5

Borough
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the area of London known as "the Borough", see Southwark.
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article
by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. (August 2014)
A borough is an administrative division in various countries. In principle, the term borough
designates a self-governing walled town, although in practice, official use of the term varies
widely.
The word borough derives from common Germanic *Burg, meaning fort: compare with bury,
burgh and brough (England), burgh (Scotland), Burg (Germany), borg (Scandinavia), burcht
(Dutch), and the Germanic borrowing present in neighbouring Indo-european languages such as
borgo (Italian), bourg (French), burgo (Spanish and Portuguese), burg (Romanian), purg
(Kajkavian) and durg () (Hindi) and arg (( )Persian). The incidence of these words as
suffixes to place names (for example, Aldeburgh, Bamburgh, Tilbury, Tilburg, Strasbourg
(Strossburi in the local dialect), Luxembourg, Edinburgh, Grundisburgh, Hamburg, Gothenburg)
usually indicates that they were once fortified settlements.
In the Middle Ages, boroughs were settlements in England that were granted some selfgovernment; burghs were the Scottish equivalent. In medieval England, boroughs were also
entitled to elect members of parliament. The use of the word borough probably derives from the
burghal system of Alfred the Great. Alfred set up a system of defensive strong points (Burhs); in
order to maintain these settlements, he granted them a degree of autonomy. After the Norman
Conquest, when certain towns were granted self-governance, the concept of the burh/borough
seems to have been reused to mean a self-governing settlement.
The concept of the borough has been used repeatedly (and often differently) throughout the
world. Often, a borough is a single town with its own local government. However, in some cities
it is a subdivision of the city (for example, New York City, London and Montreal). In such cases,
the borough will normally have either limited powers delegated to it by the city's local
government, or no powers at all. In other places, such as Alaska, borough designates a whole
region; Alaska's largest borough, the North Slope Borough, is comparable in area to the entire
United Kingdom, although its population is less than that of Swanage. In Australia, a borough
was once a self-governing small town, but this designation has all but vanished, except for the
only remaining borough in the country, which is the Borough of Queenscliffe.
Boroughs as administrative units are to be found in Ireland and the United Kingdom, more
specifically in England and Northern Ireland. Boroughs also exist in the Canadian province of
Quebec and formerly in Ontario, in some states of the United States, in Israel, formerly in New
Zealand and only one left in Australia.
Contents
1 Etymology
2 Pronunciation
3 Uses of borough
o 3.1 England and Wales
3.1.1 Ancient and municipal boroughs
3.1.2 Parliamentary boroughs
3.1.3 County boroughs
3.1.4 Metropolitan boroughs
3.1.5 Other current uses
o 3.2 Northern Ireland

o 3.3 Scotland
o 3.4 Canada
o 3.5 United States
o 3.6 Mexico
o 3.7 Australia
o 3.8 Republic of Ireland
o 3.9 New Zealand
o 3.10 Israel
o 3.11 Netherlands
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Etymology
The word borough derives from the Old English word burh, meaning a fortified settlement.
Other English derivatives of burh include bury, brough and burgh. There are obvious cognates in
other Indo-European languages. For example; burgh in Scots and Middle English; burg in
German and Old English,[1] borg in Scandinavian languages; parcus in Latin and pyrgos in
Greek, ( borj) in Persian.
A number of other European languages have cognate words that were borrowed from the
Germanic languages during the Middle Ages, including brog in Irish, bwr or bwrc, meaning
"wall, rampart" in Welsh, bourg in French, burg in Catalan (in Catalonia there is a town named
Burg), borgo in Italian, and burgo in Spanish (hence the place-name Burgos).
The 'burg' element is often confused with 'berg' meaning hill or mountain (cf. iceberg). Hence the
'berg' element in Bergen relates to a hill, rather than a fort. In some cases, the 'berg' element in
place names has converged towards burg/borough; for instance Farnborough, from fernaberga
(fern-hill).
Pronunciation
In many parts of England, "borough" is pronounced i/br/ as an independent word, and as
/br/ when a suffix of a place-name. As a suffix, it is sometimes spelled "-brough".
In the United States, "borough" is pronounced /bro/ or /bro/. When appearing as the
suffix "-burg(h)" in place-names, it is pronounced /br/.
Uses of borough
England and Wales
Main articles: History of local government in England and Borough status in the United
Kingdom
Ancient and municipal boroughs
Main articles: Ancient borough and Municipal borough
During the medieval period many towns were granted self-governance by the Crown, at which
point they became referred to as boroughs. The formal status of borough came to be conferred by
Royal Charter. These boroughs were generally governed by a self-selecting corporation (i.e.,
when a member died or resigned his replacement would be by co-option). Sometimes boroughs
were governed by bailiffs or headboroughs.
Debates on the Reform Bill (eventually the Reform Act 1832) had highlighted the variations in
systems of governance of towns, and a Royal Commission was set up to investigate the issue.
This resulted in a regularisation of municipal government (Municipal Corporations Act 1835).
178 of the ancient boroughs were reformed as municipal boroughs, with all municipal
corporations to be elected according to a standard franchise based on property ownership. The
unreformed boroughs either lapsed in borough status, or were reformed (or abolished) at a later
time. Several new municipal boroughs were formed in the new industrial cities after the bill
enacted, according to the provisions of the bill.
As part of a large-scale reform of local government in England and Wales in 1974, municipal
boroughs were finally abolished (having become increasingly irrelevant). However, the civic
traditions of many boroughs were continued by the grant of a charter to their successor district
councils. In smaller boroughs, a town council was formed for the area of the abolished borough,
while charter trustees were formed in other former boroughs. In each case, the new body was
allowed to use the regalia of the old corporation, and appoint ceremonial office holders such as
sword and mace bearers as provided in their original charters. The council or trustees may apply
for an Order in Council or Royal Licence to use the former borough coat of arms.
Parliamentary boroughs
Further information: Reform Act 1832
From 1265, two burgesses from each borough were summoned to the Parliament of England,
alongside two knights from each county. Thus parliamentary constituencies were derived from
the ancient boroughs. Representation in the House of Commons was decided by the House itself,
which resulted in boroughs being established in some small settlements for the purposes of
parliamentary representation, despite their possessing no actual corporation.
After the Reform Act, which disenfranchised many of the rotten boroughs (boroughs that had
declined in importance, had only a small population, and had only a handful of eligible voters),
parliamentary constituencies began to diverge from the ancient boroughs. While many ancient
boroughs remained as municipal boroughs, they were disenfranchised by the Reform Act.
County boroughs
Main article: County boroughs
The Local Government Act 1888 established a new sort of borough the county borough. These
were designed to be 'counties-to-themselves'; administrative divisions to sit alongside the new
administrative counties. They allowed urban areas to be administered separately from the more
rural areas. They, therefore, often contained pre-existing municipal boroughs, which thereafter
became part of the second tier of local government, below the administrative counties and county
boroughs.
The county boroughs were, like the municipal boroughs, abolished in 1974, being reabsorbed
into their parent counties for administrative purposes.
Metropolitan boroughs
Main article: Metropolitan borough
In 1899, as part of a reform of local government in the County of London, the various parishes in
London were reorganised as new entities, the 'metropolitan boroughs'. These were reorganised
further when Greater London was formed out of Middlesex and the County of London in 1965.
When the new metropolitan counties (Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne
and Wear, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire) were created in 1974, their sub-divisions also
became metropolitan boroughs; in many cases these metropolitan boroughs recapitulated
abolished county boroughs (for example, Stockport). The metropolitan boroughs possessed
slightly more autonomy from the metropolitan county councils than the shire county districts did
from their county councils.
With the abolition of the metropolitan county councils in 1986, these metropolitan boroughs
became independent, and continue to be so at present.
Other current uses
Elsewhere in England a number of districts and unitary authority areas are called "borough".
Until 1974, this was a status that denoted towns with a certain type of local government (a
municipal corporation). Since 1974, it has been a purely ceremonial style granted by royal
charter to districts which may consist of a single town or may include a number of towns or rural
areas. Borough status entitles the council chairman to bear the title of mayor. Districts may apply
to the British Crown for the grant of borough status upon advice of the Privy Council of the
United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, local government was reorganised in 1973. Under the legislation that created
the 26 districts of Northern Ireland, a district council whose area included an existing municipal
borough could resolve to adopt the charter of the old municipality and thus continue to enjoy
borough status. Districts that do not contain a former borough can apply for a charter in a similar
manner to English districts.
Scotland
Main article: burgh
Canada
Main article: Municipal government in Canada
In Quebec, the term borough is generally used as the English translation of arrondissement,
referring to an administrative division of a municipality. Only eight municipalities in Quebec are
divided into boroughs. See List of boroughs in Quebec.
It was previously used in Metropolitan Toronto, Ontario, to denote suburban municipalities
including Scarborough, York, North York, Etobicoke prior to their conversion into cities. The
Borough of East York was the last Toronto municipality to hold this status, relinquishing it upon
becoming part of the City of Toronto on January 1, 1998.
United States
Main article: Borough (United States)
In the United States, a borough is a unit of local government below the level of the state. The
term is currently used in seven states.
The following states use, or have used, the word with the following meanings:
Alaska, as a county-equivalent
Connecticut, as an incorporated municipality within, or consolidated with, a town
Minnesota, formerly applied to one municipality
New Jersey, as a type of independent incorporated municipality - see Borough (New

Jersey)
New York, as one of the five divisions of New York City, each coextensive with a county
- See Borough (New York City)
Pennsylvania, as a type of municipality comparable to a town. Only one incorporated

town is chartered in Pennsylvania. - see Borough (Pennsylvania)
Virginia, as a division of a city under certain circumstances.
Certain names of places, such as Hillsboro, OR, Greensboro, NC, Tyngsborough, MA, and
Maynesborough, NH reflect the historical use of Borough as a geographical scale in the United
States.[2]
Mexico
In Mexico as translations from English to Spanish applied to Mexico City, the word borough has
resulted in a delegacin (delegation), referring to the 16 administrative areas within the Mexican
Federal District. Also the municipalities of some states are administratively subdivided into
boroughs, as showed in Municipality of Mexicali#Boroughs. (see: Boroughs of Mexico and

Boroughs of the Mexican Federal District)
Australia
In Australia, the term "borough" is an occasionally used term for a local government area.
Currently there is only one borough in Australia, the Borough of Queenscliffe in Victoria,
although there have been more in the past. However, in some cases it can be integrated into the
councils name instead of used as an official title, such as the Municipality of Kingborough in
Tasmania.
Republic of Ireland
The Local Government Reform Act 2014 replaced the urban-only second-tier local government
units with new urban and rural units termed "municipal districts". The abolished units included
five which were termed "boroughs", namely Clonmel, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Sligo, and Wexford.
However, the municipal districts containing four of these are styled "borough districts"; the
exception is Kilkenny, whose district is the "Municipal District of Kilkenny City", because of
Kilkenny's city status.[3]
Earlier Irish boroughs include the 117 parliamentary boroughs of the Irish House of Commons,
of which 80 were disfranchised by the Acts of Union 1800 and all but 11 abolished under the
Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840. The six largest of those eleven became county
boroughs under the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, of which those in the Republic were
reclassed as "cities" under the Local Government Act 2001. Galway was a borough from 1937
until promoted to county borough in 1985,[4][5] and Dn Laoghaire was a borough from 1930 until
merged into Dn LaoghaireRathdown county in 1993.[6][7]
New Zealand
New Zealand formerly used the term borough to designate self-governing towns of more than
1,000 people, although 19th century census records show many boroughs with populations as
low as 200.[8] A borough of more than 20,000 people could become a city by proclamation.
Boroughs and cities were collectively known as municipalities, and were enclaves separate from
their surrounding counties. Boroughs proliferated in the suburban areas of the larger cities: By
the 1980s there were 19 boroughs and three cities in the area that is now the City of Auckland.
In the 1980s, some boroughs and cities began to be merged with their surrounding counties to
form districts with a mixed urban and rural population. A nationwide reform of local government
in 1989 completed the process. Counties and boroughs were abolished and all boundaries were
redrawn. Under the new system, most territorial authorities cover both urban and rural land. The
more populated councils are classified as cities, and the more rural councils are classified as
districts. Only Kawerau District, an enclave within Whakatane District, continues to follow the
tradition of a small town council that does not include surrounding rural area.
Israel
Under Israeli law, inherited from British Mandate municipal law, the possibility of creating a
municipal borough exists. However, no borough was actually created under law until 20052006,
when Neve Monosson and Maccabim-Re'ut, both communal settlements (Heb: yishuv kehilati)
founded in 1953 and 1984, respectively, were declared to be autonomous municipal boroughs
(Heb: vaad rova ironi), within their mergers with the towns of Yehud and Modi'in. Similar
structures have been created under different types of legal status over the years in Israel, notably
Kiryat Haim in Haifa, Jaffa in Tel Aviv-Yafo and Ramot and Gilo in Jerusalem. However, Neve
Monosson is the first example of a full municipal borough actually declared under law by the
Minister of the Interior, under a model subsequently adopted in Maccabim-Re'ut as well.
It is the declared intention of the Interior Ministry to use the borough mechanism in order to
facilitate municipal mergers in Israel, after a 2003 wide-reaching merger plan, which, in general,
ignored the sensitivities of the communal settlements, and largely failed.
Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the municipalities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam are divided into
administrative boroughs, or deelgemeenten, which have their own borough council and a
borough mayor. Other large cites are usually divided into districts, or stadsdelen, for census
purposes.
See also
Borough status in the United Kingdom
Boroughs incorporated in England and Wales 18351882
Boroughs incorporated in England and Wales 18821974
Boroughs in New York City
Burgh
County borough
Ancient borough
History of local government in England
List of burghs in Scotland
Metropolitan borough
Municipal borough
References
1.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000)
Words Ending with Boro
"Local Government Reform Act 2014, Section 19 (insertion of section 22A into the Local
Government Act 2001)". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 2 August 2014.
"Local Government (Galway) Act, 1937". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 5 August 2014.
"Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 5 August
2014.
"Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 5 August 2014.
"Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1993". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 5 August 2014.
1881 census summary
1.
External links
Look up borough in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Bateson, Mary; Smith, William Charles (1911). "Borough". Encyclopdia Britannica

(11th ed.).
Smith, William Charles (1878). "Borough". Encyclopaedia Britannica 4 (9th ed.).

