William the Conqueror and England.

His expedition to England fails. His fleet is largely destroyed in an unexpected storm and his ship sinks and he drowns. The Normans continue to claim the English crown, but cannot launch another expedition. Would this result in a faster French re-conquest of Normany?
 
His expedition to England fails. His fleet is largely destroyed in an unexpected storm and his ship sinks and he drowns. The Normans continue to claim the English crown, but cannot launch another expedition. Would this result in a faster French re-conquest of Normany?

Think that England will counter attack. Aggressively strike the routing Normans on their own soil.
 
His expedition to England fails. His fleet is largely destroyed in an unexpected storm and his ship sinks and he drowns. The Normans continue to claim the English crown, but cannot launch another expedition. Would this result in a faster French re-conquest of Normany?

I don't think that they would for several reasons.
First, his heirs would be having a slugfest to see who gets control of Normandy (bets are on Rufus over Robert - Robert seems too laid-back to win and Rufus was a real sh!t).
Also William's claim was to a promise that Herald made to him.
But no Norman conquest, and if Hardraade's still dead on the Stanford bridge, look to an England being a bit more aligned to either Scandanavia or northern Germany.
Question, whould this England still go after Ireland like the one in OTL did?
 

Question, whould this England still go after Ireland like the one in OTL did?

Highly doubtful, at least in the next couple of centuries. Relations between the English and Irish were pretty good I think. The Norman invasion and resultant English intervention in Ireland was only really because some Norman nobles started building up a sizeable territory and the Norman king [in England] decided to intervene to remove any risk of them getting too powerful.

What you might possibly get, since Harold seems to have been a pretty capable leader, is an English intervention to help the Irish defeat a Norman invasion. Especially if the Norman ruler is trying to continue a claim to England.

Steve
 
Highly doubtful, at least in the next couple of centuries. Relations between the English and Irish were pretty good I think. The Norman invasion and resultant English intervention in Ireland was only really because some Norman nobles started building up a sizeable territory and the Norman king [in England] decided to intervene to remove any risk of them getting too powerful.

What you might possibly get, since Harold seems to have been a pretty capable leader, is an English intervention to help the Irish defeat a Norman invasion. Especially if the Norman ruler is trying to continue a claim to England.

Steve

Once the English get their stuff together, regardless of what regime, Ireland is toast. It is close and divided- a much too tempting target. France might be a venue of eventual expansion, but the Normans are at the top of their game, and I don't know that the English are going to want to mess around with them.

Keeping the Normans in France might threaten the French crown. What do you think about Rufus making a royal marriage and deciding that the crown up the river is a better prize than the crown across the sea?
 
Well, I would think the First Crusade would be key in determining eventual Norman succession

France 'reconquering' Normandy is a bit of an anachronistic way to look at things in this period

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I may be mistaken, but I remember hearing somewhere that one reason the Pope authorised the invasion was that England had sided with the Patriarch of Constantinople in the great schism. Assuming this is so, what would the effects be of an Orthodox aligned England repelling a Catholic aligned Norman invasion?
 
The England of Edward the Confessor and Harold Godwinson was Western (Roman) Christian, NOT Eastern Orthodox!

If the Normans do not invade England, then surely their descendents remain vassals of the kings of France. France wouldn't really have any reason to "reconquer" Normandy.

Another possibility is the Dukes of Normandy eventually putting themselves on the throne and becoming Kings of France . . .

KEVP
 
I may be mistaken, but I remember hearing somewhere that one reason the Pope authorised the invasion was that England had sided with the Patriarch of Constantinople in the great schism. Assuming this is so, what would the effects be of an Orthodox aligned England repelling a Catholic aligned Norman invasion?

The Byzantines like to claim English submission to the Emperor because Saxon refugees ended up in the Varangian guard, however, the pre-Norman Kingdom of England was firmly Catholic.

The Pope backed William's invasion because he offered the Church a better deal than it was getting in England. The Papacy was beginning to assert its claims of universal rule over Christiandom, and getting involved in secular politics (eg William's invasion) was an indictation of these claims. By backing William the Pope was asserting that the Papacy had a say in whole got to become King- an entry into secular politics that earlier Popes hadn't made. Furthermore, by giving William the Papal banner, the Pope was putting himself, and his office, above William's office, thus making the claim that the Pope was above the King (best summed up in Innocent III's claim "Verily the representative of Christ . . . set midway between God and man, below God but above man, less than God but more than man, judging all other men, but himself judged by none.")
 
Once the English get their stuff together, regardless of what regime, Ireland is toast. It is close and divided- a much too tempting target. France might be a venue of eventual expansion, but the Normans are at the top of their game, and I don't know that the English are going to want to mess around with them.

Keeping the Normans in France might threaten the French crown. What do you think about Rufus making a royal marriage and deciding that the crown up the river is a better prize than the crown across the sea?

MC

In the longer term possibly. However don't forget that after Alfred's successor conquered the Danelaw they were mainly concerned with good relations with Scotland and Wales and stopping those peoples [as often not coherent states] from raiding the English borders. According to some sources one of them even gave Lothian to Scotland in return for the Scottish monarchy recognising his overlordship, something that was reported very unpopular with the people of the region. [Not to mention a seriously stupid act as it greatly strengthened a Scotland that continued to be a major threat to peace in the borders]. I can see a more militant line being taken with Scotland and Wales. Harold, as Edward's leading general masterminded a campaign against Wales to end a particlarly persistent period of raiding only a couple of years before Hastings for instance. As such I would see them as the main concerns of the English monarchy not Ireland, at least for the next century or two.

Ireland might be divided but it might also develop a clearer, stronger leadership over time and form a persistent state. Also as said there were trading links with Ireland.

If the Normans were defeated at Hastings but reformed to the degree that they were able to lauch a major invasion of Ireland and at the same time whoever their leader was maintained a claim to the English throne I think it very likely that a powerful military leader like Harold would seek to prevent them establish such a dangerous potential base. [Although since neither nation were particular naval powers at the time it would be very risky for the Normans to try and invade Ireland from Normandy!]

Steve
 
Of course if the Norman Invasion fails, there are no English refugees who leave England to join the Varangian guard. Those folks in this TL stay in England and continue to rule it.

KEVP
 
Failed Conquest...

I'm also of the view that a vengeful Harold Godwinson would have seen Normandy as "his" since William's invasion had failed but it wouldn't have been possible to launch an invasion or raid until the summer of 1067 at the very earliest.

I also recall that a couple of Harold's relatives were kept as hostages by the Normans.

Other thought - William's widow, Natilda, was the sister of the Count of Flanders. I wonder if an overt move by the French king into Normandy might provoke a response from Flanders which through wool imports from England was a wealthy province. It's often forgotten that in 1066 England was arguably the richest country in western Europe. English silver was widely desired and was still being used to pay off the Danes.
 
MC

In the longer term possibly. However don't forget that after Alfred's successor conquered the Danelaw they were mainly concerned with good relations with Scotland and Wales and stopping those peoples [as often not coherent states] from raiding the English borders. According to some sources one of them even gave Lothian to Scotland in return for the Scottish monarchy recognising his overlordship, something that was reported very unpopular with the people of the region. [Not to mention a seriously stupid act as it greatly strengthened a Scotland that continued to be a major threat to peace in the borders]. I can see a more militant line being taken with Scotland and Wales. Harold, as Edward's leading general masterminded a campaign against Wales to end a particlarly persistent period of raiding only a couple of years before Hastings for instance. As such I would see them as the main concerns of the English monarchy not Ireland, at least for the next century or two.

Ireland might be divided but it might also develop a clearer, stronger leadership over time and form a persistent state. Also as said there were trading links with Ireland.

Ireland didn't unify in OTL, even with invasions of Anglo-Norman forces. I don't see any major ripples that could serve up a unified Ireland in this ATL.

If the Normans were defeated at Hastings but reformed to the degree that they were able to lauch a major invasion of Ireland and at the same time whoever their leader was maintained a claim to the English throne I think it very likely that a powerful military leader like Harold would seek to prevent them establish such a dangerous potential base. [Although since neither nation were particular naval powers at the time it would be very risky for the Normans to try and invade Ireland from Normandy!]

The Normans would invade Ireland because . . . I can't think of a good reason. OTL Ireland was invaded by Anglo-Normans because it was available real estate that was easy to get to from England. I think that if Normans are looking for an avenue of expansion Naples/Sicily or the Spanish Marches are going to be a lot richer of a prize. Or one could stay at home and assist the Norman Duke in either attempt #2 at England or an attempt on the French throne. Actually- the French throne was still elective in this period, so the Norman Duke might not even need to have a royal marriage, just enough money and troops to convince the other electors that the Capets needed to be set aside.
 
Ireland didn't unify in OTL, even with invasions of Anglo-Norman forces. I don't see any major ripples that could serve up a unified Ireland in this ATL.



Ireland did have a High King, though. At least in name it was united, even though said High King had almost no power in regards to the actual kingdoms in Ireland only in defense of all of them. However, it is possible that some High King in this ATL, possibly with English backing, could begin expanding his powers and if his subjects rebel, we get an Irish civil war that could unite the island as one country and give the High King true power over all of them(e.g. the power of the US federal gov't after the ACW). Heh, this ATL might have the Irish and English as the closest of friends and allies:cool:.
 
Ireland did have a High King, though. At least in name it was united, even though said High King had almost no power in regards to the actual kingdoms in Ireland only in defense of all of them. However, it is possible that some High King in this ATL, possibly with English backing, could begin expanding his powers and if his subjects rebel, we get an Irish civil war that could unite the island as one country and give the High King true power over all of them(e.g. the power of the US federal gov't after the ACW). Heh, this ATL might have the Irish and English as the closest of friends and allies:cool:.

A petty Irish king with delusions of grandeur bringing in the English in order to help him out with his neighbors is exactly what led to the English conquest of Ireland. He might win a war against his rivals, but the English troops that the English King stick around, and now the petty king finds himself swearing allegiance to the English King, with the English troops' commander advising him.
 
England was already shifting towards France (or at least towards Normandy) beginning around 1000 AD. This would remain a factor even if William were to die.

I don't think that they would for several reasons.
First, his heirs would be having a slugfest to see who gets control of Normandy (bets are on Rufus over Robert - Robert seems too laid-back to win and Rufus was a real sh!t).

His heirs were at most teenagers, around fifteen years old (Robert Curthose). Somehow I can't see them fighting a large-scale war against each other at that young of an age.
 
His heirs were at most teenagers, around fifteen years old (Robert Curthose). Somehow I can't see them fighting a large-scale war against each other at that young of an age.
Well, if the heirs aren't of age you could just as easily get a nasty civil war over the regency and/or various blocs or nobles who support one or the other and largely drive the war.
 
Top