|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Jul 31, 2016 5:32:30 GMT
I'm tired, and I got a random (and, admittedly, rather boring) idea that Vikings don't happen, they just never rise up. Two questions: What could happen to keep the Norse from turning into the iconic demon-warriors that rampaged Europe for centuries, and what would the affect of this be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Jul 31, 2016 10:49:18 GMT
Ah, I'm guessing you saw Extra History's new video on Lindisfarne too.  Anyway, I think the reasons for the Viking age raids and conquest are not clearly known, but are generally speculated to be a reaction to aggressive Christianisation of pagan peoples, preferential treatment for Christian traders (who may have outright refused to trade with pagans altogether), overpopulation in Scandinavia, and the centralisation of power in Scandinavian countries (leading to formerly powerful local lords emigrating). The latter two I'm not sure how you'd avert, but in terms of the former two averting the Saxon Wars would most likely help a great deal, as Christianity wouldn't be so aggressively expanding and forcibly converting Germanic pagans in areas neighbouring Scandinavia. As for the effects, it's hard to say - the Viking age affect every part of Europe drastically and it's difficult to go over each one in detail. Certainly the British Isles would not have been influenced by Norse language and culture as it was in OTL. Several hundred settlements founded by the Norse wouldn't be founded, the history of England would be completely different, since the Normans and their conquest wouldn't exist. Any Kingdom of England would have a much more Anglo-Saxon foundation (possibly leading to their rulers using the title Bretwalda, a title I very much like the sound of). The history of Eastern Europe would definitely be very different with no Kievan Rus', though it's difficult to say how. The Frankish Empire wouldn't have to deal with constant Viking raids, and thus would most likely be richer and maintain its control over various regions for longer, though its expansion to the East would be stymied by necessity of the PoD. Maybe the Franks would be more able to focus on defending against Muslim Al-Andalus, and would manage to expand over the Pyrenees? |
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Jul 31, 2016 14:06:19 GMT
Every major town and city in Ireland, outside of Belfast and Derry, is going to be butterflied. I'd also highly doubt if any unifying force will appear in Irish history as there'll be no Norsemen for a Brian Boru wannabe to expel, and definitely no Norman invasions. I guess the O'Neills will continue with their rather basic suzerainty over the other Irish minors. Scotland may very well never exist either. With no Viking raids on the west coast of Scotland the Gaelic tribes there won't have any reason to move further inland. Thus there will be less contact and conflict with the Picts and greatly decreasing the chances of a Kenneth McAlpin type of figure from arising and unifying the two cultures under one kingdom. Both of them will still likely be generalised as a Celtic Fringe later down the line, though on the upside there'll be fewer arguments over whether the Scots are descended mostly from Gaelic Irish or proto-Briton Picts. Real shame for Robert E. Howard, too. Certainly the British Isles would not have been influenced by Norse language and culture as it was in OTL. Several hundred settlements founded by the Norse wouldn't be founded, the history of England would be completely different, since the Normans and their conquest wouldn't exist. Any Kingdom of England would have a much more Anglo-Saxon foundation (possibly leading to their rulers using the title Bretwalda, a title I very much like the sound of). D'ya think a united Saxon kingdom would even be possible? I think I've read too much Bernard Cornwell, but I always thought that it was the Viking conquest of so much of England, and Wessex managing to weather the assault so many times, that really made "England" possible. The Danes took out the competition from Northumbria, East Anglia, and especially Mercia; and left Wessex as the only independent kingdom, and everyone elses best bet for kicking out the pagans. England may be left in a similar position to Ireland and Scotland, with no outside threat to unite against. However there's always going to be the option of a charismatic military-genius with excellent leadership abilities unifying a bunch of people around him and going on a conquering/subjugation spree. |
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Jul 31, 2016 17:01:11 GMT
D'ya think a united Saxon kingdom would even be possible? I think I've read too much Bernard Cornwell, but I always thought that it was the Viking conquest of so much of England, and Wessex managing to weather the assault so many times, that really made "England" possible. The Danes took out the competition from Northumbria, East Anglia, and especially Mercia; and left Wessex as the only independent kingdom, and everyone elses best bet for kicking out the pagans. England may be left in a similar position to Ireland and Scotland, with no outside threat to unite against. However there's always going to be the option of a charismatic military-genius with excellent leadership abilities unifying a bunch of people around him and going on a conquering/subjugation spree. Why not? Countries don't need an outside threat to unite against - it helps, sure, but Japan unified without an outside threat to unite against, and Mercia was able to unify much of modern England in the 700s before the "Viking age" began. There's no need for an Alexander the Great-esque determined military genius either - all you really need is a person or group of people (either contemporary or a lineage of people across time) with the determination to do it, the resources needed, and the opportunity to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Jul 31, 2016 21:06:49 GMT
Why not? Countries don't need an outside threat to unite against - it helps, sure, but Japan unified without an outside threat to unite against, and Mercia was able to unify much of modern England in the 700s before the "Viking age" began. There's no need for an Alexander the Great-esque determined military genius either - all you really need is a person or group of people (either contemporary or a lineage of people across time) with the determination to do it, the resources needed, and the opportunity to do so. Damn, well that's me told. I didn't even know that there ever had been a period of Mercian dominance of England. However I'd say that the fact that Mercian dominance seems to have waxed and waned over the centuries reminds of of how the Ui Neill claimed the High Kingship of Ireland. Sure they backed it up by forcing smaller kings to pay tribute and fight for them, but in the centuries they held dominance they could never make it stick. Perhaps Mercia could have a later resurgence where iotl they get Vikinged, but I still think that it was the Danes weakening the other English kingdoms (and of course the claims of anyone else who called themselves a King in England) which allowed Wessex to expand with such strength. |
|
