View Full Version : Germanian became Christians
Franconicus
10-17-2005, 12:12
Why did they convert? I know that some converted when they beged to get some Roman land. But others converted after they had managed to conquer Roman provinces. Why did they do it?
And why did they accept the dominance of the bishop of Rome?
What I've read was that the Germans mostly wanted to become part of the Empire and enjoy all the advantages from.
Even after the Western Empire fell they didn't want to become enemies or go to much against the Romans. For all they knew it could easily lead to a big Eastern Roman army landing and kicking them out from their newly accuired rich lands, better to play it safe.
And so to adopt Christianity was probably just a thing both to make it look good but also because Christanity had lots of advantages, such as providing the Germans with a free and already established burocracy (sorry for the spelling :embarassed: ).
Hurin_Rules
10-17-2005, 19:32
And why did they accept the dominance of the bishop of Rome?
They didn't.
The bishops of the later Roman church were nowhere near as powerful as the popes of the high Middle Ages came to be. Sure, you had the odd Gregory the Great, but for most of the early Middle Ages the popes had very little control over what happened in the dioceses of Britain, France or Germany. The popes of the 9th and 10th centuries were often the playthings of the local nobility, dominated by and subordinated to local interests. Only in the eleventh century do we start to see the papacy emerging as a political force capable of challenging an emperor for dominance.
One reason why some of the barbarians converted was because it gave them an ally within the foreign populations they were now ruling. The church tended to support the barbarians who converted (so long as they converted to the right strain of christianity and weren't heretics), and the church held a lot of sway with the people.
the acceptance of a state religion by a tribal people usually had a lot of positives alongside the personal needs of the chieftain who brought it to his people. within the package of christianity, the germans were also getting literacy in the form of monks and priests who were also scribes, historians, accountants, and all the other good things of a bureaucracy as Gurkhal also mentioned. it usually give them an edge in thier conflicts with the other tribes. a corrollary of this was that the tribe would usually choose a sect of the religion that was different from that of thier principal foes so that they still retain some freedom from undue interference. therefore, a lot of the original germanic tribes that broke through the roman empire were arrian christians. because their enemies [the romans], were usually catholic/orthodox. and one of the reasons the franks chose catholicism, was that as latecomers to the empire, most of their enemies were those same arrian christian germanic tribes, and this of course facilitated their conquest of gaul and helped the assimiliation into france.
Meneldil
10-18-2005, 07:41
If you consider the Franks as being Germanian, they converted because the major part of the inhabitant of Gaul were Christians. The Franks in Gaul quickly adopted the romano-gallic and gallic customs, as they understood they couldn't rule the country while being considered as foreign invaders.
And there was obviously a diplomatic benefit. The Pope officialised the rule of the Franks over northern France when they converted to christianism.
Franconicus
10-18-2005, 08:12
Meneldil: If you consider the Franks as being Germanian, (what else?)they converted because the major part of the inhabitant of Gaul were Christians. The Franks in Gaul quickly adopted the romano-gallic and gallic customs, as they understood they couldn't rule the country while being considered as foreign invaders. why didn't they force the people to join their religion. The Macedonians did not convert to the religion of the Persians, did they? The Germans would not have converted to Russian orthodoxy if they had won WW2. Why convert to the religion of the loosers?
And there was obviously a diplomatic benefit. The Pope officialised the rule of the Franks over northern France when they converted to christianism. The pope had no real power. They could have installed their own religious leader.
nokhor: ... within the package of christianity, the germans were also getting literacy in the form of monks and priests who were also scribes, historians, accountants, and all the other good things of a bureaucracy ...
They changed their gods for - books ~:confused:
Meneldil: If you consider the Franks as being Germanian, (what else?)they converted because the major part of the inhabitant of Gaul were Christians. The Franks in Gaul quickly adopted the romano-gallic and gallic customs, as they understood they couldn't rule the country while being considered as foreign invaders. why didn't they force the people to join their religion. The Macedonians did not convert to the religion of the Persians, did they? The Germans would not have converted to Russian orthodoxy if they had won WW2. Why convert to the religion of the loosers?
