That's about right. The Baltic tribes in the 900s were a disorganised bunch. In the early 13th century, by the time Riga was built and Crossies were traversing Nemunas, the other tribes had unified into, IIRC, at most 5 or 6 principalities (there is a treaty of Halich-Volhyn, dated 1219, which identifies roughly 40 Baltic "dukes" or other rulers, with 5 or 6 being of higher rank). One of the worst defeats the Orders have suffered (and one that spelled the end of the Brothers of the Sword) was against such a regional-ducal army of Samogitians in Saulė/Šiauliai (near the modern-day Lithuanian-Latvian border) in 1236. After this, significant incursions into Samogitian and Lithuanian territory ceased (there have been raids by both sides on frequent occasions).
20% of Medieval Europeans pagan
- Thread starter JimmyJimJam
- Start date
Ok... so what's the best way to keep the Lithuanians from converting? Admittedly, they're in for a rough ride even after the Knights bite it, but if they can make it to the 17th C they might just be clear.
I tried pondering about that, the discussion might give some ideas. The main problem here is that it would be very difficult for a Pagan country to interact peacefully with Christian ones as equal partners - whether it is trade, joint military ventures or academic-related business. Being Pagan means being isolated, at least in those times. If more Pagan realms survived, for example, in Scandinavia or Finland, it might just be possible that they would be strong enough to counter the Christian expansion. Then you get another problem - Christianity, unlike most Pagan belief systems, is an evangelist religion, meaning it requires its adherents to spread it. If not by sword and fire, preachers would go to Pagan countries relentlesly trying to convert the local population. The local population might not see the threat in that and accept the new God as part of their existing pantheon, and then gradually lose ties with that pantheon.
OK... which means we need a more militant, organisd Lithuanian paganism, maybe even a pagan Church, to keep its integrity in the face of missionaries. What was Lithuanian paganism actually like, anyways? The impression I have is "Odinism with less ys and more as" but that's probably not accurate.
Hmm... If you can keep the Finns or even the Swedes pagan, that helps a lot with the whole isolation thing. Again, if they can make it to 1700 or thereabouts, when the Enlightenment takes a lot of the official kick out of state religions, and you can have normal relations with other Christian sects and even (*gasp!*) Muslims, the Lithuanians are probably OK. It's the intervening three centuries that's the tough part...
More or less that. Or make the people develop a mentality that the missionaries are evil, which would probably be hard to do.
Baltic (i.e. Prussian, Lithuanian, Latvian and corresponding earlier tribal) Paganism has quite a few similarities with Scandinavian versions. I don't know many details, though I know that eternal fires and oak trees/forests were sacred and very important. The rites were performed by people called kriviai (AFAIK, this tradition is similar to Celts and druidism), so some organisation was present, and could probably be expanded and upgraded into a fully fledged Church.
The majority of the peasant population was Pagan well into the 17th century. I believe that if Lithuania adopted Christianity just as a lip service to the Pope, and somehow (the question is - how?) managed to prevent adamant Christians from destroying the sacred fireplaces, chopping the sacred forests and destroying and demonizing the Pagan religion in various other ways, it may allow the country to remain de facto Pagan until 1700 and from then on to the present day.
Hendryk
Banned
I don't remember whether they're referred to by name. They're described as closely related enough to humans to be able to interbreed with them. As I said, Harrison should have stuck to his original premise, which worked fine on its own.
The idea was that when a pagan king (somewhere in Frisia or Northern Germany IIRC) was about to be baptised by Catholic missionaries along with his retainers, he asked the missionaries if his conversion would apply to his deceased forefathers as well, and they replied, correctly but undiplomatically, that since they died in their sins they were burning in Hell and nothing he could do would change that. The king thus realized that accepting Christianity meant cutting himself off from his entire ancestry, both culturally and spiritually, so instead he decided to go back to paganism, but with a coherent dogma and a written canon that would enable it to resist Christian encroachment. As PODs go, it's not the most plausible one, but it sort of makes sense.
The fact that Christianity was an aristocratic thing mainly helps, a bit, but it doesn't change the fundamental problem: as long as they're surrounded by christians and Lithuanian Paganism is a fairly dissassociated pile of beliefs, the incentive for the king and court to convert is just going to get stronger and stronger. And once that happens, the trees, forests, shrines &c &c are coming down - that's pretty much unavoidable following a conversion. We need to make LithuPaganism an integral part of Lithuania, so the christians can't establish a foothold, and strong enough that it can survive on its own and not capitulate.
...All right, let's POD some codifier into existence in, say, the 9th C. Call him Lithuhammed.
For whatever reason, he manages to bring together a bunch of the tribes, unifies them (at least religiously), makes Lithuanian paganism a bit more expansive. By the time the 'Knights come knocking a century later, the Prussians are LithuPagans, the Livonians and Ests are LithuPagans, and they're at least getting into fights with the missionaries in Sweden. Finland's a bit far away and has different traditions, and the Russians are already conveted (and were different originally as well) but the Balts shouldn't be too much to ask for. Getting the Lithuanians unified by now is a bit much, before they run into the 'Knights, but it might at least be a bit quicker once they do. This seem reasonable for a start?<...>...All right, let's POD some codifier into existence in, say, the 9th C. Call him Lithuhammed.
A possible PoD could be some missionary coming to the Baltic Pagan lands and rather than annoying the local chiefs and getting killed, becoming accepted and teaching the locals for some time. This happened with a Sudovian tribe in 1009, but I think some Prussian tribes were contacted at least 100 years earlier. If such a persons comes along, it might just happen that the locals learn of the structure of the Church, but are not inclined to convert. They would then use the new knowledge of the Church, and maybe heed some clever guy's (Lithuhammad's, as you put it
) warning that if missionaries don't succeed, soldiers will come next. This may allow the tribes to unify a great deal, and base that unification on Romuva (this is the generally accepted name for Baltic Paganism). Of course, other chiefs would resist this unification, especially if it is done under, let's say, one Nadruvian chief's banner, rather than for some supranational cause. Some careful diplomacy on the unifier's part (again maybe owing to the Lithuhammad guy) could help solve the situation.This may easily become a Pagan-wank, but I think there is a possibility of something like what you outline to work.
A possible PoD could be some missionary coming to the Baltic Pagan lands and rather than annoying the local chiefs and getting killed, becoming accepted and teaching the locals for some time. This happened with a Sudovian tribe in 1009, but I think some Prussian tribes were contacted at least 100 years earlier. If such a persons comes along, it might just happen that the locals learn of the structure of the Church, but are not inclined to convert. They would then use the new knowledge of the Church, and maybe heed some clever guy's (Lithuhammad's, as you put it
This may easily become a Pagan-wank, but I think there is a possibility of something like what you outline to work.
I think that you might be able to pull something like this off. It would need to be more than one Christian missionary. Then a particularly strong Lithuanian Prince, whose pushing a new brand of Paganism. He dies heroically somewhere and the Cult of the Prince springs up in his wake. His bloodline is necessary in order to rule, and though his sons are divided and factious, their legitimacy (and that of their children) is accepted by the pagan tribes of the Baltic.
The problem that I see is that this cult is rather easily brought into the Christian world. One of the Prince's descendants accepts Christianity, and uses his family name and Christian military might to wage a war to take "his" throne. The nobles convert and that's that.
Plus paganism was pretty much screwed by geography too. Orthodox Russia on one side, Catholic Poland on another. The north is Catholic Sweden. The South will eventually be Orthodox vassals to Turkish Sultans. All those Abrahamic religions. Got to choose one.
Would it be more helpful to have both the Baltics (including Lithuania) and Scandinavia remain pagan for this idea to work? Have both the Norse and the Baltics strike an alliance of northern non-Christians.
AFAIK, Baltic Paganism never had even hints of historical ruler deification. The ancestors were revered, but to a far lesser extent that gods. It might be difficult to introduce such a concept to the tribes.
Yeah, this is why a unifying deified ruler would not work, IMO. A more "concept-based" unification may work, but that may require nationalism to be invented a millenium too early
Agreed, there's that. However, it should not be difficult to have a strong Pagan entity surviving until the time of Mongol invasions (did so IOTL, no reason why it could not be even stronger ITTL). Then the Mongols may be persuaded to not adopt any other religion, and stay Pagan. Also, relations with Pagans further to the east and south (Pechenegs, Kumans, Volga-Bulgarians, Ugrofinnic tribes) may bolster the "Pagan cause", so to speak.
It would. That would require Vikings and Balts to overcome their mutual distrust (stemming from first the Viking raids upon eastern Baltic coast, and later the Curonic raids on Denmark and southern Sweden) and start working for a common goal. It might be difficult to achieve, and only happen when it is too late.
