According to the Royal Frankish Annals, in the year 810 Charlemagne was preparing to invade Denmark, but the death of their King Gudfred caused Charlemagne to call off the invasion.

What if Gudfred lived, and the Franks invaded Denmark?

If Charlemagne conquered Denmark, it seems possible that his successors could continue the northern campaigns and invade Scania and southern Sweden, although the farther north they go, the more marginal returns of continued conquest will diminish.

In the long-term, is it more likely that Denmark or further conquests would be attached to East Francia/Germany as a northern march, or could they become a Kingdom of North Francia?

How would the Viking Age be affected? Perhaps Christianized Danish Vikings could launch proto-Crusades in the Baltic, essentially larger Viking raids justified as holy war. Or Danes could be recruited as mercenaries for the HRE on its volatile eastern frontier.
 

Maoistic

Banned
I think he can momentarily conquer Denmark and even push into Norway, but I don't think he would be able to hold either for more than five years, exaggerating. Nor do I think this conquest would speed up conversion to Christianity, and Viking invasions and conquests most likely still occur. One thing that probably will be severely affected, however, is Rollo's conquest of Normandy, and thus the Norman conquest of England. The Vikings can still conquer England (or more accurately, the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of eastern Britain), just not from Normandy like William I did.
 
I tend to agree he won’t make much headway into the islands or Scania, but it does probably make Jutland permanently part of “Germany”
 
Too periferical and not worth the effort to try to conquer it.
Charlemagne had many other pots on the fire which demanded his attention.
 
According to the Royal Frankish Annals, in the year 810 Charlemagne was preparing to invade Denmark, but the death of their King Gudfred caused Charlemagne to call off the invasion.

What if Gudfred lived, and the Franks invaded Denmark?
First off, 810/11 is the time when his sons Charles the Younger and Pippin of Italy died. At this time Charlemagne was well into his 60s and had the question of succession to deal with. From the RFA we already know he was much less active after taking the imperial title than he was before, spending most of his time at Aachen rather than all the various places listed in the 768-799 entries.

If Charlemagne conquered Denmark, it seems possible that his successors could continue the northern campaigns and invade Scania and southern Sweden, although the farther north they go, the more marginal returns of continued conquest will diminish.
If we assume that Charlemagne decides to invade Denmark anyway, the best comparison is the 772 attack on Saxony: he marches in, occupies something (Eresburg in Saxony's case), possibly defeats an army, takes hostages and has the enemy king acknowledge Charlemagne's authority. Considering that the Saxons took Eresburg a year later and didn't give up paganism for another thirty, he's not going to achieve a lot. And he doesn't have another quarter-century to force Christianity on the Danes.

Also remember that at this time, there isn't much of a unified authority in Denmark: although there is a king, the absence of towns and centralised command (Arhus was only a fishing village in 800, Copenhagen didn't exist) means that local tribe leaders are the ones that people will listen too. Saxony had something in the realm of 350 "local tribe leaders". Denmark probably had fewer, but not so many fewer that Charlemagne can realistically subjugate every last one of them.

In the long-term, is it more likely that Denmark or further conquests would be attached to East Francia/Germany as a northern march, or could they become a Kingdom of North Francia?
See what happened to the lands of people such as the Obotrites: temporarily subjects, effectively free once Charlemagne (or possibly Louis) dies. If 'North Francia' happens, it'll be because the 843 split is totally different; this being 30 years after the PoD that is a reasonable assumption (perhaps if Louis focusses on defeating Denmark, possible if he isn't forced to put down repeated rebellions as OTL). Something like the planned split of 806, attaching Denmark to Austrasia/Saxony (the part that would have gone to Charles the Younger) and the southern border moved more north is the most likely outcome in this case I would think.

How would the Viking Age be affected?
In the event of a serious conquest of Denmark, a matter for Louis rather than Charlemagne (the fact Louis is called "the Pious" is enough for me to believe that, if he decided to fight the Danes, he would be trying to impose Christianity just like his father did to the Saxons albeit with fewer executions), then what we recognise as Vikings would be just Swedes/Norwegians. The Danes would be too busy defending their homes to worry about how much loot is in England.

