Hardrada's Northwest Passage

My point being if Normandy is stable enough for them to try again several years later, Harold, having defeated one attempt already, should be prepared for them. It was a close run thing OTL anyway and Harold's men weren't at full capacity or rested having come south straight after defeating Hardrada.

My point is that by that time Saxon/Norsern warfare had been lagging behind the "modern" one. Hardrada had been losing to the Normans in Sicily and Guiscard (couple decades later) will beat the Varyangians in the Battle of Dyrrhachium. Hastings was close as long as the Saxons had been holding a defensive position on the hill but as soon as they tried to attack, they had been massacred. Taking into an account the Norman absolute advantage in cavalry and clear advantage in the archers and the fact that most of the Saxon troops did not suffer from the excessively high discipline sooner or later they'd be provoked into a rash counterattack. Or sooner or later they'd have to leave that hill and march somewhere, which would make them vulnerable.

Actually (and this was discussed extensively on SHM/SHWIF) Harold's victory at Hastings would, in the best case scenario, amount to repelling the Norman attacks with, as a bonus, the Bastard being killed. The Saxon infantrymen could not successfully pursue the cavalry and one of William's subordinates would probably end up acting as a representative of his heir. The Normans retain freedom of operation and sooner or later the Saxons are going to run out of the convenient hills (pretty much as eventually happened with the Flemish at Rosebeke).

The whole thing continues for a longer time but Saxon England offers a lot of loot so there would be plenty of enthusiasts in Normandy (as I already said, it looks like the demographic situation among the military class in the Duchy was quite explosive).
 
My point is that by that time Saxon/Norsern warfare had been lagging behind the "modern" one. Hardrada had been losing to the Normans in Sicily and Guiscard (couple decades later) will beat the Varyangians in the Battle of Dyrrhachium. Hastings was close as long as the Saxons had been holding a defensive position on the hill but as soon as they tried to attack, they had been massacred. Taking into an account the Norman absolute advantage in cavalry and clear advantage in the archers and the fact that most of the Saxon troops did not suffer from the excessively high discipline sooner or later they'd be provoked into a rash counterattack. Or sooner or later they'd have to leave that hill and march somewhere, which would make them vulnerable.

Actually (and this was discussed extensively on SHM/SHWIF) Harold's victory at Hastings would, in the best case scenario, amount to repelling the Norman attacks with, as a bonus, the Bastard being killed. The Saxon infantrymen could not successfully pursue the cavalry and one of William's subordinates would probably end up acting as a representative of his heir. The Normans retain freedom of operation and sooner or later the Saxons are going to run out of the convenient hills (pretty much as eventually happened with the Flemish at Rosebeke).

The whole thing continues for a longer time but Saxon England offers a lot of loot so there would be plenty of enthusiasts in Normandy (as I already said, it looks like the demographic situation among the military class in the Duchy was quite explosive).
None of this means that there'll be a Norman conquest within a generation as you're insisting. Said conquest is not inevitable regardless of individual Norman superiority one on one. Harold isn't an idiot. His army came close to beating William's despite the superiority you're bragging about. A defeat for William does not mean his heirs will be coming back for round two. The defeat loses any Church backing for future conquest ideas and alerts the French king. This makes less opportunities for Norman raiding in England. However it doesn't forbid some invites from Harold to shore up his defences where needed.
 
Who knows, with the diffusion of knowledge of the Americas, perhaps the Normans get on the bandwagon and go crusading to the west.
 
None of this means that there'll be a Norman conquest within a generation as you're insisting.

I'm talking about a high probability.

Said conquest is not inevitable regardless of individual Norman superiority one on one.

Very few things are completely inevitable. It also seems that you don't quite understand what I'm talking about because Norman superiority was not in "one on one", which is applicable to the individual fighters, nut in having a more advanced and flexible military system than the Saxons or Norsemen circa 1066.

Harold isn't an idiot. His army came close to beating William's despite the superiority you're bragging about.

"Bragging" is inappropriate term and superiority of the Norman military system is a fact which is rather hard to deny. Harold's idiocy or its absence is not an issue: he had a tool which he had to use. Clearly, he knew the limitations of that tool and also was aware of the advantages of his opponent. This is why he kept his troops static on a hill regardless the losses caused by the Norman archers. As soon as the Saxons left the hill (presumably after Harold's death) they had been destroyed. Sorry, but it does not look like you quite understand the military aspect of the situation.

A defeat for William does not mean his heirs will be coming back for round two.

Defeat does not mean that the Normans are leaving England. It just means that their attacks are repulsed and the Saxons keep staying on the hill leaving the Normans with the strategic freedom of action.

The defeat loses any Church backing for future conquest ideas and alerts the French king. This makes less opportunities for Norman raiding in England. However it doesn't forbid some invites from Harold to shore up his defences where needed.

Possible but not inevitable and, if anything the French king would be rather happy to keep his Norman vassals busy elsewhere rather that having them trying to expand their holdings in France.
 
I'm talking about a high probability.
Which you haven't demonstrated.

Very few things are completely inevitable. It also seems that you don't quite understand what I'm talking about because Norman superiority was not in "one on one", which is applicable to the individual fighters, nut in having a more advanced and flexible military system than the Saxons or Norsemen circa 1066.

