A History of the French-Speaking Peoples?

What if... William the Conquerer had lost the Battle of Hastings? Would we all be speaking French? Would Winston Churchill have published A History of the French-Speaking Peoples? Would we have a French class at school every day instead of English?:confused:
 
Originally posted by Diocletian Mandella
What if... William the Conquerer had lost the Battle of Hastings? Would we all be speaking French? Would Winston Churchill have published A History of the French-Speaking Peoples? Would we have a French class at school every day instead of English

Why? William was normand, so in fact french influence could have been more important in OTL than in an ATL where the Anglo-Saxon kingdom had survived (also the possibility of not having a Hundred Years War and a possible Joint France-England Kingdom had been probably minor in this ATL than in OTL).

Winston Churchill was born in XIX century so at least 800 years after the POD, basic butterfly effects had made impossible his existence.
 
how would William losing at Hastings accomplish this? before the Normans, England was... English, or Anglo-Danish.. barely any French influence at all. so a Norman loss at Hastings would make French influence in the Isles minimal to none.

and as for Churchill showing nine hundred years after the POD, Iñaki has explained that.
 

Thande

Donor
how would William losing at Hastings accomplish this? before the Normans, England was... English, or Anglo-Danish.. barely any French influence at all. so a Norman loss at Hastings would make French influence in the Isles minimal to none.
Depends on if you take the long view.

Argument in favour of more French influence: it was only when England became Normanised that England became 'teh evol imperialists!!11' and "English" (originally Norman) influence was extended over Wales, Ireland and eventually Scotland. Without the Norman influence, England will most probably keep to itself, having a history somewhat like that of the Netherlands or Denmark in OTL, and the consequential power vacuum means that France will be more powerful than OTL and perhaps gain the position of Top European Nation, winning the cultural war of supremacy.

Argument against more French influence: the unification of the French state in OTL only came about because of the Hundred Years' War. Without a Norman England there is no HYW. So France ends up as a disunited confederation with less cultural influence, like Germany next door. Could be counter-argument-ed if you think Normandy and Aquitaine alone could have created a situation where France become centralised around the royal domains of Paris.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Thande, Denmark ended up ruling the entire Norden for 150 years and keeping Norway for 450. The (west )Saxon had already conquered South Wales (Greater Cornwall :D), The conquest of Wales and Ireland is just a matter of time with a unified England.
 

Thande

Donor
Thande, Denmark ended up ruling the entire Norden for 150 years and keeping Norway for 450. The (west )Saxon had already conquered South Wales (Greater Cornwall :D), The conquest of Wales and Ireland is just a matter of time with a unified England.

I don't think it's inevitable, and Wessex hadn't, in fact, conquered Cornwall (West Wales, not South) at the time of the Viking invasions.

I'm not saying we'd be smiley happy living in peace with the stereotypical Celts, but I do think there would have been less of a motivation to build an English empire in Britain, and also less centralisation. The Normans essentially wiped out the English ruling class and installed a new one, all from one source, which was centralised in London. Without that, you keep the looser Anglo-Saxon structure which would have had trouble uniting behind a concerted conquest of, say, Wales.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I don't think it's inevitable, and Wessex hadn't, in fact, conquered Cornwall (West Wales, not South) at the time of the Viking invasions.

I'm not saying we'd be smiley happy living in peace with the stereotypical Celts, but I do think there would have been less of a motivation to build an English empire in Britain, and also less centralisation. The Normans essentially wiped out the English ruling class and installed a new one, all from one source, which was centralised in London. Without that, you keep the looser Anglo-Saxon structure which would have had trouble uniting behind a concerted conquest of, say, Wales.


It's just they're so easy to conquer, isolated and poor with a lot smaller population, while England is going to grow more and more centralised to avoid new invasions (without the Normans I'm sure Norway and Denmark would have keept invading for at least a century more)
 

Glen

Moderator
What if... William the Conquerer had lost the Battle of Hastings? Would we all be speaking French? Would Winston Churchill have published A History of the French-Speaking Peoples? Would we have a French class at school every day instead of English?:confused:

Yeah, doesn't make much sense....unless....:rolleyes:
 

Thande

Donor
It's just they're so easy to conquer, isolated and poor with a lot smaller population, while England is going to grow more and more centralised to avoid new invasions (without the Normans I'm sure Norway and Denmark would have keept invading for at least a century more)

You have a point re. invasions - after all, the move from the Heptarchy to the existence of a unified English state was a response to the Vikings (and the fact that they destroyed the Northumbrian, Mercian and East Anglian states, leaving only Wessex left to unite the English).

