Delvestius
Banned
Would a similarly monist philosophy eventually take hold across Rome? Was Mithraism too secretive and regarded with suspicion to replace Roman paganism? Or would paganism remain across Europe indefinitely?
If no Christianity...
- Thread starter Delvestius
- Start date
Problem with "paganism" it's it can be used for various, diverse and contradictory stuff.
Are we talking of intellectual paganism, a la neo-platonicism; imperial civic ceremonies; provincial romanized rites, etc.
Mithraism tended to be too much associated with military to really make it to both civilians and provincial rites. It's not that it was too shadowly or too "foreign" but simply too socially restrictive.
I could see a maintained division between everyday religion and practices, mysterion cultes more or less reserved to an elite (not always a social elite, but at least a delimited part of the population), imperial cults (religious in the strictest sense, as celebrating bonds between population, emperor and divine; but not spiritual to the least) and philosophy as a main spiritual way for social elites.
Manicheism could be, on the other hand, an efficient rival while definitely not monist.
We tought about it, with galileo 034 on a reboot for his TL, with as well a neo-druidic revival (mix of imperial cult and neo-platonicism from one hand, and "provincial" nationalism after the imperial fall) more located in western Europe (but for the last, it's more rule of cool than real realism at all costs).
Are we talking of intellectual paganism, a la neo-platonicism; imperial civic ceremonies; provincial romanized rites, etc.
Mithraism tended to be too much associated with military to really make it to both civilians and provincial rites. It's not that it was too shadowly or too "foreign" but simply too socially restrictive.
I could see a maintained division between everyday religion and practices, mysterion cultes more or less reserved to an elite (not always a social elite, but at least a delimited part of the population), imperial cults (religious in the strictest sense, as celebrating bonds between population, emperor and divine; but not spiritual to the least) and philosophy as a main spiritual way for social elites.
Manicheism could be, on the other hand, an efficient rival while definitely not monist.
We tought about it, with galileo 034 on a reboot for his TL, with as well a neo-druidic revival (mix of imperial cult and neo-platonicism from one hand, and "provincial" nationalism after the imperial fall) more located in western Europe (but for the last, it's more rule of cool than real realism at all costs).
Delvestius
Banned
This is how I imagined it would go in the Romanized parts of the world, while in Europe outside of the empire traditional shamanism/animism would remain. Over the next few centuries we could see a similar evolution of non-Latin paganisms based off of the Roman paradigm if they all remain free from an outside/upstart faith or cult.
Perhaps persecution by the Zoroastrians send them West?
What about that Sol Invictus thing started up by Aurelian? That seemed to have some influence as a favored cult by several emperors.
The distinction between popular rites in Romania and outside it were greatly exagerated.
First, it's assuming the Barbaricum practices were based on shamanism or animism (whatever that means outside Paradox Games, that is), and from little we know, it wasn't the case at all.
If Jordanes and other ancient authors is to be trusted (but we can arguably debate with good points for each side) about it, we're in the model of a priestly kingship (not that distinct of what can be found in other IE cultures) with a similar cosmologic division.
Then, Romanization isn't only an official concious policy, and was actually often quite different.
Peoples on the borders of the empire experienced as well process of romanisation, would it be only trough exchanges : the christianisation of peoples such as Marcomani, Goths,etc. outside their entry in Romania points out that.
(And the really quick adoption of roman practices once entered in the empire doesn't give much leverage against it)
So rather than a blunt division (that is admittedly the main point of view of Romans, whatever Christian or not) between Romania and Barbaricum on this as on many other things, you'd probably experiance a continuity, at least in regions in communication.
Eventually, what would be favoured by Romans would be favoured by Barbarians, even if in a possibly distinct form.
It didn't worked like that : you can ask druids about it, or rather you could have if they weren't crushed by roman authorities.
Rome always tought she had a saying in organized religions and rites, so that covers the "free" part.
Even if, for some reasons, you don't have this political interventionism, the exchange and influence shouldn't be discarded at all.
Basically, you'd end with a metissed spirituality, an organized religio printed on it but distinct, and philosophy trying to ties both of these. As the tendency, even in the IIIrd century, was to impose such a spiritual union, and even if without Christianism you may not have them fuse, I don't think you can talk about religious freedom or faith (if such thing existed in Antiquity).
It all depends if the empire collapses (please, make that nobody pulls a Gibbons on this thread) or not, if Diolectian Reforms manage to work as IOTL (because they did) or if something else replace. Have you some ideas on how you'd saw it?
Certainly, but it wasn't a monopolist cult and never intended to be such. Roman emperors needed a religious unity (again, religion as organisation of spiritual, rather than on the boarder sense we have today) that would copy the wanted political unity they promoted around them.
Harmony of the divine and political unity, if you want.