He would still likely win.
He would win the battles, sure. Defeating Denmark and making them Christian though, he won't be alive long enough to make it stick.

even push into Norway
No he couldn't. Charlemagne's strategy in every campaign he fought was to amass such a large army so as to convince the other side not to have to fight (by receiving their immediate surrender). Pavia's quick surrender and the capitulation of the Saxons in 776 were both due to this strategy. Armies of this size (>20k, possibly even 50k) cannot be supported for any real length of time by pure foraging unless the army is quickly moving through (such as the Mongols): sieges of forts (which can be defended by 1000 men or so) are unsustainable. Charlemagne (and his relatives for several generations either side) worked around this by having large magazines in all the major towns holding grain: as his army passed through it would take enough grain to feed it until it reached the next. In the Lombard campaign he would have used the grain stored in Lombard cities that had surrendered to him (Chiusa being the best example) - requisitioning from civilians would have angered the population and made the territory much harder to control had it been conquered. For the siege of Pavia, the Pope was supplying Charlemagne's force with food (from Ravenna and other nearby locations)

By 810, a network of magazines had likely been set up across Saxony: close enough to be supply the army the same way it was supplied in 772 when Saxony was still considered 'enemy territory' (ie. food being delivered on river boats). Also note that Charlemagne didn't push much further than Paderborn (about a week's marching from the border) until 776 when all of Saxony submitted to Charlemagne's rule. It is probably fair to say that this distance (say 100km) is about the limit for how far Charlemagne can project his forces without any friendly support (which existed in Italy, but absolutely would not in Denmark). I doubt Charlemagne could even get to the northern tip of Jutland with his army, to say nothing of conquering it, in a 1- or 2-year campaign.

And that is before we even worry about the North Sea. Remember that the Karlings are not known for their seafaring prowess.

One thing that probably will be severely affected, however, is Rollo's conquest of Normandy, and thus the Norman conquest of England.
Rollo probably isn't born (b.846, POD 810). William the Bastard certainly isn't.

probably make Jutland permanently part of “Germany”
Louis could if he wanted to (and was prepared to go through another Saxon War). Charlemagne wouldn't live long enough to do so.

- BNC
 

Maoistic

Banned
First off, 810/11 is the time when his sons Charles the Younger and Pippin of Italy died. At this time Charlemagne was well into his 60s and had the question of succession to deal with. From the RFA we already know he was much less active after taking the imperial title than he was before, spending most of his time at Aachen rather than all the various places listed in the 768-799 entries.


If we assume that Charlemagne decides to invade Denmark anyway, the best comparison is the 772 attack on Saxony: he marches in, occupies something (Eresburg in Saxony's case), possibly defeats an army, takes hostages and has the enemy king acknowledge Charlemagne's authority. Considering that the Saxons took Eresburg a year later and didn't give up paganism for another thirty, he's not going to achieve a lot. And he doesn't have another quarter-century to force Christianity on the Danes.

Also remember that at this time, there isn't much of a unified authority in Denmark: although there is a king, the absence of towns and centralised command (Arhus was only a fishing village in 800, Copenhagen didn't exist) means that local tribe leaders are the ones that people will listen too. Saxony had something in the realm of 350 "local tribe leaders". Denmark probably had fewer, but not so many fewer that Charlemagne can realistically subjugate every last one of them.


See what happened to the lands of people such as the Obotrites: temporarily subjects, effectively free once Charlemagne (or possibly Louis) dies. If 'North Francia' happens, it'll be because the 843 split is totally different; this being 30 years after the PoD that is a reasonable assumption (perhaps if Louis focusses on defeating Denmark, possible if he isn't forced to put down repeated rebellions as OTL). Something like the planned split of 806, attaching Denmark to Austrasia/Saxony (the part that would have gone to Charles the Younger) and the southern border moved more north is the most likely outcome in this case I would think.


In the event of a serious conquest of Denmark, a matter for Louis rather than Charlemagne (the fact Louis is called "the Pious" is enough for me to believe that, if he decided to fight the Danes, he would be trying to impose Christianity just like his father did to the Saxons albeit with fewer executions), then what we recognise as Vikings would be just Swedes/Norwegians. The Danes would be too busy defending their homes to worry about how much loot is in England.


He would win the battles, sure. Defeating Denmark and making them Christian though, he won't be alive long enough to make it stick.


No he couldn't. Charlemagne's strategy in every campaign he fought was to amass such a large army so as to convince the other side not to have to fight (by receiving their immediate surrender). Pavia's quick surrender and the capitulation of the Saxons in 776 were both due to this strategy. Armies of this size (>20k, possibly even 50k) cannot be supported for any real length of time by pure foraging unless the army is quickly moving through (such as the Mongols): sieges of forts (which can be defended by 1000 men or so) are unsustainable. Charlemagne (and his relatives for several generations either side) worked around this by having large magazines in all the major towns holding grain: as his army passed through it would take enough grain to feed it until it reached the next. In the Lombard campaign he would have used the grain stored in Lombard cities that had surrendered to him (Chiusa being the best example) - requisitioning from civilians would have angered the population and made the territory much harder to control had it been conquered. For the siege of Pavia, the Pope was supplying Charlemagne's force with food (from Ravenna and other nearby locations)

By 810, a network of magazines had likely been set up across Saxony: close enough to be supply the army the same way it was supplied in 772 when Saxony was still considered 'enemy territory' (ie. food being delivered on river boats). Also note that Charlemagne didn't push much further than Paderborn (about a week's marching from the border) until 776 when all of Saxony submitted to Charlemagne's rule. It is probably fair to say that this distance (say 100km) is about the limit for how far Charlemagne can project his forces without any friendly support (which existed in Italy, but absolutely would not in Denmark). I doubt Charlemagne could even get to the northern tip of Jutland with his army, to say nothing of conquering it, in a 1- or 2-year campaign.

And that is before we even worry about the North Sea. Remember that the Karlings are not known for their seafaring prowess.


Rollo probably isn't born (b.846, POD 810). William the Bastard certainly isn't.


Louis could if he wanted to (and was prepared to go through another Saxon War). Charlemagne wouldn't live long enough to do so.

- BNC

Did the Danes have anything like the fort of Eresburg? Also, Charlemagne can just have the local Danes build ships for him to invade Norway. He doesn't have to rely on the bad seafaring of the Franks.
 
Did the Danes have anything like the fort of Eresburg?

I don't know of anything of quite that scale, but I expect the Danes would have had, at the very least, numerous well defended (as in, a wall and 1000 men) villages. Even if they didn't, it took Charlemagne's force only about two weeks to build their siege camp outside Pavia - if the Danes had reason to believe they would need it (and 20k Franks storming in is a good reason), they could set up these sort of defences quickly enough to be useful.

Judging by his behaviour in Italy, it is apparent that Charlemagne was quite concerned about casualties, so storming village after village would be uncharacteristic of him, to say nothing of how quickly his army would die/desert. If he charges off to wherever the Danish king was staying, his supply train will be exposed to Danes left in the rear. And destroying the landscape (such as in his crushing of the Lombard Nobles Revolt of 776), would make it much more difficult to forage for food.

In Saxony, neither of these really became an issue because 1) he could secure food supplies from places such as Utrecht and Fulda, shipping them along the rivers Weser (tributaries), Lippe and Ruhr - while the Saxons didn't have much of a naval capacity to oppose this, and 2) the Saxons surrendered before Charlemagne could get bogged down too far east (the decisive battle in 775 was at Lippspringe, near Paderborn, about 100km from the Frankish border). AFAIK, Denmark doesn't have any sizeable north-south rivers in Jutland that ran into Karling lands, which means food will have to be supplied by land (horse/ox carts) - similar to Italy, but without the friendly (or at least peaceful) populace that Italy had.

