WI No Danelaw

I was curious what would be the effects of Danelaw not existing. I know this is bound to have already been discussed so if there is a forum or timeline a link would be greatly appricated.
-E.N
 
You need to be more precise in your question.

Five different types of POD can butterflie away Danelaw:

1) The vikings dont come to England.

2) The vikings raids England but dont try to mount a huge invasion.

3) The vikings did invade but got beaten back by northumbria.

4) The vikings do beat Northumbria but got smashed by Mercia and arent able to establish.

5) The vikings do beat Northumbria and Mercia but got smashed bad enough by Wessex that they arent able to establish.

Each of these five types POD will have tremendous but very different consequences.
 
You need to be more precise in your question.

Five different types of POD can butterfly away Danelaw:

1) The vikings dont come to England.

2) The vikings raids England but dont try to mount a huge invasion.

3) The vikings did invade but got beaten back by northumbria.

4) The vikings do beat Northumbria but got smashed by Mercia and arent able to establish.

5) The vikings do beat Northumbria and Mercia but got smashed bad enough by Wessex that they arent able to establish.

Each of these five types POD will have tremendous but very different consequences.

I'm not sure if answering to a two-month old thread is necroing, but it's an interesting question.

Let's carry on with the first two ideas you proposed: the Vikings fail to actually conquer any powerbase in England. Perhaps they establish settlements in Ireland and Scotland. If they do raid (which IMHO is more likely), it puts the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on the defensive, and we will see some OTL developments, albeit on a much less desperate and focused stance - the building of fortified settlements ("burhs"), specially in coastal and major fluvial zones (along the Thames and the Humber); possibly the start-up of defensive naval programs, specially in Wessex, East Anglia and eastern Northumbria.

On the other hand, OTL unification of "Englaland" under the Wessex hegemony was a direct consequence of the Danish invasions, as the invaders broke the northern kingdom and East Anglia, and curbed Mercia into accepting southern suzerainty. England will probably remain disunited for some generations, but I do believe that a trend towards unification was already on course since the reign of King Offa. Possibly the Mercians (which so far had the upper hand over the West Saxons) manage again to submit East Anglia and Wessex into vassalage (or, even better, a royal alliance between Mercia and Wessex, à la the Iberian Union between Castille and Aragon) through the 9th/10th centuries.

One important consequence of the Danish invasions was that it integrated the fairly "isolated" British kingdoms into the fledgling trading and cultural exchanges through the North and Baltic seas. Without Danelaw, maritime commercial development might be somewhat delayed. The more significant commercial ties will be those across the Channel, with Francia, Flanders and Frisia.

Finally, preventing the Danish settlement certainly butterflies away the future Norman invasion, because we get rid of any Norse monarchs on English throne (Canute, Sweyn Forkbeard, etc.).
 
<snip>

Finally, preventing the Danish settlement certainly butterflies away the future Norman invasion, because we get rid of any Norse monarchs on English throne (Canute, Sweyn Forkbeard, etc.).

Does it?

If England were still divided, perhaps the Normans would be MORE likely to grab some or all of it.

If I can grab Cornwall and the lowlands from its 'local' kings and leave the rest alone until 'next time', maybe William is MORE likely to try.

This could be an interesting timeline where the Norman conquest was a piecemeal affair, maybe occurring sooner and lasting longer.
 
Does it?

If England were still divided, perhaps the Normans would be MORE likely to grab some or all of it.

If I can grab Cornwall and the lowlands from its 'local' kings and leave the rest alone until 'next time', maybe William is MORE likely to try.

This could be an interesting timeline where the Norman conquest was a piecemeal affair, maybe occurring sooner and lasting longer.

Well, if we have a POD with the Great Heathen Army or earlier, we have a latest date of POD at or around 880. Rollo, the Viking who took control of what we consider Normandy, did not receive Normandy as a territory until about 911 A.D.. Thus with butterflies and all, this could get rid of the entire concept of Normandy as we know it (Vikings mixed with Franks).

So we are looking at a totally different view of Northwestern Europe than we had OTL.
 
Well, if we have a POD with the Great Heathen Army or earlier, we have a latest date of POD at or around 880. Rollo, the Viking who took control of what we consider Normandy, did not receive Normandy as a territory until about 911 A.D.. Thus with butterflies and all, this could get rid of the entire concept of Normandy as we know it (Vikings mixed with Franks).

So we are looking at a totally different view of Northwestern Europe than we had OTL.

That's what I was trying to point out.

Anyways, I recall some discussions that forecast England without the Norman Conquest, but I've never seen one regarding the Anglo-Saxon realm without Danish interference. To this day there are some traces of the Danish conquest in mid-north England (specially referring to place names, like York/Jorvik).

Also, once England unites I don't think it remains isolated in the scope of European affairs, but it would be probably out of the Scandinavian sphere of influence.
 
That's what I was trying to point out.

Anyways, I recall some discussions that forecast England without the Norman Conquest, but I've never seen one regarding the Anglo-Saxon realm without Danish interference. To this day there are some traces of the Danish conquest in mid-north England (specially referring to place names, like York/Jorvik).

Also, once England unites I don't think it remains isolated in the scope of European affairs, but it would be probably out of the Scandinavian sphere of influence.

Would England unite, though? The Norse were the big impetus for the end of the Heptarchy. I mean, could there possibly end up being two Englands? Or would the Heptarchy remain? And what of a England not formed by Wessex? What would that be like?
 
Basically, I agree with Rdffigueira : no Norse/Dane takeover of England means a slower unification of Anglo-Saxon England by Wessex, that beneficied geopolitically (no big rivals) and politically (it's one of the first appearance of an english national character).
And, again as he said, you'd have a lesser Dane influence which could largely influe into the political organisation of England (see below).

That said, I don't think it would remain divided undefinitely : you had tendences to unifications (trough cyclical chiefdoms, as Offa's) since quite a time then. Mercia was already declining, Northumbria even more and Wessex was clearly the dominant power of the region.

As for Normans, they're simply butterflied away. Not only because England doesn't offer raiding bases, or because Seine's mouth offered good opportunities to raid England itself; but because a large part of the Scandinavian settlement in the region came from Anglo-Scandinavians that were leaving England at the end of Danelaw.

Overall, I think that continental influence is going to be more important ITTL. IOTL, you had already the appearance of some sort of Anglo-Saxon feudalism at the late period (influenced from Normans and continental Saxons) but it was a bit backwards (as in, something participating to a larger evolution in Western Europe, but more late. IT'S NOT A MORAL JUDGEMENT) compared to the general political evolution on the continent.

ITTL, I could see a more important participation of AS England to this general movement. A situation as Athelstan's interventionism, that intervened in Europe, pretexting of his closeness with Carolingians (a pretext that was widely accepted, by the way) could appear earlier.
Basically a bit more Frankish/German influenced AS England.
 
Top