Politics of a Saxon England?

Ive recently been flirting with the idea of creating a timeline where William The Conqueror fails to conquer England what do you guys think the effects will be on international politics of the region where the Norman conquest to fail or be aborted for some reason?
 
There is an interesting chapter in the book What If? 2 about a Norman defeat at the Battle of Hastings. Basically, it claimed that the Norman victory 'turned' England to face south, which deprived the northern states, specifically the Norse kingdoms, of the valuable harbours and grain of the British Isles. the author claimed that a Saxon victory would have kept England within the broader community of the north, and would have allowed the northern European states to continue their domination of Europe, and would have strengthened their cultural and political development. Then he went on a flight of fancy about early Norse colonization of North America and a hybrid Mohawk-Nordic civilization around the Great Lakes. It was cool :p
 
You have to divid this into two:

Firstly the Saxons.
They have defeated both the Danes and Normans and are riding pretty high. Assuming that non of the main players was killed you have Harold's family firmly in control of England. In addition you have the Pope having backed the wrong horse, so English kings not really listerning to him.

I can see Scotland and Wales being gathered in to a Britain which still has close links to Scandinavia and prehaps Irlands being added too. I think this would have been less bloody than the Norman invasions so less uprisings etc. over time.

The English church will move further away from the Pope (the whole contry being excommunicated?) may leave the French / Spanish wanting to invade to reclaim England for the Church.

Secondly the Normans
The Normans have just had a major reverse (assuming they lost Hastings rather than it didn't happen) and will need to recover. The French king may take advantage of this and invade. If not the Normans will go in greater numbers to Italy, prehaps unifying the lands south of the Papel States (Naples and the 2 Scililies).
 
IIRC Harold supported the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Pope - which was a reason for William's Papal blessing - so perhaps English Christianity drifts more toward Eastern Orthodoxy?
 
Don't forget the Danes invaded in 1086, so England would still remain within the Norse orbit to that extent

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
IIRC Harold supported the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Pope - which was a reason for William's Papal blessing - so perhaps English Christianity drifts more toward Eastern Orthodoxy?
Anglo-Celtic Orthodox? :cool: How would that impact the Reformation when it comes around?
 
You have to divid this into two:

Firstly the Saxons.
They have defeated both the Danes and Normans and are riding pretty high. Assuming that non of the main players was killed you have Harold's family firmly in control of England. In addition you have the Pope having backed the wrong horse, so English kings not really listerning to him.

I can see Scotland and Wales being gathered in to a Britain which still has close links to Scandinavia and prehaps Irlands being added too. I think this would have been less bloody than the Norman invasions so less uprisings etc. over time.

The English church will move further away from the Pope (the whole contry being excommunicated?) may leave the French / Spanish wanting to invade to reclaim England for the Church.

Secondly the Normans
The Normans have just had a major reverse (assuming they lost Hastings rather than it didn't happen) and will need to recover. The French king may take advantage of this and invade. If not the Normans will go in greater numbers to Italy, prehaps unifying the lands south of the Papel States (Naples and the 2 Scililies).

To be honest I'm a bit sceptic about that (it might be, but I don't take that for granted), the Anglo-Saxons can be just as unpopular as the Anglo-Normans in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Whether it is Anglo-Norman England or Anglo-Saxon England they probably value their own independence in the same way.

Regarding Southern Italy, they might succeed in unifying Southern Italy earlier. Furthermore more Normans might also end up joining the Reconquista (reconquest) of the Iberian peninsula.
 
To be honest I'm a bit sceptic about that (it might be, but I don't take that for granted), the Anglo-Saxons can be just as unpopular as the Anglo-Normans in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Whether it is Anglo-Norman England or Anglo-Saxon England they probably value their own independence in the same way.

Regarding Southern Italy, they might succeed in unifying Southern Italy earlier. Furthermore more Normans might also end up joining the Reconquista (reconquest) of the Iberian peninsula.

I doubt that the Saxons would suddenly start ridiculously mismanaging their long held territory so the culling of the north wont happen.
 
IIRC Harold supported the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Pope - which was a reason for William's Papal blessing - so perhaps English Christianity drifts more toward Eastern Orthodoxy?

I think its more likely that a sort of Northern Christianity would emerge as opposed to England drifting into the Eastern Orthodox community. That would make the Reformation much more interesting (in a very Chinese sense and assuming of course there is a reformation...)
 
Assumptions...

I'm a bit less sanguine about this. One thought is whether Harold will still get embroiled in France as a way of seeking revenge about William and his family. In addition, his brother Wulfnoth was a hostage of the Normans.

I wonder if Harold would ally with the French King to try and take down the Normans. This would bring in Flanders (William's wife, Matilda, is sister to Count Baldwin) but the strong economic linkage between England and Flanders might mitigate against that.

I simply don't see Harold's England turning away from continental affairs - indeed, I think a Saxon England (which is very wealthy in contemporary European terms, remember English silver and consider why William went about the expense of invasion in the first place).

The problem will come when Harold the Great (maybe) dies. The Godwin clan were a fractious lot at the best of times and you have the rival claim of Edgar the Aetheling who of course might be a serious contender for power despite a Witan dominated by the Godwins. The possibility of civil war or further instability is considerable.

Indeed, the near-civil war which followed the death of William in OTL 1087 might well be replicated when Harold dies. You might then see the Scottish and Welsh kingdoms dragged in as players supporting one or other of the Godwin factions.

It's not even inconceivable to imagine a divided England either along the old Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria lines or something else in the early 12th Century.

With no foreign barons to impose feudal structures, Saxon society is probably less hierarchical and more open but the centre of power might either be Winchester or possibly York (depending on which branch of the Godwins prevails).

Would the Godwins get involved in the Crusades? Seems unlikely.
 
One point about the make up of a British Isles with no Normans is that you will have a bigger "England". The definition of England had been continuously expanding for over 400 years as the various Anglo-Saxon Kings expanded out of the East Anglia and the South East incorporating the Danelaw, Cornwall, Northumbria etc.
Without the disruption of the Conquest you might well end up with a much smaller "Scotland" with a border not on the River Tweed which had only been attained in 1018 but much further north or even have Scotland suffering the same fate as Cornwall and Northumbria and be incorporated into "England" both culturally and politically. The same thing can be said for Wales though I suspect the geographic separation of Ireland means it will always remain distinct.
 
A lot of the internal politics of a Saxon England would depend on the Witan. Without a set in stone succession line like other places in Europe, the chance for conflict rising up is much more likely as different claimants clash constantly. Without a long, strong ruler, it could lead to a lot of problems.
 
Could quite dramatically change the relationship between England and France, after all much of the conflict between England and France over the centuries following 1066 had its origin in Norman Lords who held substantial lands on both sides of the channel.
 
In addition, his brother Wulfnoth was a hostage of the Normans.

Depending on the scope of the English victory, Harold II could demand his brother back from the Normans, along with ransom of the Norman survivors of the battle and confiscate the ships both from Harald hardrata's force (~275 ships) and William's (may hundred there, too) and have a really good core of an even better navy.


The problem will come when Harold the Great (maybe) dies. The Godwin clan were a fractious lot at the best of times and you have the rival claim of Edgar the Aetheling who of course might be a serious contender for power despite a Witan dominated by the Godwins. The possibility of civil war or further instability is considerable.

Indeed, the near-civil war which followed the death of William in OTL 1087 might well be replicated when Harold dies. You might then see the Scottish and Welsh kingdoms dragged in as players supporting one or other of the Godwin factions.

I always thought it might be more elegant for William, Harold, Leofwine and Gyrth to all die at Hastings but with an English victory. The Witanegemot would probably elect Edgar the AEthling king, as they did in OTL. Edgar lived a good long time OTL and if he lives as long in an alternate time line that would go a long way to securing England.
 
Don't forget the Danes invaded in 1086, so England would still remain within the Norse orbit to that extent

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

But would the Danes under King Sweyn II Estridson still invade in lieu of the Norman Conquest? Especially after King Harold defeated the Norse under King Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge, and then the Normans under Duke William at Hastings -all in the same year?
 
Medieval Kings are like jackals, a scent of weakness and they'll pounce. England could come out of a victory at Hastings looking rock solid or Harold could die along with much of the senior nobility, it could have a disputed succession and look weak and be pounced upon by the Danes, Bretons, Scots etc.
 
Top