Pagan Europe

Sol Invictus was popular in some lines of Neoplatonism and associated with either The One or the first emanation of The One. Julian's religious reforms reflected this.

Connections between Brahmism and (Neo)Platonism are up for debate.
I for one am very firmly on the side that Neoplatonism did not have the kind of sticking power of Brahminism, having not the canon, popular appeal etc of the latter.
 
I am not in the camp that monotheism was inevitable and that a cult would take over and be not-christanity. But then again I am biased and imagine that it could easily survive, things would change but then again in the 3000+ years that Ancient Egypt was around it experinced changes as well.

I am now wanting to do some world building of a modern day of what it would be like if well it was pagan. :)
 
The Roman Empire may end up surviving in the west, as religious conflict doesn't end up depleting the western roman army, resulting in a better response to the barbarian invasions.
 
The Roman Empire may end up surviving in the west, as religious conflict doesn't end up depleting the western roman army, resulting in a better response to the barbarian invasions.
I'd disagree. Embracing Christianity as a unifying religion arguably strengthened the Roman Empire by creating a unifying religious order that was deeply tied to the state. Also, pre-Christian Rome was more than happy to get bogged down in religious wars as the Jews and Druids found out.
 
I'd disagree. Embracing Christianity as a unifying religion arguably strengthened the Roman Empire by creating a unifying religious order that was deeply tied to the state. Also, pre-Christian Rome was more than happy to get bogged down in religious wars as the Jews and Druids found out.

Christianity didn't unify anyone though, it was completely sectarian. There were vast schisms and sects, Emperor Julian even made fun of them for that. Christianity just introduced zealotry into the Roman leadership, which resulted in irrationality. Theodosius genocided pagans, resulting in civil wars and massive desertions. The war against the Jews wasn't religious, at least on the Roman's side, they just saw them as barbarian rebels.
 
What would happen if Paganism is to remain the dominant religion of Europe and Christianity never rises?

Paganism isn't a Religion.

How will things change with a pagan Europe?

I'm not an expert, but I think Europe may end like India with a huge Pantheon that includes Mithra, the Sol Invictus, Wotan and many others.
Another interesting possibility is a reformed religion (I'd bet on Greco-Roman.) taking the place of Christianity.
What would the cultures of the Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Germanics, Nordic, and Celts be like?
It really depends on what substitutes Christianity. A Greco-Roman reformed religion might expand in the area of nowadays' Germany for example if a Charlemagne-like conqueror exists at any point.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that without Islam some Alt-Byzantines can hold Sardinia, Sicily and Carthage for longer, so maybe a larger Greek-speaking area in the long run(?).

Are there any butterflies and byproducts of this?

The Butterfly effect:<<Am I a joke to you?>>.
 
By the way, I'm pretty sure that without Islam some Alt-Byzantines can hold Sardinia, Sicily and Carthage for longer, so maybe a larger Greek-speaking area in the long run(?).
That's actually an interesting point. Without the ideological divide and new identities created by Islam and Christianity, the Mediterranean would probably remain a unified cultural area, tending towards unification similarly to China, the Gangetic Plain, the Iranian Plateau etc. There'd still be the cultural identity of 'Roman', rather than the religious identities of 'Christian', 'Muslim' etc. that tended to override cultural identities.
 
In fact, it would rather resemble India or China - the absence of a single religion with many syncretisms. In extreme cases, faith is based on Neo-Platonism.

Surprisingly, Abrahamism may have preserved the pagan heritage BETTER than Neo-Platonism would have done, because Neo-Platonism meant that Hinduism was an idealization and sacralization of the existing universe. Whereas a truly pagan worldview implied a vision of the world as an arena for the struggle of cosmic forces.
 
In fact, it would rather resemble India or China - the absence of a single religion with many syncretisms. In extreme cases, faith is based on Neo-Platonism.

Surprisingly, Abrahamism may have preserved the pagan heritage BETTER than Neo-Platonism would have done, because Neo-Platonism meant that Hinduism was an idealization and sacralization of the existing universe. Whereas a truly pagan worldview implied a vision of the world as an arena for the struggle of cosmic forces.
Not really sure what cosmic forces were struggling in Greco-Roman paganism. The titans and gigantes were long ago defeated and while the gods could be petty, none of them were evil or even especially malevolent. I think that the Chaos/Order dichotomy of Egyptian and Near Eastern belief (and maybe Norse, the Æsir and Jöttnar seem to map onto Gods/Titans pretty well) shouldn't conflict too badly with most philosophical schools, especially not ones promoted by governments (order=good being a message few rulers would have trouble getting behind).
 
Not really sure what cosmic forces were struggling in Greco-Roman paganism. The titans and gigantes were long ago defeated and while the gods could be petty, none of them were evil or even especially malevolent. I think that the Chaos/Order dichotomy of Egyptian and Near Eastern belief (and maybe Norse, the Æsir and Jöttnar seem to map onto Gods/Titans pretty well) shouldn't conflict too badly with most philosophical schools, especially not ones promoted by governments (order=good being a message few rulers would have trouble getting behind).
The only decent Olympian is Hephaestus. The rest distinguished lewdness, cruelty, arrogance, and so on.

Neoplatonism just denied an important aspect of ancient polytheism - according to his teachings the world is orderly, reasonable, and fair, and the war with chaos is already over. At the same time, he quickly became the dominant philosophy among the pagans of the late Empire. And it looks like a logical outcome of the evolution of this religion.
 
