stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857 
Likes: 13,241
|
Post by stevep on Jan 28, 2019 9:38:58 GMT
Avoiding the Slavic migration into the Balkans would require the Avar Khaganate to be nerfed, because the Avars had used Slavic auxilliaries during their incursions into Byzantine territory. However, an inverse might also be feasible (ie: a successful Avar conquest of the Balkan region). You also forgot East Anglia as another potential major kingdom in the British Isles.
Possibly but which is likely to lead to a more lasting unified and fairly stable state in the region, a lasting Avar state or a stronger or reviving Byzantium? OTL after the failure of the Persian attack on Constantinople ~614 wasn't it, which the Avars supported [and which suggested they controlled most of the Balkans] they pretty much disappeared quickly.
Of course with Byzantium as a large Christian empire your always going to have problems with assorted religious disputes over doctrine so there will be problems there but it has much common structure to hold things together.
If the division is maintained early enough that England never unites and that the bigger states [Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex] are periodically knocked back somewhat then E Anglia and some other smaller states could continue to survive. Although it leaves England so weak that unification by foreign conquest is almost certain at some point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 11:53:03 GMT
If the division is maintained early enough that England never unites and that the bigger states [Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex] are periodically knocked back somewhat then E Anglia and some other smaller states could continue to survive.Although it leaves England so weak that unification by foreign conquest is almost certain at some point. It's quite easy to break up England alone into factionalised warring states too weak to unite. Any of these events going the other way would have a profound effect - there would be no 'England' to speak of. Harrying of the NorthBattle of BerkhamstedNorman Invasion of WalesSweyn II's invasions of England 1069-1074Rebellion of 1088and that's just the 11th century! There was no coherent entity called 'England' or 'Scotland' as we know it for centuries after the Battle of Hastings, nor an 'English' identity, despite retrospective attempts to create one. Then there is Scotland V Denmark V Normansand the The Anarchy! 'England' is an invention of the 14th and 15th century. The Plantagenets had to call the territory they controlled something. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,241
|
Post by stevep on Jan 28, 2019 15:48:28 GMT
If the division is maintained early enough that England never unites and that the bigger states [Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex] are periodically knocked back somewhat then E Anglia and some other smaller states could continue to survive.Although it leaves England so weak that unification by foreign conquest is almost certain at some point. It's quite easy to break up England alone into factionalised warring states too weak to unite. Any of these events going the other way would have a profound effect - there would be no 'England' to speak of. Harrying of the NorthBattle of BerkhamstedNorman Invasion of WalesSweyn II's invasions of England 1069-1074Rebellion of 1088and that's just the 11th century! There was no coherent entity called 'England' or 'Scotland' as we know it for centuries after the Battle of Hastings, nor an 'English' identity, despite retrospective attempts to create one. Then there is Scotland V Denmark V Normansand the The Anarchy! 'England' is an invention of the 14th and 15th century. The Plantagenets had to call the territory they controlled something.
An English identity and state was suppressed after Hastings and the later attempts to depose the Normans but it definitely existed and was prominent before 1066. It was relatively loose prior to the Viking conquests but emerged during the reconquest under Alfred and his successors, albeit that regional identities were still strong and the significant Danish and Norse settlement, especially around York meant there were areas that were challenges to a coherent identity over the entire territory of modern England.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 16:38:20 GMT
An English identity and state was suppressed after Hastings England was created at the Battle of Hastings. It's a Norman/Plantagenet/Angevin invention. If I traveled back 1000 years and stayed in the same place, I would have to learn Danish, and fast, if I wanted to live. The territory known as England had no common language, the chief indicator of an nation identity, for two hundred years before 1066, and two hundred years after. As Hastings, and the earlier Battle of Maldon proved, the concept of 'England' was so fragile it could be pushed over in a day. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,241
|
Post by stevep on Jan 28, 2019 22:41:03 GMT
An English identity and state was suppressed after Hastings England was created at the Battle of Hastings. It's a Norman/Plantagenet/Angevin invention. If I traveled back 1000 years and stayed in the same place, I would have to learn Danish, and fast, if I wanted to live. The territory known as England had no common language, the chief indicator of an nation identity, for two hundred years before 1066, and two hundred years after. As Hastings, and the earlier Battle of Maldon proved, the concept of 'England' was so fragile it could be pushed over in a day.