[show]
Designations for types of administrative territorial entities

Categories:
Boroughs
Local government in Canada
Types of subdivision in the United Kingdom
Types of populated places
Types of country subdivisions
Navigation menu
Create account
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Azrbaycanca
Bn-lm-g
Catal
Dansk
Deutsch
Franais
Gaelg
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Ltzebuergesch
Magyar
Nederlands
Norsk bokml
Polski
Portugus
Romn
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
Trke
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 September 2015, at 08:57.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional

terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Norman conquest of England

(Redirected from Norman Conquest)
"Norman conquest" redirects here. For other uses, see Norman conquest (disambiguation).
Location of major events during the Norman conquest of England in 1066

[show]

The Norman conquest of England was the 11th-century invasion and occupation of England by
an army of Norman, Breton, and French soldiers led by Duke William II of Normandy, later
styled as William the Conqueror.
William's claim to the English throne derived from his familial relationship with the childless
Anglo-Saxon King Edward the Confessor, who may have encouraged William's hopes for the
throne. Edward died in January 1066 and was succeeded by his brother-in-law Harold
Godwinson. The Norwegian king Harald Hardrada invaded northern England in September
1066, and was victorious at the Battle of Fulford, but Harold defeated and killed him at the Battle
of Stamford Bridge on 25 September 1066. Within days, William landed in southern England.
Harold marched south to confront him, leaving a significant portion of his army in the north.
Harold's army confronted William's invaders on 14 October at the Battle of Hastings; William's
force defeated Harold, who was killed in the engagement.
Although William's main rivals were gone, he still faced rebellions over the following years and
was not secure on his throne until after 1072. The lands of the resisting English elite were
confiscated; some of the elite fled into exile. To control his new kingdom, William gave lands to
his followers and built castles commanding military strongpoints throughout the land. Other
effects of the conquest included the court and government, the introduction of Norman French as
the language of the elites, and changes in the composition of the upper classes, as William
enfeoffed lands to be held directly from the king. More gradual changes affected the agricultural
classes and village life: the main change appears to have been the formal elimination of slavery,
which may or may not have been linked to the invasion. There was little alteration in the
structure of government, as the new Norman administrators took over many of the forms of
Anglo-Saxon government.
Contents
1 Origins
2 Tostig's raids and the Norwegian invasion
3 Norman invasion
o 3.1 Norman preparations and forces
o 3.2 Landing and Harold's march south
o 3.3 Hastings
o 3.4 Aftermath of Hastings
4 English resistance
o 4.1 First rebellions
o 4.2 Revolts of 1069
o 4.3 Danish troubles
o 4.4 Last resistance
5 Control of England
6 Consequences
o 6.1 Elite replacement
o 6.2 English emigration

o 6.3 Governmental systems
o 6.4 Language
o 6.5 Immigration and intermarriage
o 6.6 Society
7 Historiography
8 Notes
9 Citations
10 References
11 External links
Origins
13th-century depiction of Rollo and his descendants William I of Normandy and Richard I of
Normandy
In 911 the French Carolingian ruler Charles the Simple allowed a group of Vikings under their
leader Rollo to settle in Normandy as part of the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for
the land, the Norsemen under Rollo were expected to provide protection along the coast against
further Viking invaders.[1] Their settlement proved successful, and the Vikings in the region
became known as the "Northmen" from which "Normandy" and "Normans" are derived.[2] The
Normans quickly adopted the indigenous culture, renouncing paganism and converting to
Christianity.[3] They adopted the langue d'ol of their new home and added features from their
own Norse language, transforming it into the Norman language. They intermarried with the local
population[4] and used the territory granted them as a base to extend the frontiers of the duchy
westward, annexing territory including the Bessin, the Cotentin Peninsula and Avranches.[5]
In 1002 King thelred II of England married Emma, the sister of Richard II, Duke of
Normandy.[6] Their son Edward the Confessor, who spent many years in exile in Normandy,
succeeded to the English throne in 1042.[7] This led to the establishment of a powerful Norman
interest in English politics, as Edward drew heavily on his former hosts for support, bringing in
Norman courtiers, soldiers, and clerics and appointing them to positions of power, particularly in
the Church. Childless and embroiled in conflict with the formidable Godwin, Earl of Wessex,
and his sons, Edward may also have encouraged Duke William of Normandy's ambitions for the
English throne.[8]
When King Edward died at the beginning of 1066, the lack of a clear heir led to a disputed
succession in which several contenders laid claim to the throne of England.[9] Edward's
immediate successor was the Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson, the richest and most powerful
of the English aristocrats. Harold was elected king by the Witenagemot of England and crowned
by the Archbishop of York, Ealdred, although Norman propaganda claimed the ceremony was
performed by Stigand, the uncanonically elected Archbishop of Canterbury.[9][10] Harold was
immediately challenged by two powerful neighbouring rulers. Duke William claimed that he had
been promised the throne by King Edward and that Harold had sworn agreement to this;[11] King
Harald III of Norway, commonly known as Harald Hardrada, also contested the succession. His
claim to the throne was based on an agreement between his predecessor Magnus I of Norway and
the earlier English king, Harthacnut, whereby if either died without heir, the other would inherit
both England and Norway.[12][a] William and Harald at once set about assembling troops and ships
to invade England.[16][b]
Tostig's raids and the Norwegian invasion

Main article: Battle of Stamford Bridge
In early 1066, Harold's exiled brother Tostig Godwinson raided southeastern England with a fleet
he had recruited in Flanders, later joined by other ships from Orkney.[c] Threatened by Harold's
fleet, Tostig moved north and raided in East Anglia and Lincolnshire, but he was driven back to
his ships by the brothers Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and Morcar, Earl of Northumbria. Deserted by
most of his followers, he withdrew to Scotland, where he spent the summer recruiting fresh
forces.[23][d] King Harold spent the summer on the south coast with a large army and fleet waiting
for William to invade, but the bulk of his forces were militia who needed to harvest their crops,
so on 8 September Harold dismissed them.[24]
King Harald Hardrada invaded northern England in early September, leading a fleet of more than
300 ships carrying perhaps 15,000 men. Harald's army was further augmented by the forces of
Tostig, who threw his support behind the Norwegian king's bid for the throne. Advancing on
York, the Norwegians defeated a northern English army under Edwin and Morcar on 20
September at the Battle of Fulford.[25] The two earls had rushed to engage the Norwegian forces
before King Harold could arrive from the south. Although Harold Godwinson had married Edwin
and Morcar's sister Ealdgyth, the two earls may have distrusted Harold and feared that the king
would replace Morcar with Tostig. The end result was that their forces were devastated and
unable to participate in the rest of the campaigns of 1066, although the two earls survived the
battle.[26]
Hardrada moved on to York, which surrendered to him. After taking hostages from the leading
men of the city, on 24 September the Norwegians moved east to the tiny village of Stamford
Bridge.[27] King Harold probably learned of the Norwegian invasion in mid-September and
rushed north, gathering forces as he went.[28] The royal forces probably took nine days to cover
the distance from London to York, averaging almost 25 miles (40 kilometres) per day. At dawn
on 25 September Harold's forces reached York, where he learned the location of the Norwegians.
[29]
The English then marched on the invaders and took them by surprise, defeating them in the
Battle of Stamford Bridge. Harald of Norway and Tostig were killed, and the Norwegians
suffered such horrific losses that only 24 of the original 300 ships were required to carry away
the survivors. The English victory was costly, as Harold's army was left in a battered and
weakened state.[28]
Norman invasion
Norman preparations and forces
William assembled a large invasion fleet and an army gathered from Normandy and all over
France, including large contingents from Brittany and Flanders.[30] He mustered his forces at
Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and was ready to cross the Channel by about 12 August.[31] The exact
numbers and composition of William's force are unknown.[32] A contemporary document claims
that William had 726 ships, but this may be an inflated figure.[33] Figures given by contemporary
writers are highly exaggerated, varying from 14,000 to 150,000 men.[34] Modern historians have
offered a range of estimates for the size of William's forces: 70008000 men, 10002000 of them
cavalry;[35] 10,00012,000 men;[34] 10,000 men, 3000 of them cavalry;[36] or 7500 men.[32] The
army would have consisted of a mix of cavalry, infantry, and archers or crossbowmen, with about
equal numbers of cavalry and archers and the foot soldiers equal in number to the other two
types combined.[37] Although later lists of companions of William the Conqueror are extant, most
are padded with extra names; only about 35 individuals can be reliably claimed to have been
with William at Hastings.[32][38][e]
William of Poitiers states that William obtained Pope Alexander II's consent for the invasion,
signified by a papal banner, along with diplomatic support from other European rulers. Although
Alexander did give papal approval to the conquest after it succeeded, no other source claims
papal support before the invasion.[f] William's army assembled during the summer while an
invasion fleet in Normandy was constructed. Although the army and fleet were ready by early
August, adverse winds kept the ships in Normandy until late September. There were probably
other reasons for William's delay, including intelligence reports from England revealing that
Harold's forces were deployed along the coast. William would have preferred to delay the
invasion until he could make an unopposed landing.[40]
Landing and Harold's march south
Landing in England scene from the Bayeux Tapestry, depicting ships coming in and horses
landing
The Normans crossed to England a few days after Harold's victory over the Norwegians at
Stamford Bridge on 25 September, following the dispersal of Harold's naval force. They landed
at Pevensey in Sussex on 28 September and erected a wooden castle at Hastings, from which
they raided the surrounding area.[30] This ensured supplies for the army, and as Harold and his
family held many of the lands in the area, it weakened William's opponent and made him more
likely to attack to put an end to the raiding.[41]
Harold, after defeating his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada in the north, left much of his force
there, including Morcar and Edwin, and marched the rest of his army south to deal with the
threatened Norman invasion.[42] It is unclear when Harold learned of William's landing, but it was
probably while he was travelling south. Harold stopped in London for about a week before
reaching Hastings, so it is likely that he took a second week to march south, averaging about 27
miles (43 kilometres) per day,[43] for the nearly 200 miles (320 kilometres) to London.[44]
Although Harold attempted to surprise the Normans, William's scouts reported the English
arrival to the duke. The exact events preceding the battle remain obscure, with contradictory
accounts in the sources, but all agree that William led his army from his castle and advanced
towards the enemy.[45] Harold had taken up a defensive position at the top of Senlac Hill (presentday Battle, East Sussex), about 6 miles (10 kilometres) from William's castle at Hastings.[46]
Contemporary sources do not give reliable data on the size and composition of Harold's army,
although two Norman sources give figures of 1.2 million or 400,000 men.[47] Recent historians
have suggested figures of between 5000 and 13,000 for Harold's army at Hastings,[48] but most
agree on a range of between 7000 and 8000 English troops.[49][50] These men would have
comprised a mix of the fyrd (militia mainly composed of foot soldiers) and the housecarls, or
nobleman's personal troops, who usually also fought on foot. The main difference between the
two types was in their armour; the housecarls used better protecting armour than that of the fyrd.
The English army does not appear to have had many archers, although some were present.[49]
Few individual Englishmen are known to have been at Hastings; the most important were
Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine.[32] About 18 other named individuals can reasonably be
assumed to have fought with Harold at Hastings, including two of his other relatives.[39][g]
Hastings
Main article: Battle of Hastings
Depiction of Harold's death from the Bayeux Tapestry
The battle began at about 9 am on 14 October 1066 and lasted all day, but while a broad outline
is known, the exact events are obscured by contradictory accounts in the sources.[51] Although the
numbers on each side were probably about equal, William had both cavalry and infantry,
including many archers, while Harold had only foot soldiers and few archers.[52] The English
soldiers formed up as a shield wall along the ridge, and were at first so effective that William's
army was thrown back with heavy casualties. Some of William's Breton troops panicked and
fled, and some of the English troops appear to have pursued the fleeing Bretons. Norman cavalry
then attacked and killed the pursuing troops. While the Bretons were fleeing, rumours swept the
Norman forces that the duke had been killed, but William rallied his troops. Twice more the
Normans made feigned withdrawals, tempting the English into pursuit, and allowing the Norman
cavalry to attack them repeatedly.[53] The available sources are more confused about events in the
afternoon, but it appears that the decisive event was the death of Harold, about which differing
stories are told. William of Jumieges claimed that Harold was killed by the duke. The Bayeux
Tapestry has been claimed to show Harold's death by an arrow to the eye, but this may be a later
reworking of the tapestry to conform to 12th-century stories that Harold had died from an arrow
wound to the head.[54] Other sources stated that no one knew how Harold died because the press
of battle was so tight around the king that the soldiers could not see who struck the fatal blow.[55]
William of Poitiers gives no details at all about Harold's death.[56]
Aftermath of Hastings
The day after the battle, Harold's body was identified, either by his armour or marks on his body.
[h]
The bodies of the English dead, who included some of Harold's brothers and his housecarls,
were left on the battlefield,[58] although some were removed by relatives later.[59] Gytha, Harold's
mother, offered the victorious duke the weight of her son's body in gold for its custody, but her
offer was refused. William ordered that Harold's body was to be thrown into the sea, but whether
that took place is unclear.[58] Another story relates that Harold was buried at the top of a cliff.[60]
Waltham Abbey, which had been founded by Harold, later claimed that his body had been buried
there secretly.[58] Later legends claimed that Harold did not die at Hastings, but escaped and
became a hermit at Chester.[59]
After his victory at Hastings, William expected to receive the submission of the surviving
English leaders, but instead Edgar the theling[i] was proclaimed king by the Witenagemot, with
the support of Earls Edwin and Morcar, Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ealdred, the
Archbishop of York.[62] William therefore advanced, marching around the coast of Kent to
London. He defeated an English force that attacked him at Southwark, but being unable to storm
London Bridge he sought to reach the capital by a more circuitous route.[63]
William moved up the Thames valley to cross the river at Wallingford, Berkshire; while there he
received the submission of Stigand. He then travelled north-east along the Chilterns, before
advancing towards London from the north-west, fighting further engagements against forces
from the city. Having failed to muster an effective military response, Edgar's leading supporters
lost their nerve, and the English leaders surrendered to William at Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire.
William was acclaimed King of England and crowned by Ealdred on 25 December 1066, in
Westminster Abbey.[63][j] The new king attempted to conciliate the remaining English nobility by
confirming Morcar, Edwin and Waltheof, the Earl of Northumbria, in their lands as well as
giving some land to Edgar the theling. William remained in England until March 1067, when
he returned to Normandy with English prisoners, including Stigand, Morcar, Edwin, Edgar the
theling, and Waltheof.[65]
English resistance
First rebellions
Despite the submission of the English nobles, resistance continued for several years.[66] William
left control of England in the hands of his half-brother Odo and one of his closest supporters,
William fitzOsbern.[65] In 1067 rebels in Kent launched an unsuccessful attack on Dover Castle in
combination with Eustace II of Boulogne.[66] The Shropshire landowner Eadric the Wild,[k] in
alliance with the Welsh rulers of Gwynedd and Powys, raised a revolt in western Mercia, fighting
Norman forces based in Hereford.[66] These events forced William to return to England at the end
of 1067.[65] In 1068 William besieged rebels in Exeter, including Harold's mother Gytha, and
after suffering heavy losses managed to negotiate the town's surrender.[68] In May, William's wife
Matilda was crowned queen at Westminster, an important symbol of William's growing
international stature.[69] Later in the year Edwin and Morcar raised a revolt in Mercia with Welsh
assistance, while Gospatric, the newly appointed Earl of Northumbria,[l] led a rising in
Northumbria, which had not yet been occupied by the Normans. These rebellions rapidly
collapsed as William moved against them, building castles and installing garrisons as he had
already done in the south.[71] Edwin and Morcar again submitted, while Gospatric fled to
Scotland, as did Edgar the theling and his family, who may have been involved in these
revolts.[72] Meanwhile, Harold's sons, who had taken refuge in Ireland, raided Somerset, Devon
and Cornwall from the sea.[73]
Revolts of 1069
Main article: Harrying of the North
The remains of the second motte-and-bailey castle built by William in York

