best commander of all times

but them, Hardrada was also serious, as were several other potential claiments to his throne. Harold had no guarentee that any of them would actually invade at that stage. To swan off to Italy and debate with a heavily pro-Norman Pope and leave his kingdom defenceless (and potentially kingless) in an attempt to deflect one potential protagonist would just be silly.

Say the Norman historians...
The initial retreat / counterattack yes, that happened.
The planned feigned assault - maybe once, by the actual Normans (they did do this in one pre-Hastings battle under a commander who was not William). But do you really think that the English troops would continually fall for it as often as it is claimed? Or is there an element of 'look, our army can do mega-sophisticated tactical wotsits, and their army keeps falling for simple ruses! Can anybody say 'propaganda'?

That is not innovation, it is ineffective. The arrows 'raining down' would have hit helmets and chain-mailed shoulders - with little result. If the Saxons kept their heads down, no problem. Sadly, it seemed Harold looked up...
Also, where do you get the 'some ahead, some up' idea from - this is the first I've heard of this (unless my memory has gone).

As an aside - where do you reckon the Normans got all the arrows from to keep firing them all day?

Yes, both times. :roll:
So did Harold, except once, because he recieved a fluke wound.

And thereby nearly lost the battle because it was thought that he was killed. Bad tactics.

I reservedly agree - yes Harold's surprise attack was an initial advantage, but the infamous 'Beserker on the Bridge' gave Hardrada's army time to don armour & form up properly. Hence why it was a hard-fought battle not a simple rout.

Rubbish . Harold lost a battle to William on a fluke. If William had in fact been killed at Hastings when his troops thought he had, would Harold therefore be a better commander than William?

 

I just can't help myself...

I dug out my essay to remind myself of a few things...
And now for some heavily abridged chunks with additions to fit my point...

First, the Norman military record prior to Hastings:

Six battles and seven sieges, not including the Maine and Brittany campaigns. Three battles were fought without the presence of duke William – including two surprise attacks on an unprepared enemy – two battles were fought as the Norman contingent in the French army, under the command of the French king, and one battle against an army divided in two by a flooded river. The sieges tended to be ended either by the defenders running out of food, or being afraid of what would happen to them should they resist and then be captured.

So sorry, I got confused. Hastings was William's first ever real battle in command of a sizeable force against a decent enemy.
Should I point out that he managed to lead his army into a quicksand in Brittany?

And as for the reports we have on the battle...

Our evidence for the events of the battle of Hastings itself can be divided into two groups: the sparse, roughly contemporary sources of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and William of Jumieges, and the later, more embellished Norman and Anglo-Norman sources, beginning with William of Poitiers and the Bayeux Tapestry, and including the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, William of Malmesbury, Florence of Worcester, and Eadmer’s Historia Novorum in Anglia.

The ASC (English) account is brief and seems to indicate that the Normans managed to gain tactical surprise on the English, but that it was a hard fight - The ‘E’ strand simply states that “Harold came from the north and fought with him [William] before all the army had come, and there he fell and his two brothers Gyrth and Leofwine.” The ‘D’ strand adds the details that “William came against him [Harold] by surprise before his army was drawn up in battle array,” and that “the king nevertheless fought hard against him, with the men who were willing to support him, and there were heavy casualties on both sides.”

William of Jumiege (Norman) is equally as brief, and mentions no great tactical mastery - “Early in the morning of Saturday, he arranged his legions of warriors into three divisions and without any fear advanced against the dreadful enemy. Battle was joined at the third hour and the slaughter on both sides continued until the late evening.”

The three later Norman sources have a lot more detail, although it is possible to see a progression of ideas as each source is written, presumably largely cribbed from the one before, with embellishments of its own. It is these sources where all the 'feigned flight' stuff comes into it.

If anyone is interested I am happy to send my essay via e-mail (Roel has already suffered this...).

 

"but them, Hardrada was also serious, as were several other potential claiments to his throne. Harold had no guarentee that any of them would actually invade at that stage. To swan off to Italy and debate with a heavily pro-Norman Pope and leave his kingdom defenceless (and potentially kingless) in an attempt to deflect one potential protagonist would just be silly."

