Alright, here is the scenario I’m trying to wrap my head around. The Viking Age started in 793 with the Raid of Lindisfarne. The Viking Age has been theorized to have been caused by a number of potential factors. Inheritance laws encouraging young men to earn livelihoods elsewhere, overpopulation, power struggled causing displaced chieftains to look elsewhere for land, the weakness of the surrounding countries, etc. However, the vikings were overall little organized besides in certain situations like the Great Heathen Army.
So, this scenario is that before the Raid of Lindisfarne, say 790 AD, a major power struggle erupted in Scandinavia. Thus, all the energy that fueled the beginning of the Viking Age was redirected to that instead. That’s the start of the POD, with the idea being based around after several decades all of Scandinavia was semi-united. I’d put the ‘end’ of the conflict between 840, half a century after the POD, and 865, when IOTL the Great Heathen Army landed in England.
What I want to know is all of your opinions on basically what would be the consequences of a united Scandinavia? Since I feel I should be more specific, I’ll make more pointed questions.
1. What political system do you believe the Norse would have developed in such a scenario?
· A king and kingdom in line with the European standard, for that was most in line with what history showed us to be most likely to form during that period?
· A High-King elected through tanistry by the jarls, for Scandinavian history shows bloodlines weren’t valued as much as famous deeds or capabilities? If so, how much power does the High-King have? Is he a ceremonial figure or does he have genuine power inside the kingdom besides what lands and people he rules directly?
· A Confederacy of Jarls not subservient to each other instead simply working together in a loose alliance? A united Scandinavia would be a very large place, much of it difficult to travel around. Could one ruler even superficially rule such a place? Do you think a few dozen powerful jarls coming together to maintain a political block that controls most of Scandinavia, and working together to support mutual interests is more probable?
· A kingdom-wide ting that decides national law while leaving local administration to jarls and goði? Basically, the traditional ting and lagting that governed Scandinavia before the rise of kings and kingdoms simply being upscaled, a natural progression of their native governing style.
· A combination of several? None of these options? Remember that this is before the Viking Age, as the Norse are too immersed in their internal conflicts to look outwards. Besides some trading, Scandinavia is isolated from European ideas for the most part. Christianization hasn’t started, limited foreign influence, etc. Please also explain why you think something. Do you think only a great man waging a war of conquest could unite Scandinavia of this time? Believe Scandinavia is too large, spread out, and loosely populated to be anything but loosely centralized with travel capabilities of the day? While I’m certainly leaning in a certain direction, it’s possible, actually very likely, I might have overlooked some crucial aspect that makes my thoughts implausible.
2. What would your united Scandinavia do after the unification? Would it focus on trade or conquest, since OTL vikings did both?
· If the Norse are tired of fighting after unification, it’s not unreasonable that the vikings would focus more on peaceful trading. If so, how would this affect the trade routes of Europe? Would they have focused on developing the Volga and Dneiper trade routes, potentially resulting in a more Norse Keivan Rus’? Or would they have looked west to the British Isles and Francia? South, to Eastern Francia and the western Slavs? What effects would a greater focus on a certain area have compared to OTL? Or would the vikings have just done a ‘jack of all trades’ like OTL? Maybe viking knarrs are seen all along the North Sea, Baltic Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and maybe even the Mediterranean. If so, would there have been any effects compared to OTL due to the vikings being united?
· However, decades of war could have instead led to an even more militarized Norse than IOTL, and a united Norse (I’m just going to use UN to stand for ‘United Norse’ from now on as I’d rather avoid using US for ‘United Scandinavia’) could very well have decided to conquer and take more fertile land to settle. If so, how would the Norse warfare have developed after decades of warring with each other? Where would your UN have focused their attentions? West like OTL, trying to take Britain, Normandy, and Frisia? Would TTL’s Great Heathen Army equivalent have landed in England like OTL or maybe attacked a weaker target like Ireland or Scotland? Maybe they’re determined to assert their power by going after the big boy and attacks the disunited Francia? Or would your UN be more cautious and calculating, and decides that while not as rich or civilized the Baltic Sea provides more opportunity for long term Nordic growth without being forced to challenge the great European powers? Or are your vikings more in line with OTL, and attack everyone? How successful are they? Is being united enough for England to fall? Is concentrated settlement enough for the Norse to push the Slavs away from the southern Baltic?
· Why choose one? Your Norse might choose to be more generalized, and engage in both trading and war. Possibly trading with the west while conquering east? Sending soldiers to work as mercenaries in Hispania while focusing on trade closer to home? The reverse, attacking those areas close enough to do easily while trading with those powers too far away to efficiently wage war?
