Alternate Irelands 4: Ireland and the Scottish-Norwegian War
By Gary Oswald.
Haakon IV, ruling 1217 to 1263, was the first King of Norway after a century of civil war. He did much to, briefly, re-establish Norway as a major player in European politics, forming relations with England, the Holy Roman Empire, France, Sweden, Novgorod and Castile, fighting wars against Denmark and the Hanseatic League, and conquering Iceland. And he was also interested in retaking the traditional Norwegian role as the main power in the Irish Sea and feudal overlord of the Kings of the Isles and Mann.
As such he fought the Scottish–Norwegian War from 1262 to 1266 for control of the Hebrides archipelago, which the Scots wanted to add to their own realm but had traditionally been Norwegian vassals. Haakon was in a bad position as while the Isle of Man welcomed him, many of the men in the Western Isles, including the Lord of Argyll, sided with nearby Scotland over a Norway that had not had any real control in over a century. Unable to force the Scots to either peace talks or the battlefield, and having lost the one battle he did fight at Largs in 1263, Haakon wintered in Orkney with his fleet, ready to fight one last major campaign in 1264.
Instead he died in December 1263 and the fleet went home.
The Scottish Magnates who had sided with the Norwegians were duly defeated by Alexander II of Scotland, who went onto to conquer the Isle of Man and force Magnús Óláfsson of Mann to add his own fleet to the Scots which then conquered the entire Western Isles. Haakon's successor then agreed a peace recognising what was now obvious. The Kingdom of Scotland now held all of modern day Scotland below the Orkneys. The Isle of Man would eventually be lost to the English, while the Hebrides would spend most of the next four centuries in almost constant revolt against the Scottish but would eventually be pacified and would become a target of plantation settlement by Scottish Lowlanders in the 16th century. Haakon's death was a pivotal moment in Scottish expansion and unification and the creation of both the modern Scottish nation and the Scottish identity.
So there is an obvious AH about what if Haakon survived and launched that major attack he had planned. Does that prevent a Scottish conquest of the Western Isles?
Well, Scotland still has huge advantages in terms of logistics and came out on top in 1263 campaign, albeit helped by bad weather and stalling. They might well do so again and force Norway to retreat allowing the same victory as OTL. Norway probably needs more local loyal men if they wish to win, you can't rely on a fleet from hundreds of miles away being constantly there.
It is also worth noticing that there is a reason why this conflict happened in 1262-1266. Henry III of England, a nominal ally of Haakon, was fighting the Second Barons' War and could not hope to intervene to prevent Scottish expansion. While Alexander was conquering Mann, Henry III was a captive of Simon de Montfort and so could not do anything about it.
So English involvement is unlikely and Scotland are going to be inclined to press that advantage for fear of an Anglo-Norwegian alliance robbing them of that chance of expansion.
But what, instead, about Irish involvement?
Many of the Norse-Gaels held land in both Scotland and Ireland, and Dublin was as much a traditionally Norse-Gael town as Finlaggan in Islay. Many of the lords in the Hebrides who remained loyal to Haakon, such as Dubhghall mac Ruaidhrí, were also active in fighting the Anglo-Normans in Ireland. Irish armies routinely used Norse-Gael mercenaries from the Isles to bulk up their forces.
Shortly before Haakon's 1263 death, he was approached in Orkney by Dubhghall and many of his allies, who had previously tried to crown the rebel Brian O'Neill as High King of Ireland in 1258. They offered Haakon the crownship of Ireland and Irish support in his war against Scotland in return for Norwegian support against Dublin. Irish men could reinforce the Hebrides against the Scottish counterattack, while the Norwegian fleet could allow Irish rebels to actually attack Dublin.
Haakon was inclined to accept the offer but his council was not, worrying that the Second Barons War might end quickly and this would bring the English Army into war, only on the side of the Scots. He turned it down and then died. The next man crowned High King of Ireland was ironically enough a Scottish noble, Edward Bruce, as the Irish turned from one foreign benefactor to another.
But let’s take it seriously. What if Haakon had both accepted it and lived long enough for a major campaign?
