What if Harold Godwinson survived Hastings?

The Anglo-Saxons can regroup and fight another battle. Harold can afford a loss or even a draw against William because he has reinforcements coming in. The Normans don't and a few weeks after Hastings, their supply of wine ran out and they developed dysentery from drinking the water and meat. England fell to William because there was no unified leadership to rally behind.

To go further with it, would England still be England if it weren't for the Normanification? I'd read something on this board a couple weeks ago that Anglo Saxons got a lot of their elite culture from the French anyway.

File: feelsdragon.png (310KB, 700x447px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 700x447px

>>1857709
w-why are you asking this question?

File: burning_of_jeanne_d_arc.png (607KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1024x768px

>>1857709
England would have continued to have one of the most centralized, learned, efficient monarchies in Europe instead of a French nonce's feudal playground

>>1858060

>Anglo-Saxon England
>Centralized.

Uwotm8. Pretty much the entire reason that William came out on top was because the enormously decentralized nature of Anglo-Saxon England and the extraordinarily weak internal power structure its kings had prevented Harald from mobilizing his forces effectively.

File: King Athelstan.jpg (30KB, 458x684px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 458x684px

>>1858067
This poster lies.

>>1858067

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England#Governmental_systems

File: straya cunt.jpg (368KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1600x1200px

>>1858067
>>1858078
BLOWN

THE

F*CK

OUT

>>1858067
Weird, because I thought it was because his army pretty much had to beat a forced march back from Stamford Bridge and William was able to land unopposed while Harold had to deal with dickass Norwegians.

File: Knoife.gif (2MB, 208x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 208x320px

>>1858085
Boatpeople man...

>>1858078

And yet, Harald couldn't actually get his northern bannermen to fight under him, them running off and making their own private war against the Danish invaders.

He couldn't keep his fleet together, not even for money, having to disband it in early September and letting the Normans get a free ride across the Channel.

He couldn't actually get his northern Fyrd to march south with him to confront William at Hastings, and had to raise a brand new one.

He had to make his stand at Hastings instead of adopting a longer term war, because well, the men only fight for 60 days, and when that's up, that's up, and there's not a damn bit you can do about it.

That is not the way centralized monarchies work.

>>1858083
>>1858068

Right, I had forgotten /his/ was the place where you meme instead of making serious discussion. You know, it's a shame; when this board was made, the worry was that it would be /pol/ with dates. It turns out, it would be /b/ with dates.

File: Serious Discussion.gif (3MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x180px

>>1858093
So you came to 4chan for serious discussions?

File: 1471485340113.jpg (7KB, 208x243px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 208x243px

>>1858093
>That is not the way centralized monarchies work.

t. anonymous

http://www.athelstanmuseum.org.uk/people_king_athelstan.html

>>1858085

>Weird, because I thought it was because his army pretty much had to beat a forced march back from Stamford Bridge and William was able to land unopposed while Harold had to deal with dickass Norwegians.

You mean, half of his army. The fyrd was raised anew and weren't the same fyrd that fought at Stamford.

You also forget his inability to fall back and otherwise utilize his enormous resources he had vis a vis William (in theory), because he actually can't force anyone to fight outside of their term of obligation, since he doesn't have a system of paid troops.

Or how he had to disband his fleet because their limits were up, right when William was about to cross the channel.


Not to mention there are zero contemporary accounts that suggest fatigue was an issue in the battle, which lasted for 9 hours without any signs of the Anglo-Saxons flagging from exhaustion. Poor discipline and lack of cavalry and its pursuit capabilities meant a hell of a lot more than fatigue.

And again, there wouldn't have necessitated a battle at Hastings at all if the English kings were stronger.

File: 1459606749324.jpg (330KB, 689x1000px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 689x1000px

>>1858108
>he actually can't force anyone to fight outside of their term of obligation, since he doesn't have a system of paid troops.

He didn't need to you ignorant troll. The English knew they were on the brink of enslavement, they freely gave themselves to the fight.

>following the news of the Norman invasion. He arrived in London on 6th October 1066. He halted at the capital for six days, during that time giving orders for recruiting forces from the southern and midland counties, he also directed his fleet to reassemble off the Sussex coast. Harold was well thought of in London, and his call to arms was immediately obeyed by the people. He was a popular King and he had proved himself during his brief reign to be a just, wise and brave man.

http://www.normaninvasion.info/king-harold-gathers-army-london.htm

>>1858128
>He didn't need to you ignorant troll. The English knew they were on the brink of enslavement, they freely gave themselves to the fight.


