What if...

[Julianus Flavius]

What would have happened if Julian had stayed alive longer? Would christianity become a footnote on history, a temporary fad? Would the empire have survived into the present day?

[charles the hammer]

I dont think that the empire would have done much. The reason julian went east was to try to unify the empire after a common enemy. So upon his return their may have been large revolts from the christian populations for their persecutions. Plus paganism in rome was weakning in the east and the higher position christians would not have taken julian and his lowering of thier high standing. But this is only a hypothosis because thier is no evidence this would have happened Because he died so early in his reign. Also he wasnt that good a general. Most his victories on the rhine could be credited more to his generals than to him and as we saw in the eastern campaign he wasnt as well prepared as he should have been even though some of his allies screwed him over by holding back their promised support. Plus i dont know if your saying this or not but you cant blame christianity for the fall of the west and infact i think if it wasnt for christianity the east would have fallen to the islamic invasion of the 7th century.

[Julianus Flavius]

But he has 9 stars! Although I suppose that's just a game...

[Gäiten]

IMHO another bloody civil war.

The disastrous Persian campaign would have weakened his political position and his radical religious ideas endangered the inner peace of the Empire.

[Valentinian Victor]

I have the gut feeling that Julian would have been assassinated had he survived and then the army would have raised probably Valentinian I to the purple anyway.
I don't think Christianity would have been erased from the Empire, it was far too strong at this time, especially in Spain, Africa and the Middle Eastern provinces.

[Dark_horse_spirit]

Christianity would have survived the empire and acceptance and tolerance for paganism would have been Law. Julians successor would have no doubt been a pagan, and so forth and so forth.

Having come back from an embarrassing defeat in the east Julian would have devoted the rest of his life to the sole purpose of punishing those around him that would dare threaten the greatness of his Rome. All would have been punished accordingly to there level of disobedience to a Pagan Empire.

Anyone who believes that Julian was not a great tactician should go back to Julians time in Gaul. This is where he became the man and Emperor that history has written about.

DHS

[charles the hammer]

ya but it really wasnt julian in gaul who was the tactical genius. It was more his generals because as you saw in the east when it was all his decisions he made terrible decisions and was utterly crushed so i dont think you can call him a great general.

[Valentinian Victor]

Christianity would have survived the empire and acceptance and tolerance for paganism would have been Law. Julians successor would have no doubt been a pagan, and so forth and so forth.

Having come back from an embarrassing defeat in the east Julian would have devoted the rest of his life to the sole purpose of punishing those around him that would dare threaten the greatness of his Rome. All would have been punished accordingly to there level of disobedience to a Pagan Empire.

Anyone who believes that Julian was not a great tactician should go back to Julians time in Gaul. This is where he became the man and Emperor that history has written about.

DHS

I have no doubt that the outcome of the Battle of Strasburg 357AD was in a large part influenced by Julian taking command of the Roman right wing cavalry and clibanarii who had begun to rout off the battle field. However, it was the fighting prowess of the auxilia in the front line, and the legiones in the second line that decided the battle, not Julian himself.
I think too many historians heap much praise upon Julian based on his perceived successes in gaul, but gloss over the disasterous failure in the East.

[-Traiano-]

ya but it really wasnt julian in gaul who was the tactical genius. It was more his generals because as you saw in the east when it was all his decisions he made terrible decisions and was utterly crushed so i dont think you can call him a great general.

Almost Every great general has been defeated at least once during his career, we all remember Julius Caesar and Octavian as great commanders that had great victories (Alesia/Actium) but they have been also defeated badly sometimes....Napoleon too was great tactician but lost the russian campaign...
Julian's campaign against sassanid empire has certainly been a disaster but i'm doubtfull that if Julian would have not been killed in action maybe the campaign could finish in a different way...

[Gäiten]

Julian's campaign against sassanid empire has certainly been a disaster but i'm doubtfull that if Julian would have not been killed in action maybe the campaign could finish in a different way...

In that I disagree.

The situation, Julian led his army, was hopeless.

Even Ammianus tells us how increasing desperate the Romans got while retreating and while suffering more and more serious attacks by the Sassanians. Order and discipline was more and more lost despite
some crack units were capable to hold the line. Separate units left the army column for their own purpose seeking to save themselves, but there annihilated by the Iranians.

The Sassanians could attack as they want and the Romans could only react. Loosing their tactical initiative at such a sclae is a menetekel for disaster.

The general situation was very akin to Crassus` campaign (53BC).

[legio_XX]

I think if your looking for a what if you should ask what if adriananople never happend.
or the teutoburg forest. its all so sad to when you think about it..

but I agree with Gaiten there was realy no chance had he faild the war and lived...if he HAD won a great victory..

[Dark_horse_spirit]

There were signs that Shapur was almost broken himself. He had lost his finest soldiers early on in the battle(Including his prize elephant detachement). The Romans were weak and could have been annihilated on many occassions, unfortunatley Shapur was waiting for his reinforcements as well. After the death of Julian the Roman Generals were dupped in the negotiation process. Shapur was using the negotiations to wait for his reinforcements. Had of the Romans continued on with the original retreat they would have lived to fight another day. The Romans were outsmarted, not outfought.

DHS

[Valentinian Victor]

I think most historians agree that had Julian not burned his supply fleet and immediately laid siege to Ctesiphon then the outcome may have been different. The Persian capital had been successfully taken by Roman armies before and I think Julian had no reason to believe it could not be taken again.

[Dark_horse_spirit]

Actually the Romans had surprised the Persians during a night attack at the main gates. Had of the Roman Generals pushed foreward behind the walls they would have taken Ctesiphon the first few days of seige. The General in charge was afraid of being flanked from behind as the bulk of the Roman army was far behind and not mobilized(no position to provide rear guard). The Persian had underestimated the Romans and the sluggy mucky terrain, Believing that the Romans would never atempt such a risky attack. The initial attack was not to seige the city but to drive off the detachment in front.

I also believe that the number of Arabs raiding the Romans was far more than the numbers that the Romans themselves had hired. The many thousands of arabs that historians talk about just may have been many 10's of thousands. If Julians army was only 80,000 at the peak plus hired mercs, there is no reason to believe that it was the Arabs that decided the fate of the Romans. During the final retreat after the treaty with Shapur it is the Arab raiders that inflicted the heaviest damage to the starving Romans. If the bulk of Shapurs Army was Arab warriors then there is no reason to believe that these weren't the same Arabs that were employed by Shapur.

DHS

[-Traiano-]

Anyway it's been a shame...through history romans had shown that they were able to march on Ctesiphon and win the persians....Traiano, Lucio Vero, Settimio Severo...have made great campaigns against those persians..on the other hand Marco Licinio Crasso, Alessandro Severo, Valeriano and Giuliano had been badly defeated....I don't know...it depends on several factors...the strengt of the empire, the generals, the weather...

[Gäiten]

It is easy to understand when the Romans were able to conquer Ctesiphon.

Any time they achieved that feat either Parthians or Sassanians had to deal with big, bad civil wars and there was no united front they had to fight.

Julian had to face a united and very powerful Sassanian Empire.