Battle of hastings essay year 7


  1. “Wake Up Little Susie” becomes the Everly Brothers’ first #1 hit
  2. Why did William win the Battle of Hastings?
  3. Essay on The Battle of Hastings - Why Did William Win? -- European histo

Harold Godwineson then sent his men off to fight William's Norman.

Accessibility links

This is one of the major reasons why William won the Battle of Hastings. William's soldiers had been waiting and feasting across the English Channel so were well prepared for the battle while Harold's men were tired, battle-weary and many had died during the battle with Harald Hardrada.

Evidence of this is shown in the Bayeux Tapestry showing William's soldiers feasting and preparing for the battle while they waited for the wind to change. During and before the battle there were also several crucial developments to help William. Harold Godwineson forced his army to travel so fast that he left many soldiers behind including most of his archers. During the battle Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye. This significantly disheartened the Anglo-Saxon soldiers.

Harold's death is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. William also made many skilled tactical decisions that helped him win the battle. Before the battle William had made sure he had a large variety of troops to fight the Anglo-Saxons. At the start of the battle William positioned his men well so they could easily move about. When William's soldiers were unable to penetrate the Anglo-Saxon's shield wall he faked a retreat.

  • advanced higher history dissertation marking scheme;
  • Why did william win the battle of hastings essay year 7.
  • Homework for me.
  • Why choose our homework help?.

The Anglo-Saxons broke ranks and chased after William's troops. The Norman army then turned around and were able to kill the Anglo-Saxons that had. Show More.

“Wake Up Little Susie” becomes the Everly Brothers’ first #1 hit

Read More. Harold was then returned to England. When Edward died on 5 January , Harold was swiftly chosen as king by those members of the Witan council of senior lords who were close by. William was affronted, as was Harald Hardraada, king of Norway, who'd had a prior agreement with the Danes. So both prepared to invade. Harold evidently then made the strategic blunder of expelling many of the Breton and Norman ministers who had loyally served his predecessor.

These included at least two highly trained military officers, Ralph the Staller and Alan Rufus, who promptly joined up with William: Alan was one of William's many Breton cousins, and Ralph was a friend of Alan's father Eudon, who was King Edward's elder cousin and William's uncle of sorts. Remember Tostig?

Why did William win the Battle of Hastings?

He felt let down by his brothers in the Northumbria fiasco, and his wife Judith of Flanders related to Duchess Matilda only by marriage was a cousin of William's, so he met William, then began raiding the coast, eventually joining up with the Norwegians and dying with Hardraada in a tough fight against Harold Godwinson at Stamford Bridge near York. Stormy weather had hastened the Norwegian fleet, but delayed William's, so he arrived just after Stamford Bridge, and set about raiding Harold's personal lands.

So Harold raced back to London, collected fresh troops, then marched south. Hi, Thank yu for this it helped me a lot on my history assessment. However I would like to know a bit more on the history of why this battle happened as I had to go to a different site if you could help it would be wonderful. Something I might be able to use along the line in my books. Thanks for that I've noted it down for posterity, and if I use it I'll add your name to the Acknowledgements page.

When I've finished here I'll 'pop over' for a visit.

  • sqa intermediate 2 english critical essay marking instructions.
  • Related content?
  • Mr Anderson History.
  • essay on what education means to me.
  • social contract theory essay!
  • More like this?

The confusion between the two Alans is a persistent mistake dating back to Wace. Most experts get it right, but the error has filtered into popular genealogies and romances such as Jean Plaidy's "Norman Conquest" trilogy. The exact relationship between the two men is this: Alan Rufus's maternal uncle Hoel of Cornouaille was Fergant's father. So they're first cousins on one side and first cousins once removed on the other.

Both men had red hair and were formidable military commanders. William the Conqueror had zero success against Fergant, so William gave his daughter Constance to him as wife - to appease him, I suppose. Most knights in those days wore leather? Assuming the poison is not something like Gallium that enters the bloodstream through the skin, I think it is ingested when the wearer uses a hand to wipe their mouth.

Fergant probably cottoned on to this, so he wore gloves that didn't wear out. I bet Alan Rufus was smart enough not to fall for this poisoned gloves trick when Roger II rebelled in If so, Wace may technically have been correct, though jolly confusing to the rest of us. We only got the bare bones on the Norman Conquest at school.

Essay on The Battle of Hastings - Why Did William Win? -- European histo

Not many wanted to know even that much, not many were expected to remember. These days schools are 'exam factories' so detail is brushed over for the sake of 'mileage covered'. I find that primary school children can handle copious amounts of detail. Even more when they're keen on the topic. In my experience it's the adults who are by far the most impatient and thus an obstacle to the children's learning.

Interesting addition by zoetropo about Alan 'Fergant' 'The Red'. He was given land around the River Swale North Yorks and built a castle on a cliff overlooking the river. This was the 'Honour of Richmond', in time surrounded on three sides by housing that developed into the market town of Richmond. Not a lot of people know that. They don't teach it here on the basis of 'too much information confuses'; you'd have to take it up at university.

Stephen Morillo editor of the Battle Conference has an interesting analysis of the turning point of the battle. According to several pieces of documentary evidence, Gyrth led a frontal assault on William's position.

William's horse was cut down from under him and he fell facedown in the mud. Gyrth sought to slay William while he was prone, but someone stopped him, Gyrth was killed and without his experienced leadership on the frontline the English lost momentum. William's propagandists say that he cut Gyrth down, but Domesday evidence is that one of William's Breton allies, either Ralph the Staller or Alan Rufus, rode to his rescue. This placed Alan in the perfect position to coordinate feints with Brian: one would draw the Saxons forward, the other would follow in behind them, and together they would encircle them.

This was a modification of the tactics employed by Bretons for centuries. Look up the Battle of Jengland for a spectacular example. Alan went on to fight many of William's battles for him. William later admitted to leading armies in battle only twice in his life. Due to his uniquely chivalrous treatment of the defeated, Alan won the respect of the English and the love of Harold's daughter Gunhild. This also made him many enemies among the Normans. In , Alan led the loyal few in alliance with the English Fyrd, to victory over Odo of Bayeux's barons, followed up in with the annexation of half of Normandy.

The Norman cavalry has been estimated between and Most of these were transported across the Channel with William's main flotilla but a considerable number would have been corralled in England during the few weeks of pillaging by the Normans. Very detailed but not too much writing or waffling. Very interesting page which explains a very famous bit of British history in just the right amount of detail. Hello it's me again Storybailey.

William had two horses cut down from under him during the battle.