Harold: Last King of the Anglo-Saxons

In 1066 AD, England was yanked out of the Scandinavian world and thrust into the European world, their beautiful Anglo-Saxon society ruptured by Frankish feudalism, as Duke William of Normandy bested King Harold of England and became King William the Conqueror. Many argue that the English lost the Battle of Hastings because they had inferior military technology, poor leadership, were unprepared, etc. On the contrary, King Harold Godwinsson was a brilliant and exceptional warrior and military leader, and the English military technology easily rivaled that of the Normans. The downfall of Anglo-Saxon England was caused by circumstances far out of Harold's control: though he knew even before his coronation that waiting just over the Channel in Normandy was a threat to his crown and kingdom.[1] What Harold did not know was that he would face not one, but two separate invasions within less than one month. This would cause such fatigue that even Harold Godwinsson and his loyal army could not overcome, leading to the downfall of the English defenders at Hastings in 1066.

       A Tale of Two Battles: Harold Godwinsson (or Godwin, or Godwinson) was crowned King of England in January, 1066, as per the wishes of King Edward the Confessor and the Witan (the high council of noblemen, responsible for choosing the next king). Harold was expecting William to invade, as William believed he had been promised the English crown decades before,[2] so in early May, Harold summoned one of the largest armies England had ever seen.[3] He also called the English fleet to patrol the English Channel, waiting to fight off the expected Norman invasion fleet. But foul weather and politics kept William from sailing over the Channel, and provisions and pay ran dry by early September, so Harold dissolved the fyrd (the national army) and told the fleet to return to port.[4] Military campaigns were rare in the cold winter, so it was reasonable to assume that if William had not yet made his move, he would wait until spring.
       On September 12, however, the weather changed and allowed William of Normandy to set out for England. The Normans happened to run into the English armada and a sea-battle ensued, only to be cut short by a storm. Because of the Normans' inferior ships, they suffered great losses.[5] While Harold was at the London docks hearing of the sea battle with the Normans, a messenger arrived to warn the king that Tostig, Harold's envious and revengeful brother, had convinced King Harald Hardraada of Norway to invade England in the north.[6] Harold and his housecarls (personal guards/soldiers) immediately marched north, calling his fyrd to be gathered after him.[7]

A 19th century Norwegian depiction of the battle

      On September 20, while Harold and his men were on their way north, the two northern English earls, Edwin and Morkere confronted Hardraada and Tostig in a battle that ended with devastating losses for the English earls. Five days later, Hardraada left some of his troops to guard their fleet and set out with perhaps 10,000 men for Stamford Bridge, where he was to meet with the Northumbrian nobles so that they could formally recognize him as their king. It was a warm day, and Hardraada allowed his troops to leave their armor behind. Before the Northumbrian earls arrived, however, Harold’s fyrd of possibly 20,000 men [8] attacked the Norwegians by surprise.[9] After a full day of fighting, both Harald Hardraada and Tostig were killed, and the few remaining Norwegian soldiers were graciously allowed to retreat to their ships and leave England.[10] 
     The victory celebrations lasted six days, until a messenger brought the news that William of Normandy had landed and was devastating the land around Pevensey, in southern England.[11] Harold had 241 miles to march to meet the invaders, and Harold covered the distance averaging an incredible speed of over forty miles a day.[12]  Harold’s fyrd had suffered heavy losses at Stamford Bridge, so he called for a mass levy of every man able to fight.[13] The reinforcements which arrived in time to leave London with Harold on October 12 totaled over 4,000. More men joined Harold’s troops as they marched south toward Hastings, so that by the time the battle began on October 14, Harold’s troops numbered around 8,500.[14] 
      The core of Harold’s fyrd, the housecarls, had taken heavy casualties at Stamford Bridge, leaving Harold with no option to employ a mounted regiment, as had been so successful at Stamford Bridge.[15] Instead, the housecarls would serve as the regulating backbone of his levied army – the majority of which were now inexperienced men mostly lacking armor and armed with primitive weapons such as hayforks and clubs.[16]

      The Battle of Hastings began in the late morning, with Harold’s troops forming a strong battle line atop a ridge, forcing the Normans to charge up the hill to attack them.[17] Had all of Harold’s men been trained and experienced soldiers, the plan probably would have worked. But by late afternoon, both forces had taken heavy losses, and after one attack, the Norman cavalry turned and fled in retreat. The shire-levies (the untrained men called by the mass levy) broke from the line and pursued the fleeing Normans, battle-eager and “unaware of the danger they brought upon themselves and the whole hope of England.”[18] The retreating Normans turned around and enveloped the separated Englishmen, few of whom survived to regain the ridge. Harold had the fyrd regroup into a tight clump around his standard at the crest of the hill, but a group of Normans fought straight for the king of England and killed him.[19] Once word of the king’s death had spread among the remaining troops, they began to flee the battlefield. A small detachment of the English made a last stand against Norman pursuers by luring them to charge (to their deaths) over a ravine in the dim twilight, but the battle – and England – was lost.[20]