Well it couldn't have exactly hurt to have sent the Archbishop of Canteberry to represent him to the Papacy. The Pope may have thought twice had a great and powerful Archbishop of that stature been the representative of King Harold. Harold knew that if the Pope rulled in his favor William would never be able to invade, so he could have at least sent a representative like the Archbishop of Cateberry.

"Say the Norman historians...
The initial retreat / counterattack yes, that happened.
The planned feigned assault - maybe once, by the actual Normans (they did do this in one pre-Hastings battle under a commander who was not William). But do you really think that the English troops would continually fall for it as often as it is claimed? Or is there an element of 'look, our army can do mega-sophisticated tactical wotsits, and their army keeps falling for simple ruses! Can anybody say 'propaganda'?"

It could be propaganda, but at the same time could the same Norman Historians have overrated Harold at the battle in order to make William look better? From the information we have it seems like the fiegned retreats had to have been done well multiple times.

"Yes, both times.
So did Harold, except once, because he recieved a fluke wound."

Just because Harold was good doesn't mean William was bad (Military wise). William was definately a great leader, when he fell flat on his face while landing in England (Which was at the time thought of as a bad omen, and his entire army was superstitious), he turned the it into a morale raising situation of the very Earth of England embracing it's true King.

"And thereby nearly lost the battle because it was thought that he was killed. Bad tactics."

His army's morale was tripled when he threw down his helmet and stood on his horse to make them see he was not deead though. At this time in history a commander who fought in the front lines had a much better army because it meant a lot to them that their leader was sharing their peril.

"That is not innovation, it is ineffective. The arrows 'raining down' would have hit helmets and chain-mailed shoulders - with little result. If the Saxons kept their heads down, no problem. Sadly, it seemed Harold looked up..."

With all the Saxons screaming "Out" it would have been impossible for Harold to issue an order to them to keep their heads down, and don't forget even if had kept his head down he had to have been in an exposed position already since 5 French Knights did kill him after he was wounded by the arrow.

"I reservedly agree - yes Harold's surprise attack was an initial advantage, but the infamous 'Beserker on the Bridge' gave Hardrada's army time to don armour & form up properly. Hence why it was a hard-fought battle not a simple rout."

It was still 1/4 of Hadrada's army against all of Goodwinson's. Hardradaa's only mistake in that campaign was to expect an English Surrender to follow his early victory, and to therefore only bring a token force, without battle gear on to the deciding battle. The Vikings didn't stand a chance, yes they were able to inflict heavy casualties, but their cause to fight was Harold, and when he was killed they became completely demoralized. I don't think Harold himself was dissapointed though, since in Viking Religion if you fall in battle you go to Valhala, if you do not you go to Niflehiem for Hel to unmake you completely (In other words oblivion).

Ricky I would be interested in it, do you know my email adress?

P.S Oath Breaker Harold had no chance against Pious William Patron of Cathedrals :lol:

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury was Stigand... a man who had been excommunicated by 4 Popes in a row. William's promise to remove him from office (which he did not act on until 1070!) was a big reason why the Pope sponsored William so heavily.
England did not give a damn about the Pope's edicts - Normandy did. The Pope would like to see his influence extended over England. Whom do you think he will back?

1) were they still shouting 'out, out' after a full day's worth of battle?
2) Harold would not need to order 'head's down' - self-prevervation does that for you. Most of the English fyrd had been involved in plenty of batles previous to Hastings...
3) I must conceed that the 'hit squad' was a damn good idea. Does this indicate that Harold, like William, was simply fighting in the front line? Or does it indicate that when he got wounded his shield wall lost resolve and the Normans were able to penetrate it? (both scenarios could be valid - which do you think?)

I am curious - where do you get the 1/4 figure from? I have a hazy memory that Harald had part of his force guarding the boats, but that would not be 3/4 of his invasion force.

And do you agree that Harold's manouvering up & down Britain so quick shows him as a masterful commander?

I don't think so - please PM me it.

Don't get me started!

btw - yes, Harold = Good does not make William = bad.
It is just that his record outside of Hastings is not stellar. Harold's was.

 

There were other people that Harold could have sent to Rome though. It is true the Pope wanted the Normans to win, but Popes needed to always make sure they were on the winning side, and from a strategic point of view it looked like Harold would be the winner.

Norman Historians claimed they shouted the entire battle.

Only if they saw the arrows coming.

