WI : Britain united and fortified before the Viking Period

So, yeah - basically the title.

Ignore whom unites the island, but essentially it is united and coastal settlements have some reasonable fortifications to dissuade Viking raids (i.e. prevents them entirely).

What would the Vikings do in the North Sea if they couldn't raid Britain?
 
Why would Britain fortify itself before the viking raids? Did earlier ones scare them so badly that coastal defenses took off in importance?

And I think they would raid France, Ireland, Spain, and possibly the interior of the Mediterranean if they couldn't go after France. It would take longer voyages and, with Britain's improved defensive technologies, could potentially be shorter lived.
 
So, yeah - basically the title.

Ignore whom unites the island, but essentially it is united and coastal settlements have some reasonable fortifications to dissuade Viking raids (i.e. prevents them entirely).

What would the Vikings do in the North Sea if they couldn't raid Britain?

Romans survive, their towns were so developed they were basically forts. Given the long amount of time they would've been able to build up in case of Vikings.
 
Why would Britain fortify itself before the viking raids? Did earlier ones scare them so badly that coastal defenses took off in importance?

And I think they would raid France, Ireland, Spain, and possibly the interior of the Mediterranean if they couldn't go after France. It would take longer voyages and, with Britain's improved defensive technologies, could potentially be shorter lived.

I'm going to go with "We saw what happened with the Saxons, we see what happens with pirates, you know what - lets build the walls, the worst case scenario is that we never need them".

That and maybe Lindesfarne is a quick kick up the backside.
 
The Romans built the Saxon coast and that didn't prevent the Saxons from raiding.

This is true, but essentially I want to see someone earlier than Alfred the Great create Burghs as to defer coastal raids. Protecting the towns rather than a few forts on the coast. It certainly seemed to work well for him.

Which leads me to ask, if it was as hard to take British towns as it was to raid French or German towns (who did see a drop in raiding over time), where would the Vikings go?
 
This is true, but essentially I want to see someone earlier than Alfred the Great create Burghs as to defer coastal raids. Protecting the towns rather than a few forts on the coast. It certainly seemed to work well for him.

Which leads me to ask, if it was as hard to take British towns as it was to raid French or German towns (who did see a drop in raiding over time), where would the Vikings go?

The problem is both that the saxon inheritance laws kind of require a king to split up his kingdom amongst all his surviving sons on his death, and that the English never knew the Norse were coming.

Furthermore, fortification won't necessarily stop the Norse per se, it didn't stop them from Raiding France so much that the Franks had to give them Normandy to get them to go away.

Furthermore, even if the English manage to unite and fortify, the Norse still have Kingdoms in the Hebrides and Ireland, it's likely that they seek softer targets in Wales and Scotland instead, which means that England is now Surrounded. If a Knut the Great type wants to unite the North Sea at that Juncture, he has three sides with which to do it from then.
 
The problem is both that the saxon inheritance laws kind of require a king to split up his kingdom amongst all his surviving sons on his death, and that the English never knew the Norse were coming.

What stops the King from changing this law? I understand the change from precedent may be unexpected, but it could certainly benefit the realm. In fact, it might be a deciding factor in uniting it in the first place.

The absence of foreknowledge is an obvious problem, but the way I see it is that you can justify the Burghal system as much to protect from scottish raids, as to enforce control and defend an island nation from the sea - the Saxons own history is a lesson to learn from. It would then be a deterrent by accident.

Furthermore, fortification won't necessarily stop the Norse per se, it didn't stop them from Raiding France so much that the Franks had to give them Normandy to get them to go away.

That isn't an entirely fair description of events. France gave Normandy away as much because it was a prime target for raiding, and poorly defended so that the Norse would deal with the problem rather than France.

Furthermore, even if the English manage to unite and fortify, the Norse still have Kingdoms in the Hebrides and Ireland, it's likely that they seek softer targets in Wales and Scotland instead, which means that England is now Surrounded. If a Knut the Great type wants to unite the North Sea at that Juncture, he has three sides with which to do it from then.

Well, my assertion was a united Britain, not just England - but lets roll with that, it still leads to a much stronger England, one of the better targets for raids, less practical to raid, making the bases nearby less useful for that, and more useful for raiding Francia.

Admittedly a Strong England and a One Viking King scenario isn't going to be a great victory for either side IMO, but a Strong England can basically move in to kick out smaller Viking holds before they become a threat, and then assert English control over those regions.
 
What stops the King from changing this law? I understand the change from precedent may be unexpected, but it could certainly benefit the realm. In fact, it might be a deciding factor in uniting it in the first place.

The absence of foreknowledge is an obvious problem, but the way I see it is that you can justify the Burghal system as much to protect from scottish raids, as to enforce control and defend an island nation from the sea - the Saxons own history is a lesson to learn from. It would then be a deterrent by accident.



That isn't an entirely fair description of events. France gave Normandy away as much because it was a prime target for raiding, and poorly defended so that the Norse would deal with the problem rather than France.



Well, my assertion was a united Britain, not just England - but lets roll with that, it still leads to a much stronger England, one of the better targets for raids, less practical to raid, making the bases nearby less useful for that, and more useful for raiding Francia.

