As it says in the title. Without Islam, would there still be an age of Scandinavian expansion, migration, settlement, and trading-raiding?
Every archeological remain of the period show the absence of an overcrowed Scandinavia. And even without that, the important lack of massive settlement on the continent seems to not fit with the overpopulation theory.Overpopulation
Not at all : Scandinavia was a trade hub during the VIIIth century : recently was found, for exemple, products from Iraq (jewelry, notably) in a Scandinavian tomb of Birka for the early IXth century.I'd be rather doubtful of the likelihood of Islamic bullion and other trade goods reaching Scandinavia when it was still as isolated and peripheral as it was pre-790.
Trade was without doubt a decisive factor. It's at least the most accepted thesis to justify the swedish expansion eastwards. Western world knew in the VIIth an era of political stability that favoured a renew of economical growth. It resulted a rise of trade with Scandinavia, where luxury products as furs, amber, ivory and more prestigious articles as skins were abundants
Every archeological remain of the period show the absence of an overcrowed Scandinavia. And even without that, the important lack of massive settlement on the continent seems to not fit with the overpopulation theory.
Not at all : Scandinavia was a trade hub during the VIIIth century : recently was found, for exemple, products from Iraq (jewelry, notably) in a Scandinavian tomb of Birka for the early IXth century.
Or, of course, Helgö Island Buddha in a VIIth century tomb.
To quote one of the specialist of Viking Age, John Haywood, Scandinavians established trade exchange with remote lands way before the beggining of Viking Age.
Or, more completly.
Dark Ages Economics are a more complete study on Early Medieval North Sea trade if you're interested.
While this graph is simplyifying the situation, focusing on links with Arab trade too much for my own taste (and doesn't take in account political issues in Arabo-Islamic world, for a too vague "overspend"), it's still a good summary.
Well, while the Buddha may be from the VIth, I don't think that the trade would be that slow at this point. The Buddha is more a symbolic good, than a trade good : meaning it could have been made at some period, but as not specifically made to be exchanged, can be only travelling some time after*According to the same source, the statute is from the Sixth Century, which, given the slow pace of trade, makes it possible, but less likely, that it could have arrived significantly before the Viking Age.
Still, it indicated that there's a possibility it post-dated the era, which you didn't seem to consider.Well, while the Buddha may be from the VIth, I don't think that the trade would be that slow at this point. The Buddha is more a symbolic good, than a trade good : meaning it could have been made at some period, but as not specifically made to be exchanged, can be only travelling some time after*
If Atlantic long-range trade is any indication, we're talking of a relatively quick trade, relative to the technology at hand (tremisses seems to travel quite quickly, for instance, between the moment they're coined at Byzantium and when they hoarded in Anglo-Saxon England).
That said, I always found datation for the tomb, and not the Buddha, for the VIIth century.
The point is that (and your extract doesn't say otherwise) Scandinavia was a trade center already before the Viking Age strictly speaking, and that the disruption of trade and "political" solidarities due to both (we're not talking of two distinct events, but a conjonction there) Frankish takeover of Frisia/Saxony and Arabo-Islamic economical decline, may likely have been a major reason for the Viking Age.
Still, it indicated that there's a possibility it post-dated the era, which you didn't seem to consider.
I'm pretty sure I did : I don't said the Buddha couldn't be from the VIth century, I was talking about the archeological context that was dated from the VIIth/VIIIth century with other objects : ladle from Egypt (VIIIth), crozier from Ireland (VIIIth), Byzantine bowl and coins (If I understood well, a variety of era for these) and more mundane finds (as traces of jewellry workshop from the VIth/VIIIth centuries).
The diversity of the find prevents to give a more precise date than VIIth/VIIIth for their presence; but the context points to Helgo being an ancient and important trade center with remote lands, both in East and West. So while it can be post-poned, it couldn't be too late in face of other clues (or different sources about Scandinavian trade).
Not that I argued about a VIth century trade with India, or even saw anyone arguing so.
(I'm actually quite certain that I said above it was a trace of VIIIth trade)
But face to the situation in Atlantic, with a growing long-range trade (while trough Frisians), arguing of a slow pace of trade to make it the proof of a much later Scandinavian involvement in international trade seems a bit weird to me.
The only point we're arguing is about Scandinavia being or not as "isolated and peripherical" before the IXth, which can't really be supported IMO.
As it says in the title. Without Islam, would there still be an age of Scandinavian expansion, migration, settlement, and trading-raiding?
Sorry. Bit of a misunderstanding on my part.
Dark Ages Economics are a more complete study on Early Medieval North Sea trade if you're interested.
Volga trade roads would probably be butterflied ITTL, at least in a first time : neither Romans or Persians had a real incitative or demonstrated much interest there.So basically, trade would remain focused on the Mediterranean and Atlantic, moreso than the Volga trade routes and the Caliphates, thereby starving Scandinavia of extra wealth and making it easier to unify?
Carolingian Renaissance was essentially an elits' process, contrary to XIIth or XVth/XVIth Renaissances : meaning that it would depend a lot from political stability and capacities.And European powers on the continent would be better able to maintain the *Carolingian renaissance?
I think it's a distinct possibility : the disruption and damages caused by Vikings raids can't be underestimated (and Saracenic raids as well, butterflied too there, of course).So European stability would ultimately be greater, leading to an earlier coalescing of peripheral regions and the strengthening of more Euro-centric Mediterranean and Amber Road trade?
Richard Hodges. There was a version updated recently (2012 or 2014), but I've only the 90's.Author? Sounds interesting.
