WI: Anglo Saxons remain in control of England

Celtic loan words could perhaps come in via Ireland, it could perhaps establish itself as a part of the modern world with no Norman invasions. But generally yeah, they wouldn't be very many.


The cliched thing in this scenario is for English to remain a utterly Germanic language. This though is a big no.
Just look to Dutch and the Scandinavian languages- no French rule there yet still a fair few French words. With the French as rich neighbours this would be very apparent on English. Not to mention the latin effect which will be strong.

I completely agree. I think where it's going to diverge significantly from OTL is in administrative words. In proto-Middle English (only thing I can think of calling transitionary 11-13th century English :p) a lot of Germanic words remain- what declined was the use of declension, gender and Germanic words for administration. Because the gov't was Norman French, we adopted a lot of their words to describe things. So instead of "empire", "reign" and "tax" we might have rīce, rīcsung and scat (for a time). However I imagine just as IOTL, French words would be imported and corrupted en masse during this time as well- so you might very well have something like "excise" imported via. Dutch (via. French) to mean tax in the end anyway.

The main difference I think will ultimately come up in that the language will not be forced on the English necessarily. Without the Normans to entrench a lot of French words in basic English vocabulary, much of common speech is going to remain primarily Germanic. Most notably, it's probably going to stay that way largely in legal language (where IOTL it's very French/Latin influenced). On the other hand, the English should still do a ton of borrowing from Latin, French, the Low Countries and Scandanavia- particularly in emerging areas of speech such as foreign policy, probably a lot in religion, etc. I would still expect French words to make up a significant part of our vocabulary but like German and Dutch, they've largely been imported as administrative descriptors and first "translated" via. English declension rules (which I would surmise hold together better in an Anglo-Saxon England).


The big thing I wonder- what of the north?
Would England reconquer the lands recently lost to the Scots?
What of Straithclyde?
I would well see Scotland kept as a small celtic highland nation with the English reasserting themselves in the low lands.

Would this have long term demographic impacts? Other threads seem to make it sound as if the Anglo-Saxons would ultimately reconquest some of the lands lost to the Scots, but that by and large their rulers (House of Wessex) weren't incredibly interested in uniting the isles or anything.
 
Linguistic I doubt we will see that much greater amount of Celtic loanwords, the Anglo-Saxon seemed unwilling to adopt them in OTL, we will still see some Normannic influence, but what we really are going to see are Low German and Low Franconian influence on the english language, maybe enough that Englisc stay mutual intelligible with the continental West Germanic languages.

Celtic influence was basically completed by the beginning of the first written witnesses in the 8th century, and it was quite meager back then.

The Norse influence is conditional on many factors, e.g. whether there will still be a Danelag.

But mutual intelligibility with continental languages is impossible even centuries before. The Saxon dialects of (pre-Norman) Anglo-Saxon are further away from Old Saxon on the continent than the latter from Bavarian. Of course such statements are always arguable; but Anglo-Saxon had a lot of own developments as nasalization-denasalization, a complete new vowel system, including umlaut shifts many centuries before the analogous German changes, palatalization of certain gutturals, and of course weird verb prefigation with subtle implications ("thy kingdom to-be-come"). Chances are better with the Frisians, but how significant would that be ... ?

Of course, apart languages can converge to each other, as Swedish and Danish did towards German after the Reformation. But you would need a good reason for "narrowing the Channel" ...

The cliched thing in this scenario is for English to remain a utterly Germanic language. This though is a big no.
Just look to Dutch and the Scandinavian languages- no French rule there yet still a fair few French words. With the French as rich neighbours this would be very apparent on English. Not to mention the latin effect which will be strong.


There is a difference in how intimately lean words and lean structures intrude into a language. Most European languages are loaded with Latin influence - but such a strong effect French (and Norse) had on English is something special.

I don't see the strong influence of French on Scandinavian languages you describe. And the Dutch were under French rule, at least some of them, but for much longer than England; those are called Flemings.

Essentially - yes, English would have remained a clearly Germanic language, and not become a Germanic-Romance transitional language.

However, if Norse influence would be even stronger than IOTL, this might create a West-North Germanic transitional English ... :D
 
Last edited:
Essentially - yes, English would have remained a clearly Germanic language, and not become a Germanic-Romance transitional language.

However, if Norse influence would be even stronger than IOTL, this might create a West-North Germanic transitional English ... :D

Which is really cool from a linguistic perspective. Just as thought-vomit, would English still be reconcilable linguistically with Frisian? I remember when I read about Old English way back in the day there was a bit on Frisian and Old English being very, very closely related. Would it diverge very significantly in the future do you think? Totally a wild guess, since it must depend a lot on politics- but just for thinking's sake if we imagine outside of England things went as in OTL (ASB, but whatever it's just for thoughts)- would Frisian diverge enough from English that they're completely unintelligible?

Or would they be like Low Franconian dialects to High German: different enough that they can't understand each other but close enough that learning one to the other is easier than picking up French or Swahili.
 
I thought about writing a little bit in "pure English" not long ago, i.e. English with all the sound changes that have happened IOTL, but without the Norse and Norman lean words.

This reminds me of a, well - "caricature" I doodled back then:

10_05_10_sprache.jpg

10_05_10_sprache.jpg
 
Anything can happen, but how likely is it?

Especially as England is not going to have something like the Investiture Crisis happen to it, since there's no Pope-Emperor struggle.

Well, in OTL, England did have it's own version of the Investiture Crisis. The Norman kings were able to work things so that the end result was a strengthened monarchy. But an Anglo-Saxon England whose regional Earls still held great power might well not be so fortunate.
 
Well, in OTL, England did have it's own version of the Investiture Crisis. The Norman kings were able to work things so that the end result was a strengthened monarchy. But an Anglo-Saxon England whose regional Earls still held great power might well not be so fortunate.

How powerful were the vassals of the Norman Kings and how did they compare with the earls of the Anglo-Saxon period?

IIRC you had the Anarchy, baronial revolts (like the kind that led to the Magna Carta), etc, so it's not like Norman England was hyper-centralized either.
 
In the long run I don't think a union of the Constantinople and Celtic churches would be sustainable. The theological differences between the 2 were to great. However a short term political union against Rome is possible and may end with a Celtic Patriarch. The Celtic Church may also end up being dominant in Scandinavia
Such as?


Personally, I suspect that the (modern) Orthodox model of autocephalous national churches would be just the thing for Britain and Scandinavia. Of course, they really hadn't developed that very well yet...
 
There is an excellent TL called 'These Hills Sing Of Saxon Kings' which I'd really recommend for this scenario.
 
Conquest Curtailed..

One possibility I've not seen considered is the failure of the Norman Conquest or rather its end before it could get properly established so it would be seen rather like the Danish period under Cnut as an interregnum.

Robert, William's eldest son, raised a rebellion against his father and actually fought him briefly in 1079. Had William been killed by Robert, it's likely there would have been civil war among the Normans with rivals claiming support for both Robert and William Rufus.

In the same way as the feud between Harold I and Hardacnut weakened and ultimately ended Danish control over England, so a protracted conflict between the sons of William would have devastated both Normandy and England and perhaps paved the way for the Anglo-Saxons to regain control of England with perhaps Edgar the Aetheling emerging as the new king of England in 1087.
 
Would this have long term demographic impacts? Other threads seem to make it sound as if the Anglo-Saxons would ultimately reconquest some of the lands lost to the Scots, but that by and large their rulers (House of Wessex) weren't incredibly interested in uniting the isles or anything.

Very interesting question. The southern kings had less interest in the northern lands but they would probably have been more attractive as alternative rulers than the Normans.

If an English king had restored Lothian to England than it could well have made a major impact on Anglo-Scottish interactions. With a strong presence there its likely that Strathclyde would tend toward English rather than Scottish domination. That would put the bulk of the central valley into English hands and hence greatly reduce the population and military potential of Scotland. This would mean that the potential for conflict in the border region is likely to be less violent. Scotland simply wouldn't have the strength to make a major threat to England while a southern based English monarchy is going to be a lot less aggressive than the Normans. There might be the basis for much better relations between the two nations under those circumstances.

Steve
 
Well, the effect is going to depend in great part on the specific choice of POD. As for possible PODs...

1) The obvious one...Harold Godwinson beats (and preferably kills) William the Bastard at Hastings.


Variant on that. WI Edward the Confessor lives a few years longer, or else Harald of Norway dies before 1066.

At the time of his death at Stamfoprd Bridge harald was 51, quite old for a Viking chief. His sons were much lesser figures, unlikely to go for the invasion of England. So Harold II has only one enemy.
 
Dystopia, anyone?

