I have yet another small post of half-formed thoughts. I very much enjoyed the most recent episode where you all covered a perspective on Anglo-Saxon conversion to Christianity. Full disclosure: I am neither an historian nor an academic.
That being said, I found the proposal that the conversion of kingdoms was related to politicians/leaders making changes for expediency quite resonant for me when I think about history more broadly. There are numerous possible examples of political entities aligning themselves with religious leaders or movements to gain power (thinking the modern kingdom of Saudi Arabia, The Holy Roman Empire, modern political parties who pull support from religious movements). It's almost a wonder to me that this wasn't the baseline assumption: Kings don't convert and then change their peoples beliefs (at least not in every instance). Rather, savvy leaders sniff out bases of power and align themselves accordingly. And THEN impose those rules/morals on their people in turn.
Fascinating stuff. Great episode!
I'm glad you enjoyed this episode, though I think I should have asked more questions about previous models for understanding barbarian conversions -- something that is a highly significant phenomenon in this period. Where Dr. Pickles's view really differs from earlier models is that earlier historians of Angl0-Saxons (and Goths and Franks and so on) saw kings looking for help from the Church (seen as a kind of external institution) rather than looking to establish political relationships with an internal constituency of people who had already converted to Christianity. This shift in our perception is in large part because of our own assumptions about religion and religious people. It used to be, for example, that the standard understanding of Constantine's conversion to Christianity was a shrewd and cynical decision made for political reasons; but I think now we'd have a hard time more than a handful of scholars who think it was anything other than a sincere conversion that actually had the power to undermine his legitimacy, power, and authority rather than aid them. In short, we as scholars are now a lot more likely to take seriously (or try to, at least) the piety of the people we're studying.
It would be really fun to look at this near the end of the Middle Ages, as well, either with the Reformation or one of the earlier unsuccessful reform movements.