We may not know exactly how England's King Harold II died at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, but die he certainly did, in spite of later rumours that he fled and became a hermit.
But what if it had been Duke William's lifeless body stretched out on English soil, not Harold's?
In an article for The Conversation, Charles West, Reader in Medieval History, and Alyxandra Mattison, Doctoral Researcher in Medieval Archaeology, both from the University of Sheffield, explain why history would have been very different...
King Harold the Great? How history might have changed if the English had won at the Battle of Hastings
England's King Harold II was killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066
Researchers from the University of Sheffield discuss why history would have been very different if the English had won
They say that if Harold II survived and won, he would probably be celebrated today as one of England's greatest warrior kings
By Charles West And Alyxandra Mattison For The Conversation (The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers.)
11 October 2016
Daily Mail
We may not know exactly how England's King Harold II died at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, but die he certainly did, in spite of later rumours that he fled and became a hermit.
But what if it had been Duke William's lifeless body stretched out on English soil, not Harold's?
In an article for The Conversation, Charles West, Reader in Medieval History, and Alyxandra Mattison, Doctoral Researcher in Medieval Archaeology, both from the University of Sheffield, explain why history would have been very different.
Detail from the Bayeux Tapestry shows the moment that King Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings
KING HAROLD II
Born: c.1020
Parents: Godwin, Earl of Wessex, and Gytha of Denmark
Relation to Elizabeth II: husband of the 30th great-grandmother
House: Wessex
Ascended to the throne: January 5, 1066
Crowned: January 6, 1066 at Westminster Abbey, aged c.43
Married: (1) Eadgyth (Swan-neck), Daughter of Earl of Mercia (2) Ealdyth, widow of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn
Children: 1 or 2 sons and a number of illegitimate children
Died: October 14, 1066 at Senlac Abbey, Sussex, of wounds following the Battle of Hastings
Reigned for: 9 months and 8 days
Harold Godwinson's ascent to the English throne as Harold II had taken place just a few months before he met his fate.
But his coronation in January 1066 was the result of years of careful planning that put him in pole position on King Edward the Confessor's death, even though he was not related by blood.
Yet the new king had hardly begun to enjoy the fruits of his strategems when he was faced by enemy invasion: the seasoned Viking warrior Harald Hardrada landed in the north, marching in collaboration with Harold's rebel brother Tostig.
No sooner had Harold won a stunning victory at Stamford Bridge, which left both Hardrada and Tostig dead, than news reached the English king of a second invasion, this time in the south, by the Norman Duke William 'the Bastard'.
Harold raced from Yorkshire to Sussex to meet the challenge and the armies clashed at a site known to this day as Battle.
William's defeat, and death, was certainly a plausible outcome of his invasion. After all, Hastings was an unusually long-lasting and hard-fought battle.
Sources give the impression of two evenly-matched armies, each composed of several thousand soldiers, and of a whole day's fighting that inflicted heavy casualties on both sides
Our sources give the impression of two evenly-matched armies, each composed of several thousand soldiers, and of a whole day's fighting that inflicted heavy casualties on both sides.
Historians have made much of the Normans' supposed military advantages – notably their use of sophisticated cavalry tactics – but Harold was an experienced general commanding battle-hardened soldiers.
Had Harold survived and won, he would probably be celebrated today as one of England's greatest warrior kings, on a par with Richard Lionheart and Edward I, and indeed Æthelstan– we would probably pay much more attention to the earlier English kings without the artificial break provided by the Conquest.
He would have defeated mighty enemies in pitched battles at opposite ends of the country within weeks of each other: quite a feat.
Indeed, we might well be talking of King Harold the Great, and perhaps of the great dynasty of the Godwinsons.
And yet we might know much less about the England that Harold would have ruled.
Historians have made much of the Normans' supposed military advantages – notably their use of sophisticated cavalry tactics – but Harold was an experienced general commanding battle-hardened soldiers. Pictured is a scene from the Bayeux Tapestry
After all, the single greatest store of information about 11th-century England, Domesday Book, was a conqueror's book, made to record the victor's winnings, and preserved as a powerful symbol of that conquest.
