PC/WI: No Viking Age?

[GauchoBadger]

First off, i'd like to know what exactly were the OTL conditions that resulted in the aggressive expansion of the Pagan Scandinavians during the High Middle Ages. How can they be butterflied away so we're left with a scenario in which the Viking invasions never happen, saving much of Europe from continuous raiding for a few centuries but also preventing the spread of Norse culture to places such as northern England, Ireland, Normandy, etc.?
Secondly, what would be the effects of no Viking expansion on the areas that were IOTL affected by them?
What would Scandinavia itself look like politically?
What about the Anglo-Saxons to the west? Could their language be preserved in a better form or would it just be more quickly supplanted by French? Would the kingdoms remain divided for longer with no external threat to cause them to consider otherwise?
On continental Germany and France, would there be any noticeable effects besides Normandy not existing as a distinct geographical entity and Denmark being possibly integrated into Germany/East Francia?
What about the Slavs? Would the Kievan Rus still coalesce ITTL without the Rurikid Dynasty?
Any other details that might have slipped past?

 

[von Adler]

It was a combination of reasons.

1. Ship building technology expanded in Scandinavia, with larger ships being built with clinker technology, allowing for longer travel.

2. Initial centralization into petty kingdoms or jarldoms allowed larger expeditions that were joined by others.

3. The medieval warm period caused a minor boom in population and thus a jockeying for land, making a surplus population available for colonization or conquest.

4. Charles Martell destroyed the pagan Frisian Kingdom in 734, which caused a power vacuum in the North Sea (previously the Frisians had controlled much of the trade on the North Sea) which the Scandinavians eagerly filled.

5. The relatively civilized way of war in France and Britain - churches and monastaries were regularly spared and held as neutral institutions no warring party attacked caused them to be rich and totally unprepared for any attack, creating rich and easy targets for the Scandinavian to raid - and once people returned home usncatehed wth riches, everyone else wanted into that, creating a trend in Scandinavia.

6. The relative weakness of both Britain (splintered in several Kingdoms) and France (where the feudal vassals did not really obey the King) made sure the Scandinavians could raid, were paid off several times (which inspired more raids - easy money) and would return.

The raids ended when there was no real easy money in it anymore - no tribute or easily sacked targets. The Scandinavian countries centralized, and infighting for the petty or national crowns of regions or nations became the norm. When not embroiled in civil war,m royal expeditions was what happend - like Harald Sigurdsson (Hårdråde)'s invasion of England or Ingvar Vittfarne's expedition against the Pechenegs to support relatives among the Kievan Rus.

Remove a few of these reasons, and there will be no viking age.

 

[Deleted member 114175]

It was a combination of reasons.

1. Ship building technology expanded in Scandinavia, with larger ships being built with clinker technology, allowing for longer travel.

2. Initial centralization into petty kingdoms or jarldoms allowed larger expeditions that were joined by others.

3. The medieval warm period caused a minor boom in population and thus a jockeying for land, making a surplus population available for colonization or conquest.

4. Charles Martell destroyed the pagan Frisian Kingdom in 734, which caused a power vacuum in the North Sea (previously the Frisians had controlled much of the trade on the North Sea) which the Scandinavians eagerly filled.

5. The relatively civilized way of war in France and Britain - churches and monastaries were regularly spared and held as neutral institutions no warring party attacked caused them to be rich and totally unprepared for any attack, creating rich and easy targets for the Scandinavian to raid - and once people returned home usncatehed wth riches, everyone else wanted into that, creating a trend in Scandinavia.

6. The relative weakness of both Britain (splintered in several Kingdoms) and France (where the feudal vassals did not really obey the King) made sure the Scandinavians could raid, were paid off several times (which inspired more raids - easy money) and would return.

The raids ended when there was no real easy money in it anymore - no tribute or easily sacked targets. The Scandinavian countries centralized, and infighting for the petty or national crowns of regions or nations became the norm. When not embroiled in civil war,m royal expeditions was what happend - like Harald Sigurdsson (Hårdråde)'s invasion of England or Ingvar Vittfarne's expedition against the Pechenegs to support relatives among the Kievan Rus.

Remove a few of these reasons, and there will be no viking age.

Excellent post. Good mention of Frisian kingdom, the destruction of which was much more significant to the start of the Viking Age, than the usual explanation of Charlemagne's conquest of Saxony.

Additional reasons I would add:

7. Expansion of the Arab Caliphate first disrupted the Mediterranean trade network and then, especially in the Abbasid period, facilitated a massive new trade network, more centered in the east which stretched up through Khazaria into Northern Europe. Through the Samanids and Radhanites, this trading network was ultimately connected to the Silk Road, though only loosely. In any case, the trade routes provided opportunities for Viking expansion starting with Scandinavian presence in Staraya Ladoga, which began before the Viking Age in Britain. (In terms of sheer numbers, most Viking expansion was actually eastward through Kievan Rus', with massive hoards of dirhams discovered in Gotland)

8. The rise of the emporium in the 6th and 7th centuries. Emporia centralized craft and multi-craft production and acted as centers of shipping and trade -- and they concentrated wealth just as monasteries did. Many major Viking cities like Ribe and Birka were emporia, while the targets of Viking raids on the European mainland and British Isles were also emporia.

9. Intensification of silver production in several disparate regions, primarily the Samanid Empire and Alpine Germany. When silver production contracted in these areas, the Viking Age began to end.

Remove a few of these reasons, and there will be no viking age.

I agree, though it depends on which reasons. If monasteries didn't exist the Viking Age still might have happened. Ship building technology however was much more of a prerequisite.

 

[water123]

The biggest thing is that someone is gonna fill the power vacuum the Vikings did OTL. It could be Anglo-Saxons. It could be powerful rebellious northern French Duke-kings. It could even be Islamic adventurers setting up small states to extract wealth with the promise of spreading Islam or even jews. But someone will fill the power vacuum eventually.

 

[Kaze]

10. the collapse of the empire of Charlemagne. I call it a collapse because the Treaty of Verdun split the lands into three sections, but then as warfare between the heirs continued... the genius of Charlemagne did not continue down the line and eventually placed the Karlings into near extinction. Case in point - Charles the Bald was a genius, relatively speaking to his period; but his heirs were not -> Louis the Stammerer (questionable intelligence), Charles the Simple (very, very questionable - it was no wonder he was deposed), etc.

 

[Minchandre]

The biggest thing is that someone is gonna fill the power vacuum the Vikings did OTL. It could be Anglo-Saxons. It could be powerful rebellious northern French Duke-kings. It could even be Islamic adventurers setting up small states to extract wealth with the promise of spreading Islam or even jews. But someone will fill the power vacuum eventually.

No single group needs to fill that gap. Anglo-Saxons vs Celts doesn't need the Danelaw in the middle of things. The northern coast of France existed before Normandy. It seems inevitable that something will rise in the lands along the great rivers to the east. Without Normans, Byzantines, Italians, and Maghrebis still fight over southern Italy.

 

[AltoRegnant]

this is a great place to be an anglo-saxon. No vikings? Great, Mercia or Wessex do their things earlier with no external threat forcing them to focus on other stuff. While they maybe a little less centralized than OTL, they still have the advantage of being a relatively small island, thus nobility have less options to pull sneakies on ya. Especially since the Anglo-Saxon English and the contemporary kings of France were on good terms otl and i see no reason for that to change since there's almost certainly no norwegian-french duke to gain a slightly ambiguous claim to the throne.