WI: England united under the Mercians in the 9th Century

[Socrates]

The Mercian supremacy of England reached its peak under Offa in the last decades of the 8th Century. Following his death, the Kingdom fell to instability due to a convolution series of successions and eventually an uprising in East Anglia led to the end of Mercia's dominance.

But what if Offa had a successor worthy of him, and Mercia went on to unite England and put it on a secure footing in the early 800s? Could an earlier united English Kingdom have defeated the Viking invasions? Could they have exploited the disunited lands north of Hadrian's Wall more effectively? How would governance have been different without the Wessex system of shires?

 

[Zorqal]

The vikings possibly could have been pushed off, but I doubt that the Picts, Irish, and whoever else where fighting to the north would have been easily taken by these early Englishmen. OTL Scotland may have been more likely to fall to vikings, so there may be a Nordic Kingdom there.

Where would the capitol of the Mercian England be?

 

[Socrates]

I'm not saying Scotland would be taken in the 9th Century, but a stronger, consolidating England could do something by the 10th. The English almost did it in our timeline against a unified Scottish Kingdom.

The capital of Mercia is Tamworth, but could also move it to London like Wessex did.

 

[Zorqal]

I'm not saying Scotland would be taken in the 9th Century, but a stronger, consolidating England could do something by the 10th. The English almost did it in our timeline against a unified Scottish Kingdom.

The capital of Mercia is Tamworth, but could also move it to London like Wessex did.

What makes London such a good capitol for England? It seems to me that having a more central city would be a good idea.

I doubt they would move it anyway, wasn't London part of Wessex before England was united?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

What makes London such a good capitol for England? It seems to me that having a more central city would be a good idea.

Central, how?

Remember roads were pretty useless back then for freight, and only marginally better for communication. London is pretty much guaranteed to be the commercial capital of any polity that includes it, as it is the farthest up the Thames that ocean-going ships can reach.

That doesn't mean that it HAS to be the political capital. But keeping a close eye (and ear) on the largest source of income in the Isles makes a lot of sense.

 

[Westphalian]

King Offa apparently did not like that Mercia was ecclesiastically under the Archbishop of Canterbury in far away Kent, so he managed to have the Diocese of Lichfield elevated to Archbishopric. The ecclesiastical province of Lichfield covered seven suffragan bishoprics between the Thames and the Humber and existed from ~788 to 803.

Lichfield, as well as Tamworth, is located in Staffordshire; the city of Stafford was the Mercian capital from the910s onward. So this is probably the seat of power for Mercia in general.

 

[Just a Rube]

I tend to agree that London is going to end up as the capital for any conceivable unified England; the location is too good. Remember that it wasn't the West Saxon capital either, but it still ended up as the capital of unified England.

 

[Grouchio]

Methinks that a great timeline can arise from such an idea. Would the Mercians treat the Welsh even harder than the West Saxons did IOTL? What sort of differing political structures would be set in place under Offa's sucessors?

 

[perdu42]

[FONT=&quot]Certainly Offa was instrumental in the rise of Mercian supremacy in England south of the Humber. But it was an unstable hegemony – it is probable the Kentish revolt began before Offa’s death in July 796. His death was certainly the signal for the East Anglians to shake the shackles. His son Ecgfrith only ruled for 141 days - it is not known for sure but it seems Ecgfrith’s life was cut short by an assassin.

I would argue the peak of Mercian supremacy was in the reign of his successor, a very distant cousin, Cenwulf. It was Cenwulf who definitively ended Kentish independence with the capture and mutilation of Eadbert Praen. And while he dealt with Eadwald to cut short the East Anglian bid for independence there remained other native claimants waiting for an opportunity. On the negative, he allowed the Archdiocese of Lichfield to lapse. There were ongoing tensions with Archbishops of Canterbury. And Egbert of Wessex was building his strength. Cenwulf died in Flintshire in 821 probably preparing another campaign against the Welsh.

There is not much evidence to build a picture of the Mercian ‘state’. The mustering of resources to build Offa’s Dyke suggests it was considerable. Offa did institute the building of burhs but it seems the only mints the Mercians had were those captured from Kent and East Anglia. Royal authority was delegated to ealdorman but the exact subdivisions are hazy. It is p[FONT=&quot]ossible, indeed probable, that administrative subdivisions would be reorganized/created to mee[FONT=&quot]t[/FONT] changing needs and political circumstances eg. under the impact of the [FONT=&quot]Viking invasions.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Socrates]

[FONT=&quot]Certainly Offa was instrumental in the rise of Mercian supremacy in England south of the Humber. But it was an unstable hegemony – it is probable the Kentish revolt began before Offa’s death in July 796. His death was certainly the signal for the East Anglians to shake the shackles. His son Ecgfrith only ruled for 141 days - it is not known for sure but it seems Ecgfrith’s life was cut short by an assassin.

I would argue the peak of Mercian supremacy was in the reign of his successor, a very distant cousin, Cenwulf. It was Cenwulf who definitively ended Kentish independence with the capture and mutilation of Eadbert Praen. And while he dealt with Eadwald to cut short the East Anglian bid for independence there remained other native claimants waiting for an opportunity. On the negative, he allowed the Archdiocese of Lichfield to lapse. There were ongoing tensions with Archbishops of Canterbury. And Egbert of Wessex was building his strength. Cenwulf died in Flintshire in 821 probably preparing another campaign against the Welsh.

