AHC: Cornish independence

Challenge: Maintain Briton (that is, Dumnonii/Cornish) rule over Cornwall up to 2014 AC.

Rule: POD must be after 577 (Battle of Deorham).

Bonus points if the Dumnonii can keep Devon as well.
 
fairly tricky ... first you have to do away with the idea of an unified anglo-saxon britain, and then you'd have to have a strong enough Cornwall to stop others from looking at it as a tasty addition to their kingdom
 
fairly tricky ... first you have to do away with the idea of an unified anglo-saxon britain, and then you'd have to have a strong enough Cornwall to stop others from looking at it as a tasty addition to their kingdom

If Cornwall can survive as a Brythonic speaking independant land, then the AngloSaxon kingdoms have to be very weak, as Sian said. They THEY are that weak, the Wales stays independent (probably as multiple states), and possibly even Strathclyde.
 
What if the Vikings so heavily devastate Wessex that Alfred has to spend his entire life struggling to survive, rather than beginning to fight back? Also, the Saxons manage to hang on just enough that the Danelaw can't be completely supreme. In this case, I believe Cornwall and Wales could use the chaos to reclaim some land and possibly, at least in cornwalls case unify.
 
In "Taxation No Tyranny" Dr. Johnson attempted to reduce the claims of the American colonies to absurdity by the following comparison:


"As political diseases are naturally contagious, let it be supposed, for a
moment, that Cornwall, seized with the Philadelphian phrensy, may resolve
to separate itself from the general system of the English constitution, and
judge of its own rights in its own parliament. A congress might then meet
at Truro, and address the other counties in a style not unlike the language
of the American patriots:

"FRIENDS AND FELLOW-SUBJECTS, we, the delegates of the several towns and
parishes of Cornwall, assembled to deliberate upon our own state, and that
of our constituents, having, after serious debate and calm consideration,
settled the scheme of our future conduct, hold it necessary to declare the
resolutions which we think ourselves entitled to form, by the unalienable
rights of reasonable beings, and into which we have been compelled by
grievances and oppressions, long endured by us in patient silence, not
because we did not feel, or could not remove them, but because we were
unwilling to give disturbance to a settled government, and hoped that
others would, in time, find, like ourselves, their true interest and their
original powers, and all cooperate to universal happiness.

"But since, having long indulged the pleasing expectation, we find general
discontent not likely to increase, or not likely to end in general
defection, we resolve to erect alone the standard of liberty.

"Know then, that you are no longer to consider Cornwall as an English
county, visited by English judges, receiving law from an English
parliament, or included in any general taxation of the kingdom; but as a
state, distinct and independent, governed by its own institutions,
administered by its own magistrates, and exempt from any tax or tribute,
but such as we shall impose upon ourselves.

"We are the acknowledged descendants of the earliest inhabitants of
Britain, of men, who, before the time of history, took possession of the
island desolate and waste, and, therefore, open to the first occupants. Of
this descent, our language is a sufficient proof, which, not quite a
century ago, was different from yours.

"Such are the Cornishmen; but who are you? who, but the unauthorised and
lawless children of intruders, invaders, and oppressors? who, but the
transmitters of wrong, the inheritors of robbery? In claiming independence,
we claim but little. We might require you to depart from a land which you
possess by usurpation, and to restore all that you have taken from us.

"Independence is the gift of nature. No man is born the master of another.
Every Cornishman is a freeman; for we have never resigned the rights of
humanity; and he only can be thought free, who is not governed but by his
own consent."

Et cetera, et cetera. Johnson triumphantly concludes: "Of this memorial what could be said, but that it was written in jest, or written by a madman? Yet I know not whether the warmest admirers of Pennsylvania eloquence, can find any argument in the addresses of the congress, that is not, with greater strength, urged by the Cornishman." http://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html
 
The Normans rolled up the English. They rolled the Welsh. But for Edward II's incompetence they could have rolled up the Scots. They could roll up the Cornish without needing to spit out the bones.
 
The Normans rolled up the English. They rolled the Welsh. But for Edward II's incompetence they could have rolled up the Scots. They could roll up the Cornish without needing to spit out the bones.
Well, you're assuming Normans (and them successfully invading England).

I think it's been pretty well agreed above that for Cornwall to survive, you need multiple polities/kingdoms in England. Any single polity that controlled England could roll over Cornwall.
 
Maybe some religious conflicts among the Saxons might do the trick. A long struggle between Christians and Pagans could keep them divided against each other.
 
Well, you're assuming Normans (and them successfully invading England).

I think it's been pretty well agreed above that for Cornwall to survive, you need multiple polities/kingdoms in England. Any single polity that controlled England could roll over Cornwall.

What if William is killed/dies of wounds after winning at Hastings, and Harold is still dead?
 
Cornwall was pretty much within Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence, when not suzerainty already since the IXth century at latest, so it would do little.

Giving the separation from with other Britton kingdoms, I don't think Cornwall could stand on its own : not enough ressources to deal with Wessex on the long term, let alone an unified England.

A lasting unity of Cornwall after Gerontius would probably help to withstand more, though. Maybe an earlier equivalent of the battle of Hehil that would allow him to hold his power at least up to Exeter. Insular kingship, though, favoured political division tempered with a cyclical unification by a high king : sooner or later it's going to backfire and Cornwall would know the same fate than Wales as a whole.

Its best chances would be a "greater Wales" kingdom, on which Cornwall could benefit if loosing its particularism (or playing too much on its particularism and being an easy prey); or maybe a greater Brittany.

If Brittany was treated in a similar way than Aquitaine/Gascony or Bavaria (meaning a total takeover by Franks, followed by a largely autonomous entity), you could (even if quite unlikely, giving the geo-economical situation) having some sort of Channel thalassocracy akin to Frisian on North Sea (on a much, much more reduced scale) swalloing up Cornwall and recreating a sort of second Dumonia on both sides of the sea.

Viking expeditions are going to harm the second choice a lot, but you'd have a precedent to work with and *maybe* keeping extended Cornwall structurally more distinct from England and close enough from Brittanic culture...

I doubt it would last, for lack of ressources, up to 2014.
 
Cornwall was pretty much within Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence, when not suzerainty already since the IXth century at latest, so it would do little.

Giving the separation from with other Britton kingdoms, I don't think Cornwall could stand on its own : not enough ressources to deal with Wessex on the long term, let alone an unified England.

A lasting unity of Cornwall after Gerontius would probably help to withstand more, though. Maybe an earlier equivalent of the battle of Hehil that would allow him to hold his power at least up to Exeter. Insular kingship, though, favoured political division tempered with a cyclical unification by a high king : sooner or later it's going to backfire and Cornwall would know the same fate than Wales as a whole.

Its best chances would be a "greater Wales" kingdom, on which Cornwall could benefit if loosing its particularism (or playing too much on its particularism and being an easy prey); or maybe a greater Brittany.

If Brittany was treated in a similar way than Aquitaine/Gascony or Bavaria (meaning a total takeover by Franks, followed by a largely autonomous entity), you could (even if quite unlikely, giving the geo-economical situation) having some sort of Channel thalassocracy akin to Frisian on North Sea (on a much, much more reduced scale) swalloing up Cornwall and recreating a sort of second Dumonia on both sides of the sea.

Viking expeditions are going to harm the second choice a lot, but you'd have a precedent to work with and *maybe* keeping extended Cornwall structurally more distinct from England and close enough from Brittanic culture...

I doubt it would last, for lack of ressources, up to 2014.

I agree; I think the best bet would be *Cornwall consisting of the entire peninsula. There were a few battles with Wessex that might have gone the other way, which would have maintained Celtic control over Dumonia. The peninsula would have had enough population to maintain its independence and cultural cohersion. If it becomes part of a united Wales later on, all the better.
 
fairly tricky ... first you have to do away with the idea of an unified anglo-saxon britain, and then you'd have to have a strong enough Cornwall to stop others from looking at it as a tasty addition to their kingdom

What if William is killed/dies of wounds after winning at Hastings, and Harold is still dead?

Cornwall probably lost its independence in 838, or shortly thereafter, to Wessex.

So any PoD 200 years later would be re-establishing a long lost independence, rather than keeping one. And that is always harder.

The fact it was conquered by Wessex, a single Anglo-Saxon kingdom (albeit the strongest, and the one that would unite England), shows that your change in history HAS to be keeping England split up.
 

Driftless

Donor
What if William is killed/dies of wounds after winning at Hastings, and Harold is still dead?

If somebody hasn't already done so, there's a timeline right there.... William, Harold, Harald, all dead.... That might help the OP's premise as well.
 
If somebody hasn't already done so, there's a timeline right there.... William, Harold, Harald, all dead.... That might help the OP's premise as well.

Giving, as pointed out by several posts, that Cornwall was definitly under Anglo-Saxon suzerainty by the IXth century, and having his elites either integrated within Anglo-Saxon nobility or outright replaced (it's not really clear which of this happened), it's not going to change anything.
By the mid-XIth century, Cornwall was at best as independent that were English borderlands (and later, "Marches") with Wales, and more probably treated as a distant shire.
 
By the mid-XIth century, Cornwall was at best as independent that were English borderlands (and later, "Marches") with Wales, and more probably treated as a distant shire.
Given the centre of power in England is the Midlands/London Cornwall is certainly a distant shire.
 
Given the centre of power in England is the Midlands/London Cornwall is certainly a distant shire.

No more than Bernicia or Yorkshire, if we go by geographical distance.

I was more talking about political distance (again, such as Bernicia that went into an hereditary principality by 1000) and less important focus (relativly speaking : Harold's campaigns in Wales points out that Anglo-Saxon England was still interested on its western parts).
 
Top