1066 and all that
Exactly 950 years ago this week, the Battle of Hastings took place, bringing about the fall of Anglo-saxon England
Why do we still remember Hastings?
Because it’s one of the few battles that genuinely changed the course of our history. Anglo-saxon England, a rich and flourishing civilisation, was captured, against the odds and in one blow, by a rough and ready French duchy founded by invading Norsemen only the previous century. England’s ruling class was not just displaced, as with earlier Viking invasions, but destroyed. Hastings was the last successful conquest of England, and it is also generally seen as the start of its history, the point where things begin to come into focus after the Dark Ages. “We know more about what happened on the field of Hastings” on Saturday 14 October 1066, says the Anglo-saxon historian Patrick Wormald, “than about any battle anywhere since the destruction of the East Roman army by the Goths nearly 700 years before”.
Why was the English throne contested in 1066?
Edward the Confessor died without an heir in January 1066. He was the last king of Wessex’s royal line, which had dominated England since King Alfred’s time in the ninth century (with a Danish interlude between 1013 and 1042). Edward appears to have used his lack of an heir as a diplomatic tool, promising his throne to various claimants. Among these was William, Duke of Normandy (who, according to Norman sources, was promised the throne in 1051). Edward had grown up in exile in Normandy, after the deposition of his father, Æthelred the Unready, by the Danes; his mother was William’s great aunt. The other main claimant was Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex and the most powerful man in England – whose sister Edith was Edward’s wife. The Norwegian king Harald Hardrada also staked a somewhat unconvincing claim through his links to England’s Danish kings.
Who had the best claim?
Almost certainly Harold Godwinson. Anglo-saxon kingship was not strictly hereditary. Royal blood was a factor, but other criteria were important too: the ability to defend the kingdom; nomination by the late king; and, vitally, election by the Witenagemot, the “meeting of wise men”. Various sources say that Edward nominated Harold on his deathbed, and he was elected by the Witan. The situation would have been clear, were it not for Harold’s visit to Normandy in 1064.
What happened in Normandy?
Harold – possibly sent by Edward to Normandy, or just blown off course on a sailing trip – was wrecked off northern France, and handed over to William. Although effectively a captive, he was received with honour and stayed for a while, campaigning with William in Brittany. There (again according to the Norman chroniclers) he swore on holy relics that he would support his host’s claim to the English throne. The Normans would use this incident to cast Harold as the usurper.
When did William invade?
He assembled a large force from northern France and Flanders, and after waiting weeks for good weather, sailed from Saint-valery-sur-somme
to Pevensey in Sussex on 28 September 1066. Landing largely unopposed, he soon moved his base to Hastings, where he built a wooden castle. Harold’s army had waited all summer for William; but Harald Hardrada, in league with Tostig Godwinson, his enemy’s exiled brother, had attacked York with a big army days before, defeating the northern earls at the Battle of Fulford. Harold made the march north in four days flat, surprising and routing the invaders at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September. Both Harald and Tostig were killed.
What happened at Hastings?
The sources are many but contradictory; one historian has suggested that the only thing we really know is that the Normans won. But we can be pretty sure that Harold, coming from the North via London, arranged his troops in a defensive formation on a hill north of Hastings (marked today by the remains of Battle Abbey). His troops were all infantry, consisting of the fyrd, the local levies, stiffened by the housecarls, the formidable household troops wielding two-handed Danish axes. They were attacked by Norman archers, cavalry and infantry, probably in similar numbers (perhaps 5,000-10,000 on each side). The two sides fought from 9am to dusk, an unusually long time for a war of the period. The English held out until lured from their position by real or feigned retreats; William supposedly at one point rallied his troops by raising his helmet to show he was alive. Eventually, probably towards the end of the day, Harold was killed, along with his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine. His housecarls fought to the end. “They were few in number and brave in the extreme,” recorded William of Malmesbury.
Did Harold get an arrow in the eye?
Maybe. Two early 12th century historians, William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon, say his eye was pierced by an arrow (though Henry says he was finished off by Norman horsemen). The Bayeux Tapestry suggests something similar, although some have doubted whether the famous figure is in fact Harold; he may be the next man, being hacked at by a horseman.
Why did the Anglo-saxons lose?
Partly, bad luck. English forces were weakened by Fulford and Stamford Bridge, and by many days’ marching. It has often been suggested that Harold was rash to offer battle to William so soon; that he should have cut off the enemy and waited till his own forces were replenished. It may be that, having defeated Hardrada, the most feared warrior of his time, Harold was overconfident, or that he felt compelled to take the field by his society’s heroic values. But he may just have been beaten by a better tactician, who used archers and cavalry to great effect against infantry. The Normans, trained in France’s more-or-less continuous warfare, were emerging as a powerful military force. Either way, says Harriet Harvey Wood, author of a recent book on Hastings, the last Anglo-saxon king met his death in a way that his ancestors “would have understood and applauded”.