NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I know this has been done before, but I am just interested to know not only who you think was Britain's greatest King or Queen but why and also where you are from. So when posting could you please add at least one reason and your nationality as I think it will be interesting to see the difference between who we English/British feel is truly great and whom the rest of the world does.

Just in case you have forgotten some I shall provide you with this list of monarchs. It shall go back to Egbert the first "King of All England", and shall come forward from him. If you have any queries on the achievments of any of these monarchs, please do not hesitate to ask as I am a History student at University so i shall probably be able to answer your questions (in trouble now aren't I). I shan't add my own opinion but will say it if anyone is interested enough to ask.

House of Wessex:

Egbert (802-39 AD)
Aethelwulf (839-55)
Aethelbald (855-60)
Aethelbert (860-6)
Aethelred (866-71)
Alfred, the Great (871-99)
Edward, the Elder (899-925)
Athelstan (925-40)
Edmund, the Magnificent (940-6)
Eadred (946-55)
Eadwig (Edwy), All-Fair (955-59)
Edgar, the Peaceable (959-75)
Edward, the Martyr (975-78)
Aethelred, the Unready (978-1016)
Edmund, Ironside (1016)

Danish Line
Svein, Forkbeard (1014)
Canute, the Great (1016-35)
Harald, Harefoot (1035-40)
Hardicanute (1040-42)


House of Wessex, Restored
Edward, the Confessor (1042-66)
Harold II (1066)


Norman Line
William I, the Conqueror (1066-87)
William II, Rufus (1087-1100)
Henry I, Beauclerc (1100-35)
Stephen (1135-54)
Empress Matilda (1141)


Plantagenet, Angevin Line
Henry II, Curtmantle (1154-89)
Richard I the Lionheart (1189-99)
John, Lackland (1199-1216)
Henry III (1216-72)
Edward I, Longshanks (1272-1307)
Edward II (1307-27)
Edward III (1327-77)
Richard II (1377-99)


Plantagenet, Lancastrian Line
Henry IV, Bolingbroke (1399-1413)
Henry V (1413-22)
Henry VI (1422-61, 1470-1)


Plantagenet, Yorkist Line
Edward IV (1461-70, 1471-83)
Edward V (1483)
Richard III, Crookback (1483-85)


House of Tudor
Henry VII, Tudor (1485-1509)
Henry VIII (1509-47)
Edward VI (1547-53)
Lady Jane Grey (1553)
Mary I, Tudor (1553-58)
Elizabeth I (1558-1603)


House of Stuart
James I (1603-25)
Charles I (1625-49)

House of Stuart, Restored
Charles II (1660-85)
James II (1685-88)


House of Orange and Stuart
William III, Mary II (1689-1702)


House of Stuart
Anne (1702-14)


House of Brunswick, Hanover Line
George I (1714-27)
George II (1727-60)
George III (1760-1820)
George IV (1820-30)
William IV (1830-37)
Victoria (1837-1901)


House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
Edward VII (1901-10)


House of Windsor
George V (1910-36)
Edward VIII (1936)
George VI (1936-52)
Elizabeth II (1952-present)


Enjoy!

William I, the Conqueror (1066-87)

The last man to "conquer" England and set in motion an Empire/Nation that remains unconquered a millenia later.

I'm Australian and I also hold a British passport.

And if you want to know who I think was the worst

George III (1760-1820)

Because he let a bunch of ragtag misfits with the help of the frogs accede.

William I, the Conqueror (1066-87)

The last man to "conquer" England and set in motion an Empire/Nation that remains unconquered a millenia later.

I;m Australian and I also hold a British passport.


Interesting choice. Not just the conquest of England but it's after effects were so fundamentally important that September 25, 1066 the day of the eight-hour Battle of Hastings is rightfully seen as the most important day in the whole of British history. A Saxon victory would have meant that things stayed exactly as they were and Harold II would have been remembered like Athelstan, Edward the Elder and Alfred the Great as a great warrior King and defender of his people.

The arrival and conquest of William and the Normans however, radically altered the course of English history. Rather than attempt a wholesale replacement of Anglo-Saxon law, William fused continental practices with native custom. By disenfranchising Anglo-Saxon landowners, he instituted a brand of feudalism in England that strengthened the monarchy. Villages and manors were given a large degree of autonomy in local affairs in return for military service and monetary payments. The Anglo-Saxon office of sheriff was greatly enhanced: sheriffs arbitrated legal cases in the shire courts on behalf of the king, extracted tax payments and were generally responsible for keeping the peace. "The Domesday Book" was commissioned in 1085 as a survey of land ownership to assess property and establish a tax base. Within the regions covered by the Domesday survey, the dominance of the Norman king and his nobility are revealed: only two Anglo-Saxon barons that held lands before 1066 retained those lands twenty years later. All landowners were summoned to pay homage to William in 1086. William imported an Italian, Lanfranc, to take the position of Archbishop of Canterbury; Lanfranc reorganized the English Church, establishing separate Church courts to deal with infractions of Canon law. Although he began the invasion with papal support, William refused to let the church dictate policy within English and Norman borders.
He died as he had lived: an inveterate warrior on September 9, 1087 from complications of a wound he received in a siege on the town of Mantes.

And if you want to know who I think was the worst

George III (1760-1820)

Because he let a bunch of ragtag misfits with the help of the frogs accede.

Another interesting choice.



