Question: European pagan nation until our days

I'm sorry but I genuinly don't see how it made it more of an organized religion.

That religion was institutionalized is out of question, and probably was as far as the IXth century (basically the time for western slavic peoples to stabilize), but the presence of an huge sanctuary doesn't proove the existance of an organized religion, as in a religion with a systematical organisation and codification, critically over not only one tribe but above all western slavic ones.

Have we, by exemple, a priesthood hierarchy distinct (physically or not, roles possibly being merged on one individual) of tribal hierarchy? Basically a religion independent of tribal features.

I tried to found some in Saxo Grammaticus, but I don't read Dane (and translation of the books that interest me aren't avaible). That's, again, a genuine question.

(For example, Delphi was a pan-hellenic sanctuary, but it didn't made Hellenic religion more organized in the strictest sense, as in an unified theological and institutional body)

You have a point, maybe it isn't a very good indicator, but it seems to me that there would need to be some organization for the Rani's temple in Arkona to become the major center of worship. And not just for the Rani, if I recall correctly, but for all the remaining pagan Slavic tribes in the area.

I just think that if all the Western Slavs (Poles, Bohemians, Wends, Sorbs) had a couple more centuries or so for their pagan religion to develop, it's possible they could have avoided converting to christianity.

Although the biggest thing that would have helped them avoid that was if more German tribes had remained pagan as well.



I'm not sure it would have been possible. Saxon Wars themselves were easily won, the difficulty being to hold the country. With the full strength and ressources from Gaul and Italy, and the Saxon division, it would have been hard.

If you allow me to twist a bit the situation, a sucsessul conversion of Frisians and Saxons by Anglo-Saxon missionaries under Frankish watch would be interesting. No doubt that at the first sight of rebellion, they would know the same fate than Alamans, but it could make Frankish expansion in Germany less brutal and less deep.
At best, the Wendish tribes could avoid being in the Carolingian sphere of influence, and maybe prevent being crushed by Danes in the process.

I don't think it would have prevented christianization of Europe as a whole, but if it could have delayed it enough, maybe the smoother and slower Christianisation of Germany would have provided both a reaction among Scandinavian and Wendish peoples to organize their rites along a more unified body, imitating Christian features.

And of course, develloping their own practices along : you could end with 4 or 5 allohistorical equivalents to Lithuania up to the XVth century.
As with many wars back then, one key battle could have changed the outcome entirely. It may have convinced Charlemagne that it wasn't worth expending anymore resources on Saxony. Or perhaps if Widukind had convinced the Danes to join him in fighting against the Franks. Any number of things could have changed the outcome of those wars.

But you have an interesting idea there too. A slower, more peaceful conversion of the Saxons could have changed things. It seems to me that the Saxons were quite stubborn, so it might've taken a very, very long time, or they may not have ever accepted conversion through peaceful means at all.
 
I tried to found some in Saxo Grammaticus, but I don't read Dane (and translation of the books that interest me aren't avaible). That's, again, a genuine question.

Which books is it that you're interested in? ... Maybe i could look it out and paraphrase what it says
 
Which books is it that you're interested in? ... Maybe i could look it out and paraphrase what it says
The informations about the rites in Rungen are not in the books between I and IX, so I suppose it's somewhere between X and XIV. I'm particularly searching about Svantevit worship.
 
The informations about the rites in Rungen are not in the books between I and IX, so I suppose it's somewhere between X and XIV. I'm particularly searching about Svantevit worship.

Well ... Given that I-IX mainly deals with Norse Mythology and semilegendary kings (ending with Gorm the Old, which is the first factually documented king).

Sniffing a bit around on Polonopedia, suggests that Book XIV have a discription of Arkona on Rügen, although given that XIV is ~25% of the total weight of text that shouldn't really be to much of a surprise.

I'll poke around in the local libary tomorrow
 
A question: would be possible, anyhow, to an European country to remain pagan (or having a pre-Christian religion) or at least having as religion a mixture of christianism with paganism until our days? Is the christianization avoidable in any part of Europe?

Maybe some Adyghe people in Causasus region avoid monotheism and foreign rule even longer than OTL ? Circassians maintained elements of their previous pagan belief even after their conversion to monotheism.

There were some pagan indegineous Prussians until the 17th century as well...
 
Well ... Saxo suggests that Arkona did get some amount of tribute from the surrounding kingships, but again, also states that the Temple had a small army which went around raiding so it might just as well be a "here, don't raid us". By and large it is rather unclear on its extend of power, but the Kingdoms of Pommeria was actively against Arkona so its doubtful that it was more than a regional power.
 
What actually caused the spread of Christianity into Pagan nations? I'm thinking of the Norse, the Celts, the Slavs - many of which were never outright conquered by the Romans. Though I have heard it said that Britain was remarkably difficult to Christianise in the first place. I think, for some of these states, thinking primarily of the Norse nations, it would be possible for Christianity to be 'discredited' in some ways. Perhaps a more aggressive Danelaw in England? I wonder if - faced with conquest - the peoples that became subject to the Danes in eastern England might have started converting. After all, their 'God' didn't protect them, while the Norse gods allowed them to conquer.

Perhaps I'm simplifying it too much, but religion is primarily spread by words. Few people would believe that Jesus, for example, was actually a miracle worker in this day and age. A provider, maybe, or a skilled healer, or simply a man capable of invoking a sort of placebo effect (or, he might have even been a hallucinogenic drug addict in a time where such things were unheard of), but a magic man, not likely. My point is not to have a go at any Christians, but to suggest that something ordinary might be seen as divine in a day and age where it was easier to explain that way.

As such, the Norse gods 'allow' the Danes to conquer, and the Christian god 'fails to save' his subjects.

It's an idea, I guess.
 
for the Norse nations there were several 'paths'

Anglo-Saxon and Frankish missionaries

Norse Settlements on the British Isles converting without stopping the trade and population exchange with home

The conquest of Denmark by Otto I and the following christianization of Denmark, which continued even after Denmark released itself from the forced vassalage concurrently with the Great Slavic Wars and the regency following the death of Otto II

Varangian Guard bringing Orthodoxy up the Rus' rivers (although this type of christianity ultimately failed to spread past the Baltics)

Realpolitik concerns (specially for the Danish Kings) deciding that its easier to convert, than having the big HRE breathing down your neck.
 
Top