why did the normans win the battle of hastings essay

How did William the Conqueror and the Normans win at the Battle of Hastings in 1066

The Battle of Hastings (1066) is perhaps the most famous in Medieval Britain, if not Europe. This bloody day changed British history and had a profound impact on the development of the modern world. It led not only to a change of dynasty in England but also indirectly to the development of the English language, law, and political institutions, which have had an immense impact far beyond the British Isles.

In reality, the surviving accounts of the Battle of Hastings are all suspect. They were either written by Anglo-Saxon writers who hated the Normans as foreign overlords, or they were authored by Normans who had an interest in misrepresenting events. This article will disentangle fact from fiction and truth from myth about the Battle of Hastings.

Why did the Normans Invade Britain?

William and his Normans were the descendants of Norse Vikings who had been given land in northern France and were largely independent of the French King. The Anglo-Saxon had been the brother-in-law of Edmund the Confessor. It is widely reported from sources that the dying king made Harold his heir and left his widow and Kingdom in his care. However, there is a different Norman account, and it holds that Edward the Confessor during a period of exile made Duke William his heir if he died without an heir. Historians have long debated which claim was the strongest, and most believe that Harold was the legal heir of Edward the Successor.

The story that Duke William was the legitimate successor of Edward is unlikely and was Norman propaganda. Even if Edward had made him his heir, he had almost certainly changed his mind before his death. Indeed, Harold had even been legitimately elected by the Witan, the assembly of the Anglo-Saxons, and they viewed him as their rightful ruler. King Harold II was defending his realm at the battle, and William the Conqueror was an invader who had no real support in the wider country. The Battle of Hastings was the result of William's naked ambitions. [2]

Why were the Anglo-Saxons defeated at the Battle of Hastings?

The Anglo-Saxons were forced to march south at speed in the wake of their victory over the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada and his Anglo-Saxon allies at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. This was a bloody clash, and the forces of Harold suffered numerous casualties even though he decisively defeated the Viking army. The victors at Stamford Bridge then had to make a forced march from the north of England to the south coast, and it is widely argued that this was a contributory factor in the Anglo-Saxon defeat.

However, not all historians agree with this, and they point out that the army of Harold fought very well during the battle. Indeed, even in the Norman accounts, the Anglo-Saxons are fighting fiercely, from early morning until the evening. Based on the distance between the two battles, it would seem that the Anglo-Saxon army marched 27 miles (39 km) a day but that they had a day’s rest before the fight. [3] Indeed, Harold was able to seize the high ground and establish a strong defensive position on the battlefield. It is not correct to state that the Anglo-Saxons were tired after their forced march and earlier battle and that this led to their defeat at the hands of the Normans.

What happened at the Battle of Hastings?

The Normans had to inflict a defeat on the English as they were in enemy territory and had only a limited supply. [4] This meant that William the Conqueror’s army was forced to go on the offensive, and it was essential that he broke the massed ranks of the heavy infantry of Harold. The Normans knew that if they broke the formation of the Anglo-Saxons that they would be victorious. From the early morning of the 18th of October, William attacked the Anglo-Saxon shield wall. They had numerical superiority in cavalry, and the Norman knights were among the finest in Europe. They still failed to break the shield-wall. Then William ordered his archers to unleash volleys of arrows at the enemy’s line. They were mostly Bretons and acknowledged to be great archers, but they could not break the English lines.

Did the death of Harold changed the tide of battle?

However, while it is known for certain that Harold was killed during the battle, his death did not doom the Anglo-Saxons to defeat. [7] The last Anglo-Saxon king was killed after the tide of battle had shifted decisively in favor of the invaders from France. The feigned retreat ordered by William had worked brilliantly, and his counterattack had effectively won the day. One of the greatest myths about the battle was that Harold’s death doomed the Anglo-Saxons to defeat and to their eventual domination by the Normans.

How did Harold die at the Battle?

One of the apparently undisputed facts about the battle was that King Harold II was killed after an arrow in the eye struck him. This is based on one account and a scene from the Bayeux Tapestry. This tapestry is a 70-foot-long (200 meters) work of embroidery that depicts the Battle of Hastings. It was created in the 1070s and is one of the most significant accounts for the events of 1066. It shows a man being hit by an arrow to the eye, which is widely believed to have been a visualization of the death of the last Anglo-Saxon king. However, there are different accounts of Harold's death, but they all agree that he died in battle. [8]

In one Norman chronicle, the Anglo-Saxon monarch was slain as he ran away, but this was probably an invention to discredit the memory of a man still revered by many people in England for decades after 1066. There is another account of Harold’s death that states he was hit by several arrows, and as he lay wounded, he was hacked to pieces by some foot soldiers. How Harold died on that fateful day in October 1066 will never be fully established, and even the burial place of the last Anglo-Saxon king has not been identified. [9]

Did the Anglo-Saxons continue to fight the Normans after the Battle of Hastings?

In most historical accounts, the Battle of Hastings is so decisive that it ended all resistance against the Norman invaders and the Normans were able to impose their will on England. The reality is more complicated. While the Battle was decisive, resistance to the invaders remained. While the English nobles had submitted to William before his coronation as King in Westminster Abbey in 1066, Norman control was somewhat challenged. The Harold's repeatedly raided the coast of England from Ireland, and there were sporadic revolts against William I.

In 1069 the Danes landed in northern England to support a rebellion by the Northern Anglo-Saxon Earls. The Norman king was forced to pay the Danes to leave England. When the rebels refused to do battle, William the Conqueror launched a scorched earth policy, which caused a famine. This came to be known as the Harrying of the North, and some modern writers claim that it was tantamount to an act of genocide against the local population. The facts do not bear out the myth that the Battle of Hastings was the conquest's end. [10] Indeed, it was only in 1070 with the complete suppression of the Northern Earls.

There are many myths around the Battle of Hastings. Instead of being a contest for the English crown, it was an illegitimate bid for power by William, who had a weak claim to the English throne. Next, Harold's army did not lose the battle because of a forced march, nor did Harold's death turn the tide of war because he died after the Normans had taken advantage. William's feigned retreat was brilliant, which led to a decisive victory. Finally, William’s victory in 1066 did not resistance to the Norman invaders. English rebels fought for another four years before William consolidated control over England.

Further Reading

Palliser, D. M. (1993). Domesday Book and the ‘Harrying of the North.' Northern History, 29(1), 1-23.

Brown, R. Allen. The Normans and the Norman conquest (Leeds, Boydell & Brewer Ltd, 1985).

Chibnall, Marjorie. The debate on the Norman Conquest (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1999).

Bradbury, Jim. Battle of Hastings. (London, The History Press, 2010).

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Battle of Hastings

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 10, 2022 | Original: November 9, 2009

At the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066, King Harold II of England was defeated by the invading Norman forces of William the Conqueror. By the end of the bloody, all-day battle, Harold was dead and his forces were destroyed. Harold was the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, and the battle changed the course of history and established the French-speaking Normans as the new rulers of England, which in turn brought about a significant cultural, economic and military transformation, and helped to create the modern English language.

William the Conqueror

William the Conqueror was the son of Robert I, duke of Normandy in northern France, and his mistress Herleva (also called Arlette), a tanner’s daughter from Falaise. The duke, who had no other sons, designated William his heir, and with his death in 1035 William became duke of Normandy.

Did you know? William, an Old French name composed of Germanic elements (“wil,” meaning desire, and “helm,” meaning protection), was introduced to England by William the Conqueror and quickly became extremely popular. By the 13th century, it was the most common given name among English men.

William was of Viking origin. He spoke a dialect of French and grew up in Normandy, a fiefdom loyal to the French kingdom, but he and other Normans descended from Scandinavian invaders. One of William’s relatives, Rollo, pillaged northern France with Viking raiders in the late ninth and early 10th centuries, eventually accepting his own territory (Normandy, named for the Norsemen who controlled it) in exchange for peace.

King Harold II

Just over two weeks before the Battle of Hastings in October 1066, William had invaded England, claiming his right to the English throne. In 1051, William is believed to have visited England and met with his cousin Edward the Confessor , the childless English king. According to Norman historians, Edward promised to make William his heir.

On his deathbed, however, Edward granted the kingdom to Harold Godwinson , head of the leading noble family in England and more powerful than the king himself. In January 1066, King Edward died, and Harold Godwinson was proclaimed King Harold II. William immediately disputed his claim.

October 14, 1066

On September 28, 1066, William landed in England at Pevensey, on Britain’s southeast coast, with thousands of foot soldiers, horses and cavalrymen. Seizing Pevensey, he then marched to Hastings, where he paused to organize his forces and, according to some accounts, built a fortress or castle.

On October 13, Harold arrived near Hastings with his army. The next day, October 14, William led his forces out to battle before Harold’s troops had a chance to organize.

The one-day Battle of Hastings ended in a decisive victory against Harold’s men. Harold was killed—shot in the eye with an arrow, according to legend—his brothers Leofwine and Gyrth were also killed, and his English forces were scattered.

Legacy of the Battle of Hastings

After his victory at the Battle of Hastings, William marched on London and received the city’s submission. On Christmas Day of 1066, he was crowned the first Norman king of England in Westminster Abbey , and the Anglo-Saxon phase of English history came to an end.

Illiterate like most nobles of his time, William spoke no English when he ascended the throne and failed to master it. Thanks to the Norman invasion, French was spoken in England’s courts for centuries and completely transformed the English language, infusing it with new words and giving birth to modern English.

William I proved an effective king of England, and the Domesday Book , a great census of the lands and people of England, was among his notable achievements. Upon the death of William I in 1087, his son, William Rufus, became William II, the second Norman king of England.

Bayeux Tapestry

The story of the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest of England is told through the Bayeux Tapestry, a 230-foot-long masterpiece of medieval artistry. Probably commissioned by Bishop Odo, William the Conqueror’s half-brother, the tapestry consists of 58 detailed panels of woolen yarn embroidered on linen.

The Bayeux Tapestry was made in England sometime in the 11th century, making it a fairly contemporary record of the Battle of Hastings and other events of the Norman Conquest. Today it hangs in the Bayeux Tapestry Museum in Bayeux, France.

The Battle of Hastings: fact and fiction. British Library . The Bayeux Tapestry. Bayeux Museum . The Battle of Hastings. Historic UK . 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Sign Up Today

Start your 14 day free trial today

The History Hit Miscellany of Facts, Figures and Fascinating Finds

• Battle of Hastings

How William the Conqueror Won the Battle of Hastings

Laura Mackenzie

05 jun 2018.

William the Conqueror was a Norman duke  when he won the Battle of Hastings  on 14 October 1066 — a victory that would ultimately lead to him taking the English crown.

Although William’s army won the battle decisively, it was hard-fought on both sides and unusually long by medieval standards . Both William and his opponent, Harold II, King of England, had everything to lose and their forces were well matched.

Indeed, it wasn’t until dusk, once Harold had been killed, that victory for one side was certain. And that side, of course, was William’s. So how exactly did he do it?

The Normans’ advantage

On the day of the battle Harold held the higher ground, supposedly arranging his forces in a line of defence that stretched for nearly half a mile along a ridge. This line was protected by a so-called “shield wall”, literally a wall of shields held by soldiers standing in tight formation that was difficult to break.

But William’s invading force already had an advantage.

The Normans had arrived in Sussex — the southern English county in which the battle took place — on 29 September. This meant they had over two weeks to prepare for the confrontation with Harold and his men.

Harold, on the other hand, was in the north of England at the time of the Normans’ arrival, having just won a hard-fought battle against another rival claimant to the English throne, the Viking Harald Hardrada.

This recently won victory may have provided Harold and his men with some king of morale boost but it also meant they were battle-weary and exhausted. Meanwhile, William and his forces were busy provoking the English king from Sussex, attacking local villages as if to say, “Come and get us”.

Harold’s folly?

Harold was reportedly encouraged not to take on William himself but he ignored such warnings, rushing the core of his army back down south.

The king stopped briefly in London to pick up more men though some sources say that by the day of the battle Harold hadn’t yet gathered his full force. Either way, it is currently thought that both sides fielded large armies of between 5,000 and 7,000.

On the night of 13 October, Harold arrived in Wealden Forest, a few miles outside of Hastings, ready to surprise the Normans the following day. But it seems that William managed to outmanoeuvre him, moving his forces to ensure that they were ready to take on the English army when morning rolled around.

Throughout the long day of battle on 14 October, both sides suffered heavy casualties. And both fell victim to trick tactics and rumours that were going around the battlefield.

At one point some of William’s men started to flee, believing that the duke had been killed. William reportedly rode out in front of them, however, raising his helmet to show his face and that he was indeed alive, while a Norman counter-charge destroyed pursuing English troops.

At least twice, the Normans also apparently pretended to flee to encourage the English to break ranks from the defence line. As the day went on, the line became shorter as English soldiers were drawn out — though as light faded there was still a line holding.

The tipping point

Accounts differ as to how Harold died.

At this point it still seemed as though the battle could go either way, however. If the English could just hold on until dark then it is thought they would have been joined by reinforcements the following day — something that the Normans did not have coming. But if the Normans could just break the English defensive line before nightfall then the battle would likely be theirs.

The turning point came when the Normans made a final assault on the English line. By this point, it is thought that two of Harold’s brothers and other English commanders were already dead. And then, suddenly, Harold had been killed too.

Accounts differ as to how he died. But from taking an arrow to the eye to being hacked to pieces, all are grisly.

After that, the English were left without a leader and eventually fled.

And that is how William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings.

You May Also Like

Don’t Try This Tudor Health Hack: Bathing in Distilled Puppy Juice

Coming to History Hit in August

Coming to History Hit in September

Coming to History Hit in October

The Plimsoll Line: How Samuel Plimsoll Made Sailing Safer

How Polluting Shipwrecks Imperil the Oceans

How Cutty Sark Became the Fastest Sail-Powered Cargo Ship Ever Built

Why Did Elizabethan Merchants Start Weighing Their Coins?

‘Old Coppernose’: Henry VIII and the Great Debasement

The Royal Mint: Isaac Newton and the Trial of the Pyx Plate

How Henry VII Used English Coinage to Project Power

The Royal Mint: Oliver Cromwell’s Depiction as a Roman Emperor

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Battle of Hastings summary

Learn about the causes and significance of the battle of hastings.

Battle of Hastings , (Oct. 14, 1066) Battle that ended in the defeat of Harold II of England by William, duke of Normandy, and established the Normans as rulers of England. On his deathbed Edward the Confessor had granted the English throne to Harold, earl of Wessex, despite an earlier promise to make William his heir. William crossed to England from Normandy with a skilled army of 4,000–7,000 men, landing at Pevensey in Sussex and moving eastward along the coast to Hastings. Harold met the Norman invaders with an army of 7,000 men, many of whom were exhausted from the forced march south to meet William following Harold’s victory at the battle of Stamford Bridge three weeks earlier. The English were defeated after a day-long battle in which Harold was killed. After the battle, the Norman duke moved his army to London and was crowned William I on December 25. See also Norman Conquest .

• HISTORY MAGAZINE

This battle lasted just one day—but forever changed England

After their triumph in the Battle of Hastings, the Normans left lasting marks on the country’s aristocracy, architecture, and even the English language.

It’s rare that a single event transforms a nation’s entire identity, but that’s what happened with the Battle of Hastings in 1066. At the end of this bloody, one-day battle, Anglo-Saxon England became Norman, a fact that would overhaul English nobility law, the church, and architecture. Even the English language was affected, as French and Latin were woven into its fabric. Here’s how it all unfurled.

The setting

At that time, there were many close ties between England and Normandy, a powerful dukedom just across the English Channel. Normandy had been settled by Vikings, and its dukes ruled virtually independent of the French crown. Anglo-Saxon kings had headed England since the fifth century, at the end of Roman Britain. Priests, nobles, and traders from both sides often traveled back and forth across the Channel. Anglo-Saxon and Norman nobles often were related.

( How to spend a weekend in rural Normandy. )

The problem

When Edward the Confessor, king of England, died in early 1066, the Normans claimed the childless Edward had promised his cousin, the Norman duke William, to be his heir.

There was another claim to the throne from Harold Godwinson, a powerful Anglo-Danish nobleman and an able general who had been Edward’s right-hand man. He was also the dead king’s brother-in-law. But even this claim was complicated because in 1064, Harold’s ship had blown ashore in Norman territory and he fell into William’s custody. According to Norman accounts, Harold swore an oath to uphold William’s claim to the English throne and thereby was returned safely to England. The Normans believed the kingship was William’s.

But upon Edward’s death, the witan —the council of Anglo-Saxon leaders—named Harold as the rightful king. William, to say the least, was furious. He immediately planned an invasion of England to claim his kingship. He gathered 400 ships and 7,000 soldiers, including archers and mounted warriors. After a several-week weather delay, they set off.

( Why this famed Anglo-Saxon ship burial was likely the last of its kind. )

Harold’s diversion

Harold knew William was coming and assembled an army of some 3,000 or so housecarls, elite guards equipped with two-handed battle-axes, and about 4,000 others, mostly part-time soldiers provided by his lords.

But with William’s troops making their way across the Channel, Harold faced a new threat. His brother and bitter enemy Tostig had joined forces with Harald Hardrada, king of Norway, to invade the north of England. Harold was forced to march his soldiers at speed to York to meet the invad­ers. The Norsemen attackers fought fiercely. At one point, a single Viking held off the English advance; he reputedly killed 40 English soldiers defending Stamford Bridge until one of Harold’s men floated under the bridge and stabbed him through a chink in the planks.

At last, Harold defeated the opposing forces, and he and his troops rushed south to fend off William.

( How did England’s ‘lost king’ end up beneath a parking lot? )

Bayeux Tapestry

The Battle of Hastings

On September 28, 1066, William landed at Pevensey, on England’s southeast coast. He seized the town, then marched to Hastings.

When he learned of William’s arrival, Harold and his tired troops marched south. When they reached Hastings on October 13, they formed a shield wall on the hill of Senlac. At dawn the next day, before Harold could organize his troops, William attacked with both cavalry and infantry. Norman archers showered the English with arrows; the mighty English shield wall held them back. William’s cavalry then charged up the hill, but again could not break through the defensive line.

You May Also Like

The alleged affair that started a century-long war

Gettysburg was no ordinary battle. These maps reveal how Lee lost the fight.

England was born on this battlefield. Why can’t historians find it?

Finally, William ordered his troops to pretend to retreat. Harold’s troops charged after them, losing their defensive position. Heavy casualties included Harold, who apparently was shot through the eye with an arrow. With the news of his death, most of the remaining English soldiers fled. By the end of the day, the Nor­mans had won the field.

William faced little opposition after Hastings. On Christmas Day 1066, he was crowned William I of England in Westminster Abbey, ending England’s Anglo-Saxon phase of history. The Norman Conquest was in full swing.

( Anglo-Saxon England's defeat unfolds across the Bayeux Tapestry. )

Long-lasting impacts

The Norman Conquest, which created a united England and Normandy under a single ruler for 88 years—a succession of four Norman kings—had many deep-rooted effects.

William introduced feudalism to England, a medieval system that provided his closest supporters and trusted advisors—including the clergy, lords, and barons—with land in exchange for military support. The famous Domesday Book, Britain’s earliest public record charting the impact of this enormous program, reveals that just five percent of wealth remained with English nobles, as a Norman aristocracy replaced the old English aristocracy. Even now, many landed families trace their roots to Norman ancestors. With the power and wealth being held in the hands of a few Norman families, the government become more centralized.

As William put French-speaking Normans in nearly all positions of power throughout the country, the English language virtually disappeared. English didn’t reappear until

the 14th-century reign of Edward III—and in legal reporting until the 17th century. Nevertheless, French and Latin words worked their way into the English language still used today; the words “judge,” “jury,” and “evidence” are examples.

The Normans also introduced the Romanesque style of architecture, inspired by the Romans, in an attempt to create a mighty empire. Among their massive buildings, using rounded arches and massive cylindrical pillars, were between 500 and 1,000 castles, virtually nonexistent in pre-Conquest England and a vital element in the Norman’s efforts to maintain control. Striking buildings enduring to this day include cathedrals (Durham and Winchester), abbeys (St. John’s in Colchester), castles (Rochester, Norwich, Colchester), and fortifications (Tower of London’s White Tower).

( London's underground treasures reveal lifestyles of the rich and English. )

End of an era

After William died in 1087, his children disagreed on how the kingdom should be divided. One son, Henry I, managed to secure all the power and keep the kingdom united. He named his son, William Adelin, his official heir. Then, William’s boat sank in 1120 and the prince died. William named his daughter, Matilda, as his successor, an unpopular decision. Henry I died in 1135, setting off a succession crisis as his nephew, Stephen of Blois, seized the throne and named himself king. Matilda fought back, and law and order broke down in England, a time referred to as the “period of anarchy.”

In the end, a new English monarch was installed in 1154, King Henry II, officially marking the end of Norman rule.

Related Topics

• BATTLEFIELDS

Meet 5 of the fiercest queens from medieval times

These 3 samurai women were some of history’s most legendary warriors

Hidden details from the Battle of the Bulge come to light

Pearl Harbor was the only WWII attack on the U.S., right? Wrong.

While Napoleon conquered nations, his sister conquered hearts

• Photography
• Environment

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Paid Content
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

English Heritage

• https://www.facebook.com/englishheritage
• https://twitter.com/englishheritage
• https://www.youtube.com/user/EnglishHeritageFilm
• https://instagram.com/englishheritage

What Happened at the Battle of Hastings?

In the early morning of 14 October 1066, two great armies prepared to fight for the throne of England. On a hilltop 7 miles from Hastings were the forces of Harold, who had been crowned king nine months earlier. Facing them on the far side of the valley below were the troops of Duke William of Normandy, who believed he was the rightful king. By the end of the day, thousands lay dead on the battlefield, and the victorious William was one step nearer to seizing the throne.

Read on to find out what happened at the most famous battle in English history. 

On The Eve of Battle

By the evening of 13 October, the English and Norman armies were encamped within sight of each other at the place now known simply as Battle. Duke William of Normandy had had plenty of time to prepare his forces since landing at Pevensey over two weeks earlier. An invader in hostile territory, William’s intention was to force a decisive battle with Harold.

Harold, by contrast, had just won a hard-fought battle at Stamford Bridge, near York, where he had defeated another claimant to the English throne, Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, on 25 September. When the news of William’s landing reached Harold, he rushed the nucleus of his battle-weary army back south, stopping only briefly in London to gather any extra forces he could.

How Do We Know?

There are an unusually large number of near-contemporary sources giving us detailed information about the battle. But all accounts of it rely on two main sources: the Bayeux Tapestry and the chronicler William of Poitiers.

William of Poitiers, a Norman soldier, and later King William’s chaplain, compiled The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans and King of England in about 1071. Although he didn’t fight at Battle, he clearly knew those who had.

The battle is brought alive and given an immediacy unique among medieval conflicts by the Bayeux Tapestry. This tells the story of the events from 1064 to the end of the battle in a sequence of pictorial scenes. The tapestry was probably made soon after the conquest for William’s half-brother Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who features prominently in it.

Although both sources tell the story from the Norman viewpoint, justifying William’s claim to the English throne, they provide far more information than we have for any other medieval battle.

Taking Up Position

Soon after dawn on 14 October, Harold arranged his forces in a strong defensive position along the ridge now occupied by the buildings of Battle Abbey. The English line probably stretched for almost half a mile, and formed a ‘shield wall’ – literally a wall of shields held by soldiers standing close together – on the hilltop. This formation was considered almost impervious to cavalry, but left little room for manoeuvre.

William ranged his army to the south, at first on the far hillside above the marshy valley bottom. His Norman troops were in the centre, probably with Bretons to the west and French to the east. These forces were in three ranks: the archers in front, then the infantry, and behind them the mounted knights.

The Opposing Armies

There has been much debate about the size of the two armies. Some sources state that Harold had assembled a large army, but others say that he hadn’t yet gathered his full force. William’s army is said to have included not only Normans, but also men from Brittany, Aquitaine, France and Maine. The latest thinking is that both armies had between 5,000 and 7,000 men – large forces by the standards of the day.

As the Bayeux Tapestry shows, both had horses, helmets, mail armour, shields, swords and bows. The Normans used their crossbows with great success on the dense ranks of the English. In contrast, English archers were in short supply – perhaps a result of the speed of Harold’s advance to Sussex, as bowmen probably travelled on foot.

The main difference was the Norman use of cavalry. English armies used horses for getting around, but on the battlefield they fought on foot. The core of Harold’s army was his housecarls, perhaps the finest infantry in Europe, armed with their terrible two-handed battle-axes. In contrast, the backbone of William’s forces was his 2,000–3,000-strong cavalry force. At the Battle of Hastings, these different military cultures met head on.

Battle Commences

At about 9am the battle opened to ‘the terrible sound of trumpets on both sides’. Then, as now, the landscape must have been open enough to allow the two armies to manoeuvre. The slopes were probably scrubby grazing land, with the ridge occupied by the English army backed by forests.

To win, the English needed to stay behind their shield wall, allow the Normans to be decimated in repeated assaults, and then sweep forward to defeat the invaders. In contrast, the Normans had to climb the slope to be within bowshot of the English – a couple of hundred metres at most – then fracture the English line with archers and infantry so the cavalry could ride through and finish off the broken remnants.

As William of Poitiers recorded, ‘It was a strange kind of battle, one side attacking with all mobility, the other withstanding, as though rooted to the soil.’

Harold’s forces repulsed the first Norman attacks, the English battle-axes cleaving the Norman shields and armour. William’s forces regrouped, but then some of them on the left flank, hearing a rumour that the duke had been killed, fled in panic. Some of the English began to pursue them down the hill.

To stop panic spreading and rally his troops, William rode out in front of them, raising his helmet to show his face and shouting: ‘Look at me! I live, and with God’s help I shall conquer!’ In a successful counter-charge, his troops surrounded the pursuing English forces on a hillock and annihilated them. The immediate crisis had passed.

Trick Tactics

For the rest of the day, the Normans repeated their assaults on the English shield wall. At least twice they pretended to flee in mid-battle, to encourage the English to break ranks and pursue them. They were partly successful, but the English line still held.

We can only imagine the grim scene: the hillside slippery with blood and littered with bodies, arrows, and discarded and broken weapons; the tiredness, hunger and fear of the surviving combatants; and the commanders shouting to rally their exhausted forces. William of Poitiers recorded that the Anglo-Saxons were so tightly packed together that ‘the dead could scarcely fall and the wounded could not remove themselves from the action’. William is said to have had three horses killed beneath him.

The Death of King Harold

With the autumn daylight fading, the Normans made one final effort to take the ridge. By that time, Harold’s two brothers and other English commanders were almost certainly dead.

Then came the decisive moment: during the final assault, Harold himself was killed. There are differing accounts of how he died. One describes how an arrow struck him in the right eye, an event possibly depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. But one of the earliest sources describes Harold being hacked to death at the hands of four Norman knights, in graphic detail:

The first, cleaving his breast through the shield with his point, drenched the earth with a gushing torrent of blood; the second smote off his head below the protection of the helmet and the third pierced the inwards of his belly with his lance; the fourth hewed off his thigh and bore away the severed limb.

By the early 12th century these two accounts had been conflated.

The Battle Ends

The Normans now began a last fierce assault. Leaderless, and lacking hope, the English forces finally gave way and fled. William of Poitiers described the scene:

the Normans, though strangers to the district, pursued them relentlessly, slashing their guilty backs and putting the last touches to the victory. Even the hooves of the horses inflicted punishment on the dead as they galloped over their bodies.

At a time when such contests were frequently decided within an hour, victory at Hastings was not certain until dusk, some nine hours after the fighting began – an indication of just how evenly matched and led the two armies were.

Battle Abbey seen from across the 1066 battlefield

Of course, the Battle of Hastings was only the start of a massive upheaval. After his victory, William marched on London, and he was crowned King of England on Christmas day 1066. A generation later, the Normans had fundamentally transformed the country they had conquered – from how it was organised and governed to its language, laws and customs, and perhaps most visibly today, its architecture. Soon after the Conquest a wave of castle building began across England, in order to secure the Normans’ hold on power. The end of the battle also marks the beginning of the history of Battle Abbey. In about 1071, the king himself founded the abbey on the site of the battle, to atone for the carnage of the Conquest. According to an early tradition, its high altar was placed, on William’s orders, ‘on the very spot’ where Harold’s body had been found.

Find out more

1066 and the Norman Conquest

Find out much more about the events of 1066 and the impact of the Conquest, and discover spectacular Norman places to visit across England.

Where did the Battle of Hastings Happen?

Was Battle Abbey built ‘on the very spot’ where King Harold fell, or was the Battle of Hastings actually fought elsewhere? Discover the latest thinking about the battlefield’s location.

Atoning for the Bloodshed

Battle Abbey was a memorial to William’s great victory – but it was also an act of penance. Find out why this great abbey was founded.

The Weapons of 1066

From the simple and affordable club to fine steel-bladed swords, we take a closer look at  the weapons used by the Normans and Saxons at Hastings.

Battle Abbey's History

Read an in-depth history of the abbey founded by William the Conqueror after the Battle of Hastings, from its foundation to its suppression and after.

Buy the Guidebook

This guide includes a tour of the battlefield and the imposing abbey buildings, as well as a history of the site, illustrated with reconstruction drawings, plans and historical images.

The Impact of the Norman Conquest of England

Server costs fundraiser 2024.

The Norman conquest of England , led by William the Conqueror (r. 1066-1087 CE) was achieved over a five-year period from 1066 CE to 1071 CE. Hard-fought battles, castle building, land redistribution, and scorched earth tactics ensured that the Normans were here to stay. The conquest saw the Norman elite replace that of the Anglo- Saxons and take over the country's lands, the Church was restructured, a new architecture was introduced in the form of motte and bailey castles and Romanesque cathedrals, feudalism became much more widespread, and the English language absorbed thousands of new French words, amongst a host of many other lasting changes which all combine to make the Norman invasion a momentous watershed in English history.

Conquest: Hastings to Ely

The conquest of England by the Normans started with the 1066 CE Battle of Hastings when King Harold Godwinson (aka Harold II, r. Jan-Oct 1066 CE) was killed and ended with William the Conqueror's defeat of Anglo- Saxon rebels at Ely Abbey in East Anglia in 1071 CE. In between, William had to more or less constantly defend his borders with Wales and Scotland , repel two invasions from Ireland by Harold's sons, and put down three rebellions at York.

The consequences of the Norman conquest were many and varied. Further, some effects were much longer-lasting than others. It is also true that society in England was already developing along its own path of history before William the Conqueror arrived and so it is not always so clear-cut which of the sometimes momentous political, social, and economic changes of the Middle Ages had their roots in the Norman invasion and which may well have developed under a continued Anglo-Saxon regime. Still, the following list summarises what most historians agree on as some of the most important changes the Norman conquest brought in England:

• the Anglo-Saxon landowning elite was almost totally replaced by Normans.
• the ruling apparatus was made much more centralised with power and wealth being held in much fewer hands.
• the majority of Anglo-Saxon bishops were replaced with Norman ones and many dioceses' headquarters were relocated to urban centres.
• Norman motte and bailey castles were introduced which reshaped warfare in England, reducing the necessity for and risk of large-scale field engagements.
• the system of feudalism developed as William gave out lands in return for military service (either in person or a force of knights paid for by the landowner).
• manorialism developed and spread further where labourers worked on their lord's estate for his benefit.
• the north of England was devastated for a long time following William's harrying of 1069-70 CE.
• Domesday Book , a detailed and systematic catalogue of the land and wealth in England was compiled in 1086-7 CE.
• the contact and especially trade between England and Continental Europe greatly increased.
• the two countries of France and England became historically intertwined, initially due to the crossover of land ownership, i.e. Norman nobles holding lands in both countries.
• the syntax and vocabulary of the Anglo-Saxon Germanic language were significantly influenced by the French language.

The Ruling Elite

The Norman conquest of England was not a case of one population invading the lands of another but rather the wresting of power from one ruling elite by another. There was no significant population movement of Norman peasants crossing the channel to resettle in England, then a country with a population of 1.5-2 million people. Although, in the other direction, many Anglo-Saxon warriors fled to Scandinavia after Hastings, and some even ended up in the elite Varangian Guard of the Byzantine emperors.

The lack of an influx of tens of thousands of Normans was no consolation for the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, of course, as 20 years after Hastings there were only two powerful Anglo-Saxon landowners in England. Some 200 Norman nobles and 100 bishops and monasteries were given estates which had been distributed amongst 4,000 Anglo-Saxon landowners prior to 1066 CE. To ensure the Norman nobles did not abuse their power (and so threaten William himself), many of the old Anglo-Saxon tools of governance were kept in place, notably the sheriffs who governed in the king's name the districts or shires into which England had traditionally been divided. The sheriffs were also replaced with Normans but they did provide a balance to Norman landowners in their jurisdiction.

The Church was similarly restructured with the appointment of Norman bishops - including in 1070 CE, the key archbishops of Canterbury (to Lanfranc) and York (to Thomas) - so that by 1087 CE there were only two Anglo-Saxon bishops left. Another significant change was the move of many dioceses' headquarters - the main church or cathedral - to urban locations (Dorchester to Lincoln, Lichfield to Chester, and Sherborne to Salisbury being just some examples). This move gave William much greater administrative and military control of the Church across England but also benefitted the Church itself by bringing bishops closer to the relatively new urban populations.

The royal court and government became more centralised, indeed, more so than in any other kingdom in Europe thanks to the holding of land and resources by only a relatively few Norman families. Although William distributed land to loyal supporters, they did not typically receive any political power with their land. In a physical sense, the government was not centralised because William still did not have a permanent residence, preferring to move around his kingdom and regularly visit Normandy. The Treasury did, though, remain at Winchester and it was filled as a result of William imposing heavy taxes throughout his reign.

Motte & Bailey Castles

The Normans were hugely successful warriors and the importance they gave to cavalry and archers would affect English armies thereafter. Perhaps even more significant was the construction of garrisoned forts and castles across England. Castles were not entirely unknown in England prior to the conquest but they were then used only as defensive redoubts rather than a tool to control a geographical area. William embarked on a castle-building spree immediately after Hastings as he well knew that a protected garrison of cavalry could be the most effective method of military and administrative control over his new kingdom . From Cornwall to Northumbria, the Normans would build over 65 major castles and another 500 lesser ones in the decades after Hastings.

The Normans not only introduced a new concept of castle use but also military architecture to the British Isles: the motte and bailey castle . The motte was a raised mound upon which a fortified tower was built and the bailey was a courtyard surrounded by a wooden palisade which occupied an area around part of the base of the mound. The whole structure was further protected by an encircling ditch or moat. These castles were built in both rural and urban settings and, in many cases, would be converted into stone versions in the early 12th century CE. A good surviving example is the Castle Rising in Norfolk, but other, more famous castles still standing today which were originally Norman constructions include the Tower of London , Dover Castle in Kent, and Clifford's Tower in York. Norman Romanesque cathedrals were also built (for example, at York, Durham, Canterbury, Winchester, and Lincoln), with the white stone of Caen being an especially popular choice of material, one used, too, for the Tower of London.

Domesday, Feudalism & the Peasantry

There was no particular feeling of outraged nationalism following the conquest - the concept is a much more modern construct - and so peasants would not have felt their country had somehow been lost. Neither was there any specific hatred of the Normans as the English grouped all William's allies together as a single group - Bretons and Angevins were simply 'French speakers'. In the Middle Ages, visitors to an area that came from a distant town were regarded just as 'foreign' as someone from another country. Peasants really only felt loyalty to their own local communities and lords, although this may well have resulted in some ill-feeling when a lord was replaced by a Norman noble in cases where the Anglo-Saxon lord was held with any affection. The Normans would certainly have seemed like outsiders, a feeling only strengthened by language barriers, and the king, at least initially, did ensure loyalties by imposing harsh penalties on any dissent. For example, if a Norman were found murdered, then the nearest village was burnt - a policy hardly likely to win over any affection.

At the same time, there were new laws to ensure the Normans did not abuse their power, such as the crime of murder being applied to the unjustified killing of non-rebels or for personal gain and the introduction of trial by battle to defend one's innocence. In essence, citizens were required to swear an oath of loyalty to the king, in return for which they received legal protection if they were wronged. Some of the new laws would be long-lasting, such as the favouring of the firstborn in inheritance claims, while others were deeply unpopular, such as William's withdrawal of hunting rights in certain areas, notably the New Forest. Poachers were severely dealt with and could expect to be blinded or mutilated if caught. Another important change due to new laws regarded slavery, which was essentially eliminated from England by 1130 CE, just as it had been in Normandy.

Perhaps one area where hatred of all-things Norman was prevalent was the north of England. Following the rebellions against William's rule there in 1067 and 1068 CE, the king spent the winter of 1069-70 CE 'harrying' the entire northern part of his kingdom from the west to east coast. This involved hunting down rebels, murders and mutilations amongst the peasantry, and the burning of crops, livestock, and farming equipment, which resulted in a devastating famine. As Domesday Book (see below) revealed, much of the northern lands were devastated and catalogued as worthless. It would take over a century for the region to recover.

Domesday Book was compiled on William's orders in 1086-7 CE, probably to find out for tax purposes exactly who owned what in England following the deaths of many Anglo-Saxon nobles over the course of the conquest and the giving out of new estates and titles by the king to his loyal followers. Indeed, Domesday Book reveals William's total reshaping of land ownership and power in England. It was the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken in any medieval kingdom and is full of juicy statistics for modern historians to study such as the revelation that 90% of the population lived in the countryside and 75% of the people were serfs (unfree labourers).

A consequence of William's land policies was the development (but not the origin of) feudalism. That is, William, who considered all the land in England his own personal property, gave out parcels of land (fiefs) to nobles (vassals) who in return had to give military service when required, such as during a war or to garrison castles and forts. Not necessarily giving service in person, a noble had to provide a number of knights depending on the size of the fief. The noble could have free peasants or serfs (aka villeins) work his lands, and he kept the proceeds of that labour. If a noble had a large estate, he could rent it out to a lesser noble who, in turn, had peasants work that land for him, thus creating an elaborate hierarchy of land ownership. Under the Normans, ecclesiastical landowners such as monasteries were similarly required to provide knights for military service.

The manorial system developed from its early Anglo-Saxon form under the Normans. Manorialism derives its name from the 'manor', the smallest piece of land which could support a single family. For administrative purposes, estates were divided into these units. Naturally, a powerful lord could own many hundreds of manors, either in the same place or in different locations. Each manor had free and/or unfree labour which worked on the land. The profits of that labour went to the landowner while the labourers sustained themselves by also working a small plot of land loaned to them by their lord. Following William's policy of carving up estates and redistributing them, manorialism became much more widespread in England.