George III was born in 1738, first son of Frederick, Prince of Wales and Augusta. He married Charlotte of Mecklinburg-Strelitz in 1761, to whom he was devoted. The couple produced a prolific fifteen children: nine sons and six daughters. George was afflicted with porphyria, a maddening disease which disrupted his reign as early as 1765. Several attacks strained his grip on reality and debilitated him in the last years of his reign. Personal rule was given to his son George, the Prince Regent, in 1811. George III died blind, deaf and mad at Windsor Castle on January 29, 1820.

George III succeeded his grandfather, George II, in 1760 (Frederick, Prince of Wales, had died in 1751 having never ruled). He was the first of the Hanoverians to be born in England and to speak English as a first language (George I never learned to say anything except "I hate boets and bainters" while George II spoke English, but with a very heavy German accent. This fact meant that George III was also the first Hanoverian to regard Britain rather than Hanover as the greatest of his territorial possessions and George was determined to recover the prerogative lost to the ministerial council by the first two Georges; in the first two decades of the reign, he methodically weakened the Whig party through bribery, coercion and patronage. Prime Minister, William Pitt the Elder was toppled by Whigs after the Peace of Paris, and men of mediocre talent and servile minds were hand-picked by George as Cabinet members, acting as little more than yes-men. Bouts with madness and the way he handled the American Revolution eroded his support and the power of the Crown was granted again to the Prime Minister.


George's madness ultimately left the fate of the crown on his eldest son George, Prince Regent. Prince George was put in the daunting position of attempting to govern according to the increasingly erratic will of his father. A letter received by novelist E. M. Frostier from his aunt, Marine Thornton, describes the situation: "... there he was sitting on the Throne with his King's Crown on, his robes scarlet and ermine, and held his speech written out for him, just what he had to say. But, oh dear, he strode up and made a bow and began "My Lords and Peacocks'. The people who were not fond of him laughed, the people who did love him cried, and he went back to be no longer a king, and his eldest son reigned in his stead".

Other events of his reign include the French Revolution and The Napoleonic Wars, the Slave trade was abolished in 1807, although slavery continued in British colonies until 1833 and a second Act of Union was passed in 1801, bringing Ireland under the umbrella of Great Britain until the Government of Ireland Act (1920) established the modern arrangement. Population increases, improvements in agricultural and industrial methods and a revolution in transportation spurred British economic growth. English literature was graced by some of its best known authors: Wordsworth, Shelley and Keats were among the writers of the era.

The career of George III is one of unfulfilled promise. A King who at the start of his reign seemed to promise by virtue of his charm and intelligence a recovery in the power and position of the monarchy, but who's health problems eventually contributed to the further curtailment of a monarch's powers.

Queen Victoria, definitely.

Henry II,

Founded the common law courts,the basis of much of the worlds legal system today (i.e. commonwealth and US except scotland).

It's priniciples have been emulated by just about every free nation.


I'm from the US.

Victoria. They made a computer game about her age.

The Tudor Queen, Elizabeth the 1st. Without a question the best monarch Britain ever had. After all, an entire age was named after her. In addition, her rule was a golden age and was considered very enlightned for the times. I'm from Canada btw.

Henry II,

Founded the common law courts,the basis of much of the worlds legal system today (i.e. commonwealth and US except scotland).

It's priniciples have been emulated by just about every free nation.



As an English law student... I have to agree.

George VI (1936-52)
Allow i cannot stress enough that he was with Queen Elizabeth
Together they saw the nation through slight rebopunds of the old deppression. MAde sure Britain didn't go down to Nazi Germany

Im Scotish (Small country to the north of england) Though i class myself as british. So i dont want anyone telling me am scotish!

It has to be Victoria, surely - after all, she reigned over the greatest Empire this Earth has ever, and will ever, see. (I happen to be English, by the way)

Hmm, i see you are very single minded? England and Britian are NOT the same thing, you James I was Scotlands, James IV (i think)
The point is, King/Queen of England, ok. Or King/Queen of Britian, ok. But the two do not apply, unless you want to include the rest of the United Kingdom?

Hmm, i see you are very single minded? England and Britian are NOT the same thing, you James I was Scotlands, James IV (i think)
The point is, King/Queen of England, ok. Or King/Queen of Britian, ok. But the two do not apply, unless you want to include the rest of the United Kingdom?

I think we're all well aware of that, and if you meant I was single minded, Victoria was Queen of Britain - I added that I am English because the person who started this thread asked for nationality.

Although I am an opponent to monarchism, I would say the best monarch was Henry II for his establishment of common law, which if I'm not mistaken is still the guiding principle in the formation of British and Commonwealth law to this day. If not Henry II, then probably William the Conqueror.

Queen Victoria, definitely.

Explain why you think so? I'm not saying that you're wrong but what is your justification and where are you from?

Other events of his reign include the French Revolution and The Napoleonic Wars, the Slave trade was abolished in 1807, although slavery continued in British colonies until 1833 and a second Act of Union was passed in 1801, bringing Ireland under the umbrella of Great Britain until the Government of Ireland Act (1920) established the modern arrangement. Population increases, improvements in agricultural and industrial methods and a revolution in transportation spurred British economic growth. English literature was graced by some of its best known authors: Wordsworth, Shelley and Keats were among the writers of the era.

The career of George III is one of unfulfilled promise. A King who at the start of his reign seemed to promise by virtue of his charm and intelligence a recovery in the power and position of the monarchy, but who's health problems eventually contributed to the further curtailment of a monarch's powers.

