Talk:Battle of Hastings
Battle of Hastings was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: August 8, 2007
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on October 14, 2004, October 14, 2005, and October 14, 2006.|
|Battle of Hastings has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
Hit in the eye
I ask that the article be re-opened to add Brittany to the list of portals. A significant number of William's commanders at this Battle were breton nobles, such as Alan Rufus, William's future Lord of Richmond, and the somewhat less reputable Ralph Guader and breton warriors represented a signficant portion of Wiliam's army. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't make changes
I cant edit this page, but i found a source for the "malfosse" which is marked as "citation needed." It is found in the book "The Battle of Hastings" by Peter Gray on page 50. So if someone could put the citation in that would probably be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gansta234 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Having read this article through it appears to be riddled with errors and could probably benefit from a complete re-write. As a start Harolds army should be called the English or Englisc as the concept of Saxon or Anglo-Saxon had long since died out. In addition the Englisc Thegns (who made up about 75% of the army) each held almost as much land as a post conquest Norman Knight and to suggest they would go into battle with farm tools is just plain daft.Guthroth (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I rather agree: at the prosaic level, there are infelicities of punctuation and expression, as well as descriptions that are needlessly confusing. I don't understand Wikipedia policies; when will the article be re-opened for updates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron Laird (talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Present protection expires on 10 November 2011. Keith D (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The article is protected because of high levels of vandalism, but that's not to say the article is a closed shop. Once your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you will be able to edit the article yourself. In the meantime, if you have specific points you'd like to raise about the punctuation etc that is what this talk page is for. Nev1 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed a "meow" from the article in the Aftermath section
Potential ==Further reading== removed from article.
Please format correctly:
1066, by David Howarth is an immensely readable account of the background
I corrected some of the stuff about the feigned flights, some sources say the inspiration for the feigned flights came from the original flight by the Bretons. Introduced fyrdmen (levies) and housekarlar (English men-at-arms) but the article still needs a lot of work to correct some of the archaic stuff from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Each battle comprised infantry, cavalry and archers along with crossbowmen. is this meant to say each wing, or battalion, or is this some archaic or technical meaning of the word battle? Billlion 18:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 'Battle' in the archaic sense. Medieval armies were traditionally divided into three groups which (at the time) were called 'battles' (battalia in Latin). The word 'battalion' traces the same roots.--kudz75 00:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. Do you think that should be explained in the article? Or is there a wikipedia article explaining such things? Billlion 09:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The "Battle" section on has been obviously altered to contain ficticious information. I'm not certain how to report this and am not comfortable reverting the changes myself so I thought I would mention this here in the hopes some kind soul would repair the writeup.
- Vandalism reverted. Thanks for pointing it out.Billlion 19:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to see more about the real significance of this battle. The aftermath section does not really tell you anything about that. Maybe this belongs to another article, but should also be quoted here? -Rich
- There are a small number of possible inaccuracies in the article - The Saxons generally had round shields rather than kite shields. Kite shields are more a cavalry thing I think. - The death of Harold II is not quite right. The Bayeaux Tapestry says something on the lines of 'Hic Harold Rex interfectus est' (Here Harold is killed) The writing covers two deaths and it has always been assumed that Harold was the guy with the arrow in his eye. he could be the guy being cut down. I have not read anywhere that he is both (the second figure doesn't have an arrow in his eye so this is unlikely). Incidently, Harolds body was then chopped up, as mentioned, and supposedly buried on the shoreline. William was even vindictive enough to withold the burial spot from Queen Edith so that Harold was denied a proper burial. - The last bit about the combined arms is a bit strong. The English fought a deliberately defensive battle as they positioned themselves on Senlac before William arrived on the scene. To suggest that the defense was due to Norman tactics is going too far. - Pete
Odd that's there's never (AFAIK) been a film made of the Battle of Hasting and the events surrounding it. Just a thought. Jooler 01:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There was a made-for-TV production shown in the late-1980s on UK television portraying some of the events of Duke William's life, including the Battle of Hastings. Sadly, I've never managed to locate a video/DVD on Amazon. But yes, some of the ifs and buts surrounding the Battle of Hastings and its effects on British history - it's surprising no film has been made. Tinram 14:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Mel Gibson ought to make it. Augustulus 00:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a two part drama screened in early 2009 on Channel 4(UK).It was called 1066:The War For Middle Earth (Toilken borrowed very heavily from Anglo Saxon culture and litriture.Im not a Lord of the Rings fan but friends have told me there is a part in one of the films where the chracters actually talk Old English). It was latter released on DVD, same two part drama but now shortened to just 1066. Its made to tell the story of the ordinary people of England who made up the Fyrd and not the Kings/Duke vying for control.It features all three Battles (Gate Fulford,Stamford Bridge and Hastings) though the two earlier battles are not covered in the same detail as Hastings. It is very good and id reccomend it to anybody who has an interest in the subject. Its available on a certain site named after an area of south America (so as not to plug the site lol).
There is also a film in production based on the book Harold The King, written by Helen Hollick.I have actually spoken to author herself some time back who told me that the film was delayed by the reccession but was about to re-comence filming. There is a website though i do not remember the address, its being directed by Robin Jacobs though so this should shorten the search to find the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by English n proud (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Arrows: reference? And does not follow
"However, as the Norman archers drew their bowstrings only to the jaw and their crossbows were loaded by hand without assistance from a windlass, most shots either failed to penetrate the housecarls' shields or sailed over their heads to fall harmlessly beyond. "
This sentence doesn't make sense - if they didn't pull hard enough, arrows would fall short. Going overhead would be due to aiming wrong. Not penetrating the armour - well, yes, in the continuing contest between missile and armour, it sounds as though Harold's forces had the better end that year. THe penetrating power would be less when firing uphill as well, of course, a factor to consider when picking where to stand. Midgley 22:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Number of Combatants
How is it possible that Normans needed only 6,000-8,000 fighters to 'conquor' England? The Romans needed 4 legions (about 40,000?). I reckon it's about 21000 men including 8000 cavalry (Bingospac)
I am thinking that the main population of the the country must simply have cooperated with the new government. Why did they not rebel?
