian's book, and splitting the empire with his brother.

Looked at in that context, I wouldn't be too sure that the unification of the Roman World under a New Augustus is necessarily an inevitability, especially if we're only talking about the Fourth Century.

It isn't an inevitability, but it's too much of a temptation and a burden; people kept physically trying well past that fateful exception, deep into the 6th century, and the principle itself survived another half millennium to late Ottonians (though of course constantly dwindling in importance). And with that many people trying, some will briefly succeed and help their religion get ahead. It doesn't even have to last that long, seeing how Constantine had but one decade of effective sole rule all things considered.

Now this is something I hadn't considered. Might be worth revisiting.

It was meant to be more of an example, honestly, but as long as there's new Imperial centers of power, they will be more than happy to support anything that puts all the moral blame on the Old Rome while they, the New Rome, get to be the shining new standards of conduct.

What I wanted to see, first, is how much consensus, if any, there was around this idea. And if there was a reasonable level of consensus around it, it would then be worth asking -- how would Western Civilization be different without Constantine the Great?

It's one of those large-scale questions where the answer likely boils down to 'whatever path of history you'd like to describe from then onwards, OP', depending on the choices most everything can be on the menu, from full scale China equivalence where a heavily Romanised world remains culturally compact to a sudden implosion that leaves none of the OTL Roman heritage except perhaps some antiquities.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

It isn't an inevitability, but it's too much of a temptation and a burden; people kept physically trying well past that fateful exception, deep into the 6th century, and the principle itself survived another half millennium to late Ottonians (though of course constantly dwindling in importance). And with that many people trying, some will briefly succeed and help their religion get ahead. It doesn't even have to last that long, seeing how Constantine had but one decade of effective sole rule all things considered.

True, and fair. I suppose the way I look at it is this -- the story we like to tell about the Crisis of the Third Century is of that period when Roman Civilization almost came apart at the seams, but then managed to stitch itself back together, allowing Roman Glory to continue for a time, before the stitches came undone again and fell, this time for good; the issue (among others) being, that it frames the Second Century as being a break in the norm instead of being the start of the normal, making it seem like the fundamental forces that made the Crisis and the fundamental causes of the Fall were somehow completely different things. As much as contemporaries very much did not want to believe it, the prosperous days of Hadrian and Antonius Pius were gone, and nothing like it was going to come back to the western world for another millennium once it slipped from their fingers.

Constantine managed to hold what-was-considered-to-be Civilization Itself together for about a generation, and used the opportunity to pass some major reforms that would be the basis for this Known World going forward, which, to give a vast understatement, was quite the amazing feat in itself. Such an amazing feat, in fact, that it's worth trying to imagine how the course of history would be affected if he hadn't managed it.

It's one of those large-scale questions where the answer likely boils down to 'whatever path of history you'd like to describe from then onwards, OP', depending on the choices most everything can be on the menu, from full scale China equivalence where a heavily Romanised world remains culturally compact to a sudden implosion that leaves none of the OTL Roman heritage except perhaps some antiquities.

Yeah I'll admit, it's a pretty big ask, even with attempts to temper the common "less Christianity" answer.

 

[nickmn]

Something also worth considering when we are talking about the numbers of Christians . The religion did go from 10 % to more than 50 % within a few decades . But that doesn't account for a very likely large percentage of the population that would be crypto Christians , hiding their faith either to avoid persecution or just for further benefit and personal advancement .

 

[Nivek]

Not as big as otl without government backing... would become more based in Greece?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Here’s a way we might approach the question of whether a “different Constantine figure” would emerge in his absence -- first, if Constantine is defeated in the 310’s, then how likely is it that the Unification that OTL saw in 324 is delayed? Specifically, by at least half a century? Second, if this is likely (and/or plausible) then what are the prospects for such a thing being managed in the subsequent century or so, when the Hunnic Migrations and subsequent pressure on Germans start to seriously challenge the empire’s northern borders? Third, if the prospects for said period are bad, how much more challenging are things going to be when we get to “the climate event” of 535?

When you look at it that way, the early to mid Fourth Century was likely going to be the last chance the Roman World got to get its act together, at least for awhile; and if Constantine isn’t able to snatch that opportunity, there may not be any guarantee that someone else will. Thoughts?

 

[AndreaConti]

As an ignorant person, I am of the opinion that very little would have changed, because a series of evidence is emerging that seems to show continuity between the ecclesiastical policies of Maxentius and Constantine. Beyond the archaeological excavations that took place between 2019 and 2021 which should have confirmed the dating hypotheses of the Basilica Apostolorum and San Marcello, there are also the discoveries made by Diego Serra in 202, analyzing the Nani collection of the Marciana Library, two papyri which reported epistles signed by Basileus Maxentios

Diego Serra | Universidad Rey Juan Carlos - Academia.edu

Academia.edu is a place to share and follow research.

urjc.academia.edu

Epostle 1, dates to 306 the text of the edict through which Maxentius granted freedom of worship to Christians from the beginning of his reign (according to the words of Eusebius of Caesarea and Optatus), formally repealing the repressive legislation of Docletian and of the ferocious father Maximian in the territories under his control, anticipating the Edict of Milan of 313.

