About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, October 18, 2012



Just Finished Reading: The Battle of Hastings – The Fall of Anglo-Saxon England by Harriet Harvey Wood

The Battle of Hastings on Senlac Hill in late 1066 is arguably one of those turning points in history when everything changed. At the time it was seen as a calamity on a Biblical scale. It was to the Anglo-Saxons the end of their world. After 1066 they were no longer in control of their own country or their own destiny. From that fateful date they were an occupied people in an alien land.

But how and why did such a thing happen? Why did a successful warrior and leader of men like Harold Godwinson end up on the wrong side of history and bring down his whole civilisation with him? That is, it seems from this narrative, the mystery of Hastings – Why we lost. I say we for several reasons, firstly like the author of this work I fully identify with the resident Anglo-Saxons rather than the invading Normans. Second looking back on the invasion and the aftermath with the 20:20 vision of historical hindsight I think it’s more than reasonable to say that, although we lost the Battle, we almost certainly won the cultural war. Not long after their ‘victory’ the Normans both at home on the Continent and here in their new possessions went into terminal decline and practically vanished from history in surprisingly quick order. Their culture – what there was of it – was absorbed into and diluted by the Anglo-Saxon culture that was both more sophisticated and with deeper roots in the community.

In many ways Harold was unlucky. If the dying King had lived just a few more years it is unlikely that William would have been in a position to invade. If the bad weather that held William in France had lasted a few more days (or a few less weeks) there would have been ample time for Harold to defeat Tostig at Stamford Bridge – a major victory only overshadowed by his defeat at Hastings – or to meet William on the coast with a full army and navy not yet released for the harvest. With so little actual hard evidence to go on historians either throws up their hands and says that nothing truly meaningful can be said on the subject or are forced to speculate in order to weave a coherent story from very thin thread. This author certainly weaves a good tale of a masterful warrior and good king forced to fight battles at opposite ends of the country only days apart with an almost predictable outcome during battle number two. She tries to understand what motivated Harold to force battle the way he did when, apparently, all he needed to do was wait out the Normans crushing them at his leisure. Then, of course, there is the famous arrow and the unlucky eye. The author comes down on the side that Harold was indeed hit by an arrow in the face and this caused his battle line to fall apart at exactly the wrong moment. His personal bodyguard – all high ranking aristocrats in their own rights – stood by him and died to a man ensuring that no one was left alive to solidify a useful opposition force hence accelerating the fall of the rest of the country.

Finally the author speculates on what might have happened if Harold had won (or William had lost) and sees England entering into a Golden Age which would have changed the course of European, and hence World, history away from the one we know. Knowing at least a little about the time and the way politics was done back then I somehow doubt that this would have been the case. It is interesting however to speculate about Harold being victorious and either driving the upstart Normans into the sea or even killing William in battle – he was after all unseated from his warhorse at least twice on the day.

Despite being biased (in a good way in my opinion) this was still a very good and often thrilling interpretation of 1066 and the events leading up to it. Obviously sad as to the outcome the author tries her best to understand just what went wrong. On its own this book would probably give an at least mildly distorted picture of Hastings but, in conjunction with the other works already reviewed and the others in the pipeline, potentially rounds out the view of the battle and its antecedents in opposition to the pro-Norman historians who think that we should get over being beaten and move on. Like Harold and his Housecarls I say come over here and make me!

2 comments:

Stephen said...

Ah, we just passed the anniversary of the battle a few days ago.

I assume over the centuries the Norman and Anglo-Saxon bloodlines would have become so mixed together there's really no distinction, but -- do you know if that's the case? Are there people in England who claim to be as pure Norman as it's possible to be?

CyberKitten said...

sc asked: Are there people in England who claim to be as pure Norman as it's possible to be?

There are certainly family names that can be traced back to the Invasion of 1066. Just how 'pure' is that bloodline is a whole other question. Obviously there were a great deal of high ranking women without husbands after the battle so quite a few eventually married into the new aristocracy. I imagine that much less mixing happened at the lower end of society but I'm only guessing.

Despite the scale of the victory the number of Normans settling in Britain was tiny compared to the indigenous population so I imagine that Norman genes became diluted rather quickly. We've always been a mongrel people and the Normans just added a little extra to the mix.