what is the latest POD for Europe to be majority pagan

496 is Clovis' conversion, roughly coinciding with when the Franks became dominant in Western Europe. The Ostrogoths meanwhile were a bit earlier and the Visigoths some time in the VI century.

So somewhere between 476-500 I would think.

- BNC
 

Toraach

Banned
The latest POD for this? I think that St Paul got a stroke on a way to Damascus, or got into a brawl with roman soldiers in Jerusalem even earlier and was killed in this brawl. Later things were settled in my opinnion.
 
The latest POD for this? I think that St Paul got a stroke on a way to Damascus, or got into a brawl with roman soldiers in Jerusalem even earlier and was killed in this brawl. Later things were settled in my opinnion.
Except that the Roman Empire might not have become majority Christian if Constantine hadn't converted. Or if Julian's reforms had succeeded. And that might not have translated to a post-Roman Christian Europe if the successor states' kings hadn't converted. Or if, somehow, the pagan Saxons had defeated Charlemagne, conquered the Frankish empire, and suppressed Christianity.
 
The latest POD for this? I think that St Paul got a stroke on a way to Damascus, or got into a brawl with roman soldiers in Jerusalem even earlier and was killed in this brawl. Later things were settled in my opinnion.

Christianity was only a tiny offshoot of Judaism at this point. I don't see how that is inevitably going to become the majority religion of Europe? I mean sure, it did, but I doubt anyone would have predicted that it would at that point. There were a lot of better-established religions during this time that were majorly growing in support, such as Mithraism and the Isis cult.
 
A couple different PODs, defining "Pagan" as "Non-Abrahamic".

620s AD: If the Sassanians defeat the Eastern Roman Empire, they still won't be able to stop the Arab Conquests -- but the Sassanians would have enough forward territory taken from the Roman Empire with which to protect Iran itself and likely the Anatolian and Armenian Highlands as well. With Constantinople vastly weakened, and Zoroastrianism first made powerful but then shattered and dispersed (likely leading to major theological changes), we could see Zoroastrianism potentially spread into the pagan parts of Eastern and Northern Europe before Christianity can. This could be reinforced by later migrations of Turkic peoples from Central Asia who may also be influenced by Zoroastrianism, or by Turkic religions that could also become established in Europe.

980s AD: Upon Vladimir the Great's ascension in 980, he first attempted to entrench Slavic paganism by canonizing a number of deities and constructing temples and idols to make Kiev the center of the East Slavs. Several years later he decided to be baptized and convert the realm to Christianity, but the incident shows that an attempted codification of Slavic paganism was something that was conceivable. And indeed, even after Christianization, the population remained virtually pagan for centuries before traditional spirituality was wiped out in favor of orthodoxy. If Kievan Rus' did manage to codify East Slavic religion in the 10th century, then a later invasion of the Mongols (a potentially incredibly powerful pagan force -- what if the Golden Horde adopts surviving Slavic paganism?) and the rise of Lithuania could establish a pagan "bloc". This would be just as divided as the Christian realms, of course. But centuries of war between the "pagan bloc" and the Christian realms (along the lines of the Wars of Religion, especially if Christianity has a reformation splitting it in two) could establish a slim pagan majority in Europe.
 

Toraach

Banned
Except that the Roman Empire might not have become majority Christian if Constantine hadn't converted. Or if Julian's reforms had succeeded. And that might not have translated to a post-Roman Christian Europe if the successor states' kings hadn't converted. Or if, somehow, the pagan Saxons had defeated Charlemagne, conquered the Frankish empire, and suppressed Christianity.
Christianity was only a tiny offshoot of Judaism at this point. I don't see how that is inevitably going to become the majority religion of Europe? I mean sure, it did, but I doubt anyone would have predicted that it would at that point. There were a lot of better-established religions during this time that were majorly growing in support, such as Mithraism and the Isis cult.
Eh... You didn't understand my point. Paul is the most important in one instrumental thing in further evolution of Christianity. It is the break with the Judaism and abaddoning the Law, so making it interesting for the Gentiles, instead of just another messianic jewish sect.

