How would England be different if William had lost at the Battle of Hastings?

Answer 1

England was a country closely connected to it's Nordic roots before the unwelcome oppression of William and his mercenaries. The history that followed was one of wars of attrition with France over territories which had at best little legal substance and relied on rule of force rather than right. This went on from the 11th to the 16th century till these claims were finally relinquished. Huge amounts of money, not to mention lives were wasted in this post Norman grudge which was carried on by the same lines of aristocracy who had held land originally from William.

The ill harvest of class division was sown during this period , and William's excursions into Ireland created a disaster for both England and Ireland that still exists. The thirst for foreign conquest that was to mark English history and create the Empire is merely a continuation of this same desire for subjecting foreign peoples. The Anglo Saxons maintained what they had won by force but were contented with the wealth produced by England's land and trade. The ill will produced by hundreds of years of martial conquest has made England's name less attractive than would have been the case had we remained a nation within the Nordic mould. Our reputation for honest, fair dealing would have been similar to Norway or Denmark. Take a look at this article:http://www.englandandenglishhistory.com/battle-of-hastings-Harold-William/AN ENGLISH VICTORY.aspx

That's going back a long way so it is impossible to even speculate about what *would* have happened in that event but it is possible to say definitively what would *not* have happened. Every King or Queen of England that you have ever heard of never would have lived. Nothing that any of them did, militarily, politically, spiritually, would have happened. A great deal of the History of the centuries after the Norman conquest was drivien by the fact the the English kings were also French nobleman and owed allegience to the French kings for their french possessions. They were always trying to get out of that somehow, usually by trying to gain the French throne for themselves. Had Harold won at Hastings that basis for conflict would not have existed so nothing that came out of it would have happened. Michael Montagne

Michael is correct, once the Normans claimed the throne of England they still had large land holdings over large portions of France. Specifically this was the basis of the Hundred Years War. The Norman Conquest is so far removed from today that it is definitely impossible to foresee all the consequences of the English throne NOT having any claim to French land. One thing is for certain, the Norman influence on the English language probably wouldn't have occured, thus English as a language would be much different than it currently is.

I agree that there's not really any point in guessing what would or might have happened if Harold had won. Instead, I'll make two points.

1. Before 1066 England was often very disunited and had difficulty defending itself (for example, against the Vikings).

2. The Norman Conquest turned England into a fairly large area with a central government. There were civil wars later, but the framework for a united England was firmly established by 1070-75, and was re-established after every civil war, such as the Wars of the Roses.

In order to avoid misunderstanding, I'll stress that I'm _not_ saying that without the Norman Conquest England would have remained disunited. (For all one knows, if William had failed, someone else might have successfully conquered England a little later). I'm just drawing attention to what many regard as William the Conqueror's most significant achievement.

Joncey

I may be wrong here, but I think that Joncey has made an error in saying that England was disunited at the point of the Norman conquest. Before the Vikings it had been very diunited, with all the warring kingdoms like Mercia and Wessex etc., but remember that this lack of defence was no longer so obvious, as Harold II managed to defeat the army of Harald III 'Hard-ruler' of Norway, earlier in the year at Stamford Bridge, and William was almost defeated at Hastings. England had been united to much the same borders as today, and it was not weak, just unfortunate to be attacked by two invasion forces in the space of a few months.

Joncey certainly has made an error.England as country was first united under the rule of Alfred the Great, his decendents went on to further unify the country and retake Viking lands in the Danelaw.

Another

I think you are wrong on that last point. You should note that Harold marched against the Normans with only the Men of Wessex. The Earls of Mercia and Northumbria did not send any troops to help. The "northern earls" had traditionally been highly sceptical about the concept of a united England and demonstrated this during the reign of Harold's predecessor, Edward the Confessor, when they had revolted and thrown out Tostig Godwinson who had been appointed by Edward as Earl of Northumbria. Also, after the Norman Conquest, Edwin and Morcar (the earls of Northumbria and Mercia respectively) joined the revolt against the new King William of England.

Going back to the original question, England would have had a very different language without so many French influences, probably much more like Dutch or Danish. It would also have developed a different type of government, perhaps more participatory from an earlier stage. The class divisions in the country may also not have been so acute. Wales may have remained independent, at the time of the Norman Conquest the frontier with Wales had been agreed at Offa's Dyke for some 250 years and there were no attempts by the English to incorporate Wales into England.

Answer 2

Perhaps if Harold had rested his army before going to fight William then he might have had more of a chance when it came to the Battle of Hastings.

Hope that I was able to help!!

Even as it went, Harold very easily could have won. Had William been killed or captured when his horse was killed under him, the rout that had started would have escalated beyond recovery.

Answer 3

King Harold didn't prepare as much as King William so he didn't win. To win he should have made fast, quick decisions that would have mad his team stonger and more able to win. By losing King Harold let his country down but King William made his country proud, but the people of England were angry because King William and his army had killed their King. William needed to think of something...

We were also under prepared due to two major battles with the Vikings in the same year- Battle of Stanford Bridge and The Battle of Fulford, which cost thousands of lives. It also meant the army was on the wrong coastline when the Normans invaded

Answer 4

There are only a few things we can say for certain about this. One is that the English Language would probably be much more like Dutch. Another thing is that the Hundred Years War would probably not have happened, but it is hard to know what this would mean in modern times. As to the rest, it is anyone's guess.

Answer 5

because... he was sleeping with William's wife maybe...

Answer 6

King Harold did not win The Battle of Hastings. He was killed toward the end, which caused his army to retreat. This marked the beginning of the Norman takeover of England.