Without Domesday Book, which has no serious parallel in continental evidence at this date, many English villages and towns could have languished in obscurity for another century or longer.
So Harold's England would be less visible to historians.
If, of course, an England had survived to be ruled over at all. One of the most striking characteristics of pre-Conquest England are its deep political divisions.
It was these divisions that had paved the way for Harald Hardrada's invasion in the north, allied with powerful English rebels including Tostig – and it was these divisions that had created the circumstances for William's invasion, too, ultimately a byproduct of the rivalry between Harold's family and King Edward the Confessor.
King Harold II after Hastings would have been rich, but he would still have faced dangerous enemies and rivals – not least the young Edgar Ætheling.
Edgar's family claim to the throne – he was the grandson of the earlier king, Edmund II Ironside, and so a direct descendant of Alfred the Great – was far stronger than Harold's. There would have been more crises to come after Hastings.
One of the merits of counterfactual history is to remind us that things could have been different: it challenges our assumptions and prejudices.
Now, the thriving of medieval England seems obvious, but at the time of the conquest, contemporary France had torn itself apart in what has become known as the Feudal Revolution.
A similar fate could have awaited an English king after the short-lived triumphs of 1066: civil war, fragmentation, and the localisation of power.
King William I, by contrast, had a blank slate and could start (almost) from scratch, creating a new aristocracy that owed everything to him.
So it's not the least of the ironies of William's Norman Conquest that it perhaps helped to save the country that it also brought to its knees.
TIMELINE OF THE NORMAN CONQUEST AND FALL OF THE ANGO-SAXONS
January 1066 - Edward the Confessor dies. His brother in law, Harold Godwinson, an Earl in the powerful family of Wessex, makes a bid for the Crown and is selected by the Anglo-Saxon Witenaġemot, an assembly of the ruling class whose primary function was to advise the king and whose membership was composed of the most important noblemen in England, both ecclesiastic and secular.
20 September 1066 - Harold's army marches to Fulford near York and defeats the invading army of his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada of Norway.
14 October 1066 - After hearing of Harold's coronation, William II of Normandy leads a fleet to England.
Harold marches south to meet him and their forces meet at Hastings. Harold's army is defeated after the king is shot in the eye with an arrow and killed.
October to December 1066 - A state of war continues until a deal is struck in December between William and the English magnates in which he guarantees their positions in return for their support.
25 December 1066 - William is crowned King of England in London.
1067 - Harold's mother Gythia fortifies Exeter against the Normans while William has returned to Normandy. He returns and crushes the revolt.
Summer 1068 - Harold's sons raise an army of Irish-Norse mercenaries and attempt to take Bristol but are driven back.
1069 - Godwine and Edmund return to England with new forces and attempt to take Exeter.
June 1069 - The pair are eventually defeated by the forces of Count Brian of Brittany
WAS KING HAROLD REALLY KILLED BY AN ARROW THROUGH THE EYE?
Excavators will carry out a scan of the grounds of Waltham Abbey Church in Essex (pictured) where the majority of researchers believe King Harold is buried
Shot through the eye by an arrow, he died at the hands of four Norman knights brutally dismembering his body - or so almost 950 years of history dictates.
But archaeologists are now claiming King Harold may have survived the Battle of Hastings, and lived out his years before quietly dying of old age.
The alternative version of events, put forward in a 12th century document housed in the British Museum, discounts the Normans' portrayal of his death in the Bayeux Tapestry.
The artwork, long considered an accurate depiction of the 1066 Battle of Hastings, shows King Harold clutching at an arrow in his eye as four Norman knights hack at his body.
But now a team of historians, who discovered the remains of Richard III in a municipal car park in Leicester in 2012, are eager to dispel the long-accepted story.
Oval Film and Stratascan, whose efforts were applauded around the world for the discovery, will carry out an underground scan of Abbey Gardens at Waltham Abbey Church in Essex, the supposed site of King Harold's tomb, to look for his remains.
Read more: What would have happened if the English won the Battle of Hastings | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
But what if it had been Duke William's lifeless body stretched out on English soil, not Harold's?
In an article for The Conversation, Charles West, Reader in Medieval History, and Alyxandra Mattison, Doctoral Researcher in Medieval Archaeology, both from the University of Sheffield, explain why history would have been very different...
King Harold the Great? How history might have changed if the English had won at the Battle of Hastings
England's King Harold II was killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066
Researchers from the University of Sheffield discuss why history would have been very different if the English had won
They say that if Harold II survived and won, he would probably be celebrated today as one of England's greatest warrior kings
By Charles West And Alyxandra Mattison For The Conversation (The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers.)
11 October 2016
Daily Mail
We may not know exactly how England's King Harold II died at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, but die he certainly did, in spite of later rumours that he fled and became a hermit.
But what if it had been Duke William's lifeless body stretched out on English soil, not Harold's?
In an article for The Conversation, Charles West, Reader in Medieval History, and Alyxandra Mattison, Doctoral Researcher in Medieval Archaeology, both from the University of Sheffield, explain why history would have been very different.
Detail from the Bayeux Tapestry shows the moment that King Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings
KING HAROLD II
Born: c.1020
Parents: Godwin, Earl of Wessex, and Gytha of Denmark
Relation to Elizabeth II: husband of the 30th great-grandmother
House: Wessex
Ascended to the throne: January 5, 1066
Crowned: January 6, 1066 at Westminster Abbey, aged c.43
Married: (1) Eadgyth (Swan-neck), Daughter of Earl of Mercia (2) Ealdyth, widow of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn
Children: 1 or 2 sons and a number of illegitimate children
Died: October 14, 1066 at Senlac Abbey, Sussex, of wounds following the Battle of Hastings
Reigned for: 9 months and 8 days
Harold Godwinson's ascent to the English throne as Harold II had taken place just a few months before he met his fate.
But his coronation in January 1066 was the result of years of careful planning that put him in pole position on King Edward the Confessor's death, even though he was not related by blood.
Yet the new king had hardly begun to enjoy the fruits of his strategems when he was faced by enemy invasion: the seasoned Viking warrior Harald Hardrada landed in the north, marching in collaboration with Harold's rebel brother Tostig.
No sooner had Harold won a stunning victory at Stamford Bridge, which left both Hardrada and Tostig dead, than news reached the English king of a second invasion, this time in the south, by the Norman Duke William 'the Bastard'.
Harold raced from Yorkshire to Sussex to meet the challenge and the armies clashed at a site known to this day as Battle.
William's defeat, and death, was certainly a plausible outcome of his invasion. After all, Hastings was an unusually long-lasting and hard-fought battle.
Sources give the impression of two evenly-matched armies, each composed of several thousand soldiers, and of a whole day's fighting that inflicted heavy casualties on both sides
Our sources give the impression of two evenly-matched armies, each composed of several thousand soldiers, and of a whole day's fighting that inflicted heavy casualties on both sides.
Historians have made much of the Normans' supposed military advantages – notably their use of sophisticated cavalry tactics – but Harold was an experienced general commanding battle-hardened soldiers.
Had Harold survived and won, he would probably be celebrated today as one of England's greatest warrior kings, on a par with Richard Lionheart and Edward I, and indeed Æthelstan– we would probably pay much more attention to the earlier English kings without the artificial break provided by the Conquest.
He would have defeated mighty enemies in pitched battles at opposite ends of the country within weeks of each other: quite a feat.
Indeed, we might well be talking of King Harold the Great, and perhaps of the great dynasty of the Godwinsons.
And yet we might know much less about the England that Harold would have ruled.
Historians have made much of the Normans' supposed military advantages – notably their use of sophisticated cavalry tactics – but Harold was an experienced general commanding battle-hardened soldiers. Pictured is a scene from the Bayeux Tapestry
After all, the single greatest store of information about 11th-century England, Domesday Book, was a conqueror's book, made to record the victor's winnings, and preserved as a powerful symbol of that conquest.
Without Domesday Book, which has no serious parallel in continental evidence at this date, many English villages and towns could have languished in obscurity for another century or longer.
So Harold's England would be less visible to historians.
If, of course, an England had survived to be ruled over at all. One of the most striking characteristics of pre-Conquest England are its deep political divisions.
It was these divisions that had paved the way for Harald Hardrada's invasion in the north, allied with powerful English rebels including Tostig – and it was these divisions that had created the circumstances for William's invasion, too, ultimately a byproduct of the rivalry between Harold's family and King Edward the Confessor.
King Harold II after Hastings would have been rich, but he would still have faced dangerous enemies and rivals – not least the young Edgar Ætheling.
Edgar's family claim to the throne – he was the grandson of the earlier king, Edmund II Ironside, and so a direct descendant of Alfred the Great – was far stronger than Harold's. There would have been more crises to come after Hastings.
One of the merits of counterfactual history is to remind us that things could have been different: it challenges our assumptions and prejudices.
Now, the thriving of medieval England seems obvious, but at the time of the conquest, contemporary France had torn itself apart in what has become known as the Feudal Revolution.
A similar fate could have awaited an English king after the short-lived triumphs of 1066: civil war, fragmentation, and the localisation of power.
King William I, by contrast, had a blank slate and could start (almost) from scratch, creating a new aristocracy that owed everything to him.
So it's not the least of the ironies of William's Norman Conquest that it perhaps helped to save the country that it also brought to its knees.
TIMELINE OF THE NORMAN CONQUEST AND FALL OF THE ANGO-SAXONS
January 1066 - Edward the Confessor dies. His brother in law, Harold Godwinson, an Earl in the powerful family of Wessex, makes a bid for the Crown and is selected by the Anglo-Saxon Witenaġemot, an assembly of the ruling class whose primary function was to advise the king and whose membership was composed of the most important noblemen in England, both ecclesiastic and secular.
20 September 1066 - Harold's army marches to Fulford near York and defeats the invading army of his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada of Norway.
14 October 1066 - After hearing of Harold's coronation, William II of Normandy leads a fleet to England.
Harold marches south to meet him and their forces meet at Hastings. Harold's army is defeated after the king is shot in the eye with an arrow and killed.
October to December 1066 - A state of war continues until a deal is struck in December between William and the English magnates in which he guarantees their positions in return for their support.
25 December 1066 - William is crowned King of England in London.
1067 - Harold's mother Gythia fortifies Exeter against the Normans while William has returned to Normandy. He returns and crushes the revolt.
Summer 1068 - Harold's sons raise an army of Irish-Norse mercenaries and attempt to take Bristol but are driven back.
1069 - Godwine and Edmund return to England with new forces and attempt to take Exeter.
June 1069 - The pair are eventually defeated by the forces of Count Brian of Brittany
WAS KING HAROLD REALLY KILLED BY AN ARROW THROUGH THE EYE?
Excavators will carry out a scan of the grounds of Waltham Abbey Church in Essex (pictured) where the majority of researchers believe King Harold is buried
Shot through the eye by an arrow, he died at the hands of four Norman knights brutally dismembering his body - or so almost 950 years of history dictates.
But archaeologists are now claiming King Harold may have survived the Battle of Hastings, and lived out his years before quietly dying of old age.
The alternative version of events, put forward in a 12th century document housed in the British Museum, discounts the Normans' portrayal of his death in the Bayeux Tapestry.
The artwork, long considered an accurate depiction of the 1066 Battle of Hastings, shows King Harold clutching at an arrow in his eye as four Norman knights hack at his body.
But now a team of historians, who discovered the remains of Richard III in a municipal car park in Leicester in 2012, are eager to dispel the long-accepted story.
Oval Film and Stratascan, whose efforts were applauded around the world for the discovery, will carry out an underground scan of Abbey Gardens at Waltham Abbey Church in Essex, the supposed site of King Harold's tomb, to look for his remains.
Read more: What would have happened if the English won the Battle of Hastings | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Last edited:
