After the English 'shieldwall' at Hastings had finally disintegrated into smaller, brutal mini-battles for survival as the Normans gained the hilltop at the end of a gruelling struggle, and as the elite Anglo-Danish housecarls showed extreme yet doomed and desperate courage by fighting feverishly to the death around dying/dead King Harold atop Senlac ridge against overwhelming swarms of fired-up & vengeful Norman troops, the broken saxon fyrdsmen(ordinary farmer/soldiers) fled for their lives to the north and west of the battle- which now resembled a stirred-up hornet's nest as dusk fell. Some were slain by pursuing Norman cavalry, others fled home, others died of wounds or exhaustion in the dense Andredsweald woods behind.
Yet it was now that the 'victorious' Norman army suffered a small-disaster as their cavalry pursued the fleeing saxon footmen in the near-dark, which has only been thinly-documented by the Normans, maybe understandably- "The Malfosse" as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry.
About 1/4m to the north-west of the main battle was a deep gully(Oakwood Gill, today). It was a deceptive series of ditches with very steep banks, it's perilous nature almost hidden by brambles and undergrowth from the fast-charging Norman horsemen in low light.
Newly arrived Saxons, maybe fresh reinforcements of housecarls(under Earls Edwin & Morcar or Waltheof??), too late to influence the battle, took up an orderly defensive shieldwall position on the northern bank of the huge ditches and called to any fleeing fyrdsmen to join them.
They lured the Normans(who did not know the lie of the land, nor see it or their enemy clearly) towards them at speed, and they charged over the edge- somersaulting & tumbling headlong into a pitiful mass of broken human/equine bodies and screaming/dying men, any survivors in the huge mass that didn't break backs/necks or suffocate underneath were quickly despatched by the vengeful saxons. More cavalry followed- unable to see much before them, until it "almost levelled the ravine".
The Normans finally realised the scale of the disaster and called a halt, then a withdraw order(Eustace of Boulogne) but duke William himself charged up and counter-manded him. Then the Saxons "were dispersed", more likely they fell back into the darkness back to their villages and burhs.
Many of the surviving thegns and housecarls soon after either went to Scotland, Ireland or(mostly) sailed abroad and took up employment as mercenaries in the Byzantium Varangian guard- so many that in the late 11thC it became known as "The English Guard".
It is curious how the death of King Harold is still not known. If Harold was killed by an arrow, then this was just complete chance, and if this had not happened, then the saxon shield wall would probably have held and he would have won the battle. At the very least, the saxons who were at the Malfosse would have joined the battle, and Harold's army would have been strengthened.
I agree, I think that it was the freshly-arriving fyrdsmen (in the day-long and continual but sporadic arrival of reinforcements) that hadn't heard Harold's strict orders to hold the wall at all costs, that broke on the right and fatally chased the fleeing Bretons/Normans on the Saxon right. This led to the depletion of the shieldwall- and late in the day, the steeper trajectory of the Norman arrows must have slain many, hitting unprotected heads(fyrdsmen), limbs and...eyes/faces.
William of Jumieges - "Harold himself, fighting amid the front rank of his army, fell covered with deadly wounds."
Malmesbury says that his brain was "pierced by an arrow".
Amatus of Monte Cassino (c.1085) - In his History of the Normans he says that harold was killed by an arrow in his eye.
Baudri de Bourgeuil (c.1100) In Adelae Comitissae he says Harold was killed by an arrow.
So the Norman account says that Harold was killed in the front line of battle, whereas others contradict this and say that Harold was killed by an arrow. I wonder who the least biased, and most accurate of these historians would be.
I wonder why the Norman historian said Harold died in Battle. Maybe it made them feel better saying they he was killed in combat, as opposed to a lucky shot.
Ian W Walker in his excellent biography of Harold, The Last Anglo-Saxon King, covers the battle and the death of Harold very well. He suggests that indeed it was sheer bad luck that turned the epic struggle in favour of the Normans. He is inclined to believe that Harold was hit by an arrow and then possibly slain whilst mortally wounded as shown in the Bayeux Tapestry. Had luck not intervened, he suggests that with the passage of time and night falling, the English would have won the battle i.e. William would not have dislodged Harold. The English would have reinforced, whereas William's resources were depleted and limited and thus he would have had to withdraw. The book is excellent and well worth reading for Harold's entire career. It certainly made me reappraise some of my thoughts about him and the period.
Continuing on the theme of the Battle of Hastings, there are things that I am surprised Harold did not do. He was aware for some time that William was building many boats in Normandy, and he had been in Normandy, and was aware that the main offensive weapon the Normans had were the Knights. I remember seeing a program about the Battle of Alesia, when Julius Caeser was was laying seige to the town. The Romans scattered spiked stars on the ground to slow and stop the Gaullish cavelry in their charge. These could have been quickly scattered in front of the Saxon shield wall, to a number of meters. This would have stopped the cavalry charge, by damaging the horses hooves. Another type of defence would have been driving stakes into the ground, pointing in the direction of the Norman cavalry, then sharpening the stakes. The Saxon navy at this point was in the sea of Pevensey, stopping any escape or aid to or from Normandy. William would have been caught in a trap, and Harold could have eventually starved out the army, and attacked it as his leisure.
