Pagan Conversions: Forced or Peaceful? A Ratio

[Erasmus7]

Hi,

I have been conducting a great deal of research in church history recently, and have a query:

What percent of Christian conversion of non-Christian peoples came about through peaceful witness, and what percent through the sword?

From what I can deduce from my reading thus far, I think conversions during the first few centuries up to 800AD was largely through missionary monks and peaceful means, with Charlemagne (c.800AD) the first to force conversion with, eg, the Germanic Saxons.

I know forced conversions happened from at least the 16th century onward with, eg, the Aztecs and South Americans, although there were plenty of peace-orientated missionaries as well, many of whom were martyred.

From the 19th century on missions and conversion were, to the best of my knowledge, largely peaceful.

So then, can anyone fill in the gaps to the above and, moreover, provide some kind of ratio as to how many conversions were forced and how many achieved through peaceful appeal?

Regards,
Erasmus

 

[Tolworth John]

A ratio of forced to voluntary conversion. That is impossible to calculate.
Most rulers through out history have wanted their subjects to broadly follow what ever religion the ruler practised. So as europe after the roman empire fell, was ruled by a mixture of pagan and 'christian' rulers there would have been a large element of coercion to change religion.
The teutonic knights were particularly brutal in their crusades in poleland and beyound.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I agree that a ratio is almost impossible to determine. Fact of the matter is that even where conversion occurred "by the sword", this usually happened on the back of some form of missionary activity as well.

Rome converted to Christianity under Theodosius, or to be more precise, explicitly required it from then on. The first few centuries had been peaceful and Constantine and his immediate successors had favoured Christianity, but had not forced conversion of Pagans. Only from Theodosius was a firm policy in place to this effect, although state support of Pagan cults and temples was gradually removed prior to this. This could be considered the first 'forced conversions', but the Empire was already largely Christian by that time, or at least the majority of its ruling classes.

The conversion of the barbarians was largely by peaceful means, most notably Wulfilas amongst the Goths, but this largely led to Arianism there.
Patrick started the conversion process in Ireland and later Irish attempts to convert the Picts and Northerumbria followed. Similarly Augustine's mission converted the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy from the south upwards. Once converted, the Angli-Saxons sent missionaries like Boniface amongst the Frisians and continental Saxons as well.
Even here though, it was not entirely peaceful. When one ruler converted, he was often opposed by others and some military event followed, not to mention that most rulers required the conversion of their followers. Good examples are Edwin and Oswald of Northumbria here. So even 'peaceful' conversions have a bit of a forced character sometimes, a Compelle Intrare.

So when Charlemagne forced the Saxons to bend the knee and cut down the Irminsul pillar, there were already Christians amongst them. This was why this conversion occurred so speedily. By contrast, the conversion of the old Prussians and Livonia took centuries because it happened mostly by the sword, as Tolworth noted above.
The conversion of Latin America began with the conquistadores, but was effected by Dominican, Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries actually teaching the natives and often co-opting native imagery and ideas, peaceful conversion as it were, under the aegis of the Spanish crown. Las Casas or the Virgin of Gaudalupe are good examples here.

Conversion by the sword is ineffective without concomittent peaceful attempts and peaceful attempts eventually had a military reaction as old pagan elites opposed the newly converted. A dichotomy between peaceful conversion and militaristic ones of peoples, or a ratio to that effect, is thus highly artificial.

An exception that proves the rule is perhaps Iceland, where the Allthing, the Icelandic parliament, voted to convert wholesale to Christianity to forstall such conflict.

 

[ambc]

Why does it matter if people from the past came to know Christ peacefully or forcefully? The important part is that salvation was achieved for the former heathens. The end always justify the means when it comes to faith.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The end always justify the means when it comes to faith.

Might I introduce you to my four friends, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[now faith]

Nobody can be forced to salvation,you may be forced to take part in religious ceremony ,out of obedience but that is it.

This is one of America's greatest attributes, freedom of religon.
To ask how many were converted by what means,would take a geographical study world wide.
You would need to account for Christian Churches located in countries that are predominantly Pagan.
For instance China ,you could qualify a Christian Church there as done by there free will.
Pagan influence is still mingled into Christianity as a whole.
Constantine joined them both and gave them one day of worship,
Sunday / Sun's day.
Theodosius would be a represinitive of forced religion, we cannot deny the dark ages ,Crusades ,Spanish Inquisition, and more.
I doubt you can ever get a close number of converts by any means.
You cannot know what God knows.
My opinion is those who are truly children of God ,were converted by free will.
Missions and groups teaching by peaceful means.
Even Islamic terrorist can be converted ,with God all things are possible.
Sad to say being raised in a forced religion, the converted would be rare.