Assuming that Normandy has been divided between Brittany and Flanders (perhaps under Norman dynasties) could either of them do the equivalent of the Norman Invasion of England?
A Breton or Flemish Invasion?
- Thread starter The Professor
- Start date
Naturally, either the Count of Flanders or the Duke of Brittany would need to have a claim on the English throne to start with. And even then, they would need Papal approval to invade another Christian realm. Stigand, the English Archbishop of Canterbury before the Norman Conquest, had gained his position by royal appointment rather than Church practice and was known for other ecclesiastical abuses. Because of the Pope's blessing, and the promise of land in England, the OTL Duke of Normandy was able to bolster his invasion force with knights and soldiers from across France, not just from his own native duchy.
First, a divided Normandy between two state having their core in an excentred place would act likely as OTL.
Brittany interests would be more linked with Loire's mouth and eventually western Lower-Normandy as a marche, the remaining being divided among the great landowners of the Seine. Too much linked to continental business to afford dreaming about England.
Flanders is another case. They have indeed many interests in England, but depends heavily on the sability of the country. If Harold began to make non-sensic decision, or worse being killed by Harald that take the throne, then maybe they will be interested on acting and using Norman shore.
But, without claim, it's likely they'll just reinstate another pretender, using this opportunity to demand privilege for their nobles, and maybe giving flemish nobles lands in England (confiscated for some reason)
Brittany interests would be more linked with Loire's mouth and eventually western Lower-Normandy as a marche, the remaining being divided among the great landowners of the Seine. Too much linked to continental business to afford dreaming about England.
Flanders is another case. They have indeed many interests in England, but depends heavily on the sability of the country. If Harold began to make non-sensic decision, or worse being killed by Harald that take the throne, then maybe they will be interested on acting and using Norman shore.
But, without claim, it's likely they'll just reinstate another pretender, using this opportunity to demand privilege for their nobles, and maybe giving flemish nobles lands in England (confiscated for some reason)
Iirc, William's claim was in right of his wife, Matilda of Flanders, a descendant of Alfred the Great. So the Counts of Flanders, Matilda's blood relations, had if anything a better one still.
The issue of Stigand would lead the Pope to support Count Baldwin as OTL it led him to support William.
Offhand, I'm not aware of the Counts of Brittany having any similar claim.
From what I have read about the Normans, they were excellent warriors. They were able to conquer England and southern Italy, as well as serving in countless mercenary groups in the Mediterranean during the 11th and 12th centuries. However, William (the Bastard or Conqueror) himself conquered Normandy, while the conquest of southern Italy was carried about over decades by various Norman warlords.
Normandy itself was, along with Flanders, one of the most centralized French fiefs in pre-Phillip II France. It is my opinion that the Norman Conquest was the a military society having the right leader and winning the right battle and having the right leader to conquer England. However, what made Normandy a more relative more centralized polity with a military culture in 1066 is the subject for a doctoral thesis and not an insomniac at 4:40 in the morning two days before Christmas.
The point is, Flanders [or] Brittany could pull off a "Norman Conquest" with the right leader and large enough, effective enough army. Where is du Guesclin when you need him*?
Scipio
*Yes, I just made a joke using French medieval history. I had to try.
Normandy itself was, along with Flanders, one of the most centralized French fiefs in pre-Phillip II France. It is my opinion that the Norman Conquest was the a military society having the right leader and winning the right battle and having the right leader to conquer England. However, what made Normandy a more relative more centralized polity with a military culture in 1066 is the subject for a doctoral thesis and not an insomniac at 4:40 in the morning two days before Christmas.
The point is, Flanders [or] Brittany could pull off a "Norman Conquest" with the right leader and large enough, effective enough army. Where is du Guesclin when you need him*?
Scipio
*Yes, I just made a joke using French medieval history. I had to try.
Some interesting comments.
Looks like the consensus is with the "Duchy of Flanders" being more likely to attempt and achieve a Conquest.
Assuming that is the case could the Anglo-Flemish secure the independence of Flanders from France? Would it be included as part of the Kingdom of England?
Looks like the consensus is with the "Duchy of Flanders" being more likely to attempt and achieve a Conquest.
Assuming that is the case could the Anglo-Flemish secure the independence of Flanders from France? Would it be included as part of the Kingdom of England?
1) Assuming the independence of Flanders from France? Easy, only if Flemish noble didn't ally themselves with French king against the "english tyranny", sort of reverse from OTL.
2) Assuming the control of Flanders against a Robert Curthose analog? Err...Maybe?
3) Assuming the control of Flanders against local nobles, acting how they want and probably not following England interest? Not really. It's far more unstable and dividable than Normandy, but an unity is still doable against the "oppressor", French of English.