And there was obviously a diplomatic benefit. The Pope officialised the rule of the Franks over northern France when they converted to christianism. The pope had no real power. They could have installed their own religious leader.
nokhor: ... within the package of christianity, the germans were also getting literacy in the form of monks and priests who were also scribes, historians, accountants, and all the other good things of a bureaucracy ...
They changed their gods for - books ~:confused:
I would like to respond as well. First of all, we should establish that the idea of a whole (germanic) people converting at once or within a very short period of time is an illusion. Until the 10th and 11th centuries, pagan practices and beliefs were commonplace amongst many people in Europe (some of these beliefs endured even until the 19th century or later). Nokhor, though your view seems rather justified, it's actually a bit teleological. It's reasoning backwards that the germanics knew in advance they would eventually be getting learning and literacy out of becoming Christian. So it might seem as a good reason to us now, but I seriously doubt if it would have been viewed by themselves as that. I would however have to admit that the Germanic leadership (for example in Gaul) readily made use of the bishops and monks present as bureaucratic personnel.
As to why the germanic peoples converted (even amongst the germanic leadership, this was a process of hundreds of years), it must have been a combination of personal convictions of leaders, power of persuasion of missionaries, admiration of Roman ways and practical considerations.
Franconicus, your example of Macedonians not converting to the religion of the Persians seems out of context to me. It has long been established that polytheistic religions do not take a exclusivistic stance towards each other (as monotheistic religions ususally do), so the Macodonians had no reason whatsoever to convert to 'Persian religion' (what that may have been anyway). The Germans would not have converted to orthodox Christendom if they had won WWII? Well, first of all the official 'religion' of Russia at the time would have been communism, making this indeed unlikely, but because what you say has never actually happened there is no way of telling if that might not have happened over a longer period of time. Also, it is absolutely nót unlikely for conquerors to take over the conquered's beliefs and ideals. The Romans and their adoption of many Greek (and later, middle-eastern) ways and beliefs offer the most ready example.
As to the Franks forcing the people of Gaul to join their religion, lets not forget tht the Franks were actually a tiny minority within Gaul, most of the population (in the cities, mainly) being Catholic Gallo-Romans. It would most certainly have been a severe problem for them not to take into consideration the convictions of the population and older elites. The Visigoths of Spain, for example, stayed Arians for more then a century (I don't remember the exact amount of time) after the conquered Roman Spain, whose population was also mainly of the Catholic conviction. Not only did the Visigoths not succeed in converting the Spanish to their beliefs, but they actually had considerable problems with the local population as well.
On the question about the pope, I think Hurin_Rules is quite right. Papal influence in this period was minimal, regional synods mainly governing the churches in the former Western Empire and beyond. It wasn't even until centuries later that the popes could commence with making, for example, all rites and liturgies uniform throughout 'Catholic' Christendom. So a religious leader in the sence as it is used here is not a reality at the time. The Franks installing their own religious 'pagan pope' of sorts would have been without precedent (the old pagan german beliefs had no need for such a figure) and anachronistic.
It is as Brutus said; the conversion to Christendom did not happen all at once.
Just look at my ancestors (I believe we belong to the Germanic people), the christening of the Northmen is traditionally considered as by the sword. The reality is that that is half the story. Christian influence on traders was a reality hundreds of years before Norway was christened. The traders that sailed to nations with Christendom returned with impressions and thoughts that left its mark. The seeds were sowed (pun intended). Some of these traders build large crosses etc. on their farms to replicate what they had seen in other nations.
Christian thralls from celtic and other nations, captured in raids and war, made their impact on the people they worked for. There were also monasteries and other Christian influences on the islands that were conquered by the early Vikings. Some of these were destroyed and the monks expelled or killed (Iceland). Three kings of Norway is considered as the ones guilty of christening Norway.
Håkon Adalsteinsfostre, Olav Trygvason and Olav Haraldson.
Håkon(the good)Adalsteinsfostre was fostered by the anglosaxon king Adalstein of England. He was raised as a Christian and tried to christen Norway by the good word alone. That did not happen of course. The Norwegians were too fond of their old ways and wanted to kill their king if he did not stop this nonsense. Håkon was forced to live a pagan life to his death.
