AH Challenge: Make Scotland the dominant nation in Britain

With a POD not earlier than 409 AD and with Edinburgh the capital of Scotland and Britain. There can still be a country called England in at least part of OTL England, with London as an important city.
 
With a POD not earlier than 409 AD and with Edinburgh the capital of Scotland and Britain. There can still be a country called England in at least part of OTL England, with London as an important city.

pipisme

I think the problem here would be getting a bigger Scotland, as such, as the OTL is rather wankish in terms of how many things went right for it. You can reduce the Anglo-Saxon presence in various ways. However the Scottish kingdom of Dalriada was still a fairly small part of modern Scotland until the Viking onslaughts devastated the Picts and the northern English kingdom of Northumbria. Even then it was only the transfer of the Lothian region by a southern English king that moved Scotland up to be a serious threat to England rather than a nucience as Wales was. Even then it again needed the Normans to cripple England before they could secure this area.

As such, even if you have the Anglo-Saxons diverted/destroyed in some way your likely to have some other large state occupying much of northern and central 'England' that will dwarf Scotland. Unless you have a markedly earlier 'Scottish' expansion, in which case its more a Pictish state than a Scottish one.

Steve
 

Hendryk

Banned
I'm writing it down as I think it up here, but your challenge made me think of something. The reason that, in China, the Kingdom of Qin became the most powerful one in the Warring States period and eventually annexed the other six, was that it was the most exposed to barbarian raids. As a consequence it developed a militarized society that was in a constant state of war readiness (a trait further heightened by the adoption of Legalism as a state ideology). This, despite the fact that it was on the margins of Chinese civilization and considered only half-civilized by the core kingdoms.

The more obvious analogy in European history is with Hellenistic Macedonia, and how it took over the rest of Greece and eventually went on a conquering spree. But what if one tweaked conditions in Scotland so that the same causes would trigger the same effects? What if earlier, regular Norse raids on the Scottish shores resulted in a concentration of power and the development of a militarized society to address the threat? Later on, this alternate Scotland's military power could be turned southward on the occasion of a power vacuum.

Anyway, just an idea, ancient history isn't my strong suit, and I don't know whether Scotland had the resource base to develop an indigenous centralized power.
 
If we could have struck southwards during the 100 years war its hard to see how England could have defended itself.

I cant see Scotland becoming dominant in the UK because of this but it might eventually lead to a strong independent Scotland.

Also if the Jacobites had marched on to London I could see bonnie prince Charlie making England something of a puppet to a strong Stuart Scotland.
 
I'm writing it down as I think it up here, but your challenge made me think of something. The reason that, in China, the Kingdom of Qin became the most powerful one in the Warring States period and eventually annexed the other six, was that it was the most exposed to barbarian raids. As a consequence it developed a militarized society that was in a constant state of war readiness (a trait further heightened by the adoption of Legalism as a state ideology). This, despite the fact that it was on the margins of Chinese civilization and considered only half-civilized by the core kingdoms.

The more obvious analogy in European history is with Hellenistic Macedonia, and how it took over the rest of Greece and eventually went on a conquering spree. But what if one tweaked conditions in Scotland so that the same causes would trigger the same effects? What if earlier, regular Norse raids on the Scottish shores resulted in a concentration of power and the development of a militarized society to address the threat? Later on, this alternate Scotland's military power could be turned southward on the occasion of a power vacuum.

Anyway, just an idea, ancient history isn't my strong suit, and I don't know whether Scotland had the resource base to develop an indigenous centralized power.

I like your scenario.

Here's another thought:

Scotland is rather underpopulated compared to England, but it does have coal mines IIRC. That could give it some industrial oomph that could give it an advantage over a non-industrialized England.

This doesn't require Scottish military conquest of England, but if Scotland industrializes earlier or its coal feeds English industrial to a greater degree than England's own resources for whatever reason, it could be stronger within the union, particularly if it attracts people northward.
 
If we could have struck southwards during the 100 years war its hard to see how England could have defended itself.

I think you will find you tried several times. Might have prevented Edward III claiming the French throne successfully but Scotland was too weak and still pretty divided. It could make a difficult conquest and a threat to the peace of northern England as it often was but not a serious threat to the rest of the country.

Even if somehow you had seen a French conquest of most of England and Scotland getting more land in the south the area under French control would be markedly greater than Scotland plus conquests. Not to mention by that time you would face the same problem that it had been pointed out for a successful English 100 Years War victory. How long before the Scottish tail is being wagged by the much larger dog of the English lands?

I cant see Scotland becoming dominant in the UK because of this but it might eventually lead to a strong independent Scotland.

Depends on what you mean by strong. Possibly it might have stayed politically independent during all this period but if so both states, especially Scotland, would have been weaker and poorer.

Also if the Jacobites had marched on to London I could see bonnie prince Charlie making England something of a puppet to a strong Stuart Scotland.

Highly unlikely. Even if in some total panic the government had fled the bulk of the population, in lowlands Scotland as well as England, would have been deeply distrustful of the Catholic and autocratic Stuart. Even if he had been a far more capable leader.

Steve
 
Everyone's forgetting the easiest way! Simply have James I/VI keep his court in Scotland. Yeah, yeah, I know that it's a long shot, but it's possible. How about this:
James is a lot more forceful in pushing through his idea for a "Kingdom of Great Brittaine"(In OTL it would be a hundred years after the union of the crowns that the UK was created). The POD can be the Scottish parliament passing the bill (Perhaps James keeps his promise of returning to Edinburgh every 3 years). The English parliament doesn't, and James attempts to simply override them. There's a massive uprising, complete with pretender. The "British Civil War" lasts for one, maybe two, decades, and is mainly fought in England. England, and particularly London, are devestated by the fighting, and James has been directing things in Edinburgh for reasons of safety for the majority of the war. The war ends with a "Unionist" victory, and the Kingdom of Great Brittaine is proclaimed. James pledges to move the capital back to London when it's considered safe enough, and when it's been rebuilt to an acceptable degree, but neither he nor his descendents follow through on this, and the result is a Scottish-dominated UK.
 
I'm writing it down as I think it up here, but your challenge made me think of something. The reason that, in China, the Kingdom of Qin became the most powerful one in the Warring States period and eventually annexed the other six, was that it was the most exposed to barbarian raids. As a consequence it developed a militarized society that was in a constant state of war readiness (a trait further heightened by the adoption of Legalism as a state ideology). This, despite the fact that it was on the margins of Chinese civilization and considered only half-civilized by the core kingdoms.

The more obvious analogy in European history is with Hellenistic Macedonia, and how it took over the rest of Greece and eventually went on a conquering spree. But what if one tweaked conditions in Scotland so that the same causes would trigger the same effects? What if earlier, regular Norse raids on the Scottish shores resulted in a concentration of power and the development of a militarized society to address the threat? Later on, this alternate Scotland's military power could be turned southward on the occasion of a power vacuum.

Anyway, just an idea, ancient history isn't my strong suit, and I don't know whether Scotland had the resource base to develop an indigenous centralized power.

Well, I think the problem with this analogy is that the Qin and Macedonia were strengthened not merely by the militaristic society needed for defence, but also the expansion that is the natural result of an open frontier, uncivilized neighbors, and a strong military. Scotland lacks the open frontier for expansion, unless they become like the Norse, and create a sea based empire.
 
Easiest way would be Anglo-Saxon kingdoms remaining divided and Scotland ultimately uniting with Northumbria to dominate most of Britain.

