An interesting factor I found out recently for Mongolian conversion to Christianity (Nestorianism mostly) is that Mongolian culture hates death. The idea that a man conquered death (Jesus) would have certainly impressed them.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yeah, Jesuits used that to a great effect in China. They even got Kangxi Emperor to issue an edict of tolerance that raised Christianity to the same status with Buddhism and Daoism for a short while.
Too bad it didn't last, when Vatican decided to ditch the Jesuits and sent a Papal legate to head the Christian movement in China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy
They did? That's really interesting. Why?
Also interesting is the bit about the 'reformation' of Slavic paganism, what did that entail?
The chronicler Humboldt bitterly writes that the rising was caused by "our (i.e. Saxon) injustices". Meaning, the Slavic territory was a conquered territory and treated accordingly. German settlers, recruited by the promise of land grants and good life on virgin territories also found themselves on the receiving end of the oppression machine. Therefore they found that they had much in common with their Slavic neighbors.
The late West Slavic paganism is extremely interesting because among other things:
- It developed a clergy class independent from secular rulers, in one case (the Lutiti Confederacy) it actually eclipsed the princes and turned into a theocracy.
- It apparently developed some firm of theology, and reportedly priests from different places did not like each other too much because of some differences. Writing among the clergy is attested by Christian sources, though sadly nothing survived due to the fact that writing was done on beech barks.
- It had a knightly order based in Arkona.
- it developed some sort of a devil - like figure, Czernobog.
- some of its temples were so famous that they received donations even from Christian rulers, like kings of Danmark and Poland.
Chernobog was always an evil god in Slavic Paganism, just like Pererug.
Also, some trivia, according to the Slavic faith, one day Chernobog's chalice in which he collect all evil done by men will overflow and Chernobog will cover the earth in a poisonous grass called Chernobyl...
It depends on timeframe. At the time of Constantine there wasn't really much the christians could offer. Constantine changed everything though, he empowered/co-opted (tricky to tell the difference) christians. (even if he didn't make it an official state religion) giving bishops power-bases in the cities, etc.
ONce that was done, the dynamic changed. Now the Church could offer rulers things: Trained scholars for the administration, they had lands and monasteries. They served as important intermediaries between the new barbarian kings and the population. (and could later on point out to non-christian kings that they could provide the same services for them...)
While there was certainly conversions by the sword and such, by and large christianity expanded by converting the upper-classes and thus taking control of the patronage networks: Violence was definitely a part of it, but more important was the fact that pagan cults were cut off from royal patronage while christian churches gained them: Suddenly they were the ones building shrines, being donated to, etc.
Huh? Czernobog is attested by one singular source in a passage relating to Polabian (ie westernmost) Slavs. There is no trace of such story there, it must be a modern fabrication. Nor there is any mention of Czernobog from the East Slavic area. The deity was long though to be either an erudite invention by a much later chronicler or a late pagan assimilation of the Christian concept of Satan. Only recently was Czernobog vindicated as an indigenous deity on the basis of ethnographic evidence.
Last edited:
None of that is really true, aside from I suppose the infanticide part. The early Christian church was not particularly pacifist, the fact that the early fathers had to worry so much about Christian soldiers indicates that (and the problem was not one of pacifism, but the lack of separation of temple and state in the Roman Empire, there was a lot of mandatory idolatry in the army, which a good Christian naturally should not take part in. As to the sufferings of the martyrs their influence is often overblown, there is little reason to believe that most Pagans viewed them in a more positive light for their sufferings.
Yeah all I wrote was meant in a post-pagan-rome context.
Other than that I think we're pretty much in agreement.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but yes indeed, many christians converted to Islam in the wake of the great invasions. however it wasn't merely conversion, it was complete assimilation to the Arabic culture, From Morocco to the Persian border Arabic is the spoken tongue, and before the invasions the language was spoken in the fringes of Syria and Mesopotamia and Arabia, it wasn't a pure conversion, it was assimilation to the new world order of culture. Funny how Iran survived Assimilation.
In the case of Islam Christians only converted to that religion after long periods of Muslim rule, cultural assimilation and social pressure. After their defeat on the battlefield they didn't just give up and think 'Jesus has failed to protect us, time to join the side that God's really on'. And of course vice-versa, Muslims didn't usually convert en masse (voluntarily) after being conquered by Christians.
