WI No Saxons in Britain.

[tallthinkev]

What could be, a likely, out come of no, or much reduced amount, of Saxons in Britain? Saxons started raiding Britain in the 4th century, the Romans left in the early 5th therefore leaving the Britons, to look after their own defence. So WI the Romans didn't leave (unlikely) or left later (a maybe). Or could Britons be better at keeping them out, Sub Roman Briton lasted until about 550ad (some say until 650ad). Would it take more people like Ambrosius Aurelianus, to push them back, or is Britain doomed not matter what?
As all ways, over to you.

 

[Cymraeg]

Well, some Romano-British cavalry might help...

 

[JedidiahStott]

Hic jacet .........

 

[SlyDessertFox]

What could be, a likely, out come of no, or much reduced amount, of Saxons in Britain? Saxons started raiding Britain in the 4th century, the Romans left in the early 5th therefore leaving the Britons, to look after their own defence. So WI the Romans didn't leave (unlikely) or left later (a maybe). Or could Britons be better at keeping them out, Sub Roman Briton lasted until about 550ad (some say until 650ad). Would it take more people like Ambrosius Aurelianus, to push them back, or is Britain doomed not matter what?
As all ways, over to you.

Well Cymraeg hinted at his timeline, which accomplishes exactly this. Also, you can keep the Romans having an interest there as long as the Rhine border doesn't implode in 406.

 

[The Professor]

Don't forget it wasn't just the Saxons - there's the Angles, Jutes, and the odd Frisian group.

 

[Falastur]

I've been reading Peter Ackroyd's History of Britain series and in his first book he seems to think that the coming of the Saxons was largely unavoidable. He cites that from the middle of the Roman Britain era, Saxons had come to England in drips and drabs as hired workers of various orders - mercenaries who hired themselves to local British chieftains as bodyguards, others who came to work the land, etc, and perhaps even some by volunteering in the Roman army and then being sent to Britannia. By the time the Romans left Britain and the locals started deciding that they needed some protection, there was already a sizable enough Saxon contingent who considered themselves naturalised English that the Saxon tribes (and by this I include Angles, Jutes etc) were simply the logical choice to recruit - after all, if you know that you have a cousin who lives in Saxony and commands 200 men, why would you not suggest him when someone tells you that they need to hire a mercenary band?

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

You'd have the time traveling Normans invade in 1066 AD just to troll the British!

You can not escape William the Basterd! HE IS HIGHLANDER!!!

Anyway, *serious face on*, the Alt-version of English will be much more latinized salted with celtic.

Culturally Britain would be much more celtic in nature.

Outside of that, I very much doubt that the Romans would stay for much longer than OTL.

Maybe a PoD could be that Rome takes less of Britannia's assets for whatever reason. Maybe the Rhine frontier collapses much more totally much quicker than OTL?

 

[LSCatilina]

As said above by The Professor, almost everything east of North Sea came in England at some point : Angles, Jutes, Franks, Frisians. Without dominant Saxon group, one of them is going to take the lead, probably the Angles.

Furthermore, the western Gaelic and Picts raids and invasions would be still there, with sub-Roman Britain being still divided, ravaged by plague, and uncohesive. You'll end with, at best, Britto-Roman kingdoms alongside Germanic ones.

Cuturally, it would most probably end with an equivalent of Armorican Britton and Cambria, a celtic culture more or less romanized, and Ireland-like in matters of political division.

It would have interesting repercussions economically : North Sea being one of the trade cores of the VI/IX centuries, the German kingdoms would be still favored by this, critically if Frisians manage to have an important hold in OTL Kent and Middlessex. Course, the atlantic trade was a thing too, but less important and more tookover by southern powers than countries bordering Irish Sea.

 

[tallthinkev]

Don't forget it wasn't just the Saxons - there's the Angles, Jutes, and the odd Frisian group.

As far as I can make out, most likely wrongly, it was the Saxons that did the damage, the others were fewer and therefore less of a concern.

 

[LSCatilina]

As far as I can make out, most likely wrongly, it was the Saxons that did the damage, the others were fewer and therefore less of a concern.

Not really : see if Saxons eventually ended to be the largest name used, it's more from "political" dominance over other peoples. Without Saxons, you'll have probably less Germans, but not that much. Eventually, they would probably take the generic name of Angles, making the whole name of England making sense.

 

[Cambyses]

Have Stilicho send the Western Legions to Gaul in an earlier response to (or preferably before) the huge mixed barbarian invasions of 406 rather than using them to bully Constantinople and keep an eye on Alaric.

Such a decision would remove the need for Constantine III to revolt against his commander and pull his men out of Britain, as his original reason for doing so was to help reinforce Gaul.

In addition to keeping a Roman garrison in Britain for longer, the Western army actually doing its job would probably stop the Vandals from kick-starting the chaos that followed 406 and leave the WRE far stronger overall.

 

[Bee]

Saxons also tried to settle in Northwest France, but were defeated by the Visigoths. Suppose they succeed and the main Saxon forces head there instead.

Fifth century Britain fragmented into smaller and smaller units as the century progressed, as the original celtic kingdoms were divided among heirs. That process couldn't continue indefinitely; either a few of the stronger kingdoms would absorb most of the others or else there would re-emerge some sort of council to coordinate defense against outsiders and internal trade.

 

[Bavarian Raven]

Well if they dont migrate to england, they'd have to go somewhere...
And if butterflies don't flap this away, possibly a slightly larger migration into Transylvania later on?

 

[Westphalian]

Well if they dont migrate to england, they'd have to go somewhere...
And if butterflies don't flap this away, possibly a slightly larger migration into Transylvania later on?

a) Almost nothing will survive unchanged more than half a millenium temporal distance. With this PoD, it is as well improbable that a Saxon king of the Germans will exist and defeat the Magyars, thereby facilitating their settling down. So this TL will probably have no Hungary, and no German settlement in TS as we know it.
b) Anyway, the TS Saxons are only called so, but the come mostly from the middle Rhine and Mosel rivers. IOW, they are Franks.

 

[Westphalian]

Here is a map:

If we take the OP literally, then the area along the Thames will be free from Saxon settlement. It is possible that here stronger Romano-British settlement and even Roman military presence survives, and through contact with the continent is kept strong. This might remain "Britannia". (The Jutes in Kent will probably be subjugated at some point.)
The area farther North, in East Anglia and Mercia, might be less well defended and so attract Angles. This might become the England of this TL.

 

[LSCatilina]

Saxons also tried to settle in Northwest France, but were defeated by the Visigoths. Suppose they succeed and the main Saxon forces head there instead.

Not really : they mostly raided the shores and set up harbours on the coast, more or less like Norses and Danes did in the IX century. Not that of a settlement.

If these harbours managed to live on, they would eventually be absorbated by local population or germanic elites (somethign that would be eventually the same) as we're talking of a population density and number hugely different from Britain : settling in large numbers in a region inhabited by 2 millions isn't going to be the same than raiding and controlling the shores of a region inhabited by 5/7 millions.

Here is a map:
If we take the OP literally, then the area along the Thames will be free from Saxon settlement.

And eventually be controlled and settled by neighbours : the demographic pressure was huge, and Saxons didn't representated that much of an overhelming migration. Granted, Angles or Frisians would have an harder time, but were close enough to replace Saxons without real modification of Romano-Brittons structures.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Drawing upon my factoid knowledge:
Concerning calling the Britons "Celtic", isn't that misapplied, and Celtic is only applicable to the continent and was later inaccurately applied to the natives of the British Isles?

 

[LSCatilina]

Celtic can be used for all related groups, while Brittons could name (as Gallic) inhabitants of mostly Celtic regions whatever they were actually so or not.
Now, as Brittons/British acquired a newer political meaning afterwards, it tends to not be used such, but restricted to Celtic Brittons that aren't Picts or Caledonian in larger sense, while it's a bit weird.

 

[katchen]

Butterfly away the Saxons and the Angles (maybe the Merovingian Franks subdue them or something) and someone else from across the North Sea, maybe the Sidones (ancestral Swedes) or other people like the ancestral Norse come across and subdue the apartment building.

 

[oshron]

one possibility is that expys of Uther and Arthur Pendragon exist and are successful in preventing the Saxons from properly invading and taking control, though i think inevitably there would still be some Germanic influences in Brythonic culture simply accounting for trade and immigration. a possible result could be a culturally Celtic and technologically Roman nation. imagine a later invasion (analogous to William's) facing off against era-appropriate versions of Roman legions, for instance.

hm... maybe i'll write something like this for another timeline