WI what if pagan reformations actually happened

In japan and india shinto and hinduism reformed to keep up with buddhism. What if the middle easter and european paganisms reformed to keep up or beat christianinity and islam.
 
The idea of "pagan reformation" is a fun CK2 game mechanic. But it's not really how religions worked historically at all.

Multiple European pagan religions were rolled up into the single thing of "Christianity" to promote the Christianization of non-Christian European pagans. The process has been labeled "Interpretatio Christiana." (Sidenote: the Catholic church had a whole debate about the process again re: Confucian rituals in the 17th and 18th century, see here.) That same syncretism happened when Buddhism made it to Japan, resulting in Shinbutsu-shugo - and a "pure Shinto" was only disentangled from Buddhism by Meiji era reformists.

The only way to stop a proselytizing religion from beating up other religions and rummaging through their pockets for spare holidays was to, well, stop the proselytizing religion. With military force.
 
Even with pagan reform, Christianity was going to be very popular. Maybe Europe goes syncrestic like China (Buddhism, Daoism, and Buddhism) and three general schools of religious thought emerge in Europe:

- Reformed, 'monotheistic' paganism:
The reformation moves paganism towards Hinduism in the sense that the various gods, though often portrayed as separate entities, are really just manifestations of one God. As with Hinduism, there can be a lot of local variations in dieties and religious practice.

- Christianity: Rejects any and all pagan theology, even reformed paganism. Rather, standard Christianity is presented.

- Christo Pagans / Pagan Christos: Blends Christianity with reformed paganism. Individual believers may place first emphasis on the pagan component or the Christian component. For those placing paganism first, Christ take the form of a deity or a demi deity similar to Hercules. Those believers who place Christianity first present Christ as the perfect messenger of the supreme God. Pagan deities get demoted to demi god or 'avatar' status.
 
Paganism wasn't centralized, so you can't simply switch it everywhere.

That is where the Hindu component comes in. Though Hinduism has centralized with industrialization, in prior generations, it was more of a school of local religions expressing common themes in different manners. To some degree, Hinduism still does this.

European reformed paganism takes this trend: The general common themes of Paganism are identified. These themes can be expressed in many different ways by many different cultures. But through it all, the general themes resonate, sort of like a background drum beat. European paganism then develops into one general religion, expressed in many different ways with different pantheons. Some distinct, some blended. As with Hinduism, there is not a lot of codified dogma.
 
Last edited:
I can't imagine a Hinduism-like development ("all the other gods are just shadows/incarnations of one").

Once I had the idea that if Christianity was blamed for a huge catastrophe and paganism developed on its own, maybe we'd get "pagan deism", with faith in "Fimbultyr, a god whom the Viking believes makes the rules the other gods and humans have to obey."
 
What about something like this?

What about Ulfilas? No, he was not pagan, nor even Germanic, but he was the individual responsible for translating the Bible into Gothic and helping to popularize Arian Christianity among several hitherto pagan Germanic peoples, such as the Goths, Lombards, and Vandals.

However, what if he had "gone native", so to speak, and instead formed a new syncretic faith which married elements of Christianity (especially a similar organizational structure and the simple process of writing things down) with a codified version of the Germanic religion?
 

Philip

Donor
I can't imagine a Hinduism-like development ("all the other gods are just shadows/incarnations of one").

When and how did monistic Hinduism developed? Was it a mostly independent or was it more driven by interactions with something like platonism or Abrahamic monotheism?
 
The Sassanians managed to reform a decentralized and polytheistic religion into an organized state religion. 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.
 
I can't imagine a Hinduism-like development ("all the other gods are just shadows/incarnations of one").

Once I had the idea that if Christianity was blamed for a huge catastrophe and paganism developed on its own, maybe we'd get "pagan deism", with faith in "Fimbultyr, a god whom the Viking believes makes the rules the other gods and humans have to obey."

"Fimbultyr" would be a big step towards Hindu influenced Euro paganism. Once the other gods obey the supreme god, the idea of single God with many incarnations is not a huge leap.

Also, I think you are placing too much emphasis on the "just shadows" concept. My general idea is that Hinduism allows each believer to determine just how "faint the shadows are" regarding the individuality of each deity. For some believers- particularly those influenced by abrahamic monotheism, the shadows of the various deities would be pretty faint. For others however, each deity would be very distinct and the supreme God an omnipresent shadow.

As for catastrophes....

I think "no Emperor Constantine" would be all that it would take. Paganism needed some breathing room to start to reform itself into a competitive system. "If you can't beat them- join them- well to a degree" (Hindu influence) is the reform Euro paganism needed against monotheism.

