WI Harold Godwinson wins Hastings

[LSCatilina]

1- Yes. It will keep more of the local egalitarianism. IOTL that was suppressed for a while and had to fight to reassert itself.

I may have a wrong definition of egalitarianism : principle along everyone should have the same rights. If it's that, please don't mind my post.

Along this definition, Anglo-Saxon wasn't even close of egalitarianism.
Freemen existed more largely than in Europe at the same time (they were absorbed by feudal system except in some places were they seem to have been more resistant)

"Free" peasantry doesn't mean they were considered as equal of nobles or elites, but that these didn't had (as in continental Europe) jurisdiction over the population in the same way they had on land.
And if you add the existence of slavery, I don't think you can say the Anglo-Saxon society was egalitarian.

Admittedly, the feudal concentration of lands didn't happened at the same rate than in continental Europe and was accelerated and somehow achieved by Normans. Still, the growing number of thegns and a fragmentation of power still happened before them.

 

[Tyr]

I may have a wrong definition of egalitarianism : principle along everyone should have the same rights. If it's that, please don't mind my post.

Along this definition, Anglo-Saxon wasn't even close of egalitarianism.
Freemen existed more largely than in Europe at the same time (they were absorbed by feudal system except in some places were they seem to have been more resistant)

"Free" peasantry doesn't mean they were considered as equal of nobles or elites, but that these didn't had (as in continental Europe) jurisdiction over the population in the same way they had on land.
And if you add the existence of slavery, I don't think you can say the Anglo-Saxon society was egalitarian.

Admittedly, the feudal concentration of lands didn't happened at the same rate than in continental Europe and was accelerated and somehow achieved by Normans. Still, the growing number of thegns and a fragmentation of power still happened before them.

Egalitarianism isn't a binary yes or no and has to be looked at by the standards of the time.
Northern Europe did have far more of a tradition of free men with rights. That isn't to say they were equal to nobles but they had a lot more going for them than in feudal countries.

 

[LSCatilina]

Egalitarianism isn't a binary yes or no and has to be looked at by the standards of the time.

It's quite my point : what is egalitarianism, as equal treatment, in Middle-Ages even outside feudal sphere?
Personally, I don't see it there. If there's no equality at least in one regard, you can't call it egalitarianism.

Northern Europe did have far more of a tradition of free men with rights. That isn't to say they were equal to nobles but they had a lot more going for them than in feudal countries.

In feudal institutions, every group have rights (that are certainly not equal, of course) that tend to be opposed to each other, while the period between IX and XI centuries is certainly the most anarchic and the worst regarding the violent disrespect of lower classes rights (that ended in the late XI with an important reaction from these lower classes with support of Church and the crystallization of situation)

Furthermore, the name "free men" can be misleading. The actual freemen, aka not depending of a noble (whatever in feudal or not feudal countries) were rare.
The English ceorles seems to have formed while an important minority (maybe 10/15% of the population) in 1080's but serfs and non-free peasantry (inclduing vague categories as bordarii and cotarii) around 65%, the remaining being slaves.

The situation can't have realistically radically changed in twenty years (critically for bordarii and cotarii that seems to be issued from the lot division of Anglo-Saxon conquest) and the proportion of freemen in 1080's England is roughly comparable to the allods in many regions of Europe, maybe more present in England admittedly than the average proportion on continent.

 

[ashgar]

one of the main differances between pre norman and post norman invasion england was the right to bare arms in saxon england it was the duty of all free men to be armed(according to your means)under norman rule the idea (untill circumstances changed)was to keep the commoners disarmed.egalitarianism did not exsist in that period however the english had more rights and freedoms before the normans.
now back to the actual question,ireland is often over looked in these questions but given the freindly relations between the ruler of lienster (harold godwinson helped the lienster irish capture the viking city of dublin)and the new king of the english cou;d if ireland is unified under a single ruler with english aid then rather then having centuries of bitterness and hatred is there the potential for centuries of friendship and even alliance between england and ireland?after all a peacefull allied ireland would be to englands benefit.
there is the possibility of a more independantly minded english catholosim emerging over time because while harold would not have been foolish enough to renounce the pope not with the rest of europe being catholic(at least the parts nearest to england)i could deffinately see him (and his bishops)trying to leverage as much as he/they could get out of the pope.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm not sure that how Harold feels would necessarily influence long term feelings.

It could go either way.

 

[LSCatilina]

one of the main differances between pre norman and post norman invasion england was the right to bare arms in saxon england it was the duty of all free men to be armed(according to your means)

Admittedly this Germanic feature lasted more importantly than in continent because of Vikings raids (like it lasted longer among Franks rather than Visigoths, due to the raids from Rhenish or ultra rhenish peoples). I think it would have slowly vanished eventually, while probably letting at least symbolical features.

Egalitarianism did not exsist in that period however the english had more rights and freedoms before the normans.

Again, I put that in question. While feudalism would certainly have at the very least less present in a lasting Anglo-Saxon England, the only certain source close to the PoD (Doomsday Book, who describes England 20 years later when Norman influence couldn't have realistically changed in a radical manner the society) tend to show the presence of group that could be considered as less than continental serves (I'm thinking to cotarii and bordarii, although their statuses are arguably vague and changing)

now back to the actual question,Ireland is often over looked in these questions but given the friendly relations between the ruler of Lienster (Harold godwinson helped the Lienster Irish capture the viking city of Dublin)and the new king of the English could , if Ireland is unified under a single ruler, with English aid then rather then having centuries of bitterness and hatred is there the potential for centuries of friendship and even alliance between England and Ireland?

An Anglo-Saxon England, being more likely turned to North Sea than Atlantic would have indeed less motivation to conquer Ireland than IOTL.
Now, the main issue here is to have an united Ireland. Let's admit that Ardri feature not only last more but prevail. We have still a structure quite close to the original Celtic confederate model that could change by English or continental influence, but without invasion it would take paradoxically more time.

I wonder what are the possibilities of Isles or Scotland to take on Ireland if Anglo-Saxon doesn't go there : Norse-Gaël or Scottish Ulster could be a possibility.

there is the possibility of a more independently minded English Catholicism emerging over time because while Harold would not have been foolish enough to renounce the pope not with the rest of Europe being catholic(at least the parts nearest to England)i could definitely see him (and his bishops)trying to leverage as much as he/they could get out of the pope.

What is a more independent minded English Catholicism? You mean an English church, a more important role of the king in religious matters?
With the rise of pontifical monarchy, I simply don't see that happening.