Olav Trygvason on the other hand was raised as a thrall in Novgorod and converted to Christianity as a conqueror of lands in Ireland and England. It was the king of England, Ethelred that converted this Viking barbarian and stood as godfather at his baptism.
Olav Trygvason was not indoctrinated with the grace of Christian peace and peaceful way of doing missionary work. He returned to Norway and continued where Håkon Adalsteinsfostre had left off. He too received the same opposition and threats but was not intimidated. His philosophy was that of conversion or fight for your lives. Not exactly the true Christian way. Still, there were many that did convert peacefully and I believe they were the lowly classes, peasants and thralls.
If we look to the pagan ways and religion, we soon discover that it was not easy to live in such a society.
I will mention only a few things that the everyday people strived with.
Destiny or fate was a big thing with the pagans. This was a heavy burden on the lowly classes. Even the gods were subjects to this “lagnaden”(fate). It never helped what one wanted in life if fate wanted differently. If fate was not on your side, it meant tribulation throughout your life and an eternity in Helheim or living as a ghost around the grave.
Only those with good fortune and luck could be considered a candidate for Valhalla and a peer to the mighty and rich.
Christianity preached of a God who was above fate or destiny, and which could save his children from fate. If you lived a certain way you would be received in Heaven when you died.
“Blodhevn” blood revenge was a duty for all men, if someone in your family or tribe or a friend were killed, it was your duty to revenge his or her death by killing someone in the family, tribe or a friend of the killer. If this was not done properly, the friend was dishonored and fate would look disapprovingly resulting in misery for the entire family or tribe. This was a burden on the Norse nations as whole generations were killed. Every peaceful man and woman had to participate in this or their honor were sullied and fate would make trouble.
Christianity loved peace and abhorred blood revenge. Forgiving one’s enemies assured a place in heaven.
The pagan heaven was only reserved for the mighty and the wealthy and men. All women and people from lowly status were destined for Helheim or worse.
When the Christian missionaries came and promised equality for all in heaven, preaching of a good god that was on their side, wanting them in heaven and helping them to do so by angels and a son who suffered to pay for their sins to fate. There is no wonder Christianity became popular amongst the Germanic people.
Regarding the pagan and such I disagree with you, actually about most things. ~;)
Destiny or fate was a big thing with the pagans. This was a heavy burden on the lowly classes. Even the gods were subjects to this “lagnaden”(fate). It never helped what one wanted in life if fate wanted differently. If fate was not on your side, it meant tribulation throughout your life and an eternity in Helheim or living as a ghost around the grave.
Only those with good fortune and luck could be considered a candidate for Valhalla and a peer to the mighty and rich.
The belife in destiny is long and have made a great impact, although I am not totaly sure that's related I know that the idea of a pre-designed fate and destiny was very common within Karl XII's soliders. I would belive that the idea of a destiny isn't something that Christianity was opposed or objected against. And I have no knowledge that this was anything that affected the people at that time, if you could point me into where info about this could be found I would be happy. And also no one knew he the ones with luck and fortune was, you could just as well be you as the king.
Also the places for the deas was not only Vallhall and Helheim. Several other gods accepted the souls of the dead into their halls, Freyjr for example took half of the dead who wouldn't go to Odin, the ones who had lived with honour but weren't as bloodthirsty as the ones who went to Odin as well as Helheim was the place for the cowardly, similer to how the Christian hell is/was the place for the wicked.
“Blodhevn” blood revenge was a duty for all men, if someone in your family or tribe or a friend were killed, it was your duty to revenge his or her death by killing someone in the family, tribe or a friend of the killer. If this was not done properly, the friend was dishonored and fate would look disapprovingly resulting in misery for the entire family or tribe. This was a burden on the Norse nations as whole generations were killed. Every peaceful man and woman had to participate in this or their honor were sullied and fate would make trouble.
Christianity loved peace and abhorred blood revenge. Forgiving one’s enemies assured a place in heaven.
I would have to disagree very stronly with this. These ideas lived on for many hundreds of years after Christianity had become the state religion and the Christians never showed any pacificstic ideas that I knew off. Not only among the common people but well among the nobles did the idea of revange live on for several hundreds of years. Only laws and lots, lots and lots of violence from Birger Jarl (roughly translated as "Earl/Jarl Birger") did worldly laws, made by the worldly leaders stop this. Not because they didn't like it as such, but because it made the kingdom harder to rule with its anti-stabilizing effect, this was done between 1248-1266 AC.
