King Harold II, one way or another, heads off the threats to Anglo-Saxon England by Harald of Norway and William the Bastard (you can't be called 'Conqueror' when you haven't done all that much conquering. At that point, he had the 'Bastard' title down, though) at Stamford Bridge and Hastings, respectively. What are the effects of this, considering it negates the Norman Conquest and the ensuing millennium of English history?
WI: Harold Godwinson defeated William in 1066?
- Thread starter Drunkrobot
- Start date
Timeline's a bit off, there- 1066 is pretty much the end of the Viking age in England.
What would happen- England is in a pretty good state at this point; it has healthy laws and the beginnings of institutional frameworks that are more than half Norse anyway, after Knut's reforms of Alfred's reforms; you can argue, and many have, that the Conquest set England back a century or more.
What does change is that there is now no longer that continental tie, there will be no Angevin Empire, and probably thus no Anarchy, no Stephen and Matilda, no harrowing of the north under William Rufus -?- that set that end of England back another century in addition- lots of bad things will now fail to happen.
Probably also just eliminated Parliament and Magna Carta, though. You might get a grand witanagemot, but good luck getting that on a headline.
Where the extra energy that isn't wasted in fratricide and class war goes is the question, though. Revenge, perhaps? After all, there are two nearby kingdoms without rulers, and with a grievance...Hmm. Hundred years war starting in 1067, perhaps?
.
What would happen- England is in a pretty good state at this point; it has healthy laws and the beginnings of institutional frameworks that are more than half Norse anyway, after Knut's reforms of Alfred's reforms; you can argue, and many have, that the Conquest set England back a century or more.
What does change is that there is now no longer that continental tie, there will be no Angevin Empire, and probably thus no Anarchy, no Stephen and Matilda, no harrowing of the north under William Rufus -?- that set that end of England back another century in addition- lots of bad things will now fail to happen.
Probably also just eliminated Parliament and Magna Carta, though. You might get a grand witanagemot, but good luck getting that on a headline.
Where the extra energy that isn't wasted in fratricide and class war goes is the question, though. Revenge, perhaps? After all, there are two nearby kingdoms without rulers, and with a grievance...Hmm. Hundred years war starting in 1067, perhaps?
.
Trynian Burek
Banned
Well, there is still the problem of the children of Edward the Exile. We might be able to broker some kind of another agreement with King Malcolm III, perhaps marrying one of Harold's daughters to him at a later date. The trouble is that Harold Godwinson doesn't have any blood ties to Edward the Confessor, and the children of Edward the Exile do, and Margaret is 21 and ripe for marriage. I could definitely some kind of a conflict between Malcolm III and Harold, perhaps with Malcolm trying to put Edgar on the throne.
How much of that involved marriages, feasts and alliances, and how much of that involved bearded lunatics showing up on the coast and burning shit?
Trynian Burek
Banned
Maybe for a little while. A little while being the rest of the century, or maybe even a century or more. Though eventually, England is going to be attracted to the wealth of the continent. That doesn't mean the situation will be analogous to OTL England in the slightest, but it means that contact, intermarriage, and possible dynastic conflict in the future is still pretty likely, if you ask me. Probably at a point in time when France seems to be more centralized. At the time in question, if Harold wins at Hastings, we're looking at a considerably more centralized England, probably, as Harold will probably consolidate his control by replacing traitorous earls with his family members, which would concentrate the control of half the country if not more into the Godwinson family.
That is... if he can manage to stave off problems with the King of Scotland, who is in a pretty good position to invade, especially if he marries Margaret and tries to put Edgar on the throne as his puppet.
If we get that though, then we have a pretty well centralized England, whereas at the time period, France was pretty divided. The most powerful people in France were the dukes of Aquitaine, especially at this point in time specifically. The Duke of Aquitaine controlled more than half the country, and that remained the situation for quite some time afterward. Future ambitious English kings will probably be interested in investing their bloodlines in Aquitaine, and might even make a bid for the French throne this way later on.
for Britain as a Scandinavian country, i think you could credibly call it such like how Finland or Iceland are part of Scandinavia: in the broadest definition, it's part of the region, but for an absolute necessity it is not (the only "essentially" Scandinavian countries are, of course, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden)
Trynian Burek
Banned
The consequences of this aren't isolated to the British Isles though, I would like to point out.
