From: tperreau@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (The Mad Scot)
Subject: Battle of Hastings - Redux :)
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 11:52:33 GMT

Subject: Re: Battle of Hastings?
Date: 12 Sep 92 09:33:18 GMT
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: eco.economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <VVIRRANK.92Sep11152059@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, vvirrank@cc.Helsinki.FI (Ville Virrankoski) writes:
>> 
>> Battle of Hastings was decisive...But what make it so decisive?

[ Information about the events leading up to Hastings removed ]

Rob writes:

>He had mobilised only about 1/2 of Englands available trained menand his total
>force numbered about 7500, similar to Williams butmany of Harolds were
>basically untrained peasants.  Thus William had the upper hand in terms of
>troop quality.  Also Harold erred by advancing toward William instead of making
>William come ti him iun a defensive position.  William also had archers and
>cavalry, which Harold didd not.

An interesting standpoint, though perhaps not quite correct.  Strategically,
Harold blundered - he should have waited until he had a full force which
would have outnumbered William.  However, Harold was not thinking of
strategy, but of defending his homeland.  Tactically, though, Hastings was
a well fought battle on both sides - Harold made the land work for him, 
forcing the Normans & their allies to attack up a hill, and the Normans also
proved the tactics of cavalry against massed and heavily armed forces.

>William moved to attack Harold and his army who were stationed on a ridge about
>10 miles from Hastigs.  On top of the ridge wer Harolds housecarls (well
>trained bodyguard or  houseguards) whilst the less trained men were stationed
>on the flanks.  Whilst this ridge protected the flanks of his army it also
>cramped them and they bacame targets for the Norman archers.

Which is what Harold would want - a strong center that would not rout, with
not so stable levies on the flanks.  More housecarls, though, would have
been nice to steady the Algno-Saxon flanks.

>The normans drewu their ranks with the archers in front, followed by the
>infantry then the cavalry.

Standard tactics since Alexander the Great (see Ferrill's _The Origins of
War_ - an excellent book).

>The norman archers opened the attacks and whilst inflicting heavy casualties
>they also suffered from the English slings and spears.  William then threw in
>his cavalry whichg was severely mauled by the English wielding 2 handed
>battleaxes. and then fled.  Considerable numbers of nglishmen followed him and
>they were slaughtered after William retsored his cavalry's morale.  This was
>done at least twice and the English force was starting to wear thin.  At least
>2 of Harolds brothers were killed  and late in the afternoon Harold was slain. 
The Bretons routed first, and as a result Hastings was almost lost by
William.  The Anglo-Saxon levies were the ones to persue the routing
Bretons, and they found themselves cut off from the other Anglo-Saxons.
If I remember right, William attempted to storm the ridge three times and
failed each time - daunted by the housecarls and their axes, which chopped
into both man and horse (unhorse a Norman and he wasn't good for much, due
to the heavy chain & scale armor until he could get his bearings - by
then it was too late).  William was able to take the ridge only because
he was able to turn a flank.

>This was not by the legendary arrow in the eye as depicted in the Bayeaux
>tapestry, that actually shows a housecarl suffering such a wound.  The english
>broke at darkness and William moved to London where he was crowned king on
>Christmas day.

Ah, but you forgot the second fight that took place between the ridge and
the town of Hastings.  Tired and beaten Anglo-Saxons fought against a
Norman pursuit and won, mainly by leading the Normans to a cliff & pushing
them over.  The Anglo-Saxons were able to "melt away" into the woods and
return to their homes.

>Effects of the Norman victory:

[ Various things that William brought to England removed ]

One must also remember that the Anglo-Saxon rebellion against William and
the Normans lasted for 4 years after Hastings, and only "ended" when York
fell and Chester surrendered.  The Anglo-Saxon royal family was welcomed
by Malcolm III "Ceann Mor" of Scotland - much to the anger of William.
In time, though, the Normans also took over the Scottish system of 
government.

>As for the change in the course of history, who knows.  Had the Danes won it
>was likely England would have been a backwater of European affairs.  Given the
>prominent role England later plays in the European theatre it is impossible to
>realisticly determine what might have been.

A discussion was had with several people down here (myself included), and
we came to decide that even if Harold had won, England would have been
ripe for plunder from other forces - the Danes had their chance and lost,
and the Normans probably would not have been able to recover for at least
a generation (along with the English).  The most probable attack would have
come from Scotland, and most likely the Scots would have claimed (or re-
claimed depending on your historical viewpoint) Northumbria and York;
however, they probably would not have been able to hold most of Northumbria.

Harold could have won, though.  He almost did.  For the Anglo-Saxon forces
that day, simply holding William and fighting him to a standstill would have
been a victory.  William would not have had the forces then to continue
his conquest and would have had to return to Normandy for the winter.
He probably would have returned in the spring, this time facing a fully
mobilized Anglo-Saxon army.  If Harold could have negated the Norman
cavalry yet again in a hypothetical second battle, I doubt that William
would have been able to attempt a third try, and Harold would have been
secure on the English throne (or as secure one could be during those
times).

>Anyway, all these recollectionds come from various history courses from year 8
>through university.  If I'm wrong anywhere(and that is likely) I'd be
>interested to hear from anyone with good sources about a fascinating period in
>history.
>
>Regs
>
>Rob





> What kind of Europe we have now, if William had lost?
> 
> You could count this as alternate history, but still... 


-- 
================================================================================
Tony Perreault, High Tech Babysitter & Nanny	tperreau@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
Array Operations, Very Large Array	      All opinions expressed are my
Socorro, NM				        own and not those of NRAO