WI Charlemagne dies during the saxon wars

In his first campaign in Saxony, Charlemagne forced the Engrians in 773 to submit and cut down an Irminsul pillar near Paderborn, a pagan sanctuary possibly representing Yggdrasil, the world tree.

Charlemagne's brother died two years earlier, and there were no other direct male decendants of Pepin to take the throne had Charlemagne died. So what if Charlemagne is struck by lightning shortly after ransacking the sanctuary?

Of course getting hit by a lightning is a very unlikely thing, but what I was thinking was how would the pagans react if the "evil" invading king is esentially killed by Thor's thunderbolt?

Also this is the eve of the viking age, which some scolars have looked at as a consequence of the saxon wars, at least in part. How hard would it be to convert and assimilate the vikings (possibly including Saxony ITTL) into latin christian culture if christ is looked upon as the god of defeat and victims even more so than OTL, and no forced mass conversions in Germany take place?

Why would the danish kings convert without the thread of assimilation into the Holy Roman Empire?

Would Valdimir I of Kiev (or his ATL representative) still consider converting to an Abrahamic religion if his scandinavian kinsmen had a firmer belief in their ancestral gods? would the scandinavian princes in the east continue to look upon the slavic peoples they controlled more as slaves than subjects?

Also what effects might the collapse of the frankish empire have in the 770s have elsewhere?
does it lead to a stronger muslim Spain? is it good or bad for the Byzantine empire?

Would there be a permanent religious fault line along the Rhine in Europe?

what are your thoughts on this?
 
Well, if Charlemagne dies in 773, then his firstborn son Pepin the Hunchback is still the heir, although he's just going to be 4 years old. Charles the Younger, the second heir is just 1 year old and the world is spared the birth of Pepin and above all that dreadfully serious pillock Louis the Pius.
I'm guessing that the Franks continue their usual idiocy of splitting the kingdom between the surviving heirs and then watching them screw things up with a juicy civil war or three. No Holy Roman Empire in other words.
 
Viking raids

First, i know it became "fashionable" to link the Vikings raids to Saxon wars. I don't know why it's so widespread, except because of the increasing use of "Psychological and cultural reasons preval on economical and climatic ones" bullshit that we have since years (i even see a faculty book saying that the WW1 didn't happened because of economical imperialism, because it was all about nationalism. Duh.)

Then, it could have played a role, and the saccage of Aachen is probably linked to an hatred towards Carolingians. But it's certainly not the first reasons, and i don't see how the vikings raid in non-Carolingians christian lands or even Muslims or Pagan lands would have been justified by this "reason".

Charlemagne's sucession
and State of the Empire
Indeed it would have been chaotic : probably someone would have the idea to remeber that Pippin and Sygarius (the sons of Carloman) exists, and put in on the throne.
But it would likely make many hostile or even rebellious noble to.

Probably Lombard nobles would use the vaacum to chase Franks and strength the kingdom. However, as the sons of Carloman had good relation with the Lombards, it would probably result in peaceful consequences.

Saxony is likely to be abandoned, but the Saxons don't have the strenghth to took Frisa, Austrasia or Bavaria. A return to previous borders is more likely.

Aquitaine was simply too ravaged by the Pippininds to react. The local dynasty of Odonids have been completly destroyed and frankish nobles that took power were too loyals.
However, the already semi-independent Duke of Gascony would have been so even more, and could expand his rule more deeply in Aquitaine. But nothing comparable to Odonid Duchy of Aquitaine and Gascony.
Maybe Frankish nobles would have been chased south of Garonne and Tarn rivers.

Gothia : Well...It would likely evolve as Gascony, in a de facto independent Duchy. The fate of Tolza, blockaded between Gascony and Gothia is unknown, maybe a carolingian county, still loyal to Franks in order to be protected? If its so, it would likely evolve in march.

Spain? Nothing really change, except probably less Catalan Counties. The hispanic deed of Charlemagne have been greatly exagerated.

The vaacum of power could led to an earlier take of power by great nobles. Nothing as advanced as Quiercy's agreement (that recognized the right of the nobles to question the king), but more like the situation of 843 where's nobles decided of the shape of the kingdoms.

State of the World
West : Maybe the Carolingian Renaissance would continue, but it would be dependent of how long the vaacum and the chaotic state would last.
Concerning religions, the conversion process was already launched during Charles Martel's rule. It would take more long time, but christianisation of Germany (west of Oder) would have been finished around 900 probably. For the christianisation of the western Europe, the same, probably one hundred years of lateness.

