A Prayer Answered: Delivered from the Fury of the Northmen - Norse Scandinavia teleported away in 800 AD (ASB)

[raharris1973]

"O Lord, Deliver us from the fury of the Northmen" - so wrote, or was quoted, a survivor of the Viking raid on the English Monastery of Lindisfarne in 796 AD,

In this ATL, that prayer is answered, by Charlie the ASB, who teleports the demographic center of Norse-speaking southern Scandinavia, the homeland of the Viking raiders, far away from defenseless England, and Europe, a world away, to the Pacific Ocean, east of the Kuril islands. Left behind, attached to the European landmass are the further north, Arctic and sub-Arctic lands populated by forest-dwelling and reindeer herding Finnish and Lappish (or Sami) peoples, lacking in longboat technology and formidable raiding tactics.

Here is how it looks:

The various North Germanic Norse peoples, predecessors of the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and others related like Geats, are displaced far, far to the east, to the northern Pacific, and a bit south of their original latitude, to not run into Kamchatka or Chuckchi peninsulas or the Aleutians and have a temperature somewhat closer to home...although this is still a cooling experience for them. With their movement south several degrees latitude to align with the Kurils and Hokkaido, I also shrank the southern Scandinavia footprint 85% to adjust for Mercator projection distortions.

What do the Scandinavians do in their literally (cool) northeast Asian location, with the closest settled people being the Japanese? How do the two societies interact? How far do the Norsemen take their ships in all directions?

And how is the development of Europe changed by the sudden absence, starting in 800 AD, of the Scandinavian Norsemen and Viking raiders. None of the Viking raiders or founders of Dublin, the Danelaw, Normandy nor the Normans, Novgorod, Kiev, nor the Varangian guard. How are the histories in particular of the British Isles, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia effected? What becomes the first large notable dynasty or state structure ruling over the East Slavs of the Dnieper or Volga rivers?

And, does the absence of Norsemen basically "cure" the North Sea and Baltic of piracy? Or do formidable Slavic or Baltic pirates take up the mantle and become new alt-Vikings? Presuming not, does a lack of pervasive and unpredictable threats of piracy, raids and conquests from the sea leave the early medieval central kingdoms with more prestige, power and authority over their subjects, leading to less feudal fragmentation than we saw in OTL as people sought more reliable, local protection in northwestern Europe?

Your thoughts?

 

[Edmund]

Presuming not, does a lack of pervasive and unpredictable threats of piracy, raids and conquests from the sea leave the early medieval central kingdoms with more prestige, power and authority over their subjects, leading to less feudal fragmentation than we saw in OTL as people sought more reliable, local protection in northwestern Europe?

So we're not talking about England then?

 

[raharris1973]

So we're not talking about England then?

Well yeah, in England, it was still Heptarchical in 800 AD, with Coenwulf ruling Mercia as sort of first among Kings, living off of Offa's rep, and Egbert as King of Wessex, not as big a deal as great, great, great, great grandkid Alfred would be. Who knows exactly how the Heptarchy resolves without with the Danish invasion and who is on top. But without the Viking Rollo, Normandy will never be broken off as a distinct portion of France.

And of course, Norse descendants, in many places, including Normans from Normandy, became big organizers and centralizers, so they are not around to do that task in their own way.

Taking away the Danish-Norse influence on English is probably going to leave the language more complex and reduce a lot of the flexibility that was likely introduced as part of making it easier for the native and Norse communities to converse.

 

[Edmund]

Well yeah, in England, it was still Heptarchical in 800 AD, with Coenwulf ruling Mercia as sort of first among Kings, living off of Offa's rep, and Egbert as King of Wessex, not as big a deal as great, great, great, great grandkid Alfred would be. Who knows exactly how the Heptarchy resolves without with the Danish invasion and who is on top. But without the Viking Rollo, Normandy will never be broken off as a distinct portion of France.

And of course, Norse descendants, in many places, including Normans from Normandy, became big organizers and centralizers, so they are not around to do that task in their own way.

Taking away the Danish-Norse influence on English is probably going to leave the language more complex and reduce a lot of the flexibility that was likely introduced as part of making it easier for the native and Norse communities to converse.

Coenwulf was hardly 'first among kings' and in 800 Ecgberht (Alfred's grandfather) wasn't a king at all. Besides that, it is nowadays widely acknowledged that England was a well-organised, wealthy nation-state--something that developed directly because of those threats--before 1066 the administrative power of which did not recover from the events that year until hundreds of years later.

 

[raharris1973]

Coenwulf was hardly 'first among kings' and in 800 Ecgberht (Alfred's grandfather) wasn't a king at all. Besides that, it is nowadays widely acknowledged that England was a well-organised, wealthy nation-state--something that developed directly because of those threats--before 1066 the administrative power of which did not recover from the events that year until hundreds of years later.

