1066: The indisciplined fyrdsmen?

The fyrdsmen that broke rank from the English shieldwall at Senlac, 14th October 1066 

Were they later arrivals who had not been present to hear King Harold's  strict morning orders to hold formation (against the Norman cavalry he had seen in 1064) at all costs?

We know from the sources that more Anglo-Saxons came trickling in from the southern shires throughout the day, as their king had bade them days before.

So, were the men who fatally broke rank due to their over-zealousness, 'late arrivals', or simply indisciplined amateurs whom the huscarls in front of them, couldn't halt?

Battle of Stamford Bridge, 25th September.

King Harold II, having abandoned his wait for the expected Norman invasion in the south of England due to an unexpected landing in the north by a huge veteran arm of vikings under their feared KIng, Harald Hardraada, speed-marched his huge, mostly-mounted (huscarls), heavily-armed army north 180m to York in just 4 days and nights with a brief night-stop at Tadcaster, moved straight through York, posting huscarls guards at every city gate to prevent leakage of his presence.

He aimed to completely surprise and massacre the fierce Norse army (only hours before York- thus the entire north?- caved in to Hardrada, and also there learning from local magnates of where the Norse army were?) then dash back south before William could land- then waiting on the Normandy coast for a favourable southerly wind. The Norsemen were then spending idle time waiting for the York VIP's/hostages & resting - UNARMOURED- in the late Summer heat on both sides of the Derwent's riverbanks.

Hardraada had been so flushed with victory at Fulford Gate only five days before, that he fatally didn't post scouts far outfield to reconnoitre for any unexpected enemies (And he allowed his warriors to leave their armour with their fleet at Riccall)- odd for such an experienced and wily veteran, perhaps?
Consequently, the first thing they knew of any Saxons in the locality was a huge cloud of road-dust and glinting metal in the distance towards York at Gate Helmsley 1m away (like a "sheet of ice" acc. to Sturlasson)- could it be the York embassy approaching?

With horror, Harald & Tostig realised they had been almost ambushed by King Harold himself whom they had thought was 180m away to the SOUTH and, ordering fast-riders to hasten word to his fleet guard some miles away to join him asap, Hardrada also ordered the troops on the west bank to fight a delaying action(or were they simply caught out after rustling cattle for food, then relaxing?), whilst he hastily formed his east-bank main army into a huge circle ready for Harold's fearsome huscarls, archers and fyrdsmen.

Charging straight into the 'east bank' Vikings(forming a crude semi-circle flanked by the Derwent at it's ends), Harold's huscarls used (or were ordered to use) their mounted advantage and the English vanguard tore into them (as I believe), hacking down many & then aimed to seize the bridge(then a wooden planked crossing, wide enough only for two men) and cutting most of them off, until the Saxon infantry caught up with their foes- the Norsemen & English disintegrated into a seething mass of struggling men and, with the bridge choked with men, many Norse were driven back into the river where they drowned.

One large chainmailed Norseman stood alone on the western end of the bridge (acc. to Scandinavian legend- but not in English sources, oddly), killing any Englishmen with his axe who neared him, holding up Harold's advance.
If this story is true, then Harold, perhaps momentarily admiring this bravery, must have ordered his archers, infantry & cavalry to hold back from killing this 'hero' there and then, maybe seeing that Hardraada/Tostig had already formed up a fierce defensive formation across the river up the slope anyway, thus too late to catch them exposed even if he killed this lone warrior immediately?
Hardrada's main army had been bought enough time, & they roared their lone comrade on, but the hero was eventually felled by an enterprising Saxon who used a swilltub down the riverbank(hiding under the hanging tree canopies?
His feat is even today celebrated in York's "Spear Pies") and impaled this hero between the legs thru the bridge's wooden footboards. Harold's army then poured across the bridge and formed up (cavalry to the fore, infantry behind?) as the archers 'covered' his advance and rear.

A parlez is supposed to have taken place with the Norse main army from the river up the slope- Harold personally offering his brother his life (& Northumbrian Earldom?) if he switched sides, (he must have been tempted, but could not face the shame of betraying Hardrada who had sponsored this invasion, any more than he might not trust his brother- whom he still wanted to avenge).
But then, what might the earls Edwin and Morcar think to that, when they and their supporters heard this later?
Tostig refused his offer, whether he actually meant it or not, and the defiant Norse roared their refusals back at Harold's men, so battle began again... huscarl against viking.

