Was the rise of Christianity inevitable?

[Ursus]

As a free thinker with some sympathetic leanings toward polytheism, I often find myself wondering what would have happened had Maxentius defeated Constantine, thus preventing the train of events which would promote a tiny mystery cult into a re - invented state religion, and later a world religion.

 

 

I honestly think you might have seen classical paganism evolve into something akin to modern Hinduism, where all the gods are seen as manifestations of a single divine reality, but some of those manifestations are more important than others, and the overall thrust is an ascetic morality designed to liberate the soul from the body. There was much in the mystical philosophy of the upper classes that was already facilitating this, and even much in the lower classes such as some of the mystery cults like Isis.

 

As far as Christianity, if it were not for Constantine I would like to think Christianity would have remained a considerably large and active minority, but a minority nonetheless, with substantial divisions still existing such as between the Paulist and Gnostic branches.

[guy]

I feel that there has been an underestimation of the number of these poorly documented and powerless early Christians as well as of those who only partially embraced the Christian God(s) along with their traditional Pagan gods.

 

guy also known as gaius

 

I found the passage from Adrian Goldsworthy's How Rome Fell, helpful to my previous post:

 

"Julia Mamaea [septimus Severus's niece] had summoned the famous Christian thinker Origen to Antioch so that she could listen to his ideas. Her son, Alexander Severus, is even supposed to have had a statue of Jesus along with those of other gods and great men he prayed to and kept in his personal chambers. It is easy to forget that the polytheistic mindset made it easy to accept new deities, even if Christians themselves insisited that worshipping Christ must mean a denial of other gods"

 

 

 

guy also known as gaius

[sylla]

As a free thinker with some sympathetic leanings toward polytheism, I often find myself wondering what would have happened had Maxentius defeated Constantine, thus preventing the train of events which would promote a tiny mystery cult into a re - invented state religion, and later a world religion. Although I like to think that the Classical World would have continued, with true science emerging centuries earlier, my personal view is that there was perhaps some inevitability with the rise of monotheism. Here is why.

Had Maxentius defeated Constantine, he might have still been defeated by Licinius, who eventually signed too the Edict of Milan.

Christianity doesn't seem to have been a major contributor to the fall of the Western Empire; after all, the Christian East survived another 1000 years.

The culture of the classical world was undoubtedly in big problems, with or without Christianity; otherwise, its utter disappearance after the Germanic conquest couldn't be satisfactorily explained; just compare it with the evolution of the Chinese civilization after the Mongol conquest.

Throughout history, social and technological conditions have made inevitable certain events. Even if the personalities surrounding these events had not existed or somehow been prevented from their courses of action, someone else would have stepped in and enabled the event to happen.

As History is no subject of experimentation, any inference on causality is highly speculative.

We must balance determinism (inevitable facts) with chaos theory (aleatory facts); available evidence consistently shows the more complex a system is, the more likely Chaos theory fully applies.

Almost all historic systems (political, social, economic, etc) are extremely complex, analogous to the parable of the flap of the butterfly that changes the world climate forever.

I would think only some mostly pure biologic phenomena are truly deterministic (ie, demographic growth).

A few examples:

1) Columbus - Improvements in shipbuilding and navigation, coupled with the completion of the reconquista and a need to move on to fresh glories, meant that the Americas were bound to be discovered by the Spanish/Portuguese (In a permanent and meaningful way) sometime around 1500.

2) Protestantism - without Martin Luther this would probably have happened anyway, as Europe moved out of the Middle Ages and a growing middle class demanded more say and challenged the status quo.

3) World Wars 1 and 2 - forecasted by the American Civil War, the flowering of the industrial age coupled with an agressive cynicism towards traditional forms of government would probably have given rise to any number of Stalins, Hitlers and Mussolinis. Japan, still in a feudal mindset but emboldened by the acquisition of modern technology, would have tried its luck at some stage regardless of the presence of Tojo, Hirohito etc.

I must agree that the personalities' contributions to most historical events have been regularly and grossly overestimated, especially when we use to check out classical historians; after so many centuries of accumulated knowledge (particularly in sociology) we should know better.

Columbus was a notorious exception, because nothing about the Castilian kingdom suggested they were looking to the other side of the Ocean; the expected step after the end of the Reconquista was the invasion of North Africa, almost entirely prevented by their ultramarine adventures.

On the other hand, the Reform of the XVI century heappened for the complex coincidence of many extraordinary facts regarding Luther, the Catholic Church, Charles V, the German nobles, the peasants, the european markets and even the French dynasty.