Julian's reforms needed an ASB to succes, or at least a totalitarian state (in a real soviet style) to impose them on the population. If not Constantine so it would have been some other emperor, who would realize that it was important for the Empire to had support in the biggest religion. The cult of Isis, mithraism, etc were just novelties, fashions, no true rivals to Christianity. They lacked cohherent doctrines, organizaton, church structures, universal appealing, less prozelyting, etc.
 
No. I doubt if that was even possible at the time.
Do the large ammounts of bureaucracy, cult of personality around the emperor (who also held massive ammounts of power if compared to the kings of the Medieval age), social stratification, all-powerful armed forces, and imperialistic, xenophobic ideology not ring a bell?
It's no Airstrip One, sure, but the late empire did possess a lot of mechanisms for keeping the masses in line.
 
Last edited:
Do the large ammounts of bureaucracy, cult of personality around the emperor (who also held massive ammounts of power if compared to the kings of the Medieval age), social stratification, all-powerful armed forces, and imperialistic, xenophobic ideology not ring a bell?
It's no Airstrip One, sure, but the late empire did possess a lot of mechanisms for keeping the masses in line.

How much of that was as relevant outside of the Province of Italy? Also:

"Imperialistic, xenophobic ideology." You mean like pretty much any country before like 1900?
 
Julian's reforms needed an ASB to succes, or at least a totalitarian state (in a real soviet style) to impose them on the population. If not Constantine so it would have been some other emperor, who would realize that it was important for the Empire to had support in the biggest religion. The cult of Isis, mithraism, etc were just novelties, fashions, no true rivals to Christianity. They lacked cohherent doctrines, organizaton, church structures, universal appealing, less prozelyting, etc.
The Sassanians managed to reform a decentralized and polytheistic religion into an organized state religion. Why not the Romans?

The Zoroastrianism of the Arsacid/Parthian era in fact has significant similarities to the pre-Christian Roman religious situation, with a mix of Greek and Iranic deities being worshiped side-by-side, regional variations in religion, and cult-deities predominating. It's not known whether Zoroastrianism had been unified in the first place in the previous Achaemenian era, but by the Arsacid/Parthian era it had certainly been greatly displaced by Hellenistic and other belief systems. The Sassanians managed to transform this into an official religion intertwined with the state bureaucracy, with a strong priesthood, redefining the holy centers, compiling new holy texts and even viewing the new religious orthodoxy with a degree of proto-nationalist fervor. Additionally, evidence suggests that the Avesta was first committed to a written form in the Sassanian era.

Given such historical developments in Zoroastrianism, why can't a pagan religion with some degree of institutions and literature codify and spread itself?
 
How much of that was as relevant outside of the Province of Italy?
A lot. That's how the empire kept itself together beyond Italy in the first place, at least until the 450s.
It was the army that supported almost all of the usurpers' bids for emperorship. The office of emperor was a very prestigious and powerful one, which contributes to that factor. Every totalitarian or totalitarian-ish state has its own internal games of power.
Also: "Imperialistic, xenophobic ideology." You mean like pretty much any country before like 1900?
I don't know why you picked this argument in particular, rather than all of the ones i mentioned.
 
Eh... You didn't understand my point. Paul is the most important in one instrumental thing in further evolution of Christianity. It is the break with the Judaism and abaddoning the Law, so making it interesting for the Gentiles, instead of just another messianic jewish sect.

Julian's reforms needed an ASB to succes, or at least a totalitarian state (in a real soviet style) to impose them on the population. If not Constantine so it would have been some other emperor, who would realize that it was important for the Empire to had support in the biggest religion. The cult of Isis, mithraism, etc were just novelties, fashions, no true rivals to Christianity. They lacked cohherent doctrines, organizaton, church structures, universal appealing, less prozelyting, etc.

