Norse Pagan Survival:POD?

Looking at this as a timeline. What I'm looking at is Norse Paganism surviving into the 20th century. Reading about the history of the conversion of Scandanavia, several things stick out.

Norse Paganism stood up very well until kings in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (in that order) converted and then used political pressure to convert others. Even in those countries, underground or quiet paganism went on for some time and there were some counterstrokes against Christianity. By to me why Christianity won comes down to two causes.

1) Greater organization among the Christian clergy and a desire to convert other others where as Norse paganism had a live and let live attitude.

2) Greater use of violence by the Christians in order to force compliance.

What I don't buy is that the Christian message won by its persuasive power.
I'm looking for possible POD. Ones I have thought of--

1) The defeat of Alfred the Great, leads to more Danish settlers in England. Missteps by the Christian clergy to their new overlords leads to a violent reaction again Christianity and "repaganization" of that country.

2) The violent overthrow of Olaf Tryggvason as King of Norway. Since Christianization was one of his chief policies, a violent overthrow could lead to violent pagan reaction and an increase in pagan identity.

3) Harald "Bluetooth" Gormsson never becomes King of Denmark. Not as clear on this one.

4) Thorgeir Thorkelsson, speaker of the Icelandic Allthing, decides in favor of Paganism or the Christians reject the compromise which was required for him to allow the conversion to Christianity. This leads to a Pagan "refuge" in the Atlantic and possibly motivated settlers in Vinland who are more numerous and literally can't go home. This is a separate timeline than one that leads to a Pagan Scandinavia.

What would be needed to "make it stick" long term.

Organization among the Norse Pagan clergy/population to counter conversion and if need be act violently against more militant crusades to convert the Norse.

What are your opinions and other ideas as fare as PODs?
 
A HRE-screw would do that just fine, considering that most missionaries of the time came from Germany.

Anyways, I remember reading a few articles somewhere on Wkipedia that all stated that some people from inland Trondelag in the 1840s still performed actual pagans rituals at the summit of some foothill, and not just folklore things like having a naked virgin run through the forest:rolleyes: before harvest, which shows that farmers would still know how to perfrom said rituals.
 
The problem is that
a) "higher religions" (mostly monotheisms) work better for people than the old "pagan" ones,
b) that those religions had the advantages of 'civilizations' behind them - in particular, the Franks (then, French and Germans) did a great job of associating the glories of wine, the best swords, silk, etc., with Christianity.
c) related to the above, Christendom had big armies (with more settled and hierarchically organized lands), which meant that it was very advantageous for a petty king to marry a Christian wife, who would bring with her a political alliance with the continent - and a household including a priest/confessor, who would be used to help convert the locals. Starting with all her children, if nothing else.
d) as pointed out, the Abrahamic religions, in particular, are very exclusivist. A pagan believes in lots of gods, and switching from primarily following Thorr to Odhinn, say, is normal. Once you become (officially) Christian (Muslim, Jewish), then conversion away is apostasy, and brings down on your head the wrath of the Church.

As much as many people on this board dislike the phrase "higher religion", the fact of the matter is that the various Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism and Buddhism swept all the paganisms away where they encountered them. That didn't stop until the 20th century.

So. No. There will be no survival of paganism, except in rural backwoods areas. Anyone with land or resources worth having who remains pagan will be conquered and absorbed by their neighbours. (Just ask the Prussians, for instance. Oh, ya, you can't they were so thoroughly absorbed that their name was taken over by a bunch of Germans!)
 
In Denmark the church allied with the king and was a way of subordinating the rest of the population. christendom imposed a ridiculous amount of restrictions (essentially newtering the power of women) and established a very rigid hierarchy which helped the king establish himself. That coupled with claiming that he ruled in god's name made it very beneficial for the king to work with the church.
 
As much as many people on this board dislike the phrase "higher religion", the fact of the matter is that the various Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism and Buddhism swept all the paganisms away where they encountered them. That didn't stop until the 20th century.

Hinduism is not one religion though. It's numerous religions and philosophies that share a common cosmology, which evolved from the various traditional faiths of South Asia's many ethnicities. In a way it provides an example of maybe not just Norse, but a way for a pan-European pagan movement to come together and develop a common belief system to counter Christianity. Shintoism could serve as another example.

And also, even Buddhism is rather different than the Abrahamic Faiths. It was largely not an exclusive religion, but more of an inclusive one that often syncretcised with local beliefs. Having Japan serve as an example again, Buddhism came to fill the spiritual niche of dealing with death, while Shintoism dealt with life.
 
Might it be possible for Norse Pagans to flee to a surviving Vinland and survive in North America?

More than likely they'd be largely absorbed into Metis/Mestizo culture that would form with the Natives. There's just not the numbers, logistical capabilities, and a constant stream of immigrants to pull off a direct transplant.
 
at latest you'd have to neuter the Frankish explansions under Charlemagne, and his concurrent missionary work sending missionaries to all his pagan neighbours (and quite a few of their pagan neighbours) ... and you'd probably have to go further back decentralizing christianity so each priest is his own ruler with no consistent (arch)bishop over them, and only a theoretical link to the papal ruler, with little or no power flowing from him.

How this could be done, i'm not entirely sure, but looking at the Orthodox/Oriental Churches it should be possible
 

Redbeard

Banned
If a pagan religion has to survive the clash with Christianity I think it foremost need "The Book" and of course also at least an elite capable of reading it.

So could the PoD be an earlier (Roman Ironage?) centralisation of power (Kingdom) and with that an earlier introduction of litteracy. Combine that with some carismatic pagan "prophet" and you might have a fourth "religion of the book"? The question of is however if it then is paganism at all?

The earlier centralisation is of course easier said than done, but I suppose a Chieftan adequately talented and cynical being at the right time and place might do the trick.
 
Weren't most of the founders of Vinland Christian though? I know Leif Ericsson was, and Christianity seemed to hold a bigger sway in Greenland than paganism. Besides, a POD after the founding of Vinland seems a bit late.

I was going to mention that, but I assumed maybe he meant some kind of earlier attempt or even a delayed Christianization.
 
You are suggesting a tactical solution to a strategic problem. Or in other words, the problem was structural.

As others have pointed out, there were significant advantages to Christianity over paganism for the government. In addition to that, the missionary impulse of Christianity resulted in a pressure to convert that was all one way, and there were significant penalties associated with converting back.

So there is a significant advantage for the powers that be in conversion, the pressure is all one way, and once an area is converted it is locked in and not going back.
Which means that changes that stop the way it happened OTL will just mean it'll happen differently, but it will happen. You need structural changes to paganism itself to stop it.

A phrase that crops up here sometimes is "Viking Mohammed".

Might it be possible for Norse Pagans to flee to a surviving Vinland and survive in North America?

Its possible, but you'd need a way to get significant numbers if you want them to prosper and not be absorbed into the locals. (Which could give the absorbing locals some big tech legs, but that's a different TL)

Weren't most of the founders of Vinland Christian though? I know Leif Ericsson was, and Christianity seemed to hold a bigger sway in Greenland than paganism. Besides, a POD after the founding of Vinland seems a bit late.

Mostly pagan I think. Leifs mother was Christian though. There are hints that paganism had a much harder hold in Greenland than elsewhere. The Greenlanders were well known in the church as "difficult people" and when it became known that the western settlement was abandoned in the early 1330s, the instant conclusion was that the Greenlanders had reverted to paganism and moved to Vinland.
 
As much as many people on this board dislike the phrase "higher religion", the fact of the matter is that the various Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism and Buddhism swept all the paganisms away where they encountered them. That didn't stop until the 20th century.

So. No. There will be no survival of paganism, except in rural backwoods areas. Anyone with land or resources worth having who remains pagan will be conquered and absorbed by their neighbours. (Just ask the Prussians, for instance. Oh, ya, you can't they were so thoroughly absorbed that their name was taken over by a bunch of Germans!)

Hinduism didn't wipe out paganism - It in itself pretty much *is* paganism, with many parallels to the ancient European varieties, coming from the same Indo-European roots. It survived extensive encounters with Islam and Christianity.

Buddhism didn't destroy polytheism either - it coexists peacefully with Shenism in China to this day, and its important figures (Guanyin Pusa in particular) are worshipped as gods themselves. The same is true to varying degrees in most societies where Buddhism is predominant - if not polytheism, then animism and ancestor worship from earlier times compliment it.
 
Hinduism didn't wipe out paganism - It in itself pretty much *is* paganism, with many parallels to the ancient European varieties, coming from the same Indo-European roots. It survived extensive encounters with Islam and Christianity.

Buddhism didn't destroy polytheism either - it coexists peacefully with Shenism in China to this day, and its important figures (Guanyin Pusa in particular) are worshipped as gods themselves. The same is true to varying degrees in most societies where Buddhism is predominant - if not polytheism, then animism and ancestor worship from earlier times compliment it.

Except for the fact that Hinduism had it's experiences with Buddhism early, and was able to re-invent itself as a (polytheistic) 'higher' religion. With philosophy, a 'Book', etc. Thus, while it retains far more of its 'pagan' roots, it transitioned away from that early enough to survive. Greek and Roman paganism didn't have that advantage, and Norse paganism even less so.

The stories of the Greek/Roman or Norse gods read like the leadership of a quarreling IndoEuropean war band (surprise, surprise), and you'd have to dump almost all of that to make a religion that could successfully compete against the newcomers.

Hinduism, as I say, had a thousand years or so to reinvent itself, and used that opportunity successfully. Norse paganism really had a handful of generations.
 
The problem is that
a) "higher religions" (mostly monotheisms) work better for people than the old "pagan" ones,

They work better for rulers, who promote them. I don't see any evidence that they work better for people on an individual level. In order to avoid thread derail, I think this point is debateable enough to put aside for now.

You are suggesting a tactical solution to a strategic problem. Or in other words, the problem was structural.

As others have pointed out, there were significant advantages to Christianity over paganism for the government. In addition to that, the missionary impulse of Christianity resulted in a pressure to convert that was all one way, and there were significant penalties associated with converting back.

So there is a significant advantage for the powers that be in conversion, the pressure is all one way, and once an area is converted it is locked in and not going back.

Disagree to some extent here. OTL there were areas that went back and forth, particualatly in Sweden and a lesser extent Norway. "Locking in" seemed to taken place after 2-3 generations for Christianity to be seen as "the way things are" and if the top down pressure was released quickly enough, there was a "repaganization", particularly of people who had been swordpoint converts and then often had a violent reaction against the Christians in their midst.

. You need structural changes to paganism itself to stop it.

Agreed. There was such a structural change in Lithuania, where paganism was the "State religion" until 1387 and the religion of the lower classes until the counter reformation.

What didn't happen, were organized, national counterreactions against Christianity. If you have that, probably in Norway, where Christianization was the most violent and the creation of a ideology where "to be Norweigen is to be Pagan", creation of a "state Paganism". Norway is also key because because the conversion of Norway led to economic pressure on Iceland, the Faroes, and Skye to convert, lands that were strongly Pagan.

Follow that with a dynastic marriage with Sweden and a shared ideology, and you have maybe have something.

Follow that with no Norse for the Northern Crusades against the people of the eastern Baltic peoples (Polabian Wends, Sorbs, Obotrites, Livonians, Latgallians, Selonians, Estonians, Finns Lithuanians, Samogitians and Old Prussians) and perhaps some military backup to stop or slow down the conversions, you have sizable "culture block" coalescing into it's own "civilization" with towns, merchants, writing, armies etc, exploiting the division between Orthodox and Catholic diplomatically to survive.

You then follow it up in the 1200's with a more successful Mongols storming into Europe and putting the Church on the defensive delivering the "knockout blow" to conversion efforts.

Notes on the Clergy

Missionaries came from two distinct sources. Hamburg-Breman and England. Of the two, the Engish, or rather Danelaw missionaries were much more effective, while the Hamburg Breman clergy were often seen as agents of the Holy Roman Empire (particularly in Demark, which it shared a border).

This is why I included the destruction of Wessex as one of my possible POD.

Key People

Olaf_Tryggvason King of Norway from 995-1000. Basically, spent his reign forcably Christianizing, burning temples and murdering pagan clergy, particularly Seiðmenn (Norse shamanistic practitioners). Basically an apt comparision in his role in the conversion of Norway would be with Henry the 8th in the English Reformation. Without him, destroying the "infrastucture" of Paganism in Norway the same way same way Henry destroyed the infrastucture of Catholicism, Christianization is much slower.

Thorgeir Thorkelsson Law speaker of the Icelandic Alþing and Godi (Norse Priest) who was tasked with arbitrating between Christianity and Paganism. He decided in favor of Christianity on the condition that horsemeat, infanticide, and private pagan practice remained legal. Motive was most likely was to avoid civil strife. POD could be based off his desicion.

Why Iceland is important because it's the key base for Norse expansion to Greenland and Vinland. If a sizable population were to "go west" to Vinland they would have to go through here. Greenland is too marginal.

I have other things to do today so I can't get into a Vinland scenario. But hope I added some food for thought.
 
Except for the fact that Hinduism had it's experiences with Buddhism early, and was able to re-invent itself as a (polytheistic) 'higher' religion. With philosophy, a 'Book', etc. Thus, while it retains far more of its 'pagan' roots, it transitioned away from that early enough to survive. Greek and Roman paganism didn't have that advantage, and Norse paganism even less so.