He could have been trying to get a broken part of his shield wall back together when he was wounded, since I doubt the Norman Historians invented the fiegned attack/retreats entirely. If so he would have been completely exposed to the hit squad. It is to bad the Normans didn't record what Harold did during the battle, so we will never know.

A more modern work, Simon Shama "A History of Britain".

Yes

Ok

Come on you could concede that the Normans were much better character assasination masters and propagandaist. They made that entire Oath Breaker Harold, Liar Harold, Church Defiler Harold etc etc etc etc stuff the common refference to him, and the common thought about him all over Europe.

That is also partly because after Hastings, William's enemies tended to be not that good so were easily defeated, like King Malcolm of Scotland. It also says something about William that adversaries like King Malcolm to him were just pushovers.

 

I don't reckon that the Pope would even listen.
Norman propaganda had sufieciently blackened Harold's name, and the temptation of extending Papal authority over another chunk of Christendom would be too tempting.

Norman historians claim a lot of things...
Although they could well have been.

Which is not hard to do, especially if they are volleyed.

Nice theory! I quite like it. Not sure if I agree, but it is good.

The same Simon Shama who stated that Harold challenged William to a duel to decide the battle at Hastings, despite the fact that:
a) only one source includes such a challenge - and William challenges Harold
b) such challenges were Continental traditions, not English traditions.

Mr Shama is good at his own area (18th Century, I think) but should at least try reading some source material if he wants to go outside his area.

Yes, the Normans had a cracking good grasp of propaganda - almost as good as Alfred 'the Great'

King Malcolm of Scotland was also pushed over by the English before 1066.

 

With all those foreign commanders there should be atleast one Dutchie metioned....Best Commander should be: Luitenant-admiraal-generaal Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter

 

I did already mention Maurice of Orange, a great military innovator of the early 17th century. As a leader, however, he must bow to De Ruyter, a real hero of the Dutch War.

 

Sorry Roel...missed that post!
But it prooves againthe Dutch should be in the top 10 list of great commanders

 

Belisarios

What about Belisarios (Belisarius)

maybe not the greatest of all times but omho worth an mention in these lists.

What i most appreciate in him is his ability to make the most out of limited assets. Also he was a shrewd negotiator and succeeded in getting the loyalty of troop contingents with widely differing ethnicity and priorities.

any toughts on im ?

Aglooka

 

I'm afraid I've never heard of him, would you care to enlighten me?

I've been bumping into Turenne quite a bit with my recent studies of the Dutch War, so I'm certainly not a hopeless case. He seems to have been more of a respected than a talented general though.

 

from an online dictionary:

East Roman general who led Rome's reconquest of the West. Though given inadequate resources by the jealous emperor Justinian I, Belisarius achieved notable victories against the Persians, Huns, Vandals, and Goths.

Born in the Balkans, Belisarius served in the emperor's bodyguard, and at age 25 received command of the Roman army in the East. He defeated a superior force of Persians at Daras in 530 and although he was defeated at Callinicum in 531 his reputation remained high. His firm action during the Nika riots in Constantinople in 532 saved Justinian from being overthrown. His greatest and most complete triumph was the rapid conquest of the Vandal North African kingdom in 533–34 with only 15,000 men. In the campaign against the Ostrogoths in Italy that followed, Belisarius secured Sicily with barely a struggle then, following a brief interlude to deal with a rebellion in Africa, took Naples and Rome. In 537 he showed great personal courage, inventiveness, and leadership to hold Rome against a Gothic siege. After throwing the Goths back from the walls of Rome, he took the offensive and forced the surrender of the Gothic king Witiges at Ravenna. The Goths offered to make Belisarius the western emperor, but he refused.

Despite Belisarius' loyalty, Justinian saw him as a potential rival and recalled him to deal with a Persian threat in the East. Over three years Belisarius recovered lost Roman territories in Syria and Mesopotamia in a war of manoeuvre with no major battles. Belisarius' absence from Italy led to a Gothic resurgence and he was sent back to deal with it, but Justinian remained suspicious and refused to give him enough troops to destroy the Gothic kingdom completely. After five years of fruitless campaigning, Belisarius was recalled and replaced by Narses who brought the campaign to a successful conclusion.

Belisarius was recalled from retirement in 559 to defeat an army of Slavs and Bulgars who had invaded Moesia and Thrace and reached the walls of Constantinople. Despite saving the capital, Belisarius continued to arouse the emperor's jealousy and he was charged with treason and imprisoned in 562. Although later released, he was never again employed in Imperial service. He died 13 March 565.

my assestment:

Belisarius was able to accomplish alot with very limited forces and supplies . He did not command an imperial Roman army but rater a pre feodalistic army composed from differnt echinicites from within and without the Byzantine empire. Treading with caution and striving for realistic aims when hugely outnumbered (persian campaign), on the other hand he struck very fast if the opportunity was right (early italian campaign, Vandal campaign).
Belisarius was a keen observer and used his strategic, tactical and pshychological insights to dislodge the ennemies war plans and thus often he achieved victory before battle was joinded, the battle serving to underline the already decided outcome.
He was a master in commanding the loyalty from his troops. No other genreal of the period was able to integrate such diverse elements as late Roman infantery, Herulian mounted archers, Sarmatian cavalry, huns, anatolian tribe people etc... in a streamlined battle machine in which each component was used to its best and in which the soldiers despite the differences amongst them worked as a unit and not a collection of war bands

he is a noble unknown now, but surely one of the greatest generals of all time.

aglooka

 

Any details of his battle plans or manuveres?

 

Belisarius is indeed considered the greatest general who ever lived by many historians. Interestingly enough, the science fiction authors David Drake and Eric Flint used him as the central character in a series of novels in which Belisarius must defeat invaders from the distant future (aliens, IIRC; I haven't read the entire series) with the aid of an artifact sent from that same future to aid him. The result of this war is the erasure and rewriting of all Earth's history after A.D. 528. The first novel is titled "An Oblique Approach", should anyone be interested in reading it. It's quite good and, appropriately, is about people and their reaction to the unfolding events.

As a side note, Eric Flint has also authored a book titled "1632", which tells of what happens when a town in modern West Virginia is hit by a cosmic event and sent into what is now Germany in the year 1632. The cosmic event essentially creates an alternate timeline wherein these Americans now live. Many real historical figures, such as Cardinal Richelieu of France and King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, are featured in this novel and the series that has sprung from it. The successor novels are, naturally, entitled "1633" and "1634", with collections of short stories based on Flint's scenario also being available.

 

One thing I'd like to point out is that Harold blundered very badly by fighting William at Hastings. He should have avoided battle and drawn the Normans as far away from the coast and their ships as possible, at the same time resting his troops and getting in whatever reinforcements he could. A scorched earth policy would have been a good idea, too. Only after the Normans were at the end of a long supply line should Harold have offered battle. I will say, however, that the Saxon position on Senlac Hill was a strong one.

 

This is true. Except that delaying would also have been a blunder, in terms of politics.

William was ravaging Harold's personal lands, and if Harold sat back and watched rather than try & stop it then the English would be within their rights to ask him to bugger off, as he would be a bad lord who failed to protect his people.

You can argue that Harold was trying for a similar surprise attack as the one he pulled on Harald at Stamford.

 

Ballisarius was a great general. Unfortunately he served Justinian, a very self centered religious bigot, who's over taxation of the war torn provinces Bellisarius regained for him, and persecution of all religious minorities and heretics left the Empire in significantly worse shape after his death then it was before he came to power.

Bellisarius was the defeater of the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths, and the Persians his tactics were to use cavalry to attack the enemy's weak points during engagements, and to use Horse Archers extensively. He would especially make use of Siege Warfare, making full use of any fortification, as his Horse Archers made any force that would dare try to attack pay dearly. He was constantly outnumbered, because Justinian feared he would turn on him and declare himself Emperor Bellisarius was constantly pathetically short of men, and in all of his battles he was outnumbered.

I agree with Ricky on that, even though I consider William to have been the better of the two of them.

Greatly to his credit Harold did put the wellbeing of England first, and so Normans burning farms, and stealing/burning/killing everything/person in sight was not something he would have tolerated.

Harold wouldn't even allow his brother to abuse power in England, he was not going to allow a bunch of french knights to ravage his lands and kill his people.

Ricky

I disagree, Popes always had to way the potential benefit against the potential loss, the benefit of bringing england into the fold may have been outwieghed by the risk of becoming the laughingstock through France for having supported and blessed a crushed expedition, which an English Representative may have been able to convince him it would have become. Then again since nobody was present to represent Harold we may never know.

You are right, the Norman Historians decided to include the King Arthur Legends as part of their histories, but it does sound probable that they are right about the screaming out the entire battle. War Cries did have effect on morale, since a Norman Peasant might be intimidated by not just seeing a shield wall but hearing the screams of out out out, and we know that Saxons were known for their ferocity.

Unless they also need to look out for other things at the same time.

I will see if I can find a source that agrees with Simon Shama about only 25% of Hadradaa's troops present. I do know that his book Citizens, which is about the French Revoloution was a break through in research.

But Alfred the Great's enemies were only villified in Britain, Harold was villified in every big European City, his name could not be mentioned without someone saying "oh you mean Oath breaker, Liar, Thief" etc etc. Nobody did propaganda like the Normans

My point was that William pushed King Malcolm over just as easily as Harold did, which indicates that they were both gifted generals with abilities way out of his league.

 

I would vote for Viceadmiral Reinhard Scheer



Regards,
Che.

 

Scheer was good; it was his misfortune to work for someone like Wilhelm II, who would not allow the High Seas Fleet to be used to its fullest potential.

 

The case against Harold was this:

1) Oath-breaker.

2) England's cheif ecclesiastical man was excommunicated and held 2 parishes at once (which was against the rules)

3) England had not bothered to pay 'Peter's Pence' to the Pope for quite a while.

4) Simony (a priest buying his way into a parish) and other 'crimes' were rife in England.

In his defence:

1) To the English, the only oath that counts is the last one you make - hence Harold could swear an oath to make Williiam king of England, then in 5 minutes swear to make his sister the Queen, and thus (legally) his sister would be considered to have a stronger claim. Hence the great importance of the deathbed oath, as the last oath a man can make. Also, an oath made under duress does not count, and it is beyond doubt that Harold (if he even made the oath - but let's not go there ) was under duress. Even the Bayeux Tapestry shows him making the oath in front of a rank of fully armed & armoured Norman soldiers.

However, to Continental types, all oaths are binding, not just the last one.
Also, Harold cannot prove duress. It is his word against William & his entire court.

2) All true. And good reasons why the Pope wants Engloand given to William, who is good chums with the Papacy.

3) True. Neither had most of Europe, but I doubt that would arise.

4) True. It was rife in most of Europe, but I doubt that would arise.

The only possible person who could have made a case for Harold was Ealdred, The Archbishop of York (who actually crowned Harold) a man who had scrupulously kept all Papal rules. However...
He was only the #2 churchman.
He was very old & frail. Long, rather nasty journeys would be rather a strain.
More importantly, just because he was a good boy does not mean that he could argue the Pope round, when the rest of the English church was (in the Pope's eyes) very naughty indeed. In fact, the Pope could even discredit Ealdred by asking why he had not called for reform in the English church.

Remember that the man on William's side was Lanfranc, a great mate of the Pope's, who had talked the Pope into allowing the marriage of |William & Matilda (strictly forbidden under church law, as they were not-too-distantly related).

Then remember that Norman soldiers were renowned across Europe as being the best ever (even the Byzantines said that a charge of Norman knights could knock down the walls of Byzantium itself). In military terms, England was seen as a backwater - no cavalry, and they insisted on still using axes, which are so 50 years ago darling...

Frankly, the Pope is on a winner. Papal blessing gave William such legitimacy that 'spare' sons Europe-wide would flock to him. Copies of the Papal blessing on William's expedition were sent to all the rulers of Europe.

(as a side point, after the invasion, William renaged on almost every promise he had made the Pope! )

Agreed - except for the 'peasant' bit. No peasants at Hastings.

Firing volleys at your enemy (especially high, arching volleys) when your own troops advance is a sure way to shoot your own men in the back.

Please do - I'm always happy to learn.

But that is also because the Normans were spread about in Europe (Italy, etc) and were known far & wide for their warlike ways, whereas Aldred was just some local king in some Island off the coast of Mainland Europe who got lucky and managed to take advantage of the Vikings knocking over his rivals.

However, I am not going to argue a point that you have right - Norman Propaganda was fantastic.

Forgive my ignorance - was William actually there for the campaign against Malcolm?