Technically Cnut was an atheling, being the son of a previous King of England. The crown functioned more like the elective kingships of eastern Europe with the Witan in a more confirmatory role than electoral one.
Did the Norman victory at Hastings lead to a more imperialist England?
- Thread starter Eivind
- Start date
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
I do see your points! I meant irrelevant compared to iotl. I definitely see a no Hastings England involved in the HRE and low countries, and as I said, there's certainly possibilities for involvement there. I just think without a sovereign who is also hereditary ruler of part of France there's less likleyhood of full scale continental warfare. As a trading partner, as a neighbor they'll be important, and no doubt there will be Huscarls marching with the HRE or into the holy land, but not claiming the throne of France.
I definitely see that once the Iberians discover the Americas the English (Aenglalish?) Joining the dots and moving along the coast of North America.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
Sad to say but early drivers of exploration of the northern American continent may be slavery and evangelism. English traders buying captured natives off other natives for sale to Europe and Scandinavia as exotic barbarian slaves initially, chattel workers later alongside a semi crusade to bring God to the naked heathens (not my view, an imitation of a contemporary view). The contact with the friendly tribes leads to further exploration, settlements around the slaving posts, and additional trade in furs, fish and tusks. When news filters through that Chrisnot Altlumbus has discovered a new continent, they expand southwards.
There's several ways that could 'evolve' over time. The Witan may become increasingly dominated by the few top-tier lords [Earls?] who deliberately pick candidates who's not disturb the Earl's 'rights'. Or perennial deadlocks end up with weak 'compromise candidates'. Or it becomes de jure hereditary, like with Hapbsurg Bohemia. Or worse of all, a bribable contest, like the last decades of Poland. In this case, having a 'semi-elected' might in fact be the best of both worlds; there's a 'ruling dynasty', but a clearly poor candidate is skipped over for the more able.
As for 'early America'; I agree it's a big 'if'; though it's not that much of one as you'd think...
- England wouldn't need to 'find Vinland', by 1200, merely ask a local in Iceland/Greenland it's location.
- Greenlanders themselves knew the place was 'rich' [richer than Greenland, and that was rather rich from furs and ivory] but they lacked both the metal and excess manpower to exploit. England has both in spades; specially after the Scots subjugation [which I'd call 'stage 1' of this 'Viking Empire' route].
- It was within the realms of technology of the time. Greenlanders visited repeatedly to harvest timber for wood-short Greenland.
- If free of Continental entanglements and with the British Isles, this England may turn towards 'Vinland' as a safety-valve for the 'expansionist spirit' which gripped most of Europe by the 12th Century. In RL this led to wars in France and the Crusades.
As for 'early America'; I agree it's a big 'if'; though it's not that much of one as you'd think...
- England wouldn't need to 'find Vinland', by 1200, merely ask a local in Iceland/Greenland it's location.
- Greenlanders themselves knew the place was 'rich' [richer than Greenland, and that was rather rich from furs and ivory] but they lacked both the metal and excess manpower to exploit. England has both in spades; specially after the Scots subjugation [which I'd call 'stage 1' of this 'Viking Empire' route].
- It was within the realms of technology of the time. Greenlanders visited repeatedly to harvest timber for wood-short Greenland.
- If free of Continental entanglements and with the British Isles, this England may turn towards 'Vinland' as a safety-valve for the 'expansionist spirit' which gripped most of Europe by the 12th Century. In RL this led to wars in France and the Crusades.
Interesting concept, I guess it depends on what kinds of imperialism you are talking about. The Anglo-Saxon social model, for example, has been credited in many ways with providing the social conditions for things like the Industrial Revolution, and earlier on, the mercantile revolution, but its unclear to what extent this already held in 11th century England. Does moving away from parents to start your own home even gel with what we know of Anglo Saxon England, and did it have to be deterministic for the growth of imperialism? I don't think so.
As for relations with the Celts, here I see your point. Its not that the Anglo Saxons always had good relations with Wales (lol) or Scotland or Ireland, but in many cases, they were the aggressed upon actor rather than the other way around. The Normans were unique in the middle ages for their tendency to go adventuring and carve out polities through shoestring budget military conquest. They did so in Sicily, in Antioch, and tried to do so in Greece. The invasion of Ireland for example is something I don't think A-S England ends up doing, but then again, Norman England only tangentially approved it anyways. It was really more of a military adventurer gambit.
As for relations with the Celts, here I see your point. Its not that the Anglo Saxons always had good relations with Wales (lol) or Scotland or Ireland, but in many cases, they were the aggressed upon actor rather than the other way around. The Normans were unique in the middle ages for their tendency to go adventuring and carve out polities through shoestring budget military conquest. They did so in Sicily, in Antioch, and tried to do so in Greece. The invasion of Ireland for example is something I don't think A-S England ends up doing, but then again, Norman England only tangentially approved it anyways. It was really more of a military adventurer gambit.
Anglo-Saxon identity only developed in a settled context. Those invasions (or invitations, depending on your source) were very much disputed in terms of their context. Some say it was enterprising foederati taking over after the collapse of Roman authority, some that it was a continuous and two sided period of North Sea migration (my favored interpretation), some as a massive migration and conquest event (more traditional interpretations). Even the term Anglo-Saxon involves groups that at one point were distinctive.
Germanic Paganism and Arian Christianity of course were gone by 1066 in England as well. And this entirely misses the Norse migration and assimilation events that had been going on since the 5th-6th centuries. Anglo-Saxons were in truth a vastly diverse group in origins, with a martial and political culture that was far more varied than just North Sea Germanic in its roots and operations.