Also, Charlemagne can just have the local Danes build ships for him to invade Norway.
First off, the Danes are much more likely fighting Charlemagne (someone attempting to destroy another's religion will cause this) than helping him. Saxony took around 20 years for Charlemagne to trust them enough (the first mention of the Saxons helping Charlemagne in the RFA is in the entry for 789), and a further fifteen to stop causing him any trouble at all. Even if Charlemagne invaded Denmark the moment Saxony stopped rebelling in 803, he'll still be dead long before he can trust the Danes.

Then there's the question of actually getting the army across the North Sea. To fight an enemy as large as the Norwegians, I think a fair estimate for the force Charlemagne would send would be in the realm of 10-20,000 soldiers. (Pavia was closer to 50k, but Norway isn't as populated as Italy was). Longships of the time are estimated to be able to carry about thirty. So to send Charlemagne's army, several hundred ships. Before transports carrying provisions are factored in. More ships are needed to carry horses. Some may need to be built to compensate for losses. Probably a thousand or more ships all up. I'm not totally sure that that is even possible to accomplish, and even if it is, the huge expense involved would not be able to be justified (Norway doesn't have much wealth, or even people to turn into slaves, so there's no point to conquering it. Saxony had been a thorn in the Franks' side for centuries, so it made sense to silence them, Norway never was.)

In Louis' reign, Denmark could plausibly be conquered if Louis was obsessed with it as his father was the Saxons. To go the next step (which if anything would be southern Sweden, not Norway), would require another generation. At which point, any reasonable Frankish magnate will have realised that the policy of conquering the Norse people is simply a waste of resources: if the Franks have to be as warlike as the scenario requires them to be, they should be heading where there are riches actually worth fighting for, which is almost certainly Muslim Spain.

- BNC
 
First off, the Danes are much more likely fighting Charlemagne (someone attempting to destroy another's religion will cause this) than helping him. Saxony took around 20 years for Charlemagne to trust them enough (the first mention of the Saxons helping Charlemagne in the RFA is in the entry for 789), and a further fifteen to stop causing him any trouble at all. Even if Charlemagne invaded Denmark the moment Saxony stopped rebelling in 803, he'll still be dead long before he can trust the Danes.

Then there's the question of actually getting the army across the North Sea. To fight an enemy as large as the Norwegians, I think a fair estimate for the force Charlemagne would send would be in the realm of 10-20,000 soldiers. (Pavia was closer to 50k, but Norway isn't as populated as Italy was). Longships of the time are estimated to be able to carry about thirty. So to send Charlemagne's army, several hundred ships. Before transports carrying provisions are factored in. More ships are needed to carry horses. Some may need to be built to compensate for losses. Probably a thousand or more ships all up. I'm not totally sure that that is even possible to accomplish, and even if it is, the huge expense involved would not be able to be justified (Norway doesn't have much wealth, or even people to turn into slaves, so there's no point to conquering it. Saxony had been a thorn in the Franks' side for centuries, so it made sense to silence them, Norway never was.)

In Louis' reign, Denmark could plausibly be conquered if Louis was obsessed with it as his father was the Saxons.
Great information and good points made in both posts. Alright, a full conquest of Denmark by Charlemagne himself is unlikely.

After the death of Charlemagne, let's say that Louis the Pious does conquer Denmark in a Saxon Wars-like campaign. Although many of the inhabitants would remain crypto-pagan in beliefs for decades or centuries, I think we could presume that by the 880s-890s AD or so, Denmark would be Christianized in a political/diplomatic sense. Let's also assume a relatively convergent partition of Francia, except that Denmark becomes an appanage of East Francia -- probably a "Duchy of Nordmannia"?

What ramifications would a mostly Christianized Danish realm have by 880-890 AD? Could we see Northern Crusade-like expeditions on the part of the Danes?

By the 900s, is it likely for the Danes to be recruited as mercenaries on the eastern frontier of Germany, particularly with the rise of Magyar raids? Could the Franks re-occupy some of the Danube fortresses left by Great Moravia?

