What would've happened if the Normans lost at the battle of Hastings?

[Independent voter]

So an article popped up in my news feed that supposedly answered this question but the article is behind a paywall. I don't know a lot about the issue so you can school me if you want.

1. Read somewhere that 73% of England is owned by people of Norman ancestry.

2. England might've stayed out of the 100 years war cause French ties to France likely started that war. I think some of the Normans had large land holdings in France, at least by marriage.

3. The 100 years war helped out the lower classes in England since they participated in the war, some of them were elevated to royalty.

4. I don't know if the Norman brought anything cultural to England, except for fortresses.

[Wyrt]

Those are my ancestors.

4. I don't know if the Norman brought anything cultural to England, except for fortresses.

English shares about 30% of it's vocabulary with French thanks primarily to the Normans.

[Cerilis]

Anglo-saxon England would have probably been conquered by someone else, I guess?

- - - Updated - - -

Those are my ancestors.



English shares about 30% of it's vocabulary with French thanks primarily to the Normans.

They are kinda also my ancestors, even though I'm not English.

[Macaquerie]

It wouldn't have made much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. The Anglo-Saxons were Germanic tribesmen who were influenced by Christianity and the cultural dominance of France, and eventually settled down and developed a more urban and genteel civilization. The Normans were Germanic tribesmen who were influenced by Christianity and the cultural dominance of France, and eventually settled down and developed a more urban and genteel civilization. A few generations after the conquest you would've been hard pressed to tell the two apart, especially since many enterprising Saxons would've managed to scheme their way back into the upper echelons of society, while the more doltish members of the Norman elite would've fallen from favor and been absorbed into the greater mass of peasantry.

[Wyrt]

They are kinda also my ancestors, even though I'm not English.

My ancestors moved to Ireland at some point because who wants to be English?

[Jakins]

4. I don't know if the Norman brought anything cultural to England, except for fortresses.

English architecture as a whole is what the Normans brought, especially the amazing cathedrals. They brought castles, wine, language and were even one of the first, if not the first, to establish Lord-ships.

I guess if they lost you wouldn't really have many of these things in England.

[Netherspark]

Much of original english culture and language was wiped out by the invading Normans, so it's rather hard to know. Norman culture was essentially enforced by law.

The funny thing is, most of what we consider to be "English" names are actually Norman names. Prior to that, and if the conquest had failed we'd all be called things like Aethelwulf and Barstan and Albrecht, which had become largely outlawed under Norman rule.

[Breccia]

It's been a while since I studied this fight, but wasn't the Battle of Hastings summed up by "if you don't have cavalry and don't have archers, don't leave your fortified uphill position to chase your enemy into the woods"? I mean, with tactics like that, even if they had somehow won, the rest of the war would not have gone King Harold's way anyhow. I mean, he was already losing ground in other parts of the country. Hastings is just where he lost the last time, by virtue of dying.

[Macaquerie]

I will say, the Normans as a people are just fascinating. They took that Viking fighting spirit and added horses and armor to make an unbeatable force on the battlefield, and they combined that with a deft grasp of political intrigues to amass more and more territory. And they weren't shy about adopting the culture and customs of their subject peoples, and really seemed to care about ruling their kingdoms properly and developing them into prosperous and functional societies, rather than just lording over the peasants from on high.

[Flarelaine]

Anglo-saxon England would have probably been conquered by someone else, I guess?

Anglo-Saxon England would have held on just fine. The Battle of Hastings was a very close call and - considering King Harold had to deal with two invasions at the same time - does not reflect the relative strength of the participants. Even with the defeat, Harold might have been able to rally another army had he not died along with both brothers in the battle.

Beyond that? Hard to say. Before that time, England's continental affairs were with Scandinavia. After the battle the focus switched to France. How exactly things would have gone can only be speculated. I think it's a good bet though that without French aristocrats holding England France could have gotten united and centralized a lot sooner, maybe centuries earlier, and could have become even more of a bully to everyone around. Maybe even enough so that we would be arguing about in French.

- - - Updated - - -

It's been a while since I studied this fight, but wasn't the Battle of Hastings summed up by "if you don't have cavalry and don't have archers, don't leave your fortified uphill position to chase your enemy into the woods"? I mean, with tactics like that, even if they had somehow won, the rest of the war would not have gone King Harold's way anyhow. I mean, he was already losing ground in other parts of the country. Hastings is just where he lost the last time, by virtue of dying.

Harold would have had an immense material advantage over William on account of fighting on his own soil and not overseas. The shield wall was holding even against cavalry until they gave chase, just like Charles Martel defeated the Umayyad army three centuries before simply by standing still.

[Breccia]

The shield wall was holding even against cavalry until they gave chase, just like Charles Martel defeated the Umayyad army three centuries before simply by standing still.

Right, but the order was given to break it. That's just poor battle planning. Especially with tired, demotivated, outgunned forces.

Anyhow I'm not convinced William the Conquerer losing at Hastings would have stopped him for long.

[Cerilis]

Anglo-Saxon England would have held on just fine. The Battle of Hastings was a very close call and - considering King Harold had to deal with two invasions at the same time - does not reflect the relative strength of the participants. Even with the defeat, Harold might have been able to rally another army had he not died along with both brothers in the battle.

Beyond that? Hard to say. Before that time, England's continental affairs were with Scandinavia. After the battle the focus switched to France. How exactly things would have gone can only be speculated. I think it's a good bet though that without French aristocrats holding England France could have gotten united and centralized a lot sooner, maybe centuries earlier, and could have become even more of a bully to everyone around. Maybe even enough so that we would be arguing about in French.

My point, another Scandinavian incursion (like there were before) or especially an invasion by an united France might have conquered them. The Anglo-saxons as a whole have not been overly resistant to invasions even before Hastings (though Scandinavian conquerors never managed to hold out for long).

[Flarelaine]

Right, but the order was given to break it. That's just poor battle planning. Especially with tired, demotivated, outgunned forces.

Anyhow I'm not convinced William the Conquerer losing at Hastings would have stopped him for long.

We do not know if the order was given. They could have given chase after the Normans seemingly started fleeing. And that part is being debated as well - it could have been a real break that was somehow contained by the duke or it could have been a ruse.

Merely losing the battle would not have stopped William - he was not that sort - but he could have fallen as well. He could have gotten captured. Or he could have simply lost enough men to bench him for some time while England would also have been rebuilding.

- - - Updated - - -

My point, another Scandinavian incursion (like there were before) or especially an invasion by an united France might have conquered them. The Anglo-saxons as a whole have not been overly resistant to invasions even before Hastings (though Scandinavian conquerors never managed to hold out for long).

They could have recovered from Scandinavian incursions, just like before. They were noticeably more populous and prosperous at the time and honestly, it took Ethelred the Unready to fall to the Danes the previous time.

A successful invasion by a united France, now... that is a very likely long-term outcome.

[shadowmouse]

I don't know if the Norman brought anything cultural to England, except for fortresses.

Look at the origins of common law.