The battle must have truly had the possibilty of going either way - so that the actual fight matters (the Battle of Berlin cannot be “decisive” because the Soviets were pretty well certain to win it);
The battle must be the turning-point, not merely mark the turning-point in hindsight (the battle of Midway, it could be claimed, has more claim to be “decisive” under this criterion than Stalingrad, as the destruction of the Japanese carriers was more significant to the course of the war than the destruction of the German 6th Army);
The immediate effects of the battle must be truly significant - change a regime, destroy the hopes of an invader, etc.; and
The long-term effects of the battle must also be significant - marks a turning point in history.
Britain was already a global power in the 1500s. Just ask the Spanish.
Because the Anglo-Saxons were barely holding it together, and if not the Normans, it would be another Danish or Norwegian invasion like the one they only just beat off before Hastings. Anglo-Saxon England was not really the unified state that the Normans created, and would, IMO, have reverted back to the multiple kingdoms of the previous centuries quite easily. And regardless, would have been a thoroughly Norse state with slight Britonic ,touches here and there - which would be different from the England we got. “Different” == “unpredictable” IMO. But just one data point - the other Norse countries were hardly global players, now were they?
But that’s irrelevant. I’m not actually playing countering hypothetical here. I’m just saying, Hastings shaped the English polity going forward, and it was that specific English polity that became a world power. And my post was against the idea that anything English was just Eurocentric bias.
I think that’s the point (it certainly is mine) : that the various pressures and factors that led to Britain’s rise to global power from the 17th onwards really have fuck-all to do with Hastings, or who won it, *or *the influence of Norman culture on 11th century Brittania. IOW, Britain would have risen in the 17th more or less regardless.
Which would tend to make Hastings less than important.
BTW, I don’t think it’s true that England was “the most advanced nation in Europe” at all in 1066, though I suppose it all hinges on how one defines as criteria of “advanced”.
But militarily for example, it was pretty backwards and stuck in a 6-7th century, pseudo-Viking, heavy infantry-centric style of warfare with minimal missiles for example; whereas people on the continent had already moved towards more dominant heavy cavalry (and, in Italy and Spain, already a heavy focus on light missile troops as well - mounted javelins, early crossbows, that sort of thing. Byzantium of course was still ages ahead of everyone with its flamethrowers and complex warmachines inherited from Rome & Greece).
This is in large part what allowed William to win the gorram thing in the first place : he had heavy horse and archers (1/4th and 1/4th of his army respectively), Harold did not. And was treated to first hand experience on the positive martial value of archery right in the face.
Their lands weren’t the most hospitable for their swelling population. Why else we they settling France, Ireland, Scotland, and England. Remember the Normans were Norse too.
Ahem. Ahem. Plus, yanno, the whole Kalmar Union leading to a Baltic superpower thing. Scandinavia certainly eased down later, but they definitely were one of the Great Powers back in the day.
Plus, if you want to count it, there’s their influence on the foundation of Russia, which I’m given to understand is not altogether insignificant a country these days :D, via the establishment of Kievan Rus’ (**very **roughly in the same period as Hastings).
What I always took away for the Battle of Hastings is it changed Britain’s focus away from Scandinavia to the European continent. In addition to France, Germany, etc., imagine how much different Sweden’s and Norway’s history would have been if it had been more intertwined with British history.
It’s gotta be something-centric. Otherwise, it would be world centric, which sort of makes it pointless, doesn’t it?
Also, I think that Europe has had at least *some *role in world affairs since that battle, if my history doesn’t fail me. Perhaps that’s why some people feel it should not be overly disregarded, history-wise…
I don’t think that’s true. He got permission from the Pope, but I don’t know that he got it from the King of France, and I don’t think he recognized the King of France as England’s feudal overlord (although he and his successors offered homage for the lands they held in France).
Well, that’s where the problem kind lied, isn’t it ?
He was Duke of Normandy, and as such a vassal of the King. But when he conquered England, he also established himself as King of a separate kingdom. Which kind of miffed Henri I, and later Philip I - but neither of them had the military power to enforce their claim to liege-dom (and Philip I already had his hands full wrangling with other, even less powerful Dukes of his) - so after a lot of arguing, a failed invasion of Normandy, a threat of invasion of England and William invading right back (in Brittany), they eventually reached the compromise you speak of, namely that William (and his lineage) agreed to be sort of half-vassals on account of their French holdings yet also full-blown kings in England.
That said, and regardless of these faits accomplis on the ground, I don’t believe the French kings ever really let go of the principle & notion that England oughta shoulda be their underlings, until the uneasy compromise done got fucked for good.
I might well be mistaken there, though - it’s really been a while :o. It’s kind of moot anyway since regardless of what they felt in the cockles of their little feudal hearts, they never found the time or means to cross the Channel and make it happen. Possibly because by then they’d found out about English weather and cuisine :D.
What if the conquest had failed? Isn’t it possible that there would have been a big northern empire spanning England, Wales, Scotland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and possibly Ireland, Northern Germany as well as parts of Finland and Russia around 1100? Now that would probably have significantly altered the dynamics of European History.
Who would be forming that big northern empire? We’re assuming that Harold stays on the throne of England…that he defeats both Hardrada and William? So there’s still an independent England, Norway, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, and Novogrod, and a bunch of smaller independent countries in Ireland and Wales. So for them to be united would require some massive conquest by somebody, and one that I don’t know that any of those countries had the manpower or resources to do, let alone the effect that their trying would have on their relationships with other countries.
I assume **Les Espaces **meant that England would then have fallen within the Scandinavian sphere of influence once Sweden+Norway+Denmark united under a single crown (which is likely since it’s not *too *hard to extend Baltic dominance to North Sea dominance. 1100 is perhaps a bit early for that though ?).
It’s doubtful England itself would have remained independent against a full scale Scandinavian onslaught, since the various kingdoms that made it prior to the Norman invasion were *really *keen on fighting each other and they already had some trouble pushing back the routine Saxon invasions of the 9th/10th/11th. Also, apparently (I’m learning as I go here, Scandinavian history is shrouded in mystery for me) Knut was planning a massive invasion of England in 1085 - it never materialized however, and the fleet soon fragmented. Possibly because the new Norman realm was too tough and newly organized nut to crush ? But what if it hadn’t been ?..
So, think all Danelaw, all the time, pretty much :).
I don’t really see Novgorod/Kievan Rus’/Russia becoming part of that speculative hegemon however, as the Varangians “went native” very rapidly there (much like the Normans in Normandy) - they remained on friendly-ish terms with the Old Country, traded and so on; but politically and culturally they were wholly separate.
That said, a prosperous Danish England *might *have led to earlier colonization of the Americas and a Vinland for realsies, which sets one’s mind abuzz with possibilities - maybe then the Natives don’t get suddenly wiped by the smallpox on account of having built up more resistances along the way, maybe they learn some about metallurgy, Christianism and some serious seamanship from contact with the Danes before the Puritans make their play… and the Iroquois Nations endure to this day ?
Yes, that’s more or less what I had in mind. After all, Cnut the Great united England, Denmark and Norway between the mid-1010s and 1035.
But I’ve derailed the thread. Back to the OP: I’d tend to agree with the dopers who consider the importance of the Battle of Hastings to be exagerated. It was a very significant but relatively local event. The fact that it changed the ruling class of a country that was going to become a major world power 800 years later (!) shouldn’t make it more important than it was. Hastings and Britain’s status almost a millenia later are only very remotely related, if at all.
I don’t think I’ve seen mentions of Badr (or perhaps the fall of Mecca), Yarmouk, Manzikert, Talas or the fall of Constantinople in the lists. To me, they were much more important in terms of changing the dynamics of world history.
After much preceding strife, conflict and warfare, the forces of the Han met the forces of the Ch’u. Liu-pang of the Han defeated the Ch’u and established the Han Dynasty. This happened in 203 BCE. The Han brought 300,000 soldiers; the Ch’u only had 100,000.
Roughly 1,300 years later the Battle of Hastings took place. Each side fielded about 7,000 troops.
Depending on one’s perspective, one of these battles is more important than the other.
It didn’t happen because Canute was afraid of an invasion from the Holy Roman Emperor, so kept postponing the invasion, until finally it was getting near harvest time, and his troops refused to go.
People keep forgetting that it had more short-term consequences that were also very important - namely, establishing a massive Norman empire that included both all of England and a goodly part of France: the Angevin Empire.
The Battle of Hastings was important for immediate reasons - change of the entire ruling class and culture of England - medium-term-consequences - the Angenin Empire - and, yes, long-term consequences, as well.
A lot of these fail the test of “decisiveness”. In many cases,they mark symbolic turning-points, rather than actually being decisive in and of themselves.
Badr and Yarmouk I think pass the test of being truly decisive. The others though …
(1) Talas - marked the end of T’ang expansion, the furthest limit of its penetration into the West - but it did not cause that end. The T’ang were already operating at their strategic limits.
(2) Manzikert - marked the beginning of the end for Byzantine fortunes in Anatolia, but again, dod not itself cause Byzantium to lose control.
(3) the fall of Constantinople - the siege was only the final act of a process of waining of Byzantine power that had been going on for centuries. Again, there was no one battle that was “decisive”.
However, I’d disagree with your assessment of Talas. It not only marked the end of T’ang expansion as you say but also ensured that Central Asia became part of the muslim world. Quite significant in my opinion.
As for the fall of Constantinople, I agree with your “strategic” description but I think it’s important to point out that how huge the “psychological” repercussions were for Christendom. It’s fair to say that it changed the outlook of Europeans. The last remnant of Rome the eternal are now in the hands of non-Christians.