Hey all.
So I was looking at this map of supposed modern civilisations out of boredom, and of course Northern Europe (the Celtic, Slavic and Germanic stuff) is included in "Western Civilisation". Which makes sense and all- why wouldn't it be? But isn't Western Civilisation based at its core off the Graeco-Roman societies (although they in turn were based off earlier ones, but let's not go that deep because you get the point).
Anyway, it's funny that Northern Europe is Western Civilisation when you think about it, because originally they had totally different cultures, religions, languages, aesthetics, architectures and general perceptions of the world to the Graeco-Roman mediterranean world.
Just to start it off: this is a very interesting issue all by itself. What is "Western"? At the face of it, you might think that what we call Western is mostly based on Hellenic and Roman culture... but I would actually argue that the Hellenic, the Roman and the (pre-Christian) Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, Baltic etc. cultures were all
precursor cultures to what we call Western culture. That is: none of them were what we would identify as "Western culture" nowadays, and none of them would have evolved into it by itself. Western culture emerged from the fusion of these cultures. In my view, Western culture particularly emerged from the fact that Christianity took root, first in the Roman sphere, and then spread to unite all these cultures into one sphere, i.e. "Christendom".
The reason I point this out is that Christianity, during its expansion, adapted far more than you might think at first. Initially, Christianity was "just" a Jewish messiah sect. Then it changed, first adapting to Roman culture and being integrated into Roman society, and later to northern European cultures and sensibilities. In that way, northern European cultures had a less directly visible, but still quite substantial role in shaping the culture of "Christendom"... which formed the practical basis for what we call Western culture.
In another way, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic peoples etc. - once Christianised - established many notable states and empires, often incorporating pre-Christian customs and legal traditions and things like that. So these also carried on, and became part of what we now call Western culture.
So, let's say the Romans don't decide to bother Northern Europe for whatever reason. What do the Celts, Germanics and Slavs to with minimal Graeco-Roman influence? What kind of political entities, religions, aesthetics, traditions, architectures and such to they end up developing? Do their end up forming very tribal, clan-based societies and forming a Japan-like political structure? Do they adopt a more North European agricultural package of crops? Do they stay a technological backwater or eventually catch up with the rest of the world? What does a North European civilisation of its own look like and turn into?
Keep in mind that "no conquest" does not mean "no trade or other interaction". The way things look depends a lot on the exact scenario. Are the Romans much weaker, or do they stay away for some other reason? May we assume that Christianity still becomes a thing? (This is very shaky, since "no Roman activity in Northern Europe" demands a POD before Christ, and the effects on Roman (geo)politics will presumably alter the specifics of the goings-on in Judea.)
Given a premise of near-total isolation from Hellenic and Roman culture, I'd say Northern Europe remains a bit of a backwater for longer, although one must not imagine that Northern Europe didn't develop at all outside of southern influence. Look at the developments of areas like northern Germany (little Roman influence, relatively late to be converted to Christianity, Saxons had to be converted by military force...) to get a picture of what it might look like.
All in all, northern European cultures were very loosely organised, in a political sense. Authority was often local. Less local unions were almost invariably confederal in nature. Leaders on a large scale were often elected, and typically only when needed. Society was tribal, but in a very open way. A major disagreement within a tribe could often lead to the tribe amically splitting in two, and that would be the end of it. As far as we know, entire families.clans could choose to leave one tribe/people and opt to join another where they felt more at home. (Keep in mind that the distintions between various Germanic peoples were often more political than ethnic. For instance, "Lombards" comes from "Langobarden", which simple means "(those guys with) long beards". I'm less well-read when it comes to pre-christian Celtic and Slavic political organisation, but I get the impression it was much the same with them.)
It is sometimes argued that this loose, decentral nature was because these societies were less organised. I dispute that claim. Other societies, when they were at the same general level of development, were much more rigidly organised already. My theory is that this very loose model of social organisation is something that was culturally ingrained in Northern Europe-- and I'd expect it to persist in a scenario where Northern Europe is isolated from the Graco-Roman sphere for considerably longer.
Germanic societies also typically had some form of democracy. Namely, they had a popular assembly - typically called the
Thing - wherein legal disputes and political issues could be discussed and resolved. How this functioned exactly seems to have varied from time to time and from place to place. In some cases, the popular assembly elected the chief/king, etc. In many ways, this form of democracy was more "open" and inclusive than what the Greeks had... (to be fair, it was also far less refined, and one imagines that on more than a few occasions, a guy with a few big, well-armed supporters just forced things to go his way.)
Last incidental tidbit: pre-Christian Germanic, Celtic and Slavic cultures all seem to have been more, ah, "woman-friendly". As in, women could own and inherit land, there are notable examples of female warriors, and one presumes that (some, probavbly the land-owning) women were allowed to participate in the popular assemblies.
Sorry if this question seems vague, but I think it's very interesting and holds a lot of possible outcomes. Especially alternate aesthetics; what does a purely North European aesthetic look like?
This is very hard to answer, since such things are very random. Just consider clothing styles: our neckties ultimately descend from a type of scarf worn by Croatian mercenaries! As for architecture... more of
this and
this and
this and
this and
this... and less of the Graeco-Roman-style buildings with all the pillars.
But obviously, all such things would keep developing, in directions that are almost impossible to predict.
And how would North European theological ideals evolve with the victory of organised religion in history? The Arabs made Islam out of Abrahamic religion, what would the men of the north do with Abrahamic beliefs given their own prophets?
Presuming Abrahamic beliefs would still become dominant in such a drastically altered scenario - which I doubt - I suspect the Northern Europeans would simply disregard such notions and resist conversion. Typically, we see that in OTL, these peoples either converted because they thought it would be a smart move politically, or because they were forced to. The peoples who had no political reasons to convert typically resisted conversion. See: Saxons.
Again, I think the cultural proclivities of these peoples (namely: them being very fond of their autonomy) played a major role here. The idea of one god, ruling out all the other gods, was frankly insulting. Only when the church began replacing the ceremonies to the other gods with feasts dedicated to particular saints and stuff like that was any headway made in concerting the Saxons.