Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Immediately after Stamford Bridge(1066)
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Monday, 8th May 2006
Resisting the temptation to answer this with hindsight, what you would do in the following situation...
Around 21st Sept 1066, you force-march a huge army northwards 190m- most of it being mounted housecarls and thegns for speed- to meet a massive invasion army led by a fearsome Viking warlord(Hardraada) and your own traitorous younger brother(Tostig).
Immediately after this gruelling but stunning victory in which your army had slaughtered about 90% of the Norse veteran warriors, you hear of William's landing(29th Sept), you leave 'your man' in the north- Merleswein- to act as sheriff in that region(as Edwin and Morcar's forces had been shattered at the battle of Fulford, and maybe your faith in their command and loyalty also?), before another exhausting fast 190m march south to London.
As you dash southwards down the 'great north road' to London with your surviving mounted thegns and housecarls to rest, regroup and make arrangements for the impending battle, you send messengers into the southern and western shires (and E.Anglia?)to again quickly raise another general fyrd.
Controversially(and going against your experienced and militarily capable character as a proven general and statesman during King Edward's and your own short reign) you impulsively ignore your brother Gyrth's prudent advice(and maybe also Leofwine's, Edith's and your mother Gytha's, as well as many senior commanders?). This might be because;
1. You are proud of your military heritage and also feel morally bound as Wessex earl & King, to save your kinfolk from the brutal and deliberate ravages of the newly-invaded Normans(hangings, rapes, mutilations and slaying of children etc), designed to taunt you into premature battle- as William well knew it would.
2. You couldn't know if William was getting reinforcements by sea & thus getting stronger each day- the Saxon Navy was still in London at this time, but refitting to soon sail again to cut him off.
3. You are supremely confident of crushing William by surprise, having done the same to the fearsome Norse warlord Harald Hardrada's professional army only 3wks before with stunning success. Three years before that, you had crushed the Welsh menace, King gruffydd ap Llewelyn too with equal success.
4. Quickly "bottling William up" within the [then] narrow, marshy confines of the Hastings peninsula, with the natural aid of the flanking dense woods, was crucial to annul his cavalry that you saw in action in 1064- If William 'broke out' with his cavalry then he could go anywhere! Or maybe you could allow him to do so whilst also then 'scorching the earth' between Hastings and London/Winchester whilst hitting the starving, marching Norman army hard with huge, fierce and co-ordinated Guerilla-style ambushes/pitched battles- ala Hereward and the 'Silvatici'- then melting into the local lands which they would know inside-out? Norman warhorses, dying from malnutrition, would have left William's v.weakened army dangerously exposed & almost certainly slaughtered. Containing and starving William's men - and crucially their horses- was the crux, you could sap the Norman strength by war of attrition whilst they lay idle in their bottleneck & cut off by sea behind them. William would have to surrender- time was on your side...
5. You note William's lack of an advance inland for three weeks and must have thought either;- William wasn't strong enough to attack London or engage your army in pitched battle? Maybe William wanted you to attack him on Hastings peninsula, protected by the terrain etc, maybe with strong communications with Normandy?
So you arrange a meeting point which is well known to all the local men, and maybe previously considered by you as a useful defensive hill in case of having to withdraw from any possible reversals of fortune further south if plans didn't succeed.
Having left orders for the weary fyrdsmen still trickling in from the north(incl.archers- and the many men from the shires) to follow on and meet you at the 'hoare apple tree', you order your navy to sail behind the invader's base and whilst you soon afterwards speed a further 60m south with a large mounted army to link up with the fyrdsmen near the dense Andredsweald.
However, you may have made this meeting point too near to the Norman camp seven miles away, and their scouts alert William(unlike the Norse three weeks before) who pre-empts your attack by himself marching north to meet you. You do indeed have to fight a defensive battle now, but all isn't lost.
