HN

Need help?
<- Back
How important was the Battle of Hastings?

How important was the Battle of Hastings?

benbreen

Comments (62)

  • vondur
    It was very important. The Normans completely supplanted the ruling aristocracy of England and changed the culture of the country. The Normans were some serious bad asses and conquered Sicily and nearly conquered the Byzantine Empire. There’s a podcast on them called Norman Centuries which I also recommend.
  • linehedonist
    Attention-grabbing headline, but the article itself answers the question: very important."Hastings was one of those battles which changed the course of history, most directly for England but also, as events turned out, for Britain and for France... In terms of its consequences, Hastings must be the most important battle ever to have been fought in England... the consequences of its outcome changed the course of English history definitively."
  • atombender
  • globalise83
    When you think that the Norman successors still own the vast majority of England to this day, cramming the Anglo-Saxons into rabbit hutches on high density estates, very.
  • robotresearcher
    > "was 1066 really all that?"This article might exist just for this joke in the sub-headline. Pretty good."1066 and all that" is a highly influential satirical history book from 1930, and "[X] and all that" a meme/idiom in UK English.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_and_All_That
  • onion2k
    At the time it was important, but the real impact came later when it was absolutely pivotal in giving British school children something to learn about and write a report on for one summer of their school life. There isn't a single person who went to school in England who doesn't know about the battle, the Bayeux Tapestry, and the Doomsday book.(Hyperbole obviously, before people reply to say they went to Hastings Secondary and have never heard of William the Conqueor.)
  • teleforce
    >French customs then took root through England and English affairs began to change in various waysYou can replace this statement with French language and it's still be true:French "language" then took root through England and English "language" began to change in various ways.Fun facts, about one-third of modern English language are actually made up from French words and vocabulary.I remember reading one posted announcement notice at a French university, and surprisingly understood most of the contents of the notice although it's written in French and I cannot speak French.However, if I don't read the notice but relies on French to verbally reading the notice to me, I'd not understand the contents.Apparently most of the working and professional words in English were taken from French (this made up most of the loan words from French to English). Thus the notice is easily understandable by reading it if you know English language since the notice is in professional setting (i.e university).
  • Jemaclus
    Not affiliated, just a fan, but if this is a topic you're interested in, I highly recommend Michael Livingston's "1066: A Guide to the Battles and Campaigns."Ihttps://www.michaellivingston.com/non-fiction/1066-a-guide-t...
  • ggm
    Counterfactuals abound in this. What if Stamford Bridge had failed?What if Harold had won?
  • jonjacky
    Hastings affected the wider politics of Europe, not just England. For centuries before Hastings, England had been involved with Scandinavia, especially Denmark and Norway. After Hastings it was totally entangled with France, pretty much forever.
  • riffraff
    The 1851 book "The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World"[0] and its ilk is likely what the author refers to when talking of "decisive battles where popularised in the 19th century".It is pretty obvious that single battles hardly determine long war outcomes, but it's a pretty attractive idea that a kingdom can be lost for want of a nail and all that.[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_o...
  • tomjuggler
    The battle of Hastings features prominently in my house, it's one of the first history subjects we taught the kids about.Tom Hastings
  • hermitcrab
    Can't see 'History Today' without thinking about Newman and Badiel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TO-e-HdW8A
  • somewhereoutth
    The English class system is anchored in this event - the ruling/upper class was replaced in its entirety by the Norman invaders, leaving two very distinct identities.
  • mxmilkiib
    excellent ~10h The Rest Is History podcast playlist covering the context and detailshttps://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEbAHi3fZpuHgn-UBsGwiSiMI...
  • Uw5ssYPc
    This link is a paywalled garbage. Cannot read it without paying.
  • jongjong
    All I can say is that people do seem to overestimate the impact of losing a war. Just like they overestimate the need to wage war in the first place.The main outcome of a war is loss of lives and infrastructure. Political changes are minor; maybe they will start teaching the language of the invader in schools as an elective... Maybe restaurants will get new foods added to the menu. Maybe taxes will go up a little... A bit more immigration from that country... Money will go to a different set of politicians.But if you want a modern proof; look at Iraq and Afghanistan... Under US occupation for many years. They have the same people, same language, same culture, same everything as before... It's like they never lost any battles. Look at Germany after they lost WW2; they still speak German. Their cultural identity is still very strong; maybe it affected their foreign policy a little but apart from that, it's hard to tell.War is truly useless except for those selling weapons and for a couple of big companies that are trying to acquire some mineral resources or securing some trade routes. There's really no other purpose.My ancestors are from a country which (during the French revolution) had voluntarily changed 'ownership' from France to Britain and later back to France again. They still speak French. Nothing changed, at all, except for the fact that the elites conveniently avoided the Guillotine... Fast forward 300 years and you can't tell any cultural or economic difference at all from the other neighboring nations which remained under France and had experienced the Guillotine; same GDP numbers, same culture, same everything.Anglo-Saxons like to make fun of the French for surrendering easily but as a regular citizen, it actually makes logical sense. I think it just shows that the government is better aligned with the interests of the people.Strategic surrender is smart; if you know ahead of time which force is most powerful and can evaluate it objectively, you can save yourself the trouble of dying and you end up with a better outcome than you would have otherwise. It's risk management.Of course, the Swiss are even smarter for staying neutral but France is too big to take a neutral stance (and they can actually drive outcomes) so they take one stance and then back-peddle if the tide turns.And France does something else really smart which is; they embrace internal opposition; so if the tides turn, they allow the opposing elite take control without any fighting and it looks like France was always on the winning side.Almost nobody recalls this, but during WW2, France was actually on the German side; president Philippe Pétain allowed the Germans in. But then later General De Gaulle pushed back when it looked like there was a good chance to turn the war around. And now everyone thinks France was always part of the allied forces.French people hacked politics. I think now Americans are now also doing something similar. This is why the country is divided IMO and it's smart. Internal division is the cost of guaranteed victory.It works so long as the population is politically flexible and only focus on what's important to them. If people don't mind changing religion or language or some laws, then it really doesn't matter who wins the war. If the enemy doesn't have clear objectives for a war, then the loser of the war can still control the outcome.