|
Post by guyverman1990 on Dec 31, 2015 6:30:07 GMT
Good evening again ladies and gentlemen. Today, I would like to ask another fascinating question. Could any of you imagine how history would've went had the then-King of England Harold Godwinson, managed to resist the Norman conquest lead by William of Normandy? First of all, the English language itself would be very different without all the excess influence of French stemming from Norman oppression of English speakers. Other than that, how else do you think things would've gone differently with the passage of time?
|
|
Bfoxius
New Member
Nothing to fear, nothing to doubt
Posts: 30
|
Post by Bfoxius on Jan 19, 2016 3:37:04 GMT
No Harrowing of the North means the north of England is much better off. Perhaps York remains a major city into the modern day (though York ceased to become relevant around Tudor-Elizabethan era, the extra population and prominence it would have in a world without the Harrowing could solidify its position as the major northern city). The North would be able to pull its own weight and challenge the rule of the King more often.
England would be much less centralized and wouldn't be involved in the affairs of France, more likely orienting itself toward the Scandinavian nations/the Low Countries. Without the gap between the French-speaking elite and the English-speaking peasantry, the Anglo-Saxon peasants would remain more loyal to their own earl, perpetuating internal conflict between the nobility, rather than having the English look outwards. As such, the Irish, Welsh, and Scottish would hold onto their hegemony for just a bit longer and their cultures would become more apparent if a Great Britain was to emerge.
With the less pious Anglo-Saxons in charge, there would be more conflict between the English and the Catholic Church, and England probably joining the Scandinavian sphere of Christianity (Lutheranism will be butterflied away, but geography will still lead to something happening) when/if the Reformation happens.
Just a few thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Jan 19, 2016 22:12:15 GMT
It wouldn't surprise me if French did still emerge as a prosperity language in England at least along the Channel (which is still going to hold mucho influence over the rest of England), brought in by both traders and the nobility copying their far more prosperous southern neighbours.
France is still going to emerge as a military and cultural powerhouse in western Europe, eventually. But with the Normans on board rather than adventuring in Britain and Ireland this could go either way. Certainly the Dukes of Normandy are going to resist a more centralizing monarchy, but on the other hand if Caen were to be more friendly to Paris (say through martial ties to the throne) then they could be boon when it came to reigning in less than loyal dukes and fighting in the Holy Land, Italy, and Spain.
From there you have a centralized French state acting as the example for other kingdoms which have a problem with independent-minded nobles, kingdoms like England.
I could see England proper being a bit like Scotland. Attempts to imitate realms they view as more advanced would bring progress to the realm, there would be conflict between the crown and its vassals, and of course with the church. I agree with Bfoxius that a Saxon England is going to be a lot more distant to Rome. In fact I would say that England is going to be on a social and technological par with both the rest of the Isles and Scandinavia/northern Germany for a long time.
So no castles, no feudalism, no plate armour, and no knights; at least not until the earls start inviting in experts from France and Germany. Britain and Ireland are going to remain primarily infantry and archery focused, with the Saxon Huscarls being the heaviest troops on the Isles.
Outside of England; Scotland is going to remain more Gaelic, with some Saxon economic influence creeping in from the south, and I imagine the border will remain as heavily contested as in OTL. The Welsh will also have to deal with raids and border conflict, but the longbow should handle Saxon heavy infantry better than it did Norman knights. The northwest of England may actually maintain it's original Cumbric language, the Northumbrians were unable to extinguish it before so I doubt a more southerly focused English state would be able to do much better. Ireland is Ireland, they cared not for the troubles of the big island. Should England eventually begin to adopt centralizing tendencies from the continent, and the military perks that came with it, I could see them arriving at a period of predominance over the Isles. However unlike the Normans I don't think they really had much of a national ethos about conquest. The most I could see is forcing the Welsh princes into paying tribute, and maintaining it long enough for it to be traditional. Maybe Scotland can be brought into the fold with Saxon knights being hired up north to help deal with clan warfare, but I doubt there will be any outright conquest attempts.
Ireland will just be Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Michelle R. Wood on Feb 12, 2016 22:07:41 GMT
Wow, this one is tough. The Norman Conquest is such a major point in English history that envisioning a future is difficult. The first question to answer is: does William survive his defeat, living to plot another day? After all, William had been scheming at taking England for years, and Harold's claim to the throne was tenuous; he might have still lost the kingdom despite winning the battle. If William dies, then Harold has a better shot at keeping his hold on the other English nobles.
