Norsean Ireland

Ok the POD for this is around 800 AD. In this timeline the Vikings hold and influence on the Irish expands to include the entire island instead of being replaced by the local tribes.

Would the Normans have an easier time ruling Norse then Catholics or would they be more difficult to conquer. How would the Norse religion stand up against Protestantism?

Would catholic Europe try to exert more influence if the Irish were not Catholic?
 
Well, even if they were Pagan, there's little reason for them not to convert when the rest of the Vikings did (roughly 1000 AD depending on where you're talking about).

However, if they didn't, it might lead to earlier British interference with Ireland, in addition to different crusades. Ex: Instead of going to the Holy Land, English knights are commanded to convert the heathens closer to home (like the Spanish nobility was exempted from going Crusading because of the Reconquista).

I don't know what impact this would have on the Crusades, as I gathered it was mostly Franks in any case, but I doubt they wouldn't be missed.

Could be an interesting timeline, I think, though I doubt that they would actually be able to stay pagan for any amount of time longer than most other pagan countries in Europe (for example, Lithuania, one of the final, and most powerful pagan states, was converted in the 1400's, and I certainly wouldn't give Ireland, unified or not, longer than that).
 
a strong state is even more easely to convert because they look to more points and see that the are almost surrounded by cristians
 
If the Vikings were united and contred all of Ireland then they would probably be able to beat back the Normans who were really only taking advantage of how divided the nation was.

The main reason for the invasion was to help an Irish king. http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/invasion.htm

if all of Ireland is ruled by a single king then they might have been able to better defend themselves delaying British influence or even avoided the invasion for a while longer.

they also might be able to escape being The focus of the British forces in the crusades becase of the fact that they are on a different island and aren't garding any holy cities or relics.
 
Unlike the Celts, the Norse were a people with a very maritime bent. A strong, pagan Norse Ireland would have an interesting knock-on effect on Iceland.

Ireland can also support a fair population, compared to Iceland.

I wonder if christian pressure, such as a crusade, could push a maritimly oriented island such as this even futher west?
 
Unlike the Celts, the Norse were a people with a very maritime bent. A strong, pagan Norse Ireland would have an interesting knock-on effect on Iceland.

Ireland can also support a fair population, compared to Iceland.

I wonder if christian pressure, such as a crusade, could push a maritimly oriented island such as this even futher west?

Are you suggesting an earlier and more sucessful Viking landing in America??
 
Are you suggesting an earlier and more sucessful Viking landing in America??

Not earlier. Well, it could be butterflied, but I don't see any reason in particular.

However, with a lot of pressure from the east on a pagan Ireland, I could see them take a lot more interest in it that OTL, where it wasn't seen as providing anything they couldn't get closer.
 
Unlike the Celts, the Norse were a people with a very maritime bent. A strong, pagan Norse Ireland would have an interesting knock-on effect on Iceland.

Ireland can also support a fair population, compared to Iceland.

I wonder if christian pressure, such as a crusade, could push a maritimly oriented island such as this even futher west?


would their maratime orientation make moving into central island a slower proccess?

and could their navy prevent other nations of the time from invading like the British Navy in OTL?
 
For Norse Polytheism to survive in any part of Europe, I think there would have to be several large and centralized kingdoms from Ireland to Kiev. And even then, the Germannic/Norse peoples would have to find common cause and solidarity in their shared beliefs to resist the creeping Christian incursion from the south. If only there were one or two charismatic and politically very powerful warlords and preachers of the old faith born sometime between 300 BCE and 500 CE, maybe the Northern Peoples would have become fanatically resistant to conversion.
 
Last edited:
Possible butterflys

I am assuming that the 'window' of inflicting Ireland with enough Norse settlers to cause Ireland to become Norse would be from the late 700's through to about 850. It is my opinion that after that you get too much happening on the continent to get numbers large enough to effectively change the culture.

If there are significantly larger Norse settlements in Ireland would probably cause huge butterflys. With Ireland available for settlement by the likes of Eric the Red, would he have founded Greenland? What about Iceland? What about Normandy?

In my opinion, there is one fairly large source of vikings who might be able to do this; the vikings who settled and founded Normandy. So if you have more significant settlements in Ireland, you have fewer in Normandy, and if you have fewer in Normandy, you have much less of the Norman machinations throughout the midieval ages.