All of the events quoted are down to his government, not the King himself (apart from the Ind. Rev., that was inevitable). Although I do think he was an important step towards limiting the monarchy in this country, the achievements of his reign I attribute to the Liverpool Ministry and the foreign minister Castlereagh. The slave trade abolition was only the end of Britain partaking in the slave trade; the colonies were still able to use slaves.

Hmm, i see you are very single minded? England and Britian are NOT the same thing, you James I was Scotlands, James IV (i think)
The point is, King/Queen of England, ok. Or King/Queen of Britian, ok. But the two do not apply, unless you want to include the rest of the United Kingdom?

Oh dear, I knew this would happen. What I meant was who is the greatest King of England (Wales is generally considered as part of England, right or wrong,)and Ireland. Up til 1603, that is it. After then, the King of England is also King of Scotland or King of Great Britain as James VI of Scotland (not IV) who became James I of England styled himself.

Sorry for the confusion.

All of the events quoted are down to his government, not the King himself (apart from the Ind. Rev., that was inevitable).

Partially true. But up until 1782 (when he had his first temporary, but still serious, bout of insanity) George III, effectively dominated politics in this country. Lord North and the Government (who helped cause the American Revolution, although some forget the guerilla activities of certain Americans prior to war being declared) were literally yes men chosen by the King and although they did push through their own policies, George III's hand can clearly be seen in them.

Although I do think he was an important step towards limiting the monarchy in this country, the achievements of his reign

True, but George III was in his last and permanent insanity by the time of the Liverpool government's arrival in 1812. Castlereagh was part of that government. The fact is however that until he went mad, the power of the monarchy had increased. His bouts of insanity, which caused infighting between the then Tory Prime Minister and George's eldest son the future George IV, who at this time in his life had Whig sympathies, put this process on hold and eventually reversed it.


The slave trade abolition was only the end of Britain partaking in the slave trade; the colonies were still able to use slaves.

I think you will find that I said that.

Henry II,

Founded the common law courts,the basis of much of the worlds legal system today (i.e. commonwealth and US except scotland).

It's priniciples have been emulated by just about every free nation.


I'm from the US.

A very common and understandable answer. It is only fairly recently however, that Henry II's true legacy has really been appreciated. The Victorians were more fascinated by his impossibly glamorous son King Richard I the Lionheart (whom they built a statue of outside Westminster Palace) and his other son the impossibly bad King John (whom they basically soiled whatever positives were left in his reputation).

Henry was a fine King for a troubled age. Taking the throne after the mess created by the reign of his mother's first cousin King Stephen, Henry made England and Normandy the most powerful that it had ever been and would ever be. By clever use of hereditary claims, marriage and war when necessary, Henry created an empire that stretched from Hadrian's Wall to the Pyrenees. Not only did he enlargen his kingdom however, but he also sorted out many of the problems that had come to the surface since the death of William the Conqueror's fourth son, the third Norman king Henry I (Henry II's maternal grandfather) and Stephen's seizure of the crown from Henry II's mother Matilda.

English and Norman barons in Stephen's reign manipulated feudal law to undermine royal authority; Henry instituted many reforms to weaken traditional feudal ties and strengthen his position. Unauthorized castles built during the previous reign were razed. Monetary payments replaced military service as the primary duty of vassals. The Exchequer was revitalized to enforce accurate record keeping and tax collection. Incompetent sheriffs were replaced and the authority of royal courts was expanded. Henry empowered a new social class of government clerks that stabilized procedure - the government could operate effectively in the king's absence and would subsequently prove sufficiently tenacious to survive the reign of incompetent kings. Henry's reforms allowed the emergence of a body of common law to replace the disparate customs of feudal and county courts. Jury trials were initiated to end the old Germanic trials by ordeal or battle. Henry's systematic approach to law provided a common basis for development of royal institutions throughout the entire realm.

I think we're all well aware of that, and if you meant I was single minded, Victoria was Queen of Britain - I added that I am English because the person who started this thread asked for nationality.


Don't assume people are aware of anything! First lesson endeth.

The Tudor Queen, Elizabeth the 1st. Without a question the best monarch Britain ever had. After all, an entire age was named after her. In addition, her rule was a golden age and was considered very enlightned for the times. I'm from Canada btw.

Wondered when she would come up.

Undoubtedly, one of England's most extraordinary, influential and greatest monarchs. The daughter of an unpopular second marriage that ended with her mother's beheading, Elizabeth came to rule for 45 years and her reign came to epitomise both her age and her nation.

Elizabeth inherited a tattered realm: dissension between Catholics and Protestants tore at the very foundation of society; the royal treasury had been bled dry by her sister Mary I and her advisors, Mary's loss of Calais left England with no continental possessions for the first time since the arrival of the Normans in 1066 and many (mainly Catholics) doubted Elizabeth's claim to the throne.
Continental affairs added to the problems - France had a strong footland in Scotland, and Spain, the strongest western nation at the time, posed a threat to the security of the realm. Elizabeth proved most calm and calculating (even though she had a horrendous temper) in her political acumen, employing capable and distinguished men to carrying out royal prerogative.

Her first order of business was to eliminate religious unrest. Elizabeth lacked the fanaticism of her siblings, Edward VI favored Protestant radicalism, Mary I, conservative Catholicism, which enabled her to devise a compromise that,basically, reinstated Henrician reforms. She was, however, compelled to take a stronger Protestant stance for two reasons: the machinations of Mary Queen of Scots and persecution of continental Protestants by the two strongholds of Orthodox Catholicism, Spain and France.
The situation with Mary Queen of Scots was most vexing to Elizabeth. Mary, in Elizabeth's custody beginning in 1568 (both for protection and to keep her from causing trouble) became involved with fanatical Catholic groups within England working towards one aim; the assassination of Elizabeth and the enthronement of Mary, Queen of Scots (who was great-granddaughter to England's King Henry VII). After irrefutable evidence of Mary's involvement in such plots came to light, Elizabeth sadly succumbed to the pressure from her advisors and had the Scottish princess executed in 1587.

