If the Anglo-Saxons persist, what do they do next?

[oshron]

hey, all. after learning a bit more about the Anglo-Saxon succession, i decided to go and revise the history of *Britain in my ASB ATL. i've gotten up to the 12th century in a persisting Godwin dynasty (with Harold Godwinson's historical son Edmund being selected for the throne, followed by his younger brother Magnus and then Magnus' fictional son Aethelwulf) and, since its come to my attention that the Anglo-Saxons didn't really look outside of Britain like the Normans did, i'm at a bit of a hitch. for this, keep in mind that these changes are in effect:

• late 1066 - early 1067: Harald Hardrada, William of Normandy, and Sweyn II are all repelled from invading England (only Hardrada is killed); William failed to win at Normandy against Gyrth and Leofwine Godwinson while Harold rallied more soldiers and allowed his troops to rest after Stamford Bridge, and was defeated against Pevensey very early in 1067 by Harold himself. Sweyn's two separate invasions take place in 1067 and 1072, respectively, and only the first one gains any traction (capturing York before being driven back)
• over the next five years, Harold forms alliances with the remaining pockets of independence and autonomy in England to further unify the region (some of these were made by force; Godwinson was brutal even for the time)
• 1085: Harold dies of natural causes and is succeeded by Edmund Godwinson (appointed by the Witenagemot because its unclear who was older between the Godwinson brothers, and Gyrth and Leofwine died in 1078 and 1081, respectively); the other brother, Godwine, is compensated with the Lordship of Ireland
• 1093: Edmund and Godwine both die within a short time of each other, before Godwine could replace Edmund (or he died before him) and thus the new king is their younger brother Magnus, who's simply the strongest candidate (rather than being appointed as next of kin). during his reign, Magnus tries to further unify England with Ireland and Scotland
• 1118: Magnus dies and is succeeded by his (fictional) son Aethelwulf, who tries to further unify Wales and Scotland with England via appeasement with land grants

what i had written originally was that the Anglo-Saxons invade Wales in 1127 and conquer it by 1146 (that may be an unrealistic projection, but i think i based it on the OTL Norman conquest of Wales), had Aethelwulf build fortified castles all over England to keep power secure, and got the English involved in the Mediterranean through an alliance with the Byzantines which brought them into conflict with France. again, this is all up in the air now that i'm rewriting the timeline


does anyone have ideas for what the Anglo-Saxons would do if they remained in power rather than being conquered by the Normans? would they stay in Britain for the most part, or look outward like the Normans did IOTL?

 

[Elfwine]

Lordship of Ireland?

And the Anglo-Saxons seem not to have looked outside Britain only to the extent that unlike the Norman and Angevin kings, they didn't have extensive continental holdings. They were hardly isolationists.

I think Athelwulf (and his father before him) is going to have his hands full with Wales and whatever parts of Ireland got dragged in - more foreign adventures are going to be impractical.

Not sure what you mean by appeasement with land grants - something like the feudal system of land grants, or giving away territory?

 

[oshron]

Lordship of Ireland?

i keep forgetting that it wasn't really established until 1171. "Lordship of Ireland" from the record and replace it with "the few parts of Ireland that were in Anglo-Saxon hands by that point thanks to the butterfly effect", then. maybe Harolod took it from the Vikings after he repelled Sweyn

And the Anglo-Saxons seem not to have looked outside Britain only to the extent that unlike the Norman and Angevin kings, they didn't have extensive continental holdings. They were hardly isolationists.

I think Athelwulf (and his father before him) is going to have his hands full with Wales and whatever parts of Ireland got dragged in - more foreign adventures are going to be impractical.

Not sure what you mean by appeasement with land grants - something like the feudal system of land grants, or giving away territory?

first of all, thanks for the "foreign policy" input as for land grants, basically the Anglo-Saxons give larger estates to the most influential Welsh and Scottish nobles to buy their allegiance. over time, the ethnically distinct Celts start identifying more with teh Anglo-Saxons, if not culturally than at least socially and politically (partly because there's no Harrying of the North like there was under the Normans). the Anglo-Saxons didn't exactly have continental feudalism (i can't remember if they didn't have it at all) but one other thing that starts to take place during this time is their adoption of continent-style military organization and armament and reforming the housecarls into knight expys

 

[Elfwine]

i keep forgetting that it wasn't really established until 1171. "Lordship of Ireland" from the record and replace it with "the few parts of Ireland that were in Anglo-Saxon hands by that point thanks to the butterfly effect", then. maybe Harolod took it from the Vikings after he repelled Sweyn

