DBWI what if a different religion caught on in Rome?

During the early years of the Roman Empire, there were many different religious cults that competed for popularity. I've read about one such cult, a rather militant form of Judaism built around the teachings of a strange holy man named Yeshua. I know it's probably veering on ASB, but is there any way such a cult could have taken hold throughout the empire in the same way OTL worship of Mithras did? Would such a different religion have helped the Roman Empire prevent splitting apart into civil war by the 10th centrury, and remain united longer than it did?
 
Last edited:
Judaism would make an excellent candidate. I know it isn't a sexy subject at the moment, but if you look at the palaeopragmatal data you will find that prior to their uprisings, Jewish communities were well established in the Roman world and some of them both quite wealthy and highly respected. There already existed the kind of independent Judaism that we associate today with the orient, and prior to the Hatrene dynasty it would net be discredited in Roman eyes.

The Jesuans or Chrestians, on the other hand (they referred to their rabbi as 'the anointed one' or 'the saviour'), are all but impossible. I've studied their writings and their fatal flaw is that they depend on doctrinal unity to create stable community ties. Any halfway decent Politonomist can tell you that doesn't work. You need ritual or traditional unity to create stable religious bonds. A system that is vulnerable to critical reasoning at the core can not last. I predict the Chrestians would fissure into competing haireses, much like the Platonists did, though probably much more bitterly (as you said, they were a rather emotional group, though IÄmn not sure 'militant' is the right word).

Have you considered the possibility of Buddhism? Pythagoreanism already had an established presence, and its tradition of mystic contemplation and metempsychosis should be easy enough to integrate. The Serics are proof that Buddhism, for all its doctrinal rigidity, is a versatile religion.
 
I don't know, a collapse in Rome would still have probably happened. Brittannia, Gaul and Iberia were all for independence by the 9th-10th centuries.
 
I mean, really, what self-respecting Roman would ever worship a criminal!? The man WAS CRUCIFIED, for crying out loud!

Now, some other variant of Judaism could possibly have taken hold. We often forget now that in the early days of the Empire, Mithraism was basically for men only. It was only with the Revelation of Sextus Longinus that the religion managed to reach out to all society.
 
Originally posted by Analytical Engine
OOC: Which religion became dominant in the Empire ITTL? :confused:

I think that is Mitraism as it seems indicated in the post by eddie_falco "but is there any way such a cult could have taken hold throughout the empire in the same way OTL worship of Mithras did?"
 
OOC: Which religion became dominant in the Empire ITTL? :confused:

OOC: the first post refers to 'OTL worship of Mithras', which, given the DB-ness, implies that Mithraism is the predominant worship of the Empire. IMO, for that to have happened, it really needed some way to reach women. The easiest way would be some sort of accommodation/union of a cult of Demeter/Cybele/Isis, but my post suggested a change in Mithraism instead.
 
I feel it is an error to underestimate the potential threat that was presented by this Galilean cult. As I understand it, they did have a powerful weapon in their armoury, in that their proselytising was largely driven by notions of equality and mercy; indeed, it is said that their founder/leader had claimed that the meek would inherit the Earth! As outlandish as this sounds to modern ears, we should not discount the appeal of such saccharine sedition to the plebs, surely leading to social instability. And if such notions had caught hold in the Legions, discipline would have been sorely tested, and fighting spirit badly sapped by such doctrines as "Blessed are the peacemakers". Indeed, it was only due to the sterling vigilance of men such as Saul of Tarsus (sadly killed in the line of duty on the road to Damascus) that this subversive cult was supressed in time to stop any deleterious effects upon the Empire; without his tireless efforts, the world may have been a very different place today.
 
I feel it is an error to underestimate the potential threat that was presented by this Galilean cult. As I understand it, they did have a powerful weapon in their armoury, in that their proselytising was largely driven by notions of equality and mercy; indeed, it is said that their founder/leader had claimed that the meek would inherit the Earth! As outlandish as this sounds to modern ears, we should not discount the appeal of such saccharine sedition to the plebs, surely leading to social instability. And if such notions had caught hold in the Legions, discipline would have been sorely tested, and fighting spirit badly sapped by such doctrines as "Blessed are the peacemakers". Indeed, it was only due to the sterling vigilance of men such as Saul of Tarsus (sadly killed in the line of duty on the road to Damascus) that this subversive cult was supressed in time to stop any deleterious effects upon the Empire; without his tireless efforts, the world may have been a very different place today.

Unfortunately like many people you overlook the fact that 'this Galillean cult' still exists today, and in fact I am a member. Now it is a shame we are not so well known in the modern world, partly due to the fact that most of us went underground as a rsult of the intense persecution we suffered in those days. Even in our own 'enlightened' times it seems like few people actually understand what we are actually about, as your attitude clearly demonstrate. This is hardly surprising, since the attitude of Yeshua (also called by the Greek form of His name, Iesous or Jesus) was quite the opposite of the world at large. The Christian (as we call ourselves- possibly a derivation of the Greek word for messiah or anointed one, Yeshua's title) view of power, for one, is shown in servitude and weakness, not by the traditional Roman ideal of might. This is part of the significance of Jesus' crucifixion, as I will explain in another post.

Now I doubt that Christianity could ever have had the same impact as Mithraism did on the Empire, since Christian teaching clearly states we are supposed to be separate from the world (not quite as extremely as some sects sadly teach, or else I would not be posting on this forum!) and n order to do that, somehow it would have had to gain favour with the Emperor and be established in a similar way. This would have involved corruption of the very teachings which we hold dear- but then, it isn't exactly like Mithraism wasn't either, as some Mithraic fundamentalists claim the revelation of Sextus Longinus was?

As for Saul of Tarsus, Christian tradition maintains that he wasn't actually killed, but actually was converted on the road to Damascus when Yeshua appeared to him in a vision. What we know of him is mainly known by he early Christian writer, Loukas of Antioch who was said to have been associated with him. It is normally suggested that the account of his death was later fabricated by the Jews in order to cover their own shame. According to Loukas, he actually became an influential figure in early Chritianity and actually spread it throughout the Empire. Some of his writings are thought to survive but this cannot be verified.

[RL note- I've tried to write this in the spirit of the DBWI, as a Christian viewpoint of how it could have become less sucessful. I've taken a few liberties with Saul/Paul- his writings being largely unknown- but for him to be written out to be virtually written out of history, they would have to be (almost!) lost! How Christianity might have turned out in such an event I leave to you! BTW, Loukas is the Greek form of Luke, who was thought to have come from Antioch.]
 
I mean, really, what self-respecting Roman would ever worship a criminal!? The man WAS CRUCIFIED, for crying out loud!

Now, some other variant of Judaism could possibly have taken hold. We often forget now that in the early days of the Empire, Mithraism was basically for men only. It was only with the Revelation of Sextus Longinus that the religion managed to reach out to all society.

Well, if one understands it properly, then Yeshua's crucifixion was not in fact His shame but His glory! The reason He did it was actually to take on Himself the evil of mankind, since man has always rebelled against God and chosen his own way. This is evident even from the Jewish scriptures, said of th Jews themselves, even though they were (and still are) His chosen people! And He was only a criminal in the eyes of those who had Him put to death- in the eyes of God He was not, but He did it anyway, in order that we might be spared God's wrath. Christians indeed hold that Yeshua was in fact God's son or God incarnate, and He did it because He loved the humanity He created in spite of our rebellion! So His death is seen as service, which is the Christian ideal of greatness as I mentioned before. And He did not stay dead either, but rose again!
 
Given that Mithradism has lost so much ground due to the cult of Secularism in the past century , a phenomena that is being reversed right now , Christanity has currently been filling the void left by the retreat of Mithradism . This religion has never truely dissapeared , just surpressed and driven underground for centuries till the Enlightened Philosiphers like Valoti ( OOC: Notice the resemblence to Voltaire ? Not the same person though , but an ATL analouge) .

Remember , the old religions have been undergoing rapid decline throughout the entire world , given the popularity of secularism . It might be noted though , that other religions have filled the void , Christanity the most prominenet and succesful so far .

It is unfortunante that many Secularist and Hardline Mithradist and Panthenoist have a blatant misconception of the religion Christianity , mistakening it for some new fangled cult . It is infact , the one and the same religon being discussed here.
 
WHo knows what possibilties it would have had. Under such a relgion that seems to glorify pacifism, would we have had the bloody crusade to conquer the Persian holy lands? Maybe Zorostrianism would never have suffered such terrible persecution to point of only being left a few frightened survivors practicing in secret today, and would still be a major force in the middle east? Surely such a POD would perhaps have Zorostrianism dominate a large part of Central Asia? Perhaps there might not have been the terrible Inquisition begun under the 4th Heliodromus of Nicae, that lasted 2 centuries?
 
What you call the "cult" of secularism is in fact only the opening up of society to different beliefs. The greater tolerance afforded new and unconventional beliefs we see nowadays would not be possible without this "secularism". What I fear about this christianity gaining ground, is that all the tolerance we have enjoyed for the past 200 years could then be lost. From what I have read of christianity, like most millenarian/utopian cults, it does not strike me as very tolerant to other beliefs. Could we in fact see a repeat of the middle-ages if they ever become dominant? Suppose they seek revenge after 2000 years of being forced underground?


Given that Mithradism has lost so much ground due to the cult of Secularism in the past century , a phenomena that is being reversed right now , Christanity has currently been filling the void left by the retreat of Mithradism . This religion has never truely dissapeared , just surpressed and driven underground for centuries till the Enlightened Philosiphers like Valoti ( OOC: Notice the resemblence to Voltaire ? Not the same person though , but an ATL analouge) .

