WI: England remains Anglo-Saxon

Thomas1195

Banned
How would a surviving Anglo-Saxon dynasty affects England and British Isle in all aspects: politics, culture, science and tech, economy, military...?

OTOH, England would avoid significant manpower and wealth losses due to the fact that the Normans exploited its wealth and devastated the North when quelling rebellions. Also, the Hundred Years' War might have been averted.

OTOH, Norman rule brought certain long-term benefits.
The biggest single change, administratively, was the redistribution of land. A bunch of Anglo-Saxon landowners were dispossessed (rather quickly it appears; some of them probably would have died at Hastings) and their land went to the families of those lords that had helped William secure the place. The fact that the King could now grant land as a reward to his loyal followers had a massive influence in his ability to raise armies, levy taxes and gain the co-operation of local lords. In Anglo-Saxon England, land belonged inalienably to individual landholders, which if you are trying to develop a powerful government is a real hindrance.

Not to say that Anglo-Saxon England wouldn't have centralised without the conquest: basically all Western European states did at one point or another. But some were much faster at centralising than others, and that certainly helped England in its competition with other European states. Medieval France and the Holy Roman Empire are both good examples of states that were plagued by a lack of central control, much to the frustration of their monarchs' ambitions. In the case of France in particular, it suffered during the Hundred Years' War because England was basically more cohesive and more unified, with a somewhat more developed sense of national, rather than regional, identity. Centralised government also helped the English to dominate their neighbours, the Welsh, Scots, and Irish. An Anglo Saxon England might even butterfly away United Kingdom.

Besides, the Norman introduced cavalry warfare and stone fortifications and structures (like cathedrals), all of which were rare in England before 1066. Not to mention that archery was rare in Anglo-Saxon England. The economy expanded as port-building (for example Boston, Lincolnshire) took effect. The army and navy were strengthened.

Finally, Norman kings also joined crusades. The crusades increased England's exposure to the cultural and economic centres of Medieval Europe, such as Italian city-states, Byzantine Empire, and Muslim world, and hence learned lots of valuable scientific and technical knowledge, as well as military tactics. While Medieval England was quite prosperous by Western European standards, it was a complete backwater compared to these regions. Meanwhile, an Anglo-Saxon England would be less involved in these affairs, and would focus more on Scandinavia, which was also a backwater compared to Southern Europe or Middle East. Later, the Hundred Years' War revolutionized warfare with the introduction of gunpowder and firearms.

So, an Anglo-Saxon England would be very likely to lag behind the rest of Europe in construction, science and technology, as well as military.
 
It's worth pointing out that before the Conquest England was one of the richest and productive countries in Europe. That's why William wanted it. After the Conquest this was not quite the case.
In the lack of a Conquest it is unlikely to lag behind economically if this continues.
England was also extremely devout having a reputation of providing missionaries, rulers were expected to be learned and not just military men.
IIRC it may also have had the highest per capita literacy
On the downside it was considered extremely litigious and had a larger number of "lawyers" than elsewhere, rivalling the modern day U.S.
 
Assuming an Anglo-Saxon victory at Hastings.

There is general assumption on this board that England would have been more focused on North Sea than Channel and Atlantic : while not totally untrue, it tends to be exagerated a lot.
Late Anglo-Saxon politics really had interest on Channel shores since the Xth and Æthelstan's reign. It was more or less eclipsed by the events in England, but the relation of the Wessex kings and pretendents with Normandy (you had Normans in England decades before William's conquest) but as well the campaign of Harold in Flanders does highlight real relations with the continent that didn't existed as such with Scandinavia.

But while French influence isn't going to leave anytime soon in Anglo-Saxon England, it would certainly be balanced ITTL by a known strong relation with continental HRE, especially its northern parts : economically and politically England knew at this point a similar process to what happened a while ago on the continent.
Desintegration of the kingdom into smaller principalties, namely, and earldomancies could be a viable base for something equivalent to appear in England (following old regions as Bernicia, East-Anglia, etc. or more contemporary divisions such as western Mercia.
I could see kings of England tempering with this process likely, but I don't think it would have been that successful on the long run.

