The Danelaw of Britain

From this thread

One idea I was tossing around was a stronger Danelaw (with the defeat of Wessex in the 860's) that encompassed the whole of England, as well as the Norse settlements in the Scottish Isles and Ireland. If Scandinavification was as extensive throughout Britain (minus the Scottish Highlands, Wales, and Connaught) as it was in OTL Norse-ruled areas, by the time that the Scandinavian kingdoms unite and Christianize, the High King of the Western Isles (probably based at York) will have a more than theoretical grasp over a largely Danish-speaking nobility that rules nearly all of Britain. The Norse who settled the North Atlantic and the Norwegians will likely be more sympathetic to him than the Danes and Swedes, and Denmark will be a constant opponent. Probably Britain will remain pagan and a refuge for pagans from Scandinavia until at least 1100. This kingdom would also be an excellent impetus for early prolonged European-North American contact, due to the fact it will likely be alienated from Europe and closely tied to Iceland.

Currently writing from 870-900. Any suggestions as to characters or events to incorporate, as well as what's going on outside the British Isles at the time, please comment.
 
A Volvo in every garage, a codfish in every pot ...

The thing that prevented the sort of sustained Viking domination of places like England, as well as the creation of greater Scandanavia that included pieces of North America was the tendency of Vikings to head off in every possible direction. Thus, rather than attaining critical mass in one place and expanding from there, they were eventually absorbed by the natives.

The reasons for this were inherent in the Viking enterprise. After all, if your goal is to accumulate a great deal of treasure or rule over foreign folk, the last thing you want to have to do is compete with other Vikings. Thus, the guys who would have made the Danelaw strong enough to take over the rest of England ended up in Iceland, Ireland, France or Russia.
 
The thing that prevented the sort of sustained Viking domination of places like England, as well as the creation of greater Scandanavia that included pieces of North America was the tendency of Vikings to head off in every possible direction. Thus, rather than attaining critical mass in one place and expanding from there, they were eventually absorbed by the natives.

The reasons for this were inherent in the Viking enterprise. After all, if your goal is to accumulate a great deal of treasure or rule over foreign folk, the last thing you want to have to do is compete with other Vikings. Thus, the guys who would have made the Danelaw strong enough to take over the rest of England ended up in Iceland, Ireland, France or Russia.

I don't know about that - they managed it in the case of York, to some degree. The fall of the Danelaw was a result of Wessex pressure, and the relatively divided and poor leadership of the Danes. The pressure from the south, coupled with newer waves of Viking attack on the Danelaw itself, forced them to submit in the end.

As for ideas of what to include, I can only speak for the situation in Scotland with any authority. The Scots had come under pretty strong Scandinavian attack in the 870s, along with the rest of Britain, and quite a few kings of the period met their deaths at Viking hands. However the period you specify coincides with the early life and rise of one of the era's more powerful kings, Constantine II, who ruled the Scots from 900-943, before abdicating and retiring in favour of his cousin (a pretty impressive achievement in an age when most kings were slaughtered by their cousins!)

He led Scots armies at Corbridge and Brunanburgh, deep in Northumbrian territory, and although the Scots and their allies were defeated there, the location of the battles shows the increasing range of Scottish aspirations in the period. I presume though that your scenario would require Scotland to succumb to the Viking attacks. I would be surprised if someone of the calibre of Constantine did not play some kind of role in the events that follow. This Wiki page may have some connection with what you are referring to.

This map may prove useful, if you have not already got hold of it (900 CE):

900b.jpg
 
The thing that prevented the sort of sustained Viking domination of places like England, as well as the creation of greater Scandanavia that included pieces of North America was the tendency of Vikings to head off in every possible direction. Thus, rather than attaining critical mass in one place and expanding from there, they were eventually absorbed by the natives.

The reasons for this were inherent in the Viking enterprise. After all, if your goal is to accumulate a great deal of treasure or rule over foreign folk, the last thing you want to have to do is compete with other Vikings. Thus, the guys who would have made the Danelaw strong enough to take over the rest of England ended up in Iceland, Ireland, France or Russia.