      Speeches, Strategy, and Stirrups: Remember how I said that scholars have blamed things such as inferior military technology and poor leadership for the downfall of the English at Hastings? Well, I don't believe that either of those were the real reason behind the English defeat. For one thing, the Anglo-Saxon chroniclers are adamantly clear that King Harold was an exceptional military leader and motivator. He was known to give eloquent and rousing speeches,[21] and was unparalleled in his ability to move his troops at astonishing speeds while marching northward to Stamford Bridge, then south to Hastings.[22]

      I even remember reading somewhere that the Normans won because they had the technology of the stirrup (which was relatively new in Europe in 1066), allowing the Norman knights to fight effectively atop horses, while the Anglo-Saxons did not have the stirrup and therefore only fought on foot (wrong, they did have stirrups). I've also read that the Anglo-Saxons did not know how to fight on horseback, though they did have stirrups - they would ride to a battle, then dismount and fight on foot. This was actually true for most of Anglo-Saxon history, but we know that Harold employed mounted warriors very effectively at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. He lost far too many horses, however, to employ similar strategy at Hastings.

      And that's where Harold's strategy comes into play. Harold had proven himself an excellent warrior and military leader long before his coronation, fighting in a series of campaigns in Wales. The chronicler Orderic Vitalis described Harold as "very tall and handsome, remarkable for his physical strength, his courage and eloquence, his ready jests and acts of valor."

      The Real Culprit: Fatigue. Most medieval battles lasted around an hour or two, ending with one side causing the other to flee the battlefield, so the descriptions of the Battle of Stamford Bridge lasting all day, and the Battle of Hastings lasting about nine hours combine for two very long and exhausting battles.[23] In addition to the fighting itself, Harold and his fyrd marched day and night for several days and then immediately begin attacking the army of Harald Hardraada upon arrival. Similarly, the march southward to London and then Hastings was also an incredible feat, as the English fyrd traveled over forty miles a day – a challenging pace even for soldiers who were mounted, and soldiers with horses accounted for less than half of Harold’s army.

      According to the U.S. Army Medical Department, “Fatigue adversely affects a person’s framework; emotional, cognitive, physical, social, and spiritual aspects are compromised.”[24] In addition to travel, chronicles tell of singing, dancing, and drinking that filled the night for the men of the fyrd. Denis Butler writes that it was likely the inexperienced new soldiers whose unthinking excitement led them to party through the night, while the veterans of Stamford Bridge and other experienced soldiers likely tried to rest while they could.[25] Drinking, dancing, and singing through the night certainly would have started those already disadvantaged soldiers – because of their lack of experience, armor, or decent weapons – at a greater disadvantage because of a lack of sleep and the exertion of the night’s merriment.

       In the End, the battle that changed the course of English history was lost for the English not because of poor leadership, technology, or lack of military expertise, but because of a series of circumstances far outside of Harold Godwinsson’s control. Certainly, other factors contributed to Harold’s demise and that of England, but the result of the compressed timing of the Battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings was unavoidable fatigue. Though Harold’s leadership fought valiantly against the effects of the fatigue with his ability to move and motivate his troops, fatigue won out in the end and England succumbed to the Norman invasion of 1066. William pressed an unwilling Anglo-Saxon England into the Frankish-European world, and the glory of Anglo-Saxon England, along with her last king, Harold Godwinsson, breathed their last.

---

[1] Denis Butler, 1066: The Story of a Year, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1966), 27. [2] Emma Mason, The House of Godwine, (New York: Hambledon and London, 2004), 141-142. [3] Emma Mason, 143. [4] Denis Butler, 162. [5] Denis Butler, 169. [6] Denis Butler, 194. [7] Denis Butler, 169-170. [8] Denis Butler, 184. [9] Kelly DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066, (Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 1999), 278-279. [10] Kelly DeVries, 295. [11] Denis Butler, 203. [12] Denis Butler, 205, 210. [13] Denis Butler, 205. [14] Denis Butler, 217-220. [15] Emma Mason, 163. [16] Denis Butler, 229. [17] Edwin Tetlow, The Enigma of Hastings, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1974), 171. [18] Denis Butler, 243-244. [19] Denis Butler 248-249. [20] Denis Butler, 250-251. [21] Emma Mason, 157. [22] Denis Butler, 176. [23] Kelly DeVries, 270. [24] LTC Sheila Adams, “Resiliency Training for Medical Professionals,” United States Army Medical Department Journal, (April-June, 2010): 48, http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/AMEDDJournal/2010aprjun. pdf (accessed July 13, 2012).  [25] Denis Butler, 229. 

