WI:Danish victory at the battle of Edington?
- Thread starter Eivind
- Start date
Don't have that much knowledge of the time, but this is the battle after most of Wessex was overrun, and Alfred had to hide in the swamps of western Wessex correct?
I think the problem is that Guthrum seems to have had support of other "kings", which probably would have wanted land, I simply don't know if his position would be strong enough to claim to be king of it. Or he will need to pay of his supporters with large grants of land. Another possibility would be a puppet king, say Alfred's nephew, the son of the previous king, that would be an excellent choice.
Guthrum though would most certainly gain a significant amount of power, by finally defeating Alfred, how much, and in what form, is harder to determine.
I think the problem is that Guthrum seems to have had support of other "kings", which probably would have wanted land, I simply don't know if his position would be strong enough to claim to be king of it. Or he will need to pay of his supporters with large grants of land. Another possibility would be a puppet king, say Alfred's nephew, the son of the previous king, that would be an excellent choice.
Guthrum though would most certainly gain a significant amount of power, by finally defeating Alfred, how much, and in what form, is harder to determine.
The text below is taken from The Oxford history of Britain, revised edition, pages 93-94. One scenario here could be that the Danes makes a more united push against Wessex. That is, the POD would be that their army never splits in two. The decisive battle would then not necessarily be at the same place. Even if the Danes managed to take all Wessex, it would not necesarily imply a united kingdom, at least not at once. Maybe a conquering king from Denmark or Norway would attempt to conquer Britain, or parts of it, at a later stage?
OK, here is the text I mentioned:
Alfred the Great(871-99) is known to everyone as the king who saved England against seemingly hopeless odds. This is not quite how contemporaries would have seen it. In political terms at least, "England" still did not mean very much. The first writer known to use Angelcynn (literally "[the land of] the English folk) was Alfred himself, and Engaland does not appear for another century. It was not a foregone conclusion that the other kingdoms would accept West Saxon lordship, or even prefer it to the Danes. They might well have chosen kings of their own, and there was always a danger that English rivals, exiles, or disaffected groups would enlist Viking support. The destruction of the other dynasties did not automatically make Alfred king of all the English; he and his heirs achieved this through a mixture of military success, tactful diplomacy, and good luck. The reign started badly, and after a year of minor defeats Alfred had to buy the Danes off. They left Wessex alone for five years, during which they invaded Mercia, expelled King Burgred, and replaced him with their own nominee: a third ancient kingdom had gone for good. The Great Army now split into two halves. One, led by Halfdan, turned north and began dividing up Yorkshire for permanent settlement. The other, led by Guthrum, Oscytel, and Anund, turned south, and in 875-6 launched another attack on Wessex. At first their success was limited; in 877 they withdrew again to partition out Mercia, and another group split off to colonize Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Leicestershire. Thus it was a much-reduced force which attacked Wessex for the third time in 878. However, a surprise attack on Chippenham gave them the upper hand; much of Wiltshire and Hampshire submitted, and Alfred was driven back to a refuge at Athelney in the Somerset marshes. The position seemed hopeless, bud Alfred bided his time in his fortress and gathered troops. Early in May, says the near-contemporary writer of the Chronicle, 'he rode to Ecgbrihtesstan [Egbert's Stone[ . . . and came to meet him there all the men of Somerset and Wiltshire and part of Hampshire . . . and they rejoiced to see him. And one day larer he went from those camps to Iley Oak, and one day later to Edington; and there he fought against the entire host, and put it to flight". The victory was sudden but decisive. The Danish leader Guthrum accepted baptism with several of his captains, and the two kings settled peace terms
OK, here is the text I mentioned:
Alfred the Great(871-99) is known to everyone as the king who saved England against seemingly hopeless odds. This is not quite how contemporaries would have seen it. In political terms at least, "England" still did not mean very much. The first writer known to use Angelcynn (literally "[the land of] the English folk) was Alfred himself, and Engaland does not appear for another century. It was not a foregone conclusion that the other kingdoms would accept West Saxon lordship, or even prefer it to the Danes. They might well have chosen kings of their own, and there was always a danger that English rivals, exiles, or disaffected groups would enlist Viking support. The destruction of the other dynasties did not automatically make Alfred king of all the English; he and his heirs achieved this through a mixture of military success, tactful diplomacy, and good luck. The reign started badly, and after a year of minor defeats Alfred had to buy the Danes off. They left Wessex alone for five years, during which they invaded Mercia, expelled King Burgred, and replaced him with their own nominee: a third ancient kingdom had gone for good. The Great Army now split into two halves. One, led by Halfdan, turned north and began dividing up Yorkshire for permanent settlement. The other, led by Guthrum, Oscytel, and Anund, turned south, and in 875-6 launched another attack on Wessex. At first their success was limited; in 877 they withdrew again to partition out Mercia, and another group split off to colonize Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Leicestershire. Thus it was a much-reduced force which attacked Wessex for the third time in 878. However, a surprise attack on Chippenham gave them the upper hand; much of Wiltshire and Hampshire submitted, and Alfred was driven back to a refuge at Athelney in the Somerset marshes. The position seemed hopeless, bud Alfred bided his time in his fortress and gathered troops. Early in May, says the near-contemporary writer of the Chronicle, 'he rode to Ecgbrihtesstan [Egbert's Stone[ . . . and came to meet him there all the men of Somerset and Wiltshire and part of Hampshire . . . and they rejoiced to see him. And one day larer he went from those camps to Iley Oak, and one day later to Edington; and there he fought against the entire host, and put it to flight". The victory was sudden but decisive. The Danish leader Guthrum accepted baptism with several of his captains, and the two kings settled peace terms
OTL four Danish kings ruled England in the 1000s and one Norwegian king made an attempt at conquering it. I would assume that in a scenario where Vikings remain in control of most of the British Isles, and where Scandinavia develops kingdoms roughly in the same way as in OTL, one could also see attempts by Scandinavian kings at conquering Britain, or at least parts of it. As the text implies, the concept of "England" was not fully developed, as "England" as such did not exist before its "unification". In this ATL Britain might end up being divided in a different way, and if Vikings became dominant, it seems unlikely that they would call any of the kingdoms England.