The Battle of Hastings

by Jim Bradbury

  The Tapestry shows Harold setting off in a leisurely manner, perhaps hunting on the way. He rested at his own manor of Bosham, where he feasted before boarding ship in Chichester Harbour. It was probably a storm which blew him to the shores of Ponthieu where he was arrested by Count Guy and taken to his castle at Beaurain. What Guy hoped to gain is uncertain, perhaps to use Harold as a bargaining counter with William.

  The Conqueror was informed of the event, and ordered Harold’s release. Count Guy was no great friend of the Norman duke, but he had been forced into recognising his overlordship after being among the defeated at Varaville. At any rate, Guy decided not to oppose William and escorted the captive to the duke, to whom he was handed. The act of obtaining his release gave William an advantage over Harold, whose ability to act freely in Normandy is uncertain.

  William received Harold in the palace at Rouen. The Tapestry refers to some now forgotten scandal there between a woman with an English name, Aelfgyva, and a cleric, and then shows William setting off with Harold on the Breton campaign.44 They passed by the great coastal monastery of Mont-St-Michel. Crossing the River Couesnon some of the Norman soldiers got into trouble in the quicksand, and were saved by the heroic action of Harold.

  Their first objective was the castle at Dol, which the Tapestry shows as a wooden keep on a mound, a motte. It also shows Conan II, count of Brittany, escaping down a rope, though chronicle sources tell us that he had gone before the Normans arrived. They took Rennes and moved on to Dinan, which resisted. These two castles are also portrayed as wooden towers on mottes. Dinan was fired with torches, and the Bretons handed over the keys in surrender.

  The Breton campaign had been successful, though its effects were soon to be reversed. William recognised the English earl’s contribution, and ‘gave arms to Harold’.45 The Tapestry version is surely the portrayal of a knighting ceremony. It probably means that Harold recognised William as his lord, and must be taken along with the oath in defining how the Normans viewed Harold’s subsequent actions.

  So the victorious Norman army, having temporarily imposed its authority on eastern Brittany, rode back to Bayeux, where William’s half-brother, Odo, was bishop. It was here, according to the Tapestry, that Harold took the famous oath to William.46 Chronicle reports say it took place earlier and elsewhere, and Bonneville-sur-Touques, which is named for the event by William of Poitiers, is the most likely location. The Tapestry, in naming Bayeux, may have been trying to puff up the role of Bishop Odo, for whom the English artist was probably working.

  There can be little doubt that an oath was made. What its exact content was we shall never know. Nor can we be quite certain if Harold was forced or tricked into swearing. The Norman interpretation was that Harold had made a promise to support William, perhaps as his man. William of Jumièges says that Edward sent Harold to ‘swear fealty to the duke concerning his crown and, according to the Christian custom, pledge it with oaths’. William of Poitiers confirms this, saying that Harold promised to do all in his power to ensure William’s succession to the English throne. He goes on to say that Harold promised to hand Dover to William with various other strongholds in England. We cannot take the Norman view without retaining some doubts about its accuracy on the detail, but it is impossible to discount the oath altogether, and William’s actions throughout point to his belief that in 1066 Harold betrayed his trust.47

  The theme of the Tapestry is that Harold had made a sacred oath, he is shown swearing on a reliquary; by taking the English crown he therefore broke his promise. The implication is that Harold had promised to aid William in getting the English crown, though the oath may not have been so specific; but it surely at the least promised Harold’s fidelity to William. In any event Harold was able to return to England. One of the hostages, his nephew Hakon, was released, but Harold had to leave his brother Wulfnoth in Norman hands: this smacks of a compromise.

  The Tapestry’s portrayal of Earl Harold reporting back to the Confessor suggests that his trip was seen as a failure and a humiliation. Had he been sent merely to inform William of a promise, this would not be the case. Perhaps it means the partial failure to get a good deal on the hostages. Perhaps Edward no longer favoured William’s succession; his attempts to bring over Edward from Hungary suggest this. It is also possible that Edward returned to the idea of William for the succession, as the Normans have it.

  The other possibility is that Edward was toying with the thought of Harold succeeding. If so he may have been disappointed at the dilemma Harold had created for himself in Normandy. The comment of the author of the Vita Aedwardi that Harold was ‘rather too generous with oaths (alas)’ further suggests that Harold had promised more than was thought good, which would not be the case if Edward had sent him expressly to promise support to William for the English crown. Edward’s general reluctance to make public promises belies the idea that Edward arranged for Harold to take a solemn vow in public about the English succession. In short the Tapestry suggests that what had happened in Normandy was not at the wish of the king, and hints that support for William as king may not have been welcome in England.48

  It seems that William had, on an earlier occasion, visited Edward the Confessor in England, and been given some promise of the succession. William was related to Edward, whose mother we recall was Emma of Normandy. Given that Edward had no children, William’s claim by relationship was as good as anyone else’s. Harold’s was, at best through his sister, Edith, who was married to the king. William’s interest in England was opportunistic. Had the chance offered at another time, he may well have had to ignore it. But in 1066 he could contemplate a military venture.

  When Harold took the throne, William began to make plans to invade England. It is impossible to know exactly what happened in all the behind-the-scenes negotiating about the succession; almost certainly Edward gave out conflicting signals. Although we rely on Norman sources which have a bias, it is most likely that their version is close to the truth: that Edward promised William the succession, and that Harold took some oath to support William.

  The Norman interest in expanding beyond the duchy was becoming a reality by the 1060s. Roger de Tosny and Robert Crispin led forces against the Muslims in Spain, helping in the recapture of Tarragona and Gerona. Probably the most interesting of the projects, apart from England, was the Norman venture into southern Italy. A Norman principality was established at Aversa by 1030. In time they would conquer the southern mainland of Italy and by 1061 were ready to begin the invasion of the island of Sicily, where they established a new Norman kingdom in the twelfth century.

  An Italian chronicler recognised the adaptability of these conquerors: ‘the Normans are a cunning and vengeful people … they can endure with incredible patience the inclemency of every climate’. It has recently been argued that at least some of the adventurers were not of Norman origin, including some of the more important such as Roger de Tosny in Spain.49 It may be that part of the impetus was too tight a ducal control at home rather than Viking spirit. But there is still no doubt that men from Normandy played a vital role in expansion from north-western Europe and especially in opposition to the power of Islam. Norman efforts in the early crusades and in the eastern Mediterranean underline this ability to utilise their military abilities in varying circumstances. The point is the desire to leave Normandy for distant lands. But until 1066 such ventures had not been led by the duke with a ducal army.

  The invasion of England was made possible by a combination of factors. William had been freed from many of his continental anxieties by the 1060s, but there were other considerations. He needed support. First he must be secure in Normandy. In 1055 a monk at Marmoutier could write that William was ‘ruler of his whole land, something which is scarcely found anywhere else’.50 By the 1060s practically every major family had accepted his authority, even ones on the fringes of the duchy found it advisable to have representatives at his court.

  Officials in Normandy such as steward, butler, cons
table and chamberlain were not new, but the duke’s authority over them was stronger. The Peace of God, introduced into Normandy in 1047, was repeated in 1064, guaranteeing peace from violence in the duchy from Wednesday evening till Monday morning: only the ducal forces were allowed to use arms during that period. With William II power reverted to the duke, and his government became dominant in the duchy. He dispensed justice at his court, and could even afford to indulge in informal acts, as when he made a grant while sitting on a carpet outside a house at Bernouville.51

  He also needed to be sure that powerful neighbours would not take advantage of his absence overseas. His most important move was to marry Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V, count of Flanders (1035–67). She was thought ‘a very beautiful and noble girl of royal stock’, and is believed to have been just over 4 feet tall.52 The marriage was forbidden by Pope Leo IX (1048–54), probably because of too close a blood relationship. But William went ahead with the ceremony in either 1050 or 1051 at Eu. This made Flanders an ally rather than a threat, and indeed a number of Flemings came with William on his invasion.

  The Conqueror also desired the support of the Church in his venture. This was threatened by that selfsame marriage, since William had ignored the Church ban in order to marry. He was condemned for not awaiting papal approval, but he and his wife managed to placate the Pope, in part by building two great religious houses at Caen: St-Étienne for men, and La Trinité for women. In 1059 the Church gave formal approval of the marriage. By 1066 the Church was prepared to sanction the English venture, and a papal banner was given to the duke and proudly displayed for propaganda purposes when the troops embarked.53

  William had prepared the ground well. By 1066 he was safe at home with firm authority over the ducal administration. After the death of the king of France and the count of Anjou he was free from major concern about neighbouring powers. He had made a marriage alliance with the most important of these, Flanders. He had also overcome difficulty with the papacy regarding his marriage and won not only acceptance but support for his venture in England. If ever the time was ripe to cross the sea and seek his fortune across the Channel, that time was in 1066.

  Notes

  1. H.H. Howorth, ‘A criticism of the life of Rollo as told by Dudo of St-Quentin’, Archaeologia, xlv, 1880, pp. 235–50, p. 250.

  2. Dudo of St-Quentin, De Moribus et Actibus Primorum Ducum Normanniae, ed. J. Lair, Caen, 1865, p. 159.

  3. William of Jumièges (and Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni), Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. E.M.C. van Houts, 2 vols, Oxford, 1992, 1995, ii, p. 76.

  4. William of Poitiers, ed. Foreville, p. 31.

  5. ‘Rollo of Normandy’ in D.C. Douglas, Time and the Hour, London, 1977. pp. 121–40, pp. 121–4. Rolf or Rorik, or Hrolfr, seems a likely original for Rollo or Rou, which are clearly Latin and French versions of the name. However, to accept the evidence of Snorri Sturlusson, writing in the thirteenth century, for Rolf and with Norse origins is even more perilous than accepting Dudo of St-Quentin’s apparent belief in Danish origins. A lost charter of 913, in M. Fauroux (ed.), Recueil des Actes des Ducs de Normandie de 911 à 1066, Caen, 1961, pp. 19–20, and n. 4, suggests that Rolf was also christened Robert, which explains the popularity of that name among his descendants: p. 19: ‘Igitur Rollo, qui et Robertus nomine sacri baptismatis’. See E. Searle, Predatory Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power, 840–1066, Berkeley Ca, 1988, on ‘counts’.

  6. E. Privat (ed.), Documents de l’Histoire de la Normandie, Toulouse, 1972, p. 70, from Adelhelm, Bishop of Sées.

  7. E. James, The Origins of France, London, 1982, p. 181. The quote is from the Chronicle of St Benignus of Dijon.

  8. Douglas, ‘Rollo’, p. 126.

  9. ‘The rise of Normandy’ in Douglas, Time and the Hour, pp. 95–119; see also in the same volume, ‘Rollo’, pp. 121–40, p. 127; and D. Bates, Normandy Before the Norman Conquest, Harlow, 1982.

  10. R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987, Harlow, 1983, p. 237; Dudo, ed. Lair, pp. 168–9: p. 168: ‘locum qui dicitur ad Sanctum Clerum’. Douglas, ‘Rollo’, p. 129, discusses the possibility that Dudo invented the occasion using a meeting between Duke Richard I and Lothar at St-Clair as his inspiration.

  11. Dudo, ed. Lair, pp. 168–9; reprinted in Privat (ed.), Normandie, with French translation, pp. 74–5; compare William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, i, pp. 64–6, who closely follows Dudo. Dudo, ed. Lair, p. 168: ‘ipsam terram ab Eptae fluviolo ad mare usque, quasi fundum et alodum, in sempiternum’; ‘Tunc Flandrensem terram, ut ex ea viveret, voluit rex ei dare’; ‘ei Britanniam dare, quae erat in confinio promissae terrae’; p. 169: ‘manus suas misit inter manus regis’; ‘Dedit itaque rex filiam suam, Gislam nomine, uxorem illi duci, terramque determinatam in alodo et in fundo, a flumine Eptae usque ad mare, totam Britanniam de qua posset vivere’; ‘Rolloni pedem regis nolenti osculari … jussit cuidam militi pedem regis osculari’.

  12. P. Lauer (ed.), Recueil des Actes de Charles III le Simple, roi de France, 893–923, Paris, 1940, i, no. 92, p. 209–12, p. 209: ‘pro tutela regni’; Privat (ed.), Normandie, p. 75.

  13. Douglas, William, p. 129; MGH Script, xiii, p. 577.

  14. Dudo, ed. Lair, p. 170: baptised ‘comites suos et milites omnemque manum exercitus sui’.

  15. Douglas, ‘Rollo’, p. 133; Bates, Normandy, pp. 8,13; Dudo gives ‘Gisla’ or Gisela as the wife’s name. The name Popa is suspiciously similar to Papia, wife of Richard II.

  16. Privat (ed.), Normandie, p. 72.

  17. Bates, Normandy, p. 9.

  18. Bates, Normandy, p. 13.

  19. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, i, p. 132.

  20. Bates, Normandy, p. 14.

  21. Searle, Predatory Kinship, e.g. pp. 131–42.

  22. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 8.

  23. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 6; Bates, Normandy, p. 73.

  24. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 28.

  25. Douglas.

  26. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 30.

  27. Bates, Normandy, p. 113.

  28. K. Thompson, ‘The Norman aristocracy before 1066: the example of the Montgomerys’, Historical Research, lx, 1987, pp. 251–63, pp. 251–2, 255: Roger II Montgomery called himself ‘ex northmannis northmannus’.

  29. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 46.

  30. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, pp. 48, 60, 82.

  31. Douglas, William, p. 379. His mother’s relatives are referred to as ‘pollinctores’ which means embalmers: Orderic Vitalis in William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, p. 124.

  32. William of Malmesbury, Chronicle of the Kings of England, ed. J.A. Giles, London, 1895, p. 259.

  33. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 92; compare William of Poitiers,ed. Foreville, p. 22: castles built in ‘seditious zeal’.

  34. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 96.

  35. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 92.

  36. Douglas, William, p. 50; William of Poitiers, ed. Foreville, pp. 12–18; Wace, Le Roman de Rou, ed. A.J. Holden, 3 vols, Paris, 1971; for a translation see E. Taylor (ed.), Master Wace, his Chronicle of the Norman Conquest from the Roman de Rou, London, 1837: pp. 18–27; William of Poitiers, ed. Foreville, p. 19.

  37. Bates, Normandy, p. 74.

  38. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 104.

  39. William of Poitiers, ed. Foreville, pp. 73–5.

  40. Wace, ed. Holden, ii, p. 80, l. 5205–6: ‘de lances fierent chevaliers/e od les ars traient archiers’; Wace, ed. Taylor, p. 60.

  41. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 150; William of Poitiers, ed. Foreville, p. 99.

  42. Symeon of Durham, ‘History of the Kings’ in Stevenson, viii, pt II, 1855, p. 547.

  43. L. Thorpe (ed.), The Bayeux Tapestry and the Norman Invasion, London, 1973, p. 46.

  44. J.B. McNulty, ‘The Lady Aelfgyva in the Bayeux Tape
stry’, Speculum, lv, 1980, pp. 659–68; M.W. Campbell, ‘Aelfgyva: the mysterious lady of the Bayeux Tapestry’, Annales de Normandie, xxxiv, 1984, pp. 127–45; Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 17, 18.

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

  46. Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 25–6.

  47. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 160; William of Poitiers, ed. Foreville, p. 103.

  48. Barlow (ed.), Vita, p. 53.

  49. Bates, Normandy, 241–3.

  50. Bates, Normandy, p. 57.

  51. K. Thompson, ‘Family and influence to the south of Normandy in the eleventh century: the lordship of Bellême’, JMH, xi, 1985, pp. 215–26; Bates, Normandy, p. 152.

  52. William of Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, p. 128; Douglas, William, pp. 369–70: her remains were re-examined in 1961, but had previously been disturbed, so that there must remain a doubt about the bones being hers.

  53. This granting of the banner has been questioned, e.g. by Bates, Normandy, p. 189, but it is difficult to see why William of Poitiers, ed. Foreville, p. 155, should not be accepted on this.

  FOUR

  ARMS AND ARMIES

  Much has been written about the advantages which one side had over the other in the battle of Hastings; in fact, in terms of the arms used there was very little difference. The state of war and its technology spread beyond any single state, county, duchy or kingdom. The English and the Normans had more in common than they had differences in 1066. On the Bayeux Tapestry, one can not easily tell English from Norman by either the arms they carry or the armour they wear. Indeed, to show a difference the artist often resorted to the use of distinguishing hairstyles: short for the Normans, long for the English. Both sides wore similar helmets and armour, both used similar swords and spears.