Northumbria predominant

[Phoenix]

What if St. Edwin was not killed at the battle of Hatfield Chase, but instead was victorious?

According to Wiki, Edwin was Bretwalda, and recognized as over-lord by all the Anglo-Saxons except Eadbald of Kent.

He already had control of Northern England, Anglesey and Gwynedd.

At Hatfield chase, he was defeated by the exiled King of Gwynedd and Penda of Mercia, would it be possible, then, if he wins to add Mercia to his Northumbrian kingdom?

[Flocculencio]

Even if Northumbria is predominant it's still first in line for the Viking invasions. If it mananges to gain full dominance over all the other English kingdoms this could see the complete collapse of England- if Wessex has been crushed there will be no opposition to the Danes when they come down from the North.

On the other hand, a unified England under Northumbria might be better able to resist the Vikings in the first place.

[Phoenix]

On the other hand, a unified England under Northumbria might be better able to resist the Vikings in the first place.

I was kind of thinking that, the Vikings being repulsed from the North of England, with everything from the Wash to the Firth of Forth being a part of Northumbria, maybe add in Mercia, with the rest as client kings?

Would that be possible?

[Flocculencio]

I was kind of thinking that, the Vikings being repulsed from the North of England, with everything from the Wash to the Firth of Forth being a part of Northumbria, maybe add in Mercia, with the rest as client kings?

Would that be possible?

It would certainly be possible- I would think that England being the size it was would have been unified sooner or later though.

The main interest in this scenario is an Eoforwic-centered England rather than one with it's centre in London, Winchester or somewhere else in the South due to the Kingdom of Wessex ending up as the supreme English kingdom.

The Northumbrian Kings of England might well be more naval oriented what with Eoforwic being directly in the path of the Northmen. Once the Vikings have been beaten off from the shores of England itself might possibly in later years actively attempt to make expeditions of their own. For example, they might very well decide to cross the Irish sea to take the Norse settlements in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland.

Even more importantly, before the Norse invasions, Northumbria was one of the greatest centres of knowledge in Western Europe. If Northumbria stands against the Danes, the resulting Anglo-Saxon England could well become the most prosperous and advanced state in Christendom (even more so than it was in OTL).

Of course getting into more speculative stuff a Northumbria centered England might well have the resources and knowledge to be able to take Iceland and then even resume the settlement of Vinland :D (Sorry- this is one of my pet ATL themes and I always try to work Anglo-Saxon based TLs around to this :p )

[Thande]

It would certainly be possible- I would think that England being the size it was would have been unified sooner or later though.

The main interest in this scenario is an Eoforwic-centered England rather than one with it's centre in London, Winchester or somewhere else in the South due to the Kingdom of Wessex ending up as the supreme English kingdom.

:) :) :)

*then realises that without the Vikings there wouldn't be a Yorkshire, we'd just be the Geordies' little brown cousins*

...:mad:

:p

[Landshark]

Even if Northumbria is predominant it's still first in line for the Viking invasions. If it mananges to gain full dominance over all the other English kingdoms this could see the complete collapse of England- if Wessex has been crushed there will be no opposition to the Danes when they come down from the North.

On the other hand, a unified England under Northumbria might be better able to resist the Vikings in the first place.

We couldv'e taken those horn headed nancy boys!

Bloody Ikea. :mad:

[Flocculencio]

More thoughts- Scotland is now far closer to the seat of English power. This could mean that events taking place there are much more likely to be felt in the capital at Eoforwic.

By this point, say 1000, I'd think most of England would have been unified under the Northumbrian crown- possibly Wessex might be a vassal kingdom though I think it's more likely that it would have been absorbed at some point. Also, I'm going to go with the plan I outlined earlier where Eoforwic makes a concerted attempt to drive the Vikings from Ireland (and maybe even the Shetlands and Orkneys). Thus, any turmoil in Scotland or any Scottish alliance with Denmark or Norway would give a very good reason for the Kings at Eoforwic to contemplate an invasion.

[Thande]

What about Normandy? Do the Danes still settle there? Indeed, perhaps more would do if England and Ireland were harder targets...

[Phoenix]

Maybe, if more Danes settle in Normandy, they would spread along the coast, bordering Brittany?

Another thing, Scotland, as we know it, is half Northumbrian, with the Forth being the northern border.

Would it havebeen possible for the Northumbrians to push north, and push out the Scots who are there, and block the rest from crossing?

[Flocculencio]

What about Normandy? Do the Danes still settle there? Indeed, perhaps more would do if England and Ireland were harder targets...

Or perhaps the Northumbrians (or rather their vassals in Wessex) manage to smash the raiding fleets comprehensively, closing the Channel to the Norse and resulting in an early end to the Viking raids in Western Europe. As a result Scandinavian influence gets pushed to the East resulting in an even more strongly Scandinavian state or states in the Russian lands.

[Flocculencio]

Another thing, Scotland, as we know it, is half Northumbrian, with the Forth being the northern border.

Would it havebeen possible for the Northumbrians to push north, and push out the Scots who are there, and block the rest from crossing?

That would be quite interesting- an English nation occupying the whole island of Great Britain with the Scots confined to Ireland.

[Thande]

Either way the Picts are screwed...

I wonder what would happen to the Celtic kingdom of Strathclyde, which was at one point part of Wales? In OTL it was the Scots who crushed the last king, Owen the Bald, but in TTL...

Come to think of it, I could see Wales generally doing better in TTL. The Northumbrians, after all, would be enough on the plates for Mercia and Wessex, the two powers that did the most damage to them in OTL.

[Flocculencio]

Come to think of it, I could see Wales generally doing better in TTL. The Northumbrians, after all, would be enough on the plates for Mercia and Wessex, the two powers that did the most damage to them in OTL.

Generally doing better up to a point- once one of the Saxon kingdoms achieves dominance over the others it's probably going to look westwards. At the very least the thanes of the Welsh Marches are going to complain to the King about bandits and the Crowns hand will be forced even if there wasn't much intention to take Wales in the first place.

Of course this depends on how England is unified. Perhaps instead of one kingdom conquering the others the process could be more decentralised and less formal with the King of Northumbria (or whichever Kingdom gains dominance) being acclaimed High King (Ofercyning, literally Over-King being a possible title) of the Angles and Saxons (or whatever title he chooses) with the other Kings owing feudal-style loyalty to him but running internal affairs in their own kingdoms, generally only obliged to obey Ofercyning in times of war when the entire fyrd is mustered.

In which case the Welsh rulers might decide to swear fealty to the Ofercyning as well to avoid outright conquest.

[Thande]

Here's a stab at this, one assuming a powerful Wales:

[Flocculencio]

Here's a stab at this, one assuming a powerful Wales:

So in that one is Cymru a vassal state of Northumbria? I ask because it's in a smaller font than the rest.

Also might not Northumbria become known simply as Anglalond after it absorbed the other Saxon states into its dominance?

[Thande]

So in that one is Cymru a vassal state of Northumbria? I ask because it's in a smaller font than the rest.
Yes. But Cymru includes all the yellow areas.

Also might not Northumbria become known simply as Anglalond after it absorbed the other Saxon states into its dominance?
Probably, given that the name makes no sense if their land extends south of the Humber.

If the country is simply named Englaland or whatever, we would probably see the cultural division Northumbria and Southumbria (which was only briefly a cultural division in OTL) - the North/South divide would presumably be backwards, with the North being the rich, cultured area. :cool:

[Flocculencio]

If the country is simply named Englaland or whatever, we would probably see the cultural division Northumbria and Southumbria (which was only briefly a cultural division in OTL) - the North/South divide would presumably be backwards, with the North being the rich, cultured area. :cool:

I could see the South being the bread basket of the nation, a sleepy agricultural region as you say. However, they'd probably have the highest population and as such would be able to contribute the most men to the fyrd (except for the Coastal lords whose contribution would probably be in ships for the Overking's navy).

The Overking's fyrd has the potential to be terribly impressive in TTL- English heavy infantry backed by Welsh longbowmen.

Also, now that the English have taken the Shetlands and Orkneys, Iceland is cut off from Scandinavia- I'd imagine it would only be a matter of tiem before it fell into the English orbit.

[Thande]

Also, now that the English have taken the Shetlands and Orkneys, Iceland is cut off from Scandinavia- I'd imagine it would only be a matter of tiem before it fell into the English orbit.

And the English (Anglo-Welsh?) naval tradition begins earlier than OTL, perhaps even leading to an earlier discovery of America - or rather a Leif Erikson equivalent with the actual manpower to back it up. :)

I could see a United Kingdom analogue between Englaland and Wales (with Wales as the 'Scotland' - outweighed in terms of population and land but more powerful than you would expect). However, it would have to be on terms other than the OTL dynastic ones, because Englaland (and Wales?) would still have elective monarchies.

[Flocculencio]

I could see a United Kingdom analogue between Englaland and Wales (with Wales as the 'Scotland' - outweighed in terms of population and land but more powerful than you would expect). However, it would have to be on terms other than the OTL dynastic ones, because Englaland (and Wales?) would still have elective monarchies.

Probably the elective monarchy would be a lot stronger than, say the Polish one. The Kingship of the various constituent parts of the "United Kingdom" might run through heredity. These royal dynasties might be considered the Great Houses of the Realm from which an Overking could be chosen. So you might have five (or maybe six) Great Houses each with sworn thanes as their bannermen: Northumbria, Mercia, Southumbria (Wessex), Cymru, a Scottish Kingdom which wouldn't be called Scotland since the Scottish incursion would have been checked and Eire (if and when it's conquered by the United Kingdom).

Also instead of an elective monarchy maybe a situation might arise similar to that of modern Malaysia- each of the Great Houses takes the Overkingship in turn.

And the English (Anglo-Welsh?) naval tradition begins earlier than OTL, perhaps even leading to an earlier discovery of America - or rather a Leif Erikson equivalent with the actual manpower to back it up.

Yes indeed. Perhaps the Anglo-Saxons might go a-Viking on their own account bringing parts of Scandinavia itself under the banner of the Overkingdom.

[Flocculencio]

Another thought- since the Cymri have control of Brittany this might make for problems for the French down the line.

After all, taking on the Bretons when they were unsupported is one thing but in TTL any French incursion into Brittany means that the French crown will have to face all the rest of the Cymri and the English to boot.

Also- a thought on religion. If the Celtic form of Christianity prevails in TTL that gives one more factor distancing the Overkingdom from the Continent.

[Tyr]

Northumbria was the most powerful before the vikings.

For the name of the nation I remember hearing up north angles were a smaller group then the south. So we would probally end up with the nation called Sexonia or Juteland or Frisia (I know those last 2 are pretty much taken IOTL...)

[Flocculencio]

For the name of the nation I remember hearing up north angles were a smaller group then the south. So we would probally end up with the nation called Sexonia or Juteland or Frisia (I know those last 2 are pretty much taken IOTL...)

Actually think you've got that a bit mixed up. The Angles tended to settle North of the Saxons (hence Wessex, Essex and Sussex). Mercia and Northumbria would originally have been more Angle than Saxon.

You have to remember that the name "England" is a bit of a historical anomaly- the Angles were always outnumbered by the Saxons who had settled the more populous South and no one knows why their tribal name became applied to the entire Anglo-Saxon culture.

Of course all this talk of areas of settlement is a bit exaggerated seeing as the invading tribesmen would have intermarried with each other and with the Britons to form the Anglo-Saxons.

Just one of those historical quirks I guess.

For a bit more info see the map below (The Bernicians and Derians were Briton groups who were conquered by the Angles during the formation of Northumbria). As you can see the Saxons were originally concentrated around the modern Home Counties while the Angles originally went into East Anglia and the East Midlands.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Britain_peoples_circa_600.png/350px-Britain_peoples_circa_600.png

[Flocculencio]

It's occurred to me that without the Viking conquest York might not really have had the prominence it achieved in OTL. Perhaps the Northumbrian crown might actually move the capital to Edinburgh (which King Edwin of Northumbria, the chap referenced in the POD, captured during his reign) in order to more effectively control the conquest of Scotland.

[Tyr]

Oh well, I knew it was one way around about the north having more or less of them.

The capital won't move to Scotland. With these medieval and earlier nations the capital was pretty much just where the king was- if the king is off conquering Scotland then that is where the government will be ran from. Once it returns to peace though and the kings have a choice of where to go I think they'd stick with their proper capital of Bamburgh.
Would be interesting to see that develop into a decent city...

[Flocculencio]

The capital won't move to Scotland. With these medieval and earlier nations the capital was pretty much just where the king was- if the king is off conquering Scotland then that is where the government will be ran from.

True enough- however I was thinking more about Thande's idea regarding the elective monarchy. It would probably make sense to have a city as the symbolic seat of the Overkingship where the Kings and Thanes and bannermen could gather for the appointment and coronation of each new Overking.

I suppose a religious centre would make sense since it would probably be the foremost churchman of the British Isles doing the coronation. Perhaps Durham, since thats where the monks of Lindisfarne fled after their monastery was sacked right at the beginning of the Danish invasion.

[Phoenix]

This, rather, matches what Edwin had, plus Mercia and the Saxon lands, and an expansion north, with room for he Picts and or the Scots.

York seems to have been prominent before the Vikings, Edwin built a church there, and created a See for Paulinus there.

Though mayhap Durham could settle as capital?
It seems to be about middle of the land.

[Nicole]

Didn't the Scottish invasion start in modern Argyll? I would think that and possibly the whole Highlands (since there is a geographic boundary) would be Scottish.

[Thande]

Also- a thought on religion. If the Celtic form of Christianity prevails in TTL that gives one more factor distancing the Overkingdom from the Continent.

Yes!!! :cool:

Re the capital: Durham was, I believe, the historical capital of Northumbria. Leej's suggestion of Bamburgh makes sense as a fortified castle. York (or rather Eoforwic, which might be worn down to something like 'Efferick') could become a new, centrally located capital given the Northumbrians' southern acquisitions.

Flocc: the name Southumbria typically referred to the area now in south Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, which went back and forth between Northumbria and Mercia before the Vikings came. I don't believe it was ever applied to Wessex. Literally, of course, it means everything south of the Humber.

Another thing: on Flocc's map it mentions the 'Lindisfaras' as a Briton tribe somewhere down in Lincolnshire. Is this where the name Lindisfarne comes from? If so, it's moved around a bit.

[Nicole]

Also, on Pheonix's map, it doesn't make sense to give Anglesey to Northumbria when that was a major center of Gwynedd, the most powerful welsh state.

This is how I'd draw the borders.

[Phoenix]

Edwin had conquered Anglesey, according to Bede.

[Flocculencio]

Edwin had conquered Anglesey, according to Bede.

Hmm...perhaps a jurisdictional rearrangement when the Cyrmi lords swear fealty to the Overking? The thanes in Anglesey might have their allegiance transferred to whichever Welsh house gains the Kingship of Cymru.

Thande: Re Southumbria- thanks for the correction. I guess we could keep the name Wessex for the Southernmost constituent state of the Overkingdom then :D

York is good but maybe for an even more centrally located capital Nottingham (or Snotengaham as it was) might be good. Make the Cymri the Mercians and the Wessexmen feel more a part of the Overkingdom.

Now the most interesting areas to me are Scotalnd (i.e. OTL Ireland) and Brittany. Brittany is an obvious place for tensions between the Overkingdom and France while the Scots are probably going to be either vassalised or conquered outright at some point.

[Wendell]

Maybe the whole polity takes the name Mercia?

[Nicole]

You know, now that I think about it, the ideas for Scotland seem odd... If we use Edwin as a POD, the Dal Riatans are already established in the Western Isles and the near coast, while their domains in Ireland have been decaying.

Here's a map that wikipedia has of Dal Riata in 590... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dalriada.jpg

[Flocculencio]

Maybe the whole polity takes the name Mercia?

Unlikely since the unifying kingdom is Northumbria.

A collective name like Anglalond is more likely to be used when referring to the Overkingdom as a whole.

[Wendell]

Unlikely since the unifying kingdom is Northumbria.

A collective name like Anglalond is more likely to be used when referring to the Overkingdom as a whole.
Or, England, for that matter.

[Flocculencio]

Or, England, for that matter.

Same thing. England is what Anglalond looked like after being battered into shape for a few centuries. As with Eoforwic- Jorvik- York, Ledercaestre- Leicester, Snotengaham- Nottingham etc.

[Flocculencio]

You know, now that I think about it, the ideas for Scotland seem odd... If we use Edwin as a POD, the Dal Riatans are already established in the Western Isles and the near coast, while their domains in Ireland have been decaying.

Here's a map that wikipedia has of Dal Riata in 590... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dalriada.jpg

That's interesting- perhaps if we go with the idea of the Viking colonies in Ireland being taken by the English most of Eire might come under the sway of the Overkingdom with the Scots being restricted to Dalriada, possibly being driven from Ulster and left with only the Highlands.

[Wendell]

Same thing. England is what Anglalond looked like after being battered into shape for a few centuries. As with Eoforwic- Jorvik- York, Ledercaestre- Leicester, Snotengaham- Nottingham etc.
I knew that. My suggestion of Mercia gaining wider usage and meaning was meant to find an alternative, as was discussed earlier. That said, how about Albion?

[Nicole]

I knew that. My suggestion of Mercia gaining wider usage and meaning was meant to find an alternative, as was discussed earlier. That said, how about Albion?
Didn't the term "Bretwalda" come from an Anglo-Saxon term meaning "Ruler of all Britain" or something along that line? If so, "Britain" (well, the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of it) could be the name of this Kingdom.

Floc: That's what I was thinking, Dal Riata would be a northwestern state, possibly being subjugated to the Overkingdom later. Might these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Oriel)play a role in Ireland?

[Flocculencio]

I knew that. My suggestion of Mercia gaining wider usage and meaning was meant to find an alternative, as was discussed earlier.

Oops- sorry. :o

That said, how about Albion?

Albion might actually work- it's not an Anglo-Saxon name but with the inclusion of the Cymri it might be seen as a method of hearkening to the goal of unity of all the disparate parts of the Overkingdom.

Imajin: That's a good idea, actually. Bretwalda does mean "Lord of Britain" and perhaps could be used as the actual title of the Overking. In fact it only fell into disuse after the Danish invasions and since these don't happen in TTL, the title could well remain valid and in use.

[Flocculencio]

Floc: That's what I was thinking, Dal Riata would be a northwestern state, possibly being subjugated to the Overkingdom later. Might these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Oriel)play a role in Ireland?

If the chiefs of Oriel are smart enough to swear fealty to the Overking then maybe Oriel might become the name for the Irish constituent Kingdom?

If they fight, though, the island might be settled with new English and Cymri thanes.

[Wendell]

Oops- sorry. :o



Albion might actually work- it's not an Anglo-Saxon name but with the inclusion of the Cymri it might be seen as a method of hearkening to the goal of unity of all the disparate parts of the Overkingdom.

Imajin: That's a good idea, actually. Bretwalda does mean "Lord of Britain" and perhaps could be used as the actual title of the Overking. In fact it only fell into disuse after the Danish invasions and since these don't happen in TTL, the title could well remain valid and in use.
Albion could theoretically be applicable to the whole island, even with Caledonia added.

[Thande]

Perhaps an anglicised form of Albion? "Whitland"?

[Flocculencio]

So here's the Million-dollar Question. What's the chance for war with the Continent. If the British Isles stick with the Celtic Rite I'd think that gives that much more reason for the Pope to back a French assault on Brittany.

In my other Anglo-Saxon TL I had the Celtic Christians of the British Isles forge relatively friendly ties with the Muslims in Andalusia because of this mutual antipathy towards the Catholics of the Continent.

[Thande]

In my other Anglo-Saxon TL I had the Celtic Christians of the British Isles forge relatively friendly ties with the Muslims in Andalusia because of this mutual antipathy towards the Catholics of the Continent.
I think that's going a bit far. I could see the Celtics making common cause with the Orthodox church, maybe even the Cathars, but the Muslims? Unlikely.

[Flocculencio]

I think that's going a bit far. I could see the Celtics making common cause with the Orthodox church, maybe even the Cathars, but the Muslims? Unlikely.

Yeah that was an extreme example :D Orthodox contact through the Scandinavian kingdoms of the Rus is quite likely though.

As for wars with the Continent, the combination of the foul weather of the Channel and concentration of English resources on a proper navy the chances for a successful invasion from France drop somewhat.

However, Brittany is going to be the problem- I could see it being a region under almost constant seige. While many Thanes might send their bannermen to fight in the Breton wars I think the most likely response from the rest of the Overkingdom would be to loose the navy and sow fire and sword all along the French coast of the Channel.

Which of course might lead to the French King applealing to the Pope.

And what if the Pope declares a Crusade against Great Britain?

[Tyr]

Yes!!! :cool:

Re the capital: Durham was, I believe, the historical capital of Northumbria. Leej's suggestion of Bamburgh makes sense as a fortified castle. York (or rather Eoforwic, which might be worn down to something like 'Efferick') could become a new, centrally located capital given the Northumbrians' southern acquisitions.



Bamburgh was the capital of Northumbria most of the time (it did move around a bit, was even in York for a decade or two at one point)

Durham does make a lot of sense as a place for a medieval city, if you go there and imagine it without the modern dams you will really see what I mean. But it didn't come to prominence until after the viking invasion IIRC- St.Cuthberts bones going from Lindesfarm to Chester-Le-Street then to Durham (I was born and raised round those parts hence I know such obscure bits :p)

[Phoenix]

Brittany could be a sort of training ground for the bannermen, keeping them in fighting shape.

Re: capitals, Edwin himself was constantly travelling through his Kingdom, so the records say. Though Bamburgh makes sense, and being on the coast, can recieve news quickly via the sea.

It is also close to the Tyne, though I do not know the state of Tyneside back then.

[Flocculencio]

Brittany could be a sort of training ground for the bannermen, keeping them in fighting shape.

Yes- I was thinking that the concept of castellation could be introduced to the Anglo-Saxons through their experiences in Brittany. After al if you live on the front lines of a region of endemic war you'd probably quickly adopt anything that makes your settlements safer.

[Rick Robinson]

So here's the Million-dollar Question. What's the chance for war with the Continent. If the British Isles stick with the Celtic Rite I'd think that gives that much more reason for the Pope to back a French assault on Brittany.

If the Synod of Whitby goes the other way - as more or less implied here - there may not even be a Pope by c. 1000, at any rate not in the sense we are used to. As I recall, the intellectual heft of Charlemagne's court was substantially provided by Anglo-Saxons, such as Alcuin. If Englalond (or Britland, or whatever it gets called) is following Celtic Rite, either these guys bring a different set of ideas, or they don't come over at all.

From all I've read, the late Merovingian church was in a pretty bad way, and the Pope had only gotten out from under the Byzantine thumb in 727, so perhaps the Celtic Rite, and associated intellectual tradition, spreads to the Continent c. 800.

-- Rick

[Wendell]

So here's the Million-dollar Question. What's the chance for war with the Continent. If the British Isles stick with the Celtic Rite I'd think that gives that much more reason for the Pope to back a French assault on Brittany.

In my other Anglo-Saxon TL I had the Celtic Christians of the British Isles forge relatively friendly ties with the Muslims in Andalusia because of this mutual antipathy towards the Catholics of the Continent.
I think this is a good idea. Could these British Isles come to welcome Jews fleeing persecution in Europe?

[Phoenix]

I think this is a good idea. Could these British Isles come to welcome Jews fleeing persecution in Europe?

That might be pushing it, though I do not know.

And there would most likely still be a Pope, just not as we know it. Maybe more of a chief among equals?

So would this Britain-analogue then be among the leading intellectuals of Western Europe? It was one of the richest, what with the tin mines in Cornwall and gold mines in Wales.

[Nicole]

So would this Britain-analogue then be among the leading intellectuals of Western Europe? It was one of the richest, what with the tin mines in Cornwall and gold mines in Wales.
Tin in Cornwall and Gold in Wales? But we've assigned those to the "Cymru" sub-Kingdom... seems like Cymru could be an important force on it's own, probably playing a major role in the politics of Britain.

[Thande]

Possible flag of an Anglo-Welsh Union?

(using the old Anglo-Saxon tradition of having a white dragon for England and a red dragon for Wales)

[Nicole]

Neat flag, Thande, but what about the age-old English tradition of not giving Wales a place on the flag? :p

[Thande]

Neat flag, Thande, but what about the age-old English tradition of not giving Wales a place on the flag?

That's a Norman tradition, not an English one - 'twas they who relegated Wales to the status of a downtrodden principality.

And in TTL Normandy is DOA. :) :) :)

[Nicole]

And in TTL Normandy is DOA. :) :) :)
Hm, Armorica might fall completely into the sphere of Brittany.

[Thande]

Hm, Armorica might fall completely into the sphere of Brittany.
Funny story actually: the Venerable Bede wrote in one of his histories that the Welsh came from Armenia - a typo (scribe-o?) for Armorica. So there was a generation of Anglo-Saxon scholars who thought the Welsh were Armenians.

I always wanted to bring this up in the middle of one of Kitjed and Abdul Hadi Pasha's love-ins, just to watch Abdul's brain explode from the cognitive dissonance. :D

[Paul Spring]

And in TTL Normandy is DOA. :) :) :)

Not necessarily - with a stronger "England", maybe more Danes and even Norwegians go attack the western Frankish kingdom. Perhaps "Normandy" ends up including most of northern France - even a Norman dynasty ruling from Paris as kings of France.

[Phoenix]

Regarding flags, this is Northumbria's, the red and gold.

Maybe the Welch can have their representation on a side?

[Wendell]

Not necessarily - with a stronger "England", maybe more Danes and even Norwegians go attack the western Frankish kingdom. Perhaps "Normandy" ends up including most of northern France - even a Norman dynasty ruling from Paris as kings of France.
I like that idea. Such a conceot could certainly change things down the road...

[Rick Robinson]

So would this Britain-analogue then be among the leading intellectuals of Western Europe?

I don't know why not. The OTL English were at that time - Bede is head and shoulders above what passed for historians on the Continent in this era; somewhat later there are people like Duns Scotus, though rather ironically he gave us the terms "dunce."

Who knows where the butterflies would land, or with what effects, but there's nothing obvious in this TL that would lessen English/British intellectual development, and a couple of things that might further encourage it.

-- Rick

[Thande]

Not necessarily - with a stronger "England", maybe more Danes and even Norwegians go attack the western Frankish kingdom. Perhaps "Normandy" ends up including most of northern France - even a Norman dynasty ruling from Paris as kings of France.
I know it could also got that way, but on page 1 or 2 Flocc and I agreed that in TTL we'd assume that the Northumbrian fleet deliberately closes the Channel to the Danes, so we get no Normandy.

And eventually the Northumbrians go after the Norwegian possessions in the Irish and North Seas as well.

Regarding flags, this is Northumbria's, the red and gold.
I knew about that one, but IIRC it only came into use after the Norman Conquest, so it wouldn't be suitable for TTL.

[Carlito]

It would certainly be possible- I would think that England being the size it was would have been unified sooner or later though.

The main interest in this scenario is an Eoforwic-centered England rather than one with it's centre in London, Winchester or somewhere else in the South due to the Kingdom of Wessex ending up as the supreme English kingdom.

The Northumbrian Kings of England might well be more naval oriented what with Eoforwic being directly in the path of the Northmen. Once the Vikings have been beaten off from the shores of England itself might possibly in later years actively attempt to make expeditions of their own. For example, they might very well decide to cross the Irish sea to take the Norse settlements in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland.

So, denied England, and access to Normandy via the English Channel, where do you envisage the Vikings acting out their wanderlust? Wouldn't the shores of Scotland and Northern Wales suffer mor deprivation? Or perhaps the Norse grip on Ireland is only renewed by denying them England?


Of course getting into more speculative stuff a Northumbria centered England might well have the resources and knowledge to be able to take Iceland and then even resume the settlement of Vinland :D (Sorry- this is one of my pet ATL themes and I always try to work Anglo-Saxon based TLs around to this :p )

Wouldn't it be more likely that the Vikings themselves would renew this venture, as they have been denied the British Ilses/Western European coast?

[Andrei]

Ok , a few questions here:
- How does Wales becomes so big ?
- Why are the Anglo-Saxons and Welsh friendly towards each other this time? The Celts might ally with the Vikings against Northumbria this time , to avoid Anglo-Saxon domination.
- Wasn't Northumbria more Saxon than Angle ?
- If the monarchy of this British state is elective , wouldn't this make the state weaker ? The Polish monarchy became elective at some point and the state began to decline.

[Flocculencio]

Ok , a few questions here:
- How does Wales becomes so big ?
- Why are the Anglo-Saxons and Welsh friendly towards each other this time? The Celts might ally with the Vikings against Northumbria this time , to avoid Anglo-Saxon domination.

We're assuming that the Cymri become the leading lights among the Celtic nations thus becoming their overlords and having all the Celtic regions brought under allegiance to the Cymri.

As for the Celts allying with the Vikings against Northumbria...they might well do that. However, without their landholds in Northern England and with their bases in the North Sea islands threatened by the Northumbrian Navy, Viking power projection capabilities have just gone down the toilet. Some of the Cymri chiefs might well choose to fight but I think victory would go to the canny ones who bend the knee to the King in Northumbria and will be rewarded with lands and thaneships for their troubles.

- Wasn't Northumbria more Saxon than Angle ?
- If the monarchy of this British state is elective , wouldn't this make the state weaker ? The Polish monarchy became elective at some point and the state began to decline.

As to your first question, no. I explained that earlier. It's the other way around.

As for the elective monarchy, I envisaged something somewhat stronger than the Polish version- Anglo-Saxon monarchs already had a primitive version of what might be called a constitutional monarchy: they were very much restricted in their actions by the Witangemot, a "parliament" of the most powerful thanes in the land. Basically unlike the Poles the Anglo-Saxons would have the advantage of their very complex and convoluted legal system ensuring that no one gets too powerful. Even in OTL I see this system as an excellent example of the English cultural propensity towards compromise.

Carlito: Basically we're assuming a more pro-active Northumbria. You might very well see English longships sweeping into the fijords raping and burning as they come. After all that would be the best way to stop the Viking menace. Burn the farms, kill the males, enslave the women.

In TTLs history the Viking involvement in Western Europe might well be seen as an irrelevant blip, halted by the Northumbrians before it got into full swing and if people think of Vikings at all it might be simply as the founders of the Russian nations.

[Flocculencio]

Possible flag of an Anglo-Welsh Union?

(using the old Anglo-Saxon tradition of having a white dragon for England and a red dragon for Wales)

Thande that's a brilliant flag! Very stirring and inspiring.

Dragon-banners are always a good thing

[Thande]

The origins of the white and red dragons, incidentally, is from a prophecy of Merlin which used them as allegories for the struggle between the English and Welsh and foretold the rise of Arthur.

The white dragon flag fell out of use after the Norman conquest - the St George's cross is a Norman-imposed English flag - although, at least according to Bernard Cornwell, Edward III flew the white dragon at the Battle of Crécy and so won brownie points with his English commoner troops.

[Alratan]

Wouldn't it be more likely that the Vikings themselves would renew this venture, as they have been denied the British Ilses/Western European coast?

More likely they go east into Russia greater numbers, and that more end up as mercanaries in various contexts.

[Andrei]

We're assuming that the Cymri become the leading lights among the Celtic nations thus becoming their overlords and having all the Celtic regions brought under allegiance to the Cymri.

As for the Celts allying with the Vikings against Northumbria...they might well do that. However, without their landholds in Northern England and with their bases in the North Sea islands threatened by the Northumbrian Navy, Viking power projection capabilities have just gone down the toilet. Some of the Cymri chiefs might well choose to fight but I think victory would go to the canny ones who bend the knee to the King in Northumbria and will be rewarded with lands and thaneships for their troubles.



As to your first question, no. I explained that earlier. It's the other way around.

As for the elective monarchy, I envisaged something somewhat stronger than the Polish version- Anglo-Saxon monarchs already had a primitive version of what might be called a constitutional monarchy: they were very much restricted in their actions by the Witangemot, a "parliament" of the most powerful thanes in the land. Basically unlike the Poles the Anglo-Saxons would have the advantage of their very complex and convoluted legal system ensuring that no one gets too powerful. Even in OTL I see this system as an excellent example of the English cultural propensity towards compromise.

Carlito: Basically we're assuming a more pro-active Northumbria. You might very well see English longships sweeping into the fijords raping and burning as they come. After all that would be the best way to stop the Viking menace. Burn the farms, kill the males, enslave the women.

In TTLs history the Viking involvement in Western Europe might well be seen as an irrelevant blip, halted by the Northumbrians before it got into full swing and if people think of Vikings at all it might be simply as the founders of the Russian nations.


I see. This TL seems a little too optimistic to me , but it's an interesting TL nevertheless.

The Vikings might raid Germany , Poland and Russia more than they did in OTL in this case. Maybe the British kingdom would even allow them to settle in Normandy in order to fight the Franks , or just open the English Channel and allow them to raid France.

That flag with the dragons looks really cool.

[Rick Robinson]

As for the elective monarchy, I envisaged something somewhat stronger than the Polish version- Anglo-Saxon monarchs already had a primitive version of what might be called a constitutional monarchy

As I recall, something that crippled the Polish monarchy (much later) was that the Polish diet required unanimity - a single no vote constituted a veto. Hard to get much done!

But to strengthen the elective monarchy, the best thing would be emergence of a "House of Commons." A Witangemot dominated by powerful thanes has an interest in choosing weak kings - barons never want a strong king! But commoners generally want a strong king who will protect them against the barons. So if representatives of the burhs and perhaps lesser "thanes of the shires" win seats at the table, you get a Commons who want a king with teeth.

The struggle against the Danes could play into this too. In this TL the Norse threat doesn't simply evaporate; it is pushed back by strong kings. A monarchy capable of doing that is capable of building institutions that reinforce its position.


Basically we're assuming a more pro-active Northumbria. You might very well see English longships sweeping into the fijords raping and burning as they come. After all that would be the best way to stop the Viking menace. Burn the farms, kill the males, enslave the women.

In TTLs history the Viking involvement in Western Europe might well be seen as an irrelevant blip, halted by the Northumbrians before it got into full swing and if people think of Vikings at all it might be simply as the founders of the Russian nations.

And maybe a Varangian dynasty on the throne of Constantinople? All the Viking energy is being deflected eastward here, and that is a lot of energy! If the Vikings do conquer Constantinople, that needn't fundamentally alter Byzantine civilization - the new rulers of Miklagard will no doubt adapt, just as the Normans did. But it could give Byzantium an additional source of strength - lots of badass fighting men - for when the Seljuk Turks show up. :D

-- Rick

[Flocculencio]

The white dragon flag fell out of use after the Norman conquest - the St George's cross is a Norman-imposed English flag - although, at least according to Bernard Cornwell, Edward III flew the white dragon at the Battle of Crécy and so won brownie points with his English commoner troops.

