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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

Or, as Wikipedia puts it:

"The period between 1100 and 1400 was characterised by internal power struggles and competition among the Nordic kingdoms. In the years 1150-1293 according to the legend of Eric IX and the Eric Chronicles and Swedish kings made first, second and third crusade to pagan Finland against Finns, Tavastians and Karelians and started conflicts with the Rus with who no longer had any connection with Sweden. The Swedish colonisation of the coastal areas of Finland started at the same time in 12th and 13th century. In 14th century Swedish colonisation of coastal areas of Finland began to be more organised and in the end of the century several of the coastal areas of Finland were inhabited mostly by Swedes."

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 likelihood 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.

But only when unified: one of the effects of Anglo-Norman existence was to spur the unification of France.  Left to itself, France would probably have remained fragmented and factionalised with an occasional strong king pulling everyone together for the odd short-term venture, not unlike Germany of the period.  And the more fragments one has, the more likely one or more of them will seek a dynastic connection with England, and hence provide some manner of continental entanglement, albeit not a direct challenge for the French crown.  It is probably realistic to expect a sustained Flanders connection which expands into a Burgundian one.

There is a high likelihood that Sweyn of Denmark would have given the Godwinssons real problems through to 1085.

He seemed to lose interest in England after AD 1069 (when he abandoned Edgar Atheling), although he tried again briefly before his death c.1074.  He was certainly prepared to dabble while Norman power remained unconsolidated; if he had tried conclusions with Harold, he would very likely have won himself six feet of English earth.

  I like Patrick's flights of fancy, but they are greatly dependent upon an English king arising who had a huge amount of initiative. Perhaps one would have tried to conquer Scotland, though none had for 350 years.

There had been an interim Viking problem.  With that removed, Scotland would probably soon have come within England's orbit, more along the lines of a dependent kindgom than an outright conquest, as Jim pointed out concerning Edgar being rowed by six kings as a sign of homage.  That said, Aethelstan did try the direct approach in AD 934, although there again the end result was Constantine's submission, not Aethelstan planting his own posterior on the Stone of Scone.

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.

Certainly true as of AD 1066; however a continental marriage would have given such a bridgehead, which would leave the king honour-bound to defend his dowry.  I think he would have.  Agreed that any continental aggrandisement would probably have been mainly by marriage and inheritance rather than direct conquest; in this regard, Aethelstan set something of a precedent in "a flurry of dynastic bridal activity unequalled again until Queen Victoria's time".

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....

Why indeed?  The Saxons seemed to have largely forgotten their maritime traditions, but Aethelstan did build a fleet for the conquest of Scotland, and the main limitation on using it against Denmark and Norway seems to have been its 40-day service.

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. The poor old A/S can barely manage the odd sniper at Hastings and have no pressing need for archers against their normal enemies.

But they can pick up an available weapons system, as did the Normans.  While the need against their standard opponents was indeed not pressing, new opponents would provide more of an impetus for change.

Out of interest, if English longbows were not Welsh-inspired, where did the idea/design come from?

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.

Referring again to Aethelstan, Wales already counted as 'conquered' in Anglo-Saxon terms: he took four Welsh kings (Hywel Dda of Deheubarth, Idwal Foel of Gwynedd, Morgan ap Owain of Gwent, and Tewdwr ap Griffri of Brycheiniog - I do love those names) with him on his AD 934 campaign in Scotland.  Harold Godwinson, while still a noble rather than a king, mounted an effective series of campaign in North Wales (AD 1062-3) leading to the death of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn.  Wales was by no means beyond Anglo-Saxon reach, and it took the Normans almost a couple of centuries to get to the point reached by Aethelstan, and another to get to the point reached by Harold.

I think Anglo-Saxon England and its kings were more dynamic than we give them credit for, and barring a run of Ethelreds and/or Edward the Confessor types would probably continue to be so.

[Imperial Dave]

what about the spectre of internal/dynastic strife. The North was a law unto itself, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Scandinavia were always looking for an opportunity. I am not entirely convinced that the Anglo-Saxon kingdom as an entity was bound to succeed if the Normans hadnt turned up.

[Erpingham]

Out of interest, if English longbows were not Welsh-inspired, where did the idea/design come from?

Probably the Vikings, who had six foot yew longbows.  But they are hardly relevant to a discuss of the development of an Anglo-Danish army...Oh, hang on ....

[Andreas Johansson]

The period between 1100 and 1400 was characterised by internal power struggles and competition among the Nordic kingdoms.

Much like the preceeding era, then.

Roy's judgment is particularly weird applied to Sweden: he apparently finds the incessant civil wars of the 11th century more dynamic than the intermittent civil wars with external expansion of the following period. Let's keep in mind that areas acquired were bigger than the British Isles.

[aligern]

There is a change in the Norse after the great days of going a Viking. Maybe its because the world toughens up and gets irganised to fight them, but we do not see the establishment of the Danelaw, Russia or  Normandy again. They move on to state organised invasions such as Sweyn , Canute and Hardrada. Of course I buy that the establishment of kingdoms and the nature of Scandinavian geography pitted kings against one another, but the original question was about England and 1066. IMO and wierd as it may seem I see the Scandinavian realms as essentially receiving Frankish cultural and military influence rather than exporting their own. Sure they Crusaded in the Baltic, but is it really an important area in the sense of a growing Europeanness which England joined in with post Conquest and would not have accessed if it had stayed Anglo Scandinavian.
As to the longbow, Of course the Welsh influence is important, but there are significant archer contingents, especially from the Danish heritage recruiting area of Yorkshire, that appear at The Standard and when the king finally gets around to requesting archers they appear everywhere quite rapidly. There is a plausible line for the Welsh origin, via fighting in Wales and Ireland and then Scotland but I wonder if it isn't just that bit too plausible and has been leapt upon by Nationalists to show that the English longbow is in effect Welsh. Its probably some sort of hybrid and the key is the sandwich of woods and mass deployment.
Please don't accuse me of national bias, as I have stated that the A/S state was actually rather sluggish, particularly in military matters.
Cheers
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

what about the spectre of internal/dynastic strife. The North was a law unto itself, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Scandinavia were always looking for an opportunity. I am not entirely convinced that the Anglo-Saxon kingdom as an entity was bound to succeed if the Normans hadnt turned up.

I wondered about that, and ended up thinking this would be largely a matter of the strength or weakness of the monarch.  The Anglo-Norman kingship was not entirely free of such phenomena, and these difficulties were still going strong well into Plantagenet times (albeit the Scandinavians had settled for fighting one another by then) and, Wales apart, were still troubling the Tudors (Pilgrimage of Grace and all that).  We can probably take them as constants which would have surfaced in periods of weakness, although if our putative Godwinson (or Godwinsson) dynasty is anything like Alfred's it will have achieved a great deal before the women of the court start stabbing heirs in the back.

All in all, the Anglo-Normans made a rather poor job of dealing the underlying problems, mainly suppressing rather than addressing.  The Anglo-Saxons would have faced the same problems, but a combination of (comparatively) mild treatment overall and effective campaigning against troublemakers would most probably have ameliorated local feelings and resulted in local princes more or less happily turning up as part of the army for campaigns.  As Nigel (Darklinger) in particular has pointed out, the Anglo-Saxons seem to have had a different ethos and approach to life than the Normans - not that they were incapable of playing rough, but that they did not seem to regard it as particularly necessary or even desirable.

As to the longbow, Of course the Welsh influence is important, but there are significant archer contingents, especially from the Danish heritage recruiting area of Yorkshire, that appear at The Standard and when the king finally gets around to requesting archers they appear everywhere quite rapidly. There is a plausible line for the Welsh origin, via fighting in Wales and Ireland and then Scotland but I wonder if it isn't just that bit too plausible and has been leapt upon by Nationalists to show that the English longbow is in effect Welsh. Its probably some sort of hybrid and the key is the sandwich of woods and mass deployment.

This thoughtfully provides two likely routes for longbow acquisition, so if and when our hypothetical  Anglo-Norwegian monarchy decided that massed longbow archery was a good idea (perhaps for much the same reasons as the Anglo-Normans) it should not be too hard to make it happen.

[Erpingham]

As to the longbow, Of course the Welsh influence is important, but there are significant archer contingents, especially from the Danish heritage recruiting area of Yorkshire, that appear at The Standard and when the king finally gets around to requesting archers they appear everywhere quite rapidly. There is a plausible line for the Welsh origin, via fighting in Wales and Ireland and then Scotland but I wonder if it isn't just that bit too plausible and has been leapt upon by Nationalists to show that the English longbow is in effect Welsh. Its probably some sort of hybrid and the key is the sandwich of woods and mass deployment.

This thoughtfully provides two likely routes for longbow acquisition, so if and when our hypothetical  Anglo-Norwegian monarchy decided that massed longbow archery was a good idea (perhaps for much the same reasons as the Anglo-Normans) it should not be too hard to make it happen.

There is a caveat to Welsh longbow origins.  Traditionally, Gerald of Wales descriptions of powerful Welsh bows and the mass employment by the English have been related and the explanation has been obvious - a super weapon.  But what if the real reason was Wales was full of competent archers who would work for poor pay?  The bow itself was peripheral - no better than those some English troops had.  Archaeology certainly suggests bows using heavy arrows existed in early medieval England, even if they weren't a majority (the nature of the evidence is such concrete assessments aren't presently possible).  Also, massed archery doesn't seem to be a feature of Welsh troops until they were formed into big bodies by Edward I.   Its certainly doesn't disprove Welsh longbow origins but it is a little less clear cut and a bit more complex than Morris and Oman led us to believe.

[Duncan Head]

As Nigel (Darklinger) in particular has pointed out, the Anglo-Saxons seem to have had a different ethos and approach to life than the Normans - not that they were incapable of playing rough, but that they did not seem to regard it as particularly necessary or even desirable.

With the exception of killing your political opponents. I recall from Marc Morris' Norman Conquest that one of the differences he sees introduced by Norman political culture is a decline in political murders and executions - he cites the number of times that William forgave rebels, even repeat offenders, or only punished them lightly, and contrasts this with a number of Anglo-Danish killings. Of course the Harrying may suggest that this benevolence had its limits, or extended only to fellow members of the upper classes; but even that was a response to repeated rebellions, not a weapon of first resort.

(The other "beneficial" change that Morris sees under Norman rule is a decline in slavery - William banned the export of slaves from England, and slave-status seems to have gradually vanished in the century or so after the Conquest.)

[Mark G]

Is there any evidence in scandanvia of regular links to the established Norman state?

I.e. Can it be shown that a settled feudal Normandy exerted an influence on scandanavia?

I'm assuming after it was fully established and identifiably deff er ent from other biking settlements.

[Andreas Johansson]

IMO and wierd as it may seem I see the Scandinavian realms as essentially receiving Frankish cultural and military influence rather than exporting their own.

That's hardly controversial. The Viking Age brought more change, as far as culture and technology goes, in Scandinavia itself than in western Europe (Russia is arguably a different case). It's Scandinavia ending up Christianized and vaguely "feudal", not England or France going pagan or something. The Bastard's Normandy is more Frankish than Scandinavian, and even the Islemen quickly adopt many Celtic ways.

What I objected to was the characterization of post-Viking medieval Scandinavia as a peaceful backwater. It wasn't peaceful, it remained expansionist - albeit mostly into areas that Anglophone historiography tends to ignore, such as Germany - and culturally it became much more part of Europe than it had been before. St Birgitta made more of a European splash in her day than any Viking skald or Icelandic saga-writer made before the 17th century.

[Patrick Waterson]

There is a caveat to Welsh longbow origins.  Traditionally, Gerald of Wales descriptions of powerful Welsh bows and the mass employment by the English have been related and the explanation has been obvious - a super weapon.  But what if the real reason was Wales was full of competent archers who would work for poor pay?  The bow itself was peripheral - no better than those some English troops had.  Archaeology certainly suggests bows using heavy arrows existed in early medieval England, even if they weren't a majority (the nature of the evidence is such concrete assessments aren't presently possible).  Also, massed archery doesn't seem to be a feature of Welsh troops until they were formed into big bodies by Edward I.   Its certainly doesn't disprove Welsh longbow origins but it is a little less clear cut and a bit more complex than Morris and Oman led us to believe.

