Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but it's been looping around in my head a few days

Simultaneously though William needs to move quickly otherwise his men will start having to travel further afield to loot and pillage until he's just sat in Pevensey lord of all he surveys, and all he surveys is a fucked to death pile of burning shit. Not to mention the dicipline problems that would crop up if you leave your men to their own devices or off out raping and pillaging.

>Why would the Normans want to destroy the land they lay claim to themselves?

Tell that to William during the Harrowing of the North.

True, but there's plenty of England besides Pevensey. And if Harold's camped out with his entire army on a hill along a road going north, William can just take his army and go pretty much anywhere else, and then Harold's either got to maneuver after him or watch his kingdom slip away from him.

Like what the other user said: it's a succession war.

You're not after objectives like "IF WE HOLD DIS PLACE WE STARVE OUT THE WHOLE COUNTRY" or "WE DESTROY THEIR ECONOMIC CAPABILITIES TO WAGE WAR" no, you're simply after the fucking cunt who supposedly stole your rightful title.

William did not petition the Pople to PLS LET ME INVADE ENGLAND TO TAKE THEIR LANDS but PLS LET ME INVADE ENGLAND TO REINSTATE MY JUST CLAIM.

>Why was there a battle at Hastings at all?

Because a bunch of frogs crossed the pond to stick baguettes up the Eternal Anglo's arse

>For the same reason they were actually doing it in the weeks leading up to Hastings.
Where are these "weeks" coming from?
taking from a few villages to feed the men is different than ravaging the countryside.
>mercenaries
no
men pressganged into service by a higher power is not akin to a "mercenary" contract.
Most of them were Norman or French, so there wouldn't have been a cultural misunderstanding...
>pay them
What were they payed with?
THE FUCKING LAND!!
It wouldn't do shit to Harold's claim.
If some asshole is burning your village and the king is out of town, do you join the asshole or the king?
We know what the Saxons did....
>fight on your terms
no, simply no.
This isn't like a game of total war.
Harold could literally just shadow Williams army as they go gallivanting around and pick the engagements with William.
Harold was pressed for time in the longterm but in the short term the longer he waited the more men he had, Harold wanted to finish it just as much as William.
Besides, picking a hill and standing over the Norman army, if the Norman army marches off, well, armies don't march in battle formation.
>sept 28
right so about 2 weeks max, that isn't a long time to ready man and horse and prep for battle.
Why wouldn't he want to establish a beachhead fallback point.
He destroyed his own ships, it was very much an all or nothing endeavor, so he did everything in England as "his".

Did you read his post?

He's obviously asking why it happened at Hastings and not somewhere less treacherous for the attacking Normans.

But again, William's actions during the war do not demonstrate that mode of thinking. He sits there and lets Harold come to him, he doesn't go chasing Harold up north.

Your objective is to attain the throne. Cool, to do that, you need to get rid of this Harold fucker. Yes, ravaging the countryside won't directly get you to that goal. You know what would be even worse? Fighting a pitched battle against him and losing. And when you fight in a pitched battle, in the exact sort of terrain that gives him a chance against you, you stand a pretty good chance of losing, and what's more, in a way that could be avoided if you fought on say, a flat open plain.

So if you're in Willie's shoes, you want to fight in the sort of terrain that gives your army the advantage, not his. Pillaging the countryside isn't a goal in and of itself (except insofar as raising money to keep your army together) Pillaging the countryside is there to force Harold to fight you on your terms, not his, where you can have an overwhelming advantage and send your cavalry around his flanks and rear instead of trying to do repeated head on attacks that very nearly failed.

>So that pillaging that William DID when he landed
Did William totally destroy everything or just a few surrounding villages of small size like Crowhurst?
>[citation seriously needed]
East Riding of Yorkshire.
The Thanes and Ealdormen got together and fought the Norse, now imagine that the whole way up to where Harold is......
William could go all over England if he wanted to, it wasn't geography, its just that the geography would've favored the Saxons at every turn and with an Army of 10,000 on a foreign island...Attrition is the type of battle you want to engage in.
>No, but I'm starting to think you are, given this was a normal part of medieval warfare.
>warfare
precisely, William isn't trying to win a war, he isn't trying to end Englands ability to make war, exactly the opposite, he is trying to prevent Harold's ability to make war (by killing him) and taking the throne.

>Tell that to William during the Harrowing of the North.
Harrying. ftfy
>The presence of the last Wessex claimant, Edgar Atheling, had encouraged Anglo-Danish rebellions that broke the Norman hold on the North. William paid the Danes to go home, but the remaining rebels refused to meet him in battle, and he decided to starve them out by laying waste to the northern shires, especially the city of York, before installing a Norman aristocracy throughout the region.

>Contemporary chronicles vividly record the savagery of the campaign, the huge scale of the destruction and the widespread famine caused by looting, burning and slaughtering. But some scholars doubt whether William could have assembled enough troops to inflict so much damage, and the records are believed to have been partly misinterpreted.

>Why would the Normans want to destroy the land they lay claim to themselves?

That sort of behavior wasn't that uncommon though. Succession wars frequently have raiding and pillaging, sometimes out of practical necessity and sometimes with a "you're with us or against us" idea to flip people to your side. If someone's rallied to your enemy's banner, his fief is fair game, and it can be a practical thing to break someone's army up by threatening the holdings of their vassals.

It was pretty clear by his behavior after the invasion that "winning the hearts and minds of the people" wasn't the highest thing on William's to-do list.

>Where are these "weeks" coming from?

From the time of the landing to the time of the battle.

>taking from a few villages to feed the men is different than ravaging the countryside.

Take it up with David Bates then.

>no

And all those men from the low countries? You know, the bulk of his infantry and missile troops?

>If some asshole is burning your village and the king is out of town, do you join the asshole or the king?

And yet quite a few people throughout history have joined that asshole. It also means that you can't look to your king for protection, since he's not, you know, protecting you.

>Harold could literally just shadow Williams army as they go gallivanting around and pick the engagements with William.

GOOD! Because then William can turn around and fight Harold. At SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN HASTINGS WHICH GAVE HAROLD A CHANCE YOU STUPID SHIT.

>Besides, picking a hill and standing over the Norman army, if the Norman army marches off, well, armies don't march in battle formation.

So? You now don't have a battle there, and probably will have it somewhere else.

>right so about 2 weeks max, that isn't a long time to ready man and horse and prep for battle.

It was enough time to build multiple fortifications. They weren't exactly preparing for imminent battle, if anything, you could argue they were planning to winter in.

>Did William totally destroy everything or just a few surrounding villages of small size like Crowhurst?

I'm not even sure the point you're trying to make here. No, he wasn't doing some Genghis Khan "KILL EVERYTHING" style invasion. But so what? He wasn't forcing a confrontation. He clearly felt that he had time to get things ready.

>William could go all over England if he wanted to, it wasn't geography, its just that the geography would've favored the Saxons at every turn and with an Army of 10,000 on a foreign island...Attrition is the type of battle you want to engage in.

