Northumbria more successful?

When Oswy dies he is succeeded by Ecgfrith(as per OTL). Now let us suppose that he is more successful militarily than in OTL.

So in 674 he defeats Wulhere of Mercia and maintains Northumbrian supremacy over Mercia. Then in the Battle of the Trent in 679 he defeats Aethelred (Wulfhere's brother) and Lindsey (Northern Lincolnshire) is fully absorbed into Northumbria proper. Finally in 685 he defeats the Picts (not necessarily at Dun Nechtain/Nechtainsmere where he was killed OTL).

Now this will create a stronger more stable Northumbria but would it be enough to see off the Vikings 100 or so years later? Or at least redirect them south as there will no longer be any easy pickings North of the Wash on the east coast of England?

Comments please.
 
Last edited:
Hell yeah, more powerful Nuff'umbria ! :cool: :D Unfortunately, my grasp of the early medieval history of England is not as good as of the post-1000 era. :eek: Even so, I'm bumping this POD question.
 
The problem is in establising a stable dynasty. Although Aldfrith his half brother stabilised the realm in OTL after him it was a succession of weak rulers until the Vikings arrived.

So let us assume that now having won at Dun Nechtain, Ecgfrith finally produces a son and heir, perhaps called Oswui after his father and lives until Oswui attains his majority in about 696.

Let Oswui be more like his uncle Aldfrith in temprement so he stabilises the realm further consolidating the Northumbrian hold on Lothian and Lincolnshire and perhaps laying the groundwork for detaching Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Cheshire completely from Mercian rule.

Then knockons and butterflies take over, this could easily become a Northumbriawank but then you could argue that OTL english history is a Wessexwank. However I'm going to assume that at worst this Northumbria gets competent monarchs who are able to at least maintain this new status quo (even if they are not acknowledged as the Bretwalda) until the raid on Lindisfarne.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Oh happy days, a Northumbria thread :D

Honestly, I do have to say that if you can get a stable Northumbria, you're on track to creating a strong state starting from the Antonine Wall, down to to Lindsey, Gwynedd and N.Mercia, with East Anglia as a satellite. Wessex would probably compete for control of satellites like Powys and the remainder of Mercia.

If/When the Vikings come - a stronger Northumbria would be better able to establish Burhs to protect from the raids, and even if they were forced to pay tribute, the only force on the island capable and interested in a war would be Wessex, who wouldn't be immune to the raids themselves. Historically (when weaker) Northumbria (with Wessex as an Overlord) did manage to defeat Vikings (Ragnar) - the only issue would be if there was a serious reprisal akin to the Great Heathen Army under a bad king.

In addition, an older/wealthier power could be more likely to develop a navy as a deterrent to scare off small Viking bands. The only issue is that a navy wouldn't be cheap, and without serious development, wouldn't be of the same quality as a Viking longship.

But that is just my opinion. I think above scenario is conservative, they could well become the long-term overlord of Britain, and begin centralising it under one king.

Hell, I'd love to see somehow a timeline take it and create a trade relationship between the Norse and a Northumbrian Britain rather than a Viking relationship.

Dammit, now I'm sad this timeline doesn't already exist.
 
perhaps called Oswui after his father

ANGLO-SAXON NAMING CUSTOMS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY [/Morbo]

The main problem with a Northumbria-wank is that they just didn't have the climate or the economic potential that the South did: that's why there were so many different states down there in the early Hegemony and only two, max, north of Hull. The North is inhospitable, barren and windswept, and that's coming from a guy who was born in Alnwick.

On the other hand, the South has the gardens of Kent, some amazing natural ports (London is just the start) and is close to the Continent, so that's great for trade. Anyone who says that there was ever a chance of a non-London-centric England are barking up entirely the wrong tree. But if the Northumbrians manage to win every battle they're faced with, buy/fight off the Vikings and generally form a buffer state between Wessex and all the horrible stuff coming from the North Sea, then they can survive, much weaker than a United England and heavily influenced by Scandinavia. They'll get a boost from the industrial revolution but may not lead it ITTL due to their comparative lack of trade with anywhere else. By 1850, the idea of having a capital at York will be completely ludicrous, and either Newcastle or Liverpool will take its place.
 
