what would a modern Saxon britain be like

MAlexMatt

Banned
I would imagine an Anglo-Saxon England more resembling northern Germany than Scandinavia. It's splitting hairs, for sure, but the conditions are more similar between Anglo-Saxonia and the former than the latter.
 
Anglo-Saxon England was, by this point, a polity no less united than most of its contemporaries - which isn't saying much, but all this stuff about it breaking into different parts seems to me to be projecting Anglo-Saxon history from centuries earlier onto a post-Norse polity which, while its language and material culture and so on varied plenty, was still sufficiently centralised and organised that Cnut was able to turn up and take it over in a way that would have been quite impossible for the Great Heathen Army, and then leave it for years at a time.

Like Elfwine says: no country at this period of history was beyond breaking down, but England has no special reason.

For that matter, Northumbrians would be more connected by trade and blood with Scandinavia and Scotland,

Scotland? How do you work that out? Sure, Saxons and Gaels made plenty of political marriages; but Saint Peggy, to take the obvious example, was actually descended from the Wessex line and not Northumbrian at all.

Speaking of Scotland: although obviously we had the example, and the threat, of England spurring us on, our history goes to show that it's perfectly possible to institute *feudalism from the top down inside a country.
 
Last edited:
Would there have been similar effects on England if Harald had conquered them (massive loss of life and replacing a good chunk of the nobility) or would the changes to England be similar to Harold keeping his throne?
 
Other than a prolonged period of stable unity that hasn't rubbed anyone the wrong way.

There's nothing holding England together under the post-Saxon dynasties either except a combination of that and royal fiat, mostly the former (as royal fiat requires royal administration).

I don't want to say you couldn't have a split up - a weak king and strong earls would be a problem - but its not a matter of Mercians and Wessexers longing for the good old days of being their own states.

Nor am I saying that such a thing is inevitable, only possible. What other western European polity went through that period without even a threat of Balkanisation?

My point is that Harold doesn't need to commission an exhaustive survey to know this when he (as Earl of Wessex prior to being king of England) is familiar with conditions locally, and William who doesn't know England at all probably doesn't even know whether the locals call York Jorvik or not.

I'm not saying he intimately knows everything, but an Anglo-Saxon equivalent to the Doomsday book, if one was made, would probably be a slimmer volume.

I think we're just talking about completely different things now.

Scotland? How do you work that out? Sure, Saxons and Gaels made plenty of political marriages; but Saint Peggy, to take the obvious example, was actually descended from the Wessex line and not Northumbrian at all.

Speaking of Scotland: although obviously we had the example, and the threat, of England spurring us on, our history goes to show that it's perfectly possible to institute *feudalism from the top down inside a country.

I was thinking of the Lothians and whatever would be the borders area ITTL.

Didn't David invite Anglo-Normans to become lords in Scotland? Would you see an ambitious English king doing likewise?

Would there have been similar effects on England if Harald had conquered them (massive loss of life and replacing a good chunk of the nobility) or would the changes to England be similar to Harold keeping his throne?

Maybe a purge among the pro-Norman nobility, but I don't see much beyond that.
 
Nor am I saying that such a thing is inevitable, only possible. What other western European polity went through that period without even a threat of Balkanisation?

What polity has ever gone through history without a chance of it? But saying that its a thing Anglo-Saxon England will have to deal with implies that you believe it would be more likely than OTL.

I think we're just talking about completely different things now.

Possibly.
 
I was thinking of the Lothians and whatever would be the borders area ITTL.

The southeast had been gradually conquered before 1066, but the border was as yet far from fixed (William himself campaigned as far as the Forth, IIRC), and so it was considered to be 'England under the rule of the Scots' and somewhat distinct from Alba proper. Point is, there's no tie to the court of Alba - they were more interested in ties to Wessex, 'cos Wessex counted - no closeness to the Gaelic culture, and really no equivelent to 'Anglo-Danish'.

Didn't David invite Anglo-Normans to become lords in Scotland? Would you see an ambitious English king doing likewise?

Hmm. For us it was partly that we invited them before they turned up anyway, given what happened to the other bits of the islands outside England. And the Scottish feudal aristocracy was not entirely imported and did include Scots. So I don't think there would have been a Norman influx the size of ours (proportionately, I mean) if England has decided to have castles and cavalry at about that time. Certainly nothing like the total abolition of the Saxon landowners you got IOTL.
 
