North European everything without the Romans

Sebbywafers

Banned
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.

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?

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?

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?
 

Sebbywafers

Banned
No, this is not a DBWI. I'm asking how North European cultures would develop without so much Graeco-Roman cultural influence.
EDIT: well the guy asking seems to have deleted his post, funny that
 

Skallagrim

Banned
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.
 
At a guess, I'd say have a look at how the Scandinavian and north-east European areas (i.e. the parts not conquered by Rome) developed during the first millennium for some sort of answer. Combine that with what we know about Gallic civilisation prior to Julius Caesar's conquest, and what we know about the Germanic tribes beyond the Roman frontier.
In no particular order:
Religion. Assuming the Roman Empire still becomes Christian, it's very likely that missionaries will still go out into Northern Europe. The spread of Christianity will probably take place in a similar way to how it happened OTL, only from a starting point further south, so taking longer. For example, an ATL St. Columba might still exist but be different in space or time (that is, he might go from northern *France to convert *Cornwall, or he might go from *Ireland to convert the *Picts/Angles but 150 years later than OTL).
The 'Viking Age'. The Mediaeval Warm Period will probably still lead to a population increase in Scandinavia, so there will still be the same pressures which led OTL to the Viking period. However, it's quite possible that instead of finding rich centres of Christianity to raid, they just find themselves raiding towns/areas similar to where they came from. This might lead to them going further afield in search of 'booty' or might lead to them just getting caught up in more internecine warfare instead.
Technology. Any technology used at a frontier will have an effect on the other side of the frontier as well. This applies particularly to weaponry but also to things like the use of coinage. So, like religion, various things are going to spread beyond the Roman empire. However, some things need a stable/rich society to find a use - consider how tiled roofs were common-place in Roman Britain, but vanished entirely not long after the Roman pull-out - so this spreading of technology won't be as even as it was OTL. Of course, technology 'trading' goes both ways - Gallic/Celtic swords were generally much better than Roman ones, for example, from what I've read.
Aesthetics. I'm very far from an expert, but I'd say that Aesthetics would be similar to the latter point above - i.e. needing a stable/rich society to spread much.
Political. I expect tribal societies would last for longer, but probably develop into 'nations' eventually.

The big change I think there'd be from OTL would be that the Roman Empire would have fewer lands to draw soldiers from to protect its frontiers when the first millennium 'barbarian invasions' happened. This would be partially offset by the frontiers being shorter and by the invaders from further east having to go through the ATL non-Roman areas first (with the potential that they just stop there), but IMO it's likely that the pressure on the frontiers would actually be greater because the non-Roman world to the north wouldn't be able to resist the eastern invaders as well as the OTL Romans were, so the tribes would just migrate in greater numbers. Plus they'd be starting from closer to the core of the Empire, so the effect on the Empire would be psychologically greater.

Sorry for the rambling post - I was thinking as I typed. ;)
 
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.


I'd have thought the RE itself was the handicap. Barbarians were likely to be suspicious of Christianity as being the "Roman" religion, whose adoption might involve subordination to the Roman State. It's certainly my impression that it made little headway outside Roman territory until after the fall of the WRE.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I'd have thought the RE itself was the handicap. Barbarians were likely to be suspicious of Christianity as being the "Roman" religion, whose adoption might involve subordination to the Roman State. It's certainly my impression that it made little headway outside Roman territory until after the fall of the WRE.

Counter-intuitively, the exact opposite seems to have been the case. The peoples closer to Roman territory specifically wanted to avoid being treated as "barbarians", and often went to serious lengths to Romanise themselves to some extent. To a large degree, that was of course incidental: trade and other peaceful interactions led neighbouring peoples to adopt elements of Roman culture because those elements were just so damned useful. But it was also about prestige, hence purposeful Romanisation. That latter factor grew more important as Germanic peoples migrated into Roman territory. They Romanised with the aim of being considered rightful occupants of the lands. Note how far the de facto Germanic warlords of the Western Empire went to uphold the idea that they were merely the military commanders of the theoretically still utterly Roman Empire. And observe how even the post-imperial Germanic kingdoms carefully - painstakingly - adopted the forms and institutions of Rome. Only after the Gothic War, when Italy was left in ruins, did this really change.

Now, other Germanic peoples settling in formerly Roman territory also tended to adopt Roman customs. Look at the Franks. They adopted Christianity not in the last place because it gave them status. It made them heirs to Rome, in a way, and we can see exactly how Charlemagne - Carolus Magnus! - exploited that to create truly imperial pretentions... as if he were indeed the restored ruler of Western Rome.

Then contrast this with the Germanic peoples who had never had contact with Rome, or very little of it. They didn't care about the legacy of Rome, or about imperial pretentions. They certainly didn't reject Christianity because it would subordinate them to Rome. Because the power Rome was long gone by the time missionaries got around to them. Perhaps the Saxons resisted in part because Christianity was the religion of the Franks... but there is a beautiful postgraduate work on the issue, sadly only available in Dutch to the best of my knowledge, which the author turned into a short book. It is called Hoe God Verscheen in Saksenland ("How God appeared in Saxon-land"), by Dirk Otten. He explains in detail what the obstacles to conversion were, in practice. According to him, the notion of one God - excluding all other gods - was very problematic. The Germanic ceremonies were all tied to one deity or another, and it was extremely hard to get them to give up those ceremonies. So they did what had worked in Rome, but to a different way: they co-opted those pagan ceremonies and feaststs, dedicating them to saints instead. That eventually worked.

Another factor seems to have been a less obvious change in doctrine... namely stopping to claim that all pre-Christian individuals were burning in hell forever. This issue, it is said, literally stopped the Frisians from converting for a considerable time. They could not accept a god who had condemned all their noble ancestors to eternal torment. As we can see in Dante, it gradually became more of an accepted idea in Christianity that pre-Christian "good men" were not condemned to be tortured forever. Perhaps, at the last judgement, they would even be saved by converting then.

Recapitulating: proximity to Rome encouraged conversion for reasons of cultural prestige, while the cultural trappings of more purely Germanic peoples discouraged conversion.
 
Last edited:
Top