I apologize if this question is answered by the existing articles related to the Norman Conquest. This is my first effort to contribute to Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is AWESOME.
- 'conquer' not 'conquor'. Jake95 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point. There's must be many reasons; here are just a few: 1. Harold, his two brothers, and most of the nobility, of England lay dead on the Battlefield of Hastings. The survivors of the Godwin family fled to Ireland and the continent. There were few leaders left. 2. The Anglo-Saxon people of England must have entered shock and fatalism - their King, a competent military leader, was dead, and most of his army destroyed. Halley's Comet and the Papal banner the Normans brought with them may have served only to oppress the people further with the events that had happened. 3. There was some Anglo-Saxon resistance around London to William and the Normans but that had been put down by late-1066. 4. The powerful Northumbrian Earls, Edwin and Morcar, initially did not rebel (at least one of them rebelled later, however). Some of the remaining Anglo-Saxon nobility did indeed cooperate with the Normans. 5. William was a tough warlord though with a fearsome reputation (quite prepared to amputate the limbs of people who used his 'bastard' name against him) and this no doubt put off some Anglo-Saxons from rebelling. 6. The Danes in and around Yorkshire eventually did undertake a large rebellion against William with support from the King of Denmark, but the Normans ruthlessly scorched the land and destroyed villages and people with their harrying tactics. Much of the population in this area later starved to death from the results. 7. Hereward the Wake rebelled in East Anglia, on a smaller scale to the Danish revolt. 8. The Normans used castles extensively. Wooden castles initially on a space of land and then rebuilt into stone. A castle provided a protected base for armed Normans to suppress an area of Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons would have had almost no stone castle attack weaponry. Tinram 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and would like to add two things: -At the time, William was the most prominant living contender for the throne. When Edward the Confessor died childless, 3 possible candidates existed- the Harold Godwinson (dead), Harold Hadrada (dead) and William the Bastard. Also the English had lost the army of the north to Hadrada, and now the army of the south to William. There was no well-trained army core left, and no leader who could unite everyone. -William didn't have an easy ride even after the Conquest. He often had to put down revolts, and as Tinram says the scale of castle building he had to embark upon shows it was a difficult period of consolidation. You don't build castles unless you have to- the fact he build so many shows he was in serious danger. Fishies Plaice 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
But then it goes and says in the article that there were 20,000 troops in William's army, based on the number of ships he had. Was the side-box just a typo, since that was also the number of troops that Harold had? Patriot1812 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The info box stated that the english army consisted of "Anglo Saxons and Danish mercenaries". I haven't read anywhere about danish mercenaries, so I deleted it. If someone thinks otherwise, please cite your source and I'll check it out. Silvdraggoj 23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the 'Danish Mercenaries' relates to the Housecarls / Huscarls. Whether they were Danish or not is anybody's guess Richard Hearing 08:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The Huscarls enlisted from many places. Many were Danes and others were from Norway and the British Isles themselves. They were well-paid soldiers with a personal allegiance to the King. "Mercenaries" would be an accurate description and Danish would be right for a fair percentage of them. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Will in New Haven18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
i have a question which has bothered me for years the battle of fulford gate was between the northumbrian army and the vikings as there would not have been enough time to get the mercians there. so what happened to the mercians where did they go.
Fulford Gate was Mercians & Northumbrians against the Vikings. Merica and Northumbria were 'ruled' by quite young brothers, Edwin & Morcar, who believed that they could see off Harald Hardrada themselves. Discovering that they could not resulted in decimated Mercian & Northumbrian armies, and battle-weary southern armies, putting Harold II at a decided disadvantage at Hastings.Richard Hearing 11:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the Danish mercenaries entered the conflict after the Battle of Hastings when William rampaged Yorkshire. Matthieu 14:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Danes did join in the Northern uprising that lead to the infamous 'harrying of the North', but if I remember correctly they were not mercenaries. After causing lots of trouble in the North of England (acting alongside the local English troops) the Danes promptly sailed back home as soon as the Norman armied travelled North to quell the uprising.
Richard Hearing 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well considering the North of England was very heavily settled by Scandinavians its quite hard to see how there would not have been some Danish involvement in the battle.However mercenaries i do not know whether was as such. A book by Peter Rex states there Danish in the ranks of Englishmen fighting in the shield wall at Hastings, though if they were from the Danelaw they would have probably saw themselves as English fighting for their King, who incidently was half Danish lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by English n proud (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is everybody still churning out R Allen Brown's views about peasant levies at Hastings?
There were none. Peasent Levies had ceased to be called out decades before...
