Hello, welcome to History here at Oak National Academy.

I'm Mr. Newton, and I will be your teacher for today, guiding you right to the end of the lesson.

Right, let's get started.

In these lessons, 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 the rule of England? In today's lesson, we will focus on Norman weapons, armour, and tactics.

And by the end of this lesson, you will be able to describe the different tactics used by the Normans in the Battle of Hastings.

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

A strategy is a plan of the actions that are needed in order to achieve an aim.

A tactic is an action that helps to achieve something specific.

A feigned retreat is pretending to retreat in order to lure the enemy into a more vulnerable position.

Today's lesson is split into two parts.

The first part we'll look at Norman weapons and armour before moving on to Norman tactics.

Okay, let's begin with Norman weapons and armour.

Okay, let's begin here.

What I want you to do is discuss with your partner what you can tell from this scene from the Bayeux Tapestry about Norman weapons and armour.

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

Okay, welcome back.

There's many things you may have thought about or discussed, but you may have included some of the following.

So you may have noticed that these Normans are wearing chain mail armour.

We can tell this because it's showing the small, circular chains on their clothing.

You may have also noticed the conical helmets with the nose guard and also their kite-shaped shields.

And some of the soldiers have spears or lances, have swords in their scabbards.

This is the sheath they keep their swords in.

And we can see that Norman infantry and the cavalry have similar weapons and armour.

That's those on foot and those on the horses.

And Normans and Anglo-Saxons, the housecarls have similar armour.

And lastly, Normans are not using battle axes in this scene.

Okay, let's have a closer look at Norman spears.

The spear was the main weapon of both infantry and cavalry.

Spears were made of lightweight ash, a type of wood, with a leaf-shaped iron tip.

They could be thrown or thrust at the enemy.

Some Norman spears had a cross-piece so a thrust could not go into a body too far and risk the spear getting stuck.

Norman knights could couch their lance, a slightly thicker spear, under their arm when they charged.

However, the Bayeux Tapestry shows Norman knights mostly thrusting their spears down at their enemies.

Okay, let's now look at Norman swords.

Norman knights also carried swords and used these once they had thrown their broken spears.

Swords were just under one metre long and had two sharp edges and a sharp point.

A straight cross-guard on the sword stopped the opponent's blade from sliding down a sword onto the hand.

Swords were used to hack rather than thrust and would have caused significant wounds.

If you have a look at the photo on the right, it's a recreation of a Norman knight's armour.

We can also see he is holding a sword with a cross-guard.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

True or false? The sword was the main weapon of both Norman cavalry and infantry.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Well done if you knew that was false.

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

Is it, A, it was the main weapon of the knights but not of foot soldiers or archers? B, knights carried swords but tended to use them only once they had thrown their spear or it had broken? Pause the video, have a think, and come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

Well done if you knew that knights carried swords but tended to use them only once they had thrown their spear or it had broken.

Okay, let's now turn our attention to bows and crossbows.

Archers were important in the Norman army.

It is possible that Norman archers had short composite bows, powerful and quick to shoot.

Archers carried quivers filled with arrows.

Most archers did not have armour.

Crossbows also featured in the Battle of Hastings.

These were a new technology.

Crossbows were very powerful.

They could fire bolts straight through shields and chainmail, but they were slow to load.

Unusually, there is only one cavalry archer in the Bayeux Tapestry.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

This scene from the Bayeux Tapestry shows Norman knights and Norman archers.

Discuss this question with a partner.

What can it tell us about Norman archers? Pause the video, have a quick discussion about Norman archers using this Bayeux Tapestry scene, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you had some really interesting discussions there.

What you may have discussed is that these Norman archers did not have armour.

As I said before, we can see the chainmail on the Norman knights, those small circular patterned clothing.

But the Norman archers in this Bayeux Tapestry scene have no chainmail armour.

Also, we can see that there were many Norman archers.

The archers fill the scene at the bottom margin here.

And also if you look closely, we can see the archers carried quivers of arrows on their belts.

