The 'Englisc' are the Saxons for all purposes here; you can keep ranting about their flat material wealth or approach it from a logical stand point. If they were truly wealthy, they would've built forts, not burhs, to defend their borders. The Welsh kingdoms had better developed land, and had border forts; they were comparatively richer and better managed monetarily. Just saying "The Englisc had more money" doesn't actually make them richer; it's a matter of comparative earnings and loss. You've given no argument to what exactly makes them 'richer', except that you say so, even though the facts of the matter point to them being so poor that they had to give peasants land just to defend themselves. That isn't a sign of a wealthy kingdom at all, it points to a very struggling kingdom. For example, if I have a square kilometer of land, and I'm making two pieces of currency off of it a day, and my neighbor has four square km of land, and he's only making one piece of currency off of each region, he is comparatively poor than me, despite having more money, because my lands are making more money. The same problem existed in England. Undeveloped land was yielding little of real value. The only benefit they had was a lot of land (compared to their neighbors) and many citizens. It earned them more overall money, but they were poorly managed and could barely afford the basic necessities to keep their kingdom in order. It doesn't matter how much money they had, it matters that they didn't have enough money for a kingdom of their size and population.
For example; Leinster in Ireland was a, by your definition, 'rich' kingdom in the 700s. They had more flat monetary gain than near all of the other Irish kingdoms combined (as well as numerous foreign kingdoms). However, they also had a large population to deal with, and difficult to defend terrain. They couldn't afford to effectively defend themselves because they didn't have ENOUGH money to properly defend a population of their size. Compare to Connacht, which had a much smaller population and substantially less income; Connacht also has vastly easier to defend terrain, and it was cheaper to do so. Connacht managed to successfully defend itself far better than Leinster, despite making much less flat wealth. They didn't need to make as much.
England needed to be making much more money than it was to appropriately defend itself (the creation of the Danelaw alone proves they couldn't truly afford a defense, and probably explains why they gave up so much land; it wasn't monetarily sound to keep much of it). England was rich in the same way most corporate executives are; a great deal of assets, but little liquid substance, and, thus, little room to manuever. They'd be 'rich' only from a certain perspective; one that ignores how bloated they were and how much more money they needed to be making.
Bookmarks