What happens when the Normans lose at Hastings?

Like the title says, what are the political effects of the Normans losing at Hastings (presuming William dies)? Do the Saxons try to take Normandy? Does the King of France take Normandy? Is Harold likely to see off any further invasions?
 
depending on how stable the Saxons end up being (how well they're off after the two fights), Sweyn II of Denmark might give it a shot, hoping that the third invading army in a short time would be the straw breaking the camels back ... and aiming at recreating the Danelaw area
 
First thing, Harold II Godwínson goes home to the lovely Ealdgȳð Swann hnesce [aka Edith Swan-neck] and they rejoice exceedingly; maybe he even takes his boots off first.

Otherwise, depends on where the PoD is: for example, no invasion by Tostig Godwínson means no battle of Stamford Bridge, and Harold and his army are in situ on the South Coast waiting for William the Bastard, in much better condition and in greater force than if they'd had a 400-mile forced march up north and back to see to Tostig and Harald III Hardrada. (Apart from battle casualties, Harold G may not have to leave a portion of his army up there.)

Of course, if Hardrada doesn't die at Stamford, he's still got 300 ships full of Norweegies who want plunder and glory...

That's just for starters...
 
There's no reason for the King of France to take Normandy, unless William dies without heirs (he has several underage sons as of 1066).

Harold has enough on his hands even after dealing with Sweyn that ther'es no reason for him to attack Normandy - and he has no claim to it either.

Honestly, the main thing that happens in the short term is that a bunch of landless Normans are still landless - but Normandy has probably seen quite a few fiefs go up for grabs, or at least dispute.
 
We see Harold II and his successors consolidate control over England, and more Normans heading South and East to Spain, Italy, and Anatolia.
 
First thing, Harold II Godwínson goes home to the lovely Ealdgȳð Swann hnesce [aka Edith Swan-neck] and they rejoice exceedingly; maybe he even takes his boots off first.

*grin*

Saxons have no way of taking Normandy, does their navy exist at all?
And as mentioned before, Normandy probably passes into the hands of one of William's sons (wasn't Curthose the oldest?)
 
*grin*

Saxons have no way of taking Normandy, does their navy exist at all?
And as mentioned before, Normandy probably passes into the hands of one of William's sons (wasn't Curthose the oldest?)

Yes it does. It had been patrolling all that summer if memory serves.

And if it wasn't for the fact the French king and vassals would come to the defense of Normandy, they most certainly have a way of taking it.

AS for the heirs - yes.
 
And if it wasn't for the fact the French king and vassals would come to the defense of Normandy, they most certainly have a way of taking it.

As a lawyer would say, "opportunity but no motive". You said yourself that Harold has no claim to Normandy. This is not the tribal era when two tribes fight until one has beaten the other and then the defeated party must recognise the supremacy of the other. Harold has no legitimate reason to be in Normandy, and for that sole reason he would never cross the Channel. Maybe in later centuries he might for the plunder and to effectively reduce Normandy to a burned out wasteland for a year or two in revenge, but Harold is never going to seek conquest because there's no way shape or form to legitimise his actions. Conversely, by refusing to attack Normandy he can fortify his position in England and seek a position of strength where attacking Normandy would leave him temporarily vulnerable to an interested third party such as Sweyn II of Denmark, since there seemed to be no end to the claimants of the English throne.
 
Furthermore ... given the disagreement in Witangemot, its not unlikely that he'll get a civil war a few years down the road against the 'legal' heir of the Saxon throne, Eadgar Aetherling of Wessex
 

Ancientone

Banned
Furthermore ... given the disagreement in Witangemot, its not unlikely that he'll get a civil war a few years down the road against the 'legal' heir of the Saxon throne, Eadgar Aetherling of Wessex
No need for a civil war. Saxon England did not stick rigidly to primogeniture and Harold became King as the choice of the Witan as the most suitable candidate in uncertain times when the main claimant was in his early teens. Had the Ætheling grown to become an accomplished soldier as he did in real life and well educated at the Courts of Europe there is no reason why he should not have been in line for the top job at some time. He lived until 1125, thus surviving the Bastard and Rufus and living through most of the careers of Henry I and Curthose.
 
While I agree that a conquest of Normandy is off the table (at least, in that time period), what about a "Harrying of Normandy"? In other words, no actual conquest but a series of brutal raids aimed at laying the Normans low and keeping them down through destroying their crops and such, as an act of revenge and/or preventing them from trying to take the English throne again later on?
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
One would think the Saxons would be content to rule England, lick their wounds, and perhaps turn north towards the scotts or west towards the bretons after a new crop of young warriors had arisen. I imagine they'll be abit manpower short for a few years, even if all goes their way.
 
We see Harold II and his successors consolidate control over England, and more Normans heading South and East to Spain, Italy, and Anatolia.

I agree that more Normans will seek fortune and glory in Italy and the Iberian peninsula.

Furthermore ... given the disagreement in Witangemot, its not unlikely that he'll get a civil war a few years down the road against the 'legal' heir of the Saxon throne, Eadgar Aetherling of Wessex

This could be related to how capable any successor of Harold II, either son or brother, will be; if a successor would turn out to be incapable, then I can see Eadgar being invited back to regain his 'birthright'. However if the Godwinsons turn out to be capable rulers, that might not happen or very likely fail.
 
The English had no claim, nor any historical interest, in Normandy as discussed above.

The traditional interest of England was in Scandinavian affairs, especially Denmark. Whether defensive or offensive, this is where political foreign relations were important to England.

Domestically socially and culturally France was an influence on Southern, especially South Eastern England and hence upon the court in Winchester and in London. This could become an issue in the future.

The North was historically closely linked to Scandinavian culture and not French. Especially the North East. The North West had close links with both Wales and Ireland being British rather than English and well colonised by the Irish (there is a reason why Blackpool and Dublin share the same name) and in contact with Irish based Norwegians.
 
As a lawyer would say, "opportunity but no motive". You said yourself that Harold has no claim to Normandy. This is not the tribal era when two tribes fight until one has beaten the other and then the defeated party must recognise the supremacy of the other. Harold has no legitimate reason to be in Normandy, and for that sole reason he would never cross the Channel. Maybe in later centuries he might for the plunder and to effectively reduce Normandy to a burned out wasteland for a year or two in revenge, but Harold is never going to seek conquest because there's no way shape or form to legitimise his actions. Conversely, by refusing to attack Normandy he can fortify his position in England and seek a position of strength where attacking Normandy would leave him temporarily vulnerable to an interested third party such as Sweyn II of Denmark, since there seemed to be no end to the claimants of the English throne.

Indeed. But the power exists if Harold does get some basis to fight.
 
Furthermore ... given the disagreement in Witangemot, its not unlikely that he'll get a civil war a few years down the road against the 'legal' heir of the Saxon throne, Eadgar Aetherling of Wessex

Why? If Harold manages to fight off the Norwegians, the Normans, and the Danes I'd think his star would be better than a reincarnated Alfred the Great. Why would they oppose someone who had proven himself an incredible defender of the realm (why he was elected king in the first place).
 
Top