Polytheistic beliefs and monotheistic beliefs survived in South Asian religions by relying on each other. The foundation of Hinduism allowed it to be flexible, and so the blend of polytheistic and monotheistic attitudes created different henotheistic/monistic/monolatrisic beliefs. These beliefs allowed for a variety of different viewpoints and thus the ability to be a polytheistic Hindu, monotheistic Hindu, etc.
AHQ: Why did monotheism generally replace polytheism?
- Thread starter KaiserWilhelm
- Start date
The fight between religious ideas is not always an equal one, someone in the Roman Empire converting to Christianity before Constantine is not doing it for political reasons or economic benefits, but a king doing so in 7th century Anglo-Saxon England or 10th Century Scandinavia certainly is thinking about that.
That's one example in a very particular concept. And also not necessarilly accurate to the whole situation.
I could also cite you all the Christian martyrs that were basically gruesomely executed under order from roman officials but that would just be a pissing contest...
Again, one particular concept. That also happened in a town of Alexandria that was regularly subject to riots, whether pagan or christian.
Pagans could also do similar things. One of the reasons the Vikings, who were germanic pagans at the time, were feared and seen as violent monsters was partially because they had no problem torching buildings, including churches and abbeys.
I'm also fairly certain you can find examples of antique pagan rulers that burned down temples and libraries. Like I don't know... This small guy called Alexander the Great that burned the persian capital and possibly the sacred holy texts of Zoroastrianism with it...
Oh, I could also point out the Romans having destroyed the Second Temple. And causing the start of the jewish diaspora by doing so.
The point is: defaming, burning and destroying other religious stuff isn't a purely Christian thing. It always happened throughout History.
Nope. That's just looking at the situation too simply and with a very biased point of view.
You did have slaughters and massacres sure. History isn't pretty sometimes and no one is saying conversion by the sword didn't happen.
But you simply can't reduce that to one particular religion and pretend as if it's the only one that did so. Nor pretend they had no issue with it: debates around the use of violence and the validity of forced conversions can be found in theological history. And the answer is always negative.
Basically stop treating Christiannity as if it was the Warhammer Cult of Khorne.
Most of the population converted peacefully and willingly. The instances of violence were comparatively rare in the Roman Empire.
And again, Christians were persecuted before the Edict of Milan happened. You don't really persecute people you don't feel to be dangerous... The romans wouldn't have given a fuck if they didn't think the rise of Christian converts wasn't problematic for them. How doesn't that prove the fact Christian preachers had a way with words? Hell, that kind proves that Pagans were the ones that couldn't beat them with words and thus resorted to violence...
Once again, I remind you that only the Western half of the Roman Empire fell. The Eastern half was perfectly fine despite having converted, and held on for one more thousand years. And that the Western half did not fall solely because of Christiannity.
That's a very simplistic look at the situation. And an inacurate one.
As if the problem of evil is something exclusive to Christiannity...
Epicurus is possibly the first person to have talked about that question. And he lived longed before Christiannity appeared.
Not to mention that frankly, wondering why there is evil around and having no answer for it doesn't really need you to believe in an omnipotent, omnisicient and benevolent god. That's the basic dilemma of morality and ethics.
That is just not true. Monotheistic versions of Hinduism - henitheism would be a better word - predate contact with any other monotheistic religion, even Zoroastrianism.
There's some speculation that ancient mesopotamian polytheism may have survived in turkish border regions until the 1950s. Those around Harran are better attested, they made it until the 11th century through bribery of local officials, clever interpretations of islamic scripture to their advantage and paying lip service.
Were they polytheistic at this later stage though? It doesn't seem clear.
It's mentioned that other than the sun they may also have worshipped cows and had some syncretism with orthodox Christianity going on. Who knows, them being as secretive as they apparently were isn't helping and hte details are likely lost to time unless something turns up in Ankaras or Istanbuls archives. Imo, being sun-worshippers in a monotheistic, abrahamic state is a 9/10 on the paganism and polytheism scale, them mostly focusing on one god would still be in line with later practices of mesopotamian city states.
Wouldn't you say Roman pagan religious hierarchies weren't themselves pretty structured?
It certainly can explain most of it, obviously genuine conversions existed and people that might have been convinced by any given religion's theology or message but we also have evidence of the contrary, for example Augustine converted away from Christianity during his youth despite having Christian upbringing and living in an increasingly Christian state, so how do you really square so many anecdotes of people converting in all possible ways? Do you simply look at the aggregate result and assume that it indicates that the victorius religion is more compelling at a logical or spiritual level? Because that simply can't be the case without an equal playing field which almost never exists.
