Okay, so the demands would not be there for them to raid then? Interesting.For Britain remaining Pagan, you need to keep at least western Romania from being Christianized : the diplomatic, institutional pressure to christianization would be then removed.
Then, admitting Vikings raids aren't butterflied away, the absence of monasteries as wealthy places of thesaurisation would probably modify the Norse raids and possible take-over, making the situation being more close to what existed in Baltic.
Okay, so the demands would not be there for them to raid then? Interesting.
Thanks I was wondering about thatThis is a very "weird" POD because so many things are different and there are many factors to consider. The Medieval Warm Period still occurs, and so the Scandinavians still have an excess population and the "need" for lands and wealth that they had IOTL. However, Great Britain is not as lucrative a target; as LSCatilina stated there are no more monasteries and thus no easy targets. The primitive castles and advanced burhs of Anglo-Saxon (or Celtic, provided that the Anglo-Saxon Invasion is butterflied) nobles would be much harder to attack than monasteries.
I see the vikings focusing on Francia more and more, or perhaps greatly expanding their expeditions in the Mediterranean (this includes Varangian shenanigans). If that's the only place where concentrated gold is (if Christianity is butterflied from Francia), then that's where they'll go.
The demographic pressure explanation seems to have been quite criticised : not only the Medieval Warm Period probably happened later (in fact, Carolingian period coincides with an agricultural and climatic crisis).This is a very "weird" POD because so many things are different and there are many factors to consider. The Medieval Warm Period still occurs, and so the Scandinavians still have an excess population and the "need" for lands and wealth that they had IOTL.
I get what you all are saying about the Western Roman Empire not being Christianized, but that seems a bit much. Couldn't the Anglo-Saxons just not convert?
Did any try to claim direct divinity for themselves?Furthermore, Christianity allowed germanic kings to obtain more power (summarizing it, germanic kingship is associated to priestom features, limitating its power over its own nobility).
Well, pretty much every petty king claimed descent from Woden (or in at least one case, Seaxneat). Ironically, after they christianized, at least some kept the old genealogies, treating Woden as a generic ancestor and just kept going.Did any try to claim direct divinity for themselves?
Being a god would seem to give more power than merely being approved by one.
Or did they and it turned out like Japan, where despite being a deity the Emperor really didn't have much power.
It would be simply too far from germanic rites : again, the king is more akin of a priest and even if the most prestigious lines can pretend descend from Gods, it's less to pretend to a proximity with divine, than to point the ancienty and prestige of their family.Did any try to claim direct divinity for themselves?
The thing is, God-King tend to be poor rulers : even pharahos contented themselves being intermediaries between divinities and mortals.Being a god would seem to give more power than merely being approved by one.
Well, pretty much every petty king claimed descent from Woden (or in at least one case, Seaxneat). Ironically, after they christianized, at least some kept the old genealogies, treating Woden as a generic ancestor and just kept going.