Haha yes I meant Admiral Beez, I was not paying attention when I wrote that.
I would still question this, given how deeply rooted in Greek metaphysics and philosophy Christianity is; Paul tied them inextricably together before the Gospels were even written. I think declaring it a "null state" philosophically is wrong, and would contend that only much later when Christianity became broad enough to be everything to everyone did it become so. But I worry we're drifting largely off topic now.
So looking over my post from the morning, there are a few things I would like to... readress (particularly now that I am on a computer and my phone won't incessantly turn "Trinitarian" into "Trinidadian"

).
So going back to something I stated earlier, Buddhism as a term really isn't that good, being vague enough to cover a tradition that in many ways is larger in both scale and diversity to "Abrahamism" which of course would cover all of the religions that came about from that tradition.
But where we draw the line between the traditions is where I think "Buddhism" is different to "Abrahamic" religions.
So the defining trait from one sect of Abrahamism to another is distinctively theological. Whether it is faith to faith (does Christ fulfill the Messiah prophecy? Was Muhammad the messenger of god?) or internal (was Christ all spirit, all body or some other combination? Should the Quran take precedent or is the life of the prophet the defining way to interpret the Quran?). Buddhism however is almost exclusively divided on points of philosophy. The split with Therevada to Mahayana largely comes about from the degree to which one should or should not follow a specific epistemology or route to the same objective (I.e. do we use Emptiness as an epistemology for discerning practice, reject an epistemology altogether or follow a more traditional line of epistemology), and distinctions like Zen to Vajrayana stem from how effective an anti-intellectual stance (Zen) is versus a fluid identity that is informed by a rigorous understanding of emptiness epistemology put into practice (Vajrayana). Specific theological elements relating to mythologising already stem from a purely philosophical basis (skillful means) but are added past the fact in the same way that Stoics would retailor myths to better fit stoic ideals of the Logos.
Ultimately it is just a reason why personally (to the extent that "Buddhism" makes sense as one thing) I would say that Buddhism is both religion and philosophy in the same manner as Confucianism, Stoicism etc whilst Christianity has always been purely religion with philosophical trends that historically surrounded it.
Back on topic though, I also think the Turk route is a good one. If butterflys still permitted, they could still get to europe through the Rus or Constantinople too.