The Battle of Hastings

What went wrong?

Attached: williamtheconquerortrans.jpg (1112x774, 280.67K)

The bongs chased after frogs when they fell back instead of holding their high ground.

accidentally ran down the hill

Attached: Dwfxf1EUYAAKioC.jpg (750x738, 42.16K)

A large part of the problem was the force sent to beat Hardrada at Stamford bridge. Splitting your forces rarely ends well, and with the general casualty figures you saw in battle at the time that army would likely still have been at 90-95% strength after that battle. If those men could have been redeployed to Hastings faster than would have been possible at the time then the battle of Hastings would likely have gone the other way.

You have to hand it to William the Bastard, his plan to use the Norwegians as disposable distractions worked perfectly. If the English hadn't broke ranks and chased the retreating Normie forces as suggested in then their odds would improve, but not nearly as much as if they had started with an extra ~ 10'000 infantry and 5000 cavalry.

The battle of Stamford Bridge did give us the tale of the last Bezerker though, which is both wonderfully romantic, metal, and a wonderful early example of English lateral thinking/perfidy.

Attached: Vikings were kinda metal.jpg (900x314, 63.99K)

The professional army (read: badly supplied serf conscripts led by noblemen with no commanding expertise) of Bongland that was accustomed to war only as a formality, where battles are expected to end in rout, weren't prepared for real open field fighting and strategy as exhibited by the experienced Norman infantry. Normandy wasn't looking for a political or territorial dispute, they were there for land and resources. There wasn't much competition.

Godwinson should have waited longer before attacking the Normans. He would have been able to let his men rest from the march from Stamford and recruit more men.
However Willy was a smart frog and started burning villages in the south; he knew that any good would have to rush B down to fight him instantly. William was fighting against time with limited supplies and had to ensure a fast victory.
Anyways Hardrada would have made a much better king than William and may have delayed the inevitable end of the Viking era for another century or so. However William did end up becoming a great ancestor for almost all European royals.

Attached: 1521295313473.jpg (1190x1173, 195.89K)

Reported for spamming.

They had to fight a standing ground battle without:
-Someone else doing most of the fighting.
-Deceit.
-Treachery.
-Some crazy technological advancement or numerical advantage.

It was just a battle between similar forces, the kind Britain has consistently lost throughout history and learned to avoid like plague.

Actually, Haroldson got the terrain advantage, but he got baited to break formation and chase enemy, and thus got run down by cavalry.

Hastings is a classic example of tactical retreat.

Yes, but at what cost? He literally introduced a certain demographic of this world to England, and with what an influence the soon-to-be empire would have on the world, it basically set course for the state of things today.