Pproselytizing Pagan Religion

Eh. Hellenism and the Mystery religions beg to differ regarding the non spread across ethnic lines and regarding salvation. Besides. Aphrodite is though to be Asiatic and Ammon (one of the big creator gods of Egypt) was Berber in origin.

"Ethnic" isn't the right word but those examples spread within a coherent cultural sphere, though, in the same way varieties of Hinduism spread to the SE Asian Indianised cultural sphere.
 
How do you "set this up" when the only people who know how to read, write and run a complex administration are the Catholic clergy you've just thrown out? This isn't a computer game.

I'm not so sure about this, actually. If the Franks are showing up in the 5th century and trying to do this, there would still be some literate pagans (and non-clergy Romans) who would be able to help. But ya, it would be hard.
 

katchen

Banned
Three good examples of prosletyzing pagan religions may be found in Brazil. Candomble', Umbanda and Quimbanda all prosletyze and all place the African orishas or spirit-gods in their pantheon. Umbanda is much more syncretic with Western monotheistic religion, drawing the concept of One God above all from Catholicism and mediumship from Kardecian Spiritualism. All three are at least a century old.
Japan also has numerous prosletyzing "new" (some not so new) religions. Some are pagan. Tenrikyo (www.tenrikyo.com .en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenrikyo is monothestic, but their god is not the Judeo-Christian god and their religion was founded in Japan in the 1830s. A third (though not successful) example of a prosletyzing pagan religion was the Ghost Dance religion that spread amongst Native Americans in the late 1880s and early 1890s. That religion, though non-violent, was ruthlessly suppressed by the US Army in the Wounded Knee Massacre.
 
I'm not so sure about this, actually. If the Franks are showing up in the 5th century and trying to do this, there would still be some literate pagans (and non-clergy Romans) who would be able to help. But ya, it would be hard.

But would said pagans be sympathetic to these barbarians? I mean, if you're a literate follower of Sol Invictus or Mithras you might not feel much affinity with the barbarians.
 
Some are pagan. Tenrikyo (www.tenrikyo.com .en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenrikyo is monothestic, but their god is not the Judeo-Christian god and their religion was founded in Japan in the 1830s. A third (though not successful) example of a prosletyzing pagan religion was the Ghost Dance religion that spread amongst Native Americans in the late 1880s and early 1890s. That religion, though non-violent, was ruthlessly suppressed by the US Army in the Wounded Knee Massacre.
We really need a definition of "Pagan" for this thread.

Is it merely a non-Abrahamic religion? Because there are certainly plenty of those that proselytize (ranging from Buddhists to Raelians).

Is "pagan" any chiefly non-monotheistic religion? Because I know essentially nothing about Tenrikyo, but the Ghost Dance movement seems to have been basically monotheistic (with visions from "God," singular).
 
We really need a definition of "Pagan" for this thread.

Is it merely a non-Abrahamic religion? Because there are certainly plenty of those that proselytize (ranging from Buddhists to Raelians).

Is "pagan" any chiefly non-monotheistic religion? Because I know essentially nothing about Tenrikyo, but the Ghost Dance movement seems to have been basically monotheistic (with visions from "God," singular).

I guess by Pagan they/he means 'prechristian stuff of europe based'.

There is maybe.. some.. assumptions about the religions of easterners in such a definition.
 
What about Wicca, whether as a fairly modern creation or (as some of its followers claimit to be) as the secretly-maintained 'old religion'?
 
Is "pagan" any chiefly non-monotheistic religion? Because I know essentially nothing about Tenrikyo, but the Ghost Dance movement seems to have been basically monotheistic (with visions from "God," singular).

My readings of the Ghost Dance also seem to back up that it was largely Monotheistic and Christian based, yes.
 
What about Wicca, whether as a fairly modern creation or (as some of its followers claimit to be) as the secretly-maintained 'old religion'?

I hadn't even thought of Wicca, although I think ot stands as a modern example (my apologies to ly Wiccan friends, and I've had several over the years, but it seems to stem from 19th centrury romanticism more than any authentic 'living' tradition)
 

ingemann

Banned
How do you "set this up" when the only people who know how to read, write and run a complex administration are the Catholic clergy you've just thrown out? This isn't a computer game.