The persecution of continental Protestants forced Elizabeth into war, a situation which she desperately tried to avoid. She sent an army to aid French Huguenots (Calvinists who had settled in France) after a 1572 massacre wherein over three thousand Huguenots lost their lives.

She sent further assistance to Protestant factions on the continent and in Scotland following the emergence of radical Catholic groups and assisted Belgium in their bid to gain independence from Spain.
Philip II of Spain; the indignant Spanish King, incensed by English piracy and forays in New World exploration, sent his much-feared Armada to raid England. However, the English won the naval battle handily, due as much to bad weather as to English naval prowess. England emerged as the world's strongest naval power, setting the stage for later English imperial designs.

Elizabeth was a master of political science. She inherited her father's supremacist view of the monarchy, but showed great wisdom by refusing to directly antagonize Parliament. She used the varying factions (instead of being used by them, as were her siblings), playing one off another until the exhausted combatants came to her for resolution of their grievances. Few English monarchs enjoyed such political power, while still maintaining the devotion of the whole of English society.

Elizabeth's reign was during one of the more constructive periods in English history. Literature bloomed through the works of Spenser, Marlowe and Shakespeare. Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh were instrumental in expanding English influence in the New World. Elizabeth's religious compromise laid many fears to rest. Fashion and education came to the fore because of Elizabeth's penchant for knowledge, courtly behavior and extravagant dress.

Although she entertained many marriage proposals and flirted incessantly, she never married or had children. Elizabeth, the last of the Tudors, died at seventy years of age after a very successful forty-four year reign.

The throne, rather ironically passed on to James VI of Scotland, son of Mary Queen of Scots. James was however a Protestant having been forced at the age of 1 to take the throne from his deposed mother, who consequently fled, and so the achievements of Good Queen Bess, as she came to be called, continued.

The best Monarch Ever I think is Queens Elizabeth I
She was the first woman to become the Sole Ruler of England. She kept her country calm in the face of what seemed like the total annihaltion of her country By the Spainish. And Created the British Dominace of the Sea, something which would allow Britain to own 1/3 of the world.

Oh wait someone already said it.

William the Conqueror - many Brits forget that they were once ruled by a Frenchman!

Oh wait someone already said it.

You can say the same monarch more than once. Where are you from though? A few of your facts were wrong, she wasn't the first female sole ruler of England as her half-sister Mary I was and Britain ruled about 1/4 of the world's population and 1/5 of the world's landmass, not a third, but the basic synopsis that you gave was about right.

Well Normandy was British property then so really he's still British

The present Queen is in fact Queen Elizabeth the 2nd of England, and Queen Elizabeth the 1st of Scotland and Queen Elizabeth the 1st of Great Britain.

Elizabeth the 1st of England was never Queen of Scotland, so therefore the present Queen Elizabeth is Scotland's first Elizabeth!

Elizabeth the 1st of England was never Queen of Great Britain because Great Britain didn't exist at that time. So how on earth can she be 2nd now?

Therefore we are being fed another lie by the (English) Establishment twisting the facts of history once again.

I think history has been unkind to Harold II, who is only remembered for being the saxon king defeated at Hastings. He was a courageous leader in battle, and the Norman victory at hastings was not as clear cut as popular legend makes it out to be.

William the Conqueror - many Brits forget that they were once ruled by a Frenchman!

More than one. For the next 200 years most of monarchs would speak French as a first language even if they were born in England like Richard I (Oxford) and Henry I (Winchester). Edward I (Longshanks) was the first quintessentially English king since the Norman conquest. Even then though, all monarchs spoke either French or Latin rather than English (which was considered slightly vulgar) even if it was their first language until pretty much the reign of Elizabeth I (who spoke not only those languages, but Greek and Italian as well).

Read my synopsis on William I (The Conqueror) above for more information.

Well Normandy was British property then so really he's still British

English property!

The present Queen is in fact Queen Elizabeth the 2nd of England, and Queen Elizabeth the 1st of Scotland and Queen Elizabeth the 1st of Great Britain.

Elizabeth the 1st of England was never Queen of Scotland, so therefore the present Queen Elizabeth is Scotland's first Elizabeth!

Elizabeth the 1st of England was never Queen of Great Britain because Great Britain didn't exist at that time. So how on earth can she be 2nd now?

Therefore we are being fed another lie by the (English) Establishment twisting the facts of history once again.

True, but you know that all Kings and Queens of Britain are considered primarily monarchs of England. But technically you are right.

Naughty imperialist me eh?

Get over it though son please.

True, but you know that all Kings and Queens of Britain are considered primarily monarchs of England. But technically you are right.

Naughty imperialist me eh?

Get over it though son please.


The great English democrats! Mind you, they are very clever; they do get mostly foreigners to do their fighting for them!

I think history has been unkind to Harold II, who is only remembered for being the saxon king defeated at Hastings. He was a courageous leader in battle, and the Norman victory at hastings was not as clear cut as popular legend makes it out to be.

Absolutely right!

Harold II had already prior to 1066 proved himself a very able General. Harold had been on campaign against the Welsh in 1063 with his brother Tostig in which he cowed the Borderlands raiders into submission through some brilliant victories.

As a servant to Edward the Confessor he proved an adept politician when in 1065 his brother Tostig, through acting like a spoilt, tyrannical brat provoked a northern rebellion which kicked him out and replaced him as the Earl of Northumberland. Harold as Earl of Wessex and second in command to the King was asked by Edward to sort it out and rather than inviting civil war by siding with his brother, Harold sided with the Northern Earls.

Harold was described as affable to all good men in contrast to the terrifyingly brutal Duke William.

However, Harold's demise is a demonstration of the cruelty of fate. It started in 1064 when Harold acted as an emissary from Edward the Confessor to the court of William of Normandy in 1064, during which time he undoubtedly swore an oath of fealty to William, relinquishing any personal claim to the throne. We do not know whether this was done under duress or freely but the oath, over holy relics, is almost impossible to deny that it took place.

When Edward died childless in January 1066, Harold seized the throne, knowing full well what the reaction would be across the channel. Throughout the summer while William prepared an invasion force at St Valery Sur Somme, Harold gathered his army on the south coast. However invasion did come not from the south, where Harold due to the onset of Harvest had been forced to send the majority of his soldiers, the untrained Fyrd (basically a part-time militia) but from the North where Tostig had invaded Northern England and captured York as the deputy to the King of Norway Harald 'Hardrada' (means hard-ruler), who was already well renowned throughout Europe for his brutality and ferocity in battle.

However, Harold after marching over 200 miles in just 5 days caught the Norsemen by surprise and defeated them decisvely at the battle of Stamford Bridge, killing both Tostig and Hardrada and leaving only enough Norsemen to fill 24 of the 300 ships that had brought them from Norway.

But two days after the Battle of Stamford Bridge, William landed, after finally getting the right wind, at Pevensey on the south coast. Harold, with a now depleted army, raced back down to the south. Many historians suggest that at this point Harold should have waited in London to gather the rest of his army. William was after all in a hostile country, he had no real ready reserves in Normandy, and if Harold waited he could look to bring superior forces on an enemy that could only get weaker the longer it stayed in England. However it is believed that Harold advanced because of the fact that William was camped right in Harold's own earldom, was ramsacking towns and villages in the South-East in order to provoke Harold into fighting (which as it would turn out worked).
Harold advanced on William's position and the day of destiny was at hand, less than a fortnight after defeating the last Viking invasion of England, Harold II would do battle again.

At the start of the day, Harold could not have picked a better position. Not only was his army along the brow of a steep hill, but the battlefield was quite confined and so forced William to attack Harold from the front, as he could not really outflank him. Harold's Housecarls (Personal Bodyguard) and Thanes (basically Nobles) were accomplished fighters with some of the Housecarls being able to swing an axe with such force that it could chop a man and a horse in half in one swing. Behind them were the Fyrd, not so well disciplined or experienced, but loyal and eager to fight. However, Harold only had men on foot. William, on the other hand, had a similarly sized force but one that was divided nearly equally into Cavalry, Infantry and Archers. This combined arms would help William win the day.

The battle began with Williams archers taking aim and firing at the shield wall. The shield wall is basically a formation which involves all the Thanes and Housecarls putting their shileds together and making a solid wall of shields. Cavalry can charge a shield wall, but the horses will stop before they get to the shields as it is, strangely, like charging a wall. Even infantry have difficulty getting round the shields and at the men holding them.
Anyway, the shield wall took little damage as the arrows either fell short, or embedded into the Saxon shields.
Then came the Norman Infantry who tried hard but could not force anything out of the Saxons.
Then came the Norman Cavalry following on from the infantry who were regrouping. The Cavalry faired no better than the Infantry and indeed on the Norman left flank, the Breton cavalry actually found themselves in trouble and retreated. The more inexperienced Saxons on that flank ran down the hill after them, against Harold's orders. This was because a rumour had gone up saying that William was dead. But William rode forward with his helmet lifted up and shouted "Look at me, I am alive, and with God's help will have the victory."
The Breton Cavalry then reformed and turned on the Saxons who had chased them who were now exposed in a small valley. William's Cavalry surrounded them and cut them to pieces, including harold's two other younger brothers Gyrth and Leofwine.
The Saxons were now stretched but not beaten and with the day wearing on, William knew that he had to win the decisive victory today, or probably lose the war. So William instructed his Cavalry to make a series feigned retreats. The Norman Cavalry did just that and on not one but two occassions the Saxon infantry ran down the hill after them, were surrounded and cut to pieces.
Finally with the holes in the saxon ranks now being filled by less experienced and less well-wrmoured troops, William ordered his Archers to fire. But not straight at the Saxons, but into the air. The arrows fell onto the heads of the unprotected Fyrdmen in the rear ranks and most decisively into the eye of King Harold II in the front brank himself. The Thanes and Housecarls surrounded their King and bravely tried to defend him, yet now, with so many gaps in the Saxon line now appearing, the Norman Knights were able to surround them, cut them down and to completely butcher the body of King Harold II. With that, and the collapse of his battle standard, the dragon of Wessex, the Battle of Hastings was over.

You may ask why Harold lost the Battle of Hastings? To the Normans, the result was inevitable. Harold was a perjured oathbreaker who God had now punished and laid in the dust. But we nowadays can be less hostile to Harold.
He was for a start dreadfully unlucky, in the timing of William's landing, and of the appearance of the Vikings which undoubtedly hurt his fighting capability.
He was also extremely disadvantaged through no fault of his own that he had only been King for 9 months. William had been in command for a number of years and had already developed an enviable military reputation.
Harold was undoubtedly a talented military commander. But finally it has to be said that he was also unlucky in that he came up against a man who was an even better leader even if more ruthless, in William, Duke of Normandy.