So what point were you trying to make with your first post?

Or are you just playing Texas sharpshooter randomly?

Look, I don't really have a big stake one way, or another, in any of the *particular* readings of the impact of the Viking Age on Britain, Ireland, or Europe in general, but I grabbed one or two [from any number of history texts I've read in my lifetime] on for size and threw it into this thread as an example of what might be different if the Vikings and their homelands are not around in Europe for most of the so-called Viking Age and thereafter.

So, since you're asking leading questions about England and then pouncing on wrong answers, why don't you, smart guy, tell me what you think might have happened to England if the impact of the Norse was a one-off sacking of Lindisfarne and that was it? And if you feel bold enough on any other part of the continent or British Isles, speculate on that too.

Reading between your lines and your focus, I'm getting the idea that from your study of England in particular, perhaps the Norse threat encouraged improved organization of the Anglo-Saxon realm(s) by posing the threat it did, so the comment I made in the OP about the effect of Viking raids *weakening* central authority and encouraging devolution of power/authority to lower ranks in the feudal hierarchy didn't make sense, at least when considered from the English POV. OK. Maybe based on your sources, ya got me. Nevertheless, did the Viking threat as a centralizing influence obtain in all countries they threatened? Like France? Did it make the later Carolingians' and then the Capetians' versions of France more organized, wealthier nation-states than Charlemagne's version? What about in East Francia/Germany?

 

[Edmund]

So what point were you trying to make with your first post?

Or are you just playing Texas sharpshooter randomly?

Look, I don't really have a big stake one way, or another, in any of the *particular* readings of the impact of the Viking Age on Britain, Ireland, or Europe in general, but I grabbed one or two [from any number of history texts I've read in my lifetime] on for size and threw it into this thread as an example of what might be different if the Vikings and their homelands are not around in Europe for most of the so-called Viking Age and thereafter.

So, since you're asking leading questions about England and then pouncing on wrong answers, why don't you, smart guy, tell me what you think might have happened to England if the impact of the Norse was a one-off sacking of Lindisfarne and that was it? And if you feel bold enough on any other part of the continent or British Isles, speculate on that too.

Reading between your lines and your focus, I'm getting the idea that from your study of England in particular, perhaps the Norse threat encouraged improved organization of the Anglo-Saxon realm(s) by posing the threat it did, so the comment I made in the OP about the effect of Viking raids *weakening* central authority and encouraging devolution of power/authority to lower ranks in the feudal hierarchy didn't make sense, at least when considered from the English POV. OK. Maybe based on your sources, ya got me. Nevertheless, did the Viking threat as a centralizing influence obtain in all countries they threatened? Like France? Did it make the later Carolingians' and then the Capetians' versions of France more organized, wealthier nation-states than Charlemagne's version? What about in East Francia/Germany?

My first post was an attempt to, while not being blunt about it, point out a flaw in the hypothetical presented in that your take on fragmentation in England (and other parts of NW Europe besides) is not in accord with the consensus--which I would hardly describe as a particular reading of a select few books--that exists. I was not "pouncing on wrong answers" but attempting to correct several glaring mistakes, as is necessary in an alternate history discussion (Coenwulf particularly: for all that he was able to re-establish Mercian power in East Anglia and Kent he was hardly able to maintain authority over Northumbria or Wessex) if such a discussion is to take place.

I shall make no further comment.

 

[raharris1973]

Well frustrated and impolite as I was and as I sounded, I learned some stuff from you, and all signs point to your confidence in your knowledge of Anglo-Saxon England, in particular, being justified - the details you contest on Coenwulf and Ecgrith [I will take your word for it], your use of use of Anglo-Saxon or Old English-looking words under your username [of course here I am showing my recklessness again, I am inveterate guesser, and so take the risk of making glaring mistakes].

So, your expertise seems entirely credible and I bow before the superior worthiness of your knowledge. I'll admit, and you'll probably have contempt for this, that everything I said on Coenwulf and Ecgrith was just wikipedia-shallow, and I made the guess (and mistake) of extrapolating forward Mercia's earlier rumored supremacy in 8th century Heptarchy politics [again, not competing with specialized studies here, literally just general references like Wells' Outline of History, Asimov's Timeline, wikipedia] longer than I should have, and trusting wikipedia was correct when it called Ecgrith was a King in Wessex. [I don't know if you bother with correcting entries or consider that a waste of your time, but it's wrong, according to what you just taught me]

We would have got off on a better foot actually with a blunter, more straightforward statement on your part that "your hypothetical thesis actually seems contradicted by English history....and consensus in the field" [and whoever else's history] than the indirect style.

