Alternate Roman Religion

In other words, Christianity wasn't affected by the scarcity of animals, lack of funds, even sacking of temple treasuries, and so on and so forth. That's why it swept with the competition.
There are a lot of reasons why Christianity was as popular as it was, but I don't think the expense of animal sacrifice and rituals had much to do with it. And honestly, this is the first time I've ever heard that argument. I'm not a fan of appeal to authority, but is there, like, anything you can point me to on this? I'm honestly just genuinely curious.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Quote me saying that you're wrong because you're not a scholar. What I said is that you must back up your arguments with scholarly evidence. How is that an Ad Hominem?

I've already addressed the reason why I'm not being fallacious. If you want to ignore that then that's your decision. Doesn't make you look great though.

EDIT: I also want to point out that you still haven't provided any evidence for your claim. How can you possibly expect people to accept your argument if you have nothing to back it up?

By the third century much of imperial society was in permanent crisis: wracked by famine, devastated by the consequences of continuous wars and political upheaval, crippled by the burden of taxation, and afflicted with severe economic dislocation. The Roman Theatre and Its Audience, p. 192

Reined in tightly to the imperial economy through their dependence on stipends, with only a fraction of the landholdings they had enjoyed under the Ptolemies, the temples of Egypt were doomed to follow the empire's spiral downward spiral in the various economic catastrophes of the third century. Where the munificence of Augustus and the first-century emperors appears in temples throughout Egypt, the effects of the third century crisis on the temple infrastructure are rather stark: a drastic decline in building dedications and other inscriptions. Temples, at least the major ones, seem to be in a state of progressive ruin, dwindling vestiges... Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance, p. 27.

Striking deep into Syria, [Shapur] sacked and plundered many wealthy cities in his path, including the great city of Antioch on the Orontes. Renewing the offensive in 253, his progress was only halted by the hereditary priest-lord, Uranius Antoninus. Aurelian and the Third Century, p. 28

This was poetic justice for legio III Cyrenaica, whose temple at Bostra the Palmyrenes had destroyed when they overran Arabia... The great Bel Temple in Palmyra was not destroyed, though it may have been pillaged.
Empress Zenobia: Palmyra's Rebel Queen, p. 154

Should I also bring the accounts of Jordanes about the conquests and devastation incurred by the Huns, or Tabari about the conquest of the majority of the West Asian and African portions of the Roman Empire by the Arab Muslims? I only focused on the third century after all. With all these wars, conquests and economic crises, it isn't hard to see why the traditional Greco-Roman religion with all its expensiveness didn't survive and got replaced by Christianity.



 
By the third century much of imperial society was in permanent crisis: wracked by famine, devastated by the consequences of continuous wars and political upheaval, crippled by the burden of taxation, and afflicted with severe economic dislocation. The Roman Theatre and Its Audience, p. 192

Reined in tightly to the imperial economy through their dependence on stipends, with only a fraction of the landholdings they had enjoyed under the Ptolemies, the temples of Egypt were doomed to follow the empire's spiral downward spiral in the various economic catastrophes of the third century. Where the munificence of Augustus and the first-century emperors appears in temples throughout Egypt, the effects of the third century crisis on the temple infrastructure are rather stark: a drastic decline in building dedications and other inscriptions. Temples, at least the major ones, seem to be in a state of progressive ruin, dwindling vestiges... Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance, p. 27.

Striking deep into Syria, [Shapur] sacked and plundered many wealthy cities in his path, including the great city of Antioch on the Orontes. Renewing the offensive in 253, his progress was only halted by the hereditary priest-lord, Uranius Antoninus. Aurelian and the Third Century, p. 28

This was poetic justice for legio III Cyrenaica, whose temple at Bostra the Palmyrenes had destroyed when they overran Arabia... The great Bel Temple in Palmyra was not destroyed, though it may have been pillaged.
Empress Zenobia: Palmyra's Rebel Queen, p. 154

Should I also bring the accounts of Jordanes about the conquests and devastation incurred by the Huns, or Tabari about the conquest of the majority of the West Asian and African portions of the Roman Empire by the Arab Muslims? I only focused on the third century after all.


