Odds of Norse paganism becoming uniform and more resilient?

ReenX

Banned
What are the odds, or better said, was it even possible, provided there was a political will and backing, to structure Norse paganism into a proper religion capable of resisting the advance of Christianity into Scandinavia? Ideally around the time of Charlemagne and Irminsul burning.

Secondly, provided paganism was still active in Scandinavia, would Crusades even happen as they did OTL? Would Pope see it paramount to secure Europe first from heathen raiders and thus organise Northern Crusades?

Would existance of Pagans there affect survival of pagans in Lithuania and/or other places?

And lastly, would Northern Europe start being and stay being seen as other, different and alien, comparable to Russia, or Turkey, from perspective of Western European/ concept of "European"
 
Sure, just take all the holy sites and get your moral authority over 50 and take the Become Fylkir decision from the Intrigue menu.

More seriously, all the pressure is on pagans in Europe at this point to convert, and not converting robs the Norse of opportunity. Most of the people worth trading with by the time of Charlemagne are Christians. Eventually, some Norse lord is going to realize that converting to Christianity comes with advantages of trade access, alliances and legitimacy in terms of integration into the more prosperous trade networks on the rest of the continent.
 

ReenX

Banned
Sure, just take all the holy sites and get your moral authority over 50 and take the Become Fylkir decision from the Intrigue menu.

More seriously, all the pressure is on pagans in Europe at this point to convert, and not converting robs the Norse of opportunity. Most of the people worth trading with by the time of Charlemagne are Christians. Eventually, some Norse lord is going to realize that converting to Christianity comes with advantages of trade access, alliances and legitimacy in terms of integration into the more prosperous trade networks on the rest of the continent.

Love taking that decision.
But I'm asking as an Asatruar, and while studying the faith I follow I have noticed that it's beliefs so to speak can't stand up to christian dogma. God lives in this tree. Cut the tree down - prove there is no God in it or that it's powerless. Meanwhile you can't cut down Jesus from heaven. Cross just a symbol, not idol etc.. There were tribal differences in interpretation and there was no uniform theology that would unite people, merely local faith taken for granted and never before tested.

While benefits of Christianity are great at the time, and one could argue a lot of development of Scandinavia is owed to it, those countries are lost to history for medieval period, sans Harald Hardrade. After that, things happen, but none have an impact felt in Europe as a whole, or world, or enter the memories as Vikings did. And yes, I know Christians also went Viking, but the tradition died out as people, now sharing faith, found more in common.
 

Maoistic

Banned
It's very difficult. The Norse would have to isolate themselves instead of expanding, and then would have to develop sacred texts, something that was actually happening if Norse runes are anything to go by, and completely abolish animal sacrifice and other economically unsustainable religious practices, which is the hard part, one of the main reasons for the conversion to Christianity being how inexpensive Christianity is for lacking said practices.

In any case, Norse religion successfully resisted and merged with Christianity anyway. If secularisation hadn't set in, you would have Christians from outside of Scandinavia, and even northern Europe in general, complaining about the "idolatrous" and "pagan" practices of Northern Europeans involving the worship of Norse gods alongside Jesus. The Middle Ages was a pot of syncretism that would have survived to this very day had it not been to the rhetoric of secularisation brought by Renaissance humanism, the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment that cause several medieval religious practices, Christian and non-Christian alike, to disappear, leaving the dry Christianity you see in today's Europe.
 
Part of the issue is that Germanic paganism wasn't organised around a central hierarchy.
Do that first, perhaps around a sacred isle, and then have it come up against Christianity.
 
Part of the issue is that Germanic paganism wasn't organised around a central hierarchy.
Do that first, perhaps around a sacred isle, and then have it come up against Christianity.
One idea I have is Widukind successfully leads his rebellion against Charlemagne and is able to establish a Saxon Empire bordering the Franks and halting their eastward expansion. Over time the Empire becomes more centralised with the crown taking more control over the clergy and eventually an Imperial Cult forms around the Royal Family, drawing heavily on Germanic ancestor worship, which provides a more resilient institutional structure for Germanic Paganism. In addition by halting the expansion of Christendom there's less of a political incentive for pagans to convert to Christianity.
 
One idea I have is Widukind successfully leads his rebellion against Charlemagne and is able to establish a Saxon Empire bordering the Franks and halting their eastward expansion. Over time the Empire becomes more centralised with the crown taking more control over the clergy and eventually an Imperial Cult forms around the Royal Family, drawing heavily on Germanic ancestor worship, which provides a more resilient institutional structure for Germanic Paganism. In addition by halting the expansion of Christendom there's less of a political incentive for pagans to convert to Christianity.
So essentially a deliberate codification inspired by Christianity?
 

ReenX

Banned
It will still need deliberate organisation else Christianity has an advantage since it had institution and legitimacy already built in.

Which it didn't have due to the structure of society, but this is dealing with the alternative of what if it did have deliberate push towards it's codification? Perhaps even an agreement between the Jarls that converts would lose their property.
 
Which it didn't have due to the structure of society, but this is dealing with the alternative of what if it did have deliberate push towards it's codification? Perhaps even an agreement between the Jarls that converts would lose their property.
Er? My whole point is that organisation is needed for this AH in order to compete successfully. Thus it has to be part of or an immediate result of the initial POD since said organisation didn't exist OTL.
 
one of the main reasons for the conversion to Christianity being how inexpensive Christianity is for lacking said practices.
Christianity was expensive too, if not in the same way. The amount of land the church would accrue over time that was tax free was shocking in some cases. While some places would eventually be able to push through tithes on church land, like England during the HYW, during war, for the most part this land did not pay taxes. The local bishops and archbishops could then use the money they accrue due to this to provide loans to nobles or kings in return for extended privileges, autonomy, and land. It was a self-serving cycle that propelled the church in multiple countries to major landholders with a disproportionate amount of power...Not to mention outright moving against the Church always placed someone at risk of excommunication or interdict. The Catholic Church didn't become corrupt from nothing, it very successfully accrued incredible wealth and power over time.

While a successful Saxon resistance against the Franks could delay Christianity, Saxony was bordering the core strength of the Franks. Unless the Franks suffer a downward spiral of power, at some point they'd be able to bring the bulk of their strength against the Saxons. To survive Widukind would need to create an alliance of multiple northern Germanic peoples. Maybe if the Viking Age started sooner there'd be Nordic kings willing to assist by raiding northern France, but how organized and coordinated any such resistance would be is debatable.

Actually against what a number of people have said, I don't actually think it is in regards to religion that advances need to be made. Although a more organized religion would of course help. I think it is politically that the Norse would need to organize. The Norse weren't organized even into proper kingdoms, besides Denmark, at the beginning of the Viking Age. Just petty kingdoms and localities. This prevented the sort of organized invasions Sweyn Forkbeard, Cnut the Great, and Harald Hardrada were capable of organizing. Not to mention coherent conquests and nation building, compared to the mere disorganized opportunism that characterized the early Viking Age. Even the Great Heathen Army was lacking in organization. Then even later, the loose and unstable succession laws of the Nordic kingdoms meant frequent civil war and usurpation. During such times, the claimants naturally looked outwards for allies. All too often Christians were all too willing to back claimants who have or are willing to convert. Gold to buy mercenaries, bribe nobles, and impress people with their wealth could be more than enough to tip the scales in their favor. These Christian kings then brought European/Christian ideals, methods of government, and ideals on kingship to the Norse. It isn't a coincidence that the Nordic kingdoms generally became more organized as they interacted with Christianity and became Christianized.

More organized Norse kingdoms earlier could have had more success in the Early Viking Age, hurting the Christian kingdoms more and lowering their prestige in the eyes of the Norse. They'd more easily be able to decide their conquests based on economics as the Christian kingdoms would eventually start using economic warfare to hurt them and force them to convert. An early use of this could potentially allow the Norse to focus instead on the eastern trade routes, to bypass western Europe. If this was done before Kievan Rus converted to Orthodoxy, you could potentially have these trade routes too well developed for the Rus to be willing to cut them off. More stable royal families for the Nordic countries would likely intermarry, creating the overlaps that allows personal unions and one kingdom having claims over another. A few marriages, convenient births or accidents, and chances of an alt Denmark-Norway or even a unified Nordic country are possible. If the mentioned ancestor worship mixed with Imperial Cult forms around said royal family, it would give them very good reason to oppose Christianity on principal. If nothing else avoiding the rise of people like Olaf Tryggvason, who spent most of his life not in Norway before becoming king, were able to brutally start Christianization would delay Christianization for potentially decades.

