Hello, welcome to history here at Oak National Academy.

I'm Mr. Newton and I will be your teacher today guiding you through the entirety of the lesson.

Right.

Let's get started.

We've been thinking about our big inquiry question, why did the Normans conquer England in 1066? This is the question that we've been using to investigate the immediate events leading up to the successful Norman invasion of England.

We know that after Harold Godwinson was crowned as king of England, he had to see off rival claimants to the throne.

First, he defeated Hardrada, the king of Norway, who believed he had the right to the throne.

Immediately after this battle with the Vikings, he faced a Norman invasion.

On the 14th of October in the year 1066, Harold was defeated at the Battle of Hastings and Duke William of Normandy claimed the English throne, a result which would dramatically alter the course of English history.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain the reasons for William's victory.

Before we begin, there are a few keywords we need to understand.

A turning point is the time at which a situation starts to change in an important way.

The term logistically is used to describe the effective organisation of a complicated activity or event.

Being strategic is doing things which help to achieve a wider plan, for example, in war or politics.

A tactic is a planned way of doing something or a specific action intended to achieve a wider strategy or plan.

Okay, today's lesson is split into two parts.

First, we will look at Harold and Williams' leadership and organisation to see if we can see any reasons there for why William was victorious at the Battle of Hastings.

And in the second part of the lesson, we'll look at the English and Norman troops and tactics.

Okay, let's start with leadership and organisation.

The Battle of Hastings was a turning point in English history.

Large numbers of the English elites had been wiped out.

The Normans will eventually go on to transform England society and how it is ruled.

And 1066 will be the last time that England is ever successfully invaded and conquered.

However, the Battle of Hastings could have gone either way.

So how did William win? The battle was evenly fought and went on for an extraordinary amount of time.

Both Harold and William were skilled warriors with experience in military decision-making.

So let's investigate the reasons for William's victory.

So let's start the investigation by looking at Duke William of Normandy's leadership and organisation.

William was a formidable warrior who had asserted his control over northern France despite multiple attempts to overthrow him.

These constant conflicts in France had given the Norman forces lots of experience in both fighting battles and in siege warfare.

William was also a clever political leader and organiser.

He united troops from traditionally opposing French regions like Brittany, Flanders, and Maine.

William's long wait through the summer of 1066 would have been logistically difficult as he had to keep a huge army supplied and in order.

Hundreds of ships and thousands of soldiers and horses were camped at the port of Dives.

As an organiser, William was patient and strategic.

He managed his army, keeping the men and horses fed and not letting them plunder the area.

Usually, armies fed themselves by plundering the local area, but William could not allow this in Normandy.

He had to make sure the men and horses had enough to eat and drink.

William waited long enough for Harold's army to be sent home.

This showed that William could be a patient leader.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

How did William demonstrate his patient and strategic leadership in the summer of 1066? Select three correct answers.

A, he made sure his soldiers had enough to eat and drink, B, he plundered the area around the port of Dives, C, he united troops from traditionally opposing French regions, D, he waited long enough for Harold's army to be sent home.

Pause the video, select your three correct answers, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

Well done if you knew it was A, William made sure his soldiers had enough to eat and drink, C, he united troops from traditionally opposing French regions, and D, he waited long enough for Harold's army to be sent home.

So we can see here that William was a patient and strategic leader, and this may have helped him in his preparations for the Battle of Hastings.

Okay, let's continue.

Transporting a large army, including innovative horse transport boats, across the English Channel was logistically very challenging and required a lot of really detailed planning.

Have a look at the image.

It's a detail from the Bayeux Tapestry showing Norman ships transporting soldiers across the Channel.

But if you have a closer look at the ship on the left, we can see William had built special ships which could carry horses.

This was extraordinary as it was normal practise for an army to steal horses from the enemy territory if required.

Instead, William had ensured that his army carried their highly trained horses with them.

Okay, so we've seen William's leadership and organisation skills, let's have a look at Harold's leadership and organisation.

Harold may have had less battle experience than William.

England had been relatively peaceful with its last major invasion occurring in 1016 before Harold was born.

