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

Are knights and castles a sufficient explanation for Norman military success between 1066 and 1087?

Extracts from this document...


Are knights and castles a sufficient explanation for Norman military success between 1066 and 1087? "Military organization was crucial to the success of the Norman conquest. With strong armies, the Kings could defeat their internal and external enemies on campaign. With enduring symbols of military power and might, they could intimidate them into lasting submission1" Military power, and indeed success, was crucial to the Normans during the initial conquest of England. A great deal of this success can be attributed to the skill of the Norman knights and armed forces, as well as the castles built; yet there may be other factors that affected the military success of the Normans. Perhaps one of the greatest and most significant explanations for military success were the Norman knights; as they played multiple roles in ensuring this. William the Conqueror was able to draw on a large pool of potential leaders, given the military nature of the ruling class. They proved particularly useful as the king could not be everywhere at once, and by have his subjects around the country, he could ensure better control over the country as a whole. However, in a military sense a knight owned a horse and Armour and formed part of the cavalry. The knights in the cavalry were essential to the Norman military success, as there seems to have been a great reliance upon them; they made up a quarter of William's army at the Battle of Hastings. ...read more.


This harsh technique of forced submission eventually worked and William obtained control of the North militarily. Moreover, it could be suggested that the extent of the Norman military success was a reflection of the poor condition of England both politically and militarily. Prior to the Norman conquest, England had been particularly de-centralised, which made defense against attack unreliable, particularly with the North being so detached from the south. For example when Hadrada joined Tostig and landed in Yorkshire to overthrow Harold, the Northern earls Edwin and Morcar did not put a system of defense into action. Another factor that weakened the Anglo-Saxon defenses was the lack of castles to keep invaders at bay. Additionally the Anglo- Saxon system of the Fyrd was weak, and the all or nothing nature of it was a serious drawback, as there was little or no rotation of troops, or any guarantee of obtaining extra soldiers rapidly. This ultimately meant that there was no army waiting or readily available to defend against William when he landed on the south coast. Moreover, the military success of the Normans was also due to William's leadership of the army and his advanced planning before battle. Before the battle of Hastings, William, according to the twelfth century poet Wace, assembled 696 ships. William also started a diplomatic offensive by winning the support of the Papacy, and made sure that any potential enemies were neutralized through marriages, wars or alliances. ...read more.


Yet the factor of chance cannot be dismissed as a contributor to the Norman military success. Perhaps the outcome would have been different had Harold waited for his reinforcement troops from London before fighting William. It was also unfortunate that Harold's troops had only fought three weeks prior to the battle of Hastings, and this were tired from combat and marching. The Norman military success may have also been different if Harold had died at Stamford Bridges, or if both Harold's brothers hadn't been killed in battle. Due to the reliability of the sources we are also not able to determine whether apparently deciding tactics such as the fake retreats were decided course of action or just occurred from a rumour that William was dead. Thus it would seem that chance played a major role in deciding the military success of the Normans. Hence, it would seem that all the factors played a part in ensuring Norman military success; the knights and cavalry ensured good attacking methods whilst the castles ensured control over the kingdom. Additionally, William's army tactics helped him to succeed in the conquest. Yet all these factors may not have had any influence had it not been for the bad timing and poor condition of England both in a political and military sense. So the Norman military success between 1066 and 1087 owes itself not only to knights, castles and military strength but also other factors such as chance. ...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 War Poetry 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 War Poetry essays

  1. Why did William win at the Battle of Hastings?

    Harold's biggest problem was the condition of his army. They were exhausted from travelling north to fight at Stamford Bridge, a battle in which a number of the army had been killed so reducing its size. It was straight after the Battle of Stamford bridge that Harold's army had to

  2. The Battle Of Hastings was in the year 1066, in the medieval times.The battle ...

    This would have gave Williams army a lot more attacking power and gave them the upper hand. * Also, to show that Williams's army were prepared, when they were just about to attack each other -when Harold Godwinson's army were on top of a hill and William's army at the

  1. why the normans won the battle of hastings

    The battle was not completely won on account of William's fantastic leadership skills however. Harold made some mistakes before and during the battle. Firstly Harold had positioned himself on the south coast as he knew William and the Normans were coming.

  2. Why is the battle of the Somme regarded as such a great military tragedy?

    But the Somme was no different to any other battle, in terms of battlefield experience except for the scale so why weren't they more prepared? In conclusion I believe that poor planning was the main reason that the battle of the Somme was regarded as such a great military tragedy

  1. How did the Romans View the Britons and the conquest?

    easier for people like me to fight them without too much trouble. In fact, many of the leaders, or chieftains, gave up without any fight whatsoever. I felt lucky to be involved of some of this, since many of my comrades were killed in battle, especially from death by that

  2. The Battle of Britain.

    This poster fails to mention the death and makes the battle out to be a 'clean fight' and doesn't portray the true reality of war. The failure to mention such factors as the radar system makes it rather unreliable. The Daily Express constantly fed news to the civilian population as well as asking for more recruits within the articles published.

  1. The popular myth of the Battle of Britain quickly emerged during the early part ...

    destroyed buildings. These clips also confirm the myth by mentioning 'The few' who are 'winning' the battle for air superiority. They are very nationalistic, because these newsreels have been made by British people. This is a very easy way to spread the myth between the nation, because these clips are a good way of getting through to the people.

  2. A Bridge Too Far.

    The remaining men headed off to town to secure the bridge. Bill, Harry (two soldiers) and some others set off on a road into town. Suddenly a Tank crashed through a near by building onto the same road and turned to face them!

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