However I will state that a non-Christian Scandinavia would almost certainly become the object of an alt-Northern Crusade. The Northern Crusades were called because the Catholic Church had difficulty motivating Saxons, northern Germans, Polish, and Norse to crusade to the Holy Lands. Especially when there were non-Christian people right across the border. I don't see any reason for this to not happen with a non-Christian Scandinavia, unless you make it a full on Christianity screw where there's a major schism to distract the Christian kingdoms for centuries. So you'd almost certainly see Crusader states being carved out of Scandinavia.
 
However I will state that a non-Christian Scandinavia would almost certainly become the object of an alt-Northern Crusade. The Northern Crusades were called because the Catholic Church had difficulty motivating Saxons, northern Germans, Polish, and Norse to crusade to the Holy Lands. Especially when there were non-Christian people right across the border. I don't see any reason for this to not happen with a non-Christian Scandinavia, unless you make it a full on Christianity screw where there's a major schism to distract the Christian kingdoms for centuries. So you'd almost certainly see Crusader states being carved out of Scandinavia.

I'm not so sure. First of all, it assumes that the concept of a Crusade even emerges in this ATL. In OTL, the Crusades arose from a very particular set of circumstances and personalities. With a POD as early as the 800s, there is no sure thing that *Crusading will develop in the ATL. Even if we do develop a close parallel to the Crusades, and suppose that there would even be a desire for one, it assuming that a Northern war would be successful. The technological difference between the Norse and Continental Europeans was more similar than that between the Western Europeans and the Balts and, assuming that the Scandinavian Kingdoms had managed to still develop, the Scandinavians would certainly be able to field substantial armies - and command would likely be a bit more unified than the Crusaders (who, in OTL, always had some problems with proper organization).

Honestly, I would love to see a timeline where a Northern Crusade happens and the King of Sweden and Denmark unite their forces to kick their ass :p
 
I'm not so sure. First of all, it assumes that the concept of a Crusade even emerges in this ATL. In OTL, the Crusades arose from a very particular set of circumstances and personalities. With a POD as early as the 800s, there is no sure thing that *Crusading will develop in the ATL. Even if we do develop a close parallel to the Crusades, and suppose that there would even be a desire for one, it assuming that a Northern war would be successful. The technological difference between the Norse and Continental Europeans was more similar than that between the Western Europeans and the Balts and, assuming that the Scandinavian Kingdoms had managed to still develop, the Scandinavians would certainly be able to field substantial armies - and command would likely be a bit more unified than the Crusaders (who, in OTL, always had some problems with proper organization).

Honestly, I would love to see a timeline where a Northern Crusade happens and the King of Sweden and Denmark unite their forces to kick their ass :p
True, you might not have the 'Crusade' framework established by Urban II.

However, Christianity was far from unused to being marshaled by such a point. Charlemagne had clearly established that conquest could be both used to ,and conveniently legitimized said conquests, convert non-Christian peoples and lands. The Reconquista had long been established, and quite a few French knights were assisting for ideological reasons by the time of the First Crusade. The collapse of the Carolingian Empire had created extensive warfare between the different Christian kingdoms as the warrior class was just sitting around during peacetime. There were reasons behind Pope Urban II calling for the First Crusade that would exist in an alternate timeline unless you solved these underlying issues. Even if the Pope established the precedent, many crusades functioned almost as blatant land grabs with religious justifications for legitimacy. So you'd almost certainly see German lords deciding to 'spread the word of Christ' among neighboring heathens, and when you have Christian countries/forces using religious reasons to justify conquests of non-Christian peoples and lands is might as well be a crusade. So you'd almost certainly see some form of regional, unofficial crusades. Or at least the difference would be negligible to modern people.

Success against Scandinavian kingdoms wouldn't be guaranteed, but it would have a better chance than not. Germany, France, and England are right there compared to other Crusades where they had to send armies all the way to Syria. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark would have a population all together a half of England's, a fifth of Germany's, and near a tenth of France's in 1200 AD. Denmark and Sweden only had as much success as they did in the Northern Crusades because the Holy Roman Empire was a mess that meant the Emperor's were almost always forced to look inwards. Instead it was the comparatively minuscule Teutonic Knights and Livonian Order of the Swords to conduct the crusades against the Balts. However Denmark would be a far sweater prize for any Emperor who decides they would like control of the Sound. So the Norse would need a bit of infighting among their enemies to stand a good chance of resistance...Also needs to be said that the Norse were far from the most unified peoples themselves.

Leaving out Norway from the chance to kick ass :cool:. If anything western Norway would serve as a terrible place for a crusade to try and take, being practically a series of islands. No European power had the navies at the time required to blockade the land or take it one by one without being challenged every step by the local fleets.

Seriously, though. I'm actually tempted. I'm working on a Norway TL right now. A Northern Crusade against Scandinavia timeline would be very fun, but the problem I first found was that these countries would need to stay non-Christian for at last another century. If not two. So you'd need to construct a timeline where they did last till 1100-1200 at the least, and did so decisively enough that the Roman Catholic Church would feel a crusade was necessary. That is at least a good chunk of time where it would be a Pagan Scandinavia timeline rather than an alt-Northern Crusade TL, unless you just skipped to this time period and simply fill in how it occurred throughout. An idea that popped out at me was the possibility of the Kongsberg Silver Mine being discovered and established far earlier, as it appears to have been discovered by a happy accident OTL. Not only is the general area close to Viken where Denmark had heavy influence, and thus likely to potentially lead to fighting as the surrounding areas try to conquer and hold this now valuable area, but it could finance development in that area and redirect attention inwards as compared to outwards for wealth, which would hopefully lead to internal development without being forced to rely on borrowing from the Christian kingdoms.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Christianity was expensive too, if not in the same way. The amount of land the church would accrue over time that was tax free was shocking in some cases. While some places would eventually be able to push through tithes on church land, like England during the HYW, during war, for the most part this land did not pay taxes. The local bishops and archbishops could then use the money they accrue due to this to provide loans to nobles or kings in return for extended privileges, autonomy, and land. It was a self-serving cycle that propelled the church in multiple countries to major landholders with a disproportionate amount of power...Not to mention outright moving against the Church always placed someone at risk of excommunication or interdict.

None of what you described is being expensive at all. Taxes are something all states do and if local bishoprics and archbishoprics taxed too much that only means they became the effective state of the land. It's not the same as having the unsustainable practice of raising several animals, which included farm animals, for lavish sacrifices. Just keeping these animals wasted a lot of resources, to then only sacrifice them with all manner of ritual tools (accruing and building said tools like ritual knives also wasting time and resources) and expensive ways instead of being eaten, something exhausting for the common people and even the ruling class to a certain extent.



Not to mention outright moving against the Church always placed someone at risk of excommunication or interdict.

This is a non sequitur unrelated to the economy itself of Christianity.


However I will state that a non-Christian Scandinavia would almost certainly become the object of an alt-Northern Crusade.

People have to stop describing every medieval Christian war against non-Christians "crusades". The wars against the Huns, Anglo-Saxons, Magyars, Mongols and other pagans in the Middle Ages weren't called "crusades", which was also the case with most wars Christians waged against Muslims. Neither were the the actual Nine Crusades really to convert Muslims. They were economic in nature like any other war in history, conversion just being used as a method among many to obtain loyalty from the subject population and ruling elites, but always with the intent of simply establishing trade routes and control over territories and resources.

The idea of irrational and fanatical Christians who fought merely to convert people to Christianity and nothing more is one that has to be left where it belongs, in elementary school. Medieval Christians were no different than ancient Greeks and Romans, who would also be irrational religious fanatics if we apply the logic used for medieval Crusaders.
 
While a successful Saxon resistance against the Franks could delay Christianity, Saxony was bordering the core strength of the Franks. Unless the Franks suffer a downward spiral of power, at some point they'd be able to bring the bulk of their strength against the Saxons. To survive Widukind would need to create an alliance of multiple northern Germanic peoples. Maybe if the Viking Age started sooner there'd be Nordic kings willing to assist by raiding northern France, but how organized and coordinated any such resistance would be is debatable.
Sort of what I had in mind. Widukind secures the support of Denmark, possibly through marriage, and Charlemange dies in battle resulting in his Empire being mired in a few decades of civil war before being permanently fractured (depending on when in the Saxon Wars he dies he could have left anywhere between 0-3 legitimate heirs, not including Pepin the Hunchback who had debatable legitimacy but could probably still push his claim under the circumstances, as well as the sons of Carloman possibly still kicking about). I imagine the instability could probably be dragged out for maybe as long as three decades, which gives the Saxons plenty of time to consolidate and expand their Empire, after which one victor emerges and starts rebuilding the Carolingian Empire pushing back the Saxons, which reinforces the need for them to centralise and militarise, re-subjugating the Lombards and leads an expedition into Muslim Spain where they subsequently die in battle with no heir causing the whole mess to start over again.

