What would "actual" reformed pagan faiths look like?

[AvatarOfKhaine]

So CKII rightly gets a lot of slack for its portrayal of what happens to the marginalised faiths when they "reform" which inevitably leads to centralisation in that game. Just like with Vicky II we can forgive some of this due to its gamey nature, but are there any real life examples of attempts to make the pagan faiths of Europe less susceptible to conversion and missions and/or to reform the faith to meet the challenges of the emerging Christian hegemony in "civilised" Europe?

EDIT : And if possible to speculate on, what do people think would/could have been done to facilitate this? Is action required on the "pagan" part or is more failure on Christianity's part the "only solution"?

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Hinduism is strong and not centralized. And what do you mean "rightfully"? Considering the mess of the Indian religions they made game mechanic wise, it was probably for good that reformed= muslim style calphiate centralization (the Pope had less direct military powr compared to the calpihs)

 

[LSCatilina]

I'll copy-paste what I said in the this recent thread which share several topics with your own.

Organized religion and complex social-political institutions works on par there : either they devellop together, either the latter allow the former to really blossom.
Traditional religion is a set of uncodified beliefs and rites, making a more or less coherent ensemble that tends to change from locality to locality, being particularily porous to strong outer influence. Priestly groups can be present (or unknown, such as in Germanic religions), but are rather a social group, class or sub-class.
On the other hand, an organized religion implies a dogmatic, codified set of beliefs and rites which tend to be universal, imposed trough a clearly identified hierarchy and institution, set apart from secular ones.

It more or less get down to the question of how societies are organized, and how they are influenced. The relatively diverse vedic religions eventually get organised this way; as well as the Chinese beliefs, as well to expand.

For the context you give there, we have to consider two things : the relative low structural development of Germanic and Baltic chiefdoms, and the relative high structural development of late imperial and post-imperial Romania. Trough sheer cultural, social and state strength, what happened IOTL was the result of an unbalanced situation, which imposed itself on Germanic, Slavic and Baltic cultures (with different weight and times, of course).

Régis Boyer's Le Christ des Barbares is really spot on there : Scandinavian and Baltic societies were confronted with a develloped social/cultural model that they not only couldn't ignore, but that had enough prestige and promises of structuration and developement of early states that it couldn't not be attractive to at least a large part of their societies which couldn't be not be open culturally.

So, in order to allow the development of organized religions in Barbaricum, you need to weaken the religious (and possibly institutional overall) structures in Late Antiquity/Early Middle-Ages Romania.

Eventually, one of the best chance to obtain sort of European syncretic organized religion would be a PoD set in the IIIrd century.

Maybe from another military civil war between some imperial wannabees candidates in the latter part of IIIrd century crisis, but eventually one with more skills and more brains would emerge : you'd be "restricted" with doing as far damages you can deal before that happens.

Frankly, you could just pick among early Aurelian's reign usurpers. You don't even need that the "official" emperor fails in battle : Gallienus was skilled, and it didn't prevented several rebellions or secession.

Eventually, you'd end with a more or less stable situation, with more or less autonomous if not independent regions (although less ruled by usurpers, that having leaders de facto acknowledging imperial Roman rule, but acting on their own. That said, you could have some usurpers, as Gaul's*, formally acknowledging some sort of "suzerainty").
Something we could call a "ducal" system (reference to the Dux Oriens title that Palmyrenians had, more or less vice-emperor or co-emperor) with Dux Hispaniae, Dux Occidens, Dux Brittaniae etc. on a military-based command.

While organised, the Barbarian peoples weren't as strong they became IOTL trough a process of structuration (with Roman support, conscious or not). I'd rather think about a more gradual Barbarian presence, as auxiliaries/laeti/foederati, than a general takeover at least in a first time, Barbarians possibly turning into patricians, à la Odoacer, eventually ruling over a given region in the name of the duke and/or emperor.
The important point would be these Barbarian peoples, while Romanised, would advance in a period where Romanisation and Christianisation are two different features.

I could see Christianity having fair chances, ITTL, with eastern "duchies", as it was relatively well present there (and fairly absent elsewhere, except important towns). It could make things easier for Christianity at first, with one duchy with pro-Christian (or Christian) policies serving as harbor and base; but could make a religious/political reaction more likely in west.

