The empire of the the Norsemen

Ok I have noticed that none of my tls seem to interest people so I want to start a tl that you guys help create with suggestions and stuff. I want to start with a unified viking empire and reformed Germanic religion.
 
First off, there is no such thing as a "reformed" Germanic religion. Reformed paganisms only exist in video games. Second off, the Norse were not a homogenous bloc, there were even more internal cultural divisions than in the middle ages that were glossed over since European chroniclers really didn't care what kind of Scandinavian language the dudes trying to carve blood eagles into them spoke. Third off, even the concept of a unified Viking empire is problematic. Viking-ism was very much a product of it's time, and soon it would be more profitable to peacefully trade than to loot and make everyone hate you. Plus, even geographical constraints are difficult here. Do you want an empire that controls Scandinavia? Iceland? Greenland? Vinland? What about the other temporary conquests such as Normandy?

My advice is to narrow it down? Do you want a Scandinavian timeline? If so, what area of Scandinavia? What tribe? If you want a Germanic religion timeline, you have to decide how the Germanic religion will interact with Scandinavia and Europe as a whole? Will it shift more towards monotheism or polytheism? Will a new movement within the Germanic religion be more open to evangelization, or will it remain an ethnically Scandinavian religion? What about Scandinavian interactions with the Sapmi peoples?
 
Ok I have noticed that none of my tls seem to interest people so I want to start a tl that you guys help create with suggestions and stuff. I want to start with a unified viking empire and reformed Germanic religion.
My recommendation is to do a lot of research on the Viking Age, its causes, read up on the early Viking raids and invasions of Britain and Ireland, the raids in France and establishment of Normandy, and the few historic Scandinavian kings we do know from the pre-Christianization age. Research the late Frankish Empire, the North Sea trade, the development of Kievan Rus', and the Islamic trade with the Silk Road, so that the events of the timeline can be inline with historical economic factors that existed at the time.

Honestly a later story, such as a Canute the Great/North Sea Empire or Harald Hardrada-focused timeline is a lot easier to handle than a pagan Viking one, because we just know so much more about the later end of the period, during and after Christianization when more records were available. Or for an early timeline, narrow it down to a smaller area, as @Aqua817 recommends, and focus deeply on that one area.

If I may, I would also recommend proofreading your posts for capitalization and punctuation, which can give a better impression.

First off, there is no such thing as a "reformed" Germanic religion. Reformed paganisms only exist in video games.
I would have to disagree with this, Pagan religions have been reformed into organized state religions before. The Sassanians transformed an essentially polytheistic and fragmented form of Zoroastrianism that they inherited from the Arsacid era, into an organized state religion, codifying the beliefs into written form for the first time and integrating priests into the state bureaucracy.

Vladimir the Great also conceived of reforming Slavic paganism in Kievan Rus', even building pagan temples in his first years of rule. Although he gave up on the plan and decided to convert to Christianity, the idea of turning a pagan religion into a state religion was something that, even in the midst of Christianity's expansion, was capable of being thought of in the early Middle Ages.

Viking-ism was very much a product of it's time, and soon it would be more profitable to peacefully trade than to loot and make everyone hate you.
This is very much true in a general sense, but I'd like to note that the Norse did engage in vast systems of trade and more regular/formalized tribute, in addition to raiding. They were the main connection between northwestern Europe and the Islamic trade networks. Archaeology has revealed massive numbers of Abbasid dinars in early medieval Sweden, for example.

Expeditions of sacking, pillaging, loot and conquest weren't fully discredited until after the Thirty Years' War. Of course after the Viking Age these expeditions had to be rationalized as organized military endeavors. If we look to the Crusades and Wars of Religion though, there are plenty of brutal campaigns supported by plunder.
 
Last edited:
It will be noted the Sassanians moved Zoroastrianism in the direction of monism with Zurvanism. The OP seems obsessed with preserving an ossified polytheism.
 
The OP seems obsessed with preserving an ossified polytheism.
Please explain as I'm not seeing this claim at all supported by the opening post/poster.

