Anglo Saxon England questions

I've read a few threads about a surviving Anglo Saxon dynasty post 1066, so I've got two main questions.

Firstly, if Edmund Ironside's older brother Ethelstan had not died in 1014, what changes might originate from that? We know he was supposed to be quite the warrior, and had already won himself quite the reputation. Could the combined might and skill of Ethelstan and Edmund Ironside help prevent the Danish takeover? And keep the House of Wessex more in the long term? If so what might the consequences be?

My second question is regarding Edward the Exile, if he had survived post 1057, was he more likely to have been given East Anglia as an earldom, or Northumbria? And as for the challenges he would face, Harald Hardrada and Sweyn of Denmark seem likely, would William Duke of Normandy invade as well for a shot of glory?
 
Firstly, if Edmund Ironside's older brother Ethelstan had not died in 1014, what changes might originate from that? We know he was supposed to be quite the warrior, and had already won himself quite the reputation. Could the combined might and skill of Ethelstan and Edmund Ironside help prevent the Danish takeover? And keep the House of Wessex more in the long term? If so what might the consequences be?
I'm not sure that Aethelstan's reputation is that well established : I was under the impression not much was known about him safe his presence on some charters and his will.
Anyway, I'm not sure it would have make that of a difference, as long as Eadric Streona can act the same.
As for the consequence of a victory against Danes, you made a thread about it only yesterday, so you might as well look at it.

My second question is regarding Edward the Exile, if he had survived post 1057, was he more likely to have been given East Anglia as an earldom, or Northumbria? And as for the challenges he would face
I'm not sure, as well, that it was customary to give earldoms to heirs in late Anglo-Saxon England, but I could miss something there.
At the very best, especially giving the Godwin and Leofric lines presence, I would see a relatively peripherised presence made to outweight the influence of certain lines (so probably not that working out against Godwin or Godwin's sons, IMO, at this moment). Hereford, maybe?

That said, while being closer than they were earlier in the century, Anglo-Saxon earldoms weren't yet established and institutionalized principalties : the royal power was still pretty much decisive when it came to attribution, and their limits were relatively changing. Assuming Edward is given an earldom (which I'm not sure would be that obvious), it won't be to affirm his power.

Harald Hardrada and Sweyn of Denmark seem likely, would William Duke of Normandy invade as well for a shot of glory?
It's relativelt hard to make it really clear, but Norman influence in Late Anglo-Saxon England is still going to be important in any TL where the House of Wessex have ties with the continent, and especially with Edward the Confessor ruling in England with the presence of Norman nobles.
How exactly it's going to unfold with Edward the Exile living on is hard to say, Harald and William (possibly coordinated) attack being a major opportunist strike (even if being expected). But Normans are still going to be one of the important political players in XIth century Anglo-Saxon England, while I wouldn't rule out a greater Imperial presence than IOTL.
 
I'm not sure that Aethelstan's reputation is that well established : I was under the impression not much was known about him safe his presence on some charters and his will.
Anyway, I'm not sure it would have make that of a difference, as long as Eadric Streona can act the same.
As for the consequence of a victory against Danes, you made a thread about it only yesterday, so you might as well look at it.


I'm not sure, as well, that it was customary to give earldoms to heirs in late Anglo-Saxon England, but I could miss something there.
At the very best, especially giving the Godwin and Leofric lines presence, I would see a relatively peripherised presence made to outweight the influence of certain lines (so probably not that working out against Godwin or Godwin's sons, IMO, at this moment). Hereford, maybe?

That said, while being closer than they were earlier in the century, Anglo-Saxon earldoms weren't yet established and institutionalized principalties : the royal power was still pretty much decisive when it came to attribution, and their limits were relatively changing. Assuming Edward is given an earldom (which I'm not sure would be that obvious), it won't be to affirm his power.


