Conquest of England 1066 AD. The battles of Fulford, Stamford and Hastings.

By Garrett Pearson

Prelude

1066 AD Proved a decisive year for Anglo-Saxon England.

King Edward shown on the Bayeux Tapestry

The English King Edward the Confessor died childless on January 5 of that year and failing to nominate an heir created a power vacuum for the throne. The only true claimant was a nephew of Edward’s, Edgar Ætheling. Edgar however, aged only fourteen and residing in Hungary was virtually unknown to the Saxon people and thus devoid of support in England. 

Three forceful claimants sought the crown, Earl Harold Godwinson of England, King Harald Sigurdsson (Hardrada) of Norway and William, Duke of Normandy.  

Each claim was tenuous; Harold’s claim cited a promise given him by Edward on his deathbed. Hardrada’s, based on distant ties to the former Anglo-Danish King Canute, and William by a promise he claimed given to him years earlier by Edward. William also claimed that Harold, whilst a detainee or guest of his in Normandy, had given an oath of fealty to him and promised support in his claim to the English throne. 

Harold was crowned King on January 6 by Bishops Stigand of Canterbury and Ealdred of York with the support of the English Witan, the Saxon assembly of nobles. Harold’s coronation was astonishingly quick, perhaps done before objections could be raised, previous Kings usually taking time to be exposed to their people and Lords.  

Rebellion and invasion

Harold’s estranged and younger brother, Tostig Godwinson, the former Earl of Northumberland and whom Edward exiled before his death, now sought to reclaim his Earldom. After raiding the Isle of Wight and the southeastern coast of England but to no gain and little effect, he looked for greater support against his brother from the other claimants, William and Hardrada. 

Allying himself with Hardrada the pair agreed to meet with their fleets at Tynemouth on the northeast coast of England. Hardrada, abandoning his long and unproductive war against Denmark arrived with three hundred ships and an army of approximately nine thousand men, consisting mainly of Norsemen but supplemented by vassals from Orkney and Shetland and some Scots mercenaries supplied by King Malcolm III. Tostig arrived with twelve ships, and supported by some exiled Saxon retainers and Flemish mercenaries supplied by his brother-in-law, Count Baldwin of Flanders.   

 

Battle of Fulford – September 20

Battle of Fulford - Mathew Paris (Public Domain)

After sacking Scarborough and the northeast coast, Hardrada’s and Tostig’s fleet turned into the river Humber and sailed inland, landing and disembarking at Riccall (Richale) some ten miles south of York (Jorvik). 

Two miles south of York at Fulford, they were confronted by brothers Edwin and Morcar, the respective Earls of Mercia and Northumberland and around five thousand Saxon troops. 

The Earls drew their army up along the north bank of the Germany Beck with Edwin and his Mercians on the right flank by the river Ouse and Morcar and the Northumbrians to the center with marshland to their left. Hardrada’s men were still coming in from Riccall when battle commenced, the Saxons seeking victory before all of Hardrada’s troops arrived. Owing to the high tide on the Ouse, the beck was also in flood forcing the Saxons and Norse to fight across it. With difficult conditions for both armies, Hardrada committed his light troops along the beck hoping they could hold the Saxons until more of his men came up from Riccall. Initially the Saxons enjoyed success, pushing Hardrada’s men back but as the heavy Norse troops arrived and were marched around the riverbank, where the tide had now fallen; they attacked the Saxon right flank driving Edwin and his Mercians off. More Norse pushed around the Saxon left flank, both contingents then turning to attack the rear of the Saxon center, cutting them to pieces. Casualties were heavy on both sides though the power of the northern Saxon army was broken and both Earls managed to escape.

Harald and Tostig marched eight miles east of York to Stamford to await and accept hostages and the surrender of the city, Stamford being chosen as it was a well-known landmark on the boundary of the east and north ridings of Yorkshire.

Battle of Stamford – September 25

With the northern Saxon army destroyed and believing Harold to be in the south watching for William, Hardrada sent half of his troops under his Earl (Jarl) Eysteinn Orri back to their ships at Riccall, the rest relaxing in the meadows by the river Derwent at Stamford.

Harold however, hearing news of the Norse invasion had force-marched north from London, completely surprising the Norse contingent at Stamford. Expecting no trouble, many of the Norse had sent their mail hauberks and shields back to their ships, now, unprepared and with hastily drawn battle lines, they faced the Saxons. The speed of the Saxon arrival suggests that most were mounted but whether they dismounted to fight on foot as traditional or attacked mounted is still a moot point. With Saxon numbers estimated at ten to twelve thousand men, Hardrada dispatched runners back to Orri at Riccall, some fifteen miles away calling for reinforcements.

The Norse were gradually pushed back. Seeking to regroup on more favorable ground, they crossed a narrow bridge whilst a lone warrior with a double-handed axe held it against the Saxons. Buying time for his comrades, he is reputed to have slain between twenty and forty men before finally succumbing to a spear in the groin thrust from beneath the bridgeboards by a Saxon warrior.

During a lull in the fighting, the chroniclers, Snorri Sturluson and Henry of Huntingdon, cite that a warrior approached Tostig and Hardrada offering Tostig his Earldom back. When Tostig asked what terms for Hardrada, the man is said to have replied “Only six feet of English ground or more, as he is taller than other men.” The warrior was reputed to be Harold.

Battle recommenced and Hardrada fell to an arrow through the throat, Tostig was also slain. Jarl Orri and his men arrived in late afternoon having ran the fifteen miles from Riccall. Committing immediately to battle they stalled the Saxon onslaught but succumbing to exhaustion and a foe that sensed victory they were pushed back, Orri being killed in the melee.

Late in the day, Harold offered the remaining Norsemen the chance to leave, never to return, under pain of death. The Norse casualties were so great that only thirty ships were required to take the survivors back to Norway.

Battle of Stamford Bridge & death of Hardrada (unknown artist)

Invasion and the Battle of Hastings 14 October

William’s fleet of some seven hundred ships, a mixture of warships and transports landed at Pevensey Bay on September 28 or 29. He immediately dispatched troops to invest Hastings town and to ravage the surrounding countryside. 

Harold, resting in York when he heard of Williams’s invasion set off south reaching London in four days. At this speed, it is thought he rode ahead with his Huscarls (personal guard) with others to follow on as soon as able.

Harold was urged to wait in London for the men from the north and for more men to come in but being a successful, confident and vigorous commander; he refuted the advice, and marched to meet William. Word was put out for men to assemble by the ‘Hoar apple tree” a well-known landmark, long since lost.