In addition I was thinking of kicking off the Great Schism a few centuries earlier by having the Byzantines reconquer Rome and attempt to subordinate the Pope at some point. Which subsequently adds religion to the Frankish power-struggles and critically undermines the existing church structures.

Saxon ties with Denmark eventually lead to Denmark being incorporated into the burgeoning Saxon Empire (along with Frisia which broke away from the Franks and reverted to Paganism during the Saxon Wars, the Slavic Tribes East of the Elbe and various Frankish border territories such as Thuringia), which means that Saxon influence begins to spread into northern Scandinavia, via Scania and the Danish parts of southern Norway, which further accelerates the centralisation and reorganisation of Scandanavian society as more territory is either incorporated into the Saxon Empire or unites against it. This also results in a more intense Viking age, with all of England and eventually Britain falling to the Heathen Invaders.


Christianity gets screwed whilst the various pagan kingdoms get wanked to Valhalla.
 
None of what you described is being expensive at all. Taxes are something all states do and if local bishoprics and archbishoprics taxed too much that only means they became the effective state of the land. It's not the same as having the unsustainable practice of raising several animals, which included farm animals, for lavish sacrifices. Just keeping these animals wasted a lot of resources, to then only sacrifice them with all manner of ritual tools (accruing and building said tools like ritual knives also wasting time and resources) and expensive ways instead of being eaten, something exhausting for the common people and even the ruling class to a certain extent.





This is a non sequitur unrelated to the economy itself of Christianity.




People have to stop describing every medieval Christian war against non-Christians "crusades". The wars against the Huns, Anglo-Saxons, Magyars, Mongols and other pagans in the Middle Ages weren't called "crusades", which was also the case with most wars Christians waged against Muslims. Neither were the the actual Nine Crusades really to convert Muslims. They were economic in nature like any other war in history, conversion just being used as a method among many to obtain loyalty from the subject population and ruling elites, but always with the intent of simply establishing trade routes and control over territories and resources.

The idea of irrational and fanatical Christians who fought merely to convert people to Christianity and nothing more is one that has to be left where it belongs, in elementary school. Medieval Christians were no different than ancient Greeks and Romans, who would also be irrational religious fanatics if we apply the logic used for medieval Crusaders.
I don't mean the taxes of the church hurting the land or people, but in the country itself. The crown can't tax the church and its lands, so you've got a major landholder in a country not directly contributing. To a king looking for funds, that's a major expense. There are also non-monetary costs. The Roman Catholic Church wielded massive political power, which is why there were quite a few conflicts between kings/nobles and the church during this time. Numerous Holy Roman Emperors would probably be plenty willing to lose livestock if it removed the Popes and Archbishops from interfering in secular matters. Not saying this is more or less costly, the two are quite different, but there were costs of a strong Christian church in your country as well.

Excommunication and interdiction are however tools the Catholic Church had to retain their power and privileges from secular leaders. A privilege that can be taken from you whenever the king decides to is not as powerful as one that they can't. Maybe I didn't explain it enough, but when I said in my first post 'if not in the same way', I was also including the political costs of Christianity on the native kingdom alongside the financial costs I just said regarding taxes. I'm not aware of the political powers Norse paganism held.

I myself admitted just a few posts ago that I am largely using 'crusade' as an umbrella term for wars with religion playing a role in causing or justifying the war. However I will state there were more than 'Nine Crusades'. Those were the ones to the Holy Land. The Wendish Crusade began just after the Second Crusade, when northern Germans desired to campaign against the Wends and Pope Eugenius III issued a papal bull sanctifying it and stating crusades in different areas carried the same spiritual rewards. There were numerous minor crusades taken over the centuries. The Turkish Crusade, a failed crusade against the Ottomans, and one called by Innocent III against the Almohads that led to the Battle of Las Navas de...something, are two that I can think of off the top of my head. Now it is indeed possible some of these weren't 'official' crusades, but there were certainly more than nine. I have neither the resources nor will to go through papal bulls looking to see which were crusades called by the Pope, but the Wendish Crusade, Livonian Crusade (once again by Innocent III), and the Prussian Crusade all received papal dispensation through papal bulls.

