Tomymother,SarahHelenaJoel1907-2002

andtoallthemanyfriendsmetandmadeatPykeHouse,Battle

CONTENTS

Title

Dedication

Preface

1Anglo-SaxonEngland:AlfredtotheConfessor

2TheReignofEdwardtheConfessor

3Normandybefore1066

4ArmsandArmies

5TheYear1066

6TheSourcesfortheBattle

7TheBattle

8Afterwards

Bibliography

Notes

Plates

Copyright

W

PREFACE

riting a book on thebattleofHastingsfora

medievalhistorianisabitlikereviewing one’s life. Amongthesouvenirsof thepast,ourhome is decorated with suchthings as Bayeux Tapestrycurtains and a BayeuxTapestry cover on a dressingtable. My wife Ann and I

have spent many holidays inNormandy, fromBayeuxandRouen to Caen, Falaise,Fécamp, Alençon … theConqueror’sfootprintstreadawidepath.The project provides an

opportunitytothankallthosewho have contributed toone’seducationandinterests.These aremany and various.They include my father whohad an interest in history

which probably stirred myearliest curiosity. Atsecondary schoolmy interestin medieval history was firstseriouslysparkedbyMrR.A.Dare, whom I can see nowwithhiseyesclosedandarmswaving, carried away bysome event from that era.Atuniversity I received muchhelp and inspiration fromCharlesDuggan,whowasmytutor, and Gerald Hodgett,

whoalsotaughtme.Interest turned to

something more on the MAcourse I took as a maturestudent, married and withchildren, in London. ThetutorsonthiscourseIviewedrather as friends, and theirassistance was patient andchanged my life. They wereChristopher Holdsworth,Julian Brown, and above allAllenBrown,whowentonto

supervise my unfinishedMPhil and PhD research. Irecall an essay I wrote forAllenBrownintheearlydaysofthatcourse,onthebattleofHastings.IchosetopraisethequalitiesofHaroldratherthanthoseofWilliamasageneral,forwhich temerity I sufferedacertainamountofcriticism.Allen’s help is almost

impossible to record, it wasso varied, from teaching to

advice and especially thevarious social occasions hesupervised. I remember inparticular themany eveningsspent at the pub, theMarquessofAnglesey,wheremost – I think all – of mysupervisions took place.ThereIgainedmuchfromthefriendship of othermedievalists, including suchlifelong friends as NickHooper, Matt Bennett, Chris

Harper-Bill and RichardMortimer.Nodoubtthescenehelpstoexplainthefailuretocomplete the project (onwarfare in Stephen’s reign)on which I spent eight yearsof part-time research, thoughI think in the end it was notentirelywithoutprofit.Hastings inevitably takes

onetoBattle.Itisimpossiblein one book to acknowledgeall the information, help,

discussion, encouragementreceived there. Battle meansPyke House and the Anglo-Norman Studies conference,and here another debt toAllen Brown, who initiatedtheconferencewithhelpfromGillianMurtonandwhokeptit going through the rest ofhislife.Thefriendsmadeandmet at Pyke House aremyriad. It was the mostcongenial of all meeting

places, thanks to theministrations of, amongothers, old Hobby and,moreparticularly, Peter Birch andhisaides,includingespeciallythat gourmet’s delight, thecateringheadformanyyears,YvonneHarris.IhavebeentoPykeHouse

times beyond counting: forthe annual conference, toteach East Sussex CountyCouncil weekend courses,

and to take student groupsduringthetwentyoddyearsItaught at Borough Road andWestLondonInstitute.Attheconferencesonemetvirtuallyevery historianwhomatteredfortheAnglo-Normanperiod,including friends fromHolland, Japan, France,Germany and the States.OutstandingamongthesewasWarren Hollister, whosework on warfare I much

admired before I met him,and who became a long-standing friendwith hiswifeand companion at Battle,Edith.Perhaps the first course I

participatedinatPykeHousewasoneonmedievalwarfarein general, which Allenorganised. One of thespeakers was the great latermedievalist whose life cametoatragicend,CharlesRoss.

Allen always believed in agood lunch-time session inthe pub, and as a result anumber of speakers andmembers of the audiencewereratherdrowsyduringtheafternoon sessions, not leasthimself. One afternoonCharles Ross was lecturingand noticed that Allen wasgently snoozing in the frontrow. When it came toquestion time, a difficult

point was put to him and,with malicious glee, heretorted,‘ALLEN![wakinghimup]what do you think aboutthat?’The lectures at the main

conferences were mostvaluable and are of courserecorded in the Anglo-Norman Studies journal,commencing in 1978 andcontinuingafterAllen’sdeathunder the editorships of

Marjorie Chibnall, ChrisHarper-Bill, JohnGillinghamand Chris lewis. But evenmore valuable, to my mind,have been the socialoccasions: the sherry partiesattheabbeyandaboveallthedrinking sessions in TheChequers, thepubnext door.Who could forget in thathostelry seeing Allen Brownand Raymonde Forevillereplaying the battle of

Hastings on the bar billiardstable, or Cecily Clarkselecting her horses for theday? Numerous interestingday-trips were organisedduring the conferences, andthese too hold many happymemories.Pyke House was also the

venue for various studenttrips. The attraction, ofcourse,was in the first placeits position on ‘the

battlefield’ of Hastings, theback garden being the bestsurviving slope of the hill.Here I spentmany enjoyableweekends,oftenwithstudentsfrom other institutions,sharing the lecturing withfriendssuchasAnnWilliams,Chris Harper-Bill and BrianGolding, of what were thenNorth London Poly andStrawberry Hill, and what isstill SouthamptonUniversity.

My companion from WestLondon on these trips wasoften Nick Kingwell, whowould generously submergehis fifteenth-century intereststo participate in theseeleventh-centurycelebrations.A memory that slips

unbidden into one’s mind isof waking in one of thepleasant bedrooms at PykeHouse to open the curtainsandwatchthesunrisingover

‘the battlefield’, of quietlygoing out to tramp throughthedewygrass.Ihavealwaysbeen an early riser and likedto walk into Battle to buy aGuardian, an Observer, orlatterly the Independent. Onmany an early morning Iwould pass others out fortheir early morningconstitutional, mostmemorably Brian Golding,the fanatical bar billiards

player,whosepaceatwalkingwas twice that of any otherperson I have known. Iaccompanied him on anhour’swalkonemorning,butonlyonce.Onotheroccasionsone remembers AnnWilliams’ or ChristineMahany’s dogs diving intothemuddypoolsatthefootofthehill.AlastingmemoryofBattle

and Pyke House is of my

friend Ian Peirce. Ian seemsto have been at almost allthese events: conferences,student weekends, EastSussexweekends.Sometimesindeed I sharedwith him theteaching of a course on theNorman Conquest. Butalways, usually without anyrecompensebeyondadrinkinThe Chequers, Ian wouldperform for an audience,bringing his collection of

medieval weapons, his ownconstructionsofweaponsandarmour and his expertise onthe subject for the benefit ofall and sundry. Many, likemyself, must have gainedfrom the experience of beingdressedasaNormanwarrior,and I have embarrassingphotos to prove it in manycases, from Simon Keynesand Marjorie Chibnall toDominicaLegge,whohad to

be rescued as she tottereddown the hill under theweightofthearmour.In short, this for me is a

book of many memories,nearly all pleasant. I shouldlike also to thank all thoseinvolved at SuttonPublishing, at whosesuggestion this book waswritten, in particular RogerThorp and Jane Crompton,and for their patience and

careinseeingit through;andClareBishop for all herhardwork in editing andassemblinginthefinalstages.Forallthemanyotherfriendsat Battle and elsewherewhosenamesIhavefailedtorecallormention, thankstoo,and may we raise anotherglass in The Chequers onedaysoon.

JimBradbury

Selsey1997Revised2009

ONE

ANGLO-SAXONENGLAND:

ALFRED TO THECONFESSOR

DEVELOPMENTOFTHE

KINGDOM

In April 1066 Halley’scomet crossed the English

heavens. It appeared in thenorth-west and was visiblefor a week or two. Manycommentators noticed it, andit isrepresentedpictoriallyinthe Bayeux Tapestry, with atail looking somewhat like agarden rake, ‘the long-hairedstar’ according to one whosaw it, wondered at in theTapestry by a group of

pointing men. Recently wehave been able to watch acomet (Hale-Bopp) crossingthe night sky in a similarmanner, and have perhapsexperiencedsomethingof thewonder felt bymen in 1066,though Halley’s cometappears more regularly thanHale-Bopp, about everyseventy-five years. Halley’scometappearedlast in1985–6, but its position in 1066

would have made it a gooddeal brighter, rather asHale-Bopp looked in 1997. TheslightlyblurryobjectofHale-Bopp, moving a little in thesky each night and plainlydistinctfromallthestars,willnot appear again in ourlifetime.Itremindsoneofthesmallness of man and theshortnessoflife.In 1066 most

commentatorsinEnglandfelt

that the appearance of thecomet presaged change andperhaps evil. One chronicler,writinga little later, said that‘learned astrologers whoinvestigate the secrets ofscience declared that thismeant change in thekingdom’. A poet thoughtthat it ‘announced to theEnglish fated destruction’.WilliamofPoitiersaddressedthe dead Harold Godwinson:

this comet was ‘the presageof your ruin’.1 Their mindswere moulded by a recenthistory which had seen raidsand conquest, changes ofdynasty, disorder andinstability. No wonder theywere resigned to expectingfurther change, andpessimisticaboutitsnature.2By 1066 it is true that

Englandwasoneof themostdeveloped political units in

western Europe, in an agewhen the West itself wasbeginning to flex itsmuscleswith regard to the widerworld. The boundaries withneighbouring countries werenotquiteastheyarenowbut,nevertheless, England was ageographicalentitywhichwecan recognise. By 1066 thekings of England had begunto establish some dominationovertheScotsandtheWelsh,

though it was far fromcomplete or certain tosurvive. Scotland was itselfdevelopingasakingdom,andtherelationshipwithEnglandwasoneofacknowledgementofpowerbutnothingclosetoEnglishconquestandcontrol.Wales seemed morevulnerable, lacking thepolitical unity which wasemerginginScotland.Irelandhad escaped any contact as

directas that inScotlandandWales so far. However,Scandinavian settlements inIreland, and raids from thereagainst England, were aconstant reminder of thedangersofhostileelementsinsuchanearbyisland.Across the Channel the

politicalunitsalsohadafacewhich is familiar, but with astructure unlike that of thelaternationstates.TheFrench

kingdom, formed from thewestern section of the oldCarolingian Empire, wasfinding its feet. But theCapetian kings werestruggling to maintain powerwithin their own demesnelands,mostlyaroundParis.Royal power was not

unrecognised in the countiesand duchies which weconsider to be French, butthose principalities were not

far from being independent,the dukes and counts oftenhaving almost royal power.ThiswastrueoftheduchyofNormandy, geographicallybound to have connectionswithEngland.Itwasalsotrueof the county of Flanders.Flanders was less tightlylinked to France than wasNormandy,thoughtherewereconnections.Placedas itwason thebordersofFrance and

theGermanEmpire,Flanderslooked in both directions. IntheeleventhcenturyFlandersseemed potentially greaterthan Normandy, not leastbecause of its rapidlygrowingtowns.Flanders,likeNormandy, wasgeographically near toEngland,andevenmore thanNormandy had economiclinks with England throughthe growth of the Flemish

cloth industry, which wasalreadyinevidence.The English kings had

been more successful by theeleventh century than theirCapetian counterparts inestablishing authority overthe great magnates in theprovinces. In the case ofEngland, thismeant over theformer kingdoms ofNorthumbria,EastAngliaandMercia.Historically,sincethe

royaldynastyhadcomefromthe former kingdom ofWessex,whichhad in earliercenturies establishedauthority over much of thesouth,thekingscouldusuallyrely on holding that areasafely, but the hold over thenorthern areas was lesscertain.The Wessex kings had

faced invasion from withoutas well as opposition from

within.ThesuccessofAlfredthe Great had been onlypartial, and Scandinaviansettlement often provided afifth column of support forany Scandinavian-basedinvader. Such invasionsbrought periods of severeinstability. Ironically,although in many waysEngland was better unifiedandeconomicallystrongerbythe eleventh century than it

had been, it was also lesspoliticallystable.These two threads, of

economic and politicaladvanceontheonehand,andinvasionandinstabilityontheother,areourmainthemesinthis chapter. The politicalinstability encouraged hopesofsuccessby invaders,whilethe economic successprovided wealth, which gavea motive for making the

attempt. The history ofEngland from the ninthcenturyonwardsismarkedbyperiodsofcrisis.The most consistent cause

for this was the threat fromScandinavia. The earliestVikingraidshadbeenmainlybytheNorse,butthroughtheninthcenturythechiefdangercame from the Danes. TheScandinavian threat was atthe same time the spur

towards unity and the threatofdestructiontothekingdomofEngland.From themiddleof theninthcentury thescaleoftheraidsincreased,sothatlarge fleets of severalhundredshipscame,carryinginvadersratherthanraiders.In the ten years from 865,

EastAnglia,Northumbriaandhalf of Mercia had beenoverrun. The Vikingsattacked and conquered the

great northern and midlandkingdoms – Northumbria,with its proud pastachievements, and Mercia,which under Offa haddominated English affairsthrough much of the ninthcentury. As earldoms, theseregions would have acontinued importance, butafter the Danish conquestthey would never again beentirely independent and

autonomouspowers.TheScandinavian invasion

was also a threat toChristianity, by now wellestablishedinEngland.Whenthe Viking attacks began theraiders were pagan and thewealth of the churches andmonasteries became alucrativetarget.Evenby1012the Vikings could seize andkillAelfheah,theArchbishopof Canterbury, when he

refusedtoberansomed:‘theypelted him with bones, andwith ox heads, and one ofthem struck him on the headwith the back of an axe sothat he sank down with theblow and his holy blood fellon the ground’.3 It does notsuggest much respect fororganisedChristianity.SweynForkbeard and Cnut werecommitted Christians, butmanyof their followerswere

still pagan.One notes that inthe 1050s an Irish Vikingleader made a gift of a 10-foot-high gold cross toTrondheimChurch,butitwasmade from the proceedslooted during raids intoWales.The Viking conquest

pushedtheseparatekingdomsand regions of the Englishinto a greater degree ofmutualalliance.History, race

and religion gave a sense ofcommon alienation fromthese attackers: ‘all theAngles and Saxons – thosewho had formerly beenscattered everywhere andwere not in captivity to thevikings – turned willingly toKing Alfred, and submittedthemselves to his lordship’.4SotheVikingthreatplayedamajor role in bringing theunified kingdom of England

intobeing.The reign of Alfred the

Great (871–99) was offundamental importance inthe unification process.AfteracenturyofVikingraids,theEnglish kingdoms crumbledbefore the powerfulScandinavian thrust of thelater ninth century. Alfredcould not have expected hisrise to kingship: he was thelast of four sons of

Aethelwulf to come to thethrone. Though severelypressed,AlfredsavedWessexin a series of battles whichculminated in the victory atEdingtonandthepeacetreatyatWedmore.

Wessex dynasty Kings ofEngland

Wessex was the onlysurviving Anglo-Saxonkingdom,and thenucleusfora national monarchy. Thetaking over of London byAlfred in 886 was asignificant moment in thehistory of the nation. Alfredwas also instrumental in the

designing and implementingof a scheme of nationaldefencethroughthesystemofurban strongholds known asburhs. Each burh had strongdefensive walls and wasmaintained by a nationallyorganised arrangement formaintenance and garrisoning.He also reorganised thearmed forces, establishing arotasystemwhichmeantthatapermanentarmywasalways

in the field, and building afleetofnewlydesignedshipsfornavaldefence.Alfred’s successors as

kings of Wessex andEngland, his son Edward theElder (899–924) and hisgrandson Aethelstan (924–39),increasedtheauthorityofthe crown over the northernand midland areas. Alreadybytheearlytenthcentury,allEnglandsouthoftheHumber

was in Edward the Elder’spower. Even the Danes inCambridge ‘chose him astheir lordandprotector’.5Hewon a significant victoryagainst the Vikings ofNorthumbria in 910 atTettenhall. Aethelstanmarried the daughter ofSihtric, the Norse king ofYork, and on his father-in-law’s death took over thatcity. The hold on the north

wasnotsecure,andwouldyetbe lost to Scandinavian rule,butAethelstancouldtrulyseehimselfaskingofEngland.Edward the Elder and

Aethelstan also extended theburghal system as theyadvanced their power, andimproved the administrativesupport of the monarchy,making themselves strongerandwealthier in the process.Over thirty burhs were

developed, containing asizeable proportion of thepopulation. It is said that noone was more than 20 milesawayfromtheprotectionofaburh. They also gave a safefocus for the increasingmerchant communitiesengaging in continental aswellasinternaltrade.By918Edwardwas in control of allEnglandsouthoftheHumber,while Aethelstan could call

himself ‘the king of allBritain’,which his victory atBrunanburgh in 937 to someextentconfirmed.Edmund (939–46)

succeeded his brotherAethelstan, but hisassassination by one of hissubjects, in the church atPucklechurch,Gloucestershire, in 946,brought a new period ofcrisis. For a time the

Scandinavians re-establishedtheir power at York, and athreatening alliance wasestablished with Vikingsettlers in Ireland. Recoverybeganwith the efforts of theprovincial rulers, theealdormen, rather than fromany exertions by themonarchy, through suchmenas Aelfhere in Mercia,Aethelwold in East AngliaandByrhtnothinEssex.Thus

Merciawasrecoveredin942,andNorthumbria in944.Theexpulsion of Eric Bloodaxefrom York in 954 finallybrought the north undersoutherninfluenceagain.The monarchy recovered

through the efforts of Edgar(959–75). He was ‘a mandiscerning, gentle, humble,kindly, generous,compassionate, strong inarms, warlike, royally

defending the rights of hiskingdom’; to his enemies ‘afierce and angry lion’.6 Aclearerpictureemergesofthegovernment of the landthrough shires and courts. Itwas the time of the greatchurch leader Dunstan, whobecame Archbishop ofCanterbury and oversawimportant monastic reformand revival. On a famousoccasion seven (possibly

eight) ‘kings’ from variouspartsoftheBritishIslescameto Edgar at Chester and, tosymbolise his lordship overthem,rowedhiminaboatonthe River Dee. It was Edgarwhomadeanagreementwiththe king of Scots, which forthe first time established anagreed boundary betweentheirrespectivekingdoms.Edgar also reformed the

coinage,andbyhistimethere

is good evidence for suchregular features ofgovernment as a writingoffice,theuseofsealedwrits,a council known as thewitenagemot, and thewritingdown of laws. UnderAethelstan and Edgar, theealdormen gained a broaderpower, often over formerkingdoms – Mercia, EastAnglia and Northumbria.Theirpowerhasbeenseenas

vice-regal. Beneath this wasdeveloping the organisationof shires, themselvessubdivided into hundreds,probably formilitary reasonsinthefirstplace,butcertainlyalso for the convenience oflocaladministrationunderthemonarchy. Edgar’s reign hasbeencalled‘thehighpointinthe history of the Anglo-Saxonstate’.7Edgar was only thirty-two

whenhediedin975.HissonEdward (the Martyr, 975–8)succeeded him. Although hequickly made himself anunpopularking,hismurderatCorfe in 978 was widelycondemnedandblameduponhis brother Aethelred, whothereby gained the throne.Edward was hurried to hisgrave, according to theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle:‘without any royal honours

… and no worse deed thanthis for the English peoplewas committed since firstthey came to Britain’.8Aethelred was very young,and is unlikely to have hadany real part in the killing,but it is possible that hismother (Edward’sstepmother) had, and menfrom Aethelred’s householdwereimplicated.Theirritableand unlikeable Edward

ironically has gone down inhistoryasEdwardtheMartyr,though it is unlikely that hesoughtdeathorthatpietywasin any way involved. It wasclaimed that ‘strife threw thekingdominto turmoil,movedshire against shire, familyagainst family,princeagainstprince, ealdorman againstealdorman, drove bishopagainst the people and thefolk against the pastors set

overthem’.9Natural phenomena, like

thecomet,werealwaysnotedand taken as presages of thefuture. In the year ofAethelred’s ascension theAnglo-Saxon chroniclerreportedthat:‘abloodycloudwasoftenseeninthelikenessof fire, and especially it wasrevealed at midnight, and itwas formed in various shaftsof light’. It was an

inauspiciousbeginning to theunfortunate rule ofAethelredII(978–1016),thoughhewas‘elegant in his manners,handsome in visage, gloriousinappearance’,itwastobe‘areign of almost unremittingdisaster’. Work on hischartershasshownsomethingof how his governmentworked,buthasdonelittletoretrieve his reputation ingeneral.10 One charter read:

‘since in our days we sufferthe fires of war and theplunderingof our riches, andfrom the cruel depredationsofour enemies…we live inperiloustimes’.In 986 there was a ‘great

murrain’; in 1005 a ‘greatfamine throughout England’,the worst in living memory;in 1014 there was floodingfrom the sea which rose‘higher than ithadeverdone

before’, submerging wholevillages. Of 987 it was saidthere were two diseases‘unknown to the Englishpeople in earlier times’, afever inmenandaplague inlivestock, called ‘scitte’ inEnglish, and ‘fluxus’ of thebowelsinLatin,sothatmanymenandalmostallthebeastsdied. Ravaging and naturaldisasters seemed to matcheach other in their

destruction.11Weknowtheking,through

mistranslation, as Aethelredthe Unready. The nameAethelred means noble orgood counsel, and he waspunningly nicknamed‘unraed’, which means notunreadybutbad,evilornon-existent counsel,makinghim‘Good Counsel the BadlyCounselled’; or perhaps‘Good Counsel who gives

bad advice’.12 The death ofEdward immediately set thatking’sclosefollowersagainstAethelred. Aethelred’s reignin many ways isrepresentative of the wholedilemmaforEnglishkings inthe pre-Conquest period:whether to concentrate moston the fight to maintainstability at home, or to focusondefence.It was in this period that

the Viking threat emergedonce more, and on a greaterscale than ever previously. IfonethinkshowcloseEnglandhadcometosubmissionwhendefendedbythegreatAlfred,it is less surprising that athreat greater than he facedshould be too much for theless impressive Aethelred II.ThemajordifferencewasthatleadingScandinavianfigures,including ruling monarchs,

now became involved in theattacksonEngland.Conquestrather than raiding became aclearobjective.The new wave of threats

openedwith the raid of OlafTryggvasonin991.Aethelredhimself did not take part inthemainattempttodealwiththisattack,whenanarmymetthe Danes at Maldon. Afamous poem commemoratestheevent.TheEnglishleader,

Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, seemsoverconfidently to haveallowed the Vikings to crossfrom Northey Island to themainland,nodoubtbelievinghe would be able to defeatthem in battle. He hadmiscalculated: the battle waslostandhewaskilled.Vikingattacks increased in theeleventh century with theinvasionofSweynForkbeard,kingofDenmark(983–1014),

soon aided by his son Cnut.During the eleventh centurythere were at least fiveattempts at invasion, threeofwhichsucceeded.Aethelredpursuedapolicy

of attempted appeasement,paying tributes to theattackers. The Anglo-SaxonChronicle records in 991: ‘itwas determined that tributeshould first be paid to theDanish men because of the

greatterrortheywerecausingalong the coast’, and it waseven recognised as‘appeasement’.13Tributewaspaid in that year of £10,000,and again, for example, in994,1002,1007and1012.Promisesweremadenotto

attack again in return forlarge sums of money. Thepromises were sometimeskept and sometimes ignored.In any case the hope of

obtaining such easy rewardfor simply going away wasnot likely tohave adeterrenteffect.Thiswasexpressedbyan Englishman as ‘in returnforgoldwearereadytomakea truce’. Over half a centurysome £250,000 was paid intribute.14 One has the visionofViking leaders scramblingovereachotherinhastetogetat the cash fromwealthy butweak England. One tribute

paid in order to buy time sothat on the next occasion asolid fight might be madewould have been one thing;buttributefollowedbytributefollowed by tribute, in whatbecame virtually an annualritual,presentedlittlehopeofresolving or even lesseningthe problem. The Anglo-SaxonChronicle thought thatthese efforts caused ‘theoppression of the people, the

waste of money, and theencouragement of theenemy’.15England may have been

wealthy in comparison tosome states, but toEnglishmen at the time lifedidnotseemrosy.Taxeshadto be imposed: the heregeldor army tax, later known asdanegeld, first appearing in1012.Moneywasleviedbothto support armed forces and

to pay off the enemy. Theheavy taxation which thetributes necessitated wasresented, and royal reevespresseddemandswhichmadethem unpopular. Wulfstansaidof them that ‘morehavebeen robbers than righteousmen’.16 Property might beseized without apparent justreason. One Englishmanwrote ‘the Lord multiplieschildren, but early sickness

takes them away’; andanother spoke of the variousways in which death mightstrike: wolves, hunger, war,accident, hanging, andbrawling. There was adesperate desire for moreorder. The general feeling ofmalaise in England, ofineffective defence, isreflected in the Anglo-SaxonChronicle.17In theeleventhcentury the

English lacked that unity ofpurposewhichhad supportedAlfredtheGreatandothersinearliercrises.Thereweretwosignificant factors. One wasthe attitude of thedescendants of Scandinaviansettlers in eastern England,who inevitably tended to feelsympathetic towards newScandinavian leaders whoappearedonthescene.Such latent hostility to the

Wessex kings was worsenedby Aethelred’s inconsistentconduct.Onemomenthewaspaying tribute to raiders, thenext he was killing Danessettled in England. In 1002occurredthefamousslaughterof St Brice’s Day, when theking ordered ‘to be slain alltheDanishmenwhowere inEngland’.Thisisnodoubtanexaggeration, and perhaps hehad some cause for action;

possiblyonlyrecentlyarrivedDanes were the victims, anditwas said that hehadheardof a plot against himself andhis counsellors.18 But hisaction did not remove theDanishsettlements,anditdidnothelptoremovetheethnicdivisionwithinthekingdom.The second factor was the

lack of cohesion among theEnglish magnates. Theeleventh century is dotted

with tales of treachery andrebellion,ofdisputesbetweenmagnates and betweenmagnates and the king. TheEnglish monarchy was inmany ways an impressivedevelopment,butithadfailedto ensure a submissivenobility.UnderAethelredonehas, for example, thetreacheryofEadricStreonainMercia, described as ‘a manof low birth whose tongue

had won for him riches andrank,readyofwit,smoothofspeech,surpassingallmenofthat time both in malice andtreachery, and in arroganceand cruelty’; and moresuccinctly as ‘perfidiousealdorman’.19There was also the

treacheryoftheealdormanofHampshirein992,whosesonwas blinded by Aethelred inthe following year, and the

treachery of Wulfnoth ofSussex, who joined theViking invaders in 1009.Thorkell the Tall was adouble traitor,desertingCnutfor Aethelred, and then in1015goingbacktoCnut.Itistruethatsomeofthecriticismof treachery comes fromhostile partisan sources, andprobably such men had agreater degree of acceptedindependence than we

sometimesrealiseanddidnotsee themselves as actingbadly, only as making newalliances and agreements.Even so, such fickle loyaltyundermined the stability ofgovernment.One way Aethelred did

attempttosolvehisproblems,which had enormousconsequences, was to seekalliance with his neighboursacrosstheChannel.In991he

concluded a treaty withRichard I (942–96), duke ofNormandy, and in 1002 hemarried as his second wifeEmma, Richard I’s daughter,whowasalsothesisterofhissuccessor Richard II (996–1026).(Hisfirstmarriagewasto Aelfgifu of Northumbria.)The details of this policyweshall pursue further in thefollowing chapter.Aethelred’s efforts were

always inadequate, and themostusefulthinghisNormanalliance brought was a placeof refuge as his fortunesplummeted. In 1013 he senthis wife Emma back to herhomeland along with theirtwo sons, Edward (theConfessor)andAlfred,andhehimselffollowedshortly.SweynForkbeardwasable

totakeLondonandclaimthekingdomin1013.Inthisyear

‘all the nation regarded himas full king’.20 But histriumph was soon followedby his death, in February1014.HeplannedforhissonHarold to take over theDanish throne, and for Cnutto have England. Cnut’ssuccess didnot seemcertain,andhewasforcedtoreturntoDenmark. This brief respiteencouraged some of theEnglish magnates to ask

Aethelredtoreturn,whichhedid. They were not overlyenthusiastic, inviting himbackonly‘ifhewouldgovernthemmore justly thanhedidbefore’.21Aethelredseemsbythistimetohavebeenaspentforce, a tiredman. No doubthe thought he could leavethings tohisprogeny:hehadsome thirteen children fromhis two marriages. Heallowed power to pass to his

son by his first marriage,EdmundIronside.This position also was not

long toendure. In1015Cnutwas ready to return toEngland and seek the throne,with support from Thorkellthe Tall and Eadric Streona.Edmund Ironside had toabandon London, though hewon a victory at Brentford.He was forced to move hisbase to the north, where he

made alliance with Uhtred,earl of Northumbria.Northernsupportforsouthernkingswasneververyreliablethroughout the eleventhcentury; indeed Northumbriacould hardly be regarded asunder southern rule, whilewhatwewouldcallYorkshireandNorthumberlandwerenotunited.22 Cnut pursued hisrival and attacked York.Uhtred was persuaded to

submit to the Dane, whichgaveCnuttheupperhand,butdidUhtred littlegood for thesevereScandinavian had himkilled. Cnut appointed hisown man, Eric, who hadserved Sweyn Forkbeard, tobethenewearl.In April 1016 Aethelred

died. The Anglo-SaxonChronicle summed up withsome accuracy: ‘he had heldhis kingdom with great toil

anddifficultiesas longashislife lasted’, but his deathmade little change to thesituation,possiblyifanythingstrengthening thehandofhismore energetic sonEdmund.23Thelatterstillhadfriends in theoldbaseof theWessex kings and in thesouth. He was accepted asking in both London andWessex. A bruising anddecisive battle was then

fought between the rivals atAssandun (possiblyAshingdon in Essex), whenEadric again deserted theEnglish. Both sides sufferedheavy losses, but Cnutemergedasthevictor.It isclear thatat thispoint

Cnut had doubts about hisability to remove Edmund.He agreed a treaty wherebyEdmundwouldkeepWessex,though Mercia and London

would be his. But thissettlementtoowasshort-livedin the political maelstrom ofthe eleventh century, forEdmund died suddenly inNovember1016.Hissonsforsafety were sent abroad, toSweden, later ending up inHungary. His son Edmunddied there, but Edward theExilestayedattheHungariancourt and married anoblewoman called Agatha,

the niece of the GermanEmperor, Henry II.We shallhear of him again in duecourse.

Cnut’sfamily

Edmund Ironside’s deathallowed Cnut (1016–35) tobecome the sole ruler ofEngland. His father hadclaimed to be king, but theevents of the previous fewyearsshowthattheclaimhadnever been trulysubstantiated. Now Cnutbecame in fact as well as inname the Scandinavian ruler

of the English kingdom. Anearly act to cement hisposition was the surprisingmove to marry Aethelred’sNormanwidow, Emma. Thiswas awise act, since it gavehimanadditionalclaimtothethrone,hopesofalliancewithNormandy,anditunderminedthoughts in Normandy ofgiving aid to Aethelred andEmma’s sons (Edward (theConfessor) and Alfred).

Thesetwowerebroughtupatthe Norman court, but DukeRichard II seemed content toaccept Cnut as king ofEngland. Later Cnut’s sister,Estrith, married Robert I,dukeofNormandy,whichfora time at least nullified thepositionof theexiledsonsofAethelred;thoughRobertwasto repudiate her before hisexpeditiontotheHolyLand.The initiative for the

marriage to Cnut may havecome from Emma who, atevery turn of fortune, madeefforts to keep herself at thecentre of power. She hadfavouredherstepsonEdmundIronside but with his deathtransferredherambitionstoamatch with the conquerorCnut, whom she married in1017. There seems to havebeen a tacit agreement thatCnut’s existing wife,

Aelfgifu, should not bethrown out, but that childrenby Emma should havepreferenceasheirs.Althoughher sons by Aethelred weresafely in Normandy, and inthelongrunheralliancewithCnut helped to bring one ofthemtotheEnglishthrone,atthetimeitappearsthatEmmadid not give priority to theirhopes, and indeed ratherabandoned them for the sake

of retaining some personalstatusinEngland.Cnut is justly known as

CnuttheGreat.HisgreatnessliesperhapslessinhisruleofEnglandthaninhisEuropeanimportance,controllingmuchof Scandinavia as well asEngland. He gained Norwayby 1028, and also held partsof Sweden. In Britain hebecame ruler of the Isle ofMan, and was recognised as

lord of the Scottish king andof the Scottish islands, aswell as of ScandinavianIreland.Cnut was a tough, even

ruthless king in England.Onoccasion he had hostagesmutilated: hands, ears andnosescutoff.HisrecognitionofChristianitymayhavebeenfrom genuine belief, but hisactions and attitudes wereaimedatpoliticalbenefit.He

didthoughmakeajourneytoRome in 1027 for thecoronation of the GermanEmperor Conrad II, whichseemstohavetakentheformof a pilgrimage.His politicalexecutions do not speak of amercifulorlikeableman.Buthislawssupportawishtobea just king, and his successbrought a stability whichEnglandhad lackedsince thedeath of Edgar. This had its

benefits in the developmentof the Church and ineconomicgrowth.Cnut used the English

system of ealdormen overprovinces, though with himwebegintocallthemjarlsorearls. An initial act was toappoint earls over the mainregions.Hewasaidedby thedeath in 1016 of Ulfketel ofEastAnglia,andsoonclearedthe decks of magnates he

distrusted, including, as wehave seen, Uhtred ofNorthumbria and, late in thefollowing year, EadricStreona (the Acquisitor) ofMercia.24 Cnut’s new earlsincluded the two men whohad most aided him ingaining the kingdom: Ericwho became earl ofNorthumbria, and Thorkellwho was given East Anglia.Englandwasineffectdivided

into four regions by 1017:Wessex,which the king keptdirectly under himself;NorthumbriaforEric;MerciaforthesoontobedisposedofEadric; and East Anglia forThorkell.25Throughout the reign

further reorganisation wasmade, and some of Cnut’searls held sway over smallerdistricts. Later, an earl,Godwin, was also appointed

over Wessex, a choice ofgreat significance for thefuture.GodwinwasprobablyofEnglishdescent,thoughttobe the son of the Sussexnoble Wulfnoth Cild thethegn. Little is known aboutthe family’s history in thisperiod, but they hadpresumably been helpful toCnut during the period ofconquest. Cnut trusted otherEnglishnobles,andMerciain

time went to Leofric,probably the son of one ofAethelred’s ealdormen.Northumbria passed toSiward, who married theformer Earl Uhtred’sgranddaughter.Cnut was a harsher and

tougher ruler thanAethelred,buthealsohadproblemswithhisearls,which suggests thatthey continued to have morepowerandindependencethan

wasgoodfor thekingdomasawhole.WhenCnutreturnedtoDenmarkin1019,ThorkellactedforhiminEngland.ButwhenCnut returned in 1020,he quarrelled with the greatearl, and Thorkell went intoexile for three years havingbeenoutlawed in1021.Laterthey were reconciled. UnderCnut at least, the great earlswerekeptintheirplace.Thereturntosomestability

under Cnut benefitedEngland’s economy. Thetowns in the south grew,coinage was reformed. Wehear of some industrialdevelopment, for example insalt, lead and tin. Cnut wasoften in London, which wasincreasingly looking like acapital. The period ofScandinavian rule, with theinevitable turn towards thenorth and east for trade and

communications, showed thevalueofLondon’sposition.CnutdiedatShaftesburyin

1035, and was buried in hisacquiredEnglishkingdom,atWinchester. It is not certainthat had he lived his empirewould have survived. It wasalready breaking up. HisScandinavian lands werereduced, and even Denmarkwas proving difficult toretain. Cnut’s death, and his

marital arrangements –seemingly married twice atthe same time – left anuncertain succession and aperiod of renewed trouble inEngland.Cnut’s first wife, Aelfgifu

ofNorthampton,wastosomeextent sidelined when hemarried again, but she wasstilltreatedasawife.Shewasmother to Sweyn andHaroldHarefoot, and assisted in the

government of Norway. Thefailure of the family inNorway gave an increasedinterest in the Englishsuccession.Emma,mother toEdward and Alfred byAethelred, also gave Cnut ason in Harthacnut. Cnutseemed to have ensured thatthere would be no problemover having sufficient heirsfor his various lands, yetwithin seven years all his

sonsweredead.Cnut’s intention was that

his son by Emma,Harthacnut, should be hischiefheir,andsucceedhiminboth Denmark and England.Harthacnut had already beenrecognisedaskinginEnglandduring his father’s lifetime.This recognition, togetherwith Edmund Ironside’sposition before his father’sdeath, seems to be following

a continental practice insuccession which is notnormally found in England,but may cast an interestinglight on some post-Conquestsituations.In the event, Harthacnut,

like all of his half-brothersexceptHarold,wasoutofthecountry. The two inNormandy, the sons ofAethelred and Emma, weregiven some hope from a

recent breach between Cnutand the new Norman dukeRobert I (1027–35). ButRobertwenttotheHolyLandandthendiedin1035,sothatAlfred and Edward were inno position to intervene inEngland.Meanwhile, Sweyn,thesonofCnutandAelfgifu,like Harthacnut, wasoccupied by Scandinaviantroublesatthetime.Harthacnuthadhisfather’s

blessing and the aid of hisclosest followers, hismother’sencouragement,andthe support of the two menwho mattered most at thetime: the Archbishop ofCanterburyandEarlGodwin.Sweyn’s brother, HaroldHarefoot, did have northernsupport, from the earls ofMercia and Northumbria,perhaps chiefly in order toopposesoutherninterests;but

theywould not have had thecapacity to displaceHarthacnut had he beenpresent.However, Harthacnut’s

continued failure to come toEngland decided the issue.His support did not entirelydie out, but it reduced.Mostof those concerned realisedthat there must be a king inposition,andHaroldHarefootgradually gained supporters

from the south.Emmaseemstohave toyedwithambitionsfor her older sons inNormandy and probablywrote toget themtocometoEngland,nodoubtinordertoseekthesuccession.26Edward did not come to

England, but his youngerbrother Alfred did, probablybuoyedwithfalsehopesfromhis mother’s encouragement.Unfortunatelyforhim,bythe

time he arrived Earl Godwinhad decided that his best betwas to accept HaroldHarefoot, who, as Harold I,was established in power.What happened next is notcertain, and Godwin’ssupporters claimed himinnocent. The likelihood isthat he cooperated withHarold I in the capture andmurder of Alfred. GodwintookhimtoGuildford,where,

after a day of feasting,Harold’s men attacked atnightandcaptured theyoungman. He was blinded andtakentoElywhereheshortlydied.Afterall thiseffort togain

the throne, Harold I(Harefoot, 1035–40) had abrief and miserable reign.Emma had acted deviouslyover the succession, firstfavouring Harthacnut and

taking control of the treasureatWinchester,thenturningtoher sons in Normandy. Sheevenseems tobe responsiblefor trying to undermineHarold by disinformation,spreadingthetalethathewasreally the son of a servant,somesaidofacobbler.27

Godwin’s family.

When Harold Harefoot’ssuccess was certain, Emmachosetoremoveherselftothesafety of Flanders. But likeother political women of themedieval period, she hadtasted toomuch power to goawayquietly.InBruges,afterthedeathofHaroldHarefoot,she met both her survivingson by Aethelred, Edward(theConfessor), in1038,andthen her son by Cnut,

Harthacnut. She seems tohave achieved some alliancebetween them.The latterhadagreed a settlement withMagnus of Norway in 1038,and belatedly in 1039 beganto take action over his rightsinEngland.Hehadbroughtafleetof tenshipstoFlanders,but in the eventdidnotneedany greater force to invadeEngland because of HaroldI’s sudden death in March

1040.Now Harthacnut (1040–2)

was able to add England toDenmark and revive somesemblance of his father’sempire.Hehad raised a fleetof sixty ships, envisaging theneed for invasion, and sailedwith it to Sandwich,accompanied by the everambitious Emma. She gaveassistance in his attempt toresolve the Norman threat.

Through her Harthacnut hadcome to terms with his half-brother Edward, who wasalso invited to return toEnglandin1041.Edwardwastohave anhonouredplace atcourt, and may even havebeen treated as Harthacnut’sco-king or heir.28 Harthacnutruled harshly but effectively.In Worcester in 1041 therewas opposition to heavytaxation.Twocollectorswere

forced to take refuge in aroom at the top of a churchtower, but even that refugefailed them and they weremurdered. Harthacnut sent aforcewhichravagedtheshire,killing all males who camebeforeitinafour-dayorgyofrevenge.The long period of

uncertainties with manytwists of fortune and severalsuddendeaths reachedanew

resolution with Harthacnuthimself succumbing to thegrim reaper at Lambeth inJune 1042, when over-indulgingat awedding feast:‘hewas standingat hisdrinkand he suddenly fell to theground with fearfulconvulsions, and those whowerenearcaughthim,andhespokenowordafterwards’.29

Notes

1.WilliamofPoitiers,HistoiredeGuillaumeleConquérant,ed.R.Foreville,CHF,Paris,1952,p.206.

2.D.C.Douglas,WilliamtheConqueror,London,1964,p.181andn.1;R.A.Brown,TheNormansandtheNormanConquest,2ndedn,Woodbridge,1985,p.122;OrdericVitalis,TheEcclesiasticalHistory,ed.M.Chibnall,6vols,Oxford,

1968–80,ii,p.134andn.2;C.MortonandH.Muntz(eds),CarmendeHastingaeProelio,Oxford,1972,p.10,ll.125–6.

3.D.Whitelock,D.C.DouglasandS.I.Tucker(eds),TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle,London,1961,1012,pp.91–2;G.P.Cubbin(ed.),TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle,vi,Cambridge,1996,p.57.

4.Asser,‘LifeofKingAlfred’inS.KeynesandM.Lapidge

(eds),AlfredtheGreat,Harmondsworth,1983,p.98;compareJohnofWorcester,Chronicle,edsR.R.DarlingtonandP.McGurk,ii,Oxford,1995(onlythisvolpublishedtodate),p.324.

5.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,pp.354,378.

6.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.412.

7.E.John,chaps.7–9,pp.160–239inJamesCampbell(ed.),TheAnglo-Saxons,London,1982,pp.160,172.

8.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.428,Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.79.

9.JohninCampbell(ed.),Anglo-Saxons,p.192.

10.S.Keynes,TheDiplomasofKingAethelred‘theUnready’,Cambridge,1980,p.158.

11.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,pp.430,436;JohninCampbell(ed.),Anglo-Saxons,p.193;F.Barlow,EdwardtheConfessor,London,1970,p.3;Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,986,1005,1014,pp.81,87,93.

12.Barlow,Edward,p.4.13.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-

SaxonChronicle,991,p.82;JohnofWorcester,eds

DarlingtonandMcGurk,p.452.

14.Barlow,Edward,p.11;JohninCampbell(ed.),Anglo-Saxons,p.198.

15.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,999,p.85.

16.M.K.Lawson,Cnut,Harlow,1993,p.43.

17.Barlow,Edward,p.15;Lawson,Cnut,p.17.

18.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,1002,p.86;

Keynes,Diplomas,pp.203–5;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.51.

19.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,pp.456,470:‘perfidusdux’.

20.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.92;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.58.

21.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,1014,p.93;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle,p.59.22.W.E.Kapelle,TheNorman

ConquestoftheNorth,London,1979,e.g.p.26.

23.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,1016,p.95.

24.Lawson,Cnut,p.38.25.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-

SaxonChronicle,1017,p.97.26.JohninCampbell,Anglo-

Saxons,p.216.27.Barlow,Edward,p.44;John

ofWorcester,edsDarlington

andMcGurk,p.520.28.Barlow,Edward,p.48;

Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,CandD,1041,p.106.

29.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,1042,p.106;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.66

E

TWO

THE REIGN OFEDWARD THECONFESSOR

dward the Confessor(1042–66), who had

probably been present at hispredecessor’s death, was to

have a lengthy and relativelysecure reign. The drawing ofhim in themanuscript of theEncomium Emmae, writtenby a cleric of St-Omer forQueen Emma, is the bestlikeness we have. In it heappearswith trimmed hair ina fringe and a short, wavybeardwithperhapsthehintofa moustache. While in theVita, written for his wife,Edith, he is described as ‘a

veryproperfigureofaman–of outstanding height, anddistinguished by his milkywhitehairandbeard,fullfaceand rosy cheeks, thin whitehands and long translucentfingers … Pleasant, butalways dignified, he walkedwith eyes downcast, mostgraciouslyaffable tooneandall’.1 He could also bethought‘ofpassionatetemperand a man of prompt and

vigorous action’, butEdwardwasnosoldier.Themedievalwriterwhosaid‘hedefendedhis kingdom more bydiplomacythanbywar’haditright; but failure to act as acommander of men was agrave disadvantage in thisperiod.2We should be under no

illusion but that theScandinavian conquest andthe frequent switches of

dynasty during the first halfof the eleventh century hadgreatly weakened thekingdom. There were noothersurvivingsonsofeitherAethelred II or Cnut, butthere were too many withclaims and interests inEngland for its good. Forexample, Sweyn Estrithssonwas the grandson of SweynForkbeard;hewastobecomeking of Denmark, and was

notkeentoseetheoldSaxondynasty replacing that of hisown line in England.Meanwhile, Magnus ofNorwaystill sawpossibilitiesfor his own expansion. Laterhe was succeeded by thefamed adventurer HaroldHardrada, who also dreamedofbringingScandinavianruleback to England. Nor wasEdward’s reign free fromVikingraidsoftheoldkind.

Thenorthernearls,Leofricand Siward, acceptedEdward,butcannothavebeenenthusiastic about hissuccession. The north hadnever been firmly undersouthern control, and wouldcontinuetoofferthreatstothepeace of England underEdward. Nevertheless, giventhe difficult period beforeEdward’s accession and thelong-term weaknesses

displayedbythetroubles, theConfessor’s reign was betterthan one might haveexpected. The view ofEdwardas‘aholysimpleton’is not easy to maintain.3 Atleastsomehistoriansnowareprepared to be morerespectfultotheConfessor.He could expect renewed

attacks from Scandinavia,hopes of reward fromNormandy, which might be

difficult to satisfy, andoppositionfromatleastsomeof theEnglishmagnates.Hisnew realm was dividedbetween English andScandinavian populations,and into politically powerfulearldoms.Hismost powerfulearl,GodwinofWessex,hadbeenimplicatedinthemurderofhisownbrother,Alfred.At the same time, Edward

possessed an advantage

whichmosthadlackedduringthe century: he wasindisputably king and, unlikehis immediate predecessors,he came from the old houseof Wessex. He was alsowealthy.Hisownpossessionswere valued at about £5,000,with an additional £900comingthroughhiswife.Thismadehimwealthier thananyof his magnates, includingGodwin, though royal landed

wealth was unevenlydistributed,andinsomeareasof the realm the king heldverylittle.4Edward’s position was

helpedfurtherbythedeathofMagnus,kingofNorwayandDenmark, in 1047. TheConfessor’s Norman motherandNormanupbringing–hehad received an education atthe ducal court and it is saidwastrainedasaknight–gave

himtheprobabilityofagoodrelationship with thatemerging power.5 His sister,Godgifu, had married fromthe Norman court into theFrenchnobility,andthisgaveEdward a number of noblerelativesonthecontinent.Butinanycase,intheearlyyearsof the reign England couldexpect neither aid noropposition from Normandy,which was undergoing much

internal turmoil during theminority of William theBastard.Edward had to rely on his

own wits, and had at leastlearned some tricks ofsurvival and diplomacy fromhis years as a relativelyinsignificant figure at aforeign court. The exchangeof status from pawn to kingwasrathersudden,butatleasthe had some experience of

the game. Edward alsoreceived the blessing of theChurch, and both thearchbishops of York andCanterbury were present athiscoronationonEasterDay1043. The recognition ofEuropewasunderlinedbythepresence at the ceremony ofrepresentatives from theGerman Emperor and thekings of France andDenmark.

As Edward’s reignprogressed, relations withNormandy did indeed provegenerally amicable. Notsurprisingly, he had forgedbonds with Normans duringhisyouthin theduchy,andanumber of Normans wereinvited to his court. Indeed,severalcontinentalshadcometo England with Edward in1041. Among those in hishousehold was the later

Archbishop of CanterburyRobert of Jumièges, andEdward’s nephew Ralph ofMantes, who was to becomeearl of Hereford. Somereceived lands and somereceived appointments in theChurch.Itbecameoneof thepoints of dispute with hisEnglish earls, and especiallywithGodwinofWessex.Thelandsandwealthofthe

Godwin family made it

outstandingly thestrongest inEngland,withabouttwicetheincomeofanyotherfamilyinthe land. The author of theVita gives a more restrainedpicture of the great earl thanweexpect,andithasaringoftruth about it. He thoughtGodwin‘themostcautiousincounselandthemostactiveinwar’, with an ‘equabletemperament’andapenchantfor hard work, eloquent,

courteous and polite to all,treating inferiors kindly.6 In1019 Earl Godwin hadmarried Gytha, sister of aDanish earl and related bymarriagetoCnut.In1045theGodwin family held four ofthe six great earldoms inEngland. They had movedwithin a couple ofgenerations from obscure ifrespectable origins to thefringesof royalty.Thewriter

of the Vita saw Godwin as‘vice-regal, second to theking’.7Toconfirmthestatusofthe

family,EdwardtheConfessortook as his wife Edith, theeldest daughter of EarlGodwinandCountessGytha.Hewas inhis fortiesandshewas about twenty-five. Theymarried inJanuary1045,andEdithwascrownedasqueen.Edward’s motives for taking

her as a wife are not clear.Some have thought thatGodwinpressured thematch,but Edward had alreadyshown that he could actindependently and had beentough with his mother. Noonewasinapositiontomakehim marry. The liaison wasclearly intended to seal analliance between king andearl,andprobablyweneedtolooknofurtherforitsreason.