Keeping paganism the quasi official religion of the Empire for a few more generation, or a century might just to the trick.
 
Neoplatonism, yo. Or more specifically; Neoplatonism was an ideology arising in the Hellenic world around the same time as Christianity was rising and it's pretty close to what you want in a 'reformed' Hellenic religion, at least. Though it is not at all 100% accurate to that idea.
 
Last edited:
The idea of "pagan reformation" is a fun CK2 game mechanic. But it's not really how religions worked historically at all.

Multiple European pagan religions were rolled up into the single thing of "Christianity" to promote the Christianization of non-Christian European pagans. The process has been labeled "Interpretatio Christiana." (Sidenote: the Catholic church had a whole debate about the process again re: Confucian rituals in the 17th and 18th century, see here.) That same syncretism happened when Buddhism made it to Japan, resulting in Shinbutsu-shugo - and a "pure Shinto" was only disentangled from Buddhism by Meiji era reformists.

The only way to stop a proselytizing religion from beating up other religions and rummaging through their pockets for spare holidays was to, well, stop the proselytizing religion. With military force.

This is interesting stuff, but there has to be a reason why, of the hundreds of religions throughout history, some had far more success in converting vast numbers of people, especially when a lot of that conversion WASN'T by military force. Why did missionaries of some religion have more success than others? Why did some religions effectively compel a greater proportion of their adherents to go to strange lands to spread it? Why did Islam manage to convert all of the East Indies, but only a third of India?

I know historians have a tendency to put everything in terms of geopolitics, but a big part of it HAS to be the content of the religion itself, and of the religion it was competing against. Some are more seductive to the human mind than others.
 
I think by Late Antiquity any "pagan Europe" will have some Christian influence. They will likely incorporate Jesus and Yahweh into their thought in some form.

Even with pagan reform, Christianity was going to be very popular. Maybe Europe goes syncrestic like China (Buddhism, Daoism, and Buddhism) and three general schools of religious thought emerge in Europe:

- Reformed, 'monotheistic' paganism:
The reformation moves paganism towards Hinduism in the sense that the various gods, though often portrayed as separate entities, are really just manifestations of one God. As with Hinduism, there can be a lot of local variations in dieties and religious practice.

This is basically neoplatonism, but there can be a lot of variations to neoplatonic ideas.

- Christo Pagans / Pagan Christos: Blends Christianity with reformed paganism. Individual believers may place first emphasis on the pagan component or the Christian component. For those placing paganism first, Christ take the form of a deity or a demi deity similar to Hercules. Those believers who place Christianity first present Christ as the perfect messenger of the supreme God. Pagan deities get demoted to demi god or 'avatar' status.

Probably the most likely "pagan" reformation. Many pagan stories as recorded (Norse, Slavic, Finnic, etc.) have noticeable Christian elements since they were usually told by people who were at least nominally Christians. This could be the path to a very unique sort of Christianity (if you can even call it that).
 
This is basically neoplatonism, but there can be a lot of variations to neoplatonic ideas.
Thanks for the information. I was not aware of what neo Platonism was. As you stated, there was a historical trend towards a Hinduized euro paganism (neo Platonism). Yet, the concept was still over taken by Christianity.

Maybe the Hinduized euro pagan concept could get traction and survive- then thrive if it could get some breathing room to develop. Maybe, no Emperor Constantine? A noticeable delay in an imperial endorsement of Christianity- or maybe even no official endorsement of Christianity may do the trick.

Probably the most likely "pagan" reformation. Many pagan stories as recorded (Norse, Slavic, Finnic, etc.) have noticeable Christian elements since they were usually told by people who were at least nominally Christians. This could be the path to a very unique sort of Christianity (if you can even call it that).
That maybe the riskiest reform in regards to long term pagan survival. A syncrestic reform that incorporated Christian elements is in danger of being over whelmed if Christian elements gradually over take the pagan elements- even in believers who initially give the pagan side first emphasis. In short, going Neo Plato / Hindu (with no, or minimal Christian elements) maybe the only way to for euro paganism to survive long term.