The 'Anglo-Saxon' model could be argued to be a product of a society which had a fairly loose feudalism, managed to shed it early and as an island managed to avoid the 'iron lung' of absolutism [which was required on the Continent, to stop the state falling prey to separatism or foreign predators].
A 'Scandi-England' might be even more open and innovative; as Scandinavian feudalism was generally looser than the Norman and it still had a 'colonial spirit' of settling 'waste' and 'the frontier' [England herself being said 'frontier' a couple of centuries before]. Europe in the 12-13th Centuries was 'expansionist' in general; from the Reconquista and the Crusades to the eastwards push into what will become the Baltics and Lithuania.
A 'Scandi-England' might be even more open and innovative; as Scandinavian feudalism was generally looser than the Norman and it still had a 'colonial spirit' of settling 'waste' and 'the frontier' [England herself being said 'frontier' a couple of centuries before]. Europe in the 12-13th Centuries was 'expansionist' in general; from the Reconquista and the Crusades to the eastwards push into what will become the Baltics and Lithuania.
???, no subjugation at all , that failed. Scottish King became King of England and economics caused the personal union to become a full one ( in just over a century 1603 -1707 )
I think what you'll get is the annexation of the lowlands with the periphery kingdoms mostly vassalised. Sort of what was happening with the Welsh kingdoms.
Ireland is probably left alone except for titfortat raids and the odd expensive assistance to High King.
The 'possibility rating' rises when it's England focusing on Scotland alone, rather not as a subsidiary in the eternal English-French struggle. Plus, what about if England strikes before Scotland is Scotland, like the English did with Wales?
My variant situation is have the Lowlands held by a couple of Marcher Lords, who keep the the Highland clans in-check [like with Wales]. 'Neutralisation' is the name of the game here. Ireland is going to be more difficult; there's a good chance that England ends up being sucked into it pretty much via default.
My variant situation is have the Lowlands held by a couple of Marcher Lords, who keep the the Highland clans in-check [like with Wales]. 'Neutralisation' is the name of the game here. Ireland is going to be more difficult; there's a good chance that England ends up being sucked into it pretty much via default.
Pretty much though less Marcher Lord by design (they were Norman).
I'm not sure about that per se. OTL it was Welsh Marcher (Anglo-)Norman vassals getting over mighty that brought Henry II over to keep them in line, winning the "throne" incidentally. TTL the feudal relationship is looser so strong English lords over in Ireland doesn't translate to strong ones in England.
James wasn't a Scottish King in any sense that mattered, and none of that would've been possible if England hadn't invaded Scotland repeatedly between 1296 and 1551, the last war being undertaken to force Mary Stuart to marry Edward VI (the union which produced James in the first place).
I don't doubt the Anglo Saxons would still conquer Scotland, I just don't think they'd be more successful than the English were.
One of the main problems the Normans had was the fact they rarely were able to bring all their weight to bear on the Scots; the situation in France never got better than 'cold peace', thus meaning significant funds and talent were always needed in-theatre as a deterrent. Plus, many of the early Norman kings used England as a money-box and supply-dump to further their ambitions as French nobles - something which was not really in England's interest [while finally nailing the Scots *was*, in the respect of at least ending the semi-regular border raids and occasional devastating invasion of Cumbria/Northumberland/Yorkshire].
An Anglo-Saxon England would be much less tempted for 'Continental adventures' if they didn't hold anything there in the first place.
Thomas1195
Banned
Don't forget how easily Cromwell cowed the Scots IOTL. The only thing the Anglo-Saxons need is to get their act together.
As James was king of Scotland, even if we just go from 1583 when he started ruling properly for himself , for 20 years before becoming King of England , saying he was not properly Scottish seems a bit silly.
He spent nearly all of his life in England by that point, and spearheaded efforts to anglicise the country before moving to London. In what actual sense was he a Scottish king?
Oh I imagine they'd start early, but there's no reason to think it'd be any faster, and they'd still have no shortage of continental entanglements to deal with.
If this England [or more correctly, it's monarch] didn't have actual lands on the Continent, that's half of the justifications / casus belli against France removed in one stroke. The French monarch would also be much less inclined to pick a fight with Winchester when there's not much for them to gain and there's the likes of Burgundy, Brittany, Lorraine etc much closer to home.
However, it's always possible that the original time-line might re-assert itself, with a different French dukedom becoming bound with the English crown, kicking off a long series of wars.
However, it's always possible that the original time-line might re-assert itself, with a different French dukedom becoming bound with the English crown, kicking off a long series of wars.
One born of Scottish parents and who identified as being Scottish etc. I know at least one Scot who speaks no word of Scots nor Gaelic but is definitely Scottish.
Now, what do you mean by "anglicise"?
What version of history are you recounting? It does not seem to bear much resemblance to OTL.
He was born in Edinburgh , brought up in Stirling as a God fearing Son of the Kirk and apart from a romantic dash to Denmark after his bride got in difficulties spent almost all his first 37 years in Scotland. He was noted as a patron of Scottish culture in the the 1580's and 1590's ( admittedly as his chances of becoming King of England grew he then toned down anything that might be seen as anti-English ).
Now after 1603 he stays South but as he died in 1625, he lived longer in Scotland than England. He's a Scot , a lowland Scot but Scotland is more than the Highlands.