Except his fleet, which went home instead of sticking around a few more days to try to intercept the Normans. Except the bulk of the army he won at Stamford Bridge with, which just went home afterwards.

>following the news of the Norman invasion. He arrived in London on 6th October 1066. He halted at the capital for six days, during that time giving orders for recruiting forces from the southern and midland counties, he also directed his fleet to reassemble off the Sussex coast. Harold was well thought of in London, and his call to arms was immediately obeyed by the people. He was a popular King and he had proved himself during his brief reign to be a just, wise and brave man.

Then answer me this; why didn't the fyyrd that had fought at Stamford go down south with him? They wouldn't have slowed his mostly foot Huscarls any. They would have given him at least 6,000 more bodies to throw at William. But no, he disbands his (battle-tested) fyrd and raises a green one.

English kings were institutionally weak. Popularity != internal power.

File: Argument clinic.jpg (17KB, 481x257px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 481x257px

>>1858158
>why didn't the fyyrd that had fought at Stamford go down south with him?

Hardrada had wrecked it you mong.

>The severe loss that his army had sustained in the battle with the Norwegians meant many of his experienced troops were unable to accompany him in his second forced march. He needed to replenish his army.

http://www.normaninvasion.info/king-harold-receives-news-norman-invasion-york.htm

>>1858180
>Hardrada had wrecked it you mong.


Really? When? Because as I recall, the fleets never came into contact, and in fact Godwinson's fleet never came north, which is why he marched his Huscarls up to Stamford instead of taking a quicker boat ride.

>The severe loss that his army had sustained in the battle with the Norwegians meant many of his experienced troops were unable to accompany him in his second forced march. He needed to replenish his army.

That's cute, let's have a real source, shall we? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles certainly don't give any mention of heavy losses sustained by Godwinson.

File: 1445026752142.png (291KB, 430x430px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 430x430px

>>1858190
On the 25th of September, roughly a fortnight before Hastings.

>>1858220

And what evidence do you have that Hardrada "wrecked" Godwinson's Fyrd in said battle?

File: cheers.gif (987KB, 348x323px)

987KB, 348x323px

>>1858244
Aside from this link

http://www.normaninvasion.info/king-harold-receives-news-norman-invasion-york.htm

you mean?

How about this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge

Or perhaps this one:

>Harald now significantly weakened from the Battle of Stamford Bridge had to now focus on the new invasion from the south not having time to recover from the heavy losses suffered at Stamford Bridge.

http://www.voluspa.org/stamfordbridge.htm

That's all for me tonight and may Christ forgive you.

>>1858257
>http://www.voluspa.org/stamfordbridge.htm

Did you notice how not a single one of them has any primary source mention of any losses Harald took? In fact, only the wiki one has primary sources at all, and that only to mention

1) That the English caught the Norweigans by surprise

2) The Norweigans formed a circle (possibly indicateing they were outnumbered?)

3) After the Saxons pushed the Norweigans back, a huge guy held them at bay for a while

4) After big guy went down, the pursuit resumed, to be briefly checked by a Norweigan counterattack from men guarding their ships, which ultimately failed.

I don't see anything in there indicating heavy losses, do you?

>>1858093
>He couldn't keep his fleet together, not even for money, having to disband it in early September and letting the Normans get a free ride across the Channel.
Actually, the English fleet lost a lot of ships when it headed for London in September. The winds wrecked invaluable ships that the Saxons could've needed.

There was even a moment when William's flagship, Mora had gone ahead of the entire invasion fleet. Had a group of English ships intercepted Mora, the Bastard would've been killed or held prisoner. The whole Norman invasion would've fallen apart without William as leader since his determination held that army of Normans, Bretons, Flemings, and mercenaries together.

What I find unforgivable is why the English didn't launch a preemptive strike against William's fleet. The English scyp fyrd had quite a few Danish and Norwegian descendants so it was within their blood and tactics to raid on those transports and William's camp.

>>1858067
Anglo-Saxon England's main problem was that it gave earls too much power. The 4 earldoms of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex, and East Anglia were given extraordinary administrative duties and reign thanks to Canute. This is what allowed the son of South Saxon thegn, Godwin, to rise to unprecedented heights. Godwin and his family owned 1/3 of England's land; they were the richest and most powerful dynasty. Godwin and his son Harold wielded far greater power than even King Edward.

William recognized this problem and devolved an earl to owning a shire only. As much as I detest the Bastard, his fusion of Norman and Anglo-Saxon systems of government allowed England to commit its resources and manpower to total war instead of the outdated fyrd system.

>>1857793
The problem is the threat of the Pope's excommunication hanging over Harold. It's one of the reasons why he committed to battle so soon after Stamford Bridge. He didn't want the proclamation of being excommunicated to weaken his support.

I do agree that had Harold remained alive and in shape after Hastings, he can always rally England to beat William. The Viking fleet from Stamford Bridge had been seized and they were on their way to blockade Norman ships to reach Hastings. William would be trapped in England with a depleted army and rations running low. If being besieged in Hastings with winter coming weakens morale enough, it's possible some of the lords and knights might overtake William and offer him as a prisoner in exchange for safe conduct back to France.

>>1858021
Even without the Norman Conquest, England was already an integral part of the Western European community. It not only had ties with Scandinavia, but Ireland, France, the Low Countries, and the Holy Roman Empire. I imagine the English would value cavalry and import horses to breed as well as instructors to teach them how to fight as cavaliers. Also crossbows would be emulated since Hastings was the 1st time they had been utilized in England since the Roman period.

As for castles and building with stone, that would come in time. Even the English would realize the value of such buildings and hire masons from all over Europe.

>>1858272
Do you have any sources at all on their losses that challenge his citations?

We'll wait.

>>1860096

As far as I'm aware, the only primary source to Stamford Bridge at all is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which makes no mention of Saxon losses whatsoever.

His "citations" can't get around that. I can equally cite documents that speculate on the scanty evidence.

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/pw/medieval-warfare/blog/too-tired-to-fight-harold-godwinsons-saxon-army-on-the-march-in-1066/

Which comes to a different conclusion.

>>1860146
Not the guy you're responding to, but Harold's army did lose some men at Stamford. Nowhere near the amount that Harald Siggurdson did, but there's no way they didn't lose a significant amount of huscarls and senior thegns.

Stamford Bridge was the last decisive victory that the Anglo-Saxons had, but it also pisses me off because had Fulford Gate not ended in a defeat, Harold wouldn't have to force march 300 miles and leave the south undefended.

>>1860170
>Not the guy you're responding to, but Harold's army did lose some men at Stamford. Nowhere near the amount that Harald Siggurdson did, but there's no way they didn't lose a significant amount of huscarls and senior thegns.

Well, unless, as the AS chroincle describes, it was a surprise attack in the early morning against a mostly unprepared force that some of whom hadn't even had time to don their armor. Lopsided victories do occur. It's also telling that he doesn't take guys like Edwin and Morcar south with him, even though they'd probably have real Huscarls, not fyrdsmen.

>Stamford Bridge was the last decisive victory that the Anglo-Saxons had, but it also pisses me off because had Fulford Gate not ended in a defeat, Harold wouldn't have to force march 300 miles and leave the south undefended.

To be fair, the sort of intelligence and coordination necessary to pinpoint an enemy force and attack him while he disembarks didn't really exist in the 11th century world. They might have stopped it by blind luck, but you can't really count on blind luck.

If he stayed in the south, the only major difference is you're likely to get a Hastings in mid-September instead of mid-October.

>>1860319
>It's also telling that he doesn't take guys like Edwin and Morcar south with him, even though they'd probably have real Huscarls, not fyrdsmen.
Northumbria lost quite a few fighting men at Fulford though Mercia should've fielded more for Harold. Both brothers were scheming to undermine Harold despite being married to their sister and they didn't even fully support Edgar Atheling.

Though to be fair to the thegns and fyrdsmen of Mercia and Northumbria, they were on the move to Hastings. A lot of them went on foot and some had reached the battle by the time it was over.

>If he stayed in the south, the only major difference is you're likely to get a Hastings in mid-September instead of mid-October.
I'm fairly certain the Normans would be repulsed because Harold in the south would make sure they wouldn't establish a beachhead. If Harold does die, this makes for an interesting What If? since William now has to face Harald Siggurdson for the whole of England.

>>1860375
>Northumbria lost quite a few fighting men at Fulford though Mercia should've fielded more for Harold. Both brothers were scheming to undermine Harold despite being married to their sister and they didn't even fully support Edgar Atheling.


Yes, this goes back to the whole "institutionally weak kings" thing. Harold quite simply couldn't draw the same kind of support up north as he could from his "core" areas further south.

> fairly certain the Normans would be repulsed because Harold in the south would make sure they wouldn't establish a beachhead.

Unless Harold is sitting right on top of where they happen to land though, he's likely not to get a chance. And attacking in the open in the teeth of Norman cavalry supremacy is a recipe for disaster real quick.

Now yeah, if he's camped right on the beach when the Normans try to get off, he's going to slaughter them, but honestly, how would that happen short of a naval interception, which is again unlikely when William moved his fleet out after Harold disbanded his?


> If Harold does die, this makes for an interesting What If? since William now has to face Harald Siggurdson for the whole of England.

To be honest, I'd heavily bet on William in that conflict. I mean, battles do have a certain degree of inherent chaos so there's always the possibility that Hardrada comes out on top, but I really do think the army William has is significantly better than the one Hardada has, and about the only chance I can see for the Norweigans winning is for them to somehow find out about William's victory, and very quickly manage to enlist the aid of significant numbers of Englishmen to have a much huger horde when they do finally meet.

File: 1476811566963.png (133KB, 609x392px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 609x392px

>>1857709
Oh man just think about it.

Refined, pure, Anglo culture.
We'd have been elves by now.

>>1860415
>the only chance I can see for the Norweigans winning is for them to somehow find out about William's victory, and very quickly manage to enlist the aid of significant numbers of Englishmen to have a much huger horde when they do finally meet.
Don't forget Siggurdson's 300 ships. He can intercept any troop reinforcements from Normandy while native Englishmen flock to another Viking king. Siggurdson was the greatest warrior of 11th century Europe at the time and better a Norwegian whom the Anglo-Saxons can relate to than an upstart Norman bastard.

Remember, the northern English in particular revolted against William's rule several times and appealed to Svein Estridson as their new king. Siggurdson would have the advantage of having a battle-hardened army with thousands of English recruits. The Normans would be surrounded by hostiles and without support.

>>1860470

>Don't forget Siggurdson's 300 ships. He can intercept any troop reinforcements from Normandy while native Englishmen flock to another Viking king.

But are the native englishment likely to flock to another viking king? I mean, he's already come in and was raiding and fighting the local lords. I would think attempting to strike out on their own, or individual bargains with whomever is likely to benefit that particular lord is far more likely.


>Siggurdson was the greatest warrior of 11th century Europe at the time and better a Norwegian whom the Anglo-Saxons can relate to than an upstart Norman bastard.

Again, I suspect realpolitik is far more likely to matter than blood and culture ties. Plus, William gets the religious bonus of having a papal banner. I doubt everyone would care, but the more religious sorts probably would have.

>Remember, the northern English in particular revolted against William's rule several times and appealed to Svein Estridson as their new king.

They also revolted against their old kings, and were hardly the most loyal of allies to Godwinson. I suspect looking out for #1 heads higher than any particular idealism.

>Siggurdson would have the advantage of having a battle-hardened army with thousands of English recruits. The Normans would be surrounded by hostiles and without support.

I am very much doubtful of both those things, and in any event, I still think that William's combined arms mercenary army was several steps ahead quality wise than what Hardrada could bring to the field.

>>1860525
>I would think attempting to strike out on their own, or individual bargains with whomever is likely to benefit that particular lord is far more likely.
That's what happened in history and it fucked over the Anglo-Saxons big time. Had they maintained a unified front against William, the Normans would've been defeated but turncoats like Wigot of Wallingford and others assisted William. Even Edwin and Morkar meekly submitted.

File: 1476389339883.jpg (387KB, 785x757px)

387KB, 785x757px

How is William the Conqueror viewed toady in England?
Also is there any sizeable amount of Norman blood in the English people today?

File: 1455836951579.jpg (52KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x366px

>>1860902
>toady
fuck, i meant today.

File: toad4.jpg (570KB, 2048x1343px)

570KB, 2048x1343px

>>1860908
>French
>toad-y
Checks out

>>1858272
>huge guy
For you

>>1860146
>https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/pw/medieval-warfare/blog/

>/blog/