|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
King Harold II of England is defeated by the Norman forces of William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings, fought on Senlac Hill, seven miles from Hastings, England. At the end of the bloody, all-day battle, Harold was killed–shot in the eye with an arrow, according to legend–and his forces were destroyed. He was the last Anglo-Saxon king of England.
Just over two weeks before, William, the duke of Normandy, had invaded England, claiming his right to the English throne. In 1051, William is believed to have visited England and met with his cousin Edward the Confessor, the childless English king. According to Norman historians, Edward promised to make William his heir. On his deathbed, however, Edward granted the kingdom to Harold Godwine, head of the leading noble family in England and more powerful than the king himself. In January 1066, King Edward died, and Harold Godwine was proclaimed King Harold II. William immediately disputed his claim.
On September 28, 1066, William landed in England at Pevensey, on Britain’s southeast coast, with approximately 7,000 troops and cavalry. Seizing Pevensey, he then marched to Hastings, where he paused to organize his forces. On October 13, Harold arrived near Hastings with his army, and the next day William led his forces out to give battle.
After his victory at the Battle of Hastings, William marched on London and received the city’s submission. On Christmas Day, 1066, he was crowned the first Norman king of England, in Westminster Abbey, and the Anglo-Saxon phase of English history came to an end. French became the language of the king’s court and gradually blended with the Anglo-Saxon tongue to give birth to modern English. William I proved an effective king of England, and the “Domesday Book,” a great census of the lands and people of England, was among his notable achievements. Upon the death of William I in 1087, his son, William Rufus, became William II, the second Norman king of England.
=================================================================================================================================================
Never been to Hastings, but I have been to Bayeux in my travels to look at and study the Bayeux Tapestry, ( actually an embroidery) which depicts the battle. The museum that houses the Tapestry is nice and informative, and gives you a good background as to the fighting.
Also in Bayeux is a nice military museum that concentrates on the breakout during the Normandy Invasion and also in Bayeux is the British Military cemetery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wazza
Sydney
Australia
|
Posts: 799
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
Harold's army had previously fought the vikings in the North so then subsequently had to cover some distance to then face the Norman invasion.
I wonder the outcome if his army wasn't so depleted and tired...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
The English victory against the Vikings came at great cost, as Harold's army was left in a battered and weakened state, and far from the south.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wazza
Sydney
Australia
|
Posts: 799
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
Ahhhh yes that's correct.
Frustration and breaking the shield wall to chase retreating Normans sealed their fate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6385
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
What a dramatic story this is !
That battle was such a closely fought affair.
The destruction of the Viking army at Stamford Bridge is an epic in its own right.
What I found especially moving when visiting Bayeux in Normandy was walking into a large British Commonwealth military cemetery close to the place where the Tapestry is displayed. This contains the graves of several thousand dead from the fighting of 1944, and the inscription above the cemetery gate choked me :
WE, WHO WERE CONQUERED BY WILLIAM, HAVE LIBERATED THE LAND OF THE CONQUEROR.
Sometimes I reflect on two invasions, one from Normandy to England in 1066, and the other in reverse in 1944, and muse about which of the two was the riskier.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wazza
Sydney
Australia
|
Posts: 799
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
Quite poetic in its sadness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
The 1944 Invasion was the more riskier.
The Normans landed at Pevensey in Sussex on 28 September and erected a wooden castle at Hastings, from which they raided the surrounding area. This ensured supplies for the army.
The Allies were confronted at the shore and risked being pushed off the European Continent a 2nd time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6385
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
|
Quote: The 1944 Invasion was the more riskier.
The Normans landed at Pevensey in Sussex on 28 September and erected a wooden castle at Hastings, from which they raided the surrounding area. This ensured supplies for the army.
The Allies were confronted at the shore and risked being pushed off the European Continent a 2nd time.
The fate of the Viking invaders at Stamford Bridge persuades me to disagree.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
This was the comment...."Sometimes I reflect on two invasions, one from Normandy to England in 1066, and the other in reverse in 1944, and muse about which of the two was the riskier."
There is no mention of the Vikings and the invasion form the North. The fate of the Vikings is not considered.
Now, if 3 invasions were mentioned in the sentence, I'd agree with you
Regards, NYGiant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6385
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
The destruction of the Viking horde does impinge on the question, in so far as it demonstrates how dangerous the amphibious operation was in those days, and the fate attendant upon failure. Both the 1066 battles were closely fought. In both, the commanders of the defeated side perished with their men. There was air cover and naval cover supporting the 1944 invasion, and a gigantic Soviet juggernaut in the East.
Failure for William at Hastings was not going to be enjoying such attributes to protect him and his men.
Failure on the Day beaches was bound to be awful, but a better chance of extrication was afforded the invaders than had been available to the Normans.
The fate of the Vikings stands as an example.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
"Sometimes I reflect on two invasions, one from Normandy to England in 1066, and the other in reverse in 1944, and muse about which of the two was the riskier."
Regards, Phil"
Well, in the original question, there was no mention of the Vikings. Hence, no comment especially when we were to consider "which of the two" was riskier.
The Normans were able to land , establish a beach head and also fortify themselves. That did not happen in 1944 as the Allies were met on the beaches. And THAT is the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6385
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
“ Our landings in the Cherbourg- Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops.”
So wrote Eisenhower in a letter that he never sent.
Harald Hadrada never had that luxury, because defeat meant death. Neither did his ally Tostig, who was killed with him at Stamford Bridge. And they couldn’t withdraw many troops either, because they’d been killed too. Their bones still lay in heaps there seventy years later.
At Hastings, the defeated English King died with his brothers and thousands of his men. No postscript letters prepared to explain and justify things. This was life and death from top to bottom.
As for William, do you think that he would have the luxury of withdrawing his troops in the event of defeat ?
No, of course he wouldn’t.
He would have been dead too, and his knights and foot soldiers would have been slaughtered with him.
A bit of a difference from Ike’s predicament.
If you can’t - or won’t- see that, then I’m wasting my time.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
The fate of Western Europe held in the balance in 1944.
if you can't see, that, let me know and I can help you understand.
Regards, NYGiant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
Condescension is rude and patronizing. It seems to be a fall back position whenever you lack the skill to explain yourself.
When you arrived on this forum you announced that you weren't here to make any friends.
Well done, Sir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
Push back is not appreciated by all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6385
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
|
Quote: The fate of Western Europe held in the balance in 1944.
if you can't see, that, let me know and I can help you understand.
Regards, NYGiant
Oh
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
There have been several good books written on the Normandy invasion in the past few years. Sand and Steel by Peter Caddick-Adams and Normandy'44 by James Holland. My favorites are 2 book written by Joseph Balkowski, Omaha Behind Utah Beach, and anything by Steven Zaloga.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
|
Quote: There have been several good books written on the Normandy invasion in the past few years. Sand and Steel by Peter Caddick-Adams and Normandy'44 by James Holland. My favorites are 2 book written by Joseph Balkowski, Omaha Behind Utah Beach, and anything by Steven Zaloga.
NYGiant, your rude and condescending behaviour is not push back at all. It is simply a defensive measure from a man with little to say and so he covers his inadequacies by engaging in ad hominem attacks. If you had anything to say in defence of your position, I presume that you would have said it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
It's nothing more than push-back.
That's what I have said all along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
|
Quote: It's nothing more than push-back.
That's what I have said all along.
Define push-back. You know, just so that we all understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
Quote:Quote: It's nothing more than push-back.
That's what I have said all along.
Define push-back. You know, just so that we all understand.
Sure!!
phrasal verb. push back (on something) (especially North American English) to oppose or resist a plan, an idea or a change. The company has tried to push back on the claim that it paid no taxes.
Middle-management buzzword for saying "no".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jahenders
Colorado Springs
CO USA
|
Posts: 681
Joined: 2017
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
|
Quote: What a dramatic story this is !
That battle was such a closely fought affair.
The destruction of the Viking army at Stamford Bridge is an epic in its own right.
The battle itself was, indeed, a closely fought affair.
What I find most interesting is how luck/timing came into it.
William initially wanted to invade as early as June/July and was only prevented by contrary weather.
If William had been able to invade in July or so (like he wanted), a lot of things would have been different:
1) The Saxon fleet would still have been active in the Channel. They probably couldn't have stopped William's fleet, but they would have harassed it, destroyed some of it, quite likely scattered some of it, and almost certainly provided more warning.
2) The Huscarls (badly damaged against the Vikings) would have been whole and rested. That, alone, would likely have tipped the odds at Hastings
3) The Fyrd would also have been at full strength and rested. Many of them had been dismissed before Hastings because it was harvest time.
So, with those three factors, I'm pretty solidly convinced that William would have been defeated at an earlier Hastings (AKA Hastings Prime).
- He might have been able to pull some forces out and could potentially try again, but it's unclear whether he could get support (and troops) to try again.
Now, if we have Hastings Prime in July/Aug, then we'll likely still have Harald Hardrada attacking to try his hand.
- Depending on his timing, Harold's forces would likely be reduced based on having fought Hastings Prime. So, that might change the outcome there.
So, if William was able to invade when he wanted to (Jun/Jul), Harold would likely win at Hastings Prime, but might lose at Stamford Bridge (or some such) afterwards.
- England might remain an Anglo-Saxon land for a lot longer, or it might become more of a Viking/Norwegian land for a while.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6385
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
Was there collusion between the Norman and Scandinavian invaders, or was it a matter of happenstance ?
There was a preliminary battle at Fulford that was a significant affair, which entailed a Viking victory.
Did William succeed in deploying a sort of “ combined arms” battle that won the day : cavalry, infantry and archers finally getting into concerted action after spasmodic and piecemeal attacks that had been contained or repulsed ?
There was an episode after the Normans had gained the upper hand when their knights got trapped in a ditch and were killed by the English : it was , I think, referred to as “mal fosse “ in the Norman folklore, and demonstrated that even in the final stage of the battle there were bad moments for the victors.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
|
Quote: Was there collusion between the Norman and Scandinavian invaders, or was it a matter of happenstance ?
No, they were totally independent of each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Battle of Hastings
|
Quote:Quote:
The battle itself was, indeed, a closely fought affair.
What I find most interesting is how luck/timing came into it.
William initially wanted to invade as early as June/July and was only prevented by contrary weather.
D Day was delayed by 24 hours because of the weather conditions. This may be the only similarity between the 2 invasions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
