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

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.
You do realise that Preislamic Indonesia, Malaysia, Prebuddhist Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and parts of Vietnam and the Phillipines were overwhelmingly Hindu? Bali remains Hindu, and Hindu gods continue to be worshipped in Indochina. The Ramayana remains a very important story in Javanese culture. Modern Hinduism may not put much effort into proselytising, but many ancient sects did, and many modern Hindu sects are quite willing to accept converts. Which makes sense, as it is an amalgamation of the belief systems of the people of a subcontinent with 3 major language families (Indo-European, Dravidian and Sino-Tibetan) and over a billion people.
The nearest equivalent belief system that comes to mind is the heavily syncretised paganism of the Roman Empire, that blended Etruscan, Greek, Egyptian, Celtic and Semitic gods. Give it a philosophical underpining as enduring and consistant as Hinduism has, and it could probably have spread out in the same way, absorbing local pantheons as it went. There was already a shared goal among many philosophical schools, ataraxia, the absence of suffering.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
You do realise that Preislamic Indonesia, Malaysia, Prebuddhist Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and parts of Vietnam and the Phillipines were overwhelmingly Hindu? Bali remains Hindu, and Hindu gods continue to be worshipped in Indochina. The Ramayana remains a very important story in Javanese culture. Modern Hinduism may not put much effort into proselytising, but many ancient sects did, and many modern Hindu sects are quite willing to accept converts. Which makes sense, as it is an amalgamation of the belief systems of the people of a subcontinent with 3 major language families (Indo-European, Dravidian and Sino-Tibetan) and over a billion people.
The nearest equivalent belief system that comes to mind is the heavily syncretised paganism of the Roman Empire, that blended Etruscan, Greek, Egyptian, Celtic and Semitic gods. Give it a philosophical underpining as enduring and consistant as Hinduism has, and it could probably have spread out in the same way, absorbing local pantheons as it went. There was already a shared goal among many philosophical schools, ataraxia, the absence of suffering.
Hmm. If we could see an SE Asian and Central Version of Hinduism spread widely and in turn absorbs the Hindus of India(who have this Caste problem) like how early Jews spread Christianity and got absorbed themselves during the later eras,we could see a better version of Universal Hinduism spread across. That meets the challenge. So what was the Caste and ethnic norms among the SE Asian Hindus? Then we can have an universal Indo-European religion spread much like the European Pagan religions. It can spread to Central and West Asia making it more universal in the coming days.
 
Hmm. If we could see an SE Asian and Central Version of Hinduism spread widely and in turn absorbs the Hindus of India(who have this Caste problem) like how early Jews spread Christianity and got absorbed themselves during the later eras,we could see a better version of Universal Hinduism spread across. That meets the challenge. So what was the Caste and ethnic norms among the SE Asian Hindus? Then we can have an universal Indo-European religion spread much like the European Pagan religions. It can spread to Central and West Asia making it more universal in the coming days.
Balinese Hindus do maintain a caste system, but it is the ancient one, just four castes, and it acts more like the old European class system. A notable aspect is that the Shudra (the lowest caste) actually make the offerings in temples on behalf of other Hindus. Even in India, the caste system wasn't as strict and rigid before the British Raj.
Also worth noting, many other Indo-European cultures had caste systems, the Celts, Germanic tribes, Zoroastrian Persians. I remain a bit unclear on where the line is drawn that says 'this is an intractable caste system, a restrictive part of religion/culture' and 'this is just a class system, part of social organisation'. Historically European nobility did not marry commoners, and royalty married only one another. In many Orthodox cultures village priests were defacto hereditary. Judaism has a priestly caste in the Kohenim, and yet spawned the two largest religions on Earth.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
. Even in India, the caste system wasn't as strict and rigid before the British Raj.
Also worth noting, many other Indo-European cultures had caste systems, the Celts, Germanic tribes, Zoroastrian Persians. I remain a bit unclear on where the line is drawn that says 'this is an intractable caste system, a restrictive part of religion/culture' and 'this is just a class system, part of social organisation'. Historically European nobility did not marry commoners, and royalty married only one another.
The first sentence is a Hindu Nationalist lie. Genetic testing shows the exact epoch when intercaste marriage stopped after the Aryan migration into India,in which this infamous caste system has its historical roots in. It looks like the first waves of Nomadic migrants from the Steppes had imposed themselves as various tribes on a earlier but smaller populations. The subsequent developments were based on this epoch as it seems.

Also,we have a lot of instances in the Roman and Greek Empires where lower class members have raised and become emperors themselves. And also many emperors from other peoples outside Europe itself. Septimius Severus,Elagabalus,Phillip were the three prominent ones I can name and nobody faced any stigma. I think this would have happened in some instances in the Medieval era too. Among the Germanic,Celtic and Slavic tribal societies,I doubt a system as rigid as the Indian one existed.
 
Last edited:
The first sentence is a Hindu Nationalist lie. Genetic testing shows the exact epoch when intercaste marriage stopped after the Aryan migration into India,in which this infamous caste system has its historical roots in. It looks like the first waves of Nomadic migrants from the Steppes had imposed themselves as various tribes on a earlier but smaller populations. The subsequent developments were based on this epoch as it seems.

Also,we have a lot of instances in the Roman and Greek Empires where lower class members have raised and become emperors themselves. And also many emperors from other peoples outside Europe itself. Septimius Severus,Elagabalus,Phillip were the three prominent ones I can name and nobody faced any stigma. I think this would have happened in some instances in the Medieval era too. Among the Germanic,Celtic and Slavic tribal societies,I doubt a system as rigid as the Indian one existed.
For the Celts, what we know is that Druids existed as a very seperate part of society. (Admitedly, we have little to no evidence from the Celtd themselves, just Greek and Roman accounts) while Norse/Saxon society maintained a strict caste system, from wiki:
In the mid-9th century, Nithard first described the social structure of the Saxons beneath their leaders. The caste structure was rigid; in the Saxon language the three castes, excluding slaves, were called the edhilingui(related to the term aetheling), frilingi and lazzi.
Pre-Islamic Sassanid society was immensely complex, with separate systems of social organization governing numerous different groups within the empire.[57] Historians believe society comprised four[58][59][60]social classes:

  1. priests (Persian: Asravan‎)
  2. warriors (Persian: Arteshtaran‎)
  3. secretaries (Persian: Dabiran‎)
  4. commoners (Persian: Vastryoshan‎)
I am not qualified to comment on what may or may not be a lie. All I know is what I have read. I agree that caste systems are an unpleasant thing, but not one restricted to Hinduism, and not something that seems to have impeded its spread through South East Asia.
To be honest, the easiest answer to the OP is a syncretised Mediterranean polytheism, with a closely tied proselytising philosophy that carries Indo-European gods and religious concepts along with it. I personally favour something descended from Epicureanism and Stoicism, seeking ataraxia and personal freedom.
 
European pagans were more kind to others? Well I'm not sure about that.

wlsE7cU.jpg

Point is, they aren't doing this for primarily religious reasons the same way Christians and Muslims have done historically. Yeah, they'd like a sword in hand when they die, but, beyond that, they'd kidnap and kill each other as much as they would Christians.
 
The first sentence is a Hindu Nationalist lie. Genetic testing shows the exact epoch when intercaste marriage stopped after the Aryan migration into India,in which this infamous caste system has its historical roots in. It looks like the first waves of Nomadic migrants from the Steppes had imposed themselves as various tribes on a earlier but smaller populations. The subsequent developments were based on this epoch as it seems.

The general synthesis that seems to be the case at the moment is that, based on archaeology, ancient written references and dna, populations with "Steppe" related ancestry entered into North India and mixed with other people, probably by around 1450 BCE (3500 years before present, approximately). This is probably associated with Indo-Aryan languages. But endogamous norms only arise about 2500 years ago.

So there is a lag, and it does not seem like it's an idea which was present from earliest waves of Indo-Aryan migration, and it seems like it arises within the organised religion of the "Middle Kingdoms" of India. Genetically, the "Upper Caste" / Brahmin groups preserve (to some extent) the mixed societies that formed in North India after Indo-Aryan languages were introduced but before the late first millennium BC to early first millenium AD, not the groups that migrated in themselves during the mid second millennium BC.
 
In India there are many instances of lower castes rising to be rulers Also Indian armies were composed of lower castes thus many landed nobles who rise through belonged to non warrior caste. Shivaji the maratha king is a prime example
 
I think it is possible. One would need a universalist religion with a highly organized structure that converts could gain material benefit.
 
Top