Anglo-Saxon England

Hwæt!
Two PODs here
1. IIRC it was at the Synod of Whitby that the Church of England decided to follow the Latin form of Christianity abandoning the Celtic form introduced from Ireland. In this ATL, the Church of England goes Celtic.
2. Lets assume that this isn't butterflied away by the above: Hastings, 1066. The Anglo-Saxon fyrd refused to be lured out of its Shield-Wall by the Norman knights false retreat. The battle lasts until nightfall before both sides take a break. William the Bastard is still pinned on the Hastings peninsula with his back to the sea. The wily Harold plans and executes a dawn attack- taken by surprise, the Normans panic and run, abandoning their supply wagons and falling back to the beaches. Through a stroke of good fortune William doesn't make it- he makes a valiant last stand with a few unlucky or loyal retainers before falling beneath the Anglo-Saxon axemen of Harold's personal guard. With their lord dead, the Norman organisation falls apart- the invasion of England has failed.

What would England be like under a continuing Anglo-Saxon government?

1. Art and culture
The Engliscgreord (English language) would continue to be a literary tongue throughout the Middle Ages- OTL we had to wait until Chaucer's time before we got much literature in Englysshe. We'd get more epics along the lines of Beowulf. English would be a harder language to learn, probably retaining more cases and inflections and gramattical gender. It would be a more purely Germanic language unlike OTL where its got quite a bit of French mixed in. The Anglo-Saxon class system was somewhat more egalitarian than its Norman successor (where the normans were on top and everyone else was on the bottom) so we might see quicker steps towards parliamentary government in some form (the Anglo-Saxon ealdormenn were very big on councils to advise the king).

2. Politics
I'm a bit hazy here- only thing I can think of is that without posessions in Normandy there are a lot less continental field trips for the English. The French will not learn to fear the mighty Welsh longbows. Possibly the kingdom of England (with its capital at Winchester? I'm not sure about this, was Harolds capital at London?) will be more interested in facing off against its historical enemies and kin, the Deniscan (Danes, Vikings). Scandinavia may be the area of choice for english ambitions. Maybe a Kingdom of the North would be the final result stretching from Ireland to Finland.

Any thoughts? If my information is inaccurate please feel free to poke large holes in it.
 
"English would be a harder language to learn, probably retaining more cases and inflections and gramattical gender."

...for speakers of languages without these features. For speakers of languages with these features it would be easier to learn.

People keep suggesting on various threads that English is somehow easier to learn than other languages. It is not.

Anyway, I am fairly certain that the loss of the case in English did not come about through the influence of Norman French, Norman French had the greatest influence on the derivational morphology of English not the inflectional. So this ATL modern English would be very similar OTL English, except that in place of words like "unity" we would have words like "onehood", a "foreigner" would be an "outlander" etc. I guess it would look a bit like Dutch.
 
Point conceded

"...for speakers of languages without these features. For speakers of languages with these features it would be easier to learn"

True- I'm irrationally prejucdiced against OE though as I just had to sit an Old English exam. I love the literature (in translation) but learning the language is a pain.

It probably would look like Dutch or maybe something almost exactly like modern Frisian which IIRC is exceedingly similar to OE. A lecturer I had once did a show which was shown on TV in the UK- she taught Eddie Izard (a comedian) basic OE upon which he was sent into a Frisian town and had to do various things like buy stuff.
 
I too suffered through Old English exams when I was at Pitt (just a sad note that adds nothing to this discussion, I recently learned that my OE Professor Mary David, recently dies).

But while I was terrible with OE, I have continued my studies over the years, both from the perspective of what it sounded like then, and where it was going.

It seems that OE even then was beginning to shed the difficult inflections common to it and german because of the influence of the Norse raiders, who also settled and ruled parts of England for a long time. It seems that while many of the base words where identical, the inflections were different, and to make themselves understood, speakers began the process of dropping the endings.

