It came close. After Alexander Severus was assassinated there was a prolonged period of chaos and civil war. Successor states like the Gallic Empire and Palmyra eventually achieved some regional stability but it didn’t look like anyone would be able to pull their entire empire back together under one ruler. If Claudius II and Aurelian had been killed at Naissus, that alone probably would have stopped any reunification.
So no Diocletian. No Constantine. No Dominate. No Edict of Milan. No Eastern Empire.
Would Christianity be just one religion among others in Europe? Would Persia have overrun the Balkans? Would Islam exist and if it did would it have conquered Europe? Would the start of the Medieval Ages a couple of centuries early have led to an early Renaissance or a later one?
I doubt it. Without the stamp of official religion of the empire I seriously doubt Christianity would have been the monolithic religious Juggernaut it eventually became.
Persia? In the 2nd century AD? I’m drawing a blank…I didn’t think Persia was a political entity during this period. I thought the Parthian’s (and Seleucid’s) were in control of that region during this time period…though, granted, my knowledge of history of this region during this period comes mainly from playing Total War.
Hm…too many variables to know if it WOULD exist. But, assuming the same history but without a coherent Roman Empire I’d have to say they would have had a better shot at spreading throughout Europe, yes.
Maybe none at all. Would depend on how Rome folded. Much of the Renaissance came in part because of the rediscovery of Roman (and Greek) texts saved by the Muslim’s. Had Rome gone up in flames though earlier though, much of that knowledge may have been permanently lost…in fact, I’d say it probably would have been.
Of course, all of this assumes that, even with the scenario you posit, that Rome would have gone completely tits up. I’m doubtful. Rome was still pretty strong at this period, the decay had hardly touched the empire, they hadn’t had large scale plagues and declining populations, or the ruinous series of wars that bled the empire white…so, my guess is that SOME of the empire would have hung together and someone would have emerged as the leader of some portion of the empire. In fact, this might have made Rome last longer, as it might have allowed them to consolidate and focus on the core empire and let the outer provinces go (perhaps becoming independent but associated kingdoms a la the Greek’s after Alexander…but more coherent).
I don’t see Christianity emerging as the towering religion that it became, however…simply one of myriad that flourished during this period.
The Seleucid Empire (a Hellenistic state established by one of Alexander’s generals) ended in 63 A.D. The Parthian Empire was essentially the old Achaemenid Persian Empire revived under a different (ethnically Persian) ruling dynasty.
Ah…thanks. In my time line the Seleucids generally end up lasting much longer. I mean, you get legion type units, good ranged units, decent pike (well, phalanx) units and…ELEPHANTS! Plus kick ass war chariots with spikey things coming out the sides!
Didn’t the Selucids get those heavy cavalry that are also archers? Man, those are the best. You can charge archers and light infantry, shoot spearmen and heavy infantry, and skirmish against cavalry. You could have an army of nothing but those guys and beat any mix of opposing forces.
My mistake – 63 B.C. It was the Parthian Empire that Crassus, and Marc Antony, and Julian the Apostate, all invaded (after the Romans conquered Greece and Macedon, they considered the whole empire of Alexander theirs by right, and many generals and emperors dreamed of repeating his conquests; while the Parthians felt entitled to all the old Achaemenid territory, including Asia Minor and Syria and Egypt; thus go historical claims). They all got their asses kicked (and Crassus got his head cut off). Trajan invaded successfully but never got further east than Mesopotamia (now Iraq). He is reported to have stood on the shore of the Persian Gulf gazing eastward at the Parthian/Persian homeland and sighing, “If only I were younger!” His successor, Hadrian, withdrew from Mesopotamia and settled on borders deemed more defensible.
Cataphracts? No, that was a Parthian innovation. And I think the horse-archers were a different force, light-armored or unarmored cavalry. They specialized in shooting backwards at the enemy while retreating, from which we get the phrase “parting shot,” from “Parthian shot.”
Christianity got a huge boost from imperial patronage, but it also had a lot of success on its own merits, if so they can be called. Where the pagan religions offered only a dim, shadowy afterlife, Christianity offered personal, eternal life in Heaven. That’s how the Church converted the barbarians in Europe after the Western Empire fell. It’s notable that Christianity never had much success east of Syria. The Persians/Parthians already had a prophetic religion, Zoroastrianism.
The Arsacid dynasty started out as leaders of the Parni, probably a Scythian tribe that migrated south and was eventually “Persianized” after conquering Parthia from a breakaway Hellenic faction. So traditionally at least some historiographers have tended to label them “non-Persian” in origin as they didn’t arise in Fars proper ( unlike the Achaemenids or Sassanians ), nor, as a dynasty, from Parthia proper. So the Sassanian state has sometimes been referred to as the ‘Neo-Persian Empire’, i.e. as the continuator of the Achaemenid tradition, interrupted by the Greek Seleucids and the insufficiently nationalistic pseudo-Persian Parthians from the northeast.
This generally seems to follow old Sassanian hagiography. The Sassanians were more self-conscious of their “Persian-ness” and tended to run down the Arsacids as being rather less Persian than they should have been. Partly this was probably a pre-emptive defence against charges of being mere usurpers, partly a reflection of their much greater interest in state centralization. For one thing they pushed Middle Persian as a common lingua franca, as opposed to the Aramaic that had been the norm under both the Achaemenids and Arsacids. They also pushed Zoroastrianism as an official state religion, using it in much the same way Constantine used Christianity.
But it is probably splitting hairs, as the Arsacids certainly seemed to have regarded themselves as Iranian in all important aspects by the time they’d firmly established themselves as a regional power.
Yes, I meant the Median-Achaemenid-Seleucid-Parthian-Sassanid-Tahirid-Saffarid-Samanid-Buwayhid-Ghaznavid-Seljuk Empire.
Okay, obviously historically inaccurate but westerners like myself tend to treat all of these different empires as if they were the same.
I agree that Christianity would have been successful just on its merits but I think it was the govermnet seal of approval that allowed it to essentially eliminate all of its competitors. There were other monotheistic religions in the air. Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, Neoplatonism, the Isis cult, the Sol Invictus cult, and various Pagan beliefs might co-exist with Christianity.
I believe that had to do with the Parthians repressing Christianity in their territory due to it being the religion of their great rivals the Romans. Zoroastrianism didn’t stop the people around their taking a shine to Islam later on.
If it had fractured, though, where would the breakups be? Gaul would have walked off by itself, of course… but would it have also bulked up larger than it currently is?
Sassanians. The Parthians seems to have been rather more religiously tolerant and the Roman state didn’t embrace Christianity until after the Parthians had been overthrown. At that Sassanian persecutions didn’t really start until some time after the Roman state did convert.
That was because the Arabic Muslims conquered them. Conquerors have more compelling arguments than missionaries. Like, the power to tax infidels in ways from which true believers are exempt. Very subtle and persuasive and theologically definitive, that.
The Roman Empire recognizing Christianity came after it had already largely taken over. Frankly, all the “right” classes were pretty solidly against it, or in favor of heretical (and only vaguely Christian) sects. Christianity was considered quite the enemy until fairly late in the Imperial era.