There would be problemswith the marriage, but itenduredfortwenty-oneyears.Thattherewassomeaffectionin the match seems likely.There is a contemporarydescription of the couple,withEdithcontenttositathisfeet. The suggestion that itwas never consummatedseems unlikely though notimpossible. Edward’s piousnature, their failure to

produce children, and hislater alienation from her, allgive the story somecredibility, but the mainevidence for it comes fromlaterattemptstogiveEdwardasaintlycharacter.It was then claimed that

Edwardspent‘allthedaysofhis life in the purity of theflesh’, and that he treatedEdith as a daughter ratherthan a wife: ‘she called him

father and herself his child’.The tone of theVita, writtenfor Edith, is affectionatetowardsEdwardanddoesnotsuggest a failed marriage,though it does say that in avision the king was markedout by St Peter for ‘a life ofchastity’, and that he ‘livedhis whole life dedicated toGodintrueinnocence’.8In 1043 Edward was

seriously at odds with his

own mother. Her behaviourhadalwaysbeengearedtoherownprofit rather than to his,and some think that heharboured resentment for herneglectofhis interests in thepast. The D writer of theAnglo-SaxonChroniclewrote‘she formerly had been veryhard to the king her son, inthatshedidlessforhimthanhe wished both before hebecame king and afterwards

aswell’.9Now suddenly Emma was

accusedof treason.The earlsLeofric, Siward and Godwinwere with the king at thetime, and may have beenimplicated in her fall. Herprotégé, Stigand,whowas atthe time Bishop of EastAnglia, was deposed and hispossessions seized. Theaccusation of treason wasquietly forgotten, and later

Stigand was restored.Possibly Emma had beeninvolved in someconspiracy,possibly Edward simplysought to show herwhowasnowmaster.The Godwin family was

powerful, but not everythingwentas itwished.Theoldestson, Sweyn, who had beengivenanearldom in thewestmidlands, brought about hisown downfall by going off

the rails in a spectacularmanner when he kidnappedand seduced (or possiblyraped) Eadgifu the abbess ofLeominster. He found littlesupport, even from hisfamily, and fled to Brugesand then on toDenmark.Hereturned to England in 1049,landingatBosham.Hesoughtpardonfromtheking,comingto him at Sandwich. But hereceived little sympathyeven

fromhisbrothersor fromhiscousin Beorn, and Edwardbanishedhimagain.WhenBeorn then changed

hismind and agreed tomeetSweyn,hesoonhadreasontoregret his decision. Sweynmade him captive and killedhim when they got toDartmouth, presumablybecausehewouldnotgivetheassistance Sweyn desired.Harold Godwinson disowned

his brother’s action andbrought his cousin’s body toWinchester for honourableburial. Sweyn was nowdeclarednithing;anobjectofscorn and legally able to bekilledby anyone.Even someof his own men and shipsdeserted him, and two of hisships were captured by themen of Hastings. He fled toBruges, where Baldwin V(1035–67) demonstrated his

hostility to Edward theConfessorbygivingsheltertothe fugitive. Perhaps throughhis father’s intervention, andwiththeaidofBishopEadredof Worcester, Sweyn waspardonedbythekingin1050.It suggests that at this timeEdwardwaspreparedtogotoalmostanylengthstokeepongood termswith the Godwinfamily.Atestofthepowersofthe

king and Earl Godwin camewhen the archbishopric ofCanterburyfellvacanton thedeath of Archbishop Eadsigein1050.Godwinsupportedarelative, Aelric, for the post,but Edward favoured theNorman,RobertofJumièges,already appointed Bishop ofLondon with his backing. In1051 Robert becamearchbishop and, in theconflictswhichfollowed,was

loyal to Edward against theGodwinfamily.ThewriteroftheVitasuggeststhatEnglishclerics also resented theappointment, and protestedagainst it.10 Other Normanswere given bishoprics, atDorchester and London, andother continentals wonfavour.Asecondcauseofconflict

between the Wessex familyand the king came over the

king’s favour to Eustace ofBoulogne. Some historianssuggest that Edward, nowwell established, brought onthe break with the Godwinsdeliberately.11 The politicallinks between the powers innorth-west Europe at thistimeformavitalbackgroundto events. Political alliancesand hostilities betweenFrance, Scandinavia,Flanders, Normandy,

Boulogne and Englandgovernedmuchthatoccurred.In somewaysEdward had

reason to fear Flandersmorethan Normandy in the earlyperiod of his reign. Hecertainly paid heed to linkswiththosewhomighthelptocounter the power ofFlanders. In the clashbetween Baldwin V and theGerman Emperor, Edwardsided with the Emperor.

Edward kept connectionswith others who might beuseful against Flanders, suchasthecountsofPonthieuandMantes, and not least withEustace II, count ofBoulogne, whose first wifewasEdward’swidowedsisterGodgifu, and who visitedEdwardinEnglandin1051.On his way home Eustace

intended to pass throughDover.ItmaybethatEdward

meant to make a grant ofDovertoEustace.Atanyrate,when Eustace came there,apparently looking forsomewhere to sleep, he wasinvolved in a brawl with thetownsmen. Eustace’s men,according to one version ofthe incident, ‘killed a certainmanofthetown,andanotherof the townsmen killed theircomrades,sothatsevenofhiscomrades were struck down.

And great damage was doneoneithersidewithhorsesandwith weapons.’ Anotherversion says that twentymenwere killed.12 Dover laywithin the earldom ofGodwin,andEdwardorderedhisearltopunishthetownbyravaging. Godwin’ssympathies clearly lay withthe town and he refused.Edward called a council atGloucesteratwhichRobertof

JumiègesputthecaseagainstGodwin and even accusedhim of plotting to kill theking.The simmering resentment

between earl and king nowcame to a head. Godwinassembled a force, but foundthat opposition to a crownedkingwasnot easy.Theking,probably encouraged by thearchbishop, wanted a trial ofGodwin and his sons to be

heldinLondon,fortheearlierkilling of the king’s brotherAlfred, while the pardonedSweyn Godwinson wasoutlawedoncemore.RalphofMantesandmany

thegns rallied to the king’scause. A sarcastic messagewas sent to Godwin that hewould be pardoned if hecouldrestoretolifeEdward’smurderedbrotherAlfred.TheVita suggests that it was

Archbishop Robert whopersuaded the king thatGodwinwouldattackhim‘asonce upon a time he hadattacked his brother’.13Godwin’s own peoplehesitated to use force againsttheir monarch, showing thatthis incident had not beenforgotten. The king also gotthe support of the northernearls, Leofric of Mercia andSiwardofNorthumbria.

Godwin backed down.When he received themessageaboutAlfredhewasdining.He ‘pushed away thetable in front of him’,realisingthathispositionwasimpossible.14 He and hisfamily fled that night, ridingto hismanor atBosham, andsailing into exile. His sonsHaroldandLeofwinmadeforBristol, and took ship forIreland. Godwin himself and

most of the family left forFlanders, whose count,BaldwinV, as we have seenwasgenerallyhostiletoKingEdward. The Godwin familyhad close connections withFlanders, and at about thistime Godwin’s son Tostigmarried Judith, half-sister tothecount.A royal council declared

the whole family outlawed.Some of the Godwin lands

were granted out to royalfavourites, includingEdward’snephewEarlRalph,known as ‘timid’, andArchbishop Robert.15Godwin’s daughter, QueenEdith,wassent toanunnery.Edward had attempted tothrow off the hold of theGodwin family, but as apermanent move it provedmorethanhecouldmanage.Edward had shown

sufficientstrengthtoforcethewhole Godwin family intoexile,buthelackedthepowerto keep them there.Within ayear, in 1052, Godwin wasable to return with a forcepartly supplied by the countof Flanders. Feeling inEngland had not been unitedagainst Godwin and hisfamily. Some whisperedagainst Godwin, ‘the maliceof evil men had shut up the

mercifulearsoftheking’,butothers sympathised, and fewwere prepared to take armsagainst him. Haroldmeanwhile, also with anarmed force, had sailed fromIreland and finally joined upwith his father on the southcoast.TheGodwinsadvancedon London, and two armiesfaced each other across theThames. Stigand negotiatedonbehalfoftheGodwins.

Now Godwin had hisrevenge, and forced theking’s hand so that he‘outlawed all the Frenchmenwho had promoted injusticesandpassedunjustjudgementsandgivenbadcounsel’.16Theearl was insistent thatArchbishop Robert give upCanterbury and leave thecountry,alongwithanumberofEdward’sforeigncourtiers.Robert went to Rome to

protest,butfinallyreturnedtohis abbey at Jumièges wherehe died. The archbishopwasreplaced at Canterbury byStigand, bishop ofWinchester, at the heart ofGodwin’s Wessex. Onewriter thought that Stigandhad ‘deceived the innocentsimplicityofKingEdward’.17Leofric’s son Aelfgar hadbeen given East Anglia butnow Harold Godwinson was

able to recover it as hisearldom.TheGodwinswererestored

in full: the father toWessex,the sons to their earldoms,Edith to court, ‘brought backto the king’s bedchamber’.18OnlySweynwasmissing,andthatwasprobably a blessing.He had set off for the HolyLand, no doubt seeking thedivine pardon he richlyneeded. He was to die at

Constantinopleonhisreturn.At Easter 1053, Earl

Godwin suffered a suddenstrokeatdinnerwiththeking,and ‘suddenly sank towardsthe foot-stool, bereft ofspeech and of all hisstrength’. He was carried byhissonstotheroyalchamber,dying a few days later ‘inwretched pain’. The death ofGodwin did not lessen thefamily’s influence. Harold

Godwinson ‘wielded hisfather’s powers even moreactively, and walked in hisways, that is, inpatienceandmercy and with kindness tomen of good will’.19 Haroldsucceeded him as earl ofWessex, and a youngerbrother succeeded Harold.WhenSiwardofNorthumbriadied in 1055 that earldomalso went to the Godwinfamily, to another of

Godwin’s sons, Tostig.However, southern insertionsinthenorthernearldomswerenotpopular,andTostigfoundit difficult to establishhimself. But it meant thatonly one earldom, Mercia,was not held by aGodwinson.Edward the Confessor had

some success as a Britishruler. The Scottish king,Malcolm Canmore, came to

his court and recognisedEnglish overlordship. Hemarried Margaret, thedaughterofEdwardtheExile,whowas the son of EdmundIronside. There were alsosuccessful militaryexpeditions against theWelsh, where HaroldGodwinson, described as‘strong andwarlike’, laid thefoundations for the laterNormanadvanceswitharaid

intoWalesfirstin1055.There is a story thatwhen

Edward met Gruffydd, theWelsh prince carried him onhis shoulders as a mark ofhumility, and like the Scotsking recognised hislordship.20ButlaterGruffyddraided into Mercia, andHarold, ‘the vigorous earl oftheWest Saxons’,was againsentwithanarmyagainsthimin 1063.21 On the second

invasion Harold and hisbrother Tostig led separateforces into Wales. Haroldburned the Welsh prince’spalace and set fire to hisships. The Welsh submittedbutGruffyddescapedbysea.However, his own peoplemurdered him inSnowdonia,and brought his head toHarold, who sent the gorytrophy of his triumph on toEdward.

Gruffydd’s brothers sworefealty both to King Edwardand to Harold. They dividedup their brother’s landsbetween them. Haroldorderedtheconstructionof‘alarge building’ at Portskewet(Monmouthshire) in 1065. Itwouldbe interesting toknowexactlywhatsortofstructurethis was and whether it wasfortified in any way. It wasused to store food and drink,

andasabasefortheEnglish.Buttheprecariouspositionofthe invaders was soondemonstratedwhentheWelshprince Caradoc attacked thenew building, killed the‘labourers’ and took thestores. This suggests that itwasunfinished.22The unity of the Godwin

family did not endure to theendofEdward’sreign.Therewasrebellion inNorthumbria

against Tostig at the end of1065, partly caused by hisattempts to tax the earldomwith‘a largetribute’,andforwhat some saw as his‘iniquitous rule’, but it wasmainly a chance todemonstrate the latenthostility towards him. It wasalso claimed that he robbedthechurchandtookland.Thecomment of the Vita blamesboth earl and subjects: he

‘hadrepressedwiththeheavyyoke of his rule because oftheirmisdeeds’.23InOctober,with Tostig at the king’scourt, Northumbrian rebelsled by thegns attacked hismen in York, killing twohundred,includinghisDanishhousecarls Amund andRavenswart, and seizing histreasure.24TheNorthumbrians invited

Morcar, the younger son of

Aelfgar, whose brotherEdwinwasearlofMercia, tobe their earl, and virtuallyeveryone bar Tostig wasprepared to accept thechange.25 It seems likely thathis brother Harold thoughtthat Tostig had brought therebellion on his own head,and believed that restorationwaseithernotpossibleornotwise.He gave his brother nosupport. As a result, Tostig

becameenragedathisbrotherand did all in his power tooppose his interests; he evenaccused Harold of beinginvolved in the rebellionagainst him. This rift in theGodwinson family probablydid as much as anything toundermine Harold’s positionin the long run. It was thedivision which gaveWilliamofNormandy his chance andmade the Norman Conquest

possible.Harold and his brother

Tostig were a striking pair,and caught the attention ofcontemporaries: ‘distinctlyhandsome and gracefulpersons,similarinstrength…equally brave’.26 They wereeven described as ‘thekingdom’s sacred oaks, twoHercules’. Harold wasdepictedastaller,moreopen,more cheerful, more

intelligent; Tostig as quickertoact,moredetermined,moresecretive and moreinflexible.27HowfarTostig’sfailurein

Northumbria was his ownfault is difficult to say. Itseems that he did try tointroduce southern laws andto impose heavy taxation.Whether he was too harsh ishard to judge. He wasaccusedofthreekillings, two

of men under safe-conduct.However, they might havebeeninvolvedinaconspiracyagainst him.28 It may besimply that the imposition ofthis representative of theleading southern family wasunpalatable to thenortherners, however able hemightbe.HedidretainpowerinNorthumbriaforadecade.It isalsodifficult forus to

judgeHarold’sattitude tohis

brother. One might haveexpected more aid thanHarold gave. But we cannotknow if he believed hisbrother’s fall was his ownfault and his brother notworth aiding, or if politicallyitwasunwisetomakesuchamove,orifalreadytherewaslittle brotherly love betweenthem. One source suggeststhat Edward’s advisersbelievedTostigtobeatfault.

There is some evidence thatEdward preferred Tostig tohis brother andwas upset byhis downfall, which furtherfuelstheideathatTostigwasat fault, since Edward madenomovetoreimposehim.29It is not clear that anyone

had the power to restoreTostig inNorthumbria.WhatiscertainisthatafterTostig’sdeposition and his brother’sfailure to assist him to

recover the earldom, hebecame thoroughly hostile toHarold. It seems likely thatQueen Edith, who alsofavoured Tostig rather thanHarold, and who may haveinfluenced her husband’sattitude, thought Harold wasat fault in the affair andbecame cool towards him.HerattitudeisrevealedbytheVita, in which it has beensuggested that Tostig ‘is the

realheroofthestory’.30The fate of the English

kingdombecameincreasinglyopentoquestioninthe1060s.Edward had no heir andseemed now unlikely toproduce one. From theseveral claims made later itwould appear that Edwardpromised the succession to anumber of people. It ispossible that they inventedthis later, but it seems more

likely that Edward used thesuccession as elderlymodernpatriarchsbrandishtheirwillsover their heirs. It is likelythat he favoured a differentheiratdifferenttimesthroughthereign.Amongthosegivenpromises were William ofNormandy, Sweyn ofDenmark and HaroldGodwinson.Edwardalso thought about

another possible successor,

withabetterclaimbydescentthan any of those alreadymentioned, and who mightalso have been given privateassurances about the throne.This was Edward the Exile.The Confessor made contactwith Edward the Exilethrough theGermanEmperorHenry III, and invitedhim tocome to England: ‘for theking had decided that heshould be established as his

heir and successor to therealm’. The Exile wouldhardly have made all theeffort to come had he notbeengivensomeindicationofthe likely consequence. Buthaving arrived in England in1057, Edward the Exile diedin London. He did not evenget to see his relative theking, and was buried at StPaul’s.In 1064 Edward the

ConfessorseemstohavesentHarold Godwinson toNormandy. We shall look atthe details of this expeditionin the next chapter, but weneed to consider itssignificance briefly. It isuncertain what was thepurpose of the visit, and themain evidence for it comesfrom Norman sources. It isunlikelythatHaroldcarriedapromise of the throne to

William,butthewilyEdwardmayhaveseenthehumourofthe situation as the twopotential rivals eyed eachotherup.The chief puzzle of the

situation is to see Harold’smotives for going. One canhardlyenvisagetheConfessorbeing able to order hispremier earl to go on anexpedition of this kind,though at this juncture we

shouldnotnecessarilybelieveHaroldhostile to theduke. ItismorelikelythatHaroldsawhis status as a kind ofambassador, concerned aboutthe fate of two relativeswhowere currently held ashostages by the duke. Itmayindeedhavebeenprimarilyagoodwill mission to keepwarm the friendship betweenthetwopowers.The events of the trip

certainly increased itssignificance and gaveWilliam a new lever, albeitthrough some ratherunderhanded action to forcean oath out of Harold. WemaybelievethatwhenHaroldleft Normandy, both he andhis rivalhad theirownviewsabout how they would actwhen the English king died.They each had new cause torespect theabilitiesofa rival

seencloseup.Eventsweretocatch up on them, perhapsmore quickly than theyexpected. Edward became illin 1065 and died at the verybeginning of the new year.The future of the Englishcrownseemeduncertain.

Notes1.F.Barlow(ed.),VitaAedwardi

Regis,2ndedn,Oxford,1992,

p.19.2.Barlow,Edward,pp.70–1;

Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.42.3.JohninCampbell(ed.),Anglo-

Saxons,p.221,fromF.Maitland.

4.Barlow,Edward,p.74.5.Barlow,Edward,p.39.6.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.8.7.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.44.8.Barlow,Edward,pp.81–4,

130;Barlow(ed.),Vita,pp.14,24,90,92.

9.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,1043,p.107;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.67.

10.Barlow(ed.),Vita,pp.28–30.11.Barlow,Edward,p.97:

Edward‘provokedGodwinbeyondendurance’.

12.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,1051,pp.117,118.

13.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.32.14.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.36.

15.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.576:‘timidusduxRauulfus’.

16.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.124;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.73.

17.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.572.

18.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.44.19.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.46;John

ofWorcester,edsDarlington

andMcGurk,p.572.20.Barlow,Edward,p.208;John

ofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.578.

21.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.592.

22.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.596.

23.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,1065,p.138;Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.76;John

ofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.598.

24.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.598.

25.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.78.26.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.48.27.Barlow,Edward,pp.195,198;

Vita,pp.48–50,58.28.Barlow,Edward,p.235.29.Barlow,Edward,p.239,

Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.78.30.Barlow,Edward,p.298.

I

THREE

NORMANDYBEFORE 1066n the first twochapterswehave reviewed, along with

theearlierhistoryofEngland,reasons why England mightbe invaded in 1066: in brief,the attraction of a wealthy

land, together with the hopeof success against a dividedand unstable state. Now weneed to consider, along withNormandy’s earlier history,how the ruler of that duchywas able to invade in 1066.This is an importantconsideration, for it isprobably true that before1066 such a venture wouldnothavebeenviable.Under the early rulers,

from about 911 to 1026,Normandy grew into itsrecognised boundaries, andthe interest of its rulers wasinevitably upon this internalgrowth. Normandy thenunderwent a period oftroubles, under Richard III(1026–7)andRobertI(1027–35), lasting through theminority of William theConqueror. Only by about1047 was the Conqueror

reallysafeinhisownduchy.There then followed a

period when his main taskwastodealwithenemiesandrivalsinFrance.Hecouldnotpossibly have invadedEngland, and left Normandyopen to invasion from theCapetian monarch or thecountofAnjou.Onlywiththedeathsofhismainenemiesonthe continent, in 1060, wasWilliam relatively free to

contemplate some broaderproject.Even after 1060 for some

time those broader projectswere still nearer to home, inMaine andBrittany.That thedeath of Edward theConfessor occurred in 1066and not earlier was in manywaysa strokeof luck for theConqueror.Itcameatjustthemomentwhen he could trulythink about pursuing claims

in England, with sufficientstability in the duchy and onits borders to leave it forsome months, and with adegreeofwealthand supportwhichhadnotbeenavailabletohimbeforethe1060s.Weshallnotemoreclosely

than in the opening chaptersthe growing links betweenEngland andNormandy afterad 1000. The geographicalproximity of the two was

bound to bring someconnection, but in the firsthalf of the eleventh centurytherewerenewdimensionstothe relationship: economic,socialandpolitical.Both areas had strong

Scandinaviansettlements,andcommoninterests fromthem.According to Dudo of St-Quentin,aclerkfromPicardywho came to the Normancourt, the linkswent back as

far as Rollo or Rolf, theViking leader and first rulerof Normandy. Dudo’s work,especially for the early yearsof Norman history, is nowwidely questioned. Onehistorian has seen theCustomsandActsoftheFirstDukes of Normandy as ‘amerefarragoofdistortedandaltered fragments from theold annalists’.1 Dudo was achaplainat thecourtofDuke

RichardII,andbecomesmoretrustworthy when dealingwithhisownlifetime,thoughneverexactlyreliable.2The English kings, after a

period of hostility, began toseek better relations withNormandy, and to makeagreements for mutualbenefit. In 991 Richard I ofNormandy and Aethelred IIof England made anagreement not to aid their

respective enemies.Stemming from this, Emma,RichardI’sdaughter,marriedAethelred of the old WestSaxonlinein1002.(Afterhisdeath she married Cnut, thegreatest of the Scandinaviankings of England in 1017.)SheandAethelred,withtheirtwo sons, took shelter inNormandy when Aethelredwas in difficulties in 1013;and the sons, Edward and

Alfred, were brought up attheNormancourt.

ThecomitalfamilyofNormandyfrom942.(Notes:Williamthe

ConquerorwasWilliamI,KingofEngland,butWilliamII,dukeofNormandy;RobertIfatheredtwochildrenbyHerlèvebutdidnot

marryher.

The Normans gaveEmma’ssonsassistancewhenthey attempted to return toEngland. Robert I, who

treated them ‘as brothers’,organisedaninvasionfleetatFécamp in 1033, though astorm ruined its chances.3Nevertheless,Normanaidforthe exiled aethelings was areal threat to theScandinavian kings ofEngland. Edward, when hebecame king of England,brought Normans to theEnglish court and madegrants to those who had

attached themselves to himduring his Norman exile.William the Conquerorprobably visited Edward inEngland in the 1050s, andwas said to have received apromiseoftheEnglishthroneatEdward’sdeath.WilliamofPoitiersclaimsthatthethronewas promised as ‘a lawfulgift’ with the assent of themagnates.4Normandy’s development

in theperiodbeforeHastingswas very different to that ofEngland,butthereweresomesimilarities. Normandy hadalso been overrun by Vikinginvaders,andwasdevelopingintoapowerfulpoliticalunit.But Normandy was not akingdom and acknowledged,however incompletely, theauthority of the king ofFrance.Themost remarkablefactorinNormandy’sposition

by 1066 was its readiness toexpand. Not only England,but also Spain, several partsof the Mediterranean, andespeciallysouthernItalywereto receive often unwelcomeNorman visitors. Perhapssome latter-day Viking will-to-voyageenduredintheonlypartofFrancewhereaVikingsettlement had taken root;other French principalities,though equally interested in

expansion, did not go so farafieldintheirambitions.Part of the explanation of

Normandy’s unique historylies in the kind of politicalunit that Normandy was.Several groups of Vikingssettled on thewestern shoresof continental Europe, and afew were able to establishsome political authority, butNormandy was the only oneto survive under a Viking

dynasty. William theConqueror was the directdescendant of a remarkablelineofdukesdescendedfromthe first Viking ruler ofNormandy, Rollo or Rolf –thoughtheearlyleaderswerenot dukes or even perhapscounts.5We need, in order to

understand Normandy in1066, to look back to thefoundation of Normandy

undertheVikingleaderRolf.At thebeginningof the tenthcentury, there were severalsimilar leaders of war bandswho had settled as best theycould along the continentalcoast, mostly in regionswhere rivers entered the sea.There had been a series ofraids against the Normancoast before any settlementoccurred,forexamplein841,851,855.

As in England, the firstimpact was frightening. Oneaccount tells of theconsequences for the peopleattacked: ‘I was freed fromthe hand of the very cruelnation of theNormans. Theytook me, bound me as awretchedslave,[and]soldmeto a foreign land.’ Havingbeen dealt numerous blows,faced perils of the sea andstorms, suffered extreme

cold,nudity,atrocioushungerandalongvoyage,thewriterfinallyreturnedhome.6Rolf’s group had settled

along the Seine. There is nodoubt these wereopportunistic groups, happytotakeanywealththatmightoffer but also eager for land,and incompetitionwitheachotherforit.The ‘foundation’ of

Normandy came out of a

policy used by theincreasingly desperate rulersof Western Francia. TheVikingraidswereonlyoneofseveral serious problemsdisturbingEuropeatthetime.The troubles had led to thesplitting of the old FrankishCarolingian Empire intoseveral component parts in888, one ofwhichwasWestFrancia, and from thisnucleusemergedthekingdom

ofFrance.ThekingsofWestFrancia found it difficult tosurvive, and their kingdomwas itself in danger ofsplitting into yet smallerindependent units, such ascounties.The struggleweakened the

old Carolingian dynasty, andbefore the end of the tenthcentury itwas tobe replacedby the family of one of itsdukes, the Capetians.

However, in 911 there wasstill a Carolingian rulingWest Francia, Charles III,knownratherunfortunatelyasCharles the Simple (898–922). Translated moreaccurately,hisnameprobablymeantCharles theHonest.Achronicler explained: ‘duringhislifehewascalledsimplexbecauseofhisgoodnature’.7Charles III made the

decisiontotryandsaveWest

Francia by allying with theVikingRolf,theleaderofoneband of Vikings who hadsettledontheSeine.Thiswasa boldmove, and potentiallydangerous for the WestFranks, but it had greatconsequences. Charlesprobably had two majormotives in making theagreement of 911. The firstwastouseRolfasanobstacleagainst further Viking

incursions into that part ofFrancia,nowfightingforhimrather than against him, andthusalsodividing theVikingmenace. He was seeking theallianceofoneViking leadernot only against furtherScandinavian incursions, butalso against other Vikinggroups already settled in theregion. The second purposeofCharleswastouseRolfasabufferagainsttheexpansion

of the Bretons, who had notcome under the authority oftheWestFrankishkings, andwhohadbeenextendingtheirpowereastwards.It is now generally

accepted by historians thatCharles III’s grant was asensibleifriskymovewhich,itmustbe said, succeeded. Itis also acknowledged that itwasanarrowergrantthantheNormans would claim a

century or so later. Theymade the claim to justify theexpansion of comital powerbeyond the confines of theoriginal grant. But Rolf in911 was the leader of oneband among many and wasonlyrecognisedasanallynotas a count. Whateverterritories were ‘granted’would have to be won andheld by the recipient of thegrant.

Charles III certainlyencouragedRolftotakelandsfrom the Bretons but, in thecontext of 911, this almostcertainly meant land whichwas to become part ofNormandy rather thanBrittanyproper.It is very doubtful that

Charles III envisaged anyexpansion of Norman powerover the whole of Brittany.Nomoredidhewishtoseea

Viking Normandy. Not thathe had much right, andcertainly no power in realterms over Brittany or evenNormandy, to make such abroad grant. However, hewould have been perfectlyhappy to see the NormansfightagainsttheBretons,whoat the time held land whichlater became westernNormandy. It is unlikely thatthe king was more generous

thanheneededtobe.Rolf had recently been

defeated in battle by theFranks at Chartres. So thegrant came at a time ofFrankish strength rather thanweakness. What Charles theSimple granted in 911 wasalmost certainly the right ofRolf to rule in the king’sname over the city ofRouenandarelativelyrestrictedareaaround it by the Seine; at

most itwasUpperor easternNormandy,probably theareawhere Rolf already heldsway.Rolf had emerged as the

leader of a group settled inthe area for some decades,who had recently taken overRouen.HeisthoughttobeofNorse rather than Danishorigin, an idea supported bytraditionheldwithintheducalfamily itself. It is believed

that he was exiled fromScandinavia by HaroldFairhair, king of Norway(900–33), and had probablylived the life of a Viking,voyaging to Scotland,NorthumbriaandIreland.8Although from the

evidence of a charter of 918we can be sure than anagreementwasmadebetweenKing Charles and Rolf, weareuncertainaboutitsdetails.

As D.C. Douglas hassuggested, ‘far less is knownabout pre-ConquestNormandy than about pre-Conquest England’.Something has been doneabout that by Douglashimself, and by David Batesand others since, but there isstill a gap in the quantity ofsourcesavailable.9The problem over 911 is

that the only details come

from Dudo of St-Quentin,who was writing to bolsterNorman ducal claims, andwasdoingsoaboutacenturyaftertheevent.Dudowasnothimself a Norman, but hadcome to the court of DukeRichard I at the end of thetenth century. His CustomsandActsoftheFirstDukesofNormandywaswrittenforthedukes, and finished beforeDudo’s death in 1043. Like

many such works it is lessreliablefortheearlymaterial,but among chroniclers Dudowas particularly prone toinvention.Giventhatwemustnotbelievehiseveryword,itis still worth recording whathemadeofthemeetingwhichhe described as occurring atSt-Clair-sur-Eptein911.10

At the appointed timethey came to the place

that had been agreed,which is calledSt-Clair.The army of Rollo keptto one side of theRiverEpte, that of the kingand Robert [the Strong,duke of France] to theother. Then Rollo sentthe archbishop [ofRouen]tothekingoftheFranks, on a mission tosay to him: ‘Rollocannot concludeapeace

with you, since the landyouwishtogranthimisnot cultivated by theplough,andisaltogetherwithoutherdsandflocksandthepresenceofmen.Noonelivesonitexceptby thieving and pillage.Givehimratheraregionfrom which comesnourishment, filled withriches. He will notnegotiate with you

unless you swear by aChristian oath, you andyour archbishops,bishops, counts, abbotsand all your realm, thathe and his successorsshall hold the land fromtheRiverEptetotheseaasafarmandanalodforever’Then Robert duke of

the Franks and thecounts, bishops and

abbots who were theresaid to the king: ‘Youwillnotwinoversuchastrong leader unless youdowhathewants.Ifyoudonotgivehimwhatheclaims from you inreturn for his service,give it in return forChristianity, that at lastsuch a numerous peopleshould be won forChrist, then you will

avoid diabolical error;and, finally, [give it] inorder that the edifice ofyour realm and of theChurch should not bedestroyed by the attackofhisarmy.Youshouldemploy his defence andprotectioninthenameofChrist.Youshouldactasa king and a firmdefenderoftheChurch’.The king wanted to

give him Flanders onwhich to supporthimself, but he did notwish to accept thatbecause it was marshy.Also the king offered togivehimBrittany,whichwasontheborderofthepromised territory. ThenRobert and ArchbishopFranco told all this toRollo, and brought himtoKingCharles,afteran

exchange of hostages,under the protection ofthe Christian faith. TheFranks,seeingRollo,theaggressor against allFrancia, said to eachother: ‘This chief hasgreat power, greatcourage, much wisdomand prudence, and evenmore energy, to havewaged war in this wayagainst thecountsofthe

realm’.So, placated by the

words of the Franks, heplaced his handsbetweenthehandsoftheking, which his father,grandfather and great-grandfather had neverdone. So the king gavehis daughter, Gisela byname, as wife to theleader, andcertain landsas alods and in farm,

from the River Epte asfaras thesea,andallofBrittany, on which heshould be able to live.The bishops, seeing thatRollo was unwilling tokissthefootoftheking,said: ‘He who receivessuchagiftought tokissthefootoftheking’.Hereplied: ‘I shall neverbendmykneetoanyone,norshallIkissanyfoot’.

But, compelled by theprayersoftheFranks,heordered a certain soldierto kiss the king’s foot.The latter, at onceseizing the king’s foot,lifted it to his mouthand, having planted thekiss while he wasstanding, made the kingfall down. So, muchlaughter arose, and agreat disturbance among

themen.11

The basic import of theagreement was that the kingrecognisedRolfasachieftain(not a duke or even a count)over a territory centred uponRouen,withthechiefpurposeof protecting the Frankishkingdom; ‘for the safety ofthe realm’ according to the918 charter. In this charterRolf and his companions are

describedas‘thenorthmenoftheSeine’.12Flodoard,whoismoretobetrustedthanDudoon this, says that Charlesgranted Rouen and somecoastal districts dependentuponthatcity.13Thereseemslittle doubt that Rolf’s landsdid not go beyond the RiverOrnetothewest,perhapsnoteven so far; what he wasgivenwas,inessence,easternNormandy. He also made

concessions to the king.Dudo’s farcical account ofone of Rolf’s men graspingtheking’slegandpullinghimover is a way of belittlingwhat was surely some act ofsubmissionorhomage,withapromise of fidelity, and doesnotseemcredible.Even Dudo accepts that

Rolf and his men agreed tobecome Christian as part ofthe deal. Rolf and his

‘companions and soldiers’were immediately baptised.14The slowness of Christianityto recover in Normandysuggests that the Normanswerebeingforcedintoanactfor which they had littleenthusiasm. It was reportedthat, when dying, Rolf madegifts to churches, but alsoarrangedforhumansacrificesin the pagan manner. It isprobable that Rolf married a

Christianwife, thoughitmaynothavebeenPopaorGisela,and that his children werebroughtupasChristians.15

THEEARLY‘DUKES’OF

NORMANDY

The sources for the periodfrom911to1026arenotveryfull.We have to rely a gooddeal on Dudo of St-Quentin,though some other Frankishchronicles give assistance.

Wedonot,forexample,evenknowthedateofthedeathofthe first Viking ruler ofNormandy,Rolf.Rolf’s original territory

was a fertile land. EasternNormandy contained muchopen country and providedvaluableproduceingrainandfruit.AcharterofCharlesIII,dated to 905, shows thatnormal administration wasoperating within Rolf’s

territories then, so we maybelievethatRolfwaskeepingorder within his own regionin eastern Normandy, whichcanonlyhaveimprovedafterthe911agreement.16Rolf himself began the

expansion of his landswestwards, which wouldculminate in formingNormandyasweknowit.Heprobablymovedhisauthoritybeyond Eu, and beyond the

OrneasfarastheRiverVire.Rolf made the first majorextension of his originalgrant, adding what we thinkof as middle Normandy,especially theBessin.By thetime of his death, Rolf hadbecomeessentiallyaFrankishcount with his capital atRouen.Rolf’s son, William,

succeeded him in about 924.He is known as William

Longsword (c. 924–42).Among the early rulers, thedescendants of Rolf, therewas no weak link. Each onein turn added something towhat he acquired, andincreased the strength ofNormandy. In William I’scase itwas the secondmajorextension of Normanauthority.To the west there was

trouble between the Bretons

and Scandinavian settlersalong the Loire, and theNormans intervened for theirown profit. By 933 Williamhad gained westernNormandy as far as theCouesnon,which it seemshehad recovered from theBretons, adding the Cotentinand the Avranchin, thoughcomital power in these areasremained weak through thenext century.17 Normandy as

we recognise it had beencreated,orperhaps recreated,since it responded closely totheoldecclesiasticalprovinceof Rouen and the evenmoreancient boundaries of theRoman province ofLugdunensis Secunda; it alsohad a rough correspondenceto the Frankish region ofNeustria, which it was stillsometimes called. WilliamLongsword established a

family connection withFécamp, where a palace wasconstructed.William Longsword was

christian and encouragedChristianity. He married achristian noblewoman,Liégarde, daughter of thecountofVermandois, thoughhis successor was born to aBreton mistress.18 ButChristianity’s revival inNormandy proved slow and

uncertain. Five successivebishops appointed toCoutances were unable toreside in their see. BishopsappointedoutsideRouenalsofound themselves unable toliveintheirownsees.However, William I was

knownasafriendofmonasticrestoration, and wasespeciallyassociatedwiththegreat house of Jumièges. In942, the year of his death,

William welcomed KingLouis IV of France (936–54)toRouen,whichsuggeststhathe recognised the king’sauthority over Normandy.Neither the emphasis onChristianity, nor thefriendship with the WestFrankishmonarchy, seems tohave been favoured byWilliam’s subjects, and mayhave been the cause of hisassassination in 942. His

death,thoughtreatedbysomeasmartyrdom,ledtoapaganrevival in Normandy, and aperiodofdisorder.William Longsword’s son

succeededasRichardI(942–96).Hegrewinto‘atallman,handsome and strongly built,with a long beard and greyhair’.Butin942hewasonlyten years old, and as usual aminority meant disorder anddifficulty.19 Scandinavian

raidswerestilloccurring,andwere a cause of disturbanceswithin Normandy. The kingofFranceandthedukeoftheFranks establishedthemselves in Normanterritory, and won a victoryagainst the Viking leaderSihtric. They looked for theoverthrow of the Vikingcounty rather than thedefence of Richard. But in945 Louis IV was himself

defeatedbyHarold, aVikingleader probably based inBayeux.20

Capetian Kings of France: HughCapet to Philip I.

Gradually, over the years,Richard I emerged as a manofstrengthanddetermination.He took as his wife, thoughperhaps not by a Christianceremony, a woman ofDanish descent calledGunnor,fromafamilysettledin the pays de Caux. By her

he had several children,including his eventualsuccessor. Most members ofthe Norman nobility of theConqueror’s time claimedsome sort of relationshipeitherwithRichard I orwithGunnor, which brought acoherencetotherulinggroupthat in turnaddedstrength totheir combined efforts atexpansion.21 Given thecircumstances of the

minority, it is hardlysurprising that Richard Icontinued to keep links withScandinavia, but he alsomade an agreement with thenewking,Lothar,atGisorsin965. For a long period afterthis the ruler of Normandykept on good terms with theking of the West Franks, ofimportancetothemboth.But Richard I did not

continue his support for the

old Carolingian family. Hehad already been closelyassociated with the duke ofthe Franks, and took as his‘official’ wife, Emma,daughter of Hugh the Great,duke of the Franks (d. 956).The Normans were amongthe firmest supporters of thisfamily. In 968 Richard Irecognised Hugh the Great’sson, Hugh Capet, as hisoverlord, and when Hugh

became the first Capetianking of France (987–96) theNormans were among hisearliest adherents. Richardalso sought to restoreChristianity, and from thistime on paganism inNormandywaned.Oneofhismostenduringactswastoaidthe revival of the monasteryat Mont-St-Michel. RichardI’s reign also saw thebeginnings of an important

monastic revival inNormandy.Richard II (996–1026)

succeededhisfatherinayearmarkedbyapeasantrevoltinNormandy. The peasantscalled assemblies, and made‘laws of their own’, but themovement was brutallysuppressed by the nobility.22When the count of Ivry wasapproached by rebels to puttheir case, he cut off their

hands and feet. But the newreign was a period ofsignificanteconomicprogressforNormandy.Despitebeing‘highly skilled in warfare’,Richard II kept out of theconflictswhich raged aroundhim in north-west Europe,though he did push Normaninterests beyond his ownboundaries. He had‘decidedly pacifictendencies’, and brought a

period of significant stabilitytotheduchy.23Richard II married the

sisterofthecountofRennes,the‘fairofform’Judith.24Healso had contacts with theScandinavian world: Vikingscould still be welcomed atRouen in 1014, and a Norsepoetwas receivedat court in1025. To Franks outsideNormandy the rulers stillseemed Vikings, and Richer

ofReimscontinually referredto Richard as ‘duke of thepirates’. The name given tothe territory itself,‘Normandy’, came from thesame attitude to itsinhabitants,meaning the landofthenorthmenorVikings.ButScandinavianinfluence

wasdecreasinginNormandy.Place-name studies suggestthattheoriginalScandinaviansettlement did not extend

evenlythroughoutNormandy.The names cluster along thecoastandtherivers.Itisclearin any case that the settlersbegan to integrate with theexisting population throughintermarriage. SomeScandinavian attitudes andcustoms continued but, as isso often the case, thesurvivingpopulationfromtheold world recovered itsstrength, if only in

influencing language and away of life. By the tenthcentury French was takingover as themain language inNormandy,ifithadeverbeenovertaken. According toDavid Douglas, by theeleventh century Normandywas ‘French in its speech, initsculture,andinitspoliticalideas’.25The administrative system

which developed in

Normandy was largelyFrankish, and similar to thatin surrounding counties. WehaveanicepictureofRichardII at Rouen, in ‘the citytower, engaged in publicaffairs’. We are told thatthose in attendance feared tobreak in upon him unlesssummoned by hischamberlains or doorkeepers:‘but if you wish to see him,you can watch him at the

usual time, just after dinner,at the upper window of thetower,whereheisinthehabitoflookingdownoverthecitywalls, the fields and theriver’.26Richard II continued the

family’s reputation fordefending the Church, andwas responsible for invitingto Normandy the reformerWilliamofVolpiano.By thistime the episcopal

organisation of Normandyhad developed, and thebishopswereabletofunctionnormally within their sees.UnderRichardIIanewsocialstructure of Normandyemerged. It is clear now thatthiswasnottheemergenceofnew families, but of oldfamilies in a new guise: ascastellans, with stress onprimogeniture and lineage.The families were not new,

but their way of looking atthemselvesand theirancestrywas.There is, for example, no

mention of theMontgomerys(one member of whomconsidered himself ‘aNorman of the Northmen’)beforeacharterdatedto1027attheearliest,afterRichard’sdeath.Montgomeryitselfwasnot fortified until after 1030.The use of toponyms to

define an individual and hisfamily did not becomecommon until about 1040.27Itwasaboutthistimethattheresidence at Le Plessis-Grimoult was turned into acastle. During the period ofpolitical instability oldfamilies began to seethemselves as lineages, tobuild castles, to latch on tooffices at the ducal court, tobecome vicomtes in ducal

administration of the duchy,indeed to threaten ducalpoweritself.28Richard II married twice,

to the Breton Judith, whosesons, Richard and Robert,succeeded him, and to theNorman Papia, by whom hehadtwofurthersons,Williamof Arques and Mauger, thelater Archbishop of Rouen.Richard II used members ofhis family to rule over

divisions of his territory onhis behalf: at Mortain, Ivry,Eu,ÉvreuxandExmes.Itwasthe acknowledgement of therights of this second familywhich caused many of theproblems of the subsequentperiod.Withlocalmagnatescalled

counts came the transfer oftheruler’s title fromcount toduke,markinghissuperiority.Those appointed to rule over

the new Norman counties,mostly in sensitive areas onor near the frontier, weremembersoftheducalfamily.Ducal government alsodeveloped, and we begin tohear of vicomtes, who werenot deputies for the counts,but were all directrepresentatives of the countof Rouen himself, that is ofthe duke. During the period1020 to 1035 some twenty

vicomtes have beenidentified, and they representa growing structure forcomital governmentthroughoutNormandy.

NORMANDYINTROUBLE

After the death ofRichard IIin 1026, Normandyunderwent a long period ofdifficulty. The next duke,Richard III, survived only ayear, until 1027. There was

rumour that he had beenpoisoned, possibly by hissuccessor.29 Robert I (1027–35) was the only member ofthe family of Rolf whoprovedsomethingofafailure,despite being known asRobert the Magnificent orsometimes the Liberal, andreputed to be ‘mild and kindto his supporters’, with an‘honest face and handsomeappearance’, and of a ‘fine

physique’.30 Others, it mustbesaid,calledhimRoberttheDevil.External relations

deteriorated, and Normandyfaced a period of severeinternal disorder. Yet theduchyretainedvestigesof itsearlier position. When KingHenry I of France (1031–60)found himself in desperatetrouble in the year of hisaccession, it was to

Normandy that he fled forrefuge. Surviving gratitudefor this help accounts for hisaid to theyoungWilliam theConqueror during the latter’sminority, the years of hisgreatestvulnerability.Robert’s decision to goon

pilgrimage to the Holy Landis something of a puzzle.Perhaps he was overcomewith piety, though his life tothat date shows little sign of

it. Perhaps he was overcomeby remorse, for which he nodoubt had good cause.However,forhisduchyitwasa perilous moment to departon such a distant adventure,from which, as might havebeen feared, hewas never toreturn,dyingunexpectedlyatNicaea during his returnjourney.OneofRobertI’ssinswas

a liaison with Herlève,

variously said to be thedaughter of a tanner orperhaps an undertaker ofFalaise called Fulbert.31 Inany case the duke, as dukeswill, had his way with her,made her pregnant withoutanythoughtsofmarriage,andthus fathered William theBastard, perhaps Robert’schief contribution to hisduchy.When you look down

nowadays from the walls ofthe great stone castle atFalaise(notinthatstatewhenDuke Robert lived), you aretold that you are standing(presumably approximately)where Robert was when heespiedthefairHerlèvebesidethe pond below, outside thecastle wall. Another story isthat he had ‘accidentallybeheldherbeautyasshewasdancing’.Thetwelfth-century

writer described William’sbirth, on rushes laid out onthe floor, and said thatHerlève had a dream abouther new son: she saw herintestines spread out overNormandy and Englandwhich forecast William’s‘futureglory’!32William the Conqueror

(William II, duke ofNormandy, 1035–87) thuscame to rule the duchy in

unpromising circumstances.His father had died whenWilliamwasagedaboutnine,possibly even younger. Theduchy had passed throughdecades of instability, whichhad included a peasants’revolt and divisions amongthe aristocracy, while ‘manyNormans built earthworks inmany places, and erectedfortified strongholds for theirownpurposes’.33

Addedtothat,Williamwasnot the legitimate son of theold duke. Bastardy was notthe stain it was about tobecome in terms of moralattitudeorrighttoinherit,butit was, nevertheless, adrawback, as one can seefromtheveryfactthathewascalled‘theBastard’,andfromthe way the citizens ofAlençon and others laterwould taunt him with his

bastardy. William’s reactionto this insult at Alençonshows howmuch it smarted:heorderedthehandsandfeetof thirty-two mockers to becut off. A chroniclerconsidered that ‘as a bastardhewasdespisedbythenativenobility’.34 The taint ofbastardy added to thedissatisfaction of the noblesathavingaminor succeed totheduchy.

William’s own relativeswereamongthosewhostirredup trouble during hisminority, suggesting theunwisenatureofRichardII’sacknowledgement of familiesbytwowives.Theperiodwasmarkedbyaseriesofinternalrebellions and externalthreats. At times, William’ssecurity, and even his life,was at risk. At Valognes, hewas once roused from sleep

tobewarnedthatconspiratorswere about to kill him;William got away half-dressed on a horse. He wasprotected by a few loyalretainers and given somesupport from theChurch andbythekingofFrance,butheoften escaped by the skin ofhis teeth. Among thosearound him who were killedwere his guardian Gilbert deBrionne,histutorTurold,and

hisstewardOsbern.35The worst period of

anxiety ended when Henry Iof France came to his aidagainst the Norman rebels,enabling the young Williamto win his first majorengagement at the battle ofVal-ès-Dunes in 1047. Theduke’s enemies gathered inthe west of the duchy andadvanced to theOrne,wheretheirwaywasblockedbythe

duke’ssupporters.Therebelsbroke, andmany drowned inthe river. If Wace is to betrusted, horses were seenrunning loose on the plain,while mounted men rodehaphazardlyintheireffortstoescape. William of Poitiersconfirms that riders drovetheir mounts into the Ornetrying to get away, till theriverwas full of soldiers andhorses.36

The Conqueror’s mainenemy and rival at this timehadbeenGuydeBrionne,butthe victory at Val-ès-Dunescrushed his ambitions.However, William showedlittle gratitude to the Frenchking. Once freed from hisgreatest fears, he began toflex the muscles of hisNormanwarmachine, and toattack neighbouring powersinawaythathispredecessors

had avoided. This causedgrowing resentment andhostility from thoseneighbours, and from theking.We do not know the

precise reasons, but itwas inthis context that the king ofFrance joined the enemies ofNormandy from 1052, andturned to attacking the dukehe had previously defended.Possibly it was because of

Norman participation in arebellion against the king inthe Ile-de-France. Whateverthereason,theking’shostilityadded considerably toNormandy’s dangers in themid-eleventhcentury.37William was equal to the

new threat, and in the 1050stransformedNormandyintoagreater military power. Aseriousproblemwasposedbythebuildingofprivatecastles

during the worst of thedisturbances. Now Williamhadtospendmuchofhistimebesieging, destroying, ortakingoverthesestrongholds.Any rebel of standing couldshelterbehindthewallsofhisown castle. In the early partofthedecadehisownuncles,CountWilliamofArquesandMauger, Archbishop ofRouen, remained the greatestinternal threats, and they

could now look to assistancefromFranceand thegrowingrival of Normandy, thecountyofAnjou.CountWilliam of Arques’

opposition turned intorebellion against his nephewby 1053. He had neverreadily accepted thesuccession of his brother’sillegitimate child. In 1053Henry I of France tried torelieve Arques, but was

beaten in a conflict at St-Aubin-sur-Scie by some oftheConqueror’smen,usingafeigned flight. The surrenderofArquesandthesubmissionof Count William symbolisethetriumphoftheConquerorovertherebels.Hisunclewastreated leniently and allowedtogointoexile.38In 1054 the enemies of

William combined inrebellionandinvasion,buthe

thwarted their attack by agreat victory at Mortemer.Here,accordingtoWilliamofPoitiers, the invading armywas decimated. At midnight,William ordered a heraldfrom the top of a tree to crythe details of the victory tothe defeated king, who thenfled.39 One of the duke’senemies in the field was theneighbouring Count Guy ofPonthieu. Guy was captured

during the battle andsubmitted to the Conqueror,transferringallegiancetohim.A few years later this movewould have importantconsequences.At this time, William was

building a close group offamiliarsandfriendsfromtheNorman nobility,whowouldform a strong support to hisactivities throughout his life,men such as William fitz

Osbern and RogerMontgomery, William deWarenne and Roger deBeaumont, together with hisown half-brothers Robert,count of Mortain, and Odo,Bishop of Bayeux (sons ofWilliam’s mother, Herlève,by the husbandDuke Roberthadfoundforher).WilliamIIwas beginning to take a gripon his duchy, and the greatfamilies and the lesser lords

swunginbehindhis lead.Hewas also building a soundadministration, revived aftertheperiodoftroubles.But William’s difficulties

were far from over, and in1057hefacedanewinvasionfrom France andAnjou. TheAngevincountshadexpandedtheir territories in a mannereven more remarkable thanthe successes to date of theNormandukes.TheAngevins

had started from smallerbeginnings, had no obviousfrontierstoworktowards,andwere surrounded by hostilepowers. At this time, Anjouwas ruled by one of itsgreatest counts, GeoffreyMartel (1040–60).Normandyand Anjou were almostinevitably rivals sincebetweenthem,andofinterestto both, was the county ofMaine, while both hoped to

intervenealsoinBrittany.William responded with

energy to the new invasionand again defeated hisenemies, this time atVaraville in 1057. HereWilliam caught the invadersattempting to cross a fordontheRiverDives,andattackedthe rear section, when thechangeof the tidecaused theriver to rise. About half theenemyarmyhadcrossedand

could not return. Accordingto Wace, the Normans usedarchers and knights withlances to annihilate the menat their mercy.40 Because ofthe tide,Williamwas unableto pursue those on the farside, butHenry Iwas forcedtofleefromtheduchy.Even this victory did not

ensure William’s triumph.Both the king of France andthe count of Anjou had

escaped and continued tooppose him with somesuccess. It is sometimesoverlooked that althoughWilliam made claims uponBrittany and Maine, whileGeoffrey Martel lived thelatterwasmoresuccessful.

