Talk:Battle of Hastings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why did William Win the Battle of Hastings?

The battle of Hastings was fought by William the Duke of Normandy, and Harold Godwinson. It was a one day battle on the 14th December 1066. The battle was fought at Senlac Hill. I will write about why William had a tactical advantage over Harold so why I think William won the battle. I think that William won the Battle of Hastings because he could give out orders while Harold couldn’t, because Harold was fighting in the front line with the rest of his army, but William was charging around on horseback and could give orders to his men. William being friends with the pope, got people to join his army because he said that the pope was backing William in his decision to fight against Harold, so that the battle was a holy battle and would guarantee them a place in heaven. William had a stronger army than Harold’s when the battle started because Harold’s army had just marched down from York, but Williams’s army had only marched from Dover. William had more areas of his army than Harold’s, William had men on horseback but Harold’s army didn’t. William had approximately 5,000 infantry and 3,000 Calvary and archers. Harold’s army was around the same size as he had approximately 2,500 Housecarl (his paid army) and 6,000 Fyrd (people who came from nearby towns and villages to support his king). Williams’s tactic was for his army to go up to Harold’s shield wall, and try to weaken it. After a while some of Williams’s army retreated back and the part of Harold’s army that were fighting them charged after them leaving a gap in Harold’s shield wall. Harold could not repair this part of the wall as he was fighting in the front line. William who was riding on horseback noticed, and managed to get a part of his army to surround the part of Harold’s army that had broken off. And Williams’s army killed all of Harold’s army that broke off. William got his army repeat this tactic until most of Harold’s army were dead. After that both army’s had a rest. Then Williams’s army fired arrows at Harold’s army. These arrows would fly into Harold’s army and injure the warriors. At one stage Harold himself got an arrow in his eye. It is clear that compared to the other reasons, the reason that Harold’s army had marched approximately 250 miles from York to Senlac hill, was the main reason for Williams’s victory. This meant that Harold’s army would have been very tired. JakeAWGriffin (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jake, are you clear that this isn't a forum to discuss the battle? If you have some sourced material you want to add or want others to comment on, that's great, but it isn't really appropriate to post your own ideas here. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011

pennance -> penance : misspelling

98.248.63.138 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Battle Of Hastings

It occourd around 1066 to 1070. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.228.220 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

William actually landed at Pevensey on 28th October — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.0.56 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Claiming "crusade" mentality

"Many had also come because they considered it a holy crusade, due to the Pope's decision to bless the invasion."

While it is true that the pope did openly support William over Harold, the name "crusade" should rightly only be used after the First Crusade. The papal standard that William bore is not the same religious force as the "milites Christi" that fought in the Middle East.

Lifthrasir1 21:52 Oct. 14 2006

Non breaking Space

Measurement units should have non breaking space between number and measurement unit to prevent breaking between lines. Please discuss here before changing this in the article. mdkarazim (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with you?

Why have you got rid of all the other people who took part in the battle along with the Normans (Poitevins, Manceaux, Bretons, French...etc). Is English butthurt the reason? In any case, this is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeHappiste (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hardly constructive. Why don't you help and edit the article? You'll need sources, see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

See diff Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The organization of the "background" doesn't make sense in a way. Consider current organization:

1 Background
   1.1 Succession crisis in England
   1.2 Tostig's invasion
2 Harold's preparations and the English army

It's odd in that subsection "Tostig's invasion" has linked "main article" being Battle of Stamford Bridge, while subsection ends with mention of the battle of Fulford, and the subsection does not discuss the Battle of Stamford Bridge at all. The Battle of Stamford Bridge is mentioned in the next major section "Harold's preparations...".

I saw mention of the FAC and call for comments at a user Talk page. Hope this helps. Good luck with the FAC! --doncram 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Duh! Thanks, Fixed. It's a remnant of the earlier organization of the article... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What do archers do?

Do they "shoot" or "fire"? I am not used to this period. --John (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Either is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a wobbly moment there where both looked wrong. --John (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Fyrd and housecarls

WP:ITALIC says we should italicise "words-as-words" and also foreign words used in English. I am not convinced that italicising fyrd and housecarl is the best. What do others think? --John (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fyrd for sure - it is pretty much italicized in all the sources I've consulted. Housecarls is also often italicized (see Huscroft's Norman Conquest) but not as often as fyrd. Douglas puts fyrd in quotes but doesn't do that for housecarls, for example. Both of these words go out of use after the Conquest. Housecarl could also be put as huscarl - which is a Danish loan-word that came in with Cnut. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I support italicising fyrd consistently (which it is) and not housecarl (at the moment it is inconsistently formatted). --John (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Both terms are in most of the larger English dictionaries so perhaps not quite foreign words as such. However whereas Housecarl has some equivalent terms household troops or praetorian guard, to mention two, would be used these days. Whereas there is no real alternative to fyrd - "It was a local militia in the Anglo-Saxon shire, in which all freemen had to serve, the noblemen had an obligation to provide men, for the king, based on their landholding" hardly rolls off the tongue. As with Ealdgyth my sources are somewhat ambiguous. I would suggest that you put either of the terms in italics the first time you use it only, more for clarity than MoS. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A possibility

One archer on the side of the Normans was granted title, lands, and a coat of arms for his service in the battle of hastings. A description of the coat of arms follows:

Coat of Arms: First found in Devonshire England where they were seated from very early times and were granted lands for their distinguished assistance at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 A.D.