You'd still have a sense of unity, although the economical/cultural continuum may be likely weakened, so I'd still see eastern cults scoring in the West, but more easily rivaled by western provincial practices. If cults as Mithra's still dominate among soldiers, it would be as IOTL : a "classist" cult without much hope to expand socially.
For what matters West, we may end with a more or less syncretic society (although with some gods having a more important weight, rather than lost into a big pantheon : Apollo, Mithra, Sol, Triple-headed God, maybe a regional practice supported by a duke**)

 

[LSCatilina]

Hinduism is strong and not centralized. And what do you mean "rightfully"? Considering the mess of the Indian religions they made game mechanic wise, it was probably for good that reformed= muslim style calphiate centralization (the Pope had less direct military powr compared to the calpihs)

While it might have been badly put, I think the OP really meant "unified" : Hinduism, with all its diversity can be considered as an unified set of practices, beliefs and clerical organisation even without an head.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

The OP said nothing about unified, so I took what he said at face value

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Some paganic faiths would require more codification than reformation, Hellenism as a (an admittedly biased) example possessed an extensive priesthood, offices of faith, stories etc. We could certainly use a 'Bible' so to speak. The same could be said of Hinduism, who have an extensive priesthood, holy texts (but as far as I know no central ones?). Writing things down would go a long way to the oral stories approach... /twocents

 

[LSCatilina]

The OP said nothing about unified, so I took what he said at face value

I know, but sometimes we can be allowed to second-guess the OP. A bit like when people use Britain for England or vice-versa. I can be wrong tough : it can't hurt to stress wheater the centralisation part is actually relevant or not.

Some paganic faiths would require more codification than reformation, Hellenism as a (an admittedly biased) example possessed an extensive priesthood, offices of faith, stories etc. We could certainly use a 'Bible' so to speak. The same could be said of Hinduism, who have an extensive priesthood, holy texts (but as far as I know no central ones?). Writing things down would go a long way to the oral stories approach... /twocents

Hellenistic stories, priesthood, etc. did existed but, as said above, did lacked a codification and a normalisation of all these. For instance, you did have a huge difference between how these stories were considered and percieved by the elite and how they were by the common people (it seems, for exemple, that common religiousity in ancient Greece howed more to the larger IE concepts than the "aristocratic" religion).
While rites, beliefs and practices were similar, they differed with time and place too much and independently (the pervasiveness of outer influence mentioned above) to be really considered more than a common ensemble, contrary to modern Hinduism.

While an organized religion tends to have its own institution, a separate management from secular life; in ancient Greece priests weren't as much a distinct institution than a function as much part as general institution than other magistrates.

I agree that the distinction can be hard to be made between a sophisticated traditional religion and an early organized religion sometimes (especially if one stems from the other), but we should keep in mind which are eventually core differences.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Without sacred texts, a religion is endangered by mutation over time. Therefore I don't expect religions without them to spread outside its original community, unless they start taking land.

 

[Kerney]

The same could be said of Hinduism, who have an extensive priesthood, holy texts (but as far as I know no central ones?). Writing things down would go a long way to the oral stories approach... /twocents

There was one group who had an extensive priesthood, was established, but fumbled on the written part but whose main fault was coming afoul of Roman tolerance.
.
The Druids. Find a PoD where they come to an understanding with their Roman conquers, over time write down their mysteries and you could easily have a Western "Hinduism".

Also, the Druid's otl example suggests that "reformed" Hellenistic Paganism's reform could be hitting Christianity harder sooner. Let's face it, Christians got persecuted just hard enough to have a martyr cult but not hard enough to do serious damage. Perceiving them as a threat in the early 200's or sustaining the percecutions longer might solve the "problem".

 

[Byzantion]

So CKII rightly gets a lot of slack for its portrayal of what happens to the marginalised faiths when they "reform" which inevitably leads to centralisation in that game. Just like with Vicky II we can forgive some of this due to its gamey nature, but are there any real life examples of attempts to make the pagan faiths of Europe less susceptible to conversion and missions and/or to reform the faith to meet the challenges of the emerging Christian hegemony in "civilised" Europe?

EDIT : And if possible to speculate on, what do people think would/could have been done to facilitate this? Is action required on the "pagan" part or is more failure on Christianity's part the "only solution"?

The Baltic faith already had started to institutionalize.

 

[Boss]

The same could be said of Hinduism, who have an extensive priesthood, holy texts (but as far as I know no central ones?)

