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?
very strong opinions about something, and tries to make other people have them too
I’m casually stating the obvious. That you stubbornly cling to your “alternative facts” version of history doesn’t make me a zealot.
But to think that they only were violent and criminal is a bias
One that I don’t hold.
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.
How exactly do they define “peaceful”, though?
Personally I wouldn’t consider the government enforcing a state religion using violence and deprival of freedom and dignity peaceful, for example.
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?
I’m casually stating the obvious. That you stubbornly cling to your “alternative facts” version of history doesn’t make me a zealot.
One that I don’t hold.
How exactly do they define “peaceful”, though?
Personally I wouldn’t consider the government enforcing a state religion using violence and deprival of freedom and dignity peaceful, for example.
I cited my sources, actual and recognized historians from actual and recognized universities. I still wait for yours.
I don’t see any links