Your adversary is a brutally tough, experienced and great general whom you personally saw in battle two years before, and whom you also know needs to bring you to battle very soon if his conquest is to succeed- and his men(many mercenaries) don't revolt, as many did in 1069/70. All you have to do is issue strict orders to your fyrdsmen to defend well, hold firm no matter what, and wait for reinforcements to come in from England throughout the day- another few thousand fresh fyrdsmen and maybe earls Waltheof, Morcar & Edwin with any surviving thegns/housecarls... So-
Should you send messengers to those loyal Welsh princes(brothers Bleððyn and Rhiwallon, who were allowed to rule in North Wales after acknowledging Edward as their overlord and agreeing to pay tribute), who could have speeded a substantial armed retinue of men by horse to aid you? Maybe also at least have sent 'feeler's out to Malcolm Canmore of Scotland, and the Cornish- giving them false promises of land/wealth/power, if necessary, until the danger had passed? -
Message 2
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 8th May 2006
Malcolm Canmore and the Welsh would have considered the matter your problem. Why should they care who runs England: whoever it will be is going to be a pain anyway. So no help from them.
The question I have never understood is why Harold came south so fast from Stamford Bridge and then onto Sentlache. Sure he called out the local fyrd and some others but the English in arms were many and recognised as strong fighters. They had the capability to bear down on William, erode his strength, break the morale of his troops and impose an ignominious defeat.
So I would have gone for a sequence of short hard fights to break down William's strength, to draw him further inland and then cut off his retreat to the coast for the victorious finish.
But then that is my instinct as one of the Scots-Irish: I know I don't think like the English. I am told I lack ambition but I survive to fight again. Harold didn't.
Perhaps you should rephrase the question: who was the biggest gambler? Harold Godwinson or William the Bastard? In my view it was the latter and, by God, what a gambler! -
Message 3
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 8th May 2006
Ironaxe
fascinateing piece to which I do not have time to reply except to note that, as I commented to Fred mannning a while ago, whatever other decision Harold had made it could not possibly have led to a worst result than what actually happened as a result of senlac.
regards
Tim -
Message 4
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Always difficult to asses the state of mind of anyone after all this time, but my own feeling is that you have touched on some of the things affecting Harold's decision. In hindsight, he would have been far better waiting a week or so and building a bigger army with which to crush William. While I take your point about the mobility of William's cavalry, they could have done nothing much more than carry out raids if unsupported by the rest of his army. He had to keep his army together to avoid being destroyed piecemeal.
So, why did Harold ignore the (to me) obvious course of action? A few suggestions.
1) He had just destroyed Hardrada's army and was full of confidence
2) His claim to the throne was disputed and he wanted to be seen to be strong and decisive
3) William was ravaging "his" land.
If he had stopped ot think about it, he might have realised that William was ravaging the land to provoke him into an early battle. As an experienced general, he should have realised that the last thing he should do is fight on terms of his enemy's choosing. -
Message 5
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Hi Tony- isn't retrospect great? Lol
Yes, instead of Harold uncharacteristically just 'charging in' as he apparently did(for reasons I listed above, perhaps?) maybe it would have been best for him- and maybe US today(?)- to wait for a week for ALL of his western and weary northern army to amass near/in London, then march south to link up with the rest of the southern shire's fyrdsmen at the 'hoare apple tree' at Senlac, and finally together as one fresh, prepared, re-armed and march the seven miles towards William at Hastings.
Maybe the latter he DID intend to do, maybe as an early plan for a night attack on Oct 13th/14th? -
Message 6
Posted by Our Man in Mexico (U1661159) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Dear Ironaxe,
Norman Duke William II forced King Harold II and the English armed forces to give Battle upon Senlac Ridge. According to Paul Hill in "The Road to Hastings" King Harold II intended to advance on through the settlement of Hastings and sweep into Duke William II's camp just beyond the settlement of Hastings after intially halting at Senlac Ridge to allow reinforcements to come in. However, Duke William II stole the intiative and blocked King Harold II's road to Hastings and thus forcing King Harold II to give Battle upon Senlac Ridge.
Therefore, I think King Harold II's intial tactic of advancing on Hastings from London was sound as he still had enough fyrd and huscarls to defeat Duke William II and the Norman armed forces in the field as long as his intial tactic and course of of action went to plan. In that he could catch the Normans in there Camp and drive them back into the English Channel. However, Duke William II took the intiative and thus rendered King Harold II's intial tactics obsolete.
I personally do not believe King Harold II meant to give battle upon Senlac Hill as this would hindered the fighting capability and effectiveness of the huscarls due to the English armed forces being forced to cluster together. One must remember King Harold II was an extremely capable Military General as his campaigns into Wales and crippling of the Norwegian armed forces at Stamford Bridge show.
