norman conquest - conquest and control Flashcards
Battle of Hastings historic site
Mistakes in the movement of troops was a reason for the outcome of the battle
Harold made a general mistake in asking his troops to move so quickly down to the South of England from Stamford Bridge 200 miles in 4/5 days. This would have had a negative effect on troops in any battle, it meant that by the time they arrived at their destination they were tired and hungry. Harold’s mistake effected the outcome of Hastings specifically because William’s troops were well rested having benefitted from 7 days of plundering, feasting and training. This meant they were fitter to fight than Harold’s troops.
Battle of Hastings
Lack of archers as a resource or mistake compared to William as a reason for the outcome of battle
Harold had archers at the Battle of Stamford Bridge and would have been able to use these to good effect in firing at Harald Hardrada’s Vikings from a distance whilst the rest of his foot soldiers approached. Ultimately Harold won the Battle of Stamford Bridge. At Hastings Harold did not have archers, having not allowed them to plunder after Stamford Bridge, many refused to accompany him down south. At Hastings itself Harold’s lack of archers meant his soldiers were mostly fighting close up on the defensive rather than being able to attack. In contrast William was able to use archers to good effect in attacking from afar as his cavalry charged to try to break the shield war.
Battle of Hastings
Mistakes in choosing the higher ground as a reason for the outcome of the battle
Mistakes made by Harold specifically at the Battle of Hastings rather than elsewhere include his decision to position his troops on the higher ground of Senlac Hill. This was a mistake because Harold had no archers which meant he could not defend his army as the enemy approached. It also would have made it very difficult for him to defend his army as they attacked and therefore helps to explain why the Anglo Saxons never launched a counter attack during the battle.
Battle of Hastings
Lack of Calvary as a resource compared to William as a reason for the outcome of the battle
The Normans believed in the use of cavalry but the Anglo Saxons didn’t. The Normans thought that cavalry was heroic and bald, particularly since a cavalry charge was fast and quick to recall and regroup. The Normans had used cavalry to good effect at the feign retreat and being able to quickly escape from the Anglo-Saxons on foot Whilst the Anglo Saxons preferred to use horses for transport only and thought the brave thing was to stand and face the enemy in battle. The effect of this at the Battle of Hastings was that the Normans were able to repeatedly attack using their cavalry, regrouping after each charge. They were able to utilise the mobility of their cavalry when some of the Anglo Saxon fyrd broke away from the shield wall and the Norman cavalry were quickly able to re attack to pick these troops off.
Battle of Hastings
Use of shield wall as a tactic as a reason for the outcome of the battle
The Anglo Saxons had always used the shield wall successfully as a strong defensive structure. It allowed them to gradually approach their enemy until close enough to deploy the house carls with their battle axes in close combat At the Battle of Hastings the use of the shield wall meant that for the first part of the battle the Norman cavalry charges and use of archers were relatively ineffectual. It was only when members of the fyrd broke ranks and were killed by the cavalry that the shield wall began to break down.
Battle of Hastings
Use of feigned retreat as a reason for the outcome of the battle
William used the tactics of guerrilla hit and run tactics to good effect in gradually picking away at the enemy every time his spies alerted him to a section of the enemies army undertaking a manoeuvre away from the main body of its army. He had, had to do this previously in foreign campaigns when outnumbered. At the Battle of Hastings this kind of tactics can be seen in the feigned retreat where William’s cavalry were initially able to pick of those members of the Fyrd that had broken away the shield wall and then to repeat the process using the feigned retreat until the shield wall no longer had enough men to hold
Battle of Hastings
Reluctance to fight as a tactic as a reason for the out come of the battle
William, as well as most medieval leaders were reluctant to engage in a full blown battle. Since if killed the battle was definitely lost. At Hastings however, William was obviously prepared to fight and had therefore assembled a massive invasion fleet of 700 ships to carry 7,000 soldiers and 3000 horses. He had also secured the support of the pope and carried a papal banner meaning his soldiers knew god was on his side.
Battle of Hastings
Building a fortress as a tactic as a reason for the outcome of battle
When invading a country William sought to capture a fortress and to plunder the local surroundings until the presence of his troops became so expensive and troublesome that the country’s leader would either surrender or reach a treaty. Prior to the Battle of Hastings William persued his usual tactics but rather than capturino a fortress he used his flat pack castle to convert the old Roman fortress at Pevensey into a stronghold. He did do the usual thing of sending his troops out plundering. This had two effects; his troops had somewhere safe to rest and they were also well fed whilst waiting for Harold. It also meant that Harold was forced to return down south quickly because William’s troops were doing so much damage.
