Re: In most cases it seems there was no making peace with the Vikings
Historically there was. Alfred the Great (who was "Great" for more reasons than just his military victories) insisted on the Danes he defeated converting to Christianity and while it took a generation or two that generally did the trick. Likewise on the Continent: Charl…
Re: In most cases it seems there was no making peace with the Vikings
Historically there was. Alfred the Great (who was "Great" for more reasons than just his military victories) insisted on the Danes he defeated converting to Christianity and while it took a generation or two that generally did the trick. Likewise on the Continent: Charles the Simple (I think that's who was king of Francia) gave Normandy to the Vikings, but also demanded they convert-- and voila! the Normans. Who kept their military prowess but were less into wanton pillage and rapine.
Modern neo-paganism seems to me, from the outside, to be closest to the sort mystery cult that was prevalent in the Roman Empire: an individualist religion, not so much a communal one.
They surrendered land (Danelaw) in order to be left alone. That sounds like conquest to me, even if it did eventually come with conversion. It counts as making peace as the losing side.
But the Danes came back in the form of Sweyn Forkbeard & Son. Canute made England a part of his Danish empire. Even though Edward the Confessor was once again an “Anglo-Saxon” king, his mother was a Norman, whose second marriage was to Canute. The Normans were Danish, too. In the end, England was in fact conquered utterly by the Danes.
Canute was a Christian monarch, well thought of by his contemporaries, including the Pope whom he visited on pilgrimage in Rome. He was definitely a huge improvement over the feckless Ethelred the Unready. It was Ethelred who provoked the war with Canute's father Sweyn by ordering a a general massacre of Danes in England. Happily his order was not carried out very thoroughly; unhappily its victims included Sweyn's sister and her children.
He united England. He didn't reunite England, as it had never been united.
In addition, the Danes mostly settled in Anglian territories, and were in fact very closely related to the Angles, probably closer than the latter were to Saxons like Alfred. The thing is that this was all a war between cousins, and the Danes were referred to as "the Great Heathen Army"; the distinction was their religion, not their ethnicity.
In addition, Denmark converted to Christianity quite early, round about 1000, much earlier than the 12th century that Rod quotes, which was the Swedes.
The Danes assimilated to Englishness-- they lost their language, their pagan religion and many of their customs. and yes, Alfred and his heirs insisted they recognize the kingship of the king of Wessex, which as Derek says below became the monarchy of all England.
All true. But the Normans ended up with the lot, and they were Danes, regardless of religion or language. The remaining Anglo-Saxons ended up out back feeding the pigs.
That there remained some Anglo-Saxon elites and that there were—as any society has—Normans on the lower end of the pecking order hardly dents the directional reality that the Normans were Danes and that 1066 was the last Viking assault, effectively.
Re: In most cases it seems there was no making peace with the Vikings
Historically there was. Alfred the Great (who was "Great" for more reasons than just his military victories) insisted on the Danes he defeated converting to Christianity and while it took a generation or two that generally did the trick. Likewise on the Continent: Charles the Simple (I think that's who was king of Francia) gave Normandy to the Vikings, but also demanded they convert-- and voila! the Normans. Who kept their military prowess but were less into wanton pillage and rapine.
Modern neo-paganism seems to me, from the outside, to be closest to the sort mystery cult that was prevalent in the Roman Empire: an individualist religion, not so much a communal one.
They surrendered land (Danelaw) in order to be left alone. That sounds like conquest to me, even if it did eventually come with conversion. It counts as making peace as the losing side.
Alfred's grandson, Athelstan, ended up taking Danelaw and re-uniting England.
But the Danes came back in the form of Sweyn Forkbeard & Son. Canute made England a part of his Danish empire. Even though Edward the Confessor was once again an “Anglo-Saxon” king, his mother was a Norman, whose second marriage was to Canute. The Normans were Danish, too. In the end, England was in fact conquered utterly by the Danes.
True. Alfred, Edward Elder and Athelstan rejuvenated England. And it only took Ethelred the Unready and Edward the Confessor to lose it all.
Canute was a Christian monarch, well thought of by his contemporaries, including the Pope whom he visited on pilgrimage in Rome. He was definitely a huge improvement over the feckless Ethelred the Unready. It was Ethelred who provoked the war with Canute's father Sweyn by ordering a a general massacre of Danes in England. Happily his order was not carried out very thoroughly; unhappily its victims included Sweyn's sister and her children.
Atheistan, like a Pakistan for atheists?
He united England. He didn't reunite England, as it had never been united.
In addition, the Danes mostly settled in Anglian territories, and were in fact very closely related to the Angles, probably closer than the latter were to Saxons like Alfred. The thing is that this was all a war between cousins, and the Danes were referred to as "the Great Heathen Army"; the distinction was their religion, not their ethnicity.
In addition, Denmark converted to Christianity quite early, round about 1000, much earlier than the 12th century that Rod quotes, which was the Swedes.
Of course you are right. I wrote sloppily.
The Danes assimilated to Englishness-- they lost their language, their pagan religion and many of their customs. and yes, Alfred and his heirs insisted they recognize the kingship of the king of Wessex, which as Derek says below became the monarchy of all England.
All true. But the Normans ended up with the lot, and they were Danes, regardless of religion or language. The remaining Anglo-Saxons ended up out back feeding the pigs.
Ed West has a good couple of posts up about Anglosaxon and Norman names
That there remained some Anglo-Saxon elites and that there were—as any society has—Normans on the lower end of the pecking order hardly dents the directional reality that the Normans were Danes and that 1066 was the last Viking assault, effectively.
I still wonder whether had Harold Harefoot lived longer and had children England would have turned out much different. His death was tragic.
The Normans brought to England their own brand of French which was a great addition to the English language. It gave the English language depth.
Yes, beef/cow, mutton/sheep, pork/pig, etc. but they were still Danes.