A lot on non-clergy people knew how to write and read some in the Latin alphabet some in the Runic (and many in both), in Scandinavia it's believed around 40% of the population was literate before Christianity came around, it was likely lower among the Franks (historical Scandinavians tended to be more literate than their neighbours, thanks to the smaller class difference), but it's likely still rather high (Rhinland Franks had more in common with Scandinavanians and Saxons than with Romans of Neustria in societal makeup). As for complex administration, the hardest part is knowing it's useful. We have seen complex administration being established several times in history almost spontanous (the Irish monasty movement as one example). If the Franks know that scribes are useful, they can easily establish a system of scribes, and Codex Runicus showed that runes could be used as administrative alphabet.
 
A lot on non-clergy people knew how to write and read some in the Latin alphabet some in the Runic (and many in both), in Scandinavia it's believed around 40% of the population was literate before Christianity came around, it was likely lower among the Franks (historical Scandinavians tended to be more literate than their neighbours, thanks to the smaller class difference), but it's likely still rather high (Rhinland Franks had more in common with Scandinavanians and Saxons than with Romans of Neustria in societal makeup). As for complex administration, the hardest part is knowing it's useful. We have seen complex administration being established several times in history almost spontanous (the Irish monasty movement as one example). If the Franks know that scribes are useful, they can easily establish a system of scribes, and Codex Runicus showed that runes could be used as administrative alphabet.
But how are they training those scribes without anyone who knows how -to- train them?

Monasteries are vastly simpler than kingdoms to run.
 

ingemann

Banned
But how are they training those scribes without anyone who knows how -to- train them?

Monasteries are vastly simpler than kingdoms to run.

What do think scribes did?

Scribes writes down letters (not really hard to do) and keep the annual chronicles and as I have read translated passages from the Frankish Chronicles, I can say it's not complex stuff.

Example; In the year XXX the XX year in the reign of blessed King XXXX, the queen gave birth to a birth to a boychild XXXX, the Danes raided the the Saxon match and after glorious defeating the Danes them king XXXX forced a treaty on them which put the border at the River Weser (translation the Danes won and took the Saxony east of the Weser, but the scribe do their best to spin it as a victory).

The Weser border are a example from the Frankish Chronicles in the wars between Charlemagne and King Godfred of Denmark, where defeat after defeat was spun as victories by the Frankish scribes.

The only reason that you don't see similar Danish chronicles before the 11th century is that the idea had not been introduced to the Danes, and their record keeping was mostly oral.

The point is when you have been introduced to the idea it's rather simple to continue (plus you need too as the oral record keeping tend to be lost, when you adopt written chronicles) and you don't need complex financial records which is the hard part, as the societal structure was feudal.
 
But would said pagans be sympathetic to these barbarians? I mean, if you're a literate follower of Sol Invictus or Mithras you might not feel much affinity with the barbarians.
Yeah, just because Rome is Christian doesn't mean Roman pagans don't still look down on Barbarians.
 
What do think scribes did?

Scribes writes down letters (not really hard to do) and keep the annual chronicles and as I have read translated passages from the Frankish Chronicles, I can say it's not complex stuff.

Example; In the year XXX the XX year in the reign of blessed King XXXX, the queen gave birth to a birth to a boychild XXXX, the Danes raided the the Saxon match and after glorious defeating the Danes them king XXXX forced a treaty on them which put the border at the River Weser (translation the Danes won and took the Saxony east of the Weser, but the scribe do their best to spin it as a victory).

Speaking as a resident of an era when literacy is all but universal, good writing (meaning people who can express things on paper) is hard to find. So I wouldn't underestimate how easy that is.

And your mention of complex administration suggests these clerks are doing more than writing bad history and letters, thus my question.

If it was really easy, there wouldn't be a need to rely on clerics as administrators at all because there'd be no administration to run.

The point is when you have been introduced to the idea it's rather simple to continue (plus you need too as the oral record keeping tend to be lost, when you adopt written chronicles) and you don't need complex financial records which is the hard part, as the societal structure was feudal.

And yet the kings relied on a small educated group to do this, instead of just whoever was around. That suggests some level of education is needed.
 
But would said pagans be sympathetic to these barbarians? I mean, if you're a literate follower of Sol Invictus or Mithras you might not feel much affinity with the barbarians.

Oh, sure, it wouldn't work as portrayed here.

I could see a surviving polytheist faith in Europe as a reaction to Christianity; something like a successful Saxon revolt, or a surviving Lithuania, which sees Christianity as what its enemies do. But prosletyzing? Mmm.
 
Top