Richard Hearing 08:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Purged the peasants out againRichard Hearing 14:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the time of Alfred the Great Fyrd service was required on the basis of 1 man per 5 hides. Alfreds laws also set down the equipment that a Fyrdsman was required to have - 2 shields, 2 horses, 2 spears a sword and a helmet. A slightly later law confirms the 1 man per 5 hides and adds 1 ring shirt per 8 hides. (A 'Hide' was a taxable amount of land not a fixed number of acres - by 1066 a 5 hide land holding could support several families). Men who held at least 5 hides and who met other conditions (having a chapel for example) were called Thegns, and it's the Thegns who made up the Fyrd. Not a peasant in any way whatsoever. Guthroth (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
English vs. Anglo-Saxons
The article uses the term English for the forces of Harold the Saxon. Isn't it more appriot to use the term Saxon, as English did not exist in the sense that the word implies before William's conquests Lucas(CA) in what sense did the word english not apply?william and the normans brought nothing but discord and malcontent so please don't imply that the english was a result of the invasion,the english had been here for some hundreds of years prior to 1066Mason nicholl 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)mason nicholl
'English' arguably began with Alfred and his sons/grandsons, when they drempt up the idea of a united 'England' and an 'English' identity to give propaganda cover for the fact that Wessex was conquering the entire country.Richard Hearing 11:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd think that 'Saxon' is a more foreign name, so you don't feel sorry for Harold when William beats him. Augustulus 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, the 'English' referred to themselves as 'English' from quite early on, while their enemies still tended to call them Saxon. The Scots term 'Sassenach', still used as an insulting term for an Englishman, literally means "Saxon" Richard Hearing 09:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The term English was already coined though, Edward the Confessor and Harold Godwinson used "rex anglorum" title (King of the English) and not some "rex anglo-saxonorum" or whatever it could be. Although, to put a distinction between England before and after the conquest they tend to say Anglo-Saxon instead of English so I suppose we should leave it that way. Matthieu 13:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
As a side-note to these discussions, I notice that Harold has been edited from 'Anglo-Saxon' to 'Saxon'. Being as his background was half Danish, 'Saxon' is not really a good description. But then, neither does 'Anglo-ASaxon' do him justice. 'English' would be far more appropriate, though Matthieu makes a good point above. Richard Hearing 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The term "English" also refers to ethnicity. Recent gene research revealing that the English are far from Anglo-Saxon and are infact 80% desended from thier peliolithic ancestors. People reading this article may therefore believe that the Normans defeated an indiginous army, which is false. The indiginous people, that are currently considered 'English' were ruled by the Anglo-Saxons, but this article created the illusion that these indiginous peoples were somehow defeated. I therefore propose that it be changed to "Anglo-Saxon" army, or at least "Army of the kingdom of England". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ippikin (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"England" and "English" were not the current terms at the time of the battle and "Angle-land" was much closer. The Kingdom also had different boundaries to modern day England.
AS has already been stated, England and English (or at least their latinised variants) were in common useage at the time. No other term is more correct in reflecting the make up of the army who lost at Hastings. As regards the boundaries, this is a pure red herring. ALL the extant states in 1066 had different boundaries to that used today, including Normandy. Guthroth (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The term "English" is NOT appropriate in this day and age as has been highlighted above. And the term "English" does NOT reflect the make-up of the army. The make up of the army was overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon, who made up less than 5% of the population of Angle-land. If the Norman army is 'Norman' and not 'French' then the 'English' army should be 'Anglo-Saxon'! 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The terms 'English' IS highly appropriate. Considering that England was unified in the 10th century by Athelstan, we're talking about a united army of a Kingdom - that being England. Now given that the English people were made up of Danes, Anglo-Saxons and Brythons and had been for about 600 years, calling them Anglo-Saxon is totally in appropriate, can you cite a reference that the entire army was Anglo-Saxon in ethnicity?. Also, Normandy was NOT part of France in 1066, so calling them the French army is bunk. White43 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've changed this from 'Anglo-saxon' (which linked to the England page!?) to 'English (Anglo-saxon)' with the appropriate links. To not call them English is ridiculous given that English nationality as a concept and England as a nation was already well established (read any books about the writings/events/monarchs of this period and this will become abundantly clear to you). Also the army under Harold would likely have had a very mixed ethnicity (with many of the nobles known to have Anglo-saxon, Danish, Norman etc, heritage). The one thing that united them was that they thought of themselves as 'English'. Brunanburh (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Claiming "crusade" mentality
"Many had also come because they considered it a holy crusade, due to the Pope's decision to bless the invasion."
While it is true that the pope did openly support William over Harold, the name "crusade" should rightly only be used after the First Crusade. The papal standard that William bore is not the same religious force as the "milites Christi" that fought in the Middle East.
Lifthrasir1 21:52 Oct. 14 2006
I would simply like to lay a small inquiry concerning the effect of the battle at Hastings. What made it decisive and how did it effect the course of European history?
RE: Decisive Victory
The theory is that if William had failed, it would have left England the isolated island nation it was. Instead, it opened up England to the world via the fact that their new King was based on the Continent with its attendant cultural diversity. One connected idea to this is that that without the Norman success at Hastings, the English speaking world today would be conversing in French.Seth1066 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Except it was not an isolated island nation! England had plenty of links with the Continent, though admittedly it looked more towards Scandinavia due to its recent history. Had the Normans not invaded, England would likely have been a major naval power far earlier than it historically was (the Norman kings and their successors continually ignored the naval aspect of warfare), which would potentially mean an earlier 'conquest' (or possibly peaceful integration) with the Celtic fringes of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall - and probably the Isle of Man and Ireland too. It would also be less inclined to get involved in large wars with France (the only reason it did was due to the French holdings of the Norman kings). Our landscape would also be very different - burghs not castles for example. Also, bizarrely, women's rights would be grater. The aftermath of the Norman Conquest removed rights from women that they did not regain until the 1960s/70s.
RE: Island Nation
The major supposition is "if William had failed." England, having repelled the foreign invaders from across the channel, would have become isolationist to prevent further invasions. This would allow the French, not the English, to dominate the seas. Seth1066 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, Anglo-Saxon England was not a rosey, perfect place, but the Conquest was not an event that transformed England from a backwater to a major player. Richard Hearing 16:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so. However, the premise is, "if William had failed." In other words, a victory at Hastings by the English may have influenced England to be less adventurous.Seth1066 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that defeating an invading army would convince England to become Isolationist. Invading armies were quite a common feature of just about every European nation for most of the Middle Ages - and before the Middle Ages, and after the Middle Ages. Nobody ever went isolationist. England was the closest there was, but that was mostly because the Channel made invasions harder, so it was freer to develop without outside threats. And if anything a failed invasion attempt would encourage them to build a stronger navy to make sure that such an event never happened again.Richard Hearing 11:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't just any "invading army." England was already becoming "Normanized." For example, Ethelred married Emma, the sister of Richard of Normandy. She came to England in force with all her Norman servants, friends, language and culture. Her son Edward was completely in the Norman way. History is not even sure whether he could even speak English by the time he was crowned King of England in 1042.
If the English had won Hastings, they very likely would have rejected all things Norman and kicked them all out and minded their own business, leaving the French to do the exploring. In any event, it's an interesting theory of possibility. I believe it was originally propagated by Robert Silverberg's book "1066." Here is a blurb of commentary on it:
Interestingly enough, the final chapter of this book is called What If—? and offers a bit of alternate-history speculation. What if William had lost at Hastings? What if there had been no Norman Conquest of England? Silverberg develops a number of possibilities, picturing a world in which England remained isolationist and never went abroad to found colonies. North America would almost certainly have become a French colony, though it may have attained at least some measure of independance. It's an interesting fancy, and worth considering, since there are so many ways in which William's success rested on good luck and timing rather than strength or skill.
Seth1066 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If the English had won Hastings, they very likely would have rejected all things Norman and kicked them all out and minded their own business
Which is actually pretty much what they did after the reinstatement of the Godwin family... I will concede that it is possible, and that much of England's historic 'national character' does come from the Norman/French influence, but I'm still not convinced that we would do a Scandinavia and turn completely inwards. Richard Hearing 08:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
However, I would argue against the 'Normanised' idea. Yes, Edward's mother was Norman and Edward himself was brought up in Normandy, and Edward tried to install Norman men into positions of power within England and even built a Norman-style Cathedral at Westminster. However, most of his Norman installations were run out of the country after the return of the Godwins, and after Edward died the throne went to Harold Godwinson, who was part Danish and definately not Norman. Arguing that England was being 'Normanised' through Emma & Edward is like arguing that Britain became 'Germanised' through King George I. Richard Hearing 09:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The original premise is the possibility that some of todays English speaking world would be speaking French, not that England would "turn completely inwards," but maybe just enough. As far as the "England was being 'Normanised' through Emma & Edward," as mentioned, those were just (two) examples.Seth1066 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
True about the original premise, though I think that Emma and Edward (and his hangers-on) were the only Normanising influence on Anglo-Saxon England. For example, Norman-style personal names only appear after the Conquest etc etc. I must confess that I have enjoyed this discussion - thanks Seth1066! Richard Hearing 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, an enjoyable conversation.Seth1066 07:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If no one is opposed to this I'll add the Aquitanians on the Norman side of the combattants. They took a significant part in the battle I figure as even the German chronicler Frutolf had attributed the victory to the Aquitanians and not to the Normans [here is a source]. Matthieu 14:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
By: Katelyn Marquardt
I think the 'aka' in the first paragraph is inappropriate. Jake95 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it, I also added that Guillaume le Conquerant is how he is known in French (I don't think you'll need a quote here since it's my first language). I can't affirm it is also the case in Norman but since it was writen before my edit I'll take it as correct. Matthieu 12:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am actually wondering if the Norman name of William the Conqueror isn't Willaume le Conquerant. Could the user who said it is Guillaume le Conquerant in Norman gives a source? This page that shows contemporary texts seem to imply it's Willaume. Matthieu 01:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
My language skills are not up to reading that page (sorry), but I'm happy to take your word for them. When I get the chance I'll dig out my source books and see what they say on this. Personally I've only ever seen it as 'Guillaume' and never as 'Willaume', but then I can't remember what language the source was written in.Richard Hearing 14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea of a feigned flight was mentioned more than once in this article. I find it hard to believe that the Norman flights weren't authentic. While William in many cases has shown himself to be a skilled commander, organizing an army to retreat in unicen (at the time, battlefield communication was crude and to do this successfully would be extraordinary) sounds dubious. I can't ask for an appropriate source, seeing as this is such an opinionated manner, but if someone could supply the reasoning for this that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liptinx (talk • contribs)
When did William show himself as a skillful commander? His one great skill was in sieges. I agree that it would be hugely difficult to deliver an intentional 'feigned flight' manouver with an army like Williams - it was very big, and it contained such a wide mixture of people of varying nationalities and languages... Richard Hearing 10:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The feigned retreat issue is hardly mentioned in "The Struggle for Mastery" while the same source affirms Harold was just wounded by an arrow and killed in close combat. I think there are many different interpretations here. Matthieu 15:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say then that the idea of 'feigned retreat' isn't worth keeping in here. We might not want to take it out yet, but the paragraph saying something to the effect of "the Norman lords took note of this, and used a feigned flight tactic throughout the day" definitely needs doctoring. First off, to my knowledge, these so-called feigned flights only happened twice during the battle. And as already noted, it would be almost impossible to accomplish such a thing.Mystoksor 12:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned, but not insisted on Matthieu 11:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
I don't see that a feigned flight in unison is in any way impossible. The Scythian, Parthian and Sarmatian enemies of Rome used them to great effect and the tactics were adopted by the Romans themselves. The Bretons had a tradition of being skilful cavalry (due, as the article notes, to having been seeded with Alans during the later Roman Empire) and would have been too experienced to flee at first contact as is alleged. I would consider it a well-used Breton tactic rather than something specifically ordered by William. However, it is a moot point, and I do find the assertion that the Normans copied Breton tactics to be a little spurious. Mon Vier 13:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Not impossible, but unlikely. See my posts above, and the section on 'Aftermath' in the article for some reasoning. As to 'fleeing at first contact' - cavalry simply cannot break well-formed heavy infantry, and a retreat after the initial clash would be very likely, and not necessarily the same as fleeing. Sources do conflict as to who 'broke' first, though if it was the Bretons, and they were as skilled & disciplined as you alledge, then the retreat could have been in reasonably good order, allowing a rally and a counter-counter-attack Richard Hearing 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Bretons were known to use it but Bretons also were attacking best position, an area very steep in comparison to rest of Senlac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Franks vs French
Someone had changed the French in the combattant list to Franks linking to the dark ages kindoms of the Franks. I reverted the change, since here we are talking of the residents of the kingdom of France (or Kingdom of Francia as it was called). Although the term Franks was still sometimes used when refering to the resident of Gaul (and hardly anymore to the residents of the Empire) to employ Franks in the combattants list may lead to confusions with the Germanic people, especially in the link associated to Franks leads to the Germanic people article. This is actually twice misleading, as a lower Germanic people the cultural descendants of the Franks here, the Flemings, are already mentioned. Matthieu 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It's totally inapropriate to make a distinction between Flemish, Norman, Bretons and other French.
