Smailes' take on the battle of Hastings is that it was Harold who sought battle, trying to goad William, who sought to avoid it:
He knew William would try and force the issue, he also knew William would not
expect a battle. Yet, only weeks before Harold had fought a pitched battle at
Stamford Bridge and won. I suspect that in opposition to contemporary thinking
Harold set out to engage William in battle. On the morning of the battle of
Hastings, Harold forced William's hand engineering the situation to one which a
risky battle was unavoidable. I believe this went against William's plan. The
battle of [Hastings] was [a] gamble - Harold lost.
I have a different take on Hastings. While I completely agree with the assessment that medieval battle was rare (though this has become a contentious issue among today's medieval military historians), there were indeed situations where risking battle was preferred, even necessary. William's cross-Channel invasion force was famous in its own day. Armies of its size and composition were difficult to amass, and it was extremely unlikely that William would ever again be able to raise a force necessary to invade England and make good his claim to the throne. After all, this -- and not simply pillaging the countryside -- was William's goal. Battle was given, I think, because William had to risk it because of logistics and not because Harold forced his hand.
Technorati Tags: military history, Military History Carnival, John Gillingham, William the Conqueror
2 comments:
Firstly, thanks for reading my blog.
I recently wrote a book on the Battle of Hastings and as I researched I realised that I had fallen into the same trap as many modern readers. When considering William's invasion I had applied modern concepts of territorial gain and decisive battle. This produced the idea that William was looking to gain towns and engage Harold in combat. However, the more I understood William's background and mediaeval warfare, the more I came convinced that William had not actively sought battle in 1066.
William entered England under the belief that he was fighting a 'Just War.' He marched with the Pope's blessing and under the Pope's banner. As far as William was concerned his will was God's will. In addition, he had a legal precedent for the invasion. He believed that he was the rightful heir to the throne. However, perhaps more importantly a number of other people also believed William should be king.
Therefore, when William landed in England he ordered his huge army set about causing as much havoc as possible. This was a well practised and extremely successful medieval tactics. The goal was to destabilise Harold's power and to force change. This does not automatically mean a pitched battle. There are many examples of such tactics ending in a negotiated peace. I believe this was William's initial aim. To take power with the least possible bloodshed. He may not have been looking for the wholesale destruction of Harold, just a foothold on which he could build. He hoped his large army, pillage tactics, backing of the Church and political favour, would all combine to precipitate a change without battle.
Harold on the other hand had different goals. He knew his position was not as secure politically and militarily as he would have wished. When he took the throne he was faced with two immediate threats – Harald Hardrada to the North and Duke William to the south. Harold's worse case scenario would have been a two front war. So, he set about actively seeking to resolve his problems. He forced Harald Hardrada into battle at Stamford Bridge and then marched south to rapidly engage William.
The Duke would have been expecting Harold. However, he would have been expecting a period of negotiation and manoeuvre before any battle. Perhaps Harold's fleet in the Channel forced William's hand, but I believe that Harold's quick attack caught the Duke at a disadvantage, forcing him to fight a very risky battle that he very nearly lost.
Gary, thanks for your comments, they seem reasonable and are an interesting interpretation. Thanks again!
Post a Comment