AHC: Fate of Indo-European Religions and Semitic Religions reversed

Albert.Nik

Banned
In the OTL,most of the Indo-European religions have been replaced by Semitic religions originating from the Near East. Almost all the descendants except Hindus had been converted to Abrahamic religions or Semitic religions originating from Judaism. In this timeline,you should have the Indo-European Religions replace the Semitic religions by converting the Semitic peoples(Jews,Christians,Muslims,Arameans,Sabeans) to any Indo-European Religion. If you include Hinduism or Zoroastrianism,it should be a Universalizing version of Hinduism or Zoroastrianism and not OTL version. If you want to include Buddhism,it should have a lots and lots of European Pagan influence. Only Universal religions and no Ethnic religions allowed. Big bonus if the religions originate from Europe. Go ahead.
 
That is probably one of the biggest ironic events of history -- Indo-European religion survived in Asia only, losing Europe and part of India. While Abrahamic religion ("Asian" according to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians) survived mostly in Europe and Africa and the western most parts of Asia, and most people outside of the Islamic world associate Abrahamic religions primarily with Europe.

I would be interested in seeing what kind of universalizing Hinduism would be possible, Zoroastrianism might be easier through the ancient Persian Empire.
 
Note that Judaism is, to this day, an "ethnic" faith. Any "Universal" faith would have to arise out of faith's with ethnic origins. Gradual change from enthic to Univeral is possible.

Druidism, while Celtic, crossed between both Brittonic and Goidelic branches. In addition, like Judaism, it seemed to have some cross cultural appeal. It's possible to picture a Druidic based faith crossing the culture barrier and being less "ethnic". If it changes the cultural paradigm before Christianity, then the latter is perceived as too alien and dies.

The Norse began their raiding in 793, while the Saxon Conquest was ongoing and there is some argument that the looting of monastaries was in part initially tied to that awareness (though a motive that faded). Let's increase this by including large numbers of Saxon exiles among the raiders. We also know that at times and places, particularly in the British Isles, at times seemed to be winning the 'culture war' with Northumbrian Angles and Irish near Dublin adopting Norse cultural practices faster than the other way around. These trends might have continued had the respective conquests been completed rather than being reversed.

So let's argue that both the Irish and English conquests are completed and due to a more continental 'Saxons' ancestry and cultural legacy among the conquers there is a greater tendency to burn and suppress or 'reporpose' Churches as Norse temples. Local populations still go to markets and festival days but the average peasant is probably willing to go to a Thor's day festival as much as a saint's day and in 50 years or so you have an effectively re paganized population. You also picked up skills like writing on paper.

It's still 'ethnic' at this point but it's edging toward Univeral.

The next step in this evolution is that Anglo Norse settlers are key to the conquest of the Americas and create a "founder effect" where all the best families adopt Norse cultural practices. Native Americans are taken as slaves and those who don't die of old world disease are assimilated into a Norse contexts (with some rub off, like Loki being perceived as a Coyote). To make the Norse cultural identity more welcoming Thor:Friend of Man is empathised along with Odin:The Allfather touching on the universal appeal. Over 500 to 700 years identies harden and Thor is worshipped by Mestizos in Mexico all the way to Russia, across ethic groups who are closer to Norse than otl.

Note I'm painting in broad strokes here, not in detail. Yes, you could argue "what about this" and some of my evolutions could be argued to be unlikely. But understand I'm going for plausible rather that probable.
 
Does it count if Judaism as we know it never came to be? Perhaps the ancient Hebrews never turn monotheistic, which led to the development of Abrahamic mythology. Or at least preventing the foundation of Christianity or Islam, as they were really into proselytizing and mass conversions, which is what led to the extinction of Indo-European paganism across most of Eurasia.
 
Imo, have Carthage beat Rome and dominate the Med.
The Jews were rebellious enough under Rome, but Rome was only Pagan. The Carthaginians however outright worshipped Ba'al, an open enemy of Yahweh and much harder for the Jews to tolerate (sort of like if an openly Satanic country conquered Italy).

A lot of Carthaginian politics was tied up in the Iberian peninsula, so perhaps Druidry becomes the big thing instead of something from the east.

