Apocalyptic Haven wrote:The Saxons damn near won the Battle of Hastings. The shield wall had held for most of the battle on Senlac Hill, but when rumors spread that William had been killed, the Normans started to retreat. They were only able to fend a panicked rout because William lifted his head above his face and proved that he was still alive, even though his horse had been killed underneath him. They rallied, charged, and then began slaughtering the Saxons, who had abandoned the protection of their hitherto successful, undefeated shield wall. Imagine how history might have turned had William actually fallen or been unconscious and unable to prove his survival.
The first sentence is true, but the rest of the post is misleading.
The Battle of Hastings was highly unusual in lasting roughly 8 hours, when most battles of this period were over in an hour; this length alone shows the resilience of Harold's army during the battle, and demonstrates that it was by no means an easy victory for William.
The incident involving William's rumoured death happened relatively early on in the battle, not towards the end as implied above. William then led a successful counterattack against the English who had tried to take advantage of the momentary weakening of the Norman line.
It's at this point, having seen the impact of a temporary actual retreat of part the Norman line on the English line, and the success of his counterattack, that William seems to have adopted a tactic of multiple feigned retreats to draw out and disrupt the English shield wall. These feigned retreats seem to have been introduced in the early afternoon, following a lunch break (really).
These seem to have been successful in thinning out the shield wall, but the battle still continued for another 3-4 hours, and the Normans certainly didn't have things their own way; accounts differ on the specifics, but William seems to have had two or three horses killed under him during this period.
What finally broke the English defence was the death of Harold at dusk. At this point the hitherto robust English defence collapsed alongside the morale of the defenders - but it was ultimately a desperately close-run thing.
The ultimate causes of Harold's defeat were:
1) The need to defend against two near-simultaneous invasions - though that he crushed Harald Hardrada's army at Stamford Bridge just outside York on 25 September, and then managed to march his army south to Hastings before only narrowly losing a second battle against a different invader on 14 October shows a certain amount of military and logistical competence.
2) A lack of cavalry restricted Harold's tactical options on the day, forcing him to take a largely defensive position.
3) Harold's death.
Of these, while it may be stating the obvious, number 3 was critical. Had Harold managed to hold out until nightfall, it's entirely likely that he could have won a strategic victory even while suffering a narrow tactical defeat on the day, as William's ability to move from Pevensey and the coast through a hostile countryside would have been severely restricted. Harold's death turned a draw or narrow Norman tactical victory into a rout; but had he lived to fight another day, he might well have won the war. William would have been hard-pressed to bring in reinforcements across the Channel that late in the campaigning season while simultaneously having to campaign against an effective and hostile enemy who still controlled the country's levers of power, and could have recalled the fyrd to bring in some immediate reinforcements.