When the Vikings were granted Normandy by King Charles the Simple, they had to convert to Christianity as part of the agreement.
During the centuries after the Normans were responsible for building many churches, abbeys, and nunneries (many of which are now landmarks).
My question is: what would have happened if the Vikings kept their heathen Gods instead of converted to Christianity? What are the implications of a powerful, heathen, quasi-sovereign state (duchy) during the middle ages? What would the modern day religious landscape look like had a heathen King taken over England?
>>442901
>if the Vikings kept their heathen Gods
why would they?
>>442901
They would have been crusaded out of existence just like the rest of Europe's pagans.
>>442913
Because Jesus was nailed to a cross and Thor has a hammer?
>>442915
IIRC the Normans were the ones who started the crusades at the behest of Pope Urban, and that wasn't until the Duchy of Normandy was around for ~100 years.
I don't think they would have been crushed because there was no one to crush them. Charles was the most powerful man at the time, and he literally gave the Vikings Normandy to get them to stop pillaging.
>>442946
>I don't think they would have been crushed because there was no one to crush them. Charles was the most powerful man at the time, and he literally gave the Vikings Normandy to get them to stop pillaging.
there is a fundament difference between raiding the shit out of a country, and defending your land.
vikings were masters in hit and run actions, a tactic that devasted the european economy. before any serious forces would arrive at villages the vikings were plundering, they were back on their ships.
thats a completely different scenario than defending your land against a regular attack. an organised attack against a hypothetical pagan normandy would have crushed the vikings, because their light infantry never had a chance against frankish cavalry.
>>442922
how is your 12th birthday going?
>>442997
>thats a completely different scenario than defending your land against a regular attack. an organised attack against a hypothetical pagan normandy would have crushed the vikings, because their light infantry never had a chance against frankish cavalry
The Normans clearly were able to defend their own land, they expanded the Duchy to take Rouen, Caen, and even the Channel Islands.
They were so powerful at the time that they were able take over England. I don't think it's unreasonable to think, at least in a hypothetical sense (and for the sake of discussion), that they would be able to defend themselves against the Christian powers, which at the time were mainly Charles (who already failed to defend himself).
>>442915
>They would have been crusaded out of existence just like the rest of Europe's pagans.
In this hypothetical scenario, a pagan Normandy would have been at it's strongest around the time the Byzantines sacked the Vatican. IRL the Normans defended the Vatican and the Pope, but imagine if they weren't Christian. Imagine if pagans attacked the Holy Roman Empire on one front while the Byzantines attacked the Vatican at the other.
>>442901
That would require a reformation of their faith into something more suitable to sedentary life, they were pagans they were pluralistic and would probably have developed a syncretic norse-christian faith, kind of like mormons but with a more clear concept of holy war.
>>443042
there is a time gap of more than 200 years between the granting of the duchy of normandy, and the conquest of england. two completely different situations.
at the time the normans took england, they were an integrated, romanized part of western europe. to be honest, the saxons in england were far more "norse-cultured" than the normans in france at 1066.
at the time they were granted the duchy, they were foreign elements. if they hadnt agreed to take the land on the kings terms, they would have two choices:
a)fuck off and continue raiding, which i guess wasnt their first choice
b)take the land by force alone. in this case, they would have faced warfare on unknown soil, a populance unwilling to cooperate with them, and superior troops. on top of that, they would have lost their most effective tactic, because you cant hide on your ships if you want to rule your land.
>>443079
>That would require a reformation of their faith into something more suitable to sedentary life, they were pagans they were pluralistic and would probably have developed a syncretic norse-christian faith, kind of like mormons but with a more clear concept of holy war.
Weren't most Norse pagans already farmers and herders?
>>443081
>at the time the normans took england, they were an integrated, romanized part of western europe. to be honest, the saxons in england were far more "norse-cultured" than the normans in france at 1066.
I partially agree with this, except that during the period where the Normans were "civilized", they still were seen as being largely pagan. This view of them by the rest of Europe caused them a lot of political problems, especially when the ruler at the time (I believe it was Robert but I could be wrong) allowed Vikings to trade in Norman ports. There is even a story of Rollo sacrificing 100 people to Odin that has persisted to today.
>at the time they were granted the duchy, they were foreign elements. if they hadnt agreed to take the land on the kings terms, they would have two choices:
>a)fuck off and continue raiding, which i guess wasnt their first choice
>b)take the land by force alone. in this case, they would have faced warfare on unknown soil, a populance unwilling to cooperate with them, and superior troops. on top of that, they would have lost their most effective tactic, because you cant hide on your ships if you want to rule your land.
I think you're being overly simplistic, the Normans were able to sack Paris, and Charles couldn't do anything about it. The reason they were granted Normandy in the first place is that many of the Viking raiders were taking land to build "castles" anyway, so that they were able to operate out of a base instead of having to head back to Denmark/Sweden/Norway
>>443114
>during the period where the Normans were "civilized", they still were seen as being largely pagan.
they were conquering england with papal permission against two other catholic kings, a more definite statement regarding their affilation to the catholic west is hardly possible.
>Rollo sacrificing 100 people to Odin that has persisted to today.
rollo (if he ever really existed) reigned in normandy till 927, while the conquest of england was in 1066, more than enough time to leave the pagan ways behind and getting a new image.
>the Normans were able to sack Paris, and Charles couldn't do anything about it.
he was doing something against them, and it started to be effective:
according to Flodoard, the normans were defeated at Chartres in 911, and for fear of lossing their whole contingent, they negotiated. they got land and titles, Charles got capable christian warriors to defend his coast and attack lorraine.
so they werent some kind of unbeatable super-warriors, they were close to defeat when converting to christianity.
>>442901
>what would have happened if the Vikings kept their heathen Gods instead of converted to Christianity? What are the implications of a powerful, heathen, quasi-sovereign state (duchy) during the middle ages? What would the modern day religious landscape look like had a heathen King taken over England?
>Celebrating Yule instead of Christmas
>Celebrating solstices
>Participating in Blots to honor our ancestors
Seems a lot better desu
