AHC: Buddhist or Hindu Europe

Make Buddhism or Hinduism the predominant religion in Europe with any plausible PODs.

Hinduism. No. It's not the most easy POD with Hinduism as with Zoroastrianism in the way, and Hinduism wasn't always appealing. Maybe for the more warlike cultures like the Vikings but no for the rest. Buddhism is much easier as it preaches calmness. Not having the Sassanids be persecuting them helps as they can spread with Manicheasm using the Central Asian tribes.
 
Buddhism could become the predominant religion in parts of Europe, but not the whole of Europe.
 
I don't really know anything of use about Buddhism but it always slightly surprised me that Buddhism didn't partially establish itself somewhere in the territory of the empire, given the trade and other connections.
 
You would have an easier chance of Platonism going viral and incorporating the Med. basin religions into it as the gods being aspects of The One Source.
 
Buddhism was historically extremely evangelical. It just never really went west. Hinduism was pretty evangelical at certain points too.

I once was thinking about how to get a strong Buddhist presence within the empire and thought that it might help to have a half way presence. Say one of the small polities on the corner of the Red Sea converting and remaining that way for some time? That way the influence would have a closer originating point and may be more likely to spread by trade.
 
It's not a timeline, but I did write a short story which explored this scenario and what would allow it to happen.

Basically, nixing widespread Christianity created a situation where Buddhism had room to spread. Obviously the first doesn't automatically lead to the latter, but I think it's important for helping Buddhism. It gives it less 'memetic competition' to spread, and it has much of the same appeal as Christianity (promotes peace and empathy, rewards the good and punishes the wicked after this life, and can still be used to justify state violence as necessary, as we've seen in Burma).
 
Greco-Buddhism seems like the best bet, if the Indo-Greek kingdoms can stay in better contact with the rest of the Hellenistic world and eventually catch the eye of some noble Roman traveler or Levantine client king.
 
Greco-Buddhism seems like the best bet, if the Indo-Greek kingdoms can stay in better contact with the rest of the Hellenistic world and eventually catch the eye of some noble Roman traveler or Levantine client king.

Shame that the Romans just missed the last of the Greco-Indian kingdoms chronologically. Buddhism was in evidence in at least some of the courts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_monasticism
But, later, the Roman-Indian trade must have been a fertile field for religious interchange.
There was knowledge of Buddhism in Rome and of the influence of it on some streams of Greek thought. There are early Christian commentators on Buddhism. But the proselytizing agents of Buddhism apparently never really made it so far West. Still, one would think that the Empire would have been a very receptive environment for it.
 
Greco-Buddhism seems like the best bet, if the Indo-Greek kingdoms can stay in better contact with the rest of the Hellenistic world and eventually catch the eye of some noble Roman traveler or Levantine client king.

So almost requiring a pre rise of Rome POD? Or at least a different Persia?

This is why I like the Buddhist Port Aden option, it makes it more likely that the trading hub of Egypt is more likely to have Buddhist influence than OTL. I do understand there was some sort of Indian presence in Alexandria but it seems very unclear how big the community was or what lasting impact they had on the city and wider empire.
 

SunDeep

Banned
Why did never go west then I know it started in India and spread to Asia but why did never go west?

Because they were following the money- all of the most productive trade routes were to the East, so it spread primarily in that direction. If Europe were wealthier from an early stage, possessing more established, more profitable trade routes with the Indian subcontinent, then more Buddhist envoys would have gone west to spread the word and establish profitable monasteries there as well. And I say 'more' because plenty of them did IOTL- the Indo-Greek Kingdom was well established in PD Persia at the time, and they converted to Buddhism even before the Chinese did, with Buddhism's reach even extending to the Greek Kingdoms in the Mediterranean. The trouble was that in the West, Buddhism never spread far enough, or became deeply ingrained enough, to escape being swept away by the rise to dominance of the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam.

You do wonder though- what if more Buddhist emissaries had continued to spread the word further westwards, across the Mediterranean? Might it have taken hold in the fledgling Roman Empire? And if had, might the Roman Empire's stance on religion ITTL have more closely resembled that of the early Chinese Kingdoms IOTL, sponsoring Buddhism and drawing from it to formulate their own state ideology vaguely similar to Confucianism, using it as the foundation upon which to build an earlier, more lasting Holy Roman Empire ITTL before Christ is even born? With the European Kingdoms unified under the Roman Divine Emperor, and if the Roman Emperors ITTL don't initiate their own Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution in the way that the Tang Dynasty did, Buddhism could easily be even more dominant in Europe ITTL than it is IOTL's China, perhaps even as dominant as it is IOTL in South-East Asia.
 
Why did never go west then I know it started in India and spread to Asia but why did never go west?

It is a timing issue plus having competition.

Buddhism did not really start spreading until the advent of Mahayana Buddhism which was more hopeful and optimistic than Theravada Buddhism, especially in regions which are not already attuned to karmic thinking.

Mahayana Buddhism did not begin until after the spread of Christianity which was a lot more missionary based than it. So in attempting to spread west, Buddhism was already competing with a religion a strong, missionary religion that emphasized salvation and reward after death. In addition, its nearest neighbor was Persia which was experiencing a Zoroastrian revival. Then Islam conquered the area to the west of India and pretty much stamped out any progress it had made.

When Mahayana Buddhism spread east, it didn't have the same kind of religious competitors so it had the market all to itself. The existing Taoist and Confucian religions had limited appeal to ordinary people, and certainly did not preach any kind of salvationist theology. They were also not exclusive, so despite official court disapproval of the new barbarian religion, Buddhism slowly became accepted as normal in the east.
 