It is surmised Harold’s speed was a plan to catch William unawares, William however stole a march on Harold and the two sides came in sight on opposing hills on the early morning of October 14. William on Telham hill with his papal banner, a gift of support from Pope Alexander the second to aid his endeavours against Harold the ‘oath breaker.’ On Caldbec hill, Harold set his banners of the fighting man and the dragon of Wessex, his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine in support. His men formed up on a hammer shaped ridge at the hill front, above a boggy area called Santlache meaning ‘Sandy Stream’ and punned later by the Normans as Senlac, meaning ‘blood lake.’

William moved to the low ground between the hills expecting Harold to come down off Caldbec hill and fight him, Harold sensibly refused.

Battle commenced at 0900hrs with volleys of arrows from the Norman archers. The Saxons, in dense formation raising their shields against the incoming storm suffered little damage, William then dispatched his infantry uphill in an attempt to shatter the Saxon shieldwall. His men were met by a hail of missiles, arrows, clubs, stones and javelins, the Saxons roaring defiance with cries of ‘Ut, ut, ut’ (out, out, out) after a prolonged struggle and no sign of the wall breaking, William sent his mounted knights in support. However, with the wall unbroken the best the knights could do was ride in and away stabbing with their lances else hurl maces and javelins in an attempt to break the wall. 

With the Saxon wall showing no sign of breaking, the Breton contingent on William’s left flank broke and fled back down the hill, some of the cavalry floundering in the soft ground and a cry went up that William was dead. Some Saxons broke ranks and chased the Norman rout, seeing crisis, William threw back his coif and helmet showing himself alive and rode amongst his men trying to stem the panic. Managing to rally his men, the Normans counter attacked and slaughtered the Saxons on the open ground. 

A break in the fighting had both sides reforming, the Saxons adjusting their shrinking shieldwall and the Normans regrouping for another assault. The battle continued into the afternoon with the Normans again making no headway against the Saxon defence. At the height of a full assault on the shieldwall, the Normans again began falling back down the hill as if in disarray, the Saxons, once more sensing victory and against all commands, broke ranks and gave chase. On the low ground, the Normans turned and easily slaughtered the Saxons, who in loose order were easy prey to the mounted knights. 

With the loss of the men in the low ground, the Saxon shieldwall shrunk again. William, seizing the moment committed to a full assault by all his troops, his archers this time causing casualties in the weakened wall. The infantry forced gaps in the Saxon ranks, the knights riding in to widen and split the defences open, Gyrth and Leofwine both slain as the knights forced through. Harold, the last King of the Saxons was killed alongside his Huscarls, they closing about their King and dying to a man around him, such were the bonds of oath and warrior brotherhood.

Death of Harold depicted - ambiguously? - on the Bayeux Tapestry

The battle had raged since 0900hrs in the morning until sunset, about 1700hrs at that time of year making it the longest fought battle on English soil. The fighting had been fierce, William having three horses killed beneath him.

Estimates of combatants vary widely, the main consensus being the sides were roughly even in number and around eight to ten thousand men on each side 

Did Harold die from an arrow in the eye? The Bayeux tapestry portrays such a scene or is Harold depicted twice, shot by the arrow and then ridden down by a Norman knight? No one can say for certain how he died. Harold’s body was so mutilated that his mistress, Edith Swanneshals, was summoned to identify it, doing so by tattoos that only she would have been privy to.

Battle won; the conquest was far from over. William was crowned King of England on Christmas day 1066 but would be occupied up until his death in 1087 AD dealing with Saxon insurrection, Danish invasion and revolt by his own Norman Lords.

~~~~~

Interesting questions and thoughts arise from this short but turbulent period:

If Hardrada had triumphed at Stamford, would he have beaten William and England become predominately Norse?

Were the Norman retreats a planned ruse?

If William had lost, English royalty, culture, language and laws would be completely different.

Military experts conclude that, if the Saxons had not moved from the ridge, the battle outcome had to be a win for Harold or at the very worst a withdrawal of the Normans.

~~~~~~~~~~

Garrett Pearson was born and raised in the northeast of England; he is married with two grown sons. Captivated by the long and turbulent history of his homeland he became a passionate student of English history and ancient military history. He is an author of Historical Fiction, a member of the Historical Novel Society and a guest blogger to English Historical Fiction Authors (EHFA). He specialises in Dark Age England and the Saxon/Viking wars as well as the Second Punic War between Carthage and Rome.

Facebook

Amazon

Twitter

Author’s email is garrettpearsonauthor@gmail.com 

The Man Who Broke King Harold

by Helen Johnson

The invasion, occupation and conquest of England by William of Normandy's troops in the 1060s created trauma that echoes through the centuries.

Famously, the Conquest began at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, when King Harold of England was killed.  But Normandy was a small duchy.  England was one of the wealthiest and best organised countries in Europe.  How could Duke William beat king Harold?

I believe that Harold was broken before he ever faced William - broken by his own brother, Tostig.

Tostig and Harold's father was Godwin, Earl of Wessex, who married King Cnut's kinswoman, Gytha.  In 1042, Cnut's succession failed and Edward, son of defeated King Aethelred 'the Unready', was invited to return from exile in Normandy.

Tostig's king and brother-in-law, King Edward the Confessor,
depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. Image Credit

Under Edward, Earl Godwin rose to power.  His sons gained earldoms, and he married his daughter, Edith, to the King.

Tostig's sister Edith of Wessex,
wife of King Edward Image credit

The 'The Life of King Edward', written not long after the Conquest, describes two of Godwin's six sons, Tostig and Harold.  Both, we are told, were 'handsome and graceful persons.'  They were similarly 'strong' and 'brave'.

Harold was practiced in 'endless fatigues'.  He was mild tempered and 'of ready understanding'.  He 'could bear contradiction well'....'not readily... retaliating.'  If he thought someone loyal, he would share his plans.

It's a portrait of a self-controlled, thoughtful man, prepared to communicate and to listen to others.

Tostig, by comparison, 'occasionally was a little over-zealous in attacking evil.'  He was of 'bold and inflexible constancy of mind.'   He would 'ponder much and by himself the plans in his mind'.... 'In his word, deed or promise he was distinguished by adamantine steadfastness.'

And, in a comment that possibly tells us more about other men than of Tostig, 'He renounced desire for all women except his wife...'

Tostig's portrait is of a secretive, stubborn man, who might sometimes break into extreme behaviour.

However, Tostig was admired for his military prowess and firmness of mind, and became a  trusted servant of the King.

In 1051, King Edward's brother-in-law, Eustace of Boulogne, visited Dover. Unfortunately, his men ran amok. Townsfolk resisted, and around forty people were killed.

