With PODs after the year 600AD, have the Britons of Wales, Dumnonia and Rheged reconquer Britain from the Anglo-Saxons.
AHC: A Welsh Reconquista
- Thread starter SuperTechmarine
- Start date
The Welsh would require addtional manpower. Foreign troops often supported the Spanish in their war with the Moors.
I think I read somewhere that the Normans tried to market their conquest as a reconquest. They had some soldiers from Bretagne. They also loved the Arthur legend. Of course it was not really a Celtic reconquest, but it is at least interesting that they tried to legitimate it as such.
Not much : the main thing was about Harold being an usurper and a traitor, and William only going by the will of the last king.
Far more driven by mercenaryship and possibility of new titles (as they were mostly petty nobility or nobility at odds with the Count of Brittany)
Which didn't became a thing on the continent before the next century, with Moonmouth especially.
Critically considering that they mainly came from Eastern Brittany, which was more romance than anything else
As for Welsh reconquest, I'd go with the other answer : it's basically a manpower issue, coupled with a poor structural unity that was generally temporary and based on some form of high-kingship; when Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (while generally chiefdoms or cyclical chiefdoms before the IXth century) eventually formed a more unified and strong structure.
Not that Welsh couldn't be a threat, especially when it come to raiding : Offa's Dike is quite a testimony to that (and giving it may be partially older than previously tought, it gets even more interesting).
You'd need Anglo-Saxons kingdoms being more unstable than IOTL (probably quicker and bloodier Northumbrian decline) for having a "greater Wales", without any real guarantee it would last (Anglo-Saxons beneficied from more rich lands, more important trade with the continent, etc.)
Last edited:
TinyTartar
Banned
Having the moral high ground was very important because what they were doing was not something usually done or with all that much precedent, at least in the mindset of Western Christian Europe. Getting the Pope's backing of course helped with that, as it was difficult to justify it to the Saxons on grounds of legitimacy.
But personally, I think the war was marketed far more as William's right to the throne than any sort of ethnic reconquest.
For everything else, there's the Battle of Heavenfield (which nearly resulted in Northumbria being destroyed by a Welsh-Mercian alliance)
Which reminds me, neither the Reconquista nor a possible Welsh reconquest have to be cut and dry us-vs-them affair. Frequently Muslims and Christians allied with each other in Spain, I don't see why the same can't be done in Britain, for example Wales and East Anglia against Mercia, or Kent and Dumnonia/Cornwall against Wessex.
Last edited:
Almost always on a dominant/dominee alliance, and more for inner conflicts (Muladi revolts in Umayyad Al-Andalus; succession conflicts in pre-fitna Spain; or political conflicts in Fitna Al-Andalus).
Reconquista proper (as in generalized campaign of reconquest after the XIth century) never really involved equal alliances.
Not that such dominant/dominee relationship couldn't exist in Britain, of course : obviously the lack of religion as a definitive identitarian marker could easy equal relationship (in spite of a distinct Briton rites and liturgy, differences were really minor), and contact/mix with Anglo-Saxons was far more frequent than in Spain (as Oswald relation with Gaels can hint)
But Anglo-Saxons have more odds to be on top of the relationship eventually, due to an aformentioned relativly more important wealth, manpower and structuration. It's up to a coherent Welsh policy, which may be really difficult giving the lack of political continuum (temporally and geographically).
You used the exemple of the Battle of Heavenfield, which is a really good one, which is more based on an operational agreement, rather than a really strategical one (to say nothing of a political alliance). A Welsh victory would have as much beneficied Penda (who didn't prooved too much haste to help his ally) than Welsh and the relative unicity of Mercians compared to a more coalition-like structure of Welsh would have make them the real victors eventually (and ready to strike at their formers allies).
(I mean, Penda eventually managed to reach his objectives in spite of Welsh defeat).
So again, skilled Welsh leaders succeeding each other more or less coherently could take the better of such fragile alliances more or less frequently, but I suspect Welsh policies to be far more divided (would it be only by fear to see one of the principalities taking over the others).
More realistically, it could lead to a more or less temporarily Welsh advantage, that would be hard to maintain long without important changes in Briton society (that would be as much vulnerability for Anglo-Saxon to exploit). Not impossible at all, but still hard.
Last edited: