I'm sure most of you are familiar with the year 1066 - the year that both the Vikings and the Normans both invaded England, culminating in the death of the Viking and English kings and the crowning of William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England.
And, of course, with Britain becoming such an influence later on, I think it's safe to say it's one of the biggest events in post-Roman history, if not one of the biggest events in all history.
But what if Harald Hardrada, the Viking king, had gone for Scotland instead?
The Vikings will most likely win in Scotland, resulting in a later end to the "Viking Age" and more widespread Viking influence. If they don't win, it'll most likely be like what happened OTL with the "fall" of the Vikings.
Of course, the Vikings not meddling with England has major impact on the Norman conquest. Harold of England never has to divert his troops to stop the Viking invasion, and they have more ability to stop Duke William and the rest of Normandy when they land on the south coast of England. Whether they win or not is still important, but a Viking Scotland is still interesting to think about.
What do you think? Is the premise of the Vikings invading Scotland rather than England plausible or just ASB? Without the Vikings in the equation, would the Normans or the English win? What would the effect of a Viking Scotland be on history?
And, of course, with Britain becoming such an influence later on, I think it's safe to say it's one of the biggest events in post-Roman history, if not one of the biggest events in all history.
But what if Harald Hardrada, the Viking king, had gone for Scotland instead?
The Vikings will most likely win in Scotland, resulting in a later end to the "Viking Age" and more widespread Viking influence. If they don't win, it'll most likely be like what happened OTL with the "fall" of the Vikings.
Of course, the Vikings not meddling with England has major impact on the Norman conquest. Harold of England never has to divert his troops to stop the Viking invasion, and they have more ability to stop Duke William and the rest of Normandy when they land on the south coast of England. Whether they win or not is still important, but a Viking Scotland is still interesting to think about.
What do you think? Is the premise of the Vikings invading Scotland rather than England plausible or just ASB? Without the Vikings in the equation, would the Normans or the English win? What would the effect of a Viking Scotland be on history?
Last edited: