What if Civilization started at the height of the Ice age, so like Sundaland, Sahul, Doggerland, Green Sahara, Mega Chad, Cuvette Centrale Lake, Greater Caspian and Aral sea, Eurasian Mammoth Steppe maybe throw in closed gates of Hercules in there for good measure. What if Tang continued their expansion into Central Asia after the Battle of Talas (None of the rebellions that followed after that crippled the dynasty)[Also the Sassanid dynasty had gone to Tang China and its prince was there at the frontlines of the Battles against the Caliphate, I imagine that if the Tang are relatively triumphant he would be made a vassal King or commandary on a Tang Iranian protectorate]. Medieval or Ancient Armenian, Georgian or Pontic Empire, especially a what if Tigranes the Great Conquered Persia and the Levant. What if Sassanids conquered constantinople in the last great war of antiquity, What if Viking expansion took them all the way to West Africa, establishing trade routes btw West Africa and Europe through the Atlantic by 1000 AD. What if Portugal and Ethiopia allied to destroy Mecca. What if Portugal conquered the Mamluks instead of the Ottomans. What if Japan and/or Spain conquered China. I am mostly getting this from the "Samuel Hawley" channel but both had designs on China and China was weaker than it seems at this time, having like a tenth of its actual claimed army, like even the army that defeated the Japanese on land in the Imjin war was smaller than the Japanese one and they were very slow to mobilize, like around a hundred pirates terrorized southern China for over a month ravaging large sections of land before the army came to stop them and it took similarly long to intervene in Korea. Now reaction time would be faster near the capital but the Japanese would in less than a Month have already gotten to a Beijing if not for Admiral Yi harassing their naval supplies, if he someone just dies, the Japanese would have occupied enough of Korea to create their supply lines to reach Beijing. As for Spain,he also made a video on that and they planed to use like 15,000 Spaniards and Ameridian Mexicans with like 25,000 Filipino, Wokou and Japanese mercenaries to invade China from I think Fujin province. Now they tried in OTL to intervene in Cambodia and failed and the Spanish King refused the invasion of China but the Cambodian force was relatively small(like what they used to conquer the Aztecs and Inca) and we could always have a senerio where they and the Japanese collaborate and attack different parts of China, maybe the Spaniards go first in SOuth China and by the time an army is drawn up to attack them down south, the Japanese take down Korea and reach Beijing. As for Japan, Hideoyohi wanted to reach all the way to Northern India so who knows. What if the Ottomans conquered Rome. What if the Rus converted to Islam(AKA more Turkic influences and the Ottomans gain an ally) What if Ashoka's missionaries successfully spread Buddhism to the Greeks in in Persia, Anatolia and Greece/Thrace. What if Carthage opened strong trade links with with West Africa(If they still end up conquered by Rome, let it be in a less genocidal and destructive manner that they can still keep such trade links open.) What if Rome never conquered Britain. What if the Caliphate collapsed earlier, like around the late 850s(or earlier), just like a decade before the Ethiopian Merchant Class were again engaged in a war over Islands of Hanish, Danakil, Farasan and Socotra Islands. Add in Bābak Khorramdin's Khurramīyah revolt and Zanj rebellion for good measure (if it collapses like 820s, 830s these would make more sense) What if Samo's Empire didn't fall apart following his death. What if the Kushite dynatsy was able to hold Egypt from the Assyrians(AKA Continuing the cultural and political unity between Nubia and Egypt for centuries more that was started by the Egyptian New Kingdom). (for a more modern one) What if Biafran, Katangan and Papuan separatism worked out, what would be their effects on the cold war, ideology, the churches, liberation theology, pan-africanism and most importantly the view of the international community on separatism etc. What if instead of joining the Axis, the Japanese kept up their built up image as the non-White great power and defender of coloured peoples by helping their ally of Ethiopia against the Italians. Jabzy had a recent video about how the Japanese were building up this image.
What if Europe converted to Islam? What if Rome converted to the Cult of Isis? What if China converted to Manichaeism? What if Europe worshipped Sol Invictus?
On the topic of Europe, I think it's rudely overlooked how Rome and it's collapse changed Europe. Rome had concepts that are only found in ancient China. Rome's collapse created Europe's individualist mindset. Europe would be a lot like East Asia.
