WI Harold Godwinson wins Hastings

1) Is england a more egalitarian society, or at least with less extreme versin of feudalims

2) How likely is England to become Protestant?

3)Is England likely to industrialise?

4) What about an empire, would it happen?

5) Also does England seek to control Wales, Scotland and Ireland?
 
1 Probably the latter, but certainly not egalitarian.

2 1066 probably has some butterfly effects on later events, an ATL Reformation could happen, but may be different from the OTL Reformation. Also IOTL England becoming Protestant under Henry VIII was, at least in part, also motivated by dynastic considerations. So this ATL England might join, but there's an equal chance that they won't.

3 Again quite an early POD, but given the available resources, that may still happen under the right conditions. In fact it probably will, but it could happen at a different time ITTL.

4 Yet another POD might be a bit too early. Initially England will want to solidify their dominant position on the British Isles. Given the fact that England is a kingdom on an island, they have some advantages for naval ventures, whereas their continental neighbours, will have to reserve more resources for their armies to defend against each other. Still it is by no means certain that the Empire will be as large as IOTL. Not to mention that in 1066 no Western European state was in position for colonial ventures. Still once it happens England has a relative advantage, but the starting position of others wasn't that bad either.

5 IMHO yes, but that doesn't have to mean directly by conquering them, they may be contend to have them in their 'orbit'.
 
Last edited:
Janprimus's answers seem appropriate to me.

A lot, and I do mean a lot, depends on what changes over time. The England of the eleventh century was not the England of the 13th (among other things, OTL conquest of Wales) or 16th (among other things, Henry VIII).
 
I've always wondered what this would mean for future military engagements and stuff that England might find itself in, Particularly the continent - what sort of position is it in invasion-wise and who is likely to try?
 
I've always wondered what this would mean for future military engagements and stuff that England might find itself in, Particularly the continent - what sort of position is it in invasion-wise and who is likely to try?

Pretty comparable to OTL, really.

The Normans didn't have some tech lead over the Saxons, and the issue of fighting on foot makes sense in that position - look at all the battles with dismounted English knights when fighting defensively OTL.
 
Admitting that Norse or Danes doesn't come back to kick Hardold's ass.

1) Is england a more egalitarian society, or at least with less extreme versin of feudalims
I don't know what is an "extrem version of feudalism". Do you mean a society where feudalism isn't the main societal and institutional feature? Then, partially yes.

You'll end with or a very specific feudalism with important particularities like, say in Danemark, or even with a semi-feudalism with a more important free peasantry (The expression is confusing : the only really free peasantry is the one without lord, but here's we're talking not serve peasantry) and nobles having a territorial rule but less complete on population.

No Common Law : it was created OTL by Normans in order to fill the gap between Norman customs and Anglo-Saxons uses (at the benefit of the first). You'll end with a custom system more and more influenced by continental and Romans features, but it would be really different from what we know, and more close to other northern countries.

2) How likely is England to become Protestant?
*
Such a POD is likely to butterfly Protestant reform. If not, let's veil our eyes to not see cute little flying monsters, how Protestantism managed to dominate in England was due to really precise situation would certainly challenge this.

3)Is England likely to industrialise?
Why not?

4) What about an empire, would it happen?
Again, it's a really early POD when western Europe just began to form a stable and growing civilization. Everything could happen there.

Now, some clues : a AS would be a northern european state rather than a western one regarding many features.
- Semi-feudal system
- Economically tied with North Sea and Scandinavia (while still having later important relations with Flanders if textile production still is dominant IATL)

Less of an Atlantic power in first place, even if it's going to happen sooner or later, without continental holdings, it is possible we have an England more isolationist than expansionist or imperialist.

5) Also does England seek to control Wales, Scotland and Ireland?
Scotland is a big yes, but not going to be easy and while I expect Lowlands to be eventually taken (critically the eastern part) as AS England would be more likely have its economical interests in North Sea instead of Channel and Western Atlantic, Highlands are likely to avoid direct conquest from England being vassal of Norway or England or independent Scottish or Norse-Gael kingdom with eventual part of Northern Ireland.

Wales is more probable but not less hard to do and it would need some incitative : OTL Normans began to invade Wales because Welsh statelets began to harass their western borders with the help of Norwegians.
No Norman conquest could easily lead to a more lasting independent Welsh statelets. Despite resources from insular and continental holdings, Normans and Plantagenet had a hard time to submit them eventually and avoid continuous revolts.
It would all be dependent on the political situation of Wales : if disunited even later, more likely to be conquered. If somewhat united, there's possibility to turn them in marches or client-states.