Another way would be to use some God powers. A meteorite hits the English Channel, and devastates the south, sometime in the late medieval period, or during the Civil War. Or sea levels rise, and inundate most of the South and Midlands.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Well, I think the problem with this analogy is that the Qin and Macedonia were strengthened not merely by the militaristic society needed for defence, but also the expansion that is the natural result of an open frontier, uncivilized neighbors, and a strong military. Scotland lacks the open frontier for expansion, unless they become like the Norse, and create a sea based empire.
That's a good point. Peripheral polities that manage to become hegemonic do so because they are able to apply on a larger scale the methods developed in the core ones. The only way for Scotland to do that would be to set up a thalassocracy.
 
That's a good point. Peripheral polities that manage to become hegemonic do so because they are able to apply on a larger scale the methods developed in the core ones. The only way for Scotland to do that would be to set up a thalassocracy.
That and perhaps have there be more frequent Norse raids on Scotland and ATL Scotland's overseas holdings, probably North Atlantic islands and some of Ireland.
Scotland become militarised and strengthened as a result of having to bolster themselves against it. Whereas the Saxon kingdoms are busy squabbling over who drank all the tea or what have you.
 
That and perhaps have there be more frequent Norse raids on Scotland and ATL Scotland's overseas holdings, probably North Atlantic islands and some of Ireland.
Scotland become militarised and strengthened as a result of having to bolster themselves against it. Whereas the Saxon kingdoms are busy squabbling over who drank all the tea or what have you.
The problem is that this happened in OTL, and it didn't boost Scotland enough to make a huge difference, although it may have quickened the process of centralisation.
 
While the "military frontier" idea is interesting, it doesn't really work for the reasons others have mentioned and also because there's no good reason I can think of for the Vikings to stear clear of England. However, the idea of "Warring States" does seem a good starting point: with many small English polities, perhaps of equal size to a Scotland covering much of the north, are eventually knocked into line by Scotland in a Sardinia-Italy kind of a way.

Also if the Jacobites had marched on to London I could see bonnie prince Charlie making England something of a puppet to a strong Stuart Scotland.

Obligatory nyaaaaaargh.

Enough with the romantic over-estimation of Jacobite capability and especially Scottishness, please.

1) So they've marched on London. And everyone west of Ireland and south of the Highland Fault Line is mighty pissed. On which subject the RN and America have have sworn for George.

Yeah, they won't last.

2) ASBs give them power. Why, pray, will they rule from Edinburgh? Their other actiosn fail to indicate such good sense! :D

In all seriousness, Scotland was clearly a means to an end, or why even invade England in the first place. I believe BPC himself said it was three-or-none as far as crowns went, and it wasn't like the Charleses and Jameses had made England a "puppet state".
 
During the reign of Alexander the Great (be warned Ive forgotten the specifics of this, I'll try and get them!) he formed an alliance with Northern English nobles and the French to remove the English King, and actually led an army all the way to Dover to meet with an arriving French army, but the English King died before he could be deposed and the Alliance fell apart, Alexander never reclaimed the North of England and it led to King Edward and his attempts at conquering Scotland.

So you could have a situation where Scotland at the least goes further South than Newcastle and together with the French have something of a vassalised England.

Later on I guess you could stop Scotland blowing it's treasury on Darien, this is what helped make the Parliamentary Union unavoidable. Keep Scotland independant up till the Scottish Enlightenment and the various advances will give Scotlands economy a boost and could lead to it industrialising before England?
 
With a POD not earlier than 409 AD and with Edinburgh the capital of Scotland and Britain. There can still be a country called England in at least part of OTL England, with London as an important city.
I think the best bet is the Maid of Norway. If she survived and became Queen (in fact, rather than just in theory) of both Scotland and Norway, that would raise the importance of Scotland right there. Then (handwaving) the Scots/Norse settle North America first. Then by 1700 or 1800 they have the total population and wealth to take on *England, or at least to be stronger than she is.

You could even have this 'Britain' be something like a federal union of Scotland, Norway and random other bits of the British Isles (Ulster? Ireland? Wales? Strathclyde? Northumbria?)
 
Top