An article on the harrying of the north - post 1066 and all that......

[Patrick Waterson]

So all in all, assuming Harold had a reign of reasonable length and the Witan found a capable successor (Edgar Atheling would be well of age by then), we might see England expanding to acquire Wales and Scotland at least as dependencies, become involved in Norway and/or Denmark perhaps as an ally and conceivably as overlord, and tidying up Man while perhaps also becoming involved in Ireland.

Anglo-Saxon kings seem to have been less abrasive than Normans in their style of rule, so one might expect a softer approach with more indirect rule gradually shading into an overlordship and alliance of the rowed-by-seven-kings variety as opposed to a under-heels-of-marcher-lords approach.  This would make for slower progress in empire-building, but perhaps surer.

Medium-term, there is indeed the still-existing French Connection, with cousins here and there, so there might still be the potential for a Henry II-style marriage dowering England with a substantial French (and/or Flemish) inheritance.  Geopolitics has a tendency to intrude on history, and some form of continental entanglement may well have arisen, albeit - and this may be significant - without the feudal subordination which proved such a bone of contention and led to the Hundred Years War.  This is not to say wars would not have occurred, but one suspects they would have been conducted with less venom.  The Anglo-Saxon army would have been able to field good infantry but would need to pull its socks up quite drastically in the cavalry department.

Yes the Norman angle is interesting. I can imagine that they might have been re-absorbed into the Northern world, but there again, they'd actually expanded well into Italy before the conquest of England, and it might be that without England to distract them we'd have seen even more Normans heading south into Italy and Sicily.

Could well be: if Normandy managed to avoid being ruled by Philip I of France (or for that matter Robert Curthose), or for that matter even if it ended up as a French province, disappointed ambition would doubtless have collected around the opportunities presented by the Guiscard campaigns and the First Crusade.

And Alexius would have had to find someone other than Englishmen for his Varangian Guard.  This might provide another historical paradox: assuming he acquired mostly traditional Varangians, perhaps they would not have been so keen to pursue the Normans at Durazzo, conceivably handing Alexius victory in that battle.  If he could improve that into a comprehensive defeat of Guiscard as opposed to just wearing him down as per history, it might even have allowed him to get by without calling for the First Crusade ...

[Jim Webster]

So all in all, assuming Harold had a reign of reasonable length and the Witan found a capable successor (Edgar Atheling would be well of age by then),

Given Harold had two sons, Harold and Ulf by Edith who survived into adult hood, and at least six children by Edyth Swannesha who might not have been accepted as legitimate, why would Edgar Atheling even get a look in?

Jim

[Erpingham]

Given Harold had two sons, Harold and Ulf by Edith who survived into adult hood, and at least six children by Edyth Swannesha who might not have been accepted as legitimate, why would Edgar Atheling even get a look in?

Jim

We also have his brothers, who may not, in this alternative reality, died at Hastings.   The Godwinsons could have had the makings of a dynasty.

[Darklinger]

Harold was an immensely charismatic and gifted leader, as is obvious from his earlier campaigns in Wales, the events leading up to Hastings including the victory at Stamford bridge against the mighty Harald 'Hardradi', the marches up and down the country et al.... Yes, with his brothers alive as well as his progeny, I think a powerful dynasty would have been likely (although that may have been a good set up for internecine scrapping, after his eventual death, as well.)

The Scandinavian links were well established, but it is no wonder that that there was a lack of lustre in northern ambitions in these isles after the major defeat suffered, which would have been reinforced by the projected Godwinson dynasty.

The really significant effects that have not been suggested so far would have been in identity, language and culture. Also because of its great wealth, unplundered, this would have been a very different nation, and  I think it would have developed in its already very particular and independent strain of thought and creativity, without the impositions of early Feudalism and the horrible and extreme Cluniac strain of Christianity brought in by the Normans.

I know we are talking armies and territories here primarily, but all that is an outcome of thought, which is formed by language and identity and cultural bias. English (or Anglisch as it might have been) would have been more straightforward, but less idiosyncratic and flexible. This in itself would have changed everything in ways that can't really be guessed.

The unique strain of animistic art that had developed here from earliest times, through the Celts, survived the Romans and been richly developed by the Anglo-Saxons, would have continued in combination with a less harsh and combative Christianity. The thought of that survival is thrilling, and this more independent and unbrutalised society would have had a less utilitarian relationship with the environment. Think what this might have meant long term, for  industrialism and in relation to the British Empire! It might not have existed at all, and via that we might be free of all that post colonial ennui and guilt, as well as the mucked up and plasticised world of climate change and Nuclear threats..... this is from the point of view of someone who recognises that the endless desire for 'growth' and nationalised security has led us to the crisis point of having to find a way out of both.

So I am dreaming - but once again, let's not get too snagged on just our relationship with Europe.

[Imperial Dave]

taking the Crusade element a bit further......the Byzantine Empire might have survived longer too

[Patrick Waterson]

Given Harold had two sons, Harold and Ulf by Edith who survived into adult hood, and at least six children by Edyth Swannesha who might not have been accepted as legitimate, why would Edgar Atheling even get a look in?

