The Battle of Hastings 1066

by M.K. Lawson

1066 remains the most evocative date in English history, when Harold was defeated by William the Conqueror and England changed overnight from Saxon to Norman rule. It has long been believed that, according to the Bayeux Tapestry, Harold was shot in the eye by an arrow. M. K. Lawson argues that the tapestry was badly restored in the 19th century, and that we should not necessarily believe what we see. He goes to sources that depict the tapestry before that restoration and reveals some breathtaking insights which will revolutionize the way we view both the battle and the death of England’s last Saxon king.

Genres: History, Medieval, Nonfiction, Military History, British Literature

304 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 2002

About the author

Michael Kenneth Lawson serves as history master at St. Paul's School in London. His focus is on medieval history, and his work on that subject includes Cnut: The Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century and The Battle of Hastings, 1066.

Reviews

[Colin Mitchell · Rating 3 out of 5]

You vaguely remember your school history lessons and believe all that you were told, unfortunately, books like The Battle of Hastings, 1066 by M.K.Lawson set a proper perspective. The first half of this book deal with the sources of materiel available and then moves to a study of the battle field, which since 1976 has been a part of the English heritage umbrella and largely saved for posterity. A real bonus given the current climate for concreting over the south of England. We then move onto the battle itself and begin to realise that no One really knows the make up of the armies, how the battles of Fuford and Stamford Bridge against the Norwegians had affected Harold and whether the delay in crossing the channel was really due to bad weather or if it was some tactical move on Williams part perhaps knowing that the English forces on the south coast were running out of provisions. The end of September beginning of October period is generally thought to be late in the year for campaigning. How many soldiers were on each side even how many ships crossed and of what capacity is all conjecture. Unfortunately, apart from knowing the placement of Harold's banners the disposition of the troops of either side is unknown. For every theory there is a counter point of view and no real evidence one way or the other.

Next up is the Bayeux Tapestry and once again we learn that the tapestry has been mistreated, torn cleaned and repaired on a number of occasions that are know and possibly there are other occasions not know. Here it and examining drawings made in the past it is uncertain which of the figures is actually Harold and that the supposed arrow is more likely a spear in the hand of one of the two most likely characters.

This paperback edition has a lot of maps and pictures unfortunately spoiled by poor reproduction. The large number of footnotes are often interesting but again spoiled by being in a very small print to make them almost unreadable. The writing is academic in style and hard work.

Good subject, lots of information could have appealed to a wider audience if it were in a more readable style. In the end I'm glad that I persevered.

3 stars

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting and meticulous book. This is the second outstanding history book I've read recently - the other was Antonia Fraser's book on the gunpowder plot. Two different kinds of book - Fraser's is a very readable narrative history where this book is a close examination of the key primary sources - but each compelling in its way.

What makes Lawson's book so good is that it is on the one hand very readable and very clear, and on the other is meticulously detailed. The footnotes are extensive, the bibliography exhaustive, and Lawson carefully notes the issues where there is doubt or dissent amongst the experts - especially where his own conclusions or suppositions differ from the consensus.

I am not enough of an expert on Hastings to know whether Lawson has missed anything important, but from a neophyte's perspective the book seems very comprehensive.

The only thing I'd question is his coverage of the reasons behind the invasion. Lawson comes down on the Norman side in the "legitimacy of the conquest" argument - that Edward and/or Harold had promised William the throne. What he doesn't cover is the argument that the throne wasn't either's to give. As far as I'm aware the succession was decided by the Witan, not by blood inheritance or by the wishes of the previous king. Obviously in reality the decision would be a matter of politics, influence, and hopefully policy, and there is an extensive discussion to be had around that point. Lawson does suggest that Edward may have been trying to play off the various contenders against each other, and that, since he was practically Norman himself (having spent decades in exile at the ducal court of William's father), he might well have preferred William to the other options. However there is no discussion of what options there were, and what other factors might have influenced the Witan. It would also be interesting to explore the reasons behind the Pope's support of William - it's likely there was a lot of intrigue and realpolitik going on. To be fair though, this is not the main topic of the book, and in reality the sources are very thin on these questions, so Lawson can be forgiven for not covering it in detail.

One thing he does make very clear that is absent from the popular view of 1066 is how well the chief players must have known each other, and how closely involved the elites of England, Normandy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc were with each other. Edward spent many years in exile at the court of William's father Robert; William had spent some time in England; Harold spent time at William's court (whether kidnapped, or there willingly as a messenger from Edward is open to interpretation); William and Edward were distantly related through Edward's mother Emma (who was William's great aunt and the daughter of a former Duke of Normandy). A further indication of this is the fact that the current English monarch is descended both from William and from the Wessex king Alfred the Great (ancestor of the early English kings, although not of Harold). The Norman conquest was much more of a power struggle within a European elite than it was a foreign invasion.

The core of the book is a discussion of the battle itself, or more accurately of the sources that tell us about the battle. Lawson covers the famous Bayeux tapestry, and the few key sources, in exhaustive detail, as well as detailing the key interpretations made by modern historians. He also looks into some tangential primary sources such as documents showing the feudal obligations of ships and men of some of William's key Norman subjects, and examines other battles of the period (particularly earlier exploits of William's) where the sources are better and from which some inferences about Hastings may be drawn.

Lawson also presents a synthesis of all this as a sort of "best guess" as to what took place and how the day unfolded. Interestingly, Lawson questions the popular legend that Harold's downfall was that his army was smaller, exhausted by the earlier battle at Stamford Bridge and the subsequent rapid march south, and he makes a good case that Hastings was probably a long, dour struggle between two closely matched foes, tipped toward the Normans in the end by luck and just perhaps by the tactical nouse and experience of William and his key lieutenants.

He also makes the very good point that although Hastings is seen now as a key point in history, a battle that changed things forever, at the time it may have been seen more as just one event in a long struggle for control of England.

All in all, a fascinating book, a great overall coverage of one of the most famous battles in English history, and a brilliant introduction to the relevant primary and secondary sources.

[Karl Muller · Rating 3 out of 5]

What I appreciated most about this book was that it took a step (or several dozen) back and looked at what led up to the actual battle at Hastings (or Sanlac?) in terms of interpersonal relationships, succession, other military campaigning, etc. to put this event into a broader historical perspective. Which is almost a necessity, since William's basic claim was that he was already promised the throne of England (such as it was), and that Harold stole it from him. So you need to know where that claim comes from.

Lawson delves into the sources we have about the battle, and then into what details we have about the forces of both sides, before his shortest section which concerns the battle itself. And by no means is he looking to write the authoritative final answer on the subject; there are too many unknowns, too much subjectivism in the early reporting, to make anything perfectly clear... even down to how many men faced each other that day. 10,000 total? 20,000? 40,000? It's that uncertain. Lawson gathers all the reporting for each factoid, and gives reasons why this might be more correct than that.

Do I now know more about what happened on that day and in that whole situation? Certainly. Do I now know what actually happened? Certainly not. And I think that's the way it's going to be, trying to piece together history from 1,000 years ago. All you can ask for is a good collection of information that is well-sourced with enough of an expert opinion to make the read worthwhile, which is what this is.

The illustrations of the Bayeux Tapestry are nice, and some of the photo pages are helpful, though there are a rather lot of extraneous pictures of recreations of the Battle of Hastings that I didn't think added anything. Still, they didn't actually detract, either.

[Mark Nichols · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book, but a little too much time spent on source criticism. It would have been more rewarding to actually read about the battle!

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

In its detailed analysis of the main sources of the battle, this work stands alone. If you are interested in battle tactics, topology and weapons, this work is for you. Lawson clearly calls out all the inconsistencies that lurk between the sources, but he also destils the few certainties that the sources reveal. What alse becomes clear is that some of the (Norman) authors in the century or so after the battle, whose writings build the foundation of the analysis, were heavily biased in depicting their lord's actions and might have tended to inflate the victory. The outcome was not clear from the beginning, the armies were equals, and the amount of cavalry that supposedly worked in William's favour is highly doubtful.

[Mark Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Covers all aspects of the turmoil of 1066. Well written.

[Arnout Brokking · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and extensive, but too detailed for easy reading.

The passage where Lawson describes how many meters the hill falls in height per certain amount of meters in all directions, should have been dealt with differently.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not an easy read by any stretch. This made it all the more enjoyable for me. Detailed and thorough, the author puts forth some convincing and constructive analysis of a very murky event in history. Always nice to learn new things about my ancestor.