From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.history
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?

OK first of all the THREE protagonists to the English crown fought it out.  Two
were killed leaving only William as a contender forthe throne.

Edward the Confessor  died childless and it is thought that he desiganted
William as his heir (William was his cousin).  This claim by William also had
papal support (bloody Catholics at it again :-) ).  However on his deathbed
Edward nominated Harold of Wessex as his successor.  Harold was at that time
the most powerful of the nobles in England.

At this time Harald III Hardraade King of Norway claimed the English throne for
himself and invaded England in the region of Yorkshire.   Harold of Wessex took
his army North and defeated them at Stamford Bridge, killing Harald Hardraade
and slaughtering his army.  Thus one of the claimants was eliminated.

This fight by Harold had been made possible because William's army had been
kept on the continent by unfavourable winds.    Toward the end of September
(about 1 week after Hardraade landed) the winds changed and William sailed and
landed in Sussex (Pevensey from memory) and proceeded along the coast to
Hastings.  Harold started bringing his men back at the start of October and
approached Hastings on Oct 13th.

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.

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.

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

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. 
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.

Effects of the Norman victory:

1) feudalism - Williams supporters were parceled out lands for their services
and wereexpectedd to provide knights etc for services during the year.  Private
warfare was suppressed leading to a relatively stabl;e country.  Castles were
pulled down and only with the expreess permission of the king could any of his
lords erect a new one.
Basically he unifed and centralised the English state.

William formed the Curia Regis of ecclesiastical and lay tenants (basically a
kings council) and they became an organised court of administration.He brought
the jury system to great heights in the English state.

3) he is probably most famous for his Domesday book, regarded as the firast
census of the land.

4) he started the "kings forests" traditions.

Basically William broughtEngland very much into European politics.  He was an
able administrator rather than the tyrant that is often portrayed.  He kept
Engalnd in touch with the economic and cultural development in France and the
Mediterranean states which is something that probably would not have happened
had the Danes conquered England.  

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.

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...