What really happened at the Battle of Hastings?

[Furious Mental]

Well, the way the primary sources (chiefly William of Poitiers, who was formerly a knight and later chaplain to William I, and was therefore in a position to get his information from those were there) describe it it was up in the air practically until the very end.

It's often speculated that Harold marched south before collecting his army because he wanted to duplicate the success of surprise at Stamford Bridge; William of Jumieges stated that he planned on a night attack. In any case his army had far fewer fyrdmen than it would have if it he had waited a while, but it did have the housecarles from the households of Harold, and his brothers earl Gyrth and Leofwine. If Harold did have to form up his army unexpectedly, he picked a reasonably good place for it- it wasn't exactly on a cliff but it does seem to have been anchored by slopes, and a creek and forest on either side. As far as new English contingents arriving goes, well it can't be ruled out but it certainly doesn't accord with the contemporary descriptions. Florence of Worcester said that many English left during the day. One of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles said that Harold "fought with the men who would stand with him", which suggests that there was not universal determination.

In any case, the initial Norman attack was ineffective. Their archers (Jumieges also refers to slingers, and the Carmen de Hastingae, though now considered rather dubious, mentions crossbows) didn't make much have much effect against the English shield wall, so the Norman infantry advanced and were met, so William of Poitiers said, with a very wide and very nasty assortment of things thrown by the English. Anyway the Norman infantry had no luck either so the Norman cavalry waded in awkwardly with their swords but also made no impression. Eventually upon a rumour that William had been killed the Normans seem to have routed, and were pursued by at least some English. Historians disagree on exactly what the English did, the greater part seem to think that this was an impetuous action by a minority in Harold's army and that it contradicted a supposed defensive plan- as long as Harold stopped William advancing down the Senlac Road William would eventually have to leave. On the other hand some think Harold ordered a pursuit which was thwarted by the inopportune deaths of his lieutenants Gyrth and Leofwine (their deaths in the Bayeux Tapestry seem to correspond to this point in time).

In any case, when William rallied his forces his cavalry caught those English, who had broken from their shield wall, in the open and disarrayed, and charged them down. Apparently the Normans thought this was a good tactic and spent many hours whittling the English shield wall down by variously riding up and chucking lances at it, drawing some of the English out and charging them down, interspersed with attacks by the Norman missile troops. However, according to Poitiers, even at the end of the day the English were still quite numerous and formidable. Evidently putting it all on the line William ordered his whole force to attack. The fighting seems to have been quite hard and the way that Poitiers and other sources (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Bayeux Tapestry) describe or depict it, the remaining English seem to have kept fighting until, one way or another, Harold was killed, at which point the army largely dissolved. The Bayeux Tapestry's depiction of this juncture shows the Norman cavalry charging while in the lower margin the archers fire at a 45 degree angle. This, and some much later medieval poetry is the basis for the idea that the shield wall was wrecked by the Norman archers. I guess that is possible. Personally I think it was at least as important that by the end of the day the Norman infantry, who had spent the whole of it sitting around, would have been well rested while the English, who had been fighting continuously, were very tired. There is additional speculation that the casualties among the English by the afternoon's skirmishing were concentrated in one part of the line, making it liable to break and open up a gap in the shield wall. This is altogether possible but not certain.

"That William, realising that the battle could only be decided by either his or Harolds death created a hit squad of knights. It is recorded that they cut him through the heart and head and such, but also cut of his leg. Leg being a polite medieval replacement for the male genitals. I tend to accept this version."

To be honest although it's possible it's based on sources much later than the battle (the poetry of Maistre de Wace I believe) and in historiographical terms was greatly played up by nationalist Whigs like E A Freeman, for whom it represented the ultimate in Frankish deviousness.

[Incongruous]

Well, as the arrow myth has been disproved, I'll go with the other circulated story, which I do believe has far more grounding in fact.

[Furious Mental]

It isn't necessary to go with one if not the other. It is altogether possible that Harold was simply cut down in a rather random melee. To conclude that he wasn't struck by an arrow does not lead automatically to the conclusion that William specifically ordered a squadron of knights to go and kill him. Its grounding in fact is quite weak; it is something which emerged in a literary tradition some considerable time later, and all the accounts of the battle that were actually written soon after, including those which make specific reference to the orders which William gave in the battle, say only that Harold was killed, not that William had his archers, knights or anyone else attack him specifically. It is a theory which can't be totally discounted, but it is far from being affirmatively proved.

[The Stranger]

This is what i know quick.

Harold was eager to fight so he forced marched his troops to the place instead of waiting for men to join under his banner. So he arrived at the place of battle with less men he hoped for.

He made a shieldwall with his elite in the middle. William ordered his cavalry in after his archers fired their volleys. But the cavalry went uphill and against a wall of spears and shields so they didnt fared well. So they feigned a retreat.

This caused some or alot of harolds men to break ranks and follow the norman warriors. Then William send in his infantry and they slaughtered those who left formation. But harold rallied his men again on the hill, so nothing really changed. After a while the normans panicked because they thought William had fallen before the onslaught. But william did something to convince his troops he was still alive... he lifter his helmet or something.

The battle continued and Harold wouldve won if he just couldve hold out untill nightfall because the normans were loosing slightly. But when harolds left flank, if recall correctly, was falling under the pressure he moved with his household to aid his left flank. There he was deadly wounded and the army fled because they had nothing left to fight for...

[Furious Mental]

That (the moving to the left flank) is one of the theories, originally posited by JFC Fuller. It isn't based on any actual account of the battle, but rather on the fact that historians have a pretty good idea of where the battle took place and it appears that due to the topography the English right would have been much harder to approach on horseback, so presumably the Norman attacks and hence English casualties in the afternoon should have been concentrated on the English left. It is a perfectly logical explanation but like most things about the battle is essentially conjecture.