As I had said a while ago having a Central Asian tribe convert to Mahayana Buddhism certainly helps. But I've just realized that it also be pretty good for the Kushans not to fall to the Sassanids. One other POD is have Mirikula, the Saka Khan, convert to Buddhism when he goes to the monk for help. The story goes that when Mirakula was going to embrace Buddhism , he wanted a sermon from a great teacher, but having earned himself a reputation of a bloodthirsty, savage the teacher sent his disciple. Mirakula took this as an insult and attacked Nalanda.
AHC: Buddhist or Hindu Europe
- Thread starter Tredecimus
- Start date
Flocculencio
Donor
As for Hinduism, it's very intimately connected to Indian culture (of course showing huge variation within that culture) . The South East Asian Indianised kingdoms were essentially part of the same wider cultural complex as the Indian kingdoms. To have "Hinduism" spread you'd need to spread the Indianised cultural complex.
It worked for Islam and the Arabic cultural complex. As well as Christianity and the European cultural complex.
I agree with you on the Islam one, but Christianity, while it was European centered is was and still is a very flexible religion. On the matter of Hinduism, the Sindhi community in Suriname are frequently having native converts.
Flocculencio
Donor
I'm just saying that this is probably a precondition. Christianity, for example, wasn't tied to a particular culture. For example there were many instance of Christianity spreading in areas with nothing to do with the Jewish or Roman cultural spheres (India, Ethiopia etc). Buddhism, likewise, spread to non Indianised cultures. However with Hinduism you would need a society becoming Indianised (as was the case in SE Asia)
Faeelin
Banned
Sure, it could have, but it's a bit odd that it arises in the area of the roman Empire with the most contact with India, and we only have outside commentators' views of what the Pythagoreans thought. And Apollonius of Tyana was reputed to have traveled to India...
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.
Eh, I have far better things to do than rewrite an entire section of Wikipedia. I'll just stick to scholarly works on the region and topic.
I fully acknowledge that Greek culture played a big role in Gandharan Buddhism. But to call it Indo-Greek is to ignore the people who lived there, other groups that moved into the region, etc. For instance, if the Greeks were so important to some of the changes that Gandhara witnessed (such as the depiction of the Buddha in human form), why does this only happen after the Greek states fall?
It would be an interesting avenue to explore.
What do people know about the edge/corner (OTL Yemen/Oman) of Arabia/the opposite side of the sea in Africa?
Is there any chance we could see some form of heavily Indian influenced state or kingdom there?
It's lovely if you have access to works in subjects that are pretty specialist. There is a relevant and interesting work on the subject of Greek and Indian thinking mash-ups:
“The shape of ancient thought. Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian philosophies”, by Thomas McEvilly (2002)
You actually disparaged in this thread a wiki article that references him.
I don't think calling a polity Indo-Greek is off the mark when it was founded by Greek adventurers and retained a Hellenistic ruling class while they recognizably existed. Sure, the bulk of the populace was local Indian by ancestry and culture. Just as most of the Asian polities founded by Alexander, the Diodochi, or their descendants were a Greek crust on a filling of local cultures.
There is the very good question of the chronological gap between the end of the Indo-Greek kingdoms in Gandhara and the rise of the so-called Gandhara school. Of course, just because a Greek ruled kingdom dies doesn't mean that its craftsmen, its aesthetic traditions, and even its religion, dies. There were almost certainly Greeks (either by ancestry or culturally) who continued to live in the area.
The best theories think it was the combination of a lingering tradition carried over from the local Hellenistic influences, leavened by Parthian contacts (which were in themselves Hellenistically influenced) and a new infusion of Hellenistic influence from Rome related trade contacts ---all in the service of the predominant local Buddhist culture.
It is fascinating to see the evolving anthropomorphic representation of Buddha in these centuries.
During the classical/early medieval era? Not very likely. Yeman/Oman was alternatively under the influence of the Ḥimyarites, a later fascinating Jewish Kingdom, the Ethiopian-based Axum Empire, and the Sassanids. India was either too fragmented or never had the bug for such an isolated western expansion in the relevant time frame.
If Asoka never ventured this way, who would?
Faeelin
Banned
I read the book; my senior thesis was on the Hellenistic influence on Gandharan Buddhism. Hell, I even think that Greek culture probably inspired the Indian dramatic tradition, a point raised by my old professor in a 2009 article on Gandharan drama.
Sure. But where are the Greek Buddhist texts? If this was a Greek school of Buddhism, where are the offerings by Greeks? I fully acknowledge a Greek influence, but I don't think it was the only influence, and I'm not even sure it was the predominant one.
SunDeep
Banned
During the classical/early medieval era? Not very likely. Yeman/Oman was alternatively under the influence of the Ḥimyarites, a later fascinating Jewish Kingdom, the Ethiopian-based Axum Empire, and the Sassanids. India was either too fragmented or never had the bug for such an isolated western expansion in the relevant time frame.
If Asoka never ventured this way, who would?
You could draw on a few of the other suggestions- for instance, if the Indo-Greek Kingdom (or Gandhara, if you want to be pedantic) had endured for longer, without pursuing their Pyrrhic War against the Sassanids, it'd provide a lot more incentive for the later Indian Empires, such as the Mughals, to expand westwards. Or perhaps even vice-versa, with the enduring Gandharan Empire expanding eastwards to unite the Indian sub-continent under their own rule instead of the Maurya Empire ITTL, and the entire empire, including its western extremities in the Mediterranean, embracing the Indian cultural complex to a similar degree.
Faeelin
Banned
Okay, I don't think I'm being pedantic when I point out that the Kushans, who were contemporaneous with the Sassanids, were in no way Greek.
What I would focus on is an earlier development of actual, Indo-Greek Buddhism, perhaps tied to Menander's conquest of the Gangetic valley in the 2nd Century BCE.
SunDeep
Banned
Alright, alright. The Kushans did draw on the Hellenistic culture of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in some ways though- and if we're talking about seizing the opportunity to take the place of the Maurya Empire in an ATL, then the Kushans are four centuries too late. The best candidate to do this would have the Seleucid Empire- or perhaps the Macedonian Empire, in a TL where Alexander the Great survives for a few years longer and bears an heir. After all, IOTL, the Maurya Empire only managed to attain its dominance over the entire sub-continent by exploiting the void left behind by the Macedonian Empire's collapse. If this collapse never happens, then the Macedons might have had a chance of consolidating, and perhaps even pressing onward to conquer India in its entirety. And if they do, then you do have the foundation for an actual Indo-Greek Empire.
Last edited:
I never suggested there was a Greek school of Buddhism. I think only Jonathan Edelstein, on this thread, was suggesting the existence of Greco-Buddhism (him and the unfortunate title of a wiki article) and even he could have been reflecting more on King Menander (Melinda) and his canonical exposure to Buddhism. It would be cool if there were and evidence for it would have some interesting repercussions in the pertinent fields. I merely suggested and posited cultural interchange between the Hellenistic cultures of the East and of India. That this could have been a basis for the eventual transmission of Buddhism to the West as a means of addressing the OPs POD.
There were many good reasons OTL why this interchange didn't really have a pronounced effect in the Mediterranean. The Greek polities in Ghandara and the Gangetic plain being thoroughly isolated towards the end of their independent existence from the West has to be a big reason. The Indian trade with the Mediterranean was for the most part from ports much further South in the sub-continent. How much cultural transmission in the 1st C. present era between Ghandara and these ports is perhaps left to surmise.
Last edited:
SunDeep
Banned
Alternatively, if the Macedonian Empire simply collapses, without the Diadochi succeeding in creating stable power blocks at they did IOTL, the Maurya Empire can expand far further westwards than it did IOTL in its formative years, perhaps even bringing the entirety of OTL's Diadochi Kingdoms' territories under its own dominion ITTL. And if it does, the Hellenistic cultural complex will be superseded by the Indian cultural complex ITTL, with the people in these regions actively converted to Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism through the official support of the Mauryan Emperors in the same way that the Indian subcontinent was by them IOTL.
Dorozhand
Banned
Butterfly Socratic philosophy. The pre-Socratics often played with ideas which appear uncannily similar to Buddhist concepts of the illusory existence and the ideal of the quiet mind as opposed to the unquiet mind, and the extinction of the self rather than embracing the self.
As for Hinduism, have Alexander the Great conquer parts of India past the Indus river, and have some of his soldiers adopt elements of Hindu thought, perhaps carrying back with them the early Upanishads, which end up being translated by Persian scholars under a Seleucid equivalent. Follow that with an explosion of interest in post-Vedic Hindu philosophy. It would be easy for this alone to spread, but avoiding extensive syncretism with Zoroastrianism along the way before it makes it to Europe is difficult.
On the other hand, a major religion based on the Upanishads and mixed with Zoroastrianism would be interesting in itself.
As for Hinduism, have Alexander the Great conquer parts of India past the Indus river, and have some of his soldiers adopt elements of Hindu thought, perhaps carrying back with them the early Upanishads, which end up being translated by Persian scholars under a Seleucid equivalent. Follow that with an explosion of interest in post-Vedic Hindu philosophy. It would be easy for this alone to spread, but avoiding extensive syncretism with Zoroastrianism along the way before it makes it to Europe is difficult.
On the other hand, a major religion based on the Upanishads and mixed with Zoroastrianism would be interesting in itself.
Or, alternatively, perhaps have Persia convert to Buddhism somehow? Or maybe have Persia get conquered by some Buddhist group, which retains power long enough to facilitate contact between Rome and India?
Do you think that a POD could exist which could lead to real Greco-Buddhism existing?
Dorozhand
Banned
The Hephthalites conquer all of Persia and set up a Yuan-style dynasty, adopting Persian culture and instituting their native Buddhism as the state religion.
The style of Buddhism developped by Ghandara and all was in the Great Iran cultural sphere, this is a possibiity that it get brough to Iran proper, Soghdians and all...