DBWI What if the vikings didnt take over all of Europe.

If not could it possibly have taken longer like mabye until the 1500s to discover the americas. Could the vikings possibly have converted to christianity and their polytheitic religion dissapear forever. And without the Danish Kingdom of France and the Norweigien kingdom of England what european powers would have taken over India and China?
 
If not could it possibly have taken longer like mabye until the 1500s to discover the americas. Could the vikings possibly have converted to christianity and their polytheitic religion dissapear forever. And without the Danish Kingdom of France and the Norweigien kingdom of England what european powers would have taken over India and China?
Taking over the whole of Europe is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but there's no denying that the conquest and formation of the Nordic states in Britain, France, the Mediterranean, and parts of Germany were deeply significant to the course of European history. I doubt the discovery of the New World (I presume that you mean Vinland, Overhavet and Transmare when you mention 'the Americas' - what language is that from?) would have lasted that long, since the first expeditions to Vinland predated the Golden Age of the Nordic system (c.1070-1230). On the other hand, without the Udvandring system (by which noble sons and daughters failing to inherit would be granted fiefs in Vinland and later Overhavet), I guess it's plausible that the colonies across the ocean would have been a lot smaller. This, meanwhile, might have meant that contact was lost during the Istid (or Little Ice Age, for you non-Norsk-speakers out there), rather than OTL, where the decline of the northern route to the colonies encouraged the development of new naval technologies.

As for the conquest of India and China, it's hard to say exactly what states would have emerged in Europe without the Nordic influence, and even harder to predict which ones would have been able to conquer land overseas like that. I would say that it's by no means a certainty that anything like European colonialism would have actually emerged, however - after all, the development of colonial empires owed a lot to the Nordic tradition, with the Empire of Canute/Knut/Kanüt/Canutus/whatever having been seen by some historians as a precursor to these,
 
Amerigo is an Italian or German name; maybe this is a TL where Italian city-states survived to an extent and exile colonies from them or the displaced German cities fled to Spain and those exile groups in turn gave their name to the continents.
 
Amerigo is an Italian or German name; maybe this is a TL where Italian city-states survived to an extent and exile colonies from them or the displaced German cities fled to Spain and those exile groups in turn gave their name to the continents.
He's likely referring to the Amerrisk mountains of the land bridge west of the Callin Sea. Some people extend the range north and south.

OOC Callin = Kalin another name for Carib. The Amerrique/Amerrisque Mtns are named such OTL and may have contributed to the America label.
 
Ah yes, I confused this with the Amerigan Islands, sometimes Aengliscized to Amerikan Islands, settled largely by said exiles. Incidentally, would they have become major urban centers TTL? Without the Judeo-Carib and Genoan-Arawak aristocracy.
 
He's likely referring to the Amerrisk mountains of the land bridge west of the Callin Sea. Some people extend the range north and south.
Ah, that makes sense - you'd think that we'd have one global name for an entire landmass by now, but here we are... I guess that's an inevitable consequence of the way it was discovered and colonised, with Nordic settlers in Vinland and eventually Overhavet, Germanic traders making contact with the Empire of Tenoschtilann, Mediterranean ships discovering Transmare a few hundred years later, and groups like the Basck, the Hansa, and the Jewish explorers complicating the whole picture throughout. What a mess the Age of Discovery was...

Ah yes, I confused this with the Amerigan Islands, sometimes Aengliscized to Amerikan Islands, settled largely by said exiles. Incidentally, would they have become major urban centers TTL? Without the Judeo-Carib and Genoan-Arawak aristocracy.
That's an interesting question - I mean, the islands themselves almost certainly would have been pretty important whoever was holding them, what with their trade value and their strategic location in controlling the north coast of Transmare and the south coast of Overhavet. On the other hand, I'm less certain that the syncretic hybrid culture of the entire island chain would exist without some Nordic influence - if memory serves me correctly, the philosophical principles of the reformed Nordic faith (Aesirism, as we call it today) were pretty much a fundamental basis for the Genoan settlement of Amerige.
 
OOC: Unless the German traders show up in the 16th century or so, they probably won't come in contact with the Empire of Tenochitlan or have much to say if they do. Wasn't really much of a thing and I'd want to loop a proper expert to talk about the politics of that area in the postclassic.
 
OOC: Wow, even a bit of Europe is a high demand.

IC: One major divergence would be the philosophical duties of the ruling class. The vikings didn't really conquer anywhere but England, Alba, Eire, Saxony, and Frisia, and even that is largely due to luck. The Frankish Empire was splintering between Charles the Great's sons, Charles the Younger of Francia, Pippin of Italy, and Louis of Aquitaine. These kings and their descendants warred with each other for the control of Charlemagne over the entire Empire. The chaos was great enough that vulnerable areas just overthrew the Franks and installed Nordic leaders as their rulers instead of getting raided, and as things got worse more and more areas did this. In cooperation with viking supporters, the local peasants just overthrew their feudal nobles and replaced them with said vikings. Tribute became taxes, and so Europe was 'conquered'. The people just basically handed it over in return for peace and protection.

It was this series of events that really changed perceptions on rulers. The Frankish feudals lords that dragged whole armies as they waged wars across the Empire were replaced by foreigners who were only installed by the local people. The Nordic leaders never quite forgot this, and those that did became lessons for later generations as they were themselves replaced by newer and more understandable ones. While conflict between the Nordic ruling classes remained till the Golden Age of the Nordic System, it was by necessity far more personal conflicts. Competitions and rivalries between the Jarls with their huskarls. Not armies. The sort of fights and quests immortalized in the Sagas as befitting rulers, and the people themselves decided dealing with this was better than what came before. They might end up with a different ruler because he defeated their previous one in a wrestling match, but at least they didn't die for it. This established the democratic, meritocratic, and even elective system that lasted till the 1500. The Golden Age became so because the Udvandring system and this peace encouraged period of population growth caused the rapid settlement of Vinland and Overhavet, providing an outlet for the excess nobility to earn lands and titles instead of competing in Europe for a limited number.

There's a reason this Age is so romanticized. Nordic nobles exploring these vast lands in bold journeys, their interactions with the Skraelings, the accomplishments achieved to make a name for themselves as worthy of following. None of this would have happened if the vikings never achieved success, instead feudalism would have continued. Rulers who inherited their positions, fighting their own siblings with massive armies to reunite the divided lands of their fathers, etc. Without nobles who needed to prove themselves and thus spent their fortunes on exploring or building, competed with each other on a personal level for personal glory, Europe would have been too consumed in conflict to ever expand.

Although they might have avoided the hilarious events of the century following the Golden Age when the Nordic nobles weren't capable of understanding the East didn't follow such traditions. The number of nobles who died from comparatively silly things really just comes across as inept. It wasn't till around 1500 that the Nords were ready to try again, unfortunately by this point the developed settlements in Vinland and Overhavet alongside the unfortunate changes in leadership style by the Nordic rulers would bring about the more dismal times of the Age of Colonization.

OOC: So my POD is Charlemagne not being lucky enough for two of his sons to die before him, thus leaving Louis the Pious his sole heir. So the Frankish Empire started fracturing earlier, and this early decline meant Frankish feudalism never stopped dividing the lands of the father between all the sons. Really gave feudalism a bad name. Otherwise, I was just amused by the idea of noble feuds playing out in this time like the weird challenges of the Sagas. You know, 'he who kills this beast will become king of this land or 'this princess will marry the one to win this series of Olympic-like events'.
 
One major divergence would be the philosophical duties of the ruling class. The vikings didn't really conquer anywhere but England, Alba, Eire, Saxony, and Frisia, and even that is largely due to luck. The Frankish Empire was splintering between Charles the Great's sons, Charles the Younger of Francia, Pippin of Italy, and Louis of Aquitaine. These kings and their descendants warred with each other for the control of Charlemagne over the entire Empire. The chaos was great enough that vulnerable areas just overthrew the Franks and installed Nordic leaders as their rulers instead of getting raided, and as things got worse more and more areas did this. In cooperation with viking supporters, the local peasants just overthrew their feudal nobles and replaced them with said vikings. Tribute became taxes, and so Europe was 'conquered'. The people just basically handed it over in return for peace and protection.

It was this series of events that really changed perceptions on rulers. The Frankish feudals lords that dragged whole armies as they waged wars across the Empire were replaced by foreigners who were only installed by the local people. The Nordic leaders never quite forgot this, and those that did became lessons for later generations as they were themselves replaced by newer and more understandable ones. While conflict between the Nordic ruling classes remained till the Golden Age of the Nordic System, it was by necessity far more personal conflicts. Competitions and rivalries between the Jarls with their huskarls. Not armies. The sort of fights and quests immortalized in the Sagas as befitting rulers, and the people themselves decided dealing with this was better than what came before. They might end up with a different ruler because he defeated their previous one in a wrestling match, but at least they didn't die for it. This established the democratic, meritocratic, and even elective system that lasted till the 1500. The Golden Age became so because the Udvandring system and this peace encouraged period of population growth caused the rapid settlement of Vinland and Overhavet, providing an outlet for the excess nobility to earn lands and titles instead of competing in Europe for a limited number.

There's a reason this Age is so romanticized. Nordic nobles exploring these vast lands in bold journeys, their interactions with the Skraelings, the accomplishments achieved to make a name for themselves as worthy of following. None of this would have happened if the vikings never achieved success, instead feudalism would have continued. Rulers who inherited their positions, fighting their own siblings with massive armies to reunite the divided lands of their fathers, etc. Without nobles who needed to prove themselves and thus spent their fortunes on exploring or building, competed with each other on a personal level for personal glory, Europe would have been too consumed in conflict to ever expand.

Although they might have avoided the hilarious events of the century following the Golden Age when the Nordic nobles weren't capable of understanding the East didn't follow such traditions. The number of nobles who died from comparatively silly things really just comes across as inept. It wasn't till around 1500 that the Nords were ready to try again, unfortunately by this point the developed settlements in Vinland and Overhavet alongside the unfortunate changes in leadership style by the Nordic rulers would bring about the more dismal times of the Age of Colonization.

All very good points (although, of course, things were a bit different in the Nordic Mediterranean, particularly in the Italijan and North African city-states beyond Charlemagne's domains - in a number of cities, the local elites put Nordic chiefs in power for their own reasons, which often backfired a bit). Obviously, an empire such as Charlemagne's could never have lasted for any length of time, any more than the dominions of steppe nomads like the Xiongnu, the Avars, or the Rus' could have - I guess that the Nordic states were just lucky in being able to take advantage of the Frankish collapse.

As for the politics of the Golden Age, I think that one thing often neglected in considerations of how peace was maintained is the religious situation at the time. Obviously, this was before the full reformation of the Nordic faith and the creation of the Great Aesirist Church, but the fusion of traditional Nordic beliefs with elements of Christianity considered heretical by the Theocrat of Rome (or was he still called the Pope at that stage? I find Christian religious history extremely convoluted and confusing, so apologies if I've got any of this wrong) was quite important in setting out this idealised doctrine of the rights and duties of kings, which as you say led to the unique political system of the Golden Age which Europe subsequently spent a good few centuries trying to recover.

And you're right - in a world with no Nordic influence across Europe, the interactions between Europe and the empires of the Levant (and beyond) would have been completely different. For one thing, there'd be no challenge to single combat issued to the Kalif of Meqa by the High King of Vennis, and certainly no disastrous 'Voyage of the Ten Kings' to try and rescue Constantinople from its conquerors - heaven knows how that would affect historical satire to this day...
 
Top