But this is not to say that Harold lacked military skill.

Harold was an experienced military leader chosen as king by the Witan.

Harold had successfully led armies against the Vikings, the Welsh, and French in Brittany.

Harold had been chosen as king by the Witan as England faced potential invasion and they needed a strong leader.

This shows that Harold must have been an experienced and strong military leader for the Witan to trust him at this dangerous point in history.

Harold was able to raise the southern fyrd and keep them out for far longer than the usual.

He kept them out for four months instead of two.

This shows he must have had huge influence on the people, gained perhaps because of local loyalty to the House of Godwin.

However, Harold had to eventually send the fyrd home.

This was because William's invasion plans were put on hold because the wind was in the wrong direction for week after week.

Let's now focus on Harold's 1066 movements.

By the 8th of September, Harold had to disband the fyrd, but probably figured that William could not risk the regular autumn storms in the Channel.

This decision was Harold's bad luck and William's risky invasion so late in the year was his good luck.

On the 24th of September, Harold's travelled 185 miles to Yorkshire.

This was because there'd been a Viking invasion on the northern coast.

Hardrada, the king of Norway, and Harold's own brother, Tostig Godwinson, were plundering the area around York.

Have a look at the map to get an idea of Harold's travel north.

On the 25th of September, Harold defeated the Vikings at Stamford Bridge.

Harold's victory at Stamford Bridge showed his strengths as a military leader.

Harold could take decisive and successful military action with his tactic of a surprise attack, helping him to defeat the Vikings.

On the 28th of September, William landed at Pevensey.

Have a look at the map and we can see that William had crossed the English Channel and landed on the south coast of England at Pevensey.

We can also tell from our timeline that William had landed just a few days after Harold's victory at Stamford Bridge.

So with William now on the south coast of England, Harold needed to march south.

And on the 14th of October, Harold and Williams' armies met at the Battle of Hastings.

And if we have a look at the map, we can see Harold has rushed south again to face another battle.

He may have reasonably assumed a surprise attack could have been done a second time against the Normans.

However, his decision to march south immediately after the Battle of Stamford Bridge may have overstretched his resources.

Harold's decision to march straight to Hastings meant he left well-fortified London and left some of the fyrd behind.

If Harold had been more patient, he could have collected more soldiers and waited in the well-fortified London.

If you have a look at the image from the Bayeux Tapestry, it shows Normans burning down an English house, forcing a mother and child to flee.

Some historians think that this could be Harold's wife and child.

This may explain why Harold was quick to attack the Normans.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

True or false? The Battle of Stamford Bridge showed that Harold rushed into battles without thinking.

Pause the video, have a think and come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back.

Well done if you knew that was false.

But why could we say that's false? I want you to justify your answer.

Is it false because Harold won a great victory at Stamford Bridge with his surprise attack, or B, Harold won a great victory at Stamford Bridge because he raised a big fyrd army.

Pause the video, have a think and come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew that it was A, Harold won a great victory at Stamford Bridge with his surprise attack.

So although we can question Harold's decisions based on his quick movements around the country, however, it's unfair to say he rushed into battles without thinking.

He was quite strategic in his approach to warfare.

However, sometimes the strategy paid off and sometimes it didn't.

Okay, let's have another check.

What benefits would Harold have gained by waiting in London? Select two correct answers.

A, arrival of more troops from the fyrd, B, better defensive position, C, opportunity to be crowned king of England.

Pause the video, select two correct answers, and come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back and well done if you knew it was A, Harold would have benefited from the arrival of more troops from the fyrd and B, there was a better defensive position in London possibly.

Okay, let's move into task A.

So a historian needs to be able to consider different sides of an argument.

And this task is aimed at helping you to do that.

Working with your partner, debate who was better prepared for the Battle of Hastings, the Normans or the English? Make sure you support your answer with evidence.

You should try and refer to William's organisation during the summer of 1066 and the winds changing after Harold went north.

So a good debate is not just based on opinions, you are going to have evidence, facts, and details to back up your points.

