WI: Norman victory, but William and Harold both die at Hastings?

[CenturionMagnus]

It's the 14th of October, 1066 at Hastings.
The now legendary Battle of Hastings rages on.
As we know, at one point in the battle, William was believed by his troops to have been struck down, and to prevent his army from going into a full panicked retreat, William raised his helmet to show his army his face and to show he was still alive.
After this, the Normans performed a feigned retreat down the hill, and were followed down by the over-eager Saxons. The Norman cavalry, along with the rest of the army, turned and charged up the hill into the now broken Saxon ranks, cutting down the Saxons, along with Harold Godwinson and his huscarls.
But what if, during this strategic maneuver, William was also cut down, in a stroke of misfortune perhaps he is caught by the great axe of a Saxon huscarl and meets his end on the field?
The Normans win the battle, but William is cut down, along with his rival, Harold Godwinson.
How would things have progressed from here? Would one of his sons have taken up the mantle and continued the Norman Conquest in their father's name? Would the Norman army soon fall apart, either to a drop in morale, or to in-fighting amongst the nobles? Would one of the other Norman nobles have taken up the Conquest for themselves? Or would the Anglo-Saxons be able to choose a leader from their own ranks and turn the tide of the Conquest in their favour?
What's the most likely outcome?

 

[Reydan]

Are Harold's two brothers killed at Hastings also as per OTL? Because otherwise they would be left in a strong position.

Otherwise I wonder...Eustace of Boulogne is now your chance?!

 

[chornedsnorkack]

OTL, the Anglo-Saxons DID choose leaders among themselves. William hoped for immediate surrender after 14th of October, but instead Edgar the Aetheling was declared King with support of earls Edwin and Morcar and archbishops Stigand and Ealdred.
The English actually defeated William in an attempt to storm London Bridge. It was only when William persisted and crossed Thames at Wallingford that Stigand surrendered, followed in early December by the rest.
If you demoralize the Normans and hearten the English by, for example, taking out William, then the Normans might immediately at battlefield of Hastings or else after election of Edgar and defeat at London Bridge give up and either prepare to evacuate to Normandy with what loot they have, or else contact the English leaders with a proposal to leave in return for some Danegeld.
In October 1066, none of William's sons had a known age, but none was really an adult, and none was present in England. Robert Curthose was 12 to 15 years old, Richard of Bernay was 10 to 12, and William Rufus was 6 to 10.
Even if Robert was 15, Matilda was not going to send him after his fallen father - they were holding Normandy. So the leadership of the army must have been from among William's companions. Who?

 

[VVD0D95]

That raises a question from me, if Robert cuthrose was with his father and William died, what happens?

 

[JohnR]

I think the Norman invasion is finished, even if they nominally win the Battle.

The invasion was to progress William's dubious claim to the throne. His nobles argued against it, and it only really happened due to the force of William's personality. His son, Robert Curthose, is at most ~15 at this time, but possibly younger. He would have been in Normandy at the time of the invasion, in OTL he may have come to England with his Mother in 1068, but there is no evidence he did at all. It is likely that the army will pause, and there will be different view on what to do. In OTL William marched his Army to London, where he eventually got the submission of English nobles

The Saxon witan will crown Edgar the Atheling which they did in OTL. He too is ~15. With no obvious leader, its questionable whether they would have continued the advance - and if so whether they would have defeated the English at Southwark - it certainly would have been a closer battle, and might have been enough to encourage the English to continue to resist. In OTL, the defeat here, eventually convinced Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Earl Morcar and Edwin all to abandon Edgar Atheling.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Among the commanders of Norman army, was there any likely leader?
Official excuse for the invasion was alleged hereditary right of William to England. For the Normans, with William's death, it was officially inherited by Robert, a boy back in Normandy.
Was Robert Curthose, at 15, formally a minor, or was he formally an adult sharing with Matilda the regency of Normandy in his father's absence?
Suppose the Norman army does march to Southwark, and then sends ambassadors to negotiate with Edgar and his supporters for Danegeld. Would they have to write back to Matilda and Robert for instructions? For formal ratification of Robert, of his giving up England in return for Danegeld?

