WI: Vikings were even more effective?

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

I'm not a huge history buff on this, and from what reading I have done, OTL the viking raids were quite devastating.

But what if they were even worse?

And by worse, I mean much large viking colonization of France & England, as well as much more raiding.

 

[LSCatilina]

I'm not a huge history buff on this, and from what reading I have done, OTL the viking raids were quiet devastating.

Viking raids were indeed quiet.
Wait, no, they weren't.


Seriously, what means quite effective? It was along their objective : themselves changing over time.
In a first time, they generally limited themselves to raid localities as monasteries. Plunder, usually followed by trade in North Sea.
Then, after the crumble of Carolingia, they passed to this to ransom (Danegeld in England, "garrisons" in Atlantic coast islands to intimidate local populations

The brutal raids themselves were less interesting for Norses, but if you want to keep these, you actually have to make Carolingian world being more strong, able to deal with lasting norse forces, forcing them to "hit-and-run" practices.

Furthermore, a stronger Carolingian or post-Carolingian western Europe could be able to pressure more importantly Jutland and Danes, preventing the appearance of a more unified rulership.
It would make Danes more akin to Norwegians and Swedes, more desunited and more prone to launch viking raids as they existed in the IX century.

Finally, these divisions could help to have, with more divided Vikings, more cases as OTL
Godfrid and Rollo. Eventually colonisation could increase, but would be more structured by carolingians and/or post-carolingians, with a possible outcome to increase their influence on Scandinavia.

Eventually, you may have a slightly earlier end to a bloodier Viking Age in Continental Europe.

British Isles could be pretty much screwed, on the other hand : no big change in Ireland, but Scotland could have a more important Norse-Gael feel, as England could be eventually known a more important Norse influence (at the point to have a Anglo-Norse equivalent to Anglo-Norman England?)

 

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

Fixed the spelling.

Yes, I agree in this scenario of more viking colonization that England would be anglo-norse instead of anglo-norman.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

All of northern Europe and various other smaller territories have a similar culture and language.

Really in OTL the Vikings were incredibly successful but they seem to have mostly ruled rather than moved in. What they need is much more immigration to the territories they conquered to make their language and culture stick.

 

[LSCatilina]

All of northern Europe and various other smaller territories have a similar culture and language.

How so? Even when Norses colonized regions, they not only never really represented more than 1/3 of the population (and I'm talking about the places they really heavily present, a tiny minority) but integrated quickly to the population.

At the very best, you'll have equivalent to Norse-Gaël culture in regions less populated (and they weren't many), more likely, equivalent of what existed in Normandy with Norse populations being after 2 generations virtually undistinguishable from their neighbours.

Really in OTL the Vikings were incredibly successful but they seem to have mostly ruled rather than moved in.

What they need is much more immigration to the territories they conquered to make their language and culture stick.

More immigration eventually means less organized homelands. Danes for instance, settled quite less than their Norwegian counterparts.
Thing is, part of the scandinavian state entities appearing is directly due to the success of viking raids that managed to make war chiefs and petty-kings having the ressources to rule more deeply.

 

[SunDeep]

If they were even worse, with the Vikings' raids being far more prolific than IOTL, might you see the Viking slave trade becoming as profitable, as widespread and as deeply ingrained in the societies of Europe as the Arab slave trade was in Africa? If so, then it could really hamper the Europeans' progress in the long run.

 

[LSCatilina]

If they were even worse, with the Vikings' raids being far more prolific than IOTL, might you see the Viking slave trade becoming as profitable, as widespread and as deeply ingrained in the societies of Europe as the Arab slave trade was in Africa? If so, then it could really hamper the Europeans' progress in the long run.

Not really : Carolingian Europe did knew slavery, but it was under precise conditions.