It's relativelt hard to make it really clear, but Norman influence in Late Anglo-Saxon England is still going to be important in any TL where the House of Wessex have ties with the continent, and especially with Edward the Confessor ruling in England with the presence of Norman nobles.
How exactly it's going to unfold with Edward the Exile living on is hard to say, Harald and William (possibly coordinated) attack being a major opportunist strike (even if being expected). But Normans are still going to be one of the important political players in XIth century Anglo-Saxon England, while I wouldn't rule out a greater Imperial presence than IOTL.

Very true regarding Aethelstan and my prior thread, just trying to build a solid idea there.

As regards Edward the Exile, okay interesting, so likely if he is given something it might be Hereford to balance out Godwin etc. In regards to the Norman influence, would the development of mounted cavalry be brought over after a potential battle with William? Asd for greater imperial influence, or presence, how do you mean?
 
From my knowledge of the period, I have to agree with @LSCatilina on the vast majority of points.

Æthelstan is still a young man at the time of his death. There is some evidence that he and Eadmund were starting to build up a power base to oppose their father's ruling clique - which, of course, included Emma. But that evidence is very limited, and much of it comes from Edmund's actions after his brother's untimely death, and the list of recipients in Æthelstan's will. How big a deal this younger grouping were is not really known. Probably not that powerful. It's a while since I looked at Æthelstan's will, but the name that stands out is, inevitably, Godwin. At the time, he appears to have very little in the way of power or influence, as the lands of his father Wulfnoth had been forfeited in 1009. If he's typical of the young Æthelings' little club, then it's not anything to scare Sven Forkbeard, or their father.

I also agree that if Eadric Streona is getting up to his usual tricks, then I can't see what Æthelstan can do beyond that which Edmund did in OTL.

Moving on to Edward the Exile, I don't know what would be done for him. I think he'd like one of the great Earldoms, because without it, he's very reliant on the royal court and building up a group of powerful landowners. Of course, the current Earls would probably prefer him to be beholden to them. Edward may also prefer it. Maybe Edward would be given land spread out in small holdings across the country, to prevent him building up a power base?

After Æthelred's marriage to Emma, the Norman's are always going to be involved in England. Depending on circumstances in both places, the level of involvement will wax and wane, but there'll be a link for a couple of generations at least. It's amazing how the path of history can change when a king marries in an attempt to stop a neighbouring Duke from giving refuge to pirates and raiders....
 
As regards Edward the Exile, okay interesting, so likely if he is given something it might be Hereford to balance out Godwin etc.
Actually, I rather tought the contrary : Godwin seems to be in royal favour at this moment (or, rather, I'm under this impression), collecting honores on his way. I'd rather see either Hereford as "hey, I had to name someone for this region" rather than balance out Godwin (altough it might end up as an aposteriori rationalisation), and rather trying to balance out Leofric's son ambitions in the region.

In regards to the Norman influence, would the development of mounted cavalry be brought over after a potential battle with William?
Possibly, but I'm not really confident : Raoul the Timid, earl or Hereford; was a Norman lord named by Edward, possibly using a lot of continental feature and men but he ended up being defeated by Aelfgar in 1056 or 1057. It's not as Anglo-Saxons were geopolitical autists, especially in this period : just that mounted cavalry didn't looked as that of a magical power nearly as people might think, and it didn't really fit the nobiliar model of late AS England (altough that might change) or its traditional strategy that much.
With time, with more Raoul the Timid equivalent, and with a growing continental influence, it might change : but probably more gradual in the absence of a conquest, than a sudden tactical epiphany.

Asd for greater imperial influence, or presence, how do you mean?
An Imperial, from the HRE, presence balancing Normans, as it seems to have been attempted politically. Germans seems to have been fairly present (especially from Lower Lotharingia and Saxony proper) in the XIth England while not at the same level than Normans. But they were there, and show signs of being more present with time.
 
Mightn't Edward the Exile face hostility from the Godwinsons, who don't want to be eclipsed/displaced by a blood-relative of the king? There are theories Harold got rid of him IOTL.
 
Or, what would have happened if Edmund Ironside had not died after his agreement with Canute? Would Danish rule last in that circumstance?
 
Mightn't Edward the Exile face hostility from the Godwinsons, who don't want to be eclipsed/displaced by a blood-relative of the king? There are theories Harold got rid of him IOTL.