I am sure these little details, would have had a positive effect for the Saxons. They could easily have been implemented by Harold, or by other people in his government, I would have hoped he would have had some military advisors which could have helped in out. As far as I know, very little is known about Harold's short reign as King, so I have no idea who was in his government. Maybe just his brothers and the clergy.
William of Poitiers stated that the English did use a form of barricades- though whether he misunderstood the English/Germanic use of intelocking shileds in a defensive but impenetrable "wall", or whether they actually did use pointed stakes, we don't know.
Harold used the advice of his brother/s, earls Gyrth and Leofwine, but also relied and trusted the political opinion of wily old fox Archbishop Stigand(though not for ecclesiastical occasions as he had been excommunicated by several popes) and also the more widely accepted Archbishop Ealdred, who he also had coronating him.
The advisors and sergeants of Harold's army are harder to discern, as most sources following 1066 are Norman, though there's no reason why they wouldn't have been King Edward's former advisers with continuation of reign, whom Harold would have known very well, having served loyally as warrior/diplomat earl for over a decade?
ironaxe New Member Posted 03-07-06 22:21 William of Poitiers stated that the English did use a form of barricades- though whether he misunderstood the English/Germanic use of intelocking shileds in a defensive but impenetrable "wall", or whether they actually did use pointed stakes, we don't know.
Harold used the advice of his brother/s, earls Gyrth and Leofwine, but also relied and trusted the political opinion of wily old fox Archbishop Stigand(though not for ecclesiastical occasions as he had been excommunicated by several popes) and also the more widely accepted Archbishop Ealdred, who he also had coronating him.
The advisors and sergeants of Harold's army are harder to discern, as most sources following 1066 are Norman, though there's no reason why they wouldn't have been King Edward's former advisers with continuation of reign, whom Harold would have known very well, having served loyally as warrior/diplomat earl for over a decade?
If pointed stakes had been brought to Senlac Hill, hammered in the ground in one metre intervals, and hastily sharpened with hand axes, or other such tools, then I believe the Normans horses would have refused to approach them. I am doubtful that there was any barrier except for a shield wall. If some sort of additional barrier was erected, then the saxons could have taken it in turns behind it, so they could be rested and relived on regular intervals, unlike the Normans who had to throw everything they had at the Saxons. I have found the name of the spike I mentioned before, it is a Caltrop.
I can only guess that Harolds advisors were too traditional in there way of fighting on land, and stuck to what they knew. ie infantry with swords, spears and axes. It is a shame they did not use such easily available weapons.
I am also surprised that when the Navy was disbanded in Sept 1066, ships were not harboured along the South Coast from Bosham (or maybe Portsmouth, which has a big natural harbour) to Kent, instead of going all the way back to the Thames.
I think that the navy was changing crews in London - it's main port and maybe the quickest for this purpose before setting out into the Channel again- as well as refitting, which suggests that most of the seamen would have been townsmen(fyrdsmen?), and not Butescarls - professional mercenaries of usually Danish origin, who could fight equally well on land or sea.
Since you mentioned Caltrops (used by the Bruce at Bannockburn in 1314) it is indeed strange that Harold didn't use them at this battle?
Maybe he didn't think it worthwhile- after all, he had won a massive 'straight' victory against Hardrada only three weeks before- without need/time for any war machines etc, and hoped to repeat it. Maybe he was too proud and wanted a victory free of traps and ruses- so that William couldn't use the excuse that he was beaten by devices?
ironaxe New Member Posted 04-07-06 06:32 I think that the navy was changing crews in London - it's main port and maybe the quickest for this purpose before setting out into the Channel again- as well as refitting, which suggests that most of the seamen would have been townsmen(fyrdsmen?), and not Butescarls - professional mercenaries of usually Danish origin, who could fight equally well on land or sea.
If this was the reason, it was a shame he had not organised 'temporary towns' along the south coast, purely to garrison these men and boats, as speed would have been paramount to get into the sea and sink as many of Williams boats as possible. As the Normans were not noted as sailors, I would have thought Harolds men would certainly have come off better in such a sea battle. I am also sure that such an encounter would have seriously sapped the morale of the Normans, and no significant landing of any Norman soldiers could have happened. I wonder who was left in charge of the defence of the south coast during Harolds time fighting Hardrada. I know it was Harolds land, and i know the saxon infantry had to leave because their supplies had run out, and also some may have travelled north with Harold, but he should have left someone in charge to keep and eye on the south coast. What I mean by that, is keeping as many of the boats in the area as possible, ie. actually on the south coast, and making repairs to the boats, and changing the men on the south coast too. I am also sure a smaller force of men, with archers and spears, working together, could seriously hamper a Norman landing and take out a number of boats, as the landing could not have been co-ordinated that well. Indeed, some boats landed in Kent by accident, and the Normans were 'dispatched' by the locals. As regards Williams timeline. I wonder if he would have attempted such an invasion in the following year if he had turned back of confronted by Harolds navy.
I am sure Harold would have built defences on the south coast, lookout towers, as well as places to garrison professional soldiers. He could then have made alliances across the Channel, which would have kept William busy for many years, or indeed encouraged raids on the Normandy coast, simply to annoy William.
Since you mentioned Caltrops (used by the Bruce at Bannockburn in 1314) it is indeed strange that Harold didn't use them at this battle?
Caltrops are quick and cheap to manufacture, not needing metal ore of any real qualilty, and would have made a very effective defence against mounted charges. I suppose they can be seen as the anti-cavalry mine of the day.
Maybe he didn't think it worthwhile- after all, he had won a massive 'straight' victory against Hardrada only three weeks before- without need/time for any war machines etc, and hoped to repeat it. Maybe he was too proud and wanted a victory free of traps and ruses- so that William couldn't use the excuse that he was beaten by devices?
If the Caltrop weapon was known to the Saxons, (and I would have been surprised if it wasn't), then was a bad decision by Harold to sacrifice men, including his brothers, crown and country simply for pride Personally, I would have taken out the Normans as quick and effectively as possible, and then send the flag back to the pope, saying he backed the wrong person and God had favoured Harold. Politically, that would certainly have stirred things up, and may have also had an effect of deminishing any more religious and political support, for the Normans. Also any alliances may have been broken, and new ones made with Harold. I wonder if Harold may then have thought about invading Normandy, with the intention of taking land.
I totally agree about the caltrops and spreading the English fleet along the coast, but I feel that the Normans have either heavily-edited down Harold's brilliance, or simply erased his actual tactics and strategies out of our history books?
Consequently, we will never know exactly what deployments Harold made regarding troops/ ships and war tricks? Don't forget that William's network of spies would have kept William well informed of how long Harold could keep his army/fleet in 'the field'(2mnths fyrd service- or just over that before Stamford Bridge) and their whereabouts- so he would know when to strike when the wind blew northwards(if that was indeed his reason for waiting at all?)
Yet there is flimsy evidence of a 'sea battle' between the "Aquitanians" and the English fleet in the Channel during the summer of 1066- is this an actual full engagement, or skirmishes during the terrible storm that sunk many English ships & drowned many of William's whilst sailing up his coast to St.Valery? These sources might help;-
1. The Peterborough Chronicle reports that H had "sailed out against William with a naval force".
2. Henry of Huntingdon states that H "with a naval force went forward at sea against duke William".
3. Domesday book itself records that thegn Aethelric(of Kelvedon hatch, essex) "went away to a naval battle against King William and when he returned fell ill"(leaving his lands to St.Peter's, Westminster)
4. The scribes from Neider-Altach describe a naval battle between "Aquitanians" and the English that summer. This hints at alot more than simply guarding the coast. It suffered wrecks whilst making for the Thames from the isle of Wight (portents of doom by the "Long-haired star"?)
Had Harold won, I don't think for a moment that he would have invaded Normandy - (He maybe wouldn't have needed to, for he'd have held William as a war captive) - for the same reasons that William's nobles were apprehensive at the Bonneville meeting- too risky a venture, too expensive and too uncertain against a fierce enemy.
Would the pro-Norman pope, Alexander II(who depended upon Norman-Sicilian Robert Guiscard for his power) have warmed to the 'usurper' King Harold, victor at Hastings, and annulled his excommunication? How would the pope & other nations, formely under the papal obligation to deny aid to Harold, have now reacted to the victorious English king- or loser William?
After reading more about the battle of hastings, I believe Harold seriously underestimated the strength of Williams invasion force. Harold had an army of committed strong brave men, but in my opinion he overlooked a number of things: William had lots of cavelry, with a number of horses per man, so even though a mount was brought down, it was possible for the Norman knight to escape and get on another mount. Fighting strong well trained cavelry on foot, is extremely dangerous and tiring. William had lots of archers and some crossbow men, who didn't need to fight hand to hand to kill.
Barricade: Cavalry could have been stopped with a barricade. It was autumn, there were woods near by. Branches could have been quicky erected to a height of 5, or 6 feet, to form a barricade. This would also allow the Saxons to rest their shields on the barricade, to they could have protected their heads and faces from the Norman archers and crossbowmen. This barricade would have effectively bottled in the Normans, and rendered their cavalry impotent. Many more javlins should have been brought to the battle, so they could have been launched at the Normans, advancing up the hill, to keep them away. The Normans, and their horses would then tire, making them much more vulnerable. The archers would have shot most, if not all of their arrows, also making them weaponless, and vulnerable.
As night fell, some of the Saxons, who knew the area would be been able to form raiding parties, and possibly picked off Normans who would have had to resort to scouring the countryside looking for food. The Danish-Saxon Navy had effectively cut off any aid from Normandy, and also any escape root.
Welfare of the Saxons on the field: Since the battle lasted so long, the Saxons were exhausted, in all the books I have read, I have not heard of any chain of supplies, with food and drink, and somewhere safe for the injured to be taken to and taken off the battle field.
This was a totally different battle to that fought against Hardrada. Harold had campaigned in Normandy with William, and should really have prepared the defence of the south coast better, and, in my opinion, prepared his troops better.
