Ethelred the Pious (Viking England)

Valdemar II

Banned
Right , I see that. But I personally would like to see a different name. Maybe the Norse equivalent of "Ivory Land" or something else referring to walrus hunting. Benland or Beinland would seem to mean "Boneland" and could refer to ivory. But I don't know any Scandinavian languages at all and am just paddling around the Internet looking for possibilities.

I do like Markland for the Americas, since it seems so obvious. I'm still unsure about the status the Viking-Americans would have in this TL. Originally I had imagined a much more viable Vinland that gradually fades into the fabric of the continent, sort of like the Kievan Rus. I also imagined the Hanseatic merchants exploiting America at a much later date. Now I'm not so sure about it.

Ivory would be interesting, but one problem Ivory is rather long word in modern scandinavian (Elfenben), and it's the same in all languages so either they have lacked a word for it and adopted the German "Elfenbein" or it has existed in the early Germanic Language (something I find likely). Directly it mean Elf Bone, so a potential name could be Elfland. Of course that the Norse equalant of calling the country Ogreland/Monsterland, not something which will make it popular with the emigrants, of course Elf could also be assosiated with Alfs, and in that case it would also be synonym with fertility and riches.
 
Ivory would be interesting, but one problem Ivory is rather long word in modern scandinavian (Elfenben), and it's the same in all languages so either they have lacked a word for it and adopted the German "Elfenbein" or it has existed in the early Germanic Language (something I find likely). Directly it mean Elf Bone, so a potential name could be Elfland. Of course that the Norse equalant of calling the country Ogreland/Monsterland, not something which will make it popular with the emigrants, of course Elf could also be assosiated with Alfs, and in that case it would also be synonym with fertility and riches.

That's why I suggested Benland, Bone Land.

Is it really "Elf bone?" Where did that name come from? When I looked the word up I had actually guessed it came from "Elephant bone" somehow. I guessed wrong, apparently.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
That's why I suggested Benland, Bone Land.

Would you like to live in Bone Land? The sound is every bit as negative in Scandinavian as in English if not more, it sound like poverty, hunger and death.

Is it really "Elf bone?" Where did that name come from? When I looked the word up I had actually guessed it came from "Elephant bone" somehow. I guessed wrong, apparently.

Could be you're right, But Elf is "Elfen" in german and Alf/Alv in Scandinavian languages or potential Elver in Danish, but that indicates monstrous origin, something it seem to share somewhat with the German "Elfen". Beside North Europeans had little contact with Elephant Ivory, most of the one they used was Walrus and Narwhale.
 
Last edited:
Just for fun, a family tree. Astericks indicate real people from OTL. The bottommost name, Cnut, may be replaced with an alternate-reality character.

[EDIT] and I've already found an error. Erik the Mariner (father-in-law of Thorkell, 954-975) should not have an asterisk. I made him up.

Ragnaraetten.PNG
 
Last edited:
I'll be rewriting some portions of this soon. I'm happy with the TL in Britain, Ireland, and Spain, but there were not enough butterflies in France. Specifically, Normandy will not be founded, and Anguelenie will be moved northward, replacing Normandy, more or less. But it will be established in the 920s or 30s and maintain close ties to England. That may change some of the TL later on.
 
I really appreciate the idea of allowing a surviving branch of Norse Polytheism/Paganism surviving in the world. But I should ask if you intend to codify it at some point? If the pre-Christian Norse/Swedes/Danes, and even Saxons, were a more literate culture, there would be a better chance of religious continuity.
 
I'll be rewriting some portions of this soon. I'm happy with the TL in Britain, Ireland, and Spain, but there were not enough butterflies in France. Specifically, Normandy will not be founded, and Anguelenie will be moved northward, replacing Normandy, more or less. But it will be established in the 920s or 30s and maintain close ties to England. That may change some of the TL later on.

I'm surprised I've managed to miss this thread the past few months, but I've just read through it, and I'd like to say: Keep it up! :D

One question though: you say in this post that Normandy won't be founded ITTL, but in post #14 you talk about Vikings getting the same deal in the Bordelais that Hrolf/Rollon got in Normandy in the early 10th c. Did you mean that instead of the Norse getting Normandy in 911, they get the Bordelais fifteen years later? :confused: Also, when I saw the name "Anguelenie," I figured you were talking about the Angoulême. I'm interested to see where this territory ends up being. Brittany? Pas-de-Calais? Hmm...
 
I'm surprised I've managed to miss this thread the past few months, but I've just read through it, and I'd like to say: Keep it up! :D

One question though: you say in this post that Normandy won't be founded ITTL, but in post #14 you talk about Vikings getting the same deal in the Bordelais that Hrolf/Rollon got in Normandy in the early 10th c. Did you mean that instead of the Norse getting Normandy in 911, they get the Bordelais fifteen years later? :confused: Also, when I saw the name "Anguelenie," I figured you were talking about the Angoulême. I'm interested to see where this territory ends up being. Brittany? Pas-de-Calais? Hmm...

Yes, in earlier posts I had written Normandy as if it were founded as in OTL, but after stepping back from writing for a few months, I realize that the original Normans in the 910s would probably end up in England.

The name Anguelenie sounds a lot like Angoulême and is no doubt cause for great confusion in EtP.France! It was founded by Anglo-Norse raiders calling themselves Angeln, hence the name. So far I had it centered on Bordeaux and extending southward down the coast. Now, I think the Angeln may have actually established it in OTL.Normandy! So I really need to do a "revised" version of the TL reflecting the changes to France.

So yes, my new version is as you say. Instead of a bunch of Norse getting Normandy in 911, a different bunch of Norse, coming from England, get *something* in France (possibly in the region of Normandy, possibly the Bordelais, possibly somewhere else) 15 years later. Those 15 years are aren't a huge span of time, but IMO they make a justifiable difference between an England where ambitious Norsemen can eat their hearts out, and an England where the king's relatives feel the need to venture south for new plunder.
 
Last edited:
Here's my thought for Hrolfr the Norseman, in OTL the founder of Normandy.

Hrolfr was a Viking chieftain and a veteran of great raids in France and Ireland. In 895 he settled in England with his wife Poppa, their infant son Vilhjálmr, and a large band of followers. The king* let them settle in Devon
 
Here's my thought for Hrolfr the Norseman, in OTL the founder of Normandy.

Hrolfr was a Danish chieftain and a veteran of great raids in France and Ireland. In 895 he settled in England with his wife Poppa, their infant son Vilhjálmr, and a large band of followers. King Hogni of Jorvik* let them settle in Devon, at that time a frontier region of Jorvik that was almost 100% Anglo-Saxon. The followers that Hrolfr brought to his new jarldom were a major step in the Norsification of the south.

A restless warrior, Hrolfr led an army into the still independent kingdom of Kernow (Cornwall) in 904. He secured the kingdom's submission and placed his 11-year-old son on the throne. When Hrolfr died, his son Vilhalmer/William spent most of his time in Kernow and gradually lost control of his jarldom in Devon. In 924, King Hogni died, and a number of rival jarls contended for the throne of Jorvik. Vilhalmer's candidate lost to the new king, Bjorn I, and this further hurt his position in England.

His son [Insert Cornish Name] failed to reconquer the Devon jarldom, and thenceforward Hrolfr's descendants ruled Cornwall as an independent Norse-Celtic kingdom. They maintained its independence well into the 11th century. The Danish Kings largely left Cornwall alone, as they mostly did in OTL.

(Yes, Cornwall's status in OTL was much more complex and murky. Probably a case can be made that Canute's kingdom in OTL either did or did not include Cornwall. In TTL, in which Canute just barely evades the butterflies to be king of England and Denmark, he is content for Cornwall to have a vague sort of vassalage.)

I think this nicely fills in the gaps in Cornwall's history. And with that Normandy has been butterflied away... I will have to do some reading before I can really say what the effects on French history will be, even in the short term. Sigtrygg the Squinty is still going to start a fief in France in 924. This may in fact be in what is Normandy in OTL. I don't know.

* Note:
* Up until now, the king of Jorvik at that time has been listed as Hvitserk, son of Halfdan Ragnarsson. As as pointed out, Hvitserk ("White Shirt") was an epithet, not a name, and in fact was an epithet of the real Halfdan. So his [fictional] son needs a new name - let's say Hogni. Hogni's personality won't change - he's still a moderate ruler who helped consolidate Jorvik into a viable kingdom.
 
Map of William Longsword's domains. He sailed against the Channel Islands as in OTL, but from the opposite direction. And for a brief moment he is Lord of Cherbourg. That won't last; the purpose is to show the maximum extent of the family's territory.

Channel940%28EtP%29.PNG
 
Ben,

When you posted that map in the map thread, you invited suggestions on Nordicising placenames. Your renaming of the Channel Islands seems reasonable. As to Cherbourg, I did a little checking, and apparently, though there was a Roman fort at the site named "Coriallo" in the 4th c., the first appearance of the name "Cherbourg" doesn't occur in written documents before 1026. Since that means this is a Norman French name, "Karlsborg" is as appropriate as any alternative, but also gives you a bit of leeway in giving it a totally non-OTLish name...

If anyone gives you any lip in the Map thread over this, feel free to cross-post this over there and let them find better sources :p
 
OK, thanks. I don't know where the map's current name for Cherbourg came from, but I know it was based on something. I'll gladly take the suggestion for Karlsborg.
 
