WI: Danelaw Normandy
- Thread starter jtechorca
- Start date
Technically? Yes.
After all you had such tentatives in Nantes, with Ragenold for example, between 914 and 939.
Probably? No.
See, there's an history of Norse chiefs establishing themselves in Francia, and fitting with the social background. Godfried is a good exemple.
Giving that Normans were established in the Seine estuary for quite a while at this point, and he tied links with the local nobility on his grounds but adopting the frankish background.
Pulling a Danelaw would be just getting rid of 10 or even 20 years of policies there.
Another issue would be the less important demographic importance of Norses and Anglo-Danes (migrating under Rollo's control).
You had the survivance of scandinavian customs, more or less adapted to the frankish customs, but eventually the frankish population and the adaptability of Norse/Dane populations (that never really went in a process of Norse-isation where they settled, quite the contrary) made that less than three generation afterwards, Normans designated the whole of population, that considered itself as Frakish*
It doesn't help that when he passed the treaty, he was just defeated by Western Franks (Saint-Clair-sur-Epte was a compromise between Franks and Normans on this regard).
It would look less as "Hahah! I rule by the sword!" than "Please, kick me out" if he tried to get that much. (The Viking takeover of Nantes didn't end well for Norses)
* hIC CЄCIDERVNT SIMVL : ANGLI ЄT FRANCI : INPRELIO
Probably not. Not only it would have make him at odds with the Western Francian nobility, not only the quite powerful Robertians but the ones present in the county of Rouen; but it would have exacerbated the tensions with neighbours.
You had several expeditions in the Xth century against Normands, that failed eventually because the counts/jarls managed to tie alliances with their neighbours. Without that, Normandy would likely know the fate of Jorvik.
Good reasoning there L.
It does make me wonder if we could have got an English "Normandy" up in what OTL was the Danelaw and whether that would have made any difference in the long run vis a vis the establishment of a single England.
It does make me wonder if we could have got an English "Normandy" up in what OTL was the Danelaw and whether that would have made any difference in the long run vis a vis the establishment of a single England.
It may require a strong Anglo-Saxon state : not only a personal overlordship as Offa's, but the concept (or at least the ambition of reaching it) of a structured state instead of cyclical dominance.
Having Anglo-Saxons doing better against Danes and Norses in the IX/X centuries wouldn't help much as it would mean the permanance of divided Anglo-Saxon kingships.
Interestingly, the Dane raids and campaigns probably helped much to the constitution of a common Anglo-Saxon political idea (Danes themselves fit right in the shoes of the Anglo-Saxon kingshipsn which helped greatly to ensure their political independence).
A Normandy-like presence could appear after the late Xth century (roughly in the same time than Normandy establishment then, while for different reasons)
The main problem is while Rollo managed to keep a presence on lower Seine since years, Anglo-Saxons were in a process all about getting rid of Anglo-Danes (I'd even argue that it was a necessary part of their political identity structuration).
Maybe a more divided Danemark (such as Jutland kingship remaining distinct from Fiona/ Seeland and of course Norway) or at least one where overlordship is more limited, allowing the pursuit of important raids may convince an Anglo-Saxon king to host one of them ardound York to prevent another campaign?
I'm not really that convinced myself, to be honest, giving the huge hostility on Dane and Anglo-Danes in Anglo-Saxon England, would it be only for the possibility of the "vassalized" jarl to simply not ally with others...
It would require a king of England both strong enough to pass treaties and to legitimize the royal authority as a central concept, but weak enough to have no choice but compromise.
As for identity matters, I think it could have created a distinct Northern identity, somewhere between Scot and Norne, linguistically speaking. So, more distinctive than Norman towards French (would it be only because of the demographical differences); while it doesn't mean it couldn't be constitutive or included in a more board English identity (that depends greatly of what follows).
Having Anglo-Saxons doing better against Danes and Norses in the IX/X centuries wouldn't help much as it would mean the permanance of divided Anglo-Saxon kingships.
Interestingly, the Dane raids and campaigns probably helped much to the constitution of a common Anglo-Saxon political idea (Danes themselves fit right in the shoes of the Anglo-Saxon kingshipsn which helped greatly to ensure their political independence).
A Normandy-like presence could appear after the late Xth century (roughly in the same time than Normandy establishment then, while for different reasons)
The main problem is while Rollo managed to keep a presence on lower Seine since years, Anglo-Saxons were in a process all about getting rid of Anglo-Danes (I'd even argue that it was a necessary part of their political identity structuration).