The main problem with a Northumbria-wank is that they just didn't have the climate or the economic potential that the South did: that's why there were so many different states down there in the early Hegemony and only two, max, north of Hull. The North is inhospitable, barren and windswept, and that's coming from a guy who was born in Alnwick.

You could say the same about Scotland or Norway.
 
You could say the same about Scotland or Norway.

And those countries have spent much of their histories subjugated by southern neighbours. The only reason they exist today/will exist come the referendum is 18th century Romantic nationalism. Additionally, neither of these countries have ever done anything like this:

GdwnsnHo said:
they could well become the long-term overlord of Britain, and begin centralising it under one king.

You don't need to be a Marxist to recognise that power consolidates at centres of dense economic activity, and in Britain that main centre is, and, without a geological POD, always will be, London. Sure, there are some major cities in the North, but nothing on the scale of the capital. Without the Southern ports, commerce is not the principal driving force of the economy, leading to a subsistence-based or agricultural mode of life during the middle ages, much like Sweden.

Sweden is probably the best comparison here. They were almost completely irrelevant to anyone but themselves (apart from the Varangian trade routes, which in this case would be shipping routes in the North and Irish Seas) until the Kalmar Union and the Vasa dynasty. Nevertheless, Northumbria wouldn't even have the benefit of this flowering, as the Swedish Empire was mainly based on a sort of quasi-hegemony over the Baltic Sea - Rome did the same thing with the Med - but Northumbria doesn't have a hope in hell of achieving anything close to a trade monopoly, not even in the Irish Sea, where the approaches are controlled by the Celtic peoples. These guys are going to have to win quite a lot of battles to even gain a foothold on the Northern approach.

Tl;dr - Northumbria is economically doomed as an independent country until the industrial revolution, and by that time, Alt-Wessex will have gained enough riches and probably colonies as well (Courland got one OTL) to be able to exert hegemony. They might even conquer or acquire by marriage their northern neighbour as they did with Scotland.
 
Unless there is a major catastrophe London will nearly always be the capital of the most successful country on the island of Great Britain. However my aim here is NOT to replace London with York but have a Northumbria that is at least as distinct from and as independent from Southern England as Wales and Scotland OTL.

Anyway, look at my OP I don't actually look any further than the end of the 8th Century and the start of the Viking Raids (at least in OTL).
 
Sorry, Lindseyman :)
I was actually arguing against the concept of Northumbria becoming the major power in the British Isles, as seems to have been mentioned by other posters. I still don't have high hopes for continued independence after the middle ages.

As regards the Viking invasions, they're still going to happen, and unless someone has the bright idea of removing valuables from isolated coastal settlements and monasteries, they're going to happen to a similar degree. In fact, a stronger Northumbria will be richer and therefore more attractive to Viking raiders. The idea of a navy is questionable, as it would depend on a fyrd-like system which, over long periods, will adversely affect the productive capacity of Northumbrian farms. This Navy would have to be called up every year to be effective as a deterrent, and even then it would have to defend a very long coastline. When the Vikings start operating out of Dublin, etc. it will have to cater for two fronts. Even if these problems are overcome, there is nothing to suggest that a Navy would be very effective against Viking hit-and-run tactics.

I've also heard it suggested that Europe was going through a bit of a climactic/economic hard time anyway, which caused the overpopulation of Scandinavia, the downfall of the Carolingians, the utter chaos that was Italy under Berengar,etc. and the collapse of Anglo-Saxon kingdom after Anglo-Saxon kingdom. It is naive to ascribe the fall of Northumbria entirely to a few lost battles and the depredations of the Vikings (who were more trade-oriented than pillage-oriented, according to the current fashion amongst historians).

I hate to be deterministic, but I'm going to have to remain a pessimist on this one.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
1) London was only made the capital of England by the Normans - before that it was Winchester.

