Buddha does not become Buddha

Just the example I used about Siddhārtha Gautama conquering India and pushing forward a Sun Worship and Surya religion that sticks.

A south ATL Hinduism base around Kartikeya and Shiva could be fun to play with.

Oh definitely very much based around war, and rebirth etc
 
In what manner, as in who he faces or?

If we go with the idea that Siddharta becomes a conqueror and creates an Indian Empire, it would probably still be around when Alexander the Great is waging his wars, so Alexander would be facing a different India than he did in RL.
 
If we go with the idea that Siddharta becomes a conqueror and creates an Indian Empire, it would probably still be around when Alexander the Great is waging his wars, so Alexander would be facing a different India than he did in RL.

This is very true. And could possibly lead to the clash of ages, if his troops allow him to fight.
 
If we go with the idea that Siddharta becomes a conqueror and creates an Indian Empire, it would probably still be around when Alexander the Great is waging his wars, so Alexander would be facing a different India than he did in RL.

This is very true. And could possibly lead to the clash of ages, if his troops allow him to fight.

Hm, good point. Alexander, after his conquest of Persia, faces off with Gautama's Empire, or come into battle over the Indus Valley.
 
Hm, good point. Alexander, after his conquest of Persia, faces off with Gautama's Empire, or come into battle over the Indus Valley.
That would be a fascinating fight. Especially if his troops are still wary and tired. What happens if Alexander is defeated?
 
Indeed, I suppose it would be a religion that remains fixated on the trappings of vedic ritual and remains recognisably a form of Indo-European paganism (although it might still have upanishadic thought to mark it as something slightly different). But to get this result, you can't just eliminate Buddhism—you have to eliminate all Sramanic movements and prevent any from enjoying the success that Buddhism had in OTL. I am not sure how you do that. Where do the roots of Sramanic thought lie—aren't they a reaction against vedic ritualism, but also influenced by upanishadic philosophy?
If you can do this, I wonder how well that kind of sacrificial-ritualistic Hinduism without vedanta or the bhakti movement would do if it came up against an Abrahamic-style religion with mass appeal. Not well, I imagine.
I was thinking that the pre-Buddhist Sramanic movements would still exist. Jainism, the Ajivkas, the Ajnanas, possibly the Charvakas (or did they emerge a bit after Buddhism?), and so forth. However, Buddhism appears to have been more successful than those, and so Hinduism evolved more in response to Buddhism than the others.

With Buddhism absent because of [reasons], the question is whether one or more of those schools would be more prominent, and then how alt-Hinduism would develop in response to those.
 
I was thinking that the pre-Buddhist Sramanic movements would still exist. Jainism, the Ajivkas, the Ajnanas, possibly the Charvakas (or did they emerge a bit after Buddhism?), and so forth. However, Buddhism appears to have been more successful than those, and so Hinduism evolved more in response to Buddhism than the others.

With Buddhism absent because of [reasons], the question is whether one or more of those schools would be more prominent, and then how alt-Hinduism would develop in response to those.
Jainism might well be your best bet. It's enjoyed comparable (and more lasting) success in India but just never had the more global missionary impetus that Buddhism later gained thanks to Ashoka. Buddha and Mahavira were contemporaries, perhaps even rivals (there are some disparaging references and critiques in both religions' literature, I believe). Many of Buddha's OTL followers may well gravitate to Mahavira in this scenario. I haven't heard of any of the other groups having a leader of such stature and charisma at the time.

It's hard to think of it ever having been such an appealing mass religion—but apparently it was.
 
Jainism might well be your best bet. It's enjoyed comparable (and more lasting) success in India but just never had the more global missionary impetus that Buddhism later gained thanks to Ashoka. Buddha and Mahavira were contemporaries, perhaps even rivals (there are some disparaging references and critiques in both religions' literature, I believe). Many of Buddha's OTL followers may well gravitate to Mahavira in this scenario. I haven't heard of any of the other groups having a leader of such stature and charisma at the time.

It's hard to think of it ever having been such an appealing mass religion—but apparently it was.
Sompotentially sone of the more I guess critical aspects could be adopted by Hinduism?
 
A more interesting dual POD is that Alexander and Siddhartha switch roles.

Alexander becomes enlightened and quits his throne and founds a new religion, while Siddhartha becomes a great conqueror.
 
No he doesn't. Sunyata, also known as emptiness, is indeed the concept which led to 0. It being Nirvana would make no sense.

Interesting, which could impact how other Indian scholars develop the numbers that would later become understood to have come from the Arabic world
 
Top