Buddhist Wank!

Is there a way to make Buddhism the Dominant religion on Earth? How plausible are these scenarios:

India doesn't revert to Hinduism, and since Buddhism lends itself more to missionary style conversions, Indians continue spreading the faith. "Indianization" of SE Asia in now on Steriods, and Indian missionaries are really active in Persia, Central Asia and beyond

Buddhism is adopted by a Hellenistic Kingdom to unite its people under a universalist faith. Buddhism plays the same role in the Hellenstic world as it did in Rome. In This TL , Rome itself might become Buddhist

A Militant form of Buddhism (Well, paradoxical? so was Germanic Christianity, the crusades and so on... since Buddhism is based more on controlling one internally than following a particular teacher, its beliefs can be even more malleable) takes hold in Central Asia. Genghis Khan is a convert. He forces "Warrior Buddhism" on his sons and subject. Mongol Invasions look more like the Early Islamic Caliphate. Batu, now religiously motivated, presses on to Europe. Heck, this version of Buddhism can even borrow influences from Islam itself.
--or--
Mongol Invasions go as usual (great if Batu invades Europe) but Buddhism is used as universial religion to hold the Empire together. The Mongols found monastaries everywhere, conversion is slow but steady


all of the above. India stays Buddhist, Sends missionaries to Hellenistic Kingdom, Greece, Central Asia, and many people who weren't Buddhist in OTL become Buddhist, spread the religion and we get a Buddhist World as a butterfly effect from a great portion of the World Population choosing that faith.
 
I think that 1) having India stick with Buddhism, and 2) having Alexander the Great convert (as many Greeks did) would be enough to have it spread to much of Europe by the AD years. but Africa would be harder for it to reach though,
 

Rockingham

Banned
Buddist Europe and and Buddhist India(and in all likelihood China and SE Asia) is a qualifiable Buddhist wank. Although Buddhism probably wouldn't be seen as a single religion.
 
I think, depending how early Buddhism establishes itself in the west as the dominant religion, this may butterfly away Christianity and Islam alltogether...
 
I think, depending how early Buddhism establishes itself in the west as the dominant religion, this may butterfly away Christianity and Islam alltogether...

but there probably would be breaking off of European sects of Buddhism eventually, due to geographical distance and isolation from mainstream Buddhism.
 
I expect there to European Buddhism to vastly different to Asian Buddhism, and it is quite possible Christianity and Islam to be butterflied altogether. But I think the resulting religions will have enough similarity for Eurasia to be religiously united. A Religiously united Eurasia, might make Asian and European relations much easier once the world becomes more global.
 
I expect there to European Buddhism to vastly different to Asian Buddhism, and it is quite possible Christianity and Islam to be butterflied altogether. But I think the resulting religions will have enough similarity for Eurasia to be religiously united. A Religiously united Eurasia, might make Asian and European relations much easier once the world becomes more global.

that might take longer though. because with Buddhist prevalence and no Islam to hinder trading westward, exploration of the New World might take decades or even centuries more to get going, leading to slower globalization.
 
I think that 1) having India stick with Buddhism, and 2) having Alexander the Great convert (as many Greeks did) would be enough to have it spread to much of Europe by the AD years. but Africa would be harder for it to reach though,

My concern with Alexander is that he predates Ashoka, who had a major (if still not entirely clear) influence on Buddhism.
 
that might take longer though. because with Buddhist prevalence and no Islam to hinder trading westward, exploration of the New World might take decades or even centuries more to get going, leading to slower globalization.

Mmm. I'm not sure I agree.

After all, in this world, the Enlightened One's teachings are scattered like seeds upon the wind, and from the Druidic groves of Gaul to majestic Chang'an people walk in his footsteps.

I have a hard time seeing globalization being less than OTL.
 
I expect there to European Buddhism to vastly different to Asian Buddhism

Well, hold up.

This is true, but it bears thinking about.

I mean, Pure Land Buddhism is different than Theraveda Buddhism is different than Zen Buddhism.
 

Keenir

Banned
that might take longer though. because with Buddhist prevalence and no Islam to hinder trading westward, exploration of the New World might take decades or even centuries more to get going, leading to slower globalization.

'hinder'??
 
'hinder'??

I think rcduggan's point is that the existence of a layer of hostile Muslim states prompted an isolated Europe to look harder for ways to get access to the Far East, leading to the 'discovery' by Europe of the Americas and also much of the southern hemisphere. While the Muslim world was reasonably stable it helped trade within its reach but the hostility between the two faiths was a factor, along with political rivalry in trade beyond its borders.

Steve
 
'hinder'??

not sure if I worded that right, what I meant was that since the Ottomans, Mamluks, or whoever (just Muslims in general) controlled Egypt, Arabia, Persia, all of the land routes east to India for trading. that was one of the reasons for sailing west across the ocean was to find another route to India, one that didn't involve passing through hostile Islamic lands. but with everyone all Buddhist there would be little incentive to sail west into uncharted unknowns when a perfectly open, safer land route is readily available.
 
Top