Your main source for that is Snorri Sturluson, a Christian who wrote 200 years after Scandinavia’s conversion. He invented those murders in order to paint the pagans as stupid and stubborn people, needing violence to accept what he believed to be the truth. Historically, the conversions weren’t, with a few exceptions, violent in Scandinavia.
Scandinavia’s conversion is more the result of an internal power struggle.
Your main source for that is Snorri Sturluson, a Christian who wrote 200 years after Scandinavia’s conversion
Nope, my main source is the fact that that was the way that the Catholic church “converted” countries as well as “apostates” and “heretics” in places they already controlled.
Christianity didn’t become a major religion and political force through the quality of its message. It did so through the quantity of its violence.
Scandinavia’s conversion is more the result of an internal power struggle.
If by “internal” you mean some Scandinavian rulers being forced to convert at the point of a sword and then trying to do the same to the rest, sure. That’s a really weird definition of the word, though.
No, it’s the vast majority of all sources available.
Claiming that the Catholic church used violence to convert pagans is like claiming that the Pacific Ocean is larger than a standard burrito.
It’s such an obvious truth based on all available knowledge that not even the most ignorant and brainwashed zealot would ever claim otherwise in good faith.
A zealot is “a person who has very strong opinions about something, and tries to make other people have them too”. You sound more like a zealot than me.
Of course Christianity did horrible things in its history. Nobody denies that. But to think that they only were violent and criminal is a bias. What they did in Africa for example doesn’t presume of what they did a millennium earlier in an other part of the world. Now all modern historians (Nora Berend, Alexandra Sanmark, Régis Boyer to name a few) agree with the fact that Germanic Scandinavia’s conversion was mostly peaceful. Do you know more than academics that studied the subject?
Oh lol, okay, tell me about the phonology of norn and younger futhark used in the age of vikings? How about any self-description of iron-age viking society before 1066, anything at all? Who were their leaders, how were rights allotted? Nothing remains but their versions of catholic prayers and before that their versions of oral germanic traditions like norse mythology, which was much more widespread.
Basically, we know nothing about them that they told us themselves, in fact their systems of writing have only been properly compiled in the last century but the language is still entirely extinct.
Because of Crusades. Because of Catholic Crusades on Vikings.
Nobody wiped their culture. Their culture evolved, and other cultures influenced this evolution, as they influenced the culture of their neighbors.
Specifically, the Catholic church influenced most of Scandinavia by persecuting and murdering people who kept to the old ways.
Your main source for that is Snorri Sturluson, a Christian who wrote 200 years after Scandinavia’s conversion. He invented those murders in order to paint the pagans as stupid and stubborn people, needing violence to accept what he believed to be the truth. Historically, the conversions weren’t, with a few exceptions, violent in Scandinavia.
Scandinavia’s conversion is more the result of an internal power struggle.
Nope, my main source is the fact that that was the way that the Catholic church “converted” countries as well as “apostates” and “heretics” in places they already controlled.
Christianity didn’t become a major religion and political force through the quality of its message. It did so through the quantity of its violence.
If by “internal” you mean some Scandinavian rulers being forced to convert at the point of a sword and then trying to do the same to the rest, sure. That’s a really weird definition of the word, though.
Yeah, you have no other source than your biases, then.
If you ignore the source known as “most of the history of Europe” then sure, I have only my biases 🙄
It’s not a source.
No, it’s the vast majority of all sources available.
Claiming that the Catholic church used violence to convert pagans is like claiming that the Pacific Ocean is larger than a standard burrito.
It’s such an obvious truth based on all available knowledge that not even the most ignorant and brainwashed zealot would ever claim otherwise in good faith.
A zealot is “a person who has very strong opinions about something, and tries to make other people have them too”. You sound more like a zealot than me.
Of course Christianity did horrible things in its history. Nobody denies that. But to think that they only were violent and criminal is a bias. What they did in Africa for example doesn’t presume of what they did a millennium earlier in an other part of the world. Now all modern historians (Nora Berend, Alexandra Sanmark, Régis Boyer to name a few) agree with the fact that Germanic Scandinavia’s conversion was mostly peaceful. Do you know more than academics that studied the subject?
Oh lol, okay, tell me about the phonology of norn and younger futhark used in the age of vikings? How about any self-description of iron-age viking society before 1066, anything at all? Who were their leaders, how were rights allotted? Nothing remains but their versions of catholic prayers and before that their versions of oral germanic traditions like norse mythology, which was much more widespread.
Basically, we know nothing about them that they told us themselves, in fact their systems of writing have only been properly compiled in the last century but the language is still entirely extinct.
Because of Crusades. Because of Catholic Crusades on Vikings.
There never was any crusade in Scandinavia.