PC: An Anglo-Saxon Empire...?

The main problem is that Anglo-Saxon England is demographically really weak, is on a peripherical and not that wealthy area,
It doesn't help that Anglo-Saxon England was institutionally backwards to continental Europe, before Normans set up an idealized feudality system.

If England was that impoverished and backward compared to Europe just why did William want to conquer it? He needed to borrow lots of money to pay for the invasion so his backers must have expected a return on their investment.

Compared to France at the time England was stable.
 
"absence of entities whom geographical integrity among other things rarely outlived one or two individuals"
Anglo-Saxon earldormans had a comparable (if not superior) power to what had great feudal lords of France or Germany, but lacked both inheritance and permanance of geographical ensemble (at the exception of Bamburgh for example).
It seems that great demenses were going in their way to become such in the middle of XIth, knowing a similar evolution as post-Carolingian Europe in late IX/Xth centuries.

Are you meaning less feudal? Yes but less feudal does not mean backwards
It wasn't feudal to begin with, my point was that England knew a similar tendency than what happened in the continent (both thanks to inner dynamics and to foreign influence) that was not only different (feudality was a proteiform concept to begin with) but delayed, mostly by a later unification and Vikings raids.

In order to make my point clear, this is the definition of bacwards I use : If England was that impoverished and backward compared to Europe just why did William want to conquer it?[/QUOTE]
You should really look at posts : I didn't said England was backwards, I said that their institutions were backwards on the general european tendency.
I didn't said it was impoverished, I said it was relativlty (hence on relativly) poorer than what existed on the continent.

When I say the Moon is relativly smaller than Earth, it doesn't mean that I think the Moon is only a pebble.

He needed to borrow lots of money to pay for the invasion so his backers must have expected a return on their investment.
Actually, he didn't really borrowed much money to begin with, mostly because XIth economy wasn't really a monetary one.
What he promised (and gave) was the possession of new lands (that were the wealth by definition in this time) to the people (often cadets or people without hope of great inheritence, and not always noble) accompanying him (his army reaching 8 000 men at best).

Compared to France at the time England was stable.
I disagree : England of the XIth century knew as much revolts than France without knowing as much foreign invasions (and actually none).
Great feudal demesnes tended to be way stabled geographically, and inherited; while in the same time Capetians began to enforce their authority in the north of their country, late AS kings had to deal with successful revolts against their own (that successful take against Scandinavians probably streghtened the legitimacy)

Note that I didn't mean that France was a powerhouse of stability, and the precedent century would proove me wrong anyway. But after this, the kingdom found a new balance that England was still to reach (and that a Godwinson takeover may have helped, as Robertian takeover in France).
Please note as well that I didn't wanted to make a France vs. England thread, but a comparison of institution in Europe at this time, where France, Germany, and even Italy of all places found a new stable balance (stable enough to make the HRE the dominant entity of western Europe with Cordoban decline)
 
Last edited:
Who says only 1066 will do? With butterflies pre-1066 you have a whole slew of reasons why William the Bastard would either never be born, never become Duke of Normandy, or never strongarm Harold Godwinson into the fraudulent oath of support to his claim on the English throne.

Hastings and the Norman Conquest were hardly inevitable events by any stretch of the imagination. If you change things sometime back in the 9th or 10th centuries there's pretty good odds William the Conqueror, for one reason or another, will never come to pass.
 
Who says only 1066 will do? With butterflies pre-1066 you have a whole slew of reasons why William the Bastard would either never be born, never become Duke of Normandy, or never strongarm Harold Godwinson into the fraudulent oath of support to his claim on the English throne.

Hastings and the Norman Conquest were hardly inevitable events by any stretch of the imagination. If you change things sometime back in the 9th or 10th centuries there's pretty good odds William the Conqueror, for one reason or another, will never come to pass.

I like where you're going here.

Continue!
 
What if Ethelred was remembered as Ethelred the Wise instead if Ethelred the Unready (ie redey rather than unredey). So he and his advisors tell the Danes "where to go" and don't pay Danegeld but instead see off Sweyn( perhaps he heads for Normandy?). Ethelred then continues the stability of Edmund and Edgar and is succeeded by a strong and vigorous son in Edmund II (probably not known as Ironside ITTL). No marriage to Emma of Normandy either so less chance of some Norman adventurer chancing his arm.

This would result in a stronger, more prosperous and less feudal England by the end of the XIth century but capable of founding an empire? Not so sure but stranger things have happened OTL.
 

I'm still not understanding what you are meaning. I assume it's the nuances of translations between English and French.

e.g "lacked both inheritance and permanance of geographical ensemble"
What does this mean?
Are you saying the land isn't personally inherited? If so that's not less progressive than the Continent going by your definition of "backwards". One could even say that a move away from the more merito/democratic germanic tribal organisation could be considered backwards ;)


In brief, are you trying to say that AS England was doing what Europe was doing politically but was doing so some years later?
 
