Battle At Hastings Research Paper

One of my main focuses has to do with how the formation of the armies of Harold and William shaped the outcome of the Battle at Hastings. While this is not my main point, I will say that it is a major contributing factor. Think for a moment: how could two, almost evenly matched armies meet on the field of battle and yet have such a defined victor? What did William the Conqueror have that King Harold did not. To do this, we must first look at each army in detail.
For starters, we shall look at Duke William’s Norman army. The exact numbers and composition of William's force are unknown, however contemporary documents claim that William had 776 ships and an exaggerated amount of men, varying from 14,000 to 150,000. Modern historians have offered a range of estimates for the size of William's forces: some say he had between 7,000 and 8,000 men, around 1,000–2,000 of them cavalry. Others state that he had 10,000–12,000 men, 2,000 of them cavalry.
William of Poitiers said that the Duke had 60,000 men, however this is highly unlikely, according to Marren. He goes on to say that if you eliminate all the non-fighters, such as cooks, sailors and servants, the chances are that the Norman Duke had 7,500 men; 2,000 cavalry, 4,000 heavy infantry, and 1,500 archers

and crossbowmen.
Of all the estimates, one thing can be agreed upon: the army consisted of cavalry, infantry, and archers or crossbowmen, with about equal numbers of cavalry and archers and the foot soldiers equal in number to the other two types combined.

The armament of the men is of lesser debate. According to C.N. Barclay, most Norman soldiers had an almost uniform style while in battle. The main armor used was chainmail hauberks, usually knee-length, with slits to allow riding, some with sleeves to the elbows. Some hauberks may have been made of scales attached to a tunic, with the scales made of metal, horn or hardened leather. Headgear was usually a conical metal helmet with a band of metal extending down to protect the

nose.
Horsemen and infantry carried shields. The infantryman's shield was usually round and made of wood, reinforced with metal. Horsemen had changed to a kite-shaped shield and were usually armed with a lance. Both the infantry and cavalry usually fought with a straight sword, long and double-edged. The infantry could also use javelins and long spears. Some of the cavalry may have used a mace instead of a sword. Archers would have used a self-bow (homemade longbow from a single piece of wood) or a crossbow, and most would not have had armor. Archers would have also had their arrows in quivers not on their backs, as many Hollywood recreations say, but more so on their hip or lower back for quick access. The Bayeux Tapestry supports this, showing Norman archers with their quivers on their hips.
William’s companions are a lesser form of debate. One of William’s own chaplains, renowned historian William of Poitiers, lists off around a score of Norman lords and their sons in his work (the Gesta Guillelmi). The companions of Duke William, listed by William of Poitiers as well as at least one other source, include many famous Norman names such as Robert de Beaumont, Count Eustace of Boulogne (called Eustace II), Geoffrey Count of Mortagne & Lord of Nogent, William’s own half-brother Bishop Odo of Bayeux, and William FitzOsbern chief amongst them.
Duke William’s men were arrayed in three ranks, which was reminiscent to the three-fold Roman legion, with the archers and other ranged units in the first rank. According to General J.F.C. Fuller, the second rank held the infantry, the equivalent to the Roman princeps. The third and final rank held the milites, or mounted knights. The army was also divided further into columns, with the Bretons under Alan the Red on the left. The center third was Norman, commanded by Duke William himself. His right flank, commanded by his seneschal FitzOsbern, was made up of Flemings and Frenchmen. This set-up echoes the coast of France, according to Marren. General Fuller further points out that this was Duke William’s intent, to have men fighting by their neighbors as to raise morale and to foster to comradery and rivalry.
Across the field lay King Harold Godwinson’s army of Anglo-Saxons. All historians agree that Harold had, just days earlier, defeated the Vikings under Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire. So, it was understandable that after receiving word of William’s landing at Pevensey, the Saxon King had raced southwards toward London. The damage to his fleet from the previous battle prevented him from moving south by water. But Harold did not lead the same army he had taken north in September. Most likely, he only led the core of that force. These would have included his housecarls, as well as his brothers’ contingents of similar troop types. Absent on the return to the south were many of Harold’s original army, his Fyrd. This was due to the heavy casualties the army had sustained at Stamford Bridge, as well as a lack of vital supplies and transport needed to move all soldiers. This was largely the result of the king’s inability to procure these resources from the North Country. The northern earls and their men were also absent from the march to the south. They had suffered severe losses at the Battle of Fulford (before Stamford Bridge, on 25 September 1066), where Hardrada’s army crushed the local Saxon forces in Yorkshire under the Northern Earls Edwin and Morcar. It took these regional leaders time to raise and equip new forces and then march south, which explains why they were not present at Hastings to aid their king.