What would be the effect on England in cultural, economic and linguistic terms? How does this affect the rest of the world? How will france be without having to lose more than 1 century fighting the rival french dynasty in england. Will we have Portugal being independent without English help?
What if the Norman Conquest of England Failed?
- Thread starter holycookie
- Start date
Looking way down the line to the Hundred Years War and War of Portugese Restoration requires a lot of guess work and a butterfly genocide imo.
More immediately, another invasion of England seems likely. Edward the Confessor disbanded the standing fleet, which made England incredibly vulnerable to invasion (thus how the Godwinsons, the Norwegians, the Normans, the Godwinsons again, the Scotts, and the Danes were able to mount naval invasions of the Kingdom in such rapid succession). The Godwinsons had no shortage of enemies, even (especially really) within England, and they lacked the military might of the Normans. Not saying their overthrow is inevitable, but I don't think surviving 1066 would be the end of their strife.
More immediately, another invasion of England seems likely. Edward the Confessor disbanded the standing fleet, which made England incredibly vulnerable to invasion (thus how the Godwinsons, the Norwegians, the Normans, the Godwinsons again, the Scotts, and the Danes were able to mount naval invasions of the Kingdom in such rapid succession). The Godwinsons had no shortage of enemies, even (especially really) within England, and they lacked the military might of the Normans. Not saying their overthrow is inevitable, but I don't think surviving 1066 would be the end of their strife.
Last edited:
It was expen$ive, and he needed to buy the loyalty of the nobility.
Henry1066
Banned
The French dynasty was at war with the Norman's from 1050s because Henri I of France was worried about the expansion of Ducky of Normandy power
And from 1050s to 1259 there was wars between the Norman/Plantagenet and Capet over lands in France
I would also add that the Danish where also interested in conquer in England and William the conqueror was preparing for a combined Danish and Flemish fleet and armies to invade England in the 1080s
I would say most likely England would have conquer Wales and Scotland much quicker and it was Harold godwinson and Edward the confessor
Who put the king of Scots Malcolm the third on the throne
The reason why the kings after the conquest where not interested in expanding in the British isles was due to wars over there continental Holdings
Henry I of England spent nearly a decade fighting over control of Normandy
And from 1050s to 1259 there was wars between the Norman/Plantagenet and Capet over lands in France
I would also add that the Danish where also interested in conquer in England and William the conqueror was preparing for a combined Danish and Flemish fleet and armies to invade England in the 1080s
I would say most likely England would have conquer Wales and Scotland much quicker and it was Harold godwinson and Edward the confessor
Who put the king of Scots Malcolm the third on the throne
The reason why the kings after the conquest where not interested in expanding in the British isles was due to wars over there continental Holdings
Henry I of England spent nearly a decade fighting over control of Normandy
I doubt the Godwinson's would outright conquer Scotland, I think its more likely they would keep it as a tributary state like the Aethelstan, the Normans and Early Plantagenets did. I do agree that this Alt Version of England is going to be more focused on the British Isles and Scandinavia however.
Henry1066
Banned
I was thinking in the future Harold II would have defeated two invasions of England and he would be secure in his legacy of a warrior King
But he would need to secure his Northern and Weastern border's of Welsh and Scottish raids and Northumbria has been historically hard to government
Harold is also 44 years old he has at most around 15 years left and his own sons may be fighting an Invasion from Denmark in the 1080s
I don't see them doing any conquering until the Viking age is truly over and other threat's are dealt with
It's also important to remember that the Anglo-Saxon monarchy is an elective monarchy and it's usually the most eligible male that is made king like with Alfred the Great and Edwig who where made kings over there brothers children
Thought Edgar the peaceful became king after his uncle's death
Who would invade though?
In many ways William drew not only the knights of Normandy but more or less everyone in Northern France who was willing to throw the dices for lands and power, if William loose at Hastings many of them would have died and it isn't like there is a ton of candidates for another try too: Conan of Britanny and Henri of France are probably gonna focus on taking advantage of Normandy's precarious state and Flanders has its own problems in the Low Countries. Further east Norway is a mess whose army Harold just slaughtered while Sven of Denmark is family. In the old days the Welsh princes could have been convinced to try something but Wales came of Harold's trashing of king Gruffydd tremendously weakened. That only leave Malcolm of Scotland and whatever you can cobble in Ireland and it wasn't enough to dislodge William in OTL despite him being on a way shakier throne then Harold post Hastings ITTL probably and the Danes being involved.
