Why would the nobles have that sort of power? England was a pretty centralized state, even under the late Saxon kings.
If the Anglo-Saxons persist, what do they do next?
- Thread starter oshron
- Start date
Why would the nobles have that sort of power? England was a pretty centralized state, even under the late Saxon kings.
I can see England looking to secure itself in southern Scotland with existing 'english' settlers and to come to an accommodation with Wales wherby England supports one Welsh king to dominate the rest in exchange for fealty to England.
Once home borders are secured England is a peaceful and rich land. Closeley administered with greater social and economic mobility than under OTL Normans. I can then see England taking a closer interest in Scandinavian affairs having traditionally been more German Ocean oriented than continental europe oriented. A claim on the Danish throne?
I can see no appetite for expansion into Ireland other than to supress Irish piracy and slaving which have been the bane of the west coast for centuries.
Once home borders are secured England is a peaceful and rich land. Closeley administered with greater social and economic mobility than under OTL Normans. I can then see England taking a closer interest in Scandinavian affairs having traditionally been more German Ocean oriented than continental europe oriented. A claim on the Danish throne?
I can see no appetite for expansion into Ireland other than to supress Irish piracy and slaving which have been the bane of the west coast for centuries.
which is why i chose Hastings as the major POD
co-option it is
certainly sounds more Anglo-Saxon than just doing what the Normans did IOTL like i had before. their involvement in supporting different foreign kings could also work towards some of what i had originally and matches up with some other conclusions i came to, with the Anglo-Saxons identifying more with the Scandinavians
so, extortion
so the earliest time for them to take other parts of the British Isles would be between Hastings and 1200, though leaning more in the direction of 1200?
this also works into something i wanted to do, with Britain becoming an empire and its monarch being called an emperor
A lot depends on the situation within England and within the other parts of the British Isles.
On the Emperor thing: Good luck. There is only one Emperor in the West, and I can't see much that would make the Pope change this.
On the issue of noble autonomy: I don't see why. The English kings were hardly without considerable resources at their disposal - so keeping the nobles from becoming able to set themselves up as all but independent would not be as challenging.
On the Emperor thing: Good luck. There is only one Emperor in the West, and I can't see much that would make the Pope change this.
On the issue of noble autonomy: I don't see why. The English kings were hardly without considerable resources at their disposal - so keeping the nobles from becoming able to set themselves up as all but independent would not be as challenging.
Last edited:
Well, Canute called himself "Rex Anglorum totiusque Brittannice orbis gubernator et rector" and Edgar called himself "Totius Albionis finitimorumque regum basileus".
so some sort of title doesn't seem impossible.
Generally, we can expect the English economy to expand in the same way under the continuing native English kings as it did under the Norman and French kings. This will allow a similar expansion of power into other corners of the British Isles, for which there is a precedent in pre-1066 England. In the 10th century, the house of Wessex was very involved in Scotland (or, what would become Scotland), and there were several invasions under different kings. King Aethelstan in particular comes to mind as an English king who wielded great influence throughout the British Isles.
The first challenge the English are likely to face is the subduing of regional tendencies in the former Northumbria, which can perhaps be achieved by the middle of the 12th century? William the Bastard achieved it much quicker with brutal methods, but I can't imagine the native English resorting to genocide and terror to solve this problem on the same scale he did.
It seems pretty common to assume that England in this situation will tend much more towards Scandinavia than OTL. The reasons given are just ones of cultural similarity and some fading political ties. Really, the proximity of England to the continent is going to make it much more likely that England continue to integrate into the Europe as it did after the Norman conquest and was doing before it. Remember that there were already heavy Norman influences in the English court in the reign of Edward the Confessor, and England was by no means isolated from the continent. Add to that the increasing volume of trade we can expect as the Middle Ages progress, which will link England economically to Flanders and other continental regions regardless of political developments.
The first challenge the English are likely to face is the subduing of regional tendencies in the former Northumbria, which can perhaps be achieved by the middle of the 12th century? William the Bastard achieved it much quicker with brutal methods, but I can't imagine the native English resorting to genocide and terror to solve this problem on the same scale he did.
It seems pretty common to assume that England in this situation will tend much more towards Scandinavia than OTL. The reasons given are just ones of cultural similarity and some fading political ties. Really, the proximity of England to the continent is going to make it much more likely that England continue to integrate into the Europe as it did after the Norman conquest and was doing before it. Remember that there were already heavy Norman influences in the English court in the reign of Edward the Confessor, and England was by no means isolated from the continent. Add to that the increasing volume of trade we can expect as the Middle Ages progress, which will link England economically to Flanders and other continental regions regardless of political developments.
Last edited:
For one, the administration in England was inherited BY William of Normandy FROM the Anglo-Saxons. So England, at the time, was reasonably centralized for the period. And second, if we're going to talk about "tribalism", continental France was scarcely any better. It was divided into numerous autonomous duchies and counties, each with their own body of laws and only theoretically beholden to the King of the Franks, who since the fall of the Carolingian dynasty, personally controlled little more than the county around Paris.
Not to mention that 11th century France was as divided ethnically as it was politically. Back then, Bretons, Occitan Provencals, the Burgundians and, to an extent, the Normans themselves, viewed themselves as races-apart from the Franks. If anything, feudal France in the 11th century was more tribal than the England of the same century.
That's an understatement, IMO. French wasn't even the majority language in France until well after the renaissance, though I can't recall the exact date.
People are quick to think of the Anglo-Saxons as barbarians who were little different from those who first invaded Britain half a millennia before and were uplifted by the civilised Normans.
While, in reality, Anglo-Saxon England was the most centralised and one of the richest kingdoms in Western Europe, there's a reason William wanted it after all, with a good administration and an adequate (though not excellent) taxation system.
I did mention the Bretons, Occitans, and Burgundians. The former two being separate ethnically and linguistically from the northern French, and the Burgundians often sought their independence from the French crown (and were at times) throughout Medieval history.
it was mentioned earlier that the Anglo-Saxons may involve themselves in foreign power struggles, such as in Scotland, Scandinavia, and against teh Capetians in France if they were asked such. does anyone have any ideas for where else they could involve themselves and who, specifically, they would be likely to support?
Same sort of stuff and places that OTL England could.
As for who, depends on more factors than can be summed up here.
IIRC in the war of 1870 the French army found that only 1/3 of conscripts could speak 'French'. Most were patois speakers and NCOs were promoted for bilinguality.
In English terms it would be like having the broadest of Geordie squaddies led by extreme Janner officers. I also offer the Belgian and Bavarian experiences of 1914.
Equally I can recall a military exhange between British TA soldiers and the South Carolina National Guard in the 1970s. Not only did it end up needing New England translators but the British found that French was a better medium on occasion.
Shades of Spike Milligan manning an lonely outpost in 1940 on the Kent coast with a Pole and using pidgin German to communicate.