One thing I found particularly interesting in the Battle of Hastings video was the different tactics the two armies used. For the Saxons of England, their primary fighting method was to build a shield wall. They did this by interlocking their heavy wooden shields to form an impenetrable wall. To add to this wall they would also stab their spears through the wall to defend against oncoming attackers. The Normans, on the other hand, had a different approach. They used archers and knights on horses to help the breach the enemy lines. After numerous attacks, while using confusion and ambition to their advantage, the Normans finally broke through the Saxon shield wall and into the weaker ranks behind.
The Battle of Hastings was a major battle between two sides, the Saxons and the Normans, for one prize, the throne of England. I think both leaders on each side had the right to rule, William rescued Herald from a ship wreck in which an oath was made for William to be king. While Herald Gondinson was the second most powerful man in England next to the king. Although I personally think Herald was the most prominent choice to become the new king of England, he was of England to begin with. While William came from across the channel, and was the Duke of Normandy. He simply wanted more land, because of an oath that was made to him. Despite this the Normans invaded England, eventually winning a long and bloody battle with the Saxons. I disliked how the Normans army was inspired by the saying's of the pope. That if they helped invade England, that they would get a place in the afterlife. I don't think anyone should speak of receiving treasures ONLY God can give.
In the Battle of Hastings there were several different battle techniques each army used. While the Normans focused more on offence and favored their archers and cavalry, the Saxons relied more on defense and shields-men. As this battle proved, we see that the Norman offensive tactics were successful against the Saxon defense. The Normans also showed that they contained superior battle plans and tactics by sending parts of their army on a false "retreat" and luring large amounts of the Saxon army away from the defensive shield line. By doing this they were able to slaughter hundreds of Saxons and weaken the link in their shields. In the end the Normans were successful in breaking the Saxon ranks and overpowered them as soon as the shields were down.
I find it interesting that boredom played a role for both the Normans and Saxons. The Normans could not get to England because of a lack of wind and so the Saxons went back only to realize they were under attack from Vikings. The Saxons were obviously better trained because they went and fought the Vikings first, won, and ran all the way back to fight the Normans, putting up a pretty good fight. It was for this reason that William went to Italy to gather men for his battle, telling them it was a religious war for God and being backed by the pope. It is interesting that a unified religious purpose was just as effective as an entire army of very well trained men. We also see however, that William did have to use a few tactics to get past the shield-wall. These included the retreat and attack method and also shooting arrows straight up because of the up hill disadvantage. All in all, the Saxons really should have won except for their fatigue and mistake in following the retreats.
I found the events leading up to the battle most interesting. The Battle of Hastings occurred in 1066 between the forces of Harold the Saxon and William Duke of Normandy. The king at that time, Edward the Confessor, was on his deathbed with no heir or son. 45-year-old Harold was a politician, warrior, and the king’s right hand man. William was a powerful leader from across the English Channel in Normandy and thought he was the rightful heir because he and Edward were blood relatives. Both of these men were powerful, ambitious, and believed they were the rightful heirs. When Edward the Confessor died, Harold crowned himself king; William viewed this as a direct declaration of war. Over the next two months, William gathered a fleet of 700 ships. In England Harold also gathered his forces. Harold waited for months for the supposed Normand invasion, but nothing happened. Supplies were running out and crops needed harvesting so he disbanded his army. Unexpectedly, an invasion did happen but not in the south and not by William. Vikings from Norway had invaded the north of England and had already captured York. He reassembled his army and marched 800 miles north in five days to fight the Vikings. The Vikings didn’t expect them to come so quickly so the Saxons were able to defeat them swiftly. Meanwhile, the Normans were waiting for a favorable wind. The only thing saving England from a Norman invasion at that moment was the wind. On September 27, the Normans sailed off and when they reached England they were shocked to find no forces waiting for them. It’s interesting to see how many little events preceded and contributed to this major battle.
