Medieval *England without Norman conquest

oshron

Kicked
hey, all. im trying to get back into writing up *british history from my ASB ATL. basically, what im wondering right now is if everyone thinks that *england would still come to conquer parts of europe like the normans did had william been defeated at hastings. after i figure all this out, i hope to get help on more of the TL

here's a summary of events pertaining to TTL's britain leading up to potential expansion:

  • 927: Aethelstan, a descendant of Alfred the Great of Wessex, unites the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms under one banner
  • January 1066: Edward the Confessor dies and four different men vie for the throne; Harold Godwinson becomes king
  • September 1066: Harald Hardrada invades *England but is defeated by Godwinson at Stamford Bridge
  • October 1066: William the Bastard invades and meets Gyrth and Leofwine Godwinson at Hastings, but is defeated while Harold raises another army; Harold drives William out of *England on Christmas Day of that year
  • 1067: Godwinson turns back a half-hearted invasion by Sweyn II of Denmark
  • 1068-1073: Godwinson forms alliances with the other independent/autonomous pockets in *Britain, further unifying the kingdom
  • 1085: Harold dies and his eldest sons Godwine and Edmund decide who becomes king by jousting; Edmund ascends to the throne as Edmund III and Godwine is given *Ireland as compensation
  • 1093: Godwine and Edmund both die and their younger brother Magnus becomes king
  • 1118: Magnus I dies and is succeeded by his (fictional) son Aethulwulf; during Aethelwulf's reign, the balance of power in *England shifts towards feudal barons and appeasement attempts were made towards *Welsh and *Scottish dynasties in the form of land grants
  • 1163: Aethulwulf dies and is succeeded by his cousin Henrik II
this is about as far as ive gotten with definitive events; i was planning for *england to start expanding outside of the isles in the 12th century, perhaps gaining influence in aquitaine through marriage (possibly) as early as 1154
 
Hold on.

Where is the idea of lancing to determine who gets the crown coming from?

How is Edmund "given Ireland"?

What "feudal barons" are gaining power under Athelwulf?

Who is this Henrik?

And lastly:

Why is any Aenglish atheling (princeling) concerned about Aquitaine?

Yeah, I did just write that like that to use the Where, What, How, Why, When.
 

oshron

Kicked
Hold on.
Where is the idea of lancing to determine who gets the crown coming from?
How is Edmund "given Ireland"?
What "feudal barons" are gaining power under Athelwulf?
Who is this Henrik?
And lastly:
Why is any Aenglish atheling (princeling) concerned about Aquitaine?
Yeah, I did just write that like that to use the Where, What, How, Why, When.

  1. its been a while, but im pretty sure that the jousting was an actual event undertaken by Godwine and Edmund, though it was over a lesser title than kingship (and yes, Godwine, Edmund, and Magnus are all real historical people, but from Aethulwulf onwards, though, theyre fictional; there may be some other historical characters later on who are spared from the butterfly effect, but all the anglo-saxon monarchs after magnus for now are fictional)
  2. its officially that he's just given dominion over ireland as recognized by england; whether the irish fully recognize him would be debatable, i suppose (remember, these events were written a while ago and i cant remember the exact details that made me decide; while the ATL is ASB, ive been striving to make it plausible [or plausible-sounding :p] and i dont think i decided on that out of nowhere). as a note, ITTL the alliance/union between the english and other peoples in the british isles is less controversial since there's no harrying of the north or ousting of native nobility to replace them with normans, so the irish and scottish are more willing to go along the english in their general decisions. this also means that theres no scottish wars of independence (there may eventually be conflict between the english and irish, though, if the irish remain catholic while the english go protestant as IOTL; again, its all in flux)
  3. just "feudal barons" :p
  4. Henrik is (or was) intended as an ATL version of Henry II; an event in flux is that he's ousted by TTL's Richard the Lionheart, but i need to figure out if that would be plausible given the rest of the relevant history
  5. the Aquitaine event is part of why i started this thread; i wanted to get some second opinions and know whether or not i should keep that or switch over to a different region, or just take it out entirely and make TTL's Richard I come from one of the isles (ireland, maybe? wales?)
i appreciate your post in any case ;)
 
its been a while, but im pretty sure that the jousting was an actual event undertaken by Godwine and Edmund, though it was over a lesser title than kingship
Fair enough, although I have trouble imagining the Witan accepting this - assuming that who gets the throne is up to question, it's their call.

its officially that he's just given dominion over ireland as recognized by england; whether the irish fully recognize him would be debatable, i suppose (remember, these events were written a while ago and i cant remember the exact details that made me decide; while the ATL is ASB, ive been striving to make it plausible [or plausible-sounding :p] and i dont think i decided on that out of nowhere). as a note, ITTL the alliance/union between the english and other peoples in the british isles is less controversial since there's no harrying of the north or ousting of native nobility to replace them with normans, so the irish and scottish are more willing to go along the english in their general decisions. this also means that theres no scottish wars of independence (there may eventually be conflict between the english and irish, though, if the irish remain catholic while the english go protestant as IOTL; again, its all in flux)

The English are still foreigners. What claim does Edmund have to Ireland besides a sharp sword and a strong arm?

just "feudal barons" :p

Which we see so many of pre-Norman conquest. I'm not sure what you're looking at here - the rank itself is from the Normans, I believe.

Henrik is (or was) intended as an ATL version of Henry II; an event in flux is that he's ousted by TTL's Richard the Lionheart, but i need to figure out if that would be plausible given the rest of the relevant history

That's an interesting thought to run with.

the Aquitaine event is part of why i started this thread; i wanted to get some second opinions and know whether or not i should keep that or switch over to a different region, or just take it out entirely and make TTL's Richard I come from one of the isles (ireland, maybe? wales?)
i appreciate your post in any case ;)

I'd go with a Welsh princeling. Call him...

Arthur.

:D
 

oshron

Kicked
Fair enough, although I have trouble imagining the Witan accepting this - assuming that who gets the throne is up to question, it's their call.

The English are still foreigners. What claim does Edmund have to Ireland besides a sharp sword and a strong arm?

Which we see so many of pre-Norman conquest. I'm not sure what you're looking at here - the rank itself is from the Normans, I believe.

That's an interesting thought to run with.

I'd go with a Welsh princeling. Call him...

Arthur.

:D

  1. i forgot about the witenagemot. maybe i'll revise that event and chalk up the jousting to local legend rather than fact
  2. while the english are indeed foreigners, theyve still been there for alot longer than the normans were IOTL, and may well carry more diplomatic weight due to butterflies. i did decide that Harold II (Godwinson) worked to strengthen relations between the english and the other inhabitants of the isles. and a sword is also good incentive :D
  3. admittedly, im looking at alot of OTL english history to get ideas. i could easily revise those feudal barons to be some other group or just take them out entirely. after all, thats another reason i started teh thread :D
  4. yeah, i kinda decided that there would be at least rough fictional anglo-saxon equivalents to alot of historical anglo-norman kings, with a few twists and reversals on the names; the original idea with TTL's Richard the Lionheart was that he's named John the Lionblood and his younger brother is Prince Richard Lackland (eg, TTL's Prince John from Robin Hood stories) but it was pointed out to me in another thread that the names Richard and John would be unlikely in a non-norman england, so i'd probably find anglo-saxon names (or maybe danish, german, or even celtic ones if im desperate) with a similar meaning to those OTL names; that's how i decided on the name of a 20th century equivalent to William Henry Harrison :D
  5. actually, i already decided that arthur and uther are "historical" characters that are part of a more definitive foundation myth among the anglo-saxons, in that they kinda steal it from the celts (and having a few celtic royal dynasties helps, too :p)
 
  1. i forgot about the witenagemot. maybe i'll revise that event and chalk up the jousting to local legend rather than fact
Sounds good.

while the english are indeed foreigners, theyve still been there for alot longer than the normans were IOTL, and may well carry more diplomatic weight due to butterflies. i did decide that Harold II (Godwinson) worked to strengthen relations between the english and the other inhabitants of the isles. and a sword is also good incentive :D

Been in Ireland? Really?

admittedly, im looking at alot of OTL english history to get ideas. i could easily revise those feudal barons to be some other group or just take them out entirely. after all, thats another reason i started teh thread :D

I'd go with a different group - tailor this to fit Anglo-Saxon society, not just attempting to change names. But the idea of him being forced to compromise on issues of royal perogative sounds too good to drop.

yeah, i kinda decided that there would be at least rough fictional anglo-saxon equivalents to alot of historical anglo-norman kings, with a few twists and reversals on the names; the original idea with TTL's Richard the Lionheart was that he's named John the Lionblood and his younger brother is Prince Richard Lackland (eg, TTL's Prince John from Robin Hood stories) but it was pointed out to me in another thread that the names Richard and John would be unlikely in a non-norman england, so i'd probably find anglo-saxon names (or maybe danish, german, or even celtic ones if im desperate) with a similar meaning to those OTL names; that's how i decided on the name of a 20th century equivalent to William Henry Harrison :D

Hm. http://www.behindthename.com/name/ae32th30elric for "Richard" sounds good (its not exactly the same meaning, but its pretty close), and John is biblical, so you could use it - I think Jon is the appropriate spelling for an Anglo-Saxon.

actually, i already decided that arthur and uther are "historical" characters that are part of a more definitive foundation myth among the anglo-saxons, in that they kinda steal it from the celts (and having a few celtic royal dynasties helps, too :p)

That doesn't mean you can't have a Welsh princeling named Arthur. :D

Failing that, how about Cadfael (based on the meaning - battle prince - not on Brother Cadfael. Honest.)?
 

oshron

Kicked
Sounds good.

Been in Ireland? Really?

I'd go with a different group - tailor this to fit Anglo-Saxon society, not just attempting to change names. But the idea of him being forced to compromise on issues of royal perogative sounds too good to drop.

Hm. http://www.behindthename.com/name/ae32th30elric for "Richard" sounds good (its not exactly the same meaning, but its pretty close), and John is biblical, so you could use it - I think Jon is the appropriate spelling for an Anglo-Saxon.

That doesn't mean you can't have a Welsh princeling named Arthur. :D

Failing that, how about Cadfael (based on the meaning - battle prince - not on Brother Cadfael. Honest.)?

  1. maybe. i looked back at what i'd written in the official version before and its really just english possessions in ireland, perhaps just a few major cities and estates
  2. ossum :) any ideas for what the group could be? the witan, maybe?
  3. ive actually been using exactly that site to find names since jr high! :D its how i decided on the names for Jacinto Ochoa (Spanish Santa Ana), Barclay Wilkinson (British Woodrow Wilson), and Daniel Blakeslee (anarchist/anti-Catholic Lee Harvery Oswald)! anyway, i may replace Richard with Cyneheard ("royal" and "brave") though John may be different. maybe ill switch the naming back over to Richard being Richard rather than John, but the idea is the same
  4. yeah, i suppose youre right :):rolleyes: Cadfael sounds like a really cool name
anyway, what do you think about potential expansion onto the continent? if not in france, then where do you think it would be most probable? i was thinking of basing it on norman conquests--of course :rolleyes:--so that gives southern italy, the libyan/tunisian coastlines, and antioch as starting points according to this map(i think i also decided a long time ago that cyprus becomes part of the *british empire at some point and stays that way). this also gives me some ideas as to where *Richard can come from. maybe sicily?
 
  1. maybe. i looked back at what i'd written in the official version before and its really just english possessions in ireland, perhaps just a few major cities and estates
Hm. That makes more sense.

ossum :) any ideas for what the group could be? the witan, maybe?

Maybe. I kind of like the idea of a struggle between the king and the earls (eorls) as a matter of centralizing royal power.

I've actually been using exactly that site to find names since jr high! :D its how i decided on the names for Jacinto Ochoa (Spanish Santa Ana), Barclay Wilkinson (British Woodrow Wilson), and Daniel Blakeslee (anarchist/anti-Catholic Lee Harvery Oswald)! anyway, i may replace Richard with Cyneheard ("royal" and "brave") though John may be different. maybe ill switch the naming back over to Richard being Richard rather than John, but the idea is the same

Either way.

yeah, i suppose youre right :):rolleyes: Cadfael sounds like a really cool name

I thought so. There are some other neat names (same site as the one I looked up the Anglo-Saxon names), but King Emrys didn't sound as cool in English (King Ambrose, bah).

anyway, what do you think about potential expansion onto the continent? if not in france, then where do you think it would be most probable? i was thinking of basing it on norman conquests--of course :rolleyes:--so that gives southern italy, the libyan/tunisian coastlines, and antioch as starting points according to this map(i think i also decided a long time ago that cyprus becomes part of the *british empire at some point and stays that way). this also gives me some ideas as to where *Richard can come from. maybe sicily?