Battle of Hastings
William’s clear visibility as good leadership as a reason for the outcome of battles
William took great care to ensure that his troops knew he was still alive. He rode up and down with his helmet visor up to make sure they would still obey orders and fight properly in undertaking their cavalry charges. This clearly visible leadership contrasts with the failure of the Anglo Saxons to mount a counter attack against the Normans which may be because Harold’s half brothers Gyrth and Leofwine had been killed early on in the battle and therefore there was no one to lead and inspire the troops.
Battle of Hastings
Harold being unlucky as a reason for the outcome of battles
As his shield wall began to break down one of William’s archers hit Harold in the eye. The death of Harold meant that most of his untrained troops did not have the discipline to continue fighting and the battle was lost. The archer could not have been aiming at Harold, he would have been diffiçult to see at a distance and protected by what was left of the shield wall.
Battle of Hastings
Luck as a reason for the outcome of battles
Harold was unlucky that he had chosen to focus his troops in the south when it was actually Harold Hardrada who invaded first. This meant his troops had to quickly travel up to the north east. Harold was further unlucky when the wind changed whilst he was away, allowing William to land at Pevensey. The effect of all this for the Battle of Hastings was that Harold’s 7000 men were exhausted by the time they arrived at Senlac hill compared to William’s troops who were well rested and fed, having had to wait for Harold’s troops to march over 200 miles.
Battle of Hastings
Good leadership as a reason for the outcome battle
William had previously been unwilling to fight in full blown battle and instead tended to use a combination of hit and run tactics and plundering to deal with his enemies. These tactics were very useful in preserving William’s life. The Battle of Hastings is however different since William obviously realised that in order to produce truly decisive result he needed to be prepared to fight and therefore as a leader he fully prepared raising an army of 7000 soldiers and 3000 horses.
The situation in 1066
Who was on the throne?
How did he get to be king?
Which other countries or powerful families wanted the throne?
Why wasn’t it straight forward to decide the next king?
-Edward the Confessor in 1042
- Harthacanute was king of England previously and Edward was his half brother. Harthacanute fell ill and the Edward was appointed successor by him and then he gain the support of the Anglo Saxon earls
- The Godwin family- They were the most powerful family in England other than the king; Godwin was the Earl of Wessex and his daughter married Edward
Vikings used to frequently raid England and in 1016 they defeated the AS king and Canute becomes king
There was also a Norman interest as the previous king Alfred’s wife (Emma) fled to Normandy with her 2 sons (Edward Confessor) and were looked after by Uncle Richard in Normandy when Alfred was killed by Vikings
- Because there were lots of legitimate ways to inherit the AS throne, this meant it was difficult to decide who should be king as it didn’t have to be the closest living relative. There was: King’s son, by force, another male relative, post obitum, novissima Verba, support of the witan
Harold Godwinson
- Who was he + background?
- Connection to Edward
- Claim to the throne
- What weaken his claim
- Harold Godwinson was the Earl of Wessex and was the father of Harold Godwin. The Godwin family was the most powerful family in England besides the King. From 1060 Godwinson became sub-regulus (deputy king).
- Harold was Edward’s brother in law as his sister was married to Edward. He had also shown loyalty to Edward over his own brother Tostig
- Harold had family ties (Edward’s brother in law), claimed Edward bequeathed throne on death bed (novissima Verba), Had support of English nobels and the Witan, had potential use of force as he was very powerful earl of wessex who represented king in battle from 1060. Had himself crowned on 6th January 1066 (same day as Edward’s funeral)
- William had said that Harold had sworn over religious relics to help support William’s claim to the throne which was a binding oath in the eyes of God
William of Normandy
- Who and background
- Connection to Edward/throne
- Claims to throne
- What else might he do to prove the throne should be his
- Duke of Normandy since the age of 7 and was a very successful but ruthless military leader. He had taken Normandy and also conquered neighbouring area of Maine in 1063 and the king in France was only 14 which meant he was one of the most powerful men in East-Europe
- William was a distant cousin of Edward through Emma of Normandy (Edward’s mum) There was also a suggestion of friendship between them. Edward had grown up in Normandy and his court and rule were influenced by this a lot
- Family ties (distant cousin), Post obitum (When Godwin’s rebelled in 1051, William helped Edward and then Edward promised the throne to William)
- William might also try and take the throne by force as he is a successful and brutal warrior and his war would have God on his side. (E.g. in a battle he cut hands and feet of enemies who made comments about his mother)
