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).