This... is not correct. You are assuming that Christianity was a massive portion of the Empire. At Paul's death it's a few people. Hardly a significant part of the Empire. You can't just handwave away the other competing religions away and assume that Christianity gets as absurdly lucky as it was OTL.

Your attack upon other faiths of the time as essentially not being real faiths is absurd. They had vast followings, particularly in the east of the Empire. They were quite well organized, and it's even said by the historian Dio Cassius that Mithras was mentioned in a state visit by Tiridates I of Armenia to Nero around this time. These "novelties" were certainly popular enough to gain following and notice even from monarchs. On the other hand, Christianity would be confused with Judaism for still some time to come past this time in history.
 
This... is not correct. You are assuming that Christianity was a massive portion of the Empire. At Paul's death it's a few people. Hardly a significant part of the Empire. You can't just handwave away the other competing religions away and assume that Christianity gets as absurdly lucky as it was OTL.

The rise of Christianity wasn't all due to luck. Christianity had strong structural advantages which allowed it to outcompete other religions. Christians are more driven to covert others and they are also intolerant of other religions which leads to them pushing out the competition. Also, there was the whole idea that if you don't believe you go to hell which provides a strong motivator to convert. Overall, Christianity had many strong advantages which made it very likely to take over.
 
Christians are more driven to covert others and they are also intolerant of other religions which leads to them pushing out the competition. Also, there was the whole idea that if you don't believe you go to hell which provides a strong motivator to convert.
I don't know about you, but if i were a non-Christian at that period, i'd find that more intimidating and bothersome than appealing.
Really, aside from the vague promises of salvation and the charity, i don't see Christianity really being that unique if compared to the other cults that were emerging at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about you, but if i were a non-Christian at that period, i'd find that more intimidating and bothersome than appealing.
Really, aside from the vague promises of salvation and the charity, i don't see Christianity really being that unique if compared to the other cults that were emerging at the same time.

Well, guess why people didn't like Christians back then.

Overall, the way the religion is structured makes it better at retaining believers and there is also a strong drive to go out and recruit which makes it better at expansion.
 
For Europe as a whole I'd say Charlemagne, at that point you are either getting a plurality/majority Islamic or Christian Europe, not Pagan.
 

Toraach

Banned
Do the large ammounts of bureaucracy, cult of personality around the emperor (who also held massive ammounts of power if compared to the kings of the Medieval age), social stratification, all-powerful armed forces, and imperialistic, xenophobic ideology not ring a bell?
It's no Airstrip One, sure, but the late empire did possess a lot of mechanisms for keeping the masses in line.
It doesn't ring any bell.

The strong power on political and military matters hold by the Roman Emperor wasn't totalitarian. There were nothing totalitarian in the Roman Empire. This country during the Principate didn't control their subjects, and local goverment was leave alone in hands of local elites.
I don't know about you, but if i were a non-Christian at that period, i'd find that more intimidating and bothersome than appealing.
Really, aside from the vague promises of salvation and the charity, i don't see Christianity really being that unique if compared to the other cults that were emerging at the same time.
Also the Christianity offered a strong "personal" conection to God, instead of sacrificies and rituals of pagan public religion. It was also a reason why various mysteries were popular at that time, or gnostic sects. Christianity also was apealing for lower classes, women, slaves, poor people. They weren't treaten by early Christians as worse element, as despicables. The unique characteristic of Christianity was its organization, since middle 2nd century Christian communities were lead by bishops with strong power, they were only onews who ruled in religious matters. Doctrine was also coherent, relativly simple, not very demanding, so it was actractive. There need to be something which caused this strong growth.

This... is not correct. You are assuming that Christianity was a massive portion of the Empire. At Paul's death it's a few people. Hardly a significant part of the Empire. You can't just handwave away the other competing religions away and assume that Christianity gets as absurdly lucky as it was OTL.

Your attack upon other faiths of the time as essentially not being real faiths is absurd. They had vast followings, particularly in the east of the Empire. They were quite well organized, and it's even said by the historian Dio Cassius that Mithras was mentioned in a state visit by Tiridates I of Armenia to Nero around this time. These "novelties" were certainly popular enough to gain following and notice even from monarchs. On the other hand, Christianity would be confused with Judaism for still some time to come past this time in history.
I know that during Paul's times it was the small group, but you missed my point. I wrote that Paul and his friends did the POD, which allowed further christianian expansion outside being a small messianic jewish sect. It is the key, the fundation of the future sucesses.

It isn't absurd, it is a statement of facts, that despite being described as rivals to Christianity, they weren't real rivals, but just as I described "novelties" with limited followings, and a lack of coherent, universally apealing doctrine. They never got even close to a seize of Christianity say in 3rd century. When Christianity was that big, that Decius' decreee about sacrificies was clearly against them (Jews were relased from this obligation). Those cults were just elements of the wast landscape of religiosity, contrary to Christianity or Judaism, which presented themselves as the one and only true religions. There is a difference between a "absurd luck" and a systemic causes of Christianization. "Absurdly lucky" might be Alexander, that he didn't die from any of his wounds, not Christianity, which was growing by its own internal reasons and atractivness for the population.

For Mithra, you are also wrong. The Roman Mithraism with its bull sacrificies weren't the same as a worshiping of Mithra and ancient indo-iranian god, which is known even in Vedas. The Romans adopted an iranian name, some aspects, but created a new thing. For the armenian king, there probably mean an old iranian Mithra.

The Romans stopped to confuse Christianity with Judaism relativly early, Pliny certainly didn't confuse them, although his knowledge of Christianity was limited.
The Sassanians managed to reform a decentralized and polytheistic religion into an organized state religion. Why not the Romans?

The Zoroastrianism of the Arsacid/Parthian era in fact has significant similarities to the pre-Christian Roman religious situation, with a mix of Greek and Iranic deities being worshiped side-by-side, regional variations in religion, and cult-deities predominating. It's not known whether Zoroastrianism had been unified in the first place in the previous Achaemenian era, but by the Arsacid/Parthian era it had certainly been greatly displaced by Hellenistic and other belief systems. The Sassanians managed to transform this into an official religion intertwined with the state bureaucracy, with a strong priesthood, redefining the holy centers, compiling new holy texts and even viewing the new religious orthodoxy with a degree of proto-nationalist fervor. Additionally, evidence suggests that the Avesta was first committed to a written form in the Sassanian era.

Given such historical developments in Zoroastrianism, why can't a pagan religion with some degree of institutions and literature codify and spread itself?
It is a diffrent situation. The codification/redaction of existing holy texts, and uniformisation of existing doctrine versus creating a totally new stuff, which was needed for Julian's religion.

The hellenization of the iranian people during the hellenistic and parthian periods was very limited. They even didn't adopt the hellenic script for their languages, (except far far away Bactria).

You are right in that we don't know much about the evolution of Zoroastrianism. But also it is important that this religion had already existed before the Sassanians, yet not in uninformed form, intervined with the State. Just like Christianity existed had existed before the formation of the State Church of the Roman Empire, with Emperors who organized councils and decided on doctrinal matters. The Avestan Language is much older than the Sassanians, so holy texts had to existed way before, but of course probably in many diffrent versions.

But Julian contrary to the situation of the Sassanians needed to create a new stuff. A new universal, organized, apealing, coherrent religion. An impossible task, in my opinnion. Becaue if he succeded with that the would have did a "pagan Christianity", I mean a religion with a diffrent names of gods, beliefs, but with a similar organization and probably also the end of this famed "polytheism tolerance". Because if he wanted for this to be a religion for the Empire, he needed to establish a dominane of this above others, a diffrent stuff than the religious indeference characteristic for the ancient polytheism, which only demanded some rituals, sacrificies, etc performed publicaly as important for the comunity (in a matter of a city-state, how it was with the roman religion, or hellenic).
 
Top