An article on the harrying of the north - post 1066 and all that......

[aligern]

Harold's sons had a go and were not very effective. When the initial revolts started the A/S had considerable power and money but could not overcome William. So I would not bet too much on the chances if the Godwinsons. Once they left Norman lords would have been settled on their lands and would have fought to keep them. Once Harold loses the Saxons are deprived of the Anglo Saxon equivalent of the Familia Regis.  So the core of the army is gone.
William would most likely whipped Hardrada.....after all the Norwegians were very similar to the A/S and would have been pinned by castles and outmanoeuvred by cavalry.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

The continuity is that the Anglo Varangians pursue and are defeated by the application if a fresh Norman reserve. Alexius originally sets them up with archer support, but they abandon this and chase off in an undisciplined manner.

But the Varangian attack and pursuit followed by Guiscard's infantry commitment is not a deception plan by the Normans but a rout followed by an improvisation.  Or is this the 'continuity' with Hastings?

Two antecedent battles to Hastings are on the continent ( Pontlevoy and Conquereau) and show a development whereby at first an army defends, holds off the enemy, then pursues and is caught by a fresh force. Then in another battle the second force , rather than arriving fortuitously appears to be a planned intervention against a foe disordered by pursuit. I am  not sure if these forces, pulled into pursuit , are cavalry , infantry or mixed . What they do show is that the French understood the importance of disordering an opponent and then hitting him with a fresh force.

And we could include Formigny in AD 1450 to adduce the self-same tradition.  I am not sure any of this indicates actual method as opposed to fortuitous occurrence.

I don't think that you can justify statements such as feigned flight never before having been used against infantry. Narses uses it against Franks in Italy in 554. It is more likely a commonplace.

Not what I would consider an argument: Narses and William were scarcely contemporaries, and against what infantry would Normans be accustomed to using it?

Lastly, I am not impressed by the use of Wace as a source for Hastings. He is writing 100 years after the event  so I would be very suspicious where he introduces new detail. If he sorts out a confusion in the earlier sources then beware that he has done this without evidence, except for those earlier sources, which I would  rather stick with.

I think Wace is underrated as a source.  As the Wikipedia entry mentions:

"Wace's reference to oral tradition within his own family suggests that his account of the preparations for the Conquest and of the Battle of Hastings may have been reliant not only on documentary evidence but also on eyewitness testimony from close relations—though no eyewitnesses would have been still alive when he began work on the text."

Let us see a few more extracts from Wace's account.

"Harold knew that the Normans would come and attack him hand to hand: so he had early enclosed the field in which he placed his men. He made them arm early, and range themselves for the battle; he himself having put on arms and equipments that became such a lord. The duke, he said, ought to seek him, as he wanted to conquer England; and it became him to abide the attack, who had to defend the land. He commanded his people, and counselled his barons to keep themselves all together, and defend themselves in a body; for if they once separated, they would with difficulty recover themselves. "The Normans," said he, "are good vassals, valiant on foot and on horseback; good knights are they on horseback, and well used to battle; all is lost if they once penetrate our ranks. They have brought long lances and swords, but you have pointed lances and keen edged bills; and I do not expect that their arms can stand against yours. Cleave whenever you can; it will be ill done if you spare aught."

'Enclosed the field' presumably means he ensured he had no open flanks, and this would best be assured by a solid line from cover to cover, which is the impression Wace gives.  That Harold had the manpower to do so Wace appears to confirm:

"Harold had many and brave men that came from all quarters in great numbers; but a multitude of men is of little worth, if the favour of Heaven is wanting. Many and many have since said, that Harold had but a small force, and that he fell on that account. But many others say, and so do I, that he and the duke had man for man. The men of the duke were not more numerous; but he had certainly more barons, and the men were better. He had plenty of good knights, and great plenty of good archers.

The English peasants carried hatchets, and keen edged bills. They had built up a fence before them with their shields, and with ash and other wood; and had well joined and wattled in the whole work, so as not to leave even a crevice; and thus they had a barricade in their front, through which any Norman who would attack them must first pass. Being covered in this way by their shields and barricades, their aim was to defend themselves; and if they had remained steady for that purpose, they would not have been conquered that day; for every Norman who made his way in, lost his life in dishonour, either by hatchet or bill, by club or other weapon. They wore short and close hauberks, and helmets that over hung their garments."

