Anglo-Saxon Britain: The Battle of Hastings

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Preliminary Stage
Belligerents’ Forces
Battle Chronology
Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction

The Battle of Hastings had substantial meaning for the further history of the English lands. It is interesting to analyze whether the outcome of the battle could be an alternative to the real one.

Preliminary Stage

Could Harold prevent the landing of the Norman army on the shore of the English Channel? Such possibility is rather doubtful. Before the Battle of Hastings, the English army fought at Stamford Bridge. The battle was also rather exhausting and involved whole Harold’s military power. To leave some troops near the English Channel would be not reasonable: firstly, the exact date of William’s landing could not be predicted; besides, the minor force could not resist the whole power of William’s troops.

Analogically, it is difficult to find any possibility for Harold to thwart William’s preparations for the battle. As soon as Harold was informed about Normans’, he led his troops toward the English Channel. When the Anglo-Saxons neared, William’s forces were aware of that rather quickly. Besides, the event of Hastings was rather swift: on October 11, Harold’s troops were in London; in two days, William’s scouts found Anglo-Saxon army; and, finally, October 14, a dynamic one-day battle took place. Thus, it is difficult to talk about any preliminary maneuver, possible for Harold. Only the battle itself can be argued in terms of a possible alternative outcome.

Belligerents’ Forces

It is difficult to talk about any numerical superiority: different sources provide different estimations of the belligerents’ strength: from 7 to 12 thousand. However, it is considered that either the armies were equal, or the Normans had a slight superiority. It is more important to focus on the qualitative characteristic of the sides.

The structure of William’s army was rather diverse: it included both cavalry and infantry. It was perfectly armed and included high-class warriors. Cavalry was equipped with swords, spears, shields, and bows with arrows. Horses were also armored thoroughly. William was supported by Bretons, Flemings, and the French. The Normans built three wooden fortifications (Creasy 193).

English army was exhausted by the previous battles and a swift passage from the North. Harold did not manage to gather enough reinforcement to join his ranks. His troops included only infantry, armed rather heterogeneously. The core of Harold’s troops was the fyrdmen and the housecarls. English troops are also considered to have built a fortification (Creasy 192).

It is reasonable to mention one more weapon which seems to be significant in this battle: the sides’ morale. William had performed himself as a perfect leader; his words of encouragement and the effort put into uniting the warriors passed into history. At the same time, being tired of the previous battles, the English army was rather relaxed and “spent time in feasting and rejoicing, singing songs, and quaffing bumpers of ale and wine” (Chambers 444).

Battle Chronology

The struggle was rather tense and did promise any predictable outcome. The first two attacks of the Normans were not successful: the English troops were dislocated at the height, and the Normans’ arrows could not make much harm to them. Finally, the Norman army used the tactics of not synchronous false retreat, making Harold’s soldiers leave their shelter and break ranks without proper coordination. Their fortification was also occupied by the Normans (Malam 22). Therefore, the Anglo-Saxon army was lured to the campaign, where it could not hide. Defenseless and disunited, it was soon defeated by William’s soldiers.

Thus, it is possible to define three main errors of Harold’s warfare: first of all, he did not manage to strengthen his army significantly during its passage to the battle place; besides, he did not manage to support the troops’ morale and provide the warriors’ unity, which led to badly coordinated actions at the battlefield; finally, the counter-attack, poorly thought-out and spontaneous, left the troops without any defense facing well-armed William’s army. It would be more reasonable to keep close to the fortification, as the troops did not have superiority; perhaps, involving more archers together with keeping the defensive attitude would be more reasonable for Harold’s army, as this would allow keeping the distant, protected position.

Conclusion

It is rather difficult to assume that, after the battle, the English lands were able to resist William’s conquest. Theoretically, it was possible right after the struggle, when his troops had serious losses and were having rest. However, after the English army was defeated, and Harold was killed, the English had no strength to struggle. One by one, the representatives of the English top conformed to William.

They also could hardly resist, taking into account that William received the reinforcement coming across the English Channel. One of the slight, but probable opportunities to get rid of William’s invasion was during the time of the northern revolts. It took William much effort to come to the North every time and suppress the revolts. If the revolts took place throughout the English land, this could unsettle William’s force.

Bibliography

Chambers, Robert. The Book of Days, a Miscellany of Popular Antiquities in Connection with the Calendar, Including Anecdote, Biography, & History, Curiosities of Literature and Oddities of Human Life and Character. London; Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers Ltd., 1906. Print.

Creasy, Edward S. The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World; from Marathon to Waterloo. New York, Harper, 1863. Print.

Malam, John. The Battle of Hastings. Slough: Cherrytree, 2007. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!