Had Constine been killed in the battle of the Milvan Bridge.....

What would our modern world look like, do you think?

The Battle of the Milvian Bridge took place between the Roman Emperors Constantine I and Maxentius on 28 October 312. It takes its name from the Milvian Bridge, an important route over the Tiber. Constantine won the battle and started on the path that led him to end the Tetrarchy and become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Maxentius drowned in the Tiber during the battle.

According to chroniclers such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Lactantius, the battle marked the beginning of Constantine's conversion to Christianity. Eusebius of Caesarea recounts that Constantine and his soldiers had a vision of the Christian God promising victory if they daubed the sign of the Chi-Rho, the first two letters of Christ's name in Greek, on their shields. The Arch of Constantine, erected in celebration of the victory, certainly attributes Constantine's success to divine intervention; however, the monument does not display any overtly Christian symbolism.

Click to expand...

From Wiki

From there, Christianity was spread to all the Roman Empire, and from there to the New World.

Dittohead not! said:

What would our modern world look like, do you think?

Click to expand...

In my estimation, probably a world which was considerably less civilized than it is today, with regard to human rights and freedoms in general.

Hmm. I have a feeling the Byzantines would still have turned Christian.

Actually thats an interesting question as there is a conversation taking place at the moment into what impact the Romans actually had in Europe.

I mean obviously they had an impact but its like each country has its own creation myths, the history of before the lines on todays maps appeared.

Take for example the UK, theres been people there for thousands of years, but over those years there have been countless migrations & invasions, Germanic people, Romans, Anglo Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Hugenots, you name it & one way or another theyve been to the UK.

The thing is depending on "fashions" this has allowed the UK to repeatedly change its creation myth, so that over the years the impact & influence of any of the aforementioned groups may have been under played or overplayed in the self identification, & portrayal of the British.

This for example can be seen in the term WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) that was used quite a lot in thd USA for a while, but why not white norman protestants, or white roman protestants, & the answer really is because of the fashionable view of the time.

When we look at the seperate issue of christianity this is also interesting because more & more examples are turning up of christianity in many parts of Europe dating to before it was supposedly "introduced" by the Romans.

It appears that for whatever reason the European peoples were receptive to the religion, & had begun the process of absorbing it into their cultures.

There is an argument that this might be because in a lot of places christianity might not have been as alien as we would expect as there is clear evidence of cultural & religious exchange between Europeans & the Middle east for a long period before christianity.

For example the Greeks absorbed some elements of Hittite religion, which was a semitic religion connected to the gods of Cannaan, the very crucible that gaves us christianity in the first place, & had commonalities with the Hittite religion.

Its also known that there were shared elements & equivelants in most indo-European religions, suggesting that at least some elements of pre-christian paganism wouldnt have been that different from some elements of early christianity, I guess making the sales pitch a little easier.

Im guessing, keeping all this in mind, that the west would have still adopted christianity, but rather than through the force of Rome, in a more benign fashion & because of that it might have been a lot less structured & dogmatic & may have been a lot more regional & have been more absorbed as part of their contempory religions, & perhaps less as the more stand alone religion we see today, although even the version we have today absorbed & maintained many pre-christian elements.

Aside from that I dont think Europe would be that much different as I dont think religion has been that influential in our evolution.

I mean obviously its had a huge impact but theres more to us than just that.

lizzie said:

In my estimation, probably a world which was considerably less civilized than it is today, with regard to human rights and freedoms in general.

Click to expand...

Pray tell, on what do you base such a statement?

Paul Austin said:

Take for example the UK, theres been people there for thousands of years, but over those years there have been countless migrations & invasions, Germanic people, Romans, Anglo Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Hugenots, you name it & one way or another theyve been to the UK.


The thing is depending on "fashions" this has allowed the UK to repeatedly change its creation myth, so that over the years the impact & influence of any of the aforementioned groups may have been under played or overplayed in the self identification, & portrayal of the British.


This for example can be seen in the term WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) that was used quite a lot in thd USA for a while, but why not white norman protestants, or white roman protestants, & the answer really is because of the fashionable view of the time.
.

Click to expand...

The reason we consider the English to be Anglo-Saxons and not Normans is not a myth. The Normans never populated England the way the Anglo-Saxons did. The Anglo-Saxons displaced the Celts, they brought their language and their culture, but the Norman invasion didn't lead to the displacements of the Anglo-Saxons, except among certain of the nobility. The Normans tried to impose their language but it never took and there were never enough Normans in England to displace the Anglo-Saxons. This is all a factual matter that is well attested.

Paul Austin, you talk a good game but most of your post is just gibberish.

Meh, if not him then someone else. The time was ripe for such.

Guy Incognito said:

The reason we consider the English to be Anglo-Saxons and not Normans is not a myth. The Normans never populated England the way the Anglo-Saxons did. The Anglo-Saxons displaced the Celts, they brought their language and their culture, but the Norman invasion didn't lead to the displacements of the Anglo-Saxons, except among certain of the nobility. The Normans tried to impose their language but it never took and there were never enough Normans in England to displace the Anglo-Saxons. This is all a factual matter that is well attested.

Click to expand...

And the winner for proving my point is...

Thank you for repeating one of Britains creation myths.

Now go & read up on what genetic studies are telling us, the native Brits were never displaced, and dna evidence shows proof of this all over the UK.

It also shows Germanic inflow in waves, but not majorly in many areas.

It also shows distinct Viking settlement, so the British are a mixed bunch, you just inherited the fashion of pushing anglo-saxons to the fore, just as Romans, Normans, & Vikings have been at once stage or another.

Paul Austin, you talk a good game but most of your post is just gibberish.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find yours was the gibberish, & you didnt even talk a good game.

Might be best to check your facts next time as this is becoming a trend...

Hatuey said:

Pray tell, on what do you base such a statement?

Click to expand...

On the fact that it spread hand-in-hand with western-style democracy.

lizzie said:

On the fact that it spread hand-in-hand with western-style democracy.

Click to expand...

What? Do you just make this up as you go along?

Exactly what democracy was there between the Roman Republic (before Jesus) and 1776?

lizzie said:

On the fact that it spread hand-in-hand with western-style democracy.

Click to expand...

The spread of Western style democracy? Where? In Africa? Where 'Western-Style democracy' as handed off by Europeans is directly and indirectly responsible for million enslaved, civil wars and genocides? Or in South America? Where millions were denied the right to vote and own property by Church-State conglomerates? Maybe you're thinking of the Philippines? Where is it that "Christianity" has made things more civilized? In America? Where Native Americans were hunted down, stripped of their heritage? How is it that you equate Christianity and 'Western-style democracy' to being 'civilized' when Christianity in its effort to spread itself has committed some of the most UNcivilized atrocities in history?

Your statement is not only devoid of any actual historical research, it actually just sounds really ethnocentric. Hey, you became more civilized cause we enslaved you, destroyed your heritage and then told you the default religion was Christianity. You obviously weren't civilized before we did that.

spanky said:

What? Do you just make this up as you go along?

Exactly what democracy was there between the Roman Republic (before Jesus) and 1776?

Click to expand...

None who were democratic government as we know today, but the spread of the idea of the importance of the individual, which was strengthened with the Reformation.