It doesn't mean this Anglo-Saxon feudalism would be similar to the Anglo-Norman feudalism, of course.
While Frankish and German institutional influence would certainly there, it would be influencing a distinct local situation, for instance socially (which admittedly partially came from a troubled Xth and XIth centuries) with a lasting use of slavery (which did existed on non-mediterranean continental principalties, but virtually disappearing) and the noticable presence of semi-free tenents as bordarii* or sokemen.

It's arguably not clear how much Normans translated the situation into terms they were familiar with, bordarii/cotarii, and how much the situation was similar with what existed in North-Western France, tough.


The comparison with the continent could make *English feudality looking as a mix between Imperial (important potentes, distinctive principalties, important royal role) and French (lack of public fiscus, and possibility of landed redistribution) situations with still significant French influence possibly pulling something akin to what Davidian Revolution was to Scotland while, again, counterbalanced by an imperial influence (which wouldn't go in the way of an anti-feudal movement, tough).

A more important nobility, demographically speaking (closer to continental standards, between 4 to 6% instead to less than 1%), more diverse socially would count as well as an important social change for what matter medieval England. It would make it closer to what existed in France on this regard, but the survival of Anglo-Saxon nobility and conception could make the appearance of miles or their identification to their continental counterparts a bit complex : maybe housecarls in some respect could be an equivalent, but in many others they were much distinct (being organized in one group, directly tied to the king, no mention of earls' own housecarles etc.).

Northern England would be, obviously, less damaged ITTL (while still comparatively weakened by Scandinavian management), and form a relativly stronger economical factor in North Sea.

I think you will have an earlier English focus on Wales (Harold and previous rulers having prooved their interest on it), possibly earlier than IOTL.
Scotland with a probably delayed equivalent to Davidian Revolution, would be still sitting on a relatively archaising high-kingship model, changes coming progressively from England, possibly trough context which would be even more true with an England that have little to no matters in France at all. But while Scots without the historical opportunity to takeover Strathclyde and Lothian, it doesn't mean England would have a field day there : the celtic high-kinship nature of their institutions made them relatively unable to pull too much weight on territorial growth, but it also allowed a fairly good resiliance.
Even more for Lothian (giving it was already firmly into Scot influence at this point) than Strathclyde, it's going to be hard to simply getting rid of Scots save some repeted major victories.
I'd more likely bet on some royal expeditions to make point about "you-won't-cross-the-incredibly-vague-border-and-not-raid-and-plunder-the-shit-of-my-northern-lands" and eventually have the far and vague acknowledgement of his royal authority by the local scottish/brythonic nobles; and more probably on important noble expeditions when it would come to actual political control, which would be true as well for Wales (traditionally managed by magnates and great nobles, raiding or counter-raiding it)

Speaking of which, I would see a rather problematic stance for English kings : Anglo-Saxon kingship remained not only the cornerstone of the feudal network,a s in France, but its immediate center.

It doesn't mean that earls tought twice about going against royal will, and contrary to what Capetians or Ottonian did, they seems to have been relatively unable to form an independent royal network and power-base, that would have allowed them strategical autonomy and independence (enough to build inner alliances and networks, in the same time they strengthened their institutional position).

It's less a matter being on a "first among equals" or "sacralized king" scale, than being as much based on sacralized lines which built royal power upon belonging or at the very least being attached to the royal line, while having to deal with a relatively powerful and I would say "unimpressed" nobility.

An interesting cultural development would be that while Saxons used vernacular language in their charts (altough a formalized Old English that might not have been that understable for everyone) it might not be mirrored in Normandy and, eventually, France as it possibly did IOTL: we might see a longer use of latin in official documents on the continent altough I do think giving the large interaction between Saxon England and France IOTL, this influence would still play ITTL.

Eventually, while you had only a really limited formal difference between mainland and insular churches and that Christianism in England was without a doubt Catholic (contrary to the nationalist nonsense of a "Celtic Church"), it doesn't mean, because you did not have significant, or even more or less unsignificant differences with Rome on religious matters, that late Anglo-Saxon church was in the same institutional state than in the continent.

While the great reforms of the Xth and XIth century largely gave pontifical power dominance in Western Europe as well a firm independence for episcopal and monastic clergy which was still importantly influenced by great feudateuries in England : while not entierly put aside from the continental movement, Anglo-Saxon churches and monasteries would be a bit late to joining up the continental situation ITTL.
 
It's worth pointing out that before the Conquest England was one of the richest and productive countries in Europe. That's why William wanted it. After the Conquest this was not quite the case.
It's often argued for, and while England wasn't poor at the latest, it tend to be exagerated : the various conflict tended to take their tool and the pauperisation of the North, often blamed only on Norman conquest, have its origins back in the late Xth century.

To depict William's conquest as only an opportunity, conquistator-like (which certainly was part of the campaigns) move is missing a lot of the contemporary mindset and reasons allowing William to undergo the conquest in first place.

I know there's a tendency to idealize Late AS England (conveniently forgotting that structurally and socially, it tended to be backward to the mainland, complete with maintain of a significant slavery) which should be...well, nuanced.
 
It's often argued for, and while England wasn't poor at the latest, it tend to be exagerated : the various conflict tended to take their tool and the pauperisation of the North, often blamed only on Norman conquest, have its origins back in the late Xth century.

To depict William's conquest as only an opportunity, conquistator-like (which certainly was part of the campaigns) move is missing a lot of the contemporary mindset and reasons allowing William to undergo the conquest in first place.
I certainly didn't mean that was what his only motive for the invasion you understand but that he would not have been so quick to do the same for a similar sized poorer country in the same position.
I know there's a tendency to idealize Late AS England (conveniently forgotting that structurally and socially, it tended to be backward to the mainland, complete with maintain of a significant slavery) which should be...well, nuanced.
Excuse me? Did you just call a country which was relatively more democratic (wrt peasant classes) and a larger middle class backward compared to contemporary France? Admittedly in places there was some debt indenture but to call it socially backward despite a greater movement between the classes is odd.
On the whole your analysis is usually better than that so I assume it was a mistranslation into English.
 
Anglo-Saxon England seems a lot more in line with other peripheral European cultures in terms of social structure (freeholding peasantry, widespread debt slavery, elective monarchy, communal law/criminal responsibility, higher social mobility, higher proportion of people in the *gentry classes); Sweden, Russia, Hungary, Norway for example, compared to Romanized/Feudal parts of Europe. By itself it doesn't say much about AS England's long-term prospects: all those places ended up having different historical trajectories.
 
I certainly didn't mean that was what his only motive for the invasion you understand but that he would not have been so quick to do the same for a similar sized poorer country in the same position.
Perhaps, but Normans in the Xth and XIth centuries attempted (outside the Norman presence in Spain or Italy, of course) to take on lands that didn't really had a particular wealth, such as Brittany during Richard I's or Robert I's reign.
The claims on titles held as well an important motive, politically and psychologically so, as well familial ties (in this case the House of Wessex). I think that, would have Britain be a piss-poor kingdom, William would have make a go at it, altough the wealth was a great motivation too IOTL, while he would probably have kept Normandy as its core territories.

Excuse me? Did you just call a country which was relatively more democratic (wrt peasant classes) and a larger middle class backward compared to contemporary France? Admittedly in places there was some debt indenture but to call it socially backward despite a greater movement between the classes is odd.
As @RGB said, late Anglo-Saxon England is more or less on line with what happened in the mainland, while with a delayed evolution.
We already had this discussion on bacwardness, and you'd allow me to not again trough 2 pages of it again, giving we agreed on what I meant.

Now, for the democratic part : that's part of the national idealization I was mentioning.
For exemple, at this point the Witan was mostly a formalized, non-permanent, non-insitutional and irregular assembly (not unlilke the earliers form of royal councils in France), gathering of the political elite, as you found elsewhere, including in England (they weren't a royal monopole, and several non-royal regional Witenagemots existed) which had no real similarities with the supposedly egalitarian* germanic councils of old.