And regarding the Christanity, the real go come when the nobles converted, before that. Like in almost all other Baltic areas the a number of the people went over to Christianity, and then it stopped as all intressted had already come over. Only when the pressure from the top started did the effect come, at least in public while the kings during the Middle Ages kept making laws against sacrifices to Pagan gods and the priest complained that people didn't go to church but to the old cult places when distaster approched.
I belive, I could of course be terrible wrong but you seem to think that the old Germans thought as we did, valued the same things, which they didn't. I don't think any of them saw this as more of a burden than we see democracy as a burden. We "know" it's right and the true way to handle things.
.
Meneldil
10-18-2005, 19:59
why didn't they force the people to join their religion. The Macedonians did not convert to the religion of the Persians, did they? The Germans would not have converted to Russian orthodoxy if they had won WW2. Why convert to the religion of the loosers?
As Brutus said, there's a huge difference between polytheist and monotheist religions. Furthermore, I'm fairly sure people from Ptolemy's dynasty were represented as Egyptian divinities.
And the german wouldn't have converted to orthodoxism because they would have pretty much eradicated russian orthodoxism from the face of earth.
And obviously, the fact the Franks were pretty much a minority of Pagans among a large majority of Christian was a serious issue. And, as offensive as it may sounds, the Franks customs were quite backward compared with romano-gallic or even gallic ones (thus why the franks quickly adopted a lot of the customs of conquered regions).
Brutus, ancient sources explain that not only Clovis converted to Christianism, but also that his whole army, his whole family did so. Now, of course, some of the Frankish customs were still in effect long after the conversion (as you said, germanic law was still used in northern France before Napoleon created the Civil Code) but I'm doubtful about the 'First of all, we should establish that the idea of a whole (germanic) people converting at once or within a very short period of time is an illusion.' part. The fact people were still using some old (pagan) customs didn't make them pagans. Imposing the christianism 'way of life' upon previous barbarian customs took what ? One century, maybe two, but 4 or 5 ? That sounds a bit much.
Franconius,
i am arguing that the germans converted from odin and thor not just for books, but because they realised that books were the path to the wealth they saw all around them when they were within the empire. they came to understand that to gain that wealth in the form of taxes on land, great fortified cities, rich food and clothing etc you needed to have an educated class, and the best way to have an educated class of your own was through christianity. it was also a way to for the chieftain to become a king and to strenghten his personal power, and the power of his family vis a vis the nobility of the tribe.
Seamus,
i think a lot of the barbarians could see tangible benefits of literacy within their life times. the late roman empire is full of stories of a second generation barbarian becoming an erudite, urbane strongman. a lot of these chieftains sent their sons to the empire in the ages old 'hostage exchange system' where the youth would learn the benefits of civilization. and consequently became that much more a danger to the empire when they went back home. stilicho, attila, alaric and i think odovacer all spent time at the imperial court. and these are the guys that surpassed the power of their fathers. even justinian was only one generation removed from peasent stock. so i think a lot of the chieftains realized the value education through religion could provide to their offspring.
Brutus, ancient sources explain that not only Clovis converted to Christianism, but also that his whole army, his whole family did so. Now, of course, some of the Frankish customs were still in effect long after the conversion (as you said, germanic law was still used in northern France before Napoleon created the Civil Code) but I'm doubtful about the 'First of all, we should establish that the idea of a whole (germanic) people converting at once or within a very short period of time is an illusion.' part. The fact people were still using some old (pagan) customs didn't make them pagans. Imposing the christianism 'way of life' upon previous barbarian customs took what ? One century, maybe two, but 4 or 5 ? That sounds a bit much.
I admit that the timespan I suggested may be a bit long, but when the ancient sources say that Clovis, his whole army and his whole family converted to Christianity at once I would like to remark two things:
1. The sources you mean are probably Christian themselves. The writers of these sources would have every reason to say everyone at once converted, because this would make the christian God, the Christian writer and his Christian master look much better. So (although I don't know which sources you mean?), I would be inclined to dubt the reliabilty of the sources.
