Want this question answered?
The Normans should have won the battle of Hastings because they had a better army and they were more prepared for war. Also, William the Conqurer had more reasons to become king then the other monarchs. In the end, it was they who won the battle.
No it is actually october 14 of October 1066 where William of normandy won the battle
The battle of Hastings was between Harold Godwinson and William of Normandy. Edward the confessor (the late king of England at that time) was dying, but he had no heir, and so the crown was passed to Harold Godwinson. However, the other candidates were not happy, as they obviously wanted to be king themselves. So one of them, Harold Hadraada, a Norweigen Viking, brougth on war with Harold Godwinson. However, King Harold Godwinson won, but he had another army coming for him ; William of Normandy, another candidate for king. So they went to war, the Battle of Hastings and William of Normandy won, so he would have became King. True story
Harold didn't have that much good luck. Although he won a battle against Harold Hardrada which meant him and his army had some experience on what it was like in a battle so it would be easier for him to kill William of Normandy in the battle of Hastings's. Thank-you
He didn't. The Hundred Years War happened in the 14th and 15th centuries. The only William Duke of Normandy I know of was the guy who fought the battle of Hastings against Harold Godwinson in 1066. Admittedly William did technically cause the Hundred Years War as without him conquering England it would never have had lands in France and the wars, if any, would not have been so long.
William would have been about 38-39 when he fought in the battle of Hastings.
If William Duke of Normandy didn't win the battle hastings he would of cryed
It decide who would be king, William, duke of Normandy, or Harold of England.
The Normans should have won the battle of Hastings because they had a better army and they were more prepared for war. Also, William the Conqurer had more reasons to become king then the other monarchs. In the end, it was they who won the battle.
chilling
No it is actually october 14 of October 1066 where William of normandy won the battle
The battle of Hastings happened because Harold Godwinson was just crown king and William duke of Normandy was very jealous. So he demanded a battle against each other.William wanted a battle because if he won he would have to be given the crown. :)
The battle of Hastings was between Harold Godwinson and William of Normandy. Edward the confessor (the late king of England at that time) was dying, but he had no heir, and so the crown was passed to Harold Godwinson. However, the other candidates were not happy, as they obviously wanted to be king themselves. So one of them, Harold Hadraada, a Norweigen Viking, brougth on war with Harold Godwinson. However, King Harold Godwinson won, but he had another army coming for him ; William of Normandy, another candidate for king. So they went to war, the Battle of Hastings and William of Normandy won, so he would have became King. True story
Harold didn't have that much good luck. Although he won a battle against Harold Hardrada which meant him and his army had some experience on what it was like in a battle so it would be easier for him to kill William of Normandy in the battle of Hastings's. Thank-you
He didn't. The Hundred Years War happened in the 14th and 15th centuries. The only William Duke of Normandy I know of was the guy who fought the battle of Hastings against Harold Godwinson in 1066. Admittedly William did technically cause the Hundred Years War as without him conquering England it would never have had lands in France and the wars, if any, would not have been so long.
William was crowned king of England. He couldn't be king of Normandy because it was, and still is, part of France; and the king of France would not have allowed that.
When William invaded England and became its king he was also the Duke of Normandy. Normandy is, and was, part of France and as duke he was, in theory, a servant of the King of France. Integrating England and Normandy would either mean England was part of Normandy and therefore part of France, or Normandy was part of England, which would not have gone down well with the King of France who, in theory, own it.