What if Harald Fairhair dies in 870, before unifying the Norwegian petty kingdoms? What effects would that have?
WI Harald Fairhair dies before unifying Norway?
- Thread starter some kind of chimp
- Start date
Denmark would probably still take it all which later leads to the Kalmar Union in 1397
Yes?
No?
Probably not. Doing some research, it seems like if Denmark were to expand this early on, Norwegian culture would just merge with Danish and they would be one people. There really wasn't much cultural or linguistic difference at this point, AFAIK.
Denmark might expand a little (to the 800 borders at least), but probably not into the rest of Norway. There would be significantly less Norwegian presence in the British Isles (because most of the Norwegians who went their IOTL were political enemies of Harald Fairhair and their followers, at least at first).
It would also lead to Iceland not being settled by the Norse, so the Papars (if they existed at all) would remain. Maybe a Celtic Ireland?
It would also lead to Iceland not being settled by the Norse, so the Papars (if they existed at all) would remain. Maybe a Celtic Ireland?
Redbeard
Banned
Why that?
It is not so that Norwegians vanish from the earth through this PoD, we just loose the central political executive power in Norway for some years. My impression is that the main Norwegian activities in this period, incl. settling, were "private enterprise". Anyway the absense of someone claiming to be King of Norway hardly is going to keep neighbouring ambitious leaders from having a go. I guess the PoD doesn't allow another Norwegian Chieftan to do the trick, but I'm certain the Danish Kings of this period will try at least as much as they dud in OTL. King Harald Bluetooth, who ruled about 960-986 anyway claimed himself King of Denmark AND Norway. His son Svend Forkbeard of England and Denmark was King of Norway from year 1000-1014 after Olav Trygvesson of Norway had fallen in the battle of Svold - intrigued by Svend. Svend's son Canute (of England and Denmark) was King of Norway from 1028-1035, and took the throne by simply sailing 50 ships to Nidaros and displacing the othertwise very strong Olav Haraldsson (the Holy).
It seems like Norway at this time was politically unstable and very much exposed to the intervention of ambitious (and more stable) neighbours. The PoD is not going to change that in Norwegian favour, on the contrary, but OTOH I don't see why the PoD should keep away all the ambitious Norwegians who in OTL seized the opportunity to take power whenever the "foreigners" had an absent moment. Butterflies appear to have had a grand time, and it would be easy to have an ATL where Stamford Bridge doesn't happen or is a few weeks off schedule - that could change world history!
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Last edited:
I think some of the impetus behind the settling of Iceland was people trying to get away from the central authority of the Norwegain king. I think you'd still get an Iceland settled by Norwegians, but slower. Possibly giving the monks the opportunity to survive and integrate.
As for the futher fate of Norway...it is possible some other charismatic leader will unify it later. However, it is also possible that Sweden and Denmark will carve the petty kingdoms up. I could see Denmark holding the south, and Sweden the Trondheim, and in later years, the areas futher north.
However, much of the Norwegian landscape is very well suited to defense. With that advantage, a navally strong coalition of petty kings could keep independence for a long time. If they stuck together against common enemies. Eventually, they'd probably be unified/federated by a charismatic leader. Could it be that we'd get a greater survival of the democratic traditions with suce a slow unification?
In any case, that would mean less pressure on Britain. And long years of conflict could fuel more emigration to Iceland and futher west.
As for the futher fate of Norway...it is possible some other charismatic leader will unify it later. However, it is also possible that Sweden and Denmark will carve the petty kingdoms up. I could see Denmark holding the south, and Sweden the Trondheim, and in later years, the areas futher north.
However, much of the Norwegian landscape is very well suited to defense. With that advantage, a navally strong coalition of petty kings could keep independence for a long time. If they stuck together against common enemies. Eventually, they'd probably be unified/federated by a charismatic leader. Could it be that we'd get a greater survival of the democratic traditions with suce a slow unification?
In any case, that would mean less pressure on Britain. And long years of conflict could fuel more emigration to Iceland and futher west.
Redbeard
Banned
You may be right, but my impression is people fleeing from vendettas (they have lost) - and I guess vendettas and things like that will thrive in the absense of a King.
Concerning geography and who will rule where I think it then was determined not by proximity in miles but on accessibilty from the sea. Going from Sweden to Trondheim over land would be a very tedious journey, but for the King(s) controlling Denmark and/or England it would just be a short trip across the Skagerak/North Sea. I would rather think the Danish King seizing the Viken (Oslo Fiord) and perhaps an English (Scottish?) King taking the west coast - if not one of the later Norwegian Earls succeed in seizing power.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
I definitly see the Oslo area not being part of Norway. Perhaps it would be considered the northern end of Skåne?
I am more dubious about the west and north being picked up by a power from the west. It could happen, of course, especially if the locals fell to internal feuding and vendettas. Analogous to what OTL Wales. But if the locals banded together against foreigners, they are going to have considerable naval power -because as you've pointed out, whitout ships, you don't go anywhere.
I am more dubious about the west and north being picked up by a power from the west. It could happen, of course, especially if the locals fell to internal feuding and vendettas. Analogous to what OTL Wales. But if the locals banded together against foreigners, they are going to have considerable naval power -because as you've pointed out, whitout ships, you don't go anywhere.
Redbeard
Banned
Artic Warrior has started a very fine ATL (Like Vultures) where a Norse -Svend Estridssøn - settle on the throne of England, but not that of Denmark. If combined with this ATL of no Norwegian unification I could very well imagine an English (Anglo-Saxon-Norse version) Kingdom being much more focussed on taking actively part in Scandinavian matters - and having the men, money and ships to do so. That could easily mean both Norway and Denmark being unified with England from the west, but could in case of Denmark and England staying apart also mean Norway never being really born, as Viken and the west coast were quite inaccessible over land back then.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Harald Hardrada
Would Harald Hardrada have invaded England?
His Battle at Stanford bridge could have had a direct consequence of weakening Harald of England’s forces such that William the Conqueror was able to defeat them at Hastings.
This seems to be a major effect of non unification of Norway.
I am new to this so be easy on me
Joel
Would Harald Hardrada have invaded England?
His Battle at Stanford bridge could have had a direct consequence of weakening Harald of England’s forces such that William the Conqueror was able to defeat them at Hastings.
This seems to be a major effect of non unification of Norway.
I am new to this so be easy on me
Joel
Valdemar II
Banned
Likely without a early Norvegian unification* we would see Denmark take over Norways Skagerak coast and Lillehammer**. We would likely see the petty Kingdoms of the West and North Norvegian coast survive for decades until they either unified*** or conquer by Denmark, we will likely still see the Norvegians colonise the North Atlantic thanks to overpopulation.
*There still the chance that another than Harald unifies Norway.
** It would likely become fully integrated into Danish identity.
***Either as a single kingdom or three to four.
*There still the chance that another than Harald unifies Norway.
** It would likely become fully integrated into Danish identity.
***Either as a single kingdom or three to four.
Would Harald Hardrada have invaded England?
His Battle at Stanford bridge could have had a direct consequence of weakening Harald of England’s forces such that William the Conqueror was able to defeat them at Hastings.
This seems to be a major effect of non unification of Norway.
I am new to this so be easy on me
Joel
Well, it would be hard for Harald Hardrada to invade England, seeing as how he wouldn't exist.
Two hundred years after POD = butterflied away.But if the Norwegians remained warring against each other in petty kingdoms, wouldn't this reduce the population somewhat?
Probably not - even Danish losses in the Slesvig Wars didn't upset population no.
These losses would be far less than 19. century warfare.
It was the nobility of the day that went off killing each other not the basic population - farmers, workers.
You don't go out killing that that sustain your economic basis.
Not that they had economic theories back then except for: lets control as much as possible - it'll make us rich.
But of course nobility understood that: no peasants - no nobility!