Danish Invasion of England, 1085

I accidentally posted this in the "Second Carthaginian Empire" thread. Now it gets its own topic.

According to "London" by Edward Rutherfurd, a great Danish expedition to unseat William the Conqueror, whose rule was still unstable (revolts every few years), was prepared in 1085 AD. A huge fleet was assembled under the command of a king named Canute (not THE Canute, but someone with the same name). However, there was some kind of internal dispute, the whole thing collapsed, and Canute was assassinated the next year.

According to Rutherfurd, this expedition might "have meant the end of Norman rule in England." Is there anyone here with a better knowledge of the period than me who can judge the likelihood of this expedition's success or failure? In either case, what would the effects be. The expulsion of the Normans from England would probably mean no 100 Years War, as the whole reason the war occurred was the dynastic difficulties of the King of England being a King (England) and a vassal (Normandy).

We're going through the "Anglo-Saxon thread" that spun off of the survival of the Celtic rite of Christianity and the defeat of William; here's another take on the same time period/region.

Any thoughts?

Matt Quinn said:

According to "London" by Edward Rutherfurd, a great Danish expedition to unseat William the Conqueror, whose rule was still unstable (revolts every few years), was prepared in 1085 AD. A huge fleet was assembled under the command of a king named Canute (not THE Canute, but someone with the same name). However, there was some kind of internal dispute, the whole thing collapsed, and Canute was assassinated the next year.

According to Rutherfurd, this expedition might "have meant the end of Norman rule in England." Is there anyone here with a better knowledge of the period than me who can judge the likelihood of this expedition's success or failure? In either case, what would the effects be. The expulsion of the Normans from England would probably mean no 100 Years War, as the whole reason the war occurred was the dynastic difficulties of the King of England being a King (England) and a vassal (Normandy).

Click to expand...

Have a look at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/3532/estrithsson.htm or http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/normvik.html (looks like the same article)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/3532/1066Euro.htm is interesting, too

The Flemish involvement would seem to give the invaders a better chance than you might think, but note that William knew it was coming.

Thanks for the information. The fact that William knew the invasion was coming would make things difficult, but there was also a lot of anti-William unrest in England (esp, according to the links, in the old Danelaw).

In the event of William being toppled, would the Normans of Normandy make another grab for England, or would they leave it to be "re-Danified"?

Matt Quinn said:

In the event of William being toppled, would the Normans of Normandy make another grab for England, or would they leave it to be "re-Danified"?

Click to expand...

Given the nature of the times I'd think William's successor would be pretty much occupied keeping hold of Normandy itself in the face of ambitious Norman nobles.

A Scandinavian king from the Viking age or the time around is not assasinated, he is slayed in battle. Culture thing.

Peter said:

A Scandinavian king from the Viking age or the time around is not assasinated, he is slayed in battle. Culture thing.

Click to expand...

But Knute Swegnsson, the king in question, was apparently not slain in battle but murdered whilst worshipping in church. Must be the civilising influence of Christianity, or summat

Matt Quinn said:

In the event of William being toppled, would the Normans of Normandy make another grab for England, or would they leave it to be "re-Danified"?

Click to expand...

If William is expelled but lives, I am sure he would attempt a comeback if at all possible. There will be a lot of lords who have lost land in England and want it back, so he can probably find the men: I don't know about the money. In OTL he died in 1087, but at a siege that might well not have happened with different events in 1085. He was born in 1027 so could have lived a while longer.

If he dies in the 1085 war or soon after, his sons are already adult. In OTL William Rufus got England, Robert got Normandy and Henry got the petty cash, but with no England in hand, this partition is not practicable. Will Robert (the eldest) get Normandy, or Rufus? Will whichever heir isn't chosen (and Henry) stand for it? Neither son has their father's prestige, he's going to find it harder to raise men and money for a cross-channel invasion with a couple of disaffected brothers at home and the French court probably ready to support them if they rebel.

And Robert of Flanders, who is allied with the Danes, is brother of Matilda, William I's Queen and mother of William Rufus and Robert of Normandy - what is going on there? Could he be taken out of the enemy alliance by concessions on the Continent? Could the Normans try to conquer Flanders?

In short, I haven't a clue....