WI: Julian the Apostate succeeds in his Persian expedition

[Ingenuus]

Julian returns from Persia triumphant, having conquered Mesopotamia (arguable). He goes on to rule for a long time. How does this affect the Empire?

Julian learned from the failure of Diocletian and did the opposite to achieve the same. His anti-Christian policy wasn't violent, instead, it was based on the selection and promotion of pagan municipalities over Christian ones. Also, he didn't try to establish a despotism but placed himself at the same level as the senators.

I can imagine him adopting a relative (like Procopius) as his heir who continues the same methods, resulting in Christianity never becoming state religion. The strengthening of barbarian characters' influence and the acceleration of immigration from the Barbaricum as in OTL would be a possible side effect. At this time the barbarians weren't yet converted, and thus under Julian, they were oftentimes supported over Roman politicians. (See Dagalaifus, Arbitio, Agilo, Nevitta and Jovinus.)

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Julian returns from Persia triumphant, having conquered Mesopotamia (arguable). He goes on to rule for a long time. How does this affect the Empire?

Not much to say here, except that there are a few articles out there debating Julian's true intentions and aims with his expedition. It is very likely that the conquest of Mesopotamia was not one of them. More likely a minor border change in favour of Rome, loot/tribute, the destabilization of the Persian empire or if he was really daring, the establishment of a puppet dynasty in Ctesiphon (Hormisda)

 

[Silver01]

I got conquer mesopotamia? That would be a imo a no no Julian could sack Ctesiphon declare a victory and force shapur II to a preferential peace knowing Julian tho he could undue a massive victory by wanting to get rid of shapur II all together..

But yeah I think the issue here is deal with shapur II who wants to undue the 298 treaty, so forcing him to negotiate after taking Ctesiphon

 

[Ingenuus]

Not much to say here, except that there are a few articles out there debating Julian's true intentions and aims with his expedition. It is very likely that the conquest of Mesopotamia was not one of them. More likely a minor border change in favour of Rome, loot/tribute, the destabilization of the Persian empire or if he was really daring, the establishment of a puppet dynasty in Ctesiphon (Hormisda)

I got conquer mesopotamia? That would be a imo a no no Julian could sack Ctesiphon declare a victory and force shapur II to a preferential peace knowing Julian tho he could undue a massive victory by wanting to get rid of shapur II all together..

Yeah, you're right: Julian's objectives were rather defensive, aiming to eliminate the possibility of a Persian attack Constantius II had to deal with while gaining the respect of the eastern army. Annexation of land and loot was subsidiary.

I guess how Romans do in this divergent TL depends mostly on military fortune. Julian, like Valentinian I, was an effective commander. The Constantinian dynasty's survival would definitely have done good to the capabilities of the Empire, even though some usurpations - either by dynasty members or by lowborn military leaders - would still burn it from the inside.

Can we presume a "Five Good Emperors nostalgia period"? Or will the same bitter hundred years follow as in OTL?

 

[UCB79]

He would have rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem(he had promised Jewish leaders there that he would do it once he returned from his little trip to Persia). I believe Julian looked @ Judaism as a potential ally against the Christians, & that by doing this he’d win them to his side.

 

[Mildtryth]

Yeah, you're right: Julian's objectives were rather defensive, aiming to eliminate the possibility of a Persian attack Constantius II had to deal with while gaining the respect of the eastern army. Annexation of land and loot was subsidiary.

I guess how Romans do in this divergent TL depends mostly on military fortune. Julian, like Valentinian I, was an effective commander. The Constantinian dynasty's survival would definitely have done good to the capabilities of the Empire, even though some usurpations - either by dynasty members or by lowborn military leaders - would still burn it from the inside.

Can we presume a "Five Good Emperors nostalgia period"? Or will the same bitter hundred years follow as in OTL?

Besides, let's not forget that he also needed the glory of a major military victory to help legitimize his rule.

 

[Philip]

I believe Julian looked @ Judaism as a potential ally against the Christians, & that by doing this he’d win them to his side.

He would have been sorely disappointed.

 

[Silver01]

Any way I think this grants him some years of peace before shapur II attacks again probably in early 370s even though I do wonder how does Julian deal with the gothic crisis

 

[GodEmperorG]

He would have rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem(he had promised Jewish leaders there that he would do it once he returned from his little trip to Persia). I believe Julian looked @ Judaism as a potential ally against the Christians, & that by doing this he’d win them to his side.

Well more that Julian chose a divide and conquer approach to Christianity not just the Hebrews. He wanted to prop up as many different sects as possible in order to splinter the church from what I remember. So Jews, Arians, Ebionites, etc. Would be supported in order to weaken the christians with infighting.

 

[Kerney]

Well more that Julian chose a divide and conquer approach to Christianity not just the Hebrews. He wanted to prop up as many different sects as possible in order to splinter the church from what I remember. So Jews, Arians, Ebionites, etc. Would be supported in order to weaken the christians with infighting.

And, assuming him and a pretty good Pagan successor, patronage going to temples and all the opportunists leaving Christianity, the Pagans might have a formula to freeze out Christianity permanently with 30 years for the lessons to sink in.

Christianity probably goes into decline. Not fatal but a faith in the cities among other faiths, in some places dominant (and absent from the countryside). Unless something happen to change the momentum, but the next round of plagues (Galen, Cyprian, Justinian, one is coming sometime in the next couple centuries of heavily urbanized society) hits them disproportionately hard, and that is the end of the Christian threat.

I think we also end up with smaller Civil Wars and nothing as damaging as Frigidus, so, assuming the weather is is the same in 406-407, any Germans crossing the Ice face stiffer resistance and sequence of events that brought the Western Empire down doesn't go down the same way.

 

[UCB79]

He would have been sorely disappointed.

You’re probably right Philip- but it would have been MOST interesting nonetheless to see what then would have happened!

 

[Hearkener]

Julian returns from Persia triumphant, having conquered Mesopotamia (arguable). He goes on to rule for a long time. How does this affect the Empire?

The Persians take almost certainly reconquer Mesopotamia the instance Julian's back is turned. If the Romans couldn't hold the region at the apogee of their power, they surely can't do it now.

I also doubt his ability to seriously affect the demographics of Christianity, which at this point was already the Empire's largest religion by a significant margin, and had thoroughly diffused the Roman elite. The decline of paganism would be more gradual, likely fading out of historical relevance sometime in the 5th century, instead of the violent end it met under Theodosius.

The Empire still wouldn't be doing so hot, what with the drastic changes to the European climate driving the collapse of urban centers in the West. But it may be more stable politically as the Constantinian dynasty endures for some time longer. The Gothic crisis may be averted if Julian's successors are even halfway competent (instead of the malisciously stupid racists they were towards the Germanics IOTL), which gains the Romans a strong ally in the Balkans and avoids the weakening of Imperial power along the northern frontier which precipitated so many of the 5th century problems.

 

[Silver01]

I also doubt his ability to seriously affect the demographics of Christianity, which at this point was already the Empire's largest religion by a significant margin

By the time of Theodosius it was only 50% of the population and mostly in the east with the exception of Africa it was mostly a urban phenomenon

 

[Kerney]

I also doubt his ability to seriously affect the demographics of Christianity, which at this point was already the Empire's largest religion by a significant margin, and had thoroughly diffused the Roman elite. The decline of paganism would be more gradual, likely fading out of historical relevance sometime in the 5th century, instead of the violent end it met under Theodosius.

I 've heard a lot of arguments about the percentage of Christians at various times in the 300s. Only the most partisan make them the majority in 360 and I've heard credible estimates as low as 25%. Most of the growth in the 300's has been due to the custom of backing the imperial faith and then becoming, or more often their children, becoming sincere, and what the Roman state is doing seems to be working, so there must be something to the Christ thing.

The best atl way to kill Christianity is for an Emperor to proclaim it in 251 or so, and have everyone start dying of plague and the Goths start invading. Nobody would touch it ever again.

If in 360, those trends reverse, a lot of "patronage Christians" stop being Christian. Julian's settlement appears to be right with the Gods and everything is cool, 'patriotic Christians' leave and all you have is a slightly enlarged core of say 15-20%. Have them fighting over stupid theocratical issues as Julian intended makes them look like crazy bomb thowers, even if Christianity gets another chance, resistance to Christianization is enhanced long term.

They stay topped out at 20%, virtually all in urban areas, thus perfect plague victims.

And Paganism didn't die in the late 300s.

 

[Hearkener]

I 've heard a lot of arguments about the percentage of Christians at various times in the 300s. Only the most partisan make them the majority in 360 and I've heard credible estimates as low as 25%. Most of the growth in the 300's has been due to the custom of backing the imperial faith and then becoming, or more often their children, becoming sincere, and what the Roman state is doing seems to be working, so there must be something to the Christ thing.

What I heard, we're talking about 30% by the death of Constantine. Keep in mind that the Christians don't need to be an absolute majority to be Rome's dominant religious group because there never was a pagan religion. There were many pagan religions, most of whom were organized along intersectional lines of class, ethnicity and political identity. And while the Christians were fractitious, they tended to close ranks against the pagans in a way that the polytheists never did. Roman persecution had made Christianity a very effective player in Roman politics, because it instilled in them a sense of common identity and the capacity to build parallel power structures: the capital-c Church.

I find it quite ungenerous to say that the Romans who converted after the persecutions ended to be disingenuous. Constantine is a good example: his conversion happened as he lay dieing, which indicates to me that he realy wanted the redemption offered by the Christians, because any power play he made at that stage would have availed him nought.

Likewise, the early Christians clung to their faith in the face of horrific persecution, and still became a large and thriving religious group. They were strong and numerous enough to weather the Empire's full might when Diocletian leveraged it against them. As an aside, I do not believe that Diocletian really had much of an impact on their numbers, driving them underground rather than exterminating them.

If in 360, those trends reverse, a lot of "patronage Christians" stop being Christian. Julian's settlement appears to be right with the Gods and everything is cool, 'patriotic Christians' leave and all you have is a slightly enlarged core of say 15-20%. Have them fighting over stupid theocratical issues as Julian intended makes them look like crazy bomb thowers, even if Christianity gets another chance, resistance to Christianization is enhanced long term.

That the Emperor is doing a good job despite being a pagan no more destroys the Christian cause than an African-American being elected US President destroyed the White Supremacist cause. The Christians only look insane if you perceive them from a distance of time that trivializes their concerns: to a 4th century Roman, regardless of religion, what the largest Christian group believes to be the correct interpretation of their holy book matters, simpy by virtue of having to live next door to them. If the right kind of group ends up on top, that may even enhance conversion rates. Because most Romans won't be anti-Christian hardliners by default anymore: they'll know people who are Christian, they'll have a cursory understanding of what a Christian is and what he believes in. So the probably not inconsiderable number of "Christianity-curious" Romans will actually care quite a bit about these internal struggles (and definitely not want some insane hardliner like Theodosius to seize control).

 

[Tyler96]

Even with a longer reign and military success I think Julian’s religious policy would still face an uphill struggle - he wasn’t just trying to wind back the clock, he was attempting to build up a far more hierarchical, structured paganism (and one with a significant Neoplatonic cosmological influence).

 

[Count Romanus]

if Julian survives and continues the campaign in Persia (which he would) he'll probably depose Shapur II and replace him with Hormisdas, Shapur's brother who defected to the Romans and fought in the campaign. Persia will likely be made a client Kingdom of Rome like Armenia and Julian, when he returns from the campaign will continue his reforms (he didn't like or understand the complex government system established by Diocletian and Constantine and tried to remake it more like the old Principate system) Christianity will remain prominent, but as long as Theodosius never becomes Emperor, we won't see much Christian prejudice (like that between Arians and Niceaens) what i'm interested in is what will happen if Julian is still Emperor when the Goths come knocking. (he was 32 when he died, he would likely be in his 40s in AD 376)

 

[Alamannicus]

The Christians only look insane if you perceive them from a distance of time that trivializes their concerns: to a 4th century Roman, regardless of religion, what the largest Christian group believes to be the correct interpretation of their holy book matters, simpy by virtue of having to live next door to them. If the right kind of group ends up on top, that may even enhance conversion rates. Because most Romans won't be anti-Christian hardliners by default anymore: they'll know people who are Christian, they'll have a cursory understanding of what a Christian is and what he believes in. So the probably not inconsiderable number of "Christianity-curious" Romans will actually care quite a bit about these internal struggles (and definitely not want some insane hardliner like Theodosius to seize control).

This is partly why the Diocletianic Persecution, despite being the nastiest blow from the Roman state against the Church, failed to quash it. By the 3rd-4th Century AD, Christians are no longer the great "other" of Roman society as was in the first century that allowed Emperors like Nero to conduct their persecutions (though the Neronian Persecution was more like a local bloody pogrom than the later Empire-wide persecutions).

By the time Galerius and Diocletian are passing top-down orders to force Christians of the Empire to sacrifice to Caesar on pain of death, Christian Romans are too integrated into Roman society to effectively root them out and annihilate them. Pagans and Christians know one another, are friends with one another, intermarry with one another, so on and so forth. Something that continuously hampered Diocletian's efforts were tons of buck-passing from Roman authorities, along with sympathetic Pagans hiding their Christian neighbors.