Reason

If Rome had not "legitimized" xtianity by adopting it as its official state religion, would xtianity still exist? Or would xtianity have died out or become marginalized along the lines of Zoroastrism?

Had Rome not legitimized xtianity, what religion would likely dominate instead?

premjan

Paganism probably.

neilgodfrey

Rome? Or do you mean Constantinople? This sounds like a "what if" question. Historians can only work with the remains of what has happened, not with what might have been left if something else had happened. Your comparison with Zoroastrianism further begs the question. Would Zoroastrianism have been as widespread without the imperial conquests of Darius and Cyrus?

Neil

Reason

This is a mind experiment--speculation, if you will--not a historical search. Nonetheless, historical religions contemporary with the early xtian era provide fodder to fuel the experiment.

youngalexander

Why was Christianity adopted as the 'official state religion' of Rome? It is because it had become so popular that it was politically expedient to do so. That Christianity has expanded beyond the Roman empire, both spatially and temporarily is a sure indication that the answer to your question is - yes, most assuredly.

Christianity was an idea whose time had come.

Just as, now perhaps, its time has passed.

Reason

Do you think that was because xtianity was monotheistic?

youngalexander

The only evidence that I am aware of suggests that Christianity was monotheistic in Rome between about 200-230CE.

karlmarx

The question wasn't addressed to me, but I, for one, think it was because xtianity was a personal religion.

Much has been made of the change in classical philosophy from the Golden Age of Plato and Aristotle (where the city state was at its core) to the later Hellenistic age of the Stoics and Epicureans (where the individual was its core). In this view, the earlier philosophy was a reflection of a time when the city state ruled, when citizens could make a difference. The latter philosophy, in contrast, was a reflection of a time where the individual was lost in an imperial bureaucracy, where they felt that their world was beyond their control. For this reason, Plato and Aristotle dealt with how one should interact with society, whereas the Stoics and Epicureans pretty much ignored this, and focused on how to live a good life in spite of the external world.

A similar argument could be used for religion. The personal religions of Mithraism and Christianity became popular at a time when citizens no longer felt a sense of security by belonging to the Roman Empire. While citizens felt safe and protected, they would have been content to worship the state gods. Once that the security provided by the state started crumbling, personal salvation became more important. Certainly, the era leading up to Constantine was one marked by civil strife, and followed the "golden" era of the Antonines which in contrast had been marked by peace and prosperity.

If Christianity had not been "chosen", it would have had to be a similar religion taking its place, i.e. one that required personal sacrifice and promised personal salvation. The old state pantheon was increasingly seen as irrelevant, as the ship of the state was sinking under the weight of its own bureaucracy and external pressures.

Potoooooooo

If you are interested in discussions of this kind, you may enjoy http://www.alternatehistory.com/

gstafleu

That's unlikely. First of all, Christianity was not all that monotheistic, just consider the dodge of the Trinity, e.g. And then of course we have Satan and all the other angels, arch- and otherwise.

Second, consider how Christianity developed: they introduced even more deity-like-entities. First Maria came to be as-good-as deified, and then heaps of Saints put in an appearance.

So no, I don't think that monotheism had much to do with anything.

Gerard Stafleu