WI Anglo-Saxon England survived?

What would have happened to the history of Britain had the Anglo-Saxons survived as the rulers of England? Let us say that the Battle of Hastings is an Anglo-Saxon victory and William of Normandy is forced out of England. How would things possibly develop?

I would imagine that England would be much more Germanic than OTL, with old Anglo-Saxon English developing into something more like High German or Frisian. They could also be seen as a Scandinavian country: with strong Nordic lineage and no French power turning it around.

But what do you think is possible?
 

Susano

Banned
What would have happened to the history of Britain had the Anglo-Saxons survived as the rulers of England? Let us say that the Battle of Hastings is an Anglo-Saxon victory and William of Normandy is forced out of England. How would things possibly develop?

I would imagine that England would be much more Germanic than OTL, with old Anglo-Saxon English developing into something more like High German or Frisian. They could also be seen as a Scandinavian country: with strong Nordic lineage and no French power turning it around.

But what do you think is possible?

Well, it wouldnt be Scandinavian: Scandinavian is North Germanic, while the Anglo-Saxon (like the Germanic tribes that later became Germany - of whiom the [continental] Saxons were one, after all!) were West Germanic. And after all, Germanys not considered Scandinavian, either ;)

But yes, it a proper ( ;) ) Germanic language would most likely be spoken. Englsihs still considered a Germanic language, but due to the French influence its the most removed one. Firsians still considreed the modern language most closely to Anglo-Saxon, so, yes, that would indeed be a good compairsion value.
 
With respect to the language you are right, but culturally, there were an awful lot of Danes living in England. Prior to Hastings, England's foreign policy was probably more oriented towards Scandinavia than it was to the HRE and France. So, I think culturally, it might fall under the Scandinavian sphere of influence.


--
Bill
 
What would have happened to the history of Britain had the Anglo-Saxons survived as the rulers of England? Let us say that the Battle of Hastings is an Anglo-Saxon victory and William of Normandy is forced out of England. How would things possibly develop?

I would imagine that England would be much more Germanic than OTL, with old Anglo-Saxon English developing into something more like High German or Frisian. They could also be seen as a Scandinavian country: with strong Nordic lineage and no French power turning it around.

But what do you think is possible?

*Cough* *cough*
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=98127
 
Don't forget that England was part of the Scandinavian Empire of Cnut, and that Harold was only in place to be chosen as King because his father was raised by Cnut. Also Harald Hardradas invasion was in support of a claim to the throne stronger than Williams. England (like Ireland, Orkney and Northern Scotland) was part of the Scandinavian world.
 

Susano

Banned
Don't forget that England was part of the Scandinavian Empire of Cnut, and that Harold was only in place to be chosen as King because his father was raised by Cnut. Also Harald Hardradas invasion was in support of a claim to the throne stronger than Williams. England (like Ireland, Orkney and Northern Scotland) was part of the Scandinavian world.

Not due to its Anglo-Saxonity, though.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I could see different outcomes;

Scandinavian/Danish: Englisc turn into a North Germanic dialect or is assimilate into Danish (it almost happened).

Low German: the trade with the Hanse reestablate it as a Low German dialect. Will likely turn England into part of a greater German or North German culture.

Dutch: The most unlikely but it could happen, Dutch and Englisc slowly assimilate into one languages.

Englisc: English stay it own languages but stay mutual intelligible with Dutch, Frisian and Low German (I think this's the most likely).

Mix: Englisc is split into a seperate language, maybe a Danish dialect in the north and Englisc or Low German in the south.
 
Not due to its Anglo-Saxonity, though.
But surely over the course of 900-odd years, Anglo-Saxon would evolve to be more like Danish, especially with the northern half of the island Danish.

So it might be a "weird" part of the Scandinavian world, but it would definitely be part of the Scandinavian world.
 

Susano

Banned
But surely over the course of 900-odd years, Anglo-Saxon would evolve to be more like Danish, especially with the northern half of the island Danish.

So it might be a "weird" part of the Scandinavian world, but it would definitely be part of the Scandinavian world.

Why? England got of rid of the Danes eventually, so why it shouldnt it do so when staying Anglo-Saxon?
 
Not due to its Anglo-Saxonity, though.

True, but by 1066 (and some time before that) it wasn't a Anglo-Saxon country - it was Anglo Scandinavian. The Danes were part of the country, not an invader to be removed.

Edward pushed his countries foreign policy to focus South - but I would suggest Harold would look North as was traditional. He may, with the fall of Harald and the lack of threat from Normandy attempt to re-establish Cnuts empire of the North
 
True, but by 1066 (and some time before that) it wasn't a Anglo-Saxon country - it was Anglo Scandinavian. The Danes were part of the country, not an invader to be removed.

Edward pushed his countries foreign policy to focus South - but I would suggest Harold would look North as was traditional. He may, with the fall of Harald and the lack of threat from Normandy attempt to re-establish Cnuts empire of the North

It was Anglo Scandinavian in 1066, but ultimately 1066 has three possible paths for England.. OTL, one where Harold wins and one where Harald wins... Actually I suppose Harald winning at Stamford Bridge sets up two possible end points... Harald wins at Stamford Bridge, and then perhaps large numbers of English might side with William at Hastings which might lead to a less dramatic change in England with it being more Anglo and less Norman?

Anyway, with Harold winning both Stamford Bridge and Hastings, over time you can imagine the Anglo aspect of Anglo-Scandinavian England reasserting itself. The Danelaw will still be rather significant, but over time the Danish part of England will become more and more like the dominant Anglo-Saxons....

Of course, you might disagree... Who knows what happens. Perhaps if the Normans loose hastings, the Norse continue attempts to take England?

--
Bill
 
This has been discussed here before.

I do not see any compelling historical evidence that a victory by Harold would somehow realign England with a greater northern focus.

The Anglo-Saxon kings had a continental focus and there is no reason to assume this would change. Their family intermarried with continental royalty as far away as Kievan Rus. They had strong ties with the papacy albeit strained at the time of the Conquest. It would appear the main trading areas were on the continent with Normandy among the leaders.

There is simply no reason for any surviving Anglo-Saxon nation to shift its attention to the north instead of continuing to strengthen its ties with Europe.
 
Check out Thermapolye's excellent These Hills Sing of Saxon Kings TL. A good a place to start as any.
 
Mark,
With respect, having ties with the Continent doesn't mean that England's foreign policy was not oriented towards the North. Remember, 4 of the 6 kings prior to Harold Godwinson were in fact Danish. When Harold's brother Tostig was exiled, he turned not to the continental rivals, but rather to the Danes for aid. Finally, it was Scandinavians, not Europeans on the continent that aided the English in their attempts to rebel against William. Also the rulers of Kievan Rus were in fact the Varangians; that is Scandinavians.

No country can afford not to have contact with their neighbors, but Scandinavia was of much greater interest for the English prior to the Norman Conquest than it was 30 years afterwards.

--
Bill
 
Mark,
With respect, having ties with the Continent doesn't mean that England's foreign policy was not oriented towards the North. Remember, 4 of the 6 kings prior to Harold Godwinson were in fact Danish. When Harold's brother Tostig was exiled, he turned not to the continental rivals, but rather to the Danes for aid. Finally, it was Scandinavians, not Europeans on the continent that aided the English in their attempts to rebel against William. Also the rulers of Kievan Rus were in fact the Varangians; that is Scandinavians.

I won't dispute that while England was ruled by Danish royalty, it had a foreign policy that was oriented toward Denmark. However, having a small, invading minority temporary rule a kingdom (ie the Danes) does not immediately mean that the ruled country is going to join that invading minorities cultural grouping. I don't think that anyone would say that England was a member of the same cultural grouping as France after the reign of William I. It took decades for England's language and culture to digest some parts of continental culture into itself, and I would argue that England remains one of the most unique countries in Europe, despite the long-term rule by culturally French rulers.

"Tostig then took ship with his family and some loyal thegns and took refuge with his father-in-law, Count Baldwin IV." Baldwin IV was the Count of Flanders. Tostig then attempted to form an alliance with William, but that didn't work, so then he went to Norway. I think that this points out some important things. Namely that even though Tostig was the son of a man raised up by a Danish King and a women of Danish royal blood, he still married on the continent. It was rich, and much more important to England's economy, and thus much more of a draw to the English, especially one with no actual committments to Scandinavia.
 
Top