Why Did William Win in the Battle of Hastings?

In: Historical Events

Submitted By maxjason
Words 485
Pages 2
When King Edward the Confessor died he had no children, consequently there was no official heir to the throne. Harold Godwin was Edwards’s half brother and claimed that Edward had said on his deathbed that he could be the future king, but when he was crowned two other people claimed that they were the rightful heir to the throne and they were prepared to fight for it. These two people were Herald Hadrada and William of Normandy. Herald wanted to be king because his great grandfather ruled briefly in 1016 But William wanted to be king because both Edward and Harold had sworn an oath that he could be the future king, this could only mean one thing. War.
Harold had prepared his army on the south coast when news came in that herald had already arrived in the north so the army had to march quickly up to the north to battle herald and his army. They had caught them unprepared and Harold had won within hours. Just as they started the long trek south they received news that William and his army had arrived and were terrorising towns and villages in the south coast.
William wanted Harold’s men to have the disadvantage so he had assembled the largest army possible he had also started terrorising nearby houses and stealing from locales so that Harold’s army would rush back and be unprepared and exhausted by the time they got back. When Harold’s men finely arrived he charged as soon as possible, leaving them unprepared. He was a good leader and disciplined his solders well so he kept them in order.
Harold made many mistakes in the battle, firstly, when coming back from the north he fell for Williams trick by coming back to quickly, a major mistake was that he went into battle as a foot solder so he could not make any orders or take control of his army, Therefore when Williams army faked retreats he couldn’t give orders to stop them running after them , breaking the…...

Similar Documents

Battle of Hastings

...The Battle Of Hastings The Battle of Hastings was a historic event that occurred on October 14, 1066 during the Norman Conquest of England (Hollister, Stacey, Stacey 126) . The battle was between the Norman-French army that was led by Duke William II of Normandy and the English army under King Harold II because they both believed that they were to succeed King Edward, the late king (Esteves 5-9). The Battle of Hastings is significant because it led to changes in “English law, language, and culture and laid the groundwork for the beginnings of the English feudal system”(Ericson par.1) It was significant because this war ended the Anglo-Saxon period that lasted about 600 years, and really established England is an independent power, under Norman Rule. It was the last time that England was ruled by a foreign power. When King Edward died, William and Harold both had reasons to why they thought they were next in line to take the throne (Esteves 5-9). William, who was the Duke of Normandy, was a cousin of Edward, who was the King of England. Edward died without children in the year of 1066 and supposedly named Harold his heir in the year of 1051(Hollister, Stacey, Stacey 118). The throne was then given to Harold Godwinson, but William claimed that before his death, Edward had promised him that he would be appointed the throne. William considered Harold’s crowning a declaration of war, and planned to fight for the throne that he thought was his. (Hollister, Stacey, Stacey......

Words: 1097 - Pages: 5

The Battle of Hastings

...The Battle of Hastings Angelina Minton Professor Chris Sisson – World Culture I June 2, 2013 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to imagine myself as a figure in the Bayeux Tapestry and to write a first- person account in a letter home describing this historical event. In this paper I have described the event in detail and have explained why it was justified for us to raise arms in battle. To My Loving Mother Herleva, Let me start by saying I miss and love you and the family. Things have been very complicated since King Edward died without naming an heir to his throne. Edward's immediate predecessor was to be Harold of Wessex, a wealthy and influential English noble, who was chosen to be king by the Witenagemot of England. However, Harold was challenged by William who demanded that he had been promised the throne by King Edward and that Harold had confirmed this agreement. Harald III of Norway also disputed the succession. His right to the throne was founded on an arrangement between his predecessor Magnus I of Norway, and the earlier King of England Harthacanute, whereby if either died without heirs, the other would inherit both England and Norway. (Wilson, 1985) To add to this confusion Williams and Harald III both began assembling troops and ships for battle. Williams and I spent months preparing our army for battle and we waited for the right time to attack so that William could claim what was rightfully his. Mother you should have seen......

Words: 1053 - Pages: 5

Why Did Chartism Fail?

