Far reaching effects of Anglo Saxon England

For my first timeline, I'm strongly considering writing a history of England with a point of divergence in around 870 AD, during the reign of King Alfred. It would be based around the continued Anglo Saxon hegemony of the British Isles, no Norman Conquest, and a continued focus on Northern Europe rather than on France. It would also be heavily focused on religion, in particular an averted Schism.

Whilst I have a basic timeline in place and other ideas floating around, what I'm really interested in is the far reaching social, cultural, political and religious implications of no Norman Conquest. Not so much during the early Medieval Period, but moreso the effects on the period analogous to our timelines Renaissance.

Please, exalted denizens of Alternatehistory.com, throw some ideas at me in regards to a continued Anglo Saxon England. It is very much appreciated.
 

Yuelang

Banned
How about Saxons directly adopt Pikes and Longbows (a much earlier pike and shot)

No much need to muddle with smelly horsies... ;)
 
OTL England would be at most 2 nations. An enlarged Wessex and possibly a separate Northumbria (but it would be under Wessex's thumb so to speak).

Feudalism would still develop but it would be an English form rather than the Bastard's imposed version. Wales may well still be free but again dominated by Wessex to some degree. Scotland definitely a separate country with similar relations to the North as OTL.

The Islands would probably be on the periphery of Europe much as Scandinavia,apart from the Danes, was until the Swedes began to intervene.

However a stable "England" tends to be prosperous (not the same as rich) and hence a target for penurious French Nobles and/or Kings. If the knockons haven't also destroyed France, it would have invaded at least once.

The renaissance would affect this version of Britain much as it did OTL.
 
How about Saxons directly adopt Pikes and Longbows (a much earlier pike and shot)

No much need to muddle with smelly horsies... ;)
If the Saxons have no requirement to fight cavalry,I doubt they would use any pikemen. Besides that,an army without proper cavalry is a recipe for disaster against an army that has one.It's one of the reasons why the Song army,despite having massive numbers of infantry and crossbowmen,failed to defeat the Jurchens,the Khitans,the Tenguts and the Mongols.With cavalry,your armies much more mobile.An army without cavalry however is just lame duck against an army that has one.
 
Thanks for the responses. What about the religious impacts on England? The Kingdom of Wessex used the Roman Rite for services, with an influx of Neapolitan influence on certain rituals, whereas the Normans introduced the Sarum Rite, which was heavily influenced by the Gallician Rite of Rouen.

Would the Anglo Saxons continue to cleave to the Roman Rite, or would it form it's own Rite, analogous to the Sarum Rite. Perhaps they could even introduce the Mass in Old English.

I have also read that Harold Godwinson was considering joining Eastern Orthodoxy. Obviously he will be butterflies away, but what's the initial impetus behind this. Is this a realistic option for the Kingdom of England?
 
Mass in vernacular would have been seen as a heresy. Though it's possible (even likely) that the Anglo Saxon church would have developed its own local usages, especially if they didn't import many foreign educated clergy. As for turning to the Eastern church, I think matters of distance and lack of quick communication (not to mention alienation from their neighbors) would have made it unlikely.
 
Didn't Scotland have a heavily infantry-heavy army? I could see the same from Anglo-Saxon England.

One of the main reasons Scotland became so infantry heavy was to combat English heavy horse. I think the development of English tactics in this scenario will depend on who becames the main enemy of the English; likely the French, Scots, or Scandanavians.
 
It would be tied into Denmark/Scandinavia and the areas which might fall into those orbits. Don't forget in 1069/70 the Danes invaded England after the Conquest, and of course in 1066 Hadrarda saw a main chance too

I guess the main question is whether you can keep the English line on the throne without the Sweyn/Canute/Harthacanute interlude or not. If not, then they are going to keep coming. But if Sweyn gets his ass handed to him, Canute may try something for family's sake but not press it if it goes nowhere

Also don't forget Normandy was a Viking foundation, which could well come within this worldview. I don't think a surviving Anglo-Saxon England that saw rule by Canute or a comparable figure would ignore the fact there is a Viking duchy across the Channel, but looking from London at Normandy is a lot different from looking from Normandy at England.

