Battle of Hastings

[Dimentio]

Do you believe Britain today would have looked different if William had lost the Battle of Hastings and Harold had continued to be king?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/norma..._hastings.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/normans/launch_gms_battle_hastings.shtml)

[spartan]

Undoubtedly!

The smallest actions have the biggest consequences and if the Normans had lost this battle then it would be unlikely that the Saxons would have pressed as hard into Ireland, Scotland and Wales (Like the Normans ended up doing after their conquest of England) thus preventing the union of the British Isles as the United Kingdom.

Now with no UK this would have killed off any British Empire as i doubt that a Saxon controlled English Kingdom would have been that intrested in exploration (Indeed it probably would have been vulnerable to repeated invasions from Europe and Scandinavia).

The British Isles, as a whole, would have probably come under the influence of Scandinavia if the Saxons had won.

Having said all that though it seems to me that King Harold was no pushover as he trashed the Norwegians in the battle of Stamford Bridge and then marched the length of the country to meet William in battle at Hastings (And only just losing).

Perhaps Harold would have led England into a peaceful Saxon golden age? (As oppossed to the Norman one that England ended up coming under).

[Dros]

Hell yes! Britain and the English would be more culturally German than French. This would undoubtedly have had a great effect on European History.

[Dimentio]

Harold slept amongst his men, while William and his aristocrats slept amongst themselves, in tents de luxe.

No one could deny that the Normans were quite cruel against the civilian population.

I do think it could have been an English Empire later, only slightly different. Sweden did not have feudalism in the European sence, and yet managed to create an Empire around the Baltic Sea in the 17th and 18th centuries.

[manic expression]

Other than the postponement of feudalism in the British Isles, I'm not sure it would have changed that much. Britain would have needed to convert to a feudal mode of production sometime down the road. The reason Sweden built an empire the way they did in the 17th Century (up until Russia finally got its act together under Peter the Great) was because by that time, feudalism was getting weaker and the crowns were getting stronger. Anyway, I'm not even sure about the social structure of Sweden, so I won't comment too much on that. At any rate, Russia's backwardness and pathetic military record up to 1710 or so was among the biggest reasons for Sweden's expansion IMO.

For example, Scotland was able to hold off English advances for a long time, and yet even with its independence, it modernized and even came into the Union with England and Wales.

On linguistics, remember, the English language is a hybrid of German and Latin/French influences, so if anything, it would be far less expansive and rich today had the Normas not conquered England.

I mean, between the two, from what I can tell, I have a lot of respect for Harold, but feudalism would have come to England whether he won or not.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Things would probably be very similar; the Norman invasion had little influence over culture, it replaced one ruling elite for another.

However Britain wouldn't have a rivalry with France, as that is a result of the Normans claiming to be kings of France

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Here's (most) of an old history essay on how far the Normans changed English state and society...

In England, before 1066 the land was predominantly held by bok. Bok land, recorded in a book can be inherited, does not require any service and just about anyone in a respectable social standing from thegns and upwards held land in this way. Frank Barlow regards bok land as more substantial and significant than loaned land (1). However, just because there is a lack of documentation in pre conquest England, it is not necessarily the case that such agreements didn’t take place. Owing to the 12th century renaissance an increase in writing was attributed to the Normans which led to higher documentation and literacy in England. From this, it is evident that while there was a trace of feudalism is pre-conquest England, it was far from being feudal. In this way the Normans acted as a catalyst, by taking all the land in the King’s name they helped bring feudalism on a national scale to England. This is an analogy similar to that of William Stubbs, a Whig historian. Stubbs used the analogy of a train passing through a tunnel, in that the Norman Conquest was just a brief encounter and that Englishness would move in the same direction anyway, “the history of institutions, as nations, runs through an occasional tunnel” (2). It is however easy to debunk Stubbs and many of the Whig historians as they were arguing from a very nationalistic perspective refusing to acknowledge any progressive change on the part of the Normans. It is clear that William introduced many changes, such as giving knight quotas, converting land to fiefs and enforcing the notion of the warrior aristocracy and lease land.

The type of feudalism seen in England under King William was at odds which the classical ideas of feudalism. One key function of feudalism was for power to be devolved from the king to numerous barons and for the king to be purely symbolic. This is where the phrase “primus inter pares” comes from, translated as “first amongst equals” it applied to the King of feudal France, probably the only place which adhered to the classical feudal doctrine.

The deformed feudalism advocated by King William sought to further purport the king’s own power. Owing to fears of instability following the harrying of the north and the treachery of the earls Edwine and Morkere, William made sure to distribute land to 200 tenants in chief rather than a handful of earls. In giving relatively small pieces of land to each tenant he ascertained that there could be no large scale rebellion as his opponents would be dispersed and near impossible to organise in to a sizable force, making resistance futile. It should also not go without note, that following William’s war with the Scottish in 1072 the Scottish were subdued, as the Welsh had previously been after the death of Gyrth at the hands of Harold.

However, the Normans in England weren’t all about change, they stressed continuity, linking in with the idea of having a rightful claim to the throne. Following on from Edward, who was in fact the Norman king William kept institutions such as the courts and the geld which he saw as a beneficial system. In order to maximise the guise of legitimacy he stressed continuity, even while making some changes; notably he kept the fyrd, something that would affect (or in fact not affect) many more people lower down the social hierarchy as they would not see large scale change.

To examine how far English society changed, one must examine the composition of English society. The historian and philosopher Karl Marx once wrote “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (3). Both pre and post conquest, this was overwhelmingly the case, most Norman changes were merely a reshuffle of the social elite by ‘Normanisation’. However, it is difficult to comment on this due to the attitudes of the lumpen classes since anyone of importance disinterested in them at the time and it was only a small group [of clerks] who could write.

Pre-1066, beneath the peasantry there was a large faction of slaves in the social hierarchy, something which rapidly disappeared under Norman rule (4). These slaves merely became serfs and were stilled tied to the land, yet this still embodied a phenomenal change taking place through England as being a serf had arguably more ‘advantages’ towards it than slavedom.

The effects on the upper castes in post conquest England were phenomenally more documented than what had happened to the peasantry. The cultural significance upon the highest social groups was astounding, as William subdued rebels he redistributed the taken land to his fellow Normans, as a result by the time the Domesday Book was published only two English landowners remained (5).

There was also a notable impact on the English language, by the introduction of the Latinate Anglo-Norman language displacing the Germanic based Anglo-Saxon language. Notwithstanding the fact that this has had considerable impact on modern day spoken English, at the time this was only predominant amongst the ruling elite so therefore it is more of an impact on English high society than English society in a broad sense.

The above could be used to justify the beliefs of Thomas Carlyle, another Whig historian; unique for his views than the Conquest was a major benefice in the development of English culture. Caryle described pre-conquest Engalnd as “a gluttonous race of Jutes and Angles, capable of great combinations; lumbering about in potbellied equanimity; not dreaming of heroic toil…” (6) However, to say so would be to deny the ‘gluttonous Jutes and Angles’ of pre-conquest England the prestige they deserve for setting up one of the most complex governments in the western world at the time.

Pre-conquest, England had an incredibly complex governmental system. The country was divided in to a multitude of administrative units of roughly similar proportion, each controlled by a Shire Reeve. These shires had a degree of sovereignty from the permanently established central government, central government being an almost virgin to much of the western world.

The Normans further elaborated this governmental system. They centralised the shires and developed bureaucracy which hadn’t been seen since the Roman times in the manifestation of the Domesday Book.

Saxon England by most standards was a theocracy, the king would rule very much side by side with the archbishop of Canterbury, for example Kind Edward and Robert of Jumieges. While a key aspect of Gregorian reform which was being pushed by Pope Gregory VII who succeeded Alexander II in 1073 was the separation of church and state, it is not implausible to come to the conclusion that elements of theocracy still continued. While William often asserted supremacy over the church, he hand picked the archbishops, Normanised all mid to high ranking churchmen and in doing so enjoyed a very cosy relationship with the ‘English’ church, notably Lanfranc.

Upon invading England, William had papal support from Alexander II though the stipulations upon why this was are tenuous. While the Normans would have one believe that this was due to their crusade being just, it is known that Pope Alexander II harvested much contempt for Harold since he was crowned by Stigand who was never consecrated by the Pope, just used as a veritable placeholder after Robert of Jumieges was deposed. Therefore it’s clear that Alexander’s blessing of William’s conquest was more entwined in papal politics than any interest of being ‘just’.

The expectations of the radical Pope Gregory VII were for William to follow suit with the premise of Gregorian reform. The three main aspects of such being; internal reform within the Catholic church, the separation of church and state and the superiority of church over state. William being a ruler who enjoyed a borderline despotic reign refused to allow church superiority, but to avoid being excommunicated or other dire results he allowed degrees of separation (such as the 1072 establishment of spiritual courts) and a plethora of internal reform (such as encouraging celibacy amongst clergy as well as simony and pluralism)
“Such a king was not reforming the church in order that he should diminish his authority” (7)
Frank Barlow

William sought to maximise what he could from the church. He feudalised the church’s land which was previously held by Bok (8) and thus proclaiming their loyalty towards him.
Nevertheless, William did plenty to antagonise Rome. He maintained a separation from Rome, intercepted Papal letters and banned catholic legates from entering the country between 1073 and 1080. Following this Gregory VII sent over a legate by the name of Hubert to admonish William for his prior actions and hinted that Gregory may excommunicate William. In response William ignored Hubert’s warnings and threatened to recognise the Antipope Sylvester IV.

In conclusion, it is clear that the Normans acted as a progressive force of change following the conquest. Most notably, they helped widespread implementation of the formerly sparsely seen social system of feudalism. To compliment the Normans with establishing feudalism in England would be to ignore evidence showing pre-existing traces of feudalism such as Bishop Oswald’s letter and thus historically inaccurate. The Normans managed to reshuffle an entire social elite including church. While the purposes of such institutions stayed more or less the same, their composition changes radically, for example by 1096 no church See or Bishopric was held by any native Englishman (9). The ability of William to deal with opposition and consolidate such vast amounts of despotic power such as the eradication of earls was remarkable and took the systematic framework of the English state to a new level.

[Dros]

Things would probably be very similar; the Norman invasion had little influence over culture, it replaced one ruling elite for another.

However Britain wouldn't have a rivalry with France, as that is a result of the Normans claiming to be kings of France

I'm afraid I very much disagree. While it is true that it is the ruling class that changed and not the people, the ideas (and culture) of the ruling class are the ideas (and culture) of society. If you don't think the Norman conquest profoundly changed the English language, art, culture, and society, you are deeply mistaken.

[Dimentio]

I do not think that feudalism in itself, in it's "pure form" would instigate capitalism or centralisation better than a semi-feudal state. Just look at the Nordic countries, were the main bulk of the peasants were free, and had a lot of influence on taxation and politics during all of the middle ages.

I think the only thing which is inherent to feudalism which could create a capitalist morality is the development of the concept of property occuring under feudal conditions.

(You might also notice that feudalism is a historic anomaly. There has only been feudalism in Western Europe and in Japan, not in any other region of the world.)

[RedAnarchist]

Didn't Russia have feudalism?

[Dimentio]

No.

Before the Mongol storm, Russia had a system of government reminding of the semi-tribal semi-monarchist system of Pre-Christian Scandinavia. After the Mongol Storm and the rise of Moscow, it became an oriental despotism.

[Luís Henrique]

Didn't Russia have feudalism?

Of course. All of Eastern Europe had feudalism, except, perhaps, the Balkans. It's character, however, greatly differed from that of Western Europe, due to its belated nature. I don't know on what Serpent bases his claim that the Russian Empire was a stance of "oriental despotism", and never read anything conducing to such belief.

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

Pure feudalism is a situation marked by decentralisation, a large degree of autonomy of the nobility, and a pyramidal caste system of peasants, nobles and priests.

Russia was a hyper-centralised empire where the Emperor exercised absolute power. It had a standing army, a state bureaucracy, and a state church subservient to the state.

The base of production was semi-feudal, and in some places (like Baltikum) more or less feudal (and in others Asiatic).

Neither China or India were feudal in the classic sense of the word.