Cheers, I hope you are well Mate.
Craig -
Message 7
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Hi Harold!
Good to chat again, mate!
Yes, I think that there is plenty of primary source 'evidence' to suggest strongly that Harold did not intend to originally fight a pitched battle at Senlac, but simply to meet some of his southern fyrdsmen at the 'hoare apple tree', then march seven miles south to the Norman base at the Hastings peninsula and hopefully surprise William(as he had with Hardraada only 3wks before?).
As you rightly stated, Harold was indeed very capable and experienced as a fleet commander during the 1040's/50's(against invaders and into Wales, 1063) but also as a military leader on land campaigns(in 1052; against Gruffydd ap Llewelyn in the 1060's and into Wales 1063;at Stamford 1066), but my concern is that, had he attempted a night attack against William's temporary wooden pre-fab fort, would it have ended up as a disaster?
The Saxons had not got a great record when attempting to directly attack fortresses(Alfred's day) and night manouevres were always highly risky throughout history. Or maybe- seeing as he had all the time in the world- he would simply have surrounded William, cut him off by land and sea, and starved him out, with ample reinforcements trickling in during the following days(maybe even Edwin, Waltheof and Morcar with their housecarls?)? -
Message 8
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
All we know is that the english got thrashed and never again did an englishman sit on the throme of england, ever. Thats good enough for me.
-
Message 9
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
As long as the english got beat, id be chearing whoever was fighting them
Doctor -
Message 10
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Greendoctor
Try getting therapy for the bitterness and xenophobic anger, then upgrade to reading some in-depth history books in smallprint- the ones with fewer pretty pictures in!
-
Message 11
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Ok, ill watch england get beat during the world cup. Last time it was helpful.
-
Message 12
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Yes, you go back to your 'sport', then boost your backward IQ up to 13(your age?)- it'll keep bigoted and immature morons like you away from these boards.
You're a dire and pathetic advert for any Irish, Welsh or Scots people, who are mostly wonderful peoples.
Get over your xenophobia, bitterness and innate stupidity- and then learn how to spell! -
Message 13
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Mostly wonderful people? Thats a bit of a generalisation. Why not just say the Celtic Fringe and save time? I didnt realise you knew so many of us.
I am not bitter, just enjoy winding up the uptight english.
So back to the story, after stamford bridge, you lost on penalties, as usual to the Normans, 3rd generation vikings, a bit poncy after a few centures in France, more akin to eating frogs legs than fighting.
But you still lost... -
Message 14
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
"Uptight English"?...no generalisation from YOU, then? I didn't realise you knew so many?
And bitterness- yes you are! Or why act so childishly- unprovoked- only to attack people here who happen only to be the same nationality as someone you once had a bad experience with?
'Wind us up' Lol- immature or what! I do actually know alot of Irish, Scots and Welsh through work as well as socially, but that's no business for a dunce such as yourself.
Go surf the net for a schoolchild board, moron, and vent your adolescent idiocy and bad grammar and spelling there. An Irish mate of mine has just asked me to tell you that you are indeed an embarrassing...well, I'll re-word it as a 'fool'- whoever you pretend to be.
Have the last word whilst watching ENGLAND IN THE WORLD CUP behind my broad back, idiot, as I'm discussing HISTORY from now on, without slagging off my "celtic" friends...who think you're a childish and uneducated cretin(re-worded) LOL -
Message 15
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
idiot, moron, tut, tut. From the country that gave us allo allo and various anti german nonsense. Thats different of course.
All I said, was you lost and many people would raise a glass to that.
As for these two boring battles, they are overhyped and get far too much attention. Look at other battles that get ignored too often, such as Bannockburn or Stirling Bridge or Nechtansmere.
Wind up. Yeah, I did. -
Message 16
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Greendoctor,
You're turning what was an interesting thread into a sill argument. If you are going to insult people, at least try to do it with some knowledge. Harold was half-Danish. -
Message 17
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Look at my new thread - bloodiest battle, probably its not known well, a battle of atleast the same significance as the above discussed. It will be much more interesting and its not well known. Surely history is about discovering otherwise not well known facts, rather than reading extremely long threads from the Ironaxe know-it-all....
