Without the Saxon Wars (772-800), what would the Vikings do?

I read somewhere that Charlemagne's Saxon war was one of the triggers for the beginning of Norse raids. So, assuming a PoD around 771/772 (maybe the Saxons can't find Deventer and consequently don't burn it), what sort of butterflies could occur.

One of the more unusual ideas I had is that the Vikings may launch attacks earlier, because they don't see the Frankish determination so easily (this could be because Charlemagne is fighting his brother, fighting Spain, is dead even), so they have no reason to begin the raids so late as 793. This is possible as a scenario simply because they had the technology to raid 50-60 years before Lindisfarne, but didn't raid for fear of Martel, Pippin and then Charlemagne (in fact I don't believe the Franks were attacked outside of Saxony until the time of Charles the Bald).

Although, the Vikings could have seen the burning of Irminsul (a holy relic tree trunk thing meant to represent heaven or something like that) as a reason to start raiding - if it doesn't get destroyed for whatever reason, they might just think 'Ahh, stuff the Christians. They haven't done anything.'

What do you think?

- BNC
 
I read somewhere that Charlemagne's Saxon war was one of the triggers for the beginning of Norse raids. So, assuming a PoD around 771/772 (maybe the Saxons can't find Deventer and consequently don't burn it), what sort of butterflies could occur.

One of the more unusual ideas I had is that the Vikings may launch attacks earlier, because they don't see the Frankish determination so easily (this could be because Charlemagne is fighting his brother, fighting Spain, is dead even), so they have no reason to begin the raids so late as 793. This is possible as a scenario simply because they had the technology to raid 50-60 years before Lindisfarne, but didn't raid for fear of Martel, Pippin and then Charlemagne (in fact I don't believe the Franks were attacked outside of Saxony until the time of Charles the Bald).

Although, the Vikings could have seen the burning of Irminsul (a holy relic tree trunk thing meant to represent heaven or something like that) as a reason to start raiding - if it doesn't get destroyed for whatever reason, they might just think 'Ahh, stuff the Christians. They haven't done anything.'

What do you think?

- BNC

Prolonged Germanic Paganism ? The Frisians had also been Germanic Pagans and brawled with Charlemagne, too. It took the Frankish rule very long too successfully convert them. They had been allies of the Saxons also, before these converted. On the other hand Vikings also attacked Dorestedt (the Frisian economic center) several times and burned it down. there also were Viking Feudal lords in Frisia.
 
Frisia had been a vassal of the Danish/Nordic kings. Danish king Godfried did demand tax from the Frisians 810 just before being killed.
The accepted view is that the Viking raids were done by nobility and their hird when the Danish king were strong - then they had to go abroad to raid and get riches to distribute among their followers.
Without Saxon Wars it would then depend on the stature of the king; would he be strong enough to keep the peace within Denmark thus making the nobility go raiding abroad or would he be weak thus they would be at home raiding each other!
Possibly the Frankish conquest of Frisland and Saxony simply narrowed the areas of raiding for the Vikings thus sending them further off for plunder.
 
Prolonged Germanic Paganism ?

Almost certainly. If only because the Frankish conquests weren't converting as many people as they possibly could.

The Frisians had also been Germanic Pagans and brawled with Charlemagne, too. It took the Frankish rule very long too successfully convert them. They had been allies of the Saxons also, before these converted.

I thought Martel took over 80% of Frisia? That would have been about 60 years before the Vikings started raiding, which would have been well enough time to convert >50%.

Without Saxon Wars it would then depend on the stature of the king; would he be strong enough to keep the peace within Denmark thus making the nobility go raiding abroad or would he be weak thus they would be at home raiding each other!
Possibly the Frankish conquest of Frisland and Saxony simply narrowed the areas of raiding for the Vikings thus sending them further off for plunder.

Around the time of Lindisfarne the king would have been Sigurd Hring, a candidate for being the father of Ragnar Lodbrok. The legends say a great deal of good stuff about him, suggesting he must have been a strong king. So maybe the Vikings will raid the Saxons?

- BNC
 
I thought Martel took over 80% of Frisia? That would have been about 60 years before the Vikings started raiding, which would have been well enough time to convert >50%.

A decent number were converted, but much of the process was undone by Widukind's rebellion in 782 when many of the Frisians sided with the Saxons. It didn't help that the Frisians were as unruly as the Saxons were (maybe even more so), and refused to bow to any higher authority than their own elected rulers.

