"Why did the Saxons lose at Hastings?" Topic

Quebecnordiques said on another thread:

"I bet you wouldn't start a thread on why the Saxons lost at Hastings? ;-)"

Your wish is my command monsieur!
Title says it all – discuss away chaps!

Some of the lads got carried away and pursued some breton cavalry. That made the hole in the shieldwall the normans needed.

Being knackered marching down from the battle in Yorkshire didn't help.

I don't think there is a single overwhelming reason, No doubt we'll get a list of everybody's favourite reason but the sum of all of them is what I would go for rather than any one of them.

x42

Not enough Saxon violence.

Wyatt

Harold looking up at the wrong time.

No-one can resist a Norman:

link

Allen

Some speculate that Harold basically gave up when he found out the Pope had endorsed William.

I think it had something to do with the guy on the grassy knoll.

Static defense is not the best idea.

Harold's brother was attacking from the North, William from the South (with others expected from all corners), his troops had just fought at Stamford with no rest and the Normans idea of sport was bludgeoning people and if they had nobody to bludgeon, they bludgeoned themselves.

Of course, don't/don't/don't believe the hype link

I was amazed at how small the field was when I walked it. I guess one expects a big sweeping vista for such an important battle.

Bad dice rolls.

The French cheated.

Actually I rather enjoyed the fictionalised account in Julien Rathbones 'The Last English King'. Seemed quite believable in all sorts of ways, including William being a complete and utter bastard and his 'army' a flock of scavanging scumbags.

I believe their shieldwall formation lost its integrity in the hours of arrow fire and cavalry attacks. Apparently sallies were made to pursue withdrawing Norman cavalry that ended in ambush and counterattack. Several of their nobles had already been killed (Harold´s brothers for example) and when Harold fell and the Normans kept attacking the Fyrd broke and left.

Combat fatigue must have played a role also. The Saxon army had marched to Stamford Bridge, defeated the Vikings and marched back to Hastings all in the space of several weeks. That must have taken its toll.

It was all the damn junkfood they ate before hand, that McDonalds stuff will kill ya.

It was a very near run thing and lasted all day. I don't think people realize how close it came to be a loss for the Normans.

As headzombie points out, the battlefield is not that large. It's basically a gently sloping hillside. But the Normans charged and charged and charged all day. They were tired. The Saxons were tired. Harold had his hands full just trying to keep his men in line. Between the exhaustion, the dead piling up and the taunting of the Normans, the Saxon discipline finally broke and they ran after the retreating Cavalry in a hopeful bid to finally just end the damn thing.

And as Mad Monkey points out, Harold just had to look up to see what that thing coming straight at his eye was…and that's it. Battle over…

Has the Saxons resisted the temptation to run after the Normans for a few minutes longer and Harold looked down or left instead of up, Harold would have retained the throne and the last thousand years of history would be different.

I once read a battle report (can't find it now) where one of the Saxon units advanced without orders as the Bretons were driven back in disarray. History repeating itself really. At this point, the group broke for food and one of the Saxon leaders got to thinking. "What if we supported the unit with a general advance down the line?" They did and it worked. The Normans were thrown back on their heels and the Saxons won the day.

So I pose to you, early in the day, after the first assault was thrown back and the Saxon right advances without orders, could the Saxons have won? Maybe that was the one chance for Harold to win?

OK, I know very little about the period, so I will ask a question based on the statement that the Saxons only needed to hold on a little longer. If the Normans had the advantage of mobility, how would Harold and his men survive if the Normans simply called it a day, regrouped and then harrassed the Saxon army and kept it cut off from resupply while raiding the countryside?

Cutting them off from resupply would be asking a lot. It seems the Saxons had their flanks covered. A major move around a flank might expose the Norman camp to capture.

The Normans had some mobility advantage over the Saxons, but they also had a lot of infantry.

Also, the Saxons might have been able to raise more men in time. They were home, the Normans weren't.

Impatience and over confidence. a/k/a not enough Saxons.

