AHC: Surviving Norse/Germanic Paganism

The challenge is to have a surviving Norse or Germanic Paganism as the majority religion at least in Scandinavia, but can also be expanded to Germany or elsewhere.

The PoD is after 380, when Theodosius made Christianity the Roman state religion, and before 1200, when Scandinavia has been already Christianized.
 

katchen

Banned
I think someone must unify Germany and Scandinavia before Boniface encounters Widikin. And independent trade routes to India and the Far East via Siberia that do not pass through Christian lands would also be helpful.
 
Sort of unoriginal, but you always have Leif Ericsson's colony in Vinland succeeding before he converted to Christianity, and him staying there with his pagan fellows until becoming isolated from Europe by the Little Ice Age. If they don't convert before 300 years or so pass.

And independent trade routes to India and the Far East via Siberia that do not pass through Christian lands would also be helpful.

Well that's easy, avoid Christianizing the Rus; admittedly hard, because they're settled and trade with Byzantium all the time.
 
The latest realistic POD would be the Saxon wars. Have Charlemagne invade, but somehow fail to destroy the sacred Irminsul in 772. Have him, instead, die in the attempt. Nothing could provide a stronger "divine proof" that the old gods can destroy the Christian invaders.

If possible, have his successors still murder many existing Saxon leaders (as Charlemagne did at Verden in OTL), possibly out of revenge. This would allow one pagan leader, like my namesake Widukind, to gain control of the Saxon people. This was the key factor in allowing them to fight the Franks for so long IOTL. The Saxons were relatively disoganized. Having a strong leader like Widukind in charge was what gave them a fighting chance. Having Charlemagne die in this ATL will give them a chance to not only fight, but to win.

After, all, since Charlemagne is dead, the Franks will likely collapse into civil war. Charlemagne's two sons, Charles the Younger and Pepin, are in infancy. The third son is never even born. Charlemagne's brother Carloman, however, has died just a year earlier. The succession is very shaky. Every passable claimant seizes part of the realm, and those rival kingdoms go to war against each other.

A collapsing or partitioned Frankish realm would allow a capable pagan leader like Widukind to forge alliances with the Frisians and the Danes, as he tried and did IOTL, and which was only prevented from becoming a powerful alliance by Charlemagne giving 100% of his energy to stopping just that from happening.

In this ATL, by the point that the Franks are back on their feet, a pagan Germanic alliance has been formed. If this can expand to include the rest of Scandinavia (not unthinkable, once Christians try to get a foothold, annoying the pagan rulers), this could become a stronghold that resists monotheism just as capably as India did IOTL. Having someone develop an easy-to-use runic alphabet and write down some important pagan texts would be a great help in that regard.

But again, this is the latest realistic POD, in my humble opinion. The earlier you go, the better.
 
Last edited:
yeah ... one way or another the POD would have to neuter Frankia at some point between its Clovis I and Charlemange, at least while keeping it realistic
 
yeah ... one way or another the POD would have to neuter Frankia at some point between its Clovis I and Charlemange, at least while keeping it realistic

Wellll....if you could have Clovis die early, how long could Gaul be kept as a 5 way battle ground between the Domain of Soissons, the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Alemanni? If Gaul can't be united under one banner, than they can't expand into Germany.
 
I would look at India as it is the last of the Indo-european pagan cultures left.
It would not be the same just similar.
I would get rid of the Idea of pollution and a religious concept as it seems to have been either an Indo-Aryan thing or borrowed from somewhere in the east.
There will be lots of gods and cults,many will be local. Expect the gods of the northern Slavs and the balts to either be absorbed or strengthened.
 

tenthring

Banned
Interesting! Any idea on how this surviving Paganism could look like?

Religions tend to nudge rather then totally define a people. I don't know if you looking at a complete change, but here are the things that jump out at me.

1) The Catholic church was pretty effective at ending cousin marriage and supporting out-breeding, which had a strong genetic and cultural affect over time.

2) While I doubt polygamy/concubineage would be that much more prevalent surely that's a possibility.

3) If there are no usury laws it would have a very strong impact on Judaism as this gave them a natural monopoly on banking.

While its impossible to say what affect paganism would have the one 20th century example we have isn't exactly great (Nazis). However, its not necessarily fair to judge based on that.
 
Religions tend to nudge rather then totally define a people. I don't know if you looking at a complete change, but here are the things that jump out at me.

1) The Catholic church was pretty effective at ending cousin marriage and supporting out-breeding, which had a strong genetic and cultural affect over time.

It wasn't actually that prominent in Germanic society. Rulers did it, but so did Christian monarchs. Look at the Habsburgs.

Somewhat related: from a modern perspective, Germanic marriages were a lot more 'healthy'. People got married around 20 years of age (and at that time started their own household, culturally marking them as adults), and partners were generally of equal age. Also, females generally had full freedom to reject suitors. Christianization meant marriage at younger ages, often meant older men marrying (much) younger women, and the women would have far less of a say in the matter.

Expect the Germanic pattern to be maintained in this ATL. I'd consider that a boon to society.


2) While I doubt polygamy/concubineage would be that much more prevalent surely that's a possibility.

In Germanic culture, polygamy was extremely rare, though not specifically outlawed. Tribal customs varied, but one gets the impression that the Germanic peoples were generally tolerant as long as the stability of the community was not at risk. Troublemakers were cast out. (The basic Germanic approach was "We don't want your drama. Sort it out or get lost.")


3) If there are no usury laws it would have a very strong impact on Judaism as this gave them a natural monopoly on banking.

Not my area of expertise. I have no idea how pagan Germanic cultures would approach banking, but they were very convinced that a deal had to be fair. Unethical contracts, I expect, would be cause to bring a case before the Thing (jury), which would most likely void the contract. That's how it worked in the Icelandic Commonwealth, which was in many ways the last holdout of Germanic cultural practices.


While its impossible to say what affect paganism would have the one 20th century example we have isn't exactly great (Nazis). However, its not necessarily fair to judge based on that.

Let me stress that the disgusting lunacy of Nazism had nothing, I repeat: NOTHING, to do with actual Germanic culture. The fundamental tenets of Nazism are pretty much the exact opposite of pagan Germanic culture.
 
It wasn't actually that prominent in Germanic society. Rulers did it, but so did Christian monarchs. Look at the Habsburgs.

Somewhat related: from a modern perspective, Germanic marriages were a lot more 'healthy'. People got married around 20 years of age (and at that time started their own household, culturally marking them as adults), and partners were generally of equal age. Also, females generally had full freedom to reject suitors. Christianization meant marriage at younger ages, often meant older men marrying (much) younger women, and the women would have far less of a say in the matter.

Expect the Germanic pattern to be maintained in this ATL. I'd consider that a boon to society.

That was actually only true of the extremely well of parts of the aristocracy, from church records we can tell that everyone else married on average around the age of twenty for the most port of the medieval era.


In Germanic culture, polygamy was extremely rare, though not specifically outlawed. Tribal customs varied, but one gets the impression that the Germanic peoples were generally tolerant as long as the stability of the community was not at risk. Troublemakers were cast out. (The basic Germanic approach was "We don't want your drama. Sort it out or get lost.")

Umm really? Because even after christianization some germanic groups maintained a traditon of polygamy, in England it was still common for upper peasants and above to have a common law marriage and a christian marriage up till the Norman conquest for example.

Not my area of expertise. I have no idea how pagan Germanic cultures would approach banking, but they were very convinced that a deal had to be fair. Unethical contracts, I expect, would be cause to bring a case before the Thing (jury), which would most likely void the contract. That's how it worked in the Icelandic Commonwealth, which was in many ways the last holdout of Germanic cultural practices.

It's also generally how it worked out in many parts of Europe where there wheren't huge class divisions. The more important thing here is an equitable distribution of power between classes.

Let me stress that the disgusting lunacy of Nazism had nothing, I repeat: NOTHING, to do with actual Germanic culture. The fundamental tenets of Nazism are pretty much the exact opposite of pagan Germanic culture.

True but at the same time I think you overstate it's importance in making the Germanic cultures a more equitable place. Which is equally the fault of less defined state formation happening in the area and a general lack of capital across the region.
 
That was actually only true of the extremely well of parts of the aristocracy, from church records we can tell that everyone else married on average around the age of twenty for the most port of the medieval era.

I'd have to look it up, but I remember seeing figures to the contrary. I'm certainly not saying that suddenly everyone started marrying at 14, but it was taboo in Germanic culture, and it wasn't in Christian society. That was my point here.

And I do repeat: Christianization was, no doubt about it, bad news for women. Generally speaking, women had far more rights in pagan Germanic communities than in later Christian society. Not universally, but generally.


Umm really? Because even after christianization some germanic groups maintained a traditon of polygamy, in England it was still common for upper peasants and above to have a common law marriage and a christian marriage up till the Norman conquest for example.

Do not confuse England for all of Germanic culture. England was Christianized considerably earlier than the continental Saxons, and the insular Anglo-Saxon-Danish-Jutish-Frisian) culture was pretty much a unique blend that had developed in a different direction from the start.