Counts of Anjou, 987–1109.

ForWilliamtheyearwhichbrought great change andtransformed his position andhis hopeswas 1060.His twogreatest enemies died:HenryIofFrance, leavinganeight-year-old son, Philip I (1060–1108); and Geoffrey IIIMartelofAnjou,whosedeathresultedinaconflictbetween

hisnephews,GeoffreyIVtheBearded (1060–7, d. 1096)andFulkIVleRéchin(1067–1109), to control theprincipality.It was at this point that

William could seriouslyundertake a programme ofexpansionbeyondNormandy.However, even in 1060 hisfirst concern was not withEngland, where any successmust have still seemed a

fairly distant likelihood. Hisfirst action was againstMaine, situated onNormandy’s southern border.William captured thestronghold of his opponent,Geoffrey de Mayenne, by‘throwing fire inside itswalls’, and for a time from1063 Maine fell under thepowerofNormandy.41Without Geoffrey Martel,

Anjouwent through a period

of internal troubles fromwhich William tookadvantage. In the followingyear he moved into thesecond area where Normanambitions had been thwartedby Anjou and Brittany. Thiswas the campaign in whichHaroldGodwinsontookpart.

Counts of Flanders, 988–1111.

The reason why Haroldwent to Normandy is notclear. Edward the Confessorseems to have sent him, andatleastoneofhisaimswastotry and help two relativeswho were hostages inNormandy. The Durhamchronicler, perhaps rightly,claimsthatthetripwasmade

at Harold’s initiative andagainst the king’s advice: he‘beggedtheking’spermissionto go to Normandy andliberate his brother andnephew, who were detainedthere as hostages, and tobring them backwith him infreedom’.42 William ofPoitiers has William theConqueror later in Englandclaiming: ‘the king [Edward]gave me Godwin’s son and

grandsonashostages.Whatismore,he sentHaroldhimselfto Normandy, so that hemight swear in person inmypresence what his father andthe others whom I havementioned had sworn … heconfirmed inwriting that thekingship of England shouldwithoutquestionbemine.’43There isapuzzleover this

matter of the hostages. Fromthe Norman sources they

were handed over toguarantee Edward’s promiseof the throne to William ofNormandy, and it is difficultto think of an alternativereason. That then raises thequestionofwhy thehostagesshould be Harold’s youngerbrother, Wulfnoth, and hisnephew,Hakon.Theapparentanswerwouldbetoguaranteethe Godwin family’s supportfor William. This in turn

raises the question of theGodwin family’s attitude. Itwould surely have beenimpossible for Edward andWilliam to arrange for suchhostages without Harold’sconsent. This would suggestthat Harold favoured or atleast accepted the idea ofWilliam’ssuccession.If in 1064 Harold was

seeking the release of thehostages, he could hardly

obtain it without convincingWilliamthathecouldtrustinhis support even without thehostages. This is conjectural,but it at least explains thenature of the oath. Theprobable explanation is thatthe Godwin interest in thethrone through most ofEdward’s reign was not inseekingitforthemselves,butin ensuring that, whoevercame to the throne, the

Godwin position would besecure. They were thereforenot especially opposed toeitherEdgar theAethelingorWilliam, if their own familypositionwasguaranteed.TheTapestryshowsHarold

setting off in a leisurelymanner, perhaps hunting ontheway.Herestedathisownmanor of Bosham, where hefeasted before boarding shipinChichesterHarbour.Itwas

probablyastormwhichblewhimtotheshoresofPonthieuwhere he was arrested byCount Guy and taken to hiscastleatBeaurain.WhatGuyhoped to gain is uncertain,perhaps to use Harold as abargaining counter withWilliam.The Conqueror was

informed of the event, andordered Harold’s release.Count Guy was no great

friend of the Norman duke,but he had been forced intorecognising his overlordshipafter being among thedefeated atVaraville.At anyrate, Guy decided not toopposeWilliam and escortedthe captive to the duke, towhom he was handed. Theact of obtaining his releasegave William an advantageoverHarold,whoseability toact freely in Normandy is

uncertain.WilliamreceivedHaroldin

the palace at Rouen. TheTapestry refers to some nowforgotten scandal therebetween a woman with anEnglish name,Aelfgyva, anda cleric, and then showsWilliam setting off withHarold on the Bretoncampaign.44 They passed bythegreatcoastalmonasteryofMont-St-Michel.Crossingthe

River Couesnon some of theNorman soldiers got intotrouble in thequicksand, andwere saved by the heroicactionofHarold.Their first objective was

the castle at Dol, which theTapestry shows as a woodenkeeponamound,amotte. ItalsoshowsConanII,countofBrittany, escaping down arope, though chroniclesources tell us that he had

gone before the Normansarrived. They took Rennesand moved on to Dinan,which resisted. These twocastles are also portrayed aswooden towers on mottes.Dinanwasfiredwithtorches,and the Bretons handed overthekeysinsurrender.The Breton campaign had

been successful, though itseffects were soon to bereversed.William recognised

the English earl’scontribution, and ‘gave armsto Harold’.45 The Tapestryversionissurelytheportrayalof a knighting ceremony. Itprobably means that Haroldrecognised William as hislord,andmustbetakenalongwiththeoathindefininghowtheNormansviewedHarold’ssubsequentactions.So the victorious Norman

army, having temporarily

imposed its authority oneasternBrittany,rodebacktoBayeux, where William’shalf-brother, Odo, wasbishop.Itwashere,accordingto the Tapestry, that Haroldtook the famous oath toWilliam.46 Chronicle reportssay it took place earlier andelsewhere, and Bonneville-sur-Touques,which isnamedfor the event by William ofPoitiers, is the most likely

location. The Tapestry, innaming Bayeux, may havebeentryingtopuffuptheroleofBishopOdo,forwhomtheEnglish artist was probablyworking.There can be little doubt

thatanoathwasmade.Whatitsexactcontentwasweshallnever know. Nor can we bequite certain if Harold wasforced or tricked intoswearing. The Norman

interpretationwasthatHaroldhad made a promise tosupport William, perhaps ashisman.WilliamofJumiègessaysthatEdwardsentHaroldto ‘swear fealty to the dukeconcerning his crown and,according to the Christiancustom,pledgeitwithoaths’.William of Poitiers confirmsthis, saying that Haroldpromised to do all in hispower to ensure William’s

succession to the Englishthrone.HegoesontosaythatHarold promised to handDover to William withvarious other strongholds inEngland.We cannot take theNorman view withoutretaining some doubts aboutitsaccuracyonthedetail,butit is impossible to discountthe oath altogether, andWilliam’s actions throughoutpointtohisbeliefthatin1066

Haroldbetrayedhistrust.47The theme of theTapestry

is that Harold had made asacred oath, he is shownswearing on a reliquary; bytaking the English crown hetherefore broke his promise.TheimplicationisthatHaroldhad promised to aidWilliamingetting theEnglish crown,thoughtheoathmaynothavebeensospecific;butitsurelyattheleastpromisedHarold’s

fidelity to William. In anyevent Harold was able toreturntoEngland.Oneofthehostages, his nephewHakon,was released, butHaroldhadtoleavehisbrotherWulfnothinNormanhands:thissmacksofacompromise.TheTapestry’sportrayalof

EarlHaroldreportingbacktothe Confessor suggests thathis tripwas seen as a failureand a humiliation. Had he

been sent merely to informWilliam of a promise, thiswould not be the case.Perhaps it means the partialfailure to get a good deal onthehostages.PerhapsEdwardnolongerfavouredWilliam’ssuccession; his attempts tobring over Edward fromHungary suggest this. It isalso possible that Edwardreturned to the idea ofWilliamforthesuccession,as

theNormanshaveit.Theotherpossibilityisthat

Edward was toying with thethought of Haroldsucceeding.Ifsohemayhavebeen disappointed at thedilemma Harold had createdforhimselfinNormandy.Thecommentof theauthorof theVita Aedwardi that Haroldwas‘rathertoogenerouswithoaths (alas)’ further suggeststhat Harold had promised

more thanwas thoughtgood,whichwould not be the caseif Edward had sent himexpressly to promise supportto William for the Englishcrown. Edward’s generalreluctance to make publicpromises belies the idea thatEdward arranged for Haroldto take a solemn vow inpublic about the Englishsuccession. In short theTapestry suggests that what

had happened in Normandywas not at the wish of theking, and hints that supportforWilliam as kingmay nothave been welcome inEngland.48It seems thatWilliam had,

onanearlieroccasion,visitedEdward the Confessor inEngland, and been givensome promise of thesuccession. William wasrelated to Edward, whose

mother we recall was Emmaof Normandy. Given thatEdward had no children,William’s claim byrelationship was as good asanyone else’s. Harold’s was,at best through his sister,Edith,whowasmarriedtotheking. William’s interest inEngland was opportunistic.Had the chance offered atanother time, he may wellhave had to ignore it. But in

1066 he could contemplate amilitaryventure.When Harold took the

throne, William began tomake plans to invadeEngland. It is impossible toknow exactlywhat happenedin all the behind-the-scenesnegotiating about thesuccession; almost certainlyEdward gave out conflictingsignals.Althoughwe rely onNormansourceswhichhavea

bias, it is most likely thattheir version is close to thetruth: that Edward promisedWilliam the succession, andthatHaroldtooksomeoathtosupportWilliam.The Norman interest in

expanding beyond the duchywasbecomingarealitybythe1060s. Roger de Tosny andRobert Crispin led forcesagainsttheMuslimsinSpain,helping in the recapture of

Tarragona and Gerona.Probably themost interestingof the projects, apart fromEngland, was the NormanventureintosouthernItaly.ANorman principality wasestablished at Aversa by1030. In time they wouldconquer the southernmainlandofItalyandby1061were ready to begin theinvasion of the island ofSicily,wheretheyestablished

a new Norman kingdom inthetwelfthcentury.An Italian chronicler

recognisedtheadaptabilityofthese conquerors: ‘theNormans are a cunning andvengeful people … they canendure with incrediblepatience the inclemency ofeveryclimate’.IthasrecentlybeenarguedthatatleastsomeoftheadventurerswerenotofNorman origin, including

some of the more importantsuch as Roger de Tosny inSpain.49Itmaybethatpartofthe impetus was too tight aducal control at home ratherthan Viking spirit. But thereis still no doubt that menfrom Normandy played avital role in expansion fromnorth-western Europe andespeciallyinoppositiontothepower of Islam. Normanefforts in the early crusades

and in the easternMediterranean underline thisabilitytoutilisetheirmilitaryabilities in varyingcircumstances. The point isthedesiretoleaveNormandyfor distant lands. But until1066 such ventures had notbeen led by the duke with aducalarmy.The invasion of England

was made possible by acombination of factors.

Williamhadbeen freed frommany of his continentalanxieties by the 1060s, butthere were otherconsiderations. He neededsupport. First he must besecure inNormandy. In1055amonk atMarmoutier couldwrite thatWilliamwas ‘rulerof hiswhole land, somethingwhich is scarcely foundanywhere else’.50 By the1060spracticallyeverymajor

family had accepted hisauthority, even ones on thefringes of the duchy found itadvisable to haverepresentativesathiscourt.Officials in Normandy

such as steward, butler,constable and chamberlainwerenotnew,but theduke’sauthority over them wasstronger. The Peace of God,introduced intoNormandy in1047, was repeated in 1064,

guaranteeing peace fromviolence in the duchy fromWednesday evening tillMonday morning: only theducal forceswere allowed touse arms during that period.With William II powerreverted to the duke, and hisgovernment becamedominant in the duchy. Hedispensedjusticeathiscourt,and could even afford toindulge in informal acts, as

when he made a grant whilesitting on a carpet outside ahouseatBernouville.51He also needed to be sure

that powerful neighbourswould not take advantage ofhis absence overseas. Hismost important move was tomarry Matilda, daughter ofBaldwinV,countofFlanders(1035–67). She was thought‘a very beautiful and noblegirl of royal stock’, and is

believed to have been justover 4 feet tall.52 Themarriage was forbidden byPope Leo IX (1048–54),probablybecauseoftooclosea blood relationship. ButWilliamwent aheadwith theceremony in either 1050 or1051 at Eu. This madeFlandersanallyrather thanathreat, and indeed a numberof Flemings came withWilliamonhisinvasion.

TheConqueroralsodesiredthe support of the Church inhis venture. This wasthreatened by that selfsamemarriage, since William hadignored the Church ban inorder to marry. He wascondemned for not awaitingpapalapproval,butheandhiswife managed to placate thePope,inpartbybuildingtwogreat religious houses atCaen: St-Étienne for men,

andLaTrinitéforwomen.In1059theChurchgaveformalapproval of themarriage.By1066 the Church wasprepared to sanction theEnglish venture, and a papalbannerwasgiventothedukeand proudly displayed forpropaganda purposes whenthetroopsembarked.53William had prepared the

groundwell.By1066hewassafe at home with firm

authority over the ducaladministration. After thedeath of the king of Franceand the count of Anjou hewas free frommajor concernabout neighbouring powers.He had made a marriagealliance with the mostimportant of these, Flanders.He had also overcomedifficulty with the papacyregarding his marriage andwon not only acceptance but

support for his venture inEngland.Ifeverthetimewasripetocrosstheseaandseekhis fortune across theChannel, that time was in1066.

Notes1.H.H.Howorth,‘Acriticismof

thelifeofRolloastoldbyDudoofSt-Quentin’,Archaeologia,xlv,1880,pp.

235–50,p.250.2.DudoofSt-Quentin,De

MoribusetActibusPrimorumDucumNormanniae,ed.J.Lair,Caen,1865,p.159.

3.WilliamofJumièges(andOrdericVitalisandRobertofTorigni),GestaNormannorumDucum,ed.E.M.C.vanHouts,2vols,Oxford,1992,1995,ii,p.76.

4.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.31.

5.‘RolloofNormandy’inD.C.Douglas,TimeandtheHour,London,1977.pp.121–40,pp.121–4.RolforRorik,orHrolfr,seemsalikelyoriginalforRolloorRou,whichareclearlyLatinandFrenchversionsofthename.However,toaccepttheevidenceofSnorriSturlusson,writinginthethirteenthcentury,forRolfandwithNorseoriginsisevenmore

perilousthanacceptingDudoofSt-Quentin’sapparentbeliefinDanishorigins.Alostcharterof913,inM.Fauroux(ed.),RecueildesActesdesDucsdeNormandiede911à1066,Caen,1961,pp.19–20,andn.4,suggeststhatRolfwasalsochristenedRobert,whichexplainsthepopularityofthatnameamonghisdescendants:p.19:‘IgiturRollo,quietRobertusnomine

sacribaptismatis’.SeeE.Searle,PredatoryKinshipandtheCreationofNormanPower,840–1066,BerkeleyCa,1988,on‘counts’.

6.E.Privat(ed.),Documentsdel’HistoiredelaNormandie,Toulouse,1972,p.70,fromAdelhelm,BishopofSées.

7.E.James,TheOriginsofFrance,London,1982,p.181.ThequoteisfromtheChronicleofStBenignusof

Dijon.8.Douglas,‘Rollo’,p.126.9.‘TheriseofNormandy’in

Douglas,TimeandtheHour,pp.95–119;seealsointhesamevolume,‘Rollo’,pp.121–40,p.127;andD.Bates,NormandyBeforetheNormanConquest,Harlow,1982.

10.R.McKitterick,TheFrankishKingdomsundertheCarolingians,751–987,Harlow,1983,p.237;Dudo,

ed.Lair,pp.168–9:p.168:‘locumquidicituradSanctumClerum’.Douglas,‘Rollo’,p.129,discussesthepossibilitythatDudoinventedtheoccasionusingameetingbetweenDukeRichardIandLotharatSt-Clairashisinspiration.

11.Dudo,ed.Lair,pp.168–9;reprintedinPrivat(ed.),Normandie,withFrenchtranslation,pp.74–5;compare

WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,i,pp.64–6,whocloselyfollowsDudo.Dudo,ed.Lair,p.168:‘ipsamterramabEptaefluvioloadmareusque,quasifundumetalodum,insempiternum’;‘TuncFlandrensemterram,utexeaviveret,voluitrexeidare’;‘eiBritanniamdare,quaeeratinconfiniopromissaeterrae’;p.169:‘manussuasmisitintermanusregis’;‘Dedititaquerex

filiamsuam,Gislamnomine,uxoremilliduci,terramquedeterminataminalodoetinfundo,aflumineEptaeusqueadmare,totamBritanniamdequapossetvivere’;‘Rollonipedemregisnolentiosculari…jussitcuidammilitipedemregisosculari’.

12.P.Lauer(ed.),RecueildesActesdeCharlesIIIleSimple,roideFrance,893–923,Paris,1940,i,no.92,p.209–12,p.

209:‘protutelaregni’;Privat(ed.),Normandie,p.75.

13.Douglas,William,p.129;MGHScript,xiii,p.577.

14.Dudo,ed.Lair,p.170:baptised‘comitessuosetmilitesomnemquemanumexercitussui’.

15.Douglas,‘Rollo’,p.133;Bates,Normandy,pp.8,13;Dudogives‘Gisla’orGiselaasthewife’sname.ThenamePopaissuspiciouslysimilarto

Papia,wifeofRichardII.16.Privat(ed.),Normandie,p.72.17.Bates,Normandy,p.9.18.Bates,Normandy,p.13.19.WilliamofJumièges,ed.van

Houts,i,p.132.20.Bates,Normandy,p.14.21.Searle,PredatoryKinship,e.g.

pp.131–42.22.WilliamofJumièges,ed.van

Houts,ii,p.8.23.WilliamofJumièges,ed.van

Houts,ii,p.6;Bates,

Normandy,p.73.24.WilliamofJumièges,ed.van

Houts,ii,p.28.25.Douglas.26.WilliamofJumièges,ed.van

Houts,ii,p.30.27.Bates,Normandy,p.113.28.K.Thompson,‘TheNorman

aristocracybefore1066:theexampleoftheMontgomerys’,HistoricalResearch,lx,1987,pp.251–63,pp.251–2,255:RogerIIMontgomerycalled

himself‘exnorthmannisnorthmannus’.

29.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,p.46.

30.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,pp.48,60,82.

31.Douglas,William,p.379.Hismother’srelativesarereferredtoas‘pollinctores’whichmeansembalmers:OrdericVitalisinWilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,p.124.

32.WilliamofMalmesbury,

ChronicleoftheKingsofEngland,ed.J.A.Giles,London,1895,p.259.

33.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,p.92;compareWilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.22:castlesbuiltin‘seditiouszeal’.

34.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,p.96.

35.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,p.92.

36.Douglas,William,p.50;

WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,pp.12–18;Wace,LeRomandeRou,ed.A.J.Holden,3vols,Paris,1971;foratranslationseeE.Taylor(ed.),MasterWace,hisChronicleoftheNormanConquestfromtheRomandeRou,London,1837:pp.18–27;WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.19.

37.Bates,Normandy,p.74.38.WilliamofJumièges,ed.van

Houts,ii,p.104.39.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,pp.73–5.40.Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.80,l.

5205–6:‘delancesfierentchevaliers/eodlesarstraientarchiers’;Wace,ed.Taylor,p.60.

41.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,p.150;WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.99.

42.SymeonofDurham,‘HistoryoftheKings’inStevenson,

viii,ptII,1855,p.547.43.L.Thorpe(ed.),TheBayeux

TapestryandtheNormanInvasion,London,1973,p.46.

44.J.B.McNulty,‘TheLadyAelfgyvaintheBayeuxTapestry’,Speculum,lv,1980,pp.659–68;M.W.Campbell,‘Aelfgyva:themysteriousladyoftheBayeuxTapestry’,AnnalesdeNormandie,xxxiv,1984,pp.127–45;BayeuxTapestry,pl.17,18.

45.BayeuxTapestry,pl.19–24;Bates,Normandy,p.83.

46.BayeuxTapestry,pl.25–6.47.WilliamofJumièges,ed.van

Houts,ii,p.160;WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.103.

48.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.53.49.Bates,Normandy,241–3.50.Bates,Normandy,p.57.51.K.Thompson,‘Familyand

influencetothesouthofNormandyintheeleventhcentury:thelordshipof

Bellême’,JMH,xi,1985,pp.215–26;Bates,Normandy,p.152.

52.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,p.128;Douglas,William,pp.369–70:herremainswerere-examinedin1961,buthadpreviouslybeendisturbed,sothattheremustremainadoubtaboutthebonesbeinghers.

53.Thisgrantingofthebannerhasbeenquestioned,e.g.byBates,

Normandy,p.189,butitisdifficulttoseewhyWilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.155,shouldnotbeacceptedonthis.

M

FOUR

ARMS ANDARMIES

uch has been writtenabout the advantages

which one side had over theother in the battle ofHastings; in fact, in terms ofthearmsused therewasvery

little difference. The state ofwaranditstechnologyspreadbeyond any single state,county, duchy or kingdom.TheEnglishandtheNormanshad more in common thantheyhaddifferences in1066.On theBayeuxTapestry,onecan not easily tell Englishfrom Norman by either thearmstheycarryorthearmourtheywear. Indeed, to showadifference the artist often

resorted to the use ofdistinguishing hairstyles:short for the Normans, longfor the English. Both sideswore similar helmets andarmour, both used similarswordsandspears.Historians have been clear

for a long time now that theEnglisharmywaswellarmedand well organised. Anylingering ideas that readersmight retain of native troops

armed only with clubs orsimilarly crude weapons,called together haphazardlyand acting as a rabble ratherthan a trained army, shouldbedismissedatonce.Itseemsprobable that every armycalled into being in Englandbythekingsconsistedlargelyof trained men, if not quiteprofessionals in our modernsense.The main composition of

the fyrdorarmyconsistedofthe household warriors andlanded retainers of the kingand of the great men whoowed him allegiance. Theymight be seen as ‘royal warbands’ rather than nationalarmies in a modern sense.The royal force, or indeed alocal force acting for theking, could call upon shirelevies too. Local shire leviesseem to have been prepared

to act in an emergency, forexample, against invasion.Men from Somerset andDevon turned out againstHarold Godwinson when hereturned to England againstthe Confessor in 1052. Buteven shire levies consistedlargely of the middling tohigher social ranks, armedmen mostly with someexperienceofwar.Thisisnotto say that no men of lower

rank participated. Ceorls, notthelowestofthelow,didjointhefyrd,asweseeatMaldon,and the poem called theCarmenspeaksofpeasantsatHastings.1But it isnot likelythat large numbers ofuntrained troops were used.The whole process ofassembling an army wasgeared towards ensuring thereverse: bringing togetherselectedmen,chosenbecause

theywouldbeusefulinwar.Housecarls were military

retainers,probablyintroducedbytheDanishCnut,andtheywere to be found in thehousehold of an earl orealdorman as well as that oftheking.Suchmenappeartohave been paid wages, andmay in a sense be seen asmercenaries or stipendiaries,as probably were the Danesemployedintheroyalfleetin

1015.2 But housecarls weresometimes granted lands andaplacetolive.Theywerenotsomuchmercenariesorsomesortofstandingarmyas theywerehouseholdmen.Military households are a

common feature of themedieval world, both beforeand after Cnut. Themeaningof ‘housecarls’ after all ishousehold servants, and thisisessentiallywhattheywere.

There were 15 acres ofWallingfordwherehousecarlsdwelled, presumablyemployedasagarrisonthere,and Domesday Book recordsvarious other examples.3 Weshall look at the Englishsystem in due course, andfind that it provided well-trained men quite capable offightinganyforceoftheday.Increasingly too it is

becoming apparent that

although there were somesocial distinctions betweenEnglish andNorman society,and although armies wereraised by slightly differentmethods, that the differenceswere not as great as oncethought.This isnot theplacefor a lengthy discussion onfeudalismandwhatwemeanby it. It was not a medievalword for a start. For ourpurposes,whatcanbesaidis

that although the actualprocess of raising forceswasnot quite the same, theunderlying rationale was notso very different. Bothpowers, for example, raisedsome troops on the basis ofthe land held by individualwarriors, and the serviceowedinrespectofthatland.There were some

differences in thecomposition of the armies.

Two stand out andwill needto be considered in detail.Firstly, at Hastings, theNormanshadarchersinsomenumberswhereas theEnglishappear to have had few.Secondly, theNormansmadeconsiderable use of cavalrywhereastheEnglish,althoughthey had horses and wereexperienced riders, seem notnormally to have fought ascavalry. In the end these two

factorsmightbe said tohavemade the difference betweentwo well-matched forceswhich stood against eachother in the field forpractically the whole lengthof a long autumn day. It isimportant to examine thereasons for these points ofcontrast.

ARMSANDARMOUR

Let us begin by examining

whatingeneral thetwosideshad in common, the normalarmsandarmourofafightingman in the middle of theeleventh century.Archaeology has providedvery few useful objects fromthis period, virtually nonefromEnglandandNormandy.Until this is remedied, werelyheavilyon the images intheBayeuxTapestry.There has been some

discussion over the date andprovenance of thisremarkable work. Suffice itfor the present to say thatthere is general consensus,about which we see no needto quarrel, with a date veryshortlyafter thebattle, in thelate eleventh centuryprobably between 1077 and1083, andalsowith its beingmadeinEnglandandpossiblyat Canterbury. The artist is

anonymous, and he was notpresentatsomeof theeventsportrayed, but by and largethe more research goes intotheTapestry,themorerespecthistorians have for theaccuracy and care of hiswork.Therearesomedetailsover

whichone isuncertainof theartist’s intent, and theremaybe some errors since he wasprobably not a man with

military experience, so wemust beware of acceptingeverything without question,especiallywhen the Tapestryseemsatoddswith survivingcontemporary chronicles; butfor the most part we canaccept the Tapestry as thebest evidence for the armsandarmourofthetime.Let us examine what the

typical soldier on theTapestryiswearing,andwhat

arms he is carrying. Firstly,let us consider those troopsportrayedas fightingonfoot.Occasionally on theTapestryone gets hints of clothingworn under the armour. Thisobviously existed, but fromits nature is impossible todescribe with any certaintyfor this period. Almostcertainlybothheadandupperbody would have beencoveredwithenoughclothing

to give some padding effecttometalarmour.The two main pieces of

armour were a helmet and abyrnie, or hauberk. Theeleventh-century helmet wasmade of either leather ormetal, and was conical inshape:Normans,EnglishandScandinaviansallworemuchthe same kind. Leatherhelmetswerenotmuchmorethan caps but offered

protectionagainsttheweatheras well as against weapons.Better armed soldiers, andespecially wealthier ones,would have had a metalheadpiece. This could bemade of one piece of metal,as is proved by a survivingexample in the Museum ofArmour at Vienna. Most ofthe helmets on the Tapestryappeartobeofthetypemadeof separate plates of metal,

riveted together on to aframeworkofmetalstrips. Inone helmet from the earlySaxon period, the plates ofthe helmet were made fromhorn.4 The most importantfeature of the helmet of ourperiod was the nasal. Thiswas normally made from ametalstripinthecentreatthefront, projecting downbeyond the level of thehelmet so that it covered the

nose, thereby offering someprotection for the eyes andface.Some Tapestry helmets

appear to have projected atthebackinordertocovertheneck. One must assume thisto be an occasional ratherthan a regular feature. Ahelmet found in York fromthe Viking period has acurtainofmailfixedtocoverthe neck.5 The head could

also be covered, under thehelmet,withchainmail.Thismight be in the form of ahood attached to the mainmail coat, or as a separatepiece. The word ‘hauberk’itself derives from Frankish‘halsberg’, meaning neckprotection, so the hood mayhavebeenanoriginalfeature.The hauberk became a

symbolof status, only amanofsomerankwouldownand

useone.WhenhishorsewaskilledatthebattleofDreuxin1014, Hugh ofMaine buriedhis hauberk, put on ashepherd’s cloak and carriedshepherd’s gear on hisshoulder as disguise in ordertoescape.6Indeed,theunitoflandwhich providedmilitaryservice was known as the‘fiefdehauberk’.Thebyrnie,orhauberk,ormailcoat,wasshaped rather like a tunic or

tee-shirt, and had to bedonned by slipping it overheadandbody.Both infantry and cavalry

wore a similar mail coat, asseenontheTapestry.Williamof Poitiers confirms that thesecond line of the Normanarmy, consisting of betterarmed infantry, worehauberks.7 Modern efforts toreproduce this form ofarmour are illuminating in

termsofgiving some ideaofthe difficulties andadvantagestobegainedfromthe garb. It feels quite heavyto lift, and it was thought afeat of strength that theConqueror on one occasionreturned to camp smiling,having carried his own andthe rather large William fitzOsbern’s hauberk on hisshoulders for some distance.And yet, once put on, the

mail coat balances on theshoulders and is lessrestrictive to movement thanonemightsuppose.8Thehauberk isconstructed

from circles of metal loopedthrougheachother.Therearevariouspossiblevariationsonthis method of production,some coats given double oreven triple layers ofprotection; some beingsoldered, some riveted. It is

also possible to assist thecomfort and usefulness ofmail by varying the size ofthemetal rings:smaller ringsat theedgesmake it fitmoresnugly to the body. Mailprovided some protectionfrom certain blows, morefrom slashing than thrustingefforts;butitcouldalwaysbepierced, for example, by adirect shot from an arrow,bolt,spearorlance,anditdid

notcover thewholebody,sothat there were alwaysvulnerable spots – the face,the hands, the lower part ofthelegs.There are some points to

examine with regard to thearmour of cavalrymen. Theirhauberksweremuchthesameas those of the infantry, buttwopossibledifferencesneedto be considered: theappearance of a rectangular

piece on the chest, which inthe Tapestry and elsewhereseemstobeappliedtocavalryrather than infantry armour;and the question of how thetunicshapewouldneedtobeadapted in order to makeriding possible andcomfortable.There is some interest ina

featureofsomemailcoats inthe Tapestry, and elsewhere,which have a rectangular

shape over the breast. Theydonotappearonallexampleson the Tapestry, and featuremostprominentlyinasectionbeforethebattle.Theyarenotworn always by the greatmen.Itcouldbethattheartistonly included when he feltlike it, what was actually anormalfeature.One explanation of this

rectangle,which seems to beedged with leather, is that it

wasanextraplateattachedinordertogiveaddedprotectionto the chest. Illustrationsother than the Tapestry lookas if this could be the case,where the piece is coloureddifferently and looks like asingle piece of plate armour.However, on the Tapestrythere appears to be mailwithintherectangle,thoughitcould still be a separatelymadepiece.

Thebestexplanationseemstobethatthiswasthewaythehauberk was made easier toput on, having an enlargedopening which could becloseduponceitwason,likebuttoning up a shirt at theneck once in place. At anyrate,astorythat,onarrivalinEngland, the Conqueror putonhishauberkthewrongwayround does suggest that thetunic was not uniformly

constructed front and back.The suggestion is made thatthe rectangle, clearly visiblein the illustration above,wasa flap ofmail, part ofwhichneededtobesecuredbytyingin place. The only questionthen is why it appears to berectangular, anL-shaped flapmight seemmore likely.Onesuggestion does notnecessarilyexcludetheother:it is possible that an extra

piece of armour was tied onovertheneckopening.Another suggestion is that

it might have been acontraption of leather strapsto allow the shield to be tiedin place. One Tapestryillustration shows a Normangraspingpartofarectangulararrangement of straps,whichlooks exactly like therectangle over the chest, butis clearly independent of the

mail.9The other question is

whether hauberksweremadedifferently formountedmen.Ian Peirce believes that theymayhavebeentrousered,andcertainly that is how someappear on the Tapestry. Thiswould have been extremelyuncomfortable for mountedmenandveryinconvenient.Itismore likely that theywerealways, for both infantry and

cavalry, tunic-shaped. Thetapering of rings towards theedges would have made themetal cling round the limbsand give a trouseredappearance.Theshieldportrayedonthe

Bayeux Tapestry is mostlythe long, tapering, kite-shaped type. The same typeof shield seems to havebelongedtobothinfantryandcavalry.Itisshownheldover

the arm, and slung round theneckwhennot inuse. Itwasnot to have a long historyafter thisperiod.For infantrythe tendency was towards aslightly shorter and moremanoeuvrable shield with astraight-edged top. Forcavalry the kite shield musthave been unwieldy andawkward, and it is notsurprisingthatitwasreplacedby various types of smaller

shield, some similar toinfantry shields, some round.In fact, some of the soldierson the Tapestry, notablyEnglish infantry, one ofwhom seems to be GyrthGodwinson, are using asmaller shield, which iscircular and more convex inshape.The straps shown on the

Tapestry seem of simpledesign,aboutaquarterofthe

way down the shield, fromsidetoside,sothatwhenheldinactionthetopoftheshieldcouldcomfortablyprotecttheface.Someof the shields areshown with bosses placed atthecentreofthebroaderpart,andsomehaveafewrivets–four, six,nine,eveneleven–probably tohold together theplanks of wood making upthe shield, perhaps to helpfasten on a leather covering,

and perhaps also to hold thestraps. The boss, like therivets, was of iron and someshieldshadametalrim,somean iron bar inside for thehand-grip. Various woodscould provide the basicmaterialforashield,butalderand willow were the mostpopularinEngland.10The Tapestry shields are

decorated but, unless theartist was ignorant of such

designs,were not heraldic innature. It seems significantthat the body of HaroldGodwinson could not berecognised after the battle;had he been wearingdistinguishing heraldic armsthiswouldnothavebeen thecase.11 The Tapestry artist isprobablytobetrusted.Individual and family

arms, passed by descent andwithmodifications,were just

about to begin theirappearance at this time,probably first in France. Theearliest manuscript withapparent heraldic shields onistheStephenHardingBible,aCistercianworkoftheearlytwelfthcentury,andeventhatis an imaginary depiction ofbiblical scenes. SomeTapestrydesignsnodoubtdidshow who were theirpossessors,asdidsomeofthe

standards,buttheyseemtobepurelyindividualaffairs.Some of the standards

displayed on the Tapestryhave a broader significance,for example, the dragon (thewyvern of Wessex) held forHaroldGodwinson.Weknowthat Viking leaderscommonly used a ravenstandard,whichhadreligioussignificance as the mark ofOdin. These had an ancient

and sometimes religious aswell as national importance.They represent the wholeforce behind the banner insomesense.The arms of the English

infantryman were thecommon weapons of suchsoldiers over centuries:sword, spear and lesscommonly, axe. The swordwas already the weapon parexcellence of the noble

warrior. Its manufacture haddevelopedover the centuries,and would continue toimproveindesign.Butbytheeleventh century, swordswerewelladvancedandevenin some areas manufacturedinbulk.The early medieval sword

at its best was perhaps theViking sword, a weapondeveloped for cutting ratherthan thrusting, with the

emphasison the sharpedges.Atleastinlegend,itwassaidthat such a sword was sosharp that on one occasion amanwassliced:‘socleanlyintwo as he sat in his armour,that the cut only becameapparentwhen, as he rose toshakehimself,hefelldeadintwohalves’.Mostofthemainweapons of this perioddependedupontheskillofthesmith who had first worked

theiron.Forgingmethodshadimproved particularly fromaboutAD 900, and the bladecould now be made longerandlighter.Frankish swordswere also

improving, and themakers –either individuals or‘factories’ – seem to beFrankish. Sword makers’names were sometimesengraved on the blade: thename ‘Ulfberht’ appeared in

the tenth century, ‘Ingelri’fromabout1050 for the typeX sword with a broad, flatblade with a rather roundedpoint, and type XI, alsoeleventh century, with thename ‘Gicelin’, which wasratherlongerandnarrowerinstyle.There were several

processes for producing theblade, which was normallydouble edged. The handle or

hilt resulted from a carefulassemblyofparts: aguard toprotect against blows slidingup the blade,with a pommelwhich served the dualpurpose of fixing the handleontotheblade,andbalancingtheheavinessof theblade sothat the hand could becomfortably at or near thepivotal point in terms ofweight.The spear had two main

components: a wooden shaftandametalhead.Itcouldbeused for thrusting, but wascertainly at times employedfor throwing, as can be seenon the Tapestry.It wasgenerally the weapon of theordinary soldier, but noblescould also have one. AtMaldon, Dunnere, a ceorl,‘shook his throwing spear’;but the commander,Byrhtnoth, himself

‘brandishedhisslenderspear’whenhespoketo themen.Itis interesting, and suggestiveof the importance of theweapon in general, that thereare eight Old English wordsfor a spear.12 The shaft wascommonly made of ash,indeed ‘ash’ was one of theeight words meaning spear,but various woods might beused.The cavalry lance on the

Tapestry looks very muchlike the infantry spear, andperhapsatthistimetherewasno great difference. Onemight expect the lance to belonger, but there is no signyet of the elaborate handguards and heavier designwhich would mark the latercavalry lance. It is true thatspears themselves might belong. The Aberlemno stonedepicts such a spear.13 In

1016 at Sherston we hear of‘spear and lance’, whichsuggests a longer infantryweapon.14AndWacedidsaythat when the horsemandismounted to fight on foothe broke his lance in half,obviously suggesting that thecavalry weapon was longer,butthenWacewaswritinginthetwelfthcentury.Theshaftof thecavalrylance, likethatof the spear, appears to be

quitestraight,withnospecialholdingpoint.Thelancewasnotyetused

foraconcertedcharge,thatis,heldcouchedunderarmbyallthe men charging togetherwithlanceslevelledsothatitsforce came upon impact. OntheTapestryonedoesseethelancesometimescouched,butmore often it is heldoverhead, and can be boththrustandthrown.Ithasbeen

argued that it might havebeen used in this manner inresponse to the problem ofriding against an enemy onhigher ground. But it seemsmorelikelythatasyetcavalrydid not operate as one largeunitinachargetogether,andthat the way of using thelance was a matter ofindividual preference. Therewas more improvisation andless organisation about

charges than would be thecaseacenturylater.A number of the English

soldiers are shown using abattle axe. This seems to bealready a somewhat antiqueweapon. It had been afavourite of Scandinavianarmies, and it does stillappear from time to time inlater conflicts. Its use inEngland may also havedepended chiefly on

Scandinavian influence, thetwo-handedweapon does notseem to have been usedbefore the laterAnglo-Saxonperiod.15AnaxecouldstillbehandedtoKingStephenatthebattle of Lincoln in 1141. Inthetwelfthcentury,bywhichtime its use was rare, it wasseen as the typicalScandinavianweapon by onechronicler, writing of thedefenderoftherivercrossing

atStamfordBridgeusing‘hiscountry’sweapon’.16The axe was a fearsome

and devastating weapon, butnot easily wielded and lessflexible than a sword. Anaxeman required a good dealof spacearoundhim inordertobeeffective,andthiscouldleave the line vulnerable tochargingcavalry.Itmustalsohavebeenaparticularlytiringweapon to wield through a

long day of battle.Nevertheless,itwasfavouredbysomeoftheEnglish.One cannot be certain

abouttheTapestry’saccuracyon size. The art form of theage did not attempt exactreproduction in size. Inpeople,sizeprobablydenotedrankratherthanheight.Ifitisto be trusted in this respect,then the Tapestry seems toshow two types of axe: a

smaller hand axe, whichmighthavebeen thrown,andthe long-shafted battle axe,which could only be used inthe hand. There is aparticularly vivid example ofthe latter held at the veryfrontoftheEnglishlineatthemomentwhenitcamefacetoface with the Normancavalry.Another view showsLeofwinGodwinsonwieldinganaxe,anditmayhavebeen

primarily an aristocraticweapon.At the other end of the

social scale, the bow in warwasusuallytheweaponofthelowly, though this had notalways been the case inScandinavia. Most of thearchers shown on theTapestry are small and notwell armoured, both signs ofhumble rank. Only woodenbows made from a single

piece of wood appear on theTapestry. Given the sizeproblemwith theart, and thedwarf size of the archersportrayed,itisquiteprobablethatthebowwasinfactaboutlongbow length. This wouldbe necessary to give itsufficient impact.Sothebowused by the Normans wassimilartoalongbow,asinglestave tapered at theextremities, held by a

string.17The armour of the

cavalryman, which forHastings means the Normancavalryman, differed little ifat all from that of the well-armoured infantryman: theyalsoworehelmetandhauberkandcarriedakiteshield.Theonly instance where theremight be a differencewas inthestylingof thehauberk. Inlater periods it was common

to split the hauberk at frontand back towards the loweredge, so that it could spreadout like a skirt. This wouldmean that the rider could sitastride his mount withouthaving uncomfortably to situpon a tunic ofmail. This isprobably the method used in1066.Thecavalryman’sweapons

were similar to those of theinfantryman:thesametypeof

swordandalancewhichwasnot unlike a spear. As wehave seen, the morespecialisedcavalry lancewasnot yet developed. However,the rider would not use thebattle axe, a purely infantryweapon, nor in this instancedid he use a bow. Thearistocracy saw bows asweapons for hunting, but inwar it was the weapon ofthose of lower social rank.

However, during the pursuitafter the battle, one Normanis shown mounted anddrawingabow.Perhaps the main weapon

of the cavalryman was hishorse. Its weight, speed andimpact could have greateffect. Before long, theFrankish cavalry would beproving its worth againstdifferent style armies in theEast during the crusades,

whenthoseseeingitinactionforthefirsttimeweregreatlyimpressed. Anna Comnenathought that ‘the first chargeof Frankish cavalry wasirresistible’; the Frank could‘drill his way through thewallsofBabylon’.18The cavalry horse was a

specialanimal,morevaluablethananyotherhorse.Ithadtobe specially bred andspeciallytrained.Itwaslarge

without being too clumsy. Inbattle, as theTapestrymakesabundantly clear, warhorseswere stallions. The fact thatthe Normans went to all thetrouble involved in bringingtheir own horses by seasuggests how important thespecial animals were. Thisprocess is demonstrated ontheTapestry,anddescribedintheCarmen.19Warhorses had bridles,

reinsandlargesaddles,raisedat front and rear to give asolidseat.IntheTapestrythesaddlesappeartobeheldbyastrapround thehorse’schest,and sometimes a strap underthe animal’s belly may alsobe seen. As yet the horsesthemselves do not appear tohave been protected byarmour.By this time stirrupswere well established, whichmadefightingfromthesaddle

more feasible and thecouchedlanceeffective.Glover thought that the

Norman horseman was ‘forthe most part a mountedjavelineer’,butthepicturesoftheTapestryshowinga lanceheld in couched positionsuggeststhisistoorestrictiveon methods. By the time oftheFirstCrusade,lanceswereused in thecouchedposition.AnnaComnena describes the

southern Norman RobertGuiscard tucking a lance‘underhisarm’ashepreparesfor action.20 The rider worespurs, not a new invention,but important for control inthetensesituationofbattle.

ARMIES

Both the English and theNorman systems of raisingtroops were effective. In thenormal course of warfare,

large armies were rarelyrequired.Often the needwasto defend on a widegeographical scale, andtherefore the bulk of thetroopsraisedweredistributedto key points on frontier orcoast according to the threatofthemoment.ThenatureofEngland’sgeography,andthehistory of Viking raids andinvasions, meant that navaldefence was a necessity, so

fleetsandseamenhadalsotobe assembled. It has beenargued that the lithsmen oflate Anglo-Saxon Englandcomposedapermanent force,andtheymadeupafleet.Butthis is uncertain, their usualfunction seems to be that ofhired men for specificpurposes and temporaryrather than permanent,usually being paid off at theendoftheirperiodofuse.21

Throughout northernEurope it was expected thatall mature men would beprepared to fight in defenceof their country or state orwhatever power held theirallegiance. But for largerforces, which needed to bekept in the field a length oftime, there was always aproblem in takingmen awayfromtheirusualemployment.Armies habitually relied not

onforcesraisedintemporaryemergencies, but onmore orlessprofessionalsoldiers.There were two main

sources of suchmen. Firstly,allkings,dukes,counts,earlsand great men of this kindhad their own households,perhaps the most significantelement of which was themilitary household. Thisconsistedoftrainedandoftenexperienced soldiers. They

lived with their lord, theyaccompanied him inwar andpeace, they defended andprotected him. Their loyaltywasdemanded,oftenwithanoath to guarantee it, hisprotection and maintenanceof them was expected. Inbattle such men would fightas an integrated group, andgroup loyalty andcomradeship was also afeatureofsuchtroops.

The second type ofprofessional soldier weremercenaries or stipendiaries.They served for pay, andwere hired for the purpose.There was often littledistinction betweenmercenaries and allies; menwho agreed to fight for youand expected rewards andwhowerepaidinsomesense.Both the Anglo-Saxon andNorman systems allowed

room for hiring experiencedsoldiers.The line between

mercenary and loyalhouseholdmancouldbethin;onemight easily become theother. Because troops werepaid certainly did not meanthatyoucouldexpectthemtobe unreliable and disloyal.Theyoftenpridedthemselveson giving good service, andon many occasions outshone

other men in their doggedfighting for their lord.Sometimes such men alsocame in groups and werehired under a leader, but theage of captains of largemercenary troops was in thefuture.Such professional troops

werethebackboneofarmies,but in order to fulfil all thedemands of war, other menwere required: for garrison

work and field armies whenthe threatwas greater,when,for example, invasion wasanticipated or undertaken.Northern Europe as a wholehaddevelopedsystemswhichobliged the more solidcitizens and farmers toassume military duties. Thesystems varied, rather ascreatures vary withevolutionary development,butthepurposewasthesame,

and the methods at least insucha close area asnorthernEuropewerequitesimilar.The differences between

the English and the Normansystems are often stressed,but in truth the similaritieswere more numerous andperhapsmoreimportant.Thusin one way or another theprimary link was betweenlandholding and militaryobligation. Maldon in Essex

had to aid the royal host bysendingahorseforthearmy.UnderKingAethelstan,alawread‘everymanshallprovidetwo well-mounted men forevery plough’, and that kingalso took ‘no small mountedforce’ with him against theScots.22 Even to thepossession of horses, this isnotunlikethedemandsmadeonNormansofasimilarrank.This matter has been

distorted by the longhistorical debate overfeudalism. Historians havestrained to define it, notsurprisingly because in asense it only exists in theirimaginations. This in effectmeans that any historian candefinewhatheorsheseesasfeudalism. Our only need isto try and see what actuallyexisted. And of coursesomething did exist: there

wasasystemineacharea.If we avoid talking about

feudalism, we mayreasonably examine howthese systems operatedwithout too much heartache.However,itneedstobemadeclear that, if not a system,there were certainly areas ofland which had been givenout in both England andNormandy on theunderstanding that military

servicewasattachedtothem.In England, king’s thegnsprobablyheldinthisway.Anearly law stated that ‘if anoble who holds landneglects military service, heshallpay120sandforfeithisland’.23In England as in

Normandy, men’s firstallegiance was to theirimmediate lord, whether hewas the king, the duke or

another. Before theword feeor fief was used, Churchlands in particular had oftenbeen granted as benefices,with military obligationsattached. English booklandhad originally beenecclesiastical. Such land hadbeen given to the Churchwithoutanyservicesattached,but much of it was laterrecovered inorder to supportmilitary obligations. And

English loanland comparedclosely in function to abenefice, neither beingnecessarilymilitary inorigin.InDomesdayBook ‘feudum’or fief was sometimes thewordusedforloanland.24TheEnglishhaddeveloped

a method of raising forceswhich depended upon landassessment. This had beendeliberately initiated for thepurpose of raising armies

during the years of threatfromScandinavia.Inessence,land was assessed by a unitknown as the hide. Thiswasreferred to byBede as a unitfor a family, and no doubthad a real basis in themindsof its inventors, but like allunitsofassessment(compare,say, the rating system inEngland of recent times, orthecounciltaxgoingthroughthe same process now) it

becameaunitinitsownrightnot exactly related to anyotherunitoflandormoney.The hidage assessment

needed to be reviewed andalteredfromtimetotimeandsomoved further and furtheraway from its origins. Someareas received privilegedratings, others developedafter the system had begunandsoon.Butitprovedsucha useful method that it was

retained for centuries, andwas still an importantunit inDomesday Book even afterthe Norman Conquest.Roughly speaking, so manymen were demanded formilitary service according tohowmanyhidesanestatehadbeen assessed at. If this wasgradually altered to allowmentopaysomanyshillingsinstead of performingpersonalservice,itstillledto

theraisingofforces.Thecommonsoldierofthe

royal army was not, inEngland any more than inNormandy, the lowest socialbeing in the state. A recentworkdefinestheroyalfyrdorarmy as ‘a royal levycomposed of privilegedlandowners and their ownretainers, reinforced by theking’smilitaryhouseholdandstipendiary troops’.25All this

confirms a long-heldsuspicion among historiansthat neither army atHastingswas probably very large.There is no way of beingcertain, but figures such asthe 1,200,000 given by theCarmen for Harold’s forcecancertainlybeignored.26Probablythemaingroupof

people called up were thethegns, men of some highsocial rank in terms of the

populace as a whole. Theterm thegn underwent achange of meaning becausethethegnunderwentachangeofstatusattheConquest.Thethegn of the England ofEdward the Confessor wasthe ordinary man of rankthroughout the realm.However, there weregradations in the rank ofthegnitself.It is becoming clearer that

aking’sthegnswereaspecialgroup. These owed theirmilitaryobligationtothekingdirectly. Therefore, they arestrikingly like the lords whoowed military service to theNormanduke for their lands.Weneed not debate in detailthe relation between hidesand military service, andthere are several problemsand uncertainties about it.There may not have been a

nation-wide arrangement, butcertainly in some areas therewas a definite link betweenthe land one held, valued inhides, and the amount ofmilitary service given:typically one well-equippedsoldierfromeveryfivehides.Possession of five hides wasalso seen as a qualificationfortherankofthegn.It used to be said that

English thegns owed their

military service because oftheir rank, while Normanlords owed their service fortheirlands;butthedistinctionhas become increasinglydifficult to maintain. Bothgroups held lands and bothgroups owed service. It isdoubtful that they made thedistinction over purpose thathistorians have when calledto the colours. They camebecause it was their duty to

do so. A Norman or anEnglishman would need agood excuse to evade a callfromduke or king to join anarmyofinvasionoradefenceforceagainstinvasion.The main difference

between the composition ofthe English and Normanarmieswasneitherthesystemofraisingnorthetypeofmanwho responded, but thecircumstances which made

particular demands on eitherside. Harold was calling onhisnormalnationaland localsystem to face invasion; in1066 to face a doubleinvasion, which made forrather exceptional demands.We shall see this in practicewhenwe examine the eventsofthatyear.ButitmeantthatHarold raised a field armyfrom his own resources andfrom as many shires as he

could use, aswell as a fleet.Hisnorthernearlsalsoraisedforcesintheemergencyfromtheir resources and from thelocalshires.William’s position was

quite different. He had topersuademen to join himonadangerousexpeditionwhichwas beyond the normaldemands of military service.He therefore had to searchmore widely for men to

come, and needed to copewiththeproblemofkeepingaforce beyond the usual timelimits. Only the offer ofextraordinary rewards couldsucceed.Itusedtobethoughtthat William had a fullyorganised feudal system bywhich to raise his forces.Now this is less clear. It iscertainly true that, as inEngland,therewereNormanswho owed military

obligations. But a good dealof the duchy was held inalods, without obligations.The duke, like the Englishking,alsoreliedonhouseholdtroops and mercenaries. In acampaign against theAngevins we hear of himpayingfiftyknights.27One problem of troops

raised through obligationrelated to land was theattachment of an

understanding of the timelimitforit,whetheritbefortydays, or two months, orwhatever. If anarmywere tobe kept in the field for aconsiderable length of time,there must be additionalrewards offered, andtherefore even troops whichcame to fulfil an obligationmight stay to be paid, andcould in a sense also beconsideredasmercenaries.

