I'm pretty sure that would be hard to wangle without letting foreigners occupy half the country in the meantime.
Harold's job is to avoid having foreign armies occupy his country?True. But is there really a problem with that?
Harold's job is to avoid having foreign armies occupy his country?
But if his overall strategy is to have those foreign armies weaken each other and then evict them from his territory wouldn't it make more sense than fighting two battles in quick succession?
But if his overall strategy is to have those foreign armies weaken each other and then evict them from his territory wouldn't it make more sense than fighting two battles in quick succession?
But if his overall strategy is to have those foreign armies weaken each other and then evict them from his territory wouldn't it make more sense than fighting two battles in quick succession?
But if his overall strategy is to have those foreign armies weaken each other and then evict them from his territory wouldn't it make more sense than fighting two battles in quick succession?
Harold's army was primarily made up of farmers who had been forced to come fight. Letting two armies run rampant over his land would not go over well with them. When the army melts away to protect their land/family/livelihood he has lost.
Harold's army consisted mainly of the household troops (Huscarls) of both the royal household and those of his brothers households. Those thegns present on the day would be those sworn to Harold personally or the King along with their own armed retainers. The proportion of poorly armed peasants was small and would have consisted of those either burned out from their lands by rampaging Normans or else those afraid of a similiar fate.