King Edward considered his brother-in-law to be in the right, and ordered Earl Godwin to punish the people of Dover. Godwin, believing the townsfolk to be in the right, refused.

Edward was furious.  He exiled Godwin's family, repudiated his wife, Godwin's daughter, and sent Godwin's youngest son, Wulfnoth, to Normandy as a hostage.

The incident was a flare for the Norman/English power play that simmered in England. Edward grew up in exile with his mother's people in Normandy after Danish Cnut took the throne. When Edward returned to England, he brought friends and habits gained in Normandy. But the Anglo-Scandinavian English aristocracy, including Godwin, did not like the Frenchified ways of the Normans.

A year after being exiled, Godwin returned, and supporters flocked to him. Edward was compelled to restore Godwin – and his sons and daughter.

Godwin subsequently appears to have been king in all but name.  Edward spent his time either in Church or at the hunt while his wife 'preserved the secret of the King's chastity.'  Edward developed his reputation for saintliness, while Godwin ran the kingdom.

When Godwin died in 1053, his son Harold moved into his place both as Earl of Wessex and as the King's 'Number Two.'

The Godwin plan was always for the whole family and in 1055 when Earl Siward of Northumbria died, Tostig was swiftly installed as Earl. The younger Godwins, Gyrth and Leofwine, became Earls of East Anglia and Kent.

Tostig's star was rising. He had, of all the brothers, the most illustrious wife: Judith of Flanders, half sister of Count Baldwin V of Flanders, granddaughter of Duke Richard II of Normandy, and cousin to King Edward.

A valuable gospel book, owned by Tostig's wife Judith
 and taken with her when the couple were expelled
from Northumbria Image Credit

Tostig was a favourite of King Edward, and they hunted together. Tostig was Queen Edith's favourite brother. He had a palace in York, from which to govern Northumbria.  He was wealthy, and made lavish gifts to Northumbria's patron saint, Cuthbert.

Project Godwin was going swimmingly: only one region of England, Mercia, was not ruled by a Godwin.

But in October 1065, while Tostig hunted with King Edward in Wiltshire, the Northumbrians attacked his palace in York. They slew his retainers and broke into the treasury.

The rebels rampaged south, stopping along the way to meet their allies: Edwin, Earl of Mercia, the Welsh, and their armies.

To show the King the strength of their feelings, the Northumbrians harried Northampton. Pity the unfortunate civilians of Northampton. Harrying, a standard military tactic of the time, meant burning houses and stealing cattle.

The rebels marched on to Oxford.

What had gone wrong?

Tostig's role as Earl of Northumbria was to govern, on behalf of the King, the whole of northern England. However, until 954, Northumbria was an independent kingdom, and in 1065 the Wessex-based King's power was limited to what historian W. E. Kapelle describes as 'essentially an overlord'.

Tostig was the first southerner ever appointed to rule there, and it appears either that he did not understand Northumbria, or that he aimed to govern in the same way as Wessex. However, Northumbria's laws were different to Wessex's. Northumbria had the 'Danelaw' – the laws of the Scandinavian immigrants who were the majority population in the area. Its territory and laws were defined by King Alfred in 879, and affirmed by subsequent kings including Cnut (reigned 1016 – 1035).

Many things were different in the Danelaw, but the universal complaint was that Tostig taxed too heavily. Taxes were significantly lower in the Danelaw. Did Tostig attempt to tax at southern levels?

Tostig was also accused of corruption. And there were murders – all men connected to the dynasty of hereditary Northumbrian earls, who were overlooked when Tostig got the Earldom. Might they have been a focus for rebellion?

Certainly, Tostig upset enough northerners that large numbers rebelled. They organised well. They allied with Edwin of Mercia, the only English Earl not a Godwin, keen to curb Godwin power.  Edwin allied with the Welsh, who Tostig and Harold had attacked in 1063.

The allies demanded that the king remove Tostig, renew the 'laws of Cnut' (i.e. Danelaw tax levels), and install Earl Edwin's brother, Morcar, as Earl of Northumbria.

King Edward sent Harold, his familiar 'number two', to negotiate.  Edward's orders were, essentially, to tell the Northumbrians to shut up and go home.

But when Harold saw that he had fewer soldiers than the massed Northumbrians, Mercians and Welsh, he knew that was impossible.

When Harold reported to Edward that there would be civil war unless Tostig was dismissed, Edward suffered a seizure.

Harold gave the Northumbrians all they demanded.  He averted civil war – but at cost of banishing his own brother.

Tostig went into exile in Flanders. Morcar became Earl of Northumbria. Peace settled.

Ships in the Bayeux Tapestry: Tostig travelled in ships like this,
to Flanders, Denmark and Norway.  And maybe to Normandy.
Image Credit

From this moment, King Edward descended into terminal decline. Some commentators have suggested that Edward and Tostig were homosexual lovers. From this distance, that is impossible to know. But they were certainly close companions. Edward's marriage was 'chaste'.  Tostig 'renounced desire for all women except his wife', although she did bear children.

Whatever the reasons, Edward died, childless, on 5 Jan 1066. The Witan, the country's council of wise men, overlooked Edward's teenage great-nephew, Edgar, and chose Harold to become King.

It appeared a prudent choice. The custom at the time was that the Witan chose the best candidate, and mature brothers or nephews were often chosen over younger contenders. Harold was brother-in-law to the deceased king, and had, in practice, been doing the job for years.

The news infuriated Tostig. As the king's favourite brother-in-law, and with a royal wife, I believe that Tostig had expected to become king. Instead, he was exiled, and Harold slipped into the throne.

In exile, Tostig's brother-in-law, Count Baldwin of Flanders, provided him with a home, an estate, and income of the town of St Omer. But Tostig was not satisfied: he wanted vengeance.  His 'adamantine steadfastness' cut in. Harold must pay for his betrayal.

Tostig sought support. Baldwin did not want a military adventure. Tostig surely went next to neighbouring William of Normandy, husband of Tostig's wife's niece. But I have found only writer – Peter Rex - who confirms that. Several historians record that Tostig went to his mother's cousin, King Swein of Denmark. Swein, like Baldwin and William, refused him. Tostig moved on, to Harald 'Hardrada', king of Norway.

Tostig reminded Hardrada of a treaty made in the late 1030s between Cnut's son Harthacnut and King Magnus of Norway, and persuaded Hardrada that he had a claim to England. Tostig, presumably recalling his father's return after exile, claimed that he had many supporters in England.

Hardrada was persuaded.  They raised troops, and in September 1066, they marched on York.

Was Tostig deluded when he promised Hardrada that supporters would flock to them? Or was he simply lying?

In the event, the Northumbrians defended York.  They met Tostig and the Norse at Fulford, a swampy place a couple of miles south of York.  The new Earl, Morcar, was young, not tested in battle.  Hardrada had a lifetime's military experience. The Northumbrians didn't have a chance.

After the slaughter, the Northumbrians surrendered. As usual, hostages were given as security.  Tostig began his vengeance by selecting those hostages. Promises were extracted from the Northumbrians to march with the invaders to depose King Harold – Tostig's primary aim.

Unbeknown to the invaders, however, King Harold was racing north.  Too late to save the Northumbrians, he went straight to attack the invaders.

Harold called out Tostig and offered him peace. He even offered him his place back as Earl of Northumbria – 'one third of the kingdom'.

Tostig refused – that 'adamantine steadfastness'.

So, at Stamford Bridge, on 25th September 1066, Harold's army wiped out the Norse, King Harald Hardrada, and Harold's brother, Tostig. Shortly afterwards, William of Normandy landed on the south coast.

As Harold rushed his troops back south, he paused to pray at Waltham Abbey.

A year previously, Harold and Tostig were the golden boys of England, King Edward's senior Earls.  Now, Tostig lay dead, killed if not by Harold's own hand, then certainly by his actions. What would he tell their mother?

While there, Harold received a message. The message told him that William had the Pope's blessing, and carried his banner. The message was that William had God on his side.

From this moment, Harold, the brother-killer, appeared a changed man.

His brother Gyrth volunteered to attack William, while Harold and his troops recuperated. Should Gyrth lose, the King and his troops could fight again. Gyrth also suggested they scorched the earth around William's encampment, contain them, and starve them out. They were all sensible suggestions.

But Harold – the brother-killer - did not listen. He insisted on facing William in battle at once.

Harold led his men to face God's judgement at Hastings on 14th October, 1066.

Harold, Gyrth and Leofwine were all felled by William's troops.

Their mother lost four sons in three weeks.

And England was conquered.

The death of King Harold, as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry

Bibliography:

The Life of King Edward, anonymous, but believed to have been commissioned by Queen Edith Godwinson, and written by monk/s of St Bertin Abby at St Omer, Flanders.

The Relations between England and Flanders before the Norman Conquest, by Philip Grierson.

The Godwins, by Frank Barlow

The Saga of Harald Hardrada, in Heimskringla by Snorri Sturlesson

Queen Emma and the Vikings by Harriet O'Brien

Bloodfeud  by Richard Fletcher

The Norman Conquest of the North by William E Kapelle

William the Conqueror, the Bastard of Normandy, by Peter Rex

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/vikings_4.htm

Finding Fulford by Charles Jones.

1066 The Year of the Conquest, by David Howarth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

~~~~~~~~~~

Helen Johnson has roved around Yorkshire, England, for twenty years, writing about the history, heritage, landscape and people of the region.

She was inspired to write about the Norman Conquest after learning of William the Conqueror's 'Harrying of the North' – an act which today would qualify as genocide.

Her short story, 'God's own Country', published at Copperfield Review, imagines how two people might have felt about one of William the Conqueror's policies – his plan to blend what he described as the 'two races' of his dominions. Read the story HERE

Helen is working on two novels set in Conquest Yorkshire, one for adults and one for teenagers.

You can discover more of Helen's work and read about William the Conqueror's good intentions at her website, https://www.helenjohnsonyorkshirewriter.co.uk/ or follow her on Twitter @Yorkshirewriter.

The Monarchy~ William the Conqueror

by Debra Brown

Edward the Confessor

A previous post on this blog discussed the "Dark Ages" dynasty, the House of Wessex. Edward the Confessor had once fled to Normandy with his parents. He later put Norman friends in high places in England, and promised that his cousin, William, Duke of Normandy, would succeed him - according to William. Edward, though, changed his decision upon his deathbed, and he now left the throne to Harold Godwinson, who had no blood ties to the succession. William was having none of that, and made plans to invade England. Winds did not permit the duke to sail across when he had first intended to do so, and he left later, but this turned out to be in his favor.

Despite realizing that William was finally on his way, Harold II was forced to pull away from southern England to ward off an attack in the north by even more powerful forces, his own brother Tostig along with the King of Norway. When Harold II was asked by Tostig how much land he was prepared to yield to the King, he replied, "Six feet of ground or as much more as he needs, as he is taller than most men." Harold successfully routed that attack at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Only three days later, the Normans landed at Pevensey the 28th of September, 1066.

Bayeux Tapestry

Harold headed south, obtained fresh troops in London and set off to meet the advancing Duke. William had but seven thousand men to England's two million. They met six miles north of Hastings. Though Harold II had the upper hand much of the day, when the ten-hour battle ended, he and his brothers lay dead. He was the last monarch of England to be defeated by a foreign invader. William went on to devastate a large circle of land to establish his authority and then swept into London to claim the throne.

 William the Conqueror

The Witanagemot had assembled and elected young Edgar the Ætheling, the grandson and rightful heir of the Confessor, king after the death of Harold Godwinson. Edgar was never crowned, however, and a group of nobles met the invading Duke of Normandy and handed the Crown of England over, as well as young Edgar. William took him in. Edgar lived to attempt the crown, but never gain it. He was still known to be alive in 1126.

The White Tower, built by William

William had some experience from his duchy in Normandy, and set about organizing England his way. He took estates away from English owners, kept much for himself and gave some to his supporters from France. These nobles (who, do not forget, also had interests in France) built castles, following the lead of William with his start on the Tower of London, to protect themselves from the angry English. Over the next 600 years, this trend continued and some 2,000 castles appeared. The French barons divided their land into fiefs and handed them out to vassals who organized men under them, knights, for military service to the king.

Division of English Counties as laid out in William's Doomsday Book. 

This map highlights a southeastern circuit. 

William was an administrative genius, and commissioned a national survey of belongings- his boring Domesday Book records the possessions of all his subjects for taxation purposes. It was said that there was "not an ox, cow or swine that was not set down in the writ". William also took firm action against criminals, even castrating rapists. There was, therefore, less crime in the country under his rule. He also introduced trial by jury. However, he was far from just. He was an avid deer hunter, and he cleared the New Forest of all its buildings and inhabitants to create game reserves for himself. His forests came to cover a third of English land. Poachers were killed or mutilated. When rebellions reared he reacted firmly, even burning the entire villages and their crops. Much of Northern England was devastated, its economy ruined for decades after a rebellion. Thus he kept firm control. He spent much of his time in France, as did his new English knights and English tax money. He was, after all, first and foremost, the Duke of Normandy.

William was the illegitimate son of Norman Duke Robert I and a tanner's daughter. Though he succeeded to his father's duchy, while still a child, he had grown up with the nickname William the Bastard. Perhaps this is why the great conqueror was such a faithful and devoted husband to Matilda of Flanders, by whom he had four sons and five daughters.

The former English ruling class disappeared when William conquered England, and French speech and customs thereafter heavily influenced the English. French fashions, manners, art and architecture made a permanent mark. He build great cathedrals, which were to give the impression that he was, indeed, ordained by God to rule England.

William, a calculating and brutal invader, deemed his eldest son, Robert, too generous and easygoing, and while he left his Norman holdings to him, just before his death he willed the rule of rebellious England to his second son, William Rufus. He then died a day after having been thrown from his horse, who had stepped on hot coals following his capture of the French town of Nantes. His body was looted by those who had been taking care of him, and he was left nearly naked. His body broke in half as it was being forced into a too-small coffin. He was buried in Caen. In time, his body was dug up and parts of it taken, but a thigh-bone remained to be reburied in dignity. Even this bone was disinterred and stolen during the French Revolution. The long-missed thigh-bone was found, however, and confirmed to be authentic in the 1980s, and it was finally laid to rest under a new tombstone.

A future post will discuss the remaining Norman dynasty.

An Editor's Choice from the EHFA Archives, originally published January 26, 2012.

~~~~~~~

Debra Brown is the founder of the English Historical Fiction Authors blog. She is the author of The Companion of Lady Holmeshire, a Jane Austen and Charles Dickens inspired sweet romance and mystery; and co-editor of Castles, Customs and Kings, vols. 1 & 2.

The Crowning of a King 1066... Two Views

By Helen Hollick

On January 5th 1066, King Edward, (later known as the Confessor) lay dying at Westminster, London. He passed peacefully away either late on the 5th or in the early hours of the 6th, and Earl Harold Godwinson of Wessex was crowned King in the newly built Westminster Abbey, on the 6th January. The first English King to be crowned there - and the last.

Why Harold?

Edward had no sons - possibly because he had taken a vow of celibacy (unlikely), or he was impotent, or even homosexual. He never blamed his wife Edyth, Harold's sister, for childlessness (even when he temporarily set her aside in the early 1050's after a massive falling-out with the Godwin family.) 

This crowning was the catalyst that started the events of 1066, and there are two views as to the right or wrong of it.

View One
THE NORMANS

Duke William of Normandy believed that Edward had promised him the Crown.
Born some time between 1003 and 1005, from 1017 until 1041 Edward had been exiled in Normandy. His mother, was Queen Emma - daughter of Richard I of Normandy, his father Aethelred (the Unready). When Emma took the Danish Conqueror of England, Cnut, (more familiarly spelt Canute - and yes, he of 'hold back the tide' fame) as her second husband, her sons, Edward and Alfred had to flee. Obviously Normandy under the protection of Emma's kindred was the safest place.

Edward would have known the young Duke William very well. William was the son of Richard II of Normandy, the result of a liaison with the daughter of a tanner. Richard died when William was eight years old, with no other heir, he became Duke. For more than thirty years Edward languished in Normandy (Alfred dying a most horrible death while trying to reclaim England), only recalled to be crowned King when Cnut and Emma's son died. (There were other possible contenders but Emma saw to it that her son got the Top Prize).

Here was a man indoctrinated with the Norman way of life, his friends were Norman, he knew Norman ways, not English customs.The powerful Godwin family - Harold's father had been given the Earldom of Wessex by Cnut, and various Godwin sons held various Earldoms -  had a major falling out with the King in 1051-2

It is possible, though not recorded, that William came to England during this time when the Godwin's were in exile - a legitimate visit to see his Great Aunt, Emma, who was by then elderly. Did Edward promise the throne to his young friend and kinsmen during this visit? Did Emma, perhaps suggest it to her Great Nephew - after all William was kin, the Godwinsons were not.

But the Godwins fought their way back to even greater power, and virtually ruled England in the King's stead. after 1052.

A few years before 1066 (1063/4?) we know that Harold was at William's Court. What we do not know is why. The Normans claimed it was to offer Edward's assurance that the English Throne would still become William's. To ensure Harold's loyalty to this end, he had to swear an oath on Holy relics to support William when Edward died.

He didn't support him. Quite the opposite in fact.

According to the Normans, the crowning of Harold II took place in unnecessary haste and the holy anointing undertaken by Stigand, the illegally placed Archbishop of Canterbury. (Rome had never approved his appointment) thus making the whole ceremony void.

When William heard of the outrage he immediately set about an invasion to secure his rightful place as King.

We know the rest .

View Two
THE ENGLISH

It was unlikely that Edward would have promised the throne. There were other candidates, and the English Earls - even if not supporting Godwin -would never have accepted a Norman as King (fact proven by the way they welcomed Godwin back from exile in preference to Edward's foreign friends.)

For one thing Edward could still, in 1051/2, possibly have his own sons. For another it was English law for the Witan - the council to elect a king - the most 'Kingworthy' man. Yes, normally this was the eldest son for he would have been 'trained' for the job - but Edward had no sons.

There was one other possible heir: another son of Aethelred (not by Emma) was Edmund Ironside. He died fighting Cnut (hence Cnut became King), and his son, another Edward, and family fled - as it turned out, to Hungary, where  he was later found and invited back to England.  Edward the Exile returned to England in 1057, but died almost immediately. (The stories that he was murdered by Harold, who was escorting him, are nonsense. If Harold was going to do away with him why not a) conveniently 'not find him' or b) kill him en route - why wait until they got back to England?)

The Exile's son, Edgar, then about five years old, grew up at the English court and given the designation 'Ætheling' or throneworthy, (i.e. 'heir'). But he would still have been a youth in 1066, so probably regarded as not capable of ruling or leading an army against William. (One can see a parrallel in later years when Richard III was crowned instead of the two young princes - probably for exactly the same reason).

Edgar was briefly declared king after Harold's death in October 1066, but that hope failed against the might of William's army and determination. Edgar's name was absent from any witness lists of Edward's diplomas, and there is no evidence in the Domesday Book that he was a substantial landowner, both possibly indicating his young age.

The next most Kingworthy was Harold - proven as a leader, commander, warlord and administrator. It was also known that William would strongly object - they had to chose a man who was capable (at least in theory) of defeating him.

The coronation was not performed in undue haste - that familiar saying? 'The King is dead; Long live the King!' is there for a reason. Uninterrupted continuity. The Earls, Bishops, important people were gathered at Westminster for the Christmas Court. They had remained longer because the King was dying. They wanted to return to their homes and lands - the next  opportunity for a crowning would have been Easter - so of course the service took place at the earliest possible time. The 6th January.