There was also theimportant and relatedproblem of provisioning anarmy for a prolonged period:foodandthenecessitiescouldbe collected for distribution,butintheendtherewouldbea resort to foraging. Haroldfoundtheproblemofkeepingaforceinthefielddifficultin1066. By September ‘theprovisionsofthepeopleweregone,andnobodycouldkeep

them there any longer’.28Harold in fact disbanded hisfleet before the vital battlesoccurred,havingtorecallitinthe emergency. For Williamthe problem of fightingoverseasmademoreacutetheproblemsofbothlongserviceandprovisions.With the glittering if

uncertain rewards offered bythe possible conquest ofEngland, and thanks to the

high military reputation hehad won by 1066, Williamwas able to attract into hisranks a variety of men whomight term themselves alliesorwhohadsome link tohimbut who could not bedescribed as obligated: men,for example, from Flanders,the county of his wife,Brittany, Maine and otherpartsofFrance.William also put efforts

intonotonlycollecting shipsbut also building anew. TheTapestry portrays both themaking of ships and theloading of provisions,including wine, for transportover the Channel.29 Successinwar depended asmuchonthe ability to keep a force inthe field and to feed it, as itdidupontacticalbrilliance.In1066 both Harold andWilliam showed themselves

to have abilities above theaverageintheserespects.Both sides had fleets and

sailorsavailable.TheNormanfleet was hastily raised,collected and built. TheViking founders ofNormandy had maritimeexpertise, andNormandy hasa long coastline with manyinhabitants who made theirliving from the sea. ButNormandy had not engaged

innavalwarandhadnonavaltraditions, apart from itsViking past. William’s fleetwasatemporaryexpedient.Itserved its purpose, sinceWilliam’s primary need wasfortransport.The English had the more

difficult task of using a fleetfor defence, but they had awell-ordered navalorganisation going back overmanyyearstoKingAlfred.In

1008 Aethelred II hadordered the building of newships, one from every 310hides.30Onotheroccasionsitseems land assessed at 300hideswasexpectedtoprovideaship.TheEnglishships,likethose of the Normans, wereprobablyderivedchieflyfromViking models. There is alengthy description of oneship given to Edward theConfessorbyEarlGodwin:

Aloadedship,itsslenderlinesrakedup

Indoubleprow,layanchoredontheThames,

Withmanyrowingbenchessidebyside,

Thetoweringmastamidshipslyingdown,

Equippedwithsixscorefearsomewarriors.

Agoldenlioncrownsthestern.Awinged

Andgoldendragonatthe

prowaffrightsThesea,andbelchesfirewithtripletongue.

Patricianpurplepranksthehangingsail,…

Theyard-armstrongandheavyholdsthesails.31

And John of Worcesterrecorded ‘a skilfully madegalley with a gilded prow’giventoHarthacnut.32Menwereobliged toserve

at sea inmuch thesamewayas in the army on land. Anumber of ports had specialobligations in this respect.TheIsleofWightseemsoftenatthistimetohavebeenusedasabase for thesouthcoast.But in September 1066Harold had to disband hisfleetbecauseithadbeenkeptactive too long, andWilliamluckily, or perhaps throughgood planning, was able to

cross without opposition.Harold did recall the fleet,and it posed some threatsagaintoWilliam’ssecurityinEngland.

THEKEYDIFFERENCES

We have already suggestedthat there were two vitaldifferences between thearmies which met atHastings: the Normanpossession of groups of

archers, and the Norman useof cavalry. Each of thesefactors helped to decide theoutcome of the battle, anddeservecarefulconsideration.Why the English did not

have many archers atHastings is not easy toexplain, but it does seem tobe true. None of the sourcesgive any indication thatEnglish archers played anyimportant role in the battle.

None of the reliable literarysources mention Englisharchers. On the BayeuxTapestry there isone solitaryarcher among the Englishranks,butnotportrayedasinany way significant in thefighting, and his bow looksrather unimpressive in size.Yet thewordbowitself isanEnglish word, appropriatelymeaning ‘flexible’ or ‘thatwhichbends’.33

Before 1066 there is not agreat deal of evidence aboutEnglish battles, let aloneabout the composition ofEnglish armies, but there issufficient to believe that theEnglish did possess archers,as indeed probably to agreater degree did theScandinavians, so that unlikethe matter of cavalry it wasnot a question of anyfundamentaldifference in the

way battles were normallyfought. Indeed, whereas thedifferenceovercavalrytroopsis explicable, the lack ofarchers in Harold’s armyremainspuzzling.Theeighth-centuryFranks’

Casket (from Northumbria)shows aman using a bow indefence of his home. At thebeginning of the tenthcentury, an archer killed anoble by shooting him with

anarrowthroughthewindowas he relieved himself in theprivy. At Maldon in 991,‘bows were busy’, though itis not said on which side.Elsewhere in the poem thereismentionofaNorthumbrianhostage,Aescferth the sonofEglaf, who ‘did not shrinkback at the war-play,/ratherhe sent forth arrows swiftly–/sometimes he hit a shield,sometimes pierced a

warrior,/time and again hedealt out wounds’.34 Riddlenumber twenty-three in theExeter Book is about a bow,spelled backwards, whichmustbeguessed: ‘Wob’smyname,ifyouworkitout;/I’ma fair creature fashioned forbattle’, which clearlysuggests that these weaponswere not only for hunting.Aletter of Aldhelm confirmsthis, with ‘the warlike

bowman in the midst ofbattle’, though he is quotingfromaclassicalsource.35Snorri Sturlusson, the

thirteenth-century Icelandicauthor of the Heimskringlasagas, has the English usingbows in the battle ofStamfordBridge.There isnoreasonthatthisshouldnotberight, but Snorri’s version ofthebattle is late, garbled andunreliable, and without

confirmation it is dangerousto accept his version ascorrect. In his account, theVikings had bows andarrows, while the Englishattacked with ‘spears andarrows’,with theNorse kingbeing killed by an arrow inthe throat.36There isperhapssome confirmation in anaddition made to the Cversion of the Anglo-SaxonChronicle, not about the

battle, it is true, but aboutcrossing the river, when ‘anEnglishmanshotanarrow’atthe defender of the bridge,though without dislodginghim.37Two main answers to the

puzzle of why the Englishused archers on previousoccasionsbutnotatHastingsseem possible. The first isthat, excluding Snorri, theseother occasions were much

earlierandpossiblywhathadonce been a customarymethod of fighting hadbecomemoreorlessobsolete.There is no more proof forthis than for a secondcontention, but the secondseemsmorelikely.Archers came from certain

regions,normallywheretherewere woods or forest. Thissort of region made for theuse of archery on a larger

scale than elsewhere,providing easy sources ofmaterial for equipment andplentiful targets for hunting.Itisnoticeableinlaterhistoryhow often one hears ofarcherscomingfrom,say,theForest of Dean or SherwoodForest. Methods of fightingalso tended to be regional,and archery may well havebeen more popular inNorthumbria than Wessex:

one notes how many of theearly instances of evidencecome from the region of theold northern kingdom. Lateron, Gerald of Wales wrotethat Gwent was noted for itsarcherswhereasotherpartsofWaleswerebetterknown forproducingspearmen.We know very little about

the composition of theEnglisharmiesat eitherGateFulford or Stamford Bridge.

Possibly archers fought inoneorotherorbothofthese,in which case those samewould not have beenavailable at Hastings. Asrelatively lowly infantry theywould be recruited in thelocal levies. At Hastings,Haroldgatheredmenfromaswide an area as he could inthe brief space betweenStamfordBridgeandhisfightwith William, but the local

levies forHastings inevitablycame largely from the southandprobablynotforthemostpart from regions especiallynotedforarchery.In other words it may just

be an accident of events thatdeprived the English ofarchers at Hastings: theunusual circumstance ofhavingthreeimportantbattleswithin the space of a fewmonths and the location of

the third and last of thembeing in the south.Weknowthat the Weald did laterproduce archers, and perhapssome from there were atHastings. Itmay be also thatHarold was more concernedabout his élite troops, theswordsmen and axemen.Only these men who camefrom the wealthier socialclass would possess horsesand be able to ride from

StamfordBridge toHastings.The infantry would be whatthelocal leviesprovided,andthe evidence of the battlesuggests that they werechieflyspearmen.The Normans certainly

possessedandusedarchersatHastings. Norman archerswerealsoreputedtobelowly.ThereisastoryinWilliamofJumièges where Bernard thePhilosopher puts on poor

man’s clothes and then takesup the appropriateweapon, abow, in order to gain theattention of Duke Richard IIby pretending to shoot him.He was arrested, but laterpardoned.The Normans had archers

in sufficient numbers to usethem in tactical groups. AtHastings, Norman archerswere put at the front of thearmy in the opening phase,

played a significant role inthe battle, and accounted forthelifeofHaroldGodwinson.Nor was this the firstoccasion that we hear ofNorman archers; they wereused, for example, atVaravillein1057.Judging by their

sophisticated tacticalemployment at Hastings,archers were a fullyintegrated part of Norman

forces, probably having beenemployedoveraconsiderableperiod of time. Both theFranks and the Vikings hadarchery traditions, so theNormanscouldhaveinheritedeither or both. The bowshown on the Tapestry isalways thewoodenbow.Thelikelihood is that this was oflength sufficient to becompared to a longbow, andwas certainly of the same

construction. Actualbowstaves which have beenfound confirm the point thatlongbow staves werecommon over a long period:some forty were found fromthe late Roman period, onefrom the seventh century,others from the Vikingperiod. A reconsideration ofthe artwork of the Tapestrysuggests that many of thebowstherewereprobablythe

heightofaman.Literary sources make it

clear that the Normans alsopossessed crossbows. Thereis no reason not to believethis possible. The crossbowhas a long history, fromancientChina to theRomansand the Franks.We have nodetailed description and nodepictionontheTapestry,butprobably in the eleventhcentury these would be of

relatively primitiveconstruction, perhaps using aforked piece of wood as thebasis. It was, nevertheless,thought a powerful weapon.The author of the Carmensays that shields were of nouseagainstcrossbowbolts.38The crossbow was

mechanicalinoperation,witha trigger. It shot a shorter,heavier missile than thewooden bow did, called

usually a quarrel or a bolt.One advantage of crossbowswas that men could be moreeasily trained to use them.We can only guess whycrossbows are not illustratedon the Tapestry. The mostlikelyexplanationisthattheywererareinEngland;wehearnothing of them before theConquest, though it has beensuggestedthatoneispicturedon a seventh-century Pictish

carving.39 Since theTapestrywas designed by an Englishartist, we may guess that hewas unfamiliar with thisweapon.As to the Norman

possession of cavalry, this ismoreexplicable.TheEnglishagain had, to a degree, thecapacitytousehorsesinwar,andoccasionallybefore1066they had done so. LikewisetheScandinavian conquerors;

when Cnut crossed theThames in 1016 itwas ‘withmany men on horses’.40WhenHaroldwassentbytheConfessor against the Welshin 1063, he went with ‘asmall troop of horsemen’;laterhemethisbrotherTostigwho commanded a small‘equestrian army’. It is eventrue that an Englishman ofrankwasexpected to ride: ‘anoble should be on a horse’s

back’.An early scene on theBayeux Tapestry showsHaroldridingtoBoshamwithhis retainers, called ‘milites’,and they aremounted. ThereareEnglishmen inDomesdayBook referred to as ‘milites’,though it is not clear whattheirmilitaryfunctionwas.Itisnotforwar,andthehorsesare probably not warhorses,but the similarity to Normanmounted warriors is

unmistakable.Similarities were marked

by the English themselves,andtheirwordfortheFrench‘chevalier’ is the one whichhas established itself in thelanguage: ‘cniht’ meaningretainer as the origin, ofcourse,for‘knight’.41ButtheEnglishethosofwar,likethatof the Vikings, was aninfantryone.Swordsmenandspearmen, in the

Scandinavian case evenarchers, were the admiredwarriors.The knownEnglishburials of warriorsdemonstratethattheweaponsofaninfantrymanwerethoseconsidered precious enoughto take into the other world,reflecting their values in life.The English warriorsexpected to stand side byside, comrades togetheraround their leader, to hack,

or thrust, and trade blows.TheCarmen poet wrote ‘theEnglish scorn the solace ofhorses and trusting in theirstrength they stand fast onfoot’; and he also stated thatat Hastings the English hadhorses which they left to therearwhenformingforbattle.The shield-wall, or war-

wall,wasapoeticdescriptionof this put into practice: asolid line of men standing

shoulder to shoulder to facethe enemy. At Sherston in1016, the best men wereplacedinthefrontline,whichwas probably normalpractice. At Hastings, theEnglishweredescribedasallon foot and in close ranks.42The ideal was to advancetowardsvictoryortodie.Cavalry, with its capacity

to ride off to safety,was notan admired kind of troop. A

telling phrase in the Anglo-SaxonChroniclerelatestotheflight of the English underEarl Ralph at Hereford in1055, ‘because they were onhorseback’. In the poem ofthe battle of Maldon,Byrhtnoth told his men eachto let go of his horse, ‘todrive it far off and tomarchforwards’.Thisattitudelastedwell into the age of cavalry,whenitcouldoftenbeamark

of courage to abandon thehorse and its promise ofescape,andtostandalongsideyourmen.43Thereisplentyofevidence

that the English had horsesand used them for war,sometimes that theyevendidfight from horseback. Thereare early, again northern,stone carvings of cavalry inbattle.44 There are countlessexamples of horses being

used for transport, and nodoubt at all that the Englisharistocracycouldrideanddidride. Harold’s quick journeyfrom Stamford Bridge toHastings was not made onfoot. The attempts of someill-informed individuals todothe trip on foot to test itsfeasibility seem ratherpointless. There was noserious problem in coveringthe distance on horse as

Haroldandhishouseholdandprofessional or noble troopsclearly did. There are alsoplenty of examples of horsesused in raidsandforpursuitsafter a battle. The horsespossessedbyEnglishwarriorswere clearly held in thevicinityandusedasrequired.But actual cavalry fighting

in battle is anothermatter. Itrequired three things at leastwhich the English lacked: a

desire to fight in this way;trained warhorses for use inbattle; trained men used tofightingfromthesaddle.TheNormans possessed all three,perhaps derived fromFrankish connections. Aninth-century proverb inFrancia claimed that trainingfor cavalry should beginbefore puberty, since afterthat it became difficult toacquire the knack. Young

men, such as Robert deGrandmesnil, trained to fighton horseback in William’shousehold. Such young menwere no doubt the ‘boys’encouragedbyBishopOdoatHastingsontheTapestry.45Certainly the English had

horses and bred them. Wehear on occasions of theVikingstakingEnglishhorsesfortheirownuseduringtheircampaigns. But the Vikings

usedthemastheEnglishdid,not for battle. The Normansneeded their own speciallybredhorses,suchastheytookwith them to Sicily, such asthey transported across theChannel in 1066. The youngNorman warrior learned tofight from horseback as anoble pursuit. The idea of amounted élite was alreadyforming in Norman andnorthern French minds in a

waythatwasyettohappeninEngland. The heroes ofEnglish poetrywerewarriorswho fought on foot. Thewarfare of Normandy, likemost of north-westerncontinental Europe, reliedheavilyondevelopment fromthe Frankish CarolingianEmpire.Fortifiedstrongholdsor castles, and warriorstrained to fight on horsebackhaddevelopedoveracentury

or so. The Bretons, forexample,‘gavethemselvestoarms and the equestrianart’.46There is still a question

mark over the degree ofcontinuity from CarolingianNeustria to Viking-ruledNormandy.Thereislittlesignof those things we consider‘feudal’ before 1100: castles,knights, mounted warfare. Itmay be significant that the

greatfamiliesoftheConquestera, such as the Beaumonts,WarennesandMontgomeries,do not appear much before1100 either. This does notmean the families did notexist, but perhaps it signifiesa change in attitudes to theimportance of family andespecially the concept ofinheritanceandlineage.Both features, castles and

mounted cavalry, were

emerging as newly dominantin warfare in the mid-eleventh century. Westernmedieval cavalry methodsdeveloped very gradually,with the first evidence fromthe Merovingian age, andwith less dominance in theCarolingian period than oncethought. But when theConqueror aided by the kingof France fought at Val-ès-Dunes in 1047, there were

probablycavalryattacksfrombothsides.47Thelessreliableand later writer Wace, aChannel Islander, gave agraphicaccount:‘horsesweretobeseenrunninglooseoverthe plain, and the field ofbattle was covered withknights riding haphazard fortheir lives … the Orneswallowed soldiers andhorsesingreatnumbers’.48There is one reference to

English cavalry fighting in1066,butitismadebySnorriSturlusson.HehasanEnglishcavalry charge at StamfordBridge, not confirmed inother evidence of that battle,and oddly similar in hisaccount to the Normancharges at Hastings. It islikely that Snorri, writing anheroic saga at a much laterdate, used the only detailedevidenceof abattle from the

period (for Hastings) to fillout the account of the battlewhich mattered more to hiswork, in which occurred thedeath of his hero, HaroldHardrada, king of Norway.No evidence can be ignored,but Snorri’s is far lessconvincingthanthatfromtheperioditself.Perhaps the most telling

piece of evidence in thisdebate is the one clear

example of English fightingonhorsesclosetothisperiod.In 1055 Ralph, earl ofHereford, fought a skirmishagainst the Welsh. Ralph’sbackground was continental,he was the Confessor’snephew by his sister’smarriage to the count ofMantes. Edward knew himduringhisownNormanexile,and brought him to Englandafter he gained the throne.

Ralph was then rewardedwith his earldom. He wastrained in the continentalmethodsofwar,albeithewasnot a greatly renownedwarrior, and indeed inEnglandearnedtheepithetof‘timid’.AccordingtoJohnofWorcester,againsttheWelsh,Ralph ordered his Englishtroops‘tofightonhorseback,against their custom’.49 Theywere not successful. From

this we may reasonablydeduce that there were somecontinentals in England whowerekeentodevelopcavalryfighting, but who found thatatthistimeitwasdifficult.Itwould take time and thewillto undertake drastic change.We may conclude that theEnglish by 1066 had chosentoprefertheirtrustedinfantrymethods against theconsiderable changes that

wouldberequiredtoproducenotsimplycavalryforcesbuttomaketheirélitetroopsintomountedwarriors.The development in

Normandy may have beenlater thanonce supposed,butithadhappened.AtHastings,his men were astonished toseeWilliam fighting on footatall.50TheNormannobilitybegantoseemountedwarfareasapartofbeingthewarrior

élite. When the Conquerorhimselfwasknighted, sword,shield and helmet were partof the ceremony, as werelance and the reins of hishorse.Soalsowerepromisestoprotect theChurchandtheweak, to act justly. We seethe beginnings of chivalricideals.51The Normans now used

well-armed mounted cavalryas a regular feature of their

warfare. In 1041, during thecourse of their rise to powerin southern Italy, a Normanforce beat the ByzantineVarangian Guard at MonteMaggiore by a mountedcharge. At Civitate in 1053,Richard of Aversa led asuccessful charge against theopposingpapalforce,andhadthe ability to regroup andreturn to the fray, thuswinning the battle. In

Normandy, we hear ofWilliam commanding forcesofthreehundredknights;anditwasthespeedofthechargeat Varaville, cutting off theenemy when only half wereacrosstheRiverDives,whichgave William victory in1057.52They had also, by 1066,

developed some tacticalachievements. It used to bequestioned whether medieval

cavalry was capable of thefeigned flight, and somehistorians wrote off thisfeatureatHastingsascomingfrom the imagination ofwriters. It is now widelyaccepted that feigned flightswerepossible,andhadindeedbeen employed by variousFrankish armies and othersover a period of time, forexample,bytheAlans,Huns,ByzantinesandMagyars.The

Bretonsemployedthefeignedflight against Fulk IV, countofAnjou.TheNormansusedthe feigned flight on severaloccasions before Hastings,for example, under WalterGiffard at St-Aubin in 1053:‘the Normans succeeded indrawing away a considerablepartof thearmyand,as if inflight, they led the Frenchinto a trap. For suddenly theNormans who seemed to be

fleeing, turned round andbegan violently to cut downthe French.’ Walter Giffard,incidentally, probably foughtfor William at Hastings.53The Normans also made afeigned flight to draw theenemy away from the wallsofMessinainSicilyin1060.LaterNormanarmieswere

organised in small tacticalgroups, sometimes calledconroys, and there is little

reason to dispute thelikelihood that these had alonghistory.Wacesuggestedthat the conroys were basedon men from the samegeographical area. Theconroy is unlikely to havenumbered much more thanabouttwentymen.There was a third major

difference between Englishand Norman warfare, but itssignificanceislessvitalsofar

asHastingsisconcerned.TheNormans built and usedfortifications which we callcastles, the English on thewhole did not. There werefortifications in England, buttheir nature was different.From Alfred onwards therehad developed a network ofover thirty fortifiedstrongholds,virtuallytowns–theburhs.Someofthesewerefortified with stone walls, as

Towcester,whilesometownsalready possessing walls hadthem repaired.54 But thesewereonanationalbasis, andwere largeenough tocontainurban populations and offershelter to those living in theneighbourhood.Nevertheless,itmaybesignificant thatourwordfor‘castle’derivesfromthewordtheEnglishusedfortheirownfortifications.55There was at least one

private fortification, found atGolthoinLincolnshire,whichsuggests that the Englishweremoving along the samesort of path as the Normans.It has been called ‘a pre-Conquest castle’, and itsfunction like that of a castlewas as a ‘defendedresidence’, though Goltho’sdefenceswerenotasmassiveas those of a typical castle,and at present it is a unique

site. When it did become acastleinabout1080,itwasaparticularly small one, butwas still more stronglydefended than its Englishpredecessor.56Thecontinentalsbroughtto

England under Edward theConfessorhad,itistrue,builta handful of such buildings,including Pentecost’s Castleand Robert’s Castle, so theEnglish were not entirely

unfamiliar with this kind offortification. It is interestingto find Harold Godwinsonmaking earthwork defenceswithaditcharoundHerefordin 1055. Given time andwithout theConquest, castleswould almost certainly havedevelopedinEngland,buttherate would have beenslower.57Equally truly there do not

seem to have been so many

castles in Normandy, norwere they built so early, aswas once believed.Normandy was certainly notthe base or centre of castle-building, and seems to haveadopted the practice whichgrewupprobably first in theLoire region. In Englandtherewerenomore thanhalfa dozen castles at the mostbeforetheNormanConquest.InNormandy, castleswere

at this time mostly what wemight call citadels,fortifications built withintowns. But there were someseparate structures and a fewat least were earthwork andtimber(i.e.motteandbailey).There is mention of largeditches cut to defend bothArques andDomfront.Whenthe Conqueror besiegedBrionne for three years from1047, he constructed

earthwork fortifications onthe banks of theRiverRisle;similarly at the siege of hisuncle’snewcastleatArques,Williambuiltamoundfortheprotection of his own men,and again no less than fourmoundsatDomfront.AtbothDomfront and Alençon,previousdukeshadpermittedthe erection or rebuilding ofcastles.58 There were pre-1066 towers at Ivry and

Brionne, as well as ‘TheTower’ at Rouen. J. Yverbelieved that the length ofsome sieges meant that thecastles concerned wereprobably constructed ofstone.Bretoncastlesareshownin

the Bayeux Tapestry’saccount of the Conqueror’scampaign there probably in1064: at Dol, Dinan andRennes. The Tapestry also

shows the castle of BishopOdo, the Conqueror’s half-brother, at Bayeux; and atBeaurain where Harold washeld prisoner; and probablyWilliam’sownfortificationatRouen. There is reference totheConquerorbuildinganewcastle at St-James-de-Beuvron. The use of castlesmay seem less relevant toHastings than the possessionof archers and cavalry, but it

is not entirely withoutsignificance, when oneconsiders how William usedPevensey and constructed acastle at Hastings in theperiodimmediatelyprecedingthe great battle, and indeedhowtheConquestwascarriedthrough in the years afterHastings.59Castles of coursedevelopedquicklyinEnglandafter the Conquest partlybecause the Norman lords

wererulingahostilelandandneededtoprotectthemselves.

Notes1.Carmen,edsMortonand

Muntz,p.29.Thisworkhasbeenthesubjectofmuchdebateoveritsdating:R.H.C.Davis,‘TheCarmendeHastingaeProelio’,EHR,xciii,1978,pp.241–61,proposingalaterdatethanhadpreviously

beenaccepted;andhistorianstakingsidesovertheissuesince.Inthepresentwriter’sviewDaviswasprobablycorrecttoconsidertherewasaproblem,andtheworkmaydatefromabout1100.Itwouldstillhaveinterestasasourceonarmiesoftheeleventhcentury.

2.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.480.

3.R.P.Abels,LordshipandMilitaryObligationinAnglo-SaxonEngland,London,1988,isanexcellentrecentworkwhichreinforcesthismoderntrendinthinkingaboutthecompositionofEnglishforces.Seee.g.p.37:thearmywas‘aristocraticinitsbasis’;alsopp.32,160,168,175.ThekeyworkonhousecarlsisN.Hooper,‘ThehousecarlsinEnglandintheeleventh

century’,ANS,vii,1985,pp.161–76,whichshouldbetakenwiththeadditionalthoughtsinN.Hooper,‘MilitarydevelopmentsinthereignofCnut’inA.Humble(ed.),TheReignofCnut,London,1994,pp.89–100.

4.S.Pollington,TheEnglishWarriorfromEarliestTimesto1066,Hockwold-cum-Wilton,1996,p.144:theBentyGrangehelmet.

5.Pollington,EnglishWarrior,p.145:theCoppergatehelmet.

6.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,p.24.

7.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.185.

8.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.169.Theauthor,likemanyothers,hasbeenallowedtodonahauberkmadebythehistorianofarmsandarmour,IanPeirce.

9.BayeuxTapestry,pl.69;

WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.183.

10.Pollington,EnglishWarrior,p.136.

11.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.207.

12.Pollington,EnglishWarrior,pp.83,97,125,244.ThepoemaboutMaldonisuseful,butwasprobablywrittenaboutthirtyyearsaftertheevent.

13.M.Strickland,papertoBattleConference,tobepublishedin

ANS,xix.SeeN.Higham,TheKingdomofNorthumbria,Stroud,1993.

14.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.486.

15.Pollington,EnglishWarrior,p.127.

16.HenryofHuntingdon,HistoriaAnglorum,ed.T.Arnold,RSno.74,London,1965,p.200.

17.J.Bradbury,TheMedievalArcher,Woodbridge,1985,pp.

22–40.18.AnnaComnena,TheAlexiad,

Harmondsworth,1969,pp.163–5,416.

19.BayeuxTapestry,pl.40–4;Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.8.

20.AnnaComnena,pp.56–7;R.Glover,‘Englishwarfarein1066’,EHR,xvii,1952,pp.1–18,p.14.

21.SeeHooper,‘Militarydevelopments’.

22.Abels,Lordship,pp.115:‘caballuminexercitu’;110.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,pp.389,934:‘equestriexercitunonmodico’.

23.Abels,Lordship,p.13.24.Abels,Lordship,p.45;A.

Williams,TheEnglishandtheNormanConquest,Woodbridge,1995,pp.191–2.

25.Abels,Lordship,p.146.26.Carmen,edsMortonand

Muntz,p.17.27.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,p.37.28.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-

SaxonChronicle,p.142.29.BayeuxTapestry,pl.36–9;

WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.151.

30.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,pp.460–2.

31.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.20.32.JohnofWorcester,eds

DarlingtonandMcGurk,p.530.

33.Pollington,EnglishWarrior,p.151.

34.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.356;Pollington,EnglishWarrior,pp.236,242;244,ll.267–71;‘boganwaeronbysige’.

35.Bradbury,MedievalArcher,pp.17–22;I.Gollancz(ed.),TheExeterBook,2vols,

London,1895,1934,ii,p.112,no.23:‘Agofisminnoma’;Aldhelm,ProseWorks,edsM.LapidgeandM.Herren,Cambridge,1979,p.163;Aldhelm,Opera,ed.R.Ehwald,MGHAuctorumAntiquissimorum,xv,Berlin,1919,p.230.

36.SnorriSturlusson,KingHarald’sSaga,edsM.MagnussonandH.Palsson,Harmondsworth,1966,p.152.

37.Pollington,EnglishWarrior,p.155;Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.145.

38.Carmen,(eds)MonroeandMuntz,p.25.

39.Pollington,EnglishWarrior,p.152.

40.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.481:‘cummultoequitatu’.

41.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.

592:‘equitatu’,‘equestri…exercitu’;asayingquotedbyPollington,EnglishWarrior,p.188:‘eorlscealoneosboge’;Williams,NormanConquest,pp.196–7.

42.Pollington,EnglishWarrior,pp.236,242,244;Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.25;JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.487;WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.187,healsohas

theEnglishabandoningtheuseofhorsesatthispoint.

43.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.130;JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.576.

44.T.Cain.seminarpaperatInstituteofHistoricalResearch,1997,makesseveralinterestingpointsabouttheearlyEnglishuseofcavalryatleastinthenorth,asillustratedonnortherncarvings,though

theevidenceisratherofridingthanfightingonhorseback.IamgratefultoTomforpassingmeacopyofthispapermorerecently,entitled‘Ahoaryoldquestionreconsidered:acaseforAnglo-Saxoncavalry’.

45.BayeuxTapestry,pl.67;Abels,Lordship,p.26;onenotesthat‘boys’(pueri)alsoappearinEnglishhouseholds.

46.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.109.

47.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,p.120:‘impetus’and‘concursu’suggestcharges,butisonlycavalrybyinference.

48.Wace,ed.Holden,ii,pp.39–41,ll.4091–156.

49.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.576:‘contramoreminequispugnare’.

50.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.199.

51.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.13.

52.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,pp.25,81–3.

53.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,p.104;Giffardmaybethe‘Gilfardus’inCarmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.34,l.539.

54.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.376,onTowcester,andColchesterwhichwasrepaired

byEdwardtheElder,who‘restoredthewall’.

55.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,e.g.about885,p.318,callsthefortificationbuiltagainstRochesterinthesiege,thereforeatleastperformingthefunctionofasiegecastle,a‘castellum’;andp.341seemstodistinguishsmallerfortificationsas‘castella’fromtowns.

56.Abels,Lordship,p.92;G.Beresford,‘GolthoManor,Lincolnshire:thebuildingsandtheirsurroundingdefencesc.850–1150’,ANS,iv,1981,pp.13–36,pp.18,31,34.

57.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,1052,p.125;1055,p.131.

58.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,pp.102,122,124;WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,pp.19,37,43,55.

59.J.Yver,‘LeschâteuxfortsenNormandiejusqu’aumilieuduXIIesiècle’,BulletindelaSociétédesAntiquairesdeNormandie,liii,1955–6,pp.28–115,pp.47,49;WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,p.208;WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.106.

B

FIVE

THE YEAR 1066y 1065 Edward theConfessor was ageing:

‘withlocksofsnowywhiteheblooms’, but he was stillseemingly in good health.1The question of thesuccession was as open asever. Probably more as a

political counter than fromany great favour for one orthe other, Edward had atvarious times given hope ofthe succession to William,duke of Normandy, andHarold Godwinson, earl ofWessex. One can make thisinterpretationsincebothwereable apparently withconfidence to believe theywere Edward’s choice, andyet the old king had never

made any formal or publicdeclarationofhisintentions.If he favoured anyone it

was probably for a time hisrelativeEdwardtheExile,sonof Edmund Ironside andgrandson of Aethelred II,whom he had sought out inHungary and invited toEngland. That Edward theExilewasbroughttoEnglandafter theConfessor’spromiseto William seems fairly

convincing proof that if theking ever had favoured thesuccession going toWilliam,he had changed his mind bythe late 1050s. It is true thatWilliam was his first cousinonce removed, whichmaraudedasaclaimaftertheConquest, but in truth gavefaint right. Even fainter wasHarold’s claim, as the king’sbrother-in-law, no right byheredity at all. Neither

William nor Harold, nor forthat matter Harold Hardradain Norway, had any closeclaimtotheEnglishthronebydescent, so that Edward theExile seemed themost likelychoicetocontinuethelineofold Wessex kings. His onlyreal rival, in terms ofrelationship, was Ralph, earlofHereford,whowasEdwardthe Confessor’s nephew.Ralph’s parents were

Edward’s sister Godifu andthe count of Mantes. He toohadbeenshownfavourbytheConfessor, who had broughthim to England after hisaccession, and made him anearl. But Earl Ralph died in1057.

The relatives of Edward theConfessor.

EdwardtheExilehadthreechildren including a son,EdgartheAetheling,whohadcome to England with him.But,aswehaveseen,Edwardthe Exile died on arriving inEngland, also in 1057, andwith him probably died anyclear intentions of the

Confessorforthefutureofhisthrone.Withthedeathsofhistwoclosest relatives,Edwardprobably accepted HaroldGodwinson as the powerfulclaimantnearesttothethrone,but it is unlikely that he feltanygreat enthusiasm thathiscrown should go to acommoner who was the sonofhisoldrival,EarlGodwin.There were some who, nowthat the father was dead, did

favour Edgar the Aethelingfor the throne, perhapsinitially this even includedmembers of the GodwinfamilyandHaroldhimself.2ButEdwardtheConfessor,

no doubt contemplatingdifficult times ahead and thetender years of his relative,does not seem to have givenEdgar the Aetheling hissupport. Many others wereconcerned that Edgar was

simply too young to copewith the problems whichloomed for the successor; hewasonlyaboutfivewhenhisfatherdied.Evenby1066hewas only fifteen, had notreceived an earldom or beengiven estates of great value,and so had no significantfollowing. Edgar’s claimsremained important, andwouldberaisedagain,butheplayed only a small part in

the events of 1066.Only thestrongest man was likely tosucceedinthecircumstances.On Christmas Eve 1065

Edward the Confessor wasseriously ill, perhaps havingsuffered a stroke. His pietyovercame his weakness, ‘theholy man disguised hissickness’, and he was stillable to come to table in hisrobes on Christmas Day,though he had no appetite,

and go on to attend aChristian service.3 The effortprovedtoomuchforhim,andon the following day he hadto stay in bed. He was notwellenoughon28Decembertoget toanothereventwhichhemust have greatly desiredto attend, the consecrationofthe great new church atWestminster. Queen Edithhadtostandinforhim.After Christmas, the

Confessorgraduallysankintoa coma. However, after twodays he recoveredconsciousness sufficiently toretail a rather garbled visionwhichhehadexperienced.Hetold of a dream about twomonkshehadonceknowninNormandy, both long dead.They gave him a messagefrom God, criticising theheads of the Church inEngland, and promising that

the kingdom within a yearwould go to the hands of anenemy: ‘devils shall comethroughallthislandwithfireand sword and the havoc ofwar’. This certainly smacksof a tale told with hindsight.There followed a strangeforecast relating to a greentree cut in half.4 This wasprobably nomore intelligibletohishearers thanit is tous.His wife went on

compassionatelywarmingtheoldman’sfeetinherlap.Thismayhavegivenriseto

the suggestion that Edward’smind was disordered. Thoseat the bedside whisperedtogether about the king’swords.They includedHaroldGodwinson, Robert fitzWimarc and ArchbishopStigand. The latter, no doubtirritated by the visionaryreference to failings among

those at the head of theEnglish Church, suggestedthat ‘the king was brokenwith disease and knew notwhathesaid’.But the deathbed wishes

seem utterly sane andsensible. As those close tohimweptathiscondition,hemade his last requests. Hepraised Queen Edith, whowas therebesidehim, for thezealous solicitude of her

service: ‘she has served medevotedly, and has alwaysstoodclosebymysidelikeabeloved daughter’. He askedHarold to give protection toEdith: ‘donot takeawayanyhonour that I have grantedher’, suggesting that he wasaware of the bad feelingwhichhadgrownupbetweenbrother and sister over theirbrother’sfall.5ThekingalsoaskedHarold

to protect foreigners inEngland.Thisimpliesthathefeared thehostilityofHaroldand others to his continentalfriends and courtiers. It isalsoclearthatonhisdeathbedhe saw Harold as his likelysuccessor,whomightbeabletocarryouthislastwishes.Itis impossible to knowHarold’s mind, but oneinterpretation that would fitmost of the details we are

given by the sources is thatHarold in 1064 still had notseen himself as becomingking. He and his family hadapparently been happy tofavourEdwardtheExileuntilhisdeath.ItseemslikelythatHarold went to Normandyfreely, and there is noevidence that he was forcedintomakingoathstoWilliam.He was not the duke’sprisoner, as is often said.He

went with the duke oncampaign and was knightedby him. In other words, itseems possible that it wasonly after 1064 that Haroldbegan to consider taking thethrone.The Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle states that Edwardhad‘entrustedtherealm’,had‘granted’ the kingdom toHarold,whiletheVitarecordsthat he commended ‘all the

kingdom to his protection’.Even the French chroniclerWilliam of Poitiers spoke ofHarold ‘raised to the throneby Edward’s grant on hisdeathbed’. Wace, with hisusualvividembroidering,hasHarold demanding ‘Consentnow that I shall be king’, towhichEdward replies, ‘Thoushalt have it, but I know fullwell that itwill cost thee thylife’. The deathbed scene is

vividly portrayed on theBayeux Tapestry, with theunshaven archbishop inattendanceonthedyingking.Wace has the Confessorgoing on to mutter: let theEnglish decide to makeHarold or William king asthey please. But there seemslittle doubt that at the endEdward was prepared toname Harold as hissuccessor.6

In the early days of thenew year, 1066, probably on5 January, Edward theConfessordied.According tothe Vita, his beard gleamedlike a lily, and there was arosyblushon the faceof thecorpse, and pale hands heldas if in sleep. On thefollowing day, the king wasburiedatWestminsterAbbey,builtforhiminwhatwasthenabeautifulspotneartheriver

and open fields, its ‘mostlofty vaulting surrounded bydressed stone, evenlyjointed’, the roof of woodcoveredwithlead.John of Worcester wrote

that the king was ‘mostbitterlymourned,notwithouttears, by all who werepresent’.7 When theConfessor’stombwasopenedin 1102, Osbert of Claredescribed what they found

when the stone slab waslifted: thebodywrapped inapall, sceptre by its side,crown on head, ring onfinger, sandals on feet. Theycut through thepall to reveala bearded face. Osbert alsomentioned a perfumedfragrance. By this time, menwere beginning to think ofEdward as a saint and thepreservation of his body asmiraculous. When the tomb

was opened a second time,later in the twelfth century,the crown and sceptre weremissing, presumably kept bythosewhohaduncovered thetombin1102.8The Tapestry portrays the

funeral: the body wrappedand tied in its pall, in adecoratedbiermarkedwithacross at either end. The bierwasbornebyeightmen,fourat the front and four at the

rear. Beside it are portrayedtwo small figures, probablytheir size indicating theirhumble social rank, who areringing bells. The bier wasfollowed by a procession ofclergy, one carrying a crook,and two carrying what areprobablypsalters.Theymovetowards the new church ofWestminsterwith its roundedarches and domed tower, themost apposite site for the

bodyofthepiousking.9InEngland there seemeda

general acceptance thatHaroldGodwinson shouldbeking. Many must have hadreservations, but few wereprepared to oppose him, andthemajorityprobablythoughthim the least of the variousevils,which included rule byanother Scandinavian(Hardrada), by the foreignand unknownWilliam, or by

aboy,Edgar,whowouldfinditdifficultifnotimpossibletofight off the rivals. For menin Wessex, Harold was theirobvious lord; for earls in thenorth, he was at least thedevil they knew and perhapsrespected.Events inanycasemoved so fast that it isdifficult to see any otherimmediatechoice.On the day of Edward’s

burial, Harold Godwinson

was proclaimed king, andcrownedinthenewchurchatWestminster. The Normanswould later claim he hadactedwithindecenthaste,butthey could hardly deny thatEngland had accepted him.Thosemagnateswhowere inLondon, no doubtanticipating the old king’sdeath, favoured Harold. Hehad achieved somerecognition of a special

position in the kingdom,being referred to as ‘duxAnglorum’ (duke/general oftheEnglish)and‘subregulus’(sub-king). The Anglo-SaxonChronicle says that Haroldtook the crown ‘as the kinghadgranted it tohim, andashe had been chosen’. Eventhe Bayeux Tapestry, madeafter the Conquest for aNorman owner, shows theEnglishofferingthecrownto

Harold.10However,theTapestryalso

shows Stigand beside thethroneinthenextscene,withHarold on the throne.11Stigand was already underfire from the papacy, andafter the Conquest would bedisplaced as archbishop. Toshow him, apparentlyinvolved in the coronation,hints at its illegitimacy.William of Poitiers directly

statesthatStigandcarriedoutthe ceremony. But it is notcertainthatthisisso.Englishsources say that Harold wascrowned by Eadred,archbishopofYork,whohadalways been on good termswith the Godwin family.Stigand had received thepallium from the antipope‘Benedict X’ (1058–9), whohad been deposed in 1059.The previous archbishop, as

we saw, was ejected, andStigand’s position alwaysremained precarious. But hewas still in place asarchbishop, and remainedthere until 1070, and theceremony was seeminglyaccepted by the Church,whoever presided. Thereseems little reason to believethat Harold’s coronation wasnot legitimate. Comments tothe contrary stem from

Norman propaganda. HaroldGodwinson was king but, asthe Anglo-Saxon Chronicletersely comments, he was tohave‘littlequiet’.12One week into the new

yearof1066andEnglandhada new king in Harold II(January–October 1066).According to the VitaAedwardi,hewasamanwholooked the part he now tookon, and had a suitable

temperament: strong,handsome,graceful,tall,usedto living hard as a warrior,with a mild temper and awillingness to understandothers, able to act withrestraint.13 His most obviousrival was William ofNormandy. Others stilllurkinginthewingsweretheyoung Edgar the Aetheling,SweynIIEstrithsson,kingofDenmark (1047–74), and

Harold III, king of Norway(1047–66; this was HaroldSigurdsson, better known tous as Harold Hardrada). Thesuccess of Cnut in Englandhad linked England to theScandinavian polity. Cnuthad ruled both Denmark andNorway, and his successorsas kings in those countriescould make some sort ofclaim to succeed him inEngland. In turn, each of

those kingswould attempt todoso.But the joker in the pack,

who initiated the first dramaofthenewreign,wasHaroldGodwinson’s own brotherTostig, former earl ofNorthumbria. Upset byHarold’s failure toassisthimin the north, he turnedelsewhere for support,anywhere else. He voyagedaroundnorthernEurope from

Flanders to Norway,contacting the count ofFlanders, as well asWilliamthe Conqueror and HaroldHardrada. It was Tostighimself of the invaders in1066 who made the firstappearance.King Harold II had little

chance to make anything ofhis reign. Indeed, we knowalmost nothing of his acts asking. John of Worcester

recordspromisesmadeat thecoronation and says, in ageneral way, that he diddestroy iniquitous laws andestablish just ones, and showsome favours to the Church.He ordered ealdormen andsheriffs to arrest thieves andwrongdoers, and he madeefforts to improve land andsea defences. We know thathe placed infantry forces,presumably as garrisons, at

keypointsalongthecoast.14The chronicles move

immediately to the dramaticevents of the year, and thereare sadly few administrativedocuments to inform us.There was little enough timefor anything to be done, andwhatwas donewas probablythought best forgotten ordestroyed once the Conquesthad occurred.Harold at leasthad time to establish himself

asking.The successesofhisreign were themselvesconsiderable in such a shortspace.HadtheConquerorlostat Hastings, Harold wouldhave appeared to be a greatmilitary figure. There areplentyof signs that hewas amanofdetermination,vigourand ability. But what mighthave happened remainsconjecture. What did happeninhisninemonthsasking is

virtuallyunknown,apartfromtheconflictsoftheyear.One of the few acts we

know ofwas hismarriage toEdith, the sister of thenorthern earls Edwin andMorcar and widow ofGruffydd, Harold’s formerenemy in Wales, who hadbeenkilledin1063.Thenewmarriage was an interestingmove, and augured well forhisgoodsenseonthethrone.

He had already decidedagainst attacking Morcar,whohaddisplacedhisbrotherin Northumbria, thusalienating Tostig. By themarriage, Harold united themajor powers within thekingdom,anditseffectwastokeep the support of thenorthern earls in the variousinvasionsoftheyear.Harold in the early part of

1066 went to York,

presumably to cement hisrelationship with the familyof Leofric. We know thatHarold had a long-termmistress in Edith Swanneck,who probably bore him fivechildren, andwhowas neverdiscarded.But,assooften inthisperiod,thenewkingwasprepared to make a politicalmarriage too. Despite thebrevity of his marriage, heapparently had two children

by hiswife, twins calledUlfandHarold,bornpresumablyafterthedeathoftheirfather.There is also a strong

tradition that during his briefreign, Harold was seriouslyill. This stems frommaterialrelated to his foundation atWalthamAbbey,wherehe issaidtohaveprayedbeforehisrecovery. One source, fromthat abbey, suggests that hesuffered a stroke while the

Confessor was alive, andrecovered after receiving aholy cross. These are notparticularly reliable sources,but there may be some truthintheillness.15HaroldwasatWestminster

at Easter in April, and soonafterwards Halley’s cometappearedinthesky,inspiringthe various prognosticationsof disaster we have alreadynoted. The Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle records that itwasfirst seen in England on 24April, and ‘shone all theweek’.Soonafterwardscamethefirsthostilearrivalon theshoresofthecountry.InMayHarold’s brother Tostigbrought a fleet of some sixtyshipstotheIsleofWight,‘aslarge a fleet as he couldmuster’,togetherwithmoneyand provisions which he hadbeengiven.16

Tostig received aid fromthe Orkneys, which issignificant since the islandswere under the authority ofHardrada, and that kingwould soon arrive therehimself. It suggests stronglythat Snorri was right, andTostig had made earlierarrangements with Hardradaover the attack on England.This is partly confirmed byJohn ofWorcester’s account,

which says Tostig joinedHardrada ‘as he hadpreviouslypromised’.17Otheraid was probably from thecount of Flanders, whoperhaps expected Tostig toaid William of Normandy’sefforts rather than those ofHarold Hardrada. Tostig’sown intentions were mostprobably to recover his lostearldom of Northumbria. Hemoved on eventually to

Thanet,where hewas joinedby his former lieutenant inNorthumbria, Copsi, whobrought with him seventeenshipsfromtheOrkneys.Theymade several damaging raidson their way, and sailednorthwards into theHumber.18When Tostig had reached

Sandwich,newsofhisarrivalreached his brother inLondon. Harold then

mobilised his own land andsea forces, the former ‘largerthan any king had assembledbeforeinthecountry’.19Thiswas partly because Haroldwas unsure of the nature ofthe reported force. TheChronicle says that ‘he hadbeen told that William theBastard meant to come hereandconquerthiscountry’,butthis invasion was not led byWilliam, and the early

mobilisation had unfortunateconsequencesforHaroldlaterintheyear.The king’s new brothers-

in-law, the northern earlsEdwin and Morcar, nowrepaidhis attentions to them.TheyheardofTostig’sraidinLindsey, and came to dealwith him. They drove himoff, and some of his mendeserted. Eventually, Tostigsailed to the safety of

Scotland with only twelvesmall ships, where MalcolmCanmore gave him refuge.Malcolm’s predecessor,Macbeth, had offered threatsto northern England, andthese increased underMalcolm. After the death ofEarl Siward, Northumbrianpower had declined, so thatthe Scots offered a very realthreat.Northumbriaitselfwasnotaclearpoliticalunityand

in effect was often twoseparateentities,withcentresat Bamburgh and York.20Malcolm’s interest in Tostigshows that his own interestsinnorthernEnglandwerenotdead; from 1054 he attackedNorthumbria on fiveoccasions. But the reductionin size of Tostig’s forcedemonstrates the degree ofsuccess of the attack by thenorthernearlsagainsthim.

