If Rome Had Not Accepted Christianity - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14020864
If Christianity had not spread successfully in the Roman Empire and Constantine had not converted to Christianity in the fourth century is it possible that Islam could have spread in its place? Of course the pagan faiths of Europe would have remained but what is to say that in the absence of Christianity some rulers of Europe would not have accepted Islam as their religion? Rus looked to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. If there was no Catholicism or Orthodoxy would they have possibly chosen Islam?

Many South East Asian rulers converted their kingdoms to Islam therefore one wonders if something similar could possibly have happened in Europe had Christianity not been present.
#14020867
Actually without Christianity, I don't think there would had been any Islam. It was the strong christian presence in europe which brought on the abrahmic ideas in Arabian peninsula.
#14020875
Christianity existed in the Middle East long before it spread to Europe. The OP's question, as I interpret it, is to ask what would have happened if Christianity had not spread specifically to Europe before the Islamic conquests? In my opinion, it's a valid question, since there was nothing inevitable about the Christianisation of Europe.
#14020876
I agree op's question is a valid one and there was nothing inevitable about the spread of Christianity but as IRL Islam came into existence because of the influence of Christianity from Europe (including the eastern roman empire) and without a strong and rich christian presence I found it doubtful that Islam as we know it would had came in to existence.

But I do believe that various pagan religions of Europe would had died out eventually.
#14020895
Yea, if Christianity didn't leave the Middle East, then Islam wouldn't have a vacuum to take up.

Christianity did not leave the Middle East, Daktoria. There was a military vacuum in the Middle East at the time due to the long-running wars between the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires having exhausted the dominant powers in the region, but there was no religious vacuum.
#14021024
No, I'm not talking about the Pentarchy, I'm merely pointing out that Islam did not move into a religious vacuum in the Middle East. It moved into a military vacuum. Byzantium and the Sassanid Empire had just finished fighting a ruinous series of wars against each other when Islam launched its attacks against its neighbours. Their timing was perfect. However, Christianity already existed in the Middle East and continued to exist there. In fact, it exists there even to the present day. For the first few centuries of its existence, the majority of the population of the Islamic Caliphate were not Muslim.
#14021122
Eh...

...Muhammad's legacy was cleaning up pagan idols, and Islam's follow-through upon his death occupied the exhausted Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem bishoprics. I think you're being a little hasty with militarism. Even warriors need a motive to conquer more than enough to hold their keep. Religion artistically inspires them to carry on in the name of a narrative.
#14055884
Political Interest wrote:If Christianity had not spread successfully in the Roman Empire and Constantine had not converted to Christianity in the fourth century is it possible that Islam could have spread in its place? Of course the pagan faiths of Europe would have remained but what is to say that in the absence of Christianity some rulers of Europe would not have accepted Islam as their religion? Rus looked to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. If there was no Catholicism or Orthodoxy would they have possibly chosen Islam?

Many South East Asian rulers converted their kingdoms to Islam therefore one wonders if something similar could possibly have happened in Europe had Christianity not been present.


I seriously doubt Islam would have even existed without a Christian tradition in the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, for me, a person who does not believe that Mohammad actually recieved divine guidance (either did Jesus, Moses etc) I think he would have lacked the necessary background to graft his religion onto.
#14055892
AVT wrote:I seriously doubt Islam would have even existed without a Christian tradition in the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, for me, a person who does not believe that Mohammad actually recieved divine guidance (either did Jesus, Moses etc) I think he would have lacked the necessary background to graft his religion onto.


As Potemkin has said there was Christianity in the Middle East without Rome. Also remember that even before 1054 when the Church split between East and West many Middle Eastern wings of the Church had already split off. This goes to show that Christianity could survive in the Middle East without the support of Rome. Christianity was already very strong before Emperor Constantine's conversion, so the survival of Christianity was not dependent on whether or not it was the official Roman religion. However you come from the perspective that Islam needed Christianity to exist, but there is nothing to say this was the case.

There is also another question of if Rome had not adopted Christianity then what is to say Europe would not have done so anyhow? If Christianity was already strong at a grass roots level in Europe it would be natural for it to be adopted by some kingdoms. I suppose this thread is more to do with if it had not gained strength at the local level.
#14075140
Christianity spread to Europe before Constantine, or else Constantine would not have made it the Roman state religion. Christianity in Europe dates to the mission of Paul of Tarsus, which created both a larger and a very different religion from the one followed by people in the Middle East, which was essentially a Jewish sect.

