- 26 Apr 2013 05:06
#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.