You believe that Chrisitanity must have superior for... what reason exactly? What in this "emperor picks up a religion, elevates it with political support and so do his successors for decades" necessitate some sort of Christian exceptionalism?
How does a single person in power choosing a religion and his successors going with the flow automatically bestow a religion of some sort of universal appeal in all circumstances?
Just because blood and politics don't work in a simple manner like you think they should it doesn't mean it's not a factor, generally islamization of a region correlates well with length of Muslim rule, on top of this Bangladesh specifically converted because of specific circumstances that have 100% to do with politics, the expansion of agriculture as the Ganges shifted east lead new communities to adopt the religion of the landowners in the region which at the time were mostly Muslims, this is what some scholars believe.
Trying to argue that somehow Islam particularly was compelling to Bengali people at a spiritual would be ridiculous and unproveable. Other theories that talk about lower castes converting to islam to free themselves from oppression also are generally rejected... and yet people argue similar things about Roman Christianity despite the situation being far less extreme.
Would you really call that polytheism? A henotheistic religion might be kinda polytheistic but it's still a pretty weak counterpoint given it exists solely alongside other monotheistic religions, rendering it's henotheism almost trivial
Hypatia was killed because she chose a side in a contentious political debate between the Roman Prefect Orestes and Patriarch Cyril, in a city known for its murderous political feuding. She was unfortunate collateral damage, not even singled out by anybody, the tall tale that she was, is 1st pronounced in the 19th century, the ancient historian Socrates Scholasticus is pretty clear about it, and he was reasonably contemporary. The Library of Alexandria was defunded by Caracalla and destroyed by Aurelian when he re-took the city during his re-unification campaigns.
Not as much comparatively to the Abrahamic religions.
There was a hierarchy among roman priesthoods but if you compared it to Christiannity, the organization is much more lax. It's also a bit more scattered around because of the polytheistic nature of the religion. Which also leads to semi-autonomy of the individual cults.
The roman hierarchy also proved a bit of a mess when it came to unifying the practices and doctrines. Partially because that wasn't the point of it. But also because that hierarchy didn't really bother evolving beyond its original form, or at least beyond minor changes.
Granted, early Christiannity probably wasn't as organized as it is today and it also had to deal with non-uniformed practices and doctrines. But it evolved and produced the clerical structure we know today, as well as a pretty uniform canon.
And these aren't the only structural weakness the roman religion would have had compared to Christiannity.
The issue is that even if the playing field is never level, it aslo keeps changing.
Christiannity started originally as a jewish sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah had come to Earth to bring a New Alliance between Man and God. When it appeared, there wasn't really anything that suggested it would become as big as it did nor go beyond its native Palestine. Yet it was spread throughout the roman empire (and beyond) just three centuries later. Despite not having been favored and in fact even persecuted (mostly localy, a few times globally) along the way.
We have the case of a religion that was just a blip on the radar that went on to become one of the religions most practiced today. Sure blood and politics can explain part of the expansion, but not at its humble beginnings. And it also can't explain everything when the religion became big. The germanic people that invaded the Western Roman Empire and built kingdoms on its ashes all converted to a form of Christiannity despite Rome not really being in a position to impose it upon them for example.
Because other religion found themselves in Christiannity's position yet they failed?
One of the reasons I precisely mentionned other cults like Sol Invictus and Mithra that were competing with Christiannity at the time... is precisely because these cults were also sponsored by roman emperors at the time. With political support. And by their successors as well. But they never reached the same level of success as Christiannity did. So surely Christiannity had something that worked in its favor that those cults didn't have.
And it's not the only example we have in History about religions that failed despite being favored by a monarch or a dynasty.
I'm not really saying it's not a factor. I'm just saying that in my opinion it's not the only one.
In history you've had religions that were persecuted but still managed to survive and stay around if not become the dominant faith in an area.
On the other side of the coin, some religions receieved official sponsoring and favor, but they still ended up failing.
So for me, saying blood and politics are the only factor that matter doesn't cut it. There are other complex phenomenons at play.
Monotheism has several traits that separate it from politheistic creeds, but it is mostly the lack of tolerance for others: 'Thou shall have no other gods...' etc.
The methods of lack of tolerance themselves differ from country and ruler to time period and government type, from peaceful things like extra taxes or denial of burial, for those of different beliefs, then to lack of political representation, lack of military promotions etc. to less and less peaceful things (no need to expand on this).
