What if Harold had won the Battle of Hastings?
Harold Godwinson beat one invader at Stamford Bridge and lost to the next at Hastings. What if he had beaten both?
What actually happened
Edward the Confessor died on 5 January 1066 and Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, was crowned the next day. Two rivals claimed the throne: William, Duke of Normandy, who said Edward and Harold himself had promised it to him, and Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, allied with Harold's exiled brother Tostig.
Hardrada landed in the north first, won at Fulford on 20 September and was killed with Tostig at Stamford Bridge on 25 September, surprised by Harold's rapid march from the south. Three days later William landed at Pevensey. Harold hurried back to London and then to Sussex, giving battle on 14 October on a ridge near Hastings, at the place later called Battle.
The English shield wall held for most of the day against Norman archers, infantry and cavalry. Norman writers describe feigned retreats that drew parts of the English line down the slope, though historians debate how deliberate these were. Late in the day Harold was killed, the Bayeux Tapestry's arrow in the eye being one tradition among several, and the English broke. William was crowned at Westminster on Christmas Day 1066.
The turning point
Hastings was unusually long and close for a medieval battle. Harold's decision to fight quickly, before gathering all the forces of the kingdom, is the most debated choice: waiting might have given him a larger army, while William's army, living off a ravaged Sussex, could not wait forever. The wind that held William in port for weeks, so that his landing came after Stamford Bridge rather than before, is another chance factor.
Above all, the battle turned on the shield wall's discipline and on Harold's life. Had the English line stayed on the ridge until dusk, William would have faced a night in hostile country with a battered army and an English king still alive.
The world that might have been
In Crown & Plough the alternative reads: Hardrada fell at Stamford Bridge; three weeks later the shield wall on Senlac Hill did not come down the slope even at the feigned retreat, and at dusk the Norman knights fell back to their ships. A king of the house of Godwin held England. The game removes the scripted conquest events that follow.
Beyond the game, an England without the Norman Conquest would have kept its Old English aristocracy and church leadership, and its ties to Scandinavia might have weighed as much as those to France. English would have changed more slowly and absorbed far fewer French words. The castle-building, the Domesday survey and the new French-speaking elite would not have happened in that form.
There would also have been no Anglo-Norman realm straddling the Channel, so no Angevin empire in France and none of the claims that later fed the Hundred Years' War. Harold's position would still not have been safe: William might have tried again, and the Godwin family had many enemies at home.
Ripples through time
Hastings only happens in the game if Wessex survived at Edington in 878; in a Danish England there is no 1066 crisis.
Carried into the Middle Ages (1200), England is ruled by the house of Godwin and holds no land in France; Normandy remains a vassal duchy of the French king. That in turn changes the setting of Bouvines, which depends on England holding Normandy, Anjou or Poitou.
- Shaped by What if Alfred the Great had lost at Edington?
- Carries into the next era Middle Ages
Play this turning point
Start in the Age of Vikings and Coronations, or take the scenario Companion of the Conqueror, which begins in 1065 in Normandy. The Currents of History story 1066 lets you serve as Harold's housecarl, sail with Hardrada's fleet or ride as William's knight.
The two sides are treated as evenly matched, so your choice of side and your deeds in the story carry real weight. Stand with Harold to change history.
Play this turning point → Start the scenario “Companion of the Conqueror” →
Questions and answers
Was Harold really killed by an arrow in the eye?
The Bayeux Tapestry seems to show it, but the figure may have been altered in restoration, and early sources disagree. Some describe Harold being cut down by Norman knights. Historians are still unsure.
Why did Harold fight so soon after Stamford Bridge?
He may have wanted to stop William ravaging his own earldom of Wessex and to repeat the surprise that had worked against Hardrada. Critics argue he should have waited for more troops.
Who had the best claim to the English throne in 1066?
There was no clear rule. Harold was chosen by the English nobility and named by Edward on his deathbed, William claimed an earlier promise and Harold's oath, Hardrada relied on an old agreement, and Edgar Ætheling had the closest blood claim.
Sources and further reading
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; William of Poitiers, Deeds of William; the Bayeux Tapestry. Modern accounts: Marc Morris, The Norman Conquest; Frank Barlow, The Godwins; Stephen Morillo (ed.), The Battle of Hastings: Sources and Interpretations.
← What if the Magyars had won at the Lechfeld?What if Constantinople had held against the Fourth Crusade? →