Early in 1069 the newly installed Norman Earl of Northumbria, Robert de Comines, and several
hundred soldiers accompanying him were massacred at Durham; the Northumbrian rebellion was
joined by Edgar, Gospatric, Siward Barn and other rebels who had taken refuge in Scotland. The
castellan of York, Robert fitzRichard, was defeated and killed, and the rebels besieged the
Norman castle at York. William hurried north with an army, defeated the rebels outside York and
pursued them into the city, massacring the inhabitants and bringing the revolt to an end.[74] He
built a second castle at York, strengthened Norman forces in Northumbria and then returned
south. A subsequent local uprising was crushed by the garrison of York.[74] Harold's sons
launched a second raid from Ireland and were defeated in Devon by Norman forces under Count
Brian, a son of Eudes, Count of Penthivre.[75] In August or September 1069 a large fleet sent by
Sweyn II of Denmark arrived off the coast of England, sparking a new wave of rebellions across
the country. After abortive raids in the south, the Danes joined forces with a new Northumbrian
uprising, which was also joined by Edgar, Gospatric and the other exiles from Scotland as well
as Waltheof. The combined Danish and English forces defeated the Norman garrison at York,
seized the castles and took control of Northumbria, although a raid into Lincolnshire led by
Edgar was defeated by the Norman garrison of Lincoln.[76]
At the same time resistance flared up again in western Mercia, where the forces of Eadric the
Wild, together with his Welsh allies and further rebel forces from Cheshire and Shropshire,
attacked the castle at Shrewsbury. In the south-west, rebels from Devon and Cornwall attacked
the Norman garrison at Exeter, but were repulsed by the defenders and scattered by a Norman
relief force under Count Brian. Other rebels from Dorset, Somerset and neighbouring areas
besieged Montacute Castle but were defeated by a Norman army gathered from London,
Winchester and Salisbury under Geoffrey of Coutances.[76] Meanwhile, William attacked the
Danes, who had moored for the winter south of the Humber in Lincolnshire, and drove them
back to the north bank. Leaving Robert of Mortain in charge of Lincolnshire, he turned west and
defeated the Mercian rebels in battle at Stafford. When the Danes attempted to return to
Lincolnshire, the Norman forces there again drove them back across the Humber. William
advanced into Northumbria, defeating an attempt to block his crossing of the swollen River Aire
at Pontefract. The Danes fled at his approach, and he occupied York. He bought off the Danes,
who agreed to leave England in the spring, and during the winter of 106970 his forces
systematically devastated Northumbria in the Harrying of the North, subduing all resistance.[76]
As a symbol of his renewed authority over the north, William ceremonially wore his crown at
York on Christmas Day 1069.[70]
In early 1070, having secured the submission of Waltheof and Gospatric, and driven Edgar and
his remaining supporters back to Scotland, William returned to Mercia, where he based himself
at Chester and crushed all remaining resistance in the area before returning to the south.[76] Papal
legates arrived and at Easter re-crowned William, which would have symbolically reasserted his
right to the kingdom. William also oversaw a purge of prelates from the Church, most notably
Stigand, who was deposed from Canterbury. The papal legates also imposed penances on
William and those of his supporters who had taken part in Hastings and the subsequent
campaigns.[77] As well as Canterbury, the see of York had become vacant following the death of
Ealdred in September 1069. Both sees were filled by men loyal to William: Lanfranc, abbot of
William's foundation at Caen received Canterbury while Thomas of Bayeux, one of William's
chaplains, was installed at York. Some other bishoprics and abbeys also received new bishops
and abbots and William confiscated some of the wealth of the English monasteries, which had
served as repositories for the assets of the native nobles.[78]
Danish troubles
Coin of Sweyn II of Denmark

In 1070 Sweyn II of Denmark arrived to take personal command of his fleet and renounced the
earlier agreement to withdraw, sending troops into the Fens to join forces with English rebels led
by Hereward the Wake,[m] based on the Isle of Ely. Sweyn soon accepted a further payment of
Danegeld from William, and returned home.[80] After the departure of the Danes the Fenland
rebels remained at large, protected by the marshes, and early in 1071 there was a final outbreak
of rebel activity in the area. Edwin and Morcar again turned against William, and although
Edwin was quickly betrayed and killed, Morcar reached Ely, where he and Hereward were joined
by exiled rebels who had sailed from Scotland. William arrived with an army and a fleet to finish
off this last pocket of resistance. After some costly failures the Normans managed to construct a
pontoon to reach the Isle of Ely, defeated the rebels at the bridgehead and stormed the island,
marking the effective end of English resistance.[81] Morcar was imprisoned for the rest of his life;
Hereward was pardoned and had his lands returned to him.[82]
Last resistance
Main article: Revolt of the Earls
William faced difficulties in his continental possessions in 1071,[83] but in 1072 he returned to
England and marched north to confront King Malcolm III of Scotland.[n] This campaign, which
included a land army supported by a fleet, resulted in the Treaty of Abernethy in which Malcolm
expelled Edgar the theling from Scotland and agreed to some degree of subordination to
William.[82] The exact status of this subordination was unclear the treaty merely stated that
Malcolm became William's man. Whether this meant only for Cumbria and Lothian or for the
whole Scottish kingdom was left ambiguous.[84]
In 1075, during William's absence, Ralph de Gael, the Earl of Norfolk, and Roger de Breteuil the
Earl of Hereford, conspired to overthrow him in the Revolt of the Earls.[85] The exact reason for
the rebellion is unclear, but it was launched at the wedding of Ralph to a relative of Roger's, held
at Exning. Another earl, Waltheof, despite being one of William's favourites, was also involved,
and some Breton lords were ready to offer support. Ralph also requested Danish aid. William
remained in Normandy while his men in England subdued the revolt. Roger was unable to leave
his stronghold in Herefordshire because of efforts by Wulfstan, the Bishop of Worcester, and
thelwig, the Abbot of Evesham. Ralph was bottled up in Norwich Castle by the combined
efforts of Odo of Bayeux, Geoffrey of Coutances, Richard fitzGilbert, and William de Warenne.
Norwich was besieged and surrendered, and Ralph went into exile. Meanwhile, the Danish king's
brother, Cnut, had finally arrived in England with a fleet of 200 ships, but he was too late as
Norwich had already surrendered. The Danes then raided along the coast before returning home.
[85]
William did not return to England until later in 1075, to deal with the Danish threat and the
aftermath of the rebellion, celebrating Christmas at Winchester.[86] Roger and Waltheof were kept
in prison, where Waltheof was executed in May 1076. By that time William had returned to the
continent, where Ralph was continuing the rebellion from Brittany.[85]
Control of England
The Tower of London, originally begun by William the Conqueror to control London[87]
Once England had been conquered, the Normans faced many challenges in maintaining control.
[88]
They were few in number compared to the native English population; including those from
other parts of France, historians estimate the number of Norman settlers at around 8000.[89]
William's followers expected and received lands and titles in return for their service in the
invasion,[90] but William claimed ultimate possession of the land in England over which his
armies had given him de facto control, and asserted the right to dispose of it as he saw fit.[91]
Henceforth, all land was "held" directly from the king in feudal tenure in return for military
service.[91] A Norman lord typically had properties located in a piecemeal fashion throughout
England and Normandy, and not in a single geographic block.[92]
To find the lands to compensate his Norman followers, William initially confiscated the estates
of all the English lords who had fought and died with Harold and redistributed part of their lands.
[93]
These confiscations led to revolts, which resulted in more confiscations, a cycle that
continued for five years after the Battle of Hastings.[90] To put down and prevent further
rebellions the Normans constructed castles and fortifications in unprecedented numbers,[94]
initially mostly on the motte-and-bailey pattern.[95] Historian Robert Liddiard remarks that "to
glance at the urban landscape of Norwich, Durham or Lincoln is to be forcibly reminded of the
impact of the Norman invasion".[96] William and his barons also exercised tighter control over
inheritance of property by widows and daughters, often forcing marriages to Normans.[97]
A measure of William's success in taking control is that, from 1072 until the Capetian conquest
of Normandy in 1204, William and his successors were largely absentee rulers. For example,
after 1072, William spent more than 75 per cent of his time in France rather than England. While
he needed to be personally present in Normandy to defend the realm from foreign invasion and
put down internal revolts, he set up royal administrative structures that enabled him to rule
England from a distance.[98]
Consequences
Elite replacement
A direct consequence of the invasion was the almost total elimination of the old English
aristocracy and the loss of English control over the Catholic Church in England. William
systematically dispossessed English landowners and conferred their property on his continental
followers. The Domesday Book meticulously documents the impact of this colossal programme
of expropriation, revealing that by 1086 only about 5 per cent of land in England south of the
Tees was left in English hands. Even this tiny residue was further diminished in the decades that
followed, the elimination of native landholding being most complete in southern parts of the
country.[99][100]
Natives were also removed from high governmental and ecclesiastical office. After 1075 all
earldoms were held by Normans, and Englishmen were only occasionally appointed as sheriffs.
Likewise in the Church, senior English office-holders were either expelled from their positions
or kept in place for their lifetimes and replaced by foreigners when they died. By 1096 no
bishopric was held by any Englishman, and English abbots became uncommon, especially in the
larger monasteries.[101]
English emigration
See also: New England (medieval)
Depiction of the Varangian Guard from the 12th-century Madrid Skylitzes

Following the conquest, many Anglo-Saxons, including groups of nobles, fled the country[102] for
Scotland, Ireland, or Scandinavia.[103] Members of King Harold Godwinson's family sought
refuge in Ireland and used their bases in that country for unsuccessful invasions of England.[69]
The largest single exodus occurred in the 1070s, when a group of Anglo-Saxons in a fleet of 235
ships sailed for the Byzantine Empire.[103] The empire became a popular destination for many
English nobles and soldiers, as the Byzantines were in need of mercenaries.[102] The English
became the predominant element in the elite Varangian Guard, until then a largely Scandinavian
unit, from which the emperor's bodyguard was drawn.[104] Some of the English migrants were
settled in Byzantine frontier regions on the Black Sea coast, and established towns with names
such as New London and New York.[102]
Governmental systems
Page from the Warwickshire Domesday survey

Before the Normans arrived, Anglo-Saxon governmental systems were more sophisticated than
their counterparts in Normandy.[105][106] All of England was divided into administrative units
called shires, with subdivisions; the royal court was the centre of government, and a justice
system based on local and regional tribunals existed to secure the rights of free men.[107] Shires
were run by officials known as shire reeves or sheriffs.[108] Most medieval governments were
always on the move, holding court wherever the weather and food or other matters were best at
the moment;[109] England had a permanent treasury at Winchester before William's conquest.[110]
One major reason for the strength of the English monarchy was the wealth of the kingdom, built
on the English system of taxation that included a land tax, or the geld. English coinage was also
superior to most of the other currency in use in northwestern Europe, and the ability to mint
coins was a royal monopoly.[111] The English kings had also developed the system of issuing writs
to their officials, in addition to the normal medieval practice of issuing charters.[112] Writs were
either instructions to an official or group of officials, or notifications of royal actions such as
appointments to office or a grant of some sort.[113]
This sophisticated medieval form of government was handed over to the Normans and was the
foundation of further developments.[107] They kept the framework of government but made
changes in the personnel, although at first the new king attempted to keep some natives in office.
By the end of William's reign most of the officials of government and the royal household were
Normans. The language of official documents also changed, from Old English to Latin. The
forest laws were introduced, leading to the setting aside of large sections of England as royal
forest.[108] The Domesday survey was an administrative catalogue of the landholdings of the
kingdom, and was unique to medieval Europe. It was divided into sections based on the shires,
and listed all the landholdings of each tenant-in-chief of the king as well as who had held the
land before the conquest.[114]
Language
One of the most obvious effects of the conquest was the introduction of Anglo-Norman, a
northern dialect of Old French, as the language of the ruling classes in England, displacing Old
English. French words entered the English language, and a further sign of the shift was the usage
of names common in France instead of Anglo-Saxon names. Male names such as William,
Robert and Richard soon became common; female names changed more slowly. The Norman
invasion had little impact on placenames, which had changed significantly after earlier
Scandinavian invasions. It is not known precisely how much English the Norman invaders
learned, nor how much the knowledge of French spread among the lower classes, but the
demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some of the Normans
and native English were bilingual.[115] Nevertheless, it is known that William the Conqueror
himself never developed a working knowledge of English and for centuries afterwards English
was not well understood by the nobility.[116]
Immigration and intermarriage

An estimated 8000 Normans and other continentals settled in England as a result of the conquest,
although exact figures cannot be established. Some of these new residents intermarried with the
native English, but the extent of this practice in the years immediately after Hastings is unclear.
Several marriages are attested between Norman men and English women during the years before
1100, but such marriages were uncommon. Most Normans continued to contract marriages with
other Normans or other continental families rather than with the English.[117] Within a century of
the invasion, intermarriage between the native English and the Norman immigrants had become
common. By the early 1160s, Ailred of Rievaulx was writing that intermarriage was common in
all levels of society.[118]
Society
Modern-day reconstruction of an Anglo-Saxon village at West Stow

The impact of the conquest on the lower levels of English society is difficult to assess. The major
change was the elimination of slavery in England, which had disappeared by the middle of the
12th century.[119] There were about 28,000 slaves listed in Domesday Book in 1086, fewer than
had been enumerated for 1066. In some places, such as Essex, the decline in slaves was 20 per
cent for the 20 years.[120] The main reasons for the decline in slaveholding appear to have been
the disapproval of the Church and the cost of supporting slaves, who unlike serfs, had to be
maintained entirely by their owners.[121] The practice of slavery was not outlawed, and the Leges
Henrici Primi from the reign of King Henry I continue to mention slaveholding as legal.[120]
Many of the free peasants of Anglo-Saxon society appear to have lost status and become
indistinguishable from the non-free serfs. Whether this change was due entirely to the conquest is
unclear, but the invasion and its after-effects probably accelerated a process already under way.
The spread of towns and increase in nucleated settlements in the countryside, rather than
scattered farms, was probably accelerated by the coming of the Normans to England.[119] The
lifestyle of the peasantry probably did not greatly change in the decades after 1066.[122] Although
earlier historians argued that women became less free and lost rights with the conquest, current
scholarship has mostly rejected this view. Little is known about women other than those in the
landholding class, so no conclusions can be drawn about peasant women's status after 1066.
Noblewomen appear to have continued to influence political life mainly through their kinship
relationships. Both before and after 1066 aristocratic women could own land, and some women
continued to have the ability to dispose of their property as they wished.[123]
Historiography
Debate over the conquest started almost immediately. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, when
discussing the death of William the Conqueror, denounced him and the conquest in verse, but the
king's obituary notice from William of Poitiers, a Frenchman, was laudatory and full of praise.
Historians since then have argued over the facts of the matter and how to interpret them, with
little agreement.[124] The theory or myth of the "Norman Yoke" arose in the 17th century,[125] the
idea that Anglo-Saxon society had been freer and more equal than the society that emerged after
the conquest.[126] This theory owes more to the period it was developed in than to historical facts,
but it continues to be used in both political and popular thought to the present day.[127]
In the 20th and 21st centuries historians have focused less on the rightness or wrongness of the
conquest itself, instead concentrating on the effects of the invasion. Some, such as Richard
Southern, have seen the conquest as a critical turning point in history.[124] Southern stated that "no
country in Europe, between the rise of the barbarian kingdoms and the 20th century, has
undergone so radical a change in so short a time as England experienced after 1066."[128] Other
historians, such as H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, believe that the transformation was less
radical.[124] In more general terms, one writer has called the conquest "the last echo of the
national migrations that characterized the early Middle Ages".[129] The debate over the impact of
the conquest depends on what metrics are used to measure change after 1066. If Anglo-Saxon
England was already evolving before the invasion, with the introduction of feudalism, castles or
other changes in society, then the conquest, while important, did not represent radical reform.
But the change was dramatic if measured by the elimination of the English nobility or the loss of
Old English as a literary language. Nationalistic arguments have been made on both sides of the
debate, with the Normans cast as either the persecutors of the English or the rescuers of the
country from a decadent Anglo-Saxon nobility.[124]
Notes
1.
Harthacnut was the son of King Cnut the Great and Emma of Normandy, and thus was the
half-brother of Edward the Confessor. He reigned from 1040 to 1042, and died without children.
[13]
Harthacnut's father Cnut had defeated thelred's son Edmund Ironside in 1016 to claim the
English throne and marry thelred's widow, Emma.[14] After Harthacnut's death in 1042, Magnus
began preparations for an invasion of England, which was only stopped by his own death in
1047.[15]
Other contenders later came to the fore. The first was Edgar theling, Edward the
Confessor's great nephew who was a patrilineal descendant of King Edmund Ironside. He was
the son of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, and was born in Hungary, where his father
had fled after the conquest of England by Cnut. After his family's eventual return to England and
his father's death in 1057,[17] Edgar had by far the strongest hereditary claim to the throne, but he
was only about thirteen or fourteen at the time of Edward the Confessor's death, and with little
family to support him, his claim was passed over by the Witan.[18] Another contender was Sweyn
II of Denmark, who had a claim to the throne as the grandson of Sweyn Forkbeard and nephew
of Cnut,[19] but he did not make his bid for the throne until 1069.[20] Tostig Godwinson's attacks in
early 1066 may have been the beginning of a bid for the throne, but after defeat at the hands of
Edwin and Morcar and the desertion of most of his followers he threw his lot in with Harald
Hardrada.[21]
Tostig, who had been Earl of Northumbria, was expelled from that office by a
Northumbrian rebellion in late 1065. After King Edward sided with the rebels, Tostig went into
exile in Flanders.[22]
The King of Scotland, Malcolm III, is said to have been Tostig's sworn brother.[22]
Of those 35, 5 are known to have died in the battle Robert of Vitot, Engenulf of Laigle,
Robert fitzErneis, Roger son of Turold, and Taillefer.[39]
The Bayeux Tapestry may possibly depict a papal banner carried by William's forces, but
this is not named as such in the tapestry.[40]
Of these named persons, eight died in the battle Harold, Gyrth, Leofwine, Godric the
sheriff, Thurkill of Berkshire, Breme, and someone known only as "son of Helloc".[39]
A 12th-century tradition stated that Harold's face could not be recognised and Edith the
Fair, Harold's common-law wife, was brought to the battlefield to identify his body from marks
that only she knew.[57]
theling is the Anglo-Saxon term for a royal prince with some claim to the throne.[61]
The coronation was marred when the Norman troops stationed outside the abbey heard
the sounds of those inside acclaiming the king and began burning nearby houses, thinking the
noises were signs of a riot.[64]
Eadric's by-name "the Wild" is relatively common, so despite suggestions that it arose
from Eadric's participation in the northern uprisings of 1069, this is not certain.[67]
Gospatric had bought the office from William after the death of Copsi, whom William
had appointed in 1067. Copsi was murdered in 1068 by Osulf, his rival for power in
Northumbria.[70]
Although the epithet "the Wake" has been claimed to be derived from "the wakeful one",
the first use of the epithet is from the mid-13th century, and is thus unlikely to have been
contemporary.[79]
1.
Malcolm, in 1069 or 1070, had married Margaret, sister of Edgar the

theling.[70]
Citations
1.
Bates Normandy Before 1066 pp. 810

Crouch Normans pp. 1516
Bates Normandy Before 1066 p. 12
Hallam and Everard Capetian France p. 53
Williams thelred the Unready p. 54
Huscroft Ruling England p. 3
Stafford Unification and Conquest pp. 8699
Higham Death of Anglo-Saxon England pp. 167181
Walker Harold pp. 136138
Bates William the Conqueror pp. 7377
Keynes "Harthacnut" Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England
Huscroft Norman Conquest p. 84
Stenton Anglo-Saxon England pp. 423424
Huscroft Ruling England pp. 1214
Huscroft Norman Conquest pp. 9697
Thomas Norman Conquest pp. 3334
Stenton Anglo-Saxon England pp. 578580
Marren 1066 pp. 6571
Marren 1066 p. 73
Douglas William the Conqueror p. 192
Gravett Hastings pp. 2021
Bennett Campaigns of the Norman Conquest p. 25
Lawson Battle of Hastings pp. 163164
Gravett Hastings p. 27
Marren 1066 pp. 108109
Marren 1066 pp. 107108
Marren 1066 p. 98
Carpenter Struggle for Mastery p. 72
Marren 1066 p. 93
Marren 1066 pp. 99100
Lawson Battle of Hastings p. 128
Marren 1066 p. 105
Marren 1066 p. 137
Marren 1066 p. 146
Douglas William the Conqueror pp. 204205
Williams "Eadric the Wild" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
Williams English and the Norman Conquest pp. 2427
Williams English and the Norman Conquest p. 35
Roffe "Hereward" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
Douglas William the Conqueror p. 216 and footnote 4
1.
Carpenter Struggle for Mastery pp. 8283

Chibnall Anglo-Norman England pp. 1113
Kaufman and Kaufman Medieval Fortress p. 110
Liddiard Castles in Context p. 36
Thomas English and Normans pp. 105137
Thomas "Significance" English Historical Review pp. 303333
Thomas English and Normans pp. 202208
Ciggaar Western Travellers pp. 140141
Daniell From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta pp. 1314
Heath Byzantine Armies p. 23
Thomas Norman Conquest p. 59
Loyn Governance of Anglo-Saxon England p. 176
Keynes "Charters and Writs" Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England p. 100
Crystal "Story of Middle English" English Language
Clanchy England and its Rulers p. 93
Clanchy England and its Rulers pp. 3135
Chibnall Debate p. 6
Chibnall Debate p. 38
Quoted in Clanchy England and its Rulers p. 32
Singman Daily Life p. xv
References
Bates, David (1982). Normandy Before 1066. London: Longman. ISBN 978-0-58248492-4.
Bates, David (2001). William the Conqueror. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 978-0-75241980-0.
Bennett, Matthew (2001). Campaigns of the Norman Conquest. Essential Histories.