Note the absence of any mention of open flanks.  Harold had prepared as best he could; now he just had to make sure everyone knew what he wanted from them.

"King Harold issued orders and made proclamation round, that all should be ranged with their faces toward the enemy; and that no one should move from where he was; so that whoever came might find them ready; and that whatever any one, be he Norman or other, should do, each should do his best to defend his own place. Then he ordered the men of Kent to go where the Normans were likely to make the attack; for they say that the men of Kent are entitled to strike first; and that whenever the king goes to battle, the first blow belongs to them. The right of the men of London is to guard the king's body, to place themselves around him, and to guard his standard; and they were accordingly placed by the standard, to watch and defend it."

And what he has to say about the initial Norman assault (following Tallifer's 'devotio') is interesting:

"Some wax strong, others weak; the brave exult, but the cowards tremble, as men who are sore dismayed. The Normans press on the assault, and the English defend their post well; they pierce the hauberks, and cleave the shields; receive and return mighty blows. Again, some press forwards; others yield, and thus in various ways the struggle proceeds.

In the plain was a fosse, which the Normans had now behind them, having passed it in the fight without regarding it. But the English charged and drove the Normans before them, till they made them fall back upon this fosse, overthrowing into it horses and men. Many were to be seen falling therein, rolling one over the other, with their faces to the earth, and unable to rise. Many of the English also, whom the Normans drew down along with them, died there. At no time during the day's battle did so many Normans die, as perished in that fosse. So those said who saw the dead."

This event (which yours truly confused with the 'Malfosse') was evidently not part of the Norman plan.  It does however suggest a coordinated English counterstroke, and it is interesting to note that it precedes the point in Wace's narrative where Harold is wounded.  The later, post-Harold's-wounding, occurrence when only part of the line counterattacked the departing Normans, I see as indicative of command confusion: one part of the line is repeating the counterstroke - and does not know when to call a halt - while the rest is not.  Is it too much to conclude that in addition to holding in place, part of Harold's tactical repertoire was to launch short, sharp, whole-line counterattacks against the wavering Normans?  The initial repulse and counterattack described above would seem to suggest so, and it proved dramatically effective.

The inference I draw is that prior to Harold's wounding, he was out-generalling William, operationally and tactically.

what if Harald Hardrarda had won at Stamford Bridge....?

I suspect the Battle of Hastings between Duke William and King Harald, who would have rapidly marched (or sailed) south to be crowned.  Pick your winner, but my money would not be on King Harald.

[Mark G]

My money would be on William in a fight with hardrada.

In a situation where there is no home army, but their are two invaders, it is always the invader best able to pull in reinforcements who wins.

And the normans could see england from port.

[Erpingham]

It also depends on how quickly the showdown comes.  Will the two armies clash within months as the Anglo-Norwegians have pressed south after Stamford Bridge?  Or will they initially consolidate their Northern base?  Will William be welcomed in the South as a more legitimate contender and be facing Hardrada in 1067 with an Anglo-Norman force as King of England?

[aligern]

Tank you for quoting Wace extensively Patrick.  I think you adequately prove the point that he is not a good source for the detail of the battle.
Harold is, according to the nearest sources, 'surprised'. He does not choose the field. The idea that the English make a field fortification is discredited. The description of what they do with their shields looks very like Wace has latched on to a mistranslation of shield wall.
All in all Wace smacks of embroidering up the older sources in an attempt to say something new.
Sources nearer the time that have to be read in front of the actual participants carry more weight than a source three generations later.

As to Formigny, I cited two battles just before Hastings which might well indicate tactical thinking. , you compare that to a battle 400 years later... I can't see the sense in that.

Cheers
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

and thus full circle what if Fulford Gate had been an A-S victory rendering Stamford Bridge a non event, would Harold have been an overwhelming favourite for Hastings....?

[Patrick Waterson]

and thus full circle what if Fulford Gate had been an A-S victory rendering Stamford Bridge a non event, would Harold have been an overwhelming favourite for Hastings....?

I would think so, as he would have had the manpower of the north to call upon, and they would have arrived with their tails up.

Roy seems not to like Wace as a source for Hastings, and appears to prefer William of Poitiers.  However there are problems with William of Poitiers' account, a summary of which I have shamelessly borrowed from Gary Smailes' website:

Below is a list of the keys events and important points as detailed by William of Poitiers.

