Succession crisis in England

King Edward's death on 5 January 1066^{[9][lower-alpha 3]} left no clear heir, and several contenders laid claim to the throne of England.^[11] Edward's immediate successor was the Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson, the richest and most powerful of the English aristocrats and son of Godwin, Edward's earlier opponent. Harold was elected king by the Witenagemot of England and crowned by Ealdred, the Archbishop of York, although Norman propaganda claimed that the ceremony was performed by Stigand, the uncanonically elected Archbishop of Canterbury.^[11][12] Harold was at once challenged by two powerful neighbouring rulers. Duke William claimed that he had been promised the throne by King Edward and that Harold had sworn agreement to this.^[13] Harald Hardrada of Norway also contested the succession. His claim to the throne was based on an agreement between his predecessor Magnus the Good and the earlier King of England Harthacnut, whereby, if either died without heir, the other would inherit both England and Norway.^[14] William and Harald Hardrada immediately set about assembling troops and ships for separate invasions.^{[15][lower-alpha 4]}

Tostig and Hardrada's invasions

In early 1066, Harold's exiled brother Tostig Godwinson raided southeastern England with a fleet he had recruited in Flanders, later joined by other ships from Orkney. Threatened by Harold's fleet, Tostig moved north and raided in East Anglia and Lincolnshire. He was driven back to his ships by the brothers Edwin, Earl of Mercia and Morcar, Earl of Northumbria. Deserted by most of his followers, he withdrew to Scotland, where he spent the middle of the year recruiting fresh forces.^[21] Hardrada invaded northern England in early September, leading a fleet of more than 300 ships carrying perhaps 15,000 men. Hardrada's army was further augmented by the forces of Tostig, who supported the Norwegian king's bid for the throne. Advancing on York, the Norwegians occupied the city after defeating a northern English army under Edwin and Morcar on 20 September at the Battle of Fulford.^[22]

Norman forces at Hastings

Norman knights and archers at the Battle of Hastings, as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry

The exact numbers and composition of William's force are unknown.^[31] A contemporary document claims that William had 776 ships, but this may be an inflated figure.^[52] Figures given by contemporary writers for the size of the army are highly exaggerated, varying from 14,000 to 150,000.^[53] Modern historians have offered a range of estimates for the size of William's forces: 7,000–8,000 men including 1,000–2,000 cavalry;^[54] 10,000–12,000 men;^[53] 10,000 men including 3,000 cavalry;^[55] or 7,500 men.^[31] The army consisted of about one half infantry, one quarter cavalry, and one quarter archers or crossbowmen.^[56] Later lists of companions of William the Conqueror are extant, but most are padded with extra names; only about 35 named individuals can be reliably identified as having been with William at Hastings.^{[31][57][lower-alpha 9]}

The main armour was chainmail hauberks, usually knee-length, with slits to allow riding, some with sleeves to the elbows. Some hauberks may have been made of scales attached to a tunic, with the scales made of metal, horn or hardened leather. Headgear was usually a conical metal helmet with a vertical band guarding the bridge of the nose.^[59] Horsemen and infantry carried shields. The infantryman's shield was usually round and made of wood with metal reinforcement. Horsemen changed to a kite-shaped shield and were usually armed with a lance. The couched lance, carried tucked against the body under the right arm, was relatively new and probably not used at Hastings, as the terrain was unfavourable for long cavalry charges. Both infantry and cavalry usually fought with a straight sword, long and double-edged. The infantry could also use javelins and long spears.^[60] Some of the cavalry may have used a mace instead of a sword. Archers would have used a self bow or a crossbow, and most would not have had armour.^[61]