Problem rather looks like the expansion at times were private enterprises and only rarely a royal campaign. The early raids on Britain is seen now as Sigfreds response to Charlemagnes campaign in Saxony, Northumbria being an ally of Charlemagnes and culminating in Godfreds taxing of Friesland 810. Then follows the succession war in Denmark and then private enterprise until the Great Army that culminates with the Kingsdoms of York and East Anglia. Then a new succession crisis in Denmark and war with Germany only to have Sven and Knud resume the raids and expansion in the very late 900' s.
There was no consistency in the Viking policy just an ebb and high whether or not the King was party to raids and expansion. The constant rivalry between Viking leaders also among the royals worked to ensure this in the long run.
The guys to make Danelaw last didn't end up in the periphery, they fought it out in Denmark.
 
All I'm doing is killing Alfred of Wessex in 870 and then giving the Danes/Norwegians a series of successes elsewhere around the same time. I don't expect the Danes/Norwegians to actually do anything like conquering the British Isles at this point in history, I just want to make them a more significant part of the power struggle of the time.
 
All I'm doing is killing Alfred of Wessex in 870 and then giving the Danes/Norwegians a series of successes elsewhere around the same time. I don't expect the Danes/Norwegians to actually do anything like conquering the British Isles at this point in history, I just want to make them a more significant part of the power struggle of the time.

The question is 'would an Alfred-less Wessex be able to resist the Danes? Maybe his successor is forced to become a vassal?
 
The question is 'would an Alfred-less Wessex be able to resist the Danes? Maybe his successor is forced to become a vassal?

The years from 870 to 900 were defined by the struggle between Alfred and Guthrum that ended with Guthrum converting to Christianity and Wessex predominant throughout southern England. Wessex and Mercia, without a strong leader, would probably not be able to decisively defeat the Vikings on the battlefield, which would probably give them a free rein in still-independent Kent, Essex, and Sussex, as well as allowing the Great Heathen Army to intervene in struggles going on in Wales, Strathclyde, and Ireland at the time. Eventually the dominance of the Great Heathen Army will fade, as in OTL, but in this TL, there will not be a strong English contender to pick up the pieces.

The one idea I had for the medieval period in this kingdom is a Danish/Norwegian analogue to the Hundred Years War fought over Britain as the Hundred Years War was over France that ends with the British Isles united as France was.

Thoughts?
 
This is the first five years past the POD, just to give you an idea where I'm going. This isn't the final version, and I welcome any questions or comments.

Secondly, does anyone have a good map or source about the political situation in Ireland at the time? I'm very confused by just where exactly all these Irish kingdoms are, and which ones are current at the time of writing.

865 AD Danish raiders first began to settle in England. Led by brothers Halfdan and Ivar the Boneless, they wintered in East Anglia, were they demanded and received tribute in exchange for a temporary peace. From there they moved north and attacked Northumbria, which was in the midst of a civil war between the deposed king Osbert and a usurper Aelle. The Danes used the civil turmoil as an opportunity to capture York, which they sacked and burned.

867 AD Following the loss of York, Osbert and Aelle formed an alliance against the Danes. They launched a counterattack, but the Danes killed both Osbert and Aelle and set up a puppet king on Northumbrian throne. In response, King Ethelred of Wessex, along with his brother Alfred (the future King Alfred of England) marched against the Danes. Who were positioned behind fortifications in Nottingham, but were unable to draw the Danes into battle. In order to establish peace, King Burhred of Mercia ceded Nottingham to the Danes in exchange for leaving the rest of Mercia undisturbed.

869 AD Ivar the Boneless returned and demanded tribute from King Edmund of East Anglia.

870 AD King Edmund refused, Ivar the Boneless defeated and captured him at Hoxne and brutally sacrificed his heart to Oden through the use of the so-called “Blood Eagle ritual”, in the process adding East Anglia to the area controlled by the invading Danes. King Ethelred and Alfred attacked the Danes at Reading, but were repulsed with heavy losses. The Danes pursued them.

