AHC : The British Counterattack

[GdwnsnHo]

One of the common topics I see is that Britain was the most vulnerable region to the Vikings, which is why it was invaded more than just raided - that and Ragnar Lodbrok.

So the challenge is, using whichever means you wish, for the English, British, British & Irish to counterattack, and better than that, set up patrol forts across the North Sea.

Bonus points if

1) The Vikings go a-viking beyond Britain and pay the British some bounty.
2) The British Isles are united under one king.
3) That Newcastle is the capital (I'm Geordie, sue me for bias later).

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Well Alfred the Great established a navy (the first proper English navy, in fact) to patrol the coasts and intercept Viking raids. Maybe he or one of his successors could decide on a more active defence, and send raiding parties of their own to harry the Scandinavian coast, and give those pillaging heathens a taste of their own medicine.

 

[Draeger]

Well Alfred the Great established a navy (the first proper English navy, in fact) to patrol the coasts and intercept Viking raids. Maybe he or one of his successors could decide on a more active defence, and send raiding parties of their own to harry the Scandinavian coast, and give those pillaging heathens a taste of their own medicine.

This is a lot easier said than done, at least the last part. Active defense requires a more centralized system, which didn't exist in Alfred's England.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

This is a lot easier said than done, at least the last part. Active defense requires a more centralized system, which didn't exist in Alfred's England.

What if we can find a way to prevent the Great Heathen Army from having a great impact? Perhaps better leadership by the Northumbrians when they first landed, or (if we assume it to be true), that Ragnar Lodbrok is not killed by the King of Northumbria, leaving the Vikings to continue looting rather than invading en masse.

Or perhaps have the Irish raiders be the cause for the development of Burghs sooner. A particularly successful raid is suddenly squashed in an ambush, the money being used to protect the locals with a wall, inadvertently protecting the hinterland beyond, and leading to the town developing more Burghs to keep control. Perhaps if we're lucky its a literate man with access to histories of Philip of Macedon and his urbanisation of Macedonia - and actively mimics it. Westerners are safer, the east don't care - until the vikings come, devastate them, and the west comes and takes over, building Burghs of their own to defend the areas and control their new lands, and some small town on the mersey has eventually become dominant over Britain.

 

[LordTerra]

Could Canute/Cnut the Great count?

He did lead the English in attack against Norway after he took England. Though this is probably not what your looking for lol

 

[Admiral Beez]

English, not British

The problem is the English couldn't fight the Vikings and the Normans. At Stamford Bridge the English were able to defeat the Norwegian invaders, but then had to run south to counter the Normans. The English did not have sufficient forces to do both.

 

[Sior]

Not have the barbarian knukle draggers destroy all the Saxon Shore forts, and extend them north.

http://www.athenapub.com/saxshor1.htm

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Not have the barbarian knukle draggers destroy all the Saxon Shore forts, and extend them north.

http://www.athenapub.com/saxshor1.htm

I'd forgotten about these - though with the economic problems in Britain at the time and the withdrawal of Roman coin when they left, how could these still be afforded? Could they operate as guard-posts/tradeposts, using whatever ships left behind by the Romans, or built anew as fighter-traders - or even raiders. Whilst this might seem abhorrent to some remaining Romans, but if Britain went a-raiding they could potentially fund their fleet, and at the same time, develop the naval tradition to compare with the Vikings, and deal with the Irish raiders.

 

[Sior]

I'd forgotten about these - though with the economic problems in Britain at the time and the withdrawal of Roman coin when they left, how could these still be afforded? Could they operate as guard-posts/tradeposts, using whatever ships left behind by the Romans, or built anew as fighter-traders - or even raiders. Whilst this might seem abhorrent to some remaining Romans, but if Britain went a-raiding they could potentially fund their fleet, and at the same time, develop the naval tradition to compare with the Vikings, and deal with the Irish raiders.

It was the illegal immigrants from the germanies that screwed everything up!

 

[GdwnsnHo]

It was the illegal immigrants from the germanies that screwed everything up!

#EternalBritishProblems

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I'd forgotten about these - though with the economic problems in Britain at the time and the withdrawal of Roman coin when they left, how could these still be afforded? Could they operate as guard-posts/tradeposts, using whatever ships left behind by the Romans, or built anew as fighter-traders - or even raiders. Whilst this might seem abhorrent to some remaining Romans, but if Britain went a-raiding they could potentially fund their fleet, and at the same time, develop the naval tradition to compare with the Vikings, and deal with the Irish raiders.

The British kingdoms seem to have been quite well-organised for at least the first couple of generations after the Roman withdrawal (with all the caveats about the sketchy state of our knowledge). For example, they seem to have maintained a military command along Hadrian's Wall, and in the mid-fifth century they supposedly managed to resettle one tribe to a more strategic part of the country, which implies a reasonable level of central authority. So, having them maintain the Saxon Shore forts isn't too much of a stretch.

 

[t0m1991]

3) That Newcastle is the capital (I'm Geordie, sue me for bias later).

Seems pretty ASB since Newcastle was completely insignificant until the Norman conquest (places nearby like Jarrow, Tynemouth and Monkwearmouth were only important because of religion). Unless some saxon blacksmith on the Tyne discovered the importance of coke.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Seems pretty ASB since Newcastle was completely insignificant until the Norman conquest (places nearby like Jarrow, Tynemouth and Monkwearmouth were only important because of religion). Unless some saxon blacksmith on the Tyne discovered the importance of coke.

It may not happen, but I would disagree, but Monkchester (as it was know at this point) is still well situated, controlling the fort of Pons Aelii, and the major bridge across the Tyne at this point - and is quite well placed to rule the towns near the river estuary, by virtue of being nearby, but less vulnerable to raids.

But I doubt it is a natural capital, just a decent option to adopt and expand.

Though calling it Monkchester still seems weird to me.

 

[TFSmith121]

Does this lead to an "England" (or "Britain") that focuses

One of the common topics I see is that Britain was the most vulnerable region to the Vikings, which is why it was invaded more than just raided - that and Ragnar Lodbrok.

So the challenge is, using whichever means you wish, for the English, British, British & Irish to counterattack, and better than that, set up patrol forts across the North Sea.

Bonus points if

1) The Vikings go a-viking beyond Britain and pay the British some bounty.
2) The British Isles are united under one king.
3) That Newcastle is the capital (I'm Geordie, sue me for bias later).

Does this lead to an "England" (or "Britain") that focuses more on the North Sea and Baltic than the Channel and the Continent?

Best,

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Does this lead to an "England" (or "Britain") that focuses more on the North Sea and Baltic than the Channel and the Continent?

Best,

Maybe in the middle-term, although once they realise that their biggest threats come from the continent, they'll have to have some focus there.

Although, if there is a complete absence of link to the French and their throne, then I guess there aren't going to be many continental expeditions to seize it.

However, if the British are somehow united under a "Roman" idea, then they could be interested in continental expeditions to rebuild the Empire. I doubt they'd be particularly successful outside of a major collapse of continental authority, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were more interested in exploring for new islands, and trying to gain control of trade routes to the Mediterranean. We could see another British 'Gibraltar'.

Although, if their "patrol forts" extend further into the Baltic, British and Nordic tradesmen may both be travelling across Russia.