...Why did Chartism Fail? * Chartism failed because of economic factors – it was simply a ‘knife and fork question’ * Chartism failed because of the inherent weakness of the movement and internal divisions within the movement * Chartism did not really fail in the truest sense of the word – it was defeated by the state Economic Factors Some historians have argued that improving economic conditions ensured the Chartist movement faded after 1848 – there had been worsening economic conditions in the period after 1837 which gave rise to the chartist movement. After this period, the lessening economic instability, growing prosperity and rise in living standards after 1848 removed basis for widespread discontent. In economic prosperity – Chartism could no longer be sustained. The interpretation has been questioned in recent decades – economic historians began questioning how stable the British economy really was during this time in ‘Mid-Victorian Boom’ (1850-73) e.g. Cunningham – disagrees as he believes the economy continued to fluctuate. A series of subtle economic changes undermined the movement after 1848 and led to the movement’s eventual fall. 1. Development of Railways – Provided stimulus to industries; iron, steel and coal. Economic growth less narrowly based than in period before 1850 when textiles had been leading sector 2. Factory Legislation – Legislation redefined management practices and relationships in the workplace; 1850s-60s saw......

Words: 1639 - Pages: 7

Why Prussia Win the Austro-Prussian War?

...Why did Prussia win the Austro-Prussian War? In the summer of 1866, the Austro-Prussian War broke out, with Prussia winning in a war, which lasted all of seven weeks. In deciphering why Prussia won the war, or rather why Austria lost it, it is essential to review the economic situation of both nations, and somewhat more crucially, their performances and outcomes of previous ‘wars’. Looking at the facts before the warm the gap in some aspects weren’t as profound as others. Essentially, the war was really over before it began. Austria’s situation was dire to say the least. In Europe, the usage of alliances was prevalent. One very poignant example was the alliance between Prussia and Italy, with Italy pledging troops to defend and disguise Russian movements. Austria were most excluded from the plethora of links between nations, meaning that if and when war should break out, there would not any nation willing to come to the aid of Austria in times of desperation. It was also on the verge of bankruptcy, as excursions into pointless wars had put a very heavy burden on Austrian shoulders. Additionally, the ‘war’ of Schleswig-Holstein proved to be a debacle and this consequently put a dagger right into the heart of Austro-Prussian relations, with Austria still supporting the Duke of Augustenburg to be the reigning monarch, whilst Prussia worked for annexation, on the contrary. Meanwhile, Prussia was most certainly in a very strong position. They were certainly on the rise and that...

Words: 927 - Pages: 4

Why Did Labour Win the 1945 General Election?

...In 1945, the general election was held after the allied victory in Europe over the axis forces, and its result came as a result to Britain’s wartime leader Winston Churchill. Churchill’s campaign was based around his wartime leadership, and the fact that he lead the country to victory. Instead of their conservative wartime leader, the british public voted for labour and its leader, Clement Attlee. Whilst both Churchill and Attlee were household names in the UK, Attlee was relatively unknown outside of the country, which is why the result of the election came as such a shock to many people around the world, who expected the british public to unanimously side with the man that had lead them to victory in the wartime period. The 1945 election was held on the July 5th with the election campaigns beginning in ernest a month prior. However due to many british servicemen stationed around the world still involved in the war against japan which would not be brought to a close until August 9th. This meant that the results of the election were not known until July 26th, when it was announced that labour had secured 47% of the votes, and 61% of the seats in the house of commons. Towards the end of the war in Europe, the Labour party withdrew from the wartime government in peroration for the forthcoming election to take place in July. Prior to the election, King George VI dissolved the parliament that had stood for 10 years without an election, to make way for the forthcoming july......

Words: 1023 - Pages: 5

Why Did Carter Fail to Win Re-Election in 1980?

...Why did Carter fail to win re-election in 1980? Carter was one of the few presidents that did not manage to win a second term in office, which was down to a number of reasons, namely for his failures on foreign policy specifically in Iran, as well as his failings on the economy and with the energy crisis. Reagan also ran a very strong campaign and managed to appeal to voters far better than Carter, as they saw that he had a clear vision, something they did not see in the president. These factors all contributed to Reagan’s victory over Carter in 1980, even though the turnout was only 53% of the electorate. One main reason Carter did not manage to win the 1980 election was his weak handling of the Iran hostage crisis, which made him a victim of events that were out of his control. After Iranian militants stormed the American embassy in Tehran due to their protest against Carter allowing the exiled Shah to receive cancer treatment in the USA, they took 60 American hostages. The embassy was only supposed to be held for a few hours but the hostages were held until President Reagan was sworn into office. This made Carter look weak, especially after his failed rescue attempt which left more Americans dead and injured after some of the helicopters crashed. The hostage crisis dragged on throughout election year, and many felt that Carter had messed up everything. The energy crisis worsened Carter’s campaign. The United States had been economically self sufficient post world......

Words: 674 - Pages: 3

Did the United States Win the Cold War

...Did the United States win the Cold War? The forty-five years from the dropping of the atom bombs to the end of the Soviet Union, can be seen as the era of the new conflict between two major states: United States of America (USA) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). According to Hobsbawm, ‘cold war’ was the constant confrontation of the two super powers which emerged from the Second World War. At that time the entire generation was under constant fear of global nuclear battles. It was widely believed that it could break out at any moment. (Hobsbawm, 1994) The consequences of the ‘power vacuum’ in central Europe, created by the defeat of Germany, gave rise to these two super powers (Dunbabin, 1994). The world was divided into two parts. The USSR controlled the zone occupied by her Red Army or other communist armed forces. On the other hand, USA exercised control and dominance over the rest of the capitalist world as well as the western hemisphere and the oceans. (Hobsbawm, 1994) It is rather very difficult to argue that a particular country like the USA has won the cold war completely. Cold war gave birth to lots of problems in the world. During the cold war period, various events occurred subsequently. So the whole period was a combination of different issues and various factors related to it. Yet, evaluating the climax and the aftermath situation of the cold war, it can be argued that USA and its allies have succeeded to a great extent. On the other hand, as a......

Words: 2093 - Pages: 9

Why Did Obama Win the 2012 Election?

...Why did Obama win the 2012 election? The 2012 US election saw Democrat Obama come up against Republican Romney. Obama was the favourite throughout and in the end won with 332 electoral votes, with Romney only gaining 206. There were several reasons as to why Obama won the election, such as the October surprise, a majority of Hispanic and Women votes for Democrat, and Romney as a man himself. However the main one can be considered Obama being an incumbent President, giving him a huge benefit in terms of the public. Obama being an incumbent President was a massive benefit for the election as this gave Obama a foot to stand on and was also able to attack Romney from the start. History has proven the benefit of being an incumbent President, for example Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2004 were all re-elected as incumbents. The benefit of being incumbent is that you have already shown leadership in the past four years, and can be very popular with the public. Therefore Obama is able to state his achievements and show his leadership when campaigning, such as stating that unemployment was less than 8% for the first time in four years during the campaign, gaining him support, whereas Romney had not been proven and had no major achievements to support him. Therefore more ‘undecided voters’ listened more to Obama, meaning being an incumbent President gained him more popularity and support during the campaign. Being incumbent was also......

Words: 1353 - Pages: 6

Battle of Hastings

...Norman Papers The Battle Of Hastings The background to the battle was the death of the childless King Edward the Confessor in January 1066, which set up a succession struggle between several claimants to his throne. Harold was crowned king shortly after Edward's death, but faced invasions by William, his own brother Tostig and the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada (Harold III of Norway). Hardrada and Tostig defeated a hastily gathered army of Englishmen at the Battle of Fulford on 20 September 1066, and were in turn defeated by Harold at the Battle of Stamford Bridge five days later. The deaths of Tostig and Hardrada at Stamford left William as Harold's only serious opponent. While Harold and his forces were recovering from Stamford, William landed his invasion forces in the south of England at Pevensey on 28 September 1066 and established a beachhead for his conquest of the kingdom. Harold was forced to march south swiftly, gathering forces as he went. The exact numbers present at the battle are unknown; estimates are around 10,000 for William and about 7,000 for Harold. The composition of the forces is clearer; the English army was composed almost entirely of infantry and had few archers, whereas only about half of the invading force was infantry, the rest split equally between cavalry and archers. Harold appears to have tried to surprise William, but scouts found his army and reported its arrival to William, who marched from Hastings to the battlefield to......