The stories of the Greek/Roman or Norse gods read like the leadership of a quarreling IndoEuropean war band (surprise, surprise), and you'd have to dump almost all of that to make a religion that could successfully compete against the newcomers.

Hinduism, as I say, had a thousand years or so to reinvent itself, and used that opportunity successfully. Norse paganism really had a handful of generations.

I know it's largely semantics, but your use of "pagan" vs. 'higher religion' is problematic, especially for Hinduism. A better term would perhaps be evangelical faiths and/or organized religions vs traditional/indigenous ones.

Hinduism, again, is many different faiths, though highly related, have been shoved under a collective roof by outside faiths and cultures. They also have no 'book'.
 
Disagree to some extent here. OTL there were areas that went back and forth, particualatly in Sweden and a lesser extent Norway. "Locking in" seemed to taken place after 2-3 generations for Christianity to be seen as "the way things are" and if the top down pressure was released quickly enough, there was a "repaganization", particularly of people who had been swordpoint converts and then often had a violent reaction against the Christians in their midst.
I think you're missing the poster's point. It's not that e.g. Sweden didn't go back and forth between Christianity and Paganism, it's that while Sweden might be disputed ground between Christians and Pagans, no one would attempt to convert e.g. Germany to Norse paganism. Even when the "Great Heathen Army" invaded England, they were essentially converted to Catholicism within 20 years.

And that's the thing, as long as there are more powerful Christian nations around, they will continue to support Christian missionaries to try and convert the pagans. And once a formerly pagan realm converts solidly to Christianity (that "locking in" you talk about), it becomes another source of missionary pressure. Ultimately, the pressure is flowing all one way, and once it gets a sufficiently strong foothold, it will reinforce itself. It's a matter of time, and requires a much deeper structural solution than "this king decided not to convert" or "the Norwegians are angry, so they decide to resist conversion at this point." Even if e.g. Iceland doesn't convert when it did, the continued missionary pressure means it will just convert sometime later,

Remember that the Church is an established power structure that no Norse pagans can really match, and will both rapidly become influential within a nation (even when it reverts to paganism, it's not uncommon for the residual church structure to remain influential), and critically, can call upon outside help.
 
Hinduism, again, is many different faiths, though highly related, have been shoved under a collective roof by outside faiths and cultures. They also have no 'book'.

That's not entirely true, though. Hinduism does have the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and the epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, all of which are considered sacred across the spectrum of various Hindu sects. Granted, some sects may emphasize certain texts over others, but there is still the same core body of scripture that forms the basis for the entirety of what is considered to be Hinduism.

And that is what any sort of surviving Norse pagan religion needs; a core body of texts, like the Eddas, to serve as a foundation for an organized religious institution. The problem is, the Norse texts that we do have weren't even written down until the Christianization of Scandinavia was well under way, and when they were, it was by Christian monks like Snorri Sturluson who saw the Norse myths as important pieces of their cultural heritage that were in danger of disappearing forever.

Basically, in order for there to be any sort of surviving Norse religion, it needs a core group of texts that are considered sacred that serve as the basis for their spiritual worldview, and a literate and organized priesthood to preach from said texts. And to get the ball rolling, you would need some Norse guy in the early-mid 8th century (at the absolute latest) to have the idea to become a sort of "Prophet of Odin/Thor/ the Aesir" and lay the foundation for a future religion, essentially a viking equivalent of the Buddha, Zoroaster or Muhammad. It's certainly a tall order that such a person could have arisen, especially given that such individuals are an extreme rarity, combined with the odds Norse paganism was up against considering how far behind Christianity they were in terms of organizing themselves into a cohesive religion and how small a window of opportunity they had to catch up, but it's not entirely inconceivable.
 
I know it's largely semantics, but your use of "pagan" vs. 'higher religion' is problematic, especially for Hinduism. A better term would perhaps be evangelical faiths and/or organized religions vs traditional/indigenous ones.
This is an important point I raise in just about every discussion about polytheistic religions, both ancient and modern. "Pagan" is a loaded and ambiguous term, which should be discarded in reference to comparative, historical, or anthropological study of religion.

Hinduism, again, is many different faiths, though highly related, have been shoved under a collective roof by outside faiths and cultures. They also have no 'book'.
Both yes and no. It's remarkably similar, structurally, to Hellenistic religion in that it has enough regional and local variety that the form it takes is very different from place to place. Each city or kingdom practically had its own "religion". But they were unified by a common literary tradition--not necessarily "scripture"--and mythology, and some common rituals and ritual structures. Whether or not there are different religions within Hinduism, or if Hinduism is one very diverse religion, is a matter of where you draw the line between regional expression of common religious trends.
 
Top