If Rome Had Not Accepted Christianity - Page 3 - 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.
#15161984
Oxymoron wrote:Yes oops you are right.
Those damn Persians and their rebranding's.

The Parthians weren't Persians. ;)
#15161986
Potemkin wrote:The Parthians weren't Persians. ;)


I kind of genuinely agree. Those names don't look like dynasty names as the Chinese would change every few centuries.
#15161987
Potemkin wrote:The Parthians weren't Persians. ;)


Ummmm.... huh? As far as I understood they were just a different house in the Persian empire that won a civil war.
If not Persians what were they?

Edit: I checked they are some people called Pami what ever that is. Thanks for update, but I suppose for all intents and purposes their culture got quickly Persianized as these Pami were barbarian peoples.
#15161988
Why wouldn't Rome and Parthia/Sassanids would have fought if Rome hadn't Christianized. I agree with the rest but not this, pagan Rome was more than happy to fight various wars all around her border that included the wars with Parthians.

Parthians were as Persians as holy roman emperors were Romans. :lol:
#15161989
Oxymoron wrote:Ummmm.... huh? As far as I understood they were just a different house in the Persian empire that won a civil war.
If not Persians what were they?

Edit: I checked they are some people called Pami what ever that is. Thanks for update, but I suppose for all intents and purposes their culture got quickly Persianized as these Pami were barbarian peoples.

The Persian Empire was multi-ethnic from the beginning, incorporating the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Parthians, and countless small tribes, nomads and merchants. The Persians were merely the ruling elite of this multi-ethnic anthill. When Alexander conquered the Empire, the Persians were knocked out of the game for more than 600 years, until the Sassanid Persians retook their lost patrimony. During the interregnum, a previously little-known subject people of the defunct Persian Empire took over - the Parthians.
#15162002
fuser wrote: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.


I don't believe that is true, but you could always try to substantiate your claim.
#15162004
Islam is an abrahmic religion, Arabs have been in contact with Christianity for a long time thanks mainly to Byzantine Empire(which I agree you can say is not technically eutipean) and just like how Christianity grew out of Judaism, another offshoot of abrahmic faith was born precisely because Arabian peninsula had a Christian presence.

Without Christianity abrahmic faith doctrines would hadn't been in abundnce at least for the educated class in Arabian peninsula, hence no movement for another abrahmic offshoot.

I can't remember right now but a major arabian tribe at this point was already Christian.
#15162007
^ There's also the point that the European Christians regarded Islam as a Christian heresy rather than a separate religion in its own right. This is why Dante placed Mohammed in the circle of Hell reserved for heretics.
#15162256
Potemkin wrote: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.
The main question is how this process would go, would the Islam of Europe synthesise with Roman religion, customs and culture as it happened with Western Christianity? (for sure integrating a Divine Trinity doctrine into Islam would be much more difficult, and the Muslims of the ME would deem the Europeans heretic if they did so).


Potemkin wrote:The Persian Empire was multi-ethnic from the beginning, incorporating the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Parthians, and countless small tribes, nomads and merchants. The Persians were merely the ruling elite of this multi-ethnic anthill. When Alexander conquered the Empire, the Persians were knocked out of the game for more than 600 years, until the Sassanid Persians retook their lost patrimony. During the interregnum, a previously little-known subject people of the defunct Persian Empire took over - the Parthians.
The conquered nations (Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians and others) had different languages and heritage. But the Persians, Parthians, Medes, etc were all-related tribes, they had a common supra-identity of being Aryan. In a way, like the Scandinavians and Icelanders, separated by geography but with a common language, culture and heritage.
#15162272
Cookie Monster wrote:The main question is how this process would go, would the Islam of Europe synthesise with Roman religion, customs and culture as it happened with Western Christianity? (for sure integrating a Divine Trinity doctrine into Islam would be much more difficult, and the Muslims of the ME would deem the Europeans heretic if they did so).


The conquered nations (Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians and others) had different languages and heritage. But the Persians, Parthians, Medes, etc were all-related tribes, they had a common supra-identity of being Aryan. In a way, like the Scandinavians and Icelanders, separated by geography but with a common language, culture and heritage.

The Parni tribe (who later became the Parthians) seem to have originated in either southern Russia or Bactria, and were probably members of that vaguely defined group we call 'Scythians'. As @fuser said, they were about as 'Persian' as the Holy Roman Empire was 'Roman'. Lol.
#15162282
Cookie Monster wrote:The main question is how this process would go, would the Islam of Europe synthesise with Roman religion, customs and culture as it happened with Western Christianity? (for sure integrating a Divine Trinity doctrine into Islam would be much more difficult, and the Muslims of the ME would deem the Europeans heretic if they did so).


I am having a hard time imagining a scenario where Rome and its institutions survive and yet Christianity doesn't take hold in Western Europe. In my opinion without Rome getting Carthage treatment in one of her sacks, I don't see Christianity failing in Western Europe.

Also welcome back @Cookie Monster I guess we need more Rome related topics to keep you here. ;)
#15162287
Potemkin wrote: The Sassanid Persians are the empire you're thinking of. :)


Indeed...

