1066 and all that

[Alex-ander]

I think almost all of us know the story of 1066 and the Victory of the Normans at Hastings.

My alternate history is as follows as the Viking fleet are heading for England in 1066 a hugs storm hits their fleet. Many ships are sunk and the survivors turn back home and never invade England. The result is that when William invades he faces not a battered and tired English army under King Harold. But a fresh full strength army.

So what would change would Harold still fight a defence battle. (He had no cavalry so fighting in the open on a level field was probably not a good idea)

Would the Norman tactics change

And most importantly who would win

Thoughts

[conon394]

Depends on what you are looking for.

On the one hand the victory at Stamford Bridge cleared the field of troubles and claimers to the English throne (and local turn coats). Had they turned about due to weather would Godwinson have simply have traded a victory over William for a delayed fight with Norway and his brother?

Realistically William's adventure was bit a little slap dash. Godwinson without the forced march and without the distraction looks like a win, honestly I can't see William even landing facing the not tired and not distracted Harold.

So I think you are left with a mess. Harold is King in England but two different crowns that think otherwise and the Pope still seems to be in William's corner.

On tactics meh. Not tired and leaving the English free to bring all its levy I don't think some supposed victory of Norman tactics works for William and he looses.

[Diocle]

It's possible William would have increased the total amount of his invasion force, adding thousands knights and men at arms (adventurers) from all over the Europe, I mean Sicily, Germany, France, Spain .. who is in need of some land and want to make some money he's welcomed. The point is that the feudal model brought to England by William is the winning model.