Backward Britain

A society which has failed to keep up with the levels of production, education, and average wealth + wealth per capita (a country with twice as much gold as a country with a a quarter the population is not necessarily better off) that are normal for the time.

This is what i am meaning by backwater.
 
'Tis a good definition, but I don't think that comparative element can be dismissed altogether. "Backward" is a comparative word, after all, and for this definition, which is objective as we're going to get, you still have to define "normal".

Backward always means "less productive, weathy, etcetera than somebody else".

Agreed, but saying "backward compared to the greatest state" is different than "backward compared to its neighbors and rivals". I think for purposes of this Britain has to be backward compared to the continent on the whole, rather than simply not in the place it achieved OTL.

So to define normal for this, what is the typical level for Europe (which for purposes of this does include the Ottoman Empire, as we'd include the ERE in a comparison where it existed, and its not fair to say the Ottomans are unEuropean when they're controlling the same region/s as a European state. At least for purposes of this.)?

If the average peasant is illiterate elsewhere on the continent...then English peasants also being illiterate as a rule is nothing to remark on.

Italy's 19th century illiteracy rate is enough different for the worse to be worth remarking on, by contrast - this is part of why Italy was a backwater in the 19th century.
 
Last edited:
No Vikings.

Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia survive as separate kingdoms and spend the Middle Ages manoevering against each other without a definitive victor, just like in the Dark Ages. The minor kingdoms of Kent, Sussex and Essex are revived whenever the larger kingdoms weaken, leading to more fragmentation. Succession disputes can give rise to additional splits, and a Welsh/Briton revival in the northwest and Cornwall isn't impossible.
 
Realisation: 1984.
That's the way to get a truly backwards Britain, some sort of North Koreaesque regime taking power here.
 
Can the Saxons be prevented? I think a Britain speaking Welsh would be kinda cool.

Not without a fair amount of effort, but its not impossible.

Minor note: Welsh comes from Anglo-Saxon. Foreigner, I think. You might want to use a different word here. :D

Not that I mind as someone who identifies themself as Anglo-Saxon, but its important to note that "Wales" wouldn't exist in this timeline.
 
Not without a fair amount of effort, but its not impossible.

Minor note: Welsh comes from Anglo-Saxon. Foreigner, I think. You might want to use a different word here. :D

Not that I mind as someone who identifies themself as Anglo-Saxon, but its important to note that "Wales" wouldn't exist in this timeline.

Yup it was Weals or something originally i think?

How about stronger rebel leaders in Romano-Britain maybe using Saxons as troops (some will settle but not so much maybe) but the Saxons largely get integrated.
 
Yup it was Weals or something originally i think?

How about stronger rebel leaders in Romano-Britain maybe using Saxons as troops (some will settle but not so much maybe) but the Saxons largely get integrated.

Could work, if the Saxon leaders accept the rule of whatever Britons establish overlordship.
 
I read a scenario somewhere in which Charles 1 hangs onto power and thus absolute monarchy is kept, which stifles economic growth, scientific inquiry, technical innovation, etc. Love him or hate him, Oliver Cromwell did a lot to modernize England.
 
Yup, Britain could become the centre of the Dark Age Europeand maybe beyond. This still leaves time for it to become a "backwater" by modern day.

Time, yes, but it is unlikely to be one - whoever rules the isle, Britain is not in a good position to become a backwater.
 
Time, yes, but it is unlikely to be one - whoever rules the isle, Britain is not in a good position to become a backwater.

Yeah, how about not all of Britain but most of it?

The other bit could be part of other nations for it not to expand much too the north (it being most likely in southern England) then it being a bit of a Netherlands maybe but in the end being a separate country from the other bits.
 
Realisation: 1984.
That's the way to get a truly backwards Britain, some sort of North Koreaesque regime taking power here.

But a 1984 scenario means every country in the world is ruled by "some sort of North Koreaesque regime" and thus Britain is no more or less backward than other places. In fact, considering most of the world in 1984 are either nuclear wastelands or constant warzones, Britain would be considered quite fairly advanced, though obviously not in comparison to OTL.
 
I actually recently finished the timeline for Great Britain (Albaney) in The Raptor of Spain which might be minimally relevant since it features a much more divided Britain. Because my PoD is actually around 750, there are a few different changes that revolve around making Danish and Norse influx into Britain stronger, and the Saxons weaker. This is what I did and maybe it'll give you some ideas.

The most pressing early event is that the battle between Wessex and Mercia that in OTL was known as Ellandun and won by Wessex, is instead won by Merica. This kingdom keeps its dominance, weakens Wessex, but is in a worse position to resist the Viking attacks. Stronger more unified polities in the Carolingian Empire, Hispania and Ireland result in Britain becoming a more attractive target further putting a hurt on the Saxons.

More vikings mean more are willing to settle down and become mercenaries for the Saxon kings who fight each other. They settle among the Angles who are more culturally aligned with them than the Saxons furthering their demographic power slightly. Thus settlement begins about 20-30 years earlier relative to OTL.

The end state is that through chance and greater infighting, "England" consists of 4 major kingdoms, Saxony (Wessex), Mercia, Jorvik (Northumbria), Anglia and one minor kingdom that survives because it centers on London. All but Saxony are either Anglo-Dane or Saxon-Dane. Periodically, a strongman or dynastic union enables someone to dominate the south as "High King of Albaney." However the other states generally band together in rebellion after the death of the strongman so unification has not yet stuck. For a very brief time around 902, the country was united under a Danish king. This king conducted what I called the "Harrowing of the South." Basically what Guillaume the Bastard did to Northumbria in OTL, the Danish king did to Wessex but this control lasted barley a decade.

Currently there is a High Kingdom (fourth one I think), this time centered on Jorvik, but its control is very loose, settling for tribute and lip service rather than actual control. So maybe they'll be united yet... or maybe not. Regardless the country is far more war torn than OTL and somewhat more divided by language and custom. Current year: 1146. Also since in RoS the vikings invaded and conquered Aquitaine instead of Normandy, you're not going to have a 1066 scenario with a continental invasion so the island is much more firmly involved with the Scandinavian countries than with the continent.
 
Last edited:
That's quite cool, MNP. That also does mean that "English" TTL has far more influences from Germanic languages and virtually little from Romance.
 
Top