AH Challenge:Western orCentral European invasion of England between 666 and 1066

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm thinking of a non-Viking, non-Norman invasion of England from Europe in this era, by forces perhaps loyal to the Merovingians, Carolingians, Ottonians, Capetians, Salians or perhaps Iberian rulers from Asturias or the Caliphate of Cordova.


How much less plausible would such an invasion be than the various OTL Frankish campaigns in France, Germany, Italy and Spain during this era?


The closest thing to such a scenario I have ever seen was the "Prince of Peace" timeline, which falls a bit later than this time period and essentially involves the HRE consolidating rule over England in addition to the rest of West-Central European Christendom.

Double your points if you get a conquest of England -

Likewise, to flip the challenge, could we get an Anglo-Saxon invasion of the continent? Again double points if it results in a lengthy conquest.
 
The trouble with this is WHY would they want to invade England? The country has no resources that are not already available on the mainland and was not the prize it was in 1000 onwards (tax revenue, good farm land etc.). The Saxons came becuse they where there already - having been imported by the Romans.

As for the invasion of Europe, this was when Britany in France and Britonia were created, does that count? If so a larger number of immigrants from England (fleeing the Saxon take over) could make this more important players in the local / national scene.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
On the historical ups and downs of Britain as a prize...

The trouble with this is WHY would they want to invade England? The country has no resources that are not already available on the mainland and was not the prize it was in 1000 onwards (tax revenue, good farm land etc.). The Saxons came becuse they where there already - having been imported by the Romans
.

Motive is very interesting and important question - why was Britain a prize in the 1st century BC (to the Romans), a prize to the Saxons again in the 5th and 6th century, and a prize to the Normans in 1000 AD, but not a prize in the intervening period where I placed the AH challenge in the OP?

At least culturally, Britain and Ireland were not worthless during the Dark Ages. Ireland was a haven of literacy and missionary activity, and after its conversion to Christianity, Englad was a major center of missionary activity into Germany. The relationship is not perfect, but the ability to support a higher level monastic culture, maintaining literacy and sending out missionaries far and wide, suggests that the base territory is agriculturally prosperous enough to support all this activity.

I believe during the Dark Ages in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries, there were periods where Northumbria was more advanced than much of western Europe, and Mercia and Wessex later had periods of cultural effloressence.


---now I suppose in relative terms, England's taxability might have ebbed to a low point in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries due to a change to lower average temperatures, shorter growing seasons, plague based deopopulation and accompanying reclamation of more farmland by forest or swamp? Is there archaeological evidence this happened? Likewise, by the year 1000 AD, I believe the climate was getting a bit warmer and population had probably expanded, so this probably resulted in more forest and swampland being cleared for farmland and grazing, with a longer growing season, thus making the territory more taxable. This would of course make your argument fundamentally correct and go a long way to explain England's freedom from continental invasion from 666 to 1066.

Does this interpretation track with archaeology, written history and natural history?----

Now Charlemagne sent forces far afield past the Pyrenees and Alps, and into Bavaria, Bohemia and Saxony. The latter territories were probably not any more taxable than contemporary England. In terms of logistics, invading England probably would not have been much harder with the technology of the time. Yet Charlemagne likely had defensive and religious motives in Central Europe there that would not have applied to England.

As for the invasion of Europe, this was when Britany in France and Britonia were created, does that count?

Well I'm not sure, but I think Brittany was getting established prior to 666 AD. How violent a migration was it? Is there much evidence of local population displacement, or historical chronicles of accompanying battles?


If so a larger number of immigrants from England (fleeing the Saxon take over) could make this more important players in the local / national scene.

Very interesting point and question. In fact as soon as I posted this what if, I was thinking of this as my next AH Challenge, "Maximum Brittany".

Could we get the Bretons expanding down to Bordeaux, or up to Paris? Is it ASB for France to be established around a Breton core by the end of the Middle Ages?
 
Last edited:
I would guess that the economy of Britain came on a lot between Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul and the invasion a century later, making it a more attractive target.

Pre-roman Gaul was literate and had many sizable urban centres. Neither modern Britain nor Ireland was in the same league at that time -- there's nothing remotely like the Vix grave in either territory, for instance.

Big chunks of Anglo-Saxon England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales were conquered in actuality during the period in question: Pictish Scotland was destroyed and the Norwegian holdings stretching from York to the Orkneys to Man, Northumberland and the east coast of Ireland persisted for centuries.

The "Irish Sea province" was the making of the Vikings -- their springboard to transition from raiders to traders who could circumnavigate the entire continent via the Med, Black Sea, Don and Volga.

In aggregate, the Irish kingdoms were quite powerful but their rulers' interests ran in the direction of prestige via land and cattle. In contrast, with a distributed maritime empire and bags of cash raised via domination of trade, the Vikings grew unbeatable. Beat them in one spot and, drawing on their reserves of cash and family networks, they'd bounce back very quickly.

York was the jewel in the crown -- one of the biggest cities in post-Roman Europe. Their shipbuilding technology and control of the sheltered waters of Western Scotland and the Irish sea created a solid launch pad for adventures further afield.

Given a couple of centuries to develop socially and technically, the Vikings could have become like latter-day Carthaginians or Greeks. The problem was, like the Carthaginians and Greeks they could only have done so via distributing economic and political power in a way that precludes centralisation and empire-building.
 
Top