October 14th, 1066.

A seminal day in the history of Western civilization, 944 years ago this day. At one time, a date whose events were known to every school boy and girl who spoke English or French.

On that bright October Morning, England rushed to bring to bear all of her military power to defeat massive forces from across the water whose had come in the name of their God in a Holy War for the conquest and subjugation of the Island Nation.

King Harold Godwinson’s predecessor on England’s throne, Edward the Confessor, had disdained building a large number of warships, dismantling the significant force that had been built and maintained since the reign of King Canute. England remained powerless to stop the invaders, Viking or Norman, from reaching her shores.

England’s armies had to be cobbled together and rushed to the shores of England twice in the Autumn of 1066, including this October day. Three weeks earlier, in late-September, England’s housecarls had fought and defeated another strong invasion in the north. After they had originally been called to service of the King, Harold Godwinson’s Englishmen had been encamped along the southeastern coast, awaiting the ships that were expected to bear the armies of Duke William of Normandy.

But after a Viking landing near York, and after the English under Earl Morcar were defeated in a bloody battle at Fulford, King Harold Godwinson was forced to rush his army north to face the Nordic invasion by Harald Hardraade, who had claims to the English throne. At Stamford Bridge, on the 25th of September 1066, Harold Godwinson’s armies defeated those of the Viking Hardraade, whose ranks included Godwinson’s brother, Tostig. However, two days after the seemingly momentous English victory, Duke William (“William the Bastard”) found favorable winds and put to sea from the Norman coast.

Two days later, William’s army was ashore, and had occupied Hastings. Godwinson, hurriedly re-assembling his army to meet William, arrived to repel the invader.

On October 14th, 1066, the two armies, the Englishmen under King Harold Godwinson, and the Norman invaders under William, clashed on the fields before Hastings. The accounts of the battle are myriad in Medieval European literature. The tide of combat ebbed and flowed throughout the day, until an ill-advised advance by a portion of the English line and the Norman arrows and heavy cavalry took their decisive toll. As the sun was beginning to drop in the western sky, the fighting came to an end. The final result of the Battle of Hastings was a catastrophic defeat of the English at the hands of Duke William, and the death of the English King.

William became known to history as “William the Conqueror”. He was crowned King of England on Christmas Day, 1066, in Westminster Abbey. His rule, until his death in 1087, altered England forever. The events of leading up to, during, and after the epic battle are captured on the magnificent Bayeux Tapestry.

Like its King Harold, Anglo-Saxon England was dead. Killed by a Norman invader from across the Channel, for lack of a navy to defend its shores. A Norman invader who came across the sea in the hulls of ships capable of projecting power into the very heart of its enemy.

We would do well to remember, as the Royal Navy is facing near-extinction, and our own Navy’s ability to project meaningful power across the world’s oceans shrinks, the hard lessons that put the bones under the grass of that meadow on England’s southern coast. What is written on the tapestry of the Twenty-First Century is in the balance.




Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Coast Guard, Foreign Policy, History, Homeland Security, Marine Corps, Maritime Security, Navy, Uncategorized


You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Derrick

    A great post and good reminder of a lesson learnt from someone else’s history/grief. You should post one of these articles every month.

    I think since the current generation in the workforce was born after World War 2, we forget how dangerous it is to ship supplies overseas without proper convoy protection. Of course we never experience these problems because the politicians of the 40s through 60s remembered this in their budget plans for the US Navy.

    People forget that it was the US Navy’s absolute supremacy of the oceans that allows the US to ship the forces and supplies necessary to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, and eventually Iraq, as well as maintain 2 long term military operations overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I guess we could try flying all our troops, tanks and supplies, but I think the cost of the cargo planes plus the jet fighter escorts to protect them would be astronomical.

  • Mitch Rogers

    Without a modern effective Naval presence we are a mere shadow on the world stage.

  • http://www.art-museum-guide.com art-museum

    Interesting post and good historical background on the importance of a Naval presence. With the use of modern, precision guided weapons, we (Americans) tend to forget what an important role the Navy plays in war.

  • Daniel Mcgrath

    Hi,

    I agree with the gist of the article. The confessor did indeed gut the Navy. A disgrace of a king.

    However Harold was a navy commander of considerable skill. He probably was the grandchild of Sussex sailors like Wulfnoth ( who appears to have been an Admiral of sorts) Godwin himself was a fleet commander in the Northsea and Baltic. Harold in exile raided from Dublin into Bristol with about 60 ships. When he invaded Wales he took a fleet from Bristol to Angelsey and Rhuddlan whilst Tostig was in command of landforces coming from Chester. He was effectively like MacArthur with amphibious operations.

    I understand he reconstituted the fleet in the 1060s to capture Wales. I’d guess the invasion to depose MacBeth was also amphibious in part too.

    Here’s what he may have messed up with Hastings though. I understand he brought the fleet from London to block off the Normans on the seaward side of the Hastings peninslar. Ifhe did that he may have packed those ships with archers and other skirmishing troops. If he put 1000 men at arms and perhaps all his archer in those boats, it’s not terribly surprising he lost at Senlac hill. He had not brought his missile infantry with him to the Hoary Apple Tree. Infact the naval part of this campaign has never been seriously explored by historians and may be a key to understanding the defeat he suffered when he had a good position on a ridgeline with secure flanks. I’ve never been able to wrap my head around the defeat, but if he had his highly skilled archers and skirmishers acting as ‘marines’ bobbing in boats on the channel while his Huscarls faced down arrow storms and cavalry charges supported by spearmen. No wonder he lost. Many of his troops may have been patrolling the coast just outside Hastings in an attempt to trigger a naval battle or at least cut off supplies and a route of retreat. Which is a sad coincidence because if he’d simply had another 500-1000 men I doubt he’d have lost at Senlac anyway.

    He was a very competetent naval man but perhaps luck was just bad.

2014 Information Domination Essay Contest
7ads6x98y