AHC: Make a timeline in which England does not unify until around the same time as Germany and Italy

Try and make a timeline in which England does not unify until the 19th century at around the same time that Germany and Italy do. For the sake of continuity, we will assume that the kingdom of Wessex, while not being able to unify England, still creates the Empire, and gets all of the colonies that Britain did OTL (is this ASB?). ITTL Wessex would be similar to Prussia IOTL. Is there any way for England to unify this late in history and still have world history remain similar to IOTL? If so, please write how in the comments.
 
World history would probably be different as England was unified by the late 1000s under William the Conqueror. If however you have that invasion go wrong or not happen, you could possibly swing a non-unified England.
 
World history would probably be different as England was unified by the late 1000s under William the Conqueror. If however you have that invasion go wrong or not happen, you could possibly swing a non-unified England.
England was already united far before William the Conqueror conquered it. It was united in the 900s after Alfred the Great drove out the Norse from England. William just conquered it in 1066 from Harold Godwinson.
 
Try and make a timeline in which England does not unify until the 19th century at around the same time that Germany and Italy do. For the sake of continuity, we will assume that the kingdom of Wessex, while not being able to unify England, still creates the Empire, and gets all of the colonies that Britain did OTL (is this ASB?). ITTL Wessex would be similar to Prussia IOTL. Is there any way for England to unify this late in history and still have world history remain similar to IOTL? If so, please write how in the comments.

Bolded yes; a Wessex with political/security concerns on its own island (Involving the interference of foreign powers at times; say, the French, Scots, or even the Welsh; provided they centralize as efficently as IRL, no one English kingdom would be capable of subduing them without opening their backs to rivals in the east) wouldn't have nearly the same level of wealth, naval forces, or will that would allow England's IRL colonization.

But you could very well see this with a stronger, longer Norse presence on the Isles. This could be accomplished by a greater focus on the British isles during the early Viking Age, with those who would end up conquering/setting further afield instead coming to the Danelaw for land and potentially future plunder in wars against the southern English. (Which may butterfly away places like Normandy, Norman Sicily, ect.) After all, if the land is fertile and close and the Jarl of whatever the Lodbrok dynasty decides to name its new kingdom, why bother taking the risk of sailing that far away? Say, throughout the 10th century you have raids/wars between the Danes and Wessexians that the former manage to win (Perhaps due to alliances with the Welsh who, seeing the collapse of their major threat Mercia under Norse pressure, decide its better to ally/co-operate with the new invaders against the Saxons, splitting Wessex's attention east during one of these wars. Hywel Dda would be a good candidate for this, seeing his ambitions and his ability to use the war against the English and his prestige as a tool to better unify his new Welsh kingdom and buy the loyalty of its notables with fiefs cut from Wessex). This could cut off Wessex proper from Cornwall to the extent the local Cornish could re-assert their recently lost independence, and the Danes could carve out Wessex's eastern dependents (Kent, a "Kingdom of London", ect.) as tribute-paying vassals. As Norsemen settle in northern England in greater numbers, you see enough of a demographic change (Or even a religious one; assuming the Norse don't convert quickly. Put them in sufficient enough concentrations and discredit Christianity enough by the collapse of Christian kingdoms and the burning down/looting of their centers of learning and proselytizing and its possible) that when the Danelaw starts to break down there isen't as much identification with the south as their used to be, and the minor Kingdoms have gotten used to their independence and soured at the idea of centralized rule. Maybe have the united Danelaw break down in the 1200-1300's, with smaller but still reasonably sized Norse-ruled kingdoms (York, Northumbria, ect.) takings its place among a collection of English states too weak individually to have one fully conquer any of the others. A Sengoku-type situation.

Granted, you MAY see something like Brytenwalda re-emerge at some point, dredging up the old ideas of electoral monarchy. But even then it would probably resemble the title of Holy Roman Emperor more than anything else; a status of 'first among equals'. Then, as you start getting into the 1700-1800's, an intellectual movement towards Pan-AngloSaxonism starts to form as cultural knowledge spreads, the various dialects of English standardized somewhat due to mass printing (IE. English translations of the bible and wider-spreading literacy), and foreign pressure from the "Celtic" Scots, Welsh, French, ect. can create a sense of shared identity and the fall of dynastic prestige/importance of the nobility starts to break down.
 
Last edited:
This is extremely hard to do. London is ideally placed to be a major trading city and situated within a large area of fertile land without natural borders, that it will inevitably dominate. The rest of England is less fertile and has no natural borders between it and the South East, meaning it can not really defend itself from SE domination and conquest. Further more, the island nature of Britain means England is unlikely to face foreign invasions messing up the place, as Italy and Germany repeatedly had. You can delay unification for a century or two after Alfred, but not much longer once agriculture has spread.
 
I think all of you forget that Germany was basically unified until the interregnum. Before that you had a more or less normal feudal kingdom. So if England manages to have a lasting period where the territorial princes can secure vital rights and privileges a Holy Roman Empire-ization (I hope you understand me) could happen. Since it would be pretty asb if England had a long line of weak kings and the geography makes central rule easier than it was in the HRE you need to remove the King from England. The perfect opportunity for this is either the hundred years war or a successful plantagenet empire in which John Lackland doesn't lack land. I think the hundred years war solution is more interesting so incase this war is won the focus of the King of England and France would inevitably be France as it is way bigger and richer as well as harder to control. With the absence of a central ruler the english Lords could certainly achieve similar independence like the german princes. However this has to be a lasting state of affairs so it can't be easily reversed.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
not sure English can be HRE-ized. the Geography is different, big city on Thames and large plain in SE would make any lord who control Wessex-Mercia-London practically unstoppable by other lords. other areas (Cornwall, Wales, Northumbria, East Anglia) can't stop unification for long.

HRE had several big rivers (Rhine, Elbe, Danube) which can support different lords. The existence of multiple bishoporics and big cities also hinder unification. Not to mention extremely long land border with different countries who can sent army to interfere in internal matters, high mountain which suited local defense, and HRE large size land area. THere too many factor who helped HRE fracturization that wouldn't exist for England.
 
A lot of that can also apply to France though- they have the Rhone, the Rhine (under the early Franks), the Loire, multiple cities and bishoprics, massive lands... in fact France unifying is perhaps more impressive given the weakness of the early Capetians.

The big kicker was the lack of dynastic continuity, and also the involvement in Italy and with the Pope. In the short run it helped the Ottonians centralize- control of the church gave access to additional levers of power to use against their bannermen.
 
With regards to Germany and Italy remaining fragmented, also don't forget the Pope. Northern Italian (and, to a lesser extent, German) counts and dukes were able to gain a lot of autonomy by playing the Pope and the Emperor against each other.

The Pope also had a vested interest in keeping Italy fragmented in order to ensure his own power as a secular prince. This would bite the Papal State in the ass later as outside powers start scheming in Sicily and threaten Rome, but it worked for centuries.
 
What about unified and then disunified ? I could see a few more decades of growth of power the Earls(from the reign of Edward the Confessor) could lead to a situation in which Wessex, Northubria Merica etc are basically independent but in theory recognizes the King of England as overlord in a Holy Roman Empire situation. With this I can see perhaps Edward has a Heir(lets put in the early 1060's) so the Godwinesson don't directly hold the Crown perhaps Edward is a bit smarter and doesn't give most of the Earldoms to the Godwinessson. The title of King would continue and may be elective but the real power would be with the earls(or perhaps the take the title of Duke?) until the XIX Century. Basiclly the Earls are able to continue to grow there power combined with a boy King who is control by his uncles leads to a break down of centre authority which is not regain until the XIX century(England would remain more isolated with no continental conections)
 
Top