Hm. I think you need to figure out why the Aenglish are conquering before deciding where. Just having them do what the Normans did is easy, but coming up with something where they go into - for instance - Iberia, so that Aragon-Navarre (and Gascony) are influenced by Aenglish culture would be far more interesting than just substituting Anglo-Saxons for Normans.
 

oshron

Kicked
[/LIST]
Maybe. I kind of like the idea of a struggle between the king and the earls (eorls) as a matter of centralizing royal power.

I thought so. There are some other neat names (same site as the one I looked up the Anglo-Saxon names), but King Emrys didn't sound as cool in English (King Ambrose, bah).

Hm. I think you need to figure out why the Aenglish are conquering before deciding where. Just having them do what the Normans did is easy, but coming up with something where they go into - for instance - Iberia, so that Aragon-Navarre (and Gascony) are influenced by Aenglish culture would be far more interesting than just substituting Anglo-Saxons for Normans.

  1. earls it it, then :)
  2. sounds interesting--i'll have to look up why the norman invasions took place and compare them with other countries of the time--but i'll only be able to get to it tomorrow; too sleepy to do much else at the moment
 
Hm. I think you need to figure out why the Aenglish are conquering before deciding where. Just having them do what the Normans did is easy, but coming up with something where they go into - for instance - Iberia, so that Aragon-Navarre (and Gascony) are influenced by Aenglish culture would be far more interesting than just substituting Anglo-Saxons for Normans.

Having the Anglo-Saxon get into continental Europe by invasion is rather ridiculous. Don't really see that happening. Especially if it is mainland France, i doubt the French King would just let the Anglo-saxons waltz into French territory.
 
[*]1118: Magnus I dies and is succeeded by his (fictional) son Aethulwulf; during Aethelwulf's reign, the balance of power in *England shifts towards feudal barons and appeasement attempts were made towards *Welsh and *Scottish dynasties in the form of land grants

Only two things I wanted to say here.

1 - re:the quote above. You're not suggesting England bribes Scotland and Wales into being annexed are you? Cos that...wouldn't happen. Besides, the King of England did try giving the King of Scotland a large English territory OTL. What happened was that later on, the Scots tried to annex it to Scotland instead (by means of war) This would also happen here.

2 - re:Ireland. You should probably read up on how the OTL English got lands in Ireland. It wasn't just a random landgrab exactly, even though the Irish called it that.
 
Having the Anglo-Saxon get into continental Europe by invasion is rather ridiculous. Don't really see that happening. Especially if it is mainland France, i doubt the French King would just let the Anglo-saxons waltz into French territory.

To use an example of what I can imagine happening:

The fact that Henry VI (Barbarossa's son, not the loutish Lancasterian) had a claim to the Kingdom of Sicily in right of his wife didn't make his attempts to um, ensure that was accepted, that less of an invasion.
 
To use an example of what I can imagine happening:

The fact that Henry VI (Barbarossa's son, not the loutish Lancasterian) had a claim to the Kingdom of Sicily in right of his wife didn't make his attempts to um, ensure that was accepted, that less of an invasion.
yeah, but the Anglo-saxons don't really have much of a claim to , per say, Normandy, especially if it is in retaliation to the normans attempted invasion of England.
 
yeah, but the Anglo-saxons don't really have much of a claim to , per say, Normandy, especially if it is in retaliation to the normans attempted invasion of England.

That's true. You'd need to have something come up where they have one.

I'm not sure why they'd particularly want to pursue one, though. Not out of any lack of aggression - juat that there's no reason England should want anything outside securing its borders (which may mean wars of invasion against the Welsh and Scots certainly), which means not even Ireland is all that important.
 
Having the Anglo-Saxon get into continental Europe by invasion is rather ridiculous. Don't really see that happening. Especially if it is mainland France, i doubt the French King would just let the Anglo-saxons waltz into French territory.

the Anglo-Saxons didn't really have a strong enough kingdom to invade continental Europe. They needed to deal with their Norse, Scottish, and Welsh issues at home.
 
the Anglo-Saxons didn't really have a strong enough kingdom to invade continental Europe. They needed to deal with their Norse, Scottish, and Welsh issues at home.

Anglo-Saxon England wasn't exactly a weak kingdom in 1066.

