Jews never become monotheists. Christianity never develops as a religion. Muhammad never founds Islam as it is known today. What happens to the world?
No Abrahamic Religions
- Thread starter Alternate History X
- Start date
Winnabago
Banned
Hmmm...
The best possible chance for this would be the Assyrians successfully destroying Jerusalem, annihilating the Jewish people forever.
I think everything would go as normal until the rise of Rome. Then, Rome would have a staunch body of un-peaceful soldiers in the provinces, and a less stubborn Bedouin/Greek/Egyptian Palestine. That would give it a bit better control of the Near East.
When the Western Empire falls to the Germans and Goths, there would be no loose ties to Rome thanks to the Pope, and Rome would just be home to Odoacer. Byzantium would continue to stick with its random pagan religions, and would battle an increasingly Buddhist Sassanid Empire. It would win.
No monks would preserve Christianity, and the new Germanic pagan religions would be brought into the Roman religious tolerance. Cults of Nerthus would arise with Gothic cults of Mars.
Rome would recover Italy, Carthage, and Spain under Basil, and gradually retake Europe in a new Romanesque image. No Muslims would threaten its borders, and Byzantine innovation (Greek fire, much?) would win wars against the Germans.
Axum would not be Christian, and thus probably not exist. Byzantine merchants would gain increasing power in the Yemeni straits.
Wow...this is fun.
The best possible chance for this would be the Assyrians successfully destroying Jerusalem, annihilating the Jewish people forever.
I think everything would go as normal until the rise of Rome. Then, Rome would have a staunch body of un-peaceful soldiers in the provinces, and a less stubborn Bedouin/Greek/Egyptian Palestine. That would give it a bit better control of the Near East.
When the Western Empire falls to the Germans and Goths, there would be no loose ties to Rome thanks to the Pope, and Rome would just be home to Odoacer. Byzantium would continue to stick with its random pagan religions, and would battle an increasingly Buddhist Sassanid Empire. It would win.
No monks would preserve Christianity, and the new Germanic pagan religions would be brought into the Roman religious tolerance. Cults of Nerthus would arise with Gothic cults of Mars.
Rome would recover Italy, Carthage, and Spain under Basil, and gradually retake Europe in a new Romanesque image. No Muslims would threaten its borders, and Byzantine innovation (Greek fire, much?) would win wars against the Germans.
Axum would not be Christian, and thus probably not exist. Byzantine merchants would gain increasing power in the Yemeni straits.
Wow...this is fun.
Isn't Judaism technically polytheist anyway, as Holy texts mention different gods?
Some might argue it is henotheistic in its early stages, as some argue that early Judaism recognizes the existence of other gods but accepts the worship of only their own within their own people. But polytheism would require the explicit worship of multiple gods, rather than the simple acceptance of their existence. It is also debated as to whether Judaism ever was henotheistic at all, rather than monotheistic. It all comes down to a really long and confusing historical-theological argument that we really shouldn't get into right now.
Back on the topic, I'm thinking you'll probably see a weaker "Roman" identity in the late empire; the "Eternal Rome" concept very much merged with Christianity, and Roman Christianity did serve as an incredible unifying factor in the late Empire. I just can't see Roman paganism, developing in the absence of Judaism, making nearly the inroads with the invaders as Christianity did; holy places and dominant gods would just shift as they always had done before. In my opinion, it would probably weaken the continuation of Romantic culture in western Europe significantly, though a Byzantine* Empire is more likely than the west to survive in some form, because of Hellenism.
I generally avoid Religious threads because I don't think I have enough knowledge to answer them: thus, I'm not sure I wouldn't be saying stupidities and anger people, which is not why I am looking for.
But I have to answer a few points I do not agree with Winnabago because I have the impression it's based on a few cliches about the Abrahmic religions. Plus, I have the impression he minimalizes the butterflies of the POD. I just hope I won't start an argument: I am not looking for this.
I think you are mistaken by the cliches that Rome fell because Christiannity is a peaceful religion and forbids fighting. I'll grant you that the essence of Christiannity is a peaceful message.
