No Wessex revival?

If Guthrum succeeds in defeating and killing Alfred is that it for the Anglo-Saxons? Instead do Anglo-Danish kingdoms spring up perhaps with York being coequal with London and Dublin, eventually conquered by Knud, or his analogue, in the early 11th century. Does William the Bastard still happen in 1066 and Greater Norman history run much as English history in OTL?
 
If Guthrum succeeds in defeating and killing Alfred is that it for the Anglo-Saxons? Instead do Anglo-Danish kingdoms spring up perhaps with York being coequal with London and Dublin, eventually conquered by Knud, or his analogue, in the early 11th century.
Not immediatly at least. Even defeated, Anglo-Saxons have still a better hold on Britain. Of course, the Danes would have been in better position TOTL and it may end to a lasting separation of England, with South still being AS for a while.
Having Danes being more present in England could maybe end in a Anglo-Dane society (instead of Anglo-Norman) if Scandinavian manage to maintain a cohesive rule on the island.

One of the reasons Danes managed to take York and southern Northumburia was its weak population and importance, relative to southern/eastern England.
If they manage to take all England, they would probably "anglicize" themselves eventually and prefer anyway to rule from richer, "better" aeras. Five Bouroughs would meet better chances to become an Anglo-Dane center.

And that's in the case of a better situation for Danes, that suffered from chronical division (the division of Great Pagan Army after conquest of Mercia shows that victory wasn't the sign of a more coherent army), while Wessex fighting alone at least had the big advantage of clearing competition amongst Anglo-Saxons. I doubt the Danes would have eventually enough forces to control all of England immediatly, and letting Wessex autonomous (even as client) would eventually turn badly for them.

Does William the Bastard still happen in 1066 and Greater Norman history run much as English history in OTL?
No. Too much butterflies.

You will need Rollon being count of Rouen, then his sucessors increasing their power in Neustria at the expense of Brittany and Frankish kings, then William still being bordn, then exchanges with AS or AD ending with a sucessor of Rollon being considered as heir of England, then a support from Franco-Norman nobility, then having enough ressources to launch an invasion, and then not being defeated.

Saying it's unlikely to happen doesn't cover it, I'm afraid.
 
If they manage to take all England, they would probably "anglicize" themselves eventually and prefer anyway to rule from richer, "better" aeras. Five Bouroughs would meet better chances to become an Anglo-Dane center.
.
Which of course explains why York became such an important Viking trading centre in OTL! It was far more important than the 5 burghs. If the centre of Anglo Danish trade is with Scandinavia rather than France then York at the upper tidal reach of the Ouse(and thus the Humber) is in a much better position than the 5 burghs or London. London and the south east become paramount when the bulk of the trade is via France. If it isn't then they don't.
 
Which of course explains why York became such an important Viking trading centre in OTL! It was far more important than the 5 burghs. If the centre of Anglo Danish trade is with Scandinavia rather than France then York at the upper tidal reach of the Ouse(and thus the Humber) is in a much better position than the 5 burghs or London. London and the south east become paramount when the bulk of the trade is via France. If it isn't then they don't.

Well but even then in the long run France, The Netherlands, and Northern Germany are almost certainly going to be more valuable trading partners than the scandinavian kingdoms simply because of massive resource and population advantages, and for trade with those regions London is still a very good port. Although even then I don't see them moving the capital there in any case, especially since I don't think York is going to get poorer (and as history marches on it's very likely to end up a major industrial center).
 
Which of course explains why York became such an important Viking trading centre in OTL!

Because it was the only real trade center in England on Norse hands, and the only real center of Northern England.
York was rich, but less important in demographical and wealth matters than its counterparts in southern England.

And if Norses lanaged to take York, it wasn't because their wishes were magically fulfilled, but because they took what they could (the city was basically undefended, telling much about its importance).
Quoting Richard Hodges

It still remains doubtful that York was either an emporium in the sense described in the book [urban community of modest scale serving as trade center], or indeed a settlement of any permanent scale before the mid ninth century

The AS town of London (Ludenwic, meaning more or less that is was a trade harbour place), had knew a great revival (being largely abandoned before) since the VIII, with the attested presence of a flourishing harbour (presence of Frisians, that basically mastered the North Sea trade before the Scandinavians).

Having London as the main trade center is not a given, of course, but the region was recipiendary of much North Sea trade since the VII century : it was unlikely to change if Vikings took over it. Another candidate would be Ipswich that beneficied more than Rheinish trade, and seems to have been quite important as a trade center as well production one.

Finally, Vikings were the ones that mostly develloped York as a big trade center (as said, it was the only they truly controlled on the island) with the devellopment of the town along Ouse River. Would have they taken London and southern trade centers, these would have been likely favoured.

It was far more important than the 5 burghs.
OTL it was, yes. I tought, still, that we did an ATL about WI : Vikings had at least a better hold in England.

ITTL where Vikings have at least a better control of eastern England, seeing how the region was the key to a preserved coherence between Norse states nnd, and even if there wasn't clear domination if a town in particular being richer overhall. Furthermore, as political centers weren't automatically economical ones (or, actually not that much in AS England, at the exception of East-Anglia)

If the centre of Anglo Danish trade is with Scandinavia rather than France then York at the upper tidal reach of the Ouse(and thus the Humber) is in a much better position than the 5 burghs or London.
The thing is, there wasn't ONE trade center on North Sea shores of England. They were plenty, York being originally one of the weakest.

If Danes and Norses manage to hold a firm grip on London, Ipsiwch and/or Norwich, their focus would be different and York would likely not have the importance it had OTL (while being still one of trade centers in the North) and maybe more comparable to Durham.

The old Mercian political centers are quite well placed to help to divert the economical exchanges from Wessex to eastern shores and while not comparable to eastern emporiae, they might end as royal residence again.

Leicester wasn't much of a commercial center, but fit for a political capital (as Mercians tought earlier, after all there's a reason if the richer trade centers on North Sea didn't prevailed politically in AS England).

London and the south east become paramount when the bulk of the trade is via France. If it doesn't then they don't.
No. The region was a trade center of North Sea, at least since the VII century, with the existance of a distinct Frisian community. London beneficied both from trade with Neustria (serving maybe of transition between English emporiae and Francia), and from S-E North Sea in the same time.
 
Take on board all of the above and it is all logical. However if Wessex does survive in some form and is even a little bit resurgant at some point isn't the Thames Valley including London going to be a battle ground for the next hundred years or so? Admittedlly this leads to Ipswich being the major Southern port (sorry East Anglians calling you southern) or do the Vikings develop what are Hull and/or Grimsby/Immingham or even Goole in OTL as safe harbours well away from the frontline?(and yes I do know that in OTL it was The Great Central that developed Immingham as a port at the start of the 20th Century)
(Or am I just trying to start a Northwank?)
 
However if Wessex does survive in some form and is even a little bit resurgant at some point isn't the Thames Valley including London going to be a battle ground for the next hundred years or so?
Depends how much Wessex is beaten. I would think they'll try first to secure their borders and take on Mercia and Kent as much they can in order to avoid complete isolation and to cut out the Watling Street that is the most likely way for an invasion and for Kent to keep on contact with Francia.

If Norses manage, unlikely but possible, to hold a cohesion AS may have to count on two, make it three relativly strong Viking states that would prevent such moves and able to use the division in Wessex's court to reduce it to a client kingdom (or to shatter it)

If they shatter, as likely, you could end with Jorvik, Danelaw between Trent's mouth and Wash , Mercia and nerfed East-Anglia as Viking states and Wessex being able not only to hold Wessex, Sussex, Kent properly, but possibly to take back Mercia.

Admittedlly this leads to Ipswich being the major Southern port (sorry East Anglians calling you southern) or do the Vikings develop what are Hull and/or Grimsby/Immingham or even Goole in OTL as safe harbours well away from the frontline?(and yes I do know that in OTL it was The Great Central that developed Immingham as a port at the start of the 20th Century)
The parts more fought about would be the old roman ways, that are basically arteras of AS England. I would think that, with a weaker Wessex, there's no real need to create out of nowhere new harbours when you can use existing ones.
I would think, again in the case of a Wessex without Mercia, that the fight would concern first a region between Cambridge, Gloucester, Fulham and Reading.

Of course, you can't really say it would be a frontline : the conquests and reconquest of England being quick due to low forces involved, few point of control (less than 15 years for Vikings to conquer Danelaw, East-Anglia and Jorvik, less than 20 years for Anglo-Saxons to take most of it back.
 
To illustrate my point.

1 - Jorvik is quite well placed, as OTL. Far from direct threats, being a sure door to Scandinavia and North Sea trade. I don't see any reason that, without Wessex resistance happening as OTL, they won't still be the power in the Northern England.

2 - With all Mercia conquered, things can evolve very differently. Jarldoms turning independent, recognizing partially or totally Jorvik authority. I would think the first solution is most likely, however.
Giving the Danish forces in presence, however, it would turn quickly to an Anglo-Dane mix if independent or an easy prey for a united Wessex. Actually, maybe its top priority.
A Jorvik Mercia however could both nerf the kingdom, making it the main power in Middle England, but would make it harder to manage, more anglicized.

3- Northumbria, in the case of a strong Jorvikn would probably know the fate of Mercia under Wessex rule : client state eventually absorbated.

4 - East-Anglia is kind of stuck in a strange position. The Danes there already turned to Anglo-Danes quite quickly. A bigger East Anglia could turn powerful, and while Wessex is busy in Mercia protecting his b...borders, an East Anglian king could protect his own and even manage to divide Wessex by taking/Clientelising Kent (5b) and Sussex (5a) (the sons of Alfred not really fond of "brotherly affection", it would be somewhat easier after the PoD.

Eventually, tough, their anglicisation would turn against the ruling part, and you may end with an Anglo-Saxon (maybe mixed with Dane) family on throne eventually. Or a suspiciously AS looking Danish king, that would make an agreement with what remains of Wessex against Mercia/Jorvik.

5 - Wessex is in a relative bad position right after the defeat, and a civil war and/or another defeat in Mercia could seriously hurt the kingdom. However, it does have the number, the legitimacy and as long it manages to have divided ennemies, a relative unity.
At worst, it's shattered and a Danish jarl or king takes the crown.

Eventually, even in the case of a Viking victory, an Anglo-Dane society is most probable to emerges, clearly more AS than was Anglo-Norman society. The conflict would be resolved quickly, one way or another, as there's no real infrastructure or big armies to length ennemies.

For trade, Anglo-Dane kings would probably continue to support the existance of southern trade centers along previous lines as they did AS Kings and OTL south Danes.
A total Danish victory would see, IMHO, the emergence of 2/3/4 states : Jorvik, East-Anglia, Mercia, Wessex, possibly shattered.

Without Wessex reemergence, I don't see any sooner an united England.

AA.gif
 
Thanks, thats sort of what I thought would happen. I'm inrigued at the butterflying away of William the Bastard you mentioned in an earlier post. The Northmen would still have taken that part of Francia from the weak Kings of that time and Wessex could fulfil the role of England in OTL. Surely William wouldn't have needed a claim to the throne (although possibly it could be Wessex in this timeline) just the backing of the Pope and sufficient Franco-Norman Dukes(with promise of land) to bring the island back to "civilisation". Although what he really wanted was a source of revenue that he didn't have to share with anyone else and that reason would still apply.
 
Thanks, thats sort of what I thought would happen. I'm inrigued at the butterflying away of William the Bastard you mentioned in an earlier post. The Northmen would still have taken that part of Francia from the weak Kings of that time

Why? It wasn't the first tentative of Northmen to have a more firm hold in Francia, and Rollo wasn't the first "tamed" Northman to be trusted with a territory even if in this case, it's a really big one (corresponding to the 1/4 or 1/3 of March of Neustria)
While the late Carolingians had several issues, the treaty of 911 is less due to an absolute weakness that the desire for Charles III to takeover Lotharingia, and the need to have someone stopping the vikings raids, Rollo wiling to settled down after having failed to take Chartres.

It's the big difference with the Danelaw : in England, Vikings took territories by right of conquest. In Francia, the king (or emperor) allowed them to settle down giving them more legitimacy and more odds to merge with local population (reinforcing their rule all together)

In the same time, Ragenold/Rögnvaldr manages to take Nantes and Loires's mouth, a site with much potential, but failing to at least make a real treaty with both Bretons and Franks, failed eventually.

Anyway, the first reason of the raids in Francia in the late IX, is essentially the Wessex resistence : Frankish shores seemed more interesting to raid.
Less or not Wessex resistence would probably have an impact there.

While a Northman political presence is possible, in Loire or Seine's mouths, nothing guarantee that Rollo, Ragenold or an OTL jarl in Francia would lead it.

And of course, a different course of events would certainly means different alliances, unions, etc. The reason that made Edward and his brother being in exile in Normandy was Knut takeover of England : there's little chance that it would happen in an England that is divided between different kingdoms, one of them possibly Anglo-Saxon (admittedly, the others would be importantly anglicized).

Different situation, different outcome. That's basically the principle of "butterflying". It shouldn't be "I've a PoD, so random s**t happens" of course, but you gonna have changes nevertheless.
 
Top