|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 30, 2024 1:13:14 GMT
"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: i.imgur.com/RGmjFzq.jpg 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? |
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,759 
Likes: 4,138
|
Post by 575 on Jan 30, 2024 10:23:25 GMT
King Godfrey of Denmark will have to find some other place to raid and pillage while he is pondering what to do and sending out ships to reconnoiter the surrounds so will the Swedes/Geats and Norwegians.
The Swedes/Geats will find Ocean to their south and east and the Aleutians to the north(east) and scout that out. Finding nothing but hunters/fishers they'll at some point turn west. Some may persist of course and find their way to Alaska which won't be inviting and then the PNW which just might - and some warlike opponents to clash with.
The Norwegians will run into the Kuriles and Kamchatka both too uninviting and then go on to Hokkaido, Sakhalin and then find the Koreans in Amur province and the Japanese followed by the Danes.
Because of new geographics Godfrey will ensure his supremacy upon all Scandinavia and then lead the Army to Japan and Korea. Happy times.
Absence of the Northmen won't cure the North Sea/Baltic of piracy surely not the Baltic for starters then perhaps they will find their way west. They did make a menace to the Dane's at times though basically post Viking times so something in the long run if not the Germans decide to Drang Nach Osten early - and those may be too into infighting for the Imperial title.
I think you are seeing much too happy times for the European powers - England will still be a divided land, Charlemagne still faces unrest and attacks on all borders at various times and I don't seen this given any slack because the Norse are gone. Its just one raider less.
It will free up resources from Charlemagne and his successors not having to think about a potential threat in the North and not having to invest the parties of said threat with cash, troops and fiefs to keep them busy and out of Imperial harms way.
The immediate European effect will be a somewhat easier time for Charlemagnes successors in their quest for power but how that will evolve I can't just scetch up.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Jan 30, 2024 12:22:28 GMT
"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: i.imgur.com/RGmjFzq.jpgView AttachmentThe 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?
Well there's going to be a hell of a lot of butterflies here. So much so its virtually blanketing out the sun.  Immediate thoughts coming to mind starting in Europe and associated areas.
1) Its going to have a huge impact on the British isles as you say. A lot of lives saved in the short term. However it does mean that England stays disunited for a while longer, possibly an extended period of time. Wessex, Mercia and possibly Northumbria - although that had lost unity, power and influence in the last couple of centuries - will continue to be rival sources of power and it could be that no single English state emerges? Although thinking about it while Wessex was starting to emerge as the most powerful of the three big kingdoms Mercia and Northumbria have borders with non-English states, Wales and the kingdoms of the Scots, Picts and British kingdom of Strathcylde respectively. For Northumbria especially this could be import as without the devastating Norse attacks their likely to keep control of Lothian and be the most likely power to take over Strathcylde. This would leave any Scottish state, assuming they still take over the Pictish kingdom a lot weaker and far less of a threat to its northern territories.
It might be that no unified English state occurs until some other major external threat emerges, which would probably be from some French power or just possibly a German one - which in the latter case might include something based around the Low countries region.
In terms of the other British Isle states Scotland is likely to stay significantly weaker and without Viking raids on the Picts the latter may never be conquered by them although in turn those Norse states in the Highlands and Islands aren't going to be a challenge to any Scottish state. Wales is likely to have a continued status of occasional subordinate state to Mercia, occasional bandit raider. If/when England unifies its likely to shift the balance here more towards the states being subordinate to the English monarchy but any formal conquest is likely to be later historically than it was under the more aggressive Normans. Ireland will probably stay a federal state with the 4 main region and possibly subordinate ones squabbling over the High Kingship. Its unlikely to form a unified kingdom without a clear external threat.
2) France and western Europe. - Well obviously there will be no Normandy but likely periods of weakness in the French monarchy will see other regional rivals appear. Possibly Flanders, Aquitaine or Burgundy to think of historical powerful lesser states. If Aquitaine was to emerge as the prime rival this could lead to a permanent division with a kingdom of Aquitaine emerging which could be the centre of a southern Occitanian identity. At the greatest this could see a state including much of southern as well as western France and possibly also areas in northern Spain. Or without the powerful Norman state boosted by British resources a strong king could prompt an earlier unified French state with the aristocrats or at least the great lords removed as a significant power centuries before Louis XIV.
