Would an Anglosaxon victory at Hastings have meant a less imperialist England? My impression is that many authors are of the opinion that the wars between England and its neighbours on the British isles would have been less likely to happen if the Normans had not conquered England. They would also not have had the same interests in France. These authors point out that pre-conquest England was not so involved in wars with its neighbours.
Did the Norman victory at Hastings lead to a more imperialist England?
- Thread starter Eivind
- Start date
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
It meant that the King of England had a claim over French possessions, and thus they were more likely to be embroiled in the continent. An Anglo Saxon England would probably be even more vigorous again Scotland and Wales
The wars between neighbors would have taken place sooner or later. Interests in France would likely have been limited unless the monarch inherited a duchy in France
On one hand, to broadly presume that a Normanless England is a net positive in all things (to include being less hostile/aggressive to its neighbors) is fallacious and fraught with hyperbolic utopianism that has no place anywhere...and I say that as a general Norman naysayer myself. A country in that timeframe with any pretense to influence would be one prone to warfare in some shape, and I don't see that not holding true with the Celtic lands in the British Isles, with or without the Normans. All it could take is one king with a particular axe to grind against Pick A Celtic Country and decide they've had enough (looking at you, Alba).
HOWEVER, it's equally important to keep in mind that there exists no well-documented case of hostile aggression on any large scale by the Anglo-Saxons (pre or post unification of England) against either Ireland or "Scotland" (insofar as Scotland wasn't really around in the form we know it), and that even Anglo-Irish/Scottish warfare post-1066 was intermittent until Henry VIII's rule in the 16th Century, with the Statutes of Kilkenny not coming about until three centuries post-Conquest*...that's a long time and several dynasties removed from the Old English period. Certainly too far to accurately or fairly 'pre-date' later English oppression against Gaelic peoples rearward in time to the AS period.
Even Anglo-Welsh relations don't really prove anything, as "Wales" wasn't a unified polity pre-1066 but a collection of kingdoms, generally under an over-kingdom like Gwynedd or Powys, that had as much of a tradition of allying with Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as fighting them (shoddy/politically motivated historiography be-damned), especially against the pagan Northmen. That combined with archeological evidence failing to bear out claims of widespread massacres of Britons during the settlement period (and a common use by Anglo-Saxon kings of rather Brythonic names) seems to undermine allegations that the English wiped out native Celts in lands they came to inhabit.
*Fans of historical determinism like to trot this little gem out, but it's worth remembering that Kilkenny was a failure, and Lionel Duke of Clarence ended up taking his ball and going home rather than pushing home any effort to quash Gaelic influence/culture. Meanwhile, Ireland stayed just as Gaelic as before for the next two hundred-odd years.
HOWEVER, it's equally important to keep in mind that there exists no well-documented case of hostile aggression on any large scale by the Anglo-Saxons (pre or post unification of England) against either Ireland or "Scotland" (insofar as Scotland wasn't really around in the form we know it), and that even Anglo-Irish/Scottish warfare post-1066 was intermittent until Henry VIII's rule in the 16th Century, with the Statutes of Kilkenny not coming about until three centuries post-Conquest*...that's a long time and several dynasties removed from the Old English period. Certainly too far to accurately or fairly 'pre-date' later English oppression against Gaelic peoples rearward in time to the AS period.
Even Anglo-Welsh relations don't really prove anything, as "Wales" wasn't a unified polity pre-1066 but a collection of kingdoms, generally under an over-kingdom like Gwynedd or Powys, that had as much of a tradition of allying with Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as fighting them (shoddy/politically motivated historiography be-damned), especially against the pagan Northmen. That combined with archeological evidence failing to bear out claims of widespread massacres of Britons during the settlement period (and a common use by Anglo-Saxon kings of rather Brythonic names) seems to undermine allegations that the English wiped out native Celts in lands they came to inhabit.
*Fans of historical determinism like to trot this little gem out, but it's worth remembering that Kilkenny was a failure, and Lionel Duke of Clarence ended up taking his ball and going home rather than pushing home any effort to quash Gaelic influence/culture. Meanwhile, Ireland stayed just as Gaelic as before for the next two hundred-odd years.
Last edited:
I largely agree with this. And Lionel wasn't duke of Antwerp,he was Duke of Clarence and was born in Antwerp. Assuming we are talking about the same Lionel
You're correct, he was the Duke of Clarence but a born Fleming, my mistake.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
Basically, A-S England was increasingly centralised and wealthy. Scotland and Wales didn't really exist, they were collections of fiefdoms and micro kingdoms. An A-S England that has crushed the Norse and Norman claimants can begin focussing on controlling/meddling in its neighbours. Rather than having a decisive military technological edge, they have more wealth and numbers and may well use them over centuries to add 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' fiefdoms to England and/or gain overlordship over their neighbours. In time they'd solidify this, if there's less continental drain on their resources.
The other question is cultural. Without a Norman elite and French influenced language making them focus on France, do they continue to look at Germany and Scandinavia, maybe with France solely as a trading avenue or does the latters proximity and wealth mean they inevitably gravitate there?
The other question is cultural. Without a Norman elite and French influenced language making them focus on France, do they continue to look at Germany and Scandinavia, maybe with France solely as a trading avenue or does the latters proximity and wealth mean they inevitably gravitate there?
I think the AS England would be more likely to consolidate Wales in the first instance. Harold had already fought the Welsh, and his new wife, Edith of Mercia, was previously married to Gruffudd. As stated above, Wales was still a series of small kingdoms warring amongst themselves at this point, and such conquest is likely to happen at some point in the following 50 years.