It didn't concerned private spirituality, faith or cult: or rather it did but as long it was compatible with it, what you could believe in was little matter (I should precise that what was considered compatible could vary, and didn't depended on the cult own efforts : Christians were considered from the begining as criminals by "public knowledge" and administration was fine with that)
Last edited:
Well, Judaism was already spreading in the Roman Empire. If you read the New Testament, many of the early Christians were Gentiles who had converted to Judaism first. And others were 'god fearers' (people, especially men, who liked the idea of Judaism, but the full-fledged version with kosher and ... ehem... circumcision was a bit much for them).
Give Judaism another few centuries, and it's entirely possible it would spread deeply enough to become THE cult. Especially if a break-off sect that somewhat loosened the rules formed. (Which, in some ways is what Christianity is, actually, although it's a lot more than just that.)
Several of the other Oriental cults, Isis, Magna Mater, etc., were also spreading, and might possibly have been able to make more progress in the absence of Christianity.
I've always thought that a weird fusion of Mithraism and Isis might be possible - the first appealed almost entirely to men, and the later mostly to women. If they could 'merge' it would help both win whole families.
Wild outside possibilities include Buddhism.
I just don't see 'paganism' surviving. It's not got the appeal of a saviour god/goddess cult, for instance, and anything based of e.g. Greek and Roman gods has to deal with the whole 'unsupervised kindergarten' behaviour of the Olympians...
No, it's always a possibility. Something about those deserts man...
Seriously though, historically speaking, Jesus could be replaced a later prophet with the same Abrahamic base.
Without a replacement monotheist though, I'd say that Europe would probably either go with a dualistic faith (i.e. Manicheanism) or see continued evolution of the imperial pantheon (the specifics of which are well beyond my powers to predict). I highly doubt that any given cult would take total power (even Sol Invictus) without a large social upheaval. Also, if no non-pagan religion or organized cult ends up dominating the empire before it falls then I doubt that Roman religion could dominate Europe. There might be some interesting fusions though, in heavily romanized areas such as France.
No matter what happens, a prophet or mass religious movement could take hold at almost anytime, it's so difficult to predict.
AussieHawker
Banned
No, it's always a possibility. Something about those deserts man...
Nah it is just Mount Sinai. That 8 extra faith.
While I agree with your first point without hesitation, there for the second.
Hellenic philosophy was an intellectual, urban and quite politic stuff during the Roman Empire. It never made it to the provincial rural populations (that represented the bulk of roman population) that were content with their traditional practices and rites, mixed with some imperial cults.
But philosopher? They were essentially tied with roman elite (not always senatorial), and while more modest philosopher existed, they were "poor quality" regularly mocked for either incompetence, being contradictory or obviously miserables.
For instance, Marcus Aurelius was one great stoician of his time, but the philosophy he professed never made it in masses.
(I suggest "Au bonheur des sages" when it comes to this subject)
For the urban elite, it will be an intellectual religion based on philosophy, and the mythology will be for teaching moral lessons. For the rural population, it will be a syncretic religion: Classical plus Egyptian paganism, Mithraism, other Persian, North European, Arabian and Jew influences... It will be different every place, and the elite will keep the official religion, just like Catholicism IOTL, or even the spread and evolution of languages like Spanish.
I think you really overestimate the influence of oriental religion in the western empire. It took centuries for the Roman Empire and for the post-imperial states to enforce Christianism on all the territory (and integrating as much traditional practices as possible).
And here, we're talking about several religions managing to somehow merge and impose the same way? I don't think that could work, unfortunatly.
As for the imperial philosophies, again, I think you don't really grasp its diversity. You didn't have a single uber-dominant moral philosophy as confucianism in China on which the imperial power could base himself, but several "take-and-leave" schools and individuals some officially backed by the power (having salaries and benefits comparable to high servants of the state) and with the whole masse having a more superficial grasp.
(The whole mythology as moral example was maybe an hellenist wet dream, but never taken seriously. It would be as using nowadays Santa Claus as a moral myth for all the population : it's not because you have a whole cultural production going this way, that's actually the case in everyday life)
It doesn't help the oriental cults were socially stratified : Isis, for example, was particularly popular among sailors, Mithra for soldiers, etc. What began to appear was some sort of "specialisation" of worship whom civic ceremonies were eventually the only link between (and as all official and mandatory rites, as enthousiasming spiritually than being hut repetidivly on the head by a brick).
You said that Christianism or christianism-like religion wasn't bound to happen and that's true. But that means as well that some of its specific traits, as not restricting its audiance (really soon you had both elite defending it intellectually as it was in the same time growing among masses).
On the contrary, non-christian philosopher praised themselves to be for the elite, the better. The Life of Plotinus is a masterpiece of it (while I admit that without pressure of Christianism, this could be downplayed).
Without Christianism, there would be simply no interest on enforcing an all-society cult, as nobody would seen either need or reason to do so.
The merge will be different from place to place. In Eastern Empire will have much stronger Oriental influences than the Western one.
