How would England, the UK, and even the entire world be different today had William been defeated at Hastings in 1066?
Would there have been a successful invasion by someone else? Would England have developed much differently without the Normans? The architecture would be different, but what about the country as a whole?
This is, of course, a very theoretical question but what are some of your thoughts on the subject?
This is weird, my wife and I talked about this about 15 minutes ago. I was reading a couple of paragraphs in a travel guide about William the Conqueror and I wondered the same thing. I don't have any theories to share but now I'm going to do some reading this weekend to look for some 'what if' stories.
According to one historian:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/norman/alternate-history-what-if-william-conqueror-lost-hastings-1066/
“The major change was language,” concludes Morris. “The wholesale
replacement of an English ruling elite with a new aristocracy drawn
from northern France meant that for the next 200 years or so, French
was the language of power.”“French loanwords entered the English language, and it evolved in ways
that would otherwise not have been the case. The variety, complexity
and illogicality of modern English is a direct and lasting result of
the Norman victory at Hastings.”
My first thought was "vocabulary".
There is a book called "What if?" written by a number of historians who speculate on various counterfactuals. Hastings 1066 is one of those.
Children's literature was enriched by '1066 and all that', a satirical look at British history.
The Norman French invasion worked both ways, as large parts of France came under 'English' control.
While lost later, that must have introduced many to Europe, as cheap flights and campsites did in the 20th century.
Much of the legal system in the UK was developed with Norman terms and techniques. Clerks spoke French. Diplomats too.
Sadly the megalomaniacs like Napoleon and a few recent French examples put paid to entente cordiale and leave both countries the weaker. The need for a strong navy was shown by the horses of Normandy galloping off the boats to victory. See the Bayeux Tapestry. Which also pointed to the need for better infrastructure as the English army had to march back to Hastings from the last battle in the North. Trains and motorways were demanded by the defeated serfs. Boris now wants High Speed Rail as well.
Look at Sweden and Denmark for examples of countries that repelled invaders. My Volvo is proof of their skills.
The Normans were great builders in stone and vaulted structures - perhaps England would have missed out on Romanesque and Gothic architecture if William had been defeated in 1066?
My thorough research makes me certain of one thing: the Normans instilled their habit of bad dental hygiene on the locals, giving the good old white-choppered Anglo-Saxons a bad reputation in the long run. Have you ever seen a portrait of a grinning William the Conqueror, or a painting of a beaming Hugh de Grandmesnil? I thought not, and there's good reason for it.
If only the Baltic Finns had conquered England, if not the whole world. On the one side, we wouldn't be any smarter as a whole (in fact, I'd wager we'd take one or two steps back in that department, and this forum wouldn't exist). On the flip side, we would all be happier, more civil, and all so terribly handsome.
Not smiling in portraits had nothing to do with their teeth - it was considered to be more refined to not smile. Smiling wide was a sign of madness or being drunk. Just think of that next time someone takes your photograph.
And your travel question is??!
Language and building styles have already been mentioned. But there is a lot more than that...
Our system of law today is based on the Norman system with a centralised power base the king. It also lead to a change in land ownership as William removed lands from the Saxon nobles and gave them to his supporters. (Many of our aristocracy are descended from Knights who arrived with William.) New laws were passed to ensure estates were passed down to the first born son, making sure they survived intact.
Slavery which had existed in Saxon times was banned as the Normans preferred to have serfs paying rent for their land rather than slaves who worked for free but required feeding and housing.
Saxons were almost airbrushed from history and life was very difficult if you were a Saxon. This was made even worse by the establishment of the Royal Hunting Forests and Forest Law. Peasants were no longer able to hunt game for food, graze livestock or forage for timber and food. Deer, wild boar and other animals became the property of the crown. Penalties for poaching or taking wood were stiff. Forest Laws were very unpopular and one of the grievances of the Barons leading to the signing of Magna Carta by King John. So no Normans , no Magna Carta?
