The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Events before and after the Battle of Hastings in 1066... alternate reality
I am doing a language project to work out how English could have turned out if Harold Godwinson had decided not to defend against Harald Hardrada, but instead stay and fight the Normans and succeed. My language project depends on a few things... number one... the Normans having no influence on English language... and number two... the kingdom of England having York as the residence of the king to where modern day England would have York as the capital city.
I know my language and linguistics, but I don't know my history very well. I want a historian who really knows his/her stuff about the events before and after the Battle of Hastings, to think up a plausible, interesting theory (as detailed as possible) which could explain how Harold Godwinson's alternate decision could have lead up to these two things that support my language project.
My weak theory is "Godwinson chose to keep his men in the south to defend the Normans and won... thus Harald Hardrada invaded and established (perhaps a smaller) new Danelaw and set up York as the heart of his kingdom. Then Edgar the Aetheling went up with his men from the south and fought Harald back to York and defeated him... and then for some reason decided to stay in York and make that the heart of the new reclaimed England... to where of course modern day England would have York as the seat of government and capital city... the best I can come up with is that Harald had made York such a nice looking city that Edgar liked it so much."
You can see why it's a bit weak as a theory... I just want someone to fill in the gaps or maybe change it completely. :D Just so long as the Normans lose and York becomes the capital city before the 14th century.
I know my language and linguistics, but I don't know my history very well. I want a historian who really knows his/her stuff about the events before and after the Battle of Hastings, to think up a plausible, interesting theory (as detailed as possible) which could explain how Harold Godwinson's alternate decision could have lead up to these two things that support my language project.
My weak theory is "Godwinson chose to keep his men in the south to defend the Normans and won... thus Harald Hardrada invaded and established (perhaps a smaller) new Danelaw and set up York as the heart of his kingdom. Then Edgar the Aetheling went up with his men from the south and fought Harald back to York and defeated him... and then for some reason decided to stay in York and make that the heart of the new reclaimed England... to where of course modern day England would have York as the seat of government and capital city... the best I can come up with is that Harald had made York such a nice looking city that Edgar liked it so much."
You can see why it's a bit weak as a theory... I just want someone to fill in the gaps or maybe change it completely. :D Just so long as the Normans lose and York becomes the capital city before the 14th century.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sveinn_F. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Lol @ Dotty:)
I'm just intrigued as to why you think Edgar would have beaten Harald Hardrada- plus I can't think of a good reason that Edgar would renague on his southern powerbase in favour of a northern one since all the threats were going to be coming then from the continent which is far easier to invade from than Scandinavia.
I'm just intrigued as to why you think Edgar would have beaten Harald Hardrada- plus I can't think of a good reason that Edgar would renague on his southern powerbase in favour of a northern one since all the threats were going to be coming then from the continent which is far easier to invade from than Scandinavia.
modern English mostly derives from the dialect of the Cambridge area, I think; if it had been more heavily Scandinavian-influenced it would have been very different - it's a mixture of Germanic and Romance (French) influence at the moment; your way, it would probably have been all Germanic, and England would have become more closely tied to northern Europe rather than central/west Europe, even if Hardrada had been defeated later.
@ NOX - Like I said, I don't know my history... I just know that Edgar was the last of the Wessex line, and Harold's successor. Hmmm... You make a good point. I guess it wouldn't have made sense to have York as the capital. Basically... for this language project... the Great Vowel Shift can't have happened. (the change from pronunciations like "hoos" and "moos" turning into "house" and "mouse") And since nobody knows why the shift happened... I can't just go blaming it on the Normans. And as Scots English is famous for saying "moos" and "hoos"... the further north the official language (or language at the capital) was... the most likely that the shift would have remained only in certain dialects and not as standard English.
@ 123everton - Ooh... that's interesting! That can yield many more possibilities. Thanks! I will have to think some more about this and certainly read more into it.
But still... can you think of what might have happened if the battle of hastings showed an English victory... yet the battle of stamford bridge showed an English loss?
Do you think Harald could have set up a new Danelaw? Maybe if so... overtime... England and Danelaw could have just blended together to create some stronger North Germanic roots in the language with Old Norse words "Mús" and "Hús" so that if the mystery cause of the Great Vowel Shift came along... English could have just ignored it and carried on with hooos and moooos. :D
@ Mike11111 - Possibly... but there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that the vikings wouldn't have carried on their invasions... and perhaps would have been far more successful... so I would imagine we'd all be speaking an evolved form of Old Norse if the Anglo-Saxons hadn't invaded :P
@ 123everton - Ooh... that's interesting! That can yield many more possibilities. Thanks! I will have to think some more about this and certainly read more into it.
But still... can you think of what might have happened if the battle of hastings showed an English victory... yet the battle of stamford bridge showed an English loss?
