The Legacy of Eadmund: An East Anglian AAR

[El Pip]

My contrarian streak demands I challenge this consensus and say Aethelred was a terrible ruler, which could be a challenge but I will give it a go. The following is not entirely serious, but I think a necessary counter-point.

His turn to cowardice (so called piety) after his humiliating defeat in Spain meant England missed all the opportunities to expand into an unstable and weak Continent. I also suspect there were chances in the Home Islands to expand had he not been so busy praying. Peace is all well and good, but expanding the Kingdom is better.

Economically he has attached several large blood sucking leeches to the English economy that are just going to weaken the country until someone rips them off, I am of course talking about the monasteries. While England must eventually get a Cromwell/Henry VIII figure to save it, surely it would be better not to let the disease get a grip in the first place?

Politically abandoning ruling the kingdom for a decade is just irresponsible, though I suppose it fits with his cowardice. 'Ruling looks a bit difficult, I'll just go and enrich some more leeches in cassocks' was probably his thinking. He was lucky that actual fighting didn't break out while he essentially vacated the throne. Even if he did have to go hide in prayer he could at least have named a regent, but that would require him to care about the country and there is basically no evidence that he did

Dynastically he must surely be a colossal disappointment. I'm not convinced chastity is particularly pious (you'll not find it in the bible) and even the church is wobbly on celibacy for clergy at this point. He was married and there is more biblical support for the idea he should be producing kids than for the idea he should shun his wife, who you have to feel somewhat sorry for - she was engaged to a bold crusader king but ended up married to a celibate coward who spent his time shovelling money into the hands of greedy monks while ignoring the nation.

 

[Koweth]

My contrarian streak demands I challenge this consensus and say Aethelred was a terrible ruler, which could be a challenge but I will give it a go. The following is not entirely serious, but I think a necessary counter-point.

His turn to cowardice (so called piety) after his humiliating defeat in Spain meant England missed all the opportunities to expand into an unstable and weak Continent. I also suspect there were chances in the Home Islands to expand had he not been so busy praying. Peace is all well and good, but expanding the Kingdom is better.

First, I love hearing these opinions on English rulers, no matter how serious they are.

In regard to ignoring available conquests in Great Britain and the continent, there is some truth to that--especially when looking at Scotland--since most of the kingdom's efforts were focused on conquering and settling Ireland (and continues to be the case until the Renaissance). Should England have intervened, especially early in the 1040s, it would've certainly been possible to take land from the Scottish while they were busy ransacking southern Ireland. Though, an argument could be that it'd be quite difficult to actually execute an invasion of Scotland (even gameplay-wise, with their striking lack of supply north of Edinburgh, something Aethelred's grandfather knew quite well). For Wales, while they alone would've been a simple conquest for the English, the Welsh Prince had married into the royal families of Norway and Sweden, making them quite formidable should a conflict arise between the two monarchies.​

Economically he has attached several large blood sucking leeches to the English economy that are just going to weaken the country until someone rips them off, I am of course talking about the monasteries. While England must eventually get a Cromwell/Henry VIII figure to save it, surely it would be better not to let the disease get a grip in the first place?

From a spiritual perspective, this is making the faith more accessible to people as a whole. It is true, however, that Aethelred is enriching the monasteries in England, and receiving little economic benefit--but one could assume such a policy would make him more popular amongst the peasantry--and his piety more well-known. Economically, it's a nonsensical decision, but assumedly, Aethelred was driven by faith to make these decisions rather than a concern for his own wealth.

If you're looking for Cromwell and Henry, in the future, they are coded into EU4, so these characters will indeed exist (and, given the Star Chamber is created later in EU4, the English Civil War is inevitable--just this time with Anglo-Saxons). Maybe that'll give you some hope for the future--though I'd assume Henry and Cromwell would be quite different compared to OTL.​

Politically abandoning ruling the kingdom for a decade is just irresponsible, though I suppose it fits with his cowardice.