It is a timing issue plus having competition.

Buddhism did not really start spreading until the advent of Mahayana Buddhism which was more hopeful and optimistic than Theravada Buddhism, especially in regions which are not already attuned to karmic thinking.

Mahayana Buddhism did not begin until after the spread of Christianity which was a lot more missionary based than it. So in attempting to spread west, Buddhism was already competing with a religion a strong, missionary religion that emphasized salvation and reward after death. In addition, its nearest neighbor was Persia which was experiencing a Zoroastrian revival. Then Islam conquered the area to the west of India and pretty much stamped out any progress it had made.

When Mahayana Buddhism spread east, it didn't have the same kind of religious competitors so it had the market all to itself. The existing Taoist and Confucian religions had limited appeal to ordinary people, and certainly did not preach any kind of salvationist theology. They were also not exclusive, so despite official court disapproval of the new barbarian religion, Buddhism slowly became accepted as normal in the east.

Mahayana Buddhism was spreading westwards via the Kushan, but that spread was curtailed by the Parthian, later Sassanian vitalization of Zoroastrianism and the eastward expansion of Christianity. In effect, Mesopotamia and the Iranian Plateau acted as a kind of firewall to Buddhist transmission to the West.
 
Maybe have one of the later nomadic invaders - perhaps the Magyars - convert to Buddhism? I saw a TL once where they form a Buddhist state in central Europe, one that eventually coalesced around a string of mountain monasteries throughout the Carpathians.
 

Faeelin

Banned
So almost requiring a pre rise of Rome POD? Or at least a different Persia?

Rome was a major player by the early 2nd century BCE.

If you google, you'll find Answers for Milinda, a TL I did on this very point back in the days when the world was new.

This is why I like the Buddhist Port Aden option, it makes it more likely that the trading hub of Egypt is more likely to have Buddhist influence than OTL. I do understand there was some sort of Indian presence in Alexandria but it seems very unclear how big the community was or what lasting impact they had on the city and wider empire.

Well, you have to wonder about the Pythagoreans who were in Egypt during this period. A bunch of mystics who believed in reincarnation and were vegeterians? Hrm.


Shame that the Romans just missed the last of the Greco-Indian kingdoms chronologically. Buddhism was in evidence in at least some of the courts.

Guys, a couple of things:


  • Greco-Buddhism wasn't a thing outside of Wikipedia. We know this because there are no Greek Buddhists texts even int eh region. Some manuscripts written in the Greek alphabet, yes. But no Greek works themselves.
    Hellenistic influence didn't die when a few Greeks states fell. Greek remained in use on coins and in in art for centuries.
    The idea of Mahayana Buddhism as more hopeful has some merit, but it's a bit glib to paint Theraveda Buddhists as dour people who were convinced they'd suffer.
    That said, while I want to give Greco-Buddhism crap and burn that page, the fact that there's a Buddhist Work entitled Questions of King Menander is pretty damn telling about the Greek influence in the area.
    Call it Gandharan Buddhism, which is the proper name.

Mahayana Buddhism did not begin until after the spread of Christianity which was a lot more missionary based than it.

Christianity also had a huge leg up becaus unlike the monotheistic Buddhists, it could incorporate local deities into its cosmology. Hrm. Sorry, something about this seems off.
 
Well, you have to wonder about the Pythagoreans who were in Egypt during this period. A bunch of mystics who believed in reincarnation and were vegeterians? Hrm.

Perish the thought that such things couldn't independently arise.



Greco-Buddhism wasn't a thing outside of Wikipedia. We know this because there are no Greek Buddhists texts even int eh region. Some manuscripts written in the Greek alphabet, yes. But no Greek works themselves.
Hellenistic influence didn't die when a few Greeks states fell. Greek remained in use on coins and in in art for centuries.
The idea of Mahayana Buddhism as more hopeful has some merit, but it's a bit glib to paint Theraveda Buddhists as dour people who were convinced they'd suffer.
That said, while I want to give Greco-Buddhism crap and burn that page, the fact that there's a Buddhist Work entitled Questions of King Menander is pretty damn telling about the Greek influence in the area.
Call it Gandharan Buddhism, which is the proper name.

Kind of snarkishly pedantic, no? ;)
Let's see. The only people using the term, "Greco-Buddhist" on this thread is the link to Wiki. Don't shoot the messenger... Perhaps you should try to contributing to Wikipaedia...:) I have in other articles.
Hellenistic influence lasted situationally and spottily in parts of greater India, true. Sometimes those influences (that we know of) were pretty superficial, indeed. Coins and certain aesthetic contributions, yes. There was obviously some Buddhist derived influence on certain Greek lines of thinking. It doesn't make the relevant Greeks, Buddhists, but indicates that cultural influences moved both ways. The Greco-Indians eventually were absorbed into the local cultural fabric. Poof... The later commercial traffic which involved Greeks and Romans in the Romo-Indian trade seemed to have left no impression upon Indian culture beyond Roman coin collections found later.
It was Mahayana Buddhism that was carried into China and Central Asia by those great diffusers of Buddhism, the Kushan. Nothing against Theraveda. Dour? No. More conservative? Yes. Some of my best friends practice Theraveda Buddhism. ;)

Christianity also had a huge leg up becaus unlike the monotheistic Buddhists, it could incorporate local deities into its cosmology. Hrm. Sorry, something about this seems off.

I think of Tibetan Buddhism which incorporated many aspects of the older Bon religion including many of its deities...

"Hrm"? Are you "Rorschach" from "Watchmen" , or something? :D
 
Top