This is the bag or the holder where the archers keep their arrows.

And finally, we could infer that archers were seen as less important than knights.

The archers in this scene are placed in the margin at the bottom of the Bayeux Tapestry, whereas the spotlight, if you will, is all on the knights.

They take up the centre stage in the middle of the Bayeux Tapestry.

Okay, let's now look at chainmail armour.

The chainmail onesies were called hauberks.

Chainmail coifs were sometimes worn under the helmet too.

Chainmail gave good protection and was flexible so soldiers could fight freely.

However, chainmail was very heavy.

Soldiers only put it on just before battle.

Long battles or hot weather meant soldiers would have become very tired in chainmail.

If you have a look at the image on the right from the Bayeux Tapestry, we can see Norman soldiers carrying the chainmail.

This is because they're loading the chainmail and their other weapons onto the boats before setting sail for England, and so they would not have put this on until they were ready to battle.

Let's now look at helmets.

Norman helmets were made of steel and were usually conical in shape.

Soldiers mostly faced downward cuts from the swords and axes, so the helmet's shape helped to deflect these blows.

Norman helmets usually had nasals.

These are vertical strips of metal to protect the face.

Wide nasals made it hard for soldiers to recognise each other.

That's why William had to tip his helmet up to be recognised.

And that's depicted on the right in the scene from the Bayeux Tapestry.

We could see William tipping back his helmet, revealing to the troops that he's still alive.

Okay, let's now look at shields.

Norman cavalry and infantry both used kite-shaped shields.

These protected the whole body if held in front, or a knight's left side, including the hand used to control their horse.

They had a strap so they could be carried on the shoulder, and grips to be worn on on the arm.

Shields were made from wood and many were patterned.

These might have helped troops identify each other.

Anglo-Saxon round shields were stronger but heavier.

They had a metal boss that could be used to push away enemies or spike them.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

What I want you to do here is match these terms to their correct definitions.

And you can see I've given you four terms on the left-hand side, which I want you to match to their correct definition on the right-hand side.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Let's check those answers.

A boss is the metal covering at the centre of a shield that an Anglo-Saxon could use to push away enemies or spike them, and then the coif is a chainmail cap or hood, and then the hauberk was a coat of chainmail, and the nasal was a strip of metal on a helmet to protect the face.

Okay, let's move on to task A.

What I want you to do here is study this 19th century illustration of a Norman soldier.

Use your knowledge of Norman weapons and armour to identify historically accurate elements as well as historically inaccurate elements.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you found that a fun task picking out the accurate and inaccurate elements of this 19th century illustration.

So your answer may include these historically accurate points below.

So the illustration does show the conical shape to the helmet, which we know Normans used.

We've got the spear as the main weapon, and it shows the spear thrust directed downwards and the lower legs unarmed.

Those hauberk onesies didn't cover the legs completely.

And we can see the forearms and hands unarmored too.

Okay, let's have a look at the historically inaccurate points of the illustration.

So although we did have the conical helmet, there was no nasal on the helmet, that bit of the helmet that protected the nose and the face more generally.

Also, the soldier should be wearing a chainmail hauberk or coif, and the shield should be kite-shaped.

This shield perhaps looks more like an Anglo-Saxon shield.

Also, the shield should not have a boss and the spear was too short.

And the spear tip should be leaf-shaped.

And finally, the sword cross-piece should be straight.

And one final point to notice, if you look closely, this Norman soldier is depicted with a beard.

But Normans thought that beards and long hair were not civilised.

And you can identify the Anglo-Saxons on the Bayeux Tapestry as they are shown with moustaches.

Okay, excellent, we've reached the halfway point.

Let's now move on to the second half of the lesson where we can study Norman tactics.

Both sides in the Battle of Hastings had different strategies.

Harold's army needed to defend until reinforcement arrived.

The shield wall was the tactic used to achieve this strategy.

Have a look at the battle map on the left.

We can see Harold's army at the top of Senlac Hill in red, and his army have adopted the shield wall formation.

