AHC Can the Anglo-Saxons throw out the Norman Invaders post-Hastings?

[Ulyanovsk]

1066 was an intensely traumatic year in English history. The huscarl warrior elite and much of the Anglo-Saxon nobility were decimated at the Battle of Hastings. A new ruling class came in, built castles, and ruled the land as conquerors. Multiple attempts at resistance were made, and all ended in their defeat and ensuing reprisals (including the bloody Harrying of the North)

Now, I’ve always found the idea of a sort of medieval guerilla resistance to be interesting. Hereward the Wake, as well as several northern Saxon lords and the remaining Godwinsons all made attempts at overthrowing their Norman conquerors, but they failed.

But what if they didn’t? Is there any plausible way that the Norman invasion is thrown out of England by an Anglo-Saxon resistance following the Battle of Hastings? Perhaps the death of William at the battle leads to the splintering of the Norman force, or heavier Norman casualties for whatever reason means a successful rebellion.

 

[PuffyClouds]

England had a pretty good militia system, so you would have to increase that. Maybe some of the more professional soldiers could escape and rally new militia units.

 

[Superninja76]

The anglo-saxons don't really have any sort of chance of doing it on their own. The normans didn't care about civillian casualties in the slightest, and guerilla warfare is generally only ever successful on its own when the enemy is concerned with civillian casualties.

Can't blend in with the villagers if the village is burned down and the villagers have been butchered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

 

[Ulyanovsk]

The anglo-saxons don't really have any sort of chance of doing it on their own. The normans didn't care about civillian casualties in the slightest, and guerilla warfare is generally only ever successful on its own when the enemy is concerned with civillian casualties.

Can't blend in with the villagers if the village is burned down and the villagers have been butchered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

Perhaps, but maybe some early victories by the likes of Eadric the Wild against Norman fortifications, and a rebellion of the northern earls combined with a larger Danish army landing at Ely could lead to a battered Norman army having to abandon their conquests.

This would of course cause massive hemorrhaging to the English countryside and population, particularly in the south, but I think it could be sufficient.

 

[Superninja76]

Perhaps, but maybe some early victories by the likes of Eadric the Wild against Norman fortifications, and a rebellion of the northern earls combined with a larger Danish army landing at Ely could lead to a battered Norman army having to abandon their conquests.

This would of course cause massive hemorrhaging to the English countryside and population, particularly in the south, but I think it could be sufficient.

Eadric the wild didn't have much hope. A band of rebels, supported by welshmen from gwynned, against the normans in the open field? Taking a castle, even, when they failed to do so numerous times?
And the northern earls had rebelled, and lost, rather badly. By ely, the harrying of the north had already been done, and it's not like the danes were especially determined to help the english rebels. They abandoned them for keeping a mere monastery's worth of loot, and if with more men they refuse that, william can always raise greater bribes. I doubt the harrying of the north costed him much with the loot it probably brought in.

 

[The Professor]

It's hard but the best way would be be kill William at/after Hastings and break the unified focus of the invaders, then provide a rallying figure for the English to regroup around and fight back.
The English fyrd wasn't a bad force, and they had ways to counteract the Norman knights provided they don't fall into the same errors they did at Hastings

 

[Ulyanovsk]

Eadric the wild didn't have much hope. A band of rebels, supported by welshmen from gwynned, against the normans in the open field? Taking a castle, even, when they failed to do so numerous times?
And the northern earls had rebelled, and lost, rather badly. By ely, the harrying of the north had already been done, and it's not like the danes were especially determined to help the english rebels. They abandoned them for keeping a mere monastery's worth of loot, and if with more men they refuse that, william can always raise greater bribes. I doubt the harrying of the north costed him much with the loot it probably brought in.

If we give them a bit of luck, maybe Eadric and his band take the castle at Shrewsbury by surprise (a failed affair OTL), and this causes a response from William and his forces. This diversion allows the earls Edwin and Morcar to gather their levys, and the Danish King Sweyn (with ambitions on the English throne) leads his armies into York.

