AHC: A Gaelic "Wales" and a "Welsh" Scotland?

[FleetMac]

I haven't seen any other threads in the past few years delve into a notion like thus, so bear with me.

With a POD no earlier than 400 AD, could an alt-Dalriada be established roughly in the same spot as OTL's Gwynedd or South Rheged (which I don't recall being any less habitable than OTL's Dalriada in terms of climate or farmland) that leads to a Gaelic colony in OTL Wales, while simultaneously seeing the Britons in the North (either north of the Humber or Hadrian's Wall, whichever is more plausible) hold out against Pictish, Anglo-Saxon and Norse incursions long enough to survive as a separate nation?

If so, which country would likely be swallowed up first (or at all)? How would British history end up being different with both lands effectively swapped so?

 

[LSCatilina]

It seems that some welsh dynasties were from gaelic origin OTL, and at least there is proofs of an irish presence in early medieval Wales.

On the other hand, the kingdom of Strathclyde, being a mix of britton and pictish features, could be an alternative focus for unification of Picts.

If for some reason (given the poor knowledge we have about the period on Irish Sea, it could be a farily large range of reasons), Irish migrations happen to be directed to Wales rather than to Pictland, you could see a gaelicized western Wales taking over (or by fight, or more likely by absorbtion and union with britons as in OTL Scotland) while northern Britons (without gaels) could unify Pictland eventually.

Of course, it wouldn't be a "gaelic" Wales (something more mixed up) and Strathclyde while still a britton kingdom, would evolve quickly in something more pictish.
I think, nevertheless, it could be enough to fulfill your OP.

 

[Le Gwen]

Well, both Dyfed and Brycheinog were founded and Gwynedd was held by an Irish warlord until Cunedda expelled them. Have Cunedda defeated and Gwynedd becomes an Irish kingdom. Add a few more settlers so that the Irish assimilate the Welsh rather than the other way around and all that is left of Wales is Powys and Glywysing. Both could and will probably be overrun later on.

It's more complicated for Scotland, both Gododdin and Strathclyde were located in today's Scotland, but the Picts were under heavy Gaelic influence and many of their kings had Gaelic names, long before Kenneth Mac-Alpin took over. At the same time Gododdin was under heavy pressure from Northumbria.

A solution would be to have Gododdin be reborn around 685 after the defeat of the Northumbrians at the battle of Dun Nechtain and merge with (or be absorbed by) Strathclyde (historically, the British did rise after Dun Nechtain, but this got nowhere). The resulting kingdom could successfully resist a weak Northumbria and expand into Pictland, absorbing Dal Riata.

The resulting language would be Cumbric rather than Welsh, however.

 

[The Professor]

If I recall one of the reasons the Scots settled Dal Riada was because both Rheged and North Wales were too strong.
Make Rheged even stronger and the Scots may be forced south.

 

[FleetMac]

I didn't know that about parts of Wales being founded by Gaels (I'd always understood it to be apocryphal instead of solid fact), but then again I'm not an expert in the subject. I am curious whether the Northern Britons/Cumbrians (maybe "Welsh" won't stick around as the English demonym this way!) would "merge" with the Picts or assimilate them given how Pictish society was apparently matrilineal in succession unlike the other Celtic states. Would this alternative Wales be more wont to unify at some point (say, under Urien of Rheged or an analogue thereof), or just as prone to dividing itself?

Also, what are some of the bigger butterflies to result from this in terms of English history? I can imagine perhaps Mercia having to deal with the Gaels, which if they manage to consolidate could prove potentially formidable (not that the OTL Welsh in Gwynedd, Powys, etc. were pushovers) against westward expansion, at least in the beginning. Also, I wonder how the Viking era will be different with this swap having been done.

 

[AllActionMan]

Would be easier with Picts since they probably spoke a Brythonic language.

 

[LSCatilina]

I didn't know that about parts of Wales being founded by Gaels (I'd always understood it to be apocryphal instead of solid fact)

To be honest, we don't have hard facts for Irish sea coasts on this period. Every litterary source is technically apocryphal. That said, we have non-litterary sources that seems to go in the same way or at least not contradicting it, as the oghamic inscriptions in Wales.

I am curious whether the Northern Britons/Cumbrians (maybe "Welsh" won't stick around as the English demonym this way!) would "merge" with the Picts or assimilate them given how Pictish society was apparently matrilineal in succession unlike the other Celtic states.

They would probably mix with them as Picts did with Gaels, the distinction between Picts and neighbouring peoples being probably exagerated. While the maternal line seems to have a great importance, the Pictish rulers we know are still named after their father, meaning that the succession was probably more complex than that, maybe more looking to germanic succession.

Bede the venerable underlined that Picts choose kings along matrilinear lines "should any difficulty arise". It could indicate a rather unregular feature. Even there, it was probably more an uterine succession (basically, succession pass to a male that is related, by birth or union, to a kinswoman close enough to the former ruler).

Wales could as well be used, as it's a generic germanic ethnonym for any non-german people.

Would this alternative Wales be more wont to unify at some point (say, under Urien of Rheged or an analogue thereof), or just as prone to dividing itself?

Celtic kingship indeed didn't tended to unification, especially gaelic (just look at the mess Ireland was), but you can't totally prevent an unification possibility.

Also, what are some of the bigger butterflies to result from this in terms of English history? I can imagine perhaps Mercia having to deal with the Gaels, which if they manage to consolidate could prove potentially formidable (not that the OTL Welsh in Gwynedd, Powys, etc. were pushovers) against westward expansion, at least in the beginning. Also, I wonder how the Viking era will be different with this swap having been done.

I don't think a Gaelic Wales would be that threatening for Mercia. Actually, and if we consider Scotland as a model, where divisions lasted really lately, you could still have enough conflicts or divisions to prevent welsh raids to be as important than OTL (maybe, but that's counting with 300 years of butterflies that prevent to give anything definitive about Viking Irish Sea, no Offa's Dike)

Would be easier with Picts since they probably spoke a Brythonic language.

I don't think that lingustic features, particularly the proximity between two languages, could have played a role on this era.

 

[FleetMac]

To be honest, we don't have hard facts for Irish sea coasts on this period. Every litterary source is technically apocryphal. That said, we have non-litterary sources that seems to go in the same way or at least not contradicting it, as the oghamic inscriptions in Wales.

Bede the venerable underlined that Picts choose kings along matrilinear lines "should any difficulty arise". It could indicate a rather unregular feature. Even there, it was probably more an uterine succession (basically, succession pass to a male that is related, by birth or union, to a kinswoman close enough to the former ruler).

Wales could as well be used, as it's a generic germanic ethnonym for any non-german people.


Celtic kingship indeed didn't tended to unification, especially gaelic (just look at the mess Ireland was), but you can't totally prevent an unification possibility.


I don't think a Gaelic Wales would be that threatening for Mercia. Actually, and if we consider Scotland as a model, where divisions lasted really lately, you could still have enough conflicts or divisions to prevent welsh raids to be as important than OTL (maybe, but that's counting with 300 years of butterflies that prevent to give anything definitive about Viking Irish Sea, no Offa's Dike)

-Well it's better than nothing. Hell, I've always maintained that the Picts were Brythonic-speaking given the use of Welsh-esque placenames and such in Caledonia (which seems to be fairly close to your oghamic example in terms of empiricism). Anyway, I'm guessing in that case that, should incursion into alt-Wales from Mercia happen, the Gaels would more or less get tied to the coast by and large?

-Fair enough, after all it wasn't till around IIRC Kenneth MacAlpin's time-frame that Caledonia became evidently Gael majority (at least from an outsider's perspective, from what I've seen). That's plenty of time to blend peoples into one no matter how the mechanism itself works. As for the Wales thing, I suppose you're right since "Walloon" and "Wallachia" still exist in modern wordage; I guess it's just my hope for a stronger/independent Briton state leaking through.

-I then have to wonder why Scotland managed to stay untied to English thralldom for so long, given how chaotic succession in Gaelic culture worked. Then again, the Gaels weren't behind the steering column for long in Scotland before the Lowlanders took the reigns (after all, Gaelic isn't exactly the "true" language of Scotland, or it wasn't for very long anyway). Honestly, what I get from this scenario in terms of a Gaelic Wales is that the equivalent of OTL's "Lowland" culture becomes the predominant register in the land, given how close it is to the Anglo-Saxon heartlands...which to be fair isn't too far from how Scotland ended up anyway. Which brings me back to how a Briton Caledonia (I'ma stop saying "Scotland" lest I confuse myself) would evolve, moreso once the Viking Era comes.

 

[LSCatilina]

. Anyway, I'm guessing in that case that, should incursion into alt-Wales from Mercia happen, the Gaels would more or less get tied to the coast by and large?

Possibly, as they did more or less OTL. But would the Gaels of Wales manage somewhat to unify the land, they could likely cut themselves from coast, while less than OTL Welsh.

-I then have to wonder why Scotland managed to stay untied to English thralldom for so long, given how chaotic succession in Gaelic culture worked.

It wasn't united up to a quite recent date.
Scottish kingship remained relativly similar to Irish one, at least up to the XI century with frequent fights and the existance of a overlord for all the country : places as the Mormaerdom of Moray doesn't seems to have been effectivly controlled by them.

More than an english threat, it's their influence that made Scotland more united, develloping a vassalic then feudal organisation. The alliance against Scandinavian raids and presence on the island probably helped.
That doesn't mean the conflicts with England didn't pushed to a more unified Scotland, but that alone wouldn't have made it, in my opinion.

Honestly, what I get from this scenario in terms of a Gaelic Wales is that the equivalent of OTL's "Lowland" culture becomes the predominant register in the land, given how close it is to the Anglo-Saxon heartlands...

The Lowlands were certainly germanized by the VI century, but a more important briton presence in Lothian isn't unimaginable. If you want a more lucky Strathclyde (or a surviving Goddodin or even Reghed), Northumbrian Bernicia would be probably butterflied anyway.

 

[FleetMac]

Possibly, as they did more or less OTL. But would the Gaels of Wales manage somewhat to unify the land, they could likely cut themselves from coast, while less than OTL Welsh.

More than an english threat, it's their influence that made Scotland more united, develloping a vassalic then feudal organisation. The alliance against Scandinavian raids and presence on the island probably helped.
That doesn't mean the conflicts with England didn't pushed to a more unified Scotland, but that alone wouldn't have made it, in my opinion.

The Lowlands were certainly germanized by the VI century, but a more important briton presence in Lothian isn't unimaginable. If you want a more lucky Strathclyde (or a surviving Goddodin or even Reghed), Northumbrian Bernicia would be probably butterflied anyway.

-Of course, pockets of Gaels in the Welsh hill country ("Gales", as it were? Yes I know it's etymologically false ) could still happen. Still, I imagine that a relationship between "Gales" and Mercia could arise like that between OTL's Northumbria and Alba for better or worse.

-If the Norse still make settlements in Ireland (and given how the Galloglass culture arose so efficiently), I think we may see more Norse attention in "Gales" compared to OTL. Of course, much of that still depends on how plunder-worthy the land is under Gaelic settlement instead of Briton. Of course, that may change how Brythonic Scotland (or "Gogledd", the Welsh word for "north", for conversation's sake) would evolve since I can't see the Vikings ignoring such a close and vulnerable target. As far as how vassal/feudal governance would arise in "Gales", I think it would happen since it's next to not one major Anglo-Saxon kingdom, but possibly THREE (Mercia, Wessex, and maybe a reduced Northumbria/Deira) that could influence how the land forms and adapts.

-I was actually talking about "Gales" being relatively "Lowland Scottish" given its geography and Anglo-Gaelic relations of the time period (I always interpreted Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards Gaels as being less negative than towards the Britons, but again I'm no expert), not "Gogledd". That's not to say there'd be no Anglo-Saxon elements to their lands at all, but I figure outside of Bernicia they'd be pretty isolated and capable of fending off northward advances. Of course, this is predicated on having a "grand leader" to unite the petty kingdoms a la Urien or Owain, something that their society seems to completely undermine to their deficit.

 

[LSCatilina]

-Of course, pockets of Gaels in the Welsh hill country ("Gales", as it were? Yes I know it's etymologically false ) could still happen. Still, I imagine that a relationship between "Gales" and Mercia could arise like that between OTL's Northumbria and Alba for better or worse.

I don't really see what you mean (it's arguably late there). Alba, as an unified kingdom of Gaels and Picts didn't appeared after that Northumbria virtually disappeared from radar (you had fifty years of coexistance, Northumbria being a Norse puppet).

Furthermore, there's huge difference between Northumbria and Mercia : demographics, importance, "economics". It seems that the kingdom was a bit poor-looking compared to Mercia or Wessex, being beaten by Anglo-Saxons and Picts alike.

If "Galles" appears as more or less united (not saying unified) as Picts and Gaels did OTL, aka during the IX century, they would have to deal with a powerful Mercia (I don't really see a reason for Gael presence in Cumbria being that a change in AS history, at least up to a possible but not directly consequential unification) and likely recieve the same anwer : fighting back, and contain raids.

-If the Norse still make settlements in Ireland (and given how the Galloglass culture arose so efficiently), I think we may see more Norse attention in "Gales" compared to OTL.

That's 400 years at best from a PoD. Depending on how things evolve, the situation could be unrecognizable enough to not safely bet what would happen locally.

Of course, much of that still depends on how plunder-worthy the land is under Gaelic settlement instead of Briton.

Vikings didn't settled Ireland or Britain's shores for plunder (while it played a great role) but for controlling trade roads as well : plundering to death a region isn't going to create new markets. If Irish Sea know a more important trade between two sides (and possibly trough Atlantic), you may have more or less settlement than OTL depending on the situation (I would think that it would be an impetus for more strong irish kingdoms, at least in the eastern part of the Islands, and succsessful campaigns against Vikings aren't implausible)

I always interpreted Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards Gaels as being less negative than towards the Britons,

I don't think it was rationalized that far. Simply that Northumbrians had a more important focus on AS matters, and that Mercia at the peak of its power was able to deal with minor annoyances as welsh raids.

 

[FleetMac]

I don't really see what you mean (it's arguably late there). Alba, as an unified kingdom of Gaels and Picts didn't appeared after that Northumbria virtually disappeared from radar (you had fifty years of coexistance, Northumbria being a Norse puppet).

Furthermore, there's huge difference between Northumbria and Mercia : demographics, importance, "economics". It seems that the kingdom was a bit poor-looking compared to Mercia or Wessex, being beaten by Anglo-Saxons and Picts alike.

If "Galles" appears as more or less united (not saying unified) as Picts and Gaels did OTL, aka during the IX century, they would have to deal with a powerful Mercia (I don't really see a reason for Gael presence in Cumbria being that a change in AS history, at least up to a possible but not directly consequential unification) and likely recieve the same anwer : fighting back, and contain raids.

That's 400 years at best from a PoD. Depending on how things evolve, the situation could be unrecognizable enough to not safely bet what would happen locally.

Vikings didn't settled Ireland or Britain's shores for plunder (while it played a great role) but for controlling trade roads as well : plundering to death a region isn't going to create new markets. If Irish Sea know a more important trade between two sides (and possibly trough Atlantic), you may have more or less settlement than OTL depending on the situation (I would think that it would be an impetus for more strong irish kingdoms, at least in the eastern part of the Islands, and succsessful campaigns against Vikings aren't implausible)

I don't think it was rationalized that far. Simply that Northumbrians had a more important focus on AS matters, and that Mercia at the peak of its power was able to deal with minor annoyances as welsh raids.

