The Danelaw of Britain

I think I'm going to go the opposite direction and make France even weaker. Flanders, Normandy, and Britanny will probably fall into the British cultural/political sphere, if possible.

Look. What I'm arguing is that the problem that you have when dealing with the "Norse Expansion" is that the Norse would go as far as divided politics and military prowess would allow them. As they expanded, they became thinner on the ground, and even in places where they were became the political and military leadership they were quickly assimilated. So although you may put Norse leaders in Flanders, Normandy and Brittany, so what? They will be just as French as the people they exhorted the land from within a generation or two anyway.

Now if you have a hardened Frankish Empire, then this will concentrate those Norse wanderers. The English will probably fall relatively quickly, and the cultural change probably won't be all that drastic. The Anglo-Saxons, who made up the overwhelming majority of the English population, being a Germanic people, were very cultural and linguistically close to the invading Norse, who were also a Germanic people. So England is added (or perhaps re-aquentancied) quickly to the Norse cultural and political sphere. Now England is a base, rather than a destination, for Norse vikings, merchants and explorers. With the population base the English Norse kingdom will have they will be able to launch a serious bid for leadership of the Norse world (vs. Denmark), and (more importantly) contest with them for overlordship of Iceland (and thus the Far West).

More importantly, without Britain as a disunited refuge for any blackhearted villain from Scandinavia, relocating to the Far West might not look like a bad idea.

Exactly. Except it wasn't blackhearted villians, it was losers in the endless Norse wars of succession who provided much of the Norse population willing to permanently move to new lands.

You're headed in the same direction as me, but I have a vision of two different threads of Norse settlement. One follows patterns similar to OTL's New World colonies, perhaps starting a couple hundred years earlier, with resource exploitation colonies followed by permanent settlements.

That is so old. The pagan religion was only strong where it wasn't challenged by the Roman Church. If you have the Mesoamerican civilizations discovered, that will set off a wave of Norse settlement, the news will spread far and wide, and you can bet that Roman Catholic priests will be among those who come West. Paganism is cool and all, but Christianity beat the hell out of it for a reason. It is much more politic to be a Christian (Monotheist in any case, Christian in this case).

The pagan Norse and aforementioned blackhearted villains will head up the rivers, especially the St. Lawrence, and create a creole culture that has lots of quite recognizable Viking cultural traits.

Though the Norse interbred and assimilated in various European locales, that didn't happen in Greenland, the only example that we have to work with of Norse interaction with a North American native culture (the Vinland examples was also one of a distinct lack of assimilation). While I can see cultural give and take with the quite advanced mesoamerican civilizations I don't see the Norse having the same give and take with the natives of northeastern North America circa 800 to 1200 AD. These were not technologically or culturally advanced peoples. The Norse would ride down the St. Lawrence as slave-raiders, gathering natives for European pets or Norse plantations far to the south. I don't see a creole culture arising around the Great Lakes.

For a creole culture, I would look to the Norse mercenaries that the mesoamerican polities are going to be hiring. Lots of fun.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Look. What I'm arguing is that the problem that you have when dealing with the "Norse Expansion" is that the Norse would go as far as divided politics and military prowess would allow them. As they expanded, they became thinner on the ground, and even in places where they were became the political and military leadership they were quickly assimilated. So although you may put Norse leaders in Flanders, Normandy and Brittany, so what? They will be just as French as the people they exhorted the land from within a generation or two anyway.

More or less agree, greater settlement could change this, especially if they give their Angles-Saxon subjects land there to as a reward for military service and to create a loyal population there.

Now if you have a hardened Frankish Empire, then this will concentrate those Norse wanderers. The English will probably fall relatively quickly, and the cultural change probably won't be all that drastic. The Anglo-Saxons, who made up the overwhelming majority of the English population, being a Germanic people, were very cultural and linguistically close to the invading Norse, who were also a Germanic people. So England is added (or perhaps re-aquentancied) quickly to the Norse cultural and political sphere. Now England is a base, rather than a destination, for Norse vikings, merchants and explorers. With the population base the English Norse kingdom will have they will be able to launch a serious bid for leadership of the Norse world (vs. Denmark), and (more importantly) contest with them for overlordship of Iceland (and thus the Far West).

I doubt they're going after Iceland it was borderline worthless, but Greenland was a place of Ivory and white fur, and that could be a reason to invade Iceland to get Greenland.




Exactly. Except it wasn't blackhearted villians, it was losers in the endless Norse wars of succession who provided much of the Norse population willing to permanently move to new lands.

And seconds sons, but the Norse would be more likely to continued to raid Europe and settle Europe than moving to the new world.


That is so old. The pagan religion was only strong where it wasn't challenged by the Roman Church. If you have the Mesoamerican civilizations discovered, that will set off a wave of Norse settlement, the news will spread far and wide, and you can bet that Roman Catholic priests will be among those who come West. Paganism is cool and all, but Christianity beat the hell out of it for a reason. It is much more politic to be a Christian (Monotheist in any case, Christian in this case).

I agree.


Though the Norse interbred and assimilated in various European locales, that didn't happen in Greenland, the only example that we have to work with of Norse interaction with a North American native culture (the Vinland examples was also one of a distinct lack of assimilation). While I can see cultural give and take with the quite advanced mesoamerican civilizations I don't see the Norse having the same give and take with the natives of northeastern North America circa 800 to 1200 AD. These were not technologically or culturally advanced peoples. The Norse would ride down the St. Lawrence as slave-raiders, gathering natives for European pets or Norse plantations far to the south. I don't see a creole culture arising around the Great Lakes.

Quite likely if we look how the Norse treated stoneage people in Scandinavia we get a idea how the Scraelings would be treated. The Norse didn't become assimilated by the Sami, they treated like 18th and 19th century North Americans treated the Indians.

For a creole culture, I would look to the Norse mercenaries that the mesoamerican polities are going to be hiring. Lots of fun.

And in other warm climate where mestizs will survive better, like Caribian and the Deep South, but here they're still likely to be mostly Norse cultural even if they would half native.
 
More or less agree, greater settlement could change this, especially if they give their Angles-Saxon subjects land there to as a reward for military service and to create a loyal population there.

I don't think that bar an invasion like what apparently happened when the Anglo-Saxons invading England (complete destruction and/or mass transfers of native population) that you'll be able to put men on the ground thick enough to counteract the Frankish-Roman legacy (which is what I would broadly refer to as spoken French and its attendent culture).

The other problem that you'll have is that the Norse settlers in these regions (Flanders, Normandy, Brittany) probably won't come from England, they'll come from the original Norse homelands in Scandinavia, and if they are English, they may no longer be on good terms with the Kings. Like I wrote before, the losers of wars of succession (second sons were commonly also in this group- having lost the war to the elder brother) and thus no have any particular allegiance to England's Norse King.

I doubt they're going after Iceland it was borderline worthless, but Greenland was a place of Ivory and white fur, and that could be a reason to invade Iceland to get Greenland.

I don't know about borderline worthless. Those fishing grounds will become rather valuable once the Little Ice Age starts and agriculture starts to go funny. And Greenland's exotic exports will be a draw, though OTL it wasn't enough to save the Norse colony there.

And seconds sons, but the Norse would be more likely to continued to raid Europe and settle Europe than moving to the new world.

You don't need a huge wave of settlement, just an Iceland-sized colony in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia, which I think is more than doable if you have the Norse finding it difficult to settle on mainland Europe for a generation.

That colony will send out ships to explore, and probably attract adventurers from Europe who decide that the Far West seems more promising than the cold of Rus' lands. Plus disease is bound to be just as brutal when the Norse bring as it as the English or Spanish, so once you have the colony sending ships south for a few years, their will be lots of recently vacated sea-front property down the east coast of North America.

The main draw for settlers would come when word trickles back of the rich civilizations far to the south. Once the English King sees some hint of gold, he suddenly remembers that he is the Overlord of Iceland, and Protector of the Far West, and that Royal law must be upheld!

Quite likely if we look how the Norse treated stoneage people in Scandinavia we get a idea how the Scraelings would be treated. The Norse didn't become assimilated by the Sami, they treated like 18th and 19th century North Americans treated the Indians.

By which to say that they butchered them without much mercy or thought whenever they got in the way? I think that if you have the rise of Norse farms in the Carolinas, Georgia or Flordia, then your going to have a slave-trade develop very quickly, since there will not be enough Norse settlers. That would only speed the depopulation of Native peoples. How plausible is it that oranges or sugar or cotton could be brought West?

Also, from the Caribbean, is it doable to sail a ship due west, backtracking along Columbus' route, with Norse long-ships? Perhaps we see Norse merchant-kingdoms in the Azores or Canaries, middlemen in the lucrative trade between the Far West and Europe. Slaves could also be purchased from the Muslims, among whom would be blacks, which could lead the Norse south, to search for a better source of slaves, though if they find the mesoamerican civilizations, heavily populated though militarily very far behind, this will give them a ready source of farm workers for a while.

And in other warm climate where mestizs will survive better, like Caribian and the Deep South, but here they're still likely to be mostly Norse cultural even if they would half native.

Ah, so your imagining a sort of New Spain, but with Norse overlords instead of Spanish? That is basically what I had envisioned.
 
Sweyn Forkbeards son Canute write a letter in 1027 where he calls himself King of All England,Denmark and Norway and part of the Swedes(Quote Cronicles of Florence of Worchester in British Library),so at least from 1018 to his death in 1036 he is UNDISPUTED king ,after his death he is succeded by his sons with Emma the former wife of Ethelred,first Harold1037-1040 and then by Hardeknud who dies at the wedding between Osgod Klappas daugther Gyda and Tovi Pruda the 8 of June 1042,so an interresting POD would be He doesn`t die this day but lives on to be a old man.
 
Sweyn Forkbeards son Canute write a letter in 1027 where he calls himself King of All England,Denmark and Norway and part of the Swedes(Quote Cronicles of Florence of Worchester in British Library),so at least from 1018 to his death in 1036 he is UNDISPUTED king ,after his death he is succeded by his sons with Emma the former wife of Ethelred,first Harold1037-1040 and then by Hardeknud who dies at the wedding between Osgod Klappas daugther Gyda and Tovi Pruda the 8 of June 1042,so an interresting POD would be He doesn`t die this day but lives on to be a old man.

I think that this is way too late for the purposes of this scenario. You need a takeover sometime in the late 9th or early 10th century, so that England is not just ruled by a Norse regime, but IS a Norse country.
 
What about the Netherlands?
If you detach them from the HRE somehow then they could be a good destination,.
 
Good destination for what? And remember, this is 870, it's still East Francia.

Viking expansion.
Its got the Germanic population there that could easily turn norse.
And yeah, the political situation there is troublesome. But they managed to get Normandy.
Friesland was only conquered relatively late too.
 
Viking expansion.
Its got the Germanic population there that could easily turn norse.
And yeah, the political situation there is troublesome. But they managed to get Normandy.
Friesland was only conquered relatively late too.

That was part of my thinking, but somewhere a bit further down the line. I'd like the North Sea countries to be economically tied together, more than OTL.

Matthias, I think you and I have very similar visions for American expansion by Northmen. The first Vikings should see Mexico just as the Triple Alliance is beginning its rapid expansion...
 
That was part of my thinking, but somewhere a bit further down the line. I'd like the North Sea countries to be economically tied together, more than OTL.

Matthias, I think you and I have very similar visions for American expansion by Northmen. The first Vikings should see Mexico just as the Triple Alliance is beginning its rapid expansion...

I think that the thing that separates us is that I don't think that you can have greater Norse expansion into Europe AND greater Norse expansion into North America. In order for the Norse to spend time and energy building up settlements in North America large enough to independently exist, then these Norse have to come from somewhere. That somewhere is Scandinavia, where due to either a renewed Gothic-Roman Empire, a second Charlemagne, whatever, the Norse are unable to raid and settle (relatively) freely in continental Europe. The British Isles are then subdued and North America somewhat settled. Perhaps Russia gets a bigger Norse population as well?
 
I think that the thing that separates us is that I don't think that you can have greater Norse expansion into Europe AND greater Norse expansion into North America. In order for the Norse to spend time and energy building up settlements in North America large enough to independently exist, then these Norse have to come from somewhere. That somewhere is Scandinavia, where due to either a renewed Gothic-Roman Empire, a second Charlemagne, whatever, the Norse are unable to raid and settle (relatively) freely in continental Europe. The British Isles are then subdued and North America somewhat settled. Perhaps Russia gets a bigger Norse population as well?

Good call on a "Second Charlamagne". I'll keep there from being a France-Germany split for as long as possible, pushing the Norse into Russia and the North Atlantic. I'm unfortunately woefully ignorant on anything outside the British Isles and Scandinavia during this period, which is somewhat slowing down my update here.
 
Good call on a "Second Charlamagne". I'll keep there from being a France-Germany split for as long as possible, pushing the Norse into Russia and the North Atlantic. I'm unfortunately woefully ignorant on anything outside the British Isles and Scandinavia during this period, which is somewhat slowing down my update here.

You don't necessarily need to prevent a split between France and Germany, you just need one of Charlemagne's grandsons be the all-seeing all-dancing shit of the world and be bloody minded (and militarily-gifted) enough to kill off his brothers and unite the empire once more before its inevitable split.

Actually, this could end up really improving your vision for the larger Norse settlement. If you this Louismagne (the Great Louis- the name for my ATL second Charlemagne) kill off his brothers, then set about killing off his other rivals (who all happen to be related to him) and then die with relatively few relatives, you could end up with an even more divided Frankish Empire, and allow for Norse raiders to set up their own polities. What I'm thinking is you can have Normandy get set up like OTL, except that it is simply carved out of Europe, without an obligations to a Frankish King, or perhaps topple the native regimes and declare themselves King. William the Conquerer goes inland, capturing Paris and declaring himself "King of Neustria". The Franks, divided, fall to the Norse raiders, who also take over the Kingdom of Austrasia. In Aquitaine and Lombardy the Franks continue to rule, but they are increasingly tied to the Byzantine court. Totally making this up, no thought about plausibility, but thoughts?
 
You don't necessarily need to prevent a split between France and Germany, you just need one of Charlemagne's grandsons be the all-seeing all-dancing shit of the world and be bloody minded (and militarily-gifted) enough to kill off his brothers and unite the empire once more before its inevitable split.

Actually, this could end up really improving your vision for the larger Norse settlement. If you this Louismagne (the Great Louis- the name for my ATL second Charlemagne) kill off his brothers, then set about killing off his other rivals (who all happen to be related to him) and then die with relatively few relatives, you could end up with an even more divided Frankish Empire, and allow for Norse raiders to set up their own polities. What I'm thinking is you can have Normandy get set up like OTL, except that it is simply carved out of Europe, without an obligations to a Frankish King, or perhaps topple the native regimes and declare themselves King. William the Conquerer goes inland, capturing Paris and declaring himself "King of Neustria". The Franks, divided, fall to the Norse raiders, who also take over the Kingdom of Austrasia. In Aquitaine and Lombardy the Franks continue to rule, but they are increasingly tied to the Byzantine court. Totally making this up, no thought about plausibility, but thoughts?

I'll see how it plays out. The British Isles will mostly be immune to Viking raids in the 10th century, as most of the islands will consist of Norse-dominated or aligned polities, so the Frankish empire will be a much more appealing target.
 
Looks like you beat me to it, TBI.

"The Great Heathen Army" sounds like a really awesome name for a metal band.

Given how unpleasant the Norse were to the Indians in our timeline, I don't see a lot of peaceful interaction, at least at first. Plus there'll be waves of diseases that kill huge numbers of them.

Perhaps the presence of larger Norse colonies in North America forces the various Indian tribes to unite and form a proto-state to deal with them? Something resembling the Iroquious Confederation could form, a few centuries earlier.

(of course, the chaos caused by Norse raids and diseases would reorder the tribal map considerably, much like the European colonization did, so they might not be called the Iroquois)

I like the idea of a "Second Charlemagne" deterring Norse raids for a generation or two. This would deflect the extra Norse onto Britain, Iceland, and the Far West and leave a disunited France later for Norse operating out of Britain to colonize.

(I think TTL's analogue of Canute will go for France, not Britain, since Britain won't have an Ethelred the Unready to screw things up)

Norse mercenaries serving the Mesoamerican civilizations? I'm wondering how the Blood Eagle will mix with heart-ripping?
 
So I have a quick idea as to how to keep the Vikings more focused on creating a "Greater Scandinavia"- I think you need a 2nd Charlemagne.

My thinking is thus- The Norse were good at raiding, but raiding requires easy targets, and the feuding Carloingian kings provided those easy targets. Basically, I think that if you have a 2nd Charlemagne, say one of the original's grandsons, he can temporarily unite Western Christiandom, and the Norse will go after easier targets, like England. I don't think Charlemagne II's reign will not end up creating long-term ripples in Europe itself, as far as the rise of feudalism goes, because Charlemagne's achievement were based entirely on his person, that is, without Charlemagne the Empire he built will whither (as it did OTL).

So with say 20 years of stability and strong rule in Europe, the Norse target England more heavily, taking the whole Kingdom. The Anglo-Saxon inhabitants were not too far removed from their Norse cousins, and in OTL the Danish rule of England relied mostly on native Anglo-Saxon nobility (the most powerful being the Godwinson family), and the same will probably be true OTL. So England is brought into the Scandinavian orbit.

If you have England in the Scandinavian orbit, then you create another Norse Kingdom, much further to the west. A united Norse England could grab control of Iceland and perhaps Greenland (if the Kingdom unites soon enough) from Denmark. Perhaps England would even provide a better place from which to maintain a Norse presence in North America- I'm thinking Norse fishing colonies in Newfoundland that recognize the King of England as their overlord- English merchants find North America as an excellent source of luxury items like fur and ivory, as an English response to the eastern Norse merchants who import those items from Russia.
 
Top