What do you think?
Rate this book
The Battle of Hastings: The Fall of the Anglo-Saxons and the Rise of the Normans
A rousing historical narrative of the best-known and arguably most significant battle in English history.
The effects of the Battle of Hastings were deeply felt at the time, causing a lasting shift in British cultural identity and national pride. Jim Bradbury explores the full military background of the battle and investigates both what actually happened on that fateful day in 1066 and the role that the battle plays in the British national myth.
The Battle of Hastings starts by looking at the Normans—who they were, where they came from—and the career of William the Conqueror before 1066. Next, the narrative turns to the Saxons in England, and to Harold Godwineson, successor to Edward the Confessor, and his attempts to create unity in the divided kingdom. This provides the background to an examination of the military development of the two sides up to 1066, detailing differences in tactics, arms, and armor. The core of the book is a move-by-move reconstruction of the battle itself, including the advance planning, the site, the composition of the two armies, and the use of archers, feigned retreats, and the death of Harold Godwineson.
In looking at the consequences of the battle, Jim Bradbury deals with the conquest of England and the ongoing resistance to the Normans. The effects of the conquest are also seen in the creation of castles and developments in feudalism, and in links with Normandy that revealed themselves particularly in church appointments. This is the first time a military historian has attempted to make accessible to the general reader all that is known about the Battle of Hastings and to present as detailed a reconstruction as is possible.
Furthermore, the author places the battle in the military context of eleventh-century Europe, painting a vivid picture of the combatants themselves—soldiery, cavalry, and their horses—as they struggled for victory. This is a book that any reader interested in England’s history will find indispensable.
The effects of the Battle of Hastings were deeply felt at the time, causing a lasting shift in British cultural identity and national pride. Jim Bradbury explores the full military background of the battle and investigates both what actually happened on that fateful day in 1066 and the role that the battle plays in the British national myth.
The Battle of Hastings starts by looking at the Normans—who they were, where they came from—and the career of William the Conqueror before 1066. Next, the narrative turns to the Saxons in England, and to Harold Godwineson, successor to Edward the Confessor, and his attempts to create unity in the divided kingdom. This provides the background to an examination of the military development of the two sides up to 1066, detailing differences in tactics, arms, and armor. The core of the book is a move-by-move reconstruction of the battle itself, including the advance planning, the site, the composition of the two armies, and the use of archers, feigned retreats, and the death of Harold Godwineson.
In looking at the consequences of the battle, Jim Bradbury deals with the conquest of England and the ongoing resistance to the Normans. The effects of the conquest are also seen in the creation of castles and developments in feudalism, and in links with Normandy that revealed themselves particularly in church appointments. This is the first time a military historian has attempted to make accessible to the general reader all that is known about the Battle of Hastings and to present as detailed a reconstruction as is possible.
Furthermore, the author places the battle in the military context of eleventh-century Europe, painting a vivid picture of the combatants themselves—soldiery, cavalry, and their horses—as they struggled for victory. This is a book that any reader interested in England’s history will find indispensable.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1998
35 people are currently reading
617 people want to read
About the author
Jim Bradbury
19 books9 followersJim Bradbury (born 27 February 1937) is a British historian specialising in the military history of the Middle Ages. Bradbury lectured in history at Brunel University.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bra...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bra...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
March 2, 2019
The Battle of Hasting is more than a book about the battle. It’s a high-level overview of what England and Normandy were like before the war and the consequences of the battle.
To understand the Battle of Hastings, which took place on October 14, 1066, Bradbury takes a closer look at what formed each army: units or divisions, arms, and armor.
I like how the author talks about the different sources used to understand this period of history, what is credible, what is not, and why. The writing is a little dry, but I would recommend this book if you want to learn more about the Battle of Hastings and the period leading up to the war.
To understand the Battle of Hastings, which took place on October 14, 1066, Bradbury takes a closer look at what formed each army: units or divisions, arms, and armor.
I like how the author talks about the different sources used to understand this period of history, what is credible, what is not, and why. The writing is a little dry, but I would recommend this book if you want to learn more about the Battle of Hastings and the period leading up to the war.
April 30, 2021
Summary: A historical account of Anglo-Saxon England, the rise of Normandy and the precipitating events leading up to the Norman invasion and the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and the aftermath.
The year 1066 was a turning point in English history, the transition from Anglo-Saxon to Norman rule. Jim Bradbury helps us understand the Anglo-Saxon dynasty that preceded Hastings, the rise of William the Conqueror in Normandy, and the unfolding of the battle and why William prevailed over Harold Godwinson. Bradbury also explores the aftermath as William continued to extend Norman influence.
The story begins with Alfred the Great who brought together different regions under Anglo-Saxon rule against the periodic threat of Vikings. We see the gradual weakening of his line and their control until at one point their rule is interrupted by Cnut the Dane in 1015. Another descendent of Alfred gains the throne in 1042, Edward the Confessor. He had a long and relatively peaceful reign, keeping the powerful Godwin family, connected by marriage to Cnut, at bay and maintaining good relations with the Normans. But Edward had no children, and was rumored to have not consummated his marriage, leaving a vacuum to be filled in 1066, when he died. The two possible claimants were Harold Godwinson, and William of Normandy, known as the Conqueror. Harold, being in England, gained the crown.
Bradbury also describes the rise of Normandy, in northwest France and the decision of William to contest Harold’s claim. As was the case in reverse nearly 900 years later, a cross-channel invasion was daunting. Would weather conditions permit sailing? Dare they try so late in 1066? And would his force be slain on the beaches? One understands the apprehensions of D-Day.
One break William received was a competing invasion of Hardrada the Dane at York. Harold took a force north and dealt him a decisive defeat only to have to turn around, come south to London and continue on to meet William at Hastings. Another break was the lack of archers and cavalry in Harold’s forces, both present in quantity among William’s forces. Bradbury traces the unfolding of the battle including where exactly it occurred, the succession of actions culminating in the third advance of William where the archers and cavalry played a decisive role, resulting in Harold’s death and the rout of the English.
Bradbury outlines and evaluates the sources we have for the battle from the Bayeux Tapestry to the Domesday Book, which likely wouldn’t have been written otherwise. He also considers the aftermath. William spent the rest of his reign putting down resistance, sometimes quite violently, extending his control over the aristocracy and the church.
This book strikes a great balance, providing far more depth than an encyclopedia article for the battle and its context without the tedious minutiae appreciated only by academic historians and battle aficionados. Bradbury offers a lively, interesting narrative that fixes the main contours of the battle and its context in our minds, unobscured by a blizzard of detail.
The year 1066 was a turning point in English history, the transition from Anglo-Saxon to Norman rule. Jim Bradbury helps us understand the Anglo-Saxon dynasty that preceded Hastings, the rise of William the Conqueror in Normandy, and the unfolding of the battle and why William prevailed over Harold Godwinson. Bradbury also explores the aftermath as William continued to extend Norman influence.
