WI: Harold wins at Hastings

If William survives, either he would have to relinquish his claim altogether or else there would have to be an English invasion of Normandy. Potential allies include Brittany and Anjou. William's cousin Nicholas (son of William's father's older brother) was a potential claimant if Harold needed a figurehead.

Why should there have to be an English invasion of Normandy?

Maybe the two of them stare at each other hostilely across the Channel, with Harold not strong enough to invade fortified Normandy and William lacking the manpower for another round at England.

Of course, there's "Harold Godwinsson invades Normandy" and there's "Saxons seen in the army of Nicholas." :)
 
Harold should have taken his brothers' advice and let them command at Hastings while he raised another army.

That's a good start. If William beats the brothers, where will the next big battle be?

IIRC even after Hastings, William got checked at some spot prior to the English leadership deciding to surrender, so that might be a good spot for Fight #2.
 
who exactly were Harold's brothers? ive tried looking it up, and i have indeed found two brothers that Harold had--Sweyn and Tostig--but Tostig was apparently one of Harold's enemies
 
who exactly were Harold's brothers? ive tried looking it up, and i have indeed found two brothers that Harold had--Sweyn and Tostig--but Tostig was apparently one of Harold's enemies

That's the pair who were no help to him. By the time of Hastings, they were both dead.

Gyrth and Leofwine fought, and died, at Hastings with Harold. They were the ones who advised Harold to leave the first clash with William to them. There was one more brother, Wulfnoth, who was a hostage in Normandy.
 
I'm not really sure what'd happen.

I think one of the previous posters was right about the Harrying of the north.
It changed the religious/political landscape of the country, with more religious power based in Canterbury than in York. A lot of the clergy went south after the harrying.

I think that the English would have less conflic with the French. France itself was complicated at the time, being split into lots of reigons and whatnot. Without England to focus on, I think the Normans would focus on the continent more.

Mind you, i'm fairly interested in how this would affect the rise of France itself. If I remember correctly (and I probably don't) The Angevins (or is that going too far ahead?) Didn't really start losing their dominance in france until Richard's time (though it was already slowing down in his fathers day...
 
If after defeating the Norse at Stamford Bridge, and the Normans at Hastings, I would expect that Harold would still likely face one more invasion -this time from King Sweyn II of Denmark. Didn't he have a claim on the English throne through his link with King Canute (his uncle), and having been born in England?
 
hey, all. quick question pertaining to this.; i learned that Winchester was the capital of England prior to the Norman invasion, and it wwas only after William had taken the throne that the capital was transferred to London

for the ATL in question, ive currently got Winchester as teh de jure capital later on, but London is the de facto capital due to its location and population. what exactly does everyone think aboout the plausibility of this?
 
hey, all. quick question pertaining to this.; i learned that Winchester was the capital of England prior to the Norman invasion, and it wwas only after William had taken the throne that the capital was transferred to London

for the ATL in question, ive currently got Winchester as teh de jure capital later on, but London is the de facto capital due to its location and population. what exactly does everyone think aboout the plausibility of this?

It could be very possible for instance IOTL Amsterdam is de jure capital (mostly titular) of the Netherlands, but The Hague as the seat of government is like the de facto capital of the Netherlands.

Although translated to your scenario that would actually mean that London is de jure capital (mostly titular) of England and Winchester stays the de facto capital as the seat of government.
So that might be the opposite your suggesting, but it does mean that the de jure and de facto capital can be split.
 

elkarlo

Banned
A England that speaks a full German dialect would prolly change England's orientation. Plus with no Norman lands, they would not get involved with France, or to a lesser degree.

With the languge being Germanic, relations with the Dutch and Ger,ans would prolly be a lot closer.
 
If after defeating the Norse at Stamford Bridge, and the Normans at Hastings, I would expect that Harold would still likely face one more invasion -this time from King Sweyn II of Denmark. Didn't he have a claim on the English throne through his link with King Canute (his uncle), and having been born in England?

Yes, but would Sweyn be willing to push his luck?

Harold has defeated two invasions already--on one hand, you can say he's weakened and now's the time, but on the other hand, he'd have an aura of invincibility about it.
 
Yes, but would Sweyn be willing to push his luck?

Harold has defeated two invasions already--on one hand, you can say he's weakened and now's the time, but on the other hand, he'd have an aura of invincibility about it.

It would probably depend on how well Harald won against William. If Harald won convincingly and still had a strong army then invasion is foolish. If Harald won a narrow victory with a large number of casualties, then invasion suddenly becomes a much more attractive idea.
 
Saxons Triumphant..

A number of thoughts on this - first, my favourite POD for a Saxon victory is to have William do what he actually wanted and that was to sail over on or about August 12th.

OTL, the Norman fleet is disrupted by bad weather and forced to seek refuge at St Valery but with a clear run they would land at Pevensey. The Saxon forces were prepared for this and Harold would have a full-strength fyrd with which to engage the Norman forces while the latter was still trapped within the Pevensey area.