I actually really agree with this concept. We take for granted that Europe is decentralized, but in a lot of places in the world, once centralization happens and enforced, society never recovers. Civilization basically becomes a long string of centralized powerful governments. China and the middle east come to mind. The fact that this DIDN'T happen with Rome was hugely advantageous, and helps explain Europe's later dominance.
@@NUSORCA The only other region in the world that is analogous to Europe would have been Japan, which became a decentralized land with alot of competing nation states. Japan actually did become powerful in sort of a similar way to Europe but on a smaller scale. What areas were you thinking of?
@@alexanderryan1176 none really I was in awe of the absurdity to randomly hypothesize a positive correlation between decentralization and dominance regardless of people’s sense of belonging within the culture group
@@NUSORCA haha its not random and its not absurd. Decentralization usually causes alot of smaller entities. This breeds a hyper competitive environment where each small entity has to max out its output (military, economic, sociopolitical) to survive and compete. Centralization usually has the opposite effect, where innovation is slowed down and competition is greatly reduced. 5th century Greece, The German Confederation, Japan are also good examples of this phenomenon.
People like to emphasize on Julian's paganism, while I personally admire his attempt at restoring the Principate and rejection of absolute autocracy, returning to the Roman Republican traditions somewhat.
Interesting point here being that the Germanic peoples would have felt less impetus to abandon their own pagan religions if the Western Empire that they invaded was not Christianized. The Interpretatio Romana would likely led to pagan syncretism, with Roman and Germanic deities merged as much as possible. Without Clovis I converting to Catholicism, the Frankish nation would have looked very different. It would have been interesting to see how this would have played out during the Muslim invasions of Europe.
The Goths we're Arian Christians so Hispania, Italy and the Balkans would likely have remained Christian, as well as the Christian missionaries from Ireland into Scotland and northern England. Nevertheless a very interesting situation indeed
@@j.g.4942 - But the Franks were still pagans, and many left their King Clovis I when he converted to Christianity. Likewise, the northern and wester Germanic tribes remained pagan well into the Middle Ages.
@@daniels7907 Absolutely, yet the British and continental germans would be surrounded by Christians to the south, in the sea, and eventually to the east. interesting as you said.
@@j.g.4942 - Especially since Christianity itself was not immune to syncretism, particularly when adopting pagan customs helped win converts in specific areas. This likely would have resulted in a more fragmented Christianity with more active denominations. More so if the Roman Empire wasn't enforcing adherence to a specific doctrine via something like the Edict of Thessalonica.
@@daniels7907 like the syncretism in the Coptic, Slavic, Greek, Ethiopian, and Indian Christian groups. It's fun when you look into those cultures and Christian adaption to them, like Krampus; a figure worshipped then conquered and made a slave by a Christian saint, and so preserved yet in a thoroughly detestable way. (Yes I know it's southern German, but it's the example I know)
The problem with Julian and his Sassanid campaign was that there wasn't seemingly any goal in mind other to increase his political gravitas through a sucessful campaign in the East. I can only assume Julian thought "I'll do like Trajan and conquer Mesopotamia", and when it became clear Ctesiphon wasn't falling, he failed to re-adjust his goals in time. Even if he did survive, his legitimacy would be shaken, as Roman Emperors relied on legitimacy through military sucess above everything else. Also, I severely doubt Julian would make Trier his capital. I see him either sticking with Constantinople for its invaluable strategic position, or change to Rome in order to replicate the Golden Age he admired.
Julian was also very superstitious always trusting weird omens signs etc during his campaigns. About the capital, I did that on purpose as in my opinion Gaul- which was essentially the hearth of the Western Roman Empire was so easily lost after the freezing of the Rhine because the center of power was relocated from Mediolanum and Trier to Ravenna. There were of course a dozen of other reasons - the depletion of manpower in the western legions after Frigidus and all the other civil wars, the incompetence of the Chickenboy, and so on.
