What if the Saxons won at the Battle of Hastings?

  Jon

  I think as always the devil is in the detail.  I.e. how exactly are the Normans defeated?  It can happen in a lot of ways.  Something happens to stop Hardrada invading.  William lands before him, which was the initial plan.  Or simply Harold winning both battles which could have happened as Hastings was very close.

 Presuming England ends 1066 as still an English state then its very likely to have much less links with France and more with Scandinavia and Germany.  Geography will mean some links with France but unless there is continued conflict with Normandy, say if William survives and tries to invade again, its unlikely there will be anything like the OTL 100YWs.  [Unlikely that William would return again, even if he survived defeat as Normandy is going to be gravely weakened.  It will have lost a lot of men and prestige and especially if William died in the battle it could be thrown into disorder with at least some of his many enemies moving against him as well as a power struggle for the succession.

  This leads to one question.  Without the Normans and then the Plantagenet's emerging as the primarily rivals to the French monarchy does it secure power earlier and France possibly becoming the major power in Europe several centuries earlier than OTL?  Or does some other regional power emerge as a rival to Paris?  In which case and especially since such a rival doesn't have a clear non-French centre, could France be disunited longer, possibly even permanently?  Either path would greatly change European history and of course events in Britain as well as possibly much wider afield.

  In terms of the British Isles Harold will still have internal rivals, most noticeably Edwin and Morcar, the brothers who were earls of Mercia and Northumbria.  However after two crushing victories against foreign invaders and earlier the defeat of an hostile Welsh state Harold has a hell of a lot of prestige as a war leader.  Provided he lives for another decade or two and quite possibly secures the succession for one of his sons then there could be a prolonged period of stability for Britain. It was already one of the richest and most organised states in western Europe and without the devastation caused by the invasion, Williams later brutal suppression of resistance and the chaos and disorder of much of the Norman period could be even richer.  Especially since huge sums and many lives wouldn't be wasted in razing large areas and many towns to build the new castles and cathedrals the Normans had constructed to cement their control of the country.  On the other hand England is still a elected monarchy to a degree while also Harold and recently married a new wife, actually the sister of Edwin and Morcar and she was pregnant when he died.  If he lived and fathered more children by her there's the potential for conflict between their children and those of his previous partner, Edith Swanneck [AKA Edith the fair]. 

  Wales and Scotland are likely to be continued irritants, raiding whenever English power is weak.  Wales will however be quite for the moment after the heavy defeat of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn by Harold but the Scottish king was known to raid northern England whenever he thought he could get away with it.  With the north weakened after the defeat at Fulton Gate - presuming this still occurs - you might see a new attack, but Harold is likely to respond firmly.  [This might improve relations with Morcar if he basically rescues him or possibly give Harold the excuse to replace him by a more loyal/capable person.  Since Morcar has only been earl there since replaced Harold's brother Tostig in 1065 this might not be too difficult.  This is likely to make Edwin unhappy but with control of the south and east of the country in the hands of Harold and his family and a loyal ally in Northumbria he would be relatively isolated.  You could also see action against Scotland similar to the campaign again Wales, possibly resulting in the deposing of the Scottish king.  Possibly even returning Lothian to Northunbria, which could seriously weaken Scotland.

  Harold was known as highly religious so he could end up going on crusade presuming those still occurs, or at least sending a significant army, possibly under one of his brothers or older sons.  That could weaken England both in terms of manpower and money lost and also in other groups bidding for power and influence if Harold is himself away on crusade.  [However in the 1st crusade I don't think any monarchs went.  More regional nobles, dukes, earls and the like, especially if they wanted the chance to gain land, wealth and/or influence.

  Relations between England and Ireland were pretty good during this period.  When Harold's family had been briefly exiled in 1052 they had taken refuge there and similarly some of his son's fled there after Hasting, then raised a rebellion in the SW aided by Irish forces which caused William some serious problems until it was put down.  There is no reason I can see for those friendly relations to change, at least in the short term.  I could even see English support for the Irish if some Norman baron seeks to establish power there.

 Without the conquest things in England are a lot different socially.  The ordinary English population won't be virtually totally disposed of lands and influence and assorted checks on royal/noble power will still exist.  This coupled with the lack of as many feuding nobles, although there will still be those when the monarchy is weak, probably also means less instability and disruption.  Without the close links with France England however might be somewhat more isolated and be less able/willing to adopt new ideas from the continent.  However it could be influenced much more by close trading contacts with Germany and Scandinavia.  Feudalism and the dominance of the mounted knight is likely to be at least delayed and possibly might not occur altogether. 

  Further afield without the conquest of England there will be less English seeking service in the Vangarian Guard in Byzantium, although how much impact that will have I don't know.  If Normandy itself is weaker that could mean that Norman controlled regions elsewhere, most noticeably in Naples and Sicily could be weaker or that more Normans look to make their fortune there or elsewhere so it could be stronger. 

