Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Guy Etchells
    Guest

    Default Beaten by chance

    The fact that William managed to conquer “England” may like many victors be put down in no little part to luck.

    If he and his army had not been weatherbound for six weeks it is possible he may have been defeated in battle, as it was in the interim Harold Hadrada (King of Norway) had invaded the north of England forcing Harold to virtually abandon southern England (Where he was waiting for the Norman invasion) to stave of this offensive in the north..

    If William had had fair winds and the invasion force departed on time things could be very different in England today. William may have been defeated and the weakened English army defeated in the north leaving England to the Nordic invaders.

    Cheers
    Guy

  2. #2
    Geoffers
    Guest

    Default

    I like to think that the true feelings towards William the Bastard are expressed in the Laud Chronicle for 1086.

    "Alas! How deceitful and transitory is the prosperity of this world. He who was once a mighty king, and lord of many a land, was left of all the land with nothing save seven feet of ground, and he who was once decked with gold and jewels, lay then covered over with earth."

    Thaes overeode thisses swa maeg

    Geoffers
    Charlbury, Oxfordshire
    Last edited by Geoffers; 21-10-2004 at 4:04 PM. Reason: spelling

  3. #3
    ironaxe
    Guest

    Default "A close-run thing..."

    Paraphrasing Wellington's quote after that other brutal and day-long struggle, Hastings!

    Northern England had been woefully weakened by the battle of Fulford Gate, 20th sept 1066, when the mighty Norse King Harald Hardrada and his huge invasion army landed and routed inexperienced, young brother-earls Edwin(Mercia) and Morcar(Northumbria).

    Harold gathered a southern and midland army to speed march 190miles north in just four days and surprised the victorious (above)Norwegians at Stamford Bridge(near York) on 25th Sept. What followed was a brutal bloodbath which went on all day and was closely-fought. Harold eventually prevailed, killing over 90% of the Vikings- but with severely alarming losses of capable commanders and housecarls.

    Whilst Harold's army recovered and reformed from this fantastic victory, news came that William had landed on the undefended southern beach over 250miles away!

    Speed-marching south again to London (the King, Gyrth, Leowine, their commanders and housecarls would have been mounted, the army straggled behind on foot en route) Harold would have sent out messengers to call out another fyrd from the midlands, south and south-west to follow on and meet him at either London (for those still marching from the north) or at 'the hoare apple tree'(which was a well-known spot near Senlac). Spending just three weeks in London to make arrangements to deal with William and maybe gather intelligence- but fatally not wait for the bulk of the army he could have had in total available to him(as advised by his brother, Gyrth) he decided to dash to fight the Normans.

    This has been seen as rash(not a characteristic of Harolds- he had proved an able statesman on King Edward's business many times before), but more likely he intended to;-

    1. Hurry the c.80miles to pen the Normans into their stockade in the Hastings peninsula(maybe meet his army at Senlac and speed to Hastings to launch a night attack?) before their cavalry could break out into open English country and ravage as they were in his Wessex coast already.

    2. Surprise the Normans as he successfully had done against the Norwegians 3wks before- before they became so entrenched and reinforced by sea that he could not oust them- they had not yet advanced inland and Harold may have supposed that they were not battle-ready.

    But William's scouts alerted their duke to the nearby enemy's movements(meeting at Senlac before marching to Hastings) and Harold himself was outmanouevred by William- who marched north and surprised the King instead. Harold now had to fight where he was, not quite battle-ready or amassed.

    All of these exertions clearly would have took a heavy toll of any army, and that Hastings was a long, closely-fought and extremely violent battle (said even by the Normans)only shows how good a fighting machine the saxons had- and wasn't "inferior" or "outdated"!

    Had the 'amateur' and overexcited fyrdsmen not broken rank and chased the Normans; had the Norwegians not invaded; Maybe Harold would have had a fresh, full and ready army- and navy- on the south coast to battle William...with archers?

    With the death of all the Godwineson clan, there were no leaders left of any status behind whom the English(if any survi at Senlac and speed to Hastings to launch a night attack?) before their cavalry could break out into open English country and ravage as they were in his Wessex coast already.

    Too many men had been lost in the three battles to rally an army, too many Saxons sought to save themselves(Edwin & Morcar seem to have been solely interested in an "independent north" which they foolishly may have believed William would give them) and Atheling Edgar was too young(14?), too inexperienced and apparently too weak a character.

    All in all- William was a great and ruthless general, his army was fresh, supplied and armed with archers and cavalry- the latter were disdained by the saxons (who foot on foot despite being very capable horsemen- as proved in the 1063 Welsh campaigns)- which finally tipped the balance.
    Last edited by ironaxe; 08-06-2006 at 10:14 AM.

  4. #4
    Stephen M. Kohler
    Guest

    Default

    Harsh as it may be William did invade England at great odds and exercise great skill in leadership and battle and defeat and kill Harold rival for the thrown of England at the Battle of Hastings. As a student of infantry tactics I see there were trials and tribulations amongst the leadership and soldiers of both armies however, Harold’s were more costly.

