Would Harold Godwinson have been to defeat William of Normandy

>>2491124
He would've won if he only waited a bit more

>>2491124
Possibly.

Although, as I understand it, the supposed fatigue of the Anglo-Saxon army was not as deleterious as the death of Harold Godwinson himself. Up until that point, the English were holding their ground quite well and might have been able to grind the Normans to a stalemate or even eke out a victory. Once word of the King's death had spread through the ranks, however, the shield wall collapsed entirely as the fyrd fled and the huscarls who held their ground were surrounded and finally overrun.

I'm sure it could be argued that the English might have held after Godwinson's death had they not just come from Stamford Bridge, though. I don't think anyone can know for sure whether Harold's death was the deciding factor or merely hastened the inevitable.

Alternatively, what if William had died? He allegedly had multiple horses killed from underneath him during the course of the battle, so one can assume he was close to the front.

>>2491124
yes, the battle was close anyway, if the anglo-saxon army had been a little fresher, and a little larger, both almost certainly the case if it hadnt just fought another major battle and then force marched to hastings, it would probably have stood, it certainly managed to stand off several norman charges during the course of the battle

Yes.

Yep.

As pointed out in >>2491187 and >>2491311, the combined stress of their previous battle and the death of their leader was a huge mitigating factor for the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings. The battle was close-fought enough that if you change either of those things, you'd most likely change the outcome of the engagement to boot.

William got fucking lucky.

>>2491124
Probably.

I believe these sorts of aspects of supply, fatigue, disease and availability of intelligence are usually neglected in modern thought.
Being exhausted strongly affects morale and when you're battle tactics are dependent upon maintaining a formation morale is extremely important.

>>2491187
>>2491311
>>2491349
>>2491361

You niggers do realize that the Fyrd that fought at Hastings was entirely different from the one that fought at Stamford, and there are no indications from the contemporary documents (or the closest things to it) that fatigue was an issue for Harold's forces, yes?


He had FAR bigger problems, like his backwards system of mobilization ensuring that he couldn't keep his forces in the field for very long, or his total lack of cavalry, which among other things means that a defeat of William at Hastings isn't likely to be anywhere near as decisive as the reverse as he has no pursuit capability to mention. Or just poor discipline in general, as his quasi-feudal levy had little experience working as a coherent army.

I've heard there was continued resistance from the anglosaxons after hasting and constant rebellions.

How is it they managed to lose every single time?

Should the saxons have just accepted William as King and elected someone else once he died?

Or was William's plan always to replace every noble in England with Norman/French/Breton ones?

Did the earls rebel because William didn't respect saxon laws and customs and wanted to do away with the witan or did william do away with saxons laws and customs because they constantly rebelled?

>>2491523
The fyrd doesn't win battles, though. They stand and take the punishment, and do what damage they can. The huscarls are the killers, with the best equipment and training, and would certainly have come with Harold from Stamford Bridge.
William's cavalry wasn't even particularly effective until the Saxons over extended in pursuit, and then in the following rout. Being in an advantageous position and having a solid shield wall blunted the Norman cavalry.

>>2491551
The Harrowing helped put a lot of rebellion out of the populace for one.

>>2492116
>The fyrd doesn't win battles, though. They stand and take the punishment, and do what damage they can. The huscarls are the killers, with the best equipment and training, and would certainly have come with Harold from Stamford Bridge.


You do, however, need them to hold the line, you don't have enough Huscarls to do everything you need.

And seriously, there's no actual evidence that fatigue was a factor for them, or that the forced march weakened them any more than say, William's raiding and castle building his troops were up to did.

>William's cavalry wasn't even particularly effective until the Saxons over extended in pursuit, and then in the following rout. Being in an advantageous position and having a solid shield wall blunted the Norman cavalry.

Anon, stop and think for a moment. The entire battle was the Saxons camping out on the hill and taking anything the Normans dished out at them. Yes, they almost won at that, but their entire battle plan was based around the fact that William's cavalry made fighting him in open terrain suicidal. Hell, the importance of staying on a hill where there was only one open approach was so important that Harald was sending troops home for lack of room; it was make a stand there or pretty much nowhere.

That's a colossal advantage right there, and without swinging a lance. William's cavalry was enormously important, to say otherwise is just ignorant.

>>2491124
Yes. The army Harold fought off the Norwegians with was an entirely different army to the one he used to fight the Normans

>>2492359
I meant no not yes