AHC/Discussion: European Islam/Muhammad-analogue

I do wonder if less or lack of Christianity north of Gaul would invite an organisation of AngloSaxon beliefs that spreads to Scandinavia.
Giving that Anglo-Saxon England (at least in the first part of its history) wasn't really an primary region (being more or less at the recieving end of continental influence), I would go with that it wouldn't. Depending on what happens in Northern Gaul and its fringes, if not Christianity whatever systemic religions it carries, or if not still some influence from there (assuming that ITTL, Northern Gaul is still roughly organized on post-imperial structures).
 
Giving that Anglo-Saxon England (at least in the first part of its history) wasn't really an primary region (being more or less at the recieving end of continental influence), I would go with that it wouldn't. Depending on what happens in Northern Gaul and its fringes, if not Christianity whatever systemic religions it carries, or if not still some influence from there (assuming that ITTL, Northern Gaul is still roughly organized on post-imperial structures).
I see it as a melting pot of ideas from Ireland, Scandinavia, and the Continent rather than just from the Continent.
(Or are you not saying that and I've misunderstood?)

Post Christianisation England was the prime exporter of missionaries to pagan Northern Europe afterall.

So if it has an organised religion it could be a strongly proselytising one.
 
I see it as a melting pot of ideas from Ireland, Scandinavia, and the Continent rather than just from the Continent.
(Or are you not saying that and I've misunderstood?)

Post Christianisation England was the prime exporter of missionaries to pagan Northern Europe afterall.

So if it has an organised religion it could be a strongly proselytising one.
I can't say im an expert in this era, but wasn't it's strong prosletysing due to the support network of the catholic church?
 
I see it as a melting pot of ideas from Ireland, Scandinavia, and the Continent rather than just from the Continent.
(Or are you not saying that and I've misunderstood?)
Thing is, the only major influences before the Xth century were coming either from Ireland, or from Francia. For reasons of geographic closeness and economic ties (for what matter Francia it was were the big trade roads came from, at the point petty-kingdoms as Kent were at least tributaries, maybe undergoing some kind of vassality towards the Frankish kings)

Post Christianisation England was the prime exporter of missionaries to pagan Northern Europe afterall.
Essentially thanks to the episcopal/monastical network already established, and because it was patronized by Francia (trough their own relation with Rome) for its own needs. It indeed helped that Britain was seen as a clerical cultural center in the VIIIth (it does help to have purer skills in Latin when you're not surrounded by people speaking romance speeches).

Without the active support of Frankish majordomos and kings, I don't think these missions would have been that successful or, in fact, that important.
 
It did have connection's to Attila's sword apparently, so that might be a good start.
The connection is essentially tied to Hungarian proto-national historiography : unless we could consider Excalibur and its narrative connections as the start for an Arthurian religion?
Admittedlt it could be fun, but maybe not on this part of the board.
 
Found it. Not Tengri, but a Hungarian pagan deity, so it's quite marginal unfortunately. It did have connection's to Attila's sword apparently, so that might be a good start.

Sadly, tied to the Magyars, rather than the Huns.

That is one thing that always bugs me, is the tie of Magyar to Hun. It doesn't seem to have any substance, as the Huns and Magyars are two different grounds - but then "Hungary", and now Hadur.

The connection is essentially tied to Hungarian proto-national historiography : unless we could consider Excalibur and its narrative connections as the start for an Arthurian religion?

I don't see why not. There is enough in the Arthur myths to do so. Messianic immortal king who saves the land. Paragon/Hero worship. It doesn't sound drastically different to Imperial cults. I'd be interested at the very least in an exploration of the idea.

EDIT : Failed to finish the following paragraphs before accidentally posting.

Although, based on the other thread about 'reforming' religions - that might be a way to form some new religion - the right PoDs including adopting Arianism. (not unlikely IMO, since there seems to be evidence, even with names, that the Huns were actively Gothifying themselves)

Adopt it, and then (assuming similar success ITTL), have Attila not die when he did, but live long enough to forcibly try and organise an 'Arian Patriarchate', or some unifying faith.

Was there a significant difference in how the Germanic tribes practised their Arian faiths to the ideas that were initially taught, and did those include adopting festivals and ideas from old beliefs?
 