3) Germany and eastern Europe. - The big impact for the HRE is probably that there's no Danish presence to the north - although I don't know what role 'Swedish' elements might have played in the southern Baltic. This does remove one threat and as with France might prompt a more successful unification or an early/stronger expansion eastwards against the still pagan Slavs. However given the main interests were internal unification/disunity, control of N Italy and expansion overland to east I'm not sure how important the disappearance of the Vikings will be for the HRE.
4) Russia - There will be huge butterflies here without the Rus providing a method for state formation in the vast regions of western European Russia. Not sure when and by what means states will emerge and there is the possibility it will be delayed a considerable period of time. This is probably good for the Khazars as without this and their latter conversion to Orthodoxy their alliance with Byzantium is likely to last longer. How much longer and how long before some other steppe nation supplants them and would that still be friendly to the empire. Will the region become Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish or whatever? The world will be vastly different without the early Russian kingdoms we saw emerge. You might even see say the Lithuanians becoming a dominant power in at least some of the region.
5) Byzantium - The down side for the empire of the lack of the Rus is that no Vangarian guards is available and no Orthodox ally but on the plus side there is no Rus raids on the empire and a longer lasting alliance with the Khazar's which is probably better for it. Just about anything could happen here for good or ill for the empire.
6) The rest of the Med - This will have no Viking raids although there will still be other groups both Muslim and Christian plaguing the sea and its shores.
7) The Americas - Obviously the discovery of Iceland and Greenland and 1st European contact with Vineland will be delayed. They may well not occur until before the Little Ice Age starts, which would probably close the northern route. Iceland is going to be discovered and settled to a lasting degree probably by Irish, Scottish or English but at what date. This might not make a great difference to the wider world history.
8) - The Far East - It looks like northern Japan is within fairly easy reach of the Vikings and with no other contacts and a cooler situation there is greater pressure for them to expand to those new western lands. I think that Hokkaido and northern Honshu are still basically occupied by the Ainu who will probably be unable to put up much opposition - although they do seem to have resisted Japanese expansion for a while. How the Norse will do against the Japanese I don't know but they could end up controlling most of Honshu along with Hokkaido and Sakhalin Islands. Depending on how they do they might also settle parts of the Siberian mainland. Its possibly you could have a Rus type expansion here although with the powerful assorted steppe tribes I'm not sure how successful they would be.
One other option that might occur is that, especially if checked in the west attention might turn eastwards with explorers going up the Kurils and then across the Aleutians to the discovery of Alaska. Depending on how this goes you might find some Viking settlement there or explorers/traders/raiders pushing further south until they discover more fertile lands. their still going to have a struggle to dominate such areas, especially given the distance from their homelands but a foothold in the British Columbia region of Canada could have some huge long term affects, including possibly introduction of certain technologies and capacities such as iron-working, horse riding and obtaining some of the other domesticated animals which could greatly change the entire Americas. As well as a somewhat less widespread introduction to Old World diseases. If this was to happen then a Columbus type encounter some centuries later, which probably still very bad could be a lot better for the locals as European [or Muslim] incomers would have a much harder task obtaining dominance in the region.
9) Of course the other impacts will be climatic with the Baltic now a shallow addition to the North Sea [along with the removed Scandinavian lands]. This should make for a warmer and somewhat wetter northern and NE Europe. How this will affect the wider regions I don't know.
PS - Just seen 575's reply and had forgotten that Charlemagne is still about and his empire united. This will have some big impacts but given the size of his empire and the Frankish inheritance rules at the time I would still expect it to fragment. However things could be different in his last couple of decades and as 575 says probably an earlier drive east or perhaps a bigger push into Iberia which could cause some interesting butterflies in itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Feb 1, 2024 1:18:24 GMT
4) Russia - There will be huge butterflies here without the Rus providing a method for state formation in the vast regions of western European Russia. Not sure when and by what means states will emerge and there is the possibility it will be delayed a considerable period of time. This is probably good for the Khazars as without this and their latter conversion to Orthodoxy their alliance with Byzantium is likely to last longer. How much longer and how long before some other steppe nation supplants them and would that still be friendly to the empire. Will the region become Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish or whatever? The world will be vastly different without the early Russian kingdoms we saw emerge. You might even see say the Lithuanians becoming a dominant power in at least some of the region. Looking at the specific example of Russia and the East Slavic sphere - 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. |
|
Immediate thoughts coming to mind starting in Europe and associated areas.