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

[Imperial Dave]

thats assuming the crusades occur in the same way if at all......Normans and French malcontents are a big reason for the kick off....no Norman conquest = a different timeline for the crusades therefore it isnt a given that the Anglo Saxons get involved.....?

[aligern]

Errr?  The Crusades occur because the Byzantines appeal  for help and are staffed largely by French and Germans who are not related to the situation in Normandy/ England!

[Imperial Dave]

yes and my (badly) made point is that no Norman hold on the throne of England means there isnt necessarily any involvement (or very limited) in the 1st crusade? ie England/Britain more insular possibly more infighting between north/south(east/west too!)/dynastic instabilities keeps them all busy...

back to the butterfly methinks

[Jim Webster]

yes and my (badly) made point is that no Norman hold on the throne of England means there isnt necessarily any involvement (or very limited) in the 1st crusade? ie England/Britain more insular possibly more infighting between north/south(east/west too!)/dynastic instabilities keeps them all busy...

back to the butterfly methinks

Alternatively peaceful and wealthy England could have grown stronger.
1066 brought with it both the end of a Dynasty and the start of another (always a tricky time) which was managed peacefully, but which attracted two foreign invasions.
It could have been a century before the same weakness reoccurred. Normandy could just have kept exporting men south, being gradually drawn more and more into 'France' and we could have seen a Strong united England facing a more united France across the channel.

[Imperial Dave]

so instead of disaffected English going to Constantinople it might have been more and more Normans Jim?

So it could have been 1166 France vs England but to put the question in there.....who would invade who?

[Patrick Waterson]

That might, of course bring forward the 'infantry revolution'  from the fourteenth to the twelfth century :-))

I see much to recommend this suggestion.  Without a knightly ruling class, there would be no particular motive to favour cavalry as the arm of decision unless it actually decided battles.  Typically during the period it did, but only when not up against good infantry.  Given the likely primacy of English infantry in our hypothetical history, enhancing its capabilities to make it effectively cavalry-proof seems a logical line of development.

What you are both ignoring is the Crusades. It is likely that England would send a contingent and there they would be involved in a transformational experience........especially fighting Saracens without effective cavalry or much in the way of missiles. But again providing good infantry might be the contribution the team needs .
The Crusades are important because we have to assume that the rest of history marches on. Oh and don't assume that A/S England moves on without coming to an accommodation with the Pope. That would be a really difficult position for any kingdom connected into the Western European mainstream for any length of time.

Given the legacy of the Papal banner and blessing, I doubt that England would respond directly to Deus Vult.  Some form of accommodation with the Papacy would be on the cards, but with a different Pope and with a lingering aftertaste of suspicion and dislike, especially as the Normans remained the 'Pope's pets' for quite some time.  So I suspect no English contingent in the First Crusade, or the Second, (but then historically we did not have one anyway*) and it is only around Third Crusade time - assuming events in the Holy Land march as historically - that we might or might not get a Crusading king.

*Apart from the force which, having assembled at Dartmouth in the midst of King Stephen's civil war, got as far as Lisbon (AD 1147) and decided to help out there.

What might be the case is a developing sympathy with the Byzantine Empire.  The Norwegian/Danish connection would have helped to create awareness of the Empire, and it is possible that it could have been seen as a potential counterweight to the Papacy, although doctrinal differences and a lack of Greek would prevent any actual detachment from the Latin way of worship.  More to the point, it could have become a trading partner and source of cultural inspiration: Byzantine fashion may have made its way to our alternate England, and Byzantine military knowledge, too.

If this were to happen, then England might well get into the habit of sending fleets and contingents of volunteers to fight for the Empire when things were quiet on the domestic front.  If nothing else, it would be a good way for experienced warriors to earn gold.  It may also mean that if things did flare up with France, English sea-power might have had an ace up its sleeve.  The Byzantine Connection remains something of a wild card, but I see it as a distinct possibility given that both powers had awareness of each other and bad experiences of Normans.

So it could have been 1166 France vs England but to put the question in there.....who would invade who?

It would presumably depend upon who had 1) the claim and 2) the better navy.

[Imperial Dave]

clearly the naval power is the key to it. If, and assuming a myriad of ifs in all the alternate universes we are creating, England/Britain developed its navy and power base unmolested by foreign interference for a century, I fancy it could have been us to them. How we fared against cavalry heavy armies on the continent is then back to the (semi) original point! 

[Jim Webster]

so instead of disaffected English going to Constantinople it might have been more and more Normans Jim?

So it could have been 1166 France vs England but to put the question in there.....who would invade who?

well the drain of Normans south was going on long before 1066, they were involved in the Lombard Revolt in 1009. They were in Byzantine service in 1038 in Sicily, by 1050s they were serving in Asia Minor and in 1072 Roussel de Bailleul was trying to set up his own kingdom there.
With no outlet in England I would suggest that surplus younger sons would have ridden in other directions

[aligern]

Holly, I rather think that in mediaeval times arms decline when there is no threat and no great opportunity. When England was less under threat from Vikings the fleet decayed, as did the burgh system and most likely the rotational fyrd system. People do not like paying taxes, especially when they can see no immediate need. 
Roy

[Erpingham]

Roy has a point.  England could have stagnated militarily under Harold if there was no threat.  But this wasn't entirely true.  There was still a Danish claim and this may have led to a period of at least military alertness and perhaps even military entanglement in Scandinavia.  In the end, it would come down to the ambitions of the dynasty and whether they settled into a period of peaceful trade and cultural exchange or constant attempts to impose their will on the states around them.

[Imperial Dave]

Internal consolidation. Bored Earls = unrest therefore Harold/Godwinson dynasty would have found stuff to do  I suspect Wales, Scotland and eventually possibly Ireland might have found the Anglo-Saxons pushing for more purchase

[Erpingham]

The North would be an obvious issue.  The Anglo-Scottish border was far from solidified (Strathclyde, anyone?) and pushing the border northwards might have been a way to keep the Northern Earls busy and stop them from getting too chummy with the Danes.

[aligern]

The difficuly with the North is that the border region is a desert.  By that I meannot a great place for basing troops. Thus it is hard to hold land north or south of it unless you are prepared to be there in strength. The difficulty is the same whether you are the Scots or English ruler. The Scots claimed Cumbria, but could not hold it, the English had a good go in the thirteenth century but could not defeat the geography, long term , without an effort that was disproportionate.
Roy

[Erpingham]

With hindsight, we can see that it was impossible for the English to hold down Scotland.  But breaking parts away from Scotland (like Strathclyde or even Lothian) may have been possible.  Certainly possible enough to be considered.

[Mark G]

Strathclyde, Lothian and fife would be pretty much the only bits worth bothering with.

A working navy to ensure supply to the east coast could have made up for the land route problems.

The borders, highlands and islands certainly weren't worth the effort of themselves.