IIRC Harald Godwinson flew a dragon banner at Hastings- it appears on the Bayeaux Tapestry so yes it would seem the white dragon was an accepted Saxon symbol

[Flocculencio]

But to strengthen the elective monarchy, the best thing would be emergence of a "House of Commons." A Witangemot dominated by powerful thanes has an interest in choosing weak kings - barons never want a strong king! But commoners generally want a strong king who will protect them against the barons. So if representatives of the burhs and perhaps lesser "thanes of the shires" win seats at the table, you get a Commons who want a king with teeth.

Ah but thanes aren't barons- it's title connected to actual economic worth. A thane was someone who owned five hides of land or the equivalent in goods or cash. It was the greater thanes, the earls who were more equivalent to the continental barons. However since a thane had greater responsibilities towards the Crown it's logical that many richer ceorls owning somewhat over four hides worth of land or goods might not wish to accumulate that little bit of extra wealth that would make them eligible for thaneship.

However with regard to protecting the commoners against the barons, you've got to remember that the Anglo-Saxons had a code of laws far stricter than Magna Carta which specifically delineated everyones rights and responsibilities. The commoners already have protection within that rule of law.

I see. This TL seems a little too optimistic to me , but it's an interesting TL nevertheless.

Well, yes it is a bit optimistic- however it has to be to fulfill the conditions of the thread i.e. Northumbria dominant. In order to do that you have to have the Northumbrians beat off the Vikings. If they can do that than it's quite definite that they have the power to dominate the rest of the island- after all they're the largest, richest and most advanced of the Anglo-Saxon realms.

Another point that struck me- housecarls.

I'm not too sure about the makeup of continental armies but the Anglo-Saxon monarchy did actually maintain a small standing professional force of housecarls. I guess you could consider them equivalent to the Varangian Guard or maybe an analogue to the Samurai. These were the guys who stood and died at Hastings. Having a professional core of soldiers in addition to the noblemen would give English armies a decent edge against Continental ones.

[Flocculencio]

And maybe a Varangian dynasty on the throne of Constantinople? All the Viking energy is being deflected eastward here, and that is a lot of energy! If the Vikings do conquer Constantinople, that needn't fundamentally alter Byzantine civilization - the new rulers of Miklagard will no doubt adapt, just as the Normans did. But it could give Byzantium an additional source of strength - lots of badass fighting men - for when the Seljuk Turks show up. :D

Could they take Constantinople though? You need siegecraft to do that generally. Unless, of course, it's done from the inside, with Norse nobles and troops gaining the Emperor's trust and being installed in important positions and then launching a coup.

[Alratan]

Could they take Constantinople though? You need siegecraft to do that generally. Unless, of course, it's done from the inside, with Norse nobles and troops gaining the Emperor's trust and being installed in important positions and then launching a coup.

The classic strategy of inviting in the barbarians to fight your own internal enemies, confident that they can find no support to overthrow you so far from home - and then finding that they've managed to do so anyway.

[Thande]

That flag with the dragons looks really cool.
Thank you.

It's a bit of a rush job, though, and I used the dragon off a present day Welsh flag - to be more accurate I think I should use dragons more like this one (from Henry Tudor's banner)...
http://flagspot.net/images/g/gb-hvii.gif

Or this one:
http://flagspot.net/images/g/gb-w-col.gif

Of course, the Saxon dragon might have looked totally different. I'll have to hunt up that Bayeux Tapestry reference Flocc mentioned.

[Flocculencio]

The classic strategy of inviting in the barbarians to fight your own internal enemies, confident that they can find no support to overthrow you so far from home - and then finding that they've managed to do so anyway.

Resourceful chaps, barbarians :D

Which, incidentally is how the Anglo-Saxons got their first footholds in Britain.

Romano-Briton 1: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...with the legions gone who will protect us from the ravening Teutonic hordes?

Romano-Briton 2: Hey! Lets hire some of them as mercenaries. After all, set a thief to catch a thief.

<one Saxon conquest later>

Saxon Thane: For you, Briton, ze vor is ofer!

[Flocculencio]

Of course, the Saxon dragon might have looked totally different. I'll have to hunt up that Bayeux Tapestry reference Flocc mentioned.

Here ya go. Unfortunately it's rather crudely done. Bloody Bishop Odo* and his poor quality control measures...

http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/draco18.jpg

However rather than a banner with a dragon on it's an actual dragon-shaped banner (just like Harald Haardraada's Raven banner, Hrafn).

Thande: The dragon banner just adds to the House of Tudor's already stunning accumulation of raw kickassery.

*Odo, however, does get admitted to Mentos-level coolness due to the fact that he was a fighting bishop.

[Thande]

Odd, because that looks like a Red dragon... :confused:

Thande: The dragon banner just adds to the House of Tudor's already stunning accumulation of raw kickassery.
You can't say that! They're Welsh! :p

Odo, however, does get admitted to Mentos-level coolness due to the fact that he was a fighting bishop.
Yeah, I love the fact that in those times there was a loophole in the ecclesiastical law - churchmen couldn't use weapons to draw blood. So there were lots of fighting bishops who used big crushing hammers and that sort of thing instead of swords. :cool:

It's also the origin of the Spanish Inquisition using red hot pokers - because the wounds cauterise immediately, so they couldn't be raked over the coals (non-figuratively speaking :rolleyes: ) for drawing blood.

[Alratan]

Looking back to the map, I'm suprised that the Scots have managed to hold Fife, and conversely that "Northumbria" (perhaps, given the Overking model, it could be called the United Kingdoms earlier than OTL) manages to hold
the Hebridies when it should be easy for the Scots to close the gap between Ireland and Scotland, and that Cymru holds Stratchcylde with Northumbria holds Man in the middle - unless of cause, it was the fall of Man that caused the vassalage of Cymru.

If this was the case, then you'd imagine that there would have been a naval arms race in Britain between the three nations. If this had been ongoing for a few decades/ a century by the time the Viking age began (if we can manage unification at the right time, eariler than OTL, probably) then maybe we can have our reason for the defeat over the Vikings.

[Flocculencio]

You can't say that! They're Welsh! :p

I dare you to go back in time and say that to Henry VIII's face :D

Actually, even better, bring him back and we can launch a coup to reinstate the house of Tudor. Under Great Harry, the United Kingdom will once again rise to glory.

Henry Tudor. The Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann of English Monarchs.

[Flocculencio]

Looking back to the map, I'm suprised that the Scots have managed to hold Fife, and conversely that "Northumbria" (perhaps, given the Overking model, it could be called the United Kingdoms earlier than OTL) manages to hold
the Hebridies when it should be easy for the Scots to close the gap between Ireland and Scotland, and that Cymru holds Stratchcylde with Northumbria holds Man in the middle - unless of cause, it was the fall of Man that caused the vassalage of Cymru.

If this was the case, then you'd imagine that there would have been a naval arms race in Britain between the three nations. If this had been ongoing for a few decades/ a century by the time the Viking age began (if we can manage unification at the right time, eariler than OTL, probably) then maybe we can have our reason for the defeat over the Vikings.

My take on it was that some of the Cymri chiefs sold out their brethren by kneeling to the Overking and being rewarded with lands and domination over the Celts of Great Britain.

I too have issues with the ability of the Scots to hold the lands shown in tha map- I don't think they'd have to organisation to hold their own in a naval arms race with the Overkingdom.

With regard to the comments abut the possible stillbirth of the Papacy in TTL, perhaps Great Britain becomes the centre of Western Christendom in TTL? If Celtic Christianity is the brand that achieves dominance in France and, say Germany and Scandinavia the Archbishop of Durham might well become Primus inter Pares of the Western Church while the Latin Church remains confined to the Italian peninsula.
Of course Celtic Christianity was quite different (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity#Differences_from_the_rest_of_R oman_Catholicism) from the Latin version- a lot more emphasis on monasticism for instance.

[Flocculencio]

Odd, because that looks like a Red dragon... :confused:


I'm going to call that artistic license though. A white dragon wouldn't have shown up as well. Plus, a lot of the other details of the Tapestry are in red (such as the Anglo-Saxon armour)

[Thande]

I dare you to go back in time and say that to Henry VIII's face

Well, Henry the 1/8th was half Yorkshire, so he's all right. :p

[Rick Robinson]

With regard to the comments abut the possible stillbirth of the Papacy in TTL, perhaps Great Britain becomes the centre of Western Christendom in TTL? If Celtic Christianity is the brand that achieves dominance in France and, say Germany and Scandinavia the Archbishop of Durham might well become Primus inter Pares of the Western Church while the Latin Church remains confined to the Italian peninsula.

Of course Celtic Christianity was quite different from the Latin version- a lot more emphasis on monasticism for instance.

If Western Europe swings toward Celtic Rite, Italy might follow, or drift back toward Orthodoxy (depending in part on TTL political developments), or retain a distinctive Latin Church of its own. Even then it will have a quite different development. No Hildebrandine reforms, or different ones instead.

The Papacy in OTL was in a very bad way in the 10th century - the period is called the Pornocracy, because a couple of wealthy courtesans arranged for their boyfriends or sons to become Pope. (The legend of Pope Joan probably originates with this.) All of that may well be butterflied, but if something similar happens, Italy too might follow the rest of the West.

The Pelagian question also rears its head - the article you linked touches on this. In OTL, I believe, Augustine had won out over Pelagius before the Celtic Church went its own way. But a somewhat Pelagian streak seems rooted in the British - including English - temperament; Anglicanism has often been accused of being semi-Pelagian in attitude if not formal theology. So a dominant Celtic Church might well drift toward de facto Pelagianism.

(I'm writing an allohistorical fantasy - not an AH in the formal sense - about a para-Britain, Lyonesse, with a Pelagian Church. "For God and St. Pelly!")

-- Rick

[Flocculencio]

So how do y'all think about the possibility of Vinland being settled not by refugees from a poor colony of a poor nation but by expeditions backed by the population and resources of most of the British Isles?

Norman and I already did something like this in our "Anglo-Saxon TL (http://www.alternatehistory.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=757&page=11&highlight=anglo-Saxon)" two years ago but that had a very different POD behind it.

What do people think might happen in TTL?

[Alratan]

If Western Europe swings toward Celtic Rite, Italy might follow, or drift back toward Orthodoxy (depending in part on TTL political developments), or retain a distinctive Latin Church of its own. Even then it will have a quite different development. No Hildebrandine reforms, or different ones instead.

For the sake of an interesting world, I think I'd prefer to keep a stronger Southern European bent to most of Christianity.

How about this, with some of my favourite dark age PODs butterflies for good measure:

Independant Celtic Church in the British Isles.

With a British church supported by the Northumbrian throne, the dialogue with Rome comes to a head before OTL, and the equivilent of Whitby is an emphatic rejection.

This has some butterflies so 15 years later Gregory defeats the Arabs at Sufetula, temporarily halting the arab advance into Africa.

Time passes, and the arabs do move into northern Egypt, but much slower and to a lesser extent than OTL. The Arabs are even pushed out of Egypt a couple of times, and with the war going back and forth so much, conversion is much reduced from OTL. This leaves strong Patriarchs in the North African to produce a multipolar Christian world, with the Bishop of Rome powerful, dominating France, Italy, and northern Spain, claiming the title of Pope, but irrelevant to most Chistians. This is delayed, by conflicts with the British church in northern France and the low countries (which are eventually won), and less energy is spared for quarreling with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Viking age starts, but they are hampered from raiding the British Isles by the Northumbians, and they mainly go East, into Russia. A substantial number end up recrucited as mercenaries by the Byzantines, and at some point a Norse dynasty gains power, marrying the previous Emperor's daughter or some such. As a result, Scandinavia falls under the influence of the Eastern rites.

Dates are less sure, and I'm not sure how realistic this is.

Basically, by 1000, the Roman Church is Italy, France, and Southern Germany. The other extant Patriarchies (Alexandria, Carthage, Constantinople) are independant, although the latter is the most influential. The Patriarchy of Antioch really only exists in name only, as the lack of Arabs in North Africa means more in Asia Minor. The Abbots of Britain exist in council and control the Church in the British Isles (and perhaps Vinland?)

[Andrei]

So how do y'all think about the possibility of Vinland being settled not by refugees from a poor colony of a poor nation but by expeditions backed by the population and resources of most of the British Isles?

Norman and I already did something like this in our "Anglo-Saxon TL (http://www.alternatehistory.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=757&page=11&highlight=anglo-Saxon)" two years ago but that had a very different POD behind it.

What do people think might happen in TTL?

I doubt that.

I think the Vikings colonised Greenland , Iceland and Vinland because they didn't have a choice. They didn't have enough space in Scandinavia , and they couldn't conquer Germany or France. They also tried to settle in the British Isles.

The Anglo-Welsh would have to have settlements in Iceland and Greenland in order to have a chance to discover America , let alone colonize it.
But why would they need to send ships and men over the ocean , to settle in some distant and cold regions when they have almost the whole Britain at their disposal?
They could conquer the rest of Scotland , and Ireland is much closer if they need more land.

Further more , the Anglo-Welsh will have more pressing problems to take care off: Franks , Vikings , religious disputes with Rome , maybe some civil wars between the great houses and so on.
Remember , the Europeans ( except the Vikings ) didn't have a clue about what was beyond the Atlantic. Actually , they thought it was the end of the Earth.
The Europeans discovered America and settled it when they needed to , after the Ottomans had closed the land route to India and China.

[Wendell]

I doubt that.

I think the Vikings colonised Greenland , Iceland and Vinland because they didn't have a choice. They didn't have enough space in Scandinavia , and they couldn't conquer Germany or France. They also tried to settle in the British Isles.

The Anglo-Welsh would have to have settlements in Iceland and Greenland in order to have a chance to discover America , let alone colonize it.
But why would they need to send ships and men over the ocean , to settle in some distant and cold regions when they have almost the whole Britain at their disposal?
They could conquer the rest of Scotland , and Ireland is much closer if they need more land.

Further more , the Anglo-Welsh will have more pressing problems to take care off: Franks , Vikings , religious disputes with Rome , maybe some civil wars between the great houses and so on.
Remember , the Europeans ( except the Vikings ) didn't have a clue about what was beyond the Atlantic. Actually , they thought it was the end of the Earth.
The Europeans discovered America and settled it when they needed to , after the Ottomans had closed the land route to India and China.
Disputes with Rome would be a good reason to find new lands.

[Alratan]

Disputes with Rome would be a good reason to find new lands.
Disputes with Rome would keep Britain focused on the Continent. The best that can be done is something like my scenario above, where Rome wins in Western Europe but has sufficient competitors that it then gets distracted by African and Eastern rivalries and writes the British isles off as not worth the troouble, but puts them under interdict, restricting trade to places requiring more work, such as the Norse. Conflicts with them can lead the British to iceland. Civil disputes, as long as they stay relatively civilized, work tp help this, with the loosers exiled to a small island in the Atlantic rather than killed

[Phoenix]

Does anyone want to work on a timeline?

Using some or all of the suggestions made?

[Rick Robinson]

This leaves strong Patriarchs in the North African to produce a multipolar Christian world, with the Bishop of Rome powerful, dominating France, Italy, and northern Spain, claiming the title of Pope, but irrelevant to most Chistians ...

Basically, by 1000, the Roman Church is Italy, France, and Southern Germany. The other extant Patriarchies (Alexandria, Carthage, Constantinople) are independant, although the latter is the most influential.

One change - Pre-Muslim North Africa was Latin-speaking (at least the educated, urban population) and Western Catholic. Remember where St. Augustine - the theologian, not the missionary to the English - came from! Absent the Muslim conquest it will probably develop a romance language and continue to tip toward Rome in religion.

But you'll also get all sorts of butterflies from the absence of Muslim ascendency in the western Mediterranean, likely even in the eastern Med. That changes the whole maritime and trade balance in the era around 700-1000.

-- Rick

[Alratan]

One change - Pre-Muslim North Africa was Latin-speaking (at least the educated, urban population) and Western Catholic. Remember where St. Augustine - the theologian, not the missionary to the English - came from! Absent the Muslim conquest it will probably develop a romance language and continue to tip toward Rome in religion.

This is true, but my expectation would be that simply having more Patriarchs, desite them being generally Roman in thought, would lead to more dissent, and a less powerful central church, with the individual Patriarchs having significant local power. For example, part of the Popes power was his ability to crown the HRE. If North Africa remains an independant Christian state, then the Exarch/local Emperor is very unlikely to sumbit to this, and would almost certainly want to make the local Patriarchy independant of Rome. It's not like there aren't plenty of opportunities for schism in this era - so we could see three major Christian churches in the Med, the Roman, the Eastern, and the African, with attempts at reconcilliation frustated by the Patriarchs being used as political tools by their respective rulers.


This would be a side show to the timeline though, mainly as an excuse for why even less interest would be paid to Britain by the Roman church.

[Alratan]

On consideration, I don't think the Northumbrians can defeat the Mercians and Welsh at the same time.

Perhaps the best POD is that Edwin and Cadwallon don't fall out as young men/children. They somehow become friends, and Edwin marries one of Cadwallon/Cadfed's female relatives, which incidentally means he converts by to Christianity, and a British churchman is appointed to York.

This means that when Cadfan dies, Edwin doesn’t move against Gwynned, instead directing his forces north, rooting out the remainder of the Bernician dynasty from the Scottish and Pictish kingdoms to the North, and then, latterly, against Mercia. The dates are thus.

c.595 Edwin seeks refuge at the court of Gwynned, becoming friendly with Cadwallon, foster nephew of King Iago, and Cadfan, his heir.

612: Edwin marries his good friend Cadwallon of Gwynned's sister/cousin whilst in exile there, and accepts conversion to Christianity.

613: Aethelfirth defeats the North Welsh at Chester. Edwin and family flee Gwyned to the court of King Redwald of East Anglia.

616: Edwin and Redwald defeat Aethelfirth, with substantial aid provided by Gwynned. Aethelfith and two of his sons are slain. One flees to the north.

616-625: Edwin consolidates his position in Bernica and Deira, forming the foundations for what will be later called Northumbria. He leads warbands against the Scots and then the Picts who shelter the survivors of the Bernican dynasty. In alliance with North Rheged and Gwynned he conquors South Rheged, which is split between Gwynned and North Rheged, the latter which has accepted sub-Kingdom status to Northumbria. A Prince of North Rheged, Rhun, is made Bishop of what would be known OTL as York as part of the deal. During the same period he forces Lindsey and Emnet to accept sub-Kingdom status. He invites missionaries from Gwynned into his lands to convert his people, and accepts consecration from the aforementioned Prince Rhun before he crowns himself at York.

625: Like in OTL, the other English kingdoms have little fondness for a strong Northumbria, and the Mercians in particular have less fondness for Edwin's Welsh alliances, which threaten them to the West. As in OTL, they react by forming a Mercian-Wessex alliance, and by attempting assassination a year earlier than in OTL, which still fails. With his Welsh allies threatening Mercia from the West, and Edwin attacking from the North, Penda of Mercia betrays the Wessex kings and allows Edwin free passage. Edwin links up with a couple of Welsh warbands and defeats the Kings of Wessex, killing them and their heirs. Their successors accept him as Bretwalgda. In thanks, for his victory, Edwin sponsors / compels the conversion of his nobles/sub-Kings to Christianity, although of a different bent to OTL.

626: Edwin invades and conquers Man, on the pretext of them harbouring the South Redged royal family. King Cadfan of Gwynned dies, succeeded by Cadwallon. Fearing that Cadwollan is as much a friend to Edwin as his predecessor, the King of Man flees to Strathclyde. Penda becomes King of Mercia.

627: Edwin invades and conquers Strathclyde, killing King Bili, and installing a rival claimant to the throne would fled to Rheged 6 years previously at the death of King Neithon.

629: Penda of Mercia defeats an aliance of West Saxon Kings that sought revenge for his earlier treachery.

630-633: Edwin begins a long series of campaigns against the Dalradian Kingdom in Sctland, whilst Cadwallon and the Edwin's tributary King of Rheged does the same in Ireland, using Man as a stopping off point. During this period he fortifies York and establishes more than one monastery in thanks for his victories.

631-632: The West Saxons and Penda of Mercia begin attacking the southern and Western Welsh kingdoms, with the exclusion of Powyrs which entered an alliance with Gwynned during the war of 625, meeting significant success.

632: The Anglian throne changes hands from a pagan to a Christian who had been in exile in France. He invites missionaries from Canterbury into his lands

633: Penda of Mercia tries to take advantage of his northern rival's preoccupation to the north and west by attacking Powys, which is allied to Gwynned, whilst attempting to bribe Edwin not to intervene. Unfortunately, he underestimated the influence that Edwin's wife, Cadwallon's sister had on her husband, and Edwin brings forces home to attack Mercia.

634. After a series of victories against Powyrs and Gwynned, including a notable slaughter of the entire royal house of the former is annihilated, Penda is brought to battle by the combined forces of Edwin and Cadwallon. Penda is slain, and the Mercian forces are virtually annihilated.

The Northumbrian forces press into Mercia, seeing significant successes, whilst the forces from Gwynned move round the coats of Wales to expel the West Saxons. This campaign sees heavy use of the ships that Cadwallon had used in the Irish campaign.

635: Edwin defeats a second major Mercian army, and demands that Mercia accept status as a sub-Kingdom. The remaining Mercian royal family flees into Anglia, where they accept conversion to the Roman church as the price for sanctuary. Edwin attempts to impose a peace on Mercia, splitting the area into sub-kingdoms and accepting independent submission from various local nobles.

636-639: Having finished cleaning up the West saxons in Wales, Cadwallon invades Wessex in alliance with Dumnonia, and procedes to harow the place. Many lords of Wessex swear fealty to kings of Essex, Anglia, or Sussex for protection. The region takes generations to recover from the damage. During this period Edwin works to unify his rather fractious kingdom and keep his sub-kings in check. Surprisingly, he finds the British sub-kings in Rheged and Strathclyde to be more amenable than the Saxon lords.

636: Osric, eldest son of King Edwin of Northumbria, marries Princess Rhiainfelt, heiress of Rheged.

637: Edwin enters Goddoddin by invitation of one of the claimants to the throne after the King is slain in a series of devastating raids from the north.

638: Northumbrian (including men from several sub-Kingdoms) forces raid north from Goddoddin is accordance with the terms of their vassalage. These raids go poorly, and Edwin's eldest son, Osric, who had lead a warband as part of Cadwallon's campaign against the West Saxons in southern Wales, orders that naval raids be carried out against enemy positions north of the Forth, this is the beginning of the Northumbria tradition of naval warfare, which has significant future implications.

638: Various Kings of Essex, Anglia, and Kent meet, along with some of the lords of Wessex, to discuss an alliance against the Welsh-Northumbrian axis. They form a compact which in later years is called the Southumbrian axis

639: Cadwollan dies, apparently of natural causes. His death is a welcome relief to the West saxons however, and to the various Welsh forces who have grown weary of slaughtering them in the past three years. One of Cadwollan's sons is betrothed to a niece of Edwin, and the threat of Northumbria intervention ensures he becomes King.

643: Edwin is assassinated, at the grand old age of 58. The death is blamed on various parties, but Osric, seeking to prevent dynastic warfare, points the finger at the Southumbrian alliance and the still restive lords of Mercia.

To be continued?

Suggestions? Comments?

Is it too obscure/too detailed?

[AuroraBorealis]

I doubt that.

I think the Vikings colonised Greenland , Iceland and Vinland because they didn't have a choice. They didn't have enough space in Scandinavia , and they couldn't conquer Germany or France. They also tried to settle in the British Isles.

The Anglo-Welsh would have to have settlements in Iceland and Greenland in order to have a chance to discover America , let alone colonize it.
But why would they need to send ships and men over the ocean , to settle in some distant and cold regions when they have almost the whole Britain at their disposal?
They could conquer the rest of Scotland , and Ireland is much closer if they need more land.

Further more , the Anglo-Welsh will have more pressing problems to take care off: Franks , Vikings , religious disputes with Rome , maybe some civil wars between the great houses and so on.
Remember , the Europeans ( except the Vikings ) didn't have a clue about what was beyond the Atlantic. Actually , they thought it was the end of the Earth.
The Europeans discovered America and settled it when they needed to , after the Ottomans had closed the land route to India and China.

I would have to concur with this assessment. It is possible to hypothesize that the Danish Vikings might be turned eastward but the Norse are firmly oriented westward. their movement outward is driven in part by population pressure on their homeland. They have to go somewhere. Defeated by the Northumbrians. They will fall harder on Ireland or push outward through the islands of the North Atlantic in greater numbers to Iceland. With more people coming to Iceland and thence Greenland they will be forced to push further west again. The first settlements in Vinland might fail. However with a steady stream of Norse through the North Atlantic, they will eventually establish a colony that can then feed resources to Greenland so that it survives this time around. The Norse are likely to become the pre-eminent maritime power. Necessity being the mother of invention, they will take the lead in developing maritime vessels capable of maintaining the long distance communication across the North Atlantic. A Northumbrian Britain does not have this need and will be concerned with matters in the British isles and disputes with Rome. Their interests will be in maintaining a force sufficient to guard their coasts from Norse incursions only.

European deseases will make their way among the peoples of the Eastern Woodlands earlier making them a more hardy people when the Europeans finally turn their attn to North America. The Norse will establish colonies in Vinland and Markland but after that they are likely to run into opposition from the Natives further inland. this is going to be very interesting if you get an analogue to the Union of Kalmar ( The roles of Sweden and Norway could well be reversed this time around) this TL or the Scandinavians are Orthodox this time around.

[Alratan]

Follow on from above timeline:

A map of the situation on the eva of Edwin's death:

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/375/britain6501ws.jpg

The situtation is this:

Northumbria marks all the area which has been integrated under nobles directly sworn to Edwin.

Strathclyde, Goddodin and Rheged are British tributary kingdoms sworn in fealty to Edwin. Edwin's eldest son, Osric is married to the heiress of Rhegded, and has frindly relations with the other two tributary royal families, who fear the rapaciousness of the saxon nobility of Northumbria proper.

Many (but not most) of the nobility in what as South Rheged are Saxons given land after its conquest, who see their main loyalty to Edwin rather than their nominal British overlords. It is fortunate that these unify in the person of Osric, Edwin's son.

Ynwys Manw is ruled by Saxon nobility transplanted from Norhtumbria after the conquest. They have converted to Christianity and married into the old royal family.

Mercia and Wessex are not unified. Both are fragmented into several sub-kingdoms which have all acknowledged Edwin as overking. Anglia, Essex, and Sissex have expanded into these lands, particulerly Wessex. The nobility of both these lands have officialy accepted conversion to Christianity under the auspices of the British church. Many of the the nobles in what is still acknowledged as northern Mercia are Northumbrians who have been givern land after Edwin's conquests.

Gwynned has incorporated Powrys after the elimination of its royal family by Penda. Due to Northumbrian support Gwynned has remained unified upon the succesion.

The kingdoms in the South of Wales are strongly Gywnned dominated after the war with the West Saxons killed much of the nobility, which was replaced by imports from the North.

Dumnonia has expanded at the expense of the West Saxons post-Harrowing.

Dalriada has suffered losses to Northumbria (or, more precsiely, its client kingdom of Strathcylde, and was saved by the calling away of forces to the South).

Anglia, Kent, and Sussex all have accepted conversion to Christianity in the Roman tradition, and have been crowned by the Archbishop of Cantebury. Strong efforts of conversion are being made into Wessex by the Roman church. It is falling on receptive ears, as it is being combined with preaching against the heretic Britons, who up until recently have been ravaging the area.

Sussex has taken the Isle of Wight.

In religious news, relations between the Roman and provinical British church are significantly less good than OTL without Edwin's patronage. British and Irish missionaires are enjoying significant success in Northumbia and North/West Mercia.

[Thande]

Excellent work, Alratan.

[Alratan]

Many thanks.

It's difficult to work out what to do from here.

I've strained the boundaries of historical possibility a little bit in places - the Saxons nobility is being too tolerant of not being given as much loot and land
from British conquests as OTL, and increased Chrisitan penetration is too minor at this point to justify it. The British kingdoms are also rolling over and accepting sub-kingdom status a bit too readily, but some did this in OTL.

The main probelm is that I'm stretching the events to try and produce a country which can conceive of the notion of naval assault, which Anglo-Saxon Britain had a bit of a mental block about, whilst also having a country which isn't riven with internal fractures for the Norse to exploit.

A little later the British have significant contact with NW Europe in general, so I'll try and work something in there, perhaps missionaries can be backed with some more military force.

Any ideas on this?

The most immediate questions are what happens now Edwin is gone?

Do the tributary kingdoms stay loyal, does the alliance with Gwynned hold - can Gwynned hold the territories it has taken?

I have a couple of ideas - proto-Viking Northumbrians raiding down the Southubrians along the East coast and up the Thames after Mercia and Wessex stalemate or Osric fails to secur enough support to go campaigning but must be seen to be doing something, but I'm not sure.

Edit: The placing of the Northumbia legend south of the Humber is a deliberate mistake. ;)

[Alratan]

As no one has demurred yet, I'll post another few years:

643: Osric, as eldest surviving son of Edwin, heir of Redged, takes the throne of Northumbria as the age of 29. He invites "all the Kings of Britannia, inferior and superior" to the ceremony marking his accession, but few attend except for the King of Gwynned and it and Northumbria's vassals. Only one of the sub-Kings of Mercia attends, and none of the sub-Kings of Wessex nominally sworn to his father.. A number of minor Irish kings send representatives. He accepts consecration from the Abbot of the monastery of Eboracum (York), before crowning himself. The Saxon kings present accept him as Bretwalgda, but the absence of the other major Saxon kings is an embarrassment.

After the ceremony, he sends messengers to these Kings of the Southumbrian alliance (Anglia, Sussex, Essex, Kent, Wessex and the eastern sub-Kingdoms of Mercia), asking them to remember their oaths to his father and to turn over those he claim are the sponsors of his assassination, i.e. the royal family of Mercia in exile. They stonewall, and attempt to draw out negotiations.

644: Osric attempts to bring the two rebel sub-Kings of Mercia to heel. This does not go particularly well, an army lead by one of Osric's brothers is defeated at Hampton (OTL North Hampton). This endeavour is not aided by the eruption of South Wales into rebellion against their vassalage, meaning that Welsh troops cannot be brought to fight in Mercia. As a decade earlier, the North Welsh make good use of naval transport in their campaign.

645: With his position weakened at home by the defeats he previous year, and his absence from a couple of key battles, Osric takes a major risk. Using the ships built up in the North East for the past seven years to raid the Picts, combined with impressed merchant vessels, and a number of Frisian mercenaries/merchants, in late spring he launches the largest naval action seen in Britain since the arrival of the Saxons.

His heavily laden fleet raids down the east coast of Anglia, Essex, and even as far as Kent, looting and burning, and taking hostages. The port of Gippeswyc (Ipswich) is burnt to the ground and the ships there stolen, and many small coastal villages receive similar treatment.

In a notorious incident, a warband of less-Christianised Northumbrians burns a church to the ground, loots it and kills the priest when the locals seek sanctuary there.

This has a devastating effect on the Southumbrian alliance - there fighting men were in Mercia and those parts of Northumbria south of the Humber, fighting forces Osric had raised in Rheged, and there homes were undefended.

Osric returns to Northumbria with a significant amount of loot for his men, having secured his position, leaving the Southumbrian kingdoms in chaos.

Many of the Southumbrian warbands return home, and King Osric unites with the forces he has called from Rheged latter in the year, and drives the remaining hostile forces from Mercia by the end of the summer.

Osric is forced to divert significant forces north at this point, as the Picts have raided his Northern British vassles in considerable force, by both land and sea, so cannot press his advantage immediatrly.

646: After having dealt with the Picts in the north, and launched several punitive raids north, Osric sends forces into South Wales in support of Gwynned early in the year, whilst continuing serious raiding by land and sea against the Southumbria kingdoms.

Unusually, Osric offers a peacable settlement to the Southumbian kings (it is claimed it is offered from Christian fellow feeling, but in reality Osric is probaby aware of the cost of the war and the need to consolidate his rulership over Northumbria). Having little choice, the surving Kings of Anglia, Essex, Sussex, and Wesex hand over the remaining Mercian royals, pay a humiliating tribute, and recognise Osric as Bretwalgda. The latter occurs in a ceremony at Eboracum, and oaths are sworn on the relics (any idea which Saint) at the monastery there, before the Abbot.

From this point on, everyone living in costal Britain will be well aware of the dangers of pirate raids, what with the Picts going back to old piratical habits from the north and the Saxons adding naval raiding to their lexicon of warfare. The tendency for wealthy monasteries to be based on islands or very close to the coast gets scotched in the bud in this TL.

Any thoughts. Is the pushing of the naval aspect to soon to fast, or is it just flat implausible?

[Keenir]

Could they take Constantinople though? You need siegecraft to do that generally. Unless, of course, it's done from the inside, with Norse nobles and troops gaining the Emperor's trust and being installed in important positions and then launching a coup.

...and once they're in the positions of power, why would they want to trudge out to the eastern end of their empire to wave swords (halberds being a sign of ancestral barbarism) at some barbarians?

better to send the Byzantine Greeks out east....hoping they don't double-cross the Vikings.
:)

[Alratan]

In other news:

The Eastern Empire

629: Heraclius celebrates his victory over the Persians by entering Jerusalem as a pilgrim, one year earlier than OTL after making an earlier alliance with the Axumites, and maintaining the alliance with the Khazars for six months longer.

Khālid bin Walīd dies in battle against the Gassinids, along with several other important Arab leaders after more forces than OTL are sent to deal with them. This has important consequences for the future development of Islam.

634: The Arabs invaded Syria and the Levant on schedule

635: Heraclius is in significantly better health than OTL thanks to the earlier conclusion of the previous war, and his empire is slightly less exhausted by war. He mobilities faster, and prepares to liberate his possessions.

636: Heraclius leads his armies against the Arabs. He avoids making some the mistakes made in OTL, and manages to pay off the Gassanids so they don't defect, he is also helped by the fact that the Arabs are lacking several commanders they would have had in OTL. The Arabs are resoundingly defeated, many are put to the sword.

637: Heraclius presses the Arabs south into the Arabian peninsula, renewing his earlier alliance with the Axumites, paying them to attack from the south.

Unfortunately for the Axumites, later in the year rebellion erupts in Constantinople as a response to the heavy taxes required to pay for the wars and alliance. Heraclius returns to his capital, where the gates are opened for him by loyalists. It is discovered that Martina and her son Heraclius where amongst the conspirators, and they commit suicide.

638: Heraclius cleans up the mess the rebellion has left, and beds in some of his military reforms.

639: The Arabs defeat the Axumites in a major battle in OTL Yemen. Heraclius convenes the Conclave of Jerusalem, hoping to push Monothelitism to solve the schism.

640: In a controversial letter, Heraclius implies the equivalence of the Pope with the other Patriarchs, modifying Phocas' recognition of the Bishop of Rome as universal bishop, recognizing instead all the important Patriarchs as being the spiritual successors of the Apostles, each having a responsibility to check each other for error.

641: Heraclius falls ill. His son Heraclius Constantine inherits the throne, blaming the stress of holding the religious tensions in check for his father's death. He privately repeats his father's doctrine about papal non-supremacy.

642: Byzantine generals check another Arab invasion into Syria, but in the south Axumite resistance collapses. The Arabs also score significant successes against the Persians, still weakened after their defeat by Heraclius.

645: A major Arab invasion defeats the Byzantines in Egypt after the Copts refuse to fight.

646: Heraclius Constantine "leads" forces from the north whilst the Exarch of Cartage leads forces from North Africa into Egypt. The relatively small Arab armies are crushed, and the Copts are made to suffer quite significantly. Despite his strategic victory in the campaign he he is nearly killed during one battle, falling seriously ill, and the Exarch of Cartage is killed. He dies shortly after his return to Constantinople. At the tender age of 16 Constans II ascends to the throne.

The Roman Church:

618: Pope Adeodatus I dies. He is succeded shortly afterwards by Gregory II, who focuses his efforts on securing the Church's influence in Italy, via alliance with the Merovingian kings. The previous popes' focus on the Christianizing of Britain lapse during his reign, after an emissary to Edwin of Northumbria is seriously rebuffed when he accidentally implies that the already Christian Edwin should convert to the true faith. He allows relations with the Emperor in Constantinople deteriorate, as he sees the troubles the Eastern Empire are having as serving to free his hand in Italy. By the time of his death the Church has made significant advances against the power of the Exarch of Ravenna, capitalizing on the rebellion of the holder of that post in the year of his accession.

628: Pope Gregory II dies, and is succeeded by Boniface V (a different one to OTL). He modifies his predecessors policies towards the East, seeking to consolidate the Churches gains in the face of a resurgent Eastern Empire, although he continues his policies in other areas - much missionary effort is devoted to southern Germany. He does not support Monothelitism despite strong pressure from the Emperor to do so, although the Emperor has fewer levers than OTL thanks to the weaker nature of the Exarchate of Ravenna.

639: Pope Boniface V attends the Conclave of Jerusalem, where he rejects Monothelitism, but also manages to let down over a decade of quiet diplomacy on the part of his nuncios to the other Patriarchs by managing to offend not only the representatives of the monophysite churches, but also his nominal theological allies amongst the Chalcedonian churches, by re-emphasizing Gregory I's opinion that "without the authority and the consent of the apostolic see, none of the matters transacted [by a council] have any binding force."

This sets the scene for Heraclius letter movement against the Pope.

641; Boniface V rejects Heraclius' letter as a step above heresy, and sets about convincing the Western bishops of the benefits of deferring to him.

643: Boniface V dies and is succeeded by Gregory III

[G.Bone]

Great TL - it's surprising that you cobbled all the ideas and forged this story out of it. The first bit is really confusing because of all the names of the kingdoms bandied about - perhaps sort of a who's who and what's what is in order. But apart from that it's really well done - and I think the writing in the second installment is actually better than the first. Good Job and keep up the good work!:)

[Alratan]

That's a good idea.

After the next installement in Britain I will post an updated map and a summary of what's going on.

I agree that the political situation is confusing - but that's dark age Britain for you - part of the problem is that the surviving histories aren't exactly what you would call reliable... Even the existance of "kingdoms" can be a bit vague.

[Alratan]

647: Cadfan, King of Gwynedd, narrowly survives an assassination attempt, but his wife is killed. Blaming his recalcitrant sub-Kings in southern Wales, who only gained their current titles after the suppression of the latest rebellion there, he executes two of them (of Ceredigon and Dyfed) and resolves to rule them directly. He makes it clear to the two remaining client kingdoms that they are on a short leash. To secure his dynasty, he marries his son to the daughter of the High King of Dumnonia. Partially as a result of this, the King of Glastening is forced to accept vassalage to Dumnonia.


647-655: Britannia superior is generally peaceful. During this period Osric continues his father's work of unifying his Kingdom. This is a period notable for seeing the beginning of the tradition of monastic schools, particularly the one in York, educating the children of the powerful. This policy is invented by Osric to supply him with a ready supply of hostages/alternate claimants to titles. Osric also works to integrate the British and Saxon nobililities, given that more than half his kingdom(s) and British. Cadfan of Gwynedd spends a significant amount of effort during this period of Irish adventures, gaining and loosing vassals periodically, bu also works to integrate the lands he has seized. He also lays the ground work for his eldest son to inherit everything, rather than reverting to older principles. Osric also sponsors significant missionary activity, brining in missionaries from British and Irish churches and preventing backsliding amongst the ruling classes. This goes well, although it makes more headway in Mercia and Northumbria than in Wessex, where the Roman church is more active (even if less than OTL). During this period the Picts continue raiding the coasts, both East and West, all the way down to the Mersey and the Humber. Osric counter-raids, but spends more effort fortifying the coasts, and putting in place measures to make raiding unprofitable. In this period we see the beginning of the flowering of Anglo-British culture and theology as the British and Saxons begin to mutually assimilate.


648: The sub-King of the northwestern part of Mercia dies. Osric asserts that it his right as Bretwalgda to determine the succession. He does do, appointing a Northumbrian man to the position, marrying him the the daughter of his predecessor. It is not the control of the succession which is notable, but Osric's assertion that it is legitimized by his position of Bretwalgda. The other Anglo-Saxon Kings take note.


649: Osric of Northumbria founds the Abbey of Dore (approximately the location of OTL Sheffield), giving it substantial lands and resources, and a mission to support conversion. In this year, Abbes Brigid of Kildare (who took the name of the Founder of the Abbey) sends the first of her letters, which are both a cause and a symptom of the continued divergence of the British and Roman faiths. The letters themselves, and the associated correspondence with other British theologians, are given a greater significance by later historians in light of later events. The first is titled The Fallibility of Man, and is on the subject of the possibility that individual clergy may fall into error, and that the church as a corporate body should determine doctrine. These letters


651: The sub-King of the northern part of Wessex dies. Once more Osric appoints a successor, but this time chooses amongst the dead man's heirs. The West saxons do not like this, but are too weak to protest, as the British are only held back by the good graces of Osric.


653: In retaliation for continued raiding, Osric's son Edwin leads significant forces against the Picts of Fife. He forces the King of Fife to accept vassalage to Northumbria.


654: Edwin marries the daughter of Cadfan of Gwynedd.


655: Anna, King of the East Angles dies. Osric plays safe and nominates his cousin Egric for the throne, the man most likely to take the throne anyway. Egric dosen't like being seen as taking the throne at the sufferance of the King of Northumbria, and the other independent Kings like Osric's presumption even less than they did when it only involved areas under greater Northumbrian dominance. No one is prepared to do anything about it at this point.


656: Egric, who has been king of the East Angles for less than a year, dies after a short illness. Accusations of poisoning (probably unfounded) fly wildly. This time, the succession is much less clear cut. There are two candidates of significant standing, Siegbert, nephew of Anna, and Aethelhere, Egric's brother. The deadlock is broken when Siegbert petitions Osric for his support, acknowledging his right to determine the succession. The Saxon kings find this unacceptable, and give their support to Aethelhere. After a couple of weeks of fighting, Siegbert flees to Eborac (York) seeking refuge with his patron. Osric demands that the Southumbrian kings remember their oaths, and renounce their support for Aethelhere, and support the real king of the Angles.


The Bishop of Canterbury, who has significantly less good relations with the British church than OTL, who have rebuffed all attempts at reconciliation, in the context of their significantly better position than OTL, makes a statement that marks a turning point in religious relations. He relieves the Kings of Sussex, Essex, Kent, their nobles and the nobility of East Anglia of their oaths to Osric, as “an oath sworn to a heretic King before a false priest is no oath”.


Osric raises his army and navy against the Southumbrians and attempts to compel their obedience. The Southumbrians have spent the last decade well, and after initial successes the naval attacks do not provide the knockout blow Osric had hoped, although they do pin down significant forces. On land Osric does reasonably well, but before he can prosecute his advantage, he suffers a wound at a minor skirmish that becomes infected, and he dies. The Northumbrian forces loose the initiative, and are driven back into Mercia.


Despite Osric's son Edwin being his favoured heir, his brother Oswald takes the throne, with the support of those Northumbrian lords unhappy with Osric's accommodation with the British, and not pleased with the thought of a mostly British, monastery educated king. Edwin retreats into old Rheged and sets himself up as an interdependent king. Oswald is unable to do anything about this, or about the fact that the North British kingdoms (Goddodin and Strathclyde) have sworn to Edwin, or that Gwynedd has recognized Edwin as King of Northumbria, due to his need to hold against the Southumbrians in Mercia. The Kingdom of Fife declares its vassalage ended with Osric's death.


657: Skirmishing in Mercia and naval raiding all along the East coast keep Oswald and the Southumbrians busy. The men of Wessex play little part in the war as they are too concerned about Dumnonian incursions. Many West saxons flee. Gwynedd remains entangled in Ireland, restricing it's opportunity to meddle.


658: Frustrated with being unable to reclaim what he considers his rightful lands in the West, Oswald tries to knock Anglia out of the war so he can focus on Edwin. He launches an attack in strength against Anglia. He defeats the rebel East Anglians in a battle near OTL Ely, but a week later is defeated by the forces of the King of Kent. He flees back to Northumbria, unlucky enough to escape with his life. Soon afterwards he is brought to battle, along with some of the more recalcitrant Northumbrian lords by Edwin, where he is resoundingly defeated.


After this victory Edwin sweeps south, defeating first the Anglians, then the Kings of Kent and Sussex.. He takes a significant amount of loot personally, whilst Northumbian ships sail up the Thames looting and burning, taking even more. With most of the southern Kings dead, he takes the opportunity to affirm his right to determine the inheritance of the Saxon kingdoms. He makes Siegbert king of East Anglia, and selects the most friendly of the heirs available for the other kingdoms. He also demands that the Bishop of Canterbury be turned over to face a council of churchmen for his “crime”. The Bishop flees to the continent before this can happen. When he hears what has occurred, the Pope anathemises the Edwin and all who follow him. In response, a Conclave of British churchmen reiterate Hilda's teaching, that individual churchmen may fall into error, and that divine truth is revealed to the Church as a community, not an individual. The Kings and nobles of southern Britain are strongly encouraged to convert to the British flavour of Christianity, and the clergy urged to recognise the error of the Bishop of Rome.

Edwin accepts the crown as York, where all the Anglo-Saxon Kings and sub-Kings make obediance and swear oaths, the independant British Kings make oaths of friendship, and his vasslas reswear their oaths of obedaiance.

At the end of the year, Edwin persuades the High King of Dumonnia to restrain his sub-Kings from attacking Edwin's new vassals in Wessex, via their mutual relatives.

[Alratan]

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5897/britain6583az.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Named characters:

Kings of Northumbria

616-643:

Edwin I: Married Ceindrech of Gwynedd, sister of Cadwallon.

643-656:

Osric: Son of Edwin I, was married to Rhiainfelt of Rheged

656-658:

Oswald: Son of Edwin I, brother of Osric

658-

Edwin II: Son of Osric, Prince of Rheged in his own right. Married to Elen of Gwynedd, Cadfan II's daughter.

Kings of Gwynedd:

Cadfan I 618-626

Cadwallon 626 - 639. His sister was married to Edwin I

Cadfan II 639-: His daughter is married to Edwin II.

Miscellanious characters:

Anna: Predeccessor of Egric, King of the East Angles.

Egric, King of the East Angles. His death triggers another bout of war in Britannia.

Aethelhere: Southumbrian candidate the East Anglian throne. Regined 656-658.

Siegbert: Northumbrian candidate for the East Anglian throne He takes the throne in 658.

Summary by area in 658:

Northumbria:

Unquestionably the greatest power in Britain, a Northumbrian King has been the most powerful iman n Britain, for decades. Northumbia is the most assimilated and Christinized of all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, thanks to the efforts of its Kings. Due to it's integration of Rheged, Gododdin, and Strathclyde as client kingdoms, and the example of their kings, there is a distinct Anglo-British noble class emerging

Mercia

Mercia is split up into three sub-Kingdoms, and does not have a single king. These sub-Kings remained loyal to Northumbria during the latest war, mainly due to the fact that a significant part of the noble class are Northumbrian transplants after Edwin's victory over Mercia. It has been penetrated by British missionaries to a considerable degree.

Wessex

Wessex is split up into 4 sub-kingdoms, and like Mercia has no overall king. It has not recovered from the harrowing it received from the British, and has suffered significantly, in terms of land and men to its neighbours. There is distinct emmigration of the West saxons. Both British and Roman Chrisitan missionaries are quite active in this area.

East Anglia

After recently being the prize in the wars between the Northumbrians and Southumbrian alliance, the people of this land are tired, and have suffered heavily from raiding by Northumbria ships and warbands. A Northumbrian appointed king sits on the throne.

Kent

This country is a hot bed of discontent. It has been heavily Christianised by the Roman church, and is taking excommunication, and Britsih attempts at converiosn hard. The new king has been selected by Edwin of Northumbria, and so sits lightly on the throne.

Sussex & Essex

Both Sussex and Essex have recently gained new Kings thanks to the Northumbrians, and and suffering from the aftermath of Northumbrian naval raids and tribute demands. On the other hand, both have absorbed parts of Wessex. The kings and nobles of this area are taking their enforced renunciation of the pope much better than those of Kent.

Dumnonia

Dumnonia has done rather well out of the past few years. The West saxons are still extremely weak, so present no threat, and every few years they are foolish enough to rebel against Northumbria, giving them free reigin to invade without annoying anyone with the power to object. It has absorbed a significant amount of formerly Saxon land, and has placed Glastening back into vassalage.

Gwynedd

King Cadfan II has rather alot on his plate, he is still dealing with integrating with southern Welsh Kingdoms and Powys. He is attempting to channel restless young men into the continuning Irish wars.

Important Developments

Rise of Anglo-British nobility/royalty in Northumbria, with acompanying Angle assimilation into existing British culture.

British/Roman church schism.

Consolidation of Welsh Kingdoms.

Continuing weakness+disunited state of Mercia and particularly Wessex, and hence less pressure on British.

Contined strong Northumbrian influence in Mercian sub-kingdoms.

Principle of Brewalgda having say in succession - existance of Bretwalgda as an institution with power.

Less effective Roman missionary activity in southern Britain.

Excommunication of Anglo-Saxons.

First effective Anglo-Saxon dynasty that keeps power in immediate family in Northumbria.

[G.Bone]

Ah - an installment AND a summary in the same post!

Most excellent - very easy to read and comprehend.

You've really done your work although in the bit about 649 you sort of cut off at The Fallibility of Man - not really covering what happened in the schism and such. It's not needed but it sort of hangs there. Other than that it's really good. You've simplified things in this post and it's really well done.

I'm just curious on the Anglo-British church and nobles. Are they any different from their southern cousins? I'm sure that there hasn't been any move towards codifiding the army and the navy but I'm sure they're get in time. Again, the summary of the kingdoms help, and putting more detail would be beyond description but you'll probably cover it in the next installment anyway so that's rendered moot.

What's up with the other places on the Continent and such?

Again, on a scale of 1 to 10, it is an 8.

[Alratan]

Nice to know people are reading.

The Falliability of Man is essentially a rebutal of the concept of there being a universal Pope, and more broadly it is an argument that theology should be developed in a corporate sense, by debate amongst a council. It has a strong subtext about the superiority of monastic Christianity in developing doctirine rather than reserving it as the speical perogative of priests.

The later letters have more theological content, but I don't know enugh about the tendancies of the British church to speculate in what fashion they might disagree with Rome over the nature of divinity or man's relationship to it. If someone can suggest something it would help - it's not as if there weren't plenty of schisms at this point.

The Anglo-British thing is just something I put in there randomly. Some "barbarians", like the Franks assimilated into the local country to a greater degree than others, like the Saxons. The main result has been (will be) a substantially faster conversion of the Northumbrian Angles, which has important cultural effects in stabilising the Kingdom. At this point the Anglo-saxons are pretty much like the Vikings, the way you stay King is by being a successful pirate, i.e. a strong warrior who provides plenty of loot for his followers. The greater continuity of rule also makes the place generally wealthier, as there have been less battles fought over places.

The British church has not had to change much as part of its conversion efforts. It is still primarily monastic based, but there is significantly more of a missionary wing compared to OTL, basically because the Kings have bribed them to do it, and because they aren't being called on to convert enemies who are gradually defeating them, instead converting allies and forcing conversion on defeated kings, which is far more pleasant and easier. One change I have thrown in is the creation of monastic schools for the children of nobility, empasising the change in Angle culture to Anglo-British.

On the army and navy, it has to be remembered that the basic military unit is the warband. There is no official army and navy, just warlords and their men. The navy is those costal warlords who have been persuaded of the value of naval piracy in war time. This is changing.

The culture of southern England is different - there has been little to no assimilation - even in those places which have been retaken by the British from Mercia and Wessex. The Mercian sub-kingdoms are going the way of Northumbria, albeit more slowly. These differences are emphasised by the preexisting cultural differences between the Saxons and the Angles. East Anglia is closest to the north, being fellow Angles and being penetrated by British missionaries. The southern kingdoms are due for a period of unrest, as they have been defeated several times in a row and have had much of there power structure killed or disturbed, plus the Church there is in turmoil, having been severed from Rome.

I'll put up a general In other News update for this period at some point, mentioning what's happening to the Merovingian dynasty, Italy, North Africa, and the Near East.

[Alratan]

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3039/ukcountiesmappartial46aq.jpg
Better map of latest situation

[G.Bone]

Great map BTW.

What's up with the lack of installments?

[Alratan]

Was on a business trip this week, unfortunately.

Have done a bit of work on it today, but I've not made much progress. I've got about a hundred years to go before things become really interesting with the Norse, and its quite difficult to get Britain into an appropriate state to receive them. I need to manage a continuing tradition of naval warfare and low level costal rading, but also create a reasonably united state. Doing this and keeping it plausible is the issue. Finding a logical reason for general warfare in the British Isles to end several hundred years early is one way, or having a significant church takeover of responsibility for creating a state is another, so that it dosen't matter that the kings are continually killing each other.

[Alratan]

659-671: Mainland Britain is generally peaceful during this period, with the exception of bitter fighting between the Picts and the Dalriadians, which spills over into Strathclyde, and continued but low level Pictish raiding all the way down the coast of the North East, which lead into Northumbian counter raiding. West saxons continue to emigrate during this period, sick of continued defeat in the West. Edwin II continues his father Osric's policies, particularly by encouraging inter-marriage between the British and Angle ruling classes. Significant resources continue to be expended on conversion. Producing Latin speaking and literate priests is becoming a significant problem. Cadfan II of the Welsh continues the integration of the southern Welsh and Powyrs, and continues to stir the Irish pot. He also aids Edwin II's Anglo-British integration “project” by permitting continued integration of the British and Angle nobility.


659: The northernmost sub-kingdom of what was Mercia swears direct allegiance to Edwin II of Northumbria.


661: The Abbey of Canterbury is refounded under the British rite.


662: Elen, Queen of Rheged and Northumbria, sponsors the formation of a monastic school for girls under the auspices of the Abbess of Caer Lune (Lancaster), which had been founded by her grandmother-in-law.


664: The King Of Lennister (south-east Ireland) finally accepts vassalage to Cadfan II of Wales, after being dependant on Welsh aid in the pst decade.


665: At the Synod of Chester, virtually all of the heads of the most significant monastic houses in the British Isles meet to discuss the proliferation of translations of the Gospels and Psalms that have sprung up over the past 20 years. After significant dissent, it is agreed that Latin should be emphasised as the true language of religion, but that to prevent falling into error, official translations should be produced for teaching purposes. This will prove a significant undertaking, as there are at least 4 notably different languages spoken in the British Isles. At the same Synod, Brigid of Kildare, who died the previous year, is canonised. He successor Hilda, who collaborated with her on several of her later Letters, successfully lobbies for the acceptance of her theories of the relation of God and the Church, and of the Church and Man*.


668: There is some bitter fighting in Wessex as a Hwicce warleader attempts to reunite Wessex. This attempt is put down after Northumbrian intervention under Edwin II's cousin.


671: The King of Strathclyde dies. Edwin decides that the dead man's eleven year old heir, who's being educated at the school at York, should take the throne, with Edwin appointing a Regent. The boy's uncle, leader of a faction unhappy with the Northumbrians' lack of success at suppressing raids from the north, refuses to accept this. He counteroffers loyalty for the price of Northumbrian ships and men to fight in the forth. Edwin does not tolerate this dissent, and retakes Strathclyde, imposing a Regent to hold until the boy's majority.


673: Aware that he has neglected the Picts, Edwin II launches the first in a series of campaigns designed to pacify them. He is hobbled in this by his unwillingness to leave an opportunity for what he still sees as then enemy to the south, and by him giving a higher priority to building in Eborac (York) and other cities (tows). As attacks into the Higlands on land are still a fool's game, this mainly involves ship-bourne raids.


675: Edwin finally takes and pacifies Fife, which he grants to some of his more loyal Anglo-British men. After this he leaves the campaign in the hands of his som Raedwaldas he does not trust the situation in the south.


676: Edwin compels the remaining Angle and Saxon lords to send their younger sons and daughters to the monastic schools at Eborac and Caer Lune respectively.


678: Cadfan II of Gwynedd accepts the submission of the King of Meath (central-East Ireland).


680: At the age of 44, Edwin II contracts a debilitating illness. Seeking to secure the succession, he abdicates in favour of his eldest son, Raedwald, Under the influence of the Abbot of Eborac, he enters the Abbey his father founded at Dore (OTL Sheffield). The abdication and coronation happen at the same ceremony, attended by virtually all the kings of Britain. There are rumblings of rebellion, but the Northumbrians possess alternate claimants to all the thrones of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Cadfan II looks forward to the absence of his old rival/ally from the scene.


*God reveals himself to the Church corporately, as a mystery split and shared between many individuals. Understanding God requires collaboration. The Church's role is to teach man about God. This can be done by any good means, but the best way is for a person to join a monastic community for a period of their life. Hilda modified these ideas to include the concept of temporary members of a community, who stay for a few years before leaving to live a secular life more informed by spiritual learnings and good works.

[bill_bruno]

Why would a more powerful Northumbria decide the Whitby question any differently? OTL Northumbria had recovered from the Hatfield Chase debacle and was the dominant kingdom at the time of the Synod.

Isn't there going to be a mass revolt against Northumbrian-appointed kings at some point, like when Northumbria is campaigning against the Picts? I think the idea of a dominant Northumbria is a good one but just remember that it was the most thinly populated part of England and might not have the resources to complete unify England.

[Alratan]

Why would a more powerful Northumbria decide the Whitby question any differently? OTL Northumbria had recovered from the Hatfield Chase debacle and was the dominant kingdom at the time of the Synod.
The reason why the question of something like Whitby never arose is due to the same POD as why Hatfield Chase never happened.

Edwin (I) converted to Christianity under the British rite early on, and took a British Christian wife, making a long term alliance with the british, as opposed to OTL, where he took a Kentish Roman Christian wife, and the Mercians allied with the British. This means that when he established the church in Northumbria it was formed under the British rather than Roman rite. Augustine was the same rude son of a bitch to the British clergy as he was in OTL, but unlike OTL, where the Northumbrian crown was essentialy on the Roman side of the debate, in this timeline it was on the other side.

Things snowballed from there. The British church also enganged in substantially more missionary activity amongst the Angles and Saxons, for reasons described above - preaching to allies and defeated kings being much nicer than preaching to people who are defeating you.

In the end the Roman church despaired of persuading the British church to renounce its independance willingly, and tried to persuade those Kings who had accepted Roman baptism to break the power of one of the main sponsors of the British rite. They tried, and failed, and this encouraged the British church to develop a more divergant doctirine than had previously been the case.

Isn't there going to be a mass revolt against Northumbrian-appointed kings at some point, like when Northumbria is campaigning against the Picts? I think the idea of a dominant Northumbria is a good one but just remember that it was the most thinly populated part of England and might not have the resources to complete unify England.
Actually, at this point, I don't think this is the case. Northumbria is one of the wealthiest areas during this period. The Northumbrians are also helped by the fact that Wessex is in a period of collapse after being harrowed by first Cadwallon and then the Dumonians, and central authority in Mercia has been destroyed, with the Northumbrians asserting their authority over part of it, and preventing one leader rising to dominate the rest.

There have also been 3 major revolts against Northumbria in the past 40 years, and the Northumbrians + Gwynedd has successfully suppressed them all. This has shattered the ruling classes of the other kingdoms - the new kings are having enough difficulty controlling their own fiefs at the moment to protest too much, given they owe their positions to Northumbrian sponsorship.

[G.Bone]

Seeing that on the map there's "Old Mercia" and "Old Wessex", what's that bright green spot un-named on the map you provided?

[Alratan]

Seeing that on the map there's "Old Mercia" and "Old Wessex", what's that bright green spot un-named on the map you provided?

I can't find out a name for it after it was taken from the British and before it was taken by the Mercians. I'll look for a while, and then make one up.

Old Wessex and Old Mercia are the areas these respective "peoples" come from before they conquored their immediate neighbours.

[Alratan]

Catching up on my “In Other News” Sections. I’m much less sure on these, as they are mostly just preparation work for a hundred years down the line. I still need to do my In other news for the Pope, and for the West, but I'm not sure if I'll do them before then British section.

The Eastern Empire:

646: Constans II, defying the odds, manages to resolve the crisis surrounding his succession relatively peacefully, as his predecessor had managed to remove several of his more dangerous rivals immediately before his death, by instigating a bloodletting over accession to the vacant position of Exarch of Carthage. Constans II is not the most fervent of souls, indeed, he received perhaps to thorough an education in classical philosophy to deeply believe. He is, above all, a pragmatist.

649: The Visigoths attack the Exarchy of Africa from Iberia. Constans II sends troops to support his vassal, but dares not go himself. The Western part of the Exarch falls to the Visigoths. The Exarchy pays them to stop their advance.

650: Constans II executes 4 prominent Orthodox churchmen and several of the higher nobility for treason. Included amongst the victims are the Patriarch of Alexandria, who has been notable in his persecution of the Copts. The confiscation and display of the personal wealth some of these holy men had accumulated puts the rest of the church on warning. This occurs after Constans had married the daughter of the last King of Persia, following her conversion to Christianity.

652: The Visigoths are expelled from Africa and given a severe thrashing when Constans II moves significant troops into North Africa. The Arabs choose this moment to invade the Byzantine’s Ghassanid vassal. This forces Constans II to return with his armies to the East.

The Ghassanids hold against the Arabs, bolstered by Imperial troops dispatched on Constans II orders from Greece, although they suffer several minor defeats, there is no conclusive battle

653: Constans II defeats the Muslims at Medina, and accepts the surrender of the 4th Caliph.

658: The Exarch of Carthage rebels, and declares the Exarch independent. The Exarch was a very devout man, who disapproved of Constans II tolerance of heresy in Egypt and amongst the Ghassanids. Constans II is busy leading a campaign against the Bulgars and Slavs at the time and could do little about it.

659: Constans II smashes the Bulgars in a series of decisive battles.

660: Seeing the massing of Imperial forces in Egypt (which remained under central control), senior officials in Carthage have the Exarch assassinated, and pledge loyalty to the Emperor.

662: Constans II has the Patriarch of Alexandria convene a Council, seeking yet again to find a formula to control religious strife within his Empire, hoping to succeed where his grandfather failed. He is helped by the fact that the Pope’s representative dies on the way to the council. Still, all that he gains is an advantage over the Pope in Northern Italian politics, as the Pope denounces the (rather minor) decisions made there as invalid without his consent. This council is remarkable as it is the first attended by representatives of the British church, the Bishop of Chester, who advocates the British church’s doctrine of Conciliarism. The British representatives go away rebuffed, as they disagree with both the Orthodox and monophysite churches on the date of Easter and other issues.

664: Constans II resumes his campaign against the Bulgars to the north, imposing Christianity as he goes. This will continue for the next 6 years, as the Bulgarians are unable to resist, and the rest of the Empire is relatively peaceful, and the Arabs are busy putting down rebellions that have sprung up during their long civil war.

670-672: The Arabs invade Egypt. This time, the Copts resist, and supported by the Ghassanids attacking from the North, they hold long enough for Imperial armies to
Relieve them, and expel the Arabs. Punitive raids are launched into Arabia, and Medina is burnt to the ground, but the Caliphate’s centre of gravity has moved into old Persia. From this point on, wars between the Arabs and Eastern Romans strongly resemble those between the Sassanids and the Romans.

674: The Lombards attack the Imperial possessions in Northern Italy. The Exarch of Ravenna is killed. Constans II sends reinforcements, which stops the advance, but over half the territory the Empire hheld at the beginning of theyear has been lost. He does not dare strip the Eastern or Balkan borders of the Empire, and after the wars of recent years, the Empire is too poor to support another major campaign to retake the lost territory.

677: Despite his many other successes, the losses of the Italian territories have done Constans II significant damage. Many in the church have not forgiven his tolerance of heresy or willingness to execute churchmen, and the wealthy have no love for the taxes required to finance his wars, or his reforms to the military system. At Christmas 677 he is assassinated in the Cathedral in Constantinople. Unfortunately for the conspirators, Constans II, and his son Heraclius (soon to be Heraclius II) are popular amongst the troops, and the rebellion is put down with a minimum of fuss. The new Emperor has learnt his father’s lesson, and conspiring churchmen do not receive the benefit of trials and public execution, and instead disappear to suffer rather gruesome ends.

[Alratan]

The Arabic World

646: The Persian Empire has effectively ceased to exist. All central government has disappeared, save for that of the Arabs. All major cities are under Arab rule, or destroyed, and the Zoroastrian hereditary priesthood has been all but exterminated. In this year Ctesiphon is exterminated by the Arabs for the 2nd and final time after rebelling. From this date on, the city effectively ceases to exist. In an event which leads to a whole host of complications down the road, the daughter of the last King of Persia seeks sancturary in the West, in Antioch, with her people’s old enemies. The Arabs have arrived at a consensus that Zoroastrianism is not a religion of the book, and so conquest is not peaceful. Massacres and religious persecution is common. This slows the Arabic conquest to the East. Towards the end of the year, the 3rd Caliph dies of wounds received fighting the Byzantines.

The Arabs have just about finished the conquest of Axum, and are surging down the Eastern coast of Africa, trading and conquering. Arabic sailors are also beginning to appear on the Western coast of India.

652: The fourth Caliph, needing to unit commanders restless with continuously suppressing Persian rebellions (an activity which is no longer very lucrative, the place having been looted dry), invades the Eastern Roman Empire, or rather, their Ghassanid vassals. Although their has been continual raiding for the past few years, this is the first major effort since the death of the 3rd Caliph.

653: Roman forces invade Arabia from Egypt. The Caliph’s forces withdraw from the Ghassanid kingdom. At the Battle of Medina, the Byzantines capture the 4th Caliph who is forced to accept an unfavourable peace.

654: The 4th Caliph is assassinated by those unhappy with the terms of the peace agreed with the Romans. The 1st Islamic civil war starts. There are many factions and competing claims to the Caliphate. This period is complicated by many rebellions by subject peoples and invasions from outside.

658: Major rebellion in eastern Persia expels the Arabs.

660: The Tiryadd claimants to the Caliphate retire to Eastern Africa, having been defeated in Arabia. This is the beginning of the independent Islamic state there.

664: The Islamic civil war ends, with the first Haramad Caliph claiming rulership over all Muslims in Arabia and what was Persia.

668: The rebellion in Eastern Persia is crushed and returned to Muslim rule.

670-672: The Arabs try their luck at invading Egypt again. After initial successes, they fail due to superior Roman organisation and logistics, and their ability to rapidly transfer troops by sea.

674: The first Haramad Caliph dies, passing the title to his son.

676-678: The 2nd Haramad Caliph attempts to reunite the Islamic faith by re-conquering East Africa from the Tiryadd Caliph. He fails miserably, but retains his position.

680: The first Tiryadd Caliph dies, one of his nephews is proclaimed as the new Caliph.

[G.Bone]

Interesting - you have the Arabs not quite winning but not quite getting the faults as OTL. I do like how the East Africans are semi-independent. Will this end up a hybrid version of Islam adjusted to African beliefs as OTL?

Fun stuff with the Byzzies - love the emporers hating the church elders. Fun with priests:D

670-672: The Arabs invade Egypt. This time, the Copts resist, and supported by the Ghassanids attacking from the North, they hold long enough for Imperial armies to
Relieve them, and expel the Arabs. Punitive raids are launched into Arabia, and Medina is burnt to the ground, but the Caliphate’s centre of gravity has moved into old Persia. From this point on, wars between the Arabs and Eastern Romans strongly resemble those between the Sassanids and the Romans.

So I'm getting the picture that the Byzzies continually invade Arabia, a cycle of defeat and gains, but never quite ending?

With this new focus on Persia, what happens to Arabia and the Holy Cities? Surely this sort of defeats the Islamic culture there...

Also - what happened to the seeds of Shia and Shittes? Is this sort of shoved inside the various Caliphs that serve the Arabs?

[Alratan]

Interesting - you have the Arabs not quite winning but not quite getting the faults as OTL. I do like how the East Africans are semi-independent. Will this end up a hybrid version of Islam adjusted to African beliefs as OTL?
Yes, certainly. The fact that performing the Haj is rather difficult may also have an effect on this schism.

Fun stuff with the Byzzies - love the emporers hating the church elders. Fun with priests:D
This is mostly setup for later, but playing divide and rule on the church has definite advantages and disadvantages for the Emperor. As I've been rather hard on the poor Pope so far in TTL, I think this installement will be a bit more generous.


So I'm getting the picture that the Byzzies continually invade Arabia, a cycle of defeat and gains, but never quite ending?
Yep. Things are going to get more interesting as the Arabs integrate their subjects in th East. The decision that Zoroastrianism is not a religion of the book is important.

With this new focus on Persia, what happens to Arabia and the Holy Cities? Surely this sort of defeats the Islamic culture there...

The fact that the Holy Cities in Arabia are embattled and occassionaly held by infidels, may well serve as an ironic reversal of the OTL situation, with the Caliph in ATL Bagdad leading jihd to retake them occassionaly.

Also - what happened to the seeds of Shia and Shittes? Is this sort of shoved inside the various Caliphs that serve the Arabs?
Not really the same as OTL, but their are similarities. The Tiryadd are descended from Mohammed, the Haramad are not. With the precedent of two Caliphates, the tradition of unity has been broken early. This will lead to fragmentation later, when the Caliphate attempts to digest northern India.

Generally, these In other News sections are here to provide a backdrop for the consequences of a more unified North orientated Britain, with hordes of frustrated Norse mercanaries roaming about, etc..

[G.Bone]

Ah the Norse....

Just curious how are the Vikings coming along?

I demand maps good sir! maps!

I did like how you sort of made the Byzzies sort of uber but with their own problems. I'm getting a feeling that Greece is core but not so much. There goes the Orthodox folk - I guess.

Was one of your ideas to diverse the ideas on religion in TTL?

[Alratan]

I did like how you sort of made the Byzzies sort of uber but with their own problems. I'm getting a feeling that Greece is core but not so much. There goes the Orthodox folk - I guess.

Surviving the Arab invasions means lots of successor states integrated into the European economy for longer. As the Arabs never get a Mediterranian port it means piracy dosen't kick off, so the naval econonomy survives. It esentially gives us a "European" North Africa.

Later in the TL we are going to see the Ghassanids become more independant of central Byzantine control, but remain as a buffer against the Caliphate, an independant Empire of North Africa, and fun with the Franks and Lombards.

[G.Bone]

oooo and fun with the Franks and Lombards.!

we are going to see the Ghassanids become more independant of central Byzantine control,

I guess I have to google on who were the Ghassanids...

What's up with the naval economy?

Am I asking too many questions?

[Alratan]

I guess I have to google on who were the Ghassanids...
They were an Arab group that lived in present day Syria/Lebanon, who were traditionaly a Byzantine buffer state against the Persians. They were Christians of an non-orthodox variety.

What's up with the naval economy?
The Mediterranean trade routes were the engine of the classical economy, what made the urban culture of antiquity possible. When arab pirates infested the shipping lanes, it shut it down, so the social models reliant on it could no longer function. As this is not happening here, these economies/socities, and the resultant states remain viable.

Am I asking too many questions?

Not really, I can always stop answering

[Nicole]

Zoroastrians aren't seen a People of the Book? Hm, it seems to me that Islamic rule won't last too long in Persia, looking at the examples of the Seleucids, who similarly persecuted Zoroastrians and were forced out of Persia by the Parthians...

An interesting timeline... I wonder, if the Ghassanids survive will they try to provoke anti-Arab revolts among the remains of the Lakhmids?

[Alratan]

680-692: Another significant period of peace and security in Brittania Superior. After his recovery Edwin II continues to build the beginnings of a state, leaving his son to foreign adventures. In latter the last half of the 7th century is seen as a golden age.

681: The King of Middle Anglia dies. Raedwald (King of Northumbria) confirms the heir apparent (a graduate of the school at Eborac) in his position. Cadfan II is proclaimed High King of the Britons, after receiving the submission of the King of Ulster.

682: Raedwald’s sister marries the King of the Frisians, who converts to Christianity under the British rite. There has been substantial British missionary activity into north-west Europe for the latter half of Edwin II 25 year reign, following (or followed) by the establishment of stronger trading routes across the North Sea as the naval strength of the Northumbrians increases. What is during war a raider serves perfectly well to carry cargo and missionaries during peacetime. This conversion has been in competition with the efforts of the Roman church, but the notorious corruption of the Frankish clergy has crippled this effort.

684: Edwin II partially recovers from his long illness, but remains incapable of strenuous activity. It is proclaimed a miracle. Unable to retake the throne, he contents himself with the writing of letters, particularly to his son. Raedwald is relieved by this, as he is discovering that his patience for the trials of ruling is waning. He gets back to what he does best, raiding the Picts. Certain parts of the nascent British state which have begun to whither under 4 years of disinterested stewardship are put back on the road to recovery.

In this year Cadfan II dies, after an unprecedented rule of 45 years. He is remembered as Cadfan the Great, having received the submission of all of Wales, Dumnnonia, and Ireland during his long life. He is succedded by his grand-nephew Rhun.

686: Having handily defeated the Picts, Raedwald defies his fathers advice and goes to the aid of Rhun against the rebellious Irish in the North and East.

687: The Franks invade Frisia, the first campaigns are inconclusive.

688: To the surprise of many, Raedwald manages to force the Irish back into Welsh vassalage, although he extracts a large tribute, both from Rhun and from the Irish, for the privilege. The two year campaign has primarily involved the naval raiding Raedwald practiced against the Picts.

690: On the edge of defeat, the King of the Frisians appeals to Raedwald, his brother-in-law for aid. Once again disregarding his father’s council, Raedwald moves many of his veteran troops across the North Sea to fight the Franks. Combined with heavy raiding of the Frankish side of the North Sea and down the Channel, the Franks are driven back.

691-692: Fighting continues against the Franks. Northumbrian naval power allows Raedwald to raid almost at will, bringing back significant loot. This drives the Mayors across the Frankish territory to unite against him, temporarily bringing much of the internecine conflict across Frankia to a halt.

693: Stiffened by Frankish troops, Kent, Sussex, and Essex rise up in rebellion in support of heirs to these kingdoms who had fled to the Frankish court. The King of Kent is killed, and the other two are forced to flee.

Edwin II, by now an man old before his time with the burden of building a nation whilst no longer its King, is assassinated in the monastery at Dore, allegedly whilst at prayer.

The Northumbrian backed King of East Anglia defeats the Frankish backed claimant, but is subsequently driven into the marshes by attacks from the south.

The Mercian sub-Kingdoms stay loyal to the Northumbrian King.

The Irish take the opportunity to rebel once more, and Rhun feels unable to abandon his predeccessor’s gains, leaving him unable to commit substantial forces to a campaign on Britannia Superior.

Raedwald reacts by leading a series of heavy raids along both sides of the channel, whilst his brother leads warbands in attacks on the mainland. Towards the end of summer, he is slain during an attack on the Frankish side of the channel. His brother Oswain takes the throne as regent for his young nephew.

A renewed Frankish assault on Frankia falters due to squabbling between the Mayors.

The Dumnonnians take advantage of the conflict to invade Somersate. It is notable that they respect the sanctity of churches in these assaults.

694: Oswain defeats the men of Kent and a substantial contingent of Franks in a major battle on Whitsun (Pentecost, a couple of months after Easter), despite being outnumbered. The Frankish claimant to the throne of Kent is slain. He credits his victory to a miracle granted by his father.

Later in 694 the men of Essex are also defeated, after suffering greatly from sea-bourn raids.

Towards the end of the year the men of Sussex welcome back the Northumbrian backed King, the Frankish pretender flees across the Channel.

695: Edwin II is proclaimed a Saint of the British Church. He will later be known as St. Edwin the Great, and rather exaggerated claims made for his accomplishments, conflating them with doctrinal changes the British church was undergoing at arounf the same time.

Oswain invades north-west Frankia across the Channel, seeking a large blood-price for his father’s death. He meets initial success. A surprisingly large contingent of his troops was fighting against him only last year, but the bounty available is quite enticing.

The last Franks are expelled from Frisia.

696: The English can raid the coast and rivers of north west Frankia at will, but make significantly less headway in the interior. The Mayors are once again uniting to oppose them. Oswain is unwilling to settle the matter, however. The last Merovingian king is slain in the middle of the summer, but the Mayors couldn’t care less.

Late in the year Oswain is slain. His nephew Oscar, having reached his majority, takes the throne in his own right. He accepts a substantial payment from the Mayors to go away.

697: Oscar is crowned. At his coronation, the West Saxons beg for relief from Dumnonnian raids. Somersate has virtually ceased to exist. The Dumnonnian king is unwilling to call a halt to the raids, and Northumbrian forces move into Wessex. After a few minor skirmishes, when it becomes clear that Rhun (King of Wales) is unwilling to support his nominal ally against the Northumbrians, the Dumnonnians are forced to relent.

As his guarantee, Oscar takes Ygerna, daughter of the King of Dumnonia as his wife.

699: The Picts attempt to retake Fife. They fail, with heavy casualties.

700: Oscar sponsors significant building work at the Eborac (York) Monastery, dedicated to his grandfather, St. Edwin.

Notes:

Borders haven't really changed since the last posting. The latest rebellion only enforced the status quo and the dependance of the lesser Kings on Nortumbrian support. They are now more firmly vassalised than ever.

I'll try nd put up a summary of what happended in the 7th century in the West. Generally, it was pretty similar to OTL.

Any question. I know I've been rather generous to the Northumbrians, but then again, some generals made a good go at conquoring the Western Empire with Britain as a base.

[G.Bone]

So let me get this straight, after Edwin II there was Raedwald, who was followed by Oswain (Regent), who is followed by Oscar?

When I was reading the text it was a wee bit hard follwing the succession lines. However, it was good in the point that Northumbria has followed Norway's "space" in raiding England, even though Normandy may or may not be around at this time (???). It's also cool that Northumbria is forging links to other places,such as Frisia (this is Denmark?). Will other realms follow as well once they get their act together?

There were a wee bit of spelling errors scattered through the segment as well. ('whilst' is spelled 'whilest')

What's up with the Mayors? Isn't that a mis-spelling of some French name of a kingdom?

[Thande]

There were a wee bit of spelling errors scattered through the segment as well. ('whilst' is spelled 'whilest')

No it isn't.

[Alratan]

So let me get this straight, after Edwin II there was Raedwald, who was followed by Oswain (Regent), who is followed by Oscar?
When I've done the next section, I'll do another summary.

Basically, you're correct

When I was reading the text it was a wee bit hard follwing the succession lines. However, it was good in the point that Northumbria has followed Norway's "space" in raiding England, even though Normandy may or may not be around at this time (???).
Normandy was founded by Norsemen, so it dosen't (won't) exist.

It's also cool that Northumbria is forging links to other places,such as Frisia (this is Denmark?). Will other realms follow as well once they get their act together?
Frisia is where the Netherlands and the German North Sea coast are. These links are mostly historical, amplified by the increased number of ships in the area. In OTL much of north west Europe was converted by Northumbrian missionaries who travelled there along these trade routes. The Welsh are already doing so with the Irish (in a different way), and as the Frankish intervention in the south shows, the southern kingdoms are (or were) building links across the Channel.

What's up with the Mayors? Isn't that a mis-spelling of some French name of a kingdom?
The Mayors (maior domus) were the chief officials of the Frankish kingdoms (imagine a Vizier). In the latter days of the Merovingian dynasty they were the real power in the kingdoms, and the King a mere puppet.

[G.Bone]

Whooops -

my bad....

[Thande]

No problem, G. :)

BTW - I've noticed they've made the O.E.D. online require a subscription now! :mad: Fortunately, my universal Cambridge one let me in. :cool:

[JP_Morgan]

I read this timeline, and I think it's really good. But could you clarify why Edwin II got assassinated, because it didn't go into much detail.

[Alratan]

I read this timeline, and I think it's really good. But could you clarify why Edwin II got assassinated, because it didn't go into much detail.
Well, there are a few possibilities:

Edwin II was breaking the rules of Anglo-Saxon kingship. A king was expected to lead from the front, to show personal heroism and to bring back plenty of booty to distribute amongst his fighting men, and then to eventually die in battle.

He was doing none of this. He was sitting in a monastary deliberatly trying to change his own society. Worse, whilst his son was off on foregin adventures he was effectively ruling behind the shield of the church.

The latter was very distressing for anyone who wanted to take advantage of the King's absence, and the former was for remaining traditionalists.

In addition, it was becoming known that he was the power behind the throne, so in a system by which defeat is marked by tracking down an enemy king and killing him and his warband in battle, sitting in a monsatey poses a problem. You can't go and sack the place in battle, the country is too Christianised for that now, so your alternative would be to, effectivly not be able to win. To avoid the problem, you have him assasinated as hostilities start. Of course, the fact that you would severly disrupt the kingdom he has been managing helps alot to.

So there were various groups with a motive to assasinate him. Raedwald's advisors/loyalists frustrated that they had very little real power, Angle traditionalists who dislkied the rise of an Anglo-British nobility, and the Frankish backed southern rebels whom he prevented an obstacel too.

Of course, the Northumbrians handily won the ensuing war, so it was pinned on the loosers, and most of them were dead, so couldn't complain much.

[Alratan]

A not that interesting back fill on the Franks. Visigoths next.

Frankia:

611: Theudebert II of Austrasia defeats his brother Theuderic and conquers Alsace.

612: Theudebert attacks Clotaire II of Neustria

615: Clotaire II, later known as the Great, finally defeats Theudebert..He is the first King of all Frankia since 561.

619: Clotaire II is forced to grant significant power to the mayors, making them a life time post and delegating significant law making powers to them..

622: Clotaire II proclaims his infant son Clovis King of Austrasia under threat of his nobility.

625: Clotaire II is assassinated. His young son Siegbert is placed on the Neustrian throne.

634: Ausrasian armies defeat the Slavs at Forchheim.

636: Clovis attempts to tame his nobles after his success against the Slavs.

638: Clovis is assassinated whilst parleying with his nominal vassals. They install Theudric III.

638-674: The Frankish kingdoms are chaotic in this period, dominated by the powerful Mayors and old nobility who dominate weak or infant Kings, realms split and reform in different combinations several times. During this period the southern Franks fight a series of inconclusive wars with the Basques, but fail to conquer the Basque Country. During this period the Frankish church becomes increasingly corrupt, with married clergy and inheritance of bishoprics occurring.

674: Childreic becomes Mayor of Burgundy. He proceeds to gradually calm the internicine fighting in northern Frankia.

686: Childeric, having constructed a reasonably secure realm in the north of Frankia, turns his eyes to Frisia, which he considers an easier target than the southern Frankish realms, he pressures the Frisian King to accept vassalage, who refuses.

688: After pausing to put down some last minute dissent, Childeric invades Frisia, progress is slower than expected, but eventual victory seems inevitable.

690: Unexpectedly, the Northumbrians intervene when the Frisians are on the edge of defeat. The Franks suffer significantly from coastal raiding. A League of Mayors forms across Frankia to oppose them. The Basques raid north.

693: Frankish troops invade southern Brittania in support of exiled heirs to the Saxon kingdoms.

695: The Franks retreat from Brittania.

696: The last Merovingian King is slain at a Battle at Paris. The Mayors fight on for another 3 months, before paying a substantial tribute to the Northumbrians to go away.

698: The Franks smash the Basques and take over Basque Country.

[MerryPrankster]

This is an interesting TL.

In my "Muslim Europe, Christian Middle East" TL, the Frank and Britons destroy the southernmost Saxon kingdoms, leaving the North as the dominant Germanic power in the islands.

I figure there'll be a powerful Northumbria that will last for a few centuries until the Muslim Danes destroy it.

You mind if I used some stuff from your TL? In Britain at least, it's going in a similar direction.

[G.Bone]

Exactly how much of Basque Country is now French controlled? Does it go into OTL's Spanish border?

[Alratan]

This is an interesting TL.

In my "Muslim Europe, Christian Middle East" TL, the Frank and Britons destroy the southernmost Saxon kingdoms, leaving the North as the dominant Germanic power in the islands.
Plausible.

I figure there'll be a powerful Northumbria that will last for a few centuries until the Muslim Danes destroy it.
If you have centuries of a powerful Northumbria, then getting Muslim Danes is going to be exceedingly unlikely. Northern Europe was converted by Northumbrian missionaries, and there was significant trading across the North Sea. Because of the nature of the terrain, at the time it was much easier to get penetration into Northern Europe from the west rather than from the south. A more powerful and longer lasting Northumbria means that you are going to end up with a Christian North Europe earlier and firmer than OTL. This will give you Christian Danes and north Germans.

You mind if I used some stuff from your TL? In Britain at least, it's going in a similar direction.
Not at all.

Exactly how much of Basque Country is now French controlled? Does it go into OTL's Spanish border?

There aren't really borders at this point, both Visigothic and Frankish control simply fades away as you get into the Pyrennes.

[MerryPrankster]

If you have centuries of a powerful Northumbria, then getting Muslim Danes is going to be exceedingly unlikely. Northern Europe was converted by Northumbrian missionaries, and there was significant trading across the North Sea. Because of the nature of the terrain, at the time it was much easier to get penetration into Northern Europe from the west rather than from the south. A more powerful and longer lasting Northumbria means that you are going to end up with a Christian North Europe earlier and firmer than OTL. This will give you Christian Danes and north Germans.


Yes, but Constantinople has fallen and the Muslims are on the Adriatic and in Crimea (probably should have mentioned that in the TL). The Norse who are sailing down the rivers are going to be exposed to Islam and bring it back with them.

I thought Charlemagne and the Franks wre active in converting the Germanic peoples (by force or otherwise) and the Norse only became Christians because the Christians got organized enough to defeat them in battle (and they concluded the Christian God deserved respect).

You do raise a good point about Christian missionaries from Northumbria. There will be some of them as well, so perhaps Islam triumphs in Scandinavia not by purely missionary activity by Norse who visited Constantinople, but by warfare against pagan and Christian Norse.

[Alratan]

Yes, but Constantinople has fallen and the Muslims are on the Adriatic and in Crimea (probably should have mentioned that in the TL). The Norse who are sailing down the rivers are going to be exposed to Islam and bring it back with them.
Historically, that's not how Muslim conversion worked in this period, as I understand it. There was no evangelical/missionary bent, indeed, the Koran prohibits such (I believe). Instead conqured populations converted because the jizyah (tax on non-Muslims) made it economically rational to do so. Also, not that many Muslim ruled lands remained majority/largest minority Christian for centuries post conquest.

I thought Charlemagne and the Franks wre active in converting the Germanic peoples (by force or otherwise) and the Norse only became Christians because the Christians got organized enough to defeat them in battle (and they concluded the Christian God deserved respect).

Not really. The early Frankish church was given up on as a dead loss by the Popes because it was so corrupt and lazy. The North Germans were converted almost exclsuively from Northumbria, it was a massive center of Christian activity - its scriptorums and monastaries trained and equipped virtually all missionary activity in Northern Europe. The Norse were converted by missionary activity at home, same as the Northern Europeans, not by the conversion of Norse raiders and traders in foreign lands. As in the rest of this part of Europe, the appeal of Christianity to women and subsequent penetration of royal housholds was key, combined with very large amounts of resources put by its Christian neighbours into missionary activity.

You do raise a good point about Christian missionaries from Northumbria. There will be some of them as well, so perhaps Islam triumphs in Scandinavia not by purely missionary activity by Norse who visited Constantinople, but by warfare against pagan and Christian Norse.
As I say above, in this era that's not how Islam works, nor how the Norse were converted in OTL, so I would say it's very unlikely. There's a reason the Norse became Catholic rather than Orthodox, and its because they were converted by Catholic Britain and its spiritual descendants in Northern Europe.

[MerryPrankster]

But look at the Norse in Russia, who became Orthodox.

And whatever happened to "convert or die" and the Saxons?

[Alratan]

But look at the Norse in Russia, who became Orthodox.
Yes, but that was after they settled down and started living there, and missionaries went to them in what were then their lands. They didn't become Orthodox because they visited Constantinople and converted there, they converted in exactly the way I described above, but the missionaries came fromthe south.

And whatever happened to "convert or die" and the Saxons?
That was very rare. Mainly it happened when a King became Christian and insisted that their subjects convert too. People were killed for disobeying as much or more as being pagan.

[G.Bone]

Great stuff - and I really like how you revived this thread with some bit of history....is there going to be a world map?

Any more focus on giving the Northumbrian military some sort of structure in ranks and groups (i.e. companies, squadrons, fleets) or is that in the future?

[Alratan]

We're still at the warband level, and unfortunately will be for the best part of a thousand years.

[G.Bone]

Ah....just curious about that...

So when will we learn more about Northumbria?

[Alratan]

When I've got the other relevant areas' timelines up to date, I'll try to put some material about the culture of Northumbria and the other states of Brittannia.

[MerryPrankster]

That was very rare. Mainly it happened when a King became Christian and insisted that their subjects convert too. People were killed for disobeying as much or more as being pagan.

I thought that Charlemagne conquered the Saxons and imposed that policy. In Germanic cultures, I'm under the impression the kings couldn't pull something like that on their own people--their nobles and warriors would turn on them.

[Alratan]

I thought that Charlemagne conquered the Saxons and imposed that policy. In Germanic cultures, I'm under the impression the kings couldn't pull something like that on their own people--their nobles and warriors would turn on them.

Which Saxons?

The Saxons in Britain most certainly converted in this fashion. Charlemagne did convert by the sword, but the did this after the English got there first, such as St Boniface and his successors. For example, many of the great eraly monastarys (like St Gall in modern Switzerland) were founded before the Franks got very evangelical.

Indeed, Charlemagne's religious advisors and clergy were Anglo-Saxons, such as Alcuin. The general trend is, even including Charlemagne, that Christianization was top down - even if it occured because you defeated a King and forced baptism, he then forced it on his household and the households of his vassels etc. If you look at the patterns of Christian burials, it would seem that Charlemagne's imposition of religion by force was little more than an upwards blip on a continous trend of increase.

[MerryPrankster]

I read about the Christianization of the Saxons in Britain and it seemed the pattern was that the king becomes Christian, and the various sons of the nobles who served in his household prior to getting their own land convert soon afterward (they're young, impressionable, and under the king's influence). Slowly but surely, the nobility become Christianized.

In at least one of the Saxon kingdoms, the king converted after discussing the matter with his nobles, including one of the pagan priests who admitted that they never really gained anything from sacrificing to idols and another guy who professed that anything that provided info about the world beyond would be quite useful.

Considering in that case the conversion decision was reached by a consensus, force wouldn't even be necessary (although to be fair, there's no record about what happened among the commoners--in the historical novel "London," a Catholic priest serving a newly-converted king sets up a church in a village and is generally ignored until he sets up a cross carved Saxon-style that impresses the people).

Furthermore, a forced conversion isn't likely to stick. Why wouldn't a bunch of forcibly-baptized warriors get together, renounce their "faith," and try to kill their king? It happened in Saxony--the Saxons revolted, destroyed all the churches the Franks set up, and had to be forcibly slapped down.

[Alratan]

I read about the Christianization of the Saxons in Britain and it seemed the pattern was that the king becomes Christian, and the various sons of the nobles who served in his household prior to getting their own land convert soon afterward (they're young, impressionable, and under the king's influence). Slowly but surely, the nobility become Christianized.

Not really. The pattern was usually that the women of the royal household would be converted/the King would marry a Christian princess, and the King would eventually be presuaded and do a big bang among the nobility, who will have been subject to the same missionary pressures amongst the women and to them personally. In this pre-feudal era there weren't nobles as we would later understand them, just more and more petty Kings. There was no institution of more powerful Kings having the children of less powerful Kings serving in their household, that's simply not how the society worked. The only case we see things like this is when one King would take in the exiled heirs of another Kingdom after their dead father lost a war.

In at least one of the Saxon kingdoms, the king converted after discussing the matter with his nobles, including one of the pagan priests who admitted that they never really gained anything from sacrificing to idols and another guy who professed that anything that provided info about the world beyond would be quite useful.

Considering in that case the conversion decision was reached by a consensus, force wouldn't even be necessary (although to be fair, there's no record about what happened among the commoners--in the historical novel "London," a Catholic priest serving a newly-converted king sets up a church in a village and is generally ignored until he sets up a cross carved Saxon-style that impresses the people).

I don't see how this disagrees with what I'm saying. Christianisation occured because missionaries went in and converted from the top.

Furthermore, a forced conversion isn't likely to stick. Why wouldn't a bunch of forcibly-baptized warriors get together, renounce their "faith," and try to kill their king? It happened in Saxony--the Saxons revolted, destroyed all the churches the Franks set up, and had to be forcibly slapped down.

This is why Clovis' conversion by the sword dosen't really effect the rate of Christianisation, reinforcing my point that its not how the process happended. In the normal missionary case, why would they - the warriors that are getting converted are the Kings' personal friends and companions, their identity is defined by their loyalty to the war leader.

[Alratan]

I'm going to try and pick up this TL.

The last thing I wanted to do was to produce a "Where Are They Now?" section for Visigothic Spain. I'll do this (hopefully this weekend), then try and put up a general map.

[Alratan]

OK, I've posted this to the Timelines board, and added the following:

Hispania


623: Sisebut, King of the Visigoths, expels the last Byzantine troops from Hispania.
632: Sisebut dies, to be succeeded by his son, Reccard II. The bishops take the right to confirn election of the King to themselves.
634: Reccard defeats a rebellion led by Swinthilia, one of the most prominent of the nobility.
640: Reccard I dies, and is succeeded by his brother Sulithon I.
649: Suilithon I leads the visigoths to attack the Exarchate of Africa. Stressed by other enemies, the Byzantine Empire is unable to send much aid. The Western part of the Exarchate falls to the Visigoths. The Exarch pays them to stop their advance.
652: The Visigoths are expelled from Africa, Sulithon I is slain, and is succeeded by his nephew Sisebut II.
660: Sisebut II puts down a massive rebellion by the nobility.


For some fun, I think I'm going to have the Celtic church go a bit wierd. The institution of monastic schools is where I'm starting with this, combined with the beginning of an institution of having temporary monks. A tradition of the young spending five years off in a monastery just after puberty can be fun - Northern European equivilents of madrassa, inculcating educated fanatics with loyalty to God and the Saint-King. With Islam relegated to lesser importance in Europe, having a northern European Islam analogue could well be fun - all the paraphanalia of a ruler combining temporal and spiritual aspects, ruling the Kingdom of God-on-Earth across northern Europe, having Vinland settled by religious refugees from Scandinavia, holding true to the Othodox faith in the face of religious persecution...


Anyone think that's too much of a jumping the shark moment?

[Burton K Wheeler]

I like very much. Dark Ages Britain is one of my favorite areas for AH. For anyone confused about the various British and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms mentioned, don't bother with Wikipedia. Check out this site instead: http://www.history.kessler-web.co.uk/MainBritainIndex.htm

[Alratan]

How do people think the Franco-Northumbrian War impacted on Brittany?

As the Northumbrians have a strong British influence I think they might make common cause with the Bretons, drawing Brittany into the Northumbrian sphere of influence.

To elaborate on my previous idea of having some form of universal duty of five years in a monastery in a young adult, the effects I see are this:

-literacy, the monks would seek to ensure everyone can read and write, partially because of the need to feed the scriptora.

-language standerdisation. The way I see it, to try and prevent the monasteries becoming local fiefdoms (and to prevent the children going home), they will be encouraged to bring in children from far away.

-significantly increased agricultural productivity, as a literate farmer can often extract twice the yield from the same land as an illiterate one.

-a recruiting ground for the military, such as it is. With continuing continental adventures, and a tradition for semi-retired fighting men to end up in the monasteries in their later years, weapons training is going to start occuring there.

-other "industries"/trades taking root in the monasteries, in addition to the scriptora. After the Frankish war, the King is going to be flush with money, so in addition to simply building and endowing monastaries, he's going to be importing craftsmen - master builders, architects, glassmakers and the like, who are going to end up teaching their skills to the monasteries. Once again, the particualry talented atmonasteries with this kind of workshop will stay on as lay brothers (allowed to marry, etc)

Obviously this isn't going to happen all at once. The way I see it, it begins in the 650s, and gradually grows as part of the monasteries role until, around about 750, it's started to be abused a bit. At this point, some "Great (Wo)Man" steps in and at one of the councils of Abbots/Abbesses that the British Church is so fond of the entire process gets codifed and written up as the Rule of XXX. We'll have a particualry pious King on the throne who needs ecclesiastical support, so the entire thing gets royal approval.

This last could be associated with the dynastic union of Northumbria and Greater Gwynnedd, which succeeds with church backing. The King would be crowned High King of Brittania (or perhaps Imperator, I don't know whether they'd have the gall), comprising all of Britain except the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the eastern half of Ireland, and with Breton and Frisan vassels.

There'd then be ~50 years of peace in the British Isles, except for squabbles over vassledom in Ireland. Of course, the Frankish wars would continue, as the Franks and Anglo-British squabble over influence in north-west continental Europe, spurring the evolution of the ~professional troops recruited from the monasteries.

The Viking age would proceed to be something slightly different.

The Danes on the North Sea coast would be significantly more Christianized than OTL, and would also be bound into a much more developed North Sea trade network. With notable agricultural surpluses in Britain (see above), there would be significant capacity for peaceful immigration into Britain, so this would provide an outlet for the overpopulation this region will be experiencing. Of course, this won't be enough, but they can still go and fight in the Frankish wars, and large numbers of them are likely to end up as mercanaries in North Africa as well.

More Danes would also go East, along with the Swedes, going down into Russia, so we're likely to see earlier and greater penetration there.

This leaves the Norweigans. They are still defiantly pagan, and have little in the way of peaceful outlet for their surplus population. They are going to be kept out of the North and Irish Seas by Britain, at some significant cost, but are still going to dominate northern Scotland, the Islands, and the Atlantic Coast of Ireland. They will move on from there to take OTL Portugal, and probably the very north-west point of Africa. This will still leave an awful lot of people with nowhere to go compared to OTL. For fun, we'll see an earlier discovery of Iceland, then Greenland, and then Vinland. Then, with a lot more surplus Norweigans, we'll have colonies in the latter.

Whether they surivive the little Ice Age, or have any noticable impact whatsoever, or just fade out of history, is a whole other matter.

The British will still be continuing their missionary push, although unlike OTL this'll be associated with military expansion as well. I'm still thinking about agressive monasticism, and how this will pan out.

That's my general direction for the next century or so in Northern Europe.

The Middle East will be very differnet as well. The repression of the Zoroastrians will come back to haunt the Caliphate, as the old core territories of Persia will implode. This will be fortunate for the West, as it'll be happening at the same time as the Byzantine Empire falls apart. We'll be seeing an Empire of Africa, an Empire of Egypt (including Syria), and a core Empire. This'll primarily be due to religous differences. Monophysite Egypt, Catholic Africa, and a *Orthodox rump.

[G.Bone]

Frankly, I think you should just write the segment...

[Alratan]

I'm doing so, but with the editing limits it gets messy if people find good reasons to change things.

[Alratan]

Britain


701-715: Oscar, King of Northumbria, imports a large number of craftsmen, including architects and glass-makers to work on his endowed monasteries, using the vast wealth he had gained in the Frankish wars. Some come from as far as Constantinople. The British Abbots ensure that the craftsmen teach local apprentices.

716: War with the Franks begins again, after the Bretons and Franks go to war, and the Bretons appeal to their Dumnonnian allies. Oscar follows his father-in-law into the war.

722: Oscar, King of Northumbria, abdicates from the official duties of Kingship, “retiring to the monastery”. Unsurprisingly, whilst he gives up some of the more physical aspects of Dark Age kingship, with his sons busy fighting the Franks, he retains effective control of the country. Raedwald II is crowned King of Northumbria and Bretwalgda at the age of 23. No one demurs.

725: Raedwald marries the only child of the King of Gwynedd.

728: The Franks pay the British to go away, and affirm the independence of Brittany. Oscar influences his son to pay for infrastructure investment, building harbours and repairing the roads.

733-740: The Northumbrians and their vassals go to war with the pagan German tribes who have been threatening the Frisans.

735: Oscar, retired King of Northumbria, dies. The administration he has built up in the monastery at Eborac effectively continues to run the country, advising his son.

740: Raedwald II declares victory over the Germans, having defeated all the tribes between the sea and the Rhine, and imposed Christianity upon them.

748: Raedwald II abdicates, becoming the 3rd High King Emeritus. By this point many of the lesser Kings are following this example. Edwin III assumes the throne, at the age of 21

750: A Council of the British Church is held in Chester. There is a major issue before them: The Northumbrian King has a strong claim on the recently vacated throne of Gwynedd, and the clergy have to decide on a position to take. There is also an underlying structural issue for the faith - the monasteries have become massively powerful, and corruption has become a serious problem in some areas – particularly as monasteries are largely immune to tax.

The results are the support for the Northumbrian candidacy, and the Rule of Caer Lune, named for the Abbey the Abbess who drafted its core came from. This involves a compromise with the Crown and nobility, whilst it affirms the practice of adolescents being sent to the monastery for five years, it allocates the recruiting parishes amongst the monasteries to ensure that they are distributed amongst the entire land, so a monastery does not recruit solely from their immediate vicinity. Also, the monasteries have to agree to provide certain services to the Crowns (both High and local). These include provide drafting services, diverting some proportion of their craft production to the nobility, and allowing the recruitment of lay brothers to fight.

The Northumbrian King is crowned King of Gwynedd, and as High King of the British. He accepts the fealty of the King of Dumnonia, the subordinate Welsh Kingdoms, and subordinate Irish Kings of Laigin (Lenister), Mhuman (Munster), and Mide (Meath). The other Irish Kingdoms send tribute, but not obedience.

[G.Bone]

Hmm...a future trouble spot...

Keep going!

[Alratan]

A clarification on my above post, Raedwald pacified Germany between the Wesser and the Rhine.

[Constantinople]

Any updates for this TL? The fact that the Byzantines still control much of North Africa, yet Islam still exhists is very interesting.

[Alratan]

I ran into a bit of a wall attempting to work out what was going on in northern Europe at the time. I've done some reading, and I'm currently divided between taking the far out option of having an religious explosion of some alt-celtic church (monastic based crusading order) across the North Sea and the Baltic, with all the peculiar knock-ons that would cause, or with sticking with a path more similar to OTL. The Byzantine's have had a run of good luck, but that's probably going to ebb soon. This is fortunate, as otherwise they'd become to dominant. This will probably be due to internal division - we're probably going to end up with an African and Egyptian Empire, as well as Islam is likely to be in some significant trouble as well, as the ramifications of not accepting Zoroastrians as People of the Book has lead to a much more thorough destruction of classical Persia than in OTL, so the Haramad Caliphate is weaker than the OTL Caliphate. War between the two Caliphates is likely to continue, as they vie for possession of Arabia.

[Sgt Detritus]

The Byzantine's have had a run of good luck, but that's probably going to ebb soon.

In my TL The Second Heptarchy:

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/althistx/va.html

I'm planning on having a strong Byzantium ruled by a dynasty of soldier-emperors descended from the sons of Harold II who fled England and joined the Varangian Guard

[Braden]

What happened to Language in this area? Did the Cumbric language become common, or a dialect become used and standardised or is the introduction of Latin encourages and the "Class of the elites" while cwmbraic is the language of others? Or would This simply be the Old Welsh style language used at the time across the area?