What if Harold Godwinson had backed his brother Tostig in 1065, thereby not meeting the demands of Edwin and Morcar and the northern rebels? Would there have been a civil war and how could that have changed things?
What if Harold Godwinson had backed his brother Tostig in 1065, thereby not meeting the demands of Edwin and Morcar and the northern rebels? Would there have been a civil war and how could that have changed things?
What if Harold Godwinson had backed his brother Tostig in 1065, thereby not meeting the demands of Edwin and Morcar and the northern rebels? Would there have been a civil war and how could that have changed things?
If there isn't a Stamford Bridge doesn't Harold have a much better shot to beat William as he doesn't have to go from the North to the South, nor engage in a hard fought battle along the way.
depends ... if England is much less unified it might end out fairly samey, due to having a smaller army in the first place
I think no matter what William the Conqueror was destined to be king over the usurper Harold.
Seconded! Harold very nearly won at Senlache. if the fyrd had held its position he almost certainly would have done and he would be acclaimed as one of the military genii of the age.I'm going to regret this but...
Why?
I'm going to regret this but...
Why?
Harold, had gained experience in Wales, Germany and of course England. That he was sent and lead such campaigns show that he was someone skilled enough.1. William of Normandy had much more military experience.
Middle Ages are a really long period, and cavalry shouldn't be surestimated on battlefield. Not only because battlefields battles were rarely decisive (Hastings was OTL), but because cavalry was as well a social marker than a tactical asset and we could argue that depsite the usefulness of cavalry charges, it was best used in peripherical issues.2. Cavalry in the medieval ages (or even since Adrianople in the 4th Century AD) were a powerful and sometimes-decisive tool on the battlefield, and at least gave your commander more tactical options.
Actually, accounts of the battle show that Franco-Norman archery was close to useless at first : the saxon shieldwall prooved effective, at least before the ranks break.3. William had a lot more archers compared with Harold so he could pepper the Anglo-Saxons with impunity.
Saxons being on the higher ground, they actually had interest to not move, critically when the ground was basically a swamp. It's actually when aisles of Saxon army moved that William's odds to win the battle increased.4. The Anglo-Saxon shield wall was indeed powerful, but it conceded the initiative to William, allowing William freedom of maneuver.
It's quite assumed that at least the first retreats, critically from Bretons, were genuine.5. Stamford Bridge probably made the Anglo-Saxons overly-impetuous, as demonstrated by the success of William's feigned retreats.