However, history shows Christian theologians did a lot of work regarding war and they gradually came to accept it when they couldn't avoid it. In Ancient Rome, the army was a good way of becoming a Roman citizen for non-citizens and it played a huge role in the Empire: it thus attracted many people, and probably a lot of christians too despite their beliefs. When Constantine I, the first Christian Emperor of Rome, sat on the throne and legalized Christiannity, the early Church agree on the fact that it was no longer forbidden to be part of the army. It was the beginning of a process where Christians tolerated violence though the Church always asked for it to be used only when it was justified.
Furthermore, until 313 and the Edict of Milan, Christiannity was banned in the Roman Empire: a large majority of Romans remain pagans up until this date. A first conversion movement and the fact Theodosius the Great forbade Paganism in 392 are what led to Christiannity becoming the first religion of the Empire. In those days, the Romans were already in decline: I thus don't think having a bunch of Christian soldiers made Rome fall earlier.
Judaism being around wasn't the only reason why the Jews fought and rebelled against the Romans. Around the same period of time, they were rebellions against Roman rule and not because of Religion. Thus, even without religions, I think you could still see Revolts in Palestine.
As for better control of the Near East, I have to object. Did you forget the Third Century Crisis and the Palmyrene Kingdom of Zenobia? Who says you wouldn't see other separatists attempts in the Near East? And let's not forget they were people aiming to take control of those lands on the eastern borders of Rome.
It seems to me that the Sassassinds were not Buddhist but Zoroastrian. I don't know how Zoroastrianism works, but I don't think it has anything related to Buddhism.
And even if the Sassanids became Buddhists, how would that make the Romans win against the Persians? All the Roman-Sassanid Wars we had OTL were very close conflicts and the Roman-Persian borders pratically never moved an inch until the rise of Islam and the conquest of Persia and the Near East by the muslims. Even with no Abrahamic religions, I don't see how this would change the fact the Romans/Byzantines and the Persians were two strong and evenly matched rivals.
Would the Romans really be more tolerant to Germanic Paganism than they were to Christiannity?
I have no difficulty in believing a Polytheist religion is potentially more tolerant than a monotheistic one: as it tends to recognise there are many gods, Polytheism could accept the existence of another polytheism.
However, intolerance is not a fact limited only to Abrahmic religions. There are intolerant zealots in every religions: who says Roman Paganism and Germanic paganism couldn't clash and fight?
Greek fire wasn't much use by the Byzantines OTL if I recall correctly. At least, that's what I remember from the discussions regarding Isaac's Empire. I'll grant you it could give a military advantage to the Roman/Byzantine Empire but, eventually, the opponents would find a counter or possibly find a way to assimilate greek fire.
Furthermore, I don't see how nor why would Byzantium retake Europe from the Barbarians. That would be counting the Barbarians armies as disorganised and uneffective mobs which they weren't: how come the Franks would have become such a huge Empire otherwise?. And even without Islam, there would still be the threat of Sassanid Persia to watch out in the Near East. Lastly, a factor that is random, are eastern migration: who says Mongols & Turks won't migrate like OTL? As a matter of fact, Byzantium faced a migrating population: the Bulgars. That didn't go very well if memory serves right.
Plus, retaking Europe would actually put Rome back in the position where it was an overexpanded nation: overexpanded Empires eventually crack open and fall because of the difficulties they are facing.
I do not know much about the Aksumite civilisation but I do not see why it wouldn't rise without Christiannity. I'm even wondering if it didn't exist before Christiannity showed up...
But I have to answer a few points I do not agree with Winnabago because I have the impression it's based on a few cliches about the Abrahmic religions. Plus, I have the impression he minimalizes the butterflies of the POD. I just hope I won't start an argument: I am not looking for this.
Winnabago said:
I think you are mistaken by the cliches that Rome fell because Christiannity is a peaceful religion and forbids fighting. I'll grant you that the essence of Christiannity is a peaceful message.
However, history shows Christian theologians did a lot of work regarding war and they gradually came to accept it when they couldn't avoid it. In Ancient Rome, the army was a good way of becoming a Roman citizen for non-citizens and it played a huge role in the Empire: it thus attracted many people, and probably a lot of christians too despite their beliefs. When Constantine I, the first Christian Emperor of Rome, sat on the throne and legalized Christiannity, the early Church agree on the fact that it was no longer forbidden to be part of the army. It was the beginning of a process where Christians tolerated violence though the Church always asked for it to be used only when it was justified.
Furthermore, until 313 and the Edict of Milan, Christiannity was banned in the Roman Empire: a large majority of Romans remain pagans up until this date. A first conversion movement and the fact Theodosius the Great forbade Paganism in 392 are what led to Christiannity becoming the first religion of the Empire. In those days, the Romans were already in decline: I thus don't think having a bunch of Christian soldiers made Rome fall earlier.
Winnabago said:
Judaism being around wasn't the only reason why the Jews fought and rebelled against the Romans. Around the same period of time, they were rebellions against Roman rule and not because of Religion. Thus, even without religions, I think you could still see Revolts in Palestine.
As for better control of the Near East, I have to object. Did you forget the Third Century Crisis and the Palmyrene Kingdom of Zenobia? Who says you wouldn't see other separatists attempts in the Near East? And let's not forget they were people aiming to take control of those lands on the eastern borders of Rome.
Winnabago said:
It seems to me that the Sassassinds were not Buddhist but Zoroastrian. I don't know how Zoroastrianism works, but I don't think it has anything related to Buddhism.
And even if the Sassanids became Buddhists, how would that make the Romans win against the Persians? All the Roman-Sassanid Wars we had OTL were very close conflicts and the Roman-Persian borders pratically never moved an inch until the rise of Islam and the conquest of Persia and the Near East by the muslims. Even with no Abrahamic religions, I don't see how this would change the fact the Romans/Byzantines and the Persians were two strong and evenly matched rivals.
Winnabago said:
Would the Romans really be more tolerant to Germanic Paganism than they were to Christiannity?
I have no difficulty in believing a Polytheist religion is potentially more tolerant than a monotheistic one: as it tends to recognise there are many gods, Polytheism could accept the existence of another polytheism.
However, intolerance is not a fact limited only to Abrahmic religions. There are intolerant zealots in every religions: who says Roman Paganism and Germanic paganism couldn't clash and fight?
Winnabago said:
Greek fire wasn't much use by the Byzantines OTL if I recall correctly. At least, that's what I remember from the discussions regarding Isaac's Empire. I'll grant you it could give a military advantage to the Roman/Byzantine Empire but, eventually, the opponents would find a counter or possibly find a way to assimilate greek fire.
Furthermore, I don't see how nor why would Byzantium retake Europe from the Barbarians. That would be counting the Barbarians armies as disorganised and uneffective mobs which they weren't: how come the Franks would have become such a huge Empire otherwise?. And even without Islam, there would still be the threat of Sassanid Persia to watch out in the Near East. Lastly, a factor that is random, are eastern migration: who says Mongols & Turks won't migrate like OTL? As a matter of fact, Byzantium faced a migrating population: the Bulgars. That didn't go very well if memory serves right.
Plus, retaking Europe would actually put Rome back in the position where it was an overexpanded nation: overexpanded Empires eventually crack open and fall because of the difficulties they are facing.
Winnabago said:
I do not know much about the Aksumite civilisation but I do not see why it wouldn't rise without Christiannity. I'm even wondering if it didn't exist before Christiannity showed up...
This TL needs to be done. it is possible that we have found a way to create a surviving Roman Empire.
Ethiopian civilization begins with D'mt, a pre-Christian state. Attributing the emergence of civilization there to Christianity is definately inaccurate, especially considering the region was one of the early centers of agriculture and was well-situated for trade with South Arabia and other areas of the Indian Ocean.
jkarr said:
And how do you know that?
The world will be completely different that's for sure. But better? No one can tell that: not even the greatest expert in Alternate History could. The reason? That world will be unrecognisable compared to our own: IOTL, there are more than half Abrahmic faith believers (be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam) in the world's population, a category of people that wouldn't exist ITTL.
Plus conflicts and atrocities do not limit themselves to Religion. Hitler, Staline and Mao were Atheists: they killed millions out of ideology, jealousy, hatred and fear. Human nature has a dark side that would be permanent in every alternate world, except those without Humanity. Getting rid of Religion will not get rid of conflict: you'll just have one less cause but that doesn't mean there would be less wars.