Maybe a more divided Danemark (such as Jutland kingship remaining distinct from Fiona/ Seeland and of course Norway) or at least one where overlordship is more limited, allowing the pursuit of important raids may convince an Anglo-Saxon king to host one of them ardound York to prevent another campaign?
I'm not really that convinced myself, to be honest, giving the huge hostility on Dane and Anglo-Danes in Anglo-Saxon England, would it be only for the possibility of the "vassalized" jarl to simply not ally with others...
It would require a king of England both strong enough to pass treaties and to legitimize the royal authority as a central concept, but weak enough to have no choice but compromise.
As for identity matters, I think it could have created a distinct Northern identity, somewhere between Scot and Norne, linguistically speaking. So, more distinctive than Norman towards French (would it be only because of the demographical differences); while it doesn't mean it couldn't be constitutive or included in a more board English identity (that depends greatly of what follows).
Thanks for the input Catilina. Interesting idea Professor.
I know Rollo was given the territory from Rouen to the coastline as his domain because of the treaty and later on convinced many nobles to join Normandy.
I also know he raided Rouen then went deeper into France roughly 25 years before. Was this the time he actually asserted control over Rouen and the land the French king gave him? Or was it a case of him raiding it and letting another Norse taking over for a while before he returned?
And if the former is indeed the case or even a PoD with Rollo staying in Rouen in 885, could danelaw be entrenched in his lands? Or would he have still adopted French law?
Lady
I know Rollo was given the territory from Rouen to the coastline as his domain because of the treaty and later on convinced many nobles to join Normandy.
I also know he raided Rouen then went deeper into France roughly 25 years before. Was this the time he actually asserted control over Rouen and the land the French king gave him? Or was it a case of him raiding it and letting another Norse taking over for a while before he returned?
And if the former is indeed the case or even a PoD with Rollo staying in Rouen in 885, could danelaw be entrenched in his lands? Or would he have still adopted French law?
Lady
Last edited:
It may seems details, so sorry if I go to search for details there 
A small map, if it helps.
You had arrival of powerful individuals such as in 1014, but save establishment already present, and Anglo-Danes (Rollo having known connection with England) settlers, I'm not sure you could talk of an elite takeover of Neustria.
See, establishing the Danish customs as the legal rule, would mean equally establishing a Danish political rule. Both were undistinct enough for that Danelaw ended to ben Danish self-rule.
That's not going to be accepted by Frankish kings and nobility, and even if such Danelaw could be maintained, it would likely fall under harassment, and may be outside Rollo's scope to begin with.
The goal of the jarl with this treaty was to get integrated into West Francian continuum, organising his principality along frankish lines, and probably began this years before as many other (but lesser known) Norses that were integrated in great houses (rather than forming their own, admittedly) as Harald Klak/Herialdus Nordmannus.
It was probably less nobles than Anglo-Danes farmers; not to forget existing Scandinavian establishments not only in the pagus of Rouen but on Cotentin (that was technically part of Brittany but more or less controlled by Norwegians/Norse-Gaëls rather than Danes/Anglo-Danes).
A small map, if it helps.
You had arrival of powerful individuals such as in 1014, but save establishment already present, and Anglo-Danes (Rollo having known connection with England) settlers, I'm not sure you could talk of an elite takeover of Neustria.
More this, except AAIK, Rouen wasn't taken over (you had in 898 a treaty passed with the bishop to not raid the city). Viking control was more based on capacity to leave quickly, and even if wintering in the hinterland (as Rollo did in Noyon for example) was common, think more coastal or estuary control rather than based on cities (critically when bishops and great houses served as middle-men with integration in Francia)
In order to be accepted by what was one of the main regional economical and demographical centers, he would have to concede at least that.
See, establishing the Danish customs as the legal rule, would mean equally establishing a Danish political rule. Both were undistinct enough for that Danelaw ended to ben Danish self-rule.
That's not going to be accepted by Frankish kings and nobility, and even if such Danelaw could be maintained, it would likely fall under harassment, and may be outside Rollo's scope to begin with.
The goal of the jarl with this treaty was to get integrated into West Francian continuum, organising his principality along frankish lines, and probably began this years before as many other (but lesser known) Norses that were integrated in great houses (rather than forming their own, admittedly) as Harald Klak/Herialdus Nordmannus.
Interesting. I did not know about the bishop agreement in 898, nor did I know about Noyon Will have to read more into Rollo it seems. Any suggestions on that?
As for the what if, could Rollo had converted to Christianity but kept the Nordic law and customs intact if he had spent since 885 keeping Rouen and the area between it and the sea solidly under his control? More importantly, could Normandy stay with the laws or not? I am guessing not, but just want to make sure. I know more about medieval technology and architecture more then history. That is why I am asking.
