Is there any way in which the separate Anglo-Saxon kingdoms established after their invasion of the British Isles in 450- ie Mercia, Wessex, Sussex, Essex, Northumbria, Kent- could've continued to exist as distinct political entities instead of gradually merging into the nation England by the 8th-9th C AD ? Could the continued existence of separate Anglo-Saxon kingdoms have facilitated the creation of a federal England to incorporate and cater for these separate entities ?
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms continue- federal England ?
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
This ATL would need no Viking attacks on England.
That would need the Vikings not to improve their shipbuilding skills as quickly as OTL.
That would need ...
That would need the Vikings not to improve their shipbuilding skills as quickly as OTL.
That would need ...
Let's assume Scotland, Wales and Ireland are incorporated as 1-3 equal political entities in the federation with the English ones.
Let's assume, The British Federation establish colonies and when they get large enough they're granted Kingdom status and become equal to the British Kingdoms...
Let's assume, The British Federation establish colonies and when they get large enough they're granted Kingdom status and become equal to the British Kingdoms...
Faeelin
Banned
I look on with interest on how you get that from his POD. England divided gets conquered and then reunited by the danes.
A workable POD would have to come in the 17th century, or early 18th.
::Thinks on it::
WI Darien was more successful? Therefore, scotland doesnt' come to england with cap in hand? Scotland is part of the United Kingdoms, and becomes a pro-american colony state within the empire, advocating free trade.
A workable POD would have to come in the 17th century, or early 18th.
::Thinks on it::
WI Darien was more successful? Therefore, scotland doesnt' come to england with cap in hand? Scotland is part of the United Kingdoms, and becomes a pro-american colony state within the empire, advocating free trade.
Forget about a united Wales, a united Ireland is even more an impossibility in this case. Actually, without something like dislike of the English, I can't even see a united Scotland (that is Borders, Lowlands, Highlands and Isles all subject to a single authority) - something about the Celts, we hate a single centralised power (only slightly les than the English).
They are. With a fair admixture of Norse, but then so are the Irish. The tribes the Romans faced (Votadinii and Pictii) were, if not celtic, certainly had a celtic aristocracy. Calgacus (he of 'they make a desert and call it peace' fame) who led the Picts at Mons Graupius has a Celtic name.
Furthermore, the very name Scotland relates to the Scottii, Irish (thus Celtic) settlers who colonised the Galloway region in the 4th-5th century and then spread outward.
Also, the clincher, as it were, the traditional language of Scotland, Gaelic, is almost identical to that of Ireland.
Furthermore, the very name Scotland relates to the Scottii, Irish (thus Celtic) settlers who colonised the Galloway region in the 4th-5th century and then spread outward.
Also, the clincher, as it were, the traditional language of Scotland, Gaelic, is almost identical to that of Ireland.
Admiral Matt
Gone Fishin'
"Since when are Scots Celtic?"
"They are"
Historically? Absolutely. However, by the same argument one could claim they are Basques, as it was Basque-related groups that were there when the Celts arrived.
But Linguistically? Only if you ignore the near total majority that speaks only English. Culturally? To a limited extent, perhaps, but they are more British than Celtic.
What about genetically? There's no such thing as a Celtic genetic group; the current natives of the British Isles are almost exclusively descendants of the people who were conquered by the people who were conquered by the Celts. The original speakers of Celtic were probably closest genetically to the Dutch or South Germans.
At most, the Scots used to be Celts. Or better yet, were most recently Celts.
"They are"
Historically? Absolutely. However, by the same argument one could claim they are Basques, as it was Basque-related groups that were there when the Celts arrived.
But Linguistically? Only if you ignore the near total majority that speaks only English. Culturally? To a limited extent, perhaps, but they are more British than Celtic.
What about genetically? There's no such thing as a Celtic genetic group; the current natives of the British Isles are almost exclusively descendants of the people who were conquered by the people who were conquered by the Celts. The original speakers of Celtic were probably closest genetically to the Dutch or South Germans.
At most, the Scots used to be Celts. Or better yet, were most recently Celts.
Peter Cowan said:
Well, Scotland was pretty much unified by the 9th Century AD. But as I have mentioned on another thread (Gaullic Urbanization), that was due to some unique factors...the large settlement of Angles in the lowlands, which influenced the later society of Scotland, and the fact that the Picts were matriarchal while the Scots were patriarchal (so when Scottish Princes married Pictish Princesses, the Scots ended up in control of the land).
Admiral Matt said:
You might be interested in reading the following article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm
It talks about recent genetic studies which have been done which do seem to prove that the peoples of the "Celtic fringe" are genetically different from the 'Anglo Saxon' people of Britain, indicating that the invading Anglo-Saxons pretty much exterminated or drove out the Celts in the areas they conquered. The Anglo-Saxon English appear to be genetically virtually identical to people of Frisia and other regions on the continent where the Anglo-Saxon tribes originated, while the Celtic fringe peoples seem to be genetically linked to the Basques of northern Spain and southern France. One interesting point not mentioned in the article: Irish tradition states that the original Celts came to the British Isles from....SPAIN. So now we appear to have genetic evidence that this Irish 'myth' may have a basis in fact.
I meant Wales, Scotland, and Ireland as 1-3 Kingdoms each (or other political entity,) in the United Kingdoms.
Faeelin, I hadn't thought it thru, sometimes my imagination just leaps ahead. I figured a confederation would be less patronizing to colonies. Your ideas sound good. Scotland had a colony is "Panama" I believe.
Faeelin, I hadn't thought it thru, sometimes my imagination just leaps ahead. I figured a confederation would be less patronizing to colonies. Your ideas sound good. Scotland had a colony is "Panama" I believe.
IIRC, the Picts were pre-Indo-European peoples like the Basques, and they were conquered/assimilated by Scottish immigrants from Ireland and Romano-Celtic refugees fleeing the Germanic invasion of Britain.
What were the Picts like culturally? One of y'all mentioned them being matriarchial...
What were the Picts like culturally? One of y'all mentioned them being matriarchial...
Matt Quinn said:
Truth is, nobody knows if they were I-E or not. So little survives that most peopple can not even make an educated guess. The very word 'Pict', probably comes from the latin word for 'paint', and may be related to the fact that they painted themselves. (But again nobody knows.)
Culturally, by the time Rome got there and started to keep records, the Picts were seemingly culturally very similar to the Celts. This is one of the unfortunate things about the Romans, they really didn't keep very good records about barbarians on the periphery.
Norman said:
The little bits of evidence we have (inscriptions and place names) which were left by the Picts themselves indicate that they spoke a P-Celtic (Brythonic) language. The theory that they were "pre-Celtic Indo-European survivors" is primarily based on the writings of outside observers like the Venerable Bede, who classified the Pictish language as separate from both Brythonic (Welsh) and Gaelic (Irish/Scottish). But Bede did not actually speak Pictish...or Brythonic or Gaelic, for that matter. Pictish just sounded different to him than the other two languages. The fact that Bede heard what sounded like a different language could simply be that the Picts spoke with a different accent than the Welsh, who were the other speakers of Brythonic languages on the island.