Catterick

[JHPier]

WI the battle of Catterick in 598 AD had an opposite outcome?

That is Gododdin - a British kingdom around modern Edinburgh manages to completely defeat and conquer Anglo-Saxon Northumbria, instead of the other way round.

 

[Forum Lurker]

I don't think the demographics support a British resistance to Anglic incursions; it seems that it was more a matter of numbers over centuries than any few key battles.

If, however, that's a mistaken impression, and the British actually do manage to hold Britain against the various Norse invaders, it fundamentally alters European politics for a very long time. There's not going to be any British intermarriage with Norman nobility, so there won't be a pretext for an independent invasion; add to that the fact that, if stymied in the British Isles, the Danes, Angles, and Saecsens will have to hit mainland Europe, will probably keep Britain out of regional politics until the rise of nationalism in the fifteenth century or thereabouts.

This means, most likely, no colonization of Iceland or Greenland, and an overall reduction in sea travel, since Britain is likely to remain fairly isolationist.

 

[LDoc]

Well considering it was the Vikings who colonized Iceland and Greenland I don't see much change there. In Fact I would say things go manly according to history. Vikings come and conquer most of the Island, a resistence kingdom eventualy pushes the Vikings back until they come into conflict with a dynasty on the continent. The only real variable, like in OTL, is who wins between the resistence kingdom and the dynasty on the continent.

Edit: Oh also the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, that come to England were mostly nvited over as mercenaries, or immigrated peacefuly. It was only after the mercenaries realized that they were the muscle on the island that things got bad. So even if the nativists win in one battle, I don't see the tide of imigrants stopping.

 

[JHPier]

I don't think the demographics support a British resistance to Anglic incursions; it seems that it was more a matter of numbers over centuries than any few key battles.

Archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxons in what became Northumbria is limited to the part SE of York, e.g. it would seem that most of the later kingdom was British-inhabited when the Anglo-Saxons conquered it in the third quarter of the 6C. Thereafter the Britons were assimilated, though I have no idea how long that took.
For some reason, around the middle of the 6C, the military balance shifted against the Britons, Why is the big question, but since up till then the Britons controlled a larger part of the island I'm dubious about it being a matter of simple demographics.

If, however, that's a mistaken impression, and the British actually do manage to hold Britain against the various Norse invaders, ....

Anglo-Saxons, not Norse. The Viking Age is two centuries off.

Notice that this POD does not immediately affect events south of the Humber.

 

[LDoc]

The problem is that most of the southern kingdoms used Angles, Saxons, and Jutes as mercenaries, at the expense of their own armies. THis basicly meant that it was a push over for the mercenaries to become the kings, after that the flood gates are open, as the rest of the ANgles, Saxons, and Jutes enter their newly acquired kingdoms. Sure the it can be held back for some time, but eventualy I don't see the nativists holding much of a chance against the Germans.
Edit: If youw ant a truly nativist England, may i suggest that you don't make it alluring for native kings to use german mercenaries? Maybe have the first attempt at such a thing turn horribly wrong? Or maybe have the Western ROman Empire be weaker so that when the Germans invade they have a easier time of diffusing throughout western europe, giving more space for the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes to move into, thus making it unnescery for them to go to England for a plot of land of their own?

 

[JHPier]

The problem is that most of the southern kingdoms used Angles, Saxons, and Jutes as mercenaries, at the expense of their own armies. THis basicly meant that it was a push over for the mercenaries to become the kings, after that the flood gates are open, as the rest of the ANgles, Saxons, and Jutes enter their newly acquired kingdoms. Sure the it can be held back for some time, but eventualy I don't see the nativists holding much of a chance against the Germans.

The Gododdin did not use German mercenaries for the simple reason that living north of Hadrian's Wall they had had to do their own fighting throughout the Roman period.
Also we're now at the end of the 6C when the era of calling in Germanic mercenaries had been ended for well over a century. Both Saxons and Britons relied on warbands of their own nation in their wars.

Edit: If youw ant a truly nativist England, may i suggest that you don't make it alluring for native kings to use german mercenaries? Maybe have the first attempt at such a thing turn horribly wrong? Or maybe have the Western ROman Empire be weaker so that when the Germans invade they have a easier time of diffusing throughout western europe, giving more space for the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes to move into, thus making it unnescery for them to go to England for a plot of land of their own?.

I don't particularly ant anything, except discuss the possible consequences of an alternative outcome to the battle of Catterick. So far this thread has provided answers to questions that are related to that one but not identical.

