AHC: Scotland instead of the Netherlands

An option might be an alt-Hadrian (to go waaaay back).

Rather than build the wall, he insists on pushing the frontier north, and settles Romans and any populations he wants to relocate to "Northern Britannia". This includes a large number of Roman soldiers, who marry locally.

Otherwise, not much else changes outside of the British Isles, the Anglo Saxons still come along and cause an alt-Heptarcy, and Europe goes as Europe does, but Scotland is now more populous.

This leads to an alt-Scotland taking OTL Northumbrias role - extending from the North down to the Humber - based around the Firth of Forth.

Whilst is isn't going on foreign adventures, and isn't strong enough to dominate the island yet, it is certainly well placed, and with the Romans urbanisation efforts maintained - largely inured to Viking Raids. England however, is not. In combination with a discovery of Vinland by the Vikings, and a successful settlement, Scotland now forms the heart of the trade network, unlike the Norse, but strong enough to ensure they don't invade. Eventually they follow into Vinland, and start to settle North America earlier than the English IOTL.

Now admittedly, this might not qualify as Scotland as it was part-Roman, but I figured you want as much of an urban boost as early as possible, to make up for the unfortunate lack of high-yield agricultural land.

After that - who says this Scotland couldn't fortify at the Humber, with a Greater Wessex in the South, and a uniting Ireland in the west. A three-way tie on the islands, with Scotland and Ireland leading when it comes to the New World, and G.Wessex dominating the Channel trade. (The idea of a Scottish N.America and an Irish Caribbean is amusing to me).
 
So, is noming northern England better?

Maybe Scotland keeps control over Cumberland and Westmorland, and manages to acquire the part of Northumberland within the Scottish Marches?

It isn't much, but it helps.

I think that's a good first step anyway. Scotland with a low population means it's going to be a minor partner in any UK-like arrangement. What if Scotland takes those areas and in addition only parts of Ireland. That would give them a big population boost but still leave them as the dominant culture within their own country.
 
I did say, of course, that I don't expect the situation in Scotland to be identical to that of the Netherlands. In the OP I acknowledge the differences between the two powers. My theory is that if the Netherlands is distracted, and England is busy or weaker, and Scotland somehow has a strong naval tradition (maybe as a result of more pervasive Viking invasions?) they might send out fleets to try and tap into the wealth flowing into Spain or Portugal from the New World and the east.

The idea that made me post this thread was a purely Scottish Cape Colony. I kind of had this vision that the Netherlands ends up becoming more involved in continental conflicts, England and France remain firmly at one another's throats for longer, and Portugal ends up annexed by Spain which would in turn weaken their trading empire, and Scotland is left as really the only nation not embroiled in war that can exploit the power vacuum opening up. They end up in the East Indies and manage to get relatively rich off of the spice trade and trade with China while England is torn asunder.
 
Scotland is going to have to be Gamey, and make due with the oppurtunities that it is presented with.

Lets start with a rather early POD in the 1300's, with the last Norwegian monarch Haakon V. Lets assume that unlike in our time line, he has a legitimate son and that he does not die in child birth or of disease and as such Norway never joins the Kalmar union due to the virtue that Magnus never becomes King of Norway: as such Norway remains a dominant force in North Sea trade. Norway will still very likely decay in status due to the gradual rise of Sweden, Denmark and the Hansa aswell as other factors such as the Little Ice Age and the Black Plague both of which effected Norway greatly. This is going to leave a vacuum that Scotland can usurp as Norway falls in Status; also allowing the Scotts to take Orkney, Shetland, Hebrides and perhaps even the Faroe and Iceland. Scotland would also be in a good position to take over Northern Irish city states who were close to Norway economically and culturally. Norway not being in the Kalmar allows Scotland to usurp Norway's position in the Northern Sea instead of it being usurped by the Kalmar. From there, its in a decent place for Scotland: having more income than it did in OTL and in a position to dominate Ireland. Hell, if the Vikings and to an extent Norway itself had territories in Scotland its not too impossible to imagine that Scotland might turn the tables and do the same.
 
I'm going to elaborate on where Scotland can go from there in my description of a powerful Scotland; one who has taken control over the Northern Sea Routes and the Islands contained around it, most prominently of them being Iceland aswell as some cities in Northern Ireland. Which to me atleast doesn't seem very ASB at all considering the fact that icelandic culture has heavy Gaelic influences brought to the region by the Scottish and Irish thralls of the Vikings and intermarriage Gaelic peoples (Seriously) and the fact that without contact with Europe Iceland may suffer greatly; and considering the fact that it is likely Norway may decline Iceland may actually benefit from a new liege and likely wouldn't care much so long as they had their precious autonomy. So where too from there? Ireland was heavily dependent on the North Sea Route, and as such this alternate Scotland would have plenty of influence in Ireland, especially in the North. We would see a degree of cultural fusion in these regions as Scottish traders bring Scottish culture and so on and so forth; this combined with economic dominance and military supremacy would likely allow the Scotts to control much of Northern Ireland, and the entirety of Ireland could be within the grasps of one ambitious Scottish King. But this thread isn't about a regional power-- its about having Scotland be a power on the level the Netherlands was, which was for a time a Great Power. Really, to have Scotland do this we must ofcourse wait until the Age of Colonialism, and Scotland having colonies is not ASB at all considering they had them during OTL(Albeit Modest Ones). I also believe a Scotland at this point would not be a target for British conquest, as they would be too difficult of a target especially if the Auld Alliance remains. The only way I see England absorbing Scotland or vice versa is through a Personal Union like what happened in our time line.

I could see Scotland own much of the Antilles; larger islands would be a problem as they would likely have to contend with Strong Nations such as Portugal, England or Spain. As for Settler Colonies? At this point I don't think Scotland even to the point it has currently expanded has the demographics to settle large portions of land; perhaps parts of Canada to spread their Northern Trade Routes eastward but. . . I find it unlikely they could settle the Americas to the extent the English did. Perhaps a settler colony on Newfoundland or England. Greenland is an obvious pickup for Scotland however. As for Asia and Africa? I'm skeptical; the Netherlands had the advantage of being a Nexus for trade, having the Port of Amsterdam allowed them to import goods from their colonies and sell them across Europe at incredible profits. The Scottish despite controlling Northsea Trade have no such port and a smaller demographic to sell too. They could have small colonies in West Africa, or perhaps some Islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans but I don't see Scotland controlling Indonesia or any similarly large mass of land in Asia or Africa. Scotland would also likely have its golden age coincide with the introduction of the Potato; as it would greatly increase quality of food and how much Agriculture could be performed in Scotland and Ireland. Massive population boom and more people usually means more intellectuals, more laborers, larger army, larger navy ect.
 
I think a Stronger Celtic Presence in Brittania, Perhaps Coel Hen could create a stable kingdom in Northern England. More worried about enemies to the south, never really cares about invading Scotland and then during the Viking age would form an Alliance with the Scottish against the Norse threat. And with a Norse king maybe not wanting to deal with the Northern Kingdoms is content with the Anglo-Saxon lands in the south, however his successor may try and make gains into this area, then the Viking age ends and then this Celtic Nation gets really worried about the English to the south. Maybe said Celtic nation conquers the English or get conquered by the English, however I think there should be enough development of a cultural divide that the English just simply won't be able to hold onto permanently unless more radical methods are used (see:Genocide). But all in all I could see Scotland becoming a mercantile Nation that derives its wealth from not spending much money on a military and instead engaging in trade with the rest of the British Isles as well as maybe the Scandinavians.

In combination with a discovery of Vinland by the Vikings, and a successful settlement, Scotland now forms the heart of the trade network

As someone who runs a ongoing Vinland TL I just want to tell everyone: Vinlandic trade doesn't mean squat in continental Europe

People keep thinking it does, but it doesn't. The closest is maybe Maple sugar/syrup get exported every now and again and Walrus ivory, even then only the rich could afford it and in the grand scheme of things makes little to no difference.

If anything A successful Vinland would mean that European Countries would have to deal with Vinlandic competition in Iceland for Grain, Wood/Timber, and Metal products and not make nearly as much money as they otherwise would make. People also don't realize that Furs in this time period weren't as lucrative a trade item until much later after Vinland was colonized, even so it would be cheaper to import it from Scandinavia or Eastern Europe. By the time it does the Little Ice age is going to happen and if Vinland is even capable of remaining in contact with Europe it will probably do so from a much warmer trans-Atlantic route.

Eventually they follow into Vinland

The problem with this is that European countries couldn't care less about a land across the sea settled by savages with stone spears. The only reason it got settled OTL was because population pressures and deforestation (wood drives the world economy like oil does today)were getting worse and worse as well as the Sugar plantations across the Caribbean meant interest in the region had begun to grow. Technology and logistics aren't going to allow a nation much territory in the New world anyways at least up until Naval technology of say the year 1370? Depending on how Naval tech advances because of butterflies could be more or less but still around that time period or later.

That and people don't take into account, the Vinnish have had centuries to expand and are most likely as powerful as a decently large Kingdom in Europe (if they stay united, no reason they shouldn't though. If they all come from the same immigration pool then culture should be roughly the same and with a low population density at first unification shouldn't be that hard.)
But yes, any European settlement in North America within sailing distance from Vinland is probably going to end up in flames. And with a two month long communication barrier across the Atlantic the Vinnish will have ample time to prepare for any 'invasion' and given the limit to how many troops you can send across the ocean against a huge Kingdom like Vinland would be then the Vinnish simply win.

If you mean the Caribbean/South America then they could totally do that, North America though is off limits.