If an Anglo-Saxon king took out Normandy to secure his borders against Vikings, he would probably be happy to hold Normandy as a fief of the French crown.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I've thought a couple times about an ATL scenario featuring Anglo-Saxon England (mainly because I managed to do that on a CK 2 campaign :p)

I know OP emphasized the post-Medieval era, but my greatest doubt about Saxon England is: would they have really attempted the conquest of the British Isles, or would have been content with England itself?

I mean, not considering the endemic warfare of Saxons vs. Welsh and Scots which were the norm since the Germanic peoples invaded in the 5th Century, between the consolidation of the regional English kingdoms and the Viking Age, there were less than two centuries before the Norman Conquest... in the meanwhile a united English Kingdom would have tried to annex Scotland, Wales or even Ireland.

After all, IOTL William the Bastard managed to conquer the kingdom in the very sunset of the Viking invasions (if Harald Hardrada's gamble can even be considered such, because he actually had a dynastic claim), so it was a serious prospect for his successors to enterprise the conquest of Wales, for example, which, as far as I know, was not attempted by any Anglo-Saxon ruler.

I'm curious if a post-Alfred Saxon England - after the dust of the Viking invasions settle, even if the English kings are more concerned with the affairs of the North Sea than on the continent - would try to conquer Scotland and Ireland, which were relatively "delayed" IOTL because of the Norman and later Plantagenet kings' interests in France.

Even better... perhaps a stronger England manages to reverse the "Viking movement" and try to intervene in Scandinavian matters, if their trading networks strive to the Baltic (as it did happen IOTL until the Hanseatic wars), perhaps a long-lasting relationship with Norway and Denmark is feasible, something that didn't happen IOTL.

Anyways, the religious affairs you pointed out are interesting... indeed it seems that, despite the relative isolation, the Saxons were keen on the standard Roman Catholic tradition (which seemed to differ, for example, from the Gaelic peculiarities).

As someone pointed out, feudalism certainly would not follow the footsteps of the Frankish realms. On the long run, I can imagine some clashes between the central authority of the monarch and the Witanagemot (as a representative of the aristocracy), this might perhaps lead to civil strife.

If we keep the other things as IOTL, I don't think there will be much change regarding the Crusades, the rise of the Hansa, the Black Plague and so forth. Also, France might unite quicker without the pervasive English presence from Brittany through the Pyrenees; needless to say the French will also be a lot better if you butterfly away the 100 Years War.
 
My tuppence:

Why would a continuing AS hegemony of the British Isles have a focus on Northern Europe (by which do you mean Scandinavia)? Pre and post-Alfred AS foreign relations were more concerned with Western Europe namely the Carolingian court and the HRE. (eg. six AS princesses became brides to various rulers.) Even after the Danish Interregnum (1013-1042) which abruptly altered the focus it swung back to Western Europe, albeit with a particular (perhaps overstated) Norman bias.

AS England may have been a ‘backwater’ but it was Western European in orientation. Any changes, say from a reform minded Papacy, would have been adopted eventually. As noted in previous post AS England definitely within standard Roman Catholic tradition. I imagine AS warriors would answer any call for a crusade. Alfred was big on education particularly in the vernacular. While that emphasis may have declined under his successors I don’t see it as an impediment to the introduction of universities. Depending on developments within the church I can still see an ATL movement analogous to OTL Lollardy. (What Schism are you referring to?)

As for Scotland and Wales, provided they continued to recognize English supremacy, things pretty much status quo. That is cross border raids etc as the AS kingdom gradually expands into southern Wales and the Scottish lowlands. Of course some descendant of Alfred might develop delusions of empire.
 
Thanks so much for your responses everyone. They've been very useful. I'll probably start the timeline in the next week.
 
Top