Wales against the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms

How would a united Wales compare against the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on the eve of the Great Heathen Army's landing in Britain? For example, if an ambitious King wanted to conquer Mercia, could he do it? Could a united Kingdom of Wales engage in some kind of Reconquista of England? If an Anglo-Saxon army tried to invade Wales, could they stand against them? Had the Vikings turned west, could Wales withstand them?
 
How would a united Wales compare against the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on the eve of the Great Heathen Army's landing in Britain? For example, if an ambitious King wanted to conquer Mercia, could he do it? Could a united Kingdom of Wales engage in some kind of Reconquista of England? If an Anglo-Saxon army tried to invade Wales, could they stand against them? Had the Vikings turned west, could Wales withstand them?

I think it was the Justinian Plague that changed the tide. I heard that the death toll of the plague was higher in the Welsh areas. This would explain why the genetics of English are mostly Anglo Saxon.

Anyway, you need to consider that even in the Welsh areas, any roman institution disappeared fast during the V century. Welsh were as tribal as the Saxons.

Also, consider that the Saxons occupied the British lowlands, which were more fertile. This probably gave them some manpower advantage.

Sure a united Welsh kingdom could manage to conquer and assimilate the invaders, but you need a V century POD. Like, a real life Arthur.

Or, make the Welsh civilization more complex, but that would require a deeper romanization and you would end up with a frankish-like England.
 
Or, make the Welsh civilization more complex, but that would require a deeper romanization and you would end up with a frankish-like England.

Wouldn't a deeper romanisation would mostly touch South-East England (more or less as IOTL), which was quickly overrun by Anglo-Saxons?
It could end with a Romano-Barbarian kingdom or kingdoms, certainly, but maybe not Britton.
 
Or, make the Welsh civilization more complex, but that would require a deeper romanization and you would end up with a frankish-like England.

Not to be too pedantic, but I think this is the biggest issue in your post, in assuming that the Welsh were less "complex" or "advanced" than the Saxons and the only way for them to be moreso would be to make them less Welsh and more Romanized. Seems a bit ethnocentric.

To answer the OP's question, not particularly good. In a straight "Us vs. Them" one on one match, the Welsh can't do much even assuming they're united (and making them so in time for the GHA causes its own storm of butterflies). Over the centuries? Sure, if they get more victories than defeats and the other Saxon kingdoms stay more divided and focused on internal affairs, I think they could certainly conquer Mercia with time.

The caveat though, is that Welsh society in order to take and reliably hold those territories will be going through some not insignificant changes. Some could be borrowed from others, but some might be local, organic developments as well. But that kind of reform opens weaknesses, so I would say that Wales' conquest would not be a steady-on march, but something with a lot of starts and stops over many, many years and plenty of reversals and temporary gains.
 
Not to be too pedantic, but I think this is the biggest issue in your post, in assuming that the Welsh were less "complex" or "advanced" than the Saxons and the only way for them to be moreso would be to make them less Welsh and more Romanized. Seems a bit ethnocentric.

To answer the OP's question, not particularly good. In a straight "Us vs. Them" one on one match, the Welsh can't do much even assuming they're united (and making them so in time for the GHA causes its own storm of butterflies). Over the centuries? Sure, if they get more victories than defeats and the other Saxon kingdoms stay more divided and focused on internal affairs, I think they could certainly conquer Mercia with time.

The caveat though, is that Welsh society in order to take and reliably hold those territories will be going through some not insignificant changes. Some could be borrowed from others, but some might be local, organic developments as well. But that kind of reform opens weaknesses, so I would say that Wales' conquest would not be a steady-on march, but something with a lot of starts and stops over many, many years and plenty of reversals and temporary gains.

Welsh societies in the V century weren't more complex and organized than the Saxon ones. Both were tribal, and both rejected the Roman institutions after 410.

