roman siege of jerusalem

[Óttar]

Yes, even Christianity was Platonism. But no Christian Roman also means no Islam, so the entire Near East would be impacted.

Of course. Persecution of Christians that didn't adhere to the Traditional (Orthodox/Catholic 'Nicene' ? etc.) view in the Eastern Roman Empire, led partly to the rise of Islam in the 6th-7th century. You can even see Christian influence on Shia Islam (Ali depicted like Christ, anthropomorphic art, ritual flagellation, an obsession with blood and martyrdom, and reverence for Fatima Zahra like the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc.)

[grecoroman]

Good ol' Romans,

Without them, nobody will stand for Europe.

[Synapsid]

Of course. Persecution of Christians that didn't adhere to the Traditional (Orthodox/Catholic 'Nicene' ? etc.) view in the Eastern Roman Empire, led partly to the rise of Islam in the 6th-7th century. You can even see Christian influence on Shia Islam (Ali depicted like Christ, anthropomorphic art, ritual flagellation, an obsession with blood and martyrdom, and reverence for Fatima Zahra like the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc.)

What the Near East would be like then? Rome still would have fallen to Germanic Invaders, Christianity or No Christianity. Remember, before Islam, the Persians were literally besieging Constantinople.

[Óttar]

What the Near East would be like then? Rome still would have fallen to Germanic Invaders, Christianity or No Christianity. Remember, before Islam, the Persians were literally besieging Constantinople.

There's no way to know, but Gibbon maintains that it was the diversion of funds from Roman infrastructure to the Church which caused the fall of the West in the 5th century.

[Bosniensis]

What the Near East would be like then? Rome still would have fallen to Germanic Invaders, Christianity or No Christianity. Remember, before Islam, the Persians were literally besieging Constantinople.

Before Islam, Romans destroyed Persians, looted everything, took the Cross, took the money and everything.

Arabs just came and took the territory for themselves, people converted to Islam because Zoroastrianism was no more.

Arabs didn't even fought Persians, except few small towns that were revolting.

Roman Empire was dramatically weakened during the Rise of Arabs, and further more lost Egypt, Northern Africa, Langobards and French took Rome etc..

[Synapsid]

Before Islam, Romans destroyed Persians, looted everything, took the Cross, took the money and everything.

Arabs just came and took the territory for themselves, people converted to Islam because Zoroastrianism was no more.

Arabs didn't even fought Persians, except few small towns that were revolting.

Roman Empire was dramatically weakened during the Rise of Arabs, and further more lost Egypt, Northern Africa, Langobards and French took Rome etc..

Yes. The Sassanids were in a state of decline after the bloody war with Heraclitus. Multiple shahs were dethroned and there was a mini civil war in the Court. But the Eastern Romans did not press on becuase they were exhusted by the last persian wars, faced Slav tribal encroachment in the Balkan provinces, face an resurgent Lombard on Italy and a mini-plague. If the Arabs did not invade iRan, then the Turkics of the Caspian would have invaded, just like the Hephthalites did before them (but failed because the Sassinids were still in a strong position). In real life, the Gokturks were at the gates of the Northern Part of Iranshar and when the Islamic Arabs invades, the last shah, Yazdigerd, fled to Tang dynasty China with the help of the Turks who brieifly fought the Arab invaders. Also add the fact that the Eastern Gokturks were facing defeats inflicted on them by the Tang Dynasty which would have forced them to go west to the Iranian regions of C. Asia and then onto Iran proper. With Islamic Arabs, The Turkics would have claimed legitimacy in the Persian empire by stating that they were defending Iranshar from Christian roman influences and restoring Zoroastrian orthodoxy just like the Seljulks did with Sunni Islam and the Abbassids.

[Synapsid]

There's no way to know, but Gibbon maintains that it was the diversion of funds from Roman infrastructure to the Church which caused the fall of the West in the 5th century.

The symptoms of the decline were already evident by the crisis of the third century, long before the edict of Milan and the council of Nicea. Germanic tribes were hard pressed by ecological problems/harsher winters, infighting over meagre resources and Samatians, Alan and Hunnish incursions. The German tribes dominated the Foederati armies and the actual Roman army itself since citizens and the elites were less and less interested in military services. The problems were institutional and cultural. By the time of Diocletian, Rome was facing so much problems he imposed quasi-feudalism that was the root of Carolingian feudalism and manorial system.

[grecoroman]

Had the Romans done a proper job back in 70 AD - there would have been no 115AD.

[The Lawspeaker]

They should have taken out the Temple as well as the whole race surrounding it. That's how you do a proper job.

[Lucazk9]

I voted both...the Romans should have killed them ALL before