And, as Anthony mentions, a pair of brothers.  Good point.  Realistically, we are probably looking at a Godwinson dynasty, as although Edgar Atheling had a better theoretical claim, unless something happened to take the Godwin heirs out of play he would probably have ended up on Crusade or being elected King of the Romans or something.

The really significant effects that have not been suggested so far would have been in identity, language and culture. Also because of its great wealth, unplundered, this would have been a very different nation, and  I think it would have developed in its already very particular and independent strain of thought and creativity, without the impositions of early Feudalism and the horrible and extreme Cluniac strain of Christianity brought in by the Normans.

The legal system, and the way it is run, would probably have been very different, too.

I know we are talking armies and territories here primarily, but all that is an outcome of thought, which is formed by language and identity and cultural bias. English (or Anglisch as it might have been) would have been more straightforward, but less idiosyncratic and flexible. This in itself would have changed everything in ways that can't really be guessed.

The unique strain of animistic art that had developed here from earliest times, through the Celts, survived the Romans and been richly developed by the Anglo-Saxons, would have continued in combination with a less harsh and combative Christianity. The thought of that survival is thrilling, and this more independent and unbrutalised society would have had a less utilitarian relationship with the environment. Think what this might have meant long term, for  industrialism and in relation to the British Empire! It might not have existed at all, and via that we might be free of all that post colonial ennui and guilt, as well as the mucked up and plasticised world of climate change and Nuclear threats..... this is from the point of view of someone who recognises that the endless desire for 'growth' and nationalised security has led us to the crisis point of having to find a way out of both.

I think the main impact of this would have been on relations with immediate neighbours: the Welsh, Scots and Irish; among other things, nobody would have felt a desire or need to carry a Papal banner into Ireland to 'convert' the inhabitants (and acquire slices of their land as a reward).  If such things as Henry the Navigator's trading voyages and Martin Luther's protest against Catholic corruption had gone ahead as historically, we would still have had highly competitive trading empires painting the world in various colours, which itself was a considerable improvement (as far as the locals were concerned) on the Spanish approach to expansion.  Britain had no particular monopoly on attitudes or resources, so I suspect our alternate present day might still have a broadly similar situation (too many people, too few resources, etc.).  That said, for the past couple of centuries the world has pretty much taken its cultural cues from Britain, so a less pecuniary and more holistic mentality would have had substantial influence - assuming Britain had become enough of a world power to wield such influence!

If we look at the various stages of English history up to about AD 1500, we might speculate about how an Anglo-Saxon kingdom would have handled each of them (1066-1100 should be free of major domestic upheavals, at least).  The big question mark is of course the Hundred Years War, but the Scandinavian connection brings in other aspects, e.g. relations with Denmark and Sweden and ultimately the Teutonic Order, Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy.

taking the Crusade element a bit further......the Byzantine Empire might have survived longer too

If England had avoided a massive mediaeval entanglement in France, might it have developed a relationship with the Empire via its Scandinavian connections?  Would this perhaps have allowed the Empire to, say, hire an effective English army instead of covetous Catalans in the early 1300s?  This might have significant implications for the existence of the Ottoman Empire.

[Imperial Dave]

Yes Patrick and maybe the disastrous 4th crusade would not have happened which significantly weakened the empire (Manzikert aside)

[aligern]

The Norman kings did not conquer Wales or Ireland.mThis was done by Norman nobles on a freelance basis and kings, fearful of the barons getting too big for their boots regularised relationships after the fact.the nature of Norman aggression into these areas was that barons would seize land, build a castle, sub infeudate knights abd then move the frontier forward. The Normans were land hungry in a way the English were not. I think that this carries over into tge attitudes of the English upper class unto today and is very likely behind the several Empires that England held. Simikar greed drove the Normans in Italy and the attacks on the Byzantine Empire and Palestine. There is a mechanism to this conquest which, without castles and the turbulent barons lijely would not gave happened. Without that particular social organopisation I doubt that England would have developed a longbow based army, or sought continental adventure.  Denmark and Sweden are complete backwaters after 1100, with virtually no history at all,monly local news so to speak and I rather think that a non Norman, non continental England would have been much the same. Without an avaricious nobility I doubt that there would have been an industrial revolution, more an evolution and the world map  would not have been painted red in the same way. Most lijely England would have colonised North America because the drive to outflank the Ottoman Empire would have been the same for Western Europe.

[Jim Webster]

Remember that six kings rowed the barge of King Edgar 1 on the river Dee as a sign of Homage. So Scotland, Strathclyde and Wales would doubtless have been regarded as legitimate parts of the Kingdom, from an English perspective 

[Mick Hession]

True Jim. As one of the six kings was Magnus of Man, "King of many islands", later English kings (or at least their propagandists) chose to interpret this submission as recognising their right to all islands in the Irish Sea, including Ireland.

Cheers
Mick

[Jim Webster]

True Jim. As one of the six kings was Magnus of Man, "King of many islands", later English kings (or at least their propagandists) chose to interpret this submission as recognising their right to all islands in the Irish Sea, including Ireland.

Cheers
Mick

an easy mistake to make 

[Andreas Johansson]

Denmark and Sweden are complete backwaters after 1100, with virtually no history at all,monly local news so to speak

Various Wends, Estonians, and Finns might disagree.

[Erpingham]

England may have gone into the Scandinavian political orbit but geographically, it isn't in Scandinavia.  Trading and political connections with France in particular would have kept the kingdom in touch with mainstream Europe in a much greater way.  These ties may have led to dynastic marriages, which led to contental territorial entanglements. 

As to the model of territorial ambition, we would be very much in the mindset of the Scandinavians, who were certainly not a bunch of mild-mannered stay-at-homes.  As Andreas says, they were busy heading Eastwards.  They were also very lively in the Irish sea.  So backwater status can't be taken for granted.

[Patrick Waterson]

Which brings us to military systems.

Without that particular social organisation I doubt that England would have developed a longbow based army, or sought continental adventure.

Well ... to cut a long story short, historically the longbow-based army derived from the use of Welsh archers and observations on their effectiveness plus the fact that the feudal system could not be called upon to supply troops for wars in France (the barons regarded the King's French possessions as his own, not the country's, and so felt no obligation to defend them).  Continental adventure would be an option once the home islands were deemed secure, but motive would be lacking unless there was a dynastic connection somewhere (given the arrangements as of AD 1066, this seems quite a likely state of affairs).  If and when our hypothetical Godwinson dynasty involved itself overseas, it would have found the fyrd inadequate to its needs and hence would have to create a more professional, or at least longer-serving, army.  Unless it wanted to be defeated on a regular basis (and if up against the Swedish leidang this would be a distinct possibility) it would need to reconfigure itself as a 'blades and bows' army, perhaps mainly huscarles and longbowmen with a small but increasing cavalry contingent.

If longbowmen impressed the Anglo-Normans they would presumably impress our hypothetical Anglo-Norwegians/Anglo-Godwinsons, and I would suggest that the inability of the fyrd to provide an army capable of serving overseas would have forced the creation of a tighter, leaner, more effective army that could.

The big question to my mind is the extent to which our alternate England would have been interested and involved in seaborne activity, especially exploration.  Any continued interaction with Scandinavia would probably have resulted in Norwegian and/or Danish captains prepared to undertake voyages to new lands on behalf of the King of England; whether the Crown would have shown any interest in following these up is another question.  If nothing else, monastic orders would probably have been interested in colonising the new lands (and occasionally being martyred by the locals) and this would have drawn a degree of trade and settlement with them.

Most likely England would have colonised North America ...

And conceivably somewhat earlier than historically, if there is any substance to the foregoing.  The basic pattern might have been similar: a combination of resource hunters and religious settlers, with fitful, gradual emergence of towns and very little if any intermarriage with the locals, but it may have led to a major foothold across the Atlantic well in advance of our notional alternate Columbus, who would have to discover something else.  How much of the national energy would have been absorbed by North America is another question: would these new lands with their strange new peoples be seen as just another place to put monasteries and trade for furs, or would they have been seen as a Manifest Destiny for the expansion of the Anglo-Norwegian people?

[aligern]

The Scandinavians not mild mannered stay at homes eh? After 1100 they are pretty well all sitting by log fires through their three month night and enjoying some hygge and the occasional sauna.
History in Mediaeval Europe happens in France  and Italy. Progress elsewhere depends upon your relationship to those centres of culture. England got a head start in this through its Norman connection. Take that away and the lijekihood is that England is relatively remote and not very influential. France is the centre of civilisation and  has four to five times England's potential. Tgere is a high likelihood that Sweyn of Denmark would have given the Godwinssons real problems through to 1085.  I lije Patrick's flights of fancy, but they are greatly dependent upon an English king arising who had a huge amount of initiative.nPerhaps one would have tried to conquer Scotland, though none had for 350 years. I cannot see an English king making headway in Europe, partly because they did  not have the bridgehead that the Angevins French lands provided and partly because the Anglo Saxons never bothered. Why did no Anglo Saxon king build a fleet, sail to Denmark and burn the Vikings homesteads (except for the Dane Canute, of course)  England was large, rich and certainly had ships.... Now as to longbows, there is considerable doubt that they are from a Welsh model. The Norman kings regularly use significant numbers of archers, they are unlike the Anglo Saxons in this.bThe poor old A/S can barely manage the odd sniper at Hastings and have no pressing need for archers against their normal enemies. There are later plenty of men with bows in England and it may well be these that form the longbow force in the 14th century, but one wonders whether , without the Anglo Norman background the English would have bothered with massed archers. Certainly, as I pointed out, they had 500 years to conquer Wales and did not. Whereas tge Nirmans started pushing the frontier withinn a few decades of the Conquest because they had a societal structure that was highly acquisitive.
Roy