Talk:Battle of Hastings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles Battle of Hastings has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

An event mentioned in this article is an October 14 selected anniversary.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles

Potential ==Further reading== removed from article.

Please format correctly:

1066, by David Howarth is an immensely readable account of the background

--Jiang


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.

-- kudz75

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)
Feel free to add in some info on 'battle' if you think it needs it, be bold in updating pages! There's also a medieval warfare page that could use the definition too if it doesn't have it already.--kudz75 03:28, 18 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)
See [1] for discussion about this attempt to 'punk' wikipedia. --Saforrest 15:02, May 6, 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

Contents

[edit] Film

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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.

Thank you.

'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)

[edit] Danish mercenaries

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)

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.

mason nicholl

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)

[edit] 'Peasant Levies'

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Decisive Victory

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)

[edit] Aquitanians

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

[edit] Wording?

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)

[edit] Feigned Retreat

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] "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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Hastings_2e33.html"