European history has been predominantly war, so the peculiarity of the early XX century was not so much the Great War as the close to half-century of almost complete peace before it.

So, what do you all think? My view is that sometime around the first half of the 4th century, an intelligent Roman emperor would have noticed the fanaticism and loyalty with which believers pursue their beliefs, and would have recognised this as a force with which to repair a fragmenting state. Also, the social conditions were such that the common people needed something to ensure their loyalty to the state as it plodded through the third and fourth centuries, and what better than a religion that promised an eternal life of reward, luxury and paradise in return for a few decades of obedience now?

Arguably, most of the emperors from Aurelian onwards had analogous religious ideas to some degree; in fact, that may have contributed to the greatest Christian persecutions.

I think that if Constantine had been thwarted, or otherwise prevented from embarking upon his career, monotheism would have taken hold anyway, maybe under the name of Mithraism, or 'Bacchusism' or whatever, but basically purveying the same message of obedience and reward, and with essentially the same magic tricks performed by the hero, to strengthen the belief of the peaseantry. Maybe it was also inevitable that Persia adopted the eastern varient of this later on and used this to re ignite its 'business as usual' situation vis-a-vis the Roman Empire. Islam, after all, is little more than a regurgitation of Judaism and Christianity, with a bit of early medieval Arab history thrown in.

It's a fascinating thesis, but I don't think any of this was inevitable; after all, Christianity continued being a small minority (not especially active) in the neighboring Persian Empire up to the rise of the Islam, and polytheism is still rampant in eastern and southern Asia, a huge portion of modern Humanity. BTW, if required, polytheism can be as fanatical as any monotheism.

[caldrail]

The culture of the classical world was undoubtedly in big problems, with or without Christianity; otherwise, its utter disappearance after the Germanic conquest couldn't be satisfactorily explained

Of course not. It didn't disappear. It was inevitably diluted by Germanic influence and local diversity but elements of classic culture continued well into the dark ages.

 

Throughout history, social and technological conditions have made inevitable certain events. Even if the personalities surrounding these events had not existed or somehow been prevented from their courses of action, someone else would have stepped in and enabled the event to happen.

As History is no subject of experimentation, any inference on causality is highly speculative.

The effect of decision is what is most important here. NN regards an important event as inevitable, almost determined by fate. Fate is after all the sum of all decisions and natural forces. Without the influential decision that overrides the conflicting ideas of lesser people, without the leadership to impose that decision, the event might not occur at all, or an alternative event might take place because the 'new' leader has different motives. You can speculate if you want, but a study of human behaviour is more useful.

 

We must balance determinism (inevitable facts) with chaos theory (aleatory facts); available evidence consistently shows the more complex a system is, the more likely Chaos theory fully applies.

For someone who preaches a determinative approach to history, the mention of chaos theory is highly amusing, since that is hardly a proven quality of the universe at all.

 

Almost all historic systems (political, social, economic, etc) are extremely complex, analogous to the parable of the flap of the butterfly that changes the world climate forever.

Absolutely not. A butterfly can only change the world climate if it persuades the other butterflies to assist. Otherwise it's only a flap in the wilderness. Chaos theory is very charming but complete bunkum. It fails to recognise the existing enviroment and it's dynamic influences, nor for that matter momentum, a principle and restrictive quality of physics. Momentum, of a sort, is also apparent in history. Events are changed for better or worse by decision, and only influential people can make influential decisions. Popular causes are still conformal to this view, because the original idea is more powerful than the originators personality, but inevitably, without leadership of some sort, the movement fails. You need a dominant butterfly, willing to take the risk to persude other butterflies to flap alongside him. Why is that risky? Because some butterflies might not like the idea of having to flap their wings at anothers direction. Thus we introduce conflict, which I notice Chaos Theory ignores as well.

[sylla]

Mmmm....what???

(Did you say Chaos?)

NN regards....

I see.

Thanks, but I think I will better wait NN to reply himself.

[Northern Neil]

Mmmm....what???

(Did you say Chaos?)

NN regards....

I see.

Thanks, but I think I will better wait NN to reply himself.

Well, here I am! Briefly popping in between motorcycle hops across Northern Europe. I See major historical events as being largely due to the sum of events immediately preceding them. Thus, I regard the Columbian discovery of America inevitable for reasons stated at the beginning of this topic. Again, I see the two world wars and to a lesser degree the carnage of the American Civil War inevitable due to an increase in the level of technology combined with political immaturity of respective governments.