At which point, any reasonable Frankish magnate will have realised that the policy of conquering the Norse people is simply a waste of resources: if the Franks have to be as warlike as the scenario requires them to be, they should be heading where there are riches actually worth fighting for, which is almost certainly Muslim Spain.
Al-Andalus is a wealthier area to conquer, but the king of East Francia may not have direct access to it, excepting a reunification of the Frankish realms.
 
Last edited:
After the death of Charlemagne, let's say that Louis the Pious does conquer Denmark in a Saxon Wars-like campaign. Although many of the inhabitants would remain crypto-pagan in beliefs for decades or centuries, I think we could presume that by the 880s-890s AD or so, Denmark would be Christianized in a political/diplomatic sense.
That works, as long as Louis' sons don't cause trouble for him the way they did IOTL. A pretty big divergence on its own, but I can't see Denmark being defeated Saxon-like by 840 otherwise.

Let's also assume a relatively convergent partition of Francia, except that Denmark becomes an appanage of East Francia -- probably a "Duchy of Nordmannia"?
This depends on Louis' three sons: if they fight each other as in OTL (840-42 was a pretty big civil war), the Danes will likely be able to wrest some control of their lands back from Louis the German - whether this would simply be greater autonomy or full independence is hard to say without knowing how far Louis the Pious went in his efforts to convert the Danes (I expect him to be milder than his father, but not excessively so). Independence will likely result in a Christian kingdom but with significant rights for pagans (whoever leads the rebellion would be the one to decide how far these rights go), and a Danish identity will survive into the X.century. Autonomy may result in eventual independence or Jutland becoming a part of Germany.

The problem with Louis' sons is Lotharingia: the most valuable third of the Frankish division is also the hardest to defend. If the partition of 840 looks the way it did in OTL, Louis the German will be much more focussed on Lotharingia than on Denmark, because something like Aachen is much more valuable than Danish villages that don't exactly want to be ruled anyway.

However.. if we assume Louis the Pious divides the kingdom more to how it looked in the 870s, civil war can likely be avoided. That is:
West Francia having Neustria, Austrasia, Saxony and most of Lotharingia
East Francia having Denmark, Bavaria, eastern part of Lotharingia and the northern parts of Burgundy
Middle/South Francia having Aquitaine and Italy (and a reasonable amount of territory to connect the two)

That being the case (and assuming there's no civil war anyway for unrelated reasons), Louis the German can probably finish off the conquest of Denmark (less a war at this point, but the occasional crushing of rebellions). The Obotrites will likely still be an EF ally against the Slavs/Moravians/Magyars (OTL there's little mention of the alliance after Charlemagne's death, but considering their hostility towards the Danes it likely continues ITTL). I'm unable to say how strong Louis the German would need to be to counter the Slavs (most of my research is in pre-800 stuff), but for simplicity's sake the Obotrites can fill in for EF troops in Denmark if needed.

What ramifications would a mostly Christianized Danish realm have by 880-890 AD?
Most obviously, no Great Heathen Army. And generally, less Vikings overall due to the fact that the Danes aren't contributing men. The Swedes could still oust the native Russians (Chuds and the like), but butterflies have a much larger role in deciding this than anything else. Denmark likely becomes the frontier of 'civilisation' just as eastern Germany did (until the conversions of Poland and Hungary around 960-1000), and there's no real reason to expect Christianity to spread much faster east than OTL as a direct result of this (unless the Church simply becomes more militant overall, but that's another discussion altogether). Of course, by 1000 you're looking at a totally different world anyway.

By the 900s, is it likely for the Danes to be recruited as mercenaries on the eastern frontier of Germany, particularly with the rise of Magyar raids? Could the Franks re-occupy some of the Danube fortresses left by Great Moravia?
By 900, Denmark is just as much 'German' as somewhere like Bavaria. There's no reason to expect them to be treated differently at this point.

