POD for a Balkanized Britain?

What's the latest POD for a balkanized Britain? I for one don't think its possible to balkanize Britain more than it is (England, Scotland, Wales) after the Napoleonic Wars, but my knowledge of British History isn't good enough to speak confidently beyond that.

I think that if you make a few changes in Scottish History, you can get a greater Highland/Lowland divide, what with them speaking two different languages and all (Gaelic and Scots). Then through a bit of bad luck you prevent the clans unifying, and voila!, a Balkanized Highlands. But how can you do that for the rest of Britain? What's the latest possible PoD?
 
A successful Northern revolt soon after the Norman Conquest leads to a Saxon kingdom north of a particular point and a Norman kingdom in the south?

This might keep the Normans out of Wales and Ireland, if they can't advance too far without risking a reconquista from the north.

Thus we have:

1. Norman Kingdom of England
2. Saxon Kingdom of England
3. Various Welsh states
4. Scotland
5. Cornwall?
6. Disunited Ireland

IIRC there was another Scandinavian invasion that could have happened soon after the Norman Conquest, but didn't. That could lead to a new Danelaw in the north and Norman rule in the south.
 
In my mind you'd have to go back pretty early to balkanize Britain - probably to the Heptarchy, if not sub-Roman Britain. Say, prevent the rise of any one of the Heptarchs gaining too much power - maybe the Welsh win at Heavenfield and prevent Northumbria from forming, and ensuring a balance of power between Gwynedd, Alba, Wessex, and Mercia. Of course, you'd have to work around the Vikings wiping out most of the Heptarchy a century later, or simply add Jorvik to the balance of power.
 
But of course, you have to ask yourself, how long would that balance of power last? There are no states around today that were around back when Mercia existed. They've all expanded, disappeared, changed form, or simply been destroyed. So you would have a temporary Balkanized Britain, but would it stay that way?
 
believe it or not, there are loads of POD's.

The earliest and easiest is no roman invasion. then you are left with a bunch of petty celtic tribes for a long time. that would be an interesting alternate history...

or a stronger defense by the romano-brits or a weaker offense by the anglo-saxons could lead to an east/west divide, not to mention possible disunified anglo-saxon states.

no vikings. from what i understand, the vikings were a huge unifying force in britain (common enemy, picking off the weak, bastards took all our women...;)) then you have strathclyde :cool:, pictish alba, scotland, the 4 or more kingdoms of ireland, wales, cornwall, cumbria, wessex, mercia, east anglia, and northumbria lasting a lot longer. who picks off who and if they ever any of them unify would be interesting.

or more successful vikings could mean an independent york (jorvik), danelaw, orkney, kingdom of dublin, and kingdom of the isles

william the conqueror loses land in the north to revolts, or to more vikings

war of the roses ends in a stalemate... wales might revolt.

these are the ones i can think of off the top of my head
 
A spot of clarification: independent clans would not mean Balkanisation but Somalianisation. The clans were not territorial entities: that was made up by Sir Walt. I'd also note that there were border clans as well as Highland ones. Clans were the traditional, broadly kinship-based way of managing land occupation and the enforcement of the law until feudalism was introduced.

Everyone seems to forget Galloway, which briefly tried to assert itself as a kingdom, in these discussions.
 
I tend to feel that England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland is the maximum feasible division of the Isles to result over an extended period of history. And Wales is dicey due to geography, the Welsh mountains being no real shield as so many valleys open into England, and historic Welsh disunity; they would have had to get their act together big time to fend off English dominion for longer than they did, but as it was they spent more time fighting each other than the English. Maybe if matters had gone differently with Llewellyn the Last there could have been an autonomous Wales keeping its own laws (which it did anyway until Henry VIII abolished them), with a Prince owing feudal duty to the King of England.

I don't feel Cornwall is a chance, too small and isolated from any possible allies. It was absorbed into Wessex so long ago that we aren't sure of exactly how or when, and know little of its independent history. Speaking of Wessex, it is perfectly true that English union resulted directly from the Danish invasions, with Wessex as the last man standing taking the prize once the Danes had been defeated. Absent the invasions, and Danish successes, union could have taken a lot longer, and never come about in exactly the same way, for example with the northernmost counties winding up in Scotland, where they were part of the time anyway.

Union between England and Scotland was never inevitable. The English more or less gave up efforts at conquest after Bannockburn, Mortimer and Isabella formally acknowledging Scottish sovereignty under Bruce in the 1328 Treaty of Northampton. The underage Edward III fiercely resented the concession made in his name, and after his successful coup tried doing something about it, but he had too many other fish to fry for an extended effort. I think it would be right to say that despite numerous conflicts the English never seriously set about conquering Scotland again, and of course in the end the union was accomplished by the Scottish king inheriting England. All kinds of dynastic divergences might have prevented that.

A possible post-Heptarchy break-up of England would have been on north-south lines. The north suffered worst from the Conquest, William I laying utter waste to it. Recovery was slow and in later centuries northerners were still seen as barbarians by southerners, and returned the dislike with interest. There were many reasons for Richard III's profound unpopularity, the child murder of which he was universally and no doubt correctly suspected being foremost, but his northern entourage and troops were another and cogent reason for his lack of acceptance in the south. Conversely, in the north he was seen as their man and loyally supported despite all his crimes.

So the Tudors were never loved in the north, and the English Reformation was also far less accepted there than elsewhere, as witness the Pilgrimage of Grace. Elizabeth I, the last and longest-reigning Tudor, never in her life went north of Nottingham, her Council feeling it was not safe for her (there was a proposal which nearly came to fruition for her to have a summit at York with the still-reigning Mary I of Scots, but it was cancelled due to events in France). So somewhere in there a northern breakaway might be thought feasible, probably after a lengthy and stalemated dynastic/civil war.
 
As both a pedant and a patriot I bristle when people call Great Britain "a small island". It's reckoned the ninth largest island in the world, so isn't small as islands go. Smaller than some, sure, but also larger than most. We all have our quirks and pet peeves, and that's one of mine. Getting to the question, I do feel that Wales's smaller size, comparative openness terrain-wise to England and prevalent disunity and internecine strife was always going to make it a too-tempting target for English absorption, and one way or another it would have happened. Change the disunity, say with Rhodri Mawr or Hywel Dda establishing a lasting dynasty ruling a unitary or near-unitary realm, and they get a much better chance, though I would still expect some very tough times for Wales.
 
Top