Pagan Lithuania after Tannenberg

So what if the Knights win at Tannenberg :)rolleyes:), and the Lithuanian King Vytautas is killed in the battle.

I read that parts of Lithuania (including Samogitia) were not Christianized until after the Battle, and I think Vytautas was an important figure in the whole Christianization process.

So what if, after a defeat at Tannenberg and thus in the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War, the Lithuanians (who only adopted Christianity decades earlier) reject Christianity, which led to their defeat, and return to their old pagan beliefs?

is it possible? not at all? enlighten me.
 
So what if the Knights win at Tannenberg :)rolleyes:), and the Lithuanian King Vytautas is killed in the battle.

I read that parts of Lithuania (including Samogitia) were not Christianized until after the Battle, and I think Vytautas was an important figure in the whole Christianization process.

So what if, after a defeat at Tannenberg and thus in the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War, the Lithuanians (who only adopted Christianity decades earlier) reject Christianity, which led to their defeat, and return to their old pagan beliefs?

is it possible? not at all? enlighten me.

I don't know, the Lithuanian paganism resisted pretty longtime all things considered. I don't see it lasting really much more than a few decades more. After all; if the Teutonic knights win they'll condone no such thing.
 
So what if, after a defeat at Tannenberg and thus in the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War, the Lithuanians (who only adopted Christianity decades earlier) reject Christianity, which led to their defeat, and return to their old pagan beliefs?

is it possible? not at all? enlighten me.

As tempting as I find this: Why would the defeat make them return to their old beliefs? They were christians fighting against christians, so I'm not entirely sure as what would make them turn to the old ways if they were beat by a christian force?
 
Originally posted by rcduggan
So what if the Knights win at Tannenberg :)rolleyes:), and the Lithuanian King Vytautas is killed in the battle.
I read that parts of Lithuania (including Samogitia) were not Christianized until after the Battle, and I think Vytautas was an important figure in the whole Christianization process.
So what if, after a defeat at Tannenberg and thus in the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War, the Lithuanians (who only adopted Christianity decades earlier) reject Christianity, which led to their defeat, and return to their old pagan beliefs?
is it possible? not at all? enlighten me.

1. Vytautas was a Grand Duke, not King (he wanted to be, but Jogaila strongly opposed against it, even after becoming king of Poland.)
2. Officially christianization of Lithuania was started in 1387, 2 years after Union of Krewo, acording to which Jogaila was to become king of Poland, marry Jadwiga and convert Lithuania. However, it doesn't mean that before that Lithuania was totally pagan country. A big part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania consisted in fact of Russian lands, conquered by Lithuanians. Many of those territories were Christian - Orthodox Christian. Conversion of Lithuania in 1387 was in fact converson of ruling elite and making christianity official and only legal religion.
In case of Tannenberg defeat and Vytautas' death Lithuanians still have many members of Gediminids dynasty to rule over them, especially Jogaila. There is a possibility of civil war for throne in Lithuania, but I'm not sure if it would happen with even bigger threat of Teutonic Order. Personally, I don't believe Lithuanias would reject christianity - 20 years of christianization is a lot of time. Besides, they accepted new religion to protect themselves from the Order. If they reject it now, they're even more screwed, cause they would prove Order right and would endanger their alliance with Poland.
 
I've had alot of ideas concerning how to conserve pagan religion in the north of Europe, but unless one erases Christianity all together, or have an early POD where christianity never manages to dominate the roman empire, it's very hard if at all possible.

I've proposed the possibility of a "conservative alliance" between the last pagans in Scandinavia (the Svear in Sweden and the Trönds in Norway) and Lithuania. The Svear held large parts of Finland, that were also pagan at this time, I believe (?).
I'm not sure how possible this seems?
 
There is one thing to consider. I've spoken to some Lithuanians at my college, and they emphacize the fact that Pagan customs and folk lore lasted well into and beyond the middle ages. Although almost all were at least nominally Christian, the old beliefs still had strength, especially among the peasant population. There is even a story of Napoleon's soldiers of 1812 coming across a strange burial right while camped near Vilnius.
 

Rockingham

Banned
I've had alot of ideas concerning how to conserve pagan religion in the north of Europe, but unless one erases Christianity all together, or have an early POD where christianity never manages to dominate the roman empire, it's very hard if at all possible.

I've proposed the possibility of a "conservative alliance" between the last pagans in Scandinavia (the Svear in Sweden and the Trönds in Norway) and Lithuania. The Svear held large parts of Finland, that were also pagan at this time, I believe (?).
I'm not sure how possible this seems?
I have a quite plausible idea which I've been devoloping a while involving what amounts to a (gradual) extermination of Christianity in Europe by a Uber Pagon Saxony and the Arab Caliphate-not totally, but enough to set it back quite a bit.

The key thing to realise is that Paganism was a a key disadvantage to Christianity for one reason- Christianity was hierachical, and thus favoured the power of the leadership, especially that of a large empire, over the tribal autonomy and decentralized power favoured by paganism. The fact that the Monotheists in general had 1 firmly placed God, while the pagans typically had many constantly squabbling(although one typically dominated), is an indication of Pagan attitude towards leadership.

Egypt springs to mind as an exception, during the era of the Pharoah at least. It was at least as heirarchical, in faith and government, as Christianity. But its faith was heavily based on the geography of the area, and it thus faced the same disadvanage that Judaism did in the era of the temple-but the Egyptian geography could not be destroyed, and thus abandoned, while the Temple could.

So I'm thinking you need a heavily Christian influenced Pagan religion(which, despite having many Gods, has more in common with the Abrahmamic religions). A Buddhist style relgion could also be a cantidate I suppose.

Saxony would appear the ideal cantidate for such a reform, what with its frquent wars with the Frankish empire, in the same era that the Franks warred with the Caliphate... going from their, its not to difficult to figure out....:D
 
Egypt springs to mind as an exception, during the era of the Pharoah at least. It was at least as heirarchical, in faith and government, as Christianity. But its faith was heavily based on the geography of the area, and it thus faced the same disadvanage that Judaism did in the era of the temple-but the Egyptian geography could not be destroyed, and thus abandoned, while the Temple could.

Rome comes to mind as another example. surely many changes take place, but in the end it's a rather hierarchical society.

So I think you really can't claim that Pagans need some idea of one god to be able to build a hierarchy.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Rome comes to mind as another example. surely many changes take place, but in the end it's a rather hierarchical society.

So I think you really can't claim that Pagans need some idea of one god to be able to build a hierarchy.
Ok, I'll revise my analysis...

-Rome's emperors found a way of working around that, as did many others, by claiming to be a God.

-The key flaws being: their were many Gods under their system, and so they were far more prone to internal overthrow as monarchs then Christian Europe through most of its history(outside of the surviving remnants of Rome, who ironically(seeing as they spread the religion that lessened general civic disobedience) continued the tradition.

-I suppose that one could argue that Christianity had adopted many of the centralized traditions that (Roman)Paganism had and early Christianity had beforehand. But the period we are talking about was the era of absolute Roman Catholic hegemony over much Christian traditions; if Roman paganism was centralized, the north European forms weren't.
 
Or maybe the European paganism becomes a Hindu-like religion, with one abstract, non-anthropomorphic concept of "Bramhan" as a the supreme power and many Gods as manifestation of that abstract spirit. Quite plausible, since Hinduism itself is a later development of a form of Paganism.
 
1. Vytautas was a Grand Duke, not King (he wanted to be, but Jogaila strongly opposed against it, even after becoming king of Poland.)
Jogaila didn't opposed strongly, he initially was even more enthusiastic than Vytautas.
2. Officially christianization of Lithuania was started in 1387, 2 years after Union of Krewo, acording to which Jogaila was to become king of Poland, marry Jadwiga and convert Lithuania. However, it doesn't mean that before that Lithuania was totally pagan country. A big part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania consisted in fact of Russian lands, conquered by Lithuanians. Many of those territories were Christian - Orthodox Christian. Conversion of Lithuania in 1387 was in fact converson of ruling elite and making christianity official and only legal religion.
While the ruling elite was converted the most of people still remained pagan.
In case of Tannenberg defeat and Vytautas' death Lithuanians still have many members of Gediminids dynasty to rule over them, especially Jogaila. There is a possibility of civil war for throne in Lithuania, but I'm not sure if it would happen with even bigger threat of Teutonic Order. Personally, I don't believe Lithuanias would reject christianity - 20 years of christianization is a lot of time. Besides, they accepted new religion to protect themselves from the Order. If they reject it now, they're even more screwed, cause they would prove Order right and would endanger their alliance with Poland.
The threat of Teutonic Order didn't stop the civil wars at the end of XIV century. There were already clear that the new religion didn't protected from the Order.
 
1. Vytautas was a Grand Duke, not King (he wanted to be, but Jogaila strongly opposed against it, even after becoming king of Poland.)

The correct term for sovereign ruler who isn't a King is "(Grand) Prince", not "(Grand) Duke". Yeah, I know it's nitpickery but this mistake seriously annoys me :(
 
The correct term for sovereign ruler who isn't a King is "(Grand) Prince", not "(Grand) Duke". Yeah, I know it's nitpickery but this mistake seriously annoys me :(

but Lithuania was a Grand Duchy, not a Grand Principality. my mistake on the king part though, I knew he was Grand Duke and meant to put that.

@Abas: that's kind of what I was thinking, that the Lithuanians would realize that being Catholic wouldn't protect them, and so would be less likely to hold on to it. maybe if in the civil war a pagan / more paganistic Grand Duke emerges victorious.... hmm.
 
Originally posted by Prem_Rack
The correct term for sovereign ruler who isn't a King is "(Grand) Prince", not "(Grand) Duke". Yeah, I know it's nitpickery but this mistake seriously annoys me

The key word is sovereign. Vytautas was ruler of Lithuania, but Jogaila even as King of Poland had also the title of "Lithuaniae Princeps Supremus", the Supreme Prince of Lithuania. So Vytautas was ruler of Lithuania, but Jogaila was his overlord.
 

Rockingham

Banned
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is currently entirely sovereign, yet they do not refer to themselves as the Grand Prince.
 
The correct term for sovereign ruler who isn't a King is "(Grand) Prince", not "(Grand) Duke". Yeah, I know it's nitpickery but this mistake seriously annoys me :(
There is long established tradition to call Lithuanian rulers "dux" in Latin, but in XV century it was sometimes used interchangeably with "princeps".
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Most likely because he could have been called Fürst, which often are used interchangeble for ruler and is translated into english as Prince.
 
While we're at the appropriate ways of calling things, why the battle of 1410 between Polish-Lithuanian coalition and Teutonian Order is called a Battle of Tannenberg and not Battle of Grunwald? When I hear of Battle of Tannenberg, I think about the one that took place in 1914...
 
While we're at the appropriate ways of calling things, why the battle of 1410 between Polish-Lithuanian coalition and Teutonian Order is called a Battle of Tannenberg and not Battle of Grunwald? When I hear of Battle of Tannenberg, I think about the one that took place in 1914...
In Polish, Russian and Lithuanian it is called Battle of Griunwald. It seems it depends on the position of the armies.
 

Susano

Banned
but Lithuania was a Grand Duchy, not a Grand Principality.
Actually it was a Grand Principality, its just that English for no apparent reason I can see somehow translates this as Grand Duchy, too. (In German we do differ between Großherzogtum and Großfürstentum, and Lithuania is refered to as the latter).

As for the battle name, the 1914 battle wasnt quite at Tannenberg, either, but was so named by the German side for propagandistic reasons... anyways, in English nwoadaysboth are called Battle of Tannenberg.
 
Top