A World Without Martel (WWM)

Interesting updates.
Some ideas for the Angelcynn (Anglo-Saxon) kingdoms.

Prior to the Danish invasions the strongest Kingdoms IIRC were Wessex, Mercia, and Northumbria. Mercia and Northumbria spent most of the 7th and 8th C in a slugfest or "marriage" dominated by one or the other. It's not too much of an oversimplification to say that the Danish invasions knocked out Northumbria and intensified Mercia's neglect of the south & west in favour of the north & east thus allowing Wessex to become the dominant kingdom.

So in the absence of the Danes we have either Mercia or Northumbria ascendant. If Mercia then most of Northumbria and OTL England would be under Mercian overlordship or union, with Wessex likely serving as a Brittany analogue. If Northumbria then *England could well be divided between it and a Greater Wessex with a border roughly along the Danelaw ;) - in such a case Northumbria will likely extend up past Edinburgh and Strathclyde may be its vassal Kingdom.

Though with less Danish vikings then Norwegian could well extend futher south and have their own Kingdom centred around Edinburgh much like Dublin was.
 
A New Strategy and Rivers Fill with Blood

When Childeric died he passed his territories to his three sons, as outlined in the Divisio Regnorum: Louis in Neustria, John in Burgundy and finally Arnulf in Austrasia and the recently captured Rhineland territories. While similar to the earlier transfers of power, the Dvisio Regnorum and the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks suggest a rather sophisticated political concept: that the proposed three kingdoms, while separate, were to be seen as also constituting a single greater Regnum. It is suggested by the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks that this three kingdom/one kingdom idea was influenced by the theology of the Trinity, to which some renewed attention was being given in the Western Church at this very time.

Arnulf, the oldest son and nominal leader of the Frankish Empire, was (unlike his father) not willing to simply exhort tribute from his rich and cultured Muslim neighbours. A true convert to the dream of a revived Merovingian Empire, Arnulf and his advisors (notably the famed student of Ethelbert’s, William of Verdun) were eager for war with the lands of Dâr al‑islâm. In 888 the Frankish king launched a series of attacks on the principalities ofAl-Narbonenus [Mediterranean lowlands of France], killing the powerful wali Abd ar-Rahmanof Limousin. Further raids reached the Lower Loire valley, including Anjou and Touraine and beyond into the heart of Al-Aquitane [the Aquitaine region in France]. Thus by 894, all the major provinces of Al-Gallia [Islamic France] had suffered at the hands of the Franks.

In response to the warlike behaviour of Arnulf, the magnates of Al-Gallia selected the infamous Al-Aquitanean Malik [king] Ibn-el-Ahmar or “the Red man” [because of his fair skin and hair] to lead an alliance of the Al-Gallian principalities against the Franks. That a matter as potentially contentious and divisive was settled with such apparent ease was largely due to the serious military problems that Al-Gallia was then facing. This decision also had the official backing of the Emir of Al-Avrp who seems to have sent a limit degree of military aid to “the Red Man” and his Al-Gallians. But the events in southern France were complicated by events in northern France.

The Vikings had been rowing up the Seine to attack Paris since the 840s, each time leaving only when the acquisition of loot or bribes was acceptable to them. But in 898 Bjarni Herjolfsson, an infamous Viking leader was driven out of Wessex by the Mercian King Burgred. Keen to exploit the momentary weakness of the Frankish Empire, this indomitable Dane led 700 ships (an obvious exaggeration of contemporary historians) down the Seine towards Paris. When Robert ‘the Child’ Count of Paris received reports of Bjarni’s immediate arrival he called on his king Louis for aid. But no help came and the Norse dug themselves in around Paris, making trenches and attacking the walls of the city with ballistae, catapults peppering the tower with arrows and stones. Finally wakened to the danger Louis of Neustria gathered his army and headed west.