 

[Avrorrange]

Among the commanders of Norman army, was there any likely leader?
Official excuse for the invasion was alleged hereditary right of William to England. For the Normans, with William's death, it was officially inherited by Robert, a boy back in Normandy.
Was Robert Curthose, at 15, formally a minor, or was he formally an adult sharing with Matilda the regency of Normandy in his father's absence?
Suppose the Norman army does march to Southwark, and then sends ambassadors to negotiate with Edgar and his supporters for Danegeld. Would they have to write back to Matilda and Robert for instructions? For formal ratification of Robert, of his giving up England in return for Danegeld?

William's half-brother is a candidate of taking over command and acting on his nephew's behalf.

 

[Zireael]

Robert Curthose wasn't likely to be in England let alone at Hastings at the time, therefore he cannot take the command.

Was Robert Curthose, at 15, formally a minor, or was he formally an adult sharing with Matilda the regency of Normandy in his father's absence?

15 is both old and not old enough (the regency usually ended at 16 IIRC).

 

[chornedsnorkack]

William's half-brother is a candidate.

Checking these - yes.
OTL when William went home with England conquered, in March 1067, the men he left on charge were Odo and William fitzOsbern.
Were they obvious leaders on 14th of October, to continue conquest if William fell?
Also: apart from Danegeld, the Normans had built Hastings Castle in the two weeks between 28th of September and 14th of October.
Was partition of England an option for Normans - like the Normans taking Sussex and recognizing Edgar Aetheling elsewhere in England?

 

[Pempelune]

Checking these - yes.
OTL when William went home with England conquered, in March 1067, the men he left on charge were Odo and William fitzOsbern.
Were they obvious leaders on 14th of October, to continue conquest if William fell?
Also: apart from Danegeld, the Normans had built Hastings Castle in the two weeks between 28th of September and 14th of October.
Was partition of England an option for Normans - like the Normans taking Sussex and recognizing Edgar Aetheling elsewhere in England?

The Norman - that is, William - had a claim on the English crown, not on Sussex. Not that it forbid pragmatism, mind, but I have difficulty seeing this as anything else that a temporary arrangement before reunification of England, most probably under a Anglo-Saxon claimant. The Normans would have a legitimacy problem.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

The Norman - that is, William - had a claim on the English crown, not on Sussex. Not that it forbid pragmatism, mind, but I have difficulty seeing this as anything else that a temporary arrangement before reunification of England, most probably under a Anglo-Saxon claimant. The Normans would have a legitimacy problem.

Would it make sense to offer it expressly as a temporary arrangement - as in, the Normans are to keep a garrison at Hastings until the English have paid the full agreed sum of Danegeld?

 

[Pempelune]

Would it make sense to offer it expressly as a temporary arrangement - as in, the Normans are to keep a garrison at Hastings until the English have paid the full agreed sum of Danegeld?

Certainly, although IMO it would have been stupid on the Normans' part. Keeping a garrison in England means paying soldiers for a long time, while just taking a buch of anglo-saxons lords hostages is just &as effective and less costly.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

That raises a question from me, if Robert cuthrose was with his father and William died, what happens?

Well, the (half)witty answer is 'he'd be hosed, and that shortly'

But, seriously, without William, I don't think the Normans are likely to succeed. (As multiple people have commented above). Disorganization while they figure out what to do will give the Anglo-Saxons a chance to regroup.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Brittany was ruled by a relative of William the Conqueror, it is possible Brittany takes Normandy and together invades England. My ancestor was a younger son of the ruler of Brittany and was a crossbowman in William's army during the battle of Hastings. Hmmm, I think I may just have butterflied my birth away...

 

[Zireael]

Sussex/Hastings/whatever temporary arrangements don't happen. It was either 'take what you do have claim on' or 'go home with empty hands'.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

OTL, the English were disorganized. Edwin and Morcar did succeed in repelling William from London Bridge, but after William crossed at Wallingford, their military resistance was ineffective and they surrendered at Berkhamsted in early December.
TTL, the English are still disorganized, but so are the Normans. Odo and William fitzOsbern have problems completing a conquest.
If Odo and Stigand open negotiations for Danegeld, what are their options? When the victorious Norman army´s options are "go home with empty hands" or "go home with Danegeld"?