Norse-Irish warlord Olaf The White (Amlaib Conung) captures Alt Clut, the stronghold of the Britonnic kingdom of Strathclyde, a siege which lasted some four months and led to the destruction of the citadel and the capture of a very large number of captives. The siege and capture are reported by Welsh and Irish sources, and the Annals of Ulster say that in 871, after overwintering on the Clyde:
“Amlaíb and Ímar returned to Áth Cliath (Dublin) from Alba with two hundred ships, bringing away with them in captivity to Ireland a great prey of Angles and Britons and Picts.”
The Annals also suggest that the king of Strathclyde was among the victims.
Strathclyde at this point was precariously balanced between the Irish of Ulster, the Norse-Irish of the Hebrides, Galloway, and Dublin, the Danish puppet kingdom of Bernicia, and the Picts of Alba.
Olaf was a close ally of Ivar the Boneless, who had assisted him in defeating Ketil Flatnose of the Hebrides in Munster.

871 AD [POD] On January 7, Ethelred and Alfred met the Danish army at Ashdown. The West Saxon army was surrounded and obliterated. Both Ethelred and Alfred perished in the battle, sparing them death by Blood Eagle.
With the West Saxon threat eliminated, the Danes turned north against Mercia, capturing London and overrunning the kingdom. King Burhed of Mercia fled to Wessex, where he rallied the West Saxons and the surviving Mercians behind him. The Danes named a Saxon noble called Ethelbald king of Mercia and his brother Ethelbert king of Wessex, but Ethelbert remained in Mercia instead of entering “his” kingdom.

872 AD Ivar the Boneless dies and is succeeded by Guthrum the Old as leader of the Danes in England. Guthrum leads an army against the remnant Saxons in Wessex, and captures half the kingdom, but is defeated at Exeter. Mercia and Eastern Wessex rise up in revolt.

874 AD The English revolt within Danish-controlled territory finally suppressed, the Danes launch another attack Kent and Essex, which succumb quickly. All of England west of the River Exe is now in Danish hands. Burhred of Mercia is murdered in his sleep by a West Saxon noble named Odda, who makes a treaty with Guthrum, declaring him to be “Lord of the Western Isles” and the king of Wessex to be his vassal.
The Norse lords of all Britain assemble at Leicester.
Guthrum is acclaimed by all present as High King of Britain, ruling directly over the old kingdom of Mercia from Leicester. Halfdan Ragnarsson is named king of York, ruling all of Britain east of the Pennines from the Humber to the Firth of Forth. Hubbe the Generous is named king of London, ruling the southeastern part of Britain.
Olaf the White of Dublin is declared to be overlord of the Isles (Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides, and Man) and Strathclyde, as well as the Norse settlements in Ireland.
Not present are the kings of Alba, the Welsh kingdoms or any of the native Irish kings.
Ingólfur Arnarson makes first permanent Norse settlement on Iceland.

875 Vikings attack Anglesey in the kingdom of Rhodri the Great, king of the greater part of Wales. The Welsh are driven from Anglesey, which becomes a domain of the King of the Isles.
Aed Finliath of Ailech and Cerball of Osraige invade Leinster, whose king, Cellach mac Dunchad, calls on the Norse for aid. A Norse/Irish army defeats Aed Finliath at Cluain Dolcáin and capture Tara, traditional seat of Ireland’s High Kings, overwintering in Meath.

876 Rhodri the Great conquers Dyfedd, the last independent Welsh kingdom.
Internal struggle within remnant Wessex between native English, refugees, and still-independent Cornwall under King Dungarth. Dungarth calls on High King at Leicester and Rhodri for aid, and Cornwall west of the Tamar is confirmed by Guthrum as an independent vassal of the “King of the Britons”. Both Guthrum and Rhodri assume this title refers to them.
 

