AHC: Sweden becomes beacon for religious liberty starting in 1100s?

And I mean, initially between Pagans and Christians!

Maybe there's a Christian king who has a Pagan wife, and maybe he has a good successfully run for 30 years or more. And incidentally, he's rather successful at getting moderates and advocates of religious freedom into monasteries and bishop positions, and the Pagan equivalents!

Or, might there be more of a bottom-up way this could come about?
 



First, please take a good, long look at this tapestry from the Skog Church in Hälsingland, Sweden, from the mid-1100s. Especially the three persons on the left.

 
Last edited:
Then, perhaps read this description by Terje Leiren, who's a history professor at the University of Washington, Seattle:

http://faculty.washington.edu/leiren/skog.html

' . . . Scandinavian/Viking kings could easily be depicted as representions of the earlier pagan deities without the authorities of the Roman Church being any the wiser. In the same way that an anonymous woodcarver craftsman working on the Borgund Stave Church in western Norway could put a representation of the one-eyed Odin on the top of a column in the dark upper reaches of the sanctuary, so too could an artisan represent the pagan gods as medieval kings and/or saints. Consequently, with his axe, St. Olaf came to be associated with Thor and his hammer. In the tapestry, however, there seems to be a mixing of deities, as St. Olaf with his axe represents not Thor, but the one-eyed Odin who is placed next to a representation of a tree, perhaps the Yggdrasil from which he had hung. In addition, King Knud, killed at the alter of St. Albans Priory in Odense, Denmark, is placed in the middle, holding a Thor-like hammer(the crucifix?), while King Erik ( the fertility diety, Frey) flanks him on his right holding an ear of corn. . . '
 
And if we handle the exotic case, like equal rights for Pagans, we can much more easily handle the important case which is peace between Catholics and Protestants.

Maybe. At least we get the odds more in our favor.
 
Last edited:
IMHO the problem is while Sweden might locally be tolerant of Pagans (and maybe Jews), the Church writ large won't tolerate this. In 1100 there are too many other areas that remain Pagan or recently converted. Look at what happened in France with the crusade against the Cathars in Languedoc and Provence - note what happened to Béziers. Since the Protestant Reformation is centuries in the future, that issue will be a non issue here.
 
It would certainly lead to conflict between Sweden and the other christian nations. This might still be of some benefit to Sweden, however. Perhaps during the early parts of the northern crusades, Estonian pagans (who did have maritime links with the vikings, albeit mutual raiding as often as trading) declare fealty to Sweden in return for protection. This would surely provoke conflict between the Teutonic order and Sweden, but Sweden might from that gain an ally in Lithuania, which was a noteworthy power at the time.

I do think this becoming the norm is a borderline ASB idea though.
 
. . . Look at what happened in France with the crusade against the Cathars in Languedoc and Provence . . .
I’m not familiar with this, if you please give me a quick overview.

And maybe it could start with the court system? That a person has a right to bring suit and/or to testify regardless of religion.
 
. . . this becoming the norm is a borderline ASB idea though.
I tend to think so, too, even though it’s such an obviously good idea! I mean, you reduce conflict within your own country, and you draw in talented (and richer than average!) outsiders.

Maybe if it’s generally known, but no where officially stated. Perhaps as part of the reform of laws “all citizens and residents,” definitely implied but not directly stated. Similar to Swedish kings who can also represent Odin, Thor, and Frey in a church tapestry
 
And I mean, initially between Pagans and Christians!

Maybe there's a Christian king who has a Pagan wife, and maybe he has a good successfully run for 30 years or more. And incidentally, he's rather successful at getting moderates and advocates of religious freedom into monasteries and bishop positions, and the Pagan equivalents!

Or, might there be more of a bottom-up way this could come about?

Unless they have a purpose in a state, like the Jews or Muslims in Iberia and Sicily who were merchants or worked on the lands of Nobles, I doubt it would happen. Especially in the 12th century. Lithuania in the 14th/15th century is a bigger possibilty.
 
The benefits of following the teachings and rules of the Catholic church are enormous for a medieval Swedish king. Most importantly with the church comes legitimacy. You are not simply one of many warlords but a monarch with papal approval and the right to subdue your rivals.

