Max Sinister
Banned
What kind of Buddhism are we talking about, anyway? The original which was more a philosophy, or the later one which had turned ex-prince Siddharta into a god?
What kind of Buddhism are we talking about, anyway? The original which was more a philosophy, or the later one which had turned ex-prince Siddharta into a god?
Gonna be fun with interpretatio graeca and romanae. While they did consolidate the mythology of the Greeks and Romans together (if only because people now focus on the Greek versions instead of the Roman ones people did until about a century and a half ago) though never did it for the Celts, Germanic, Norse, etc. Who knows what those were once like, before they in turn were consolidated by monks? Might even excuse how the Romans saw different gods leading different pantheons. I think they also believed that the God of Abraham was Chronus. Seems the Greeks and Romans had a degree of respect to the faithfulness of the Jews, though they didn't really understand how things went. Part of why they accused Christians of being atheists.It depends which period we are talking about. By the time of the Indo-Greeks, it was more of the former, but by the time of the Kushan, it was more of the latter.
In any case, I suspect that the Buddha would be, at the very least, turned into a divus.
Outside of precious metals and luxury goods, Europeans didn't really have too much outside of precision equipment to offer in return.
There is, of course, evidence of that in Alexandria, with Buddhist statues existing there
There are gigantic amounts of Roman gold coinage in India, but they are, with a few exceptions, almost entirely overland.
but the thing is that the bulk of the India trade was overland as it was quite a bit cheaper.
Kalmyk Expansion from Caucasus area much further west to the Balkans. Kalmyk Khanate in Serbia.IOTL, Buddhism and to smaller extent Hinduism spread from India via trade routes to Central, Southeast, and Eastern Asia. However despite heavier trade links with the middle east and Mediterranean, Buddhism and Hinduism maintained no discernible presence in these regions. The strange fact is that western peoples such as the Greco-Bactrians and some parthians(An Shigao) were prominent in the development and propagation of buddhism, but yet no mentionable buddhism in the west. Why is this so?
![]()
View attachment 346332
While there was some direct Greek trade with India, the volume was reportedly much later than that of Roman trade. Once there was significant direct trade, there was only a relatively narrow window of time before Christianity became established in Rome.
If you have Buddhism come over, it will be mangled like with Isis (who was made a pan-female deity for all goddesses) or Mithra (the Romans did some weird stuff with him). Some similar things happened to Christianity briefly with the Gnostics, but the Apostles and various discipes spread out so far that no local changes really set hold in integrating Jesus into a pantheon or something. The Christians were rather adamantly against that.
Dharma can religoins are too often lumped together. Including by the government of India, which has Hindu lay apply to Jainists, Sikhs, and Buddhists. Really, the main thing of what made Hinduism Hinduism was sticking to India, and one day having the British start grabbing whatever Dharma they could find and start making all non-Abrahamic peoples obey certain rules as if they were a monolithic religoin rather than a confederation of beliefs. And there was less desert to the south and east, making it a bit easier to spread that way. I'd say that part of why there aren't more Suotheast Asia and Indonesia is that the Buddhists and Muslims took the local cultures and rleigoins, either replacing or altering them, before the Indians could get there and coopt it.I may point out that Indian religions were rather good at spreading eastward and southward instead and that may be a contributing factor as to why there weren't many Buddhists/Hindus/Jains in the "West"?
Just to clarify, neither description well describes the history of Buddhism.What kind of Buddhism are we talking about, anyway? The original which was more a philosophy, or the later one which had turned ex-prince Siddharta into a god?
Got to address this as well. Whilst Hinduism is diverse, its not at all accurate to say it only gained a semblance of philosophical unity with the arrival of the British. Proto-Hinduism had its own identity going back to the time of the Buddha, and the Vedas are a common thread which has binded the Hindu schools ever since.Dharma can religoins are too often lumped together. Including by the government of India, which has Hindu lay apply to Jainists, Sikhs, and Buddhists. Really, the main thing of what made Hinduism Hinduism was sticking to India, and one day having the British start grabbing whatever Dharma they could find and start making all non-Abrahamic peoples obey certain rules as if they were a monolithic religoin rather than a confederation of beliefs. And there was less desert to the south and east, making it a bit easier to spread that way. I'd say that part of why there aren't more Suotheast Asia and Indonesia is that the Buddhists and Muslims took the local cultures and rleigoins, either replacing or altering them, before the Indians could get there and coopt it.
Trade between India and Europe often had a middle man, most commonly the Persians. This naturally led to a sort of separation existing between them. The same didn’t exist with Indian empires - for instance, the Buddhist and highly Indianized Kushan Empire has vassals as far as East Turkestan - and so, there was no middleman that resulted in separation. This was beginning to change with the expansion of Indian naval routes during late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, such as trade between Gujarat and South Arabia, but then Islam burst on the scene, conquering as far as Sindh.
Was it? Theories I’ve read say that Zarathushtra was Central Asian.
Although we have lost a lot of information on it, I believe that Buddhism received something of a following in Alexandria. Perhaps with Ptolemaic support (something hard to achieve considering divine kingship favoured them), Egyptian Buddhism could become a major force across the med just as Alexandria influenced Christianity.
But then this brings up the question of why Buddhism doesn't seem to have spread into Iran proper. Cities like Merv seem to be the westernmost limit. Why is this? Christians were certainly able to build up a fairly sizable minority community in the heart of Sassanid power in Mesopotamia.
Your note about expanding Indian naval routes is quite interesting. Would Hinduism or Buddhism be able to spread into South Arabia or coastal East Africa in the same way it spread into Maritime SE Asia if not for Islam? Or is the dynamic different? Did Islam play a role in the expansion of the naval routes? Why were they expanding?