And Stigand did not crown or anoint Harold - Ealdred, Archbishop of York did. There was no question of his legality.

But what of the claim that Harold had pledged an oath to aid William? It is more likely that Harold went to William hoping to achieve the release of his brother, Wulfnoth, and nephew, Hakon, held hostage by William since that temporary disgrace of Earl Godwin back in 1052. (I'll not go into detail, suffice to say the exile was caused by some Normans stirring trouble in Dover. Godwin refused to take their side, hence his falling out with the King. When Godwin was re-instated the Normans fled and took the two boys with them.)

Harold did return to England with Hakon, but Wulfnoth never saw his freedom again. Harold was probably forced to make that oath of loyalty. If he had not, he and his men would either have been imprisoned or killed - and Saxon honour at this time beheld a Lord to protect his men at whatever personal cost. What was more honourable for Harold? To deny Duke William and see his men slaughtered, or perjure himself to save their lives?

He chose the latter. Good for him.

Harold II Rex

So who do you think was right? Norman or English? 
Feel free to add your view in the comments below. 

Brief bibliography:

The Battle of Hastings Jim Bradbury

The Godwins Frank Barlow

The Life of King Edward the Confessor Frank Barlow

Edward the Confessor Frank Barlow

Harold the Last Anglo-Saxon King Ian W. Walker  

Anglo-Saxon England F.M Stenton

Kingship and Government in Pre-conquest England Ann Williams

Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest H.R. Loyn

There is a fuller list available on my website

[This is an Editor's Choice post which was published in its original form on 6 January 2016]

~~~~~~~~~~

Helen Hollick lives on a thirteen-acre farm in Devon, England. Born in London, she wrote pony stories as a teenager, moved to science-fiction and fantasy, and then discovered historical fiction. Published for over twenty years with her Arthurian Trilogy, and the 1066 era, she became a USA Today bestseller with her novel about Queen Emma The Forever Queen (UK title A Hollow Crown.) She also writes the Sea Witch Voyages, pirate-based nautical adventures with a touch of fantasy. She has written a non-fiction about pirates and one about smugglers in fact and fiction which is due to be published in 2019.

Same book - different titles
HAROLD THE KING -UK
I AM THE CHOSEN KING - US

Website: www.helenhollick.net

Newsletter Subscription: http://tinyletter.com/HelenHollick

Main Blog: www.ofhistoryandkings.blogspot.com

Twitter: @HelenHollick

Click here for Helen Hollick on Amazon 

The (Almost) Forgotten Battle

by Chris Bishop

If you asked most people to name the most important battles ever fought on British soil the chances are that the Battle of Hastings would rank high on their list.  The battle most likely to be omitted altogether is the one which had an equally significant impact on all our lives and which few people have even heard of – the Battle at Ethandune in 878.

Progress of the Great Heathen Army
Image by Hel-hama - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

The relevance of this conflict reaches deep into English culture for had King Alfred not triumphed there, virtually the whole of England would have been under Viking rule and Alfred himself either executed or slain.  Had that occurred, many of the hugely important events which followed would simply not have happened – including quite possibly the Battle of Hastings itself given that the Vikings had such close ties with the Normans.  More importantly, we would have been denied many of Alfred’s very significant achievements - this includes the beginnings of the unification of England and cultural changes such as having important books translated and rewritten in English so they could be more readily understood (even though few people could read at that time).  He also set about creating a stronghold of fortified Burghs and establishing the beginnings of a navy as a way of securing a period of relative and much needed peace.  That is not to say that England as a whole was suddenly free from the threat of invasion or further Viking raids, but he used the respite his victory gave him to instigate administrative and legal reforms which meant a much fairer system for all, many of which are still relevant today.

So, what do we know about this important battle?  The answer is not very much.  We’re not even sure exactly where it took place except that it was probably close to a place called Edington and is therefore sometimes called ‘The Battle of Edington.’  My own interpretation of events is as follows:-
The background to the story is that having been defeated in a surprise attack on his Vill at Chippenham soon after Christmas, Alfred retreated with the remnants of his army to hide out in the desolate marshes at Athelney.  It is from this miserable and wretched period that many of the stories about Alfred emanate -  such as the burning of the cakes and the contention that he disguised himself as a wandering minstrel and actually returned to Chippenham to learn what he could of the Vikings plans – (surely an unlikely proposition given that he would have been so well known to his enemies?).  What we do know is that by Easter Alfred had managed to rally his men in sufficient numbers to strike back and win a decisive Victory at the battle of Ethandune which then secured his realm of Wessex.

England in 878 - Image Hel-Hama

Some records suggest that the Vikings, led by Lord Guthrum, held the ridge at Ethandune thereby forcing the Saxons to charge uphill.  If so, Alfred still won the day amidst terrible slaughter on both sides. I have to say I think there is an element of propaganda in this contention as, in my view, Alfred is likely to have arrived at Edington first and would therefore have had the opportunity to choose his ground.  As a skilled and experienced commander, he would surely have positioned himself on the high ground and thus held the advantage of the field.  Remember that Guthrum was safely ensconced in Chippenham (in Alfred’s own Vill) and would not have expected Alfred to have the ability to raise anything like an army after such a devastating defeat only a few months earlier. Guthrum would have therefore felt no need to rush into the battle, hoping Alfred’s men would disperse to tend their farmsteads after a long hard winter. Perhaps the suggestion that the Saxons fought uphill was a way emphasising what a great victory they achieved and what a great leader they’d found in Alfred?

To my mind, the greatest mystery of all was how Alfred, having been virtually annihilated at Chippenham, managed to raise anything resembling an army so quickly.  It would have helped that the battle was fought at Easter as this would have done much to rouse the deeply religious Saxons given that Alfred, having gone into hiding, was believed by many to have been slain or fled abroad.  Thus his reappearance at such a crucial time must have been seen as some sort of resurrection in itself, something which would have helped to stir many loyal Saxons into action even though, by then, most people probably craved peace above all else.  Also, the Saxons had their backs to the wall and so some may have felt they had nothing to lose – after all, they were fighting not just for themselves but for their freedom, their religion and for their whole way of life.  It is also said that Alfred claimed to have the support of St Cuthbert who was a much revered and well-loved saint.  A visitation by St Cuthbert may well have seemed believable to many given that his body had been disinterred and moved to keep his remains safe from Viking hands.  If no longer at rest, it would have been easy and heartening for them to think of the goodly saint supporting the Saxon cause.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect to grasp is how Alfred managed to defeat the dreaded Vikings.

Typical battle tactics would have involved a shield wall and desperate hand to hand combat – but on foot, not horseback, for at that time most warriors didn’t ride into battle.  Ironically, a charge on horseback was used against the Saxons at the Battle of Hastings to devastating effect – but that’s another story!

So who were these fearsome Vikings?  Well it would be wrong to think of a race of people who had nothing better to do than raid, rape and pillage.  For a start, the ‘Vikings’ who attacked our shores were probably second sons with no land to inherit, outcasts, men banished for crimes and – quite likely – a good number of adventurers.  Indeed the word Viking is actually a verb which means to go ‘a Viking’ rather than the name of a group of people.

Although sea farers by inclination, it took skill and courage to cross the North Sea in an open boat, so what was it that lured them to risk these dangers and sail to our shores?  Plunder is an obvious answer but, more likely, they also wanted land – hence Alfred’s plan whereby having secured victory, he ceded areas to them so long as they didn’t trouble him again.  None of this should diminish the image of battle hardened warriors who carried out some brutal attacks, choosing the fat monasteries as readily as the homes of ordinary people, usually with much bloodshed.  But these were brutal times – war was conducted very much up close and personal, with hand to hand combat being the norm.  It was also a very dangerous occupation because even minor wounds received whilst fighting might well become infected and therefore cause an agonising death sometime later.

Favourite weapons for the Saxons would have been a spear and/or a bow, items readily available to them for use when hunting.  Only the very wealthy men would have possessed a sword but quite a few would have carried a seaxe – a short singled edged sword ideal for use at such close quarters that there was little room to wield anything larger.  Logically, those in the second rank of the shield wall might have used longer handled spears to keep the Vikings at bay, though once the enemy got between these the spears would have been all but useless. A great many projectiles would have been used by both sides – arrows, javelins, throwing axes etc - but, for the Vikings particularly, the favourite weapon was probably various types of axe as these could be used to haul aside a shield and inflict terrible injuries, cutting through mail, flesh and bone.  In reality, there was probably nothing which could be described as ‘standard kit’ on either site – everyone just carrying whatever weapons they had.

Given the ferocity of the weaponry, mail vests and helmets might seem a good idea to us but they would not have been available to everyone, regardless of which side they were on.  That said they would doubtless have protected themselves as best they could with padded jackets, leather caps, gloves and such like.

So, all in all, a pretty vicious affair with a high body count and some dreadful wounds. Which brings me to the question of how they dealt with the wounded.  It might seem an anathema to us, but I suggest that warriors would have put their own badly wounded comrades to the knife rather than let them suffer a slow and lingering death - leaving their enemies to die in agony.  I confess I have no firm evidence to support this, though in my view it does make sense at a time when life was cheap, short and often pretty wretched.  That is not to say that they lacked any ability to tend their wounds for we know of many cures, not all of them entirely effective but nonetheless capable of bringing an element of relief.  Some we would find quite strange – for example, where an amputation was required, some accounts suggest that the Vikings would force the hapless victim to drink a strong broth made of leeks and herbs and the next day they would sniff the wound and, if they could smell the leeks emanating from it, the man was deemed to have little chance of survival.  What they would do then would depend on who he was or who is friends were as much as anything else.  One thing is for certain, whilst on a raid there would be little scope for carrying a wounded man without a very good reason for doing so.

Memorial to the Battle of Ethandune - Image Trish Steel

The last question is why, if battles were so brutal and so dangerous, would anyone in their right mind want to get involved in one?  The incentive for the Vikings has already been mentioned but as for the Saxons, many were sworn to support their Ealdorman and so had little choice.  They would have been trained by the Fyrd in at least the rudiments of combat though were probably no match for a fully fledged or experienced warrior.  They would have donned what war gear they had (probably passed down to them or scavenged from a previous battle), picked up whatever weapon came to hand and followed their Lord into battle.  That was the way of things then and most people had little option but to do as they were ordered.

The Battle of Ethandune itself was said to have lasted most of the day – pretty exhausting stuff when you think of wielding a heavy weapon whilst fighting at such close quarters.  Alfred’s forces eventually prevailed and the Vikings retreated to Chippenham where they were besieged for 10 days before surrendering.  Alfred must have had enough men to then surround the settlement which shows just how large the force was that he managed to muster.  This in itself is surprising given how little time he had to summon his army, particularly given that the battle took place in the Spring when many men would have been needed to tend the land so not everyone would have been available to fight.  Either way, Guthrum had not prepared himself for a siege otherwise he might have held out long enough for Alfred’s men, already laden with the booty stripped from the dead and dying Vikings, to have dispersed and returned to their long-neglected lands.

So, when Guthrum at last surrendered, the ‘almost’ forgotten battle ended – a major triumph for Alfred which led eventually to the Treaty of Wedmore and an extremely important outcome for the English.  No wonder Alfred is the only English King (indeed one of the few men in history) to be afforded the title ‘Great’, an epithet he well deserved.