Had Harold delayed in meeting William for a few days -- maybe as little as two days, his numbers would have been substantially greater. Besides he had his best troops there already and they had just made hamburger out of the Norwegian army under King Harald Hardråde

Harold Godwinson was worried about William raiding through the country side and wanted to check him ASAP. The net effect of this approach was to enter battle before the local fyrds could arrive at the battle.

mjc

"Also, the Saxons might have been able to raise more men in time. They were home, the Normans weren't."

I think that's true, but Harold didn't that many friends. Edward the Confessor was merrily placing Normans into positions of power over the Saxons and he has sufficiently alienated many other powerful noble Saxon families. William didn't have much of a problem maintaining control of the island.

Plus Harold was not a blue blood. That meant something to people (and still does).

Had they not, you'd be reading this on Hwæthwugu Léad Heremann Léaf. Now, try typing that URL into your web æfterspyrianer.

Wyatt

Nice one Mike Snorbens!

I like to hear new theories that are being put forward. That it was a very close-fought battle I am sure no-one hear could argue, though I do ask myself if that was really the case? A bit like Caesar's victory over the Gauls…It is an accepted view that the man was trying to impress would-be political allies when writing his Commentaries.

I have had colleagues in the staff room going on about how a certain class was the pits and how much effort and work had been put into the group and how stressful it all was…only for me to take them the following year and admire at how "normal" they were, pass them on to another colleague the following year who would also underline the lack of "nutcases" and praise the decent academic level….

So…could this battle have been blown out of all proportion and have been a relative walkover by the invading Normans?

Harold took his eye off the …
never mind.

Pah! It was just a little drunken brawl between ten guys who just happened to have excellent PR ideas. :)

Pah! It was just a little drunken brawl between ten guys who just happened to have excellent PR ideas. :)

"Holdeth mine ale and watcheth ye this!"

THUNK!

…

"Sacre crappé! Harold purchasez le farm!"

"Forsooth, Willy, why didst thou not aimeth lower?"

"Le faulte, 'tis non mine! He slippez on le puddle de beer!"

"O geezeth, O geezeth! What are we goneth to telleth Dad?"

"Aha! Listenez! Une grande battle we make, oui? Sword et spears, oui?"

"And arrows…"

"Oui, oui. Arrows, oui."

"I liketh axes."

"Mais oui, axes. It matterz non."

"None shall believeth this."

"Non, non! Mon girlfriend, la embroideress, she make a very nize tapestry. Voila! Proof instant!"

"Hmmm… verily, it could worketh! Billy, thou art a king!"

And the rest was history…

Tres excellent, Parzival, tres excellent!!!

Combat fatigue must have played a role also. The Saxon army had marched to Stamford Bridge, defeated the Vikings and marched back to Hastings all in the space of several weeks. That must have taken its toll.

Riding all the while. The fatigue is overrated, imho. And the battle itself: the English stood there and took it, while the Franco-Normans had to go up and down the hill all afternoon. Horses get tired too.

It was a very near run thing and lasted all day. I don't think people realize how close it came to be a loss for the Normans.

That's the truest thing that can be said about the battle of Hastings: it could have so easily gone either way. And depending on your concept arrived at by the evidence and original sources, the Normans were even lucky to have won: and not only lucky, but William doubly so because the house of Godwin was wiped out.

As headzombie points out, the battlefield is not that large. It's basically a gently sloping hillside.

The English position was quite a bit higher up the slope than "they" can occupy today. Battle Abbey was built over the spot where Harold died (supposedly, as legend has it). In any case, the top of the hill is gone because it was carted off to put up the abbey buildings. The natural slope would have been steeper higher up. I estimated that the top of the hill was a good twenty feet higher than Harold's grave marker.

Between the exhaustion, the dead piling up and the taunting of the Normans, the Saxon discipline finally broke and they ran after the retreating Cavalry in a hopeful bid to finally just end the damn thing.

Again, this detail seems quite incontrovertible. The "feigned flights" of the Norman cavalry must have been convincing, though, and quite possibly they were real undisciplined retreats (the first rout by the Breton left was not planned). The reason why the invader army did not dissolve in total rout was two-fold: during "the crisis" in the early stage of the battle, the English mainly stood their ground rather than pursue, allowing William to regroup his army; and it appears that William never committed his entire forces to the attack till the end push. Otherwise, he himself would have been swept away in the first rout of his Norman troops: instead, he could rally them personally: he did this obviously by being at the head of a sufficiently large body of horsemen to arrest the situation and regain control: had he been trying to stop a rout, while being part of the rout, he would never have accomplished a thing.