3. Would your UN have raided more or less than OTL vikings?
· Does your UN want to foster a better reputation throughout Europe and thus discourages raiding in favor of trading? Is it just paranoid that a jarl or chieftain might get too famous and influential from raiding, and thus prevent it to prevent a potential threat from arising?
· Maybe your UN sees the profits you might receive from encouraging small-time, private enterprise raiding. The viking raiders bring back loot, thralls, gain experience in fighting and being bloodied, and weaken the nearby countries without the state having to do anything but allow it.
4. What would be the religious and cultural ramifications of Scandinavia being unified?
· Maybe the king establishes himself as divinely chosen by the Æsir, and is imbued with authority from Odin? Maybe he or the state reorganizes Norse paganism into a state religion? Such a case might mean the Norse resist Christianity longer, or that religious conflict immediately breaks out between the pagan Norse and Christian kingdoms.
· Nothing changes in regard to Norse paganism, or possible the unification of Scandinavia draws enough attention from the Pope, England, or Eastern Francia/Holy Roman Empire to kickstart an earlier Christianization of Scandinavia. Hell, the organization of the Norse might ease the way for Christianization of the Norse. A powerful king being converting could allow Christianization to be encouraged throughout Scandinavia in years.
· Would the unification of the Norse cause the creation of cities, leading to greater urbanization of Scandinavia? Would the UN be more or less militarized than IOTL? Would your Norse state adopt the Roman script like OTL, or would it develop the runic alphabet into a proper writing system? Maybe it just doesn’t write? Would it seek to receive acknowledgement as being civilized by adopting European cultural practices or would it stick to traditional Norse culture? Maybe even seek to develop Norse culture further?
5. How long would your Norse state last?
· A few decades, as the Norse typically weren’t a stable people? A great king could have a great deal of power only for unreliable children or an overambitious jarl to bring it to the end as soon as he dies?
· A century or two? A loosely aligned alliance of jarls could last for quite a while to varying degrees of efficiency and effectiveness, only for an ambitious jarl to try and establish himself as king. Maybe a successful and beloved line that rules for generations dies out suddenly from war or plague, and the state dissolves into civil war between the claimants to the throne.
· Three or four hundred years? A highly successful state that maybe conquers a great deal, eventually overextending itself and it splinters into a number of smaller states? A stable but conservative kingdom that focuses on trade and never extends beyond Scandinavia, eventually falling to outside invasion like the Crusades?
· Who says it has to end?! Your UN did a damn good job in creating an effective political foundation, and an effective management throughout the centuries have utilized the highs and handled the lows they’ve endured throughout the years.
· We might change, but we’ll never fall! Possibly a revolution arises and all but destroys the previous state, but the revolution manages to preserve the people and boundaries of the state. The UN if nothing else survives, if differently.
6. How would the delaying of the Viking Age have affected the rest of Europe? Rather than 793, the Viking Age starts later. I gave the basic range of 840-865, but I am willing to extend the range to maybe 825-875. Your choice.
· Little change. The vikings weren’t important till the Great Heathen Army.
· Minor changes. Maybe the decades of lighter raiding by vikings allowed the countries of Europe to prepare IOTL, allowing them to later drive of the vikings. They don’t have that this time, and so your UN find themselves in a more defenseless Europe. Maybe the lack of vikings to force affected countries to band together leads to greater internal unrest in several countries. The breakup of Francia could be even more divisive.
· Large changes. Maybe you make it so the butterflies of no vikings leads to a continuation of Mercian dominance in England. Maybe Northumbria is able to regain is earlier preeminence. Maybe the lack of viking attacks forcing the diverting of resources and attention leads to a united Francia being maintained. Maybe the lack of vikings leads to more infighting, and northern Francia separates from Western Francia since it isn’t threatened by the vikings? Both good and bad changes could be made.
Wow, I wrote a lot. I’m really not expecting as much as it might seem. I’m willing to accept something as little as ‘Keep Scandinavia pagan’ to as much as someone considerate enough to go through and answer everything I asked in detail. Primarily what I’m hoping for is a scenario being presented. How you think a unification would occur, what state would be founded, what that state would do, and how it would fare? Even a paragraph long overview would be greatly appreciated. I have a general outline planned, but I wanted to put this out there to get a wider opinion before actually starting the TL.
Also, this isn’t necessarily a Viking-wank story. While certainly focusing on Scandinavia, there are still numerous ways this can be explored in regard to long term Norse success and development. If you think a multi-decade long war would decimate the already limited Norse population to the point that there’s no way the Norse could lead an invasion of England till the beginning of the 10th century, say so! A bit more of a larger leap would be to suggest the possibility that the Danes being engaged in civil war might tempt Charlemagne to conquer it. Maybe Scandinavia in such a situation would only be composed of Norway and Sweden. I did this to hopefully get a wider understanding, and have options I might have overlooked presented to me.