100%. When you look at his rule between 1039 and 1060, I'd been given the perspective that he was quite active in his kingdom's affairs, proving to be quite popular amongst most of the nobility and the clergy, but how he shunned administrative affairs following the death of his popular successor was incredibly irresponsible. It seems as if he went and gave up at the first hurdle after problems finally arose regarding succession and his distinct lack of children.​

'Ruling looks a bit difficult, I'll just go and enrich some more leeches in cassocks' was probably his thinking. He was lucky that actual fighting didn't break out while he essentially vacated the throne. Even if he did have to go hide in prayer he could at least have named a regent, but that would require him to care about the country and there is basically no evidence that he did

I must admit, the first bit here gave me a good chuckle.

While it was very noble to continue his patronage, I do agree. It's quite lucky that his subordinates wanted to keep the stability which had occurred since 1032. While it's unusual, he certainly could've done the same thing which happened to his father, and have someone he trusts govern the realm in his stead as he takes a step back from the kingdom's affairs.
​

Dynastically he must surely be a colossal disappointment. I'm not convinced chastity is particularly pious (you'll not find it in the bible) and even the church is wobbly on celibacy for clergy at this point. He was married and there is more biblical support for the idea he should be producing kids than for the idea he should shun his wife, who you have to feel somewhat sorry for - she was engaged to a bold crusader king but ended up married to a celibate coward who spent his time shovelling money into the hands of greedy monks while ignoring the nation.

I'm not too sure about early Catholic policy regarding chastity as a virtue, but it's quite well-regarded presently--perhaps he'd be looked upon more fondly by future Catholics for his celibacy and commitment to purity, even as a monarch during the 11th-century. Regarding Benoite, I do agree, I can't help but feel some sympathy for his wife's lot in life--it seems she didn't really play much of a role in Aethelred's life.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

England missed all the opportunities to expand into an unstable and weak Continent

With what claims? He's an Anglo-Saxon who barely has legitimacy over the throne of England as anything other than the gift of other nobles. He's got no blood ties to the continent.

I also suspect there were chances in the Home Islands to expand had he not been so busy praying. Peace is all well and good, but expanding the Kingdom is better.

Yes, but you can say that about almost any period in English history after the Romans left. And England did expand, albeit not in a very efficient or organised way. Much like the British later on, come to think...

Economically he has attached several large blood sucking leeches to the English economy that are just going to weaken the country until someone rips them off, I am of course talking about the monasteries. While England must eventually get a Cromwell/Henry VIII figure to save it, surely it would be better not to let the disease get a grip in the first place?

The centres of industry, culture and knowledge at the time? The church lands are in many ways the same as noble lands, only better, because they aren't allowed (in England anyway) to have their own armies. It's the cities that are the awful leeches of the period, doing basically nothing except vomit disease and attract foreigners.

In regard to ignoring available conquests in Great Britain and the continent, there is some truth to that--especially when looking at Scotland--since most of the kingdom's efforts were focused on conquering and settling Ireland (and continues to be the case until the Renaissance).

Until? The Scottish arguably did as good a job of colonising Ireland as the English did...that is to say, not a very good one, but they stuck around anyway till they all merged together through bribery and fear of the French.

Though, an argument could be that it'd be quite difficult to actually execute an invasion of Scotland (even gameplay-wise, with their striking lack of supply north of Edinburgh, something Aethelred's grandfather knew quite well).

Populations being what they are, if England successfully took and held the lowlands of Scotland, the highlanders could try all they liked but they wouldn't be able to do much more than raid. And given their wealth increasingly came from large animal holdings, counter raiding would be equally effective.

For Wales, while they alone would've been a simple conquest for the English, the Welsh Prince had married into the royal families of Norway and Sweden, making them quite formidable should a conflict arise between the two monarchies.

Wales is so vulnerable to England that the latter just have to wait for a moment where the former makes a mistake or suffers some calamity, and the whole lot can be somewhat easily taken.

I'm not too sure about early Catholic policy regarding chastity as a virtue, but it's quite well-regarded presently--perhaps he'd be looked upon more fondly by future Catholics for his celibacy and commitment to purity, even as a monarch during the 11th-century. Regarding Benoite, I do agree, I can't help but feel some sympathy for his wife's lot in life--it seems she didn't really play much of a role in Aethelred's life.

They were concerned enough about chastity for the Archbishop of Germania to tell off multiple Anglo-Saxon kings for polygamy, too much sex, too many wives, and being a general nuisance. The Church hadn't quite figured out whether sex itself was sinful all the time, but it was never a 'good thing'.