Re Great Moravia, in the 880s the Karling dynasty had a pretty crazy collapse - Louis the Stammerer, Louis the Younger and Carloman II all died quite young, and Charles the Fat inherited everything only to die himself not much later. In all likelihood, this event doesn't get repeated ITTL. If it doesn't, Francia will look very different by 890: possibly divided, possibly in a massive civil war, possibly reunited and stable under another Pippin III/Charlemagne character. Under some of these scenarios, a march to Hungary is possible, in others not so much. Which scenario arises won't depend on Denmark, but on whatever alternate kids become Charlemagne's great-grandsons and great-great-grandsons. ITTL, Danish people will be a part of whatever the later Franks do, because they're now 'Germans' not 'Danes', but nothing more can be said with certainty.

Al-Andalus is a wealthier area to conquer, but the king of East Francia may not have direct access to it, excepting a reunification of the Frankish realms.
The general trend of the Franks, going as far back as Clovis, was to only fight external enemies if Francia was totally united (see Charlemagne not invading Saxony until his brother died IOTL). If the King of East Francia is not also King of West Francia, he's going to be worrying about what WF is possibly going to do to him - not if he can go conquer something else. Sure, if the Slavs attack him he'll defend himself, but he's not going to march an army deep into Poland if it risks his cousin attacking him for the throne.

- BNC
 
That works, as long as Louis' sons don't cause trouble for him the way they did IOTL. A pretty big divergence on its own, but I can't see Denmark being defeated Saxon-like by 840 otherwise.

This depends on Louis' three sons: if they fight each other as in OTL (840-42 was a pretty big civil war), the Danes will likely be able to wrest some control of their lands back from Louis the German - whether this would simply be greater autonomy or full independence is hard to say without knowing how far Louis the Pious went in his efforts to convert the Danes (I expect him to be milder than his father, but not excessively so). Independence will likely result in a Christian kingdom but with significant rights for pagans (whoever leads the rebellion would be the one to decide how far these rights go), and a Danish identity will survive into the X.century. Autonomy may result in eventual independence or Jutland becoming a part of Germany.
Interesting caveats. Hmm, if Louis the Pious or Louis the German's attentions are distracted by other wars, and they lose control of Jutland, perhaps a Danish rebellion could lead to intervention by Norse sea-kings from the north?

The problem with Louis' sons is Lotharingia: the most valuable third of the Frankish division is also the hardest to defend. If the partition of 840 looks the way it did in OTL, Louis the German will be much more focussed on Lotharingia than on Denmark, because something like Aachen is much more valuable than Danish villages that don't exactly want to be ruled anyway.

However.. if we assume Louis the Pious divides the kingdom more to how it looked in the 870s, civil war can likely be avoided. That is:
West Francia having Neustria, Austrasia, Saxony and most of Lotharingia
East Francia having Denmark, Bavaria, eastern part of Lotharingia and the northern parts of Burgundy
Middle/South Francia having Aquitaine and Italy (and a reasonable amount of territory to connect the two)

That being the case (and assuming there's no civil war anyway for unrelated reasons), Louis the German can probably finish off the conquest of Denmark (less a war at this point, but the occasional crushing of rebellions). The Obotrites will likely still be an EF ally against the Slavs/Moravians/Magyars (OTL there's little mention of the alliance after Charlemagne's death, but considering their hostility towards the Danes it likely continues ITTL). I'm unable to say how strong Louis the German would need to be to counter the Slavs (most of my research is in pre-800 stuff), but for simplicity's sake the Obotrites can fill in for EF troops in Denmark if needed.
That sounds like a good scenario. The 870 borders are definitely more stable. A civil war can be delayed long enough for the East Franks to consolidate Denmark. I could see the Obotrites being granted a small amount of land in Denmark itself in return for loyalty against Danish and Sorbian rebellions.

Most obviously, no Great Heathen Army. And generally, less Vikings overall due to the fact that the Danes aren't contributing men. The Swedes could still oust the native Russians (Chuds and the like), but butterflies have a much larger role in deciding this than anything else. Denmark likely becomes the frontier of 'civilisation' just as eastern Germany did (until the conversions of Poland and Hungary around 960-1000), and there's no real reason to expect Christianity to spread much faster east than OTL as a direct result of this (unless the Church simply becomes more militant overall, but that's another discussion altogether). Of course, by 1000 you're looking at a totally different world anyway.

By 900, Denmark is just as much 'German' as somewhere like Bavaria. There's no reason to expect them to be treated differently at this point.
Is it completely certain that the Danes would be assimilated by Germans even if they were converted to Christianity earlier? When the Danes converted to Christianity, they retained significant "Viking" aspects for many years -- we see this in Sweyn Forkbeard and Canute the Great's invasions, as well as the Dane-descended Normans remaining prominent military adventurers for two centuries.

In terms of climate, Denmark while not too fundamentally different from northern Germany, presents an area that is not particularly attractive for German settlement until the Ostsiedlung migrations. Population pressure in the Norse lands led to seasonal raiding, which after Christianization may just be redirected by becoming itinerant mercenaries or performing raids exclusively against pagans.

Now, the Danish nobility may come to be seen as German, but that may not prevent them from developing a particular regional character similar to that of the Normans.

Re Great Moravia, in the 880s the Karling dynasty had a pretty crazy collapse - Louis the Stammerer, Louis the Younger and Carloman II all died quite young, and Charles the Fat inherited everything only to die himself not much later. In all likelihood, this event doesn't get repeated ITTL. If it doesn't, Francia will look very different by 890: possibly divided, possibly in a massive civil war, possibly reunited and stable under another Pippin III/Charlemagne character. Under some of these scenarios, a march to Hungary is possible, in others not so much. Which scenario arises won't depend on Denmark, but on whatever alternate kids become Charlemagne's great-grandsons and great-great-grandsons. ITTL, Danish people will be a part of whatever the later Franks do, because they're now 'Germans' not 'Danes', but nothing more can be said with certainty.

The general trend of the Franks, going as far back as Clovis, was to only fight external enemies if Francia was totally united (see Charlemagne not invading Saxony until his brother died IOTL). If the King of East Francia is not also King of West Francia, he's going to be worrying about what WF is possibly going to do to him - not if he can go conquer something else. Sure, if the Slavs attack him he'll defend himself, but he's not going to march an army deep into Poland if it risks his cousin attacking him for the throne.
True, it is all really dependent on the fates of Charlemagne's heirs themselves and diplomacy between the core parts of the empire.

Is is possible that West Francia, East Francia, and Italy, even in a period where they're disunited could make a sort of Oaths of Strasbourg type of agreement against a non-Frankish enemy?
 
In terms of climate, Denmark while not too fundamentally different from northern Germany, presents an area that is not particularly attractive for German settlement until the Ostsiedlung migrations.

When Ostsiedlung became a thing Denmark was as densely populated as northern Germany. And will not represent a interesting prospect for German settlers. As in, Danes use the same methods to farm the land, (the heavy plow) and have taken all the good land.

Many of the areas the people that participated in the Ostsiedlung would settle in lands where the local people used a lighter plow, this meant they were settled in areas with lighter soil. the german/saxon settlers could then settle the lands that the locals were unable to use, as their heavy plow was well suited for this.

While I'm unsure if the Danish population was as densely populated earlier, you have to remember that the area experienced a high population growth during this period, which helped usher in the viking age.


PS: I haven't read all the thread.

But one thing I find intriguing is the possibility of what happens if the Danes are converted earlier. would be interesting to see if they could be use as a bulwark against what ever pagan raiders comes forth from OTL Norway and Sweden!
 
IMO, Jutland will probably fall, but I don't see them invading into Scandinavia proper. Scandinavia is very cold, full of people who are going to be very...difficult to rule due to not really wanting to be beholden to a powerful Christian king, and who will probably want to break away the minute you look away.

The issue really is that by the time Charlemagne would be powerful to commit to a long term invasion of Scandinavia, he'd probably rather use the troops to invade already pre-Christianized and prosperous Andalusia, rather than go fight a bunch of angry barbarians.
 
Is it completely certain that the Danes would be assimilated by Germans even if they were converted to Christianity earlier? When the Danes converted to Christianity, they retained significant "Viking" aspects for many years -- we see this in Sweyn Forkbeard and Canute the Great's invasions, as well as the Dane-descended Normans remaining prominent military adventurers for two centuries.

