happy Eoster Not Easter

In the old testament.

 

Your answer to where in the old testaments God says this is "in the Old Testament". I know that source pretty well, and it's not there. Try again.

 

Yes it must have been very different because all we know in mainland Europe are the French killing everybody as they swept across the lands like a plague thanks to Charlamagne and alike.

 

That's because you look but you do not see and you hear but you do not listen.

 

The area of modern France was roughly the Roman province of Gaul, which converted to Christianity back in the empire period.

The later Frankish Empire, or Francia, extended into modern Belgium, the Netherlands, bits of Germany and Italy, but didn't touch Scandinavia at all. The Franks were originally a Germanic tribe, not Gallic.

Later on, in the time of the Crusades, European armies in general became known as 'Franks'.

 

I never said the French had anything to do with Scandinavia. You made differences between Europe and the UK. That's what I responded to. I just threw in Norway because I know it wasn't nice either.

 

Happy Oyster!!

 

Wasn't the violent part of Norwegian christianisation (a relatively short period, compared to the overall gradually and peaceful conversion of the whole area) committed by their fellow norse people or other scandinavian people?
After the violent attemps that made the whole country officially christian lots of folks hold on to and practiced their pagan beliefs for generations later.
As BlackBillBlake already mentioned most viking leaders adopted the new faith of their trading partners/raid victims/'enemies' for more than one reason. Although it's rather amusing indeed to see how they often didn't take it too serious at all (until it was used as a means to conquer all of Norway, as false validation. Just like the Franks used it in the same way of course), it can also be truthfully said they largely christianised themselves, or better said were christianised by their own people.

 

I knew they took Christianity light heartedly that's why I always laugh when the Christians tried to tell them about Adam and Eve like "see all your gods died and now there's jesus". I could imagine them toasting.mead horns like jesus you say? I'll drink to that.

When nobody else wanted to fight the Vikings, the Vikings adopted fighting between their own clans and then surely enough, the vikings receded into mercinary units bound for Asian lands and the ones back home fought families until there was no more vikings.

 

When the French came through Germany and rounded everyone up and murdered them, they stopped at a very specific tree that was Donars tree, Thor's tree, they said if they cut it down, and Thor does not kill them then he's a lie. They cut down the tree and did not die. The Saxons then rounded their holy men up and said if your God won't save you, he's a lie.... They died.

 

I've never heard of this. Can you give dates and who was involved exactly? 'The French' is a bit vague. In fact the whole thing sounds more like myth that history.

 

I think cutting down holy oaks was a tactic used more than once. This is a good start:

Saint Boniface - Wikipedia

Very wellknown story here as we have the St. Boniface church in Dokkum. He was martyred by the Frisians. The details of the story are arguable (he holding a bible over his head when he was slayed for instance), but its likely his, and/or his following (I mean he had to travel with armed guards and probably didn't cut down that oak himself), way of converting the heathens was kind of demeaning and insulting and it eventually cost him his life.

edit: i guess martyred by the Frisians is wrongly worded. He was killed by the Frisians and martyred there.

 

Yes it was that guy, Boniface I think.
The French ones if you Wikipedia "Irminsul" you'll see the history of the others by Charlemagne.

 

Thanks for that. Looking at the link you gave there, it seems that Boniface was killed by robbers. It says that when he cut down the sacred oak, people were surprised that the gods didn't strike him dead and so they converted. This seems to have been at a different time from his death/martyrdom.

 

He was definitely killed some time later. It is likely though that his killers and their motive were portrayed as dubious or illegitimite as possible. I mean it was common practice to glorify your own cause and slander your opponents, just to validate war.

Charlemagne and the franks before him, just like the early Norwegian christian kings, didn't adopt christianity solely for pious reasons. Same with the medieval Holy German empire of course. This is one important reason christianity spread eventually succesfully across Europe: because it suited and benefited the rulers. Violence was primarily used to conquer, not to convert. But these goals intertwined, so the conquered pagans (and their modern descendants) are eager to attribute it to the false motive of christianisation.
But it can't be stated clear enough: most pagan europeans (although pressured from above; as in by their own leaders, not by god(s) ) converted peacefully and gradually. Some of these leaders may have been forced, like after defeat in battle and it was one of the bargaining points, but more often it was politics, opportunism and/or a mutual interest (like trade, or power. Many heathen leaders in early medieval north europe were not only frequently at war with christians but also with eachother. Religion was rarely the biggest reason, but often dragged into it. This is likely why the first Norwegian christian kings used it as a reason, or better said convenient excuse.).
The franks must have loved these christian missionaries who really believed in their cause. It surely made their own violent expansion seem and feel legitimite. An excellent (but in essence false and dishonest) validation.

 

That seems like a fair summary, but as I said, I don't know a great deal about the Christianization of Northern Europe. They simply didn't teach us a lot of European history at school. Too much focus on British history alone (understandable in some ways) - I've tried over time to rectify that, but still there are big gaps in my knowledge.

The political motive of course was there right from the start when Emperor Constantine converted the Empire. It was because he thought the Christian God had given him victory in his civil war that he accepted Christianity - some say he didn't actually convert himself until near his death.
But probably he saw advantages for the Empire in having one religion under one unified authority.

As we know, the political motive has been behind many things done by Christain rulers through history, from the crusades to the reformation, and a lot more. I tend to see that as one aspect only though. The ordinary people held sincere beliefs in Christianity. I think that's pretty well indisputable.
And it's worth bearing in mind that Pagan rulers were every bit as bloodthirsty, cruel and motivated by political power as the Christians who came later.

 

I guess raping, killing and looting is slightly more honorable if you're upfront about why you do it and don't invent a false motive :-D (to be fair; the vikings justified it also regularly as a wish or approval from their gods, but the thing is they didn't bullshit about their gods or cause being peaceful or morally just. They embraced the right of the strongest also spiritually. Christians supposedly did not)

 

Yes - the so called Christians added hypocrisy to the list of their sins.