thank you for listening to the rest is history for weekly bonus episodes add free listening early access to series and membership of our much -loved chat community go to the rest is history .com and join the club that is the rest is history .com Suddenly, looking towards the forest, the Duke saw glimpses of English columns and a great glittering of spears.
Spilling out from the trees, there came troops of men and then, emerging into full view, an entire army.
There was a hill near the forest, set beside a valley, and the ground had been left untilled because the terrain was so rough.
Advancing in massed order, which is the English custom, they seized possession of this place and readied for battle.
Ignorant of war as they are, the English scorned to ride horses, preferring instead to trust in their strength and stand fast on foot, and they counted the highest honour to die in arms in defense of their native soil so as to prevent any foreign yoke being imposed upon it.
The King of the English, preparing to meet the enemy, climbed the hill and strengthened both his wings with noble men.
On the very summit of the hill, he planted his banner and ordered his other standards as well to be set up.
All his men dismounted and left their horses in the rear and then taking their stand on foot they let their trumpets sound for battle so that's a source called the song of the Battle of Hastings probably written within months of the battle and we'll come back to exactly what that source is but listeners who have stuck with us through this mighty series will remember that last time we followed the heart -stopping blood curdling drama of Harold Hardrada's invasion of northern England and we heard how Hardrada was cut down and killed at the Battle of Stamford Bridge by the English King, Harold Godwinson formerly
Earl of Wessex in one of the greatest victories ever won by Anglo -Saxon or indeed English arms. So Tom, Stamford Bridge was the 25th of September and we heard how at the turn of October, Harold heard the terrible news of the landing of William of Normandy.
And so now less than three weeks later, he is at, or just outside Hastings and he is facing another mighty.
Epoch defining showdown.
So it's the 14th of October.
He's of course, facing William of Normandy and what follows is the most famous and arguably the single most decisive battle in all English history.
Richard – Absolutely, and the one I would say that is most familiar probably to anyone who has even the faintest interest in history in England, certainly.
Scenes from the battle will be familiar to most people who live in this country.
The idea of the English battle lying on Senlac hill, this great hill outside Hastings, the Normans serried in their armour on their horses at the foot of the hill, the Norman knights charging the English shield wall, King Harald, as the shadows lengthen over the battlefield, as the sun sets in the west, struck by an arrow in the eye.
And the accounts of the battle that we have, you mentioned one, possibly written only a few months after Harold's death, are detailed and vivid in a way that the sources for Stamford Bridge simply aren't.
So we talked in the previous episode how King Harold's saga, the great account by Snorri Sturluson dates to almost two centuries after 1066.
But we have accounts of Hastings that are incredibly close to the battle.
So most It's not a tapestry, but a great embroidered cloth over 200 feet long.
And it illuminates not just the battle but the events leading up to it.
We've already had reference to it and indeed to its aftermath.
And another source we've also already mentioned in this series, William of Poitiers, who had served William as a soldier before becoming his chaplain, and he gives again a detailed account.
But as you said, amazingly, we have an account that is even more contemporary, probably written in around Easter 1067, so fewer than six months after the battle.
And for a long while the authenticity of the Carmen, the song of the Battle of Hastings, was furiously debated.
It kind of appeared almost from nowhere in the 19th century, and there were lots of people who thought it might have been a medieval fake.
But I think it's now pretty widely accepted to have been written by a bishop who served William's wife, Matilda, as her chaplain, so we have these two chaplains William of Poitiers and this bishop who wrote The Carmen and This enables us to get up close to the build up the actual events the aftermath of Hastings in a way that Well, I mean to quote Michael Lawson whose book on the on the battle is probably the best one that there is He's written about it the more is known about Hastings than any battle fought in the West since the end of the Roman Empire but Inevitably, having said that, there
are caveats. So all those things that people think they know about the battle of Hastings.
Did the English really confine themselves to just standing on a hill?
Did the Norman Knights really charge the shield wall?
Was Harold really slain by an arrow hitting his eye?
I mean, as we will find out, these are all issues that are furiously debated.
To match that quotation from Michael Lawson about us knowing more about Hastings than any battle since the end of the Roman Empire, here's one from John Gillingham, Almost the only thing about the Norman Conquest that isn't controversial is the fact that the Normans won the battle of Hastings.
So, there is lots to discuss.
Yeah, so I mean the version I grew up with, you know, that we studied at school, was very dramatic.
The Normans charge, Harold is hit by the arrow, all of these great excitements, but they're all in the balance aren't they?
So, that's the fascinating thing.
I think the alternative theories are just as exciting and thrilling.
Right. There's no question, this is an extraordinary terrifying, bloody conflict, no doubt about that.
It's just that some of the details are up for debate and we'll be looking at them.
Okay. So let's pick up from where we left off with William before.
So before we got into the story of Harold Hardrada, listeners may remember that we left William, he'd gathered his forces, he is this great name.
He's a great drawer.
He's got people from all over France, hasn't he to join His I was about to say his crusade and it does have a little bit of that quality slight quality Yeah, right But he's been kicking his heels in frustration on the coast of Normandy because as this Carmen the song describes storms and ceaseless rain Prevented his fleet from making the crossing.
And obviously Harold had decided that William wasn't coming.
So what changes? Well, I imagine that the news that Harold across the channel in England has stood down his men has reached William and it's four days after Harold has sent his men back to get the harvest in and so on on the 8th of September.
