The rout of the left exposed the flank of the centre, and so it too began giving ground. Soon the entire line was falling back. Then, to make matters worse, among all the fear and confusion, the cry went up that William himself had been cut down. This was a crucial moment. The duke proved equal to the occasion. He removed his helmet and, according to Poitiers, shouted: ‘Look at me. I am living and with God’s help I shall be victor!’
In so doing, William rallied at least some of the knights. With them he then rode against English soldiers who had charged down the hill after their enemies and cut them to pieces. It is often said that the Englishmen were undisciplined peasants who had acted on their own volition. However the Bayeux Tapestry portrays the deaths of Harold’s brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine, at about this stage of the proceedings and it has therefore been plausibly suggested that the event was a deliberate counterattack led by them. Of this we can be certain—Harold and the bulk of his army remained firmly in position at this time and William still had to deal with them effectively if he wished to win the day.
It is very likely that a lull now occurred in the fighting, for the battle — which proved long and bloody — would not have continued without letup, for it would have been beyond the capability of the armies to have done so. During the presumed lull both commanders would have restored order in their ranks. Harold for instance, had to strengthen his weakened right flank and this would have necessitated thinning the ranks elsewhere.
That he managed to restore the situation is evident from what happened next. William launched another attack by his knights and once again stiff resistance was encountered. Poitiers records, ‘the English fought confidently with all their strength, striving in particular to prevent the attackers from penetrating within their ranks, which indeed were so closely ranked together that even the dead had not space in which to fall.’
During this phase of the battle William’s knights made repeated attempts to break the English shield wall but made little headway. Consequently, according to Poitiers, a new tactic was employed:
Realizing that they could not without severe loss overcome an army massed so strongly in close formation, the Normans and their allies feigned flight . . . the Barbarians thinking victory within their grasp . . . gave rapid pursuit . . . but the Normans suddenly wheeling their horses surrounded them and cut down their pursuers so that not one was left alive.
William of Poitiers’ account of the battle is not the only one in which the invaders are said to have pretended to flee in order to draw English soldiers after them, and it may thus have been the case that general feigned flights did occur. Some historians though, have suggested that instead of occurring en masse, feigned flights were conducted by individual lords and their knights or in concert with the contingents of a number of other lords. That feigned flights did happen need not be doubted for they are a well-attested part of continental warfare of this era.
In view of the cavalry’s failure to destroy the shield wall, William decided to change tactics. Time was running out and he could not afford to let the battle end in stalemate. In a final bid for victory, he ordered a general advance at about 4.00pm.
In this assault the archers are often said to have fired on a higher trajectory than before. Perhaps this was the case. That they did so is first mentioned by Henry of Huntingdon (whose account dates from c.1130), who may have derived the idea from the Bayeux Tapestry which shows some of the archers shooting high at this point.
The battle now slowly but surely began turning in William’s favour. At last the shield wall was crumbling; at last his men were gaining a foothold on the top of the ridge for there were not enough Englishmen left to prevent them doing so.
The Tapestry portrays several English warriors who have been struck in the face and neck by arrows, but what of King Harold? Was he hit by an arrow as is commonly thought? The earliest narrative accounts do not state how the king died. But English tradition of the following generation attributed his death to an arrow which pierced one of his eyes, and some historians are of the opinion that this view is substantiated by the Tapestry for under the words Hic Harold rex interfectus est, (‘Here King Harold was killed’), an English soldier is portrayed as having been struck in, or just above, the eye by an arrow. However, under the same inscription can be seen another English warrior, this time one being cut down by a knight, and some contend that this figure is meant to be the king.
It has been demonstrated that at times important individuals appear twice in the same scene. Thus another school of thought maintains that Harold was first wounded by an arrow and then killed. The recent discovery of evidence in the much restored Tapestry for the former presence of an arrow just above the right eye of the second figure can be taken to support this view. Against this it has been argued that the weaponry of the two figures is different. The former has a spear, sword and shield; the latter a sword and axe. Of this, however, David Bernstein has commented: ‘Placing the Tapestry in the artistic conventions of the time allows us to accept more readily the apparent unnaturalness of Harold shown twice within the length of a horse wearing different stockings and having changed weapons.’
Bernstein is of the opinion that both figures are meant to be Harold but maintains that the idea that the king was blinded was invented by the Tapestry’s designer:
In medieval lore there were . . . famous tales recounting how kings were miraculously blinded by an arrow because they had offended the divine order . . . . Thus, without explicitly depicting God’s presence at Hastings, the artist could give pictorial expression to the widely held belief that the king’s defeat was a fitting punishment for his perjury on holy relics.
Though we shall never know just how Harold was slain, what really matters is that he perished and that his death was followed by the flight of many of the tired and dispirited warriors who had fought so valiantly in the ranks of his army. Others, however, did not join them in their attempt to gain the sanctuary of the Andredsweald. Disdaining flight, they fought on beside their fallen lord and died fighting heroically.
