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?
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.
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.
The distinction between popular rites in Romania and outside it were greatly exagerated.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.
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.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.
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.What about that Sol Invictus thing started up by Aurelian? That seemed to have some influence as a favored cult by several emperors.
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).Can we really discount the spread of another prophetic religion originating from Israel?
Can we really discount the spread of another prophetic religion originating from Israel?
No, it's always a possibility. Something about those deserts man...
I don't think that a Christianism-like religion is inevitable. Why can't a philosophy based religion control the Western World and Middle East? Such religion must be based in Hellenic phylosophy, and syncretism of esotericism from all across West and Middle East, etcetera.
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).
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.
The Pontificus Maximus used to be the Head of the Roman Religion and the Egyptian Priesthood already survived one Monotheist Religion.
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.
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).The merge will be different from place to place. In Eastern Empire will have much stronger Oriental influences than the Western one.
I tought you pointed out that it was not a given that something analogus to Christianism would appear ITTL?Christianism was very diverse in origin, and it took centuries for defining and creating an orthodox official Christianity. Why can't be analogous here?
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.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.