The story begins with Alfred the Great who brought together different regions under Anglo-Saxon rule against the periodic threat of Vikings. We see the gradual weakening of his line and their control until at one point their rule is interrupted by Cnut the Dane in 1015. Another descendent of Alfred gains the throne in 1042, Edward the Confessor. He had a long and relatively peaceful reign, keeping the powerful Godwin family, connected by marriage to Cnut, at bay and maintaining good relations with the Normans. But Edward had no children, and was rumored to have not consummated his marriage, leaving a vacuum to be filled in 1066, when he died. The two possible claimants were Harold Godwinson, and William of Normandy, known as the Conqueror. Harold, being in England, gained the crown.
Bradbury also describes the rise of Normandy, in northwest France and the decision of William to contest Harold’s claim. As was the case in reverse nearly 900 years later, a cross-channel invasion was daunting. Would weather conditions permit sailing? Dare they try so late in 1066? And would his force be slain on the beaches? One understands the apprehensions of D-Day.
One break William received was a competing invasion of Hardrada the Dane at York. Harold took a force north and dealt him a decisive defeat only to have to turn around, come south to London and continue on to meet William at Hastings. Another break was the lack of archers and cavalry in Harold’s forces, both present in quantity among William’s forces. Bradbury traces the unfolding of the battle including where exactly it occurred, the succession of actions culminating in the third advance of William where the archers and cavalry played a decisive role, resulting in Harold’s death and the rout of the English.
Bradbury outlines and evaluates the sources we have for the battle from the Bayeux Tapestry to the Domesday Book, which likely wouldn’t have been written otherwise. He also considers the aftermath. William spent the rest of his reign putting down resistance, sometimes quite violently, extending his control over the aristocracy and the church.
This book strikes a great balance, providing far more depth than an encyclopedia article for the battle and its context without the tedious minutiae appreciated only by academic historians and battle aficionados. Bradbury offers a lively, interesting narrative that fixes the main contours of the battle and its context in our minds, unobscured by a blizzard of detail.
February 17, 2015
I bought this book many years ago and kept it on my shelf until I was ready for it. A whole book on one battle seemed a little intimidating! The time finally came, and I needn't have worried. The author started with Alfred the Great and gave us the whole background leading up to 1066 (and then a little beyond). Although there were some interesting points of view throughout the book—such as an alternative location for the battlefield at Hastings—I only bookmarked one page and that was for a map. So my overall assessment was that I didn't discover anything new and noteworthy. (Let me qualify that by saying I am reading every book about pre-Norman conquest I can get my hands on.)
Still, Bradbury did a nice job enlarging upon everyday things, such as the different kinds of arms, hauberks and shields fighters used, and how they were constructed; we learn about the composition of armies and the difference between Norman and Anglo-Saxon levies; we see the use of cavalry and castles. We get a good overview of events leading up to Hastings. And the battle itself is fully discussed, predominately using the Bayeux Tapestry as a source, with accompanying photos at the bottom of each page.
This is a solidly researched book, though I found the writing a little dry. It is well illustrated and a good overview of the period.
Still, Bradbury did a nice job enlarging upon everyday things, such as the different kinds of arms, hauberks and shields fighters used, and how they were constructed; we learn about the composition of armies and the difference between Norman and Anglo-Saxon levies; we see the use of cavalry and castles. We get a good overview of events leading up to Hastings. And the battle itself is fully discussed, predominately using the Bayeux Tapestry as a source, with accompanying photos at the bottom of each page.
This is a solidly researched book, though I found the writing a little dry. It is well illustrated and a good overview of the period.
December 7, 2022
Excellent, concise introduction to the events leading up to 1066. Includes a history from Alfred the Great to Edward the Confessor, Edward's reign, and chapter on the history of Normandy before the last 4 chapters are a deep dive into the year 1066, plus one chapter describing William's many problems after the Norman conquest.
Bradbury adds to the scholarship in 3 ways:
-the first is (very) minor but his 3 page description of Harald Hardrada was very informative and to the point. It wasn't the mind numbing amount of words found on Wikipedia, but rather tailored to why Hardrada was was involved in the conflict. I found his description short but instructive and I walked away with a better understanding of this person's character, and better able to understand the Wikipedia page.
- Second, the detailed description of the armies; what they wore, how they used their weapons, how they raised their troops [Chapter 4: Arms and Armies] This chapter is necessary if you want to understand the most likely causes behind King Harold losing the battle. Again, concise and informative! I feel this chapter gave me enough information that I probably don't need to read a whole book on this. The lack of archers, and why they were lacking is an excellent point!
- Finally, his detailed description of the battle, including the chapter before about what sources are used and why, is a level of detail I have not found in my other reading. This single chapter, well sourced, answered all my questions (and even lays out a persuasive case that the battle site should we moved)
For the Beginner I think Marc Morris's The Norman Conquest is better at laying out the History of the 2 countries which leads to the conflict, but Bradbury's book is the best I've found for the military buildup and why Harold lost the actual battle.
Source: Hoopla
Bradbury adds to the scholarship in 3 ways:
-the first is (very) minor but his 3 page description of Harald Hardrada was very informative and to the point. It wasn't the mind numbing amount of words found on Wikipedia, but rather tailored to why Hardrada was was involved in the conflict. I found his description short but instructive and I walked away with a better understanding of this person's character, and better able to understand the Wikipedia page.
- Second, the detailed description of the armies; what they wore, how they used their weapons, how they raised their troops [Chapter 4: Arms and Armies] This chapter is necessary if you want to understand the most likely causes behind King Harold losing the battle. Again, concise and informative! I feel this chapter gave me enough information that I probably don't need to read a whole book on this. The lack of archers, and why they were lacking is an excellent point!
- Finally, his detailed description of the battle, including the chapter before about what sources are used and why, is a level of detail I have not found in my other reading. This single chapter, well sourced, answered all my questions (and even lays out a persuasive case that the battle site should we moved)
For the Beginner I think Marc Morris's The Norman Conquest is better at laying out the History of the 2 countries which leads to the conflict, but Bradbury's book is the best I've found for the military buildup and why Harold lost the actual battle.
Source: Hoopla
January 8, 2022
I’ve always admired William’s ferocity. tenacity and ruthlessness. An entertaining account of one of the (possibly , THE) most important battles in English medieval history. 5⭐️
August 26, 2021
It's always nice to go back to my roots as a medievalist. This book is a intriguing deep dive into the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest. The way he tells the story doesn't try to veer into sensational or novelizing territory, it's very academic and grounded in sources - but without getting dry. I do love the nods to how "delicate" history can be and how many different factors had to be in place for the conquest to happen the way it did. Little serendipities that needed to happen to lead history down this path - like weather and accidents and diseases. We look back at something like the Battle of Hastings and feel like it was pre-ordained, it's this fixed point in the past, but looking at it and all the things that had to fit into place for this one battle to change English history going forward is so engaging. Now there are times when Bradbury gets repetitive in try to contextualize his sources which can be distracting, but it does help take the different accounts for what they are.
