This is a subject that has stirred up many good thoughts on both sides of the argument. Was the late Anglo-Saxon battle tactics outdated? Continental sources will tell one that they were. By the late 11th century many continental duchies and leaders were beginning to employ different tactics, such as greater use of cavalry, increased amounts of archers, and foot soldiers to boot. Sounds almost like a case-study of William of Normandy's army in late 1066.

Yet the Anglo-Saxon army was also strong enough to win many battles against its Celtic and Scandinavian neighbors for hundres of years. Although it could be limited in distance at times, the fyrd system was a good defensive measure and system. It is the fact that they largely fought on foot with little to no archers, that has led many to believe this incorrect view. Pro-Norman authors have also heavily influenced this argument in favor of the late Anglo-Saxon army being inferior to continental forces, such as William's at Senlac Ridge.