Klion D'Gar

In the end the Musket was easier to train people in, meaning you could field armies faster. And generally speaking, the more men you can get into the front line the greater your chances are for victory!

Kaelith

to cut a long story short that is basically it. hehe.

shall we move to a different topic?

how about a what if?

what do people think would have happened if the norman's had been beaten by Harold godwinson in 1066 at the battle of hastings?

Ta'Samsca'Rial

Impossible to calculate with a great deal of accuracy without going into a huge amount of detail.

Kaelith

well of course it's not going to be accurate but just for a bit of fun, what do you reckon would have happened?

Devlin

I wouldn't say SACRE BLEU!

__________________

Ta'Samsca'Rial

England remains a central part in "Northern Europe". (That is Newfound land, Britain, Scandinavia, Baltic, Russia.)
England remains less centralised.
Northumbria and Mercia without being decimated are alot more wealthy.
It remains a key trading port between the Vikings in the new world and the Scandinavian kingdoms.
Since England, with is far superior farmland than these areas can support a larger population and thus gather more wealth it quickly becomes the leader of this trading network and largely avoids continental affairs. Depending on marriages they may well become dynastically linked.

England will probably slowly centralise due to the various reasons that brought about centralisation throughout Europe, but due to Saxon beliefs it retains some quasi-democratic features. It won't be anything like real democracy, but the king will be alot less absolute than what occurs on the continent.
England probably doesn't conquer Wales or Scotland unless they gain a king who has a paticular desire to expand. Due to less centralisation the armies and taxes for such an undertaking do not exist.
As part of that non-centralisation and due to a greater support amongst the local populace there are less rebellions, lower taxes and minimal numbers of castles since they are not needed. With the invasion of Normandy however Harold (or his successors) may realise that constructing some castles throughout the southern coast makes sense if the continent is eyeing his domain.
England likely stays completely out of France.

The Normans, with or without William likely suffer assaults on their French holdings from their continental rivals. They likely take losses but due to the lack of movement (due to the constant sieging and the large forces required to maintain a siege) in this age they are unlikely to vanish without a trace. Further more Norman military prowess is well known so a total rout seems doubtful. If William is killed (possibly along with his brothers who were at the battle?) then a greater loss is plausable.

With no 100 years war (and without constant Norman/English involvement for the centuries before that), France likely remains decentralised, in many cases the king of France having significantly less power than his vassal dukes. Will this change over time? Rather depends on the people in question and the luck of the draw.

You could well have greater decentralisation throughout all of western Europe untill someone (probably Spain assuming a successful reconquista although thats far from certain) comes to the fore and starts threatening the relatively seperate duchies inspiring greater alliances nessasary for putting more men in the field.

On the otherhand, give it a generation, another faction on the continent could turn it sights on the relatively undefended for how much they can produce lands and perhaps they shall succeed. Or not, who knows.

Kaelith

I think that's a pretty good what if

i'd certainly agree about england being a happier and more prosperous place without the normans, but i also think that saxon warfare needed to evolve a lot if they were to defend england from any others who got their eye on it.

the saxons had a very advanced culture and their society was arguably better organised and a happier place than the new fuedal system that was sweeping europe at the end of the dark ages. but maybe due to this their militiary strength and technology wasn't really advancing as fast as the rest of europe. this partly explains why william beat the saxons, but it was touch and go due to the new technologies and tactics still being in their infancy and yet to be perfected.

Ta'Samsca'Rial

Saxon tactics were fine. The problem is that since armies of this period are built on personal loyalty to the leader, his death invites defeat. Had Harold avoided a certain arrow and William taken an axe to the back, perhaps when one of his horses was slain, then the battle would have gone the otherway.

As it was, had Harold simply avoided death it is likely his line would have held untill light fading bringing the battle to a close. At which point he could have brought up more men for future battles in the coming days, meanwhile William is in a hostile country with no supply train of worth to speak of. He would been forced to withdraw back to the continent and its quite possible he can never muster the resources to have another go at securing his claim to the throne.

The sheild wall has disadvantages, but if you are defending and have the advantages of picking the battle feild and likely having superior numbers, these are not that telling.

Kaelith

I disagree with you there.

I think your right that on the day the saxon tactics were fine for the terrain, but battles on the continent were changing, weapons and tactics were changing. the heavy knight was taking over and the saxon's hadn't and didn't look like adapting to that. huscarls did fight mounted sometimes, but they prefered and were arguably better as foot troops. given another 50 years i think with the saxons being isolated from mainland europe someone else would have come across and walked over a saxon army, even if it had developed a bit. as heavy cavalry developed in the early middle ages infantry based armies became ineffective until the longbow and billman, and that is 300 years later!

Devlin

Well Samsca's zigzag Swiss pikeman nougat with creamy crossbow centre worked very effectively against my germans :[

__________________

Ta'Samsca'Rial

Tactics are an inevitable construction of the society in question.

Knights were not all that effective. Disciplined infantry defeated them every time. Okay thats a bit of a stretch but if the infantry did not rout it was the cavalry who were broken.