Normandy without William the Bastard is bound to be pretty unstable while his boys come of age to take over the duchy. Furthermore, William had had to do a lot of fighting to secure his position and expand his lands (specifically in Maine). Anjou is in no real position to invade right off the bat, but we could see a seizure of control from Flanders, or from William's half-brother, Odo. Honestly, I think it is likely that William's children will have the support of their uncle and grandfather in Flanders, but the nobility of Normandy may not be so supportive either and some might rally behind Odo... and Odo might also try to use William's boys for a future invasion of some sort, since the Norman claim to the English throne isn't just going to go away once Harold wins.
What happens to Normandy is in the air, really, but myself, I don't see it being stable for awhile, which could mean, as Fulc the Black comes into control in Anjou, that Anjou takes control of Normandy, or maybe even forms some kind of an alliance with the Normans with more continentally centered interests (something to do with expanding their lands within France and isolating the Capetians, since the Capetians controlled a sliver of France during the period). Perhaps a Norman dynasty in France?
Still, the most powerful people in France are the dukes of Aquitaine, and that situation is unlikely to change for at least a little while. This surely butterflies the Hundred Years War though, as the ground work for that was laid when William the Bastard became a king, begging the question of England's position when contrasted to France, which was complicated by further intermarriage between the Norman and French nobilities of the time.
The wider effects that this has on history could be very interesting, quite honestly. As I've mentioned earlier, England will almost certainly be a more centralized power, and in the coming decades, barring the possibility of a civil war between Harold's twin sons, it would be ripe to enter the stage of European politics as a major player. You could be looking at a reverse invasion in the ensuing decades, with the English invading Normandy, harrying it, and subjugating the Norman nobility and possibly even replacing them entirely with nobles of their own, a la the Norman invasion of England.
By the way, this also weakens the pope's position in the Church, I think. The pope gave William a papal banner and a ring. Not an enormously significant gesture, BUT, William's victory won the pope SOME brownie points, and it certainly probably won Hildebrand some with his fellow cardinals, which would have lent to his election OTL (if we are disregard stories about his popular election by the Roman people, that is). No Hildebrand means no Gregory VII, which means possibly no Gregorian reforms, which means a possible continuation of the "two swords" doctrine within the Church, allowing for the Holy Roman Emperors to choose the popes. Simony might continue to be the norm for quite some time if Hildebrand never becomes Gregory VII.
Remember that the position of the papacy was in a lot of trouble at the time. Christianity was really nothing more than another arm of various monarchical states, each vying for control of that arm. Many in the clergy wanted reform, and were fighting pretty hard to get it - but it's hard to get when every person you give a banner or a ring or throw your support behind in any way ends up dead/deposed/defeated/humiliated. Without the Gregorian Reforms, Christianity in Europe could look VERY different. In fact, you might see an earlier Reformation, as the corruption of the Church would be difficult to sugarcoat while your bishops continue to double as dukes that war with one another to expand their parishes.
Normandy without William the Bastard is bound to be pretty unstable while his boys come of age to take over the duchy. Furthermore, William had had to do a lot of fighting to secure his position and expand his lands (specifically in Maine). Anjou is in no real position to invade right off the bat, but we could see a seizure of control from Flanders, or from William's half-brother, Odo. Honestly, I think it is likely that William's children will have the support of their uncle and grandfather in Flanders, but the nobility of Normandy may not be so supportive either and some might rally behind Odo... and Odo might also try to use William's boys for a future invasion of some sort, since the Norman claim to the English throne isn't just going to go away once Harold wins.
What happens to Normandy is in the air, really, but myself, I don't see it being stable for awhile, which could mean, as Fulc the Black comes into control in Anjou, that Anjou takes control of Normandy, or maybe even forms some kind of an alliance with the Normans with more continentally centered interests (something to do with expanding their lands within France and isolating the Capetians, since the Capetians controlled a sliver of France during the period). Perhaps a Norman dynasty in France?
Still, the most powerful people in France are the dukes of Aquitaine, and that situation is unlikely to change for at least a little while. This surely butterflies the Hundred Years War though, as the ground work for that was laid when William the Bastard became a king, begging the question of England's position when contrasted to France, which was complicated by further intermarriage between the Norman and French nobilities of the time.
The wider effects that this has on history could be very interesting, quite honestly. As I've mentioned earlier, England will almost certainly be a more centralized power, and in the coming decades, barring the possibility of a civil war between Harold's twin sons, it would be ripe to enter the stage of European politics as a major player. You could be looking at a reverse invasion in the ensuing decades, with the English invading Normandy, harrying it, and subjugating the Norman nobility and possibly even replacing them entirely with nobles of their own, a la the Norman invasion of England.