There are also profound implications for England. No Normans, no William the Conqueror. It is tempting though to imagine a power 'Irish-Norman' kingdom in Ireland which then lays claim to the English throne and subsequently takes the throne and spends the next two centuries or so attempting to culturally colonize the English along their lines. I can see it now, the year is 1500, and the sole remaining pocket of the hated Irish is resisting the resurgeant English people.

One major difference would be that without the Norman protection of the Roman Church, it would definitely take a different form, probably resembling a slightly more centralized Orthodox church that the highly centralized Roman Church that resulted in OTL.

Hmmm, interesting ideas here.....
 
The Scandinavians have known of Ireland long before Erik "The Red" Thorvaldsson's time, so him moving to one of the Norse colonies there wouldn't have made any difference to the history of either Ireland or Greenland, which was actually discovered but not settled by one Gunnbjorn Ulfsson, but thats neither here nor there on this topic.

In any case, it would have taken more than colonising one country on the fringe of Europe to help pre-christian Norse culture to survive the long-term. For a culture that espouses Nordic tradition to prevail, they would either have to move very far away, or unify early enough in their history, so they would have a chance to resist invasion and forced conversions.

And I hate to suggest it, but if they adopted a more evangilizing and fanatical attitude to religion, then that would greatly increase the odds of its continous practice.
 
Ok the POD for this is around 800 AD. In this timeline the Vikings hold and influence on the Irish expands to include the entire island instead of being replaced by the local tribes.

Would the Normans have an easier time ruling Norse then Catholics or would they be more difficult to conquer. How would the Norse religion stand up against Protestantism?

Would catholic Europe try to exert more influence if the Irish were not Catholic?
Given the fact that the Norse merged with the slavic population in Russia, and the French in Normandy, the same thing would probably happen in Ireland. Ireland is rather small, and has easily navigable rivers running throughout it, so the Vikings shouldn't have too much trouble conquering it.

If the Norse did conquer Ireland, and wished to keep order and control, converting to Christianity and respecting the monasteries would be essential. The Normans faced rebellions when they tried to use abandoned monasteries as quarries. Conversion would make intermarriage with allied irish royal families easier, too, and doing so would make claiming a title like "High King of Ireland" or "Emperor of the Gaels" more legitimate in the eyes of the local elites and the populace.

Gaels were very much land focused, with wealth being measured in terms of how many cattle you had. Since the Norse were mainly focused on the sea, i could see a united Kingdom of Ireland under a Hiberno-Norse aristocracy developing a sort of Hiberno-Norse cant for trade between Gaelic inlanders and Norse coastal towns. This would eventually merge with Irish as the inlanders migrate to the coast, with Irish being the predominant component, and Norse mostly surviving in urban slang and commercial terms.
I can't really see large scale Norse settlement happening inland, as it was already inhabited and rather less desirable than the south, east and south-east coastlines.

Hiberno-Norse trade with Britain and continental Europe would be larger, bringing in some foreign influence as well as foreign criticism of the irish interpretation of Catholicism. Either they "normalise" their church or become outcasts, and since the Norse don't want to piss off the monasteries more than they already have, they might keep the status quo for a few more generations before converting, without necessarily facing a crusade. In any case, a unified and relatively prosperous Ireland is less of an easy target than an extremely divided Ireland.

A united Ireland in the second millenium would probably play a very minor role if any in continental affairs, and would probably clash with the Kingdom of Scotland over the western isles and the isle of man. When/if the reformation comes around, they have a possibility of converting as Scotland did, perhaps by claiming to represent traditional Irish Christianity that was snuffed out by continental pressure.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Assimilating is likely, but not inevitable because of the weaker position of Celtic compared to French and East Slavic*, if the Norse start with a unified kingdom in the east they could germanifie that area, especially because Norses (or Scandinavian or Old Danish) close linguistic relationship with Anglo-Saxon, and the greater usefulness of this than Celtic. The result could be a Germanic Irish language with a lot of loan word from Celtic and Anglo-Saxon.

*The only language in as weak position which met Norse was Finno-Ugiric in Estonia and Finland, and in Finland the Scandinavian dialect survive yet, while in Estonia it only disapperaed with the Soivet conquest and the entire minority emigrating to Sweden.
 
Top