But I still think that English domination of the British Isles would, at least, have been delayed relative to OTL. Consider, for example, the roots of the Norman conquest of Ireland. This was caused by one of the Irish High Kings being overthrown and going in exile to Normandy, where he asked for help in regaining his throne. Now in OTL, because Normandy also controlled England, a lot of these forces came from Norman England (initially, actually Wales) and the rest is history: the Normans remained ensconced there and it set the precedent for English interference in Ireland. England even got itself an English Pope to legalise English possession of the island. My point is, I can't see events like that happening without the Norman Conquest.
 
I don't think it's inevitable, and Wessex hadn't, in fact, conquered Cornwall (West Wales, not South) at the time of the Viking invasions.

I'm not saying we'd be smiley happy living in peace with the stereotypical Celts, but I do think there would have been less of a motivation to build an English empire in Britain, and also less centralisation. The Normans essentially wiped out the English ruling class and installed a new one, all from one source, which was centralised in London. Without that, you keep the looser Anglo-Saxon structure which would have had trouble uniting behind a concerted conquest of, say, Wales.

You already had massive centralization under the Danish King who conquered England, whose name currently escapes me at the moment. The Godwinson family owed its leading place among the Anglo-Saxon nobility due to their service to the Danish King.

So basically, you already had a centralized English state. So instead of William and the Normans, you would have have Harold and the English. So no French-descended names in Ireland, but by no means would you avoid English domination of the British Isles. The English domination of the British Isles happened because it was easier to dominate the relatively undeveloped and unadvanced Scots and Irish vs the French and other continental powers. And if England has avoided continental entanglements by avoiding Norman conquest, then you have just really focused all that English energy on conquering Ireland and Scotland.

In this ATL, you might have a relatively ethnically united British Isles. If you have a much eariler move toward English domination of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, then perhaps you could end up with the English coopting the nobilities of all three nations, and bringing the countries in relatively quietly. With the English not engaged in trying to takeover the Kingdom of France I doubt the Auld Alliance ever appears, and I don't think that the Scandinavian Kingdoms really posed any kind of realistic threat to the English Kingdom after Harald. So the Irish, Welsh and Scots have the English all to themselves for the next several hundred years (which of course is sort of ridiculous, but I don't think the Anglo-Saxons will get that involved with European politics).
 

Thande

Donor
You already had massive centralization under the Danish King who conquered England, whose name currently escapes me at the moment. The Godwinson family owed its leading place among the Anglo-Saxon nobility due to their service to the Danish King.

So basically, you already had a centralized English state. So instead of William and the Normans, you would have have Harold and the English. So no French-descended names in Ireland, but by no means would you avoid English domination of the British Isles. The English domination of the British Isles happened because it was easier to dominate the relatively undeveloped and unadvanced Scots and Irish vs the French and other continental powers. And if England has avoided continental entanglements by avoiding Norman conquest, then you have just really focused all that English energy on conquering Ireland and Scotland.

I'm sorry, but that's essentially untrue. England in 1066 was certainly more united than England in 876, but that's not difficult - you might as well say the Confederation of the Rhine was more united than the Holy Roman Empire. It was still an extremely feudal state with the country officially divided between several rulers. Look at Tostig's betrayal. The contrast with England under the Normans is huge.
 
I'm sorry, but that's essentially untrue. England in 1066 was certainly more united than England in 876, but that's not difficult - you might as well say the Confederation of the Rhine was more united than the Holy Roman Empire. It was still an extremely feudal state with the country officially divided between several rulers. Look at Tostig's betrayal. The contrast with England under the Normans is huge.

Thande

Wasn't the Doomsday book only really possible because of the existing Saxon infrastructure? That's what I've read anyway. England was one of the richest and most centralised/organised states in Europe at the time. This was actually diluted to a degree in the early Norman period because of the decentralised nature of the Norman feudral system until the monarchy gained more influence again. [Agree that the state was still decentralised by modern times but think it was a lot more organised than just about anywhere east of Byzantium at the time].

I think England would emerge as a unified state and gradually take over Wales and Scotland, if only to stop raids and incursions from them. Less sure that we would have been involved in Ireland anything like as much without the Normans. At least not unless/until you get something like the historical situation where Britain had to hold Ireland to secure its western flank and sea lines of commutations against hostile forces. If you can get a more friendly union so that when some reformation type occurrence occurs they end up on the same side a better and more lasting union might occur. [In this case Ireland might have the same sort of role as Scotland in OTL].

Steve
 
Top