Assuming Julian managed to successfully revive roman paganism in the west with many eastern elites also converting (Christianity was to entrenched in the eastern half by that point to really be supplanted). lets also assume that the western half falls similar to our timeline. Would Christianity ever be able to spread to Europe with a more centralized pagan faith acting as a barrier to it, especially as they'd also have the inevitable rise of Islam to contend with?
How would Christianity be affected if Julian succeded
- Thread starter Billy the Goat
- Start date
Correct me if I’m wrong, but many of the Germanic tribes, particularly the Goths, had already converted to Arian Christianity by that point, right?
If the Western Roman Empire collapses in roughly the same manner as OTL, divided between barbarian kingdoms, you’d have the odd situation where the Germanic leadership class are trying to convert the pagan masses to Christianity, albeit a very different variety of Christianity than that officially practiced in Constantinople.
If the Western Roman Empire collapses in roughly the same manner as OTL, divided between barbarian kingdoms, you’d have the odd situation where the Germanic leadership class are trying to convert the pagan masses to Christianity, albeit a very different variety of Christianity than that officially practiced in Constantinople.
Julian was too incompetent to even have a chance of succeeding at this. He was a pompous and self-important fool who somehow managed to unite the traditional Pagan establishment and the Christians against him. He was openly mocked for his beard in trying to appear as an Ancient Greek philosopher.
At least with Diocletian, he paid attention to the old traditional deities and pagan rites, Julian tried to create a Christian style system to create his own top down pagan system. This was something the followers of the Greco-Roman pantheon didn’t like.
At least with Diocletian, he paid attention to the old traditional deities and pagan rites, Julian tried to create a Christian style system to create his own top down pagan system. This was something the followers of the Greco-Roman pantheon didn’t like.
True
I mean, nothing wrong with that, Aurelius managed to pull that off rather well
I think trying to structure Paganism in a similar way to that of the Christian Church to better compete with Christianity wasnt itseof a bad idea(from a pagan perspective anyway)
An early Diocletian-like figure would have done a better job than him, then? If yes, that could be a interesting scenario
Paganism was in decline because Christianity offered people a better deal. It isn't so obvious to us now in the modern age, because now we just focus on Christianity's failings. I have a profoundly hard time believing such a pagan reform would have been possible at all.
Ammianus Marcellinus and Libanius would openly disagree.
Debatable. His untimely death didn't really help with his plan. A few more years, a few more victories here and there might actually give some stable foundation to his plan.
It seems you are describing a caricature of Julian, not Julian himself.
He managed to get the enmity (or more like the apathy) of certain elements of the Pagan establishment. Other notorious members of said establishments were also on board with his projects. But you are right, he didn't succeed to turn this completely into an entirely Pagan vs Christian fight.
I am not sure how that is relevant. The whole beard-hater thing is an episode that has a shred of importance when examining the relations between Julian and Antioch (just one of the many cities of the empire). An episode linked to the burning of the temple at Daphne and to Julian's attempt to prevent the local elite of the city from increasing the price of cereals during a shortage of food/selling their reserves outside the city by taking matters into his own hands. It doesn't have an empire-wide impact and it cannot be boiled down to Julian-pagan-bad.
Followers of the Greco-Roman pantheon did not like the excess of blood sacrifices. The only people who did not like the "Christian style system" were Christian bishops, people whose opinion should not have really mattered to Julian.
Was it that popular with pagans, though? I don't remember a lot of pagans rallying behind his reforms, though maybe I just haven't read enough about that part.
To be fair one might get that impression were he led the worst offensive against Persia that makes Anthony Parthian campaign look like a genius
It's hard to say, Julian started implementing his reform in the period of time between Constantinople and Antioch, not enough time to gauge a proper reaction. Realistically he would have encountered some sort opposition, since he was expecting the new pagan clergy to lead by example (with rotten apples forced to leave). On the other hand the promise of renewed imperial support for traditional cults (in the form of funds) was sure bound to attract renewed interest and change of sides. This is mostly referring to the aristocracy involved in maintaining the cults. The average citizen of the empire would have probably just cared about occasions for festivals and the new clergy providing help/shelter (one of the objective of these reforms) in the same way as the Christians.
I believe the most likely reaction (among the pagan aristocracy) was that the old cults did not really need such reforms (but were not really opposed to them either). It was not really something new either, as I believe Maximinus Daia tried something similar at the start of the century. The real point of contention (but not the only one) was mostly the excess of blood sacrifice.