Seeing Bjarni’s siege as an opportunity, Ibn-el-Ahmar sought to exploit internal divisions in the Frankish Empire. Some of the Burgundian nobility were ill-pleased with their king John, not least amongst them Lothar the Younger who had been replaced as Duke of Lyonnais by John’s own son. As a result Lothar rebelled (or was inspired to rebel by Muslim agents) and Ibn-el-Ahmar, after calling the lordsof Al-Gallia to council at Narbon, launched a large surprise offensive into Lyonnais. Marching from their base in Auvergne, Ibn-el-Ahmar sought to join up Lothar and besiege Lyon but was intercepted by John and his hastily gathered Franks.

The initially contest between Ibn-el-Ahmar and John near the Monts du Forez was a textbook example of Al-Avrpian battle tactics in the 9th century: skirmishing before the main battle saw the Franks harassed by Muslim light cavalry with feigned charges, false retreats, and a great deal of dashing to and fro. When the battle was finally joined, a cavalry charge under the command of John himself was received with a defence of spearmen supported by archers. The attack failed and John’s cavalry forced into bloodied withdrawal. Properly timed to perfection, the “Red Man” ordered a counterattack with cavalry charging out from behind the infantry line. With the early impetuous charge, the Frankish cavalry was spent, and they were disorganized, tired, and easily routed. The supporting infantry (most of low quality) were then left exposed by the absence of their own cavalry were then quickly overrun. With the Frankish army destroyed in the field, Lyon fell and together with Lothar, Ibn-el-Ahmarencountered little resistance as he marched into Upper Burgundy.

When he heard the news, the Frankish king Arnulf, after calling a Reichstag at Cologne, gathered together a great Christian army –including numerous pagan mercenaries –to invade Burgundy. Although Louis of Neustria did not join the expedition due to the Viking threat on Paris, later historians would suggest that Louis’s resentment of his brother’s lordship led him to deliberately keep his forces out of Burgundy.
The War was on...
 
Last edited:
So in the absence of the Danes we have either Mercia or Northumbria ascendant. If Mercia then most of Northumbria and OTL England would be under Mercian overlordship or union, with Wessex likely serving as a Brittany analogue. If Northumbria then *England could well be divided between it and a Greater Wessex with a border roughly along the Danelaw ;) - in such a case Northumbria will likely extend up past Edinburgh and Strathclyde may be its vassal Kingdom.

I was thinking that Viking raids still hammer into the kingdom of Northumbria, trategically weakening that once great realm, but are not strong enough to conquer north & east. With Northumbria weakened, the Mercians are able to cement their control over England (although without such a serve Viking threat Mercian control will be less complete than the power excerised by Wessex).


Though with less Danish vikings then Norwegian could well extend futher south and have their own Kingdom centred around Edinburgh much like Dublin was.

Nice idea. With most of Northumbria under a Mercian union, and the Mercian now concentrating on Wessex and Welish, then we could see Nordic/Norwegian state in Scotland. Any thoughts?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Nice idea. With most of Northumbria under a Mercian union, and the Mercian now concentrating on Wessex and Welish, then we could see Nordic/Norwegian state in Scotland. Any thoughts?

Interesting idea and it seems likely that if the Norvegian conquer the area, that they will assimilate the local Angles. So we see the Scottish Lowland become a united Norvegian state. Linguistic it will likely split from the other West Norvegian dialects and descendent languages (Faroe and Islandic) rather fast, West Scandinavian only kept it conservative traits because of their isolation. A Scottish Lowland Kingddom are not going to be very isolated.
 
Interesting idea and it seems likely that if the Norvegian conquer the area, that they will assimilate the local Angles. So we see the Scottish Lowland become a united Norvegian state. Linguistic it will likely split from the other West Norvegian dialects and descendent languages (Faroe and Islandic) rather fast, West Scandinavian only kept it conservative traits because of their isolation. A Scottish Lowland Kingddom are not going to be very isolated.

How powerful will this Scottish Nordlagen be? Will it be able to dominate all of Scotland or do will our Norvegian conquistadors be too busy fighting the Mercians for their independence?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
How powerful will this Scottish Nordlagen be? Will it be able to dominate all of Scotland or do will our Norvegian conquistadors be too busy fighting the Mercians for their independence?