-What's not to understand? I was just pointing out that the ancestors of Scotland's Lallans speakers had to come from somewhere, didn't they. Given how limited the time-frame of coexistence between Alba and Northumbria itself was (something that did slip my mind), perhaps I should've phrased it more as "Alba's relationship with Bernicia+Deira", since it was the Anglo-Saxons which ultimately informed Lowland Scotland's culture/language/government, etc.

-Northumbria's lack of wealth relative to Mercia seems to me to be dependant on two things post-650s (Northumbria DID reign over Mercia a spell, after all);
*The Picts raiding southward, which is something that Gogledd will likely have coincidentally in check whilst they expand (unless they achieve union early enough to be the ones launching the raids, which spells bad tidings for the Northern Anglo-Saxons), and
*The Viking incursions they had to put up with, whereas Mercia was solidly landlocked and thus less vulnerable by comparison. Again, that's assuming the Vikings attack the same spots of Britain as OTL.

-What do you mean, "Gael presence in Cumbria"? The OP indicates that Cumbria (a part of OTL Northwest England) could be, well, Welsh ITTL. Unless you meant "Gales", in which case I think I get what you're saying in that it shouldn't alter Mercia & Co. directly. Of course, if we're talking the IX Century then we still have to take the Vikings possibly setting up a *Danelaw analogue into account (those damned Northmen seem to be a helluva wildcard for an OP like this...). One thing that could result is possibly a stronger redoubt against the Normans compared to OTL Wales IF the Gaels consolidate early enough and establish a sort of understanding with the English a la Hywel Dda (that's assuming good fortunes for Gales, or even whether the Normans enter the picture whatsoever ITTL).

-I agree that Ireland may be more predisposed to resist/challenge Norse settlement on the island, which may see either more settlers landing in western Britain or force the Vikings to redouble efforts on the eastern shore. Who knows? As far as attitudes towards the Gaels, there is some evidence for a quasi-apartheid society in Anglo-Saxon England with the Britons on the bottom of the totem pole, whereas I don't recall any such system arising in the North towards the Scots during the Medieval Period (I don't count post-1066 in Ireland, that was all the Normans' fault). Then again they didn't live there as long as the Britons did in pre-Folkswandering Britain so maybe it boils down to a question of less exposure.

 

[Le Gwen]

Northumbria was a major power until 685. After, the loss of the north, internal conflict and a strong tendency to hand lands to the Church without anything in return pushed it into decline. It remained strong enough, however to resist Mercian hegemony.

Judging by the number of British names in Anglo-saxon genealogies, ethnicity was not an issue in the vth and VII centuries. Religion was. As an aside, I don't believe in quasi-apartheid, can you really imagine a guy called Ceawlin or Penda discriminating against British...or for that matter a guy called Tewdrig ap Teithfallt hating Saxons for being Saxons ?

It is true that we have no hard facts about this period, but there are archeological and epigraphic evidences of a strong Irish presence in Wales during the fifth century. A Gael speaking Wales would not be much different, geopolitically speaking, from a welsh one. The various kingdoms would have different names but their dynamic would be the same. Of course, there would be butterflies, which might be important, by the general pattern would be the same.

A Welsh Scotland would change a lot, however, albeit it depends from the scenario.

A dominant Rheged absorbing (first in a loose alliance then in a tributary relationship) Gododdin and Strathclyde means that Bernicia disappears from the stage while Deira and Lindsey fall in the Mercian (or East-Anglian) orbit. Northumbria never forms and the north is united (in a loose fashion) by a larger, Brythonic speaking polity centered upon what would become York. When the Vikings come, they find a totally different political landscape and this Scotland analogue is a serious rival for England and a potential help for the "Welsh" kingdoms.

If it is Strathclyde, which unites "Scotland" after 685, Northumbria survives, albeit in a weakened state and is ultimately absorbed by Mercia or Wessex when the English lands are unified as per OTL