When did pagan religions in Europe die out?

Aside from small clusters, when did the pagan religions of Europe die out?

The Romans converted to Christianity when Constantine became the first Christian Emperor, the Norse when their Kings converted in the 10th and 11th centuries, and the Balts during the Teutonic Northern Crusades in the 13th and 14th centuries.

But when did people actually stop believing in large numbers? Because obviously an entire people don't just convert all at once.

Christianity was once the religion of Egypt, but now only consists of around 10% of the Egyptian population - but 10% is still a significant, noticeable percentage.

When did Roman Paganism drop below 10% of the Roman population?

When did Norse Paganism drop below 10% of the Scandinavian population?

Thanks for all answers!
 
After the Lithuanian's converted in the Middle Ages, I think. I'm not certain on the century off-hand, but I think it was either the 12th or 13th century before they finally converted
 
Depends on what you mean by die out. Lithuania converted in the 14th century and with that the last pagan kingdom in Europe was converted but isolated communities continued on for years afterward.
 
A major part of the Sami held on to their traditional beliefs well into the 18th century, despite a distinct, continuing effort to forcefully convert the last holdouts especially in the 17th century.
 
and a good bit of the pagan traditions was 'downgraded' into regional folklore and beliefs, so when on that sliding scale isn't it enough anymore ...?
 

Sulemain

Banned
The last major stronghold was Lithuania in the 14th Century. I can't imagine how they held out so long, and weren't crushed by either the Poles or the Rus before then.
 
When did Roman Paganism drop below 10% of the Roman population?
You assume there that there was a *roman* paganism in first place. Simply said, it's really more complicated : it existed a large panel of rites and practices from civic "official" cults, popular cults, private worship and provincial rites that were the direct continuation of what existed before the conquest.

In other words : we can argue about roman rites being the main practices within the Roman Empire itself.

Furthermore, while the civic rites quickly died out, lack of official support, popular practices lasted far longer sometimes integrated into Christian society (Please notice that it doesn't mean it was always translated into a Christian practice).

"Pagan" as a social denomination is essentially a Christian concept, and while it could serve for people rejecting christianism, people outside Christianity and/or Christian with non-Christian practices, it wasn't used by non-Christian themselves.

Now, the last depiction of non-christian groups (called "saracens" during Carolingian era as it became synonymous for non-christians) in western Europe are from the early X century. At this date, only highland communauties in Alps, Pyrenees or Cantabrian mountains are still preserving pagan rites possibly without a too great christian influence.

When did Norse Paganism drop below 10% of the Scandinavian population?
The same goes for "Norse Paganism" as for any paganism : far from being an organized and cohesive religion, it was a collection of related but different rites and practices that could as well being integrated into a Christian society.

It's not possible to give a percentage of religious practices, as you didn't have census made as nowadays (in other words, you had census but not transcripted and focusing on different bases : family more than individuals by exemple).

We can consider that by the XII century, when you don't have mention of pagan reaction or existance no longer but at the contrary a missionary drive from Scandinavia itself (meaning that there was little motivation to do that locally), scandinavian rites or disappeared or were integrated to Christianism.
 
I would say some groups of the volga finnic people and sami might have been the longest continuously "pagan" europeans..
 
Prevailing views on how long and how broadly popular paganism lingered after "official" national conversions have varied.

In much of the mid-20th century, the Murray Thesis enjoyed a large amount of support. In short, this view held that European paganism survived as widespread underground religions well into the Renaissance, when it was stamped out by witchcraft trials. This view has since been discredited, although many modern adherents of neopagan or pagan-revival religions (most notably Gardnerian Wicca) still use pieces of Murray's arguments to paint a picture of continuity between their practices and pre-Christian paganism.

My understanding of the prevailing current views is that folk pagan practice was generally subsumed into a Christian framework very quickly after official national conversion. Missionaries were generally very adept at working with existing cultural practices to make the transition easy (for example, Carolingian missionaries in Germany re-wrote the Gospels as heroic epics). Moreover, at the time of the major national conversions, lay literacy was almost non-existent, and Christianized countries relied almost entirely on clerics for record keeping, so unless you were at least nominally Christian (or you were part of an established Jewish community with a special understanding with the government), you practically didn't exist in the eyes of the law.
 
The last major stronghold was Lithuania in the 14th Century. I can't imagine how they held out so long, and weren't crushed by either the Poles or the Rus before then.
Because Lithuania was a rival to the Poles and beat down on the Rus, ultimately seizing Kiev and briefly becoming the largest Kingdom in Europe by land area. Just because Lithuania nowadays is tiny doesn't mean it was back then.
 
Because Lithuania was a rival to the Poles and beat down on the Rus, ultimately seizing Kiev and briefly becoming the largest Kingdom in Europe by land area. Just because Lithuania nowadays is tiny doesn't mean it was back then.

Not only that but the medieval Russians and to some extent the Polish always treated with the Lithuanians in pretty regular diplomacy the paganism notwithstanding instead of being in constant crusader mode (as with the Prussians or the Baltic Golyad', for example).

Without those dynastic connections Lithuania wouldn't be the serious power it became historically in the wake of the Mongol era.

Which to my mind suggests that well-organised "pagan" kingdoms + orthodox neighbours/no German colonists could be the way to go if one wants to write Euro Pagan Survival timelines.
 
that and Lithuania managed to play Poland and the 'Rus out against each other every now and again
 
You assume there that there was a *roman* paganism in first place. Simply said, it's really more complicated : it existed a large panel of rites and practices from civic "official" cults, popular cults, private worship and provincial rites that were the direct continuation of what existed before the conquest.

In other words : we can argue about roman rites being the main practices within the Roman Empire itself.

Furthermore, while the civic rites quickly died out, lack of official support, popular practices lasted far longer sometimes integrated into Christian society (Please notice that it doesn't mean it was always translated into a Christian practice).

"Pagan" as a social denomination is essentially a Christian concept, and while it could serve for people rejecting christianism, people outside Christianity and/or Christian with non-Christian practices, it wasn't used by non-Christian themselves.

Now, the last depiction of non-christian groups (called "saracens" during Carolingian era as it became synonymous for non-christians) in western Europe are from the early X century. At this date, only highland communauties in Alps, Pyrenees or Cantabrian mountains are still preserving pagan rites possibly without a too great christian influence.


The same goes for "Norse Paganism" as for any paganism : far from being an organized and cohesive religion, it was a collection of related but different rites and practices that could as well being integrated into a Christian society.

It's not possible to give a percentage of religious practices, as you didn't have census made as nowadays (in other words, you had census but not transcripted and focusing on different bases : family more than individuals by exemple).

We can consider that by the XII century, when you don't have mention of pagan reaction or existance no longer but at the contrary a missionary drive from Scandinavia itself (meaning that there was little motivation to do that locally), scandinavian rites or disappeared or were integrated to Christianism.

Great post.

I suspect that as church participation for the populace grew more mandatory, actual religious belief in pagan deities died out, but local superstitions, rituals, and folklore continued and in many cases were incorporated into local Christianity, at least initially.

But everyone was "converted" as soon as they were baptized and made a member of the church. I don't know what it is, but there's something about the pre-Christian religions of Europe that didn't stand up well to monotheistic religions. I'm guessing it was lack of mutual exclusiveness in those belief systems. People like Crypto-Jews after forced conversions certainly existed, but you don't hear much about Crypto-Pagans, the core beliefs just seem to have faded away after conversion.
 
It really is not a matter of 'religious superiority', it was largely won over through centuries worth of politcing. Compromises here and there to bring the two faiths together, eventually changing Christianity far beyond what it was when it started.
 
It really is not a matter of 'religious superiority', it was largely won over through centuries worth of politcing. Compromises here and there to bring the two faiths together, eventually changing Christianity far beyond what it was when it started.

I wasn't really suggesting "superiority," more "exclusivity vs non-exclusivity." Meaning Christianity can get its foot in the door in paganism, but not the other way around.
 
I wasn't really suggesting "superiority," more "exclusivity vs non-exclusivity." Meaning Christianity can get its foot in the door in paganism, but not the other way around.

I don't know, I kind of laugh whenever anyone says "Nothing more Christian then a Christmas Tree" :D
 
I don't know, I kind of laugh whenever anyone says "Nothing more Christian then a Christmas Tree" :D
Isn't that kinda what he's saying though? Christianity was able to adopt portions of indigenous beliefs without changing in any meaningful way by minimizing their importance to the faith. A Christmas tree has no doctrinal meaning whatsoever, and having one doesn't mean being a member of the cult that invented the practice. The indigenous religions didn't have this lofty untouchable doctrine that they could preserve while changing asthetic elements.
 
Isn't that kinda what he's saying though? Christianity was able to adopt portions of indigenous beliefs without changing in any meaningful way by minimizing their importance to the faith. A Christmas tree has no doctrinal meaning whatsoever, and having one doesn't mean being a member of the cult that invented the practice. The indigenous religions didn't have this lofty untouchable doctrine that they could preserve while changing asthetic elements.

Certainly there is a level of Syncreticization but that has been going on much, much longer between Polytheistic elements ( Greco Buddhism being a big one). In ways Christanity eventually became a continuation of the Roman Religio once it was adopted by the Roman State and pruned and structured to fit Imperial needs.
 
Certainly there is a level of Syncreticization but that has been going on much, much longer between Polytheistic elements ( Greco Buddhism being a big one). In ways Christanity eventually became a continuation of the Roman Religio once it was adopted by the Roman State and pruned and structured to fit Imperial needs.
I understand, but I think that many of the smaller Pagan groups in Europe didn't have the capacity to syncretize on even terms with other more strictly defined faiths (Greek Paganism and Buddhism are fairly well defined). One can definitely make the case that Roman State religion merged on even or near even terms with Christianity early on, but I don't think that the same can be said of smaller regional sects.
 
I understand, but I think that many of the smaller Pagan groups in Europe didn't have the capacity to syncretize on even terms with other more strictly defined faiths (Greek Paganism and Buddhism are fairly well defined). One can definitely make the case that Roman State religion merged on even or near even terms with Christianity early on, but I don't think that the same can be said of smaller regional sects.

It really depends. As in most cases local gods became local saints or were included in local lore. Such as Brigid/Brigit.

I wonder just how much local religious views differed on the ground before the advent of major publication production.
 
Top