And as Mad Monkey points out, Harold just had to look up to see what that thing coming straight at his eye was…and that's it. Battle over…

Harold died (almost certainly late in the day), that much is accepted (despite legends soon after the event that he was still alive; and that he died an old man in a monastery during the reign of Henry I): but HOW he died is never going to be a consensus. I find the deaths of TWO kings Harold (Harald) within a few weeks of each other, by arrow to the face/throat, highly unlikely: which Harold (Harald) died by arrow remains the mystery. My guess is that Harold Godwinson was hacked into unrecognizable bits, and that the ignominy of his end threatened to cause pity for his memory: that's why the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio got stuffed into monastery archive and forgotten, and why the "arrow of fate" (judgment of God) story got popular: William wanted it that way (otherwise his personal involvement in Harold's death was very bad press).

So I pose to you, early in the day, after the first assault was thrown back and the Saxon right advances without orders, could the Saxons have won? Maybe that was the one chance for Harold to win?

The BBC game won't let you get away with that, hehe. link And I have tried that variant in solo play, but it didn't work (unless William's army is really routed entirely, he can arrest the situation with cavalry attacking the English in the flanks and rear as they pursue: frankly, it is a tangled mess, but the English don't do well in pursuit, and that's probably why Harold refused to budge all day).

I like to hear new theories that are being put forward. That it was a very close-fought battle I am sure no-one hear could argue, though I do ask myself if that was really the case? A bit like Caesar's victory over the Gauls…It is an accepted view that the man was trying to impress would-be political allies when writing his Commentaries.

….

So…could this battle have been blown out of all proportion and have been a relative walkover by the invading Normans?

Would you ID who William felt he needed to impress with a "hard fought" victory?

Evidence of English prowes versus Viking in the field translates into c. 50/50. The English army was in no way inferior to Continental armies. Different, but not inferior. Hastings is an odd battle, in some ways not typical of English armies in battle: for one thing, the apparent lack of archers is not an ordinary feature.

nycjadie 05 Sep 2008 12:33 p.m. PST
Harold's brother was attacking from the North, William from the South (with others expected from all corners), his troops had just fought at Stamford with no rest and the Normans idea of sport was bludgeoning people and if they had nobody to bludgeon, they bludgeoned themselves.

Of course, don't/don't/don't believe the hype link

What others "from all corners"? I count William, Swein of Denmark and Harald of Norway with claims on the throne. Then there was Edgar the atheling, a mere boy who had no support to speak of.

Why do you think the Bayeux Tapestry is hype? Of course it is political. But does it tell essentially the true story or not?

I have read that the Bayeux Tapestry's indication of the "arrow to the eye" fate of Harold was meant to be symbolic of God's judgement (more Norman propoganda indicating their Papal backing), rather than indicating the 'factual' COD of the king. Such symbology has been used elsewhere, I just can't remember where.

Streitax 05 Sep 2008 1:13 p.m. PST
OK, I know very little about the period, so I will ask a question based on the statement that the Saxons only needed to hold on a little longer. If the Normans had the advantage of mobility, how would Harold and his men survive if the Normans simply called it a day, regrouped and then harrassed the Saxon army and kept it cut off from resupply while raiding the countryside?

It was the English who had the invaders penned into a peninsula without supply. That was the probable reason behind Harold's rapid strategic move to force the battle. Of course, William's accepting battle was not a foregone event: he had a fortified camp, and had been advised to defend it, which advice he disdained.

The English core army (fyrd) was a mounted force: the Franco-Normans were not mainly mounted, but only the knights. So it seems reasonable, given the advantage of home ground and a larger supply of horses, that the English would have been the more mobile force out in the open.

But Harold's family lands were being pillaged by William's army; and the evidence indicates that Harold was chivalrous to a fault: he could not sacrifice his own people in order to gain a better strategic advantage (e.g. getting a bigger army by waiting longer to offer battle).

