What If Manichaeism became the new religion of the Rome Empire?

Back when I researching religions, I read about Manichaeism, a rather fascinating religious movement that combined eastern and western ways of thinking along with it being a gnostic tradition, which is rarely seen in the mainstream West. However, what really grabbed my attention was that it was briefly the rival of Christianity for usurping paganism in the Roman Empire?

This leads to the question: What if Manichaeism won? Say Constantinople favored it and it would become the new dominant religion of the Roman Empire. How would that change things, especially with Persia? After all, Mani was from Persia and while some would see it as a point of blasphemy and contention, others could see it as a bridging point? What would be the consequences in Arabia since Islam would like not rise without Christianity's prominence?

Now, we're not here to debate the plausability of this since so many factors go into it. I would just like to examine the consequences of this, especially on how the different religion would lead to differing relations with the neighbors.
 
If you want this to happen it's easy enough. Make sure the Pope doesn't order literally every single Manichean in the Roman Empire killed. Those who sell hope despise competition.
 
If you want this to happen it's easy enough. Make sure the Pope doesn't order literally every single Manichean in the Roman Empire killed. Those who sell hope despise competition.

They were attacked by the Church and Empire back in Rome and Persia so them not just avoiding it, but becoming the dominant religion through various factors would be big food for thought here.
 
I love to discuss Manichaeism!

In terms of plausibility, its far from impossible. Apparently there was a large population in Gaul, and contemporary Christians considered it enough of a rival to attack.

In terms of how it would develop, I don't think there would be as much a conflict with Paganism as you might think. One of the reasons Manichaeism was able to survive as well as it did on the silk road was its ability to absorb pagan deities as just another part of the family of light or darkness.

So the Germanic faiths, depending on the extent to which the poetic Edda does involve q Christian rewrite, might become more hopeful in the inevitable idea of light conquering darkness, the Aesir slaying the Jotnar. The Sidhe of Ireland may have note emphasis on their battle with the formorians etc.

Islam itself is a bit contentious. If a replacement religion does exist (potentially even on the same basic grounds), the same basis for its doctrines would exist all the same, and I imagine Christians wouldn't be wiped out by such a POD either.
If Islam was something of a "return to base principles", we could see something more radically gnostic appear.
 
I love to discuss Manichaeism!

In terms of plausibility, its far from impossible. Apparently there was a large population in Gaul, and contemporary Christians considered it enough of a rival to attack.

In terms of how it would develop, I don't think there would be as much a conflict with Paganism as you might think. One of the reasons Manichaeism was able to survive as well as it did on the silk road was its ability to absorb pagan deities as just another part of the family of light or darkness.

So the Germanic faiths, depending on the extent to which the poetic Edda does involve q Christian rewrite, might become more hopeful in the inevitable idea of light conquering darkness, the Aesir slaying the Jotnar. The Sidhe of Ireland may have note emphasis on their battle with the formorians etc.

Islam itself is a bit contentious. If a replacement religion does exist (potentially even on the same basic grounds), the same basis for its doctrines would exist all the same, and I imagine Christians wouldn't be wiped out by such a POD either.
If Islam was something of a "return to base principles", we could see something more radically gnostic appear.

Well, plausability isn't what we're discussing here. As with the Islam thing, I meant that Christianity wouldn't be wiped out, but merely just be pretty obscure. On an additional note, I reckon that Arabia and Mesopotamia would be the biggest zones for traditional Manichaeism while it would be influenced out west by pagan influence.

However, I am wondering if the different religion may lead to more historical conflict focused between them and Persia and not payingas much attention to the British Isles or Gaul. Then there is how Persia deals with this. I imagine things would remain with both empires tire from fighting, but if no counteprart to Islam rises, this could mean the nations just start fragmenting, with Zoroastrianism spreading east while Manichaeism remaisn in the west. I doubt Manichaeism would undergo a schism given how the religion works, but it could if a Roman schism still happened.
 
Islam is such a big fuss on these forums - I suspect because people are afraid that butterflying it away will butterfly basically everything about OTL after that point, which is true. But the fact is, the rise and content of Islam is incredibly sensitive to the religious conditions of Arabia, which themselves are pretty much bound to the religious conditions of the surrounding empires (although in a different and complex way). If ATL *Muhammad, or any other charismatic Arab ready to seize upon the socio-economic upheaval of the 7th century, happens to meet a Manichaean he likes, then the content of ATL *Islam is completely different. The PoD for a Manichaean Europe would have to be in the mid-fourth century at the absolute latest, and much more plausibly during Mani's lifetime in the third. Going that far back - three centuries - before Muhammad's lifetime means no Islam whatsoever as we know it, unless you install an ASB butterfly net (as too many writers / game developers are wont to do).
 
Well, plausability isn't what we're discussing here. As with the Islam thing, I meant that Christianity wouldn't be wiped out, but merely just be pretty obscure. On an additional note, I reckon that Arabia and Mesopotamia would be the biggest zones for traditional Manichaeism while it would be influenced out west by pagan influence.

However, I am wondering if the different religion may lead to more historical conflict focused between them and Persia and not payingas much attention to the British Isles or Gaul. Then there is how Persia deals with this. I imagine things would remain with both empires tire from fighting, but if no counteprart to Islam rises, this could mean the nations just start fragmenting, with Zoroastrianism spreading east while Manichaeism remaisn in the west. I doubt Manichaeism would undergo a schism given how the religion works, but it could if a Roman schism still happened.
Actually, I could see Schisms happening in Manichaeism just as any religion in Europe. Even if not over doctrine per say, Manichaeism had its equivalents of the Papacy and I see no reason why such an organisation wouldn't come to dominate and then fight theological contenders.
Islam is such a big fuss on these forums - I suspect because people are afraid that butterflying it away will butterfly basically everything about OTL after that point, which is true. But the fact is, the rise and content of Islam is incredibly sensitive to the religious conditions of Arabia, which themselves are pretty much bound to the religious conditions of the surrounding empires (although in a different and complex way). If ATL *Muhammad, or any other charismatic Arab ready to seize upon the socio-economic upheaval of the 7th century, happens to meet a Manichaean he likes, then the content of ATL *Islam is completely different. The PoD for a Manichaean Europe would have to be in the mid-fourth century at the absolute latest, and much more plausibly during Mani's lifetime in the third. Going that far back - three centuries - before Muhammad's lifetime means no Islam whatsoever as we know it, unless you install an ASB butterfly net (as too many writers / game developers are wont to do).
I don't think we are suggesting an identical Islam, although the name being the same for an alternate religion isn't unreasonable. But a lot of its principles were something appealing for the area and day, it making sense for something similar to come about.
 
On one hand, it is not impossible (though kinda implausible) that Rome, Persia, and China could become Manichean at some point or another. On the other, Manicheanism was overall just too late to the party to really do too much when it comes to spread. You would need to get one of the Big Three empires to adopt it pretty early on if you want it to remain IMO. Like, have an emperor literally be friends with Mani. Other than that, you'd need to essentially have to both build a powerful Manichean state, and have said state conquer like a ton of land.
 
On one hand, it is not impossible (though kinda implausible) that Rome, Persia, and China could become Manichean at some point or another. On the other, Manicheanism was overall just too late to the party to really do too much when it comes to spread.
How so? It came about prior to Islam and was a competitor to it.
You would need to get one of the Big Three empires to adopt it pretty early on if you want it to remain IMO. Like, have an emperor literally be friends with Mani.
That actually happebed with the sassanid king Shapur. They were close enough that Mani named verses after him. Were it not for his sons marriage to tge zoroastrian clergy, it is possible it may have had tge state endorsement it deserved.
 
That actually happebed with the sassanid king Shapur. They were close enough that Mani named verses after him. Were it not for his sons marriage to tge zoroastrian clergy, it is possible it may have had tge state endorsement it deserved.
There ya go, actually. Have Shapur full on convert to Manicheanism, keep his son in the religion, and thus you'll have a powerful Manichean empire. Sure, the Zoroastrian clergy would not like it, but ultimately the king had something that the clergy did not: Soldiers. Plus, if the Manicheans can convert the Arab tribes around the time of the great Arab invasions, you could have Manichean Arabs pushing farther west than Muslims did OTL, and perhaps even a Manichean conquest of Constantinople.
 
I love to discuss Manichaeism!

In terms of plausibility, its far from impossible. Apparently there was a large population in Gaul, and contemporary Christians considered it enough of a rival to attack.

In terms of how it would develop, I don't think there would be as much a conflict with Paganism as you might think. One of the reasons Manichaeism was able to survive as well as it did on the silk road was its ability to absorb pagan deities as just another part of the family of light or darkness.

Islam itself is a bit contentious. If a replacement religion does exist (potentially even on the same basic grounds), the same basis for its doctrines would exist all the same, and I imagine Christians wouldn't be wiped out by such a POD either.
If Islam was something of a "return to base principles", we could see something more radically gnostic appear.

One idea I have had with regards to a Manichee Rome is that Manichaeism syncretises with traditional Roman polytheisms and becomes the shared philosophical and theological framework that allows Roman paganism to reform itself.

If an alt-Islam arises that is a "return to principles" it could take the form of an iconoclastic and pure dualism which does away with all the various superfluous Gods, idols and rituals and reduces it to just two Gods, one good one evil, they worship the good one and everyone else are servants of the evil one.
 
There ya go, actually. Have Shapur full on convert to Manicheanism, keep his son in the religion, and thus you'll have a powerful Manichean empire. Sure, the Zoroastrian clergy would not like it, but ultimately the king had something that the clergy did not: Soldiers. Plus, if the Manicheans can convert the Arab tribes around the time of the great Arab invasions, you could have Manichean Arabs pushing farther west than Muslims did OTL, and perhaps even a Manichean conquest of Constantinople.

Except that wasn't what I broght for the point at all though that's an itneresting approach to the idea.
 
There ya go, actually. Have Shapur full on convert to Manicheanism, keep his son in the religion, and thus you'll have a powerful Manichean empire. Sure, the Zoroastrian clergy would not like it, but ultimately the king had something that the clergy did not: Soldiers. Plus, if the Manicheans can convert the Arab tribes around the time of the great Arab invasions, you could have Manichean Arabs pushing farther west than Muslims did OTL, and perhaps even a Manichean conquest of Constantinople.
Great.

Now how you going to stop the clergy from whispering in the ears of the generals of those armies. Or worse: the ears of the great noble houses(who might be those generals to begin with!)...after all, the King has decided to betray Mazda. Perhaps a New King is needed? One who has not been misguided by evil to clearly worship Angra Mainyu!

Sure, it could lead to a powerful Manichaeist Empire. Or it just might mean Goodbye House Sassin, Hello new Dynasty.

Even despite his successes, he need to be very careful, because trying to force it would likely trigger civil war. Even if he then wins...well, The ERE is ready for the next round, and he just did them a favor.

And if he just rules as tolerantly as he did... well, that doesn't stop the Zoroastrian clergy from growing more powerful.
 
We're losing the point here. The point is not on how Manichaeism becomes the new religion of the Roman Empire. I'm more interested in the rammifications. The shockwaves and so on
 
Well it depends on how Rome got it. Was it something like the Arab Invasion? Was it an Emperor patronizing it and persecuting Christianity? Did something hobble Christianity in some way and Manichaeism wasn't as persecuted and slowly overtakes Christianity?

The scenario in which it comes to power is important in examining what the effects would be.
 
Islam is such a big fuss on these forums - I suspect because people are afraid that butterflying it away will butterfly basically everything about OTL after that point, which is true. But the fact is, the rise and content of Islam is incredibly sensitive to the religious conditions of Arabia, which themselves are pretty much bound to the religious conditions of the surrounding empires (although in a different and complex way). If ATL *Muhammad, or any other charismatic Arab ready to seize upon the socio-economic upheaval of the 7th century, happens to meet a Manichaean he likes, then the content of ATL *Islam is completely different. The PoD for a Manichaean Europe would have to be in the mid-fourth century at the absolute latest, and much more plausibly during Mani's lifetime in the third. Going that far back - three centuries - before Muhammad's lifetime means no Islam whatsoever as we know it, unless you install an ASB butterfly net (as too many writers / game developers are wont to do).

That's pretty much exactly what's happened in my Amalingian Empire timeline - Manichaen preacher is the one to kickstart the unifying of Arabia. It's slightly altered in order to meet the particular circumstances of Arabia in this alt seventh century, of course, but is definitely Manichaenism. It ended up being a really interesting subject to do some research on.
 
That's pretty much exactly what's happened in my Amalingian Empire timeline - Manichaen preacher is the one to kickstart the unifying of Arabia. It's slightly altered in order to meet the particular circumstances of Arabia in this alt seventh century, of course, but is definitely Manichaenism. It ended up being a really interesting subject to do some research on.


That's pretty interesting. I'm asking this because I want to get more info and make a map. I actually had someone make a map of this years back, with Mandaeism becoming popular in Arabia. But I would like to know what would be large changes with having a gnostic religion be the dominant cultural force in the West.
 
That's pretty much exactly what's happened in my Amalingian Empire timeline - Manichaen preacher is the one to kickstart the unifying of Arabia. It's slightly altered in order to meet the particular circumstances of Arabia in this alt seventh century, of course, but is definitely Manichaenism. It ended up being a really interesting subject to do some research on.

Islam was very, very specific and unique in its development. Manipulating Manichaeism or Christianity to do the same feats as Islam is quite a difficult task and one that assumes universality of religion and ideas. It is my opinion that a religion such as Manichaeism or Christianity would not have become the primary religion in Arabia with most tls simply due to the unique aspects of Arabia and Arab people.

Arabian paganism remained dominant despite the existence of Christianity for over 500 years within its borders, Manichaeism for over 300 years and Judaism longer than either. Further, Manichaeism simply does not appeal to the attitude and culture of Arabia of the time.
 
Islam was very, very specific and unique in its development. Manipulating Manichaeism or Christianity to do the same feats as Islam is quite a difficult task and one that assumes universality of religion and ideas. It is my opinion that a religion such as Manichaeism or Christianity would not have become the primary religion in Arabia with most tls simply due to the unique aspects of Arabia and Arab people.

Arabian paganism remained dominant despite the existence of Christianity for over 500 years within its borders, Manichaeism for over 300 years and Judaism longer than either. Further, Manichaeism simply does not appeal to the attitude and culture of Arabia of the time.

As I said, its a form of Manichaeism that diverged from the mainstream in order to appeal more to Arab practitioners. It also, in the timeline, came to power following the collapse of Himyar hegemony over much of southern and western Arabia and was supported by important remnants of the Himyar government following a successful pagan uprising - so, pretty much, it benefited from being an organized and coherent group during a time of near anarchy. And, at no point, does it 'do the same thing' as Islam in OTL: the Middle East in that timeline does not wake up one morning to find an Arabic Manichaen Empire stretching from Egypt to Afghanistan. I do feel pretty confident in the events as I wrote them.

That being said, I would agree with you that main-line Manichaeism is unlikely to take the exact some role as Islam as a uniting force. After all, the faith had been present for centuries prior and didn't manage such a feat. And, too often, people seem to think that any religion introduced to Arabia at the time could match the feats of Islam in OTL, and this is simply not true. However, a sub-branch that adapts itself well to Arabic culture, is able to offer something substantial to the community that other faiths do not, and basically keeps rolling nat 20s at the right time? Definitely possible.
 
As I said, its a form of Manichaeism that diverged from the mainstream in order to appeal more to Arab practitioners. It also, in the timeline, came to power following the collapse of Himyar hegemony over much of southern and western Arabia and was supported by important remnants of the Himyar government following a successful pagan uprising - so, pretty much, it benefited from being an organized and coherent group during a time of near anarchy. And, at no point, does it 'do the same thing' as Islam in OTL: the Middle East in that timeline does not wake up one morning to find an Arabic Manichaen Empire stretching from Egypt to Afghanistan. I do feel pretty confident in the events as I wrote them.

That being said, I would agree with you that main-line Manichaeism is unlikely to take the exact some role as Islam as a uniting force. After all, the faith had been present for centuries prior and didn't manage such a feat. And, too often, people seem to think that any religion introduced to Arabia at the time could match the feats of Islam in OTL, and this is simply not true. However, a sub-branch that adapts itself well to Arabic culture, is able to offer something substantial to the community that other faiths do not, and basically keeps rolling nat 20s at the right time? Definitely possible.

Without going in depth, there are a plethora of reasons for which Islam fitted to Arab culture in ways that others do not. Especially the codification of traditions of raiding and looting and other similar tenants of Islam, not to mention the entire Shariah is an extension of Arab customs of law and Security pacts. With which, Manichaeaism does not acclimate to nearly as well, if at all.

I have no read your timeline and thus cannot make statements regarding it. I simply am pointing out the fallacy that introducing a random religion to Arabia, does not mean the conversion of the populace. Especially when you consider the levels to which Arab paganism resisted the supposedly major religions of the Mid East.

Also adapts itself to Arab culture? What do you mean? To what extents and parameters is this accommodation?
 
Top