In 1066 why did the English surrender so easily?

[Ayahuasca]

To the French?

[Digga]

(Careful with that sharp wit, you'll have someone's eye out.)

[HOGEPH]

The English army fought two other major battles, at Gate Fulford and Stamford Bridge, less than three weeks before the Battle of Hastings. The latter resulted in the destruction of Harald Hardråda's Viking army, but also affected the English army's battle-worthiness at Hastings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings

[wolves_wanderer]

If we'd not let them win once then they'd have lost interest and we wouldn't have had anyone to beat for the next 900 years

[jmorgan]

Normans, not French..... (at least the way I prfer to think about it)

[eharding]

(Cue picture of Rafael Lefevre using an aerosol paint can to spray slogans on the Bayeux Tapestry, and then claiming not to know that 'the bit of old fabric' had any historical significance)

[stuttgartmetal]

Bill the Basher certainly spruced the whole place up.
Cant say the same for his son though.

[TEKNOPUG]

Ayahuasca said:

To the French?

It was the Anglo Saxons V The Normans

There weren't any "French" involved.

[dmitsi]

They were Normans, essentially a mix of strong vikings (Norman = north man) and whichever of the strongest stock they'd decided to breed with in Normandy.
The Anglo saxons were weak due to fighting other vikings oop north.
They thought William had died on the battlefield and the Anglos broke rank and attacked the fleeing Normans, who promptly turned around, outflanked and killed everyone.

[Mikeyboy]

the English surrendered really easily because they wanted their kids to learn french at school, because its really useful.

Seriously, statistically the French are the most successful nation in Battles won to lost ever. So one World War isn't a good example of how well they fight normally.

[FourWheelDrift]

The Anglo Saxons (German invaders) didn't surrender easily, it took the Normans (French based Scandinavians) 22 years to gain full control of England.

[Mikeyboy]

FourWheelDrift said:

The Anglo Saxons (German invaders) didn't surrender easily, it took the Normans (French based Scandinavians) 22 years to gain control.

er what do you base that on? By the time of the Doomsday book (1088 so I guess that's is what you are talking about) there was one, yes just one, Anglo Saxon Earl in the whole of England. Now that is a pretty impressive overthrow of power in any system let alone a medieval feudal system.
The only major revolt was in the North and was met with such force that many Northern towns were listed in the Doomsday book nearly 10 years later as "Laid Waste"
The Normans were quite simply awesome at invading and occupying new countries, they had after all a bit of practice what with completely subsuming Normandy in less than two generations.

[stuttgartmetal]

Actually Harold and William were related via Edward the Confessor.
Harold marched North to fight at the battle of stamford bridge, victorious, but knackered the troops marched to the south coast, bad weather held Bill in Normandy.
When the Normans invaded, Harolds army just liked sheilds and refused to budge for hours. It was only when the Normans turned tail, and pretended to flee, Harolds troops broke rank and ran after them, only for the Normans to turn round and slay them all.
Harold ended up with an arrow straight in the eye, and was buried in Waltham Abbey.

[FourWheelDrift]

Mikeyboy said:

FourWheelDrift said:

The Anglo Saxons (German invaders) didn't surrender easily, it took the Normans (French based Scandinavians) 22 years to gain control.

er what do you base that on? By the time of the Doomsday book (1088 so I guess that's is what you are talking about) there was one, yes just one, Anglo Saxon Earl in the whole of England. Now that is a pretty impressive overthrow of power in any system let alone a medieval feudal system.
The only major revolt was in the North and was met with such force that many Northern towns were listed in the Doomsday book nearly 10 years later as "Laid Waste"
The Normans were quite simply awesome at invading and occupying new countries, they had after all a bit of practice what with completely subsuming Normandy in less than two generations.

I edited my post to full control of England. Any rebellion between 1066 and 1088 means we didn't "surrender so easily". From the attack on the Norman castle at Dover in 1067 to the Battle of Exeter in 1068, the Northumbrian rebellion of 1069 to the crushing of more rebels in Chester in 1070. There are many more. Although by around 1072 it was in control by the Normans but rebels were still sporadically fighting up to 1088.

[Mikeyboy]

stuttgartmetal said:

Actually Harold and William were related via Edward the Confessor.
Harold marched North to fight at the battle of stamford bridge, victorious, but knackered the troops marched to the south coast, bad weather held Bill in Normandy.
When the Normans invaded, Harolds army just liked sheilds and refused to budge for hours. It was only when the Normans turned tail, and pretended to flee, Harolds troops broke rank and ran after them, only for the Normans to turn round and slay them all.
Harold ended up with an arrow straight in the eye, and was buried in Waltham Abbey.

Harold wasn't related to William or Edward but William was related to Edward through paternal grandmother so pretty loosely.
Harold had a claim to the throne through Edwards nomination. the Anglo Saxon system worked on the Germanic system (somewhat obviously) that first sons had first rights but could be superceeded by the kings nominee. Harold had been pushed onto Edward by his Danish father Godwin who was the most powerful baron in England before his death. Harold was at the time of 1066 already effectively running the country.
the idea that Harold was a usurper was Norman propaganda.

this same system suited the Normans fine at first, it was after all how William cemented his claim to the throne but after Stephen took the throne from Matlida after Henry I died and started an near 18 year civil war, all because he said he had been nominated by Henry, they dropped it for the French primogeniture.

[Gargamel]

Sorry can't quite equate 'surrendered' to fought and lost.

[Mikeyboy]

FourWheelDrift said:

Mikeyboy said:

FourWheelDrift said:

The Anglo Saxons (German invaders) didn't surrender easily, it took the Normans (French based Scandinavians) 22 years to gain control.

er what do you base that on? By the time of the Doomsday book (1088 so I guess that's is what you are talking about) there was one, yes just one, Anglo Saxon Earl in the whole of England. Now that is a pretty impressive overthrow of power in any system let alone a medieval feudal system.
The only major revolt was in the North and was met with such force that many Northern towns were listed in the Doomsday book nearly 10 years later as "Laid Waste"
The Normans were quite simply awesome at invading and occupying new countries, they had after all a bit of practice what with completely subsuming Normandy in less than two generations.

I edited my post to full control of England. Any rebellion between 1066 and 1088 means we didn't "surrender so easily". From the attack on the Norman castle at Dover in 1067 to the Battle of Exeter in 1068, the Northumbrian rebellion of 1069 to the crushing of more rebels in Chester in 1070. There are many more. Although by around 1072 it was in control by the Normans but rebels were still sporadically fighting up to 1088.

Absolutely, the English didn't surrender easily but other than Northumberland and Chester not many of the rebellions would have worried the Normans. William spent most of his time fighting the Angevins in that same period leaving the running of England fighting up to his brother and others.

[Jasandjules]

stuttgartmetal said:

When the Normans invaded, Harolds army just liked sheilds and refused to budge for hours. It was only when the Normans turned tail, and pretended to flee, Harolds troops broke rank and ran after them, only for the Normans to turn round and slay them all.
Harold ended up with an arrow straight in the eye, and was buried in Waltham Abbey.

It is exactly this to my knowledge (I think there is a fairly good "drama" about it too). There was no surrender, what happened was that they "smelt blood" and chased after the retreating Normans (having held off repeated charges) thus splitting their defence (their interlinked shields) and then got massacred by Norman Cavalry and troops. And that was a battle fought having already held off the Vikings in the North and marched back down to the South of England.

[JensenA]

At the time we weren't 'English' and neither were the Normans 'French'. And the Anglo-Saxons didn't surrender, they were beaten in battle. The Normans were a hard, tough bunch of Ba$tards, who were one of the most successful conquering armies or 'nations' of their day - normal practice for them after capturing a town was to hack off people feet or hands (or both). They were brutal and tough, and we 'English' are descended from them, and the local indigenous popluation. They enjoyed shagging the locals, and inter-marriage became very common with them after things 'died down'. That is one of the reasons they were such successful conquerers of nations. They assimilated with the locals rather than spend hundreds of years trying to suppress and control them. Clever buggars as well

[andym1603]

Is that who taught the French to surrender?