Ginner

Hi There
I am just watching a program on the invasion of england by William, Duke of Normandy, in 1066. Now, I have multiple points about this invasion which could be against William.
1. Fear Mongers - Due to William being very influential in his homeland of Normandy, many people spoke of him being truly battle-worn and almost God-Like. Was this true? It seems that for the best part of his recorded life it wasn't, especially later. He was recorded as 'fat' when he died, and he cannot of being that important as many of his Lords abandoned him on his death bed to gain land.
2. Dim-Witted English - Now, I don't mean to be offensive with this, but many of the soldiers who fought in 1066 were young, untrained and incredibly stupid. For example, Harold Godwinson could not command most of his army during the battle, it seemed that it should be a walk-over for the trained forces from Normandy anyway
3. Weakened British Numbers - This is probably the strongest idea against Williams attack. Now, you have to take into account that just nineteen days before the English had faced the massive forces of the Norse lead by Harold Hardraada, and lost over half of its Noblemen and Lords. This is a massive blow for any strong army, no matter where it is from, and it has to be thought of that if they hadn't lost this many battle-hardened men, would William of set paved the way for the Normans since 1066?
Now, I do understand that William was a great king, creating such things as the doomsday book, it has just struck my mind that maybe this battle would not of gone the way it did if the events before hadn't taken place.
Please, post criticisms and comments on the post and thanks for reading
Ginner

unclefred

Your point of the weakened army (in numbers) is accepted by most. Perhaps if The Arrow hadn't struck things may have gone differently. That probably would have only postponed the inevitable.

Knarly Dan

I can visualize young and untrained, and ignorant, but why stupid?

Mike McClure

I have wondered if the attacks of Harold Hardraada in the north and William the Conqueror in the south were coordinated. Things might have turned out very differently if William had attacked England alone.

Ginner

Well, the main thing that made me say stupid (I must admit, in the spree of the moment) is the fact that a lot tried to make their own strategies and didn't listen to their leader, Godwinson. The best example of this is after the first cavalry sweep many men chased the cavalry into the woods around Hastings despite Godwinson's orders to stand their ground. I see now it is not particularly stupid, it just comes with the youngness and undisciplined due to lack of training.

Ginner

I can totally see where you are coming from. By the strategies of William I wouldn't totally rule this out as he attacked via surprise anyway. He could easily of found out through messages of some sort for Hardraada was going to attack and then simply wait until after so it was a much easier battle for him to fight going in first. But the other thing that strikes me is, if William had attacked first, maybe it would of gone the same for the Nords and they could of won at Stamford Bridge because William had killed most of Godwinson's loss of numbers. That would have totally changed the course of history forever because it would mean it wouldn't be known as 'Norman Britain' as much as 'Viking Britain' (which i must admit i would like more because of my love of Nordic and Viking history).

Knarly Dan

That problem of overzealous pursuit vexed most if not all European armies, and not just circa 1066. For the Mongols feigned retreats were almost SOP. Enemy horsemen would be drawn forward of their lines, flushed with apparent victory, then the Mongols would turn and decimate them.

Ginner

I know, I can see why they would chase the most offensive weapons on the battlefield, horses. But, I guess the Normans may have used this as a strategy to break Harold's lines. I can see how wrong I was on calling them stupid after further research for this time. But I still stand by that if the things hadn't of gone the way they did against the Norse, the battle would have being different and Godwinson may have come out the victors.

gaius valerius

How? They emailed each other? Apart from the difficulty in communication there is one fatal aspect you are ignoring in this case: both Hardraada and William were after the throne. Why would they coöperate and potentially help their rival?

It is often said that in battle luck is really a major factor.

Ginner

On the cooperation part, I can see where you are coming from. In that perspective, they would not of tried to help each-other no matter what. However, it is possible (though doubtful) that William may of caught hear of one attack, and decided to almost kill two birds with one stone.

In terms of luck, it is probably the biggest factor in battle. However, if Godwinson had more men it has to be said he would of stood a much better chance with one 'lady luck'.