The southeast had been gradually conquered before 1066, but the border was as yet far from fixed (William himself campaigned as far as the Forth, IIRC), and so it was considered to be 'England under the rule of the Scots' and somewhat distinct from Alba proper. Point is, there's no tie to the court of Alba - they were more interested in ties to Wessex, 'cos Wessex counted - no closeness to the Gaelic culture, and really no equivelent to the 'Anglo-Danish society'.

What did fix it? As in, what was the basis on which it was accepted that this part of Angle-land belonged to that side of the border?
 
What did fix it? As in, what was the basis on which it was accepted that this part of Angle-land belonged to that side of the border?

The Davidian revolution largely did away with the administrative distinction (since it was no longer 'Gaels rule Saxons and Britons' but 'Frenchified and Latinised feudal classes rule everyone') and the border was settled with England at York in 1237, Berwick-on-Tweed and the Debatable Land notwithstanding.
 
The Davidian revolution largely did away with the administrative distinction (since it was no longer 'Gaels rule Saxons and Britons' but 'Frenchified and Latinised feudal classes rule everyone') and the border was settled with England at York in 1237, Berwick-on-Tweed and the Debatable Land notwithstanding.

So presumably a matter of England's kings not feeling it was worth pushing it further and Scotland's kings in no position to push their side further, to possibly oversimplify for discussion's sake?
 
What polity has ever gone through history without a chance of it? But saying that its a thing Anglo-Saxon England will have to deal with implies that you believe it would be more likely than OTL.

Saxon England would probably develop, very generally, along Franco-German lines, with a native nobility not having to rely upon a king to secure their rights over native peasantry and burghers.

The southeast had been gradually conquered before 1066, but the border was as yet far from fixed (William himself campaigned as far as the Forth, IIRC), and so it was considered to be 'England under the rule of the Scots' and somewhat distinct from Alba proper. Point is, there's no tie to the court of Alba - they were more interested in ties to Wessex, 'cos Wessex counted - no closeness to the Gaelic culture, and really no equivelent to 'Anglo-Danish'.

Ah, no, I wasn't thinking so much among the royalty and nobility as among the people. My bad.

Hmm. For us it was partly that we invited them before they turned up anyway, given what happened to the other bits of the islands outside England. And the Scottish feudal aristocracy was not entirely imported and did include Scots. So I don't think there would have been a Norman influx the size of ours (proportionately, I mean) if England has decided to have castles and cavalry at about that time. Certainly nothing like the total abolition of the Saxon landowners you got IOTL.

So if an English king wanted to feudalise he'd probably put out invitations more generally? Italians, Spaniards, Germans, as well as French?
 
So presumably a matter of England's kings not feeling it was worth pushing it further and Scotland's kings in no position to push their side further, to possibly oversimplify for discussion's sake?

Interestingly enough, it was actually us abandoning claims to the far north of modern England in the main. But yeah, nothing in Lothian is particularly worth having if you're looking at it from London.
 
Saxon England would probably develop, very generally, along Franco-German lines, with a native nobility not having to rely upon a king to secure their rights over native peasantry and burghers.

Conversely, the king might back the native peasantry and burghers against the earls. In the short term over a different sort of relations in the social order (what's the Franco-Germanic equivalent of a thane?), in the long term possibly in the interests of securing royal power.

Interestingly enough, it was actually us abandoning claims to the far north of modern England in the main. But yeah, nothing in Lothian is particularly worth having if you're looking at it from London.

Makes sense.

By the way, for those of us not fluent in Scots(?), what does your sig say/mean?
 
Conversely, the king might back the native peasantry and burghers against the earls. In the short term over a different sort of relations in the social order (what's the Franco-Germanic equivalent of a thane?), in the long term possibly in the interests of securing royal power.

Ah, now I think I'm able to say what I'm trying to get out. Norman nobles in England almost had to support the Norman king, because he was their font of power (or whatever). Saxon nobles wouldn't have that liability.

I have no idea...

Makes sense.

By the way, for those of us not fluent in Scots(?), what does your sig say/mean?

If it does you no harm, it'll do you no good.

EDIT: Reverse that.
 
Last edited:
Ah, no, I wasn't thinking so much among the royalty and nobility as among the people. My bad.

Well, people on either side of the border did share the same culture, material and written, and they were happy enough to bring in some rough lads from the other side when those bastard Armstrongs had too many sheep for their own good. :D But the Tweed valley and the other parts of the Marches are a quite limited area and don't include Lothian, which is cut off from them by some pretty rugged hills. There's no reason for people in Lothian to feel any fellow-feeling with Yorkshiremen. And the existence of the Marches never threatened England or Scotland as kingdoms: the Bordermen were too busy threatening each-other.

