- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,401
I agree on the effectiveness of William and the Normans. From England to Sicily they were a force to be reckoned with and seemed to have produced a line of capable and ruthless commanders.
With Hastings I would argue William was handed a huge slice of luck. Harold having to defeat Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge cost the Anglo-Saxon some of his most valuable warriors. The forced march south and hasty decision to fight at Hastings. Even waiting a couple of weeks would have allowed Harold to call up more men.
What a lot of people forget is how bloody and close run Hastings was. After the battle William had just over 2000 men left to march on London. Again call it luck or skill but apart from victory, the death of the Saxon leadership was his greatest result from that battle.
He benefited from facing an impulsive adversary. But as you he could only fight and defeat what was out in front of him. One of the few times in history where the French beat the Germans
It was also very brave of William to gamble, especially when he knew that he would receive little to no support from the English. But he was a professional soldier, and he employed professional soldiers who fought with a great deal of skill and a high degree of morale. The English were there to defend their homeland and because their King had commanded it. I think a bigger issue than the battle at Stamford Bridge and the subsequent march was in the delay of William arriving in England. Many of the troops under Harold's command were conscripted land workers who were required to return home to bring in the harvest; otherwise the country would have starved. It also helped William that he knew what he was about, and almost as soon as he landed he was putting up what were effectively flat-pack fortresses that later became castles. Even with the most rudimentary of constructions it meant that anyone trying to resist the Normans would have a hard time of it.
I agree though that he had an incredible amount of luck (or as he would have said, that God was on his side) in conquering a country with so small amount of troops. All Harold had to do was survive Hastings to retreat, regroup and rally the English in a co-ordinated defence against William. But with the King and many of his nobles and best warriors dead, captured or severely wounded there appeared to be no real desire to prevent William from taking the country.
I think that a lesser man would have been content to ransack the countryside before demanding a substantial bribe from Harold to go back home, but William was determined to be King right from the off.