What are French people if not an addition of people from theses areas and from some other regions ??
This kind of presentation is an unscientific one.
Where are the Javelins of the Normans???
The Norman tactic of charging forward with the cavalry, time and time again, only to 'falsely retreat' has been demonstrated to have been a continual bombardment of cavalry-launched javelins. This tactic was the determining factor in the battle, as the Saxon shields could not stand up to the heavy javelins, and the Saxon forces were therefore worn down over the space of the day, until they could be finished off.
Could someone who is an expert at this battle please insert this tactic at the appropriate place?Kozushi
I'm not sure that you are correct here - I have never heard of a Norman knight throwing a javelin from horseback. The reason why Norman knights were so feared and renowned throughout Europe was that they pioneered the use of the 'couched' lance, where the lance is firmly held against the side of the knight when charging the enemy, rather than wielding it 'overarm' and stabbing downwards at the enemy as was the common method. This results in a much more powerful thrust with the lance, which is harder to defend against.
It is possible that the pictures in the Bayeux Tapestry that show knights using the 'overarm' method of holding their spears has lead to the idea that they were actualy throwing them. This was not the case. Norman knights were heavy cavalry who relied on shock assaults to defeat their foe, not light cavalry that threw missiles such as javelins at their enemies. And besides, where would they get enough javelins to maintain a continual bombardment?
Richard Hearing 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
"This theory kicks ass"
"Another theory was that Harold was struck in the right eye and tried to pull it out. He was later cut through the heart by a Norman knight, his head cut off, his guts strewn out, and his left leg cut off at the thigh. This last theory kicks ass." Someone has to fix that, it has no sources, nor does it sound very professional.
I know that whig history considers the invasion of 1066 the last succesful conquering of britain, but the glorious revolution in 1688 was clearly a foreign invasion which ended in King James the second being disposed and a foreign monarch being installed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_revolution. This article should be changed in that the last succesful invasion needs to be removed. (126.96.36.199 12:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
- It's debatable. 1066 was the last time a foreign force conquered. In 1688, William and Mary were invited by the Parliament to come and rule. Jmlk17 05:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the old saying that history is written by the winners rings true here. Parliament didn't have the right to invite anyone to invade and replace the rightful monarch. Remember the Act of Settlement came afterwards and so James II was rightful monarch at the time. Objectively James was deposed by an invading foreign prince at the head of a foreign army with collusion of factions within England. It's only contemporary and subsequent propaganda that has used parliament's invitation to both justify and legitimise the event.