The Normans could not raid the countryside without getting the English army out of the way first.

Oops, I see Doug Larsen's posted comments on this matter… what I get for not refreshing my open pages often enough.

nycjadie 05 Sep 2008 1:50 p.m. PST

"Also, the Saxons might have been able to raise more men in time. They were home, the Normans weren't."

I think that's true, but Harold didn't [have] that many friends. Edward the Confessor was merrily placing Normans into positions of power over the Saxons and he has sufficiently alienated many other powerful noble Saxon families. William didn't have much of a problem maintaining control of the island.

Plus Harold was not a blue blood. That meant something to people (and still does).

I have a different opinion on your claims here: What Ed the Confessor did was immaterial, because his Norman friends had been kicked out of England many years before, when the Godwinsons had regained power early in the 1050's. The Godwinson behavior toward the Normans in favor in England was one of the causes the papacy had against Harold. But the English themselves did not mind having no Normans in power/favor in their kingdom. Harold was no royalty scion, that's true, but he was elected lawfully by the Witan: he was no usurping upstart in English eyes. His excommunication was seen, probably, as the machinations of the Normans at the papal court.

There is no reason to assume that Harold was unpopular: his army was the largest force raised in England according to memory or record (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that). Harold was in some trouble with the sons of Alfgar, Edwin and Morkar; but he married their sister and got their promise to come to his support. Their troops had been seriously thrashed earlier by the Norse at Fulford gate, so their not showing in time for Hastings cannot be held as evidence for their absolute disaffection toward their king. Nobody supported Edgar the atheling against Harold; that is why Harold was made king and not the boy with the lineal right (the English adherred to their right to choose their kings even in spite of lineage claims; this is one example of when they exercised that right to bypass a claimant to the throne who had a better lineal connection).

The reaosns the Saxons lost the campaign was simply because Harold died.

Had he survived, no way could the Normans have conquered England. Despite what was mentioned above, the Normans had years of hard fighting to subdue the place, and that was with William being the annointed king.

I think it was York where they lost 300 knights in one day during an uprising – the kind of behaviour that lead to the Harrying of the North.

Big trouble also around Exeter and in the Fens. I think it took them a year or so to capture Ely where Saxons rebels under Herewrd were backed up by Norweigians.

The Godwinson family had undoubtedly made enemies, but Harold was successful in battle. In 1065 he'd neatly conquered Gwynedd in six weeks or so, something the Normans never managed. This wa sin retataliation for Welsh raids which had basically depopulated the entire border during Edwards reign.

That kind of success brings friends.

So basically, the Normans were phenomenally lucky.

Bang on, Stu. Which raises the question: why did William, ordinarily a cautious warlord, even bother to try such a longshot? I think he was supremely confident in his cause before heaven: that kind of piety is very real in some people and I think he had it. I can't come up with another explanation that trumps faith in divine favor! He must have had something like that going for him; else he could not have raised his large army. That kind of self confidence is scary stuff, and very, very inspiring for troops. (cf Alexander the Great taking on all of Asia.)

The very talented Marriott Edgar got it right…

I'll Tell of the Battle of Hastings

I'll tell of the Battle of Hastings,
As happened in days long gone by,
When Duke William became King of England,
And 'Arold got shot in the eye.

It were this way – one day in October
The Duke, who were always a toff,
Having no battles on at the moment,
Had given his lads a day off.

They'd all taken boats to go fishing,
When some chap in t'Conqueror's ear
Said 'Let's go and put breeze up the Saxons;'
Said Bill – 'By gum, that's an idea.'

Then turning around to his soldiers,
He lifted his big Norman voice,
Shouting – 'Hands up who's coming to England.'
That was swank 'cos they hadn't no choice.

They started away about tea-time -
The sea was so calm and so still,
And at quarter to ten the next morning
They arrived at a place called Bexhill.

King 'Arold came up as they landed -
His face full of venom and 'ate -
He said 'If you've come for Regatta
You've got here just six weeks too late.'

