Icelandic Commonwealth lasts beyond the 13th century

[Paladin]

I'd go for a much earlier conversion to Christianity.

The Celtic Church in the British Isles was organized around monasteries as opposed to conventional Catholic heirarchies. Unfortunately it was eliminated before Iceland was settled. Let's say there is a lot more resistance to the discarding of Celtic practices in favor of Catholic ones. Parts of western Ireland hold out against change into the early 800s and small numbers of monks with Celtic-Christian sympathies remain scattered among Ireland's monasteries.

One such monk is among the Irish settlers (well, mostly they were servants and slaves, but nevermind) that settled there alongside the Norse. An extremely charismatic and utterly devout individual, he convinces many Icelanders to convert and sets up the new church with as little heirachy as possible.

Instead of pressure to convert to Christianity, there will be pressure to "do it right." Eventually they may give in, but it ought to buy them a couple centuries or so.

There's actually some literary evidence, admittedly vague, that Irish monks had colonized Iceland before the norse got there (look up "papars"). If they were to stick around, that would solve your problem nicely.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

Perhaps some change in the Christianizing of Scandinavia such that the threat of cutting off trade unless the Icelanders convert never occurs? Is there a way for such 'tolerance' to arise?

Perhaps putting some trade good on Iceland valuable enough to make the burghers in various kingdoms influence their kings to ignore the Icelandic pagans? Although that might just prompt an invasion, instead.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

The Icelandic Free State which existed from 930 to 1262 has often been cited as one of the few successful anarchist communities and one of the only ones to exist on a long-term "national" basis. In our timeline it was brought down by clan feuding largely sparked by external meddling from the Norwegian monarchy.

Anarchist!? I've never heard it called Anarchist before. I suppose that is a reasonable description of the pathological final years of the Commonwealth, but earlier?

There were regular meaning of the Quarter things (I forget what schedule), and ?annual? meetings of the Althing. In between the godhar (chieftains) had some authority. And there was always the more informal methods - like feuding. But even feuds were judged at the Things, and Wergild and banishment were applied for balance.

A modern bureaucratized society, no! a peace and light democracy? (well, no, but I won't admit I said that) Anarchy? Hardly!

 

[Fabilius]

Anarchist!? I've never heard it called Anarchist before. I suppose that is a reasonable description of the pathological final years of the Commonwealth, but earlier?

There were regular meaning of the Quarter things (I forget what schedule), and ?annual? meetings of the Althing. In between the godhar (chieftains) had some authority. And there was always the more informal methods - like feuding. But even feuds were judged at the Things, and Wergild and banishment were applied for balance.

A modern bureaucratized society, no! a peace and light democracy? (well, no, but I won't admit I said that) Anarchy? Hardly!

Yes, well calling the Icelandic commonwealth an anarchy is not very helpful to explain what it was.

Basicly, there were lots of "Things" (þing), of which all were regional except for Althingi which was sort of considered the supreme court.

In reality that was what the Things were, they were used for legal purposes like courtrooms, with some trading, socializing and some marriage arranging.

The laws of the Things were not under discussion, or at least very rarely. They were based on traditions reaching from ancient norway and even further maybe. Probably most german nations had a thing tradition but the evidence is rather scarce so it remains a hypothetical theory.
In any case you could well have a Thing and still have a king that collected taxes. For the king was not per say an authority in german societies for making juridicial calls.

Iceland might be called anarchy in the sense that it had no central government. But this is not anarchy in some anarchocapitalist or anarchosyndicalist sense. For example one can also point out that women could divorce, own and be considerably freer than women in Italy or Syria at the time. Yet it is not a feminist state.

The Gothis (goðar) were high priests and usually the biggest land owner. Their authority was somewhat dependent on the land they owned, other free man could choose between their Godis which took the role of their lawyers and protectors. They didn´t really gather tithes until they became responsible for churches as well. The churches needed taxes to keep going and that´s where the trouble begins.

Prechristian Iceland is not an ideal society in any sense though. Rampant violence and feuds posed problems, and noone really had the authority to deal with it. Althingi could conclude that someone should be outlawed or killed, however in a lots of cases noone was strong enough to enforce the resolutions. (Sort of like the UN in many cases).

Also noone gave a rat´s ass about slaves, and if you were homeless or without a family you could be easily killed without any repercussions.

This situation ended during the 12th century when the Godis became powerful enough to deal with all lawbreakers. Unless the Godi himself was a lawbreaker of course. Some sagas tell about how some powerful Godis abused their situation and basicly mistreated people in their area without any man willing or powerful enough to stand up against them.