Let's assume a Saxon victory - what happens? Given the propensity for Norman ruling families to break into fratricidial squabbling, it seems probable Normandy would face a period of internal turmoil following William's death. Robert might prevail given time but his realm would be badly weakened.

Would Harold seek vengeance on Normandy by invading? I do think he would demand the release of the hostages taken by William (such as his brother Wulfnoth) after Harold's party was shipwrecked.

Let's not forget either that England in 1066 was a hugely wealthy country with silver to throw around so the potential to buy allies to use in any campaign against the Normans is obvious.

Other points to consider - there are no guarantees that the Godwinsons would establish a dynasty with a victorious Harold. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that while peace might reign whil Harold lived, his death might have led to a prolonged period of anarchy as Harold's various sons and brothers fought for political control.

There's also the potential threat from Edgar the Aetheling (whose claim to the throne was far stronger than Harold's or William's). Could we see Edgar, Sveyn and others conspire to topple the Godwins ?
 
Frankly, don't under-rate Harold...

...He abolished two hundred rivals one year and I think if Edgar or others started to do a Perkin Warbeck - they'd be dead meat. Also, with the example of Cnut and his sons, expect Harold to sort matters out with his various children.

Sven Estrithsson (to give him his Danish name) was a great survivor. I doubt he'd attack England - he might instead abolish the Norwegian royalty and seize southern Norway.

Harold would have a stronger kingdom than he took over, if he was a victorious King. The possibilities of the Witanagemot becoming the early Tynwald/Parliament of England need careful working out - but maybe Harold can offer merchant representation similar to the De Montfort system 'two knights/Thegns from every scire, two burgesses/Ealdormen from every royal burh'..

So how about writing up a story, then? I need something other than my own threads to read.:D
 
...He abolished two hundred rivals one year and I think if Edgar or others started to do a Perkin Warbeck - they'd be dead meat. Also, with the example of Cnut and his sons, expect Harold to sort matters out with his various children.

So how about writing up a story, then? I need something other than my own threads to read.:D

On the first point, it's not going to be a problem while he's alive but once Harold is dead, his sons and brothers are likely to battle for control.

If you want to read other threads, I can heartily recommend "For Want of a Vote" which is very good.
 
So how about writing up a story, then? I need something other than my own threads to read.:D

I agree with this! The question, "What if Harold wins at Hastings?" comes up in various forms reasonably often, with various ideas mulled over. I would be very interested in seeing someone make a timeline, otherwise I might have to end my long run of membership without writing a timeline! :D
 
It could be very possible for instance IOTL Amsterdam is de jure capital (mostly titular) of the Netherlands, but The Hague as the seat of government is like the de facto capital of the Netherlands.

Although translated to your scenario that would actually mean that London is de jure capital (mostly titular) of England and Winchester stays the de facto capital as the seat of government.
So that might be the opposite your suggesting, but it does mean that the de jure and de facto capital can be split.
yeah, i may have gotten those two phrases mixed up :p
 
another quick question for this: what does everybody think about the domesday book in this ATL? will harold undergo the same basic thing under a different name? and what could be the effects of it or an equivalent not coming to pass at all?
 
another quick question for this: what does everybody think about the domesday book in this ATL? will harold undergo the same basic thing under a different name? and what could be the effects of it or an equivalent not coming to pass at all?

I don't think Harold II will need to conduct a Domesday Book equivalent in this timeline. In OTL it was necessary because there had been a great amount of upheaval across the country, with landowners being replaced by Normans and what have you, causing the old records to become invalidated. Harold II will most likely update the old records piecemeal, as this is what had happened in the past, but it won't be necessary to conduct a survey such as the Domesday Book.
 
William Ruled by conquest. Effectively, do as I say or I kill you. Harold still had to depend on the authority of his election and on the support of his nobility.

Harold seems to have been a competent ruler who did quite well in battle. He might have been a competent king.

Harold winning at Hastings means that there is no foreign king who has to waste inordinate amounts of wealth building castles to secure his rule. Not that castles won't get built, but there will be less of them.

No wars with France means all that money won't be blown that way.

essentially, the Conquest of William means the history of England is moved backward 200 years and a lot of wealth gets blown. The nobles re establish their authority at Runnymead, and the dance goes on as usual, with England being poorer for it.

Harold wins, there is pretty much the same constitution as in in 1250. Lots of names get changed, england is wealthier, less prone to civil war, but gradually takes over all the islands and is a whole lot more prepared to take advantage when some Italian cons the Spanish into letting him find a route to china by Sailing west.

I can even see where England would do the same things the Tudors did in the ATL. I can see the ATL king being in need of cash and closing down the monasteries to get it, and doing an England only reformation.
And I can also see where a series of English kings give up more and more authority to the towns in order to counter balance the authority of the lords.

With 200 years more wealth and whatever, the English might have followed the path of the danes and made settlements in North America in the 1400s if the science kept up the good pace. And with that much more wealth, they quite well would have.
 
Top