Ireland...I would be temped to say no, if the whole Island wasn't a clusterfuck of warring lords. There's at least a good possibility for coastal control in a first place and later OTL-like conquest.

I've always wondered what this would mean for future military engagements and stuff that England might find itself in, Particularly the continent - what sort of position is it in invasion-wise and who is likely to try?
I don't see what would change, honestly. After the Viking Age and the begging of Classical Middle Ages, military features were roughly the same with important regional particularities.
Stuff like longbow would be still present, the appearance of a mounted heavy cavalry is going to happen at least because of close continental influence and probably conflicts.

Who would be the more likely to invade?
First, I think we should ask raid-wise for a first time. We have four candidates : Normandy or France if Normandy is absorbed, Danemark, Scotland.
It's really dependent on the interest of a possible invader and I don't see someone powerful enough trying to do so except Scandinavians.
 
Who would be the more likely to invade?
First, I think we should ask raid-wise for a first time. We have four candidates : Normandy or France if Normandy is absorbed, Danemark, Scotland.
Or even Flanders, if they thought that England was [temporarily] weak enough for it to work: The Counts of Flanders had descent (through an English princess whom one of their predecesssors had married) from Alfred the Great, and I seem to recall reading that the one who was Count around 1066 is thought to have considered the possibility then...
 
Or even Flanders, if they thought that England was [temporarily] weak enough for it to work: The Counts of Flanders had descent (through an English princess whom one of their predecessors had married) from Alfred the Great, and I seem to recall reading that the one who was Count around 1066 is thought to have considered the possibility then...

Indeed, but with a Norman defeat in England, I would suspect North France would become an interesting place to not visit : Brittany, Normandy, Flanders and Crown Estates of France were big, rich and relatively united feudal states, and I suspect that Flanders would be rather quickly involved in the influence struggles (when not open fights) that would emerge eventually.
And their geopolitical situation split between France and HRE isn't going to help them having room for western adventures.

Finally the peasant war that Flanders knew in 1070, the Norman struggle against them for Channel and coastal domination (even before Norman invasion of England) and (if maintained ITTL) the civil war of the early XII century...

You made a really good point, but I don't see Flanders being a possible invader or at least of the same importance than Danes, Scots or Normandy/France.
 
Well, given William supposedly had Papal support, England might just do something odd like go Orthodox. Starting Protestantism 500 years early would be a fun TL, but likely lead to Crusades.

Most likely the Pope would disavow William and switch to supporting Harold, assuming of course that William is horribly defeated and or killed.
 
Well, given William supposedly had Papal support, England might just do something odd like go Orthodox. Starting Protestantism 500 years early would be a fun TL, but likely lead to Crusades.

I don't think so : the distinction between Latin and Greek Christianities weren't really made - it's a process that began some years later and was really achieved in 1453-

Furthermore, only sources favorable to William claims the pope gave his support before the invasion. Other ones would more likely show he "validated" it.
In the case of the pope having favored William before the conquest, it's likely to have a formal reconciliation between Godwinson and Papacy.

For the Crusades, it's not possible in this context.
See OTL Crusades were possible because of (among other factors) Church efforts and reform to make western Europe less a gigantic battlefield, and to allow the feudal class to reconcile a military and warring lifestyle with Christian exigences, aka if not able to become peaceful, turn their aggressiveness against Turks.
From this use of military violence for a religious purpose (that didn't entirely existed before, at least not institutionalized) against warriors that threatened Christianity, you have then the legitimization of violence against others Christians in behalf of religion.

So, I don't think a religious war against Harold would be even possible in first place.
 
Well, given William supposedly had Papal support,
Although apparently there's no actual evidence for that support in the papal records, and the fact that William was required to build an abbey in which prayers would be said for all of the invasion's casualties as a penance on his part for the bloodshed argues against it: At least one historian (a biographer of Harold, admittedly) suggests that the claim was just Norman propganda.
Mind you, that claim is presumably why (if another claim that I've read is true) the Russian Orthodox Church canonised Harold: "Obviously" he was a martyr to Roman Catholic aggression... ;)
 
Mind you, that claim is presumably why (if another claim that I've read is true) the Russian Orthodox Church canonised Harold: "Obviously" he was a martyr to Roman Catholic aggression... ;)

You mean Orthodox Wiki? This website shouldn't be considered seriously, and is vigorously anti-catholic.
Regarding claim of sanctity of Harold (and other stuff) there is not any serious source about it.
 
