• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

William was successful at Hastings because of his leadership of the Normans.(TM) To what extent do you agree?

Extracts from this document...


'William was successful at Hastings because of his leadership of the Normans.' To what extent do you agree? In this essay I am going to look at Williams's leadership of his soldiers during the period before and during the battle of Hastings, the Norman organisation compared to the English and the overall strengths and weaknesses of both sides. At this time, leadership was very different than it is today. In the medieval times, to be a good leader meant that you could keep control of your people well, by force if necessary, you also had to be a good diplomat as Europe was by and large still at war with itself at the time so you had to be able to negotiate well with other leaders. On top of this and probably most important of all, you had to be a good warrior, you had to be able to lead your men in battle and set an example for the men to follow. If you set a bad example and were no good in battle you were likely to lose as your men would have no confidence, however if you were a fearsome warrior and set a good example your men would be confident of winning. ...read more.


The Normans also had very high morale as they believed that they had God on their side which was a massively important thing at this time. When the English saw the Norman Papal banner they would have known that God was definitely not on their side and would be almost defeated from the off. William also had spies and scouts who would give him inside information about the English army and their whereabouts. The Normans also had many up to date weapons that were superior to the English, as the English had lost weapons at Fulford and Stamford Bridge. The Normans also had something that the English did not, the cavalry. The cavalry would be very effective against the English foot soldiers. The English were probably superior to the Normans in hand to hand combat but with the cavalry the Normans had an extra edge. These men were the knights. They had been trained from a very early age how to ride and fight on horses their speed and manoeuvrability completely outclassed the English once they had been drawn off the hill. The horses themselves were also weapons having been trained to kick and bite other humans. ...read more.


along with the Papal banner the comet would have told the English that they were going to lose, possibly almost defeating them before the battle had started. In conclusion, although William was a brilliant leader of the Normans his leadership was not the most important reason the Normans defeated the English at Hastings. It is true that he was a brilliant leader but I think that the most important reason was that the English were completely exhausted from the days of fighting and marching prior to the battle. This factor is the most important because the English were just not ready for another huge battle in the space of a few weeks. The Normans had been ready and rested for months so they had a huge advantage over the exhausted English. The other reasons did play a part in the defeat I think that if the English did not have to fight off Hardrada first, they would have beaten William. The Normans did have the cavalry and Harolds tactics were poor but the cavalry were largely ineffective against the English line until Haralds tactics came into play with his inability to control his men meant that the English came off the hill and so the cavalry found it easy to pick them off. Overall the most important reason was because the English were completely exhausted. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE History Projects section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE History Projects essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent was Custer to blame for the defeat at the battle of ...

    3 star(s)

    After this they were considered hostile. The Government then instructed the Indians to depart from the Black Hills by the 31st of January 1875. This was physically impossible for the Indians to do because the journey was too long, they had too many goods, they slowed down by weather, elders and had to stop frequently for rest and food.

  2. Battle Of Hastings

    And because of this particular reason, William had a slight advantage in the battle. William's skill is linked with Harold's mistakes because if it were not for the actions made by William with his skills, Harold wouldn't have made so many mistakes.

  1. Why Did William Of Normandy Win the Battle of Hastings?

    However the wind was blowing in the wrong direction for William to invade, so after months of waiting Harold sent his men home. Meanwhile Harald Hardraada and Harold's brother Tostig invaded the north east coast from Norway with a vicious Viking army.

  2. Battle of Hastings

    William on the other hand was well prepared for the battle and he was getting his army of 7,500 men made up of fully professional soldiers split into three groups: archers, cavalry and infantry and he was getting some of his men from as far as Italy.

  1. To what extent were Stalins economic policies successful?

    Also industrialisation and collectivisation are reliant upon each other in that the factories need to produce tractors to make farming more efficient and mechanised but the factories need workers from the countryside before they can produce tractors efficiently. If one fails so does the other so it is going to be very hard for this to be a success.

  2. Free essay

    Custers responsibilty for teh defeat at Little Bighorn

    showed to be successful, Custer thought that by using these again, he would have a better chance of winning. The tactic to split up the group into three separate groups was, I think quite a good idea, as by doing this, they will try to surround the Indians which I think is quite a good tactic.

  1. How successful was the leadership of Mao Tse-Tung between 1949 to 1976? Address economic, ...

    Their aliby was that the landlords had been overpricing the lands. But of course, this was done only to gain the support of the peasants. As Mao was getting more popular with his land reforms, a new problem arose. Food availability was not keeping up with China's rapid increase of population (546 million in 1950 to 581 million in 1953).

  2. Was The Leadership Of Nelson Mandela The Main Reason For The Ending ...

    The first sentence within the source is extremely important as it is stating that there is no doubt that Mandela was the ?catalyst? in finally cracking the apartheid system. This source is supporting the view that the leadership of Nelson Mandela was the main reason why apartheid ended in South Africa in the 1990s.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work