DBWI: England doesn't conquer scotland in the 14th century

Ryan

Donor
As you all know, England conquered Scotland in the early 14th century, unifying the British isles into a single power which still exists today. The English went on to be the first to discover and colonize the Americas.

but what if that never happened and Scotland remained independent?
 
As you all know, England conquered Scotland in the early 14th century, unifying the British isles into a single power which still exists today. The English went on to be the first to discover and colonize the Americas.

but what if that never happened and Scotland remained independent?

Well, for starters, there might not be nearly as many non-Irish Celtic loanwords in modern English as there are in our world. In fact, in some rural areas of the Appalachia[1] Free State, there is a unique dialect of English spoken even today that is essentially the more modern equivalent of the old Scots language....kinda like how Amerika-Deutsch is in New Prussia[2], New Baden[2] and Alleghania[2], or Franglais in Quebec, where all but one of my maternal great-grandparents came from.

OOC: [1] Appalachia is all of OTL Virginia + N.C., parts of S.C., Ga. and Ala., plus Tenn. and Ky. east of the Tennessee River. [2]This would be western PA, Ohio, and eastern PA respectively.
 
Don't forget the great city of Nieuw Amsterdam, which officially speaks Nederlands, though de facto has their unique Amerikaans-Nederlands dialect, but is very accomadating to their English trading with whom they share their ancestral pond called the North Sea;).
 
Don't forget the great city of Nieuw Amsterdam, which officially speaks Nederlands, though de facto has their unique Amerikaans-Nederlands dialect, but is very accomadating to their English trading with whom they share their ancestral pond called the North Sea;).

Yep. I've been to New Amsterdam myself and there's lots of great things to do there.
 
Sin and vice and vice and sin -- Best place to get bud in the whole world.

Oh yeah, definitely......though Montreal's not half bad in regards to pot, either. :D

Also, I've noticed just how diverse N.A. really is. There's not only many African-descended people, but there's also people of Turkish, Chinese, Indian, Syriac, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Norwegian, and even a few of Italian(mainly Sicilian) and Native American extraction, not to mention the million or so Jewish people, amongst about four dozen other nationalities of this city of about 11 million people.
 
Why wouldn't the English be able to conquer Scotland?

Yes, it was lucky that England had three fantastic kings starting with Edward I, but how much difference did they really make? Even if you get a dud ruler, England has so many advantages in men, and money.
 

Ryan

Donor
Why wouldn't the English be able to conquer Scotland?

Yes, it was lucky that England had three fantastic kings starting with Edward I, but how much difference did they really make? Even if you get a dud ruler, England has so many advantages in men, and money.

England taking over Scotland does seem like an unavoidable event, but I wonder how long it could have been put off for?
 
England taking over Scotland does seem like an unavoidable event, but I wonder how long it could have been put off for?
I suppose you could delay it. Maybe distract England in Ireland, or France. Maybe if that damp squib of a 'rebellion' in Wales back in the 1290s had actually had some legs, then it might keep Edward busy elsewhere.

Even then, I can't see Scotland getting to 1500 or so without an inordinately lucky streak...
 

Asami

Banned
Oh yeah, definitely......though Montreal's not half bad in regards to pot, either. :D

Also, I've noticed just how diverse N.A. really is. There's not only many African-descended people, but there's also people of Turkish, Chinese, Indian, Syriac, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Norwegian, and even a few of Italian(mainly Sicilian) and Native American extraction, not to mention the million or so Jewish people, amongst about four dozen other nationalities of this city of about 11 million people.

It's because the Dutch weren't complete douchebags about ethnic settlement, and neither was the New Netherlands government after they got their independence in 1843.

To be honest, there's a reason why New Netherlands is the most successful state in the entirety of North America despite being only a small part of the actual continent.
 
Yes, it was lucky that England had three fantastic kings starting with Edward I, but how much difference did they really make? Even if you get a dud ruler, England has so many advantages in men, and money.

They only way I can see Scotland surviving is by divine intervention, by which I mean England somehow really manages to make enemies of the Catholic aristocracy and church in Scotland to the point that they ensure significant forces can be raised to make the area ungovernable.
 

Ryan

Donor
would England have still discovered the Americas first? If not, which country would have been most likely to discover it?
 

SunDeep

Banned
would England have still discovered the Americas first? If not, which country would have been most likely to discover it?

:confused: Did they IOTL? I don't think so... I mean, didn't the Vikings get there first? And ITTL, with an independent Scotland, wouldn't they have been best placed to follow the same path the Vikings took, via Greenland and Newfoundland? After all, that's the path the English took, isn't it? Wasn't the original expedition supposed to have passed through the Irish Channel along the way, making a stop in the Firth of Clyde before setting out across the Atlantic?
 
Last edited:

Ryan

Donor
:confused: Did they IOTL? I don't think so... I mean, didn't the Vikings get there first? And ITTL, with an independent Scotland, wouldn't they have been best placed to follow the same path the Vikings took, via Greenland and Newfoundland? After all, that's the path the English took, isn't it? Wasn't the original expedition supposed to have passed through the Irish Channel along the way, making a stop in the Firth of Clyde before setting out across the Atlantic?

OOC: this is a DBWI (double blind what if)...
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
would England have still discovered the Americas first? If not, which country would have been most likely to discover it?

Honestly, I doubt it. In order to get an Independent Scotland you'd have to give England dud leaders for most of the 14th century, who would probably leave England financially poor and possibly a misguided attempt to claim France*. Hell even OTL it was a near run thing. The English Crown was really on the fence about funding that expedition until the last minute.


OOC: *I assume a English Conquest of Scotland would butterfly the HYW.
 
Honestly, I doubt it. In order to get an Independent Scotland you'd have to give England dud leaders for most of the 14th century, who would probably leave England financially poor and possibly a misguided attempt to claim France*. Hell even OTL it was a near run thing. The English Crown was really on the fence about funding that expedition until the last minute.


OOC: *I assume a English Conquest of Scotland would butterfly the HYW.

OOC: Possibly. :)

IC: Good thing it got canceled indeed. England did have a fair share of issues to worry about already; I suspect a crusade against France would certainly have made things worse in the long run.
 
What if all those rumours spread about Edward II by the Scots were actually true?(he was more interested in boys than girls and certainly wasn't the father of Edward III). The English nobles might then be more interested in unseating him rather than acquiring new lands in Scotland and that might give the Scots the breathing room they needed. However given that Edward II was even better a general than Edward I (although not as good as Edward III) it might not have mattered anyway (but remember the church had some interesting punishments for non heterosexuals at that time).
 
OP seems to be implying that an independent Scotland surviving past the 1300s might have been a strong naval and colonial power in its own right had it not been annnexed. Seems dubious for such an inhospitable part of England populated by the kind of venal aristocrats Shakespeare mocked in his Scottish plays. The Scots would have been in fierce competition with the Dutch and Danish for most of that timeline; and what respectable European power would risk backing a weak bickering Scotland against England?

I suppose the obvious corollary is the failed Welsh colony in Argentina, which bankrupted their nobility and was one of the things leading to the modern union between Wales and England after years of cordial hostility. Surely Scotland has even less chance than Wales of supporting an endeavour like that?
 
Top