Saw an interesting question on the web last night; What if Harold had won Hastings?
We know William had 2 or 3 horses killed under him, a small movement in flight might have hit him with the arrow, and he had to stop a rumour that he had been killed, so it is possible the army could have taken flight.
But what would England have looked like without Norman rule. You can argue that it is one of the most significant battles in history; Would that England have gone on to form the Empire 800 years later, for instance? Does Protestantism get the boost from Henry VIII splitting with Rome? Would Wales be conquered?
Hard one that. I doubt the empire was due to the Norman Conquest though
There are several projections based on an extended house of Godwin.
* A rotating crown with the nobility respecting the Witan's choice for many generations.
* Seizure of the crown and possible civil war.
+ This one raises the possibility of continental intervention.
* A great north sea empire - with claims in England, Denmark and Norway.
Stuff that might not happen.
* The domesday book - and a detailed written history.
* No Bayeux tapestry (obvs!).
* No Anglo input to the Byzantine axe-bearing guard.
* Does England conquer Wales?
* Who rules Scotland?
We as a nation might have even liked the French. Or is that taking things a little too far?
Whilst in the short-term it would certainly have changed things significantly.
Over a 1000 years - really quite hard to say. I tend to think wider geo-political forces are likely to have led to similar results.
England/Britain becoming a sea power feels pretty certain down to geography. Not sure the Normans would have influenced this one way or another.
Its easy to think of the 'great man' view of history - but would countries have still gone in largely the same direction as they were ready for such a leader to take them that way?
QuoteWhilst in the short-term it would certainly have changed things significantly.
Over a 1000 years - really quite hard to say. I tend to think wider geo-political forces are likely to have led to similar results.
England/Britain becoming a sea power feels pretty certain down to geography. Not sure the Normans would have influenced this one way or another.
Its easy to think of the 'great man' view of history - but would countries have still gone in largely the same direction as they were ready for such a leader to take them that way?
Excellent points:
England / Britain were not international superpowers in 1070-1300.
For that, you're looking at the Continental Normans, "Saracens" and the remnant Eastern Roman empire.
Those, and the top guy in Rome really set the schedule for "what happens next".
There are sideshows, like a reconquista in Iberia, where English Norman knights intervene on Portugal's side.
There are many steps before European sea power becomes a thing.
The reconquista is certainly a stepping stone to Spanish conquistadors and Portuguese navigators expanding the horizons and re-launching colonialism.
The reformation may also constitute a pull factor.
Adventurers form maritime protestant nations engaging in a bit of profitable piracy against said Iberian treasure fleets.
The Dutch open the account in pursuit of their own 80 years war aims.
The English join in - sometimes allied with the Dutch.
Once the Anglo Dutch take a lead, they proceed to pick off selected Spanish or Portuguese colonies.
Language use and legal codes would have been very different.
Church influence would have been much the same, and was already continental looking
May not have seen absolutist or dynastic monarchy.
Distinct lack of castles.
Scotland would have retained its hated of England, and rivalries would still be there.
Godwinson had already launched expectations into Wales, so conflict there would have continued.
We would probably have continued looking towards Scandinavian and intermarrying into their royalty.
Three lions and the cross of St George wouldn't be a thing ..
Arthurian legend as we know it would not have been developed in the C12th, especially not the romantic side.
But who knows?
Probably the biggest difference would be linguistic, assuming another Norman incursion did not conquer us later. So the difference in language between the rulers and the ruled would have been much reduced.
- Agree we would have retained much stronger links with Scandinavia than Continental Europe.
- No "white ship", no Anarchy, no ravaging of "the north" so the prosperity of England is spread differently, York grows to rival London in trade and wealth. Northerners become known for their soft, luxurious lifestyles.
- Normans too weakened to attack Sicily/Italy/First Crusade leading to peace evermore in the middle east.
- No Plantagenets so no big Angevin "empire" and no Hundred Years War (no claim to French throne)/ England and France grow peaceful and prosperous for centuries.
- No English Civil War as Kings would be elected by the Witan.
- A more powerful France "wins" the Thirty years war with the Holy Roman Empire dissolving and Prussia becoming a tiny rural state that never bothers anyone again.
And all because that hot-headed Harold disbanded his fleet (I mean who crosses the channel in October!)
and didn't wait a week or more in London to rest/gather his forces properly. William would have had to remain just ravaging Kent and Sussex or lose his main supply line.
I'm not convinced that the North would rival London - London's dominance is really influenced by geography.
1) Technically it is coastal - the Thames has tides. This allowed it to take cargo until the ships got too big in the mid-20th Century.
2) It is less than 80 miles from both Dover - close to the continent, and Southampton. Southampton is important as a port because thanks to the Isle of Wight it gets 4, not 2, tides a day, and they are evenly spaced. This makes it much more useful for trade ships than, say, Hull. It's also a much quicker route to the wealthy parts of Europe.
3) The Chilterns form a natural barrier round the north and west of London, which were difficult to cross. Although just a procedural thing in Parliament now, there is a reason why the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds is a thing; the place was riddled with bandits. Getting your cargo from Dover to the Midlands was dangerous.
4) The land in SE England is fertile and easy to farm; the population is easier to grow.