Post-793 Viking wank in Anglosaxon Britain
OTL it did!
The Vikings never managed to win over Wessex, even though they did try. Their main problem was probably that they were too internally divided. In 878, under king Alfred, Wessex won a decisive victory in the battle of Ethandun. Could Guthrum have won at Ethandun or would an earlier POD have been better? How could the Danes have been able to conquer Wessex? I am aware that the areas under the Danes in Britain (Danelaw) was internally divided, so this would not necessarily have lead to a united Daneland, although this might have come about at a later stage.
So You don't count the Royal Danish period of the Viking age as part of said age. Ok - you make the rules Boss.
Last edited:
So You don't count the Royal Danish period of the Viking age as part of said age.
You mean under Knut the great, who ruled England in the period 1016-1035? I was thinking of an earlier dominance, so as tro butterfly the idea of "England", which seems to have gradually started to develop under Alfred. Alfred´s successors managed to conquer the Danish areas in the north and east. I was thinking about avoiding this. An earlier POD might lead to a stronger Danish influence. I guess my question could have been rephrased to: "Make the Vikings conquer Wessex".
Ok - get your gist. Hmmm, that would probably be difficult not least due to the scarcity of sources on the Viking side.
The problem probably being that the Viking army is composed of nobility and their Hird - according to N. Lund - just a collection of individuals who manage generally to stick together but the willingness of the Mercians to buy off the Great Heathen Army may be the cracking point of said army's ability to work in unity.
It's not clear if all leaves Northumbria for the 869 campaign and even the reinforcements that year doesn't make for the Vikings army to defeat Wessex.
So if the POD is that the Mercians decide not to buy off the Vikings the GHArmy have to defeat all of Mercia and not retreat to York laden with silver but stay in place subduing Mercia.
Then come 869 and the reinforcements; these are told that the Brits are a tough bunch that needs being slain to the last warrior all then joins up 871 to attack Wessex.
Alfred is conveniently killed at Ashdown and the Vikings are ultimately triumphant.
As a result lands are parceled out to the Viking warriors all over England and one king recognized as High King of England/Britain.
The problem probably being that the Viking army is composed of nobility and their Hird - according to N. Lund - just a collection of individuals who manage generally to stick together but the willingness of the Mercians to buy off the Great Heathen Army may be the cracking point of said army's ability to work in unity.
It's not clear if all leaves Northumbria for the 869 campaign and even the reinforcements that year doesn't make for the Vikings army to defeat Wessex.
So if the POD is that the Mercians decide not to buy off the Vikings the GHArmy have to defeat all of Mercia and not retreat to York laden with silver but stay in place subduing Mercia.
Then come 869 and the reinforcements; these are told that the Brits are a tough bunch that needs being slain to the last warrior all then joins up 871 to attack Wessex.
Alfred is conveniently killed at Ashdown and the Vikings are ultimately triumphant.
As a result lands are parceled out to the Viking warriors all over England and one king recognized as High King of England/Britain.
Source problem really. We don't know enough about the great heathen army to know precisely how close they came.
If I was writing a timeline where wessex was conquered, I'd just have them be conquered. No real pod, just have it go worse for them. We simply don't know enough about the logistics to say the vikings couldn't have done so if they'd got a lucky break.
The interesting thing isn't the logistics of the campaign but the cultural effects, after all.
If I was writing a timeline where wessex was conquered, I'd just have them be conquered. No real pod, just have it go worse for them. We simply don't know enough about the logistics to say the vikings couldn't have done so if they'd got a lucky break.
The interesting thing isn't the logistics of the campaign but the cultural effects, after all.
I posted a new, related thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nth-century-viking-conquest-of-wessex.433592/ but I have still not got any reply. Maybe some of those who have replied to this thread have any comments. The thread assumes that Wessex is in fact conquered and does not deal with how, but rather with the consequences.
Do we have any knowledge about the strength of the Viking army at for instance the battle of Ethandun? What is known about the battle itself and are the sources trustworthy?
Do we have any knowledge about the strength of the Viking army at for instance the battle of Ethandun? What is known about the battle itself and are the sources trustworthy?
I doubt a unified Danish kingdom in the heptarchy is that possible.
Wessex itself took a couple of generations to lever full authority and create a single kingdom despite the Vikings wrecking most of the succession in the kingdoms.
A unified Danish influenced single England would be possible but with no single ruler able to promote why they deserve the mantle of sole king you'd probably see a return of the Bretwalda office which was more akin to the Irish High King or the Holy Roman Emperor; a loose federal kingdom rather than the centralised state desired by Cnut, William, et al.
Wessex itself took a couple of generations to lever full authority and create a single kingdom despite the Vikings wrecking most of the succession in the kingdoms.
A unified Danish influenced single England would be possible but with no single ruler able to promote why they deserve the mantle of sole king you'd probably see a return of the Bretwalda office which was more akin to the Irish High King or the Holy Roman Emperor; a loose federal kingdom rather than the centralised state desired by Cnut, William, et al.
I think an interesting question would be how this would the situation on Scandinavia. Would there still be a unification of Denmark and Norway, with stronger kings ruling over large areas? In OTL, the Danish king Knut the great was king of England 1016-1035 and in 1066 the Norwegian king Harald Hardarada made an attempt for the English crown. What would happen in Scandinavia in this scenario? If there still was a growth of large kingdoms, an ATL Scandinavian king might perhaps conquer large parts of Britain.
Cnut becoming King of England wasn't a conquest like the Bastard's but more an English succession war where one claimant happened to be King of Denmark.
Scandinavia itself is likely to form into 3 or 4 kingdoms (based on maximising authority of the trade routes), the effect of external influence on how those combined is difficult to quantify without knowing more on the probable history following Alfred's failure. How much political effect did England have on the Scandinavian kingdoms OTL?
At least when it comes to Norway, Christianity mainly arrived from England. I am not sure about Denmark and Sweden. The unification of Norway happened some time at the end of the ninth century (possibly 872, but maight be later), a long time before Norway became officially Christian, so with a POD at the battle of Ethandun (which might have taken place after the battle of Hafrsfjord), unification of Norway might still happen. I don´t know enough about the situation in Denmark, but as far as I understand Denmark still had several competing petty kings at this time, but some kind of unification does not seem unlikely.
Biggest thing is a lot of Danish settlers settle in conquered Proto-England rather than going to Iceland or Normandy. It's not like their lands are going be reconquered and a lot of Danes just want land. If Wessex falls there is nobody left except some Celts who are alien to the Saxons. Things become more Danish culturally than otl, perhaps to the same extent as the Saxon Conquest in terms of possible wankability, though that may be pushing it.
Lots of burned, looted monastaries. What this means is many more kids from mixed Danish/Saxon marriages aren't Christian. Victorious Christ, the battle God, has less appeal, being non victorious (Missionaries tried to sell Christ as a battle god otl). No or fewer Anglo Danish Clergy who were key in converting Scandanavia rather than the politically distrusted Holy Roman Clergy. Overall, Christianization is delayed and probably is more violent when/if it comes.
Probable conquest of Wales and Ireland in the next generation due to more Danes having babies with cute saxon girls, leading to an increase in "Danish" manpower. Scotland is also possible though it is tougher. Probably bigger but slower push into "Normandy".
Slower move into Iceland. After all, the Norse are winning and creating nice, stable homes in warmer climes. When it happens though, it is backed by a larger base population which may lead to Vinland being a thing.
United Kingdom, probably not for awhile, but it's okay, because as long as their are fresh conquests, things are good. Minute easy conquests start to dry up, more infighting.
Overall, the Viking Conquests are more culturally impactful because the ruling classes are removed rather than counterattacking and reconquering and successfully turning those Danish settlers into Englishmen and Normans and whatevers as they did otl.
That last point is key to a more Norse tl than otl.
Last edited:
Just covered it. I kinda think the conquest of Wessex is key to a more lasting Norse cultural influence.
What little is known from Frankish annals is that there was a Danish King named Sigurd/Sigfred who had supported the Saxon fighting against Charlemagne. He was succeeded by Godfred/Godfrey around 801. Post the assassin of Godfred 810 there was a long war for the throne. The making of Denmark was very much in doing.
Knud/Cnut wasn't king of Denmark his brother Harald/Harold was. Knud only became elected king of Denmark when Harald died 1019.
At this time the Kingdom of Denmark ruled todays Denmark, Slesvig, Scania and at times Viken in Norway. There was also some kingdoms in Sweden and a number of petty kings in Norway at times more or less united though the perception of events in Norway is very much dependent upon the writer.
Of the political effects from Britain you could count partly the Church as British churchmen was allowed to work in Denmark actually one of the obstacles between Denmark and the Emperor hence why Adam of Bremen called Swend Forkbeard a heathen. Pure church policies.
Another the introduction of Shires/Herred in Denmark for the mobilization of troops and ships.
In Denmark it was from Germany as the Hamburg-Bremen Diocese was made responsible for the North; king Swen Forkbeard wanted to get rid of the grasp of the German church and invited British clergy to work in Denmark. Sweden from what I've read from Germany.
Christian influence was quite early as traces artifacts are known in Sweden and Denmark from 3. century both of the Catholic and Greek churches.
Since the time of Sigurd/Sigfred and Godfred there had been ruling kings with several civil wars regarding succession.
The Danes didn't go to Iceland - Norwegians did. Generally believed to be a Westnorwegian exodus upon the christening of the country by kings as Haakon Adelsteensfostre/Gode Olav Tryggvason and Olav the Holy/Saint Olav. Danes did go to Britain and Normandy.
Niels Lund assess the size of the Great Heathen Army as 6,000 Danes mainly nobility and Hird with Anglo-Saxons coming along.
One important cultural influence would probably be that there would be no development of an English identity, although a similar common identity might come about at a later stage,.
The political consequences would probably also be significant. Fragmentation would probably last longer. And then there is the consequences for areas outside Britain, like Scandinavia and West Francia.
The settlements in Iceland started in the late ninth century, probably some time after the battle of Hafrsfjord. From my memory, I believe that an important reason was an exodus of many of the enemies of Harald Fairhair.
I read in another discussion that an important reason why the Danes managed northern and eastern proto-England was that this area had a weaker population and importance, relative to southern/eastern England. An alternative interesting development in Britain would be if Wessex survived, but where it was so weakened that it was not able to conquer the Danish areas. A partition of Wessex, where Wessex kept some areas, while other areas were conquered could severely weaken Wessex.