Also keep in mind that 'marriage' means something different to Germanic pagans. For instance, a killer would often 'marry' his victim's wife. This was not an actual marriage, nor was she unable to marry another man. But until she did re-marry, he'd have to provide for her, and for her children until they reached adulthood. This, again, to me demonstrates that Germanic culture did value fairness and equitability to an impressive degree. (But believe me, I'm not trying to idealize Germanic culture; merely trying to disprove some common prejudices about 'unwashed and uncultured barbarians'.)


It's also generally how it worked out in many parts of Europe where there wheren't huge class divisions. The more important thing here is an equitable distribution of power between classes.

...Yes? I agree. The thing is, christianization and the introduction of the inherently stratified feudal system went hand in hand. Charlemagne's legacy.

(But again, I recognize that Germanic society had its trappings in this regards. Jarls, Karls and Thralls were inherently unequal. Although I maintain that a Germanic Jarl was closer to the common folk than any feudal lord of later ages ever was.)


True but at the same time I think you overstate it's importance in making the Germanic cultures a more equitable place. Which is equally the fault of less defined state formation happening in the area and a general lack of capital across the region.

I don't follow, I'm afraid. What exactly am I overstating, and what do less defined state formation and general lack of capital have to do with it? (I honestly don't get what you mean.)
 
...Yes? I agree. The thing is, christianization and the introduction of the inherently stratified feudal system went hand in hand. Charlemagne's legacy.

Not sure if this is what you were alluding to in the next line but wasn't a form of early pseudo feudalism the norm in Germanic confederations?
 
Not sure if this is what you were alluding to in the next line but wasn't a form of early pseudo feudalism the norm in Germanic confederations?

Yes, I did allude to that with the reference to Jarls (lords), Karls (free men) and Thralls (serfs) in Germanic society. This was indeed form of early pseudofeudalism, which can be found in pretty much all Indo-European cultures (the caste system of India, for instance, likely derives from the same proto-Indo-European source).

What Charlemagne did, in founding his Christian empire, was largely terminate the proto-democratic elements of Germanic society. In addition, he really solidified class differences. Those were pretty vague in Germanic pagan society; leaders were regularly elected, so lordship was often not hereditary. When Charlemagne established his Stem Duchies, for instance, he put dynasties in charge. Previously, the duke ("Hartogh," "Hertog(h)," "Herzog") was essentially an appointed leader in a time of war. After the war, he did not retain his position. All free men (and sometimes women!) could vote in the Thing, and while the Jarls often held a position of power as Ealdern ("elders"), they could not just ignore the Karls.

A man could (temporarily) become an indentured Thrall to pay off debts, while a Thrall could be made a Karl for his services to his community. (And in certain tribes, a child of a Thrall was automatically a Karl; serfdom was not always hereditary.)

Charlemagne changed all that. A noble was a noble, a free man a free man, and a serf a serf. And the nobles basically owned the land. The Karls were decimated, along with the bastion of their power (the Thing), and European society increasingly consisted of landlords and serfs. This was only reversed by the time of the Enlightenment, when democracy gradually started to return, as well as womens' rights etc.

That was what I meant by saying that feudalism is Charlemagne's legacy, and that Germanic culture, though far from perfect by modern standards, was more equitable and egalitarian than the Christian feudal society that replaced it.
 

tenthring

Banned
And I do repeat: Christianization was, no doubt about it, bad news for women. Generally speaking, women had far more rights in pagan Germanic communities than in later Christian society. Not universally, but generally.

It was so bad for women that they were overwhelmingly its biggest supporters and first converts across the board. With Clovis practically getting nagged by his wife into converting. People have been complaining Christianity is a woman's religion forever.

The status of women changes a lot between tribal cultures with little property and sedentary law and order societies with a lot of property. Namely, more restrictions get put on them, but they also get much greater protections (chiefly from raiding and rape that happen a lot in those cultures).

I don't follow, I'm afraid. What exactly am I overstating, and what do less defined state formation and general lack of capital have to do with it? (I honestly don't get what you mean.)

The easiest way for there not to be any inequality is for there not to be a whole lot of wealth at all. Hard to amass a fortune when there aren't fortunes to be amassed.

Given the geography, climate, and pace of the spread of farming technology Germany wasn't a place that could become more of a settled sedentary law and order state until around when it did. Even in Roman times they basically looked over the border and decided it wasn't worth conquering.

As Germany became a place that a strong state could govern, and as its wealth increased enough that concentration became possible, one would expect it to take on more of the traits of those societies that already went through that.

