AHC: Reverse Norman Conquest

Orsino

Banned
With a POD not before 500 AD, what would it take for the Anglo-Saxons in England to launch a successful conquest of Normandy sometime in the eleventh century?

I'm assuming an early unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is the obvious first step, but what more can the Anglo-Saxons do to make themselves a force able to rival and surpass the Normans?
 
Why would they be invading Normandy? Would they claim the throne of France but only get as far as Normandy, or would they be replacing the Vikings in the 911 treaty?
 

Orsino

Banned
Why would they be invading Normandy? Would they claim the throne of France but only get as far as Normandy, or would they be replacing the Vikings in the 911 treaty?
I'm not hugely concerned with the casus belli (although I'm interested in hearing ideas) so much as the challenge of the Anglo-Saxons achieving sufficient cohesion, organisation and martial ability to threaten their neighbour on the continent.
 
Why would they bother? The Anglo-Saxon Kingdom was at a zenith around the time of the Norman Conquest whilst the territories of the former Kingdom of the Franks were tottering. The Wool trade made England the richest and most powerful country in Europe, there simply was no reason for them to look to the continent to expand. Chances are, they'd resume the voyages of discovery across the Atlantic...
 
the closest thing i can imagine would be Rollo breaking rank at some point after he was granted Normandy, and swearing fealty to the main Danish King in Danelaw (which would have been Pod'ed to have a better few decades surrounding the period).

As for how realistic this would be, I'm not sure.
 
France is a bigger, richer, stronger country. For an AngloSaxon kingdom to try to conquer it would be ... tough, shall we say. The only possibility would be a united England, and even that's not easy.

Remember that England only unified in 927, temporarily, more permanently in 953, and they were then conquered twice by the Danes, only throwing THEM off in 1043. Heck, even in 1066, Harold would have kicked William's butt if he hadn't had to beat Harald first.

Remember, it's much tougher to fight a war across an ocean than if you have a good local base. The Normans managed, largely because a) Harold had just had to fight Harald, and his men were tired (mentioned above), and b) his men were better armed and equipped.

So... You'd have to unify England earlier, probably. AND remove the Danish threat, probably. AND weaken France significantly.

Then, MAYBE, you could have England intervene in some French civil war, and after years of fighting end up on the French throne - but that's pretty darn unlikely.
 
Perhaps a continuing Anglo-Danish union would be strong enough to beat the Franks over Normandy. Not sure why they'd want to though
 
For something silly and romantic, you could have Billy Bastard not get lucky with that stray arrow hitting Harold in the eye. By most accounts I've heard and read, Harold had completely outmaneuvered the Normans and had the Battle of Hastings in the bag. I mean, even after he got shot, the Saxons only lost because they broke formation once the king wasn't around to keep them in line.

See, William's cavalry had to run up and down a hill all day to throw spears into a shield wall of heavy infantry and they were getting pretty much nowhere and the horses would surely have given out well before Harold's thegns.

So, skimming over the details of the battle a bit, let's say that Harold wins the day and William of Normandy is killed in the fighting. Now, to be sure, a period of rest would be called for for the Saxons, but you can't just pretend you weren't attacked without provocation and with a transparently bullshit cassus belli , can you? I mean, Harold would have to do something, surely?

Now, after fighting off the Norwegians and the Normans twice in the row, I have to imagine that Harold would be practically drowning in prestige at this point so, I was thinking he could do something of a variance on the theme of what William had done. Something along the lines of William attacking under a Papal banner and failing meaning that God had willed him to win.

Anyways, going off of that bit of P.R., he gets into contact with the young king of France (who isn't particularly fond of the Dukes of Normandy, by the way) and proposes that, clearly, William of Normandy's titles were forfeit due to him having defiled a Papal banner. And, of course, who better to get those titles than the one who revealed the Bastard as being the blackguard he was.

Now, this is silly and a huge stretch, but I like silly and a huge stretch. What you would have with this is more or less the same situation as post Norman Conquest Britain OTL so, you could do it this way. If you were filly silly and poetic.
 
Last edited:
Now, after fighting off the Danes and the Normans twice in the row

the Danes probably had the best completing Claim (given Sweyn's Uncle being Canute) and prehaps even the best claim of them all, but they were also the only claim that didn't come calling ... Harald was Norwegian, not Danish
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Dathi THorfinnsson
France is a bigger, richer, stronger country.

ljofa
The Anglo-Saxon Kingdom was at a zenith around the time of the Norman Conquest whilst the territories of the former Kingdom of the Franks were tottering. The Wool trade made England the richest and most powerful country in Europe.... there simply was no reason for them to look to the continent to expand.

Let's reconcile these statements, or decide amongst them.
 
Top