English forces at Hastings

The exact number of soldiers in Harold's army at Hastings is unknown, as contemporary records do not give reliable figures. Some Norman sources give 400,000 to 1,200,000 on Harold's side,^{[lower-alpha 11]} while English sources seem to underestimate Harold's army, perhaps to make the English defeat seem less devastating.^[69] Recent historians have suggested figures of between 5,000 and 13,000,^[70] while most argue for a figure of 7,000–8,000 English troops.^[26][71] These men would have been a mix of the fyrd and housecarls. Few individual Englishmen are known to have been present;^[31] about 20 named individuals can reasonably be assumed to have fought with Harold at Hastings, including Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine and two other relatives.^{[58][lower-alpha 12]}

Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry depicting mounted Norman soldiers attacking Anglo-Saxons who are fighting on foot in a shield wall

The English army consisted entirely of infantry. It is possible that some of the higher-class members of the army rode to battle, but then dismounted when battle was joined to fight on foot.^{[lower-alpha 13]} The core of the army was made up of housecarls, full-time professional soldiers. Their armour consisted of a conical helmet, a mail hauberk, and a shield, which might be either kite-shaped or round.^[72] Most housecarls fought with the two-handed Danish battleaxe, but they could also carry a sword.^[73] The rest of the army was made up of levies from the fyrd, also infantry but more lightly armoured and not professionals. Most of the infantry would have formed part of the shield wall, in which the front ranks locked their shields together. Behind them would have been axemen and javelins as well as archers.^[74]

Background and location

The battlefield from the north side

Because many of the primary accounts contradict each other at times, it is impossible to provide an authoritative description of the battle.^[75] The only undisputed facts are that fighting began at 9 am Saturday 14 October 1066 and that the battle lasted until dusk.^[76] Sunset on the day of the battle was at 4:54 pm, with the battlefield mostly dark by 5:54 pm and in full darkness by 6:24 pm. Moonrise that night was not until 11:12 pm, so once the sun set, there was little light on the battlefield.^[77] William of Jumièges reports that Duke William kept his army armed and ready against a surprise attack for the entire night before.^[75] The battle took place 7 mi (11 km) north of Hastings at the present-day town of Battle,^[78] between two hills – Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south. The area was heavily wooded, with a marsh nearby.^[79] The name traditionally given to the battle is unusual – there were several settlements much closer to the battlefield than Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle called it the battle "at the hoary apple tree". Within 40 years, the battle was described by the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis as "Senlac",^{[lower-alpha 14]} a Norman-French adaptation of the Old English word "Sandlacu", which means "sandy water".^{[lower-alpha 15]} This may have been the name of the stream that crosses the battlefield.^{[lower-alpha 16]} The battle was already being referred to as "bellum Haestingas" or "Battle of Hastings" by 1086, in the Domesday Book.^[83]

The sun rose at 6:48 am that morning, with the day unusually bright.^[84] The weather conditions are not recorded.^[85] The precise route of the English army southward to the battlefield is not known. Several roads are possible: one, an old Roman road that ran from Rochester to Hastings has long been favoured because of a large coin hoard found nearby in 1876. Another possibility is the Roman road between London and Lewes and then over local tracks to the battlefield.^[75] Some accounts of the battle indicate that the Normans advanced from Hastings to the battlefield, but the contemporary account of William of Jumièges places the Normans at the site of the battle the night before.^[86] Most historians incline towards the former view,^{[67][84][87][88]} but M. K. Lawson argues that William of Jumièges's account is correct.^[86]

Dispositions of forces and tactics

Battle dispositions

Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation at the top of a steep slope,^[84] with their flanks protected by woods and marshy ground in front of them.^[88] The line may have extended far enough to be anchored on a nearby stream.^[89] The English formed a shield wall, with the front ranks holding their shields close together or even overlapping to provide protection from attack.^[90] Sources differ on the exact site that the English fought on: some sources state the site of the abbey,^[91][92][93] but some newer sources suggest it was Caldbec Hill.^[89][84]