Byzantine-Sassanid War wrote:The Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 was the final and most devastating of the series of wars fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Sasanian Empire of Iran. The previous war between the two powers had ended in 591 after Emperor Maurice helped the Sasanian king Khosrow II regain his throne. In 602 Maurice was murdered by his political rival Phocas. Khosrow proceeded to declare war, ostensibly to avenge the death of the deposed emperor Maurice. This became a decades-long conflict, the longest war in the series, and was fought throughout the Middle East: in Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, Anatolia, Armenia, the Aegean Sea and before the walls of Constantinople itself.

While the Persians proved largely successful during the first stage of the war from 602 to 622, conquering much of the Levant, Egypt, several islands in the Aegean Sea and parts of Anatolia, the ascendancy of the emperor Heraclius in 610 led, despite initial setbacks, to a status quo ante bellum. Heraclius' campaigns in Iranian lands from 622 to 626 forced the Persians onto the defensive, allowing his forces to regain momentum. Allied with the Avars and Slavs, the Persians made a final attempt to take Constantinople in 626, but were defeated there. In 627, allied with the Khazars, Heraclius invaded the heartland of Persia. A civil war broke out in Persia, during which the Persians killed their king, and sued for peace.

By the end of the conflict, both sides had exhausted their human and material resources and achieved very little. Consequently, they were vulnerable to the sudden emergence of the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate, whose forces invaded both empires only a few years after the war. The Muslim armies swiftly conquered the entire Sasanian Empire as well as the Byzantine territories in the Levant, the Caucasus, Egypt, and North Africa. In the following centuries, the Byzantine and Arab forces would fight a series of wars for control of the Near East.
#15162301
Potemkin wrote:The Parni tribe (who later became the Parthians) seem to have originated in either southern Russia or Bactria, and were probably members of that vaguely defined group we call 'Scythians'. As @fuser said, they were about as 'Persian' as the Holy Roman Empire was 'Roman'. Lol.
The Parthians come from the areas between the Eastern shores of the Caspian Sea and Bactria/Oxus River, a region which was in Classical times heavily populated by other Indo-Iranian tribes and a region which was for much of history directly connected with the societies of the Iranian plateau. The Parthians were not Persian, but they were linguistically and culturally related to the Persians, the Medes and other Indo-Iranians, and had a common heritage as Aryans. What contrasted the Parthians is that they retained elements of Central Asian pastoralist lifestyle. This confusion of either conflating the Parthians as Persian or excessively alienating the Parthians from the Persians stems from the common habit of using "Persian" as a reference point (Persian empire, Persian culture, Persian language), while Persians were only a tribe of a larger group. Hence, Oxy confusing Parthians for Persians is more akin to confusing Alamanni and Franks or Angles, Saxons and Jutes (tribes which share a common heritage and culture to such extent that they can be considered a continuum or part of a larger group) rather than the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire (two distinct polities in habited by distinct peoples in different ages).

As for Southern Russia/Eurasian steppes, some of the Indo-Iranian tribes moved there in classical and early medieval ages, but it is also the likely homeland of the Indo-Iranians in more ancient times. The Scythians are a potential candidate of Indo-Iranians who remained there (but it could also be that they returned at a later age, it's unclear). But we do know that at various stages the Scythians were more a confederation of tribes from different ethnicities. Their lifestyle and composition distinguished them from the Indo-Iranian tribes of the Iranian plateau; they have commonalities with the Parthians due to geographic proximity and lifestyle similarity. We don't know whether the ancestors of the Parthians were Indo-Iranians who traveled around Central Asia and Northwestern parts of the Indian subcontinent with the other Indo-Iranians of the plateau, to end up at the shores of the Caspian Sea and eventually take over the Iranian Plateau in a later arrival; or whether they are remnant Indo-Iranians of the Eurasian steppes who took a more direct path along the Caspian shores towards the Iranian Plateau. But even if it is the latter, linguistically their language was closer to that of the Indo-Iranians in the plateau and their culture converged/aligned with that in the plateau.
#15162308
fuser wrote:I am having a hard time imagining a scenario where Rome and its institutions survive and yet Christianity doesn't take hold in Western Europe. In my opinion without Rome getting Carthage treatment in one of her sacks, I don't see Christianity failing in Western Europe.
To my understanding, the premise of the original post is that Christianity either didn't spread into other parts of the Roman Empire or that it anyhow didn't become popular. The former is unlikely (as the Levant region was integrated into the Empire). However, the latter is a plausible scenario, as Potemky said there is nothing inevitable about the Christianisation of Europe. The Romans prosecuted the Christians intensively, and they could have succeeded in marginalising it or stopping it altogether.