Oxford, UK: Osprey. ISBN 978-1-84176-228-9.
Carpenter, David (2004). The Struggle for Mastery: The Penguin History of Britain
10661284. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-014824-4.
Chibnall, Marjorie (1986). Anglo-Norman England 10661166. Oxford, UK: Basil

Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-15439-6.
Chibnall, Marjorie (1999). The Debate on the Norman Conquest. Issues in

Historiography. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-49132.
Ciggaar, Krijna Nelly (1996). Western Travellers to Constantinople: the West and
Byzantium, 9621204. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-10637-6.
Clanchy, M. T. (2006). England and its Rulers: 10661307. Blackwell Classic Histories
of England (Third ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-0650-4.
Crouch, David (2007). The Normans: The History of a Dynasty. London: Hambledon &
London. ISBN 978-1-85285-595-6.
Crystal, David (2004). "The Story of Middle English". The English Language: A Guided
Tour of the Language (Second ed.). Penguin Global.
Daniell, Christopher (2003). From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta: England, 1066
1215. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-22216-7.
Douglas, David C. (1964). William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England.
Berkeley: University of California Press. OCLC 399137.
Gravett, Christopher (1992). Hastings 1066: The Fall of Saxon England. Campaign 13.
Hallam, Elizabeth M.; Everard, Judith (2001). Capetian France 9871328 (Second ed.).
New York: Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-40428-1.
Heath, Ian (1995). Byzantine Armies AD 11181461. London: Osprey. ISBN 978-185532-347-6.
Higham, Nick (2000). The Death of Anglo-Saxon England. Stroud, UK: Sutton.
ISBN 978-0-7509-2469-6.
Huscroft, Richard (2009). The Norman Conquest: A New Introduction. New York:
Longman. ISBN 978-1-4058-1155-2.
Huscroft, Richard (2005). Ruling England 10421217. London: Pearson/Longman.

ISBN 978-0-582-84882-5.
Kaufman, J. E. and Kaufman, H. W. (2001). The Medieval Fortress: Castles, Forts, and
Walled Cities of the Middle Ages. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-30681358-0.
Keynes, Simon (2001). "Charters and Writs". In Lapidge, Michael; Blair, John; Keynes,
Simon, and Scragg, Donald. Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Malden,
MA: Blackwell. pp. 99100. ISBN 978-0-631-22492-1.
Keynes, Simon (2001). "Harthacnut". In Lapidge, Michael; Blair, John; Keynes, Simon,
and Scragg, Donald. Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Malden, MA:
Blackwell. pp. 229230. ISBN 978-0-631-22492-1.
Lawson, M. K. (2002). The Battle of Hastings: 1066. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 978-07524-1998-5.
Liddiard, Robert (2005). Castles in Context: Power, Symbolism and Landscape, 1066 to
1500. Macclesfield, UK: Windgather Press. ISBN 978-0-9545575-2-2.
Loyn, H. R. (1984). The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England, 5001087. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1217-0.
Marren, Peter (2004). 1066: The Battles of York, Stamford Bridge & Hastings.
Battleground Britain. Barnsley, UK: Leo Cooper. ISBN 978-0-85052-953-1.
Roffe, David (2004). "Hereward (fl. 10701071)". Oxford Dictionary of National

Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/13074. Retrieved 29 March
2013. (subscription or UK public library membership required)
Singman, Jeffrey L. (1999). Daily Life in Medieval Europe. Daily Life Through History.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30273-2.
Stafford, Pauline (1989). Unification and Conquest: A Political and Social History of
England in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries. London: Edward Arnold. ISBN 978-07131-6532-6.
Stenton, F. M. (1971). Anglo-Saxon England (Third ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280139-5.
Thomas, Hugh M. (2003). The English and the Normans. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-925123-0.
Thomas, Hugh (2007). The Norman Conquest: England after William the Conqueror.
Critical Issues in History. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
ISBN 978-0-7425-3840-5.
Thomas, Hugh M. (April 2003). "The Significance and Fate of the Native English
Landowners of 1086". The English Historical Review 118 (476): 303333.
doi:10.1093/ehr/118.476.303. JSTOR 3490123.
Walker, Ian (2000). Harold the Last Anglo-Saxon King. Gloucestershire, UK: Wrens
Park. ISBN 978-0-905778-46-4.
Williams, Ann (2003). thelred the Unready: The Ill-Counselled King. London:
Hambledon & London. ISBN 978-1-85285-382-2.
Williams, Ann (2004). "Eadric the Wild (fl. 10671072)". Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/8512. Retrieved 29 March
2013. (subscription or UK public library membership required)
Williams, Ann (2000). The English and the Norman Conquest. Ipswich, UK: Boydell
Press. ISBN 978-0-85115-708-5.
External links
Essential Norman Conquest from Osprey Publishing
Normans a background to the Conquest from the BBC
Normandy portal
England portal
Royalty portal
Middle Ages portal
Anglo-Saxon England portal

[show]

[show]
Military history of England

[show]
England articles
Categories:
Duchy of Normandy
Military history of Normandy
Military history of England
High Middle Ages
1060s conflicts
1066 in England
William the Conqueror
Succession to the British crown
Navigation menu
Create account
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
nglisc
Azrbaycanca
()
Catal
etina
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Espaol
Esperanto
Franais
Gaeilge
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
slenska
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Norsk bokml
Norsk nynorsk
Nouormand
Polski
Portugus
Romn
Scots
Simple English
/ srpski
Srpskohrvatski /
Suomi
Tagalog
Trke
Ting Vit
Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 October 2015, at 16:20.

organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Battle of Hastings
For other uses, see Battle of Hastings (disambiguation).
Coordinates:
505443N 02915E
The Battle of Hastings

Part of the Norman conquest of England
Harold Rex Interfectus Est: "King Harold was

killed". Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry
depicting the Battle of Hastings and the death of
Harold.
Date
14 October 1066
Battle near Hastings, East Sussex,
Location
England
Result
Decisive Norman victory
Belligerents
Normans
English
Commanders and leaders

William of Normandy
Alan the Red
William fitzOsbern
Eustace II, Count of
Boulogne
Harold Godwinson
Gyrth Godwinson
Leofwine Godwinson
Strength
Unknown, estimates
range from 7,000 to
12,000
Unknown, estimates
range from 5,000 to
13,000
[show]
The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October 1066 between the Norman-French army of
Duke William II of Normandy and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold
Godwinson, beginning the Norman conquest of England. It took place approximately 7 miles (11
kilometres) northwest of Hastings, close to the present-day town of Battle, East Sussex, and was
a decisive Norman victory.
The background to the battle was the death of the childless King Edward the Confessor in
January 1066, which set up a succession struggle between several claimants to his throne. Harold
was crowned king shortly after Edward's death, but faced invasions by William, his own brother
Tostig and the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada (Harold III of Norway). Hardrada and Tostig
defeated a hastily gathered army of Englishmen at the Battle of Fulford on 20 September 1066,
and were in turn defeated by Harold at the Battle of Stamford Bridge five days later. The deaths
of Tostig and Hardrada at Stamford left William as Harold's only serious opponent. While Harold
and his forces were recovering from Stamford, William landed his invasion forces in the south of
England at Pevensey on 28 September 1066 and established a beachhead for his conquest of the
kingdom. Harold was forced to march south swiftly, gathering forces as he went.
The exact numbers present at the battle are unknown; estimates are around 10,000 for William
and about 7,000 for Harold. The composition of the forces is clearer; the English army was
composed almost entirely of infantry and had few archers, whereas only about half of the
invading force was infantry, the rest split equally between cavalry and archers. Harold appears to
have tried to surprise William, but scouts found his army and reported its arrival to William, who
marched from Hastings to the battlefield to confront Harold. The battle lasted from about 9 am to
dusk. Early efforts of the invaders to break the English battle lines had little effect; therefore, the
Normans adopted the tactic of pretending to flee in panic and then turning on their pursuers.
Harold's death, probably near the end of the battle, led to the retreat and defeat of most of his
army. After further marching and some skirmishes, William was crowned as king on Christmas
Day 1066.
Although there continued to be rebellions and resistance to William's rule, Hastings effectively
marked the culmination of William's conquest of England. Casualty figures are hard to come by,
but some historians estimate that 2,000 invaders died along with about twice that number of
Englishmen. William founded a monastery at the site of the battle, the high altar of the abbey
church supposedly placed at the spot where Harold died.
Contents
1 Background
o 1.1 Succession crisis in England
o 1.2 Tostig and Hardrada's invasions
2 English army and Harold's preparations
3 William's preparations and landing

o 3.1 Norman forces at Hastings
4 Harold moves south

o 4.1 English forces at Hastings
5 Battle
o 5.1 Background and location
o 5.2 Dispositions of forces and tactics
o 5.3 Beginning of the battle
o 5.4 Feigned flights
o 5.5 Death of Harold
o 5.6 Reasons for the outcome
6 Aftermath
7 Notes
8 Citations
9 References
10 External links
Background
In 911 the French Carolingian ruler Charles the Simple allowed a group of Vikings under their
leader Rollo to settle in Normandy.[1] Their settlement proved successful,[2][a] and they quickly
adapted to the indigenous culture, renouncing paganism, converting to Christianity,[3] and
intermarrying with the local population.[4] Over time, the frontiers of the duchy expanded to the
west.[5] In 1002 King thelred II of England married Emma, the sister of Richard II, Duke of
Normandy.[6] Their son Edward the Confessor, who spent many years in exile in Normandy,
succeeded to the English throne in 1042.[7] This led to the establishment of a powerful Norman
interest in English politics, as Edward drew heavily on his former hosts for support, bringing in
Norman courtiers, soldiers, and clerics and appointing them to positions of power, particularly in
the Church. Childless and embroiled in conflict with the formidable Godwin, Earl of Wessex and
his sons, Edward may also have encouraged Duke William of Normandy's ambitions for the
English throne.[8]
Succession crisis in England

Following King Edward's death on 5 January 1066,[9][b] the lack of a clear heir led to a disputed
succession in which several contenders laid claim to the throne of England.[11] Edward's
immediate successor was the Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson, the richest and most powerful
of the English aristocrats and son of Godwin, Edward's earlier opponent. Harold was elected
king by the Witenagemot of England and crowned by the Archbishop of York, Ealdred, although
Norman propaganda claimed the ceremony was performed by Stigand, the uncanonically elected
Archbishop of Canterbury.[11][12] Harold was at once challenged by two powerful neighbouring
rulers. Duke William claimed that he had been promised the throne by King Edward and that
Harold had sworn agreement to this.[13] Harald III of Norway, commonly known as Harald
Hardrada, also contested the succession. His claim to the throne was based on an agreement
between his predecessor Magnus I of Norway, and the earlier King of England Harthacanute,
whereby if either died without heir the other would inherit both England and Norway.[14] William
and Harald immediately set about assembling troops and ships for separate invasions.[15][c]
Tostig and Hardrada's invasions