    Are not the Anglo-Saxons a collective of Teutonic invaders who in the fifth century disposed the Celtic inhabitants of Britain? Thus bringing to an end the Arthurian or Roman Britain. Didn’t they dominate Britain until another Teutonic invader the Normans conquers them in 1066? Were the Normans part of the Troyes Fraternity later known as the Knights Templar? Are these Teutonic peoples the base of the stock that forms the English Race?

    Is there strife here similar to American confederates and federalist? I know that Anglo-Saxons adhered to a strict order of laws but know that the Normans were harsh rulers.

    What are the political and religious ramifications between the Anglo-Saxon and the Norman?

    Respectfully,

    Stephen,
    Washington, DC
    Last edited by Stephen M. Kohler; 11-08-2006 at 12:59 PM.

  5. #5
    Paul Becke
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffers View Post
    I like to think that the true feelings towards William the Bastard are expressed in the Laud Chronicle for 1086.

    "Alas! How deceitful and transitory is the prosperity of this world. He who was once a mighty king, and lord of many a land, was left of all the land with nothing save seven feet of ground, and he who was once decked with gold and jewels, lay then covered over with earth."

    Thaes overeode thisses swa maeg

    Geoffers
    Charlbury, Oxfordshire

    Apparently, very soon after he died, he was ruthlessly stripped of his clothing and any other personal effects on him. "Sic transit gloria" doesn't begin to capture it.

    His body was too big for his coffin, so they made the necessary adjustments to it - not the coffin, which like Henry VIII's later exploded as a result of his body' putrefaction.

    I read what seemed to me to be an absolutely magisterial history book called England under Normans and Angevins, written by a H W C Davis. Immensely fascinating, with his own insights into such matters as the temperamental differences between the Norman and the Celts and a host of other matters.

  6. #6
    Paul Becke
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen M. Kohler View Post
    Harsh as it may be William did invade England at great odds and exercise great skill in leadership and battle and defeat and kill Harold rival for the thrown of England at the Battle of Hastings. As a student of infantry tactics I see there were trials and tribulations amongst the leadership and soldiers of both armies however, Harold’s were more costly.

    Are not the Anglo-Saxons a collective of Teutonic invaders who in the fifth century disposed the Celtic inhabitants of Britain? Thus bringing to an end the Arthurian or Roman Britain. Didn’t they dominate Britain until another Teutonic invader the Normans conquers them in 1066? Were the Normans part of the Troyes Fraternity later known as the Knights Templar? Are these Teutonic peoples the base of the stock that forms the English Race?

    Is there strife here similar to American confederates and federalist? I know that Anglo-Saxons adhered to a strict order of laws but know that the Normans were harsh rulers.

    What are the political and religious ramifications between the Anglo-Saxon and the Norman?

    Respectfully,

    Stephen,
    Washington, DC
    I think you've got it about right, Steven, although as regards your final question, I don't recall reading about any conflict in terms of worship - both the Normans and the Saxons being Christian by that time, quite devout in terms of their strangely bellicose way of life.

    Hugh Lupus, a cousin of William I, Earl of Carlisle and first Earl of Chester, at least of the Norman persuasion, and palatine ruler of a vast part of the Midlands and the North waged a bloody and cruel war against the Welsh (all imperial wars seem to be so), but otherwise sounded an extraordinary and quite attractive character. He was a great womaniser and his court was full of people from all walks of life. He achieved the much-coveted wish of many Norman warlords of spending the brief time on earth remaining to him, when he retired, in the monk's habit!

    One of Williams's Brothers - I think, Odo - was a bishop and simultaneously a warlord, but as Davis pointed out, while feared - as a man of God, he would not have enjoyed the respect of received by truly devout churchmen.

    You might know all this and more, so pardon me if it comes cross as patronising.
    Last edited by Paul Becke; 03-06-2008 at 4:35 PM. Reason: Too precipitate in posting - instead of checking and editing first.

  7. #7
    Carmy
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen M. Kohler View Post
    Are not the Anglo-Saxons a collective of Teutonic invaders who in the fifth century disposed the Celtic inhabitants of Britain? Thus bringing to an end the Arthurian or Roman Britain. Didn’t they dominate Britain until another Teutonic invader the Normans conquers them in 1066? Were the Normans part of the Troyes Fraternity later known as the Knights Templar? Are these Teutonic peoples the base of the stock that forms the English Race?

    With respect, Stephen, the Saxons did not invade all of Britain. They may have overrrun most of England but they failed to conquer Cornwall, Devon and Wales, where the Celtic language is still used.

    Recent evidence shows there was never a true Saxon invasion.

  8. #8
    MythicalMarian
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carmy View Post
    Recent evidence shows there was never a true Saxon invasion.
    Well said, Carmy!

  9. #9
    Paul Becke
    Guest

    Default

    Re the political ramifications, Stephen Kohler - sorry for the delay - it was a plain occupation by what was to become an enormous imperial power. I don't think their contempt for the largely Anglo-Celtic population, has actually diminished very much. I mean in terms of our ruling class, largely of Norman descent, and their ruthless economic oppression of the populace.

    Incidentally, it seems to me that the British Empire was really a second Norman empire. We just supplied the cannon-fodder.

  10. #10
    Mutley
    Guest

    Default

    Paul, please be aware that
    Stephen is no longer a member of the forum, so I doubt he will be able to reply to your post.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: