William The Conqueror Analysis

The sources are beneficial in terms of learning how military of Normandy worked and they give an insight of the character of William the Conqueror. All three sources, were about the invasion of England by William the Conqueror. The Medieval sourcebook tells us the battle between English King Harold and Duke William of Normandy. It portrayed image of hardworking soldiers and the leader which conquered a country. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Assessment of William I, is more about what kind of a man William was, intelligent and significant. The Bayeux Tapestry, on the other hand, shows a visual art of what actually happened and more of Norman’s point of view, how they prepared for the invasion. From all three sources we can understand that the military of Normandy was strong and William the Conqueror was portrayed as cold; however, at the same time, brave and intuitive man.
In The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Assessment of William I, King William is …show more content…
At that time, England’s authority was in Normans hands and the ruler was son of William, Henry I. The source portrays both William the Conqueror and King Harold as courageous and significant. Malmesbury tries to mark that while English became soft and unprepared, the Normans worked on their military and process of success. The Normans had communion, a Christian festival recognizing Jesus' Last Dinner before his execution. He utilized this reality to bring up that the Normans were get ready for the up and coming fight, while the English squandered their energies celebrating. Some medieval history specialists may have guaranteed that the Normans won since God was on their side; Malmesbury, by difference, recommended that the Normans won as a result of their genuine mentality. His talk of the circumstances and end results relations overseeing the result of the fight uncovers the brain of a genuine history