So positioning the shield wall at the top of the hill was clearly a great tactic to achieve this strategy.

William's army had to take the offensive and break through the shield wall.

William tried different tactics to achieve this.

If you have a look at the image on the right, it's a recreation of an Anglo-Saxon shield wall on a hillside.

And we can imagine how difficult that would've been to attack.

On the high ground, with those overlapping shields, those spears sticking out.

William's first tactic was a direct attack on the shield wall.

His archers shot arrows towards the shield wall.

The Anglo-Saxons caught them on their shields.

Have a look at this scene from the Bayeux Tapestry on the right.

We can see the arrows flying through the air.

And if you look closely at the shields of the Anglo-Saxon shield wall, you can see the arrows sticking out where they've caught them on their shields.

William's infantry advanced towards the shield wall but were beaten back.

If you look at the battle map on the left, you can see the infantry on the second line in William's formation.

And William has given them the order to charge up Senlac Hill towards the Anglo-Saxon shield wall.

But the shield wall held strong.

Then William and his knights attacked the shield wall.

So after the initial charge of the infantry was ineffective, then William and his knights attacked the shield wall.

This attack also failed.

The horses would not charge into the Anglo-Saxon spears and housecarls could step through the shield wall to swing at the horses and riders with their powerful long-handled axes.

And if you have a look at the battle map on the left, we can see the cavalry from the third row charging up the hill to join the infantry who are already struggling against the shield wall.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

I want you to discuss with a partner, why did William's direct attack tactic fail? Pause the video, have a quick discussion, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully, you had really interesting discussions there and you may have discussed some of the following.

So firstly, the direct attack tactic may have failed because archers were ineffective as Anglo-Saxons could catch arrows on their shields.

Also, it was difficult for infantry to attack uphill.

They had that heavy chainmail on, remember? And finally, you may have discussed that it was easy for the shield wall to sit there and defend against those slow-moving horses and foot soldiers.

The shield wall was armed with spears and long-handled axes which they could use to attack.

Okay, let's continue.

So William's army was divided into three.

And if you have a look at the battle map, I've labelled them for you.

So the Normans were in the middle, and then we had the Bretons on the left and French allies on the right.

So the Bretons, who were on the left, began to retreat, perhaps defeated by the shield wall's strength and ferocity.

This may also have been when a rumour spread of William's death.

And I've shown on the battle map the troops on the left-hand side retreating away from the shield wall back down Senlac Hill.

Seeing them fleeing, part of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd army, possibly hundreds of men, chased after them.

And again, on the battle map, you can see the left-hand side of the shield wall chasing those Norman soldiers down the hill, and thereby breaking formation and leaving the shield wall.

William then ordered his cavalry to swiftly surround the unarmored Anglo-Saxons and they were all killed.

And again, looking at the battle map, we can see how that happened.

The Anglo-Saxons that broke away from the shield wall formation were now in a vulnerable position and much easier for the Normans to counterattack and surround them.

It is possible that the Breton's retreat was not a real retreat but a feigned retreat, a tactic planned from the start.

Alternatively, a real Breton retreat may have encouraged William to use feigned retreats as a tactic to further weaken the shield wall.

The feigned retreat was a tactic the Norman had learned from the French.

They had often used it in battles in Sicily.

This tactic took a lot of skill, but Norman knights trained together and were practised at this manoeuvre.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

I want you to discuss this with your partner.

Do you think the feigned retreat was a lucky accident for William or a deliberate tactic? Explain your answer.

Okay, so have a quick discussion, and make sure you can explain why you believe the feigned retreat was a lucky accident or it was a deliberate tactic.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So you may have discussed that it was a lucky accident, and the explanation of that could be that if William had planned the Breton's retreat from the beginning, then he would've not sent the whole cavalry against the shield wall.

Alternatively, you might have said it was a deliberate tactic, and the explanation for that would be that Norman knights had used feigned retreats before and trained together to practise them.

