No Vikings

[arctic warrior]

What would happen to the Frankish Empire at the death of Ludwig the Pious apart from his sons going at each others throats?
Possible outcome: still the Verdun settlement of 843 but what at the death of Emperor Lothair? With not having to worry of the Vikings would Charles the Bald and Ludwig the German be at each others throats, giving rise to independent Burgundy, Lorraine and Italy a possibility?

 

[arctic warrior]

Bump!

Would very much like some input on this one.

 

[Valdemar II]

first we have to find out why the Viking did not come into being, Did the Franks conquer Denmark, did a plaque wipe the population surplus or did Denmark convert earlier?

 

[arctic warrior]

My idea is that Charlemagnes successors did continue his coastal fortifications and this spread to England making western Europe a no go for Vikings as we know them.

 

[Quiet_Man]

Vikings still ported overland though, onto rivers leading down to the Black Sea. I wonder how a stronger Viking presence in Byzantium would have ended up. A Viking dominated Holy Land? The Danelaw of Jerusalem?

 

[NapoleonXIV]

How about a real Carolingian Renaissance? With no Vikings we keep more centralized authority and a greater rule of law (though there were other 'barbarian' groups at this time, I think, such as the Magyars.) Trade revives and with it travel and more contact with Spain and Byzantium, so more of the ancient's knowledge is added to that being preserved and spread by the Irish monks.

If it's the standard AH shunting then we get the real Renaissance about 500 years early. It also has a much more Roman and German "feel" than does the later Renaissance, since it sees itself as more of a Roman revival and yet is German based.

 

[mojojojo]

How about a real Carolingian Renaissance? With no Vikings we keep more centralized authority and a greater rule of law (though there were other 'barbarian' groups at this time, I think, such as the Magyars.) Trade revives and with it travel and more contact with Spain and Byzantium, so more of the ancient's knowledge is added to that being preserved and spread by the Irish monks.

If it's the standard AH shunting then we get the real Renaissance about 500 years early. It also has a much more Roman and German "feel" than does the later Renaissance, since it sees itself as more of a Roman revival and yet is German based.

So what would the world look like now?

 

[arctic warrior]

But what is happening in the Frankish lands?
A further split than OTL? Moorish invasion of the Spanish March? Greater German expansion eastwards?

 

[Iñaki]

Originally posted by arctic warrior
But what is happening in the Frankish lands?
A further split than OTL? Moorish invasion of the Spanish March? Greater German expansion eastwards?

As suggested by NapoleonXIV the carolingians could last far more than in OTL with the viking menace neutralized from the beginning: an example is the facts during the kingship of Charles the fat when in 885 the city of Paris was besieged by the vikings, it was heroically defended by Eudes, count of Paris, while Charles the fat arrived late and instead attacking the vikings he offered money to the viking army, that was very sicked because the long siege, in pay for his retreat, this was too much for the frank nobles and deposed Charles the fat in 887 putting Arnulf instead but alas nor Italy neither Western Frankia (more or less actual France) accepted this, so the Carolingian Empire was dismembered.

But with viking neutralized Charles III the Fat is not deposed so the empire continues united (well at least until the next partage between sons)

Another example would be the known of the cession of Normandy in 911 to Rollon by Charles the simple (another example of better ceding lands and money that fighting).

But with vikings neutralized this not happens, so we could expect a far more lasting carolingian empire could be even united.

Naturally this means that a moorish invasion of Hispanic march is not too much probable, in fact the Cordoba Caliphate had a lot of internal problems with rebellions and civil wars during the times of Al-Mundhir, Abd-Allah and in general more or less almost all the caliphs (there were a lot of tribal, clan and popular tensions during the Caliphate of Cordova, it was necessary strong caliphs or generals -like Al-Mansur- to maintain all under control, when the building was not leaded by a clear and strong man, well all we know the final civil war of 1010-1031 or period of fitna that destroyed ultimately the Caliphate), one of the most succesful rebels was Ibn Hafsun during the regin of Abd-Allah (888-912).

In fact so if the carolingians get some kind of strong man and withouth viking invasions it is more probable a frankish invasion of Al-Andalus in support of a rebel leader.

A greater expansion eastwards seem also probable, at least until the magyars begin to appear at the end of IX century or could be the situation of internal unrest in the Caliphate of Cordova could make the franks decide to go south first and after east.

 

[arctic warrior]

Interesting replys, longer lasting re-united Carolingian Empire! I hadn't thought of that one. Thanks guys.

 

[Alcuin]

Not only a longer lasting Carolingian Empire but, without Normans, Danes and Norwegians, an earlier England, with perhaps a more Northern bias, and perhaps with Strathclyde and Dunedin (Angle territory) included in England. Such an England is likely to be a power, although no match for the Carolingians.

Scotland smaller but might well include the Orkneys and Shetlands, and even Iceland.

A complete surprise when the Innuit reach Scotland in 1680.

Southern Italy and Sicily remain Arabic for longer, or perhaps even indefinitely. (No Normans to form the Kingdom of Sicily). Also the Reconquista (especially of Portugal) may be delayed.

 

[Homer]

Southern Italy and Sicily remain Arabic for longer, or perhaps even indefinitely. (No Normans to form the Kingdom of Sicily). Also the Reconquista (especially of Portugal) may be delayed.

I'd rather say that the Carolingians would pretty fast liberate Southern Italy from the Arabs, since northern Italy down to Rome is already in their hands and Benevent is at least considered an "influential sphere". With a more stable, prospering carolingian empire with a strong emperor, I'd say the crusades would happen a lot sooner, two, probably starting with the liberation of Sicily and then Spain. The carolingian emperor would have pretty much all the ressources of western europe and he'd have a significantly more prominent role in the chruch than even the OTL Ottones.

 

[mojojojo]

lets project a little further out. What would the modern world be like in this timeline?

 

[Iñaki]

Originally posted by Homer
The carolingian emperor would have pretty much all the ressources of western europe and he'd have a significantly more prominent role in the chruch than even the OTL Ottones.

Yes, an only one ruler would have the power of all the herency of Charlemagne in his hands, the pity is when you have more than one son -a normal thing in Middle Age- so you have to divide the empire between these sons, naturally some kind of coordination is possible, although also surely some kind of interfamiliar war between the parts of the empire, in any case it is true that carolingian in this kind of ATL would have a lot of more power and capacity of use it than in OTL.

 

[Hoplophile]

A Dutch Treat?

The great beneficiaries of a failure of the Norse to engage in 'extreme tourism' in (what we call) the Viking Age would have been the people who spoke various forms of Low German - the Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, the Frisians, the coastal Saxons and their kindred.

In Great Britain, the absence of the Viking distraction would have allowed the Anglo-Saxons to expand into Celtic enclaves. Thus, we might end up with an Anglegland that covered a much larger part (and perhaps even all of) the island. At the same time, the absence of Norse influence on the language would lead to a situation where standard English would sound something like a West Country accent on steriods. In other words, presenters on the ABC (Angelish Broadcasting Corporation) would sound like Tolkien's Gaffer Gamgee. (Though the word 'gaffer', which comes from the Norse 'afi', meaning 'grandfather', would not exist...)

On the Continent, the Low German peoples would be better able to expand to the north, depriving Denmark of much of its Scandanavian character and turning the Western Baltic into a Low German lake and providing Low German with a much better chance of becoming a major world language and the Hanseatic League a better shot at evolving into a proper nation-state. (The Norse who remained in Scandanavia might resist the Drang Nach Norden of the Low Germans, creating the rough equivalent of Wales in Northern Scandanavia. Alternatively, they might be absorbed into the Low German world.)

If the Low German world achieves critical mass in this way, then High German might remain confined to its Alpine home. Thus, as places like the Mark of Brandenburg are 'Germanized', they are absorbed into the Low German world rather than its High German competitor. Similarly, with Low German becoming a language of trade, diplomacy and culture, much of northern France might end up as part of Greater Dutchland. We thus might have ended up with a situation in which the two of the great powers of our nineteenth century - Prussian-led Germany and France - never happened.

While the Low Germans would be the big winners in a Viking-free world, other possible beneficiaries include the other Baltic peoples (the Finns/Ingrians/Estonians, the Lithuanians/Latvians/Old Prussians and the Wends), and the Romance-speaking people of southern France (Provence/Catalunia) and (though this is less certain) an Ireland that, having become the refuge for Gaels and Britons from Angleland, achieved 'Celtic consciousness' (and thus political unity) at a relatively early date.