- Very true! Besides, the invitation was an initiative by just a few MP's. The matter was never discussed in parliament. at least not before the invasion. The modern day equivalent of such an invitation would be if the UK Independance Party would invite Jean-Marie le Pen to come liberate Britain at the head of a french army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, infact to solicit a foreign power to send an army to depose the rightful head of state would normally be regarded as treason. However the success of the coup d'état has awarded it's participants hero status. Failure would no doubt have branded them traitors as the likes of Fawkes and Catesby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
1688 wasn't a true invasion because William was seen as an alternative to a second civil war, and was only crowned on the condition he accepted limits to his power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Seen as an alternative by whom? Not by James II, who as it says above was rightful monarch at the time. Looking at it objectively, he was crowned after agreement with the traitor's who had invited him to invade. Again, as mentioned above, to plot against the monarch was treason. A foriegn prince landing in England at the head of a foriegn army intent on overthrowing the rightful monarch is an invasion - the fact that James II was an elitest fop who ran away is irrelevant. It isn't portrayed as an invasion in English history because to do so would imply that William and Mary, the subsequent Act of Settlement and all monarch's since are illegitimate. Instead it's celebrated as a liberation. History is indeed written by the winners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't William the Conqueror the winner too? And he came out with all sorts of justifications for his invasion, claiming he had been appointed by Edward the Confessor, for example. The big difference between the two events was that the Bastard's invasion was opposed, but William of Orange's arrival was welcomed by both the populace and the political establishment. ðarkuncoll 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You are not wrong at all - in fact you appear to be agreeing with me. Nobody disputes the fact that William the Conquerer successfully invaded England - nor that it was just that - an invasion. However the conquest by William of Orange has in many quarters been regarding a liberation rather than a successful invasion. Remember this was the 17th century - not the 21st - and values of freedom and democracy do not apply when making historical analysis of events - as such, the "populace" you mention were more or less irrelevant to proceedings. The situation was really that England's relatively new Protestant establishment were horrified to find a Catholic monarch with a bloodline in their midst. Also remember - not all the establishment were behind the plot. Again, the point I'm making is this - William of Orange was a foriegn prince and arrived on English soil with a foriegn army, set on overthrowing the rightful monarch and installing himself in his place. Are those not the facts? Of course propaganda at the time was used to justify it as something else - nobody would expect otherwise. However in the 21st century, everyone sees William the Conquerers invasion for what it was - but there are some - even over 300 years later who cannot look upon the facts of William of Oranges invasion objectively and instead still attempt to justify the events using Williamite propaganda. What a publicity machine that man had for it to still be running so long after the events! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
When a foreign power lands with over 15,000 troops carried by a fleet larger than the Spanish Armada, defeats the ruling king (only battle was the Battle of Reading in which James II Irish troops - the only ones he trusted - were routed by William of Orange's Dutch forces (+ mercenaries, which all sides had) - and then forces Parliament to accept him as King by force of arms (yes, he did agree to limitations on his power, but only as a bargaining ploy to get the right to be King even after his wife died) - this series of events is clearly "an invasion". If it had been a "coup d'etat" John Churchill would have taken over and become King. If it had been by invitation, there would have been no need for such an Armada to bring William to London. Pretending that the Norman invasion was the last successful invasion of England is entrenched because of, among other things, the propaganda of the likes of Winston Churchill leading up to and during World War II - attempting to get Britain and the Empire to believe that England was more impregnable than it was - and it worked. But that was over 60 years ago - its time English people get over it, accept the truth and admit that the Glorious Revolution was in fact an invasion by a foreign power" Fifty53 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Fifty53 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Hastings&action=edit§ion=20#
The Legacy section seems rather incomplete
Shouldn't there be greater explanation in the "Legacy" section of the history-altering implications of this event? For example:
- The imposition of French into the English language
- The basis of French-English rivalries
- The greater inclusion of England into European affairs
Questions/Comments for thought
If the Normans defeated the Anglo-Saxons/English and became the rulers of the most of the Bitish Islands, does this make them also the "English". Given the political structure of the fuedal world which was very different from the current nation-state is it plausible to include parts of France under the English crown as "English"? After all the real conflict between and England and France started out as the conflict between the Normans and the French.
If the Normans had not defeated the Saxons the English language would be utterly different than it is today. The Normans introduced thousands of Latin(French) words into the formerly Germanic language thereby creating modern English.
Also consider England’s greatest gift to the world, parliamentary democracy which was founded by Frenchman Simon de Montfort.
Does this make the English Anglo-Frogs? (Just Kidding)
The Normans were Normans not French. They were originally Vikings who had been given Normandy by a French King who hoped it would appease them. so they lived in France and the generation that invaded England had been born there.Willski72 (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- The generation that invaded England was born more than a century after Rollo was granted Normandy. Their connection to the Vikings was tenuous at best. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
"The Normans were Normans not French" Actually Normandy was RULED by "normans" or norwegian vikings when it was given to them, but people of Normandy was French and were living there way before Norman invasion. Norwegian vikings didn't bring people to populate but just warriors to conquer. As such they were very few and melted with local population, adopted their language and culture, mary local princesses so that "after one generation or two you could not make a difference between a Norman and a French" this sentence being from "Norman" article of wikipedia. Finally, vikings ruling Normandy were forced to adopt Christianity and Normandy was a vassality of France. The word "Norman" is French. William the first native language was french and he was a 5th or 6th generation inhabitant of Francia, he wasn't "just born there" People of Normandy was OFFICIALLY Normans but 95% of them were actually not of Norwegian origin. As a consequence saying that "Normans are not French" is quite innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually saying "they were not French" is quite true. Scandinavian settlement went pretty much to the same patern where ever they went. first they were small scale hit and run raids, then leading to bigger raids involving whole Armies.Then finally when they had been doing this for quite a long period they started full scale invasions.When the land was won, and the area safe to do so they sent for their women (prime example of this, Harold Godwinsons mother was Danish, she came to England through Cnuts invasions). Lets not forget that the reasons for the whole Viking period was growing population in Scandinavia coupled with the land there being poor to farm.The whole period was basicaly about conquest and riches ect for their kin and offspring. We only need to look at England,Ireland the isles around Scotland, Faroes Russia ect to see the patern. The thing about them being French in all but name stems from the French themselves, eager to have their one and only ever victory on English soil. Yes they spoke French, but at the same time the rulers of France of the time certainly did not consider them to be French!English n proud (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- What you say might be true if we were talking about Rollo, the Norseman who was given Normandy to appease him, but William the Conqueror was five generations removed from Rollo. He had French ancestry and spoke the language natively. I think you've got it backwards - it seems to be English nationalism that insists on considering him non-French. 