AHC: Christian south Europe, Pagan north?

Status
Not open for further replies.

KaiserCorax

Banned
Hello! This is my first post so hopefully it isn't too ASB.

I want a world where the Roman Empire becomes Christian (same as OTL) but for Germania, Britain, Scandinavia and the Baltic to remain Pagan. It is up to you whether the Rus and Slavs convert.

In other words, the people I want to keep Pagan are (in modern countries):

  • Germany
  • France (Franks)
  • Britain
  • Norway
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
And the people I want to be Christian:

  • Spain
  • France (Occitan region)
  • Italy
  • The Balkans
Bonus points if you can:

  • Keep the East Germanic people alive and in the modern country of Poland
  • Make Arabia Christian
No particular POD and no Islam, thank you.
 
Last edited:
The first thing would be to keep the Roman borders stronger. The have Christians get into power much more slowly and maybe have it thought of as a Roman thing not for the barbarians.
 
Well, first, if you want to make Alternate History, you'll need a Point of Divergence. I suspect you may have confused what it means, so allow me to explain and don't mind if it wasn't the case : a PoD is the event (or the series of event) that allows history to follow a different direction.
Without PoD, well, you have what we call Our Timeline, aka real history.
Asking for no Islam is in itself calling for a PoD.

Now, about your query.

Britain and northern Gaul (the distinction between north and southern Gaul appearing really only in the VIII century) being already Christianize (at least, where it counts, in urban and power centers), I don't think you can maintain them pagan when the WRE is no longer.

Furthermore, germano-romans kings finally converted to catholicism (whatever pagans or arians) cause not only the population was such (as well part of german people already) but because the local nobility and therefore adminisrtative power (they didn't replaced) was.

Finally, the association made between the king ruling over the subjects, in parallel with God ruling over Christians, certainly was attractive for rulers willing to be less dependent of a tribal institution that limited greatly their power and forcing them to share it more widely.

That said, how to make northern Europe more pagan?
Your first issue is that Mediterranean and western Europe was more rich and more inhabited than North. You need to make it less dynamic than OTL in order to prevent OTL conversion of Germany (that made conversion of Scandinavia pretty much unavoidable).
The best way is to prevent Frankish rise. For that, no Islam would help (as it gave room and legitimacy to Pippinids and more or less gave them Aquitaine and Burgundy) but also (and it's indeed counter-intuitive) christianize Frisians.

Without real legitimacy on taking over Frisia and destroying the takeover they had on North Sea trade, Franks would have harder time to expand themselves north (while they would certainly go eastwards, taking over southern Germany).

Another PoD needed would be to severely crush Byzantine Empire. That's gonna be hard without Islam, but let's assume Sassanids manage to win the war in the VII century. It could help to slow or butterfly the Christianize of Volga's basin, and an alternate conversion of Scandinavia.

But I don't really think it would be enough to prevent appearance of Christianism in Northern Europe. It may delaying it, allow a survivance of paganism at best, but...
 

KaiserCorax

Banned
I do know what a POD is sorry, I meant to put no particular POD.

Thanks anyway but I am more looking for a POD that allows the Franks to remain Pagan, along with the Germanic tribes, the Celts and the Norse. I would have thought without the Franks it is harder to Christianise Europe?
 
Thanks anyway but I am more looking for a POD that allows the Franks to remain Pagan
That's really unlikely to happen if Franks rules Northern Gaul. As said, it was christianized when they settled (aka, between the IV and VI centuries).
At best, they stand pagan slightly longer.

I would have thought without the Franks it is harder to Christianise Europe?
Pagan Franks, something implying an Anglo-Saxon-like resistance to christianisation, would piss local nobility (roman, converted german, bishops) and really weaken their position making them the prey of a converted Frank (they existed even before Clovis' baptism) or a neighboring power, this one likely to take the place of Franks in dominant regional power.

Seeing how much Christianisation and Romanisation were tied, I simply don't think Germans settling in Romania could avoid it.
 
That's really unlikely to happen if Franks rules Northern Gaul. As said, it was christianized when they settled (aka, between the IV and VI centuries).
At best, they stand pagan slightly longer.


Pagan Franks, something implying an Anglo-Saxon-like resistance to christianisation, would piss local nobility (roman, converted german, bishops) and really weaken their position making them the prey of a converted Frank (they existed even before Clovis' baptism) or a neighboring power, this one likely to take the place of Franks in dominant regional power.

Seeing how much Christianisation and Romanisation were tied, I simply don't think Germans settling in Romania could avoid it.

Specially since popular opinion from historians nowadays is that he most likely were Arian (most likely from birth) before he bent knee to the pope
 
Specially since popular opinion from historians nowadays is that he most likely were Arian (most likely from birth) before he bent knee to the pope

It's far from being a popular opinion.

Ian Wood thinks it may have been so, but almost every other historian on this question favors the opinion that Clovis was pagan.
While Arians missionaries could have tried to convert Clovis to their faith (his own family having arian members), Wood's proposition is really minority.

First, arians weren't baptized when they converted. And the contemporary sources are all unianimous on this question, the "arian hypothesis" is mainly speculation.

Finally Ian Wood's proposition is tied to his other hypothesis on the batptism, that it would have happened in 507/508, in an anti-visigothic policy continuum. But this theory as well isn't mainstream.

For Lebecq and Rouche, two specialist on Early French MA, the baptism probably happened in the end of 490's, basing themselves on traditional datation, and sources (by exemple, the letter of Avit of Vienna, saying that Clovis was baptisted on the same orthodox faith than the emperor, or of course Gregorious of Tours).

This issue, here at least, isn't really discussed anymore.
 
