What if the Kingdom of England somehow successfully repelled Norman Invaders? Some historians speculate that England would not have been as great as it was without Norman control.
Norman Conquest of England Repelled
- Thread starter Montgomerie Ward
- Start date
It is said that the major effect of an unsuccessful Norman invasion of England would have been that the country would have remained more in the Scandinavian orbit. Although true to a certain degree the Anglo-Saxon Kings had always been aware of events on the continent and when necessary had acted to support allies and their own interests. As the Scandinavian kingdoms waned in influence after the end of the Viking age English interests would have been directed more and more to the south.
One obvious butterfly is that the successors to Harold would not have been so involved in internal French politics as the Norman and Angevin Kings and would probably have spent their energies in internal British and Irish politics. Late Anglo-Saxon policies towards Wales for example seemed to be more concerned with control rather than conquest. When Harold and Tostig defeated Gruffydd ap Llywelyn of Gwynedd they satisfied themselves with reclaiming some lands taken by Gruffydd before splitting his lands between his half brothers rather than occupying Wales itself.
With respect to Scotland policies there seemed to be similar. Although Edward the Confessor acted to ensure the succession of Malcolm Clanmore by sending Earl Siward to attack Macbeth, Malcolm’s rival King of Scotland, he only extracted from the new King of Scotland the traditional submission of a sub king to an overlord. Malcom remained independent of his supposed overlord with a tendency to raid Northern England if he believed he could get away with it.
How these policies might have evolved over the years no one can really say but they might have turned out differently to those employed by William the Conqueror and his successors.
As to European affairs there would not have been too much difference. There would have been less involvement in French affairs; the Anglo Saxon kings had always been involved in the politics of those maritime provinces facing them across the Channel but events further afield would not have impacted to the same degree on them the way that they did with Norman and Angevin Kings with personal holdings there. There wouldn’t have been a Hundred Years War either unless one of the English Kings married into the French royal house.
Further away events which impacted England during this time period would not have changed however. No matter who sat on the English throne the geo-political realities of power politics in Europe would no doubt have generated pretty much the same responses regardless of whether the king spoke French or English.
Internally the King would have faced the same power politics with over-powerful subjects that Edward the Confessor had faced. The fact that with the succession of Harold most of the royal lands bequeathed to him would have returned to royal control might have made a significant difference here but as to how events might have panned out your guess is as good as mine.
.
One obvious butterfly is that the successors to Harold would not have been so involved in internal French politics as the Norman and Angevin Kings and would probably have spent their energies in internal British and Irish politics. Late Anglo-Saxon policies towards Wales for example seemed to be more concerned with control rather than conquest. When Harold and Tostig defeated Gruffydd ap Llywelyn of Gwynedd they satisfied themselves with reclaiming some lands taken by Gruffydd before splitting his lands between his half brothers rather than occupying Wales itself.
With respect to Scotland policies there seemed to be similar. Although Edward the Confessor acted to ensure the succession of Malcolm Clanmore by sending Earl Siward to attack Macbeth, Malcolm’s rival King of Scotland, he only extracted from the new King of Scotland the traditional submission of a sub king to an overlord. Malcom remained independent of his supposed overlord with a tendency to raid Northern England if he believed he could get away with it.
How these policies might have evolved over the years no one can really say but they might have turned out differently to those employed by William the Conqueror and his successors.
As to European affairs there would not have been too much difference. There would have been less involvement in French affairs; the Anglo Saxon kings had always been involved in the politics of those maritime provinces facing them across the Channel but events further afield would not have impacted to the same degree on them the way that they did with Norman and Angevin Kings with personal holdings there. There wouldn’t have been a Hundred Years War either unless one of the English Kings married into the French royal house.
Further away events which impacted England during this time period would not have changed however. No matter who sat on the English throne the geo-political realities of power politics in Europe would no doubt have generated pretty much the same responses regardless of whether the king spoke French or English.
Internally the King would have faced the same power politics with over-powerful subjects that Edward the Confessor had faced. The fact that with the succession of Harold most of the royal lands bequeathed to him would have returned to royal control might have made a significant difference here but as to how events might have panned out your guess is as good as mine.
.
Not so much at all, yes Harold was King, but he was not alone. He had his brothers with him. Loefwine, Earl of Kent and Gyrth Earl of East Anglia.
England might have more trouble with Rome than anywhere else. Alexander II gave The Bastard gave the invasion the go ahead in the first place. He had already excommunicated Stigand once and therefore England, there would be no reason for him not to do it again. An earlier Church in England?
Also the Pope he pissed off Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, conman ground for both HRE and England?
Also a good move would be to get rid of William the Norman, Bishop of London.
Harold's defeat of William at Hastings would have proved to the medieval mind that God had come down on the side of the English. There would have been some frantic negotiations on both sides for the return of the papal banner William was supposed to have had and then I think a return to the status quo. IOTL Stigand remained as Archbishop until 1070 without any problems and after the return of Earl Godwin in 1053 Bishop William was allowed to re-occupy his see without any obstructions.
Without full feudalism in the model of the Normans,I think England will be a much more wealthy and prosperous place.
Would that indirectly mean that eventually through trade and urbanisation, that the rest of the British Isles, especially Ireland, would be more wealthy, isolated and not indentured under semi-feudal warmongering England.
I'm actually not sure about that.All that I know is that the people of England would be free,that they won't become serfs.
god....freyjones
Banned
The Anglo-Saxons did own slaves, and were as much hierarchical as the Normans. I doubt this would have ended had William been defeated, and most likely due to even Papal influence a post-1066 Anglo-Saxon England would have become feudal. Only high-born Anglo-Saxons could become King or be nobles who owned land, which obviously included the first Kings of the English as Athelstan, Athelred and Cnut (OK he was Danish but then he was also high-born) and pre-927 kings as Edward and Alfred the Great.
I think the main things would be a different English language, with no French-based words like "beef" or "soldier", no Magna Carta, no Hundred Years War, etc.
I think England would have also been a lot more Germanic, and all of our institutions like Parliament, the monarchy, law, etc. would be very different. I get the suspicion that an Anglo-Saxon king may attempt to conquer Wales and Scotland as Edward Longshanks did in OTL, and eventually Ireland. It figures, since the Anglo-Saxons were hardly a pacifist bunch.
As for being great, well England only became a major world power with the Age of Discovery, and the strong Tudor sovereigns (Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I) laying down strong structures to make this possible. If there still is an end to the Romans in 1483, and the Ottomans still block the Eastern trade routes, there's nothing preventing King Harold's great-great-great-great-great-great-great..whatever grandchild thinking "me too!" and looting Spanish booty and exploring North America.
I think the main things would be a different English language, with no French-based words like "beef" or "soldier", no Magna Carta, no Hundred Years War, etc.
I think England would have also been a lot more Germanic, and all of our institutions like Parliament, the monarchy, law, etc. would be very different. I get the suspicion that an Anglo-Saxon king may attempt to conquer Wales and Scotland as Edward Longshanks did in OTL, and eventually Ireland. It figures, since the Anglo-Saxons were hardly a pacifist bunch.
As for being great, well England only became a major world power with the Age of Discovery, and the strong Tudor sovereigns (Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I) laying down strong structures to make this possible. If there still is an end to the Romans in 1483, and the Ottomans still block the Eastern trade routes, there's nothing preventing King Harold's great-great-great-great-great-great-great..whatever grandchild thinking "me too!" and looting Spanish booty and exploring North America.
Last edited:
Serfdom and Slavery were by no means non-existent before the Conquest. In fact, serfdom and slavery was very common, but the latter less so than after the conquest.
I expect that England, if Harold had won might have gone quite isolationist for a while, after having to fight two foreign invaders, one of which had the backing of the pope. Harold would probably have become known as the great. As for Wales, some form of divide and influence would have most likely prevailed as the English 'Welsh Policy.' With Scotland, I think that every succession crisis, the English Kings would march north with their favourite candidate and impose him on the Scots. Ireland, I think would be much less within England's orbit and might just unite successfully with Ruari Ua Connobhair (or however you spell it) and be a united kingdom from then on and perhaps rival England in the British Isles.
Obviously we don't know what the political developments would have been but I do think that England would have gone Protestant, as would the rest of the Isles and that England would have capitalised on the discovery age. A united Kingdom of Ireland would have also done so I think so it would be an extra horse race. Can you see England conquering Greenland and Iceland?
VVD0D95
Banned
And the constant succession problems of Scotland were a massive problem because of Tanistry. Would the Witnegamot still continue?