APPENDIX D
The purpose of this note is not to dispute the accepted chronology for the principal events of this crucial year. The object of the following remarks is merely to indicate the evidence upon which that chronology is based and to suggest a distinction between those dates for which the testimony seems conclusive, and those for which it appears to be less than completely satisfying. Otherwise there may in the future (as in the past) be some danger of undue dogmatism.
The chronology (which has been followed in this book) may be set out as follows:
Thursday, 5 January. Death of King Edward.1
Friday, 6 January. Burial of King Edward.2 Coronation of Harold.3
May. Tosti attacks the Isle of Wight.4
Sunday, 18 June. Duke William at Caen.5
Saturday, 12 August. William's fleet assembled in the Dives.
Friday, 8 September. Harold disbands the fyrd.6
Tuesday, 12 September. William's fleet at Saint-Valery.
Wednesday, 20 September. Battle of Fulford.7
Sunday, 24 September. Harold at Tadcaster.8
Monday, 25 September. Battle of Stamford Bridge.9
Wednesday, 27 September. Change in the Channel wind. Embarkation of the Norman fleet at nightfall.
Thursday, 28 September (early morning). William's landing at Pevensey.
Friday, 29 September. William occupies Hastings.
Friday, 6 October. Harold in London.
Wednesday, 11 October. Harold leaves London.
Friday night, 13–14 October. Harold on the Sussex Downs.
Saturday, 14 October. Battle of Hastings.10
Sunday, 15 October–Friday, 20 October. William at Hastings.
Friday, 20 October. William storms Romney.
Saturday, 21 October. Submission of Dover.
Saturday, 21 October–Saturday, 28 October. William at Dover.
Sunday, 29 October. Submission of Canterbury.
All November. William at ‘Broken Tower’ outside Canterbury.
First half of December. William's march round London–Surrey–North Hampshire–Wallingford–Berkhamstead.
Monday, 25 December. Coronation of Duke William as king of England in London.11
As will be seen from the foregoing citations, many of these dates would seem to be established beyond any reasonable doubt. For others, however, the evidence appears to be less conclusive than might be desired.
For instance, even the cardinal date of Duke William's crossing of the Channel presents some difficulty. Thus we have the following statements in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:12
|
D |
E |
|
Then Count William came from Normandy to Pevensey on Michaelmas Eve, and as soon as they were able to move on they built a castle at Hastings. |
Count William landed at Hastings on Michaelmas Day. |
At first sight, there might seem here to be a discrepancy, and indeed some scholars of repute have concluded (following ‘E’) that William sailed on the night of 28 September (not 27), and landed on the morning of Michaelmas Day (not Michaelmas Eve).13 The difficulty may most probably be resolved by reference to William of Jumièges, who states that the Conqueror landed at Pevensey, where he set in hand the construction of a castle, and then leaving this in the hands of some of his troops himself hurried on to Hastings.14
Both Freeman15 and Stenton16 place the landing at Pevensey (following ‘D’) on the morning of 28 September, and the occupation of Hastings on 29 September. There seems little doubt that this is correct. None the less it remains curious that ‘E’, the Canterbury chronicler, should either (i) have been ignorant of the true date of the crossing, or (ii) have ignored the landing at Pevensey and spoken of the landing only in connexion with the subsequent occupation of Hastings.
Some of the dates previous to the crossing are less securely determined. They appear to be derived in the first instance from a couplet which occurs in the Carmen attributed to Guy, bishop of Amiens, respecting the time spent by William's fleet at Saint-Valery. This states (according to one reading) that William remained at Saint-Valery, waiting for a favourable wind for ‘thrice five days’ – ter quinque dies.17 Accepting the evening of 27 September for the crossing of the Channel, this would bring the arrival of the fleet at Saint-Valery to 12 September, which fits in very well with Harold's disbanding the fyrd on 8 September. And since according to William of Poitiers the fleet was in the Dives for a month, 12 August is suggested for its completion. It is all very probable, and, doubtless, at least approximately, correct. Nevertheless the positive testimony remains fragile. The Carmen has recently been impugned as an original authority for the events of 1066,18 and even if that criticism be not fully accepted, the couplet in question is itself somewhat equivocal, since the key words ter quinque are apparently only one reading, the other, according to two editors,19 being tum quinque, which would supply a very different basis for calculation. It may also be remarked that William of Malmesbury asserts that the fleet arrived at Saint-Valery as early as August.20
No part of the chronology of 1066 presents more difficulties than the sequence of Harold's actions between Stamford Bridge and Hastings. The problem may be summarized as follows:
The battle of Hastings began about 9 am21 on 14 October. Harold must therefore have reached the Downs on 13 October, or during the night of 13–14 October. The site of the battle of Hastings is some fifty-eight miles from London, and if Harold left London with a force consisting mainly of foot-soldiers on the 11th there would be time, though none to spare, for him to have covered the distance. Harold is, moreover, stated to have spent six22 or possibly five23 days in London, which would place his arrival in the capital on 5 or 6 October. But a tradition which is generally accepted is that he only moved south after he had heard of William's landing and that this news reached him when he was still at York.24 The news could hardly have reached York before the evening of 1 October.25 To arrive in London even by 6 October he would thus have to have covered some one hundred and ninety miles in five days, which would be good going even if he were accompanied only by a small force of mounted men, and quite impossible for an army of foot-soldiers.
