Scottish Northumbria?

As Moderated Games (and of course actual history:D) seem to show, an independent Scotland is generally eventually defeated by the English simply due to having more resources and being able to, and generally having, a larger population. I have decided that if the Scots had Northumbria from an early time, such as pre-1000, they would be much better off and possibly able to retain their independence. Of course, to have Northumbria worth anything, they would have to fully "Scoticize" it. However, taking OTL as an example, the English seemed easily able to do that pretty quickly in the Scottish Lowlands.

My question to you is how could Scotland acquire Northumbria pre-1000? How successfully would they be able to integrate it into the rest of Scotland, and in your opinion, would that allow them to be more equal opponents for the English?
 

Dirk

Banned
Honestly the Scots were very weak and fragmented IOTL before the Davidian Revolution. Their new feudal organization and partial subjugation of the clans was adopted from the Anglo-Normans that ruled England. Before David's reign, Scotland was cut up into various Mormaerdoms, clan lands, and petty kingdoms beholden loosely to the King of Scotland. Pre-Norman and pre-Cnut Northumbria, if it did decide to swear fealty to Scotland (which is unlikely anyway, as it had no reason to), would probably be as strong, if not stronger, than the Scottish king.

Any pre-1066 POD with such a large change in Northumbria would, of course, cause enough butterflies to prevent the Norman Invasion, which prevents the Davidian Revolution, which prevents a strong Scotland.

Can Scotland take Northumbria after the Davidian Revolution? Sure, just have the English Anarchy be much more lengthy and devastating. David invaded Northumbria while the two competing monarchs of England were distracted IOTL. Manufacture a POD of longer and more devastating war (ending with no mighty Angevin Empire), and Northumbria can possibly be his.
 
Pre-1000 seems hard : Scotland was in the way to formation and pretty much busy deling with inner troubles and unifing neighbours. (EDIT : What Dirk said above)

The best way to have a Scottish Northumbria would be under David I's reign : A scottish victory at the Battle of the Standard could have allowed David to keep Bamburgh and Newcastle as Stepehn wasn't really able to intervene definitvely in Northern England (OTL, even after the english victory, he wasn't able to exploit it).

Of course, a strong English king may be able to revert these conquest, but if Henry of Scotland doesn't dies and with less inner troubles in Scotland, the kingdom may actually be able to hold it.
 
Henry of Scotland survives, as does his cousin Eustace of Boulogne.
Henry of Anjou is then busy fighting Eustace for the English crown and Louis in France; Henry of Scotland is perfectly poised to secure his hold over the northern marches.
 
How far South are the Scots going to control?

"Northumbria" and "Northumberland" are rather different entities. If Scotland take the first, then the whole outlook of Scotland likely changes a lot. If the border runs from the Humber to the Mersey, then Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumberland, Westmorland and Durham are all included. This moves the centre of balance in population and economics South of its OTL location. If this border is held for 100-200 years, then I'd be interested to see how Scottish Northumbria is, and how Northumbrian Scotland (at least South of the Firth) has become.

However, if we're talking about Northumberland, or possibly that and Durham at most, then the resulting entity is way more Scottish. With a border on the Tyne or Tees, then Edinburgh is well out of harms way should any English king consolidate his realm enough to try and attack. This border wouldn't strengthen the Scots as much as the first proposal, nor would it weaken the English to the same degree. However, it would be more recognisably Scotland. Also, if David's gains stick due to a worse anarchy, Northumberland could end up as the traditional Palatine holding of the Crown Prince of Scotland, much like Wales did for the English a century later...
 
As others have said the borders are perhaps feasible after the Davidian Revolution but culturally it isn't possible for the Gaelic culture to dominate. English couldn't just vanish after a few centuries like the Welsh of Strathclyde once it was conquered. You could stop Lothian being conquered by Scotland so there are no English within Scottish borders in the first place or they could conquer it but English culture won't fade like Welsh as they are still right next to fellow English and when it comes to trade English is more useful than Gaelic.

Which brings me to another point, you can't have the Davidian Revolution and retain the Celtic/Gaelic Scottish culture. You'd need to get rid of burgh's that came with the Davidian Revolution but i can't think of anyway without cancelling out the Davidian Revolution in the first place.

The Celtic culture will vanish like OTL the main change being that the northern English, despite their culture taking over the Scottish/Gaelic culture, will call themselves Scots and say they speak Scots. When it comes to capitals once the Dunkelds go (assuming they do) and one of the Anglo-Norman family takes over the capital of Scotland may be quite far south.

Moving the border south could be interesting depending on where it is. Would the border be about Middlesborough or could Scotland go down as far as the Humber?
 
As mentioned before if the border was the Humber/Mersey it would end up being Northumbria taking over Scotland. If the border is the Tees still Anglo-Norse centric. If the border is the Tyne, Scotland might actually still be recognisable with Newcastle( or Tynemouth depending on when the take over occurred) taking the place of Berwick!
 
As mentioned before if the border was the Humber/Mersey it would end up being Northumbria taking over Scotland. If the border is the Tees still Anglo-Norse centric. If the border is the Tyne, Scotland might actually still be recognisable with Newcastle( or Tynemouth depending on when the take over occurred) taking the place of Berwick!

Depends on what recognizable means. Scotland (as a political entity and focusing on the Lowlands) could be divided into three cultural phases the Gaelic/Celtic phase which fades to the Highlands with the Davidian Revolution. After that the Northumbrian English that has spread through the Lowlands and the east coast during the medieval period transitions into Scots with the old Gaelic referred to as Erse meaning Irish. Taking more of Nothumbria than OTL may just speed up the development of the Scots culture and might introduce a few more Norse words to the language.

Modern Scotland began in the 17th century when Scots became used less and less/mixed with English more. The Celtic mix that makes modern Scotland is more of a 19th century thing. This recognizable culture of course isn't possible in this scenario.

I think the only way this scenario can go is the OTL Anglo-Saxon route just with more power with the new territories and the kingdom being even more centred in the south. All the Northumbrians need to do is starting calling themselves Scots, not too hard considering the king of Scotland's title is properly the King of Scots, would be a bit strange if most of his subjects called themselves English/Northumbrian.
Its a bit like France taking over England only for the English to start calling themselves French and then the "English" culture spreading throughout France only its called French and the actually French culture is called Romance for example and is classed as foreign (like the Scots calling the Celtic Scottish Irish).

I hope that wasn't a ramble.
 
Top