WI: Mercia unites England

Any specific range of dates for this? Post Norse Invasions? During the Mercian Hegemony? Any particular preference? The PoD for it would likely affect the scenario. Post Norse would probably just result in an England similar to today, but perhaps focused more on the midlands than on the former Kingdom of Wessex/southern coast. During the Mercian Supremacy at some point would likely result in a more decentralized Kingdom of England. Without a sufficient foreign threat like the Norse, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms would remain more disparate and any Mercian “England” would likely be a more centralized version of tributaries. Pretty similar to the High Kingships in Ireland, except perpetually held by Mercia and perhaps a bit more centralized.
 
@Viralworld

You're right, I probably should've specified. Yes, the PoD is during Mercian Supremacy. Could you perhaps iterate on how such a centralized version of tributaries would work? For example, to what degree would Mercian England be centralized and how would such a state operate? Furthermore, what are the wider implications of a Mercian England and how would it affect Europe? A Mercian England, given such an early PoD, would still be predominantly Anglo-Saxon in culture and in it's ruling class. How would this effect English history and culture? What religion would a Mercian England follow?
 
It would all depend on whether an earlier united England would be better placed to resist Norse invasion. If the Vikings are repelled then that would create huge changes in he cuture of the North of the country which in otl has many Scandinavian influences in the culture.
 
I did a family tree in which Mercia came to power over Wessex because Aethelred and Aethelflaed had a son, rather than just a daughter Aelfwynn. He was able to marshall support from the Mercians and the Danelaw when Edward and Aethelstan attempted to envelop Mercia into their kingdom of the English and beheaded the male Wessen line and subsumed Wessex onto a Mercian dominated England with their capital in Tamworth.
 
I did a family tree in which Mercia came to power over Wessex because Aethelred and Aethelflaed had a son, rather than just a daughter Aelfwynn. He was able to marshall support from the Mercians and the Danelaw when Edward and Aethelstan attempted to envelop Mercia into their kingdom of the English and beheaded the male Wessen line and subsumed Wessex onto a Mercian dominated England with their capital in Tamworth.

At that point Mercia's independence was paper thin and backed by Wessex practically as more a polite fiction than reality. Everyone knew all power came from Wessex.

You'd have to essentially go to the Mercian Hegemony to make this realistic.

Then only one question is important. Is it a strong United England? Or is it a barley held together hot mess? One of these will be very difficult prey for the Great Heathen Army. The other will be conquered easily and we'll all be speaking Angle influenced Danish and hopefully worshiping Odin and Thor and Freya (Yes, I know it's unlikely and don't debate it, but what the Hel, I like Norse Paganism more than the White Christ so there).

Of the two, I think the latter is more likely because Angleland had no reason to unite before the Great Heathen Army other than Mercian military dominance and that likely breeds resentment.

It would be cool to have Alfred, last scion of the old house of Wessex allying with Guthrun and Ivar to throw off the Mercian tyranny.
 
Last edited:
Any specific range of dates for this? Post Norse Invasions?....Post Norse would probably just result in an England similar to today, but perhaps focused more on the midlands than on the former Kingdom of Wessex/southern coast.

Impossible, I think, given how completely broken Mercia was by those invasions---not quite as bad as Northumbria, but still pretty bad. Can't rule England when you can't rule yourselves.

During the Mercian Hegemony?....During the Mercian Supremacy at some point would likely result in a more decentralized Kingdom of England. Without a sufficient foreign threat like the Norse, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms would remain more disparate and any Mercian “England” would likely be a more centralized version of tributaries. Pretty similar to the High Kingships in Ireland, except perpetually held by Mercia and perhaps a bit more centralized.

Beornwulf has to survive and preferably win at Ellandum, and after that Wessex has to be soundly defeated. Then you've got ~30 years until the GHA needs to be repelled, maybe even deterred by a strong, united southern kingdom, or union of kingdoms. Wessex needs to be made prostrate for this not only to work, but to last; Ecbert's descendants will otherwise be a permanent thorn underfoot.
 

Kaze

Banned
Interesting premise so far - Mercia did have the land to dominate a good part of Britain, but lost out.

=============

Ceolwulf I of Mercia would be also a good point of departure, if you go pre-Norse. He was overthrown and the Merican powers started to wane. By the time of Coelwulf II (who might be the first's grandson), the kingdom had ceased to be relevant and independant.
If Coelwulf either successfully defeats the usurper or is restored, he might go on a conquest binge in order to legitimize himself as the only lord of the Isles.
 
@Kerney

Let us assume it is a strong united England? What would be the differences between OTL England and this ATL England?

Then the Great Pagan Army comes in, is not as successful as otl because said United Kingdom can bring more resources to the problem build forts all the way to York and East Anglia and maybe have a navy.

That means less settlement. Said Danes move on to easier targets like they did in Normandy after Alfred seemed effective.
Ireland gets hit harder and perhaps becomes Skye/Orkneys writ large. Maybe Normandy is founded in the 860s. Maybe more settlers get in on the Land rush in Iceland and the keep rushing west all the way to Vinland.
 
This is one of those things that could potentially have tons of butterflies, or events put history back on the course we know it took. I am assuming Mercia unites England pre- Norse invasions by the way, since I don't see how they could do it afterwards.

Essentially you get a different English dynasty in the 10th and 11th centuries. IOTL, England was taken over first by the Danes (Knut) and then by the Normans (William) with what was basically an interregnum of English rule in the mid 11th century. At least the Danish takeover seems to have had internal English support. But lots of things could have derailed either conquest. In the 12th century the Angevins took over England, so it seems the polity was vulnerable to sudden takeover by overseas adventurers.

If the Norman conquest still happens on schedule, no long term effects at all. The Normans will for obvious geographical reasons prefer London over Tamworth as their capital, just as IOTL they preferred London over Winchester. If the Mercians remain in control then we have a "Norman conquest" doesn't happen timeline, just with the Anglo-Saxon dynasty based in the Midlands, though there is a very good chance London still becomes the capital of the kingdom.
 
I actually wonder if a semi-centralized Mercian England would fare better against the great Heathen Army. Before the GHA, the vikings were just raiding. There was little incentive to really put in place the countermeasures that could have halted the GHA. So if anything, a Mercian England would have just centralized power into a single place. A place where the GHA could focus on attacking. IOTL the GHA was operating for thirteen years from their landing in 865 till their defeat at the Battle of Edington in 878. During that time they were marching all over to subdue Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia, and Wessex. If Mercia semi-centralized England, then they can just head straight to Mercia. If they prove victorious, they can use the very system the Mercians put into place. If it is still a decentralized system of tributary systems, than it is likely Mercia has weakened the others already and these other kingdoms probably wouldn't overly protest much if the GHA came in and wrecked Mercia.

So while a Mercian England would probably be able to bring up more resistance against the GHA right away, if it fell it would basically allow the GHA to take it all by cutting off the head and taking its place. Mercia also wouldn't have the time to enact the sort of systematic changes against the vikings Alfred the Great was able to during the time of the GHA and during the subsequent Danelaw.

If Mercia survives and united England though, I imagine an earlier focus would be placed against the Welsh. Mercia did border them, and they were clearly a problem based on Offa's Dyk being constructed. A more northern base of power would also make it more like that England would look to taking the Scottish Lowlands before Scotland is really united.
 
@CaedmonCousland

I have heard that Charlemagne proposed a marriage between Charlemagne's son, Charles, and one of Offa's daughters. Offa countered requesting that his son Ecgfrith should also marry Charlemagne's daughter Bertha. Charlemagne refused such a request and cut off contact with Mercia afterward. What if Offa accepted? Would this give a Mercian England military support from the Carolingian Empire to fight the Great Heathen Army?
 
Don't mean to step on CaedmonCousland's toes but while Charlemagne is making marriage offers he is also harbouring various English exiles... Offa accepting the proposal might see those exiles dealt with (or not) but by the time of the Great Army the Carolingian Empire had it's own problems.

Given time the decentralized tributary system might work in unifying England but (as we know) this Mercian state does not have that time. Unless a Mercian king can do an Alfred this Mercian state will be fighting both it's vassals (East Anglia, Kent, Wessex) AND the Great Army.
 
@CaedmonCousland

I have heard that Charlemagne proposed a marriage between Charlemagne's son, Charles, and one of Offa's daughters. Offa countered requesting that his son Ecgfrith should also marry Charlemagne's daughter Bertha. Charlemagne refused such a request and cut off contact with Mercia afterward. What if Offa accepted? Would this give a Mercian England military support from the Carolingian Empire to fight the Great Heathen Army?
Don't mean to step on CaedmonCousland's toes but while Charlemagne is making marriage offers he is also harbouring various English exiles... Offa accepting the proposal might see those exiles dealt with (or not) but by the time of the Great Army the Carolingian Empire had it's own problems.

Given time the decentralized tributary system might work in unifying England but (as we know) this Mercian state does not have that time. Unless a Mercian king can do an Alfred this Mercian state will be fighting both it's vassals (East Anglia, Kent, Wessex) AND the Great Army.
Sort of agree with perdu42. For one, Charlemagne was in negotiations with Offa over half a century before the GHA. Carlemagne will be long dead, and Louis the Pious will be dead.

I also suspect that such a marriage would probably end up with the Carlomans eventually taking over much of England. Charlemagne specifically refused to marry his daughters as it would complicate succession. However with English succession laws being...murky at the time, giving one of his sons a daughter of Offa would give them a claim to Mercia. I also suspect this is why he bothered with the Mercian exiles. Charlemagne however grew noticeably less expansionist later in his life, with most of the letters between Charlemagne and Offa having occurred early in his reign. Around 790~. Charlemagne didn't bother much with Britain after that, but it was still reasonably close enough that given enough claim the Franks could have probably overrun it relatively simply.

That would be an interesting development. The Carlomans claim Mercia through Offa's daughter, basically overrun the kingdoms, and by the time of the GHA you already have the empire fracturing.
 
@CaedmonCousland

What would be the result of this? At the end of all of these developments, what becomes of England?
Well butterflies would make that all but impossible to guess. However if we choose to ignore a Frankish England would have on Frankish politics, then England would likely go to Charles the Bald when the empire is divided at Verdun. He did not have the best results against vikings in northern France. He was also very focused on his rivalries with Louis the German, Lothair, and Lothair's son, Louis II. In the time after the sack of Paris by the vikings in 845, I definitely think England would become peripheral to protecting northern France. That means the petty kingdoms of England are probably going to end up all but independent.

Whether this ignored part of the empire would fall is probably just a matter of how one chooses to develop it if one wrote a TL on it. I could see England being viewed as more part of the Frankish sphere of influence forever. I could see the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms regaining control. I could see Charles willingly sacrificing the peripheral England to the vikings to draw their attention so he could reinforce northern France.
 
Top