 

On the other hand, nothing could have forecasted Alexander's single mindedness in conquering Asia and heralding 300 years of Hellenistic culture, or Hannibal's hesitancy to finish Rome when he held all the cards. So I accept my theory is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

[sylla]

I See major historical events as being largely due to the sum of events immediately preceding them. Thus, I regard the Columbian discovery of America inevitable for reasons stated at the beginning of this topic. Again, I see the two world wars and to a lesser degree the carnage of the American Civil War inevitable due to an increase in the level of technology combined with political immaturity of respective governments.

 

On the other hand, nothing could have forecasted Alexander's single mindedness in conquering Asia and heralding 300 years of Hellenistic culture, or Hannibal's hesitancy to finish Rome when he held all the cards. So I accept my theory is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

Nobody questions the causes must precede the effects.

We're talking here mostly about historical determinism, which is hardly just a NN's theory; this stuff had been permanently on the philosophers' discussion table for at least the last three centuries.

Inevitably, the core concept in NN's question is the adjective "inevitable"; it implies that the odds for any alternative outcome must be infinitesimally low.

Strictly speaking, few if any historic processes may be rightly labeled as inevitable, because virtually all of them have a large number (even thousands) of contributing factors ("causes") for (or against) the historic actual outcomes; hence, easy conceivable little changes in any of them might have completely changed such outcomes.

 

From your own examples:

- Columbus: his project might have been accepted by the King Joao II of Portugal.

- WWII: Adolf Hitler might have been executed (or simply killed) after the failed beer hall putsch of 1923.

- WWI: UK and France might have begun a war after the Fashoda affair in 1898; it's extremely hard to imagine which side would have the other European powers fallen in.

- American Civil War: a more able administration than those of Pierce or Buchanan might have effectively promoted a peaceful agreement between the states.

- Alexander Magnus: had Phillip II of Macedon not been timely assassinated by Pausanias, Alexander's single mindedness in conquering Asia might very well have been forecasted.

- Hannibal: it's debatable if he ever had any real chance of finishing Rome, even after Cannae.

Edited June 14, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

- Hannibal: it's debatable if he ever had any real chance of finishing Rome, even after Cannae.

 

The chance of finishing Rome was the entire point of the campaign. As to whether it was a 'real' chance, Hannibal was gifted leader willing to lead his mercenaries on a harsh journey across alpine Europe and tackle the Romans on home ground. Obviously, he considered the possibility real. Even considering his hatred of the Romans, he wasn't stupid. For that matter, he came a lot closer to victory than is generally realised. Rome was in a state of panic.

 

Don't be drawn into thinking Hannibals campaign was aimed at mere military conquest. That wasn't the point. The real point, the 'real' chance of victory against Rome, was to make Rome feel helpless, to bring it to it's knees, to force it to seek terms. Close, but no cigar.

[sylla]

- Hannibal: it's debatable if he ever had any real chance of finishing Rome, even after Cannae.

 

The chance of finishing Rome was the entire point of the campaign. As to whether it was a 'real' chance, Hannibal was gifted leader willing to lead his mercenaries on a harsh journey across alpine Europe and tackle the Romans on home ground. Obviously, he considered the possibility real. Even considering his hatred of the Romans, he wasn't stupid. For that matter, he came a lot closer to victory than is generally realised. Rome was in a state of panic.

 

Don't be drawn into thinking Hannibals campaign was aimed at mere military conquest. That wasn't the point. The real point, the 'real' chance of victory against Rome, was to make Rome feel helpless, to bring it to it's knees, to force it to seek terms. Close, but no cigar.

As no account from Hannibal or his proxies has survived (and we know there were at least a couple of them), we really don't know which was the exact point of his campaign. In any case, our sources didn't hide Rome also tried to attack first; in 218 BC Scipio was going to invade Spain and Sempronius, Africa itself.

 

We really don't know if Hannibal hated Rome previous to Punic War II. That nice story on baby Hannibal's anti-Roman prayer before diner has a trademark problem; it is (un)surprisingly similar to the baby Xerxes account from Herodotus; in any case, both were almost surely apocryphal.

 

I think no one would consider Hannibal stupid; that he also mastered the siege techniques he had proved at Saguntum. However, for his own isolation he was unable to sustain position warfare for any significant period; Fabius Maximus

[Northern Neil]

All good stuff - but covered in other threads. As this has gone from the rise of Christianity through historical determinism to Hannibal's campaigns it is no longer splittable, so I will put it to bed.