What could happen if William the Conqueror fails at Hastings?

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
Let's assume the man fell in battle, and King Harold II is still alive. What could the economic and political realities look like in Britain and Ireland in the ensuing decades and centuries as a result? I know centuries is really far out, but I'm looking for different scenarios that could very plausibly happen, not what one thing is the most likely scenario.
 
There's a metric crap ton of these threads. No English as we know it for one. A more decentralized France by virtue of no conflicts with England. A possibility of a still independent Scotland, a Welsh nation and maybe a Kingdom of Ireland down the line. Although, that depends on how Anglo-Saxon relations with it's neighbors develop afterwards.
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
A possibility of a still independent Scotland, a Welsh nation and maybe a Kingdom of Ireland down the line
How economically viable can these be as the centuries march on?

A more decentralized France by virtue of no conflicts with England.
Can this consequently mean more infighting between nobles and hamper economic and population growth?
 
How economically viable can these be as the centuries march on?

That really depends, the resources could still be there, but what kind of government rules the countries and their economic polices, It would be tough to say later on. The most you can do is find out about how their economies ran then and build off them, it might be hard with the Irish.

Can this consequently mean more infighting between nobles and hamper economic and population growth?
It's a possibility, but medieval France is not something I'm confident in.
 
Let's assume the man fell in battle, and King Harold II is still alive. What could the economic and political realities look like in Britain and Ireland in the ensuing decades and centuries as a result? I know centuries is really far out, but I'm looking for different scenarios that could very plausibly happen, not what one thing is the most likely scenario.

Well, the general assumption is that England would have been more focused on North Sea than Channel and Atlantic, at least for a moment.
Saxon influence, and more broadly HRE's influence, could be as much present than the Frankish one before the conquest, with all that it implies culturally.

Economically and Politically, late Anglo-Saxon England knew a similar process than what happened in the continent : desintegration of the kingdom into smaller independent political entities (unified by a common kingship). Earldomancies would be a probable base for these to appear, on the ground of old AS entities (Bernicia, East-Anglia) or late AS subdivisions (Western Mercia, etc.).

It doesn't mean this AS feudalism would be similar to Norman one, of course. As mentioned before, while Frankish institutional influence would certainly exist, Saxon (as in continental Saxon) would be another factor printing on a large local base.
It would be as well influenced, in its prime form, by a lasting slavery (that virtually disappeared elsewhere and probably will there as well) and by proper AS social identities as cotarii or bordarii.
A more important nobility, demographically speaking (closer to continental standards, between 4 to 6% instead to less than 1%), more diverse socially would count as well.

I think the traits of English institutions would have probably lasted, making *English feudality looking more a mix between German feudalism (huge, distinctive entities, with an important royal political role) and Frankish (lack of public lands, or conquest over non-Christians allowing the landed redistribution)
But at this point, it's more an educated guess.

Northern England would be, obviously, less damaged ITTL (while previous damages were due to Scandinavians), and form a relativly stronger economical factor in North Sea.

I think that this *England would still go for Wales (Harold and previous rulers having prooved their interest on it) and earlier than IOTL; and maybe Scotland, critically without Davidian Revolution (while, admittedly, a simimar evolution could take place, but slower than IOTL without the radical change that Normans were).
It would be even more true with an England that have little to no matters in France at all : once Norman/Angevine hemeon butterflied away, not only Capetians may know an earlier rise (while probably a slower territorial growth), but the whole of Western European international policies are butterflied (it kinds of prevent describing situation going on for centuries).
 
A more decentralized France by virtue of no conflicts with England.
It's far from being a given.
Letting alone the "centralization" (no feudal state can be considered as centralized, given it's based on a logic of decentralized authority) matter, what is important on this regard is the unifying capacity.

And the early Capetians prooved to be able to get that, even before Norman conquest of England, or Angevine dynastical succession. Robert II policies for instance, are quite interesting on that matter, playing on as much room kingship allows him to reinforce his authority over his vassals in Northern France.
While the struggle against Normans/Angevine provided a continuous focus for Capetian policies, they didn't brang much unification on their authority.
This was eventually a far more gradual process.

And it's not as England wouldn't intervene in France at all. It's not because AS interests would be far less present there, that they're going to be isolated. IOTL Late AS king or pretendents had ties with Normands, Flemish (Remember that Harold made his fame fighting there was well), etc.
The traditional HRE-England alliance is probably going to reappear ITTL, not only due to cultural and institutional influences, but to compatible goals.

Can this consequently mean more infighting between nobles and hamper economic and population growth?
Well, not that much geopolitical differences, as long we focus only on France.
The main rival for Capetian hegemony in Northern France are still Normans and Angevines, only limited to their original holdings (It's not like Angevine holdings IOTL were that of a unified block, quite the contrary critically in the southern part).

The main focus of Capetians would be still the control of Lower Seine and Lower Loire, in the continuity of their control on Upper Seine and Middle Loire.
While limited, their demesne was wealthy and at the mesure of what existed in the northern part of the kingdom, and would provide ressources to enact such, and could still play on the arbitral role of feudal kingship to get the best of infighting between these two houses (remember than Plantagenets and Normans couldn't stand each other, as they were competing in a similar region).

You'd have economical changes, but only further ones, such as the economical ties between Gascony and England that appeared in the XIIth century.
 
Before Guillaume tried to conquer England, the french King, Henry I had tried at least once to conquer Normandy. He failed as the army he sent was beaten by the Normans. In case Hastings is a victory for Harold, I imagine that the Normans will be weakened enough that the french royal army will be able to annex all of Guillaume's land back into the royal domain. That turns the french kings from least among high nobles to first among them, in addition to the kingship. That's a huge difference in French early 2nd millenium history.
 
Before Guillaume tried to conquer England, the french King, Henry I had tried at least once to conquer Normandy.
It's more complex than just conquest.
Don't forget than Henri I was at first the protector of the young William, against Norman lords and Geoffroy Martel's ambitions in Maine. Indeed, Norman dukes supported him when he needed some backing at the first part of his reign against his brother, and the count of Anjou amassed too many power in his wars against Blois (where he was allied with Capetians.)

Henri I, as early Capetians, focused on a politic of balance, trying to prevent each great lord to become too great, but strong enough to be useful against other great lords.
And when William marry the daughter of the Flemish count, that's beyond what Henri I was to accept in matter of power, and join with Angevines, against Normands in the 50's.

Rather than conquering, it's just meddling in Norman matters as before, just switching sides when it's convenient.

Without a good reason to conquer Normandy, he'd put himself out of feudal legitimacy, and would only weaken his kingship, including the arbitral role that allowed these early Capetians to keep political balance at their advantage.
It wouldn't be only inconcievable for contemporary standards, it would be a really bad move.

I don't see a really good reason that for Capetians wouldn't follow the same policy, letting Angevines and Normans wasting their forces against each other, supporting alternativly one and the other, and eventually taking what they could afterwards.
 
See also:

Crown of the Confessor: the Chronicle of the Anglo-Saxon Kings (
multipage.gif
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Last Page)
TheLordProtector

Surviving Anglo-Saxon culture (
multipage.gif
1 2 3)
HonestAbe

Godwinson's England (
multipage.gif
1 2)
Edgar the Shrew

William will always be a bastard... (
multipage.gif
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)
Zirantun

WI the English were victorious at Hatings in 1066? (
multipage.gif
1 2)
PhoenicianLegacy

Fallout of Harold Godwinson Winning Hastings
LHB

WI Harold Godwinson wins Hastings (
multipage.gif
1 2)
Derek Jackson

AHC: Win the Battle of Hastings for Harold
KhanorYuan

From the Victory of the Saxons: A Collaborative TL(1066-2013)
kasumigenx

About the survival of Anglo-Saxon England.... (
multipage.gif
1 2 3)
Onyx

A 1066 question
tallthinkev

If the Anglo-Saxons persist, what do they do next? (
multipage.gif
1 2)
oshron

WI: William the Conqueror dies at Hastings rather than Harold? (
multipage.gif
1 2 3 4)
TheLordProtector



What happens when the Normans lose at Hastings?
Sonus Silentii




What happens to France without Anglo-Norman England?
SirCliveWolfe


Anglo Saxon England Survives.
Spitfiremk1


English language without norman invasion? (
multipage.gif
1 2 3)
PoeFacedKilla


Keeping England Saxon
aoravec75


AHC: How far could the Anglo-Saxons go?
Orsino


WI: William loses the Battle of Hastings?
Shtudmuffin


English Victory at Hastings: European Effects (
multipage.gif
1 2 3 4)
John Fredrick Parker


Politics of a Saxon England?
eliphas8

Medieval *England without Norman conquest (
multipage.gif
1 2 3)
oshron

For Want of an Arrow: A 'Harold Wins at Hastings' TL
The Stormlord

Saxons Standing Strong
eliphas8






and a different take:
Harold and William die at Hastings
Tirador de la Muerte




What if: both William and Harold die at Hasting?
The Dude Bro

Harrold and William both dead at Hastings
Derek Jackson

WI: Both Harold AND William die at Hastings?
MAlexMatt


And this just goes back to 2012, there were surely some before then - but I didn't try searching further.
 
Top