Really? Some Christian he is.I guess whatever Christian denomination he belongs to is just a prime example of the heavy blending between paganism and actual Christian practices.
[Old Gods] Would Pagan polygamy be implemented?
- Thread starter darthfanta
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would like to point out that the father of the current King of Swaziland had over 125 wives, 210 children, and over a thousand grandchildren when he died.
I think he's actually part of a Church called African Zionism. Never heard of this religion before, but according to Wikipedia it's a mix of Christianity and African Traditional Religion. But the King of Swaziland seems to be more concerned with old traditions (and what he can get away with) then any religion.
Well, that's kind of my point. People in the modern era admire sexual permissiveness, they don't admire mainstream christianity's lack of it, and they project that backwards on to the main historical rivals of christianity in the period in question, e.g, 'pagans'.
Of course read Leviticus it is a sin to waste your seed....that means no wanking and no pulling out. He's probably a better Christian in that regard than most others.And they call themselves CHRISTIANS?
I find that it is really hard to get a lover with a lusty char, I would like there to be a fleshening out of lovers/harems etc for all race/religions.
I do know in a book "How the Irish saved civilisation" about monks keeping knowledge in irish monastaries (those not burned down) that sex just wasn't the issue it became for Catholics. Wives could have lovers just as much as men, in that it was just sex. It doesn't mean that they were all at it like rabbits, but just that if it happened no one would care too much. Though husbands could still challenge lovers to battle if they felt slighted.
I do know in a book "How the Irish saved civilisation" about monks keeping knowledge in irish monastaries (those not burned down) that sex just wasn't the issue it became for Catholics. Wives could have lovers just as much as men, in that it was just sex. It doesn't mean that they were all at it like rabbits, but just that if it happened no one would care too much. Though husbands could still challenge lovers to battle if they felt slighted.
And? Nobody was as chaste as suposed to be. God, the first ones to fuck everything that moves where the religious! There is even a period in the Papacy called the Porncracy.
According a medieval chronicle, in the battle of Covadonga three hundred Christians defeated 187K Muslims. Medieval sources are not the most reliable.
"Fallatic" does not exist. :huh:
According a medieval chronicle, in the battle of Covadonga three hundred Christians defeated 187K Muslims. Medieval sources are not the most reliable.
That's not the point at all. The point is that medieval people claimed that pagans had multiple wives in response to a claim that the idea is modern. And I even mentioned that "Whether it's true or not is a separate issue".
Polygamy was available in Tengriism but not very popular. Due to braid payments and different yurts for each wife, (what is a yurt? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Árpád's_wife.jpg) polygamy was very very expensive. Many Tengriist Khans had only one wife. And this wife was very powerful in government. Khans were calling their wife as "my khan" so she was the khan of khan. =) Do u know Turks in Turkey still call their wifes as "my khan" -hanım- =)
But sexual permissiveness isn't the issue here, polygamy and whether it should be implemented in the game for pagans is.
It's a stark fact that, though pagans very likely, almost for sure had the same amount of sex than their Christian counterparts, they were indeed allowed to marry more than one woman at the same time, whereas Christians were definitely not allowed this...privilege? curse? A married man would know!
You're right, that it's wrong to assume that the pagans were more permissive, but that ain't even the issue here, anyway.
Whereas a Christian ruler had one wife and maybe several mistresses or concubines, a Pagan ruler had more than one wife: he went through the marriage ceremony with several women, and was married to them all.
Paganism aside, polygamy was certainly in practice in the Sassanid Empire. Tho I think only the sons of the first wife could inherit.
Yeah but pagans (with poligamy) also suffered more revolts and assasinations because multiple wife systems mend also that there were more men without any girl at all. Those men who did not have girl at all had no incentive to support that political system where they live. So with polygamy they should also get decadence system and events where even kings were driven away or assassinated by others because they take too many girls as happened historically.
One of the reason why pagans lost and Christianity won in the end was that Christianity was more stable political system encouraging larger group of people supporting it.
Living in the village where one guy have 10 wives and rest of 9 guys living in same village all have 0 wives is not stable political system and that one guy with all girls have hard time trying not to get drive away or getting assasinated by those 9 without wives.
That's just Christian propaganda. Pagans sometimes just raid for wives.Aside from that, most people don't really have more than one wive. Only the wealthy does. If your logic applies, Islam would have been wiped off the face of earth by Christianity ages ago--yet it stands this day growing ever stronger in numbers.Christianity prevailed because of a number of factors.
1. It preached about a god who actually loves it's creations, one who doesn't treat them like disposable dirt--with the church on earth providing much community assistance from maintaining hospitals to helping the poor.
2. The Christians won battles against the pagans. If Constantine lost the Battle of Milvian Bridge, paganism might still be dominant. The same could be said about Charlemagne losing the Saxon Wars. The native Americans wouldn't have embraced Christianity if they actually defeated the European invaders.
3. Pagan rulers actually wanted to integrate their state into the wider community. Foreign princesses refused to marry pagan rulers.
4. Luck also plays a great role. If Julian the 'Apostate' didn't get killed by a Persian or a Roman Christian spear, whichever you want to believe, he might have consolidated paganism and turned Christianity into a less dominant position again.
Last edited:
The Romans were well on their way to putting the kabosh on this before Christ was born... :angry:
Hey, now, not all of us. Just, unfortunately, influential segments of the population.
That is also not the point at all. The claim here was that the idea of "more sexually permissive" pagans is modern, not that Pagan poligamy is a modern idea. And in any case, that is not the point of this topic.
Don't forget the fact that many more pagans died in the wild/hunting/in raids (because there were so many more raids, apparently), than in Christian population centers (where men and women died evenly due to disease, and women certainly died more from childbirth, where pagan household conditions were rather cleaner than those of European cities).
Of course, but if someone wanted to know how, wouldn't hurt to mention it.