Buddha does not become Buddha

It’s possible. If India won, it could displace Zoroastrians. Furthermore, Hinduism could spread up to Central Asia.

Alternately, this could mean Iran focuses more on Arabia. Though how was India like in that time
Big, some rimes fractious other tomes not
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
As it says on the tin, what would change if Buddha did not become the enlightened religious figure of today, but instead remained a ruling Prince and then King.

I believe somebody would have come up with a religion which would be essentially the same as Buddhism. India in the 5th century B.C.E was a ferment of all sorts of different religious and philosophical views. There is little reason why a religion like Buddhism would have not emerged out it.

It is similar to the emergence of something like Christianity if Jesus had not existed in that a Hellenistic form of Judaism would have emerged where circumcision and observation of the laws of the Torah weren't needed to join into the religion.
 
This PoD... it might well butterfly away Second Temple Judaism, let alone Christianity and Islam. Heck, Greek philosophy without Buddhism might be changed substantially.
 
As it says on the tin, what would change if Buddha did not become the enlightened religious figure of today, but instead remained a ruling Prince and then King.

The Butterflies on this are HUGE. I always had a soft spot for a timeline where the Buddha becomes King, and instead unites the entire Indian Sub Continent into the Buddha's own empire.
 

ASUKIRIK

Banned
Buddha the Great? Unites India, invade Persia - Babylon - Lydia up to Asia Minor, besiege the Greeks, and last attempt to threaten Italy?
 
"Siddhartha Gautama" would be some obscure king of an equally obscure kingdom of ancient India, listed maybe once or twice in some source (a list of kings perhaps), and known to only specialists of Ancient India.
 
"Siddhartha Gautama" would be some obscure king of an equally obscure kingdom of ancient India, listed maybe once or twice in some source (a list of kings perhaps), and known to only specialists of Ancient India.

You think? No possibility for his Kingdom to branch out? After all that's how the Nanda and Maurya Empires started
 
You think? No possibility for his Kingdom to branch out? After all that's how the Nanda and Maurya Empires started

He had as good of chance as any ruler of a small, insignificant kingdom in the Vedic period which happened to border larger and more powerful kingdoms. I don't think Siddhartha Gautama would've been anything special as a secular leader or military figure--not terrible, but not a genius, and certainly not the political/military equivalent of his influence OTL:
 
He had as good of chance as any ruler of a small, insignificant kingdom in the Vedic period which happened to border larger and more powerful kingdoms. I don't think Siddhartha Gautama would've been anything special as a secular leader or military figure--not terrible, but not a genius, and certainly not the political/military equivalent of his influence OTL:

Interesting what makes you say so?
 
Interesting what makes you say so?

The same reason that if Bill Clinton had become a jazz musician, he probably wouldn't have become one of the all-time great saxophonists and a name anyone even remotely into jazz would know. Maybe he could have been that big, but odds are good he wouldn't. Same thing with Siddhartha Gautama--maybe he could've been an equivalent of Chandragupta Maurya, but there's no real reason to think that.
 
The same reason that if Bill Clinton had become a jazz musician, he probably wouldn't have become one of the all-time great saxophonists and a name anyone even remotely into jazz would know. Maybe he could have been that big, but odds are good he wouldn't. Same thing with Siddhartha Gautama--maybe he could've been an equivalent of Chandragupta Maurya, but there's no real reason to think that.
True though there's no reason not to think that
 
I wonder what would India look like if Siddharta had become a great king instead of a great philosopher (as the prophecy said he would)?
 
Even without Buddhism, India in the era of the Buddha was undergoing a major period of philosophical and religious transformation. Jainism was already an emerging faith when Siddharta began to develop his teachings, so without Buddhism, we'd see the development of Hinduism in reaction to the seeming extremism of a more successful Jainism.

In many respects I think Jainism would be much more successful if it didn't have the competition of Buddhism.
 
It would be a fun alternative history novel where all the big names were still big, but for completely different reasons than how they became big names in our timeline.
 
Top