 

[Jason]

I remember a 'revisionist' theory about 8-9 years ago that stated the whole thing had been misinterpreted and was infact an inter-British battle, one side using Angle mercaneries and it all got a bit corrupted. It was all based on linguists in the original poem but the idea seemed faulty to me.

I'm not sure what the outcome would have been , a stronger British survival in the north for longer possibly. It might even have acted as a call to arms for the other 'British' kingdoms (we beat them, so can you) and might have seen a different outcome in the south.

 

[Jason]

It's worth pointing out that there is a strong school of thoguht now that the idea of mass migration and population replacement is incorrect and that the Anlo-Saxons, etc might have been much smaller in number and assimulated the native 'British' population all over the place (in fact there is a lot to support this in the case of Wessex).

If we say that the British increasingly adopted an 'Anglo-Saxon' lifestyle as time and the 'conquests' wnet on, could a British victory at Catterick lead the Britons in the Anglo-Saxon areas to hang on to their own culture? Possibly leading to greater resistance, slowing down the Anglo-Saxon advance?

Archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxons in what became Northumbria is limited to the part SE of York, e.g. it would seem that most of the later kingdom was British-inhabited when the Anglo-Saxons conquered it in the third quarter of the 6C. Thereafter the Britons were assimilated, though I have no idea how long that took.
For some reason, around the middle of the 6C, the military balance shifted against the Britons, Why is the big question, but since up till then the Britons controlled a larger part of the island I'm dubious about it being a matter of simple demographics.
Anglo-Saxons, not Norse. The Viking Age is two centuries off.

Notice that this POD does not immediately affect events south of the Humber.

 

[Tyr]

This could be hard, Northumbria was the most powerful in England at the time.
I don't know all that much of the time perod though.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Arthur victorious at Camlann ...

A more likely POD to get a dramatically different Britain might be if Arthur wins at Camlann, sometime around 530-540.

Yes, Arthur may be a purely legendary figure, and Camlann a legendary battle - but the earlier British victory at Badon, c. 500-510, is attested by Gildas in De Excidio Brittanniae, though the British commander may have been Ambrosius Aurelianus, or someone who's name has been lost. Archeological evidence seems to indicate that a Saxon advance was stalled for some years around this time.

Jason is also correct that the idea of a mass migration has been challenged, and that the later English population was probably descended largely from "Saxonized" Britons. Note that, IIRC, the list of early West Saxon kings (from which the kingdom of England eventually developed) begins with a couple of British-sounding names. British warlords who "went Saxon," or whose descendents did?

In any case, suppose that Arthur (or Ambrosius, or Warlord X) suceeds in establishing himself and successors as overlords of both Britons and Saxons. "Saxonization" is either reversed, or confined to a more limited area, and a pan-British kingdom - at least, covering modern England, Wales, and southern Scotland - is well-established by c. 600.

Celtic Christianity establishes a much firmer hold; the Synod of Whitby never happens, or its counterpart goes the other way. Does it later have an influence on the continent, as English missionaries did at Charlemagne's court? When the Vikings show up (assuming they still do), are they contained? Or even if they conquer the British kingdom, does it retain its cultural identity, as England did under Canute?

What relationship does it have with France in the 11th and 12th centuries?

-- Rick

 

[LDoc]

I don't see how any one warlord could maintain a true kingdom ussing early feudalistic government. maybe some sort of "over-king" which loosly ties the other kingdoms togather, but hardly anything like a modern or semi-modern centralized state. Also I don't know if the Rome would put up with a distinct seperate chruch, such as the Celtic one. The question is how long would it take for a Pope to act and how hard it he would come down on the Celtic Church.

 

[Forum Lurker]

Then modernize the feudalism. If a charismatic king of kings, whose popularity has been boosted by a series of dramatic successes at Badon, Camlann, and other fields, decides that he needs to increase control over his subsidiary states, he's got at least a theoretical chance of doing so.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I don't see how any one warlord could maintain a true kingdom ussing early feudalistic government. maybe some sort of "over-king" which loosly ties the other kingdoms togather, but hardly anything like a modern or semi-modern centralized state. Also I don't know if the Rome would put up with a distinct seperate chruch, such as the Celtic one. The question is how long would it take for a Pope to act and how hard it he would come down on the Celtic Church.

According to some research I did for an Arthurian project of mine, the "knights of the Round Table" were actually sub-kings of Arthur, the High King. I imagine the historical equivalents of Lancelot, Bors, or whomever had their own dominions they ruled as they saw fit, but had to come out to do battle when Arthur (or his historical equivalent) called.

The Pope and his Frankish enforcers have all sorts of problems closer to home (the Lombards, the Muslims, etc). If an independent Celtic sort of Christianity developed, would they have the ability to invade Britain and destroy it?

