Recon?

[Kitta]

The ones I speak of were ones I'd known in person. I have a certain disdain for internet relationships - I don't mean that in a romantic sense - I think to really be able to build froth and understand a person you've got to know them. I mostly come to the internet for debate, it gives me a lot to think about sometimes.

[Bathilde]

Same here.

[Kitta]

Lol build froth ... that sounds nasty. Apparently my phone doesn't like the word 'frith.' I am slowly building its heathen vocabulary though! I just wish I could figure out how to do diacritical marks.

At any rate, I think the crux of the issue here is what we consider recon to be. What you guys call recon I just consider to be standard garden variety heathen, while what I call recon you guys seem to see as like re-enactors (I like that term, it fits.)

To be clear, I LIKE learning from the past and gleaning wisdom from the ancestors. I DISLIKE dressing up and practicing as if the last couple of millenia never happened, lol. I think we all kind of agree here on concept, just not terminology, eh?

[Gemyndig]

So you think the lore would've been properly vetted had heathenry won the heathen vs christian conversion era?

That's exactly what I'm saying, and that's what my Heathen ancestors seemed to think too. They wouldn't follow kings who appeared to be down on their luck - rightly or wrongly, that's just how it was. If we're to revive their worldview as our foundation, this same question will come up again and again. Why weren't the Heathen kings lucky?

So, you think christianity won out because the heathen thew didn't instill enough luck, or christianity had more luck?

I do definitely think that Heathen thew needed to change, because it's quite evident that it failed to instill enough luck for its followers. For me personally the "good" and possibly luckier things about Christianity hadn't come from its God or necessarily the faith itself (which people recognised even then requires one to believe rather nonsensical things) but from the Pagan Greek philosophers who'd influenced it. Christianity brought a different ritual style and a different approach to the divine. A lot of this is thought to have come actually from the Neo-platonists, who've had a huge impact on western spiritual thought altogether, having not just heavily influenced Christianity, but other faiths as well. Those guys seem to have been rather lucky in the dissemination of their ideas, and as a modern day Heathen trying to recapture my ancestors mindset (if not exactly all their ways) in terms of going where the luck is, this is not entirely lost on me. Luck I think applies to achievement in the spread of ideas as well as economic and military success.

I don't really attribute the conversion to those factors. It's an interesting thought though.

Yes but that's probably because you're viewing the situation through a modern worldview, which isn't exactly wrong, but every recon I've ever met both on and offline appears to have seen it as a flaw. I'm just saying that this is an ironic aspect of this - the very worldview which recons are touting as the most appropriate one for us to have as our foundation in the now is the very one which caused our ancestors to see their old ways as lacking somehow and made conversion seem desirable.

I'm not sure I'm making myself very clear here, but to reiterate - every serious scholar I've ever read on the conversion of the Northumbrians has attributed their final conversion to the winning of wars by Christian kings, which in the Heathen mindset meant that they had all the luck, and were therefor worth following. What I'm saying is, if we're to think like ancient Heathens, which is what recons seem to want us to do, it begs the question "so what was wrong with the elder thew that it didn't win Heathen kings enough luck to achieve the necessary prosperity and victory to defeat Christian influence?" If I think like my ancestors, the only conclusion I can come to is that either our thew needed to change, or the Christian God is just a luckier guy to follow. Since I don't want to follow the Christian God as my ancestors ended up doing, I'm only left with the option of changing the elder thew, which is probably what should have happened in the first place.

[Bathilde]

I disagree. I think the christian conversion is a bit more nuanced than heathens simply following the king with more luck. Plus even after the conversion, the custom of the people didn't significantly change, they were brought with them to the new belief system. This is why we have things like yule traditions at christmas time, etc. The thew would've been completely abandoned if what you're claiming is true. And considering many had to be forcefully converted or else suffer the consequences(death and torture) it wouldn't seem the luck issue was the compelling factor. Another argument that can be made was that christianity was more appealing because it offered things heathenry didn't have such as a loving benevolent god that only wants what's best for you rather than gods who let you earn your way through life through your deeds. A nanny god might've been more appealing in a harsh life.

I wouldn't disagree that the ancient heathen world view would see christian kings winning in battle as a luck issue, I'm just not convinced that this is the main factor to the conversion. Is their evidence of this in the research? Is their a paper on it?

[Gemyndig]

Probably the most clear cut evidence of Heathens converting in light of kings'luck takes place in Northumbria, because there were conversions when Christian kings won battles, then mass apostasy when the odd Heathen king won - it's well documented in the historical record and is a stark example of the Heathen worldview in action. Of course eventually Christian kings won out completely, which swayed the recalcitrant Northumbrians finally to the Christian side. John Marsden's "Northanhymbre Saga" is probably the best place to begin to investigate this, but David Rollason's "Northumbria, 500-1100 - Creation and Destruction of a Kingdom" also comes well recommended.

It seems that initially the Northumbrians weren't really all that impressed by Christianity or monks, who were seen simply as cowardly men who preferred a quiet life indoors to one of traditional warrior-type outdoor activities. It's doubtful that many would have converted at all unless Christians had somehow proven themselves worth following in terms of economic and military might, so I'd disagree that (at least in the case of the Northumbrians) luck wasn't a main deciding factor of conversion. Here in Northumbria it seems to have the sole deciding factor for many people.

It's also false I think to consider a few surviving Heathen-style customs as evidence that people kept a lot of pre-Christian ideas and practices. These really only significantly survived for a short while after the conversion and then were pretty much eroded. British historian Ronald Hutton has written profusely on this, basically demolishing the idea that very much at all of much significance survived intact from the pre-Christian period to affect the ensuing culture (with only very miniscule survivals here and there lasting into the modern day.) perhaps we could say that much more survived in Iceland and remote parts of Norway (most definitely in places like Latvia), but here in England at least, the conversion was really pretty thorough, probably because we did so well financially out of it. By the time of the Norman invasion, for example, the English lands were some of the most stable and prosperous in Europe. I'm not saying that couldn't have happened under Heathen kings if history had taken a different turn, but it just seems to me that climbing on the back of the Christian Frankish empire probably had a lot to do with it.