Main article: Battle of Fulford
In early 1066, Harold's exiled brother Tostig Godwinson raided south-eastern England with a
fleet he had recruited in Flanders, later joined by other ships from Orkney. Threatened by
Harold's fleet, Tostig moved north and raided in East Anglia and Lincolnshire. He was driven
back to his ships by the brothers Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and Morcar, Earl of Northumbria.
Deserted by most of his followers, he withdrew to Scotland, where he spent the middle of the
year recruiting fresh forces.[21] King Harald III of Norway invaded northern England in early
September, leading a fleet of more than 300 ships carrying perhaps 15,000 men. Harald's army
was further augmented by the forces of Tostig, who supported the Norwegian king's bid for the
throne. Advancing on York, the Norwegians occupied the city after defeating a northern English
army under Edwin and Morcar on 20 September at the Battle of Fulford.[22]
English army and Harold's preparations
The location of the Battle of Stamford Bridge
Main article: Battle of Stamford Bridge

The English army was organised along regional lines, with the fyrd, or local levy, serving under a
local magnate whether an earl, bishop, or sheriff.[23] The fyrd was composed of men who owned
their own land, and were equipped by their community to fulfil the king's demands for military
forces. For every five hides,[24] or units of land nominally capable of supporting one household,
[25]
one man was supposed to serve.[24] It appears that the hundred was the main organising unit
for the fyrd.[26] As a whole, England could furnish about 14,000 men for the fyrd, when it was
called out. The fyrd usually served for two months, except in emergencies. It was rare for the
whole national fyrd to be called out; between 1046 and 1065 it was only done three times, in
1051, 1052, and 1065.[24] The king also had a group of personal armsmen, known as housecarls,
who formed the backbone of the royal forces. Some earls also had their own forces of housecarls.
Thegns, the local landowning elites, fought either with the royal housecarls or attached
themselves to the forces of an earl or other magnate.[23] The fyrd and the housecarls both fought
on foot, with the major difference between them being the housecarl's superior armour. The
English army does not appear to have had a significant number of archers.[26]
Harold had spent mid-1066 on the south coast with a large army and fleet waiting for William to
invade. The bulk of his forces were militia who needed to harvest their crops, so on 8 September
Harold dismissed the militia and the fleet.[27] Learning of the Norwegian invasion he rushed
north, gathering forces as he went, and took the Norwegians by surprise, defeating them at the
Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September. Harald of Norway and Tostig were killed, and the
Norwegians suffered such great losses that only 24 of the original 300 ships were required to
carry away the survivors. The English victory came at great cost, as Harold's army was left in a
battered and weakened state.[28]
William's preparations and landing
Interior ruins at Pevensey Castle, some of which date to shortly after the Battle of Hastings[29]
William assembled a large invasion fleet and an army gathered from Normandy and the rest of
France, including large contingents from Brittany and Flanders.[30] He spent almost nine months
on his preparations, as he had to construct a fleet from nothing.[d] According to some Norman
chronicles, he also secured diplomatic support, although the accuracy of the reports has been a
matter of historical debate. The most famous claim is that Pope Alexander II gave a papal banner
as a token of support, which only appears in William of Poitiers's account, and not in more
contemporary narratives.[33] In April 1066 Halley's Comet appeared in the sky, and was widely
reported throughout Europe. Contemporary accounts connected the comet's appearance with the
succession crisis in England.[34][e]
William mustered his forces at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme, and was ready to cross the English
Channel by about 12 August.[36] But the crossing was delayed, either because of unfavourable
weather or to avoid being intercepted by the powerful English fleet. The Normans crossed to
England a few days after Harold's victory over the Norwegians, following the dispersal of
Harold's naval force, and landed at Pevensey in Sussex on 28 September.[30][f][g] A few ships were
blown off course and landed at Romney, where the Normans fought the local fyrd.[32] After
landing, William's forces built a wooden castle at Hastings, from which they raided the
surrounding area.[30] More fortifications were erected at Pevensey.[51]
Norman forces at Hastings
Norman knights and archers at the Battle of Hastings, depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry
The exact numbers and composition of William's force are unknown.[31] A contemporary
document claims that William had 776 ships, but this may be an inflated figure.[52] Figures given
by contemporary writers are highly exaggerated, varying from 14,000 to 150,000.[53] Modern
historians have offered a range of estimates for the size of William's forces: 7,0008,000 men,
1,0002,000 of them cavalry;[54] 10,00012,000 men;[53] 10,000 men, 3,000 of them cavalry;[55] or
7500 men.[31] The army consisted of cavalry, infantry, and archers or crossbowmen, with about
equal numbers of cavalry and archers and the foot soldiers equal in number to the other two
types combined.[56] Later lists of companions of William the Conqueror are extant, but most are
padded with extra names; only about 35 named individuals can be reliably identified as having
been with William at Hastings.[31][57][h]
The main armour used was chainmail hauberks, usually knee-length, with slits to allow riding,
some with sleeves to the elbows. Some hauberks may have been made of scales attached to a
tunic, with the scales made of metal, horn or hardened leather. Headgear was usually a conical
metal helmet with a band of metal extending down to protect the nose.[59] Horsemen and infantry
carried shields. The infantryman's shield was usually round and made of wood, with
reinforcement of metal. Horsemen had changed to a kite-shaped shield and were usually armed
with a lance. The couched lance, carried tucked against the body under the right arm, was a
relatively new refinement and was probably not used at Hastings; the terrain was unfavourable
for long cavalry charges. Both the infantry and cavalry usually fought with a straight sword, long
and double-edged. The infantry could also use javelins and long spears.[60] Some of the cavalry
may have used a mace instead of the sword. Archers would have used a self bow or a crossbow,
and most would not have had armour.[61]
Harold moves south

After defeating his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada in the north, Harold left much of his
forces in the north, including Morcar and Edwin, and marched the rest of his army south to deal
with the threatened Norman invasion.[62] It is unclear when Harold learned of William's landing,
but it was probably while he was travelling south. Harold stopped in London, and was there for
about a week before Hastings, so it is likely that he spent about a week on his march south,
averaging about 27 miles (43 kilometres) per day,[63] for the approximately 200 miles (320
kilometres).[64] Harold camped at Caldbec Hill on the night of 13 October, near what was
described as a "hoar-apple tree". This location was about 8 miles (13 kilometres) from William's
castle at Hastings.[65][i] Some of the early contemporary French accounts mention an emissary or
emissaries sent by Harold to William, which is likely. Nothing came of these efforts.[66]
Although Harold attempted to surprise the Normans, William's scouts reported the English
arrival to the duke. The exact events preceding the battle are obscure, with contradictory
accounts in the sources, but all agree that William led his army from his castle and advanced
towards the enemy.[66] Harold had taken a defensive position at the top of Senlac Hill (presentday Battle, East Sussex), about 6 miles (9.7 kilometres) from William's castle at Hastings.[67]
English forces at Hastings
Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry depicting mounted Norman soldiers attacking Anglo-Saxons
who are fighting on foot in a shield wall
The exact number of soldiers in Harold's army is unknown. The contemporary records do not
give reliable figures; some Norman sources give 400,000 to 1,200,000 men on Harold's side.[j]
The English sources generally give very low figures for Harold's army, perhaps to make the
English defeat seem less devastating.[69] Recent historians have suggested figures of between
5,000 and 13,000 for Harold's army at Hastings,[70] and most modern historians argue for a figure
of 7,0008,000 English troops.[26][71] These men would have been a mix of the fyrd and
housecarls. Few individual Englishmen are known to have been at Hastings;[31] about 20 named
individuals can reasonably be assumed to have fought with Harold at Hastings, including
Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine and two other relatives.[58][k]
The English army consisted entirely of infantry. It is possible that some of the higher class
members of the army rode to battle, but when battle was joined they dismounted to fight on foot.
[l]
The core of the army was made up of housecarls, full-time professional soldiers. Their armour
consisted of a conical helmet, a mail hauberk, and a shield, which might be either kite-shaped or
round.[72] Most housecarls fought with the two-handed Danish battleaxe, but they could also carry
a sword.[73] The rest of the army was made up of levies from the fyrd, also infantry but more
lightly armoured and not professionals. Most of the infantry would have formed part of the shield
wall, in which all the men in the front ranks locked their shields together. Behind them would
have been axemen and men with javelins as well as archers.[74]
Battle
Background and location
The battlefield from the north side

Because many of the primary accounts contradict each other at times, it is impossible to provide
a description of the battle that is beyond dispute.[75] The only undisputed facts are that the
fighting began at 9 am on Saturday 14 October 1066 and that the battle lasted until dusk.[76]
Sunset on the day of the battle was at 4:54 pm, with the battlefield mostly dark by 5:54 pm and
in full darkness by 6:24 pm. Moonrise that night was not until 11:12 pm, so once the sun set,
there was little light on the battlefield.[77] William of Jumieges reports that Duke William kept his
army armed and ready against a surprise night attack for the entire night before.[75] The battle
took place 7 miles (11 km) north of Hastings at the present-day town of Battle,[78] between two
hills Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south. The area was heavily wooded, with
a marsh nearby.[79] The name traditionally given to the battle is unusual there were several
settlements much closer to the battlefield than Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle called it the
battle "at the hoary apple tree". Within 40 years, the battle was also known as "Senlac",[m] a
Norman-French adaptation of the Old English word "Sandlacu", which means "sandy water".[n]
This may have been the name of the stream that crosses the battlefield.[o] The battle was already
being referred to as "bellum Hasestingas" or "Battle of Hastings" by 1087, in the Domesday
Book.[82]
Sunrise was at 6:48 am that morning, and reports of the day record that it was unusually bright.
[83]
The weather conditions are not recorded.[84] The route that the English army took to the
battlefield is not known precisely. Several roads are possible: one, an old Roman road that ran
from Rochester to Hastings has long been favoured because of a large coin hoard found nearby
in 1876. Another possibility is a Roman road between London and Lewes and then over local
tracks to the battlefield.[75] Some accounts of the battle indicate that the Normans advanced from
Hastings to the battlefield, but the contemporary account of William of Jumieges places the
Normans at the site of the battle the night before.[85] Most historians incline towards the former
view,[67][83][86][87] but M. K. Lawson argues that William of Jumieges's account is correct.[85]
Dispositions of forces and tactics

Most recent historians[88] conclude that Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation
around the top of Caldbec Hill,[83] with their flanks protected by woods and a stream and marshy
ground in front of them.[87] Lawson points out the possibility that the English line was a bit
longer and extended enough to anchor on one of the streams nearby.[88] The English formed a
shield wall, with the front ranks holding their shields close together or even overlapping to
provide protection from attack.[89]
Battle dispositions
More is known about the Norman deployment.[90] Duke William appears to have arranged his
forces in three groups, or "battles", which roughly corresponded to their origins. The left units
were the Bretons,[91] along with those from Anjou, Poitou and Maine. This division was led by
Alan the Red, a relative of the Breton count.[89] The centre was held by the Normans,[91] under the
direct command of the duke and with many of his relatives and kinsmen grouped around the
ducal party.[89] The final division on the right consisted of the Frenchmen,[91] along with some
men from Picardy, Boulogne, and Flanders. The right was commanded by William fitzOsbern
and Count Eustace II of Boulogne.[89] The front lines were archers with a line of foot soldiers
armed with spears behind.[91] There were probably a few crossbowmen and slingers in with the
archers.[89] The cavalry was held in reserve,[91] and a small group of clergymen and servants
situated at the base of Telham Hill was not expected to take part in the fighting.[89]
William's disposition of his forces implies that he planned to open the battle with archers in the
front rank weakening the enemy with arrows, followed by infantry who would engage in close
combat. The infantry would create openings in the English lines that could be exploited by a
cavalry charge to break through the English forces and pursue the fleeing soldiers.[89]
Beginning of the battle
View of the battlefield looking towards Senlac Hill