Plus it was missionaries from Ireland and England who did a lot of the on-the-ground converting of the barbarians and such. If a full-blown schism developed, it might not be confined to the islands.

 

[LDoc]

Yes but why would his "knights" go along with his plan, when it clearly means a loss of power? And if you has to fight his vassals, wouldn't that just prompt the other kingdoms to jump into the fray? Also what could be the reason that he needs to centralize? I just don't see this as a probably situation, esspecialy giving the time period this is based in.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I think Catterick is too late for a full-blown "reconquista" of the island from the Saxons.

A stronger Briton presence in the north and west works, though. Perhaps some sort of cultural fusion in England proper rather than full-blown Saxonization.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Yes but why would his "knights" go along with his plan, when it clearly means a loss of power? And if you has to fight his vassals, wouldn't that just prompt the other kingdoms to jump into the fray? Also what could be the reason that he needs to centralize? I just don't see this as a probably situation, esspecialy giving the time period this is based in.

I personally agree with you that a centralized state in this time/place is too hard to pull off, but perhaps they could give up some of their rights if the High King basically bribes them.

One of the Stuart kings of England (I think it was one of the Charles-es) offered to give up lots of his "feudal rights" if Parliament voted him an annual subsidy, which would eventually put Parliament in the driver's seat (the other golden rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules").

 

[Forum Lurker]

Yes but why would his "knights" go along with his plan, when it clearly means a loss of power? And if you has to fight his vassals, wouldn't that just prompt the other kingdoms to jump into the fray? Also what could be the reason that he needs to centralize? I just don't see this as a probably situation, esspecialy giving the time period this is based in.

They'd go along because he was popular and a renowned general, two factors which combine with an extant position of power to allow him to subdue rebels. If fully one-third of the army is willing to go to war to retain their privileges, they can do so, be killed, and then be replaced by vassals with blood relation to the high king, whose power directly depends upon said high king. A few generations down the line, someone tightens the screws again, replaces the rebels with more loyal subordinates, etc.

As to why he would centralze, there are two reasons. One, he can persuasively argue that the kingdom needs centralization to fight off the continuing incursions of the Angles, Saecsens, and other non-Brythonic invaders. Two, he could simply be ambitious. Ambition alone has been the cause of many, many great endeavours throughout history.

 

[Rick Robinson]

I don't see how any one warlord could maintain a true kingdom ussing early feudalistic government. maybe some sort of "over-king" which loosly ties the other kingdoms togather, but hardly anything like a modern or semi-modern centralized state. Also I don't know if the Rome would put up with a distinct seperate chruch, such as the Celtic one. The question is how long would it take for a Pope to act and how hard it he would come down on the Celtic Church.

Pretty much what Merry Trickster said. Any "Arthurian" (or Ambrosian, etc.) kingdom would surely be closer to a High King than anything like a modern state. Undoubtedly the over-king's authority would be fairly tenuous over most of the territory over which he had some suzerainty, as was the case for the early English Bretwaldas and for that matter Merovingian France. The important thing would be that both Britons and Saxons are loosely under one roof. (Not wholly unlike what happened much later in Scotland with the anglicized Lowlands and the still-Celtic Highlands.)

As for Rome - remember, the POD here is in the 6th century. The Saxons are Christianized by the Britons (and/or Irish), not missionaries from Rome, and this influence could easily spread to France. In OTL, the Merovingian church was a shambles, and was revitalized by English missionaries like Alcuin under Charlemagne. A British Church could easily fill this void, if it retains its intellectual energy. (Does Pelagianism make a comeback?)

-- Rick

 

[Rick Robinson]

I think Catterick is too late for a full-blown "reconquista" of the island from the Saxons.

A stronger Briton presence in the north and west works, though. Perhaps some sort of cultural fusion in England proper rather than full-blown Saxonization.

I agree that Catterick is very late in the game - way late for a reconquista, perhaps even too late to do much more than create a larger "Wales" that extends to the north.

That's why I suggest a reversed Camlann - or at any rate some battle or campaign in the generation after Badon Hill that reinforces instead of reversing the British success at Badon. That's a couple of generations earlier than Catterick, when the overall British situation is a lot more favorable, and there's even some remaining vestige of romanitas (as the name Ambrosius Aurelianus suggests).

-- Rick

 

[LDoc]

I don't see this really stemming the Saxon's and the ilk from comming over to England. Sure it changes the power dynamics on teh island but wouldn't there need to be somthing ont he continent that would change immigration patterns? Maybe this would just increase brition-saxon conflict?