Do you think Harald could have set up a new Danelaw? Maybe if so... overtime... England and Danelaw could have just blended together to create some stronger North Germanic roots in the language with Old Norse words "Mús" and "Hús" so that if the mystery cause of the Great Vowel Shift came along... English could have just ignored it and carried on with hooos and moooos. :D
@ Mike11111 - Possibly... but there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that the vikings wouldn't have carried on their invasions... and perhaps would have been far more successful... so I would imagine we'd all be speaking an evolved form of Old Norse if the Anglo-Saxons hadn't invaded :P
Some random thoughts:
As well as linguistic / dialect differences, is it worth playing with the idea of an England that develps without feudalism, and without a French-speaking upper class? For example, if the pattern of living remained that of close-knit extended families around a leader who was 'one of them', whose hall they sat in for warmth, safety and kinship - rather than the Norman lord of the manor living more remotely from the locals who were identifiably inferior because their language and names were English, not French.
So in the alternative history, French never becomes associated with posh in England. I don't think the pre-Norman people were 'owned' by their local lord in the same way as with feudalism - they were free (unless of slave status).
With a strong political link across to Scandinavia, would the capital's trade links have followed the routes eastwards towards the Rus and the Volga / Byzantine trade rather than south-east towards Francia?
If the north of England was never 'harried', would its economic progress have been quicker?
The great northern monasteries sought waste and forest, but if that land was farmed already then there would not be the opportunity. Sheep flocks and textile production woudl have continued to respond to overseas demand. The leadworkings of the moors and dales could have become richer, sooner as demand grew. Accelerating the industrial revolution forward in time?
What a interesting mindgame!
As well as linguistic / dialect differences, is it worth playing with the idea of an England that develps without feudalism, and without a French-speaking upper class? For example, if the pattern of living remained that of close-knit extended families around a leader who was 'one of them', whose hall they sat in for warmth, safety and kinship - rather than the Norman lord of the manor living more remotely from the locals who were identifiably inferior because their language and names were English, not French.
So in the alternative history, French never becomes associated with posh in England. I don't think the pre-Norman people were 'owned' by their local lord in the same way as with feudalism - they were free (unless of slave status).
With a strong political link across to Scandinavia, would the capital's trade links have followed the routes eastwards towards the Rus and the Volga / Byzantine trade rather than south-east towards Francia?
If the north of England was never 'harried', would its economic progress have been quicker?
The great northern monasteries sought waste and forest, but if that land was farmed already then there would not be the opportunity. Sheep flocks and textile production woudl have continued to respond to overseas demand. The leadworkings of the moors and dales could have become richer, sooner as demand grew. Accelerating the industrial revolution forward in time?
What a interesting mindgame!
you should check out this site
http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Headside
Anglish is a project that replaces romance language words with anglo saxon based ones
Hamlet's famous speech becomes:
To be, or not to be – that is the asking:
Whether ‘tis worthier in the mind to bear
The slings and arrows of unbound mishap
Or to take fight against a sea of worries
And by gainstanding end them. To die, to sleep –
No more – and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand worldly blows
That flesh is born to. ‘Tis an ending
Dearly to be wished.
Another question is whether the great vowel shift would have happened - One theory is that this was a consequence of social mobility after the black death,
If the higher social groups had continued to speak English the social mixing after the black death might not have caused such a change in pronounciations and spellings
http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Headside
Anglish is a project that replaces romance language words with anglo saxon based ones
Hamlet's famous speech becomes:
To be, or not to be – that is the asking:
Whether ‘tis worthier in the mind to bear
The slings and arrows of unbound mishap
Or to take fight against a sea of worries
And by gainstanding end them. To die, to sleep –
No more – and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand worldly blows
That flesh is born to. ‘Tis an ending
Dearly to be wished.
Another question is whether the great vowel shift would have happened - One theory is that this was a consequence of social mobility after the black death,
If the higher social groups had continued to speak English the social mixing after the black death might not have caused such a change in pronounciations and spellings
@ Mosaic - You know, that is another interesting possibility. Yet my language project only works on the basis of there being no non-Germanic influence apart from a few seldom-used loan words which is unavoidable. But in terms of speculation on what could have happened, I think it's intruiging... perhaps England's Victorian Empire could have happened sooner and swifter... maybe England would rule the world by now. Haha...
@ jake-the-peg - Yes, I have seen much of this Anglish... but I wanted to take it a step further, to Anglisc... where spelling is different, pronunciation, grammar, syntax and other factors... other than just the lexis (choice of words) that Anglish seems to focus on. Where I could say "How goeþ hit mid þe?" for "How are you?"... but I like your idea... the capital doesn't have to be in the north at all to escape the vowel shift... just that the nobility are speaking English is enough. So it is a plausible theory that the Normans helped the Great Vowel Shift where if they hadn't been there... English would have ignored it.