I do think that could be a risk, though would Edward seek to marry his son off to one of Harold's daughters? To perhaps bring them under his influence.

Or, what would have happened if Edmund Ironside had not died after his agreement with Canute? Would Danish rule last in that circumstance?

Hmm now that is an interesting question. I reckon Canute might well see his influence and power chipped away at.
 
I do think that could be a risk, though would Edward seek to marry his son off to one of Harold's daughters? To perhaps bring them under his influence.

I'm not sure Edward has the political capital to bring the Godwins under his influence. Depending on the Exile's personality, he might also balk at marrying his son to Harold's daughters given the questionable legitimacy of Harold's kids by Edith Swanneck.
 
I'm not sure Edward has the political capital to bring the Godwins under his influence. Depending on the Exile's personality, he might also balk at marrying his son to Harold's daughters given the questionable legitimacy of Harold's kids by Edith Swanneck.

Hmm, very true. I suppose then that he'd be hankering for some sort of power base, so that he can handle the Godwins once he becomes King. Otherwise, he might end up like his uncle.
 
My question is more cultural based, how much of what we recognize as 'English' culture would emerge under these circumstances, even with strong Norman/French influences, if the rulers of England are still as Anglo-Saxon as their peasants then how much will change compared to RL?
 
My question is more cultural based, how much of what we recognize as 'English' culture would emerge under these circumstances, even with strong Norman/French influences, if the rulers of England are still as Anglo-Saxon as their peasants then how much will change compared to RL?

An interesting question, I do think some elements might change, I've often seen it argued that some form of democratic culture might emerge sooner, due to the presence of the Witan, but I'm not entirely certain of that, after all, what King wants their power constrained.
 
Mightn't Edward the Exile face hostility from the Godwinsons, who don't want to be eclipsed/displaced by a blood-relative of the king? There are theories Harold got rid of him IOTL.
Eventually, you might have tensions, but outright hostilities seems hard to reach this quickly.
In late 1050's, Godwinsons seems to have enjoyed royal favour, especially with Leofricsons being the official rebelious earls for now; if Edward is credited with an ealrdom (which isn't that obvious : I don't remember heirs recieving such in the XIth century), it would likely not be directed against Godwinsons (altough you might see this being switched, depending on the situation, in the 1060's).

As for outright murder, I don't know : it seems to fairly ignore the nature of late Anglo-Saxon kingship, and the half-secular/half-saralized nature of the House of Wessex : the succession was expected to be dealt with by the earls and the Witen, but it almost always involved a Wessex king or being related to (a good part of the absence of overwelming support for Harold, IMO, comes from this)

Or, what would have happened if Edmund Ironside had not died after his agreement with Canute? Would Danish rule last in that circumstance?
It's kind of another situation than described by the OP, but if I can pull my two cents.
"North Sea empires" as Canute' tended to crumble easily under their own weight : each regional nobility and elite had its own interets and cultural organisation, and the royal hegemon as it was established wasn't popular even in Scandinavia, mostly due to ressource focus.
Basically, every part of such hegemonies ended to rebel, forcing the king to take ressources to crush it, that in turn made nobles of other regions rebelling, due to what was percieved as an unbalance.

it doesn't help that scandinavian succesion, at this point, was less a matter of dynastic succession than kingship succession, dosn't help : if your predecessor was both king of Danemark and England, even if you weren't related to him and elected in Danemark, you still had a legit claim on England), you'd have much room for infighting, even with an agreed split.

Giving that a lot of late Anglo-Saxon identity was built on the stress they were not Scandinavians, you'd be likely to see at least several attempts (at best after Canute's death) to join up with Wessex. Either Danes realize that and attempt to crush Edmund even if he lives, either they don't or can't, and they remain with a knife on their soft insular underbelly.