No, I mean a biography of Harold (by a British author, I think based at one or another of the universities) that I read a few years ago. Don't know offhand what its author's sources were, though...

For the Armenian Genocide

"Subsequently, undocumented claims that the Russian Orthodox Church has recently recognised Harold as a martyr have been made.[29]"

I would suspect that is a tentative from some part of some Orthodox tendencies to prove they're not a foreign church, but having not only local roots but also the best.
You have that in England, in Ireland, in France (god I love the Celtic Orthodox Church in this regard), but it's ultimately bogus.
 
2) How likely is England to become Protestant?

I would have thought that given that most of northern europe became protestant that England would do so either just before OTL and certainly by the time the Scot's did in OTL.

I don't think we would have a Church of England however, far more likely to be a Calvinist setup like Sweden.


My big question is what happens to Normandy if William is crushed and his knights wiped out by the English? Can they survive or are they swallowed by the crown?
 
My big question is what happens to Normandy if William is crushed and his knights wiped out by the English? Can they survive or are they swallowed by the crown?

Were the Capets strong enough (or would they have internal support in Normandy) to simply annex the Duchy to the Crown Lands? In the other hand, William's sons were still just childs in 1066 (Robert may have been 15, though). A young and weak ruler would be appreciated by the Norman vassals.
 
I don't think we would have a Church of England however, far more likely to be a Calvinist setup like Sweden.
With a PoD in 1066, it's likely Calvinism would be butterflied as OTL religious distribution.

My big question is what happens to Normandy if William is crushed and his knights wiped out by the English? Can they survive or are they swallowed by the crown?
I think that Normandy would be eventually swallowed up, as the Duchy controls two vital ways for the kingdom, have strongholds definitely too close of Crown Estates, and paradoxally being a powerful feudal holding means it's going to be a likely target.
However it would takes time : Capetian didn't have the capacity to take huge part of lands before the XII century (admittedly because of Plantagenet domination) and they will probably more likely split Normandy (taking Vexin directly in Crown Estates, making the rest an apanage that would be sooner or later taken back, etc) than absorb it directly.

On another note, I don't think that all the knights, nobles and troops would be wiped out : it wasn't the usages. It's possible they'll sent back against ransom for the nobles and Normans, Bretons and Flemish nobles would find back their holdings.


Were the Capets strong enough (or would they have internal support in Normandy) to simply annex the Duchy to the Crown Lands?
It's less about power (they were among the more important lords of Northern France) than possibility : they couldn't deprive outright a noble from its holdings without him having failed to fulfill his feudal obligations.
Sure, they could find a pretext, but it's better going to be a good one and with support from, say Brittany or Flanders, if they don't want to see other great nobles (being quite pissed about that) turn against him.

To give an example, when Louis VIII that was way more powerful than Henri I, began his campaign in the County of Toulouse, most of his vassal troops leaved because they didn't want to see a great noble deprived of his holdings and making a precedent.
 
A young and weak ruler would be appreciated by the Norman vassals.

Thats what they thought about William the Bastard and look how that turned out!

I don't know enough about the knights who remained in Normandy to guess what the power struggles would have been. It would be ironic if Williams sons (any that remained) fled into excile in England!
 
1) Is england a more egalitarian society, or at least with less extreme versin of feudalims

2) How likely is England to become Protestant?

3)Is England likely to industrialise?

4) What about an empire, would it happen?

5) Also does England seek to control Wales, Scotland and Ireland?


2,3 and 4- dude, butterflies. That stuff is utterly irrelevant to such a POD. Centuries later will be totally different places.

1- Yes. It will keep more of the local egalitarianism. IOTL that was suppressed for a while and had to fight to reassert itself.

5- Wales will probally inevitably happen given time. Scotland...it is pretty likely that a strong and secure England will seek to regain its northern territories. Scotland without the lowlands won't be a very rich place at all, something that will really tell as England develops. It seems quite inevitable England will eventually absorb it.
Ireland...it depends what the Irish too. If they keep to themselves then its unlikely England will care very much. I could well see the lords of Dublin causing trouble with English shipping though and bringing on a conflict.
 
Top