JohnnyH

What for the future indeed?

If we allow for an Anglo-Saxon victory at Hastings then its impact would have probably stretched far and wide: the impact probably felt far more severly in northern France and the Low Countries.

If we allow for Harold taking William's place as victor then perhaps we could assume that William would have met Harold's fate, and died on the field. Just as the "flower of English nobility" was lost at Hastings then we can allow that the Norman-Franco-Breton(plus other allies) invasion force would have been equally decimated. It is possible that William's army may not have suffered the catastrophic collapse that befell the invasion of Tostig and Harald Hardrada, but let's assume it was handled more than a little roughly.

What next? If William had died, then a leaderless, 'exposed' Normandy would possibly have descended into the sort of civil strife that marred his own childhood. The young French king was still in his minority: his regent was Baldwin V of Flanders, a man with close links to both William and the house of Godwine. And what of Eustace of Boulogne, apparently wounded at Hastings, if we assume that he too may have died, then his territories would have been vulnerable to his rival and nominal overlord, Baldwin. Just as William moved swiftly to secure the Channel ports after Hastings (Ann Williams speculates that this may have been a preventative measure against Flanders), then would Baldwin have moved into Eustace's territory to secure the vital ports of the Boulannais count? If not, then they would have presented a tempting strategic target to Harold the following spring.

If we allow Harold the reign of two decades which was William's reward for his victory then what would England's position have been? A victory at Hastings would have secured Harold's postion as victorious king(over the Welsh in 1063 and spectacularly both Hardrada/William in 1066!) and thus 'national hero'.

The Norman panegyrist, William of Poitiers, even acknowledged that Harold was chosen by popular consent (the English nobles). A victory over the Normans following on the heels of his his annhilation of the northern invasion would have given the Harold an indomitable reputation and a 'mandate' to rule. If we assume that his brothers gyrth and Leofwine also survived Hastings then Harold would have been in a most powerful position; his young brothers-in-law Morcar and Edwin were secure in the earldoms, their sister Harold's queen gave birth either shortly before or just after Hastings.

Harold's own actions had prevented civil war during the northern rebellion to unseat Tostig. Harold and his family had long and friendly relations with the Irish of Leinster, the Welsh had learned the hard way of the qualities of Harold, and Tostig's old ally, Malcolm of Scotland would have been somewhat wary of challenging such a secure English king. The Norwegian threat had been crushed for a generation, although Harold's magnanimity towards the vanquished Norwegians may have led to better relations; Harold's son Harold was welcomed to Norway after 1066, apparently because his father had allowed Norwegian survivors of Stamford Bridge to leave unmolested.

The only other major player left on the stage was Sweyn of Denmark, Harold's cousin. Sweyn's interest may have turned towards conquering Norway, it is unlikely that the Danes would have been able to challenge a 'united' England under a such formidable king, and Hardrada rated that Dane as not battle-worthy! The Danish incursions of 1069-70 were driven out by William despite the fact that he was not secure as king and that the Danes may have had popular support in the north. Harold would have kept a wary eye on the north, but he was not some hairy northern hero in the style of Beowulf. Harold had, apparently, studied the ways of the coninental princes, he had travelled widely on the continent, there is no record of any visits to Scandinavia. Harold had travelled to and through the Empire and Rome, English ties with the continent, particularly Flanders were as old as any ties to Scandinavia. It is possible that Harold would have interfered in the politics of France, simply to keep it unstable; possibly even trying to gain possesison of strategic ports by treaty or force. Baldwin V died in 1067, so the whole situation in northern France would have been even more unstable, thus allowing for a strong England to interfere to its heart's content! Even Ethelred II had sanctioned attacks upon the Normandy coast in the early 1000's.

England would have continued to look to the continent as it had long been doing, and the links with Scandinavia would have continued. It is quite possible that a new 'William' would have emerged from the turmoil of post-Hastings northern France or perhaps the young French king would have brought Normandy to heel, it is possible that an cross Channel invasion would have been launched at some later stage.

But a victory for Harold at Hastings would have strengthened his position and, allowing for a 'united' England and lack of powerful immediate enemies, then Harold would have become one of the most powerful men of the age(like Athelstan or Charlemagne?).
People would have ended up writing romances about the heroic young Norman duke who came to liberate England from tyranny, but died in the prime of his life(well, actually his late thirties/early forties!), rather than the unnassailable old English patriarch who died late in his dominant reign?

CelticBard

The Normans were an outward looking people, while the Anglo-Saxon regime had been very inward looking. Had William not taken the throne in 1066, then England would be a completely different nation, with a much less significant role in world history. Or else another Norman knight would have invaded after 1066.