By the way, this also weakens the pope's position in the Church, I think. The pope gave William a papal banner and a ring. Not an enormously significant gesture, BUT, William's victory won the pope SOME brownie points, and it certainly probably won Hildebrand some with his fellow cardinals, which would have lent to his election OTL (if we are disregard stories about his popular election by the Roman people, that is). No Hildebrand means no Gregory VII, which means possibly no Gregorian reforms, which means a possible continuation of the "two swords" doctrine within the Church, allowing for the Holy Roman Emperors to choose the popes. Simony might continue to be the norm for quite some time if Hildebrand never becomes Gregory VII.
Remember that the position of the papacy was in a lot of trouble at the time. Christianity was really nothing more than another arm of various monarchical states, each vying for control of that arm. Many in the clergy wanted reform, and were fighting pretty hard to get it - but it's hard to get when every person you give a banner or a ring or throw your support behind in any way ends up dead/deposed/defeated/humiliated. Without the Gregorian Reforms, Christianity in Europe could look VERY different. In fact, you might see an earlier Reformation, as the corruption of the Church would be difficult to sugarcoat while your bishops continue to double as dukes that war with one another to expand their parishes.
Sure this England will have stronger ties with Scandinavia, but I really doubt they'll won't have ties with France and the Holy Roman Empire (also including the Low Countries).
Like in Scandinavia, Scotland, Poland, Hungary etc. even England ITTL will still like IOTL introduce certain western European concepts, but now they will be implemented by a native dynasty.
As for a harrying of Normandy, plundering and pillaging may be one thing, but seizing the duchy IMHO is one step too far. That would antagonize the kingdom of France.
In any aftermath I see Normandy losing Maine, but Normandy proper will stay under nominal control of William's heir with help from the count of Flanders and William's Conteville half brothers, not to mention the king of France, who won't mind having a weak yet stable Normandy as a neighbour.
OTOH I don't see Normandy or any of the other great French feudal lords, like Aquitaine, Champagne or Anjou being able to replace the Capetians, unless the latter would go extinct in the male line.
Like in Scandinavia, Scotland, Poland, Hungary etc. even England ITTL will still like IOTL introduce certain western European concepts, but now they will be implemented by a native dynasty.
As for a harrying of Normandy, plundering and pillaging may be one thing, but seizing the duchy IMHO is one step too far. That would antagonize the kingdom of France.
In any aftermath I see Normandy losing Maine, but Normandy proper will stay under nominal control of William's heir with help from the count of Flanders and William's Conteville half brothers, not to mention the king of France, who won't mind having a weak yet stable Normandy as a neighbour.
OTOH I don't see Normandy or any of the other great French feudal lords, like Aquitaine, Champagne or Anjou being able to replace the Capetians, unless the latter would go extinct in the male line.
Rubicon
Banned
There's no "broadest" definition of Scandinavia that includes Finland and/or Iceland, that definition is the Nordic countries. Scandinavia is only Sweden, Denmark and Norway. The End.
Trynian Burek
Banned
Taking control of Normandy would probably require continued destabilization of the duchy within the ensuing decades. This would depend on how badly William loses at Hastings. Is he killed, or does he just go home? If he goes home, I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining barons rise in revolt against him and his half-brothers, and that revolt could remove their family from power. If the family manages to keep a hold of Normandy, then we're probably looking at a serious reduction in the size of the duchy with the loss of Maine at worst. If the barons rise in revolt against him trying to REPLACE him with one of his half-brothers (again, Odo of Bayeux comes to mind here), then we could have ongoing civil war for quite awhile - this could also happen in a scenario where William died, and loyal barons, possibly William FitzOsbern, stay behind William's boys while others rally behind Odo. A third option that might simultaneously occur, since Robert Curthose was not entirely that popular or well-reserved OTL, is that a third faction springs up trying to nominate one of Robert's younger brothers as they come of age (although in 1066, Robert is 14, so this would have to happen in the next 3-5 years).
If Normandy eats itself trying to figure out its succession problem after William's defeat, and especially if William dies at Hastings, England could plausibly invade in the next decade, I think, and possibly hold it. Although you're right to say that this would be problematic in being a direct threat to the sovereignty of the French crown. So the English might actually support one of the different factions in the ensuing conflict in Normandy to gain influence there. Harold might even offer one of his daughters to one of William's sons, or maybe to Odo... or a baron he thinks will win. Who knows?
Why not? Whose to say the destabilization of Normandy doesn't have wider effects in France?
I would see Godwinson trying to legitimize himself by tying himself/his children to Edward the Exile's family.