DBWI: Unified Britain?

Galba Otho Vitelius

England was united under Roman rule, which also included Wales, so a united English kingdom is hardly ASB.

The latest POD is probably a decisive victory of Mercia over Flanders in the Cloth Wars, enabling them to keep London, and preventing the formation of the Anglian Commonwealth. If the lower Thames Valley wasn't the center of a mercantile republic, its leaders always willing to align with whichever continental power could best line its pockets, it would have been a good location for the national capital of a united England. A decisive victory by Mercia in the Cloth Wars leads to the capital being moved to London, they take over Wessex, and then are in a good position to conquer the other kingdoms.

You can do later PODs, but then you start into the issue that stronger countries on the European continent develop an interest in keeping Britain divided between minor countries, and the City of London is always happy to help them.

A united England would bring the City to heel and not be as developed by financial interests. It develops a strong navy and would probably be involved in Scandinavian issues. With a strong navy, it gets a few colonies, beyond the Alban attempt in Panama and beyond New York (or New Jorvik), and any colonial empire it builds is likely at the expense of France, particularly in North America.
 
Venetian Doge

Venetian Doge

Harry_Z_Trumen said:
Who is William the Conqueror? Is he any relation to William the Bastard of Normandy? I know he attempted an invasion of southern Britain... or am I confusing him with another William?
Click to expand...
Sorry, my bad, was reading another TL on this forum and got his title confused. Yeah, he tried an invasion of southern Britain, but his army kinda collapsed after he took ill and died. I do think some sort of "Norman Monarchy" would be plausible, maybe take out the disease that killed him as the POD? Or is that ASB?
 
Mooze17

Mooze17

Galba Otho Vitelius said:
A united England would bring the City to heel and not be as developed by financial interests. It develops a strong navy and would probably be involved in Scandinavian issues. With a strong navy, it gets a few colonies, beyond the Alban attempt in Panama and beyond New York (or New Jorvik), and any colonial empire it builds is likely at the expense of France, particularly in North America.
Click to expand...
Yeah, any British colonial empire is going to heavily compete with the Irish and French, and that’s honestly a competition I can see them winning. Despite how divided it is, England has always been surprisingly wealthy, and unlike France it would be able to focus pretty extensively on building a huge navy in a way that France has never been able to due to its position as the dominant land power in continental Europe. This would give them a major advantage over France in colonial efforts, especially if France continues the model it initially did in the New World before the Chéreau reforms, which resulted in slower population growth compared to other colonizing powers and would likely contribute even more to British advantages over them.
 
AltoRegnant

AltoRegnant

Josephsullivan12@icloud said:
This would give them a major advantage over France in colonial efforts, especially if France continues the model it initially did in the New World before the Chéreau reforms, which resulted in slower population growth compared to other colonizing powers and would likely contribute even more to British advantages over them.
Click to expand...
Of course, France always preferred native protectorates and vassal states, which gave them advantages over the aggressively settling norwegians (in the few places they met) and especially the Irish- hell, there's a reason the Gaelic Cross is taboo in the Ohio valley, and why the Nuahatlic Coast has 40% bilingualism between the native languages and french- a percentage that goes up further inland.

Paris did a lot of bad, but assuming I'm in a preexisting native empire, I'd rather be under them than Norway or Galicia
 

Chercha

KingOnTheEdge said:
Of course, France always preferred native protectorates and vassal states, which gave them advantages over the aggressively settling norwegians (in the few places they met) and especially the Irish- hell, there's a reason the Gaelic Cross is taboo in the Ohio valley, and why the Nuahatlic Coast has 40% bilingualism between the native languages and french- a percentage that goes up further inland.

Paris did a lot of bad, but assuming I'm in a preexisting native empire, I'd rather be under them than Norway or Galicia
Click to expand...
There are plenty of mitigating circumstances here. The Irish hadn't united yet and the competition between the various polities on the island spurred them to settle the Cod Coast quicker and more agressively than they would otherwise. The fact that such a comparatively small area houses no less than three independent countries in this time and age - Musach, Panaster and Wabanach - is rather indicative IMO. The enmity the Donason show towards the Gaelic cross has more to do with how gladian parties and organisations have apropriated the cross, in other words modern politics.

As for the Norse, their early interactions with the 'skraelings' rather set the tone for what came later, I'm afraid. That and the Norse had nowhere to expand in their own lands or even in Europe. Not an excuse, but it does explain why they made sure to prioritise the river Bred and the passageway it provided to the Great Lakes.

The Galicians, yes, their plantations in New Galicia were exploitative, but let's not forget the French, Andalusians and Tuscans had snapped up moest of the Tainian islands and the aforementioned Norse and Irish were in the process of claiming all of the eastern coast north of the bay of Santa Maria. Heck, even the Navarrans had their own little colony. Simply put, the Galicians were late to the game and just as they started setting up their own colonies, the Andalusian Fury started up. It might look ridiculous to modern eyes, but back then people feared all of Spain would fall under a Muslim tide, never mind the fact that as great as a general he was, the conquests of Ismail IV proved ephemeral, never mind that he broke his teeth on Coimbra (something historiography tends to gloss over). The Galicians needed money and were willing to go far to get it and after the war such 'business practices' had become all but entrenched. Again, not an excuse but an explanation.

Lastly, the French had established their dominion over both the Talatolans, the watershed of the lower Messipe and later on the Cote d'Automne inbetween. They could afford a lighter yoke.
 

Dr Dee

A unified nation state? Unlikely. For a start, I know from bitter personal experience that Wealh and Guent are going to find it hard to find common ground. Guentians dismiss Wealschmen as 'Gogs' and you are guaranteed to send a man of Guent into a rage if you call him Wealsch. Two countries divided by a common language. You have to be grateful that Wessex controls Cornwall rather than Cornwall being linked to the two Brythonic republics, because if you added the Cornish into the mix, they'd be fighting each other like ferrets in a sack.

As for the others, might it be possible for Albany and the Irish confederation to take the lead in unifying the islands? Everyone hates the Anglians so perhaps they'd be a less poisonous option.

Perhaps the best option for the British Isles to work together would be for a Benelux type arrangement to come into force. Or something like the links between the Scandinavian nations?
 

Jonathan1997

Banned
The maid of Norway Margaret the first of Scotland and the future Edward II marry and unite the crowns of England and Scotland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top