    William advanced to battle under the flag of the pope.
    The Normans deployed as follows:
        Infantry armed with bows and crossbows in the vanguard (front).
        These were followed by infantry 'more steady and armed with hauberks' (suggesting the missiles troops were not wearing armour).
        In the rear were cavalry, amongst which William rode.
    In relation to Harold's army William of Poitiers makes two key points. The first is that it was large, even compared to ancient standards. The second was that 'help had been sent from the land of the Danes.' However, William of Poitiers states that the Danes feared Duke William more than the King of Norway and they 'camped on higher ground'. The assumption being that they played no part in the battle.
    William of Poitiers introduces the battle as Duke William's army 'began slowly to climb the steep slope.' There has been a suggestion that the battle may have extended beyond the slope and into the surrounding countryside. This is best explained in this book. However, William of Poitiers gives us no hint that the battle may have raged beyond the slope.
    The battle opens with a Norman missile volley, which William of Poitiers describes as 'provoking the English.' This suggests that the attack may not have intended to disrupt the English shield wall but instead lure them into an attack and off the hill.
    The next phase of the battle is traditionally thought to be an infantry attack, though William of Poitiers makes no reference to this event. Instead he details a cavalry attack explaining that 'disdaining to fight from a distance, they rode into battle using their swords.' To me a clear indication that no infantry melee took place.
    William of Poitiers goes on to detail the fight on the hill. He states that the English were helped by:
        higher ground.
        'they did not have to march to the attack',
        'their weapons penetrated without difficulty shields and other pieces of armour'. This statement leaves us with a problem since it is generally thought that both armies were similarly equipped. It may be that William is referring to the large axes of the housecarls, though this is speculation.
    William then tells us that the ferocity of the English resistance drove 'the infantry and Breton mounted warriors' into retreat. He then expands saying 'with all the auxiliary troops who formed the left wing.' What does he mean by auxiliary troops? Is this a reference to the Roman system or does he mean a collection of lesser (non-Norman) troops?
    The author goes on to mention that 'almost the whole of the duke's army yielded.' Stating that they believed the Duke had been killed. Though William of Poitiers is quick to point out that this is nor cowardly rout but instead a 'sorrowful withdrawal.'
    William then describes the Duke's removal of his helmet and inspiring speech.
    The Normans attack once again, though William gives us no insight into the tactics employed. He does, however, explain that the English extraordinary formation meant that those killed hardly had room to fall.' Does the word extraordinary suggest the formation was something unusual? The Normans would have been familiar with the Saxon shield wall, so it may have been something more that than a traditional shield wall that was deployed on the hill top.
    William now introduces the famed feigned retreat. His words suggest the tactic was planned, explaining that 'the Normans and their allies turned their backs, pretending to take flight.' This not only suggests the plan was preordained but that it involved the whole force, not just a section of cavalry as has been suggested in modern literature.
    The next section is confusing and is presented here in full. It occurs in the moment after the feigned retreat:
        'As before, several thousand [English] were bold enough to rush forward, as if on wings, to pursue those who they took to be fleeing, when the Normans suddenly turned their horse's heads, stopped them in their tracks, crushed them completely and massacred them down to the last man.'
        In the opening part of this paragraph William suggest that the whole army retreats. However, by the end he has isolated it to 'Normans' and cavalry.
    William goes on to say 'having twice used this trick with the same success' the army attacked as a whole. Does this mean twice more or twice in total. Two or three feigned attacks? He also states that the English army was 'very difficult to surround,' but gives no clue as to why. Size, terrain or something else?
    William of Poitiers then goes on to detail an attack by archers. However, he makes no mention of the famous (mythical?) arrow in the eye incident.
    William's next paragraph seems to be a direct nod of gratitude to William. It explains just how great the leader was (in his eyes), makes classical comparisons and explains how William had three horses killed from under him.
    The battle narrative is drawn to a close by a frustrating paragraph. William of Poitiers says that the English realised that they could no longer resist the Normans, stating that the 'King himself, his brothers, and the leading men of the kingdom had been killed.' And that's it! No details of the Kings death, no arrow in the eye, nothing!
    Well almost nothing. After describing the fleeing troops William talks of some Saxon warriors making a last stand in 'a deep valley' with 'numerous ditches.' Duke William is keen to fight these men though Eustace suggest caution, Duke William ignores him and wins the day. Is this event more a literary vehicle to discredit Eustace then historical fact?