East : nothing change. Both Byzantium and critically far later Rus-Slavics were not at all interested by the fate of a western yahoo.
If the Rus abandon their paganic faith (and that is likely, when you see how much religion play an important diplomatic role in Middle Ages), they would have the choice between Judaism and Orthodox.
Besides, the Rus were Swedish, when the vikings were Danish or more rarely Normans.
 
Well, if Charlemagne dies in 773, then his firstborn son Pepin the Hunchback is still the heir, although he's just going to be 4 years old. Charles the Younger, the second heir is just 1 year old and the world is spared the birth of Pepin and above all that dreadfully serious pillock Louis the Pius.
I'm guessing that the Franks continue their usual idiocy of splitting the kingdom between the surviving heirs and then watching them screw things up with a juicy civil war or three. No Holy Roman Empire in other words.

Interesting to see how much Frankish customs are un-understood.

First - the divisions (and never, never subdivisions) of the lands never before 843 was about dividing the kingdom. The nobles families were present in all these partitions and managed, more than the kings, to keep the cohesion of the Regnum.

Second - Pepin the Hunchback would have legitimacy, but probably less than the sons of Carloman. Besides, he was too young to be considered as a valable choice. Indeed, the "idiotic" Franks never put a 4-years old child on a throne, at the contrary of "clever" classic age monarchs.

Thrid - More than civil war, you will have power vaacum and rebellion (or most likely de facto independence) of marginal national duchies. You'll have maybe conflicts between nobles, but probably nothing comparable to 714-717 campaigns of Charles Martel against Neustrians and Bavarians. Indeed, at this moment, his ennemies have a more sure base and more organized. In 773, it's not the case.
 
Bavaria under Tassilo III will be a very independent factor in the future manouvering inside the Frankish Kingdom and it is not beyond imagining that he will try to further solidify his authority at the expense of the Carolingian royal authority.

The Lombards will be given much needed time to get their act together.

The main benefactor of the death of Charlemange would be the Avars that have completed their reconstruction period and were once again starting to threated their neigbours. No Franks = creation of a permanent Avar Khaganate akin to later Magyar kingdom with the difference that it would most likely be Slavic speaking.
 
Bavaria under Tassilo III will be a very independent factor in the future manouvering inside the Frankish Kingdom and it is not beyond imagining that he will try to further solidify his authority at the expense of the Carolingian royal authority.
Indeed, i've complety forgot to take in consideration the Bavaria. Not only Tassilo is completly able to do that; but the traditional alliance with Lombards is much likely to reappear then.

The main benefactor of the death of Charlemange would be the Avars that have completed their reconstruction period and were once again starting to threated their neigbours. No Franks = creation of a permanent Avar Khaganate akin to later Magyar kingdom with the difference that it would most likely be Slavic speaking.

Furthermore, the absence of Charlemagne's campaign would have an important consequence in economy. Indeed, the frankish emperor managed by his conquest to make a longer gift-based economy, by plundering everyone east. The Ring of the Avars was freakingly full of golden stuff.

Economically, it gaves nobles a real luxury environment, but as it could be obtained by war of gifts, the carolingian desmenes knew 50 years more of "laissez-faire" attitude. No innovation, no infrastructure. They let all the charge to the intendents that don't bother much to make the manses more productives.

With the end of gift-based economy (because of several reasons, no more campaigns, attacked people far more poorer and only see as slaves-reservoir rather than gold one), lords HAD to maintain their life train. So, they "encouraged" their intendents to make their properties more productives, in order to make not only goods to trade, but also money, the both allowing to buy luxury goods instead of plundering them.

So, with Charlemagne's death, probably this phenomenon would occur earlier, but because of the less luxury life of the nobles, it would be slower and less important.
 
There was a lot of evangelization that happened out of ireland. Anglosaxon england will be christian whether theres a strong frankish empire or not. The eastern germans probably convert too, even if later. Scandinavia might well comvert from the southeast .. orthodoxy .. or from tje west.. celtic, but i dont see them staying pagan.
 
thanks for the replies guys

I am wondering why you all take it as inevitable that christianity will come to dominate northern Europe, even if it isn't forced down the throat of the Germans

What exactly will be the driving force behind conversion if there is no conquest and establishment of an expansionist christian empire in Germany?
Why would they abandon the ancient traditions?

loss of trade? prestige? military pressure from southern Europe? missionary activity?

If Germany remains culturally even more closely tied to Scandinavia instead of being organized into a christian empire, then will the Germans (i.e. the Saxons in this case) take some part in the viking raids?
Will they benefit from the chaos caused in France?

