Would it be possible for the Viking age to continue until the 19th century?

[walmart]

Would it be possible for Scandinavia to be a base of widespread raiding in Europe until the 19th century? The Barbary pirates managed to raid and attack European targets until the early 19th century. Would this require a Northern equivalent of the Ottomans as a source of external support? I assume that Christianity doesn't take hold with some type of reformed native religion taking its place or a heretical branch doesn't have an issue raiding and enslaving Christians. I'm not too familiar with the economic cost or resources required for defense against the Barbary pirates.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Would this require a Northern equivalent of the Ottomans as a source of external support?

Yes. Likely it would require a giant pagan Russia/Russia equivalent to the east. The Scandinavian market is too small for slave trading to be much of a thing and they'd have no ability to establish manpower-intensive industries in other colonies.

 

[Wyrd]

A technologically stagnant Europe with no gunpowder would be a necessity. The main method of defence against the Barbary Corsairs was to bombard the North African ports that sponsored them.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I've often pondered such a scenario. One convoluted and vague timeline would involve a pre-Viking Age POD wherein Christianity fails to fully take hold in Anglo-Saxon England.

The idea is that if we assume the Norse desire for wealth and living space was the result of pressures that will exist no matter the timeline, then they will still raid Northern Europe. Let's then assume that the conquest of England still goes ahead, but this time England is home to a substantial pagan population. Though Anglo-Saxon pagaism was not identical to Norse paganism, from what little we know the two were similar, and in any case pagan religions didn't tend to be overly discriminatory to other pagan religions.

This gives the Norse ruling class a stronger base and less pressure to Christianise. If they successfully subsume England, given enough time that creates a powerful pseudo-Scandinavia state primed to retain a culture of seafaring. As naval technology progresses (they might even lead the charge on that front) the Anglo-Norse can raid farther. We might very well see earlier permanent settlements in North America that aren't doomed to fail.

So what next? Let's say the Reconquista still occurs in Iberia. Religious fervour is high in Europe and the pagan north is feeling isolated. Raiding for resources and wealth resumes. We get a blend of a Second Viking Age and a Golden Age of Piracy. If we also assume some Christian power still makes first contact with Mexico, the Caribbean, the Inca, and so on, we could see pagan pseudo-Vikings/privateers raiding the Atlantic out of secret bases in the Caribbean, Africa, and North America.

As I said, convoluted, but fun to imagine.

 

[dachi]

The vikings were not people but rather role that wealth well off Scandinavians did often ether trading or raiding or both this was most common before the Scandinavian kingdom's had been created.

Europe also become more fortified and vigilant with dealing with such threats and thus it is why it came out of fashion

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

The vikings were not people but rather role that wealth well off Scandinavians did often ether trading or raiding or both this was most common before the Scandinavian kingdom's had been created.

That's not really relevant to the OP. The span of time between the 793 and 1066 is widely referred to as the Viking Age, beginning with the raid on Lindisfarne and ending with the defeat of Harald King Hardrada of Norway at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. This is regardless of what the word 'vikingr' actually meant. In any case using the term "Viking" to refer to those Scandinavians who sailed out of the fjords and Baltic to raid, pillage, and pirate the European coastlines and rivers has been common practice for centuries. Let's not get hung up on pedantry.

In any event I think a prolonged Danelaw over England would have facilitated a prolonged Viking Age, even if the Norse did convert to Christianity. England simply becomes a stronger base of operations. The Danelaw itself was loosely confederated and decentralised so it's unlikely it can wholly survive without coalescing around a single king or reforming in some meaningful way, but extending its life, either by having the Norse and Danes succeed in conquering Wessex (entirely possible if Alfred had fled to Francia) or consolidating their existing gains, would certainly extend the notion that they can raid and conquer with impunity.

 

[von Adler]

Would it be possible for Scandinavia to be a base of widespread raiding in Europe until the 19th century? The Barbary pirates managed to raid and attack European targets until the early 19th century. Would this require a Northern equivalent of the Ottomans as a source of external support? I assume that Christianity doesn't take hold with some type of reformed native religion taking its place or a heretical branch doesn't have an issue raiding and enslaving Christians. I'm not too familiar with the economic cost or resources required for defense against the Barbary pirates.

Not really. Once the feudal realms of western Europe united and got their act together, the easy targets dried up and the viking age ended. The viking age continuing would require western Europe to remain a mess of independent small feudal states all unable to resist larger viking raids or financing punitive expeditions to the lands whence the vikings came, which seems unlikely - if they do remain like that, other realms will conquer them and resist the vikings.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Not really. Once the feudal realms of western Europe united and got their act together, the easy targets dried up and the viking age ended. The viking age continuing would require western Europe to remain a mess of independent small feudal states all unable to resist larger viking raids or financing punitive expeditions to the lands whence the vikings came, which seems unlikely - if they do remain like that, other realms will conquer them and resist the vikings.

Denmark and the formerly Norse Scottish islands maybe, but one could imagine a pagan Sweden/Norway/Finland/Baltic remaining a continual threat to Christendom (and occasional trading partner of course) for quite some time just as the Barbary states did. The Barbary pirates did huge damage in the Mediterranean during their height despite facing opponents far more organised than any medieval.

 

[walmart]

Would this drive increased migration to the Americas from Northern Europe ?

 

[walmart]

Also something else I thought, with a group of hostile blond haired pagans. How does European racism develop?

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

What about the Arctic? If the Norse start pushing up north earlier, intermingling heavily and trading heavily with the Saami, it could be possible for the Norse to form trade relations in the Arctic.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Also something else I thought, with a group of hostile blond haired pagans. How does European racism develop?

IMO it doesn't change much. Misguided though it was, a lot of racist thought in Europe developed as a result of religious supremacism. The drive to civilise - the "white man's burden" - was about culture, not just skin colour. The people of the Americas, Africa, and Asia had inferior culture, and that included religion. In this case, it becomes a burden of faith rather than race and the ideals extend to Scandinavia.

That said, it's entirely possible that we end up with Fortress Europe in such a scenario and overseas exploration becomes the domain of Islam. If we have Islam in Spain, North Africa, and the Balkans, and indigenous European paganism in Scandinavia and Russia, Christian Europe will be fairly hemmed in. National wealth and trade becomes secondary to survival, and in such a climate survival becomes dependent on religious fervour. I won't comment on what this might mean for technology and science but I can imagine the influence of the Papacy remaining fairly strong under these circumstances. Maybe a more consolidated Holy Roman Empire in the middle of Europe that more or less vassalises all its neighbours and builds a metaphorical wall around Christendom.

 

[ArtosStark]

Denmark and the formerly Norse Scottish islands maybe, but one could imagine a pagan Sweden/Norway/Finland/Baltic remaining a continual threat to Christendom (and occasional trading partner of course) for quite some time just as the Barbary states did. The Barbary pirates did huge damage in the Mediterranean during their height despite facing opponents far more organised than any medieval.

IIRC the Barbary pirates had the advantage of having very rich, t’aida le trade routes running right out their front door. And relatively rich, areas where a central strong authority was absent or distracted right across the Mediterranean.

The Vikings, by contrast, needed to go to their targets (often some distance away) and raid them for resources that were lightly enough defended that they could be pulled out before a superior force was available. As nations grew stronger and more centralized this strategy became more difficult. Navies were more likely to be present, Wealth was better defended and response forces were stronger and faster to mobilize. Thus the shift to conquest and the eventual end of the Viking age.

Additionally, the practice was less likely to be continued once Scandinavia is more unified. Viking raids were a way for local magnates to enrich themselves and their people and grow in strength in the local realm. When there is a King in charge of the lands this is going to start looking like a threat to their own power. So raiding is likely to be discouraged in favour of conquest by the king himself. And that is only going to work if the King has enough power available to pull it off, which the relatively less prosperous position of Scandinavia works against.

So, I think you come back to the circumstances of the Viking age requiring relatively weak, divided Western European polities. Which is not something you can count on long term. Either they unite locally or they are united by someone. Either way raiding dries up as a feasible method of gaining wealth and prestige.

 

[Arkenfolm]

What about the Arctic? If the Norse start pushing up north earlier, intermingling heavily and trading heavily with the Saami, it could be possible for the Norse to form trade relations in the Arctic.

This was OTL and they were among the groups called "Finns" by the Norse (i.e. modern Finnmark in Norway).

IIRC the Barbary pirates had the advantage of having very rich, t’aida le trade routes running right out their front door. And relatively rich, areas where a central strong authority was absent or distracted right across the Mediterranean.

The Vikings, by contrast, needed to go to their targets (often some distance away) and raid them for resources that were lightly enough defended that they could be pulled out before a superior force was available. As nations grew stronger and more centralized this strategy became more difficult. Navies were more likely to be present, Wealth was better defended and response forces were stronger and faster to mobilize. Thus the shift to conquest and the eventual end of the Viking age.

So what about that would necessarily stop a continual era of Viking raids, even if direct invasions or sacking coastal villages and monasteries might become more and more rare. Coastal ports remained vulnerable to seaborne raids during war up until telegraphs made it all but impossible to do more than just bombard the port. For instance, John Paul Jones's attacks on Britain and Ireland in the American Revolution and many other examples.

Similarly, private individuals could raise and equip ships of their own for this purpose. Even if they couldn't stand up to a dedicated warship, they were still plenty capable of raiding a port and escaping before the government might send warships.

Additionally, the practice was less likely to be continued once Scandinavia is more unified. Viking raids were a way for local magnates to enrich themselves and their people and grow in strength in the local realm. When there is a King in charge of the lands this is going to start looking like a threat to their own power. So raiding is likely to be discouraged in favour of conquest by the king himself. And that is only going to work if the King has enough power available to pull it off, which the relatively less prosperous position of Scandinavia works against.

Lots of nations were united but still had significant pirates, the Barbary states included. It was usually a symptom of weak central government, and there's no guarantee that Scandinavian kings in this scenario would have such direct control over their own countries.