2) Berlin was not the centre of German Economic activity, nor was Moscow the Centre of Russias (Novgorod/Kiev), Cairo in Egypt (Alexandria), Toledo (Cadiz), etc. They became the centre as much due to the strategic location for control, and the development of economic activity towards them.

The capital will be where it is considered best placed for control of the realm. If the realm is dependent on trade with Europe, it may well be in the south, and isn't guaranteed to be London, assuming that the ruler doesn't make sure the money and power are used at his seat. Anyone who says that it is guaranteed to be London didn't even look at OUR history - where the capital was Winchester until the Normans came!

Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't shift to London - if everything else goes by history - then a Norman will come along and rule from London, or a Dane will come along and rule from York, a Scot could rule from Edinburgh, or - Potentially, a Northumbrian would rule from Durham/York/Bewick/New City build on the mouth of the Humber/Liverpool/Manchester.

- Note : I said Centralise, I never said where they'd rule from, but the idea that they'd rule from somewhere other than London is not 'barking up the wrong tree' - even if no-one suggested it.

Sorry for the rant - but saying the capital will be somewhere without knowing any details of an althistory is infuriating - especially when talking about the only realm besides Wessex to become Overlord/Bretwalda.

But I understand your concerns - I was trying to describe what I think would be the most-positive-without-being-a-wank vision, which would include changing how the Vikings related to Northumbria.
 
Last edited:
1) London was only made the capital of England by the Normans - before that it was Winchester.

Winchester was capital because it was at the dead centre of a low-lying area ruled by an itinerant court. As soon as it became apparent that Winchester was next to useless as an economic node, focus shifted to London. This is apparent even during King Canute's invasion, when he went straight to London and left Winchester for dessert. The Norman invasion was merely the final nail in Winchester's coffin. The main reasons for its strategic importance during the Anarchy were that, I believe, the Treasury was still located there, and that Stephen's brother and main supporter was the Bishop there, and therefore had networks of patronage.

2) Berlin was not the centre of German Economic activity, nor was Moscow the Centre of Russias (Novgorod/Kiev), Cairo in Egypt (Alexandria), Toledo (Cadiz), etc. They became the centre as much due to the strategic location for control, and the development of economic activity towards them.

The capital will be where it is considered best placed for control of the realm. If the realm is dependent on trade with Europe, it may well be in the south, and isn't guaranteed to be London,

Well, those exceptions are fair enough, I suppose, but they remain exceptions. In a vacuum, the capital is usually synonymous with the major economic centre: see sub-Saharan Africa, for instance. In Germany, Russia and Cadiz, the capitals were chosen because one region achieved dominance over others, and the logical capital of the original state became the capital of the 'imperial' state, so to speak. I don't have to remind you that St Petersburg was capital of Russia for quite a while, as its only warm-water port. In this case, the city with the greatest potential for trade with Europe will naturally become the capital, all other things being equal. That city is unequivocally London.

Potentially, a Northumbrian would rule from Durham/York/Bewick/New City build on the mouth of the Humber/Liverpool/Manchester.

Yes. They would rule Northumbria from there. I think it would be unlikely that this polity would survive many centuries, let alone "centralise" the whole of England, but if they did, they would either do it from London (Hull as a distant second) or England would be unable to reap its full potential. That, however, is an interesting idea that could be fleshed out in this thread: a less prosperous England because Cynehelm the Conqueror or whoever wanted to live in flaming Durham.

but saying the capital will be somewhere without knowing any details of any history is infuriating - especially when talking about the only realm besides Wessex to become Overlord/Bretwalda.

But I understand your concerns - I was trying to describe what I think would be the most-positive-without-being-a-wank vision, which would include changing how the Vikings related to Northumbria.

First of all, thank you for being so courteous; I hope I've come across in a similar manner and I've no interest in starting a debate that isn't entertaining to be involved in.

However, I do have a bit of knowledge of history - not as much as most people on this board, but enough to know that the term 'Bretwalda' was basically meaningless in real terms and was made up after the fact by over-hierarchical churchmen - principally Bede, who would be expected to give the designation to Northumbrian rulers - and popularised by whiggish historians, with Frank Stenton being the last to really take it seriously. Also, gaining the designation wasn't a measure of the kingdom's innate strength, only a crude comparison of the reigning kings of the time.

Also, AElle of Sussex, AEthelberht of Kent and Raedwald of East Anglia were designated Bretwaldas, but that's just a nitpick.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
However, I do have a bit of knowledge of history

Oh god! I AM SO SORRY! There is a typo there that was meant to be "an althistory" rather than "any history"! Oh god. That is what I get for posting before work in the morning! I'll go fix that now - it wasn't what I meant at all! I'll have to go edit that now! :eek:

Sorry for the unintentional insult, I didn't mean anything like that at all - and your knowledge regarding Winchester clearly trumps mine!

I do have to concede the point regarding potential - as much as I'm loathe to admit it - a more northern capital than London could hinder England potential - but may be better placed to unify the entire island.
 
Last edited:
Oh god! I AM SO SORRY! There is a typo there that was meant to be "an althistory" rather than "any history"! Oh god. That is what I get for posting before work in the morning! I'll go fix that now - it wasn't what I meant at all! I'll have to go edit that now! :eek:

Sorry for the unintentional insult, I didn't mean anything like that at all - and your knowledge regarding Winchester clearly trumps mine!

I do have to concede the point regarding potential - as much as I'm loathe to admit it - a more northern capital than London could hinder England potential - but may be better placed to unify the entire island.

No problem whatsoever!

But that idea of uniting the whole island is interesting. I'm dubious of it simply because of the aforesaid difficulty of Northumbria conquering Wessex (still possible, though) and, more importantly, the language barrier. IOTL there are countless examples of Celtic opposition to English imperialism, both cultural and political. Nevertheless, on the Continent language was no barrier to unity (Habsburgs, Occitan, etc.) so this really depends on how much of a factor Nationalism (for want of a less anachronistic term) was at this sort of time.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Tbh, I've always looked at Britain and Ireland and thought that the best places for a capital from a purely distance/force projection point of view are either on the coast in the Liverpool area west of the Pennines, or (at risk of awkward scots) at the Severn Estuary. I could also understand any settlement on the E.Irish coast working too.

Hence why Northumbria works well regarding an early central capital, it tends to be the strongest power that owns the Liverpool area. But that is just my random thoughts, rather than practical application.
 
Tbh, I've always looked at Britain and Ireland and thought that the best places for a capital from a purely distance/force projection point of view are either on the coast in the Liverpool area west of the Pennines, or (at risk of awkward scots) at the Severn Estuary. I could also understand any settlement on the E.Irish coast working too.

Hence why Northumbria works well regarding an early central capital, it tends to be the strongest power that owns the Liverpool area. But that is just my random thoughts, rather than practical application.

Liverpool is great if your trade and nation is focused on Ireland and the Atlantic, but it's not so good for eastern Britain and Europe, which is where most of the action is while Britain is developing as a nation. There is a reason Liverpool didn't become a major city until the 18th Century.
Plus there would be way too many problems with the Welsh.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Liverpool is great if your trade and nation is focused on Ireland and the Atlantic, but it's not so good for eastern Britain and Europe, which is where most of the action is while Britain is developing as a nation. There is a reason Liverpool didn't become a major city until the 18th Century.
Plus there would be way too many problems with the Welsh.

You are right of course - it wouldn't really be the best place for the rest unless it was a purpose-built capital for sheer prestige - the infrastructure to overcome its weakness (Isolation via the Pennines) would be costly.

Though - if you somehow you had a King of both Northumbria and Gwynedd, I can't think of a better place for a capital.

EDIT : Note - I mean as a Personal Union, not of a single realm
 
Last edited:
It certainly is possible to place a capital in a point that does not reflect the economic/population/historical heart /centre of a country. One just has to really want to do it and keep at it for some time. I suspect that early states like *England are just going to focus on the most obvious choice. Whereas more modern /rich/etc states can apply their speculative theories and try other options
 

Devvy

Donor
It certainly is possible to place a capital in a point that does not reflect the economic/population/historical heart /centre of a country. One just has to really want to do it and keep at it for some time. I suspect that early states like *England are just going to focus on the most obvious choice. Whereas more modern /rich/etc states can apply their speculative theories and try other options

Granted; I think pre-modern unified nations will always have political power centralise around the economic power. Which in the *Britain, means probably London, or maybe Southampton depending on the main ports for trade with the continent.

Back to the original premise though (and forgive me if I blunder here, I'm not so used to posting in pre-1900, but the Danelaw and Anglo-Saxon eras are an interest of mine); I think a more unified Northumbria would still fall to the Vikings. A more unified N'umbria probably means a slightly richer/more well off N'umbria, and that means it is more attractive for looting and conquering.

Might you see the Great Heathen Army skipping up north with glee with a greater focus on it? Maybe all of Northumbria falling under the Jorvik Kingdom (which would have some interesting butterflies maybe an non-unified England within a unified Britain, home nations being Wales, Scotland, Northumbria & Wessex)?
 
I know I haven't got there yet but bear with me and I would be interested in your answers to this question. If Northumbria successfully detaches Cheshire, Derbyshire , Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire from Mercia and integrates them and then somehow (non ASB) also possibly acquires East Anglia(Dynastic marriage perhaps) could it with a strong enough King not only defeat the first Viking raids but also carry the war back to Denmark? I rather think not but I have this vision of the Thames Valley being the boundary between this more powerful Northumbria and Wessex(as powerful as under Alfred/Athelstan before the reconquest of Danelaw)
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I know I haven't got there yet but bear with me and I would be interested in your answers to this question. If Northumbria successfully detaches Cheshire, Derbyshire , Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire from Mercia and integrates them and then somehow (non ASB) also possibly acquires East Anglia(Dynastic marriage perhaps) could it with a strong enough King not only defeat the first Viking raids but also carry the war back to Denmark? I rather think not but I have this vision of the Thames Valley being the boundary between this more powerful Northumbria and Wessex(as powerful as under Alfred/Athelstan before the reconquest of Danelaw)

Individual Viking raiding parties - easily (if they respond like the Franks and fortify). If for some reason there is a full on invasion, the fact that the raiding parties have been deterred makes Northumbria and Wessex that much stronger/wealthier, whether it would make the difference, I would lean towards yes - although it may need the help of Wessex.

NOTE : It is important to remember that even the Great Heathen Invasion found fighting the fortified cities of Wessex difficult - if there are fortifications of a similar style for either kingdom, it could well have the same effect - which in OTL lead to them going to Normandy.

The idea that Vikings will invade is v.deterministic IMO - it requires them to have been interested/part of the wars in Francia. They then went to England as easier pickings - if Wessex and Northumbria are both stronger - and not exhausted - I imagine they'd rather offer their services as mercenaries. (Note: This is utterly discarding the idea that it was revenge invasion for the death of Ragnar Lodbrok)

However, who knows - we could have an Anglo-Saxon King hire Viking mercenaries - which could backfire horribly, leading to a mercenary-created Danelaw. - which if it was Wessex would be a humorous twist on history - and probably have a greater impact on history OR join the population - which could lead to a culture and genetic background similar to OTL, but with the Anglo-Saxons on top rather than the Scandinavians.

As much as it may be a fantastical idea from me here - I'd love if a strong Northumbria led to a persistent Vinland - if Vikings consider Britain a better trade partner than invasion target, then they still have options to go north past Iceland/Greenland, or East to the Rus, or further afield to Spain and the Med.

But I digress - if they can turn back the early raids - who knows what will happen - but... why would they go to war? They haven't been attacked by a coherent enemy - but by raiders. Why on earth would they go gallivanting across the North Sea when Wessex is ready to invade them at the first chance they get? Much smarter (and safer) to prevent the raids with diplomacy if possible.
 
Last edited:
Top