Anglo-Saxon England

Umm... why exactly is it inevitable? Small and weak isn't much of an excuse, it took the Normans over 200 years to take it and that was with loads of allies from Wales and France and whatnot. Hell, the last battle I'm aware of between the Saxons and the Welsh (in 1055 IIRC) ended with a huge amount of Saxon casualties and not one Welsh casualty. Real life isn't a map game, things tend to be very difficult and nothing is inevitable, or at least not in the way you are thinking. Nations aren't doomed to be conquered because they are smaller on a map.

I was too broad in saying "Wales will be conquered". South Wales which is relatively flat and fertile is too close to England, while the Welsh can win 99 battles the moment they lose that's it. As you said conquering the mountains is another thing entirely though I think that a desire to stop raiders (rather than a desire for land) will see an alt Edward Longshanks come along and conquer the place. However you are right that there are other ways to go rather than union. i.e. puppet Principality of Wales or simply leaving them be in return for no more raiding.
 
Was there ever a possibilty of the Sweyn or another Dane invading Ireland?

antiquus

I think it's unlikely as at this point, barring the religious excuse the Normans use, the main aim for conquest is wealth or power and Ireland is in many ways fairly poor. He might try revenge against a gravely weakened [he hopes] Norway given that Harald had spent well over a decade ravishing Denmark. He might try making a bit for England, or more likely raiding, as he has a fragile claim to the throne and England is a very wealthy kingdom. However going all the way around Scotland to Ireland is a little unlikely.

With the OTL Norman English invasion of Ireland partly this was a religious thing. Don't forget however that the Pope who passed the bull asking for intervention in Ireland was English [or probably more accurately Norman].;) Also that while this intervention started under a Norman noble Henry II later stepped in to avoid that noble getting too powerful. As such it may be as much a power struggle as anything else.

If a Pope did ask the Normans to intervene in Ireland and it wasn't long after 1066 then not only would the Normans probably not have the resources but I could well see Harold intervening. Relations between England and Ireland were pretty good at this point and, especially if the Norman ruler hadn't fully renounced his claim to the English throne England couldn't afford them to establish a position there.

In terms of later English expansion I would agree with what other people have said. Most likely a gradual occupation of southern Wales to stop raiding by Wales and because some relatively rich land there, while seeking to indirectly control the wilder northern and central regions. Also probably seeking to restore Lothian to England and gain control over Strathclyde, which would also greatly restrict the problems an aggressive Scotland tended to cause in the north. I can't see any attacks on Ireland in the near term [~1 century say] because it wasn't in England's interests.

With Normandy you might see it gravely weakened and coming more quickly under French control, or possibly without England and then Ireland as lands to control you might see more Normans heading to Sicily and later possibly the crusades.

Steve
 
I was specifically referring to the three kingdoms that would exist in Great Britain, not a "balkanization" of the Kingdom of England. The Kingdom of England was relatively new, with Northumbria and Wessex having joined the Kingdom within the last century. I can see they causing trouble for the monarch, but not just breaking apart.

Fair enough, but in fairness deeming it "like the Holy Roman Empire" implies a total disintegration, including England breaking down. And England as a concept had existed for around 150 years if you take Alfred the Great as the first King of England. I agree it hadn't been entirely territorially whole for ever, but England actually unitised surprisingly quickly, and I'm not really aware of any lingering Wessex separatism, and little Northumbrian. In an era of ever-changing boundaries, the English kingdoms seemed to integrate and support the new all-English state with little difficulty. But anyway, with this reunderstanding of your point, then fair enough.

Three kingdoms with independent foreign policies would probably be able to keep each other some kind of balance of power equilibrium through foreign alliances, kind of like Northern Italy in the Middle ages.

This I still find dubious. I just think England is too dominant a state for the British Isles to all keep each other in check. A perpetual alliance of the Welsh, Irish and Scots to all mutually defend each other to prevent England from making land gains is pretty implausible and England is going to be on the offensive sooner or later. It's not outside the boundaries of likelihood that England could take on all three and win, either, and as the centuries pass England is going to reach a state where it is willing and able to join in foreign affairs outside the British Isles - whether that be in France, central Europe or the Baltic/Scandinavia. And if England isn't getting involved on the continent, then unless France is trying to conquer England (for goodness knows what reason) I can't see any reason a foreign power would sign an alliance to keep England from expanding. Simply put, it's delaying the inevitable barring an unexpected catastrophe, and the cost totally outweighs the potential gains for any potential foreign ally. I just don't see what an outside power stands to gain from powerplaying in Britain unless they intend to fight England directly - but if they intend that, why bother allying with a British state, save possibly for Scotland?

For the record, I consider mediaeval northern Italy a poor comparison. For a start northern Italy didn't have one totally dominant state to keep in check. Neither did many of its states have any designs on expansion. Northern Italy was, however, a very rich prize for outside powers to pluck and one that could only keep those outside powers out by banding together and seeking help from more outside powers - however, northern Italy was a significant enough prize that any designs a foreign power had on it drew the ire of other foreign powers - in other words, if any foreign power (France, Spain, Austria) meddled with northern Italian affairs they inevitably drew their rivals in to counterbalance their influence. There's no way the British Isles will draw this level of interest from foreign powers, and there's no way foreign powers would be so very insistent on beating down any state which tries to dominate it (because they're already too late).

OK, so that all was badly worded, but there's a point in there somewhere.
 
I need a few answers for a time line im thinking of writing.

The Anglo-Saxons have utterly defeated the normans at hastings, with almost no normans bretons or french escaping from Williams defeat. And William is dead.

Would the Godwinsons have gone on well after a vicorious Hastings?

Well the succession of Anglo-Saxon Kings was to a degree electable, but theres no reason to assume that the Witangemot wouldn't continue to support a series of Godwinson's on the throne. As long as the family produces sons who can prove themselves to be capable rulers and able to defend England from Danish, Norse or Scottish invasions then the nobility and the church have no reason to deny the throne to Harold Godwins descendents. You might not have an unbroken line of Godwinson's occupying the throne if the family line produces individuals as unlucky as King Æthelred or as unpopular as King Offa seemingly was in the later years of his reign, but then again that doesn't mean the family can't regain its former pre-eminence and it also gives you a number of interesting options to tinker about with.


Would the Anglo-Saxons have pursued the Normans with ships?

The Housecarls effectively acted as both the army and the navy of Anglo-Saxon England (nearly every reference to the Housecarls from Harthacnut or Canute onwards indicates that they were raised from ships crews and that their numbers were assessed in this manner.) I'd personally think that they would be needed to much at home for Harold Godwinson to indulge in any seaborne attack upon Normandy, given that the Scots and the Danes are still a threat to the Kingdom's security. Their numbers are likely to have been heavily thinned out during the fighting at Stamford Bridge and Hastings, and the choicest targets in Normandy are going to be walled and defended which renders any attacks upon them very costly in lives.

The countryside of Normandy on the other hand could be quite vulnerable and there is no reason to assume that Harold Godwinson will not permit any of his subjects who happen to possess warships from raiding his enemies coastline. If English raids do occur therefore its likely to be small scale butcher-and-bolt style attacks.

What would happen to Normandy after the tremendous loss of life at hastings?

As other posters have suggested I would guess that Normandy might suffer some border adjustments in conflict with its neighbours and maybe the lose the countship of Maine earlier than OTL. However the Normans are likely to soldier on through these setbacks, and I'd guess that their main overseas concern from this point would be maintaining their occupation of Sicily. Closer to home fighting off the Counts of anjou, Flanders and Blois are likely to be the priority for successive Norman Dukes after a defeat at Hastings.

How would France react.

I think, though I might be wrong, that King Philip was still a minor and that his mother still held the regency of France at the time of the Battle of Hastings. There might be a possibility for conflict if Norman aggression towards Brittany or Flanders becomes a problem, though as King Philip I seemed happy enough to make peace with Duke William in OTL so there are no guarantees.
 
Last edited:
This thread might be of interest to you all.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=189843

Let's posit that Stamford Bridge and Hastings have drained the Anglo-Saxon armies quite dramatically to the point where to the outside he looks slightly vulnerable to outside attack but still strong enough to put up some kind of fight and with some degree of respect from the outside powers.

I'd suggest its not outside the realms of plausibility for Harold to face an alliance between Malcolm of Scotland and Sweyn of Denmark forming an alliance for a war of the North, Scotland demanding boundary changes between Cumberland and Northumberland and Sweyn hoping to carve out a fresh Kingdom of York or Danelaw if England proves impossible to hold.

Such an alliance (plus Welsh raids and disinterest from the Continent) would see an interesting War of the North or some such. If Denmark and Scotland lose I imagine that Harold cements his grip on the North with the Lowlands possibly transferring as a new couple of Earldoms to England possibly or less dramatically just some border adjustments. Denmark (and most of Scandinavia would be frozen out of British affairs for some time). If on the other hand the others win, I don't believe there would be a stable peace. England would rebuild from the richer South (though no Harrying of the North ITT) and exact a stronger punishment and I doubt either Malcolm or Sweyn have the support of the conquered peoples. If Sweyn actually wins though that would of course be really interesting.

Though it is possible to imagine some kind of balkanised United Kingdom in such a series of scenarios, we have more chance I think of a stronger England rising from the ashes of its third victorious war (after a generation of recovery) to take over Southern Wales and hold dominance over nominally independent North Wales and Highland Scotland.

One last thought: The king of France is young and the regent was Baldwin V of Flanders who died in 1067. If we throw in Eustace of Boulogne's death too what happens across the channel then?
 
Top