Edmund Ironside wins at Assandun

How might the English forces under the command of Edmund Ironside win against Cnut at the Battle of Assandun?

And what might the consequences of such a victory be?
 
You may end with eldormancies being more identitarian than IOTL, en plus of develloping an autonomous stance earlier than IOTL (think Godwin's desmene-equivalent) : ITTL, important and powerful lords as Streona may have more importance.

Not that these ensemble didn't already had large autonomy before the Danish takeover (which didn't destroyed them) But the Anglo-Saxon proto-nationalism (in lack of a better word) targeting Scandinavian as foreign (since the Xth) helped unifying (and not merging) these various ensembles under a common political identity, until Danish rule went away that is.
That said, Danish rule did institutionalized unyfing structures directly. For instance, by formalizing earldomancies, he provided Anglo-Danes or Anglo-Saxon high nobility with a customary structures they couldn't that easily transgress at their benefit; by comparison with the "I'm the law" attitude of main continental princes, I think it tempered the autonomous evolution of Anglo-Saxon demesnes into effective principalties.

@david31 made a good argument pointing that Godwins could benefit from the aftermath of the battle, both as a display of loyalty and opportunistic when it could come to fill the losses.

Economically and Politically, late Anglo-Saxon England knew a similar process than what happened in the continent : desintegration of the kingdom into smaller independent political entities (unified by a common kingship). Earldomancies would be a probable base for these to appear, on the ground of old AS entities (Bernicia, East-Anglia) or late AS subdivisions (Western Mercia, etc.) : probably not untempered, and you could see English kings attempting (and possibly successfully so for some time) to meddle with the process, but I don't think it would have been that successful on the long run.

It doesn't mean this Anglo-Saxon feudality would be similar to what existed in Anglo-Norman England, of course.
While Frankish and German institutional influence would certainly there, it would be influencing a distinct local situation, for instance socially (which admittedly partially came from a troubled Xth and XIth centuries) with a lasting use of slavery (which did existed on non-mediterranean continental principalties, but virtually disappearing) and the noticable presence of semi-free tenents as bordarii or sokemen.
It's not clear how much Normans translated the situation into terms they were familiar with, bordarii/cotarii, and how much the situation was similar with what existed in North-Western France, tough.

A more important nobility, demographically speaking (closer to continental standards, between 4 to 6% instead to less than 1%), more diverse socially would count as well as an important social change for what matter medieval England. It would make it closer to what existed in France on this regard, but the survival of Anglo-Saxon nobility and conception could make the appearance of miles or their identification to their continental counterparts less of a similarity.

Wales, Strathclyde and Lothian would be immediate focuses for TTL England, but I'm not sure it would be that of royal focuses : Wales was traditionally managed by magnates and great nobles, raiding or counter-raiding it, for instance.

As for Strathclyde and Lothian, it's certain that Scots wouldn't have the same opportunity for takeover they had IOTL. But on the other hand they were hard to be taken over : the celtic high-kinship nature of their institutions made them relatively unable to pull too much weight on territorial growth, but it also allowed a fairly good resiliance.
Even more for Lothian (giving it was already firmly into Scot influence at this point) than Strathclyde, it's going to be hard to simply getting rid of Scots save some repeted major victories.
I'd more likely bet on some royal expeditions to make point about "you-won't-cross-the-incredibly-vague-border-and-not-raid-and-plunder-the-shit-of-my-northern-lands" and eventually have the far and vague acknowledgement of his royal authority by the local scottish/brythonic nobles; and more probably on important noble expeditions when it would come to actual political control.

Basically : maybe some decisive (politically and culturally) change when it comes to sphere of influence and eventual borders, but nothing world-shattering in the middle term.
 
Okay very interesting. On the point of the earldomancies, would that therefore mean, that the King would be seen more as a first amongst equals, rather than as a King who ruled over all?
 
Okay very interesting. On the point of the earldomancies, would that therefore mean, that the King would be seen more as a first amongst equals, rather than as a King who ruled over all?
It's hard to really depict the situation on these term.
From one hand, late Anglo-Saxon kingship was still pretty much dominated by the idea of election being a main feature of succession (rather than being sanctioning the succession, or even turning mostly ritual in XIth France), but in the same time, you had a relatively more sacralized kingship than it turned out with Norman England (and arguably closer to the sacralization of Late Carolingian or Capetian lines).