Sorry for the derail.
 
I think a Stronger Celtic Presence in Brittania, Perhaps Coel Hen could create a stable kingdom in Northern England. More worried about enemies to the south, never really cares about invading Scotland and then during the Viking age would form an Alliance with the Scottish against the Norse threat. And with a Norse king maybe not wanting to deal with the Northern Kingdoms is content with the Anglo-Saxon lands in the south, however his successor may try and make gains into this area, then the Viking age ends and then this Celtic Nation gets really worried about the English to the south. Maybe said Celtic nation conquers the English or get conquered by the English, however I think there should be enough development of a cultural divide that the English just simply won't be able to hold onto permanently unless more radical methods are used (see:Genocide). But all in all I could see Scotland becoming a mercantile Nation that derives its wealth from not spending much money on a military and instead engaging in trade with the rest of the British Isles as well as maybe the Scandinavians.

I nearly went with this, but for me Coel Hen ruled a land that was more or less Northumbria at its best, rather than Scotland in any meaningful way.

As someone who runs a ongoing Vinland TL I just want to tell everyone: Vinlandic trade doesn't mean squat in continental Europe

People keep thinking it does, but it doesn't. The closest is maybe Maple sugar/syrup get exported every now and again and Walrus ivory, even then only the rich could afford it and in the grand scheme of things makes little to no difference.

If anything A successful Vinland would mean that European Countries would have to deal with Vinlandic competition in Iceland for Grain, Wood/Timber, and Metal products and not make nearly as much money as they otherwise would make. People also don't realize that Furs in this time period weren't as lucrative a trade item until much later after Vinland was colonized, even so it would be cheaper to import it from Scandinavia or Eastern Europe. By the time it does the Little Ice age is going to happen and if Vinland is even capable of remaining in contact with Europe it will probably do so from a much warmer trans-Atlantic route.

Not to contradict, but I don't think Scotland is going to be pulling a Venice, there are still going to be exports and trade with a successful Vinland - the Continent won't care, but the North? Typically they are peripheral to trade, here they have their own trade system - even it if it isn't mega-fortunes. That is enough to kick start a larger merchant class in Scotland, who would be involved in trade in the North, and with the Continent (even if Scotland doesn't have much to offer). If the trade with Vinland becomes harder, this class can then refocus its trade on the Continent, but bring the profits home to Scotland. Win-win.

The problem with this is that European countries couldn't care less about a land across the sea settled by savages with stone spears. The only reason it got settled OTL was because population pressures and deforestation (wood drives the world economy like oil does today)were getting worse and worse as well as the Sugar plantations across the Caribbean meant interest in the region had begun to grow. Technology and logistics aren't going to allow a nation much territory in the New world anyways at least up until Naval technology of say the year 1370? Depending on how Naval tech advances because of butterflies could be more or less but still around that time period or later.

That and people don't take into account, the Vinnish have had centuries to expand and are most likely as powerful as a decently large Kingdom in Europe (if they stay united, no reason they shouldn't though. If they all come from the same immigration pool then culture should be roughly the same and with a low population density at first unification shouldn't be that hard.)
But yes, any European settlement in North America within sailing distance from Vinland is probably going to end up in flames. And with a two month long communication barrier across the Atlantic the Vinnish will have ample time to prepare for any 'invasion' and given the limit to how many troops you can send across the ocean against a huge Kingdom like Vinland would be then the Vinnish simply win.

If you mean the Caribbean/South America then they could totally do that, North America though is off limits.

Sorry for the derail.

Dw about the derail, I enjoyed it.
 
Doing this on phone sorry for mess.

I meant it in a northumbrian kingdom taking the english beatings for them.

Boo! Double Boo! Whilst I support the idea of an independent Northumbria/Northumberland in a timeline - boo!

Plus, if the Northumbrians are the shield that can resist the English - then they'll develop a hell of a marshal tradition. Who is to say that after a truce, or during an English Civil war, that they won't just turn North to conquer those fine Scottish Traders.

Hehe, New Model Army of Northumbria. Happy times.
 
Is Northumbria capable of the same sort of population growth as England? I read once that Scotland's low population compared to England was one of the reasons it was such an easy target (which is why I opted for making England weaker than Scotland stronger; I don't think Scotland is capable of producing enough food or land to support a large population).
 
Plus, if the Northumbrians are the shield that can resist the English - then they'll develop a hell of a marshal tradition. Who is to say that after a truce, or during an English Civil war, that they won't just turn North to conquer those fine Scottish Traders.

Because they don't want to spread their forces even thinner than they already probably are.

Is Northumbria capable of the same sort of population growth as England

I would think mostly, besides give some much more heavy Martial tradition(keep in mind these guys are fighting for survival near everyday and are descended from the Roman Legions, would be cool if they kept roman ranks and other things!) and a good old Celtic Prussia can stick around in Britannia for a while.
 
Top