How far did the mistakes of Harold Godwinson explain the success of William of Normandy in 1066?

Without doubt, Harold Godwinson made many serious mistakes which contributed to the success of William of Normandy in 1066. However, it is important to also note the other factors that would have contributed to William's success. These included military aspects like the superior Norman troops and the fact that William of Normandy was a superior general; and also aspects like luck and "the will of god" on the Norman's side. Harold Godwinson's mistakes included his failure to make firm and quick decisions on the battle field; his demobilizing the troop’s just weeks before William arrived; and his poor strategy, regarding his decision to march straight from Stamford Bridge to Hastings without pausing to rest his troops or find reinforcements. Of all of these, I believe that the latter was the most significant.

When Harald Hardrada arrived to attempt to take England, Harold Godwinson immediately rushed up the length of the country to York at a blistering pace. There, he fought two successful battles at Stamford Bridge and Gate Fulford, taking Harald Hardrada and Tostig by surprise. He was only able to rest for a few short days before he heard news or William of Normandy's arrival in England and tried to repeat his success. He travelled down to Hastings at a forced march, but was unable to surprise William, who was able to defeat his exhausted troops. This was a big mistake for Harold. By marching to London and delaying there, he could have successfully rested his troops, as well as drawn up reinforcements which would have given him a far higher chance of success.

It could be argued, however, that if it weren't down to Harald Hardrada, the issue mentioned above would not have been a problem. Harold Godwinson had no way of knowing that he would be subject to two invasions within a few weeks of each other, and so could not have known that he would need to modify his strategy accordingly. There is a strong argument that if the time between the two invasions was greater, then Harold would not have experienced the problems he did. His troops would not have been exhausted or depleted, and would be able to give the Norman's a far better fight.

Another mistake on Harold Godwinson's part was his very poor decision to demobilize the bulk of his troops - the fleet and the fyrd. These were largely peasants, armed with whatever they could find, called away from their normal lives to help defend the realm. Harold sat on the Southern Coast for months waiting for William to arrive with thousands of these men. Then, a matter of weeks before Williams invasion, he made the decision to release them. Although with hindsight, this was a very bad move for Harold Godwinson, it is important to note that at the time, this probably seemed a perfectly good decision. The Fyrd were mostly farmers, and harvest was coming. If they didn't bring in the Harvest, the realm would starve. Additionally, it was so late in the campaigning season by that time that it was extremely unlikely that William of Normandy would try to invade.

One of the vital aspects to consider is the state of the troops on each side. On the Saxon end of the scale, the army is made up entirely of foot soldiers. The majority of them are untrained peasants, who are armed and armoured in whatever they can find. The Saxon elite were the Housecarls. These were the backbone of the army, the King's personal bodyguard. They were highly trained foot soldiers, with good arms and armour. The Norman army, on the other hand, was almost entirely mounted. The strength of the army came from the knights, heavily armoured cavalry on huge warhorses. As well as the knights and other soldiers, the Normans made good use of archers. Where in England, bows and arrows were used almost exclusively for hunting, the Normans had realised the military potential of archers. All of the Norman army were highly trained and disciplined, and it is this that allowed them to execute complex strategies with such dexterity, and it is this that made a significant difference to the outcome of the battle.

This highlights another of Harold Godwinson's mistakes: his failure to control his army. By giving quick and decisive orders, he could have easily prevented catastrophe at several points during the battle. For example, William ordered his troops to pretend to rout to lure the English forward, before turning on them and massacring them. Just by telling his subordinates to try to prevent such chases could have saved many lives, and possibly changed the course of the battle. At another point in the battle, when William of Normandy's troops really were retreating, ordering his troops to press in a structured manner could once again have changed the course of the battle. However, reports say that Harold was indecisive, and could not make up his mind whether or not to press the attack in time. Ultimately, this comes down to a combination of Harold Godwinson's mistakes, and the fact that William of Normandy was undoubtedly the better general.

Although not something really related to either Harold Godwinson or William of Normandy, or even the resources at their demand, one of the most important things to consider would be "Acts of God", or even luck. William of Normandy's campaign was executed under a papal banner. According to the Catholic Church, god was on the side of the Normans. This would have given the Normans a slight boost in morale. However, events that occurred purely by luck or chance were the ones that changed the course of history. The most obvious example of this would be Harold's death. According to record, he died when he was hit in the eye by a stray Norman arrow. The chances of this happening are remarkably slim, and if this had not happened, there is a good chance that the Battle could have continued until both sides stopped in the evening, by which time much needed English reinforcements might have arrived. Without doubt, Luck, or so called "Acts of God" played a key part in William's success.

To conclude, it is clear that there were a huge variety of aspects, all of which were necessary for William of Normandy to achieve the victory he did. Even so, it is impossible to ignore the fact that had Harold Godwinson made different decisions, the outcome of the events of 1066 might have been very different. These factors, whilst not the only key one, were possibly one of the more significant, if not the most significant factor in determining the outcome of William of Normandy's invasion of England, in 1066.