On the 12th of September William decides I think that this is too good an opportunity to miss even though the winds are still against him and so he orders his fleet on the 12th of September to leave port and to sail out into the channel, but these winds, as we've said, are still contrary.
They're still very, very difficult to navigate.
And people may remember that Harold had sent his fleet back to London, and it gets caught up in a terrible storm, and large numbers of ships are shipwrecked.
It seems that the same storms that damage Harold's fleet so badly blows Williams off course.
Some of his ships are wrecked.
And the vast body of the fleet have to take refuge, not in an English port, but in a port further up the French coast, so specifically a place called Saint Valery -sur -Sommes.
So that's north of Normandy itself, and it is closer to the English coast than William had previously been, but it is still separated from England by 50 miles of storm -lashed seas.
And William is chastened, I think, by the near disaster that his fleet has suffered, and so he decides he's not going to risk that anymore and the contrary winds blow for a further fortnight.
This is a huge problem.
He's no longer in Normandy for a start, so he can't command resources in the way that he'd been able to do previously.
He's lost lots of his ships, his supplies are running out, there's all that issue with getting rid of the horses, urine, all that kind of stuff.
It's an incredible tribute, I think, to his powers of leadership that he does seem able to hold this expedition together, but you can imagine him.
Well in fact he's described as looking up at the weathercock on top of the church in Saint Valery kind of just waiting for the winds to change.
And do you think he knows that Harald has dispersed the food?
Do you think he knows that he's sent his army back to get the harvest?
I'm sure he must have done.
It seems the only explanation for why he would have risked sailing out four days after Harald had done that.
And also it might be hard to muster another force a year's time.
People were like they they didn't even go the first time, I'm not going again.
Yeah, I mean I think he absolutely feels it's now or never.
And so on the 27th of September at last, the weather cock turns, the winds have changed, the sea stands fair for England, and so William gives his men orders to embark.
And high tide, which is in the the mid afternoon, the horses are led up ramps onto the transport ships.
The carmen describes William's men rushing to take their places like a flock of doves heading to a dovecot and just before sunset, the Norman fleet is ready to set sail and William's own flagship leads the way and this is a ship called the Mora which is a gift from his wife.
The stern post has a wonderful figurehead, the figure of a boy blowing a trumpet and we're told a lantern was slung high on the masthead as a guiding beacon and the sound of a horn signalled the advance so William leads the fleet out into the darkening channel as the sun sets.
And the Murre is a very streamlined ship, and in fact it's so swift that, by next morning, as the sun rises over the channel to the east, William finds that he's completely on his own, he can't see any other ships.
And rather than panic, he displays immense singfroid, he has a hearty breakfast which we're told he waters down with wine.
And by the time he's finished it, he goes back up on to deck, And there behind him is a great forest of masts.
The Norman fleet is still with him and on they sail to England.
So that story seems to me to have the veracity of some of those stories that you have from Harold Hardrada in the Icelandic sagas.
I mean, I know they're different literary traditions.
But, you know, the commander forged on alone and he noticed that nobody was with him, but he didn't lose his cool.
He drank a flagon of wine and then continued.
And soon his men caught him up.
I mean that feels like to me like I think I've heard that story about 40 times about different people I think the difference though is that these are being told by people who are there who were there or who you know We're absolutely familiar with the details of the expedition So you're like you're like arien talking about Ptolemy when he met the talking snake in the deserts king wooden lion He was there so I mean obviously happened though because aryan was writing centuries later whereas these are people who were writing a few years later and Surrounded by people who'd been on but you're saying
leave everything that they tell you I think it's unlikely that they would just make up details that everyone would have been able to scoff at.
The details may be slightly spiced up.
I think that probably the details we're getting from the carmen and from William of Poitiers in the main are fairly accurate because there are so many people who'd be reading them that they would know if they weren't.
Let's get to what we do know.
So we definitely know that they are heading for this natural harbour, protected by a spit of land called Pevensie Bay.
And they arrive, what, 9 o 'clock in the morning?
Yep. And Pevensie Bay, it's a natural harbour.
It's kind of lagoons, really.
And it's tidal. And it's protected by a spit of land that sticks out on the western side and on the western side, there's a crumbling Roman fort and there's a little port and that's Pevensie itself.
But there's a problem, which is that Pevensie and this Roman fort although the Normans are very quick to fortify and kind of boost the defences, it's not easy to get from there to the main road that leads to London because essentially you have to ride all the way round the lagoon, and it's about, you know, 20 odd miles to do that.
So some of the ships are pulled up there but there's the real sense that actually Pevensey itself is not a good base and so what they do is start looking further east to the town of Hastings.
And Hastings is much more conveniently linked to London.
So the main road from Hastings goes along a kind of high ridge and it's surrounded on either side by trees and then down by mud flats, kind of leading down to the lagoon of Peppency Bay and on the other side as well.
So it's kind of like a peninsula, and William decides that he will make this his base, and he and his relative and a childhood friend of his, called William Fitz Osborne, then, having reached Hastings, reconnoiter the terrain, and they realise very rapidly that Hastings is a kind of natural trap, because it is open to attack from the sea.
Equally, this single road leading northwards to London is so fringed on either side by creeks, that it is the only way out from Hastings.
There is no other way to escape it.
