Impact if the Norman Conquest of England fail or never begin in the first place

Because there was a fair bit of settlement by the Danish Norse - Anglo Danes were an actual thing - and lasting contact with a language that has similar words but different inflections has an affect. Look at Afrikaans for example.
They don't seem to have been numerically many(plus many emigrated afterwards anyway), also it was not lasting contact, if anything it was very brief and it would weird if Scandinavian actually influenced English that much.
 
They don't seem to have been numerically many(plus many emigrated afterwards anyway), also it was not lasting contact, if anything it was very brief and it would weird if Scandinavian actually influenced English that much.
And yet the equally numerically few Normans had a huge effect? You can't have it both ways! And I'll be interested where you got that emigration idea.
It may seem weird that Old Norse dialects had an affect on Old English dialects but it's not weird if you actually look at it.
 
And yet the equally numerically few Normans had a huge effect? You can't have it both ways! And I'll be interested where you got that emigration idea.
It may seem weird that Old Norse dialects had an affect on Old English dialects but it's not weird if you actually look at it.
Normans actually remained there, brought a connection through a far more influential linguistic group in terms of demographic and prestige, it's not even remotely comparable.
The Normans that settled in Normandy had a fair amount of Anglo-Danes too.

No it is weird account for everything that happened and terribly unlikely no way you put it.
 
Normans actually remained there, brought a connection through a far more influential linguistic group in terms of demographic and prestige, it's not even remotely comparable.
The Normans that settled in Normandy had a fair amount of Anglo-Danes too.
Are you strawmanning here?
What I'm saying is the simplification of Old English, the reduction in cases and declensions, started before the Normans. And that this would still continue in the absence of the Normans.
A lot of changes accelerated because the Normans removed there being an English dialect standard and imposed a French dialect standard. It's noteworthy how much of English today isn't from the standard Wessex dialect of the time but the Mercian one.
No it is weird and terribly unlikely no way you put it.
Not remotely weird, unless the similar changes to Middle Dutch under English and German dialectical influence in South Africa is weird too.
 
Are you strawmanning here?
What I'm saying is the simplification of Old English, the reduction in cases and declensions, started before the Normans. And that this would still continue in the absence of the Normans.
A lot of changes accelerated because the Normans removed there being an English dialect standard and imposed a French dialect standard. It's noteworthy how much of English today isn't from the standard Wessex dialect of the time but the Mercian one.
Strawmanning what? You made some points and I responded to them, I was criticizing the idea that Norse determined the grammatical changes(simplification) in Old English, apparently this is not the point you made? Not sure where the strawman is.

Not remotely weird, unless the similar changes to Middle Dutch under English and German dialectical influence in South Africa is weird too.
Again, it's a useless comparisons, Afrikaans was put under the influence of a more prestigious language for far longer time and with far less contact to other Dutch areas, apparently just 3-ish generations of discontinous Viking rule, most of the time over not even half of the English population, is apparently enough to cause the kind of shifts proposed there. Norse clearly has had a particular influence on English even in basic vocabulary but pointing at Norse for what could easily and more likely be a native development is misguided.
 
I'm doubtful that Scandinavian influence would be by any extent even close to French influence IOTL.

Given how closely related the two languages are, and the limited literacy at the time, I'm not sure we could ever really decipher the influence for certain.
 
Given how closely related the two languages are, and the limited literacy at the time, I'm not sure we could ever really decipher the influence for certain.
Norse was phonologically distinct enough that we can trace Norse origin for words shared by both OE and ON.
 
Do we assume that no Norman conquest in 1066 means no foreign conquest of England, ever? Or just that the duke of Normandy never does it?
 

Zen9

Banned
Norse influence is found mostly in the dialects of areas inside the Danelaw.
If one looks at Southern dialects one sees far less Norse influence.
Norman French however completely replaced the language of the court.
 
Do we assume that no Norman conquest in 1066 means no foreign conquest of England, ever? Or just that the duke of Normandy never does it?
Well other than the normans the only other non-Scandinavians i can think of that might have an interest in Britain (at least at this time) are the Bretons. Otherwise the Danish crown still has a claim, and i don't think the king of france can afford to look towards conquering England
 

Zen9

Banned
Norse was phonologically distinct enough that we can trace Norse origin for words shared by both OE and ON.
On at least one instance in Alfred's Court in an interview with someone who herded raindeer, the scribe invented the word for the animal rather than borrowing from Old Norse. Showing he grasped the relationship between the languages.
 
Last edited:
Well other than the normans the only other non-Scandinavians i can think of that might have an interest in Britain (at least at this time) are the Bretons. Otherwise the Danish crown still has a claim, and i don't think the king of france can afford to look towards conquering England

France invaded England a few times in the medieval period IOTL. The circumstances would be different here, but there could be some pretext for them to invade TTL.

The Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese - any maritime power could potentially be a threat to invade.
 
Strawmanning what?
You seemed to be saying that I am saying that the Norse caused the majority or all of the changes to Old English that turned it into Middle English. I'm obviously not.
But Norse had an impact. It wasn't the only impact as shown by the Normans and other French. But there was an impact and it doesn't deserve to be dismissed as weird just because you think it is.
 
France invaded England a few times in the medieval period IOTL. The circumstances would be different here, but there could be some pretext for them to invade TTL.
Because of the king of England's connection as vassals of the french king. Without a connection like that they don't have a claim outside of simple conquest
 
Because of the king of England's connection as vassals of the french king. Without a connection like that they don't have a claim outside of simple conquest

Yes, but at some point the royal houses probably would marry and lead to future claims anyway. I mean over the next 1000 years, they could probably find some reason to invade their neighbor 30 km away ;).
 

Zen9

Banned
Yes, but at some point the royal houses probably would marry and lead to future claims anyway. I mean over the next 1000 years, they could probably find some reason to invade their neighbor 30 km away ;).
Except that without an aristocracy of Norman origin, who would gain as much as the King, the nobility is more likely to constrain the King through the Witan.
 
Except that without an aristocracy of Norman origin, who would gain as much as the King, the nobility is more likely to constrain the King through the Witan.

Things can go in a lot of directions. A failed Norman invasion not only changes English history, it really changes French history too. The huge conflict between the French and English royal houses over French territory (as well as the crown) is butterflied away. The French king might expand the royal domain a lot faster TTL, and eventually look to expand his dominions abroad.
 

Zen9

Banned
True, the English might view the French King taking control of Normandy and Brittany as in their interests to remove the danger of another Norman trying his hand, and making trouble along the South Coast. Though Flanders might be another matter considering their importance to English trade with the continent.

I also wonder if freed from Norman ambitions, the English might further intervene both in Ireland and in Scandinavia.
 
Well other than the normans the only other non-Scandinavians i can think of that might have an interest in Britain (at least at this time) are the Bretons. Otherwise the Danish crown still has a claim, and i don't think the king of france can afford to look towards conquering England

Interest alone is not enough. Naturally proximity and in this era a somewhat credible claim, but above all the means to pursue such a claim. In Northern France, the count of Flanders might take his chance, if Normandy doesn't. That too will bring French influence, but Dutch influence as well, since the richest Flemish towns spoke Flemish dialects not a Romance dialect.

@Zen9: England did intervene in Ireland IOTL. Scandinavia is a bit too distant, IMHO given the dependency some western European trading partners had with English meddling in those affairs seems more likely, albeit less active than OTL.
 
Top