2. Clovis, his whole army and his whole family doesn't mean all of the Franks. Even when the Franks were a tiny minority on the Gallo-Roman population, it would still have been several thousends (maybe tens or even hundreds of thousends) and so far too many to reach within a short timespan, most probably even too many to reach all during Clovis' and St. Remigius' lifetime.
Fact is that at least until far in the 8th century missionaries (like for example St. Boniface) were travelling far and wide through the European continent, also in regions nominally Frankish.
Finally, and I probably didn't stress this enough in my last post, most of the indiginous Christian population would have been people from Cities, larger towns and the surrounding countryside at this time. Obviously, within Roman society cities were the centres of power and therefore very important, but many people in the (remote) countryside would still have been pagan. Even much so that the latin word Paganus, at first meaning 'boorish', 'countryman' or 'peasant', finally gained the extra meaning of 'someone being pagan'. In those times distances were almost literary much 'greater' than they are now, so it would have taken a very long time for such new beliefs to reach everyone.
Regarding the pagan and such I disagree with you, actually about most things.~;)
Yes, I guess it is genetic for all Swedes to disagree with a Northman.
The belife in destiny is long and have made a great impact, although I am not totaly sure that's related I know that the idea of a pre-designed fate and destiny was very common within Karl XII's soliders.
Superstition is quite common amongst soldiers in a war.
I would belive that the idea of a destiny isn't something that Christianity was opposed or objected against.
Christianity is all about choice; that we choose our destiny by our actions.
There is no all-controlling fate that runs her way no matter what we try to do in Christian dogma. If you find elements of this it is corrupted Christianity.
And also no one knew he the ones with luck and fortune was, you could just as well be you as the king.
I don’t quite understand this statement…
Also the places for the deas was not only Vallhall and Helheim. Several other gods accepted the souls of the dead into their halls, Freyjr for example took half of the dead who wouldn't go to Odin,
Oh really? This is news to me… you have 4 “worlds” in Norse mythology: Aasgard, Midtgard, Helheim and Utgard.
Valhall is Óðinn’s hall in Aasgard; the kingdom of the gods and worthy men.
Midtgard is our world.
Helheim is the kingdom of Hel and all that died that didn’t make it to Asgard.
Utgard is the realm of Trolls and Jotner.
Helheim was the place for the cowardly, similer to how the Christian hell is/was the place for the wicked.Correct…
I would have to disagree very stronly with this. These ideas lived on for many hundreds of years after Christianity had become the state religion and the Christians never showed any pacificstic ideas that I knew off. Not only among the common people but well among the nobles did the idea of revange live on for several hundreds of years
... (etc.)
I don’t see why you strongly disagree with what I wrote as I did not assert anything in that section that was of a strong subjective opinion. I stated the basics of blood revenge, that it was a burden of Norse society as it depopulated regions. That it was a duty to all involved whether they agreed or not and finally that this practice did not comply with Christian dogma. Where is the inconsistency?
I have on several occasions proclaimed that the Norse was never truly converted to Christianity. And as I suspect you are trying to tell me, there are several things in the practice of Christianity amongst the Norse that on can point to. The mix between paganism and Christianity is well known.
The first missionaries tried to sell something better than what the pagans already had.
The selling point was an assurance of a better afterlife. That even if you fell, all was not lost as you could still redeem yourself.
What they did not care to tell was all the baggage that nearly 900 years of keeping a dead religion artificially alive had brought to Christianity. I am thinking of the inequality of sexes and other things that are better not discussed here.
Kagemusha
10-19-2005, 16:03
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_tribes#Conversion_to_Christianity
Conversion to Christianity
The Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Vandals were Christianized while they were still outside the bounds of the Empire; however, they converted to Arianism rather than to orthodox Catholicism, and were soon regarded as heretics. The one great written remnant of the Gothic language is a translation of portions of the Bible made by Ulfilas, the missionary who converted them. The Lombards were not converted until after their entrance into the Empire, but received Christianity from Arian Germanic groups.
