Hellenist World

Alright me and my friends have decided on a contest on who can make the best world with hellenion(greek gods) as the main religion but i sort of want it to be a british elements in it. so i have no idea were to put the POD or anything im having a major block.:confused:
 
For your world to exist, either the rise Christianity has to be seriously sabotaged or the ancient Greeks and Romans have to establish permanent and professional institutions within their religious framework. I think one of the emperors should think about creating an office that regulates all Colleges of Augeres and the other major cults within the empire. If the Hellenic and Roman religions possessed a more centralized bent, preferebly before 300 CE, perhaps Christianity wouldn't have stood a chance of replacing anything.
 
It's hard to imagine how you could make a religion adapted to the need of a city-state culture a world religion. They are not so well-suited for larger empires which need legitimization for their state and emperor, either in an emperor cult or in more universal religions. For your scenario to work you'd have to make a world composed primarily of city-states. I'm not sure if that could work in the long run.

Even in Hellenistic times new leadership cults were institutionalized centred on the monarchies of the Hellenistic empires. But such leadership cults are limited, something more universal was called for, I think, though hardly inevitable. It might not have to be Christianity. Given the contacts with India in the Hellenistic periods and the existence of Hellenistic states in Pakistan and Afghanistan you could argue for a POD with one of the Hellenistic monarchies choosing Buddhism as a state religion. If that would hold you'd have a pretty radical break with OTL. And my gut feeling says that Buddhism could co-exist better with both traditional beliefs and the intellectual developments in philosophy (which where also present in India).
 
It's hard to imagine how you could make a religion adapted to the need of a city-state culture a world religion. They are not so well-suited for larger empires which need legitimization for their state and emperor, either in an emperor cult or in more universal religions. For your scenario to work you'd have to make a world composed primarily of city-states. I'm not sure if that could work in the long run.


Rome's original religion was inherited from the Etruscans, so it was practiced amongst other city-states as well. Also, it was heavily observed by the rural populace which indicates it was more universal than its given credit for. Religions are only as complex and advanced as the culture that espouses them, so if some obscure Judean revelatory cult can be adapted as the state religion of an empire, then so can a former rural animistic tradition. Christianity didn't spread as far as it did because everyone thought it made sense or found it rewarding in some way, although a few probably did, but because in the years before it rose to power, they spread themselves across the Empire, maintained contact with one another, and developed their own internal organisation and hierarchy, etc. Even by Constantine's time, their were still far more followers of the polytheist traditions then the new mystery cults. And even after Theodosius' time, there were still lots of secret polytheists or double-faith types that craved for the old days. Granted, the Imperial Cult could have been expanded on.



Even in Hellenistic times new leadership cults were institutionalized centred on the monarchies of the Hellenistic empires. But such leadership cults are limited, something more universal was called for, I think, though hardly inevitable. It might not have to be Christianity. Given the contacts with India in the Hellenistic periods and the existence of Hellenistic states in Pakistan and Afghanistan you could argue for a POD with one of the Hellenistic monarchies choosing Buddhism as a state religion. If that would hold you'd have a pretty radical break with OTL. And my gut feeling says that Buddhism could co-exist better with both traditional beliefs and the intellectual developments in philosophy (which where also present in India).

Buddhism might have been more helpful for the purpose, but whoms to say that a new philosphy couldn't have been engineered from Rome itself?
 
well the helenism was a wast cultural trend, it encompased numerous religions, and numerous cultures, it was wery sincretic, in many wais it resembled the way modern western culture behaves, most of the helenised world had completely diferent gods ewen if many divinities resembled the greek panteon and helenic influences reached as far as india, shaping the sculptures of budha and vishnu

it was similar to postmodernism in that there was no emphasis on any certain cultural tradition rather a colorfull sincretic fasade that was dravn ower ewerithing so it would sell better
 
It's hard to imagine how you could make a religion adapted to the need of a city-state culture a world religion. They are not so well-suited for larger empires which need legitimization for their state and emperor, either in an emperor cult or in more universal religions. For your scenario to work you'd have to make a world composed primarily of city-states. I'm not sure if that could work in the long run.