Well not necessarily. As it may matter on a individual or communal level as in Greece the different City States worshipped only a few of the Greek Pantheon gods but not all of them (Take the Athens Athena vs Sparta Ares dynamic). Further while they may have participated in city wide festivals honoring a god they would mostly stick to their patron of sorts. Though even in today's modern polytheist reconstructionist the view of patrons is hotly debated.
Kaiphranos
Donor
Not to mention, polytheistic civilizations can be just as nasty as anyone else. The Assyrians were no fun, for instance, to name just one non-Abrahamic group in the area...
And Hindus have been plenty nasty to others over the years, although perhaps not quite on the same scale as the Abrahamic religions. Getting rid of the Abrahamic religions changes nothing in human nature.
Interesting idea, though. I think you would still see the development of monotheistic religions, although with a heavier emphasis on formless nature gods (like the Celts and some German tribes were moving towards) than a personable, intervening god of the Abrahamic religions. Additionally, you could see the development of more dualistic religions like Zoroastrianism, with a light and dark side. It's too bad those have pretty much died out; they were spreading throughout Central Asia until Islam swept them off their feet.
Winnabago
Banned
@Yorel
Rome didn’t fall because of Christianity, but it was a huge expenditure of resources to kill them, and they didn’t join the armies. That’s certainly not the reason Rome fell, but a maintaining of the religious status quo certainly would have helped.
Those same reasons for rebelling would have applied in any province. The Jews were simply a stubborn bunch of guys (it’s why they’re still here, but how many Gauls do you know?). How many Masadas and Gamlas do you see in other provinces? I was talking about the rebellious years during the early Empire, btw.
You didn’t know about the Buddhists in Eastern Persia? Yeah, the Muslims took care of those pretty quick, but they had a steadily growing following spreading from Afghanistan under the Indo-Parthians. I’m assuming it would spread without Islam. The Romans would win mostly because they won the first time.
The Romans were tolerant to Isis, I’d assume they’d be tolerant to the next god. They’d just identify it with Mercury or whoever and let it go. It’s what they did with every other religion, look at the Greeks.
The barbarians weren’t mobs, but they would be no match for Romans, who always managed to crush barbarians. The Franks built their empire by fighting other barbarians, and even then, it took them awhile. France also had the help of becoming Christian under Clovis, if I remember right (religions are great at unifying people).
I bet it would! I’m not saying Rome would survive to today. I’m saying they’d be a major power for a significantly longer period.
Africa south of the Nile was generally tribal. which limited the strength of empires. If everyone’s the same religion, then they have a loyalty to you (hopefully) ahead of their tribe. A state would form, perhaps, but it would be much weaker.
Rome didn’t fall because of Christianity, but it was a huge expenditure of resources to kill them, and they didn’t join the armies. That’s certainly not the reason Rome fell, but a maintaining of the religious status quo certainly would have helped.
Those same reasons for rebelling would have applied in any province. The Jews were simply a stubborn bunch of guys (it’s why they’re still here, but how many Gauls do you know?). How many Masadas and Gamlas do you see in other provinces? I was talking about the rebellious years during the early Empire, btw.
You didn’t know about the Buddhists in Eastern Persia? Yeah, the Muslims took care of those pretty quick, but they had a steadily growing following spreading from Afghanistan under the Indo-Parthians. I’m assuming it would spread without Islam. The Romans would win mostly because they won the first time.
The Romans were tolerant to Isis, I’d assume they’d be tolerant to the next god. They’d just identify it with Mercury or whoever and let it go. It’s what they did with every other religion, look at the Greeks.
The barbarians weren’t mobs, but they would be no match for Romans, who always managed to crush barbarians. The Franks built their empire by fighting other barbarians, and even then, it took them awhile. France also had the help of becoming Christian under Clovis, if I remember right (religions are great at unifying people).
I bet it would! I’m not saying Rome would survive to today. I’m saying they’d be a major power for a significantly longer period.
Africa south of the Nile was generally tribal. which limited the strength of empires. If everyone’s the same religion, then they have a loyalty to you (hopefully) ahead of their tribe. A state would form, perhaps, but it would be much weaker.
