In OTL, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, which Constantine won, is said to have been the start of his conversion to christianity. But, suppose that he'd lost it. Lets say that he died, struck by a spear in contemporary accounts, or one of Jupiter's lightning bolts, in later legends (clearly, the contemporary accounts are the correct ones). As a result of his death, his army is routed, and Maxentius wins the day. What does later history look like, after this divergence?
WI: Constantine I dies at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge
- Thread starter Prince Charon
- Start date
I don't think there would have been great changes, really(except for Constantinople becoming the imperial capital). Someone would have unified the empire at some other point, and as Christianity was rising high in the empire, I guess some other emperor would have converted to it.
The major change must be Constantinople. I don't think anyone else would move the capital to another, new city.
The major change must be Constantinople. I don't think anyone else would move the capital to another, new city.
I agree with Orko's arguments, but not with his conclusion:
Even though Christian dominance in the Empire is likely also in different scenarios,
the way of their recognition, the status of Christianity within the political system including the question of being a "state religion" would have to be reconsidered.
There may even be permanent side effects to self-definition of the Church(es).
There are many possible scenarios.
Even though Christian dominance in the Empire is likely also in different scenarios,
the way of their recognition, the status of Christianity within the political system including the question of being a "state religion" would have to be reconsidered.
There may even be permanent side effects to self-definition of the Church(es).
There are many possible scenarios.
wormyguy
Banned
Christianity was only about 10% of the empire's population, at most, at this point. They weren't a majority until Theodosius. I don't think that you can in any way say that Christian dominance is assured in the Empire at this point. It's possible that the writing is on the wall for the form of paganism the empire had, but you can't say that it will certainly be replaced by Christianity.
Are you sure it was only 10%? Because I read in several sources that it was as high as a third of the populace.
I don't know if there were other major Roman families that contained closeted Christians associated with them, other than Constantine's. Also, if the 55 million statistic for the Empires population was to be believed, then why would there be over 13 million Christians in the Late Third Century CE, when there was no more than five million Jews? If there were this many Christians, then surely basilicas churches of that religion would have been constructed before Constantine's reign.
The worship of Mithras becomes the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire, with the capital of Maxentianopolis? Just a thought...
Seriously, there were several religions that were current in the Empire at the time of the battle, and any one of them could have become the alternative state religion for the R.E.
Seriously, there were several religions that were current in the Empire at the time of the battle, and any one of them could have become the alternative state religion for the R.E.
Or equally, none of them. It is easy to forget that Christianity was pretty much the only active proselytizing religion of the time that could not fit comfortably within the larger structure of Graeco-Roman paganism.
If you count gnosticism and manichenaism as specifications of christianity.
Which is only partly true for the former, and hardly at all for the latter.
that's certainly true for OTL modern christianity, but a lot of the elements that we consider central to Christianity , for example the trinity, the Nicene creed, even Jesus Christ's divine nature only became generally agreed on after Constantine. ATL Christianity could easily become a gnostic religion, or even what we would call Manichenaism. It would certainly be extremely different if it hadn't become effectively a branch of the Roman state
I wanted to bring this thread back from the dead, because this POD is a really, *really* big one. I'm writing a short story called The Cryptochristians based on this premise. What I think will happen is that Christianity and its variants will neither triumph, nor die out, but become an underground faith, a Roman sub-culture, if you will, with Neoplatonism becoming the official religion of Rome--which has major implications for the Imperial Cult, the spread of knowledge and the maintenance of the Museum of Alexandria.
There are several questions you must ask if you want to undertake such a challenging task: Just how did most ante-Nicene Christians worship and what did they believe? How distinct were they from the Ebionites (Jewish semi-Christians,) Marcionites and Manichaeans (Gnostics,) and, most formidably, the Arians and the Montanists (ancient Pentecostals?)
I venture that they were essentially big-O Orthodox Christians already, as they had a Divine Liturgy (St. James',) the three orders of clergy (deacon, priest and bishop,) and the beginnings of the Canon (none of the Apocalypses was included yet and there were some disagreement about some of the Epistles, but the four Gospels were recognized.)
There was certainly disagreement on the calculation of Pascha (Easter) and whether to celebrate it on 14 Nisan (Quatrodecimanism) or the Sunday after, or a fixed Sunday. Nonetheless, it is likely that most Christians dated their Easter independently of the Jewish calendar, because of their excommunication at the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 70 AD.
As to theology, most ante-Nicene Christians referred to Jesus as God in the flesh, the Divine Adam. Orthodoxy, even then, had to take the path between various divergent doctrines, such as Sabellianism or Patripassianism (where the Father was crucified) and Arianism (where Christ became the Son of God and was created by the Father.) Indeed, in a world with Constantine defeated, there would be no Imperial support for Arianism, and it would decline even earlier. Montanism, on the other hand, may stay around longer as Orthodoxy's main competitor in the religious underground.
Now for the Gnostics: The Manichaeans faced even more severe persecution, to the point of virtual extinction by the fourth century AD, than the Orthodox under Diocletian, for their Persian sympathies. (Strange, because Diocletian's armies viewed Mithra, a Persian god, as their protector!) The Marcionites and the other Gnostics were not looked upon favorably by the Empire, either, because of lack of devotion to the old gods and the Emperor.
Nevertheless, there was an increasing tendency of monotheistic or monadic thinking about religion in this period, so I venture that, upon Constantine's defeat, the surviving Emperor (Licinius especially) would likely embrace Neoplatonism as a way of shoring up his own divinity, quite becoming the Living Son (or Sun) of the Good.
I will write about the barbarian invasions of the Empire in another post.
There are several questions you must ask if you want to undertake such a challenging task: Just how did most ante-Nicene Christians worship and what did they believe? How distinct were they from the Ebionites (Jewish semi-Christians,) Marcionites and Manichaeans (Gnostics,) and, most formidably, the Arians and the Montanists (ancient Pentecostals?)
I venture that they were essentially big-O Orthodox Christians already, as they had a Divine Liturgy (St. James',) the three orders of clergy (deacon, priest and bishop,) and the beginnings of the Canon (none of the Apocalypses was included yet and there were some disagreement about some of the Epistles, but the four Gospels were recognized.)
There was certainly disagreement on the calculation of Pascha (Easter) and whether to celebrate it on 14 Nisan (Quatrodecimanism) or the Sunday after, or a fixed Sunday. Nonetheless, it is likely that most Christians dated their Easter independently of the Jewish calendar, because of their excommunication at the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 70 AD.
As to theology, most ante-Nicene Christians referred to Jesus as God in the flesh, the Divine Adam. Orthodoxy, even then, had to take the path between various divergent doctrines, such as Sabellianism or Patripassianism (where the Father was crucified) and Arianism (where Christ became the Son of God and was created by the Father.) Indeed, in a world with Constantine defeated, there would be no Imperial support for Arianism, and it would decline even earlier. Montanism, on the other hand, may stay around longer as Orthodoxy's main competitor in the religious underground.
Now for the Gnostics: The Manichaeans faced even more severe persecution, to the point of virtual extinction by the fourth century AD, than the Orthodox under Diocletian, for their Persian sympathies. (Strange, because Diocletian's armies viewed Mithra, a Persian god, as their protector!) The Marcionites and the other Gnostics were not looked upon favorably by the Empire, either, because of lack of devotion to the old gods and the Emperor.
Nevertheless, there was an increasing tendency of monotheistic or monadic thinking about religion in this period, so I venture that, upon Constantine's defeat, the surviving Emperor (Licinius especially) would likely embrace Neoplatonism as a way of shoring up his own divinity, quite becoming the Living Son (or Sun) of the Good.
I will write about the barbarian invasions of the Empire in another post.
Christianity would still have become the major religion in the Empire, especially the East. The main difference would be no Constantinople as a political and religious center, meaning that the Patriarchs in Jerusalem and Alexandria retain their power and so the Nestorians would be politically dominant in the East (Monophysitism was basically a derivative of Nestorian thinking made to fit the "official" doctrine on the Trinity when Constantine's council of bishops declared the Arians and Nestorians to be Heretics). The East always tended towards a more "Unitarian" form of theology and a politically dominant "Nestorian-Derived" Christianity in the East would have, in 500AD, resembled Islam. This would have far-lasting repercussions in favor of political stability and would likely have eventually leading to the Arabs being repulsed. In the OTL many in the Nestorian East didn't put up much of a fight against the Arabs because they were already being pursecuted and Muslim Arab rule was seen as preferable.