This combined force could be sufficient to take on the Normans in open battle I think, particularly if they are weakened from months of campaigning and fighting.

 

[Superninja76]

I'm not so sure. What cavalry do the Danes and rebels possess? Surely, nothing that can go head to head with battlehardened norman knights. Between a tired army with infantry and heavy cavalry, vs a army with essentially only infantry and for the most part badly equipped men, my bets are on the Normans.

 

[The Professor]

I'm not so sure. What cavalry do the Danes and rebels possess? Surely, nothing that can go head to head with battlehardened norman knights. Between a tired army with infantry and heavy cavalry, vs a army with essentially only infantry and for the most part badly equipped men, my bets are on the Normans.

Reruns of Hastings based on reports show that it's a lot closer than a Norman pushover. The English weren't putting their soldiers into positions the Norman cavalry could take advantage of until fairly late on when a group of fyrdsman managed to be lured into charging down their hill until the knights could charge them. This weakened the English position and forced a few unlucky gambles turning the tide into a Norman victory.

 

[Superninja76]

Reruns of Hastings based on reports show that it's a lot closer than a Norman pushover. The English weren't putting their soldiers into positions the Norman cavalry could take advantage of until fairly late on when a group of fyrdsman managed to be lured into charging down their hill until the knights could charge them. This weakened the English position and forced a few unlucky gambles turning the tide into a Norman victory.

Oh, I'm quite aware how close-run Hastings was, you misinterpret what I mean.
The fyrdsmen had smashed the Norwegians who weren't a pushover themselves, and had a pretty decent position with alright commanders. The men the Normans would be fighting now, however, wouldn't be nearly as capable or well equipped, and potentially are facing the Normans on flat ground. For a society which makes little use of horses in battle, they're pretty terrifying. Hell, even societies which did use horses regularily sometimes couldn't stand and face a cavalry charge.

It's also unlikely the Danes would join them, since from the accounts I've seen they were pretty much just raiding and searching for a place to winter at.

 

[Generalissimo Maximus]

Perhaps Hastings could have been a much bloodier draw for the Normans, forcing them to regain their strenght before properly consolidating their powerbase.

 

[Superninja76]

Perhaps Hastings could have been a much bloodier draw for the Normans, forcing them to regain their strenght before properly consolidating their powerbase.

Entirely possible, but that's not exactly an answer to the question posed.

 

[Generalissimo Maximus]

Entirely possible, but that's not exactly an answer to the question posed.

Fair enough, my wording was off. My point was more that a bloodier victory (not a draw, what am i saying) would both weaken the invading normans whilst giving the Anglo-Saxons more time prepare themselves in the north.

 

[Superninja76]

Fair enough, my wording was off. My point was more that a bloodier victory (not a draw, what am i saying) would both weaken the invading normans whilst giving the Anglo-Saxons more time prepare themselves in the north.

Weaken the normans, sure. Delay them? I'm not sure how plausible that is, considering how much of a cakewalk the normans had until william went back south and the risings began. And between the defeat at fulford, the victory at stamford, and the bloody defeat at hastings, the english didn't have the men to resist william until later on, and as i've said already, those men probably weren't very good considering the core of the anglo-saxon army was dead
If they had the men, they still may not have resisted effectively, as their resolve to (atleast in the south for the most part) was questionable, as shown by the aftermath of hastings with edgar.

 

[The Professor]

Oh, I'm quite aware how close-run Hastings was, you misinterpret what I mean.
The fyrdsmen had smashed the Norwegians who weren't a pushover themselves, and had a pretty decent position with alright commanders. The men the Normans would be fighting now, however, wouldn't be nearly as capable or well equipped, and potentially are facing the Normans on flat ground. For a society which makes little use of horses in battle, they're pretty terrifying. Hell, even societies which did use horses regularily sometimes couldn't stand and face a cavalry charge.

It's also unlikely the Danes would join them, since from the accounts I've seen they were pretty much just raiding and searching for a place to winter at.

Why on earth would the fyrdsmen be facing them on flat ground?
The fyrd had ways to deal with cavalry and they're not going to deliberately face them in situations giving the cavalry all the advantages.
Norman knights may be good but they're not the impossible-to-beat supersoldiers you seem to make out.

Now I've already said that beating the invading force after Hastings is hard but removing William removes the unifying reason of the invasion. All the English then need is a unifying focus of their own and eventually southern England is theirs again.

 

[Superninja76]

Why on earth would the fyrdsmen be facing them on flat ground?
The fyrd had ways to deal with cavalry and they're not going to deliberately face them in situations giving the cavalry all the advantages.
Norman knights may be good but they're not the impossible-to-beat supersoldiers you seem to make out.

Now I've already said that beating the invading force after Hastings is hard but removing William removes the unifying reason of the invasion. All the English then need is a unifying focus of their own and eventually southern England is theirs again.

I don't recall claiming they were impossible to beat supersoldiers. In fact, I recall pretty explicitly stating that the normans could have lost at hastings. And don't presume to think that the normans were unintelligent enough to let themselves be baited into a battle on terrain they couldn't win at. Hastings occured where it did because the normans were in control of a fairly small beachhead, and were forced into fighting godwinson there, otherwise they would've been contained and overwhelmed in time.

With the normans on the offense, they can choose where to fight, when, and if to fight.

And, regarding william dying. Robert II was 15 or 16 at the time of the battle, and william had many capable companions. William dying is a hit, surely, but that doesn't mean all of the french nobles looking for new lands and estates would just pack up and go home, after sacrificing so much at hastings.

 

[The Professor]

I don't recall claiming they were impossible to beat supersoldiers. In fact, I recall pretty explicitly stating that the normans could have lost at hastings. And don't presume to think that the normans were unintelligent enough to let themselves be baited into a battle on terrain they couldn't win at. Hastings occured where it did because the normans were in control of a fairly small beachhead, and were forced into fighting godwinson there, otherwise they would've been contained and overwhelmed in time.

With the normans on the offense, they can choose where to fight, when, and if to fight.

Only if those opposing let them choose...

And, regarding william dying. Robert II was 15 or 16 at the time of the battle, and william had many capable companions. William dying is a hit, surely, but that doesn't mean all of the french nobles looking for new lands and estates would just pack up and go home, after sacrificing so much at hastings.

And I'm not saying they would all just pack up.

 

[Brunaburh]

Doable with adequate leadership and/or help from Wales or Denmark. The northern earls could have got lucky and killed William in the late 1060's or held off a rebellion till a better moment, his heirs were young and weak or jealous and squabblesome depending on the time.You might wind up with some of the continental lot in charge of land, particularly if the northern earls had coordinated with the conspiracy of the Bretons and Welsh, but what you get is AS England rebooted under a Northern king.

 

[Ulyanovsk]

Doable with adequate leadership and/or help from Wales or Denmark. The northern earls could have got lucky and killed William in the late 1060's or held off a rebellion till a better moment, his heirs were young and weak or jealous and squabblesome depending on the time.You might wind up with some of the continental lot in charge of land, particularly if the northern earls had coordinated with the conspiracy of the Bretons and Welsh, but what you get is AS England rebooted under a Northern king.

The possibility of Franco-Norman successor fiefs scattering England south of the Humber is an interesting concept in my opinion.

 

[alexmilman]

Reruns of Hastings based on reports show that it's a lot closer than a Norman pushover. The English weren't putting their soldiers into positions the Norman cavalry could take advantage of until fairly late on when a group of fyrdsman managed to be lured into charging down their hill until the knights could charge them. This weakened the English position and forced a few unlucky gambles turning the tide into a Norman victory.

On a strictly objective level (excluding the lucky incidents), a shield wall formation would have a chance against the combined army (cavalry, infantry and archers) only on a favorable ground. However, this means that it always has to be on such a ground never being caught on a march or on a flat ground. With even a marginally competent opponent this would be hard to achieve in the English countryside.