All the questions is because I am trying to figure out if I want to do an alternate Normandy timeline or not and need them answered so thanks for helping!
Lady J
As for the what if, could Rollo had converted to Christianity but kept the Nordic law and customs intact if he had spent since 885 keeping Rouen and the area between it and the sea solidly under his control? More importantly, could Normandy stay with the laws or not? I am guessing not, but just want to make sure. I know more about medieval technology and architecture more then history. That is why I am asking.
All the questions is because I am trying to figure out if I want to do an alternate Normandy timeline or not and need them answered so thanks for helping!
Lady J
Teejay
Gone Fishin'
As far as I know in Normandy, there were proportionally less Norse* settlers there than there was in the Danelaw (especially what was to become Yorkshire). That would explain that in a century after the Norse settling in Normandy, they become wholly French.
* Also I believe the makeup of the settlers was different with more families than single men settling in Danelaw than Normandy.
* Also I believe the makeup of the settlers was different with more families than single men settling in Danelaw than Normandy.
Specifically about Rollo and early Normandy?
Depends. Can you read french?
- Le monde franc et les Vikings (VIII-Xe siècle) or Des raids scandinaves à l’établissement de la principauté de Rouen by Pierre Baudin.
The first is quite the key work, less about Normandy and Rollo than a general outlook on the relations between Vikings and Franks, something quite related to.
The second is an article part of La Normandie avant les Normands, and more focused to your OP, but the book is essentially an universitarian study so you would have better chance checking an university library or asking them to order it.
- La Normandie des ducs aux rois. Xe-XIIe siècle or L'aventure des Normands, VIIIe-XIIIe siècle (maybe more accessible when it comes to reading, but less avaible giving it's a book from a collection) by François Neveux (the authority on Normand history)
- If you don't mind order by internet, Rollon chef Viking may be interesting (I never went into it or his author's works before that said). It seems to be illustrated.
If not...I don't think that I know a good book. There's maybe translations, but they are kind of uncommon, critically for newer works.
- Dudon of Saint Quentin's chronicle (De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum) is heavily hagiographic and should be read cautiously, but it's a primary source.
In english
-Any John Haywood is probably worth of consideration
-Historical Dictionnary of the Vikings is interesting and if its informations are basic, they are trustworthy and have a good bibliography that would probably help you more than I.
Rollo was a raiding chief : when he came first in Neustria, it wasn't for settle down but to raid.
He participated to *this* Siege of Paris, then to the Siege of Bayeux, making himself a reputation and making ties.
When he goes in England by the late 880's, he's not holding territories yet though, and it's probably this reputation (both on local nobility and among local Danish settlers) that allowed him in 898 to make a treaty with the bishop of Rouen.
The question is less if he was able to do that but why he would have done so. Conquering cities, ignoring the local powers would have been no that different than what Ragenold did in Brittany. So he could have.
It would have backfired, in a similar way. He would remain a glorified coastal plunderer racketting and blackmailing the neighborhood. Neighborhood that had the will and capacity to defeat him.
See, being christianised wasn't just a private conversion but a public acceptance of what you could call a "way of life", including politically and socially.
A conversion for the show, but changing nothing to your behavior wouldn't do anything.
Don't forget that Normandy customs (that aren't laws, especially giving their unwritten and non-permanant nature, but represent the main legal structure in middle-ages.) were maintained up to later times, and that they included legal legacy from Scandinavian customs.
Technically, while after much evolution, the Normandy custom is still living on in the Channel Islands.
If you're asking for a more scandinavian-based custom, however, it's going to be hard, would it be only for demographical reasons (Scandinavian settlers being outnumbered, Frankish elite remaining largely in place, traditional quick adaptation of Norse settlers as everywhere they went)
I think it's less a question of numbers, than being about :
1) Demographical importance relativly to natives : Northern England was underpopulated compared to the southern part. Norse settlement was more "obvious".
2) The political structure. Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had a more loose grasp as a political entity on their territory than what existed in Carolingian Francia, in spite of the troubles (would it be only the narrow net of cities). It's easier to establish your domination this way.
I'm not convinced that Norses didn't assimilated eventually among the Anglo-Saxon population (even if in this case, they influenced just as much they were) : Anglo-Dane population often had AS names for exemples, and the elites fit in the Anglo-Saxons institutions relativly easily.
The wars with Wessex, and the creation of an English identity defined as "definitely not Scandinavian" shouldn't hide that.
I'm not sure of that, critically giving a really important part of Scandinavian settlement, in the pagus of Rouen for instance, was made from Anglo-Dane farmers.
Last edited: