One possible outcome would also be the lack of a 100 years war. you probably still would have had conflict with france considering they were neighbours but it would have been over other reasons.--Marcpasquin 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, the English kings definitely did not engage in the same types of adventures in France. Thanks, Marc. Benkarnell 19:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure there was interaction, however. For the close proximity, it would almost be necessary, regardless of what TL we're in. Now, what form they take is something else entirely...but I vote you think about it.
- Also, with a base of operations in England and I presume, Ireland, would the Vikings have more successfully colonized the New World? Louisiannan 17:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- A more Scandinavian New World is definitely one consequence. As far as France goes, there would be interactions, often hostile, between England and France, but what form they would take would depend on the dynastic history: a lot depended on the Norman patrimony that the English kings had. Benkarnell 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the timeline, I've done a little with both of these ideas. Thanks, Dan and Marc. Benkarnell 00:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What's in store for the classic fave, the Byzantines? Plus will Britain ever achieve the status of owning half the world in the 19th century? Mr.Xeight 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to keep this so realistic that it's moving very, very slowly. Just when I think I'm ready to move on, I realize that I needto work out the details of this or that war or dynasty; so really nothing after c. 1080 is absolutely certain. As for the Byzantines, I really don't know what will happen out there yet. With England and France so different, the Crusades will probably take a direction nobody's expecting, and who's to say what will come out of that? As for England, I don't really see it industrializing in the same way at all, so probably no global empire. Vinlanders will be largely English, though. There;s a trickle of settlers before 1100, but the big migration comes when Englanders head out there to flee from the French crusaders. [EDIT] I do know for certain that the "divergence" has not reached the Byzantine region by the 11th century, so the Seljuk invasion of Rum/Anatolia goes the same as it did OTL. Benkarnell 15:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
In no way do I want to even write a word or influence your world at all but there is one way. A major catalyst was the Byzantines lot Mankizert. With Scandanavia being heavily into the Vasieia Romaon in the early days, maybe perhaps their alliance stayed enough for Scandanavian spheres of influence into the Middle East and the Empire to survive? Mr.Xeight 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds really interesting - I've never heard of the Vasieia Romaon; is there any place I can read up on that? Benkarnell
Oh no, I meant Byzantine Empire, that was me thinking of Roman Empire. No, the Battle of Mankizert is where the crippling of the empire started. Mr.Xeight 12:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, gotcha. I'll have to read mroe about Vikings in the Mediterranean generally - I know there were Normans in Italy and so forth. I do believe the Vikings who traded with Constantinople were mainly Swedes, correct? I haven't touched the Swedes much, except that I have one or two Vikings going into exile in Sweden or the Swedish Rus. In general it's my impression that Den and Nor interacted far more than either did with Swed. However, the effects of the POD will have to drift eastward eventually... I'll need to read more about it. Thanks! Benkarnell 13:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Got another way, a Byzantine emperor (or a woman who if she was a man would be heir-apparant, or just a child of the emperor) marries one of Ragnar's descendants? That way, pretty much of Europe (who was already linked to Ragnar through marriages) would be linked & be a bit more inclined to help if Turkey decides to become all high & mighty around the time of Mankizert. Mr.Xeight 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also a good idea. I know that the last stand of Constantinople was largely organized by Italians anyway; maybe in a timeline like this there can be greater cooperation still between east and west - including marriages. Which makes me think: if there was never any crusade against Constantinople, might the two sides have tried a bit earlier to repair the religious schism? As I recall, they were just beginning to make progress when the Ottomans took the city. The West might have even more incentive to compromise (!) with Byzantium, since without Spain and with a more fragile hold on Scandinavia & England, Western Christendom was a lot smaller & weaker. Maybe the Pope, down the line (1200s or so) could even give up on the whole primacy thing and become once again a co-equal of the Patriarch. !! Benkarnell 23:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well the reuniting that will be really hard. I mean then the Pope would have to pull back the anti-marriage pact, or Constantinople enforce that, Geek & Latin (respectively) wouldn't be the offical language (or maybe both) and the whole cultural thing including dress, rituals, & style are minor problems. And Constantinople would be offended if Rome "forgave" them, just as Rome would be. And the Pope would have to become equal w/ the Patriarchs as you said. I am all for a East/West teamup and was going to ask you about that.
I was doing a small story where, well almost like this one. Spain & Portugal had a very rough Reconquista, and even Granada & the Balearic Emirates still holding out. The vikings take for awhile, almost all of the UK. And Russia, Ukraine, & Belarus still under Mongol rule. However, Portugal, the rest of Spain, Italy, & Greece all become the main powers of Europe with Germany, Hungary, & the civilization deprived Celts of Ireland, Scotland, & Whales (who had to fall back on Pre-Roman Celt culture as the Vikings cut them off from the mainland). ANYWAY, if the Vikings did bring about a Dark Age to Britain making them just like back home, how would they turn out in the first 5 years-decade of the 1500s? Mr.Xeight 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let me think one thing at a time. As for an East-West reconciliation, I'm thinking that it would be less of a full merger with one administrative structure and all that, and more of a return to the status quo c. 800 or so. The idea that the Eastern and Western churches had separate spheres and different customs, but at least they were still on the same team, so to speak. Maybe even a new, truly ecumenical council to hammer out the remaining theological differences, like the filioque "and of the Son" clause in the Nicene Creed. Since the Byzantines were in a stronger position in this timeline, maybe they offer military aid in France and Spain in return for a declaration that the filioque is a novel addition and shall be stricken from the Creed in the West. The military aid could sweeten the sense that the Westerners are being "forgiven".
- Your other story does sound a little like this one. I don't want to get too involved in it - probably best that they don't bleed into each other too much! But it's definitely a world where what we think of as European/Christian culture seems to be much more vulnerable. In that kind of world, the remaining Christians could be even more inclined to cooperate out of concern for their own survival! Maybe no Great Schism at all, since it would not be wise to excommunicate your strongest ally when you're in danger of being attacked by an outside enemy. [EDIT] And if no Great Schism, maybe some of the wild and crazy corruption of late-medieval Catholicism would be tempered by some of that Orthodox spirituality. Moving forward to the 1500s, there could be no need (and no real room) for a Reformation, so no Protestantism. Benkarnell 03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about ETP and what it might like be in the later Medeival Period Would this be able to be used for any of your works?
Mr.Xeight 00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that's pretty close to my imaginings. The biggest thing would be that France will (probably) be split. (The northern half is absorbed into Normandy, the southern half becomes a Crusader kingdom called Gallia.) Eastern Europe is still not nailed down. My (often changing) thought is that without the devastations of the 4th Crusade, the Byzantines hang on to more of the Balkans, but still lose Turkey to the Turks. Benkarnell 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
What about Cyprus? I thought since England couldn't take it, the Normans would. I split it up w/ Byzantium too Mr.Xeight 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this is complete speculation, but you're right, the Crusade that conquered Cyprus - the one that Richard Lionheart would have gone on if he had existed - was instead directed against the Moors in southern France. It's likely that French and/or Italian knights returned to the Holy Land later, and likely they did eventually take over Cyprus as in OTL. Maybe a Gallic/Norman/Genoese/Venetian joint venture of some kind. Benkarnell 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Ben. Now that both of us are (well to put it nicely) on a "break" from 1983:DD, do you think you're going to pick up EtP again? I noticed you started work on the Western Roman Empire, so I simply guessed you were back. I rather missed reading it, I'm growing rather bored with Greek/Byzantine facets of alternate-timelines, and so this story filled with Viking Kingdoms of England, and Norman conquests, and Native American "nations" in my home of Illinois, is really one of my favorites I'm come across on the website. Happy New Year and Skol! Mr.Xeight 15:02, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks! And my "break" from 83DD is a real break - aspects of it started to exasperate me, but I plan to continue working on it, evetually. As for Ethelred... I'm trying to be slow and deliberate with it; my core idea for it is as much history and as little fantasy as possible - with the history, of course, presented in as exciting a way as I can. Even the Native American nations, one of my favorite parts of the timeline, are on hold right now because I had failed to take certain changes into account when I described them. (I had Leif Eriksson sailing to Vinland, but probably the butterflies would eliminate him. The large-scale Viking colonization was based on the idea of diehard pagans in England fleeing the Crusaders. But now, the discovery that France never came to be means I have no idea whether there was ever any such thing as a "Crusade"! And the large-scale Viking colonies were the basis for creating the Native American empires, like the Norse-Mississippian creole empire of Hashitamaha.
- I've made a couple changes in the last day or so because in reading about the history of North Africa, I realized what the Almoravids would be up to in this timeline c. 1050-1100, so I added that. Then I did a little housekeeping and category adding.
- I don't know - I don't want to rebuff anybody, but I'm uncomfortable putting Ethelred "out there" to become a collaborative project because I've been something of a control freak about it. Several times I've ruthlessly slashed whole sections out of the world when I found something else I liked better: for example, the Creation of Angelania meant that I had to eliminate the nation of Normandy, including Guillaume the Conqueror and the Norman crusade in England that would have resulted in the Kentish language. (And that's the same crusade that led to those Native American empires, so you can see my struggle.)
- But then, if I want Ethelred to be mine and mine alone, maybe a wiki isn't the best place to put it. The whole thing is just about migrated to Alternatehistory.com - there are aspects of that site I don't like, but a serious TL posted in one of their serious forums usually attracts a different sort of people than the crazies that dominate so much of the board.
- So basically - I'll welcome your ideas, but I'm kind of nervous about giving up control of any part of Ethelred. And I want that to be taken in the nicest way possible. Benkarnell 15:31, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm sorry, I never meant to ask to contribute. If I had to predict the near-future, it seems (unfortunately) that alt-history probably won't be in it, at least not contributions to things like 1983DD or Il Bethisad. I just enjoy reading a great deal of timelines, EtP is one of them :) Mr.Xeight 03:02, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Main page rewrite
I've rewritten this main page to make it more accurate and hopefully a little better to read. I am seriously starting to doubt a lot of my Vinland content and worry that it is not justified by other events in the TL. If a stronger Vinland stays part of the TL, I am definitely going to need to rewrite significant portions. Benkarnell (talk) 21:25, March 1, 2015 (UTC)