English Victory at Hastings: European Effects

Well, I think Harold would spend the winter and spring getting ready for a foray into Norway with his spiffy new navy. If he doesn't do it the Danes will, and I don't think he'd want the Danes that powerful.
IOTL Harald Hardrada's sons Magnus (whom he'd left behind as regent in Norway) and Olaf (who'd been with Harald in England, and survived) had already become recognised as kings -- with a north/south partition of the country -- by the Norwegians by summer 1067. ITTL maybe Olaf didn't get back home after all, especially as an easier English victory over the Norwegians -- leaving more of Harold's housecarles fit to fight against the Normans too -- could have been a key part of the POD (Maybe the big Norse warrior who held Harold's army at bay on a bridge for a while IOTL while other Norse got their armour on simply wasn't there ITTL?) but in that case Magnus would have been sole ruler and thus in an even stronger position ...
This means that the English would have been attacking an established king (or two), rather than a people cast into disunity by their King's death overseas, which would probably have been more difficult... and I strongly suspect that, after having had to deal with two invasions (and a number of raids) in one year, relatively few of the English would have felt like volunteering for an overseas campaign anyway. The 'Fyrd' couldn't legally be required to serve overseas, right?
Furthermore, the way in which fiords and mountains divide Norway mean that anybody trying to conquer it in this period can't move troops around between the regions very easily overland, and in winter trying to move them by sea would have been rather risky too. Therefore the choice for a conqueror would be between planting garrisons in each separate area, thus risking defeat in detail, and leaving some areas ungarrisoned even though those would probably become centres of rebellion, and the Norwegians weren't exactly known for liking the idea of foreign rule: Look at how short a reign Canute's [half-English] son Swein had had there, for example...
Personaly, I think that leaving Norway for King Sweyn of Denmark to get embroiled in -- which would have kept him too busy to consider invading England -- would probably have been a wiser idea.
 
Not so sure with Ireland. Pre-conquest England had pretty good relations with it. That was where Godwine and his sons went when they were briefly exiled and also where Harold's sons fled to and operated from for a while after Hastings. Also the Saxon monarchy was less expansionist than the Norman one, as was the Saxon nobility. I think it was as much to stop his nobles who had started conquering lands in Ireland getting too power as any interest in Ireland per-say that prompted Henry II's intervention.

The idea that the Anglo-Saxon Monarchy wasn't expansionist just isn't held up by the facts, if you look at the history of the House of Wessex with the exception of the Cnut interlude it was an uninterrupted succession of attempts to expand since Alfred. Now most of these were directed against a.) the other Saxon Kingdoms and b.) the Danelaw and thus inside the territory of OTL England, but we regard these areas as "England" because of the expansionist tendencies of the House of Wessex. Occasionally they gave way on one front, for example with Lothian where they acquiesced to the King of the Scots taking it over in order to focus on the Danes, but that's common sense. If you look at Edwards the Confessors reign Harold and others were very involved in fighting the Welsh and pushing forward the frontier though the Norman Conquest meant it didn't fully "stick". IMHO Southern Wales and Lothian will be taken and Anglicised, northern Wales and Scotland will be reduced to a position of vassalage but not directly conquered/settled, the geography is too difficult, it's one thing to set up a new burgh filled with Saxons from Kent on good farmland in Pembrokeshire, it's another thing entirely to do it in Snowdonia.
The fact that at various times English nobles in trouble had fled to Ireland if anything makes it more likely that you will see the Anglo-Saxon Kings get involved, to chase down English fugitives if nothing else. Also Anglo-Saxon England is still going to have "land hunger" with younger sons of thegns and lords wanting inheritances, especially as the Anglo-Saxons were already moving towards primogeniture. That said the Irish channel means I doubt Ireland will ever be Anglicised, though English might as in OTL triumph.
 