Pause the video, have a go at the task and come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back.

Hopefully, you've had some vibrance and well-detailed debates and you've revealed both sides of the argument and perhaps seen that sometimes there's not always a straight yes or no answer and it can be a bit complicated.

Anyways, you could have discussed many different things, but have a look what I've got here.

"William was a superior military leader with his logistical knowledge.

He carefully organised his troops through the summer of 1066.

He then planned a perfectly timed invasion, transporting a huge army across the Channel, after Harold's southern army was sent home." So that's definitely a strong argument describing William's superior preparations.

However, the next point may shine a different light onto those preparations.

"William was lucky.

If the winds had changed earlier, he would have met Harold's army upon invading.

Further luck came when Hardrada invaded, which meant William faced a weakened Anglo-Saxon army." So you can see here, this offers a completely different argument.

It's less about William's preparations and it's more about luck or God's will as it would've been viewed during mediaeval times.

And we can see here the argument is not just an opinion plucked from the sky.

It has detailed facts and evidence to back up their points as we know that the weather did prevent William's sailing on time.

Okay, that's excellent.

Let's move on to the second part of the lesson, troops and tactics.

So the English and Norman armies were actually quite evenly matched, approximately 7,000 men in each army.

However, there were some differences in the troops and tactics.

Let's start by having a closer look at the English army's troops and tactics.

The English troops had a home advantage and would've known the local terrain.

However, the fyrd had a range of experience.

Some were highly-trained thegns, looking something like the image on the left, but many would've been untrained peasant conscripts.

This may have affected the level of discipline in the fyrd.

These peasant conscripts were also likely to have inferior weapons.

Okay, let's have a look at the English tactics.

The English army had taken the high ground and used a shield wall, which made Norman archer and cavalry attacks very difficult.

The shield wall fought off Norman attacks for hours.

It was defensively very strong.

It was a traditional but effective tactic.

The shield wall formation also had the ability to attack with housecarl's axes or a soldier's spear.

At Hastings, the shield wall was initially able to deflect archers and hold back cavalry charges for many hours and may have provoked a real retreat by Norman allies.

However, a key turning point in the battle was the breakdown of the shield wall, partly perhaps due to a lack of discipline among Harold's soldiers who broke formation during a Norman retreats.

Have a look at the battle map on the left.

We can see Harold's army in red who have formed a shield wall, and we can see William's army in blue.

And if you have a closer look, we can see the Norman soldiers on the left side of the battle are retreating.

Seeing a retreat, some of the English broke from their shield wall and ran down the hill in pursuit of the retreating soldiers.

These English soldiers may have got caught up in the confusion and the adrenaline of war and disobeyed Harold's orders to hold formation, believing they had victory in their sights or wishing to steal weapons from the retreating Normans.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

How might a possible lack of discipline in the fyrd have contributed to William's victory? A, it may have improved their cavalry tactics, B, it may have led to a breakdown of the shield wall, C, it enhanced the accuracy of their archers.

Pause the video, have a think and come right back.

Okay, welcome back and well done if you knew it was B.

The lack of discipline in the fyrd may have led to a breakdown of the shield wall.

Okay, let's now have a closer look at the Norman army's troops and tactics.

The Norman army mainly consisted of professional soldiers and benefited from a wider mix of troops.

This mix of troops included archers, that we can see on the Norman army's first line, it also included foot soldiers on the second line, following closely behind by the cavalry.

This mix of soldiers enabled the Normans to adapt tactics flexibly through the day to find the right combination to break down the shield wall.

Norman cavalry featured new military technology.

The Normans were innovators in their use of cavalry.

They invested in specially bred and trained horses.

This horseback warfare gave them an edge.

They also made innovations in saddle and stirrups technology, which helped knights fight effectively from horseback.

And finally, the Normans were beginning to develop the couched lance technique.

This technique transferred the full impact of a charging horse into the lance's tip.

Knights were the future of mediaeval warfare.

Heavily armoured Norman knights on horseback were the tanks of mediaeval Europe.

Okay, let's now focus on the Norman tactics.