19th-century English nationalists, in an era in which people believed in racial supremacy, propagated a myth that England was "purely Germanic," claiming that the Anglo-Saxons completely drove out the Celtic inhabitants of England and that it was "Germanic" Normans who conquered their country. Both are false - genetic studies have shown that the people of England are overwhelmingly of Celtic ancestry, as are the people of Normandy - but the old beliefs linger today.184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That is incorrect too. The people of the western and south western portions of England have a higher proportion of Celtic DNA (and that initself is incorrect, as Celtic is not really what the indeginous Brits were, they were the same people that had been here since pre history!)than those in the East and South East, who have been proven to be more from Germanic stock. Sorry, but which ever side of the fence you sit, minorities do NOT come in and change the very fabric of a land which gets named after them. The place names are in their tounge the language is theirs and the people still on this island are theirs too. If minorities had the power to change a land like that then we would be all speaking Norman French and our country would be called Normandy secunda as opposed to England.....or land of the Angles!English n proud (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Saxons vs English
More times than I care to list in this article, the word Saxon becomes supplanted with "English" and vice versa. Since English is not fully true, as they were Anglo-Saxons, and Saxon is not fully legitimate either, as Saxons are members of a Germanic tribe. So, its just my recommendation, that at each point in which English and Saxon appear in the article, it should be supplanted with "Anglo-Saxon". (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
- I disagree. All usages of 'Saxon' should be replaced by 'English'. By 1066, the country was united under one king and called 'England'. Therefore the people fighting in that battle were 'English'. 'Anglo-Saxons' is a collective name for the tribes that came to England. Once established and all kingdoms were united under Athelstan, English replaced that. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. They may have been culturally Anglo-Saxon, but this was now a country of England, including Danes. Using the term Saxon is not only incorrect, it ignores the others involved. Have changed Saxon references to English. White43 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
England was yes, no question about it. Remember this is England, not Britain, not Great Britain, and not the British Isles. Scotland, Wales and Ireland were similarly independant nations at this time. Guthroth (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Although admittedly the groupings together of these seperate little princedoms etc where known as their respective countries e.g. all the lands of the seperate Welsh Princes together was known as Wales.Willski72 (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the ships?
I read somewhere that Harold had a sizable armada assembled while awaiting William. What happened with those ships? Why were they not used to damage the Normans before they landed, and then again to prevent reinforcements later, when William's army was dwindling from disease? -- It seems to me the success of the Normans shows the weakness of top-down warfare... if the locals had been empowered as warriors, and he had to fight his way everywhere he went, losing some men each day to sneaky local attacks, he would have soon been vanquished (between that and the disentery). What do you think? V.B. (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- At the time, fleet-to-fleet warfare was very much an unthrod territory except on the relatively quiet waters of the mediterranian. Ships did not have any armaments of their own, they were supposed to just transport warriors and knights to overseas battlefields. Only in secluded areas like ports and estuaries did fleet battles occur, like the battle of Sluys in 1340. The ships of the time were mostly enlarged vikingships also known as knarrs which were just open boats with no protection for men or steeds. The Cog, with its deck and its raised wooden castles fore and aft, was not yet widely used. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
i was recently told that the outcome of this battle more seriously affected the purity of the english language than anything else in history. there is nothing more fascinating to me at the moment, though i have no idea as to where i may find further information. -tev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC) [Read This Article [www.secretsofthenormaninvasion.com]you will find very interesting?]Posted by mike W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Landing Site Under Tarmac!
I like to think that this website at http://www.secretsofthenormaninvasion.com has a few answers. With the local Authority happy to build a bypass for the A259, this ground at Bulverhythe will vanish under tarmac very soon. The website makes a lot of sense compared to the rather cleansed version of events left to us by the victorians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- This page is to discuss improvements to the Battle of Hastings page - not advertise websites. White43 (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Great Work Everyone--Very Helpful
I know that this isn't really a contribution to improving the article, but I found that it was very in-depth and extremely well-written. Thanks to everyone who helped writing this article! -Ted 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
Back to English vs Anglo-Saxon
Who is it who keeps changing it back to Anglo-Saxon army? Consensus on this article is to leave it 'English' Army as England was united under Athelstan in the 10th century. So why keep changing it to Anglo-Saxon unless you are pushing POV. The Battle of Hastings is remembered as an ENGLISH defeat and an event in ENGLISH history. Why refer to the ethnic origin of the ENGLISH army? White43 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
William of Normandy and the Battle of Stamford Bridge
What is the feasibility to the argument that William coordinated his activities with Tostig Godwinson and Harald Hardråde? The other point I have come across is that this is one of the few cases in history where two different armies have invaded a country independently.
Probably no one, if you mean who would succeed him as Norman pretender to the throne of England. He was not the King of England and so if he died and Harold lived, Harold would remain King, being that William the Bastard was an invader. If Harold and William died then the throne would go to Edgar Atheling as it did in reality after Harold's death (making Edgar Atheling the last English King, not Harold as many claim). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The leader of the Breton troops (possibly Alan Rufus, who was a designated heir ("nephew") of William) could have assumed command, continued fighting and, had he won, claimed England for the Breton royal family as the rightful and original rulers of England. Zoetropo (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
How can you wield a two-handed axe and have a shield wall?
The housecarls are described as carrying axes, swords, and shields. The swords would presumably have stayed in their scabbards as a backup weapon if they lost their axe, when using their shields, or if the fighting became very close quarters. I believe it is possible to carry the shield on the back when not in use (i.e. when using their two-handed axes), but how did this work in practice at the Battle of Hastings? How is it possible for there to be a shield wall and housecarls to be using two-handed axes? Did the shield wall break up when it came to hand-to-hand fighting (and protection from arrows was no longer necessary)? Does the Bayeux Tapestry provide any insight?
On another issue, I've found several internet sites which state Saxon shields were round or oval. The Tapestry shows Saxons using kite shields, but it may be misleading, as it made by Normans and presumably shows Saxons armed with what Normans would think of as shields. Does anyone know? --Merlinme (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the front row (or two) were creating the shield war and the ones behind were wielding their axes?--Arthurbrown (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
A Housecarl has been described as carrying a shield and throwing javelins until nearly in contact and then throwing the sheild around to ride on his back while he deployed his axe (or his two-handed sword, an expensive alternative) I have this from a discussion with Poul Anderson who probably knew what he was talking about and the mix of weapons and shield was what the Huscarl was assigned by at least one book in the series from Wargames Research Group. The shield wall technique, which would have been a good idea for fighting against cavalry especially, would be more what the Fyrd would use, shield and spear. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Will in New Haven18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This is pathetic are you trying to tell me that the Normans at exactly the same amount of soldiers on the battle field as the English, it's obvious that the Normans outnumbered the English by atleast 1000-2000 men putting the armies at the same amount of soldiers is just lazy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, with nearly 1,000 years of time since the battle, coupled with very few concrete and valid sources, no one truly knows the exact size of the opposing armies. Every source is an estimation, with some differing by as many as 5,000 men! Either way, it's not obvious in either direction who had the upper hand in man-power, but the range listed on the page gives an estimation that perhaps one army had up to 1,000 more men. Jmlk17 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed "Picards" from list of belligerents
They are not mentioned anywhere else in the article; I cannot find any evidence that the Picards ever took up arms against anyone ever. I would leap at the opportunity to pore over any and all references that might give evidence of the Picards fighting at the Battle of Hastings. Whoever added them under "Belligerents" - could you please provide references? --126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Arrow in his eye?
The article includes a detail of the Bayeux tapestry with a caption declaring that it shows Harold grappling with an arrow in his eye. Physical evidence and eye-witness accounts indicate that Harold was hacked to pieces and that, if he is depicted at all, he is more likely to be the figure being attacked further to the right. This is a significant matter because the theory that Harold was killed by an arrow in his eye depends solely on interpretation of this ambiguous depiction in the Bayeux tapestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 44981205a (talk • contribs) 03:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree about the arrow. The text above the figures breaks over 'Harold' but that isn't Harold - Harold is the figure being cut down under the 'Interfectus Est' (has been killed). Also, the story of the arrow in the eye had become so popular that when restorers found that the original stitch holes for the arrow clearly took the arrow into the helmet and not they eye, they slightly bent the arrow's shaft to make it fit with the myth. It could be that both figures are intended to be Harold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsoup (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Did Harold *almost* win ?
The article for Harold Godwinson suggests:
1: the Battle Of Hastings was significantly longer than the norm for that era - footnotes suggesting the battle lasted 9 hours, compared to a more common duration of two hours;
2: Harold was "more or less assured of victory", when fortunes shifted aginst him;
Those assertions seem to differ from the article on the battle itself.
A difference in phrasing or disagreement between sources ?
188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Harold Could have won if he had not just marched down from the Battle of Stamford Bridge in York. JakeAWGriffin (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
As a professor of European history, I was fascinated to learn not only were the errors gross, but the editing was removed so that this appalling story could be read by anyone and, the factual events have been distorted. Shame upon Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G6ypk (talk • contribs) 22:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is far from the finished product. In what ways would you change the article? Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Quote: 'William the Duke of Normandy had been establishing policy in England for over 15 years,' - this is absolutely rubbish and there is no evidence for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Why did William Win the Battle of Hastings?
The battle of Hastings was fought by William the Duke of Normandy, and Harold Godwinson. It was a one day battle on the 14th December 1066. The battle was fought at Senlac Hill. I will write about why William had a tactical advantage over Harold so why I think William won the battle. I think that William won the Battle of Hastings because he could give out orders while Harold couldn’t, because Harold was fighting in the front line with the rest of his army, but William was charging around on horseback and could give orders to his men. William being friends with the pope, got people to join his army because he said that the pope was backing William in his decision to fight against Harold, so that the battle was a holy battle and would guarantee them a place in heaven. William had a stronger army than Harold’s when the battle started because Harold’s army had just marched down from York, but Williams’s army had only marched from Dover. William had more areas of his army than Harold’s, William had men on horseback but Harold’s army didn’t. William had approximately 5,000 infantry and 3,000 Calvary and archers. Harold’s army was around the same size as he had approximately 2,500 Housecarl (his paid army) and 6,000 Fyrd (people who came from nearby towns and villages to support his king). Williams’s tactic was for his army to go up to Harold’s shield wall, and try to weaken it. After a while some of Williams’s army retreated back and the part of Harold’s army that were fighting them charged after them leaving a gap in Harold’s shield wall. Harold could not repair this part of the wall as he was fighting in the front line. William who was riding on horseback noticed, and managed to get a part of his army to surround the part of Harold’s army that had broken off. And Williams’s army killed all of Harold’s army that broke off. William got his army repeat this tactic until most of Harold’s army were dead. After that both army’s had a rest. Then Williams’s army fired arrows at Harold’s army. These arrows would fly into Harold’s army and injure the warriors. At one stage Harold himself got an arrow in his eye. It is clear that compared to the other reasons, the reason that Harold’s army had marched approximately 250 miles from York to Senlac hill, was the main reason for Williams’s victory. This meant that Harold’s army would have been very tired. JakeAWGriffin (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Edit request on 30 December 2011
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
pennance -> penance : misspelling
220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The Battle Of Hastings
Non breaking Space
Measurement units should have non breaking space between number and measurement unit to prevent breaking between lines. Please discuss here before changing this in the article. mdkarazim (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with you?
Why have you got rid of all the other people who took part in the battle along with the Normans (Poitevins, Manceaux, Bretons, French...etc). Is English butthurt the reason? In any case, this is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeHappiste (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)