So then turn it around. Why is Harold rushing down south as fast as he can to force a battle? Clearly he has some trepidition about this norman army that just showed up. You really think his kingship will endure if he lets the local lords try (and almost certainly fail) to deal with the threat on their own? Once they get a degree of military independence, Harold's kingship becomes completely impotent.

And that, of course, is banking on the possibility that there will be local resistance, and in force, which isn't guaranteed at all.

>precisely, William isn't trying to win a war, he isn't trying to end Englands ability to make war, exactly the opposite, he is trying to prevent Harold's ability to make war (by killing him) and taking the throne.

And to do that, you need to fight Harold and win. And to fight Harold and win, you want to do so in terrain that favors you, not him. If you can drag him out to more open terrain, your chances are immensely improved. This was a war; a war to win a throne, but a war nonetheless. If you don't win, you don't get a throne.

Did William burn everything he laid his hands on?yes or no?
If he didn't we cant assume that it was on his mind that scorched earth was a viable tactic.
We also cant assume that because it can be a viable tactic in wars of succession makes it a viable tactic in wars of succession.
You're question of "why" becomes irrelevant as anyone could apply to in anything in the way you're using it.
>Why didn't 'x' do 'y'?
It would be unwise for 'x' to do 'y'.
>Yea but! why?
come on.
you then cite the harrying of the north
That's not evidence which supports your case, the harrying of the North was in response to a rebellion after William had established himself as king, much different, quashing a rebellion that taking over a kingdom.
how many weeks exactly?
if its anything over two then you cant use the term "weeks". 1 week 2 weeks, or weeks.
after 2 things can be used generally, if its two or under the terms can not be used generally, its more of a common language misunderstanding than an arguable point, btw.
>David Bates
I talked to him just before he died, he warned about some asshole asking incoherent questions.
>missile and infantry
Yes, they weren't mercenaries.
They were forced into service or coerced.
If you define a mercenary as someone who fights for gain, then technically every soldier at every time was a "mercenary".
What did William pay his men with?
Burned out towns and destroyed cities?
>yet quite a few people throughout history have joined that asshole
Which means everyone would do it right?
Especially those resilient Saxons who are always itching for a fight, they would obviously go for Williams team, just like they did in the North.....
>GOOD! Because then William can turn around and fight Harold
Are you an idiot, you didn't think this through enough.
Look, if your marching your men, you're not going to want to march in battle formation, If Harold descended upon William as he was marching William would've lost.

>>Besides, picking a hill and standing over the Norman army, if the Norman army marches off, well, armies don't march in battle formation.
>So? You now don't have a battle there, and probably will have it somewhere else.
Probably going to have it as soon as Williams men are unwares and unsuspecting leading to his ruin....
Sure, they could have been planning for winter, unlikely.
Or they could have been preparing a fall back point since William saw the conquest as an all or nothing gamble.
Do you know how long it would take to ferry 10,000 men and horses across the English channel?
I doubt it happened all at once and the vanguard constructing a small fort wouldn't have been much of a surprise.
>He wasn't forcing a confrontation
You're right, might as well wait for Harold to run his men down or wait till Harold runs out of men.
Why would William force a confrontation at the expense of his own reward (the well being of England)?
>Why is Harold rushing down south as fast as he can to force a battle?
His men are going to leave and go back to their farms....
The bulk of his army, maybe 80% is made up of the Fyrd, citizen soldiers who served two month terms and their terms were almost up.
>You really think his kingship will endure if he lets the local lords try (and almost certainly fail) to deal with the threat on their own? Once they get a degree of military independence, Harold's kingship becomes completely impotent.
speculation.
If his Fyrd goes home, that's all the more men that William has to deal with in Guerrilla fighting.
His kingship most certainly wouldn't have been impotent, all he'd have to do is resist William on small fronts and his men would follow him, also remember these Saxons aren't particularly fond of the Normans.

>you want to do so in terrain that favors you, not him

Why didn't Vercingetorix engage Caesar somewhere else?
Why didn't Varus just not go into the forest?

>This was a war; a war to win a throne, but a war nonetheless.
But it wasn't the type of war in which you destroy that which you seek as your reward.....
You're essentially asking why history is the way it is, I'm telling you why and you're asking why isn't it another way, I can't do much more than list the pros and cons of what already happened.

>Yes, they weren't mercenaries.
>They were forced into service or coerced.

[citation needed]

>If you define a mercenary as someone who fights for gain, then technically every soldier at every time was a "mercenary".

I'm talking about soldiers who are expected to be paid monetarily for their services instead of doing so out of a social obligation, as was the norm for most of Harold's army.

>What did William pay his men with?

Money and goods, for the most part. One of the reasons you do in fact plunder the countryside is that all those goods that used to be in the towns and castles before they were burnt out? You can give them to your men.

>Which means everyone would do it right?

No, it means that Harold can't count upon popular resistance to stop William. He might very well see his kingship disappear before his eyes.

>Look, if your marching your men, you're not going to want to march in battle formation, If Harold descended upon William as he was marching William would've lost.

As you just said, if you're marching you're men, you're not going to want to march in battle formation. So unless Harold has some sort of magic re-organizational ability, he can't do that any more quickly and cohesively than William can. Less, in fact, if he's packing a bunch of fyrdmen. He too, will have his army in a longer, looser, marching formation when he tries to "descend upon William".

I don't know why you're so resistant to the idea that military commanders typically look for advantageous terrain.

Both Harrying and Harrowing are accepted versions.

>Probably going to have it as soon as Williams men are unwares and unsuspecting leading to his ruin....

Because William's men are all as stupid as you are and don't look around for the enemy? Why exactly would they be "unaware"?

>Sure, they could have been planning for winter, unlikely.

And this is based on what exactly? His energetic attempts to move somewhere that didn't happen?

>Or they could have been preparing a fall back point since William saw the conquest as an all or nothing gamble.

I don't think you know what an "all or nothing gamble" is, since a fallback point doesn't really help with that.

>Do you know how long it would take to ferry 10,000 men and horses across the English channel

Depends on how big your fleet is. All contemporary sources say it was either done by September 28th or 29th.

>I doubt it happened all at once and the vanguard constructing a small fort wouldn't have been much of a surprise.

So now you're just re-writing the historical evidence to fit your ideas.

>Why would William force a confrontation at the expense of his own reward (the well being of England)?

For a tactical advantage, given that the sort of terrain featured at Hastings was heavily to Harold's advantage and not to be found everywhere.

>The bulk of his army, maybe 80% is made up of the Fyrd, citizen soldiers who served two month terms and their terms were almost up.

More like a bit over half, but yes, that means that Harold can't wait forever. That means that William has everything to gain and much less to lose by waiting. Which in turn means that he had the necessary operational requirements to pick a more advantageous battlefield, but did not do so. Why not?

>If his Fyrd goes home, that's all the more men that William has to deal with in Guerrilla fighting.

Unless of course he's crowned and there is no guerilla war because the locals swear to him. Plus, from Harold's point of view, this is a bad way to "win", as he's likely to lose his throne.

>His kingship most certainly wouldn't have been impotent, all he'd have to do is resist William on small fronts and his men would follow him, also remember these Saxons aren't particularly fond of the Normans.

So once you've decentralized your army to the point where it can be an effective guerilla force, and allowed the Normans to wander the countryside more or less at will, how exactly are you planning on Harold stopping his Thanes from being essentially independent kings after the war, assuming this even works? There's a very good and very obvious reason why kings tried to keep standing armies out of the field away from their sight for the overwhelming majority of the middle ages.

>But it wasn't the type of war in which you destroy that which you seek as your reward.....

It kind of was, because until you take the crown, it isn't yours, and hedging for an advantage to help you get the crown in the first place is a very good idea. Hell, as the other anons have pointed out, you had a lot of burning and looting and killing AFTER William took the throne. It also very much helps keep your army together, which is kind of necessary.

>You're essentially asking why history is the way it is, I'm telling you why and you're asking why isn't it another way, I can't do much more than list the pros and cons of what already happened.

None of that is true. I'm asking why William didn't make what seems to be an obvious tactical move, and you're responding with things that are blatantly wrong, (Willaim's forces weren't mercenaries! He wasn't forting down!) and bizarre hypothetical that bear little resemblance to reality. (If William doesn't engage right then and there, SAXON SUPERTROOPS WILL FUCK HIS ARMY UP THE ASS WHILE THEY MARCH BECAUSE THEY'LL NEVER SEE THEM COMING! WARS TO SEIZE A CROWN AREN'T REALLY WARS! THEY WOULD NEVER DESTROY THECOUNTRYSIDE FOR THAT, LIKE IN ALL THOSE OTHER WARS FOR CROWNS THAT HAPPENED, LIKE THE HYW AND THE COUSINS WAR! )

>Both Harrying and Harrowing are accepted versions.
nope.
only harrying.
Harrying means raiding, Harrowing means distressing.
>[citation needed]
Bates "William the conqueror" mostly Brittany and Flanders.
William forced them into service.
Bates the historian, not the artist....
>I'm talking about soldiers who are expected to be paid monetarily for their services
So like, literally everyone save for a select few?
>as was the norm for most of Harold's army.
Except the ones who did most of the fighting, that being his Housecarls.

>Money and goods, for the most part.
Which is why England was all peachy because the Normans didn't rule anything because William didn't give them any land :)
By your logic William ought to have just liquidated everything and headed home after he won.

>So unless Harold has some sort of magic re-organizational ability
He does, its called homefield advantage.
he also has plenty of readytodo commanders so he can decentralize command, and move forces independent of eachother, William doesn't have the luxury of splitting his men.
>I don't know why you're so resistant to the idea that military commanders typically look for advantageous terrain.
I'm not resistant, its just only one commander can have advantageous terrain.
If we look at history there are plenty of instances where a commander had to forgo advantageous terrain, besides, most commanders didn't think much of terrain, sure it was a factor, but if you look at most battles its usually tactical and strategic prowess that wins the day rather than terrain.
William had the tactical advantage (knights) and we'll say equal if not better strategy.
No reason to waste time finding a terrain advantage, did William win or not?

>Why exactly would they be "unaware"?
Well, unless they were in battle formation for their entire march and they slept ate and drank in formation then, well you got me. If its anything else, Harolds men would've won.
Harold, like I said had homefield advantage, the Normans wouldn't have been able to get a moments rest if they didn't engage Harold right when they saw him.

>His energetic attempts to move somewhere that didn't happen?
His eagerness to engage the enemy even if on unequal terms (see terrain)

>"all or nothing gamble" is, since a fallback point doesn't really help with that.
>If I lose the main battle I can still be a thorn in Harold's side and wont lose every single man I've brought with me in one battle
I'm not sure you understand what a strategy is.
William was in it for the long haul, also the fort could've been constructed as a beachead defense, trying to protect his men as they readied themselves after getting off their craft and protecting men who were still landing.

>Depends on how big your fleet is. All contemporary sources say it was either done by September 28th or 29th.
Right, and we don't know the specifications of his fleet, probably not huge as I doubt a small vassal state could field a full navy.

>So now you're just re-writing the historical evidence to fit your ideas.
How exactly am I re-writing historical evidence?
You think its not possible they could've used the fort as a base of operations and protection against any rebellious Saxons who might think a few arrows at the men trying to disembark would be a nice greeting?
I'm just saying it makes sense they'd construct a fort, I'm claiming to have read their minds.

You mean strategic advantage.
Had he gone elsewhere he risked Harold gathering enough men before their terms were up and striking him while he was on the march or just simply while he was a number disadvantage.
William had two viable options
>wait for the Fyrd to go home (most likely in 2-3 weeks)

or
>Engage Harold as soon as he sees him to prevent further reinforcement.
Way over half and increasing by the day if not the hour....
William would have everything to gain by waiting if Harold didn't attack him.
If he waits and Harold gets more and more men Harold is just going to overwhelm them with numbers.
Numbers don't win, but they help, and there's a point where quantity itself becomes a quality (see Eastern Front for historical correlation)

>Unless of course he's crowned and there is no guerilla war because the locals swear to him
Which is why there were no Northern Rebellions right?
>So once you've decentralized your army to the point where it can be an effective guerilla force, and allowed the Normans to wander the countryside more or less at will, how exactly are you planning on Harold stopping his Thanes from being essentially independent kings after the war
This is how it was before his men were gathered.
>standing armies
In non-Feudal/non-tribal states with very centralized rule...unlike Anglo-Saxon England
Can you also provide a source for this, about kings keeping armies out of the field?

>It kind of was, because until you take the crown, it isn't yours
That's not how an all or nothing claim works.
William had no choice but to see everything as his, the only way his claim is revoked (as he saw it) was by his death.

>you had a lot of burning and looting and killing AFTER William took the throne. It also very much helps keep your army together
Citation for the latter, aside from feeding your troops, also, invaders in a hostile land, I think it was more the "kill on sight" policy of the Saxons that kept the Normans and their Auxiliaries together.
About the former, I don't think the Harrying of the North is a good example because its comparing apples to oranges, one was a rebellion with the legitimacy of the crown and one was a conquest without the legitimacy of the crown.

Again, Why should William have destroyed the countryside or pillaged it further?
It would confer no tactical or strategic advantage and would only serve to rile up a few more men to boost Harold's ranks.

>why William didn't make what seems to be an obvious tactical move
It wasn't a tactical move, it would have been a strategic move and not a very good one for the reasons listed.
>bizzare hypothetical
You're the one telling William the Conqueror how he should have conquered, I'm not saying that we can't critique history, but I am saying you're basically the pot calling the kettle black.

About the countryside I said I can see why William wouldn't have wanted to destroy it further during a march that would only be detrimental to his goals (see lack of battle advantage and destruction of reward)

The invasion, whether William consciously knew it or not was on a deadline.

1) Landing an invasion force and keeping it supplied is a huge undertaking, even for the King of Normandy. The longer he stayed the more money gets used up.