I don't know if the same could be said of Harold's children, though, at least the ones we know of OTL. Either the second generation or the next is likely to face competition for the crown, and I can see a pattern of "king by contest" developing until someone strong enough puts a stop to it.
Others have mentioned changes in language and warfare, but there's also economics to consider: prior to the Norman conquest the idea of land ownership was vastly different for Anglo-Saxons. England without Norman influence develops a legal system that isn't as bound to commercial and property ownership as in OTL, with more communal, less centralized monetary and economic systems developing over time.
On the folklore side: no Normans = no Robin Hood, at least as we know him.
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Mar 14, 2016 4:53:36 GMT
Maybe instead of a Hundred Years' War between France and England, a similar conflict might take place between England and Norway eventually.
|
|
|
Post by rescribor on Mar 17, 2016 21:45:31 GMT
Well, as Harold was facing 2 invasions, POD is relatively simple - Hardrada's fleet is delayed. Then we need fully rested Saxon shieldwall not to break up in trying to reach retreating (for next attack) Norman horse. I would think that it would be hard-fought battle, but Saxons could prevail. But now there would probably be not enough elite forces left to repel Hardrada - so no Stamford Bridge.
In short term - England is ruled by Tostig Godwinson, propped by Viking army. I do not know enough about personalities here to say whether Tostig or Harald Hardrada will end as English top dog. But there is an interesting possibility - to unite the country and point Vikings in other direction than living off "allied" England, Tostig can start raiding/conquering parts of Normandy. If Wilhelm is alive, he was probably ransomed for ruinous sum and some political considerations (castles, cities, tolls etc.). With most of elite forces dead and economy in ruins, Normandy would be easier target than before.
Long term - no Modern English, dominant language in England will have another wave of Nordic loanwords, and with semi-succesfull holding of the part of Normandy a bit of French (or Breton). Normandy probably will be incorporated by strongest neighbour or coalition of them, as nobody would like to have Viking or Anglo - Saxon raider bases over the border.
So surely no 100 years war, but cross - Channel raiding and grudge match.
Those are my two cents on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Mar 18, 2016 1:28:21 GMT
Well, as Harold was facing 2 invasions, POD is relatively simple - Hardrada's fleet is delayed. Then we need fully rested Saxon shieldwall not to break up in trying to reach retreating (for next attack) Norman horse. I would think that it would be hard-fought battle, but Saxons could prevail. But now there would probably be not enough elite forces left to repel Hardrada - so no Stamford Bridge. In short term - England is ruled by Tostig Godwinson, propped by Viking army. I do not know enough about personalities here to say whether Tostig or Harald Hardrada will end as English top dog. But there is an interesting possibility - to unite the country and point Vikings in other direction than living off "allied" England, Tostig can start raiding/conquering parts of Normandy. If Wilhelm is alive, he was probably ransomed for ruinous sum and some political considerations (castles, cities, tolls etc.). With most of elite forces dead and economy in ruins, Normandy would be easier target than before. Long term - no Modern English, dominant language in England will have another wave of Nordic loanwords, and with semi-succesfull holding of the part of Normandy a bit of French (or Breton). Normandy probably will be incorporated by strongest neighbour or coalition of them, as nobody would like to have Viking or Anglo - Saxon raider bases over the border. So surely no 100 years war, but cross - Channel raiding and grudge match. Those are my two cents on this topic. By Wilhelm you mean William of Normandy right?
|
|
|
Post by rescribor on Mar 30, 2016 18:11:29 GMT
Yes, sorry. William the Conqueror, Williame I de Normandie
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Apr 1, 2016 0:07:18 GMT
Yes, sorry. William the Conqueror, Williame I de Normandie Thanks for clarifying. BTW I am assuming for my POD, the arrow that killed Harold in OTL just narrowly misses and not long after, William gets killed by being trampled by own men. How will history go if William is dead after that point?
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Apr 1, 2016 12:19:55 GMT
Thanks for clarifying. BTW I am assuming for my POD, the arrow that killed Harold in OTL just narrowly misses and not long after, William gets killed by being trampled by own men. How will history go if William is dead after that point? Harold wasn't killed by an arrow though, that's a bit of a controversial topic still today but from all accounts I've seen the arrow bit seems to have been a later edition. Harold being mutilated by Norman knights is the version I stick with, since according to the story his face could not be identified, but only through certain marks on his body could they tell it was him, either by his mother or his widow. The exhumation of a body suspected of being Harold in the 1950's revealed that it was missing a head, a leg, and part of his other leg. However considering the body was near 1,000 years old and the state of archaeological equipment back then it could be anyone. Still, I like it being Harold. Now since one take on that mutilation legend has William himself taking part in the death of Harold it could always be said that the knights who charged Harold's huscarls failed, with William being unhorsed an killed with a short, swift, axe to the face. The knights accompanying him freak out and flee back to their own lines, the charge underway continues but as panic begins to spread it starts to falter. Harold eggs his huscarls on, and the fyrd break ranks and charge down the hill with them. In the ensuing rout plenty of knights are captured before they can flee to the coast, they are ransomed later for mucho profit. Some Norman and Flemish levies and men at arms may act as brigands in southern England after the battle, but they're not going to survive long. Now once Williams body is returned along with what's left of his army (maybe some knights are taken into service to train earls in the ways of chivalry?) there may be civil war in Normandy. The rivalries between William's boys is pretty damn interesting. His eldest son, Robert, went into rebellion in 1077 after his younger brothers Rufus and Henry emptied a chamber pot over him and William didn't punish them for it. Now I'm not sure why but IOTL Rufus (also called William II) inherited England, whilst Robert was given Normandy. This is apparently due to William having such a rocky relationship with his eldest, however the nobility preferred Robert as king because he was easily distracted and often quite listless, meaning he was easy to deal with. So I see Robert becoming Duke of Normandy, and not wishing to push his fathers claim. He was supposed to be alright tactically but a terrible general and a shoddy ruler, so Normandy is probably going to do to the dogs for awhile, definitely getting bullied by the French monarch and with more than a few disagreements amongst the nobility. However the sons of William were not above killing each other, and since Robert had no sons his younger brother Richard would take over. Unfortunately I can find sweet FA about the man, which makes sense since he died in a hunting accident in 1069.
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Apr 3, 2016 6:01:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Apr 3, 2016 11:14:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Apr 15, 2016 0:43:53 GMT
Would the English language still go through vowel shift without the Norman Conquest?
|
|
wendy
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by wendy on Jan 5, 2017 13:16:05 GMT
Words we'ld wield if we won in 1066. (Cowley). Has an alternate language.
Base 120 survived until 1300's in RL, would we still be using it?
It's one of my alternate histories, that the saxons retreated to northumbria, and then won the island back, kind of like the spanish and arabs.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Jan 16, 2017 22:46:41 GMT
People
For my view on it, assuming the simplest point that Harold avoids being killed and the shield wall doesn't break. With the Normans having finite resources and the Saxons with more reinforcements on the way the Normans are defeated, either that day or their remaining ones the following day. Then:
a) England - Does see the social regression and brutal slaughter of the conquest and occupation. As a result in the shorter terms at least and possibly the longer one, it will be markedly richer and more stable. Harold still faces mistrust, especially from the brothers Edwin and Morcar. However having defeated two major invasions he will have further emphasised his abilities as England's foremost leader. Whereas their own failure at Fulford will have weakened their prestige. Also Harold will have a link to the family by his marriage to Edith, their sister. Although this could cause problems in his own family as he had a number of children by his former wife Edith Swan-neck so there could be tension down the line.
England isn't a formal hereditary monarchy at this point. Hence its unclear who would succeed Harold presuming he dies peacefully. However its very likely to come from his own family as it has considerable power and influence and he is also linked by blood to the older dynasty descended from Alfred the Great.
Without the Norman occupation more English and Scandinavian influence will remain and the country will be less autocratic, at least unless external threats and influences result in a further strengthening of the monarchy. This could weaken it or possibly strengthen it with quickly adoption of a Parliamentary system. Also, barring prolonged tension with Normandy England is unlikely to get entangled in France as OTL. Which will make England more isolated but also more peaceful.
There is the complication that without the savage harrowing of the north there will continue to be a significant Danish influence in Yorkshire especially, which could cause division and tension although given many of them have been there for a century or more and the culture is closely linked with the Anglo-Saxon ones hopefully this can be avoided.
b) The rest of Britain. As some posters have said England will be more introspect and a lot less expansionist. Relations with Ireland are likely to continue to be good. Relations with Wales and Scotland are likely to be less pleasant with repeated border wars and raids.
Wales is most likely to be reduced to a satellite state with probably some settlement by English populations, most likely along the border and in Pembrokeshire as occurred under the Normans.
Scotland could go any number of ways. Without links with the Normans as OTL and the import of Norman knights which helped strengthen the power of the monarchy this could delay its centralisation and possibly even prevent it. You might see the north and isles stay Norse and possibly England regaining Lothian, which would greatly weaken any Scottish state. Especially since this could well mean Strathclyde coming under English domination and the Scots reduced to a relatively small and further impoverished state of a similar level to Wales.
c) Normandy – A lot depends on whether William survives and also how much of his army returns with him. Even if he lives and take a fair chunk of his forces back his influence will have been considerably weakened. Furthermore he gained a lot of forces by offering land in England so some of his 'allies' could be less than friendly. Furthermore his aggressive expansion in N France has made enemies and neighbours could see chances to roll back such gains and secure new territory for themselves. As such you could see a period of further conflict in the region.
This is markedly more likely if William dies, or returns with only a fraction of his troops. The latter would not only reduce his immediate military might but also his prestige which could be important. If William dies then civil war in Normandy is very likely along with intervention by a number of its neighbours, Its likely that somewhere else, possibly Flanders or Aquitaine would emerge as the main rival of the French monarchy.
I doubt that Harold would be interesting in attacking Normandy himself unless there is a clear and continued threat from William. He is likely to seek to gain the release of his brother Wulfnoth, held hostage in Normandy for more than a decade. This could well be possible if he captured significant Norman leaders, including possibly William himself.
Not sure how this would affect the wider Norman sphere of power. They are already firmly established in S Italy and Sicily but it could mean less Normans available to boost that state or possibly more as Normans flee the chaos in Normandy itself. This could affect both that state and its wars with the Muslims of N Africa and the Byzantine empire to the east. Also I'm not sure what effect the butterflies might have on the crusades, which are probably still likely to occur. One problem for Byzantium would be that without the conquest there wouldn't be the flow of Anglo-Saxons to the empire who provided a source of mercenary troops for the empire in the next few days. As such, if the Normans are as strong or stronger in S Italy and the empire still has its period of civil war the Normans could obtain a stronger lodgement in the Balkans than OTL.
|
|
|
Post by Tyranna on Mar 20, 2018 3:41:40 GMT
Well, as Harold was facing 2 invasions, POD is relatively simple - Hardrada's fleet is delayed. Then we need fully rested Saxon shieldwall not to break up in trying to reach retreating (for next attack) Norman horse. I would think that it would be hard-fought battle, but Saxons could prevail. But now there would probably be not enough elite forces left to repel Hardrada - so no Stamford Bridge. In short term - England is ruled by Tostig Godwinson, propped by Viking army. I do not know enough about personalities here to say whether Tostig or Harald Hardrada will end as English top dog. But there is an interesting possibility - to unite the country and point Vikings in other direction than living off "allied" England, Tostig can start raiding/conquering parts of Normandy. If Wilhelm is alive, he was probably ransomed for ruinous sum and some political considerations (castles, cities, tolls etc.). With most of elite forces dead and economy in ruins, Normandy would be easier target than before. Long term - no Modern English, dominant language in England will have another wave of Nordic loanwords, and with semi-succesfull holding of the part of Normandy a bit of French (or Breton). Normandy probably will be incorporated by strongest neighbour or coalition of them, as nobody would like to have Viking or Anglo - Saxon raider bases over the border. So surely no 100 years war, but cross - Channel raiding and grudge match. Those are my two cents on this topic. Indeed; many people forget that Harold Godwinson actually was a winner in 1066, at Stamford Bridge, and then had to march south at breakneck speed to stop William; the best P.O.D. options would be that either Hardrada's fleet or William's fleet suffered some kind of delay or catastrophe; even something as simple as fog or navigational error could have spelled disaster; for example, suppose William's ship had collided with one of his other vessels and one or more of the vessels sank, considering that many of his shops were carrying horses and men in heavy armour. Or Harold Hardrada might have been lost in a squall while crossing the North Sea? The really interesting thing however about had 1066 gone the other way, is that it ultimately it might have resulted in little long-term difference; England had already been absorbing a lot of Norman influence through trade, diplomacy and alliances long before the fateful encounter at Pevensey. William was guaranteed the crown by right of succession following an earlier agreement in the grand tradition of alliances between monarchies which was commonplace between many Saxon, Scandinavian, Frankish and other North European kingdoms, and it is likely that even if William had been killed, another allegiance may have been arranged around a marriage of convenience between a Saxon king or queen and an influential Continental suitor. There is a lot of imposing evidence for the already 'embedded' Norman interests which were being forged in pre-1066 England; for example the Norman-style arcading which is the oldest part of the nave of Westminster Abbey was actually built in the 1040's-1050's and several Late Anglo-Saxon church towers around England (Such as St. Benet's in Cambridgeshire) show clearly Norman-style double-arched windows as part of their architecture; this is actually a style known as 'Saxo-Norman'. Large numbers of craftsmen must have been brought over from France or even further afield on many occasions for such projects in the 50 or so years prior to Hastings, and even if England had remained Saxon, it would have still been influenced by Norman styles, although it might have developed more like a cross between Ireland and Germany, with for example German-style 'Burg' castles and retaining the old Anglo-Saxon Thanes, Earls, etc. and probably even a multiplicity of small states similar to those which characterised Germany until the 19th Century, and smaller (but still impressive) abbeys at places such as Brixworth, Jarrow, Canterbury, etc. assuming a more Germanic appearance with tall-roofed towers and ultimately a variant on the Romanesque and Gothic styles with which we are familiar in post 11th Century England. Another detail to reflect is that despite the sweeping away of the Anglo Saxon monarchy and earls, the overwhelming majority of placenames across England (As recorded in the Domesday Book in 1086) have remained Anglo-Saxon: everything ending in -Ton, -Ing, -Ham, -Field, -Ley, -Stead, and many more, are not in the least Norman French, but are Saxon, Anglian, Jutish, Viking, or even relict Celtic names by which the local peasantry continued to call their local settlement or lands. Among the best known of the few Norman names in England are names with castle in them, such as Newcastle-on-Tyne, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Castleford, etc. and also some directly imposed French names for some places, such as Ashby-de-la-Zouch, although even that one starts with an Anglo-Saxon 'Ashby'. An England never invaded by the Normans, or only belatedly invaded by them would have even fewer Norman/French names and also a more Germanic/Saxon lexicon, although even then some Norman influence might filter through as a result of flourishing trade. Again, in the case of Ireland, a still-Saxon England might still 'invade' Ireland in the 11th Century, to help an Irish chieftan in trouble, as did Strongbow in 1169, or maybe even by the Normans to aid a chieftan or to stave off an English invasion or some other. If Ireland is never properly invaded by the Normans, expect an interesting mixture of migrations/invasions/influences from both Scandinavia, Scotland and Spain/Portugal, maybe even from as far as Morocco; in actual fact, archaeological evidence points to strong trading links with ALL these places, and indeed the Irish in the 11th Century boasted a high degree of integration with settled Viking invaders, who had founded Ireland's first cities and substantial industries such as shipbuilding in Dublin where some of the ships excavated at sites in Scandinavia were found to have originated.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Mar 20, 2018 19:12:03 GMT
Tyranna
I think that at least part of the Norman influence was due to Edward the Confessor's favouring of them. Possibly partly because he had spent time in Normandy in exile and also had a Norman mother. Also he used them to counter the power of the native earls, especially the Godwin's who he saw as his main rivals and mistrusted because of the possible role of Earl Godwin in the death of his elder brother. It was noticeable that he used them in his efforts, successful for a while, to get the Godwin clan exiled in 1051-52. Also he tried using Norman earls, although Earl Ralph IIRC proved less than successful in preventing Welsh raids on England, until eventually Earl Harold defeated the Welsh on behalf of the king.
As such I suspect that while there would have been some Norman and other mainland French influence, if Harold had successfully defeated the Norman invasion it would probably have faded away, at least as a political force. Especially since an heavy Norman defeat, especially if William was killed, could mean a collapse of Norman power, at least in N France. Or at least it could be busy seeking to defending its position against numerous rivals.
|
|