WI: Roman 'Confucianism'

Considering how many of the Roman writers and politicians emphasized old Roman virtues/values, it doesn't seem unlikely to me that, had Christianity not taken over, somebody would eventually codify a school of though based on the 'old ways' of Rome - similarly, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that this codification would become a religion/ideology/ethical system that gets adopted by the Roman Republic/Empire as a state doctrine.

So assuming this philosphical system comes into existence around the same time as Christianity, and as such competes with it, how do you think Rome would develop?

Alternatively, if you don't want to bother with Christianity you can have it come into existence earlier - maybe mid or late Republic era?
 
Considering how many of the Roman writers and politicians emphasized old Roman virtues/values, it doesn't seem unlikely to me that, had Christianity not taken over, somebody would eventually codify a school of though based on the 'old ways' of Rome - similarly, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that this codification would become a religion/ideology/ethical system that gets adopted by the Roman Republic/Empire as a state doctrine.

So assuming this philosphical system comes into existence around the same time as Christianity, and as such competes with it, how do you think Rome would develop?

Well, some authors claim that Mithraism more or less emphasized the old Roman social structures and the respect for order and authority - that's why it was so popular with soldiers. The last Pagan emperor Julian did integrate Mithraism into the official cult of Sol Invictus, so he was aware of the potential of Mithraism and wanted to give it a more official status.
 
I've had the notion that the Western analog to Confucianism was Aristotle's philosophy.

So you think that Aristotelian ethics would be the basis for this? But those are Greek, not Roman.

Sounds like OTL to me, to be exact Stoicsm.

Stoicism wasn't based off of 'traditional Roman rituals' and stuff like this hypothetical Roman Confucianism is, though.

Well, some authors claim that Mithraism more or less emphasized the old Roman social structures and the respect for order and authority - that's why it was so popular with soldiers. The last Pagan emperor Julian did integrate Mithraism into the official cult of Sol Invictus, so he was aware of the potential of Mithraism and wanted to give it a more official status.

Never heard that theory before, though I suppose it makes sense. Still, despite how often it gets used as such, I never really thought that Mithraism would be able to become the state religion of Rome if Christianity hadn't out-competed it. Just because the soldiers like something doesn't mean that the commoners or elites will.
 
Sounds like OTL to me, to be exact Stoicsm.
Stoicism never became a state doctrine, just a popular philosophy amongst the learned. Often these were adopted by roman leaders (most notably Cato and of course Marcus Aurelius).
So you think that Aristotelian ethics would be the basis for this? But those are Greek, not Roman.
Stoicism wasn't based off of 'traditional Roman rituals' and stuff like this hypothetical Roman Confucianism is, though.
Depends on when we are talking about stoicism. Based on the meditations of Marcus Aurelius, there was a long history of venerating significant figures within greco-roman history, I don't think it would take much for a Stoic to advocate reading of the classics.
 
Stoicism never became a state doctrine, just a popular philosophy amongst the learned. Often these were adopted by roman leaders (most notably Cato and of course Marcus Aurelius).

Depends on when we are talking about stoicism. Based on the meditations of Marcus Aurelius, there was a long history of venerating significant figures within greco-roman history, I don't think it would take much for a Stoic to advocate reading of the classics.

Okay, don't get me wrong. I like Stoicism. A version of the Roman Empire which embraced Stoicism as it's state doctrine would be interesting and something that I'd read a TL about. But that's not what this challenge is about.

The idea behind this is that some Roman philosopher pulls a Confucius and manages to codify the traditonal, disaparate rituals and beliefs of Roman society into a coherent philosophy/belief system. The challenge is to create a timeline where that happens and debate what it would be like.

Now Stoicism, or at least aspects of it, could be part of this 'Roman Confucianism' since in all honesty Rome cribbed a while bunch of cultural stuff from Greece, especially Philosophy. But Stoicism itself wouldn't be the ethics system we're talking about,
 
Last edited:
Just because the soldiers like something doesn't mean that the commoners or elites will.

True, but keep in mind that legionary outranked patrician, and praetorian guard outranked emperor.
Once enough soldiers are Mithraic, next emperor, and new few successive emperors, are gonna be Mithraic.
Because becoming Mithraic is gonna be just too huge of advantage to not use in bid for the purple.
 
True, but keep in mind that legionary outranked patrician, and praetorian guard outranked emperor.
Once enough soldiers are Mithraic, next emperor, and new few successive emperors, are gonna be Mithraic.
Because becoming Mithraic is gonna be just too huge of advantage to not use in bid for the purple.

That is a pretty good point, though I would like to point out that there were other Mystery Cults popular with the soliders too, not just Mithraism.
 
Okay, don't get me wrong. I like Stoicism. A version of the Roman Empire which embraced Stoicism as it's state doctrine would be interesting and something that I'd read a TL about. But that's not what this challenge is about.

The idea behind this is that some Roman philosopher pulls a Confucias and manages to codify the traditonal, disaparate rituals and beliefs of Roman society into a coherent philosophy/belief system. The challenge is to create a timeline where that happens and debate what it would be like.
That isn't really what Confucius himself did. Confucianism distinguished itself against the other hundred schools of thought, and constantly fought against it's competitors. Neo-confucianism which came much later is when we see it start to embrace elements of the other religions, but still in an opositional context. Much of our texts on the various other philosophies of the hundred schools era come from Confucian texts rejecting them (often unfairly so). A good example would be Yangism, an egoist philosophy (which would make for an amazing chinese history) where we have one or two texts, the rest of our commentaries being statements along the lines that Yang Zhu would not lift a finger to save someone it it was a mild inconvenience to him (which is not true of the philosophy itself).
By the time Buddhism came along, the religion that Confucianism most adopted RE neoconfucianism, the term "naval gazers" was a slur which I beleive stuck to the modern day.

