No Viking Age?

So this idea just came to me the other day. How would history develop if the ancient Norse never became the (in)famous sea-based raiders that we know and love today? In this scenario, how would the rest of Europe develop if the Norse do not develop sea-faring capabilities any more advanced than their immediate neighbors (i.e., the Saxons, Franks and Anglo-Saxons)?
 
I think if you're going to avoid the Viking Age you're going to need something less ASB. The Norse, Swedes, and Danes became the finest ship-builders of their age because the lands they lived in necessitated it. Arable land was a very limited commodity which made aquaculture and seaborne trade incredibly valuable in that society. Add in the incredibly rough waters of the North and Baltic Seas (especially compared to the Med) and you're going to have a culture that's going to build some amazing ships as a matter of survival.
 
I think if you're going to avoid the Viking Age you're going to need something less ASB. The Norse, Swedes, and Danes became the finest ship-builders of their age because the lands they lived in necessitated it. Arable land was a very limited commodity which made aquaculture and seaborne trade incredibly valuable in that society. Add in the incredibly rough waters of the North and Baltic Seas (especially compared to the Med) and you're going to have a culture that's going to build some amazing ships as a matter of survival.

True, true. I did not take that into account. In that case, is a less violent or limited Viking Age possible, you think? Perhaps one restricted to the North Sea region? I admittedly do not know very much about the period (which is why I asked). Or perhaps the better question to ask could be: could continental Europeans and Anglo-Saxons have done a better job fending off the Norse?
 
1)A strong Carolingian Empire is required. Or at the very last, no more than two lasting carolingian sucessor states.

2)Continuation of the policy of construction of fortresses and patrols thanks to smallers armies and the relative abandon of southern lands (Spain, Aquitaine, Provence, Central Italia)

3)Using a similar anti-piracy strategy than the Cordoban one

4)Of course heavily use of dicplomacy and agreements with nordics is a plus. If Danemark is conquered or vassalized by Carolingians it would butterfly many of the Danes expedition that formed half of Viking raids. And it would help to use Danes as "marche" against Nordic raids with similar weapons (authorising danes to use frankish swords would be an advantage.
 
The plagues of the 6th and 7th centuries in Europe, so devastating to the Byzantines, separated the Scandinavian peoples from what had been an increasing and moderating contact with southern civilization. A case can be made that without this separation, the North would have seen greater prosperity and raiding would have been less prevalent. I'm not near my library, so I can't give the references atm, but this may serve as food for thought.
 
Why didn't Louis invade Denmark anyway?

But he did though only by proxy; Harold Klak Danish pretender. Which in turn drew in Ansgar and the Church.

You might get some of your wishes in the raiders from the southern and eastern Baltic seaside would start operations for real during the 7-8 centuries not waiting till the 11-12 c. It might draw off Norse attention of the west directing it east instead.
 
I think it was being proposed to stop the Viking invasions from Denmark.

True.

My post was in response to this:

You might get some of your wishes in the raiders from the southern and eastern Baltic seaside would start operations for real during the 7-8 centuries not waiting till the 11-12 c. It might draw off Norse attention of the west directing it east instead.

Why are the Norse going to be more concerned about the Baltic than the Frankish kingdom/s?
 
Why are the Norse going to be more concerned about the Baltic than the Frankish kingdom/s?

I suppose it would depend on if the Frankish kingdoms are too tough a nut to crack. Maybe more aggressive expansion in the British Isles?

And of course Vinland.

(I kid).
 
Just find a way to kill Louis II to have only one male child surviving. That way the Empire won't be split, and so could face the Vikings efficientlier, instead of having frank kingdoms fighting each other.
 
That's all assuming the Viking Age was caused solely by economic pressures and greed. There's substantial evidence of trade across the North Sea and in the Baltic; it's not unreasonable to assume there was also trade going to and from Frisia and the Rhineland especially since their ships were capable of going up rivers. Any of the merchants trading with Christian kingdoms would have faced heavy duties simply because they weren't Christian.

Also keep in mind the first continental raids happened in the wake of Charlemagne's conquest and slaughter of the Saxons and the Frisians. There's some theories the destruction of the Frisian fleets effectively popped the cork on the bottle opening up the region for larger Viking raids. Another possible element, keeping in mind the active missionary efforts in period and the economic pressure being placed on the non-Christian Scandinavian merchants, could have been religious or social in nature. It's one thing to face a group of folks who are gouging you at the marketplace because you don't wear the cross; it's quite another when their most powerful king goes and butchers some pretty substantial non-Christian tribal nations that most likely were trading partners with their brethren further north and east.
 
So this idea just came to me the other day. How would history develop if the ancient Norse never became the (in)famous sea-based raiders that we know and love today? In this scenario, how would the rest of Europe develop if the Norse do not develop sea-faring capabilities any more advanced than their immediate neighbors (i.e., the Saxons, Franks and Anglo-Saxons)?

The Norse weren't more violent then other people of the time. They were just bigger. Also they were not Christians and had no qualms attacking peaceful monasteries which were considered sanctuaries.
Their sea faring was so simplistic it could not, not have been developed.
The Norse for the most part were peaceful goat herders and fishermen who lived hardy lives in harsh climes. Because of shortage of useful land some of the stronger clans took to raiding the smaller clans. Eventually these stronger clans took to raiding further and further into a weak middle ages Europe.
 
That's all assuming the Viking Age was caused solely by economic pressures and greed. There's substantial evidence of trade across the North Sea and in the Baltic; it's not unreasonable to assume there was also trade going to and from Frisia and the Rhineland especially since their ships were capable of going up rivers.
A bit more complicated than that, before the conquest of Frisia by the Peppinids, Frisians had the control of the North Sea trade between England (see Bede at this subject), Christian Europe and Scandinavia. The northerners themselves didn't participated directly to this trade before the conquest of Frisia. Then, they sort of took the place of Frisian, let emptyby the Franks.


Any of the merchants trading with Christian kingdoms would have faced heavy duties simply because they weren't Christian.
You seems to exaggerate at the big scale the Christian/Non-Christian divide regarding taxes. I would only give the exemple of the Magalona's harbour (not the old one, the "new") in Mediterranea where Muslims merchants were welcomed around 800 (while they were still piracing the sea and raiding the coasts).

For the heavy duties, considering how much the trade with Northerners was made in their trade centers (no trade center worth of mention in Carolingian northern Germany), i'm pretty sure that if it would have been a discrimination based on religion then it wouldn't be the Christian that would have enforced it.
Also keep in mind the first continental raids happened in the wake of Charlemagne's conquest and slaughter of the Saxons and the Frisians.

No they didn't. Raid in Carolingian Europe happened 30 years after the conquest of Saxony, and 100 years after the first part of the conquest of Frisia.

There's some theories the destruction of the Frisian fleets effectively popped the cork on the bottle opening up the region for larger Viking raids.
These theories are not only unproven, but they base themselves mainly on the attack of Carolingian palaces. It of course not explaining at all why England was the first touched, at the contrary of the economic explanation that states Scandinavians took the place of Frisians in this part of the world, and tried to take the continental "market" as well.
Another possible element, keeping in mind the active missionary efforts in period and the economic pressure being placed on the non-Christian Scandinavian merchants, could have been religious or social in nature.

Actually the missionary efforts greatly helped the integration of early scandinavian in European "theater". Technically, when a king or a chief welcomed a missionary, even if not converting himself, he gained some diplomatic importance for christian kings and that could been of a great help sometimes (see the help given by Louis for Danemark)

Regarding the "slaughter" part, not saying that it didn't happened but that our historic perspective suffered a lot from the medieval black legend. Remember that the speciality of Frisians and Saxons was to raid periodically Francia, since the VII century and they weren't known at being particularly kind.
 
True.

My post was in response to this:

You might get some of your wishes in the raiders from the southern and eastern Baltic seaside would start operations for real during the 7-8 centuries not waiting till the 11-12 c. It might draw off Norse attention of the west directing it east instead.

Why are the Norse going to be more concerned about the Baltic than the Frankish kingdom/s?


Not that they would be concerned about looting the Baltic as such but it you know some history of the Baltic you'd know that in the wake of the Vikings the Wends and Balts began going aviking in Viking lands!!!

The Wends made at least one overland invasion of Denmark but also settled in the southern isles making for the crusades by Danes (king Valdemar and bishop Absalon) against the Wends; sack of Arkona etc.

The Balts were quite a nuisance to the Swedes crossing the Baltic to rape and plunder.

Now if you get my gist the idea was that if the Wends and Balts got the urge to run loose in the Baltics area during 7-8 centure that might make for enough of trouble as for the Vikings to attend to other businesses than sacking Western Europe.

Though as pointed to if the Vikings is out of the game as is the Frisians whos going to rule the seas of Northern Europe? :D
 
Though as pointed to if the Vikings is out of the game as is the Frisians whos going to rule the seas of Northern Europe? :D

I would say the Anglo-Saxons have the more serious odds to do so. They have the harbours, they were christians (it would have favoured the exchanges with carolingians), they had the vessels.

Then, Carolingians. They OWN Frisia and half of Northern Sea. But if the Vikings are going to focus on Baltic even harder they did OTL (the first contact between Carolingian and scandnavians was in Wendia as you said, when the Adobrites called the emperor to save them)...I'm not sure the Carolingians are going to be happy of seeing possible markets and evolutive prospects going occupied by northerners.

Another good player could be the Irish people. They had the vessels, the monasteries played an important part on medieval trade even before the growth of North Sea trade...But the problem is their extreme division and I can see many wars for the domination of trade among Irish nobles.
That said, if one is finally victor, he could manage to focus on trade.
 
But if the Vikings are going to focus on Baltic

The idea was to have the Wends and Balts make them focus on the Baltic... ;)

My first option for a North Sea claimant would be the Anglo-Saxons though these would like the Irish but to a lesser degree be divided and infighting too; and no outside impetous to build a navy (Alfred etc.)

I'm at a loss but Bretons???
 
Top