Thande

Donor
I was just thinking about this the other day...

Not sure how accurate it is, but Bernard Cornwell claimed in his books about the war that if the Vikings/Danes had won, they would have called the whole country 'Daneland' (as opposed to Dane-mark at home). Danelaw wouldn't be used if there was no English King's Law in the south to contrast it with.
 
I was just thinking about this the other day...

Not sure how accurate it is, but Bernard Cornwell claimed in his books about the war that if the Vikings/Danes had won, they would have called the whole country 'Daneland' (as opposed to Dane-mark at home). Danelaw wouldn't be used if there was no English King's Law in the south to contrast it with.

That would make for Dan-Land these days...:D
Interesting assumption, but of course the contrast to English Law would no longer be needed. OTOH the term Danelaw might be in use for some centuries to signal the change from English to Danish law!
It is by no means certain that the name of the land would change as early medieval Danish chronicles referred to England as just England.
Very interesting thing is that there was no Danish law in Denmark until 1683. Until then peoples had to make do with Jutish Law, Sjaelland Law and Scania Law.
So Dane Law would be non-written laws imposed by Danes upon the English and should then be an English invention I suppose...
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I was just thinking about this the other day...

Not sure how accurate it is, but Bernard Cornwell claimed in his books about the war that if the Vikings/Danes had won, they would have called the whole country 'Daneland' (as opposed to Dane-mark at home). Danelaw wouldn't be used if there was no English King's Law in the south to contrast it with.


Danerige or Danrige would be more likely
 

Thande

Donor
Or they´d eventually find a new national identity.

Me thinks the conquerers get absorbed, but England becomes something completely different in swallowing them.

Much like what happened in OTL after 1066, but without the French Connection.

Also, before there was really an English national identity to start with, which changes things somewhat.
 
Much like what happened in OTL after 1066, but without the French Connection.

Also, before there was really an English national identity to start with, which changes things somewhat.

Yes, yes true. Of course if the POD here is no Alfred "the Great" then that´s already quite a change in English identity. For the future. I mean, at this point, nations aren´t nations in any modern sense.

You might end up with a French connection of course later on. But wouldn´t that just be tediously OTL;)

I agree the term Danelaw would not exist. But I think they´d end up not calling themselves Danes. Just because they´d be eaten up logistically. The vikings didn´t lose in Russia, they just got outnumbered in a peaceful way.

Maybe, some time will pass before England can be united... I think that´s even probable.
 

Thande

Donor
Yes, yes true. Of course if the POD here is no Alfred "the Great" then that´s already quite a change in English identity. For the future. I mean, at this point, nations aren´t nations in any modern sense.

You might end up with a French connection of course later on. But wouldn´t that just be tediously OTL;)

I agree the term Danelaw would not exist. But I think they´d end up not calling themselves Danes. Just because they´d be eaten up logistically. The vikings didn´t lose in Russia, they just got outnumbered in a peaceful way.

Maybe, some time will pass before England can be united... I think that´s even probable.
If the Vikings divvy up the land between their own chieftains as kingdoms, that basically resets Britain to about 500 AD and can, in principle, delay English ("Danglish"?) unification for another few hundred years.

Of course, the Danes also invaded Scotland and Ireland. If Danish cultural influence is powerful enough, maybe the unification of the whole British Isles will be seen as a natural union of one culture, if the previous division between Gaelic, Brythonic and Germanic cultures has been reduced to a minor thing...
 
If the Vikings divvy up the land between their own chieftains as kingdoms, that basically resets Britain to about 500 AD and can, in principle, delay English ("Danglish"?) unification for another few hundred years.

Of course, the Danes also invaded Scotland and Ireland. If Danish cultural influence is powerful enough, maybe the unification of the whole British Isles will be seen as a natural union of one culture, if the previous division between Gaelic, Brythonic and Germanic cultures has been reduced to a minor thing...
A Dantish culture? Altough I suspect, given the timeperiod, Nortish might be more true...
 
Top