Hi, welcome to "History" here at Oak National Academy.

My name is Mr. Newton, and I will be your teacher for today, guiding you through the entirety of the lesson.

Right, let's get started.

In this lesson, we will focus on a specific historical environment: the Battle of Hastings.

What can the Battle of Hastings tell us about the wider context of this period? What can it tell us about the background story, the people, or events at the time? What's happened at the Battle of Hastings, and how do we know about it? What was the composition of both armies? What planning and strategy were deployed by the respective leaders? And what influenced the outcome of the battle? And how did this impact the resulting conquest and rule of England? By the end of this lesson, you will be able to evaluate the importance of luck in the Battle of Hastings.

Before we begin, there is a keyword that we need to understand.

Victory is the act of defeating an enemy.

Today's lesson is split into three parts.

We'll look at luck in the preparation, then look at luck during the Battle of Hastings, before finally looking at luck after the Battle of Hastings.

Right, let's begin the lesson with luck and the preparations for invasion.

Both Anglo-Saxons and Normans saw good luck as evidence of God's favour.

They also saw bad luck as evidence of God punishing people, or even a whole nation, for sins.

Harold's bad luck is explained in this way in the Bayeux Tapestry.

Have a look at the image on the right.

This is a scene from the Bayeux Tapestry, and it shows a bad omen in the sky: a comet.

Below Harold are ominous, ghostly ships: the ships of William's fleets.

We now know the comet of 1066 as Halley's comets, next due in 2061.

Luck is also something that chroniclers of the time like to include in their accounts.

It made for a better story and was part of a literary tradition.

There's also the saying history is written by the victors.

Norman accounts went out of their way to show that William was the legitimate king and Harold was a wicked usurper.

If you have a look at the image on the right, it's a scene from the Bayeux Tapestry showing Harold swearing an oath on holy relics, an oath he breaks.

William will use this account of Harold swearing an oath to uphold William's claim to prove that Harold was an oath breaker.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

True or false? Luck was not considered important in either Anglo-Saxon or Norman cultures.

Is that true or false? Pause the video, have a think, and come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew that was false.

But why is that false? I want you to justify your answer.

Is it false because luck was important in storytelling, but not in relation to serious matters such as war or religion? Or B, luck was important in all aspects of life, including the idea of luck being God's will, rewards and punishment.

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

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew it was B, luck was important in all aspects of life, including the idea of luck being God's will, rewards and punishment.

So there are reasons to be careful when evaluating the role of luck in the Battle of Hastings.

Here are three events that could involve luck: Hardrada and Tostig's invasion, Harold's win at Stamford Bridge, and William's arrival in England after the fyrd had been disbanded.

So let's have a closer look at those three events.

Just a few days after Harold had disbanded the fyrd defences on the southern coast on the 8th of September, reports reached him of an invasion in the North by the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada, and Harold's brother, Tostig.

The invasion force was large, an estimated 300 ships carrying 8,000 men.

Harold's allies, Edwin and Morcar, were defeated at the Battle of Gate Fulford by the Viking army.

The Vikings did a deal with the citizens of York, and were poised to push south in a bid to conquer England.

Harold rushed north with his housecarls, covering the distance of 185 miles in just four days.

He gathered an army from fyrd levies on the way.

Harold then launched a surprise attack on the 25th of September: the battle of Stamford Bridge.

It was a hot day and many of the Viking troops had left their armour on their ships.

Harold won and the threat of the Viking invasion was ended.

However, thousands were killed on both sides, and Harold's forces were greatly weakened.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

What I want you to do here is discuss the following questions with a partner.

Why was Hardrada and Tostig's invasion.

One, bad luck for Harold? And two, good luck for William? Pause the video, have a quick discussion, and then come right back.

Okay, great, so perhaps you discussed for the first one, bad luck for Harold, was because he had to march north to defeat their invasion, and leave the South defended.

And on the other hand, that was good luck for William, because Harold was not in the South when William's fleet arrived, and because Harold's army was weakened and exhausted after dealing with the invasion.

Okay, let's have another check.

I want you to answer the following questions.

The first one, what was lucky about Harold's victory at Stamford Bridge? The second question, what other explanations for his victory could there be? Pause the video, have a think, and come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So you could have said for the first answer that Harold and his army surprised the Viking warriors.