At this William rose, cool but 'aughty,
And said – 'Give us none of your cheek;
You'd best have your throne re-upholstered;
I'll be wanting to use it next week.'

When 'Arold heard this 'ere defiance,
With rage he turned purple and blue,
And shouted some rude words in Saxon,
To which William answered – 'And you.'

'Twere a beautiful day for a battle;
The Normans set off with a will,
And when both sides was duly assembled,
They tossed for the top of the hill.
King 'Arold he won the advantage,
On the hill-toop he took up his stand,
With his knaves and his cads all around him,
On his 'orse with his 'awk in his 'and.

The Normans had nowt in their favour,
They chance of a victory seemed small,
For the slope of the field were against them,
And the wind in their faces and all.

The kick-off were sharp at two-thirty,
And soon as the whistle had went
Both sides started banging each other
Till the swineherds could hear them in Kent.

The Saxons had best line of forwards,
Well armed both with buckler and sword -
But the Normans had best combination,
And when half-time came neither had scored.

So the Duke called his cohorts together
And said – 'Let's pretend that we're beat,
Once we get Saxons down on the level
We'll cut off their means of retreat.'

So they ran – and the Saxons ran after,
Just exactly as William had planned,
Leaving 'Arold alone on the hill-top
On his 'orse, with his 'awk in his 'and.

When the Conqueror saw what had happened,
A bow and an arrow he drew;
He went right up to 'Arold and shot him.
He were offside, but what could they do?

The Normans turned round in a fury,
And gave back both parry and thrust,
Till the fight were all over bar shouting,
And you couldn't see Saxons for dust.

And after the battle were over
They found 'Arold so stately and grand,
Sitting there with an eye-full of arrow
On his 'orse, with his 'awk in his 'and.

At this William rose, cool but 'aughty,
And said – 'Give us none of your cheek;
You'd best have your throne re-upholstered;
I'll be wanting to use it next week.'

I really love that quatrain…;-)

The more I learn about Harold Godwinson, the more I've come to admire him. Especially what he supposedly said to his brother & Harald Hadraada before Stamford Bridge. As well as how the Tapestry indicates Duke William ordering the burning of English homes to incite Harold, knowing of his compassion for his people. Plus I heard he was short

Parzival
"Non, non! Mon girlfriend, la embroideress, she make a very nize tapestry. Voila! Proof instant!"

"Hmmm… verily, it could worketh! Billy, thou art a king!"

Tres bien Monsieur Parzival! Le ha ha! Le hah ha ha ha ha!

I think Harold was a competant General and his loss robbed England of a capable leader. But the Godwinsons were not popular in England except with the Anglo Danes. They had a Danish mother and the whole family were part of the Danish ruling classes of England. Their father Godwin did not enjoy a good relationship with Edward the Confessor although he continued to increase his family's power during that kings reign. There had been a Mercian rebellion before Edward died and Tostig (Harolds brother) had been much and actively resented in Northumbria. Edward's Norman associates were not popular either among their tennants. England was not very happy and not very united. Harold's actions were intended to address this. He sent Edward's Normans home, invaded Gwynedd to keep the Mercians happy and put one of the Mercian Royal family in charge of Northumbria.

Harold had to fight quickly because William invaded his power base and he could not afford to be seen to be unable to defend it. Unfortunatley for the English and the Anglo Danes he got beat. No doubt the losses at Stamford Bridge contributed to that. But the Normans were the premier soldiers of the age and were very difficult to beat. The noble refugees from England who formed the Emperor Alexius Varangian Guard at the battle of Dyrrachium were also badly beaten by Normans. They fought in the same way as Harold's men at Hastings.

Once Harold was dead the main resistance to the Normans came from the Anglo Danes at York, Hereward The Wake (the Viking that is to say) and on a smaller scale at Exeter. So the Dane Law and and bit Wessex try and resist. There is no general resistance and that probably reflects the popularity of Harold's regime in England. Later when it became clear how bad the conquest was going to be the Mercian Earls revolted – but it was too late.

The Conquest was a comlete disaster for the English and with the nobility dead or fled the rest of the population became helots. It was also accomplished quickly and with relative ease in terms of William's men and money.