Basically, you didn't have as much of a chaotic situation you had in northern France (to not speak of Aquitaine, because I would make myself sad), where miles acted more or less independently : I'm not really sure you had an Anglo-Saxon equivalent to miles, except maybe the housecarls in some respect, but in many others they were much distinct (being organized in one group, directly tied to the king, no mention of earls' own housecarles AFAIK, etc.).
Especially, you didn't have the pluri-alliegance of men you had in France, where a same mile or a same lord cold pledge alliegance or loyalty to several lords (often pledging to the king, then his vassal, then...: but as well among various "same-ranked" overlords).
Anglo-Saxon kingship remained not only the cornerstone of the feudal network,a s in France, but its immediate center.

It doesn't mean that earls tought twice about going against royal will, and contrary to what Capetians or Ottonian did, they seems to have been relatively unable to form an independent royal network and power-base, that would have allowed them strategical autonomy and independence (enough to build inner alliances and networks, in the same time they strengthened their institutional position).

It's less a matter being on a "first among equals" or "sacralized king" scale, than being as much based on sacralized lines which built royal power upon belonging or at the very least being attached to the royal line, while having to deal with a relatively powerful and I would say "unimpressed" nobility. @Geordie could confirm or infirm this point, tough.
 
It's less a matter being on a "first among equals" or "sacralized king" scale, than being as much based on sacralized lines which built royal power upon belonging or at the very least being attached to the royal line, while having to deal with a relatively powerful and I would say "unimpressed" nobility. @Geordie could confirm or infirm this point, tough.
I packed up a lot of my books yesterday, so can't check these specific points, but what you're saying sounds about right.

Thegns might be an analogy for the milites in some senses, but they're not a direct likeness. Much of it will vary across the country.

On the point of Kingly power, you're right on the money. Kings are dependent on building support bases at court and in the wider country. The struggle between the death of Edgar the Peaceable and that of Edward the Martyr is framed in religious terms, but it's more than just opponents and proponents of monastic reform. It's Earls, Abbots and other important players lining up on the side of Edward or of Æthelred. Power, patronage, and kingship, intertwining in the succession struggle. Obviously, both candidates are young, making them even more dependent on magnates than normal, but that's a matter of scale, rather than absolutes. Even when adults, kings rely on support from their greatest citizens, but the king and the Æthelings appear to be a distinct class apart, both in family and in cultural terms.
 
I packed up a lot of my books yesterday, so can't check these specific points, but what you're saying sounds about right.

Thegns might be an analogy for the milites in some senses, but they're not a direct likeness. Much of it will vary across the country.

On the point of Kingly power, you're right on the money. Kings are dependent on building support bases at court and in the wider country. The struggle between the death of Edgar the Peaceable and that of Edward the Martyr is framed in religious terms, but it's more than just opponents and proponents of monastic reform. It's Earls, Abbots and other important players lining up on the side of Edward or of Æthelred. Power, patronage, and kingship, intertwining in the succession struggle. Obviously, both candidates are young, making them even more dependent on magnates than normal, but that's a matter of scale, rather than absolutes. Even when adults, kings rely on support from their greatest citizens, but the king and the Æthelings appear to be a distinct class apart, both in family and in cultural terms.

Interesting, by the distinct class apart thing, what exactly do you mean?
 
Interesting, by the distinct class apart thing, what exactly do you mean?
I think he meant that the king, his possible heirs and the royal line in general wasn't considered as regular nobility entierly, even being dependent of these nobles but a sacralized, "special", line; not unlike Carolingians, Capetians or Ottonians were, but not how Normans or even Plantagenets were (their power came from something else).

Thegns might be an analogy for the milites in some senses, but they're not a direct likeness. Much of it will vary across the country.
I was under the impression, that like the housecarl, they were more or less dependent directly from the king (altough that's a latter development) or at least from a great man. I agree it vary a lot, not only regionally but as well socially (difference between thegn-rank or thegn in the strict sense), but doesn't thegn, socially, involves being part of the settled aristocracy.
That said, you had enough equivalence for that thegn could often be translated in latin as miles (altough, it's either an archaism or a Norman happenance, or am I wrong?), altough not systematically : the military role of the housecarl and thegn (I'm not sure that you had much of a clear distinction between these in the XIth century) certainly make them closer to the continental miles, I don't think they were that close socially-wise, especially their close relation to power as agents (ministeri) and as a settled elite when miles were really on the lower step of continental nobility.

That said, and especially ITTL, we could see a growing identification to royal thengs as miles, including socially, trough continental influence : maybe having more continental thengs/housecarl as Richard Scrobe.
While the distinction between thegns and miles, on several grounds, should be pointed, it was nevertheless porous indeed.
 
Top