This would result in a stronger, more prosperous and less feudal England by the end of the XIth century but capable of founding an empire? Not so sure but stranger things have happened OTL.

I would rather see England knowing some sort of Davidian Revolution equivalent, making its institutions not less feudal per se, but a particular feudality based on similar basic principles but with an important substrate.
Harold Godwinsson, for exemple, had an important part of his legitimacy backed by his experience on Northern France.

Unless England going totally isolationist out of nowhere, institutional influence is bound to happen, as Carolingian Empire iinfluenced on England, or the links between Ottonian HRE and late AS England (trough cultural and diplomatical exchanges), without forgetting, of course, similar inner tendencies in England and post-Carolingian Europe.

Are you saying the land isn't personally inherited? If so that's not less progressive than the Continent going by your definition of "backwards".
I gave my definition of bacwards in the post you mention. It's not about being progressive or reactionnary. It's about how advenced in a specific tendency it was.

One could even say that a move away from the more merito/democratic germanic tribal organisation could be considered backwards ;)
I don't think you can call germanic kingship "democratic", or even meritocratic.
When german peoples entered in Romania, they adopted relativly different usages, such as leaders being more warlike than traditional germanic priestly kingship.
The advencement due to arms took another importance as well there.

As to calling it an advencement or a regression...The unexistance of inherited entities and geographically stable (meaning, entities whom borders aren't too vague and actually acknowledged) was a factor of more general instability.
As territories and holdings were clearly identified , say in XI France, you still had many wars between king and vassals, but no real attempt to overthrow the king (mainly because this geopolitical division was granted by his sovereignty, and doing that would challenge the revoltees own legitimacy).

I don't point any moral superiority there, critically when the establishment of this system was made through a really difficult era during Late Carolingians, just that it seems it prevented some of the troubles that late AS England knew (huge revolts, foreign invasions) as the more "blurred" definition of institutions gave more room for ambitions.

Not that England needed any kind of push up to go in the general direction, it was already happening : while clear holdings and title inheritences weren't the rule, Harold did inherited his position from his father, for exemple.

In brief, are you trying to say that AS England was doing what Europe was doing politically but was doing so some years later?
Not only politically but institutionally, but apart from that it's exactly what I'm saying.
Scandinavians invasions critically, but also late unification, provoked the maintain of more...well, is "antiquated" more clear?. As in the maintain of an important slavery (that virtually disappeared in non-mediterranean regions at the XIth).

This text focuses on the qualification of tenures, institutions and military organisation in Saxon England and its comparison with feudality (Norman, Frankish, but also Ottonian), I hope you'll find it interesting.

Either with more able Late Anglo-Saxon against Scandinavians in the XIth, that would have made these changes maybe happening and achieving earlier, or with a 1066 PoD (that is as good as any, critically in the "later PoD possible" challenge), you'd have something along these lines.
But while it would probably go apar with Franks or Germans, going against already established and stable entities would be difficult (critically giving the realtivly less avaible ressources and far less important population (1 million, at best), I tend to think that AS efforts would be made against Wales, Scotland and possibly Ireland while a more interventionist mood in North Sea is likely as well.
 
Last edited:
I would rather see England knowing some sort of Davidian Revolution equivalent, making its institutions not less feudal per se, but a particular feudality based on similar basic principles but with an important substrate.
Harold Godwinsson, for exemple, had an important part of his legitimacy backed by his experience on Northern France.

Unless England going totally isolationist out of nowhere, institutional influence is bound to happen, as Carolingian Empire iinfluenced on England, or the links between Ottonian HRE and late AS England (trough cultural and diplomatical exchanges), without forgetting, of course, similar inner tendencies in England and post-Carolingian Europe.
You are quite right England would have gone feudal to some degree because of cultural influences from France and HRE but we would have been spared the full blown imported Norman version.
 
You are quite right England would have gone feudal to some degree because of cultural influences from France and HRE but we would have been spared the full blown imported Norman version.
The thing is, what Normans set up in England wasn't even an importation, but an idealisation of feudality (you find a similar outcome in Latin States) pasted on Saxon background.

Now I fully agree with you that TTL England would be really different : more important nobility (probably as in continental Europe, up to an average 4 or 6% of the population, instead of less than 1%) would be distinctive enough.
Maybe an association of housecarls and knights, the principles being very similar.

I think the traits of English institutions would have probably lasted, making *English feudality looking more a mix between German feudalism (huge, distinctive entities, with an important royal political role) and Frankish (lack of public lands, or conquest over non-Christians allowing the landed redistribution), and of course Anglo-Saxon features : even isolated, England would have develloped its own feudality with a PoD after the IXth.
 
Why would the Anglo-Saxons establish an empire in continental Europe in the first place? Even if we go with 1066 and Harold wins at Hastings, why would he invade Normandy in retaliation? If we had to go with Anglo-Saxon expansion wouldn't Wales,Ireland or even Scotland be a much more plausible choice for expansion. Okay, seeing a possibility for Scandinavia, it seems too much like something out of Crusader Kings by using claims, when the Anglo Saxons might not have the inclination to do so.

The closest I could see to an Anglo-Saxon "empire" is something similar to Alfonso VII declaring himself of Spain
 
I would rather see England knowing some sort of Davidian Revolution equivalent, making its institutions not less feudal per se, but a particular feudality based on similar basic principles but with an important substrate.
Harold Godwinsson, for exemple, had an important part of his legitimacy backed by his experience on Northern France.

Unless England going totally isolationist out of nowhere, institutional influence is bound to happen, as Carolingian Empire iinfluenced on England, or the links between Ottonian HRE and late AS England (trough cultural and diplomatical exchanges), without forgetting, of course, similar inner tendencies in England and post-Carolingian Europe.


I gave my definition of bacwards in the post you mention. It's not about being progressive or reactionnary. It's about how advenced in a specific tendency it was.


I don't think you can call germanic kingship "democratic", or even meritocratic.
When german peoples entered in Romania, they adopted relativly different usages, such as leaders being more warlike than traditional germanic priestly kingship.
The advencement due to arms took another importance as well there.

As to calling it an advencement or a regression...The unexistance of inherited entities and geographically stable (meaning, entities whom borders aren't too vague and actually acknowledged) was a factor of more general instability.
As territories and holdings were clearly identified , say in XI France, you still had many wars between king and vassals, but no real attempt to overthrow the king (mainly because this geopolitical division was granted by his sovereignty, and doing that would challenge the revoltees own legitimacy).

I don't point any moral superiority there, critically when the establishment of this system was made through a really difficult era during Late Carolingians, just that it seems it prevented some of the troubles that late AS England knew (huge revolts, foreign invasions) as the more "blurred" definition of institutions gave more room for ambitions.

Not that England needed any kind of push up to go in the general direction, it was already happening : while clear holdings and title inheritences weren't the rule, Harold did inherited his position from his father, for exemple.


Not only politically but institutionally, but apart from that it's exactly what I'm saying.
Scandinavians invasions critically, but also late unification, provoked the maintain of more...well, is "antiquated" more clear?. As in the maintain of an important slavery (that virtually disappeared in non-mediterranean regions at the XIth).

This text focuses on the qualification of tenures, institutions and military organisation in Saxon England and its comparison with feudality (Norman, Frankish, but also Ottonian), I hope you'll find it interesting.

Either with more able Late Anglo-Saxon against Scandinavians in the XIth, that would have made these changes maybe happening and achieving earlier, or with a 1066 PoD (that is as good as any, critically in the "later PoD possible" challenge), you'd have something along these lines.
But while it would probably go apar with Franks or Germans, going against already established and stable entities would be difficult (critically giving the realtivly less avaible ressources and far less important population (1 million, at best), I tend to think that AS efforts would be made against Wales, Scotland and possibly Ireland while a more interventionist mood in North Sea is likely as well.

Ah, thank you. Now I get what you were saying. That text does look intriguing.

The thing is, what Normans set up in England wasn't even an importation, but an idealisation of feudality (you find a similar outcome in Latin States) pasted on Saxon background.

Now I fully agree with you that TTL England would be really different : more important nobility (probably as in continental Europe, up to an average 4 or 6% of the population, instead of less than 1%) would be distinctive enough.
Maybe an association of housecarls and knights, the principles being very similar.

I think the traits of English institutions would have probably lasted, making *English feudality looking more a mix between German feudalism (huge, distinctive entities, with an important royal political role) and Frankish (lack of public lands, or conquest over non-Christians allowing the landed redistribution), and of course Anglo-Saxon features : even isolated, England would have develloped its own feudality with a PoD after the IXth.

Indeed. We could even look to how Scandinavian feudality developed as an indication.

Why would the Anglo-Saxons establish an empire in continental Europe in the first place? Even if we go with 1066 and Harold wins at Hastings, why would he invade Normandy in retaliation? If we had to go with Anglo-Saxon expansion wouldn't Wales,Ireland or even Scotland be a much more plausible choice for expansion. Okay, seeing a possibility for Scandinavia, it seems too much like something out of Crusader Kings by using claims, when the Anglo Saxons might not have the inclination to do so.

The closest I could see to an Anglo-Saxon "empire" is something similar to Alfonso VII declaring himself of Spain

I agree that a return invasion is unlikely.
Any initial expansion by conquest will be restricted to Great Britain. There may be possibilities of inheritances across the North Sea that could be backed by force but outright conquest for empire sake seems unlikely.
 
Indeed. We could even look to how Scandinavian feudality developed as an indication.
I'm not sure the Scandinavian influence would be that important in this England, critically with a Scandinavian feudality that develloped along christianisation and the model of "saint king".

England is already christianised, unified, and this would make a huge difference. I mentioned German feudality, critically for its historical ties with England, while I think the legalisation (as incodification) would be less important on it and more close to Frankish ensembles (relativly speaking, I would rather see native customs being dominant).

Other than that, agreeing with your other points.
 
Top