Last edited:
@RogueTraderEnthusiast : The idea of an Arthurian messiah is certainly an interesting one. I think like my hypothesised "Irish Christian Wicca", it has the issue that any significant text is going to be super Christian based. Going back to Monmouth, we see Arthur not as having any inherent powers (in many ways he is quite pathetic compared to many of the figures of whom his legend is inspired) instead being directly drawn from the Christian God (like needing to go get the holy grail).

More of a problem is that there became quite quickly a variety of Arthur stori s which don't paint him in the best light. From raping his half sister, to chasing married women, spurning his bastard and sometimes being defeated by chastising priests for his rowdy behaviour are all things that happen in various regional retellings of Arthur. Whilst in the modern light we can certainly condemn aspects of Mohammed (e.g. The whole pedophillia thing is very uncomfortable), it was at least considered acceptable in its time. Arthur however was so popular for many BECAUSE he was a flawed figure, rather than a figure to necessarily revere like we would a messiah.
 
@RogueTraderEnthusiast : The idea of an Arthurian messiah is certainly an interesting one. I think like my hypothesised "Irish Christian Wicca", it has the issue that any significant text is going to be super Christian based. Going back to Monmouth, we see Arthur not as having any inherent powers (in many ways he is quite pathetic compared to many of the figures of whom his legend is inspired) instead being directly drawn from the Christian God (like needing to go get the holy grail).

More of a problem is that there became quite quickly a variety of Arthur stori s which don't paint him in the best light. From raping his half sister, to chasing married women, spurning his bastard and sometimes being defeated by chastising priests for his rowdy behaviour are all things that happen in various regional retellings of Arthur. Whilst in the modern light we can certainly condemn aspects of Mohammed (e.g. The whole pedophillia thing is very uncomfortable), it was at least considered acceptable in its time. Arthur however was so popular for many BECAUSE he was a flawed figure, rather than a figure to necessarily revere like we would a messiah.

Well, a Messiah AFAIK, doesn't need to be perfect - just a promised leader. (I won't lie, I don't know the source of the idea of the Once and Future King, and I damn well hope it isn't the book of the same name). We just have Jesus so tied to the idea that we forget a Messiah is not infallible by default.

I don't think having some Christian base is an issue. I've been working on an Abrahamic assumption, so Christanity is a useful jumping off point for that. Plus, his flaws are what make him perfect for a religion interested in Paragons. - He starts off flawed, and is flawed, but still does great things. Whilst Jesus could be used as the ultimate paragon,, Arthur is a perfect example of a great hero who tried to aspire to an ideal. (Which really depends on which version of Arthur you go with). Plus, some of his flaws could discarded as falsehoods when everything is codified.

If we go with the Pre-Galfridian Arthur (probably the best choice for building a faith involving the bloke), then whilst Jesus is a Paragon of Piety, Arthur becomes a Paragon of Valour. Which opens the door for other figures to be adopted for other traits.

The problem is, in a formalised version of such a faith - what about the Saints. Having the Saints as Paragons wouldn't be different enough for the OP for me - but you could have Paragons have Followers/Adherents. Essentially, people who followed their path. So Jesus would have more than a few Followers in the Saints, but then Arthurian Followers could include Lancelot (if that character ever came to be), or (more than likely), Warrior-Kings that come after Arthur (I do like the idea, butterflies permitting, of an alt-1453 Constantine XI being enshrined in Britain as a Follower of Arthur).

But like your 2&2 Danu-Yahweh Mother-Father suggestion, someone Hero-Worshipping Arthur to an excessive degree, but also being a Priest isn't impossible IMO. Giving Arthurian Legends as part of his sermons? Not impossible either, especially if he feels his congregation needs stories of bravery.
 
Sadly, tied to the Magyars, rather than the Huns.

That is one thing that always bugs me, is the tie of Magyar to Hun. It doesn't seem to have any substance, as the Huns and Magyars are two different grounds - but then "Hungary", and now Hadur.
Think of it this way: the fact that Attila's legend influenced a different tribe so much could be the basis of how other steppe peoples could be converted.
 