More Retconning: The Robertians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(885-886)

In this timeline, I think that Sigfred still attacked Paris in 885. But he did so without Rollo, who (it turns out) was subduing the Saxons in Devon and the Welsh in Cornwall at the time. Presumably the Viking band that sailed up the Seine that year was a good deal smaller than in OTL, since England was drawing off so many of the Vikings' energies.

So that means that Odo, defender of Paris, wins even more easily. Instead of bravely defeating a mighty army, he drove off a petty raiding party. Might that mean that he never becomes a famous general, and never is elected king of the Western Franks? Odo's kingship brought his family into the forefront of Frankish politics, and ultimately his brothers grandson, Hugh Capet, became the founder of the French state. Is it possible that now, the Robertians never have a chance to prove themselves and end up as very powerful vassals to the Holy Roman Empire?

I had really, really never seen this angle before, and the TL would require a lot of changes to accomodate for it. But it's one big wrinkle I may have missed. If anyone knows a lot about the Franks, I'd welcome advice and thoguhts.
 
Hmmm, wikipedia lists Guy III of Spoleto and Louis of Provence (future King of Provence/UpperBurgundy, and Emperor) as contenders with Odo for the Crown of West France. I would go for Louis, who'd be succeeded by Charles the Simple (who was elcted OTL anyway).
Then you could have Odo's younger brother revolt similarly to OTL and become King. His son Hugh Capet may therefore remain Duke of the Franks but as his OTL wife is Eadhild, daughter of Edward the Elder King of England, he may not have a son rise to become Hugh the Great of (West) France.
 
Hmmm, wikipedia lists Guy III of Spoleto and Louis of Provence (future King of Provence/UpperBurgundy, and Emperor) as contenders with Odo for the Crown of West France. I would go for Louis, who'd be succeeded by Charles the Simple (who was elcted OTL anyway).
Then you could have Odo's younger brother revolt similarly to OTL and become King. His son Hugh Capet may therefore remain Duke of the Franks but as his OTL wife is Eadhild, daughter of Edward the Elder King of England, he may not have a son rise to become Hugh the Great of (West) France.

Yikes, I missed that he had an English wife. I had suspected that Charles the Simple would be elected anyway, being the "heir" to the throne insofar as that's even possible among the Franks. Now here's where I get confused. Was Charles in theory the Roman Emperor after Charlemagne and Charles the Fat, or merely king of West Francia? In OTL it seems he was just the West-Frankish King; in TTL, with the West Franks having less of a need to act independently in the 880s, maybe Charles the Simple can rise to become Emperor.

[EDIT] I'm admittedly in unfamiliar territory here. Charles the Fat was more-or-less the last of the Carolingian emperors; after him the eastern German/Franks maintained the idea of Roman Emperorship, while the western Franks bit by bit developed into the French state. I think that in this TL, the Empire persists at least a little longer. TTL, after a 40-year lull, Viking attacks (this time from England) resumed in force in the 820s; maybe that will tear the Carolingian empire apart at last... but the states that emerge may be very different.

[EDIT] I'll take your suggestions, Professor. The last Roman Emperors of the Carolignian line before West Francia was lost:

Charles the Fat: 881-888
Louis the Wary:888-915: disastrous Italian campaign that resulted in his blindness is butterflied away, but he is killed in battle against the Magyars
Charles the Simple: 915-932 - died in prison following Robert's revolt, as in OTL, but it happens a bit later.

The Carolingian line remained in power in East Francia. Now I need to do a whole sub-TL for what happens over there. Blast - it's been over a year, and I'm still not out of the 10th century!
 
Last edited:
OK, without going into insanely niggly genealogical detail (this TL has more than its share of that already), here is my overall plan for tenth-century Germany and France:

1. The line of Roman Emperors continued unbroken in eastern Francia and the core Franconian region, comprising OTL Germany and a sizeable chunk of OTL France. The realm is known as the [Holy] Roman Empire.
2. The Robertians successfully broke away from the Empire in the face of the Anglo-Norse invasions of the 920s and 30s. They were calling themselves Kings of Neustria by the 950s and ruled an area centered on Paris.
3. The Duchy of Anguelenie (approximately OTL Normandy), founded by Anglo-Norse, became a vassal of the Empire, not of Neustria.
4. Cut off from the Frankish core lands by Neustria, the Kingdom of Aquitaine gradually drifted apart from the Empire. The far south contained the County of Toulouse and the Kingdom of Provence, as in OTL. Anglo-Norse occupied Bordeaux at least twice, but were driven out.

After 980, the Caliphate began pushing northward over the Pyrennes into Aquitaine and Toulouse. Toulouse rejoined its former overlord, the Aquitaine King, out of fear of invasion. Moorish invaders beseiged Toulouse many times.

In order to secure the Spanish Marches (now located north of the Pyrennes, since the old Marches had all fallen to the Caliph), Aquitaine awarded fiefs to Vikings from England, who established themselves in Gascony and became fierce fighters against Cordoban expansion.
 
Top