We were pretty good before then. It mean widespread massacres and a huge destruction of resources as well as the transfer of what was left from the home population to the new foreign overlords. To a degree it also caused the class system that still impedes the country today.
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
We were pretty good before then. It mean widespread massacres and a huge destruction of resources as well as the transfer of what was left from the home population to the new foreign overlords. To a degree it also caused the class system that still impedes the country today.
Indeed.Both you and rest of world would be better place if England remained Merry old England.
But your language became so much more eloquent as a result of the Normans!
No more Beowulf English!As for the class system, just go republican like Italy did back in 1946. Honestly, I think that the British monarchy lost its right to rule when Prince William chose Kate Middleton as his wife rather than her hotter and big-assed younger sister Pippa:
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Wait, which ethnic group has a sense of hatred of the lower class? I’m not sure if I understand this.
The elites, I think? They're not a separate ethnic group, though.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Okay, but I don’t understand the dichotomy of the Normans and Anglo-Saxons and how that influences the antipathy towards the lower class.
I think that it's because the Normans introduced feudalism to England, no? Or at least a more rigid social hierarchy than existed in England before?
Well I think Eparkhos is over-egging the cake a bit but the rulers and ruled dichotomy was seriously worsened - coupled with the chaos that the Norman conquest brought, both initially and over later centuries as England became markedly more autocratic than it had been before. It was already a well organised state with a strong central government prior to the conquest but there were checks on the central power of the monarchy.
There are exceptions of course. England has frequently been more liberal, at least in accepting social mobility and its tended to be the times when the state has been more successful as a result. For instance during the earlier period of the Hundred Year's War when English leaders were willing to accept lower status players having a powerful role in the military. You would never have had the French monarchy and nobility accepting something like peasant low-bowmen having such potential military power as they would have seen it as too much of a threat to their own status and power.
Ditto a few centuries later between say the Glorious Revolution [1688] and ~1850 when the laissez faire and free trade ideas increasingly divided the nation and cut off much social mobility. Two world wars and a century or so of push for social and political reform helped check this again then we got cursed with Thatcher!
Plus the severe division that resulted. Virtually all options other than being peasants were closed to the native English. Traders, merchants, clergy, at least at higher ranks were all imported from the continent. Even those English nobles willing to accept William after 1066 were increasingly driven from their lands to make way for migrants from the continent. Walled towns which protected the inhabitants in times of unrest were torn down and replaced by castles to defened the rulers from their subjects. Similarly massive stone cathedrals were built at immense costs, often using forces labour by the local peasants as shows of both the wealth of the nobles and the power they had over their subjects.
English became the 3rd language in the kingdom behind Latin and French - only regaining status by the time of Edward III. Its often pointed out that you can tell which words were English in origin and which Norman French by their status.
Steve, based on what you write here, it appears that the early Norman conquest of England was an early example of a Great Replacement-style event occurring, no? This could, of course, be compared to some extent with the Turkification of Anatolia as well as with settler colonialism in the Americas. Here, of course, it wasn't so much the ordinary people being replaced as the elites, though. A Medieval de facto merit-based immigration policy favoring Normans?
Steve, based on what you write here, it appears that the early Norman conquest of England was an early example of a Great Replacement-style event occurring, no? This could, of course, be compared to some extent with the Turkification of Anatolia as well as with settler colonialism in the Americas. Here, of course, it wasn't so much the ordinary people being replaced as the elites, though. A Medieval de facto merit-based immigration policy favoring Normans?
Very true. Basically the ruling elite and merchantile classes were virtually totally changed with local English being supplanted by migrants, generally from northern France and possibly some neighbouring areas. A lot of ordinary people as well as nobles died and much destruction occurred. Arguably worse than the previous Viking conquests under the pagans and then again under Siwen and Canute.
Yeah, IMHO, one of the few positive things that came out of this was actually making the English language more recognizable by our present-day standards. But being a Medieval native English person must have sucked balls, with you essentially being a second-class citizen who has to be the bitch of your Norman overlords.
I presume that rebellion was not a realistic option due to Norman brutality and mass displacement, thus ensuring that there would be no one who would actually be capable of leading a rebellion remaining in a prominent position in Norman-ruled England?I wish that the Normans would have tried persuasion instead of coercion in getting the English to accept their culture, but times were unfortunately very different back then.
This was an era where witches were still burned at the stake, after all.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Possibly falling out over disputes regarding the Triple Intervention and France calling Russia out for snatching territory from China while both nations stopped Japan from snatching a lot of Chinese territory.
But Russia didn't snatch any Chinese territory during the Triple Intervention, did it?
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Not much, but it did gain control over Port Arthur, which was eventually seized by Japan during the Russo-Japanese War.
But it didn't outright annex Port Arthur, did it?
If the United States of Greater Austria plan ever gets implemented:
And/or if Russia will still become a multinational federation, but NOT under Bolshevik/Communist rule, what are the odds of a peaceful breakup of either of these two countries once some kind of severe internal crisis will occur?
And/or if Russia will still become a multinational federation, but NOT under Bolshevik/Communist rule, what are the odds of a peaceful breakup of either of these two countries once some kind of severe internal crisis will occur?
If the United States of Greater Austria plan ever gets implemented:
And/or if Russia will still become a multinational federation, but NOT under Bolshevik/Communist rule, what are the odds of a peaceful breakup of either of these two countries once some kind of severe internal crisis will occur?
A map of a non-Communist Russian federation alongside the rest of Europe after the end of World War I, with this map being set on January 1, 1921:
A map of Europe on January 1, 1921 in a TL where there is no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917 and where Germany decides to fight on in 1919 and subsequently gets crushed and partitioned by the victorious Allies:
Feeble Constitution - A Red-and-Green Russia 1917 Timeline
Greece, under the leadership of Venizelos, on the other hand, is very much disposed to commit these resources. Venizelos has two very good years in 1919 and 1920, with much less Greek refugees to accommodate and much more EFP help in doing so, with his army encountering much less resistance in...www.alternatehistory.com