 

[jak7139]

It's the cities that are the awful leeches of the period, doing basically nothing except vomit disease and attract foreigners.

Technically since it's an island, everyone's a foreigner: Anglo-Saxon, Dane, Norman, Roman, or Celt.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Technically since it's an island, everyone's a foreigner: Anglo-Saxon, Dane, Norman, Roman, or Celt.

 

[jak7139]

Apparently the BBC has blocked this video in the US due to some copyright issue. But I was able to copy the URL and find a different Stewart Lee version based on what came up. Very funny! Exactly what I was thinking about.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Apparently the BBC has blocked this video in the US due to some copyright issue. But I was able to copy the URL and find a different Stewart Lee version based on what came up. Very funny! Exactly what I was thinking about.

He's great.

US blocked it because their immigration fears are even more hypocritical than the British.

 

[Chac1]

Check one of his videos about what he thinks of Americans. Definitely educational.

 

[Koweth]

Until? The Scottish arguably did as good a job of colonising Ireland as the English did...that is to say, not a very good one, but they stuck around anyway till they all merged together through bribery and fear of the French.

My apologies! I should've specified what I was referring to. Specifically, in the context of the game, the Scottish conquest of Ireland grinds to a halt at the beginning of the Renaissance. By that point, they've already assimilated all of Northern Ireland to being Highland Scots.

 

[Koweth]

XVIII — A CRUSADER KING (1070–1087)

King Edward I of England depicted meeting King Frederick I of Aragon outside of Corunna, Galicia, 1071
Illustration of Harthacanute by Halfdan Egedius​

On the 10th of March, 1070, Æthelred had passed away at the age of 80, with the Witan declaring Edward, his cousin, King of the English on the 30th. For England, very little was done to disrupt the status quo which had prevailed since 1059—the absence of Æthelred from English politics in the previous decade had damaged the king's authority on matters of state. While the power of the monarch waxed and waned over the course of England's existence, English magnates had begun to increasingly act independently of the crown's wishes. Wessex, alongside a number of Ealdormen in Mercia—the most significant opponents to Edward's accession—had gathered in a separate moot later that year to discuss the possibility of rebellion. Unfortunately, for those gathered at the 1070 moot, the prospect of restoring a West Saxon on the English throne grew scarce with each generation. The incumbent Lady of the West Saxons, Ælfthryth, had her reputation marred following her alleged involvement in the murder of Inwær in 1068, an Ealdorman which governed the lands of Wessex east of Selwood. Regarding inheritance, all of Ælfthryth's children belonged to the German House of Assel, and upon her passing in 1072, her land had been inherited by her two living sons, Æthelred and Ælfwald. In the same year, Ælfwald was, with the support of West Saxon nobility, appointed Ealdorman of Wessex by Edward, deposing the incumbent West Saxons for the first time in centuries.

Amidst the political skulduggery of the English nobility following Edward's election, the Catholic world had once more turned its eyes west, towards Maghreb and Spain. Following the formation of the Crown of Aragon in 1046, the Spanish Reconquista had been largely successful in restoring Catholic control over northern Spain by 1069, and over the course of two decades, Aragon had absorbed the kingdoms of Galicia and Navarre, forming a new, unified Christian monarchy in Iberia not seen since the creation of the Kingdom of Asturias in 710. While Uymayyad Cordova had suffered greatly in the decades following the 1038 Crusade, the dynasty had seen a resurgence in the late-11th century, as military and economic support from the two Idrisid kingdoms in Maghreb had restored the Emirate's control over its peripheries, allowing it to continue to threaten Christian control over Valencia and Galicia in 1070.
​

The state of Iberia and its peripheries, 1069
​

Pope Honorius II had issued a papal bull on the 7th of August, 1070, calling for a Second Crusade; this time being for eastern Maghreb. Edward, in the following months had promised economic and military support to aid Rome's North African Crusade, likely a foolhardy attempt at achieving glory beyond victory over Vikings. In preparation for the coming expedition, Edward had sponsored the founding of a holy order which would come to be known as the Knights Hospitaller in the coming years. With the cooperation of Frederick I, King of Aragon, a series of hospitals were founded in Corunna and Algiers, and under the joint patronage of the English and Aragonese, the order would receive papal recognition following the end of the Second Crusade in 1074. The order's Grand Master, Thurfrith, alongside a number of devotees joined Edward on the trip to Corunna, Galicia in early-1071, and would meet Frederick I personally, before Edward's host departed to land in Tangier in January of 1072, capturing the city from Idrisid forces in May. From there, Edward's army would continue across the Moroccan coast and camped in Tlemcen, and there slew a small garrison and a number of the city's inhabitants in June. In October, Edward had retreated to Honaine in present-day Algeria, and was ambushed by the Sultan of Morocco, Shaaban ibn Adum and his army—described as being more than twice the size of Edward's force of 9,000 men.

Defeated, and having lost important allies in the Battle of Honaine—including that of Tostig, his cousin and Ealdorman of Northumbria—Edward retreated to Tangiers and spent the winter in the city. Despite having achieved little regarding the conquest of the North African coast, Christian forces further eastward near Tunisia were making significant headway in driving Muslim forces out of Maghreb, and had defeated an impressive Idrisid army outside of Msila in May of 1074, with Edward continuing along the coast westward until his host besieged Marrakesh in March. Defeated on two fronts, Sultan Shaaban and his cousin Qadir would surrender to Crusader forces on the 30th of November, 1074. Following total Idrisid defeat in eastern Maghreb, a number of Crusader states—including the County of Tlemcen, led by Edward's nephew, Cynehelm—would unite under the banner of Frederick I of Aragon's cousin, Catherine, forming the Crusader kingdom of Tahert in January of 1075.
​

Top: Map of northwestern Algeria, January of 1075
​

Much unlike the king's late-cousin, Æthelred, Edward returned home to England a victor. Not only had he defeated a series of Muslim armies—though trivial in size—he had given his cousin, Cynehelm, an opportunity to expand Christian influence in Maghreb with papal support. While a successful conqueror, Edward had little experience regarding administration, and had continued to deprive the crown of important assets through the appointment of a series of Ealdormen in Mercia, and the delegation of royal duties to important English magnates through the late-1070s and early-1080s. Among these appointments was Ælfwald, the Ealdorman of Wessex, who was tasked with overseeing the royal treasury, which was moved to Westminster in 1024. Edward, who, by 1083, was nearing 69, had done little to ensure the continued stability of England, and over the course of 13 years, had diminished the control his family had over the state apparatus significantly—his only claim to fame being his participation in the Second Crusade after his election as King. Instead, Edward would garner a reputation of being promiscuous following the death of his wife in 1073, and had eventually died of a heart attack in London following an encounter with one of his lovers in 1087.

In the Witenagemot of 1087, the Witan was torn in deciding who would be the next King. While Edward had supported, for much of his reign, the accession of his son, a fifty-two year-old Rædwald—the incumbent Ealdorman of Northampton, a position created in 1075 specifically for him, a significant portion of England's aristocracy supported the new Ealdorman of Wessex, Æthelred and his bid for the throne. Very few outside of Northumbria trusted Edward's judgement, and following his return from Maghreb in 1075, had done little to make many of his late-cousin's key allies in Mercia support his son's claim. Narrowly, Rædwald was elected as next King of the English in the 1087 gemot, largely thanks to the efforts of the family's hardline supporters in East Anglia and Northumbria. Rædwald, much like his father, was a skilled strategist and duellist, and by the time of his accession, was said to be one of the most skilled swordsmen in Northern Europe, despite his small stature and age.​

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

with the Witan declaring Edward, his cousin, King of the English on the 30th.

What appears to have happened TTL is the continued evolution of the Heptarchy into a natural union of petty kingdoms, under one crown united all the 'English peoples' together. A curious blend of feudal and tribal governance philosophy, and may play into a rising sense of 'English nationhood' and nationality far sooner than, for example, most of Christendom.

While the power of the monarch waxed and waned over the course of England's existence, English magnates had begun to increasingly act independently of the crown's wishes.

This also makes sense. OTL England was notably centralised by the 10th century, but it had to be, given it was under constant attack and threat of attack by Viking raids, actual Norse kingdoms, the Scots, the Welsh etc.

Here, we are past that period of chaos and the realm is now stabler and wealthier. Norse power is mostly broken, and the individual former petty kings have enough power to handle any raiders themselves. So, of course, without a strong king to keep momentum going, the decentralisation occurs as is natural for a society at this tech level.

The state of Iberia and its peripheries, 1069

Aragon is strong, but also a threat to the Holy Roman Empire. Depending on how strong the southern French nobles are, and how strong the emperor is, neither will be pleased at their encroachment. The Pope may be pleased, and Christians generally will prefer a Christian realm to Muslim, but politics will not abide continued growth of Aragon for much longer.

Edward had sponsored the founding of a holy order which would come to be known as the Knights Hospitaller

A change from history. Knight Orders really tended to not be sponsored by monarchs until well after establishment. Indeed, they didn't tend to have any backing beyond the Church for the first few generations...which became something of a problem when huge, wealthy, powerful organisations operate across continents with no noble backing and not much noble connections...

Following total Idrisid defeat in eastern Maghreb, a number of Crusader states—including the County of Tlemcen, led by Edward's cousin, Cynehelm—would unite under the banner of Frederick I of Aragon's cousin, Catherine, forming the Crusader kingdom of Tahert in January of 1075.

Interesting. North Africa is much easier to get to and defend than the Holy Land, so these Crusaders may actually succeed in pushing the Muslims into the desert and ruling the coasts properly. In time, Iberia will become further isolated and the western Mediteranian becomes entirely Christian...something that never really happened again after the fall of Rome OTL.

If a crusder kingdom is very succesful, they could get rich trading with Iberia, Italia, the Church, pilgirms and the HRE...expanding along the coastline until stopped by the Calipahte...at which point you call a crusade. Rinse and repeat, and Christendom might own North Africa by the end of the middle ages.

Or not, as the case may prove.

 

[jak7139]

I'd say Edward was a better king than his father, but he had the same problem of letting the vassals handle governance. If a king doesn't want to govern, why is he even a king? t least Edward's Crusade succeeded, giving him some legitimacy. But if a strong monarch doesn't take over soon, the vassals may just decide to go independent.

Raedwald is unpopular with half the realm and is another soldier-king, same as the last two. Can he buck the trend? I have a feeling that the ties with Germany in Wessex will come into play later, much like with France OTL.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Things people (as in, the high nobility) want in a king in the 11th century:

1) defend the realm from invasion. He needs to be capable enough to raise and lead an army, and good enough at diplomacy to avoid needing one so far as possible.

2) keep the peace and stability of the realm. That is, be a good and reasonable arbiter of disputes between nobles, stop strong ones from completely walking over weaker ones, whilst not letting big disputes break out into violence between equals. This point leads into...

3) have a son and make sure he is prepared to do the first two points, and be well known amongst the nobility.

And, er...that's it.

I suppose given on the specific era and location, the secret 4th task is maintain good relations with the church and don't get excommunicated, without letting the papacy walk all over you.

Later on, secret point 4 becomes a lot more vital, as does having a good trade and taxation policy, good rule of law, monopolising violence entirely within the King's Peace, really trying to build and maintain a civil service etx but for now, England is a collection of petty kingdoms that had to band together for protection, and the two largest of them decided to cooperate well enough to form a 'proper' kingdom.

The King doesn't really need to be amazing or attentive, provided he can do the above 3 things well enough. Later on, the job becomes a lot harder as more loyalty and power is required of a monarch.

 

[Koweth]

What appears to have happened TTL is the continued evolution of the Heptarchy into a natural union of petty kingdoms, under one crown united all the 'English peoples' together. A curious blend of feudal and tribal governance philosophy, and may play into a rising sense of 'English nationhood' and nationality far sooner than, for example, most of Christendom.

That's an interesting way of putting it. Politics in TTL England seem to be centred more around the old kingdoms of the Heptarchy, with the West Saxons, Northumbrians and East Angles all kind of slugging it out to become the next king. I do wonder though, what do you find is the most striking piece of evidence for, instead, a union of kingdoms, as opposed to one central entity?

This also makes sense. OTL England was notably centralised by the 10th century, but it had to be, given it was under constant attack and threat of attack by Viking raids, actual Norse kingdoms, the Scots, the Welsh etc.

Here, we are past that period of chaos and the realm is now stabler and wealthier. Norse power is mostly broken, and the individual former petty kings have enough power to handle any raiders themselves. So, of course, without a strong king to keep momentum going, the decentralisation occurs as is natural for a society at this tech level.

Absolutely. It's a natural progression of things. Without a strong king at the helm, the East Angles may lose their prestigious position in the kingdom.

Aragon is strong, but also a threat to the Holy Roman Empire. Depending on how strong the southern French nobles are, and how strong the emperor is, neither will be pleased at their encroachment. The Pope may be pleased, and Christians generally will prefer a Christian realm to Muslim, but politics will not abide continued growth of Aragon for much longer.

Towards the end of the 11th century, the Holy Roman Empire's control over France crumbles following a civil war which installs a German on the throne in 1084. Prior to this, it's hard to say which half of the HRE had control over the realm following the end of the French line of Carolingian Emperors in 1054. A bit of a low quality crop, but here's what the HRE looks like in 1095:

A change from history. Knight Orders really tended to not be sponsored by monarchs until well after establishment. Indeed, they didn't tend to have any backing beyond the Church for the first few generations...which became something of a problem when huge, wealthy, powerful organisations operate across continents with no noble backing and not much noble connections...

With how Kings create military holy orders in CK3, I had to find a bit of a strange way to justify why the Knights Hospitaller were founded in the 11th century by an Anglo-Saxon associated with the King.

Interesting. North Africa is much easier to get to and defend than the Holy Land, so these Crusaders may actually succeed in pushing the Muslims into the desert and ruling the coasts properly. In time, Iberia will become further isolated and the western Mediterranean becomes entirely Christian...something that never really happened again after the fall of Rome OTL.

If a crusader kingdom is very successful, they could get rich trading with Iberia, Italia, the Church, pilgrims and the HRE...expanding along the coastline until stopped by the Calipahte...at which point you call a crusade. Rinse and repeat, and Christendom might own North Africa by the end of the middle ages.

Or not, as the case may prove.

Your prediction is very close to what ends up happening here--the only difference being that a series of Muslim conquests in the mid-13th and the early-15th centuries brought these Crusader kingdoms under the banner of the Abbasids and Shaybanids respectively. However, these lands remain firmly Catholic after about 400 years of Christian rule. In the 15th century, this is what the region ends up looking like (in terms of religion):

The yellow-ish religion is Coptic, and the more subdued green is Ibadism--the former dominant religion in Maghreb and Iberia

I'd say Edward was a better king than his father, but he had the same problem of letting the vassals handle governance. If a king doesn't want to govern, why is he even a king? t least Edward's Crusade succeeded, giving him some legitimacy. But if a strong monarch doesn't take over soon, the vassals may just decide to go independent.

Raedwald is unpopular with half the realm and is another soldier-king, same as the last two. Can he buck the trend? I have a feeling that the ties with Germany in Wessex will come into play later, much like with France OTL.

It's an interesting trend being seen, that many English kings come from a military background. Following Redwald's reign, successive kings for about a century have a background regarding theology and philosophy--a drastic change from what's seen after the death of Leofric, perhaps representative of the attitude of the nobility changing regarding the background of monarchs.

Regarding the House of Assel, it becomes increasingly intertwined with the House of Wessex and assimilates quite quickly into Anglo-Saxon culture--the first two Assel Ealdormen being named Aelfwald and Aethelred showing this swift assimilation.

England is a collection of petty kingdoms that had to band together for protection, and the two largest of them decided to cooperate well enough to form a 'proper' kingdom.

It's a very different circumstance when compared to what happened OTL--being that Wessex was the last independent Anglo-Saxon monarchy towards the end of the 9th century--and that gave them ample opportunity to absorb the other kingdoms quite confidently. But here, it does seem like more of a union of East Anglia and Wessex. In this timeline, nominally, Wessex was the overlord of the East Angles, but rarely in the 10th century did the two monarchies' relationship actually seem that way. Wessex, however, will become less important in the kingdom if the Cerdicings continue declining--eventually, the House of East Anglia will be the last remaining dynasty from the old kingdoms that'll have sufficient power to lay claim to the throne.

Oh, and to provide some closure regarding Beorn--he died from choking on his own food... a rather depressing end, considering the potential he had.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

That's an interesting way of putting it. Politics in TTL England seem to be centred more around the old kingdoms of the Heptarchy, with the West Saxons, Northumbrians and East Angles all kind of slugging it out to become the next king. I do wonder though, what do you find is the most striking piece of evidence for, instead, a union of kingdoms as opposed to one central entity?

Being crowned with the title of 'King of the English'. The only OTL figure who had that as their main title was Empress Matilda, and she was running a civil war against the dubiously crowned King Stephen.

The title implies that the power comes from the people (the nobles, of course), and the King is in charge of the people, not necessarily the land or a state. A very dark age view of kingship that makes sense for the English not to have moved on from because it suits their purposes so well.

Later on, when the monarchs do try centralising, this point will be made by their supporters and detractors, for and against such moves. Add to that a much stronger and more present Witan essentially serving as Parliament, England might jump straight from the dark age theory of kings straight over late medieval and renaissance absolutism into constitutional monarchy.

Your prediction is very close to what ends up happening here--the only difference being that a series of Muslim conquests in the mid-13th and the early-15th centuries brought these Crusader kingdoms under the banner of the Abbasids and Shaybanids respectively. However, these lands remain firmly Catholic after about 400 years of Christian rule. In the 15th century, this is what the region ends up looking like (in terms of religion):

That's a decent enough excuse and foundation for a heroic last crusade into the Renaissance, to reclaim North Africa once and for all, and maybe a spur for colonialism because once the North is taken, the Europeans can start chasing the Muslims around the coast with their better ships this time.

 

[StrategyGameEnthusiast]

Raedwald is already in his fifties, the Witan may be meeting again soon...

 

[Historywhiz]

Being crowned with the title of 'King of the English'. The only OTL figure who had that as their main title was Empress Matilda, and she was running a civil war against the dubiously crowned King Stephen.

I’m sorry but this simply is not correct. The formal title of the monarch from the reign of Athelstan (though I believe Edward the Elder also qualifies) through to King John was Rex Anglorum/Angulsæxna or King of the English/Anglo-Saxons. It was not until John changed it on his Great Seal to Rex Angliae that the sovereign was styled as King of England.

Rather interestingly though, several Anglo-Saxon monarchs, the last being Edward the Confessor, used the Greek word Basileus instead of the Latin Rex, usually if they were also claiming suzerainty over the Welsh and Scottish kingdoms. Obviously this was the word being used by the contemporary Byzantine emperors for their primary title, and had been used even in the Latin west of the early Roman Empire back when the emperors were still claiming they were not kings but first citizens of the Republic, but also had historically been used in Greek to refer to simple kings and other sovereign lords. I can’t quite prove this outright, but I strongly believe that that they were trying to claim the rank of Emperor of all Britain without angering the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor, who regarded there as being only one true emperor in Europe, that of the Romans.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

I’m sorry but this simply is not correct. The formal title of the monarch from the reign of Athelstan (though I believe Edward the Elder also qualifies) through to King John was Rex Anglorum/Angulsæxna or King of the English/Anglo-Saxons. It was not until John changed it on his Great Seal to Rex Angliae that the sovereign was styled as King of England.

Rather interestingly though, several Anglo-Saxon monarchs, the last being Edward the Confessor, used the Greek word Basileus instead of the Latin Rex, usually if they were also claiming suzerainty over the Welsh and Scottish kingdoms. Obviously this was the word being used by the contemporary Byzantine emperors for their primary title, and had been used even in the Latin west of the early Roman Empire back when the emperors were still claiming they were not kings but first citizens of the Republic, but also had historically been used in Greek to refer to simple kings and other sovereign lords. I can’t quite prove this outright, but I strongly believe that that they were trying to claim the rank of Emperor of all Britain without angering the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor, who regarded there as being only one true emperor in Europe, that of the Romans.

My apologies, the implication I was going for was that it is a distinctly Anglo-Saxon title that indicated a national people under the rule of the king, and that being the source of such power, esepcially when coupled with what the witan is doing (regularly meeting, and also clearly influential/sometimes in charge of succession). Whilst it is true that the Norman kings kept the title as it was (given that was the title they had a claim to), I would say that it was a pretty clean break from prior systems and titles...William the Conqueror might have been called 'King of the English' but given his court was Norman, and he and his descendants ennobled Norman knights and nobles at the expense of the Anglo-Saxons...he clearly wasn't aiming to be or depended on being a king that got his authority from being a king of people, rather a king of land. As an English melting pot developed, this attitude did not go away, and after John, the style was changed fully.

I'd say it'd be quite a bit harder in this timeline to pull that off, given how literal the title is in practice - the king is king of the English, having been proclaimed/elected by them in the first place. A strong and popular king having a well-trained and popular heir of their own is fine, but there's clearly a tension between the monarch and the witan that wasn't there OTL, and the wider nobility and the crown. If the witan keeps appointing monarchs, it'd going to become an established tradition, and a monarch that tries changing it will get into trouble.

The English seemed to have considered themselves an empire at least by the 1400s, possibly earlier (based off this basileus business), in that they called their holdings collectively that, plus by that time had fully locked down Wales at repeatedly been given the lordship of Ireland by the pope and various campaigns. I suppose the big question throughout is how often and how seriously did the English want and see themselves as rightful rulers over Scotland, the only other true independent realm on the islands.

 

[Koweth]

Later on, when the monarchs do try centralising, this point will be made by their supporters and detractors, for and against such moves. Add to that a much stronger and more present Witan essentially serving as Parliament, England might jump straight from the dark age theory of kings straight over late medieval and renaissance absolutism into constitutional monarchy.

especially when coupled with what the witan is doing (regularly meeting, and also clearly influential/sometimes in charge of succession).

Yes... the way I've written the Witan does make it come across as a proto-parliament. I feel like it's been given a bit more of an extensive role in matters of governance--but I suppose an argument could be made where, over the course of England's history, it's asserted its own importance in the country's administration--though I'm still fairly convinced it does little to actually create legislation. Instead, it probably convenes in most situations, as it was historically, to witness royal charters. The Witan, especially when it comes to the election of monarchs, certainly has extensive privileges, much unlike what it'd likely be in the 11th-century; especially with the election of Wulfstan in 1005. I do agree, though, if England continues on the trajectory it's currently on, it'll advance much faster politically when compared to the rest of Europe.

Raedwald is already in his fifties, the Witan may be meeting again soon...

Yes, Raedwald certainly wouldn't be my first choice. There's been a trend of monarchs inheriting the throne at rather advanced ages, with four of the last five kings being over 50 when they're elected (Aethelred being the only exception, being 48 when he assumed the throne).

I'd say it'd be quite a bit harder in this timeline to pull that off, given how literal the title is in practice - the king is king of the English, having been proclaimed/elected by them in the first place. A strong and popular king having a well-trained and popular heir of their own is fine, but there's clearly a tension between the monarch and the witan that wasn't there OTL, and the wider nobility and the crown. If the witan keeps appointing monarchs, it'd going to become an established tradition, and a monarch that tries changing it will get into trouble.

Indeed. Ideally, for future monarchs, they'll want to make the election pool quite narrow (which, game-wise, is something you unfortunately cannot do), and clamp down on the de facto power the Witan actually wields.

 

[Historywhiz]

Yes... the way I've written the Witan does make it come across as a proto-parliament. I feel like it's been given a bit more of an extensive role in matters of governance--but I suppose an argument could be made where, over the course of England's history, it's asserted its own importance in the country's administration--though I'm still fairly convinced it does little to actually create legislation. Instead, it probably convenes in most situations, as it was historically, to witness royal charters. The Witan, especially when it comes to the election of monarchs, certainly has extensive privileges, much unlike what it'd likely be in the 11th-century; especially with the election of Wulfstan in 1005. I do agree, though, if England continues on the trajectory it's currently on, it'll advance much faster politically when compared to the rest of Europe.

Yeah I’m of the opinion that the Witan should really be thought of as the ancestor of the current Privy Council of the United Kingdom and an organ more of executive than legislative authority.

If and when I ever do my Edgar Aelthing AAR, tentatively my plan is for either the full Witangemont to become the parliament analogue or an entirely separate institution (with a suitably West Germanic name like Diet or Lansraad) to develop, while the “inner witan” develops into effectively the privy council with HM’s Government as a subcommittee.

Edit: Although then again even Old English was more heavily influenced by (Ecclesiastical) Latin than other Germanic languages, so you probably could get away with Assembly like the Roman tribunes.