If the Anglo-Saxons lose the Battle of Edington....what would happen?

Hi,


It's a no brainer that English victory in the Battle of Edington enabled Alfred, his son and grandson to establish Anglo-Saxon dominion in southern Britain and create England.

However, if the English had lost the Battle of Edington, and Alfred the Great was either killed by the Danes or exiled, what would have happened?

Imho:

- There would be no England was we know it today, though I doubt the Danes would eradicate all Anglo-Saxon culture. Most likely the Danes may have formed an "England" or united Danish state in what is now England, with a hybrid of Danish and Saxon culture. Guthrum or whoever ruled York would have to watch constantly for Saxon overthrowing, especially since they were more numerous in the kingdom.

- If the Danes could have defeated the Saxons, then they'd see little reason not to attack the Cornish, Welsh, or Scots. Viking, albeit from Norway, had already settled in Scotland at that time, so "English" Danes had natural kin/allies.

- English today as a language would be far more similar to the other Germanic languages than it is today.

- There would be no Norman Conquest, as we know it. However, as William I and his ancestors were essentially Viking, then perhaps an alliance/union would be forged.

- Had the Danes succeeded in conquering Wales, Cornwall, and Scotland or perhaps even Ireland, this could have led to another eventual "United Kingdom" being forged, though with a Danish culture dominant. There also may not be a Hundred Years War, Magna Carta, nor any other major event directly centred on the Norman Conquest.

- As for how an "England" or "UK" would feature today in 2015, well the label England wouldn't exist, and culturally "England/the UK" would be more akin to Denmark, Norway and Sweden than it is currently. It's possible though that once the Viking age ended, there would have been further divergence between them, or even the Saxons (perhaps even allied with the Celtic peoples in Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, etc.) overthrew the Danish elites and reinforced English/Celtic norms and customs.

- Whether there still would have been a British Empire, well this is difficult to say, though if the same scenarios that led to the fall of Rome (.i.e. 1453) still occurred then it's possible. An "English" monarch, just as Elizabeth I did in rel life, may look at Spain/Portugal and think "me too!" and raid Spanish ships and settle colonies.

This is tl;dr, granted, but then just some thoughts I had.
 
There a few misconceptions on what is labelled English, Anglo-Saxon, and Saxon. Most of these developed as a consequence of the Danish and Norman Conquests.

Prior to the arrival of the Danes it's not too much to say that there were 2 main powers: the Anglian Northumbria in the North and the Saxon Wessex in the south, with the mixed but primarily Anglian Mercia in the middle tending towards Northumbria.
All the kingdoms and subkingdoms, tribes and subtribes, considered themselves part of the Anglecynn group. It is this that we label Anglo-Saxon and developed into the English group.
The Danish conquests shattered Northumbria and seriously weakened Mercia so that only Wessex was able to take the lead and such was able to define itself as for the English leading to Alfred's grandson to be able to declare that he was King over the English and not just Wessex and Mercia.
 
god….freyjones wrote:
if the English had lost the Battle of Edington, and Alfred the Great was either killed by the Danes or exiled, what would have happened?
There is a third option – Alfred is defeated and retreats to Athelney again and begins anew the guerrilla war and the process of creating a field army to defeat Guthrum. Even if Alfred goes into exile it is unlikely to be permanent – he will return to fight for his birthright.
If Alfred dies, either at this point (May 1878) or later, there are three athelings who are likely to continue the struggle when they can. Will a concord be reached with the various Welsh princes for a united Christian front against the pagans?
The Anglo-Danish state you envisage is certainly a possibility but not a foregone conclusion by winning at Edington.


The Professor wrote:
Prior to the arrival of the Danes it's not too much to say that there were 2 main powers: the Anglian Northumbria in the North
Well that’s debateable – Northumbria was on the decline. Its coinage was badly debased and its monarchy was unstable. (They may have stopped murdering their kings in the ninth century but they didn’t stop deposing them!)
 
The problem is that there was no Denmark as we know it today, either; barely unified and still very fractious, unruly, strong regional loyalties, leftover kin with claims on abolished and usurped jarldoms willing to fight to regain what they considered to be theirs, younger sons with no future but their axes could get them- in short, a bloody mess.