Harold must have realised that his army now would be fighting slightly uphill with their back to the river!
Just one Viking charge like the English one at Fulford five days before and...disaster for him?

Harold's mounted huscarls (if Sturlasson- writing much later- isn't confusing Stamford with Senlac?) charged up to the dense circular Norse wall of locked shields & upward thrust spears and discharged their own spears and quickly wheeled about, then repeated, to wear their foes down (the Norse front two ranks crouched down behind interlocked shields, aiming their own spears at the rider's chests, making it v.impossible to engage them, whilst those standing behind aimed theirs at the horses chests) whilst archers and spear-throwers were raining missiles upon the cavalry from inside Hardrada's circle.

This continued indecisively, the Norse thinking it rather half-hearted of the Saxons, but on it raged on. Hardrada- who had been inside the circle to plug any gaps in his wall of men- led a fierce charge with a force of retainers(as at Fulford)seeking eternal heroic fame(?) broke rank and charged the Saxons as they withdrew to regroup, as was that tactic, felling many Saxons, whilst the remainder of his army held formation and fought on behind.
As they became exposed in the open outside of their 'circle' with their ferocious counter-attacking assault, the English cavalry and archers whom they dashed through/into showered them with spears from all directions, slaying a great many.
It might have looked as though the English were about to be routed, but just at this point- Hardrada was hit in the throat by a chance arrow among many, felling him along with most of those men with him.

A second parlez?? Maybe another offer of peace by Harold during the lull as the armies reformed again(did the houscarls now dismount?), who needed all his men alive and well to return south asap?
But the Norse roared with defiance- urged on by new leader Tostig, who also was soon afterwards slain as the huscarls and fyrdsmen clashed on foot with the defiant Norse. An even fiercer phase now raged- bloodier than before, the armour-less Norse being butchered by the 100's- the Saxons taking huge casualties while doing so- as the grim day gave way to slaughter on 'battle flats'.
"Orri's Storm". At this point, the armoured yet exhausted Norse fleet-guard, led by Orri Eystein (prospective son-inlaw noble of Hardrada) arrived and crashed heavily into the tangled saxon/vikings from the S.East (many Norse collapsed & died of exhaustion just running to battle, others threw off their chainmail only to be slain), almost battering Harold's Saxons backwards/sidewards with it's initial sheer momentum of force & ferocity, the English only just held their lines & checked the fresh Norse army to a standstill.
A new and bitter fight raged- "Orri's Storm" (Norse sources state this was "the fiercest of all"), dreadful, close-quarter butchery continued "until nightfall" - both sides slugging it out in a ferocious bruiser- the Saxons slain in great numbers but eventually the depleted Norse were finally broken & routed all the way back to their ships(and locally- by Harold's 'cavalry'?) in the darkness.
Many were slain by axe & sword as they fled during the night, many others were trapped and burned alive in barnhouses where they hid, etc. At great cost to Harold's army, they had won a stunning victory.

Aftermath. So heavily slaughtered had the Norsemen been that only 24 ships out of their original 300 sailed home(over 90% of their army!) -after Hardrada's son, Prince Olaf(actually became a peaceful Norse ruler), swore peace and gave hostages and plunder, then the pitiful 1000 shellshocked survivors sailed off north to the Orkneys, collecting the Norsemen at Holderness, Scarborough and Cleveland en route.
• Orderic Vitalis noted that even in his day (12thC) their bones could still be seen in heaps.
• Geoffrey Gaimar, writing at the time, said “nobody could count a half of those left on the field”

The Pope in 1066: William or Harold?

Papal support – In the spring of 1066 Duke William of Normandy sent Gilbert, Archdeacon of Lisieux, to Rome as his messenger to enlist the support of Pope Alexander II 1061-73 for his plans to dispute King Harold's succession to the English throne by force of arms. 

The Duke's adviser, Abbot Lanfranc of Saint-Etienne at Caen, had drawn up the Norman case, of which the main argument was that Harold had committed perjury and that therefore the Duke was justified in using violence against him.

The Pope, a friend of Lanfranc from their schooldays in northern Italy, happily gave his blessing to William's enterprise, and according to the Norman sources he sent a papal banner as sign of his approval.