@Albert.Nik, would Manichaeism be an "Indo-European" religion under this challenge?
Yes. But the European ones give you a bonus points.
Manichaeism was founded by a man raised as an esoteric jew. If Christianity doesn't fulfill the requirements, Manichaeism certainly doesn't.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Manichaeism was founded by a man raised as an esoteric jew. If Christianity doesn't fulfill the requirements, Manichaeism certainly doesn't.
Off the list then. I had this doubt since the beginning itself that Manichaeism had significant Non Indo-European influence.
 
Aren't European pagan religions also essentially ethnic religions?

Some are. In fact most are. But so is Judaism, and Islam could be seen (particularly in its earliest forms) as somewhat ethnic to the best of my understanding. In a sense, also, some branches of Christianity, while once part of a Universal faith, could be seen as having become ethnic faiths in the sense that they might have once exposed universal values, but no longer practice it towards outsiders as well as they should. Russian Orthodoxy come to mind as does Northern Irish Protestantism, as do the Amish.

Picturing a faith that is "Universal" but has a different basis or a starting point, and that is what the OP is trying to get us to imagine something we have little to no experience with, and many may say, well it didn't happen that way, so we naturally don't go that way, so it's ASB.

Universal could start with the idea that there is One God, period, like it did in our time line. But a universal faith conceivably could start with the idea that the old norse landvættir (land spirits) are the same as the Irish aes sídhe and once it spreads further incorporate terms like kami and mantiou as the same thing, bringing all under the same banner. The thing is its a challenge to picture what faith like this would feel like, why it would be important.

Basically, the OP is challenging us to picture a major faith being universal on a different basis and with different cultural underpinnings. I don't think he knew he was doing this. But when we face it, we are facing and conceiving of an alien world. That isn't easy.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
But a universal faith conceivably could start with the idea that the old norse landvættir (land spirits) are the same as the Irish aes sídhe and once it spreads further incorporate terms like kami and mantiou as the same thing, bringing all under the same banner. The thing is its a challenge to picture what faith like this would feel like, why it would be important.
Perfectly put! So this is the gist of what I'm looking for.
 
European Pagan religions had been more Universalizing,relatively. That means,a person could join them relatively easily,AFAIK.
I'd argue that Hinduism was at least as proselytising as European paganisms, given how it spread across South East Asia. That said, I agree that butterflying or neutering Christianity and Islam is the easiest way to get Indo-European religious thought to be dominant across Western and Southern Eurasia.
 
I think an interesting way for a polytheistic pagan religion to be more resistant to conversion by abrahamic faiths might be if the religion includes a 'god of tall tales' whose main portfolio includes taking credit for the deeds of others, a god who in the myths claims to be the creator of the world or a deposed supreme god, but is revealed to be a comparatively powerless trickster and liar.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
I'd argue that Hinduism was at least as proselytising as European paganisms, given how it spread across South East Asia. That said, I agree that butterflying or neutering Christianity and Islam is the easiest way to get Indo-European religious thought to be dominant across Western and Southern Eurasia.
I doubt that. Hinduism has too strong and rigid,an ethnic component compared to the European Pagan religions which were more Universal and kind to others to be more inclusive. So the European Pagan religions and cultures would have a better notable effect on the World if they spread at large than other Indo-European religions is what is my opinion.
 
I doubt that. Hinduism has too strong and rigid,an ethnic component compared to the European Pagan religions which were more Universal and kind to others to be more inclusive. So the European Pagan religions and cultures would have a better notable effect on the World if they spread at large than other Indo-European religions is what is my opinion.
European pagans were more kind to others? Well I'm not sure about that.

wlsE7cU.jpg
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
European pagans were more kind to others? Well I'm not sure about that.

wlsE7cU.jpg
Ohh. Forgot the Vikings! But the Greek and Roman Pagans were quite good as were Celtic religions and West and East Germanic pagan religions as it seems. Shinto of Japan were also very good. I think it's probably because they have less Steppe/Nomadic/harsh climate influence on them. Religion is too dependent on Geography.
 
Last edited:
Top