Why would he want to take it?

first of all, thanks for the "foreign policy" input as for land grants, basically the Anglo-Saxons give larger estates to the most influential Welsh and Scottish nobles to buy their allegiance. over time, the ethnically distinct Celts start identifying more with teh Anglo-Saxons, if not culturally than at least socially and politically (partly because there's no Harrying of the North like there was under the Normans). the Anglo-Saxons didn't exactly have continental feudalism (i can't remember if they didn't have it at all) but one other thing that starts to take place during this time is their adoption of continent-style military organization and armament and reforming the housecarls into knight expys

The housecarls were knight expys. Or more so - thanes are more the equivalent of knights, housecarls don't quite translate.

The Anglo-Saxons may have been infantry-centric, but they weren't primitive.

 

[Delvestius]

Why would he want to take it?

Why wouldn't they want to take it

The housecarls were knight expys. Or more so - thanes are more the equivalent of knights, housecarls don't quite translate.

The Anglo-Saxons may have been infantry-centric, but they weren't primitive.

Alfred did a lot, but he didn't alleviate all of the tribalism.

 

[Elfwine]

Why wouldn't they want to take it

Why would he want to take it? Not taking it means not spending men, money, and time on something that may or may not be worth the trouble it is to hold.

So if one is going to justify doing it, there has to be a reason that it actually produces something, whereas not doing it just means having other things to do.

Even the vaunted expansionistic Normans took awhile to move on Ireland.

Alfred did a lot, but he didn't alleviate all of the tribalism.

Alfred is a century and a half earlier! That's a fair length of time for change and progress.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "tribalism", as distinct from anything in Western Europe in the 9th century..

 

[oshron]

alot of what i had written before was based on previous threads i started on this topic, where it was suggested that teh Anglo-Saxons would modernize and become more like their continental counterparts in terms of their military. the housecarls becoming "more like knights" is more to the point of them being even more directly like knights, at first being the bodyguards of nobles but later becoming virtually identical to continental knights with the same role on the battlefield as fully-armored fighters. i guess you could think of it kind of like Feudal Japan, with thanes being most like daimyo and housecarls being closer to samurai than to knights (housecarls were retainers, after all). hm... (goes off to look it up)

more to the point, i suppose "modernization" really pertains to the English diversifying their collective military roles by bringing in more horses to properly match the continental Europeans. another idea pertaining to the housecarls is that they eventually become TTL's version of the Queen's Guard, though perhaps not following the whole "can't move/talk/smile" thing and being much stricter about what they do

as for Ireland, regional supremacy? the Viking Age finally died with Hardrada at Stamford Bridge, and whatever Vikings were left in Dublin probably wouldn't be in much shape to continue raiding. perhaps Harold forces their allegiance during his reign and starts up the Lordship earlier than IOTL? as for the Normans in Ireland comparison, in this case it would be a much smaller region which is gradually expanded

 

[Elfwine]

alot of what i had written before was based on previous threads i started on this topic, where it was suggested that teh Anglo-Saxons would modernize and become more like their continental counterparts in terms of their military. the housecarls becoming "more like knights" is more to the point of them being even more directly like knights, at first being the bodyguards of nobles but later becoming virtually identical to continental knights with the same role on the battlefield as fully-armored fighters. i guess you could think of it kind of like Feudal Japan, with thanes being most like daimyo and housecarls being closer to samurai than to knights (housecarls were retainers, after all). hm... (goes off to look it up)

Oh for Tyr's sake. The housecarls were bodyguards. And other than preferring the axe to the lance, they did fill a similar role.


As for thanes, thanes are more like knights or low ranking nobles: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/589973/thane

Daimyo would be the earls.

more to the point, i suppose "modernization" really pertains to the English diversifying their collective military roles by bringing in more horses to properly match the continental Europeans. another idea pertaining to the housecarls is that they eventually become TTL's version of the Queen's Guard, though perhaps not following the whole "can't move/talk/smile" thing and being much stricter about what they do

They did a pretty good job vs. those continental Europeans at Hastings OTL - the reasons the Saxons lost wouldn't be improved by having the huscarls be more into charging with a lance.

And they already serve as royal guards.

as for Ireland, regional supremacy? the Viking Age finally died with Hardrada at Stamford Bridge, and whatever Vikings were left in Dublin probably wouldn't be in much shape to continue raiding. perhaps Harold forces their allegiance during his reign and starts up the Lordship earlier than IOTL? as for the Normans in Ireland comparison, in this case it would be a much smaller region which is gradually expanded

Why would he consider Ireland important when Wales isn't even fully "subdued"?

I'm sure at some point it will come up, but Harold the Stalwart (as reasonable an epithet as any for Harold Godwinson) seems too early.

 

[Delvestius]

Why would he want to take it? Not taking it means not spending men, money, and time on something that may or may not be worth the trouble it is to hold.

So if one is going to justify doing it, there has to be a reason that it actually produces something, whereas not doing it just means having other things to do.

Even the vaunted expansionistic Normans took awhile to move on Ireland.

I'm not saying that it was necessarily feasible for them at the time in general, I'm just saying they had to of recognized it could easily be theirs if they dedicated manpower to it, and that they were really the only ones who had access to them, so it was only a matter of time. More land is more land my man.

Alfred is a century and a half earlier! That's a fair length of time for change and progress.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "tribalism", as distinct from anything in Western Europe in the 9th century..

Tribalism, that the allegiance to the immediate clan/leader is more important than other socialization factors, such as centralized political figures (leading to nationalization) and religion (that helps hasten this process) has yet to really become a thing for the Anglos. It sure as hell was happening in the Holy Roman Empire, and I would also argue Asturias was well into it by that time because of the Arab threat. And given the state of England and the Anglo response to the Normans, it seems evident that they would have benefited from greater centralization. No they weren't primitive, but I don't think they were as politically organized due to the aforementioned orientation, which was one of their greatest weaknesses.

 

[oshron]

Oh for Tyr's sake. The housecarls were bodyguards. And other than preferring the axe to the lance, they did fill a similar role.

i may have typed that out rather confusingly i meant that they continue their OTL role as bodyguards without having been abolished following the Norman conquest, and eventually fill a closer military role to the knights of other countries and then the standing bodyguard of the English monarch at a time when other such royal guards have been disband

Why would he consider Ireland important when Wales isn't even fully "subdued"?

I'm sure at some point it will come up, but Harold the Stalwart (as reasonable an epithet as any for Harold Godwinson) seems too early.

like i said, alot of it is still up in the air as i'm in the process of rewriting it now (and i appreciate your constructive criticism ). it could very well be a declared but unenforced lordship that only starts to take hold during Edmund's reign. and again, it would likely just be Dublin and one or two other places, if even that (though Viking Ireland is likely where it would start)

 

[Elfwine]

like i said, alot of it is still up in the air as i'm in the process of rewriting it now (and i appreciate your constructive criticism ). it could very well be a declared but unenforced lordship that only starts to take hold during Edmund's reign. and again, it would likely just be Dublin and one or two other places, if even that (though Viking Ireland is likely where it would start)

I really urge in the strongest terms focusing on what Harold and successors have to deal within England and with Wales before contemplating anything in Ireland.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm not saying that it was necessarily feasible for them at the time in general, I'm just saying they had to of recognized it could easily be theirs if they dedicated manpower to it, and that they were really the only ones who had access to them, so it was only a matter of time. More land is more land my man.

It "not being necessarily feasible" is extremely relevant.

Taking more land for the sake of more land isn't worth the trouble.

Tribalism, that the allegiance to the immediate clan/leader is more important than other socialization factors, such as centralized political figures (leading to nationalization) and religion (that helps hasten this process) has yet to really become a thing for the Anglos. It sure as hell was happening in the Holy Roman Empire, and I would also argue Asturias was well into it by that time because of the Arab threat. And given the state of England and the Anglo response to the Normans, it seems evident that they would have benefited from greater centralization. No they weren't primitive, but I don't think they were as politically organized due to the aforementioned orientation, which was one of their greatest weaknesses.

I'm missing where they had less centralization in any way that counts than say, France, where the King of France barely maintains more than first among equals status.

Didn't keep Harold from mustering a formidable military force, after all. Didn't keep England from being wealthy.

 

[Delvestius]

It "not being necessarily feasible" is extremely relevant.

Taking more land for the sake of more land isn't worth the trouble.

Again, doesn't mean it could happen anyway. Like honestly, it wouldn't take that much and if the Normans and Scandinavians are pretty much sapped, who else would really challenge the Anglos? I mean, I wouldn't advise it but a confident king could try and would succeed.

I'm missing where they had less centralization in any way that counts than say, France, where the King of France barely maintains more than first among equals status.

Didn't keep Harold from mustering a formidable military force, after all. Didn't keep England from being wealthy.

I mean, it wasn't as wealthy as other states... And obviously the force wasn't formidable enough.

 

[Elfwine]

Again, doesn't mean it could happen anyway. Like honestly, it wouldn't take that much and if the Normans and Scandinavians are pretty much sapped, who else would really challenge the Anglos? I mean, I wouldn't advise it but a confident king could try and would succeed.

Again, why would it be done? To show he could? To pretend that he doesn't have other things going on?

At some point, sure, but "at some point" and "within a generation of Hastings (or whatever name it's known by TTL)" are two different things.

I mean, it wasn't as wealthy as other states... And obviously the force wasn't formidable enough.

Was it less wealthy given the population than these supposedly more centralized realms?

And that force losing doesn't mean more centralization would have turned out a stronger army.

Oh, and oshron:

What happens with Edgar (son of Edward the Exile) and his sister/s?

 

[oshron]

Edgar the Aetheling? he could very well be selected as an alternative to the fictional Aethelwulf following Magnus' death since the Anglo-Saxon succession was based on merit as well as blood, and by that time through his own choice had joined the First Crusade and become a known leader. being a military leader was how Harold became king in teh first place, so why not the last Cerdicing? i could even rewrite my Richard the Lionheart expy as being in part descended from Edgar

 

[Tangerine]

I mean, it wasn't as wealthy as other states... And obviously the force wasn't formidable enough.

Actually, as of 1066 England was relatively wealthy, boasting a well-developed administration with an effective system of taxation. As to the weakness of the forces available to the English, consider the fact that they very nearly repelled two foreign invasions within one year in 1066. From the accounts we have, Hastings seems to have been a pretty close battle.

 

[Incognitia]

Actually, as of 1066 England was relatively wealthy, boasting a well-developed administration with an effective system of taxation. As to the weakness of the forces available to the English, consider the fact that they very nearly repelled two foreign invasions within one year in 1066. From the accounts we have, Hastings seems to have been a pretty close battle.

Yeah, I think a surviving Saxon England is actually in a very strong position. I would expect them to deal with the Welsh, possibly via a similar process to the Normans of military conquest and occupation; possibly more of a co-option of Welsh elites into English power structures. The latter would be more interesting to see I think.
Equally could we see the English biting back into Scandinavian power struggles? Not so much trying to place the English King on the throne as supporting favoured candidates in succession struggles, but still...
Similar involvement in Scotland.
And they might even get embroiled in France, if the English King is asked for support to resist centralising tendencies by the Capetians?

 

[RPW@Cy]

Yeah, I think a surviving Saxon England is actually in a very strong position. I would expect them to deal with the Welsh, possibly via a similar process to the Normans of military conquest and occupation; possibly more of a co-option of Welsh elites into English power structures.

With all due respect, but the Anglo-Saxons had been trying to conquer Wales on and off for abour 400 years by this point. I'm not sure what changes so dramatically about the POD that they can finish the job off quicker than the Normans.

Co-option into English power structures is perfectly plausible, and was in fact happening OTL. For example, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, the king of Gwynedd and all Wales, married Ealdgyth, daughter of Aelfgar, the Earl of Mercia. After he was killed fighting the English, her second husband was... Harold Godwinson.

Incidentally, the fall of Gruffydd is a good model for likely Anglo-Saxon policy towards Wales - vague claims of overlordship accompanied by demands for tribute, and the occasional invasion to smash the place up when a local ruler got a bit too strong. Unlike the normans, the Anglo-Saxons do not seem to have been interested in spending the time an dmoney required for conquest as distinct from imposing client status.

 

[Faeelin]

One thing people seem to be ignoring is that Europe, and England's, economy was radically different in 1200 as opposed to, say, 900. The English state was capable of pouring resources into conquest that weren't available earlier. So simply assuming Anglo-Saxon foreign policy stasis seems a bit off.

 

[RPW@Cy]

One thing people seem to be ignoring is that Europe, and England's, economy was radically different in 1200 as opposed to, say, 900. The English state was capable of pouring resources into conquest that weren't available earlier. So simply assuming Anglo-Saxon foreign policy stasis seems a bit off.

So is assuming that Anglo-Saxon England will behave in much the same way as Norman England only being slightly better at it. IMHO at least a Holy Roman Empire style model with the English king in the role of the emperor and kings in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the greater English nobles having the sort of autonomy that the greater Imperial families had is at least as probable.