Also welcome back @Cookie Monster I guess we need more Rome related topics to keep you here. ;)
Thank you, Fuser. Most likely that I will continue to be active on a sporadic basis, need a lot of time for myself as life progresses too fast. But history/Rome topics are always welcome. :D
#15162320
Cookie Monster wrote:The Parthians come from the areas between the Eastern shores of the Caspian Sea and Bactria/Oxus River, a region which was in Classical times heavily populated by other Indo-Iranian tribes and a region which was for much of history directly connected with the societies of the Iranian plateau. The Parthians were not Persian, but they were linguistically and culturally related to the Persians, the Medes and other Indo-Iranians, and had a common heritage as Aryans. What contrasted the Parthians is that they retained elements of Central Asian pastoralist lifestyle. This confusion of either conflating the Parthians as Persian or excessively alienating the Parthians from the Persians stems from the common habit of using "Persian" as a reference point (Persian empire, Persian culture, Persian language), while Persians were only a tribe of a larger group. Hence, Oxy confusing Parthians for Persians is more akin to confusing Alamanni and Franks or Angles, Saxons and Jutes (tribes which share a common heritage and culture to such extent that they can be considered a continuum or part of a larger group) rather than the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire (two distinct polities in habited by distinct peoples in different ages).

As for Southern Russia/Eurasian steppes, some of the Indo-Iranian tribes moved there in classical and early medieval ages, but it is also the likely homeland of the Indo-Iranians in more ancient times. The Scythians are a potential candidate of Indo-Iranians who remained there (but it could also be that they returned at a later age, it's unclear). But we do know that at various stages the Scythians were more a confederation of tribes from different ethnicities. Their lifestyle and composition distinguished them from the Indo-Iranian tribes of the Iranian plateau; they have commonalities with the Parthians due to geographic proximity and lifestyle similarity. We don't know whether the ancestors of the Parthians were Indo-Iranians who traveled around Central Asia and Northwestern parts of the Indian subcontinent with the other Indo-Iranians of the plateau, to end up at the shores of the Caspian Sea and eventually take over the Iranian Plateau in a later arrival; or whether they are remnant Indo-Iranians of the Eurasian steppes who took a more direct path along the Caspian shores towards the Iranian Plateau. But even if it is the latter, linguistically their language was closer to that of the Indo-Iranians in the plateau and their culture converged/aligned with that in the plateau.

Finally - someone who knows more than I do about the Parthians. Thank you, @Cookie Monster! :up: :D
#15162457
Cookie Monster wrote: The Romans prosecuted the Christians intensively, and they could have succeeded in marginalising it or stopping it altogether.


I believe the correct term is persecuted. ;) Where in the empire did persecution stop or marginalize christianity on a lasting basis? Under Galerius and Maximinus II Daia anti-christian policy continued a little longer in the East, but it made little if any difference.
#15162462
starman2003 wrote:I believe the correct term is persecuted. ;) Where in the empire did persecution stop or marginalize christianity on a lasting basis? Under Galerius and Maximinus II Daia anti-christian policy continued a little longer in the East, but it made little if any difference.

By the time the Romans got serious about stamping out Christianity (rather than merely using them as convenient scapegoats, as Nero had done), it was already too late. By the time Constantine threw in the towel, about a third of the population of the Roman Empire were already Christians. The Roman authorities just didn't take Christianity seriously enough until it was no longer possible to eradicate it. A bit like Mormonism then. Lol.
#15162464
Potemkin wrote: By the time Constantine threw in the towel


Threw in the towel...lol

He established the Creed and Christianity as we know it.

wiki wrote:Constantine was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity.[notes 2] Although he lived much of his life as a pagan, and later as a catechumen, he began to favor Christianity beginning in 312, finally becoming a Christian and being baptised by either Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop, or Pope Sylvester I, which is maintained by the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church. He played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in 313, which declared tolerance for Christianity in the Roman Empire. He convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325, which produced the statement of Christian belief known as the Nicene Creed.[7] The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built on his orders at the purported site of Jesus' tomb in Jerusalem and became the holiest place in Christendom. The papal claim to temporal power in the High Middle Ages was based on the fabricated Donation of Constantine. He has historically been referred to as the "First Christian Emperor" and he did favour the Christian Church. While some modern scholars debate his beliefs and even his comprehension of Christianity,[notes 3] he is venerated as a saint in Eastern Christianity.

The age of Constantine marked a distinct epoch in the history of the Roman Empire.[10] He built a new imperial residence at Byzantium and renamed the city Constantinople (now Istanbul) after himself (the laudatory epithet of "New Rome" emerged in his time, and was never an official title). It subsequently became the capital of the Empire for more than a thousand years, the later Eastern Roman Empire being referred to as the Byzantine Empire by modern historians. His more immediate political legacy was that he replaced Diocletian's Tetrarchy with the de facto principle of dynastic succession, by leaving the empire to his sons and other members of the Constantinian dynasty. His reputation flourished during the lifetime of his children and for centuries after his reign. The church holds him up as a paragon of virtue, while secular rulers invoked him as a prototype, a point of reference and the symbol of imperial legitimacy and identity.

The link and quote has been posted. As well as l[…]

Nobody is trying to distract from the humanitarian[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Again: nope. Putin in Feb 2022 only decided ... […]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]