The Battle of Hastings: Sources and Interpretations

Warfare in History #1

by Stephen Morillo, Bernard S. Bachrach (Contributor), Carroll Gillmor (Contributor)

A unique collection of materials focused on one of the most significant battles in European history.

The Battle of Hastings is a unique collection of materials focused on one of the most significant battles in European history. It includes all the primary sources for the battle, including pictorial, and seminal accounts ofthe battle by the major historians of the last two centuries. Stephen Morillo, in his own important piece, first sets the scene, describing the political situation in western Europe in the mid-eleventh century, and the events of1066. He then introduces the sources, reviewing the perspective of their medieval authors, and traces the history of writing about the battle. An important companion to the sources and interpretations is the set of original maps of the major stages of the battle, from first contact in the early morning of 14 October 1066 to final pursuit in the late evening darkness.

WILLIAM OF POITIERS, WILLIAM OF JUMIEGES, ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, FLORENCE OF WORCESTER, BAYEUX TAPESTRY, CARMEN DE HASTINGAE PROELIO
RICHARD ABELS, BERNARD BACHRACH, R. ALLEN BROWN, MARJORIE CHIBNALL, E.A. FREEMAN, J.F.C. FULLER, JOHN GILLINGHAM, CAROL GILLMOR, RICHARD GLOVER, CHRISTINE and GERALD GRAINGE, DAVID HUME, STEPHEN MORILLO.

STEPHEN MORILLO teaches history at Wabash College, Indiana; he is the author of Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings and a number of other studies ofAnglo-Norman warfare.

Genres: History, Medieval History

262 pages, Paperback

First published March 7, 1996

About the author

Stephen R. Morrillo is Eugene N. and Marian C. Beesley Chair and professor of history at Wabash College.

Reviews

[Peter Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Battle of Hastings Stephen Morillo, 1999, 227 pages

This is a book of essays and frankly I found it less than ideal personally. Some of the essays are very old and scholarship has moved on since they were written. The rest were a mixed bag, but mostly interesting. Abels' essay was easily the standout, although Bachrach dealt with a niche issue well. This is probably a book to pick up cheap if you can, but not to spend real money on.

This book comes in two parts: Translations of the original sources (nice to see them included) and then a series of essays (of varying ages) under the heading: Interpretations, which is subdivided into:

Anglo-Saxons and Normans

Bookland and Fyrd Service in Late Saxon England (Abels) 1984
This is a short version of Abels' later book Lordship and Military Obligations and it's a dynamite essay. If you can't find the full book for a reasonable price and can find a cheap copy of this collection, then it's probably worth buying just for this. Abels goes into the very nature of who owed military service and why. His book is the definitive account of this topic.

Military Service in Normandy before 1066 (Chibnall) 1982

I didn't fancy this. I'm into Anglo-Saxon England and whilst I know I would benefit from understanding the Norman side of affairs, frankly, I struggle to motivate myself to read about them. It's like being given a book at Christmas about why a politician you dislike was in the right.

The Campaign

William the Bastard at war (Gillingham) 1989

This was interesting. Gillingham brings out the risks/rewards of battles and this explains why pitched battles were so rare. They weren't often decisive and a single moment of panic could undo years of work. In addition to that, one way to achieve a decisive victory was to kill the opposing leader (as seen at Hastings). He demonstrates that William's usual technique was attritional, which wasn't practicable in the Hastings campaign and so a full battle may have been anticipated from the very beginning.

Naval logistics of the cross channel operation (Gillmor) 1984

This essay attempts to assess the number of ships and their carrying capacity with reference to the likely number of troops (particularly those horsey types) transportable. Gillmor identifies that the fleet wasn't built to a set type and was probably a mixture of anything that could float. He then goes into the idea that William built a fleet himself, taking into account the design of existing ships, the amount of timber required, the man hours involved, the wood coverage of Normandy, transporting said wood, feeding the workers, feeding the farmers growing the food.... exhaustive or just exhausting, I'm still not sure. Long story short, he probably brought in ships, constructed a few, impressed others and it's not really more than a rough guide to the size of his army.

The Pevensey Expedition: brilliantly executed plan or near disaster? (C and G Grainge) 1993

This discusses lee shores, tides and winds, demonstrating that William's fleet moving from Dives to St Valery wasn't strategic, but probably dictated by the weather turning. The Grainge's also show that Harold basing his fleet on the Isle of Wight made no sense if he wished to intercept the Normans, as they would be over the horizon. Also William didn't delay until Harold's fleet had dispersed, because they wouldn't have been able to intercept and instead it was the weather that dictated his D-Day.

The Battle
The history of England (Hume) 1688
The Norman Conquest (Freeman) 1873
The Battle of Hastings (Fuller) 1954
English Warfare in 1066 (Glover) 1952

All of these are too old to be of any interest to me apart from for historiographical purposes.

The feigned retreat (Bachrach) 1971

A good, short article that destroys the argument that the feigned retreats were impossible to organise. They have a long pedigree, with Huns, Alans, Visigoths, Magyars, Byzantines (Narses using one to defeat a Frankish army in much the same situation as the English at Hastings) and the Normans using them in 1053 at Arques, 1060 at Messina and the Flemish in 1071 at Cassel.

The Battle of Hastings (Brown) 1980

This essay was written by a historian happy to credit the Normans with some positives and it's nice to see balance. Brown suggests that William's ravaging brought Harold rushing south to give him the battle that he needed and through better reconnaissance was able to surprise him when he came close. He then discusses how even the fighting was, with Europe's best cavalry pitted against the best infantry and how William needed a win, whereas a draw or even a slight defeat wouldn't have been the end for Harold. After this the Malfosse incident is examined and I was surprised to see that it isn't that well attested in the early sources.

Hastings: an unusual battle (Morillo) 1994

This short work talks about how the battle represented the strengths of both societies and comments on the unusual length and decisiveness of it. Morillo points out that William did well to hold his army together when he was unhorsed and that as long as Harold stood, his army stood with him.

[Michael Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have a longstanding interest in early medieval Europe and the Norman conquest of England (it wasn’t a cultural invasion at the beginning, simply a military campaign) comes right at the end of that period, just before the introduction of feudalism and chivalry and all that. I also have a strong background in military history, so I’ve naturally read a good deal about the Battle of Hastings over the years. October 14, 1066, was a key day in the history of Western Europe, . . . although the issue of “key battles” in historical method and interpretation gets kind of a working-over here. The thing is, from the title, I rather expected this to be a collection of essays in reconsideration of the political lead-up, tactical details, and outcome of the battle -- something similar to the annual “Battle Conference” proceedings, most of which I’ve read -- but it’s not that at all. Instead, it’s a collection of readings from the past, the sort of volume produced solely for the use of college students who are beginners to the subject, in order to give them a running start on the major issues, the original sources on which they are based, and their interpretation by past experts. So we have here a series of excerpts from William of Poitiers, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and so on, followed by a dozen essays or book-chapters going as far back as Edward Freeman and including offerings from Chibnall, Hume, and other well-known scholars (and including Morillo himself -- one of the privileges of being the editor of a product like this). All this may be of interest to the grad student just entering the field of Anglo-Norman studies, but it unfortunately has little to offer anyone who has been reading in the subject for very many years.

[R. G. Nairam]

partial read for honor's independent study/capstone preparation. I'd be interested in reading more of the articles.