Harold WINS at HASTINGS
Anglo-saxon England sends the Normans packing, meaning a vastly different English language – and closer ties with Scandinavia
What was the background to the Battle of Hastings in 1066? Who was vying for the throne?
Jump back to 1016, and there was a conquest of England by Danish kings, ending up with King Cnut being on the throne from 1016, an external power conquering and ruling England. Cnut’s reign lasted until 1035, before Edward the Confessor became king in 1042. If we jump forward to 1065, Edward is childless, his wife Edith is the daughter of a Godwin, and it’s coming to the point where Edward’s going to die without leaving an heir, and someone has to be king. There are various accounts of Edward promising the throne to different people. Supposedly he promised it to William the Conqueror [of Normandy], and that seems plausible that it did happen. But there’s also accounts he promised it to Harald Hardrada, the King of Norway. And then finally just before he died, there’s evidence he promised it to
Harold Godwinson, and because he’s by far the strongest nobleman in England at the time, he had the power to take control of the throne.
What happened after Harold came to the throne in January 1066?
So Harold is given the throne, he says he has a claim to the throne, he’s by far the most powerful person in the country, and has strong support in lots of areas. He’s vital to the defence of England, and the council of noblemen in England agree that he takes the throne and becomes king. He rules for about a year, but during that period William and Harald are pretty put out by this, and they both start hatching plans to invade England.
So Harold has to defend two fronts?
Yes, in early autumn of 1066, Harald Hardrada invades. They land on the north east coast and make their way to York, and they very nearly take it, until Harold marches north to meet them and defeats them at the Battle of Stamford Bridge [in September 1066].
And then he has to race south to face off with William the Conqueror in the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066. How did the battle play out?
Although Harold had been marching south, there were more men he could call on and there’s enough of a force to get to the scene of the battle. They have the high ground at the top of a hill, William’s men are very tired as well, as they’ve been waiting all night on guard, and they meet them at the bottom of the hill. Harold is in a good position, the battle starts in the morning and takes up most of the day. The Normans are fighting uphill to try and break the English lines and it’s very difficult.
There’s a certain point where the Norman forces start to run away and, by luck or a deliberate ploy, the English forces chase them down the hill. The Norman cavalry turns and, because the English line is broken, they can infiltrate their lines and defeat them. That’s what turned the tide, and at some point in the ensuring melee Harold is killed.
It’s said that Harold was expecting a reinforcement of Saxon troops in the evening. If he’d held out, could this have been a turning point?
Yes I’d have thought so. It was really a touch and go thing. If Harold had held out to the end of the day, which would have been perfectly possible because he did have the higher ground, and [the English] lines hadn’t broken, it would have been difficult for William to win the battle. So that was a really big moment.
What would have happened if Harold had won the Battle of Hastings?
He would have just defeated two very powerful enemies from two outside threats. So he would have been in a powerful position internally as well as externally. The Pope had supported William’s claim to the throne and given him his banner in battle, but there’s no reason why [Harold] wouldn’t have carried on as king.
He would have been able to consolidate his rule over the winter and prepare against any future invasions.
Is there a chance of a godwinian dynasty if he had won?
There’s no reason why there wouldn’t have been. There were rival earls in the country at the time, but they’d all acceded to his rule. So there’s no reason why he couldn’t have been an English king for a long time – and he already had five sons, so there were plenty of potential heirs.
What is one way the Normans changed English culture, and how would it have been different under king Harold?
It’s often been argued that the Normans completely changed how we used names, bringing in the use of hereditary surnames and so on. I don’t think this is the case. In reality, we’d probably be using the same system of naming, but with a very different set of given names and surnames. We’d almost certainly still have a lot of religious names like Mary, John, and Michael. But we wouldn’t have many of the popular names that existed in England since like William, Robert, and Alice. Many English surnames like Chamberlain and Gascoigne wouldn’t have made it into English.
Instead, there would almost certainly be more forms of Old English names in use today such as Godwin and Lefflet. And although the name ‘Harold’ wasn’t that popular in 1066, it might have made some headway in the decades after Hastings had he been successful.
How would our language as a whole have been different?
English would have been very different had Harold won at Hastings. English
“Harold is in a good position, the battle starts in the morning and takes up most of the day”
passes from a prestige language to a lower status one for about 300 years, so we don’t have as much record of it as we would otherwise. The language of the elite is French, including the language of poetry and literature. And England was very much a part of the wider francophone literary world in this period. When it reappears as a written language of literature and poetry in the 14th century, it’s a very different language – but one that is hugely adaptable.
Without the Normans to create the Domesday Book, the survey of England and Wales in 1086, would we still know as much about our country’s history?
The English were actually pretty good at keeping historical records, but if it wasn’t for the Norman conquest we’d know very little about Normandy.
There are very few written records about Normandy on the scale we see in England until 1066. The Domesday Book is a hugely important document, though, and we know a lot more about England and Normandy at this period because of it. And that wouldn’t have happened without the Norman conquest.
It’s unprecedented.
Would England have been more closely tied to Scandinavia than mainland Europe if Harold had won the battle?
I think it’s very feasible that, in the short term, England would have continued to have been more closely linked to Scandinavia. Harold’s family was essentially Anglo-scandinavian, Harold’s mother was Danish, he had a Danish name, and he had children called Ulf, Gytha and Magnus. His father, Godwin, owed much of his success and power to his patronage by Cnut (a Dane) and also his connections through his Danish wife. So continued close connections seem likely, even though he had just been attacked by the King of Norway.
Many changes [to England] would have had a much less Norman flavour if Harold had won, and England may have stayed far more in a Scandinavian sphere of influence. That said, Scandinavia was in the process of being incorporated into the wider Christian and Latin culture that they had been on the edge of until this point. They became part of Christendom and joined the club as it were.
So in the long run, England would certainly have still be part of this wider European, Christian culture – but it would probably have looked different in terms of its buildings and its language.
Would Harold have been regarded as king Harold the great?
The Godwin’s were a self-made family. They went from relative obscurity to ruling England, one of the most powerful states in Europe at the time.
So there’s no reason if he hadn’t lost the battle that he wouldn’t have been perceived as great. Whether he was great as a person, that’s very hard to say.