And in contrast to Norsemen, no Scotsmen - at this point and for centuries after, a 'Scotsman' was properly a Gael - actually lived in the north of England.

So if an English king wanted to feudalise he'd probably put out invitations more generally? Italians, Spaniards, Germans, as well as French?

When I say 'feudalise', I mean some big reform of military-social structure. As someone has mentioned to, one might say of King Alfred that England had undergone something quite similar a couple of hundred years before. It could happen from within. After all, somebody had to invent feudalism to begin with.

Scotland was deliberately copying a successful system - partly as an alternative to having the said system come and impose itself. But English *feudalism - which need not look terribly look the OTL version - need not necessarily be imported at all.

By the way, for those of us not fluent in Scots(?), what does your sig say/mean?

Yer man ES cawed it. ;)
 
Ah, now I think I'm able to say what I'm trying to get out. Norman nobles in England almost had to support the Norman king, because he was their font of power (or whatever). Saxon nobles wouldn't have that liability.

I have no idea...

Well, they had military force on their own, so it could be interesting.

If it does you no harm, it'll do you no good.

Thanks.

Interesting saying.
 
But the Tweed valley and the other parts of the Marches are a quite limited area and don't include Lothian, which is cut off from them by some pretty rugged hills. There's no reason for people in Lothian to feel any fellow-feeling with Yorkshiremen. And the existence of the Marches never threatened England or Scotland as kingdoms: the Bordermen were too busy threatening each-other.

I'd never realised that bit of geography, ah.

And in contrast to Norsemen, no Scotsmen - at this point and for centuries after, a 'Scotsman' was properly a Gael - actually lived in the north of England.

When did Saxons become respectable Lowlands Scots and Gaels become Erse barbarians?

When I say 'feudalise', I mean some big reform of military-social structure. As someone has mentioned to, one might say of King Alfred that England had undergone something quite similar a couple of hundred years before. It could happen from within. After all, somebody had to invent feudalism to begin with.

Scotland was deliberately copying a successful system - partly as an alternative to having the said system come and impose itself. But English *feudalism - which need not look terribly look the OTL version - need not necessarily be imported at all.

Oh, of course, I was just making a fun suggestion.

Well, they had military force on their own, so it could be interesting.

Indeed, indeed.
 
I'd never realised that bit of geography, ah.

Yeah, you can't help but be aware of it when in the Scouts you had to climb it. ;) You can see it here. The thing about Scotland is that little of the Lowlands is actually all that low, by the standards of an Englishman never mind a Dutchman.

When did Saxons become respectable Lowlands Scots and Gaels become Erse barbarians?

A bit at a time. Saxon subjects of Scotland ceased to be called English after the Wars of Independence or so (well, except by the Gaelic Scots, of course :D). In the 1300s the two languages were roughly equal in prestige: when Dunbar and Kennedy were flyting for the king's amusement, they both slagged off one-another's native languages - in English, so you know it was pretty good-natured. The Lowlands and Highlands were also invented about this time, although the southwest still spoke its own particular form of Gaelic for some time after.

James IV, I think, was the last king who could speak Gaelic. The Reformation was quite a big deal as well, since the Highlanders were at least supposed to be a bunch of Papists.

But James VI's fierce anti-Gaelicism wasn't necessarily representative. It's rather anecdotal, I know, but I recall that a Highlander used the Highland and Lowland ways of crossing a swelled river as a metaphor for Scotland's situation in the Bishop's Wars, and thought nothing of suggesting that the Highland way was superior; and there were kilted Gaels in that emblematically Lowland force, the Covenanting army. Of course that's before Montrose and he hardly made the clansmen popular down here. The period 1650-1750 or so was probably the worst for Lowland fear and disdain of Gaels. After that we started to romanticise them, although as far as they were considered, and for good reason, the Great Malice was just getting into full gear.

And it's worth remembering that the material culture was basically the same until the middle of the 18th century or so, and the economy was fairly joined up. Highlanders went to Edinburgh throughout the period I mention to do a lot of the miscellaneous unskilled work (all the chairmen were apparently Gaels) and had a good reputation, and the herring-fleets had lots of Highlanders aboard and they got as far as Great Yarmouth. Highlanders wore trousers, and Lowlanders wore tartan, because that was what the man was selling. As usual, the hatred and hostility of abstracts was very real and serious, but sometimes contradicted what went on in real life

Oh, of course, I was just making a fun suggestion.

Could happen, though. After all, what had been the Saxon landowning class had some sadly-forgotten exploits after being dispossessed.
 
Last edited:
Top