This process was acellerated after 1066, but most experts seem to agree that if the Norman conquest had failed, English would be much as it is with less french, and (interestingly enough) perhaps a bit more latin.

I agree that if the conquest hadn't happened England would have been much less class conscious, but otherwise largely unchanged.

One thing to consider though is that culturally and politically England would have been more closely linked to North Europe than in OTL. Therefore the 100 years war might not have happened. Without this war would the French Character and nation been the same??
 
In one of the "What If?" books, Turtledove (I think) came up with a scenario where the Norman Conquest fails (that's the POD) and Britain remains tied to Scandinavia more so than France, Spain, etc. The author envisioned a democratic Nordic commonwealth including Britain, Scandinavia, and much of North America.

I like the Celtic Church staying independent. Less power and alternatives (thus more competition) will probably keep Rome "purer" and thus forestall the legendary doctrinal/political/economic corrruption and the Reformation it spawned. That'll be an interesting Europe, esp. if the Celtic Church spreads (Celtic bishops evangelized the barbarians, so perhaps there're those on the Continent willing to go with the Bishop of Londonium rather than the Bishop of Rome).
 
Matt Quinn said:
I like the Celtic Church staying independent. Less power and alternatives (thus more competition) will probably keep Rome "purer" and thus forestall the legendary doctrinal/political/economic corrruption and the Reformation it spawned. That'll be an interesting Europe, esp. if the Celtic Church spreads (Celtic bishops evangelized the barbarians, so perhaps there're those on the Continent willing to go with the Bishop of Londonium rather than the Bishop of Rome).

I am afraid I have to somewhat disagree with you on this. While studying in preparation for writing my King Arthur timeline, which you can view at the following URL...

http://www.geocities.com/robertp6165/arthuriantimeline.html

I discovered that the actual differences between the doctrines of the Roman and Celtic Churches were actually quite small. Basically, they differed over matters of organization (the Roman Church was based on dioceses under the authority of bishops appointed by Rome, while the Celtic church was primarily monastic and much more loosely organized) and procedure (the method of baptism, the method of calculating Easter), not matters of doctrine. In all the tenets of actual doctrine, the two were identical. Indeed, this is almost certainly why the two were able to reconcile themselves relatively easily in OTL (and indeed would likely have reconciled much sooner if St. Augustine of Canterbury had not been such a domineering, insulting a**hole). I just don't see that the Celtic Church would have provided much of an alternative, even if it had remained independent.
 
"How the Irish Saved Civilization" describes the Celtic Church as being less hierarchial, more accepting of females in leadership roles, and generally less domineering.

Of course, he could be wrong. I'll have to look into it.
 
Matt Quinn said:
"How the Irish Saved Civilization" describes the Celtic Church as being less hierarchial, more accepting of females in leadership roles, and generally less domineering.

Of course, he could be wrong. I'll have to look into it.

That's all true to some extent (except possibly the part about being more accepting of females in leadership roles...I know of no Celtic female bishops or priests). However, these are facets of the organizational difference between the two churches, not a difference in doctrine. Since the Celtic Church was primarily monastic, it would naturally be less hierarchical and domineering. If there had been a real difference in doctrine, to the extent that the Celtic church was actually considered "heretical," then there may have been a chance that it and the Roman church would not have reconciled and an independent Celtic church may have survived. Of course, then you may have had the Roman Church declaring a crusade against the Celtic Church, too...
 
Crown of the North

"I agree that if the conquest hadn't happened England would have been much less class conscious, but otherwise largely unchanged.

One thing to consider though is that culturally and politically England would have been more closely linked to North Europe than in OTL. Therefore the 100 years war might not have happened. Without this war would the French Character and nation been the same??"

An Anglo-Saxon England would take its place as the most powerful and populous of the Northern Germanic (racially speaking) kingdoms. Possibly it would expand through war and dynastic marriages to become a huge, maritime Kingdom of the North (or commonwealth as Matt Quinn referenced). With areas such as Iceland and Greenland within their cultural sphere maybe we could see an effective attempt to colonise Vinland? I'm sure England had a much larger population base with more potential colonists than the Vikings did alone.

I guess this ATL would share some aspects with the world of L. Sprague Decamp's 'Wheels of If' novellas.

Also, even if the doctrinal differences between the roman and celtic churches are negligible wouldn't this throw a very firmly demarcated cultural line across Europe between the continental, Latinised mainland of Europe and the maritime, Anglo-Saxon North?

Without the Hundred Years war might France still be split into various states?
 
So does a large united 'german speaking' country with significant dynastic connections to Northern Europe cause a 'reflective' development in the rest of north germany and Europe?

Conversely, without the 100 Years War, we have no France to counter the English Growth, what does this do to Spai?
 
Northern Renaissance

Perhaps if such 'reflective development' does occur this ATL might see the renaissance begin in the North of Europe. Also the maritime nature of the Northern countries might jump start the Age of Discovery with Anglo-Saxon and Viking captains exploring the New World and trading to distant ports.

Looking at a map yesterday I realised that the size of the North Sea makes a United Kingdom of the North somewhat impractial. Maybe a confederation of kingdoms tied together by dynastic marriages (i.e. each states ruling family has its roots in the same dynasty- that of King Harold the Great) would be more practical- something like the Kingdoms of England, Norway and Sweden with the king of England acting as High King of the North. Each king would be closely advised by his witan and would send representatives to the High Witan which would advise the High King in his capital.

In order to reflect the shift to a North-looking perspective, maybe the capital of England (as the seat of the High King and the High Witan) would be shifted North to York.

Since the Celtic Church was primarily monastic, it would naturally be less hierarchical and domineering. If there had been a real difference in doctrine, to the extent that the Celtic church was actually considered "heretical," then there may have been a chance that it and the Roman church would not have reconciled and an independent Celtic church may have survived. Of course, then you may have had the Roman Church declaring a crusade against the Celtic Church, too

The less centralised and hierarchical nature of the Celtic Church might have also helped in the rediscovery and reacceptance of Classical knowledge in Northern Europe. Whereas their Southern compatriots would have to beware the wrath of the Church towards unwelcome discoveries and theories, those in the areas controlled by the Celtic Church might be more free.
If the Pope decides to declare one or more crusades against the "Heretic lands of the North" this would polarise Northern and Southern Europe even more. I can forsee the Northern Alliance (like athens before them) having to trust to the 'wooden walls' of their ships to hold off the continental invaders.

Conversely, without the 100 Years War, we have no France to counter the English Growth, what does this do to Spain?

I suppose Spain would, at this time, still be Al-Andalus? Possibly the Muslims nibble off more bits of Europe (Southern France)? If the Catholic church does decide to crusade against the Celtic christians of the North, this might lead to stronger diplomatic and mercantile ties between Al-Andalus and the Northern Alliance. This would provide yet another avenue for classical scientific knowledge to diffuse back into the North. Possibly the increased presence of Muslim traders and merchants in the trading cities of England leads to the establishment of an urban Muslim minority?
 
Last edited:
I like the idea that a northern Church is formed, probably based largely on the outline you have laid out. Maybe this originally forms as a seperate rite under the RC Church, but (as in OTL) push comes to shove, and the Roman Pope attempts to excommunicate England. Then Harold, after his victory cuts the final cords.

Regardless, if you build into your idea of the Celtic Church, some of OTL reformation's idea that every man can discover the bible for himself, you establish broad literacy throughout the North. Once a critical mass is reached 'bingo!' you have the rebirth.

With respect to Southern Europe, without the 100 Years War, and with a stronger Northern Europe that looks to either an Irish or English Prelate, the Southern Pope is going to mix more in French affairs (doesn't have Germany to worry about. This mixing will have two effects, first, it will keep France divided, and second, it would keep the attention of the Pope off North Europe.

I think that the reconquest had already begun by the 1100's, as the last couple of spanish Christians began to turn South. With a more contentious France, mercenaries and 'losing sides' might have been a bit easier to come upon to assist the cause, so perhaps the reconquest would have been quicker.

What do you think??
 
With respect to Southern Europe, without the 100 Years War, and with a stronger Northern Europe that looks to either an Irish or English Prelate, the Southern Pope is going to mix more in French affairs (doesn't have Germany to worry about. This mixing will have two effects, first, it will keep France divided, and second, it would keep the attention of the Pope off North Europe.

I had a lecture today which touched on Mediaeval developments in the church and it gave me some ideas to think about regarding southern Europe. Perhaps with a serious Christian contender to the North, the Catholic church remains much more united (a Them vs. Us) situation. Thus, with less infighting, the French churchmen do not elect a pope in Avignon and thus avoid the Great Schism and all the Pope vs. Antipope controversy that came with it. This in turn would remove one of the factors that began to undermine the Roman Church and might thus delay the Renaissance in Southern Europe.

If, however, as you suggest, the Celtic Church "forms as a seperate rite under the RC Church" the opposite might well occur. If Harold and the Celtic Church are excommunicated by the Pope, the Celtic Church might very well declare the roman Church invalid and raise the Archbishop of Canterbury to the position of Pope.
(In an extreme case, if this encourages the French churchmen to make their own bid for power we'd have no less than three popes issuing Papal Bulls against each other. <insert Bull-fighting pun here>.)
This might (as in OTLs Great schism) undermine the authority of the Roman (and Romano-Celtic) Church so much that an earlier Reformation ensues across the whole of Europe.

However, in my own (woefully underinformed :confused: ) opinion the less domineering nature of the Celtic Church might lead it towards a less contentious path. The Church might split but the Celtic Church would not declare its own Pope in direct opposition to Rome. Harold might try to step in here- he certainly wouldn't want more reasons for conflict with the continental powers*.

I think that the reconquest had already begun by the 1100's, as the last couple of spanish Christians began to turn South. With a more contentious France, mercenaries and 'losing sides' might have been a bit easier to come upon to assist the cause, so perhaps the reconquest would have been quicker

On the other hand, if the Roman Church decides to declare the Celtic Church to be Heretics, an Anathema and Abomination etc. ad infinitum, you just might have plenty of energetic young Anglo-Saxon and scandinavian thanes and mercenaries actually willing to fight on the side of Al-Andalus. (A bit far fetched I know but I have a bit of a soft spot for Muslim Spain and I'd like to see them backed up by English longbowmen and Vikings.) This of course assumes that the Northern Alliance has the naval power to actually stop a crusade from ever crossing the Channel. After being invaded twice in 1066 I'd assume that Harold might spend some of his reign beefing up his naval capabilities.

Anyway, an unimportant aside. In my last post I referred to Harold as King Harold the Great. As no English or British sovereign since Alfred has been given this title I feel it needs to be justified. Just as Alfred won the decisive battles which turned back the Danes (hmmm...thread idea), Harold beat back not one, but two invasions in short succession. I can forsee an English bard writing an epic greater than Beowulf: The March of Harold detailing Harold the Great's epic march to York and back to Hastings and the two great battles he fought and won.

Hwæt!...
 
I agree, if Harold had won at Hastings, he would have deserved being called "the Great". As it is, it is a great story, and if he'd won it would have been better.

I think that a victory for Harold would have stabilized Northern Europe fro generations, but perhaps it would also have focussed the attention of the Normans on Spain, but maybe not to just aid the nothern Christians but to carve out their own kingdoms. Isn't this what they did in Sicily?

If this had happened, they probably would have (at least initially) carved their kingdom out of one of the moorish areas, maybe making common cause with the Spaniards.
 
England under Harold Godwinson

I'm not convinced at all about Anglo-Saxon England. There is a temptation to pre-suppose that had Harold lived and William died, everything would have been fine for the Saxons.

Let's start with some of the basic facts - Harold Godwinson more or less usurped the throne in January 1066 following the death of Edward the Confessor. The true heir was Edgar, known to history as the Aetheling who fled with his sisters to Scotland in OTL following Hastings. One of the sisters married the Scottish heir-apparent and went on to found a dynasty.

Indeed, it's fair to argue that Duke William's own claim to the English throne was stronger than Harold's.

On the old board, I set out an alternative 1066 with the simple POD of a successful Norman crossing in August (as William had planned). The Saxons meet them, not at Santlache, but at nearby Netherfield, and defeat the Norman invaders. This is followed some weeks later by the defeat of the Norwegian invasion, backed by Harold's brother, Tostig, at Stamford Bridge.

Had this happened, 1067 would have dawned with Harold in the ascendant and with a new son by his "royal" wife, not Edith Swan-Neck. I can't imagine Harold would have let the Norman invasion simply go by without seeking retribution. Indeed, it's my contention that Harold would have sought to conquer Normandy. The Duchy would have been in turmoil with William dead and young Robert struggling to hold the knights together.

Now, I believe this could lead to a treaty of alliance between Harold and the young French king, Philip, with the aim of dismembering Normandy.

Even if they succeed, Harold is far from secure. The Danish king, allied by marriage to Tostig, Edgar, and the Scottish king could have made common cause while William's widow was sister of the king of Flanders and could have caused trouble there.

Of course, we mustn't forget English wealth - pre-Conquest England was the wealthiest and most prosperous state in northern Europe and indeed English silver had been regularly used to bribe enemies and pay off friends.

My contention is therefore that far from being removed from European affairs after 1066, and Anglo-Saxon England under Harold would have been deeply embroiled in northern and western Europe. My previous thread ended in the 1080s with England allied to the Empire opposing Flanders and Holland.

There finally remains the issue of the dynastic succession. Would Harold's younger brothers such as Edwin and Morcar see themselves as rulers or would the succession have passed peacefully to the young Harold Haroldson. Saxon history is not favourable to a smooth succession and its entirely conceivable that after Harold, England would have drifted into a period of internal anarchy and civil war.
 
True a Harold pre-1066 had lots of problems, but a victorious Harold Post-1066, the world would have seen him at the very least 'blessed by God', having withstood both the Northern challenge of Harald, and the Norman challenge of William.

His competitors and supporters alike would see him differently. I believe that to the midaeval mind, God would have given him the right to rule.
 
Religious distinctiveness + cultural distinctiveness

Stodge: but if we factor in the second POD of the seperation of the Celtic Church from the Roman Church, might this not make Harold slightly leery of poking his fingers into Continental affairs when at any moment the Pope might issue a call for a holy war? After all, William's invasion had Papal sanction- I'd think Harold might want to keep a low profile regarding the Continent after indirectly humiliating the Pope.

His competitors and supporters alike would see him differently. I believe that to the midaeval mind, God would have given him the right to rule

Indeed- we should remember that Harold's successful acomplishment of his epic march AND two battles could be seen as a blessing from God. Just like the storms that destroyed the Armada centuries later, "God's blessing" on the unexpected side might undermine the confidence of many other would-be invaders.

Would Harold's younger brothers such as Edwin and Morcar see themselves as rulers or would the succession have passed peacefully to the young Harold Haroldson

Possibly civil war might indeed have ensued. However, what I'm arguing is that an Anglo-Saxon, religiously distinctive England acting as a cultural and religious centre for the North would, over time act as a unifying element, awakening a primitive sense of "nationhood" (for want of a better word) among the kingdoms of the North. This early development of the idea of "nationhood" combined with the possibility of an earlier Renaissance means that a TL with an Anglo-Saxon England has the possibility of cutting the mediaeval period short (at least in Northern Europe).
 
With the stability of Northern Europe, population growth was certain to be greater than in OTL. The knowledge of the Vikings / Norse would certainly generalize over the area, including the existance of Greenland.

Additionally, because much of this civilization depends on seaborn commerce, do we have earlier or later settlement of Vinland?
 
Top