  Anyway, initial thoughts.

  What are your bases for assuming that the English were severely outnumbered?  Figures for the battle are fairly dubious, as are all at the time.  The English had suffered some heavy losses in the two earlier battles but they did have a markedly larger population to call upon while they also had an excellent defensive position.  Also there are reports that more troops were arriving during the day.  Famously one of his brothers suggested he lead the army while Harold stayed in London and raised another one so they thought there were plenty of other troops available.  Similarly there were large scale revolts in many areas of the country.  Most sources I have seen suggest the forces on either side were pretty even, at about 8-10k each.

  In opposition, although Williams' historical success enabled him to recruit more troops with offers of English lands he had no additional reinforcements available to call on in Oct 1066 nor, given the lateness of the year any way of getting them to England if they had existed.  In fact, isolated on a peninsula he may well have had great difficulty escaping in the event of a defeat, even if he didn't die in battle that day.

  Similarly we have the stories about the way large numbers of English forces were isolated and killed by running after retreating Normans and leaving their defences.  Whether by sheer indiscipline or lured by Norman feints as sometimes suggested this seems to have happened several times.  The 1st occurrence had been after a near panic in the Norman army when there was a report that William was dead so at some stages at least he was actually in the front line and hence could have been killed.  Which would very likely have sealed the battle quickly.

  All those are changes on the day, without any earlier ones.  Such as William coming when he initially intended and being defeated before Harold had to march north, losing troops both because of casualties at Stamford Bridge and because at least some troops hadn't made it back in time for the historical battle.  I have also read that the storms that delayed Williams army scattered and badly damaged an English fleet that could have at least weakened the Normans and possibly caused such losses that the invasion was defeated/abandoned without landing.  Or Harold could have let his brother lead the army and even if it still lost it would have weakened the Normans badly as OTL and England would still have a clear leader, of proven military experience, assembling new forces and able to provide the leadership that was lacked OTL.  Also that before the coming of the Normans and their destruction of such defences many English towns, most definitely including London, had fortified walls and for a relatively small army operating in hostile territory the Normans would have struggled to storm it against an organised defence and with winter coming a siege would have been very difficult for them.  The  Normans would no doubt inflict a reign of terror across much of southern England, as they did in the Hasting's region before the arrival of Harold's army penned them into an isolated position.  This would have caused a lot of deaths and suffering and helped them gain some food but have not otherwise helped them and hardened feeling against them even further.

  Even if we follow the scenario you mention its still far from certain that the Normans would win a 2nd battle if there is a clear leader to oppose them, which there is in the legitimately selected king.  Especially very shortly after what would still be a bloody slog and unlike the English the Normans have no additional troops to bring to the war.  At least not until William's won and can realistically offer English lands to hire more mercenaries. 

  The Normans won because a number of things went right for them, both on the day and earlier.  They could very easily have lost for the just about any of the reasons I mentioned.  I'll add another one.  If Harold hadn't been killed by the hit squad that its now believed took him out then moral would have stayed high and it was quite near the end of the day.  Keep the ridge-top and the Normans have to attack up the slope again the following day.  Only with markedly less forces and the knowledge that its going to be bloody costly.  Also by at least some reports new troops were arriving during the day and more can be expected.  As such the balance is swinging increasingly against the Normans.

    That's my point.  Provided he survives the 1st battle Harold can regroup and raise new forces.  William if similarly defeated can't.  He's stranded on an hostile shore with winter and hence storms and bad weather coming in, which makes it difficult or impossible for him to rescue his army.  He might be able to do a Napoleon and flee, leaving his army to surrender or probably get massacred given how their behaved and the standards of the time.

  Even if he somehow manages to get the remains of his army back to Normandy he faces serious problems.  For one thing he's weakened militarily which is going to encourage his many enemies.  For another he recruited a lot of mercenaries by the promise of land in England.  This has now fallen through so the survivors of those men will want some alternative payment when his treasury is weakened and if he does try another attempt at attacking England he's less likely to get as many men by the same method as his credibility is greatly reduced.  While Harold has by comparison a large and rich kingdom to restock his forces and even greater military prestige.  In any later battles Harold is also strengthened by the lack of other threats as Norway isn't in a position to attack again and I doubt if any other nation is likely to try and invade England in the near future.

  Not really. So much went right for William OTL that it only needs a little tweak and the Norman invasion can go down in flames.  It could have gone either way but unfortunately for England the bad guys won.

  Not really.  Saving the people some of who's ancestors slaughtered and enslaved yours nearly 900 years before is not revenge.  Much rather have had William and his bandits crushed and the survivors kept safely south of the Channel.

And why is that, also this is not related to the thread which is about the Saxons winning the Battle of Hastings.