Your strong knowledge on England makes me suspect you may have a pretty robust knowledge of the rest of the nations of the British Isles and maybe northern Europe in general, that could contribute to speculation on what happens to them without the Norse contact and vice versa. And although you may feel loath to speak on it if your expertise does not match that you have on England, I don't mind.


Here are some examples of more relaxed and casual responses to this original post:

The Scandinavians might do some piracy raids in their northeast Asian location close to Japan and both societies would interact in the sense that they were next to each other. The Scandinavians might not take their ships far in any direction if they could trade with Japan next to their homeland.

The histories of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia would be drastically changed by the mere absence of the Scandinavians, Danish and Norwegian claims to the English throne, Normans, Kiev and the Varangian Guard. This would make who would be the first dynasty of the East Slavs unpredictable.

With regard to piracy and conquest, it would be probable that Slavic and Baltic pirates become the new Scandinavians, Norsemen and Vikings.

Descendants of Vikings were themselves victims of another Medieval pirates:

Baltic Slavic piracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[raharris1973]

Looking at the specific example of Russia and the East Slavic sphere -

What becomes the first large notable dynasty or state structure ruling over the East Slavs of the Dnieper or Volga rivers?

There are going to be differences with no, probably Swedish-sourced, Norsemen coming down Russian rivers and founding principalities and towns like Novgorod and Kyiv and become famous river pirates and traders extending their networks all the way down through the Caspian Sea and Black Sea to trade with the Arabs/Persians as "the Rus" and the Byzantines as "the Varangians".

They almost certainly won't acquire those ethnonyms and get them applied to the mass of the East Slavic population along the Dnepr, Pripet Marshes and Lake and Lake Ilmen region.

In the absence of Norse traders, warriors, rulers, this is a chance for the Khazars to have a longer lasting Khaganate over most of what we call Russia, possibly permanently imprinting their name on the land and its Slavic people. At least the particular ruler who smashed them, Sviatoslav the Brave of Kievan Rus, will not be around to do it, in exactly the same way as historical.

Alternatively, the Volga Bulgars could grow larger and expand into the political vacuum left by the absence of the Viking Rus ruling class, leaving the land as a whole called Bulgaria - not that crazy, considering the etymoloogical association with the river Volga, and the people Bulgarians. So this could be a case where instead of the state-building noble class for this land and its mainly East Slavic population being Norse, it is a Turkic people of some sort. If it is the Volga Bulgars, and they blend in to a larger Slavic mass and lose their Turkic language, it might ironically be very much like what happened to their Bulgar brothers who migrated to the Danube. With the possible difference of huge, eastern "Bulgaria" converting to Islam. But then again, if its predominant trade connections becaome Dnepr and Black over Volga and Caspian Sea, maybe their rulers would pick Greek Orthodoxy rather than Islam when picking a monotheism.

.....and the Khazars and Bulgars do not exhaust the supply of potential Turkic state-forming peoples in the area. After them, and possibly dooming dirable state forming efforts by them, could be the Patzinaks/Cumans/Pechenegs/Kipchaks.

And, we cannot rule out the indigenous East Slavs of the northwest Ukraine and Belarus region from leading their state formation entirely on their own terms, and making themselves known to the wider world by an endogenous ethnonym they have given themselves, that we would not quite recognize but that would probably *sound* Russian or Slavic to us.

After all, nothing says state-formation was a magic art Slavs did not have access to. The Poles, Moravians, Serbs, and Croats all pulled it off in early medieval times as well.

Indeed, I might have to take back what I said about them not being called Rus/Russians or Varangians. I think Rus derived from a Persian word for red-hair. Well there should be plenty of red-headed Slavs even without Norse additions, so the nickname could still happen. I don't know as well the Byzantine etymology for Varangian. But even a degree of sea piracy and raiding on the Black Sea and Caspian can't be ruled out. Only this time, not led or learned from Norse pirates and warriors, but by Wendish West Slavic or Baltic'Lithuanian pirates and warriors.

 

[Talwar]

Discovery and colonization of Iceland and Greenland are going to be later and different.

 

[raharris1973]

Discovery and colonization of Iceland and Greenland are going to be later and different.

And primarily Scottish? Due to proximity? Were the Shetlands and Faroes inhabited yet? And if so, by Norse folk, or more Celtic, Pictish, or Old European types?

Or Scots meeting Thule-ians, proto-Eskimo/Inuit in Iceland. From the Europe side, could be Irish instead of Scots. The Scots have less distance to try to cover, and some "stepping-stone" islands on the way, but Ireland just had a higher population of people who might try to get into a boat and make the attempt, plus the Brendan legend.