With Christianity come also skilled clerks, who help ruling your kingdom, and better trade connections with the much richer Christian lands to the south.

The Catholic church even encouraged reinterpreting local customs to fit with established church teachings. St. Olaf and St. Eric do not resemble pagan gods despire christiamitation but because of it.

Why would you risk all that to please some Lithuanian pagans? Especially knowing that Swedish kings often died a violent death and had to fear ambitious rivals more than anything else.
 
I’m not familiar with this, if you please give me a quick overview.

And maybe it could start with the court system? That a person has a right to bring suit and/or to testify regardless of religion.

Lets just say this crusade is where the phrase "Kill them all God will know his own" was coined.
 
Lets just say this crusade is where the phrase "Kill them all God will know his own" was coined.
unfortunate
. . . the Crusade started the Inquisition - that is a new way to conduct investigations and justice.
and doubly unfortunate

It’s been a long slow climb up from barbarism. I still think trade and economic development is the magic key, as much as any one thing can be. But, perhaps that’s too idealistic of me.
 
What @Pischinovski said. Catholicism was a means of centralization and state-building (not only) in Scandinavia. Risking that for a weird (at the times) concept makes no sense when a similar degree of tolerance can be achieved by just turning a blind eye on pagan practices while publicly committing to rooting them out.
 
unfortunate

and doubly unfortunate

It’s been a long slow climb up from barbarism. I still think trade and economic development is the magic key, as much as any one thing can be. But, perhaps that’s too idealistic of me.
Trade and economic development are important, that's why Scandinavian kimgs aligned themselves with mainland Europe. Christianity means more trade and more skilled clerks and craftsmen. It also means a more centralized system of raising taxes. With papal approval also comes legitimacy with results in less infighting amd hence more stability.

If a Swedish king wants to further trade he will look to western Europe or the Eastern Roman Empire not to the pagans on the other side of the Baltic Sea. Rome and its successors have always been the focal point of Scandinavian interesst.
 
. . . can be achieved by just turning a blind eye on pagan practices while publicly committing to rooting them out.
Still think first part might be pushed pretty far. Say when King has significant family members who are Pagan.

And as long as the King wasn’t in-your-face obvious, the Christian Church might not want to take the risk of going public with threats of a big excommunication and all that.

For example, Henry the 8th of England wanted a public marriage and put the Church on the spot. As long as the Swedish King avoids something like that, he may stay in good standing for quite a while.

===

PS still would like to see a significant bottom-up component to religious liberty (hopefully, where it’s not such a weird concept!)
 
Still think first part might be pushed pretty far. Say when King has significant family members who are Pagan.

And as long as the King wasn’t in-your-face obvious, the Christian Church might not want to take the risk of going public with threats of a big excommunication and all that.

For example, Henry the 8th of England wanted a public marriage and put the Church on the spot. As long as the Swedish King avoids something like that, he may stay in good standing for quite a while.

===

PS still would like to see a significant bottom-up component to religious liberty (hopefully, where it’s not such a weird concept!)

Except Henry VIII was able to do this at a time after the Reformation had already happened and the Church was in a much weaker position. In the 1100s the Church was still a very powerful force as evidenced by the successful Crusades only several years in the past.
 
Sweden also had no established hereditary monarchy unlike 16th century England. The Swedish kings were at that point still very much kings of the Western Geats, the Eastern Geats and Swedes, and had to be elected in all three regions of the realm. Having papal approval meant a lot in this age, as it meant that one could claim to be the rightful ruler of ALL of Sweden even if, let's say, the Western Geats elect some other guy.

Like I said papal approval was important both in foreign and domestic politics. That does actually mean that the Roman curia knew exactly what was going on up here in the north (it seems like the pope for example believed Birger Jarl to be king), which meant you could get away with some sneaky stuff but that doesn't mean they would tolerate religious freedom.
 
In the 12th century, the Church attitude was that if you were not of us, ie in submission to Roma and doctrine, you were against us. With the Muslims and the Eastern Church a "truce" of sorts existed, but within lands where the Roman Church was in charge, no toleration for anything but officially sanctioned doctrine, or some of the appropriation of Pagan customs etc to make the "Catholic".
 
Top