Around the time of Lindisfarne the king would have been Sigurd Hring, a candidate for being the father of Ragnar Lodbrok. The legends say a great deal of good stuff about him, suggesting he must have been a strong king. So maybe the Vikings will raid the Saxons?

The only issue here is that Saxony (at least the Nordalbingian and Eastphalian sub-tribes) enjoyed healthy trade and diplomatic relations with the Danes, at least as far as we can tell. If they were to attempt to raid, the only good the Vikings would be able to plunder from Saxony itself would be slaves, and it would be much easier to take those from the Slavs and Britons than the Saxons. Maybe you see an earlier Norse presence in Eastern Europe?
 
A decent number were converted, but much of the process was undone by Widukind's rebellion in 782 when many of the Frisians sided with the Saxons. It didn't help that the Frisians were as unruly as the Saxons were (maybe even more so), and refused to bow to any higher authority than their own elected rulers.



The only issue here is that Saxony (at least the Nordalbingian and Eastphalian sub-tribes) enjoyed healthy trade and diplomatic relations with the Danes, at least as far as we can tell. If they were to attempt to raid, the only good the Vikings would be able to plunder from Saxony itself would be slaves, and it would be much easier to take those from the Slavs and Britons than the Saxons. Maybe you see an earlier Norse presence in Eastern Europe?

Widukind's rebellion would be butterflied away if we take out the Saxon Wars, so I think it is safe to assume that the Frisians would keep their heads down and at least pretend to be Christians unless there is a direct attack.

If the Norse pop up in Russia in 800 instead of 900, what sort of differences would this make? The Khazars still controlled the Volga and most of the other rivers, Byzantium was still suffering from the aftermath of iconoclasm and from about 802 was in the midst of civil wars and Muslim invasions. Is it possible that the Vikings would suffer a big defeat and not bother raiding much, leaving England under the Anglo-Saxons?

- BNC
 
Around the time of Lindisfarne the king would have been Sigurd Hring, a candidate for being the father of Ragnar Lodbrok. The legends say a great deal of good stuff about him, suggesting he must have been a strong king. So maybe the Vikings will raid the Saxons?

- BNC

The daughter of Sigurd Hring - Geva - was married to Saxon duke Widukind hence Sigurd probably wouldn't tolerate raiding the Saxons.
The Frisians were another cup of tea as their royals had been married into the Danish royal family and hence would be elegible for taxing - one way or another.
 
If the Norse pop up in Russia in 800 instead of 900, what sort of differences would this make? The Khazars still controlled the Volga and most of the other rivers, Byzantium was still suffering from the aftermath of iconoclasm and from about 802 was in the midst of civil wars and Muslim invasions. Is it possible that the Vikings would suffer a big defeat and not bother raiding much, leaving England under the Anglo-Saxons?

- BNC

Don't think so - the Khazars may stop the Vikings but they would only shift to another fertile field to plunder.
 
Don't think so - the Khazars may stop the Vikings but they would only shift to another fertile field to plunder.

The Khazars control all of the big waterways south of modern Moscow at this point though. Coupled with the fact that they are nomadic, I would expect the Vikings would get tired of fighting the horse people for every decent pasture in the East.

- BNC
 
The Khazars control all of the big waterways south of modern Moscow at this point though. Coupled with the fact that they are nomadic, I would expect the Vikings would get tired of fighting the horse people for every decent pasture in the East.

- BNC

I don't see them shifting from one Khazar group to another rather like in the west; well the Brits were a tough nut - lets go to France!
 
I don't see them shifting from one Khazar group to another rather like in the west; well the Brits were a tough nut - lets go to France!
France (or really, Francia) is good if the king is an idiot, as most in the 9th and 10th centuries were. Charlemagne has to die before this will be a good idea though. Anywhere else they could trash?

- BNC
 
I don't see them shifting from one Khazar group to another rather like in the west; well the Brits were a tough nut - lets go to France!

Otl Saxons, other than Wessex, crumbled. Wessex almost crumbled. ATL, an undivided Pagan army vs Mercia means one battle war where all is decided.

Could that mean Irish eyes are crying?
 
France (or really, Francia) is good if the king is an idiot, as most in the 9th and 10th centuries were. Charlemagne has to die before this will be a good idea though. Anywhere else they could trash?

- BNC

Don't take my answer too literal.
Even Charlemagne had to be off on campaign and often were so there would be plenty time to make a hit and run here or there. Of course when he builds his coastal defences then that will force the Vikings to go to Britain and Ireland.
Slavic settlements on the Baltic would be another area to plunder - Godfied did raze Reric and move the merchants to Schleswic (city).
 
Even Charlemagne had to be off on campaign and often were so there would be plenty time to make a hit and run here or there. Of course when he builds his coastal defences then that will force the Vikings to go to Britain and Ireland.

Charlemagne didn't have to be there for the Vikings to avoid him, as long as he is alive. Every single time he was defeated in battle he always came back and gave massive reprisals to the other guy. The Vikings aren't stupid enough to not see what happened to Lombardy, the Muslims, the Avars or anyone else.

Otl Saxons, other than Wessex, crumbled. Wessex almost crumbled. ATL, an undivided Pagan army vs Mercia means one battle war where all is decided.

Could that mean Irish eyes are crying?

Are you confusing the Saxons (a group of tribes in NW OTL Germany) with the Anglo-Saxons (Wessex, Mercia, Kent etc.)? OTL 'Saxons' were mostly pagan until the 772 invasion, which I'm saying doesn't occur for this TL, so they wouldn't get raided. On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxons definitely would get raided - a lot. However, they didn't fight proper wars until 865 when Aelle murdered Ragnar and his sons came out for revenge - if this doesn't happen (Ragnar, if we believe the legends and reasonably construct his age, would be at least 60, and likely over 80 at this time), even by something as simple as a natural death for the old man.

Ireland could easily suffer a lot if the English kingdoms all collapse.

- BNC
 
Charlemagne didn't have to be there for the Vikings to avoid him, as long as he is alive. Every single time he was defeated in battle he always came back and gave massive reprisals to the other guy. The Vikings aren't stupid enough to not see what happened to Lombardy, the Muslims, the Avars or anyone else.



Are you confusing the Saxons (a group of tribes in NW OTL Germany) with the Anglo-Saxons (Wessex, Mercia, Kent etc.)?

Ireland could easily suffer a lot if the English kingdoms all collapse.

- BNC

It was on response to a post on what other places would be targeted by Vikings. I used Saxon in the context of Anglo Saxons. I see why in this context it created confusion.
 
Charlemagne didn't have to be there for the Vikings to avoid him, as long as he is alive. Every single time he was defeated in battle he always came back and gave massive reprisals to the other guy. The Vikings aren't stupid enough to not see what happened to Lombardy, the Muslims, the Avars or anyone else.

- BNC

His actions regarding Denmark doesn't look like.
Widukind fled to Denmark but Denmark wasn't attacked!
By 782 Charlemagne negotiate with a Danish embassy at Lippe.
800 Charlemagne makes defensive arrangements in northern Francia due to Viking raids on Northumbria the previous years.
804 during the Saxon deportation a Danish nary and army moves in Schleswig and a Frankish one is encamped south of the Elbe; negotiations no reprisals! 808 Godfried razes Reric and deportate the merchants; during the retreat Godfrieds nephew Reginald is killed in battle with Frankish forces though thats it. Godfried then reinforces the Danevirke with a new wall. Franks respond next year by building a fortress at Itzehoe south of Danevirke; Frankish ally lord Drosuk of the Abroditi goes home but Godfried have him killed. 810 Godfried moves his fleet into Frisia and taxes it.
811 Charlemagne negotiate the son of killed Godfried; the Eider will be the future border of the two powers.
Charlemagne dies 814 - still no attack on Denmark proper.

So no the Vikings and generally strong Danish king Godfried didn't give a f*** about mighty Charlemagne!
 
His actions regarding Denmark doesn't look like.
...
So no the Vikings and generally strong Danish king Godfried didn't give a f*** about mighty Charlemagne!

All of those events that you listed came after his coronation as Holy Roman Emperor, which pretty much marked the end of Mr Warrior as he focussed on consolidation and dealing with his sons' claims. Everyone he fought before 800 (plus his brother's wife) was dealt with in the way I said above. So while I don't dispute that he decided to ignore Denmark (probably because he was getting very old) OTL, in an ATL it is possible that a reprisal would occur, especially before 800, and almost certainly if a 'core' Frankish land such as Aachen or somewhere in Neustria was attacked. Saxony and Frisia represented vassals of the Frankish king that basically were independent as long as they followed Christianity and paid a bit of tribute.

Had the Vikings gone past say the Rhine, I am certain that Charlemagne would have imposed himself upon Denmark.

- BNC
 
Top