That kind of success brings friends.

So basically, the Normans were phenomenally lucky.

It was a very near run thing and lasted all day. I don't think people realize how close it came to be a loss for the Normans.

Hang on a second. I agree that it was a close run thing. But if the Normans couldn't dislodge the Saxon shieldwall how would that have turned into a Norman loss? William would have withdrawn and faced Harald on another day, on terrain more suitable to his strengths.

Ralph

Is it just me, or is Hastings a really boring battle to game? Shield wall all day long, don't run after the Normans, keep Harold alive. Yawn. At least that's how it felt when I played it using Medieval II.

CPBelt 05 Sep 2008 7:43 p.m. PST
Is it just me, or is Hastings a really boring battle to game? Shield wall all day long, don't run after the Normans, keep Harold alive. Yawn. At least that's how it felt when I played it using Medieval II.

1066.us :) It's as much the story behind the participants as the battle itself. It makes a pretty dandy solo game. I've played with one on one, and three on three (players) too. And I prefer to go it alone, when sticking strictly to historical simulations. Telling the English player(s) that they have to just stand there and roll the dice IS boring….

Hang on a second. I agree that it was a close run thing. But if the Normans couldn't dislodge the Saxon shieldwall how would that have turned into a Norman loss? William would have withdrawn and faced Harald on another day, on terrain more suitable to his strengths.

Ralph

It's already been mentioned by Stu, that if Harold had survived to fight on the Normans would never have conquered England. So in order to WIN, William not only had to hold the field, but to eliminate all of the Godwinson brothers to boot. Long odds, anybody? Just holding the field wasn't good enough, because William's army had taken a pounding and was not getting any reinforcements anytime soon: and even at that, he did not command the manpower that England did: Harold's army was getting stronger by the day. The best William could have done would have been to retreat back to his fortified camp and parley, and ultimately sail away.

The Conquest was a comlete disaster for the English and with the nobility dead or fled the rest of the population became helots. It was also accomplished quickly and with relative ease in terms of William's men and money.

A bit of an exageration this IMO. Post Consquest the populations of the towns certainly remained free. In the countryside there always remained a class of free peasantry, especially in the old Danelaw. The word villein in the Domesday Book equates to a ceorl, and a ceorl was personally free. Other non free classes are specifically mentioned seperately. Only later did the word villein get its unfree connotations as that classes' status fell and even then the free peasant class still remained.

I'm still no fan of the Normans but this idea of the whole English nation falling into bondage after 1066 just doesn't match reality. As a concept it kind of sprung up post English Civil War as the Parliamentarians invented the idea of "The Norman Yoke" as a device to repeal royal laws, declaring them to be foreign impositions and therefore un- English. Later authors then took hold of the idea and it stuck.

You still see this myth repeated today, Sharon Penman, a really good historian and author IMO, is herself guilty of it in her Welsh trilogy, refering to the English as "a nation of bondsmen". Post Conquest certainly was not a fun time for the English and yes many did eventually fall into serfdom, but by no means all and they certainly did not become helots. By the time of the Wars of the Roses serfdom was pretty much gone and the nobility all thought of themselves as English and had done for generations so in the end it was England, not Normandy that won through.

All good stuff.

I'd agree completely that a draw would have worked in Harold's favour than in William's. The Normans had no source of reinforcement, and limited access to supplies: they were the ones who had to win. If William had retired to his fortifications he would have lost: he had to fight or leave.

As to why William won at Hastings… well, quite simply he survived while Harold (and his brothers) did not. The fact that William was unhorsed on more than one occasion suggests that Harold had his chances to win as completely as William eventually did.

"The English core army (fyrd) was a mounted force"

Do your research Doug. The core of the Anglo Saxon army were the Huscarls. The Fyrd (Select Fyrd and General Fyrd) were militia.

Hi

You had to bring this up! Doug is OBSESSED with the battle.

Part of the drive behind our doing our own rules was the fact that none of the rules sets we had back then, from WRG to various independents ALLOWED Hastings to happen. In WRG, for instance, the very combat system wouldn't allow the troops to be deployed on the hill!