I dont think they would lose britannia if they could fend off germanic invasions on gaul and this rome after surviving the darkest hour could conquer the weakened germanic tribes by the huns
I see the huns would be a semi ally and be a nuisance for one more century time or even more being rivals against the romans in their weakest moments and also allys and we could see some exchange of troops by money with them also now that some germanic tribes had been conquered or conquered too by the huns they could focus more on the east the sassanids would begin to feel overwhelmed at some moments like the parthians and start scorch earth tactics
Never the less on that it would stayed the True Religions of humanity and God(s) and not false religions and fantasies like christianity and hebraism as whole.
Julian would've been more than capable of leading those battles. I'm wondering however, if he managed to find a stable point in his reign, would he bother to do so personally? He was inclined to reestablishing classical institutions and intellectualism and by multiple accounts, had went on his last Persian campaign to let off steam after a disappointing at doing just that. If he had found a more receptive area (as he does in this video), there were still plenty who were more familiar with how Roman Paganism worked and could aid the still actively learning Julian in his efforts to update the practices. Just as important, someone may be able to teach him how to 'present' as an emperor. I wouldn't be surprised if he oversaw increased emphasis on the glory held so highly in the traditional military apparatus, the Altar of Victory, increased military training and designated more officers to lead further campaigns while he devoted more time to stabilizing/strengthening cultural and governance matters from within. Things like establishing new centers similar to Constantine's takeover of Byzantium. Possibly including a western "Julian's Academy". The Germans weren't against syncretism and would pretty much go with anything if they didn't feel like they were being used... and the food and pay were steady.
Julian represented a new synthesis and not just a return to form for the old traditions. His Sol Invictus leanings meant that even if he survived the faith that would mark the west would be widely different from the old ways. One god would rule over Rome regardless.
Many elements making the frankish empire were needed to do so, you can't just making them appeared like this, same for the rashidun caliphate, the butterfly effect might not be the same for these 2 empires to rise
Yes and i think its more probable that this rome would be to strong to not lose britain endure the germanic onslaught and probably not let them in since they can because they aren't in a weakened state and the germanic peoples after this hunnic incursions would be to weakened so the romans could conquer them and most likely they would since they would provoke them
I see the tribes would unite since the romans wont let them in and they have to defend against the huns and huns would be semi allies and be a nuisance for the centuries to come since the huns would see rome as to strong and most likely would side with the east which would be less militaristic than the pagan west in the upcoming civil wars if not the huns would just trade with them and after the conquest of germania they could apply more pressure to the east and the sassanids so they would wage war like their parthian counterparts and eventually with war exhaustion from romans and white huns collapse in mid 500's to another rebellions or be really weak and frail to make a challenge
The west would overpower the less militarized east and now with germania secured could focus on other campaigns like scotland or do campaigns into arabia for imperial legitimacy now the sucess on those campaigns is questionable arabia they could with the help of aksum i think
"Each sect hated the other sects more than the pagans" _looks at the 16 and 17th centuries and the religious wars between Christians in Europe_ Yeah ... Seems about right
I don't think that Julian would move his capital to Gaul and still be content with merely defending the frontier. Historically, he successfully campaigned deep into Germania Magna and I can see him crushing the barbarians for good to finish the job.
The problem with conquering Germania was that it was sparsely populated and there were no major population centers, i.e. cities, unlike in Gaul. So even if the Romans managed to conquer Germania, their hold over the region would have been strenous at best.
I think it's pretty silly that Julian, who knew numerous Pagan Philsophers would allow any of his Children a Christian upbringing in the capital that was very explicitly Christian. Likewise he was seeking to reimplement rule more along the lines of the Principate so you'd have less of the expensive bureaucracy of the Dominic and greater autonomy for the Governor's but more to the point he certainly wouldn't split the Empire. If he lived the best change he'd make to the Empire is in administration where he was incredibly effective at both reducing taxes and increasing revenue which would have helped the economy and strength of the Empire in the long run. Unlike in the 5th century they'd actually be able to afford a standing army in the West. I'd imagine he'd do some military reforms but that's just conjecture on my part. It's so bizzare that so many people like to portray the split as inevitable when in reality it was entirely possible to maintain a unified Empire. It's just like in scenario's where they have the East magically split from the West since "it's more Christian" without actually explaining how, where the majority of the administrators would be Pagan and the army wouldn't be Christian enough to make it rebel against Pagan rule. To go back to Julian he was deliberately looking to weaken the Christian faith as stated in the video, where he invited back exiled heretic priests as to sow disunion and his banning of Christians from teaching Pagan works essentially cut them out of the intellectual realm of Rome. Julian was looking to create a reformed and unified Pagan religion for the Roman Empire so again splitting the Empire seems even more ridiculous in that context.
