What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

My impression is that the conversion of Germannic and Slavic Europe had a significant "by the sword" component. The Baltic Crusaders were pretty brutal as I understand it, and the conversions of Saxony and Scandinavia were pretty rough at times to, with "convert or die" being employed with some frequency.

After that I agree that Christianity refocused mostly on persuasion and coercion to encourage conversion.

Yeah same - and I think this is the thing that is slightly missed in the City of God/Man strand of Christian thought is it didn't mean secular authorities had no role. It was two pillars of Church and state buttressing each other. I think it was fairly brutal and involved force. I think those myths (I think in the Rus and Poles) of the King converting and then his people being baptised in the river after him which I think contains (and maybe hints) at compulsion with mass conversion.

As Gups says Jews were expelled across Europe and there were forced conversions (as well as restrictions on profession, land ownership, travel, living space etc). I don't know of anywhere in Europe where Islam was tolerated.

And I think there is a contrast with Islamic societies' approach to Jews and Christians - I think because they thought of them as ultimately worshiping the same God via earlier prophets. I think you even see it in the contrast of the sudden conversions of Europe (king and people baptising in the Dnieper) v North Africa where conversion to Islam seems to have taken centuries and there aren't any myths of everyone just becoming Muslim. Again possibly because of a preference for the tax income but also - and I could be totally wrong - I think to Brain's point there was an early phase of whether Islam was universal or a faith of the Arabs.

Although - and I also know very little so could well be wrong - my understanding is that Zoroastrians as they were outside of that protection suffered far worse. There were mass conversions, fire temples were destroyed, restrictions on land ownership and professions etc. I'm not so sure about Hinduism although as OvB says obviously it changes across time and with different regimes.

[Jacob]

Big Chuck got his idea about the conversions of the Saxon from Clovis - who saved time according to the chronicles by force marching the defeated enemy across a river to baptize them, then killed them on the far side so they wouldn't backslide...

Convert AND be killed. Hadn't heard of that one.

[Jacob]

Yeah same - and I think this is the thing that is slightly missed in the City of God/Man strand of Christian thought is it didn't mean secular authorities had no role. It was two pillars of Church and state buttressing each other. I think it was fairly brutal and involved force. I think those myths (I think in the Rus and Poles) of the King converting and then his people being baptised in the river after him which I think contains (and maybe hints) at compulsion with mass conversion.

As Gups says Jews were expelled across Europe and there were forced conversions (as well as restrictions on profession, land ownership, travel, living space etc). I don't know of anywhere in Europe where Islam was tolerated.

And I think there is a contrast with Islamic societies' approach to Jews and Christians - I think because they thought of them as ultimately worshiping the same God via earlier prophets. I think you even see it in the contrast of the sudden conversions of Europe (king and people baptising in the Dnieper) v North Africa where conversion to Islam seems to have taken centuries and there aren't any myths of everyone just becoming Muslim. Again possibly because of a preference for the tax income but also - and I could be totally wrong - I think to Brain's point there was an early phase of whether Islam was universal or a faith of the Arabs.

Although - and I also know very little so could well be wrong - my understanding is that Zoroastrians as they were outside of that protection suffered far worse. There were mass conversions, fire temples were destroyed, restrictions on land ownership and professions etc. I'm not so sure about Hinduism although as OvB says obviously it changes across time and with different regimes.

Yeah the scholarship (and more popular history conveyors*) I've read on the Christianization of Scandinavia is that it was primarily driven by magnates and kings - to avoid aggression by the Holy Roman Empire, to better integrate into international networks (trade, alliances), as an alliance tool in the various internal power struggles, and because Christianity was an effective way to consolidate the power of whoever was king.

Being anointed set the king apart from the other magnates in a way that didn't exist prior to that - where kingship ended up with whatever magnate landed on top after the previous one was removed. As well, the administrative machinery of the Church was very useful in centralizing and running the kingdoms.

*as an aside, in Danish there's a specific term for professionals whose job it is to convey specialized knowledge to the population at large - e.g. museum staff and writers and so on who translate history research into something accessible to the public, but it's also applies in the sciences and elsewhere. Is there an English equivalent term? I feel like the closest equivalent is "pop historian", but that has a more derogatory edge to it in my ears...

[Sheilbh]

*as an aside, in Danish there's a specific term for professionals whose job it is to convey specialized knowledge to the population at large - e.g. museum staff and writers and so on who translate history research into something accessible to the public, but it's also applies in the sciences and elsewhere. Is there an English equivalent term? I feel like the closest equivalent is "pop historian", but that has a more derogatory edge to it in my ears...