The great English democrats! Mind you, they are very clever; they do get mostly foreigners to do their fighting for them!

Stop being so hostile. I haven't been hostile to you. Yes we have done some bad things. We've also done some good things.

Name me a country that is any different!

The Greatest Monarch is yet to come, for it will be the last ;)

Bump!

So William instructed his Cavalry to make a series feigned retreats. The Norman Cavalry did just that and on not one but two occassions the Saxon infantry ran down the hill after them, were surrounded and cut to pieces.

I find this to be one of the more debatable aspects of the popularly accepted history. Carrying out such maneouvers would have been nigh impossible; both to spread the order in the din of battle, and actually implement without chaos ensuing. Furthermore, the bulk of the Saxon shield wall - a force trained to rely on the solidarity of their overlapping shields for protection - could never be lured down the hill en masse.

I tend to believe that this supposed feigned retreat of the entire Norman cavalry, is mostly a myth based on the initial rout of the Bretons and their pursuit by a portion of the Saxon Fyrdsmen, who were not sufficiently hemmed in by the shield wall. The tendency of historians such as William of Poitiers to exaggerate, no doubt helped spread the myth.

At a point shortly after the retreat of the Bretons, Harold ordered a general advance to capitalise on it, but the advance ground to a halt after the death of Leofwine. It could be that some elements of the saxon army did not realise the advance had been halted, and continued, where they were cut to pieces by the regrouping breton cavalry.

Another source of the myth could be tactics used by small (20 or so) groups of Breton Knights, attempting to whittle away the fyrdsmen guarding the flanks of the shield wall, luring small groups away, before turning and slaughtering them. The tactic most likely never happened on a large scale.

I find this to be one of the more debatable aspects of the popularly accepted history. Carrying out such maneouvers would have been nigh impossible; both to spread the order in the din of battle, and actually implement without chaos ensuing. Furthermore, the bulk of the Saxon shield wall - a force trained to rely on the solidarity of their overlapping shields for protection - could never be lured down the hill en masse.

I tend to believe that this supposed feigned retreat of the entire Norman cavalry, is mostly a myth based on the initial rout of the Bretons and their pursuit by a portion of the Saxon Fyrdsmen, who were not sufficiently hemmed in by the shield wall. The tendency of historians such as William of Poitiers to exaggerate, no doubt helped spread the myth.

At a point shortly after the retreat of the Bretons, Harold ordered a general advance to capitalise on it, but the advance ground to a halt after the death of Leofwine. It could be that some elements of the saxon army did not realise the advance had been halted, and continued, where they were cut to pieces by the regrouping breton cavalry.

Another source of the myth could be tactics used by small (20 or so) groups of Breton Knights, attempting to whittle away the fyrdsmen guarding the flanks of the shield wall, luring small groups away, before turning and slaughtering them. The tactic most likely never happened on a large scale.

It's a tricky one. Certainly you have made a very convincing argument. I however just look back at William's use of the tactic against the French in 1054 in which a similar manouver was proposed.
Like you I do agree that it would be hard to pull off on a scale of the 2000 odd cavalry he had at Hastings, but not if, during the brief seizure of hostilities, William may have ordered his Knights who often hung around in battle within groups to work with other groups to attempt this manouver at their own leisure, which could have happened.

It is debatable and certainly you provide a good alternative theory. I however think that at least some of the myth is true.

I also did not mean to suggest that the whole Saxon line ran down the hill. undoubtedly certain sections of it that were less disciplined though, did advance aginst Harold's orders, down the hill.

bump

Was there ever any resolution to the question of whether or not it was Harold with the arrow in his eye on the bayeux tapestry. I seem to remeber there being considerable debate that Harold didn't die that way and that the guy with the arrow in his eye was not harold, but someone else.

Did ever get finally figured out, or was it just one of those flash in the pan theories to sell a few books and we are now back to Harold being killed through an arrow to the face.


Just curious

William the Conqueror - many Brits forget that they were once ruled by a Frenchman!
or that huge parts of France were once part of Britain.

Stop being so hostile. I haven't been hostile to you. Yes we have done some bad things. We've also done some good things.

Name me a country that is any different!

Apparently Scotland, all those times they stab the English in the back, raided across the borders into Northumberland, killed each other, tried to invade and establish another line of royalty on the British throne, no they were all little jests, mere japes. They were only kidding. However anytime the English did the same it was terrible and nasty and mean and vicious.

Henry V

Reason: Beat the french..... :D and from what i remember he sent the young French King tennis balls, after the French king had made some demand or another and told him to play boys games as he wasn't any good at war. now thats just amusing (if anyone can tell me the specifics i would like to know more about that, i read it a while ago in an old history book, so i'm a little rusty on the details :)

I thank you







in no way was i being remotely serious before someone leaps on my back and begins to insult me........

William the Conqueror - many Brits forget that they were once ruled by a Frenchman!

William wasn't French, lol, his line was the Viking line that took over Normandy in 911 AD i think it was, when the french king surrendered Normandy to the Vikings in order to avoid a full scale invasion.

Of course Normandy was a melting pot of cultures, but his ruthlessness was definitely the norse in him ;)

Was there ever any resolution to the question of whether or not it was Harold with the arrow in his eye on the bayeux tapestry. I seem to remeber there being considerable debate that Harold didn't die that way and that the guy with the arrow in his eye was not harold, but someone else.