Admittedly a Strong England and a One Viking King scenario isn't going to be a great victory for either side IMO, but a Strong England can basically move in to kick out smaller Viking holds before they become a threat, and then assert English control over those regions.

Saxon Kings weren't absolute monarchs, they ruled with the help of their Witengamot, which was a council made up of the most powerful clergymen and nobles in each kingdom. They can't just make decrees on a whim. Furthermore an attempt to change the laws would result in infighting amongst sons who feel they were screwed out of their rightful inheritance, weakening the kingdom rather than strengthening it.

Also you can't unite Britain by the time the Vikings control the Hebrides and Ireland, it isn't feasible in the time alotted. Once the Norse have a foothold, any invasion of Alba from Northumbria is going to see the Norse pouring forth from the North while you're battling the Scots in the South, resulting in a 1066 Scenario but in reverse with the Norse playing the role of the Fresh Norman army and the Saxons the tired bloodied english. Same with Wales.

As for England itself, what incentive do the petty kings have to throw away their traditions and grudges that they've kept to for hundreds of years to unite? Lindisfarne? Sounds like Northumbria's Problem. . .

Also, Viking is not a people, nation, or ethnic group, it's a profession. To go aviking means to go pirating. The proper term is Norse. You don't see me calling all englishmen pirates just because a lot of Englishmen were pirates do you? Pet peeve of mine. . .
 
Last edited:
Saxon Kings weren't absolute monarchs, they ruled with the help of their Witengamot, which was a council made up of the most powerful clergymen and nobles in each kingdom. They can't just make decrees on a whim. Furthermore an attempt to change the laws would result in infighting amongst sons who feel they were screwed out of their rightful inheritance, weakening the kingdom rather than strengthening it.

What if it wasn't a Saxon unification? Perhaps a more successful Coel Hen? Or any of the Romano-British commanders has overall success in a manner like Catos Cavalry?

Whilst I agree with the Witengamot concern (I won't lie, I've never been 100% sure when that turned up in history), surely a good argument can be made that would convince them. Heck, that reform happened eventually IOTL. Plus, there is a valid argument that it makes the realm stronger in the long term as the divided realms don't fight to unite their fathers realm, just the first generation who feel a bit screwed have to be handled carefully, or the law changed before they are born.

Also you can't unite Britain by the time the Vikings control the Hebrides and Ireland, it isn't feasible in the time alotted. Once the Norse have a foothold, any invasion of Alba from Northumbria is going to see the Norse pouring forth from the North while you're battling the Scots in the South, resulting in a 1066 Scenario but in reverse with the Norse playing the role of the Fresh Norman army and the Saxons the tired bloodied english. Same with Wales.

What time allotted? I said someone did it before they came, not as they rose. But you misread me, I said to attack the Viking Holds / Norse Holds, not the Scots themselves, not initially at least. In addition the Norse were rarely a united people or force, there is no guarantee of a Great Heathen Army-like scenario.

As for England itself, what incentive do the petty kings have to throw away their traditions and grudges that they've kept to for hundreds of years to unite? Lindisfarne? Sounds like Northumbria's Problem. . .
Ok, now you're just trying to derail the thread. The point was "What if they were", not a massive discussion of how or why, as those are going to make negligible changes compared to "Is it worth raiding them".

Also, Viking is not a people, nation, or ethnic group, it's a profession. To go aviking means to go pirating. The proper term is Norse. You don't see me calling all englishmen pirates just because a lot of Englishmen were pirates do you? Pet peeve of mine. . .

I'm aware Viking is a profession, not a race. But we call Kings who went on Crusade, Crusader Kings - Kings who rule Vikings or go a-viking by that matter can be called Viking Kings IMO. Plus, if the holds were primarily bases for Viking raids, it isn't unfair to call them Viking holds.

Also, Viking was just pirating, it did also involve going abroad for trade. Hence why I said what would the Vikings do, if they wouldn't raid. Those people, who would have been Vikings.

Can we move on to the question I asked now?
 
What if it wasn't a Saxon unification? Perhaps a more successful Coel Hen? Or any of the Romano-British commanders has overall success in a manner like Catos Cavalry?

Whilst I agree with the Witengamot concern (I won't lie, I've never been 100% sure when that turned up in history), surely a good argument can be made that would convince them. Heck, that reform happened eventually IOTL. Plus, there is a valid argument that it makes the realm stronger in the long term as the divided realms don't fight to unite their fathers realm, just the first generation who feel a bit screwed have to be handled carefully, or the law changed before they are born.



What time allotted? I said someone did it before they came, not as they rose. But you misread me, I said to attack the Viking Holds / Norse Holds, not the Scots themselves, not initially at least. In addition the Norse were rarely a united people or force, there is no guarantee of a Great Heathen Army-like scenario.

Ok, now you're just trying to derail the thread. The point was "What if they were", not a massive discussion of how or why, as those are going to make negligible changes compared to "Is it worth raiding them".



I'm aware Viking is a profession, not a race. But we call Kings who went on Crusade, Crusader Kings - Kings who rule Vikings or go a-viking by that matter can be called Viking Kings IMO. Plus, if the holds were primarily bases for Viking raids, it isn't unfair to call them Viking holds.

Also, Viking was just pirating, it did also involve going abroad for trade. Hence why I said what would the Vikings do, if they wouldn't raid. Those people, who would have been Vikings.

Can we move on to the question I asked now?

I'm not trying to derail the thread, those are valid questions you need to ask when constructing your scenario. All of the various petty Kings were in competition with one another for the position of Bretwalda, you need a decent reason for them to unite rather than squabble. This isn't ASB and Other Magic where you can just handwave that away, you need a reason. IOTL it only happened because the Norse had overrun Northumbria and Mercia. Without a disaster on that scale, I don't think it happens.

As for the time alotted, you have 200 years between the rise of the Heptarchy and Lindisfarne during that period, the biggest threat to the various petty Kingdoms was each other. While it is possible for military conquest to unite one or two kingdoms together, that will only go so far. . .

Also if you're going to insist on calling state backed invasions an act of piracy, then I reserve the right to do the same for the English. . .
 
I'm not trying to derail the thread, those are valid questions you need to ask when constructing your scenario. All of the various petty Kings were in competition with one another for the position of Bretwalda, you need a decent reason for them to unite rather than squabble. This isn't ASB and Other Magic where you can just handwave that away, you need a reason. IOTL it only happened because the Norse had overrun Northumbria and Mercia. Without a disaster on that scale, I don't think it happens.

As for the time alotted, you have 200 years between the rise of the Heptarchy and Lindisfarne during that period, the biggest threat to the various petty Kingdoms was each other. While it is possible for military conquest to unite one or two kingdoms together, that will only go so far. . .

Again, it could be pre-Saxon, post Saxon, etc. Hell, Northumbria at one point very nearly DID unite Britain at one point.

Heck, fine. Coel Hen is totally legit and manages to form the basics of a primogeniture inheritance Kingdom. Hen Oggled, at the first sign of Saxon raids, decides to fortify the east coasts, and later expanding it throughout the realm.

-- I will stand by that I feel like I'm being derailed, I was interested in what else the Vikings would choose to do, not the unification of Britain. That isn't handwaving, it is literally trying to frame a discussion on that point. You're forcing me to discuss exactly what I didn't intend to discuss, as such, derailed. --

Also if you're going to insist on calling state backed invasions an act of piracy, then I reserve the right to do the same for the English. . .

1) Whoops, that was a typo. That was meant to be "Wasn't just pirating, it was also trading", fair enough, throw in conquest (Although I'd be curious as to how it was considered state-backed at this point).

2) I'd probably join you in that sort of condemnation if it was invasions and raids by the English. Go ahead.
 
Okay, I'll give it a try since you haven't really gotten an answer for what you seem to want.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that a Charlemagne-esque conquered Britain, or England. Rather than having the english fortify their shores, I'm going to operate under the thought that a unified Britain/England would have looked outwards more and developed a navy for trading and potentially even allowing them to attack mainland Europe. This would in turn allow them to deter the Vikings, since the greatest advantage of the vikings was their ability to strike at will and then flee before their enemy could strike them back. That seems, to me, to be a more likely development to occur than them heavily fortifying their coast.

The first thing that needs to be considered is Britain vs England. You specified all of Britain, but later said England was fine. If it is just England, I could see several indecisive battles with England before the vikings would focus more heavily on the rest of the Britain Isles. This could in fact make the vikings more successful. If say the Great Heathen Army landed in the Edinburgh area and instead attacked Alba, there's a decent chance they could have overrun Scotland. The Highlands would have presented something of a problem, but I could see south Scotland falling. The Norse would have also focused more effort in Ireland, where they had established several trading posts like Dublin. This means Scotland, Ireland, and Wales would have been under greater assault than OTL simply due to being easier targets, like the Hebrides in OTL. Of course Normandy and Frisia would have probably similarly fallen under greater assault in France. However I am wondering if the English with a fleet might have either made common cause with the Franks to expel the vikings, or possibly even invaded viking conquered land right after to take it themselves. If the English were a sea power during this time, there's no way to predict just how much they would have interfered with the vikings.

If all of Britain was unified, then the vikings would either focus entirely on Normandy, Breton, and Frisia or simply abandoned the North Sea entirely. I'm actually leaning a bit more on the latter. If Britain had a navy then they would have dominated trade in the North Sea. So either the vikings would have been forced to fill smaller niches than OTL or maybe even the English would take the intrusion of another sea culture badly and driven them off. If the vikings couldn't trade or raid in the North Sea, they would have no choice but to look east to the Baltic Sea. The degree by which they focused east would just depend on the Britain vs England question. The lack of wealth to raid and steal would have made the vikings focus more on settlement and building up the Volga and Dneiper trade routes. This would mean a greater Varangian dominance over the Rus, making Keivan Rus more Nordic, more viking conflict with the east and west slavs, and probably a greater Norse population base around the Baltic. The Norse would also thus be more likely to be influenced by the Byzantines through the Dneiper and the muslim nations around the Caspian Sea than western Europe like OTL.
 
Top