The position of Pope Alexander II (r.1061 - 1073) in Rome was precarious - he was threatened on many political fronts:

• by the Emperor Henry IV,
• by an anti-Pope Honorious II, and
• by the Lombards and the Greeks on mainland Italy. 

Alexander was supported by his advisor and heir-apparent, Chancellor Hildebrand. However, Norman support was crucial for his own political and personal survival on the Italian mainland.

By giving a Papal “blessing” and thus a papal banner to Roger de Hauteville for his conquest of Sicily, Alexander was securing future support for his own cause.

However, in this instance, the papal banner was granted to Roger to aid his removal not of another Christian power but of non-Christians - that is: Muslims.

It was purely a matter of politics not religion that prompted William to seek, and Alexander to give, the papal banner (1063-1065).

There are two arguments that could be made:

• that William was appealing to the Papacy on a matter of inheritance, involving the question of “laesio fidei”. Now, the Papacy was within it rights to adjudge matters of inheritance - however, whilst not in a position to dispose of the English Crown, the Curia could be asked to consider the respective titles or claims of the disputants.
• that William promised Alexander that he would “clean up” the corruption within the English Church - which was the removal of Archbishop Stigand from Canterbury, whose election was considered irregular Robert of Jumiéges had been elected (1050) however, when Edward the Confessor removed all Normans from power (c.1052), Robert fled back to Normandy and Stigand was eventually elected). However, with the advantage of hindsight, Stigand was not removed until four years after the Conquest (1070).

When Harold broke his 'oath' to support Duke William's claim to the English throne, it fell on two members of the church to find a solution from which the Church would most benefit.

• Prior Lanfranc of the Abbey of Bec, a trusted servant to Duke William, who was entrusted to go yet again to Rome to gain papal support for William.
• While in Rome, Archdeacon Hildebrand (future pope Gregory VII), the political power behind the papal throne, had his own plans far beyond assisting the Norman Duke.

It is probable that these two formidable ecclesiastical politicians had met on Lanfranc's earlier mission to Rome to obtain papal sanction and blessing on the marriage of Duke William and Matilda. This mission was successful and we can assume that two such similar clergymen established a strong and useful partnership.

Archdeacon Hildebrand's plan was to establish a temporal power base throughout Italy and beyond, by using those newly seized lands established by Norman mercenaries, such as Robert Guiscard Conqueror of Naples.

Some of these new nobles had sworn themselves as fiefs to Holy Mother Church, thus these 'Priest-Knights' obtained political recognition through the Church.

By increasing the number of devoted Normans willing to conquer new lands for the church and establish new fiefs, Rome could obtain a massive power base not only in Italy but over the alps and indeed wherever such fiefs could be founded.

The Archdeacons only problem was the lack of Normans capable of seizing such lands. It would further these plans greatly if the Duke of Normandy and perhaps the future King of England would give his support if not his available nobles.

There also arose the question that if Duke William was willing to submit to the authority of Rome on a temporal matter, namely the question of the succession, would William be willing to submit England as a fief to Rome!

It was with these prizes in mind that Archdeacon Hildebrand used his considerable power within the Assembly of Cardinals to promote and support the claims of William Duke of Normandy.

Prior Lanfranc presented the arguments in support of William, while Hildebrand brought about the decision. For not only was Harold of England on trail as an oath breaker and a violator of sacred relics but also the Church and State of England was brought under question.

The King of England had not sent the levy to Rome known as Peter's Pence (A substantial subsidy paid to the papacy since the 9thC), the Church in England had allowed the act of simony to spread within its body and it was argued by William's envoys that the state of England had descended into a near barbarous condition (proven to be untrue in 1062 by visiting papal legates) and that only by the appointment of a of King who was a God fearing dutiful son to the Holy Father would England be restored into the brotherhood of the Christian World.

It was clear that some of these charges were unreasonable;-

• England had a most devout ecclesiastical body with a church that owned nearly 20% of the landed wealth
• Simony and the withholding of Peter's Pence was common among many other Christian lands also, could not be presented at the trial.
• Also, a Papal legate in 1062 found no issue with the English church, even with the murky 'Archbishop Stigand?

With such evidence and interests, the excommunication of Harold was foregone.

Papal support in the form of the Papal Banner, a Relic and a Papal Blessing were (supposedly) issued.

While copies of the Papal Blessing were made and sent from the Abbey of Bec to all those heads of state who may wish to join William in his crusade, clearly indicating the position of the Church.