Hinduism actually had no holy "texts" by the time Islam arrived, and it was only as the Delhi Sultanate integrated Turks and Persians fleeing the Mongols in the thirteenth century and Islam became a real competitor to Hinduism among the people, that Hinduism wrote down its various oral traditions, and the oral tradition remained much superior to the book for many centuries afterwards. I do think an earlier Julian the Apostate, who looked to integrate Neoplatonism and make that the dominant school of thought would allow for a surviving paganism. After all, the similar Vedanta school becoming the dominant school of thought was why Hinduism was able to resist Islam

Another look at reformed paganism is Zoroastrianism. While I don't think that a singular god a la Ahura Mazda is possible (a Hindu/Neoplatonist-style "all the gods are one" thing is what reforms would probably entail), it shows a good look at the relationship between religion and the state. The Magi were an integral part of the reformed Zoroastrianism of the Sassanids, as well as their government, to the point that the line between the priesthood and the state blurred. While Zoroastrianism did ultimately fall to Abrahamism, it only fell after a foreign invasion, the jizya tax providing an incentive to convert, a lot of wars and rebellions on the part of Persian rebel, and the "Two Centuries of Shame". And even then, Zoroastrianism still exists. Such circumstances of total invasion would never be the case in a reformed pagan Europe.

 

[LSCatilina]

There was one group who had an extensive priesthood, was established, but fumbled on the written part but whose main fault was coming afoul of Roman tolerance.

Druids weren't as much priests in the ancient sense, than sacerdotal magistrate and erudites, sharing the dumezilian first function in its "magical" part.
It's to be noted that Druidism was already declining in Gaul by the IInd century BCE, mostly with the disappearance of the classical Gallic state at the benefit of large confederation and the assembly regimes (vergobrets), rather than killed of by Romans directly (altough the rise of vergobrets is indirectly due to Roman cultural and political influence).

In fact, it was in contact with Romans that some druids began to write down their conceptions (which weren't as much mysteries than an oral tradition), but nobody really minded that at the point that when Caesar invades Gaul, he's unable to reckognize people as druids while he's regularily speaking of them (mostly by copying/pasting Poseidonios), even when we know they were by other sources.

I agree it could have formed an ensemble of its own, but at its height, Druidism was still more of an ensemble of various beliefs and practices without clear unity : you did have pan-Gallic structures which druids used as such, it was hardly a dogmatic or codifying structure (and certainly less unifying that Caesar makes it to be), especially with insular Druidism being largely on its own.

Rather than Hinduism, I'd think a good comparison for what Druidism could have been would be a sub-group of Hinduism such as Shivaism or Vaishnavism, as it was complementary of the alrger Celtic religious ensemble both spiritually and practically (with the different scacerdotal role of Bards and Vates)

Druidism is yet another case on how can we institutionalize religions and possible unifying trends with a new (there gallic and brittonic) society where Druidism was known to not thrive in even before the Roman conquest.

 

[Boss]

Also, the Druid's otl example suggests that "reformed" Hellenistic Paganism's reform could be hitting Christianity harder sooner. Let's face it, Christians got persecuted just hard enough to have a martyr cult but not hard enough to do serious damage. Perceiving them as a threat in the early 200's or sustaining the percecutions longer might solve the "problem".

Another thing is to have a Christian "Elagabalus", pissing all over Roman traditions and culture and being a general weirdo, discrediting Christianity - to an extent, anyways.

Rather than Hinduism, I'd think a good comparison for what Druidism could have been would be a sub-group of Hinduism such as Shivaism or Vaishnavism, as it was complementary of the alrger Celtic religious ensemble both spiritually and practically (with the different scacerdotal role of Bards and Vates)

Indeed, that strikes me as very plausible, with the lines being very blurry between the Celtic traditions, as well as between Celtic and Roman traditions.

 

[Malone]

Wasn't Christianity a pagan religion before the nicean council?

With jesus and God as separate entities of worship.

 

[Boss]

Wasn't Christianity a pagan religion before the nicean council?

With jesus and God as separate entities of worship.

Paganism is such a vague and meaningless term that it can mean anything you want it to be.

 

[LSCatilina]

Wasn't Christianity a pagan religion before the nicean council?

With jesus and God as separate entities of worship.

It's extremely hard to define a "pagan religion", mostly because it's essentially made trough the appreciation of another religion. For instance, Christianity can easily be considered by Muslims as pagan as it involves worshipping three divines. Of course, Christians would disagree.
Best leaving the whole concept.

Now, I don't think that PaleoChristianity can be seriously compared to a worship of two divines : since the dogmatisation of the Ist century, it was pretty clear that while distinct, the two figures were one god.

 

[CountPeter]

Some paganic faiths would require more codification than reformation, Hellenism as a (an admittedly biased) example possessed an extensive priesthood, offices of faith, stories etc. We could certainly use a 'Bible' so to speak. The same could be said of Hinduism, who have an extensive priesthood, holy texts (but as far as I know no central ones?). Writing things down would go a long way to the oral stories approach... /twocents

Hinduism does indeed have central texts in the form of the Vedas. It then gets a bit more complicated when we add the upanishads. The following is a general guideline, although there are so many schools that of course there are many exceptions to the rule.

The best way to think of it is that whilst the vedas are usually held in common (indeed Buddhism and Jainism are distinguished as being "Nastika", those who do not draw authority from the vedas or worship an ishvara).
Then we have the upanishads, and it is usually here that we tend distinguish the individual Hindu sects. The upanishads are supplementary texts which are either dependent on the vedas or are considered later vedas in their own right.

A good example of this might be your average shiva worshiper vs your average Hare Krishna. Both may have the Mahabharata in their Upanishad collection, but the Shiva worshiper is likely to hold the Shaiva upanishads with authority where the Hare Krishna is going to use the Bhagavad Gita as an Upanishad.

 

[Salvador79]

All this insistence on a fixed canon etc. betrays a Schema which equates Abrahamitic world religions with modern or resilient ones. It might not follow internal development logics of these paganisms. Both Hinduism and Chinese religion (from Daoism to folk religion) show that a separate priesthood and a fixed canon may or may not exist but need not be vital for survival.
Survival without butterflying Christianity might centre around a strengthening of Trends like interpretatio romana, i.e. creating an awareness of commonalities and similarities of Mediterranean, European etc. religion. OTL the diversity of divinities and their local ties were a problem for mobile and reflected people who found themselves at a spiritual loss when "abroad". Strengthening the sense that i.e. Ceres is Nerthus is Cybele is Baal and Tanit is Damona is Saule etc. would have made prayer elsewhere easier, brought mythologies into dialogue, and strengthened the sense that the religion one grew up with was the only one shared by sensible ordinary people across the entire civilised world. (this sense of a shared wider identity appears to me to be central to a vital "paganism"; similar things were stronger in the Indo- and Sinosphere, but the seeds were there in the Greco-Roman/mediterranean world, which was, in its slightly less coherent state, perhaps more akin to Mesoamerica where awareness of common cultural traits was also existant but not so dominant.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Hinduism does indeed have central texts in the form of the Vedas. It then gets a bit more complicated when we add the upanishads. The following is a general guideline, although there are so many schools that of course there are many exceptions to the rule.

The best way to think of it is that whilst the vedas are usually held in common (indeed Buddhism and Jainism are distinguished as being "Nastika", those who do not draw authority from the vedas or worship an ishvara).
Then we have the upanishads, and it is usually here that we tend distinguish the individual Hindu sects. The upanishads are supplementary texts which are either dependent on the vedas or are considered later vedas in their own right.

A good example of this might be your average shiva worshiper vs your average Hare Krishna. Both may have the Mahabharata in their Upanishad collection, but the Shiva worshiper is likely to hold the Shaiva upanishads with authority where the Hare Krishna is going to use the Bhagavad Gita as an Upanishad.

My thanks for clearing that up.

 

[LSCatilina]

All this insistence on a fixed canon etc. betrays a Schema which equates Abrahamitic world religions with modern or resilient ones.
It might not follow internal development logics of these paganisms. Both Hinduism and Chinese religion (from Daoism to folk religion) show that a separate priesthood and a fixed canon may or may not exist but need not be vital for survival.

This is the definition of organized religion, still. It does equates reformed, organized religion because, obviously, it's the model that works. Being a model, it means it can be tweaken hard enough, and to lead to a slower and more diverse situation (Hinduism and its sub-tendencies having been mentioned in almost each post).
We could pretext the super-duper religion that needs no codification, and no bureaucracy, and not anything structured as a whole, but giving there's no real exemple of this IOTL, declaring it's as much plausible than an ethno-religion structurating itself out of blue without changing...I've doubt, to be honest.

Survival without butterflying Christianity might centre around a strengthening of Trends like interpretatio romana, i.e. creating an awareness of commonalities and similarities of Mediterranean, European etc. religion.

Interpretatio Romana was essentially tied up with Roman elites, as much as the Hellenic usage to give names of their gods to the divinities of other peoples. It had no impact, so to speak, among people would it be Italian or provincial : either Roman structures were importated (such as Mercurius' Temple in Gaul) and directly tied up to the Roman institutional model (again, priest as quasi-magristrates) either the local cults were maintained under some roman inspiration when it came to approach.
You certainly didn't have a merging of beliefs into a super-Roman ethno-religion : what you had was the usual local consideration of a God known by other labels.

I'll be blunt : we have no indication so far that you had a sense of religious unity within the classical Roman period : at the contrary religious practices paralleled the social/institutional situation, as being largely held locally in urban centers, and more or less let to itself outside.

The only Roman cult which had some chance at universality were the imperial cults, and even these tended to be specialized and not really appealing to the general population.