And it didn't magically get rid of the Norse, Scots, and Welsh interests in causing trouble for the Normans to move in.
 

oshron

Kicked
Having the Anglo-Saxon get into continental Europe by invasion is rather ridiculous. Don't really see that happening. Especially if it is mainland France, i doubt the French King would just let the Anglo-saxons waltz into French territory.
you raise a good point. i mainly wanted to figure out what everyone thought about potential expansion (i kinda want to establish *england's rise as a great power early on). if there's no expansion into any part of europe (or at least not into france), then what do you think will takes its place ITTL? do you think the *Hundred Years War will still take place?
Only two things I wanted to say here.

1 - re:the quote above. You're not suggesting England bribes Scotland and Wales into being annexed are you? Cos that...wouldn't happen. Besides, the King of England did try giving the King of Scotland a large English territory OTL. What happened was that later on, the Scots tried to annex it to Scotland instead (by means of war) This would also happen here.

2 - re:Ireland. You should probably read up on how the OTL English got lands in Ireland. It wasn't just a random landgrab exactly, even though the Irish called it that.

  1. its been my understanding that the antipathy towards england held by the scottish and irish is largely a result of norman domination, particularly for the scots and the regions thereabouts due to the harrying of the north. if william doesnt conquer england, then there's no need for england to assert its claims at the point of a sword
  2. i plan to ;) my thoughts were that *english influence and control of *ireland pretty much comes about as IOTL, though perhaps with some changes. my thoughts were that *ireland still eventually gets de facto independence even though the OTL republic of ireland never comes to be ITTL
yeah, but the Anglo-saxons don't really have much of a claim to , per say, Normandy, especially if it is in retaliation to the normans attempted invasion of England.
yeah, i wasnt really thinking of giving them normandy anyway. what i was planning on for continental expansion, if not aquitaine, would be britanny, partly because they feel entitled to it since the bretons are celts (the *english probably wouldnt be really justified in this, though)
That's true. You'd need to have something come up where they have one.

I'm not sure why they'd particularly want to pursue one, though. Not out of any lack of aggression - juat that there's no reason England should want anything outside securing its borders (which may mean wars of invasion against the Welsh and Scots certainly), which means not even Ireland is all that important.
maybe ill switch it around so that *england secures its borders (there's already a TL event Aethulwulf secures power in *england with a bunch of castles) and move any outward expansion to a later king/dynasty, chalking it up to jingoism and/or imperialist attitudes
the Anglo-Saxons didn't really have a strong enough kingdom to invade continental Europe. They needed to deal with their Norse, Scottish, and Welsh issues at home.
as i said before, there'd probably be less scottish/english conflict or bad blood between them without a harrying of the north. *wales could maybe be merged with *england through a political marriage (which may be preferrable since i want to throw in some legitimate celtic monarchs, too). by this time, though, the norse are now pretty much a non-entity in *england; hardrada is the only one who could realistically have taken over england and had a mind to and he's dead, and sweyn was easily turned back by godwinson in 1067, so there's no more reason for denmark to try to get involved
 

Sang

Banned
I like it so far, but just a few cents:

- Why invade Normandy? The Anglo-Saxons didn't have a strong enough army, thus it wasn't in their interests to do so.
- The Anglo-Saxon way of warfare is still rather archaic. They need to modernize first, and adopt the Continental (German-French-Italian-Spanish) way of Knightly warfare to survive on the long run. Thus, conquering Wales would be a good idea too, they could adopt longbows from the Welsh, just like OTL England. Or, they could start mass-producing crossbows, like the Germans.
 

oshron

Kicked
im thinking of having the *english join forces with the byzantines to fight the normans in southern italy and that will eventually result in the *english gaining a dukedom in sicily through marriage (i'd appreciate second opinions). a hitch in this is that the full norman conquest of southern italy was completed in 1071, which would seem to conflict with william's defeat at hastings ITTL and later norman subjugation by france. of course, it could be that the norman conquest of southern italy isnt much affected by william's defeat if they were already winning in all fields, and then southern italy could just become french rather than norman

adoption of welsh and continental warfare sounds good to me :)
 
you raise a good point. i mainly wanted to figure out what everyone thought about potential expansion (i kinda want to establish *england's rise as a great power early on). if there's no expansion into any part of europe (or at least not into france), then what do you think will takes its place ITTL? do you think the *Hundred Years War will still take place?

Marriage. Best chance example.. But you would have to make it a decent claim. Outright invasion just for the hell of it ain't going to cut it.
 
Top