Which is more "how" Viking Age happened, rather than "why", IMO. It certainly played a role, but longboat technology was known elsewhere in the North Sea basin, and yet, only Scandinavians went into raiding : not Anglo-Saxons, not Gaels, not Scots.All in all I think the question about why the Viking raids started is quite simple: because they could!
But raids, at least in the two first periods, weren't about royal conquest. At the contrary, they were private entreprises often escaping real royal power and often rivaling it.This even meant that around year 1000 raids had "converted" into Royal conquest.
So, you're arguing that the rise of trade with Arabo-Islamic world, that became a huge economical boom; and its collapse by the IXth was entierly coincidental, and don't played a role into the political desintegration of Dania, and the Scandinavian progression (mercantile and fighting) along declining trade roads?Did Islam have anything to do with that? I really don't see that
But they didn't before Islamic conquests : it was because Byzantium was in the way of Abbassid trade interests and because Mediterranean/Central European trade roads massively declined after the Romano-Persian wars and Arabo-Islamic conquests that new roads appeared in Rus'.Closest would be the Swdish Viking trade/raiding down the Russian rivers, but even if there hadn't been any Islam at the other end, there still would have been huge populated areas interesting to trade/raid.
About the buddha, Irish Archaeology.ie ( A blog by two actual archaeologists, which looked much more reliable than the other sources I could find, not including two barely related links on Google Scholar) stated that,"this small island [of Helgö] was an important Viking trading and manufacturing centre (6th-11th centuries AD)." By the ninth-11th centuries, Viking-created Varangian trade networks in Russia and the Volga to the Syr Draya could have eventually brought the statuette to Scandinavia. According to the same source, the statute is from the Sixth Century, which, given the slow pace of trade, makes it possible, but less likely, that it could have arrived significantly before the Viking Age.
Which is more "how" Viking Age happened, rather than "why", IMO. It certainly played a role, but longboat technology was known elsewhere in the North Sea basin, and yet, only Scandinavians went into raiding : not Anglo-Saxons, not Gaels, not Scots.
But raids, at least in the two first periods, weren't about royal conquest. At the contrary, they were private entreprises often escaping real royal power and often rivaling it.
Conquest of Outer Hebrides or York didn't benefited either Danish or Norse chiefdoms but raiders themselves.
So, you're arguing that the rise of trade with Arabo-Islamic world, that became a huge economical boom; and its collapse by the IXth was entierly coincidental, and don't played a role into the political desintegration of Dania, and the Scandinavian progression (mercantile and fighting) along declining trade roads?
I'm a bit skeptic : why do you think it played no role?
But they didn't before Islamic conquests : it was because Byzantium was in the way of Abbassid trade interests and because Mediterranean/Central European trade roads massively declined after the Romano-Persian wars and Arabo-Islamic conquests that new roads appeared in Rus'.
No Islam means basically no Volga/Caspian trade road, and giving that Persia (being populated and much about international trade) never shown any interest on the region before, I've an hard time believing the road would devellop nevertheless no matter which political events would happen. (If it didn't happened before Islam became a thing, there might be a reason)
The continuity of old Roads trough Byzantium/Danube/Rhine, that took most of the consequences of early VIIth troubles, is much more likely without Islam.
And without Baltic/Volga/Caspian, you won't have a, proven at this point, important trade boost in the region, in spite of a trade growth in Channel/North Sea basin.
Not that the former wouldn't devellop in time, but it would take longer, maybe at the occasion of Central European trade roads being less interesting (for exemple, a Turkic or Ugrian takeover of Danube basin, making Volga road safer in comparison).
You may have misread me : I said longboad, as with Utrecht-style ships being within the continuity of what existed in Frisian/Frankish trade (as hinted by Carolingian coins), not longships. (Although maybe the longboat/longship distinction is essentially an artifact on French)I don't know of any Longship technology found outside Scandinavia before the Vikings spread it - after which many longships were built outside Scandinavia (by Vikings).
I agree, but that's not "why" Viking Age happened, but "what" made it possible : naval superiority and opportunity, which weren't questioned there.Anyway my point is, that you exploit whatever opportunities you have and to the degree your capability allow.
Earlier raids strike as well Frisia or other places on the continent when Carolingia was still at its apogee. And at the contrary of what happened in Britain, these were royal-driven. For various reasons, while early raiding-style as in Britain would probably continue, I think the kind of expeditions that existed in 800's/810's/820's Carolingia would be more the norm, more along what existed in the later Viking Age.But if you for some reason have a strong King on the British Isles things might be very different.
Because, all respect due, I think you're mixing up causes and means of Viking Age.All this I really don't see related to Islam or not at all.
So, we have great changes for Scandinavian trade, and therefore for Scandinavian polities and wealth, but somehow it doesn't affect at all Scandinavian history? Again, I'm skeptical.And even if this more or less deletes this part of the Viking age, Russia isn't called Russia etc. there still will be a Viking age over the North Sea pretty much like the OTL one.
Giving that, before Ummayad and Abbasid empires, neither Persia or Byzantium showed the slightest interest on the region, that strikes to me as convergent history. While you'd have eventually something in the region, it wouldn't be an obvious event, it wouldn't be bound to happen in VIIIth/IXth centuries, and depicting it as bigger or smaller or equivalent is an act of faith.Most likely that will have to be influenced to some degree by major events in the Middle East, but Russia, Ukraine, Byzantium, the Middle East etc. will still be there and thus provide some kind of opportunity, could vene be bigger.