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.
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."
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.
Likely, the long-term outcome would be the same. Harald wouldn't have been in a great position to fight of William, either. He might have simply ceded southern England without even a fight.
And given William's subsequent Harrying of the North, I don't think that Harald would be able to hold on to it very long. He was intent on taking over the whole thing, and he had a much stronger force coming over the English Channel than over the North Sea.
Of course we can never really tell. I could spin a million other possible outcomes. But in this case, William really did have an overwhelming force. Godwinson had a home-field advantage, and might have won if he hadn't exhausted his force just getting there. The Vikings weren't going to fare better.
I was wondering a while ago what the outcome would have been if the order was reversed. Harold Godwinson might have fought off William of Normandy, but then be too exhausted to stop Harald Hardrada, all with just a few weeks of difference in timing.
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.
Describing Germany's loss in WW2 as 'affecting their foreign policy a little' represents a profound disconnect with reality, which is that WW2 fundamentally reshaped the entire world, cemented the US as a superpower, set up the USSR for its rise, split Germany in two (with major political effects to this day), ended European empires (UK, French), and ultimately brought about the EU. And those are just some of WW2's effects, which would have all gone completely different directions if Germany or Japan had won.
But as the article says, this battle really was tremendously important. The utter catastrophe led to the quick and permanent entrenchment of the Normans in Britain, with huge and long-reaching consequences reaching to the present: first and foremost, that the English language was profoundly altered at every level by influence from French.
Germany was divided for more than forty years after the Second World War. That absolutely changed their foreign policy and those changes have continued to be felt into the present day. The Second World War ended traditional power structures and changed foreign policy for everyone. That’s reality.
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.
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."
> "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 in UK English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_and_All_That
https://archive.ph/a1YN4
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.
Counterfactuals abound in this. What if Stamford Bridge had failed?
What if Harold had won?
Likely, the long-term outcome would be the same. Harald wouldn't have been in a great position to fight of William, either. He might have simply ceded southern England without even a fight.
And given William's subsequent Harrying of the North, I don't think that Harald would be able to hold on to it very long. He was intent on taking over the whole thing, and he had a much stronger force coming over the English Channel than over the North Sea.
Of course we can never really tell. I could spin a million other possible outcomes. But in this case, William really did have an overwhelming force. Godwinson had a home-field advantage, and might have won if he hadn't exhausted his force just getting there. The Vikings weren't going to fare better.
I was wondering a while ago what the outcome would have been if the order was reversed. Harold Godwinson might have fought off William of Normandy, but then be too exhausted to stop Harald Hardrada, all with just a few weeks of difference in timing.
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.
Describing Germany's loss in WW2 as 'affecting their foreign policy a little' represents a profound disconnect with reality, which is that WW2 fundamentally reshaped the entire world, cemented the US as a superpower, set up the USSR for its rise, split Germany in two (with major political effects to this day), ended European empires (UK, French), and ultimately brought about the EU. And those are just some of WW2's effects, which would have all gone completely different directions if Germany or Japan had won.
But as the article says, this battle really was tremendously important. The utter catastrophe led to the quick and permanent entrenchment of the Normans in Britain, with huge and long-reaching consequences reaching to the present: first and foremost, that the English language was profoundly altered at every level by influence from French.
Germany was divided for more than forty years after the Second World War. That absolutely changed their foreign policy and those changes have continued to be felt into the present day. The Second World War ended traditional power structures and changed foreign policy for everyone. That’s reality.