Julian the Apostate’s plans for Rome?

I hate when that happens. 
Very true. I'm sure there would be revolts under Julian if he survived his Persian campaign.
I agree. Julian's pagan reforms are very interesting to think about and a pagan 'Council of Nicaea' is quite intriguing to think about. I heard it compared before that if Julian would succeed in reforming paganism, he would be similar to the 'Vedanta' (closing the Vedas) in Hinduism and similarly transform the religio romana to 'Hellenism' much the same way Vedism transformed to Hinduism.

I think, however, schisms with other pagans will develop, not necessarily during Julian's reign, but in future times as well. Similar to OTL Christian schisms following the councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. Certain pagan traditions may indeed be lost, but some other traditions could see greater emphasis placed on them. Perhaps new traditions may be created as well, similar to how the cult of Serapis was created and flourished in Ptolemaic Egypt.

Of course, it remains to be seen how successful Julian would be in reforming paganism. I personally think he could be successful, but it would be a struggle indeed. Julian would not simply have the Christians as enemies, but also Manichaeans and other pagan groups who would not like his reforms.
I agree. From what I gather, Jews tended to be supportive of Julian and were the ones who funded the construction of the Temple itself. Julian himself respected the Jews and Judaism, often praising the Jews in contrast to the Christians. 

If Christians regain political dominance, as you say, then I agree that it would be bad for the Jews unfortunately.
Very interesting. I do have to look into this more. I do think Julian would not be like Valens and if a battle with t he Visigoths occur, Julian would be a better general in that regard.

Though a struggle here with the Visigoths could be a good time for the Persians to attack the Roman east.
I agree. Britain is too far from the imperial core and already was a staging ground of earlier rebellions like Constantine's rebellion in the past. A revolt by Theodosius seems interesting and would certainly be something to consider during Julian's reign. 

I wonder, though, if the pagan Britons would take kindly to Julian's own pagan reforms. 
Interesting. From what I read, Firmus was indeed corrupt and a some of the causes of the revolt were already in place by Julian's reign. Unfortunately, I have to do more research on this, but your point on the Donatists is good to think about.
I wonder if his friend Procopius would be a co-emperor or heir. Of course, he was around 40 when he was killed in OTL around AD 366 so he may be too old by 385-390. Another possibility is also his friend Salutius. Of course, it seems that nominating a co-emperor is not something that would have occurred to Julian. Adoption is certainly a possibility like the Five Good Emperors but I don't really know a proper candidate because many things could change if Julian rules for a few decades past his OTL death.
Yes it seems that at some point the Iranians would attack the Romans, perhaps when Rome encounters internal problems. Although, if the Hephthalites or the Huns attack the Persians thereby distracting the Persians from attacking the Romans, then the Romans would get some time to prepare and maybe make allies with Iran's enemies.
From what I know, the king of Armenia Arsakes II was not that close with Julian and it did seem that religious differences between the two played some role in that regard. Of course, Arsakes's successors would be something else entirely. Although, Armenia does not seem to abandon Christianity and return to the old religions by this point. Rather, the Armenians may make common cause with the Sassanids and ally with them (or get closer in their sphere of influence) against Rome.


Thank you Steve for your lengthy response.

Yes I expect many revolts too, especially considering this period of Late Antiquity. Not all these revolts would necessarily be religiously motivated, though.



Regarding the Arians, Julian brought back exiled Arian bishops and proclaimed equality to all Christian sects, so there would certainly be tensions between Nicene Christians and Arians. This is important because a surviving Julian would also butterfly the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381. This council affirmed the condemnation of Arianism, defined that the Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and Son, and adopted the modified version of the Nicene Creed that is still used by the Orthodox today. Butterflying this council would thus have important effects on Christianity. Although, it would be interesting to have a similar council take place in Aksum or Armenia as the kings in those places were Christian.


It's important to understand that Julian’s reforms would create a definitive version of the religio romana rather than simply restoring the old ways. It’s impossible to go back to the old ways which Julian understood and was never his goal to do so at all. What Julian intended to do was to use a standard form of the religio romana as the ‘base’ of the reformed religion but with Neoplatonism as its underlying structure complete with an ecclesiastical hierarchy inspired by Christianity. Julian and perhaps many of his fellow Neoplatonist philosophers understood that universal religions like Christianity and Manichaeism had certain advantages which was important for propagating these faiths. The church hierarchy was one of these advantages along with a defined Orthodoxy that could allow these faiths to withstand competition with outside faiths.



The Neoplatonism, which was the dominant philosophy of the time (even early Christians like Origen and St Augustine’s theologies were influenced by it), would be the encompassing structure of his religion. What this meant is that the many pagan gods of old would be regarded as different manifestations or emanations of The One (the ‘Source’ or the divine ‘Absolute’ from which all things originate).