Tostig’s arrival proved aminor probe as the events ofthe year unwound. He wasbut the herald of morethreatening invaders. Thesecond force to reach theshorecamefromNorwayandwas led byHaroldHardrada.Hardrada had led aspectacular and heroic life,which made him a hero inlater literature, especially inthe sagas of Snorri

Sturlusson. Some of thiswork,writteninthethirteenthcentury in Iceland, is clearlydubious factually, butnevertheless, it gives someinteresting material onHardrada’s career, seen bythe editors of Snorri as ‘oneof the most remarkable andmemorable of the medievalkingsofNorway’.Some of Snorri’s writing

was based closely on older

lost works and where thesecan be identified Snorri canbeuseful–sometimeshetellsus the source. Some ofHardrada’s life was takenfrom the earlier Saint Olaf’sSaga (about Hardrada’sbrother), but other sectionsare less reliable and possiblyinvented. The followingaccountofHardrada’scareer,from childhood until hisarrival in England, is taken

largely from Snorri’sHeimskringla, and should betreated with the care thatmaterial from such a sourcedeserves. But, even if partlylegendary, it is the only fullaccount we have ofHardrada’s life, and itpresentsapictureof thekingwhichringstrueinitsgeneraleffect, if not always in itsdetail.21As a child, according to

Snorri, Hardrada showed hisindividual character. Whenthe king pulled faces at histwo older brothers they bothweresoafraidthattheywept,but Harold simply staredback. When the king thenpulled his hair, he retaliatedby pulling the king’smoustache. Another storywas thatHaroldwithhis twobrothers was asked on oneoccasion what in the world

theymostwanted.Theothersansweredcornandcattle,butHardrada’s answer waswarriors.Hardrada’s brother, St

Olaf,was killed in the battleof Stiklestad nearTrondheimin Norway in 1030, foughtduring an eclipse of the sun.Hardrada stood beside himbravely in thebattle andwaswounded. Afterwards hefound refuge in a farmhouse

whilehiswoundshealed,andthen was forced to fleeNorwayforSwedenandthenRussia, eventually going toByzantiumwith fivehundredmen. He sought employmentin the imperial service, andwas hired by the EasternEmperor Michael IV, thePaphlagonian (1034–41).During this period he helpedsuppress pirates in theGreekislands, took part in the

Byzantine conquest of Sicilybetween 1038 and 1041,aided the suppression ofrevolt in Bulgaria by PeterDelyan, and went on anexpedition to theHolyLand.Under Michael V (1041–2)and then the Empress Zoë,Hardrada was commander oftheVarangianGuard.Bythistime,Haroldwishedtoreturnto Norway. When he wasrepeatedly refused

permission,hisattitudeledtoimprisonment, and on hisrelease he simply left. Snorriexplainsthisaspartofalovetangle with the Empress andher niece, both of whomwanted tomarryHarold, andhis release as occurring withtheaidofhissaintlybrother’sappearance from beyond thegrave. It is difficult to knowhowmuch of all this can beaccepted as fact, but there is

littledoubt thatHardradadidserveintheimperialguard.Then Harold returned to

Novgorod,whereSnorri sayshe married Elizabeth, thedaughter of King Jaroslav.22Back in Scandinavia, Haroldsoon began to play a part inlocal politics. Magnus I theGood, the son of Hardrada’sbrother St Olaf, had becomeking of Norway (1035–47)and of Denmark (1042–7).

Magnus and Hardrada weresoon at loggerheads, buteventuallyagreedtosharethecrown of Norway. In return,Harold gave his nephew ashare in the wealth he hadbrought back with him.Hardrada assistedMagnus intherestorationofauthorityinDenmark, and on Magnus’death, Norway went toHardrada and Denmark toSweyn II Estrithsson (1047–

74).ThelatterwasthesonofEarl Ulf, formerly regent ofDenmark for Cnut, andCnut’sdaughter,Estrith.23King Harold Hardrada

married a second time, toThora, daughter of ThorbergArnason, by whom he hadtwo sons. Hardrada wasreputed to be a domineeringruler; ‘scarcely anyone daredto arguewith him’, his greatheight and strength no doubt

enforcing his arguments. Hetreated opposition ruthlessly.A spokesman for opposingfarmers, Einar, was simplyhackedtopiecesintheking’spresence, while farmers whoopposed him or refused topay taxes had their homesburned down: ‘flames curedthe peasants/Of disloyalty toHarold’.Healienatedsomeofhisownsupporters,includinghis nephews Asmund and

Guthorm, as well as EarlHakon who deserted toSweyn.It was not long before

HardradaalsoquarrelledwithSweyn Estrithsson. TheNorwegiankingassembledanarmy and a fleet and headedsouth, his great ship withseventy oarsmoving ‘like aneagle with wings flapping’.He fought against Sweyn inthe sea battle of Nissa in

1062,inwhatisnowSweden,where‘bloodgushed into theocean’.Haroldissaidtohaveusedabowduring thebattle.In the end, the Danish fleetbroke, andHardrada boardedhis rival’s ship, thoughSweyn himself managed toescape.

KingsofDenmark.

Kings of Norway.

Now Hardrada began tointerest himself in thesituation in England. TheScandinavians all had somelinks with that country,through Cnut and his sons.Both Sweyn and Hardradasaw some possibilities forthemselves in the kingdomwhere Edward the Confessor

was growing old and had noobvious heir, and wheredescendants of Scandinaviansettlerswere strong all alongthe east coast. According toSnorri, Harold Godwinson’sbrother Earl Tostig visitedHardrada in Norway at OsloFjord, and asked for aid inEngland.He saysTostigwasaiming at the crown, thoughthis does seem unlikely.Indeed, Snorri goes on to

make Tostig offer aid toHardrada if he should seekthe crown of England. Thereis no doubt that the crownseemed a possibility forHardrada, who had alreadygained one kingdom bydetermination and forcerather than by right orinheritance. Snorri’s accounthere is not impossible. Hethen says that HaroldHardrada determined to

invade England, and Tostigwenton toFlanders.Snorri’sfigure for a fleetofover200ships roughly agrees withothersources.At this point, with

HardradaarrivinginEngland,webecomelessdependentonSnorri since English sourcesgive accounts of the eventswhich followed. Even so,Snorri’scontroversialaccountof the battle of Stamford

Bridge has far more detailthan any other version. But,as suggested before, it doesnot seem to come from anyuseful older work, and maybe rather an adaptation of anaccount of the battle ofHastings – he even hasHardrada killed by an arrow.WeshallthereforenotfollowSnorrifromthispoint,thoughwe may have cause to notehis view from time to time.

We must also bear in mindthateventswerenowbuildingto aviolent climax.We shalllookbackshortlytoseewhathas been happening inNormandy, and it is vital torealise that HaroldGodwinson knew of thethreatfromthatdirectionandhad to consider his defenceagainst William, as well ashaving to deal with theinvader who had already

arrived.Harold Hardrada

assembled his force atBergen, and sailed inSeptember. His eldest sonwas left to govern Norway.On his way to England hepicked up support from theOrkneys, where the sons ofThorfinnjoinedhim,andthenbegan to raid along the eastcoast of England: atCleveland, Scarborough and

Holderness. The northernearls,EdwinandMorcar,hadseenoffTostig,but the latterrejoined Hardrada at somepointbeforeStamfordBridge,probably before GateFulford.24Hardrada landed atRiccall

and advanced towards York.The army of the northernearlsemergedfromthecitytofacehimasheapproachedtheRiver Ouse. The first of the

threemajorbattlesinEnglandduring the year was thenfought on 20 September atGate Fulford, just south ofYork – now a suburb of thecity. The battle lasted ‘for along time’, but the Englishweredefeated,andmanydiedescaping across the river orbeing pursued into theswampy ground nearby,making ‘a causeway ofcorpses’. The two earls

survived and made theirpeace with the Norwegianking.25Harold Godwinson, it will

be recalled, had summonedhis forces early in the year.BySeptember,whenthemostcommon period for invasionwas over, he could hold hismen together no longer, andthe land and sea fyrds weredismissed. The shipswere todockinLondon.Thisdidnot,

of course, leave himwithoutany troops at all, but it didweaken the coastal defences,and it was clearly anexhausting year for both thetroopswhoremained inarmsand thosewhowould shortlybe recalled. John ofWorcester’s description ofthis move suggests stronglythat Harold retained themounted part of his army.26When Harold Godwinson

heard of the landing ofHardrada in Yorkshire, hedesperately sought toassemble a large force oncemore. But he could not domiracles, and the first lineofdefence had to be the localforce of the northern earls,which had been defeated atGateFulford.Hardrada rested on his

laurels. He made anagreementwiththecitizensof

York, and used his fleet atRiccall as a base. Accordingto Gaimar, the invaderscarried off cattle, but part ofthe agreement was forprovision of food. TheNorwegian king alsodemanded 150 hostages,leaving an equal number ofhisownmeninthecity.27Sowhile Harold was making arapid and draining marchnorth, Hardrada was

replenishing his strength.Hardrada, awaiting thefulfilment of the agreement,broughthisarmytothefieldsneartheRiverDerwent,closeby the crossing at StamfordBridge. But Hardrada hadonly occupied the site for adaywhenHarold ofEnglandmade his unexpectedappearance.Itwouldbeofgreatinterest

to know what unmounted

men Harold Godwinson hadat his disposal. It is unlikelythat men marched on footfrom the south, while manyofthenorthernmenhadbeeninvolvedatGateFulford,andHarold’s haste did not allowtime towait andmagnifyhisforce. The Anglo-SaxonChronicle says that he wentnorth ‘asquicklyashecouldassemble his force’. Theparallels between this

situationandthatofHastingsare not often noted, but theyare clearly worthconsideration. Probably itwas survivors from GateFulford,andsomefromareasnear to Yorkshire, thatprovided the infantry forHarold at Stamford Bridge.At any rate, Godwinsonraised a good army, ‘withmany thousands of well-armed fighting men’.

Harold’s march north hasbeen seenby thehistorianofthe battle as ‘one of thegreatest feats of militarymanoeuvre in medievalhistory’,whichislayingitona bit thick, though it wascertainly a creditableperformance.28The rapid march paid

dividends.The invadersweretakenbysurprise.Godwinsonreached Tadcaster on 24

September,lessthan10milesfrom York. There he restedovernight and then set offearly next morning, Monday25 September, to deal withHardrada. He marchedstraight on through York,whichshowsthat thecitizenswere not prepared to makeany military effort to backtheir agreement withHardrada.Godwinsonheadedeastwards from York,

towards theDerwent and theenemy.There is a bridge over the

Derwent at Stamford Bridgenow,andtherewasonethen;theriveriswideanddeepanddifficulttocrosssothebridgewas vital. It has beensuggested that it was placeddifferently, but it is probablyclosetoitsancientposition.29Hardrada’s army was in theopen countryside on the far

side of the river. It is flat,open ground, as it was then,damp and rather swampy.One reason to discountSnorri’s account of Englishcavalry is that the groundwould have been mostunsuitableforsuchwarfare.30The enemy army was in

disarray.Thealarmcame toolate.Someofthetroopswerestillmilesawaywiththefleetin Riccall. Hardrada’s only

hopewas to hold the bridge,andafewmenmadeavalianteffort to do this. Earlyaccounts, not only laterlegendary ones, mention thedefenceofthebridgebyabigNorwegian,who held off thementryingtocross.31Hewasovercome, or perhapsundercome,whentheEnglishsentaboatalongtheDerwentandaman frombelow thrusta weapon, probably a spear,

through the planking of thebridge, killing the hero in aparticularly painful manner.This story presents aproblem: if the English hadarchers here, as generallyaccepted, why did they notshoot the man? If they didindeedhavearchers,thestorywould seem to be afabrication.Weareleftwithadoubt over both the presenceof English archers and the

tale of the defender of thebridge.The English crossed the

bridge.TheNorwegianswerestill frantically attempting togetintosomeorder,Hardradaprominent in his blue tunic.They tried to hold the areaknown as Battle Flats,slightly higher than thesurrounding ground. Snorrisays that the Norwegianking’s hauberk was called

Emma, and that he foughttwo-handedwithasword.The English charged

straight in and broke theNorwegians apart, thoughfighting continued until ‘latein theday’.32Snorrihasmenfrom the fleet arriving whilethe battle was in progress,and one of them, EysteinOrri, took up Hardrada’sfallen banner Landwaster,thus prolonging the battle.

The conflictwas ‘very fiercefought on both sides’,becoming ‘a most bitterbattle’, but it turned into amassacre.33There was a massive

slaughter. A few escaped,among them Hardrada’smarshal,Styrkar.Snorrigivesan account of how he gotaway in just a shirt andhelmet.He cameupon a cartwhose driver had a leather

coatandofferedtobuyit,butthemansaidheknewStyrkarwasaNorwegianandrefused.Styrkarcutoffhishead,tookthe coat and the horse, androdetothecoast.TheEnglishpursuedthedefeatedtroopstothe coast,where some of theshipsweresetonfire.34Three hundred invading

ships had arrived, fivehundred according to oneaccount, and twenty-four at

most sufficed to take awaythe survivors.35 Hardrada’sson Olaf was one of thoseallowed to go. Among thedeadleftonthefieldweretheoldwarriorHaroldHardrada,and Tostig, the embitteredbrother of the English king.The local legend thatHardradasurvived to live thelifeofapeasantinahutmaysafely be discounted.According toOrdericVitalis,

there was still in his day ‘agreatmountainofdeadmen’sbones’markingthefield.36HaroldGodwinson’scareer

and reign was short andtragic,buthehadhismomentof glory. The Norwegianinvasionwasprobablygreaterin termsofnumbers than theNormanonewhich followed.Harold must have gainedenormous confidence fromhis decisive victory. Had

Hastingsgone theotherway,he would have been seen asone of our greatest warriorkings, which indeed he was.In the long run, StamfordBridge had importantconsequences:itnarrowedthefield of competitors forcontrol of England to two,and it did much to shiftEngland away from theScandinavian threat whichhad dogged it for a long

period.And so we move in our

narrative to the lastandmostfatefulinvasionofEnglandin1066. William of Normandyhad made carefulpreparations. We have seenhow he made the marriagealliance with Flanders,repaired the damage that hadbeen done to his relationswith the papacy, and pushedNorman power beyond his

frontiers so that he now hadlittlefearofattack.AccordingtoWilliamofPoitiers,hehadalso obtained a promise offidelity from SweynEstrithsson, king ofDenmark.37 Some Normanswere keen on a conquest ofEngland, but the Conquerorhad also to persuadeunenthusiastic nobles, andpartly for this purpose heldcouncils to seek advice – at

Lillebonne, Bonneville andCaen. Wace says the baronswere summoned, and thedebate lasted ‘a great while’over what animals and whataid they could afford. Someclaimed they had noobligation to serve over thesea. William resolved theproblem by talking to thebaronsindividually.38The Conqueror had

prepared the way by

propaganda. It seems as ifWilliam at least wasconvinced that Edward hadofferedhimthesuccessiontothe English throne. He hadenforceduponHaroldanoathwhich, whatever its exactcontents, to Norman eyesmeant that Harold shouldhave supported William’srights in England. WhenHarold himself accepted thecrown, William began his

preparationstomakeithisbyforce.AlltheNormansourcesgive Harold’s perjury as thejustification for William’sinvasion.39William needed men.

Some came to him fromobligations enforced inNormandy. Some were loyalmilitary men in hishousehold. Others came asallies or hired men,sometimes the distinguishing

linewas thin, from Flanders,Boulogne, Brittany, Maineand other parts of France.William of Poitiers says thatmen were attracted by thejustice of the cause, and bythe generosity of theConqueror, by which hepresumably means either inpay to hired men or inpromises of what might begained on the expedition.Orderic Vitalis saw them

‘panting for the spoils ofEngland’.40The constant attempts to

calculate a figure forWilliam’s force seemsunprofitable. Unless webelieveWace’s696wedonotknow the number of shipsinvolved, and we do notknow how many of whichtype; there are no reliablefigures from contemporaryevidence for any section of

the force.41 Of course, onecangetaroughideafromthelength of time to disembark,from the ground covered inthe battle and so on, butbeyondsucha roughguess–5,000 to 10,000 as a grandtotal is ausual figure– thereseems no point in makingapparently precise but ineffect meaninglessestimates.42Williamalsoneededships.

NormandylikeEnglandhasalongcoast,andfishingwasanimportant industry. Someships were certainlyavailable. But the Normanduchy, despite its Vikingpast, had not given muchattention to naval warfare,and in 1066 perhaps themajor need was a large fleetof transport ships. There hadbeen minor expeditions toEngland in support of the

claims of the sons ofAethelred II, and theNormanshaduseda fleet forthe invasion of Sicily.43 Butthe expedition of 1066 brokenew ground, requiring thetransportofafullducalarmyof invasion, includingwarhorses.Wacesaysthatallthe ports of Normandy wereinastir.44Williamneeded toaugment his fleet. His allies,including Flemings and

Bretons, probably gave someaid, but he also needed tobuild ships, which we seebeing accomplished on theTapestry. Men are shownfelling trees with axes,trimming them, and usingdrills,handaxesandadzestobuildtheships.45In the case of William’s

activities, we are wellinformed.WilliamofPoitierswastheduke’schaplain.It is

true that he only came toEngland after 1066, and didnottakepartintheexpeditionof that year. His descriptionof it, and of the battle, isthereforeatsecondhand.Buthewaswellplacedtoget thefacts from the best informedmen. These were, of course,for the cleric, all on theNormanside,andhisaccountisinevitablybiased.Weneedto beware of this, but we do

not need the same provisosoverknowledgewhichhadtobemadeinthecaseofSnorriwritingaboutHardrada.46WilliamofPoitierstellsus

alittleofhishero’syouth:ofhis being knighted, holdingreins, sword, shield, helmetand lance, wearing ‘princelygarb’. At that time, he madevows to protect the Churchand give good government.Butmostlytheearlydaysare

anaccountofthedangersandrebellions which we havealready followed. Thewriter’s bias is shown, forexample, by an account ofWilliam’s takingofAlençon,butwithoutmentionofeitherthe insults abouthisbastardyortheviciousrevengethattheConqueror took. Thechronicler clearly says thatthe Confessor promisedWilliam the crown of

England‘byalawfulgift’andas his heir, and that theEnglish magnates assented.He says that the hostages,Harold’s younger brotherWulfnoth and his nephewHakon, were given toguarantee this promise.Poitiers adds that Harold’svisit was on the Confessor’sorders, and to confirm theofferofthecrown.HedetailsHarold’spromisesasbeingto

do all in his power towardsgaining the throne. Wace,withhindsight,goessofarasto say that Edward forbadehim to go in case he wasdrawnintoasnare.47When Edward the

Confessor died, William ofPoitierssaysthatHaroldtookthethronewithoutwaitingfora proper election, thus‘breakinghisoath’.Thedukethen decided to take his

revenge and at once orderedthe building of ships, thecollectionofequipment,armsand men, according toPoitiers assembling an armyoffiftythousandsoldiers.TheConqueror kept his eyes andearsopenfordevelopmentsinEngland; spies were used byboth sides. William ofPoitiers tells of an EnglishspycapturedbytheNormansandsentbackwithamessage

to Harold which contained awarning. William’s advisersalso informed him ofHarold’sstrengthinEngland,and tried to dissuade himfromhisproject,buthebeganto make arrangements forhow Normandy should begoverned in his absence.William proclaimed, ‘wehave enough ships. Soon weshall have triumph, honourandglory.’

Then followed a period ofwaiting which must havetried the nerves of Williamandallhismen.Itispossiblethathedeliberatelydelayedtosome extent, knowing ofHardrada’sinvasion.Itwouldsuit William well to let histwo rivals hammer out theirdifferences, leavinghimwithone rather than two enemiesto defeat. He may also havethoughtthatthelaterheleftit

the more likely that Haroldwouldhaveproblemskeepinghis army and fleet at theready.Theeventualtimingofhistripworkedperfectly.Butit cannot have been allcalculation.TheNorman sourcesmake

itclearthathehadtowaitfora favourable wind for thevital crossing, and chafed atthe delay. The weather wasagainst him for several

weeks. William of Poitierssays they waited a month inthe mouth of the Dives, atDives-sur-Mer, which wasnot far from Caen and laybetweenVaravilletothewestandBonnevilletotheeast.Hekept his troops under strictdiscipline, provisioning themwell and forbidding forage.‘Weak or unarmed, anymanmightmoveaboutthedistrictat his will, singing on his

horse, without trembling atthesightofsoldiers.’48According to theCarmen:

‘fora long time foulweatherand ceaseless rain prevented[William] from leading thefleet across the Channel,while[he]awaitedthefavourofthewinds;andthetroubledsea forced [him] toputback,and gusts of the east windcurled the oceanwaves’.49 ItisalmostcertainthatWilliam

wouldhavecometoEnglandearlier had the weatherallowed it, so he had fortuneas well as planning on hisside.His fleet assembled at the

mouth of the Dives, and inneighbouring ports. On 12September he was able tomove, but only as far as St-Valery-sur-Somme, at themouth of that river, and thatwithdifficulty.Probablyfrom

theweather,Williamsuffereda set-back on the shortjourneyfromtheDivestoSt-Valery, and men weredrowned.Williamof Poitierssays they were buried insecret,obviouslysoasnot todishearten the army. Perhapsto rebuildmorale, and to askfor a favourable wind,Williamorganisedareligiousceremony,paradingtherelicsof St-Valery before themen.

It was at St-Valery thatWilliamofPoitiers says theyreceived the standard(vexillum) from PopeAlexander II (1061–73),which put them under theprotectionofStPeter.50The Carmen says that at

St-Valery they faced another‘long and difficult delay’ …looking‘toseebywhatwindtheweathercockofthechurchwas turned’; itwas‘coldand

wet, and the sky hidden byclouds and rain’.51 A recentarticle has discussed theproblems for William’s fleetfacingthepossibledangersofaleeshore,thedifficultiesofthe trickyChannel tides, andthe weather conditions mostlikely caused by Atlanticlows.52ThereisnodoubtthatWilliam was wise to becautious in decidingwhen tosail. He may also have been

well informed as todevelopments withinEngland, with his ownfrigates operating at seaduring the period ofwaiting.53At last on 27 September

the wind relented, and thecrossing began. Masts wereraised, horses brought onboard, sails hoisted, armsstowed. Soldiers flocked onto the ships likedoves intoa

dovecote.54 A heraldannounced the positions forthe ships in the fleet on thevoyage.Byevening,theforcewas embarked and they setsail, to the sound of drums,trumpetsandpipes,anchoringjustouttosea.William’sshipwas theMora, given him byhis wife Matilda, whichfurther enhances thelikelihood of a considerableinput to the fleet from

Flanders.Wace says it had afigurehead of a boy with abow and arrow, whichpointed towards England astheysailed.55When they began the

invasion crossing, William’sown ship led thewaywith alantern fixed to its mast forothers to follow, while atrumpetwasusedforsignals.Itmusthavebeenasomewhatmotley fleet, gathered from

allpossiblesourcesasitwas,and with leaders who hadlittle experience of suchendeavours.Muchofthefleetconsisted of transports, andmanywereloadeddownwithmen, provisions and horses.William’s ship found itselfmoving too far ahead, andcontact was lost with thefleet.Whether by fortune or by

planning, theEnglish fleet as

well as the men of the landfyrd had been disbandedwhen William sailed, andsuchtroopsascouldberaisedhad been taken off north, sotherewasnooppositiontothecrossing or the landing. Atfirst light, the look-out fromthe masthead could not seethe fleet. The Conqueror’sship weighed anchor andwaited until the othersappeared. William, to show

he was not dismayed, ate abreakfast accompanied byspicedwine,‘asifhewereathome’. Then the look-outspotted the first four ships,and soon the fleet hove intoview ‘like a forest of sails’.Before long they werereunited, and sailed intoPevensey Bay where theydisembarked on 28September, completing theprocess during the afternoon.

Itwassaidthatveryfewmenwerelostonthecrossing;onewho did perish was theunfortunate soothsayer, whohadfailedtoforecasthisowndemise.56

Notes1.Barlow,Edward,p.213;

Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.6.2.Barlow,Edward,p.300.3.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.112.

4.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.116.5.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.122.6.Barlow(ed.),Vita,pp.80–2,

112,118–20,122–4;Barlow,Edward,pp.249–52;Wace,ed.Taylor,p.93;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,pp.101–2,ll.5809–10.OnthelatterseeM.Bennett,‘Waceandwarfare’,ANS,xi,1988,pp.37–58;BayeuxTapestry,pl.30.

7.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.

598.8.Barlow(ed.),Vita,pp.151–3;

Barlow,Edward,pp.269,282.9.BayeuxTapestry,pl.29–30.10.JohnofWorcester,eds

DarlingtonandMcGurk,p.601;Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.140;BayeuxTapestry,pl.31.

11.BayeuxTapestry,pl.31.12.Douglas,William,pp.181–2;

WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.146;Johnof

Worcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,pp.590–2,600;Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.140;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.79.

13.Barlow(ed.),Vita,p.48.14.JohnofWorcester,eds

DarlingtonandMcGurk,p.602:‘pedestremexercitumlocisopportuniscircaripasmarislocabat’.

15.M.Swanton,TheLivesofthe

LastEnglishmen,x,ser.B,NewYork,1984:fromBLHarleianMS3776,datedabout1205;thestorysoundssuspiciouslylikeconfusionwithGodwin.

16.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.140;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.79.

17.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.602.

18.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.140,andn.8;JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.598;F.M.Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,2ndedn,Oxford,1947,p.578–9.

19.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.141;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.79.

20.W.M.Aird,‘StCuthbert,theScotsandtheNormans’,ANS,

xvi,1993,pp.2–3,7.21.Sturlusson,KingHarald’s

Saga:thefollowingaccountofHardrada’searlycareerusesthesaga,whichischronological:quotedandsignificantpassagesareonpp.30–1,45,61,64,90,93,109,113,128,136,138,144,152.

22.ThisisprobablyJaroslavIofKiev(1018–55).

23.UlfwasbrotherofGytha,wifeofEarlGodwinofWessex.

24.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.141.

25.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.602.

26.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.602:hedisbandedthefleetandtheinfantryforces.

27.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.602;GeoffreyGaimar,‘TheHistoryoftheEnglish’,in

Stevenson,ii,ptII,1854,p.793.

28.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.602;Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.143;F.W.Brooks,TheBattleofStamfordBridge,EastYorkshireLocalHistorySocietyseries,no.6,1963,p.12.Brooksispresumablythinkingasothershavethat,likethemarchsouth,itwasan

infantrymarch,butthereisnoreasontobelievethiswasanymoretrueofthemarchnorththanofthemarchsouth.

29.A.H.Burne,MoreBattlefieldsofEngland,London,1952,p.92,suggestedadifferentpositionfortheearlybridge,P.Warner,BritishBattleFields,theNorth,London,1975,p.21,andW.Seymour,BattlesinBritain,i,London,1975,p.9,bothagreewithBurne;butthe

argumentisnotconvincing.Brooks,StamfordBridge,p.19,disagreeswithBurne.

30.D.Howarth,TheYearoftheConquest,London,1977,p.106,reportsonsmallhorse-shoesbeingfoundinthelocalityinthenineteenthcentury,butgivesnoreference.Inanycase:1)itisdifficulttogivecredencetoSturlusson’scavalry;2)evenifrelatingtotransporthorses,it

stillseemsunlikelytohaveanyconnectionwiththebattle(lotsofkilledandabandonedhorsesfromthewinningside?).

31.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.144–5.

32.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.144.

33.Sturlusson,KingHarald’sSaga,p.151–3;Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.142;Johnof

Worcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.604.

34.Sturlusson,KingHarald’sSaga,pp.154–5;Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.142.

35.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.144.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,pp.602–4,has500,withtwentyshipsforthereturn;GaimarinStevenson,p.793,alsohastwenty.

36.Brooks,StamfordBridge,p.21;OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.168.

37.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.154.

38.Wace,ed.Taylor,pp.97–107;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,pp.107–15,thequoteisl.6048;hasWilliamfitzOsberninfavourofgoing,andWilliamtakingcounsel.

39.Forexample,Wace,ed.Taylor,p.98:‘heperjured

himselfforakingdom’;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.106,l.5947.

40.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.151;OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.144.

41.Wace,ed.Taylor,p.120:‘Irememberitwell,althoughIwasbutalad,thattherewere700shipslessfour’;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.123,ll.6424–5:‘bienm’ensovient,maisvasletere–/quesetcenznes,quatremeins,furent’.

42.C.H.Lemmon,‘Thecampaignof1066’inTheNormanConquestitsSettingandImpact,London,1966,p.85givessomepreviousestimates(varyingfrom10,000to60,000)andaddshisown;P.P.Wright,Hastings,Moreton-in-Marsh,1996,estimates7,500includingcombatants.C.M.Gillmor,‘Thenavallogisticsofthecross-Channeloperation,1066’,ANS,vii,1984,pp.

105–31,hassomeinterestingspeculation,butvainlyattemptstoestimatethesizeofthefleetwithprecision,andeventhenumberofworkmenandtreesfelled;seealsoB.Bachrach,‘ThemilitaryadministrationoftheNormanConquest’,ANS,viii,1986,pp.1–25.

43.M.Bennett,‘NormannavalactivityintheMediterraneanc.1060–c.1108’,ANS,xv,1992,

pp.41–58.44.Wace,ed.Taylor,p.117;

Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.120.45.BayeuxTapestry,pl.35–6.46.Foreville(ed.),GestaGulielmi

DucisNormannorumetRegisAnglorum.Theintroductionincludesanexcellentaccountofthechronicler’scareer.KeyinformationinthefollowingsectiontothelandinginEnglandcomesfrompp.12,30,42,100,104,146,150–62.

47.Wace,ed.Taylor,p.76;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.94.Waceisinterestingatthispoint,tellingusthatheisusingmorethanonesource:onewhichhastheforbidding,andonewhichsaysitwastopromisethecrown:‘howthematterreallywasIneverknew’,andnordowe.

48.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.152,translationfromR.A.Brown,TheNormansandtheNorman

Conquest,2ndedn,Woodbridge,1985,p.132.

49.Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.4,ll.40–4.

50.SeeD.Bates,WilliamtheConqueror,London,1983,p.65,whereheacceptsthebannerstory;OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.170.

51.Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.6,ll.53,59,63–4.

52.C.andG.Grainge,‘ThePevenseyexpedition:

brilliantlyexecutedplanorneardisaster?’,Mariner’sMirror,1993,pp.261–73.

53.Gillmor,‘Navallogistics’,p.124;J.Gillingham,‘WilliamtheBastardatwar’,reprintedinS.Morillo,TheBattleofHastings,Woodbridge,1996,pp.96–112,p.109.

54.Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.6.

55.Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.124,ll.6453–5.

56.Lemmon,‘Campaign’,p.89;Wright,Hastings,p.52quotesE.A.Freeman,TheHistoryoftheNormanConquestinEngland,6vols,Oxford,1867–79,iii,p.410.Wace,ed.Holden,ii,pp.124–5;WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.164.

I

SIX

THE SOURCESFOR THE BATTLE

tistimetopausebeforewelook at the actual conflict.

Wehavealreadymadeuseofmost of the sources whichgive accounts of the battle.1Use of Wace, for example,

has often been preceded bysome modifying remark towarn of his relativeunreliability. Some sourcesare clearly invaluable, andour whole look at the perioddepends on them. But nowwe come to the crux of ourpresent business, the battleitself. Any modern accountdepends not only on thecontemporary and near-contemporary sources, but

alsooninterpretationofthem.History is not a precisescience. We never haveperfectmaterialsonwhich towork. The degrees betweengood, reliable material anddifficult, unreliable materialaremanyandslightalongtheway.Someworksthemselvesare rather like the curate’segg,goodinparts.Whateachhistorianchoosestouseor todisregard makes his own

view individual. Onehistorian will disagree withanother, but there is noabsolute right and wrong.Howevermuchcarewe take,we can get itwrong. Indeed,we do not truly know if weget it rightorwrong;wecanonly do our best. It isnecessary to make a carefulevaluation of sources but, inthe end, interpretation ofthemissubjectiveratherthan

objective, since none of usknows the absolute truth ofwhathappenedinthepast.The battle of Hastings is

well covered as medievalbattles go, and we knowmuchmoreaboutitthanmostconflicts. It was quicklyrecognised as a major event,and was treated as such –headline news for anychronicler writing on theperiod.Themajor lackinthe

Hastings sources is of aneyewitnessaccount.This is aserious gap, andwe have nowayoffillingit.Noonewhowas on the field of Hastingshasleftusanaccountofwhathappened. All our narrativesare therefore at second hand.Eventhen,innearlyallcases,we can only guess at wherethe chronicler obtained hisinformation, and how muchreliance can be placed upon

it. Our primary concernthough must be to try andgaugewhichchroniclerswerebest placed to receiveaccounts from participantsandgivegoodinformation.We also must try to

determine the viewpoint ofthe writer, since we knowhow much this affects hisaccount.Wetrytodetectbiasand partisanship, and it isoften apparent; medieval

writersmade little attempt tobe neutral as modernjournalistssometimespretendto be. And they were allhuman; each one lived a lifewhich gave a particular viewtotheeventsatHastings.Onewould be a monk, hearingaccounts from knightlyguests; one would be achaplain in a noble or royalhousehold, listening to thetablechit-chatofbattlespast;

another would grow up in ahouse where the elders toldtales of valour in days goneby.Inaway,theopennessofthese opinions is anadvantage,becausethebiasisoften clear, and allows us tocounter it. At Hastings, themost obvious bias would bewhether the writer was pro-Norman or pro-Saxon. As ithappens, nearly all thesources for the battle are

Norman in viewpoint, andthis creates a problem intryingtomakeafairbalance.The other major

consideration(wedonothavetimetogobeyondthisinourdiscussion) is the date atwhich the writer was puttingquilltovellum.Obviouslythenearer to the event the morevaluable theaccount tends tobe. Unfortunately again,precision on dating is not

always possible. We usuallybegin from undatedmanuscripts, sometimes onlycopies without originals,sometimes only printedcopieswiththeoriginalslost.Dating manuscripts is awholescienceonitsown,anddatingworkswherewedonotpossess the autograph workby the writer is even moredifficult. That said, we canusually come to some

conclusion, an approximatedate which gives at least asuggestion as to the likelyvalueofasource.Let us then survey briefly

ourmajor sources, and try togive some indication of theirmain values andweaknesses.Thereisstillacertainamountofdatingdebateoverthetwomain Norman chronicleaccounts, but they are botheleventh century. In most

people’s estimation, themajorsourceforHastingsandthe Conquest is William ofPoitiers’ Gesta GulielmiDucisNormannorumetRegisAnglorum(DeedsofWilliam,Duke of the Normans andKing of the English).2 TheoriginalmanuscriptbelongingtoSirJohnCottonwascopiedand printed by Duchesne in1619 and never seen again.The original may have been

burnt in a fire in 1731. Fordating we must rely onevidence within the contentsof the account. There is agood modern edition of thisbyRaymondeForeville,witha French translation, andsections are printed withEnglish translations in allmoderncollectionsofsourcesrelating to the Conquest andthe battle. The main reasonfor recognising its value is

twofold: it is the mostdetailed account of eventsthat we have, and it is bysomeone who was in aposition to bewell informed.William of Poitiers may betreated as virtually themouthpieceoftheConqueror.It was also written downearly, Foreville believes by1074, most others wouldagree by 1077. We know alittle about the writer: he

came from a noble family inornearPréaux, related to theBeaumonts, and hadapparently early in life beentrained inmilitary discipline.But his sister became anabbess, and he became apriest at about the age ofthirty. He had been born inNormandyinabout1028andfor some time studied inPoitiers, hence his toponym.He had legal knowledge and

wasforatimeArchdeaconofLisieux. He entered thehousehold of the Conqueroras a chaplain, and this ofcourse is why his work hassuch value. He did not crossto England in 1066, but hedid come at some slightlylater date. He saw theConqueror as a hero whocould virtually do no wrong,which is where we treat himwith some circumspection.

What we have goes up to1067, but his account up to1075 is probably used andpreservedbyOrdericVitalis.The second important

Norman source is the GestaNormannorum Ducum(Deeds of the Dukes of theNormans) by William ofJumièges.3 In contrast toWilliamofPoitiers,thisworkdoes not concentrate on theConqueror. It is a history of

all the dukes. The earlysectionisalmostadirectcopyfromtheworkofDudoofSt-Quentin, which makes onewonder about William ofJumièges’ historical acumen.But it does come up to hisown period, and he waswritingintheearly1070s.Hewas a monk at Jumièges, agreatNormanmonasterywithold links to England in itsassociations. His work was

added to by other writers inthe versions we have, inparticular by Orderic Vitalisand Robert of Torigny. Thishas been known for sometime, and there are twomoderneditions.Thebestandthe most recent is byElisabethvanHouts, andhasan English translation withthe Latin, and clearindications of whether thework we are reading is by

William of Jumièges or oneoftheinterpolators.The chief English source

fortheConquestistheAnglo-Saxon Chronicle, which isactually several differentversions of a work begun inthetimeofAlfredtheGreat.4Itisayearbyyearaccountofevents. Additions to theannals were kept in severalmonasteries, and so differentversions of the Chronicle

developed.Thisbecamemorecomplex over time, as onehouse borrowed a versionfrom another house and thenbegan to make its ownadditions.Therearefivemainversions, known as A, B, C,DandE.Theonewhichgivesthe fullest account of theConquest is version D, themanuscript for which iswritten in a late eleventh-century hand. Both D and E

may come from a versionwhich had been made inYork, sometimes called thenorthern recension. They arepretty well the same until1031. D then continues withits interest predominantly inthenorth,probablystillbeingkeptatYork. It continues till1079. From 1031 E wasprobably being written up atPeterborough; it continuedlater than other versions of

the Chronicle, until 1154.Theseversions,DandE, aretherefore mainly from thepointofviewofnorthernandeastern England, whereScandinavian influence wasstrongest,notintheheartlandof Godwin power. Thewriters are Benedictinemonks but, so far as weknow, without the majorcontacts that benefitedWilliam of Poitiers.

Nevertheless,theDversioninparticularisvaluablematerialas the main English view ofwhat happened, and told inOld English. The easiestversion of the Chronicle touse is thateditedbyDorothyWhitelock and others, whichplaces the versions side byside in columns so thatcomparison is easy; but forthe original Old English oneneedstogotoothereditions.

John ofWorcestermay betaken inconjunctionwith theChronicle, since its earlierpart isalmostaLatinversionof it.5 The Anglo-Saxonmaterialusedtobecalledthework of Florence ofWorcester, but his recenteditor argues that we shouldcall the work John ofWorcester’s. Here we haveanother Benedictine house,Worcester, keeping an annal.

The value of the WorcesteraccountisthatalthoughclosetoversionDontheConquest,it is at least another Englishviewofevents.Theothermajorsourcefor

the Conquest is thatinvaluable and uniqueembroidery and document inone, the Bayeux Tapestry.6We all know that it is reallyan embroidery and not atapestryassuch,butitwould

be pedantic to call it byanything other than itsfamiliar name. Those whoview it in its present settingare often surprised that it isonly20 incheshigh,but alsomarvelat its230 foot length,which cannot be appreciatedin full in the usual bookreproductions in separateplates. Indeed, the way theartisthasdesignedthescenesto move fluently along from

one event to the next ismasterly. The backing is ofbleached linen, and theembroidery is in five maincolours of wool, with threeless used colours. An artistsketched the scenes, and theembroiderers filled in theoutlines with laid andcouched work, stem stitchand outline stitch. It ismadeof eight sections piecedcunningly together so that

onehastosearchhardtofindthe joins.The original end islost, probably because of themannerinwhichitusedtobekept rolled up. It is thoughtthat perhaps 9 feet are lost,and that the missing sectionmayhavecontainedscenesofWilliam’s entry into Londonandhiscoronation.Thelatterwouldbeafittingconclusion,since we have the Confessoronhis throne at the start and

Harold’s coronation in thecentre. Apart from the mainnarrative beginning withHarold’s trip to Normandyand ending with the EnglishflightafterHastings,therearetop and bottom margins,which sometimes add to themain story, sometimes retailmyths and fables, and alsoprovide delightfulillustrationsofsuch thingsasharrowing, scaring birds,

hunting and boat-building. Itis now widely accepted thattheworkwasmade forOdo,Bishop of Bayeux. It ispossible that some of theminorfiguresontheTapestry–Wadard,VitalandTurold–were tenants of Odo, whosoonbecameearlofKent.The Tapestry may have

been specially made fordisplay in Bayeux Cathedralat its dedication in 1077.

Some critics have thoughtcertainscenesontheTapestrytoobawdy tobe intended forsuchanecclesiastical setting,but this seems to come frommodern rather than medievalsensibilities. Certainly, aninventoryof1476shows thatthe Tapestry was at thecathedral then, and was puton view annually. Someefforts have been made todevalue the Tapestry. A

recentsuggestionwasthatthe‘kebabs’ were too modernand that theworkdates fromthe nineteenth century. Butalthoughitisclearthereweresome repairs done to theoriginal,wecanstillfeelsafethatitisanearlyandvaluablecontribution to ourknowledge. Its particularvalue is that itgivespictorialversions, and thereforeinformation not otherwise

available. Indeed, it is notmerely visual evidence but agreatworkofart.The Tapestry also has a

written legend, a briefaccount of the eventsportrayed. From its tone thisis almost certainly the workofaNorman,oratleastapro-Norman, though it does haveoneortwointerestingtouchesofEnglishsympathy,suchasthe rescue carried out by

Harold on the Brittanyexpedition. It completelyignores the invasion byHardrada. The Tapestrymagnifies the role ofOdo ofBayeux, who barely appearsinthechronicleaccounts.It was probably made in

England and worked byEnglish embroiderers,perhaps at Canterbury: someof the scenes seem to havebeen adapted from

manuscript art in Canterburyworks. English workingseems evident in such placesas the use of a crossed d innames and in the EnglishversionoftheHastingsplace-name.A printed copy was

published in 1730 byMontfaucon, the drawingsdone by A. Benoît. Theoriginal was nearly lostduringtheFrenchRevolution,

when it had to be rescuedfrom being used to cover awagon. Itwas taken toParis,andreturnedforexhibitionattheHôtel deVille inBayeuxin 1812. It is known thatrepairs were done in 1842,whichcanberecognisedfromtheuseofdifferentcoloursinthe wool, and restorationmarks on the linen. Modernexamination has includedsuch details as stitch marks

which suggest how theoriginallooked.Thenthereareanumberof

sources to which we chooseto give a secondary place,either because there is somequestion mark over theirreliabilityand/orbecausetheyare late in time compared tothe sources alreadymentioned. The mostinterestingofthisgroupistheCarmendeHastingaeProelio

(The Song of the Battle ofHastings).7 This is a longpoem about the battle. It isvery detailed and manyhistorians have considered itaprimesource,andsomestilldo. To a degree the jury isstill out on the Carmen,thoughallwouldagree ithassome value. The manuscriptwas rediscovered in 1826 byG.H.Pertz.Therewasnotitleon themanuscript, indeed its

subject matter is really ‘TheNorman Conquest’ ratherthansimply thebattle. Itwaswritten by an educatedperson,withplentyofbiblicaland classical references. Ithasbeenthoughtthatthiswasa work mentioned in thetwelfth century by OrdericVitalis, a poem about theBattle of Hastings by Guy,BishopofAmiens.Thisbeingso, it would be an early

source, earlier than WilliamofPoitiers.But the survivingmanuscripts, one main andone tributary, which comefrom Trier, have been datedto about AD 1100 from thehandwriting. If written byGuy, then it was by arespected and importantnoble, who came to Englandwith the Conqueror’s wife acouple of years afterHastings.Thepoemretainsa

mysterious dedication withinitial and not names: ‘L…W… salutat’ – which couldbe either L greets W, or Wgreets L. Those who nameGuy as the author fill in‘Lanfrancum Wido salutat’(Guy greets Lanfranc(Archbishop of Canterbury,1070-89)).But R.H.C. Davis made a

serious attack on theattribution of the work to

BishopGuy. In an article, inEnglishHistoricalReview,hesuggested that too much ofthe poem is of a style andcontent that would fit with alaterdate.Thepresentauthorfound that argumentconvincing and still does;others have been less sure.Davisarguedthatthepoemisnot as hostile to Harold asOrderic had suggested Guywas. He thought that the

Carmen borrowed fromWilliam of Poitiers, thoughothers believe it is the otherway round. The mostconvincing argument is thatthe Carmen introduceslegendary and incrediblematerialwhichcouldonlybelater. This includes the storyof Taillefer, the giant whoopenstheconflict.Heappearsin none of the accreditedearlysources,andthetalehas

the touch of legend about it.Then there is the killing ofHarold, by four men,identified as Duke William,Eustace of Boulogne, Hugh,the heir to Ponthieu, andWalter Giffard. The first,presumablyWilliam, cleavedthrough Harold’s breast, thesecond smote off his head,the third pierced his bellywith a lance and the fourthcut off his thigh and carried

awaytheleg.IfthisweretrueitisnotcrediblethatthemainNorman sources would haveignored the fact thatWilliamactually participated in thekilling of Harold. We canagree with Davis that this,andotherexampleshequotes,is ‘literary embellishment’.One possibility, thoughprobablybeyondproof,isthatthe Carmen is a work ofabout 1100 which is either

basedonthepoembyGuyofAmiens or is anembellishment of it. Thiswould leave it withimportance, but the need forcare must be stressed. Itseems that as our knowledgestands at present itwould beunwise to give the Carmenthe credence that we give toWilliam of Poitiers, theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle, ortheBayeuxTapestry.

Another difficult work toassess, though its author anddateareknown,istheRomande Rou by Wace.8 This isundoubtedly a late work, asWace was not born untilabout 1100. He was born inthe Channel Islands, thoughthehandwritingforhisnativeislandcouldbeinterpretedaseitherJerseyorGuernsey,wearenotsurewhich.Heatleasttells us the source of his

information: people he spoketo who had witnessed theevents.Hesaid,‘Italktorichmen who have rents andmoney,it isforthemthatthebook is made.’ He describedhimselfasa‘vaslet’orvarlet,which it is thought mightmean that, like William ofPoitiers, he had someknightlytraininginhisyouth.Arecentarticleshowsthathehad a good knowledge of

warfare,whichgiveshisworkvalue for our purposes. Hewas educated at Caen inNormandy,andintheFrenchrealm,laterreturningtoCaen.He was patronised by HenryII,whogavehimaprebendatBayeux cathedral. He heldthis post for nineteen years,so it is nearly certain that hewas familiar with theTapestry. He was a prolificwriter, and his works

includedverseromances,onecalledtheRomandeBrutandanother the Roman de Rou.Rou isaversionof thenameRollo or Rolf, the Vikingleader who became the firstruler of the new Normandy,so the work was a kind ofversehistoryofthedukes.Heprobably wrote it in thesecond half of the twelfthcentury, and died in 1184.TheproblemwiththeRoman

de Rou, apart from its latishdate, is that it is a romance.Wacewasaliterarywriter,hewas looking for effect, heliked a good story and wasnot always fussy aboutaccuracy or borrowing fromone situation to enlivenanother. He is the sort ofmedieval authorwho ismostdifficult forhistorians touse:too useful and too lively toignore, but too risky to trust.

TheuseofWaceinthisbookis to allow passages aboutwhich there is no seriousconcern, but to have greatcautionwith any lineswhichhave the feel of legend orinventionaboutthem.Assaidbefore,historyisnotanexactscience.Finally, we need to

consider a group of twelfth-century historians whocovered the history of the

battle. By this time, theNorman Conquest was wellestablished,anditssignificantconsequences were apparent.This coloured views ofevents, and William’spositionisusuallyseenasthecorrect one: the winner isalways right in history, assome would say. We do nothave timeorspace to lookatall the later sources whichdealwithHastings, so this is

simply a selection of thosewhich seem the most usefulorimportant.Itshouldbesaidthat, because of their dating,theymust generally be givensecond place behind theearliersourceswhentryingtoassess their relativesignificance. But often theywill confirmwhat appears intheearliersources;usually,ofcourse,theyarebasedononeor more of them, and

sometimes on sources whicharelost–andthiswillgiveanaddedvalue.William of Malmesbury

was a major twelfth-centuryEnglish historian. His DeGestis Regum Anglorum(Deeds of the Kings of theEnglish) includesmaterialonthe period of the Conquest.9William was a Benedictinemonk, but hewas unusual inthat he explains to us

something of his methods,telling us that he travelledaboutinsearchofdocuments.Hewasalsoable to readOldEnglishaswellasFrenchandLatin. He wrote a vastnumber of works, andwas astylish and lively historian.Hewas probably born in thelast decade of the eleventhcentury, and is thought to beof mixed Norman andEnglishparentage.Hesayshe

collected historicalinformation at his ownexpense, which suggests thathisfamilywasfairlywealthy.He became librarian atMalmesbury, and perhapsprecentor.Williamisselectedbecause he was anoutstandingwriterratherthanbecause he gives especiallyimportantinformation.Orderic Vitalis, like

WilliamofMalmesbury,was

a product of the Conquest,sonofaNormanpriestandanEnglishmother.Hewasbornat Atcham near Shrewsburyin1075.Hisfathermayhavebeen in the household ofRobert of Montgomery.Orderic received some localeducation and was then sentasaboyoftentotraintobeamonkintheNormanhouseofSt-Evroult. There he stayedfor the rest of his life, until

1141or1142.Anearlyworkconsisted of his additions tothe chronicle of William ofJumièges.Hethenspentsomethirty years working on hisgreat opus, theEcclesiasticalHistory, which was a longand rambling work, whoseintention and structurechangedwith theyears.As aresult, it is full of the sort oftitbits which make historyfun, tales of people he knew

orheardabout,theoccasionalscandal.10 Orderic comesacross in his writing as alikeable man who enjoyedlife, and his work has ahuman touch which somemedievalchronicleslack.Wehave Orderic’s work in hisown beautifully neat script.HisEnglishbackgroundgiveshis work interest from itsattitude.Heistheonlyonetogive us the name for the

battle locationasSenlac, andhehassomecriticismsof theConqueror’sactions.AthirdEnglishhistorianof

note is Henry ofHuntingdon.11 He wasArchdeaconinHuntingdon,asecular cleric rather than amonk, a fatherof children aswell as the son of a priest, aman of the world. He waswelltravelledandvisitedBecinNormandy, andRome.He

had a historian’s, almost ajournalist’s nose forinformation,andwrote ‘thereisnothing in thisworldmoreexciting than accurately toinvestigate and trace out thecourseofworldlyaffairs’.Hetells us that he used‘compilations of thechronicles preserved inancient libraries’. HisHistoria Anglorum is a greatwide-ranging history of the

English. His outlook has astrongEastAnglianslant.Hewas born in about 1080,began writing in about 1133and,afteraddingnewworktohis original effort, brought itdown to 1154. It was apopularwork of its daywithmany known copies. One ofhis virtueswas that he couldread Old English, and usedthe documents to which hehad access. Henry’s work is

now available in one of thefirst-rate Oxford editions,with Latin alongside anEnglishtranslation.Finally, because it has a

special significance,wemustconsider the value of theChronicle of Battle Abbey.12This too is now in anexcellent modern Oxfordedition. The chronicle isundoubtedlylateindate,after1155,butitwaswritteninthe

abbeybuilt on the siteof thebattle-soittellsus–itsveryname depending upon theevent. It was written by amonkwith agreat interest inthe law. The trouble is thathismodern editor has caughthim out. He used documentsforgedintheabbeytomakeacase, and there is little doubtthat some of his claims arefalse. The difficulty is toknow if others are true. He

was certainly trying to boostthe importance of his abbey.Thechronicleconsistsoftwoseparate texts, of which thefirst is an account of theNorman Conquest, and bothmention the abbey’sfoundation. The main valueof the chronicle is its localknowledge.Itgivesdetailnotknown elsewhere: the nameofHedglandonTelhamHill,andthestoryoftheMalfosse.

