Obvious consequences:
No Norman Invasion of England and French Influence
No Kingdom of Naples.
What are the other consequences?
No Norman Invasion of England and French Influence
No Kingdom of Naples.
What are the other consequences?
What do you mean? Were they beaten off? Are other Vikings going to attack the area? The Normans got their start because they were actually able to defend the region against Viking attacks. Who else is going to fill that role? I suppose it's possible some random Viking would set up an independent lordship but then they'd just be the Normans by another name. Bottom line: Vikings are going to raid the Normandy area, it's fairly rich and has some rivers leading deeper into the region for more lightning-city-sacking. If you don't want some French-Viking principality on there you have to mitigate or prevent this.
I did it by giving the Franks a high-quality loyal general (St. Aldric, haha!), use of signal towers and allied and united Bretons. I also got an allied Danish King that was busily imposing his authority on the unruly raiders to moderate the situation and eventually throw the extra Scandinavians at the Wends and Britain for plunder instead of at his buddy and supporter the Frankish King.
Anyhow maybe if it's the Bretons that hold them off, they get the land. Maybe it's some local or other independent person so you get a new power center that looks more toward the continent than the big island. I'd say England might be more Saxo-Danish and thus even less interested in the continent. It might centralize in a different way with more central control in the king and a council as opposed to the eventual tug of war with the barons but I'm no expert on Saxon or Danish governmental theory.
I'd say England might be more Saxo-Danish and thus even less interested in the continent. It might centralize in a different way with more central control in the king and a council as opposed to the eventual tug of war with the barons but I'm no expert on Saxon or Danish governmental theory.
Obvious consequences:
No Norman Invasion of England and French Influence
No Kingdom of Naples.
What are the other consequences?
It actually would have quite wide-ranging consequences. The ones you cite are only the most obvious. Some of those which are less obvious, but possibly even more important...
1) The Gregorian Reform fails. In OTL, it was the support of the Norman Kings of Sicily which allowed the reformist Popes to survive their conflicts with various anti-Gregorian Holy Roman Emperors during the 12th and 13th centuries. Without that support, the Holy Roman Emperors come down and put in anti-Reformist popes who allow simony to continue, which benefits the kings but harms the authority of the Church.
2) With a quick end to the investiture controversy which is in favor of royal authority over that of the Church, it is possible that the gradual strengthening of the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor which had been ongoing up to the reign of Henry III would continue and that the Holy Roman Empire may have become a unified state, like France, by the end of the Middle Ages. In OTL, the investiture controversy allowed the local barons, dukes, grafs, etc to play one faction off against another and establish local prerogatives which prevented unification while the Empire still existed.
3) A weakened church might not be able to suppress the heresies which arose during the 11th-12th centuries in Europe. This, combined with general disgust over the failed power grab by the Popes (part of the Gregorian Reform was an assertion of temporal power by the Popes) might lead to something like an earlier Reformation.
4) The Byzantines, under the Comnenus dynasty, are able to devote their resources to defeating the Turks in Asia Minor rather than to fighting off constant attacks by the Normans of Sicily. The troops which were lost fighting the Normans (such as the famous Varangian Guard and the Thematic troops of the Balkan region) are not lost. Quite likely the Byzantines are able to reconquer Anatolia and drive the Turks completely out during the course of the 11th and 12th centuries.
5) The Byzantines won't need to ask the Popes to send western troops to help them against the Turks, and the Popes might not have the moral authority to call for such aid to be given, anyway. Possibly no Crusades.
6) Possibly no Great Schism between the Western and Eastern Churches. This came about in part because the Normans were in southern Sicily, taking over Byzantine territory and forcing the Greek churches in the area to adopt the Latin rites (such as the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist). These actions greatly antagonized Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople, who ordered the closure of Latin churches in the East in retaliation. No Normans in Sicily, no closure of Latin Churches in the East, which was a major factor leading up to the Schism. Also, Patriarch Michael also, partly as a result of his rage over the situation in southern Italy, ordered Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, leader of the Bulgarian Church, to compose a letter condemning the “Judaistic” practices of the West, with the intention of sending this to all Western Bishops, including the Pope. If the Greek churches in Italy are not molested, he might decide against this course of action, and the chain of events which led to the Schism in 1054 might never happen.
Incidentally, these are all butterflies of the destruction of the Normans which I explored in my BRITONS TRIUMPHANT timeline.
The biggest consequence, probably so big and obvious it doesn't even need pointed out...no English language. At least not as we know it. Without the influence of Norman French, English probably stays much more like Old English.
Alternatively, if the Vikings set up shop in Great Britain on a more permanent basis, English might develop as an Anglo-Saxon/Old Norse hybrid.![]()
Also, there would be huge consequences for the Celtic languages. Again, no Norman French probably means no Scots, and depending on the strength of whatever polity ends up controlling England, we might see speakers of Celtic languages occupying more of Great Britain.
Oh, and the history of English literature after Beowulf is totally different.
<snip>
It actually would have quite wide-ranging consequences. The ones you cite are only the most obvious. Some of those which are less obvious, but possibly even more important...
1) The Gregorian Reform fails. In OTL, it was the support of the Norman Kings of Sicily which allowed the reformist Popes to survive their conflicts with various anti-Gregorian Holy Roman Emperors during the 12th and 13th centuries. Without that support, the Holy Roman Emperors come down and put in anti-Reformist popes who allow simony to continue, which benefits the kings but harms the authority of the Church.
2) With a quick end to the investiture controversy which is in favor of royal authority over that of the Church, it is possible that the gradual strengthening of the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor which had been ongoing up to the reign of Henry III would continue and that the Holy Roman Empire may have become a unified state, like France, by the end of the Middle Ages. In OTL, the investiture controversy allowed the local barons, dukes, grafs, etc to play one faction off against another and establish local prerogatives which prevented unification while the Empire still existed.
3) A weakened church might not be able to suppress the heresies which arose during the 11th-12th centuries in Europe. This, combined with general disgust over the failed power grab by the Popes (part of the Gregorian Reform was an assertion of temporal power by the Popes) might lead to something like an earlier Reformation.
4) The Byzantines, under the Comnenus dynasty, are able to devote their resources to defeating the Turks in Asia Minor rather than to fighting off constant attacks by the Normans of Sicily. The troops which were lost fighting the Normans (such as the famous Varangian Guard and the Thematic troops of the Balkan region) are not lost. Quite likely the Byzantines are able to reconquer Anatolia and drive the Turks completely out during the course of the 11th and 12th centuries.
5) The Byzantines won't need to ask the Popes to send western troops to help them against the Turks, and the Popes might not have the moral authority to call for such aid to be given, anyway. Possibly no Crusades.
6) Possibly no Great Schism between the Western and Eastern Churches. This came about in part because the Normans were in southern Sicily, taking over Byzantine territory and forcing the Greek churches in the area to adopt the Latin rites (such as the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist). These actions greatly antagonized Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople, who ordered the closure of Latin churches in the East in retaliation. No Normans in Sicily, no closure of Latin Churches in the East, which was a major factor leading up to the Schism. Also, Patriarch Michael also, partly as a result of his rage over the situation in southern Italy, ordered Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, leader of the Bulgarian Church, to compose a letter condemning the “Judaistic” practices of the West, with the intention of sending this to all Western Bishops, including the Pope. If the Greek churches in Italy are not molested, he might decide against this course of action, and the chain of events which led to the Schism in 1054 might never happen.
Incidentally, these are all butterflies of the destruction of the Normans which I explored in my BRITONS TRIUMPHANT timeline.
Why? Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse were already so similar as to be mutually intelligible. And by the time of the Norman Conquest, the Vikings had been in England long enough that Old English ALREADY WAS a hybrid between the two. That's why we say "sister" instead of "swester" today, for example...in that case, the Norse word won out and replaced the original Anglo-Saxon word.
It actually would have quite wide-ranging consequences. The ones you cite are only the most obvious. Some of those which are less obvious, but possibly even more important...
1) The Gregorian Reform fails. In OTL, it was the support of the Norman Kings of Sicily which allowed the reformist Popes to survive their conflicts with various anti-Gregorian Holy Roman Emperors during the 12th and 13th centuries. Without that support, the Holy Roman Emperors come down and put in anti-Reformist popes who allow simony to continue, which benefits the kings but harms the authority of the Church.
2) With a quick end to the investiture controversy which is in favor of royal authority over that of the Church, it is possible that the gradual strengthening of the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor which had been ongoing up to the reign of Henry III would continue and that the Holy Roman Empire may have become a unified state, like France, by the end of the Middle Ages. In OTL, the investiture controversy allowed the local barons, dukes, grafs, etc to play one faction off against another and establish local prerogatives which prevented unification while the Empire still existed.
I didn't know that. Thanks; I legitimately learned something new today!![]()
Errr... Except that the Angles and Saxons, at least spoke a West Germanic language (in the same sub family as German), while the Danish and Norse spoke a North Germanic language.Glad to be of service.When you really think about it, it's easy to see why that would be the case...the Angles and Jutes especially came from Scandinavia (Denmark), and together they made up the majority of the "English" people. So it's only natural that their language should have been similar to that of the people who remained behind after they migrated to England.
German Denmark...cool.Which would effect Denmark greatly!
If Denmark is not a North Sea empire it most probably ends up a German land as OTL the Danish Kings supported the Pope against the Emperor as this made them able to fend off the Emperors demand of fealthy.
If Denmark is a North Sea empire including England we'd see a massive Danish - HREGN conflict raging for years on end for the control of Saxony and Frisia as well as lordships of Wends and Poles! The Baltic would be a Danish lake and ensure wealth from control of the N European trade routes.
Errr... Except that the Angles and Saxons, at least spoke a West Germanic language (in the same sub family as German), while the Danish and Norse spoke a North Germanic language.
The line 'I could tell he was a Dane because of the way he talked', which is sometimes taken to mean that Danish was mutually intelligible with A-S could simply mean 'even speaking A-S, he had a Danish accent'. Robert, if you've got better data than that one line I'd like to see it. That single line is the usual evidence I've seen people cite.
Mind you 1000 years ago West Germanic (in particular) was a lot closer to proto-Germanic than it is today, so I'm not saying it's impossible the languages were mutually intelligible, I'd just like a better source.
Thank you, that helps.This is the general perception of Danish works on the early medieval/viking age.
Off the memory Niels Lund: "de hærger og de brænder"
Errr... Except that the Angles and Saxons, at least spoke a West Germanic language (in the same sub family as German), while the Danish and Norse spoke a North Germanic language.
The line 'I could tell he was a Dane because of the way he talked', which is sometimes taken to mean that Danish was mutually intelligible with A-S could simply mean 'even speaking A-S, he had a Danish accent'. Robert, if you've got better data than that one line I'd like to see it. That single line is the usual evidence I've seen people cite.
Mind you 1000 years ago West Germanic (in particular) was a lot closer to proto-Germanic than it is today, so I'm not saying it's impossible the languages were mutually intelligible, I'd just like a better source.
Thank you for the link.A more recent study, which I have not read, has apparently come to the same conclusion as the 1970s study to which I referred. The way the author puts it is that Viking Age England was a "bi-lingual society, but not a society composed of bi-lingual individuals." That is, each spoke his own language, but the languages were sufficiently similar and intelligible that they could communicate without much difficulty.
4) The Byzantines, under the Comnenus dynasty, are able to devote their resources to defeating the Turks in Asia Minor rather than to fighting off constant attacks by the Normans of Sicily. The troops which were lost fighting the Normans (such as the famous Varangian Guard and the Thematic troops of the Balkan region) are not lost. Quite likely the Byzantines are able to reconquer Anatolia and drive the Turks completely out during the course of the 11th and 12th centuries.
5) The Byzantines won't need to ask the Popes to send western troops to help them against the Turks, and the Popes might not have the moral authority to call for such aid to be given, anyway. Possibly no Crusades.
6) Possibly no Great Schism between the Western and Eastern Churches. This came about in part because the Normans were in southern Sicily, taking over Byzantine territory and forcing the Greek churches in the area to adopt the Latin rites (such as the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist). These actions greatly antagonized Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople, who ordered the closure of Latin churches in the East in retaliation. No Normans in Sicily, no closure of Latin Churches in the East, which was a major factor leading up to the Schism. Also, Patriarch Michael also, partly as a result of his rage over the situation in southern Italy, ordered Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, leader of the Bulgarian Church, to compose a letter condemning the “Judaistic” practices of the West, with the intention of sending this to all Western Bishops, including the Pope. If the Greek churches in Italy are not molested, he might decide against this course of action, and the chain of events which led to the Schism in 1054 might never happen.
Incidentally, these are all butterflies of the destruction of the Normans which I explored in my BRITONS TRIUMPHANT timeline.