Rome was in need of a new state religion to provide unification at that time. If Constantine had not chosen Christianity for the purpose he would probably have chosen Mithraism, the main other contender. Mithraism would have worked about as well for Constantine's purposes, but could not have been incorporated into Islam as smoothly, since it was not an Abrahamic religion while Christianity is one.

Christianity would have continued to exist in that case, but would have been a smaller, less influential religion, and would have differed sharply in doctrine from the Christianity we have today, as Christian doctrine was centralized and consolidated (including the choice of books for the canonical New Testament) only after the Council of Nicaea in 325, which was when the Imperial Church came to be. Muhammad was born about 570 and received his first visions leading to the Quran in about 610 (when he was 40), so this was almost 300 years after the founding of the Imperial Church.

If we look at the Quran's Christian elements (so to speak), we find considerable departure from Imperial Church doctrine: the idea of Jesus as Son of God or God incarnate is rejected, the crucifixion itself is rejected as having actually happened to Jesus (in the Quran, God pulled a fast one and slipped the Sanhedrin and the Romans a substitute while taking the real Jesus into paradise). I can't see anything in the Quran that shows me Muhammad had really good detailed knowledge of Christian doctrine, but that he had some awareness of Jesus as a spiritual leader is clear. Given that Christianity in some form would have survived in a Mithraic Rome, it's not clear to me that Islam would not have arisen. It might have been different in some particulars.

Islam arose too late to have fulfilled Christianity's function in the Roman Empire, as the need was present in the 4th century and could not have waited until the 7th. It seems to me the real questions are these:

1) Would a Mithraic Western Empire have survived the events that brought down the Western Christian Empire?
2) Would a Mithraic Eastern Empire have done a better job of defending against Muslim incursions than the Christian Eastern Empire did?

I suspect the answer to #1 is no. I'm not prepared at present to try to answer #2.
#14075234
Islam spread by military campaigns through much of central Asia - and elsewhere. The spread of Christianity in Europe was more cultural than military. I don't think Muslim invaders would have been able to hold the North of Europe by military occupation for very long. The culture was just too different. Europeans would never have given up alcohol. That is a major cultural element that is often overlooked. I think it is the widespread use of alcoholic beverages that differentiates European culture from Islamic culture more than any point of doctrine.
#14075240
The culture was just too different. Europeans would never have given up alcohol. That is a major cultural element that is often overlooked. I think it is the widespread use of alcoholic beverages that differentiates European culture from Islamic culture more than any point of doctrine.

Legend has it that when Prince Vladimir of Kievan Rus was deciding which religion his nation should convert to, it was the fact that Islam would have forbidden the drinking of alcohol which was the clincher for him. Christianity it is then! :lol:
#14075881
Malatant of Shadow wrote:Christianity spread to Europe before Constantine, or else Constantine would not have made it the Roman state religion. Christianity in Europe dates to the mission of Paul of Tarsus, which created both a larger and a very different religion from the one followed by people in the Middle East, which was essentially a Jewish sect.


There were many interpretations of Christianity. It was only that the Trinitarian conception held by the early Church Fathers was the won which won in the end. Yes, it is true, Christianity was present well before Constantine converted in the fourth century. It had four centuries to spread throughout the empire.

Malatant of Shadow wrote:Rome was in need of a new state religion to provide unification at that time. If Constantine had not chosen Christianity for the purpose he would probably have chosen Mithraism, the main other contender. Mithraism would have worked about as well for Constantine's purposes, but could not have been incorporated into Islam as smoothly, since it was not an Abrahamic religion while Christianity is one.


Yes, Mithraism did not recognise Christ.

Malatant of Shadow wrote:Christianity would have continued to exist in that case, but would have been a smaller, less influential religion, and would have differed sharply in doctrine from the Christianity we have today, as Christian doctrine was centralized and consolidated (including the choice of books for the canonical New Testament) only after the Council of Nicaea in 325, which was when the Imperial Church came to be. Muhammad was born about 570 and received his first visions leading to the Quran in about 610 (when he was 40), so this was almost 300 years after the founding of the Imperial Church.


Maybe some other European kingdoms would have later adopted Christianity even if Rome had not accepted it?