Last edited:
Well to keep the Franks pagan and to keep them from taking over the south, you would need to butterfly Clovis and have t he Visigothic Kingdom hang on (I assume it doesn't matter what type of Christian they are?) With that, you butterfly Charlemagne and his conquests, which were mainly responsible for bringing Christianity northeast.

The Rus (assuming they still form) might still convert to Orthodox due to influences from the ERE.
 
Clovis was only but one of the forces in presence in Northern Gaul. What prevented other frankish rulers to rise as well was Clovis determination. Butterflying him by assassination would only gave room to another frankish leader, in Gaul or Rhineland.
In the same way, Syagrius was frowned upon by Gaul clergy as he was basically a client of Visigothic Kingdom. Without Franks, he would likely take over all the roman Belgia and would likely, being more powerful, follow the same policy than Clovis in this regard : having the advantage to follow orthodox faith, it would place him quite well to counter visigothic influence if he's rival-free on North Gaul.

To put it simply : North Gaul after the IV is christian dominated. Period.
Anyone ruling it would sooner or later, if not the case originally, going to convert to orthodox faith as it would be the only sure way to be supported by Gallo-Roman elite.

After that, seeing how Gaul was one of the provinces the less harmed by the crisis of III and V centuries, and the level of development of its neighbors, it would be really hard to not see a Gaul rise in the VI/VII centuries whatever is the ruler (Franks, Burgunds, Gallo-Romans, etc.)
 
There were real advantages to converting, in terms of trade for the common folk, and control for the rulers.

You're probably going to need the paganism to change and evolve if it is to keep up with christianity. For example, christianity has a missionary impulse. The pagans did not. If christianity keeps pushing, and Paganism does not, it will be worn away eventually.

A popular PoD is the "Viking Mohammed"
 
If christianity had been better at retaining it's more pacifist nature, with christians only fighting defensive wars, but never engaging in any conquest of their own, then things could be quite different. Without Charlemagne's conquests christianity might not have spread very far past the former borders of the Roman Empire. Or at least it would've been a much, much slower process, that might even still be going on to this day.

Which brings a question to mind. If, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, christianity did not spread by any conquest at all, but exclusively by peaceful missionary work, how far do you think it would have spread by today?
 
For a Clovis-related PoD you could have him marry a pagan woman. His wife OTL, as I recall, was a Christian Romano-Gaulish aristocrat fitting in with a common pattern of either the wife converting the husband or the mother raising their children in the new faith. Take that out of the equation and you could avert his conversion.

Another possibility is, according to the conventional narrative which may or may not be true, Clovis' actual moment of conversion was during a battle that was going against him leading to him to plead to Jesus for victory, after which the tide turned in his favor validating the power of the new God. This was a common pattern among Christian missionaries to engage in contests that "proved" their God was mightier than the pagan Gods of the locals though again how true these anecdotes are definitely varies.

If we assume the above story is correct lets say instead of the battle hanging in the balance prior to his desperate prayer things get a little dicey but rally before Clovis falls down on his knees begging for divine intervention. Without that moment validating the power of the Christian God he'd potentially see no reason to convert, especially if you pair that with him taking a different wife.
 
Britain and northern Gaul (the distinction between north and southern Gaul appearing really only in the VIII century) being already Christianize (at least, where it counts, in urban and power centers), I don't think you can maintain them pagan when the WRE is no longer.

It should probably be noted that Britain at least went back to being pagan, albeit a different flavour thereof, following the Anglo-Saxon invasions. It took a couple of attempts to make Christianity stick in Britian as a whole, three attempts in the case of Northumbria (and there's still some evidence of pagan goings on after attempt No. 3 supposedly stuck).

By the by, would I be correct in thinking that the premise of this thread is inspired by A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones (ie, new gods in the south, old gods in the north)?
 
1) Gaul, at least Gallo-Roman elites and administrations, was touroughly christianized. A king like Chilperic could rule over a small kingdom while still being pagans; but after the conquest of all northern Gaul and critically planning to conquer southern Gaul on Visigoths arguing of their heresy, being baptised was far less of a choice than an offer you couldn't refuse.

(As an aside, but it's a detail : I think that the wife you're talking on, he had more, was the daughter of the Burgondian king, not a Gallo-Roman noble. Unions with Gallo-Romans didn't really became a thing before both populations merged and that differenciation became moot. Royal lines furthermore, have prevented union with too "romans" lines, as Aquitains)

2) The recit of conversion happening at Tolbiac have many flaws. One it's a complete rip off of Constantine's conversion. At this point, it's more than safe to think it's an historiographical reconstitution and not an historical fact; critically when it tooks years before Clovis actually converted.

I know that less individualized history gives less room to changes critically on this, but theses seems like terrible PoDs.
The only safe way to prevent the christianisation of Franks is to prevent christianisation of Gaul, meaning probably a fall of Rome in the IIIrd.

It should probably be noted that Britain at least went back to being pagan, albeit a different flavour thereof, following the Anglo-Saxon invasions. It took a couple of attempts to make Christianity stick in Britian as a whole, three attempts in the case of Northumbria (and there's still some evidence of pagan goings on after attempt No. 3 supposedly stuck).
Indeed, but it should be noted as well that the german kingdoms in Britain kept fighting over christians romano-britions kingdoms for a while, something that didn't really happened in Gaul (I'd point that Clovis was still technically pagan when he crushed Syagrius).
When these kingdoms became way stabler, or that at least Brittons were kept away, the proccess of Christianisation both by Frankish influence and by the christian presence (at the very last of British elites) was quite logical.

(I agree I'm summarizing it a lot : the AS presence in Brittania was more smoother, but the need of keeping their indentitary distinction against Britons played nevertheless. It didn't helped that some entities as Wessex were probably first Britto-Romans and build around late roman features, as bishopries)
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Pagan zombie sighted.

Thor en route.

Mjolnir released.

Situation normalized.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top