The Franks were converted directly from paganism to Catholicism without an intervening time as Arians. Several centuries later, Anglo-Saxon and Frankish missionaries and warriors undertook the conversion of their Saxon neighbours. A key event was the felling of Thor's Oak near Fritzlar by Boniface, apostle of the Germans, in 723. Eventually, the conversion was forced by armed force, successfully completed by Charlemagne, in a series of campaigns (the Saxon Wars), that also brought Saxon lands into the Frankish empire.
Yes, I guess it is genetic for all Swedes to disagree with a Northman.
I'll take that as a joke, didn't see that you were from Norway untill I wrote my respons.
And also no one knew he the ones with luck and fortune was, you could just as well be you as the king.
I don’t quite understand this statement…
It means that even if you're a slave or a farmer means that you shouldn't just sitt down and refuse to do anything since you destined to live a hard life anyway and there isn't any need to care since it won't improve.
No one knows who was marked for fortune or a bad life.
The belife in destiny is long and have made a great impact, although I am not totaly sure that's related I know that the idea of a pre-designed fate and destiny was very common within Karl XII's soliders.
Superstition is quite common amongst soldiers in a war.
It took it as if you explained that fate was part of the Norse religion. If you weren't then it was a matter of missunderstanding.
Oh really? This is news to me… you have 4 “worlds” in Norse mythology: Aasgard, Midtgard, Helheim and Utgard.
Valhall is Óðinn’s hall in Aasgard; the kingdom of the gods and worthy men.
Midtgard is our world.
Helheim is the kingdom of Hel and all that died that didn’t make it to Asgard.
Utgard is the realm of Trolls and Jotner.
Don't forget Alfheim, the realm of the elves where also Balder had his hall as well as Njords hall on the bottom of the sea and several mores. There are four main worlds, but there are also a number of others who don't appere as often as the four big.
don’t see why you strongly disagree with what I wrote as I did not assert anything in that section that was of a strong subjective opinion. I stated the basics of blood revenge, that it was a burden of Norse society as it depopulated regions. That it was a duty to all involved whether they agreed or not and finally that this practice did not comply with Christian dogma. Where is the inconsistency?
I have on several occasions proclaimed that the Norse was never truly converted to Christianity. And as I suspect you are trying to tell me, there are several things in the practice of Christianity amongst the Norse that on can point to. The mix between paganism and Christianity is well known.
The first missionaries tried to sell something better than what the pagans already had.
The selling point was an assurance of a better afterlife. That even if you fell, all was not lost as you could still redeem yourself.
What they did not care to tell was all the baggage that nearly 900 years of keeping a dead religion artificially alive had brought to Christianity. I am thinking of the inequality of sexes and other things that are better not discussed here.
Then it was a simple missunderstanding.
Oh really? This is news to me… you have 4 “worlds” in Norse mythology: Aasgard, Midtgard, Helheim and Utgard.
Whoa, whoa. Not that I'm a viking myself, but there a nine worlds.
Supporting page! (http://www.timelessmyths.com/norse/way.html#Worlds)
Sigurd, you seem a little bitter, and Franconicus too. Sure, I may be stabbing in the dark, but my curiosity has been piqued.
I'll take that as a joke, didn't see that you were from Norway untill I wrote my respons. It was, brother...
It means that even if you're a slave or a farmer means that you shouldn't just sitt down and refuse to do anything since you destined to live a hard life anyway and there isn't any need to care since it won't improve.
No one knows who was marked for fortune or a bad life.
I see what you mean.
It took it as if you explained that fate was part of the Norse religion. If you weren't then it was a matter of missunderstanding.
It is. That was my point. It does however not belong in Christianity and I believe that Karl XII's soliders were Christians. The history is full of soldiers turning to non-Christian beliefs in the time of need. You have rabbit feet, lucky charms and Christian kings praying to Thor on a very bad day at sea.
Don't forget Alfheim, the realm of the elves where also Balder had his hall as well as Njords hall on the bottom of the sea and several mores. There are four main worlds, but there are also a number of others who don't appere as often as the four big.
Whoa, whoa. Not that I'm a viking myself, but there a nine worlds.
Supporting page! (http://www.timelessmyths.com/norse/way.html#Worlds)
Sigurd, you seem a little bitter, and Franconicus too. Sure, I may be stabbing in the dark, but my curiosity has been piqued.
I am not bitter; I just had a bad day yesterday. You would probably notice that my posting style seldom get worse than my reply to Gurkhal. If I have a bad day I will only omit emoticons…
To the core of the issue:
I am aware of the nine worlds, but there are discrepancies there. The popular belief of the north countries is that the major worlds in fact were somewhere in Midgard.
Helheim and Niflheim is the same as Hel built her kingdom in Niflheim. Vanaheim where destroyed by the Asir (the gods of Aasgard).
The realms of the elfs, dwarfs and the trolls were intertwined with the realm of men and were at some point combined to Utgard(the far places = Alfheim, Jotunheim, Nidavellir, SvartAlfaheim).
Muspelheim and Niflheim was the two worlds that combined created all-that-is in the void between them.
Muspelheim was the place of heat and Niflheim was the place of cold.
But you seldom hear about them after the creation. That is until the gods threw out Hel, the daughter of Loke and a Jotne(troll). They threw her out to the place in the cold north, to Niflheim.
Ok, you may ask, so Niflheim is either in Midgard or Aasgard?
The Vikings believed that Aasgard was a kingdom in the middle of Midgard somewhere to the east of Scandinavia. Many went to search for it. In fact in the younger Edda(the source of the nine worlds) a Swedish king (Gylve) went and searched for Aasgard and found it. There he met Odin in the form of Hár, Jafnhár and Þriði. They tell him the story of the gods, the creation story if you want, just as the prophets got the creation story of their deity of old Judaism.
This story is however called Gylvaginning (the deception of Gylve) indicating that Odin tricked Gylve. If you start reading about this you soon realise that there are discrepancies.
I have formed the opinion that the mythology is rooted in factual events. That Aasgard was a place to the east; the place where Óðinn and his blotgoder came from, that Vanaland was a neighbouring nation that Aasgard had several wars with. The Lore tells that Njord was a Vanir, a captive from the war.
Then it was a simple missunderstanding. no problem m8...
Niflheim and Helheim are not one and the same if Helheim was made in Niflheim, much like how Trollheim and Alfheim are a part of Midgard and also separate.
I had hopes for finding something on the web reflecting the things I said…
I found one image that reflects this which in my opinion was the popular “world” view of the people of the Viking age and still is taught in Norse classes at secondary school.
http://www.christopher.no/litteratur/verden.gif
Notice that I use quotation marks on the word world here and in my previous post. This is because I am using the word world in a light sense and should not be considered as contradicting the nine worlds of Snorre Sturlason.
It is the popular grouping of realms and levels.
It is to these worlds the dead will go; Asgard for the good and valiant, Helheim for the unlucky and fate-doomed, some believed that they would continue in Midtgard as daudingar (ghosts) or dwell as skrømt in Utgard if you had allegiances with that sort of creatures.
All said and done, this is mythology and is by definition hearsay or folklore and will without doubt come in several versions or variations.
I once read one person’s thought product on the matter which I thought at the moment was quite interesting.
I can’t remember if he was a student of religious history or if he was a professor of the same subject.
He postulated that Utgard was in fact Denmark and the trolls (giants) were goth.
[edit]:Now this is food for thought and will fit nicely in with your work - Kraxis.
He said that the goth never pronounced the ‘g’ like ‘g’ but more like a ‘j’. Hence gotun (goter pl.) became jotun and the place of gotun became Jotunheim.
Gotland became Jutland and later Jylland and so forth.
He further postulated that the different types of creatures were in fact just other ethnic people and that Utgard was the “world” outside what the Norse considered their “world” but all realms were in Midtgard.
Franconicus
10-26-2005, 13:35
Sogurd, I am physicist and I can tell you that your picture is a very precise model of the world as it is. Forget the antiquated theory thatthe earth is a ball. ~:joker:
Sigurd, I am physicist and I can tell you that your picture is a very precise model of the world as it is. Forget the antiquated theory that the earth is a ball. ~:joker: Laugh it up Tyskermann... ~D
I am the one who argues that Heimskringla should be interpreted as the globe upon which we dwell. ~:cheers:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.