Sign up for our free weekly email newsletter!

Trade & International Relations

The histories and even the cultures to some extent of France and England became much more intertwined in the decades after the conquest. Even as the King of England, William remained the Duke of Normandy (and so he had to pay homage to the King of France). The royal houses became even more interconnected following the reigns of William's two sons (William II Rufus, r. 1087-1100 CE and Henry I, r. 1100-1135 CE) and the civil wars which broke out between rivals for the English throne from 1135 CE onwards. A side effect of this close contact was the significant modification over time of the Anglo-Saxon Germanic language, both the syntax and vocabulary being influenced by the French language. That this change occurred even amongst the illiterate peasantry is testimony to the fact that French was commonly heard spoken everywhere.

One specific area of international relations which greatly increased was trade. Before the conquest, England had had limited trade with Scandinavia, but as this region went into decline from the 11th century CE and because the Normans had extensive contacts across Europe (England was not the only place they conquered), then trade with the Continent greatly increased. Traders also relocated from the Continent, notably to places where they were given favourable customs arrangements. Thus places like London, Southampton, and Nottingham attracted many French merchant settlers, and this movement included other groups such as Jewish merchants from Rouen. Goods thus came and went across the English Channel, for example, huge quantities of English wool were exported to Flanders and wine was imported from France (although there is evidence it was not the best wine that country had to offer).

The Norman conquest of England, then, resulted in long-lasting and significant changes for both the conquered and the conquerors. The fate of the two countries of England and France would become inexorably linked over the following centuries as England became a much stronger and united kingdom within the British Isles and an influential participant in European politics and warfare thereafter. Even today, names of people and places throughout England remind of the lasting influence the Normans brought with them from 1066 CE onwards.

Subscribe to topic Bibliography Related Content Books Cite This Work License

Bibliography

• Allen Brown, R. The Norman Conquest of England. Boydell, 1995.
• Anonymous. The Oxford History of Medieval Europe. Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Blockmans, W. Introduction to Medieval Europe 300–1500. Routledge, 2017.
• Cole, T. The Norman Conquest. Amberley Publishing, 2016.
• Gravett, C. Norman Stone Castles –1204. Osprey Publishing, 2004.
• Keen, M. The Penguin History of Medieval Europe. Penguin Books, 1991.
• Mathew, D. Britain and the Continent 1000-1300. Hodder Education, 2018.
• McDowall, D. An Illustrated History of Britain. Pearson Education Ltd, 1989.
• Morris, M. The Norman Conquest. Pegasus, 2017.
• Nicolle, D. The Normans. Osprey Publishing, 1987.
• Pounds, N.J.G. The Medieval Castle in England and Wales. Cambridge University Press, 1993.

About the Author

Translations

We want people all over the world to learn about history. Help us and translate this article into another language!

Related Content

Harold Godwinson

Egyptian Gods - The Complete List

Bayeux Tapestry

Battle of Hastings

Norman Conquest of England

Edward the Confessor

Free for the world, supported by you.

World History Encyclopedia is a non-profit organization. For only $5 per month you can become a member and support our mission to engage people with cultural heritage and to improve history education worldwide.

Recommended Books

Cite This Work

Cartwright, M. (2019, January 23). The Impact of the Norman Conquest of England . World History Encyclopedia . Retrieved from https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1323/the-impact-of-the-norman-conquest-of-england/

Chicago Style

Cartwright, Mark. " The Impact of the Norman Conquest of England ." World History Encyclopedia . Last modified January 23, 2019. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1323/the-impact-of-the-norman-conquest-of-england/.

Cartwright, Mark. " The Impact of the Norman Conquest of England ." World History Encyclopedia . World History Encyclopedia, 23 Jan 2019. Web. 11 Aug 2024.

License & Copyright

Submitted by Mark Cartwright , published on 23 January 2019. The copyright holder has published this content under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike . This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms. When republishing on the web a hyperlink back to the original content source URL must be included. Please note that content linked from this page may have different licensing terms.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Exemplar essay analysis: why did William win the Battle of Hastings? Why did William win the Battle of Hastings

Related Papers

Djalma Bina

Michael K . Lawson

This is an updated pdf edition of the second edition of my book on the battle of Hastings published in 2003 and now out of print. It is regarded, at least by some, as the definitive academic treatment of the battle.

1066 in Perspective, ed. David Bates

John Gillingham

Vladimir Moss

An Account of the Reign of the Last Anglo-Saxon King of England, of the Events of 1066 and the Aftermath of the Nprman Conquest both at home and abroad

Stephen Morillo

Ed. and introduction. Boydell and Brewer, 1996. The file is the Introduction, which discusses Hastings within the concept of "decisive battles" and then outlines primary and secondary sources included in the book and narrates the main stages of the battle with a set of author-created maps.

The Battle of Hastings ... at Sedlescombe

Jonathan Starkey

Explains our theory that the Battle of Hastings was fought at Hurst Lane near Sedlescombe. Also explains why we think that the Normans entered England in the Brede estuary, landed on the north bank of the Brede, and camped at Winchelsea. Third Edition: Made less 'folksy' and removed section about alternative battlefields. Second Edition: Improved graphics, changed font, improved readability. Rev 2 updated with survey results from BAG. Rev 1, 2, 3a: Fixed some typos and switched Appendix A section on Haestingaceastre and Haestingaport. Rev 3b. Fixed an ambiguity regarding Latin translation of Warrenne Chronicle Rev 3c: Elaborated on a minor point in Hastinges placenames

Meghan Woolley

Adrian C Grant

This paper announces the Battle of White Hill. It took place in 926 and was a crushing victory for King Athelstan of Wessex. As the immediate result of the battle, Athelstan reasserted control over Northumbria which he had annexed by fiat and then lost over the course of the previous twelve months. In the treaty of Eamont Bridge, which followed hard upon this victory, the kings of Scotland and Strathclyde formally recognised Athelstan as king of all England and overlord of all Britain. As such I propose that this was the "First Battle of Britain". Without victory for Athelstan at this battle, there would have been no Battle of Brunanburh (937), so vaunted by the annalists. This paper sets this battle in its context, identifying the battlefield. The author hopes that the local authority will now take steps to preserve and memorialise such of the battlefield as remains otherwise undisturbed and takes appropriate steps to recognise the forthcoming 1100th anniversary.

Luciana Saraiva

Transactions in GIS

Christopher Macdonald Hewitt

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Adrien Barowski-Morley

Programme of XXV Leeds International Medieval Congress

Paulo Christian da Cruz

Medieval Archaeology

Jeremy Haslam

The Journal of Military History

Mark Hagger

Kathleen Tyson

Katharine Keats-Rohan

To Win and Lose a Medieval Battle

Andrew Villalon

Sean Gregory

Historical Geography

SEDERI Yearbook

peter purton

calum campbell

Filippo Donvito

Bryant Macfarlane

History, Volume 94 (2009) issue 1, number 313

Ad van Kempen

James Barnaby

Stephen M Lewis

Ken Mondschein

David Breeze

The International History Review

John B Hattendorf

Alessandro Migliara

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Why did the Normans win the Battle of Hastings?

There are three main reasons why the Normans won the Battle of Hastings. The first reason was that King Harold was not ready when the Normans attacked. The secondly, Duke William of Normandy prepared well before the battle. The final reason was that William was exceptionally lucky.

King Harold lost the battle because his army was not prepared. Some of his best fighters died at the Battle of Stamford Bridge and the rest of his army were tired out from the battle and the journey south to meet Duke William’s army. Then when they finally arrived in the South, Duke William attacked before they were properly ready. The English held out for a while, but then the Normans tricked them by pretending to retreat. The English had followed them, leaving their strong position on a hill. In the middle of the battle, Harold died, and his army were weak without him.

