Harold backs Tostig in 1065

What if Harold Godwinson had backed his brother Tostig in 1065, thereby not meeting the demands of Edwin and Morcar and the northern rebels? Would there have been a civil war and how could that have changed things?
 

BigDave1967

Banned
What if Harold Godwinson had backed his brother Tostig in 1065, thereby not meeting the demands of Edwin and Morcar and the northern rebels? Would there have been a civil war and how could that have changed things?

William the Conqueror would still be coming with his army to claim the throne. It's been said before that former King of England Edward the Confessor told William that he would be crowned King after his death.
 
Well I don't think the northern rebels would have been that much of an problem, given that they were sandwiched between the raiding Scots and the Anglo-Saxon army moving north. Probably they would agree to some compromise in which Tostig, as king, would give them special privileges.

The greatest change that Tostig's kingship can bring is, of course, whether Harald Hardrada will invade. If you believe some sagas Harald was originally uninterested in England but was persuaded by Tostig to invade. If that was indeed what happened then it's unlikely that Morcar and Edwin will have the same impact of Harald Hardrada. But of course there were advantages to intervening in an England riven by civil war; and maybe if Harald invaded without Tostig he'd be less complacent and would have escaped with his life at Stamford Bridge. He might even win.

Of course, the real question is whether this impacts the Battle of Hastings. I don't really think so... given that the cavalry-infantry tactics of the Normans probably outclassed the infantry-only tactics of the Anglo-Saxons/Norse. In fact the Battle of Hastings might have been even more decisive in this timeline as Edwin and Morcar's rebellion, even if crushed, rules out any chance of their forces playing a role in this pivotal struggle.
 
Last edited:
What if Harold Godwinson had backed his brother Tostig in 1065, thereby not meeting the demands of Edwin and Morcar and the northern rebels? Would there have been a civil war and how could that have changed things?

I don't think it would have led to a continued civil war : with the support of Edward, you'll probably have a de facto rebel Northumbria ealdom with Tostig complaining that his brother doesn't do enough to crush rebels, and eventually Harold giving ressources to his brother to regain Northumbria (not enough to ensure him a crushing and quick victory).

The differences would have been limited : maybe he wouldn't have called Harald in England, but his help against Normans would have been neglectible. Depending on the outcome of the invasion, he could be part of the Saxon submitting to William (only to rebel afterwards) or ignored a time by Harold then crushed at the benefit of former rebels.
 
If there isn't a Stamford Bridge doesn't Harold have a much better shot to beat William as he doesn't have to go from the North to the South, nor engage in a hard fought battle along the way.
 
If there isn't a Stamford Bridge doesn't Harold have a much better shot to beat William as he doesn't have to go from the North to the South, nor engage in a hard fought battle along the way.

depends ... if England is much less unified it might end out fairly samey, due to having a smaller army in the first place
 
I'm going to regret this but...
Why?
Seconded! Harold very nearly won at Senlache. if the fyrd had held its position he almost certainly would have done and he would be acclaimed as one of the military genii of the age.
William was not preordained to win its just that we've had 948 years of him having won that makes it seem that way!
 

Dirk

Banned
A question: Why the hell would Harold back Tostig? He had previously backed the Northumbrian earls against Tostig, and aided in the events that led to Tostig's exile. Tostig was younger and less well liked than Harold, and didn't have much of a native power base; the south was firmly in the grasp of Harold, and the northerners hated Tostig from his inauguration as earl until his death.
 
We can't rule out a miscalculation of Harold, the earl being forced to support his brother by the anglo-saxon court or part of it, or actually a different calculation.

Backing Tostig in Northumbria (an help that, I agree, would be particularly limited) could have allowed Harold to have his rule less disputed in his own estates and in the court : if Tostig wanted to ruin himself and his forces in a war he couldn't win, then too bad.
 
If Tostig is aligned with Harold, then Edwin and Morcar may throw their lot in with William or Harald.
 
I'm going to regret this but...
Why?

Well, I agree that William wasn't destined to win at Hastings, but there were several points in his favor.

1. William of Normandy had much more military experience.
2. Cavalry in the medieval ages (or even since Adrianople in the 4th Century AD) were a powerful and sometimes-decisive tool on the battlefield, and at least gave your commander more tactical options.
3. William had a lot more archers compared with Harold so he could pepper the Anglo-Saxons with impunity.
4. The Anglo-Saxon shield wall was indeed powerful, but it conceded the initiative to William, allowing William freedom of maneuver.
5. Stamford Bridge probably made the Anglo-Saxons overly-impetuous, as demonstrated by the success of William's feigned retreats.
 
1. William of Normandy had much more military experience.
Harold, had gained experience in Wales, Germany and of course England. That he was sent and lead such campaigns show that he was someone skilled enough.
Of course William have to deal with almost continual revolts and wars with his neighbours, but that's hardly an experience that would be immediatly useful on the battlefield (feudal war being above all things based on siege and control of holdings).

2. Cavalry in the medieval ages (or even since Adrianople in the 4th Century AD) were a powerful and sometimes-decisive tool on the battlefield, and at least gave your commander more tactical options.
Middle Ages are a really long period, and cavalry shouldn't be surestimated on battlefield. Not only because battlefields battles were rarely decisive (Hastings was OTL), but because cavalry was as well a social marker than a tactical asset and we could argue that depsite the usefulness of cavalry charges, it was best used in peripherical issues.

While Saxons used less cavalry than Franco-Normans, it wasn't a tactical issue : as the OTL Battle of Hastings showed, they managed to hold their ground nevertheless.
Admittedly, Harold choose the place well, placing his troops on a higher ground in a swampy place (showing, again, his military skills).

What decided of the battle was less infantry or cavalry (Saxons and Franco-Normans having respectivly the better of their time) but tactics and eventually, as it's current for decisive medieval battles (again, a rarity) : death or capture of the king.

3. William had a lot more archers compared with Harold so he could pepper the Anglo-Saxons with impunity.
Actually, accounts of the battle show that Franco-Norman archery was close to useless at first : the saxon shieldwall prooved effective, at least before the ranks break.
The death of Harold shouldn't push to overestimate the effectivness of William's archery, and while Saxons lack archery themselves, it didn't prevented them to strike back with wathever they had (Axes, stones, etc.).
Eventually, as Saxons didn't planned at first to move from their positions, archery (whom role was more to prevent maneouvre than "pepper") is a bit of irrelevant in the first part of the battle.

4. The Anglo-Saxon shield wall was indeed powerful, but it conceded the initiative to William, allowing William freedom of maneuver.
Saxons being on the higher ground, they actually had interest to not move, critically when the ground was basically a swamp. It's actually when aisles of Saxon army moved that William's odds to win the battle increased.

5. Stamford Bridge probably made the Anglo-Saxons overly-impetuous, as demonstrated by the success of William's feigned retreats.
It's quite assumed that at least the first retreats, critically from Bretons, were genuine.
That said, the later ones probably were part of a tactic. A bit desesperate, as it may as well turn to an actual panic and actual fleeing, but it worked.

And while it shows that one of William's assets was a better holding on his troops, more than military skills (we could argue than maintaining discipline within an army could be part of that, but it would be a bit anachronical as these armies were "politically" organised and telling more about Saxons and Franco-Norman political structures), it seems that the shieldwall was maintained at least in the center up to Harold's death.

In short, would William had several ways to be defeated or to see Hastings ending in a stalemate : being killed in the first charges is an obvious one, but seeing feigned retreat ending in panic, failing to kill Harold, etc.
 
Top