Great Commanders

[Steel God]

As I understand it the idea behind the defining moment in history thing is that it led to a powerful England with all it's ramifications throughout history.

Well although it's sort of counter history stuff, it could be suggested that the conquest actually blunted English (Anglo-saxon) developement/culture.

England before 1066 had always been subject to invasion...but that's because it was both comparatively rich and poorly organized. William came not to plunder, but for pride, and he intended to keep what he claimed. As such, he took over a rich and disorganized country and made it both efficient and prosperous, and in the end, protected it from the raiding and plundering that had sapped her for centuries. Without William and Hastings in 1066 I don't think you have the England that was the envy of the Medieval world, or the England of Empire, etc etc. William laid the foundation for the greatness that the English would experience for the next 800 years. Without him I'm willing to bet the world of western civilization would be speaking much more French than it is today.

For the effects of the outcomes of his actions at Hastings, Duke William is in my mind one of the Greatest Commanders in history.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi
Appologies for the delay in replying Paul ‘Life stuff’ got in the way but still bad manners, Sorry P

Right, lets try looking at this from a different angle, you have included Duke William as he was in charge at Hastings (a defining moment in history).

Now, if William had of been killed during the Battle, and (I’m guessing here) his half brother Bishop Odo had taken up the command spot would that then have made Odo a Great commander? Or, lets go to extremes here, if Billy Joe from Clancys bar in Chattanooga had been in charge at Hastings, again would that have made him a great commander? ie are you not putting forward the event rather than the commander?

As suggested in an earlier post, William came very very close to absolute disaster at Hastings; while he had had some success in Normandy and surrounding parts (ironically, in one case due to the input of one Harold Godwinson, future king of England) would you have included him based on those criteria (compare say with Nelson)?

I’ll give you this, William in fact does have one of the important criteria for a great commander ‘Luck’. You suggest Saxon England was “poorly organized”, it was well enough to organised to have a standing fleet (William had to hire his), it was Williams ‘Luck’ that it had to put into port for repairs as he sailed, if it had caught Williams fleet at sea ... ?

Saxon England was well enough organised to enable Harold to put 2 substantial armies in the field within 10 days, one to fight at Stamford Bridge to defeat the Northern invasion, and one in the south to fight at Hastings, it’s Williams ‘Luck’ that Harold chose not to wait for the Northern army under the Northern Earls (Morca ?) to join him, if he had ... ?

Now if we compare the other commanders you choose they all had other claims to fame, strategic/tactical brilliance, leaders of men etc, etc. Williams doesn’t exactly shine when set against them Paul, so again can I suggest it’s the event not his generalship that you are looking at.

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

Hi Peter...no apologies required, I've come to know you as a gentleman these past few months, I knew you must have been unable to respond.

As for the debate....is it the event more than the man? Could be, but if that were the case, would not the luck of Hastings turned into the incompetence and downfall of his new Kingdom? It did not. His leadership after Hastings, not what happened that day, are the foundation stones upon which the whole of modern English history has been built. Or do you propose that William was lucky his entire life?

Do I think that had William fallen and his brother Odo assumed command, would that have made him great? No. If William falls at Hastings it's end of story for the Norman control of England. It never happens and events develop along a different line than the history you and I know. Harold could be argued to have been as great as William, but he had the misfortune to die. Luck, or more importantly, what you do with it, is a part of greatness. For me greatness can be, and is, potentially in everyone. It's what you do with the chances you are given that determine whether or not you are remembered as Great or not.

Duke William of Normandy, aka William the Bastard, aka William the Conqueror, took the opportunity presented him by the events of history and through his actions created a nation whose history in the following 800 years not only mattered upon the world stage, but helped define the world stage. Did he exhibit tactical brilliance at Hastings? No. But that does not lessen the greatness of his achievements. So am I judging the event and not the man? In my opinion in this case, you can't have one without the other. so if the even is great, so must be the man who mastered it.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Ta for the kind words.

So am I judging the event and not the man? In my opinion in this case, you can't have one without the other. so if the even is great, so must be the man who mastered it. Fair comment and in light of your original caveat I can't argue against it.

While it is a long time since I read owt about it, I would however question your sentiment re His leadership after Hastings, not what happened that day, are the foundation stones upon which the whole of modern English history has been built. Or do you propose that William was lucky his entire life? (snippet, William certainly wasn’t lucky at his funeral, apparently when they tried to put him in his tomb he had become so fat that he wouldn’t fit and his body physical burst open creating “ a foul stench that filled the Abbey”); William was responsible amongst other things for what is Known as 'the Harrowing of the North', for c2 years he systematically destroyed the Northern counties with fire and blade this included York, one of the Richest cities and centre of government for the north of England. Some areas of Northumberland never recovered, others took several lifetimes to get back to some semblance of their pre conquest prosperity.

The imposition throughout his new Kingdom of the Norman style Feudal system made Surfs of once Freemen, the disruption to the English Agriculture, economy & culture of the early years of Norman rule was massive and nearly made a once rich country poor, even the much lauded Doomsday book was done to exert more taxation to finance his wars on the continent, I could go on but I’m sure you get the point.

But, and it is a massive But Paul (and maybe even go some way to refute your criteria :whis: ), the shear irony of it all, and one still not fully understood by historians even today, is that eventually over the succeeding centuries the Norman/Plantagenet conquerors became Anglicized. It is Anglo-Saxon Common law and it’s concepts of Justice and trial by Jury etc. that we eventually exported round the world (Norman law like Scottish law was based on Roman Law i.e. trial by inquisition) to put it in a nutshell “the Conquerors became the conquered”. Which begs the question, were Williams achievement still so great? :)

All the Best
Peter

[Stryker]

Duke William of Normandy, aka William the Bastard, aka William the Conqueror, took the opportunity presented him by the events of history and through his actions created a nation whose history in the following 800 years not only mattered upon the world stage, but helped define the world stage. Did he exhibit tactical brilliance at Hastings? No. But that does not lessen the greatness of his achievements. So am I judging the event and not the man? In my opinion in this case, you can't have one without the other. so if the even is great, so must be the man who mastered it.

Without going into too much more detail than Peter, I have to agree with his points. (Harold was a far greater leader and tactician than William in my opinion from what I know of him).... anyway - that wasn't my point. So much went on in the next 500 years following the conquest that I don't think anybody could argue this event laid any foundation stones for greatness... that honour is lain firmly at the feet of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I - who transformed England from a minor european country, into a feared and respected "player" in european power struggles... and even then, it wasn't until William of Orange took over that we could truly count ourselves as a major power... his taxation and banking reforms allowed England to compete and outstrip her opponents by financing the Army and Navy to levels which could not be matched by our main enemy - France.. a lesson well learnt from the whippings handed out to the English by the Dutch previously.

More food for discussion no doubt! all this is from memory, feel free to check it out and counter.... touche! :P

[Steel God]

So much went on in the next 500 years following the conquest that I don't think anybody could argue this event laid any foundation stones for greatness... that honour is lain firmly at the feet of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I - who transformed England from a minor european country, into a feared and respected "player" in european power struggles... and even then, it wasn't until William of Orange took over that we could truly count ourselves as a major power... his taxation and banking reforms allowed England to compete and outstrip her opponents by financing the Army and Navy to levels which could not be matched by our main enemy - France.. a lesson well learnt from the whippings handed out to the English by the Dutch previously.

More food for discussion no doubt! all this is from memory, feel free to check it out and counter.... touche! :P

Hmmmm, I don't know about that. Certainly England was a player after Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, but to argue they were not a player before then, or were a minor power, I just don't swallow.

Crecy. Agincourt. The Crusades. The wool trade between Flanders and England that influenced the Middle Ages more than any battle or war. England was "the" model of a well run feudal state, which was the ideal of the era, and that argues against the notion that she was not a significant player before Henry VIII.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Can I suggest Paul that you may be looking at it from a wee bit too much of an Anglocentric viewpoint.

I'm English and proud of my nations history, but in fairness, England post conquest until say the defeat of the Armada was playing in a very small geographical area and those were either our lands in France, or the ongoing wars with our Celtic enemies, + some involvement in Portugal by John of Gaunt, that really is the extent of Englands involvement in world affairs.

To address some of your points, yes the Wool trade with Europe was economically important for the developement of both for England and the Low Countries, but Paul the Hansiatic league carried far more economic & political clout than England, until Cabot discovered the Cod wealth off Newfoundland, and the league overfished the Baltic herring thus destroying the base of their wealth.

The Crusades were largely a European affair, fine Richard I negotiated entry into Jerusalem and had some success on the Battlefield against Saladin but it was of no lasting significance, English troops involvement in the crusades was rarely under the command of English lords, we were too busy fighting at home/france.