And being a "close run thing" despite the limits of the terrain and all, makes it a fun fight. As a game, though, OUR refights usually revolve around wether "the priest" is there. Grin.

I don't find refights "boring" no matter what, though. I got to wargaming, oddly, because of "The Four Feathers". As a kid, the retired general laying out a battle with table stuff led me to want to LOOK at the battle. And figs help me see things. Just laying out the land and the units lends insight, the game almost irrelevent.

Anyway, I did have one question. Doug says "It was the English who had the invaders penned into a peninsula without supply." Would not he be supplied by sea? I would suggest that a quick win prevents more english flocking to Harald's side!

As for "why then, why there"… Do we know for a fact that dissidents in England were doing a "chalabi" with Wm by telling him how all sorts of people were just panting at the thought of a "good king"? And Wm wanting to BELIEVE?

R

"You had to bring this up! Doug is OBSESSED with the battle."

Really? You surprise me. See the exchange below:

Quebecnordiques said:
"I bet you wouldn't start a thread on why the Saxons lost at Hastings? ;-)"
To which Doug replied:
"I would, if I thought anyone was interested in discussing it."

!!!

Mike Snorbens 06 Sep 2008 8:03 a.m. PST
"The English core army (fyrd) was a mounted force"

Do your research Doug. The core of the Anglo Saxon army were the Huscarls. The Fyrd (Select Fyrd and General Fyrd) were militia.

The housecarles (huscarls, huskarls) were a recent innovation in England, not present before Cnut and his father. The fyrd had always been freemen, and from the time of the Viking incursions were only the best class thereof, i.e. the thegns and richer men of lower status. In 1066 the fyrd was a combo of landed housecarles (a growing segment of them), the thegn class for the most part and the retinues of the same.

The so-called general (or "great") and select fyrd is a concept coined by C. W. Hollister in 1962 and has no bearing on original source material, i.e. was not a concept back in the day: there was only the fyrd. The local ceorl class would turn out to defend their shire, but only the fyrd marched to meet invasions, rebellions, etc. The housecarles served as mercenaries for earls and the king, and of course were the core army of those individuals: they were not per se part of the traditional fyrd system (unless or until they acquired landed status, which they had been increasintly doing by 1066).

The best single source book on the subject (that I know of) is "Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England", Richard P. Abels. The fyrd system by 1066 was not that simple. But to claim that the housecarles had taken over as the core army is mistaken, imho. In any case, it wouldn't change the main point that the English army was a mounted force.

Anyway, I did have one question. Doug says "It was the English who had the invaders penned into a peninsula without supply." Would not he be supplied by sea?

Dependant on the wind! Which had only recently shifted to carry the invaders to England; and conversely prevented them sailing back to get reinforcements or supplies (n fact, iirc, only by the end of October did reinforcements come over from Normandy: it took that time for the wind to change, and change back again).

I would suggest that a quick win prevents more english flocking to Harald's side!

A quick win does not destroy the English army, it only bruises it. England had many times more potential men than William and his allies. Only a fraction were at Hastings: another fraction had perished at the twin battles of Gate Fulford and Stamford bridge: and the core fyrd forces were at Hastings that's true. But if they hadn't routed on the death of their king, their losses would have been less.

So Harold dies, the army routs: if one of his brothers had lived on, it is speculation only that he would have been crowned in Harold's place and continued the fight: but I think it is good and likely: that's why when I play Hastings, if one Godwinson escapes alive, the battle is a draw. William then has a much harder situation to face than before the battle of Hastings, because his army is down c. 25%, his supply situation is critical, and the English army is getting stronger by the day.

If Gyrth was the survivor, he would engage in a scorched earth policy as defensive strategy: it's reportedly one of his suggestions to Harold while they recouped in London before marching to Caldbec hill. That would further complicate William's situation.

There is this possibility too: an English refusal to engage in battle and try to starve the invaders into submission would likely not succeed: William was too resourceful for that to stop him: he would have had all southern England to gain supplies from: that's a lot of scorched earth necessary in order to stop the invanders! presenting William with opportunities to attack the troops doing the scorching. Speculation works both ways, and invites a mini campaign :)….