July 15, 2021
Few years can claim to be as important to English history as 1066. That is when Harold Godwinson fought two fateful battles, one at Stamford bridge against Harald Hardrada, and the other at Hastings against William the Bastard. These battles brought an end to the rather turbulent age of Anglo-Saxon kings, and it is they which Jim Bradbury focuses upon in The Battle of Hastings. His main focus is a play-by-play reconstruction of the events of Hastings, but he also explains the political circumstances building up to it and does a good amount of historiography.
After many short-lived kings, the long reign of Edward the Confessor brought some much needed stability to England. He failed to produce an heir though, and when he died just after New Years 1066, England was thrown into turmoil once more. At various times in his life he had promised the succession to different people, including Edward the Exile – from a branch of the family who had been living in Hungary since the times of Canute – and William the Bastard, the Duke of Normandy, whose great-aunt was Canute’s second wife. Yet after his death, it was Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, who became king. And lurking in the background was Hardrada, king of Norway, who had his own designs on the English throne.
After becoming king Harold Godwinson had to deal with two major invasions, one Norman, the other Norwegian. Harold was a well-regarded man, just, open, cheerful, and intelligent, both a capable ruler and fighter. He had been the earl of Wessex, from a long line of earls who were one of the most powerful families in England. His vast estates made him one of the wealthiest men in England, and he was recognised for his special position and prominence as vice-regal, second only to King Edward.
In Normandy his rival was Duke William. William was an ambitious and prudent man. He became duke as a child and faced many threats to his rule: his legitimacy was challenged (he was a bastard) and he had enemies on all sides. He was also eager to expand out of his ancestral lands in east Normandy and fought a series of military campaigns early in his life to consolidate his position. He established a network of close friends, nobles, bishops, and warriors, men who were loyal to him through their shared experience on the battlefield. Among his foreign allies could he also count lords from Boulogne, Flanders, and Britany – and until 1066, Harold Godwinson.
Their puzzling relationship went back to 1064, when Harold was sent over the Channel on a diplomatic mission. His purpose was not entirely clear, but he went with the grace of Edward the Confessor, and at least one of the known reasons was to negotiate the release of two Godwinson’s that were being held hostage. Both Norman and Anglo-Saxon writers attest to the hostages, but we don’t know how William got ahold of them in the first place. According to William of Poitiers, a Norman priest and historian who was also William’s chaplain, the two hostages were sent to Normandy by Edward the Confessor as an assurance that William would inherit the kingdom of England, as they gave William leverage over Harold. William of Poitiers is an invaluable source, but his writings had multiple purposes - literary, historical, political - and as a patron of William he could not challenge his right to be king of England. In any case, William was under the belief that he was to inherit the throne of England, whether that was assured by Edward or not. Yet as Bradbury points out, something about the situation doesn’t up: why would Harold Godwinson ever agree to let his relatives be taken hostage?
Regardless, Harold never made it to Normandy safely. He shipwrecked at Ponthieu where he was taken prisoner. William demanded his release and brought him to the Norman court, and then he went on to fight in one of Wiliam’s campaigns in Brittany. It’s not entirely clear the extent to which Harold was acting of his own volition here. Bradbury does not think he was a hostage, but neither could he simply do as he pleased. The Bayeux tapestry depicts him in a heroic role in the Breton campaign, riding alongside William, and at one point even saving two soldiers from quicksand. The Norman army captured Dol, Rennes, and finally Dinan, whose garrison handed over the keys to William at lancepoint.
It’s on their return from this campaign that Harold made an oath of some sort. The Bayeux tapestry depicts him being knighted by William, and later Norman sources say he had promised to support William as king of England. In exchange, William released one of his relatives. To Bradbury, the prisoner exchange “reeks of a compromise”. We don’t for sure what the contents of Harold’s oath were. In the Bayeux tapestry, his mission is depicted as a failure when he returns to Edward the Confessor. By extrapolation, Bradbury believes that Harold must have promised what he could to William in order to secure the release of the hostages, but in doing so overpromised, which put Edward the Confessor in an awkward position. Edward had recently been trying to secure the return of Edward the Exile, who had the strongest claim on the throne, but was from a branch of family that had been living abroad since the days of Canute. Edward certainly didn’t want to give the impression that he supported William for king of England. His plan was a failure anyway: Edward died almost as soon as he returned, and his son, Edgar the Aetheling, was only six years old.
On Christmas Eve 1065, Edward suffered a stroke and fell into a coma. He lapsed in and out of consciousness, retelling garbled accounts of his dreams. Bradbury is cynical (though realistic) about these, but I will let their mystery speak for itself:
He told of a dream about two monks he had once known in Normandy, both long dead. They gave him a message from God, criticising the heads oft eh Church in England, and promising that the kingdom within a year would go to the hands of an enemy: ‘devils shall come through all this land with fire and sword and the havoc of war.’ This certainly smacks of a tale told with hindsight. There followed a strange forecast relating to a green tree cut in half. This was probably no more intelligible to his hearers than it is to us. (90)
Just before he died, Edward entrusted the realm to Harold. Despite his almost non-existent claim to the throne (he married Edward’s sister), there must have been a general acceptance of Harold’s rule among the English lords, who rued the prospect of being ruled by a foreigner again – they had just shaken off the yoke of a line of Danish kings (including Canute). Edgar the Aetheling was a more legitimate candidate, but far too young to secure his reign. Harold Godwinson must have seemed like the best option: a capable ruler and fighter, well-known and well-established, and importantly, an Anglo-Saxon.
In April, Halley’s comet appeared in the sky, an omen of the coming war. Everyone expected William to press his claims and launch an invasion for England, yet it was Tostig Godwinson - Harold’s brother - who made the first move. Tostig had once been earl of Northumbria, but his cruel and ineffectual rule earned him a rebellion. Everyone in England - even Harold Godwinson - supproted the rebels. Chucked out of Northumbria, furious at his brother’s betrayal, Tostig went abroad to gather soldiers. And in May 1066, he made the first move, attacking the Isle of Wight.
We don’t fully know what Tostig’s motives were. Bradbury thinks that, regardless of whoever became king in the coming turmoil, Tostig was positioning himself to reclaim Northumbria. It’s significant that he gathered supporters from Orkney though; Orney belonged to the king of Norway, Harald Hardrada. At some point, Tostig must have visited him and put the idea of an invasion into his head.
Hardrada is my favourite figure in all of this. He was an imposing man, a prince-in-exile who served in the Varangian guard and as a mercenary captain in Russia. In later life he returned to claim Norway by force, overthrowing King Magnus the Good. As a ruler, he was effective, but ruthless. A farmer who lobbied him was hacked to death in his presence. Those who refused to pay taxes had their homes burnt down. In King Harald’s Saga, Snorri Sturulson wrote: “flames cured the peasants/of disloyalty to Harald.”