The only decent Olympian is Hephaestus. The rest distinguished lewdness, cruelty, arrogance, and so on.

Neoplatonism just denied an important aspect of ancient polytheism - according to his teachings the world is orderly, reasonable, and fair, and the war with chaos is already over. At the same time, he quickly became the dominant philosophy among the pagans of the late Empire. And it looks like a logical outcome of the evolution of this religion.
Hephaestus could be petty and cruel as well, as seen in his vengence on Hera for casting him out. But all the Olympians had their good points too, Zeus was very concerned with justice, Hera was faithful, Poseidon could be generous, Demeter kind, etc.
And Neoplatonism was hardly the only or even necessarily the dominant philosophical school. Epicureanism, Stoicism and Cynicism were all very influential, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius were both noted Stoics. Pythagoreanism was also well recognised and influential, even if most people found the vegetarianism and belief in reincarnation a bit weird. Neoplatonism may have been the school that Julian favoured, but it was by no means the only one out there.
 
And Neoplatonism was hardly the only or even necessarily the dominant philosophical school. Epicureanism, Stoicism and Cynicism were all very influential, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius were both noted Stoics. Pythagoreanism was also well recognised and influential, even if most people found the vegetarianism and belief in reincarnation a bit weird. Neoplatonism may have been the school that Julian favoured, but it was by no means the only one out there.
Neoplatonism was the only one of these teachings in contact with religion and influenced the belief system. In particular, the Chaldean Oracle apparently arose under the influence of Platonism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Oracles
The Stoics to the word are much closer to Christianity - for they believed that the gods are fair (that is, always fair). But the Epicurians to the Buddhists - with their desire for ataraksia (though not so radical).

Hephaestus could be petty and cruel as well, as seen in his vengence on Hera for casting him out.
She threw him off the mountain, just for not being beautiful enough - in the end he was a cripple. This was a fair revenge.
 
Ancient pre-Christian Europe while pagan,still had various pagan religions. You had the Classical Greco-Roman pantheon,Slavic paganism,Norse-Teutonic pantheon,Druidism,Finnish paganism,Sami shamanism,Basque mythology,Scythian mythology,Thracian mythology,various sects and mystery religions in those religions. Not to mention gods,demons and new beliefs introduced from North Africa,Iran,Caucasian Mountains,Huns,Mongols and Roma. With Abrahamic religions either butterflied or neutralized,you might either see a huge rift because of the different ways of worship,or more likely adoption of beliefs and hybrid religions. Romans were notorious for this and I could easily see the Vikings adopting Druid,Slavic or Finnish gods,maybe even some Tengrism. But it does not mean a religiously tolerant Europe.
 
I do like the idea of Europe being split into 3 cultural and pagan sections. A Celto-Germanic Northern Europe, a Greco-Roman Southern Europe, and a Balto-Slavic Eastern Europe.
 
I do like the idea of Europe being split into 3 cultural and pagan sections. A Celto-Germanic Northern Europe, a Greco-Roman Southern Europe, and a Balto-Slavic Eastern Europe.

I actually think that they would eventually coalesce into one pan-European religion, almost similar to Hinduism, with the difference between Jupiter and Odin considered no more significant than the difference between Jupiter and Zeus. Merely different regional names.

See, the Greeks and Romans did not see the religions of most of the barbarians to the north as anything separate from their own, but were more likely to identify those gods with their own - "oh, that Gothic tribe worships Hercules." Remember, the Romans were quick to identify their own deities with those of the Greeks, which is why we speak of a Greco-Roman religion at all. Indeed, this is why Jews and early Christians ran into so much trouble in the Roman Empire - they refused to go along with Interpretatio romana.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio_graeca

The reason that this process was so easy for the Romans is because there was a cultural basis for the practice - almost all of the pagan religions of Europe were ultimately derived from the religion of the original Indo-Europeans, making it easy to find counterparts between the deities of the regional variations. Indeed, given their shared cultural origins, the adherents of a hypothetical pan-European pagan religion may feel a strong degree of kinship with Hindus, bolstered by the common enemy of a Christian or Zoroastrian Middle East and Central Asia.
 
Last edited:
I actually think that they would eventually coalesce into one pan-European religion
Why?
Look, we can talk comparative mythology till we're blue in the face but their shared origins doesn't mean that one branch or another is going to bring them all under one religion.

At the very least you'll have two groups, a nordo-slavic family of beliefs (because of geography and cultural interaction), and a Mediterranean family (for much the same reason). And even a broad strokes like that and be further divided as a celtic family of beliefs might survive greeco-roman persecution and assimilation, and Egyptian might make a comeback though in a very hellenized form.
 
Why?
Look, we can talk comparative mythology till we're blue in the face but their shared origins doesn't mean that one branch or another is going to bring them all under one religion.

At the very least you'll have two groups, a nordo-slavic family of beliefs (because of geography and cultural interaction), and a Mediterranean family (for much the same reason). And even a broad strokes like that and be further divided as a celtic family of beliefs might survive greeco-roman persecution and assimilation, and Egyptian might make a comeback though in a very hellenized form.

Why not? Isn't that largely what happened in the history of the Roman Empire anyway?

My mistake here was, for whatever reason, assuming that we were necessarily discussing a scenario where Rome conquers essentially the entirety of Europe, thus putting itself in a position to impose some degree of cultural uniformity on the continent for some time. That was not stipulated in the original post.
 
Last edited:
Top