Under the Norman kings Ireland was taken and under their descendents Scotland was briefly held, while had it been a Saxon king, he would most likely have been annexing thegnships after fighting wars against a brother or cousin.

The difference in Norman and Saxon culture is the biggest thing in this issue. The Saxons based war around heavy infantry, while the Normans based war around heavy cavalry. The Saxons (nobility) elected their kings, while it was hereditary for the Normans.

JohnnyH

Hi Celticbard

If William had not invaded, do you think that Count Eustace II of Bolougne(with various blood of European royalty in his veins & King Edward the Confessor's son-inlaw), or King Philip of France would have tried?

If the 1066 invasion had been defeated by a [then] all-powerful King Harold, feared as much as respected(ala Charlemagne or Athelstan), would the Bolougnnais, French and surviving Norman nobles have backed such an enterprise- the Norman nobility was jittery even when the forceful & persuasive William presented them with the idea!

I think that, as you say, a different, but no less efficient England would have evolved(A/Saxon England had a v.wealthy, successful and complex economy with vast experience of tax assessment and collection and a high-quality coinage)- maybe Scandinavian looking as opposed to the continent.

Maybe there would have been a succession of v.strong English kings(Harold's sons), dotted with weak ones every so often (the Alfreds, Edward the Elder's, Athelstan's and sadly the Ethelred's?)

CelticBard

See I just think it's more about the Saxon inward mentality v. the Norman outward mentality. England developed due to it's imperialistic needs and desires, which come from the Norman mentality.

JohnnyH

I think England would still have been a v.wealthy and militarily powerful nation, as it was before 1066 anyway, just less global than an Anglo-Norman and subsequently medaeval nation, which had continental blood-ties(ie. Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, etc)

Solkovskyj

It goes without saying, that the English language as we know it would not exist. Also, the Celtic nations would have grown more without the oppression they suffered under the Normans. It is also probable that an "Act of Union" would never have existed.

And, if France did lie in turmoil as previously suggested, then perhaps the historical African kingdoms such as Benin would have grown strong, and the European empires and colonies never existed. The slave trade as we now know it may not have existed, as would the U.S.A, Canada and the Church of England (although, as with most Germanic states, England would probably have adopted Protestantism at some point).

It is fair to say that a lot of states worldwide would have grown strong, and who knows the effects that would have had on the world? Perhaps it would be the Americans who discovered Europe, and not the other way around!

Nick

Alternatively, the defeated William may be viewed today in a similar way to Hardraada. If Harold survived into old age he would be remembered as another Alfred the Great.

Black Dog

Anglo-Saxon England already had strong links (trading and political) with much of the Low Countries, including the Frankish kings. However, it is true to say that they were more interested in their ancient homeland and what would become Scandinavia. However, it's not like Normandy and the rest of France just appeared: Ethelred's children fled to Normandy: the Confessor was brought up there, and when he returned, he bought Normans with him: their influence was often resented, but their influence powerful. I agree that Anglo-Saxon England was more Scandinavia looking than Contintental, but the logical thing for Harold to do, post 1066, would be to invade Normandy. Given the chaotic state of the Duchy before William (and, indeed, immediately after his REAL death, not our hypothetical one), Normandy could have been swallowed piecemeal. This would logically force Anglo-Saxon England to look more to the continent, and presumably, Harold would have to accept the king of France as his overlord, as William did: a war with France was a different matter.

William did not scrap Anglo-Saxon law. He recognised that Normandy was backward in that respect, and so Anglo-Law and custom was merely tweaked to suit Norman attitudes. The "Shire" system remained: the system of Wergild remained, although skewed to place greater value on Norman blood. It is doubtful that if England did not have such an efficient (relatively) administration, then Doomsday could never have been compiled. William knew a good thing when he saw it.

The Norman conquest was merely a change of ruling class, and although it had very far reaching implications for our language and military theories, it was in many ways a backwards step. The late Anglo-Saxon period was characterised by a weak monarchy- "too much democracy for the Earls etc": Harold tried to put an end to that, although Tostig was ample proof that the problem did not go away completely. William managed to solve this problem by ensuring that land was not inherited: he was the only medieval monarch to rule both church and state, and the ability to give/take land was a powerful constraint on his barons. What effect Harold not being able to do this may have had is possibly the most significant aspect of our hypothetical victory.

Agreed, Nick: Harold is now used as a bloody advert for car insurance, whilst if he had won, he would be remembered as the "Man who saved England TWICE in one year".

An excellent question.

motiv-8

Not so. The conquest also appears to have had a drastic effect on the Church in England, in that it was forcibly made Catholic rather than its traditional Orthodoxy.

Solkovskyj

What, like Byzantine/Kyjivan Orthodoxy? Or is that orthodoxy with a small /o/?