Epistle 2, which should date back to shortly before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, contains the rescript with which Maxentius, following the indications of the bishop of Rome, condemns the Donatist heresy, inviting its members to return to communion with the bishop of Rome, cajoling them with the possibility of rewards and threatening them to intervene with punitive laws.

Therefore, in the case of Maxentius' victory, even if with a longer time frame, Helen's commitment is lacking compared to OTL and the emperor maintains constant support for traditional religion, Christianity would still have established itself: given the Donatist progress , ITL the Council of Nicaea probably would not have been celebrated and given the support given by Maxentius to the theological positions professed by the church of Rome, the Arians and other Christological heresies would have been persecuted even more harshly than OTL

 

[Gloss]

So if we’re all on board for the basic idea of “Christianity still more or less emerges as the leading and/or dominant religion in the West”, then I want to ask the big question here:

I disagree personally, I don't think there is any strong evidence that Christianity was going to grow indefinetely without state support nor is there real evidence that the Christian population was at 5% let alone 10% of the overall population.

 

[Gloss]

As an ignorant person, I am of the opinion that very little would have changed, because a series of evidence is emerging that seems to show continuity between the ecclesiastical policies of Maxentius and Constantine. Beyond the archaeological excavations that took place between 2019 and 2021 which should have confirmed the dating hypotheses of the Basilica Apostolorum and San Marcello, there are also the discoveries made by Diego Serra in 202, analyzing the Nani collection of the Marciana Library, two papyri which reported epistles signed by Basileus Maxentios

Diego Serra | Universidad Rey Juan Carlos - Academia.edu

Academia.edu is a place to share and follow research.

urjc.academia.edu

Epostle 1, dates to 306 the text of the edict through which Maxentius granted freedom of worship to Christians from the beginning of his reign (according to the words of Eusebius of Caesarea and Optatus), formally repealing the repressive legislation of Docletian and of the ferocious father Maximian in the territories under his control, anticipating the Edict of Milan of 313.

Epistle 2, which should date back to shortly before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, contains the rescript with which Maxentius, following the indications of the bishop of Rome, condemns the Donatist heresy, inviting its members to return to communion with the bishop of Rome, cajoling them with the possibility of rewards and threatening them to intervene with punitive laws.

Therefore, in the case of Maxentius' victory, even if with a longer time frame, Helen's commitment is lacking compared to OTL and the emperor maintains constant support for traditional religion, Christianity would still have established itself: given the Donatist progress , ITL the Council of Nicaea probably would not have been celebrated and given the support given by Maxentius to the theological positions professed by the church of Rome, the Arians and other Christological heresies would have been persecuted even more harshly than OTL

Is this claiming Maxentius was a Christian? Otherwise why would he have cared about Donatists?

 

[Mikestone8]

Is this claiming Maxentius was a Christian? Otherwise why would he have cared about Donatists?

He didn't embrace Christianity (at this point neither had Constantine) but he had tried to appease Christians by allowing them to elect a new Bishop of
Rome, and early Christian writers did not list him as a persecutor, though later ones did, probably under imperial pressure from Constantine and his successors.

 

[DJ03]

Otherwise why would he have cared about Donatists?

he didn't have to be a christian to meddle in interconfessional(?) politics
maybe he favoured the roman church over the Donatists for some reason

 

[Nik]

IMHO, you also have the issue that 'Christianity' had been a zoo of rival factions & squabbling sub-sects until the 'Nicaea Council' crafted the 'official' version, literally at the point of Roman sword. There were 'escalating sanctions' on the bishops who refused to accept or comply with this singular doctrine. IIRC, 'Nicaea' also adapted or excluded a lot of 'Bible' stuff that did not conform to the new, formal 'Look & Feel'...

Without Constantine's wit, drive and threats, would Nicaea have happened ? Unlikely. And, without unified 'Church of Rome', situation would probably resemble the later snarl of 'Protestant' sects, bitterly squabbling over doctrinal minutiae, persistently poaching worshipers from their rivals...

( Shades of those pushy US Evangelicals who infuriate established churches across 3rd World... )

 

[AndreaConti]

Is this claiming Maxentius was a Christian? Otherwise why would he have cared about Donatists?

He was not Christian and we have a series of archaeological evidence that testifies to this, such as the construction of the so-called Temple of the Divine Romulus, dedicated to the Penate Citizens or the mausoleums that he built on the Appia Antica and (perhaps) in Villa Gordiani, which maintain the pagan structure.

On the Donatist question, it was a political choice to support the bishop of Rome: let us remember that there is also the precedent of Aurelian, a pagan without a shadow of a doubt, who behaved towards the bishop of Palmyra, Paola Samosata, who was a follower of the adoptionist heresy, removing it and establishing the principle that in imperial dominions the pastoral office fell to the bishop who had been in communion with the Roman bishop and those of Italy.