Let me stress that the disgusting lunacy of Nazism had nothing, I repeat: NOTHING, to do with actual Germanic culture. The fundamental tenets of Nazism are pretty much the exact opposite of pagan Germanic culture.

Calm down, I'm not calling anyone a Nazi (even though this is the internet :p). I'm simply stating that the Nazi's saw Christianity through that same "slave morality" Nietzsche nonsense and wanted to restore paganism, with their own additions of course.
 
It was so bad for women that they were overwhelmingly its biggest supporters and first converts across the board. With Clovis practically getting nagged by his wife into converting. People have been complaining Christianity is a woman's religion forever.

That doesn't actually prove anything, you know. People can support something without realizing that it won't ultimately be in their favour.


The status of women changes a lot between tribal cultures with little property and sedentary law and order societies with a lot of property. Namely, more restrictions get put on them, but they also get much greater protections (chiefly from raiding and rape that happen a lot in those cultures).

Bit of a generalization, don't you think? In truth, Germanic communities were often pretty harsh when it came to punishing rapists. There was a lot of raiding, but feudal Europe was little better. Warfare between small German fiefs amounted to the same thing.


The easiest way for there not to be any inequality is for there not to be a whole lot of wealth at all. Hard to amass a fortune when there aren't fortunes to be amassed.

I agree with this.


Given the geography, climate, and pace of the spread of farming technology Germany wasn't a place that could become more of a settled sedentary law and order state until around when it did. Even in Roman times they basically looked over the border and decided it wasn't worth conquering.

As Germany became a place that a strong state could govern, and as its wealth increased enough that concentration became possible, one would expect it to take on more of the traits of those societies that already went through that.

Watch out for that determinist approach. Cultural traits are not solely defined by economics, even though economics do play a major role in defining a society's development. Certain trends would occur no matter what, but a Germanic pagan Northern Europe would still be a different place. The Things would have a big say in matters, which would have huge effects all by itself. Even if rulers were to consolidate power (one would expect them to) and essentially found Germanic kingdoms, they'd likely turn out to be "parliamentary monarchies," of a sort, with the Thing keeping the king in check.


Calm down, I'm not calling anyone a Nazi (even though this is the internet :p). I'm simply stating that the Nazi's saw Christianity through that same "slave morality" Nietzsche nonsense and wanted to restore paganism, with their own additions of course.

I'm perfectly calm, no worries. It's just that whenever someone brings up Nazism in a discussion about Germanic paganism, I move to separate those issues. :)
 
That doesn't actually prove anything, you know. People can support something without realizing that it won't ultimately be in their favour.

But it does tell us women wheren't happy with the status quo if such radical change was supported widely among women.



Watch out for that determinist approach. Cultural traits are not solely defined by economics, even though economics do play a major role in defining a society's development. Certain trends would occur no matter what, but a Germanic pagan Northern Europe would still be a different place. The Things would have a big say in matters, which would have huge effects all by itself. Even if rulers were to consolidate power (one would expect them to) and essentially found Germanic kingdoms, they'd likely turn out to be "parliamentary monarchies," of a sort, with the Thing keeping the king in check.

Actually I'd disagree, this isn't deterministic, it's materialist, as wealth accumulated it's a wild card whether Tings would remain important but I'd say it's unlikely given the precedent OTL of centralization of power under magnates in OTL even in areas where voluntary Christianization happened or similar institutions existed in a christian framework. And actually rulers consolidating power and forming proper states will almost certainly work against the Tings because they are being hemmed in by the forces of centralization and conquest.
 
What Charlemagne did, in founding his Christian empire, was largely terminate the proto-democratic elements of Germanic society. In addition, he really solidified class differences. Those were pretty vague in Germanic pagan society; leaders were regularly elected, so lordship was often not hereditary. When Charlemagne established his Stem Duchies, for instance, he put dynasties in charge. Previously, the duke ("Hartogh," "Hertog(h)," "Herzog") was essentially an appointed leader in a time of war. After the war, he did not retain his position. All free men (and sometimes women!) could vote in the Thing, and while the Jarls often held a position of power as Ealdern ("elders"), they could not just ignore the Karls.

It is my understanding that Charlemagne wasn't generally creating hereditary fiefs, either. It was only after the dramatic decline in imperial authority of subsequent centuries and the Banal Revolution that previously appointed positions became permanent and then hereditary property of the formerly appointed officials. In other words, Charlemagne's empire wasn't a feudal empire, rather, feudalism emerged from the break-down of Charlemagne's empire.
 
Top