Going on two different tangents I could say
1. The spread of Christianity was heavily as much do to the Roman Empire-Unified and with very good road systems it allowed Christian missionaries to spread to every corner of the Roman Empire (Which was Europe and then some). So simply have it that the Roman Empire was not so big-Maybe just Italy and the East Med. and the rest some sort of kingdoms, confederations of tribes, or whatever to stump missionary work to apoint where one could say being Christian was being Roman-and allow the Non-Romans to beef up their own religious.
2.On the second account their could be a possible resurgence like their was under Julilan the Apostate (the Great) or more out-there Reconstructionism like we have today (Asatru, Celtic Recon, Hellenismos and even the Lith. Recons).
1. The spread of Christianity was heavily as much do to the Roman Empire-Unified and with very good road systems it allowed Christian missionaries to spread to every corner of the Roman Empire (Which was Europe and then some). So simply have it that the Roman Empire was not so big-Maybe just Italy and the East Med. and the rest some sort of kingdoms, confederations of tribes, or whatever to stump missionary work to apoint where one could say being Christian was being Roman-and allow the Non-Romans to beef up their own religious.
2.On the second account their could be a possible resurgence like their was under Julilan the Apostate (the Great) or more out-there Reconstructionism like we have today (Asatru, Celtic Recon, Hellenismos and even the Lith. Recons).
Uniting the Pagan North will probably take a storyish contrivance from history- kind of like the missionary idea brought up earlier, or like when the samurai went to teach the Iroquois in The Years of Rice and Salt about the coming Chinese, it will take a traveler from Europe to warn the pagans of what awaits them. For poetic license I would make a heretic such as an Arian, but that would be wildly anachronistic I guess.
A common enemy is a wonderful uniter. Especially if said enemy is stronger than them individually, aggressive and brutal.
As has been said, the problem is that Chrisitanity prozelyse and seek converts. Pagans normally don't. Christians also have more resisrtance to conversion. Any interaction therefore normally ends with the area sliding from Paganism to christianity over time. Even without the ecopnomic incentives.
What you need...
Hrof gazed out across the crowd. Never before had so many jarls and warriors been gathered to listen to one man. It was a tribute to the power of that man, whose voice was ringing like a sword across the sea of faces, words rising and falling in a hearbeat-rythmn.
"He died! He died for us, nailed to the wood! And he was ressurected! He came back from the dead by his own will and wisdom. And he came back, no longer a lamb, but a lion.
He has brought us knowledge! And law! And he has come to us a warrior!
The wolf-king is loose in the south and the winter will not end! These are the last days! The last days of the old world!
And we are the Lords of the Last Days!
And in his name we will forge a new world!
He is Odin, who died on the tree, that we would have wisdom. And he brough us war!! These are the days of Ragnarok!"
The mans fist stabbed at the sky "Let me hear it! What did he bring?"
And a hundred thousand throats roared in exultation:
"War!!"
You need Viking Muhammad.
There is no god save Odin and (name) is his prophet?
Problem is, I think Thor was the more popular god, while worship of Odin was an elite thing.
I found your little snippet--it looks like a Christian-Norse syncretic faith--very interesting.
Problem is, I think Thor was the more popular god, while worship of Odin was an elite thing.
I found your little snippet--it looks like a Christian-Norse syncretic faith--very interesting.
Didn't SHWI do a timeline like this? I would look it up but I don't like touching USENET threads that are pre-2002. Too primitive.
Why is the concept of a Norse Muhammad so popular in althist, anyways?
Why is the concept of a Norse Muhammad so popular in althist, anyways?
Oh! And I forgot. The Finns had a pagan tradition different from the Norse.
And don't forget the Wends, that weird pagan ethnic group that I've only seen from Crusader Kings and this:
http://sosoonnomore.blogspot.com/2008/03/alternate-history-2-wendish-paganism.html
And don't forget the Wends, that weird pagan ethnic group that I've only seen from Crusader Kings and this:
http://sosoonnomore.blogspot.com/2008/03/alternate-history-2-wendish-paganism.html
Last edited:
King Thomas
Banned
I read somewhere that countries becoming Christian back then, was a little in modern terms like countries entering the EU now-it was the thing to do to help with trade ect.
Only if joining the EU includes the death penalty for remaining eurosceptic and having your teeth broken out for eating non-sanctioned foods.
The paths to conversion were many, but in the medium term they invariably involved some very serious and far-reaching changes to society and political culture, usually pushed through by the powers that be and often quite unpleasant. Though it was a sweet deal if you happened to be in power.