And that in turn means that if there is an amphibious attack – so if Harold comes down along the road from London with his infantry and if a naval force attacks Hastings from the south, then the Normans will be surrounded.
So, in lots of ways it's an insane place for him to stay.
William orders inevitably a castle to be built at Hastings.
So the Normans have now built at Pevensey they've now built one at Hastings, and he sends his horsemen out to ravage the villages that surround Hastings.
Hastings is in Sussex and Sussex is Harold's native county.
So there's clearly good propaganda value to be had for William in burning down the villages that Harold probably should be defending.
But it does seem kind of madness for the Normans to stay in Hastings.
Because the risk of being trapped there is so enormous and why, having brought all their horses, you know, all this proficiency they have in building makeshift castles, why would they stay there?
Why are they not spilling out across Sussex?
Because they are massively risking a pitched battle if they do stay there.
And the Norman way of war is to avoid battles.
You know, we had mentioned, William had only ever fought in one battle.
And William of Poitiers describes the Norman way of war.
That it is to strike fear by frequent lengthy expeditions across enemy territory, to lay waste harvests, fields and halls, to plant castles and garrisons wherever they would cause maximum damage, to overwhelm the enemy by engulfing him in a great multitude of troubles.
And Harold, when he's brought the news of William's landing, he knows that is the Norman way of war.
Okay, in that case, given that the Normans have this very tried and tested way of waging war that actually always works for them, why is William doing something so unorthodox?
Why is he staying put and why is he not going and hurrying everybody and building castles and laying waste to the countrysides and all?
The stuff that he would normally do when he was fighting in France I think it goes back to what we talked about in a previous episode that William knows the only way he can possibly secure the crown of England is by defeating and killing Harold in a pitched battle and To draw Harold into a battle.
He has to give Harold the serious prospect that he'll be able to wipe William out So, in a sense, what William is doing is offering himself and his army up as bait.
And, of course, it is a completely desperate gamble, because he knows that he's staking everything he's achieved over the course of his rule.
In fact, he's staking his own life.
But he has invaded England in the conviction that God is on his side, and what he is aiming to do is to put that conviction to the test. And you really think that affects his his strategy, that he thinks, because God is with me.
I'm going to change the way I fight and risk everything on one throw of the dice.
Or do you think he just thinks the only way of doing this actually is to risk everything on one throw of the dice, and also God's with me, so that's brilliant too." Well I think it's both.
It is excruciatingly dangerous.
But he has no choice I think.
He knows how formidable the resources that England commands are, and he I think doesn't trust his capabilities to defeat them with Winter closing in.
So therefore he has to have the battle.
Yeah. I was wondering about that.
Cause the Harry -ing and stuff, you can do that if you've got a base to go back to, but if he doesn't really have a base, he doesn't have a heartland there, you know, that's a kind of weird strategy to just be rampaging randomly around the country with nowhere to, to hole up in, I guess.
Right. He needs to bring the English to submit before Winter kicks in.
And there's a further dimension to this which is that there's a kind of game of bluff and double bluff being played between William and Harold because of course Harold has been on a spying mission to Normandy so he has seen the Norman way of war.
He is going to act on his expectations as to what the Normans will do and what Harold thinks the Normans will do is to send their horsemen fanning out across the heartlands of Wessex, plundering granaries, seizing the harvest, torching villages and rough and ready castles being built along the kind of the trace lines of all this devastation.
That is Harold's nightmare, and when the news is brought to him in York, that must be what he immediately thinks is going to happen.
And so he thinks, you know, he's got to spare his folk and falden, his people and his native land from such a fate.
And I think it's possible to imagine that William is kind of outsmarting him and thinking, yeah, that is what Harold will think.
That is what will draw himself.
That is what will lure him into staking all on a pitched battle that actually Harold otherwise probably would not have risked.
Liam Connell Right.
So, because it does seem weird that Harold, when he's got his men are exhausted, the whole of the country is with him that he doesn't just wait.
And I suppose he's thinking, I just can't afford to have him rampaging around the countryside.
And there's also this issue of the harvest right?
They haven't brought in the harvest, that everything is delayed, if people start to starve then that will undermine the legitimacy of his regime, all of that kind of thing, so that must be playing on his mind as well.
All the sources agree that Harold returns from York at a pretty furious pace and when he reaches London he does not wait for troops that he has summoned, he's not prepared to sit it out, and both his mother and his brother Gereth urge him to delay his advance but he won't.
I think the reason for that is that he wants to keep William bottled up and the reason that William is staying where he is, is because William is thinking that this is what Harold is going to be doing.
So I think William is outsmarting Harold.
And so Harold, he has his brother Gereth with him, he has his brother Leofwein with him.
I don't think has Edwin andata with him maybe he does it's not clear their presence isn't mentioned makes sense to leave them in the north i mean the north's only just been recaptured yeah i think so anyway he decides that he's going to accept the bait he's going to go and confront william and so it is on the evening of the 13th of october that scouts come galloping into the norman camp reporting that white dust has been seen in the distance and the usurper is closing in crikey it's exciting and The interesting thing here is that you say William has outsmarted Harold, but Harold has stolen a march on William.
He's arrived far, far more quickly than William expected.
I mean, in the last episode, we poured a little bit of sceptic not scorn, but we were a tiny bit sceptical about some of the stories about Harold's speed going up to Stamford Bridge, but coming back down, he really has kind of beaten all land speed records.