 

[Socrates]

“Overwhelming” isn’t necessarily what we’re talking about. Think of it this way - - Christianity went from being about 10% of the Roman imperial population in 310 to being 55% less than four decades later. While we don’t have to see such a majority emerge that quickly, the question is whether such a majority would more or less inevitably emerge eventually. Are you saying that Mithriadinism or Sol Invictus could have managed that with a 312 PoD?

Alternatively, think of it this way - - Galerius had ended one of the last persecution of Christians with an Edict ofToleration in 311; and one of the past persecutors, Maximinus Daza, would probably still be defeated by Licinius, even if Maxentius defeated Constantine on the Milvian Bridge. Now, Constantinian propaganda aside, it’s thought that Licinius was actually pretty chill with the (sizable) Christian communities of the east, and may have even been a patron.

Now if the pagan Maxentius rules in the west, while the Christian-supporter Licinius rules in the east, then you’re still likely to see those most established Christian populations grow over the next generation in ways similar to the way they did OTL (even if their fellow faithful in places like Italy, Carthage, or Corduba continue to struggle). How history develops subsequently -- well, now there’s where it potentially gets interesting…

You could also get a situation analogous to Hinduism and Buddhism in India, where Greek paganism co-opts the most appealing elements of Christianity and reasserts itself.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Well, [that's] kind of cheating -- it's basically just saying "Yeah Christianity might still rise, but something else also might crop up at some point, so who knows". If Christianity... become the dominant religion in the Western world, then that means the first question in the OP is answered affirmatively; saying "yeah, but some other religious movement could pop up and knock it back down a peg" after that just kind of misses the point.

You could also get a situation analogous to Hinduism and Buddhism in India, where Greek paganism co-opts the most appealing elements of Christianity and reasserts itself.

Christianity would have to become fairly dominant in the Roman World before this could happen (just as Buddhism had to have a period of dominance in India before Hinduism turned around and start co-opting what made it dominant); in which case, it becomes another question entirely.

 

[Mikestone8]

Incidentally what exactly was "Paganism"?

Did the average Gaulish peasant worship ars and Jupiter, or did he just sacrifice at the same sacred springs and groves that is ancestors probably did in pre-Roman times?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Incidentally what exactly was "Paganism"?

Did the average Gaulish peasant worship Mars and Jupiter, or did he just sacrifice at the same sacred springs and groves that is ancestors probably did in pre-Roman times?

That’s two very different questions there. To start with the easier, second one - - your typical peasant in Gaul specifically might be worshipping traditional Celtic deities, which due to Roman Syncretism might (or might not) be considered equivalent to a Greco-Roman Deity by the authorities; they might make offerings to dead humans (from emperors or family members), “forest spirits”, or other minor or major gods; they’d seek out “expertise” from a pagan temple, priest, druid, or what have you, for things like
medical care, consulting the will of the gods before making a big decision, blessing a new marriage, that kind of thing.

But -- and this gets to the first question -- “paganism” here isn’t just the religious practices of common people (non-Christian, non-Jewish, etc), but also a system of state institutions, an interlocking complex of temples and cultural practices, which somehow manage to be both distinct from one another and still blend together at the same time (because of all the syncretism). The Imperial Cult is kind of the big name here, but you also have a series of temples performing the kind of social functions noted above, that were, in an official capacity, dedicated to your standard set of Greco-Roman Gods -- but were standard set precisely because of the aforementioned syncretism, where Romans would simply take a look at a hoc worshiped at some place or temple, nod and just say “oh yeah, that’d be Venus” because said deity is concerned with fertility or whatever.

So it’s a bit of a complex question.

 

[jacob ningen]

That’s two very different questions there. To start with the easier, second one - - your typical peasant in Gaul specifically might be worshipping traditional Celtic deities, which due to Roman Syncretism might (or might not) be considered equivalent to a Greco-Roman Deity by the authorities; they might make offerings to dead humans (from emperors or family members), “forest spirits”, or other minor or major gods; they’d seek out “expertise” from a pagan temple, priest, druid, or what have you, for things like
medical care, consulting the will of the gods before making a big decision, blessing a new marriage, that kind of thing.

But -- and this gets to the first question -- “paganism” here isn’t just the religious practices of common people (non-Christian, non-Jewish, etc), but also a system of state institutions, an interlocking complex of temples and cultural practices, which somehow manage to be both distinct from one another and still blend together at the same time (because of all the syncretism). The Imperial Cult is kind of the big name here, but you also have a series of temples performing the kind of social functions noted above, that were, in an official capacity, dedicated to your standard set of Greco-Roman Gods -- but were standard set precisely because of the aforementioned syncretism, where Romans would simply take a look at a hoc worshiped at some place or temple, nod and just say “oh yeah, that’d be Venus” because said deity is concerned with fertility or whatever.

So it’s a bit of a complex question.

Cough Tacitus claiming Odin is Mercury cough

 

[AndreaConti]

@John Fredrick Parker in an Italian Alternate History site, there is a uchronia that talks about the evolution of the Roman empire in the event of Maxentius' victory. Even if I don't agree with the conclusions, i.e. the continuation of the Tetrarchy, with some adjustments, it could be interesting... If you want and if the author gives me permission, I can translate the Timeline into English