I think it will come to dominate the entire Scotland to the same extent the Scottish kings did in OTL. It's more or less in the position. Of course like OTL Scotland they will still be busy fighting southen invaders (but I think it's likely to survive at least as long as Scotland did), throught the more decentral structure of England may put Nordlagen (good name by the way) in a better position. Maybe it position becomes something like Denmarks toward the HRE, a independent state with extented possesion in it, or Bohemia a semi integrated part of England.
 
So monasties are going to be interesting places.

Sounds like.

Likely we see a increase in Friesian power as they get rich as middlemens, while we will see a bigger Jewish population around the North Sea.

Although some people may think this is ironic, but Al-Avrup could be considered a paradise of tolerance, economic opportunity and social mobility for Europe's Jews (or at least when compared to OTL Europe). Moreover, disputes and theological competition between the Northern kingdoms and Byzantium could lead to a vilification of the Roman Empire in the North, and the blame for the death of Jesus could be transferred from the Jews to the “Romans” (although this may take centuries to develop).

A interesting aspect are that the close contact with Muslims will likely result in the adoption of the agressive religeous war doctrine: the Crusade. The Franks will use it as a apology for creating a permanent state (at least in theory) of war with their Muslims neighbours, while the Danes will use it as excuse invade and raid (especially for slaves) their Pagan neighbours.

I hope you have been noticing that I have been slipping references to the formation of such a doctrine into the narrative (notably with Ethelbert and William of Verdun). But a thought struck me: if the Danes (and others) are converting people to 'Celtic Christianity' in Northern Germany and the Bavarians (and others) preaching 'Orthodox' Christianity' to the same people then what happens when the two branches of Christianity come into conflict in Eastern Europe? Could see a quiet an ideological (and physical) conflict. Any thoughts?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Although some people may think this is ironic, but Al-Avrup could be considered a paradise of tolerance, economic opportunity and social mobility for Europe's Jews (or at least when compared to OTL Europe). Moreover, disputes and theological competition between the Northern kingdoms and Byzantium could lead to a vilification of the Roman Empire in the North, and the blame for the death of Jesus could be transferred from the Jews to the “Romans” (although this may take centuries to develop).

Sounds interesting, two important fact should be remembered one; until the crusades, Jews was more and less left alone in Europe. Two; while the Muslim did treat the Jews better than their Christian neighbours, the degree of freedom Jews had in Muslims Spain are at best overestimated. One of the primary reason for that are that Jewish 18-19th century historians used it to shame the Europeans of the day to adopt a less intolerant behaviour towards Jews.
I like the idea about transferring the guilt to the Romans. Likely we will see Jews turn into Europes dhimmis, tolerated but clearly second class citizens. Rather than OTL post crusade attitude barely tolerated and scum of the earth.


I hope you have been noticing that I have been slipping references to the formation of such a doctrine into the narrative (notably with Ethelbert and William of Verdun). But a thought struck me: if the Danes (and others) are converting people to 'Celtic Christianity' in Northern Germany and the Bavarians (and others) preaching 'Orthodox' Christianity' to the same people then what happens when the two branches of Christianity come into conflict in Eastern Europe? Could see a quiet an ideological (and physical) conflict. Any thoughts?

I think the conflict will be a mix of bare toleranrance of each other to open war. Weak Othodoxs states will likely be treated as pseudo Pagans, while strong Othodoxs states will be treated as misled but fellow Christians much like OTL. The Franks whom have to deal with the Muslims, will likely adopt the second attitude, while Danes and Anglos will adopt thefirst.
 
Last edited:

Giladis

Banned
With fractured christianity and such influential Islam we could easly see Slavs taking the road of Khazars and opting for Judaism rather then joing eithr of the two poles.

On the other hand with such pressing matters at home and states that are not as influential as in OTL to serve as exaples of blessed christianity Slavs of the east could very well continue to develop their own religon. A prophet of Perun (god that was in it aspects not that dissimilar to Odin) could lead a pagan revolution in europe based on Nordic and Slavic gods.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
With fractured christianity and such influential Islam we could easly see Slavs taking the road of Khazars and opting for Judaism rather then joing eithr of the two poles.

On the other hand with such pressing matters at home and states that are not as influential as in OTL to serve as exaples of blessed christianity Slavs of the east could very well continue to develop their own religon. A prophet of Perun (god that was in it aspects not that dissimilar to Odin) could lead a pagan revolution in europe based on Nordic and Slavic gods.

I disagree the East Slavs of TTL has a even greater incetiment to convert to Christianity, because they control one of the primary trade routes between the North and Constantinoble with the weaken position of the Mediterranerean route.

While the West Slavs has little contact with the Jews and will be under a continued pressure from Danes, Franks, Thüringers and Bavarians.

While the South Slavs are badly placed for adopting a non-Christian religeon.
 
I think I have to agree with Valdemar here, I think the Slavs will be split between the 'Celtic' Christians in the North and the 'Orthodox' in the South. Doesn't mean you won't get strong Slavic states though.
 
Last edited:
Exploiting the unpopularity of the Frankish regime in Burgundy, Muslim forces and their partisan ally, Lothar the Younger (Frankish rebel and leading member of the Burgundian nobility) quickly seized Lower Burgundy [Rhône Valley up to Lyon and the mouth of Saône] before crossing into Upper Burgundy [or Transjurane Burgundy around Lake Geneva]. Arnulf of Austrasia, the senior Frankish King, planned to counterattack the advancing Muslims from Franche Comté and crush them under the weight of his numerically superior army. In the battle up head (as in all battles in the medieval period), the importance of cavalry cannot be over-emphasised, nor the dual qualities of morale and mobility. Discounting the mobility of the Al-Avrpian, Arnulf of Austrasia allowed much of his heavy cavalry to ravage the land (in order to punish the Transjurane Burgundians for supporting Lothar). However, this proved a mistake, as Ibn-el-Ahmar and Lothar seized the moment to attacked Arnulf when he was unprepared. When belatedly informed of his enemies approach, the Frankish King arranged his troops in two lines: at the rear were the Franks; in front were pagan mercenaries whose role was to break the assault of the Al-Gallian cavalry (which was known for its mobility and tenacity).

In the initial engagement, a javelin assault forced the Frank’s first line to retreat behind their second more heavily armoured comrades. Rather than engage in a mêlée, the Muslims harassed the Franks from a distance, with their skilled javelin-throwing horseman. Although the return of the Frankish cavalry staved off an initial route, in the next two days Frankish losses in men and horses mounted to dangerous levels. Ibn-el-Ahmar alternated furious charges, feints and sudden withdrawals, drawing out the Franks and encircling over-extended groups. As morale in the Frankish camp disintegrated, Arnulf withdrew from the field during the night. When his disappearance was noticed the following morning, panic seized the Frankish soldiers and a retreat quickly became a route. The Al-Gallians quickly raided the camp, taking booty and weapons and killing as many fugitives as they could.

After this disastrous battle, Francia appeared newly weak and the war quickly spread becoming something of an ‘All Gallic Free-for-All’. The Armorican King Erispoë [who ruled Brittany, Maine and parts of Normandy and Anjou], keen to regain the period of expansion that had so characterised his predecessor’s Conrad the Breton, joined Ibn-el-Ahmar against the Franks. Fighting broke out in Nivernais, Orleanais and Berry. Inspired by their success in Burgundy, the Muslims hoped to seize the strategic border towns along the Loire, and from there possibly launch a major invasion of the Frankish heartland.
Of all these towns, Orleans was perhaps the most valuable and heavily defended, and it was hoped the Muslims could take it before before Louis of Neustria (who had recently concluded a peace with the Viking Bjarni Herjolfsson the invader of Ill de France) could arrive to reinforce it. Returning to the western theatre, Ibn-el-Ahmar led a large army marched towards the Orleans in 901. However, while within a day’s march of Orleans, the Armorican King’s sudden death disrupted the plan. Ibn-el-Ahmar was subsequently forced to accompany Erispoë’s son back to Armorica to secure his lordship over his brothers (whose rebellion could knock Armorica out of the war).

Sensing the low morale in the Al-Gallian camp, Louis of Neustria (seeking to mirror the mobility of the Muslims) attacked. In confrontation in the woodlands around the Al-Gallian position, the Franks completely surprised their foe (who had kept a bad watch). The legendary Al-Gallian calvary were caught in the flank and those brave cavaliers who wheeled to take the shock were scattered to the winds. Although the Al-Gallian commanders were able to rally their men and form defensive lines, they were shaken by what they had seen, for the army was eventually driven back in confusion with heavy loss. Much credit must be given to Bjarni Herjolfsson and his Norse (who allying with Louis of Neustria) had added much to the tenacity of Frankish shock tactics with their wild and ferocious savagery.

Louis’s victory in Orleanais weakened the position of Arnulf whose resumption of the Burgundian campaign had produced poor results. Moreover, it seemed that there was a conspiracy against him (probably related to his mismanaged of said campaign) and one of his sons from his first marriage was implemented. Eager to secure his royal succession and free his armies up for a possible war with his brother, Arnulf opened negotiations with Ibn-el-Ahmar (who was also eager for peace owing to the new demands of the western theatre). The Frankish King agrees to cede the loss of Burgundy with the passing of the Treaty of Strasbourg. Subsequently this former Frankish kingdom is divided between the Muslims who control Lower Burgundy while Lothar the Younger takes Upper Burgundy as a Muslim ally. As the lords of Islam settled the Rhône Valley, die-hard anti-Muslims flee under the mysterious Bernard of Geneva into mountainous Savoy where they waged a guerrilla war against the Al-Avrupians.
 
A New Balance of Power

The costly peace with the Al-Gallians [Islamic France] obtained at the Treaty of Strasbourg, however, did not buy the respite that Arnulf craved. Hoping to root out treachery in his own house, the Frankish King favoured the sons of his second marriage to Judith of Franconia rather than that of his first. This led to his murder in 905. His brother Louis ambitious to increase his own power seized control of Arnulf’s lands through one of his disinherited sons (Pippin III) from the dead king’s first marriage. Although it seemed at first that Louis would renew the war in Burgundy, the Frankish King soon found himself confronted with more pressing internal enemies. His decision to merely imprison the widow Judith at Cologne had dire consequences, for she escaped and sought to rally Louis’s enemies. The man she chose to lead the uprising was John (the former king of Burgundy) who, fearing that Louis would soon gain all of Francia, gathered an army and (aided by Bavaria) rebelled. While Louis took up residence in Austrasia (deposing of the infant Pippin and proclaiming himself King), he made his son Charles King of Neustria. With his position in the west thus secured, Louis marched east where he and John cut bloody trails through the Rhineland.

With his father in the West and open war with Bavaria, Charles found himself vulnerable to the Armorica-Muslim alliance in the south. Therefore, and (according to the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks)despite the wishes of his father, the King of Neustria concluded peace with his enemies. The Al-Gallian leader of the Muslims, Ibn-el-Ahmar eagerly embraced peace and attempted to establish a secure border with the Franks. The death of Arnulf was a severe blow for the ‘Celtic’ Christens, who seemed to have lost interest in St. Ethelbertdream of a ‘Christian War against Islam’. In exile at Innsbruck, St. William of Verdun wrote his Chronicle of Kings about the events depicted above: his was a tale of woe and opportunity lost.

In light of his victories and (probably more importantly) in light of the continuing Frankish threat, Ibn-el-Ahmar was elected Emir of Al-Gallia by the walis of Islamic France in 907. The Emir of Al-Avrup, powerless to prevent this appointment, was forced to concede to it although he maintained that “the Red Man” was still his subordinate.For his part, Ibn-el-Ahmar never declared his own autonomy from the Emir in Córdoba, but did claim hereditary rights to his office and from then on Al-Gallia was an independent sovereign kingdom controlled by his family.

The new Emir of Al-Gallia, reorganized the tax system and increased his power by supporting the local elites and the trading class. One of Ibn-el-Ahmar main allies in creating his new emirate were the Norse.Although some have converted to Islam, many are still pagan something that the both menfind unproblematic although the more pious imams of their realms find this closeness with the al-majus (“fire-worshippers" a derogatory reference to their perceived paganism) immoral. In fact their unpopularity makes them ideal candidates for military recruitment (as they would not be able to usurp their masters) and many Norse spend a considerable amount of time in the Islamic armies.Over the preceding years, he settled large numbers of allied Norse at Tours, Angers and Nantes to strengthen Muslim authority in central France. Many of the Norse were former pirates and brigands who had infested the Loire Valley but after the War were quickly integrated into the administrative system of the Al-Gallians (and their allies the Armoricans) under the strong leadership of Ibn-el-Ahmar.

But the Red Man was not the only one forging independent domains in Al-Avrup: in Al-Italiya (Islamic Italy) the Governor of al-Kahira, on the Gulf of Genoa, Abdallahwas sending an emissary to the Caliphate of Abbasids to request his lands be recognised as a separate emirate. But while Ibn-el-Ahmar basked in the summer of his success, Abdallah faced a more uncertain future. Although Milan had fallen in the long wars with the Lombards, and his predecessors had extended their rule as far as Umbria and the very gates of Rome, the situation was still grim. Venetia was controlled by Venice (backed by the Byzantium and their allies the Bavarians), and was an ever present threat. In Apulia and southern Italia, the Islamic emirates of the mid 9th century had collapsed, re-conquered by the re-invigorated Byzantine Empire. Without outside aid Abdallah (and his ally the Governor of Florentia on the Arno River) faced a troubled future.


But trouble abounded everywhere, and in 909 Muhammad II the Emir of Al-Avrup receives startling news: the Aghlabid Emir, Ziyadat Allah III, had fled North Africa. The people responsible were the followers of the Ismailite mission led by Abu ‘Abd Allah, a faction claiming to represent the true Caliph, a Caliph who claims to descend from Fatima (daughter of the Prophet). The Fatimid conquest was extremely rapid, and the Berber tribes flocked to their banner. Soon all of North Africa was consumed and the Caliph’s army had advanced through Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria, winning control of a large share of the Maghreb. The Fatimid Caliphate represents more than a merely military challenge to the lords of Al-Avrup. The Shi’ite Fatimids of Ifriqiya had put an end to the myth of a united Dâr al‑islâm under the rule of the Caliphs of Baghdad. What philosophers had been saying for over a century now, suddenly became reality for all to see: the Abbasid Caliphate was decadent, weak and morally bankrupt. The rise of the Fatimids was but the final nail in the coffin of Abbasid de-legitimacy in the West.
 
As for Scotland, you could go the Song of Roland route and have a Viking Pictland/Dal Riada(sic) and still have Northumberland hold Lothian and have a seperate Strathclyde...
 
I like the idea of Nordlagen but don't agree that assimilation of the majority Angles to the Norwegian rulers into a single ethno-linguistic group is as easy as described. That barely happened in the Danish Kingdoms of England and Old Danish is closer to Old English than Old Norwegian is to it. Though it must be said that the Danelaw is the primary candidate for the changes into Middle English - levelling the genders and tense endings to enable more mutual intelligibility etc.

I do agree that a Norwegian Scotland/Lowlands will fulfill much the same role as the Anglian Scotland; though it took help from Norman England to secure a Norman dynasty in control of Scotland, if Sutherland and the Western Isles (Hebrides) still come under Norwegian domination as OTL then merging with a Norwegianesque Lowlands might be easier, even if it does enter a Bohemia relationship with Greater Mercia.

And hopefully Strathclyde will remain a separate entity with a surviving (north) Cumbrian language ;)
 
I too hope that this time-line is not dead. I like it a lot.

Mind updating with information on current demographics of a Muslim France? Please. :D
 
Top