There is evidence in the Bayeux Tapestry, which was written after the battle. It shows the details of the Battle, including William’s trick and the English on top of a hill.

Duke William of Normandy won the battle because was well prepared and had a good army. They prepared carefully for the battle. The Normans had knights on horseback who were skilful fighters. William also was skilful and ambitious, and he was determined to be King of England. In the Bayeux Tapestry, it shows William’s army getting ready, embarking huge ships full of wood and supplies such as wine, weapons, and horses. There are also images of the knights in full battle armour riding out to war.

The battle was a success for Duke William of Normandy because he had a considerable amount of good luck. The wind changed, and so the Normans managed to cross the Channel while Harold was still in the north. When they arrived, they made a fortified camp. The Bayeux Tapestry has pictures of William making a speech to his soldiers. William arranged his troops carefully and used them skilfully in battle. But they were losing, so then William decides to make a trick on the English. He made his troops act like they were retreating. King Harold and his army followed them, leaving their strong position on the hill, and that was what made Harold lose. The evidence of this is written in history books everywhere, since it was the main point of the battle really – that William won. Again in the Bayeux Tapestry there is a scene depicting Harold’s army all bunched up at the top of a hill, then another with William taking his helmet off, and of the Normans’ victory.

In conclusion, William defeated Harold because of his luck, and that Harold was unprepared.   The most important point in the Battle of Hastings was that William won the battle. He made a last-minute plan during the battle, a plan that resulted in the defeat of the English. And yet what if Harold hadn’t fallen for the trick? Or no Norman knight had doubted the presence of his leader? What if Harold hadn’t been killed ?

But what history doesn’t really explain, is that what happened after the famous battle? Where did William go? Where was Harold buried? The answers could be anywhere. But where…?

Resources you can trust

Exemplar essay analysis: Why did William win the Battle of Hastings?

A really useful introduction to essay writing for key stage 3 students in the context of the Norman Conquest. An example essay (on ‘Why did William win the Battle of Hastings?’) is provided, and students are tasked with marking it. Using the hamburger analogy, they look for successful topic sentences, 'meaty' fillings and good concluding explanations. They also have the opportunity to identify weaker points and improve them.

Extract from the essay

The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066 because King Edward had died leaving the English throne without an heir. Harold Godwinson seized the throne but he had two rivals, Harald Hardrada and William of Normandy. William eventually won the battle and the throne of England, and this piece of writing explains why.

One reason that William won was because he was better prepared for the battle than Harold. He had over two weeks to get ready after landing in Pevensey Bay. His men were well fed and rested. Harold, on the other hand, had just fought Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge and had to march back down south to fight William. Some of his army had been killed, others were injured, and they were all tired from the long march.

Another major reason that William won the battle was because his army was better than Harold’s. Lots of Harold’s men were just farmers, but all the Norman soldiers had good weapons. This meant that William was in a strong position at the start of the battle.

All reviews

Have you used this resource?

Lily Mikersons

Resources you might like

Medievalists.net

Where the Middle Ages Begin

New Theories on the Battle of Hastings: A Shift in Location and Weather’s Role

Two recent studies are reshaping our understanding of the Battle of Hastings. One challenges the long-held belief about where the battle took place, while the other highlights the crucial role that weather played in the events of 1066.

The Battle of Hastings, fought on October 14, 1066, was a decisive conflict that marked the end of Anglo-Saxon rule in England and the beginning of Norman dominance. The battle saw William, Duke of Normandy, defeat King Harold II, who had only recently fended off an invasion from Norway. Harold’s death in the battle led to William’s ascent as William the Conqueror. This victory fundamentally altered the course of English history and is often the subject of many books and papers.

One of these papers, “Heathfield Down: An Alternative Location for the Battlefield of Hastings, 1066,” by Rebecca Welshman and Simon Coleman, offers a new site for the battle: Old Heathfield, which is about ten miles northwest of Battle Abbey (where most historians believe the battle took place). They also propose a scenario explaining why the English and Norman forces would have fought there.

Among their evidence are several accounts written in the 18th and 19th centuries that suggest the battle took place in this area. For example, a 1751 edition of England’s Gazetteer states: “Heathfield, (Sussex), lies on a Down of its own name, near Burwash-Downs, 7m. from Hastings, and 12 from Tunbridge [Tonbridge, Kent] and Lewes. On this plain was fought the decisive battle bet. Will. the Conq. and K. Harold.”

It was also in this area that a bronze battle-axe was discovered in 1848, which at the time was connected to the Battle of Hastings. All this points to the idea that the Battle of Hastings was fought in Heathfield, at least according to local folklore.

Welshman and Coleman also find importance in a passage from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (D text), which explains that “com him togenes æt þære haran apuldran, and Wyllelm him com ongean on unwær, ær þis folc gefylced wære.” (“[Harold] came against him [William] at the grey apple tree. And William came upon him by surprise before his people were marshalled”). They believe that the English forces would have gathered at this apple tree because it was a significant landmark. There was such a “hoar apple tree” in Heathfield that served as a boundary marker.

These clues suggest to Welshman and Coleman that Heathfield might actually be the site of the famous battle in 1066. They write:

While it may have suited the field of British history to maintain the tradition of Battle Abbey as the ‘very spot’ where the battle took place, and to neglect evidence in favour of Heathfield until it was almost lost altogether, military historians now have a collective responsibility to seriously consider fresh evidence.

Their article, “Heathfield Down: An Alternative Location for the Battlefield of Hastings, 1066,” appears in the International Journal of Military History and Historiography . Click here to read it . See also their webpage discussing the findings .

Did the #BattleofHastings really take place at #BattleAbbey ? Our research suggests it could possibly have taken place much further away on the highest ground in #EastSussex once known as #HeathfieldDown . #medievalhistory https://t.co/xog8n8YBDD — Rebecca Welshman (@thedistantsea) May 23, 2024

The second article, by Christopher Macdonald Hewitt, evaluates what climate and paleoclimatic data can tell us about the events of 1066. Hewitt points to three important findings:

• The weather impacted the timing of the campaign—chronicle accounts explain that unfavorable winds and storms delayed the Norman fleet from crossing the English Channel for several weeks. This was likely caused by “a low air pressure system centered near Iceland [which] brought westerly winds and precipitation to northwest Europe including the British Isles and English Channel and hence could have been a driving force behind the weather in 1066.”
• It seems that the summer of 1066 was wetter than average. This would have left more marshy areas, including the battlefield (if it was indeed located at its traditional site).
• The wetter conditions would have also affected the soil and, “in conjunction with armies moving over the battlefield, could [have] result[ed] in more challenging terrain which the armies and commanders would have to contend with.”

Hewitt finds that by examining this data, one can gain new insights into the Battle of Hastings. He concludes:

By refocusing the analysis of the battle from a primarily literary focus to one where the climate and paleoclimatic data is the central focus of study, a more comprehensive understanding of the weather surrounding the campaign and battle is provided than can be achieved from literary sources alone. While the written sources emphasize that the campaign was delayed because of the weather, in the literature this point has not been investigated to the depth that it can be. Specifically, by incorporating recent studies on climate change, paleoclimatic reconstructions, and patterns into the discussion of the battle, it is possible to provide a more in-depth climatological context of the campaign, which evidently shaped the timing of the battle. This is important because it can lead to re-evaluations of previous literary interpretations.

Christopher Macdonald Hewitt’s article, “Duke William’s 1066 Campaign: The Historical Climatology,” appears in Physical Geography . Click here to access it .

Top Image: Bayeux Tapestry

Related Posts

• Northern Lights on the Battle of Hastings
• The strange death of King Harold II: Propaganda and the problem of legitimacy in the aftermath of the Battle of Hastings
• Which Epic Battle Would You Have Fought In?
• Walking Tour of the Battle of Stamford Bridge
• William the Conqueror and the Harrying of the North

Subscribe to Medievalverse

Sample details

• Words: 1137
• Views: 1,032

Related Topics

• Trench warfare
• Vietnam War
• World War I
• World War II
• Pearl Harbor
• Just war theory
• War on Terror

Why Did William Win the Battle of Hastings?