When Henry II sent/allowed Strongbow (interesting name, sadly perhaps not quite what it seems) over to Ireland, what was the composition of the de Clare forces?  I seem to remember army lists with Anglo-Norman knights and bodies of Welsh (longbow) archers.  Or was this just Phil Barker stretching Gerald of Wales?

In any event, it looks as if our hypothetical  Godwinson sovereigns would not necessarily have had to depend upon a Welsh connection should they have felt a need to popularise the longbow.

[Sharur]

In terms of speculating on events after a Norman defeat at Hastings, I rather wonder what that would have meant for events in Scotland? Malcolm III had his wrist metaphorically slapped by William for raiding into northern England after the conquest, after all (harried from both sides in the north...), and Scottish kings previously had long "dabbled" in English politics too, including a certain namesake. Plus into the early 12th century, various later Scottish monarchs enjoyed Norman support to gain or maintain their thrones. What would David have been like as essentially a king brought up in England, but under Saxon rulers, not Norman ones, say? Would any of those 12th century events have happened at all - maybe the Scottish border would have been at Durham, or even York, by then!

Not forgetting the Northern (Norse-owned) and Western Isles (loosely Norse finally from almost the end of the 11th century), and what that might have meant for any speculative-future attempts on the English throne by the Scandinavian royal houses.

Then on the other side of the world, a butterfly flaps its wings too smartly, and renders it all moot anyway...

[Erpingham]

When Henry II sent/allowed Strongbow (interesting name, sadly perhaps not quite what it seems) over to Ireland, what was the composition of the de Clare forces?  I seem to remember army lists with Anglo-Norman knights and bodies of Welsh (longbow) archers.  Or was this just Phil Barker stretching Gerald of Wales?

The Anglo-Norman armies did indeed have quite a proportion of Welsh archers.  These are the archers Gerald has the stories about powerful bows about.  But longbows?  Gerald doesn't mention longbows.  Geralds bows are made of elm, rough finished, powerful but with a short range but no mention of length.  His archers carry only a handful of arrows, so no fast shooting  volleys for them.  As has been said before, Welsh archers were good and, to Norman Welsh lords, available.  If you operate a Norman tactical system of knights and archers, why go anywhere else for your shootists?  Ok, their bowyery is a bit rough round the edges, but its war not a poxy parade, eh Miles?

[Patrick Waterson]

Then on the other side of the world, a butterfly flaps its wings too smartly, and renders it all moot anyway...

Cue the sourceror with the butterfly net ...

In terms of speculating on events after a Norman defeat at Hastings, I rather wonder what that would have meant for events in Scotland?

The general idea seems to be that the defeat of the Bastard would have greatly enhanced English prestige and that Harold's triumph would have given him and his descendants a unified realm with an unharried north, which would have little difficulty in taking things to roughly where they had been in Aethelstan's time.  My own suspicion/feeling/judgement is that the 'Godwinson dynasty' would have brought Welsh, Scots and Islanders alike into a state of subordination in relatively quick time, judging by Harold's general standard of campaigning and past Anglo-Saxon successes (and assuming that the likes of Ralph the Timid would not be leading armies ).

What would David have been like as essentially a king brought up in England, but under Saxon rulers, not Norman ones, say?

David is of course famous for Normanising/feudalising Scotland, so might he have instead 'Saxonised' it, albeit still instituting burghs and monasteries as per history?  My reading of Saxon-style nobility is that, while by no means trouble-free, it tended to be less contentious than its Norman counterpart, and might - albeit with the caveat of Scots temperament - have saved the realm considerable trouble in future.

The essential question would seem to be how far Scotland would maintain or retain subordination to England.  My  own suspicion is that England would have a strong hand in determining the Scots succession, and hence would exercise considerable influence over the realm (anyone named McBeath - or MacBeth - would indeed be familiar with the concept of English support for a preferred candidate!).  Equally, I would posit that because such influence existed, the Anglo-Norwegian/Godwinson successors would not feel it necessary to attempt to impose any form of direct rule (which, realistically, they would know would be resisted tooth and nail).

Would any of those 12th century events have happened at all - maybe the Scottish border would have been at Durham, or even York, by then!

We are positing an absence of anything (or anyone) resembling King Stephen, so probably not.  The Godwinson dynasty would have its ups and downs, but I would tend to assume it would be similar in nature to Alfred's and hence possessed of more ups than downs.  Complications introduced by possible overseas marriage connections could bring in a new pair of trousers of time, but I think England would remain the dominant partner and ultimately the British Isles would become something of a cooperative venture, with Scots and Welsh supplying good troops and Islemen a useful navy.

One pertinent question is the extent to which our hypothetical England would be subject to civil war: Alfred's dynasty showed a marked lack thereof apart from the occasional revolting noble; the introduction of the Danish ruling house popularised civil strife until Cnut's sons were tumbled off the throne, but thereafter the existence of the Witanagemot seems to have avoided rival claims being backed by armed force, at least within England (the aspirations of Norse leaders and Norman dukes being another matter).

The Anglo-Norman armies did indeed have quite a proportion of Welsh archers.  These are the archers Gerald has the stories about powerful bows about.  But longbows?  Gerald doesn't mention longbows.  Gerald's bows are made of elm, rough finished, powerful but with a short range but no mention of length.  His archers carry only a handful of arrows, so no fast shooting  volleys for them.  As has been said before, Welsh archers were good and, to Norman Welsh lords, available.  If you operate a Norman tactical system of knights and archers, why go anywhere else for your shootists?  Ok, their bowyery is a bit rough round the edges, but its war not a poxy parade, eh Miles?

Thanks: in other words, size doesn't matter.   My understanding of the Norman tactical system was that it included a significant component of fighting foot in addition to the knights and archers, and this part was missing from, or only very lightly represented in, Strongbow's army, making it in appearance at least a prototype for the kind of army fielded by Edward III in his French wars.

Can we trace the appearance of the longbow in English armies?  Falkirk in AD 1298 seems to be the point at which the English longbow sprang fully-armed from the thigh of history, but Edward I's insistence on banning all sports except longbow archery on Sundays suggests a weapon already in existence among a significant proportion of the population.

[aligern]

The composition of Strogbow's army is similar to that of the later expeditions of Edward 111 for a reason.bEdward at first took spearmen across to France, but must have realised that when you can dismount knights you can have very good infantry and that the money for shipping and food was best spent on archers and knights. The Irish were mostly unarmoured and thus very vulnerable to bowshots. . The original Slingshot article about the Norman Conquest of Ireland ( or rather part of Ireland) showed the Welsh archer with a larg axe, a bit like a a renaissance Streltsi! .
Patrick, we really ought to have rules for alternative history. How far can one diverge from the historical trends that appertain at the time . Does pretty well anything become possible? It is certainly allowable to have William killed at Hastings , because that only needs a horse to stumble, but major changes such as a Godwinsson dynasty that projects power in a way that the English have not historically done, well that is stretching things.  Athelstan and his successors sought submission from their neighbours rather than cession of land or sovereignty. To assume that the Godwins , who may well have had to cope with internal dissension and Scandinavian invasion would be willing or able to project such piwer is pushing the envelope. Similarly with the longbow. The Norman and Plantagenet kings have a long tradition of combining knights and bowmen, ir in Edwatd 1's case knights and crossbowmen. They therefore find that an easy tactical combination to refine and develop.  A good idea such as extending the use of a powerful bow would occur easily to them. Lers face it the Late Anglo Saxon state did not even have decent cavalry. Had a Godwinson inspired invasion of Ireland taken place it would most likely have been composed of solid infantry, not necessarily ineffective there  as the Norse had proven.
I suggest that the key to all this is the mindset of the ruling group concerned. The effect of the Norman Conquest after the rebellions and dispossessions, was to place not just a Norman line on the throne, but a complete class or community in power who have a different way of thinking from the previous elite. The Anglo Danish nobility had strong traditions of operating as solid melee infantry. They had flexibility, such as Harold's use of 'LHI' in Wales, but its a stretch to see them adopting the social system and the technology of the knight, the bow and the castle without being conquered by it. A victory for Harold at Hastings would simply prove to a conservative minded military caste that there way was the best way. To get that thinking to change would require a major shock.
When the English intervened in Scotland under Siward they proved that  they were militarily superior and that  they had no intention of conquering the Scots, similarly in Wales against Gruffyd.  The Godwin's main concern would be a Danish invasion because that would be the most likely threat .