Yeah I think that would be popular historian - I can't think of another term for it. That's what the Rest is History guys are for example (though I think one was once an academic historian). For me the classic examples are the TV historians like Michael Wood or Lucy Worsley. (Edit: Basically like history David Attenboroughs).

Also (I think fairly senior/older) academics write popular histories too.

And writing that, I feel like you'd use the phrase more for the thing, rather than it being a role. So they've written  popular history rather than they are popular historians. Though I think in the US they're called trade books, which sounds even more derogatory to me

[HVC]

Trade books are anything intended to be sold by stores and retails. Basically anything besides text books and professional books (ie professional doctors manuals, GAAP manual)

[Jacob]

The thing is, it's not just about writing books aimed at the popular market.

It's about communicating with the public - so it involves designing museum exhibits, speaking to the media, writing articles in regular media, designing material of use for teaching elementary and high school students, public facing archeology, (historically accurate) reenactment, and so on. Blog posts and youtube channels definitely count as well.

All of those things are designed to convey knowledge to the public about the area of expertise in a way that's relevant and accessible and are considered an important part of the field.

And it's not that it isn't done in the English languague - it very clearly is, just look at Brett Devereaux's ACOUP blog or the British Museum's Curator's Corner youtube channel. But it seems it doesn't have term for the activity as a whole.

Just another linguistic/ cultural minor difference, I guess.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. In terms of CV/job descriptions it would be described "public engagement" I think.

Although, incidentally, a friend of mine has worked on the last update to the curriculum in the subject he teaches (he's a hgih school teacher) for that exam board and has written a couple of the accompanying textbooks. Which earns basically no royalties from (I think all his co-authors are also high school teachers too).

[The Brain]

I think the political expressions of Christianity are less interesting in this context than the core qualities of the religion itself. Those qualities have greatly influenced the political expressions of Christianity, but many political expressions are possible and can be seen in history, depending on a number of factors (relative power etc etc). And one of the core qualities is that you cannot be a Christian AND for instance believe in Old Norse religion. If you convert to Christianity you MUST leave other religions behind*. I think this quality has helped Christianity achieve the position it holds today. It helped it in its early centuries when it wasn't in power, and it helped it after it found itself in power. On a purely religious level it is extremely aggressive.

*For messerschmitts: various intermediate stages of a conversion process are possible, indeed natural, but fundamentally you cannot be a Christian and believe in other gods.

[Jacob]

Yeah. In terms of CV/job descriptions it would be described "public engagement" I think.

Although, incidentally, a friend of mine has worked on the last update to the curriculum in the subject he teaches (he's a hgih school teacher) for that exam board and has written a couple of the accompanying textbooks. Which earns basically no royalties from (I think all his co-authors are also high school teachers too).

Actuallly "public engagement" is probably the term I was looking for

[Admiral Yi]

I have a vague recollection of reading that Mo Mo had a soft spot for Jews because the Jewish community in Medina gave him some help early in his career.

[HVC]

I think a large part of early* Christian success was its malleability. A large group are willing to convert but don't want to cut part of your dick off? It's not necessary anymore. Like pork? Pork for everyone! You like your local pagan deities? They're local saints now**.

Later when religion was tied to leadership in the Christian world force became much more common. Before that it was a lot more carrot. Heaven also played a big part. Older religions didn't focus much in the afterlife. But you tell a bunch of downtrodden peasants, serfs, and soldiers that when you die the meek shall inherit the earth then that sounds better then what you have now is all you have, now sacrifice a goat. Army mobility was a big thing too. Moving legions around spread the religion across the Roman world as many soldiers were Christian.


*early might not be the best term, but up until at least the 900s before the popes got uppity.

**much later many to be removed from the calendar of saints once Christianity was enshrined.

[Admiral Yi]

I've also read that one of the early drivers of conversion to Christianity was that it gave merchants in the Roman empire counterparties they felt they could trust more.

[HVC]

I've also read that one of the early drivers of conversion to Christianity was that it gave merchants in the Roman empire counterparties they felt they could trust more.

They also went into a phase were cults were a a huge fad, and Christianity fit in. Perfect timing.  For example the cult of Antinous (deified lover of Hadrian) was bigger than Christianity for a while. You have Sol Invictus, Elagabalus , and others I can't remember. But there were a bunch. Christianity held on.

[Sheilbh]

But again that goes to Brain's points. Those were cults that one could fit into a range of religious beliefs lifestyles. Christianity was a little more exclusive - the way the truth the life.

[HVC]

But again that goes to Brain's points. Those were cults that one could fit into a range of religious beliefs lifestyles. Christianity was a little more exclusive - the way the truth the life.

True. Sorry I wasn't trying to defy his point, just add a bit to the history of its success.