What advantages did each side have in the Battle of Hastings? - Quora
Quora
Written Oct 9, 2015
The Saxons had a significant height advantage, being positioned atop a ridge on Senlac Hill. They also had an incredibly effective 'shieldwall' formation that was proficient against opposing infantry, cavalry and ranged weapons.
The Normans had the advantage of those ranged weapons, which would eventually yield a major impact on the battle by wounding King Harold Godwinsson. Also they had the advantage of cavalry to quickly exploit opportunities and to mop up straggling enemies once they started to run. Finally the Normans had the advantage of fighting a tired enemy who had marched first up to the North of England to defeat Harald Hadraada's forces at Stamford Bridge before marching south to fight the Normans at Hastings. But despite that tiredness the Saxon line did hold while they were on top of the ridge until the final stages of the battle.
​​​As to the relative advantage:
Saxons:
Positioned at the top of of a hill.
Normans:
Fresh troops, who hadn't just fought a battle or two around York, to defeat the Danes (Vikings), and ridden a couple hundred miles to fight another.
Entirely professional army, rather than a local militia, backed by the remnants of the Wessex household, who'd just legged it down from York.
Cavalry, the Saxons fought on foot, so horses and lances were new to them. They had horses, and spears but would dismount to fight in battle.
Archers, most unsporting to use bows in battle, the Saxons generally only used bows for hunting, as in their culture real men fought face to face with Spear, Axe, Seax, and Sword.
Written Sep 9
At the outset, the English at Senlac were much more aggressive than they are usually portrayed. Earls Gyrth and Leofwine were leading attacks down the hill against the Norman front line.
It’s true the Normans were fortunate. More particularly, Duke William was very lucky: when his first horse was cut down, he was thrown headlong into the mud, into the path of Earl Gyrth. Game over, you’d expect.
Then something changed. Gyrth and Leofwine died. (See Bayeux Tapestry.) William survived.
A certain Norman chronicler named William of Poitiers, a former knight and ducal chaplain, stayed at home but claimed to know that his hero the Duke killed Gyrth.
Seems the Duke knew otherwise: he shared Gyrth’s manors in equal number with his bodyguard Alan Rufus and gave Gyrth’s richest manor to Sir William de Braose.
Written Dec 26, 2015
The Saxons were positioned atop Senlac Hill, and was generally high in morale, having succeeded at defeating the Viking contender Harald Hardrada days before at Stamford Bridge. However, they had been forced to march the entire 300 mile (480 km) journey in 19 days – that's about 16 miles (24.5 kilometres) a day, in heavy armour to boot, and were thus rather fatigued. In terms of troop types, their army consisted mostly of melée levies, with a small number of archers, as well as the huscarls – some form of standing bodyguard unit, equipped with large shields that could be used to form a phalanx-like shield wall.
The Normans had vastly superior troops, with well-trained men-at-arms, superior archers and a cavalry component which the Saxons lacked. In addition, they most likely outnumbered the Saxons. The usual estimate is about 10 000 Normans to 7000 Saxons. Considering what we know about composition of the invading and defending forces, this seems to suggest that the Normans had about 5000 infantry, 2500 cavalry and 2500 archers, whilst the Saxons had about 3000 huscarls, 3000 levy spearmen and perhaps 1000 projectile-armed troops such as archers.
Now, as Napoleon said, "One bad general is worth two good ones", and Harold Godwinson was no exception, at least, as far as the Normans were concerned. He abandoned Senlac Hill despite the Normans having the wrong composition of troops for fighting uphill, but an excellent one for flat terrain, thus causing his army to be completely crushed in the open!