 

[MarkhamS.Pyle]

I can see William Malet trying to broker something, based on his assertion of Mercian descent, but one of the biggest weapons the Normans had was their claim (if indeed they made it at the time) to papal support. If that were the case, Bishop Odo, far more than Beaumont or Eustace or Evreux had the best chance at asserting a claim to lead the invaders and demand his half-brother's allegedly promised crown. Having said which, I can't see any of the Normans being able to make it stick in these circs.

 

[Ciniad]

A bit of a Silly idea:
Maybe bishop Odo become a King Bishop and England become a Theocracy?

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Indeed. Without a plausible king, it's hard for the Normans to make their victory stick. Since they did win and the English are disorganized, what are their chances negotiating for Danegeld?
The fact that English are disorganized may count against them. In OTL, Edgar Aetheling had problems collecting an army to defeat William. WI in TTL, Odo offers to accept Danegeld from Edward Aetheling - but the problem is that the English are not paying, for the same reasons they OTL were not fighting for Edward?

 

[David Flin]

If I recall correctly, Harold wasn’t killed during the pursuit after the feigned retreat, but much later in the day. Gyrth and Leofwine, who commanded the pursuing right flank were killed at this period. The losses the Saxons took meant that the shield wall no longer covered the ridge, and the Norman cavalry was no able to get onto flat ground before bumping into the shield wall.

Interestingly, after Harold’s death, and during the mop-up phase, William was nearly killed by a small group of Saxons. In OTL, these Saxons failed to kill William before they were killed. A small tweak could shift this to having them successful before dying.

At this point, Eustace of Boulogne was badly wounded, and wouldn’t be available to command. Odo had been conspicuous by his presence well to the rear of the army, and his reputation had suffered as a result. There are a number of potential leaders in the immediate aftermath of the battle, but none with a clear case. Some, such as Robert de Beaumont, had proven themselves to be strong leaders, but without much in the way of men and/or money. Some, such as William of Evreux, had contributed significantly to the force, but were too young. And there was Robert Curthose, who was 15, and probably would be considered a little young to take control at such a critical juncture.

The only thing I can see happening at this stage is the potential leaders having a council to decide on who is to be in charge.

Meanwhile, on the Saxon side, the Witan is going to be desperate to find a strong leader who can put up a defence against the Normans. Edgar had been passed over for Harold because Edgar was considered too young and not a proven warrior. Edwin and Morcar are still around, and their sister was Harold’s widow, so they’re probably next in line. Historically, they trundled south to oppose William, and that’s more likely to happen here. Their forces are still recovering from the damage taken at Fulford Gate, but they’re not likely to be disorganised.

On the other hand, the Norman claim to the throne has been rather damaged, and the leadership is unclear. Some of the Norman forces are going to be thinking about the need to go home and protect their lands in Normandy; Philip of France had been keen to put more control over Normandy, and with William gone, that’s a factor that’s going to increase. That said, many of the Normans had gone on the English adventure to gain English land, and younger sons without land in Normandy will want to stay put.

How this struggle plays out is anyone’s guess. One can argue that the disunited and disintegrating Norman army gets finally thrown back, and Edwin and Morcar get to decide who takes the throne of England. One can argue that the still strong and battle-experienced Norman army overcomes Edwin and Morcar’s fresh but relatively inexperienced forces.

When my son wrote up this exact premise into a timeline (1), he had Edwin and Morcar come out on top, with Edgar becoming King and marrying Edith to secure the English throne into one family. I think his objective in that timeline was to get as many teenagers on European thrones as possible, (2), but I might have misunderstood. Other options are possible.



(1) Andrew Brooks. 1066, the Cull of Kings. Soc.history.what-if, September 2016.

(2) I think he managed to get half a dozen teenage kings ruling to the same time, plus assorted counts.