2) Important Saxon lords who i cannot recall off the top of my head had remained uncommitted with their forces. A foreign army ransaking the land indefinetely would have forced these other lords to lend forces, making the Saxon army exponentially greater. Remember, William was in a foreign land with little ability to call up additional troops quickly.

3) The King of England just force marched his army, they were tired as fuck. There is not a better opportunity to crush them then now. Better in pitched open battle than trying to siege dozens of little towns and cities.

4) He was also probably very itching for a glorious victory which a final battle would produce. That he had the pope's blessing prob did alot to stroke his confidence

A note on tactical advantages, the Normans had superior skirmish troops, just skirmish the hell out of the Saxons if they sit on the hill all day.
Besides, if they leave the hill and go down to the field the Knights will cut them to pieces.
The archers were the most salient deciding factor all things considered (Harold was shot in the eye)

I like this answer.
This is a good answer.

Long post chain incoming

>he

>Bates "William the conqueror" mostly Brittany and Flanders.

That's a name, not a citation.

>So like, literally everyone save for a select few?

You mean the Fyrd, which you previously stated were some 80% of the army?

>Except the ones who did most of the fighting, that being his Housecarls.

As part of his household, and they had their upkeep taken care of in exchange for their services. They were not paid for on a day to day basis.

>Which is why England was all peachy because the Normans didn't rule anything because William didn't give them any land :)

No, but try again and you just might make a point.

>By your logic William ought to have just liquidated everything and headed home after he won.

No, that's not my logic at all. By my logic, William plundered the countryside to have a source of funds to keep his army together that he could use to secure the throne, you retard.

>He does, its called homefield advantage.

Homefield advantage doesn't make you shift from a marching order to a battle formation any faster or slower. Try again.

>If we look at history there are plenty of instances where a commander had to forgo advantageous terrain, besides, most commanders didn't think much of terrain, sure it was a factor, but if you look at most battles its usually tactical and strategic prowess that wins the day rather than terrain.

Usually because they had some factor or factors forcing them to seek battle at the cost of maneuvering. Their army was running out of some critical supplies, the enemy advance had to be contained NOW, enemy reinforcements were on the way, etc. All the pre-battle maneuvering indiccates it was Harold, not William, trying to force a battle, which means that William could have struck for a more advantageous field, yet did not do so.

>No reason to waste time finding a terrain advantage, did William win or not?

But it was a very close run thing, in large part because he fought on terrain that minimized his biggest advantage, a clear plus for Harold.

>Well, unless they were in battle formation for their entire march and they slept ate and drank in formation then, well you got me. If its anything else, Harolds men would've won.

Missed the point once again. Harold can't follow in a battle formation. Homefield advantage has nothing to do with that. You've given no indication that Harold can switch faster than William can.

>Harold, like I said had homefield advantage, the Normans wouldn't have been able to get a moments rest if they didn't engage Harold right when they saw him.

Because Harold's men can apparently teleport, and will just be there where William's army goes ahead of them?

>His eagerness to engage the enemy even if on unequal terms (see terrain)

But he wasn't eager. He didn't move out to face Harold, he let Harold come to him.

>William was in it for the long haul, also the fort could've been constructed as a beachead defense, trying to protect his men as they readied themselves after getting off their craft and protecting men who were still landing.

Except that doesn't actually fit the timeline or the primary sources of his landing.

>Right, and we don't know the specifications of his fleet, probably not huge as I doubt a small vassal state could field a full navy.

Or the landing began before that and ended the 28th-29th.

>How exactly am I re-writing historical evidence?

>Well, the army was landed on the 28th
>But not really, and the fortifications they built over the ensuing weeks were just to ensure an orderly departure.

>You think its not possible they could've used the fort as a base of operations and protection against any rebellious Saxons who might think a few arrows at the men trying to disembark would be a nice greeting?

I think that what is possible, and what happened are two different things. I'm saying that there's no evidence that they were disembarking in stages, that the landings were opposed, that William was waiting to collect his army and needed shelter in the meantime, or that William was planning on going anywhere if not interrupted by Harold.

>You mean strategic advantage.

No, I mean a tactical advantage, because terrain and the ensuing maneuvers surrounding it on the field of a pitched battle is in fact tactics, not strategy.

>Had he gone elsewhere he risked Harold gathering enough men before their terms were up and striking him while he was on the march or just simply while he was a number disadvantage.

And had he stayed where he was, he risked Harold gathering more men before their terms were up and striking him, just like what happened! Unless you have some evidence to show that William's marching can increase Harold's recruiting, you don't actually have a point.

>Engage Harold as soon as he sees him to prevent further reinforcement.

Except he clearly doesn't do this. If he was worried about Harold gathering reinforcements, he wouldn't have waited as long as he did and hand initiative back to Harold.

>William would have everything to gain by waiting if Harold didn't attack him.

And if he does, why is he then turning around and attacking Harold like he does historically?

>Which is why there were no Northern Rebellions right?

And they didn't work out so well, did they?

>This is how it was before his men were gathered.

No, because they weren't assembled and under arms, something VERY different than if you're relying on them to constantly fight with William's forces.

>Can you also provide a source for this, about kings keeping armies out of the field?

That's the point. Harold couldn't keep an army, even a guerilla army, in the field like that. Hence, it's a non-strategy and William wouldn't have been worried about it.

>That's not how an all or nothing claim works. William had no choice but to see everything as his, the only way his claim is revoked (as he saw it) was by his death.

Is English a second language for you? That doesn't even address my point. My point is that at the start of the campaign, William has a claim but no enforcement over it. He would rather have a damaged England that he does rule than an undamaged one that he doesn't. If wrecking part of southern England enhances his chances of winning, he comes out ahead, because all the wealth of England is meaningless to him if he loses and isn't crowned.

>Citation for the latter,

Do you remember the whole "mercenary" army that needs to be paid part?

>Again, Why should William have destroyed the countryside or pillaged it further?

Because it forces Harold to fight on his terms, not Harold's. I've said this about 8 times, and I'm starting to have trouble telling if you're retarded or just a troll. It furthermore provides a short term source of funding to help pay his mercenaries.

>It wasn't a tactical move, it would have been a strategic move and not a very good one for the reasons listed.

Picking a battlefield advantageous to you is a tactical move.

>You're the one telling William the Conqueror how he should have conquered

No, I'm the one pointing out that his actions revealed no actual hurry to come to battle.

>About the countryside I said I can see why William wouldn't have wanted to destroy it further during a march that would only be detrimental to his goals (see lack of battle advantage and destruction of reward)

I'm very sorry that you have trouble grasping basic points. For the sake of completeness, I will give one last try, using short, simple terms

1) Gets immediate money. Need money to pay mercenaries

2) Forces Harold to hurry up and fight you. This good because help you pick battlefield to maximize your advantages.

>The invasion, whether William consciously knew it or not was on a deadline.

Then I feel compelled to ask why William was so leisurely about bringing Harold to battle? He didn't show much indication of moving out from Pevensey until Harold forced the issue.

>3) The King of England just force marched his army, they were tired as fuck. There is not a better opportunity to crush them then now. Better in pitched open battle than trying to siege dozens of little towns and cities.

Were they? Again, the battle was a pretty close-run thing historically, and the Saxons weren't exactly doing a lot of maneuvering. And they fought long and hard in a battle that lasted most of the day, which hardly seems characteristic of an exhausted army.

Even so, with William's overwhelming cavalry advantage, it still seems more advantageous to fight somewhere more open than where they did, even if it gives the Saxons a few days to catch their breath.

It was my understanding that the Norman skirmishing was generally ineffective, and didn't crack the shield wall at all; the arrows being fired uphill mostly either missed or did no damage.

>The archers were the most salient deciding factor all things considered (Harold was shot in the eye)

If you view Amatus of Montecassino as canon, yes. Actual contemporary recorders like William of Poiters don't actually give details on how he died, just that he did.

because the enemy's army was dead tired

>That's a name, not a citation.
"William the Conqueror" thats the name of a book you fucking dunce.
I mean that in a far more broad sense, look at today's military, almost none of them fight out of obligation all them are paid to fight.

The housecarls were paid though, thats the important part.
Payment can be more than just money....

>No, but try again and you just might make a point.
>being this fucking dense
You imbecile! I was sarcastically pointing out that William paid his men almost exclusively with property and assets rather than hoards of gold.
>a source of funds to keep his army together
What funds would a couple of poor villages give?
I doubt the attrition cost would be worth it, how much do you think an army like that costs to maintain?
Probably a whole lot more than a few villages or even a city.
It was in Williams best interest to not fuck up the land he wished to obtain and instead win the engagement as soon as he saw Harold and in doing this would take minimal losses.
Hastings was near perfectly timed for William, we also have the gift of knowing how history turned out, William won, Harold didn't.

>homefield advantage and marching orders
You do realize all Harold has to do is wait for William to march his men away and then attack.
You should also know that Harold didn't need to strategize as much since his tactical tools were limited to infantry, infantry, and more infantry.
The Saxons weren't sophisticated warfighters, the Normans however had knights, skirmishers, and infantry, all of which are much harder to coordinate when you don't intend to have a battle.
You have a rudimentary understanding of battle theory, try again.

>Usually because they had some factor or factors forcing them to seek battle at the cost of maneuvering
What forced the Romans to engage the Germanic tribes in the Teutoburg?
Why would the Romans walk into the ambush at Trasimene?
Of course Harold wanted a battle.....
But Harold could've waited, William could not afford for Harold to wait any longer to gain more men. Also, how does burning a small portion of Sussex force Harold to engage William?
I don't see why Harold couldn't have just maintained his army (peasants probably wouldn't leave the army if they wanted to fight William who was burning their homes).
You're assuming the burning of the Southern shires would have made Harold engage, keyword, assuming, you simply don't know and you don't have any indication of a probability, at least I am telling you what would be likely from a military perspective.
What about Hastings was not advantageous for William?
That hill obviously was not the deciding factor, if Harold wanted to sit on a hill all day the Normans would've been content to shoot them with arrows (you know, what happened historically).
>very close
no it wasn't, as soon as the Saxon army was cut down by the knights and Harold fell, the battle was finished.
The Saxons couldn't even bring their full force to bear and William's men would've been better man for man assuming they outnumbered Harold's housecarls and thanes (which is a fair assumption).
Why risk encirclement in a field (they would probably choose a field so they could employ their deadliest weapon, the knights)

>Harold can't follow in a battle formation
he doesn't need to hike with them......
All he has to do is wait till they leave the field at Hastings and attack while they are not in formation. Or wait till they make camp and attack (half sleeping knights are proven to be not as deadly as fully awake knights)

Harold can switch into battle formation far faster because the bulk of his men are melee infantry, if not all of them.
Harold doesn't need to employ strategy beyond telling his men to encircle, attack, defend, charge, retreat. That's the bulk of Harold's strategic and tactical tools.
You want evidence, Stamford bridge, Saxon conquest of Britain, Battle of Eddington.
The Saxons main tactics consisted of the shield wall, mass charge, and Boar snout. Not much else, while William (in order to win, presumptuously) would have needed to employ all of his men to their best abilities, this means you cant have the archers in front, infantry behind, and knights in the rear, his forces would need to be organized to be employed properly thus it was in his best interest to maintain a battle ready stance for the battle obviously and engage Harold as soon as he saw him in order keep his troops at maximum fighting capacity.
Keep in mind for the Normans, their knights were their greatest strength, knights need to be supported, this requires strategy and formation, the Saxons don't have this problem as their army is made up entirely (at least ALL of the killing power [Housecarls, Thanes and Fyrd] of infantry.
The Saxon force is at maximum effectiveness when it is told to just attack.
That is why Harold has the advantage if William is on the march or doing anything else.

>Harold's men can apparently teleport
Might as well call it that since they could outpace the Normans in their own homecountry, not to mention the hyper readiness of an all infantry army compared to a more diverse force....

>But he wasn't eager. He didn't move out to face Harold, he let Harold come to him.
Which is why he engaged Harold on unequal terms right?
idiot...
I'm sorry, you're just so unthinking.
How does William engaging Harold while Harold is on a hill give you the impression William is not looking for a fight?
William could've marched away, would've been a bad decision but he could have if he didn't want the fight.

>Except that doesn't actually fit the timeline or the primary sources of his landing.
It actually fits it perfectly, if you see a problem then explain it beyond "its just wrong".
Show me the discrepancies and I'll tell you where you're wrong.

>Or the landing began before that and ended the 28th-29th.
Which doesn't do much in the way of you explaining yourself.
I can't read minds, explain how this supports your case, in fact, give a timeline if your so inclined.
Do the sources say when the landing ended or when it happened?
To ensure a safe departure, I was speculating and freely state so, I don't know with certainty why the Normans built the fort, the best explanation is they were looking to the defense of their landing.
I don't see what you're getting at with this.

>No, I mean a tactical advantage
No you don't.
Strategy is placement and timing....
tactics would be formation, fighting style, etc.
You're talking terrain which falls under placement, you do in fact mean strategy.

>Unless you have some evidence to show that William's marching can increase Harold's recruiting
First off he's not recruiting, Harold is marshaling.
Just how far fetched do you think it is that when the Saxons see people coming around burning their villages and taking their assets they are going to want to join with the King's men and fight?
as put it in point 2, there were other Saxons who remained uncommitted, I'd imagine that the continued burning of lands and the readiness of an already existing army to join or support would've convinced them to join the war effort.
You ask for a lot of evidence in this theoretical discussion.... yet you yourself provide so little.

>Except he clearly doesn't do this
Which is why he engaged him on the hill right?
He clearly did engage Harold when the opportunity presented itself.
You sound like your saying two different things, at one time you say William should've waited and then another time you say William was waiting too long.
Come on

>And if he does, why is he then turning around and attacking Harold like he does historically?
He couldn't have imagined that Harold would just sit there and let him do whatever, it was simply a risk he wasn't willing to take, as he didn't take it.