The colors: Gules on argent, or red on silver, the tinctures mean warrior, military strength and magnanimity for red and peace and sincerity for white.

The shield: The two arrowheads on the field can also be spearheads and were referred to as ‘pheons’ and on a coat of arms meant dexterity and nimble wit, and readiness for battle, repetition of the image meaning that this virtue was of a higher order than normal. The unicorn on the shield proper was one of the highest military awards, meaning extreme courage, virtue and strength. The two red lines or ‘chevrons’ occupying the position of the ordinaries represent some act of faithful service, the repetition once again meaning to a higher degree than normal. The number of chevrons also identifies military rank.

The Crest: The helmet displayed is a closed or tilting helmet and was used for burgher arms (coats of arms of non-noble commoners). The torse, on a wreath of the colors of Argent and Gules… the wreath that sits on the top of the helm holds the crest. The crest depicts a hand holding an arrow facing left or sinister. Crests were the personal symbol a person would use and would say the most about them as an individual. In this case, the arrow is probably how the person won the coat of arms.

The Motto: Displayed above the crest indicating Scottish descent, the motto Projeci is Latin for the personal past tense form of project, so it translates to “I shot” or “I threw.”

This crest was awarded after the battle of Hastings in which the English King Harold was hit in the eye by an arrow, turning the tide of the battle. Archers painted their arrows for identification, so it would not have been difficult to identify the archer who slew the enemy king.

The family name on the coat of arms is Mayne. Though it is not proof of the deed, the coat of arms presented to a commoner after the battle suggests that the archer did something impressive with an arrow during the battle, and I propose that the recipient of this coat of arms was the archer who shot King Harold in the eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.84.254 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Um. No. See Coat of Arms. The granting of coats of arms to people doesn't actually happen until wayyy after this battle. This is a great example of a story made up after the fact to give a family greater antiquity. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, only the land was granted after the Battle of Hastings. The coat of arms came later. http://www.houseofnames.com/mayne-coat-of-arms (please refer to a good latin-english dictionary to translate 'projeci')

No, that's not a reliable source. I checked Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families by Loyd - no such family is mentioned. No company that sells "Family coats of arms" is at all reliable - there is no such thing as a "family coat of arms" - coats of arms are for individuals, and individuals only. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Again you are correct; Loyd makes no mention of the name Mayne in his book which contains every family name from England during that time, all 315 families that made up that country. Or perhaps Loyd only discusses some families which may be why he included the word some in his title, though this is merely speculation on my part. Other sources seem to back up what I put forth above regarding the family, however I am now finished with this discussion as it has degraded to the point where we find it now. ("no such family is mentioned" implying what, exactly? That there never was a family named Mayne in England because they were not included in the one book in which you looked?) I presented this as a possibility to consider, not a definitive proof as that is impossible due to lack of documentation during that era. That said, a commoner of the name Mayne was indeed granted lands in Devon for their service to the Normans during the Battle of Hastings. (I'll leave this as an assertion, disprove it if you can. Not that I couldn't cite my sources, but that I feel that the act of performing real research on the matter would prove educational.) Why they were granted this is not clear, neither is the abundance of arrows associated with so many variants of the name such as Maynes, Main, Mains, Maine, Maines, etc. nor is the prevalence of the motto Projeci which is only poorly translated to I have thrown away and is more accurately the personal past tense of project as in I have projected or I have thrown or I have shot but the context of the arrows that accompany the motto imply the latter is the better translation. Further, never once did I claim that the coat of arms applied to an entire family, that was the wording of the one site that had a picture of the coat of arms I described. I concede that it is entirely possible that the coat of arms I mentioned had nothing to do with the Mayne who served in the Battle of Hastings. However I still contend that it is entirely possible that the lands were granted for the reason I gave above. The truth of the matter has been lost in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.84.254 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked up my family name(s), long story, and was aghast at the idea that anyone would take this site as reliable in any way shape or form --Guerillero | My Talk 00:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that my last name (even with various spellings) turned up nothing is pretty good evidence that it's highly reliable. *cough* Then again, the highest we've ever achieved is probably garcon de pisse or something like that. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hello 76.27.84.254 . You may find the following pages useful in improving your research to determine who shot King Harold: WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:Evidence, You may also find some useful information to help you in Source criticism and various links provided in the disambiguation page at Burden of Proof. Finally, House of Names is clearly not a reliable source, and it should not be used to back up any firm claims on wikipedia, let alone the "possibilities" you are trying to highlight. To put it bluntly: if House of Names is a reliable source for surname origins, then I'm the Queen of Sheba!  DDStretch  (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Commanders in infobox

Several sources place Leofwine and Gyrth in positions of subordinate command, consistent with their positions as Earls. Perhaps they should be included in the infobox given that it lists subsidiary commanders for the Norman side. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2013

Hi,

It's not Alan Fergant (in the section commanders and leaders) but Alan the Red (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Rufus) who was a companion of William the Conqueror. It could be great if you have time to edit it. Thank you !