It wasn't a totally homogenous nation no but the identity was definitely there. This was suppressed after Hastings and it could even have gone under. That battle put back English development by centuries, as well as the Normans replacing good relations with Ireland with the poisonous one that developed. Possibly the key factor in the revival was the failure of Henry II and his sons, with John especially by losing the old Norman heartland forcing a more English identity on the ruling nobility. Even then English only emerged as the language of the ruling elite in Edward III's time.
Maldon was a markedly less important battle than a number of others in the Anglo-Dutch wars. England had Danish conquerors but they didn't change the inherent identity of the English and it was in resistance to the Norman identity that it revived. About the only thing about the Normans that made England more of a coherent whole was the brutal slaughter in the north which considerably reduced the Danish speaking population in the region but if the country had stayed under English rule it would almost certainly have been absorbed over time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 23:31:53 GMT
So these constant invasions by Danes and Franks and Normans and Scots and the Welsh between 800-1500 were early attempts at European Unity?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 29, 2019 4:54:33 GMT
With any kind of PoD in the 700s to 900s, the British Isles might as well become a European equivalent to Japan before the Tokugawa Shogunate, with various smaller states arising in opposition to one another. Although with Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria and Wessex being divergent, they could have developed unique cultures influenced by their neighbors elsewhere. Although you might also have the region of southern England being ruled by the Normans and northern England being ruled by the last Wessex claimant, Edgar Aetheling in an alternate partition, or alt-Northumbria being given to either Tostig Godwinson (the brother of the last Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson) or some Anglo-Saxon puppet of Harald Hardrada if the Norwegians were more successful than William the Conqueror. In this scenario, I've made two small maps on what it might look like, and who might emerge as the dominant power here. Attachments:
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,241
|
Post by stevep on Jan 29, 2019 11:11:20 GMT
With any kind of PoD in the 700s to 900s, the British Isles might as well become a European equivalent to Japan before the Tokugawa Shogunate, with various smaller states arising in opposition to one another. Although with Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria and Wessex being divergent, they could have developed unique cultures influenced by their neighbors elsewhere. Although you might also have the region of southern England being ruled by the Normans and northern England being ruled by the last Wessex claimant, Edgar Aetheling in an alternate partition, or alt-Northumbria being given to either Tostig Godwinson (the brother of the last Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson) or some Anglo-Saxon puppet of Harald Hardrada if the Norwegians were more successful than William the Conqueror. In this scenario, I've made two small maps on what it might look like, and who might emerge as the dominant power here.
Their possibilities although that combined Wessex/Mercia/E Anglia is likely to have too much power for the northern state or states to remain independent indefinitely without external support. You really need to keep at least the three former kingdoms separate and possibly say a Kent/Middlesex/Essex dominating the SE as well.
In the 2nd map has Northumbria conquered the Scots and Picts or vice versa? That could be an unstable union either way unless its settled down for a century or two. Alternatively might be a larger but more northernly Danelaw?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 11:38:46 GMT
Scotland and Northumbria/Cumbria/Yorkshire de facto parts of Denmark. That'd work. Cnut the Great's North Sea Empire on stilts  |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 30, 2019 6:45:48 GMT
With any kind of PoD in the 700s to 900s, the British Isles might as well become a European equivalent to Japan before the Tokugawa Shogunate, with various smaller states arising in opposition to one another. Although with Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria and Wessex being divergent, they could have developed unique cultures influenced by their neighbors elsewhere. Although you might also have the region of southern England being ruled by the Normans and northern England being ruled by the last Wessex claimant, Edgar Aetheling in an alternate partition, or alt-Northumbria being given to either Tostig Godwinson (the brother of the last Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson) or some Anglo-Saxon puppet of Harald Hardrada if the Norwegians were more successful than William the Conqueror. In this scenario, I've made two small maps on what it might look like, and who might emerge as the dominant power here.
Their possibilities although that combined Wessex/Mercia/E Anglia is likely to have too much power for the northern state or states to remain independent indefinitely without external support. You really need to keep at least the three former kingdoms separate and possibly say a Kent/Middlesex/Essex dominating the SE as well.
In the 2nd map has Northumbria conquered the Scots and Picts or vice versa? That could be an unstable union either way unless its settled down for a century or two. Alternatively might be a larger but more northernly Danelaw?
Ok. I was making this map with the assumption that England would have been partitioned with the southern half being under Norman control. Perhaps Wessex would become Norman territory with a smarter Harold Godwinson opting for attrition instead of meeting William the Bastard. Essex and Sussex would have been partitioned by the Godwinson brothers, but the last Wessex claimant would want to keep Wessex or Mercia. Alternatively, we can have a slightly bigger Wales that includes western Mercia. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,241
|
Post by stevep on Jan 30, 2019 9:30:48 GMT
Their possibilities although that combined Wessex/Mercia/E Anglia is likely to have too much power for the northern state or states to remain independent indefinitely without external support. You really need to keep at least the three former kingdoms separate and possibly say a Kent/Middlesex/Essex dominating the SE as well.
In the 2nd map has Northumbria conquered the Scots and Picts or vice versa? That could be an unstable union either way unless its settled down for a century or two. Alternatively might be a larger but more northernly Danelaw?
Ok. I was making this map with the assumption that England would have been partitioned with the southern half being under Norman control. Perhaps Wessex would become Norman territory with a smarter Harold Godwinson opting for attrition instead of meeting William the Bastard. Essex and Sussex would have been partitioned by the Godwinson brothers, but the last Wessex claimant would want to keep Wessex or Mercia. Alternatively, we can have a slightly bigger Wales that includes western Mercia.
I think the problem with that is if William wins at Hastings he had loot to hand out to recruit more mercenaries and been the greedy bastard he was he wouldn't stop until defeated or he has the entire country under his heel, plus domination of Scotland and Wales if he could. Plus by this time the English identity is very firmly established and an history of a unified kingdom. Even if say the two northern earls, who were brothers rebelled against Harold and he was initially too weak after defeating two invaders to immediately overcome them I doubt they would last long, even if Harold only had the north and the east and they had both earldoms, Mercia and Northumbria. To break up England decisively you really need something a century or two earlier. Or need foreign intervention that is both powerful and committed to partitioning the country permanently.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 31, 2019 3:12:20 GMT
I was thinking a stronger Great Heathen Army making a more devastating damage to the British Isles to make this happen, although a larger Danelaw might also face a series of attacks from the Celts in what is now Scotland. Even the Welsh would be hard pressed to get involved in the resistance to the invading Vikings attacking the British Isles. Let us not forget that the later invasions by the Norwegian forces of Harald Hardrada might become a major factor as well.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,241
|
Post by stevep on Jan 31, 2019 9:39:33 GMT
I was thinking a stronger Great Heathen Army making a more devastating damage to the British Isles to make this happen, although a larger Danelaw might also face a series of attacks from the Celts in what is now Scotland. Even the Welsh would be hard pressed to get involved in the resistance to the invading Vikings attacking the British Isles. Let us not forget that the later invasions by the Norwegian forces of Harald Hardrada might become a major factor as well.
Possibly but you really need to kill off Alfred to stop the revival of the English under Wessex's leadership else the emerging English identity that strengthens during this period is too strong. As the Normans showed England could be conquered and occupied but if you have multiple foreign rulers sooner or later one will either 'go native' or fall, if only because their distant homeland takes too much attention. Then unless another conqueror can take it over it becomes a centre for English nationalism and independence. Especially given the the fractious nature of the Normans and their brutality there would always be the possibility that a Norman empire that only rules part of England could be defeated. Also if there is an English bid for independence then it could get some support from Norman enemies, most possibly the French.
Basically an England divided by multiple foreign rulers would probably be quite similar to Poland in the partition period, although with the considerable advantage of being an island at a distance from the heartlands of the occupiers. As such its more difficult to reinforce occupying forces and the rulers have more pressing matters with their homelands. As it was the Norman/Plantagenet rulers only really started to Angleise after the loss of the core Norman lands in N France.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 1, 2019 2:35:33 GMT
I was thinking a stronger Great Heathen Army making a more devastating damage to the British Isles to make this happen, although a larger Danelaw might also face a series of attacks from the Celts in what is now Scotland. Even the Welsh would be hard pressed to get involved in the resistance to the invading Vikings attacking the British Isles. Let us not forget that the later invasions by the Norwegian forces of Harald Hardrada might become a major factor as well.
Possibly but you really need to kill off Alfred to stop the revival of the English under Wessex's leadership else the emerging English identity that strengthens during this period is too strong. As the Normans showed England could be conquered and occupied but if you have multiple foreign rulers sooner or later one will either 'go native' or fall, if only because their distant homeland takes too much attention. Then unless another conqueror can take it over it becomes a centre for English nationalism and independence. Especially given the the fractious nature of the Normans and their brutality there would always be the possibility that a Norman empire that only rules part of England could be defeated. Also if there is an English bid for independence then it could get some support from Norman enemies, most possibly the French.
Basically an England divided by multiple foreign rulers would probably be quite similar to Poland in the partition period, although with the considerable advantage of being an island at a distance from the heartlands of the occupiers. As such its more difficult to reinforce occupying forces and the rulers have more pressing matters with their homelands. As it was the Norman/Plantagenet rulers only really started to Angleise after the loss of the core Norman lands in N France.
Killing off Alfred might be very easy to do since he was the least healthiest of all the four sons of King Aethelwulf of Wessex. As for the map that I made in the previous post, I was thinking that it could have led either to a unification of what is now Scotland and Northumbria into a Scoto-Scandinavian entity there, or it would be a larger Scotland that is more Celtic than Norse. And because Norway is closer to Scotland than England, you might also have a scenario where someone similar to Cnut the Great or Harald Hardrada decided to conquer Scotland instead of England. Alternatively, you could have a Scot chieftain or a Pict chieftain conquer the Danelaw and assimilate the Viking settlers there. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,241
|
Post by stevep on Feb 1, 2019 10:41:30 GMT
Possibly but you really need to kill off Alfred to stop the revival of the English under Wessex's leadership else the emerging English identity that strengthens during this period is too strong. As the Normans showed England could be conquered and occupied but if you have multiple foreign rulers sooner or later one will either 'go native' or fall, if only because their distant homeland takes too much attention. Then unless another conqueror can take it over it becomes a centre for English nationalism and independence. Especially given the the fractious nature of the Normans and their brutality there would always be the possibility that a Norman empire that only rules part of England could be defeated. Also if there is an English bid for independence then it could get some support from Norman enemies, most possibly the French.
Basically an England divided by multiple foreign rulers would probably be quite similar to Poland in the partition period, although with the considerable advantage of being an island at a distance from the heartlands of the occupiers. As such its more difficult to reinforce occupying forces and the rulers have more pressing matters with their homelands. As it was the Norman/Plantagenet rulers only really started to Angleise after the loss of the core Norman lands in N France.
Killing off Alfred might be very easy to do since he was the least healthiest of all the four sons of King Aethelwulf of Wessex. As for the map that I made in the previous post, I was thinking that it could have led either to a unification of what is now Scotland and Northumbria into a Scoto-Scandinavian entity there, or it would be a larger Scotland that is more Celtic than Norse. And because Norway is closer to Scotland than England, you might also have a scenario where someone similar to Cnut the Great or Harald Hardrada decided to conquer Scotland instead of England. Alternatively, you could have a Scot chieftain or a Pict chieftain conquer the Danelaw and assimilate the Viking settlers there.
On the last bit, unless you have a very skilled Scots leader I suspect its unlikely. They were often unpleasant neighbours [and sometimes the hostility was mutual] but the early Scottish state didn't really have the power to do more than raid the northern reaches. As such I can't see them having the power to conquer Northumbria, whether the latter was ruled by English or Danish and similarly Scotland was really too poor at the time to be an attractive target for someone like Harald.
Agree that Alfred could die fairly easily, either because of his poor health or in battle, or simply being assassinated. In which case Wessex could also go down. If that happened then not sure what sort of state or states would emerge in what's now England.
|
|