Even in Hellenistic times new leadership cults were institutionalized centred on the monarchies of the Hellenistic empires. But such leadership cults are limited, something more universal was called for, I think, though hardly inevitable. It might not have to be Christianity. Given the contacts with India in the Hellenistic periods and the existence of Hellenistic states in Pakistan and Afghanistan you could argue for a POD with one of the Hellenistic monarchies choosing Buddhism as a state religion. If that would hold you'd have a pretty radical break with OTL. And my gut feeling says that Buddhism could co-exist better with both traditional beliefs and the intellectual developments in philosophy (which where also present in India).

But a religion designed for nomadic goat herders is better suited to be a world religion?

Bactria was ruled by a Hellenistic monarch and the religion was Buddhist.
 
Indeed, why should a religion that splintered from a tradition that was developed by desert nomads be more suitable as a universal religion than a long established and complex tradition espoused by those that conquered numerous countries? I would think the spiritual beliefs of an isolated rainforest tribe could potentially become a world religion, given time and development and with more equal competition.

Also it would be naive to think that Christianity provided any sort of unity to the Empire. What about the dissent between the Trinitarians and the Arians? If Christianity united people all over the Roman Empire, then why were there citizens whom collaberated with Vandals in Africa, and with the Visigoths in Aquitaine and Spain, mainly because they shared the same brand of Christianity with the barbarian invader? When the remaining traditional polytheists bemoaned that the sacking of Rome and the constant operation of barbarian armies within Roman lands was the consequence of abandoning the Old Gods of Rome for a provincial cult, Saint Augustine of Hippo wrote in his work, "City of God", that the attack on the city didn't matter in the grand scheme of things, since the "Kingdom of God" would always prevail. Comforting to a devout christian maybe. But totally irrelevent in the mind of a traditional who cared about the here and now, rather than someone elses vision of the afterlife. There was more to the causes of Rome's downfall than establishment of Christianity, but it still contributed its fair share of trouble, given its fanatical "One True Faith" philosophy.
 
Indeed, why should a religion that splintered from a tradition that was developed by desert nomads be more suitable as a universal religion than a long established and complex tradition espoused by those that conquered numerous countries? I would think the spiritual beliefs of an isolated rainforest tribe could potentially become a world religion, given time and development and with more equal competition.

Also it would be naive to think that Christianity provided any sort of unity to the Empire. What about the dissent between the Trinitarians and the Arians? If Christianity united people all over the Roman Empire, then why were there citizens whom collaberated with Vandals in Africa, and with the Visigoths in Aquitaine and Spain, mainly because they shared the same brand of Christianity with the barbarian invader? When the remaining traditional polytheists bemoaned that the sacking of Rome and the constant operation of barbarian armies within Roman lands was the consequence of abandoning the Old Gods of Rome for a provincial cult, Saint Augustine of Hippo wrote in his work, "City of God", that the attack on the city didn't matter in the grand scheme of things, since the "Kingdom of God" would always prevail. Comforting to a devout christian maybe. But totally irrelevent in the mind of a traditional who cared about the here and now, rather than someone elses vision of the afterlife. There was more to the causes of Rome's downfall than establishment of Christianity, but it still contributed its fair share of trouble, given its fanatical "One True Faith" philosophy.


I think you are chalking too much of the fall of Rome up to Christianity. By the time Constantine made it the state religion, Rome was already very weakened. The old religion didn't provide stability any more than the Christianity did (Crisis of the Third Century springs to mind)... so not adopting Christianity would not have meant a great deal in the long run (in some respects). Rome still would have fallen eventually, and the "here and now" old religion followers could not have stopped it.
 
I think you are chalking too much of the fall of Rome up to Christianity. By the time Constantine made it the state religion, Rome was already very weakened. The old religion didn't provide stability any more than the Christianity did (Crisis of the Third Century springs to mind)... so not adopting Christianity would not have meant a great deal in the long run (in some respects). Rome still would have fallen eventually, and the "here and now" old religion followers could not have stopped it.

