Compare the fighting on land, in World War 1 with the fighting in 1066

In this essay, I am going to explain some of the differences between 1066, and World War 1. This essay will include the differences in Weapons, Uniform, and the Cavalry. I will be writing about five things, which are similar, and also some which are different. In 1066, weapons were a lot different to those in World War 1. In 1066, they would have used the following; swords, lances, spears, and shields. None of these items were used in World War 1. The Shield was made of wood, and would have been covered in leather, which would then have been painted and glided.

It was made in a kite shape, so that it would protect the whole of the body, whilst on a horse. The surface was curved, and could be held horizontally, or vertically. The lance was light, and easy to direct. This made the length and diameter, very limited. The force of the penetration came from the swift movement from the arm. The sword had a wide straight blade, which had two cutting edges separated by a shallow small-ridged central groove. They would have been decorated with metal protective pieces.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The horses were also well protected, and would have been submerged in iron. The long stems had short, but sharp points. In World War 1 though, the weapons get more advanced, and a lot more powerful. Some of the weapons used, were Machine guns, rifles, tanks, bayonets, mortars, howitzers and many more. The machine gun could fire 450-600 rounds per minute. There would have been two per battalion. The machine gun was not very accurate at long range. Two examples of machine guns were Maxim and Vickers. The bayonets resulted in 0. 5% of deaths, in World War 1, whereas the rifles were used more for self-protection. sas The tanks could cross trenches, as wide as 10ft, and had a range of 15 miles.

Camouflage was used a lot in World War 1. It was applied, using paint patterns, netting and painted screens. These are only a few of the forms of camouflage, which were used to fool the naked eye. There were some comparisons though, which were that they both wore uniform, they would not have looked the same. Uniform was worn to tell apart the regiments. They both would have worn helmets, for protection from missiles coming from overhead. They also would have both had horses, which were used to move and carry weapons about.

In World War 1, the armour would have varied between the types of services, each soldier worked in. are The infantryman’s standard service dress was khaki, consisting of a peaked cap, a tunic with large pockets, shirt and trousers, which were bound below the knee by puttees. He wore stout leather ankle boots. Mounted men also wore spurs. He would carry in his kitbag spare boots, tunic, trousers, shirt, socks and underwear. He also had a greatcoat and a woollen cap. There was webbing, with two leather multi-pocket carriers, which in total could carry 150 rounds of ammunition.

It would also have a haversack containing rations and cutlery, a bayonet scabbard, a water bottle in a small harness, an entrenching tool. When the soldier was fully equipped, this totalled 61 pounds (27. 7 kg) in weight. ety An industrial worker would be issued with a steel helmet. From mid-1915, men were also issued with some form of protection against poison gas. The P (phenate) gas helmet with glass eyepieces was introduced in November 1915. It did not protect adequately against Phosgene, and was replaced by the PH (Phenate-Hexamine) helmet from January 1916.

From August 1916, the PH was replaced by the small box respirator, which although an unwieldy design gave protection against the different gases in use. Infantry officers wore a better-tailored jacket with a tie. They wore breeches rather than trousers, with a Sam Browne leather belt. They carried a haversack with compass, water bottle, mess tin, wire cutters and binoculars. Officers also carried a sword and pistol in a latter case. The officer’s spare kit and personal effects were carried in a leather valise that was carried by the transport.

During winter periods, goatskin fleeces would also have been worn, instead of balaclavas, scarves, gloves etc. Whereas in 1066, only knights would have worn armour, as the peasants who were fighting would not have been able to afford to equip themselves with armour of their own. They would have worn an iron helmet, had a protective nosepiece attached. The Horsemen would have worn knee length mail shirts, or hauberks made of interlocking iron rings. World War 1 was fought mainly in Belgium, and Germany, whereas in 1066, the battles were fought in Britain, whilst fighting for certain towns and villages.

The food in World War 1 would have been taken individually to soldiers, in the trenches. Whereas in 1066, the Normans, would have carried food around with them, after raiding a village or town, to stock up on supply. The food would have varied, due to what the Normans could get, but the soldiers in World War 1, would have got the same type of meal, quite regularly. The Normans were fighting to gain land, from England, whereas in World War 1, Britain was fighting for allied countries, against others who were invading them.

The Norman army consisted of 7,000 strong men, of which 3,000 were mounted knights in armour. The Normans also used several hundred ships, to move his army from different places. The amount of soldiers in World War 1, cannot be confirmed, but we do know that there were many tens of thousands men, from just Britain alone. There were many differences, between World War 1, and 1066, which I have shown. The uniforms, weapons, and cavalry were all different in many types of way, but did have their similarities.