Christianism was very diverse in origin, and it took centuries for defining and creating an orthodox official Christianity. Why can't be analogous here?
In all their different forms, the only common element will be the Sol Invictus cult, that is how it seems to hypothetically be at least.
.
It doesn't help the oriental cults were socially stratified : Isis, for example, was particularly popular among sailors, Mithra for soldiers, etc. What began to appear was some sort of "specialisation" of worship whom civic ceremonies were eventually the only link between (and as all official and mandatory rites, as enthousiasming spiritually than being hut repetidivly on the head by a brick).
You said that Christianism or christianism-like religion wasn't bound to happen and that's true. But that means as well that some of its specific traits, as not restricting its audiance (really soon you had both elite defending it intellectually as it was in the same time growing among masses).
On the contrary, non-christian philosopher praised themselves to be for the elite, the better. The Life of Plotinus is a masterpiece of it (while I admit that without pressure of Christianism, this could be downplayed).
Without Christianism, there would be simply no interest on enforcing an all-society cult, as nobody would seen either need or reason to do so.[/QUOTE]
Every social group can have it's form: Elite and rural, soldiers and civilians, Westeners and Easteners and so on. But it will be perceived as one religion with local differences. It will be one religion nominally, it won't be enforced the way OTL Christianism was enforced. It will just mean the unity of the Empire. And maybe formalizing and unifying with enough time.
The worship of Isis was quite interesting in the Empire. It did and still does demand a certain amount of devotion and ritualistic actions we find heavily in more "organized" religions. There was one early Christian or just Roman writer I believe who complained about his girlfriend's devotion to Isis in doing things like abstinence from sex and dipping in the freezing Tiber.
Let us not forget about Apuleius and the Golden Ass/Metamorphoses! One of this period's most famous and surviving literatures was ultimately a high appraisal to Isis Worship which paints a vivid picture of a large, procession of people of many worshipping Isis and her husband, Serapis.
Let us not forget about Apuleius and the Golden Ass/Metamorphoses! One of this period's most famous and surviving literatures was ultimately a high appraisal to Isis Worship which paints a vivid picture of a large, procession of people of many worshipping Isis and her husband, Serapis.
hm. maybe a China-esque religious situation?
Neo-Platonism and Stoicism mixed together with some Oriental cults, like the Isis worship mentioned earlier, and native rites like the Eleusinian mysteries.
but really, none can match the Christian and Muslim religions in organized belief systems. Judaism started it, and the mix of Jewish and Hellenic/Hellenistic philosophy pushed the West into monotheism. Neo-Platonism was on its way there, but the idea of a single congregation of believers is difficult.
Neo-Platonism and Stoicism mixed together with some Oriental cults, like the Isis worship mentioned earlier, and native rites like the Eleusinian mysteries.
but really, none can match the Christian and Muslim religions in organized belief systems. Judaism started it, and the mix of Jewish and Hellenic/Hellenistic philosophy pushed the West into monotheism. Neo-Platonism was on its way there, but the idea of a single congregation of believers is difficult.
The Pontificus Maximus used to be the Head of the Roman Religion and the Egyptian Priesthood already survived one Monotheist Religion.
true enough.
but that type of organization never spread beyond egypt, did it? not with that kind of political power.
at least, as far as i can remember. correct me if i'm wrong.
The problem is how they can mix, when their whole point, socially, was to be an elite spirituality.
It would be like social darwinists trying to recruit among illegal workers. It's just not the point of it.
Wouldn't that make Oriental cults just stronger rather than promote a mix? After all, Christianity (that was basically an oriental cult) opposed Neo-Platonicism with all it had (and Neo-Platonicists gave them the same).
I tought you pointed out that it was not a given that something analogus to Christianism would appear ITTL?
But why, without a monist cult as Christianism (that is what was asked by the OP) such union of classes would be needed? It was already quite problematic IOTL, as going against a more hierarchised and stratified view on society (critically after the Diocletian Reforms), and without Christianism, I don't see a good reason why it would should still happen.
The imperial-civic rites and ceremonies were supposed to form that union, above all kind of rites : Sol Invictus, Apollo, etc. It was never seen as contradictory with diverse practices as long practicers were willing (and that's essentially for urban dwellers, all the other inhabitants of Romania most probably stand with their own private cults) to sacrifice (at all the senses of the world) to it.
It also covers the problem of gnostic-like cults or cults with several level of comprehension. It did existed in Antiquity, with the mysteria, but their conception itself made them attractible for elite : "You're an initiate, someone special in front of the others, you're part of a group that is knowledgable of truth, when others doesn't have it or not entierly".
You simply can't expand that to the whole population, without breaking its very base.
* Ancient religion definition is quite distinct from which we have nowadays.
Quoting Cicero "Each city its religion" : it was seen as the sum of all particular beliefs (not always spiritual) of a social group and its organisation. It was seen as a social link as natural and mandatory than philosophy.