Tinto Talks #13 - 22nd of May 2024

[Keksburg]

Animist - All others not covered by above

There are at least for Animists in east Asia other than Animist the placeholder: Tibetan Bo, Zhuang’s Moi, Bai’s Benzhuism and Miao’s Gid Chib Yeul Laol (the first one is confirmed by Pavia, the second one by map, and I’m not sure about the name of the 3rd and 4th one but there seems to be some contents and colors in map). If so, there would be a super big Animist group, though I’m afraid that all these are indeed Animist.

Shinto and Chinese folk religions are somewhat Animist too, but the former one is obviously much organized and integrated with Buddhism.

 

[Keksburg]

how including native faiths outside of Europe in the pagan group would just be perpetuating a Eurocentric view of religion

That’s for sure. So an organized/disorganised distribution on religions shall help - such has no judgement in value, but on whether it suits the formation of modern nation-state or not.

 

[Metz]

There are at least for Animists in east Asia other than Animist the placeholder: Tibetan Bo, Zhuang’s Moi, Bai’s Benzhuism and Miao’s Gid Chib Yeul Laol (the first one is confirmed by Pavia, the second one by map, and I’m not sure about the name of the 3rd and 4th one but there seems to be some contents and colors in map). If so, there would be a super big Animist group, though I’m afraid that all these are indeed Animist.

Shinto and Chinese folk religions are somewhat Animist too, but the former one is obviously much organized and integrated with Buddhism.

Eastern Animist for those.

 

[Keksburg]

Eastern Animist for those.

While these eastern animists might have nothing much different from others... in the form of animists

 

[deepfriedfatrats]

The name for the native Baltic faith is "Romuva" which is named after the neo-pagan faith with the name of that group being chosen in the 1900s and it being solely Lithuanian. I expected that you would copy ck3 and use "Vidilist" but I was wrong, I know it is difficult to find a name for it but I would suggest you at least consider trying a new name.

Also do you have one releasable tag for the proto-Latvians or multiple to represent the different tribes

 

[tribnia]

Something else.

Then how would you handle Joseon? Though Goryeo was mostly a Buddhist kingdom, Joseon turns out to be kind of anti-Buddhism. Unless you 'll make it animist...

 

[Kimudena]

This zone should be orthodox, not catholic

 

[Kimudena]

Shamanist in but no jains or buddhists in India?

I see jains on the map

 

[TheCourier]

Uh... me? Krstjani is the majority religion in Bosnia and is representative of the Bosnian Church, separate from Bogomilism which is represented as distinct and a minority in the area. Krstjani is the pale color in Bosnia. Bogomilism is that little bit of bright red.

Yes, let's pretend you wanted Krstjani to be represented on the map. Keep laughing.

 

[William the Merry]

I see jains on the map
View attachment 1138038

Still majority hindu everywhere which seems off for 1337

 

[Lindaegan]

Still majority hindu everywhere which seems off for 1337

No, it seems about right. The conversion of the Central Asians to Islam, and the Islamic invasions that came with them, almost entirely destroyed the relevance of Buddhism in the North, which had by that point been sustained both by royal patronage and trade links - which were now of course extinguished. The typical date for the end of the decline of Buddhism in the subcontinent proper is indeed given as the 14th century by most historians. Abul Fazl (the Grand Vizier of the Mughals under Akbar - late 16th) that there were "few" Buddhists anywhere in Hindustan, and when he went to Kashmir he only met a few old men professing the religion, "and none among the learned." Small pockets would have survived in the south or the Himalayas later than the 1300s, since, being more tied to Tibet, Buddhists managed to maintain their position until even the present day.

Unfortunately for the Buddhists (and Jains) in the south, the bhakti movement had created a more militant strain of Shaivism (such as Lingayatism, which was the state religion of many of the nayakas under the Vijayanagara). Lingayats were well-known for destroying Jain temples, and forcing Jain priests to engage in Shaivite rituals. Indeed, the fact that even the Lingayat sources do not really mention the destruction of Buddhist temples (and, as I have written elsewhere, the canonical stance on Buddhism softens around this period) leads me to believe that Buddhism had for all intents and purposes lost its once-dominant state of relevance by the 15th century, even in the south. Ezra Rashkow writes, on the position of Jains in the south: "Historians reflecting on Jaina decline suggest that while during the Rashtrakuta period (750-1,000 CE) wholly one-third of the population of the Deccan probably followed the teachings of Mahavir[a], the number of Jainas subsequently faced a rapid and massive diminution." Keep in mind that the great states of the south during following the eleventh century (the Cholas, the Chalukyas, the Pandyas, the Hoysalas and later the Vijayanagara) were all firmly Brahminical and Shaivite. It has always been the case in India that a religion lives and dies by the patronage of temporal powers - even in the south by this point all funding had dried up, and was being directed towards temples. Of course, the Vijayanagara were comparatively more tolerant of Jains, but they did not last too long.