And if you think there is just no way that Germany will not end up christian at this point, then how early do you think we would need to go with a POD?
The 620s maybe when Irish monks started to arrive at the court of the Frankish kings and teach them what their christianity was all about?
or earlier still, Clovis perhaps?
 
thanks for the replies guys

I am wondering why you all take it as inevitable that christianity will come to dominate northern Europe, even if it isn't forced down the throat of the Germans
Because
1)The christianisation process was already beggining in the 750
2)Religion and Christianity were an important part of the diplomatic involvment of nobles and kings. If Northern Germans and Scandinavians wanted to be integrated into an european theater, it would need them to christianize.
3)It's wasn't even forced : the christianisation in Saxony seems at the contrary having been degraded because of Charlemagne's brutality. Whereas the clergy was quite servile in its attitude to the emperor, for this particular question they not only asked him to change of attitude but also reprimended him.
4)Christianism allow to give an unity to a people that lacked of it, critically regarding the economical net. The abbeys and monasteries served, until the 950's or even the 1000's in central Europe as privilegied places for markets, trade, etc.

What exactly will be the driving force behind conversion if there is no conquest and establishment of an expansionist christian empire in Germany?
Why would they abandon the ancient traditions?
See before.
Depends what are you calling traditions : Christianism never made the northern germanic peoples to abandon theire traditions, at the contrary this religion applied to its, maybe more the catholicism towards German than orthodox towards Slavs (after all Cyrill and Methodos have to ask the pope for christianize moravians in slavic to outpass patriarcal refuse).

loss of trade? prestige? military pressure from southern Europe? missionary activity?
Loss of trade? No. Loss of internal cohesion regarding economy, yes.
Military pressure? Oh Lord, no. I mean, no. Definitily, no.
Missionary activity : yes, a big yes. Furthermore these missionaries give with religion, not only assurence of normalized relationship and legitimation of local nobilty, but also some results of Carolingian Renaissance.

If Germany remains culturally even more closely tied to Scandinavia instead of being organized into a christian empire, then will the Germans (i.e. the Saxons in this case) take some part in the viking raids?
Will they benefit from the chaos caused in France?
The Saxons could do, but not in viking or maritime raids. Frisia is just the "girl next door" for them.
Other germans? No. Too busy to resist Magyars and Slavic people.
But you exagerate REALLY the ties cultural and a fortiori political between Germany and Scandinavia. You could have a particular and localized, bith in time and region,alliance or good neighboring relation between Saxons and Danes, but it's all.

Besides, without the expansion of Francia further in Germany, there would have been less raids, basically because of a more poor franish nobility. That would likely push the carolingian agricultural revolution earlier, though, but vikings were more interested about gold, money, "movables" and slaves, not food.


And if you think there is just no way that Germany will not end up christian at this point, then how early do you think we would need to go with a POD?
200/250 A.D. After that Christianity would be too established in East and, sooner or later, would impose itself in the West, and launch missionaries in the North as Wulfila.

The 620s maybe when Irish monks started to arrive at the court of the Frankish kings and teach them what their christianity was all about?
or earlier still, Clovis perhaps?
Wait, what?
What are you talking about Irish?
Clovis converted himself because of the Gallo-Roman christianity and the local power of catholic bishop in Gaul.
Irish monk played a role in the western coast of Gaul during the Merovingian period, but more about local christianisation AND thesaurisation than mission's objectives.
You don't need Irish monks when you have christianized urban population and probably a good part of the rural one.

And if you think that Irish Christianity is more "liberal", hem...How say that without being rude?...Let's say just "no".
Irish monasteries were even more linked to nobility than Roman one, and it was not at all rare to see monks fight each other because theire monasteries were upond different nobles' influence.
At the contrary, Latin monasteries were often independent from nobles (quickly claiming local power against them), and as i say, if they let Charlemagne do anything with the organisation of the curch, they even criticised him for doing anything with dogma and christianisation.
 
1)The christianisation process was already beggining in the 750
2)Religion and Christianity were an important part of the diplomatic involvment of nobles and kings. If Northern Germans and Scandinavians wanted to be integrated into an european theater, it would need them to christianize.
3)It's wasn't even forced : the christianisation in Saxony seems at the contrary having been degraded because of Charlemagne's brutality. Whereas the clergy was quite servile in its attitude to the emperor, for this particular question they not only asked him to change of attitude but also reprimended him.
4)Christianism allow to give an unity to a people that lacked of it, critically regarding the economical net. The abbeys and monasteries served, until the 950's or even the 1000's in central Europe as privilegied places for markets, trade, etc.

2) Yes, like how Harald Bluetooth converted to be recognized as a christian king and keep the Holy Roman Emperor off his back. Still, he was also called a pagan monster who did nothing to further the agenda of christianity in his country , although that might be a biased view of him.
3) How was it degraded? wasn't Saxony mostly pagan before Charlemagne (hence the massive executions) and mostly christian after his conquest?


Wait, what?
What are you talking about Irish?
Clovis converted himself because of the Gallo-Roman christianity and the local power of catholic bishop in Gaul.
Irish monk played a role in the western coast of Gaul during the Merovingian period, but more about local christianisation AND thesaurisation than mission's objectives.
You don't need Irish monks when you have christianized urban population and probably a good part of the rural one.

Doesn't the story go that Clovis converted after one of his wives convinced him to try praying to christ before a battle, which he ended up winning and in turn decided to convert?

But anyway concerning the Irish, all i can say is that the lecturer I've been speaking to told me that the Franks were christian mostly in name before the 620s, and that it wasn't until after that date that they became truly christian kings, instead of being christian like Harald Bluetooth was christian. He said that this was in part due to missionary activity from Ireland.

He didn't say that they were not christian before that date, only that their christianity (that of the kings, not of the gallo-roman majority) wasn't very strong.

And if you think that Irish Christianity is more "liberal", hem...How say that without being rude?...Let's say just "no".

I never made that statement. How am I implying that?

The Saxons could do, but not in viking or maritime raids. Frisia is just the "girl next door" for them.
Other germans? No. Too busy to resist Magyars and Slavic people.
But you exagerate REALLY the ties cultural and a fortiori political between Germany and Scandinavia. You could have a particular and localized, bith in time and region,alliance or good neighboring relation between Saxons and Danes, but it's all.

I exaggerate ? didn't the two regions have basically the same religion, and mutually intelligible languages?
From what I understand It wasn't until about the 600s that the Angles and Saxons in Britain could no longer understand their Norse kinsmen, after about 200 years of influence from native languages and geographic separation.
Is there any evidence that the Saxons in the 770s could not understand their northern neighbors?

200/250 A.D. After that Christianity would be too established in East and, sooner or later, would impose itself in the West, and launch missionaries in the North as Wulfila.

So it's inevitable that Christianity will take over even before the battle of Milvian bridge?
What if Constantine's army had been crushed after putting up the christian banners?
Wasn't Christianity at that point still only a minority in the empire?
If I remember correctly the number was something like 10% in the west.


Concerning the other points you made I mostly agree or have nothing to say, good point about there being less riches to steal in the Frankish heartlands without Charlemagne's expansion.
 
2) Yes, like how Harald Bluetooth converted to be recognized as a christian king and keep the Holy Roman Emperor off his back. Still, he was also called a pagan monster who did nothing to further the agenda of christianity in his country , although that might be a biased view of him.
I suppose it's Harold à la Dent-Bleue the french name of Bluetooth?

Yes, not only it allowed to Harold to have a real recogniztion from christian kings. But i really doubt that it was made regarding the HRE.
At this time, Otton had just taken the imperial title and its empire could reasonably been seen as possibly short-lived at term.

Furthermore Otton have far more work to do against the eastern pressure of Slavs and Maygars to annoy hismelf with the scandinavians.

Not, Bluetooth probably adopted christianism because of its ambitions in the western coast up to the Normandy (as the name didn't show, ruled by Danish). For that, he needed a legitimacy on these people that only christianism could quickly give him.

Even if german sources bear a negative picture of him (mainly because he wanted to stop german colonisation at the end of its reign), the norse chronicles are the most negative about him. I mean, he's called of all the names possibles, probably because of his expansionist politics.

Finally, i found the term "agenda of Christianity on his country" hilariously wrong. Christianity wasn't and is still not a hive mind body. Particularly on the nordic lands at this date, while the pope was more busy with protecting his states from Saracens and Maygars, the clergy have an huge latitude and kept many pagans symbolic in the rites.
I don't think that, elsewhere in Europe, clergy managed to keep trace of pagan rites as scandinavian christianism did, making by this adaptation to the nordic culture a quick conversion of the Scandinavians (in 1000, it can be considered as complete).

3) How was it degraded? wasn't Saxony mostly pagan before Charlemagne (hence the massive executions) and mostly christian after his conquest?
Mostly isn't not at all. Between 740 and 780, christianisation of Frisia and the already christianised Austrasia managed to influence Saxon elites and nobility, not at the point to see a Christian Saxony, but still present and recorded.
The conquest of Charlemagne itself could have improved that from the beggining, but the forced conversion not only have no results, but also made the already christianized people renouncing to their new faith because of it.

Charlemagne, wanting to show HE was the leader of religion too tried three times, being heavily criticized each time. At the end, he let the religious make their business as they wanted : slow christianisation of nobility (admitedly not susceptible of great rebellion after three campaigns), making justice of current (not formers) abuses from Frankish nobles, creating monasteries that were refuges for Saxon peasents (at the point that 20 years after, Saxons created the monastery of New Corbie).
But even at Charlemagne's death, i don't think we can talk about a mainly christianised Saxony. Probably the main elites and the majority of nobility, but probably not themajority of peasants.

Doesn't the story go that Clovis converted after one of his wives convinced him to try praying to christ before a battle, which he ended up winning and in turn decided to convert?
Yes, and Constantine did the same, and others too. That's the hagiographical story. Historicaly, Clovis couldn't ignore the power of bishops, and his conversion managed him to get their support against the other rulers of Gaul.

But anyway concerning the Irish, all i can say is that the lecturer I've been speaking to told me that the Franks were christian mostly in name before the 620s, and that it wasn't until after that date that they became truly christian kings, instead of being christian like Harald Bluetooth was christian. He said that this was in part due to missionary activity from Ireland.
Err...It's amusing. But untrue. Let's be clear : Clovis took its legitimacy on gallo-roman nobility that was powerful in the West (and not even talking about the South) only because it was catholic. When you saw the ammount of hostility against the arian kings, you prefer not imagine what it would result against a crypto-pagan one. Especially when these ones are presiding councils.

Why the Irish are coming in the 620? Not because the elites, frankish or gallo-romans weren't christians, but because due to the stop of evangelisation from gallo-roman clergy, the people was still in good part semi-pagan or even frankly pagan.
So, the Irish came for that. And when i say "Irish", i want to say Irish and gallo-roman clergy who have studied in Ireland.

He didn't say that they were not christian before that date, only that their christianity (that of the kings, not of the gallo-roman majority) wasn't very strong.

Can i ask who's your teacher, what is teaching and his/her works?

I never made that statement. How am I implying that?
As i couldn't know that you wanted to say teaching them litteraly christianity, i repeat it's really...anyway, i assumed you wanted to say "teaching them that christianity is not about forced conversions and brutality".

I exaggerate ? didn't the two regions have basically the same religion, and mutually intelligible languages?
Neighbouring people, possibily sharing a common origin, yes.
Multually intelligible and similar culture, no.
Not only no one chronicler is making mention of that. But also the migration of Saxons, the appartenance of Dani to the oriental scandinavian group (making think about a continental origin) is a clear separation.
Fort that matter, the fact that both Lombards and Burgunds had the same religion, the same global origin is not make them a naturally tied people. At best, you could have a better assimilation made during the conquest.

From what I understand It wasn't until about the 600s that the Angles and Saxons in Britain could no longer understand their Norse kinsmen, after about 200 years of influence from native languages and geographic separation.
The number of Angles in the migration to Britain is to be lowered. The peoples settleing the island are more from Saxony, Frisia and maybe even Franks more than Angles and Jutes (that, on the other hand be part of the elite, being leaders of smaller groups, but still representatives or dux of them and therefore recognized as such). Furthermore, the georaphical separation as to be really relativised as the trade flux continued during all the early middle-ages between continent and southern Britain.

"Anglo-Saxon" is more probably sort of linguistic mix between differents languages and dialects.

Is there any evidence that the Saxons in the 770s could not understand their northern neighbors?
Well, actually the Heliand poem have show more correspondence to western germanic languages than scandinavians. You could say it's the only text conserved in Saxon so far. But if you add that plus the actual correspondence of Danish with oriental scandinavian and not western germanic, it's enough to ask for proofs for a "mutual intelligible" language.

So it's inevitable that Christianity will take over even before the battle of Milvian bridge?
Depends on "how" take over. It could take a more long time, without political help. But the fact is that Christianity had a great advantage on the old roman pantheon and to the other oriental religions.
It was a religion for all : not only for the city, for soldiers, for mothers, for slaves. No. For all.
With the crisis of III, any roman emperor dreamed on how to reach an unity for his purposes. It appears that or the pagan monolatrism or the philisophical "we worship all the gods who are all the members of a same principle" just didn't worked on elites or urban peoples, and even less on commoners.

Butterfly the III crisis and you can block Christianity in the east.

What if Constantine's army had been crushed after putting up the christian banners?
Another Emperor (probably is opponent Maxence who the first gave the religious liberty to christians) would eventually make the same. Miltius Bridge was just the last step before an imperial conversion.

Wasn't Christianity at that point still only a minority in the empire?
If I remember correctly the number was something like 10% in the west.
Maybe 15/20% at best, but these 10% are urban elites, urban people or even peasants in Italy, Hispania or Provence. Furthermore the barbarians were currently having their christianisation at the same time, and a christian empire with cesaro-papism could have been thought as a diplomatic weapon against germanic raids (and it even worked...for a time).
 
LSCatilina; the lecturer I have been listening too via mp3 is Kenneth W. Harl - The Vikings 2005 TTC.
Some of your statements contradict what he has taught. Are you more qualified than him? What is your education?
I dislike the authoritarianism stance you take.

Finally, i found the term "agenda of Christianity on his country" hilariously wrong.
You know you're not making any friends with that attitude...

Christianity wasn't and is still not a hive mind body. Particularly on the nordic lands at this date, while the pope was more busy with protecting his states from Saracens and Maygars, the clergy have an huge latitude and kept many pagans symbolic in the rites.
I don't think that, elsewhere in Europe, clergy managed to keep trace of pagan rites as scandinavian christianism did, making by this adaptation to the nordic culture a quick conversion of the Scandinavians (in 1000, it can be considered as complete).

I was absolutely NOT claiming that Christianity was a hive body, that's just ridiculous.
I was simply saying that he failed to really convert his people, as is to be expected since the conversion of peoples is a very gradual process.
Look at the middle east , large swathes of it (perhaps even a majority I've heard) were still Christian up until the crusades, almost 500 years after the Arab conquest.
Likewise, the christianisation of Scandinavia took a very long time or about 300 years, since missionary activity began in the early 800s and isn't complete until about the 1100s in Scandinavia (Sweden went down last). How exactly is that a quick conversion?

Err...It's amusing. But untrue. Let's be clear : Clovis took its legitimacy on gallo-roman nobility that was powerful in the West (and not even talking about the South) only because it was catholic. When you saw the ammount of hostility against the arian kings, you prefer not imagine what it would result against a crypto-pagan one. Especially when these ones are presiding councils.

Why the Irish are coming in the 620? Not because the elites, frankish or gallo-romans weren't christians, but because due to the stop of evangelisation from gallo-roman clergy, the people was still in good part semi-pagan or even frankly pagan.
So, the Irish came for that. And when i say "Irish", i want to say Irish and gallo-roman clergy who have studied in Ireland.

Can i ask who's your teacher, what is teaching and his/her works?

Do you really think it's such a stretch that it took 120 years for them to gradually reach the point where they can be called christians in the modern sense?
I imagine most early royal converts didn't go from being pagans to believing the old gods were satanic demons overnight, at least that's what we can induce from the viking age. As an example alot of early viking converts worshipped Christ at land but Thor at sea.

Neighbouring people, possibily sharing a common origin, yes.

It's a little more than a possibility apparently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germanic_tribes_(750BC-1AD).png
After all, the legends from the migration period didn't just magically appear in northern Norway and later Iceland.

Multually intelligible and similar culture, no.
Not only no one chronicler is making mention of that. But also the migration of Saxons, the appartenance of Dani to the oriental scandinavian group (making think about a continental origin) is a clear separation.
Fort that matter, the fact that both Lombards and Burgunds had the same religion, the same global origin is not make them a naturally tied people. At best, you could have a better assimilation made during the conquest.

I'm from Iceland and I had some trouble understanding those poems you presented. Still I could read through a verse knowing the context, but it's possible that the mutually intelligibility for an intellectual conversation is lost even as early as the 800s or maybe even earlier between the Saxons and the Norse.

But, those poems are written 50 years after the Frankish conquest, and I am separated from them by 1200 years and thousands of kilometers.

The number of Angles in the migration to Britain is to be lowered. The peoples settleing the island are more from Saxony, Frisia and maybe even Franks more than Angles and Jutes (that, on the other hand be part of the elite, being leaders of smaller groups, but still representatives or dux of them and therefore recognized as such). Furthermore, the georaphical separation as to be really relativised as the trade flux continued during all the early middle-ages between continent and southern Britain.

