Waiting a few days before Hastings.

I've recently read that if Harold Goodwinson had waited 2 or 3 days before fighting William his force would have swelled considerably, perhaps double or triple. Does this sound right or is it crap?

WI HG had waited, would the outcome have been different? IIUC HG gathered his army, got to the hillock, fought and lost in a pretty close battle. If HG wanted to wait for his force to swell I assume he wouldn't have been able to close with William becuase once he got close enough battle would be joined, so he'd have to hang back a bit. Would HG have been able to take such an advantageous position if he'd waited a couple of days? Would a much bigger force have been able to fight successfully in a poorer position?
 

NothingNow

Banned
If he has another hill, Harold Godwinson might have a chance at winning. The Fyrd would be slaughtered by William's Knights on level ground.

But rob Duke Billy the Bastard of that advantage and it'll be a rather even fight.

It's nice to see a change though, since the classic Anglo-saxon POD is WI Harold didn't die at Hastings?
Illustrated below by the Canadian artist Kate Beaton.

hastings.jpg
 
I've recently read that if Harold Goodwinson had waited 2 or 3 days before fighting William his force would have swelled considerably, perhaps double or triple. Does this sound right or is it crap?

WI HG had waited, would the outcome have been different? IIUC HG gathered his army, got to the hillock, fought and lost in a pretty close battle. If HG wanted to wait for his force to swell I assume he wouldn't have been able to close with William becuase once he got close enough battle would be joined, so he'd have to hang back a bit. Would HG have been able to take such an advantageous position if he'd waited a couple of days? Would a much bigger force have been able to fight successfully in a poorer position?

Riain

Quite possibly. Apart from anything else, when Harold decided to march so quickly from London one of his brothers had argued for Harold to let him led the army. That way Harold could stay in London and organise more troops as they came in and if the battle at Hastings [or wherever] was lost there would still be a clear leader to continue fighting the invaders. This was probably the greatest tragedy as although the two losses at Fulton Gate and Hastings costs the English a lot of men they still had substantial resources. It was just that with Harold and his brothers dead there was no clear leader to mobilise and organise opposition. In the north there were the brothers ruling Mercia and Northumbria. To the west Harold's sons had considerable support although they were still young. There was some support for Edgar, the last survivor of the previous dynasty. Complicating matters further Harold had married the widow of the Welsh monarch he had defeated a couple of years earlier, who was the sister of the northern earls and was pregnant at the time of Hastings. [She gave birth to twin boys in Nov 1066]. As such not only was the current leadership decapitated but too many alternatives were present for an early resolution of the succession. Furthermore the victory at Hastings boosted William's cause enough, especially after he marched forward and seized London, to enable him to hire further mercenaries.

Its difficult to know why an experienced commander like Harold took such a rash action. Part of the thing was that the region around the Norman landing zone, which was being mercilessly sacked by the Normans was part of the traditional core lands of the Godwine clan. As such he knew many of the people around there and there was also the danger of loss of face if he didn't move quickly to protect them. Also after his recent success against Harald of Norway, one of the most famous warriors of the age, possibly he was too over-confident. Furthermore, according to many sources the Papacy had come out in support of William which was a problem to a man as religious as Harold and he possibly needed to reassure himself and his people that God was on his side.

One of the great disasters of British history as it not only meant the brutal and destructive Norman rule over England but without it its unlikely the Normans would have invaded Ireland, long poisoning relations between England/Britain and Ireland, nor would there probably have been such destructive wars with Scotland in later generations.

Steve
 
I would also have a lot of interesting effects on the English language...most of our "educated", academic, political, and technical vocabulary that doesn't come from Greek or Latin comes from French, since England was ruled by French speakers for a couple centuries after the Norman invasion. If England had stayed under Saxon rule, English would have WAY LESS French in it, and sound much more like Dutch or German.
 
Harold's Brothers

Gyrth and Leofwine knew that William had landed at Bulverhythe because the Abbey of (I think) Compiegne owned manors there. The monks there would have supported William, but the Tanner's Grandson was faced by having to move or see his army starve. If Gyrth and Leofwine had gone forward with the Fyrd and some of the Huskerlas, they could have fougfht a blocking action and weakened the Norman/Flemish force.

Harold was waiting for the Cheshire and Gloucester levies of the Fyrd, which would have included some of my own ancestors. If he had waited until they arrived, he would have outnumbered the forces of Norman William. The outcome of Senlac Fight would have been very different.

In OTL, the critical factor was actually the wind; if it blew from the north or east, Harald Hardrada could reach England (as he did). A wind from the south or west at an earlier date would have brought William ashore against English forces unweakened by Stamford Bridge. As Senlac/Hastings was a close-run fight anyway, the additional forces could have beaten the Tanner's Grandson back to his boats (and good riddance to that Norman Bastard !).

Incidentally, the official account of Harold's death makes no mention of an arrow in the eye - he was ridden down and his body hacked apart by four Norman knights, whose spurs William had cut away and they whipped out of the camp 'for an un-knightly deed'. Look carefully at the Bayeux Tapestry and you'll see it embroidered but not overblown.

Who else will Speak for the Dead ?
 
I've recently read that if Harold Goodwinson had waited 2 or 3 days before fighting William his force would have swelled considerably, perhaps double or triple. Does this sound right or is it crap?

WI HG had waited, would the outcome have been different? IIUC HG gathered his army, got to the hillock, fought and lost in a pretty close battle. If HG wanted to wait for his force to swell I assume he wouldn't have been able to close with William becuase once he got close enough battle would be joined, so he'd have to hang back a bit. Would HG have been able to take such an advantageous position if he'd waited a couple of days? Would a much bigger force have been able to fight successfully in a poorer position?

One thing that might have made a great difference is if the Saxon archers had been present at Hastings. It is a little known fact that the Saxons did have a force of archers which fought with Harold at Stamford Bridge. But when Harold heard that William of Normandy had landed, he rushed south to meet him and left the archers behind. If he waits a few days before leaving London to meet William at Hastings, the archers might have a chance to catch up to the rest of the army and be with Harold at Hastings.
 
One thing that might have made a great difference is if the Saxon archers had been present at Hastings. It is a little known fact that the Saxons did have a force of archers which fought with Harold at Stamford Bridge. But when Harold heard that William of Normandy had landed, he rushed south to meet him and left the archers behind. If he waits a few days before leaving London to meet William at Hastings, the archers might have a chance to catch up to the rest of the army and be with Harold at Hastings.

Robert

I've heard that as well. Would have been especially effective operating from the top of such a steep ridge.:D

Would this have been because the Hurscarls tended to ride to combat, although they fought on foot? As such could travel further and faster than even relatively light infantry units

Steve
 
Top