No one has mentioned Domesday Book, originally designed as an audit of England on which to base taxation. Nothing like it has ever been completed either before or since William. It is a complete record of the country which is still used by historians today.
Wes þu hal Sam.
We would have neither prisons nor jails.
"Not smiling in portraits had nothing to do with their teeth." - It did according to Harry Albright's Short History of England (abridged, pub.1832). What a swindle, I paid $2.00 for that piece of rubbish in a neighbour's garage sale, thinking it to be a factual account. (I'll be on to my neighbour in the morning, I'll have you know).
If what you say is true, Jennifer, I have good reason to doubt some of Albright's other claims. He reckoned Edward Longshanks was actually a dwarf who used stilts made of knotty ash. Aethelread the Unready's real moniker was Aethelread the Unsteady because he had a pronounced limp, made worse after a few tankards of mead. Edward the Confessor never owned up to anything his whole life. Honest Harry, Albright calls himself in the book's introduction. Honest Harry, my foot.
"Smiling wide was a sign of madness or being drunk. Just think of that next time someone takes your photograph. " - Alas, I'm afraid ye olde words of wisdom are too late for me. As you can imagine, I was born smiling and to this day refuse to have my photo taken with anyone nicknamed sourface. Misery is not your best pal, is one of my 173 mottos for a happy life. We all know what happened to old gloomy chops:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02454/RichardIII_2454940c.jpg
"And your travel question is??!" - When William the Conqueror went to Skegness for his summer holiday, did he fly, use the chunnel, or sail on his flagship?
Thank you. I appreciate all the comments. The language, the structures, no Magna Carta, all true. The latter begs the question, with no Magna Carta would there be any Democracies or Republics today?
I confess that while I have a great interest in learning about the history of all things British, I am by no means an expert on the subject. A willing student, I would say. I raised the original question hoping to learn and hopefully share some theories.
Without the victory at Hastings, there would certainly have been no Edward I, so the castles he had built in Wales would not have been built. Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall would likely have continued as
they were. England itself might never have unified into one country but instead have been a confederation of entities such as Essex, Sussex, Wessex, North Umbra, East Anglia, and so forth. Wales, with their unique language of neither Latin nor Germanic base might have remained independent, as would have Scotland. Would all of these eventually come together as a new UK today? Would they have survived invasions that surely would have come from Spain or France?
Based on architecture, if nothing else, the Normans seem to me to have been more forward-thinking than the Anglo Saxons who I see as having been more willing as a group to farm and continue life on an as-is basis with less military expansionism than the Normans.
Am I wrong? What do you think? I have to think the entire world might be unrecognizable today to us if the Battle of Hastings had gone to the Anglo Saxons. Maybe better, maybe worse. No one can know, which is why I find it interesting to study and think about.
I am not an expert in British History, but have studies it quite a lot.
The Normans brought a more unified central government (monarchy), also a strong rule of law, combined with the Anglo-Saxon Common Law produced two good things for the future, strong private property rights and the rule of law. The result was a blend of Saxon and Norman.
As someone already pointed out, since the Norman's were from France, the English King had control of significant French territory. Henry V became the French King as well. That didn't last, but the two countries fought many wars over the centuries, which led to much cultural exposure for both France and England.
Back to what would England be like if the Saxons won. The Saxon monarchy was not as strong vis-a-vis the nobility (Barons) as the Norman monarchy was with its nobility. Churchill, wrote a great work, A History of the English Speaking Peoples and opined that the Magna Carta (giving rights to the nobility and commons) was in line with the Saxon rule. Saxon Kings were expected to seek the guidance and advice of their Barons. I think that it was likely that with or without the Norman conquest, that England would have still evolved its government with a Parliament devolving rights to nobility and the people.
I wonder who the current King or Queen would be? What lineage would we be talking about? No Henry the VIII, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II?
Great thread, lots of good points, but of course the question is whether the Saxons would have continued to dominate England with no other successful invaders in the past thousand years. That seems unlikely to me. One thing's for sure, there would be no Bayeux Tapestry. Those ladies would never have done all that work to commemorate a defeat. Maybe there would be a Hastings Tapestry, lovingly produced by Saxon ladies to commemorate the victory.
The point about language is surely the most certain. English would be closer to German and farther from French. That means I would have had an easier time communicating in Germany last month. Also, legal terminology would be simpler: terms like "cease and desist," "assault and battery," "trespass and trover," and others combine words from the Saxon and Norman languages. Lawyers would have less incentive to charge by the word.
For argument's sake, let's say no one after the Norman's successfully invaded England. Would England have participated in the exploration of the New World to the same extent as they did? Would North America have been settled the same way it was? I suspect not. Perhaps Mexico would today extend up the western coast to Canada, France would have colonized most of what is now the US and Canada, with English colonies having been limited to eastern Canada and only the northeast of the US.
Jumping way ahead and assuming other major events played out close to the way they did i the world we know, including WWI, Churchill may well not have been Prime Minister during WWII (if it occurred). The UK might have chosen the route France took and surrendered to Germany quickly rather than suffer the pain they endured in the actual world. The US then could not have entered the war in Europe, having no place to position their military.
Hitler now has time and resources to defeat Russia. Without the constant bombing by the Allies, Germany's scientists develop the atom bomb about the same time as the Americans but while the Americans have no way to deliver a bomb all the way to Germany, the Germans continue to develop their rockets and in short order have the ability to hit the east coast of the US with a nuclear bomb. Facing that threat, the US and also Canada must surrender to Germany. Meanwhile, what is today the west coast of the US is northern Mexico and they and Japan never have a war. Most of the world speaks German now, except those that speak Spanish or one of the Asian languages. All because Harold did not get an arrow in the eye at Hastings.
You think?
Throwing a wet blanket on all those "What-ifs." The history of the actual people of the world would have been dramatically changed by a change in the battle of Hastings. I submit that as time runs, more and more, and eventually all, of those subsequent historical figures will never have been born, as well as most likely the rest of us. This is one of the main principles of time travel science fiction and fantasy. See for example such books as Asimov's "The End of Eternity" and Finney's "Time and Again."
What if Constantine had lost the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Huh? Huh? :)
Just a thought about language. It is doubtful that anyone speaking English today would understand that language as it was spoken in 1066.
There wouldn’t be the Tower of London, and the ravens would need to find another place to roost.
Hello from Wisconsin,
Something like 60% of what we call the English language is from French. So I go with language. I read years ago that pig is Anglo-Saxon while pork is French. Cow is Anglo-Saxon and Beef is French. The Lower class, Anglo-Saxon, raised the animals, the upper, French, class ate them.
And what would have happened to the Venerable Bede????
Fun concept.
wayne iNWI
To touch upon what Larry posted. Ray Bradbury gives food for thought in a great little story, A Sound of Thunder, in which a time machine is used to transport customers to prehistoric times to participate in safaris. Without giving too much away, customers are warned to stay on a specially constructed path during the safari: the slightest misstep or alteration of events at certain points in time might cause immeasurable changes in the future. But noone really has a clue what or when.
Ray Bradbury: "With the death of that one cave man, a billion others yet unborn are throttled in the womb. Perhaps Rome never rises on its seven hills. Perhaps Europe is forever a dark forest, and only Asia waxes healthy and teeming. Step on a mouse and you crush the Pyramids. Step on a mouse and you leave your print, like a Grand Canyon, across Eternity. Queen Elizabeth might never be born, Washington might not cross the Delaware, there might never be a United States at all. So be careful. Stay on the Path....."
Adapted into a pretty poor movie of the same name in 2005. The book is mistakenly credited as the origin of the term "butterfly Effect."
And what would have happened to the Venerable Bede????
Seeing he had been dead for nearly 400 years by 1066, probably not much.