You mentioned that the pagan structure could later on get restrictive itself. This I agree. Julian’s reformed pagan ‘Orthodoxy’ would later on produce disagreements among different pagan factions and perhaps even schisms itself. Should the Empire and the pagan church survive, however, I can see the new pagan Orthodoxy to outlast many of the different schisms in much the same way Nicene Christianity outlasted Arianism. Of course, this can go in any direction.



The unreformed religious traditions would certainly be tolerated, especially initially, but it would be Julian’s reformed paganism that would enjoy state sponsorship in contrast to the other traditions.



In the end, Julian’s reforms would have fundamentally changed the religio romana that while it would have continuity with the old ways, it would be about as similar as modern Hinduism is to the Vedic religion prior to the Vedanta which I mentioned in the last post. The new religion would, properly implemented, have challenged Christianity (and other religions) for dominance in the Empire.



Of course, this is all very ambitious and would have required Julian to reign for long enough to implement these reforms effectively which is difficult to do given Julian’s character.


Interesting point. A Gothic buffer against the Huns does seem sensible. It would be useful to use the Goths as auxiliaries against the Huns in much the same way Julian used Germanic auxiliaries in his Persian campaign. Assimilating the Goths could be useful for lessening the damage the barbarian migrations would do in the empire in the next century.



Perhaps Julian could also use the Goths as loyal auxiliaries against the Sassanids during a Persian attack.


Very true. Theodosius is an interesting character. If someone were to write a TL (I’m seriously considering writing a ‘Julian survives’ TL now!), a Theodosian revolt would be a good chapter that has Julian face a serious crisis during his reign.



I can also imagine a pagan general in the west who doesn’t like Julian’s reforms to start a rebellion as well.


Yes this seems likely.



I don’t know if Julian would have a co-emperor or even have a son. Perhaps he may be like Basil II and not have a child or nominate a successful general as co-emperor. Perhaps not, but it’s difficult to reconstruct Julian’s motives in this regard.


The point about the Kidarites is interesting. The Kidarites could certainly keep the Sassanids busy and prevent them from attacking the Romans. No doubt the Romans would appreciate this. I can also see a major crisis develop among the Sassanids (for example a dynastic struggle) that would force the Kidarites to intervene and perhaps usurp the title of Shah of Iran from the Sassanid dynasty.




I agree. Armenia would most likely not abandon Christianity (apologies if my previous post was unclear). A neutral Armenia, or at least a pragmatic Armenia that plays both sides well would be a good compromise to both the Romans and Iranians and would ensure the continued survival of the Kingdom of Armenia. In this case, I can see an independent Armenia becoming a major Christian site of learning and pilgrimages in the future.



If Julian’s pagan reforms succeed, Armenia and Aksum being the two major Christian areas would have interesting effects of the development of Christianity in the future.


I agree that there would be border changes after a successful Persian campaign. I specified no border changes only for the sake of argument to make things simple because taking a lot of Sassanid Mesopotamia would complicate matters in the east. It would definitely anger the Persians and would make a rematch extremely likely. Julian would be preoccupied with this problem for a significant part of his reign and I wanted to focus on domestic Roman affairs not just the Persians.





Thank you for your response.

My apologies that I couldn’t reply sooner.



Thanks again Steve for your response. Here are some comments on your response.



a) Yes you’re probably right. Perhaps instead of an Ecumenical Council outside the empire, there would be synods or a local council that each autocephalous church convenes to sort out matters of doctrine, just like some did in OTL!

b) You’re welcome
This fundamental sole god (The One) is less an anthropomorphic god like Zeus, but more like the God of the Enlightenment-era Deists. However while I was writing this, I thought that this could very well be the start of doctrinal arguments within the reformed pagan church. Namely, the relationship between The One and the other pagan gods. No doubt other ‘schisms’ o other matters of doctrine would arise in the future.

c) This makes sense. I do like the precedent of assimilating barbarian peoples.

d) Very true.

e) This would be difficult. Succession is the characteristic problem of the Romans (whether Classical or Byzantine).
If I were to write a ‘Julian survives’ TL, I would have to plan some sort of succession plan for Rome. It probably won’t be introduced during Julian’s reign, but maybe after a few centuries or so.

f) Yes. Once the Hephthalites come, though, the Sassanids would be in for some trouble.

g) This is interesting. Probably Nubia, South Arabia and perhaps some nomadic peoples in the Asian steppe would convert to Christianity to go along with Aksum, Armenia and the smaller Caucasus states already Christian at this time. I think it could be interesting if parts of Indonesia and the Swahili coast becomes Christian due to influence from Christian South Arabian merchants. A Christianity that’s primarily Asian and East African would be intriguing to see. Of course, there would still be Christian minorities would still be found throughout the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.

h) I agree, especially because Julian regarded himself as the reincarnation of Alexander the Great. Hopefully, he doesn’t overstep his limits.