John Fredrick Parker
Donor
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:
This is some of the conversation the site did have:
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.
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.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.
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...
- 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.
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...
And on the objection that the Cult of Sol Invictus "didn't have depth":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.
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 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.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.
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.