Though speaking with a friend now. I think I've come to another alternate reality that can help my project, working on a completely different idea... Harold smashed William in Hastings and marches up to York to defeat Hardrada, but Hardrada has conquered quite a large area in York and has taken York as his base of operations. Harold's men are weak and exhausted and few in numbers, and Harald is able to conquer much of northern England... maybe to the same degree of the original Danelaw where a new Danelaw is established... all above the thames is Norwegian owned. A battle between the English and the Vikings lasts for many years but neither are stronger and both seem to only lose interest. Harald finds he can't conquer the rest of England, and Harold finds he can't win Danelaw back. They call for a truce, ceasing all hostilities, even agreeing that Harald can't carry on con
@ jake-the-peg - Yes, I have seen much of this Anglish... but I wanted to take it a step further, to Anglisc... where spelling is different, pronunciation, grammar, syntax and other factors... other than just the lexis (choice of words) that Anglish seems to focus on. Where I could say "How goeþ hit mid þe?" for "How are you?"... but I like your idea... the capital doesn't have to be in the north at all to escape the vowel shift... just that the nobility are speaking English is enough. So it is a plausible theory that the Normans helped the Great Vowel Shift where if they hadn't been there... English would have ignored it.
Though speaking with a friend now. I think I've come to another alternate reality that can help my project, working on a completely different idea... Harold smashed William in Hastings and marches up to York to defeat Hardrada, but Hardrada has conquered quite a large area in York and has taken York as his base of operations. Harold's men are weak and exhausted and few in numbers, and Harald is able to conquer much of northern England... maybe to the same degree of the original Danelaw where a new Danelaw is established... all above the thames is Norwegian owned. A battle between the English and the Vikings lasts for many years but neither are stronger and both seem to only lose interest. Harald finds he can't conquer the rest of England, and Harold finds he can't win Danelaw back. They call for a truce, ceasing all hostilities, even agreeing that Harald can't carry on con
then presumably you end up with some sort of truce rather like that under Alfred?
My guess is that whatever happened London would have remained top dog thanks to its trading links to central Europe (sail down the Thames and up the Rhine), and that whoever ruled there would have held more power than someone in York (much like the precedence in archbishops). At least until the industrial revolution... if there was one.
My guess is that whatever happened London would have remained top dog thanks to its trading links to central Europe (sail down the Thames and up the Rhine), and that whoever ruled there would have held more power than someone in York (much like the precedence in archbishops). At least until the industrial revolution... if there was one.
I'm beginning to wonder if this intellectual exercise is just a bit too impractical to continue ?
The number of possible 'ifs' is almost infinite. Suppose, for example, that the Romans had stayed here in the 5th. century, instead of abandoning it to the Celtic, Germanic,and Scandinavian 'barbarians', i.e. those who spoke no Latin or Greek ? The Romans were undoubtedly engineering geniuses; it requires no mental sleight-of-hand to predict that an industrial revolution would have occurred more than a thousand years before it actually happened. This is to say nothing of the social, linguistic and political revolutions which would (rationally) have transpired.
Too many 'ifs'. I think I prefer history history as it stands.
The number of possible 'ifs' is almost infinite. Suppose, for example, that the Romans had stayed here in the 5th. century, instead of abandoning it to the Celtic, Germanic,and Scandinavian 'barbarians', i.e. those who spoke no Latin or Greek ? The Romans were undoubtedly engineering geniuses; it requires no mental sleight-of-hand to predict that an industrial revolution would have occurred more than a thousand years before it actually happened. This is to say nothing of the social, linguistic and political revolutions which would (rationally) have transpired.
Too many 'ifs'. I think I prefer history history as it stands.
Both the fascination and frustration of history lies around the 'ifs'.
Suggestion: Scandinavian trade links and routes through the Baltic and Russian land mass to Byzantium, Baghdad and the silk routes continue to prosper.
Iron smelting technology is perfected in the highlands of Scandinavia and is kept as the northmen's 'killer app', giving them superior arms to add to their superior shipbuilding technology.
The 'real' industrial revolution was based in iron smelting, textiles and coal mining - sea-coal was used from early times in your Danelaw. The mix is there for industrial expansion. Of course, the real industrial revolution had to wait on investors to provide capital.....the rich eastern mechants of York in your version?
Suggestion: Scandinavian trade links and routes through the Baltic and Russian land mass to Byzantium, Baghdad and the silk routes continue to prosper.
Iron smelting technology is perfected in the highlands of Scandinavia and is kept as the northmen's 'killer app', giving them superior arms to add to their superior shipbuilding technology.
The 'real' industrial revolution was based in iron smelting, textiles and coal mining - sea-coal was used from early times in your Danelaw. The mix is there for industrial expansion. Of course, the real industrial revolution had to wait on investors to provide capital.....the rich eastern mechants of York in your version?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News45 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.