The empire was significantly christian at the time of Julian. Weakening christian institutions and settlements was literally weakening his empire from the inside. Had he lived on and continued his reign, this process would have only continued and deepened, possibly even leading to civil warfare between christians and pagans. Julian may have been learned, but he wasn't wise.
@@Hoi4o A civil war how exactly? It's hard to even start a Civil War when the vast majority of political and military Leadership would have been Pagan under Julian, so at best you could hope for it a rebellion but that's assuming a rebellion get's off the ground to begin with, especially seeing that given Julian's excellent administrative skills the livelihood of everyday citizens would have improved. If you could give me those documents that tell me exactly the percentage of christianisation of the Empire that would be fantastic, but seeing how in the 390s Eugenius was encouraged by his Pagan majority soldiers to bring back the Altar of Victory in the the Senate house, how in the West they had to pass laws in the early 400s to prevent Christians from converting back to the Pagan faith as well as the existence of Pagan Magistrates up to the reign of Anastasius in the early 6th century, I do believe Christian influence to be overstated. Lessing the tax burden while also increasing it's revenues would have only increased the strength of the Empire which is evident by the reign of Anastasius once again (Which was a time of great religious controversy regarding Monophysites, with religious controversies continuing essentially across the entire history of the Empire so what footing do you stand on regarding your view? Even then given in modern times the bountiful example of many different protestant sects like in the USA certainly doesn't seem to have hurt the country). Granted I am largely ambivalent regarding whether Julian would have had success in creating a more centralised Pagan religion, but his administration skills on its own would have been enough to increase the power of the Empire, creating a more unified Empire as well. While I do not agree with Edward Gibbons view regarding Christianity weakening the Empire I do think the Empire was hurt by not being more tolerant of other interpretations of Christianity particularly Arianism which was popular with the Germanic tribes but given the rejection of it by the Empire it made it harder to integrate the Germanic people's, Julian on the other hand would have been far more welcoming by comparison, granted he would have also certainly avoided the loss of Adrianople given that by that point he would have had over 2 decades of military experience against the Germanic tribes. So what I can very safety assume at the very least is that Julian would have strengthened the Empire as a whole due to his administration, that the weakening of Christian institutions would not have weakened the Empire and that there certainly wouldn't be a civil war seeing that of course the literal Emperor Julian can literally select the Leadership class of the Empire, meaning that there wouldn't really be anyone who could start a civil war, it's not going to magically appear out of thin air, it needs leaders but it's honestly more likely that the Christians will have a greater interest in dealing with the 'heretics' rather than try to start a full scale civil war, especially since he didn't persecute them and the everyday lives of the citizenry would improve due to the decreased tax burden and better governance.
@@Hoi4o You could literally say the same thing about Constantine weakening the already established pagan administration in favor of Christianity for his time, which no Christian would possibly argue that he made Rome weaker from the inside-out. Your entire comment is just christcuck cope
Everything you just said is absolutely true. What xstians like to forget, is that even the Byzantines were getting dominated throughout its "extended" lifespan.
Yes i think the end of the roman empire began when it became christian also i don't like how the empire always stays the same in this what ifs or loses territory like if it survived the barbaric incursions in the 400s they would be strong so the huns would most probably ally and be a nuisance for more time and the germanic peoples would be weakened and could be conquered
And i think the west would be more militaristic and the strongest part whike the east would be decadent and unstable with christianity the romans started to be less militaristic and that would make them weak since they have many borders even the east has many
The most likely scenario is the west dominatibg the east and slowly converting it they wouldnt lose britain since they could fend off easily the germanic tribes and conquer germania since its weakened by the hunnic invaders and they would provoke the romans also the huns would be semi allies and be a nuisance for one more century or so
This hunnic empire would see this rome to strong and be semi allies, allies at a time rivals on the weakest hour probably at civil wars if majorian is born on this timeline it could help on adaptation against the huns depending on his lifespan i dont know if he was healthy but he died
It is more likely that Julian holds on to his throne if he had made peace after the Battle of Ctesiphon, rather than after he had to withdraw with nothing in hand. The whole point of the campaign was to mollify the Eastern Army which had stayed loyal to Constantius II. An unequal treaty would fatally undermine his hold on the East.