Hardrada’s claim was a fairly weak one: back in the day, Canute had been succeeded in England and Denmark by his son, Harthacnut, who made a deal with King Magnus of Norway that each should be the other’s heir in Scandinavia. Hardrada, having tossed out King Magnus, took his claim on the throne of Denmark for himself, then extended it to cover England as well. Harthacnut’s promise probably didn’t apply to England, and Hardrada’s claim may have sounded as bogus in his time as it does to us. It didn’t matter: he ruled through force and conquest, not legitimacy or piety: “There is no doubt that the crown seemed a possibility for Hardrada, who had already gained one kingdom by determination and force rather than by right or inheritance.” (100).
Despite Tostig’s connections with Harald Hardrada, many thought he was actually an agent of William of Normandy. Harold Godwinson, not knowing the full extent of Tostig’s attack, thought it was the Norman invasion, and mobilised his entire army in response.
This was an overreaction and a mistake which hurt the Anglo-Saxons greatly. At this time, feudal lords did not have standing armies. They had small, semi-permanent, semi-professional retainers (housecarls) and local levies (fyrd) that were raised and led by a figure that had authority over them, such as a sheriff, earl, or bishop. Levies could only be raised for specific campaigns or fixed periods of time, so by raising his army so early in May, Harold diminished his ability to fight the actual invasion in September.
William took his time to gather forces and prepare. It was Harald Hardrada who landed first. He sailed from Bergen, arriving in the north of England in September 20, meeting up with Tostig Godwinson, who had been regathering his strength in Scotland after being chased away by Harold. The two men crushed the northern earls at Gate Fulford, near York. Many of the fleeing troops were driven into a swamp and a river where they were cut down, turning the area into a “causeway of corpses.”
While Hardrada’s men recovered from battle, Harold Godwinson marched north. By September 24 he had reached York. The next morning he caught the Norwegians by surprise; they were camped out along the river Derwent, totally out of position, and not even dressed for battle. Hardrada scrambled to put on his blue tunic. His only hope was to hold off the Anglo-Saxons where they were trying to cross the Derwent, at Stamford bridge. Harold’s men charged across, led by an imposing shieldwall of housecarls, and massacred the Norwegians. Among the dead lay Tostig and Harald Hardrada. Of 300-500 invading ships, only 24 returned.
Meanwhile the Normans had finished their preparations. After waiting out the bad weather, they landed in southern England on September 27. As William disembarked, he slipped. This was seen as a bad omen. Legend has it that he laughed it off by grabbing a handful of sand and proclaiming that England was already his. According to William of Malmesbury, writing in the 12th century, it was a soldier near William who called “You hold England, my lord, its future king.”
William’s timing was perfect: Harold Godwinson was away in the north, and his men landed unopposed. But instead of trying to besiege a major city like London, he took Hastings and set his men to pillaging the surrounding area. His goal was to goad Harold into an open battle. As soon as Harold heard about the news, he raced back to London, and sent for new levies to be raised in the south.
Some historians think Harold’s men made the incredible journey north and south on foot. Perhaps this is because of the total absence of cavalry in Harold’s armies at both Hastings and Stamford. Bradbury doesn’t see much sense in this interpretation though: it’s more likely, he thinks, that only the housecarls came on the march, going by horse, but dismounting to fight. This explains why Harold had archers at Stamford bridge, but few (or none) at Hastings. Archers were a crucial component of Anglo-Saxon warfare, but they were usually levies drawn from the relatively forested regions of northern and western England, many of whom had been wiped out at Gate Fulford. If Harold had to re-raise levies in the less-wooded, less-archer-focused south of England, then it would explain why he had so few at Hastings. Bradbury thinks it was a tactical error for Harold not to wait for more levies (and archers) to reach the muster. After the crashing victory at Stamford bridge, he was perhaps eager to ride the momentum and catch William off guard. They rested a few days at London, then went on the march south.
The two armies met about 11km north of Hastings. Harold’s army emerged from the weald, flanked by swamp and tree, and took up position on a hill. Historians generally agree that this is Battle Hill, but Bradbury thinks nearby Caldbec Hill makes an equally good case. According to the Domesday Book, a record of lands made by William after he (spoiler warning) won, Caldbec was right on the edge of the forest, which fits better with the accounts of where Harold’s army stood.
The Anglo-Saxons were shoulder to shoulder on this hill, their shields raised in a wall. The centre of their line was made up of well-disciplined, battle-hardened housecarls, while the flanks were levies. They had no cavalry and probably a small number of archers. William’s army spotted them and closed the distance. It was arranged into three blocks: archers in the front, infantry in the middle, cavalry in the back. Bretons fought on the left, Normans in the middle, and other French on the right.
There are no first-hand accounts of the battle and second-hand accounts are contradictory. What they agree upon is that fighting began at 7 in the morning and went until dusk. This doesn’t mean constant hand-to-hand fighting all day; there were probably advances made on both sides, fights or skirmishes between the ranks, and then a fallback to the line.
The battle opened with William’s archers. They shot a volley of arrows (and a few crossbow bolts) at the Anglo-Saxons, but they were shooting uphill at an awkward angle, and did little damage to the shieldwall.
Next came the infantry and cavalry. In the Bayeux tapestry, the cavalry are seen holding their weapons in a variety of ways: spears are sometimes held overhead like javelins, sometimes couched under the arm like a lance. The gradient of the hill likely stopped them from doing a proper charge, mitigating their effectiveness as shock troops. The Anglo-Saxons kept their composure; they hurled rocks, axes, and spears at the Normans before closing for the melee. In the fighting they managed to get the upper-hand, and the Norman line began to falter.
At some point, the Normans believed that William had been killed and began to retreat. William frantically drew attention to himself. He was perhaps moments away from losing the battle when he cast off his helmet and took up a baton, shouting to his men: “Look at me. I am still alive. With God’s help I shall win. What madness makes you turn in flight? What retreat do you have if you flee?... If you keep going not a single one of you will escape.” (145).
It worked. William roused his men and personally led them back towards the Anglo-Saxons. The housecarls had kept their resolve and stayed in a tight shieldwall formation, but many of the levies had given chase to the fleeing Normans and were drawn down from the hill. William exploited this by feigning a second retreat. The Anglo-Saxons continued to give his change, whereupon the Normans suddenly turned around to encircle the levies. Cavalry smashed into their flanks and obliterated them.
Historians are mixed on whether the second retreat was real or feigned. Bradbury acknowledges what historian Lt.-Col. C. H. Lemmon wrote, that a “feigned retreat” could simply be a fiction maintained by chroniclers to downplay the fact that their side had tried to run away. But a Norman source – William of Poitiers – acknowledges the first retreat as genuine, so what would he gain by downplaying the second one only? The tactic of a feigned retreat also has its precedents, especially among cavalry-heavy armies such as those of the Alans. It was not an unknown or novel tactic. Bradbury makes a straightforward and compelling case here: we shouldn’t imagine an entire army turning around and pretending to retreat all at once, but rather different sections, groups of perhaps ten, twenty, fifty men, each making their retreat at different times according to William’s command.
The fighting in this phase was especially fierce: William had three horses killed underneath him. Harold was killed. Multiple sources attest to him being shot in the eye with an arrow. His body was so mutilated that, surveying the battlefield afterwards, William could not recognise him. His brothers had already died in the initial attack, leaving the Anglo-Saxons without a commander. They fought on until nightfall, at which point they turned and ran, the darkness being all that much easier to escape in.
After many short-lived kings, the long reign of Edward the Confessor brought some much needed stability to England. He failed to produce an heir though, and when he died just after New Years 1066, England was thrown into turmoil once more. At various times in his life he had promised the succession to different people, including Edward the Exile – from a branch of the family who had been living in Hungary since the times of Canute – and William the Bastard, the Duke of Normandy, whose great-aunt was Canute’s second wife. Yet after his death, it was Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, who became king. And lurking in the background was Hardrada, king of Norway, who had his own designs on the English throne.
After becoming king Harold Godwinson had to deal with two major invasions, one Norman, the other Norwegian. Harold was a well-regarded man, just, open, cheerful, and intelligent, both a capable ruler and fighter. He had been the earl of Wessex, from a long line of earls who were one of the most powerful families in England. His vast estates made him one of the wealthiest men in England, and he was recognised for his special position and prominence as vice-regal, second only to King Edward.
In Normandy his rival was Duke William. William was an ambitious and prudent man. He became duke as a child and faced many threats to his rule: his legitimacy was challenged (he was a bastard) and he had enemies on all sides. He was also eager to expand out of his ancestral lands in east Normandy and fought a series of military campaigns early in his life to consolidate his position. He established a network of close friends, nobles, bishops, and warriors, men who were loyal to him through their shared experience on the battlefield. Among his foreign allies could he also count lords from Boulogne, Flanders, and Britany – and until 1066, Harold Godwinson.
Their puzzling relationship went back to 1064, when Harold was sent over the Channel on a diplomatic mission. His purpose was not entirely clear, but he went with the grace of Edward the Confessor, and at least one of the known reasons was to negotiate the release of two Godwinson’s that were being held hostage. Both Norman and Anglo-Saxon writers attest to the hostages, but we don’t know how William got ahold of them in the first place. According to William of Poitiers, a Norman priest and historian who was also William’s chaplain, the two hostages were sent to Normandy by Edward the Confessor as an assurance that William would inherit the kingdom of England, as they gave William leverage over Harold. William of Poitiers is an invaluable source, but his writings had multiple purposes - literary, historical, political - and as a patron of William he could not challenge his right to be king of England. In any case, William was under the belief that he was to inherit the throne of England, whether that was assured by Edward or not. Yet as Bradbury points out, something about the situation doesn’t up: why would Harold Godwinson ever agree to let his relatives be taken hostage?
Regardless, Harold never made it to Normandy safely. He shipwrecked at Ponthieu where he was taken prisoner. William demanded his release and brought him to the Norman court, and then he went on to fight in one of Wiliam’s campaigns in Brittany. It’s not entirely clear the extent to which Harold was acting of his own volition here. Bradbury does not think he was a hostage, but neither could he simply do as he pleased. The Bayeux tapestry depicts him in a heroic role in the Breton campaign, riding alongside William, and at one point even saving two soldiers from quicksand. The Norman army captured Dol, Rennes, and finally Dinan, whose garrison handed over the keys to William at lancepoint.
It’s on their return from this campaign that Harold made an oath of some sort. The Bayeux tapestry depicts him being knighted by William, and later Norman sources say he had promised to support William as king of England. In exchange, William released one of his relatives. To Bradbury, the prisoner exchange “reeks of a compromise”. We don’t for sure what the contents of Harold’s oath were. In the Bayeux tapestry, his mission is depicted as a failure when he returns to Edward the Confessor. By extrapolation, Bradbury believes that Harold must have promised what he could to William in order to secure the release of the hostages, but in doing so overpromised, which put Edward the Confessor in an awkward position. Edward had recently been trying to secure the return of Edward the Exile, who had the strongest claim on the throne, but was from a branch of family that had been living abroad since the days of Canute. Edward certainly didn’t want to give the impression that he supported William for king of England. His plan was a failure anyway: Edward died almost as soon as he returned, and his son, Edgar the Aetheling, was only six years old.
On Christmas Eve 1065, Edward suffered a stroke and fell into a coma. He lapsed in and out of consciousness, retelling garbled accounts of his dreams. Bradbury is cynical (though realistic) about these, but I will let their mystery speak for itself:
He told of a dream about two monks he had once known in Normandy, both long dead. They gave him a message from God, criticising the heads oft eh Church in England, and promising that the kingdom within a year would go to the hands of an enemy: ‘devils shall come through all this land with fire and sword and the havoc of war.’ This certainly smacks of a tale told with hindsight. There followed a strange forecast relating to a green tree cut in half. This was probably no more intelligible to his hearers than it is to us. (90)
Just before he died, Edward entrusted the realm to Harold. Despite his almost non-existent claim to the throne (he married Edward’s sister), there must have been a general acceptance of Harold’s rule among the English lords, who rued the prospect of being ruled by a foreigner again – they had just shaken off the yoke of a line of Danish kings (including Canute). Edgar the Aetheling was a more legitimate candidate, but far too young to secure his reign. Harold Godwinson must have seemed like the best option: a capable ruler and fighter, well-known and well-established, and importantly, an Anglo-Saxon.
In April, Halley’s comet appeared in the sky, an omen of the coming war. Everyone expected William to press his claims and launch an invasion for England, yet it was Tostig Godwinson - Harold’s brother - who made the first move. Tostig had once been earl of Northumbria, but his cruel and ineffectual rule earned him a rebellion. Everyone in England - even Harold Godwinson - supproted the rebels. Chucked out of Northumbria, furious at his brother’s betrayal, Tostig went abroad to gather soldiers. And in May 1066, he made the first move, attacking the Isle of Wight.
We don’t fully know what Tostig’s motives were. Bradbury thinks that, regardless of whoever became king in the coming turmoil, Tostig was positioning himself to reclaim Northumbria. It’s significant that he gathered supporters from Orkney though; Orney belonged to the king of Norway, Harald Hardrada. At some point, Tostig must have visited him and put the idea of an invasion into his head.
Hardrada is my favourite figure in all of this. He was an imposing man, a prince-in-exile who served in the Varangian guard and as a mercenary captain in Russia. In later life he returned to claim Norway by force, overthrowing King Magnus the Good. As a ruler, he was effective, but ruthless. A farmer who lobbied him was hacked to death in his presence. Those who refused to pay taxes had their homes burnt down. In King Harald’s Saga, Snorri Sturulson wrote: “flames cured the peasants/of disloyalty to Harald.”
Hardrada’s claim was a fairly weak one: back in the day, Canute had been succeeded in England and Denmark by his son, Harthacnut, who made a deal with King Magnus of Norway that each should be the other’s heir in Scandinavia. Hardrada, having tossed out King Magnus, took his claim on the throne of Denmark for himself, then extended it to cover England as well. Harthacnut’s promise probably didn’t apply to England, and Hardrada’s claim may have sounded as bogus in his time as it does to us. It didn’t matter: he ruled through force and conquest, not legitimacy or piety: “There is no doubt that the crown seemed a possibility for Hardrada, who had already gained one kingdom by determination and force rather than by right or inheritance.” (100).
Despite Tostig’s connections with Harald Hardrada, many thought he was actually an agent of William of Normandy. Harold Godwinson, not knowing the full extent of Tostig’s attack, thought it was the Norman invasion, and mobilised his entire army in response.
This was an overreaction and a mistake which hurt the Anglo-Saxons greatly. At this time, feudal lords did not have standing armies. They had small, semi-permanent, semi-professional retainers (housecarls) and local levies (fyrd) that were raised and led by a figure that had authority over them, such as a sheriff, earl, or bishop. Levies could only be raised for specific campaigns or fixed periods of time, so by raising his army so early in May, Harold diminished his ability to fight the actual invasion in September.
William took his time to gather forces and prepare. It was Harald Hardrada who landed first. He sailed from Bergen, arriving in the north of England in September 20, meeting up with Tostig Godwinson, who had been regathering his strength in Scotland after being chased away by Harold. The two men crushed the northern earls at Gate Fulford, near York. Many of the fleeing troops were driven into a swamp and a river where they were cut down, turning the area into a “causeway of corpses.”
While Hardrada’s men recovered from battle, Harold Godwinson marched north. By September 24 he had reached York. The next morning he caught the Norwegians by surprise; they were camped out along the river Derwent, totally out of position, and not even dressed for battle. Hardrada scrambled to put on his blue tunic. His only hope was to hold off the Anglo-Saxons where they were trying to cross the Derwent, at Stamford bridge. Harold’s men charged across, led by an imposing shieldwall of housecarls, and massacred the Norwegians. Among the dead lay Tostig and Harald Hardrada. Of 300-500 invading ships, only 24 returned.
Meanwhile the Normans had finished their preparations. After waiting out the bad weather, they landed in southern England on September 27. As William disembarked, he slipped. This was seen as a bad omen. Legend has it that he laughed it off by grabbing a handful of sand and proclaiming that England was already his. According to William of Malmesbury, writing in the 12th century, it was a soldier near William who called “You hold England, my lord, its future king.”
William’s timing was perfect: Harold Godwinson was away in the north, and his men landed unopposed. But instead of trying to besiege a major city like London, he took Hastings and set his men to pillaging the surrounding area. His goal was to goad Harold into an open battle. As soon as Harold heard about the news, he raced back to London, and sent for new levies to be raised in the south.
Some historians think Harold’s men made the incredible journey north and south on foot. Perhaps this is because of the total absence of cavalry in Harold’s armies at both Hastings and Stamford. Bradbury doesn’t see much sense in this interpretation though: it’s more likely, he thinks, that only the housecarls came on the march, going by horse, but dismounting to fight. This explains why Harold had archers at Stamford bridge, but few (or none) at Hastings. Archers were a crucial component of Anglo-Saxon warfare, but they were usually levies drawn from the relatively forested regions of northern and western England, many of whom had been wiped out at Gate Fulford. If Harold had to re-raise levies in the less-wooded, less-archer-focused south of England, then it would explain why he had so few at Hastings. Bradbury thinks it was a tactical error for Harold not to wait for more levies (and archers) to reach the muster. After the crashing victory at Stamford bridge, he was perhaps eager to ride the momentum and catch William off guard. They rested a few days at London, then went on the march south.
The two armies met about 11km north of Hastings. Harold’s army emerged from the weald, flanked by swamp and tree, and took up position on a hill. Historians generally agree that this is Battle Hill, but Bradbury thinks nearby Caldbec Hill makes an equally good case. According to the Domesday Book, a record of lands made by William after he (spoiler warning) won, Caldbec was right on the edge of the forest, which fits better with the accounts of where Harold’s army stood.
The Anglo-Saxons were shoulder to shoulder on this hill, their shields raised in a wall. The centre of their line was made up of well-disciplined, battle-hardened housecarls, while the flanks were levies. They had no cavalry and probably a small number of archers. William’s army spotted them and closed the distance. It was arranged into three blocks: archers in the front, infantry in the middle, cavalry in the back. Bretons fought on the left, Normans in the middle, and other French on the right.
There are no first-hand accounts of the battle and second-hand accounts are contradictory. What they agree upon is that fighting began at 7 in the morning and went until dusk. This doesn’t mean constant hand-to-hand fighting all day; there were probably advances made on both sides, fights or skirmishes between the ranks, and then a fallback to the line.
The battle opened with William’s archers. They shot a volley of arrows (and a few crossbow bolts) at the Anglo-Saxons, but they were shooting uphill at an awkward angle, and did little damage to the shieldwall.
Next came the infantry and cavalry. In the Bayeux tapestry, the cavalry are seen holding their weapons in a variety of ways: spears are sometimes held overhead like javelins, sometimes couched under the arm like a lance. The gradient of the hill likely stopped them from doing a proper charge, mitigating their effectiveness as shock troops. The Anglo-Saxons kept their composure; they hurled rocks, axes, and spears at the Normans before closing for the melee. In the fighting they managed to get the upper-hand, and the Norman line began to falter.
At some point, the Normans believed that William had been killed and began to retreat. William frantically drew attention to himself. He was perhaps moments away from losing the battle when he cast off his helmet and took up a baton, shouting to his men: “Look at me. I am still alive. With God’s help I shall win. What madness makes you turn in flight? What retreat do you have if you flee?... If you keep going not a single one of you will escape.” (145).
It worked. William roused his men and personally led them back towards the Anglo-Saxons. The housecarls had kept their resolve and stayed in a tight shieldwall formation, but many of the levies had given chase to the fleeing Normans and were drawn down from the hill. William exploited this by feigning a second retreat. The Anglo-Saxons continued to give his change, whereupon the Normans suddenly turned around to encircle the levies. Cavalry smashed into their flanks and obliterated them.
Historians are mixed on whether the second retreat was real or feigned. Bradbury acknowledges what historian Lt.-Col. C. H. Lemmon wrote, that a “feigned retreat” could simply be a fiction maintained by chroniclers to downplay the fact that their side had tried to run away. But a Norman source – William of Poitiers – acknowledges the first retreat as genuine, so what would he gain by downplaying the second one only? The tactic of a feigned retreat also has its precedents, especially among cavalry-heavy armies such as those of the Alans. It was not an unknown or novel tactic. Bradbury makes a straightforward and compelling case here: we shouldn’t imagine an entire army turning around and pretending to retreat all at once, but rather different sections, groups of perhaps ten, twenty, fifty men, each making their retreat at different times according to William’s command.