Post 1453 most of Europe was dealing with the very real menace of the Turks & other Muslim nations that was to impact on European history for nearly 500 years, England had little or no involvement in that area.

You mention Crecy; well the Blind king John of Bohemia who died there wielded more power than any English king of the time.

To try and put it in perspective England was rent by Civil wars for control of the Crown until the Tudor victory at Bosworth (1485), the continual wars against the Celts & in France while filled with glory were not considered world shattering events even allowing for a smidgen of national prejudice, if we had held our lands in france post Agincourt then it would be different, we didn't so up until the defeat of the Armada it is argueable that we were in no position to be ” big” players.

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

Can I suggest Paul that you may be looking at it from a wee bit too much of an Anglocentric viewpoint.

Hehe....well that would be new territory for me, I tend to prefer the French POV over the English...maybe that is why I am so impressed by the English though, LOL.

Anyway....with you and Paul going on about how un-great England was (which I must confess is a most un-looked for strategy from you two), I shall have to tack my sails and look for a new approach. ;)

How about this....William was great for no other reason than he put a little continental civilization into that daub and waddle mud hole of an island and kept the Norse from robbing you all blind so that you might have a chance to build something for the Tudors to become great with. What about dat? Huh? Huh? Huh? :P

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Am I being really mean & horrible by pointing out that Will the Conk was Norse (the Normans were Viking, Rollo I think it was claimed Normandy for them), so really nothing changed :P

William was great for no other reason than he put a little continental civilization into that daub and waddle mud hole of an island Err? Cultural attaché for all things French eh, apart from slumming it, it's something of a demotion from one of the worlds 'Great commanders' ain't it :whis:

Actually Paul we did have a few centuries of Culture behind us before William turned up; folk like The Venerable Bede (673–735), some of his scientific theories and studies (tides & phases of the Moon) stood for 1,000 years and laid the basis for Isaac Newtons work, Alcuin of York (c.735 - 804) adviser to Charlemagne, the illustrated Lindisfarne Gospels, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Beowulf an Old English heroic poem plus some other bits & bobs.

Oddly enough nothing really springs to mind for the Norman/Plantagenet period till Geoffrey Chaucer, ... but maybe we as a people should be glad of that else we would be eating snails and stuff now

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

Am I being really mean & horrible by pointing out that Will the Conk was Norse (the Normans were Viking, Rollo I think it was claimed Normandy for them), so really nothing changed :P

Mean? No. Slightly disingenuous perhaps? The Normans were of Viking decent, but were decidedly French in word and deed. Rollo came to France in 911, sot he Normans were as Viking as I am Sicilian. I honor the heritage, but I've never been to Sicily.

William was great for no other reason than he put a little continental civilization into that daub and waddle mud hole of an island Err? Cultural attaché for all things French eh, apart from slumming it, it's something of a demotion from one of the worlds 'Great commanders' ain't it :whis:

There are those who would argue that putting the Fleur de Lis in the English Coat of Arms is a pearl beyond price. But regardless, we're talking about the last successful invader of England. In almost 1000 years it's not been repeated. Surely a little credit is due the man....or is that precisely when there's no respect given? And don't give me any of that tripe about 1688 either. ;)

Actually Paul we did have a few centuries of Culture behind us before William turned up; folk like The Venerable Bede (673–735), some of his scientific theories and studies (tides & phases of the Moon) stood for 1,000 years and laid the basis for Isaac Newtons work, Alcuin of York (c.735 - 804) adviser to Charlemagne, the illustrated Lindisfarne Gospels, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Beowulf an Old English heroic poem plus some other bits & bobs.

Oddly enough nothing really springs to mind for the Norman/Plantagenet period till Geoffrey Chaucer, ... but maybe we as a people should be glad of that else we would be eating snails and stuff now

Of course England had culture (albeit not continental culture :rolleyes: ) prior to 1066. Why else would the Danes have used you like an Ikea Store for a few 100 years? (although they left out the cash part of cash and carry).

And the Normans had a few skills to add to the mix: Domesday, creation of the office of the Exchequer, castle designs of unparalleled strength, not to mention the previously alluded to fact that he took this conquered nation and made it a model of what a Fuedal State should be...so much so, he ruled from Normandy from about 1070 (give or take) on, spending most of his time in France. Y'all must have thought fairly highly of him too, at least at the time