Suppose the Norman invasion of England either fails or never happens. Harald Hadrada's invasion fails as per OTL. What are the effects in England? In Europe? Worldwide?
search engines help, but look upSuppose the Norman invasion of England either fails or never happens. Harald Hadrada's invasion fails as per OTL. What are the effects in England? In Europe? Worldwide?
search engines help, but look up
anglisch; for a language example
besides that, England probably doesn't have fuedalism which will allow them to draw up big armies sooner.
The probably replace the vikings as the main raiders of northern europe.
How likely are Normans to try again later? They were an expansive bunch and Egland is a lot closer than Sicily.
Well there goes the Varangian guard, the most loyal and my favorite Byzantine unit. But yeah you killed the exiled Normans where they got a lot of the recruits that expanded their numbers and was quite crucial to a lot of key battles for the Byzantines. Constantinople will probably fare worse off (like OTL where the Varangian guard was the only resisting unit against the Frankish besiegers despite not being paid.)
There's still plenty of nonSaxon recruits available - the original unit was Rus, after all. Not to mention that even if not in exile, many might come to serve for gold and glory.
As for the Normans trying again: Sicily/southern Italy as a place of Norman conquest is not the same as England, where William thought he had - or claimed he had - a rightful claim to the throne. Italy was just mercenaries taking advantage of a situation to carve out their own polity like Mount and Blade writ large.
Yes but there's a difference between mercenaries vs exiles, at least motivation-wise.
I'll put it this way: The Swiss Guard was a mercenary unit. Same principles here.
There's still plenty of nonSaxon recruits available - the original unit was Rus, after all. Not to mention that even if not in exile, many might come to serve for gold and glory.
As for the Normans trying again: Sicily/southern Italy as a place of Norman conquest is not the same as England, where William thought he had - or claimed he had - a rightful claim to the throne. Italy was just mercenaries taking advantage of a situation to carve out their own polity like Mount and Blade writ large.
Don't forget though, that they had wrangled a few titles from various figures; the Holy Roman Emperor, their former Lombard lieges, the Byzantines at some points, etc. So they did have a legal claim to some of the southern Italian lands (like Melfi), just not all of them.
Yeah, but they did that after discovering this was a good place to build a kingdom, rather than going to the place because they had a claim.
True, I just wanted to point out that by 1066, the Normans in Italy did have at least a shred of legitimacy.
The probably replace the vikings as the main raiders of northern europe.
I've actually come up with my own variants of English that would evolve given a lack of the Normans. I've never understood why people insist that it would become Anglisch, for one.
Englisc wod in worldu midut Normenisce Frencisc, on myn belife, muc ylic ðis loceþ, and muc ylic newe Englisc hleoðeþ.
English in a world without Norman French would, in my opinion, look much like this, and sound much like Modern English.
i like you and i wish i was smart enough to do that.I've actually come up with my own variants of English that would evolve given a lack of the Normans. I've never understood why people insist that it would become Anglisch, for one.
Englisc wod in worldu midut Normenisce Frencisc, on myn belife, muc ylic ðis loceþ, and muc ylic newe Englisc hleoðeþ.
English in a world without Norman French would, in my opinion, look much like this, and sound much like Modern English.