Was there any chance of the North Sea Empire surviving? Or was it only possible because of a sick Cnut?
>>908692
That really doesn't have anything to do with the North Sea Empire, the Vikings of Dublin/Isles weren't really related to Cnut.
Anyway, Cnut was the sole reason the NSE survived at all, the rights of succession doomed any long term success. By the time Harald Hardradda tried to reform it, the Kingdoms where too independent.
>>908688
>Was there any chance of the North Sea Empire surviving?
Nope. It was kept together by Cnut, his underlings were incompetent and unpopular. Cnut kept the whole thing stable but even he wasn't well liked. If he had more time to stabilize his empire it might have survived, but very few states survived due to one mans will alone.
>>910969
I agree. The North Sea Empire is a lot like the Angevin Empire; both were portfolios of medieval real estate that could only last a few decades at most.
The real tragedy was that neither Harold Harefoot nor Harthacanute lived long enough to have a son or two that would take rein when they died. The Norman Conquest of England could've been avoided this way since Alfred and Edward would remain in exile in Normandy.
Or better yet, Edward the Exile returns from Hungary much earlier and he becomes King instead of Edward.
>>911017
>portfolios of medieval real estate that could only last a few decades at most.
Most the states we had in the early modern period were just that, a collection of real-estate. Only difference is the Valois, Habsburgs and the like got lucky.
>>911017
>The real tragedy was that neither Harold Harefoot nor Harthacanute lived long enough to have a son or two that would take rein when they died. The Norman Conquest of England could've been avoided this way since Alfred and Edward would remain in exile in Normandy.
Would it be much better to be ruled by Danes rather than by Normans?
>>911052
There was not much difference between Anglo-Saxons and Danes, their languages were even mutually intelligible.
>>911052
>Would it be much better to be ruled by Danes rather than by Normans?
A North Europe centric England without French interests might be fun.
>>911067
The Danes were as harsh to the Anglo Saxons as the Normans. Most of the Anglo-Saxon nobility actually died in the Danish conquest, not in the Norman conquest.
>cnut
it's KNUT
fucking KNUT
>>911106
Because different orthographies never adapt names, right?
>>911106
Actually it's Canute.
>>911052
England got used to having a Danish monarch. Particularly in the northern regions thanks to the Danelaw and Jorvik. Canute was widely revered by Anglo-Saxons for being a good king despite the brutal war of conquest.
Unlike the Normans, the Danes had a similar culture and language to the Anglo-Saxons. They already had experiences living amongst each other.
>>911068
Yes it would be. No English blood or money wasted on pointless wars in Aquitaine or Normandy.
>>911072
In the initial stages of Danish conquest, you are indeed correct. Canute, himself, even killed a lot of leading English nobles and replaced them with Scandinavians...only in turn to replace the earls with Englishmen like Godwin. Canute even executed the turncoat Eadric Streona.
The vast majority of Anglo-Saxon and the later Anglo-Scandinavian lords died in Hastings. This is why England fell to William the Bastard because there was no single leader to take up after Harold Godwinson and expel the Normans.
>>911106
More like CUNT, amirite?
