It's a bit of a vague question.
I can think of one, he had experience as before he won the battle of Hastings (1066) he had been Duke Of Normandy so was good at making decisions! I Need another answer too :/
The battle was fought between Normandy and England. The Norman ruler who engaged in the battle was William the Conqueror and the English king was King Harold II. King Harold II was killed and England lost this battle and Normandy took over rule in 1066, England begrudgingly accepted William as their king.
King William "the conquerer" of Normandy took the throne of England from King Harold of the Saxons he was a good king
he was good at fighting
In 1066 England was a rich and sophisticated country with a good law system. There was lots of food and a good tax system
He won the 1066 battle of Hastings's, taken place on Senlac Hill.He fort Harold Godwinson. William had lots of disadvantages but managed to keep his army together.But William had made a big sacrifice to what he had to do and never left his army. Then William was late to the war because the wind was facing the wrong way and he couldn't get to the war but this all happened because William sent his troope home for the harvest,but was late back because the wind wasn't facing the right way and therefor was late.
No, Harold was not a good leader and certainly not as good as William. One of the reasons for this answer is that whilst William prepared his troops the night before the battle, The Saxons got drunk and didn't seem to care. They also didn't have very good tactics or a good plan and I doubt Harold wanted to win as much as William. So consequently, Harold Godwineson was not a good leader.
William defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings
In 1066 Britain was the only place to be successful. It was the last time Britain was invaded successfully. That's different from the rubbish written above.
he was very good at battle strategies and tricking his opponent.
he was very good at battle strategies and tricking his opponent.
yes