It's a but hard to agree on the supposedly greater freedom of the Saxon peasant (compared to the mainland) : the distinction between ceorles and thengs was more delimited than the distinction between laboratores and miles in the same time (in the latter exemple, with transmissions) and in the meanwhile, the status of ceorls greatly diminished into servicable free-men without the mark of early medieval freedom, meaning the arms.
I'll mention quickly the servile populations : theows (apparently reaching 8 to 10% of the population in a time slavery largely disappeared from transalpine regions) and geburs (which I think partially formed what Normans called bordarii or cotarii, altough they probably accounted low ceorls as well) which together can account for 35 or 40% of the total population, which is roughly on line with what happened elsewhere with the distinction some forms were absent (I can't really think of an exemple of debt slavery in France in the same period, altough @RGB may have some in mind) and was on anther dynamic.

I won't make a list dump, but save the virtual disappearance of slavery north of Alps and Pyrenees (exception made of the persistance of a waged slavery in the coastal band between them), I could mention the disappearance of serfdom in Normandy after the revolt of 996; the participation of peasant into rural assemblies, the survival of allods in southern and northern France, or the general movement of emancipation...
I have to simply and strongly disagree with the idea that late Anglo-Saxon society was democratic, relatively or not : and by comparison of what happened in the mainland, social dynamics were backwards in the sense of having made less progress than what happened to the mainland for what matter political and social tendencies, on what was a similar evolution overall.
It says nothing about culture or merit, hence why I precised "structurally and socially".

*Which is yet another cliché, but one at a time.
 
social dynamics were backwards in the sense of having made less progress than what happened to the mainland for what matter political and social tendencies, on what was a similar evolution overall.
It says nothing about culture or merit, hence why I precised "structurally and socially".
Unfortunately in English the term "backwards" has a pejorative sense that includes culture and merit. Your use of it makes me think you're idealising the Francian model rather than trying to explain that there was greater centralisation of power under the Francian crown that afforded the Francian monarchs more control over finances and resources of their realm.
It comes across as a Victorian attitude towards "savages" or a Roman attitude to "barbarians" than what I'm sure you mean.
Which I assume is "both realms were on the path towards greater consolidation of royal control and authority and a clear hierarchy of subordinates; the mainland was further along that path" not "Francia was better than Englaland".
Tldr: "backwards" has an inherent value judgement and should not be used if not intending to judge value.
 
What if it remains Anglo-Saxon is more or less what if it remains Anglo-Viking? Harold's family are clearly involved in the Viking millieu, which of course Normandy could be seen as an extension of. The Vikings, now focused out of kingdoms, are not going away - see the 1086 invasion of Lincolnshire.
 
Assuming an Anglo-Saxon victory at Hastings.

There is general assumption on this board that England would have been more focused on North Sea than Channel and Atlantic : while not totally untrue, it tends to be exagerated a lot.
Late Anglo-Saxon politics really had interest on Channel shores since the Xth and Æthelstan's reign. It was more or less eclipsed by the events in England, but the relation of the Wessex kings and pretendents with Normandy (you had Normans in England decades before William's conquest) but as well the campaign of Harold in Flanders does highlight real relations with the continent that didn't existed as such with Scandinavia.

But while French influence isn't going to leave anytime soon in Anglo-Saxon England, it would certainly be balanced ITTL by a known strong relation with continental HRE, especially its northern parts : economically and politically England knew at this point a similar process to what happened a while ago on the continent.
Desintegration of the kingdom into smaller principalties, namely, and earldomancies could be a viable base for something equivalent to appear in England (following old regions as Bernicia, East-Anglia, etc. or more contemporary divisions such as western Mercia.
I could see kings of England tempering with this process likely, but I don't think it would have been that successful on the long run.

It doesn't mean this Anglo-Saxon feudalism would be similar to the Anglo-Norman feudalism, of course.
While Frankish and German institutional influence would certainly there, it would be influencing a distinct local situation, for instance socially (which admittedly partially came from a troubled Xth and XIth centuries) with a lasting use of slavery (which did existed on non-mediterranean continental principalties, but virtually disappearing) and the noticable presence of semi-free tenents as bordarii* or sokemen.

It's arguably not clear how much Normans translated the situation into terms they were familiar with, bordarii/cotarii, and how much the situation was similar with what existed in North-Western France, tough.


The comparison with the continent could make *English feudality looking as a mix between Imperial (important potentes, distinctive principalties, important royal role) and French (lack of public fiscus, and possibility of landed redistribution) situations with still significant French influence possibly pulling something akin to what Davidian Revolution was to Scotland while, again, counterbalanced by an imperial influence (which wouldn't go in the way of an anti-feudal movement, tough).

A more important nobility, demographically speaking (closer to continental standards, between 4 to 6% instead to less than 1%), more diverse socially would count as well as an important social change for what matter medieval England. It would make it closer to what existed in France on this regard, but the survival of Anglo-Saxon nobility and conception could make the appearance of miles or their identification to their continental counterparts a bit complex : maybe housecarls in some respect could be an equivalent, but in many others they were much distinct (being organized in one group, directly tied to the king, no mention of earls' own housecarles etc.).

Northern England would be, obviously, less damaged ITTL (while still comparatively weakened by Scandinavian management), and form a relativly stronger economical factor in North Sea.

I think you will have an earlier English focus on Wales (Harold and previous rulers having prooved their interest on it), possibly earlier than IOTL.
Scotland with a probably delayed equivalent to Davidian Revolution, would be still sitting on a relatively archaising high-kingship model, changes coming progressively from England, possibly trough context which would be even more true with an England that have little to no matters in France at all. But while Scots without the historical opportunity to takeover Strathclyde and Lothian, it doesn't mean England would have a field day there : the celtic high-kinship nature of their institutions made them relatively unable to pull too much weight on territorial growth, but it also allowed a fairly good resiliance.
Even more for Lothian (giving it was already firmly into Scot influence at this point) than Strathclyde, it's going to be hard to simply getting rid of Scots save some repeted major victories.
I'd more likely bet on some royal expeditions to make point about "you-won't-cross-the-incredibly-vague-border-and-not-raid-and-plunder-the-shit-of-my-northern-lands" and eventually have the far and vague acknowledgement of his royal authority by the local scottish/brythonic nobles; and more probably on important noble expeditions when it would come to actual political control, which would be true as well for Wales (traditionally managed by magnates and great nobles, raiding or counter-raiding it)

Speaking of which, I would see a rather problematic stance for English kings : Anglo-Saxon kingship remained not only the cornerstone of the feudal network,a s in France, but its immediate center.

It doesn't mean that earls tought twice about going against royal will, and contrary to what Capetians or Ottonian did, they seems to have been relatively unable to form an independent royal network and power-base, that would have allowed them strategical autonomy and independence (enough to build inner alliances and networks, in the same time they strengthened their institutional position).

It's less a matter being on a "first among equals" or "sacralized king" scale, than being as much based on sacralized lines which built royal power upon belonging or at the very least being attached to the royal line, while having to deal with a relatively powerful and I would say "unimpressed" nobility.

An interesting cultural development would be that while Saxons used vernacular language in their charts (altough a formalized Old English that might not have been that understable for everyone) it might not be mirrored in Normandy and, eventually, France as it possibly did IOTL: we might see a longer use of latin in official documents on the continent altough I do think giving the large interaction between Saxon England and France IOTL, this influence would still play ITTL.

Eventually, while you had only a really limited formal difference between mainland and insular churches and that Christianism in England was without a doubt Catholic (contrary to the nationalist nonsense of a "Celtic Church"), it doesn't mean, because you did not have significant, or even more or less unsignificant differences with Rome on religious matters, that late Anglo-Saxon church was in the same institutional state than in the continent.

While the great reforms of the Xth and XIth century largely gave pontifical power dominance in Western Europe as well a firm independence for episcopal and monastic clergy which was still importantly influenced by great feudateuries in England : while not entierly put aside from the continental movement, Anglo-Saxon churches and monasteries would be a bit late to joining up the continental situation ITTL.
The Synod of Whitby was in 664 so the Church was pretty much in line with the Church in Rome.

However the idea of a Celtic Church is not "nationalist nonsense". While it is uncertain how the Church that came out of Ioana and Lindisfarne differed canoncially from Rome, it did have its own patterns and forms of worship and its own distinctly less legalistic rule of life.

To call it nonsense is insulting.
 
Last edited:

Artaxerxes

Banned
The Synod of Whitby was in 664 so the Church was pretty much in line with the Church in Rome.

However the idea of a Celtic Church is not "nationalist nonsense". While it is uncertain how the Church that came out of Ioana and Lindisfarne differed canoncially from Rome, it did have its own patterns and forms of worship and its own distinctly less legalistic rule of life.

To call it nonsense is insulting.


I believe its a backlash against the Celtic surge or idea of Celticness as a unified whole that colours the narrative and pretends Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Angland were part of a big happy unified whole instead of, well, cats in sacks. Celtic can be a rather loaded term.

There was definietly a Celtic or Island fringe church that was evolving though. Whitby and St Augustine brought it in to line with the continent, I won't say with Rome because Rome was still very much evolving into the Papacy even if it was well on its way to getting there.

I think its possible England focuses on Holland or Normandy a fair bit should it survive Hastings.
 
I believe its a backlash against the Celtic surge or idea of Celticness as a unified whole that colours the narrative and pretends Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Angland were part of a big happy unified whole instead of, well, cats in sacks. Celtic can be a rather loaded term.

There was definietly a Celtic or Island fringe church that was evolving though. Whitby and St Augustine brought it in to line with the continent, I won't say with Rome because Rome was still very much evolving into the Papacy even if it was well on its way to getting there.

I think its possible England focuses on Holland or Normandy a fair bit should it survive Hastings.
I can buy that. But I do think dismissing the work of Lindisfarne is a bit off.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
I can buy that. But I do think dismissing the work of Lindisfarne is a bit off.

It can be hard seperating fact from fiction with the Celtic church, especially after 2 centuries of Victorian meddling and nationalism coopting the history of the Celts for modern day upsets.
 
However the idea of a Celtic Church is not "nationalist nonsense".
As @Artaxerxes said, I was referring to the idea of a insular non-Roman Catholic church that was bullied into pontifical obedience by Normans, taking its sources for an essentially indigenous Christianity with its own beliefs and practices, is nationalist nonsense that appeared in the XVIth (in the wake of Henry VII's religious policies) and reaffirmed in the XIXth.

While it is uncertain how the Church that came out of Ioana and Lindisfarne differed canoncially from Rome
There's nothing that points it was the case : what we know of the Synod of Whitby, which is not much arguably. The synod was famously described as a "triumphant push on an open door" on this regard, mostly because Ionans monks were divided among themselves (a good part of Oswyn's monks , such as Ronan, were already following Roman practices).
Not to say Withby wasn't an important event, but it is such highlighting that regional practices (as you had in Ireland, but as well pretty much everywhere until the VIIIth century) were relatively limited in strength and differences (Bede himself doesn't really manage to point what was at odds religiously*).

What made the importance of the synod was eventually less the religious differences (which were, again, less important that what you could find between Latin and Greek churches in the same period, and these weren't fully differenciated yet), than the institutional : Oswyn tended at the continental model, or rather to continue it giving that a lot of southern England Christianisation was taken from the Frankish influence and its episcopalian network. Which certainly went againt the monastic model elaborated in Ireland, with a weak role of bishops and unified authority : but even this shouldn't be exagerated, as as pointed above, the practical conflict was less against bishops vs. monks, insular vs. mainlanders, Irish vs. English, but a religious struggle that took place among Irish monks themselves.

it did have its own patterns and forms of worship and its own distinctly less legalistic rule of life.
Mostly speculations being generalized to the whole insular Christianity. It doesn't mean that you didn't have regional variations, more or less significant, in British Isles : but rather than one big anachronical "Celtic Christianity", you had a whole set of local churches gathered around a religious-political figure (usually royal). It's true that Irish Christianity tended to be distinct among the lot of Latin Churches (keeping in mind that all of them had liturgical difference from the Roman model, if less pronounced, such as the Visigothic rite) and that it grew more as such, less by itself but trough the general standardisation of Catholic rites.

But it remained essentially compatible with other rites and practices, efficiently mixing with these right from its historical appearance and extension, the Colomban monasteries in Gaul were gallicized and "benedictarized" eventually, but it owes more to a monastic life that, far from "less legalist" was considered being extremely and abusively strict (and probably a tiny bit too much independent).

Unfortunately in English the term "backwards" has a pejorative sense that includes culture and merit.
Really? I used the first definition of it I could find to be sure. Oh well, probably one of these implied sub-text things.

I can buy that. But I do think dismissing the work of Lindisfarne is a bit off.
Which is not what I said, at the contrary : "It doesn't mean that late Anglo-Saxon church was in the same institutional state than in the continent." seems pretty straight-forward to me.
It's worth noting, tough, that the defeat of Colman (and its abandon of Lindisfrane) opened the way to a line of bishops supportive of the Roman rites, which doesn't mean that you didn't have a strong influence from Irish or Gaelic practices (as the mandate of St. Cuthbert points, or even his renounciation in 686, which is reminiscent of Irish uses). The point being that, regardless of the importance of Lindisfrane, that Gaelic practices were yet another form of regional practices that were not only compatible but part of the larger Latin Christianity until Franks and Rome decided to standardize the heck out of it (and even that took centuries).
Lindisfrane was relavant especially because it adhered to the form of Roman religious institutions, with a stress on the bishop and a relation trough regional synods and councils headed by the king (as it existed elsewhere, even if Toledo Councils were a bit different).

Which I assume is "both realms were on the path towards greater consolidation of royal control and authority and a clear hierarchy of subordinates; the mainland was further along that path" not "Francia was better than Englaland".
A bit more nuanced : culturally, Late Anglo-Saxon England went trough an earlier national sense than its neighbour (mostly in opposition to Anglo-Scandinavians), and went trough an earlier vernacularisation (which didn't happened in the mainland before the XIIth century). Similarily, I think Late AS England went trough a period of destructuration of the royal power, to end up as what could appear as a mix of northern French and Imperial feudalities, but still would be its own thing (tough the influence of mentioned regions would be real).

What if it remains Anglo-Saxon is more or less what if it remains Anglo-Viking?
Not exactly, as a good deal of Anglo-Saxon identity was based on the opposition to Scandinavians since the Xth century : an Anglo-Scandinavian England would be differently focused, while probably less stable on the middle run.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Widespread debt slavery was also a problem of AS England.

Besides, their military tactics were outdated. An infantry-based army which lacks archers would be a recipe for disasters. However, such disasters might be unlikely if AS kings do not take part in Crusades (well, an Anlgo-Saxon army would never stand a chance against Muslim light cavalry and horse archers), but they would still face the risk of being utterly crushed if foreign invaders (most likely the French, who had strong cavalry, in the medium term) could force a battle on a plateau. IOTL, it was the Normans who popularized archery and cavalry warfare in England.

England also benefited from the large-scale construction of stone fortifications and other structures, as well as port-building after 1066 as mentioned above.

Let's see: no Normans, no cavalry warfare, maybe no archers, no castle building (I mean true castles like Pembroke or Tower of London, not s***holes), no Crusades (maybe), far less exposure to different military tactics and technology. Remember that European countries learned them through Crusades (e.g. counterweight trebuchet, gunpowder, and several important naval technology invented by Eastern civilizations which later contributed greatly to the Exploration IOTL). Gunpowder and others may eventually come to England, but far later than other European countries, and may even later than IOTL.


It's worth pointing out that before the Conquest England was one of the richest and productive countries in Europe. That's why William wanted it. After the Conquest this was not quite the case.
In the lack of a Conquest it is unlikely to lag behind economically if this continues.
England was also extremely devout having a reputation of providing missionaries, rulers were expected to be learned and not just military men.
IIRC it may also have had the highest per capita literacy
On the downside it was considered extremely litigious and had a larger number of "lawyers" than elsewhere, rivalling the modern day U.S.
Yeah, but it never had a significant background in science and technology, which is far more important for long-term development, unlike Italian cities, Byzantine and the Muslim world.

Besides, if the United Kingdom is butterflied away (very likely), world history would be massively different. None of the states on British Isle would become an European Great Power.
 
Its clear that Harold would have turned towards Wales first - he had already had campaigns there pre-1066. Scotland would not have been the same - Lothian would probably have looked more towards England from the start, as it still had a sizeable AS population at this time.
 
Yeah, but it never had a significant background in science and technology, which is far more important for long-term development, unlike Italian cities, Byzantine and the Muslim world.

Besides, if the United Kingdom is butterflied away (very likely), world history would be massively different. None of the states on British Isle would become an European Great Power
Neither did it OTL until after the War of the 3 Kingdoms.
It's too early to make such predictions in 1066.
 
Besides, their military tactics were outdated. An infantry-based army which lacks archers would be a recipe for disasters.
Don't forget that Norman (but also Flemish and German) influence was real in the mid XIth century in England : sooner or later, mainland features will pop out more or less entierly there. Altough private fortification, as well as composition of armies, may vary it would be surprising to see Anglo-Saxon military background stagnate.

If Anglo Saxons kings do not take part in Crusades
The First Crusade was essentially tied to miles and great princes, rather than the royal (or imperial) suzerains : we could likely see magnates-turned-feodal-lords participating with if not a continentalized ost, at least a significant continental part (

but they would still face the risk of being utterly crushed if foreign invaders (most likely the French, who had strong cavalry, in the medium term) could force a battle on a plateau. IOTL, it was the Normans who popularized archery and cavalry warfare in England.

England also benefited from the large-scale construction of stone fortifications and other structures, as well as port-building after 1066 as mentioned above.

no Normans
Unlikely : the presence of Normans "advisors" or vassals in England predates 1066 and the conquest. Ralph of Hereford is certainly the better known with Robert de Jumièges. Granted, with a 1066 PoD, you'll likely see an anti-Norman reaction, but giving the lasting influence they had at this point, I doubt you'd have a complete cut (especially if the House of Wessex retakes the throne).

no cavalry warfare
It doesn't seems right as well : the continental influence was quite established at this point, would it be only by the strong links with maritime principalties and the regular presence of Anglo-Saxons in the mainland. It might appear differently, more limited, but if we go in the way of stable (sort of) sub-royal entities, southern England at least is bound to recieve some French (by French I mean mostly Norman, Flemish and Breton) would it be only trough mercenariship.

maybe no archers
I'd agree more with you on this, altough not a total absence at all (you had English archers at Hastings), granted we don't have a lot of litterary and archeological (the soil doesn't really help to preserve them) but there is, possibly on the longbow model. The contact with Welsh, and the likely earlier pressure on them (IMO, at least) would probably force Anglo-Saxons to use what was probably a widespread enough but "low" weapon in their battlefields.
But, yes, a good part of structural reason for the development of archery in England might be if not butterflied away, at least changed.

no castle building (I mean true castles like Pembroke or Tower of London, not s***holes)
You did have some stone castles, probably on Norman influence as for Hereford, that were built in England before 1066. As said above, I'm expecting this influence (or more generally French and German influences) to last in England by the sheer social-cultural gravity of these. The main obstacle is less the how-to, than the lack of stable privatization of public power as it happened in the mainland. It was going to happen, still, and the Anglo-Saxon feudality (while certainly as much its own thing than what existed in Spain or other peripherical regions) would see the appearance of private or semi-private non-urban fortifications.

I insist that, in this regard, the difference with early Norman England wouldn't be that important : most of early Norman fortifications were situated in conjuction of urban or semi-urban fortifications that were develloped in Late Anglo-Saxon England (complete with main defensives towers, as in York). Maybe this would be a lasting marker of a surviving Anglo-Saxon England, namely a more urban and semi-urban based nobility.

no Crusades
I'm not sure : you did have a tradition, or at least an attraction, to eastern service as points the exile of Saxons in Constantinople to the service of the basileus in the late XIth century. At the very least, I'd expect Anglo-Saxons to be indirectly concerned by this influence, trough a French or Imperial contact : but really, the First Crusade wasn't that of a matter of cavalrymen (at least in Anatolia and northern Syria), and Saxon footmen wouldn't be useeless.

far less exposure to different military tactics and technology
Spain, Southern Italy, Constantinople. All of these could be indirect points of contact, especially the first : I'm not a fan of geographical determinism, and probably that Anglo-Saxon involvement in western Mediteranean would be mixed into the French (northern and southern) ensemble, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.

Besides, if the United Kingdom is butterflied away (very likely), world history would be massively different. None of the states on British Isle would become an European Great Power.
I tought, maybe wrongly, that we assumed a Late Anglo-Saxon history PoD.
If not, well, Anglo-Saxon England is still likely to get unified, for several reasons, or at worst form two distinct ensembles.
 
Top