The Great Northern Empire

Once again hello to everyone. just in case you aren't familiar with me yet, my name is Charles and I joined this forum a couple of weeks ago. I previous posted a TL (which I will continue to work on) detailing what would happen if Arthur Tudor the older brother Henry VIII survived and became king in Henry's place. On this thread, I will post another survival scenario, this one with a Medieval PoD.

Now I never have really been that much of a fan of the Middle Ages compared to other areas of history such as the First Global Age/Early Modern Era. So you might be thinking, why the hell would I make a TL with a PoD on the Middle Ages? Well, the other day I was bored and so was my friend Jimmy so he invited me over to his house and I accepted. So Jimmy and I did what any other college guy would do, we ordered a pizza and watched a movie on Netflix. Now unlike me, Jimmy doesn't have the Instant Queue so he gets the movies on DVD mailed to him ONE AT A TIME. The movie he happened to have that day was one that I've seen several times before, Braveheart. I think you can see where I'm going with this one.

Anyway if you haven't seen the movie, you can look up its summary on Wikipedia. It's basically a Mel Gibson flick about William Wallace, Robert the Bruce and those guys fighting for Scottish independence against England under Edward I Longshanks. Anyway, after I watched this film for the third or so time I thought: all these events wouldn't happen if it wasn't for the untimely death of one particular seven year old Norwegian girl.

Alright, by this point half of you are probably calling me crazy thinking "how the hell does a seven year old Norwegian girl dying cause the English to conquer the Scots?" Don't worry if you are one of these people, I probably would've been in the same boat as you three years ago. Anyway this mystery girl I'm referring to is Margaret, the disputed Queen of Scotland from 1286 to 1290 popular referred to as the "Maid of Norway" considering her father was the king of that country.

In OTL, Margaret died on her journey from her native Norway to Scotland. Since she never actually set foot in Scotland, she is only considered a "disputed" queen. WI Margaret survives her journey to Scotland becoming the official Queen of the Scots and later marries King Edward II of England (whom she was betrothed to in OTL). In my newly created timeline, Margaret and Edward get married in 1300 at the ages of 17 and 15 respectively. The subsequently have three children that survive: two daughters Margaret (b. 1304) and Eleanor (b. 1311) as well as one son Edward (b. 1307). The son Edward eventually succeeds his father as Edward III of England and his mother as Edward of Scotland. Edward also becomes king of Norway in 1319 after the death of his great-uncle Haakon V in place of OTL Magnus VII who still becomes king of Sweden. This happens after Edward II issues an ultimatum to the Sweden specifically Magnus's mother Ingenborg that an Anglo-Scottish combined alliance would attack Sweden if his son doesn't become king of Norway. The Swedes accept the ultimatium and let Edward become the Norwegian king. Due to controlling such a huge territory, Edward III (called "the great") unites his land to form the Great Northern Empire (GNE). However, when Edward the Great dies, letting each of his nations to have autonomy, he makes each of his five surviving sons the king of a different country. His eldest son Edward becomes Edward IV of England, his second son Alexander IV of Scotland, his third son Eric II of Norway, his fourth son David I of Wales and his youngest son William I of Ireland. The GNE however still existed after Edward the Great's death. What would happen is when one GNE died, a council of nobles would elect a new GNE from one of the five kings of the countries in the Empire.

So what do you think of this TL so far?
 
The same kind of questions apply as were asked about your Tudor timeline, and that's just with events leading up to 1319.

So.

Margaret survives and is accepted as Queen of Scots.

First question: Who is the regent?

Second question: How does this impact relations with England? Edward Longshanks, being a demanding sort of guy, is likely to lean hard on Scotland.

Third question: What happens in regards to Edward II? He's in a different position than he was in OTL, but whether or not he's any stronger a ruler than OTL is unanswered.

This one could - and should - cover multiple updates on its own.
 
Personally, I find the whole business with the "Great Northern Empire" a bit fishy.

Firstly there's the issue of does the king have the authority to dissolve the English/Scottish/Norwegian crowns and make a new one? I suspect not but in any case even if he tried the nobles would NOT be happy. For a start there's the whole issue of parliament and noble rights. Both England and Scotland had parliaments but they had different structures and different powers(In general the scottish parliament was less independent of the king but was able to oppose the king when it really wanted to) The nobles of both realms will demand a parliament for the "GNE" but there will be disagreement over the powers it should have. Secondly, Scotland's monarchy is technically elective while England's is hereditary. I don't think that the scots would be very happy about an English king coming in and getting rid of that. The thing with Norway is that HOW would Edward get control of it? It doesn't strike me as very feasible to send an army all the way from England/Scotland to Scandinavia and then have to fight against an enemy who is right on their own doorstep and possibly has the support of the local population (depending on who the norwegians wanted as king). Moreover, Sweden would probably realize these constraints on Edward's ambitions and not back down as easily. I'm not saying that Edward couldn't get Norway just that its not very likely; especially when you consider that the Hundred Years War erupted in 1337 OTL and the causes of that dated back to the beginning of OTL Edward III's reign in 1312. Also, if Edward had created his "GNE" i doubt he would have partitioned in his will. As far as i know England never practiced partible inheritance(dividing property among multiple heirs). Besides, why go to all the trouble of uniting the kingdoms just to break them up again?

I'd recommend scrapping the idea of a "Great Northern Empire" and take a second look at Edward becoming king of Norway. Just have all of the separate kingdoms held in a personal union. Over time this could draw closer together and end with an alt Act of Union.
 
Personally, I find the whole business with the "Great Northern Empire" a bit fishy.

Firstly there's the issue of does the king have the authority to dissolve the English/Scottish/Norwegian crowns and make a new one? I suspect not but in any case even if he tried the nobles would NOT be happy. For a start there's the whole issue of parliament and noble rights. Both England and Scotland had parliaments but they had different structures and different powers(In general the scottish parliament was less independent of the king but was able to oppose the king when it really wanted to) The nobles of both realms will demand a parliament for the "GNE" but there will be disagreement over the powers it should have. Secondly, Scotland's monarchy is technically elective while England's is hereditary. I don't think that the scots would be very happy about an English king coming in and getting rid of that. The thing with Norway is that HOW would Edward get control of it? It doesn't strike me as very feasible to send an army all the way from England/Scotland to Scandinavia and then have to fight against an enemy who is right on their own doorstep and possibly has the support of the local population (depending on who the norwegians wanted as king). Moreover, Sweden would probably realize these constraints on Edward's ambitions and not back down as easily. I'm not saying that Edward couldn't get Norway just that its not very likely; especially when you consider that the Hundred Years War erupted in 1337 OTL and the causes of that dated back to the beginning of OTL Edward III's reign in 1312. Also, if Edward had created his "GNE" i doubt he would have partitioned in his will. As far as i know England never practiced partible inheritance(dividing property among multiple heirs). Besides, why go to all the trouble of uniting the kingdoms just to break them up again?

I'd recommend scrapping the idea of a "Great Northern Empire" and take a second look at Edward becoming king of Norway. Just have all of the separate kingdoms held in a personal union. Over time this could draw closer together and end with an alt Act of Union.
But Canute created the great northern empire right. So what prevents Edward from doing the same.. Surely th parliament systems have not become so different.
 
But Canute created the great northern empire right. So what prevents Edward from doing the same.. Surely th parliament systems have not become so different.
Canute's Kingdom did not contain all of the British Isles. To put that in perspective, Controlling Ireland and Scotland is, population wise, two to three Norways worth of population. Plus, Canute's empire was shaky and ineffective for the most part, and in practice functioned more like a political union (at least as far as I know).

@Charles, it's an interesting PoD, but as EW said far too little of it is fleshed out. Try spending no less than a paragraph on each year, and adding a paragraph for every major battle, significant death, significant birth, and diplomatic agreement, making sure to add in all of the important consequences of these events in their paragraph. I know it seems like allot, but it feels like much less when you are reading it. Also, the site has a thirty day period during which you can edit your posts, so feel free to change things, even large things, in your TL if someone can put forward a good case for how something is ASB or very unlikely. Chances are, if you ask them for followup suggestions, you'll get some good ones that will greatly enrich your TL and your experience of writing it.
 
But Canute created the great northern empire right. So what prevents Edward from doing the same.. Surely th parliament systems have not become so different.
"North Sea Empire", like "Angevin Empire", refers to a personal union of several realms, not a state in its own right.
 
The Crown of Norway is indeed elective, and before the great plague, Norway was a pretty strong society in its own right, electing its Kings as it saw fit.

Why would Edward be elected King of Norway in 1319? Why do the locals elect him? Election of Kings in Sweden and Norway at this time was surrounded by bickering and at times civil war.

The peasants and sailors of Norway were free men, and by the allodium law, land ownership reverted to the family working the land after six generations (reduced to 60 years in 1247). The crown seized the commons and gave away a lot of the land to the church, and in 1350, the church owned 41% of the land, the crown 7%, the nobility 15% and 37% were held by free-holding farmers.

When the great plague hit, land held by the nobility and crown was abandoned (since there were plenty of free-holding land to claim by allodium law) and the church, while better prepared due to good organisation, was also hard hit. The nobility was more or less eradicated by plague and tenants abandoning the land of the nobility.

The nature of the arable land (distributed along narrow valleys and very spread out) meant that no estates were possible. Tenants had complete freedom except that they owed land rent to the land owners.

This system will be very alien to any English or Scottish nobleman, and anyone treating a Norwegian peasant as a serf will most likely find an axe though his forehead rather quickly. As with the Danes and their German mercenaries in Sweden at the same time, this is a recipy for a disaster.

How will the English King deal with the Hansa? With Norway under his belt, he'll have a lot of influence in the North Sea, and the Hansa, which more or less controls Norway's richest city, Bergen, will most likely (like they did with Denmark and Sweden) support any local revolt in Norway.

I suspect that rebellion will ferment in Norway, they will declare Edward deposed and elect a local nobleman (or the Swedish King) King, supported by the Hansa, and from then on, Norway will be a drain on English resources rather than an addition, just like Sweden was on Denmark's at the same time.
 
But Canute created the great northern empire right. So what prevents Edward from doing the same.. Surely th parliament systems have not become so different.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I took Great Northern Empire to mean a single state and not a collection of realms under a personal union. If it IS a collection of personal unions then I could see it happening although with regards to Norway I don't see them choosing Edward's son as king; they'd go for someone with a power base closer to home which has the attractive side effect of being someone less likely to get involved in distant wars.

With regards to Canute: As mentioned above Canute didn't rule all of the British Isles. At the time England didn't have a parliament. It had what was called the Witenagemot but that was much more limited in power. It was more of an advisory council for the king than a representative body for the nobles. Remember at the time in question England was much less powerful than it was 3 centuries later. It was still in the process of building itself as a state while some of the continental powers hadn't disintegrated yet. Also worth noting is that Canute's empire collapsed upon his death(and several years before it in Norway).
 
Perhaps I misunderstood. I took Great Northern Empire to mean a single state and not a collection of realms under a personal union. If it IS a collection of personal unions then I could see it happening although with regards to Norway I don't see them choosing Edward's son as king; they'd go for someone with a power base closer to home which has the attractive side effect of being someone less likely to get involved in distant wars.

I'm sorry I didn't clarify before. Basically what the Great Northern Empire is a collection of five realms (England, Scotland, Norway, Wales and Ireland) each with a different king. Each of the kings of these realms are descended from each of the five sons of Edward III the Great, the first Great Northern Emperor. By the beginning of the 16th century, the number of realms has increased to nine by then including Normandy, Brittany, Sweden and Denmark as well.

The GNE is overall an elective monarchy although the different realms it comprises chose their kings in different ways. The first emperor was Edward the Great (the son of Margret Queen of Scots and Edward II of England). When Edward died, he listed in his will to have an election between his five surviving sons each the king of a different one of the realms to see who would succeed him as emperor. As specified in Edward's will, the emperor is elected by a special council of nobles and parliament members from throughout the realms chosen by the previous emperor. When Edward III the Great died in 1376, an election was held between his five surviving sons which his eldest son Edward IV of England won. The great northern emperors keep their regnal numbers of their native countries so even though Edward IV was the second emperor named Edward, he still is the fourth because he was the fourth king of England (since the conquest) to be named Edward. When Edward IV died, his eldest son Richard became Richard II of England. However, Richard lost the election of GNE to his father's younger brother Alexander IV of Scotland. However, when Alexander IV died, Richard II was still king of England and he was able to get elected emperor.
 
Perhaps I misunderstood. I took Great Northern Empire to mean a single state and not a collection of realms under a personal union. If it IS a collection of personal unions then I could see it happening although with regards to Norway I don't see them choosing Edward's son as king; they'd go for someone with a power base closer to home which has the attractive side effect of being someone less likely to get involved in distant wars.

With regards to Canute: As mentioned above Canute didn't rule all of the British Isles. At the time England didn't have a parliament. It had what was called the Witenagemot but that was much more limited in power. It was more of an advisory council for the king than a representative body for the nobles. Remember at the time in question England was much less powerful than it was 3 centuries later. It was still in the process of building itself as a state while some of the continental powers hadn't disintegrated yet. Also worth noting is that Canute's empire collapsed upon his death(and several years before it in Norway).
That is true as for what is said below. It could work but needs to be more fleshed out I think.
 
I'm sorry I didn't clarify before. Basically what the Great Northern Empire is a collection of five realms (England, Scotland, Norway, Wales and Ireland) each with a different king. Each of the kings of these realms are descended from each of the five sons of Edward III the Great, the first Great Northern Emperor. By the beginning of the 16th century, the number of realms has increased to nine by then including Normandy, Brittany, Sweden and Denmark as well.

The GNE is overall an elective monarchy although the different realms it comprises chose their kings in different ways. The first emperor was Edward the Great (the son of Margret Queen of Scots and Edward II of England). When Edward died, he listed in his will to have an election between his five surviving sons each the king of a different one of the realms to see who would succeed him as emperor. As specified in Edward's will, the emperor is elected by a special council of nobles and parliament members from throughout the realms chosen by the previous emperor. When Edward III the Great died in 1376, an election was held between his five surviving sons which his eldest son Edward IV of England won. The great northern emperors keep their regnal numbers of their native countries so even though Edward IV was the second emperor named Edward, he still is the fourth because he was the fourth king of England (since the conquest) to be named Edward. When Edward IV died, his eldest son Richard became Richard II of England. However, Richard lost the election of GNE to his father's younger brother Alexander IV of Scotland. However, when Alexander IV died, Richard II was still king of England and he was able to get elected emperor.

Interesting, but how long will it last? The Kalmar Union lasted about 100 years, I can't see this arrangement doing significantly better than that. With any arrangement like this, you inevitably get a sizable build-up of both envy and conceitedness. The lesser countries in the "Empire" resent and envy the influence of the more important ones, while any time that the more powerful states don't get to wield the influence they desire (i.e. if they lose the election to be made Emperor) they will become bitter and conceited about being under the control of weaker states. For a while it can be alright, but eventually you just reach a point of critical mass where one or several of the Kings/states ask themselves "why don't we just leave and become independent?" and realise that they don't have a strong enough argument for remaining in the Empire.
 
Interesting, but how long will it last? The Kalmar Union lasted about 100 years, I can't see this arrangement doing significantly better than that. With any arrangement like this, you inevitably get a sizable build-up of both envy and conceitedness. The lesser countries in the "Empire" resent and envy the influence of the more important ones, while any time that the more powerful states don't get to wield the influence they desire (i.e. if they lose the election to be made Emperor) they will become bitter and conceited about being under the control of weaker states. For a while it can be alright, but eventually you just reach a point of critical mass where one or several of the Kings/states ask themselves "why don't we just leave and become independent?" and realise that they don't have a strong enough argument for remaining in the Empire.

Add to that the regional interests of the different kingdoms and you've got a recipe for conflict. England is going to want to expand its influence/control into France while Denmark is going to want to expand into Germany and the Baltic which brings them into conflict with the Swedes who also want to expand that way. Put it like this: The GNE is going to go to war with France because England wants it. At some point the scandinavians(who have an established tradition of elective monarchies) are going to decide they've had enough and decide to find kings who will focus on areas important to them. A big "federal" empire like the GNE just has too many conflicting interests to last long. The regional "sub-kings" just give these interests ready made leaders and armies.
 
Interesting, but how long will it last? The Kalmar Union lasted about 100 years, I can't see this arrangement doing significantly better than that. With any arrangement like this, you inevitably get a sizable build-up of both envy and conceitedness. The lesser countries in the "Empire" resent and envy the influence of the more important ones, while any time that the more powerful states don't get to wield the influence they desire (i.e. if they lose the election to be made Emperor) they will become bitter and conceited about being under the control of weaker states. For a while it can be alright, but eventually you just reach a point of critical mass where one or several of the Kings/states ask themselves "why don't we just leave and become independent?" and realise that they don't have a strong enough argument for remaining in the Empire.

The Great Northern Empire was first proclaimed in the year 1339 by Edward III the Great. It lasts 223 years until 1562. There are 11 emperors in total: 5 Englishmen (Edward the Great despite controlling numerous countries is considered English because his father Edward II was from there), 3 Scots, 2 Norwegians and 1 Welshman.

1. Edward III of England and I of Scotland, Norway, Wales and Ireland "the Great" (1339-1376)
2. Edward IV of England (1376-1392)
3. Alexander IV of Scotland (1392-1397)
4. Richard II of England (1397-1408)
5. Edward V of England (1408-1425)*due to unpopularity, he abdictated from being emperor but resumed his duties as King of England until his death in 1432
6. Olaf V of Norway (1425-1460)
7. William III of Scotland (1460-1477)
8. Magnus IX of Norway (1477-1485)
9. Edward VII of England (1485-1522)
10. Alexander VII of Scotland (1522-1553)
11. Robert III of Wales (1553-1562)

When Emperor Edward VII of England dies in 1522 at the age of 71, he outlived his only surviving legitimate son Richard. Therefore by English succession law, the throne of England passed to Richard's only child, Elizabeth. However, Elizabeth was barred from being elected emperor because she was a woman and according to Edward the Great's law, only men could become Great Northern Emperors. Therefore, the election only consists of male kings and Alexander VII of Scotland wins thus becoming the Great Northern Emperor. Thinking she was cheated outed the imperial throne and she deserved to be empress, Elizabeth married Alexander VII and became empress consort together. In their brief three year union, they only had one child, a daughter named Sarah born in 1527. However, Elizabeth did not love Alexander and she cheated on him. Alexander hearing news of this asked for an annulment by the pope which he was given. Elizabeth then married the guy she cheated with, Henry II of Navarre. They had three surviving children together the eldest being Charles (born 1529) the heir to the throne of Navarre and England. Alexander also remaried but his new wife was barren and therefore he had no children. When Alexander died in 1553, he was succeeded by his only child Sarah as the Queen of Scots. However, Sarah also being a woman was barred like her mother Elizabeth (who was still the king of England at the time) from being elected emperor following the death of her father. With the absence of the kings from England and Scotland (the two most powerful realms in the GNE) from the election, the King of Wales Robert III was elected to be emperor. Now here's the gross part. Sarah being a power-hungry girl like her mother still feels SHE deserves to be queen of England. There's not that many things a 26 year old Queen can do in the 1500s but she figures she will be able to run the powerful empire she was born to run if she marries the heir to the throne of England. However there is only one slight problem. The heir to the throne of England just so happens to be Charles, Sarah's half brother. Anyway to make a long story short, Sarah seduces the then 24 year old Prince Charles and in a couple of months they get married. They also end up loving each other and having five surviving children: Henry, Elizabeth, Margaret, William and Catherine. Henry the oldest born in 1554 becomes heir to both England and Scotland. In 1556 Elizabeth, the mother of Sarah and Charles finally passes away Charles becoming the official king of England. Charles is also King of Navarre for three years since the death of his father at this point. Sarah and Charles are sick and tired of being told what to do by Emperor Robert who is from Wales a lesser nation, so they rebel. But they do't only rebel. Scotland under Sarah and England under Charles I both secede from the GNE declaring themselves independent of Emperor Robert. Robert doesn't agree with this and issues both Charles and Sarah an ultimatium that they should rejoin the empire or he will attack them. Neither Charles nor Sarah listens so Robert does what he promised and launches troops to invade England controled by Charles and the battle of Oswestry is fought on the Welsh border. This escalates into a war between English and Scottish rebels against the Welsh Robert and the GNE. To make a long story in short, in 1562, Emperor Robert dies in battle at Heywood marking the end of the nearly millenium century long reign of the GNE. All of the nations once controlled by the empire become independent and France eventually takes back the countries of Normandy and Brittany that were once controlled by the GNE. Robert III's son David becomes king David IV of Wales. Sarah, Queen of Scots dies in 1566 in a horse and carriage accident at the age of 39. The eldest son of Sarah and Charles then only twelve years old succeeds his mother as Henry I of Scotland. Henry's father Charles I lives seventeen more years before dying himself at the age of 54 in 1583. Therefore Henry in 1583 following the death of his father also becomes Henry V of England. Later in 1590, Henry unites the two kingdoms he controls: England and Scotland forming the Kingdom of Great Britain. Later in his reign Henry also conquers Wales under King David IV (the son of the former Emperor Robert) and Ireland under Aidan VI. Now, the entire British Isles are under contol of Henry V.
 
Explain why I should start over.

Because:

It's clear you haven't done any research besides "Hey Margaret of Scotland was going to marry Edward II-to-be" and a couple peaks at wikipedia.

Your writing is riddled with issues (Example: "When Emperor Edward VII of England dies in 1522 at the age of 71, he outlived his only surviving legitimate son Richard." Changing tenses in mid sentence is a no-no.)

You have paid no attention to the issues raised with Edward II trying to make his son King of Norway.

You have paid no attention to Edward II's own reign, despite the fact that would have a huge impact on his son's.

And that's just the beginning.

The concept of Edward II and Margaret of Scotland marrying and having issue is fascinating, and a good timeline could certainly be written on it. It is even possible that Edward III might press a claim to the throne of Norway TTL. That would be interesting, even if unsuccessful.

But this isn't that "good timeline".
 
Because:

It's clear you haven't done any research besides "Hey Margaret of Scotland was going to marry Edward II-to-be" and a couple peaks at wikipedia.

Your writing is riddled with issues (Example: "When Emperor Edward VII of England dies in 1522 at the age of 71, he outlived his only surviving legitimate son Richard." Changing tenses in mid sentence is a no-no.)

You have paid no attention to the issues raised with Edward II trying to make his son King of Norway.

You have paid no attention to Edward II's own reign, despite the fact that would have a huge impact on his son's.

And that's just the beginning.

The concept of Edward II and Margaret of Scotland marrying and having issue is fascinating, and a good timeline could certainly be written on it. It is even possible that Edward III might press a claim to the throne of Norway TTL. That would be interesting, even if unsuccessful.

But this isn't that "good timeline".

I only came up with this IDEA a couple of days ago. I know that this is not good yet but with a lot of work it can be. Where do you think I should start with making this timeline better?
 
I only came up with this IDEA a couple of days ago. I know that this is not good yet but with a lot of work it can be. Where do you think I should start with making this timeline better?

"I only came up with this idea a couple days ago" is grounds for reading posts like von Alder's, not jumping from Edward II to Edward VII.

So you should start with doing that and reading up on Edward II, 13th century Scotland - even just the outlines - and Edward I. Given the POD is when he's all of six, Junior growing up to be a different person is possible - although I wouldn't count on it.
 
"I only came up with this idea a couple days ago" is grounds for reading posts like von Alder's, not jumping from Edward II to Edward VII.

So you should start with doing that and reading up on Edward II, 13th century Scotland - even just the outlines - and Edward I. Given the POD is when he's all of six, Junior growing up to be a different person is possible - although I wouldn't count on it.

Thank you for the suggestions :) I will take your advice and read up and by tomorrow I will outline the key events of the first 10 years of this TL just like I did in my Arthur Tudor timeline (which I'll continue to work on as well).
 
Thank you for the suggestions :) I will take your advice and read up and by tomorrow I will outline the key events of the first 10 years of this TL just like I did in my Arthur Tudor timeline (which I'll continue to work on as well).

You have more reading to do before you can reasonably present the next ten years than can be done between now and tomorrow.
 
Top