My comments on the OP request is to echo the first two responses. Do a lot of research on the period and on state sponsored standardisation of religion. Also a little bit of "unreliable narrator" can also help gloss over or handwave a few things you/we can't know the answer/cause of ;).
 

Philip

Donor
Please explain as I'm not seeing this claim at all supported by the opening post/poster.

It probably stems from the OP's other threads. In one, Julian recreated/reorganised the Roman religion as a purely polytheistic one rather than the neoplatonic one of OTL. That was followed by a thread where Jesus abandoned Judaism for either a revived ANE or Greek polytheism. There have been several other threads about preserving and reforming Germanic polytheism.
 
It probably stems from the OP's other threads. In one, Julian recreated/reorganised the Roman religion as a purely polytheistic one rather than the neoplatonic one of OTL. That was followed by a thread where Jesus abandoned Judaism for either a revived ANE or Greek polytheism. There have been several other threads about preserving and reforming Germanic polytheism.
Ah, so one can assume they were being deliberately rude rather than misunderstanding the OP?
 
Honestly a later story, such as a Canute the Great/North Sea Empire or Harald Hardrada-focused timeline is a lot easier to handle than a pagan Viking one, because we just know so much more about the later end of the period, during and after Christianization when more records were available. Or for an early timeline, narrow it down to a smaller area, as @Aqua817 recommends, and focus deeply on that one area.

Harald was not too much of an empire-builder (not quite sure what was the real purpose of his last expedition). However, his biography does provide some interesting options like:

(a) Founding a Viking state on the Med (he had to be more successful militarily)
(b) Insinuating himself into the Russian affairs: he was married to a daughter of the Great Prince of Kiev and the issues of succession and who is getting what in the XI century Rus still were along the lines of general recommendations. Chances for him getting throne of Kiev are slim but, especially if he comes with a strong band, I'd not exclude a possibility of his grabbing one of the lesser but not insignificant ones (like Novgorod).

Vladimir the Great also conceived of reforming Slavic paganism in Kievan Rus', even building pagan temples in his first years of rule. Although he gave up on the plan and decided to convert to Christianity, the idea of turning a pagan religion into a state religion was something that, even in the midst of Christianity's expansion, was capable of being thought of in the early Middle Ages.

But, as I understand, this modification was mostly along the lines of emphasizing one of the "existing" deities at the expense of others without removing them from the picture completely. Would this pass for a "reformation"?

The "temples" issue is, perhaps, a little bit confusing (I'm by no means a specialist) and it seems that nowadays it is rather difficult to distinguish reality from the "romanticized" past. The original term, "kapisce", generally means a sacred ground with the idols in it, not necessarily a "temple" as a building. Vladimir was, AFAIK, promoting Perun as the "main" deity and his conversion was accompanied by throwing Perun's idols into the river.



This is very much true in a general sense, but I'd like to note that the Norse did engage in vast systems of trade and more regular/formalized tribute, in addition to raiding. They were the main connection between northwestern Europe and the Islamic trade networks. Archaeology has revealed massive numbers of Abbasid dinars in early medieval Sweden, for example.

Expeditions of sacking, pillaging, loot and conquest weren't fully discredited until after the Thirty Years' War. Of course after the Viking Age these expeditions had to be rationalized as organized military endeavors. If we look to the Crusades and Wars of Religion though, there are plenty of brutal campaigns supported by plunder.

Why stopping at the 30YW?

It was OK at the time of the Deluge.

IIRC, a letter sent to Marshal Luxemburg (reign of Louis XIV) contained something to the effect that His Majesty is well aware of the looting in which you and your troops had been engaged in <whatever territory it was> but happy with what you left to him.

Russian conquest of the Baltic provinces during the GNW was accompanied by the massive looting of the countryside, destruction of the towns and capturing of the local population with a purpose to send them to Russia (Feildmarshal Sheremetiev in one of his letters to Peter I asks permission to send at least captured skilled carpenters to St-Petersburg because his baggage train became too big). One of the captured females made an impressive career from a washerwoman (of which occupation she was never ashamed) all the way to the Empress of Russia.

And when it came to the Napoleonic Wars, looting hit the roof. Even putting aside the official part of it (works of art from Italy), in Spain the Battle of Bailen was lost to a great degree because (according to Nappy) the French commander could not get rid of the baggage train with the loot. It seems that Massena was not beyond "appropriating" the silver spoons and shirts, etc.

In 1812 the retreat from Moscow had been such a disaster to a great degree because, instead of supplies, the French baggage train was overburdened with the loot.
 
I would have to disagree with this, Pagan religions have been reformed into organized state religions before. The Sassanians transformed an essentially polytheistic and fragmented form of Zoroastrianism that they inherited from the Arsacid era, into an organized state religion, codifying the beliefs into written form for the first time and integrating priests into the state bureaucracy.

Vladimir the Great also conceived of reforming Slavic paganism in Kievan Rus', even building pagan temples in his first years of rule. Although he gave up on the plan and decided to convert to Christianity, the idea of turning a pagan religion into a state religion was something that, even in the midst of Christianity's expansion, was capable of being thought of in the early Middle Ages.
The issue is that ultimately, for one reason or another, "reformed" pagan religions end up usually being usurped by a more established and unified religion, OTL usually Christianity and Islam. While it can be argued that if Christianity and Islam are butterflied away it would be harder to do, by the time the Vikings were doing their thing (gonna assume a 793 start date), Christianity and Islam were well established. Really, the only major polytheistic pagan religion that reformed significantly enough to be considered a truly "reformed" paganism, and was able to fend off incursions by Islam, Christianity, and other strong centralized religions was Mongolian shamanism based around the cult of Genghis Khan, and even this had perennial problems with loosing people between Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. However it's isolation also helped it to hold on to it's ancient beliefs.

While you could have a Germanic-based religion develop in the area, it would be quite different from the rather lasseiz-faire Germanic Pagan system that existed in Scandinavia before Christianization. It would have to have a set list of Germanic gods, some kind of written record of the basic tenants of the religion (similar to the Bible, Quran, Pali Canons, Book of Light, etc), a standard for heresy and real spiritual consequences if one were to leave the religion, etc. What this would look like is up to the author, but it is necessary.

This is very much true in a general sense, but I'd like to note that the Norse did engage in vast systems of trade and more regular/formalized tribute, in addition to raiding. They were the main connection between northwestern Europe and the Islamic trade networks. Archaeology has revealed massive numbers of Abbasid dinars in early medieval Sweden, for example.

Expeditions of sacking, pillaging, loot and conquest weren't fully discredited until after the Thirty Years' War. Of course after the Viking Age these expeditions had to be rationalized as organized military endeavors. If we look to the Crusades and Wars of Religion though, there are plenty of brutal campaigns supported by plunder

While I agree that ultimately the most influence the Norse had were as raiders, ultimately at least the pop culture connotation of a Viking is both raiding, trading, and, in the most hospitable instances, conquering.
 
It will be noted the Sassanians moved Zoroastrianism in the direction of monism with Zurvanism. The OP seems obsessed with preserving an ossified polytheism.
Now look it is not just me being polytheist biased or whatever, but if you want to see the effects of monotheism on the vikings look at after their conversion their culture fell apart. That was clearly a result of the new christian influences on their socities
 
Also guys what do you think is the best way to reform Norse polytheism. I was thinking it would become more like modern Hinduism. Also what should I call it?
 

Philip

Donor
, but if you want to see the effects of monotheism on the vikings look at after their conversion their culture fell apart. That was clearly a result of the new christian influences on their socities

Can you provide some details?


Also guys what do you think is the best way to reform Norse polytheism. I was thinking it would become more like modern Hinduism.

Modern Hinduism is the product of thousands of years of Indian culture. It has been influenced by neighboring cultures. You can't just pick that up and drop it into Norse culture. If you want something like, then study the development of Hinduism, understand what drove that development, and see if you can recreate similar situations in the North.
 
Can you provide some details?

It is a load of shit. Viking 'culture', or rather early Medieval Scandinavian culture survived well under christianity. The viking raids ended because the easy targets dried up as France and England centralised into feudal states capable of dealing with such raids, not because any kind of 'meek' christian religion replaced 'warrior' paganism. Harald Sigurdsson Hårdråde was a christian, yet no-one doubts his viking culture. Sweden continued to do larger viking raids under royal approval to Finland and Ingria until 1240, when the defeat at Neva made it very clear that viking style fighting was inferior to heavy cavalry.

The basic tenents of Scandinavian society remained the same - free-holding peasants held most of the economical and political power since they owned land and were required to keep and train with arms, ruling themselves through the local things or moots, the thrones were elective. Sweden did not get an official nobility until 1280, more than 200 years after officially becoming christian - Norway never did get one, and the de facto nobility was eradicated as a social class during the black death.

The vikings were not a warrior society fueled by the desire to end up in Valhalla. Most medieval Scandinavians were self-owning peasants. Some of them went on viking raids since there were easy spoils to be had, or they were required by law by the King - since Scandinavian peasants provided military service through the Ledung rather than pay taxes.

Scandinavia slowly became more like the rest of Europe due to the rise of centralised royal power, power struggles between that power and the newly created nobility and the changes the black death wrought on society. It took centuries before the church amassed enough land to actually be an economical and political force in Scandinavia, and as a cultural force it was always quite weak. The Scandinavians retained a high level of local autonomy, a high level of rights for the commoners, military and economical power through land ownership as well as representation at the highest political level.

Swedish peasants briefly captured Stockholm in a rising as late as 1742.

The viking culture of local autonomy, local justice, strong commoner rights and strong economical and political influence of the lower classes lives on to this day.

Sheesh, people need to figure out that viking culture was a whole lot more than just going on raids.
 
It is a load of shit. Viking 'culture', or rather early Medieval Scandinavian culture survived well under christianity. The viking raids ended because the easy targets dried up as France and England centralised into feudal states capable of dealing with such raids, not because any kind of 'meek' christian religion replaced 'warrior' paganism. Harald Sigurdsson Hårdråde was a christian, yet no-one doubts his viking culture. Sweden continued to do larger viking raids under royal approval to Finland and Ingria until 1240, when the defeat at Neva made it very clear that viking style fighting was inferior to heavy cavalry.

The basic tenents of Scandinavian society remained the same - free-holding peasants held most of the economical and political power since they owned land and were required to keep and train with arms, ruling themselves through the local things or moots, the thrones were elective. Sweden did not get an official nobility until 1280, more than 200 years after officially becoming christian - Norway never did get one, and the de facto nobility was eradicated as a social class during the black death.

The vikings were not a warrior society fueled by the desire to end up in Valhalla. Most medieval Scandinavians were self-owning peasants. Some of them went on viking raids since there were easy spoils to be had, or they were required by law by the King - since Scandinavian peasants provided military service through the Ledung rather than pay taxes.

Scandinavia slowly became more like the rest of Europe due to the rise of centralised royal power, power struggles between that power and the newly created nobility and the changes the black death wrought on society. It took centuries before the church amassed enough land to actually be an economical and political force in Scandinavia, and as a cultural force it was always quite weak. The Scandinavians retained a high level of local autonomy, a high level of rights for the commoners, military and economical power through land ownership as well as representation at the highest political level.

Swedish peasants briefly captured Stockholm in a rising as late as 1742.

The viking culture of local autonomy, local justice, strong commoner rights and strong economical and political influence of the lower classes lives on to this day.

Sheesh, people need to figure out that viking culture was a whole lot more than just going on raids.

Ironically, though, this is exactly what makes the concept of an "Empire of the Norsemen" borderline ASB. The lack of obedience to any centralized authority even in principal made any kind of long-term, large-scale projects (defining features of Empire) next to impossible to organize and naturally limited the size of any military force they could muster towards any objective at any one time to what an individual's personal prestige could muster. This gave them alot of flexability and speed of response to good oppritunities for raiding, but that also included "Norsemen" frequently attacking one another over the juiciest targets (See the intra-viking conflicts over Ireland as a prime example over this), preventing in most cases the formation of long-term polities under single dyansties that could allow for broader permanent expansion.
 

Philip

Donor
i will provide further evidence if you want.

That was six minutes of my life I'll never get back. The video fails to address much beyond raiding parties and some minor colonization. There is no mention of the actual culture.

The claim that Christianity ended the Viking age is offered without any support. It fails to consider the advances in other cultures that made the raids more difficult. It does not address demographic and environmental changes, or anything else.

I find it odd that Christianity is blamed for the end of the Viking age while praising the exploration carried out by Leif Ericsson. After all, Ericsson was Christian, and may even be considered a Christian missionary.
 
not because any kind of 'meek' christian religion replaced 'warrior' paganism.

I'm always amused when this comes up. If Christians are so "meek" and "weak" when it comes to fighting, then what the fuck was going on with all these wars in Europe? What's the deal with a whole bunch of Christians marching down to the middle east and establishing several polities?
 
It is a load of shit. Viking 'culture', or rather early Medieval Scandinavian culture survived well under christianity. The viking raids ended because the easy targets dried up as France and England centralised into feudal states capable of dealing with such raids, not because any kind of 'meek' christian religion replaced 'warrior' paganism. Harald Sigurdsson Hårdråde was a christian, yet no-one doubts his viking culture. Sweden continued to do larger viking raids under royal approval to Finland and Ingria until 1240, when the defeat at Neva made it very clear that viking style fighting was inferior to heavy cavalry.

The basic tenents of Scandinavian society remained the same - free-holding peasants held most of the economical and political power since they owned land and were required to keep and train with arms, ruling themselves through the local things or moots, the thrones were elective. Sweden did not get an official nobility until 1280, more than 200 years after officially becoming christian - Norway never did get one, and the de facto nobility was eradicated as a social class during the black death.

The vikings were not a warrior society fueled by the desire to end up in Valhalla. Most medieval Scandinavians were self-owning peasants. Some of them went on viking raids since there were easy spoils to be had, or they were required by law by the King - since Scandinavian peasants provided military service through the Ledung rather than pay taxes.

Scandinavia slowly became more like the rest of Europe due to the rise of centralised royal power, power struggles between that power and the newly created nobility and the changes the black death wrought on society. It took centuries before the church amassed enough land to actually be an economical and political force in Scandinavia, and as a cultural force it was always quite weak. The Scandinavians retained a high level of local autonomy, a high level of rights for the commoners, military and economical power through land ownership as well as representation at the highest political level.

Swedish peasants briefly captured Stockholm in a rising as late as 1742.

The viking culture of local autonomy, local justice, strong commoner rights and strong economical and political influence of the lower classes lives on to this day.

Sheesh, people need to figure out that viking culture was a whole lot more than just going on raids.

Ok you guys are right and I am wrong but I simply thought that christianity caused the end of the viking age. I know their was a lot more to the vikings except raiding and never did I say it was just a bunch of raids.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
A religion requires a central idea, but is in practice more of a system of behaviours than a question of faith. What you need is a convincing mental picture of what it is that your reformed pagans are physically doing that is different from what OTL pagans did. Then how do these ideas spread and reproduce themselves? This makes religious timelines hard but fun, because we don't tend to think of how this happens in OTL. It is very easy to say "Islam spread to Syria" but harder to think of the 5 soft-spoken warriors praying in the borrowed synagogue on a Friday morning in the dusty desert town, the conversations they had with Christians and Jews, the ambitious villager who could see which way the wind was blowing, and the idealistic youth who admired the fasting and egalitarianism.

What you need is a prophet/founder, whether that person is identical to the political leader (as it was in Islam) or separate (as in Manichaeism and Christianity) is up to you. But given the nature of unreformed norse paganism, and it being an oral culture, I would say that the prophet must have some military aspect. Your time is very limited, it has to happen by 900, large numbers of Norse were already Xtian by then. You probably want to butterfly or kill Alfred the Great, that gives you England to play with and slows Norse adoption of Christianity. You might want paganism to be influenced by Christian behaviours in order to get features that will allow it to continue, as Islam was influenced by Christianity, Judaism and Arab paganism.
 
Top