-
Message 18
Posted by Our Man in Mexico (U1661159) on Friday, 12th May 2006
Dear Ironaxe,
I recollect reading in some of my literature (perhaps Paul Hill or Frank McLynn) that King Harold II did dispatch an English naval fleet to the South Eastern England to destroy the Norman naval fleet and trap Duke William II in his Hastings encampment. Thus depriving William of any reinforcement and possible attempts at escaping into the English Channel. However, I believe the English Naval Fleet was caught in a Storm and suffered heavy losses and consequently the naval fleet retired to London.
Perhaps King Harold II intended to sweep into the Norman encampment from Senlac Ridge and drive the Normans back into the English Channel from whence they came. With the Normans being subsequently caught between the English huscarls and fyrd and the English naval fleet. If King Harold II had succeeded in defeating Duke William II and the Normans I think it is possible to state King Harold II would have gone down in History as one of the great Military Monarchs alongside King Aelfred, King Aethelstan and King Charles I 'Charlemagne'?
I apologise for not replying to many of your discussions of late, I have wanted to but I have had little time as I have University examinations in the forthcoming weeks.
Cheers,
Craig -
Message 19
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Friday, 12th May 2006
Hi Harold
Great to hear from you again- don't worry about your absence, good luck with your exams.
King Harold would indeed have been one of our greatest kings, and I still think that he was, despite lame and laughable Norman propaganda to erase him from history, or re-write existing records.
I think you'll find that these boards have changed over the last few months, there seems to now exist one or two deliberately irritating posters with no sense of humour, a foul attitude with a chip on their shoulder. One in particular doesn't just debate and disagree, but rants his xenophobic(anti-English) bitterness with no historical knowledge. See what you think- he's just like that moron(williamthered) on the other history board- who also gets crucified regularly! -
Message 20
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
Yawn. Move on.
-
Message 21
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
Thanks for providing a good example of the above, doc! LOL.
I've 'moved on' as I'm chatting to others here, until you keep spewing your childish and irrelevant "knowledge", hatred and awful ENGLISH grammar and spelling.
Now run along and do your school homework, son- try not to get any papercuts from those Ladybird history books! -
Message 22
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
By posting this message, it appears you have failed yet again to move on. Continue chatting. LOL
Doctor -
Message 23
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
Harold II and ironaxe.
This has been debated more than once and no one has yet been able to convince me that Harold should not have stayed in London and built up his defences. If William was going anywhere in a hurry then he would have moved out of the Hastings peninsula before Harold got there. The year was drawing on and william's army, particualrly the mercenaries wanted a quick result. If harold had stayed in London Willaim would have had to come for him, Willaim had come to conquer the country not to eavage it.
regards Tim
By the way Ironaxe I would suggest that you should not get dragged into a meaningless arguement with greendocter, if he makes an intelligent posting then reply to it.
Good to see you back on the pages Harold II. -
Message 24
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
Hi Tim
I always found it strange that William hugged the south coast, considering that he needed to conquer England quickly?
Maybe there's something he knew about the situation that we now don't? Possibly the strength and ability of Harold's command and housecarls(as witnessed during 1064 in Brittany?)? Or maybe he suspected a trap, even though Fitzwimarc had told William about Harold returning from near York.
As for theantagonistic pillac you advised me to ignore- yes, I'll await an intelligent post or comment from him...if I can read his illiterate rantings!
Cheers mate. -
Message 25
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
deary me, you really got some anger management issues. As throughout my dealing with you, I wont resort to name calling.
What surprises me about this discussed period is the lack of an organised, sustained revolt. Hereford the Wake did rebel for a short while and the north was subdued in 1070.
No doubt, this will invoke a furious response. -
Message 26
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
No furious response, doc, because...
You actually made a mature, relevant and intelligent point, which I'm happy to join you in discussing!
I suppose that the state organisation and heart had been mostly ripped out of the English resistance after the three bloody battles and exhausting campaigns of 1066, where most commanders had been slain(similar to the fierce yet doomed Scottish fighting at Flodden?). The remaining leaders and fyrdsmen thus survived like Robin Hood(where his type of legend was born?) by hiding out in dense forests and marshes as outlawed guerilla-fighters, as 'Silvatici'(as the Normans called them).
