Pagan Middle Ages?

If Julian's reforms were to make an impression the societies that arise after the fall of the Western Empire, would these professionalized Polytheist priesthoods maintain correspondence with one another throughout the lengh and breadth of the former empire, revising ritual and theology, or would their political interests be somewhat provincial, and operate strictly under the auspices of their local kings and caesars?

And if some Romano-Polytheist equivelant of monastic houses were to exist, would they be devoted to a particular local diety, or would they just maintain a sort of miniature Pantheon Temple in their grounds?

Would the titles Archon, Patrician, or Pontifex replace Christian offices like Bishop and Cardinal in this Timeline?
 
If Julian's reforms were to make an impression the societies that arise after the fall of the Western Empire, would these professionalized Polytheist priesthoods maintain correspondence with one another throughout the lengh and breadth of the former empire, revising ritual and theology, or would their political interests be somewhat provincial, and operate strictly under the auspices of their local kings and caesars?

And if some Romano-Polytheist equivelant of monastic houses were to exist, would they be devoted to a particular local diety, or would they just maintain a sort of miniature Pantheon Temple in their grounds?

Would the titles Archon, Patrician, or Pontifex replace Christian offices like Bishop and Cardinal in this Timeline?
More likely they would be organized along some cults, that include a few deities and those deities may be shared among various cults.

Those monastic houses more likely would be some sort of misterious cults with stricter rules.
 
Veneration of saints is nothing like polytheistic worship. I should know, I'm a polytheist myself.

Even so, the Church was complicit with the civil authorities in destroying temples and banning traditional worship, only to later name monastries, churches, cathedrals, and sanctuaries after saints, some of which were based on former local deities. Now later generations may not have sacrificed to or worshipped them, but saints were sometimes prayed to as proxies of the Christian God. Christians, in particular those with Trinitarian based doctrines, aren't IMO proper monotheists in the way that Jews and Muslims are. Even if this tradition was begun as a way of tryng to slowly convert the still overwhelmingly Polytheist population of the Dominate Era Roman Empire into the new Christian order, they've still managed to retain too much of their Pagan past than they actually intended.
 
More likely they would be organized along some cults, that include a few deities and those deities may be shared among various cults.

One possibility might involve any of the heads of state in post Roman Europe trying to control the monopoly of religion in their lands, and retain for themselves the position of Chief Priests in their respective kingdoms. Any of these rulers, from the Byzantine-esques Greeks, to the Latino-Germanics, would claim that their families are descended from one of the more powerful Gods in the Roman/Hellenic/Celtic/Germanic Polytheistic spectrums. For followers of Mithras, some dynasties could claim descent from him, and introduce that as the new state ideology, and co-opt the rest of the traditional Gods as subordinate figures in the national mythology. Alternately, post-Roman dynasties could use Apollo, Serapis, Zeus, or Mars as national patron Gods. Religious bodies might rise beyond "cults" and become larger, professional, church-like, state-sponsored organisations.

Those monastic houses more likely would be some sort of misterious cults with stricter rules.

Monks or Brotherhoods of Mithras, maybe? Knightly Orders of Mars Ultor? Acolytes of Apollo?
 
Last edited:
Christians, in particular those with Trinitarian based doctrines, aren't IMO proper monotheists
It doesn't matter what your "O" is. They define themselves as monotheists, thus they are monotheists. Trinitarianism is overwhelmingly monotheistic in its intent; it doesn't have to be absolutely, ridiculously strict unitarian theology to be monotheistic.
 
It doesn't matter what your "O" is. They define themselves as monotheists, thus they are monotheists. Trinitarianism is overwhelmingly monotheistic in its intent; it doesn't have to be absolutely, ridiculously strict unitarian theology to be monotheistic.

My earlier comments on the matter were made in defence of traditional local deities, whom were usurped by "saints" that were nevertheless based on certain Gods. Even if Trinitarian Christianity professes to be monotheistic, it still inherited certain aspects of it's Polytheistic predecessors. Adopted aspects that played their part in causing divisioning into Catholics, Arians and whatnot. I don't think that the saints are actual Gods, but veneration of saints doesn't seem like an altogether purist monotheistic practice. Not in my personal "O", that is.
 
Meh. Maybe I'm just twitchy; I've encountered all too many idiots who claim that Catholics are polytheists just because they "worship" Saints...even though intercessory prayer and worship are two entirely different things. I guess I just react very harshly to people who come anywhere close to that kind of ignorance.
 

Stephen

Banned
Runes, even at the best of times, came nowhere near to supporting a literate culture. It was western Europe's great good fortune that Latin came bundled with all of that.

Like any alphabet Runes were fully capable of writing down anything that needed to be writen. They wrote poems and sagas etc. And there is even one note surviving saying "Im down at the pub". There magical significance ensured that they were quite widely known. As Northern Europe develops runes will surely be able to fill all there writting needs. Creating quite a culture barier between northern europe and romanised southern europe.
 
If Julian's reforms were to make an impression the societies that arise after the fall of the Western Empire, would these professionalized Polytheist priesthoods maintain correspondence with one another throughout the lengh and breadth of the former empire, revising ritual and theology, or would their political interests be somewhat provincial, and operate strictly under the auspices of their local kings and caesars?

If Julian were successful in enough of his aims I wouldn't be too sure about the Western Empire falling at all, or at least not within the time frame it did.
 
Neither Hinduism or Buddhism are monotheistic. They are Pantheistic.

This is not true.

Hinduism, depending on the variety, is polytheistic, monistic or monotheistic.

Buddhism is technically nontheistic insofar as the existence of deities isn't really relevant- if they exist they're simply beings more powerful than humans but still subject to karma. This is why Buddhism has been so good at integrating other religions- basically you take the local religion and slot it into Buddhist cosmology.
 
This is not true.

Hinduism, depending on the variety, is polytheistic, monistic or monotheistic.

Buddhism is technically nontheistic insofar as the existence of deities isn't really relevant- if they exist they're simply beings more powerful than humans but still subject to karma. This is why Buddhism has been so good at integrating other religions- basically you take the local religion and slot it into Buddhist cosmology.

OK, so mainstream Hindus are Pantheist, rural folk in India are practically Polytheistic, with a few Monotheist Sects here and there. Is that more accurate?

Wherever Buddhism was established, they adopted the local gods of the area, so that they later became irreversably ingrained into Buddhist Cosmology. Tibetan Buddhism at least is either Pantheist or Polytheist, if not original purist Buddhism.
 
EuroHinduism

OK, so mainstream Hindus are Pantheist, rural folk in India are practically Polytheistic, with a few Monotheist Sects here and there. Is that more accurate?

Wherever Buddhism was established, they adopted the local gods of the area, so that they later became irreversably ingrained into Buddhist Cosmology. Tibetan Buddhism at least is either Pantheist or Polytheist, if not original purist Buddhism.

You are much too fixated on the quixotic notion of an ossified Pure Polytheist AntiChurch. A surviving European paganism would be isomorphic to Hinduism in many ways. It too would develop monistic and yes monotheistic <oh the horror> schools of thought. Actually at the intellectual level these would gradually dominate while the popular cultus would remain predominantly polytheistic. You have mentioned Julian. Yes he rejected Christianity for Paganism but he was also very much a Neoplatonist of the theurgical stream.
And in Platonism of any stripe the Ultimate is the ONE not the Many which doesn't sound very Pure Polytheistic to me.
 
You are much too fixated on the quixotic notion of an ossified Pure Polytheist AntiChurch. A surviving European paganism would be isomorphic to Hinduism in many ways. It too would develop monistic and yes monotheistic <oh the horror> schools of thought. Actually at the intellectual level these would gradually dominate while the popular cultus would remain predominantly polytheistic. You have mentioned Julian. Yes he rejected Christianity for Paganism but he was also very much a Neoplatonist of the theurgical stream.
And in Platonism of any stripe the Ultimate is the ONE not the Many which doesn't sound very Pure Polytheistic to me.

The Neoplatonist crowd, for all their beliefs centred around The One, still respected tradition, and if they were to take control of the upper echelons of Post-Roman society, would still incorporate the identities and sacred stories of the Gods into whatever new ideology that would be born in the aftermath of the W.E's collapse, if it even happens at all. If not, there might still be an office or board of control created by the reigning Augustus, which might not exactly be the beginning of a new religion, but might take control and regulate all the temples and mystery cults within the Imperium Romanorum's borders.

If this began with Julian, and he were to survive and endure as Augustus for another couple of decades, the Christian Church may still be a major force in the regional politics of the eastern provinces, but they would still have a tough time re-asserting themselves on an imperial level, if Julian was successful in creating a central authority for all the Pagan cults. The Christians had also only enjoyed Imperial favour for mere decades when Julian became Augustus. Plus having cut funding to the Church and recalled certain dissenting bishops, not only could he have potentially saved the declining condition of the Army, but an increasingly factionalized and fratricidal Christianity may never again achieve their former influence over the Imperial family.

It might buy more time for the Empire, say until the 700's, but there would still be thousands of Germanic and Sarmatians in Roman military service after Julian's time. The re-paganized Roman regime, possibly with a reorganized army, might not be willing to pay off the Huns like Theodosius did, but the Sarmation, Frankish, Suevi, Vandalic, and Gothic element would still figure heavily in the frontier forces. Perhaps this situation might reflect the decline of the Abbassid Caliphate, where the Mamluks and the Turks serving in their forces had become increasingly powerful, that even though they were Islamicized, they still turned on their Arabic overlords, and began carving out empires of their own. Perhaps the generals of the Romanized Barbarian forces, having become so accustomed and inured to Roman ways for so long would have established themselves as rulers in several provinces and have taken the titles of Caesar or Augustus instead of just Rex or Konig, and would have retained for themselves wholesale Roman culture and law, instead of just tried to ape it.

The Post-Julian Empire might still fragment into the rival Imperiums of Hispania, Gallia, Italia, Germania, Britannia, Africa, Aegyptus, Asia, Graecia, Thracia, and Syria.
 
We've all seen PODs where the Roman don't convert to Christianity, but this is ignoring something very important, namely the massive importence that the Christian church had on medieval soceity. Whaat would the middle ages be like if traditional Roman/Germanic Paganism where still dominant?

I'm surprised that no one seems to have suggested that there might not have been a middle ages without Christianity. Not a huge fan of that notion myself, but it does seem popular in some circles.
 

mojojojo

Gone Fishin'
I have heard it said that Christianity is what made the scientific revolution possible. Is this the case? If so how far could this TL advance technologically and scientifically?
 
I have heard it said that Christianity is what made the scientific revolution possible. Is this the case? If so how far could this TL advance technologically and scientifically?

Almost certainly not the case. I expect this timeline to advance about as far as ours, although doubtless in a different way, given the gigantic change involved.
 

Stephen

Banned
I have heard it said that Christianity is what made the scientific revolution possible. Is this the case? If so how far could this TL advance technologically and scientifically?

Pagans seemed to be just as good at philosyphysing and obseving the world. The key parts to the scientific revolution was likely a large interconected and literate aristocracy with the free time to study these things and the printing press to spread ideas around these people.
 
Top