Wouldn't how Hindus view the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu be a good analogy for this as well?
Yes, i think that analogy fits very well. Thanks
 
Last edited:
There could be some european version of the various Hindu stories where the various pagan gods are faced with some insurmountable evil or challenge to their own power pray to Yahweh and He sorts it out, or perhaps of the process whereby in some regions a locally prominent deity is recast as this primeval God and Yahweh is cast as subservient to him although still much stronger than your average god, like Vishnu Shiva and Shakti, so that depending on who you ask there’s a different supreme godhead
 
There could be some european version of the various Hindu stories where the various pagan gods are faced with some insurmountable evil or challenge to their own power pray to Yahweh and He sorts it out, or perhaps of the process whereby in some regions a locally prominent deity is recast as this primeval God and Yahweh is cast as subservient to him although still much stronger than your average god, like Vishnu Shiva and Shakti, so that depending on who you ask there’s a different supreme godhead

Tiwaz (Tyr) seems to have once had a higher place in Germanic mythology. Maybe Tiwaz (his name is cognate with Deus, Jupiter, Zeus, deva, etc.) could emerge as the supreme god amongst Germanic peoples. There seems to be similar deities who were somewhat abandoned in Slavic and Baltic faith. Seems like the thunder gods--Thor (Odin was himself being eclipsed IIRC), Perun, Perkunas--were being worshipped more and more. The Finns (very Indo-European influenced) worshipped Ukko, also a thunder god. Zeus and Jupiter were thunder gods. If you go back far enough, Yahweh was a thunder god. Oddly, the Hindu equivalent, Indra, has not been a major focus of Hinduism for many centuries.

So maybe you have some equivalent of Tiwaz (Jupiter, Zeus, Tyr, etc.) as the "primordial god" who all gods are a part of. He begat various incarnations to various peoples--Perun, Perkunas, Ukko, Thunoraz, etc. are the same being, similar to Wodanaz. A son of this being, who the Germanics called "Balder", is a pure and innocent being who is unjustly killed by a trickster god. Baldr to some degree represents Christ, whose story has been incorporated into European traditional religion. The trickster god--i.e. Loki, Veles, etc.--becomes a truly evil being in the minds of people. At the end of time, good and evil fight a final battle, and all the dead throughout history are resurrected for it. Both sides suffer severe losses--the gods will die--but good prevails and the evil beings are destroyed forever while the good inhabit a new paradisical world (this is an alternate and optimistic version of Ragnarok which is fatalistic and cyclistic like Hinduism). Evil may rise again in the future and the cycle may repeat, but it will always end the same way.

What the believer can do--and needs to do--is to pay special attention to the gods in their daily life, make their sacrifices, and live a virtuous life. When they die, they will go to a neutral place and then be revived at the end of the world to fight in the final battle, where if they are evil they will be sent to damnation and if they are good will be sent to paradise.

To me, this seems like a simplified version of how European traditional religion might evolve.
 
The religions would need to be codified and more well-defined with writing rather than potential conflicts, kinda like a Church. Beyond that, they would need to offer something. Christianity and Islam did offer salvation and so on to all so the various religions would need to emphasize that or have philosophers move beyond that.
 
Some are more seductive to the human mind than others.

I really don't think we have to universalize it like that. Rather, I think that as societies develop in complexity and geographic reach, the "verities" of everyday life change, and mythic solutions that worked on one scale cease to be adequate on another. This relates to why the "Great Religions" tend to be citified phenomena, appealing to new classes existing in a larger more global context, while the "Old Ways" of the countryside (hence the names, "pagan" and "heathen," both derogatory judgements passed on the rustics by the citified or other cosmopolitan classes, such as traders) persevere until early Modern times, broadly speaking.

I have argued against people taking the latter claim IMHO too far to be sure! While folk wisdom and some diversity of thought outside the centralized zones of power is clearly a thing well into Early Modern and even modern times in Europe, I do think European Christianity as we know it had indeed evolved the ways and means, via syncretism as noted, to reach deep into hearts and minds even in the "pagan" boondocks, or such countrified regimes as the Anglo-Saxons in the Heptarchy would not have been possible to convert at all. The early Anglo-Saxons on the whole, even out in the country, seem to have taken up Christianity with quite a lot of grassroots enthusiasm. This does not contradict either furtive survivals of defiant Germanic paganism among minorities of the grassroots, nor essentially pre-Christian folk practices very lightly "baptized" with a thin patina of Christian framing. But I would guess even outside the noble classes with a lot to lose being caught out of step with the Christian aligned power structure, for every persistent pagan household there would be at least one, and probably in my impression more, peasant households believing themselves to be pretty devout and enlightened Christians, no matter how low a learned cleric would rate their proper grasp of doctrine and dogma and the details of the mythos. That was achieved via pretty adept syncretism indeed; the Christian clerics had little choice but to adapt an originally urbanized and Imperial shaped doctrine to the very rural conditions that incorporated essentially all of the early medieval populations, including the powerful more or less knightly nobility.

