Nechtansmere
- Thread starter JHPier
- Start date
It could mean a stronger English state, which in turn means that a *Norman Invasion is unsuccesful, leaving England out of continental politics for a few more centuries at least. If it strengthens the overall power of England, and allows it to remain a primarily Germanic and Nordic state, it might, just maybe, boost the settlement of Iceland and Greenland, allowing for lasting colonization in Vinland.
hmmm. I'm not an expert on the Picts, but I don't see this helping the English resist the Normans much. You still go tthe Vikings, who are goin gto investiably find their way over to England. Unfortunetly I don't see anyway for even a strong Angle-Saxon kingdom defeating the Vikings. The Norse were simply to good at warfare when they arrive.
The Danes were never the dominant force in England. Godwinson was the last of the Saxon kings in England, not a Viking successor. A stronger Anglo-Saxon state would mean that the Danelaw is smaller and dwindles faster, and possibly avoids the peculiarity of succession law which allowed both Harald Hardrada and William of Normandy to make claims on the throne and invade in the same year. Without those claims, there's no invasion; even if they do happen, it doesn't take very much for *Hastings to be a Saxon victory; had William's unhorsing been more injurious, it would have been in OTL.
Flocculencio
Donor
Well for one thing of Northumbria retains prominence, you might see a Kingdom of England with it's power base in the North and it's capital at York.
`York was founded by the Danes. If Northumbria can resist Danish expansion, there'll be no Jorvik to become York.
I think your forgetting that that England was infact conquered by the Vikings numerouse times see Canut the Great, King Sweyn Forkbeard, and the "Heathen Army," which Alfred eventualy defeated. I mean hell in the 800's Alfred the great was one of the few independent kings left and he had to buy is way befor he could raise an army big enough to oppose the Vikings, of course he was defeated a couple of times before he actualy succeded. The only reason the Vikings didn't keep England is because they kept on being bought off. The point is that no matter what happens the vikings are goin to burst throught the English door, which most likely means things go as per OTL. I mean I don't think anyone can say that the Saxons were a match for the Vikings until 1066. But involvement with Vikings means a probably involvement with the Normans. And as the Normans arn't exactlyin good favor with the French crown I don't see they wouldn't pass up a succescion crises that was just across the Channal.Forum Lurker said:
Edit: While I think it is POSSIBLE for the Saxons to have won at Hastings, I think the odds are in the Normans favor. The Saxons had been fighting/marching all month. England itself was in terrible financial situation. Harold wasn't even the legitmate heir to the throne. But having said this Harold could have won, but that doesn't mean England is goin to go isolationist. The wool trade is huge part of the English economy, which the French were greedy to become a part of (namly by conquring flanders). England also has a history of interaction with the continent and has never been isolationist, when it comes to European matters.
Last edited:
A) No, the Vikings didn't hold back because they were being bought off. That brought them on all the faster. There's a reason "Danegeld" is a pejorative term.
B) It's true that some Vikings are going to arrive no matter what happens. Only Alien Space Bats could stop that. However, any changes which strengthen and centralize England will decrease the degree to which Norse colonization succeeds, which may have lasting repercussions later on.
C) True, England will not go isolationist if they beat William. They will, however, be less involved in continental politics, not by direct and conscious choice but because there will be less intermarriage between Norman British rulers and continental monarchs.. They'll be more concerned with Scandinavia than France.
B) It's true that some Vikings are going to arrive no matter what happens. Only Alien Space Bats could stop that. However, any changes which strengthen and centralize England will decrease the degree to which Norse colonization succeeds, which may have lasting repercussions later on.
C) True, England will not go isolationist if they beat William. They will, however, be less involved in continental politics, not by direct and conscious choice but because there will be less intermarriage between Norman British rulers and continental monarchs.. They'll be more concerned with Scandinavia than France.
I'm sorry but buying off the vikings was effective and was used by Alfred numerouse times to buy time. Here are three examples from the late 900's and early 1000's, after which there was only one attack buy the Vikings, which wasn't a raid to gain wealth, but one of conquest that put Canut on the throne. 1066.
991 - Battle of Maldon: Byrhtnoth of Essex is defeated by Danish invaders; Aethelred II buys off the Danes with 10,000 pounds of silver (Danegeld).
1007 - Aethelred buys two years' peace from the Danes for 36,000 pounds of silver.
1012 - The Danes sack Canterbury: bought off for 48,000 pounds of silver.
As you can see the bribes increased but only one major attack occured between 1012 and 1066.
The fact is the Vikings were by far the dominant influnce on England from about the 800's to the early 1000's. And just because a battle turns one way doesn't mean that England will become more centralized. Remeber it is still a fedualistic state, that wouldn't change from the outcome of this one battle. Also this is early feudalism, which isn't exactly prone to centralization no matter who controls what. And even they do become more centralized, the Vikings are simply far better at warfare then the Saxon's are across the board. A more centralized state wouldn't of changed the way the Saxon's fought.
If anything a victory of Northumbria would just make its situation more percariouse as the other Saxon states eye it in envy. Maybe leading to a early Saxon-Viking alliance against Northumbria? Eventualy leading to about OTL situation witht he Vikings being largly forced out by the mid 1000's.
991 - Battle of Maldon: Byrhtnoth of Essex is defeated by Danish invaders; Aethelred II buys off the Danes with 10,000 pounds of silver (Danegeld).
1007 - Aethelred buys two years' peace from the Danes for 36,000 pounds of silver.
1012 - The Danes sack Canterbury: bought off for 48,000 pounds of silver.
As you can see the bribes increased but only one major attack occured between 1012 and 1066.
The fact is the Vikings were by far the dominant influnce on England from about the 800's to the early 1000's. And just because a battle turns one way doesn't mean that England will become more centralized. Remeber it is still a fedualistic state, that wouldn't change from the outcome of this one battle. Also this is early feudalism, which isn't exactly prone to centralization no matter who controls what. And even they do become more centralized, the Vikings are simply far better at warfare then the Saxon's are across the board. A more centralized state wouldn't of changed the way the Saxon's fought.
If anything a victory of Northumbria would just make its situation more percariouse as the other Saxon states eye it in envy. Maybe leading to a early Saxon-Viking alliance against Northumbria? Eventualy leading to about OTL situation witht he Vikings being largly forced out by the mid 1000's.
Doing this a bit back to front...
1066-England, its borders roughly as they are now, is best described as Anglo-Danish rather than Anglo-Saxon. Harold Godwinson was Anglo-Danish (his mother or grandmother was of Danish stock).
Hastings is a very close fought battle (all day battel at a time when most only lasted 2 hours) and even allowing for the fact a good part of the English army was knackered, it would only have taken a bit more discipline on the right wing(which it would have had if Harold's brother, commanding the right wing had not been killed) and William would have lost the day or at least not won, which would have amounted tot he same thing-battered Norman army, in retreat, no reinforcements, chased back to its ships as more and more English reinforcements arrive...
Part of the reason for the success of the Great Army was there was a civil war raging in Northumberia. No civil war and there is a strong possibility the Great Army may not have been successful or not as successful as it was. Of course, the Great Army destroyed the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms except Wessex, this in turn is considered to be what led to the creation of a single England (the theory is, very simply, without the Vikings no one of the kingdoms would have been powerful enough to overwhelm the others, think the politics of the three megapowers in '1984').
Northumberia v Picts. If the Picts had lost then it seems likely that Northumberia would have seized their better territory and left them with the more highland bits (of little value to Northumberia). In turn this would have left the Picts weaker and an earlier surrender/take over by the Scots, who might themselves now be limited to the Highlands, unable to break into the lowlands. The now much stronger Northumberia continues to dominate, perhaps it remains the dominant power and so Mercia never achieves greatness (I think largely gained at the expense of the weakened Northumberia). This might make some changes in the south-if Mercia is tied up holding off a powerful Northhumberia their allainces with the Welsh might not come about. Freed of the Mercian threat, it is possible one of the southern kingdoms such as Wessex, Sussex or Kent might come to dominate the others (historically the Mercians domianted them), so instead of the Kings of Kent and Sussex submitting to Merica, they might submit to Wessex instead. So we end up with an increasingly powerful Wessex in the south, Northumberia in the North (who has taken over the Strathclyders and other 'British' kingdoms in the north) and Merica and the East Angles cuaght in the middle. A stronger Wessex might overwhelm Dumnonia/Cornwall sooner, perhaps even before the Vikings turn up. The Vikings still end up taking over the north but facing a much stronger Northumberia are much weaker when they attack the now enlarged Wessex who defeats them but sooner. Danelaw is smaller and the conquest of it is completed by Edward (next king after Alfred) rather than Athlestan (Edward's son).
1066-England, its borders roughly as they are now, is best described as Anglo-Danish rather than Anglo-Saxon. Harold Godwinson was Anglo-Danish (his mother or grandmother was of Danish stock).
Hastings is a very close fought battle (all day battel at a time when most only lasted 2 hours) and even allowing for the fact a good part of the English army was knackered, it would only have taken a bit more discipline on the right wing(which it would have had if Harold's brother, commanding the right wing had not been killed) and William would have lost the day or at least not won, which would have amounted tot he same thing-battered Norman army, in retreat, no reinforcements, chased back to its ships as more and more English reinforcements arrive...
Part of the reason for the success of the Great Army was there was a civil war raging in Northumberia. No civil war and there is a strong possibility the Great Army may not have been successful or not as successful as it was. Of course, the Great Army destroyed the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms except Wessex, this in turn is considered to be what led to the creation of a single England (the theory is, very simply, without the Vikings no one of the kingdoms would have been powerful enough to overwhelm the others, think the politics of the three megapowers in '1984').
Northumberia v Picts. If the Picts had lost then it seems likely that Northumberia would have seized their better territory and left them with the more highland bits (of little value to Northumberia). In turn this would have left the Picts weaker and an earlier surrender/take over by the Scots, who might themselves now be limited to the Highlands, unable to break into the lowlands. The now much stronger Northumberia continues to dominate, perhaps it remains the dominant power and so Mercia never achieves greatness (I think largely gained at the expense of the weakened Northumberia). This might make some changes in the south-if Mercia is tied up holding off a powerful Northhumberia their allainces with the Welsh might not come about. Freed of the Mercian threat, it is possible one of the southern kingdoms such as Wessex, Sussex or Kent might come to dominate the others (historically the Mercians domianted them), so instead of the Kings of Kent and Sussex submitting to Merica, they might submit to Wessex instead. So we end up with an increasingly powerful Wessex in the south, Northumberia in the North (who has taken over the Strathclyders and other 'British' kingdoms in the north) and Merica and the East Angles cuaght in the middle. A stronger Wessex might overwhelm Dumnonia/Cornwall sooner, perhaps even before the Vikings turn up. The Vikings still end up taking over the north but facing a much stronger Northumberia are much weaker when they attack the now enlarged Wessex who defeats them but sooner. Danelaw is smaller and the conquest of it is completed by Edward (next king after Alfred) rather than Athlestan (Edward's son).