Christianity in a World w/ Stronger Sol Invictus

[John Fredrick Parker]

So a couple of weeks ago, I put together a post outlining a basic TL concept, with some commentary on how I was unsure how to develop it further:

Interesting note -- casual history fans are probably familiar with the popularity of Aurelian these days, and of the AH question of "What if he had lived longer?". And as I look here, yes that question does get asked here -- @FLAYvian1310 started what looked to be a promising TL on that very question a few years back -- but it not to the extent I would have thought.

Which actually makes sense when I looked in to it -- because it turns out that there's a lot about the life and reign of Aurelian that the historical record is, at best, fairly hazy about. Haziness about the kind of details that would either force a TL writer to make judgement call after judgement call -- or, alternatively, just go crazy -- about things like "How old was Aurelian's daughter?"; or worse, trying to find candidates for son-in-law and successor, only to be find there's a complete dearth of even the most basic information on them (as in the case of Marcellinus), unless said candidate is Probus (and that's only because he became emperor OTL); or literally anything at all on his wife other than her name and her face on a coin ("When did they marry? How long did she outlive him by? Did she actually govern the empire while the Senate was looking for the new emperor?"). I can see why a number of conversations on the idea get started, only to dry up when people actually try to come up with something of substance.

So I doubt that if I started yet another discussion thread that I'd be able to get much more out of it; and in that spirit. I'm just going to post here a broad outline of the scenario I was able to come up with.

• Aurelian -- is elevated emperor in 270 and reunifies the empire by the spring of 274; PoD is that Mucapor and/or the guards doing the deed decide not to just go for the instant kill, but confront him about it (at sword-point) with words. Eros is exposed, and the Emperor and his army continue on to Mesopotamia, where they grab some territory and help install a friendly shah. Aurelian lives just a few more years after this, no later than the early 280's; in this extra time, he marries his daughter to a trusted lieutenant (probably Marcellinus or Probus, but let's assume the former for now), who he names heir; sees grandson.
• Marcellinus -- comes to sole power in the early 280's. His reign is mostly making sure the reforms initially passed by Aurelian actually stick; the Sassanids are still too nervous to try anything (for now) and the barbarians in the north have been quiet ever since Aurelian pushed out the Juthungi (in 271). The emperor uses this time to reform and rebuild the economy and institutions of the empire. He dies in the early 290's (in his late 50's or early 60's), when his son is still only around 13 or so.
• Lucius -- is obviously too young to effectively rule when he inherits the title of emperor, so actual governing is done by his mother -- the daughter of Aurelian, remember -- who manages to steer the government until a point when her son is in his early twenties (circa 300 or so), and decides he can rule the empire on his own. Unfortunately, in that interim period, Rome's enemies decide now that a young teenager is on the throne, now would be a good time to take advantage -- the Sassanids launch an invasion in the 290's, and German tribes on the other side of the Rhine and/or Danube decide this period of strain is a good chance to get some concessions of their own from the Romans. A number of military commanders and governors step up to meet the challenge -- including one who we'll get to in a moment. In any event once the boy emperor feels comfortable trying to rule on his own, he inaugurates a period of a few years where his reputation as one of the "less good" emperors is secured, being similar to the late reigns of Nero (62-68) and Commodus (190-92) in that there's a lot of megalomania and nose thumbing at institutions that ends up laying the groundwork for rebellions and plots on his life. He's finally killed sometime circa 305, as one of those governors who stepped up earlier in his reign steps in to take the charge.
• Constantius Chlorus -- if your surprised to see his name, you probably shouldn't be; after all, this guy OTL was getting himself decorated back when Aurelian was emperor, so there's every reason to think he'll still be working his way up the ranks TTL as well; in OTL 282 or 283, he got himself appointed to a governor position, so I don't see why he won't manage that much in the 280's TTL as well. From there, well I've already mentioned that he'd have opportunities to make legions more loyal to him than the boy emperor. But being older has its downsides too, and even if he lives a few more years than OTL, he still dies in the early 310's. Fortunately, as of the PoD, he's already had a son, born 272, who (genetically anyway) is the same person as someone OTL knows all too well.
• Constantine -- Even if he dies a few years earlier than OTL, he lives to 334, giving him one of the longer reigns in Roman Imperial history, and prolonging the period of Roman, more or less, unity to about 60 years (274 to 334). He is naturally a devotee of Sol Invictus (as the OTL Constantine was, before converting to Christianity). He may try ruling the empire by himself, or he might try splitting the responsibility with another while firmly holding the senior position (a la Diocletian or Valentinian); in either case, he'll be spending a fair bit of effort to help the Roman World recover from the strains of the reign of Lucius and the rebellion of his father. But he cannot make it last -- if he rules alone, he is compelled to split the realm between his sons (as he did OTL); if he rules with a partner, than his death brings chaos to the balance of power in the Empire (as the retirement and death of Valentinian did OTL).
• In either case, the Era of Restoration (274 to 334) dies with him. It will be centuries before the Western World has any hope of knowing the unity it enjoyed under Constantine; it will be centuries more before it has any hope of knowing the prosperity it knew under Antonius Pius. In no small part because of this, the legacy of Aurelian and his dynasty will forever be regarded as being of near mythic importance to Western Civilization.

Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest -- like I said, there's probably not enough in the records for a deeper dive into the subject matter, much less a TL, so I'm probably just goin to be leaving it at this. If anyone really wants and thinks it would have potential, I can make a thread for more discussion...

However, now that I think about it a bit, I realize something -- in this scenario, where Roman government in the six decades following reunification in 274, is significantly more stable than OTL, you're likely to see more effective promotion of the Favored State Religion of the time, the Cult of Sol Invictus. Now, we have talked before in the general sense about if Sol Invictus might have risen to prominence instead ofJesus, but looking it over, I think this discussion in the abstract might have distracted from the more flexible question of how Christianity might have failed to rise to dominance or evolved differently in a world where (a) a different cult was used to attempt to bring a semblance of religious unity to the empire (as Constantine would attempt to use Christianity for OTL), and (b) the persecutions of Diocletian didn't happen.

This is some of the conversation the site did have:

Assuming it could syncretize enough influences to create a broadly popular faith it would still have a comparatively high percentage of soldiers among the early faithful, which is interesting.

My understanding is that the most popular late Roman period deities were the original Greco-Roman deities (Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, for women Hestia or Venus), and some "imported" Eastern deities like Isis or Mithra. I'm not sure as to Dionysus.
I could totally see Zoroastrian dualism, or Manichean, or Buddhism also gaining a foothold. Late Roman period was extremely syncretic and happy to include anything that did not go against the basic ideas of the Romans (e.g. the Emperor being effectively a deity - that is why Christianity wasn't welcome)

I think it would be interesting to see Christianity compete and have to (uneasily) coexist with the traditional syncretic polytheism of the Mediterranean that syncretized with the mystery cults. To my knowledge, the pre-Christian religions followed by those surrounding Mare Nostrum were pretty uniquely syncretized around the time of Christ, in that (iirc) people saw local deities as aspects of more popular deities such as Heracles or Isis. This arrangement, with larger numbers of the the elite/semi-elite following mystery cults to give polytheism a stronger institutional backbone could possibly result in a much smaller Christendom...

I would like to point out to those who dismiss it as a religion of the elites that there are historical precedences for a religion initially popular only among the elites spreading eventually to the masses. For example spread of Buddhism in Japan or spread of Christianity among the Danes.

And on the objection that the Cult of Sol Invictus "didn't have depth":

First off, I'd rather what is to an extent my religion not be bashed. And secondly the only reason there is little "depth" to it is because Christians are historically burn happy when it comes to other religions and what they didn't burn was heavily Christianized. And lastly, of course it's not well filled out in comparison to Christianity. Christianity has been around for how long now? A little over two-thousand years of dominance? Compared to the cult of Sol being dominant for perhaps a few hundred years in a polytheistic society, I mean c'mon man. you might as well be comparing a 7-year-old and 30-year-olds 100 meter sprint, Christianity is more developed in comparison because A: they burned anything they didn't like and B: were the dominant religion in the world for a very long time.

I'd also add that Christianity was drawing on ancient Greek philosophy. A surviving Sol Invictus might have tried giving itself philosophical depth via hooking up with the Neoplatonists.

I'd also note that the Cult of Sol Invictus shared an important strength with Early Christianity in that it combined the "members policy" of a Mystery Cult with the "mass appeal" of more mainline, state sanctioned temples. In this respect, the objection that "mystery cults couldn't have replaced Christianity" doesn't really matter to this particular topic, since Sol Invictus specifically circumvents it.

But what do you guys think? How might Christianity evolve differently, or fail to rise as much as OTL, in the basic scenario described (Aurelian lives longer, etc)? Remember, the discussion here isn't so much "Could Sol Invictus replace Christianity?", but "What changes in this scenario?"; hopefully, it should prove interesting.

Thanks.

 

[Dr. Hochmeister]

First, kudos for coming up with a prompt more complex and nuanced than the usual "Sol Invictus crushes all" or "Christianity inevitably triumphs" blather that usually comes into these sorts of discussions.

I don't have much knowledge on the paganism side, but a Christianity that isn't state sponsored by Rome will evolve substantially differently. Christianity was changed both ideologically and structurally after Constantine. Pre-existing doctrinal disagreements were sharpened and brought to a head by Constantine's desire to have a "universal" Church in the Empire worshipping the correct way to secure God's favor, which ironically hastened some of the schisms such as Arianism. Meanwhile, the Church doctrine began to take on tinges of Roman imperial doctrine such as the emphasis on martial success as a sign of God's favor and (eventually) the divine right to rule of monarchs. And as the Empire and Church co-evolved, the latter organizationally began to subsume aspects of the Roman administrative state to the point that the Catholic Church today still feels like a vestigial government.

With paganism more secure and minus Constantine, I can see Christianity remaining more like its earlier forms; more "democratic," universalist, and less closely tied to Rome and the Roman state. It'll likely remain more the religion of the urban middle and lower classes in the Mediterranean basin, and continue to build up its own separate power structures from the Roman state apparatus. Now, it doesn't seem that the trajectory of the Roman Empire is substantially changed here, so I'm assuming it'll follow similar patterns to OTL and fall into gradual decline due to socioeconomic factors and, critically, the legions will become more barbarianized as time goes on. This could set up an even more sharp divide between the pagan "barbarian" army (and thus the Emperor) and the more Christian, Mediterranean urban core of the Empire as you get into the 400's/500's, potentially leading to an even more catastrophic breakdown of the empire as the migratory period starts to heat up and the legions start to devolve from state control and transform into the "barbarian hordes."

An intriguing possibility would be internal Christians or a Christian on the periphery (Berbers? Arabs? Christianized Persians, Goths or Huns?) taking advantage of the chaos to carve out a theocratic Christianity-based state across the urban Mediterranean strikingly similar to the Arab conquests but a few hundred years early. How would a less "Romanized" Church suddenly thrust into power handle things? Would it be able, or even try to implement some of the radical early Christian societal patterns on the rest of the pagan world? Could it lead to some sort of precociously universalist society where any poor slave from Iberia can (theoretically) be elected presbyter and then become a Bishop and debate theology with his counterparts in Persia? Or would any assumption of state power inevitably send the church down similar routes of ideological development and internal fragmentation to OTL?

 

[danteheadman]

What would a not-Romanized Christianity even look like, both structurally and doctrinally?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So I’ve argued before that Christianity’s emergence as the “state religion” of the Roman World, at least as it broadly played out in the early 4th Century, was for the most part set in motion not by Constantine, but by Diocletian:

My attempt at an answer: yes, during much of Roman history, the fate of Christianity was far from inevitable; but after Diocletian, the status quo that allowed Christians to exist as one religion of many was no longer tenable, and after Galerius’ decree in 311, their rise to prominence in the empire became pretty much guaranteed.

Here’s what I mean -- when he changed the government from the Principate to the Dominate, Diocletian effectively changed the justification of Imperial rule from “according to the laws and the will of the people” (or senate, or army, or whichever “people” actually count for said purposes) to “according to the will of the gods and the natural order”; meaning, if you’ve got a group of people who are vociferously putting forward a view of the Divine and Natural Order not in line with state institutions, you have, by definition, an existential threat to your political order. And at that point there’s only two things you can do -- you either bring the hammer down and persecute them out of existence; or, if that fails, you legalize them, embrace them, and start giving state support to the faith until they become an army of your authority.

As we all probably know, Diocletian and his band went with Option One to start. And as even more know, it did not work; in fact, it failed spectacularly. And in 311 Galerius, who had been enthusiastically persecuting the faith up to that point, came out and said it wasn’t working; he issued an Edict of Toleration, and asked the people he had been hunting down, torturing, and killing to pray for him. Then he died. One of his two successors, Licinus, started working with and subsidizing the Christian Church pretty much as soon as the window opened; and since both Christianity and citizens more generally were both more populous in his part of the empire to begin with, we can safely surmise that much of the growth in the church from 310 to 350 happened under his watch.

Now it is true that I said “one of” Galerius’ “two successors” -- because the one who took the southeast, Maximinus Darza, did continue to hold Christians at length and even persecute them, as did his ally Maxentius in Italy. However, in their case, I think it’s pretty plain that their “paganism” was done in a pretty narrow political context -- that context being, pretty much everyone knew where legalizing and trying to make amends with Christianity after the last persecutions were going to turn out, and there were plenty of very powerful people who were not happy about that. This faction was influential enough that, if rivals to the throne are quickly gaining the support of the Christian community -- as Constantine and Licinius were -- it just made sense to rally the support of people most concerned about that. I don’t think it follows from there that crushing Christianity and restoring paganism was in any way a realistic policy goal; in fact, that the rest of the wars of the tetrarchy basically just amounted to Constantine and Licinius vying for power pretty much proves that virtually nobody seriously thought neo-paganism had a chance anymore; even core pagan institutions, like the Oracles at Delphi, were pretty much fatalistic about the long term prospects of their worldview. In fact, by 325, the popular sentiment was so much on the Christian side that Constantine pushed a misleading propaganda message of Licinius being anti-Christian, which modern historians are pretty skeptical of.

Now I bring this up here because, very importantly, none of this happens TTL -- there’s no reformation of the Principate into the Dominate, no institutional drift toward swing “religious unity” in the empire as being an a priori good, no Diocletian Persecutions (very big deal for Christianity there), and finally, no need for the state to “adopt” the Christian Church in order to have peace with it.

So what do we get instead? Well, we’re still in the aftermath of the Crisis here, during which time the Church has likely seen their congregations grow significantly. If such estimates are to be believed, Christians already made up around 10% of the empire’s population by 310; most like they had even more adherents prior to Diocletian’s crackdowns. So if nothing else, Christianity is still a very noticeable part of the religious landscape, especially in the cities, and especially in the east.

How might the Cult of Sol Invictus and the Christian Church interact under such circumstances? I imagine there will be a good deal of exchanging influences, which may develop the Cult of the Sun into a more complex faith, possibly laying the groundwork for them forge a new religious groundwork for Western Civilization in the centuries to come.