Rome would be a Holy city still and again as it should be with its True God(s) Beleifs and Faiths. Religion of Romans and its real ways been lot lot lot better. Religio Romana Populium is true Religion of Rome and Italia as whole. Salvé 🇮🇹.
@@carlosnamerow5505 salve blessed Caesar up in Heaven given life and bliss to live forever in worship of The Gods like Fatherly Jupiteris and Lord Apollo and Fatherly Neptunis and Queenly Juna and Lady Venus. Praise The Almighties Blessed be the Emperors in Heaven.
Don't you think Persia would have adopted Christianity if it could not spread through Europe ? Cuz Persia was also very prone & likely to be Christianized at multiple points in history. Or perhaps if Christianity was totally unsuccessful in both Rome & Persia then Persia wouldn't have been weakened by different factions of religious entities constantly starting a rebellion & civil war , also Armenia would have been more inclined towards the Persian rule instead of the Roman rule since there was no Christianity & so Armenia wouldn't have caused any troubles or rebellions in Persia..... With a more powerful Persia & a more unified Rome (especially if they hadn't gone through their 25 years of constant & pointless war in the end) *then the Islamic conquests would have most definitely been defeated or at least stopped from expansion in the Iranian plateau & Europe* (instead it might've spread all across Africa & possibly even India throughout the Indian Ocean which connected Arabia & India)
Yep, Nestorian Christianity was spreading pretty quickly there. One of the last good Sasanian rulers Khosrow II was notoriously tolerant toward Christians being married to a one and that.
The religious issues that Persia had were tied to Zoroastrianism and other new religions, not Christianity. Manicheanism, Mazadakism, some other neo-Zoroastrian sects. Also, the East would still be Christian and this would be post-Constantine's declaration to be protector of all Christians so I doubt. Maybe if they survive Islam tho.
I don't think it will spread to India in this scenario. Arabs actually attacked India multiple times via sea route but they were crushed by Chaulakya and later by Rashtrakuta rulers. Islamic conquest of India occured only via land route .
@@ikengaspirit3063 there are many inscription in South India, where Indian rulers boasted about defeating Muslim attacks via sea. Even if they won some sea battles, it was the land invasion which gave them breakthrough into the Indian subcontinent.
More possibility of 1). Mithira ( it was popular among roman army esp officer class, Rome also had many mithriac temples) 2). Syncretic worship of odin , Jupiter and Zeus ( as Germanic invasion were successful & heathens would have found roman paganism closer to their own . It happened in Africa where syncretic gods of egyptian and Hellenic religion were present) 3). Neoplatonism unified all European religion philosophically and they all had different gods but very similiar practices ( like in India where Advaita vedanta philosophy unified different religious sects into one called Hinduism ).
If Bulgaria and Serbia were part of Russia And another Roman with you I think you’ve been doing the Roman empire I think for the past 2 or 3 months 😅 that’s fine with me tho But I do hope to see you different scenarios your videos are always well-made 👍
@@biggie_boss They are very close but they are not one country I think if the Russian empire survived they could’ve annexed Bulgaria which Bulgaria did have a Russian support during the Russian empire and World War II with the Soviet Union so if the Russian empire survived taking over Bulgaria then with Hitler probably trying to convince him to give up occupied Serbia in exchange for land because if Russian empire survived they would’ve annexed some German territory like let’s say east Prussia so that could make both nations part of Russia and also if the ship Russian people to Bulgaria and Russia to make a Russian population in those countries
Actually I dont´t belive that the Anglo Saxon would be so succsessfull in concuring britain. The main point for them being succsessfull was that britain was divided because the roman left. With the romans still governing the region, this could end up way more complicated.
The Roman empire didn't become Christian because Constantine decided to, he was forced to become Christian because his subjects were already Christian. Christianity was first created by the Greek speakers of Anatolia, that's why apostle Paul made most of his journeys there. So it was a whole movement, not a single event, that can be revoked.
I think an interesting point in this scenario would be the fact, that without Christian West, there is no Saint Ambrose of Milan. Will the religious figure like him rise in the East and elevate the patriarch of Constantinople to the status co-equal with the emperor, or will the relations between the church and the state in the Christian East remain similar to the our timeline Orthodox Eastern Roman Empire? Will the Patriarch call a crusade to reclaim the Seat of Saint Peter from the pagans?
I don’t think the Sassanids would be conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate in this timeline, as the Sassanids were only conquered due to their instability and exhaustion from the devastating Byzantine-Sasanian war which they lost.
They already did. Khan Asparukh and his people migrated to the Balkans from the territories of Walachia and Moldova which remained under Bulgarian rule till the collapse of the First Bulgarian Empire. There was also a sizeable Bulgar population in Pannonia (Western Hungary) till the arrival of the Magyars (Hungarians). Only Transylvania and Eastern Hungary weren’t populated by Bulgars but by Avars instead.
If Rome never became Christian and remained a small minority like the Manichaens, it would've been interesting to see how an encounter between Islam and Pagan Rome would've turned out.
I am sceptical Islam would exist,at least in the current form. Plus Judaism would be a more powerful religion since Julian wanted to rebuild the Jewish templ e .If am not wrong he even started building it
There's one thing though, Christianity grew as much as paganism was dying, it was a process of the axial age. Julian establishing a western empire wouldn't be enough, paganism would need to be reformed into henotheism. The Egyptians had already done this with Ptah, the Romans might've done it by copying the Greek Chaos or maybe Sol, or maybe even Ptah himself since the cult of Isis was already popular.
Christianity marked the end of the axial age. Its not part of the axial age at all. And paganism wasn't dying, if it was then there wouldnt have need of a literal century of anti pagan laws and prosecution
@@xiuhcoatl4830 yes, Paganism was dying, kinda. There's a reason why there were so many mystery cults, Agnostics (like Epicureans) and Atheists in that era. If Christianity didn't come a highly divergent form of Paganism(maybe some Sol Invictus based Henotheism) would have taken over and you'll see people today bitching about original Paganism like they do about original Christianity before the Catholics supposedly corrupted it.
@@ikengaspirit3063 Mystery cults existed way before this period. Literally, the eleusyan mysteries can be tracked way back to archaic Greece just as oracular practices. The many mystery cults of this period are more product of eastern syncretism than a decline on mainstream polytheist tradition. Mysteric cults were polytheist anyway. Atheism also existed way before this, it wasn't a novelty. Christianity is an aberration, both to judaic tradition, and to pagan thinking. That's why they had to impose it upon others, because it's nonsense only convinced the ones in worst conditions, taking advantage of their vulnerability
I wish that Christianity stayed like it should of instead of the early Catholic Church forcing Christianity on pagans by force. They could of found a way better way to tell God’s plan to his sons and daughters, and how they could have eternal life if they believed in him, and his sacrifice!
The greatest irony of the Abrahamic religions is that the supposed God of perfection, innocence and peace was the perfect god of war. I don't think Hellenism would have ever survived as large religions because of this. There would have to be some sort of religious zealotry within Hellenism for that to happen, I think.. Still, we have learned a lot from the Abrahamic religions. Mostly, what not to do.
@@Tzimiskes3506 You're not wrong, if the Soviet Union was any indication. Still, there have been a lot more people killed because of religion than from non-religious.
@@Bidmartinlo Hmm well you're wrong. "Encyclopedia of Wars," authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and of these wars, 3% were islamic. Most Christian wars were fought as defensive. If someone invaded your home, would you let them have a stroll through? “of more than fifty thousand Orthodox churches on the territory of the RSFSR in 1917, fewer than a thousand were left in 1939.” -Victoria Smolkin, A Sacred Space is Never Empty: A History of Soviet Atheism, Princeton, 2018, (p. 49)
@@Tzimiskes3506 7% of a list from biased authors is still a lot for declaring war for your delusions. You're also knowingly lying when you say it's for "self-defense", because you know they mean these wars are declared BECAUSE of religion not because "a religion is defending itself". And no, I'm not defending atheists or the Soviet union. Maybe you're just having a religious experience, ie a schizophrenic episode.