That's why i think that to make Welsh society more complex, the easiest POD is to have a deeper romanization. If this is ethnocentric for you, then we need an even earlier POD, with some kind of Briton civilization rise earlier than even the Gauls in France, and this is pretty difficult to achieve. Maybe some greek colonies in Britain like Marseille in France?

Anyway, you'd have more butterflies with the second POD.

Also, the Welsh in the V century were almost equal in military strenght than the Saxons. It's in the second half of the century that everything went worse for them.

As i already said, it probably was the Justinian Plague to wipe out the Welsh, maybe because they had different settlement patterns than the Saxons.
 
Not to be too pedantic, but I think this is the biggest issue in your post, in assuming that the Welsh were less "complex" or "advanced" than the Saxons and the only way for them to be moreso would be to make them less Welsh and more Romanized. Seems a bit ethnocentric.

He was saying they were just as tribal and primitive as the Saxons, and that for them to have an advantage they would have to be superior to the Saxons, not equal to them. He then suggested Romanization as an easy way to introduce a more advanced society. Really, if that's too ethnocentric for you already, you're too easily offended.
 
The issue is essentially the breakdown in military command.
However the best you can do is limit settlement to the south and east - control of the Thames Valley allowed the Saxons and Angles to outflank and then outgrow the various British Kingdoms, so you will need to have RB control of London until at least the 700s
 
Both were tribal, and both rejected the Roman institutions after 410.
I think I disagree there : both didn't rejected Roman institutions, but kept what they already had from them. The maintain of tribal identity in Roman Britain doesn't mean Britons rejected Romanisation, but that the creolisation in the province didn't affected social structures.
For instance, see Christianisation (which was a marker of Late Imperial romanisation) that wasn't rejected by Brittons.

The big separation would be, for me, between urban Britto-Romans that may have looked a lot more like Gallo-Romans, and rural Britto-Romans that had really different references while still romanized (by this, understand creolisation of roman imperial and late celtic cultures).
Another rupture could be the South, more similar to the continental situation, and the North and West, that had a different and more distant roman influence.

With some kind of Briton civilization rise earlier than even the Gauls in France, and this is pretty difficult to achieve. Maybe some greek colonies in Britain like Marseille in France?
Well, tried to propose something akin there, but as you said, it would certianly have huge butterflies.

You had a Britton civilisation blossoming in pre-Roman Britain, which is called the culture of hillforts in English I think?

The easy way would be to have a more tied up Southern Britain/Northern Gaul relationship (An actual Halstatt period in Britain? Maybe trough partial move of population as in IIIrd century?) and earlier Roman presence (as in trade, not conquest itself) in Atlantic Europe.

If not an earlier contact with Rome (and that's going to be hard) is possible.

Maybe a slower conquest of Gaul, scaling on more years than just a decade. It would increase both ressources (from roman presence, influence, trade, clientelism) for Celto-Britton states, and need for more strong political ties.
Defeat before Cimbrii? Caesar's head serving as decoration in an Arverni temple? Everything that would delay a bit would be appreciated, but coupling it with an earlier interventionist in the west in the same time would be as well quite interesting (Carthage being crushed in the 1st or 2nd war?)
Your guess is as good as mine there.

As i already said, it probably was the Justinian Plague to wipe out the Welsh, maybe because they had different settlement patterns than the Saxons.
I'd be more careful about wholly separating Germans and Britto-Romans : it's likely that the line of Wessex comes from a mix between Brittons and Saxons as the name of their first kings hints.
Don't forget, furthermore, that there was a German presence in the South of Britain since the IIIrd century, what happened in Britain was clearly not a struggle between two "totally-non-touched-by-Romanity" peoples
 
I think it was the Justinian Plague that changed the tide. I heard that the death toll of the plague was higher in the Welsh areas. This would explain why the genetics of English are mostly Anglo Saxon.

Hmm, I thought genetic studies actually demonstrated the opposite - that the English people are genetically largely of Celtic origin, and that the Anglo-Saxon takeover was more cultural than anything.
 
Top