The Vikings were mostly not wearing armour.

And for the second one, we could have put Harold was a highly-skilled and effective leader.

He made a surprise attack possible through his rapid march north, and by using the fyrd system effectively.

Okay, let's continue.

William's invasion was very thoroughly planned, and included plans for gaining support, the building of a fleet, and the construction of specialised horse-transport ships.

William had planned to cross the channel in August when the English fyrd was still in place, but his fleet was hit by a storm.

The invasion was delayed till September, perhaps until the English fyrd was disbanded.

William clearly expected to have a fight from the start of his invasion, because he brought a prefabricated castle with him that was constructed at Pevensey to defend his troops.

Okay, let's move on to task A.

Who do you think makes the more convincing arguments about the role of luck in the disbanding of the fyrd defences? I also want you to explain your decision.

So let's have a look at Laura's argument first.

William had been frustrated that the lack of a northerly wind had delayed the invasion.

But in the end he was very lucky, because the fyrd had been disbanded after 8th of September, so he faced no defences on the 28th of September.

Okay, let's look at Alex's arguments now.

The lack of the right wind was a favourite storytelling device at the time.

It was just as likely that William planned to wait until the fyrd was disbanded.

He had spies in England, and would have known when the coast was clear.

So make a decision, decide whether you agree with Laura or Alex more, and then explain that decision.

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

Okay, excellent, well done for having a go at that task.

So if you agreed with Laura, this is what your answer could have looked like.

I think Laura's argument is more convincing.

Historians know that William attempted to cross the channel in August when the fyrd was still in place, only to be unlucky and be hit by a storm.

William clearly expected to have to fight from the start of his invasion, because he had a castle constructed a Pevensey to defend his troops.

So William was very lucky to get across the channel in late September, and then very lucky not to have to fight against any English defences once he arrived.

Okay, and if you found Alex's arguments more convincing, this is what your answer may look like.

I think Alex's argument is more convincing.

William prepared exhaustively for the invasion, gaining the pope's support, building an invasion fleet largely from scratch, with horse transports included, having a prefabricated castle ready to assemble in Pevensey.

It is unconvincing that he did not see the opportunity of waiting until the fyrd was disbanded to launch his invasion.

Okay, great, let's move on to the second part of the lesson: luck during the Battle of Hastings.

Battles, like the Battle of Hastings and the Battle of Stamford Bridge, were rare in mediaeval times, because they were all-or-nothing events in which luck could play such a significant role.

It is possible that both Harald Hardrada and Harold Godwinson were killed by random arrows.

Their deaths ended the battles.

And of course, if you have a look at the image on the right, it's a scene from the Bayeux Tapestry showing the death of King Harold.

And there's much debate about which one is Harold.

Is it the figure pulling the arrow from his head? Or the figure being cut down by the Norman knight? There were other events that could have involved luck just before and during the battle, including Harold's rush down to Hastings, rumours of William's death, and the feigned retreat.

The scene from the Bayeux Tapestry on the right shows William tipping back his helmet to show he's still alive.

This was to prove to his soldiers that he was still alive after a rumour had gone around that he had died.

Okay, let's have a closer look at those events.

So let's start with the first event.

Harold's rush down to Hastings.

So the consequences of that were that Harold did not have all the troops he could have gathered in London.

The larger army could have crushed William's invasion force.

So was this bad luck, good luck, or planned? Harold could have been planning another successful surprise attack, and this is why he rushed down, which could have been worth the risk.

William also provoked Harold into rushing south by his deliberate harrying of Wessex.

Okay, let's have a look at the next event: rumours of William's death.

So the consequence there was that rumours of William's death nearly led to a full-scale retreat by the Normans, and that would've been a disaster for William.

So here we could probably say it was bad luck that the rumours spread, but William was able to respond effectively, and that was more down to his good leadership.

Furthermore, the retreat may have prompted the use of a feigned retreat tactic, and if that was the case, that was certainly good luck.

And that brings us neatly onto the feigned retreat.

So the consequence there was that English troops left the shield wall and were killed, and obviously this weakened the shield wall, and eventually led to the defeat of the English in the Battle of Hastings.

So here we could say that that was bad luck that the English fell for the feigned retreat and they'd been tricked by this tactic.

However, on the other hand, chasing down retreats had previously been a successful tactic too, and the Anglo-Saxons had won many battles in this way.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

What are three examples of Harold being unlucky in the Battle of Hastings? Discuss with a partner.

So pause the video, have a quick discussion, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's see what you could have discussed.

So one example of Harold being unlucky in the Battle of Hastings was that he was killed or badly wounded by a random arrow.

A second example would be the failure to achieve a surprise attack on William in Hastings, especially after that it previously worked for Harold.

And finally, Harold was unlucky that his less-disciplined fyrd troops fell for the Normans' feigned retreat instead of staying in the shield wall.

Perhaps if they'd been more disciplined, they would've stayed in the shield wall, stuck with their formation, and not fell for the trick of the feigned retreat.

Okay, let's have another check.

Now I want you to suggest ways in which your three examples could be explained by William's planning rather than bad luck.

So in the first check, we used those examples and found a way to show that they could have been Harold's bad luck.

However, they could equally be explained as William's good planning.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So your answers could have included that it wasn't the case that Harold was unlucky, because of a random arrow had killed or wounded him.

It was actually William's great planning.

William had ordered archers to shoot over the shield wall, and Harold was killed or injured because of a deliberate tactic then, not bad luck.

Previously we mentioned that Harold's failure to execute a surprise attack again was perhaps his bad luck.

However, on the other hand, William's harrying was designed to make Harold rush to Hastings.

He kept his army ready for attack on the night of the 13th of October, and his scouts were in place to warn of surprise attacks.

Again, this demonstrates this was not Harold's unluckiness, it was, in fact, William's better planning.

And finally, we looked at Harold being unlucky that his fyrd troops were less disciplined and broke the shield wall.

However, this could also be explained as William's good planning, because the feigned attack was carefully planned to achieve its result.

This was a deliberate tactic, not a question of luck.

Okay, excellent, let's now move on to task B.

What I want you to do here is write an answer plan for this question.

And the question is, luck was the main reason for William's victory at the Battle of Hastings.

How far do you agree? So in your answer plan, I want you to try to include three points that support the statement that luck was the main reason for William's victory at the Bath of Hastings.

And then I want you to also include three points that counter or argue against the statement.

And then finally, your answer plan must include how far you agree with the statement.

So here I'm looking for you to give your judgement , your final answer for how far you agree with it.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So let's see what you could have come up with for your answer plan.

So firstly, let's have a look at three points that you could have come up with for supporting the statements.

So you could have had that it was Harold's bad luck, a failure of the surprise attack, and that would certainly support the statement that luck was involved in William's victory.

The second point you could have had, again, Harold's bad luck was that he was hit by an arrow.

Again, that supports the statement that luck was the main reason for William's victory at the Battle of Hastings.

Finally, you may have said it was William's good luck that the Norman retreat ended up weakening the shield wall.

Again, all of these statements support the role of luck being the main reason for William's victory.

Okay, now let's have a look at points which counter the statement, which can argue against the statement.

So you could have said that William wanted to make Harold rush to Hastings.

So this was a deliberate plan, not necessarily anything to do with luck.

Secondly, you may have said that William ordered archers to shoot over the shield wall.

Harold was not hit by a random lucky arrow, but resulted from a change in tactics from William.

So that very much goes against the statements that luck was the main reason for William's victory.

And finally, the feigned retreat, again, a planned tactic that knights trained for.

It wasn't to do with luck, it was a deliberate, planned tactic which resulted in William's victory.

And finally, I asked for you to include in your answer plan how far you agree to make a judgement.

So here you could have said luck was definitely important in mediaeval battles, for example, the rumour of William's death, but there was strong evidence that the Normans won due to planning, good tactics, and strong leadership.

Okay, that's excellent.

Let's now move on to the final part of the lesson where we look at luck after the Battle of Hastings.

So after the Battle of Hastings, William waited in vain for the English to submit to him.

He moved his troops to Dover and stayed there for a week or more.

During this time, many of his troops, and William himself, became ill.

Meanwhile, London was full of troops, Harold's missing fyrd levies and survivors from the battle.

Edwin and Morcar arrived and a new king was chosen: Edgar the Aethling.

When William was able to finally lead his troops to the well-fortified London, the city at first refused to submit to him.

However, William's terrifying harrying of the area around London seems to have convinced the English leadership to submit.

Edwin and Morcar left London and headed north.

Then Edgar and his supporters submitted to William at Berkhamsted.

True or false? William was lucky not to face attacks while he was in Dover.

Is that true or false? Pause the video, have a think, and come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew that was true.

But why is that true? I want you to justify your answer.

Is it true because, A, London was full of troops, a new English leader had been chosen, and the Normans were weakened by illness.

Or B, so many English troops had died at Hastings that coordinating an attack on William was too difficult.

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

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

Yes, William was lucky here not to face attacks because London was full of troops, a new English leader had been chosen, and the Normans were weakened by illness.

Which two of the following made William's position after the Battle of Hastings a weak and precarious one? A, illness at Dover that included William himself.

B, access to the sea for supplies from Normandy.

C, a new castle built at Dover.

D, a new Anglo-Saxon king in London.

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

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew it was A, William's position was weak because of illness at Dover that included William himself, and D, there was a new Anglo-Saxon king in London.

Okay, excellent, let's move on to task C.

We're going to read this extract from an Anglo-Saxon source written in 1066.

What I want you to do here is note down what it tells us about how contemporaries viewed the events after the Battle of Hastings.

So what does this source tell us about what people thought at the time? So let's read the extract.

"The Normans won their victory at the place of slaughter, Hastings, as God wished it because of the nation's sins.

Archbishop Ealdred and the citizens of London chose Edgar the Aethling for their king, as was his right by birth.

And Edwin and Morcar promised they would fight for him.

But every time some initiative should have been shown, there was delay from day to day until matters went from bad to worse." So we're getting quite a strong opinion here from the extract written in 1066.

And this gives us a great insight about what people were thinking at the time about these crucial events.

So note down what it tells us about how contemporaries or the people at the time viewed the events after the Battle of Hastings.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Let's have a look at the answers that you could have included.

So you may have noted down that the account says the English lost the Battle of Hastings because God wished it because of the nation's sins.

This shows us how pious people were at the time.

Furthermore, it suggests that the English felt there was no point resisting William any further because God was punishing them.

And you may have also noticed that the account criticises the lack of action by King Edgar.

And this suggests that William could have been defeated, but the English leaders could not agree what to do for the best.

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

When William died in 1087, chroniclers described him as stern, greedy, pious, religious, and harsh, but he was not described as lucky.

How lucky do you think William was? What I want you to do here is write one paragraph for your answer, and give examples of how lucky you think William was.

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

Okay, great, welcome back.

Obviously, there's many ways you could have written your paragraph, but compare your answer with what I have here.

William was very lucky that Harald Hardrada invaded in September 1066.

This was not something that William could have planned for.

Winning the Battle of Stamford Bridge came at a huge cost to Harold.

So William faced a smaller army and a more exhausted one at Hastings.

In other ways, what comes across as luck might be either storytelling or the results of William's excellent planning, such as landing after the fyrd had been disbanded.

William probably directed his knights to carry out a feigned retreat, rather than it being a lucky accident.

William forced Harold to rush down to Hastings rather than it being just luck.

On the other hand, your paragraph might look something like this.

The risks of the invasion and the risks of battle were so great in the mediaeval period that historians can definitely conclude that William was lucky.

His supporters were mostly against his invasion plan, so he was lucky to get the pope's support.

His fleet was nearly wrecked by a storm, but luckily survived.

His invasion was delayed, but that turned out to be lucky, because the fyrd had been disbanded, and Harold had to deal with the Viking invasion.

Harold could then have blockaded William in Hastings and starved him out, but instead he chose to fight a battle.

And it was Harold who was killed by a random arrow, not William.

Okay, great stuff, let's summarise today's lesson.

Both Anglo-Saxon and Norman cultures valued luck, and it was seen as evidence of God's favour or punishment.

Historians would agree that the Viking invasion in September 1066 was good luck for William and bad luck for Harold.

While luck played a part, William's planning, tactics, and leadership were significant reasons for his victory at the Battle of Hastings.

And finally, William's position after the Battle of Hastings was not secure.

Okay, well done on a brilliant lesson, and thank you for joining me as we uncovered the role that luck played at the Battle of Hastings.

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

See you in the next lesson.