I found this video on the Battle of Hastings very interesting. I thought it was fascinating how the Normans got one of their biggest fighting tactics from a group of cowardly soldiers. When the section of the Norman army couldn’t break through the Saxon shield wall they panicked and fled. This drew the Saxon army out to pursue fleeing soldiers. This caused a break in the wall that not only helped the Normans fight their way through, but it also left the small section of the Saxon army vulnerable and easy to surround. William after seeing this then decided to stage fake surrenders to draw out small groups of the Saxon army one at a time. I was really surprised that this worked for as long as it did. You would think that after the second time the Saxon army would see what was happening and hold fast, but the video said the Normans were able to use this strategy for a good portion of the battle. All the same I think it was a clever idea and find it interesting how it was devised because of a group of terrified soldiers.
King Harold of England was defeated by the Norman forces of William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings, which, despite the name, was actually not even fought at Hastings. I thought it was interesting that it was one of the longest battles in English history - since most battles lasted less than an hour - and it was only a day long! Also, it was interesting that the Normans believed that God was on their side, and perhaps he was, because it seemed that if several unplanned things had not happened, the outcome of the battle might have been different. For example, if the Norman army didn't fake all those retreats, they might not have been able to break throught the Saxon's shield wall. Also, Harold was killed by being shot in the eye with an arrow, which reminded me of the Bible story of the King of Israel (in 1 Kings 22) being shot by a random arrow in just the right place so that it killed him.
In the Battle of Hastings, I thought it was interesting that the Normans used fake retreats to lure the Saxon army away from their dominating and protective shield wall. You would think that the Saxons would have figured this out after the Normans kept doing it. It was pretty shocking that they were dumb enough to fall for it, considering the fact that they had held off the Norman attacks for a long time without breaking the shield wall. Another thing I found intriguing was that king Harold was killed by a stray arrow, just like king Ahab in the Bible.
In the Battle of Hastings, William showed that learning from mistakes was both crucial, effective and would later lead him to victory. The first mistake that occurred during the Battle of Hastings was acted out by the Norman archers. William had a great disadvantage when he realized that his army would have to fight the battle uphill. Once stationed the archers first shot their arrows upward toward the Saxons’ wall of shields hoping to weaken it and then barge through with the infantry and cavalry. Their arrows did no damage as they sprung off the shields or found their landing in the hill. Realizing how ineffective this tactic was William later regrouped the infantry and archers and personally instructed them to aim their arrows toward the ski. This new tactic took great effect as many Saxons fell under the sea of arrows that fell from the sky, including Harold who was shot in the eye. The next mistake the Normans learned from in the Battle of Hastings took place when the left side of the Norman infantry (Brittany) fled from the Saxons when they realized that the shield wall could not be broken. Though this seemed tragic at the time William, taking advantage of every opportunity, tracked after the small Saxon infantry, surrounded them and soon annihilated the unprotected infantry. William realizing that he needed to win the battle before nightfall and before the Saxons could get reinforcements, instructed his army to flee several more times in order to bring the Saxons down off the hill and into the open land where they would become vulnerable. When this was put into practice the Saxons thought the Normans were actually fleeing and charged after them with the thought of victory. Once surrounded they realized victory was far from reality and they were easily annihilated by the cavalry and infantry. Looking back at these mistakes and making the changes that were needed William can easily be remembered for his awareness and also one who was not defeated when mistakes occurred but instead used them to seize victory and England!
In the battle of Hastings, the Saxons and the Normans both used very different tactics to defeat the other with. The normans relied much more heavily on offensive man power while the Saxons relied solely upon being defensive minded. The normans used many men upon archers and cavalry to swoop down and pick off the Saxons, while the Saxons simply interlocked their shields and hoped for the best. I think this says a lot about both sides and how they felt about the battle. To me it seems like the Saxons were much less confident in their armies than the Normans were in theirs. Eventually we all know that the Normans triumphed and the Saxons fell to their aggressive armies. It's interesting to think about what might have happened in the Battle of Hastings if the Saxons had used similar battle methods as the Normans; perhaps there might've been a different outcome.
When it comes to tactics I believe that both the Mormons and the Saxons used completely different tactics. But when it domes around to it I believe that It wasn't simply the tactics that turned tables. I believe that the people created their war tactics by their lifestyles. When you look at the Saxons you see that their war technique was at times shabby. There idea to group together and hope for the best was a reflection on how they lived. They lived off the land in a un organized manner depending on everyone to survive. The Normans on the other hand were often more organized and simple in their efforts in battle. The Normans who lived organized simple lives simply reflected it in their war strategies. Anther particularly interesting fact is that William was able to learn quickly from every mistake that he made. When one thing didn’t work he simply used another tactic. A tactic I found most interesting was how William would pretend to retreat, losing much needed land, to create a trap for the Saxons. He was rewarded for being willing to give something up. In the end you see that the organized Normans end up pulling through.
i find it interesting how there was so much hype for this war and everyone was getting prepaired and stuff and it was gona be this epic climax when in reallity it was really anti climatic especially since the battle got delayed loads of time becasue of the wind. like i can just imagine the normandy general making a big speech about attacking england and the entire army getting so pumped they all hop on the boats and they go no where and are just like what the heck? but in all seriousness i do find it interesting how these viking attacks made a big difference on the output of the battle. without the vikings attacking england would have most likely won. another thing i find interesting is that england also would have won if they hadnt broken lines to foolishly chase the enemy. england should have definetly won the battle if everything didnt go bad. although if normandy thought of the arrow hail earlier they would have won for sure. overall most of the battle seemed to go no where. if england hadnt been foolish and made so many mistakes the battle would have lasted much longer most likely ending in england winning because of the reinforcements coming and the better battle advantage. i do not think that the battle was as stratigically involved as most people think. i feel that the only real stratagy involved was the shield wall, which seemed to me like it was a common thing in england to do and thus not being a great stratigical thing to do. also the arrow hail was the only other real stratagy put into it.
The thing I found interesting about The Battle of Hastings was the employment of religion to increase morale. William, Duke of Normandy, recruited troops by telling them that the war against Harold, King of England, was a religious war backed by the pope himself. The troops stood “united under the papal banner” and were confident that God was on their side and that victory was assuredly theirs. They also thought that they were guaranteed a place in the afterlife because of their reason for fighting; God. William’s tactics for recruitment certainly proved that unity is a strong force in the midst of tribulation.
When watching the Battle of Hastings I found it interesting the various battle strategies used between the the Normans and the Saxons. The Norman secret weapon were horses in their Calvary, fast and strong animals. While the Saxons key tactic was facing the enemy with all their shields locked into each other making an extremely hard force to break through. The Saxons and Normans had very similar numbers of men fighting at The Battle of Hastings, about 7,ooo men on each side. Although they had very similar sized armies they had different tactics to fighting. The Saxon's had came immediately from another battle against the Vikings, but when they arrived they lined up and linked their shields creating a wall allowing the others still coming to be protected. The Saxon's were set up on top of a hill giving a disadvantage to the Normans who would have to climb the hill in order to fight. The Norman's assembled them selves into three groups; left side were forces from Brittany, the right side were forces from France, and the middle were Norman forces. The Norman's had the archery in the front with their calvary, infantry, and other armed men in the back. William and Harold's armies had very distinctive, different, and interesting ways of fighting.
There were a couple of things I found interesting about the Battle of Hastings and the events leading up to it. One, it seemed William had been promised the throne of England by Edward the Confessor and by Harold when William saved his life. Now, I don’t know if that is true, but it looks pretty bad for England if it is. Another thing I found interesting was the battle tactics the armies used. Harold’s shield wall was an ingenious idea. It kept back hundreds of men. The only flaw is the wall is only as strong as the weakest link. This is something William used to his advantage. When he saw Harold’s army run after the Norman’s he thought he could use that. He did and it worked. When Harold’s army gave chase again, William’s army flooded into the spot Harold’s army abandoned. I couldn’t believe when Harold’s men ran off after William’s army. I understand if must have been exciting to see your enemy run off, but it sounds like they had been given strict orders to keep the shield wall intact. But what was more astounding was the fact that William used his army to fake and flee and Harold’s army once again went after them! It was a smart move on William’s part, and unfortunately for Harold, it worked.
While there are many interesting aspects of the Battle of Hastings one thing that stood out to me the most was how different Harold and William were. Harold, King of England, gathered a massive army as soon as he heard of William’s coming. There were many people who were willing to fight for and under him. He fought as one of the people and did not stand over them and demand them to do something he wouldn’t. The people respected him and wanted to fight for him and their country. William, Duke of Normandy, was not able to gather an army as easily. Instead he used the Pope to gain Nobles and Mercenaries to fight on his side. I think this shows the difference in leadership and the motivation behind the two different armies. Harold’s men were loyal and wanted to see victory over their enemies. Whereas William’s men were fighting a religious war, as much for God as it was for William; these men would be earning loot and honor as well as a guaranteed place in the afterlife.
While watching the Battle of Hastings video, I thought about how easily the outcome could have been different. First, if Harold had chosen not to dismantle his strong army while waiting for William, the Normans could have had a much stronger army to reckon with. When there was no sign of William’s army, the Saxons began to grow restless. Many of them were farmers and the crops were ready to harvest. Harold saw this and decided to travel back to London. Secondly, the Saxons had to deal with the Viking invasion just before William landed. They marched 180 miles in five days which much have exhausted the army. Five days after the Saxons fought and won the Battle of Stamford Bridge, they had to make their way back to the southern coast of England—250 miles. Finally, in the Battle of Hasting, the Saxon’s primary strategy was their shield wall. It was well suited for their geographical position and exhausted the Norman army. However, once the Bretons fled, the Saxons were too tempted to chase after them. This made them vulnerable to the remaining Norman forces while a broken shield wall gave up important defense. It was clear that the Saxons and the Normans were well matched armies. But, these certain aspects could have given Harold’s army a much greater chance at victory.
Both the Normans and the Saxons possessed great leaders and techniques, yet when the Battle of Hastings took place, one side won. Why? Each of their leaders was cunning, even though both troops displayed a “lapse of judgment” during the battle. The Normans figured out to shoot their arrows higher only after the lull in the battle. I wonder why they didn’t think of it sooner? (Mr. Parker, do you know? There may have been other distractions or something) The Saxons, obviously, broke ranks, which could have indicated ill-discipline, or, as the documentary stated, were so caught up in the anticipation of victory they lost some sense. They had the same amount of men, and both had recently fought with the Vikings. One reason the Normans won may be because of the tight space the Saxons put them selves in. Shoulder to shoulder, holding heavy shields did not allow much room to stab or move. In the documentary, the “soldier” stated dead bodies could not fall to the ground it was so tightly packed. Another reason could be that the Saxons were caught by surprise, whereas the Normans had plenty of time to think and plan their attack and strategies. The Normans and Saxons seemed equal in strength, numbers, and cunning, yet the Normans were the ones who held the trophy. Ultimately, “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers…who brings princes to nothing, and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. (Isaiah 40:22-23 ESV)
I found the contrast in battle tactics fascinating. Harold’s army was strong and able. They were professionally trained warriors, loyal to the throne of England. Although their army was strong, I think their lack of flexibility as an army was to their disadvantage. They were able to hold a wall of shields, but were forced to stay at the defensive in that position. It was more difficult, unlike the cavalry of William of Normandy, for them to push themselves into the fray. Ultimately, I think this was the deciding factor of the battle. The Battle of Hastings was such a dramatic turning point in the history of Britain. It is hard to imagine what the world would be like, had the battle gone any other way.
One thing I found particularly interesting in the Battle of Hastings video was the different tactics the two armies used. For the Saxons of England, their primary fighting method was to build a shield wall. They did this by interlocking their heavy wooden shields to form an impenetrable wall. To add to this wall they would also stab their spears through the wall to defend against oncoming attackers. The Normans, on the other hand, had a different approach. They used archers and knights on horses to help the breach the enemy lines. After numerous attacks, while using confusion and ambition to their advantage, the Normans finally broke through the Saxon shield wall and into the weaker ranks behind.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Battle of Hastings was a major battle between two sides, the Saxons and the Normans, for one prize, the throne of England. I think both leaders on each side had the right to rule, William rescued Herald from a ship wreck in which an oath was made for William to be king. While Herald Gondinson was the second most powerful man in England next to the king. Although I personally think Herald was the most prominent choice to become the new king of England, he was of England to begin with. While William came from across the channel, and was the Duke of Normandy. He simply wanted more land, because of an oath that was made to him. Despite this the Normans invaded England, eventually winning a long and bloody battle with the Saxons. I disliked how the Normans army was inspired by the saying's of the pope. That if they helped invade England, that they would get a place in the afterlife. I don't think anyone should speak of receiving treasures ONLY God can give.
ReplyDeleteIn the Battle of Hastings there were several different battle techniques each army used. While the Normans focused more on offence and favored their archers and cavalry, the Saxons relied more on defense and shields-men. As this battle proved, we see that the Norman offensive tactics were successful against the Saxon defense. The Normans also showed that they contained superior battle plans and tactics by sending parts of their army on a false "retreat" and luring large amounts of the Saxon army away from the defensive shield line. By doing this they were able to slaughter hundreds of Saxons and weaken the link in their shields. In the end the Normans were successful in breaking the Saxon ranks and overpowered them as soon as the shields were down.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that boredom played a role for both the Normans and Saxons. The Normans could not get to England because of a lack of wind and so the Saxons went back only to realize they were under attack from Vikings. The Saxons were obviously better trained because they went and fought the Vikings first, won, and ran all the way back to fight the Normans, putting up a pretty good fight. It was for this reason that William went to Italy to gather men for his battle, telling them it was a religious war for God and being backed by the pope. It is interesting that a unified religious purpose was just as effective as an entire army of very well trained men. We also see however, that William did have to use a few tactics to get past the shield-wall. These included the retreat and attack method and also shooting arrows straight up because of the up hill disadvantage. All in all, the Saxons really should have won except for their fatigue and mistake in following the retreats.
ReplyDeleteI found the events leading up to the battle most interesting. The Battle of Hastings occurred in 1066 between the forces of Harold the Saxon and William Duke of Normandy. The king at that time, Edward the Confessor, was on his deathbed with no heir or son. 45-year-old Harold was a politician, warrior, and the king’s right hand man. William was a powerful leader from across the English Channel in Normandy and thought he was the rightful heir because he and Edward were blood relatives. Both of these men were powerful, ambitious, and believed they were the rightful heirs. When Edward the Confessor died, Harold crowned himself king; William viewed this as a direct declaration of war. Over the next two months, William gathered a fleet of 700 ships. In England Harold also gathered his forces. Harold waited for months for the supposed Normand invasion, but nothing happened. Supplies were running out and crops needed harvesting so he disbanded his army. Unexpectedly, an invasion did happen but not in the south and not by William. Vikings from Norway had invaded the north of England and had already captured York. He reassembled his army and marched 800 miles north in five days to fight the Vikings. The Vikings didn’t expect them to come so quickly so the Saxons were able to defeat them swiftly. Meanwhile, the Normans were waiting for a favorable wind. The only thing saving England from a Norman invasion at that moment was the wind. On September 27, the Normans sailed off and when they reached England they were shocked to find no forces waiting for them. It’s interesting to see how many little events preceded and contributed to this major battle.
ReplyDeleteI found this video on the Battle of Hastings very interesting. I thought it was fascinating how the Normans got one of their biggest fighting tactics from a group of cowardly soldiers. When the section of the Norman army couldn’t break through the Saxon shield wall they panicked and fled. This drew the Saxon army out to pursue fleeing soldiers. This caused a break in the wall that not only helped the Normans fight their way through, but it also left the small section of the Saxon army vulnerable and easy to surround. William after seeing this then decided to stage fake surrenders to draw out small groups of the Saxon army one at a time. I was really surprised that this worked for as long as it did. You would think that after the second time the Saxon army would see what was happening and hold fast, but the video said the Normans were able to use this strategy for a good portion of the battle. All the same I think it was a clever idea and find it interesting how it was devised because of a group of terrified soldiers.
ReplyDeleteKing Harold of England was defeated by the Norman forces of William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings, which, despite the name, was actually not even fought at Hastings. I thought it was interesting that it was one of the longest battles in English history - since most battles lasted less than an hour - and it was only a day long! Also, it was interesting that the Normans believed that God was on their side, and perhaps he was, because it seemed that if several unplanned things had not happened, the outcome of the battle might have been different. For example, if the Norman army didn't fake all those retreats, they might not have been able to break throught the Saxon's shield wall. Also, Harold was killed by being shot in the eye with an arrow, which reminded me of the Bible story of the King of Israel (in 1 Kings 22) being shot by a random arrow in just the right place so that it killed him.
ReplyDeleteIn the Battle of Hastings, I thought it was interesting that the Normans used fake retreats to lure the Saxon army away from their dominating and protective shield wall. You would think that the Saxons would have figured this out after the Normans kept doing it. It was pretty shocking that they were dumb enough to fall for it, considering the fact that they had held off the Norman attacks for a long time without breaking the shield wall. Another thing I found intriguing was that king Harold was killed by a stray arrow, just like king Ahab in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteIn the Battle of Hastings, William showed that learning from mistakes was both crucial, effective and would later lead him to victory. The first mistake that occurred during the Battle of Hastings was acted out by the Norman archers. William had a great disadvantage when he realized that his army would have to fight the battle uphill. Once stationed the archers first shot their arrows upward toward the Saxons’ wall of shields hoping to weaken it and then barge through with the infantry and cavalry. Their arrows did no damage as they sprung off the shields or found their landing in the hill. Realizing how ineffective this tactic was William later regrouped the infantry and archers and personally instructed them to aim their arrows toward the ski. This new tactic took great effect as many Saxons fell under the sea of arrows that fell from the sky, including Harold who was shot in the eye. The next mistake the Normans learned from in the Battle of Hastings took place when the left side of the Norman infantry (Brittany) fled from the Saxons when they realized that the shield wall could not be broken. Though this seemed tragic at the time William, taking advantage of every opportunity, tracked after the small Saxon infantry, surrounded them and soon annihilated the unprotected infantry. William realizing that he needed to win the battle before nightfall and before the Saxons could get reinforcements, instructed his army to flee several more times in order to bring the Saxons down off the hill and into the open land where they would become vulnerable. When this was put into practice the Saxons thought the Normans were actually fleeing and charged after them with the thought of victory. Once surrounded they realized victory was far from reality and they were easily annihilated by the cavalry and infantry. Looking back at these mistakes and making the changes that were needed William can easily be remembered for his awareness and also one who was not defeated when mistakes occurred but instead used them to seize victory and England!
ReplyDeleteIn the battle of Hastings, the Saxons and the Normans both used very different tactics to defeat the other with. The normans relied much more heavily on offensive man power while the Saxons relied solely upon being defensive minded. The normans used many men upon archers and cavalry to swoop down and pick off the Saxons, while the Saxons simply interlocked their shields and hoped for the best. I think this says a lot about both sides and how they felt about the battle. To me it seems like the Saxons were much less confident in their armies than the Normans were in theirs. Eventually we all know that the Normans triumphed and the Saxons fell to their aggressive armies. It's interesting to think about what might have happened in the Battle of Hastings if the Saxons had used similar battle methods as the Normans; perhaps there might've been a different outcome.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to tactics I believe that both the Mormons and the Saxons used completely different tactics. But when it domes around to it I believe that It wasn't simply the tactics that turned tables. I believe that the people created their war tactics by their lifestyles. When you look at the Saxons you see that their war technique was at times shabby. There idea to group together and hope for the best was a reflection on how they lived. They lived off the land in a un organized manner depending on everyone to survive. The Normans on the other hand were often more organized and simple in their efforts in battle. The Normans who lived organized simple lives simply reflected it in their war strategies. Anther particularly interesting fact is that William was able to learn quickly from every mistake that he made. When one thing didn’t work he simply used another tactic. A tactic I found most interesting was how William would pretend to retreat, losing much needed land, to create a trap for the Saxons. He was rewarded for being willing to give something up. In the end you see that the organized Normans end up pulling through.
ReplyDeletei find it interesting how there was so much hype for this war and everyone was getting prepaired and stuff and it was gona be this epic climax when in reallity it was really anti climatic especially since the battle got delayed loads of time becasue of the wind. like i can just imagine the normandy general making a big speech about attacking england and the entire army getting so pumped they all hop on the boats and they go no where and are just like what the heck? but in all seriousness i do find it interesting how these viking attacks made a big difference on the output of the battle. without the vikings attacking england would have most likely won. another thing i find interesting is that england also would have won if they hadnt broken lines to foolishly chase the enemy. england should have definetly won the battle if everything didnt go bad. although if normandy thought of the arrow hail earlier they would have won for sure. overall most of the battle seemed to go no where. if england hadnt been foolish and made so many mistakes the battle would have lasted much longer most likely ending in england winning because of the reinforcements coming and the better battle advantage. i do not think that the battle was as stratigically involved as most people think. i feel that the only real stratagy involved was the shield wall, which seemed to me like it was a common thing in england to do and thus not being a great stratigical thing to do. also the arrow hail was the only other real stratagy put into it.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I found interesting about The Battle of Hastings was the employment of religion to increase morale. William, Duke of Normandy, recruited troops by telling them that the war against Harold, King of England, was a religious war backed by the pope himself. The troops stood “united under the papal banner” and were confident that God was on their side and that victory was assuredly theirs. They also thought that they were guaranteed a place in the afterlife because of their reason for fighting; God. William’s tactics for recruitment certainly proved that unity is a strong force in the midst of tribulation.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhen watching the Battle of Hastings I found it interesting the various battle strategies used between the the Normans and the Saxons. The Norman secret weapon were horses in their Calvary, fast and strong animals. While the Saxons key tactic was facing the enemy with all their shields locked into each other making an extremely hard force to break through. The Saxons and Normans had very similar numbers of men fighting at The Battle of Hastings, about 7,ooo men on each side. Although they had very similar sized armies they had different tactics to fighting. The Saxon's had came immediately from another battle against the Vikings, but when they arrived they lined up and linked their shields creating a wall allowing the others still coming to be protected. The Saxon's were set up on top of a hill giving a disadvantage to the Normans who would have to climb the hill in order to fight. The Norman's assembled them selves into three groups; left side were forces from Brittany, the right side were forces from France, and the middle were Norman forces. The Norman's had the archery in the front with their calvary, infantry, and other armed men in the back. William and Harold's armies had very distinctive, different, and interesting ways of fighting.
There were a couple of things I found interesting about the Battle of Hastings and the events leading up to it. One, it seemed William had been promised the throne of England by Edward the Confessor and by Harold when William saved his life. Now, I don’t know if that is true, but it looks pretty bad for England if it is. Another thing I found interesting was the battle tactics the armies used. Harold’s shield wall was an ingenious idea. It kept back hundreds of men. The only flaw is the wall is only as strong as the weakest link. This is something William used to his advantage. When he saw Harold’s army run after the Norman’s he thought he could use that. He did and it worked. When Harold’s army gave chase again, William’s army flooded into the spot Harold’s army abandoned. I couldn’t believe when Harold’s men ran off after William’s army. I understand if must have been exciting to see your enemy run off, but it sounds like they had been given strict orders to keep the shield wall intact. But what was more astounding was the fact that William used his army to fake and flee and Harold’s army once again went after them! It was a smart move on William’s part, and unfortunately for Harold, it worked.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are many interesting aspects of the Battle of Hastings one thing that stood out to me the most was how different Harold and William were. Harold, King of England, gathered a massive army as soon as he heard of William’s coming. There were many people who were willing to fight for and under him. He fought as one of the people and did not stand over them and demand them to do something he wouldn’t. The people respected him and wanted to fight for him and their country. William, Duke of Normandy, was not able to gather an army as easily. Instead he used the Pope to gain Nobles and Mercenaries to fight on his side. I think this shows the difference in leadership and the motivation behind the two different armies. Harold’s men were loyal and wanted to see victory over their enemies. Whereas William’s men were fighting a religious war, as much for God as it was for William; these men would be earning loot and honor as well as a guaranteed place in the afterlife.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching the Battle of Hastings video, I thought about how easily the outcome could have been different. First, if Harold had chosen not to dismantle his strong army while waiting for William, the Normans could have had a much stronger army to reckon with. When there was no sign of William’s army, the Saxons began to grow restless. Many of them were farmers and the crops were ready to harvest. Harold saw this and decided to travel back to London. Secondly, the Saxons had to deal with the Viking invasion just before William landed. They marched 180 miles in five days which much have exhausted the army. Five days after the Saxons fought and won the Battle of Stamford Bridge, they had to make their way back to the southern coast of England—250 miles. Finally, in the Battle of Hasting, the Saxon’s primary strategy was their shield wall. It was well suited for their geographical position and exhausted the Norman army. However, once the Bretons fled, the Saxons were too tempted to chase after them. This made them vulnerable to the remaining Norman forces while a broken shield wall gave up important defense. It was clear that the Saxons and the Normans were well matched armies. But, these certain aspects could have given Harold’s army a much greater chance at victory.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Normans and the Saxons possessed great leaders and techniques, yet when the Battle of Hastings took place, one side won. Why? Each of their leaders was cunning, even though both troops displayed a “lapse of judgment” during the battle. The Normans figured out to shoot their arrows higher only after the lull in the battle. I wonder why they didn’t think of it sooner? (Mr. Parker, do you know? There may have been other distractions or something) The Saxons, obviously, broke ranks, which could have indicated ill-discipline, or, as the documentary stated, were so caught up in the anticipation of victory they lost some sense. They had the same amount of men, and both had recently fought with the Vikings. One reason the Normans won may be because of the tight space the Saxons put them selves in. Shoulder to shoulder, holding heavy shields did not allow much room to stab or move. In the documentary, the “soldier” stated dead bodies could not fall to the ground it was so tightly packed. Another reason could be that the Saxons were caught by surprise, whereas the Normans had plenty of time to think and plan their attack and strategies. The Normans and Saxons seemed equal in strength, numbers, and cunning, yet the Normans were the ones who held the trophy. Ultimately, “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers…who brings princes to nothing, and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. (Isaiah 40:22-23 ESV)
ReplyDeleteI found the contrast in battle tactics fascinating. Harold’s army was strong and able. They were professionally trained warriors, loyal to the throne of England. Although their army was strong, I think their lack of flexibility as an army was to their disadvantage. They were able to hold a wall of shields, but were forced to stay at the defensive in that position. It was more difficult, unlike the cavalry of William of Normandy, for them to push themselves into the fray. Ultimately, I think this was the deciding factor of the battle. The Battle of Hastings was such a dramatic turning point in the history of Britain. It is hard to imagine what the world would be like, had the battle gone any other way.
ReplyDelete