1) Slavery inherited from late Roman era : basically, demesne peasants directly tied to the master house and fields.
It was already disappearing in Carolingian times for several reasons : it was really hard to have christian slaves and it was eventually forbidden (these slaves being freed by wills, by exemple), and for productive reasons as well, being "chasés", aka alloted to a precise land, making them more and more close to other demesne peasants.

2) Slaves taken from pagans lands : Enslavement of Saxons and Slaves (that gave their name to the word), less for a local use (even if it did existed, but after the carolingian conquests, it went the same way than aforementioned) than for trade.
Verdun and Prague or even Wolin island, by exemple, were too big servile gathering points for Muslim Spain).

The bases for a servile economy, even minoritary, disappeared in Continental Europe during a process that began before the Viking Age, and seems pretty hard to stop.
Historically, they didn't even tried, slaves being sold directly to Muslims (bypassing Franks, something that could have helped to the end of slavery North of Pyrenées) or to Byzantines.

Now, slavery could have lasted longer in a Anglo-Norse England, admittedly : slavery disappearance seems to have been slower than in the continent, and ceased only in the end of IX.
You may have insular slavery disappearing only in the XII, as in Scandinavia.

I'm not sure it could count as deeply ingrained, but a greater presence of servile (or cotarii/bordarii) peasants in Anglo-Norse England would certainly have consequences on the social and institutional development, which could be similar to what existed OTL in Scandinavia and most possibly, a delay in productive capacities of England compared to the continent.
Another consequence could be the presence of gathering and slavery trade points in England, for a western Atlantic trade to Al-Andalus made easier. Of course, it could mean as well periodic raids on western atlantic shores, but local nobles aren't going to like that much and once strong enough (and critically if these nobles are Norse-issued themselves) could make a point about this at their neighbours.

I'm afraid I don't really get what you mean by relation between progress and slavery : while nowadays, use of a servile taskforce could indeed indicate a low technical and infrastructural background (as well than moral), it's not really the case in pre-industrial society.

Actually, the same movement that participated to the disappearance of slavery was accompanied by a great social turmoil with the set-up of feudalisation and that destabilized as well than raids did, Western Europe depsite having made the same region stabler than its neighbours once achieved.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

How so? Even when Norses colonized regions, they not only never really represented more than 1/3 of the population (and I'm talking about the places they really heavily present, a tiny minority) but integrated quickly to the population.

That's what I mean. For them to be more than passing conquerors they need to step up their immigration to conquered areas. The task was to make them more successful and I think that really the only way to do that is to pump up their populations so that they don't integrate.

 

[SunDeep]

Not really : Carolingian Europe did knew slavery, but it was under precise conditions.

1) Slavery inherited from late Roman era : basically, demesne peasants directly tied to the master house and fields.
It was already disappearing in Carolingian times for several reasons : it was really hard to have christian slaves and it was eventually forbidden (these slaves being freed by wills, by exemple), and for productive reasons as well, being "chasés", aka alloted to a precise land, making them more and more close to other demesne peasants.

2) Slaves taken from pagans lands : Enslavement of Saxons and Slaves (that gave their name to the word), less for a local use (even if it did existed, but after the carolingian conquests, it went the same way than aforementioned) than for trade.
Verdun and Prague or even Wolin island, by exemple, were too big servile gathering points for Muslim Spain).

The bases for a servile economy, even minoritary, disappeared in Continental Europe during a process that began before the Viking Age, and seems pretty hard to stop.
Historically, they didn't even tried, slaves being sold directly to Muslims (bypassing Franks, something that could have helped to the end of slavery North of Pyrenées) or to Byzantines.

Now, slavery could have lasted longer in a Anglo-Norse England, admittedly : slavery disappearance seems to have been slower than in the continent, and ceased only in the end of IX.
You may have insular slavery disappearing only in the XII, as in Scandinavia.