I do think there is a grain of truth in the idea that religions evolve and some are, objectively speaking, more "sophisticated" than others, but this is hardly in my view absolute, rather it is relative to new modes of life. From my limited but sometimes directly focused (and moderately sympathetic, as I see it anyway though I'd forgive a reasonable Muslim for shaking their head and insisting I've got some stuff terribly wrong...I hardly am interested in actually converting to Islam, I just have a countersuggestable and humanistically grounded inclination to respect a point of view that commands so many believers and spans so much of major historic actors) studies of Islam, I form the impression that it is very much a religion apt to gratify trading people--as Mohammed certainly was. Various aspects seem liable to assist in forming a global framework in which trade can prosper. It also strikes me as having peculiar cultural resonance for people who live not unlike the Bedouin, and so the general spread into the Saharan peoples and onto the steppes between the great southern mountain ranges of Asia and the taiga-tundra, as well as the arid heartlands of civilization in the Middle East generally, seems to play off of that. But others who live quite differently than the Bedouin adopt Islam as well and I don't doubt it could have spread much farther into Europe if the established Christian churches were not sitting in the way, and made considerable headway in places where that was true.

A while back a member posted several iterative TLs about a Pontic empire forming based on Anatolia, but incorporating Greece as well as being culturally and historically drawn eastward to subsume the typical ranges of a Persian empire. This seemed to me a fertile base for an extrapolation of Zoroastrian concepts to generalize, and that the Hellenistic subjects of this system might be the pioneers here. The general Classical era phenomenon of elites of these cosmopolitan empires becoming Seekers of a new revelation of some kind might have been answered, with the approval of a Pontic dynasty, by proclaiming the Zoroastrian orthodoxy to be a particular instance, founded on particularly Persian pre-existing paganism, of a general revelation of a single fundamental god who manifests in diverse peculiar forms--offering an olive branch as it were to each local pagan pantheon to be reformulated as aspects of Ahura Mazda (that name probably being preferred as the Truest Name of God, though analogous local forms in local languages would also be accepted as meaning the same God). So there would be a Hellenic version reformulating the Olympians. (Quite a moral project, that! But not beyond human ingenuity, the Hellenistics were well on the way toward "rationalizing" the Olympians before abandoning them for Christian and later Islamic "purity"). Perhaps a reformulation Ahurizing as it were northwest Indian pantheons, which would be quite a leap actually as I gather both Iranian and Indian traditions drew on a similar concept of dual pantheons, echoes of which we can see in Hellenic Titans and Olympians, or Nordic pairing of both Valhallic and Vanaheimian "good" gods versus the Titan-like "evil" Jotuns, but chose as it were opposite polarities--Hindu "Devas," related to the root in their name of "deus" and "theos" in Latin and Greek, are the good gods in Hinduism, and the "ashuras," same root in Indo European as Ahura as in Ahura Mazda, were the wicked demonic counterpantheon. In Iran it was the opposite, with the Ahura set being worshiped and the deva set feared and denigrated as demons, so "baptizing" the Devas as "Ahuric" or whatever the term would be quite a feat of theological gymnastics! But probably again not beyond human ingenuity!

Off in another direction, missionaries might, emanating from a strong Mediterranean (even just East Med and Black Sea) semi-urbanized and imperial base, go north and northeast from the Black Sea, and hook west even if the Romans are never dislodged as masters of the western Med, to prostelytize and convert various steppe peoples, the proto-Slavs and early Germanics and filter west to the Celtic peoples, and plant seeds of such an "upgrade" of various pagan pantheons, to be preadapted as it were to rising centralizing dynasties in these various groups to establish state churches preadapted to facilitate merchantile and cultural interchange under a vague but general metacultural umbrella.

Insofar as posters here are agnostic and not committed to some particular religion being especially true in the somewhat literal Abrahamic tradition, I suspect the Abrahamic religions would be preempted. To be sure Second Temple Judaism itself might evolve somewhat differently; I think there is indeed grounds to assert that Judaism as we know it OTL was to a degree exactly a Semitic-Zorastrian syncretism. There is plenty of evidence of, I forget the technical term, the idea that prior to the "Babylonian Captivity" and subsequent relative re-elevation of their status under the new Persian empire, the Hebrews were perhaps more strongly devoted to one particular god and tending more and more to eschew and disapprove any reverence by them to others, but certainly acknowledged other gods existing, but either even this is a back projection and in fact the Zoroastrian hegemony in the Persian system was the complete origin of Jewish monotheism or perhaps most likely, the trend they had toward it was greatly accelerated and affirmed by the core of philosophical monotheism in the Persian tradition--clearly the restored client kingdom of Judah evolved to go far beyond their hypothetical Persian mentors and by later classical times had reframed their whole tradition formally into very strict monotheism.

So Second Temple Judaism as OTL would be out of step (by going beyond) with the generic "Ahura Mazda has many faces and names" meta-theology I am suggesting, and from the point of view of "evolving" religions, some stricter monotheism does seem likely to have an extra philosophical edge, appealing especially to the more "sophisticated" cosmopolitan classes of traders and imperial elites and the philosophers they patronize.

But my sense is, a Zoroastrian compromise, ramified and souped up by Hellenistic philosophers and developing a toolkit of syncretizing techniques, might not get there with the mostest but still get there firstest, and might, via a politically and culturally convenient greater harmonization of city, with philosophical refinement of the more highflown cosmopolitan believers and patrons, and country with greater acceptance that old folkways are acceptable manifestations of a "higher" wisdom, resist conversion to the "purer" monotheisms that might evolve.

We also might give some thought to Second Temple doctrines evolving somewhat more liberally as it were, and failing to arrive at the absolute monotheism of Jewish faith OTL, and such a semi-pagan template also preempting Islam as such in Arabia in favor of a similar compromise there, very possibly in the hands of some reform movement adopting elements we associate with Islam and spreading with some vigor and even surging up north more or less in OTL Islam's footsteps, but remaining more quasi-polytheistic. We could also have a sort of Christian like evolution from NTJ rustics with a bit of messianism to inject a Christian-like reformulation, quite likely to be apt to Hellenizing and dissemination after the first wave of Zorastrianizing to reform the Slavic, Germanic and Celtic cults.

Or you know, mix it all up a lot more according to taste.

I agree that some visible evolution in the nature of the doctrines, and some polarization of city-merchant-ruler axis versus peasant conservatism both seem likely to be a visible thing.

I also think in principle it is at least possible that some non-Classical tradition, such as the Nordics, could manage to evolve a cosmopolitanized, more centralized and organized version of their own traditions that can stand well enough against penetration even by Christianity and Islam as we know them OTL. I don't rate the chances as terribly high, but perhaps if we can postulate a Classical era surge in socioeconomic development around the Baltic to bring them up at least to early Classical levels of trade and development there, and that contact with Roman or some ATL Med empire metasociety fosters both internal development and cross cultural appropriation of Classical Mediterranean developments, as appropriately adapted for the very different climate and opportunities and limits of the northlands, I can well imagine parallel processes creating some Nordic centered (maybe actually adopted from Slavic or other eastern peoples; conceivably with one of these peoples adopting Nordic myth renamed the way the Romans Hellenized, all sort of things can happen given the right economic geography).
 
So whilst I do believe that a more organised Pagan church could have come about, I have always argued that neoplatonism is something of a dead end in that regard.

The comparison is often made to Hinduism, but Hinduism had from it's brahminical predecessor both a canon to build off (the Vedas) with additions (stuff like the Puranas) legitimised by the Vedic tradition.

Neoplatonism, and Hellenic mythology as a whole, didn't really have this canonical tradition, and canon is incredibly important for religous fortitude. It provides common myth for the laymen (of which our construct of historical paganism involves generalisations untill you get into the nitty gritty and realise that city by city had radically different stories) and links laymen to the adepts/theologians/preists etc.
You may not care about the trinity, but you know the bible talks about the father, son and holy ghost and so are able to accept an otherwise complex concept withouy access to learning resources.
A shared canon also helps with cohesion of organisation both spatially and chronologically. If your local preist teaches about the greek pantheon in a neoplatonic fashion, but the next town over uses the roman names and talks about them in an epicurean fashion, you might not recognise them as practicing the same religion, your clergy may reccomend staying away from them and divergences occur.

Now as mentioned, I think there truly was fertile ground for a "reformation" and even think there is somewhat room for neoplatonism to be a part of that. But imho, Stoicism has the much stronger chance.

Stoicism by the time of Aurelius had developed something of a canon (e.g. the Enchiridion), had modified and less scandalous interpretations of the Hellenic pantheon and could be practiced by pretty much anyone.
It's biggest flaw imho is that it never developed a prosletysing spirit. By this I mean, other big religions liked to promote themselves along the lines of them being the most important thing (which if true they generally are) in a way Stoicism just didn't. Although it had something similar to saints in the form of sages, for many Stoics this was an impossible ideal maybe fulfilled by only Socrates (which serves its purpose but makes it less attractive). A Stoic reformer with a focus on the poor could have some really fertile ground to work with.

If you want a later POD, my favourite underrepresented faith, Manichaeism, would work. Otl Manichaeism worked as well as it did because it could absorb deities into the tribe of light, allowing one to continue worshiping your gods in a fashion directed by an adept class.
 
Top