DBWI: What if the Normans had won at Hastings

What if Harold hadn't been able to keep tight control over his lines? Or are their any other ways that Hastings could become a Saxon defeat?
 
General Greene

It's possible as Harold's army was weakened by the losses in defeating the Norse. However even if the Normans defeated Harold there are still other centres of power to resist them. If one of Harold's brothers survives the defeat they would be an experienced leader capable of organising the resources of the Godwin family and their allies. Failing that possibly one of his sons could do it. Also there are the northern earls and possibly other would rally to the young Edgar the leading character of the old house of Wessex.

[OCC - unfortunately to a degree this is what happened OTL in that there were so many factions that there was no clear leader to co-ordinate the resistance to the Normans.:(:(:mad::mad:].

Steve
 
Depends on the scale of the defeat. If the lines break and a good enough portion of the army is killed, Harold would need to retreat, regroup and then attack again. William could end up with much of Sussex before being chased back to the Channel.

If he's killed (though how I don't know. Perhaps he goes forward to calm the lines and gets caught inbetween the two armies, though I doubt he'd be so stupid as to go off the hill.) then there's plenty of others who can take up the banner of resistance.
 
However, if the Normans do manage to take over a chunk of England (probably only the southern half, I can't see them holding down the north or Wales), they may integrate it pretty well, if the Kingdom of Sicily is any guide.
 
Always, always someone brings up Willy the Bastard's great gamble, and asks, 'what if it paid off?' Well, it's tough to see how things would have turned out in England, but I can say that Normandy wouldn't have faced three generations of civil war, with the German Emperor, and the French King taking pokes at each other through third parties...
 
Christ, why does somebody always do one of these? Sea Lion's been so thoroughly debunked, now everyone's on William the Bastard. What next?

OOC: ;)
 
Probably another 'What if Henri V's Armada hadn't sunk?'. What is it with the eternal obsession with making every damned foolish attempt by Frenchman to conquer England succeed? Willy, Henri, and of course everyone's favorite dictator, Saint-Simon with his insane "Lion De Mer" plan to invade England with men he didn't have, on a fleet that didn't exist...
 
England's more unconquerable than Russia.

Ah, really? I think William nearly make it...he just need to won at Hastings, and then no one in England would be able oppose him...
King William I of England...that sounds cool...
Anyway, I wonder what would be the consequences of Norman England to the colonisation of Columbia...?
Would Britain be united today...?
 
Also there are the northern earls and possibly other would rally to the young Edgar the leading character of the old house of Wessex

Agreed. Even in a worst case scenario, with Harold and his brothers falling at Hastings, the English have leaders. Also, Edwin and Morcar still have their powerbase in the North. Even if William marches on Winchester, or London, that will be the case.

Edgar might be a bit young in 1066. Then again, he proved his skill as a commander of men pretty soon afterwards...
 
Actually this one is easy. Have Harold send his army south to Hastings under the command of his brother, as his brother suggested. William losing means victory is at hand, William winning is still badly bloodied and Harold has time to mobilize the full Saxon fyrd against him while perhaps also practicing a scorched earth policy to starve William.

The fun is the claim by some historians that it was William fighting under the papal banner and perhaps alleging Harold had been excommunicated which stampeded Harold into the battle at Hastings before word could spread, which might make sense given how fast the senior clerics were to sell the country out to William. Even ignoring the imaginary excommunication this means Harold just destroyed an army with the Pope's favor and killed a personal friend and favorite(William's half brother) of the Pope.
 
I'm sorry, i'm a bit confused. This whole time the title has been talking about a Norman conquest happening in an alternate timeline, when it DID happen. The Normans won at Hastings and the Saxons lost. Maybe im dyslexic and i didnt know it, but i think what you are trying to do is give a Saxon Victory at Hastings.
 

Shackel

Banned
I'm sorry, i'm a bit confused. This whole time the title has been talking about a Norman conquest happening in an alternate timeline, when it DID happen. The Normans won at Hastings and the Saxons lost. Maybe im dyslexic and i didnt know it, but i think what you are trying to do is give a Saxon Victory at Hastings.

OOC: Double

Blind

What

If

We speak from an alternate universe.
 
OOC: Double

Blind

What

If

We speak from an alternate universe.

OOC: Two in a row. Something of a record.

IC: Ahh, yes, Alexander's banner. That's another one--if William wins, he doesn't wind up looking like an idiot, and Honorius doesn't make his comeback, so--no Papal Wars.
 
Errnge

Just in case you're uncertain a DBWI is a thread in which we discuss as if we're from another TL where the reverse happened to some event in OTL. In this case as if we're from one where Harold won, speculating as to what if William had won.

Steve

OOC: Double

Blind

What

If

We speak from an alternate universe.
 
I agree with most of you here that if William had won he would probably still be expelled from England later. However, a Norman victory at Hastings could actually teach important lessons to the English. They would learn the power of heavy armoured cavalry and don't dismiss it as ineffective, and would be better prepared for future wars against continental powers. The disaster that was the intervention of Alfred "The Fool" in the Breton Wars would never happen.
 
Alfred lost his men because he rushed his men to Brittany, then had them fight a battle AS he was unloading them from the ships. The English light infantry--the "pike and longbow' brigade--was a very competent military force easily capable of taking on knights, when it was well led, and got decent support. There's a reason England got rich renting out its armed forces to France, Burgundy, and the Empire. On those occasions legends of their own puissance went to their heads and they ignored the whole 'leadership' and 'support' issue, they lost battles. When they kept their heads and took care of things, they did well. So, the whole 'if only they'd had knights, England would be ruling France' story is a bit of a simplification.
 
Top