Now Stoicism, or at least aspects of it, could be part of this 'Roman Confucianism' since in all honesty Rome cribbed a while bunch of cultural stuff from Greece, especially Philosophy. But Stoicism itself wouldn't be the ethics system we're talking about,
My idea was more that confucianism wasn't that far away from developing into something like Confucianism. Looking at people like Seneca who, whilst one of the major figures of stoicism, felt it important to translate the Greek classics into Latin and wrote plays which celebrate Stoic virtue in a Roman context ("He who boasts of his ancestry praises the merits of another!").

What stood Confucianism apart was not just a worshipful attitude towards Chinese culture (which existed in Roman Stoicism), but a beleif in systematic learning through the beauracratic class (which did not exist, but I will get to this) and adoration of chinese classics. In the Confucian tradition, the veneration of the four books and five classics is significant, both in terms of popular philosophy and the ability to analyse that philosophy through texts. This attitude did exist in Stoicism but was never really codified as demonstrated by the Enchiridion in which Epicetus ends the book by referencing a wide variety of classics and philosophers.

In short, Stoicism to become the Roman Confucianism may just need official state support. If not directly to create a beauracratic class, perhaps some kind of mass education for Roman citizens which is Stoic based and perhaps the ability for the state to venerate individuals as Stoic sages alongside triumphs.
 
That isn't really what Confucius himself did. Confucianism distinguished itself against the other hundred schools of thought, and constantly fought against it's competitors. Neo-confucianism which came much later is when we see it start to embrace elements of the other religions, but still in an opositional context. Much of our texts on the various other philosophies of the hundred schools era come from Confucian texts rejecting them (often unfairly so). A good example would be Yangism, an egoist philosophy (which would make for an amazing chinese history) where we have one or two texts, the rest of our commentaries being statements along the lines that Yang Zhu would not lift a finger to save someone it it was a mild inconvenience to him (which is not true of the philosophy itself).
By the time Buddhism came along, the religion that Confucianism most adopted RE neoconfucianism, the term "naval gazers" was a slur which I beleive stuck to the modern day.


My idea was more that confucianism wasn't that far away from developing into something like Confucianism. Looking at people like Seneca who, whilst one of the major figures of stoicism, felt it important to translate the Greek classics into Latin and wrote plays which celebrate Stoic virtue in a Roman context ("He who boasts of his ancestry praises the merits of another!").

What stood Confucianism apart was not just a worshipful attitude towards Chinese culture (which existed in Roman Stoicism), but a beleif in systematic learning through the beauracratic class (which did not exist, but I will get to this) and adoration of chinese classics. In the Confucian tradition, the veneration of the four books and five classics is significant, both in terms of popular philosophy and the ability to analyse that philosophy through texts. This attitude did exist in Stoicism but was never really codified as demonstrated by the Enchiridion in which Epicetus ends the book by referencing a wide variety of classics and philosophers.

In short, Stoicism to become the Roman Confucianism may just need official state support. If not directly to create a beauracratic class, perhaps some kind of mass education for Roman citizens which is Stoic based and perhaps the ability for the state to venerate individuals as Stoic sages alongside triumphs.

Those are all very good points. Still not quite what I was looking for, but It seems like the best I'm gonna get, so.... have a cookie.

Okay, so what would Rome under this 'Neo-Stoicism' be like?
 
Those are all very good points. Still not quite what I was looking for, but It seems like the best I'm gonna get, so.... have a cookie.

Okay, so what would Rome under this 'Neo-Stoicism' be like?
I don't fully know. Oddly, I am far more versed in greco-roman philosophy and religion than I am in the nuances of their states.

If I had to guess, I think maybe a longer lived Cato in a Caesars's loss TL or a resurgent republic might be needed for this. A resurgent republic might be excellent for this actually as not only would Cato already be celebrated as a stoic model of republican virtue, but also would appear in the Aeneid which could also become part of the greater Roman canon for a neo-stoic Rome.

I would expect some kind of "scholar citizenry", or perhaps an expected education in the classics and stoic philosophy to advance in the Cursus Honorum or reach posts militarily (in function, I imagine it would function similar to the cult of the amateur for the British Empire in that regard).
 
Bump to hopefully get a bit more feedback

I don't mind the 'Neo-Stoicism' route and I'd be happy if there was some more discussion on that, but is there really nobody who thinks a Master Kong analogue couldn't have arrived and made a 'religion' out of the traditional roman values?
 
I read that Confucianism may have been less what he said, and more what the beauracracy decided upon, in order reinforce the social order in which you always deferred to your betters. The Mandarins and their old equivalents being the representatives of the Emperor, you can expect they excepted a lot of deference. And I do not see there being a need for a Roman equivalent to compete with Christianity. Far from it, Christinaity really streamlined things. While we often think of the Roman gods as simply being the Greek ones, they had their own personalities and which deities were on top changed among various Triads. While Christian morals would not support all the Romans did, they did say to pay taxes and such, with God's kingdom being of another world. Though of course there would be problems of those refusing to pay taxes to support pagan ceremonies and such... Trying to change things form the top down would open them to problems, though. I don't think the attempt by an Egyptian leader to make Atum the one deity worked, but though it was always confusing in Egypt, with them combining the names of various deities over two thousand years.
 
Top