Greco-Roman philosophy and religion mixed into one universal faith.

Basically without Christianity existing or any monotheistic religion taking its place, how would a Greco-Roman religion that mixes the philosophies and traditional beliefs of the region into one religion form and develop? What philosophies would be mix in? What non Roman or Greek elements might they add in? What values and beliefs would we see take hold? Could the religion being divided into various sects or schools of thought?
 
Basically without Christianity existing or any monotheistic religion taking its place, how would a Greco-Roman religion that mixes the philosophies and traditional beliefs of the region into one religion form and develop? What philosophies would be mix in? What non Roman or Greek elements might they add in? What values and beliefs would we see take hold? Could the religion being divided into various sects or schools of thought?


I'm a little confused by this, because Christianity did borrow from Greco/Roman philosophy, yet you don't want to include it.
 
I'm a little confused by this, because Christianity did borrow from Greco/Roman philosophy, yet you don't want to include it.
I said a mix between Greco-Roman religion and philosophy. This means traditional religions in Rome and Greece mixed with the philosophy of the region. Also Christianity didn't adopt many Roman and Greek beliefs until Constantine.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Oh dear,oh dear,oh dear! This is one of my most favourite timelines! Thanks for starting it. I am sure we will have a wonderful and productive discussions. I will prepare some scenarios and make some timelines!
 
I said a mix between Greco-Roman religion and philosophy. This means traditional religions in Rome and Greece mixed with the philosophy of the region. Also Christianity didn't adopt many Roman and Greek beliefs until Constantine.

"This means traditional religions in Rome and Greece mixed with the philosophy of the region." Okay, gotcha.

"Also Christianity didn't adopt many Roman and Greek beliefs until Constantine." And? That's still Christianity.
 
"This means traditional religions in Rome and Greece mixed with the philosophy of the region." Okay, gotcha.

"Also Christianity didn't adopt many Roman and Greek beliefs until Constantine." And? That's still Christianity.
I still consider Christianity more of a Semitic religion and influence then a Roman or Greek one but I am more favorable to the classical era then the one after it.
 
I still consider Christianity more of a Semitic religion and influence then a Roman or Greek one but I am more favorable to the classical era then the one after it.

It started out that way, but it was pretty much hijacked by the Romans for themselves (still during the classical period). For the sake of the thread, lets drop it.
 
Stop nitpicking the OP, what he wants is a kind of reformed Greco-Roman politheistic tradition with classical Greek philosophy, and not Christianity.

My suggestion: a fusion of neoplatonism with the cult of Sol Invictus.
 
Stop nitpicking the OP, what he wants is a kind of reformed Greco-Roman politheistic tradition with classical Greek philosophy, and not Christianity.

My suggestion: a fusion of neoplatonism with the cult of Sol Invictus.

You could have read my last post before posting your pointless complaint. "For the sake of the thread, lets drop it."
 
Some philosophies I could see being mixed into this religion includes neoplatonism, cynicism, and stoicism. The gods could be a mix of the Roman and Greek ones. This could include Zeus, Mars, and later on Sol Invictus. Maybe some more Egyptian influence too. I see a Roman religion being very focused on discipline, honor, self restraint, physical conditioning, cleanness, and their own idea of civility or civic duty. I see it being focused on respect of authority but not dogmatic. Additionally, they might tie the religion to the idea of Rome and the concept of being a Roman citizen. Maybe a more individualized or general concept of the Mandate of Heaven within it. Basically they use the religion to enforce the idea of Rome so even if it ever gets divided up or breaks apart it eventually reunites like China does. Thoughts?
 
Some philosophies I could see being mixed into this religion includes neoplatonism, cynicism, and stoicism. The gods could be a mix of the Roman and Greek ones. This could include Zeus, Mars, and later on Sol Invictus. Maybe some more Egyptian influence too. I see a Roman religion being very focused on discipline, honor, self restraint, physical conditioning, cleanness, and their own idea of civility or civic duty. I see it being focused on respect of authority but not dogmatic. Additionally, they might tie the religion to the idea of Rome and the concept of being a Roman citizen. Maybe a more individualized or general concept of the Mandate of Heaven within it. Basically they use the religion to enforce the idea of Rome so even if it ever gets divided up or breaks apart it eventually reunites like China does. Thoughts?


Is there a specific POD for this thread btw? There was some Egyptian influence on the Greeks since at least the Archaic period, and the Egyptian God, Isis was so influential on turn of millennium Rome that Apuleius wrote a book on it.
 