Perhaps the first Breton retreat was an accident, but William then used feigned retreats after that.

Okay, let's continue.

At this point in the Bayeux Tapestry, more and more Norman archers appear.

Sources also talk about a storm of arrows falling on the Anglo-Saxon army.

Perhaps William was able to bring his archers closer to the shield wall, where they could do more damage.

If Harold was indeed killed by an arrow, then this tactic won William the battle.

After Harold's death, most of his army fled.

William sent his knights after them to cut them down.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

This scene from the Bayeux Tapestry shows the deaths of Harold's brothers.

What does this scene tell us about William's tactics at the end of the battle? Discuss this with a partner.

Pause the video, have a discussion or perhaps you can jot down some ideas, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So you may have discussed or written down that the Anglo-Saxon shield wall was broken up and Norman knights are shown killing the isolated housecarls.

It suggests that William's tactics at the end of the battle were to use his cavalry because without a shield wall, cavalry beats infantry.

Most of the dead and dying housecarls have been killed with a lance or spear.

There are no arrows or archers in this scene, suggesting that William stopped his archers shooting so as not to harm his knights.

Okay, let's move on to task B.

What I want you to do here is describe three different tactics used by the Normans in the Battle of Hastings.

So pause the video, describe three different tactics, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So your answer might look slightly different from mine, but have a look at my model answer here.

So William's first tactic was a direct attack by archers, foot soldiers, and then cavalry on the Anglo-Saxon shield wall.

The shield wall was able to defend against this tactic very successfully.

Whether it was a deliberate tactic from the start or not, William then used his fast-moving cavalry to surround and kill Anglo-Saxons who had run after fleeing Norman soldiers.

Normans had often used feigned retreats before.

Finally, William used his archers to further weaken the shield wall until he could send in his knights to cut down scattered groups of Anglo-Saxons and those who were running away.

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

The main reason for William's victory was superior Norman tactics.

Okay, so that's the statement there, and now I want you to make a choice.

You can either, A, write one paragraph that supports this statement, or, B, write one paragraph that instead claims that Norman weapons were the main reason for William's victory.

So have a read of that statement again and then decide whether you want to do task A or B.

Once you've made that decision, write your paragraph.

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

Okay, great.

Welcome back.

So let's see what you could have written if you attempted task A, a paragraph that supports the statement that the main reason for William's victory was superior Norman tactics.

The main reason for William's victory was superior Norman tactics as he used a variety of different tactics.

At first, his tactic of a direct attack failed, and there was a major risk of defeat because the English shield wall was so successful at defence.

However, this shows that Norman tactics were the main reason for victory, because it was only when William changed his tactics, using feigned retreats and arrows fired from closer to the shield wall, that the Normans broke down the shield wall and could use their cavalry to win the battle.

Okay, now let's have a look at how you could have answered task 2B, and this was the paragraph that disagreed with the statement and offered an alternative reason.

Tactics were less important than Norman weapons at the Battle of Hastings.

A critical weapon was the bow and crossbow.

Williams's first tactic, the direct attack, was a failure and there is no firm evidence that the feigned retreat was not in fact a real retreat that William just about managed to turn around.

When William's large numbers of archers and crossbowmen could be used against the shield wall, they weakened the shield wall, and it is probable that an archer killed Harold, after which the English fled.

Okay, let's summarise today's lesson, Norman weapons, armour, and tactics.

The Norman army was well equipped with weapons and armour.

Norman armour was effective but had disadvantages.

Chainmail hauberks were very heavy, and helmet nasals made it hard to recognise individuals.

William used different tactics to achieve his strategy, not least because his initial tactic of attacking the shield wall directly was a failure.

Knights turned a retreat by Norman allies into an advantage, whether it was a feigned retreat or not.

Well done on a brilliant lesson, and thank you for joining me as we delve deeper into the historical environment of the Battle of Hastings with our focus on the Norman army.

I really hope this has sparked your curiosity in the drama of military history, and I'll see you in the next lesson.