A Monophysite Eastern Empire would lead to a far earlier East-West religious split, perhaps resulting from claimant Monophysite emperor in the East and a claimant emperor belonging to a different sect (possibly Arianism) or cult (like Mithraism) in the West
A Monophysite Eastern Empire would lead to a far earlier East-West religious split, perhaps resulting from claimant Monophysite emperor in the East and a claimant emperor belonging to a different sect (possibly Arianism) or cult (like Mithraism) in the West
Constantine's mother, Helena, and younger sister, Constantia, were practicing Christians before he became a friendly benefactor. In fact Helena may have been behind Constantine's decision to sack some temples in Anatolia. As far as the early Church goes, their vocation was a full-time one, while most Polytheistic priesthood positions were part-time. The Christians did not have such a large following, but they were quite organized and hierarchal, so Constantine may have saw some use in that. Also just because its said to have "appealed to the lower classes of the empire", doesn't mean that every slave or pauper wanted to join them. "Salvation" in the Christian sense was an alien concept to Pagans.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that Christianity (whether Orthodox or not) was that popular, even in the Eastern Empire; it constituted probably about a tenth of the Roman population, not nearly a third, at the time of the Milvian Bridge.
As for the First Ecumenical Council, it excommunicated just the Arians; Nestorius was not on the scene yet, and Monophysitism (that Jesus had only a divine nature) was an equal and opposite reaction against Nestorianism (that Mary did not bear God,) not a derivative, a position not resolved until the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. Despite the First Ecumenical Council's rulings, the Emperors continued to support Arian bishops and teachings until Theodosius came on the scene some fifty years later, when he made Orthodox Christianity the sole state religion.
The main threats to the Roman Empire in the XI century AUC (4th century AD) were the Germans (being driven by the Slavs and Huns into the Roman Imperium) in the West and the Sassanid Persians in the East. Depending on how Rome resolves its own Civil War among competing Emperors, we will see either a quicker German takeover of the West or a faster Persian conquest of much of the East.
Now for the ongoing War of the Tetrarchy: With Maxentius the usurper victorious at the Milvian Bridge, he would likely send a force to the East to overthrow Licinius, the legitimate Augustus, in favor of Maximinus. (In OTL, Licinius defeated Maximinus at Tzirallum in Asia Minor a year after the Milvian Bridge despite being outnumbered seven to three. Would Licinius be able to defeat Maxentius and Maximinus together? It's practically a coin toss, but I would give the victory to Licinius.)
With Licinius' victory in the East, he has two options: 1) destroy the usurper of Rome and unite the Empire, or 2) abandon the West and concentrate on defending the East against the Persians. Option 2, I think, is more likely. The Empire is now split permanently, and Licinius has in effect abandoned the West to the Germans. This said, where will Licinius make his new capital? Athens? Thessalonica? Nicomedia? Troy? Antioch? Alexandria? Or somewhere else, like...
Byzantium!
Thanks for the corrections, I'm always getting all the early Christian sects mixed up.I'm not sure that Christianity (whether Orthodox or not) was that popular, even in the Eastern Empire; it constituted probably about a tenth of the Roman population, not nearly a third, at the time of the Milvian Bridge.
As for the First Ecumenical Council, it excommunicated just the Arians; Nestorius was not on the scene yet, and Monophysitism (that Jesus had only a divine nature) was an equal and opposite reaction against Nestorianism (that Mary did not bear God,) not a derivative, a position not resolved until the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. Despite the First Ecumenical Council's rulings, the Emperors continued to support Arian bishops and teachings until Theodosius came on the scene some fifty years later, when he made Orthodox Christianity the sole state religion.
The main threats to the Roman Empire in the XI century AUC (4th century AD) were the Germans (being driven by the Slavs and Huns into the Roman Imperium) in the West and the Sassanid Persians in the East. Depending on how Rome resolves its own Civil War among competing Emperors, we will see either a quicker German takeover of the West or a faster Persian conquest of much of the East.
Now for the ongoing War of the Tetrarchy: With Maxentius the usurper victorious at the Milvian Bridge, he would likely send a force to the East to overthrow Licinius, the legitimate Augustus, in favor of Maximinus. (In OTL, Licinius defeated Maximinus at Tzirallum in Asia Minor a year after the Milvian Bridge despite being outnumbered seven to three. Would Licinius be able to defeat Maxentius and Maximinus together? It's practically a coin toss, but I would give the victory to Licinius.)
With Licinius' victory in the East, he has two options: 1) destroy the usurper of Rome and unite the Empire, or 2) abandon the West and concentrate on defending the East against the Persians. Option 2, I think, is more likely. The Empire is now split permanently, and Licinius has in effect abandoned the West to the Germans. This said, where will Licinius make his new capital? Athens? Thessalonica? Nicomedia? Troy? Antioch? Alexandria? Or somewhere else, like...