As for people resisting, this only went on for so long and then people just didn't have any choice any more. The very fact that Christians succeeded in taking that choice away from them doesn't say much really about Heathenry's ability to stand up for itself (one wonders if the fragmentation of tribalism also had a hand in our inability to put up a united front). Also, the idea of certain aspects of Christianity appealing to people who'd been used to a more worth-based, vigorous belief system seems to have applied particularly to women and the lower classes, probably because a)women were sick of losing male relatives in blood feuds which Christianity, whilst not altogether doing away with them, at least put a bit of a damper on and b)such as slaves, generations of whom would have lived and died under the most wretched conditions, had little to feel good about or look forward to under Heathen belief, whereas Christianity at least provided some theological mollification (which we might despise as much as we like sitting in our comfortable homes with full bellies in the modern day, but to someone of that socio-economic status then, these new ideas would probably have felt like a liberation.)

I recall a debate in AL which was about wether or not the conversion in Europe was "by the sword" or pretty bloodless, and most recons seemed to agree that it was fairly bloodless (compared to say, the conversion of Middle Eastern desert tribes to Islam), with wealth, land and military might as the incentives. Since in the elder Heathen mind these things were inextricably bound up with their concepts of luck, then I maintain my position that the conversion was in large part driven by Christianity's seemingly greater store of it.

[Kitta]

Bloodless? What about the atrocities committed by Olaf the Lawbreaker, that dirty christian coward who forced fed Raud a live snake, put hot embers on Eyvind's stomach until his body burst, cut out Guthroth's tongue, ect.? In Iceland I know there's a story about how they converted fairly 'peacefully' because they would rather not be massacred like they saw going on in many other places.

Sometimes, evil is strong. If it was a given that good would always prevail the struggle between the forces of order and chaos would mean nothing. The Christians were willing to do gruesome, vile things and when force didn't work they used guile, stealing and repurposing bits and pieces of pagan tradition to make Christianity seem more 'familiar.' I don't think the Heathens were prepared for such a vehement attack on religion, since so many of our pagan ancestors lived with at least some measure of respect for other people's beliefs.

We should learn from their mistakes, understand their view as best as we can and add to it - refine it for use in the modern day. Christians haven't given up trying to stomp us out - this religious persecution is not just a thing of the past, though it is not as bloody as it used to be, we still have a force to work against as we try to rebuild.

[Gemyndig]

Bloodless? What about the atrocities committed by Olaf the Lawbreaker, that dirty christian coward who forced fed Raud a live snake, put hot embers on Eyvind's stomach until his body burst, cut out Guthroth's tongue, ect.? In Iceland I know there's a story about how they converted fairly 'peacefully' because they would rather not be massacred like they saw going on in many other places.

Oh I'm not disputing that there indeed was blood spilled during the conversion, and contrary to what many Christians want to think, they probably have themselves to blame really for the incendiary bursting forth of Heathen violence during the Viking Age, since this was likely a response to the enforced baptism and beheading of 4500 Saxons by Charlemagne (something they've never really apologised for). However, when viewed in purely academic terms, most parts of Europe were indeed converted fairly peacefully. I admit i too was shocked when I first saw this debate in AL forum and the conclusion was that economic and military incentive was the main motivator for conversion, not the sword or threat of violence, because I'd been horrified too by the self same examples you've just cited. The evidence is pretty much stacked in favour of the conclusion they came to though when I examined it further.

I don't think the Heathens were prepared for such a vehement attack on religion, since so many of our pagan ancestors lived with at least some measure of respect for other people's beliefs.

This is quite true - in a world filled with different Gods, one more, or other people's, aren't too hard to accept. There are a few cases in the lore which show that Heathens did have some measure of respect for the beliefs and ways of others, which perhaps also was partly their undoing, because they allowed in a belief system which didn't want to return the favour. This absolutist, intolerant nature of Christianity was another reason why, by the time the Normans arrived here in England, there were very few real vestiges of Heathenry left even in the Danelaw. The co-opting of Heathen sites of worship etc was simply a temporary measure til they'd got their feet firmly under the table and everyone under their bootheel.

We should learn from their mistakes, understand their view as best as we can and add to it - refine it for use in the modern day. Christians haven't given up trying to stomp us out - this religious persecution is not just a thing of the past, though it is not as bloody as it used to be, we still have a force to work against as we try to rebuild.

I think the Christians are the ones running out of luck now, and they are being faced with the same challenge to adapt or die as we were in elder times (here in Europe anyway - in the US they still seem to be scarily powerful and dying to have a theocracy!)

[Kitta]

Yes, in the US they have more power than even our constitution should allow. Our pledge of allegiance still mentions god (even though the original didn't and there have been countless petitions to change it back) and its even written on our currency even though our motto should be e plurbis unum not 'in god we trust.' They recently petitioned to have all pagan religions not recognized as religion as protected by our laws. We've had to fight tooth and nail for rights that should have been ours to begin with. It angers me.

[Gemyndig]

Thing is as well, I have the greatest respect for your founding fathers precisely because they were for freedom of religion (amongst other things) - of course it's a complete fallacy peddled by the Christian fundamentalists that the US was founded specifically on Christian values, as described in this short article (fair enough it's by an Atheist, but they stand to lose as much as Heathens and others perhaps, and are usually pretty well-researched when it comes to stuff like this.)

Good on you anyway Kitta for fighting the religious fascists in your country!