Has anybody ever wondered

[Heathen Storm]

What the world would be like if the Normans hadn't won at the Battle of Hastings? Apparently, historians say that the only reason the Normans won that day is because Harold and all the other commanders died quite early in the fight. According to wikipedia (I know not to trust it most of the time but this seems quite solid):

The Battle of Hastings, in 1066, demonstrates some interesting military tactics. At Hastings, the soldiers were organized in such a fashion that the best soldiers were in the front line, and the less adequate fighters in the following lines. They formed a tightly packed shield wall with a spear projecting from it. Protecting the areas behind and to the side were archers and slingers. The Bayeux tapistry also shows armoured Saxon warriors using the long handled Danish axe. Either they stood in front of the shield wall or the wall opened to let them through. Though this formation has been criticised it was highly effective. It provided reasonable cover from missile weapons and was capable of resisting cavalry. It also needs to be remembered that all the Saxons needed to do was to hold the position and the Normans would then be penned into a small area and with no way of feeding themselves or their horses would have had to retreat.
It was in fact rather effective at repelling the Norman Cavalry and it was only the death of Harold and his brothers probably at the beginning of the battle that caused the Saxon command system to ultimately fail and the battle to be lost.

I just wonder... what would it be like if it was still Anglo-Saxon England, instead of Norman England....
(I hope this is not too off topic, it is about TLK's time period Just curious on everybody's thoughts.)

[Warface93]

this is an interesting theory, a special science which bother with the question:what happend if......not?

i think, if the norman invasion has failed the anglo-saxons get modern through the middle age, just as well other nations

[Heathen Storm]

Well from what I can think of, the 100 years war wouldn't have happened (am i thinking of the right one?) as England wouldn't have had Normandy so there wouldn't have been any reason to try and take France from behind (lololol ).
But i'm sure the Danes and English would've had massive amounts of warfare due to the Danes' "claim" to the English throne.
It's just wierd cuz there was so much that might not have happened if the Normans hadn't taken over

[Peteriscoolz]

The world would be a diffrent place I mean I'm no big fan of england or the normans,but if they didnt conquer then the world would be like Backward.I mean England produced So many great minds and they al ldate back to the normans and the english throne I mean Norman>England>Britian>Uk I mean America wouldnt of been colonized by the english then and they would of been colonized by the French or spainish I mena could you imagine America being under french or Spanish control?

[Heathen Storm]

Oh my god..... We'd be FRENCH! (jokes)
Haha but really. It's quite strange to think about

[Constantine The Great]

Sacrebleu, ma belle! What if another country invaded England? What if French conquered the whole British Isle(s)? Methinks the most common language would be French.

[Heathen Storm]

Sacrebleu, ma belle! What if another country invaded England? What if French conquered the whole British Isle(s)? Methinks the most common language would be French.

Most likely. Even though I'd be a rebel and learn German
Although, Normans were pretty french.... they already spoke french. So you never know!

[Vasa121]

Well, at least the English language would sound much different, as it would have taken less influence from French and Latin (Latin became the language which the recorders used when writing state documents, before that, it was English). And so, England would perhaps have concentrated on conquering the British Isles, before trying to expand into France (or Scandinavia).

[Vasa121]

But I don't think they would let go of the chance to get land in America, as the news of the rich continent would be too tempting to resist

[MagUidir]

But I don't think they would let go of the chance to get land in America, as the news of the rich continent would be too tempting to resist

especially giving their saxon/viking heritage!

[Heathen Storm]

especially giving their saxon/viking heritage!

Oh yes!! i'm sure there would've been lots of norse influence

[Vasa121]

Right enough

[joey6131986]

well... anglo saxon had influence from germanic languages(angle and saxon i think), latin, and celtic but im not sure about that one. No others i can think of. There would be a lot less french influence on the language, so, unless another country invaded england and won, english would sound a lot more german. Maybe even no English empire, so no Gondy in india to boycott the british. , and no Nelson Mandela in Sth Africa. And some other people may have settled america instead, and no american revolution. Wow, so much could have changed, that's an interesting question.

[General_Meevious]

I think the best way to win would be not to be in Yorkshire fighting at Stamford Bridge so soon before the Norman invasion... though of course if Harold had waited in the south to face William, he would have been defeated by Harald the Conqueror. If this had occurred, there would be more feasting and raiding... it would be colder of course, but like the sturdy inhabitants of Hordaland, the people of Cornwall would persist (though in no great number, naturally).

[IrishBlood]

if the normans hadnt won, then things would have been a hell of a lot different.
Ireland and scotland wouldnt have been invaded for a start. When the normans invaded Ireland in 1169 (103 years after the battle of hastings) the Irish High King, (Rory O'Connor) had more or less united ireland under his rule, (he was only the second, and LAST man to do so). But as you can imagine this new kingship was shakey seeing as it was new, and when the normans came they pretty much ruined everything.
Historians have estimated that if ireland had between 20-40 years of unified rule under O'Connor and his succsessers (which it almost certainly would have had it not been for the norman invasion) then Ireland would have been turned into a united, centralised state, akin to that of france, or england, causing it to become a major player in the british isles.
Its not hard to imagine the kind of threat a unified ireland would have posed to saxon england. (had history been different they might be called the 'Irish Isles' now ).
And since saxon england had enough on its plate with the welsh and scotish, as well as sporatic danish aggression, it is extremly unlikely they would have ever attempted any form of invasion against ireland, so had it not been for the normans (damn them to hell), then Ireland would almost certainly have emerged, with time, into a powerful nation.

[Peteriscoolz]

Yes,If the normans had'nt of been convinced my Macmourrugh the king of Leinster then Ireland would hve been a major power even today.BTW Irish Blood very Good post!

[Heathen Storm]

Yes, Irish Blood, that was a very excellent post..... +rep for you!!! Your post is very well thought out.

[IrishBlood]

Yes,If the normans had'nt of been convinced my Macmourrugh the king of Leinster then Ireland would hve been a major power even today.BTW Irish Blood very Good post!

yeah he made a BIG mistake, and died a broken man, a puppet ruler of a kingdom overrun with normans, with virtually no real power.

Yes, Irish Blood, that was a very excellent post..... +rep for you!!! Your post is very well thought out.

ha, thanks guys, what can i say, im just big into my history

[IrishBlood]

i just thought i should revive this thread, theres so many potential what if's to be had! anyone agree?

[Heathen Storm]

i just thought i should revive this thread, theres so many potential what if's to be had! anyone agree?

AYE!

I think it's always interesting to wonder what-if, but this one is very special to me, because I am a very distant relations of the anglo-saxons, my family is from Saxony, so I always did love them....
Well, the main difference would be there would probably have been no 100 year war. The Anglo-Saxons really didn't have much drive to conquer overseas, so I don't think there would have been any attack of the French. Also, I believe they followed Celtic Christianity rather than Catholicism, so I don't forsee much zeal in the Crusades.