So, this scenario is that before the Raid of Lindisfarne, say 790 AD, a major power struggle erupted in Scandinavia. Thus, all the energy that fueled the beginning of the Viking Age was redirected to that instead. That’s the start of the POD, with the idea being based around after several decades all of Scandinavia was semi-united. I’d put the ‘end’ of the conflict between 840, half a century after the POD, and 865, when IOTL the Great Heathen Army landed in England.
What I want to know is all of your opinions on basically what would be the consequences of a united Scandinavia? Since I feel I should be more specific, I’ll make more pointed questions.
1. What political system do you believe the Norse would have developed in such a scenario?
· A king and kingdom in line with the European standard, for that was most in line with what history showed us to be most likely to form during that period?
· A High-King elected through tanistry by the jarls, for Scandinavian history shows bloodlines weren’t valued as much as famous deeds or capabilities? If so, how much power does the High-King have? Is he a ceremonial figure or does he have genuine power inside the kingdom besides what lands and people he rules directly?
· A Confederacy of Jarls not subservient to each other instead simply working together in a loose alliance? A united Scandinavia would be a very large place, much of it difficult to travel around. Could one ruler even superficially rule such a place? Do you think a few dozen powerful jarls coming together to maintain a political block that controls most of Scandinavia, and working together to support mutual interests is more probable?
· A kingdom-wide ting that decides national law while leaving local administration to jarls and goði? Basically, the traditional ting and lagting that governed Scandinavia before the rise of kings and kingdoms simply being upscaled, a natural progression of their native governing style.
· A combination of several? None of these options? Remember that this is before the Viking Age, as the Norse are too immersed in their internal conflicts to look outwards. Besides some trading, Scandinavia is isolated from European ideas for the most part. Christianization hasn’t started, limited foreign influence, etc. Please also explain why you think something. Do you think only a great man waging a war of conquest could unite Scandinavia of this time? Believe Scandinavia is too large, spread out, and loosely populated to be anything but loosely centralized with travel capabilities of the day? While I’m certainly leaning in a certain direction, it’s possible, actually very likely, I might have overlooked some crucial aspect that makes my thoughts implausible.
2. What would your united Scandinavia do after the unification? Would it focus on trade or conquest, since OTL vikings did both?
· If the Norse are tired of fighting after unification, it’s not unreasonable that the vikings would focus more on peaceful trading. If so, how would this affect the trade routes of Europe? Would they have focused on developing the Volga and Dneiper trade routes, potentially resulting in a more Norse Keivan Rus’? Or would they have looked west to the British Isles and Francia? South, to Eastern Francia and the western Slavs? What effects would a greater focus on a certain area have compared to OTL? Or would the vikings have just done a ‘jack of all trades’ like OTL? Maybe viking knarrs are seen all along the North Sea, Baltic Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and maybe even the Mediterranean. If so, would there have been any effects compared to OTL due to the vikings being united?
· However, decades of war could have instead led to an even more militarized Norse than IOTL, and a united Norse (I’m just going to use UN to stand for ‘United Norse’ from now on as I’d rather avoid using US for ‘United Scandinavia’) could very well have decided to conquer and take more fertile land to settle. If so, how would the Norse warfare have developed after decades of warring with each other? Where would your UN have focused their attentions? West like OTL, trying to take Britain, Normandy, and Frisia? Would TTL’s Great Heathen Army equivalent have landed in England like OTL or maybe attacked a weaker target like Ireland or Scotland? Maybe they’re determined to assert their power by going after the big boy and attacks the disunited Francia? Or would your UN be more cautious and calculating, and decides that while not as rich or civilized the Baltic Sea provides more opportunity for long term Nordic growth without being forced to challenge the great European powers? Or are your vikings more in line with OTL, and attack everyone? How successful are they? Is being united enough for England to fall? Is concentrated settlement enough for the Norse to push the Slavs away from the southern Baltic?
· Why choose one? Your Norse might choose to be more generalized, and engage in both trading and war. Possibly trading with the west while conquering east? Sending soldiers to work as mercenaries in Hispania while focusing on trade closer to home? The reverse, attacking those areas close enough to do easily while trading with those powers too far away to efficiently wage war?
3. Would your UN have raided more or less than OTL vikings?
· Does your UN want to foster a better reputation throughout Europe and thus discourages raiding in favor of trading? Is it just paranoid that a jarl or chieftain might get too famous and influential from raiding, and thus prevent it to prevent a potential threat from arising?
· Maybe your UN sees the profits you might receive from encouraging small-time, private enterprise raiding. The viking raiders bring back loot, thralls, gain experience in fighting and being bloodied, and weaken the nearby countries without the state having to do anything but allow it.
4. What would be the religious and cultural ramifications of Scandinavia being unified?
· Maybe the king establishes himself as divinely chosen by the Æsir, and is imbued with authority from Odin? Maybe he or the state reorganizes Norse paganism into a state religion? Such a case might mean the Norse resist Christianity longer, or that religious conflict immediately breaks out between the pagan Norse and Christian kingdoms.
· Nothing changes in regard to Norse paganism, or possible the unification of Scandinavia draws enough attention from the Pope, England, or Eastern Francia/Holy Roman Empire to kickstart an earlier Christianization of Scandinavia. Hell, the organization of the Norse might ease the way for Christianization of the Norse. A powerful king being converting could allow Christianization to be encouraged throughout Scandinavia in years.
· Would the unification of the Norse cause the creation of cities, leading to greater urbanization of Scandinavia? Would the UN be more or less militarized than IOTL? Would your Norse state adopt the Roman script like OTL, or would it develop the runic alphabet into a proper writing system? Maybe it just doesn’t write? Would it seek to receive acknowledgement as being civilized by adopting European cultural practices or would it stick to traditional Norse culture? Maybe even seek to develop Norse culture further?
5. How long would your Norse state last?
· A few decades, as the Norse typically weren’t a stable people? A great king could have a great deal of power only for unreliable children or an overambitious jarl to bring it to the end as soon as he dies?
· A century or two? A loosely aligned alliance of jarls could last for quite a while to varying degrees of efficiency and effectiveness, only for an ambitious jarl to try and establish himself as king. Maybe a successful and beloved line that rules for generations dies out suddenly from war or plague, and the state dissolves into civil war between the claimants to the throne.
· Three or four hundred years? A highly successful state that maybe conquers a great deal, eventually overextending itself and it splinters into a number of smaller states? A stable but conservative kingdom that focuses on trade and never extends beyond Scandinavia, eventually falling to outside invasion like the Crusades?
· Who says it has to end?! Your UN did a damn good job in creating an effective political foundation, and an effective management throughout the centuries have utilized the highs and handled the lows they’ve endured throughout the years.
· We might change, but we’ll never fall! Possibly a revolution arises and all but destroys the previous state, but the revolution manages to preserve the people and boundaries of the state. The UN if nothing else survives, if differently.
6. How would the delaying of the Viking Age have affected the rest of Europe? Rather than 793, the Viking Age starts later. I gave the basic range of 840-865, but I am willing to extend the range to maybe 825-875. Your choice.
· Little change. The vikings weren’t important till the Great Heathen Army.
· Minor changes. Maybe the decades of lighter raiding by vikings allowed the countries of Europe to prepare IOTL, allowing them to later drive of the vikings. They don’t have that this time, and so your UN find themselves in a more defenseless Europe. Maybe the lack of vikings to force affected countries to band together leads to greater internal unrest in several countries. The breakup of Francia could be even more divisive.
· Large changes. Maybe you make it so the butterflies of no vikings leads to a continuation of Mercian dominance in England. Maybe Northumbria is able to regain is earlier preeminence. Maybe the lack of viking attacks forcing the diverting of resources and attention leads to a united Francia being maintained. Maybe the lack of vikings leads to more infighting, and northern Francia separates from Western Francia since it isn’t threatened by the vikings? Both good and bad changes could be made.
Wow, I wrote a lot. I’m really not expecting as much as it might seem. I’m willing to accept something as little as ‘Keep Scandinavia pagan’ to as much as someone considerate enough to go through and answer everything I asked in detail. Primarily what I’m hoping for is a scenario being presented. How you think a unification would occur, what state would be founded, what that state would do, and how it would fare? Even a paragraph long overview would be greatly appreciated. I have a general outline planned, but I wanted to put this out there to get a wider opinion before actually starting the TL.
Also, this isn’t necessarily a Viking-wank story. While certainly focusing on Scandinavia, there are still numerous ways this can be explored in regard to long term Norse success and development. If you think a multi-decade long war would decimate the already limited Norse population to the point that there’s no way the Norse could lead an invasion of England till the beginning of the 10th century, say so! A bit more of a larger leap would be to suggest the possibility that the Danes being engaged in civil war might tempt Charlemagne to conquer it. Maybe Scandinavia in such a situation would only be composed of Norway and Sweden. I did this to hopefully get a wider understanding, and have options I might have overlooked presented to me.
