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

[Imperial Dave]

We would be more (far) Northern European centric as opposed to Central/Southern European centric as I see it. What that does for is is uncertain.

Language would develop differently for sure. Probably still an English/germanic type language but potentially with much more Scandinavian loan words and possibly even much more closely aligned.
(good) Infantry development would continue although cavalry development/introduction would permeate into armies (but at a slower rate than with a Norman victory).
Legal institutions would not be vastly different I agree although there would be some oddities
Religious institutions and conventions might be the most affected? Less Norman influence = less papal influence? (happy to be corrected)

[aligern]

Someone else wins and Enland does not have a rapacious Norman aristocracy. So no Empire, no industrial revolution, well not as early, with all the effects that would have on the world. Life would likely be at the  level of 1850  about now.  Material progress is driven by greed and competition and had England followed a Scandinavian path the mindset of the ruling elite would have been very different. Very likely they would never have conquered Ireland and even Waoes might be an independent Welsh speaking principality today.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

even Wales might be an independent Welsh speaking principality today.
Roy

have you been to NW Wales recently Roy... 

[Jim Webster]

even Wales might be an independent Welsh speaking principality today.
Roy

have you been to NW Wales recently Roy... 

I was just surprised anybody would think Wales would be a single entity

[Imperial Dave]

Gruffydd ap Llywelyn was nominally King of all Wales until Harold brought about his demise so no reason why a single Welsh polity couldnt exist in one of our alternate futures

[Patrick Waterson]

Material progress is driven by greed and competition and had England followed a Scandinavian path the mindset of the ruling elite would have been very different. Very likely they would never have conquered Ireland and even Wales might be an independent Welsh speaking principality today.

Not so sure about that: Sweden followed a 'Scandinavian path' and was a major (really major) European power by AD 1650 in addition to being territorially the third largest country in Europe (after Russia and Hapsburg Spain).  Russia followed a path more Scandinavian than Norman (allowing for a generous sprinkling of Mongols) and ended up with a considerable empire.  When it comes to greed and competition, or at least determined aggression, mediaeval Scandinavians are quite hard to beat.

Gruffydd ap Llywelyn was nominally King of all Wales until Harold brought about his demise so no reason why a single Welsh polity couldnt exist in one of our alternate futures

And more so than Llwellyn Yr Ail, the final 'Prince of Wales' and darling of Welsh nationalists.  Gruffydd's single polity, assuming it lasted and/or was renewed under his close or distant successors, would of course be strictly subordinate to England.  It may even have become an English crown holding, remembering that Gruffydd's widow became Harold's wife.

However we can presumably expect that it would not be dotted with castles, much to the chagrin of today's tourist industry.

[Imperial Dave]

indeed, I can hardly move for castles in my neck of the woods here in South East Wales!

[Erpingham]

indeed, I can hardly move for castles in my neck of the woods here in South East Wales!

South East Wales holds my most castles visited in a day record- Monmouth, White castle, Skenfrith and Raglan.

[Imperial Dave]

indeed, I can hardly move for castles in my neck of the woods here in South East Wales!

South East Wales holds my most castles visited in a day record- Monmouth, White castle, Skenfrith and Raglan.

But thats means you missed Abergavenny, Chepstow, Usk, Caldicot, Grosmont and Newport for the obvious ones! Add to those the other visible but lesser known ruins and then on top of those the various castle mounds and you get the picture

[aligern]

Interestngly there are sgns that England was getting into the castle building habit. I am nt  thinking of the Norman builds in the Confessir's reign here. Recent work has suggested that many of the pist Conquest creations are ring works and that these may go back to earlier roots. Sacon thegns lived in defended enclosures, though more at the level of local security than of the rather substantial building of the Znornans. It is possible that castellation procedes in England for major strategic points and for areas where new labd was being held. However, the biggest bartier to England taking over the Celtic realms is them having the concept of so doing.

Patrick, Scandinavian expansion is hampered by local rivalries. Denmark has a land border with Germany, but that is a hard nut to crack. Easier fir the Swedes in the Baltic which is an area with no natural frontiers and very fragmented political organisation. Empires there bloom and wither. The Swedes have the advantage of tight organisation, but  the population and evonomy is very small. In the 17th century Sweden has a succession of warrior rulers who sweep across the European firmament, but cannot sustain major defeats because of the narrowness of their base. Zi recall that Sweden was one of the first countries to create a census and the govt. was shocked to find that they thought they had 20 million people and found it was 2 million. ( or some such gradient) .
Leaving aside the Scandinavian preference for peace..or not....my case on English non expansion s that they did not do it when they could, being satisfied with submission. Uf we go back to earlier times, in he seventh century Mercia and Northumbria were definitely aggressive, pushing on to Wales, to Edinburgh, across the Pennines, planting colonists and mobasteries. But all this stops in the eigth century and never gets going again.  Why didn't the English in the tenth century, when they were the dominat power, go after the Scottish Lolands ( where there was an Anglian culture ) and the well off bits of Wales where Holly lives?  I think its a matter of ethos. Its the same as why the Byzantines, who clearly have effective armies, do not go aggressively to reconquer Egypt and the Levant?  I think it a matter of world  view? The Normans, in contrast, have a go to attitude. More a sort of 'We'll do it, what is it?' take on life.  There is a tendency to see internal revolt and infighting as weakening a culture or society and so halting expansion and allowing hostile conquest. However, the Normans and the Arabs and generally the barbatians in the West are just as disunited, backbiting and rebellioys as the Byzantines , Saxons or Moslems in syria.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

Roy, is that a pragmatic and conscious approach by the Anglo Saxons in the 8/9/10/11th Centuries re non expansion? ie get overlordship/recognition by fringe/areas (Wales/Scotland/Ireland) rather than waste manpower and resources? Having 'grown up' with those borderlands and seen the trouble and effort it takes to make inroads and espeically in Wales/Scotland which are majority mountainous areas, there is a reluctance? The Normans havent necessarily had that experience of long term border warfare with those areas and potentially come along and say 'why cant we subdue these guys?'

[Patrick Waterson]

Leaving aside the Scandinavian preference for peace..or not....my case on English non expansion s that they did not do it when they could, being satisfied with submission.

Submission is the traditional means of non-genocidal expansion.

Uf we go back to earlier times, in he seventh century Mercia and Northumbria were definitely aggressive, pushing on to Wales, to Edinburgh, across the Pennines, planting colonists and mobasteries. But all this stops in the eigth century and never gets going again.  Why didn't the English in the tenth century, when they were the dominat power, go after the Scottish Lolands ( where there was an Anglian culture ) and the well off bits of Wales where Holly lives?  I think its a matter of ethos.

Christianity doubtless had an effect, but the existence of seven kingdoms living cheek-by-jowl with a certain amount of mutual interaction may well have put the brakes on further expansion by any of them.

Its the same as why the Byzantines, who clearly have effective armies, do not go aggressively to reconquer Egypt and the Levant?  I think it a matter of world  view?

Well ... actually, they did: it is just that their attempts at reconquering Egypt failed as often as the later Crusader attempts to take the place; later on, under Nikephoros Phokas and John Zimiskes, they did reconquer significant portions of the Levant - as far as Antioch - and raided beyond.  The problem they had was on the one hand too many domestic probems (religious controversies, rival emperors) and on the other too many inept and unmilitary rulers.

The Normans, in contrast, have a go to attitude. More a sort of 'We'll do it, what is it?' take on life.  There is a tendency to see internal revolt and infighting as weakening a culture or society and so halting expansion and allowing hostile conquest. However, the Normans and the Arabs and generally the barbarians in the West are just as disunited, backbiting and rebellious as the Byzantines , Saxons or Moslems in Syria.

Which is essentially true: Norman leaders were fairly consistently cast in the conquistador mould, while Byzantines (and non-Turk Moslems) tended to be more inclined to enjoy what they had.  Anglo-Saxons, however,  once reduced to a single kingdom (Wessex), were quite happy about taking over practically the whole of the British Isles.  Danes were quite happy about taking over practically the whole of the British Isles anyway, except they could not manage it all at once.

Scandinavian expansion is hampered by local rivalries. Denmark has a land border with Germany, but that is a hard nut to crack. Easier fir the Swedes in the Baltic which is an area with no natural frontiers and very fragmented political organisation. Empires there bloom and wither. The Swedes have the advantage of tight organisation, but  the population and economy is very small. In the 17th century Sweden has a succession of warrior rulers who sweep across the European firmament, but cannot sustain major defeats because of the narrowness of their base.

True, and this nicely demonstrates that Scandinavians of the period were quite willing to expand and were not static for want of trying.  17th century Sweden was the Macedon of Northern Europe but their Alexander (Charles XII) conducted one campaign (1708-9) which was more like Mark Anthony in Parthia and that finished the expansion.  The spirit was willing ...

I recall that Sweden was one of the first countries to create a census and the govt. was shocked to find that they thought they had 20 million people and found it was 2 million. ( or some such gradient).

Interesting to note in view of earlier comments about the effect of the Black Death on the Hundred Years' War that even a 90% shortfall in population seems to allow military activity to continue without noticeable constraints.

[Erpingham]

But thats means you missed Abergavenny, Chepstow, Usk, Caldicot, Grosmont and Newport for the obvious ones! Add to those the other visible but lesser known ruins and then on top of those the various castle mounds and you get the picture

Absolutely.  Leaving aside it was Grosmont rather than Monmouth that should have been on the list (though I saw the bridge at Monmouth that day), there has to be enough time on-site for me to appreciate each one   Two is usually my limit, sometimes three if close enough together.

[Darklinger]

As if been AWOL.

I can hardly move for castles in my neck of the woods here in South East Wales!

How interesting that you are around there, Holly. (My family are in the Forest of Dean, and tho' my studio is in London, I'm around there a lot.) The section of Offa's Dyke near Ruardean, all that country interests me muchly - and the transition from the Brit tribes to the early A-S kingdoms. Into Mercia and the marvellous Deerhurst. Keep thinking it would be great to take the area, probably split by the Severn, west to Kilpeck or Llantony, Raglan - and campaign it - mostly skirmish level, but fighting in detail over almost every feature. The Forest would be murder.... Perhaps in the prior to Penda period, nicely pagan and Sub- Roman, wonderfully rich. Little kingdoms and tribes......
But apart from Chepstow and the other aforementioned defenses, though many were originally Norman, aren't most of what stands much later?

[Imperial Dave]

Hi Nigel,

yes I am a few miles from the start of the Wye Valley and that of course borders the Forest of Dean. As you say a great area for potential wargame scenarios. I have been toying with one on and off for the past 3 years based on the battle of Tintern (of Tewdrig fame) based around the 7th Century ish. I did some groundwork assessment on fording places on the River Wye in the region. Another 'must finish' wargaming project.......