Christianity managed to create an institution that outlasted the Roman Empire.

I think the key to creating some kind of lasting paganism is to beef up the cult around the Emperor. Preferably to something that encourages an orderly line of succession.
 
Christianity managed to create an institution that outlasted the Roman Empire.

I think the key to creating some kind of lasting paganism is to beef up the cult around the Emperor. Preferably to something that encourages an orderly line of succession.

I dunno. Hinduism and Buddhism seem to be managing just fine without an imperial cult.
 
But a religion designed for nomadic goat herders is better suited to be a world religion?

Bactria was ruled by a Hellenistic monarch and the religion was Buddhist.

Christianity as 'designed' by Paul of Tarsus certainly was not designed for nomadic goat herders.
 
I think you are chalking too much of the fall of Rome up to Christianity. By the time Constantine made it the state religion, Rome was already very weakened. The old religion didn't provide stability any more than the Christianity did (Crisis of the Third Century springs to mind)... so not adopting Christianity would not have meant a great deal in the long run (in some respects). Rome still would have fallen eventually, and the "here and now" old religion followers could not have stopped it.


I did not chalk up the fall of the Roman Empire soley to Christianity, I was just disputing the notion that it was an ideal way of unifying the empire when it really just added to the problem. I'm well aware of the constant dynastic disputes, the powerplays, outright civil wars and economic inflation. But whatever anyone thought about a new state religion being the only way that could have saved the empire, was very much mistaken. Whan Christianity rose to power, it just exacerbated the Empire's decline.
 
you are forgetting that one of the dominant strains of thought and one that lasted the longest and influeced european culture in a huge way, was platonism, platonic idealism or later aristotelian upgraded versions of same

these were practically recepies on making monoteism, with a big potentiall of becoming ideologies or actuall religions, even if they had no actuall intention of becoming anithing such

most gnostic sects practically copy platonic/aristotelian sistem of emanation of that "something" that emanates ideas that emanate concepts and so on, althou they develop it in a less idealistic or apstract direction

since said strain of thought was dominant in most hellenised world, or at least in those parts that were not dominated by budist filosofy or zoroastrism, this could potentially be the begining of a mayor monoteist religion, that would already have a huge archive of written filosofic bacround material to compile its scriptures with

that and buddhism, zoroastrism is somehow to conected with persia, but buddhism would be werry apealing to roman proleteriat, and have a good potential publick in the higher classes
 
I dunno. Hinduism and Buddhism seem to be managing just fine without an imperial cult.

Hinduism is rather more than simply a religion in my estimation, but rather a much larger system of belief that organizes society to a degree not found in either the Abrahamic religions.

Buddhism is paganism now?

I was setting out a scenario for surviving greek/roman paganism. The only way that I can figure it survives is because some kind of centralized institution (similar is organization and scope to the Nicean Christian Church). The only Empire-wide unifying theme I can think of for this church is the office of the Emperor. So the rise of an Imperial cult.

Something else that I was thinking might help paganism survive, and this is totally out of left field but bear with me. Does anyone remember the "Roman Commercial Revolution" timelines? I believe the idea was that the commercial and legal innovations of the Renaissance happen sometime during the late Republic or early Empire, and lead to "better" Roman Empire that is able to survive and thrive far longer than OTL. If you make this commercial revolution the POD, then greek/roman paganism would probably be much easier to save, since its here-and-now ethos and flexible pantheon of gods would be far more enabling of commerce then Christianity and other like desert religions.

This last scenario has the added bonus of conquest by commercial domination which is quite British. Did I solve the challenge?
 