The battle opened with the Norman archers shooting uphill at the English shield wall, to little
effect. The uphill angle meant that the arrows either bounced off the shields of the English or
overshot their targets and flew over the top of the hill.[91][p] The lack of English archers hampered
the Norman archers, as there were few English arrows to be gathered up and reused.[92] After the
attack from the archers, William sent the spearmen forward to attack the English. They were met
with a barrage of missiles, not arrows but spears, axes and stones.[91] The infantry was unable to
force openings in the shield wall, and the cavalry advanced in support.[92] The cavalry also failed
to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left.[93]
A rumour started that the duke had been killed, which added to the confusion. The English forces
began to pursue the fleeing invaders, but William rode through his forces, showing his face and
yelling that he was still alive.[94] The duke then led a counter-attack against the pursuing English
forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed.[93]
It is not known whether the English pursuit was ordered by Harold or if it was spontaneous.
Wace relates that Harold ordered his men to stay in their formations but no other account gives
this detail. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the death of Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine
occurring just before the fight around the hillock. This may mean that the two brothers led the
pursuit.[95] The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio relates a different story for the death of Gyrth,
stating that the duke slew Harold's brother in combat, perhaps thinking that Gyrth was Harold.
William of Poitiers states that the bodies of Gyrth and Leofwine were found near Harold's,
implying that they died late in the battle. It is possible that if the two brothers died early in the
fighting their bodies were taken to Harold, thus accounting for their being found near his body
after the battle. The military historian Peter Marren speculates that if Gyrth and Leofwine died
early in the battle, that may have influenced Harold to stand and fight to the end.[96]
Feigned flights
A lull probably occurred early in the afternoon, and a break for rest and food would probably
have been needed.[95] William may have also needed time to implement a new strategy, which
may have been inspired by the English pursuit and subsequent rout by the Normans. If the
Normans could send their cavalry against the shield wall and then draw the English into more
pursuits, breaks in the English line might form.[97] William of Poitiers says the tactic was used
twice. Although arguments have been made that the chroniclers' accounts of this tactic were
meant to excuse the flight of the Norman troops from battle, this is unlikely as the earlier flight
was not glossed over. It was a tactic used by other Norman armies during the period.[95][q] Some
historians have argued that the story of the use of feigned flight as a deliberate tactic was
invented after the battle; most historians agree that it was used by the Normans at Hastings.[98]
Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry showing mounted Norman cavalrymen fighting Anglo-Saxon
infantry
Although the feigned flights did not break the lines, they probably thinned out the housecarls in
the English shield wall. The housecarls were replaced with members of the fyrd, and the shield
wall held.[95] Archers appear to have been used again before and during an assault by the cavalry
and infantry led by the duke. Although 12th-century sources state that the archers were ordered
to shoot at a high angle to shoot over the front of the shield wall, there is no trace of such an
action in the more contemporary accounts.[99] It is not known how many assaults were launched
against the English lines, but some sources record various actions by both Normans and
Englishmen that took place during the afternoon's fighting.[100] The Carmen claims that Duke
William had two horses killed under him during the fighting, but William of Poitiers's account
states that it was three.[101]
Death of Harold
Stone marking the spot of the high altar at Battle Abbey, where Harold died[102]
Harold appears to have died late in the battle, although accounts in the various sources are
contradictory. William of Poitiers only mentions his death, without giving any details on how it
occurred. The Tapestry is not helpful, as it shows a figure holding an arrow sticking out of his
eye next to a falling fighter being hit with a sword. Over both figures is a statement "Here King
Harold has been killed".[99] It is not clear which figure is meant to be Harold, or if both are meant.
[103][r]
The earliest written mention of the traditional account of Harold dying from an arrow to the
eye dates to the 1080s from a history of the Normans written by an Italian monk, Amatus of
Montecassino.[104][s] William of Malmesbury stated that Harold died from an arrow to the eye that
went into the brain, and that a knight wounded Harold at the same time. Wace repeats the arrowto-the-eye account. The Carmen states that Duke William killed Harold, but this is unlikely, as
such a feat would have been recorded elsewhere.[99] The account of William of Jumiges is even
more unlikely, as it has Harold dying in the morning, during the first fighting. The Chronicle of
Battle Abbey states that no one knew who killed Harold, as it happened in the press of battle.[106]
A modern biographer of Harold, Ian Walker, states that Harold probably died from an arrow in
the eye, although he also says it is possible that Harold was struck down by a Norman knight
while mortally wounded in the eye.[107] Another biographer of Harold, Peter Rex, after discussing
the various accounts, concludes that it is not possible to declare how Harold died.[105]
Harold's death left the English forces leaderless, and they began to collapse.[97] Many of them
fled, but the soldiers of the royal household gathered around Harold's body and fought to the end.
[99]
The Normans began to pursue the fleeing troops, and except for a rearguard action at a site
known as the "Malfosse", the battle was over.[97] Exactly what happened at the Malfosse, or "Evil
Ditch", and where it took place, is unclear. It occurred at a small fortification or set of trenches
where some Englishmen rallied and seriously wounded Eustace of Boulogne before being
destroyed by Duke William.[108]
Reasons for the outcome

Harold's defeat was probably due to several circumstances. One was the need to defend against
two almost simultaneous invasions. The fact that Harold had dismissed his forces in southern
England on 8 September also contributed to the defeat. Many historians fault Harold for hurrying
south and not gathering more forces before confronting William at Hastings, although it is not
clear that the English forces were insufficient to deal with William's forces.[109] Against these
arguments for an exhausted English army, the length of the battle, which lasted an entire day,
show that the English forces were not tired by their long march.[110] Tied in with the speed of
Harold's advance to Hastings is the possibility Harold may not have trusted Earls Edwin of
Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria once their enemy Tostig had been defeated, and declined to
bring them and their forces south.[109] Modern historians have pointed out that one reason for
Harold's rush to battle was to contain William's depredations and keep him from breaking free of
his beachhead.[111]
Most of the blame for the defeat probably lies in the events of the battle.[109] William was the
more experienced military leader,[112] and in addition the lack of cavalry on the English side
allowed Harold fewer tactical options.[110] Some writers have criticised Harold for not exploiting
the opportunity offered by the rumoured death of William early in the battle.[113] The English
appear to have erred in not staying strictly on the defence, for when they pursued the retreating
Normans they exposed their flanks to attack. Whether this was due to the inexperience of the
English commanders or the indiscipline of the English soldiers is unclear.[112][t] In the end,
Harold's death appears to have been decisive, as it signalled the break-up of the English forces in
disarray.[110] The historian David Nicolle said of the battle that William's army "demonstrated
not without difficulty the superiority of Norman-French mixed cavalry and infantry tactics over
the Germanic-Scandinavian infantry traditions of the Anglo-Saxons."[115]
Aftermath
See also: Norman conquest of England Consequences
The day after the battle, Harold's body was identified, either by his armour or marks on his body.
[u]
His personal standard was presented to William,[116] and later sent to the papacy.[99] The bodies
of the English dead, including some of Harold's brothers and his housecarls, were left on the
battlefield,[117] although some were removed by relatives later.[118] The Norman dead were buried
in a large communal grave, which has not been found.[119][v] Exact casualty figures are unknown.
Of the Englishmen known to be at the battle, the number of dead implies that the death rate was
about 50 per cent of those engaged, although this may be too high. Of the named Normans who
fought at Hastings, one in seven is stated to have died, but these were all noblemen, and it is
probable that the death rate among the common soldiers was higher. Although Orderic Vitalis's
figures are highly exaggerated,[w] his ratio of one in four casualties may be accurate. Marren
speculates that perhaps 2,000 Normans and 4,000 Englishmen were killed at Hastings.[120] The
Normans buried their dead in mass graves. Reports stated that some of the English dead were
still being found on the hillside years later. Although scholars thought for a long time that
remains would not be recoverable, due to the acidic soil, recent finds have changed this view.[121]
One skeleton that was found in a medieval cemetery, and originally was thought to be associated
with the 13th century Battle of Lewes now is thought to be associated with Hastings instead.[122][x]
Ruins of the monk's dormitory at Battle Abbey

One story relates that Gytha, Harold's mother, offered the victorious duke the weight of her son's
body in gold for its custody, but was refused. William ordered that Harold's body be thrown into
the sea, but whether that took place is unclear.[117] Another story relates that Harold was buried at
the top of a cliff.[119] Waltham Abbey, which had been founded by Harold, later claimed that his
body had been secretly buried there.[117] Other legends claimed that Harold did not die at
Hastings, but escaped and became a hermit at Chester.[118]
William expected to receive the submission of the surviving English leaders after his victory, but
instead Edgar the theling[y] was proclaimed king by the Witenagemot, with the support of Earls
Edwin and Morcar, Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ealdred, the Archbishop of York.
[124]
William therefore advanced on London, marching around the coast of Kent. He defeated an
English force that attacked him at Southwark but was unable to storm London Bridge, forcing
him to reach the capital by a more circuitous route.[125]
William moved up the Thames valley to cross the river at Wallingford, where he received the
submission of Stigand. He then travelled north-east along the Chilterns, before advancing
towards London from the north-west,[z] fighting further engagements against forces from the city.
The English leaders surrendered to William at Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire. William was
acclaimed King of England and crowned by Ealdred on 25 December 1066, in Westminster
Abbey.[125]
Reenactment in front of Battle Abbey

Despite the submission of the English nobles, resistance continued to erupt for several years.[127]
There were rebellions in Exeter in late 1067, an invasion by Harold's sons in mid-1068, and an
uprising in Northumbria in 1068.[128] In 1069 William faced more troubles from Northumbrian
rebels, an invading Danish fleet, and rebellions in the south and west of England. He ruthlessly
put down the various risings, culminating in the Harrying of the North in late 1069 and early
1070 that devastated parts of northern England.[129] A further rebellion in 1070 by Hereward the
Wake was also defeated by the king, at Ely.[130]
Battle Abbey was founded by William at the site of the battle. According to 12th-century sources,
William made a vow to found the abbey, and the high altar of the church was placed at the site
where Harold had died.[97] More likely, the foundation was imposed on William by papal legates
in 1070.[131] The topography of the battlefield has been altered by subsequent construction work
for the abbey, and the slope defended by the English is now much less steep than it was at the
time of the battle; the top of the ridge has also been built up and levelled.[78] After the Dissolution
of the Monasteries, the abbey's lands passed to secular landowners, who used it as a residence or
country house.[132] In 1976 the estate was put up for sale and purchased by the government with
the aid of some American donors who wished to honour the 200th anniversary of American
independence.[133] The battlefield and abbey grounds are currently owned and administered by
English Heritage and are open to the public.[134] The Bayeux Tapestry is an embroidered narrative
of the events leading up to Hastings probably commissioned by Odo of Bayeux soon after the
battle, perhaps to hang at the bishop's palace at Bayeux.[135][aa] In modern times annual
reenactments of the Battle of Hastings have drawn thousands of participants and spectators to the
site of the original battle.[137][138]
Notes
1.
The Vikings in the region became known as the "Northmen" from which "Normandy" and
"Normans" are derived.[2]
There is some slight confusion in the original sources about the exact date; it was most
likely 5 January, but a few contemporary sources give 4 January.[10]
Other contenders later came to the fore. The first was Edgar theling, Edward the
Confessor's great nephew who was a patrilineal descendant of King Edmund Ironside. He was
the son of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, and was born in Hungary, where his father
had fled after the conquest of England by Cnut. After his family's eventual return to England and
his father's death in 1057,[16] Edgar had by far the strongest hereditary claim to the throne, but he
was only about thirteen or fourteen at the time of Edward the Confessor's death, and with little
family to support him, his claim was passed over by the Witan.[17] Another contender was Sweyn
II of Denmark, who had a claim to the throne as the grandson of Sweyn Forkbeard and nephew
of Cnut,[18] but he did not make his bid for the throne until 1069.[19] Tostig Godwinson's attacks in
early 1066 may have been the beginning of a bid for the throne, but after defeat at the hands of
Edwin and Morcar and the desertion of most of his followers he threw his lot in with Harald
Hardrada.[20]
The surviving ship list gives 776 ships, contributed by 14 different Norman nobles.[31]
This list does not include William's flagship, the Mora, given to him by his wife, Matilda of
Flanders. The Mora is depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry with a lion figurehead.[32]
The comet's appearance was depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry, where it is connected with
Harold's coronation, although the appearance of the comet was later, from 24 April to 1 May
1066. The image on the tapestry is the earliest pictorial depiction of Halley's Comet to survive.[35]
Most modern historians agree on this date,[37][38][39][40][41][42] although a few contemporary
sources have William landing on 29 September.[43]
Most contemporary accounts have William landing at Pevensey, with only the E version
of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle giving the landing as taking place at Hastings.[43] Most modern
accounts also state that William's forces landed at Pevensey.[32][38][39][40][41][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]
Of those 35, 5 are known to have died in the battle: Robert of Vitot, Engenulf of Laigle,
Robert fitzErneis, Roger son of Turold, and Taillefer.[58]
"Hoar" means grey, and probably refers to a crab-apple tree covered with lichen that was
likely a local landmark.[65]
The 400,000 figure is given in Wace's Romance de Rou and the 1,200,000 figure coming
from the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio.[68]
Of these named persons, eight died in the battle Harold, Gyrth, Leofwine, Godric the
sheriff, Thurkill of Berkshire, Breme, and someone known only as "son of Helloc".[58]
Some historians have argued, based on comments by Snorri Sturlson made in the 13th
century, that the English army did occasionally fight as cavalry. Contemporary accounts, such as
in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle record that when English soldiers were forced to fight on
horseback, they were usually routed, as in 1055 near Hereford.[72]
This was the name favoured by Edward Freeman,[80] a Victorian historian who wrote one
of the definitive accounts of the battle.[81]
"Sandlacu" can be rendered into Modern English as "sandlake".[80]
"Senlac" also means "lake of blood" in French.[82]
There is a story that the first fighting at Hastings was between a jongleur named Taillefer
and some of the English fighters which comes from three sources: the Carmen de Hastingae
Proelio, Wace's Romance de Rou, and the 12th-century account of Henry of Huntingdon.[89] The
story has two versions, in one of which Taillefer entertained the Norman army prior to the battle
by juggling a sword but then killed an English soldier sent to kill him. Another version has the
jongleur charging the English and killing two before dying himself.[84]
Examples of the use of feigned flight include the Battle of Arques around 1052, the Battle
of Messina in 1060, and the Battle of Cassel in 1071.[95]
The issue is furthered confused by the fact that there is evidence that the 19th century
restoration of the Tapestry changed the scene by inserting or changing the placement of the arrow
through the eye.[103]
Amatus' account is less than trustworthy because it also states that Duke William
commanded 100,000 soldiers at Hastings.[105]
Modern wargaming has demonstrated the correctness of not pursuing the fleeing
Normans,[111] with the historian Christopher Gravett stating that if in a wargame he allowed
Harold to pursue the Normans, his opponent "promptly, and rightly, punished such rashness with
a brisk counter-attack with proved to be the turning point of the battle just as in 1066".[114]
A 12th-century tradition stated that Harold's face could not be recognised and Edith the
Fair, Harold's common-law wife, was brought to the battlefield to identify his body from marks
that only she knew.[108]
It is possible the grave site was located where the abbey now stands.[119]
He states that there were 15,000 casualties out of 60,000 who fought on William's side at
the battle.[120]
This skeleton, numbered 180, sustained six fatal sword cuts to the back of the skull and
was one of five skeletons that had suffered violent trauma. Analysis continues on the other
remains to try and build up a more accurate picture of who the individuals are.[121]
theling is the Anglo-Saxon term for a royal prince with some claim to the throne.[123]
William appears to have taken this route to meet up with reinforcements that had landed
by Portsmouth and met him between London and Winchester. By swinging around to the north,
William cut off London from reinforcements.[126]
1.
The first recorded mention of the tapestry is from 1476, but it is similar in
style to late Anglo-Saxon manuscript illustrations and may have been composed and
executed in England.[135] The Tapestry now is displayed at the former Bishop's Palace at
Bayeux in France.[136]
Citations
1.