The sources we have suggest that William is genuinely discomforted by this.
There's a lot of confusion in the Norman camp.
they didn't expect the Saxons to arrive so quickly.
Yeah, so he has to call back all the people who are out foraging.
He gives his men a kind of hurried command to prepare for battle that evening.
And so as Thusk settles over the Norman camp, it's swept by clamour and confusion.
And William, it is said, puts his mail shirt on the wrong way.
And again, this is seen as a potentially a bad omen.
But the sense in which William and Harold are playing chess with each other continues, interviews, because William, rather than staying in Hastings, he has now resolved to try and take Harold by surprise.
So, what he says to his men is to take the road from Hastings, even though it is now getting dark, to advance along this road, you know, with the marshes on either side, and to go out from Hastings with its castle, with its ships, with its opportunities, for you know, escaping back across the channel, to go inland and to try and meet the English before the English are ready for battle.
So they marched through the night, three, four, five miles and steadily to their right, beyond the dense woods on their flank, the sky is lightning, dawn breaks, still no sign of the enemy.
And then at around eight o 'clock, this incredible scene that you read from the the sight of the English emerging from a wood onto a hill, their spears glittering and I think it's hard not to imagine that William at that moment as you might have said if you've done this in Aventus in Time permitted himself perhaps a thin wolfish smile.
Yeah his cold eyes glittered with greed.
Because what he is seeing is that Harold's men are still assembling, they haven't drawn up their battle line.
And clearly they are assuming that they're gonna have time to advance on Hastings and take the Normans by surprise, but instead it's the Normans who have taken the English by surprise.
And William doesn't hesitate.
He sends his archers, he sends his horsemen towards the hill on which the English are massing and they haven't yet kind of formed their shield wall.
So they are very vulnerable to arrows to see what can be inflicted on them before the shield wall is fully formed.
It is shortly after 8am on the 14th of October 1066 and the Battle of Hastings has begun.
Crikey! We've had a lot of cliffhangers on The Rest is History in the last 750 episodes but surely this is the greatest cliffhanger in all English history.
Return after the break to discover what happens at the Battle of Hastings.
Hello, it's Steph McGovern and Robert Peston from The Rest is Money here.
Now it's absolute carnage at the minute on the stock market across the world, all thanks to Donald Trump and his tariffs So this week we've gone daily.
We're gonna bring you shorter episodes every lunchtime Just trying to make sense of it all because Robert, I mean we've been in crises before, haven't we?
Yeah, I mean I've been at the front line of reporting financial crises for decades from Black Monday in 1987 through the global financial crisis through to the COVID crisis I mean, you know, the list goes on.
This is a unique crisis because it is driven by one man, Donald Trump, but it does share lots in common with those sagas we have lived through before.
And as we know, although what people see as falling share prices, it is to an extent, what goes on in debt markets, financial markets, which is more important to our prosperity.
And we are seeing absolute turmoil in bond markets, for example.
So this is gonna affect every part of our lives.
Yes and so we'll be looking at things like what do we think is going to happen next?
How much pain is Trump willing to take and what similarities are there with things like the credit crunch that you and I covered together?
So to try and make sense of all the rest join us on the Rest is Money, wherever you get your podcasts.
With everything hanging in ominous suspense, and the dread scourge of death still waiting to start its reaping of the battlefield, a Norman knight, great -souled and valiant in the extreme, rode out before the countless army of the Duke.
He cried out words of encouragement to the men of France, and dampened the spirits of the English.
Then, tossing his sword up high into the air, he juggled with it.
A certain Englishman witnessing the solitary figure emerge from the serred ranks of the Normans, and make sport with his sword, was fired with the ardour proper to a soldier.
Scawning his own life, he sprang forward to meet his death.
The juggler, who went by the name of Clayfair, spurred his horse forward as the Englishman came within range.
He ran the Englishman's shield through with his sharp -headed lance and hacked off the head from the fallen body with his sword. Then, turning towards his fellow warriors, he lifted up his trophy and demonstrated to them that they had had the best of the opening of the battle.
All rejoiced and at the same time called upon the Lord. So that, according to the author of the song of the battle of Hastings, the Carmen, was how the battle of Hastings began.
And again, Tom, it does have to me the quality of a story that I think I've heard many times before in battles stretching back thousands of years.
But you are for once, very unusual in your own episodes, you are less skeptical.
Well, clearly there are problems with it because we do know that the battle actually begins with William's archers, raining arrows on the unformed shield wall of the English.
And as you say, Tiafert's juggling sounds like something that you get from a chivalric romance.
And in fact, later accounts of it make it explicit.
So one of them says that Tiafert sang before the Duke of Charlemagne and Rolont, this great epic of chivalry and knighthood that were so popular in France that he's consciously modeling himself on that.
This OCO's a trend that you definitely see in William of Poitiers, who is always comparing William, not so much to figures from chivalric romance, but to figures from antiquity, and later historians do that too.
William of Malmesbury.
There's an absolutely classic example.
He describes how William steps out from his ship, wades through the English waters onto the beach at Pevancy, and that as he lands, he stumbles, and a knight watching him says, it's all right, look he is holding up sand in his hands, he has England in his grasp.
