Europe Without Christianity: Better or Worse?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Will


Then it is 6-7%

Hmm, must have heard some bad data somewhere.



In any case coversion to Judaism how likley do you think it would have been?

[David Floyd]

Remember, the Crusades were only purportedly about religion. They were more about, first, the nobles of Europe finding lands to plunder, and secondly, finding something to do with their third son. Seriously, religion just provided a convenient excuse. Granted, without Christianity feudalism wouldn't have developed as it did, however, my point is that people remain people, no matter what, so I think we still would have seen large scale warfare.

All in all, though, I think Christianity was beneficial, even though it, like all religions, did cause problems (or rather, people acting in the name of God caused problems).

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Remember, the Crusades were only purportedly about religion. They were more about, first, the nobles of Europe finding lands to plunder, and secondly, finding something to do with their third son. Seriously, religion just provided a convenient excuse.

BS.
When it comes to (one's own) religion and violence, all religious people mysteriously turn to materialistic argumentation - quite ironic. It's just a convenient excuse for believers.
In his history of the crusades Jonathan Riley-Smith pointed out quite well that economic factors played a less significant (although never to be underestimated, as in all human things) role in the motivations of people to join the enterprise. The hope for redemption of one's sins and the feeling to do a righteous thing against the enemies of God were often not pretext but fundamental motives, joined by theological justifications about the just war through important figures as Bernhard of Clairvaux. It was common that people financially ruined themselves just to be able to equip themselves for the crusades and the proportion of heir sons that "took the cross" is quite higher than previously estimated.
Christianity doesn't necessarily lead to the crusades, but they were a Christian phenomenon driven by religious motives, come to terms with it. That there are also economic factors is a non-argument, economy plays its part everywhere.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


BS.
When it comes to (one's own) religion and violence, all religious people mysteriously turn to materialistic argumentation - quite ironic. It's just a convenient excuse for believers.
In his history of the crusades Jonathan Riley-Smith pointed out quite well that economic factors played a less significant (although never to be underestimated, as in all human things) role in the motivations of people to join the enterprise. The hope for redemption of one's sins and the feeling to do a righteous thing against the enemies of God were often not pretext but fundamental motives, joined by theological justifications about the just war through important figures as Bernhard of Clairvaux. It was common that people financially ruined themselves just to be able to equip themselves for the crusades and the proportion of heir sons that "took the cross" is quite higher than previously estimated.
Christianity doesn't necessarily lead to the crusades, but they were a Christian phenomenon driven by religious motives, come to terms with it. That there are also economic factors is a non-argument, economy plays its part everywhere.

Yes, I agree. This makes for an interesting situation, what happens to Europe in the absence of Holy Wars? How could any state compete with the Islamic Jihads which took the middle east (including palestine) and Spain in the first place?

[Alexander I]

Any counterfactual scenario would depend on just how far Christianity spreads in the altered timeline.

Take away Constantine's legitimization of the religion, and there's still a sizeable presence throughout the Roman and Hellenistic world, let alone in the Middle East and as the national religion of Armenia, the first kingdom to convert.

Now if you took away the Apostle Paul... there are those who attribute Christianity's survival to him. Without his many missionary travels, there would certainly be a lot fewer Christians in Roman Greece, Anatolia, and Italy. But still, the Roman presence in Jerusalem was enough to guarantee that Christianity would spread in the Roman Empire at least to some degree.

Take away Pompey the Great and some other Romans, and Judaea would probably have been in Parthian hands, but then again, how different would the Roman Empire have been? Caesar owed at least some of his success in politics to his relation and competition with Pompey and others.

How far out can you go while still maintaining a feasible alternate chronology?

[Lord Avalon]

According to the OP, it does not spread outside the Middle East. Is Armenia in our out?

If in, maybe they don't even convert, as it's such a minor religion.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
According to the OP, it does not spread outside the Middle East. Is Armenia in our out?

I'd say Armenia would count as in the Middle Eastern sphere of influence at that point in history. It was really the Soviets that changed their orientation in modern times.

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
If in, maybe they don't even convert, as it's such a minor religion.

Well, they converted in c. AD 301, before Christianity was really major anyway.

So I'm trying to figure out the point of divergence for this counterfactual -- Christianity doesn't spread outside the Middle East? That would require either the premature deaths of all of the Apostles or a Jesus who didn't preach "go ye into all the world." By c. AD 70, Christianity had already spread all throughout the Mediterranean world.

[Darius871]

This led to a picture of rivalry between the two religions, which Ernest Renan summarized in his 1882 The Origins of Christianity by saying "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic."[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithrai...d_Christianity

[Alexander I]

Interesting... Mithraic. I guess I could see it -- another Middle-Eastern cult that was fairly new to the Empire and popular among the masses.

[Darius871]

For that matter, it was probably the many symbolic and astrological similarities between the two (and even some concessions by Christian doctrine) that allowed Christianity to flourish in the first place.

[Dr Strangelove]

Regarding the demise of the Roman empire I'm inclined to wonder why it lasted as long as it did. The reign of the Octavian dynasty, from Octavius to Claudius represented an unusally stable period in the history of the empire. Outside of that timespan there is not a period of more than 2 or 3 generations during which the empire did not suffer a major civil war. During the 500 year span of the empire there were at least four attempts to peacefully, legally cut it into pieces, including a cynical political gamble by Octavius at the very birth of the empire. At its birth also it was cursed by Octavius' inability to specify the mechanics of succession, to codify the relationship between the emperor and the senate thus firmly legitimizing the imperial govenment.

The existence of the senate, a body of ambitious, self-serving high status men frequently provided a source of rebellion against the throne. Consider that at this time in history most of the men sitting in the senate would have been leaders of powerful extended families perhaps resembling today's Mafia. Their familial allegiance's were often more powerful than their loyalty to Rome itself, and when the opportunity arose they were more than willing to take arms up against their country to further their family's interests. OTOH when you consider the psychotic behavior of so many of the emporers maybe the senate actually saved the empire on those occassions by providing leadership when the necessity of neutralizing a disasterous emporer was needed.

Perhaps the single greatest factor contributing to the fall of the empire were changes in the Roman Army. The army developed a tendency to "outsource" the defense of the realm. The Roman army had employed non-Roman troops since before the foundation of the empire, but in its last years an increasing proportion were non-Romans, and unlike in the early days instead of serving in auxillary formations attached to Roman legions they came to form their own legions in which Romans were no longer in the majority. I'm not certain what caused this trend. It may be that Romans became less likely to volunteer either because the new Christian religion de-emphasized the warrior virtues or because "Bread and Circuses" seemed preferrable to the hard life of a soldier. Patriotism may have waned because after repeated civil wars the people began to look upon the army as the plaything of the rich rather than the defender of the Roman people. Imagine if (if you're an American) the United States had suffered civil wars almost every 40 to 50 years, wars fought for the interests of a few powerful families or generals, with regions like New England, California, Pacific Northwest, Texas, Dixie, etc., etc. breaking off, eventually to be reconquered by Union forces. How would we feel about our armed forces if they were perpetually splitting apart, fighting each other, destroying our property and families? It's possible that the Roman government may have shifted towards hiring non-Romans in the hopes that the troops would be less loyal to one of the powerful families and more loyal to the empire itself. We know of course that eventually the non-Roman generals like Constantine and Alaric would aspire to rule also.
Rome had been carved up many times, only to re-unite and live on. It did not survive its last division because the factions carving it up, the Visigoths, Ostragoths and Gauls were insufficiently romanized to be able adequately carry on its traditions and too equal in power for one to dominate the other. Had Theodric had the stones to bring the other two under his subjection then the Roman empire might have lived on, but he didn't have it in him, so the empire'e demise was final.

Christianity had little to do with the fall of the Roman empire except that as I said above, the early Christianity practised in the latter days of the Roman empire did not encourage the old Roman warrior virtues. In the last days of the empire the Christians even went so far as to outlaw slavery and the gladiator games. ( They had the sense to replace the gladiator games with races. ) If Mithraicism, a religion where violence was sometimes practiced during its religious rites and whose primary symbol portrays the killing of an animal, had prevailed instead of Christianity would the Romans have been able raise more Roman troops? Would they have been able to replicate the great victories of their ancestors and drive back the barbarians? I think not. As I said above one of the reasons for using non-Roman troops was because of the mistrust of Roman factions. Because Romans had so often proved so willing to fight their own countrymen they couldn't be trusted. In the final summation it was ambition, cynicism and distrust which destroyed Rome.

[Andemagne]

these 'Historical What If?'-threads are the Best Lets rename this forum to 'What If'-forum?

[Wernazuma III]

In the last days of the empire the Christians even went so far as to outlaw slavery

Where do you got this from? Slavery was never outlawed during the Roman Empire, nor during the Middle Ages. It's a ca. 1800 thing (or later, in the more backward countries).


edit: Today, 120 years ago, Brazil was the last 'western' nation to abolish slavery.

[Dr Strangelove]

I nelieve it was Valens or Valentins, but the link to the site was on my computer before it crashed last year and now I can't find it.

[Barnabas]

Europe would be something completely different without Christianity. Modern European states are direct descendants of the middle ages, not of the roman empire.

Europe was christendom. If Spain had remained muslim and the Byzantine empire had defended itself succesfully, nowadays Spain would not be a part of the EU and "Turkey" would.