Medieval Castle Construction (part I)

Today castles mostly stand in ruin: roof, floor, furniture, and any sign of life are centuries gone. Yet these structures still somehow capture our attention as we can't help but wonder what amazing stories their stone walls might tell, what great historic events transpired in their shadows? How did people manage to construct such massive structures without modern tools and machinery?

Medieval castles certainly hold some marvelous secrets and seem to occupy an almost mystic role in many people's minds. They are mentioned in nearly any book related to the Middle Ages or knights, yet the number of books that consider the process of building such an imposing structure is very small in comparison. The fact that so many castles still stand, centuries after their construction, is a resounding testimony to the great skill and craftsmanship that went in to the complicated task of raising a castle.

Early versions of what we now call castles began to appear in northwest Europe  in the ninth century. This also happens to be the time when the Vikings and Saracens were actively raiding across northwest Europe.  In 863, Charlemagne's grandson, Charles the Bald, ordered that castles be built to defend against these invaders. Because of the decentralized nature of the Carolingian state, these castles were largely inhabited and controlled by the nobles who built them, rather than a garrison of soldiers, like earlier fortresses.

This castle-building trend barely touched England until the year 1066, when the Normans conquered England and brought a flood of castle-building in their wake. Don't think that the Anglo-Saxons did not build castles, though. It is estimated that there were roughly a half-dozen fortresses formidable enough to be considered castles at the time of the Norman invasion. This early type of castle was called a Motte-and-Bailey castle, which consisted of a steeply-sloped mound (the motte) - up to 100 feet high - with a small fortified house or tower (the keep) atop it and connected to an adjacent outer court (the bailey), or walled area, containing the soldier's quarters, stables, etc. all of which was surrounded by a ditch. The buildings were almost always constructed of timber, unless stone was readily available. These were mostly built more for the protection and benefit of the populace, such as a nearby village, rather than a noble, as per later castles.

When William the Conqueror wrestled rule of England from the Anglo-Saxons in the years following 1066, his nobles needed strong centers from which to govern their new territories and castles fit the bill, so a flurry of castle-building ensued (over five hundred wooden castles by the turn of the twelfth century). A revolution in construction engineering (coupled with wealth accrued from taxes, tolls, markets, rents, and licenses) soon allowed for most of these castles to be rebuilt in stone and the castle designs grew more and more complex. For instance, builders found that corners were weak and susceptible to undermining and collapse, so they began building circular towers instead of square.

Bodaim Castle, built in the 14th century

Castle construction continually evolved throughout the Middle Ages, adapting to new technologies in both the building and demolishing (sieging) processes. By about the fifteen hundreds and the advent of cannons, castles became less and less defensive fortresses and more and more luxury palaces - arrow slits were replaced with large glass windows and moats with gardens. But in the High Middle Ages (1000-1300 AD) when the castles were the center of medieval Europe.

The building of a medieval castle, just like any modern construction site, employed countless workers of various skills. A whole village was needed to facilitate the construction of a castle, especially as it often took decades to complete and the laborers and craftsmen often brought their families with them. If there was not already a town or village near the castle construction site, one would likely spring up. Such was the case with Newcastle-on-Tyne, which grew from the building of Newcastle in 1080 AD.

Here are some examples of the types of workers needed for castle construction:

• Quarrymen: split the stones from a quarry and cut them roughly to shape before transporting them to the site of the construction.
• Masons: cut and shaped the stones to fit their specific place in the castle walls and then laid them. (The Master Mason was highest in command in the castle construction.)
• Carpenters: crafted and repaired tools and tool handles, scaffolding, furniture, floors, ceilings, doors, shutters, etc. (The Master Carpenter was second in command to the Master Mason.)
• Blacksmiths: made tools, door hinges, nails, horseshoes, etc.
• Potters: (when the roof was to be tile) made the thousands of roofing tiles, plus drinking jugs and such for the workers.
• Rope makers: made the rope for machinery, as well as everyday uses like bucket handles, animal leads, and belts.
• Basket weavers: wove the baskets that carried stones, food, etc. around the site.
• Plasterers and Painters: decorated the insides of finished castles to be bright and cheery.

A cast of animals were imperative to the castle-building plight, too. Donkeys and horses were needed to pull carts and haul logs and stones. Sheep's wool was used in clothing for the workers and goats provided milk for cheese. The construction process also required many ingenious machines such as the "squirrel cage" treadwheel crane. It was powered by one or two men who walked inside it and could lift a stone weighing a few tons! They also used wooden scaffolding and stone-splitting tools such as the chase-masse, (read more about the chase-masse here).

The Master Mason was in charge of hundreds or thousands of workers and held the daunting task of coordinating the whole process of raising a castle. As the thousands of magnificent castles still standing across Europe testify, whether fully in tact or crumbling back into the landscape, to the immensity of his job. These castles also testify to the vast importance of a chaotic, yet glorious, part of the history of the Western world. They may stand in ruin, but they still stand.

(See the continuation of this post here.)