In honour of this Wednesday being St. Patrick's Day I thought I'd bring up this WI. I've already had a No St. Patrick thread and the consensus is that Ireland would still convert to Christianity without him. That being the case what POD do you need to keep Ireland from becoming Christian? How does this effect future events, particularly the Anglo-Saxon and later Continental (Saxons, etc.) conversions?
St. Patricks Day Challenge: No Irish conversion to Christianity
- Thread starter BigWillyG
- Start date
The only thing I can think of is either going back far enough to prevent Christianity from becoming the dominant religion in Europe, or making Ireland go Muslim. Can we get Muslim Ireland without having the Moors overrun France?
If the rest of Europe, including the British Isles becomes Christian, Ireland most likely will end up as Lithuania. OTL Lithuania (correct me if I'm wrong) was the last European nation to convert to Christianity. However a pagan of heathen Ireland will be an ideal location for a Crusade led by English and other Western Europeans (French, German, Dutch). So my best guess is that you will have to prevent, that Western Europe turns Christian, because otherwise it is most likely that in the long run also Ireland will turn Christian (peacefully or by the sword).
Have Ireland conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, and the Irish exterminated/assimilated. Without Irish mission, the Germanic tribes of the British Isles would be more staunchly pagan, maybe, even as much as the Scandinavians were. Continental Germanic peoples would become Christian all the same, though: the Franks were baptized without any Irish involvement, and they would force the Saxons to adopt new faith, even without Irish missionaries present.
I believe that without a Christian Ireland, you probably won't have a Christian England either. I'd bet that you'd probably have to keep the entire British Isles pagan in order to keep Christianity out of Ireland.
What happens to a pagan Ireland when the Vikings come in, with no monasteries to protect Irish culture? What happens to the Pagan Vikings when they start raiding a pagan Ireland -- would they be as likely to become Christian?
I remember some mention of Christian Ireland being rather important to the culture of Europe during the early middle ages. You'll have significant changes in European artistic styles without such things as the Book of Kells. Maybe more influence from Southern Europe in France and Germany?
How about a more organized Paganism in the British Isles, formed in the face of opposition from Christianity? There'd be elements of Roman Paganism from Britain, combined with a lot of Celtic Paganism (which I believe we really know little about). Over time, if the Saxons and the Scandinavians also stay pagan, it might syncrete them as well (using mechanisms from the Roman Britons). It'd might even resemble the organization of Hinduism a bit.
What happens to a pagan Ireland when the Vikings come in, with no monasteries to protect Irish culture? What happens to the Pagan Vikings when they start raiding a pagan Ireland -- would they be as likely to become Christian?
I remember some mention of Christian Ireland being rather important to the culture of Europe during the early middle ages. You'll have significant changes in European artistic styles without such things as the Book of Kells. Maybe more influence from Southern Europe in France and Germany?
How about a more organized Paganism in the British Isles, formed in the face of opposition from Christianity? There'd be elements of Roman Paganism from Britain, combined with a lot of Celtic Paganism (which I believe we really know little about). Over time, if the Saxons and the Scandinavians also stay pagan, it might syncrete them as well (using mechanisms from the Roman Britons). It'd might even resemble the organization of Hinduism a bit.
Alex Richards
Donor
The Irish Church was quite vital in preserving the knowledge and practices of the early Roman Church. Now, of course christianity isn't going to go away without Ireland, but it will be weakened. As well As Britain, Irish missionaries were the first to move into the pre-christian Frankish Empire, and Columban reached Lake Constance. Saxony to was converted by the Irish. I would imagine that this could well be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Pagan Ireland slows down the spread of the Roman Church considerably, perhaps delaying the church's spread to the Channel by a couple of centuries. By then, of course, the Vikings, Magyars and other 'heathens' from the North and east are attacking and settling in the British Isles and Europe. Normandy may end up a pagan Jarldom.
One problem is that our sources tend to be heavily biased in favour of the Anglo-Saxon and Irish monastic missionaries because they were in the habit of turning to Rome early on. We know that Christianity without the monastic tradition of Ireland would be different, but it is hard to see how badly it would be hampered. Frex, England was affected by two missionary movements, the Irish mission in the north and the Augustine mission in the south. Both were remarkably successful. It is hard to see how, or if, the absence of one would have affected the other. The Anglo-Saxon and Irish missionaries and reformers in the Carolingian Empire, too, arehard to gauge in their impact. Boniface is generallyregarded as the 'Apostle of the Germans', but rarely operated inareas outside the established churchstructure and spent much of his time disagreeing with the way other missionaries did things (it is through his letters we know they existed).
The literary culture of the irish monasteries and their considerable concern with classical Latinity is an aspect of European heritage we wouldn't see to the same extent. the problem is that this gets conflated with concern for ancient knowledge, which isn't really the same thing. A lot of the ancient texts were preserved in Italy, France and Spain, too, but the Anglo-Saxon monks were most concerned with the 'uncorrupted' text and thus ensured new, expurgated copies survive from their hands. There is no particular Irish theology (Irish religious practices were interesting, but largely did not survive - read Gregory's 'Lives', then read Pangur Ban, and weep for what was lost). The Anglo-Saxons were instrumental in realigning the Carolingian church, though, so that would quite possibly not happen. That would be big in historical terms, though it's not at all a given that it will retard the missionary effort.
The literary culture of the irish monasteries and their considerable concern with classical Latinity is an aspect of European heritage we wouldn't see to the same extent. the problem is that this gets conflated with concern for ancient knowledge, which isn't really the same thing. A lot of the ancient texts were preserved in Italy, France and Spain, too, but the Anglo-Saxon monks were most concerned with the 'uncorrupted' text and thus ensured new, expurgated copies survive from their hands. There is no particular Irish theology (Irish religious practices were interesting, but largely did not survive - read Gregory's 'Lives', then read Pangur Ban, and weep for what was lost). The Anglo-Saxons were instrumental in realigning the Carolingian church, though, so that would quite possibly not happen. That would be big in historical terms, though it's not at all a given that it will retard the missionary effort.
Ireland remains a tropical jungle overrun by hordes of rampaging snakes.
Today the fiendishly evolved serpent people rule much of Europe and North Africa and are locked in a death struggle with the human societies centered in India and China.
Today the fiendishly evolved serpent people rule much of Europe and North Africa and are locked in a death struggle with the human societies centered in India and China.
Evil Tristin
Banned
the worst imaginable outcome: Guinness isn't invented.
But seriously
A few questions to consider,
Would the Carolingians have emerged as a dynasty/empire in a pagan Western Europe?...would classical heritage have been lost with no "Irish saving Europe". Would Justinian have had a less troubled history with ihis leadership of Christendom unchallenged?
Possible outcomes:
No European imperialism
Near East becomes the center of civilization. Islam empire would be uncontested and possibly not see the need to resort to extremism.
A barbaric Europe means a less developed Europe in contrast to Moorish Spain and the Middle East meaning it leaves itself open for conquest.
With no Charles Martel Gaul is conquered by the Moors in the 8th century.
Viking raiders will still explode out of Scandinavia as a result of over population at home as in otl, raiding England and Ireland. They'll still trade with the Muslims as in otl and sell European slaves to the Muslims and Byzantines.
Outside Europe, No Christendom means no Columbus and the opening of the trans-atlantic trade. That means the traditional overland silk roads will remain open and the pre 1492 world system trade won't suffer.
China will continue to keep trading. Eventually some lost Chinese ship that gets separated from the treasure fleet accidentally discovers Mexico and instead of the Columbian exchange, TTL's discovery will result in a Zheng He exchange or whoever the lost Chinese sea captain happens to blunder his way into the new world. Chinese guns, germs and steel wipe out the indigenous Aztecs or most of them and Chinese/Monols reintroduce the horse into the new world.
They pretty much did that, didn't they?
Whether butterflies will prevent the arnulfings from becoming the dominant family in the Late Meroviongianstate is open to debate, of course, but there is no time at which Ireland being Christian is decisive for the success of the early members of the dynasty. The earliest point where you could make a case (indirectly) is the coronation of Pepin. With less emphasis on papal authority - which to a large degree was a product of the Anglo-Saxon church - that might not have happened, or at east not the way it did.
