The viking raids started at the end of his reign but what if he lived longer could there still be a viking age with a such powerful empire with a real war loving ruler?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Supposition, but they'd certainly try. Not even Ol King Chuck could field an entire Army and march it out to see in time to stop a relatively small band of raiders from pillaging coastal towns. On top of that, there are still plenty of other realms, such as the non-Carolingian British Isles. Who knows, maybe some brave Varangian might sail his raiders straight down to Constantinople.
It's generally harder to protect bigger realms anyway and especially with the soldier pop count from the beginning of the viking age.
What was the actual number of soldiers Charles the great could field?
@thevmag I was thinking more about the line of what he did with the Saxons.
Vikings weren't good warriors, they were good at running away and attacking defenseless people. It doesn't matter how strong the empire is if someone attacks a little undefended town. Even when they sacked Paris they only got away with it because the King was away, they fled from him when he was returning.
The first raids began before he was even crowned emperor... so...
and as it has been said the Scandinavian were raiders: go in and get out with loot before the army comes.
At the most there may have not been a Normandy.
and as it has been said the Scandinavian were raiders: go in and get out with loot before the army comes.
At the most there may have not been a Normandy.
Well at the time Denmark was united under a strong kingship + strong fortifications at Dannevirke + little of value in Scandinavia = little reason to invade.
But one might guess that if Charles had marshalled all his empire's strength, he might very well have conquered Scandinavia, although at massive losses for little gain.
But one might guess that if Charles had marshalled all his empire's strength, he might very well have conquered Scandinavia, although at massive losses for little gain.
Considering that one popular theory of why the viking raids started is Charlamagne's treatment of pagans, then yes it is certinaly possible that the raids would have occured had he lived longer.*
*assuming the theory is correct, of coursse.
*assuming the theory is correct, of coursse.
It's not like it's untrue.
Mongols won because they fled from battle until the enemies lines fell apart, then crushed them by turning around.
Honor means less than Victory.
What did he gained from destroying the Avar confederation except loot things he will have gained from the vikings also.
Similar to how the Maygasr used to throttle any force that did manage to respond to their raids until the Germans under Otto the great forced them to fight a battle where they couldn't use such tactics and they got crushed. Makes it sort of ironic that the Hungarians fell for the Mongols doing that considering they used to do the same thing to the rest of Europe.
That theory is mostly White Supremacist myth-making from what I can tell.
Generally, Vikings loved Frankish stuff, especially Frank crafted weapons. Vikings respected strength, if weak Pagans get their ass kicked by Christians then that made Christianity cooler. There was a lot of resistance to Christianisation in Scandinavia but it was all a political power game.
The Avars were a rusty treasure chest. Someone was going to do that eventually. The Vikings didn't have anywhere near that much wealth because at that point they just had the Baltic to loot while the Avars had the Byzantine Empire.
There is a saying that people do not learn from the past its not that baseless.
I am currently reading "Plagues and Peoples" by William H. McNeil. He puts fourth an interesting perspective on the on the decline of Rome and rise of the barbarians.
After explaining the nature of human-microorganism co-existence, he explains how periodical epidemics are inevitable and how epidemics can become particularly devastating after population density reaches a 'critical mass.'
The Antonie Plague is a good example:
By that time period only the Mediterranean was so densely populated and connected by trade to be greatly affected by plague. Central Europe (barbarian lands) we're almost unscathed by the epidemic that massively depopulated Imperial lands, reducing tax revenue and manpower. This forced Rome (especially after the east / west split) to gradually settle more and more barbarians to defend its lands and work the field. It was not the sole reason, of course, but the plague certainly facilitated barbarian incursions and later conquests of roman territory.
There was a second epidemic - Plague of Justinian:
by 541 CE central Europe was more closely integrated into Mediterranean society and trade. Also more urbanized. Hence, it suffered too. Persia, Rome, Germanic and British tribes all suffered massive losses relative to their population. This resulted in a power vacuum, exploited by two peoples in particular:
The Arabs later defeated Rome and Persia despite being (back then) a weak, tribal civilization. The plague and Sassanian wars robbed both empires of border guards and money, preventing them from retaliating.
In the North, Scandinavians were able to rise since their peninsula was the only part of Europe not devastated; Their population density was higher than of any other realm, permitting them to expand, ensuing the viking age.
So ,yeah, Charles couldn't have changed much. Maybe he could've peacefully settled the viking adventurers or used them as mercenaries like ERE...
After explaining the nature of human-microorganism co-existence, he explains how periodical epidemics are inevitable and how epidemics can become particularly devastating after population density reaches a 'critical mass.'
The Antonie Plague is a good example:
By that time period only the Mediterranean was so densely populated and connected by trade to be greatly affected by plague. Central Europe (barbarian lands) we're almost unscathed by the epidemic that massively depopulated Imperial lands, reducing tax revenue and manpower. This forced Rome (especially after the east / west split) to gradually settle more and more barbarians to defend its lands and work the field. It was not the sole reason, of course, but the plague certainly facilitated barbarian incursions and later conquests of roman territory.
There was a second epidemic - Plague of Justinian:
by 541 CE central Europe was more closely integrated into Mediterranean society and trade. Also more urbanized. Hence, it suffered too. Persia, Rome, Germanic and British tribes all suffered massive losses relative to their population. This resulted in a power vacuum, exploited by two peoples in particular:
The Arabs later defeated Rome and Persia despite being (back then) a weak, tribal civilization. The plague and Sassanian wars robbed both empires of border guards and money, preventing them from retaliating.
In the North, Scandinavians were able to rise since their peninsula was the only part of Europe not devastated; Their population density was higher than of any other realm, permitting them to expand, ensuing the viking age.
So ,yeah, Charles couldn't have changed much. Maybe he could've peacefully settled the viking adventurers or used them as mercenaries like ERE...
There was also a major smallpox outbreak at the same time and the Plague of Justinian likely did make the Anglo-Saxon conquests of what would become England easier.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but do you have a source? I've seen the theory that viking raids started in part as retaliation for Charlamagne's anti-pagan policies and actions espoused in scholarly works so I'm not prepared to accept without evidence that it is merely a myth made up by white supremacists.