Over my dead body !

hen Harold took Edward the Confessors word literally and declared himself king of England, he knew that he was tipping his country into a future war with Normandy. He knew William only too well after being kept as a hostage in Normandy in everything but name, he understood the implications of his actions. Remember that the Godwin family were about as anti European as you could be, and especially anti French in particular. It was quite understandable because Edward the Confessor was influenced by his earlier life in France and was much more at home with his French court around him. To make matters worse, he was slowly introducing more of them and awarding them jobs in high office which antagonized the Godwin family who were the real power brokers in England at the time. The importance of the Godwin family during this period should not be under estimated, and had been since coming to prominence in the time of Canute. Is it surprising therefore that Harold seized the throne of England ? Would it have made any difference what Edward was alleged to have said or not said? Personally I think not. There was no way Harold was going to allow any Norman to become king of his country and if so it would be over his dead body. Unfortunately, that is the way it eventually turned out to be. We may call Harold a patriot but he probably saw it more as an erosion of his position or one which would have eventually led to his family losing power. He surely felt the situation left him with little choice. Harold's right to be king of England is discussed in another section.
 

Military expediency or lunacy?

he inevitability of it all, culminated when William set sail with five hundred to seven hundred ships of different shapes and sizes. There were ships carrying soldiers. Some carrying supplies and others carrying horses and their grooms. The question that needs to be asked and one which has caused quite some speculation over the years is whether William after landing in Hastings, burnt his ships to avoid any chance of his men deserting? If William did order the destruction of his own ships, you must attempt to justify the military reasoning behind it. What possible advantages would there have been in following this course of action? By destroying your ships you reduce the options of your own men deserting. You are able to indicate to your troops that it was a campaign that could only end in victory or death. By destroying your ships, you stop them being captured or sunk by the enemy. Not allowing the enemy to have your weapons was illustrated during the second world war when the allies requested the French destroy their fleet to stop them being captured by the Germans. The French refused so Winston Churchill ordered the British Royal Navy to sink it. This action caused a large loss of life but was considered expedient in the military sense at the time. So you see, military tactics are sometimes difficult to comprehend. We are assuming that any decision William made to destroy his ships, if this is what actually occurred, was made by him in a sane state of mind. I find it difficult to accept that William would have followed this course of action. To cut off your means of escape makes no military sense at all. Was it possible that William was of unsound mind during this period? When William secured Papal support, did he start to believe his own hype. The quest for power has been illustrated on a number of occasions this century where the leader has used illogical thought processes to achieve results which have no military expediency at all. You might say that William fits into the above category quite well. It is not my function to prove the mental state of William. It is to speculate on the reasons why anybody would follow this course of action.
 

What did William do?

ssuming William did not destroy, sink or burn his ships, what would he have used them for after disembarking? As mentioned above, it is a fool or madman who cuts off his own escape route deliberately. William could have dragged his ships ashore or anchored them. Remember what happened to Julius Caesar on his visit to Britain and how difficult it became for him after his ships were destroyed by a storm. The logistical problem of feeding a army of this size must of been some concern to William. His ships could have been used to cross the English Channel for further provisions, wind and tide permitting. I think William was surprised when landing at Hastings that there was no resistance to speak of. William's plan seems to have been to allow Harold to come to him. Did William know about Harold's exploits at Stamford Bridge? It seems doubtful because I am sure he would have taken the opportunity to march inland as soon as possible if he had of known. 
 

Foraging parties

here is one contradiction that I find difficult to understand. William managed to keep his fighting force in order for a couple of weeks in France before setting sail due to adverse conditions. This in itself must have been quite difficult. When they landed it seems they went on the rampage using the excuse of being foraging parties. The Bayeux Tapestry makes light of what really happened. It was similar to the tactics of the Vikings. Almost a scorched earth policy was adopted by the Normans. Chronicles from the area made after the battle attest to their cruelty. That William allowed this to happen to people he eventually expected to rule, seems at odds with a well trained, fed and motivated force that William would want to take on Harold. It was also important to keep his men together in the event that he was suddenly attacked.
 

Food

ood and supplies were always a problem in those days and his ships could have been his lifeline. It seems therefore, that his men became hungry as a the days passed without battle, indicating that they were not being re-supplied from across the Channel.