WI: William the Conqueror dies at Hastings rather than Harold?

No more difficult or unlikely than for a post-Anglo Saxon monarch.

Would it require changes and consolidation of power? Yes. But that was just as true for the difference between late Capetian France and absolute monarchy France.

I don't deny that, but I do deny the idea that the Anglo-Saxon monarchs would really want to assert absolute power. After all, what's the point? The Witenagemot elects the kings, and will thus almost fully support them. They are vastly wealthy
(EDIT: If still part of the House of Godwin) and can easily convince the great lords to back them.

Why would they want absolute power?
 
Last edited:
I don't deny that, but I do deny the idea that the Anglo-Saxon monarchs would really want to assert absolute power. After all, what's the point? The Witenagemot elects the kings, and will thus almost fully support them. They are vastly wealthy
(EDIT: If still part of the House of Godwin) and can easily convince the great lords to back them.

Why would they want absolute power?

For the same reason other kings did.
 
But that reason isn't present in Anglo-Saxon England, nor is it likely to be present until the rest of Europe has changed immeasurably.

It isn't present in post Anglo-Saxon England OTL either.

I doubt Harold would change the status quo, I'm just objecting to the idea that Anglo-Saxon England means earlier constitutional monarchy. Constitutional monarchy is far from an inevitable development.
 
It isn't present in post Anglo-Saxon England OTL either.

I doubt Harold would change the status quo, I'm just objecting to the idea that Anglo-Saxon England means earlier constitutional monarchy. Constitutional monarchy is far from an inevitable development.


Ah, alright. I misunderstood where you were going with that. I certainly agree; a constitution will be unlikely without an actual insurrection by the Witenagemot (e.g. King John and the Magna Carta).
 
Ah, alright. I misunderstood where you were going with that. I certainly agree; a constitution will be unlikely without an actual insurrection by the Witenagemot (e.g. King John and the Magna Carta).

Yeah, I might have been unclear too.

In any case, having the existing Anglo-Saxon aristocracy around - instead of men dependent on William - will be interesting. Probably not too dire (the House of Godwin is powerful as well as on the throne), but something Harold will have to face if he intends anything.

How he does so is going to be worth following.
 
Yeah, I might have been unclear too.

In any case, having the existing Anglo-Saxon aristocracy around - instead of men dependent on William - will be interesting. Probably not too dire (the House of Godwin is powerful as well as on the throne), but something Harold will have to face if he intends anything.

How he does so is going to be worth following.


It's alright, I think I went defensive too quickly.

Indeed! The native nobility is hardly dependent on Harold, and the Anglo-Danes in the north are certainly a force unto their own and one to be reckoned with, too. Harold will have to be somewhat careful to avoid antagonizing the northerners especially, or he'll need to break their power to keep himself (not the House of Godwin, necessarily) on the throne.
 
It's alright, I think I went defensive too quickly.

Indeed! The native nobility is hardly dependent on Harold, and the Anglo-Danes in the north are certainly a force unto their own and one to be reckoned with, too. Harold will have to be somewhat careful to avoid antagonizing the northerners especially, or he'll need to break their power to keep himself (not the House of Godwin, necessarily) on the throne.

Although after Fulford, Morcar and his brother aren't at their strongest - so Harold has some room to act without fearing they're going to be breathing down his neck.

Still, it's far from Wessex and the capital, which is always trouble of some level or another. At the very least, they're someone to keep an eye on.

That's one thing that I think will be the major reason why expansion isn't that quick - keeping an eye on the lords within the kingdom is a significant task. Not unmanageable, but it will be something the kind of kings up to the task of conquests will have to weigh - especially since taking all of Wales say means even more such lords (Welsh or not).
 
Although after Fulford, Morcar and his brother aren't at their strongest - so Harold has some room to act without fearing they're going to be breathing down his neck.

Still, it's far from Wessex and the capital, which is always trouble of some level or another. At the very least, they're someone to keep an eye on.

That's one thing that I think will be the major reason why expansion isn't that quick - keeping an eye on the lords within the kingdom is a significant task. Not unmanageable, but it will be something the kind of kings up to the task of conquests will have to weigh - especially since taking all of Wales say means even more such lords (Welsh or not).

Very true, very true. Harold will have some time to act as he wishes before the Anglo-Danes are up to their full strength. I'm pretty sure he'll just establish some manageable vassals or at least friendly princes in Wales (I imagine he does this very early, due to have some breathing room). I wouldn't think there'll be any actions toward Ireland this early, except perhaps for supporting some of the anti-Norse native princes. There might be support for one of the claimants of the Scottish throne if there's a succession crisis in the 1070s as per OTL. Mael Coluim (Canmore), I tend to doubt would be supported, as he invaded Norman England several times OTL to try and capture Northumbria. Mael Snechtai (OTL's version of MacBeth), I could definitely see being supported by the Godwin king.
 
Very true, very true. Harold will have some time to act as he wishes before the Anglo-Danes are up to their full strength. I'm pretty sure he'll just establish some manageable vassals or at least friendly princes in Wales (I imagine he does this very early, due to have some breathing room). I wouldn't think there'll be any actions toward Ireland this early, except perhaps for supporting some of the anti-Norse native princes. There might be support for one of the claimants of the Scottish throne if there's a succession crisis in the 1070s as per OTL. Mael Coluim (Canmore), I tend to doubt would be supported, as he invaded Norman England several times OTL to try and capture Northumbria. Mael Snechtai (OTL's version of MacBeth), I could definitely see being supported by the Godwin king.

Except that Mael Coluim invaded England specifically because he viewed William as a usurper. He was in fact very pro-Saxon, the reason he married Margaret of Wessex in the first place.

Also, Mael Snechtai is NOT OTL's version of Macbeth--he's Mac Bethed's stepgrandson, keeping up the family fight.
 
Except that Mael Coluim invaded England specifically because he viewed William as a usurper. He was in fact very pro-Saxon, the reason he married Margaret of Wessex in the first place.

Also, Mael Snechtai is NOT OTL's version of Macbeth--he's Mac Bethed's stepgrandson, keeping up the family fight.


I was given to understamd Macbeth was based on Mael Snechtai: I'm sure you're right, though. Also, I must confess I knpw very little about that period in Scotland.
 
I was given to understamd Macbeth was based on Mael Snechtai: I'm sure you're right, though. Also, I must confess I knpw very little about that period in Scotland.

No. Macbeth was (very loosely) based on Mac Bethed--whose name in fact Anglicizes as 'Macbeth'.

Again, there is NO reason for Harold to act against Malcolm--at least in so blatant a fashion--the man represents the pro-Saxon faction in Scottish politics. (Well, as much as factions of this nature exist in this time period...)
 
No. Macbeth was (very loosely) based on Mac Bethed--whose name in fact Anglicizes as 'Macbeth'.

Again, there is NO reason for Harold to act against Malcolm--at least in so blatant a fashion--the man represents the pro-Saxon faction in Scottish politics. (Well, as much as factions of this nature exist in this time period...)

Okay, thank you. I just didn't understand.
 
Harold, you want to invade WHO!?

See, I figured it must have been asked before. But search is acting up for me (again, ugh), so I couldn't find any.



Punish the Vikings or the Normans how? The Normans will already have been punished enough, and the Vikings have been essentially crippled by the defeat of Hardrada. There's not much more to punish, really. Conquering Scotland or Ireland, I could perhaps see. How about Wales?

Conquering all three is in a scope far beyond Harold's lifetime. He'll have a lot to rebuild after all the losses he'll have suffered fighting Haldrada and William (especially the former).

I highly doubt that Harold will be excomunicated for defeating Williams army, whether or not the support was actually real or just a fiction to justify Williams norman ambitions is a subject up for debate and besides which the Pope would be the one who backed the wrong horse here. Excommunicating the popular victorious king for beating a nearly baseless claimant to the throne will only further the chances of England breaking from the catholic fold long term.

Even if the Pope were foolish enough to excommunicate Harold, I doubt he'll be able to make the political effects of such an action stick long term. And regardless, we are not talking about the strong centralized rule of the early Plantagenats here. If nothing else, when Harold dies, all is well between Rome and London.

Depending on the conditions in Normandy ie if enough of the knights and leaders had been killed off at Hasting Harold might feel that all or parts of Normandy were ripe for the plucking.

:eek: Harold is trying to insure rule over all of England, deal with raids from Wales and Scotland (perhaps even Ireland), worry about more Viking/Norwegian/Danish invasions, and yet then tell his barons he wants to go off to the Continent to try to conquer one of the most powerful nations in Europe when he has no real claim to anything anywhere in France?:eek: He'll need food tasters for his food tasters!:p
 
evidence for the english using cavalry in pre norman times
linguistic evidence
ridda-rider
ridehere-mounted raiding force
ridwiga-someone who fights on horseback
eored-mounted troop
archeological evidence.
the sutton hoo helmet showing a mounted warrior riding down a fleeing infantryman,
liturary evidence.
in the epic beowulf there are descriptions of mounted warriors and indeed snori sturluson in his acount of the battle of stamford bridge made the claim that the english had succsessfully made a mounted charge during the battle.
anglo saxon law allso stipulated(c1023)that the heriot of a earl included,
eight horses (four with saddles) alongside military equipment such as four helmets, four mail coats, four swords, eight spears and eight shields – enough to equip four armoured cavalrymen and four lesser cavalrymen.not enough evidence to say catagorically that the english did use cavalry but it is plausible given the evidence.
evidence for the english using archers the fact that harald hardhaadra was killed by a english arrow is evidence they used at least some archers as for the welsh using massed longbows in this period the fact that not one contempory account mentions them doing so does speak against them using massed longbows.

 
A: No medieval European society had "a lot of" cavalry. Horses, armor, etc. are expensive.

B: Does it need to be "frequently used" when its used when its needed?
 
Top