This is all well and good but none of this makes Christianity the obvious and inevitable replacement, which is the claim we are disputing. Nobody is disputing the turmoil wrought upon traditional Greco-Roman religion in the third and fourth century, what we're arguing is this meant Christianity would inevitably fill the void, and not that those religions would undergo reform or other newer religions not named Christianity would emerge.
 

Maoistic

Banned
This is all well and good but none of this makes Christianity the obvious and inevitable replacement, which is the claim we are disputing. Nobody is disputing the turmoil wrought upon traditional Greco-Roman religion in the third and fourth century, what we're arguing is this meant Christianity would inevitably fill the void, and not that those religions would undergo reform or other newer religions not named Christianity would emerge.

I already agreed that if the Roman religion underwent a Platonic reform and abandoned all those rituals that weren't sustainable during crises, it could have lasted.
 
I already agreed that if the Roman religion underwent a Platonic reform and abandoned all those rituals that weren't sustainable during crises, it could have lasted.
Right, but it's not a black and white choice between "The Roman religion reforms itself" (not that there was a Roman religion necessarily, but anyway...) and "Christianity wins". There's any number of alternative outcomes that can see traditional Greco-Roman religion falling apart and Christianity not filling that void.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Right, but it's not a black and white choice between "The Roman religion reforms itself" (not that there was a Roman religion necessarily, but anyway...) and "Christianity wins". There's any number of alternative outcomes that can see traditional Greco-Roman religion falling apart and Christianity not filling that void.
"Rival religions of Christianity for control of the Roman Empire would have been the traditional Greco-Roman religion (Hellenism), Egyptian religion, Judaism, Manicheism and Zoroastrianism. The reason why Christianity triumphed over all of them, and they were never going to have triumphed over Christianity, was because it was far cheaper and sustainable economically, socially inclusive, was native to the empire instead of remote and/or geographically marginal and highly mobile thanks to a lack of complex rituals and spoke the same languages of the empire (Greek, Coptic, Aramaic and Latin).

So no, it was impossible for them to have replaced Christianity."

From an earlier post of mine in this thread.
 
"Rival religions of Christianity for control of the Roman Empire would have been the traditional Greco-Roman religion (Hellenism), Egyptian religion, Judaism, Manicheism and Zoroastrianism. The reason why Christianity triumphed over all of them, and they were never going to have triumphed over Christianity, was because it was far cheaper and sustainable economically, socially inclusive, was native to the empire instead of remote and/or geographically marginal and highly mobile thanks to a lack of complex rituals and spoke the same languages of the empire (Greek, Coptic, Aramaic and Latin).

So no, it was impossible for them to have replaced Christianity."

From an earlier post of mine in this thread.
I understand that you said this, but you haven't substantiated it. All you've proved is that traditional Roman religion was in serious crisis, which nobody is disputing.
 

Maoistic

Banned
I understand that you said this, but you haven't substantiated it. All you've proved is that traditional Roman religion was in serious crisis, which nobody is disputing.

Do I now also have to substantiate the geographical factors for why Zorostrianism and Manichaeism were never gonna make it? The only real rivals are Judaism and a Platonised Hellenism, but Jews had already withdrawn to themselves to avoid another genocide and the traditional religion of Rome had suffered far too much for a major religious reform to occur, which is why it was easy picking for Christianity.
 
Do I now also have to substantiate the geographical factors for why Zorostrianism and Manichaeism were never gonna make it? The only real rivals are Judaism and a Platonised Hellenism, but Jews had already withdrawn to themselves to avoid another genocide and the traditional religion of Rome had suffered far too much for a major religious reform to occur, which is why it was easy picking for Christianity.
Since this is getting nowhere, let me posit a different alternative:

What happens if Christianity never exists?
 
way not argue how we could reform Paganism to make it more popular
Like the Shinto priests did in competition to Buddhism (9th century), Christianity (16th century), and Enlightenment philosophies (19th century).
Or the various traditional religions of China vis-a-vis Imperial Confucianism or Taoism.
 
By the third century much of imperial society was in permanent crisis: wracked by famine, devastated by the consequences of continuous wars and political upheaval, crippled by the burden of taxation, and afflicted with severe economic dislocation. The Roman Theatre and Its Audience, p. 192

Reined in tightly to the imperial economy through their dependence on stipends, with only a fraction of the landholdings they had enjoyed under the Ptolemies, the temples of Egypt were doomed to follow the empire's spiral downward spiral in the various economic catastrophes of the third century. Where the munificence of Augustus and the first-century emperors appears in temples throughout Egypt, the effects of the third century crisis on the temple infrastructure are rather stark: a drastic decline in building dedications and other inscriptions. Temples, at least the major ones, seem to be in a state of progressive ruin, dwindling vestiges... Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance, p. 27.

Striking deep into Syria, [Shapur] sacked and plundered many wealthy cities in his path, including the great city of Antioch on the Orontes. Renewing the offensive in 253, his progress was only halted by the hereditary priest-lord, Uranius Antoninus. Aurelian and the Third Century, p. 28

This was poetic justice for legio III Cyrenaica, whose temple at Bostra the Palmyrenes had destroyed when they overran Arabia... The great Bel Temple in Palmyra was not destroyed, though it may have been pillaged.
Empress Zenobia: Palmyra's Rebel Queen, p. 154

Should I also bring the accounts of Jordanes about the conquests and devastation incurred by the Huns, or Tabari about the conquest of the majority of the West Asian and African portions of the Roman Empire by the Arab Muslims? I only focused on the third century after all. With all these wars, conquests and economic crises, it isn't hard to see why the traditional Greco-Roman religion with all its expensiveness didn't survive and got replaced by Christianity.

All those quotes say is that the third century crisis caused economic problems. Not that Roman rituals and temples were so expensive that Christianity won because it was inexpensive. How does Shapur sacking cities prove your claim? Temples can be rebuilt and Roman society recovered from the third century crisis. You've brought up wars, conquests, and economic crisis' but you haven't demonstrated that they were what caused paganisms downfall in favor of Christianity. You're simply saying it "isn't hard to see why". That's just the "common sense" feels argument you made before.

EDIT:

way not argue how we could reform Paganism to make it more popular

I already did that in my posts here. :rolleyes:
 
I think Manichaeism could have had a decent shot. Close enough to Christianity to assimilate a good chunk of them possibly with the assistance of a reverse Augustine who can make the Manichee case to Christians. The Light and Dark motif could blend quite well with the cult of Sol Invictus and/or Apollo. Ideologically it could provide good fodder for their constant scraps with the Sassanid Persians, the guys who murdered Mani in the first place, whilst allowing the Romans to define their Empire as the realm of Light and Goodness against a world beset by Evil and Darkness. The historical tendency of Manichaeism to openly syncretise and assimilate elements of the religions it coexisted with, albeit as much a product of Manichaeism's status as a minority religion with little sate patronage, would gel well with traditional Roman practises of assimilating, syncretising and collecting gods and religions. It has the same sort of universalism that Christianity used to appeal to the lower classes and is probably compatible with the Neoplatonism that was popular with upper class philosophers.

What form Roman State Manichaeism could take would be interesting to think about. In my mind it can go one of two ways:

Either a purist Manichaeism which eschews polytheism in favour of a strict worship of God with all pre-existing Roman religions and deities condemned as servants of the evil god which would look somewhat similar to OTL Christianity.

Alternatively a syncretic Manichaeism which assimilates various popular Gods as servants and/or aspects of the good god, whilst still being able to condemn troublemaking sects as Satanic, which provides a synthesis between Abrahamic Monotheism and Romano-Greek Polytheism and establishes a shared theological, mythical and philosophical framework for reforming traditional Roman approaches to religion. Not unlike Buddhism to a certain extent.
 
Last edited:
Top