"Welsh Reconquista" of England from the Vikings

Deleted member 114175

At several points, the Viking invasions of Britain came close to subjugating all of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, eventually succeeding in the late 10th century. However, the earlier the Danes conquer England, the less entrenched the idea of an unified England in the first place.

If the Danes win at Edington, for example, and conquer Wessex and Mercia, it would overstretch the relatively small number of forces they had in Britain. The result may be squabbling Anglo-Danish kingdoms themselves vulnerable to infighting and invasion, as the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were to the Vikings.

In this situation, could Rhodri the Great or one of his successors such as Anarawd ap Rhodri unite the Welsh and conquer Mercia or other kingdoms?

Granted, the medieval Welsh succession laws, which divided the realm among able-bodied sons, pose a challenge for lasting unification of Wales. Is there any way around this? Anarawd ap Rhodri did live until 916, so if Anarawd had been Rhodri's only living successor, that would have meant 44 years of northern Wales being ruled exclusively by the king of Gwynedd. Possibly enough of a precedent to make changes in the succession law feasible?

Edit: Meant to say Gwynedd, which Rhodri ruled, rather than Deheubarth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Byzantine fanatic

Byzantine fanatic

@SeaCambrian the problem with this is geography.

The Anglo-Saxons had conquered all the best farmland in Britain. The Welsh had only mountainous areas, sparsely populated.

Britain is divided into two main areas, broadly speaking. The East of the country is relatively flat and sunny. This is where all the best farmland is, and it supports a large, prosperous population.

The west of the country is mountainous and rainy, with large areas taken up by mountains and steep slopes. The land is rocky and the soil is poor, with habitable areas limited to narrow valleys and coastal areas. This landscape, the natural geography of Wales, could support only a small population.

This meant that the Welsh would always be vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the inhabitants of England (whoever they were). The huge disparity in wealth and population arises from the geography of the land itself.

Thus, a Welsh reconquista was never likely nor a realistic prospect, once the Anglo-Saxons had seized the most fertile half of the country in the 6th century AD.

If we want Wales to do better, historically, I see the prevention of England as a necessity. But I think the Viking invasion period is too late. Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria were already well established in the 8th century, if not before. I think the only way to stop the English domination of the whole island is to prevent the original Anglo-Saxon conquest.

The trouble is, they're coming in from the east so wherever they arrive, they're automatically starting with an advantage that will only grow with time. Given the pressures existing on the continent that drove them here in the first place, I see the task as nigh impossible. Maybe the Roman army doesn't leave? Other than that, it's hard to see any realistically plausible way to make this work.
 
Last edited:

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Two or three brilliaint and ruthless (kill their brothers and keep Kymru as a single polity) rulers in a row and you have it ...
 

Maoistic

Banned
The Welsh hire Viking mercenaries, conquer Danish territory to their east, and start absorbing their main economic produce that way. The now extended Wales becomes rich and prosperous while the Danelaw becomes impoverished. This allows Wales to muster a large army of Welsh, Angles and Danes to conquer the rest of the Danelaw.
 

Fabius Maximus

Byzantine fanatic said:
@SeaCambrian the problem with this is geography.

The Anglo-Saxons had conquered all the best farmland in Britain. The Welsh had only mountainous areas, sparsely populated.

Britain is divided into two main areas, broadly speaking. The East of the country is relatively flat and sunny. This is where all the best farmland is, and it supports a large, prosperous population.

The west of the country is mountainous and rainy, with large areas taken up by mountains and steep slopes. The land is rocky and the soil is poor, with habitable areas limited to narrow valleys and coastal areas. This landscape, the natural geography of Wales, could support only a small population.
Click to expand...

That certainly is a major problem, though I don't think it would *necessarily* be insuperable. After all, the Christian kingdoms of Spain started from an even less promising base in the eighth century, but eventually Spain was retaken by the Christians. So, if you had a more united Wales, and if Mercia had a conveniently-timed taifa-like period or two, I think you could see Wales re-establishing control over the rest of the island. Such a scenario wouldn't be very likely, mind you, but it wouldn't be impossible either.
 
The Professor

The Professor

A more united Welsh state with very disunited Angle, Saxon, and Norse/Danish states is strongly needed to offset the population imbalance.
Extremely difficult and unlikely though not impossible.
 

Deleted member 114175

Byzantine fanatic said:
@SeaCambrian the problem with this is geography.

The Anglo-Saxons had conquered all the best farmland in Britain. The Welsh had only mountainous areas, sparsely populated.

Britain is divided into two main areas, broadly speaking. The East of the country is relatively flat and sunny. This is where all the best farmland is, and it supports a large, prosperous population.

The west of the country is mountainous and rainy, with large areas taken up by mountains and steep slopes. The land is rocky and the soil is poor, with habitable areas limited to narrow valleys and coastal areas. This landscape, the natural geography of Wales, could support only a small population.

This meant that the Welsh would always be vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the inhabitants of England (whoever they were). The huge disparity in wealth and population arises from the geography of the land itself.

Thus, a Welsh reconquista was never likely nor a realistic prospect, once the Anglo-Saxons had seized the most fertile half of the country in the 6th century AD.

If we want Wales to do better, historically, I see the prevention of England as a necessity. But I think the Viking invasion period is too late. Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria were already well established in the 8th century, if not before. I think the only way to stop the English domination of the whole island is to prevent the original Anglo-Saxon conquest.

The trouble is, they're coming in from the east so wherever they arrive, they're automatically starting with an advantage that will only grow with time. Given the pressures existing on the continent that drove them here in the first place, I see the task as nigh impossible. Maybe the Roman army doesn't leave? Other than that, it's hard to see any realistically plausible way to make this work.
Click to expand...
The geographic concerns are certainly true in the long-run and in later centuries, as states became more organized and economies played a larger role in warfare. However geography seems to have mattered less in this era in terms of limiting the capabilities of realms, when realms were held together by personal loyalties to kings.

If the rise of a small mountainous kingdom was possible in any historical time, it would be the Early Middle Ages. After all, the petty kingdoms in the cold fjords and mountains of Norway raided across Europe, and also frequently challenged fellow Norse kingdoms that had ostensibly more favorable geographies. The Norse-Gaels who settled the craggy and disparate islands of the Scottish isles used them as bases to dominate the coasts of Britain and Ireland. In Iberia, the Kingdom of Asturias rose from the least Romanized part of the Roman Empire, in the secluded north of the Cantabrian Mountains, beginning campaigns that would eventually unify the Iberian Peninsula -- and in the process, the previously marginalized Basques became a significant influence in the Christian kingdoms of Iberia. So in this era at least, peoples living in mountainous regions were not necessarily doomed.

As long as Welsh kings can assemble armies, economic differences can be leveled by raiding, victory in battle, and clever political intrigue. Viking, Anglo-Saxon, and Irish mercenaries are not out of the question as a way to bolster Welsh levies. If the King of of Gwynedd, nominally King of Wales can provide himself as a more preferable alternative than the pillaging Danes, it's possible that he might actually gain many Saxon vassals or allies against the Vikings.

If the Danes win Edington, they'll destroy Mercia and Wessex, but most likely will not be able to enforce their full control over either at first, considering that the Danelaw itself was not a united realm and even the severed West Mercia regrouped and survived as a significant force. Yet, with the backbone of the English resistance to the Danes broken, a more devastated Mercia that is unable to recover could be the target of a Welsh king seeking to restore the lost eastern territory of Powys. His rule could then be justified by a defense against Danish raids.

By taking the mantle of leader of an anti-Viking "league" in Wales and southwest England, suddenly Welsh power projection starts to make a lot more sense for the rest of the life of that king (likely Anarawd ap Rhodri). Depending on how threatening the Danelaw remains without Wessex, there may be no Anglo-Saxon competitor that can rise up, hence it could remain feasible for later Welsh Kings to extend their protection to areas of former Wessex and Mercia. From there they slowly expand their influence and push the frontier against the Danes, establishing fortifications, perhaps burhs are replaced by caers, settled by Welsh, Irish, Norse, and Saxon settlers that could end up assimilating to Welsh as the dominant element. There may have been a Brittonic minority in the western Saxon territories as well.
 

Brunaburh

Banned
This actually happened to a degree at various times. Cadwallon of Gwynedd conquered Deira in the 7th century, while it was still Brythonic-speaking. If he hadn't been killed in battle the next year, then *Wales could have comprised the whole of the North as well as Cheshire, Shropshire and OTL Wales.

The British kingdom of Strathclyde expanded massively in the Viking era too, with evidence it stretched down the Western side of the Pennines with a slightly weird reference to the border between York and Strathclyde being at either Slack near Huddersfield or at Leeds!
 
Derek Pullem

Derek Pullem

Donor
Brunaburh said:
This actually happened to a degree at various times. Cadwallon of Gwynedd conquered Deira in the 7th century, while it was still Brythonic-speaking. If he hadn't been killed in battle the next year, then *Wales could have comprised the whole of the North as well as Cheshire, Shropshire and OTL Wales.

The British kingdom of Strathclyde expanded massively in the Viking era too, with evidence it stretched down the Western side of the Pennines with a slightly weird reference to the border between York and Strathclyde being at either Slack near Huddersfield or at Leeds!
Click to expand...
I think this is the best way to go - an amalgamation of the Welsh Kingdoms and Strathclyde could easily go on to dominate what was not Danelaw.

Trick would be keeping it together for more than one generation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top