At first it looks as if Alfred got so little from his victory it would be hard to tell it from a defeat; all he gained was a breathing space to reorganize to meet the next bunch of hairy maniacs. Without that breathing space, though, they keep hitting a weakened kingdom, and if one Scandinavian warlord doesn't overwhelm it another will- probably to no effect in the long run.

By going straight from there to the modern day you're tripping over your own feet; there are a lot of turning points in between, among them Knut, King of Denmark, Norway, England and Parts of Sweden. England did fall completely under Scandinavian rule a century and a third later anyway, don't forget.

Which made little difference in the long run itself, because of a certain Norman bastard half a century later again.

I just don't see this as being one of the great turning points of history; Danish settlers were too easily absorbed, to the extent that the next wave of Vikings would find themselves often fighting their own distant relatives from the last invasion who had become almost indistinguishable from the natives. Anglo- Saxon identity was strong enough that they would keep rising against the invader, and for the next half century or so, with the kings they had, that was just as well.

Maldon might change history, but not this early and with so much yet to happen.
 
The problem is that there was no Denmark as we know it today, either; barely unified and still very fractious, unruly, strong regional loyalties, leftover kin with claims on abolished and usurped jarldoms willing to fight to regain what they considered to be theirs, younger sons with no future but their axes could get them- in short, a bloody mess.

At first it looks as if Alfred got so little from his victory it would be hard to tell it from a defeat; all he gained was a breathing space to reorganize to meet the next bunch of hairy maniacs. Without that breathing space, though, they keep hitting a weakened kingdom, and if one Scandinavian warlord doesn't overwhelm it another will- probably to no effect in the long run.

By going straight from there to the modern day you're tripping over your own feet; there are a lot of turning points in between, among them Knut, King of Denmark, Norway, England and Parts of Sweden. England did fall completely under Scandinavian rule a century and a third later anyway, don't forget.

Which made little difference in the long run itself, because of a certain Norman bastard half a century later again.

I just don't see this as being one of the great turning points of history; Danish settlers were too easily absorbed, to the extent that the next wave of Vikings would find themselves often fighting their own distant relatives from the last invasion who had become almost indistinguishable from the natives. Anglo- Saxon identity was strong enough that they would keep rising against the invader, and for the next half century or so, with the kings they had, that was just as well.

Maldon might change history, but not this early and with so much yet to happen.

Cnut did rule England for a while, but only after a unified Saxon England emerged. Cnut didn't have the power to change much.

But if the Danes had conquered the Anglo-Saxons earlier, then a Danish "England" with far more Norse culture would have perhaps took form. I get the feeling that the Anglo-Saxons would have continued to resist, and perhaps with aid from the Celts.
 
Knut practically rewrote the English legal and military/militia systems, bringing them much more closely into line with Scandinavia's scipfyrd system- to a degree mixing and matching what he found to work best from all three and a half of his kingdoms; before that Alfred's burh system had rather fallen into disuse and decay, which is sort of my point-

In fact typing that has sparked a thought; there are essentially three Scandinavian attempts to conquer what would eventually be England. The Great Army, at Edington, a debatable, possibly pyrrhic victory that brought little fruit; the Norse Celtic alliance that was beaten in a decisive victory for the defenders at Brunanburh; Maldon, where this time the invaders, under the bloodthirsty and psychotic leadership of the subsequent Saint Olav of Norway, got it right.

Aid from the Celts is extremely unlikely, they are much more likely to join in attempting to dismember England, look at Brunanburh. And for a Danish England, go to Jorvik.

Two separate aspects here, the political nation, which is a very moving target throughout the period and you may need to wait until into the early 1100's for a reasonably stable form; and the cultural nation, which I don't really see changing much from the 700's up to Maldon.
 
Last edited:
York was only one kingdom, which was separate from Guthrum. Had the Danes won at Edington, then they would have controlled a lot more territory and maybe even unified with York. The Celts were only anti-English following Athelstan's unification/aggression but this was by no means inherent. I just think if both the Anglo-Saxons and Celts were under threat from the Danes, then they could unite to counter this.
 
Top