In terms of climate, Denmark while not too fundamentally different from northern Germany, presents an area that is not particularly attractive for German settlement until the Ostsiedlung migrations. Population pressure in the Norse lands led to seasonal raiding, which after Christianization may just be redirected by becoming itinerant mercenaries or performing raids exclusively against pagans.
Nothing in AH is completely certain, but Denmark becoming 'German' is pretty likely. Remember that this is a Saxon-Wars-II scenario where the Franks are trying to wipe Denmark out as an entity. A less extreme invasion would keep a strong Danish identity alive, but it also means that the Franks probably don't hold on to Denmark into the X century and onwards.

The other main reason why we'd see this "culture conversion" isn't Christianity so much as the fact that Denmark, or Jutland at least, will be part of a 'German' state, whether East Francia, HRE, or some new thing that comes out when the Karlings collapse/break up. IIRC Denmark was never a part of any of these states IOTL, but instead spent a lot of its history in groupings like the "source of the Vikings" or the Kalmar Union later on, hence we now identify it as "Scandinavian" (despite not being connected to Scandinavia proper). ITTL it is instead associated with Germans for most of its history (at least as far as people in 1100 would see it - what happens after centuries is impossible to predict), so it will be seen as "German".

Now, the Danish nobility may come to be seen as German, but that may not prevent them from developing a particular regional character similar to that of the Normans.
Doesn't everything have a regional identity? Within Germany, Bavarians are seen different to Saxons, who are different to Thuringians. ITTL we are simply adding 'Danish' to that list of cultures. A scholar in TTL that is interested in Germany, or a German, would know and care about the difference. Someone in Britain though, would simply say 'both are Germans as far as I care'. Just like today, most people see Normans as simply "Frenchmen".

Is is possible that West Francia, East Francia, and Italy, even in a period where they're disunited could make a sort of Oaths of Strasbourg type of agreement against a non-Frankish enemy?
Possible? Absolutely. But it isn't that likely, as the previous three centuries showed that Frankish kings were more concerned about holding their throne and keeping their cousins/brothers/nephews off than they were taking other lands. That is, after all, what the quote in my sig is about.

The Oaths of Strasbourg themselves were promises between two brothers to try to keep a third (Lothar) from stealing their thrones, not "please stay quiet while I use all my resources to destroy some barbarians and leave my back door open". In the former case, neither party has an incentive to break the agreement, in the latter case they do.

IMO, Jutland will probably fall, but I don't see them invading into Scandinavia proper. Scandinavia is very cold, full of people who are going to be very...difficult to rule due to not really wanting to be beholden to a powerful Christian king, and who will probably want to break away the minute you look away.
It's not so much the fact that the Scandinavians (not counting Jutland when I say this) don't want to be ruled as it is the Franks simply can't supply an army there. If an ASB put a couple of well placed rivers in Sweden and gave the Franks enough boats to ferry supplies, the Franks could conquer the inhabited parts of Sweden. They were strong enough to, but geography and a lack of logistic capacity means that they couldn't.

The issue really is that by the time Charlemagne would be powerful to commit to a long term invasion of Scandinavia, he'd probably rather use the troops to invade already pre-Christianized and prosperous Andalusia, rather than go fight a bunch of angry barbarians.
By the time Charlemagne was 'able' to commit to Denmark, he was a couple of years from being dead.

As for Andalusia, once the Franks set up a march somewhere, they tended to not expand past it, understanding it to be a fortified border of sorts. Brittany was never invaded, Frankish armies never met the ERE (because of the march in Pannonia), the same thing would probably happen in Spain. Denmark also makes sense from the viewpoint of being 1) closer to the source of Frankish power in Austrasia, and 2) being a legitimate thorn in the Franks' neck (Viking raids were starting to become a nuisance). Does this make Spain impossible? No, but it does mean that "Spain exists" isn't enough to kill the scenario entirely.

- BNC
 
Top