Helen Hollick's Website : Weekend Wandering

(posted early as I'm away for the weekend)

Hello! Beginning a series of interesting articles usually by interesting authors but sometimes by me...

Today: Why did Harold II, King of England, stand the fyrd (the army) down in August 1066? by Helen Hollick

(temporary logo)

I hope to invite guests to contribute articles about the

past, present or future - and a few other topics

- meanwhile here's a recycled article of mine.

I've no idea how the recent TV drama King And Conqueror dealt with this subject as the entire thing was such inaccurate drivel I stopped watching it very early on to save me putting a brick through my TV screen... what follows IS speculation, but plausible, logical speculation. (Unlike K&C)

Why did Harold II, King of England, stand the fyrd (the army) down in August 1066? Thus allowing William to march into England unopposed in late September? It's a question often asked, with the conclusion that Harold grossly misjudged the situation (and therefore implying that he made an error and was, therefore, to blame for the subsequent defeat.) Hindsight is a wonderful thing - Harold, as it happened, did make an error of judgement BUT I think he did so for a very good, valid, reason. His only mistake was underestimating William's obsessive determination.

When King Edward died in January 1066 Harold Godwinesson was crowned king - elected by the English Witan as the only man suitable for the job. (Anyone who disagrees: that's another debate, for another day!)

Harold was expecting William to come - let's face it, he had his spies and word would have got back to him that Duke William of Normandy was building a fleet, assembling an army and was preparing to invade. All summer Harold had the men of the Southern Fyrd (Wessex, Kent, Hampshire etc) on stand-by along the south coast of England, keeping alert for any sails appearing on the horizon across the English Channel. But in August, Harold sent the men home.

Why?

The argument of 'it was harvest' is not acceptable. The women and children left at home were perfectly capable of getting the harvest in while the men-folk were away. Contrary to popular (Victorian) belief, war did not stop because of the harvest - to use that thinking, war should also stop in spring because of the sowing / lambing / calving; in autumn because of the autumn slaughter - which leaves winter when fighting was not a good idea because of the cold, wet, dark, mud, snow. Although fighting in winter did also occur.

Harold was not stupid. he was an extremely capable and experienced commander (which is why he was crowned King, of course).

The only logical reason 'why' would be because he was certain William would not be coming that year.

I do not have evidence, just logic, intuition, and probing what was not said in various primary Norman sources.

Dives Sur Mer, Normandy

William built his fleet at Dives sur Mer - we know he sailed earlier than September (end of July, early August?). The next we hear, he is at St Valery, a lot further up the coast, some of his ships are wrecked and several of his men have died. He then hushes this up and commandeers other ships to replace those that were lost. The Norman version is that while moving to St Valery he met a storm which destroyed his fleet.

So if it was just a storm why try to hide and cover up the facts?

Many of his men were Viking descended and fishermen, therefore, experienced sailors. They'd know full well the dangers of storms, and not be overly bothered by them - not enough for the need to hide the bad news of a couple of lost ships and a few men.

Now, consider the fact that England had a powerful and effective navy and plenty of ships. You can see the fleet as 'ghost' ships in the border of the Bayeux Tapestry in the Westminster scene where Halley's Comet is depicted. Given the time of year, it is probable that this scene depicts the keels hauled up onto the land to overwinter; i.e. not made ready for sailing - an indication of the season and that Harold had not sent the fleet out yet. Or it could indicate the coming of William's fleet. Or the destruction of his fleet. Or anything else that we don't know about.

'ghost' ships in the bottom border

Given we had an effective and very efficient fleet - is it not absurd that Harold would not have ordered a blockade of the Channel? His predecessors - Aethelred, Cnut (and Edward) used blockade tactics very successfully. Harold's grandfather and father were heavily involved with the English Fleet (the scyp fyrd) Indeed the Godwinesson's main manor house was intended as a deterrent against any ship-borne invasion. Bosham is on the coast near Chichester, in Harold's time it was a busy harbour. Earl Godwine had the church tower specifically built as a watch tower for invading Vikings - not as a church tower.

Bosham Church
and harbour

It is inconceivable that Harold had not used his knowledge of the sea and shipping and available forces to best advantage. It therefore does not take much logic to work out that William met the English Fleet head-on mid-channel and was turned back with heavy losses of men and ships. That fact, Duke William would want to keep quiet!

If Harold had already defeated William - does this not explain why he assumed his rival would not be coming that summer, and therefore stood his men down?

This was a mistake on Harold's part, an understandable one, although it later cost him his life. He underestimated William's determination. Maybe he received exaggerated information? Perhaps he was told that most of William's fleet had been destroyed, whereas maybe most of the ships were only damaged? Whatever the truth, all credit to Duke William for he re-rallied and tried again - unexpectedly - in September.

I also wonder - just throwing this in here - as Harold assumed that William would not be coming until 1067, was this why he went north to Stamford Bridge to face his brother Tostig and the invading Hardrada and his men? It's just a thought: if Harold had suspected that William would try again so soon, would he have stayed in the south and sent his brothers north in his stead? As it was, he thought the South was safe.

The Normans made no mention of a first (failed) attack and defeat by a blockade of English ships but this does not indicate that it didn't happen.

In fact, I think the 'no mention' proves the opposite!

And as final 'evidence', one of the first men Duke William had arrested and imprisoned was the Commander of the Fleet - Eadric the Steersman (who later fled to Scandinavian exile). I wonder why William was so cross with this guy?

e-book buy on Amazon

I included such a sea battle in my novel Harold The King (UK title) / I Am The Chosen King (US title) and I altered the scene slightly for an alternative story to be included in an anthology of 1066 stories by various authors 1066 Turned Upside Down. Except of course, as far as I'm concerned this story is not an 'alternative' but a 'strong possibility!'