No real advancement of civilization; England stays backwater, and even worse, the English language probably never gets created.........look forward to a total dystopia here :(
 

Penelope

Banned
No real advancement of civilization; England stays backwater, and even worse, the English language probably never gets created.........look forward to a total dystopia here :(

Ah yes, without England the world collapsed into total anarchy.

Simply put, no.

The Anglo-Saxons would do perfectly fine on their own and there are other nations that could easily fill the power niche.
 
No real advancement of civilization; England stays backwater, and even worse, the English language probably never gets created.........look forward to a total dystopia here :(

CaliBoy1990

Alternative view. England stays a rich and prosperous state with much stronger [although still weak compared to modern times] rule of law. It does see much of its population de-housed to enable the new rulers to build grand castles and churches, reduced to slaves to provide forced labour and later many bled off into wars in Ireland, and France. Its social development is not put back by a century or two by a deeply autocratic system.

It may or may not develop into a great power, although many of the key inputs are still there. However it would be a lot wealthier and happier, at least in the next few generations.

Steve
 
CaliBoy1990

Alternative view. England stays a rich and prosperous state with much stronger [although still weak compared to modern times] rule of law. It does see much of its population de-housed to enable the new rulers to build grand castles and churches, reduced to slaves to provide forced labour and later many bled off into wars in Ireland, and France. Its social development is not put back by a century or two by a deeply autocratic system.

It may or may not develop into a great power, although many of the key inputs are still there. However it would be a lot wealthier and happier, at least in the next few generations.

Steve

I agree with most of it, including the part about France, but not with the part about Ireland (and Scotland and Wales). Without the OTL 'French distractions' any ambitious expansionist English king(dom) will focus on the British Isles; they won't be Normans, but even the Anglo-Saxons will have their fair share of expansionist rulers (just like other European kingdoms during that period). Especially when the wealth, resources and population of England is compared with the other states in the British Isles.
 
I agree with most of it, including the part about France, but not with the part about Ireland (and Scotland and Wales). Without the OTL 'French distractions' any ambitious expansionist English king(dom) will focus on the British Isles; they won't be Normans, but even the Anglo-Saxons will have their fair share of expansionist rulers (just like other European kingdoms during that period). Especially when the wealth, resources and population of England is compared with the other states in the British Isles.

Janprimus

There is the potential but not the same incentive that the Normans had with their continued expansion, looking for more land for their families. The Anglo-Saxons seem to have been markedly more insular. It took several years of border raids before Harold was finally send to end the Welsh attacks and then despite totally defeating the Welsh he was content with removing the problem without even a claim of overlordship by the English monarchy. With Ireland there was contact for quite a while before 1066 and it seems to have been very cordial. In fact it was often a place where exiled English sought refuge.

A powerful and agressive king might have been tempted to make gains against either the Welsh or Scots but given the somewhat de-centred nation of the English system he would have had problems mobilising an army for an extended campaign of conquest. Also, at least while the monarchy was based in Wessex and the south there would have been less interest in conquests in the north, especially since it would largely boost northern earls, who would be potential rivals.

Steve
 
So none of the Earls of England at the time of the Norman Conquest were ruling by right of descent from an original ruling house except possibly the Earl of Wessex*.

*Harold Godwinson is said to be descended from the House of Cerdic via Aethelmaer the Stout, one of the sons of Aethelred the Unready. However, there is a good deal of controversy about the linkage between Aethelmaer and Godwine, Harold's father. Godwine's father was said to be a man named Wulfnoth Cild, who was a "thegn of Sussex." But it is very uncertain that this Wulfnoth was actually a descendant of Aethelmaer or, indeed, a member of the House of Cerdic at all. Indeed, Harold Godwinson himself never claimed such a linkage when he was angling for the throne, and there are some documents which identify Godwine's father as a ceorl, or a commoner. So the linkage between the Earls of Wessex at the time of the Norman Conquest and the House of Cerdic is tenuous at best.

In the will of the Atheling Athelstan, elder brother to Edmund Ironside who died in 1014/5, he restores to Godwin, son of Wulfnoth Cild, an estate at Compton which his father had lost thanks to the naval fiasco of 1009. In the will of Alfred the Great this estate had been granted to the sons of his elder brother Ethelred I. Technically speaking if true this meant Harold had a better claim to the throne than Edward the Confessor.

The fact that he didn't make anything of it was probably due to his not needing to, and if his grandfather was descended from Ethelred I it would explain some of the dynamics of the events of 1009.
 
Top