AHC: How far could the Anglo-Saxons go?

Orsino

Banned
I’m trying to develop my knowledge of the Saxon period in Britain and am curious about the possibility of the Saxons making their way from Britain to establish themselves somewhere else in the Atlantic. How developed was Saxon seafaring? What do we think was their maximum potential reach?

So your challenge: Anglo-Saxons landing (and preferablly thriving) in the Azores or Canary Islands before 1000 AD with a POD not before 400 AD. Can we make this possible or is it sheer fantasy?
 
I’m trying to develop my knowledge of the Saxon period in Britain and am curious about the possibility of the Saxons making their way from Britain to establish themselves somewhere else in the Atlantic. How developed was Saxon seafaring? What do we think was their maximum potential reach?

So your challenge: Anglo-Saxons landing (and preferablly thriving) in the Azores or Canary Islands before 1000 AD with a POD not before 400 AD. Can we make this possible or is it sheer fantasy?

Safe to say nothing comparable with the Viking fleets a couple of centuries later.
 
Sheer fantasy, while there was the "Saxon Shore" during the twilight of the Roman period and some evidence of Saxon pirates raiding the Franks they were far less capable than the Vikings.
 

Orsino

Banned
So are we suggesting that whilst impossible for the Saxons the Vikings could have made it to the Canaries or Azores? Surely that's a far harder stretch for them than Greenland or Newfoundland?

Edit: And is colonisation of Azores/Canaries from Britain before the modern age an inherently ridiculous idea or is it a real possibility?
 
At least one Viking fleet entered the Mediterranean from that sea's Atlantic end and raided Italy, so I'd say that reaching the Canaries should have been just about possible for them. One major problem with a Medieval English discovery & settlement of Canaries or Azores (or Madeira) would be the risk -- fairly high, I'd think -- that either Portugal and Castille would subsequently seize control of those islands anyway.
 
Another question is "why bother"?
Those places are faraway, unfamiliar environments at the end of a long and dangerous route to the end of the world, in the middle of nowhere, without immediately recognizabile resources of any worth if compared to distances involved, except free, unoccupied (not in the Canaries) farmland. In the Canaries you have unfriendly natives. The Azores are unhabited, but they are likely at the stretched end of naval abilities of the time (if improved relative to OTL).
Climate is utterly unfamiliar. usual crops might not grow immediately well, depending on the agricultural skills of the people.
Even if they can GET there, I see little incentive to STAY.

It is not impossibile with enough handwavium I suppose, but very, very unlikely, yes. There is a lot of closer, safer, richer places to conquer, loot, settle in or trade with, practically in any other direction than that one.
And of course, if you manage to settle, you will still have closer, larger countries able to get to your tiny colony faster and easier than you can from England. If you manage to do the whole thing worthwhile, they'll notice. If not, again, don't bother.
 
Doubtful

Saxons just didn't have the sea-faring capability. They had ships, and during the Viking age they had Viking-style ships, but not in the quantities or with the experience that the Norse had.

Before Viking-style square sail ships they (and the Scandinavians) probably had what amounts to very large row boats. The Sutton Hoo ship probably did not have a mast, for example.

Even with Viking-style ships sailed by experienced crew, they hugged the shore. The route to Greenland was island-hopping with few days in ocean outside of all indications of land. The Azores are so out of the way, the only way anyone in that time would have found them was by complete accident. To thrive there, they'd have to find the islands again. And again. Reliably. Not even the Vikings had a good way of determining longitude; so re-finding an accidental discovery would be dificult. Finding North America again after being blown off course is relatively easy. Finding the Azores not so much.

Given the ship and navigational technology of the day, I doubt even the Norse could do it, much less the Saxons.

I think the maximum potential reach of the Saxons between the late 8th century and 1066 was Northern Spain, Scandinavia and all around the Baltic, and the North Atlantic circle through to L'anse aux Meadows and down the East Coast of North America--and that by using Norse navigators and ship technology.

Not thriving in North America, mind you. They'd run into all the same problems the Norse did in the 11th century. But occasional visits just might be possible if they had the resources and the interest and weren't busy fighting off the Norse and Canute.
 
Irish monks made it to Iceland well before the Norse did. The Saxons could have copied the Irish technology if their own ships weren't up to a long voyage. I would think that sailing South would be easier than going to the far north.

To get to the Canaries, maybe start by getting some Saxons to North Africa first (possibly via Spain) as allies/mercenaries of the Vandals.
 
Irish monks made it to Iceland well before the Norse did. The Saxons could have copied the Irish technology if their own ships weren't up to a long voyage. I would think that sailing South would be easier than going to the far north.

To get to the Canaries, maybe start by getting some Saxons to North Africa first (possibly via Spain) as allies/mercenaries of the Vandals.

Actually the vandals relied on the seafaring abilities of the preexisting population of Africa to pull off the sailing they did. So I think the Saxons would be best served if they did the same thing and used turncoat Romans to build better ships and navigate using roman methods. Perhaps if the Romano British survived better the Saxons could take advantage of it.
 
Irish monks made it to Iceland well before the Norse did. The Saxons could have copied the Irish technology if their own ships weren't up to a long voyage. I would think that sailing South would be easier than going to the far north.

To get to the Canaries, maybe start by getting some Saxons to North Africa first (possibly via Spain) as allies/mercenaries of the Vandals.

They made it all the way to Newfoundland if the legends are to be believed.
 

Orsino

Banned
So how much exchange was there between the Norse and Anglo-Saxons?

I'm thinking of some kind of Anglo-Norse merchant ship on its way to Greenland being blown south and ending up midatlantic. The Azorea/Canaries/Madeira could then be rediscovered by Norse/Saxons hugging the coast of europe before sailing west.
 
So how much exchange was there between the Norse and Anglo-Saxons?

I'm thinking of some kind of Anglo-Norse merchant ship on its way to Greenland being blown south and ending up midatlantic. The Azorea/Canaries/Madeira could then be rediscovered by Norse/Saxons hugging the coast of europe before sailing west.

There was a lot of exchange..... of axe blows.

I think Falecius had the right idea of asking "Why." If I was a viking war band I would much rather turn into the Mediterranean and raid or trade in there. The only explanation I would have, is that the Med is closed off to the Vikings probably due to a still powerful Western Roman empire. In that case the Vikings might stay outside the pillars of Hercules and might try their luck attempting to raid Spain and North Africa. The Canaries could serve as their base; on the other hand there was probably a large indigenous population on the Canaries that were totally culturally different from the Vikings or Anglo-Saxons, and as the example of Vikings and Skraelings carried itself out, the Vikings weren't that good at intercultural exchanges.
 
Quick question; would it be possible, with an early enough POD, for the Anglo-Saxons to be considered part of the Viking peoples (to include use of their shipping technology and/or scope of settlement and raiding)?
 
Quick question; would it be possible, with an early enough POD, for the Anglo-Saxons to be considered part of the Viking peoples (to include use of their shipping technology and/or scope of settlement and raiding)?

Remember Viking is a profession not a ethnicity. I think there must have been some Anglo-Saxons who joined up with the Vikings. Eventually the Norse proved dominant over the British isles when King Cnut ruled over England, Denmark, Norway, and parts of Sweden.
 
Apparently the last member of the Anglo-Saxon royal line, Edgar the Aetheling who at 15 was not elected to the throne by the Witanagemot made an appearence during the First Crusade. He was commanding a fleet apparently crewed by Anglo-Saxon exiles and put in to St Symeon to land Italian pilgrims and seige equipment and then marched on Lattakieh but couldn't leave a large garrison.


So forget the Azores, the AS could have had their own Crusader state. Cool!
 
Remember Viking is a profession not a ethnicity. I think there must have been some Anglo-Saxons who joined up with the Vikings. Eventually the Norse proved dominant over the British isles when King Cnut ruled over England, Denmark, Norway, and parts of Sweden.

I understand it was something they did, not a demonym; however, they did manage to coalesce into a sort-of combined identity through common interests and influence on the world stage. My question was more aimed towards the possible use of "Viking" ship design + outward expansionism (which IOTL resulted in heavier settlement in Britain) to reach farther afield in terms of settlement, raiding and/or exploration.
 
Apparently the last member of the Anglo-Saxon royal line, Edgar the Aetheling who at 15 was not elected to the throne by the Witanagemot made an appearence during the First Crusade. He was commanding a fleet apparently crewed by Anglo-Saxon exiles and put in to St Symeon to land Italian pilgrims and seige equipment and then marched on Lattakieh but couldn't leave a large garrison.


So forget the Azores, the AS could have had their own Crusader state. Cool!

That kind of stuff could offer you a "why", though very remote, for the Canaries. "Evangelize the heathens while you are getting a new homeland for the exiles". Though at that point, Syria would look WAY more appealing. I don't see anything of the kind happen under OTL's Edgar in the aftermath of OTL's Hastings, but I guess something can be worked out, probably assuming some kind of Saxon presence already in the area (piracy against the Moors? Hard, the Moors were so much better at that game it isn't even funny).
 
I understand it was something they did, not a demonym; however, they did manage to coalesce into a sort-of combined identity through common interests and influence on the world stage. My question was more aimed towards the possible use of "Viking" ship design + outward expansionism (which IOTL resulted in heavier settlement in Britain) to reach farther afield in terms of settlement, raiding and/or exploration.

Not really, it's modern generalisation that would place the Vikings into one big homogeneous group. Their were Norweigian Vikings, Danish, Swedeish, Finnish, Norse-Gaels who settled in Ireland and Scotland, the Rus in Russia and Eastern Europe, the Normans in France (though they barely count).

They were all different, and frankly they all hated each other. Christianity is generally seen as the biggest factor in uniting the various clans into kingdoms, before that it was that some of them spoke the same language as each other.
 
Top