The modern editor of thechronicle has shown theproblems over this location,andwe shall look at them inthe following chapter. Theeven more basic problem isthat if this chronicler isunreliable, can we trust hisstory of the abbey’sfoundationon thespotwhereHarold was killed? This alsowe shall return to. Theuncertainty over the Carmen

is added to by the fact thatthereareincidentswhichonlyappear, other than in theCarmen, in Wace and theBattle chronicle.We seem tobe looking at three sourceswhich are all beginning toenlargeonoriginalfactswithdubioustales.There are numerous other

sources, but we must call ahalt. We conclude thatWilliam of Poitiers is our

primary source ofinformation, that he isfollowed by several valuableearly works in William ofJumièges, the Anglo-SaxonChronicle, and the BayeuxTapestry. All the othersources, to some extent,depend upon these earlyversions. The only otheraccount which may be earlyand original is the Carmen,butourdecisionistorelegate

this to the seconddivisionofsources. Here it joins forceswith later and lesstrustworthy accounts,depending either uponhearsay, third-hand materialorinvention.Thedifficultyisthattheseincludesomeofthemost detailed works andsome of the most lively,Wace and the Carmen; andsome by the best historicalwriters, William of

Malmesbury, Henry ofHuntingdon and OrdericVitalis. We must pick ourway between their accounts.In the end, our objective isthe truth. We cannot becertain we find it, but wemust be certain that ourattemptishonest.Suchisthehistorian’s task, everyhistorian’s task, fromprofessorial academic tohumblestudent.

Notes1.AusefulgeneralguideisA.

Gransden,HistoricalWritinginEnglandc.550toc.1307,London,1974.

2.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville.TranslationsofpartoftheworkwiththebattlemaybefoundinD.C.DouglasandG.W.Greenaway(eds),EnglishHistoricalDocuments,ii,1042–1189,2ndedn,

London,1981;andBrown(ed.),TheNormanConquest,London,1984–bothofthesehaveagoodselectionofsourcesoftheConquest.

3.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts.

4.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle.The‘CollaborativeEdition’(edsD.DumvilleandS.Keynes)isatpresentincomplete,butwillbecometheforemostacademic

editionoftheAnglo-SaxonChroniclewiththetextinOldEnglish.Ofthevolumespublishedtodate,vol.vi(ed.G.P.Cubbins)oftheDmanuscriptisthemostvaluableforeventsoftheConquest.

5.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk.

6.SeeBayeuxTapestrywhichhasexcellentcolourphotos.SeealsoF.M.Stenton(ed.),

TheBayeuxTapestry,2ndedn,London,1965;Thorpe(ed.),TheBayeuxTapestry,whichalsohasatranslationofpartofWilliamofPoitiers.N.P.BrooksandH.E.Walker,‘TheauthorityandinterpretationoftheBayeuxTapestry’,ANS,iii,1980,pp.1–21.

7.Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz;Davis,‘Carmen’,pp.241–61.

8.Wace,ed.Holden;Wace,ed.

Taylor;Bennett,‘Waceandwarfare’.

9.WilliamofMalmesbury,DeGestisRegumAnglorum,ed.W.Stubbs,RSno.90,2vols,London,1887–9;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Giles.

10.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall;M.Chibnall,TheWorldofOrdericVitalis,Oxford,1984.

11.HenryofHuntingdon,HistoriaAnglorum,ed.D.Greenway,Oxford,1996;Henryof

Huntingdon,ed.Arnold;HenryofHuntingdon,Chronicle,ed.T.Forester,London,1853;N.F.Partner,SeriousEntertainments,Chicago,1977.

12.E.Searle(ed.),TheChronicleofBattleAbbey,Oxford,1980.

W

SEVEN

THE BATTLE

hen William jumpedon to the beach at

Pevensey, he stumbledforwards.Somewerereadytosee this as a bad omen.William of Malmesbury’sversion of the incident wasthat: ‘as he disembarked he

slipped down, but turned theaccident to his advantage; asoldierwhostoodnearcallingout to him, “You holdEngland, my lord, its futureking.”’1 Wace, whatever hisfaults,knewsomethingofthesea,anddescribedorperhapsrather imagined the landing,seeingtheNormaninvaders

Sallyforthandunloadtheships,

Casttheanchorsandhaultheropes,

Bearoutshieldsandsaddles,

Leadoutthewarhorsesandpalfreys.

Thearchersdisembarked,Thefirsttosetfootonland.2

The landing had beeneasierthananyinvadercouldhave expected. Harold is

generally seen as a goodcommander, and one knowsof the problems he facedkeepinghisforceinthefield,and having to deal withHardrada. Even so, thecomplete lack of anyopposition toWilliam speaksof some neglect. It suggeststhat Harold was not as wellinformed as William, andbelieved that William wouldnotcomesolateintheyear.

ButWilliammusthavefeltvery satisfied with thesuccess of the crossing. Thefirstmajor obstacle had beenovercome. The period thatnow followed was for him agame of nerves. The twoleaders pursued very clearpolicies in the shortcampaign. Harold soondecided to act as quickly aspossible, and made all hisefforts in that direction.

William chose not to pushinland against a major town,perhaps London, as mostinvaders would. He decidedinstead to wait, whichwas aboldandriskychoice.Hedidhis best to bring Harold tohim by making as big anuisance of himself as hecould on the coast. But howlong could this game havecontinued had Harold notacceptedthebait?

TheConquerordidhisbestto protect his position,another good reason forstayingnearhisbase.Hehadchosenhislandingplacewell.Pevensey and Hastingsoffered harbour for his fleet.He must also have gainedinformation on the fortressesoftheregion.HisdemandforHarold’s promise to gain,fortify and hand over to himthe stronghold at Dover as

partoftheoath,demonstratesWilliam’s thinking. He mustalready then have beenconsidering the possibility ofbringing a force to England,and thought in terms of themost powerful naturallydefendedsiteonthesoutherncoast, one still importantbecause itmarks the shortestpassageacrosstheChannel.We have no way of

knowingwhyWilliamdidnot

landatDover;possiblyitdidnotoffersuchgoodbeachingfacilities as Pevensey,possiblyHaroldmightexpecthim there after the 1064demands.OnepositivereasonforlandinginSussexwasthatthe shire was Godwinterritory. Godwin’s firstappearance in history was inSussex, and the family stillheldconsiderablelandsinthecounty. It was from Bosham

that Harold set out in 1064;he also had manors in theHastings region of EastSussex.3 William’s intentionof bringing Harold to himwasenhancedbythefactthatit was Harold’s own familypossessions that weresuffering most from theNormaninvaders.At any rate, Pevensey

offered a good defensiveposition and a ready-made

fortress. The coastline wassomewhat different in theeleventh century, offeringbetter conditions forembarkation. But one thingthatwasmuch the samewasPevensey ‘Castle’. Pevenseyhad been noted by theRomansasagoodsite,easilydefended from the landdirection because access wasnarrow and difficult. Theyhad built one of their Saxon

Shorefortsonthesite.Unlikeearlier Roman forts, it wasirregular,roughlyoval,fillingthe good land over themarshygroundaround.Thosewell-constructed walls stillstood in1066, and still standnow, albeit having beenrepaired from time to time.William built a smallerdefence within the walls,though the whole spaceoffered a good temporary

protection for the invadingarmy.ThelaterNormanstonecastlewasconstructedwithinone sector of the walls: acastle within the Romanwalls, using those walls as abailey.It isgenerallythoughtthat William’s temporarycastle had been on this samesite.Before long, however,

William moved along thecoast and made use of an

evenmorepowerfulnaturallydefended site on the cliffs atHastings. Some historianshave queried this, suggestingthere was no road to follow,but the chroniclers make itclear that this was his firstmoveandthatitwasbyland.Here he built another castle.The Tapestry beautifullyillustrates the construction ofthe motte: a noblesupervising, men carrying

tools, two of them fighting,otherspickingandshovellingtomake the earthworks. Thecastle isportrayedasamottewith a wooden keep on top,just as the Breton castlesshownearlierweredepicted.4The Tapestry also shows

various scenes of William’sactivitiesduringthisperiodinawaythatnochroniclecoulddoinwords.5Weseethesailsandmastsbeingremovedand

the ships beached; horsesbeing brought ashore. IfWilliamhadforbiddenforageduringthewaitinNormandy,he made no such provisonow. The troops, includingmounted men, seized foodfrom the locals. We see oneholding a sheep, anotherlooming over it with an axe,while a cow forlornly lookson. One man returns with apig over his shoulders,

anotherleadingapackhorse.We also see the invaders

cooking on the beach: birdsand meat on skewers, a potslung from a pole fixed inplace by uprights, heatingover flames on a stand thatlooks not unlike a modernbarbecue. Elsewhere, abeardedman is removinghotcooked food from a grill,using a sort of pincerimplementtosavehisfingers.

He is putting the food on aplatereadytobeeaten.Otherservantsarecarrying

foodonskewerstothenoblesat an improvised table madefrom shields. On these areplacedavarietyofcontainers,dishes and plates, while onemanrefresheshimselffromadrinkinghorn.Atwhat lookslike an actual table appearsWilliam’s half-brother, Odo,Bishop of Bayeux. This

scene, rather cheekily, seemsto be inspired bycontemporaryartworksofthelast supper, with Odopositioned in the place takenbyChrist, andwith a cookedfish before him. The artistwas clearly aware of theChristian significance of thatcreature. No doubt theintention was to enhance theroleofOdo,thepatronoftheTapestry, but perhaps also to

reflect the Norman belief inGod’s blessing on theinvasion.Odoisshownintheact of blessing the food anddrinkbeforethem.William did more than

forage to anger Harold andbring him south. He alsoattacked property and peopleinthearea,muchasifitwereaVikingraid.Someintendingconquerors might try toplacate their future subjects;

this was not William’sconcern at that time.Primarily he needed to bringon a quick decision. Battle-seeking was not always thepolicy of William, thoughsomehistorianshavemade itso. Like all good medievalcommanders he engaged inbattles sparingly. JohnGillingham has pointed outthat theBreton campaign, onwhich Harold had been able

to observe William’smethods, was a typicallycautiousone.6Butnowaquickbattlewas

theduke’sbestoption,unlessHaroldwouldtaketheofferedcompromise and surrenderthe throne – which wasunlikely.Thatbeingthecase,William could not succeedunless Harold was removedfrom the throne by force.AsHarold approached, as the

Englishfleetmoved in tocutoff possible retreat, assupplies began to dwindle,William’s position wouldbecomeincreasinglydifficult:attheveryleasthemustfighthis way out of a trap. Bothcommanders at Hastingssettledforabattle,butneithercan have been entirelylacking in anxiety in asituationwhichofferedmuchbut also would have dire

consequencesfortheloser.Theforagingitselfwasnot

necessary. Plenty ofprovisions had been loadedon board before sailing, andtheyhadcertainlynotyetrunout or even run low. Theforaging would provideuseful additional provisions,but its main purpose was toharass Harold’s Sussexpeople. William of Poitierswrote: ‘when he heard that

the territory around theNorman camp was beingravaged, Harold was sofurious that he hastened hismarch.Hisplanwastomakea sudden night attack and tocrush his enemieswhen theywere least expecting him’;though the chronicler couldnot haveknown the thoughtsof the English king. Butprovocation was in theConqueror’s mind, and we

find him burning downhouses and turning peoplefromtheirhomes.Oneof themost graphic scenes in theTapestryisofwhatappearstobe a mother and son outsidetheir house as Normans settorchestoitandtheroofgoesupinflames.7The Tapestry shows a

messenger from Haroldcoming to William.8 If wecan take this at face value it

means that Harold knewaboutWilliam’scomingverysoon after it occurred, withtime to give instructions to amessenger to reach theinvader’s camp. Some of thesourcesalsogive informationon an exchangeofmessages.IfHarold’s came first, as theTapestry suggests, it wasprobablytooffersomesortofdeal.ButtheNormansourcesonly tell us about William’s

messages, telling Harold togive up the throne. If he didso, he was offered positionand lands. But now thatHaroldwaskingitmusthavebeen clear that such offerswere highly unlikely to beaccepted. The negotiationswere perforce brief, theircontent superficial, goingthrough the motions: neitherleader showed any signs ofcompromising.Itwasinsuch

circumstances that medievalbattleswereoftenfought.Haroldmayhaveheardthe

news of William’s landingwhilehehimselfwasinYork.His decision to move southwas taken immediately. Hereturned to London, but wasalready set on headingstraightforWilliam.Hecouldnot immediately knowWilliam’s plans, and neededto consider some defensive

moves. It was quite possiblethatWilliamwouldmove onto Dover, or would strike ateitherLondonorWinchester.Londonwasagoodbase.It says much for the

English military system thatdespitetwodrainingbattlesinthenorth, thekingcouldstillat such short notice raise asolidarmy.JohnofWorcesterpoints out that powerfulmenof England had been lost in

the northern battles, and thathalf the army was notassembled. For once thewordsofWaceareacceptableon the loss of men from thenorth, ‘the Danes and Tostighaving much damaged andweakenedthem’.9ThehousecarlsofHarold’s

household and the mountedfyrdmenhadcometoLondonfrom Stamford Bridge.Poitiers says that Harold

received some aid fromDenmark.10Itisprobablethatthe battle had not been quiteso prolonged as later sourcessaid.Thenatureofit,withthesurprise attack resulting invictory, normally wouldspeak of a relatively briefconflict. It had beenprolonged by the arrival ofreinforcements from thecoast, but the English armymust have escaped without

enormous losses. HadStamford Bridge been toodamaging on Harold’s men,hewould not have been abletocontemplateanotherbattle.Thesignsarethat thevictoryhad been so great that fewmenwerelost.Nevertheless, the journey

north, the battle, the journeyback to London had to beexhausting.Haroldwaitedsixdays, during which

reinforcements arrived orweresummonedtomeethim.A few days’ rest in Londonhelped to recover strengthanddetermination,butitmusthavebeenaweary force thatmade its way down towardsSussex.Somehistoriansinthepast

marvelled at the stamina ofmen on foot who did all ofthese things. It cannot beproven certainly, but it is

generally accepted that menon foot did not attempt suchfeats.Thehousecarls and thefyrdmen who travelled thosedistanceswere on horseback.Theyfoughtonfootbut rodelongdistances.Themenwhobulkedoutthearmytogreaternumbers almost certainlycamefromlocallevies,inthemainshirelevies.Thiswouldalso help to explain adiffering kind of force in

different regions of thecountry. Those recorded asdying at Hastings camemainly from the Midlandsandthesouth.Certainlysomecould have assembled inLondon and marched toHastingsonfoot,thedistancemakesthatquitepossible.Harold had to take his

decisions fast, and he was adecisive man. His militarysuccesseshaddependedupon

it. Above all, the victory atStamford Bridge had comefrom the bold move ofheading fast toYork, despiteknowing that northernreinforcements would berestricted because of theevents at Gate Fulford. Hispush on through York hadtaken Hardrada by surpriseand the result had been agreat victory. Such a victorywould put his men in good

heart and give themconfidenceinhisleadership.It was in London that

Harold made the vital andfatal decision of when tomove on. With hindsight,most would agree it was thewrongdecision.AccordingtoOrderic, those close to himadvised delay or that hehimself should not commandthe army.He respondedwithanger, and when his mother

clung to him to prevent himgoing ‘he insolently kickedher’.11 These details soundlike invention, though theremust have been someoppositiontotheplan.Buthischoice was justifiable andalmost came off. He had agoodarmywhosemoralewashigh.Becauseofthewayhehad

become king, it was themilitaryabilitywhichseemed

to justifyHarold’s accession.Hehaddonehisbesttomakeallies of the northern earls,butheknewthatitwouldnottake much for men inEngland to desert amonarchwho was, in essence, anupstart with no hereditaryright to the crown. Haroldcould not afford to giveWilliammuch opportunity toseekfriendsinEngland.LikeWilliam, Harold also needed

a quick victory. Had hecaught William by surprise,as he almost certainlyintended, there could havebeen a second StamfordBridge.But… but… in the end,

even allowing that it ishindsight, we must acceptthat he made a wrongdecision.The longerWilliamhad been made to wait, themore difficult his position

wouldhavebecome.Suppliesintheendwouldrunlow,andsupplies could have beendenied without coming tobattle. The invader wouldalways be in the moredifficult situation in thisrespect. Also, Harold hadreinforcements available.There is no doubt that withevery day Harold waitedmoremenwould joinhim. Itis true that a larger army is

notalwaysabetterarmy,andthat the core forces werealready present, but a largerforceagainstasmalleroneinbattle is certainly anadvantage.There is also the question

of the composition ofHarold’s force.Heknew thatWilliam had cavalry andarchers. He obviously hopedthat his good men on footcould withstand cavalry if

given a reasonable defensiveposition. But why did he gointo Hastings with fewarchers? The only evidencethathehadanyarchersatallis the depiction on theTapestryoftheonesmallandrather pathetic figure.12 Nochronicler mentions any useor impactofEnglisharchery,though there is plenty ofmentionofNormanbowmen.The conclusion must be

that Harold had very fewarchers.Yet,aswehaveseen,archery was a well-knownactivityinEngland,andtheremust have been someavailable,evenifthenorthernbattles had diminished thepool. We are getting intodifficult territory, and we donotknowwherearcherscamefrom or how many mighthave been available toHarold. But at Hastings,

against the Normans, from agood position, archerswouldhavebeen invaluable.Haroldoughttohaveobtainedsome,even if it meant waiting. Inanycase,Harolddecidedonarapid march to catch theConqueror off guard as hehad done with Hardrada. Herapidlymoved southwards toLondon with the best of hismounted troops. He spent afew days in London, the

minimum necessary toorganise a new army forbattle,raisingsouthernlevies.Then it was on to the southcoast.Harold marched on the

road from London, throughthe forest of the Weald.William of Jumièges wrote:‘Hastening to take the dukeby surprise, he rode throughthe night and arrived at thebattlefield at dawn.’13 He

arranged for an assemblypoint on the southern exitfromthewoodedheights.Theplace was marked by an oldapple tree. We now need toconsider the site where thebattle was fought. Historianshave agreed. There is nodoubt.Vestedinterestswouldbe upset if the accepted sitewas wrong. It is probablycorrect, but the ‘probably’needs to be emphasized.

When first suggested thatevidencecouldbe interpretedto indicate a different site,one might have expectedenraged howls from variousquarters.14 In the event,nobodyseemedtonotice,noteven more recent works onthebattle.Thisisoddbecausethepointisaseriousone.Thebestevidenceforthelocationof the battle is not at alldefinite about the accepted

site,andweshouldrecallthatnone of the eleventh-centurysources was the work of aneyewitness, or probably ofanyone who ever visited thesite. So far as we know, thetwelfth-century Battle Abbeychronicler was the onlyauthor of any of our sourceswho actually knew theground. We should thereforeexamine the matter oflocationinmoredetail.15

The reason that historiansassume they knowwhere thebattlewas fought is that theyaccept without question thestatement in theChronicleofBattle Abbey. Allen Brown,whose account of Hastingsremains the best, wrote: ‘weknow the site of theengagement: we know withan unusual degree ofprecision where it wasfought’.16 But the Abbey

Chronicle, as we have seen,would not normally beconsidered a prime source ofevidence:itislate,itcontainsdemonstrable distortions andeconomieswiththetruth,andit has reasons formanufacturing orexaggerating this particularpoint. The reason it is takenseriously is because it is alocalsource:thewriterwouldhave known abbey traditions

and local lore. But he waswriting a century after theevent,hisknowledgeisallatsecond hand, and the sourceof his information is notpassed on to us. Thechronicle tells us that, inbuilding the abbey, theConqueror was fulfilling avowthathadbeenmadelongbefore on the continent, andthe modern editor suggestsweshould treat this talewith

circumspection.We ought totreat all his tales withcircumspection.17He wrote that four monks

were brought over fromMarmoutierandthey‘studiedthe battlefield and decidedthat itseemedhardlysuitableforsooutstandingabuilding.They therefore chose a fitplace for settling, a sitelocated not far off, butsomewhat lower down,

towards the western slope ofthe ridge… This place, stillcalledHerste,hasa lowwallas amark of this.’Butwhenthe Conqueror was told, ‘herefused angrily and orderedthemtolaythefoundationsofthe church speedily and onthe very spot where hisenemy had fallen and thevictory had been won’. Headds that ‘the English hadalready occupied the hill

where the church nowstands’. He then goes on tosay that ‘they prudentlyerected the high altar as thekinghad commanded, on thevery place where Harold’semblem,which they called astandard, was seen to havefallen’.18This has convinced many,

and it may be true, but inaccepting this chronicler wemust realise we are taking

much for granted. The talehas the same sort of pseudo-realistic ring about it as thevowstory.ThewriterhimselfsaysthattheConquerornevervisited the site. The buildingwas certainly not ready untilmany years after the battle.They started in one locationand finished in another. Thewriter was keen to enhancehis abbey’s reputation withthe tale of the vow; one

cannot but suspect that he atleastfirmedupthefoundationstory to suit the abbey’spurpose. We should havereservations aboutswallowing the tale withoutquestion.Itissomecauseforconcern that the altar storydoes not emerge until acentury after the event: it issurprising that no earlierwriter knew of and repeatedsuchavividdetail.19

Thereasonallthisisbeinglabouredisthatweshallnowdo what we recommendedshould always be done, lookattheearlyandbestevidence.OnlyfromitsbeinglocalcantheChronicleofBattleAbbeypossibly be thought ‘best’.The early chronicles in factdo not clearly identify thelocation, and there are somecomments which are a littleworryingtotheacceptanceof

the traditional site. Themostimportant of these is the onechronicle written by anEnglishman in Old Englishandclose to theevent, theDversion of the Anglo-SaxonChronicle. This is a briefaccount of the battle, but itmakes a clear statement oflocation: ‘King Harold wasinformed of this [William’slandingandactivities]andheassembled a large army and

cameagainsthimatthehoaryapple tree.’20 It does not saytheyassembledthereandthenmovedonamile and fought,butthatiswheretheyfought.Thisalsoindicatesthatitwasno chance location, but onethat was well known andselectedwell inadvanceasameeting point, perhaps withthe prime intention ofpreventing a Norman marchnorthwardstoLondon.21

The location of the appletree oddly enough has beeninvestigated and settled tomost people’s satisfaction. Itisthoughttohavebeenonthesummit of Caldbec Hill,where there is now awindmill. This is a placewheretheboundariesofthreehundreds met, and such oldtrees oftenmarked importantboundarypointsofthatkind.The odd thing is that

historians have settled thepositionofthetree,butneverconsideredthat theDversionmight be correct. It is aneminently suitable positionfor the sort of battle thechronicles describe. Caldbecis a hill with slopes steeperthan those at Battle. In factCaldbec, 300 feet above sealevel,dominatesthearea,andChevallier, again withoutconsidering there might be

other significance to thestatement,thoughtthatbeforevictorywaswontheNormanswouldhaveneededtocontrolCaldbec. And what of ourbest source for the battle,William of Poitiers? Hewrote: ‘They stationedthemselves in a positionoverlookinghim,onahillsideadjacent to thewood throughwhich they had advanced’,which again fits rather better

with Caldbec than withBattle.The Carmen gives some

detailoftheEnglishtakingupposition. (We shall keep toourdetermination to treat theCarmen as a second ranksource.) The poet says thatthe Normans first saw theEnglish while they were stillamong the trees: they could‘see the forest glitter, full ofspears’. The action begins

thus:

Suddenly the forestpoured forth troops ofmen, and from thehiding-places of thewoods a host dashedforward.Therewasahillnear the forest and aneighbouring valley andthe ground was untilledbecauseof its roughness…theyseizedthisplace

for the battle. On thehighest point of thesummit he [Harold]plantedhisbanner.

This could fit either hill, butthe remarks about woodlandareofinterest.22Caldbec Hill was right on

the edge of the heavilywooded land. DomesdayBook allows us to say thiswith some hope of being

accurate, since it indicateswhich parts were cultivated.The Battle chronicler saystherewerewoods around theabbey,but fromDomesday itseems likely that if troopsemerged from ‘forest’ theywould first come on toCaldbec, which after all wasthe appointed meeting place.We shall leave theidentificationof theMalfosseto a later point in our

discussion, but it fits aswelland perhaps better with abattlefoughtonCaldbecthanoneonBattleHill.It might be thought that

Orderic’s description, thoughalateone,confirmstheabbeyaccount. He wrote: ‘a greatmultitude of the Englishflocked together from allsidestotheplacewhoseearlyname was Senlac …Reaching the spot they all

dismounted from theirhorsesand stood close together in adenseformationonfoot.’Itisimportant that Orderic usesanotherwiseunknownplace-name, and it has beenuniversally applied to BattleHill, but without anyevidence. Orderic knew anamefortheplace,butwhichplace? Senlacmeans literally‘sand-lake’, and there is nolake close by Battle Hill,

though people haveconjectured that there mayonce have been.23 The hillitself would certainly not becalled ‘sand-lake’, and thereis no reason to think thatSenlacmeansBattleHill.However,therewasalake,

or at least a pool, close byCaldbec Hill, close toOakwoodGillontheedgeofthe wooded area. We alsonote that taken as it stands,

without prior knowledge ofwhere Senlac is, Orderic’saccountsoundsmorelikethatof the Anglo-SaxonChronicle, as if the Englishdismountedandfoughtat thepointofassembly,ratherthanmarchingonamileorso,andthat Senlac was the name ofthe assembly point. Hisaccount is that they came toSenlac and ‘Reaching thespottheyalldismountedfrom

their horses’. The BayeuxTapestry, just as it moves tothestoryofthebattle,depictsthree trees – none have beenshown since the Normanfelling of timber for buildingthe fleet.24 This seems toconfirm that woods were inthe vicinity of the fighting,thoughinthiscaseseenfromthe point of view of theNorman advance,which alsoshowsahillontheapproach.

There are a few minorpointswhichmightcausethispause for thought to seemworthwhile. The battleaccounts have always left afew puzzles when historianshave tried to relate them tothe actual ground of BattleHill. There are questionsabout the ‘hillock’ on theTapestry.25 One has beenidentifiedintheflattergroundbeforetheabbey,butithardly

fits, and is very small. The‘hillock’ also appears on theTapestry before even therumour of William’s death.Later, it will be suggestedthat there was no hillock tolook for. Then there is thematter of where the‘Malfosse’was, if that is thecorrectnameeventoconnectwith an incident in thebattle.26It is puzzling given the

enormous interest inHastings, that despite thediggingoffoundationsfortheabbey, for the old primaryschool, for all the housesalong the main road, all thedigging in gardens, thearchaeologicaldigsatvariouspoints in the abbey grounds,theroadmaking,notasingletrace of the battle has beenfound. There are a few talesabout finds, but none which

have ever been verified andwhich would prove thatBattle Hill had been the siteofagreatbattle.Havepeoplesimply been looking in thewrongplace?27Here we shall end this

debate. There is no certaintythatthebattleofHastingswasfought at Caldbec. Whatneeds to be said is that theevidence is not decisive.There are question-marks

against placing the site onBattle Hill, and we shouldkeep a more open mind onthe matter than has been thecasetodate.Ididnotputthiscase with any particularpleasure. I have had a longassociation with Pyke Houseandthetraditionalbattlefield.I shall be perfectly happy ifsome further proof appearswhichconfirmsthetraditionallocation. It is simply that if

one looks at the evidenceobjectively,questionshavetoberaised.Imustconfesstoawry grin at the thought thatthe traditional site justmightbe wrong, and at all thosepeoplewhohavesocarefullymeasured Battle Hill tocalculate how many menstoodon it ifeachhad3feetof ground, the little signs allover the place to mark whostood where, the confident

guides in the abbey, orwhatever….The case for Caldbec Hill

asthebattlesitehasbeenputatsomelengthbecauseithasnever been done before, notbecause it is necessarilycorrect. Yet whateverreservations we have aboutthe Battle chronicler, it doesseem likely that the abbeycalled after the battle wouldhave been built where the

battlewasfought,andthatthemonks,whodidnotknowtheland or the country, wouldhave sought advice from anyoneofthethousandswhohadfought there. But strangerthings have happened. Wemay also question whetherthe altar is actually on thesummit of the hill and wasHarold’s command post. Buton the ground of probability,thereremainsagoodcasefor

thetraditionalsite.28Harold certainly placed a

banner tomarkhiscommandpositiononthesummitofthechosenhill.Haroldmayhavehad twobanners: theWessexdragon banner sometimescalled the Wyvern which isshown on the Tapestry, andperhapsalsohisownpersonalbanner of the Fighting Man.William ofMalmesbury saysthat after the battle the

Fighting Man, embroideredwith gold and preciousstones, was sent to the Popebythevictor.29The following account of

thebattlewillbebasedontheearlychronicle evidence, andwillnotassumeaknownsite,though locations will bediscussed where it becomesimportant to do so, forexample, over the Malfossebusiness. Before we can

move to the actual conflictthere is one other disputedmatter to settle. Did theEnglish set up some kind ofpalisadeordefencetoprotectthemselves during the battle?We can answer fairlycertainly: no they did not.Thewallcomeseitherfromamistranslation andmisunderstandingofWace,orfrom Wace himself if youbelieve he meant a palisade

rather than using that similefor the shield-wall. Thepalisade in front of theEnglish was popularised byFreeman as a ‘developmentof the usual tactics of theshield-wall’,andhassurvivedin various accounts since,despite Round’s thoroughdemolition work on it in thelastcentury.I have changed my mind

over this since 1985. I then

believed that Wace got itwrongandhadtheideathatashield-wallmustbesomesortof realwall.This ispossible,the matter depends on atranslation of a difficultsection of his French, and inparticular on the translationof‘escuz’,whichcouldmeaneither shield or wall/fence. Inow feel that Round mayhave got it right, and thatWace did not mean a solid

wall at all, that he realisesperfectly well what a shield-wallwas,andthathispassageisapoeticflightintendedasasimile, and that he no moremeant an actual wall thanShakespeare thought the seawas a real wall around thescepter’d isle. It is the word‘escuz’ which persuades me,asitpersuadedRound.Ithinkwe can credit Wace withdeliberate poetic punning.

What he is saying is that theshield-wall was like a realwall and so on, withsomewhat exaggeratedemphasis and detail. Ofcourse, one can always bewrong on such debatablematters.30 In any event,Wace,withhisknowledgeoftwelfth-century warfare, isoften interesting on tactics,and added a point we mayacceptwithoutdifficultyinan

imagined speech by Harold:‘all is lost if they oncepenetrate our ranks’.31 TheEnglishdidformasolidmasstogether on the hill, closetogether,animposingsight,adifficultobstacle.32A secondary question

relating to the ancient appletreeiswhyHaroldneededanassembly point. It usuallyseems to be assumed that itwas to allow the army with

himtosort itselfout.But theterms in the chronicles verymuch suggest a meetingpoint. Itwas surely here thatHarold had arranged tomeettroops raised in thesouthernmostcounties.Giventhehasteofhismarchandthevery minimum of time fortroops to answer anysummons, such a meetingplacewas a necessity. In thesituation, it again is possible

but seems unlikely that hethen advanced furthertowards William and washalted again. If we are rightand this was a broaderassemblypoint,itwouldbeaplacewhereHaroldwouldbeforcedtodelay;troopswhichare assembling do not allarrive and place themselvesneatly within minutes. Weknow that William wasinformed of Harold’s

movements, the likelihood isthat he caught him at theassembly place. It is a smallpoint, and given medievalaccuracynotonetopress,butJohn of Worcesterspecifically says that themarch was 9 miles, thoughBattle is only about 7 milesaway.33Haroldprobablydidintend

tomarchonsouthwardstothecoast and catch theNormans

as he had caught Hardrada,though he may have beenhappy enough to stand on agooddefensivesiteandawaitthe Normans’ coming; againwe cannot be certain, thoughthe former always seems tobe assumed. Harold was nonovice in war, and he hadorganisedsomethingofatrapfortheNormans.Hehadnowre-formed the English fleet,and ships had been sent to

blockanyreturnpassage thatthe Normans might attempt.Orderic says seventy shipsperformedthistask.34In any case, William

roughly knew Harold’spositionandhadhisarmyonthe alert for a sudden move.Weneednot takeWilliamofMalmesbury’s account of thenight before the battle tooseriously, he was trying toexplain away the result in

termsofthegodliness,orlackof it, in the conduct of thetwo armies: ‘the English aswe have heard passed thenight without sleep, indrinking and singing … theNormans passed the wholenightinconfessingtheirsins,and received the sacrament’.Wace as usual makes themost of this idea, carriedaway with thoughts ofEnglishdrunkenness:‘Allthe

night theyateanddrank,andneverlaydownontheirbeds.They might be seencarousing, gambolling anddancing and singing; Bubliethey cried, and Weissel, andLaticome and Drincheheil,Drinc-hindrewart andDrintome, Drinc-helf, andDrinc-tome …’, while theNormans andFrench ‘betookthemselves all night to theirorisons, and were in very

seriousmood’.35William had already been

told by Robert fitz Wimarc,whohadbeen inEnglandforsome time but acted as aninformantfortheNormans,ofHarold’svictory in thenorth.According to William ofPoitiers, he warned theConqueror to avoid battle.The chronicler also tells usthat there were Normanscouts watching the

approachesandinformingtheConqueror. William ofJumièges remarks on theduke’s readiness for action:‘takingprecautionsincaseofa night attack, he orderedhisarmytostandtoarmsfromdusktodawn’.36The warning of

approaching troops came onthe night of Friday 13October.Williamgothismenready and made a battle

speech, reminding thosearoundofthecourageneeded,that ‘there was no wayavailableforretreat’,andthatdefeat would mean death.Poitiers says: ‘without losinga moment, the duke orderedall those in camp to armthemselves,althoughthatdaya large section of his troopshad gone off foraging’.William also arranged for amass, in which he himself

participated. He placedaroundhisneck the relicsonwhich Harold had sworn theoathhewastobreak.Itisabout7milesfromthe

coast to Battle. In his ownhaste the Conqueror put hishauberkonbacktofront,butlaughedoff themistakesoasnot to make it appear a badomen. No doubt, asGillingham has suggested, itwas the result of William

feeling nervous about whatwas to come. William ofMalmesbury says heexclaimed over the hauberk‘thus shall my dukedom beturned into a kingdom’.37Then they prepared for themarchandsetoff in theveryearlyhoursnorthwards.They moved forward

behind the papal banner. ‘Inthe first line William putinfantry, armed with bows

andcrossbows; in thesecondline he placedmore infantry,betterarmedandinhauberks;finally came squadrons ofcavalry, with William in thecentre with the strongerforce.’38 William took thenormal route which broughthim to Telham Hill, thesummit of which isBlackhorseHill.It was here that his look-

outs spotted the English and

that William prepared hismeninorderforabattle.TheAnglo-Saxon Chronicle says:‘William came against himby surprise before his armywas drawn up in battlearray.’39 Had both armiesbeen on the march, Haroldwould have been in nomoredisarray than William. If hewere ready to deploy onBattle Hill he would havebeen in better state than

William.ThesuspicionrecursthatWilliamcaughtHaroldattheassemblypoint.The Anglo-Saxon

Chroniclealsosuggestssomedisloyalty in the Englishranks, commenting thatHaroldwasaidedonly‘bythemen who were willing tosupport him’. John ofWorcester confirms thispoint.40 Harold had failed tocatchtheNormansintheway

he caught the Scandinavians,but he did have time toarrange his army in a gooddefensive position on thecrestofahill,whicheverhill.‘They immediatelydismounted from theirhorsesand all packed denselytogether on foot.’ There canbe no doubt that the Englisharmy fought as an entirelyinfantryarmy.Nosourcesaysotherwise.Eveniflateindate

the opinionof theCarmen isinteresting:‘theEnglishscornthe solace of horses andtrusting in their strength theystand fast on foot … all themendismountedandlefttheirhorsesintherear’.41

THEOPENINGPHASEOFTHEBATTLE

The battle of Hastings wasfought through most ofSaturday 14 October. Wace

says, in another unlikelycomment, that Harold chosethe day on purpose becausehe had been born on aSaturday and hismother hadtoldhimthathewouldalwaysbeluckyonthatday.IfWacewas right, then the motherwas wrong. William ofJumiègessaysthatbattlewasjoinedatthethirdhour,thatisat 9 a.m. DukeWilliam wasable to direct movements by

hand, by arranged signals,and by shouting. Wace alsosays the Normans shouted‘Godaidus’,andtheEnglish‘Out’.42Various later sources

suggest that the Bretoncavalry made up William’sleft wing, men from otherparts of France the rightwing, and the Conquerorhimself commanded theNormansinthecentre.

Poitiers mentions Normaninfantry on the march butpractically ignores them inthe battle, his interest is allwith the socially superiorcavalry. But later sources dosay that the first Normanattackwasbyinfantry,whichgiven the composition of thearmy and its order on themarch, seems highly likely.Orderic, for example,describesthefirstmovewhen

‘the Norman infantry closedto attack the English’. TheCarmen has the archersopening the battle, which isalso likely, and says that thecrossbowmen deliberatelyaimed at ‘the faces of theEnglish’tocausethemtofallback. The writer adds thatshields are no protectionagainst crossbow bolts.Thebolts ‘destroyed theshieldsasifbyahailstorm’.43

The Tapestry beautifullydepicts the cavalry ridingcasuallyandthenmovingtoacharge, one with a sword,most with lances heldoverhead, some graspingthem underarm and a fewcouched– including,perhapssignificantly, the rider whofirst makes contact with theEnglish shield-wall. TheTapestry also shows a groupof four Norman archers

aiming to shoot, one in ahauberk.Oneoftheforemostpair seems to be standing onthefaredgeofaditch,hisleftfootbracedontheslope.44The battle was begun

promptly. Trumpets soundedonbothsides. ‘Thedukeandhismen,innowaydismayedby the rising slope, began toadvance slowly up the steephill.’ The Normans took theinitiative, as in the

circumstances they wereforced to do. The Normaninfantry opened the attackwith ‘missiles’. One wouldexpect the archers to beengaged at this point, butPoitiers does not specificallymention them, though theyare shown at the start of thefightingon theTapestry.Thecavalryfollowedin.The Tapestry has a vivid

picture of the shield-wall

resisting the first impact,spears above the Englishheads, onemanwith a smallhand axe, one with a two-handedbattleaxe.45A singlediminutive archer appearsbesidetheEnglish,perhapstorepresentasmallforceontheflank.ThegapinthestitchingtorepresentthegroundmightsuggestaditchinfrontoftheEnglish line, into whichtumblethefirstvictimsofthe

conflict.At this point in the

Tapestry, the shield-wall isfirst shown facing left, andthen directly right. Thissurelyshowsusthetechniqueof the artist in order tocontinue the flow of thenarrative and does not standfortwoshield-wallsfacinginopposite directions. Thismethod of depiction shouldbe noted for a later

discussion. The Englishhurled back their ownmissiles, chiefly spears. Theadvancing Normans werefaced with the front-lineaxemenandotherswieldingatypeofclub.This first impact showed

thatWilliamcouldnotexpectan easy victory. The Englishlineheldfirmlyandtherewasnobreakthrough.Williamhadclearly hoped that this

infantry onslaught wouldmake gaps for his cavalry toexploit, but when the latternow advanced they found asolid line, the poeticallynamed shield-wall, withspearsandaxesabletoinjurethe horses. Poitiers describesthem keeping in closeposition, side by side in theline.The slopewas doing itsjob. Horses could not gallopfast up a steep slope and a

cavalry charge lost much ofitsimpact.I was present on the

occasionwhenIanPeirceandAllen Brown, dressed inNorman armourmade by theformer, rode up the slope totest the difficulty. The backgarden of Pyke House is theonlyareaonthemainsectionof Battle Hill to retain itsopen grassy nature. Whetherthe two riders were charging

up theactualhillof1066weshall not reconsider. Tocharge up any similar steepslopewouldmakethepoint.The experiment showed

how well medieval cavalryneeded to be trained.Professor Brown was almostpierced accidentally by hiscomrade’s lance, and hishorse bolted through theassembled‘Saxons’until,likeDon Quixote, he was

charging rather worryinglystraight towards the brickwalls of Pyke House. Later,hissteedbolteddownthehill,where Allen managed toguideitthroughanarrowgatewhich was an obstacle theNormans did not have tocontendwith.IanandAllen’shorses were not traineddestriers, and although Allenhad been in the cavalry, hehad not ridden for some

years. The experiment wastherefore not totallyauthentic,butdoesnotdetractfrom its interest. The mainlessonwashowdifficult it isonsuchaslopetogainmuchspeedforacharge.The Tapestry has vivid

depictions of the action, axeagainst horse, falling men,bodies littering the lowermargin, sometimes sliced offheads.46At onepoint, horses

are shown at the foot of thehill, fallingheavily intowhatappears to be water orpossiblymarsh.Itisherethatthe supposed ‘hillock’appears.Recallingapreviouscomment, thissurelyagain isthe artist simply showing themainhill of thebattle in twoviews, as with the shield-wall, so that the action maycontinue. In which case, wedo not need to search the

groundforisolatedhillocks.Theheightoftheirposition

helpedtheEnglishtodealoutblows with an advantage asthe enemy came withindistance for close combat.‘The noise of the shoutingfrom the Normans on onesideandthebarbariansontheother could barely be heardovertheclashofweaponsandthe groans of the dying.’Poitiers says that theEnglish

with their weapons,presumably the axes inparticular, were able to slicethroughshieldsandarmour.The English held off the

Normans with swords; thefirst attack was halted andpetered out. Poitiers says‘they began to drive themback’, which surely impliessome English movementforward.Weshouldnotviewthe shield-wall as an

immobile force, as somehistorians have. It was quitecapableofforwardmovementand advance; how otherwisecould battles ever have beenwon, how was StamfordBridgewon?Hastings was relatively

static because the Englishknew that the height gavethemadvantageandtheslopeacted against cavalry, butthey would look for a

moment to advance tovictory. Clearly the Englishadvanced a good distance,because Poitiers says thateven the Norman spearmen,operating at a distance, nowcame under attack and werewounded. The result was aflightoftheNormaninfantry,and of theBretons and othercavalry on the Norman left:‘Almost the whole of DukeWilliam’s battle line fell

back.’The first phase ended in

English triumph. Not onlyhad the infantry been drivenbackandsomeofthecavalryforced into flight, but therewasnowarumour thatDukeWilliamhadbeenkilled.Thisdoes indeed suggest that thewhole Norman line was introuble.HowotherwisecoulditbebelievedthatWilliam,inthe centre of the line, had

beenbroughtdown?

THESECONDPHASEOFTHEBATTLE

This was the crisis point forWilliam. His troops were indisarray.Thebeginningsofaflightcanveryeasilyturnintobroaderpanic.Therumourofhis death could have beencause enough for a generalflight.Therelativenumbersofthe

armies have inspiredthousands of words of print,mostly aswe have suggestedbefore, likely to beunprofitable in any except avery general sense. Williamof Poitiers, our best account,says that the English had anumericaladvantage,butthenhe was biased. Again theunreliable Wace has acredible comment. He saysthat in his day many have

explained the defeat bysaying that Harold had asmall force, but others say,‘and so do I, that he and theduke hadman forman’, andadds that William had moreknightsandmorearchers.47Ihavebeenpresentatmore

thanonereconstructionofthebattle, again on the Battlesite, of course. It does bringhome something of theproblem of deploying men

and fighting over difficult,uneven and hilly ground. Italso demonstrates theproblem of fighting for longperiods with heavy weaponsand in armour. No medievalbattlecouldhavebeenfoughthour after hour withoutlengthy breaks for theindividual soldiers, andprobably for the wholearmies.

AlmostthewholelineofDuke William fell back… even the armies ofglorious Rome, whichwon so many victorieson land and sea,sometimes turned inflight, though supportedby loyal troops, whenthey learned that theirleader was killed, orthought that he wasdead. The Normans

believed that their dukehadfallen.

TheNormanswereclosetodefeat. Even Poitiers admitsto a flight. Only thecommanders stood betweenthem and the loss of thebattle.Williamandhisfellowleaders, Odo of Bayeux andEustace of Boulogne amongthem, now showed theirworth. No one man could

have done it, the troopswould simply have gone.BishopOdo is shown on theTapestryurgingonhisyoungmen, waving his baton forattention rather than as aweapon.48William tried to stand in

the way but was failing. Hehad to rip off his helmet andshow his face, the scene isvividlyshownontheBayeuxTapestry, right hand pushing

the helmet back by its nasal,incidentallyrevealingthattheheadpiece of the hauberkcoveredthetopofhishead.49LikeOdo,Williamiscarryinga baton, a sign of commandratherthanaweapon.Aridernext to him points at theduke,clearlysayingthatheisliving. ‘“Look at me”, heshouted. “I am still alive.WithGod’s help I shallwin.What madness makes you

turninflight?Whatretreatdoyou have if you flee? … ifyou keep going not a singleoneofyouwill escape. ”’ Inthe Carmen, William’sspeech at this desperatemoment went on for someninelinesoftext.50William himself rode

forward, and it worked, theyfollowed him, ‘taking newcourage from hiswords’.Heraisedhis swordandcharged

into the enemy. They thenturned on the men ‘who hadpursuedthemandwipedthemout’.Thechroniclersays thattheConqueror ‘ledhis forceswithgreatskill,holdingthemwhen they turned in flight,giving them courage, sharingtheir danger. He was moreoften heard shouting to themto follow him than orderingthemtogoaheadofhim.’In the fighting which

followed, the duke had threehorseskilledunderhim,eachtimefindinganewmountandcontinuing to fight. Poitierssays that, each time,Williamkilled the man who hadbrought down his horse, andshowed his own physicalstrength, fighting with hissword and on occasion withhis shield. Wace has anunverifiable incident with anEnglishwrestlerusinganaxe,

who struck the duke ‘on thehead, and beat in his helmet,though without doing muchinjury’!51In the account of William

ofPoitiers,thefirstflightwasa real one, but it was turnedtoadvantageby theactionofthe Conqueror. This ringstrue. According to thechronicler, already by thispoint,theattackfollowingonthe reverse, the English line

began to falter for the firsttime. This is important,because it explains Harold’sfailureorinabilitytocounter-attack from here on. Poitierssays‘gapsbegantoappearintheir ranks here and there,where the iron weapons ofour brave soldiers werehaving their effect’. Thechronicler records anindividualactofvalouratthispoint,whenRobertfitzRoger

de Beaumont led a battalionto the attack on the rightwing. It was his first battle,and he ‘laid about him withgreatcourage’.It was only now that

William of Poitiers describesafeignedflightoccurring.Hesays: ‘they thereforewithdrew, deliberatelypretending to turn in flight.Theyweremindfulofthefactthat only a short time before

their retreat had been turnedinto success.’ The Englishsaw victory in their graspand,saysPoitiers,athousandofthempursuedtheretreatingNormans.Then‘suddenlytheNormans turned their horses,cut off the force which waspursuing them, made acomplete circle around them,and massacred them to thelastman’.This tactic of the feigned

flight has caused muchdebate.Manyhistorianshavebelieved it impossible. Lt.-Col.Lemmon wrote ‘a“feigned retreat” was therecognised method by whichchroniclersconcealedthefactthat the troops on their ownside had run away’, andthought the tactic‘impossible’.52 But Poitiersdoes not disguise the firstgenuine flight, and does still

describefeignedretreats.The reasons of those who

cannot accept the tactic havebeen those of ‘commonsense’. They contend that itwas a tactic beyond thecapabilities of eleventh-century cavalry. For somereason,most of themassumethat the whole Norman linewas supposed to have turnedatonce.ItistruethatPoitiers’account very much suggests

that the first flight wasgenuine, and its outcomefortuitous, but he and othersdescribed feigned retreattactics aswell. It is also truethat Poitiers says a thousandfollowed,butthisisprobablyexaggeration unless itdenotednotthesinglefeignedflightbutanEnglishdecisionfor a general advance. Thereis no reason to suppose thatall the Norman cavalry used

the tacticatonce.Wedonotbelieve that they used aconcertedchargewithlances.They operated rather insmaller groups together.What one needs to see is agroup of ten, twenty or fiftyknights deciding on themanoeuvre.We have pointed out in a

previous chapter that feignedflights were a common ploybefore 1066, and were used

by the Normans on severaloccasions elsewhere. Thehistorians who declare themimpossible are flying in thefaceoftheevidence;virtuallyall the chroniclers who gointo detail include thetactic.53IfwefollowPoitiers,thereseemsnoseriousreasonto discount the feignedflights.Thefirstoccasionwasaccidental, fromthenon theyused the tactic once or twice

deliberately and with somesuccess. Some English weredrawnoff fromthedefensiveposition, and killed. If weconsiderthisdonebydiscretesectionsoftheNormanforce,then obviously the Englishwould lose men but not beannihilated, which is whathappened.One argument against the

tactic is that it makes thefleeingforcevulnerable,with

backs to the enemy. Thecomment of the Carmen isinterestingonthis,suggestinga normal action in such atactic.Thewritersaysthat,asthey fled, ‘shields coveredtheirbacks’; thestrapsof theshields of the mounted menwould have allowed this.54The Normans had somesuccess, there were gaps inthe English line, but it stillheldastherearranksfilledin

for the dead and wounded.Poitiers says ‘twice theNormans used this ruse withequal success’, but theEnglish line ‘was stillterrifying to behold’, and theNormans‘hadgreatdifficultyin containing it’. Thissuggests that still there wasthat thin line between anEnglish counter-attack and adeliberate drawing off byfeigned flight. The feigned

flightscouldveryeasilyhaveturnedintorealones.William of Poitiers then

describes a series of cavalrycharges against the Englishline, which gradually woredown the English withoutbreaking it. The English hadby this time suffered heavylosses. There was anotherbreathing space while eachside licked its wounds.William, if not desperate,

knew that daylight hourswere runningout.Heneededa victory even more thanHarold.He began to regroupforafinalpush.

THETHIRDPHASE

Part of the fascination of thebattle of Hastings is that itwas such a close-foughtthing. For all that theNormans had mountedcavalry and a stronger force

of archers, for all that forceswhich relied on heavyinfantryalonewere togooutof fashion, these two verydifferent armies had foughtalmostthewholedayandtheoutcome was not by anymeans certain. The hill hadblunted the impact of thecavalryandhadmadeitmoredifficult for archers to shootwith effect. The shield-wallmanned by heavy infantry,

well armed and welldisciplined, proved a matchfor the Norman cavalry aswellastheirinfantry.With hindsight we see the

key moments. The repeatedfeignedflightshadresultedinsome deaths and gaps; therepeated cavalry attacks hadgradually reduced the shield-wall. But now came the twokillerpunches.Atsomepoint,probably before Harold’s

death, his two youngerbrothers who had foughtalongside him, Leofwin andGyrth, were killed. Williamof Poitiers simply makes astatement that many Englishleaders were killed: ‘theirking was dead and hisbrotherswithhim’.The death of the younger

brothers is presented on theTapestry at an early point inthebattle,beforeWilliamhas

shownhisface:bothkilledbylances,Leofwin probably thefigure wielding a battleaxe,Gyrth a spear.55 Recently, ithas been suggested that theymayhavefalleninanEnglishadvance.Thereveryprobablywas such an attempt to winthe battle, but there is noevidence of who wasinvolved in it, or even whathappened, except that clearlyin the last resort it failed.56

Again the elaboration by theCarmen does not carryconviction, with WilliamkillingGyrth inhand-to-handconflict while on foot.57 Nooneelsenoticedthateither.The first killer punch was

thedeathofHarold.The factthat his brothers had alsobeen killed meant that theEnglishlackedacommander.Beforewelookatthemethodof Harold’s demise, let us

briefly determine at whatstageinthebattleitoccurred.All sources except onesuggest or fit with a deathtowardstheendof thebattle,including our best source,Poitiers. The fly in theointment is William ofJumièges,whostates:‘Haroldhimself was slain, piercedwith mortal wounds duringthefirstassault.’58There is no getting round

themeaningofthewords,butwe cannot take this onecomment against the weightof all the other evidence,though at least one latersourcedoesfollowJumièges.Suggestions have been madethat the chronicler originallysaid something else, such as‘inthefirstrank’,andthereisa copyist’s error, or that hemeant ‘the first attack in thefinal assault’ – all the usual

excuses when evidence doesnot fit.We can only say thatJumièges seems to have gotthiswrong, but his is a briefaccount, which goes straighton to the final stages of thefight and says that itwas thedeath which led to the flightatnightfall.William’s last effort was

an all-out one, involvingeverysectionofhisforce.Wehave seen that the Normans

had both crossbowmen andarchers with ordinary bows,and have argued elsewherethat the latter were in effectlongbows. The events whichnowoccurredhelptosupportthat argument, since thearchery from some distancehad the desired effect.William of Poitiers does notsay much about this attack,just that ‘the Normans shotarrows, hit and pierced the

enemy’.59ButtheTapestryatthispointinthemarginshowsonearcheraftertheotherinaprolonged frieze aiming theirweapons upwards: nineteenfigures without a break, andthenmorealittlefurtheron.60I have also argued

elsewhere against the ideathatthearrowswereshothighup into theair tocomedownagain on the English heads,largelybecauseitwouldhave

been ineffective, the arrowswould have lost their force.Thisdoesnotmean that theywould not adjust theirshooting to cope with thehigher position of theenemy.61SomeoftheEnglishon the Tapestry catch thearrowsintheirshields,clearlyshot with force since theybecome embedded. Haroldwas not the only one tosuffer; a nameless Norman

falls to the ground with anarrow in his head. For thefirsttimetheEnglishlinewasseriously weakened, andsome of the main front-linetroops were killed, includingHaroldhimself.Some, generally more

‘popular’ works, still repeatthe old chestnut that Haroldwasnotkilledbyanarrowintheeye.Thiswasanideathatstemmed from historians

criticising the evidence. Anumberof latesourcesspokeof Harold being cut downwith swords; the earlyworksdid not describe at all themanner of his death.62 Ourconclusions depend largelyon how we interpret twosourcesinparticular.The first to consider is the

Carmen. Those who acceptits account have no arrow inthe eye. But it is surely an

incredible account, whichnone of the early sourcesconfirminanyway.Byit,theduke sees Harold fightingbravely. He summons tohimselfa littlegangof three,like the magnificent seven:Eustace of Boulogne, whoseactionsarecowardly inothersources; Hugh the heir ofPonthieu, who is otherwiseunknown and who did notsucceed to Ponthieu; and

‘Gilfardus’, who is usuallyidentified as Walter Giffard,heof thewhitehairandbaldhead according to Wace,another identification whichhascausedsomeproblems.The four, including the

Conqueror,attackHarold:thefirst (none are named in thissection of the poem) cleavesthrough his shield with asword, drawing blood; thesecond smites off his head;

the third pierces his bellywithalance;thefourthhacksoffhislegandcarriesitaway.There was then a ‘rumour’that Harold was dead.Presumably after all that hewas.William of Malmesbury,

possibly following theTapestry, does have anunnamed knight maimingHaroldafterhewaskilledbyan arrow; the knight in

question is disgraced by theConqueror for this deed, butthis does not support theCarmen version in whichWilliam himself was one ofthe four attackers. Thisincident in the poem reallydoes seem more incrediblethan any of its otherincredible stories. Can onebelieve that William himselftook part in the killing ofHarold andnoone else apart

from the poet recorded thefact?Davisissurelyrightthatthis is a later legendaryelaboration.Itseemsunlikelythat the Conqueror took anypartatallinHarold’skilling.He could not even recognisehim after the battle withouthelp.63The second and the most

important source here is theBayeuxTapestry.64 The anti-arrow school argued that the

figuredyingwithanarrowinthe eye or head was notHarold.Thefollowingfigure,under the words ‘interfectusest’ [was killed], is Harold,beinghackeddownbyariderwith his sword. Again, thiscannot be verified. Butknowledge of the Tapestry’sway of pointing out its factswould suggest that theletteringofthename‘Harold’above and around the first

figurewasmeanttoshowthatthis was the king. A numberof people have argued thatbothfiguresareHaroldanditis a sort of cartoon striprepresentation of him beingfirst hit by an arrow andsecondly being finished offbyacavalryman.65This view has been

enhancedbythekeeneyeofamodern historian, DavidBernstein.Inapapergivento

the Anglo-Norman Studiesconference, he pointed outthat if one looks carefully attheTapestry,therearevisiblestitch marks by the head ofthe second figure; and theobvious interpretation is thatthey originally representedthe shaft of an arrow in theeye of the second, fallingfiguretoo.66This seems to settle the

issue. In the view of the

Tapestry at least, HaroldGodwinson was hit by anarrow in the head, whethereither or both of the figureswere meant to be the king.The likely view is that bothare Harold. Some laterchroniclers give such anaccount: they may havefollowed the Tapestry, buteven if their facts were notindependent, at least theybelieved the Tapestry meant

bothfigurestobeHaroldandthathewashitbyanarrow.67The archery had achieved

the first major blow of thebattle, and one thatwas fataltoEnglishhopesaswellastotheir king. The loss of acommander in a medievalbattle was very rarelyfollowed by anything butdefeat for the side whichsuffered the loss, andHastingswasnoexception.If

the English fought on it wasfrom training and discipline,andbecause thebest hopeofsurvival was to slog out thefinalminutes of daylight andhopetoretreatundercoverofdark.Theydidnotmanageit.Wace,forallourdoubts,is

a useful source for quotes,partly because his militaryknowledge was good even ifhis particular knowledge ofHastings was less so. He

speaks of the lengthy battle,suggesting that the crisiscameat about3p.m., after alongdaywhen‘thebattlewasup and down, this way andthat’.68 William of Poitierssays that the remainingEnglish were exhausted andat the end of their tether,which is not difficult tobelieve.The Normans began to

sense victory: ‘the longer

they fought the stronger theyseemed to be; and theironslaught was even fiercernow than it had been at thebeginning’. The duke foughtin their midst, sparing nonewhocrossedhispath.Inotherwords, after the infantryattack the cavalry made afinal charge, and this time itworked. The shield-wall,which had withstood such abattering all day, finally

broke and once that hadhappenedtherewasnohope.The English forces broke

andfled.TheTapestry’sfinalscene shows a miscellaneousband of Normans in pursuit,threewielding swords, one aspearandonecarryingabowreadytoshoot.69Asmallandrather forlorn group ofEnglishmen are the lastfigures to survive on theTapestry, some on horses,

someon foot.Onemayhavean arrow in his head, sincethe context does not seem tofitwithhimraisingaspear.Inthelowermarginbythispointthebodieshavebeenstrippedoftheirarmourandlienaked,somewithoutheads,onewithaseveredarm.Theonlyhopeof survival for those whoremained was to reach thecover of the woods to therear.Someranonfoot,some

were able to ride. AccordingtoPoitiersthiswason‘horseswhichtheyhadseized’ratherthan their own, though thereisnoreasonwhyotherswerenot able to reclaim themounts they had left behindearlier in the day. Poitierssays they went by roads andby places where there werenone.Many, of course, werewounded and escape wasdifficultorimpossible.‘Many

died where they fell in thedeep cover of the woods’,others dropped exhaustedalong the way. There was aNorman pursuit. Some werecut down from behind, somewere trampled under thehorses’hoofs.We shall again rely

primarily on William ofPoitiers foranaccountof theMalfosse incident. He doesnot give it a name or a clear

location, though he describesthe natural feature. InPoitiers, it clearly happensafter the English had brokeninflight.70Hehasnotaleofahillock in the middle of thebattlefield.Accordingtohim,therewasalastditchdefencemadebyaconsiderableforceofEnglish.Theyhadtakenupa good defensive positionwhich the Normansapproached during the

pursuit.71The reason this is called

the Malfosse incident is thatour old friend the BattleAbbeychronicleridentifieditas such. His modern editorqueries what is meant, andsuggests that it is possiblethat the name came later.Malfosse means ‘evil ditch’.Itcouldhavebeennamedfora variety of reasons: adescription of its nature, a

burial ditch. Everyone hasassumeditwasthesiteofthislast resistance, and that ispossible–butnotcertain.Orderic Vitalis has two

versions of the incident. Thefirst is an interpolation inWilliamofJumièges.Healsoplacestheincidentduringthepursuit.72 In thisaccount, theevent could have occurredanywhere as he speaks of apursuit that continued into

Sunday, and an incident thatwas on ‘the following night’– though he probably meansSaturdaynight.Hewrote:‘forhigh grass concealed anancient rampart’ into which‘abyss of destruction’ theNormansrode‘crushingeachother to death’. He says15,000diedhere,afigureweneed not take seriously.Orderic’s second account, inEcclesiastical History, is

similar, though the featurebecomes a ‘broken rampartandlabyrinthofditches’,andthevictimEngenulfdeLaigleis named. This revisedaccount also makes it clearthat he is speaking ofSaturday night for theincident.73The Battle Abbey

chronicler gives more spaceto theMalfosse incident thantotherestofthebattle,which

is very odd and seems torequire some explanation. Itdoes not add to ourconfidence in him.He seemstohavepickedupsomevividtale, perhaps from localgossip, and tied it inwith anaccountofthebattlewhichisbrief and largelyuninformative.Hesays:

… a final disaster wasrevealed to all.

Lamentable, just wherethe fighting was goingon, and stretching for aconsiderabledistance,animmense ditch yawned.It may have been anatural cleft in the earthor perhaps it had beenhollowed out by storms.Butinthiswastegroundit was overgrown withbrambles and thistles,andcouldhardlybeseen

in time; and itswallowed greatnumbers, especially ofNormans in pursuit oftheEnglish.

He says that they gallopedunawares into the chasm andwere killed: ‘This deep pithas been named for theaccident, and today it iscalledMalfosse.’74 What weseem to have here is an

original incident after thebattle recorded by Poitiers,turned into somethingdifferent ina ratherconfusedmanner byOrderic, and thena century after the eventlatched on to by the BattleAbbey chronicler for a localsite, though he does not telluswhereitis.It seems ironic that the

source which claims BattleHillforthesiteofthebattleis

the one which also says theMalfossewas‘justwhere thebattle was going on’. TheMalfosse has been identifiedon the ground withreasonable certainty, and isjust to the rear of CaldbecHill,exactlywhereonemightexpect a last ditch resistanceafter the army had beenforcedtoleaveitsfirstlineofdefence on the hill.75 It isquiteawaybackfromBattle

Hill – though it could be alast ditch defence after flightfromthere.The identification of the

site depends primarily on aseries of medieval records,including several thirteenth-century charters which referclearly to the same name as‘Maufosse’.Itistobeplacedto the north of CaldbecHill,behind Virgin’s Lane andveryclosetothepool(which

might be Senlac). Here, 600yards north of Caldbec Hill,is to be found the naturalfeature known as OakwoodGill, which is the naturalfeature most close to thechronicledescriptions:withagully which Chevallier calls‘a deep ravine’, with steepbanks, brambles andundergrowth, a stream, juston the edge of DunifordWood.76

The Conqueror wassurprised to find thisdefended position, andwondered if these werereinforcements, which ispossible. It may also havebeenadeliberateEnglishplantogivesomecoverinthecaseof a retreat. At any rate,Poitiers says there were‘battalions’ of men, makinguse of ‘a deep gully and aseries of ditches’. Eustace of

Boulogne with fifty knightswas intending to return, inOrderic it is in flight,preferring not to attack thistough position.77 TheConqueror ordered himforward, but at that momentEustace was hit between theshoulders, the blood spurtedfrom nose and mouth. TheConqueror himself led anattack and the last resistancewas crushed. William then

returned to the battlefield.The daywas his.One of thegreatest battles in the historyof England had come to itsconclusion.

Notes1.WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.

Stubbs,ii,p.300;translationfromWilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Giles,p.274;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.128,ll.6573–90;

Brown,TheNormansandtheNormanConquest,p.133andn.61.

2.Bennett,‘Waceandwarfare’,pp.238–9;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,ll.6483–8:‘saillirforsenesdeschargier,/ancresjeter,cordessachier,/escuzeselesforsporter,/destriersepalefreiztirer./Liarchiersuntprimesissu,/alterrainsuntprimesvenu’.

3.A.Williams,‘Landandpower

intheeleventhcentury:theestatesofHaroldGodwineson’,ANS,iii,1981.

4.BayeuxTapestry,pl.49–50.5.BayeuxTapestry,pl.43–8.6.J.Gillingham,‘Williamthe

Bastardatwar’inRAB,pp.141–58,reprintedinStrickland(ed.),Anglo-NormanWarfare,pp.143–60,especiallypp.146–7,pointsoutthattherewerelongperiodswhenWilliamavoidedbattles;pp.

157–58ontheBretoncampaign.

7.BayeuxTapestry,pl.50;Thorpe(ed.),TheBayeuxTapestry,p.47;WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.180.

8.BayeuxTapestry,pl.50.&9.JohnofWorcester,eds

DarlingtonandMcGurk,p.604;Wace,ed.Taylor,p.173;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.173,ll.7743–4:‘Daneislesorentdamagiez/eTostilesout

empeiriez’.10.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,p.186.11.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,

ii,p.172.12.BayeuxTapestry,pl.61–2.13.WilliamofJumièges,ed.van

Houts,ii,p.168.14.J.Bradbury,‘Battlesin

EnglandandNormandy,1066–1154’,ANS,vi,1983,pp.1–12,p.4.

15.Wace,ed.Taylor,p.255,at

leasthasthegoodnesstoadmit:‘Iwasnottheretosee’;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.215,ll.8851–2.

16.R.A.Brown,‘TheBattleofHastings’,ANS,iii,1980,pp.1–21;reprintedinM.Strickland(ed.),Anglo-NormanWarfare,Woodbridge,1992,pp.161–81,p.163

17.ChronicleofBattleAbbey,ed.Searle,pp.4–5,wherethe

editorshowsthatearlyclaimsfortheabbeydependpartlyonforgedcharters,pp.15–16,thattheMalfosseinformationisnotsolid,and,pp.17–23,thatthevowtobuildtheabbeyisdubious.

18.ChronicleofBattleAbbey,ed.Searle,pp.42–6.

19.Somelateronesdid,notablyWace,ed.Taylor,p.143:Harolderectedhisgonfanon‘wheretheabbeyofthebattle

isnowbuilt’,butalsoaddsthathehaditsurroundedbyaditchwithanentranceonthreesides;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.142,ll.6964–6:oul’abeïe/delaBatailleestestablie’.

20.C.Plummer(ed.),TwooftheSaxonChroniclesParallel,2vols,Oxford,1892,i.,p.199;Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,D,p.143;cf.G.P.Cubbin(ed.),TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle,vi,

Cambridge,1996,p.80:and‘comhimtogenesæt¬æreharanapuldran’.

21.IamawarethatR.A.Brownthoughtotherwise,‘Hastings’inStrickland(ed.),Anglo-NormanWarfare,p.169:‘Haroldcannotpossiblyhaveselectedtheplaceofbattlewellinadvance’.OneishesitanttoquoteWace,ed.Taylor,p.174,insupportofanything,buthiscommentisinteresting:

HaroldplacinghismenwhereheknewtheNormans‘wouldcomeandattackhim’;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.173,ll.7745–6.

22.Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.24.

23.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.172:‘adlocumquiSenlacantiquitusuocabatur’.FreemanchosetocallitthebattleofSenlacbecauseitwasnotactuallyfoughtatHastings,

whichJ.H.Roundrubbished,FeudalEngland,London,1895,resetreprint1964,pp.259–63.

24.BayeuxTapestry,pl.52.25.BayeuxTapestry,pl.66–7.26.OntheMalfosseseeC.T.

Chevallier,‘WherewastheMalfosse?theendofthebattleofHastings’,SAC,101,1963,pp.1–13,whichoutlinesearlierideastoo.

27.IanPeircetellsagoodtalethat

hisfatherfoundsomeburiedremainswhichturnedtodust,butagreesthisissomewhatuncertainevidence,thoughIamsurehewoulddisputechangingthelocation.

28.Round,FeudalEngland,p.261,pointsoutthatDomesdayBookreferstotheabbeyas‘delocobelli’;itisalsoinDomesdaycalledtheabbeyof‘Labatailge’.

29.BayeuxTapestry,pl.71;

WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.224;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,p.302.

30.Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.175,ll.7793–800;Wace,ed.Taylor,p.176.Freeman,HistoryoftheNormanConquest,1873,iii,p.443;Round,FeudalEngland,pp.258–305,esp.pp.264–73;307–8.Wacehasaditcharoundthepositionofthe

standardattheassemblypoint:agreatfossewiththreeentrances,andonthemorningofbattlehehasHaroldandGyrthonwarhorsesemergingfromentrenchments,Wace,ed.Taylor,p.143;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.143,ll.6969–72.Thereisoftenasuspicionofmuddlebetweenchroniclereferencestorampartsandsomemoresolidconstructioninthemindsofhistorians.As

recentlyas1996,Wright,Hastings,seemsstilltoacceptthepalisade,thoughwonderingaboutthelengthoftimeforconstruction,p.78;Bradbury,MedievalArcher,p.28.

31.Wace,ed.Taylor,p.175;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,pp.173–4,ll.7767–8.

32.Thequotationsuseeithermyowntranslations,orthatfromThorpe(ed.),TheBayeuxTapestry,pp.32–55.William

ofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,thebattleaccountispp.186–204,onlykeyquotationswillbefootnotedseparately.

33.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.604,thoughtrustisdestroyedbythefactthathegetsthedatewrong.

34.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.172.

35.WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Giles,p.276;Williamof

Malmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,p.302;Wace,ed.Taylor,pp.155–6;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,pp.156–7,withslightvariantspellings,e.g.‘drincheheil’.ThispassagecouldillustrateRound’scontentionthatWaceborrowedinformationonHastingsfromMalmesbury.

36.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,p.168.

37.WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Giles,p.277;Williamof

Malmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,p.302.

38.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.184;Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,hascrossbowmentoo.JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.604,addsslingerstotheNormaninfantry.

39.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,D,p.143;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.80:‘Wyllelmhim

comongeanonunwear,ærhisfolcgefylcedwære’.

40.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,D,p.143;Cubbin(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.80;JohnofWorcester,edsDarlingtonandMcGurk,p.604:manyleftthebattlelineandthefewwithconstantheartsstayed.

41.Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.24;ChronicleofBattleAbbey,ed.Searle,p.38:

theEnglish‘onfoot’;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Giles,p.276:‘allwereonfoot’;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,p.302;Wace,ed.Taylor,p.238:‘theEnglishknewnothowtojoustnorbeararmsonhorseback’;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.206,ll.8603–4:‘Engleisnesaveientjoster/neachevalarmesporter’.

42.Wace,ed.Taylor,p.183,hisbrotherGyrthanswers:‘heisa

foolwhobelievesinluck’;p.191,thebattlecries:‘Dexaie’and‘Ut’;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.179,l.7923:‘"Folsest",distGuert,"quiensortcreit"’;p.184,ll.8057–8:‘Normantescrient"Deusaïe!"/Lagentenglesche"Ut!"escrie’;WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,p.168.

43.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.174;Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,pp.22–6.Baudri

deBourgueil,OeuvresPoétiques,ed.P.Abrahams,Paris,1926,p.197,l.409,alsohascrossbows:‘atquebalistis’.

44.BayeuxTapestry,pl.57–61,45.BayeuxTapestry,pl.61–2.46.BayeuxTapestry,pl.64–7.47.Wace,ed.Taylor,pp.175–6;

Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.174,ll.7784–5.

48.BayeuxTapestry,pl.67.49.BayeuxTapestry,pl.68.50.Carmen,edsMortonand

Muntz,p.30.51.Wace,ed.Taylor,p.249;

Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.210,ll.8717–26.

52.Lemmon,‘Campaign’,p.109;otherstodoubttheflightincludeGlover,‘Englishwarfare’,p.12;Wright,Hastings,p.93:‘extremelyunlikely’.

53.ApartfromPoitiers,thefeignedflightappearsinOrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,

ii,p.174,whorecognisesitasa‘hazardousstratagem’;Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.28;ChronicleofBattleAbbey,ed.Searle,p.38;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Giles,pp.276–7;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,p.303;BaudrideBourgueil,ed.Abrahams,p.208;Wace,ed.Taylor,pp.198–200:theNormanscall‘Dexaie’asthesignaltostopandturn,and

‘likefoolstheybroketheirline’;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,pp.189–92.SeealsoB.Bachrach,‘ThefeignedretreatatHastings’,MedievalStudies,xxxiii,pp.344–7.

54.Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.28.

55.BayeuxTapestry,pl.64.56.S.Morillo,‘Hastings:an

unusualbattle’,inS.Morillo(ed.),TheBattleofHastings,SourcesandInterpretations,

Woodbridge,1996,pp.220–30,p.224.

57.Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,p.30.

58.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,p.168:‘Heroldusetiamipseinprimomilitumcongressuoccubuituulneribusletaliterconfossus’;isfollowedbyOrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.176;F.H.Baring,DomesdayTablesfortheCountiesofSurrey,

Berkshire,Middlesex,Hertford,BuckinghamandBedfordandtheNewForest,London,1909,p.220,suggestsprogressuforcongressu,butthisisspeculation.

59.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.194.

60.BayeuxTapestry,pl.68–70.61.Bradbury,MedievalArcher,p.

26.Theideaofshootinghighcomesfromlatersources:HenryofHuntingdon,ed.

Greenway,p.394,andWace,ed.Holden,ii,pp.188–9,ll.8145–59,8161–4;Wace,ed.Taylor,p.197:they‘shottheirarrowsupwardsintotheair’,andisstillacceptedbyWright,Hastings,p.97.

62.ChronicleofBattleAbbey,ed.Searle,p.38:‘theirkingwaslaidlowbyachanceblow’.

63.Carmen,edsMortonandMuntz,pp.34–6,116–20,appendixD,wherethe

identificationofthefourisdiscussed.Theeditors’beliefthattheheirofPonthieuinthesourceiscalledHughisaccepted,thoughothershavediffered.WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,p.303;Wace,ed.Taylor,p.169;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.167,l.7605:‘Veezmonchiefblancechanu’.

64.BayeuxTapestry,pl.71.65.BayeuxTapestry;Wace,ed.

Taylor,p.198;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.189,ll.8161–8,isonesourcewhofollowsthis:anarrow‘struckHaroldabovehisrighteye,andputitout’,thoughhesurvivedtopullitout.Hesaysthat‘anarrowwaswellshot’becameasayingamongtheEnglishtotheFrench;anded.Taylor,pp.252–4;ed.Holden,pp.213–14:‘sorelywoundedinhiseyebythearrow’,afterwhichan

armedmanbeathimdownandcutthroughhisthigh.Healsosaysthedukestruckhim,butthathemayalreadyhavebeendead:‘Iknownotwhoitwaswhoslewhim’.AstrongpointwhichBrooksandWalker,‘Authorityandinterpretation’,p.32,makeisthatthestandardbearerisalsoshowntwice:standingandfalling.

66.D.Bernstein,‘TheblindingofHaroldandthemeaningofthe

BayeuxTapestry’,ANS,v,1982,pp.40–64.

67.WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Giles,p.277:Harold‘fellfromhavinghisbrainpiercedbyanarrow’;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,p.303;BaudrideBourgueil,ed.Abrahams,p.209,l.463,anarrowfromthesky:‘perforatHairaldum’.

68.Wace,ed.Taylor,p.197;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,p.187,l.

8132:‘fusideça,fusidela’.69.BayeuxTapestry,pl.72–3.70.WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.

Giles,p.277;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,p.303,hastheincidentinthemiddleofthebattle,buthisaccountisdependentonothersourcesandthisseemstobeanerror;Wace,ed.Taylor,pp.193–4;Wace,ed.Holden,ii,pp.185–6,whomayhavebeenfollowingMalmesbury,speaks

ofafosseinthemiddleofthebattlefield,whichtheNormanscrossedandthenfellbackinto;healso,ed.Taylor,p.255,ed.Holden,pp.215–16,hasEnglishduringflightfallingintowaterwhenabridgebreaks,butthisseemstobewhenenteringLondon.

71.R.A.Brown,‘Hastings’inStrickland(ed.),Anglo-NormanWarfare,p.180,suggeststhattheMalfosse

legendmayhavegrownfromanincidentduringthebattle,associatedwiththe‘hillock’ontheTapestry,possiblyasaresultofthefeignedflights.WehavepreferredtostickwithPoitiers,butdonotdiscountthepossibilityofthelegendgrowingbymisuseoftheearliersources.Incidentally,themid-battleincident,withasiteofditchesandsoon,wouldfitbetterwith

CaldbecthanBattle.72.WilliamofJumièges,ed.van

Houts,pp.168–70:‘sequentinocti’.

73.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,pp.176–8;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Giles,p.277;WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,p.303,hasadeepditchandashortpassage,possiblymeaningacausewayovertheditch.

74.ChronicleofBattleAbbey,ed.

Searle,pp.38,15–16.75.Lemmon,‘Campaign’,p.97;

Chevallier,‘Malfosse’,p.3.76.Chevallier,‘Malfosse’;

Lemmon,‘Campaign’,pp.111–12.

77.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.178.

W

EIGHT

AFTERWARDS

illiam of Poitierswrote: ‘once he had

completed his victory, theduke rode back to thebattlefieldtosurveythedead.It was impossible tocontemplate them withoutbeing moved to pity … the

flower of English youth andnobility littered the groundfar and wide.’ As darknessdrew on and night fell uponthebattlefield,Williamcouldbegin to appreciatewhat hadhappened on that day. TheEnglish king and two of hisbrothers had died. WithHarold Hardrada killed atStamford Bridge, the thronenowawaitedhim.Williamwasa shrewdand

generally cautious man andthe invasion of England wasthe riskiest project he everundertook. He knew that allwas not over. The Englishhad been beaten, but manyhad escaped. A lengthypursuitwasnotwise,Williamneeded his troops to stayclose at hand, and he calledthemback.Therewereothersof significance in thekingdomwhohadnotbeenat

Hastings, and whose attitudeto him was not yet clear,including Edgar theAetheling, who was theobvious figurehead forrebellion with the best claimto the thronebydescent, andthenorthernearls,EdwinandMorcar. William of Poitierssays he proceeded withmoderation.1On first arriving, William

hadnotrushedinlandagainst

a major town, and he wasprepared to take his timeagain. His strategy soonemerged, with two mainobjectives:first,hewantedtosecure his base on the coast;second, he wanted to takeLondon. But before any ofthat, there was a certainamount of clearing up to bedone.Williamcampedforthenight on the battlefield, thetraditional manner of

demonstratingvictory.Onthemorrow, he returned to baseatHastings.Scavengers and relatives

came to search among thedead. No doubt some of theNormans joined in. TheTapestry shows men rippingoffarmour,whichwasclearlyof tunic design rather thantrousered, and goodweaponswould be searched for.2Relatives would seek the

bodiesoftheirlovedonesforburial,thoughtheremustalsohave been a mass burial –possibly at the Malfosse.William arranged for theburial of his own dead, andleft the English to see totheirs. Poitiers says theirbodies were left to thevultures and the wolves,though William allowed theEnglish to bury whom theywished.3

The main question forWilliam in this was how todeal with the body of hisrival. There is the story ofidentifying the body. It wassaid that Harold was sodisfigured that he could notbe recognised. Only bybringing his mistress, Edith,tothefield,couldthebodybeknown.Sheidentifiedhimbycertain hidden marks thatonly she (and perhaps his

wife)couldknow.WilliamofPoitiers gives some credenceto this tale: ‘Harold wasrecognised not by anyinsignia which he wore andcertainly not from hisfeatures, but by certaindistinguishingmarks’, but hesays nothing of EdithSwanneck.4Wecanassume fromwhat

weknowthatWilliamhadnowish to make much of

Harold’s burial or his burial-place, and that he fearedsome sort of cult in support.He refused Harold’s familypossession of the body, evenwhenofferedpaymentbythedead king’s mother. Thisstorymaybeacceptedasitisin William of Poitiers.Orderic,whosayssheofferedherson’sbodyweightingoldfor the corpse, bemoans thatpoorlady’sposition,withfive

ofhersevensonsnowdead.5It was said that William

gave orders for Harold to beburied secretly by the shore.Poitiers tells us thatWilliamMalet was given the task tocomplete: ‘and they saidjokingly thathisbodyshouldbe placed there to guard thesea-shore and the sea, whichin his fury he had formerlyblockaded with arms’. Weprobably need not imagine

him being buried on thebeach,butatsomepointneartoHastings.6Later, there grew up a

tradition at Harold’s ownfoundation of WalthamAbbey, that his body hadbeen returned there for finalinterment, and possibly thisoccurred. It was a traditionrecordedby amonk in1177,based on hearsay from the1120s. But wemay be more

sceptical of the stories ofHarold’s survival afterHastings, like a secondArthur to fan the hopes ofOld English recovery. OneWaltham story was thatHarold had been thrown tothe ground among the dead,but was stunned and notkilled. He was found, stillbreathing, by certainwomen,who bound his wounds andcarried him off to a nearby

cottage. He was taken toWinchester and hidden in acellar for two years beforerecovering and going toGermany.7

THECAMPAIGNAFTER

HASTINGS

Again, we may best followWilliam of Poitiers for theConqueror’s movements in1066 in the immediateaftermathof thebattle.There

is little reason to disputethem, and less reason toaugment them than somehistorians have believed. Letus follow the verifiedmovements first and thenconsider the unwarrantedaugmentations.William placed Humphrey

de Tilleul over the garrisonwhich remained at Hastings,and set out eastwards toRomney, where a Norman

advance guard had beenattacked by the locals.Orderic says the Normanshad landed there inerrorandwere slaughtered. Williamshowed the ruthless,merciless spirit with whichhis conquestwould continue.The residents were punishedharshlyfortheirattack.Then he marched on to

Dover, often seen as thegateway toEngland.William

had appreciated itssignificance before theinvasion, as shown by hisdemands from Harold inNormandy. He showed hisrecognition of its importancenow, by making it secure.There seems to have beensomefortificationonthesite.Poitierssaysthatacrowdhadcollected butmelted away atthe Conqueror’s approach.Orderic explains that local

peoplehadtakenrefugethere.A fire was started by

Normans seeking booty, butthismayhave been the townratherthanthecastle(iftherewas one), since theConqueror agreed to pay forrepairs and rebuilding ofhouses. Orderic’s accountsounds as if the Normantroops ignored offers tosurrender before starting thefires.8 Poitiers describes the

fortressonitsrockbythesea,whichwasnowenlargedandimproved since, according tohim, its defences wereinadequate,andDoverCastleemergedasthegreatguardianofthesouth-eastshore.At this point, Poitiers says

that the Normans sufferedfrom dysentery, from eatingfreshly slaughtered meat anddrinking the water, and thatsomedied.Ordericsayssome

suffered from the effects forthe rest of their lives.9 Anumberof the sickhad tobeleft behind in the garrison atDover asWilliamprogressedto Canterbury. This was thereligious centre of England,and vital for him to hold. ItwouldsettlehisgriponKentand the south-east. Thecitizens of Canterbury weremore ready to compromiseand came out to meet him,

swearing fidelity and givinghostages.William made camp at

whatPoitierscallstheBrokenTower, whose identity isunknown.10 Here the dukehimselftookill,andhiscloseattendants feared for his life.What would have happenedhad he died in 1066? TheNorman Conquest, despiteHastings, was a frail thingstill and would surely not

have survived such a blow.Buthewastoughandrefusedeven to give way to hisillness.Stigand,thecontroversially

appointed Archbishop ofCanterbury, no doubt fearingfor his future underWilliam,wasinvolvedinsomeattempttoformapartytoopposethevictor.Otherswhotoyedwithopposition were the northernearls, Edwin and Morcar.

Poitiers says that they held ameeting near London andproclaimed Edgar theAethelingastheirking.Londonalsoat first tooka

hostile stance to theConqueror.Hesentatroopof500 knights, according toPoitiers,anda forceemergedfromLondontoopposethem.The Normans beat them off,and the English retreatedback inside the city walls.

Orderic says there wasmourning in the city for themanykilled,asiftheLondonforcehadbeena largeone.11The invaders set fire to thecityonthesouthernside,andthen withdrew. Williamhimself moved on to theThames, but not yet toLondon. He crossed by fordand bridge, coming to theborough of Wallingford.Archbishop Stigand thought

better now of his opposition,probably hoping to maketerms.HecametoWilliamatWallingford and submitted,swearing fidelity and doinghomage. He abandoned thecause of the Aetheling.Finally, William turned andheadedforLondon.Like Stigand, the

Londoners had been giventimetoconsidertheiractions,and like the archbishop they

moved from opposition tosubmission, coming out tomeet William and handingover hostages. The writer ofthe D version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle thought ‘itwasagreatpieceoffollythattheyhadnotdoneitearlier’.12They met him atBerkhamsted, together withArchbishop Eadred of Yorkandotherbishops,withEdgarthe Aetheling and the earls

EdwinandMorcar.Poitiers says that they

asked William to take thecrown and be their king.Edgar the Aetheling alsosubmitted. According toOrderic: ‘since hewas a boywho was noble andhonourableandakinsmanofthegreatKingEdward,forhewas his nephew’s son, theduke received him withaffection, and treated him as

long as he lived like one ofhisownsons’.13Ordericdoesnotsaywhichson.Edgardidnot remain unswervinglyloyal to the Conqueror, butthen neither did all ofWilliam’ssons.This then is theaccountof

William’s movements up tohis coronation at Christmas1066 in Westminster Abbey.It is time to deal with whatwas referred to above as an

unwarranted account ofWilliam’s movements in1066 after the battle. Manyhistorianshavebeeninvolvedin this process, so it seemsunfair to light upon one inparticular.However, todosowill make the point morefirmly, so we shall use theaccount of this same period,from October to December1066,asretailedbyBeelerinWarfare in England, 1066–

1189. It is the full-blownversion of an idea firstdeveloped at the end of thenineteenthcentury.14According to Beeler,

WilliamwenttoRomneyandthen ‘via Burmarsh toFolkestone’, and to Dover.He went on throughPatrixbourne andBekesbourne towardsCanterbury. Meanwhile,raiding parties went via

Littlebourne, Preston, Sturryand Chislet. The main armythen concentrated at Lenhamwhere forces reassembledfrom their trips to Ospringe,Eastling, Chilham,Brabourne,Stelling,Crundall,and Pluckley-cum-Pevington.From Lenham, the armymoved on via Maidstone,Seal,Westerham,Limpsfield,Oxted, Tandridge andGodstone, where they halted

awhile.The advance party which

had gone on to London hadbeen despatched from Seal,and went via Cudham,Chelsfield, Orpington,Eltham and Lewisham toSouthwark.Afterburning thesuburbs, they retired viaBattersea, Tooting andMertontoGodstone.Williamthenmarchedthewholearmysouth of London via Ewell,

Ashstead, Leatherhead,Guildford, Compton,Wanborough, Basing,Micheldever, Sutton ScotneyandHurstbourne.Meanwhile, reinforcements

came to William fromChichester or Portsmouth(Beeler isnotcertainwhich),via Fareham, Wickham,Bishop’sWaltham,Droxford,Exton, Wanford, West andEast Meon and Alresford.

There they were met by ‘adetachment from the mainarmy’thatcameviaFarnham,Hartley Maudit andFarringdon.The army in twocolumns then movednorthwardstotheThames.Then the left wing of the

army moved west fromAlresford to Lambourne; theright from Hurstbourne toHighclere, where it dividedinto two. One part went to

Wantage and Wallingford,the other from Highclere toEast Isley and Wallingford.Meanwhile, the left wingwent through Farringdon,Sutton Courtney toWhittenhamandWallingford.Then from Wallingford themain army went along theIcknield Way to RisboroughandWendover.Meanwhile, ‘a flanking

column’ moved along to the

north to Buckingham. FromRisborough the armycontinued in three columns:the left to Aylesbury andLuton; the centre along theIcknield Way; the rightthrough the valleys ofBulbourneandGade.Theleftwent via Aylesbury to rejointhecentreatLuton;thecentrewentontoHertford;therightto Langford. A ‘detachment’took Hitchin and then went

on to a rendezvous atHertford. The leftwent fromLuton to Bedford andHertford, and another‘detachment’ to Cambridge,going south via Potton.Eventually, all joined forcesatHertford.Thearmywasatlast ready to deal withLondon.You might consider the

earlier account of theexpedition, based chiefly on

William of Poitiers, ratherbare bones in comparison tothis enviably detaileddescription of the route.Onelittle question raises its uglyhead. How did Beeler andthose he was following gaintheir information? Theanswer is from DomesdayBook.Now there,youwouldthink,isaverysolidsourceofinformation, more reliablethanthosebiasedchroniclers.

Domesday is, of course, amagnificent source, but not,one would suggest, for therouteofthearmyin1066.The whole thing stems

from an interesting ideaproposed by F.H. Baring inhis article on ‘TheConqueror’s Footprints inDomesday’ in 1898, andmodified in his DomesdayTables in 1909.15 The basicidea was that the amount of

waste recorded in DomesdayBook might relate to thedegreeofdamagedonebytheinvading army in 1066.Baring’s suggested routewassomewhat less detailed thantheoneabove.Some historians were

immediately enraptured:A.M. Davies thought thatBaring was the ‘good fairy’who had waved his magicwand and put the whole

marchintoorder.Ithassincebeen often elaborated upon,for example, by Fowler,Butler and Beeler, but inmany other works too. Theyalso considered that thegreater thewaste, the greaterthe force, so that one couldidentify routes for the wholearmy, parts of the army andsmall groups. The routededuced in this way has gotfurtherandfurtherawayfrom

anysortofreality.The problem is that the

question-marksagainstsuchadeduction are veryconsiderable, enough toundermine any trust in it.Firstly, we do not knowexactly what Domesdaywaste represents. Sometimesit appearsnot tomeanactualwaste at all, but someprivileged assessment for thelandholderconcerned.Evenif

we have actual waste,Domesday rarely givesevidence of its cause, evenlessdoes it suggestwhen thewaste occurred. Only in oneinstance does Domesday saythat waste was caused by anarmy.16 Then again,Domesday was drawn uptwenty years after 1066. Thewaste it records might haveresulted from events before1066,when there had been a

gooddealofdisturbance,say,theravagingof986,1006and1041,orfromanyofthepost-1066rebellionsanddisorders.Itisnotatallcertainanywaythat a passing army wouldleaveenduringdamageofthekind envisaged; it would notcomparewithdamagefromawar fought over a region orevenfromlengthysieges.There is simplynowayof

distinguishing waste caused

by the army in 1066 andwaste caused by any othermeans at all – which mightincludeallsortsofman-madeor heaven-sent disasters.Therefore, to draw up amapmarkingallthemanorswherewaste was heaviest is a veryunreliable means of tracingtherouteofthearmy.Whenitwas done, it did not seem totracea routeatall.However,thosesoldontheideadidnot

abandon it, far from it. Theybegan to invent all sorts ofdivisionsofthearmytocoverseveral routes and make useof all the scattered manorsnoted for waste, and evenspecial detachments to go toisolated examples of wastewhichwouldnotfitevenwiththeirmultipliedroutes.The thing has become an

enormous farce. So far as Iknow, although some have

questioned aspects of it, thethesis has not been entirelyrejected. It therefore seemsworthwhile to have spentsome space on it. Inconclusion, we may say thatthewasteschememaygivealittleassistance inconfirmingthe chroniclers’ evidence forWilliam’s route, but it ispointless to expect anydetailed information from it.Youwill forgiveme, I hope,

if for the rest of theConqueror’smarchesin1066and afterwards, I concentrateon what the chronicleevidencetellsus.William of Poitiers

describes the coronation inLondon. According to him,William had refused to beconsecrated by Stigand, andthe Archbishop of Yorkaddressed the English peopleand asked them if they

consented to Williamreceivingthecrown,towhichthey gave their assent‘joyfully,without hesitation’.Then the Bishop ofCoutances addressed theNormans,and theyexpressedthe same opinion. Accordingto the Anglo-SaxonChronicle, William had topromise ‘that he would ruleall this people aswell as thebest of kings before him, if

theywould be loyal to him’,before Eadred would crownhim. Poitiers continues: ‘he[theArchbishopofYork]puton the royal diadem andplaced him on the royalthrone in the presence andwith the assent of numerousbishops and abbots in thebasilicaofStPeter’.17Duringtheceremonyitwassaidthatthe Conqueror trembled, butfrom anxiety and humility

ratherthanfromfear.18Poitiers’ version of the

disturbances whichaccompanied the coronationwasthatthemountedNormanguards, patrolling outside theabbey, heard the shouting inEnglishandfeared theworst.They then set fire to thesuburbs. If true, it does notsaymuchforthedisciplineofthose guards. Others havethought that the chronicler

was covering up somegenuine opposition andrioting againstWilliam, withwhichtheguardshadtodeal.As Orderic points out, theguardshadbeenplaced therefor fear of such disturbance.Heconfirmsthat theNormanguards themselves started afire, and this caused someinside the church to rush outinpanic.19The disturbances rather

marred the occasion, but thecoronationwas accomplishedwith sufficient legality tosatisfy the Church. Poitiersclaimed that it was byhereditaryright,butweknowit was a claim which couldnotstandmuch investigation.Poitiers asserted that it waswiththeassentoftheEnglishpeople,butthenoisesoutsidethe church were enough toremind William of what

remained to be achievedbeforehecould ruleEnglandin fact aswell as inname. ItwasbyforcethatWilliamhadtakenthethrone,andbyforcehe would have to retain it.The Norman Conquest wasnot yet over, but a majorsuccess had been achievedand William, duke ofNormandy, had become kingofEngland.

THECOMPLETIONOFTHE

CONQUEST

In the following yearsWilliam had little time forrest. In effect, by Christmas1066heheldthesouth-eastofEngland. He must now turnhismindtotheotherregions.But he had also to keep awatchfuleyeonaffairs inhisduchy. Normandy could notbe abandoned for long. So

began that tedious businessfortheking-dukesofmovingbackwards and forwardsbetweenkingdomandduchy.Medieval government wasalwaysachievedonthemove.William’s conquest meantthat his movements wouldfromthenonhavetobemuchgreater and involve frequentcrossingsoftheChannel.William made immediate

efforts to reward those who

had helped him. He gavevacated lands to hisfollowers, he sent back giftstothechurchesinNormandy,he sent gold and silver toRome as well as Harold’sbanner of the Fighting Man.His abbey at Caen receivedvarious gifts of great value.Poitiers says that theycelebrated his memory in athousand French churches.Towns, castles, villages,

monasteries congratulatedhimonhisvictory.He took stock of the

situation, and while inLondon began to makearrangementsforthecityandfor his new kingdom: ‘hetook wise, just and mercifuldecisions’.20 Poitiers says heforbade his men to drink intavernsinordertopreventthekind of disorders that wouldfollow. He ordered them to

keep within the law and torefrain fromkillingand rape,and set up severepunishments for those whodisobeyed.He leftLondonandstayed

a fewdays atBarking,whilefortifications were erectedwithin the city ‘against thenumerous and hostileinhabitants’.21 After thedisturbances during thecoronation he wanted to be

sure of security in London.The northern earls, EdwinandMorcar,madetheirpeacewith William, seeking hispardon. Other nobles did thesame. He confirmed in theirlands those who submitted,andtreatedthemwithhonour.The castle of Dover was

put in the hands of his half-brother,OdoofBayeux,whowasmadeearl ofKent.Withitsproximity to thecontinent

the Conqueror saw this as avital region.William himselfreturned to Pevensey andprepared to cross toNormandy. He gave rewardstothosemenwhohadfoughtfor him and were nowdeparting with him for thecontinent. According toOrderic, they included menwhose wives weremisbehaving, ‘consumed byfiercelust’andthreateningto

take other men if theirhusbands did not return. Thechronicler laments: ‘whatcould honourable men do iftheir lascivious wivespolluted their beds withadultery?’.22The Conqueror had other

reasons. Leaving England inthe hands of trustedlieutenants, he had to risk areturn to the duchy whilemuchofhisnewrealmlayin

uncertain subjection. Thecompletion of the Conquestmust be delayed while hemade sure of the duchy. Hetook with him varioushostages and importantpersons inorder toguaranteepeace in England, includingStigand,EdgartheAetheling,the northern earls Edwin andMorcar, Earl Waltheof (sonof the old earl ofNorthumbria, Siward), and

many others to ‘ensure thatthey would cause nodisturbances during hisabsence’.23 William crossedthe Channel to Normandy inMarch1067.Poitierssaysthatthelocals

in the towns he passedthrough came out to greethim, even the humblest. Ashe approached Rouen thecitizens, old, young, women,all came out tomeet him, to

see the hero, to acclaim andapplaud. He celebrated hisreturn at Easter 1067 in thechurch of Ste-Trinité atFécamp, to which came acrowd of clergy, people andknights. Ralph de Valois,father-in-law of the Frenchking, came to offercongratulations, and Williammade show of varioustrophies brought back withhim. Among the churches to

receive gifts were those atDivesandJumièges.According to Baudri de

Bourgueil, William’s wifeMatilda had a series oftapestries dealing with foursubjects, and which sheherself had made, displayedround her chamber. One ofthesetdealtwiththeconquestof England. Whether this isBaudri’s imagination or not,whocantell,butitreflectsan

interest in the event and aprideintheachievement.TheBayeux Tapestry itselfdemonstrates the sameattitude,asdothepoemsandchronicleswhichrecordit.24William returned to

England on 6 December1067. Now he must proceedwith the conquest. Englandhad been left in the care ofOdo of Bayeux, who heldDover and Kent, and of

WilliamfitzOsbern,whohadbeen given command ofWinchester andmade deputyto the king in the south.25They were two of theConqueror’s closestassociates. Poitiers says thatthe English did not dare torebel openly, but that theyconspired in secret, and sentfrequent requests for aid toDenmarkandelsewhere.26William’s first serious

problem with the newkingdom came not from theEnglish but from his ally,Eustace of Boulogne. Theuncertainty of his loyalty isshown by the fact thatWilliam, before the invasion,kept Eustace’s son at court‘as a guarantee of his faith’.Eustace conspired with menin Kent, who, says Poitiers,were easily moved by theirhatred of the Normans, to

attackthecastleatDover.27Dover was the shared

responsibility of Odo ofBayeux and Hugh deMontfort. At the time, theywereinactiontothenorthofthe Thames. Eustace,informed by the locals whooffered aid, cameat nightbysea to try and takeDover bysurprise. A force ofKentishmen was in armspreparedtoassisthim,butthe

garrison was ready and didnot succumb. Eustace wasbeaten off after a fight ofseveral hours, ‘shamefullydefeated’, and his nephewtaken prisoner. Eustaceretreated to his fleet onhorseback and at onceweighedanchor andescaped.The garrison made a sortieduring this retreat, andsavaged Eustace’s rearguard,some of whom fell over the

cliffs to their death, somecommitted suicide, somedrowned. Later, Eustacemade his peace withWilliam.28There was already trouble

at the other extremity of thekingdom. William had madean appointment which mightbe open to criticism inselecting Copsi to be earl ofNorthumbria.CopsihadbeenTostig’s main lieutenant in

thenorth,soperhapsthiswasanodtothesemi-alliancethatTostig had made with theduke, to be seen as adeliberate reminder thatTostighadbeenbadlytreatedby his own brother. It wasalso a reward for embracingthe Conqueror’s cause, andPoitiers praises his personalability.29 Perhaps also it wasan intended snub to EdwinandMorcar,whoseallegiance

was uncertain and whosefamily, fromtheConqueror’sviewpoint, might look toopowerful.But Copsiwas not a good

solution to the problems ofNorthumbria, where allsouthern appointments wereviewed with scorn. Copsibarelyhad time tosavourhisappointment before he hadbeenambushedandmurderedin March 1067. His assassin

was the dispossesseddescendant of the formerearls of Bernicia, Oswulf.This isoneof the last eventsrecorded in William ofPoitiers. The end of hischronicle has not beenpreserved, but it is thoughtthatOrdericVitaliscontinuedto use it, giving his work anadded value for these vitalyearsofthecompletionoftheConquest.30

There were seriousrebellions againstWilliam inEngland,but they lackedanyunified control or evenpurpose.Althoughnotalwaysconfined to regionalpersonnel, they tended to beregionalintheirextent.Apartfromproblemsontheborder,William faced seriousopposition in the north, atExeter and in East Anglia.Wecannotgointodetailover

his campaigns in these andother areas. But we maypraise the consistency of hiseffortandsuccess,evenwhenwearehorrifiedatthemannerofitsaccomplishment.The last few years of the

1060s was the period duringwhichtheconquestoftherestof England was achieved.Most of the great lordssubmitted, but it was soonobvious thatmany harboured

resentments or rebelliousinclinations. William ofJumièges wrote thatWilliam‘found many Englishmenwhose fickle minds hadturned away from loyalty’.31Ambushes of Normansoldiers were set up invarious places. In 1067 therewere rebellions in HerefordandKent. The years 1068 to1070 have recently beenlabelled the time of ‘the

English revolt’, which brokeout in various places butespeciallyinthenorth.32In 1068 Exeter, where

Harold’s mother resided,opposed the new king. Thecity sentmessages to try andstir up support. The citizensmanned the gates and thewalls. William had alreadytaken hostages, and one ofthese was blinded before thewatching citizens. He

surrounded the city andattempted to storm it, andthen commenced miningoperations.33Thesiegelastedeighteendaysandended inasurrender on terms. At once,William set about building acastlewithinthewalls.In 1068 William moved

north in force and Merciasubmittedtohispresence.HecapturedYorkandfortifiedit.Norman control of the area

only really began with thismove, and was still a tenderplant.Yorkandthenorthwasthe most severe test ofWilliam’s authority.The city‘was seething withdiscontent’, and was notprepared to be swayedby itsarchbishop’s attempts topersuade it to accept thechanges.34 The peace madewithWilliamwasuneasy.The year 1069 saw a

concerted effort of thosewilling to oppose him in thenorth, including EarlWaltheof, Edgar theAetheling and forces fromDenmarkandScotland.Itwasthe most importantcombination of enemies tooppose William as king.Sweyn Estrithsson sent alarge fleet of 240 ships toEngland, and later camehimself. The Danish fleet

made several attempts atlanding, but England’simproved defences operatedwell and the Danes wereforcedtomoveoneachtime.They finally linked up withtheEnglishrebelswhenmanyrode and marched to meetthem, ‘rejoicingexceedingly’.35Edgar the Aetheling spent

much of the period ofWilliam’s early reign in

Scotland, and his sisterMargaret married MalcolmIII Canmore, the king ofScots (1058–93). Part of theConqueror’s relativetolerance of Edgar, despitethe considerable threat fromhis birth and position, nodoubt stemmed fromWilliam’s desire to makepeace with the Scots. ThusEdgar was to survive thereignandevengoontheFirst

Crusade.The northern rebels and

invaders concentrated atYork. They included EarlWaltheof, Edgar theAetheling, Earl Gospatric (arelative ofEdgar’s), the sonsof Karli of the house ofBamburgh, SweynEstrithsson and Malcolm,king of Scots. Virtually allthe powers of the north, pastandpresent,English,Scottish

and Danish, had combinedagainst the Normaninterlopers. It became ‘ageneralrisingofthenorth’.36Trouble began on 28

January 1069 with an attackon a Norman expeditionaryforcewhich had advanced toDurham. The Durhamchronicler says the Normansprovoked the people by theiraggression, which includedkilling men of the Church.

The Northumbrians thencaught the Normans bysurpriseearlyinthemorning,and among those killed wasRobert de Commines, thenewly appointed earl ofNorthumbria. Then thegatheringrebelsfocusedtheirattentiononYork.ANormanforce at York under Robertfitz Richard, the castellan ofClifford’s Tower, chose tomakearashsortieagainstthe

rebels in 1069, and wasmassacred: ‘many hundredsofFrenchmen’werekilled.37William Malet, who had

survived by staying withinthe castle atYork apparentlywith his wife and twochildren–aperilousplaceforthem tobe– sent toWilliamfor aid.38 The king returnedfromNormandyandmarchednorth again withouthesitation.Hewasdelayedat

Pontefract but eventuallyLisois de Moutiers found aford. The rebels decided toget away and Williamrecovered York; he ‘sparedno man’, and built a secondcastle (theOldBaile), whichwasentrusted toWilliam fitzOsbern.39 Even after thisthere was an attack on bothNorman castles, but fitzOsbern held them off. TheDanish fleet, paid to

withdraw by William afterthe defeat of the rebels,finallyreturnedhomeinasadstate according to OrdericVitalis.40William punished the

regionwiththemostharshofall his harsh measures inEngland, the harrying of thenorth. Harrying as apunishment was not new inEngland, but William’s wasso severe as to be long

recalled. Symeon of Durhamwrote that, as a result: ‘therewas no village inhabitedbetween York andDurham’.41Theharryingwascondemnedevenbynormallyfavourable chroniclers.Ordericwrote:

nowhere else hadWilliam shown suchcruelty. Shamefully hesuccumbed to this vice,

forhemadenoeffort torestrain his fury andpunished the innocentwith the guilty … Mynarrative has frequentlyhad occasion to praiseWilliam, but for this actwhich condemned theinnocentandguiltyaliketodiebyslowstarvationI cannot commend him…Iwouldratherlamentthe griefs and sufferings

of the wretched peoplethanmakeavainattemptto flatter the perpetratorofsuchinfamy.42

The Conqueror sought outanyrebel,andanywhogotinthe way. His troops spreadover a great distance,combing woodland andremote areas, leaving nohiding place unsearched. Hewanted the whole region

north of the Humber to bedeprivedoffood.Housesandcrops were destroyed, anyliving creature that crossedthe path of William’s troopswas slaughtered till a greatband of ashes and wastespreadoverYorkshire.The Conqueror also dealt

with the Scottishinvolvement. In 1072William led an expeditioninto thenorthernrealm.King

Malcolm Canmore wasforced to submit and dohomage. The deal probablyincluded the submission alsoof Edgar the Aetheling, whohad frequently taken refugenorth of the border and wastheScottishking’sbrother-in-law. He was forced to leaveScotland for Flanders, butwithin a couple of yearsEdgarhadsubmitted,andwaseven able to appear at

William’scourt.In themeantime, therehad

also been problems in thewest. Just as Scottishencouragement aided thenorthern rebels, so were theWelsh involved along thewestern borders. A Welshrebellionwasbeatendownin1069 and in the followingyear William took overChesterinpersonandsentanexpedition intoNorthWales.

There had been furtherdisturbances in the south-west. Twice the survivingsons of Harold GodwinsonbroughtaforcefromIreland.Three sons of Harold are

named altogether: Godwin,Edmund and Magnus. Theycame first in 1068, and thenagaininthesummerof1069.On the first occasion theyraided into the Avon andattacked Bristol, which

fought them off, and thenraided in Somerset. Theybrought sixty-four ships onthe second occasion, landingin the mouth of the Taw.43They came to Exeter andcauseddevastationaroundthecity. Count Brian for theConqueror led out a forceagainst them and there weretwo clashes which togetherdestroyed the raiders, whowent away in but two small

ships.Harold’s sons returnedto Ireland. William ofJumièges thought that 1,700had been killed in theirventure.44 The failure of hergrandsons was sufficient tocause Harold’s mother,Gytha,toleaveExeterandgointo exile abroad, where shedied.45There were widespread

outbreaks of opposition, butall were crushed: at Chester,

Shrewsbury, Stafford,Montacute, Exeter andelsewhere. SometimesWilliam dealt with it inperson,sometimesmenactedfor him. The reliability ofthese troops under suchleaders as Count Brian,William fitz Osbern andRobertofMortaingoesfartoexplain the success of theprolonged period of fightingwhich brought about the

completionoftheConquest.The final serious thrust of

opposition broke out in EastAnglia. This will always beassociated in ourminds withthe half legendary personageof Hereward the Wake,identifiedasathegn(perhapsa king’s thegn) fromLincolnshire who had heldthree manors, and who wassaid to have been outlawedfor an earlier attack on a

Normanlord.Onesuggestionis that he had been involvedin the northern revolt of1069.46Detail can be added to the

bones of this story ofHereward only from thetwelfth-century poem abouthis exploits, the GestaHerewardi (Deeds ofHereward), and in this thereisdifficultydivorcingreliablematerial from legend. The

fact that it was written doessuggest a surviving anti-Norman attitude in England.We can say little aboutHereward for sure. Therebellion of which he waspart was a last throw by thecombined surviving Englishnobles prepared to take uparms against theNormans. Itfinally broke the northernearls. The Conqueror hadofferedEdwinmarriagetohis

owndaughter.Whenthishadbeenadvisedagainstbysomeof his courtiers, he hadchangedhismind,whichhadbroughtEdwintothepointofrebellion, with English andWelshsupport.Now Morcar joined the

rebellion inEly in1071.Therebels had taken to thisisolatedanddifficultarea.Elywas then truly an island,surrounded by waters and

treacherous marshland. ButWilliamapproached in force,probablyenteredtheislandatAldreth,andcausedtherebelsto flee. Morcar submitted,andHerewardescaped.47Thereal Hereward disappearedinto obscurity - we knownothingmore of him at all –but the legendary Herewardgrew in stature as the yearspassed. Morcar was thrownintoprisonundertheguardof

Robert de Beaumont, andstayedtherefortherestofhislife. Orderic says that intrying to raisehelp togethisbrother released, Earl Edwinwas killed after beingbetrayed by his ownservants.48As for Waltheof, son of

Siward, he had been givenNorthamptonshire by theConqueror, and alsoWilliam’s niece Judith in

marriage in 1070. Ordericsayshewashandsomeandoffine physique. He had noapparent reason to opposeWilliam, having sufferedmore disappointment beforethe Conquest than after. Yethe conspired againstWilliamin1075withtwoofthenewlyappointed earls, RogerMontgomeryofHerefordandRalphtheBretonofNorwich.Orderic says they spread the

message that ‘the man whonow calls himself king isunworthy, since he is abastard … He unjustlyinvaded the fair kingdom ofEnglandandunjustlyslewitstrueheirs…allmenhatehimand his death would causegreatrejoicing.’Thechronicler records that

these two approachedWaltheof, who was reluctantto join them and refused to

take part in rebellion. Theearls sought aid fromDenmark, rebelled in 1075and were beaten in battle.Later,RalphfledtoDenmarkand then to Brittany. But hismen in Norwich suffered:‘Some of them wereblinded/And some banishedfrom the land.’49 Earl Rogerwas taken prisoner and tried,then cast into prison. Whenthe Conqueror sent him gifts

in prison the earl orderedthem to be burned, causingWilliam to swear he wouldneverbereleased.EarlRogerdiedinfetters.50If we may trust Orderic,

Waltheof was not guilty.Lanfranc later also expressedthe view of Waltheof’sinnocence.Butitdidnotsavehim from William’svengeance against the rebels.According to Orderic,

Waltheof was accused ofconspiracy by his own wife,Judith. The earl admittedbeingapproachedbutsaidhehad refused to give support.The Anglo-Saxon Chronicleon the other hand impliesWaltheof’s guilt inconspiring, and rather oddlysaysthat‘heaccusedhimself’and sought pardon.51Waltheofwas imprisoned fora year at Winchester. There

were some at court ready toadvise that he should beexecuted. The probable guiltofWaltheofwas in failing toreveal the conspiracy ofwhichhewasaware.52Forfearofrepercussionsin

Winchester, Earl Waltheofwas taken from his prisonearly in the morning of 31May 1076. The executionersallowedhimtosaytheLord’sPrayer, but when he broke

into tears before itscompletion, they would waitno longer and hacked off hisheadwithasword.Accordingto Orderic, the severed headcontinued ‘but deliver usfromevil.Amen.’53Thebodywas later exhumedand takentoCrowlandforburial.More trouble for William

later in his reign came fromhis own half-brother,Odo ofBayeux,inwhom‘viceswere

mingled with virtues’ andwho was also brought downfor his opposition to theking.54 It was said that Odosought the papacy forhimself, expecting help fromthe Normans in Sicily andplanning to lead a band ofknights from England.Williamscotched the schemeandarrestedOdoprobably in1083. One assumes thatWilliam’scomplaintwas that

Odowasdesertinghisduties,butthewholetalehasafishyring about it, and onesuspects some other plottingof Odo’s had come to theConqueror’s attention. Odowasimprisonedtilltheendofthe reign. He would cause asimilar stir after his releaseagainstthenewking.William’sreignwashardly

ahappyone.Atno timewashe free from cares. His

quarrels with his own son,Robert Curthose, wereperhaps as hurtful as any ofthe rebellions listed above.But William had won athrone, and his familyretained it. The rebellionswere all crushed, theopposition virtuallyannihilated. The NormanConquestofEnglandwasoneof the most complete andefficientconquestsinhistory.

THECONSEQUENCESOFTHECONQUEST

TherewereimmediateeffectsoftheConquestinEngland:anewking,anewnobilityandruling class, a rash of castlebuilding, changes in theChurch. William began withwords of tolerance, andpermitted those English whosubmitted before hiscoronation to retain their

positionsandatleastsomeoftheir lands. But within adecadehehadobliterated thehigher echelons of the OldEnglishnobility.By the timeof theConqueror’sdeath, thegreater nobility in Englandwasofcontinentalextraction,though English blood oftensurvivedthroughmarriage.The success of the

Conquest also fuelled anattitude of the Normans to

their own warlike qualities,almost their invincibility.Suchviewshadbeengrowingalready,asomewhatdistortedideaofaNormanpastleadingto the present triumph, anidea of themselves as adistinctpeopleratherglossingover the true history of theirdevelopment, contributing towhathasbeenseenbyRalphDavisasaNorman‘myth’.55How far social structure

alteredaftertheConquestisamatter of much controversy,and will always be so. Wecan but sketch a part of thediscussion here. There hasbeendebateoverthenatureofthesettlementwhichfollowedthe Conquest. Norman andFrench nobles took overmuch of the land. Otherscame in the wake of theConquest seeking profits,some of whom settled in

towns. Differentiatingbetween Normans andEnglishinthedocumentsisavery difficult business, soanalysis of the settlement isbound to be imprecise. Thegeneral conclusion must bethat Normans and otherFrench did come, nobles andtheir households, soldiers,townsmen, clergyandothers,butthatthenumberswerenotenormous. If William

intended integration with thenative population, a ‘multi-racial settlement’ as onehistorian has expressed it,then he was to a degreedisappointed. Integrationfollowed eventually, butduringWilliam’s reignmuchtension remained betweenconqueredandconquerors.56Thematterofsocialeffects

of the Conquest has usuallybeenframedintermsrelating

to feudalism. We havealreadyhintedthatthereweresimilarities in the society ofthe two regions. Recenthistorical research tends toemphasise the similaritiesrather than the differences.Feudalism,aswehavesaid,isa construct of historiansratherthanafactofmedievallife,andtheyhavemadeofitratherwhat they choose: oneonething,oneanother.

If we ask rather how didsociety in England changebecause of the Conquest, wemay get a more satisfactoryanswer than by seeking toknow if the Normansintroduced feudalism toEngland. Certainly they didnot transplant whole someliving organism of societyintoa landwhoseoldsocietydied out.What occurredwasmuch more of a merging, a

new development in itself,fedfrombothsources.Knight-service and castles,

symptoms of what isgenerally seen as feudalism,were relatively recentdevelopments in Normandyitself, and much lesssystematicthanoncethought.InEnglandalready therewasanobilitywhichprovidedtheéliteofthemilitaryforcesandwhich held land. In

NormandyandEngland therewas some land to whichmilitaryservicewasattached,andotherlandtowhichitwasnot.The circumstances of the

Conquest, rather than anyseeking after social change,provided the main impact.Invasion, conquest, rebellion:it was a time of crisis andinsecurity. The Normansinevitably built fortifications

quickly and in the style justbecoming fashionable athome. That is, they builtcastles, and in thecircumstances mostly cheapandquickonesmadeofearthand timber.One thingwhichdid change was the functionof the fighting men whichmilitaryserviceproduced.Nolonger would the Englishhave entirely infantry forces,from now on the élite troops

would be cavalry – thoughlike theNormans theywouldbalancethecavalrywithgoodinfantry.The intention was not

social change,but sometimesthat was the effect. The newlords of the land resided intheir new fortifications. Insuch circumstances militaryforcewasrequired,andoftenquickly or even permanentlyfor garrisons. The English

system was not abandoned,butnewelementsenteredintoit. Here and there, quotas ofmilitary service weredemanded, service in returnfor the land held, service ingarrisons as well as in thefield.Itwasnomoreasystemin

England than it had been orwas in Normandy, but itbecame more systematic inthe course of time:

arrangements for militaryservice were regulated forpeacetime needs as well asforthecrisisyearsafter1066.SothatEnglanddidbecomeasociety where the lords werealso the military leadership,and where land-holdingentailed providing forces forthe king more or lesscommensurate with the landheld – though never in aprecise calculation. English

society and its militaryarrangements had beenheadinginasimilardirection,but the changes were moresudden thanwould otherwisehavebeenthecase.Ithasnotusuallybeeneasy

tomakecommentonthefateof the ordinary Englishsubject population.However,recent work has assisted inthis matter, and we can seethatchangeswerenotalways

as drastic in all levels ofsociety as might be thought,and that much of the OldEnglish society survived. Ithas been suggested that theNormans ‘introduced no newsystems of agriculturalexploitation or estatemanagement’.57Thecontinuityinthelower

ranks of society is much asonemighthavesuspected,butcan now be given some

satisfactorybasisinevidence.It supports the knowledge ofcontinuity in some areas, notleast in the retention ofEnglishasa language,andatleast some aspects of OldEnglishculture.Thisisnottosay that some depression insocial terms did not resultfrom the changes.DomesdayBook makes clear that manyEnglish peasants had tosurrender something of their

freedom as anaccommodation with theirnew lords. Domesday doesnothave thewhole storyandrather minimises Englishsurvival,leavingout‘awholestratumoffreemen’.58Manymiddling rank families areshown to have survived andeventohavedonewellinthenew conditions. The lowerlevels of royal service werealsofilledbyEnglishmen.59

But it is surely also truethat, for many, the Conquestwas a disaster. A recentarticle has stressed the‘catastrophic impact’ uponthemindsof theEnglish thatmust have resulted.60 A veryhigh proportion of thenobilityhadbeenkilledinthefighting of 1066, perhaps ahalf,with all the griefwhichthat left behind for familiesand friends. Some of the

women were pushed intounwelcome marriages, sometook refuge in nunneries toescapesuchmatches.Thedestructionofproperty

and houses for war wasconsiderable. Inmany towns,suchasCambridgeorExeter,theNormansdestroyedentirequartersinordertobuildnewcastles. The strength of thenew monarchy wasdemonstrated by the level of

taxation which could beenforced.Theenforcerswereoften highly unpopular. WedonotneedtowaitforRobinHoodtofindhatedsheriffs.Itwaswrittenofone,Picot,thathe was ‘a hungry lion, araveningwolf,acunningfox,a dirty pig, an impudentdog’.61The D chronicler wrote

that the Normans ‘builtcastles far and wide

throughout this country, anddistressed the wretched folk,and always after that it grewmuchworse’.62 The harryingofthenorthbroughtmiserytohundreds who could nolonger survive in thedevastated region. TheDurhamchroniclerwrote:‘sogreat a famine prevailed thatmen, compelled by hunger,devouredhumanflesh,thatofhorses, dogs and cats, and

whatevercustomabhors…Itwashorrifictobeholdhumancorpses decaying in thehouses, the streets and theroads.’63The chroniclers do not

often pass comment on thedistresstheydescribe,thoughgiving enough evidence ofsuffering. However, OrdericVitalis, who had lived hisearlyboyhoodinEnglandandwashalf-English,thoughtthat

the English aided Eustace ofBoulogne in rebellionbecausetheywere‘goadedbyNormanoppression’.Hesaysthat ‘England was exhaustedwith tribulation aftertribulation…fire,rapine,anddaily slaughter broughtdestruction and disaster onthe wretched people andutterly laid waste the land’.Of the harrying of the north,hewrote: ‘inconsequence so

serious a scarcity was felt inEngland, and so terrible afamine fell upon the humbleand defenceless population,that more than 100,000Christian folk… perished ofhunger’.64The change in theChurch,

if not so drastic as thechanges in the nobility interms of method, was ascomplete in terms of effectforthegreaterprelates.Inthe

wordsofBarlow,‘theEnglishChurch had come under newmanagement’. Englishbishops were allowed tocontinue, but on their deathswere replaced by acontinental group. By 1073the bishops included eightNormans, fourLotharingians,one Italian and only twoEnglishmen; by 1087 therewere eleven Normans andone Englishman. The change

intheabbeyswasnotquitesodrastic, but a similar processwas observed in most of thegreater houses, continentalabbots replacing Englishpredecessors.Stigand was permitted to

hang on until 1070, partlybecause of his submission.But in1070hewas removedand replaced by Lanfranc asArchbishop of Canterbury.Lanfranc was not Norman,

but he had receivedpreferment in the NormanChurch before the Conquest.HewasaleadingfigureintheChurch, a thinker, writer,teacher and reformer and agreat Archbishop ofCanterbury. But he was awhole-hearted supporter oftheConqueror’sregime.Lanfranc also introduced

Church reforms, with whichhewas already associated on

the continent, into England.Suchchangeswouldnodoubthave come into EnglandwithouttheConquestintime,andweneednotdisparagethestate of the Old Englishchurch.Butasevents turned,a number of significantreforms were introducedthrough the new episcopateand under the aegis of thenewking.Itwasalsoanageofgreat

church building, andsomewhat accidental thathundreds of the new stonechurcheseitherreplacedolderEnglishbuildings,orsurvivedbetter than they did. Therewasalsoacentralisingpolicyfor episcopal sees. Whereexistingcentreswereinsmalland remote places they wereoftenmoved toamoreurbanandcentralposition:Elmhamto Thetford, Selsey to

Chichester, Lichfield toChester. This was a trendwhich had begun before theConquest.Leadingchurchmenplayed

a major role in theConqueror’s administration,and it is not surprising thatthey should keep theircontinental ways. This mustbe one reason that thedocumentation ofgovernment, in particular the

charters, reverted to LatinfromOldEnglish.Again,oneneed not attack the state ofEnglish government, it issimply that the Conquestbrought certain changes withit. Both England andNormandy had reasonablesystems before 1066, andbothcontributedsomethingtothe Anglo-Norman statewhich emerged. But onecannot deny that the

Conquest brought changewhich would not otherwisehave occurred in the form itdid.Thus shires and hundreds

and many other Englishinstitutions survived, butwould there, for example,ever have been a DomesdayBook had there not been aNorman Conquest? Theanswer is surely no. TheEnglish system could have

producedsuchawork,anditscontentsowedagreatdeal toexisting English practice andmethods, but there wouldhave been no need for quitesuch a documentwithout theConquest and no drivingforce behind it without theConqueror. Thus we possessoneof thegreatrecordsfromthe eleventh century, anabsolute godsend tohistorians, a fund of all sorts

ofinformation.Inconclusion,wemayask

what were the main politicaleffectsoftheConquest?Theyare mostly obvious but thisdoes not make them any theless important. For a start,therewasanewkingandthiswould soon be seen as thebeginningofanewdynasty–to such an extent that athirteenth-centurykingwouldbe known as Edward I,

disregarding the rule of theOldEnglishmonarchsofthatname. The Conqueror madesome claims about his rightbydescent,butitwasrightbyforce which everyonerecognised.TheConquest had brought

anewlinetothethrone.Andfor centuries, in some wayseven till now, that hasmeantaking (orqueen)ofEnglandwhowouldnothavebeenon

the throne but for the eventsof 1066. More immediately,William’s reign in Englandwas followed by that of histwo sons, William II Rufus(1087–1100) and Henry I(1100–35); then by hisgrandson,Stephen (1135–54)and his great-grandson,Henry II (1154–89). For allthe changes and problems ofsuccession which the period1066 to 1189 covered, it is

still true that William’s lineruled in England, and ofcourse would continue so todo.

Kings of England and Dukes ofNormandy.

TheimpositionofaFrenchnobility also had its effects.The new lords of Englandbelonged to families whichmainly held considerablelands across the sea. Forsometime,thiswouldcauseanew situation in Englishpolitics, and obviously

affectedtheEnglishnobility’sattitude tocontinentalaffairs.Outof this, aswell asoutofsuccession disputes, came aninterweaving of affairs inkingdomandduchy.Thetwostayedtiedinpoliticalmattersforcenturies.Williamasdukeof Normandy conqueredEngland in 1066; his sonHenry I as king of Englandconquered Normandy in1106.

It is probably true that theConquesthadsome influenceon the greater unity ofEngland and on thedominance of England overits British neighbours. Butbothdevelopmentshadbegunbefore, and neither haddramatic improvement atonce. It has reasonably beenargued that despite theharrying, indeed partlybecause of it, the north was

nottrulyruledfromthesouthfor many years to come.65Northern separatismremained a factor in Englishpolitics long after William’sdeath.But it is probably truethattheEnglishmagnateslostsomething of their powersrelative to the king. NoAnglo-Norman earl wouldquiteequate in status to, say,Godwin of Wessex. Thepowers of earls diminished

somewhat and the powers ofroyal authority within theearldomsincreased.The link between England

and Normandy brought evenmoredramaticenlargementtotherulersofEnglandintime.Henry of Anjou, son of theEmpress Matilda, inheritedAnjou from his father;Normandy from his mother,but made possible by hisfather’s conquest of it; and

soon England. By variousmeans he became lord of allwesternFrance, andwhatweknowas theAngevinEmpirewas born. Out of that cameinevitable conflict with theCapetiankingsofFrance:thelosses under King John, therevival in the later MiddleAgesinthefirststagesoftheHundred Years’ War. Notuntilthefifteenthcenturywasthisconflicttrulydetermined,

so thatFranceasweknow itwould emerge, and theEnglish crown would beshornofnearlyallitsholdoncontinentallands.In some sense, all of this

came about because ofHastings and the NormanConquest. Indeed, it wouldnot be untrue to suggest thatEnglish history from 1066untilnowisaconsequenceofthe battle of Hastings. It

would not otherwise havebeen as it has been. It trulywas a great and significantbattle: it changed a crown, itchanged a nation, and itdeservesitsreputationasoneof the few occasions anddates which everyoneremembers. If I decided thedatesofnationalholidays,14October would be one ofthem.

Notes1.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,p.210;N.Hooper,‘EdgartheAetheling:Anglo-Saxonprince,rebelandcrusader’,Anglo-SaxonEngland,xiv,1985,pp.197–214.

2.BayeuxTapestry,pl.71–2.3.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,p.210.4.Thorpe(ed.),TheBayeux

Tapestry,p.54.5.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,

ii,p.178.6.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,p.204;Thorpe(ed.),TheBayeuxTapestry,p.54.

7.Swanton,ThreeLivesoftheLastEnglishmen,p.13.

8.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.180.

9.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.180.

10.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,p.212:‘adFractamTurrim’.

11.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.180.

12.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.144;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.80.

13.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.182.

14.J.Beeler,WarfareinEngland,1066–1189,NewYork,1966,pp.25–33.

15.F.H.Baring,‘TheConqueror’sfootprintsinDomesday’,EHR,xiii,1898,pp.17–25;Baring,DomesdayTables;G.H.Fowler,‘ThedevastationofBedfordshireandtheneighbouringcountiesin1065and1066’,Archaeologia,lxxii,1922,pp.41–50;D.Butler,1066:theStoryofaYear,London,1966;A.M.Davies,‘EleventhcenturyBuckinghamshire’,Recordsof

Buckinghamshire,x,1916,pp.69–74;andJ.Bradbury,‘AnintroductiontotheBuckinghamshireDomesday’,inA.WilliamsandR.W.H.Erskine(eds),TheBuckinghamshireDomesday,London,1988,p.32.TheideagoesbackbeyondBaringinorigin,seeJ.J.N.Palmer,‘TheConqueror’sfootprints’.PalmerputsdamagingquestionsagainsttheBaring

thesis,butdoesnotdrawthefullconclusions,andhasmissedmy1988comments.

16.R.WelldonFinn,TheNormanConquestanditsEffectsupontheEconomy,London,1971,p.19.

17.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.220.

18.J.Nelson,‘Theritesoftheconqueror’,ANS,1981.

19.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.182–4.

20.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.Foreville,p.230.

21.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.194.

22.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.218.

23.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.196.

24.BaudrideBourgueil,ed.Abrahams,p.196.

25.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.196.

26.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,p.264.27.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,p.266.28.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,

ii,p.204–6.29.WilliamofPoitiers,ed.

Foreville,pp.268–70.30.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,

ii,p.208hasthelastinformationclearlyderivedfromPoitiers’survivingmanuscript,fromthenonwemayexpectmaterialfrom

PoitiersbutonlysurvivinginOrderic.ThisismadepracticallycertainbyOrderic’scomment,p.258:‘WilliamofPoitiershasbroughthishistoryuptothispoint’:i.e.Orderic,pp.208–58,mustmakeuseofthelostendsectionofPoitiers.

31.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,p.178.

32.Williams,TheNormanConquest,p.24.

33.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,

ii,p.212.34.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,

ii,p.216.35.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-

SaxonChronicle,p.150.36.Kapelle,TheNorman

Conquest,p.112.37.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-

SaxonChronicle,p.150;SymeonofDurhaminStevenson,p.550;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.84.

38.SymeonofDurhaminStevenson,p.551.

39.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,pp.222,230.

40.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.234.

41.SymeonofDurhaminStevenson,p.551.

42.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,pp.230–2.

43.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,pp.148–9,DandJohnofWorcester,eds

DarlingtonamdMcGurk,givesixty-fourships;OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.224hassixty-six.

44.WilliamofJumièges,ed.vanHouts,ii,p.182.

45.Itisnotcertainwhenshewent,itmayhavebeenbeforethesecondraid,sinceJohnofWorcesterhas1068.OrdericsaysshewenttoFrance,WorcesterhasFlanders–whichseemsmorelikely.

46.Williams,TheNormanConquest,pp.35,49–50andn.21.

47.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.154.

48.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.258.

49.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.158.

50.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.318.

51.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.157;

Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.87:‘wreidehinesylfne,7bædforgyfenysse,7beadgærsuman’.

52.WilliamofMalmesbury,ed.Stubbs,ii,pp.313–14.

53.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.322;SymeonofDurhaminStevenson,p.563,hasanaxe.

54.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,ii,p.266.

55.R.H.C.Davis,TheNormans

andtheirMyth,London,1976;G.Loud,‘TheGensNormannorum–mythorreality’,PBA,iv,1981,pp.104–16;M.Bennett,‘StereotypeNormansinOldFrenchvernacularliterature’,ANS,ix,1986,pp.25–42.Searle,PredatoryKinship,suggeststherewassomerealitytotheideasofaScandinavianinheritance.

56.D.J.A.Matthew,TheNorman

Conquest,London,1966,p.97.

57.Williams,TheNormanConquest,p.3.

58.Williams,TheNormanConquest,p.85.

59.Williams,TheNormanConquest,pp.3,103.

60.E.vanHouts,‘Thetraumaof1066’,HistoryToday,46,1996,pp.9–15,p.9.

61.Williams,TheNormanConquest,p.88;E.O.Blake

(ed.),LiberEliensis,Camden3rdser,xcii,London,1962,p.211.

62.Whitelocketal.(eds),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.145;Cubbins(ed.),Anglo-SaxonChronicle,p.81:‘7warhtoncastelaswidegeond¬aseode,7¬earnfolcswencte,7aδδanhityfladeswiδe’.

63.SymeonofDurhaminStevenson,p.551.

64.OrdericVitalis,ed.Chibnall,

ii,pp.204,220,232.65.Kapelle,TheNorman

Conquest,e.g.p.233.

NOTES

AbbreviationsUsed

ANS Anglo-NormanStudies

BayeuxTapestryTheBayeuxTapestry,ed.D.M.Wilson,London,1985

BL BritishLibraryBM BritishMuseumCG Château-

Gaillard,Études

deCastellologieMedievale

CHF Classiquesdel’HistoiredeFrance

EHR EnglishHistoricalReview

IPMK TheIdealandPracticeofMedievalKnighthood

JMH JournalofMedievalHistory

MGH MonumentaGermaniae

HistoricaPBA Proceedingsof

theBritishAcademy

RAB StudiesinMedievalHistorypresentedtoR.AllenBrown,edsC.Harper-Bill,C.Holdsworth.J.L.Nelson,Woodbridge,1989

RS RollsSeriesser. seriesStevenson TheChurch

HistoriansofEngland,ed.J.Stevenson,5vols,London,1853–8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARYSOURCES

Aldhelm,Opera,ed.R.Ehwald,MGHAuctorumAntiquissimorum,xv,Berlin,1919

Aldhelm,ProseWorks,edsM.LapidgeandM.Herren,Cambridge,1979

Anglo-SaxonChronicle,The,eds

D.Whitelock,D.C.DouglasandS.I.Tucker,London,1961

Anglo-SaxonChronicle,The,inC.PlummerandJ.Earle(eds),TwooftheSaxonChroniclesParallel,2vols,Oxford,1892

Anglo-SaxonChronicle,The,ed.G.P.Cubbin,vi,Cambridge,1996

Asser,‘LifeofKingAlfred’,inS.KeynesandM.Lapidge(eds),AlfredtheGreat,Harmondsworth,1983,pp.67–

110BattleAbbey,TheChronicleof,ed.E.Searle,Oxford,1980

BaudrideBourgueil,OeuvresPoétiques,ed.P.Abrahams,Paris,1926

BayeuxTapestry,The,ed.D.M.Wilson,London,1985

BayeuxTapestry,The,ed.F.M.Stenton,2ndedn,London,1965

BayeuxTapestryandtheNormanInvasion,The,ed.L.Thorpe,London,1973

CarmendeHastingaeProelio,edsC.MortonandH.Muntz,Oxford,1972

Comnena,Anna,TheAlexiad,Harmondsworth,1969

DudoofSt-Quentin,DeMoribusetActibusPrimorumDucumNormanniae,ed.J.Lair,Caen,1865

EncomiumEmmaeReginae,RHS,Camden3rdser.,lxxii,London,1949

EnglishHistoricalDocuments,ii,

1042–1189,edsD.C.DouglasandG.W.Greenaway,2ndedn,London,1981

ExeterBook,The,ed.I.Gollancz,2vols,London,1895,1934

Fauroux,M.,ed.,RecueildesActesdesDucsdeNormandiede911à1066,Caen,1961

Gaimar,Geoffrey,L’EstoiredesEngles,edsT.D.HardyandC.T.Martin,RSno.91,2vols.London,1888–9

Gaimar,Geoffrey,‘TheHistoryof

theEnglish’,inStevenson,ii,pt.II,pp.727–809

Huntingdon,Henryof,HistoriaAnglorum,ed.D.Greenway,Oxford,1996

Huntingdon,Henryof,HistoriaAnglorum,ed.T.Arnold,RSno.74,London,1965

Huntingdon,Henryof,Chronicle,ed.T.Forester,London,1853

Jumièges,Williamof,(andOrdericVitalisandRobertofTorigni),GestaNormannorumDucum,

ed.E.M.C.vanHouts,2vols,Oxford,1992–5

Keynes,S.,(ed.).TheDiplomasofKingAethelred‘theUnready’,Cambridge,1980

Lauer,P.,ed.,RecueildesActesdeCharlesIIIleSimple,roideFrance,893–923,Paris,1940–9

LiberEliensis,ed.E.O.Blake,Camden3rdser.,xcii,London,1962

Malmesbury,Williamof,DeGestisRegumAnglorum,ed.W.

Stubbs,RSno.90,2vols,London,1887–9

Malmesbury,Williamof,ChronicleoftheKingsofEngland,ed.J.A.Giles,London,1895

NormanConquest,The,ed.R.A.Brown,London,1984

Poitiers,Williamof,HistoiredeGuillaumeleConquérant,ed.R.Foreville,CHF,Paris,1952

Privat,E.,(ed.).Documentsdel’HistoiredelaNormandie,

Toulouse,1972Stevenson,J.TheChurchHistoriansofEngland,5vols,London,1853–8(anumberofthechroniclesinStevensonhavebeenreprintedseparatelybyLlanerchEnterprises

Sturlusson,Snorri,KingHarald’sSaga,ed.M.MagnussonandH.Palsson,Harmondsworth,1966

SymeonofDurham,Opera,ed.T.Arnold,2vols,RSno.75,London,1882–85

VitaAedwardiRegis,ed.F.Barlow,2ndedn,Oxford,1992

Vitalis,Orderic,TheEcclesiasticalHistory,ed.M.Chibnall,6vols,Oxford,1968–80

Wace,LeRomandeRou,ed.A.J.Holden,3vols,Paris,1970–3

Wace,MasterWace,HisChronicleoftheNormanConquestfromtheRomandeRou,ed.E.Taylor,London,1837

Worcester,Johnof,Chronicle,edsR.R.DarlingtonandP.McGurk,

ii,Oxford,1995SECONDARYSOURCES

Aird,W.M.‘StCuthbert,theScotsandtheNormans’,ANS,xvi,1993,pp.1–20

Abels,R.P.LordshipandMilitaryObligationinAnglo-SaxonEngland,London,1988

Bachrach,B.‘SomeobservationsonthemilitaryadministrationoftheNormanConquest’,ANS,viii,1985,pp.1–25

——.‘Thefeignedretreatat

Hastings’,MedievalStudies,xxxiii,1971,pp.344–7

Baring,F.H.DomesdayTablesfortheCountiesofSurrey,Berkshire,Middlesex,Hertford,BuckinghamandBedfordandtheNewForest,London,1909

——.‘TheConqueror’sfootprintsinDomesday’,EHR,xii,1898,pp.17–25

Barlow,F.EdwardtheConfessor,London,1970

——.TheFeudalKingdomof

England,1042–1216,London,1955

Bates,D.NormandyBeforetheNormanConquest,Harlow,1982

——.‘TheriseandfallofNormandy,c.911–1204’,inD.BatesandA.Curry(eds),EnglandandNormandyintheMiddleAges,London,1994,pp.19–35

——.WilliamtheConqueror,London,1983

Beeler,J.WarfareinEngland,1066–1189,NewYork,1966

Bennett,M.‘NormannavalactivityintheMediterraneanc.1060–c.1108’,ANS,xv,1992,pp.41–58

——.‘Poetryashistory?theRomandeRouofWaceasasourcefortheNormanConquest’,ANS,v,1982,pp.21–39

——.‘StereotypeNormansinOldFrenchvernacularliterature’,

ANS,ix,1986,pp.25–42——.‘Waceandwarfare’,ANS,xi,1988,pp.37–58

Beresford,G.‘GolthoManor,Lincolnshire:thebuildingsandtheirsurroundingdefencesc.850–1150’,ANS,iv,1981,pp.13–36

Bernstein,D.J.‘TheblindingofHaroldandthemeaningoftheBayeuxTapestry’,ANS,v,1982,pp.40–64

——.TheMysteryoftheBayeux

Tapestry,London,1986Bradbury,J.‘AnintroductiontotheBuckinghamshireDomesday’,inA.WilliamsandR.W.H.Erskine(eds),TheBuckinghamshireDomesday,London,1988

——.‘BattlesinEnglandandNormandy,1066–1154’,ANS,vi,1983,pp.1–12

——.TheMedievalArcher,Woodbridge,1985

Brooks,F.W.TheBattleof

StamfordBridge,EastYorkshireLocalHistorySocietyseries,no.6,1963

Brooks,N.P.,andWalker,H.E.‘TheauthorityandinterpretationoftheBayeuxTapestry’,ANS,i,1978,pp.1–34

Brown,E.A.R.‘Thetyrannyofaconstruct:feudalismandhistorians’,AmericanHistoricalReview,lxxix,1974,pp.1,063–88

Brown,R.A.‘Thebattleof

Hastings’,ANS,iii,1980,pp.1–21

——.TheNormansandtheNormanConquest,2ndedn,Woodbridge,1985

Burne,A.H.MoreBattlefieldsofEngland,London,1952

Butler,D.1066,theStoryofaYear,London,1966

Campbell,J.,(ed.).TheAnglo-Saxons,London,1982

Campbell,M.W.‘Aelfgyva:themysteriousladyoftheBayeux

Tapestry’,AnnalesdeNormandie,xxxiv,1984,pp.127–45

Chevallier,C.T.‘WherewastheMalfosse?theendofthebattleofHastings’,SAC,101,1963,pp.1–13

Chibnall,M.TheWorldofOrdericVitalis,Oxford,1984

Cutler,K.E.‘Edith,queenofEngland,1045–66’,MediaevalStudies,xxxv,1973,pp.222–31

Davies,A.M.‘Eleventhcentury

Buckinghamshire’,RecordsofBuckinghamshire,x,1916,pp.69–74

Davis,R.H.C.‘TheCarmendeHastingaeProelio’,EHR,xciii,1978,pp.241–61

——.TheNormansandtheirMyth,London,1976

Delbrück,H.HistoryoftheArtofWar,iii,trans.W.J.RenfroeJr.,WestportConnecticut,1982

Douglas,D.C.‘CompanionsoftheConqueror’,History,xxviii,

1943,pp.129–47——.TheNormanAchievement,1050–1100,London,1969

——.‘TheriseofNormandy’,PBA,xxxiii,1947

——.TimeandtheHour,London,1977

——.WilliamtheConqueror,London,1964

Finn,R.W.TheNormanConquestanditsEffectsupontheEconomy,London,1971

Fowler,G.H.‘Thedevastationof

Bedfordshireandtheneighbouringcountiesin1065and1066’,Archaeologia,lxxii,1922,pp.41–51

Freeman,E.A.TheHistoryoftheNormanConquestinEngland,6vols,Oxford,1867–79

——.WilliamtheConqueror,London,1888

Gillingham,J.‘WilliamtheBastardatwar’,RAB,pp.141–58

Gillmor,C.M.‘Thenavallogistics

ofthecross-Channeloperation,1066’,ANS,vii,1984,pp.105–31

Glover,R.‘Englishwarfarein1066’,EHR,xvii,1952,pp.1–18

Grainge,C.andG.‘ThePevenseyexpedition:brilliantlyexecutedplanorneardisaster?’,Mariner’sMirror,1993,pp.261–73

Gransden,A.HistoricalWritinginEnglandc.550toc.1307,

London,1974Higham,N.TheKingdomofNorthumbria,ad350–1100,Stroud,1993

Hollister,C.W.Anglo-SaxonMilitaryInstitutionsontheEveoftheNormanConquest,Oxford,1962

——.TheMilitaryOrganisationofNormanEngland,Oxford,1965

Hooper,N.‘EdgartheAetheling:Anglo-Saxonprince,rebelandcrusader’,Anglo-Saxon

England,xiv,1985,pp.197–214——.‘SomeobservationsonthenavyinlateAnglo-SaxonEngland’,RAB,pp.203–13

——.‘ThehousecarlsinEnglandintheeleventhcentury’,ANS,vii,1985,pp.161–76

Houts,E.M.C.van.‘Thetraumaof1066’,HistoryToday,46,1996,pp.9–15

Howarth,D.TheYearoftheConquest,London,1977

Howorth,H.H.‘Acriticismofthe

lifeofRolloastoldbyDudoofSt-Quentin’,Archaeologia,xlv,1880,pp.235–50

James,E.TheOriginsofFrance,London,1982

Jones,G.AHistoryoftheVikings,London,1968

Kapelle,W.E.TheNormanConquestoftheNorth,London,1979

Kiff,J.‘Imagesofwar:illustrationsofwarfareinearlyeleventh-centuryEngland’,ANS,

vii,1984,pp.177–94Lawson,M.K.Cnut,Harlow,1993Lemmon,C.H.‘Thecampaignof1066’,inTheNormanConquestitsSettingandImpact,London,1966

LePatourel,J.TheNormanEmpire,Oxford,1976

Lloyd,A.TheYearoftheConqueror,London,1966

Loud,G.‘TheGensNormannorum–mythorreality’,PBA,iv,1981,pp.104–16

Loyn,H.R.Anglo-SaxonEnglandandtheNormanConquest,London,1962

——.TheGovernanceofAnglo-SaxonEngland,500–1087,London,1984

——.TheMakingoftheEnglishNation,fromtheAnglo-SaxonstoEdwardI,London,1991

——.TheNormanConquest,3rdedn,London,1982

Matthew,D.J.A.TheNormanConquest,London,1966

McKitterick,R.TheFrankishKingdomsundertheCarolingians,751–987,Harlow,1983

McNulty,J.B.‘TheLadyAelfgyvaintheBayeuxTapestry’,Speculum,lv,1980,pp.659–68

Morillo,S.,(ed.).TheBattleofHastings,SourcesandInterpretations,Woodbridge,1996

——.WarfareundertheAnglo-NormanKings,1066–1135,

Woodbridge,1994Nelson,J.‘TheritesoftheConqueror’,ANS,1981

Nicholas,D.MedievalFlanders,Harlow,1992

Palmer,J.J.N.‘TheConqueror’sfootprintsinDomesdayBook’inA.AytonandT.L.Price(eds),TheMedievalMilitaryRevolution,London,1995,pp.23–44

Partner,N.F.SeriousEntertainments,Chicago,1977

Peirce,I.‘Arms,armourandwarfareintheeleventhcentury’,ANS,x,1987,pp.237–57

——.‘Thedevelopmentofthemedievalswordc.850–1300’,IPMK,iii,1988,pp.139–58

——.‘Theknight,hisarmsandarmourintheeleventhandtwelfthcenturies’,IPMK,i,1986,pp.152–64

Pollington,S.TheEnglishWarriorfromEarliestTimesto1066,Hockwold-cum-Wilton,1996

Reynolds,S.FiefsandVassals,Oxford,1994

Round,J.H.FeudalEngland,London,1895,resetreprint,1964

Rumble,A.,(ed.).TheReignofCnut,London,1994

Sawyer,P.H.FromRomanBritaintoNormanEngland,London,1978

——.TheAgeoftheVikings,2ndedn,London,1971

Searle,E.PredatoryKinshipand

theCreationofNormanPower,840–1066,BerkeleyCa,1988

Seymour,W.BattlesinBritain,i,London,1975

Stenton,D.M.WilliamtheConqueror,London,1927

Stenton,F.M.Anglo-SaxonEngland,2ndedn,Oxford,1947

Strickland,M.,(ed.).Anglo-NormanWarfare,Woodbridge,1992

Swanton,M.TheLivesoftheLastEnglishmen,x,ser.B,New

York,1984Tetlow,E.TheEnigmaofHastings,London,1974

Thompson,K.,‘FamilyandinfluencetothesouthofNormandyintheeleventhcentury:thelordshipofBellême’,JMH,xi,1985,pp.215–26

——.‘TheNormanaristocracybefore1066:theexampleoftheMontgomerys’,HistoricalResearch,lx,1987,pp.251–63

Warner,P.BritishBattleFields,theNorth,London,1975

Williams,A.‘Landandpowerintheeleventhcentury:theestatesofHaroldGodwineson’,ANS,iii,1981

——.TheEnglishandtheNormanConquest,Woodbridge,1995

Wright,P.P.Hastings,Moreton-in-Marsh,1996

Yver,J.‘LeschâteauxfortsenNormandiejusqu’aumilieuduXIIesiècle’,Bulletindela

SociétédesAntiquairesdeNormandie,liii,1955–6,pp.28–115

PLATES

Statue of Alfred the Great,Winchester.

Corfe Castle, on the site whereEdward the Martyr was killed in

978. He had reigned for onlythree years and was succeeded

by his brother Aethelred.

Winchester, the West Gate.

Shaftesbury, with the Abbeyruins in the foreground.

Bosham, where Haroldpossessed a hall and from

where he set out across theChannel on the journey that

resulted in him meeting William,duke of Normandy.

Dover, the scene of the clashwhich brought to a head the

differences between KingEdward and Earl Godwin.

York, where two hundred ofTostig’s men were attacked andkilled by Northumbrian rebels in

1065.

Vire, which came under Rolf’sauthority by about 924.

Falaise, the birthplace ofWilliam the Conqueror. The

stone towers of the castle werebuilt after his death.

Bishop Odo’s castle at Bayeux;note the elaborate decoration.

Caen, the main ducalstronghold in western

Normandy.

Wallingford, looking towards thecastle.

The modern town of Hastings,viewed from the height of the

castle.

Westminster Abbey, built byEdward the Confessor, was

consecrated on 28 December1065.

Waltham Abbey, Essex,founded by Harold Godwinson.

The mill pond on the Derwent,near the crossing point of the

river.

Part of the wall of PevenseyCastle, Sussex, close to where

the Normaninvaders landed.

Bishop Odo and the Normanseating during the wait on thecoast. The scene is rather

daringly based on a depiction ofthe last supper, with Odo taking

the place of Christ.

Battle Abbey: the memorial builtto mark the spot where Haroldwas said to have been killed.

The motte of BerkhamstedCastle, the probable site wheremany of the English submitted

to the Conqueror.

COPYRIGHTFirstpublishedin1998Thiseditionfirstpublishedin2010

TheHistoryPressTheMill,BrimscombePortStroud,Gloucestershire,GL52QGwww.thehistorypress.co.uk

Thisebookeditionfirstpublishedin2012

Allrightsreserved©JimBradbury,1998,2005,2010,

2012

TherightofJimBradbury,tobeidentifiedastheAuthorofthisworkhasbeenassertedinaccordancewiththeCopyrights,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.

Thisebookiscopyrightmaterialandmustnotbecopied,reproduced,transferred,distributed,leased,licensedorpubliclyperformedorusedinanywayexceptasspecifically

permittedinwritingbythepublishers,asallowedunderthetermsandconditionsunderwhichitwaspurchasedorasstrictlypermittedbyapplicablecopyrightlaw.Anyunauthoriseddistributionoruseofthistextmaybeadirectinfringementoftheauthor’sandpublisher’srights,andthoseresponsiblemaybeliableinlawaccordingly.

EPUBISBN9780752486819

MOBIISBN9780752486802

OriginaltypesettingbyTheHistoryPress

EbookcompilationbyRefineCatchLimited,Bungay,Suffolk