Whereas when the Avars were defeated by Charlemagne they quickly converted, same with the Magyars later. And the Norsemen. When it became apparent that the Christian God granted His worshippers all the things that these warrior societies longed for (prestige, strength in battle, riches, prosperous families) the elite were quick to convert, and their followers came with them.
Ok, the following is my translation from Russian, so forgive me if I am slightly inaccurate.
The book is called "Russian Legends and Tales", written by Grushko Elena Arsenjeva and Medvedev Yuri Mihailovich
Page 201, article on Chernog. I'm just going to quote two sentences:
"From ancient times every man is accompanied by two gods: Belbog and Chernobog".
"Chernobog - a terrible god of ancient slavs, the face of all evildoing."
So, in summary:
polytheistic religions are rather more tolerant, with their gods tied to people, tribes, or locations. We have our gods, you have yours. This is a weakness compared to abrahamic ones.
polytheistic religions are by default more susceptible to adding on another god, and switching the worship order of gods in relation to battles and life events. This was keenly exploited by christian priests and such. Give them an inch and they take a mile, as they say.
Abrahamic monotheistic religions are, by their nature, proselytizing, exclusionary religions, and thus see a competition where your average polytheist sees none. As they were the ones to start this competition, they won it, sadly, with relative ease.
polytheistic religions are rather more tolerant, with their gods tied to people, tribes, or locations. We have our gods, you have yours. This is a weakness compared to abrahamic ones.
polytheistic religions are by default more susceptible to adding on another god, and switching the worship order of gods in relation to battles and life events. This was keenly exploited by christian priests and such. Give them an inch and they take a mile, as they say.
Abrahamic monotheistic religions are, by their nature, proselytizing, exclusionary religions, and thus see a competition where your average polytheist sees none. As they were the ones to start this competition, they won it, sadly, with relative ease.
Bielobog likely never existed. He is a modern conjecture that evil Czernobog must had a "good twin". Bielobog is completely unattested and unnecessary. The proto Indo-European myth of divine twins was continued in Slavic religion by Lel and Polel. Moreover, Czernobog is directly attested only among West Slavs (although there is some scarce indirect ethnographic evidence in the dorm of idioms ans
swears also from among South Slavs) and absolutely no myths were recorded. A Saxon chronicler simply related as a curiosity that Polabians had an evil god who feeds on curses and wrongdoings rather than worship and offerings like other gods.
Besides that I've read some historians arguing that the centralization of power that came with Christianity led many political leaders to prefer Christianity as the basis for their society over previous pagan religions.
Yeah, it's rather more convenient when you can argue that you are a king because God has chosen so.
I agree with all this but here's a question: why was Zoroastrianism not equally effective? Okay, yes, it didn't have a strong proselytizing impulse, but why not? Was it just a historical accident that the Persian Empire was reluctant to push its faith onto subject peoples?
what? They tried and were half successful converting Armenia, the Bagrationi's can trace their descent back to a Satrap granted land by the Shahanshah.
And a part of Arabia was converted to Zoroastrianism for quite a few years before falling into disarray.
And as to why they weren't effective? maybe cause Persia was spending most of its effort conquering Syria and Egypt rather than converting lands they weren't as interested in.
I am not convinced by all those "pragmatic" reasons for the spread of Christianity(such as centralisation, divine's right, or even proselytism). In the end it all comes down to cultural dominance in my opinion. The most advanced culture imposes itself to less developed peoples, including religious beliefs, and whether those beliefs are practical matters little. I am not aware of any example of Christianity spreading to a culture more advanced or at least at equal standing with the Christendom. Agreed, there weren't too many such cultures to begin with, but as an example Christianity failed in China despite it's apparently obvious "benefits". Islam however lacks many of those "benefits"(such as a Church organisation and hierarchy) but managed to spread very well. Buddhism lacks them alltogether, and isn't really a monotheistic religion in the sense of actively fighting any other, and yet it also managed to spread. The reason is cultural dominance, soft power, and not some alleged characteristics that make Abrahamic religions "better" at fighting other beliefs. What you all are saying is a bit like if you tried to argue that suits and neckties are widespread because of their sheer practicality.