No Normandy

Just a random question I was turning over in my head last night...


What if, for whatever reason, the Vikings never settled in Normandy, and the Kingdom of Neustria, or whatever it was by that point in time, was allowed to continue?
 

tuareg109

Banned
It was certainly the Kingdom of France by that point; if Rollo and his band of Vikings hadn't settled there, though, I'm sure that somebody would have. That is some prime real estate; very fertile, far from the French King's authority (evidenced by the hard time he had keeping control over it), and on the crossroads between the Atlantic and the North Sea, and England and the Continent.

Definitely a lucrative place. I'd say that the Bretons would have taken a bunch of it off the French King's hands sooner or later; who knows what else?
 
What existed at this time was the "March of Neustria", that was a non-unifided command against Viking and Breton raids.

Part of it was controlled or under Robertian influence (Robertians being the direct ancestors of Capetians), the other (the "norman" part) was under Berengar's rule whom ascendency is hard to establish, maybe a branch of Popponids (or part of main one) that was more or less related to Robertians.

Without Rollo becoming Count of Rouen, Robertians/Capetians would have a better deal on western Francia but would have still to deal with continued raids from Brittany and Norses.
While Robertian/Capetian takeover of Western Francia seems pretty much unavoidable at this time, and I can see Robert being crowned as OTL, maybe in position to put the Robertian/Capetian dynasty in place in the early X Century rather than in the latter part.

It could mean earlier stabilisation of WF, with the possible re-conquest or holding of Lotharingia for them that went close OTL.
On the other hand, Ramnulfids consolidated their power in the same time. Guilhèm I isn't going to be that much enthusiast about a Robertian takeover : they'll likely use the same tactic than IOTL, aka taking a carolingian pretender as rally banner.
Depending on how well they do, you could avoid, limit or seriously increase the "sucession war" of Aquitaine in the middle of X century.

No such war and earlier stabilisation of Western Francia and Aquitaine could have an important social consequence : the "Paix de Dieu" movement, led by church, managed to manage feudal anarchy (but not feudal lords themselves) and critically to increase the clerical role on society giving it a clear independence from laics lords.
It could lead to interesting changes for gregorian reforms, and how church manages to put his influence on medieval world, maybe (if well turned) no Crusade. Butit's not a direct consequence of No Normandy, rather how No Normandy would lead to stronger Robertians in early X, then possible confrontation with Ramnuflids and Carolingians that could prevent or increase civil disorder. What I say is of course valid only in the first case.

Returning to the point :

I don't think Bretons would have the ressources to take western Neustria. Nerfed Robertians are going to be a serious obstacle. While attacked by raids, Robertians and Carolingians, Normans managed to kick Bretons easily. I don't see why Super-Robert would have an harder time.

No Normandy wouldn't mean no Norse presence in Neustria : there were already there (even if coastal, shores and more outpost than actual settlements) and could replace (without being equivalent) the scandinavian settlement IOTL.

Culturally, it would mean less words coming from Scandinavian in french, but outside that...
Considering Normans were almost fully integrated on the Gallo-Frankish population by the XI century, I don't think someone would really notice a difference.
 
Last edited:
What existed at this time was the "March of Neustria", that was a non-unifided command against Viking and Breton raids.

Part of it was controlled or under Robertian influence (Robertians being the direct ancestors of Capetians), the other (the "norman" part) was under Berengar's rule whom ascendency is hard to establish, maybe a branch of Popponids (or part of main one) that was more or less related to Robertians.

Without Rollo becoming Count of Rouen, Robertians/Capetians would have a better deal on western Francia but would have still to deal with continued raids from Brittany and Norses.
While Robertian/Capetian takeover of Western Francia seems pretty much unavoidable at this time, and I can see Robert being crowned as OTL, maybe in position to put the Robertian/Capetian dynasty in place in the early X Century rather than in the latter part.

It could mean earlier stabilisation of WF, with the possible re-conquest or holding of Lotharingia for them that went close OTL.
On the other hand, Ramnulfids consolidated their power in the same time. Guilhèm I isn't going to be that much enthusiast about a Robertian takeover : they'll likely use the same tactic than IOTL, aka taking a carolingian pretender as rally banner.
Depending on how well they do, you could avoid, limit or seriously increase the "sucession war" of Aquitaine in the middle of X century.

I don't think Bretons would have the ressources to take western Neustria. Nerfed Robertians are going to be a serious obstacle. While attacked by raids, Robertians and Carolingians, Normans managed to kick Bretons easily. I don't see why Super-Robert would have an harder time.

No Normandy wouldn't mean no Norse presence in Neustria : there were already there (even if coastal, shores and more outpost than actual settlements) and could replace (without being equivalent) the scandinavian settlement IOTL.

Culturally, it would mean less words coming from Scandinavian in french, but outside that...
Considering Normans were almost fully integrated on the Gallo-Frankish population by the XI century, I don't think someone would really notice a difference.
In short that could result in a capetian england.
 
Err...No.
Where did you get this idea?

If it's because Wessex heirs went to Normandy IOTL, they could do it or do something else, seeing the PoD would be 100 year prior this, butterflying it or changing it enough to make them choosing somewhere else.

If it's still happen like OTL it's unlikely that they'll give key to England to a reigning family that would be worried first about how keeping his own nobility in check rather than conquering new lands.
William managed to do that OTL because he didn't had serious threats on continent (inner or external) and because he had the support of his nighbours ("Yeah, that's a good idea, go warring elsewhere far from here, and if you could forget to come back, it would be even better").

And having Robertian securing the throne in the early X would probably mean they will never known as "Capetians", but at this point, it's only a detail.

Louis VII being victorious seems a more likely way to have a Capetian England.
 
Top