More is known about the Norman deployment.^[94] Duke William appears to have arranged his forces in three groups, or "battles", which roughly corresponded to their origins. The left units were the Bretons,^[95] along with those from Anjou, Poitou and Maine. This division was led by Alan the Red, a relative of the Breton count.^[90] The centre was held by the Normans,^[95] under the direct command of the duke and with many of his relatives and kinsmen grouped around the ducal party.^[90] The final division, on the right, consisted of the Frenchmen,^[95] along with some men from Picardy, Boulogne, and Flanders. The right was commanded by William fitzOsbern and Count Eustace II of Boulogne.^[90] The front lines were made up of archers, with a line of foot soldiers armed with spears behind.^[95] There were probably a few crossbowmen and slingers in with the archers.^[90] The cavalry was held in reserve,^[95] and a small group of clergymen and servants situated at the base of Telham Hill was not expected to take part in the fighting.^[90]

William's disposition of his forces implies that he planned to open the battle with archers in the front rank weakening the enemy with arrows, followed by infantry who would engage in close combat. The infantry would create openings in the English lines that could be exploited by a cavalry charge to break through the English forces and pursue the fleeing soldiers.^[90]

Beginning of the battle

View of the battlefield looking towards Senlac Hill

The battle opened with the Norman archers shooting uphill at the English shield wall, to little effect. The uphill angle meant that the arrows either bounced off the shields of the English or overshot their targets and flew over the top of the hill.^{[95][lower-alpha 17]} The lack of English archers hampered the Norman archers, as there were few English arrows to be gathered up and reused.^[96] After the attack from the archers, William sent the spearmen forward to attack the English. They were met with a barrage of missiles, not arrows but spears, axes and stones.^[95] The infantry was unable to force openings in the shield wall, and the cavalry advanced in support.^[96] The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left.^[97] A rumour started that the duke had been killed, which added to the confusion. The English forces began to pursue the fleeing invaders, but William rode through his forces, showing his face and yelling that he was still alive.^[98] The duke then led a counter-attack against the pursuing English forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed.^[97]

It is not known whether the English pursuit was ordered by Harold or if it was spontaneous. Wace relates that Harold ordered his men to stay in their formations but no other account gives this detail. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the death of Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine occurring just before the fight around the hillock. This may mean that the two brothers led the pursuit.^[99] The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio relates a different story for the death of Gyrth, stating that the duke slew Harold's brother in combat, perhaps thinking that Gyrth was Harold. William of Poitiers states that the bodies of Gyrth and Leofwine were found near Harold's, implying that they died late in the battle. It is possible that if the two brothers died early in the fighting their bodies were taken to Harold, thus accounting for their being found near his body after the battle. The military historian Peter Marren speculates that if Gyrth and Leofwine died early in the battle, that may have influenced Harold to stand and fight to the end.^[100]

Feigned flights

Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry showing mounted Norman cavalrymen fighting Anglo-Saxon infantry

A lull probably occurred early in the afternoon, and a break for rest and food would probably have been needed.^[99] William may have also needed time to implement a new strategy, which may have been inspired by the English pursuit and subsequent rout by the Normans. If the Normans could send their cavalry against the shield wall and then draw the English into more pursuits, breaks in the English line might form.^[101] William of Poitiers says the tactic was used twice. Although arguments have been made that the chroniclers' accounts of this tactic were meant to excuse the flight of the Norman troops from battle, this is unlikely as the earlier flight was not glossed over. It was a tactic used by other Norman armies during the period.^{[99][lower-alpha 18]} Some historians have argued that the story of the use of feigned flight as a deliberate tactic was invented after the battle; however most historians agree that it was used by the Normans at Hastings.^[102]

Although the feigned flights did not break the lines, they probably thinned out the housecarls in the English shield wall. The housecarls were replaced with members of the fyrd, and the shield wall held.^[99] Archers appear to have been used again before and during an assault by the cavalry and infantry led by the duke. Although 12th-century sources state that the archers were ordered to shoot at a high angle to shoot over the front of the shield wall, there is no trace of such an action in the more contemporary accounts.^[103] It is not known how many assaults were launched against the English lines, but some sources record various actions by both Normans and Englishmen that took place during the afternoon's fighting.^[104] The Carmen claims that Duke William had two horses killed under him during the fighting, but William of Poitiers's account states that it was three.^[105]

Death of Harold

Stone marking the spot of the high altar at Battle Abbey, where Harold died^[106]

Harold appears to have died late in the battle, although accounts in the various sources are contradictory. William of Poitiers only mentions his death, without giving any details on how it occurred. The Tapestry is not helpful, as it shows a figure holding an arrow sticking out of his eye next to a falling fighter being hit with a sword. Over both figures is a statement "Here King Harold has been killed".^[103] It is not clear which figure is meant to be Harold, or if both are meant.^{[107][lower-alpha 19]} The earliest written mention of the traditional account of Harold dying from an arrow to the eye dates to the 1080s from a history of the Normans written by an Italian monk, Amatus of Montecassino.^{[108][lower-alpha 20]} William of Malmesbury stated that Harold died from an arrow to the eye that went into the brain, and that a knight wounded Harold at the same time. Wace repeats the arrow-to-the-eye account. The Carmen states that Duke William killed Harold, but this is unlikely, as such a feat would have been recorded elsewhere.^[103] The account of William of Jumièges is even more unlikely, as it has Harold dying in the morning, during the first fighting. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey states that no one knew who killed Harold, as it happened in the press of battle.^[110] A modern biographer of Harold, Ian Walker, states that Harold probably died from an arrow in the eye, although he also says it is possible that Harold was struck down by a Norman knight while mortally wounded in the eye.^[111] Another biographer of Harold, Peter Rex, after discussing the various accounts, concludes that it is not possible to declare how Harold died.^[109]

Harold's death left the English forces leaderless, and they began to collapse.^[101] Many of them fled, but the soldiers of the royal household gathered around Harold's body and fought to the end.^[103] The Normans began to pursue the fleeing troops, and except for a rearguard action at a site known as the "Malfosse", the battle was over.^[101] Exactly what happened at the Malfosse, or "Evil Ditch", and where it took place, is unclear. It occurred at a small fortification or set of trenches where some Englishmen rallied and seriously wounded Eustace of Boulogne before being defeated by the Normans.^[112]

Reasons for the outcome

Harold's defeat was probably due to several circumstances. One was the need to defend against two almost simultaneous invasions. The fact that Harold had dismissed his forces in southern England on 8 September also contributed to the defeat. Many historians fault Harold for hurrying south and not gathering more forces before confronting William at Hastings, although it is not clear that the English forces were insufficient to deal with William's forces.^[113] Against these arguments for an exhausted English army, the length of the battle, which lasted an entire day, shows that the English forces were not tired by their long march.^[114] Tied in with the speed of Harold's advance to Hastings is the possibility Harold may not have trusted Earls Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria once their enemy Tostig had been defeated, and declined to bring them and their forces south.^[113] Modern historians have pointed out that one reason for Harold's rush to battle was to contain William's depredations and keep him from breaking free of his beachhead.^[115]

Most of the blame for the defeat probably lies in the events of the battle.^[113] William was the more experienced military leader,^[116] and in addition the lack of cavalry on the English side allowed Harold fewer tactical options.^[114] Some writers have criticised Harold for not exploiting the opportunity offered by the rumoured death of William early in the battle.^[117] The English appear to have erred in not staying strictly on the defensive, for when they pursued the retreating Normans they exposed their flanks to attack. Whether this was due to the inexperience of the English commanders or the indiscipline of the English soldiers is unclear.^{[116][lower-alpha 21]} In the end, Harold's death appears to have been decisive, as it signalled the break-up of the English forces in disarray.^[114] The historian David Nicolle said of the battle that William's army "demonstrated – not without difficulty – the superiority of Norman-French mixed cavalry and infantry tactics over the Germanic-Scandinavian infantry traditions of the Anglo-Saxons."^[119]