Well, there is an obvious flaw in the proposal: how much can the Irish realistically commit to Scotland without leaving their own lands open to be raided by their neighbours? If the rebels are in Scotland, even if the Norwegians have the English pinned down in Dublin, don't they just come home to find all their lands empty? You'd need a campaign in Ireland as a precondition for the campaign in Scotland. And there is a limited campaign season before the weather turns. There is also a political reality wherein a King cannot stay away on campaign for too long.
If Haakon accepts the offer, he has two options.
One: He takes his fleet to Ireland as soon as spring starts, does a huge show of force there to get submissions, and then sieges Dublin. He has to hope both that Henry III can do nothing about it and that his men can resist Alexander's counterattack long enough for him to wrap up the campaign in Ireland and then return to Scotland with a much bigger army. At least if his fleet is off Dublin, he can probably protect the Isle of Man (his loyalist base) from the Scottish and that will give him the base for the later campaign with the Irish onboard.
This option can be split itself into three results.
1a) Haakon loses the Siege of Dublin to the Anglo-Norman army in Ireland even without further support from England forthcoming. After all, that army was no joke. The rebels on the other hand are hugely divided and much military weaker. It's possible Haakon goes the way of Edward the Bruce in which case Scotland wrap up the Western Isles as in OTL and nothing really changes.
1b) The Irish rally around Haakon in a way they never rallied to any other rebel thanks to the prestige of his fleet and his shows of force. As a result, Haakon wins out over Dublin, the Irish drive out the English and the Norwegians, newly reinforced, beat up the Scots. Alexander comes to terms and Henry remains too distracted to do anything about it. Haakon has an Irish Sea Empire. He probably only has nominal control of Ireland but he can reverse plantation and beef up the Isles with Irish settlers to protect against the Scots. This house of cards will not last long, with both British nations out for revenge against Norway, but delaying the expansion of Scotland into its western seaboard has huge consequences for any future Anglo-Scottish Wars.
1c) De Montfort and Henry put their quarrel to one side and deal with the foreign army attacking their land. The English navy wasn't much around this time, but their army was and a joint Anglo-Scottish campaign against Norway is something that is incredibly hard to see Haakon winning. Probably nothing changes in terms of the fate of Ireland and the Western Isles but maybe Scotland goes further and takes the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland too. But even a joint campaign which saw both side win what they did in OTL will effect Scottish-Anglo relations and delaying or averting the Second Barons War is significant in itself.
The risks of this option seem to me to outweigh the rewards significantly. The best case scenario for the Norwegians still involves Haakon basically giving full initiative to Alexander to run riot over the Hebrides while he fights someone else for the possible reward of a few thousand extra men which is not guaranteed.
But then there's Haakon's second option.
Two: Haakon agrees secretly to take the High Kingship but he does not declare himself High King publicly. Instead he asks for the support of the rebels while he ignores Ireland itself and concentrates on Scotland first, hoping to knock them out of the war and then take on England. He had hoped to defeat Alexander by himself last year anyway, why risk England getting involved until this is settled?
This limits the number of Irish who join him but it’s probably bigger than if Haakon just says no – and Haakon can always go back on his word once he's won anyway, especially if he dies and his son can just go 'I never said anything about going after Dublin, that was the last guy'. There is the risk that if Haakon is too dismissive the Norse-Gaels will switch sides to Scotland but in OTL he said no entirely and they still remained loyal to him, precisely because he was a more a distant ruler than the Scottish King would be.
I think this is probably the most plausible route. In which case Haakon can realistically beat Alexander, lose to Alexander or fight Alexander to a stalemate and then, assuming de Montfort has still captured Henry, has the option in his back pocket to go after Dublin. This time with the justification of avenging his old pal Henry and the rights of Kings.
He can either take that or back out (or indeed die before the campaign can start), and he can either win or lose in Ireland. But I think a Scottish-Norwegian War followed by an Anglo-Norwegian War is far more likely than Hakkon being so foolish as to risk taking on both the British Kingdoms at the same time.
Though if Haakon has beaten Alexander and then gone after Dublin, there is always the risk that Alexander doesn't stay beaten and makes another go at the Western Isles while Norway is distracted.
Gary Oswald is the editor of the Grapeshot and Guillotines, Emerald Isles, and If We'd Just Got That Penalty anthologies.
Comments