AHC surviving pagan baltics

What do you mean by something like this?
Meaning rather than a catholic marraige have a pagan pole marrying pagan lithuanian prince forming the union beetween the two nations. basically PLC except pagan. I dont know much about pagan lithuania so how likely would it be for thier religion to survive.
 
Meaning rather than a catholic marraige have a pagan pole marrying pagan lithuanian prince forming the union beetween the two nations. basically PLC except pagan. I dont know much about pagan lithuania so how likely would it be for thier religion to survive.

That is ASB because before Polans accepted Christianity and expanded to Masovia, Silesia, Krakovia and Sandomierz the Kings were Polygamous and all of their Progeny were considered legitimate and they can't alienate the other piasts which resulted in them in losing a chance to claim the throne of Poland.
 
That is ASB because before Polans accepted Christianity and expanded to Masovia, Silesia, Krakovia and Sandomierz the Kings were Polygamous and all of their Progeny were considered legitimate and they can't alienate the other piasts which resulted in them in losing a chance to claim the throne of Poland.
wait then how did one become king of poland back then?
 
Pagans lasting up to 1500 would likely adopt a more instutinalised form of paganism, and would be likely to be treated like zoroastrians as "de facto" peoples of the Book
Good point. In addition, a Santeria like religion is possible. Both Catholic and Othodox Christianity are friendly to saints and to the Virgin, thus giving pagan gods room to hide.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
I don't think you're going to see Paganism surviving in Europe (except at the deepest of fringes) at any point after Clovis converts. The demographic geography of the continent pretty much dictates an expansionist civilization arising out of the lower Rhine/Lowlands region. It was simply too fertile, too large, and too close to less fertile areas. If the Franks don't stay pagan, nobody else does, either, except maybe far Eastern Europe (if you can find a way to swing the Russians towards staying un-Christianized).
 
I don't think you're going to see Paganism surviving in Europe (except at the deepest of fringes) at any point after Clovis converts. The demographic geography of the continent pretty much dictates an expansionist civilization arising out of the lower Rhine/Lowlands region. It was simply too fertile, too large, and too close to less fertile areas. If the Franks don't stay pagan, nobody else does, either, except maybe far Eastern Europe (if you can find a way to swing the Russians towards staying un-Christianized).

So how do you explain Lithuania's delay on the subject?
 
Distance.

Lithuania is nevertheless still Christian today. Hardly a counter-example. More like supporting evidence.

Lithuania converted because its rulers saw an advantage in doing so, not because the Franks being dominant made it a matter of conversion or destruction at the hands of the dominant civilization.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Lithuania converted because its rulers saw an advantage in doing so, not because the Franks being dominant made it a matter of conversion or destruction at the hands of the dominant civilization.

Guess why there was an advantage in doing so?

Look, what I'm saying is that Christianity was going to be a force on the European continent the moment Constantine decided maybe it was OK to be nice to Christians. Clovis' (and the rest of the Franks') conversion was the tipping point when you went from the possibility of a Pagan Northern European Plain/Christian Mediterranean Rim to the surety of a Christian Europe.

However long after that total Christianization took is the result of micro-factors that aren't part of the macro-argument being made.
 
Guess why there was an advantage in doing so?

Look, what I'm saying is that Christianity was going to be a force on the European continent the moment Constantine decided maybe it was OK to be nice to Christians. Clovis' (and the rest of the Franks') conversion was the tipping point when you went from the possibility of a Pagan Northern European Plain/Christian Mediterranean Rim to the surety of a Christian Europe.

However long after that total Christianization took is the result of micro-factors that aren't part of the macro-argument being made.

"A force on the European continent"=/= inevitably dominant.

Especially when Christian armies aren't necessarily beating pagan ones.

That's my problem. Sure, OTL worked out so that it would become pretty much inevitable by the 11th or 12th century (given how much of Europe is Christian by then) - but that's several centuries after Clovis.

And the macro-argument rests on the idea that the micro-factors as you put it are irrelevant.

I'm sure that there's a good chance that the Franks doing what they did OTL would lead to an OTL-like situation, assuming Muslim progress doesn't negate some of it.

But that doesn't mean that the conversion of the Franks ensures the conversion of the rest of Europe. The Franks were not inevitably going to succeed at the kind of proto-state building necessary to go from "we own this nice rich agricultural land" to "we are dominant".
 
Last edited:

MAlexMatt

Banned
Because by becoming a Christian he could marry the heiress of the Polish crown and thus increase the size of his realm.
-> His conversion had political reasons and not religious reasons.

Did I ever say it had to be different?

He couldn't marry the Polish heiress without converting because the Polish heiress was--get this--Christian. The Polish heiress was a Christian because the Poles were another domino in a series that traced its way back to that first finger flick in the low lands several centuries prior.

Think about it: Are the Poles going to convert if the Saxons successfully resist Charlemagne? Probably not: Why would they?

However, are the Saxons going to be able to successfully resist Charlemagne?

You can have a pretty hefty argument on this subject, but I come down pretty neatly on the side of, "Even if Charlemagne loses his Empire has too much inertia in the direction of the Saxons for them to survive for long".

Yeah, if you get really imaginative you can cut off European Christianization after Clovis converts. But after a certain point you're bending over backwards in ways that might not actually be all that realistic (just not obviously and outright ASB). Once Clovis converts, in most of all possible worlds, Europe becomes Christian, too.
 
Think about it: Are the Poles going to convert if the Saxons successfully resist Charlemagne? Probably not: Why would they?

Unrelated. The Poles were christianized around 300 years before others western Slavic people : they were surrounded by pagans.

Even in the near ASB case were Saxons manage to resist Franks (I would point the frankish attacks or counter-raids are from Pépin III) and their nobility not mixed with frankish one (that why the christianization was so quick), it's no matter for Poles. They didn't had direct relations with them.

They still could be christianized, by roman church (trough Moravians) or even greek church.
 
Did I ever say it had to be different?

He couldn't marry the Polish heiress without converting because the Polish heiress was--get this--Christian. The Polish heiress was a Christian because the Poles were another domino in a series that traced its way back to that first finger flick in the low lands several centuries prior.

Think about it: Are the Poles going to convert if the Saxons successfully resist Charlemagne? Probably not: Why would they?

However, are the Saxons going to be able to successfully resist Charlemagne?

You can have a pretty hefty argument on this subject, but I come down pretty neatly on the side of, "Even if Charlemagne loses his Empire has too much inertia in the direction of the Saxons for them to survive for long".

Yeah, if you get really imaginative you can cut off European Christianization after Clovis converts. But after a certain point you're bending over backwards in ways that might not actually be all that realistic (just not obviously and outright ASB). Once Clovis converts, in most of all possible worlds, Europe becomes Christian, too.

Unrelated. The Poles were christianized around 300 years before others western Slavic people : they were surrounded by pagans.

Even in the near ASB case were Saxons manage to resist Franks (I would point the frankish attacks or counter-raids are from Pépin III) and their nobility not mixed with frankish one (that why the christianization was so quick), it's no matter for Poles. They didn't had direct relations with them.

They still could be christianized, by roman church (trough Moravians) or even greek church.

Actually before Christianization there was no Poland, Mieszko I created the Polish nation, two of the Lechitic people already accepted Christianity from Methodius and Cyril, the Silesians and the Krakovians aka Vistulans, if the Polans were never Christianized the Polish nation as we know it would never exist and Polans might be conquered by a Slavic nation that adopts Christianity first or by the Germans.
 
Last edited:
Actually before Christianization there was no Poland, Mieszko I created the Polish nation, two of the Lechitic people already accepted Christianity from Methodius and Cyril, the Silesians and the Krakovians aka Vistulans, if the Polans were never Christianized the Polish nation as we know it would never exist and Polans might be conquered by a Slavic nation that adopts Christianity first or by the Germans.

Yeah because Poland was a wasteland before 996. Poles suddenly appeared and formed a coherent territory when they were christianized.

Seriously, no. The notion of nation don't even exist during the all Middle-Ages, so christianisation HARDLY created it for western slavic peoples.

What he created was the Kingdom of Poland, the same way it created Moravia : it allowed former pagan people to enjoy recognition by other kingdoms. More or less like some countries search to be recognized in the UN.

Christianisation sanctions states, it doesn't create it (specifically for Poland, It was german clergy trying to put a buffer zone between Balts and Eastern Slavics and by making Miesko Amicus Imperium. (It backfired a little, as German clergy was soon replaced with Polish clergy)

For the Silesians, Lechitic, etc. Yes, Poland was full of different peoples. Like every part of medieval Europe. Searching an heterogen kingdom in Europe made by ONE people can take time : no one had that.

For France, Aquitains, Burgunds, Franks, Flemish, etc that kept an indentity quite far, up to the XVI where the idea of nation begin to exist.
Same in Poland, Masovians, Silesians kept a strong identity up to the concept of nations appears in the region.

Again, NO nations in Europe before XVI-XVIII, but peoples or kingdoms.
Admittedly, in the X century, the differenciation between western slavic peoples was achieved : thanks to imperial diplomacy (Carolingian or Ottonian), relativly undifferenced tribal federations or slavic kingdoms achieved some internal evolution.

More or less the same way balkanic slaves formed themselve thanks to their relations towards Byzantium (or HRE for Croats). Christianisation is only the achievement of the process, not the beggining. Like Francia pre-existed to the Clovis' baptism, Anglo-Saxons to missions, Saxons to their conversion or Danes before adopting Christianism.
 
What he created was the Kingdom of Poland, the same way it created Moravia : it allowed former pagan people to enjoy recognition by other kingdoms. More or less like some countries search to be recognized in the UN.
I agree on that and what I was trying to point out is that Christianization made it possible for Mieszko to unite the Lechitic people east of oder.
 
I agree on that and what I was trying to point out is that Christianization made it possible for Mieszko to unite the Lechitic people east of oder.

They were already pretty well united or at least had enough coherence to have Poland being called Lechum for Carolingians.

Admittedly, it gave Mieszko enough legitimacy and prestige to call for a last move : but I think between half and two third of Lechites were already under his authority.

There's nothing that couldn't have been done there staying pagan. It gave him room for not being attacked by HRE in the west, while enjoying the christian (in a cultural meaning) concept of king "source of justice" in peace and war rather than the more "king as warlord among nobility" that existed among pagans.
 
Top