@@Bidmartinlo Yes biased authors... When they don't agree with your larpagan wishful thinking 🤣 nice way to cope. You've already admitted that you have pseudo history and wishful thinking. We have already established that you are at the top of the dunning-kruger curve, Martin. Lying? So the Rashidun invasion of the ERE is a lie? The Ottoman expansion is a lie? Stupid larpagan go read history. Maybe your just having a larpagan 2009 reddit paganism/atheist phase. I can smell the cheetos+mountain dew through your screen, Martin. Move out of your mom's basement and go read a history book, martin. Why has your dad not returned from getting milk, Martin? Turns out most of the online larpagans or atheists exhibit fatherless behavior and you are the eg, Martin.
Julian specifically stated that he would not father nor adopt any children and pass on the throne to them. Libanius in his letters begged him to do that until he died and refused each time.
Constantine did not bring Christianity to the Western world. Constantine merely did the inevitable and accepted the reality that Christianity was now dominant among the populace. Any other emperor would have had to have soon done the same thing. Some religions were spread by armies. Christianity did not. It spread by word of mouth peacefully until it was just about unstoppable. Perhaps the most attractive feature to the hordes of people, was the emphasis on sharing. There was little in the way of welfare in those days and almost everyone was dirt poor.
@@dharmapersona2084 that's like saying Christians and muslims are the same thing cause they both worship "God", those 2 religions are not even slightly similar, it doesn't matter that they both worship a sun god. Anyway, imagine being a hi*ndu lmao
The split of Rome meant 5he split of 5he entire European continent into eastern and western And the original sin of the European missery,Ever since then ther has been multiple east west wars But the eastern roman empire newer attempted to re-take the western again and unify
The Romans were the masters of adaptations and, at the same time, Romanization of people that were conquered or absorbed. They main difference between Roman Religions throughout time and the Judah/Abraham; Judah, Christianity, Islam, and other pagan religions. The Romans believed in other people's pathon/ religion as mush as their own. By contemporary sources and archeological evidence.
If only the abrahamic religions activities were held outside, if it were they would probably be absorbed by the Roman empire, imagine Moses the son of Neptune who divided the red sea, David a mortal who fought against the titans, Solomon who was given fire by the Titan Prometheus, and so onm.
Daniel 2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. Daniel 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. Daniel 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. Daniel 2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. Daniel 2:42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
if that particular scenario would play out ,,,,than i could see a thought of humanism emerging as a way to unite the 2 halfs at least in spirit ,,,probably around the 750s-800s imagine a primitive roman nato,,,,,,after all they have a lot of enemies on their plate when the Caliphs conquer all in the east but Greece and Anatolia ,,,the east is gonna be pressured to do something and the west has the franks and Saxons still doing their shenanigans ,,,not too mention the vikings later on oh and there would be no Pope in Rome but i have doubts that the empire would have fallen ,,,,,,it would eventually just be the Kingdoms of Spain Italy and greece but with different paint ,,,,but remember Byzantium declinde because of a crusade that Alexios the 3rd basically left into the city ,,,,,and even than they made till 1453
Julian the apostate was a good emperor. He wanted to cut taxes and unnecessary spending. He also was very invested in the securing of the borders of the empire
As an Italian I m profoundly ashamed of what Romans did all around the world. They think they bring some great advancements, but while they did something good, they destroyed so many cultures and so much history. And to be honest, for the treatment of women and warfare and all was sure not the best culture. Roman Christianity is what the Roman empire had to do to stay alive.
Don’t worry, italians of today has nothing to do with the romans, maybe you live in the area but you have been mixed over the years that you are not the ancestors of them.
Interesting. But I honestly can't see islam appearing without the influence of a powerful and unified christian empire to be both a model and a rival. I love to see what would have happened if Constantine had invoked the christian god and then been humiliated and killed in the following battle. As you can probably tell I'm not a fan of ANY proselytising religion.
Witha weaker eastern rome wouldn't antolia fall earlier to the arabs becuase they have to deal with two powerful rivals on both east and west. The arabs could have expanded into eastern land easier