Is there a specific POD for this thread btw? There was some Egyptian influence on the Greeks since at least the Archaic period, and the Egyptian God, ISIS was so influential on turn of millennium Rome that Apuleius wrote a book on it.
Anything without Christianity and before the fall of Rome but after the republic is a good starting point.
 
Not to be a buzzkill, but the old Greek-Roman beliefs were too weak to survive until now. People were growing increasingly disillusioned about them and this made them vulnerable to the strong and pure (meaning simple and not mixed with archaic beliefs) Christian Monotheistic appeal. So, without Christianity and its monks Ancient Philosophy is dead, literature is dead too and so the main part of European culture. Probably Islam will take over Europe before tenth century. If you want a world with a Greek-Roman Pagan Culture you have to avoid Rome's fall: the best way to combine it with a neutralization of Christianity is to make Cato the Censor to convince the Senate to fear East Cultures and to not pursue an expansion toward East. Greece will survive independent while Christianity will be a internal religion of Parthian Empire, not so spread in Mediterranean. And, without the future Byzantine Empire, Persia will be enough powerful to stop Islam on the beginning, protecting Pagan European Culture from contacts with others Monotheistic Religions.
 
Not to be a buzzkill, but the old Greek-Roman beliefs were too weak to survive until now. People were growing increasingly disillusioned about them and this made them vulnerable to the strong and pure (meaning simple and not mixed with archaic beliefs) Christian Monotheistic appeal. So, without Christianity and its monks Ancient Philosophy is dead, literature is dead too and so the main part of European culture. Probably Islam will take over Europe before tenth century. If you want a world with a Greek-Roman Pagan Culture you have to avoid Rome's fall: the best way to combine it with a neutralization of Christianity is to make Cato the Censor to convince the Senate to fear East Cultures and to not pursue an expansion toward East. Greece will survive independent while Christianity will be a internal religion of Parthian Empire, not so spread in Mediterranean. And, without the future Byzantine Empire, Persia will be enough powerful to stop Islam on the beginning, protecting Pagan European Culture from contacts with others Monotheistic Religions.
You just forgot eight centuries of butterflies. Beside I don’t think that ancient philosophy would have died without Christianity and to be honest this “ Christian monotheistic appeal” can be attributed to the fact that basically the most powerful man in the empire was always a Christian since Constantine, thus conversion to the new religion made the career easier for lots of ambitious opportunistic guys, otherwise Christianity would have remained what it was: the religion of a minority quite influential but not powerful enough to overwhelm the Pagans.
 
Not to be a buzzkill, but the old Greek-Roman beliefs were too weak to survive until now. People were growing increasingly disillusioned about them and this made them vulnerable to the strong and pure (meaning simple and not mixed with archaic beliefs) Christian Monotheistic appeal. So, without Christianity and its monks Ancient Philosophy is dead, literature is dead too and so the main part of European culture. Probably Islam will take over Europe before tenth century. If you want a world with a Greek-Roman Pagan Culture you have to avoid Rome's fall: the best way to combine it with a neutralization of Christianity is to make Cato the Censor to convince the Senate to fear East Cultures and to not pursue an expansion toward East. Greece will survive independent while Christianity will be a internal religion of Parthian Empire, not so spread in Mediterranean. And, without the future Byzantine Empire, Persia will be enough powerful to stop Islam on the beginning, protecting Pagan European Culture from contacts with others Monotheistic Religions.

What exactly makes a religion "weak" or "strong"? Christianity was absolutely mixed with ancient beliefs that formed from thousands of years of Jewish tradition, and as another poster pointed out, the very Greco-Roman philosophy that people were supposedly becoming disillusioned with. There were many social and cultural reasons why Christianity spread so quickly, but it was only the patronage of the Empire itself that made it the sole "legitimate" religion on the continent for so long. Paganism was ultimately stomped out by force and violence, not by some pure ideals that Christianity held a monopoly on.

As for Islam, I doubt it would exist in this timeline since so much of history would be different. Even if we say it does still develop, however, its spread will be very different. I would argue that the religion would actually be less successful, since it wouldn't be able to play off of the sectarian conflicts within Christianity. Many Christians in North Africa and the Middle East welcomed the Arab invaders in. The Church in Rome will torture or kill you for heresy, but the new Muslim overlords won't care as long as you pay your taxes. Those divisions won't exist in a world where Dodekatheism won out in the Mediterranean.
 
