Pagan Questions

[Eochaid]

BEFORE I GET STARTED, NO NEED TO TELL ME THAT THE CK FAQ SAYS WE CAN ONLY PLAY CHRISTIAN DYNASTIES! I KNOW IT. YET I STILL HAVE A QUESTION?

WHY AM I WRITING IN BOLD CHARACTERS? BECAUSE I ACCIDENTALY PRESSED CAPS LOCK AND AM TO LAZY TO REWRITE EVERYTHING!

In 1066 only the southern tip of Scandinavia had been converted to christianism. IIRC, the first Archbishop of Sweden was appointed in 1135.

So if we want to play.... lets say a northern Swedish dynasty, can we start as a Pagan and convert later. Or even can we remain Pagan? Or can we only play southern Norvegian and Swedish dynasties?

I for one would like to play a Swedish dynasty having to face the fight between the people still worshiping Odin, Freya and Thor and the Christians. And have to chose which side it wants to support.

So could we remain pagan in Northern Scandinavia for a while?

 

[unmerged(5664)]

No. Game mechanics are only set up for Christian nations.

You could perhaps playing a later scenario, when the area has been converted, but only just...

 

[Idiotboy]

Well Olof Skötkonung was the first christian king IIRC and he ruled from 995 to 1022 so I wouldn´t worry to much about that. Besides it doesn´t matter to much what the population thinks anyhow, it´s what the rulers have for religion what matters.

 

[Eochaid]

Ok. But playing a christian Viking is just not.......

Well I'll have to be Christian and convert all those damn Pagans and Heretics.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Eochaid
Well I'll have to be Christian and convert all those damn Pagans and Heretics.

That's the spirit! Show them the light of God, whether they want it or not!

 

[Eochaid]

Yeah! We'll kill the men, r*** their women, loot their villages and burn their barns in the name of God! Hurrah for Jesus Christ, the best party-organizer ever. Otherwise those long winter days would be so boring in the North.

And lets all boo the Pagans to let them know they are wrong:

 

[Vandelay]

There were a number of kings after Olof Skötkonung who were supposedly pagans e.g. Blot Sven, but some modern historians believe this is only the "winner´s history" - they are described as pagans by their political enemies to smear their names.

Another relatively new theory is that the Swedish kings post-1000 AD described as pagan were actually Orthodox rather than Catholic.

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[Eochaid]

Thanks Vandelay! That could be a great idea for the game.

Lets say we begin the game as Pagan and immediatly have to chose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

An Orthodox Sweden wouldn't be a stupid thing, as the Vikings had very strong commercial ties with the Rus and thus could have converted. Besides, The Kievian Rus was at its all-time high IIRC, under King Yaroslav the Wise.

And it could be fun to see the Orthodox dynasties trying to convert their Pagan Brethren in Sweden/Finland or Estonia/Lettonia/Lithuania before the Teutonics do.

 

[Vandelay]

One problem, from a strictly Swedish perspective, is that the game starts in 1066 - a year when two pretenders to the throne, Erik Stenkilsson and Erik the Heathen, fight for the throne. According to the story they died fighting each other and Erik Stenkilsson´s brother Halsten rose to the throne.

If the game (through an event) allows a victory for Erik the Heathen then I guess Sweden can convert to Paganism.

Halsten kept the throne for less than a year and was replaced by Håkon the Red (who is believed to be Halsten Stenkilsson´s bastard brother) who later took as his co-king Inge Stenkilsson.

Inge Stenkilsson was driven out of Svealand c. 1080 by the pagan Blot Sven, but returned a few years later. According to traditional history Inge then had the pagan temple at Uppsala burnt. Blot Sven was the last pagan pretender to the Swedsih throne.

I wonder how Paradox/ Snowball will portray this chaos in game? I also wonder whether the Stenkil dynasty will be the only possible Swedish dynasty - playing the the historical Erik dynasty, Sverker dynasty or the Bjälbo dynasty would be more fun.

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[Eochaid]

Thanks for backing me up with accurate historical knowledge. I have to admit that my Scandinavian history after 1000 A.D. is a bit rusty.

Maybe will Sergeï check this thread and give us an answer.

Pajalsta Sergeï, skaji mne! (damn latin keyboards! )

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Originally posted by Eochaid

In 1066 only the southern tip of Scandinavia had been converted to christianism. IIRC, the first Archbishop of Sweden was appointed in 1135.

Uh, Yes? But Norway and Denmark had been officially christian for quite some time, right? And viking-age-romanticism notwithstanding, 1000AD Norway and Denmark(don't know much about sweden) were quite likely heavily christianized before any kings got the idea to force-convert the north (wooden churches from the 900s have been found in Norway, at least, and Denmark received a much more direct cultural influence from the continent than my ancestors ever did).


EF

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Eochaid
In 1066 only the southern tip of Scandinavia had been converted to christianism. IIRC, the first Archbishop of Sweden was appointed in 1135.

An archbischopry would be simultaneously a political move and an acknowledgement that christianity has spread all over the place.

AFAIK you need to have a bishop or two in place before you can get to have your own archbishop.

Also, 1066 is considered the end of the viking age, so pagen or christian aside, you won't be able to call yourself a viking

So I guess it is crusades for you all the way

 

[unmerged(5415)]

Hang on - forget about Scandinavia: the lands of the Lithuanians, the Samogitians, Yotvingians and Couranians were not christian and had plenty of lords and good armies...

in fact, the Duchy of Lithuania of Duke Mindaugas was founded in 1230 but only became christian in 1251... which is why they were able to expand over the christian russian principalities... does that mean the Lithuanian state will not be playable in the 1230s and 40s?

Regards,
Keoland