The idea that the Anglo-Saxon Monarchy wasn't expansionist just isn't held up by the facts, if you look at the history of the House of Wessex with the exception of the Cnut interlude it was an uninterrupted succession of attempts to expand since Alfred. Now most of these were directed against a.) the other Saxon Kingdoms and b.) the Danelaw and thus inside the territory of OTL England, but we regard these areas as "England" because of the expansionist tendencies of the House of Wessex. Occasionally they gave way on one front, for example with Lothian where they acquiesced to the King of the Scots taking it over in order to focus on the Danes, but that's common sense. If you look at Edwards the Confessors reign Harold and others were very involved in fighting the Welsh and pushing forward the frontier though the Norman Conquest meant it didn't fully "stick". IMHO Southern Wales and Lothian will be taken and Anglicised, northern Wales and Scotland will be reduced to a position of vassalage but not directly conquered/settled, the geography is too difficult, it's one thing to set up a new burgh filled with Saxons from Kent on good farmland in Pembrokeshire, it's another thing entirely to do it in Snowdonia.
The fact that at various times English nobles in trouble had fled to Ireland if anything makes it more likely that you will see the Anglo-Saxon Kings get involved, to chase down English fugitives if nothing else. Also Anglo-Saxon England is still going to have "land hunger" with younger sons of thegns and lords wanting inheritances, especially as the Anglo-Saxons were already moving towards primogeniture. That said the Irish channel means I doubt Ireland will ever be Anglicised, though English might as in OTL triumph.

Then again, the Normans fought pretty differently to the Saxons IIRC. So the Irish could maybe do better.

This isn't my area, so sorry if I'm wrong. I just have the feeling that the average Gaelic levy was on more equal footing in a fight with his Saxon counterpart, rather then both of them getting trampled down by a mounted Norman man-at-arms.
 
The idea that the Anglo-Saxon Monarchy wasn't expansionist just isn't held up by the facts, if you look at the history of the House of Wessex with the exception of the Cnut interlude it was an uninterrupted succession of attempts to expand since Alfred. Now most of these were directed against a.) the other Saxon Kingdoms and b.) the Danelaw and thus inside the territory of OTL England, but we regard these areas as "England" because of the expansionist tendencies of the House of Wessex. Occasionally they gave way on one front, for example with Lothian where they acquiesced to the King of the Scots taking it over in order to focus on the Danes, but that's common sense. If you look at Edwards the Confessors reign Harold and others were very involved in fighting the Welsh and pushing forward the frontier though the Norman Conquest meant it didn't fully "stick". IMHO Southern Wales and Lothian will be taken and Anglicised, northern Wales and Scotland will be reduced to a position of vassalage but not directly conquered/settled, the geography is too difficult, it's one thing to set up a new burgh filled with Saxons from Kent on good farmland in Pembrokeshire, it's another thing entirely to do it in Snowdonia.
The fact that at various times English nobles in trouble had fled to Ireland if anything makes it more likely that you will see the Anglo-Saxon Kings get involved, to chase down English fugitives if nothing else. Also Anglo-Saxon England is still going to have "land hunger" with younger sons of thegns and lords wanting inheritances, especially as the Anglo-Saxons were already moving towards primogeniture. That said the Irish channel means I doubt Ireland will ever be Anglicised, though English might as in OTL triumph.

Arachnid

I don't know. The Danes weren't a significant threat when was it Edgar transferred Lothian to Scotland in return for the Scots king recognising Edgar as his overlord and stopping attacks on England.

Similarly with Scotland later, despite repeated Scottish attacks the English kings seem to have preferred a diplomatic solution rather than a military one involving expansion and annexation. While Ethered's reign was one of weakness and instability from Canute taking the throne onwards England was generally stable and unified and didn't seem to take any steps to expand the area ruled.

Also with Wales in Harold's time that seems to have been largely a defensive move, after a prolonger period of Welsh raids. Harold defeated the Welsh by an extensive campaign, along with a good bit of burning. However once the Welsh had overthrown the king responsible he withdrew and no territorial expansion was made that I'm aware of.

Not saying the Angle-Saxons were angels but they didn't seem anything like as expansionist as the Normans. Over time possibly but doubtful they would have been as aggressive as the Normans, who were very land hungry, at least in the ruling aristocracy.

Steve
 
I don't know. The Danes weren't a significant threat when was it Edgar transferred Lothian to Scotland in return for the Scots king recognising Edgar as his overlord and stopping attacks on England.

Similarly with Scotland later, despite repeated Scottish attacks the English kings seem to have preferred a diplomatic solution rather than a military one involving expansion and annexation. While Ethered's reign was one of weakness and instability from Canute taking the throne onwards England was generally stable and unified and didn't seem to take any steps to expand the area ruled.

Well we don't know the precise timeline where Lothian went from Kingdom of Bernica>Kingdom of Northumberland>Kingdom of England>Kingdom of Scotland. However with the Norse settlement of Yorkshire effectively cutting off Anglo-Saxon Lothian from the rest of the Anglo-Saxon realm it's not hard to imagine it was a weak, separated region, not part of England "proper", that could be traded away in return for an alliance to strengthen the position of the English Crown in an era where the Vikings where an ever present threat, even if they weren't up to all that much at a particular moment. I've read analyses that describe it as moving from a weak, isolated region and a hostile neighbour to a single stronger vassal, that strikes me as a pretty good, and pretty sensible deal that many Kings would go for. Now as it happened things didn't go according to plan and Scotland became an independent and culturally separate realm, but this is alternate history. As such I think it highly likely that when the Anglo-Saxons have the time, ability and a warrior King to restore Lothian to the realm they will, whether by making the King of the Scots a de facto vassal rather than just a de jure one or by taking Lothian back.

Also with Wales in Harold's time that seems to have been largely a defensive move, after a prolonger period of Welsh raids. Harold defeated the Welsh by an extensive campaign, along with a good bit of burning. However once the Welsh had overthrown the king responsible he withdrew and no territorial expansion was made that I'm aware of.

Not saying the Angle-Saxons were angels but they didn't seem anything like as expansionist as the Normans. Over time possibly but doubtful they would have been as aggressive as the Normans, who were very land hungry, at least in the ruling aristocracy.

Steve

That really isn't supported by the facts. At least in the sources I've read Welsh attacks are described on Saxon settlements in Monmouthshire and Glamorgan. I read that as the Saxons preferring a slowly advancing "cultural frontier" model of conquest to the Norman style "move in and become the new aristocracy for the entire area". In that sense it makes perfect sense for Harold or any other English leader to stop at defeating a hostile Welsh King and pushing him "back" across the frontier rather than taking the entire region over. As I've said before I think Saxon conquest is a very different beast from the Norman variety and has more in common with colonial settlement than Norman style aristocracy replacement. As such it will move more slowly. But all the evidence suggests that new settlements were being established and with occasional set backs the frontier was being pushed "forwards". Now eventually it's going to run into geographic barriers. There is no evidence that the Welsh-English frontier was moving where it had already reached mountainous areas in Radnorshire and Montgomershire. That might have more to do with focus being on the more attractive South Wales area but I suspect it had more to do with a lack of Saxons eager to take up vertical farming.


As for Ireland in 1066 a Saxon army doesn't have as much of a tech advantage over an Irish force as a Norman one did. But I think it ASB that the Saxons are going to go into military stasis in 1066 and not develop armoured cavalry. Even if they have defeated such as force at Hastings. At the end of the day England is richer, bigger and more stable. Therefore it is going to be militarily superior.
 
Last edited:
As for Ireland in 1066 a Saxon army doesn't have as much of a tech advantage over an Irish force as a Norman one did. But I think it ASB that the Saxons are going to go into military stasis in 1066 and not develop armoured cavalry. Even if they have defeated such as force at Hastings. At the end of the day England is richer, bigger and more stable. Therefore it is going to be militarily superior.

It wasn't really armoured cavalry that gave the Normans the advantage I would think. Yes in an open battle, knights are the major force for a medieval army, but Ireland isn't really suited for that. Too hilly, woody and boggy. That's why ponies and smaller horses were much more popular in Ireland, a Charger carrying a man wrapped in armour is going to run into problems that a smaller horse won't.

I don't recall any major battles between Norman and Irish forces, but I do know that there were many skirmishes, and in this case it was that infantry were on the whole better armoured then Irish warriors.

Of course the larger island will always exert control over the smaller one, the debate is more about how difficult Ireland can make it for the would-bd conquerors.
 
Last edited:
The idea that the Anglo-Saxon Monarchy wasn't expansionist just isn't held up by the facts, if you look at the history of the House of Wessex with the exception of the Cnut interlude it was an uninterrupted succession of attempts to expand since Alfred. Now most of these were directed against a.) the other Saxon Kingdoms and b.) the Danelaw and thus inside the territory of OTL England, but we regard these areas as "England" because of the expansionist tendencies of the House of Wessex.

Much of the consolidation of the heptarchy was in response to pressure from the Danes--consolidate into one stronger kingdom or be eaten piecemeal by the Vikings. It wasn’t as much an expansionist “I want your Kingdom” as a defensive “We need one strong leader”.

The idea that Angleand belonged to the Angles and Saxons and not the Danes is inherent in the desire to kick the Danes off the island. The Danelaw used to be East Anglia, Middle Anglia and parts of Mercia and Northumberland. It’s not expansionist to try to get it back.

Apart from perhaps Norway, I don’t think the English are much interested for a while in expanding off the island unless they feel the need for a preemptive strike. They certainly don’t want any more Danish rule. Nor Norman rule (having had quite enough of that with all the Norman influence in King Edward’s court).


So back to Europe. I’m thinking that Alexander II’s backing of the failed Norman invasion would have repercussions in the Church. As I said earlier, the English cannot have been happy about Rome’s interference and perhaps they would throw their weight behind Honorius II.

If that weight was sufficient to make Honorius the actual pope instead of an anti-pope, that would break the back of the movement for the Church to govern itself. At least for a time. I wonder where a flourishing of English Theology would have taken the Church?
 
It is very expansionistic for the House of Wessex to attempt to take over areas outside Wessex, however.

As for heavy cavalry vs. Saxon troops: Yes, the heavy cavalry that beat itself against the shieldwall is such a superior force to the heavy infantry of the huscarls and the fyrd.

:rolleyes:

I'm not saying developing heavy cavalry would be a bad idea, just that the idea the Anglo-Saxons were backward for not emphasizing it seems off - especially given that the context of Hastings is one where dismounting to fight on foot is not necessarily a bad tactic for the defender.

Just a couple thoughts.
 
Throughout history combined arms forces that haven't placed overwhelming reliance on a single branch have tended to do the best. Just as being entirely focused on heavy cavalry didn't work out well from the French at Agincourt, Crecy or Poitiers not having the tactical flexibility to chase down the retreating Normans lost Hastings for the English. In an ideal world the Anglo-Saxons would develop heavy cavalry while also maintaining top quality heavy infantry and maybe even acquiring longbowmen. Now that would be awesome.
 
Throughout history combined arms forces that haven't placed overwhelming reliance on a single branch have tended to do the best. Just as being entirely focused on heavy cavalry didn't work out well from the French at Agincourt, Crecy or Poitiers not having the tactical flexibility to chase down the retreating Normans lost Hastings for the English. In an ideal world the Anglo-Saxons would develop heavy cavalry while also maintaining top quality heavy infantry and maybe even acquiring longbowmen. Now that would be awesome.

That would indeed be awesome. But to look at the Norman force, what we need to praise about the Normans having that Harold didn't is more bowmen than cavalry - as in, more William's bowmen than his horsemen.
 
Last edited:
How difficult would it be for the Anglo-Saxons to develope this cavalry? I'm not entirely certain that it would be easy to develope so many branches so well, at least not in any easily convinient length of time.

Did they have that time? Did they have the possiblity of aquiring everything that they needed, different equipment for different branches, training equipment in general, is this done with the same number of men as the original army? Can the English train a larger number of men in different branches of fighting, or do they need a smaller force than OTL, or could they manage with the OTL number of men?
 
How difficult would it be for the Anglo-Saxons to develope this cavalry? I'm not entirely certain that it would be easy to develope so many branches so well, at least not in any easily convinient length of time.

Did they have that time? Did they have the possiblity of aquiring everything that they needed, different equipment for different branches, training equipment in general, is this done with the same number of men as the original army? Can the English train a larger number of men in different branches of fighting, or do they need a smaller force than OTL, or could they manage with the OTL number of men?

There's no reason they can't learn it. And "acquiring everything they need" isn't that hard either.

The main problem will be starting a stronger archery tradition, and getting the cavalry going to begin with.
 
OTL the (Norman) English monarchy developed a strong archery tradition.

Maybe the Anglo-Saxons can do it too?

POD that the Anglo-Saxon armies rest for a day or two, allowing for the archers to catch up. Harold wins, but it's a near-run thing and he realizes that the archers made a difference.

(These aren't longbows, so they might not be able to penetrate the armor of the knights. However, they could hurt the horses, causing heavy-cavalry charges to fall apart. Heck, to make it really simple, have William killed by a Saxon archer.)

So he institutes something resembling OTL's laws requiring all Englishmen to practice archery, citing the dangers of the Normans. Perhaps the longbow is picked up via the Welsh during some later war or as a result of trade.
 
Throughout history combined arms forces that haven't placed overwhelming reliance on a single branch have tended to do the best. Just as being entirely focused on heavy cavalry didn't work out well from the French at Agincourt, Crecy or Poitiers not having the tactical flexibility to chase down the retreating Normans lost Hastings for the English. In an ideal world the Anglo-Saxons would develop heavy cavalry while also maintaining top quality heavy infantry and maybe even acquiring longbowmen. Now that would be awesome.

AJNolte wrote an interesting timeline involving a different 1066. I can't recall the exact POD (I think it involved a different timing of the various invasions), but Edgar and William have a confrontation after Harold dies for some reason and Edgar, though he might have been able to defeat William, backs down to spare the population further war.

William is ultimately made king, but he cannot wipe out the Anglo-Saxon landowner classes like OTL even though he can bring some Normans in to replace people who'd died in various battles in the ATL.

England ends up developing exactly what you're describing--Norman cavalry, Anglo-Saxon infantry, and I think the longbow gets involved somehow. Edgar sticks around as William's general or something like that and he's the font of all sorts of innovations.
 
AJNolte wrote an interesting timeline involving a different 1066. I can't recall the exact POD (I think it involved a different timing of the various invasions), but Edgar and William have a confrontation after Harold dies for some reason and Edgar, though he might have been able to defeat William, backs down to spare the population further war.

William is ultimately made king, but he cannot wipe out the Anglo-Saxon landowner classes like OTL even though he can bring some Normans in to replace people who'd died in various battles in the ATL.

England ends up developing exactly what you're describing--Norman cavalry, Anglo-Saxon infantry, and I think the longbow gets involved somehow. Edgar sticks around as William's general or something like that and he's the font of all sorts of innovations.


Sounds Awesome.
 
Well, from what I've read, IOTL the Norman and Angevin rulers of Britain did use dismounted men-at-arms (and even dismounted knights) as armoured infantry more often and -- when they did so -- more successfully than their French contemporaries...
 
Top