Did ever get finally figured out, or was it just one of those flash in the pan theories to sell a few books and we are now back to Harold being killed through an arrow to the face.


Just curious

Certainly is still a debate. Recently especially historians have read the tapestry as if Haroldis the figure being cut down by the Horseman rather than the arrowstruck figure who preceeds him. Certainly it seems logical that Harold, stood underneath his well-known standard, could at the late part of the battle which it would have happened in,with the Saxon line now fragmented from a strong defensive wall into a series of self-supporting and separate groups, have been targetted by a group of Normans who targetted him and cut him down.

I, with other historians, just think that having looked at the Bayeux Tapestry up until that point have noticed that all of the scenes seem to match up to their respective dialogue. There is no randomness in it at all. And so I think the fact that the words "Harold hic est interfectus est" (King Harold has been killed) appear right above the figure in the tapestry pulling the arrow from his eye. Indeed the very word Harold is interrupted at the HA by the helmet of this figure, making it effectively say "HA (helmet)ROLD". That evidence seems conclusive enough to me.

A compromised theory is now usually accepted wherein Harold was hit in the eye, causing his Housecarls to crowd around him. The Norman Knights seized the moment by getting into the gaps, around the back and into a situation where the height of the horseman became a very considerable advantage, they chopped down Harold's loyal Housecarlsand cut up the body of the King (hence the picture on the tapestry, directly after the arrowstruck figure of a fallen figure being attacked by a horseman).

Henry V

Reason: Beat the french..... :D and from what i remember he sent the young French King tennis balls, after the French king had made some demand or another and told him to play boys games as he wasn't any good at war. now thats just amusing (if anyone can tell me the specifics i would like to know more about that, i read it a while ago in an old history book, so i'm a little rusty on the details :)

I thank you







in no way was i being remotely serious before someone leaps on my back and begins to insult me........


Not quite I'm afraid. Certainly Shakespeare's image of him is rose-tinted. He remains however England's greatest might-have-been King.

Henry V came to the throne in 1413 at the age of 26 at the death of his aging father, the Lancastrian usurper Henry IV. Immediately Henry V tried to reconcile the nation, which had been torn apart by his father's seizure of the crown from the plantagenet Richard II. Henry V did this, by having a new monument to house the dead King Richard II's body built in Westminster Abbey. Richard II's body was removed fromits previous grave and was viewed by many people,reasuuring any doubters that Richard II was dead, and that therefore they could not rebel on his behalf. Richard II was buried in Westminster Abbey with Henry's father Henry IV nearby. Henry V was completely successfulin reuniting the Kingdom not just through this act but through his belligerent attituide towards France (whom since Richard II's unpopular ceasefire, had been allowed to grow and mock England.)

Henry demanded (probably unlawfully) that he be recognised as the true King of France through his great great grandmother Isabella, the wife and murderer of Edward II and mother of Edward III (Henry IV's paternal grandfather).

Henry V however, probably knew that this would be unacceptable (as unlike in England, there was a formal law in France, disregarding the female line of succession), because from the start of his reign Henry mobilised an army. When negotiations broke down in the early part of 1415(ended with the handing over by the French ambassadors of Tennis balls as if to suggest that such a young king should concentrate on sport and not war), Henry therefore set sail to Francewith an army of around 10,000 men,including around 7,000 archers, cannon and noble men-at-arms. Henry's campaign started at Harfleur (now a small suburb of Le Havre) where Henry surrounded the town and demanded its surrender. But the town's garrison knew that their town was well defended and refused. This forced Henry into conducting a siege that would last for over two months. And while Henry bombarded the City Walls and Gates with his cannonand more traditional types of siege weapon (catapult etc), Henry deployed his miners to the east of the town. Their job was to dig beneath the town's walls and start fires causing the walls to collapse. This was thwarted though by French counter-mining and sallies by the town's garrison. Worse still, Henry's army was ravaged by disease especially dysentery which killed about a third of his army, both noble and regular archers. This seriously udnermined morale and of course Henry's realistic chances of claiming the Crown of France.

However, Harfleur, with it's southern gate on the verge of collapse due to Henry's siege bombardment, surrendered, saving them from a sacking by the English.
Henry now had a problem however, He knew that the main French Army had gathered at Saint Denis, near Paris, and seriously outnumbered his own army.

He decided therefore, leaving behind some men to secure his new possession of Harfleur, to head for home. Henry took his army towards Calais. However just at crossing of the river Somme, Henry learned, through a prisoner taken by his vanguard, that the entire French army was camped just over the other side of the river. Henry therfore decided that he had to go inland and look to cross the Somme at some other point. The condition of the English army, was now at breaking point as the army was forced toliveon nuts and berries while all the while they were watched by the Frenchon the other side of the River. Fianlly however, near Frevent, Henry and the English at last crossed the Somme. It was around this time that French emisarries arrived challenging Henry to battle. He told them that Calais was his destination and that if they tried to stop him then a "great shedding of Christian blood" would be the result of it. Henry however did marshall his troops and prepare for battle the next day. But the French never appeared after he had ordered his army to stand and prepare to fight. So Henry ordered his army to carry on,but before they did, he instructed his archers to prepare for themselves a six foot wooden stake which they would hammer into the ground in front of them. By the 24th October, Henry had reached the tiny village of Maisoncelles. Across the other side of some freshly ploughed fields,Henry at last could see the French Army camped just outside the village that would give its name to the forthcoming battle, Agincourt.

Henry V positioned his army at between two wooded areas giving a frontage of 1100 metres. Henry deployed his force into three divisions. Two unitsof archers, 2500 strong each made up his flanks, including stakes. In the center, Henry positioned himself and his men-at-arms whowould be fighting on foot. He had chosen his position well, in front of his army was ploughed fields and due to the heavy rain was very muddy. Due to the narrow battlefield area the French army lost the advantage of superior numbers.
At 11 o'clock the English started to advance their archers within 2500 yards of the French, getting them into range of the French lines. The French line of Cavalry advanced at a slow pace due to the heavy mud. They took heavy losses from the arrows from the English Long Bowman. They were eventually repulsed by the Archers who as the French cavalry stopped (because the horses refused to charge at the stakes) changed from using longbows for daggers, small axes and short swords. The French second cavalry line advanced only to be finally repulsed after hand to hand fighting. The commander Duc d'Alencon was killed in the attack. The second charge had failed and many of the French knights were taken prisoner. Believing he had been attacked in the rear Henry V ordered that the majority of French prisoners were to be put to death. This was the most controversial act of an otherwise unprecedented day of glory for the nation of England. But Henry V knew that he had to return home. His army was delighted with victory but was also exhaustedand so Henry returned to Calais and England.

Henry V gained,as expected a hero's welcome on his return to London. Church bells rang and crowds lined the streets, cheering him as the heroic King, sent on a mission by God. Agincourt however,seems to have transformed the character of Henry V. This victory, he attributed to God,and therefore to God,he coulddo no wrong. for the remainder of his career Henry V was to pursue what became his obsession with France with all the ruthlessness of a religious fanatic.

Domestically, Henry V, enjoyed the support of almost everyone however. He enjoyed the support of the poorthrough the fair running of the economy of his government. He enjoyed the support of the aristocracy because of hislove for war with France and he enjoyed the support of the Church because of his suppression of the heretical group, the Lollards (or Mumblers).

France, however was the focal point of his entire life. Henry campaigned in France for the rest of his life often displaying horrific brutality. At one time for example, Henry severly punished soldiers who took pity on French refugees at one of his sieges by giving food to them. Another time, Henry only put a stop to the wholesale rape and murder of a town's inhabitants after spotting a baby suckling from its decapitated mother's breasts. This is not to suggest that Henry V was more brutal than many othermen who have gone down as heroes i.e. Robert the Bruce, William Wallace all committed terrible acts. This does however show that he was a man of his times and not the caringand compassionate young man of shakespearean legend.

Henry's campaigns were however successful. Henry conquered many french towns,only missing out onParis because of the negotiations which would almost give Henry what he wanted. The Royalist party of the mad Charles VI,refused to talkto the English King, but the Burgundians, (the other faction in what had been prior and during Henry's campaigns a French civil war) offered Henry the Treaty of Trois which he accepted in 1420. This treaty gave Henry marriage to the French King's daughter Catherine (who would produce his only child Henry VI born a year later and who became King at the age of just 9 months after Henry V's death), and declared him, henry V, to be the heir to the crown of France. Henry would, when Charles died therefore, become the first King of England to be crowned King of France according to the treaty.

But the french crown would never be Henry's to wear however. In 1422,while organising a crusade to the Holy Land, Henry died of dysentery at the age of just 35. 6 weeks later, Charles VI breathed his last and although Henry VI, would be crowned King of France (the only English King to be crowned that title in both France and England) Henry VI's youth ensured that by the time of the emergence of Joan of Arc, England would not have anyone, like Henry V, who could forcefully conquer France.

So Henry V, is significant as no King has ever come so close to being crowned the King of France. Not since Edward I, had a king had so much renowned European respect, and not until Henry VIII, 100 years later, would the English ever have a truly internationally feared king.

Edward VIII. I wish we had more monarchs like him.

Edward VIII. I wish we had more monarchs like him.

You gotta be joking!

I would have to say that the best monarch the English ever had has to be Queen Elizabeth I, with William the Conqueror second, and in no particular order Henry II, Henry V, Henry VII, and Henry VIII along with Edward I.

Henry V had amazing potential but died to young

the best monarch the BRITISH (post James I) ever had would in my opinion would be William (of Orange) of William and Mary (technicially she ruled, but he most certainly ran the show and kept Parliament happy, a tough problem in those times)


Although both Kings during both World Wars were comforting leaders that Britain needed and rank high in my book

Prince Edward (Queen Victoria's consort) ranks high in my book too, although he technically wasn't soveriegn

The Greatest Monarch is yet to come, for it will be the last ;)

I am going to bet you mean Christ ... well technically, he would be the Monarch of the English, but at that point, would the concept of England necessarily mean anything anyway?

Besides, Christ is supposed to be the King of all of us (even smart ass Americans like me)

You gotta be joking!
Dead serious.

thanks for the info Planta Genestae, i knew there was something about tennis balls somwhere :D

I would have to say that the best monarch the English ever had has to be Queen Elizabeth I, with William the Conqueror second, and in no particular order Henry II, Henry V, Henry VII, and Henry VIII along with Edward I.

Henry V had amazing potential but died to young

the best monarch the BRITISH (post James I) ever had would in my opinion would be William (of Orange) of William and Mary (technicially she ruled, but he most certainly ran the show and kept Parliament happy, a tough problem in those times)


Although both Kings during both World Wars were comforting leaders that Britain needed and rank high in my book

Prince Edward (Queen Victoria's consort) ranks high in my book too, although he technically wasn't soveriegn

You mean Prince Albert?