You Wake Up and Find Yourself back In The 11th Century

Playing devils advocate @Vertigo & @BAYLOR - as hindsight makes things soo easy :) - Harold had just utterly crushed the Norwegians (and a rebellious family member). He and his troops probably felt invincible. Perhaps he felt delaying and taking a rest might take the sheen off this feeling, allowing doubt to creep back in. And another factor - the less time they allowed the Normans in England the less deprivations against the Saxon population in the South. Harold was a seasoned fighting man, particularly on the Welsh border, who presumably acted from past experience and knew his strengths and weaknesses when it came to campaigns and battles with his men.

At the end of the day - like many battles - the result was actually on a knife edge. Harold, if he had held out that day, would have got stronger - as men were coming down from London, William weaker and presumably fighting a worsening morale - as practically all of the Normans 'plan A' frontal attack failed. It was probably in fact Harold's overly aggressive and confident elite troops (now a negative feature of the that morale Harold maybe tried to maintain?) that threw the battle by charging in piecemeal and getting destroyed bit by bit rather that sitting up the slope and being defensive.

oh...we're back to resting and perhaps giving the troops some time to get some 'fear' back ;)

Mind you difficult thing being a king, no? This decision really had to be made instantly. It almost paid off.
 
BAYLOR said:
End result , he lost the throne and his life. Foolish man .

Emperor Valens at Adrianople in 378 AD made a similar mistake against the Goths, same result.
Click to expand...

But he did have a Viking invasion at Stamford Bridge. If he'd left that then he could have been fighting a war on two fronts. What he also feared was sitting waiting for an invasion from Normandy that may not even come. So he dealt with the Vikings first. In all honesty they were a greater threat than William was, with more men and the potential for more reinforcements.

William was more of an upstart, a chancer who landed with probably no more than 10,000 troops. He was lucky in that he arrived around the same time that Harold was dealing with the Viking invasion, as if he had come when he had originally intended to then he would have been soundly defeated. He was also lucky in the fact that when he did come half of Harold's army was still in the North, with the remainder fatigued from fighting and marching.

The only thing Harold did wrong was getting himself killed; if that hadn't happened, and with reinforcements from the North, he would have lost the battle at Hastings but certainly ot the war.
 
Venusian Broon said:
Playing devils advocate @Vertigo & @BAYLOR - as hindsight makes things soo easy :) - Harold had just utterly crushed the Norwegians (and a rebellious family member). He and his troops probably felt invincible. Perhaps he felt delaying and taking a rest might take the sheen off this feeling, allowing doubt to creep back in. And another factor - the less time they allowed the Normans in England the less deprivations against the Saxon population in the South. Harold was a seasoned fighting man, particularly on the Welsh border, who presumably acted from past experience and knew his strengths and weaknesses when it came to campaigns and battles with his men.

At the end of the day - like many battles - the result was actually on a knife edge. Harold, if he had held out that day, would have got stronger - as men were coming down from London, William weaker and presumably fighting a worsening morale - as practically all of the Normans 'plan A' frontal attack failed. It was probably in fact Harold's overly aggressive and confident elite troops (now a negative feature of the that morale Harold maybe tried to maintain?) that threw the battle by charging in piecemeal and getting destroyed bit by bit rather that sitting up the slope and being defensive.

oh...we're back to resting and perhaps giving the troops some time to get some 'fear' back ;)

Mind you difficult thing being a king, no? This decision really had to be made instantly. It almost paid off.
Click to expand...

Haha, great minds think alike!

Yes, he couldn't afford to rest. The last thing you want an enemy force to do is gain a foothold; especially one that has a penchant for building castles (which he had already started to do). Drive them back into the sea, destroy the beach-head. The thing with William (and with many invaders in general) was that lost battle would lose you the war, whilst the 'home side could afford to lose on several occasions and still come out victorious.

As for Harold, he was obviously an incredibly brave man, who lived by the sword and also died by it (well probably an arrow on this occasion!)
 
Well of course anything is hindsight when we look back on history. How can it not be?

However, and I freely admit my knowledge of this period is definitely not deep, my understanding is that all his advisors were telling him to wait in London for all his stragglers to arrive and then go South in strength.

William already had his beach-head, Harold was already too late to do anything about that. Any castles William built were only going to be wooden forts. Enough to hold off Harold's forces in these pre-gunpowder days maybe but they wouldn't have lasted long in a siege situation. Harold would have had ample supplies for that; William would have had almost none.

English morale might have been strong but they had travelled South so fast they must have been exhausted.

It was a rash decision made more out of patriotic anger, as I understand it, than from any serious strategic thought.
 
Last edited:
Vertigo said:
It was a rash decision made more out of patriotic anger, as I understand it, than from any serious strategic thought.
Click to expand...

I can't deny your logic (Even playing devil's advocate I swing back towards the 'rest and take stock' position anyway!). I was just playing about with the thought that it perhaps was a less rash decision than we think it was. He also may have attempted to surprise William, as he done against the Norwegians and struck very fast, or he may have been worried that fyrd - the common soldiery of the Anglo-Saxons - would have drifted off to go home and get the harvest in, as he had called them out for a very long time and it was getting late in the season. And like I said, his chosen course did result in a close run thing at the end of the day.

After all Alexander the Great made a career out of very bold and rash decisions and that served him very well :) (Although I have to admit there must have been a degree of luck for him to survive all the quite psychopathic and crazy things that he decided to do on the battlefield.)
 
I'll grant you that VB; surprise was probably a major factor in the decision. And, as you, say it very nearly paid off. The Saxons were, I believe, famous for their supremely disciplined shield wall which was totally effective at Hastings until that discipline broke. It is almost certainly that break in discipline that led to defeat rather than the rather dubious story of an arrow in Harold's eye.
 
I would certainly die of something or someone, somehow. I am not built to live in them harder times. I don't even like contemporary camping that has electricity and a portable restroom.
 
Ray McCarthy said:
YOU ALL DO MERE MORTAL.


That's not camping! Unless the electricity is solely in a battery torch going flat. Though finding a pub used to be the only way to get a Public Toilet in Ireland, once you left Norn Iron. :)
"Portable Restroom"? Isn't that a heavy thing to cart around?

Thanks to Walsh Waste for Image
Click to expand...

Those are not that uncommon in camping grounds in certain areas of the US. Well, it might be a bit rare to see a handicap one - but generally speaking, people do not have to cart it around. It is already there on the camp grounds.

And that gosh darned is camping from my perspective. It involves sleeping outside, as defined by nothing between me and the horror of nature but a flimsy little tent. If a bear could just walk on top of me and squish me in the middle of the night because the confines of my sleep are a thin tarp-like material, that's camping. :p
 
Squirrels in Ireland are not like in USA. They totally avoid people. They will run away even if they think you might look at them. Probably the only wildlife that doesn't avoid people completely are seagulls, rooks, robins, pigeons and hedgehogs. The seagulls may steal your food, but won't peck you. The Hedgehogs are the only one that doesn't run or flyaway.

I'll admit that a rook, carrion crow/hoodie crow or magpie might peck out eyes of young or injured animal. But they certainly avoid people. The robin is just optimistic that you'll disturb an insect or give it raw rolled oats. The biggest risk is wandering horses and the neighbour's dog. Unless you deliberately camp in a field of cattle. I DID ask the farmer's permission, he did tell me which field, but he must have added the cows while I was asleep. They thought the tent was very interesting. But decided after a while that it wasn't either a predator, farmer or food so left it alone. I did wake up floating though as during the night the wind changed and all the rain blew in and filled up the built in waterproof groundsheet. I had a Lilo style airbed. Lots of nice places to visit have no campsite. Cashel approximately 1977. On Motorbike.
 
As soon as one fear is dispatched with another takes its place in my mind. I just am not designed to camp or be in the wilderness (yes, a cow pasture is 'wilderness' to me). A very brief excursion into a forest with little to no undergrowth is about all I can muster. Or parks. I quite like parks in the winter time. Or lakes in the winter time. Or just the winter time in areas where everything is covered with snow - many animals hide away, bugs die or go elsewhere, there is no sweat or outdoorsy smells, and the white of the snow makes it easy to see creatures coming that I would wish to run away from. I could walk around in this all night long, for example.
 
Vertigo said:
Well of course anything is hindsight when we look back on history. How can it not be?
Click to expand...

Also worth debating, in relation to 1066, is whether this was the last battle of a time when there was genuine pride in a leader of men, or king, being also a warrior. Had Harold been of the later type that sat behind the field of battle sorting strategy then retreating when matters looked bad then I can't see how William would have achieved a conquest of England. Perhaps Harold's kind was just doomed to fail but I know I prefer the quality of kings before 1066 than after for many centuries.

Having made that point it has to be said there were different kinds before then too - Edward the Confessor more of a saintly type for example, but Harold was definitely of the warrior type and defeating the Viking army, considering their reputation back then and that England's very formation descended from the empire of Canute, must have felt to him like England had come of age of a warrior nation. One of the most amazing twists of history in that it was all rendered insignificant but days later and England was transformed into a class-driven structure many believe still plagues us even today.

Also agree that Harold would have seen the Normans as defeatable, having just overcome the great Harold Hardrada, probably the most celebrated warrior of his day.
 
River Boy said:
Also worth debating, in relation to 1066, is whether this was the last battle of a time when there was genuine pride in a leader of men, or king, being also a warrior. Had Harold been of the later type that sat behind the field of battle sorting strategy then retreating when matters looked bad then I can't see how William would have achieved a conquest of England. Perhaps Harold's kind was just doomed to fail but I know I prefer the quality of kings before 1066 than after for many centuries.
Click to expand...

The warrior king, aping an 'Alexander' and demonstrating to his country men that he fought beside them took a lot longer to die out, even just in Britain.

James IV of Scotland died in the thick of battle while leading from the front with one wing of his army on Flodden field in 1513 - and was hacked down very much like Harold. (Had he too been sitting at the rear and observing what was happening, he too may have been able to stop such a terrible defeat.*)

I'm sure there may be even more recent examples on the continent or in other areas of the globe. Certainly in England there is surely the various battles of the wars of the roses where Kings really did get into the thick of the action (especially the Yorkish side - Edward IV and Richard III - both very much warriors.)

-------------------------------------

*Well depends on what nationality you are, but as am Scottish, it is therefore terrible!
 
Court jester (mute of course). We have a massive database from movies/tv/theatre to draw upon. Could we utilise that?
 
Ray McCarthy said:
No snakes or lizards. Even the Common Newt, which looks like a small lizard is rare and harmless.
No poisonous insects.
Click to expand...


The legend of St Patrick.;) The absence of them had to do with the last ice-age didn't it ?


With all the problems introduced non native species in im surprised no snakes or lizards have found their way there.
 
We have Wallibies!
(Why I don't know!)
There are real documents from time of Patrick. Almost everything in popular conception is made up. Yes, long before Ice age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C (Found) Story about a spaceship ark with most people frozen, protagonist wakes up early and finds unfrozen people are drugged+engine is damaged/broken Book Search 2
S 1970s book - Man wakes to find most of the population has disappeared Book Search 2
B You Wake up and find yourself In Victorian England circa 1870 History 3
M Man wakens to find himself transformed into living metal Book Search 4
M Man awakes to find futuristic city dead Book Search 2

Similar threads


Back
Top