Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1066 and all that.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1066 and all that.

    Righto - here we go.

    14th October 1066

    King Harold wins!

    What happens after that ....?

    "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
    - Mad Jack Churchill.

  • #2
    If William loses and lives he would retire and try again. While his claim was not the best (in fact, pretty weak) he does have the backing of the Papacy and other major players on the continent. I get the impression Anglo-Saxon England's days are numbered in its current form in any case. A new invasion in 1067 or 1068 with a proper amount of political deal making with Harold's enemies in England (namely the north) would likely see the Normans eventually gaining the throne.

    If William dies,... different story. Harold could consolidate his regime and form the next dynasty. The Danes may try again but their day is past. England, without the links to France would likely be less involved with Europena affairs and develop a more introverted intraction with Europe. It could end up sidelined more along the lines of Denmark and Norway with a more north European focus.
    The Purist

    Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

    Comment


    • #3
      You mean the viking.
      you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

      CPO Mzinyati

      Comment


      • #4
        What happens after that?

        William the Conqueror is beheaded.
        his entire army is beheaded.
        France is conquered and ruled by jolly ole England.
        Anglo-Saxons have a say in Modern Germany and England as their line rules both countries.
        There is no King Arthur.

        Comment


        • #5
          Uhhh,... nope. It was the Norman link to France that made England's involvement in France an issue. The Anglo-Saxon's focus was east, across the North Sea.

          The mythological collection of early post-Roman British warlords that became the Arthur legend date back to late 5th to early 6th Centuries,... not the late 11th C.
          The Purist

          Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by andrewza View Post
            You mean the viking.
            No,... that would Harald Hardrada as opposed to Harold Godwinson.

            <<sorry Tuck>>
            The Purist

            Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

            Comment


            • #7
              England in 1066 is on the rise, blessed with resources, and a great defensible position.

              The Norman/French Claim is done. In fact William or his Heirs and Dukes of Normandy probably still make a claim on the French throne. Probably a stronger claim since their attention would be focused on France itself, discounting any further attacks on England.

              Harold II's nephew becomes king of Denmark, which gives England a possible push into Norway/Denmark, since with a burgeoning economy and population, England is due to rise.

              Initially Wales would be the target, which Harold had campaigned against in 1062-1063 (Yes England was an expansionist power prior to William the Conqueror)

              Longbows would be taken into the English Military due to a campaign in Wales, Scotland and Ireland would also be invaded.

              Still England changed Dynasties a few times after 1066, England as a nation was on the rise due to many reasons.

              I do not see modern day Post Norman England as much different than a post Saxon England.

              They were similar cultures after all, unlike Cortez in Mexico, Mohammed in the Middle East or the East India company in India.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                No,... that would Harald Hardrada as opposed to Harold Godwinson.

                <<sorry Tuck>>
                No apology necessary. I should have put a bit more meat on the bones of the initial question but I just rather arrogantly assumed everyone would know what I was on about.

                I sometimes forget we have all nationalities on here.
                "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
                - Mad Jack Churchill.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It would have been cool if the vikings won though. Any case nothing would real change if Harold won or lost. But if the vikings won then it would be interesting.


                  I don't know much about european history only the fun stuff.
                  you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                  CPO Mzinyati

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                    It would have been cool if the vikings won though. Any case nothing would real change if Harold won or lost. But if the vikings won then it would be interesting.


                    I don't know much about european history only the fun stuff.
                    The Vikings kind of did win though - the Normans were descendants of Danish and Norse Vikings who had conquered the territory of Normandy on the continental mainland .. and then intermarried with the Frankish and the Gallo-Romans already living there.

                    Normans = North Men/Norse Men/Men of the North.

                    And if Harold had won ... things would have been very different in the centuries that followed - no Angevin/Plantagenet kings for starters - 15 of them.
                    Last edited by Tuck's Luck; 12 Apr 12, 17:45.
                    "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
                    - Mad Jack Churchill.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Saxon England had aspects more positive then Norman France (one example, better treatment and rights for women). But as to Harold being secure if that bastard William loses but survives - remember, if Harold wins the winners write history I'd think he'd be secure. The Scandinavians expansion and aggravating England was pretty much over and it was a major challenge even 900 years before the 1940s to mount a cross channel invasion. Faced with 1-5 years to prepare (and to diplomatically neutralize the Papacy), and with only one major front to watch and prepare for, a new invasion seems difficult. As mentioned above, the enormous abilitiy and energy seen in the several first centuries of the 2nd milennium by Normans from France to Italy to the Middle East and Byzantium would be much easier turned against France. An outright takeover of the region seems quite possible. As a not particularly nice person said some centuries later:
                      ""On land I am a hero. At sea I am a coward."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The Vikings kind of did win though - the Normans were descendants of Danish
                        So was Harold - half Danish by birth. More Danish than William in fact.

                        It is wrong to consider the state as being Anglo-Saxon - it was Anglo Danish. King Cnut died less than 20 years before.

                        William would never have got a second chance. In any case if Harold had not had to gallop North to crush Hardrada, William would have been defeated at Hastings.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scupio View Post
                          In any case if Harold had not had to gallop North to crush Hardrada, William would have been defeated at Hastings.
                          Even with Harold having to fight at Stamford, he almost won Hastings. It was possibly the closest fought battle of the era.
                          Diadochi Rising Wargame:
                          King Pairisades I of the Bosporan Kingdom

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Scupio View Post
                            So was Harold - half Danish by birth. More Danish than William in fact.

                            It is wrong to consider the state as being Anglo-Saxon - it was Anglo Danish. King Cnut died less than 20 years before.

                            William would never have got a second chance. In any case if Harold had not had to gallop North to crush Hardrada, William would have been defeated at Hastings.
                            it wasn't an 'Anglo-Danish' state. That is misleading. Yes of course there were Danes as well as Angles, Saxons, Celts and all sorts ... but a Danish king does not make it an 'Anglo-Danish' kingdom. Cnut's mother was a Slav anyway so he was only half Danish himself and his reign combined with that of his sons lasted only a quarter of a century if that and was long over by the time William invaded.

                            Cnut not only murdered Edmund but disposed of further heirs to the Saxon line by murdering Eadwig also (Edmund's brother) and sending his sons into exile, then he married Aethelred's widow and sent her sons to Normandy - although one survived to reign after Cnut - Edward the Confessor. For the quarter of a century prior to 1066 a Saxon king ruled England and Cnut had been dead three decades.

                            I was being facetious when I said 'the Vikings kind of won' simply because from other discussions I've had on here, there are some who think the Normans were purely Frankish and are unaware of their origins. That's the only reason I mentioned it in my post to andrewza - not to get into an argument about how much Viking blood Harold, William, Cnut and anyone else had flowing through their veins or how 'Danish' the England of 1066 was.
                            Last edited by Tuck's Luck; 12 Apr 12, 18:09.
                            "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
                            - Mad Jack Churchill.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was aware that the Normans where of viking decent but they where all so of french roman descent. A true mix breed of people. Any case by nothing much changing I mean the British would still have end up around where they are to day. Though there may not have been a 100 year war(no claim on the throne). But some other norman king may have tried later and that could have led to a war with france. Or they may have been truth full about the reason for war. Not like the British claim was a strong one under norman rule.
                              you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                              CPO Mzinyati

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X