As you said, that is just an impression. There are a lot of articles out there examining the various aspect of Julian's campaign in Persia. To summarize some of them:
Julian successfully achieved the element of speed and surprise;
The burning of the fleet was no "calamitous mistake", since the fleet could not sail upward the Euphrates. The task had been accomplished and so the fleet could be burned;
We don't really know how Julian planned to conclude his campaign, with the siege of Ctesiphon or one final big battle. If the latter, it makes sense that he left Ctesiphon in order to rejoin the second Roman army/Armenians so that he could clash the coming Persian army in a pincer maneuver. It is possible that some of his commanders (both in the main and the secondary army) were not really up to the tasks;
The whole choice of embarking in an offensive campaign against Persia cannot be solely blamed on Julian. Constantius himself was making preparations for his expedition in the East before dying.
a war with persian on its self is not bad Shapur II had been aggressive its just why he did
1) Julian successfully achieved the element of speed and surprise;
I would say this was some what exaggerated while Shapur moved to the north and Julian marched north Julian overestimated the defenses of Ctesiphon
2) maybe both defeated shapur would make the siege easier Shapur offered him a preferential peace but maybe like Romanos IV many years later Julian need a major victory to consolidate his position even had Procopius moved quicker its quite likely Shapur focus on destroying the reinforcements even if he had arrived i do not know if they would have taken Ctesiphon as the persians would continue to make the romans miserable even had he taken the city the what? sure its a great show but Shapur could still do massive damage in the retreat back home lets not forget that in the last war Narse took the romans by surprise won some victories but Galerius counter attack destroyed his army
in short Julian took some weird decisions in sieges and battles taking books far to literally the burning makes sense if he wasnt going to lay siege to Ctesiphont which he then lifted but that mean get out here quickly since Shapur wasnt gonna face him in Julians terms so Julian survives but the east would hate him because he lost sure maybe its not a total defeat but Julian running for his life out of persia and nothing to show for it would really not go well with the east.
Last edited:
I think there's an ongoing timeline abt a more competant Julian successfully reforming Greco-roman paganism into smth like modern day Hinduism, leading to stuff like, west Rome surviving (albiet confined to france and the italian penninsula) and Europe being divided b/w Abrahamic and reform pagan faiths (other groups like the Norse and the slavs also 'modernised' their traditions).
Now i dont remember the name unfortnately. It started with 'terra' thats all i know.
Now i dont remember the name unfortnately. It started with 'terra' thats all i know.
Julian had successfully managed to move past the fortresses on his way to Ctesiphon. The march was virtually unopposed and the Persians were not accomplishing much during this time, except gathering their forces. By all accounts, that was a very quick march from the Roman-Persian border to the enemy capital. One point to concede is that perhaps during this conflict Roman intel was not as good as its Persian counterpart, thus Julian being unable to take Ctesiphon (if that was his primary target).
That is the issue. Shapur II had been a thorn in the side for the previous 30 years (with some pauses here and there). A major victory was the best way to be remembered as the man who stopped (at least for a generation or two) the Persian threat.
But the Persians were nowhere near the reinforcements, plus if I remember correctly they were moving close to Armenian territory, so that they could count on the logistical support of the Armenian king.
Great loot, senior figures as hostages, prestige for Julian, Shapur's legitimacy shaken. The war doesn't necessarily have to end with annexation of great swaths of land.
That's why Julian probably aimed at baiting the Persian army somewhere where he could crush them with the full support of both roman armies.
this is not a bad strategy but one needs a clear objetive Maurice used it to capture and raid local sassanid forts and Heraclius used to march quickly a key main focus like in 624 to attack the yet unprepared army near the major fire temple and destroy it but the problem with Julian is that he headed straightforward to Ctesiphon one of the most fortified centers in the area so all the surprise factor would die off if he buckled down for a siege.
Initially the deception worked and Shapur moved north both soon got word of the main roman army had the reinforcments come from the north there if Julian doubles down on a siege that Shapur moves quickly to intercept the reinforcments comming from the north to crush them.
it doesnt even though Julian might have an ego trip and try again he already rejected a quite nice peace proposal if Julian was smart after taking the capital he could then accept Shapur peace proposal that he had originally and leave but if he stayed there is possibility of him ruing it .
i think Julian did the rigth choice to get out in fact he should have done so earlier Shapur was very experience commander and was fine with the romans marching on his lands and not attacking until the best moment but yeah so even if he takes the city he has to get out quick assuming Shapur rejects any peace.