Crown of the Confessor: the Chronicle of the Anglo-Saxon Kings
- Thread starter TheLordProtector
- Start date
Wow, not a bad map. I might ask you to do some other maps later--is that alright? I'm just terrible at them myself.
Guys
One other factor of course, presuming some later disaster doesn't happen, is that England will be markedly richer. Not only avoided horrors like the harrowing of the north but the transfer of resources to the new rulers and massive building projects, fortresses and cathedrals generally done by leveling existing Saxon settlements. A lot of resources are going to stay in local hands rather than being monopolised by Norman lords, merchants etc.
Steve
One other factor of course, presuming some later disaster doesn't happen, is that England will be markedly richer. Not only avoided horrors like the harrowing of the north but the transfer of resources to the new rulers and massive building projects, fortresses and cathedrals generally done by leveling existing Saxon settlements. A lot of resources are going to stay in local hands rather than being monopolised by Norman lords, merchants etc.
Steve
Indeed! England will be quite a bit wealthier than OTL and should exert a lot of passive economic power on the rest of northern Europe.
I like how, despite the unbroken Saxon nature of the land, England seems to be adopting some of the more "useful" medieval practices from the Continent (namely, the building of castles). And I can't wait to see how the House of Wessex shapes the future of the isles. Keep up the good work!
FleetMac
I don't know if they are that useful. Its no longer the case of the new ruling elite needing to be protected from their subjects. Its more a case that they have an interest in protecting their people, both morally and because they are the basis of the ruler's wealth and power. Hence I think its likely that most of the old fortified burghs will remain rather than being torn down to be replaced with castles for the more vulnerable areas.
Steve
Zirantun
Banned
Ummmm... has anyone brought up the fact that Konan was dead before Hastings?
And yes, the dialect of Old French that developed into Gallo was being spoken at court in Brittany, but only because the political center was at Rennes. If you moved the capital to say, Cornauille or Vannes, then the Breton language becomes the language of politics.
And yes, the dialect of Old French that developed into Gallo was being spoken at court in Brittany, but only because the political center was at Rennes. If you moved the capital to say, Cornauille or Vannes, then the Breton language becomes the language of politics.
Thing is, in the case of the castles (and you could argue with the forts) it's not JUST a military thing.
One of the reasons the Normans built so many castles is that it was a great way to show who was in power. Those which weren't built in areas which were raided often would be built in more heavily populated areas, just so they could see who was in charge.
But ITTL, French dialects becomes more important because French speakers are more numerous and prestigious than the Breton speakers.
Here is a thread about that.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=244131
Zirantun
Banned
Yeah... maybe prestigious, but not more numerous at the time. Plus, I said moving the political center is what you need for an expansion of the Breton language. Rennes was and is on the Gallo-Breton border. Move the political center to Cornuaille, which is deep in Breton-speaking lands, then the nobility will eventually adopt the local language as their own once Brittany develops a distinct identity from the French kings. There are multiple examples of foreign noble minorities adopting local languages throughout history and of the political center of a country influencing the development of language as well. France is a fine example of foreign conquering nobility who adopted the local language (i.e. Old French), and Paris is a good example of a political center influencing language. For much of the country's history, the majority of the country didn't even speak French, but as Paris has grown in importance over the century, so too has the French language. If the capital had been moved at some point in time to say, Toulouse, then you might be looking at Occitan as the national language today. Likewise, Walloon could've been the state language had Brussels become the capital at some point in time and remained under French control.
The implication right now is that they are based out of Naoned, what was their population and language like? Also don't forget the very real possibilty Gallo will see a revival by a romantic nationalist movement seeking to go back to their celtic roots. Nationalism can do weird things to peoples languages.
I don't have much time, but I do want to quickly clear something up.
Konan died on December 11, while the Battle of Hastings occured on October 14. He certainly was not dead before Hastings.
As for Breton becoming the language of politics, that will certainly happen later on (the changing of capital). However, Naoned will eventually becoming the capital of Brittany for various reasons which will become clear later on.
Konan died on December 11, while the Battle of Hastings occured on October 14. He certainly was not dead before Hastings.
As for Breton becoming the language of politics, that will certainly happen later on (the changing of capital). However, Naoned will eventually becoming the capital of Brittany for various reasons which will become clear later on.
Wolf Tengu
I would say that makes my case.
In TTL the old aristocracy are in power and have no need to prove their superiority. Also building castles is bloody expensive, especially if you're demolishing existing settlements. Which will be deeply unpopular with the locals. Very few thanes or earls are likely to want to bled their people that much if only because their likely to lose their heads over it. [Tostig was lucky in that he only lost his earldom, at least initially].Also you have in Harold a strong and experienced king. He won't want people, especially the northern earls, building castles where their not needed because the other use of them would be to resist royal power.
Steve
This timeline. I like it.
Have you given any though to doing something with the Provencals or the establishment of a real Irish dynastic kingship under Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair?
Have you given any though to doing something with the Provencals or the establishment of a real Irish dynastic kingship under Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair?
I wasn't disagreeing with you
.I'm actually wondering on how this will affect the military advancement of AS- how good were they at shipbuilding and the like?
I wasn't disagreeing with you
I'm actually wondering on how this will affect the military advancement of AS- how good were they at shipbuilding and the like?
Wolf
Ah sorry, I misunderstood what you mean.
Good question. On ships I have read different things. Alledgely they lost much of their historical ability shortly after arriving in England, but then picked up at least some skills during Alfred's time. The kingdom was vulnerable to the Danes during the late 10thC but have heard some comments about naval battles, although they seem to have been unlucky, or possibly unskilled when it comes to storms.
Again William had to build his fleet from scratch and seems to have had a fair bit of trouble doing so, which suggests the Normans also lost much of their previous skills. There was no mention of any opposition at sea but one book I read once was that the storms that delayed William's crossing also sank much of the English fleet in the Channel, which was positioned to block an invasion. The same source said that after Stamford Bridge Harold made a number of his carls and followers unhappy because he decided to keep all the Norse ships, that the latter didn't need to return the survivors home, to rebuild the English fleet rather than dish them out along with other battlefield loot to the men.
In terms of skills in land combat the problem is that the victory is likely to make them complacent about their ability and hence resist changes. Heard again differing viewpoints on the A-S use or not of archers. With some arguing that, like a lot of the feudal areas on the continent, it was seen as cowardly and unmanly. Others however argue that the main reason for relatively few archers at Hastings is that when the army marched back south after defeating the Norse it was the professional troops that came back in time for battle, helped by their importance and the fact they has horses to carry their goods. Hence that a lot of archers would have been available with a bit more time.
I think that England is fairly safe from another such invasion as long as the kingdom is fairly united and well led. However a combined arms invader, making good use of cavalry and archers as well as infantry could prompt some nasty surprises to the defenders.
Steve