Hastings 1066

[aligern]

Its quicker, so to Wikipedia for Belisarius fleet  for the invasion of Africa
expedition consisted of 5,000 high quality Byzantine cavalry under multiple commanders,[12] 10,000 infantry[9][10][15]:p.52[20] under overall command of John of Epidamnus, Belisarius' guard, mercenaries (including 400 Heruls[9][10] led by Pharas, noted by Procopius for their excellence, and 600 Huns[9][10] under multiple commanders) and finally a contingent of foederati of unknown size led by Dorotheus, Magister Militum per Armeniam, and Solomon, Belisarius' domesticus. As praetorian prefect, in charge of the logistics of the army, Belisarius got Archelaus,[10] an extremely experienced officer, in order to lighten the burden of command. In total the force is estimated to have been around 17,000 strong, while 500 transport ships[9][10] and 92 warships[9][10] crewed by 30,000 sailors[10] and 2,000 marines were also put under Belisarius' command. While it is the view of many that Belisarius set sail for North Africa with "only" 15,000 soldiers to conquer the region, his force included more troops and many sailors. It was a well balanced force with quite possibly a larger percentage of high quality troops than the armies facing Persia.

Belisarius's force is likely to be twice the number that William has and it has 6000 cavalry.  Thenbagain, in William's fleet I'd expect the soldiers to row whereas B has 30,000 sailors.  Leaving aside the warships  B has 500 ships for more twice ? the army.
Its an interesting thought that there might be two horses per ship. However, I suggest that horses need specialused frames for support and control plus specialised loading and unloading gear and that  is best done with specialised ships.  Indeed these might well be the ships that William had specifically built, whereas carriers for men abd dry goods abd wine and beer could be hired. . Its not lije the Channel was awash with horse traders😳

Roy

[Erpingham]

I'm sure Paul and Roy know Bernard Bachrach's article, but here is the link for any who don't

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3104851?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Downloading is paywalled but it can be read for free.

Personally, I'm not convinced by the "Mediterranean technology" argument but Bachrach makes a similar point that horse transport takes a variety of modifications to a ship to be safe for the horse and the ship.  Appendix I in Hewitt's The Organisation of War under Edward III gives a remarkable accounting document itemising works on fitting out horse transports.  Essentially, you need a lot of rope and hurdles and some sturdy gangplanks.  While I think 14th century operations were more advanced than the Normans (by this stage, shipping cavalry overseas was pretty well understood), I'm sure William could have found men who had experience of moving horses by sea, even if it was only a few to a ship as Paul suggests.

[aligern]

Depending on your method of lading / unlading you either need ramps or a sling on a crane to get the  horses on and off the ship. There is a scene on the Tapestry which can either ge a mast being stepped down or  maybe a crane, or if I was Jim, maybe a nast you can convert into a crane 😉.   Again I suggest tgat heeding the gear that Anthony speaks of and the means of getting them on and off the likelihood  is of ships that are pure horse transports.


Roy

[Duncan Head]

...  and we get to 300 ships.
Allow william the capacity to build 100 ships, using yards in Normandy and most importantly Flanders and to hire 200 ships then that sounds to me plausible.

Wace says that there were 696 ships (plus small boats in unspecified numbers), based on what may be eye-witness testimony: "but I have heard my father say - I remember it well, although I was but a lad - that there were seven hundred ships, less four, when they sailed from St Valery; and that there were besides these ships, boats and skiffs for the purpose of carrying the arms and harness".

The Oxford Battle Manuscript lists 14 vassals undertaking to supply a total of 776 ships.

Rejecting such detailed near-contemporary testimony in favour of a figure less than half as many requires some actual evidence, surely.

[aligern]

Well the quality of that evidence is not the sane as that of the 14th century documentation. We are in the territory of Early Medieval numbers here. So it is entirely possible that William asked for  776 ships and failed to get them. Indeed a suggested total by an eyewitness of 676 would  suggest a discrepancy.  Either way its a huge number of ships for only  a part of France to deliver. Of course William is leveraging more 'states' than  his own . My feeling is for smaller  numbers, rather than 1000 ships, but it all depends on how man men and horses per  ship and whether there is the capacity to take, say, a prefabricated castle across.

Cheers
Roy