Malatant of Shadow wrote:If we look at the Quran's Christian elements (so to speak), we find considerable departure from Imperial Church doctrine: the idea of Jesus as Son of God or God incarnate is rejected, the crucifixion itself is rejected as having actually happened to Jesus (in the Quran, God pulled a fast one and slipped the Sanhedrin and the Romans a substitute while taking the real Jesus into paradise). I can't see anything in the Quran that shows me Muhammad had really good detailed knowledge of Christian doctrine, but that he had some awareness of Jesus as a spiritual leader is clear. Given that Christianity in some form would have survived in a Mithraic Rome, it's not clear to me that Islam would not have arisen. It might have been different in some particulars.


Zenno wrote:Islam spread by military campaigns through much of central Asia - and elsewhere. The spread of Christianity in Europe was more cultural than military. I don't think Muslim invaders would have been able to hold the North of Europe by military occupation for very long. The culture was just too different. Europeans would never have given up alcohol. That is a major cultural element that is often overlooked. I think it is the widespread use of alcoholic beverages that differentiates European culture from Islamic culture more than any point of doctrine.


It is not true in all cases. Islam spread to many parts of the world without force. The Volga Tatars adopted it by choice, as did the South East Asians and Muslim Siberians. In Tajikistan despite conquest by the Muslims the pre-Islamic religion survived until the tenth century. It was mostly the work of Sufis which spread Islam there. Also there are Slavic Muslims in the Balkans. Anti-Islamic practices such as drinking or taking drugs do not stop the spread of the religion.
#14087098
Malatant of Shadow wrote:Heh -- I've encountered too many drunk Muslims to take that problem very seriously. ;)

I am under the impression the Moors of Spain enjoyed alcohol.


Zenno wrote:The spread of Christianity in Europe was more cultural than military.

And how much of that was Roman culture?
How would a Mithraism from Rome spread in Europe beyond Rome?
#14221986
It's my understanding that at the time of Constantine and the end of the "Great Persecution" (for refusing to perform religio, aka treason), Christians were only 10% in Rome itself. Had Constantine lost, or for some reason not performed a 180, then Christianity would neither the Niciene creed nor the exclusive power of Rome behind it to extort conversion. It also begs the question, "What of Constantinople, heart of the pentarchy and second Roman empire?" That I cannot say, perhaps the four sub-Emperors would have continued rather than dividing Rome strictly into two, and either been stronger, collapsing completely, or falling into four seperate empires instead of Bynzantine.

What I think of Islam's foundation is that it appears to have been a sect of Christianity at odds with the Niciene Creed, and it's well known it's arrival on the scene came at the end of a devasting war between the Bynzantines and Persians. Odds are that it'd have merely been a small, regional church, similar to the Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox or Armenians and not relied on the persona of Muhammed as a seperate prophet. As such, Islam itself would not exist but the Arab Orthodox Church; it also becomes dubious whether the military successes that established Islam would've been possible. Assuming the Tetrarchy persisted, Rome may very well have split as it did around 400, into four distinct Empires instead of two; this proposal leaves two potentialities. One is that conflict and fighting leads Persia to reconquer the Eastern Mediterranean well before the Arab Orthodox Church has the ability to unify the peninsula under their rule; the other is that this devastion between the the Sassanids and Anatolia/Levant continues and the Arabs make headway, but are checked in North Africa. Then there's the possibility that Arabia was unified by pagans rather than an Abrahamic sect.

In which case, I don't see barbarians legitimizing their rule in former Roman areas through the Church, as the church has no legitimacy or power. This means no Minor Christian kingdoms, meaning no diplomatic conversions and no crusades against pagans across Germany and into the Baltics. It also means no Islam and no Caliphate, the most Arab warlords being able to impose being unification of Levant and Peninsula.

I do, however, see the possibility of Persia reconquering Anatolia and the Levant, increasing it's power and spreading Zoroastrianism to those areas. This might mean that, rather than the spread of Christianity and Islam, that Zoroastrianism instead might have spread out and had petty kingdoms and conquerers convert to it to add to their legitimacy, albeit in a somewhat different pattern. It's also possible it'd have gone no futher than the Eastern Mediterranean or the Balkans, and new syncretic paganisms would've evolved over western Europe during the Middle Ages in it's place.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls Why do you think that? If you wer[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]