Exiled by King Edward in the early 1060's, Hereward still wasn't in this country at this point, but in Flanders or France, where author Emma Mason (in "House of Godwin") suggests he may have fought for Tostig(pre-1066). He is reputed to have made his peace with William soon after 1070.
Many rebellions did spring up after 1066(earls Edwin, Morcar & Waltheof, Edgar atheling, King Swein of Denmark- even Eustace of Boulogne(1067) and Norman 'the revolt of the earls' in 1075), but were geographically divided from each other and thus badly co-ordinated and not fully supported by the now fearful Saxons. Though they no doubt were in league with one another and serious enough in themselves, William was able to defeat each one before they eventually linked up. -
Message 27
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
For Ironaxe and Greendoctor
I have just got a book out of the library on the English resistance to the Norman Conquest though I doubt if I will get around to reading it until I go on holiday as I have a back log of other books to read. But I will let you know if it has anything to add. It is certainly the first time I have seen a book on the subject.
I would identify five reasons for the collapse of English resistance
Firstly as you said the losses suffered in the three batles of 1066. One could compare the war that scottish resistance to English rule collapsed following their three catastrophic defeats at Preston, Dunbar and Worcester.
Secondly William was duly crowned king of England that divided loyalties.
Thirdly was william's conmtrol of the incredibly efficient English tax system, far ahead of anything else in Western Europe, that enabled William to raise the taxes from the English to pay for the troops needed to keep them down. Edward I did not have this advantage in either Wales or Scotland.
Forthly the lack of Enghlish leadership, Willaim is crdited with saying that if their had been three such men as Hereward he never would have conquered England.
Fifthly was Willaim's total ruthlessness, in particular shown in his harrying of the north. I have seen a figure of 250,000 English dead as a result of Willaim's determination to put down any rule, and the famin that arose out of it, and I could believe it. -
Message 28
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
Hi Tim
I once read the book by Peter Rex- "The English Resistance -The Underground War Against the Normans" which was an eye-opening read. I don't know if this is the book you have rented?
It becomes clear from the tough living of these outlawed and dispossessed 'resistance fighters', where the stories of Robin Hood might have originally sprung from.
The terrible figures of William's genocidal 'Harrying of the North' I have read are similar, due to disease, famine and indiscriminate slaughter.
Good reading Tim. -
Message 29
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 15th May 2006
Hello ironaxe
Yes that is the book, I had not seen it before.
I wondered what was your view on the Brunanburh site discussion and whther you read the Burnswark article. I thought it was a very good paper even though I did not agree with it.
I do not know if your saw my comment about the Dingle point being opposite Bromborough which seemed a bit of a conincidence especially as the Mersey was, judging by Ellesmere port, called a Mere. In the article it suggests that Dings mere is a poetic name, which it could be, but it could also refer to an actual place and Dingles mere and Dinges mere seem pretty close in name to me.
Good to have a number of early medievil discussions going on and to see Harold II back on the pages.
regards
Tim -
Message 30
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Monday, 15th May 2006
Hi Tim
Yes, I read those Brunanburh posts, and your latter ones, and I'm beginning to warm to the idea of the battle having been fought there instead of my locality of Catcliffe/Brinsworth, near Sheffield.
Approx along that same 'northern' [Saxon] border, your proposed Bromborough site could well have been a feasible geographical meeting point for Owain of Strathclyde, Constantine of 'Scotland' and the Northumbrians all from the north, and Olaf's forces sailing to N.W.England from Ireland(Dublin?).
I suppose that huge allied army ravaged that N.W region in an attempt to lure Athelstan into a premature battle? In that aim, they failed(unlike William in 1066) because the Saxon King waited until he had amassed a massive army of Wessex-Mercians(much to the chagrin of one ASC chronicler!), who might have moved north from Mercia towards Merseyside- as opposed to Michael Wood's theory about along the 'great north road' to Sheffield?
Cheers. -
Message 31
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
Tim / Ironaxe,
Peter Rex has a couple of other books about the same period. One about Hereward, which is excellent and a new one about Harold II which I have only just started, so cannot comment on. -
Message 32
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
Ironaxe
you may be interested in my two postings on the battles of Roslin and Athelstaneford.
regards
Tim
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.