Luck and timing were central to William’s success at Hastings. Firstly, in advance of the campaign, two of William’s rivals had died; Henry, king of France and Count Fulk of Anjou. This was very significant to the campaign because it enabled William to leave Normandy feeling safe because his two main adversaries were dead, and permitted him to get to Hastings without agonizing over an invasion and to dedicate his full thought to the campaign which lay ahead.

When he did embark on the campaign, the weather was in the favour of the Normans. Initially, William had intended to embark in July but owing to adverse winds, the invasion was delayed from the end of July to September; first at the River Dives and then at St. Valery on the Somme . Additionally the Navy were no longer at seas as only remained on the Seas until the 8th September. With the amalgamation of clear seas and good weather on the 28th September, the day of crossing, The Saxons crossed the channel in just over 24 hours.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

Moreover, unbeknownst to William, this also was an extremely auspicious time for him because if he had arrived at his intended time of crossing in July, Harold and the Saxon army would have been waiting for him. However, it was a time of unease for Harold that year, as it was apparent that England was going to be invaded by either a Norman or a Scandinavian Force, and so Harold was nervous throughout the entirety of his nine month rain.

Harold, thinking that he could be ubiquitous, had troops both at the North and at the South, waiting in vain for these invasions; however this only tired out his troops and stretched his resources. The Scandinavians arrived first, and so Harold made the southern fyrd march north to fight the Vikings. The battles of Gate Fulford, led by Edwin and Morcar, and the Battle of Stanford Bridge, were both won by the Saxons, boosting their morale but nonetheless they suffered great losses and the troops were tired where as the Normans were full of vigour and highly motivated.

This was another way in which luck played in the favour of William. Without the invasions from the Scandinavians, William would have had to fight an energized army; instead the Normans fought only one battle against an already weakened enemy due to the significant losses of housecarles. Ultimately Harold proved himself an adequate leader with success in the north, but it seems that a sequence of grossly miscalculated decisions ultimately contributed to his defeat. We can deduce that if Harold had waited longer before striking on the Normans, the battle might not have had the same outcome.

This is because Harold had been working his men into the ground; facing a double invasion had put an enormous strain on the army, and the army had been mobilised since May 1066, a notable feat in itself. If Harold had rested his troops for a few days it would have benefited him greatly. Not only would he have been able to join up with Edwin and Morcar who were marching south at the time of Hastings and in turn recruited thousands more archers and troops, but it would have also given his army some time to rest after the Battle of Stanford Bridge.

Instead, Harold marched his army from York to London and the 58 mile walk from London to Hastings in just three days, further contributing to the army’s fatigue. Although it was in Harold’s best interest to wait, as this would rejuvenate his troops and starve William out, his impetus to fight William was too great to exact revenge for rampaging his lands. Even so, Hastings was closely fought. The Saxon’s shield wall held was at first impenetrable, helped by the steep incline of the hill. Harold’s mistake during the battle was due to the fact that he was fighting on foot.

This meant he wasn’t as mobile, thus struggling with controlling the fyrd who were deceived by the Normans as they ‘retreated’. Due to his nature as a soldier on foot, Harold’s tactics were limited and meant that he couldn’t control his army to dictate his plan for the battle. It was due to the domino effect of Harold’s initial mistake of not waiting a few days to increase the size of his army while giving them time to rest that contributed to the Saxon loss of the Battle of Hastings. William’s acute intuition, ability to adjust in battle and strong and effective leadership all contributed to the Norman win at the Battle of Hastings.

While in Normandy, William had a good military reputation and a strong personality which enabled him to persuade Normans and nearby states that he would succeed. This strong personality came with him to the battlefield where he kept up morale and discipline throughout the entire campaign. In addition to his, he was experienced as a campaigned, knowing just what to do to rile Harold, such as ravaging the land around Hastings to provoke Harold into a quick attack. The Norman army was also dominated by men on horseback whom William had brought over from Normandy in specially built boats (as shown in the Bayeux tapestry. This was an essential difference between the two armies as it gave William the advantage to attack, be more mobile, and travel quicker. These knights had sworn an oath to William and were highly trained and well equipped. Also Harold’s intellect and intuition was subservient to William’s, so while William continually learnt from the battle, and adapted his tactics accordingly, Harold didn’t have the means to facilitate a change in his plan, nor the imagination to think of a counter attack.

Early on William realised that he would need to break the shield wall in order to get to London and claim his crown. At one point in the battle, the Normans believed that William had been killed and so started to disperse and consequently the Saxons also broke their formation, believing the battle to be won. William learnt quickly from this and staged some feigned retreats gradually wearing down the wall, allowing the knights to infiltrate the Saxons.

It was through William’s ability to adjust and hiss strong leadership that the Saxons eventually won the Battle. If William did not possess such acute intuition, the two armies would have stayed fighting for days. Instead, William and the Saxons adapted accordingly to the situation, and won the battle. Ultimately, it was an amalgamation of factors that led to the saxon win at Hastings. Nonetheless the win stemmed from the lucky weather and the deterioration of the opponent’s energy, morale and numbers from fighting war on two fronts. If these

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/why-did-william-win-the-battle-of-hastings-2/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Check more samples on your topics

Battle of hastings..

Why Did William Win The Battle Of Hastings? Essay Williams victory in 1066 is suprising in some ways, this is because King Harold came up with some good choices. Harold was smart enough to think of making a shield wall with his army. By making a shield wall, William's army would have been struggling to

Steroids Research Paper SteroidsWin win win

Win, win, win that ’ s what its all about. Bing the best and wining at all cost, no affair what it takes. “ In recent old ages, athletic competition has intensified to the point that increasing Numberss of jocks are endeavoring to upgrade their public presentations with the desire to be recognized as the

Human Impact at Hastings Point

Hastings Point is a small settlement on the coast just south of Tweed Heads and the NSW border. The effects have been largely felt at Hastings Point; human impact has been the cause of a great deal of damage to the abiotic and biotic factors of the surrounding environments such as the mangroves, rocky shore,

Lord Hastings: A Justification To Omit Regret

Justification

Lord Hastings: A Justification to Omit RegretWe, the audience, lend our ears and nod our heads at the exactness of Lord Hastings's uttering: I think there's never a man in Christendom,Can lesser hide his love or hate than he,For by his face shall you know his heart. (3.4.51-53).Ironically, we do not assent to his words

Why did Labour win the 1945 election?

Essays Database

Labour's victory in 1945 came as a shock to the political world, Winston Churchill almost suddenly lost is popularity. Labour also took full advantage of the BBC which had a left-wing approach in many of its news reports and talks. Also, by proposing a welfare state, Labour was able to more votes from within the

Who Will Win the Next-Generation Console Wars?

The seventh generation of console war officially began when all three players – Microsoft’s Xbox 360, Sony’s PlayStation 3, and Nintendo’s Wii – made their way into the market. But the battle began way before 19 November 2006, the date of the release of Wii, the very last next-generation console to be released. Xbox 360,

How the Hormel workers can win

Unions are bodies set by employees or any other group of people that has a common interest. Unions always present there members right and the welfare of there members. Fair wages, benefits and good working conditions are always the priority and there mission as they carry on there duties as unionist. unionist must come up

If You Win a Million Dollars

Winning a lottery is a luckiest thing that can happen to anybody. It makes a person feel on top of the world. I would feel the same way just like everybody else. On the other hand, if the lottery amount is in range which can fulfill any wish one can have, it will make the

Rhetorical Analysis Project: How To Win The Trust Of Readers?

The discourse community that will be discussed today is biopsychology. Biopsychology explores how the brain and nervous system affect human behavior. In order, to regard audience the understanding of understand emotions, behavior, and other aspects of biology that influence us, biopsychologists must conduct the genre of research studies. The main purpose of research studies is

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.