Fatwa on terror, what the hell.

**HoreTore** · 03-09-2010, 20:15

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Actually, Cnut used Christian missionaries from England in the early 11th Century to convert Danes and Norwegians. The "Christian Law" you refer to was mostly Roman Law, or some locally adapted version thereof. Evangelising began with the ruler because the missionaries needed protection, especially in the North where they were often killed without pause. This was in fact so endemic that the English made a point of boasting that they did not kill the first missionaries sent to them; and claimed this as a unique acolade.

Of course, what the Monks and Clerics brought with them in addition to Christianity was writing, which offered a ruler the ability to much more efficiently order, control and tax his lands. Writing also offered immortality through written history, something very popular amongst the Norse in particular, I believe.

If idag.no's search function wasn't so horribly bad, I'd have a counter for that....

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2010, 00:17

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If idag.no's search function wasn't so horribly bad, I'd have a counter for that....

There are plenty of counters, but it doesn't change the fact that your ancestors converted more or less voluntarily.

**HoreTore** · 03-10-2010, 00:31

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There are plenty of counters, but it doesn't change the fact that your ancestors converted more or less voluntarily.

Now that be rather untrue. When wars are fought and torture is used to convert people it can't be called "voluntarily".

And that has absolutely zero to do with whether Christianity offers a system of government or not.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2010, 00:37

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Now that be rather untrue. When wars are fought and torture is used to convert people it can't be called "voluntarily".

And that has absolutely zero to do with whether Christianity offers a system of government or not.

Cnut was King of Norway, he sent English missionaries. If he had tortured the Norsemen to the extreme he would not have remained King, especially as he spent so much time in sunny England.

**HoreTore** · 03-10-2010, 00:44

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Cnut was King of Norway, he sent English missionaries. If he had tortured the Norsemen to the extreme he would not have remained King, especially as he spent so much time in sunny England.

Uhm.... What? Why would he be deposed because he tortured people? If anything, it would make him more able to retain power.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Cnut was a Dane, not the one who christened Norway and he eventually lost the crown of Norway, due to rebellions...

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2010, 00:59

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm.... What? Why would he be deposed because he tortured people? If anything, it would make him more able to retain power.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Cnut was a Dane, not the one who christened Norway and he eventually lost the crown of Norway, due to rebellions...

Did the Jarls like brutes as Kings then? Odd, the Earls didn't.