I also admitted earlier that religion often was merely one factor simply justification for legitimacy for land grabs. However you seem to believe there wouldn't be an economic benefit to subduing a pagan Scandinavia. The main one, the Sound. Assuming the historical Baltic Crusades/Conquests occur, there is going to be a Baltic-North Sea trade route. The Sound Toll was enough to place the Hanseatic League at the throat of The Kalmar Union/Denmark for centuries despite both being Christian. The idea that northern Germans wouldn't be fully willing to use religion to justify taking the Sound seems implausible to me. And land grabs alone could often be enough reason for people to want to conquer a pagan Scandinavia, and a crusade would only help them and would likely to be called as the Catholic Church would always be glad to spread Christianity.

I'm not saying this to malign Christianity or the Catholic Church. A pagan Scandinavia would very likely still be conducting Viking-esque raids, which would only provide more reason and economic benefit for the Christian kingdoms to subdue them. However Christianity did not get to where it did by not expanding wherever it could. Even long before the First Crusade was called, Charlemagne clearly showed conquest could be justified by and used for religious conversion against the Saxons. Expansion was practiced by just about everyone, the numerous secular wars of the Medieval Ages for territory prove it, and so I simply don't see a pagan Scandinavia not coming under assault by the Christian kingdoms at some point. Whether this is by secular kings using religion as a excuse or a a genuine crusade is just semantics. At some point there'd be a Northern Crusade by the Church or Scandinavian Wars by England/Germany against Scandinavia. A pagan Scandinavia would be a target largely isolated from any potential allies by the rest of Western Europe.
 
Sort of what I had in mind. Widukind secures the support of Denmark, possibly through marriage,

Well he probably was acccording to Danish tradition and saga's married to Geva daughter of king Sigurd Ring of Denmark perhaps Scandinavia! Which secured his back for keeping the rebellion going.
Problem being that traces of Christianity - Roman Catholic and Eastern Ortodox - is found in Scandinavia since the 3. Century or so. With the fragmented state of Scandinavia you probably need to go further back to get a POD; like much earlier centralized kingdoms of Scandinavia which will possibly be very hard to attain. BTW Tacitus told of an Isle in the Ocean sacred to the Germanics; another Isle - Samsø in Denmark - also have a reputation of being sacred so some tale could be spun. ;)
 
What's the population of Scandinavia as opposed to Francia in ca. 900?

EDIT: (just looked - Norway-Sweden-Denmark had a total population of 1,100,000 ca. 1000 AD whereas the HRE at the time had 5,560,000)

I'm not really sure it's feasible to keep Scandinavia isolated from the Franco-Christian orbit
 
Well he probably was acccording to Danish tradition and saga's married to Geva daughter of king Sigurd Ring of Denmark perhaps Scandinavia! Which secured his back for keeping the rebellion going.
Possibly although it is also very likely that Sigurd Ring didn't exist/was an amalgamation of multiple historical and mythological figures (the fact that he beat up a Norse king who was supposed to have an empire that stretched all the way to the Mediterranean, which we have records of, is a strong indication that some things may have been exaggerated along the way).

I'm working on the assumption that he is able to secure the support of whoever was in charge back then who offered him full military support. Combined with Charles taking an arrow to the face at an inopportune moment (which I did steal from Like in Olden Days) and the Frisians going into full scale revolt the Saxons are able to press the initiative and, whilst the Franks are distracted with the succession crisis, start looting and raiding the Frankish borderlands, and even occupy and settle parts of it.

That said I'm also thinking of how the mythology of the Saxon Royal Family is going to play out. Due to the strong focus on the King having powerful and wise ancestors the "official" histories and genealogies of the King are going to get creative. So Sigurd Ring will be counted amongst the official ancestors, along with other semi-mythological figures like Harald Wartooth, Beowolf and Sigfried. Over time, and as the Saxons develop contacts with other cultures, they start incorporating other heroic historical and mythological figures as well, such as Odysseus (I believe there is a theory that part of the Odessey took place in Norway due to the description of fjords), Herakles, Libuše (after a marriage alliance which brings Bohemia into the Empire), King Arthur, Cu Chulainn, Kings David and Solomon, Julius Caesar, Constantine, Attila the Hun, Alaric, Hannibal, the Prophet Mohammed etc. getting increasingly more convoluted as the centuries go by.
 
Last edited:
Top