Byzantium!
And I agree with you that option 2 is most likely. Anatolia, the Levant, and Egypt were extremely wealthy and densely populated areas, while the Roman West (beyond Italy, coastal Spain, and Carthage) was quite undeveloped and was going into economic decline in many places. On the other hand Germanic Europe was developing at a good pace and was consolidating into proto-states. Thus IMO the collapse of the Western Empire was inevitable. The Arab takeover of the Near East, however, was not.IMO if one wants a time-line with an Eastern Empire that fights off the Muslim Arab invasions Antioch would be the capital of choice. In the OTL the Eastern Empire had a lot of social stability issues with the non-Orthodox Christians in Egypt and the Levant and the patriarchs in Antioch and Alexandria very much hated being made subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which was a recent creation of the Emperor. An Eastern Empire with a capital at Antioch would be in a much better position vis-a-vis Persia and could even get control of northern Mesopotamia.
Thanks for the corrections, I'm always getting all the early Christian sects mixed up.
IMO if one wants a time-line with an Eastern Empire that fights off the Muslim Arab invasions Antioch would be the capital of choice. In the OTL the Eastern Empire had a lot of social stability issues with the non-Orthodox Christians in Egypt and the Levant and the patriarchs in Antioch and Alexandria very much hated being made subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which was a recent creation of the Emperor. An Eastern Empire with a capital at Antioch would be in a much better position vis-a-vis Persia and could even get control of northern Mesopotamia.
Antioch, while a good choice as a thrust against the Persians, leaves Illyria and Greece vulnerable to attack from the northern barbarians. While (most likely) Licinius would be more than willing to abandon Old Rome under the usurper Maxentius to the German wolves, he would not do the same to the rest of Europe, especially since he is of Thracian origin. I do not think that Licinius would abandon his homeland to the Huns, Slavs and Goths. The New Rome will be established in Europe, but barely.
And there are other reasons why Byzantium would make an ideal capital (I'm not just saying this because I'm a Byzantinist!
) Byzantium is situated across Chalcedon, the extreme western end of the Silk Road, as well as being the eastern terminus of the Via Egnatia, the most important road in the Eastern Empire. It is well protected by the Propontis, the Bosphorus and the Black Sea. These natural features make it far superior to even Troy on the Hellespont, or Antioch or Alexandria in the Levant. Antioch, I fear, is too close to the Roman frontier with Persia, while Alexandria is likewise on the frontier and too far away from Europe.The map below shows the possible projection of Byzantine power across the East. Not only would Greece and Anatolia be at the core of the Eastern Empire, but it could send enough forces to maintain Antioch and Alexandria as well, whereas if one of the latter was capital, Byzantium and the north would prove out of reach (one would have to invade the Hellespont first, then the Propontis.) Moreover, Byzantium as capital would be able to project power throughout the Black Sea, a big plus against the Huns; a base could be establised as far as Tanais (our Rostov on the Don in Russia.)
Constantinople would probably be OK as long as there is no state-supported Patriarch in Constantinople. basically, the key into holding onto Egypt and the Levant is to make sure that there is no religiously-based unrest there, and that means not p*ssing off those patriarchs and not persecuting whatever was the dominant form of Christianity there. in the OTL the Eastern Emperors post-Theodosius DID persecute non-Orthodox Christians, which is why folks in the Near East didn't put up much of a fight against the Arabs.Antioch, while a good choice as a thrust against the Persians, leaves Illyria and Greece vulnerable to attack from the northern barbarians. While (most likely) Licinius would be more than willing to abandon Old Rome under the usurper Maxentius to the German wolves, he would not do the same to the rest of Europe, especially since he is of Thracian origin. I do not think that Licinius would abandon his homeland to the Huns, Slavs and Goths. The New Rome will be established in Europe, but barely.
And there are other reasons why Byzantium would make an ideal capital (I'm not just saying this because I'm a Byzantinist!
The map below shows the possible projection of Byzantine power across the East. Not only would Greece and Anatolia be at the core of the Eastern Empire, but it could send enough forces to maintain Antioch and Alexandria as well, whereas if one of the latter was capital, Byzantium and the north would prove out of reach (one would have to invade the Hellespont first, then the Propontis.) Moreover, Byzantium as capital would be able to project power throughout the Black Sea, a big plus against the Huns; a base could be establised as far as Tanais (our Rostov on the Don in Russia.)