Upon destroying those who fought to the end, William sent Eustace of Boulogne and a force of knights after the warriors who had taken to their heels. According to an account written in the early 12th century by Orderic Vitalis, while pursuing the English many of Eustace’s men rode headlong into a ditch of whose presence they were unaware and suffered heavy losses as a result. In contrast, Poitier’s more reliable account relates that Eustace came across a force of English soldiers who had rallied by ‘a broken entrenchment and a labyrinth of ditches’ and thus turned back. Upon meeting the oncoming duke, he advised him to also withdraw. But while speaking, Eustace was wounded between the shoulder blades by a missile, after which William rode against the English and overcame them.
The Battle of Hastings was an extremely prolonged affair and the number of casualties sustained was considerable. It is possible that William’s losses amounted to approximately 2,500 men killed or incapacitated. In the 1090s Eadmer, a monk of Canterbury who discussed the matter with veterans of Hastings, wrote that Norman casualties were such that they attributed their success entirely ‘to a miracle of God.’
The number of English warriors who perished, or escaped the battle wounded, may very well have exceeded the casualties sustained by William’s army. More importantly, in addition to Harold and his brothers, many other Englishmen of note lost their lives in the engagement and subsequent events were to show that there was no one left in England of sufficient character and stature to lead effective large-scale resistance to William.
The victors spent the day after the battle, Sunday 15 October, burying their dead and tending their wounded. The bodies of the fallen English, with the exception of that of Harold, and perhaps those of his brothers, were left to rot and Vitalis records seeing their bones many years later. Legend has it that Harold’s body was so badly mutilated that only his devo
ted mistress of many years, Edith Swanneck, could identify it by means of some marks known only to her. What is certain is that in due course the king’s body (or at least one believed to be his) was buried at Waltham Abbey in Essex, an establishment which he had founded.
After burying his dead, William returned to Hastings—whose name was in time given to the battle—and rested his weary army for five days. Then, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records, ‘he marched inland with what was left of his host, together with reinforcements lately come from oversea, and harried that part of the country through which he advanced until he came to Berkhamsted.’ There, following his circuitous and intimidating march, William received the submission of, among others, Edwin and Morcar, and senior citizens of London.
Shortly after this, on Christmas Day 1066, William was crowned in Westminster Abbey. Hastings had won him the throne but not the allegiance of all his new subjects. Some no doubt believed that he owed his victory to divine favour and recalled the appearance of Halley’s Comet earlier in the year, ‘a portent such as men had never seen before’ as evidence that God had indeed spoken in William’s favour. Others, though, were not prepared to submit and it was several years, and several ruthlessly crushed rebellions later, before William could truly regard himself as England’s master. Indeed, in the far north his hold was always tenuous.
Hastings is nonetheless one of the most important battles in history. It was the crucial stage in the last successful invasion of England by a foreign power and paved the way for the introduction of a rigid feudal system and a massive redistribution of wealth from English to Norman hands. Moreover, William’s success at Hastings and the conquest of England it made possible, resulted in England’s being brought more firmly into the mainstream of European affairs and culture than had been the case.
However, although Hastings led to Norman dominance and some significant changes, it was not followed by large-scale immigration. The Normans never settled in England in considerable numbers as had earlier invaders such as the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. Hence a number of things remained the same, or little altered, in the years which followed the battle. In view of this an eminent Victorian historian, E.A. Freeman, wrote: ‘The fiery trial which England went through was a fire which did not destroy, but only purified. She came forth once more the England of old.’
Though it subsequently became fashionable to deride Freeman (whose view was undoubtedly too extreme), it is nevertheless now generally accepted that the Norman Conquest had a less calamitous effect on Anglo-Saxon civilization than was once thought. Place names, for instance, retained their overwhelmingly Germanic character and the speech of ordinary folk remained essentially Anglo-Saxon. Furthermore, many native institutions survived the Conquest, and in connection with this fact a distinguished medievalist Henry Loyn has recently observed: ‘Only in their feudal attributes do the Normans appear as conspicuous innovators. Elsewhere it is as constructive builders on solid Anglo-Saxon achievements that their principal virtues find expression.’
Finally, it is time to discuss the performance of the armies at Hastings and to assess the leadership of their commanders. In his account of the battle, Poitiers refers to Harold’s soldiers as ‘barbarians’ and some modern historians have likewise portrayed the English army as undisciplined and backward. Harold’s army certainly lacked cavalry and was weak in archers but it is nevertheless wrong to dismiss it in a cursory manner. Hastings was a long and closely contested engagement in which Harold’s followers in general proved courageous and formidable. There was nothing inevitable about William’s victory.
Harold has been criticised for being over confident during the campaign. His confidence is understandable when one remembers that he had just destroyed Hardrada at Stamford Bridge. That victory was, after all, the most resounding success achieved by an English king since another great Viking force and its allies had been annihilated at Brunanburh in 937 by King Athelstan. Nonetheless, Harold’s decision to move against William with only part of his army was a rash one and suggests that he perhaps underestimated his opponent or, more probably, the strength of the duke’s forces.
Some historians have also criticised Harold for not counterattacking at Hastings when William’s army was in a state of confusion following the rout of the soldiers on the left. This may be a valid point. If the situation among the invaders was as chaotic as it has been portrayed, a counterattack by Harold would very likely have proved decisive. On the other hand, it has to be borne in mind that the extent of the confusion may have been exaggerated by Poitiers, among others, in order to enhance William’s achievement at Hastings, for he relates that the duke restored the critical situation. Moreover, we should also bear in mind that time was on Harold’s side. His army could more readily be reinforced and provisioned than William’s. He could afford to simply deny his opponent victory on the 14th if need be, aware of his superior logistical position and the fact that the morale of his army would not disintegrate in such circumstances.
And what of William’s performance? He showed tremendous powers of leadership and administrative ability during the crucial months which preceded the invasion and, after landing in England, wisely stayed near his fleet. Furthermore, upon hearing of Harold’s approach, he boldly took the initiative by advancing against him, and he retained the initiative throughout the following proceedings. His success at Hastings was in large part due to the courage, decision and tactical ability he displayed. In short, William was a dynamic and able commander and Hastings was his greatest triumph.
The courage and ability of the men under his command must not be forgotten. They had undertaken a daunting task and had acquitted themselves very well, thereby making William’s triumph possible.
However, luck also played a considerable part in bringing about William’s success. Hardrada’s northern invasion opened the way for the Normans and, in retrospect, signed the death warrant for Anglo-Saxon England. It drew Harold away from the south and inflicted heavy losses on his army. Had it not been for Hardrada and the Battle of Stamford Bridge, it is almost certain that William of Normandy would not have conquered.
2
THE STANDARD 22 August 1138
In 1135 Henry I of England died. He had compelled the barons to accept his only surviving legitimate child, Matilda, as his heir, but following his death the majority of them gave their allegiance instead to her popular cousin, Stephen of Blois, who had spent much of his time in England and had extensive estates here. For much of his reign England was torn apart by a bitter civil war, known as the Anarchy, in which Stephen and Matilda fought each other in order to retain or gain power. It was a time, so says the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, when: ‘It was said openly that Christ and his saints were asleep.’
To add to the country’s woes, David I of Scotland had designs on English territory. Indeed, in 1138, before hostilities in England began in earnest, David crossed the border at the head of a formidable army ‘more barbarous than any race of pagans’ according to a contemporary, Richard of Hexham, who witnessed its depredations outside his Northumbrian monastery. Stephen was preoccupied by affairs in the south and so resistance to the invasion was organized by Archbishop Thurstan of York and some northern barons. At 6.00am on the misty morning of 22 August, the invaders came face to face with an army under the archbishop on Cowton Moor three miles north of Northallerton.
The English front line consisted of archers interspersed with dismounted knights; the second of spearmen; and the third of more knights and men-at-arms. In the middle of the army was a large ship’s mast mounted on a wagon. Attached to the mast was a pyx containing the consecrated host, and several banners, and it was this mast, or standard, which gave its name to the battle. The English army probably numbered about 10,000 men.
Some scholars believe that David’s force numbered around 12,000 men, others that it was approximately 15,000 strong. The centre was under the personal command of the monar
ch. His son, Henry, led the right wing while Alan de Percy commanded the left.
Wild men from Galloway were in the forefront of the Scottish host, and as these lightly armed individuals charged towards the English position they suffered terrible casualties at the hands of the English bowmen. They subsequently broke against what Henry of Huntingdon called the ‘iron wall’ of their adversaries and began to flee. Seeing this, Prince Henry charged against the English left wing. It was a brave move but it did not turn the tide of battle. The English were in determined mood, eager to exact revenge for the atrocities committed by the invaders since their arrival in England. By 9.00am it was all over and the remnant of the Scottish army, including the king and his son, was in full flight, ‘scattered as sheep without a shepherd’ according to Richard of Hexham, leaving behind a battlefield ‘strewed with corpses.’ It is said that 10,000 men perished. Even allowing for exaggeration, the slaughter was great and the vast majority of the slain were Scottish.
Although David subsequently concluded a peace treaty with Stephen on 9 April 1139, this did not prevent him shortly thereafter trying unsuccessfully to impose his chancellor William Cumin upon the vacant and strategic see of Durham.
3
LINCOLN 20 May 1217
In October 1216 King John died at Newark Castle. In June of the previous year he had granted disaffected barons a charter of liberties, Magna Carta, but distrust between the parties had been such that by the autumn of 1215 civil war had commenced with both monarch and rebels looking abroad for assistance. John hired mercenaries: the barons asked Louis, heir of Philip Augustus of France, to come and replace John as king. Louis landed at Thanet in May 1216 and his arrival greatly boosted the prospects of success for the rebels, who controlled much of eastern England.
Hastings to Culloden - Battles in Britain 1066-1746 Page 3