In fact, prior to the “conquest”, the Church held only 20% of lands - whilst after 1066, they gained a mere 5% more.

Papal Banners

These were only issued by the papacy during this era to endorse wars against muslims or against those who had rebelled against Papal authority (Harold had not) and NOT against fellow Christians.

They were also only associated with the remission of sins and not for the penances that were later imposed on the Normans by Erminfrid of Sion in 1070.

Had the pope ever actually issued a commission to William at all?

Peter’s Pence had been promptly paid to the Vatican since Alfred’s time, without demur.- why would the papacy back an unknown quantity against an established and major European power who had loyally subjected themselves to the papacy for over a century and a half?

 “A realistic assessment of the probabilities would appear to indicate that no Papal support was in fact provided for William’s expedition.”

Ian Walker (“Harold: The last Anglo-Saxon King”)

William of Jumieges never mentioned one, but contemporaries who did mention a Papal banner are;

William of Poiters

"the gift of a banner as a pledge of the support of St. Peter whereby he might the more confidently and safely attack his enemy."

("The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans and King of the English").

William of Malmesbury

"That no rashness might stain his righteous cause he sent to the Pope, formerly Anselm, bishop of Lucca, asserting the justice of the war he had undertaken with all the eloquence at his command. Harold neglected to do this; either because he was too proud by nature, or because he mistrusted his own cause, or because he feared that his messengers would be hindered by William and his associates, who were watching all the ports. The Pope weighed the arguments on both sides, and then sent a banner to William as an earnest of his kingdom."

(“Gesta Regum” )

While the question as to if William promised to make England a Papal fief continued to be denied throughout William's life. Is it coincidence that Archdeacon Hildebrand's plans never succeeded, as William's possible support through Norman adventurers failed to appear?

By 1066 William was now 'free' of all hostile, rival neighbours through conquest or natural death, whilst England was completely isolated.

The papacy was key- William sent envoys to Rome, but Harold did not.

William's envoys visited;-

• ·Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, William's embassy's visit here was a partial success, the Emp's advisors (in his minority) refused to directly aid William but agreed to defend Normandy from any aggressors, thus denying all potential English allies in Europe from getting through- if any defied the Pope?
• ·Swein II had his own designs for England, and also refused martial aid to Tostig, but did swear not to press his claims or send aid to H either (which he unofficially did for H anyway by allowing mercenaries to sail to Harold. Did Swein tell William's embassy of T's earlier visit?). Some say that Swein promised William support- even if nominal- from fear of Hardrada.
• ·King Philip of France next. William swore to pay homage to Philip for the kingdom of England!! IRONIC? Philip's advisors(inluding Baldwin- William's own father-in-law) wouldn't give troops, they were fearful of william growing too powerful. They argued that if they supported him and he was successful, it would cost them too dear in knights and money for little return, whereas if he failed they would face the wrath of an all-powerful harold!
• ·Baldwin of Flanders- ruling france during the young french King Philip's minority, was effectively William's vassal, but as his father-in-law he swore to safeguard Matilda and eldest son Robert in Normandy while William was on campaign. He cannily avoided giving direct aid(despite Flemish/English traditional hostility, ie.Viking raids from Flanders in the past and harbouring exiled enemies of England) only a promise of neutrality, despite harbouring Tostig(his in-law as was Harold!)- enemy now of England.
• ·Pope Alexander II Spring Finally William sent an embassy, led by Archdeacon Gilbert of Liseux, to the pope in S.Italy (put into power by the Norman, R.Guiscard in the early 1060's) in a masterstroke of PR and desperately needing to uphold his shaky claim to the English throne (mainly Ed's "promise" of 1051 and Harold's "oath" of 1064), gave his blessing to William for a 'Crusade' to England(under obligation?)- supposedly giving his embassy a Papal banner- thus effectively barring any European 'Christian' nation from aiding the 'usurper' and 'sacriligious' Harold, 

Why did King Harold not even bother to send one to Rome?

