A Scottish dominated England:

Hi, I need ideas to make this into a timeline. Is this scenario doable? Please discuss.
Was this ever possible? Maybe a more successful William Wallace or Robert De Bruce invasion of England coinciding with a second successful French invasion?
 
Well, you could always go with having the Scots inherit the English throne, except that already happened in 1603. Of course, thanks to England having far more wealth and population than Scotland it didn't take very long for the Stuarts to become fairly Anglicized, and in all likelihood that the eventual fate for any Scottish regime that manages a takeover.
 
I think a much larger population early on might do the trick I mean some Scottish land isnt usuable but we could still probably get a much larger population.
 
I think a much larger population early on might do the trick I mean some Scottish land isnt usuable but we could still probably get a much larger population.
Scotland simply doesn't have the carrying capacity for a significantly larger population than it had OTL; the reason the English have always badly outnumbered the Scots is because England has almost all the good farmland.

Your best shot at outright Scottish conquest is to avoid any sort of unified and centralized English state, because once England is united the Scots will be hard-pressed just to stay independent when facing a much more prosperous neighbor that has several times their population. A disunited England would allow the Scots to divide and conquer.

Of course, after such a conquest the center of power would still shift to England pretty quickly, as happened with the Stuarts. England is just too large, inhabited, and wealthy not to dominate any unified Anglo-Scottish state.
 
As has been pointed out population and economic strength play a signficant if not decisive role. Also a key difference was the essential weakness of the scots crown over its nobility compared to England. Amidst Scots nationalism there are significant failures in understanding anglo scots history and the fact that it was a Scots King who first proposed full political union.
Even today the Scots tend to forget that their representation in the European Union for example is based on their claim to statehood despite the fact that they have a smaller population for example than the Yorkshire and humber region of England who gain less representation in the EU Parliament.
You can't have a Scots takeover of England in the sense i think you mean without England failing to unite (in other words you need an England that resembles say Wales or Ireland up to the middle ages]
 
You can't have a Scots takeover of England in the sense i think you mean without England failing to unite (in other words you need an England that resembles say Wales or Ireland up to the middle ages]
Which is possible. There were certainly factions enough.
 
Northumbria, and maybe another Northern English kingdom joining Scotland instead of England perhaps? Or is that still too equal?
 
Northumbria, and maybe another Northern English kingdom joining Scotland instead of England perhaps? Or is that still too equal?
Or find another way to push the border south, maybe down as far as York? I've thought abou this a couple of times, but never put it together - don't know enough history to be able to make it entirely plausibe I guess. But here's some thoughts anyway.

If Alexander III doesn't take the journey to get back to his wife on a stormy night, and hence doesn't fall off his horse and die, is there a possibility of a Scots-Scandanavian empire becoming the dominant player in northern europe? The scottish royal family had multiple ties to the Norwegian one at that time and these would have been strengthened further in all likelihood. If you can then manufacture a Kalmar union equivalent including Scotland that survives, and expand on the trade routes between Scotland and Northern continental Europe which came along later, add in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and create Scottish-Scandanavian city states in continental europe off the back of this, there's a need to become a major seafaring power to protect your interests around the entire Norh Sea. There's also a need to protect your ports in Northumbria / Teeside and to put infrastructure there. (As an aside, you could, off the back of this, suggest that more exposure to continental europe intoduces more diseases earlier and as such might prevent the Black Death from wiping out such a high proportion of the Scandanavian population, bringing it more in line with the rest of Europe? Don't really know enough about it but I believe the high rates of mortality there had some serious effects?).

The city states on the continent can then have a major impact on the HRE, to the extent of a continental war which leaves the northern kingdom's monarch as the new Holy Roman Emperor.

The seafaring power bit then comes into play during european colonialism, but it's more liekly to follow northern atlantic routes, which wouldn't clash with Spain / Portugal. If expeditions set out early enough, they may even contact the last survivors of the Greenland colonies - legends about ICeland and Greenland could be an impetus to set out on voyages to find them.

In the meantime, a smaller England is less able to control the Welsh and Irish, loses possessions in France, loses territory to the Welsh, etc. Then there's a rump kindom of Anglia which isn't as dominant in the British Isles and has to concentrate on battles with the Welsh and Irish and the dominance of it's empire building neighbour to the north.

Someone will probably come along and knock holes in this, but what the hey.:D
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Well you can have the "reconquest" of England from the Danes led from Scotland, rather than Wessex. Probably just need Wessex to fall, Alfred to die etc, then England (sic) becomes a land of competing Danish kingdoms, whilst Scotland grows and consolidates and stretches down over all of Cumbria (*as it did anyway, it was a client kingdom for the heir IIRC)

Over time, Scotland gradually defeats and annexes the Danish kingdoms, eventually unifying all of Great Britain

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
In my last TL I had Scotland taking N.England down to the Humber.
Even then though the south would still be stronger. London is just too powerful a city.
Also such an expansion would make Scotland even more English and less Scottish (in the true sense) than it already is.
 
In my last TL I had Scotland taking N.England down to the Humber.
Even then though the south would still be stronger. London is just too powerful a city.
Also such an expansion would make Scotland even more English and less Scottish (in the true sense) than it already is.
That's the real problem. It's easy to have Scotland politically dominate England, but much harder to have Scottish culture in a dominant position. After a generation or two the Scottish court is going to end up being more or less an English court with some Scottish names, as happened in OTL with the Stuarts.
 
That's the real problem. It's easy to have Scotland politically dominate England, but much harder to have Scottish culture in a dominant position. After a generation or two the Scottish court is going to end up being more or less an English court with some Scottish names, as happened in OTL with the Stuarts.

The shift happened before that even. From the conquest of S.E Scotland on they started a ever continuing slide away from being celts and into Englishness.
 
If things had gone a little different around the time of Henry Huntingdon et al, then Northumbria would have ended up as part of Scotland. Add in more endemic instability a la the Anarchy in England, and you've got plenty to work with.
 
A more likely scenario is a Scottish-dominated Britain. If we have recognisable English and Scottish entities, then they have a China-Manchuria problem going on. Whereas if England is a lot of small states, they could be unified, in a Sardinia-Italy kind of a way, by the northernmost one.

And Leej, what is "Scottish in the true sense"? Celtic? That's just silly, I'm afraid. We're essentially a Germanic people now, and we still have our own national consciousness. My scenario involves Scotland as just another small state in "England" (the Saxonsphere), but if it has a Scottish name and identity I don't see why it isn't Scotland.

The shift happened before that even. From the conquest of S.E Scotland on they started a ever continuing slide away from being celts and into Englishness.

There's a big difference between Englishness and Germanicness. I'm more Scots than English can can't speak a Celtic word. Neither, I believe, can Mr.Salmond.
 
There's a big difference between Englishness and Germanicness. I'm more Scots than English can can't speak a Celtic word. Neither, I believe, can Mr.Salmond.

No its Englishness. The term may be seen as offensive these days with England being a separate country but its the way things are.
I suppose its like how the Austrians are German but not German. They're just as entitled to call themselves that in the big cultural, linguistic, etc... sense but in another context they're clearly not and would be offended if you called them that.

And Leej, what is "Scottish in the true sense"? Celtic? That's just silly, I'm afraid. We're essentially a Germanic people now, and we still have our own national consciousness. My scenario involves Scotland as just another small state in "England" (the Saxonsphere), but if it has a Scottish name and identity I don't see why it isn't Scotland.
Scottish in the true sense is Celtic.
Over the years its been stolen and appropriated by Anglos but the actual Scots were Celts. To use a German comparison again- Prussia.
I mention that because as you said Scotland is Germanic whilst many still seem to think its Celtic because of its roots.
 
No its Englishness. The term may be seen as offensive these days with England being a separate country but its the way things are.
I suppose its like how the Austrians are German but not German. They're just as entitled to call themselves that in the big cultural, linguistic, etc... sense but in another context they're clearly not and would be offended if you called them that.

Well, I'm not offended to be called English, since I to an extent am. But I do know the correct use of the term, and yeah, if it offends Austrians to call them Germans, don't. Nobody can fault you for calling Austria german-speaking or Scotland English-speaking, bu nobody calls the Australians "English".

And historically the circumstances aren't terribly comparable. Austria's identity was recent and a fluke, Scotland's well-established since the dark ages. The most important aspect here is that Austria never had its own Germanic language.

Scottish in the true sense is Celtic.
Over the years its been stolen and appropriated by Anglos but the actual Scots were Celts. To use a German comparison again- Prussia.
I mention that because as you said Scotland is Germanic whilst many still seem to think its Celtic because of its roots.

What the hell is a "true sense"? I don't see any comparison whatever to Prussia, and what the Scots were is irrelevent, its what we are that matters. The British, after all, were, well, Brythons.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Well, you could always go with having the Scots inherit the English throne, except that already happened in 1603. Of course, thanks to England having far more wealth and population than Scotland it didn't take very long for the Stuarts to become fairly Anglicized, and in all likelihood that the eventual fate for any Scottish regime that manages a takeover.

As you point out, the disparate wealth and population are a real problem. When James inheritted the throne in 1603, the people of Scotland treated it like a great victory. James, on the other hand, left and never returned.
 
Well, I'm not offended to be called English, since I to an extent am. But I do know the correct use of the term, and yeah, if it offends Austrians to call them Germans, don't. Nobody can fault you for calling Austria german-speaking or Scotland English-speaking, bu nobody calls the Australians "English".

And historically the circumstances aren't terribly comparable. Austria's identity was recent and a fluke, Scotland's well-established since the dark ages. The most important aspect here is that Austria never had its own Germanic language.
Very debatable.
Even if you decide to regard Scots as something special and different to all the other varities of English (I really wouldn't) then its still iffy. Austrian German is rather different to German German, in the past these differences were even greater.

And you could indeed call the Australians English in this sense. Very much so. Its just a better wording of Anglo-Saxon.
What the hell is a "true sense"? I don't see any comparison whatever to Prussia, and what the Scots were is irrelevent, its what we are that matters. The British, after all, were, well, Brythons.

Original sense is perhaps better wording.
The Scots were the Gaelic invaders from Ireland who formed their Gaelic kingdom in N.Scotland. After taking over northern Northumbria though the Northumbrians' culture steadily took over. The modern Scots are more the descendants of those Northumbrians (culturally of course, genetics is irrelevant) so I do see a comparison to Prussia in stealing even the name of old folks.
When discussing Scots historically in a 1st millennium sense and modern Scots you're discussing two utterly different things.
 
Very debatable.

Debate it, then.

Even if you decide to regard Scots as something special and different to all the other varities of English (I really wouldn't) then its still iffy. Austrian German is rather different to German German, in the past these differences were even greater.

A language is a dialect with an army. Scots (which is not English spoken today in even the broadest of Scottish accents, but rather the language of Burns, except when he wrote in English, obviously) is every bit as distinct as Belarusian and Slovak. And while indeed there have historically been English (and German) dialects of similar distinctiveness, none have ever been considered languages by anyone (well, except Dutch). Whereas Scots was distinguished from English by Burns and Smith in their own works.

And you could indeed call the Australians English in this sense. Very much so. Its just a better wording of Anglo-Saxon.

No, it's an incorrect wording of Anglo-Saxon. Do you call Australians and Americans "English" to their faces? That would be a silly thing to do. Besides causing offense, it would be wrong, since they don't live in England or feel any affinity with English national identity. Anglo-Saxon (in the modern Anglospheric sense) they undeniably are, as are the Scots. So say that.

Original sense is perhaps better wording.

How about "historical sense"? Or just call them the Dalriadans to simplify things. In any case the historical Scots in no way make the modern Scots any less Scottish.

The Scots were the Gaelic invaders from Ireland who formed their Gaelic kingdom in N.Scotland. After taking over northern Northumbria though the Northumbrians' culture steadily took over. The modern Scots are more the descendants of those Northumbrians (culturally of course, genetics is irrelevant) so I do see a comparison to Prussia in stealing even the name of old folks.

I know all this perfectly well, but they (the Northumbrians) didn't "steal" anything. They by a very gradual process changed a meaning, but Scotland was a continuous entity and its Germanification remains incomplete as far as the Western Isles are concerned.

When discussing Scots historically in a 1st millennium sense and modern Scots you're discussing two utterly different things.

Of course, although they obviously overlap considerably, but that's no reason to go around calling Scottish people "fake" or "English".
 
Top