Hitler was no Atheist. He might have used Christianity as a tool, but he did believe in a higher power. In this TL, he probably would have used the Germanic religion to influence the masses, but without Jews around, what group of people would he target to eventually become the loathed figure he is right now?
Wolfpaw
Banned
I'm intrigued at the idea of an "increasingly Buddhist" Persian polity. I could see Buddhism perhaps taking hold amongst disaffected peasants and those dissatisfied with the predominantly Zoroastrian elite, though I am skeptical of majority conversion to Buddhism.
As for Roman domination, I could easily see a Roman cult arising to fill the void that Christianity did IOTL. The cult of Sol Inuictus is the most likely to become the dominant faith of Europe and possibly the Mediterranean basin.
As for Roman domination, I could easily see a Roman cult arising to fill the void that Christianity did IOTL. The cult of Sol Inuictus is the most likely to become the dominant faith of Europe and possibly the Mediterranean basin.
Last edited:
Wolfpaw
Banned
In the "Rome survives" TL that I occasionally toy with, I have Solarism evolve along largely dualistic lines, aspected as Light and Darkness.
While I largely agree with your assesment, I could see Sol Inuictus becoming an interventionist deity. He's all about "unconquerable" triumph and virility. This is the perfect god for a society as machissimo as the Romans, and one that is probably going to espouse "audaces fortuna iuvat" over "sola fide."
Last edited:
Could you define what you mean by status quo? To me, the only period were there was a status quo between Christians and Pagans was the period between 313 and 392, when both religions were legal. Before 313, only paganism was legal and there were persecutions against Christians. After 392, it became the contrary: Christiannity was legal and there were persecutions against Pagans.Winnabago said:
I, for my part, am skeptical around the idea that Christiannity contributed to the fall of Rome. Plus, it tends to contradict the extraordinary longevity of the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire which only fell in 1453 OTL (even if it was pretty much desintegrating after 1204): you can't deny that Byzantium was a Christian empire as well as a Roman Empire (though it became heavily hellenized).
I did indeed not knew about Buddhism in Eastern Persia nor about its expansion in the rest of the Empire. I do agree it would spread, but would it really be able to overthrow Zoroastrianism as the main religion of Persia?Winnabago said:
Winning the first war doesn't mean you would win the others. Take France and England OTL: they fought several times in several wars and yet neither France nor England did won all those wars.
I'm not sure if taking Greece as an example is valuable because Roman Mythology is pretty much Greek mythology with Roman names: there are reasons why we talk about Greco-Roman mythology. But I agree with you on this point.Winnabago said:
The Romans could indeed prove tolerant to some Germanic gods. However, I think Germanic Paganism and Roman Paganism are very different and I'm not sure they would have combined very well nor if it would have been easy to do.
Romans always managing to crush Barbarians? That seems to contradict the fall of the Western Empire. There is a reason why several Barbarian Kingdoms succeeded the Western Empire: the Roman army was no longer able to handle the Barbarians. Worse, in the late years of the Western Empire, the Romans had to rely on loyal Barbarian tribes to protect what was left of the Empire.Winnabago said:
Also, Justinian reconquered Italy for Byzantium but it was later lost to the Lombards, who are defined as Barbarians: that probably counts as Romans being defeated by Barbarians. I'll grant you that Islam was around in the East, but who says the Romans would have won against the Lombards if there had been no Islam?
I think a great POD for this would be to make the Philistines defeat the Israelites under Saul, affectively making the region Palestine as opposed to Israel 
From there, well, most differences would cultural in that region. Butterflies would abound, however, because of the strategic location of Palestine, so the altered people would alter the events of every army that passes through there, not to mention the diasporas from the region. Who knows what would happen in Babylon, Rome, Alexandria, or any of the other cities that would have had large Jewish populations?
From there, well, most differences would cultural in that region. Butterflies would abound, however, because of the strategic location of Palestine, so the altered people would alter the events of every army that passes through there, not to mention the diasporas from the region. Who knows what would happen in Babylon, Rome, Alexandria, or any of the other cities that would have had large Jewish populations?