Remember , the old religions have been undergoing rapid decline throughout the entire world , given the popularity of secularism . It might be noted though , that other religions have filled the void , Christanity the most prominenet and succesful so far .

It is unfortunante that many Secularist and Hardline Mithradist and Panthenoist have a blatant misconception of the religion Christianity , mistakening it for some new fangled cult . It is infact , the one and the same religon being discussed here.
 
Neither were the old Religions as I recalled . Any religion deviating from their Pantheonistic and Mystic famework were severely surpressed.

Next , try backing up your assumptions . How many people today call for the surpressment of other religions , technophobia and the assorted phenomena that you have implied in your comments about Christanity ?

I believe that you were refering to the ancient system of state sponsered religion , but I challenge you to prove to me that Christanity calls for the state to be melded with religion . Rather , the seperation between religion and state has been explicitly stated.
 
I sense that I'm probably offending you. Sorry, but I just don't see how a world where Christianity becomes dominant could ever be positive. Surely you remember the recent bombings attributed to a Christian terrorist group? I'm sure they probably only represent the lunatic fringe of Yeshuist, or "Christian" belief, and the majority of them take their pacifist ideals seriously, but a lot of what the extremists say they would impose on the world is quite scary.
Even though they share the same origins, there seems to be a lot of bad blood between the two groups, with the Jews regarding the Christians as heretics who have twisted the "original faith", meanwhile even though the first Christians were Jews, most Christians I have met harbour this irrational hatred towards the Jews, blaiming them for the death of Yeshua. Could we see more religious violence in the future? I'd like remind you of how Mithraism's origins in Persia only seemed to intensify the terrible persecution of the Zoroastrians.
 
Last edited:
I sense that I'm probably offending you. Sorry, but I just don't see how a world where Christianity becomes dominant could ever be positive. Surely you remember the recent bombings attributed to a Christian terrorist group? I'm sure they probably only represent the lunatic fringe of Yeshuist, or "Christian" belief, and the majority of them take their pacifist ideals seriously, but a lot of what the extremists say they would impose on the world is quite scary.
Even though they share the same origins, there seems to be a lot of bad blood between the two groups, with the Jews regarding the Christians as heretics who have twisted the "original faith", meanwhile even though the first Christians were Jews, most Christians I have met harbour this irrational hatred towards the Jews, blaiming them for the death of Yeshua. Could we see more religious violence in the future? I'd like remind you of how Mithraism's origins in Persia only seemed to intensify the terrible persecution of the Zoroastrians.

I think this throws us back to the questions of dogmatic versus practic unity. The greatest crimes in history were carried out in the name of dogmatic unity, by Zoroastrians, Jews, henodox Mithraists and Buddhists. Now, I think the Chrestian faith would also have been affected by this, but given its pacifist and anachoretic tendencies, I would think it ineffective rather than violent. Look at the writings of its teachers - these are not ambitious or worldly men, their main concern is the state of their soul. They were really a lot like the Cynics and Pythagoreans in this respect, and who ever heard of a Cynic praeses or praeposite? Yes, there are some weird cults at the fringes of the Neo-Chrestians (and do keep in mind a lot of the new Chrestian practices are attempts at restoring lost knowledge, continuity is often hard to come by), but it is as unfair to tar them with that brush as it would be to say that all Isidians are self-mutilating madmen just because you hear of the occasional gallification on the evening news.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that the original Chrestian faith seems to have been very appealing at a personal level. It is quite conceivable that a time of greater crisis might have helped it spread its outworldly, comforting, pacifist message more effectively. I can't see it ever filling the role of state cult, given its reflexive anti-government, anarchic, radically nonviolent tenets, but it could well have continued with us as an established licit religion much like Isidianism or Alexandrian Judaism.

@lyniezian: I'm glad we have a Chrestian on this board. It must be hard to face the kind of prejudice and habitual rejection your people do every day.

@kged: Saul of Tarsus' legend is very much a creation of the post-Temple Jewish communitsy, I'm afraid. there is no evidence whatsoever he was more than a local preacher with some influence and a grudge against the early Chrestians. The sad fact is that we hardly know anything about the developments of the eighth and ninth centuries. Most of what we have was written at a much later date, and with the momentousness of the events of the Augustan age, legends have grown like weeds.
 

Hendryk

Banned
So His death is seen as service, which is the Christian ideal of greatness as I mentioned before. And He did not stay dead either, but rose again!
That sounds pretty run-of-the-mill for a mystery cult. There were plenty of religious movements in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds that went about claiming that some mythical figure had risen from the dead, and that their followers would similarly enjoy eternal life. The Orphic cult comes to mind.

Personally, I deplore the fact that Mithraism became dominant to such an extent, when the late Roman empire would have been better served by a sedate, mature, nontheistic philosophy such as Stoicism. An analog to that philosophy--which I believe they call Rujia--remains to this day the official ideology of Serica and several of its vassals and neighbors, such as Koryo and Nihon.
 
Top