A final point I want to add is that by its very nature, the "common man," so to speak, was never truly interested in these majority religions, being it (Vedic) Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism. They mostly followed the deities of their ancestors, while syncretizing certain practices from these religions (for example, pre-Vedic Dravidian society was matriarchal, but by Hindu influence became patriarchal. Another is the commonality of animal sacrifice, which fell due to Buddhist and Jain influence). So when a non-elite Jain "converts" to Hinduism, they are not really doing much other than changing, perhaps, the god which they identify their own personal god with, or certain rituals. So the conversion is not as "drastic" as it would be from an Abrahamic perspective.

 

[William the Merry]

No, it seems about right.

It seems right to have only the tiniest parcels of land of non hindus with no striped regions, showing mixed faiths?

The conversion of the Central Asians to Islam, and the Islamic invasions that came with them, almost entirely destroyed the relevance of Buddhism in the North, which had by that point been sustained both by royal patronage and trade links - which were now of course extinguished. The typical date for the end of the decline of Buddhism in the subcontinent proper is indeed given as the 14th century by most historians. Abul Fazl (the Grand Vizier of the Mughals under Akbar - late 16th) that there were "few" Buddhists anywhere in Hindustan, and when he went to Kashmir he only met a few old men professing the religion, "and none among the learned." Small pockets would have survived in the south or the Himalayas later than the 1300s, since, being more tied to Tibet, Buddhists managed to maintain their position until even the present day.

To say people are only a religion due to royal sponsorship implies they were never of that religion in the first place, just that they incorporated parts of the royal religion into their lives. Its been 200 years since the fall of the Palas, but there'd still be buddhists in more than just Sindh, Bhutan, and a tiny bit of Nepal as the map currently shows.

Unfortunately for the Buddhists (and Jains) in the south, the bhakti movement had created a more militant strain of Shaivism (such as Lingayatism, which was the state religion of many of the nayakas under the Vijayanagara). Lingayats were well-known for destroying Jain temples, and forcing Jain priests to engage in Shaivite rituals. Indeed, the fact that even the Lingayat sources do not really mention the destruction of Buddhist temples (and, as I have written elsewhere, the canonical stance on Buddhism softens around this period) leads me to believe that Buddhism had for all intents and purposes lost its once-dominant state of relevance by the 15th century, even in the south. Ezra Rashkow writes, on the position of Jains in the south: "Historians reflecting on Jaina decline suggest that while during the Rashtrakuta period (750-1,000 CE) wholly one-third of the population of the Deccan probably followed the teachings of Mahavir[a], the number of Jainas subsequently faced a rapid and massive diminution." Keep in mind that the great states of the south during following the eleventh century (the Cholas, the Chalukyas, the Pandyas, the Hoysalas and later the Vijayanagara) were all firmly Brahminical and Shaivite. It has always been the case in India that a religion lives and dies by the patronage of temporal powers - even in the south by this point all funding had dried up, and was being directed towards temples. Of course, the Vijayanagara were comparatively more tolerant of Jains, but they did not last too long.

A final point I want to add is that by its very nature, the "common man," so to speak, was never truly interested in these majority religions, being it (Vedic) Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism. They mostly followed the deities of their ancestors, while syncretizing certain practices from these religions (for example, pre-Vedic Dravidian society was matriarchal, but by Hindu influence became patriarchal. Another is the commonality of animal sacrifice, which fell due to Buddhist and Jain influence). So when a non-elite Jain "converts" to Hinduism, they are not really doing much other than changing, perhaps, the god which they identify their own personal god with, or certain rituals. So the conversion is not as "drastic" as it would be from an Abrahamic perspective.

Its not as drastic as conversion from Islam to Christianity and viceversa, but with the caste system being more solidified, a buddhist priest is less likely to be regarded as a brahmin when swapping what gods he offers sacrifices to

 

[Lindaegan]

It seems right to have only the tiniest parcels of land of non hindus with no striped regions, showing mixed faiths?

I am assuming that is a WIP. I was responding to your assertion:

Still majority hindu everywhere which seems off for 1337

Which does not imply in any manner that you take issue with the lack of representation of minority faiths. Certainly Madurai should have a Jain minority at this point.

To say people are only a religion due to royal sponsorship implies they were never of that religion in the first place, just that they incorporated parts of the royal religion into their lives. Its been 200 years since the fall of the Palas, but there'd still be buddhists in more than just Sindh, Bhutan, and a tiny bit of Nepal as the map currently shows.

This is a rather strange view of religion. I am not going to debate it, because it would be impossible for me to convince you otherwise. For what it is worth, I think your view of religion as this "strong" is much weirder than mine.

Onto history. First, the Palas were limited exclusively to the Bengal, so it holds no effect on the fortunes of Buddhists elsewhere - who were slaughtered wholesale. The issue with Buddhism is that it has always relied on royal patronage in India - remember that Buddhist monks can survive only on dana (charity). With kings not being Buddhist anymore (or open to patronizing other faiths), the sanghas quickly fell out of relevance, and with it went the religion. Again, we know for a fact that Buddhism only survived in the south and the Himalayas after the Islamic conquests (if you want sources, I will give them to you). And in the south the bhakti movement was gaining strength; more and more people were turning to Hinduism.

Should there be more Buddhists? Of course, but we are not seeing numbers here. We also do not know the threshold for being "striped." We also do not know if the religious map of India is completed, or a WIP. What we do know is that Buddhists were a majority in very few places in the mainland, at this point.

Its not as drastic as conversion from Islam to Christianity and viceversa, but with the caste system being more solidified, a buddhist priest is less likely to be regarded as a brahmin when swapping what gods he offers sacrifices to

The caste system is not exclusive to Hinduism. It is a South Asian cultural phenomenon, not a religious one. I know Muslims, and Christians, who still have caste - and discriminate with other Christians and Muslims on that basis. However, you are right - a Buddhist convert would not be a Brahmin necessarily. But what does that matter? The entire "converted" community would have either rejoined an ancient jati they were a part of, or created a new jati for themselves. And for what it is worth, the caste system is not exclusively rigid - the Rajputs were not always kshatriya, and in the south the varna system never existed, being a two-fold distinction.

 

[General_Dragon22]

No, those are Bogomils; we don't have any Hellenic pop in the game.

If that is the case, Do you then have the concept of "Dead Religions" like in CK3 or will dead faiths just not be represented in the game like Hellenism or the Celtic Faith? Personally, as unrealistic as it is, it would be a fun run to restore a Hellenic Faith Roman Empire and reconquer it in the name of Zeus/Jupiter.

 

[PerhapsItsChondoLal]

Why is Sindh majority Buddhist???????? It has been Arab controlled since the 10th century!

 

[PerhapsItsChondoLal]

Onto history. First, the Palas were limited exclusively to the Bengal,

I must dispute this for the honour of my people
The Palas, at their height, owned uptil Delhi...and for most of their history owned till Allahabad at the least. Bihar was almost entirely under their control for the length of their reign except during one or two civil wars + a brief period of decline.

 

[PerhapsItsChondoLal]

There were and still are Buddhists in the Chittagong Hill Tracts which seem not to be represented?

 

[Contravarius]

Interesting to see whole Estonia being Catholic. I guess it makes sense, considering how we got converted over and over again under different conquerors to same Catholic religion.
(For those who don't know, there was sort of rivarly between the conquerers who would convert the Estonian pagans, even if they already were converted by other conquerors)

Estonians did also have the hugest uprising in its' long post-Crusades history like a few years after the game's start. During which they specifically renounced officially even the barest, superficial bits of Christian elements and burn down churches all over. And elected four kings from among themselves, funnily enough. I imagine any such niche Baltic content would be for the inevitable DLCs but I don't think being painted regular Catholic would still be all that representative of what was going on. The majority of people outside of Germans within larger urban settlements were barely going through the choreographic Christian motions in addition to their regular paganism if even that.

Saint George's Night Uprising - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Events tied to this would be surely fun for some future DLC focused on the region, though.

 

[Old_Sealand]

Estonians did also have the hugest uprising in its' long post-Crusades history like a few years after the game's start. During which they specifically renounced officially even the barest, superficial bits of Christian elements and burn down churches all over. And elected four kings from among themselves, funnily enough. I imagine any such niche Baltic content would be for the inevitable DLCs but I don't think being painted regular Catholic would still be all that representative of what was going on. The majority of people outside of Germans within larger urban settlements were barely going through the choreographic Christian motions in addition to their regular paganism if even that.

Saint George's Night Uprising - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Events tied to this would be surely fun for some future DLC focused on the region, though.

That uprising wasn't really about Crusades itself or religion in that matter. It was about how they were treated as peasants (or I guess more slaves), which was the reason for those uprisings. Because in Wiki it should also be mentioned that they wanted to replace their overlords with new overlords, who would treat them better. New ones being Sweden. Because while they did some dumb stuff, like all rulers meeting up in one place and thus getting excectue, they were smart enough to know that getting independence is not possible and opted for different/better rulership.

 

[Ispil]

Yes, let's pretend you wanted Krstjani to be represented on the map. Keep laughing.

I... genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. My post was "the Bosnian Church and Bogomilism were separate things". On the map, they're separate things.

You sure you're okay? I swear, I always get the crazy ones...