Plausibility of a united medieval long-term Nordic state?

I'm imagining something more long-lived than the North Sea empire, lasting long enough for several generations of emperors and a tradition of the nordics being united to form. I'm thing unification would happen through a "Viking Charlemagne", but I have no idea how succession laws worked and whether or not gravelkind would tear it apart like it did to the Carolinian empire. I'd prefer the unification to happen prior to conversion to christianity, because the effects on the germanic religon would be very interesting (Central church?).
 
The problem is down to power projection rather than succession.
Most multiple kings of the region could only hold onto several crowns while the were strong enough to keep the nobles in line.
Cnut only held on as long as he did in Scandinavia because he gained wealthy England and even he didn't get Sweden.
 
Could there have been a partial unification like Denmark-Norway in this era? If an alternate Danelaw lasted longer, could its wealth have allowed its Scandinavian ruler to centralize power more effectively?
 
Could there have been a partial unification like Denmark-Norway in this era? If an alternate Danelaw lasted longer, could its wealth have allowed its Scandinavian ruler to centralize power more effectively?
There often was.
There are roughly 4 power positions for Scandinavia: the northern North Sea coast (Trondheim), the Skagerrak (Stavanger to Oslo to Gothenburg), the Danish Straits/Western Baltic coasts (Kiel to Copenhagen to Malmo), the Northern Baltic coasts (Stockholm to Helsinki). Or perhaps 6 if one counts control of each coast side as sufficient.
Norway is essentially the combine of the first 2, Denmark is based around the Straits, Sweden around the North Baltic.
One could conceivably separate Norway north and south into 2 traditional kingdoms and merge the latter early into the Danish crowns. This could make a powerful "Danerike" that leverages control not only over the other Scandinavian kingdoms but Northern Netherlands-Germany, Prussia, and the entire Baltic.
 
Of course its possible. There's far more outrageous occurrences throughout history. I don't think at all the three 'main' Nordic countires were immutable states. Norway got passed around between Denmark and Sweden like more a region than a country, and it might be possible Norway would still be 'Danish' if Denmark didn't lose it to Sweden and thus incontrovertibly show Norway was not a natural part of Denmark. There are however a number of difficulties that would need to be overcome, to the best of my knowledge.

1) Direction of interest. What needs to be understood is that Viking Age social structure in the Nordic countries was not feudalism. Most of the time, viking forces were gathered when a prominent/famous/infamous/powerful jarl let out a call that he was organizing a raid somewhere. People willing to follow would come if they found it worthwhile. However most of them were in it for the loot and rewards. Of course there would be a small number who were loyal to the jarl, but most were basically mercenaries that went where they thought the going would be best. This matters because all the wealth was to the south. The Viking Age happened because the Nordic countries were poor, and wanted the wealth of more prosperous areas. So even if you get a Charlemagne Viking that decides to unite the Nordic countries, far less people would rally around him to conquer Scandinavia than if he decided to conquer England. There is a reason a good deal of the major viking assaults were against the Franks or English.

Now obviously, that is not always the case. Harald Fairhair's unification of Norway is a prime example of someone from that age conquering their surroundings but largely ignoring more viking-esque activities.

2) Laws of succession...They were a mess. Either elective, every relative gets a claim, or outright 'the strongest rules'. This created a lot of issues. Lack of internal coordination, rebellions, destruction of their home regions, loss of life, etc. The loot and fame from viking raids against prosperous areas played a major role in developing the power structure of the Nordic countries. A successful raider could claim the throne from fame and wealth, even if he wasn't related to the previous or current king.

There's a reason the kingdoms started more definitively forming and coalescing during the Viking Age. It was the increased contact with the European, and Christian, countries that provided laws, succession, and traditions that proved more stable. Thus to follow your hope of having the unification happen before the Christianization of Scandinavia, you'd need at least one Nordic country to make the internal reforms to their social, political, administrative, and even military traditions/institutions to create greater stability. A difficult task. There's a reason civilization spread out from a nation that developed them than every nation created their own model.

I'd actually say a requirement for a Norse model of government would give the tings a greater role. An early parliamentary structure, with a constitutional or limited monarch being elected by a national ting. Have an ambitious king unite one of the countries, form a national ting to help rule, his kids and descendants quarrel among each other till the ting assumed greater control and starts to check the power of the monarchs.


So here's a scenario I could think of possibly working. It's a multi-step one though, so it wouldn't be the easiest to happen.
1) Norway probably needs to form quicker. Like before or at the very beginning of the Viking Age. An earlier Harald Fairhair. This is because only Norway and Denmark are oriented in the same way as to force conflict of interest. Sweden was oriented east at this time, towards Keivan Rus. Both Norway and Denmark were looking west and southwest at this time though. Denmark was the first of to form a semi-defined state, and was largely able to ignore the divided Norway during much of the Viking Age. It was however as Norway coalesced that conflict started arising between Denmark and Norway, leading to situations like Cnut's North Sea Empire where Norway and Denmark were very politically connected because to a degree they occupied the same spheres of influence. An earlier Norway means earlier overlap and conflict with Denmark. Doesn't matter who wins and subjugates the other. You just need a earlier Denmark-Norway state.
2) So, even if its take a while to become official rather than one king conquering the other and ruling both during his lifetime, the formation of Denmark-Norway or Norway-Denmark. This needs to happen when Norway is still a definite power, thus before the Little Ice Age comes knocking to render it a backwater. A looser alliance, like Cnut's control of both Norway and Denmark, during the time of the Great Heathen Army could mean the combined power of Denmark and Norway could just about literally recreate Cnut's North Sea Empire in the later 9th century. Might not have enough internal stability to make it last, but that wouldn't matter. Then if a definitive Denmark-Norway union could form around 1000-1200 AD, things would be on track.
3) Sweden would be the next target. Sweden was the last of the three to form a real state, around 1150 I think, although Sweden did form beforehand although the unity of the entire country was questionable. This didn't much matter in OTL. Norway and Denmark had been looking west until Denmark started reorienting towards the Baltic around the first half of the 12 century. However by then the Northern Crusades were happening, meaning Denmark focused more on the Baltic tribes because doing so now carried a religious overtone that also allows expansion. Sweden was thus out of its focus, and able to coalesce before eventually expanding themselves while Denmark was having internal problems. A Denmark-Norway that never Christianized wouldn't have such a religious focus, and would likely view it easier to conquer and assimilate the culturally similar Sweden than get in the way of the German crusaders to the south. Or a state with the strength and wealth of both Denmark and Sweden could simply opportunistically snatch up Sweden during a time of vulnerability.

There. A unified Scandinavia. Obviously that's a very loose series of events, leaving a great deal open to details, but I think it's possible. I do however state that a unified Scandinavia that never Christianized would almost certainly become the target of a crusade during the Northern Crusades, so it is very likely that you could instead have this unified Scandinavia be divided up into a number of Crusader States. You'd need a lot of success early on for a non-Christian Scandinavia to survive in the long term...That'd actually be a very interesting TL. Rather than focusing on the Viking Age, focus on a non-Christian Scandinavia during the Northern Crusades.
 
That's actually an interesting concept, with some form of Old Norse being used as a religious language.

There's an actual Icelandic Norse Godi on ah.com. And it isn't some neonazi neopagan shite either. I want to hear his imput so damn bad.
 
There's an actual Icelandic Norse Godi on ah.com. And it isn't some neonazi neopagan shite either. I want to hear his imput so damn bad.
I have a pagan friend myself, I've been meaning to talk to him about the concept for some time.

Old Norse, however, is a frail language. It would take heavy standardization to keep it familiar
 
I wonder what a organized Norse religion would look like? Blots, runic religious texts, I'm drooling.
 
Top