And this echoes a scene from Suetonius' Life of Julius Caesar, where Julius Caesar does exactly the same, and it may well influence a similar story in Snorri's account of Harold Hardrada.
So there's a sense of, you know, these kind of episodes being recycled and recycled.
The sagas are a little bit like Bond films. And there's a slight element of this here, isn't there?
possibly, but there is an alternative explanation.
Which is maybe the Normans are actually knowingly influenced by say, chivalric romance or the lives of Julius Caesar or whatever and that it's impacting their behavior.
You might say that the pitch battle precisely because it is so rare is the perfect opportunity to make a name for yourself.
Again, just to reiterate, The comment is written probably only a few months after the battle of Hastings.
Is it likely he'd have made it up completely?
I don't know. I am less skeptical about this than I might normally be.
I like the idea that knights and maybe even William himself are consciously modeling themselves on figures from the past. It is interesting that again and again, William is being compared to Julius Caesar because of course, Julius Caesar had led a successful invasion of Britain.
I don't know. Well, people always have models to the back of their minds, don't they, that they try to live up to.
And as you point out in your notes, everybody who goes into this battle, they'd fought in battles before, but they also have an image in their minds of how they think people ought to behave in battles, and they're conscious of themselves, they're conscious that behind them are centuries of tradition and history and heroism and whatnot.
So we talked about how Harold Hardrada had his great banner the land -waster.
I mean Harold Godwinson has his banner, and that in itself is a kind of, I don't want to say a kind of cosplay, but you know you have a brilliant banner because that's what you think people do, and he's got his fighting man hasn't he?
And also the Wyvern.
Yes so the Wyvern is a two -legged dragon and again this is a banner that reaches back centuries.
So just as the Normans may well be modeling themselves on figures from ancient Rome, Harold is drawing on traditions that derive from his Danish side, so his mother is Danish, the fighting man, the banners, all this kind of stuff, but also these are traditions that reach back centuries and centuries in Wessex. And on both sides, the combatants are aware of themselves as protagonists in very, very ancient traditions.
That is why it is hard, I think, to distinguish the element of kind of overt melodrama from the narratives because I think that many of the fighters are themselves that kind of consciously playing with that.
Right. Yeah. The other thing about Harold's banners, we know that they are definitely there because they are described as being planted on the highest point of the hill below which the Norman army is gathered and in due course Harold will die there and William will build a great Abbey and the altar of this Abbey will be planted on the site where Harold died.
That is the one kind of aspect of the English dispositions that we can be relatively confident in.
But what about the rest of the Ignis army, how are they kind of drawn up and this is very contested.
It's a topic that's been kind of a live one for well over a century.
So Freeman, the Regis Professor of History at Oxford, who we opened this whole series with, he thought that the English battle line stretched from the summit of the hill all the way down the slope to a valley at the foot of the hill where there was very boggy terrain.
And that's one theory.
The other theory, which became much more popular in the twentieth century is that the English were bunched on the crest of the hill and that their flanks were kind of protected by the rough vegetation that the author of the Carmen mentioned specifically.
And opinion on this is kind of swung this way in that and I would say probably the consensus is shifting back to the idea that the English battle line wasn't just on the hill, but went right the way down to this kind of slightly boggy valley, and that is under the influence of Michael Lawson's definitive book on the battle came out in 2002.
I mentioned it several times.
And he points out that Carmen explicitly states that the English occupied the valley as well as the hill.
I've mentioned that the hill is called Senlac.
There are historians who say, well this is a totally made up name, it's very late, improbable that this was the name by which it was known.
And they point out that Senlac, I mean it could be a lake of blood, so it could be a name that is applied to it after the battle.
But Lawson suggests that in Old English it would mean Sandy Brook and that perhaps this is what the English were defending at the foot of the hill.
Because right to this day, if you go to the battlefield, you'll find that the foot of the hill is kind of very boggy.
And he points out as well that there's evidence in the Bayeux Tapestry which has a scene in which French cavalry are being brought down by what look like stakes in a body of water.
So the implication of that, if Lawson is right, is that Harold's army must have been pretty large.
I mean, you know, numbering in the tens of thousands.
It is true that the English sources that are written in the early 12th century, so William of Malmsbury, Henry of Huntington, all these people we've had cause to mention, they say that Harold's army is small, that it's small relative to the Normans, but I think you'd have to say they would say that because they don't want to admit that a large English army has been wiped out.
And it is certainly the case, as we've talked about before, that it is well within the capabilities of the English state to summon an army in tens of thousands.
And even though we're told that Harold he didn't wait for all the men that could have come, even so I think there's no reason to doubt that he could have been in command of a really sizable army.
But the honest truth is, is that certainty on this is impossible.
We just don't know.
Do you know what baffles me about historians of battles?
It's always baffled me.
They hate saying, we don't know they'll spend decades fussing about, like where they're standing.
This side of the field or that side of the field.
I mean, come on, who cares?
We know how the battle ended and that's what matters.
I don't know what weird thing to say about other historians, but this sort of battle this mad battle pedantry when you cannot possibly know just fills me with total bewilderment well but I think also with Hastings there is one thing that we could definitely know which is that the English have occupied a position which William and his forces find impossible to outflank so I think that's kind of the debate you have to explain how and why that is the case right because clearly that is the key to the whole course of the battle.
The English are on this hill, right?
And dislodging them is going to be a hell of a job.
Plus, so if they fight and it's inconclusive, which a lot of battles can be quite inconclusive, can't they?
That's a bad blow for William because he really only has one go at this?
Effectively Harold was then one, I think.
Okay. Yeah. Oh, this is such a tragic story.
This is. So the job of the English is to hold the hill.
Yeah. And by holding the hill, you're blocking the advance along on the road to London.
Yeah. You're buckling the Normans up.
And if you hold the hill then you can wait for reinforcements, and you can wait for that fleet that is sailing towards Hastings.
There must be a part of you, Tom, that's tempted to change the end of this story.
It makes it a better episode.
Well, we'll see. There are twists still to come, but clearly the Normans know this and they know that their job is not just to clear the English out of the way, But I think specifically to kill Harold, because Harold is the key, eliminate him.
And then the way to the English throne is open for William and everything that happens on the 14th of October, 1066, this terrible blood -soaked day, I think is determined by those two mutually opposed objectives.
And the key to the English defense is something we've already mentioned.
And it's this shield war, trained infantry, probably several, maybe many ranks deep.
And certainly in the front line of the shield war, the English infantry are at least as well armed and armoured as the Normans.
So they've got spears, they've got swords, they've got their famous axes.
They're wearing chainmail, helmets, shields, and even though many undoubtedly do fall to the Norman archers as they're struggling to form their shield wall, once they have taken up position, once those shields have been locked, then their position is pretty formidable.
Kudos to the Normans because they're at the foot of the hill.
They've got to go up this very rough terrain.
There's this shield wall.
They know how formidable English infantry is.
blaring of trumpets, the English are beating their weapons on the shields they've got their brilliant war cry of oot oot oot I mean terrifying.
Like a Canadian talking twain she said the word out.
Yes, ice hockey team.
So what are the Norman tactics faced with this?
They obviously have their war trumpets too, they have their battle cry, Deus Ei, which is kind of basically gods on our side I think is less intimidating than oot myself and also William has two particular divisions to particular types of men that Harold doesn't.
These are archers including crossbowmen.
The English don't have crossbowmen.
They didn't seem to have had many archers.
Certainly on the Bayeux Tapestry, there's only one English archer.
Of course, the Normans have cavalry, and as the author of the Carmen said in that opening passage, they have left their horses at the rear.
They have horses for riding to battle, but they don't use them actually in battle.
The traditional understanding of how Hastings plays out is that the archers fire volleys at the English lines, presumably people fall, and the cavalry then charge up the hill to try and inflict damage on the resulting gaps in the shield wall.
This is what is shown on the Bay of Tapestry.
It's what's shown in the Lady Bird book, which was my introduction to this.
It's pretty much taken for granted that this is the rhythm of the day.
But, again, to quote Michael Lawson, who's being cheerily revisionist about this, he writes, as far as cavalry goes, one can acknowledge that possession of it gave William tactical options not available to Harold.
And that at points in the battle it may have been of great importance without concluding that it was inevitable that its actions would prove decisive.
So what's he mean by that?
What's he basically saying?
So essentially what he's saying is that cavalry may well not have played the key role in the battle that traditionally people have thought, and he gives various reasons for thinking this.
So the hill is pretty steep.
The terrain is rough.
This is always being highlighted.
And I think that the combination of those circumstances would have made it difficult for cavalry to make the kind of charge that you see illustrated on the Bea tapestry.
Also the fact, the battle lasts as long as it does, because spoiler, it basically, it goes on all day from early morning to sunset.
It suggests that if the Norman cavalry are galloping up the hill and attacking the English army they're not being very effective.
They are probably not doing mass charges with their lances couched beneath their arms in the manner of King Arthur's knights.
That's a style of fighting that hasn't yet been perfected.
And also bear in mind the horses are not wearing armor.
So they are very, very vulnerable to, If they're going up into close quarters, you've got all these kind of terrifying people with their moustaches and their axes.
Yes, it's the same sometimes you can coax a horse up a hill to charge the shield wall.
I mean, I would guess the number of times is probably one.
And so the implication of that is that actually Hastings may have been much more of a clash of infantry against infantry than has traditionally been assumed.
So again, to quote Lawson, could it be despite the prominence given by the Bay of Tapestry to the French cavalry that Hastings was so long and hard fought because much of the day was taken up by struggles between dense bodies of infantry on both sides, of a type with which the Anglo -Saxons had long been familiar, and because the Normans had retained their Scandinavian ancestors' practice of deploying their foot -soldiers in this fashion too.
Again, we can't know for sure but I think, I mean when you read it you think yes actually that does instinctively make sense, simply because the battle goes on so long.
Yeah that does make sense and so So what we can say plausibly about the battle is that for hours and hours, it's like a sort of crossing a bat on a rugby match or sort of old -fashioned that kind of football that people play in Derbyshire villages where everybody dies, where for hours and hours the Normans throwing themselves against this shield wall.
And the English shield wall is basically holding firm and it's just a gruelling battle of kind of, it's World War I, but fought out in the 11th century.
kind of a grueling battle of attrition.
And plausibly it could have ended in a stalemate, but it doesn't.
And part of this is because, well there's this very famous scene.
So tell us about this very famous scene which involves a lot of helmet removal.
Right, so the basic rhythm of the day as you said is not in dispute.
Willem of Poitiers sums it up that it was an unheard of kind of combat with one side launching ceaseless attacks and manoeuvres the other standing firmly is so rooted to the ground and I think the sporting metaphor is very good.
It's a football team, you know, solid wall of defence, trying to carry out strikers, it's you know, all of that.
But as you say, there are then two dramatic developments.
And the first of these.
We don't know exactly when it occurs, but presumably after a good deal of fighting, William's left wing is in trouble.
It's flagging against English battle line, and it starts to break and run down the hill.
And at the same time, a rumor sweeps the Norman lines that William himself is dead and William rides up to where his men are running in route down the hill and he supposedly takes off his helmet, he cries out that he is alive and he manages to halt the route.
And William of Poitiers, writing about his hero, says that he strengthens his men in resolve and they then return to the attack with renewed vigor.
So that seems to have been a genuine route But then following that the French lines, the Norman lines, they seem to break again.
And this happens twice.
And these two breaks we are told, are feigned.
They are designed to lure the English out of position, so that the shield wall is broken.
And sure enough, the English rather than holding to their defensive positions, think that there is a chance to finish the battle off once and for all.
And they follow the retreating enemy down the side of the hill.
but it's a trap. Their ranks are broken, and they are now easy prey for the Normans on their horses.
And this is where cavalry really comes into its own.
And perhaps thousands are killed.
I mean we don't know, but certainly the slaughter is very great.
And this is the great error the English make.
And it's an error that… People may remember we did an episode on the Battle of Tor where Charles Martel and the Franks are praised for not breaking their line even though they know they've won and likewise at Agincourt, Henry V does not let his line break.
He keeps his men to their positions.
When you're holding a defensive position, breaking that defensive position is to give the enemy the chance of victory and that is essentially what seems to have happened and presumably this is happening in the late afternoon because we know that as the shadows lengthen as the sun starts the set, the fighting becomes more and more intense.
William, we're told, has three horses killed unto him.
The fourth horse that he's given is presented to him by Eustace of Boulogne, who people may remember a few shows back which precipitated the exile of the Godwins.
He's a guy who has form with the Godwins and the Godwinsons.
He gives William his fourth horse.
It's now, perhaps, that Harold's two brothers, Laethwain and Girth are both slain.
And according to the carmen, Gereth is killed by William himself.
So William's feats of arms we will be looking at them.
So Gereth and Learfeyn are both dead, but even with them cut down, it still seems that the English line is holding.
And we have to presume that Harold at this point is still alive.
Because it seems that as long as he is there, the English have hope.
By this point, it's clear the English are not going to win.
But as we said if they can just hold their position win through to the night force a draw That effectively would be as good as a victory right and William would then you know He'd be isolated lots of his men would be wounded.
He'd have to see at his back he'd have a fleet coming towards him, you know, he can't afford this stalemate and So it is crucial for him and for the Normans to finish off Harold Absolutely essential and this is why I think the death of harold has this kind of iconic almost legendary quality to it.
Homeric quality to it.
Homeric quality to it because it really is the key moment in the battle and therefore in the whole process of the conquest. And of course the story of how he dies is one of the most famous in all of English history.
That an arrow hits him in the eye.
And where does this story come from?
So famously it is supposedly shown on the Bayeux Tapestry.
You have two figures, one seemingly with an arrow in his eye, he's got his hand to the shaft of the arrow, it looks like, trying to pull it out.
And then there's another, it's being struck down by a Norman horseman, and above these two figures you have the Latin text, Hic Harold Rex Interfectus S, here King Harold is killed.
Is this evidence for the fact that Harold was killed by an arrow in his eye?
You might think so when I tell you that around 1080, just over a decade after the Battle of Hastings.
Amartas of Monte Cassino, the guy who wrote about how brilliant the normans were, the monk of Monte Cassino, he reports that Harold had died after being hit in the eye, and William of Malmsbury in the following century – the English writer – he reports that the arrow point had gone straight through his eye socket and deep into his brains and that this had finished him.
So listeners might think, well, this seems to be an open and shut case but this is medieval history obviously obviously it's not that would be far too easy.
So the Beyotapistry there are problems with it so first of all which of the two figures is King Harold is it the one with the arrow in his eye or is it the one who's been cut down?
But people often say these are two scenes involving the same person so like a strip cartoon like a strip cartoon but they're not because they look different is that right?
They've got different kit they're clearly not the same person I mean unless Harold's put down one weapon and picked up another after being hit by the arrow, I don't think so.
There's an even more damaging detail, which is that we know the tapestry was very heavily re -stitched in the 19th century.
We have an illustration, a copy of it that was made in 1730.
This shows the warrior who seemingly has the arrow in his eye, seems actually to be holding a spear.
Obviously, that is kind of a problem if you're reducing it as evidence that Harold was hit in the eye.
Amartas, I mean, he's writing in 1080.
So is that evidence?
Again, a problem that we don't have the original Latin text.
We only have a much later French translation.
So again, that may be untrustworthy.
And the intriguing thing is that the very earliest sources, so that's the Carmen and William of Poitiers, They do not make any mention at all of the arrow in Harold's eye.
Although William of Malmsby does Explicitly mention it though.
He does it's not like we can say well it didn't happen There are sources that hint that it does so but William of Malmsby is writing much, you know I mean two generations later.
Yeah, but he must have got it from somewhere He's not gonna make it up is he clearly there are traditions I think floating around.
So what about the other traditions?
So William of Pratier who's writing is a very early source He says nothing at all about the means and method of Harold's death does he know he doesn't but Yeah, so let's forget him Well, no, let's not forget him because I think okay, you know the dog that doesn't bark in the night is a clue Well, here's the dog that does Park.
This is your Carmen.
Your son of the Battle of Hastings.
So you said written what?
Easter 1067 probably so quite early.
Yeah, and And this story is very different.
So tell us this story.
Yes, so this is so interesting.
So it is very, very different to the traditional arrow in the eye story.
So what the carmen says is that William and Eustace of Boulogne, so those two again.
The Normans and their French allies are pressing for victory and William and Eustace see Harold standing undaunted and to quote the carmen, fiercely hacking to pieces those Normans who were besetting him.
and William and Eustace are joined by two other men, both of whom are named, two other warriors, and the four men, so led by William, then attack Harold en masse, and to quote the Carmen, the first, that'll be William, cleaving his breast through the shield with his point, drenched the earth with a gushing torrent of blood.
The second smote off his head below the protection of the helmet, and the third pierced the innards of his belly with his lance.
the fourth hewed off his thigh and bore away the severed limb and Adding to the general quality of the violence of the scene is a strong likelihood that thigh is a euphemism for genitals in that account So the severed limb is they basically castrated him, correct?
Yeah cracking I hope that version is not true because I like king Harold I mean, what are we to make of this?
It has to be said that this account has been widely discounted on on the basis that if William really had taken part in this attack on Harold and felt him, this would be a feet of arms to be brooded across, not just Normandy but the whole of Christendom.
But there is a slight issue because actually, is it the feet of arms that William would want to be promoted and sung about?
One historian who did trust the story in that comment, who did believe it and was utterly disgusted by it like you Dominic was our old friend EA Freeman, the Regis Professor of History at Oxford in the late 19th century.
You know he wrote this great six volume History of the Norman Conquest and in his third volume which recounts the Battle of Hastings, he observes that William himself seems to have been ashamed of what had happened and citing William of Malmsbury, Freeman writes about the mutilations inflicted on Harold.
He writes, such was the measure which the boasted chivalry of Normandy meted out to a prince who had never dealt harshly or cruelly by either a domestic or a foreign foe." I mean the Welsh might disagree with that but whatever.
But we must add injustice to the Conqueror that he pronounced the last and most brutal insult to be a base and cowardly act and he expelled the perpetrator from his army." So that would be the guy who supposedly carrying off maybe the genitals we don't know.
And there is a more recent historian Mark Morris in his book on the Norman Conquest who likewise believes the story and points out further reasons for doubting that William, if he really had taken part in the butchery of his great rival for the throne, why he would not have wanted it proclaimed abroad.
William is fighting beneath a banner that has been given him by the Pope himself.
And we've talked about how this is a very controversial, the papal backing for the invasion of a Christian country.
And for William to cut down and butcher an anointed king would only have enhanced the criticisms. Dominic, you described the death of Saint Olaf, the martyrdom at Sticklestad and actually the description of the death of Olaf at that is very similar.
Surrounded by his enemies Calvarnassen, Thori the Hound with his magic cloak, they stab him, and the bloke plunges a spear into his leg and then his shoulder and all this.
That would be an interesting claim.
Do you think that the death of Saint Olaf is modelled on the real life death of Harald?
I think that it's reminiscent of a kind of brutality, a style of fighting that was celebrated by the Vikings and is still being celebrated in the sagas in the 12th and 13th centuries, but is no longer celebrated in a Latin Europe that has become increasingly chivalric.
William is behaving like a hero from a Norse epic in the Kármán.
He's not behaving like a chavalier.
I think that you could see therefore that there might be reasons why, in the wake of Hastings, he might have wanted to cover it up.
This may even be a reason why the Kármán ends up buried for as long as it does.
It's a bit of an embarrassment.
the author hasn't got the memo.
Personally, I think the Carmens account, again, it's the earliest, is likelier than the fact that Harold died with a an arrow in his eye.
Sounds really not as good though.
But, we love the arrow!
I suppose. But the quality of brutality, I mean, is very, very true to the brutality and horror that is the fate of the English in the battle because with Harold dead the English are clearly defeated.
And the strong probability is that it's going to be difficult for the English to carry on the fight now against the victorious Normans.
You'll note that I heroically resisted the temptation to open this episode with a reading from Millennium.
But I can't resist the temptation to finish it.
So, we don't know how Harold died exactly, but one thing it is certain, that Norman Horseman, trampling Harold down, left him as just one among a of corpses piled around the toppled royal banner, just one among the fallen on a day of slaughter, fit to put even Stamford Bridge into the shade.
As darkness fell, and what was left of the English turned at last and fled into the gathering darkness to be hunted throughout the night by William's exultant cavalry, it was the reeking of blood and emptied bowels together with the moans and sobs of the wounded that bore prime witness to the William had gambled and he had won.
Terrible scenes there at the Battle of Hastings.
So we will be back for the final episode in this mighty series.
The conclusion of the darkest moment in human history.
The Norman Conquest of England.
And of course if you want to hear that episode right now, and you're not a member of the Restis History Club, you know what to do.
You sign up at therestishistory .com.
Goodbye. Goodbye.