Then why isn't it called Saxland? Maybe because the Angles and the Jutes occupied much more of England than the Saxons? ...
(Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia and some other areas)
 
LSCatilina; the lecturer I have been listening too via mp3 is Kenneth W. Harl - The Vikings 2005 TTC.
Some of your statements contradict what he has taught. Are you more qualified than him? What is your education?
I dislike the authoritarianism stance you take.
Authoritarism? I'm studying history, and as i'm preparing to get specialized in high middle-Ages (at least i hope so), yes i'm interested into knowing who said that and what are his works. This precise statement (about mervoningian kings) is contradictory to all i taught so far about early medieval christianity and i'm fucking interested about having more informations.
I'm certainly not going to apologize to see by myself what are the arguments of your teacher.


You know you're not making any friends with that attitude...
I don't want to "make friends" more than anywhere here, i'm just REALLY dubious about your all "Christianity Agenda" stuff. Except if you misused the word, i stand. And, if i had to put here all the thoughts i had, it would be worse. But as it could be prejuges and that i try to keep an open mind, i only pointed out how this expression was really wrong.

I was absolutely NOT claiming that Christianity was a hive body, that's just ridiculous.
So, how a supposed "Christian Agenda" could be not only done but preparred when missionaries are de facto autonoms and more used by kings and nobles and using them?

I was simply saying that he failed to really convert his people, as is to be expected since the conversion of peoples is a very gradual process.
Gradual doesn't mean that takes obligatory many reigns. But as i wanted to point, Harald didn't REALLY failed to convert his people because 1)His conversion was above all a way to legimitize his actions in western Europe (hell, he even kidnapped the future king of Francia) and to unifying Danes around christianism in the already classical scheme (Philippe Descamps, if you're interested) 3)Contrary to Rus or even Swedes, the Danes (admittedly resisting against it, but more from local and traditional elites) didn't knew a cut in the Christianisation process, and i don't really see how the final "persecution" of Olaf is that distinct of other forms royal "coup" against traditional schemes.

Look at the middle east , large swathes of it (perhaps even a majority I've heard) were still Christian up until the crusades, almost 500 years after the Arab conquest.
Syria and Egypt are largely different context. First Arabs used less religion as a diplomatic tool after the 750's when Christian kings used heavily it critically after the carolingian renaissance. Second the maintain of Christianity (or Judaism) allowed a greater fiscal income for Muslims, when Christian.

The length of Islamisation, outside cities that were mainly muslims since the X, is explained by the actual advantages that represented for Muslims states the presence of other religions.

There's no equivalent in Christian/Pagan Europe.

Likewise, the christianisation of Scandinavia took a very long time or about 300 years, since missionary activity began in the early 800s and isn't complete until about the 1100s in Scandinavia (Sweden went down last). How exactly is that a quick conversion?
Well, maybe we 've here different definitions of Christianisation.
Admitettly it's two ones existant : the one regarding the conversion of dynamic/ruling classes of societies, and the one regarding the disparition of recognizable pagan rites.

As i thought we agreed on the fact that Christianisation was above all for these people a way to be integrated into Europe (and somewhat beneficing of the christian/feudal schemes that allowed a greater margin), i use this word for the elites.

You seem to use the word for the larger definition, so i think we're both right here. Critically about Swede, where the constituent groups were coherent enough (both culturally and "politically") to resist until the XI to christianisation.

But i stand corrected, the christianisation of elites was quick, in Danmark as in Swede, completed in the first half of X. Not even talking about the Althing's decision in Island to force conversion of all the inhabitants.

And, as the Christianisation of Baltic Sea and Scandinavia really begin in the IX, i think that one hundred years to have this religion is quick, critically regarding the harsh begginings of Christianity in the west.


Do you really think it's such a stretch that it took 120 years for them to gradually reach the point where they can be called christians in the modern sense?
It's basically because it wasn't a stretch that 120 years to convert the elite is quick.
Besides, i really don't know what are you calling "Christians in the modern sense".
Nobody was such during the Early Middle Ages, there was "Christian in this era sense", aka more or less (and often more) influenced by pagans or pre-christian cultural practices. Hell, 1/3 of gaul saints are probably only rip-off of old pagan things.

I imagine most early royal converts didn't go from being pagans to believing the old gods were satanic demons overnight, at least that's what we can induce from the viking age. As an example alot of early viking converts worshipped Christ at land but Thor at sea.
Oh surely and such practices remained until todays and are still used (in disguised and not very clear ways). But i can't (and i wonder if somebody would can) say something conclusive about the real faith of Harald, Clovis or Constantine. We can only talk about the Christianisation as a religious and political process, not a faith one, for its beggining.

