So What should Harold have done

[Alex-ander]

We have just celebrated the anniversary of the battle of Hastings. The battle took place on the 14th October 1066 if anybody does not know the details here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings

The battle was a decisive one Harold II lost a close battle and the face of England was changed forever. The English were brutally suppressed by William and the peasants who were more or less free became little better than slaves with the Feudal system the Normans introduced.

So i got to wondering did Harold II make a mistake in risking everything on one battle. Did he have other options? Harold had control of London and almost all of England, so could he just have sat back and told William come and get me. Winter was coming and when it came William would have major problems keeping his army supplied and stopping desertion.

What would you have done?

[Salem1]

What would you have done?

I would have fortified important cities, forts etc. and stalled for time. Then I would have waited for the Normans to start making mistakes while I gathered an army in Northumbria or somewhere similar, out of reach of the Normans.

[Orko]

There was nothing much Harold could have done. He faced a threat from the north(Harald Hardrada) and from the south(the Normans). He wen't to meet one, and then had to march quickly towards the other or else London would be conquered. The site of the battle was good. Highland with no oppurtinity of being outflanked.
If he wouldn't have done this, the fate would have been worse. Hardrada and William were allied(Ithink) and would have laid siege on him if he decided to fortify. He also had no way of convincing the other English nobles to join him.
BTW William didn't really oppress anyone. His new ideas made all of the English systens work better. Better supervision, better centralisation, better taxation, better legal system, etc. ... The peasents were already pretty much opressed by the Anglo-Saxons at that time already.

[pannonian]

There was nothing much Harold could have done. He faced a threat from the north(Harald Hardrada) and from the south(the Normans). He wen't to meet one, and then had to march quickly towards the other or else London would be conquered. The site of the battle was good. Highland with no oppurtinity of being outflanked.
If he wouldn't have done this, the fate would have been worse. Hardrada and William were allied(Ithink) and would have laid siege on him if he decided to fortify. He also had no way of convincing the other English nobles to join him.
BTW William didn't really oppress anyone. His new ideas made all of the English systens work better. Better supervision, better centralisation, better taxation, better legal system, etc. ... The peasents were already pretty much opressed by the Anglo-Saxons at that time already.

1st point: Harold did all the things that he could have reasonably prepared for and decided for. Right strategic moves, right tactical moves. As a general, he outmanoeuvred both Hardrada and William. It was just his bad luck that he was killed, and the resistance fell apart. With reinforcements coming in even during the battle, if Harold could have held on until sunset, William's campaign would have been lost.

2nd point: Harrying of the North?

[Orko]

1st point: Harold did all the things that he could have reasonably prepared for and decided for. Right strategic moves, right tactical moves. As a general, he outmanoeuvred both Hardrada and William. It was just his bad luck that he was killed, and the resistance fell apart. With reinforcements coming in even during the battle, if Harold could have held on until sunset, William's campaign would have been lost.

I know. that was my point as well. He did the best he could.

2nd point: Harrying of the North?

I know of this, but when I said "opress" I meant something different.

[Barry Goldwater]

Harold didn't really have much of a choice - he was damned if he fought the Normans first, and damned if he fought the Norwegians first, as once he had beaten down whoever he went after first he would have to rush to meet the other invaders with the battered and tired force he had historically.

It wasn't entirely his fault, however - if the northern earls hadn't lost at Fulford (although to be fair, their chances of winning there were crap) and somehow managed to throw the Vikings back, he could have fought William with a fresh and better-prepared army, and seeing how close Hastings was in reality he probably could have won in this scenario.

[Barry Ferguson]

When I saw the bit about William not oppressing, I alos immediately thought Harrying of the North.

Harold came close to victory. If his men had stayed in position on the hill, he would have won

[Atlassmurf]

Harald pretty much did everything right.

[clandestino]

He could rest couple of days after the Stamford and then slowly head south, then he should find some nice hill to defend it and order his troops not to attack retreating Normans. Oh and he should wear some better helmet with visor.

[Alex-ander]

Harold didn't really have much of a choice - he was damned if he fought the Normans first, and damned if he fought the Norwegians first, as once he had beaten down whoever he went after first he would have to rush to meet the other invaders with the battered and tired force he had historically.

I agree doing nothing was not an option for Harold. But once he won at Stamford Bridge he did have options. The North was safe so he did have the option of staying in London and reinforcing it. Or he could have deprived William of supplies and forced William into a battle with a weakened army. William would have got little or no supplies across the channel in winter.

When I saw the bit about William not oppressing, I alos immediately thought Harrying of the North.

Yes the Harrying of the North of England was very brutal probably his most brutal act. William seems to have wanted to kill as many as he could in the north of England. The Normans even went as far as to kill all the animals and destroy the crops so that any survivors of his massacres would die of starvation

[Orko]

He could rest couple of days after the Stamford and then slowly head south, then he should find some nice hill to defend it and order his troops not to attack retreating Normans. Oh and he should wear some better helmet with visor.

The Norman army was already moving towards London. He had to move as quickly as possible else William would claim the English throne and quite possibly recruit some noblmen to his side.

[pannonian]

He could rest couple of days after the Stamford and then slowly head south, then he should find some nice hill to defend it and order his troops not to attack retreating Normans. Oh and he should wear some better helmet with visor.

According to some chaps who know their stuff rather better than I do, that was exactly what Harold did, that resulted in the battle. Harold moved quickly, occupied a location that threatened William's communications and forced him to attack what was, in open battle terms, an excellent defensive position.

[Monarchist]

[...] Oh and he should wear some better helmet with visor.

I only just saw this, as I had skimmed over it before. Sorry to disappoint you, but the Medieval visor did not actually exist until the mid 14th century. It was just about 270 years between Hastings and the invention of the first true military visor. Harold likely just had a nasal helm on, which basically consisted of a conical shape on the head and a small piece of metal which covered the nose.

Recent research suggests that he probably didn't even die by an arrow to the face, anyway. The Bayeaux Tapestry was just made as propaganda, so who knows how he properly kicked the bucket?

[Carach]

in one of my books on the subject ('1066: a tale of two battles'? or something like that its at home and im not there right now) the author suggested that perhaps penning william in the south east until the reinforcements that were coming (but made it too late to the hastings battle in real history) had arrived in order to drive the normans back into the sea.

unfortunately he had lords to deal with that were having their lands pillaged by the norman forces in the meantime, thus a quick end to the conflict was needed, so Harold believed.

We've seen how difficult it was for the normans to break even a tired saxon army in 1066. Had Harold waited just a week longer we may not look back in history at a man known as 'the conquerer'. Harold was a pretty talented king, in my opinion anyway. there wasnt much that one could/would change to what played out in reality. Perhaps, apart from the above, another suggestion would be to stay out of the frontlines of the battle heh - thats hindsight lol.

[Atterdag]

1st point: Harold did all the things that he could have reasonably prepared for and decided for. Right strategic moves, right tactical moves. As a general, he outmanoeuvred both Hardrada and William. It was just his bad luck that he was killed, and the resistance fell apart. With reinforcements coming in even during the battle, if Harold could have held on until sunset, William's campaign would have been lost.

Exactly. When the sun set, the fighting would have to be stopped which then would have meant that Harold met the coming day with fresh troops and a continuous stream of reinforcements whilst William would be more or less cut off from any support from Normandy.

I made roughly the same conclusion in my second year history essay btw

[Holger Danske]

So i got to wondering did Harold II make a mistake in risking everything on one battle. Did he have other options? Harold had control of London and almost all of England, so could he just have sat back and told William come and get me. Winter was coming and when it came William would have major problems keeping his army supplied and stopping desertion.

If you actually do some proper research into the battle you'll notice that Harold didn't really make a mistake in picking a pitched battle with the Normans. He placed himself wisely and his overall tactics worked well against the Normans who were actually losing the battle as they could not brake the shieldwall and took heavy casualties everytime they tried to engage the Saxons. The tide only turned because of the lack of disciplin among certain elements of the Saxon army which leads us to believe that the only real thing Harold could have done was to have been present near that element in order to prevent it from braking the line and thus create a weak point in the shieldwall that William could take advantage of.

Of cause Harold could have chosen to flee as soon as he realized his plan was crumbling and save as many of his best warriors as he could and live to fight another day, but that would have left London open to William.

In other words: Harold did just about everything right considering the circumstances. You cannot blame him for some of his soldiers losing their cool and destroying his battle plan, plus him just being unfortunate. If you look at Alexander you have to admire his pure luck in not getting killed in battle. Some have it, some don't.

[dezikeizer]

If you actually do some proper research into the battle you'll notice that Harold didn't really make a mistake in picking a pitched battle with the Normans. He placed himself wisely and his overall tactics worked well against the Normans who were actually losing the battle as they could not brake the shieldwall and took heavy casualties everytime they tried to engage the Saxons. The tide only turned because of the lack of disciplin among certain elements of the Saxon army which leads us to believe that the only real thing Harold could have done was to have been present near that element in order to prevent it from braking the line and thus create a weak point in the shieldwall that William could take advantage of.

Indeed it was the fyrd that kept chasing after the feigned retreats of the normans, in fact this happened multiple times, which is pretty pathetic if you ask me.\

The very reason the battle was so close and bloody was that harold was in a defensive position that forced William to attack him head on, which, as usual, produced very casulties. On top of this, as aforementioned, the saxons were using the shieldwall formation which made it even more difficult for the Normans to break thorugh. As for Harold staying behind the lines, that's not how armies worked during the time period. Back then a commander was supposed to fight alongside his men, and this greatly the moral of the saxons making it even harder for the Normans to break through. If he had stayed behind the line it would have demoralized his men and the saxons would have broken even sooner.

The only possible alternative decision that Harold could have made that at least had the potential for equally good if not better results was staying back in london and gathering more troops, or at least letting his men rest. Though then, his own nobles may have become dissatisfied and started deserting his army since they might have felt that he wasn't protecting them and their lands properly. All in all, I think Harold made the right decisions, though luck, it seems, was not on his side.

[Alex-ander]

The problem Harold had with the right wing of his army. Was that his brother who was in command of that wing had been killed in the fighting so that wing had no overall command. It is reasonable to assume that if his brother had been alive he could have prevented the wing charging down the hill after the Normans and getting slaughtered.

Reading the comments I don’t really think Harold did a lot wrong and he did not have many choices. Yes he should probably have stayed in London a few more days to get reinforcements and rested his army. But a battle was inevitable. Even then if the English army had stuck to his battle plan they could have beaten William or at worse forced him to retreat which would have been almost as bad for William.

In the end Harold can be considered an unlucky king. A number of things happened that if they had gone the other way he would have been victorious. That is history i suppose, as was said Alexander took a lot of risks in his early battles if he had died then he would have been a minor footnote in history. Luck was on his side and he survived and got the glory.

Harold did not have that luck

[dezikeizer]

The problem Harold had with the right wing of his army. Was that his brother who was in command of that wing had been killed in the fighting so that wing had no overall command. It is reasonable to assume that if his brother had been alive he could have prevented the wing charging down the hill after the Normans and getting slaughtered.

Reading the comments I don’t really think Harold did a lot wrong and he did not have many choices. Yes he should probably have stayed in London a few more days to get reinforcements and rested his army. But a battle was inevitable. Even then if the English army had stuck to his battle plan they could have beaten William or at worse forced him to retreat which would have been almost as bad for William.

In the end Harold can be considered an unlucky king. A number of things happened that if they had gone the other way he would have been victorious. That is history i suppose, as was said Alexander took a lot of risks in his early battles if he had died then he would have been a minor footnote in history. Luck was on his side and he survived and got the glory.

Harold did not have that luck

Indeed.

[Monarchist]

I would have stayed on my horse behind the line, and not stand inside it like a common peasant. The fyrd may have been fierce, but the poor King couldn't get to the right or left flank because he was fighting on foot in the thick of it. Bravery doesn't make up for the inability to give tactical commands at crucial moments. If I were indeed Harold the Saxon, I'd probably have stayed on horse, or at least stood back from the lines on Battle Hill. That way, he could have moved between the flanks and shored up the faltering right flank, which was the one that broke and started chasing the Normans down the hill after repeated cavalry charges.

History might have been very different if Harold had managed to be at the far right flank as the sun was setting that day. The ironic thing is that the Norman charges didn't actually force the Saxons to rout. It was the Saxons' own obsession with glorious axe-wielding charges that caused them to break up and chase the retreating Normans down the hill. Sadly, the Norman horsemen smply lead the Saxon right flank into a marsh and slaughtered them. With the right flank of the Saxons left nearly undefended, and Harold stuck in the center with his main guard, the Normans easily flanked them and rolled them up.