What if the Great Heathen Army managed to conquer Wessex and remained in power?

Would England have united under Danish rule believing in the old norse gods? Or would it quickly have collapsed?
 
It really depends on how the vikings then tried to rule. You imply the vikings would have remained pagan even while ruling England, but the vikings often proved amenable to making practical choices if it eased the way for them to prosper. So I think it likely the viking leaders would have publicly converted to Christianity to reduce native resistance against them. Even if they didn't, they likely would have at least not acted against the Christians as it would probably incite widespread rebellion. They wouldn't necessarily have supported Christianity like previous English rulers, but they'd probably have tried to toe a line between submitting to the people and culture they conquered and doing what was necessary to hold their conquests. It's possible Norse immigrants would have established villages and ports that were largely pagan, but Norse paganism wasn't organized. Any real competition between Christianity, with dedicated monasteries and grand churches, and Norse paganism, which was humbler in nature and organized on a more local level, would almost certainly end up with Christianity becoming dominant. Unless the victories inspire a reorganization of Norse paganism to compete with the native Christian practices it's likely the pagans would convert over time to Christianity, nobles and commoners.

If the Norse did decide to try and convert England to their gods, it would almost certainly prove troublesome. If the vikings had eliminated all the local nobles in their conquests, there would be a lack of any organized rebellion or uprisings. However the people still would if the vikings basically went around burning parish churches, looting monasteries, destroying cathedrals, and overall forcing the people to choose between death and converting to their Norse gods. A strong enough Norse occupation force might still triumph, but the destruction and death would be widespread. Probably enough to cripple the population of England for generations, even if there was a constant influx of Norse settlers. During this time England would be threatened by the Welsh, Picts/Scots, and Britons.

Regardless of what route the Norse chose, if they successfully held onto England till their rule stabilized there would be major effects. Chances are that Wales, Scotland, and Ireland would almost certainly fall under Norse control. Norse trade ports like Dublin in Ireland were being settled around this period and lasted for a while. If a major Norse populace came into existence in England to supplement these viking expansion attempts before the natives really drove them off under the leadership of Brian Boru or Constantine II, I doubt the rest of Britain could resist. In turn Britain would enhance other viking activities. As long as this doesn't butterfly his existence or campaigns, Rollo's efforts in Normandy would be probably twice as fierce as there's a significant Norse population just across the channel to draw from. Eventually I figure the Norse would fall to civil war as kings like Cnut try to unify the Norse into a single kingdom. Either they succeed and we end up with a North Sea Empire-like Norse kingdom or the vikings descend into a multitude of small kingdoms and likely lose a great degree of influence in their lack of unity. Really depends on author's preference.
 
Yeah, essentially 1 or more Anglo-Norse Christian Kingdoms will result. And the fewer kingdoms the more they will dominate the isles.
 
1) Christianization would probably be delayed, as there is no advantage to Christianization. All Christian landlords are dead or subordinated, most monastaries are looted. This in turn delays Christianization of Scandanavia as otl, those Priests favored by the Norewiegan and Swedish upper class otl were Anglo-Danes (i.e. part of the family) while those from Hamburg Bremen were seen as agents of the Holy Roman Emperor.

2) More Danish settlers follow the victory. This in turn probably means otl Normandy doesn't happen or is delayed and the settlement of Iceland is slower because many otl would be settlers/raiders have a nice farm and a Saxon wife. This also means a more "Danish" culture. The Vikings otl didn't complete any conquests and were "pushed back" and then assimilated culturally. Here, the cultural pushback has been severely weakened. Long term you are likely to see an Dano-Celtic culture of the British isles rather than an Anglo-Celtic.

3)Long term, the children and grandchildren of those British Danes go raiding and settling, many of whom are also grandsons of Saxons. However they are now Norse and atl perhaps those extra numbers help atl Vinland or a stronger alt Normandy or complete the conquest of Ireland. Overall, W. Europe is probably more Norse atl.

4) Are they Pagan? Trends from OTL is they settle in and go native, Saxon bishops hold onto influence etc and the conquerers are eventually Christianized. While I think the trend is weaker in the short term than otl, the trend continues still is strong atl.

However, that doesn't mean something atl can't disrupt that trend. It could be a lone genius who comprehends the threat of Christianity. We have situations like Iceland otl settlers (mostly British wives of Norsemen) were nominally Christian but the faith essentially died within a generation. We could see the Saxon church essentially be wiped out and the conquered defaulting to the faith of their culturally similar conquerers. Still, I give them about an 70-80 chance of being Christian.
 
Top