Odds of Norse paganism becoming uniform and more resilient?

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.
I agree completely. Just Norse paganism by itself isn't really going to get by when Western Europe is already firmly Christianised and strongly interacting with Central and Northern Europe. Setting the POD a bit sooner and expanding it a bit into Germanic paganism (really nothing Norse about Widukind) gives more opportunities.

I've been thinking for a while about a scenario where there is no Christianity and instead in the Roman Empire European paganism develops into a sort of analogue of Hinduism, with a solid core of Greek philosophy and a more competent Interpretatio Romana that is also used as a means to tame the barbarians (and of course, a few reforms to involve the commoners with the actual deities more). That might hold up well to outside pressure while being actually rather plausible, 'though it'd be very Graeco-Roman at its core even for the Germanic branch.
 
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.

The perception of the Sagas as sources for history is going through a new generation of scholars backed by archeological finds like at Lejre and Uppsala making it safe to assume that more than just the core of some is reliable. Thing is just how much.
This process have made it possible to discuss the possible linage of Danish/Scandinavian royalty back into very early Medieval times - depending of course upon when you expect Medieval times to begin - but say around 7/8.c. So Sigurd (Ring) may have been a historical figure whose daughter was married to the Saxon Duke Widukind. Of course stuff was exaggerated you had to make your hero GREAT! ;)

Even if the King of Denmark would lend support to Widukind I doubt he would be so foolish as giving him carte blance - OTL he didn't and he very well knew that it was all a question of the lesser evil.
Denmark have a saga history (which eventually may be true) of enmity with Saxons but the Franks seemed the worse of the two. In the end the Danes may have misjudged the situation as the Franks proved to not be omnipotent and Charlemagne had to run hither and tither all over the Empire to keep stuff in check. However going all out supporting the Saxons may have been the miscalculation because where would the Saxons look when the Franks had been beaten off - north to Denmark and Trade in the Baltic controlling which would have been a boost to economy. But then the Saxons might have the problems the Franks had in subduing the Danes even when these would be in a game of thrones - You may have Jutland but the conquest ends at the shore and sometime the Danes are going to be coming back. ;)
So Sigurd chose wisely. Of course he didn't know.
 

ReenX

Banned
Thanks all for responses. I wish there was or would be a timeline dealing with this issue. Seems like a really interesting premise
 
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.
I don't think the ability to "disprove" a religion is itself that important to its survival. Mormonism for instance is still going strong despite the fact that the book of Abraham shows Joseph Smith (intentionally or otherwise) made stuff up (to clarify, I'm not saying he intentionally tricked people, but that now we can actually read hieroglyphs we know that the book of Abraham is an incorrect translation of classical Egyptian death rites, so he was mistaken at least).

Regardless, I don't think religion has to be "true" in the sense of the example you gave above as long as it has sufficient meaning.


More in line with the topic, IMO it's not going to happen without a much earlier POD. Something like getting the Scandinavians to practice writing beyond runes. Far enough back and you could get romans picking up Scandinavian religious practices from the Germans.
 
I agree, as others have mentioned, that Scandinavia alone would be hard pressed to hold out against the overwhelmingly superior strength and wealth of western Catholicism.

I believe someone mentioned basically the scenario from the As In Olden Times TL - the rising of Saxony and Frisia defeats the Franks with a Danish alliance and a lot of luck. Luck here translating roughly to the death of Charlemagne in a decisive battle.

If we project from that TL, the Franks would have too many internal wars to reapply the weight of their strength to Saxony long enough to beat the heathen out of them, and Saxony would use the interim to make a state religion. Later, pagan Danes (Norwegians?) could overrun England completely and rule it, with a minority of Anglo-Saxons reverting to heathenry as in OTL.

But that is still not enough. Political control of Scandinavia, far northern Germania, and Britain would be impressive. It wouldn't, probably, be enough to outweigh the combined strength and focus of Catholic Europe. So to consider this properly, Catholic Europe must be hamstrung. Another poster suggested the Rhomanoi retake Rome. That seems unlikely - a stronger Rome might apply that strength more in the Balkans and against the Muslims - but it could certainly do the job.

What you want is to give the people of the Frankish empire very strong religious reasons to fight each other - schisms, heresies, antipopes, etc. If Christianity is divided in Francia, it is suddenly much less threat to the neighbors. That's the bottom line.

The other big help would be more successful Islam. A caliphate might make more sense taking central-southern Italy with Sicily as a stepping stone, than the regime in Constantinople. If religious enemies are on every doorstep, western Christendom might plausibly focus on those to the south.
 
Last edited:
.0000001%. Off the top of my head, there’s ‘Canaanite paganism’, Shinto, and Hinduism. That’s about it. Now think of all of the ones wiped out. The odds aren’t in their favor already, and then you see the reasons posted above (poor geography, Europe>Scandinavia in power and prestige, no sacrifices, etc.)
 
I agree, as others have mentioned, that Scandinavia alone would be hard pressed to hold out against the overwhelmingly superior strength and wealth of western Catholicism.

I believe someone mentioned basically the scenario from the As In Olden Times TL - the rising of Saxony and Frisia defeats the Franks with a Danish alliance and a lot of luck. Luck here translating roughly to the death of Charlemagne in a decisive battle.

If we project from that TL was, the Frank's would have too many internal wars to reapply the weight of their strength to Saxony long enough to beat the heathen out of them, and Saxony would use the interim to make a state religion. Later, pagan Danes (Norwegians?) could overrun England completely and rule it, with a minority of Anglo-Saxons reverting to heathenry as in OTL.

But that is still not enough. Political control of Scandinavia, far northern Germania, and Britain would be impressive. It wouldn't, probably, be enough to outweigh the combined strength and focus of Catholic Europe. So to consider this properly, Catholic Europe must be hamstrung. Another poster suggested the Rhomanoi retake Rome. That seems unlikely - a stronger Rome might apply that strength more in the Balkans and against the Muslims - but it could certainly do the job.

What you want is to give the people of the Frankish empire very strong religious reasons to fight each other - schisms, heresies, antipopes, etc. If Christianity is divided in Francia, it is suddenly much less threat to the That's the bottom line.

The other big help would be more successful Islam. A caliphate might make more sense taking central-southern Italy with Sicily as a stepping stone, than the regime in Constantinople. If religious enemies are on every doorstep, western Christendom might plausibly focus on those to the south.

Newly Christian Denmark did overrun England problem during Pagan times were the usual throne strife's. Hence my stressing that you need earlier centralized rule in Denmark/Scandinavia to ease transition to the heir/next in line.
Problem in England would be the Celtic church; conquest of Ireland isn't the problem the Celtic Church would be. It makes for an indigneous religious anchor for the population against Scandinavian Paganism which may well counter the influence of the latter.

Saxony have the manpower pool to boost the situation; an early death of Charlemagne might trigger a lot of events if say if the resulting uprisings in like Bavaria and Aquitaine and possible Moors incursions into the Languedoc manages to kill of his only son Louis too before he begets issue or when his sons is still underage. That ought to secure the Franks having enough on their hands for quite some time and Charlemagnes Empire may fragment into warring states.
Problem for Denmark is Saxony become the premier Pagan state vying with Denmark for control of the Baltic and spreading out on the continent. Though as already pointed to the Saxon conquest of Denmark would probably stop at ocean shores.

The Norse Paganism is usually said to be inclusive in that nobody had any problem in letting the pantheon include the White Christ perhaps in the analogue of the "white" Balder.
Christianity had already a presence in Scandinavia since the 3.c. It may stay a presence especially with the distance to the Holy Mother Church or Eastern Church increasing and time may further the cause of Scandinavian/Germanic religions. That may help strengthening the religion against outside mission.

Another effect of Frankish imperial dissolution could be less christian rulers in Moravia and Poland without the need to ask the Emperors permission to put a crown on your head. ;)
 
I agree, as others have mentioned, that Scandinavia alone would be hard pressed to hold out against the overwhelmingly superior strength and wealth of western Catholicism.

I believe someone mentioned basically the scenario from the As In Olden Times TL - the rising of Saxony and Frisia defeats the Franks with a Danish alliance and a lot of luck. Luck here translating roughly to the death of Charlemagne in a decisive battle.

If we project from that TL was, the Frank's would have too many internal wars to reapply the weight of their strength to Saxony long enough to beat the heathen out of them, and Saxony would use the interim to make a state religion. Later, pagan Danes (Norwegians?) could overrun England completely and rule it, with a minority of Anglo-Saxons reverting to heathenry as in OTL.

But that is still not enough. Political control of Scandinavia, far northern Germania, and Britain would be impressive. It wouldn't, probably, be enough to outweigh the combined strength and focus of Catholic Europe. So to consider this properly, Catholic Europe must be hamstrung. Another poster suggested the Rhomanoi retake Rome. That seems unlikely - a stronger Rome might apply that strength more in the Balkans and against the Muslims - but it could certainly do the job.

What you want is to give the people of the Frankish empire very strong religious reasons to fight each other - schisms, heresies, antipopes, etc. If Christianity is divided in Francia, it is suddenly much less threat to the That's the bottom line.

The other big help would be more successful Islam. A caliphate might make more sense taking central-southern Italy with Sicily as a stepping stone, than the regime in Constantinople. If religious enemies are on every doorstep, western Christendom might plausibly focus on those to the south.

Get out of my head.
 
Newly Christian Denmark did overrun England
To go slightly off context if you're referring to Cnut here the situation was more a succession war where one side had a Danish leader and additional Danish nobles rather than a Dane versus Anglecynn war. It even ended in a stalemate resolved by a last man standing or tontine clause, so not overrun in a conquest or even danelaw fashion.

Back on context: norse paganism needs both a church and numbers to resist conversion.
 
To go slightly off context if you're referring to Cnut here the situation was more a succession war where one side had a Danish leader and additional Danish nobles rather than a Dane versus Anglecynn war. It even ended in a stalemate resolved by a last man standing or tontine clause, so not overrun in a conquest or even danelaw fashion.

Back on context: norse paganism needs both a church and numbers to resist conversion.

Meant Sweyn Forkbeard but that may of course partly relate to his conquest too; though it actually also relate to the doings of the Great Heathen Army that was also able to play the various English parties against one another - Niels Lund at least have written so.
 
Newly Christian Denmark did overrun England problem during Pagan times were the usual throne strife's. Hence my stressing that you need earlier centralized rule in Denmark/Scandinavia to ease transition to the heir/next in line.

Exactly. Although the great heathen army was better proof of concept. The trouble is the Danes fell short of political control of England, and so were eventually driven out.

I agree that earlier state formation / centralization would make things easier for these peoples. No question. But that would likely be the work of a couple-three centuries, and butterfly netting at the border seems implausible. To meet the conditions of the OP, it seems unsuitable.

Problem in England would be the Celtic church; conquest of Ireland isn't the problem the Celtic Church would be. It makes for an indigneous religious anchor for the population against Scandinavian Paganism which may well counter the influence of the latter.

The Celtic church isn't a problem. Quite the reverse! Aside from the timing being less than ideal, it's a great help. As a non-Catholic church, it won't have the full support of the Roman church. In fact, as Catholicism would make some inroads somewhere in Britain, the two churches would be hostile competitors. If you're a laissez faire heathen governing class outnumbered by your subjects, that's exactly what you need.

What happens to the Celtic priests and churches of Kent when Catholic warlords come over the Channel? If the OTL crusades are any guide, toleration would be the best case, and a surprising one.

Best case would be a handful of Christian heresies and Jewish population (and even a Muslim community?) dividing the loyalties of the governed. Might not last forever, but what does?

Saxony have the manpower pool to boost the situation; an early death of Charlemagne might trigger a lot of events if say if the resulting uprisings in like Bavaria and Aquitaine and possible Moors incursions into the Languedoc manages to kill of his only son Louis too before he begets issue or when his sons is still underage. That ought to secure the Franks having enough on their hands for quite some time and Charlemagnes Empire may fragment into warring states.
Problem for Denmark is Saxony become the premier Pagan state vying with Denmark for control of the Baltic and spreading out on the continent. Though as already pointed to the Saxon conquest of Denmark would probably stop at ocean shores.

Saxon conquest of Jutland might be a problem for the Danes, but it probably would do little harm to their religion.

The Norse Paganism is usually said to be inclusive in that nobody had any problem in letting the pantheon include the White Christ perhaps in the analogue of the "white" Balder.
Christianity had already a presence in Scandinavia since the 3.c. It may stay a presence especially with the distance to the Holy Mother Church or Eastern Church increasing and time may further the cause of Scandinavian/Germanic religions. That may help strengthening the religion against outside mission.

It's possible, although generally syncretism with a much larger and more organized ideological system seems to be a gateway drug. Take West Africa.

Another effect of Frankish imperial dissolution could be less christian rulers in Moravia and Poland without the need to ask the Emperors permission to put a crown on your head. ;)

Could be.
 
.0000001%. Off the top of my head, there’s ‘Canaanite paganism’, Shinto, and Hinduism. That’s about it. Now think of all of the ones wiped out. The odds aren’t in their favor already, and then you see the reasons posted above (poor geography, Europe>Scandinavia in power and prestige, no sacrifices, etc.)

Canaanite paganism? Wasn't that basically wiped out by the time of Islam's rise to power?
 
Canaanite paganism? Wasn't that basically wiped out by the time of Islam's rise to power?
I was using the air quotes to basically say that Judaism/Christianity/other Abrahamic religions (using my tiny knowledge of my faith) are kind of sort of almost like a reformed Canaanite paganism focusing on El/Yahweh/God/Allah. Of course, I very well could be wrong.
Also, this is different, but I saw a while ago that Armenian neo paganism is really strong their, is that true or did I do a stupid.
 
I was using the air quotes to basically say that Judaism/Christianity/other Abrahamic religions (using my tiny knowledge of my faith) are kind of sort of almost like a reformed Canaanite paganism focusing on El/Yahweh/God/Allah. Of course, I very well could be wrong.
Also, this is different, but I saw a while ago that Armenian neo paganism is really strong their, is that true or did I do a stupid.

Ah, I get it. I wouldn't consider it paganism though, since it's kind of, you know, the thing that killed paganism.
 
That said I'm also thinking of how the mythology of the Saxon Royal Family is going to play out.

The problem you're going to run into is that there was no Saxon Royal Family. An entire second dimension to the Saxo-Frankish wars that is being missed here was that Old Saxony was a proto-republican polity with (at least the way it is described in the written histories) an allergy against monarchy. A major reason for the popular support Widikund was able to get was that Frankish rule involved the deprecation of the Marklo assembly where the lower classes were able to find representation and a voice. It even took a slaughter of a large portion of the Old Saxon nobility for Charlemagne to be able to co-opt the rest to supporting Frankish government.

The Old Saxon formula is a lot more potent for a surviving paganism than just being yet another pagan kingdom that needs to 'reform' like this is Crusader Kings. The religious role played by the Old Saxon assemblies is already that structure, a central institutional anchor around which a more formal religion can accrete. An Old Saxony that survives more or less intact isn't going to be an early Scando-Viking empire in the vein of Harold Bluetooth, it's going to have the potential to be a radiant source of popular, institutional paganism. How things evolve politically are unpredictable, because we don't have many examples of very similar states in this time period. I believe some of the pagan Slavic polities had kind of similar institutions (from a distance, anyway), but none on the sheer scale and with the demographic heft of Old Saxony.

An Old Saxony that can survive Charlemagne's attempts at conquest is going to lead to a very different kind of Middle Ages than we're used to.
 
The problem you're going to run into is that there was no Saxon Royal Family. An entire second dimension to the Saxo-Frankish wars that is being missed here was that Old Saxony was a proto-republican polity with (at least the way it is described in the written histories) an allergy against monarchy. A major reason for the popular support Widikund was able to get was that Frankish rule involved the deprecation of the Marklo assembly where the lower classes were able to find representation and a voice. It even took a slaughter of a large portion of the Old Saxon nobility for Charlemagne to be able to co-opt the rest to supporting Frankish government.

The Old Saxon formula is a lot more potent for a surviving paganism than just being yet another pagan kingdom that needs to 'reform' like this is Crusader Kings. The religious role played by the Old Saxon assemblies is already that structure, a central institutional anchor around which a more formal religion can accrete. An Old Saxony that survives more or less intact isn't going to be an early Scando-Viking empire in the vein of Harold Bluetooth, it's going to have the potential to be a radiant source of popular, institutional paganism. How things evolve politically are unpredictable, because we don't have many examples of very similar states in this time period. I believe some of the pagan Slavic polities had kind of similar institutions (from a distance, anyway), but none on the sheer scale and with the demographic heft of Old Saxony.

An Old Saxony that can survive Charlemagne's attempts at conquest is going to lead to a very different kind of Middle Ages than we're used to.
I'm not an expert on Old Saxon governance, although I do know that they had strong traditions of assemblies and power-sharing as did many Germanic and proto-Germanic peoples, and I'll definitely try to look into it to see if there's anything interesting I can use.

What I currently have planned, however, is premised on Saxon society fundamentally being transformed over the coming centuries. The Saxon Empire is not just going to be Old Saxony with larger borders but a fundamentally different beast.

Old Saxon culture and institutions have been critically undermined by the Frankish occupation. Holy sites have been burned and a lot of people are dead. In the aftermath the Saxons are going to be very set on ensuring that doesn't happen again which is why they are willing to establish a monarchy over all of Saxony. Widukind, who has lead the rebellion and done the seemingly impossible task of defeating Charlemagne, is naturally chosen. This establishes the Royal Family and, whilst the power of the Saxon crown is initially very limited, over time more and more power and wealth will concentrate in their hands. The Saxons end the war on a high, liberating Frisia and forming a close alliance with them (which eventually results in them being incorporated into the Kingdom, the Obotrites (who sided with the Franks) are subjugated, and bits of Frankish border territory (such as Thuringia) are occupied, which sets the stage for future military conquests. Additional wars with the Frankish successor states is going to hammer home the need for centralisation and militarisation, as well as reinforce the anti-Christian sentiment that will increasingly become a feature of Saxon identity and ideology.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Joining Christianity at the time was the political equvilent of joining the European Union now-much better when it came to trade.
 
Top