There is not much evidence to build a picture of the Mercian ‘state’. The mustering of resources to build Offa’s Dyke suggests it was considerable. Offa did institute the building of burhs but it seems the only mints the Mercians had were those captured from Kent and East Anglia. Royal authority was delegated to ealdorman but the exact subdivisions are hazy. It is p[FONT=&quot]ossible, indeed probable, that administrative subdivisions would be reorganized/created to mee[FONT=&quot]t[/FONT] changing needs and political circumstances eg. under the impact of the [FONT=&quot]Viking invasions.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Did Mercia have any unit of local governance equivalent to the shires? What were their subdivisions?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Mercia and London

I tend to agree that London is going to end up as the capital for any conceivable unified England; the location is too good. Remember that it wasn't the West Saxon capital either, but it still ended up as the capital of unified England.

Very pertinent. Mercian kings often controlled London, under Offa and his successors, without needing to have it as their capital. Just like the West Saxons

I'd agree London would probably end up as the capital city eventually. However, that doesn't mean a Mercian-led unification isn't plausible. In fact, given its central location it looks superficially more plausible than the OTL Wessex origin. The distance from Tamworth or Derby (I think at one point that was also a Mercian Royal centre) to Edinburgh may be short enough to allow an English kingdom to retain all of ancient Northumbria rather let the Gaelic Scottish kings annex the Lothians. Which would be an interesting butterfly.


Don't think that's enough to stop most of the North Sea Oil being "Alba's" though. But a smaller, Norse-Gaelic Scotland would be more like Ireland than modern Scotland, making the UK even more Anglo-centric in its outlook. Hmm,

Like the idea though.

 

[perdu42]

[FONT=&quot]

Did Mercia have any unit of local governance equivalent to the shires? What were their subdivisions?

The shortish answer: I don’t know.

The Viking invasions and West Saxon reconquista disrupted the original Mercian civil administration. AFAIK, the surviving charters tend to speak of ealdorman of a certain people ie the Magonsaeta, the Middle Angles etc. An ealdorman of the Tomsaete appears for the first time in a C9 charter – nothing in the earlier [FONT=&quot]Triba[/FONT]l Hidage document – in an area that appears to be the Mercian heartland. The exact borders/boundaries for the various peoples is somewhat hazy and (in common with Wessex) the given number of ealdorman varied. I think if you develop a TL from this idea the Mercian state will develop something analogous to the Wessex shire system but with a Mercian flavour.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

the city of Stafford was the Mercian capital from the910s onward.

Never heard of Stafford being a potential Mercian capital and it is most unlikely in the 910’s in the midst of the reconquista. If a ‘royal’ capital existed after the Viking invasion it was probably Gloucester, well away from Viking centres of power.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]London, being situated where it is, was much contested between Essex and Kent (and probably the Middle Saxons) but also East Anglia, Mercia and Wessex. It probably passed into Mercian control from the East Saxons sometime in Athelbald’s reign between 716-757 and consolidated as a Mercian city during Offa’s reign. Perhaps Tamworth will remain the dejure capital while London becomes the defacto capital.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[perdu42]

[FONT=&quot]Just to follow up on Mercian provinces: This Wikipedia entry does give info for sub-divisions of Mercia based mainly on the Tribal Hidage document. A rough map of those sub-divisions is here . The folk/territory of The Hwicce is spelt Hwinca in the Tribal Hidage document which may just be the root of Winchcombe. Winchcombeshire was a shire that was later amalgamated with Glocs. in 1017. [/FONT]

 

[Westphalian]

[FONT=&quot]Never heard of Stafford being a potential Mercian capital and it is most unlikely in the 910’s in the midst of the reconquista. If a ‘royal’ capital existed after the Viking invasion it was probably Gloucester, well away from Viking centres of power.[/FONT]

Well, it is only wikipedia, but there in the article "History of Staffordshire" it says (third paragraph):

The county probably first came into being in this form in the decade after the year 913; that being the date at which Stafford - the strategic military fording-point for an army to cross the Trent - became a secure fortified stronghold & the new capital of Mercia under Queen Æthelflæd.

That maybe a result of error, confusion or vandalism, of course.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Interesting

Well, it is only wikipedia, but there in the article "History of Staffordshire" it says (third paragraph):
That maybe a result of error, confusion or vandalism, of course.

thanks, didn't know that. (A common reaction to items discussed here on my part)

Mercia was not truly independent then of course, being a sort of junior partner to Wessex. Its nominal independence was removed a bit later, IIRC when the Wessex King had his sister put in a nunnery so she couldn't lead Mercia in opposition to him. Will have to look up details.



Still, its interesting how capitals could easily be moved in early medieval times.

 

[perdu42]

Well, it is only wikipedia, but there in the article "History of Staffordshire" it says (third paragraph):
That maybe a result of error, confusion or vandalism, of course.

More than happy to stand corrected. Always good to learn something new.

 

[Riain]

From my understanding of the era the situation in offa's era is much different than athelstan's era due to a shortage of anglo saxon kings in the latter era. Offa was overlord of formerly independent saxon kingdoms rather than a liberator from the Danes which effects perception of legitimacy.

 

[The Professor]

From my understanding of the era the situation in offa's era is much different than athelstan's era due to a shortage of anglo saxon kings in the latter era. Offa was overlord of formerly independent saxon kingdoms rather than a liberator from the Danes which effects perception of legitimacy.

Indeed. Add in the fact that the Danes removed most of the native government making it easier for Athelstan's administration to be adopted

 

[Socrates]

From my understanding of the era the situation in offa's era is much different than athelstan's era due to a shortage of anglo saxon kings in the latter era. Offa was overlord of formerly independent saxon kingdoms rather than a liberator from the Danes which effects perception of legitimacy.

An interesting idea but, it was Northumbria that had most revolts against Wessex rule. On the other hand, Essex, Kent etc weren't part of the Danelaw and yet didn't have any problems with legitimacy of the House of Wessex.

 

[ramones1986]

What would be its impact on the development of English language?