Danes at Hastings*  To my mind, this casts serious doubts on the reliability of William of Poitiers.  His objectivity is a further important consideration, being seriously pro-Norman and pro-William.  While it is unlikely he made up his story from whole cloth, his account nevertheless seems to need the kind of clarifications Wace provides.  I am put in mind of Quintus Curtius Rufus' and Diodorus Siculus' accounts of Alexander's campaigns, and how these are amplified and corrected by the later and more thorough work of Arrian.

*I have seen these explained as 'naturalised Danes', but if so they would not be in a separate, easily distinguishable and independently acting body, but integrated with the rest of the English forces.

The description of what they do with their shields looks very like Wace has latched on to a mistranslation of shield wall.

It is a weakness in Wace's presentation, because on the one hand it is "well joined and wattled in the whole work, so as not to leave even a crevice" whereas on the other Normans and English pass to and fro as if seemingly oblivious of its presence.  This is of course possible if the Normans burst through it during their initial assault and the English pick up the pieces and re-establish it following their successful counterattack, but it still makes one wonder.

As to Formigny, I cited two battles just before Hastings which might well indicate tactical thinking. , you compare that to a battle 400 years later... I can't see the sense in that.

Pontlevoy (AD 1016) is not 'just before Hastings' but two generations earlier.  The problem with these two is that they involve two essentially separate forces sequentially taking on one opponent as opposed to any sort of planned manoeuvre by a unitary army.  Formigny fits the pattern we see with these actions, which is why it was mentioned.  Hastings does not.

[aligern]

Danes at Hastings?. Harold had plenty of time to hire Danes from abroad and would likely have the permission of Sweyn Estrithsson to recruit in his kingdom. After all Harald claimed the throne of Denmark too, so involving Harold outside Scandinavia was good policy. There is the possibility that the Danes raised were from the Danelaw.  Recently Harold had acted as Edward the Confessor's agent in the North to settle a  rebellion against his brother Tosti and a main demand of these Danes had been to live under Danish Law. Possibly they had raised extra men (beyond the numbers required by the local system for raising a fyrd) to serve Harold as he sought to repair the losses suffered at Stamford Bridge. The most  likely explanation for hired Danes, though, is troops from Denmark , given that there were several methods for hiring troops that were current at the time. In a way Harold would just have been extending his body of Huscarls to hire in more men.
Battles were rare in the 11th century, a point wargamers sometimes miss as the hobby is rather concerned with battles. A battle in the same cultural area even two generations ago is a learning point for the military nobility. Given that they took an interest in tactics and the analysis of what happened in their ancestors time (something very impirtant in a society in which pier was hereditary) then it is very likely that the leaders discussed and understood what had happened in each encounters

Roy

[Imperial Dave]

going back to one of our alternate future pasts...

if Harald H had won in the North, William would have landed unopposed or at least with only local fyrdmen to squish....

Assuming (for a moment) he lived through the Northern encounter, would Harold G retreat to traditional homelands ie Wessex and the West, lick his wounds and raise another army? He would have a solid power base to do so although the 'Welsh question' would be interesting. Would he find support or a hostile opportunist enemy at his back?

There are many interplays for this particular scenario but it would be mightily interesting...the country split three ways:

Harald controlling the North with access to reinforcements and a potentially partizan population
William controlling the SE and centre with access to support from the continent
Harold controlling the West and SW with homeland power base
plus a '4th' contingent of the Welsh - an unknown since the 'kingdom' had been plunged back into internal strife after the death of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn
also add a 5th for the Scots

Sounds like a mightily 'interesting' scenario and possibly a good campaign game for wargaming

re the future of the country in that particular set of conditions and what-ifs....I think there would have been much more destructive fighting long term, less unity (politically and socially) - almost a rerun of the 5th-7th Century period

[Patrick Waterson]

Danes at Hastings?. Harold had plenty of time to hire Danes from abroad and would likely have the permission of Sweyn Estrithsson to recruit in his kingdom. After all Harald claimed the throne of Denmark too, so involving Harold outside Scandinavia was good policy. There is the possibility that the Danes raised were from the Danelaw.  Recently Harold had acted as Edward the Confessor's agent in the North to settle a  rebellion against his brother Tosti and a main demand of these Danes had been to live under Danish Law. Possibly they had raised extra men (beyond the numbers required by the local system for raising a fyrd) to serve Harold as he sought to repair the losses suffered at Stamford Bridge. The most  likely explanation for hired Danes, though, is troops from Denmark , given that there were several methods for hiring troops that were current at the time. In a way Harold would just have been extending his body of Huscarls to hire in more men.

Indeed, although Harold did not exactly have the time to do all of this (or perhaps any of it) between Hastings and Stamford Bridge.  And - the crux of the matter in my estimation - would he really have fielded a separate Danish contingent under apparently independent command and allowed it to stand apart from his main force (where?) and do nothing?

Interesting that Wace has no time for or even mention of this detachment of Danes.  If he had merely been collecting and gluing together a century's worth of fables this one would have been too good to miss.  Had he been 'myth-busting' as part of his researches, I wonder?

Sounds like a mightily 'interesting' scenario and possibly a good campaign game for wargaming

re the future of the country in that particular set of conditions and what-ifs....I think there would have been much more destructive fighting long term, less unity (politically and socially) - almost a rerun of the 5th-7th Century period

It might make a fascinating wargames campaign: one would have to be careful about who could recruit what from where and what external influences might come into play.  Historically, the Normans established themselves quite quickly in the south and began expanding slowly (and on occasion bloodily) across the rest of the country; nobody seemed able to do much about shifting them from areas they had conquered.  Part of the problem seems to have been the inconstancy of the Danes; a surviving Harald might have changed all that.  Add all the various Danish raiding and expeditionary forces to Harald's OB when they turn up.

Harold would probably have the short end of the stick, or at least the worst prospects of the three main contenders.  With Harald in the north and William on his ancestral lands, his best bet would probably be to tuck himself into Wessex and Wales (and generally the West) and wait until Harald and William had fought it out between themselves.  He would have to secure the adherence of Wales one way or another, and he had done it before.  His crown would nevertheless be uneasy to say the least, as the Witan would be where he was not, but by building up his strength while William and Harald fought it out, and perhaps making a judicious alliance with one or the other, he could attempt to improve his position and remove at least one competitor from the scene.

William would be looking over his shoulder at the continent: realistically, it is unlikely anyone would have successfully mounted a major threat against his lands in Normandy, but it is quite likely that someone would have tried, cutting off any reinforcements from that quarter for months or a year at a time.  If this occurred at a point when Harald received one of his tranches of reinforcements, the Danes might for once be in the ascendant.

It has prospects.

[Imperial Dave]

Agreed Patrick, as a potential campaign series for wargaming it has much to offer (possibly more than any other postulated outcome of the 3 battles).

I wonder, taking your postulations further, could you envisage an alliance between Harold and William to curb Harald?!

Gadzooks, it has the makings of a fine game

[Patrick Waterson]

Possible, as long as William does not try to back it with an oath ...

Actually, I see it as much more likely that Harald and Harold would combine against William, because the latter is a) the strongest contender in terms of force at his back, b) the 'outsider' and c) my impression is that Normans were more abrasive negotiators than Danes.  Of course, there is nothing to prevent William going hammer and tongs for one of the two H's and the other deciding to be helpful only up to a point.

Where Harold and William might combine is if Harold and Harald had just thrashed William, but not slain him on the field (or off it, for that matter), and Harald had turned on Harold - or if Harold felt the time was right to turn on Harald.  My gut feeling, however, is that both would be much happier with William well and truly dead, at which point some Norman mercenaries might become available for hire ...

[aligern]

If Harold was going to hire Danes he would do it soon after becoming king. He must have had a good idea where the threats were coming from and where he could get troops. Tosti was in rebellion immediately so hiring professionals who were not liable to go home after a period f servce woukd have made a lot of sense.
Of course, n wargaming terms,bDanish hires are just the same as other huscarls.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

a leaderless mob of Norman knights for hire.....

[Erpingham]

Agree with Roy on the Danes.  In fact, I thought this was a standard interpretation - that Harald had beefed up his professional forces with hires from abroad.  If we view the Housecarles in a similar way to an Anglo-Norman familia regis, there would be an established core which could be boosted for war service.