• ·Harold's supporter Archbishop Stigand of York would not be recognised by the Papacy- despite Archbishop Ealdred having the main role in his crowning.
• ·He knew the Pope had been placed in office by the powerful Norman-Sicilians (The pope was threatened by the Emperor Henry IV, by an anti-Pope Honorious II, and by the Lombards and the Greeks on mainland Italy. Therefore, appeasing the Normans was paramount.), thus it was a waste of time.
• ·English succession was NOT a papal matter, but for the Witan, so inconsequential. A bastard had no claim to the crown, under English law.
• ·Maybe he remembered Tostig's almost disastrous embassy to another pro-Norman Pope (Nicholas II) in 1061- where Bishop Ealdred was also present?
• ·Maybe he remembered the narrowly avoided "ambushes" on his own travels on the continent during the 1050’s - now all 'hostile' to him via William and the pope, that had been laid for him whilst escorting the aetheling during 1057?

Poem "The Battle of Hastings"

 Deeply the Abbot of Waltham sighed
When he heard the news of woe:
How King Harold had come to a pitiful end,
And on Hastings field lay low.

Asgod and Ailrik, two of his monks,
On the mission drear he sped
To search for the corse on the battle-plain
Among the bloody dead.
The monks arose and went sadly forth,
And returned as heavy-hearted.
O Father, the world's a bitter world,
And evil days have started.
For fallen, alack! is the better man;
The Bastard has won, and knaves
And scutcheoned thieves divide the land,
And make the freemen slaves.
The veriest rascals from Normandy,
In Britain are lords and sirs.
I saw a tailor from Bayeux ride
With a pair of golden spurs.
O woe to all who are Saxon born!
Ye Saxon saints, beware!
For high in heaven though ye dwell,
Shame yet may be your share.
Ah, now we know what the comet meant
That rode, blood-red and dire,
Across the midnight firmament
This year on a broom of fire.
Twas an evil star, and Hastings field
Has fulfilled the omen dread.
We went upon the battle-plain,
And sought among the dead.
While still there lingered any hope
We sought, but sought in vain;
King Harold's corse we could not find
Among the bloody slain.
Asgod and Ailrik spake and ceased.
The Abbot wrung his hands.
Awhile he pondered, then he sighed,
Now mark ye my commands.
By the stone of the bard at Grendelfield,
Just midway through the wood,
One, Edith of the Swan's Neck, dwells
In a hovel poor and rude.
They named her thus, because her neck
Was once as slim and white
As any swan's--when, long ago,
She was the king's delight.
He loved and kissed, forsook, forgot,
For such is the way of men.
Time runs his course with a rapid foot;
It is sixteen years since then.
To this woman, brethren, ye shall go,
And she will follow you fain
To the battle-field; the woman's eye
Will not seek the king in vain.
Thereafter to Waltham Abbey here
His body ye shall bring,
That Christian burial he may have,
While for his soul we sing.
The messengers reached the hut in the wood
At the hour of midnight drear.
Wake, Edith of the Swan's Neck, rise
And follow without fear.
The Duke of Normandy has won
The battle, to our bane.
On the field of Hastings, where he fought,
The king is lying slain.
Arise and come with us; we seek
His body among the dead.
To Waltham Abbey it shall be borne.
Twas thus our Abbot said.
The woman arose and girded her gown,
And silently went behind
The hurrying monks. Her grizzly hair
Streamed wildly on the wind.
Barefoot through bog and bush and briar
She followed and did not stay,
Till Hastings and the cliffs of chalk
They saw at dawn of day.
The mist, that like a sheet of white
The field of battle cloaked,
Melted anon; with hideous din
The daws flew up and croaked.
In thousands on the bloody plain
Lay strewn the piteous corpses,
Wounded and torn and maimed and stripped,
Among the fallen horses.
The woman stopped not for the blood;
She waded barefoot through,
And from her fixed and staring eyes
The arrowy glances flew.
Long, with the panting monks behind,
And pausing but to scare
The greedy ravens from their food,
She searched with eager care.
She searched and toiled the livelong day,
Until the night was nigh;
Then sudden from her breast there burst
A shrill and awful cry.
For on the battle-field at last
His body she had found.
She kissed, without a tear or word,
The wan face on the ground.
She kissed his brow, she kissed his mouth,
She clasped him close, and pressed
Her poor lips to the bloody wounds
That gaped upon his breast.
His shoulder stark she kisses too,
When, searching, she discovers
Three little scars her teeth had made
When they were happy lovers.
The monks had been and gotten boughs,
And of these boughs they made
A simple bier, whereon the corse
Of the fallen king was laid.
To Waltham Abbey to his tomb
The king was thus removed;
And Edith of the Swan's Neck walked
By the body that she loved.
She chanted litanies for his soul
With a childish, weird lament
That shuddered through the night. The monks
Prayed softly as they went.

"The Battlefield of Hastings" by Heinrich Heine

The Normans and the Papal banner?

Did the pope (then surrounded by Norman warlords in Italy/Sicilily) ever actually issued a Papal flag to William at all? Or did he merely extend a nominal, verbal promise of support which was "pounced upon" by propagandists such as the hagiographer, William of Poitiers)?

Papal banners were only ever issued during this era to endorse wars against muslims (then in Spain and Siciliy/S.Italy) or against those who had rebelled against Papal authority (Harold had not)- and not against fellow Christians.

A papal legate to England in 1062 found NO corruption worth noting- even against Archbishop Stigand- whom William left in office until 1070 (along with other English clerics)!
Odd for a man who had vowed to invade England to alledgedly to rid the land of supposed ecclesiastical corruption and pluralism?

In 1080 there followed a Papal decree which set the penance for having killed in a 'public war', a war that was sanctioned under the terms of the Truce of God.

It was after King William's coronation on 25th Dec 1066 (by Archbishop Ealdred, who also crowned his friend, King Harold!) that problems arose from promises the Pope claimed William had made and that King William denied (1080).
The disputes were:-

* On the amount of Peter's Pence owed to Rome,
* the right of Rome to call upon Norman Bishops to attend Rome with a
full complement of milites.

In fact Bishop Odo was arrested for perhaps attempting to obey such a summons, by William, when accompanied by his own knights!

While the question as to if William promised to make England a Papal fief continued to be denied throughout William's life.
Is it coincidence that Archdeacon Hildebrand's plans never succeeded, as William's possible support through Norman adventurers failed to appear?

When Harold broke his supposed 'oath' to support Duke William's claim to the English throne, it fell on two members of the church to find a solution from which the Church would most benefit.

* Prior Lanfranc of the Abbey of Bec, a trusted servant to Duke William, who was entrusted to go yet again to Rome to gain papal support for William.
* While in Rome, Archdeacon Hildebrand (future pope Gregory VII), the political power behind the papal throne, had his own plans far beyond assisting the Norman Duke.

It is probable that these two formidable ecclesiastical politicians had met on Lanfranc's earlier mission to Rome to obtain papal sanction and blessing on the controversial marriage of Duke William and Matilda- delayed due to accusations of consanguinity. (The pair founded two abbeys to allay such grief - Abbey aux Hommes and Abbey aux Dames)
This mission was successful and we can assume that two such similar clergymen established a strong and useful partnership.

Archdeacon Hildebrand's plan was to establish a temporal power base throughout Italy and beyond, by using those newly seized lands established by Norman mercenaries, such as Robert Guiscard Conqueror of Naples.
Some of these new nobles had sworn themselves as fiefs to Holy Mother Church, thus these 'Priest-Knights' obtained political recognition through the Church.

By increasing the number of devoted Normans willing to conquer new lands for the church and establish new fiefs, Rome could obtain a massive power base not only in Italy but over the alps and indeed wherever such fiefs could be founded.
The Archdeacons only problem was the lack of Normans capable of seizing such lands. And William was holding out?

It would further these plans greatly if the Duke of Normandy and perhaps the future King of England would give his political support, if not his available knights?

The claimants to the English crown in 1066

The future of England hung on the key factor during the 1060's- who would succeed the aging and childless English (half-Norman) King, Edward the Confessor. By late 1065, it was clear Edward was dying, and so there were several claimants to the contested crown;-

* Duke William of Normandy: This dominant and ruthless nobleman had proved himself a fearsome and cunning opponent in Politics and warfare, at which his multi-skilled army excelled, and was a distant kinsman of the aging king of England, who alledgedly had promised him the succession back in 1051, when William is rumoured to have visited England.
Some scholars say that William was too busy fighting to protect his Dukedom and couldn't have afforded the time to visit Edward at that turbulent time in Normandy.
The oath of 1064 (see Harold Godwinson) is still a contentious issue amongst scholars.

* King Harald Hardraada('Hard Ruler') Sigurdsson of Norway: This feared and famous warrior-king had always coveted the English crown by virtue of the crown having been 'promised' by King Edward back in the mid-1040's, to his half-nephew and predecessor, Magnus.
He was a ferocious opponent and had been a commander in the notorious Varangian Guard for the Byzantine Emperor, before sailing back to Norway a wealthy man, gaining the throne and resuming war with the below Danish king until both exhausted sides entered a weary truce in the early 1060's. This enabled both nations to look again at England....

* King Swein Estrithsson of Denmark: This kinsman of Earl Harold (below) had been also claimed he had been 'promised' the crown by Edward in the mid-1040's, but like his Norse enemies, with whom he was locked in two decades of bitter warfare until the early 1060's, it was only bitter internecine fighting in Scandinavia that prevented him from invading England to stake his claim until 1069, when he finally did launch an invasion against (Norman) England at the invitation of the rebel English nobles.

* Earl Harold Godwinson of Wessex: This provenly capable and popular Anglo-Danish nobleman warrior and royal ambassador, son of King Edward's former right-hand man, the wealthy and influential English Earl Godwin, had always loyally served King Edward through thick and thin from the 1040's, and especially 1053 when his father Godwin died.
He had even opposed his own brother, Earl Tostig of Northumbria, and -representing the ailing Edward, who ironically was fond of Tostig and opposed to rebellion- agreed a pact with a huge advancing revolt of a coalition of Northumbrian noblemen in late 1065.
It is suggested by some that Harold was a realist, seeing that he would have to seize the coveted crown (actually in January 1066 he was elected by the witan, popularly) and thus sought to appease the northerners, whom he knew he would need once England was threatened?
The Normans simply state that he 'usurped' the crown instead of their Duke (ie. in 1064 Harold had been shipwrecked in France and was a 'guest' of William's, swearing an 'oath' in Normandy to back William's claim to English kingship)? But was it a valid 'oath' when the Normans admit it was conducted "over hidden relics"?

* Aethling Edgar: Sometimes called the 'true' Cerdic heir, the English-born son of Edward 'the Exile' (spirited away from England to Hungary as a youth to avoid execution under the new viking regime of Canute, dying as he returned to his estranged land in 1057) grandson of King Edmund 'Ironside' (reigned and died 1016), he was overlooked by the all-saying Witangemot (Councils of the rich and powerful etc) in the desperate times of the succession debate of 1066 due to his mere youth (c.14yrs) and lack of military experience. He seems not to have resisted or opposed Harold Godwinson, and later rebelled against King William I (despite being granted modest lands in 1067) and later went on the 1st Crusade.
Troublesome commanders to consider:-

* Tostig Godwinson, former Earl of Northumbria (above) and younger brother of Earl/King Harold. He, a southerner and thus innately unpopular anyway, but had ruled their region sternly with 'harsh laws', had supposedly profited by corruption and had had local nobles slain in cold blood.
He had thus been ousted by the Englishmen who had risen whilst he was away in the south of England (his own brother Harold negotiating a deal with the Northern noble rebel leaders at Oxford on 'behalf' of the king).
Burning for revenge against his 'treacherous' brother Harold, and eager to regain his lost earldom, he and his family had fled to the father of his wife Judith (the auntie of Duke William's wife, Mathilda), Baldwin of Flander's court, where he resolutely tried to persuade several contestants to raise a fleet to invade England- alledgedly Duke William and his cousin, Swein of Denmark, but finally he became the subject of Harald of Norway, who had his own claim to press. Tostig was slain along with Hardraada at the battle of Stamford Bridge, Sept 25th 1066, fighting against his brother Harold.

* Malcolm III 'Canmore' ('Big Head') of Scotland. This former child exile, who had been raised in the English court after being ousted by Macbeth's ascension to the throne, had been put on his Scottish throne as a young adult with the military aid of King Edward of England (via earl Siward of Northumbria) in the 1050's.
He soon decided to launch huge raids into Northumbria/Cumbria despite Tostig's apparently tough stance, but the latter did nothing military, they even became 'sworn brothers' whilst at Edward's court, yet Malcolm didn't support Tostig in 1065, nor Harold in 1066 (apparently offering an uneasy truce and harbour to Harald Hardraada's huge veteran invasion fleet of September 1066), and went on to marry Margaret (later Saint), the sister of the above aethling, Edgar. He was killed at Alnick in 1093 along with his eldest son, Queen Margaret died of grief days later.