Thoughts?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Another scenario we can contrast this two is one with a fairly close PoD, wherein Rome splits into three longer term during the Crisis -- we've actually discussed before how Christianity might develop in such a scenario, and one big difference I'm seeing with this scenario is that Rome, being re-unified and holding together for a time, is seeing something other than Christianity bind the empire religiously together; even for regions where Christians are more populous (like the east) this likely dampens their prospects, at least somewhat.

What would a not-Romanized Christianity even look like, both structurally and doctrinally?

We can actually get a pretty good answer to that by looking at the Early Church of OTL. Short (and for the moment) answer - - very, very different.

Getting back to this -- one of the most interesting aspect of the Early Church, which changed dramatically with its institutionalization in the 4th Century, was the prominent role of women in the leadership. Deaconesses played a prominent role in evangelization and tending to the flock, women would often preach and perform the eucharist, and much of the social message promoted a (for the time) radically egalitarian message of husbands and wives as being in a (something of an) equal partnership. It's a very interesting contrast with more masculine focused cults that were quite popular in the army (Sol Invictus being an example).

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Christianity would probably still triumph but be even more romanized than OTL. Sure, it'd take a century or two longer due to Sol Invictus being more of a thing combined with christianity proper being more divided/factions.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

How do you figure that?

i tend to default to otl outcomes, if tweaked by the pod unless convinced otherwise

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

i tend to default to otl outcomes, if tweaked by the pod unless convinced otherwise

Where would you say you find my arguments so far (e.g.) fall short?

 

[AlexanderDragon]

By 280 Christianity was probably already a official for religion in parts of Ethiopia and was about to be in Armenia, and all the lions of the world hadn't been able to douse the flame of the faith. It was still growing in the East, still growing in the Legions etc etc. That's all been repeated a million times before but it is true, and I do think the rise of christanity was one of the more determined events of history. It's just too unique and useful to not.

But you do have an interesting POD, where Diocletian doesn't do his stuff and religion takes a more popular course. So regionally wise, a majority of the population of Asia Minor was probably christian by AD 300, and it was near half in Antioch. Palestine and Egypt also had a large population, and the province of Africa was gaining converts at a frenzied pace. Christianity was also popular in the city of Rome, particularly among women and slaves, but there were also many Christian senators in the time of Aurelian.

Meanwhile there is little evidence of it in the other parts of Italy, and it seemed to be a minor influence in Greece, Gaul and Hispania. So an alternative Roman Emperor promoting Sol Invictus would have to deal with significant regional difficulties in spreading his new cult. Honestly, either some sort of tolerance or a full persecution were the only two options, it was just getting too big and was too different to try and ignore like the rest of the mystery cults.

But if you have your emperor give tolerance to the Christians, you will have the interesting concept to work with of a largely Pagan west meeting an increasingly Christian East, and doctrinal disputes in Christianity would be important, it might even splinter without Constantine enforcing Orthodoxy. Would they remain pacifist for instance, and how would the emperors respond to that? So there are a lot of good avenues you could move with that tl.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Where would you say you find my arguments so far (e.g.) fall short?

They don't, but I assume OTL-type outcomes as most likely because easit to make projections. A more gradual christianization with more... compromises is easier to project various outcomes. A stronger Sol Invictus culd imo has as it's main legacy being more usage of solar imagery in christian RT.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@AlexanderDragon I do really like the idea of a stubbornly Pagan (and Sun Worshiping) west dealing with an increasingly Christian east, all while being part of the same empire.

I do worry a little, though, that it may be a little too similar in broad strokes to a completely different scenario (where the Palmyrene Empire successfully breaks away and survives for a time). Actually, never-mind that; looking back at the thread, my thoughts at the time were that the Palmyrene Empire embraces Christianity more or less a la Constantine fairly early; in this thread’s scenario, even if Christianity is incredibly popular in the eastern part of the empire, it could still be a very long time yet before any Roman Emperor (or Governor even) attempts to incorporate the Christian church into state institutions. In that sense, this really is an ideal PoD for putting off the “Romanization” of Christianity, even as said faith grows in popularity within the Roman World.

They don't, but I assume OTL-type outcomes as most likely because easit to make projections.

What if you try simplifying the question? Like, “How does Christianity develop if it continues to grow in popularity at the grassroots level, all while delaying (as much as possible) its institutionalization by the empire?”

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

More decentralized, much more regional differention. More "compromises" with paganism/sol invictus.

 

[AlexanderDragon]

My thoughts at the time were that the Palmyrene Empire embraces Christianity more or less a la Constantine fairly early; in this thread’s scenario, even if Christianity is incredibly popular in the eastern part of the empire, it could still be a very long time yet before any Roman Emperor (or Governor even) attempts to incorporate the Christian church into state institutions. In that sense, this really is an ideal PoD for putting off the “Romanization” of Christianity, even as said faith grows in popularity within the Roman World.

Yeah, that's what I think about the empire officially adopting christanity too, it will be very delayed so long as it is focused on the west. But a degree of de facto officialization is going to be unavoidable at the local level. For instance; reading between the lines in the account of Julian trying to revive animal sacrifice in Antioch, one can see the priests of Antioch hadn't apparently offered one in a about, around sixty years, and didn't even remember how to do one. That shows a good deal about the precarious financial state of the temples in the East and how Christianity was warping even the traditional cults. When Julian demanded an animal, they ultimately could only offer him some poor goose that hung around the temple garden.

Along with how the catholic hierarchy functioned, how they saw themselves as a distinct nationality- and with the reliance of religion on local elites historically you'll probably see Christian cities close down temples, rely on their bishops for advice etc etc. Even before the Crisis the Roman Emperors frequently meedled in the selection of the Bishop of Rome, and if some of your wealthiest cities follow the same religion, I can imagine Governors, perhaps even Christian ones intervening in Christian politics(Aurelian himself intervened in a church matter in Antioch, deciding that the correct party was the one in union with Rome)

So even if in some parts of the empire it becomes de facto offical, and in another's is well accepted into the religious fabric- you can still have a De Jure Emperor sponsored cult with Zeus and the Sun as reflections of the highest God.

 

[danteheadman]

But if you have your emperor give tolerance to the Christians, you will have the interesting concept to work with of a largely Pagan west meeting an increasingly Christian East, and doctrinal disputes in Christianity would be important, it might even splinter without Constantine enforcing Orthodoxy. Would they remain pacifist for instance, and how would the emperors respond to that? So there are a lot of good avenues you could move with that tl.

That's an incredibly interesting idea

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

For instance; reading between the lines in the account of Julian trying to revive animal sacrifice in Antioch, one can see the priests of Antioch hadn't apparently offered one in a about, around sixty years, and didn't even remember how to do one. That shows a good deal about the precarious financial state of the temples in the East and how Christianity was warping even the traditional cults. When Julian demanded an animal, they ultimately could only offer him some poor goose that hung around the temple garden.

You could also see that as evidence that Constantius II's ban on animal sacrifices was far less of a big deal in practice than a lot of modern people realize.

Along with how the catholic hierarchy functioned, how they saw themselves as a distinct nationality- and with the reliance of religion on local elites historically you'll probably see Christian cities close down temples, rely on their bishops for advice etc etc. Even before the Crisis the Roman Emperors frequently meedled in the selection of the Bishop of Rome, and if some of your wealthiest cities follow the same religion, I can imagine Governors, perhaps even Christian ones intervening in Christian politics(Aurelian himself intervened in a church matter in Antioch, deciding that the correct party was the one in union with Rome)

Now this does get me wondering: if there are already towns and cities in the east that have Christian churches but no temples, and said churches answer to an episcopate that has to deal with the emperor, and the emperor is the head of the Cult of the Sun -- could the imperial government "influence" the church to install some kind of "presence" for Sol Invictus where there may otherwise be little to no pagan presence? You'd likely need a fairly effective Edict of Toleration to make it work, but it seems like it could be done.

So even if in some parts of the empire it becomes de facto offical, and in another's is well accepted into the religious fabric- you can still have a De Jure Emperor sponsored cult with Zeus and the Sun as reflections of the highest God.

Oh yeah, this is definitely a unique and interesting scenario. Does anyone else have ideas?

 

[danteheadman]

You could also see that as evidence that Constantius II's ban on animal sacrifices was far less of a big deal in practice than a lot of modern people realize.

Now this does get me wondering: if there are already towns and cities in the east that have Christian churches but no temples, and said churches answer to an episcopate that has to deal with the emperor, and the emperor is the head of the Cult of the Sun -- could the imperial government "influence" the church to install some kind of "presence" for Sol Invictus where there may otherwise be little to no pagan presence? You'd likely need a fairly effective Edict of Toleration to make it work, but it seems like it could be done.

Oh yeah, this is definitely a unique and interesting scenario. Does anyone else have ideas?

IIRC early Roman Christianity heavily syncretized with Sol Invictus, at least in terms of iconography. So did Mithraism. It could be that - formally, in the eyes of the Empire - Christianity (and Mithraism if it also survives) is understood to be another mode of worshiping the same sun god. Perhaps YWHW is directly conflated with Sol?

In that circumstance, we would see a few interesting consequences. First and foremost would be the inevitable "solarization" of Christianity, and Judaism, in the West as a consequence; contrast this with the OTL Romanization of Christianity or the Americanization of Judaism in modern times. Dominant cultural modes tend to shape subaltern and subject cultural modes, and religion is no exception. What exactly this would look like is anyone's guess.

Second would be the implicit de facto and possibly ultimately de jure tolerance by Roman authorities in the West towards both Judaism and Christianity due to that Solarization. "They worship Sol just in a bizarre Eastern fashion" is a natural continuation of Greco-Roman society's long history of interpretatio Graecia / interpretatio Romana. Which could lead to a really interesting kind of tolerance that the Western pagan-majority half of the empire may express, but would not necessarily be present in the Eastern Christian-majority.

Third, it would absolutely hasten the east-west split of the empire. That's a no brainer. One god one empire was the idea for a reason. Splitting the Greek and Latin speaking halves religiously as well as linguistically would cement that division.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Second would be the implicit de facto and possibly ultimately de jure tolerance by Roman authorities in the West towards both Judaism and Christianity due to that Solarization. "They worship Sol just in a bizarre Eastern fashion" is a natural continuation of Greco-Roman society's long history of interpretatio Graecia / interpretatio Romana. Which could lead to a really interesting kind of tolerance that the Western pagan-majority half of the empire may express, but would not necessarily be present in the Eastern Christian-majority.

Third, it would absolutely hasten the east-west split of the empire. That's a no brainer. One god one empire was the idea for a reason. Splitting the Greek and Latin speaking halves religiously as well as linguistically would cement that division.

Would this division in the religious landscape of the empire overall though necessarily be reflected in a geographic split within Christianity as such? I'm not so sure they would; Christians communities in parts of the empire where the coexist with pagans would still be taking directives from the same unified church (especially with the imperial oversight seeing to as much).

And while there are certainly cities are areas in the east (like Antioch) which will see an emergent Christian majority large enough to make the Sun Church a moot presence, other parts (like the Greek Peninsula and Egypt) will also continue to have thriving "pagan" temples to native deities, that will be syncretizing with the theology of the Unconquered Sun in their own way. So even if Christianity continues to have a major demographic presence in the "east" generally, that doesn't necessarily give us a "Christian East".

So it may be the empire won't become so religiously divided as we might have thought, at least not in the clean "West-East" way we're used to thinking about. Thoughts?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

I think instead of the east Christianising while the west doesn’t (which is very very difficult to imagine given how connected the empire was as a whole) it’s much more likely that Christianity simply continues to exist as a minority religion in urban regions.

The solar cult already had a Neoplatonic basis which subsumed many pagan cults into the idea of the solar godhood, and would interpret the abrahamics as also part of this tradition- given the Synagogue of Severus, I think it’s likely that Christianity eventually ends up accepting solar imagery for its godhood and ends up assimilated into that framework.

That shows a good deal about the precarious financial state of the temples in the East and how Christianity was warping even the traditional cults. When Julian demanded an animal, they ultimately could only offer him some poor goose that hung around the temple garden.

Not really, all it shows is that religious practice had moved on from what it was before and instead of blood sacrifice, people preferred other ways of interacting with divinity. Given the Neoplatonic trend towards vegetarianism, there’s no reason to assume that’s a development that occurred due to Christianity or because it was no longer economical.

Christians communities in parts of the empire where the coexist with pagans would still be taking directives from the same unified church

What unified church? There is no unified church as an institution that can give people directives, it’s more you find the Christian leaders who can meet your personal spiritual needs, and those might be people who claim authority because they agree with certain other people, it might be people who agree with different people, or they might claim authority on personal mystic knowledge or moral character.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

What unified church? There is no unified church as an institution that can give people directives, it’s more you find the Christian leaders who can meet your personal spiritual needs, and those might be people who claim authority because they agree with certain other people, it might be people who agree with different people, or they might claim authority on personal mystic knowledge or moral character.

Right right, because the episcopate and overall church hierarchy hasn't been fully institutionalized as an arm of the empire the way it was under Constantine OTL -- sorry, I knew that, I meant more along the lines of insofar as the Early Church could be considered a "church as an institution", said church wouldn't be splitting along geographic lines, especially with imperial authorities "nudging" the bishops and such to take instructions for the Bishop of Rome (as Aurelian reportedly did OTL).

 

[danteheadman]

Would this division in the religious landscape of the empire overall though necessarily be reflected in a geographic split within Christianity as such? I'm not so sure they would; Christians communities in parts of the empire where the coexist with pagans would still be taking directives from the same unified church (especially with the imperial oversight seeing to as much).

And while there are certainly cities are areas in the east (like Antioch) which will see an emergent Christian majority large enough to make the Sun Church a moot presence, other parts (like the Greek Peninsula and Egypt) will also continue to have thriving "pagan" temples to native deities, that will be syncretizing with the theology of the Unconquered Sun in their own way. So even if Christianity continues to have a major demographic presence in the "east" generally, that doesn't necessarily give us a "Christian East".

So it may be the empire won't become so religiously divided as we might have thought, at least not in the clean "West-East" way we're used to thinking about. Thoughts?

No I don't think it would be reflected much within Christianity. Especially if the religion never really gets all "convert all herets!!" but instead maintains a large-tent movement like Judaism does. It's much easier to justify a doctrinally diverse coalition if you're in the minority. That way, Christians across the Empire could still eat in each others' homes and worship in each others' churches.

I think instead of the east Christianising while the west doesn’t (which is very very difficult to imagine given how connected the empire was as a whole) it’s much more likely that Christianity simply continues to exist as a minority religion in urban regions.

The solar cult already had a Neoplatonic basis which subsumed many pagan cults into the idea of the solar godhood, and would interpret the abrahamics as also part of this tradition- given the Synagogue of Severus, I think it’s likely that Christianity eventually ends up accepting solar imagery for its godhood and ends up assimilated into that framework.

I think that @John Fredrick Parker and you @Madhukar_Shah have it right.

And recognizing Western religions not as "Abrahamic" and "pagan" but as a single "Western" religious tradition (the Mediterranean-Iranian philosophical tradition of the interactions between and developments of Indo-European and Semitic traditional spiritualities; contrasted with the "Eastern" / Sino-Indic tradition of interactions between and developments of Indo-European and Tibeto-Sinic traditional spiritualities) would be academically interesting, at the very least.