The fighting in this phase was especially fierce: William had three horses killed underneath him. Harold was killed. Multiple sources attest to him being shot in the eye with an arrow. His body was so mutilated that, surveying the battlefield afterwards, William could not recognise him. His brothers had already died in the initial attack, leaving the Anglo-Saxons without a commander. They fought on until nightfall, at which point they turned and ran, the darkness being all that much easier to escape in.
December 8, 2020
I have a couple of Jim Bradbury's books already, so it was not hard for me to pick up this soon to be released new edition of his book, originally published back in 1998.
I personally find his writing style to be clear and clean, the narrative consistent, whilst providing readers with a balanced understanding of events through the use of contemporary evidence. I would suggest that this would be a very good starting point for those just beginning their own journey into the Norman Conquest period - those of us who have read extensively on this subject may feel like they are experiencing deja vu, however, I believe a keen student will always read keenly on their chosen field - you never know what little nuggets may be thrown up.
Much of the social and political scene of both pre-Conquest Normandy and Anglo-Saxon England is covered off; the composition of both armies discussed; and the sources for the battle analysed before we reach a very detailed chapter on the battle itself. Bradbury follows up with a look at the aftermath and consequences of the Norman victory.
What the reader will appreciate is the inclusion of maps and diagrams, and the accompanying genealogical trees of the main familial lines under discussion.
A great starting point which covers things off succinctly, whilst leaving the reader with some great resources to follow up on for their own journey.
I personally find his writing style to be clear and clean, the narrative consistent, whilst providing readers with a balanced understanding of events through the use of contemporary evidence. I would suggest that this would be a very good starting point for those just beginning their own journey into the Norman Conquest period - those of us who have read extensively on this subject may feel like they are experiencing deja vu, however, I believe a keen student will always read keenly on their chosen field - you never know what little nuggets may be thrown up.
Much of the social and political scene of both pre-Conquest Normandy and Anglo-Saxon England is covered off; the composition of both armies discussed; and the sources for the battle analysed before we reach a very detailed chapter on the battle itself. Bradbury follows up with a look at the aftermath and consequences of the Norman victory.
What the reader will appreciate is the inclusion of maps and diagrams, and the accompanying genealogical trees of the main familial lines under discussion.
A great starting point which covers things off succinctly, whilst leaving the reader with some great resources to follow up on for their own journey.
October 22, 2024
This was a great book on a turning point in history. While I didn’t always like the authors writing style, I was able to forge ahead because the story was so engaging. I think that this book tells of a time that everyone should learn more about the author did an excellent job of laying out the landscape on both sides of the channel to ensure that you understand what was going on and why the battle took place. I have to note that the complexity of some of the names and the deep intertwining of families made for this true story to be hard to understand.
June 13, 2013
This was interesting, but I wish more would have been offered about the battle. The actual conflict is Chapter 7 of 8. The events leading up to the battle takes up most the book. Fortunately, the author used extant sources, such as William of Portiers and William of Jumieges, Oderic, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The conflict was covered well in its day and the fact that it last from approximately 9:00 a.m. until just after dusk of the same day, one would suppose more could be offered in the way of description and tactics. A cavalry charge uphill, the lack of English archers, the predicament Harold was in with not one but three battles one right after another, the first two in the North of England, forcing him to return to the south to deal with William, were covered. Again, this was interesting and it helped with the research I'm doing now.
September 29, 2022
A recent research work who’s title says it all. I’m just a fan of the Norman Conquest, I am. I love that the entire destiny of the English language as we know it - when old French and old Anglo-Saxon fused together to create our modern English - can be traced back to one comparably small battlefield, upon which took place what sounds essentially like a very ugly armored brawl mired in utter confusion, a few unfortunate threads of medieval miscommunication, and some fatally bad planning on the part of the losers. It really could have gone either way. Why did Harold Godwinson not bring archers to the battle? What the actual historic-fuck was he thinking? And could he not have just waited a few days to assemble some? Truth is we’ll never know, just as we may never know whether the battle took place at Senlac, or just up the other hill at Caldbec - a point that will have two camps of historians despising each other until someone actually manages to shovel up some verifiable remains. What we do know is that this inter-family skirmish forever changed history. And what I write now would without a doubt be written in a very different language indeed, had the battle gone the other direction. Go Normans!
December 29, 2023
this book was a deep dive into 9th-11th century Anglo-Saxon/Norman politics, the conflict between Harold and William, and its impact. i thoroughly enjoyed this read, and my understanding of the battle and the times has been significantly deepened. Jim Bradbury did a wonderful job of explaining and citing his sources. i don’t recommend this book to people who, like me, are new to the subject. this work can be overwhelming at times, and i often had to stop to organize my thoughts/make sure i had my ducks in order. if you are new and looking to read this, i would recommend doing a quick, maybe 5-10 minute study of 9th-11th century Anglo-Saxon and Norman politics. because i hadn’t studied this before and had no background info, i frequently had to reference the family trees provided. again, i recommend having some background info before reading. however, i definitely recommend this book to those who who have a basic understanding of the times leading up to the battle and wish to explore more!
August 7, 2017
The famous battle of 1066 is dissected in great detail and no stone unturned. Mr. Bradbury spends quite a bit of time refuting common myths and questionable references for his own take on events and places. The fact that the actual place of battle has never been found was very interesting and points out how things get lost over the 10 centuries of this decisive battle. There were big amounts of information about seemingly small differences between the Normans and the English and I found my eyes glazing over.
April 24, 2018
Concise and easy to read history of the famous battle.
Looks at events leading up to it, organisation of armies and equipment and the different sources and their reliability.
It doesn't start to look at the actual battle and aftermath until the second half of the book. Again, the author makes use of several sources and says which ones he tends to favour.
As with most historical books, parts can be open to interpretation on the part of the author and their preference for one theory over another.
Overall it's an interesting read that gets the events told in a good manner.
Looks at events leading up to it, organisation of armies and equipment and the different sources and their reliability.
It doesn't start to look at the actual battle and aftermath until the second half of the book. Again, the author makes use of several sources and says which ones he tends to favour.
As with most historical books, parts can be open to interpretation on the part of the author and their preference for one theory over another.
Overall it's an interesting read that gets the events told in a good manner.
March 27, 2022
A short yet in-depth survey of the Battle of Hastings that made for an interesting read. More detailed than an encyclopedia article, but full of speculation based on numerous medieval sources. There were a few inserts of images from locations and the Bayeux Tapestry, but I would have liked more photos or illustrations of the armour and weaponry. The descriptions were fabulous, but sometimes a picture helps. Still. A solid basic survey of an event pivotal to English (and arguably international) history.
April 12, 2024
This is probably the most significant battle to take place in England. It is not surprising how little is known of the details considering it took place in 1066. Yet the author manages to detail quite a bit. He also is clear on what is conjecture from later chroniclers and historians. There is a lot of background discussion leading up to the battle and a nice portion about the aftermath. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those nicely readable nonfiction books. It is full of names and places. Yet for those interested in this history, it is relatively short and well worth it.
August 15, 2021
A very tight book at around 200 pages. The author is thorough and knows his material. I appreciated the fact that he rarely speculated on events divorced from source material, and even “ranked” source materials he relied upon. This book may be tough for casual readers but an absolute delight for history lovers.
December 12, 2024
Legendary story for a legendary battle. Good read for anyone interested in this time period. Clearly written by someone who has a deep love for this era and its lore.
I especially appreciated the segments that gave insights into the military structures and armour of each respective side. The context for both England and Normandy are also great.
I especially appreciated the segments that gave insights into the military structures and armour of each respective side. The context for both England and Normandy are also great.
September 2, 2025
The year 1066 was a pivotal year in English history and everyone is taught that William the Conqueror fought Harold at Hastings but most do not appreciate the circumstances and events leading to the battle. This book deals with the situation before the battle, the battle itself, and then its aftermath. It was a well researched book even though the author's style was not always free flowing.
September 5, 2022
I really enjoyed this book. I did not know much about what lead up the Battle of Hastings other than it was a fight for the British crown between two contenders. I really enjoyed the history of what lead up to the battle, and why this battle was an important one for history.
July 13, 2017
Serviceable but strangely pedestrian account of the Hastings campaign. I have a lot of time for Jim Bradbury and loved his book on King Philip Augustus of France, but this felt rather perfunctory.
September 14, 2021
Well-written, detailed account of an event that, in many ways, changed 'Britain' forever. I definitely learned some things I had not heard before. Highly recommend to those interested in history.
October 15, 2022
His style is far too academic and pedantic.
January 7, 2024
Bit too stuffy and academic but gave me a great outline as to the importance of the Battle and its outcomes.
March 5, 2025
This book covers the famous Battle of Hastings that signaled the beginning of the Norman Conquest of England and the Anglo-Saxons but also does a bit more than the title suggests.
Not only does it cover the famous Battle, but it sets the scene of the last century or so before the Battle showing us Englands conflicts with Vikings, Danelaw, and eventual conquest by King Cnut of Denmark, up to the succession of Edward the Confessor, the Battle of Stamford Bridge against Harald Hardrada of Norway and then Harold Godwinson.
We also get a look into the Normans, with them starting as a Viking colony in northern France that was never uprooted and thus settled into an amalgamation of French and Scandinavian culture and peoples. We get a glimpse of their history up to the time of William the Conqueror and his reasons to claim to the throne of England.
I thought the events of the English history was very dense, muddled and confusing, perhaps assuming the reader is already in deep with Anglo-Saxon knowledge of the 10th and 11th centuries. Thankfully Marc Morris has me covered in his books the Anglo-Saxons and the Norman Conquest.
As for the battle, the author is very clear on the lack of sources but uses speculation, and analyses of sources that do exist such as the Bayeux Tapestry to piece together what the battle might’ve looked like from tactics, estimates of troop strengths, equipment, etc.
The most interesting part of this book was in the afterword where the mortal enemies of England rebel against the Norman Conquest despite rivalry with England. From Denmark and Norway to Wales and Scotland everyone was affected by the invasion.
The book was a fine read but not really essential reading on the Anglo-Saxons and Norman Conquest unless you want a thorough analysis of tactics, and numbers of each side of the conflict.
Not only does it cover the famous Battle, but it sets the scene of the last century or so before the Battle showing us Englands conflicts with Vikings, Danelaw, and eventual conquest by King Cnut of Denmark, up to the succession of Edward the Confessor, the Battle of Stamford Bridge against Harald Hardrada of Norway and then Harold Godwinson.
We also get a look into the Normans, with them starting as a Viking colony in northern France that was never uprooted and thus settled into an amalgamation of French and Scandinavian culture and peoples. We get a glimpse of their history up to the time of William the Conqueror and his reasons to claim to the throne of England.
I thought the events of the English history was very dense, muddled and confusing, perhaps assuming the reader is already in deep with Anglo-Saxon knowledge of the 10th and 11th centuries. Thankfully Marc Morris has me covered in his books the Anglo-Saxons and the Norman Conquest.
As for the battle, the author is very clear on the lack of sources but uses speculation, and analyses of sources that do exist such as the Bayeux Tapestry to piece together what the battle might’ve looked like from tactics, estimates of troop strengths, equipment, etc.
The most interesting part of this book was in the afterword where the mortal enemies of England rebel against the Norman Conquest despite rivalry with England. From Denmark and Norway to Wales and Scotland everyone was affected by the invasion.
The book was a fine read but not really essential reading on the Anglo-Saxons and Norman Conquest unless you want a thorough analysis of tactics, and numbers of each side of the conflict.
January 14, 2015
As with much of what we learn in public schools is wrong, this is no different. I learned a great deal and much is different from what was taught. A well researched book that was an overview of England and Normandy at that time, bio's of William and the various leaders of the English island, the role of the Vikings in ruling both places and the claims to the English throne. The battle itself was quick and over fairly fast due to the lack of discipline on the English side. The irony is that after William consolidated power, died and left his new domain to his son, Henry I, the English were the rulers for 400 or so years of Normandy.
March 12, 2021
This is an easy-to-read book, written in lucid, logical style, by an expert in the Battle of Hastings. Bradbury obviously knows his stuff. He also knows the source material, and spends a bit of time in the middle of the book to describe and assess the source material, showing some skepticism about a number of those sources.
My main complaint with this book would be that he could have gone into more detail. Given his clear views on the subject, it would have been interesting to read more about this period by this author.
My main complaint with this book would be that he could have gone into more detail. Given his clear views on the subject, it would have been interesting to read more about this period by this author.
March 15, 2021
Workman-like account of one of the most significant battles in English history. Bradbury's book is informative and he writes with great clarity despite a few side excursions into some of the more arcane aspects of the battle and its aftermath, e.g. the actual hill on which Hastings was fought, William's movements afterwards, etc.. However, these lengthy asides are undoubtedly an attempt to be even-handed and to highlight controversies about events that have raged for decades.
June 8, 2021
I was expecting a "popular history" (e.g., McCullough, Larsen, Ambrose), but this seemed more of a scholarly or "serious" history. Nevertheless, fascinating and very good. The author painted an excellent picture of 11th c. life in England. He more or less glossed over the cultural results of the Conquest (language, customs, manners, etc.) and I was hoping for more. Still, absorbing & engaging.
March 12, 2013
Worked for me as an introduction to the topic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews