AHC Can the Anglo-Saxons throw out the Norman Invaders post-Hastings?

On a strictly objective level (excluding the lucky incidents), a shield wall formation would have a chance against the combined army (cavalry, infantry and archers) only on a favorable ground. However, this means that it always has to be on such a ground never being caught on a march or on a flat ground. With even a marginally competent opponent this would be hard to achieve in the English countryside.
And you're sure that this formation is the only one in their repertoire and they use it all the time?

Sarcasm aside, this view that the Normans would cakewalk the English in any engagement is rather tiresome. Yes 1 on 1 they were better, yes the English didn't use cavalry much, but it's not like their techniques were a surprise to the English, nor that the English hadn't worked out strategies to deal with it. Not everyone died at Hastings.
 
Last edited:
Doable with adequate leadership and/or help from Wales or Denmark. The northern earls could have got lucky and killed William in the late 1060's or held off a rebellion till a better moment, his heirs were young and weak or jealous and squabblesome depending on the time.You might wind up with some of the continental lot in charge of land, particularly if the northern earls had coordinated with the conspiracy of the Bretons and Welsh, but what you get is AS England rebooted under a Northern king.

What happens if there's a longer and bloodied war that is ultimately resolved by Scots intervention?

Could Scotland, particularly if it annexes Yorkshire and Lancashire, dominate history over a weakened and somewhat subservient England?
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
What happens if there's a longer and bloodied war that is ultimately resolved by Scots intervention?

Could Scotland, particularly if it annexes Yorkshire and Lancashire, dominate history over a weakened and somewhat subservient England?

The Scots annexing England North of the Humber, or some border not much North of there, is possible. It largely depends on what Gospatric does. Gospatric one of the most fascinating figures in English history, because he embodies he fact that "England" is no an inevitable thing. He's a mixture of English and Danish ancestry with a Welsh name who was subject of a Norman king. Gospatric´s land going Scottish is ver plausible
 
The Scots annexing England North of the Humber, or some border not much North of there, is possible. It largely depends on what Gospatric does. Gospatric one of the most fascinating figures in English history, because he embodies he fact that "England" is no an inevitable thing. He's a mixture of English and Danish ancestry with a Welsh name who was subject of a Norman king. Gospatric´s land going Scottish is ver plausible

What happens if there's a longer and bloodied war that is ultimately resolved by Scots intervention?

Could Scotland, particularly if it annexes Yorkshire and Lancashire, dominate history over a weakened and somewhat subservient England?

Considering the large Anglo-Saxon population in the lowlands of Scotland and the emergence of the Early Scots language in the region, I could plausibly see Scotland being able to integrate the ruling class of Northumbria into a greater Lowlands region. Of course, this would probably lead to an even greater pre-eminance of the lowlanders over the highland Scots-Gaelic speakers ITTL. Depending on what happens in southern England, I could see the Scottish King attempting to establish hegemony over the lands without direct political control. Either that or the rump English state reverts back to it's pre-Æthelstan political arrangements with a "new Heptarchy" although I think English identity might be too strong for this to happen for any length of time by 1066.

The other interesting arrangement for a hegemonic Scotland is that the remainder of England is taken over by a continental power, but again I am not sure of the likeliness of the scenario. A Dane or Norwegian could try and pick up the shattered pieces after Stamford Bridge and start anew in England for instance, or another enterprising French lord could have designs of carving out a slice of land near Kent for himself and it could roll from there.

Ultimately there are lots of interesting ways this could go.
 
And you're sure that this formation is the only one in their repertoire and they use it all the time?

Sarcasm aside, this view that the Normans would cakewalk the English in any engagement is rather tiresome. Yes 1 on 1 they were better, yes the English didn't use cavalry much, but it's not like their techniques were a surprise to the English, nor that the English hadn't worked out strategies to deal with it. Not everyone died at Hastings.

Did I say a single word about "cakewalk" or "any engagement"? There is no need to stretch things to an absurd extreme.

As far as we are talking about the battles (not skirmishes, ambushes, etc.) the Saxons had been using pretty much the same fighting style as the contemporary Scandinavians or the Russians of the time of Prince Svyatoslav (by 1066 they changed due to the need to deal with the nomadic neighbors). And the pattern (which does not mean that there were absolutely no exceptions) is the same. Svyatoslav lost to the Byzantines at Doristol, the Varangian Guard had been defeated by the Normans in the Battles of Olivento, Montemaggiore (1041) and Dyrrhachium (1081). The issue was not a surprise (definitely not the case as far as the defeats in the Southern Italy or Dyrrhachium are involved; the Normans and their tactics had been well-known) but an absence of the necessary tactical tools: combination of a cavalry and infantry (including the archers/crossbowmen) allows for a much greater tactical flexibility than one which is possible in an army which is 100% infantry armed with the battleaxes and short spears and taught to act as a single phalanx or, as an option, in disorganized groups so bent on a headlong attack that they don't see what happens around them (Hastings and Dyrrhachium). None of these options proved to be successful against the Normans but I'd be really interested in learning about some other, more successful, methods from their OTL "repertoire".

Could something be done about the situation? Sure. You just need a military leader capable to jump from a shield wall to the Swiss pike column (or Scottish rectilinear schiltron capable of attacking) and you have a very good chance of a victory in a battle (Norman archers circa 1066 were not as effective as the English few centuries later). However, if we are talking about the OTL England, the options simply were not there.

You can actually be successful even with a phalanx-like formation (as a shield wall) but for that you need an idiot being in charge of the other side because otherwise you are risking to get Rosebeke instead of of Courtrai.
 
Last edited:
Did I say a single word about "cakewalk" or "any engagement"? There is no need to stretch things to an absurd extreme.
I didn't intend to suggest you personally were calling it a cakewalk, though other posters certainly did, it just seemed you agreed with a rather annoying idea that all the Normans have to do is show up and England is conquered. Thus I vented my frustration and it appears you got caught up in it!
I do happen to agree with you in general that the Normans had a more effective military force. Hence why I've said in this thread that they would be difficult to get rid of. However, give the English good leadership and any independent Norman baronies set up in the south should be weeded out in a generation.
 
I didn't intend to suggest you personally were calling it a cakewalk, though other posters certainly did, it just seemed you agreed with a rather annoying idea that all the Normans have to do is show up and England is conquered.

I never ventured any opinion on the subject beyond purely battlefield related issues. Don't have anything pro or against an idea that under the different circumstances the Normans could be squeezed out even without the military miracles: simply don't know enough about England of that time to say anything meaningful one way or another.

On a general level, having a military force capable of winning the battles does not always result in a successful conquest or even victory in a war. Attempts to conquer Scotland by Ed I and II eventually failed and Bannockburn was just a spectacular event (when Scots got extremely lucky), not an ultimate Scottish victory: the hostilities had been going on and Robert stuck to the raiding and scorched earth methods. During the 100YW the English started losing a war while still being generally successful in the field. In the late XVI - early XVII the Poles managed to defeat the Muscovite forces in a number of battles and even occupied Moscow but conquest failed (but they had been able to keep winning the field battles in the next 2 wars with the Tsardom). Slightly later they were routinely defeating Swedes in the battles and .... lost Livonia. It was even argued that in the Russian campaign of 1812 the French did not lose a single battle on the main direction (well, the argument was based upon rather questionable logic: the Russians did not succeed in a complete extermination of the French force in any of the battles, which means that they lost each of these battles:confounded:)
 
Top