I tend to disagree that Christianity would not survive in this world. First of all, the Hellenist World caused as many problems for the Jew as the Romans, thus you have the Maccabees, but also the Hellenistic world is in part based on Plato, and his ideas, which have been rightly considered very Christian by nature.
 
platos ideas have little to do with christianity and that olnly becouse christians picked some platos ideas up as they were practicall and aceptable in a monoteist worldwiev

so basically platonism has nothing, in itself, to do with christianity, as it started way before most midle east mesianic/risen god sects, and has nothing to do with sons of god of any kind let alone resurected carpenters

a world in wich hellenism is somehow maintained till a point at wich it becomes the basis for any given dominant world culture, as hapened with latin culture and the western culture(or at least thats how the story is told), has little room for risen palestinians
the number of risen gods and sons of god and godly offspring in the religious world of hellenist times is huge, to much competition

also there are better ways and better models to draw monoteisms from, before the spiritual crisis of the late roman empire even starts

the problem is how do you maintain hellenist culture so long

hellenism was in many wais like barock or rococo or postmodernism, it was a sistem of culture thta came after a period of arhaic culture wich evolved into a well developed well proportioned well produced klasic culture, wich was standardised and sistematic and had nothing to ad nor nothing much to take avay, wich then could not help but to explode into hellenism wich was all that clasicism was not

but how can it maintain itself for so long?
it must again retract, fall back, become something simpler, repeat the cicle agin and again, the biger and more spread out it is the faster it goes, the faster it caches up with itself and starts to stagnate
thats basically what happened
 
I really don't see how Monotheism is an advanced type of religion. Its no more mature nor ground-breaking as the idea of highly evolved spirits that influence the course of the universe. Religio Romana, Hellenistic, Celtic, Germannic, Slavic, Egyptian and other spiritual traditions anywhere else weren't going out of fashion. They were purposefully repressed. Any of those could have survived with an evolving culture.

As for Neoplatonism, they weren't monotheists per se, thats just wishful thinking by christians. Neoplatonists were actually "Pantheists". Thats to say that while they believed that there was a single supreme being or entity, they believed that this creature would present itself in various forms and they felt it was only right and proper to pray to it accordingly.
 
the thing is politeist religion, unless it has a big demografic base and political backing, survives ider by acting as a spiritual infrastructure for a peoples economy or politics, or it must recapitulate, reinvent itself ewery several generations, else it stagnates and becomes reduced to superstition

monoteism tends to be oposite to this, it survives long periods, thus theoretically contributing to the maintainance of large political or cultural sistems, by stagnating after a short period of fast growth
then if it begins to evolve or develop it colapses even if it stood firm for millenia

thats why a lot of people suggest monoteism as a way to prolong certain cultural or political sistems
in my opinion this is false, even if it is true that long religious traditions tend to exist in simbiotic codependancy with cultural and political traditions

it could be said that politeisms or some inbetveen model, might be more longlasting, as these religions tend to be more flexible and more rooted in large populations, and do not depend on fundamental truths or dogmas

then again theres islam that proves all that wrong

but talking about the hellenist world theres the buddhist model, wich can definitley be seen as separate to both mono- and poly-theisms
such a religion could be well suited for hellenist mediteran, as it would simultaniously act as a comon denominator and asimilate most locall beliefs without much conflict or agression, into a easily digestible blend, wich is the hellenist way
even the emperor cults could be maintained

still zoroastrism would ramain strong in persia
 
I really don't see how Monotheism is an advanced type of religion. Its no more mature nor ground-breaking as the idea of highly evolved spirits that influence the course of the universe. Religio Romana, Hellenistic, Celtic, Germannic, Slavic, Egyptian and other spiritual traditions anywhere else weren't going out of fashion. They were purposefully repressed. Any of those could have survived with an evolving culture.

As for Neoplatonism, they weren't monotheists per se, thats just wishful thinking by christians. Neoplatonists were actually "Pantheists". Thats to say that while they believed that there was a single supreme being or entity, they believed that this creature would present itself in various forms and they felt it was only right and proper to pray to it accordingly.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Plato's forms idea, was that every form on earth had a perfect form which they were trying to achieve. St. Augustine of Hippo, did just warp these idea in his writings either. There is also a reason, why many Greek cities, such as Corinth were some of the first to develop Christian communities. I am sure we will not be able to come to an agree me on this, so as I said at the start, I will have to respectfully disagree with your view.
 
Last edited:
Top