And, personally, I don't really matter about the deep of baptism regarding personalities (i admit i don't have the biography fiber) but more about the implications.


It's a little more than a possibility apparently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germanic_tribes_(750BC-1AD).png
After all, the legends from the migration period didn't just magically appear in northern Norway and later Iceland.
1) You're talking about a really old period, when it was still part of the "Proto-Germans", before its division. It's basically the same than saying that Galates, Gauls, Brittions and Hibernians had multually intelligible languages and same religions and rites because at the same period, they originated from the same aera.
When i talked about a "possibly same origin" i wasn't talking about germanic appartenance, but about a second sub-group. After all, the Danes and the Saxons of the VI BC were situated near Hamborg and in the islands, and therefore contacts and echanges are very likely.

But at the period that interest us, the differenciation was already made between these two groups, with the Saxons speaking a western germanic language, and the Danes a northern germanic one; besides their rites and uses if they were issued from the same german origin, were still distincts.

2) For the legends of migrations period, who said stories didn't travalled with the trade and peoples flux? My favourite is (even if it's not the migration period) the indentification of Siegfrid's dragons with the roman legion. You don't need similars or mutually intelligible culture for that, just commercial flux.

3)I'm not saying that is were not but few ties between Saxons and Danes, just that you're exagerrating them to the point to make them two close people regarding all their aspects, to see the alliance between Saxons and Danes other thing that normal relation between neigbors (as the Danish ravaging Saxon coast is "normal" relation too).

I'm from Iceland and I had some trouble understanding those poems you presented. Still I could read through a verse knowing the context, but it's possible that the mutually intelligibility for an intellectual conversation is lost even as early as the 800s or maybe even earlier between the Saxons and the Norse.
I'm not myself have a great knowledge about german linguistic, but it's admitted (at least it was what i was teached and was i learned) that the linguistic differenciation between germanic people occured earlier than romanss, during the VIII.

But, those poems are written 50 years after the Frankish conquest, and I am separated from them by 1200 years and thousands of kilometers.
50 years are hardly a sufficient time to change a language deeply.
For a better analysis, i don't have other ressource than to see in books i have, and they class it among the western languages. But maybe a linguist making currently analysis would say something against the unanimity i've seen so far.

Then why isn't it called Saxland? Maybe because the Angles and the Jutes occupied much more of England than the Saxons? ...
(Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia and some other areas)
Maybe we can thanks English medieval historians for that.
Besides, as i said it was not the total number of people that mattered but how their elites managed to keep power in the fusion process of these people. Angles nobles must have been powerful enough to be at these place.
But the composition of so-called Anglo-Saxons is too object to conensuality : Mainly Saxons, Frisians, Angles and Jutes, even Frankish peoples. We have even contemporary sources for that.
 
Last edited:
I know this is a pretty old thread, but I didn't want to start a whole new one on this topic.

That being said, I think an early death of Charlemagne means no Holy Roman Empire. I'm also not convinced of the inevitability of the spread of Christianity across Europe. It's true that it did spread largely as a political force more than a religious one, but I think the conquests of Charlemagne are what gave it a lot of the momentum to spread that way. The Saxons certainly didn't convert for political reasons, they were converted at sword point. A Frankish kingdom thrown into chaos and weakened by the early death of Charlemagne isn't going to provide a lot of political impetus to convert, and there's no guarantee that the Franks would achieve the strength or influence needed to convince the Saxons to convert. There would be missionaries of course, but that doesn't make it inevitable either, or the whole world ought to be Christian by now.

Even if the Saxons do eventually convert, there's still no East Francia, and so no Holy Roman Empire. Without the threat of the HRE looming over them, the Slavs in Bohemia and Poland don't have any impetus to convert. They'd also have time to consolidate their own power and even expand. I could see Bohemia and Poland eventually absorbing the Polabian Slavs in eastern Germany. If they end up being just as strong, if not stronger, than their immediate Christian neighbors, then there's not much political incentive for them to convert.

The rulers in Eastern Europe that converted to Christianity may have seen that conversion as a means of better integration into the rest of Europe, or, maybe more likely, they saw it as a means of protecting themselves from expansionist Christian neighbors. Without such neighbors it's entirely impossible they never would have converted.

There's nothing inevitable about anything, otherwise what's even the point of discussing alternate history.
 
Top