Well, a Messiah AFAIK, doesn't need to be perfect - just a promised leader. (I won't lie, I don't know the source of the idea of the Once and Future King, and I damn well hope it isn't the book of the same name). We just have Jesus so tied to the idea that we forget a Messiah is not infallible by default.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used Messiah and instead used something like "prophet".
In general, the difference between revering a figure and respecting them within the abrahamic tradition is how infallible they were.

Soloman is a good example. Whilst considered wise in many respects and generally a good person, he isn't really revered within the Christian tradition, is a point of warning in Judaism of how a man can fall and I beleive in Islam his flaws are (as far as I am aware) completely removed so that he can be considered a prophet in his own right (please any Muslim AHers correct me if I am wrong).
An Arthurian religion is going to have the problem that by the time he is well known enough to the aristocracy throughout Europe (nevermind the UK), he already has the more crass stories being well established across the folk stories of him. This gives me a pretty badass idea though: the aristocracy did all sorts of weird cult things, what about an Arthurian Warrior cult like a medieval Mithraism. If it survives long enough, it could be a major figure of romanticist thought later and a big part of colonial identity if there is any reason for younger aristocrats to forge new countries abroad.

I don't think having some Christian base is an issue. I've been working on an Abrahamic assumption, so Christanity is a useful jumping off point for that. Plus, his flaws are what make him perfect for a religion interested in Paragons. - He starts off flawed, and is flawed, but still does great things. Whilst Jesus could be used as the ultimate paragon,, Arthur is a perfect example of a great hero who tried to aspire to an ideal. (Which really depends on which version of Arthur you go with). Plus, some of his flaws could discarded as falsehoods when everything is codified.
It isn't so much that having a Christian base is an issue inherently (Islam of course found itself in an Arabia where Christianity, Judaism etc were relatively commonplace. The issue is more that by any point by which Arthur is going to be a well known enough figure, Christianity has already kinda kicked the ass of any other faith in the area (even if they don't know it yet).

If we go with the Pre-Galfridian Arthur (probably the best choice for building a faith involving the bloke), then whilst Jesus is a Paragon of Piety, Arthur becomes a Paragon of Valour. Which opens the door for other figures to be adopted for other traits.
That is sort of what happened OTL actually... not Jesus and Arthur being put on the same pedestal (the idea of a divine Paragon system is going to require some major PODs), but in OTL there were many knightly figures who were kinda venerated as paragons of concepts (even if the concept was a nation).

But like your 2&2 Danu-Yahweh Mother-Father suggestion, someone Hero-Worshipping Arthur to an excessive degree, but also being a Priest isn't impossible IMO. Giving Arthurian Legends as part of his sermons? Not impossible either, especially if he feels his congregation needs stories of bravery.
Very possible, b ut im not sure that so much qualifies as a "european islam" as much as it does just enthusiasm for Arthur which could reasonably be adopted by any Christian sect.
 
Was there a significant difference in how the Germanic tribes practised their Arian faiths to the ideas that were initially taught, and did those include adopting festivals and ideas from old beliefs?
Indeed.

First, and that's quite important to point on this question, considering this non-Nicean beliefs present among Barbarians as pure, unaltered Arianism is a bit misleading. Generally "Homeism" is preferred, as a softcore equivalent of Arianism, that never really worked out in Romania (in imperial and post-imperial times).

The distinction is important, as Homeism was far less radically distinct from Nicean beliefs (at the point that when one switched side, it wasn't considered as a conversion, and didn't required a baptism) : in fact, it was purposely vague about dogmatic issues, and eventually relatively compatible (with an increasing mix with Orthodox beliefs with time, would it be only because Barbarians could switch to Niceanism to Homeism or the reverse : see Suevi or Burgundians)

What prevented Homeism to disappear earlier than IOTL was it was considered as an identitarian feature marking "Barbarity" (and even there, political events played fully : Alaric II religious policy hints at tentatives of "union"), distinguish them (while they more and more romanised with time) and Romans. More the population became a mix between Roman and Barbarian features, more it became irrelevant.

It should be noted, furthermore, than even original Arianism didn't concieved itself as a new church or a restored, purified belief. We're rather in the making of the dogmatisation and codification of the Christian religion into an organized institution tied up to the Empire : that Homeism beliefs came back in favour in imperial circles does showes that it wasn't that of an antagonist belief (even if, for msot of Nicean clergy, it was)
 
Top