Classical heritage would continue just fine in the scriptories at places like Bobbio, Vivarium, or Cassino, not to mention Constantinople, Egypt and Syria. what might not happen is the Carolingian reform movement. That would have huge repercussions for Europem, but not for classical heritage. Justinian probably couldn't care öless what went on in Ireland.During his lifetime, the Irish monasteries were just being founded and we know almost zilch of what was actually goinbg on, for that matter. His problem was based much closer to home and far more urgent - the Irish, at least, were more or less orthodox, if barbaric, and had no way of ever becoming an issue in his realm.
Nice though that would be, it's not likely given how extremist ancient Christianity and early Islam occasionally managed to be. The near east invented holy war (they should have patented it, they'd be rich on royalties by now). European imperialism - well, possible, but it's more likely IMO that European power projection would simply take on a different form.
It really doesn't work that way at the time. The military resources of the European kingdoms were considerable, and their kings could effectively deploy them against outside foes. They also did not depend on the ability to sustain a complex civilian economy to the same degree. Oversimplified, but basically: the Byzantines and Arabs neededrevenue so they could have an army, so they had tax collectors. The Merovingians and Lombards needed an army so they could have revenues, so they kept armed men. The system predates the reformatio imperii, it's not Irish or Catholic and there's no need to think it would cease to operate.
Of course the cohesion of the imperial state is another matter, but I doubt that it was that important for the military defense of the realm given that Europe's most successful defenses in the tenth century were fairly consistently mounted not by the imperial centre, but by local powers.
That is very much open to doubt, to say the least. Also, Charles Martel dpoes not depend on Irish support. Or even Church support, given how many bishops hated his guts. So even assuming he's the sole reason for Francia not becoming Muslim, he'd as likely as not still be there.
It's also quite likely that they'll be Christianised and become good Europeans at some point. The attraction was still there. they might give a non-Christian Ireland a wider berth, though - not so much worth plundering, and they fight harder to keep it.
Wait, how did we get here from there? You need to read less Cahill, methinks.
Treasure fleets are a very different thing from Chinese trade. That said, a Chinese discovery is possible, the transatlantic route is more likely, though.
That's assuming a non-Christian Ireland would be poorer (in precious metals and everything else the Vikings were interested in) than a Christian Ireland. Would it? It might not even matter if it were poorer, if the Vikings come to Scotland, they might choose to raid Ireland anyway simply because it's close by and it hasn't been done yet.
What if, without the cultural and moral protection of Irish monasteries, the Vikings run through Ireland even more thoroughly than they did in OTL?
Or, what if, without a civilizing effect of Christianity, the Irish go through similar cultural changes as Scandinavia, and their young men decide to start raiding neighboring lands just like the Vikings? They could either become direct rivals with the Vikings, or even possibly work together in some cases?
However, what I think still has to be considered is why the Irish don't become Christian -- how do you keep the missionaries from coming to Ireland in the first place? Depending on the reason, this may change the culture of Ireland itself.
First off, I'm going to question this whole 'civilising effect' statement. Irish culture really wasn't changed all that much by Christianisation, to be honest, except for one warrior who had previously bragged of taking an enemies head every day of the week switching to taking two on Saturday, so as not to profane the Sabbath.
(Sure, it's probably apocryphal, but I like the story.)And yeah, this had actually happened, but a few centuries before. The word 'Gael' derives from a Welsh word meaning 'raider,' in fact.
It's not about total wealth but about how available it is. The monasteries were where a lot of the wealth was concentrated at. Without their influence, you wouldn't have a regional centre for accumulating precious metals and resources that was not at the same time a centre for the warrior aristocracy. I don't think many Vikings, who tended to be fairly well informed about their targets, would choose to attack a royal retinue even if the loot was good.
They did, in many cases. And you need to keep inmind that more irish monasteries were looted by Irish warriors than Vikings, if we can trust our sources. A non-Christian Ireland might be a little more Viking-like, but just as well might not. The Obodrites and Wilzi weren't exactly a holy terror to their neighbours (well, not until the Christian Saxons and Danes started to invade, but that's another story)
I'm not sure it wouldtake that much of a shift for the Patrician mission to either not happen or fail. For Ireland to remain pagan in the longrun, that#s far more unlikely.
Evil Tristin
Banned
No Patrick could mean that the spread of monastecism all over western Europe doesn't happen. That means no Columba to proseletyze to the Franks. In otl before the 8th century most missionaries were Irish monks and even though the Merovingian kings were Christians, paganism was still widely practiced among the Franks. In other words Christianity was slowly dying out in most of Gaul. I think we can safely assume that no Patrick could possibly mean that the Christianity dies out in northern Europe.
There are economic factors we're overlooking. The Muslims would not have so abandoned their own economic needs. In other words, in TTL their stranglehold on the spice and silk trade would continue as a result they would have had very luxurious lives to do other things than expend all their resources on war.In OTL that's exactly what happened with the Abassids and the Moors. Neither of which were very religiously devout.
That means the sciences and medical advances being discovered by Arab and Persian scientists would continue.
The great military revolution in Europe didn't really occur until the Crusading era when European military technology grew as a result of contact with the Arab world where siege engineering, castle building and mobile cavalry warfare was rampant. Its no accident that the Normans adopted cavalry warfare so quickly when most Europeans including the Saxons and the Norse were still infantry. The Normans were in constant contact with the Arabs in the Mediterranean, the Byzantines and so on. As a result the Normans and the French became the primary crusaders of the period. And it was in France where the chivalric code of knightly virtues epitomized medieval warfare. Before that Germanic armies were largely infantry this was certainly the case with the Franks, the Goths and others. If the Vandal and Gothic performance against the Berber and the Moors is anything to go by then in TTL a pagan Frankish Gaul leaves itself open to a more successful conquest by the Moors.
A largely pagan Europe would remain dominated by warlordism, clan feuds and disunity. The nature of the Germanic political/social system would ensure that with no Christian church to limit the days allowed for fighting.
would Charles Martel even exist in ttl? Or would he just be another thuggish warlord among many?
Christianized by whom? The Italians? No Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks in ttl, no venerable Bede, no Normans to assimilate into French christianity.
Long term effect. No Patrick=no Chritian Europe=no Christian reconquista of al-Andalus=no Columbus.
Treasure fleets are a very different thing from Chinese trade. That said, a Chinese discovery is possible, the transatlantic route is more likely, though.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps after they've circumnavigated Africa.
Last edited:
The Irish already had a native class of Druids and bards during the 400's CE. They are also mentioned to have launched raids on the west coast of Britain. For whatever reason that ATL Christianization of Ireland fails, you still have some of the wealthier tribal kingdoms either engaged in overseas trading or piracy, as well as independent colonization efforts in Britain, you still have the groundwork for some cultural or ideological movement to happen. If Christianization in the 400-600's fails, that could give maybe another 4 or 500 years for something else to emerge. Outside of the Church, the Irish are known to have had a uniform clerical tradition that has survived the Roman Empire. It might not be as tight-knit nor as comprehensively hierarchal-structured as the Christians, but its still a far cry from the shamanistic religion of the Germanics and the Scandinavians. They also have may have created the Ogham alphabet, as it was unique to Ireland and parts of Britain.
The rise of Feudalism in Europe influenced the rise of cavalry warfare. The decentralization of secular authority throughout western Europe led to a hereditary warrior class with local loyalties. Raiding from rival estates as well as foreign raiders became somewhat endemic, so squadrons of horsemen were comparatively affordable to maintaining large professional bodies of infantry.
The Norse were jacks of all trades when it came to soldiering. Their militaries were largely fleet-based, and the further inland they went, they would have used captured horses.
The Vandals became the domnant military force when they first set foot in North Africa. Most Vandals, as well as the Alans that merged with them back in Spain, were said to have been mostly cavalry, given their fairly limited numbers. Also, they were finished off by the resurgent Eastern Romans long before the coming of the Muslim Arabs.
What guarantee is there that the Muslims wanted to invade much of western Europe beyond Frankia, or even Septimania or Aquitaine? Even if they wanted to, they probably could not have afforded to, given that much of North Africa was scarcely secure under Ummayyad rule at the time.
How do you know that? Lithuania was created by "Pagans". Macedonia was founded by Pagans. The Kievan Rus was founded by Pagans. Dacia was founded by Pagans. Rome was founded by Pagans. Lots of successful civilizations were founded Pagans all over the world. So why should the same be true if none of the remaining Germanic kingdoms in Europe converted to Christianity?
Probably not Charles Martel himself, but that doesn't mean that there won't be another ruler with the same drive or vision. Also, the Church seems to have tried to impede Charles' efforts in creating a new professional army because some of the money that went into it was taken from the Church.