Sincerely,

David Utliak (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for bringing this up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Time of year

Dear Ealdgyth,

I was suprised that my contrubution of earlier this evening (19:44, 14 October 2013) was reverted. Manly because I did not understand why you felt it was neccasary. You state as the reason: "not in the source that is given - presumably the source did the corrections". What do you mean?

I dont know the source “Lawson Battle of Hastings pp. 212–213”, but do you mean that it does not mention the (modern) day of the year at which moment these times of sunrise and sunset occur? Why should that be a problem? There are other sourches and other ways for calculating the corresponding modern date. (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Style)

And, unfortunatly, you do need extra sources like this as the other source metioned in that section doen’t metion the times of the sunrise & -fall “Marren 1066 p. 114”.

Furthermore, elswere in that book (page 9) “Marren” is inaccurate. He states that 14 October compares to the modern 25 October, a diverence of 11 days. Marren probably got confussed by the 1752 addoption of the Gregorian calender in England. At that time the difference with the Julian calender was indeed 11 days. In 1066 however it was still “only” 6 days.

As it is often forgotten that historic dates fell on diverent days of the year than we associate with that given modern date I think it is importent to mention this shift. This is more so as this article mentions the time of the sunrise and sunset. On any modern 14 October (as today) the sunset in Battle is at ca. 17:07 (UTC), but in 1066 it was at ca. 16:54.

I hope to here form you.

Best wishes, Vlaascho (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lawson is the source for the sunset/dusk/dark times, and no, he doesn't mention anything at all about the New Style/Old Style shift in dates. Thus, you cannot include the information you are giving here as that would be original research. Marren p. 114 is not a source for that sentence - it is a source for the preceding sentence. The source for the sunrise times is Gravett p. 59. THere is no use of Marren p. 9 at all in the article - so whether he's right or wrong on that information is immaterial. To mention the date shift you need a reliable secondary source that mentions it - you can't just shoehorn it into a sentence that is sourced to something that does NOT mention the shift. Nor can you change sourced information without changing the source. QUite honestly, since Gravett is a quite competant medieval historian, I'm sure he adjusted for the time/date shift - as we can assume Lawson did, since he's also a reliable historian. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth,

Thanks for you promt response, unfortunatly I didn't have much time during the week to respond. 

Yes, the two historians use the correct daylighttimes but apparently don't mention how these times can occur on a 14 October. But, not including correct information just bcause it's not in one of the best (secondary) sources is strange and including this information doesn't make it automaticaly Original Research. 

The date shift is a given fact when reading on any date before 1582 but usually not metioned. Off course, this level of detail isn't always neccecary for most readers would know that the calender used was different then. On wikipedia however there are many more "uninformed" readers who don't know this. Therefore I think it is even more importend to mention this information on this page (and on other pages, like Agincourt) as the day is widely remembered each year. 

At the moment I dont know of a published source that has a paragraph stating the correct date shift of the battle (since, as mentioned earlier, Marren has got it wrong). But their are other easy and available ways to calculate any corresponding date in a different calendar with publications like:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Table_of_equivalent_dates_in_the_Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars.JPG
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_between_Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars
•  http://www.ortelius.de/kalender/form_en2.php
•  http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

So, there might be no paragraph to quote yet, but the information given is easy to verify. As a result of this, I would like to include the information again, with clear reference to publications to verify it. 

The paragraph that mentions the sunset is i.m.o. the most logical place to include the information. I can follow your point of not including this information in the sentence that depends on a specific source. So I'll try to find a beter way to insert the information.

I hope you agree. Vlaascho (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly - two of those references are utterly unreliable - you can't use Wikipedia or Commons to reference stuff. It isn't odd that we don't point out things that secondary sources don't point out... that's how Wikipedia works. We report what secondary sources say about the subject. Adding stuff that doesn't specifically discuss the subject of the article is OR in Wikipedia's terms. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A few quibbles

"This was the name favoured by Edward Freeman, a Victorian historian who wrote one of the definitive accounts of the battle."

I feel that "one of the definitive" is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Probably "one of the more complete/accomplished accounts" would be a better way to allude to its scholarly merit.

"fitzOsbern" and other such prefixed names

Is it a stylistic option not to capitalize the 'f' like on the article page for this person? Dracontes (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"fitzOsbern" is a perfectly fine choice - it's actually more usual to see this in the scholarly literature. On the other matter, Freeman's account is still used as the basis of a lot of scholarship even now. But I'm not that bothered by using another word instead, except I do not think "accomplished" is quite the same meaning as "definitive". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There can clearly be many definitions of anything, so there's nothing wrong with "one of the definitive accounts". I'd probably be inclined to shorten and simplify it by saying "a definitive account" though. Eric Corbett 19:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)