William the Bastard loses and dies consequences

What would have happened by 1500?


  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
@ Hecatee: the whole HRE-France border region form Hainaut, Luxembourg, Lorraine, county palatine of Burgundy, Dauphiné to Provence all experienced French influence IOTL already.
It wasn't always initiated by the French monarch directly, nor his vassals, but culturally influence is more than that. IMHO even ITTL England will still be influenced by France one way or the other, though maybe more like how the HRE was influenced IOTL.

Still if the king of France would manage to add Normandy to his demesne sooner than IOTL, it would increase French royal authority sooner than IOTL.

OTOH with a POD in 1066, the Salian dynasty might persist in the HRE and the HRE might never become as fragmented as it was IOTL 1500. Moreover in 1066 France was more divided than the HRE. However where France has to potential to centralize much further than the HRE, even a more successful ATL HRE would still be somewhat 'federal' (for the lack of a better word).
Also by this point it was still the HRE with the manpower advantage, however both France and the HRE or England for that matter would have difficulties to mobilize them all.
 
Down the line the French kings would not have to fight against the british kings, and thus improve their already large manpower advantage over their neighbours. It might lead to an earlier conflict in the Flanders against weaker cities such as Bruges, but also with more conflicts with the HRE.

In any cases the even larger French demography than OTL will reinforce French influence, especially north and Flemish and/or German may be much more French influenced...

If you really want to create a French British fight then have a personnal union between the crowns of Britanny and England :)

But might not England try and defend Flanders at the same time? An England-France rivalry is nearly predetermined by geography, and at some point, the interests of England and France on the continent will come into opposition, and the Low Countries seem like the region where they might fight for influence, trading rights, etc.

Brittany and England together might be interesting too, of course,
 

Hecatee

Donor
@ Hecatee: the whole HRE-France border region form Hainaut, Luxembourg, Lorraine, county palatine of Burgundy, Dauphiné to Provence all experienced French influence IOTL already.
It wasn't always initiated by the French monarch directly, nor his vassals, but culturally influence is more than that. IMHO even ITTL England will still be influenced by France one way or the other, though maybe more like how the HRE was influenced IOTL.

Still if the king of France would manage to add Normandy to his demesne sooner than IOTL, it would increase French royal authority sooner than IOTL.

OTOH with a POD in 1066, the Salian dynasty might persist in the HRE and the HRE might never become as fragmented as it was IOTL 1500. Moreover in 1066 France was more divided than the HRE. However where France has to potential to centralize much further than the HRE, even a more successful ATL HRE would still be somewhat 'federal' (for the lack of a better word).
Also by this point it was still the HRE with the manpower advantage, however both France and the HRE or England for that matter would have difficulties to mobilize them all.
Being a French speaking Belgian and an historian by training if not by trade, I'm well aware of French influence in the area :) More seriously, in answer to your comments, the effect on the HRE might indeed be most interesting, especially if it were to ally with England in order to keep Flanders out of French hands. But if England is more Scandinavian would it ally with the HRE, which is hostile to Danemark ?
 

Hecatee

Donor
But might not England try and defend Flanders at the same time? An England-France rivalry is nearly predetermined by geography, and at some point, the interests of England and France on the continent will come into opposition, and the Low Countries seem like the region where they might fight for influence, trading rights, etc.

Brittany and England together might be interesting too, of course,

The thing is that Britain would not have a real foothold on the mainland and might lack the funds to effectively support the Flemish, so I'm not sure they would be able to do much to intervene between France and Flanders, unless they ally with the HRE (see my previous comment)
 
But if England is more Scandinavian would it ally with the HRE, which is hostile to Danemark ?
Since the Danes and the Swedes often waged war against each other I don't think it matters. Also England would most likely not solely focused on Scandinavia. France is too important to ignore. The same is true with the HRE. Or other countries near England. Sometime England will be allied or at least friendlyto France. Sometimes they will be enemies. Sometimes neither. The same is true with the HRE, Denmark, Scotland,Sweden,Norway, etc. Besides that nearby interests will be more important than interests further away. If an (more) independent Flanders is a benefit to England, it will focus on Flanders and ignore far away Denmark.
 
The Danes might still attempt to invade England (they did so in 1069 to support a rebellion, but the king of Denmark did have a claim).

Why? Harold Godwinson would be much more secure in his rule than William was at the time. Harold comes out of the war with the glory and prestige of two great victories in quick succession, and without a likely rebellion from the Anglo Danes on the horizon. As far as the medieval era goes that's pretty untouchable in terms of kingship.
 
And honestly, I think the most likely outcome of this isn't a Scandinavian allied England or a German allied England, but a more internally focused English kingdom. Like most of the countries in Europe it will be dominated by internal feudal politics as be earls compete for dominance in the kingdom. Although likely lessened because England had a less severe feudal system.

It will probably look like a mix of Scandinavia and Poland in terms of how the system evolves. With a mix of large magnates alongside a large layer of farmers who own their own plots of land and who are independent of their lords.

In the short term Britain will also be richer than it was OTL, without the turbulent early Norman rule.
 
I think that Harold would certainly look at dealing with the Welsh, once and for all. He had already led successful campaigns against them, and the Welsh being the welsh, they would no doubt do something stupid, giving Harold the reason he would need to launch an attack.

As for England not getting involved with Ireland - Harold already WAS involved. He and other members of his family had sheltered there in 1051-2, and the links continued even after 1066. Harold's sons went to Dublin after the conquest, and King Diarmait lent them his fleet to help attack Norman England. It wouldnt be beyond the bounds of possibility that a more secure Harold would have a favour called in - perhaps Godwine and Edmund campaign in Irelands and win land?
 
Top