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

[Patrick Waterson]

That may be where I got the figure.  Checking around on the internet suggests fyrd service was actually quite variable prior to the Norman invasion.  Apologies if anyone was misled.

The basic point I intended to make was that Harold had a fleet, but it dispersed and let William across.  Had it stayed together William might not even have landed in England.  To quote from the article in the link:

"Had Harold's ships intercepted William's heavily-laden transports or blockaded his beach-head at Pevensey, historians might have been writing not of a Norman military revolution but of the wooden walls of Anglo-Saxon England."

[aligern]

They might indeed, but then its difficult to think of a major naval intervention in the period and geography that stops an invasion. I think Scandinavian naval fights are more by appointment. In the Channel the prevailing winds are South Westerlies  which gives an invader the advantage. Against the Armada the English allowed the Spaniards to pass in order to get the weather guage on them. I suspect that is harder to pull off against an opponent with a short crossing that comes across by night and can land and disembark quite quickly.  Of course its possible that William waited until Harold's ships had dispersed before putting out to sea. That would, by definition, remove the chance of a naval encounter.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha-earthwork-castles/earthworkcastles.pdf/

[Patrick Waterson]

"The only general and extensive account of earthworks castles is Timber Castles, by Robert Higham and Philip Barker (1992)."

Is that the Philip Barker I think it is?

[Imperial Dave]

possibly although there is another Philip Barker who wrote

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Techniques-Archaeological-Excavation-Philip-Barker/dp/041515152X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480766773&sr=1-2

[Erpingham]

Worldcat lists the archaeologist Philip A Barker as the co-author.  Philip Barker was famous for his field archaeology and his work on methods of excavation.  History records the WRG Phil Barker and his name sake met at the excavation of Wroxeter, where they discussed plumbata

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Anthony.

As this thread seems to be gliding to a close, might we air perhaps the least likely of all alternative AD 1066 futures, Harald Hardrada triumphant?  If he had managed to defeat - and this requires a significant slice of suspension of disbelief - both Harold and William, might he have gone on to acquire the throne of Denmark and unite England, Denmark and Norway under a triple crown?

And if so, how long might it have lasted, and with what effect Europe/world-wide?

[Imperial Dave]

maybe he would ultimately want to return to Byzantium and conquer that? He left under a bit of a cloud after all and thought that Byzantine society was against him when he was there

[Patrick Waterson]

Would he perhaps enlist a force of Norman mercenaries and travel under the guise of a crusade?

[Imperial Dave]

there would certainly be a few knocking around at a loose end so to speak...!

If Harald did win, would there still be the same influx of English huscarls to the ranks of the Varangian guard or not do we think?

[Patrick Waterson]

I suspect probably not: English lords and warriors had made their peace with Danes before, so would probably accept Harald provided he left well alone in matters of law and custom.  Following centuries of mutual slaughter, Englishmen and Danes (including Norwegians) were practically family.

Of course, there could be a number of footlose Normans in Byzantine service ...

So of our presumed alternate outcomes, a victorious Harold or his successors would probably develop closer and friendlier connections with Byzantium, whereas a successful Harald would do the opposite.

Any thoughts on what Harald  might have done (if anything) regarding Normandy and indeed France?

[Imperial Dave]

Any thoughts on what Harald  might have done (if anything) regarding Normandy and indeed France?

knowing Harald's legendary avarice, I suspect he would be looking for a pretext (or not!) to 'support' a Norman ascension to the Dukedom post William's demise and then become overlord to that dukedom potentially.

Taking it further....I wonder if a strong Harald consolidating the sub-artic arc of geographical areas would be persuaded to push into mainland europe with the Rus of the east pushing in likewise?

[Patrick Waterson]

Taking it further....I wonder if a strong Harald consolidating the sub-artic arc of geographical areas would be persuaded to push into mainland europe with the Rus of the east pushing in likewise?

An ambitious project, certainly.  I suspect the complex situation in and around Russia at the time would militate against the march of united Varangiadom because Novgorod, although comparatively powerful and having extensive territories, was in the throes of a succession crisis between the Yaroslavichi (immediate family of Yaroslav the Wise) and the Rostilavichi (immediate family of Vsevolod of Kiev).

That said, if Harald had made himself master of England, Norway and Denmark, I can see him trying to get an army together for a possible attempt on Novgorod.  He may even be torn between Normandy (close but unfamiliar) and Novgorod (further away but he knows it well).  I suspect that he would before long overreach himself and perish on the banks of the Seine professing a claim to France or the Dneipr pressing a claim to Kiev, maybe leaving Edgar Atheling to creep back to the throne of England while everyone shakes their heads over it all and decides that comets are definitely a very bad thing.

[Imperial Dave]

Depending on whether Harold and his brothers were relieved of their lives by Harald or not.

What does surprise me is that Edgar manages to live on the very edge of good and bad fortune for another 60 years!

[Patrick Waterson]

Yes, Edgar Atheling's varied and peripatetic life has been the subject of at least one novel, The Last English King by Julian Rathbone.

In essence, I see two main branches to history following AD 1066:
1) William wins, giving us what we have today.
2) Someone else wins - it probably does not much matter whether this is Harold, Harald or Edgar - and we have a way of life and society which are noticeably different, not to mention the possibility of some novel wargame campaigns.  History being a mix of cultures and geopolitics, with occasional shaping by kings and generals who have an agenda and know what they are doing, there would still be continental entanglements of one sort or another, most probably marriage connections which might bring a tenable territorial dowry, and we could still expect Europe to launch an age of global expansion and England not to want to be left behind.

Hence the main differences I see following a Norman defeat in any of our hypothetical histories are societal: a different aristocracy, a different basis and tradition of law (although a surprising amount of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition has survived) and no hiatus in the development of good quality infantry.  There are doubtless ramifications for the development of finance (not expelling Jews, for example) and the constitution (parliament might not have developed, at least not in the way it did), perhaps industry - and, of course, language.

So what would we have lost?  And what would we have gained?  We did touch upon some of these aspects earlier, before granting Harald his new lease of life, but would we, making due allowance for lost cause romance, now have a better Britain?  And if so, how?