One of the major battles of British history in the period after Edington (878) is Brunanburh, pitched in a now generally undefined location. The battle was fought by the Anglo-Saxons, led by Athelstan I, on one side, and a coalition between the states of Strathclyde, Alba (Scotland), and Norse York on the other. Athelstan managed to beat back the coalition and estabilish supremacy for his kingdom over the majority of England.
But what if Athelstan had been instead defeated in battle that day?
What would this mean for England, Northumbria, and Scotland? Any other potential butterflies?
 
I'm trying to recall of the top of my head whether Athelstan has already set up his centralisation and economic policies that created England as a single and relatively prosperous kingdom.
If he hasn't there's a possibility of an independent Mercia and maybe East Anglia arising.
If he has then it depends how strong the northern alliance is as to whether York/Northumbria remains independent long enough to be considered as separate.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Well, it is far, far back.
It is IS possible that later events could produce OTL results.
In OTL after his death - TWO years later - York pulled off "The North Will Rise Again!" trick so his victory was NOT that decisive.
So, maybe yes, maybe not is the answer to Q. - "does a different outcome at B. produces a different Britain?".
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
I suppose I better comment on this :)

Truthful Panda points out that York was independent and under Olaf's control again 2 years later, so it would seem at first glance the victory didn't have much effect. However, the fact that Athelstan didn't gain much by winning doesn't mean he, or Wessexian England, wouldn't have lost much by losing. An annihilation of the "English" would have put their control over Mercia at risk, and locked them out of the North for a generation (the length of time it takes for another army to grow up). Strathclyde would consolidate and extend its power in Lancashire (there seems to be evidence of Cumbrian power in this area OTL at some points), York would go Danish and all sorts of nutters wouldn't even need boats to go raiding in Mercia, though if they had them, the Trent is a lovely looking river half a day from York...
 
I'd presume that Edmund becomes King a few years earlier. He certainly had no competitors for the throne OTL (however he was also at Brunaburh so may have also been killed ITTL). He seems to have been a capable enough King so at least would hold onto Wessex and quite possibly a lot of Mercia. This is one of those events that would certainly have caused a lot of short term butterflies and knock-ons but might well have not really changed things long term (I am very willing to be wrong:)).
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
I'd presume that Edmund becomes King a few years earlier.
A whole whooping two years.
He ascends at the Kingship 16 and not 18, BTW.
Does that a difference make? Probably not ...

Truthful Panda points out that York was independent and under Olaf's control again 2 years later, so it would seem at first glance the victory didn't have much effect. However, the fact that Athelstan didn't gain much by winning doesn't mean he, or Wessexian England, wouldn't have lost much by losing.
True.
But things are fluid - the reverse outcome at Brunanburh may produce any range of results from "no change on OTL" through "Yorvik forreverr!" to a conquest of Wessex by Evil!Vikings, while the Red Dragon of the Evil!Welsh flies over Birmimgham - not to mention the jackboot of the Evil!Strathclyders over the necks of the freedom loving dwellers of Lancastershire ..
:D
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I'd presume that Edmund becomes King a few years earlier. He certainly had no competitors for the throne OTL (however he was also at Brunaburh so may have also been killed ITTL).

But things are fluid - the reverse outcome at Brunanburh may produce any range of results from "no change on OTL" through "Yorvik forreverr!" to a conquest of Wessex by Evil!Vikings, while the Red Dragon of the Evil!Welsh flies over Birmimgham - not to mention the jackboot of the Evil!Strathclyders over the necks of the freedom loving dwellers of Lancastershire ..
:D

Edmund getting killed would certainly make things more interesting, by increasing the chance of dramatic changes to the TL.
 
I do kind of agree that there were a fair few chain of events that could produce TLs close enough to OTL that one could suspect some sort of temporal inertia. :biggrin:

A surviving York/Northumbria is certainly interesting though I suggest it would need to include Strathclyde/Cumbria to be viable long-term. It also lends itself to unifying with the Scottish lowlands which would have interesting repercussions such as a Kingdom of the Isles & Moravia.
 
Had a browse through the old wiki and i had a thought that could make the battle even more intresting: Hywel Dda deciding to show up and bugger the english in the rear while the others held the line.

If Aethelstan and Edmund are killed, that leaves Eadred as the last surviving son of Edward the elder, and last direct male heir of Alfred the Great. At the ripe age of 16.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
I would say that this change probably creates a Yorvik controlling as far south as Leicester and Peterborough, maybe even Northampton. With a rout of the Wessex/Mercian army, there is simply nobody to protect these border territories from constant raiding, and these areas were Danelaw, meaning they had changed hands several times and had a partially Danish population. They will submit to the only force capable of protecting them, Jorvik.
 
Top