The second reason is a type of mass-seduction or mass-hysteria, similar to more modern phenomenons like communism, fascism and nazism, in which the population is roused to hate others, and in the meantime become more united, productive or militaristic, sometimes all three.
Or perhaps the two things are the same, as they both create an atmosphere of hate towards others.
Lastly, there is a convergence of state and church, which secures the party in power and similarly strengthens the ruling religious class, going from king as church leader(England), a God-king (Japan) up to completely theocratic states like the Papacy and some Islamic states, which are basically monasteries on a larger scale.
The methods of lack of tolerance themselves differ from country and ruler to time period and government type, from peaceful things like extra taxes or denial of burial, for those of different beliefs, then to lack of political representation, lack of military promotions etc. to less and less peaceful things (no need to expand on this).
The second reason is a type of mass-seduction or mass-hysteria, similar to more modern phenomenons like communism, fascism and nazism, in which the population is roused to hate others, and in the meantime become more united, productive or militaristic, sometimes all three.
Or perhaps the two things are the same, as they both create an atmosphere of hate towards others.
Lastly, there is a convergence of state and church, which secures the party in power and similarly strengthens the ruling religious class, going from king as church leader(England), a God-king (Japan) up to completely theocratic states like the Papacy and some Islamic states, which are basically monasteries on a larger scale.
Polytheism is similar to animism whereby there are numerous "deities" all around you that you must please such as Poseidon to bless your sea voyages, Hera to bless your marriage, and Zeus so that he doesn't rape your female relatives.
Monotheism on the other hand posits that there is only one God. You need not pray for a safe voyage or for a happy marriage to numerous gods, you only need to pray to one God.
Monotheism on the other hand posits that there is only one God. You need not pray for a safe voyage or for a happy marriage to numerous gods, you only need to pray to one God.
I'd long thought it was because monotheism happened to combine with an aggressive 'go out and convert the heathen' attitude...
And then you encounter Trinity, veneration of Mary and patron saints in Catholicism... clearly there is some "centrifugal" force away from a universalistic spiritual entity and not just a push to sinplify.
Are we counting Stoic Panentheism(although that may be translators bias) and Platonic veneration of the GOOD or only abrahamic monotheism
On the other hand non Abrahamic monotheisms really never caught on.
Although you have to jump through some hoops, you could argue that these fall under monotheistic
me dumb pls elaborate
I am skeptical there's a firm basis to argue how these two sorts of intolerance had much in common. Can we cite more broadly, to back this up? Because earlier this year I started reading a representative sampling of the literature around the Mediterranean religious systems and their transitions, and the historians I have run into leading the field - Ando, Beard/North/Price, Watts - seem to not hold with this perspective at all.
I think every poster here agrees on the existence of both forms of intolerance, and to that you've added an emperor's note (which is certainly relevant!). It just doesn't seem like a firm argument or one-to-one comparison has been made here.
That said, I'm not a professional historian and I'm mid-research. I won't say you're wrong. But I'm unconvinced by the argument, at least with the current level of support.
A few certainties, though:
- The Imperial pressure on Christianity was variable, and during the Crisis of the Third Century - just before Diocletian and Constantine - became totally inconsistent along with all other state functions.
- This variation was centered on individual heads of state, though provincial administrations probably mattered, and was a perceived act of "state security."
- The Christian pressure on traditional Roman religion was significant and did not fully disappear even during Julian's reign.
- This pressure far from being pure state action, was mostly not.
- This pressure occasionally escalated into mass popular acts against the ubiquitous physical presence of traditional religion in public spaces, something which did not, and could not have an exact reflection in the opposite direction pre-Constantine.
Yeah, to the extent it's knowable - and we do have some of Constantine's private writings - he does seem to have had a sincere conversion. Or other sincere belief; no dog in the fight about his mom. Not sure a proselytizing religion converting one emperor out of dozens has much weight in this context though.
I completely get where you're coming from, but I have to reject the first statement.
For one, this is like how some posters on the board say "I only have predictable butterflies in my TL," or "I'm not going to just make up random butterflies about the weather." They have taken the term "butterfly effect" and reversed its use 180 degrees. Religio is the precise Roman word for their ritual, practice, and communication with regards to the gods, and had no particular connotation of describing a specific delineated cult.
I could move past that, but at the end of the day, if there was no "pagan" religion in Rome, by the same token we should say there is no Hindu religion, which is essentially the same statement. Not gonna go there. And again, obviously I agree these are much looser systems.
Last edited: