Battle of Hastings

[Dimentio]

I wonder, from a Marxist perspective, if the victory of William I would have been labelled as a progressive or reactionary development point in the history of the productive forces on the British Isles.

What I know about the differences between Saxon England and Norman England, is that Saxon England was more based around the Scandinavian post-tribal system, while Norman England was the archetypical feudal state. If the Saxons had won and maintained their system, would England perhaps instead have been more like a Scandinavian country in terms of culture?

[Red Future]

It is unlikely that the rigid social classing of Feudalism would have occured, Britain would have remained a relatively "post tribal"system.The Feudal state was created after the Norman Conquest though personally I feel that developments such as a need to maintain Englands prowess and stature would have led eventually to the imposition or gradual change to Feudalism whether the Saxons had indeed won at Hastings or not.

[Dimentio]

I'm not so sure. The only Nordic country which had some kind of feudal system developed was Denmark.

In Sweden, the nobility consisted of like 2% of the population and owned about 7% of the land. 42,5% of the population consisted of self-owning farmers, and another 42,5% consisted of rural workers/serfs (though serfdom was abolished by Magnus Ladulas already in the 14th century).

For all the middle ages, Sweden did never develop into feudalism.

As for Saxon England. In 1060, England was the wealthiest country in (Western) Europe. In 1070, it was the poorest.

[JazzRemington]

The only real change involved how the ruling class was organized and how the land was distributed. Everything else was largely kept the same, as William considered it very effective in maintaining his control over England. I doubt the means of production themselves changed much, as the agricultural techniques and tools didn't change much. If anything, it was a case of what was going on in Europe at the time: members of the same ruling class fighting each other over arable land (though technically William claimed the right to rule England byway of being related to I think the wife or daughter of the previous Anglo-Saxon king).

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

(though technically William claimed the right to rule England byway of being related to I think the wife or daughter of the previous Anglo-Saxon king).

Williams claim was based on the fact that Edward the Confessor (last Anglo-Saxon king) had promised him Kingship. But you are correct in that AS england wasn't run particulalry diffrently from Norman England, with the exception of the rulers prefering to rule for fortifications rather than within the settlements themselves.

[JazzRemington]

Williams claim was based on the fact that Edward the Confessor (last Anglo-Saxon king) had promised him Kingship. But you are correct in that AS england wasn't run particulalry diffrently from Norman England, with the exception of the rulers prefering to rule for fortifications rather than within the settlements themselves.

I think both is the case, because William had a great aunt that was the mother of Edward the Confessor, and he also claimed also that Harold (I presume it was the Harold that he killed at Hastings) had sworn allegiance to him, which technically meant he couldn't be king.