I'm not sure Edward has the political capital to bring the Godwins under his influence.
It more or less depends how the 60's unfolds : you could see an important Norman, but quite possibly German as well, influence that would be just enough to balance a bit Godwins' influence.
You might see Godwins to be relatively okay with Edward as a king : not only a legitimate king in late AS England was to be the source of political success (contrary to what happened in the continent, he still had the monopoly on the honores and benefices distribution), but the lack of much viable alternative (at this point, Edgar was far too young tobe one) IOTL might advert how the political crisis unfold. At least for a time, Edward would be seen by the great houses as a way to both instaure some balance against the others, or at the very least, prevent one to win it all.

My question is more cultural based, how much of what we recognize as 'English' culture would emerge under these circumstances, even with strong Norman/French influences, if the rulers of England are still as Anglo-Saxon as their peasants then how much will change compared to RL?
Well, the idea that Anglo-Norman elite was distinct from their population is real, but I think it was pushed to extremes for some nationalistic/quasi-romanticist reasons in the XIXth, and somehow went into popular conceptions.
Truth is, the cultural differenciation wasn't an exception in Middle-Ages, unless arguing that the culture of Capetians was the same than Francilian peasants, or that Latin principalties provoked a latinisation of Palestine.

While Franco-Norman nobility in England was certainly more differenciated (would it be only because they not only got rid of Anglo-Saxon nobility after a while, but also because they represented an extremely reduced part of the overall population, compared to continental nobility), it didn't that affected popular culture and language in the Middle-Ages (so far, I was under the impression we did used a western Germanic language on this board)

You had a tendency, since the IXth century, to translate into continental terms the English situtation, a tendency that was accelerated in 1066 for obvious reasons : but institutionally, the continental influence (whatever Norman or Ottonian) isn't going to leave any time soon, and even without Norman invsion, an equivalent to Davidian Revolution in England is to be expected.
Some of the direct legacy of Normans, as French-issued words and names, would certainly be a miss in such TL, but institutionally, you'd still have (eventually) adoption of quasi-feudal models, encastellment, etc. Arguably you'd probably end up with specific institutions, making England probably looking more like IOTL medieval Scotland.

So, certainly changed, but not litterally unreckognizable England or English medieval culture, IMO.

I've often seen it argued that some form of democratic culture might emerge sooner, due to the presence of the Witan
It's essentially a protochronic ior culturo-centric form, tough : because the English medieval Parliment eventually evolved into a first form of parlementarism (which really became democratic only quite late), not every proto-Parlementarian or Parlementarian feature was going to.
We could as well argue that Gothic practice of Councils since the VIth (and you'd have more of a case making these institutionalized assemblies) was going to involve an earlier democracy; or that Anglo-Saxon England was more likely to devellop a plantation economy because it relied more than its neighbour on slavery.

The Witan was, mostly at this point, an formalized happenance of a concept that was really important into royal politics in Middle-Ages, namely advising the king (as the earlier form of royal councils in France, altough it was much more complex with the appearance of other institutions as Estates).
It was basically a gathering of the political elite, as you found elsewhere (and had few similarities with the supposedly egalitarian* germanic councils), which was non-permanent, non-institutional and proteiform.

*Another tarte à la crême of early middle ages historiography.
 
Okay very interesting, so likely Edward the Exile ends up spending most of his time at court, or if given an earldom, based there, likely to keep the Mercians under royal sway, or as a counter to them. The Witan would remain an advisory body for a time, and depending on the rate of good Kings produced, might gather more steam, or it might not.
 
Witan was less a body, than an irregular assembly. I must say I'd be quite surprised if it played a greater role in its form : it was neither democratic, proto-national, institutionalized or even under royal monopole, giving that royal Witenagemots weren't the only ones (it seems that you had regional occurences as well, not assembled under royal authority).

It's not about "good kings" or "bad kings" on a Biblical or Tolkinian line that would upveal traditions into a brighter form, but how much powerful kings wouldn't rely more on features that would benefit them more, as it happened virtually everywhere else.
 
I see re the witan.

And regarding the Kings, I think you might've misunderstood me. I wasn't meaning good or bad in the moral sense of the word, more the sense in what they did, and how they actually viewed their role as King, but I can see where you're coming from.
 
Top