The Role Of Harold Unlucky In The Battle Of Hastings
The Battle of Hastings was between William of Normandy and Harold Godwinson in 1066. William won the battle and became king, Harald lost for many reasons such as bad luck, mistakes and bad leadership. When Edward the Confessor died, there was no direct heir to the throne and the throne was passed to Harold Godwinson. Then William claimed that Edward the confessor had promised the throne to him. So they fought at the battle of Hastings for the throne. Harold was unlucky because he made his army walk 300 miles to fight Harold Hadrada then he walked another 300 miles back to Hastings to fight William and so his army were very tired before they even started to battle. He lost the battle of Hastings because he was not as prepared as William. William had the idea of building a wall of shields and Harold just wasn't as prepared also Harold’s men had just fought a battle before and was rushing in to fight another. Some of Harold’s men were killed and
…show more content…
injured so he had less men. King Harold of England had travelled to the far North of England to do battle with the invading Vikings, whom he defeated at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
He was making his return to Winchester (then the capital of England), and disbanding his army as he went, when he got news that William, Duke of Normandy had invaded at Hastings on the South Coast. Harold immediately recalled his men and made a forced march south. The speed with which Harold's army moved took William by surprise and as a consequence Harold was able to choose his ground to his best advantage. Harold had the high ground, but he suffered from two disadvantages; first, he had just fought a battle in the North and had lost many men that he had not had time to replace, and Second, having marched the length of Britain his men were exhausted. In spite of this he managed great discipline and fought off charge after charge from the mostly mounted knights of William. His shield wall proving impossible to
break. I think that Harold Godwinson was a very bad leader he chose a good spot to fight and fought well even at the disadvantage he had (like marching 400km from one battle to other, and losing half of his men at previous battle as well. All of his men were tired, weak and had nothing to eat or drink for a while. William, his opponent, had definitely out powered him, although Harold had more men, they were mostly peasants and farmers!)
On the other hand William of Normandy was a good leader because he organised his soldiers in great positions and used the trick of being dead whilst he wasn't.
injured so he had less men. King Harold of England had travelled to the far North of England to do battle with the invading Vikings, whom he defeated at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
He was making his return to Winchester (then the capital of England), and disbanding his army as he went, when he got news that William, Duke of Normandy had invaded at Hastings on the South Coast. Harold immediately recalled his men and made a forced march south. The speed with which Harold's army moved took William by surprise and as a consequence Harold was able to choose his ground to his best advantage. Harold had the high ground, but he suffered from two disadvantages; first, he had just fought a battle in the North and had lost many men that he had not had time to replace, and Second, having marched the length of Britain his men were exhausted. In spite of this he managed great discipline and fought off charge after charge from the mostly mounted knights of William. His shield wall proving impossible to
break. I think that Harold Godwinson was a very bad leader he chose a good spot to fight and fought well even at the disadvantage he had (like marching 400km from one battle to other, and losing half of his men at previous battle as well. All of his men were tired, weak and had nothing to eat or drink for a while. William, his opponent, had definitely out powered him, although Harold had more men, they were mostly peasants and farmers!)
On the other hand William of Normandy was a good leader because he organised his soldiers in great positions and used the trick of being dead whilst he wasn't.