Crouch Normans pp. 1516
Bates Normandy Before 1066 p. 12
Hallam and Everard Capetian France p. 53
Williams thelred the Unready p. 54

Fryde, et al. Handbook of British Chronology p. 29
Barlow Edward the Confessor p. 250 and footnote 1
Huscroft Ruling England pp. 1214
Nicolle Medieval Warfare Sourcebook pp. 6971
Coredon Dictionary of Medieval Terms and Phrases p. 154
Pettifer English Castles pp. 252253
Douglas William the Conqueror p. 181 and footnote 1
Musset Bayeux Tapestry p. 176
Barlow Feudal Kingdom p. 81
Stenton Anglo-Saxon England p. 591
Stafford Unification and Conquest p. 100
Bates William the Conqueror p. 86
Walker Harold p. 166
Rex Harold II p. 221
Lawson Hastings pp. 163164

Marren 1066 pp. 108109
Marren 1066 pp. 107108
Marren 1066 p. 93
Marren 1066 pp. 99100
Lawson Battle of Hastings p. 128 footnote 32
Lawson Battle of Hastings p. 128 and footnote 32
Marren 1066 p. 105
Marren 1066 p. 52
Bennett, et al. Fighting Techniques pp. 2122
Marren 1066 p. 114
Marren 1066 p. 101
Marren 1066 p. 157
Marren 1066 p. 116
Marren 1066 pp. 127128
Marren 1066 p. 130

Marren 1066 pp. 131133
Marren 1066 p. 135
Marren 1066 p. 138
Rex Harold II pp. 256263
Marren 1066 p. 137
Marren 1066 p. 152
Quoted in Marren 1066 p. 152
Nicolle Normans p. 20
Rex Harold II p. 253
Marren 1066 p. 146
Marren 1066 pp. 147149
Livesay "Skeleton 180 Shock Dating Result" Sussex Past and Present p. 6
Barber "Medieval Hospital of St Nicholas" Sussex Archaeological Collections pp. 79-109
Bennett Campaigns of the Norman Conquest pp. 4950
Coad Battle Abbey and Battlefield p. 32
Coad Battle Abbey and Battlefield pp. 4246
Marren 1066 p. 165
"Normans fight Saxons... and the rain". BBC News. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
1.
"King Harold and William square up". BBC News. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
References
Barber, Luke, ed. (2010). "The Medieval Hospital of St Nicholas, East Sussex:
Excavations 1994". Sussex Archaeological Collections 148: 79110.
Barlow, Frank (1970). Edward the Confessor. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press. ISBN 0-520-01671-8.
Barlow, Frank (1988). The Feudal Kingdom of England 10421216 (Fourth ed.). New
York: Longman. ISBN 0-582-49504-0.
Bates, David (1982). Normandy Before 1066. London: Longman. ISBN 0-582-48492-8.
Bates, David (2001). William the Conqueror. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 0-7524-1980-3.
Bennett, Matthew (2001). Campaigns of the Norman Conquest. Essential Histories.

Bennett, Matthew; Bradbury, Jim; DeVries, Kelly; Dickie, Iain; Jestice, Phyllis (2006).
Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World AD 500AD 1500: Equipment, Combat Skills
and Tactics. New York: St Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-34820-5.
Carpenter, David (2004). The Struggle for Mastery: The Penguin History of Britain
10661284. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-014824-8.
Coad, Jonathan (2007). Battle Abbey and Battlefield. English Heritage Guidebooks.
London: English Heritage. ISBN 978-1-905624-20-1.
Coredon, Christopher (2007). A Dictionary of Medieval Terms & Phrases (Reprint ed.).
Woodbridge, UK: D. S. Brewer. ISBN 978-1-84384-138-8.
Crouch, David (2007). The Normans: The History of a Dynasty. London: Hambledon &
London. ISBN 1-85285-595-9.
Douglas, David C. (1964). William the Conqueror. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Fryde, E. B.; Greenway, D. E.; Porter, S.; Roy, I. (1996). Handbook of British
Chronology (Third revised ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521-56350-X.
Gravett, Christopher (1992). Hastings 1066: The Fall of Saxon England. Campaign 13.
Oxford, UK: Osprey. ISBN 1-84176-133-8.
Hallam, Elizabeth M.; Everard, Judith (2001). Capetian France 9871328 (Second ed.).
New York: Longman. ISBN 0-582-40428-2.
Higham, Nick (2000). The Death of Anglo-Saxon England. Stroud, UK: Sutton. ISBN 07509-2469-1.
Huscroft, Richard (2009). The Norman Conquest: A New Introduction. New York:
Longman. ISBN 1-4058-1155-2.
Huscroft, Richard (2005). Ruling England 10421217. London: Pearson/Longman.

ISBN 0-582-84882-2.
Lawson, M. K. (2002). The Battle of Hastings: 1066. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 0-75241998-6.
Marren, Peter (2004). 1066: The Battles of York, Stamford Bridge & Hastings.
Battleground Britain. Barnsley, UK: Leo Cooper. ISBN 0-85052-953-0.
Livesay, Edwina (2014). "Skeleton 180 Shock Dating Result". Sussex Past and Present
133: 6.
Musset, Lucien; Rex, Richard (translator) (2005). The Bayeux Tapestry (New ed.).
Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press. ISBN 1-84383-163-5.
Nicolle, David (1999). Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare in Western Christendom.
Dubai: Brockhampton Press. ISBN 1-86019-889-9.
Nicolle, David (1987). The Normans. Oxford, UK: Osprey. ISBN 1-85532-944-1.
Rex, Peter (2005). Harold II: The Doomed Saxon King. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 9780-7394-7185-2.
Stafford, Pauline (1989). Unification and Conquest: A Political and Social History of
England in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries. London: Edward Arnold. ISBN 0-71316532-4.
Stenton, F. M. (1971). Anglo-Saxon England (Third ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280139-5.
Thomas, Hugh (2007). The Norman Conquest: England after William the Conqueror.
Critical Issues in History. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 07425-3840-0.
Walker, Ian (2000). Harold the Last Anglo-Saxon King. Gloucestershire, UK: Wrens
Park. ISBN 0-905778-46-4.
Williams, Ann (2003). thelred the Unready: The Ill-Counselled King. London:
Hambledon & London. ISBN 1-85285-382-4.
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Battle of Hastings.
Official English Heritage site
Origins of the conflict, the battle itself and its aftermath BBC History website
[show]
Normandy portal
England portal
Anglo-Saxon England portal
Brittany portal
Categories:
1066 in England
Battles involving England
Conflicts in 1066
Hastings
History of East Sussex
Registered historic battlefields in England
William the Conqueror
History of Sussex
Navigation menu
Create account
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
View source
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
nglisc
Aragons
Azrbaycanca
()
Brezhoneg
Catal
etina
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Espaol
Esperanto
Euskara
Franais
Frysk
Gaeilge
Galego
Hrvatski
Ido
Bahasa Indonesia
slenska
Italiano
Latina
Latvieu
Ltzebuergesch
Lumbaart
Magyar
Nederlands
Norsk bokml
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
Polski
Portugus
Romn
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenina
Slovenina
/ srpski
Srpskohrvatski /
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
Trke
Ting Vit
Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 September 2015, at 18:30.

organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view

5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3.1.1 Ancient and municipal boroughs

3.1.2 Parliamentary boroughs

3.1.3 County boroughs

3.1.4 Metropolitan boroughs

3.1.5 Other current uses

o 3.2 Northern Ireland

Connecticut, as an incorporated municipality within, or consolidated with, a town

Minnesota, formerly applied to one municipality

New Jersey, as a type of independent incorporated municipality - see Borough (New

Pennsylvania, as a type of municipality comparable to a town. Only one incorporated

Virginia, as a division of a city under certain circumstances.

boroughs, as showed in Municipality of Mexicali#Boroughs. (see: Boroughs of Mexico and

Borough status in the United Kingdom

Boroughs incorporated in England and Wales 18351882

Boroughs incorporated in England and Wales 18821974

Boroughs in New York City

History of local government in England

List of burghs in Scotland

Bateson, Mary; Smith, William Charles (1911). "Borough". Encyclopdia Britannica

Smith, William Charles (1878). "Borough". Encyclopaedia Britannica 4 (9th ed.).

Designations for types of administrative territorial entities

Local government in Canada

Types of subdivision in the United Kingdom

Types of populated places

Types of country subdivisions

What links here

Cite this page

This page was last modified on 19 September 2015, at 08:57.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional

Norman conquest of England

Location of major events during the Norman conquest of England in 1066

Norman conquest of England

2 Tostig's raids and the Norwegian invasion

o 6.2 English emigration

Tostig's raids and the Norwegian invasion

Landing and Harold's march south

Depiction of Harold's death from the Bayeux Tapestry

The remains of the second motte-and-bailey castle built by William in York

Coin of Sweyn II of Denmark

Depiction of the Varangian Guard from the 12th-century Madrid Skylitzes

Page from the Warwickshire Domesday survey

Immigration and intermarriage

Modern-day reconstruction of an Anglo-Saxon village at West Stow

Malcolm, in 1069 or 1070, had married Margaret, sister of Edgar the

Bates Normandy Before 1066 pp. 810

Carpenter Struggle for Mastery pp. 8283

Bennett, Matthew (2001). Campaigns of the Norman Conquest. Essential Histories.

Chibnall, Marjorie (1986). Anglo-Norman England 10661166. Oxford, UK: Basil

Chibnall, Marjorie (1999). The Debate on the Norman Conquest. Issues in

Huscroft, Richard (2005). Ruling England 10421217. London: Pearson/Longman.

Loyn, H. R. (1984). The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England, 5001087. Stanford, CA:

Roffe, David (2004). "Hereward (fl. 10701071)". Oxford Dictionary of National

Essential Norman Conquest from Osprey Publishing

Normans a background to the Conquest from the BBC

Middle Ages portal

Anglo-Saxon England portal

Norman conquest of England

Military history of England

Norman conquest of England

Military history of Normandy