Words: 326 - Pages: 2

Why Winners Win

...Course Number KINE 728 Glenn Schachtner Spring 2015 What Makes Winners Win Assignment 2Winners It seems that the human race is always drawn to the winner or what they view a success. I certainly have never met anyone that wanted to be a non-winner. I do however feel that there are very real differences in the preparation given to people that are successful and those that are not. I do believe that when people become frustrated or tired of working hard (not dedicated) and not achieving success they can and will, with a lot of dedication and a little bit of knowledge a person can easily change their life and become a winner. There are several factors that separate winners from the otherwise normal person. The winner type of personality is driven. That is they will not settle for less that the best from themselves or others. They will not take no for an answer when it comes to commitment to excellence. Winners take responsibility for themselves and their destiny. They feel that they are in control of what they can be in control of. They do not blame situations or others for their hard times. They hold themselves accountable to themselves and others. Winners do understand the power in knowledge and are constantly challenging themselves to get better. They create new ways to learn. Winners think positively. They have a plan to correct bad thinking, and bad performance. They do know how to focus and refocus to a winner mentality. Winners set measurable......

Words: 463 - Pages: 2

Why Did Henry Tudor Win the Battle of Bosworth in 1485?

...15th October 2014 History Why did Henry Tudor win the Battle of Bosworth in 1485? Lead up to Battle RICHARD III STRENGTHS | HENRY TUDOR STRENGTHS | * Beacon network in place to warn of Tudor’s invasion | * Due to ‘Bucks’ rebellion, he knew he had to plan his second invasion with great political, military and diplomatic care | * Reinforced his position | * His promise to marry Elizibeth of York won support from disaffected Royal Servants in England | * Placed himself in Nottingham Castle, putting himself centrally in England | * Tudor had agents frequently crossing the Channel to assess and build his level of public support | * Had a large army (10,000-15,000) | * Tudor’s mother, Margarat Beaufort, was in a strong position to influence her opinions as she was married to the powerful Noble Lord Stanley | * Already repelled Henry’s invasion in 1483 | * Charles VIII of France lent him 60,000 francs and Philibert de Chandee gave him 1,800 merceneries | * Started the Battle on Higher Ground (Ambien Hill) | * Rhys ap Thomas brought additional 1800-2000 men, Sir Richard Corbet brought 800 men whilst Sir Gilbert Talbot brought 500 men | * Had Lord Stanley’s son (Lord Strange) as hostage | * Tudor went through Wales unopposed | * Able warrior | | RICHARD III WEAKNESSES | HENRY TUDOR WEAKNESSES | * Spent huge amounts of money commisioning a fleet in Southampton | * No Great Magnate had fully declared......

Words: 418 - Pages: 2

Why Did the Pro-Treaty Side Win the Civil War?

...Why did the Pro-Treaty side win the Civil War? The Irish Civil War caused many divisions within Irish Society. The Civil War resulted from divisions within the nationalist movement as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Sinn Fein split into pro and anti-Treaty factions. The Civil War ended in May 1923 and while there was no surrender by the anti-Treaty forces, the pro-Treaty side were clearly victorious in the war. In this essay I will look at the reasons why the Pro-Treaty side won the war. In an effort to retain the initiative in the aftermath of the Dail vote in favour of the Treaty, the anti-Treaty IRA occupied the Four Courts and other buildings in Dublin. This was a tactical error by the Irregulars as these buildings were difficult to defend and the Regulars knew exactly where their opponents were. As a result when fighting broke out up to 200 Irregular troops were killed or captured in Dublin. This significantly weakened the anti-Treaty side and contributed to their defeat. The anti-Treaty forces lacked a coherent strategy. They were against the Treaty but different people within the anti-Treaty side were opposing the Treaty for different reasons. DeValera opposed the Treaty because of his opposition to the Oath of Allegiance to the British King. More hard-line republicans opposed the Treaty because of partition. This lack of a coherent strategy contributed to a weakening of the anti-Treaty side and the victory of the Regulars. In contrast the pro-Treaty side had a...