I agree some crisis is likely in the reign of Harold but he probably has a breater until then and a winning hand when it happens IMO.
I think the immediate threat would likely be Edgar Atheling and the northern earls, probably supported by Malcom III.
The Northern earls were Harold's son-in-law at this stage though. Hence my point: without truly first-tier magnates opposing and with Edgar being 14 its going to take time for the opposition to coalesce. Moreover, and at the risk of repeating of myself from a recent thread, Harold's victories are gonna make people hesitate to oppose him ITTL: he spearheaded his family's return from exile that turned the House of Wessex into medieval lame ducks and his family into the mayor of the palace, he defeated the only King of All of Wales in a manner which Welsh power has never recovered from, he slaughtered the army of the legendary warrior king Harald Hardrada and broke a formidable William of Normandy with the power of the Papacy at his back. This will obviously make him a fairly intimidating figure, obviously, but beyond the Middle-Age was a fairly providential age: people believed that things happened for a reason and that God's hand was everywhere, especially in martial matters...
So I agree some kind of crisis down the line is likely but its going to take time and Harold is rather likely to win IMO.
I don't think that necessarily ensures they don't challenge him. They *definitely* will challenge his heir unless it is a nephew. But he'll get a breather, especially since the northern earls did sort of get their forces mauled at Fulford very recently. Also, yeah, people won't want to mess with him. He's a competent general with a very good military record ATL. Thus the heir part as he isn't that young either.
Last edited:
Yet they withheld their forces from Harold's March back south to Hastings. Further, in terms of the value of familial bonds in the murderous politics of the Anglo-Saxon nobility, remember that Tostig had been Harold's brother.
If Hastings ends up being a phyric victory for Harold then they may well go after the scent of blood in the water.* Though yes, I agree it'll likely take some time for opposition to coallese, William also had a breather between the conquest and 1069.
Or do just the opposite. William was famed as an undefeated warrior who was supported by the Pope, and his list of enemies only grew and grew in proportion with his reputation, a list that eventually included many of his family and allies.
*Which is a point that tends to go undiscussed in these threads. What if Harold comes back from a drawn out battle with a bloody nose, a broken leg, and most of his housecarls in caskets? What if William utilizes his advantage in cavalry and archers to screen a withdrawal back to his boats after failing to get Godwinson off the hill? OP never specified a total, let alone clean, victory at Hastings, just that the Normans fail to conquer England.
can this still be spun as massive victory because the normans failed to break us and were forced to flee back to their boats sounds like a good PR win especially when the king of england has defeated two armies sent to take his throne in a short time frame
There is a gap between deciding they can't be bothered and leaving Harold to figure it out by himself and actively fight for Edgar and invite Malcolm in the North though especially when, as someone else had mentioned, their own forces were ailing post-Fulford. I am also sceptical that a Phyric victory is all that probable really, since the most likely scenario is for Harold's Housecarls and Fyrd to hold Senlac for the bulk of the battle, with the option of someone getting lucky and killing William at some point, which would limit the English loses and Harold was waiting for more forces to join him anyway. A William who survive and retreat would be faced with the unpleasant choice of either wintering in a hostile area he himself devastated before of to try a naval crossing in winter back to Normandy so I don't see him as being in great shape to push his claim again, especially since its gonna be harder to sell it to his Norman barons and to the non-Norman recruit he gathered all over the place after a defeat.
As for a dynamic similar to the one that gave William more enemies as time went by, I am also skeptical TBH. Much of William's later trouble was a mix of quarrels over the inheritance of William's domains, unhappiness on how the English pie was distributed, and the continuation of old squabbles on the continent magnified by his enhanced power. None of this really applies to an ATL Harold IMO...
Not that Edgar, Malcolm, and unhappiness in the North won't be a problem in Harold's reign ITTL, but IMO internal opposition is more likely to exist among the lower-ranking nobility who (rightfully) weren't too impressed with the two earls' performance in 1066 and are therefore unhappy with Harold's ties with them. It would probably take some time for it to coalesce though.
Indeed, but that's sometimes down the line. IMO its likely that there will be some kind of clash between the sons of his two wives at his death or their champions. The supporter of Edith of Mercia's line will argue that Harold committed to having her descendants inherit and that the wedding between Harold and his first wife (also called Edith, because why not
) was canonically deficient. It was already discussed in OTL, so it will loom ever larger post-Hastings ITTL as he gets older.The chances of the sons of the second marriage being old enough to contend for the throne when Harold dies depends entirely on their age when Daddy goes on to his heavenly reward. If he dies at about 60 they'll be too young to gather a strong party around them unless supported by their uncles, either paternal or maternal. In his last years Harold will have been positioning his older sons for when he dies with estates and offices which will give them men sworn to help them advance their interests.
The most serious opposition would be Edgar Atheling but Harold was a canny politician and I could see him arranging a marriage between his preferred heir and Edgar's sister Margaret who in OTL married Malcolm III Clanmore of Scotland.
The most serious opposition would be Edgar Atheling but Harold was a canny politician and I could see him arranging a marriage between his preferred heir and Edgar's sister Margaret who in OTL married Malcolm III Clanmore of Scotland.
No fully long-established King of England lived to 70 until George II... but Edgar Aetheling whom Harold usurped died at 75, and Robert Curthose whom Henry I usurped died age 82. Between 1066 and 1727, the monarchs who died natural causes past age 60 were
- Edward the Confessor 63
- Henry I 67
- Henry III 65
- Edward I 68
- Edward III 64
- Elizabeth I 69
- James II 67
- George I 67
- William the Bastard 59 (disputed - maybe accident)
- Stephen 58
- Henry II 56
- John 49
- Henry IV 45
- Henry V 35
- Edward IV 40
- Henry VII 52
- Henry VIII 55
- Edward VI 15
- Broody Mary 42
- James I 58
- Charles II 54
- Mary II 32
- Anne 49
It is perhaps something of a coincidence that the actual English rulers ended up including 8 who died between 60 and 69 but 0 who died past 69 - see the examples of Edgar and Robert. "At most" actually means that Harold living past 80 is the less likely option but nothing unrealistic.
How would Anglo-Saxon English society of 1102 handle an aged king, just past 80 (it had never happened before!) and his relations with his middle-aged sons and the generals who unlike him are physically vigorous?
Henry1066
Banned
If he dead in the early 1080s his heir would have to face an invasion from Denmark and they attacked England twice in William the conqueror rule
If Harold wins another war that just give him the political prestige and reputation so he should have no internal challenge
If he gets dementia or mental issues that may be a different story but Edward III of England stained king even when he was no all their in his head
Also it's very possible it would be his Grandson or great grandson that would be made king in 1102 and it's very possible that some English Princes may go ok crusade
Like Hugh the brother of Philip I of France
Godwin Haroldsson´s exact birthday is not known, but it was between 1045 and 1050. After Hastings, he was OTL skipped over by most English in favour of Edgar Aetheling, and his family´s resistance was led by his grandmother Gytha. Godwin is first attested OTL in summer 1068 as an exile in Ireland.
By 1080 (median expected time for Harold to die natural causes), Godwin would be 30...35 and a mature adult. By 1105 (giving Harold age 83), Godwin would be 55...60. In that case, it would also be a chance that Godwin dies before Harold.
Note that Harold had several sons. Edith the Fair certainly had Edmund and Magnus who were younger than Godwin but close in age. And then there are the confusions about Ulf - what was his age, or who his mother was.
By 1080 (median expected time for Harold to die natural causes), Godwin would be 30...35 and a mature adult. By 1105 (giving Harold age 83), Godwin would be 55...60. In that case, it would also be a chance that Godwin dies before Harold.
Note that Harold had several sons. Edith the Fair certainly had Edmund and Magnus who were younger than Godwin but close in age. And then there are the confusions about Ulf - what was his age, or who his mother was.
Probably nearer the later date.
There is no mention of him being at either Stamford Bridge or Hastings, which would strongly suggest that he was not yet of military age. Ditto for Magnus.