What exactly makes a religion "weak" or "strong"? Christianity was absolutely mixed with ancient beliefs that formed from thousands of years of Jewish tradition, and as another poster pointed out, the very Greco-Roman philosophy that people were supposedly becoming disillusioned with. There were many social and cultural reasons why Christianity spread so quickly, but it was only the patronage of the Empire itself that made it the sole "legitimate" religion on the continent for so long. Paganism was ultimately stomped out by force and violence, not by some pure ideals that Christianity held a monopoly on.

As for Islam, I doubt it would exist in this timeline since so much of history would be different. Even if we say it does still develop, however, its spread will be very different. I would argue that the religion would actually be less successful, since it wouldn't be able to play off of the sectarian conflicts within Christianity. Many Christians in North Africa and the Middle East welcomed the Arab invaders in. The Church in Rome will torture or kill you for heresy, but the new Muslim overlords won't care as long as you pay your taxes. Those divisions won't exist in a world where Dodekatheism won out in the Mediterranean.

1. 'Paganism' may not have been replaced simply by persuasion by Christendom, however, the creation of Christendom was an evolution from the Mediterranean world prior to that of the new; exactly as the Middle Ages of Europe was in essence an evolution yet continuation of what Rome had created. It is not as if there is a Pagan Greco-Roman World which is then cut completely from the Christendom of the Latin world, rather simply an evolved one. Christianity adopted and borrowed enormously from the Hellenic Philosophy and we may say thus, that it is to a large degree, an Hellenic religion, in the same way that Manichaeism is Hellenic. Through this, we see that Christianity adopted not only from cultural characteristics of the Hellenes, but also its philosophy, especially that of the supposed Greek sages such as Aristotle and Plato, who even in their day had great critiques of the prevailing religious attitude of their day; Christianity would take the mantle of these ancient philosophers in 'renewing' the Mediterranean in its image.

2. If we assume that Christianity is relegated to minority in Judea and the east-south, the consequences for Arabia are not really known. For instance, if the Western Empire does not fall, then the consequences for this is unforeseen. As well, without Roman conversion, do we assume that Aksum still converts? If so, then we can imagine Himyar and Aksum still engaging in war over the Aden straits and the reverberation into the Hijaz, affecting the life of Muhammad's (SAW) parent's lives and creating the chance for Islam along with what had already been built up. We may say that within the Arab traditional religion, there was already a sort of concept of monotheism. The idea was that the gods separately represented certain aspects of the single deity and were intermediaries and this is what Islam in its early days called the Arabs away from, hence it was not dependent per sé upon a Christian Rome.

3. In the initial conquest of the former Roman Empire, by the Caliphate, the different sects of Christianity did not rebel against the Byzantines, rather they rebelled against the Muslim at Constantinople. Later there would be Gnostic 'Christian' representation int he Muslim ranks to wage war against Byzantium through the Paulicians, but otherwise, there was no sort of alliance between anti Byzantine Christians with Muslims. At least not to the extent that the Sassanids remained close to the Nestorian Church of the East as a sort of anti Constantinople alliance.

-Thus we may say, the victory Islam gained, was primarily a military victory. The Byzantines were defeated in the field and thereafter, were savaged in Anatolia and besieged twice by the Umayyad despite internal rebellion and dispute within the Islamic world. Without Christendom, I do not see how a haphazard pagan East can do any better than the Byzantines did otl.
 
I do think that some evolution is possible, but I also think that much of the more common suggestions when this comes up are not the answers.

Mithraism was so secret that even modern historians occasionally fall for the made up stuff as there is so little real stuff to actually go in.

The Cult of Sol Invictus seems to have had limited appeal outside of the upper crust, and likewise platonism/neoplatonism which was elitist by nature. Elitism is in the ancient world usually something of a death sentence.

My favourite pick is Stoicism. Otl it had a complicated theology, a strategic selection of myths that made Zues more favourable and most importantly could be easily practiced, learned and taught by slave populations. If Monotheism is inherently superior, its even that got appeal to some extent as there was certainly a monotheistic undercurrant.

Its big problem IMO was a combination of having two few sages (as saint/bodhisattva equivalents many only recognised Socrates as a sage) which limited the personal investment and an unwillingness to prosletyse.
Fix those, and I think Stoicism could become q strong contender.

Not to be a buzzkill, but the old Greek-Roman beliefs were too weak to survive until now. People were growing increasingly disillusioned about them and this made them vulnerable to the strong and pure (meaning simple and not mixed with archaic beliefs) Christian Monotheistic appeal. So, without Christianity and its monks Ancient Philosophy is dead, literature is dead too and so the main part of European culture. Probably Islam will take over Europe before tenth century. If you want a world with a Greek-Roman Pagan Culture you have to avoid Rome's fall: the best way to combine it with a neutralization of Christianity is to make Cato the Censor to convince the Senate to fear East Cultures and to not pursue an expansion toward East. Greece will survive independent while Christianity will be a internal religion of Parthian Empire, not so spread in Mediterranean. And, without the future Byzantine Empire, Persia will be enough powerful to stop Islam on the beginning, protecting Pagan European Culture from contacts with others Monotheistic Religions.
Im not sure if you have heard of the butterfly effect, but this post entirely negates itself.
 
1. 'Paganism' may not have been replaced simply by persuasion by Christendom, however, the creation of Christendom was an evolution from the Mediterranean world prior to that of the new; exactly as the Middle Ages of Europe was in essence an evolution yet continuation of what Rome had created.

You're right, but that still doesn't change the fact that this evolution was facilitated through violence. If Christianity had not gained Imperial backing, it wouldn't have been able to shut down "pagan" temples, ban "pagan" festivals, force heretical sects into exile, etc. A much wider diversity of faiths would have been able to survive for much longer, each one just as Hellenic as Christianity.

2. If we assume that Christianity is relegated to minority in Judea and the east-south, the consequences for Arabia are not really known. For instance, if the Western Empire does not fall, then the consequences for this is unforeseen.

While we can't say for sure what the exact effects would be, I think it would be ridiculous to say the exact same individuals would still be born and still live the same lives centuries after the POD. The underlying social and religious trends would have still existed in Arabia, but without Mohammad those trends would have manifested differently. There could have still been something similar to Islam, but not Islam itself.

In the initial conquest of the former Roman Empire, by the Caliphate, the different sects of Christianity did not rebel against the Byzantines, rather they rebelled against the Muslim at Constantinople

You seem to be much more knowledgeable about this topic than me. I read at one point that certain sects preferring Muslim rule over Catholic, but now I can't remember where exactly it came from. I know at least certain groups like the Copts faced much less persecution under the Muslims than they had from the Romans.
 
You're right, but that still doesn't change the fact that this evolution was facilitated through violence. If Christianity had not gained Imperial backing, it wouldn't have been able to shut down "pagan" temples, ban "pagan" festivals, force heretical sects into exile, etc. A much wider diversity of faiths would have been able to survive for much longer, each one just as Hellenic as Christianity.



While we can't say for sure what the exact effects would be, I think it would be ridiculous to say the exact same individuals would still be born and still live the same lives centuries after the POD. The underlying social and religious trends would have still existed in Arabia, but without Mohammad those trends would have manifested differently. There could have still been something similar to Islam, but not Islam itself.



You seem to be much more knowledgeable about this topic than me. I read at one point that certain sects preferring Muslim rule over Catholic, but now I can't remember where exactly it came from. I know at least certain groups like the Copts faced much less persecution under the Muslims than they had from the Romans.

The idea that the various types of Christians received less persecution under Islam than under the Byzantines is disputed. However, it is the case that at least initially, the Egyptian Miaphysites and Monophysites were not particularly afraid of the change in leadership. Not necessarily due to the different persecution levels, but the idea that under Byzantium there was a much greater efforts to bring together these obtuse theological points. While the Islamic rulers required less a theological change than a monetary tribute. As a result, the communities did not react particularly poorly to the Islamic conquerors. However, this did not mean that there was an alliance or mutual agreements or even friendship. Rather the Egyptians were unable to assert their military power against the Chalcedonian Byzantines and could only bestow political infighting and forestalling any sort of theological agreement after Justinian I. If they lacked the means to rebel to any satisfaction against Byzantium, they likewise lacked power to do so against their new masters, who invigorated, sought to capture Byzantium itself. This is when at the siege of Constantinople, the combination of 'Greek fire' and the rebellion of the Egyptian shipmen lead to the fall of the umayyad fleet near Constantinople and the routing of the Umayyad army soon afterward. Thus, we may say the relation between the Egyptians and that of the Islamic-Arab rulers of the Umayyad-Abbasid Caliphate are complex, to be brief.
 

Marc

Donor
Basically without Christianity existing or any monotheistic religion taking its place, how would a Greco-Roman religion that mixes the philosophies and traditional beliefs of the region into one religion form and develop? What philosophies would be mix in? What non Roman or Greek elements might they add in? What values and beliefs would we see take hold? Could the religion being divided into various sects or schools of thought?

The foundational question that you have to ask before jumping into the details is why didn't it happen. One of those "Dog that didn't bark in the night" conundrums.
 
Top