Words: 858 - Pages: 4

Why Did William Win the Battle of Hastings?

...Why did William win the Battle of Hastings? William, Duke of Normandy, won the Battle of Hastings on the 14th of October 1066. One of the main reasons he achieved this was because he was very well prepared. In this essay I will explain further how William won the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Preparation William assembled a great army of armoured knights, soldiers and archers. He also had a huge amount of ships to carry his army over the English Channel. William used the very clever trick of retreating down the hill to make the English follow and lose their ground. After that, the Norman army quickly doubled back on themselves and surrounded and killed the helpless English. As well as all this, William had a store of the finest weapons in France. Leadership William was one of the bravest people of his time. When his army was having difficulties during the battle, he bravely led his army back up the hill to make another attack upon the English. Due to William's intelligence, he arranged his army in long rows, archers at the front to try and soften up the English's shield wall, footsoldiers in the middle, and the cavalry at the back for a big attack.The retreating trick explained in the above paragraph also shows great leadership. Luck Luckily for William, the wind changed direction in his favour on his journey north to England. When Harold had been fighting the Vikings in the north of England, some of his best troops were killed,......

Words: 377 - Pages: 2

The Battle of Hastings

...good soldier and a gifted politician. William juke of Normandy, a distant cousin of Edward the Confessor, over the sea in France. Harald Hardrada, King of Norway and a direct descendant of the kings of England. He was related to King Canute, the King of England from 1016-1032. Harald Hardrada attempted to invade England, and once Harold Godwinson heard about this he gathered as many soldiers as he could and set off 187 miles north to where Harald Hardrada was at Stamford bridge. On September 25th 1066 the battle took place, It was a bloody battle and one in which Harold's army (the Saxons) broke through the Viking invaders front line to go on and win the battle. It was such a fierce battle that only twenty four of the three hundred ships, that came to England carry the 8,000 soldiers, returned to Norway. King Harold's celebrations of victory were cut short as news came of the impending Norman invasion and no-one was left along the south coast of England to stop them. The Saxon army raced back south to face the Norman invaders. William laid claim to the English throne after Edward died. He was a distant cousin of Edward and said that Edward had promised him the throne when visiting France in 1051. He even said his claim had been accepted by Harold Godwinson in 1064, when Harold had been blown onto the Norman shore by a storm. William invaded England to become King and claim the throne from Harold. The Norman Invasion started when William, Duke of Normandy's 7,000......

Words: 794 - Pages: 4

Why Did Labour Win the 1997 General Election?

...Why Did Labour win the 1997 Election? The 1997 General election saw the Labour party clinch a landslide victory with a 93 seat majority, whilst winning 43.2% of the popular vote. Their success in this election was won due to many different factors. Their new image and transformation coupled with impressive campaigning proved to be a major factor. But the damage to the Conservative party during Major’s years in power meant the Conservatives weren’t even a viable competitor, thus leading to Labour’s victory. But we can’t neglect the role third parties played in ensuring a Labour victory. Blair was representing a generation of new labour that looked to move over to the centre of the political spectrum. This centralisation had removed the traditional extreme socialist ideology associated with Labour. Their exclusion of extreme left wing elements, such as the Militant Tendency, was an example of them moving away from such ideology. In addition, Blair communication skills should be highly credited. He was very articulate and skilful. He gave an image of a modern and young labour which had seemed to gain large support from women and younger voters. Also, the use of spin doctors and media support had boosted their public image. Alistair Campbell, editor of the Today newspaper was an example of support from they had from the media. This all contributed to create a new image for Labour that public enjoyed, and voted for. But Blair not only created a new image for Labour, he had......

Words: 722 - Pages: 3

Hello Neighbor | Sandy Baron | Mentalista / The Mentalist ...