When are you defining this 300 year period of cavalry dominance? Cavalry has always dominated indisciplined, unprepared or shaken foes. If the opponent is not in that situation then the cavalry will be beaten.

Given that many of the English infantry would enter service in the Varangian guard of the Byzantine Empire and would continue to serve with distinction through the centuries this was not the case.

It doesn't help that in Western Europe (and probably Europe as a whole really) the infantry of this 300 year period were usually peasant conscripts who were hardly trained or equipped to fight in battles. Since anyone of almost any social standing (and thus with the time to train for war) was on a horse its not a huge shock that cavalry dominate. Thats the nature of fuedalism.

Without William, England will not be fuedalistic. Assuming the ratio equipment, training and personal valor remains the same (relatively) theres no real reason the infantry should become worse as time goes by. Just because they are not ruled by the Normans doesn't mean they are cut off from the continent and its advances. This is not a Japan like situation of self imposed exile.

Rabid Bogling

William's defeat at the battle of Hastings wouldn't have spelled an era of peace and prosperity in England. For one thing the Kings of Denmark and Norway continued to claim the title 'King of England' for the greater part of the next century. And England wasn't exactly on good terms with the Welsh Kingdoms. The only real difference in England's relations would have been a far better standing with Scotland and the Irish kings. As to dismissing Cavalry as overrated.. well it was a wee bit. It certainly didn't win the day at Hastings, but I'd put that down to the terrain and the nature of the English formation moreso than the skill and usefullness of Norman knights. Had Harold won, I can say quite confidently that Northern England would have been a very different place. You take the Harrying out of the picture I imagine York would be one of the larger cities of the country. It's also likely that London wouldn't have grown to the extent it did historically (though it would still have remained an important city, there's no doubt there).

As to the whole succession crisis itself.. I personally think it could have been avoided, were it not for Harold and his father's constant manipulation of English politics. Infact, I'd dare go as far as to suggest that Godwin & Son were behind the murders of two royals; Harthacanute and Edward the Exile. Harthacanute's a bit sketchy, but the idea of Harold killing Edward makes a bucket load of sense. If I were in Harold's shoes I'd certainly want him out of the way.

Think about it.. your father worked tirelessly to bring your family firmly behind the wheel of the nation. Your sister is married to the King, who in his ever annoying piety won't do the nasty with her. You're the senior noble of the realm, holding more power than your contempories. If your brother-in-law dies, the chances are it'll be YOU the Witangemot turns to. And then, out of the blue the descendants of Ironside come crawling to the shores, at your brother-in-law's invite, no less. They've been hidden in the courts of the Rus and Magyar nobility for decades now, and they've even got something you don't, a regal-blooded boy-heir to asure succession. It's perfect for the Witan. 'eck, that bastard King even went and named him his heir! So, oh buggery. Now what? Well, of course, you're going to get someone to go all Early-Medieval on his arse. The returning claimant dies, and his son is so young that he can barely pose a threat. Perfecto!

That isn't to say that Harald, William, Sweyn, or even the Conffessor (unlikely) couldn't have been behind it. Just seems more likely to have been Harold. 'eckers, it could even have just been a pure and simple accident.

Kaelith

Wow! some good info there

I don't actually no much of the history leading up to 1066 and i haven't got around to reading a book on the english resistance after 1066, but i did get that feeling about the death of the confessor and harold being chosen king. it was very much a right time, right place. i mean, as you said, there really wasn't anyone else about. williams claim that he was chosen as heir sounds quite far fetched really, did he have it in writing? i don't think he did.

i think you're also right that if harold had won there wouldn't have been an era of peace, but then there was always wars to be fought back then. what i really meant was i didn't think there would be another major invasion.

harald hardraada made a good go at england but he sapped the strength of norway to do it. i don't think they were ever going to stand a chance after that, the normans would have been crippled with the lose of hastings and the inevitable retreat back to home turf and i don't think there was anyone else on the continent who was desparate to invade england, was there?

were the danes a power still in 1066? if so they must have been a fading power and i think england would have become stronger for a short period after 1066 as harold's kingship became more secure and his family became openly recognised as the royal family, whereas leading up to 1066 and even when he was first king he wasn't from the royal bloodline, i don't think?

a lot of "i thinks" in there, but i'm not sure of my info

on a side note: i love this thread! thanks people for joining in and indulging me! lets keep it up.

Rabid Bogling

Too many Edwards, aren't there?

I was talking about Edward the Exile, whose role in the conflict is often down-played. Though Edward the Conffessor's death could have come at a better time for Harold. Basically the sooner the better. Plus he was 62 at this point.. a fairly respectable age at the time, if I'm not mistaken. So no, I don't think Harold was behind the Conffessor's demise. Wouldn't put it past him though. William's claim came from Edward's earlier days in Normandy, and the supposed promises he made when William was a child. They were quite close, afterall. Even though his claim was shaky, the reasoning behind it wasn't.

Kaelith

ah i see