I'm not sure it could count as deeply ingrained, but a greater presence of servile (or cotarii/bordarii) peasants in Anglo-Norse England would certainly have consequences on the social and institutional development, which could be similar to what existed OTL in Scandinavia and most possibly, a delay in productive capacities of England compared to the continent.
Another consequence could be the presence of gathering and slavery trade points in England, for a western Atlantic trade to Al-Andalus made easier. Of course, it could mean as well periodic raids on western atlantic shores, but local nobles aren't going to like that much and once strong enough (and critically if these nobles are Norse-issued themselves) could make a point about this at their neighbours.

I'm afraid I don't really get what you mean by relation between progress and slavery : while nowadays, use of a servile taskforce could indeed indicate a low technical and infrastructural background (as well than moral), it's not really the case in pre-industrial society.

Actually, the same movement that participated to the disappearance of slavery was accompanied by a great social turmoil with the set-up of feudalisation and that destabilized as well than raids did, Western Europe depsite having made the same region stabler than its neighbours once achieved.

The thing is, if the Vikings have extended their influence and increased their colonisation ITTL, are those slaves still going to be Christians, or pagans? Are the Kingdoms involved going to be Christian, or Norse? And enslavement wasn't hereditary yet in Africa or the Arab World either; all of that only came along later on, with the establishment of the Atlantic Slave Trade and slave plantations in the New World. ITTL, if the Vikings are still around and carrying out slave raids by the time Columbus discovers the New World (or more likely in this scenario, by the time the Vikings rediscover the New World for themselves), might you see labour on the New World plantations being provided primarily by a slave workforce of Saxons and Slavs, rather than Africans (especially in more temperate climes, such as on the tobacco plantations)?

And BTW, IOTL, indigenous slavery didn't cease in England in the tenth century- according to the Domesday Book, in 1086, over 10% of the English population were still slaves, forming a share of the demographic roughly equivalent to those in the USA prior to the American Civil War. ITTL, with far more raids and slave thralls, and less religious aversion to the practice in Viking England, this proportion would be even higher. As for the link between progress and slavery, it could be argued that what began the trend towards industrialisation in Europe was the loss of a large portion of its labour force during the Black Death, necessitating greater innovation and mechanisation to pick up the slack and maintain output.

Asia and India were populous enough and wealthy enough to endure their losses without the need to alter their practices; in the Middle East and Africa, the slave trade took off during this period, with the increasing use of slave labour to maintain output. ITTL, with Northern Europe and the British Isles still dominated by the Vikings, there's an increased risk that a similar approach to those of the Middle East and Africa will be implemented by the Viking Kingdoms when the Black Death reaches the region.

 

[LSCatilina]

That's what I mean. For them to be more than passing conquerors they need to step up their immigration to conquered areas. The task was to make them more successful and I think that really the only way to do that is to pump up their populations so that they don't integrate.

First, even if they managed to empty out all Scandinavia, they wouldn't have enough people to outnumber local populations (maybe at the exception of British Isles).
Hedeby, that was one of the most important (demographically speaking) place inhabited by Scandinavians didn't went much more than some thousands (the town being inhabited by other populations than Norses : East Slavs, Germans, etc)

Now, you don't get the goal of norse colonization : it wasn't to fill up the land with Vikings, but to get territory for different reasons.

1) Controlling the region : usually garrisoning an island or coastal place during winter.
It allowed them to ransom and racket the region rather than plundering it, but as well to serve as trade post.
Such presence was quite contradictory with "civilian" settlement as it was precarious (both military and demographically, being dominantly male population)
This was, by far, the most common viking presence in Europe and if plunders and "hit and run" raids are kept as the norm, or longer than IOTL, such presence would be less important to begin with.

Summarizing it : Vikings raids weren't made by farmers in need of lands, but by warriors in need of much wealth.

2) Holding the region.
It's really more rare, and usually led by people that can't reallistically return home to enjoy a better status (as exiled leader). It's the case for Northern Atlantic colonisations (Island, Greenland) and for Eastern England and Normandy.
In these settings, leaders actually tried to attract a population they were used to (including by familiarity with "organisation" customs as for agriculture solskifte and/or tof), trying to control more easily the land by more strong loyalty ties, but also as a mean of prevention against Norse raids.