"Bragging" is inappropriate term and superiority of the Norman military system is a fact which is rather hard to deny. Harold's idiocy or its absence is not an issue: he had a tool which he had to use. Clearly, he knew the limitations of that tool and also was aware of the advantages of his opponent. This is why he kept his troops static on a hill regardless the losses caused by the Norman archers. As soon as the Saxons left the hill (presumably after Harold's death) they had been destroyed. Sorry, but it does not look like you quite understand the military aspect of the situation.

Defeat does not mean that the Normans are leaving England. It just means that their attacks are repulsed and the Saxons keep staying on the hill leaving the Normans with the strategic freedom of action.
I quite understand the military aspects thank you. I'm afraid it looks like you don't understand the geopolitical aspects though.

Possible but not inevitable and, if anything the French king would be rather happy to keep his Norman vassals busy elsewhere rather that having them trying to expand their holdings in France.
Do you have anything to show Phillip of France was at all happy with William's adventures in England? He spent his entire reign trying to curb his vassals' power.

As I said the geopolitics doesn't favour repeat attempts by the Norman Duke themselves to conquer England.
As I said I can see some Norman input into England by virtue of the military prowess you keep pointing out but England prior to 1066 wasn't falling to the Normans and I see no reason it would after. England was in a far stronger position than Sicily was.
 
Why not return to the topic Either if Harald did of did not conquer England and possible butterflies regarding Normandy?
If a few decades later in OTL a Norse King trapveld with an Armada trom Norway to the holy Land let Hardrada please eend a fleet to the west with enoug food and hordes could be so nice
 
Which you haven't demonstrated.


I quite understand the military aspects thank you. I'm afraid it looks like you don't understand the geopolitical aspects though.

No, it does not look like you understand the military aspect. If you did, you'd be much more cautious about idea of a sweeping Saxon victory.


Do you have anything to show Phillip of France was at all happy with William's adventures in England? He spent his entire reign trying to curb his vassals' power.

When the said vassal is using his resources for fighting outside France, he is not creating additional problems out of Normandy. Phillip could not "curb" Bill's adventures in England because he did not have any authority outside France. Bill's conflicts with his French vassals (and even son), neighbors and Phillip were never-ending business but in OTL he had to spend a considerable time and resources on dealing with the problems in England, which actually improved Phillip's position.

What's left? The Papal blessing was seemingly obtained after Bill's success in England and the HRE did not have any visible reasons for objections.


As I said the geopolitics doesn't favour repeat attempts by the Norman Duke themselves to conquer England.

I know what you said but why should I trust your judgement without any proof being produced?

As I said I can see some Norman input into England by virtue of the military prowess you keep pointing out but England prior to 1066 wasn't falling to the Normans and I see no reason it would after. England was in a far stronger position than Sicily was.

Interesting logic: England did not fall to the Normans before 1066 so it should not fall to them in any point in the future. Except that it did. And it does not look like you got the military part because the issue is not "prowness" but a military system.

As for the Sicily, "strength" implies both sides. In England conquest was done by a powerful feudal lord with the resources of his duchy available to this conquest. In Sicily conquest was done by a bunch of the adventurers and you keep missing the point: in Sicily Hardrada was fighting the Normans and losing. Which means that the Norman warfare had advantages over the traditional Norse style of fighting.
 
No, it does not look like you understand the military aspect. If you did, you'd be much more cautious about idea of a sweeping Saxon victory.
I didn't say "sweeping" but considering Harold defeated Harald and came close to defeating William's after having just legged it down south then Harold defeating William's forces isn't a low probability.
When the said vassal is using his resources for fighting outside France, he is not creating additional problems out of Normandy. Phillip could not "curb" Bill's adventures in England because he did not have any authority outside France. Bill's conflicts with his French vassals (and even son), neighbors and Phillip were never-ending business but in OTL he had to spend a considerable time and resources on dealing with the problems in England, which actually improved Phillip's position.

What's left? The Papal blessing was seemingly obtained after Bill's success in England and the HRE did not have any visible reasons for objections.
None of which suggests he'll be encouraging future Norman expeditions to England in particular.

I know what you said but why should I trust your judgement without any proof being produced?
Why should I trust yours?

Interesting logic: England did not fall to the Normans before 1066 so it should not fall to them in any point in the future. Except that it did. And it does not look like you got the military part because the issue is not "prowness" but a military system.
England fell in a single battle where the Old English leadership had been wiped out. A force that was doing quite well despite having had little recuperation from fighting Harald in the North. And it still took all of William's reign to pacify the country.
None of that is suggestive of a high probability that the Normans would still take over England if Harold wins against William.
As for the Sicily, "strength" implies both sides. In England conquest was done by a powerful feudal lord with the resources of his duchy available to this conquest. In Sicily conquest was done by a bunch of the adventurers and you keep missing the point: in Sicily Hardrada was fighting the Normans and losing. Which means that the Norman warfare had advantages over the traditional Norse style of fighting
I think you're missing the point that England was a fairly strong and defended country that won't inevitably fall to the Normans in the same way that Sicily did just because William the Bastard got lucky with the timing of his invasion and thus faced a weaker force than he would have done.

If Harald Hardrada doesn't invade then when William does he has to face more prepared Old English forces who'll have better choices of battle sites.
 
Top