///This lecture is not pointed at Dathi, but more at everyone in general, I hope my rant was informative///

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Ha! got my Icelandic keyboard installed. Now, where are all the blasted keys....

In reality that was what the Things were, they were used for legal purposes like courtrooms, with some trading, socializing and some marriage arranging.

The laws of the Things were not under discussion, or at least very rarely. They were based on traditions reaching from ancient norway and even further maybe. Probably most german nations had a thing tradition but the evidence is rather scarce so it remains a hypothetical theory.
In any case you could well have a Thing and still have a king that collected taxes. For the king was not per say an authority in german societies for making juridicial calls.

Oh, very true. It is VERY hard for our modern mindset to understand that a þing was NOT a legislature. It was, as you say, not for MAKING laws, but for ruling on how the current case fit existing law - or for making communal decisions, which may not be exactly laws. And anyone who translates lögmaðr literally into English as lawman, and ends up thinking of a Western US Sheriff, well...
They could make decisions binding on the whole populace, e. g. the conversion to Christianity by the Alþing in 1000.

Iceland might be called anarchy in the sense that it had no central government. But this is not anarchy in some anarchocapitalist or anarchosyndicalist sense. For example one can also point out that women could divorce, own and be considerably freer than women in Italy or Syria at the time. Yet it is not a feminist state.

It depends, again, on how you define the word government. I would say that a Þing forms a government, just a MUCH more minimalist one than we´re used to.

The Gothis (goðar) were high priests and usually the biggest land owner. Their authority was somewhat dependent on the land they owned, other free man could choose between their Godis which took the role of their lawyers and protectors. They didn´t really gather tithes until they became responsible for churches as well. The churches needed taxes to keep going and that´s where the trouble begins.

And, of course, the intertwining of roles that e.g. a goði had in pre-christian Iceland is one of the reasons why translating the word is so hard. And, also of course, one of the reasons why Iceland made a conscious, deliberate, community decision to convert to Christianity. If a goði was priest as well as leader, if community life required oaths to e.g. Þórr, and or sacrifices made, then you really couldn´t have HALF the community pagan and half Christian.

Prechristian Iceland is not an ideal society in any sense though. Rampant violence and feuds posed problems, and noone really had the authority to deal with it. Althingi could conclude that someone should be outlawed or killed, however in a lots of cases noone was strong enough to enforce the resolutions. (Sort of like the UN in many cases).

Oh, indeed. As a good vesturislenzki (sp where´s that blasted question mark), I pretend the commonwealth period was all beauty and reason and light, but the reality is ... not quite so much that.

The UN is a pretty good analogy.

Also noone gave a rat´s ass about slaves, and if you were homeless or without a family you could be easily killed without any repercussions.

too true.

///This lecture is not pointed at Dathi, but more at everyone in general, I hope my rant was informative///

Ah, but it's so much fun to rant, err.., teach people the wonderful things that one knows and they don't. Ja, that's it. No, I don't do that. Not even tempted to. And if you don't believe me, just ask my wife!

 

[Fabilius]

It depends, again, on how you define the word government. I would say that a Þing forms a government, just a MUCH more minimalist one than we´re used to.

Well, you can make arguments in that direction. I can think of a few points where the Althingi took some governmental decisions.

In the year 1000, it makes vote on a new law decreed by Þorgeir Goði of Ljósavatn. (Light water). The law says that from now on Icelanders are officially christians, although anyone who wants too can continue to be pagan just as long as he can hide it. (Sort of like, let´s pretend to be christians to avoid a war).

In the year 1262, it decides that Iceland should accept the rule of Norway. This is though done by pressure from the biggest chieftain Þórð Kakali.

Very few other examples spring to mind. Well, there is in Njals saga and Gunnlaugs saga, a new law made forbidding dueling, meaning that from now on killing someone in a duel will be considered murder.

No other thing springs to mind immediatly.

However if there is a wish for an independent Iceland, it is possible that a powerful chieftain like Þórður Kakali could force Althingi to declare him king. If you read Heimskringla you will see that this was done in Norway, kings some times held speeches on Þings and got accepted as kings.

But Althingi was first and foremost a social event. Farmers met from all over the country, arranged marriages and exchanged goods. If noone was having a land dispute, no woman or man wanted divorce or noone had been killed well then people just started drinking mead and having fun.

Actually now that I think about it the 1262 declaration of non-independence is the only time in history where people wanted security, were willing to exchange freedom for it, and actually got security afterwards.

No major social changes occured after. Althingi functioned as normal for a few centuries more, although a few men could actually work professionally being lawkeepers. (Sustaining themselves by gathering taxes from farmers in the name of the king). So in a sense Iceland continued being quasi libertarian for some time more.