In this map of Normandy settlements (the degree of settlement was speculated from toponimy), you can see that they seems to have been largely restrained to coasts and navigable rivers' mouths. After all, one of the responsabilities of Rollo and his descendents, was to keep off possible raiders.

It's also telling that the a good part of settlers seems to have come, not directly from Scandinavia, but from England when Anglo-Saxons pushed back Anglo-Norses (and we know that Rollo went to England several times before). Some most probably came from Northern Europe still, but hardly in large numbers.

Taking away people was harming the local kings or petty kings power. if it helps : "Why of course I'll allow you to take entieres village of people I rule, because I'm that generous and not at all cautious about giving away part of my power".

In short, even discarding the issue about scandinavian human ressources, how Norse presence established itself prevent any real tentative to take-over demographically the regions they controlled (would it be only for that the said region would be still worth controlling).

Finally, there's the cultural issue.
Not only Norses didn't "culturally" took-over, but they adopted quickly local customs.
The only exception worth of mention I can think of is about the legal part : Danelaw, custom of Normandy, by exemple.

The diversity of large settlements (Anglo-Norses, Danes, Norwegians, etc.) prevented the long term maintain of a "pure" norse culture in the conquered lands, with the appearance at best of creole cultures (Anglo-Norse, Norse-Gaël), or absorbtion within the background culture (while, of course, specific traits were maintained).

In fact, the cultural "appeal" of christian cultures could be really important.
For the norse elites (the germanic rulership provided less power, and less stability in the rule than feudal or even vassalic one), but as well for the overall settlers (as a settler, you generally try to get along the locals, in order to not have your farm burnt to the stake).

Baptism being generally a condition sine qua non for the acceptance of settlement (whatever they were genuine or not, that's irrelevant), that provided certainly a way to fusion of populations (remember that, in this period, religious background was far more decisive than cultural) that was obviously at the "benefit" of the overall dominant culture (that benefitted also from being concieved as a "christian" culture, at the difference of norse that wouldn't be considered as such before the XII, if not XIII).

Quoting a contemporary account

Disdaining their own inheritence, hoping acquiring one greater, only starving for gains and domination, tending to imitate all things, standing in the good half of prodigality and greed, having doubtlessly managed to unite values apparently opposed.

 

[LSCatilina]

The thing is, if the Vikings have extended their influence and increased their colonisation ITTL, are those slaves still going to be Christians, or pagans?
Are the Kingdoms involved going to be Christian, or Norse?

Slaves : both probably. Vikings raided as well Frankish Christians than Pagan Slavs.

Kingdoms : you can see my points in the post above. There's no historical exemples, and no reason to think it could change (at least not without a deep change of Norse society that would need an early PoD that could as well butterfly Viking Age), of Norse culture or religion dominationg even locally.

And enslavement wasn't hereditary yet in Africa or the Arab World either;

Well, it was, but due to the almost systematical castration of male slaves in the Arabo-Muslim world, it didn't played fully for obvious reasons.
If you had to that what seems to be really bad condition for non-domestic slaves (comparable to what existed in southern America), it explain an important turn-over.

Childs of females slaves (whatever prostitutes or not) were technically slaves, unless the master decided to free they ("they" is really for caution, female children having lower chances to be so). It admittedly became more common with time.

ITTL, if the Vikings are still around and carrying out slave raids by the time Columbus discovers the New World (or more likely in this scenario, by the time the Vikings rediscover the New World for themselves), might you see labour on the New World plantations being provided primarily by a slave workforce of Saxons and Slavs, rather than Africans (especially in more temperate climes, such as on the tobacco plantations)?

No.
Socially, economically and culturally, it was disappearing. Even if offer still existed, you wouldn't have a market because the social changes of post-carolingian world already were in motion.
Slavery was used in american plantations because there was a need there (and it didn't make slavery reapper in Europe at the same time), as you had slavery for mediterranean plantations (regardless of the religion of plantations owners).
Basically, the offer can't create a market of its own, critically if said market rejected the offer just earlier.

And BTW, IOTL, indigenous slavery didn't cease in England in the tenth century- according to the Domesday Book, in 1086, over 10% of the English population were still slaves, forming a share of the demographic roughly equivalent to those in the USA prior to the American Civil War.

It was a typo of mine, I meant XI century, and not IX.
The Doomsday Book indeed mentions slaves, but it's after the Norman conquest : they imposed a full feudal society really quickly, replacing anglo-saxons institutions and elites by the end of the century.
Slavery had probably virtually disappeared by the early XII in England, a bit after it did in western Europe (north of Pyrenees and Alps, precisely)

Now, if you had read my post carefully, you'll notice that I indeed opened the possibility of a longer use of slavery in a Anglo-Norse England. It will, however, probably disappear for diverse reasons (Christianism, less interesting in the new social organisations).

It's a detail, but I would want to point it : you say "10% of the american population". That's true, but all US wasn't a slave-holding society at this time. IIRC, the proportion in southern states was more close to 40%, a proportion that was reached in other heavily servile-based society (mostly east of Roman Empire, maybe I/II Spain as well).

10% of slaves, while slavery was practiced in the entiere kingdom (unlike, then Pre-Civil War US) is quite low, critically if we remember that "slave" was more and more a juridical notion and that they were more and more close of "regular" peasantry the time went.

As for the link between progress and slavery, it could be argued that what began the trend towards industrialisation in Europe was the loss of a large portion of its labour force during the Black Death, necessitating greater innovation and mechanisation to pick up the slack and maintain output.

It's really debated actually, while it may have been a factor, the process really began before.

By exemple : the legal disappearance of servage in France predated by 40 years the epidemic. And bastidal movement "poached" peasants even before Genoese revieved corpes during the siege of Caffa.

Mechanisation itself owe little to Black Death but to Arabo-Islamic re-discoveries (in a first time) and discoveries (in a second time), and the Renaissance of XII century is more what you could be looking for.

Admittedly, two technological advancies were made at this time that changed many things:
- Plate armour, that changed many things in warfare
- Hourglass (it's was introduced by Le Goff quite recently there) : for the first time, work wasn't made by piece, or by "roughly a day or so", but by precisely minuted time.
It did a lot for changing artisanal or semi-industrial work, including agricultural one (There were even riot of peasant that broke hourglass off in order to fight these changes).

Not that Black Death didn't marked the era, of course, but the changes seems to have been far more cultural (not, again, that it didn't accompanied pre-existing changes).

 

[aktarian]

How much more effective could they be? Considering they established themselves in "Russia", Normandy (and if you count Normans as Viking descendants even more), British Isles, Iceland..... I mean, considering their numbers and economic base they pretty much did what they could.

 

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

How much more effective could they be? Considering they established themselves in "Russia", Normandy (and if you count Normans as Viking descendants even more), British Isles, Iceland..... I mean, considering their numbers and economic base they pretty much did what they could.

There were periods where the vikings were fighting each other in Scandinavia rather than raiding England/Ireland/France/Russia.

If they were more united and had less infighting more could have been done.

 

[LSCatilina]

There were periods where the vikings were fighting each other in Scandinavia rather than raiding England/Ireland/France/Russia.

If they were more united and had less infighting more could have been done.

The point is, vikings raids were directly due to local infighting.

- More troubles and fights created a more important classe of warriors
- Exiled groups, or people wanting to gain enough ressource, prestige and power to impose itself at home had trade and piracy a really good occasion
- A troubled Scandinavia was a good reason for going away and settle some places elsewhere