From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Hastings - Redux :)
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:18:09 GMT
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: eco.economics.adelaide.edu.au

> 
> 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.


OK Harold made the land work for him, but how much better would it have been
for him had he prepared a position and given his men greater time to rest? 
Harold was definitely not at his best advantagein the way he fought this
campaign.

>>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.
> 

Agreed the levies would also break the impetus of any charging charging
cavalry, letting the housecarls do their thing with their primary weapon, the
double handed battle axe.





>>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).
>
No argument here either.


> 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.
> 

I must confess to never having heard of this before.

> 
> 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.

I seem to recall something about Hereward the Wake fighting on in terrain such
as marshes etc. where he knew the way but the Normans didn't.  I'll check on
this and see what I can get.
> 
> 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).

This was my main point.  Harold did not have to accept battle on any but the
most favourable, and prepared, ground.  Instead he chose to push his army
further than he needed and did not get the opportunity to fight on prepared
ground of his choosing.  His stand was made in a favourable area but it coud
have been MORE favourable, particularly given he only needed a draw, as you
said.



regs

Rob
Newsgroups: alt.war