A key turning point was the feigned retreat tactic, tricking the English into breaking formation.

The Normans had successfully employed this tactic in previous conflicts.

This was very difficult to carry out as there was a real risk of it turning into a real retreat.

Only highly trained troops could make it to success.

Look at the map.

We can see the English chasing after the feigned retreats.

Once the English soldiers have made it down the hill, the Normans swiftly counterattacked.

Okay, let's check for understanding.

What tactic requiring a high level of skill did the Norman troops use to break the English shield wall? A, a surprise attack from behind, B, feigned retreat, C, siege warfare.

Pause the video, have a think and come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back.

Well done if you knew it was B, the feigned retreats.

In mediaeval battles, luck, or God's will as people then saw it, was often a decisive factor.

For instance, an arrow could have struck either Harold or William.

Leaders were often killed by arrows.

Hardrada was said to have been killed at Stamford Bridge by an arrow in the throat.

William was also lucky to survive, at least one horse he was riding was killed under him.

Another example of luck or God's will is the timing of Hardrada's invasion.

It actually favoured William.

And finally, September storms were common in the Channel, but William crossed safely.

Have a look at the map.

We can imagine a scenario in which the good or bad weather may have changed the timings of the invasions.

Was the reason for William's victory at the Battle of Hastings merely down to luck? William would've certainly said it was God's will.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

Working with your partner, describe how luck may have played a role in the outcome of the Battle of Hastings.

So you can have a quick discussion or jot down some ideas about how luck or God's will may have played a role in the outcome of the Battle of Hastings.

Pause the video, have a think and come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back.

Let's look at some points that you may have discussed.

"If Harold was killed by an arrow, this would likely have been a random arrow rather than one fired deliberately at him." We could have said that.

"William led his knights.

He could easily have been killed when his horse was killed." Again, another example of luck or God's will.

"The feigned retreat could easily have turned into a real retreat, the timing of Harald Hardrada's invasion was very lucky for William, and finally, weather conditions during William's naval crossing were lucky as storms were common from September." Okay, let's move on to task B.

So clearly, there were multiple reasons for William's victory at the Battle of Hastings.

As a historian, it's important to be able to analyse and evaluate these reasons before reaching a final judgement.

In other words, to be able to present both sides of an argument and then come to your own conclusion.

So the following tasks are aimed at helping you to be able to do that.

So what I want you to do for this first task is, complete the table giving a reason for William's victory in each category.

Then, choose the most important and explain why.

So by completing this table, we can clearly see that there's going to be multiple reasons in front of us.

We can start to analyse those reasons, study them closely, and see if we can pinpoint which one was the most important.

Pause the video, have a go at the task and then come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back.

So your table might look slightly different from mine, but we'll read through mine and we'll look at what I chose to be the most important reason.

Now, your reason could be different of course, and that's perfectly fine as long as you can back it up with your own evidence and your own reasons and details.

Okay, so let's look at leadership.

How does leadership contribute to William's victory? "William kept his troops fed all summer.

He also built horse transport ships which had never been done before." So clearly William's showing he's a good leader.

That must have come in handy in the Battle of Hastings.

Okay, let's look at the troops.

"William had different types of soldiers, including knights on horses, which were the future of mediaeval warfare." So yes, those troops must have helped William.

He had those different types of troops, which allowed him to try different tactics at different times in the battle, and then he had those knights, which were the latest in technological warfare at that time.

We can think of them as the tanks of mediaeval Europe.

Okay, let's look at the tactics.

"William's feigned retreat lured the English troops down the hill, which led to the shield wall breaking." So the feigned retreat being that most obvious tactic leading to the breaking of the shield wall.

Okay, let's look at luck or God's will as it was seen during mediaeval times.

"The wind direction changed which luckily allowed William to sail in perfect time." So again, we can see how luck may have contributed to Williams's victory.

Okay, let's look at the decision-making box.

"Harold should have waited in London.

It was safer there and more troops were arriving." Okay, so here, instead of focusing on perhaps Williams's decision-making, we could look at Harold's bad decision-making and we could at least make that argument that Harold made bad decisions.

Again, as has been seen already in today's lesson, it could also be argued that Harold made good decisions, for example, the surprise attack at Stamford Bridge.

But many have made the case that Harold could have waited at London and that could have affected the result of the Battle of Hastings.

So I then looked at all my reasons here in my table and tried to figure out which one really was the most important factor in William's victory.

For example, if they didn't have this factor, the Normans could have lost the battle.

And the factor that I thought was the most indispensable was the feigned retreat.

So I thought the feigned retreat was the turning point.

Up until then, the battle was evenly matched and that the shield wall was holding strong.

So it's not until the feigned retreat tactic that the shield wall was broken and the Battle of Hastings will quickly end with a Norman victory.

Okay, now let's move on to the second part of task B.

Historians agree that there were different reasons for William's victory, but disagree about which was most important.

Here is one historian's view.

"The reason for the Norman victory at the Battle of Hastings was William's superior tactics." I want you to write two paragraphs, one which agrees with this view and one which disagrees.

Try to use the following points in your answer.

Feigned retreats, Harold's decision-making.

Remember to develop your answer with explanations and back up your points with relevant evidence or examples.

So hopefully, you can see for this task, all the previous tasks in the lesson have been building up to this point.

You've been looking at both sides of the argument, which is what you need to do in this task, you need to present both sides of the argument, and you've also analysed the reasons of the victory and you've chosen the most important point.

And you can see in this example, the most important point that's been put forward is William's superior tactics.

So you should be armed with the evidence and the details to be able to back that up, but also to be able to disagree with it.

Pause the video, have a go at the task, then come right back.

Okay, excellent.

Now your paragraph may be slightly different from what I have here, but it's still helpful to look at my model example so you can compare it with your own.

So this is what my agreement paragraph looks like.

The paragraph which agrees with the historian's view.

So, "It can be argued that it was William's superior tactics that led to the Norman victory at Hastings.

For example," this is where I'm going to back up the point with my evidence and explanation, "a key turning point was the feigned retreat tactic.

William ordered his troops to pretend to retreat, which lured the English into breaking the shield wall.

This was important because the battle was evenly matched until William's feigned retreat tactic provoked the English to break their formation, which then enabled the Normans to overpower the English and take victory." So my paragraph there clearly makes the case which agrees with the historian's viewpoints put forward and I backed it up with plenty of evidence and explanation.

Let's move on to the next paragraph.

This is my disagreement paragraph where I disagree with what the historian said about it being William's superior tactics.

"However, it can also be argued that it was actually Harold's poor decision-making and not William's tactics which led to the Norman victory.

For example, Harold rushed to Hastings in an attempt to surprise attack the Normans.

This is important because it meant that Harold's housecarls had less time to rest.

Furthermore, if Harold had waited in London, they could have rested and waited for more troops to arrive.

Therefore, the only reason the Normans were victorious was because Harold moved too quickly with a weaker army to meet William." And you can see in my paragraph there, I've given a great argument, which disagrees with the historian's viewpoint about it being William's superior tactics as the main reason for the victory.

And I've backed up my arguments with a clear explanation referring to those events around Harold's movements and his poor decision-making on how quickly he left London.

Okay, let's summarise today's lesson.

William's overall strategy and logistical preparations had contributed to a successful invasion of England.

William's tactics, such as the feigned retreat, helped to break the English formation.

The breaking of the shield wall was a turning point in the battle of Hastings which led to William's victory.

However, historians recognised there were multiple reasons for William's victory.

For example, Harold's decision-making was poor and the fighting at Stamford Bridge meant his army at Hastings was weakened.

Luck, what people at the time perceived as God's will, also played a part in William's victory and Harold's defeat.

Well done on a brilliant lesson.

Thank you for joining me for this fascinating story of 1066, an age of warriors, the battles of Harald Hardrada, Harold Godwinson, and William of Normandy.

I really hope this has sparked your curiosity in the drama of military history.

Hopefully, I'll see you in the next unit.

See you next time.