The 14th of October 1066 began one of history’s most memorable battles to ever be recorded. All thanks to an incredible piece of artwork called The Bayeux Tapestry. The Tapestry tells a story of events leading up to The Battle of Hastings. In such remarkable detail that it 's mostly why the battle is still known so well even today. Its thanks to that very detail that we can better understand the factors that contributed to Harold Godwinsons loss to the Normans. Did a simple mistake cost hime all of England? Could it have been prevented? Or was it as William thought “divine intervention” (Howarth,167).
Godwinsons battle at Stamford Bridge on the 30th of September 1066 was the beginning of the end for Harold. Viking King Hardrada accompanied …show more content…
He carried out his last two battles so differently. At Stamford Bridge he was alert, ready to fight, and always on attack. King Harold gave hope and inspiration to his men. On the other hand you have The Battle of Hastings where he showed “…no evidence of leadership…” (Howarth,177). He stayed back far from the front line, Godwinson had others giving orders to the men. Had he given up? Left it in gods hands? Or was he himself just exhausted from lengthy marches and the previous battle that was just as “equally long and equally hard fought” (Howarth,177).
Then again maybe Godwinson was just unlucky. The timing of both battles and places where Hardrada and William the Conquer choose to attack from different sides of Britain. It does leave reason to think that maybe they were in cahoots. Still the that also makes no since they both wanted Britain for themselves, but they do say “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
To conclude there are many factors that contributed to King Harold Godwinson’s defeat to the Norman invaders. He not only rushed into one battle but two. He should have taken his time and rested his troops after. Godwinson had no reason to rush threw London as he did. Where they could have waited for proper fighting men, instead of just looking for warm bodies. All these mistakes lead to the only one that matters, Harold was a poor leader. If he would have been
Godwinsons battle at Stamford Bridge on the 30th of September 1066 was the beginning of the end for Harold. Viking King Hardrada accompanied …show more content…
He carried out his last two battles so differently. At Stamford Bridge he was alert, ready to fight, and always on attack. King Harold gave hope and inspiration to his men. On the other hand you have The Battle of Hastings where he showed “…no evidence of leadership…” (Howarth,177). He stayed back far from the front line, Godwinson had others giving orders to the men. Had he given up? Left it in gods hands? Or was he himself just exhausted from lengthy marches and the previous battle that was just as “equally long and equally hard fought” (Howarth,177).
Then again maybe Godwinson was just unlucky. The timing of both battles and places where Hardrada and William the Conquer choose to attack from different sides of Britain. It does leave reason to think that maybe they were in cahoots. Still the that also makes no since they both wanted Britain for themselves, but they do say “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
To conclude there are many factors that contributed to King Harold Godwinson’s defeat to the Norman invaders. He not only rushed into one battle but two. He should have taken his time and rested his troops after. Godwinson had no reason to rush threw London as he did. Where they could have waited for proper fighting men, instead of just looking for warm bodies. All these mistakes lead to the only one that matters, Harold was a poor leader. If he would have been