In that case, the Christians probably use it as a dump like they did IOTL. Maybe later on Jerusalem’s Jewish community might push for the dump to be cleared on the condition that nothing is built there, after which you just have a patch of open land where nothing is allowed to be built.
A Light Shines East: The World of a Christian Persia
- Thread starter Merovingian
- Start date
Another thing to note is that since Europe doesn't seem to have a Charlemagne counterpart, him being instead an Arabian Ebionite ITTL, there's no Carolingian Renaissance that jumpstarts a counterpart to OTL scholasticism and learning. Not saying Europe is bound to languish, of course, but it will take them more time, effort and wealth to gain respectability than in our world.
A key thing to consider is that Jewish-Christian relations are better ITTL. While I highly doubt the Jews will be allowed their own sovereign state barring a Khazar/Beta Israel situation, the Jewish leaders might be able to work better with their Christian rulers here. So I think the "open space where the Temple once stood" will be a good compromise for all involved.
Europe will recover, it’ll just take a little while longer than IOTL.
There is already a sovereign Jewish state(Ethiopia is Jewish), but the Levant is firmly in Christian hands. That said, an open space where the Temple once stood will probably happen.
danteheadman
Banned
No European-dominant modernity. Europe won't be the center of industrialization, that's for sure.
If Ethiopia remains Jewish, and if the Christian Levant remains friendly to Jews, then certainly. But I fully expect Jews to become the majority population in Jerusalem . . . Eventually.
Jews are unlikely to become the majority population in Jerusalem. While they’re treated better than in OTL, that really isn’t saying much and they still don’t have all the same rights as Christians. More likely, Jerusalem will be majority Christian with as sizable Jewish minority who congregate around certain parts of the city.
danteheadman
Banned
But there were cities OTL which became majority Jewish under benevolent non-Jewish rulers. Thessaloniki is the most famous. Even if Jews do not have full rights under Christian law, the pull of Jerusalem plus it being more economically prosperous than OTL will draw Jews like you wouldn't believe. The combined religious and economic pull factors would make it work.
Jerusalem might not become majority Jewish until the 1700s! But it will happen. The only things that could prevent it are:
- Jerusalem is the center of an independent and powerful realm, and is thus too prosperous and populous to become majority Jewish
- Jerusalem becomes an economic backwater, incentivising Jews who are not primarily motivated by religion to leave for greener pastures
- Jerusalem is ruled by a regime violently hostile to Jews, forcing Jews away
Your logic of Jews going to Jerusalem en masse for reasons, can be applied to Christians as well. I do not see it.
danteheadman
Banned
Except the Christian religion is about God's relationship with mankind as mediated through a man, while Judaism is about God's relationship with mankind as mediated through a city. Jerusalem is *the* central feature of Jewish cultural and religious ideation. The closest analogue is Mecca in Islam, for Arabs specifically. Christianity is foundationally more international and less tied to a specific place.
Last edited:
Those two positions would not necessarily make them contrary for believers.
That the movement is not anchored to a place will not make the believers not feel the need to go to the place. Some few might want to go there because it is a sacred place.
That the movement is not anchored to a place will not make the believers not feel the need to go to the place. Some few might want to go there because it is a sacred place.
While I can see the logic of Jews flocking to Jerusalem under a regime that isn’t outright hostile to them, Christians also consider Jerusalem important, albeit not to the same extent that Jews do. While there might be periods where a plurality or even majority of Jerusalem’s population is Jewish, in the long run the Christians have an advantage since they are both numerically greater in size and control the state apparatus. The main problem for the idea of Jewish-majority Jerusalem by the early modern period is that even if slightly more Jews than Christians move there for religious reasons, the Christians still ultimately outnumber the Jews.
danteheadman
Banned
Except that most Christians OTL tended to only make pilgrimage to Jerusalem, or to fight and trade. Not necessarily to settle there. OTL the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem's capital wasn't even Jerusalem, but Acre.
There would likely be a long time where Jews have only a "relative majority" (largest group when dividing Christians by sect, but fewer than all total Christians). But eventually there will be a Jewish majority, unless one of the three factors I mention are present to prevent it.
danteheadman
Banned
One thing to note is that Jews who are fleeing oppression throughout the diaspora are more inclined to migrate to areas that are safe for Jews, are likely to have opportunities for new Jewish migrants to make a living, and already have Jews. A prosperous, prestigious Jerusalem under a (relatively) tolerant regime would absolutely meet those criteria ITTL.
It's not like this TL is one where antisemitism (or the Jewish diaspora) are somehow butterflied away. Any Jews living outside of tolerant lands ITTL would have basically two primo destinations to flee to: Ethiopia and Jerusalem. @Merovingian has already stated that Ethiopia is explicity Haymanot (which would imho likely develop ITTL into a whole different branch of Judaism, more comparable to the differences between Karaite and Rabbinic Judaism, unlike OTL where it is being absorbed into normative Rabbinic Judaism as a set of minhag like Ashkenazi and Sephardi). But since Jerusalem is not a Jewish polity, the community there would probably be more diverse.
Which means that Jews in diaspora across Eurasia would be more inclined to head to Jerusalem since a community of their traditions, minhagim, would already be there.
It's not like this TL is one where antisemitism (or the Jewish diaspora) are somehow butterflied away. Any Jews living outside of tolerant lands ITTL would have basically two primo destinations to flee to: Ethiopia and Jerusalem. @Merovingian has already stated that Ethiopia is explicity Haymanot (which would imho likely develop ITTL into a whole different branch of Judaism, more comparable to the differences between Karaite and Rabbinic Judaism, unlike OTL where it is being absorbed into normative Rabbinic Judaism as a set of minhag like Ashkenazi and Sephardi). But since Jerusalem is not a Jewish polity, the community there would probably be more diverse.
Which means that Jews in diaspora across Eurasia would be more inclined to head to Jerusalem since a community of their traditions, minhagim, would already be there.
Post-Roman Religion
From “A Brief History of Europe” by Snorri Eriksson
Stoicism in Post-Roman Europe syncretized heavily with the old Germanic and Roman religions. In the traditional Germanic worldview, three afterlives existed; the halls of Valhalla for the chosen slain of the god Odin, the goddess Freya’s hall Folkvangr for all the others who died in battle, and the frozen wastes of Niflhel for everyone else. Under the new Stoic worldview, those who lived virtuous lives would live forever with Freda in Folkvangr upon death, those who died defending the Stoic faith would go to live with Odin in Valhalla, and those who did not live virtuous lives would be damned to Niflhel with the goddess Hel. Within this new cosmology, the gods themselves gained new roles. For example, Hel went from simply being the ruler of the dead to being charged with punishing those who did not live according to the Stoic virtues. She was not seen as evil, but rather simply being charged with an unpleasant job and dutifully doing it. Later on in European history, she became charged with punishing sinners[1] in this life as well as the next and eventually as a personification of justice. Freya was likewise recast with her new role as ruler of the virtuous dead. Over time, she became solely an afterlife goddess and lost her original aspects as a fertility goddess, which were transferred to her brother Freyr. She came to be imagined as a motherly figure who would welcome the dead into the afterlife.
Other gods were also recast with the advent of Stoicism. For example, Odin was reimagined as a Stoic sage, for as a god of knowledge, it would only make sense for him to have knowledge of the Stoic virtues. As a result, myths where he did unsavory things were either said to have occurred before gaining knowledge of Stoic philosophy or simply transferred to other gods. It also became a prevalent question to what extent the Stoic virtues applied to the gods. It came to be the accepted view that even the gods had to accept Stoicism and follow virtue. Thus, Zeno of Citium, as the first teacher of Stoicism, was logically elevated above even the gods[2]. It was not uncommon for Stoic sages to enter the temples of the gods and recite Stoic scripture in Gothic to the idols within. In particular, Thor was the one god “preached to“ above all others. After the Gothic conquest of Rome, Thor became heavily syncretized with the Roman Jupiter, who was imagined as a serial philanderer and even rapist who fathered a veritable army of bastards. These myths were transferred to Thor, and thus he was deemed the one god least receptive to Stoic teaching.
Another god who was in need of learning Stoicism was the trickster Loki, with role in causing chaos made him naturally antithetical to Stoic virtues. However, he was also sometimes imagined as bringing about misfortune on the non-virtuous. Other gods, however, became increasingly lionized. For example, Tyr was reimagined as an exemplar of Stoic virtue, specifically the martial code followed by the warrior-aristocracy. Tyr lived by the principles of duty and honor unto death, and was admired and frequently prayed to by the aristocratic and warrior classes(of which there was significant overlap). If Tyr was a paragon of virtue as it applied to the warrior aristocracy, than Freyr was likewise for the peasantry. His role as a god of agriculture and fertility made him perhaps the most important god to the peasants. Of the gods, the Æsir became associated with the aristocracy and the Vanir with the peasantry. The original Germanic class system of jarls, karls, and thralls became codified over time. The jarls were the landed nobility, the karls were the artisans and craftsmen who lived in the city, and the thralls worked the jarl’s fields. Two new social classes would also develop; the Tiwazmen[3], or warriors for hire who served under jarls[4], and Stoic sages. Europe had changed greatly, and would continue to do so in the future.
[1]”Sinners” here simply meaning someone who doesn’t live according to virtue and acts according to their impulses. The term “passions” would make more sense than “sin” in a Stoic context, but that word has its own connotations in English so I’m using “sin” as the closest equivalent term.
[2]Think of the Buddha’s position in relation to the gods in Buddhism
[3]From “Tiwaz”, the Gothic name for Tyr. I use Norse names in here because I’m most familiar with them and because this was written by a Scandinavian writer ITTL, but it should be noted that Gothic is the lingua franca of Europe and in most cases Gothic rather than Norse names would be used
[4]They’re a bit more akin to Japanese samurai than European knights IOTL
Stoicism in Post-Roman Europe syncretized heavily with the old Germanic and Roman religions. In the traditional Germanic worldview, three afterlives existed; the halls of Valhalla for the chosen slain of the god Odin, the goddess Freya’s hall Folkvangr for all the others who died in battle, and the frozen wastes of Niflhel for everyone else. Under the new Stoic worldview, those who lived virtuous lives would live forever with Freda in Folkvangr upon death, those who died defending the Stoic faith would go to live with Odin in Valhalla, and those who did not live virtuous lives would be damned to Niflhel with the goddess Hel. Within this new cosmology, the gods themselves gained new roles. For example, Hel went from simply being the ruler of the dead to being charged with punishing those who did not live according to the Stoic virtues. She was not seen as evil, but rather simply being charged with an unpleasant job and dutifully doing it. Later on in European history, she became charged with punishing sinners[1] in this life as well as the next and eventually as a personification of justice. Freya was likewise recast with her new role as ruler of the virtuous dead. Over time, she became solely an afterlife goddess and lost her original aspects as a fertility goddess, which were transferred to her brother Freyr. She came to be imagined as a motherly figure who would welcome the dead into the afterlife.
Other gods were also recast with the advent of Stoicism. For example, Odin was reimagined as a Stoic sage, for as a god of knowledge, it would only make sense for him to have knowledge of the Stoic virtues. As a result, myths where he did unsavory things were either said to have occurred before gaining knowledge of Stoic philosophy or simply transferred to other gods. It also became a prevalent question to what extent the Stoic virtues applied to the gods. It came to be the accepted view that even the gods had to accept Stoicism and follow virtue. Thus, Zeno of Citium, as the first teacher of Stoicism, was logically elevated above even the gods[2]. It was not uncommon for Stoic sages to enter the temples of the gods and recite Stoic scripture in Gothic to the idols within. In particular, Thor was the one god “preached to“ above all others. After the Gothic conquest of Rome, Thor became heavily syncretized with the Roman Jupiter, who was imagined as a serial philanderer and even rapist who fathered a veritable army of bastards. These myths were transferred to Thor, and thus he was deemed the one god least receptive to Stoic teaching.
Another god who was in need of learning Stoicism was the trickster Loki, with role in causing chaos made him naturally antithetical to Stoic virtues. However, he was also sometimes imagined as bringing about misfortune on the non-virtuous. Other gods, however, became increasingly lionized. For example, Tyr was reimagined as an exemplar of Stoic virtue, specifically the martial code followed by the warrior-aristocracy. Tyr lived by the principles of duty and honor unto death, and was admired and frequently prayed to by the aristocratic and warrior classes(of which there was significant overlap). If Tyr was a paragon of virtue as it applied to the warrior aristocracy, than Freyr was likewise for the peasantry. His role as a god of agriculture and fertility made him perhaps the most important god to the peasants. Of the gods, the Æsir became associated with the aristocracy and the Vanir with the peasantry. The original Germanic class system of jarls, karls, and thralls became codified over time. The jarls were the landed nobility, the karls were the artisans and craftsmen who lived in the city, and the thralls worked the jarl’s fields. Two new social classes would also develop; the Tiwazmen[3], or warriors for hire who served under jarls[4], and Stoic sages. Europe had changed greatly, and would continue to do so in the future.
[1]”Sinners” here simply meaning someone who doesn’t live according to virtue and acts according to their impulses. The term “passions” would make more sense than “sin” in a Stoic context, but that word has its own connotations in English so I’m using “sin” as the closest equivalent term.
[2]Think of the Buddha’s position in relation to the gods in Buddhism
[3]From “Tiwaz”, the Gothic name for Tyr. I use Norse names in here because I’m most familiar with them and because this was written by a Scandinavian writer ITTL, but it should be noted that Gothic is the lingua franca of Europe and in most cases Gothic rather than Norse names would be used
[4]They’re a bit more akin to Japanese samurai than European knights IOTL
The funny thing is that it's perfectly possible for the European days of the week to be almost exactly like in English in this AH. In the Romance languages (at least in French and Spanish) the days of the week are named after Nordic deities whose identities were conflated with Greco-Roman counterparts (e.g. Mars with Tyr, Mercury with Odin).
In portuguese we went with the church replacement
So Sunday is Lord's day(Domingo), Saturday is Sabbath(Sábado) and the other days are numbered - Second-Fair(Segunda-Feira), Third-Fair(Terça-Feira), Fourth-Fair(Quarta-Feira), Fifth-Fair(Quinta-Feira) and Sixth-Fair(Sexta-Feira)
It was an atempt of "de-paganizing" them, which weirdly enough only applied to the days of the week since months still retain their greek-roman naming scheme