‘The military capability of the Normans was the most important reason for their victory at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.’ How far do you agree?

1^st paragraph: William’s preparation – mildly significant -      Mildly significant -      Cause – Papal banner from friend Lanfranc in persuading the pope – long-term consequences -      Papal banner – psychological effect – add more men to army from Aquitaine, Maine, - because it had become holy war -      In addition – consequence to papal banner – people around Normandy reluctant to attack – this in combination with him conquering Maine in 1063 – consequence – buffer with Anjou = most significant consequence = William could attack England without fear of invasion himself -      Links to luck – as he wouldn’t have been able to capitalize on luck without the papal banner -      In addition to psychological effect of papal banner – was the pre-fabricated castle created by William – gave men huge confidence in battle – perhaps could have had long-term consequences in that the ‘feigned retreat’ – a complex tactic would have been used more effectively 2^nd Paragraph: Harold’s mistakes – mildly significant -      Mildly significant -      Not waiting in London for remaining troops from battle of Fulford gate and Stamford bridge recovering + men from elsewhere -      Causes – William antagonizing Harold’s earldom Wessex – prevarication to leave early - may also have been to luck – as without wind changing – Harold wouldn’t have been up North when William attacked anyway -      The. short-term effect was Harold had army of 7,000 (similar to William’s) and not 30,000 – significant as would have significant as would have outnumbered William -      In addition – short-term effect would have been Harold’s shield wall would have been stronger and therefore could have defended against feigned retreat more successful -      Detrimental factor as led to his death -      Links to long-term effect of not gaining Edwin and Morcar’s support – crucial in whether he won -      Causes were Harold’s unpopularity in North – brother Tostig was harsh in Northumbria in 1065(3) -      Significant long-term consequences as Edwin and Morcar didn’t fight to the full extent at Fulford Gate- resulting in Harold having to go up North and fight at Stamford Bridge – played into William winning – lost Housecarls at Stamford- Links to William’s feigned retreat working 3^rd Paragraph: Luck played the most significant role -      most significant -      Dual invasion – due to wind turning at exact moment Hardrada invaded meant that William could invade – meaning that Harold went up North – lost loads of men – which significantly helped William win -      Dual invasion also allowed in short-term for William to invade unopposed – short-term factor of William antagonizing Harold by savaging Wessex -      However – one could argue that Harold could have prevented Hardrada invading – Harold made mistake of being unable to negotiate a deal with Tostig and Northumbria in 1065 rebellion – resulted in long-term consequence of Tostig persuading Hardrada to invade -      However – Hardrada only freed up – because long-standing feud with Magnus of Norway had ended -      Ultimately, the dual invasion weakened Harold significantly and contributed heavily as to why he lost 4^th paragraph: William’s decisions were also of high significance -      High significance-      Due to Papal Banner – William had many types of men (Aquitaine, Maine etc)-      William’s decision to group men together – improved communication - same language – Links to ‘feigned retreat’ as used more effectively -      ‘feigned. retreat’ is extremely crucial – complex technique – allowed for the weak shield wall to be broken down – short-term effect being 3 horses were taken from Harald in battle – consequence – being his men lost leadership -      But Harald’s weakness played into this as weak Fryd and the dual invasion meant he had weak shield wall who fell for the retreat 5^th paragraph: Harold’s decisions in battle were more detrimental to how long battle lasted rather than William’s win -      Creation of shield wall – significant as countered advantage of William’s archers – meaning. effect was they were ineffective -      In combination with them being on top of Telham wall – Archers fired upwards – again ineffective -      Argument Harold was inexperienced military leader – little substance – as he beat Gruffydd in 1063 at Worcestershire (one of most feared Viking warriors) -      Battle lasted all day – was unusual – shows how equal battle was