Scotland is more interesting. It is, at this point a distinct kingdom, albeit with borders that are quite fluid with England. Lothian had been English in living memory. Margaret of Wessex may yet end up marrying Malcolm despite not needing refuge from the Conqueror. If so, it is absolutely possible for there to be a personal union of crowns at some point much sooner than in OTL.
In terms of Ireland, it is more likely for Harold and his sons to have England help Leinster beat other factions for the High Kingship.
Scotland is more interesting. It is, at this point a distinct kingdom, albeit with borders that are quite fluid with England. Lothian had been English in living memory. Margaret of Wessex may yet end up marrying Malcolm despite not needing refuge from the Conqueror. If so, it is absolutely possible for there to be a personal union of crowns at some point much sooner than in OTL.
In terms of Ireland, it is more likely for Harold and his sons to have England help Leinster beat other factions for the High Kingship.
We should note that the Papacy kept good relations and contact with the English kingdom prior to William the Bastard's assumption of kingship in the isles. The Papacy maintained connection to the English kingdom through its extensive bureaucracy in the Church despite the relatively irrelevant nature of English kingship. Papal policy hinged primarily upon the Frankish world, the Empire, France and its nearby states. England however occupied a rare role as part of this web of Papal connections outside of the Frankish network that made up Medieval Christendom. If the English were not brought into closer relation with the Frankish world to its south as was otl, the Papacy may treat them a bit differently, permitting them more power over the local church, similar to how the Papacy treated otl Hungary and Norway (Innocent III ruled that the Norwegian kings were not his vassals, but that he still had the right to approve appointments for bishop positions.
Papal policy against England was assisted so greatly due to the fact that William the Bastard requested the crown of England from the Papacy... Likewise, the Papacy was able to utilize the Pippinid line of argument against English kings, disarming them legally and methodologically.
Papal policy against England was assisted so greatly due to the fact that William the Bastard requested the crown of England from the Papacy... Likewise, the Papacy was able to utilize the Pippinid line of argument against English kings, disarming them legally and methodologically.
Last edited:
The Normans directed English areas of interest south and away from the North Sea.
With no Normans and Scandinavian power appearing from Ireland to Sweden then a variety of butterflies could end up with a single northern empire. Already we have seen brief moments when England, Denmark and Norway shared the same Head of State. If that stabilised it could draw in Scotland (see James VI IOTL) and Ireland was already heavily Norwegian. Albeit this conflates several centuries but illustrates some of the influences that might play a part in a union of Ireland. Wales, England, Scotland, Norway and Denmark. Possibly Sweden which would draw the union into the Baltic with assorted potential further butterflies. Less imperialist and more inclusive. Perhaps the Papacy would find some form of 'super' Archbishopric for the Union with national Archbishoprics remaining in place and local power which would add to the strength of a union. England is the wealthiest and most populous nation in the union and York would suit the union in the notable absence of Doggerland...... However, there have been several threads on the subject of a North Sea empire.
With no Normans and Scandinavian power appearing from Ireland to Sweden then a variety of butterflies could end up with a single northern empire. Already we have seen brief moments when England, Denmark and Norway shared the same Head of State. If that stabilised it could draw in Scotland (see James VI IOTL) and Ireland was already heavily Norwegian. Albeit this conflates several centuries but illustrates some of the influences that might play a part in a union of Ireland. Wales, England, Scotland, Norway and Denmark. Possibly Sweden which would draw the union into the Baltic with assorted potential further butterflies. Less imperialist and more inclusive. Perhaps the Papacy would find some form of 'super' Archbishopric for the Union with national Archbishoprics remaining in place and local power which would add to the strength of a union. England is the wealthiest and most populous nation in the union and York would suit the union in the notable absence of Doggerland...... However, there have been several threads on the subject of a North Sea empire.
Hmmm, how did the Anglo-Saxons take over Britannia again? I don't think it was by invitation.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
A fair while before though! The main A-S settlements/invasion were over by mid 600s, as far removed from 1066 as we are from the death of Elizabeth I.
The Danes weren't invited, and the Danelaw was two-thirds of the country. Would a united Denmark and England be less pushy and imperialist than a united Normandy and England? Pushy in different directions. Would England on its own be able to hold off Normandy or Denmark or any other neighbour who felt like invading?
I don't necessarily think so. As far as Scotland and Wales are concerned, the Anglo Saxons would definitely maintain a degree of supremacy over them. This could possibly include martial suppression. Ireland might be left alone - the Anglo Saxons never seemed to want to try and claim overlordship there, but then again neither did Henry II...
Jonathan1997
Banned
Anglo-Saxon kings did have the Prince's of Wales and Scotland kings homage because King athelstan the First king of the English defeated a coalition against the creation of England. So English kings did have a claim to Scotland and England. I would think an England ruled by the English would focus on conquering isles of Britain. I also Edward the First of England concord Wales because the Welsh Prince's owed his father Henry iii of England homage. I can also state the Pope gave England monarchs the right to rule Ireland starting with Henry ii of England.
I think rather than Ireland or complete and total conquest of the tippety top of Scotland and the absolute entirety of Wales, a no Norman England is possibly a lot more likely to focus on the low countries and expanding a sphere of influence there. Perhaps as well an atl Richard or Cornwall would be more successful in being an English claimant to the Holy Roman Empire?
There will likely be a different tack on Ireland, since TTL there are no Norman vassals to the English king getting powerful fighting for the Irish High King and being able to leverage that back in England.