Reborn Roman Empire
- Thread starter Serenity2589
- Start date
If you want a pagan (non-christian, as I think its been interpreted here) Rome, then you need to understand what made Christianity so popular and caused it to become widespread. I think that many of its superficial aspects were already present in most mysteric cults of the early imperial period, but at its core the key to its success among the common people and the wealthy alike was what it promised (afterlife in eternal bliss and all that bruhaha). I'm inclined to believe that motheism was merely incidental, as other religions with a good enough afterlife managed to stay dominant elsewhere (Hindu and Shinto come to mind), so MAYBE a form of reformed and, most importantly, reorganized politheism could also do the trick in the empire. Historically the period of tribulations that was the 3rd century crisis was somewhat of a perfect storm for the spreading of what at the time was basically an Apocalyptic Cult ("Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes"), but I can perfectly see how it could also be interpreted (by some conveniantly powerful "interpreters", maybe a reformin emperor, even) as a sign of the anger of the old gods towards a people who has dared to forget them in favor of foreing and "barbarian" deities. So, in short, a form of ancient politheist "revivalist" movement emerges during times of peril, and present the people with a reorganized and reformed religion, that offers them solace and promises a fair reward for pro-social behavior during their mortal life.
I wonder what effect an Isis-worshipping Roman Empire would have in Roman Egypt.
I wonder what effect an Isis-worshipping Roman Empire would have in Roman Egypt.
The lowest common denominator theory? Yeah, it's clearly a big part.
But I genuinely think monotheism is key to expanding religions. "The Lord thy God is a jealous God".
'Let's put it this way. You can keep going with your old religions, with their human, flawed gods. Or you can worship my God, who is the perfect being, and *personally* oversees your life. If you worship and follow him, you'll go to paradise. But if you don't - even if you worship him but keep your old gods - you will burn in torment forever and ever.'
That's a powerful and simple message.
It's also one day that resonates very simply for an autocrat. The whole 'one god in heaven, one king on earth' symmetry is rather useful.
The personal component is key, but I don't see why the monotheistic component us as well. I think you could uncouple those two memes. An impersonal monotheistic god is certainly not going to be successful, while a religion with personal resonance could probably lack a single deity. See the number of eastern religions that "survived" the onslaught of monotheism. Not convinced that it's the one god bit that makes Christianity work. Probably helps a little, but I doubt it's necessary for a successful proselytizating faith.
Don't forget that Christianity didn't expand so far because of any of it's good points. Doubtless there are some but a massive chunk of expansion was done via war. Millions were killed to get the "Convert or Else" point through.
Coming to dominate one of the paramount world empires at the time is a small achievement now? Don't undervalue the real appeal of the religion.
Sure, there were lots of attacks on pagans and there were some really harsh measures in the New World, but it took Christianity a long time to formulate a doctrine of Just War, and a longer still time before they went full holy war. Judean zealots they were not - it was also a religion at first that struggled to reconcile itself with the state.
And I genuinely think that assesment requires some form of evidence. You claim that a religion having only one God who happens to threaten all non believer with eternal damnation is "key" to its expantion, so let's see:
For starters, take a counter-example. Buhdism is one of the most widespread religions of the world, and yet it could be argued that one of the main factors of its success was the fact that it explicitly told people: "You can keep your old gods, just don't make serving them the purpose of your life". Actually, Budhism's relationship (at a theological level) with the politheistic "paganisms" it encountered is one of the most fascinating things to ever develop in any belief system.
But I realize you were probably thinking about Christianity and Islam. Here you need to realise we are talking about EXTREAMELY similar religions, to the point that its easier to count their differences than their similarities: claiming that ONE of the thousands of things that make them alike is the "key" to their shared success is not only preposterous, it also ignores the glaring fact that their parent religion, Judaism, had been operating under that very premise for more than a thousand years, and still failed to expand one bit. The reason for this is pretty obvious, and lays in the most important difference between it and its decendants (as well as with Budhism): It was simply not a proselytizing religion. And that is precisely the true "key" to the spread of Cristianity and Islam relative to traditionalist paganism, animism and mystery cults: They were the only ones that were trying to spread in the first place (or at least spread for the sake of it).
It seems to me you are starting from an assumption and going on from there.
Sorry, I think you've misunderstood my point - problems of text and all. I said:
"But I genuinely think monotheism is key to expanding religions"
The key word there, as emphasised by being in italics, is expanding. In other words, proselytizing religions. As such, I was ignoring Judaism, because (whilst it certainly could have mutated into one) it was not a proselytizing religion.
However, I'm going to have to disagree with your suggestion that the (only) key to expansion is trying to expand. Buddhism is an interesting example - whilst the Mahayana tradition certainly allows for other deities (although whether Bodhisattva count as full gods is very debateable), arguably Theravada is much less accommodating. In any case, calling it polytheistic is stretching it a little.
Of 'successful' polytheistic proselytizing religions, there's not a huge list. Jainism, Tengrism, some but not all schools of Hinduism? Perhaps Shinto and Taoism (although in both cases, the 'gods' are much closer to saints than true gods, if I recall correctly)? Really, not a lot jump to mind.
Admittedly, there is of course the problem of OTL bias - namely, Christianity & Islam were so crazy successful, they undoubtedly strangled other potential world religions in the crib.
If monotheism is key to proselytizating religions, explain how other religions exist which managed to spread without monotheism.
I think you correctly identified how you're succumbing to OTL biases. There's plenty of things that can give a religion a missionary impulse, but I don't see monotheism as being as important as some emphasis that your religion is the most correct path.
I think you correctly identified how you're succumbing to OTL biases. There's plenty of things that can give a religion a missionary impulse, but I don't see monotheism as being as important as some emphasis that your religion is the most correct path.
That's definitely some agenda driven history. For every nation you can point to where explicit conversion was the aim of expansion, I can point to peaceful missionary activity. It goes both ways.
Isn't Manichaenism the likeliest alternative?
Despite Christianity having two centuries head start, not to mention ferocious persecution, variants of Manichaenism kept popping up well into the High Middle Ages. It was far more tenacious than any of the old Pagan cults.
Despite Christianity having two centuries head start, not to mention ferocious persecution, variants of Manichaenism kept popping up well into the High Middle Ages. It was far more tenacious than any of the old Pagan cults.
Oh, that makes a lot more sense. Internet shenanigans
I was not reffering to the Bodhisattva when I talked about Buddhism, though. (They are definetely divine, but venerated in a way very similar to Catholic saints, rather than worshiped). What I meant is that as it spread, Buddhism did not dismiss or demonize the existence of the native deities, but gave them a place in its Cosmology as beings in another "path" of the circle of reicarnation. It was not bad or immoral to pay them respect and some kind of veneration that is nearly undistinguishable from worship to gain their favor. So I'm not saying that Buddhism is polytheist, I'm saying that it doesnt tell you "abandon your petty pagan cults or suffer for etternity"; not only that, but the ease with which it syncretizes with other religions is probably key to its success.
In short, some characteristics of Buddhism are diametrically opposed to what would appear to be central features of Christianity and Islam, thus it should be safe to assert that those features are probably NOT the key to the success if proselytizing religions