What if no Normans?

Though there nevers was a "Norman Empire" as such, the normans did have quite an impact on medieval Europe, conquering England and Sicily amongst other places and profoundly changing those countries. They were also important players in many other European wars like the early crusades.

But what if there never were any Normans? What if Rollo the walker somehow had been stopped from becoming ruler of Normandy (and no other viking chief did also) and that region simply remained a part of northern France?
 
This is a very good question, and one weird thing about pre 1500 history is how you these high energy groups of people that arise from the middle of nowhere and create havoc, then after a few centuries nothing is heard of them. It could be the much smaller population sizes (the world had less than 500 million people total before 1500) that does this, which increases the standard deviation of groups from the norm and also means that small groups of people by our standards could have huge impacts.

IOTL, the Normans had three areas of operation:

1. England and northern France being the most famous area. One interesting thing about this is that the William the Conqueror did not have any grandsons in the male line that survived past 1135, so both England and Normandy wound up being fought over by the French houses of Anjou and Blois. This suggests that there may have been nothing special about Normandy, some other Continental based dynasty, maybe from Flanders if not Anjour or Blois, would have taken over England.

2. Southern Italy, which might be a bigger deal than England because the Normans effectively created a new kingdom and took on and beat everyone else in the neighborhood (the Byzantines, the Germans, the Papacy, and the Sicilian Arabs) seemingly without much difficulty. Without the Normans, the Salians might have moved in like the Hohenstaufen did later, but its not clear what happens. Its also not clear if Muslim Sicily survives or was on its way out anyway, same with the Byzantines who were declining anyway would would have had an easier time without the Normans.

3. The Crusades/ the Levant, since the Normans did give a boost to the First Crusade and the Crusader states in general.

There is a possibility of England being less entangled with the Continent and more in the Scandinavia orbit, but just removing the Normans far from guarantees it. I really have no idea what happens in the Sicilian power vacuum.
 
The Battle of Hastings is considered by most historians as the most important battle in human history, it shaped the UK and allowed it to forge the greatest Empire the world had ever seen. If the Normans never rise, the Anglo-Saxons or the Vikings win the battle. If Saxons win then England would have more in common with Scotland and Ireland. If the Vikings won, England has closer ties with Scandinavia. It might lead to an Anglo-Dutch Union or might be incorporated into the Sweedish Empire. Who knows. The one thing that is certain is that history from 1066 on would be vastly different. Without the Normans, no British Empire, No United States, no Napoleon, no German Empire etc.
 
The Romans get some very valuable breathing space at a number of crucial junctures, giving them much better long term prospects?
 
The Battle of Hastings is considered by most historians as the most important battle in human history

Let's not get carried away. Undoubtedly very important for the English speaking world and with hindsight, given events since ~1750 it had some relevance in the current world system, especially since 1805.

But to say it is the single most important battle in human history? That is incredibly anglocentric and I can't agree. For instance, the battle of the Milvian bridge, where Roman emperor Constantine triumphed over his enemies under the sign of the cross, is likely far more important. The conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity had far reaching consequences that cannot be overlooked.

Or to take another example, the battle of Badr, when the Prophet Muhammad survived an attack by a much larger enemy force, thus allowing the early Islamic community to survive. Or the battle of Yarmouk, when the Arabs defeated the Eastern Roman Empire and overran the Middle East. Either of these have great relevance globally given the spread of Islamic cultures and the long term impact on world history.

Or the Spanish victory over the Aztec and Inca empires at Tenochtitlan and Cajamarca in the early 16th century which encapsulate the conquest of the New World. Cajamarca represents the largest area of land ever taken in a single battle.

Or the siege of Constantinople in 1453 when the Ottomans captured the Byzantine capital, inaugurating the Ottoman Empire's arrival as a major world power. Or the Arab siege of the city in 717, when the Byzantines narrowly escaped becoming part of the Umayyad Caliphate and eventually went on to rebound for another 7 centuries, "saving" the rest of Europe in the process.

Or the battle of Chalons in 451, where a Roman and Goth army prevented the advance of Attila the Hun from obliterating European civilisation. Or the battle of Ain Jalut in the 13th century, when the Mongol invasion was finally defeated and turned back by the Mamluks under Baibars.

I'm sure people knowledgeable about Chinese or Indian history could also give examples.
 
Last edited:

Zen9

Banned
So while I'm hazy on the Italian side of things, I can be certain that William won England mostly by good luck.

Had Harold survived to raise another army it would be over for the Normans.
Had the remaining aristocracy chosen a single reasonably competent leader, the Normans would loose.
Had the weather been worse, the invasion would have failed.
Had the weather cleared earlier, they'd have met Harold before Stamford....
Had Harold attacked first (Drake at Cadiz style) William would've gone broke trying to reassemble such a force.
Even after, had the English nobility twigged this wasn't Canute II, they have swept the Normans out.
It took years for the full scale of the error of peace and handing the Crown to William to hit home, by which point it was too late.

Really William is virtual case of ASB. Such is the luck of the man.
 
To follow on Zen9's comment, the Anglo-Saxons went down so quickly and so easily against not only William but against Sven/ Knut earlier, that it shows seriously doubts about the viability of an Anglo-Saxon kingdom. It reminds me of the Spanish conquests in the New World, though the Aztecs at least actually put up more and more effective resistance than the Anglo-Saxons and more of the Aztec nobility survived. It points at least to a serious tech gap between England and the Continent at the time. In any event, once William's male line failed 70 years later, the power struggle was between French noble families, based in France.

So this implies that some French Duke or Count would have taken over England. At the least, the Anglo-Saxon role family would have merged by marriage with Continental nobility. The question was which one and when. There was also a huge population gap of France over England at the time.
 
To follow on Zen9's comment, the Anglo-Saxons went down so quickly and so easily against not only William but against Sven/ Knut earlier, that it shows seriously doubts about the viability of an Anglo-Saxon kingdom. It reminds me of the Spanish conquests in the New World, though the Aztecs at least actually put up more and more effective resistance than the Anglo-Saxons and more of the Aztec nobility survived. It points at least to a serious tech gap between England and the Continent at the time. In any event, once William's male line failed 70 years later, the power struggle was between French noble families, based in France.

So this implies that some French Duke or Count would have taken over England. At the least, the Anglo-Saxon role family would have merged by marriage with Continental nobility. The question was which one and when. There was also a huge population gap of France over England at the time.
The comparison makes no sense, Harold Hadrada wasn't exactly that successful, plus we cannot expect to build up such a ridiculously deterministic trend from a couple of wars. What is this "tech gap" you speak of anyway?

The population gap means nothing when you don't have unified states, plus it's exaggerated as the modern territory of France had "just" 3 to 4 times the population of England and the kingdom of the France did not either control all of modern France(although they had Flanders) and it wasn't a centralized state and that's what the aftermath of the Norman conquest shows.
 

Zen9

Banned
No I think some people are confused here.
England was the most organised state in western Europe at the time.

One should remember Macciavelli and his description of how Alexander took Persia while various actors had failed to take France.

It's precisely because England is such a organised and centrally focused state, that if you can take the Kingship you have the Kingdom.

Canute was a different kettle of fish and the key to his success was his realisation of the scale and importance of England. But he could only hold it by ensuring no trouble came from Denmark or Norway.

In both cases it's the failure of preceeding kings that sets up such a potential intervention.
Canute nearly failed and it's his luck to have Edmund Ironside die. Otherwise the Cirdicingas would have ground yet another Viking into the dirt.
 
To follow on Zen9's comment, the Anglo-Saxons went down so quickly and so easily against not only William but against Sven/ Knut earlier, that it shows seriously doubts about the viability of an Anglo-Saxon kingdom. It reminds me of the Spanish conquests in the New World, though the Aztecs at least actually put up more and more effective resistance than the Anglo-Saxons and more of the Aztec nobility survived. It points at least to a serious tech gap between England and the Continent at the time. In any event, once William's male line failed 70 years later, the power struggle was between French noble families, based in France.

What "tech gap" would that be? The only one I could think of would be the use of heavy cavalry, but it's not like the Vikings were known for their mounted troops.

TBH I think the problem was more like over-centralisation. Because England was governed by a rather small group of nobles, a single disastrous battle like Hastings could basically wipe out virtually the entire national leadership. If you compare the situation in, say, Wales or Ireland, these places were a lot harder to conquer because even if you wiped out the leadership of one principality, there were still a bajillion others left to defeat.

ETA: Ninja'd by @Zen9 .
 
What "tech gap" would that be? The only one I could think of would be the use of heavy cavalry, but it's not like the Vikings were known for their mounted troops.

TBH I think the problem was more like over-centralisation. Because England was governed by a rather small group of nobles, a single disastrous battle like Hastings could basically wipe out virtually the entire national leadership. If you compare the situation in, say, Wales or Ireland, these places were a lot harder to conquer because even if you wiped out the leadership of one principality, there were still a bajillion others left to defeat.

ETA: Ninja'd by @Zen9 .
I thought the small nobilty thing of England was caused by the Normans, did it precede them?
 
What "tech gap" would that be? The only one I could think of would be the use of heavy cavalry, but it's not like the Vikings were known for their mounted troops.

I guess you could say castles... Then again, I'm not sure an Anglo-Saxon burgh would really be that much easier to take than an eleventh-century motte-and-bailey castle.
 
tech gap = knights in heavy armor + castles

Actually this is not too far from the gap the Spanish had against the Aztecs. Harold's army had metal weapons, though the obsidian weapons were effective, and Cortes had a few cannon, but its pretty close.
 
tech gap = knights in heavy armor + castles

Actually this is not too far from the gap the Spanish had against the Aztecs. Harold's army had metal weapons, though the obsidian weapons were effective, and Cortes had a few cannon, but its pretty close.

Cortés brought strange new horses that the natives had never seen, as well as steel weaponry and gunpowder that heavily outclassed the weaponry of the native Aztecs.

The Normans’ only real difference in equipment and tactics was their strong reliance on cavalry (which the Anglo-Saxons were definitely familiar with) and a few companies of archers.

The gap between Cortés and Moctezuma was huge, while the gap between William and Harold was quite small in comparison. I don’t think you can compare the ”tech gap” in any way.
 
tech gap = knights in heavy armor + castles

Actually this is not too far from the gap the Spanish had against the Aztecs. Harold's army had metal weapons, though the obsidian weapons were effective, and Cortes had a few cannon, but its pretty close.
I'm not sure castles matter that much when you are the one on the offensive and fighting oversea
 
The Saxons weren't unfamiliar with cavalry and Norman cavalry did not provide a crucial edge in the Battle of Hastings, by all accounts it was a very close-run battle that could've gone to either side. The idea that the English were somehow notably behind the Normans in technology is unfounded and based entirely on a desire to force a deterministic view of history.
 
Let's not get carried away. Undoubtedly very important for the English speaking world and with hindsight, given events since ~1750 it had some relevance in the current world system, especially since 1805.

But to say it is the single most important battle in human history? That is incredibly anglocentric and I can't agree. For instance, the battle of the Milvian bridge, where Roman emperor Constantine triumphed over his enemies under the sign of the cross, is likely far more important. The conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity had far reaching consequences that cannot be overlooked.

Or to take another example, the battle of Badr, when the Prophet Muhammad survived an attack by a much larger enemy force, thus allowing the early Islamic community to survive. Or the battle of Yarmouk, when the Arabs defeated the Eastern Roman Empire and overran the Middle East. Either of these have great relevance globally given the spread of Islamic cultures and the long term impact on world history.

Or the Spanish victory over the Aztec and Inca empires at Tenochtitlan and Cajamarca in the early 16th century which encapsulate the conquest of the New World. Cajamarca represents the largest area of land ever taken in a single battle.

Or the siege of Constantinople in 1453 when the Ottomans captured the Byzantine capital, inaugurating the Ottoman Empire's arrival as a major world power. Or the Arab siege of the city in 717, when the Byzantines narrowly escaped becoming part of the Umayyad Caliphate and eventually went on to rebound for another 7 centuries, "saving" the rest of Europe in the process.

Or the battle of Chalons in 451, where a Roman and Goth army prevented the advance of Attila the Hun from obliterating European civilisation. Or the battle of Ain Jalut in the 13th century, when the Mongol invasion was finally defeated and turned back by the Mamluks under Baibars.

I'm sure people knowledgeable about Chinese or Indian history could also give examples.

Don't forget more modern battles like Plassey, Yorktown, Trafalgar, Waterloo, Gettysburg, First Marne, the Atlantic (round 1), the Hundred Days Offensive, the Battles of France and Britain, Midway, El Alamein, Stalingrad and Tet.
 
Top