>And they didn't work out so well, did they?
that doesn't negate the point, if you're waging a campaign against a King defending his country you're not going to want to rile up even more support for the King by making yourself look bad.
Even if every rebellion against William that would have occurred in the south was totally crushed it still wouldn't have helped him, it would have only been a net loss.

>No, because they weren't assembled and under arms, something VERY different than if you're relying on them to constantly fight with William's forces.
What point are you trying to make here?
That Harold would have trouble keeping his men together? Having one's country invaded does wonders for the nationalism.

>That's the point. Harold couldn't keep an army, even a guerilla army, in the field like that. Hence, it's a non-strategy and William wouldn't have been worried about it.
You do realize the soldiers don't just become citizens again?
They still have to serve their local lords, they only owe limited time to the king.
William would've faced death by a thousand pin pricks, of course he could've just tried to legitimize his claim on the throne and kill Harold at the capital on in the field or something, but that would require him to have in the least a decent standing with the people and lords, so no burning.

yes I see the point you're making but do you not see the clear advantage in risking or running the gambit in order to win a more wholesome reward?
I mean, I'm not saying he wouldn't burn a few fields and villages but he wouldn't have wanted to ravage the Southcountry.

>rather have a damaged England than no England
Sure, but most military leaders confident in their men don't think like children with an "If I can't have it no one can" attitude.
There's also no evidence that it would have increased his chances of victory, your salient point (your only point if were honest) was that it would force an engagement, even if Harold is forced into an engagement I would argue (as I have) that Harold would have had a much greater advantage as time went on and William damaged Sussex.

>Do you remember the whole "mercenary" army that needs to be paid part?
Simplest answer
What where they paid with historically?

>it forces Harold to fight
[Citation needed] if anything Harold (assuming he chose the best option) would have just drummed up more support from increasingly angry Saxons.
Why would William need to pay his "mercenaries" no rather than later?
You seem to think this is an issue, why?
Just because they are mercenaries they need to be paid the next day?
You do realize they weren't even paid right after Harold was defeated, they weren't paid till William sat on the throne.

>Picking a battlefield advantageous to you is a tactical move.
Are you an idiot or a troll.....
Its a strategy, not a tactic.
I already stated why.
A strategy is placement and timing.
A tactic is formation, fighting style, equipment, etc. sitting on a hill is nearly the definition of strategy, its placement.
>his actions reveal no hurry to come to battle
You say this, yet William still engaged Harold on the will when he could have just avoided the engagement.
If Harold was content to wait for William on the hill as the OP was inquiring about, why didn't William just walk away?

>gets money
He doesn't need to pay his men in that instant, there is no indication he needed or wanted to.
They were paid after the conquest.
>forces Harold to fight
[Citation needed] I'm not actually looking for a source for this by the way, I just want an explanation for how it would force Harold to fight.
Harold's army was running off of motivation more than obligation, this doesn't mean that his men would maintain high morale forever but it does mean that drumming up support or keeping the Fyrd maintained isn't going to be a tough task if William gives them a reason to stay and fight.

>why William was so leisurely about bringing Harold to battle
So the Saxons would have to come to him instead of him coming to them.
>he didn't show much indication
explain.

>hardly Eucharistic of an exhausted army
this explains a lot.
You're one of those people who thinks that knowing and experiencing are similar.
You need to experience true fumos, true spirit.
Historically, landowing freemen farmers have always been the most motivated soldiers.
Do you think Navy Seals get tired?
I think so, but I think their motivation being much greater gives them greater capacity to do great things.
Apply the same to the Saxons, motivation is high, very high, they just came from a victory against the fierce Norse (keep in mind the sting of Viking invasions was still fresh in their minds, and they just smoked the greatest Viking invasion in an afternoon) and now they go to fight William after running the country...twice.

>it still seems more advantageous to fight somewhere more open than where they did, even if it gives the Saxons a few days to catch their breath.
Saxons would've encircled the Normans due to superior numbers.
But lets assume the numbers are the same.
The Normans, even with their cavalry face a hard fight against a highly motivated now veteran army fighting for their way of life. As long as Harold is alive retreat isn't an option.
At Hastings it was only after Harold died the men broke and fled, even losing a large portion of their army they continued to fight.
The Normans would've lost a large amount of soldiers in the ensuing fight and might have been able to clinch it out assuming they had even numbers, do to their knights and skirmish troops, I don't doubt they'd win, I'm just saying it would be more likely a Pyrrhic victory than a complete domination of the Saxons.
Also the victory is only complete if Harold lives, imagine the fighting breaks and the Normans and Saxons fall back from the field to their respective camps.

If Harold lives and the Saxons and Normans both lose a lot of men then Harold has the advantage, he can actively gain more troops and fresh ones at that.
William can only lose men.
Also the Saxons can send the wounded home, William's force would have to deal with all the wounded, a wounded soldier is worse than a dead soldier (logistically).

>Norman skirmishing was generally ineffective, and didn't crack the shield wall at all; the arrows being fired uphill mostly either missed or did no damage.

>king shot in the eye
>men flee
>skirmishing ineffective
>pic related

>how he died
Bayeux Tapestry.
The accepted story is that he was shot in the eye, at best you can argue for ignorance and say "well we don't really know" but then, I mean, that would shred the purpose of you arguing a hypothetical scenario....

Because Angle-Land was still more or less a loose collective, possessing no real military experiences outside of small skirmishes.

The Normans had the advantage of skill and unity.

With Harold dead, William would have full claim on the throne. Taking out Harold was the primary objective.

>The housecarls were paid though, thats the important part.
>Payment can be more than just money....

No, actually that's not the important point, but thanks for trying.

>You imbecile! I was sarcastically pointing out that William paid his men almost exclusively with property and assets rather than hoards of gold.

Except he didn't, as he only granted land to about 2,000 of his retianers, and he had somewhere between 5 and 6 times that, hence most of them got property, not land.

>What funds would a couple of poor villages give?
>I doubt the attrition cost would be worth it, how much do you think an army like that costs to maintain?

Gee, that's why it never happened in the Hundred years war, or the war of the roses, or the Moorish-Castillian wars, or the campaigns of the Mongols, oh wait, that's not what happened at all.

>You do realize all Harold has to do is wait for William to march his men away and then attack.

You do realize that's wrong, right? That assuming William isn't completely retarded, he can do a little something called "Retire in good order" , keep his cavalry together and back up slowly with his foot troops, and only return to marching order when they're several miles away from the Saxons, right?

Part 1 of ?

>You should also know that Harold didn't need to strategize as much since his tactical tools were limited to infantry, infantry, and more infantry.

That's operational level, not strategy. Furthermore, keeping your army in order has nothing to do with it. If he's marching, and he's looking for the Normans, he needs to figure out how to properly funnel his troops over the avialable transportation network. That probably means marching in columns, and long deep columns don't fight so good; so he needs some level of advance warning so he can spread them back out into a broader, shallower group when it's time to engage. To get that kind of warning, he needs some kind of scouting force, which is going to be difficult, since as you mention, William has cavalry and he doesn't, which means that his scouts have to travel in large enough groups to protect themselves from William's own scouts who can engage or not as they see fit because of their greater mobility. That in turn cuts down on the number of groups he can send, which cuts down on his awareness of the situation, and thus his ability to react.

>You have a rudimentary understanding of battle theory, try again.

Yes, and that rudimentary grasp far exceeds yours, it seems.

>What forced the Romans to engage the Germanic tribes in the Teutoburg?

He was attempting to put down what he thought was a revolt/action against local German client tribes. If you don't move, they get squished by their hostile neighbors

>Why would the Romans walk into the ambush at Trasimene?

Because Hannibal had maneuvered around them and was marching on Apulia, which would be very bad to lose.

>But Harold could've waited, William could not afford for Harold to wait any longer to gain more men.

Except, as we know, Harold DIDN'T wait, and he also didn't gather up more men. He was in fact at risk of losing the men he had gathered up.

2/?

>Also, how does burning a small portion of Sussex force Harold to engage William?

Because William isn't retarded like you seem to think. If Harold doesn't stop him, he doesn't just burn a small portion of Sussex. He burns where and when he pleases. Or he goes to London and crowns himself king.

>I don't see why Harold couldn't have just maintained his army (peasants probably wouldn't leave the army if they wanted to fight William who was burning their homes).

The army that swears loyalty to him out of a notion that he'd protect them and their homes? The one that he's not doing? You ever hear of a guy named Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator? And he got in enough hot water politically from a far more stable economic and social background for sitting back and allowing that kind of pillage. Harold can't afford that, his thanes would almost certainly start to drift away, at the very least form independent polities that would protect themselves since the king wouldn't. That's the risk, not that people would go off and join William.

>What about Hastings was not advantageous for William?

The hill? The woods on the sides that prevented flanking attacks? The inability to attack from any direction except the front which negates your mobility?

>That hill obviously was not the deciding factor, if Harold wanted to sit on a hill all day the Normans would've been content to shoot them with arrows (you know, what happened historically).

And did little historically, the battle not being decided until they fought hand to hand repeatedly, and got mashed quite a bit.

>no it wasn't, as soon as the Saxon army was cut down by the knights and Harold fell, the battle was finished.

After almost falling apart because the Bretons tried to leave the field after 2 or 3 failed assaults and a rumor that William had been killed. That's not close enough for you?

3/?

>The Saxons couldn't even bring their full force to bear and William's men would've been better man for man assuming they outnumbered Harold's housecarls and thanes (which is a fair assumption).

You even note yourself in the next line that an open field would he hugely advantageous to William, it's a small enough thing to give up.

>Why risk encirclement in a field (they would probably choose a field so they could employ their deadliest weapon, the knights)

Because how many steep hills with cover on both sides do you think there are? And if he has to fight somewhere else, he might not get such a good place to make a stand from.

>All he has to do is wait till they leave the field at Hastings and attack while they are not in formation. Or wait till they make camp and attack (half sleeping knights are proven to be not as deadly as fully awake knights)

And if they retreat in stages, backing up a few hundred yards at a time and staying in formation? And only return to marching order once the Saxons are several miles behind them? Or do you intend to follow the Normans out onto the plain which is what got the fyrd mashed up in the first place?

>Harold can switch into battle formation far faster because the bulk of his men are melee infantry, if not all of them.

That has nothing to do with it. The foremost difference between a marching formation and a battle formation is facing; a broad shallow grouping vs a short deep one, and general dispersal, marching formations are almost always looser than a battle formation. Force composition wouldn't have much to do with it.

4/?

>Harold doesn't need to employ strategy beyond telling his men to encircle, attack, defend, charge, retreat. That's the bulk of Harold's strategic and tactical tools.

Actually, he does. He needs to keep a general idea of where the Normans are. He needs to keep his army fed and supplied. He needs to keep in touch with the rest of his kingdom to make sure nothing else disastrous is happening. He needs to send out foraging and scouting parties to do both of the above. He needs to calculate how much force to send these parties in, a difficult task indeed given the Norman cavalry advantage and their superior tactical and operational mobility that affords them. He needs to care for anyone who has gotten sick and or wounded along the way. He needs to make sure that there's enough fuel in his camp to keep cooking fires going, and arrange to have enough carts to move around his supplies. None of this happens on its own.

>The Saxons main tactics consisted of the shield wall, mass charge, and Boar snout

But he has to follow an army of unknown exact size, composition, and immediate objective. This entails more than deciding which battle formation to use when he engages.

>That is why Harold has the advantage if William is on the march or doing anything else.

No, it isn't. If they're both on the march, the advantage tends to William, who has more horsemen, and thus a greater advantage when it comes to reconnaissance as well as skirmishing.

>Might as well call it that since they could outpace the Normans in their own homecountry,

What? No, actually, being in their home country doesn't make them walk or drag carts any faster.

> not to mention the hyper readiness of an all infantry army compared to a more diverse force....

No, not really, because getting ready for battle is more than just shouting "Chareg" and getting your men in some RTW setup.

>Which is why he engaged Harold on unequal terms right?

Which makes no sense and is the entire point of the OP.

5/?

>How does William engaging Harold while Harold is on a hill give you the impression William is not looking for a fight?

Because if he was looking for a fight, why doesn't he LOOK FOR A FIGHT instead of sitting in Pevensey? After all, he was looking for a fight, right?

> It actually fits it perfectly, if you see a problem then explain it beyond "its just wrong".

No, you'll claim that despite the primary sources claiming William landed his army on September 28th or 29th, they didn't really mean that, and they were all dribbling in and he wasn't ready until some unspecified time later, as you've said upthread. >I can't read minds, explain how this supports your case, in fact, give a timeline if your so inclined.

You apparently can't read English either.

Timeline

>September 28th-29th, William's forces land in Pevensey
>Unspecified time between that and October 14th, he builds a "grand wooden castle", several outlying forts, and is running around pillaging the countryside (which you claim doesn't happen, because you know better than William of Poiters)
>Evening of October 13th, Harold camps at Caldbec Hill, about 8 miles from William's position
>Morning of October 14th, William advances (possibly after an excahnge of emissaries that gets nowhere), and battle begins.

If William was really eager to engage and have this over with quickly, why build a fortification at Pevensey and not just move up north to have this battle already?

>Do the sources say when the landing ended or when it happened?

No, they simply say it happened, and give all appearances that it was all finished in a day or so.

>To ensure a safe departure, I was speculating and freely state so, I don't know with certainty why the Normans built the fort, the best explanation is they were looking to the defense of their landing.

Yes, because a castle about 12 miles from the landing site is going to do anything to protect your people disembarking.

6/?

>Strategy is placement and timing....

No, it isn't. au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/strategy/13lykke.pdf

Or, in simpler terms than the jargon they use on their first few pages; strategy is the plan in which you use your resources (in this case military ones) to achieve your objectives.

William's objective: To prosecute his claim as king of England.

Means of doing so: Defeat all rival claimants.

Way of obtaining that mean: Fight and win a pitched battle against all surviving rival claimants.

The strategy is on the far broader level of "Land in england, fight and win". That's it. Everything below that is either operations or tactics. Putting your army in a good formation is not strategy.

>You're talking terrain which falls under placement, you do in fact mean strategy.

No, I don't. The modern U.S. army would not use such a dfeinition and neither do I.

>First off he's not recruiting, Harold is marshaling.

He is adding people who were not in his army to his army.

>Just how far fetched do you think it is that when the Saxons see people coming around burning their villages and taking their assets they are going to want to join with the King's men and fight?

Given that he had already called up the fyrd, I would say that most of the people able and willing to fight are already doing so.

>put it in point 2, there were other Saxons who remained uncommitted, I'd imagine that the continued burning of lands and the readiness of an already existing army to join or support would've convinced them to join the war effort.

Or, if Harold does nothing, they split away and form their own community, perhaps buying William off since it's clear their own king isn't actually protecting them.

7/?

>You sound like your saying two different things, at one time you say William should've waited and then another time you say William was waiting too long.

I'm saying that his attack on Sunday October 14th 1066 isn't characteristic of his actions the previous two weeks, but of course, figuring that out would require the reading comprehension of a 9 year old.

>He couldn't have imagined that Harold would just sit there and let him do whatever, it was simply a risk he wasn't willing to take, as he didn't take it.

So, you mean Harold would have followed him? Tried to stop him? Leave his very well defended position? That's good for William.

>that doesn't negate the point, if you're waging a campaign against a King defending his country you're not going to want to rile up even more support for the King by making yourself look bad.

Ok, game theory time here. I'll make this simple. You have two players in this game, Harold and William. They both want to be King of England, and there's only room on the throne for one. So you have a zero sum game in that respect, one needs to kill the other.

However, their positions are not equal. Harold is sitting on the throne currently. William is not. Harold has more to lose. If Harold allows William to wander around and destroy the countryside while not stopping it, his authority erodes enormously, so much so that he'll probably lose his ability to govern even if he does get rid of William. Willaim knows (or should know) this. Therefore, he can use the fact that Harold can't afford to let him destroy the countryside, EVEN IF DOING SO BRINGS NO DIRECT BENEFIT TO WILLIAM, to force Harold to engage on terms that are advantageous to WIlliam.

8/?

>What point are you trying to make here?"
That a feudal monarch (and despite the nomenclature difference, Saxon England was still pretty feudal, with a layered level of responsibility for governance that extended from kings to landowners) cannot allow his vassals/thanes to get too independent, otherwise they stop doing things like paying taxes and showing up for military service. And if he disbands his army and tries to have some sort of decentralized guerilla struggle against William, he won't be able to mange it all, which dangerously empowers his nobles.

>They still have to serve their local lords, they only owe limited time to the king.

And the king doesn't want them serving their local lords, not in the field, not liek that, because it increases the power of said lords vis a vis the king.

>William would've faced death by a thousand pin pricks, of course he could've just tried to legitimize his claim on the throne and kill Harold at the capital on in the field or something, but that would require him to have in the least a decent standing with the people and lords, so no burning.

Henry the sixth could have tried to legitimize his claim to the French throne, which is why his forces didn't burn the Loire and Auvernge and Guyenne and anywhere else they could get their hands on. Chevuchees were just mass hallucinations.

>yes I see the point you're making but do you not see the clear advantage in risking or running the gambit in order to win a more wholesome reward?

I see a bird in the hand being worth more than two in the bush. And if it forces Harold to fight me on my terms, that's all I need.

9/?

>There's also no evidence that it would have increased his chances of victory, your salient point (your only point if were honest) was that it would force an engagement, even if Harold is forced into an engagement I would argue (as I have) that Harold would have had a much greater advantage as time went on and William damaged Sussex.

Then as a corollary to your point, you must think that Harold is an idiot because he could have stopped and waited and gathered up a force big enough to deal with William.. I'm aware of no credible historians who argue such.

>What where they paid with historically?

Mostly goods, not land.

>[Citation needed] if anything Harold (assuming he chose the best option) would have just drummed up more support from increasingly angry Saxons.

He's the KING. He can drum up support (and has done so) without the need for proving William's provocativeness.

>Why would William need to pay his "mercenaries" no rather than later?

Because mercenaries that aren't paid stop working for you.

>You seem to think this is an issue, why?

Because I have enough neurons to form a synapse.

>You do realize they weren't even paid right after Harold was defeated, they weren't paid till William sat on the throne.

I realize that William's army was more than just his cavalry who got land grants.

>Its a strategy, not a tactic.

web.archive.org/web/20050211105150/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/05251.html

>The level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives. See also operational level of war; strategic level of war.

OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

10/12

>If Harold was content to wait for William on the hill as the OP was inquiring about, why didn't William just walk away?

That is precisely the point of the thread you daft jackass.

>I'm not actually looking for a source for this by the way, I just want an explanation for how it would force Harold to fight

Because Harold's authority as king can't survive William plundering and burning at will. When has a Fabian leader EVER been popular with the people who lost relatives and livelihoods to the strategy?

>So the Saxons would have to come to him instead of him coming to them.

But according to you, the Saxons don't have to come to him? And why should they? Again, Harold's got the superior strategic position, he's got the throne and crown, not William.

>explain.

I mean the fact that his castle near hastings was about 12 miles from his initial landing site in Pevensey, and I can walk that in an afternoon.

>Do you think Navy Seals get tired?

I think that if navy seals force marched for weeks and then had to fight a hand to hand struggle for about 8-9 hours, yes, they would get tired.

11/12

>Saxons would've encircled the Normans due to superior numbers.

Yeah, like the Aztecs at Ovambo! The Romans at Cannae! Mobility> Numbers when you're talking about envelopments in the open.

>At Hastings it was only after Harold died the men broke and fled, even losing a large portion of their army they continued to fight.

At Hastings they were attacked repeatedly, and got the morale boost of seeing off previous waves. They always saw their enemy coming, and could often get the first blow in by throwing some missile weapons at the oncoming infantry or cavalry. That's way different from trying to do a shieldwall push at an opposing formation doing something similar when suddenly your entire formation falls apart because a thousand horsemen are crashing into your rear.
>Bayeux Tapestry.

Actually shows both him with an arrow in the eye and a sword cutting off his legs, and neither one depicting which is the fatal blow. The contemporary accounts of the battle do not mention a cause of death. The "accepted story" is based on an account that dates to decades later.

VERY tl;dr. You misuse terms of art. You have a poor grasp of military strategy as well as the underlying political realities of the middle ages. I will no longer be responding to you, as I'm already going to have to chop this into a dozen posts, and quite honestly, cleaning up the textual equivalent of your vomit isn't worth it.

A la fin.