~~~~~~~~~~

Chris Bishop is the author of Blood and Destiny, a novel based on the events leading up to the Battle of Ethandune.  It is his first book and forms part of a series entitled The Shadow of the Raven.

Anglo Saxons and Their Horses (Part Two)

 By Helen Hollick

Continued from Part One :

http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/anglo-saxons-and-their-horses.html

As I mentioned in Part One: Horses appear in several references in the poem Beowulf written between 680 - 800. Racing is mentioned as Danish warriors spur their bay horses renowned for speed and stamina and:

     "Then, as a sign of victory, Hrothgar, son of Healfdene

     Presented to Beowulf ....

     Eight war-horses

     With glancing bridles, one with a saddle

     Studded with stones - battle seat of the Danes."

Not to be outdone, Beowulf presented Hrothgar with four matching bays and three graceful horses, complete with brightly coloured saddles.

These references hint at several customs of this period: warriors of renown and wealth rode swift, quality bred animals; fighting on horseback was by no means unknown among the Anglo-Saxon people; import and export - or at least, widespread trade - was conducted, and horses of quality were the accepted currency of royal gifts.

Horses are often mentioned first in the tally of possessions due to the Crown as heriot.

"Heriot to the lord (the king) 200 parks of red gold, two silver cups and four horses, the best I have"

Wills illustrate the point as effectively:

"and I leave to the monastery .... 100 wild* horses and 16 broken stallions ... " Will of Wulfric, a Mercian thane, 1002 (*unbroken i.e not trained to wear saddle and bridle or carry a rider)

Because of the Battle of Hastings in 1066, where the English fought on foot and the assumed superiority of the Norman cavalry eventually overcame the English, it has been generally accepted that William brought with him an entirely new method of warfare - mounted cavalry. 
Let's put this myth straight. 
He didn't.

That the English never fought on horseback is difficult to believe - Anne Hyland asks: "Why was so much emphasis put on the heriots of the ruling classes where warhorses had to be accompanied by the requisite saddle, burnie, helmet and weapons?”

 If the elite of the army merely used horses for riding to battle and then dismounting, any breed or category of horse would have sufficed. The smaller and sturdier the better, in fact. (Smaller 'native-bred' type ponies are much better doers than bigger domestic-bred horses.) It is also notable that William continued the same heriot levy, indicating that pre-conquest equine usage remained unchanged.

Another convincing argument that the pre-conquest English were familiar to warfare on horse-back is displayed by the occurrence of events during Earl Harold of Wessex's (later Harold II) visit to Normandy some few years before 1066. He and his retinue were invited to join in a campaign by Duke William in Brittany. As Anne Hyland emphatically points out, there is an extreme difference between sitting on a pony as transport, compared to the competent skills required in riding and fighting on a warhorse. "The latter requires a degree of confidence in one's own riding ability."

Had Harold not held this ability, there would have been no advantage in providing them with such animals, indeed they would have been a liability to William’s planned campaign – as well as looking prize fools to the Normans!

An incidental to add in here. 
'Corn-fed' horses. I have used this term in my novels and receive complaints from apparently outraged readers in the USA. 'Corn,' they state (occasionally rudely) 'is grown in America. Anglo-Saxon England was not aware of America until the fifteenth century.' (Actually even that can be debated, but not here!) Very patiently I point out the different UK use of the word 'corn'fed'. 

It does not mean corn-on-the-cob growing 'as high as an elephant's eye'. It is a British term for oats and barley i.e. grain for animal feed. A 'corn-fed' horse in Britain indicates a well-fed, fit, on-its-toes animal - also indicating a well-to-do owner who can afford to feed horses grain not merely hay and grass. Present-day racehorses and competition horses are 'corn-fed'; little Exmoor ponies which get fat even looking at a single oat are not!

Wild Exmoor Ponies being brought in from Devon's Exmoor
for the annual 'round-up'
Photo : Dawn Westcott
Must add: we now own one of those foals!

It seems likely that horses were used at Harold's victorious battle prior to Hastings at Stamford Bridge in September 1066. Although sagas cannot always be relied upon, the Saga of Snorri Sturleson, The Heimskringla, is accurate in its main points. The saga states that the English had cavalry and were not an infantry force. As a second point, Florence of Worcester states that Harold assembled a cavalry in order to repel a landing by his brother Tostig. Florence also mentions several other areas where cavalry were used: against Macbeth in 1054 and the Welsh in 1063.

Finally, a considerable number of Saxon-era horseshoes have been found at the scene of the battle. Harold went north at an unexpected speed. Fast travel wears horseshoes quickly, loosening the clenches (nails) that hold the shoes on securely, thus creating the easy loss, especially in fast manoeuvring or on churned and muddy ground, and events and terrain comparable to a battlefield. A horse accustomed to wearing shoes will quickly go lame. 

Again here as a horse-owner and rider: from experience I have noted that given correct care the native-bred ponies often don't need shoes while the domestic-bred horses do. The only reason our Exmoor pony has front shoes (he doesn't need backs) is because he is ridden on a surfaced road. Otherwise, without shoes his feet are fine.

And then there was the need to hurry back south – again pressing the horses. By early October the equine warhorse stock would have been beyond use. This may well dictate why Harold relied upon infantry at Hastings. Too many horses –those which had survived - would have been unfit and a significant number must have been lost. The Heimskringla states that weapons were aimed at the horses as much as the riders. This has always been the case in warfare. Unseat the mounted rider and incapacitate him.

The Bayeux Tapestry depicts several instances of horses being violently overturned, one scene in particular, where a horse has his skull cloven by an axe, highly illustrates the severe loss of horses suffered by the Normans. Duke William himself had three horses killed from under him.

On that fateful day, October 14^th 1066, Harold II, the rightful King of England, chose to face the Normans atop a ridge some seven miles from Hastings. Exactly where the ridge was located is immaterial. (There has been speculation that perhaps the present-day ‘Senlac Ridge’ as depicted by English Heritage where Battle Abbey now stands, may not be the precise spot of the English Shield Wall.) The point is, Harold defended the ridge in that nearby area – the only road from the coast to London went up and over that ridge. To one side was thick forest, to the other deep marsh. Harold had to deploy his men as infantry, not cavalry, but a man on foot is all too often vulnerable to a man on horseback. To be effective, Harold had to take the advantage – and he also had to know how to efficiently repel cavalry attacks. He could only have known this by personally possessing the knowledge and experience of how to fight on horseback. The English, therefore, without doubt, were efficiently skilled at defending against repeated cavalry charges - a skill that cannot be learnt by trial and error in the heat of battle, but acquired through previous experience.

Senlac Hill and the place of battle
Battle Abbey, Sussex

Had Stamford Bridge not happened, would Harold have chosen a different location to fight Duke William? Would he also have deployed his cavalry?

An would he, I wonder, have won?

This article was originally written as an essay in 1999 for a history degree course at Birkbeck College, University of London. The Tutor’s assessment read:

"This interesting essay covers an important area, which has been neglected. Æthelstan may have fought on horseback, while Cnut and Æthelred issued laws concerning the export of horses. The emphasis on Hastings, which was an important battle but an unusual one, has distorted our view of Anglo-Saxon warfare, as you demonstrate beautifully."

75%  8.3.1999 

J. Mountain B.Sc. B.A

Extra Mural Certificate:  A Distinction was awarded in 1999 on the basis of this essay and others.

Extra Mural Diploma:  I graduated the course in 2000 with Merit.

One day I might find the time to go on and finish the degree!

UK and US editions of my novel
of the events that led to
The Battle of Hastings, 1066

Helen's Website

Facebook

Twitter: @HelenHollick

Buy from Amazon

Sources:

Anthony Dent and Daphne Machin Goodall A History of British Native Ponies

  J.A.Allen 1988 (first published 1962 under the title of The Foals of Epona)

Julian Glover (adaptation from translation by Michael Alexander and Edwin Morgan) Beowulf

  Alan Sutton 1987

Ann Hyland The Medieval Warhorse

  Sutton Publishing 1994

Stephan Morillo Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 1066 - 1135

  Boydell Press 1994

Tim Severin: Crusader - By horse to Jerusalem

  Hutchinson 1989

Dorothy Whitlock ed and Trans Anglo-Saxon Wills

  Oxford University Press 1930