Such then is the problem, and no solution to it can command full confidence. The weakest point in the accepted story may lie in the statement that Harold received the news of William's landing when still at York. The twelfth-century tradition that this was so is certainly strong, but it is not impregnable, and it contains some contradictory elements.26 It is thus not impossible that Harold was already on his way south when he heard the news, and in that case some (though not all) of the difficulties would be removed. It has also been asserted that Harold left London not on 11 October but on 12 October,27 and here an additional complication is supplied by the statement of William of Jumièges that Harold ‘after riding all night appeared on the field of battle early in the morning’.28 In view of the distance to be covered, I cannot, however, myself believe that Harold left London as late as 12 October, even if he resorted to a night march, or even if it were assumed29 that his force of foot-soldiers became so straggled over the Sussex countryside that a portion of it may not even have arrived in time for the opening of the engagement.
I have, therefore, though with considerable hesitation, thought it plausible to believe: (i) that wherever it was that Harold heard the news of William's landing, he probably reached London with a small force of mounted men on 6 October; (ii) that he left London with his newly collected army, consisting mainly of foot-soldiers, on 11 October; and (iii) that he reached his position on the Downs during the night of 13–14 October.30 Any reconstruction of these events depends, however, partly on unconfirmed hypotheses, and it needs emphasis that many of the most widely received narratives of what happened during this momentous fortnight imply a certainty which the available evidence does not justify.
The dates of the events between Hastings and the coronation, as indicated above, accord with those given in Freeman's book, but though very plausible and probably correct, they, too, are not fully vouched for by the existing testimony, and it is noteworthy that Sir Frank Stenton at this point in his standard history31 wisely refrains from supplying detailed information. William of Poitiers, who may here be followed with confidence, gives the sequence: Romney–Dover and the submission of Canterbury.32 He also records that William spent eight days at Dover.33 Greater precision can only be attempted by further reference to the Carmen. Thus, belief that William spent five days at Hastings immediately after the battle derives from this source.34 It is, however, plausible, and if taken with the other evidence it would bring William to Canterbury early in November. The Carmen also states that William spent a month in the neighbourhood of that city,35 and this assertion may be legitimately connected with the sickness that William of Poitiers says afflicted his troops about this time.36 If it be accepted, the campaign round London would fall in the first fortnight of December. The famous negotiations followed, and William was crowned on Christmas Day.
1 AS. Chron., ‘E’, s.a. 1066.
2 Ibid.
3 Will. Poit., p. 146.
4 AS. Chron., ‘C’, ‘D’, s.a. 1066 – ‘soon after’ 24 April.
5 R.A.D.N., no. 231.
6 AS. Chron., ‘C’, s.a. 1066.
7 Ibid., ‘D’, s.a. 1066.
8 Ibid., ‘C’, s.a. 1066.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., ‘D’, 1066.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., ‘D’ and ‘E’, s.a. 1066.
13 e.g. Ramsay, Foundation of England, vol. II, p. 19.
14 Will. Jum., p. 134.
15 Norman Conquest, vol. III, p. 733.
16 Anglo-Saxon England, p. 583.
17 Ed. Henry Petrie, Monumenta Historica Britannica, vol. I (1848), p. 857:
Nam ter quinque dies complesti finibus illis
Expectans summi Judicis auxilium.
18 G. H. White, Complete Peerage, vol. XII, part I, Appendix L.
19 Michel, Chroniques anglo-normandes, vol. III, p. 4; J. A. Giles, Scriptores Willelmi, p. 29. I am disposed to accept Petrie's reading.
20 Gesta Regum, p. 293.
21 Flor. Worc., vol. I, p. 227.
22 Ord. Vit., interp. Will. Jum., p. 196.
23 Gaimar (Michel, Chroniques, vol. I, pp. 6–7).
24 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum (ed. Arnold), bk. VI.
25 Stenton, op. cit., p. 584, note 1.
26 Henry of Huntingdon (loc. cit.) says that he received the news of William's landing in the evening of Stamford Bridge – that is to say, before it had ever taken place!
27 Freeman, who gives 11 October in a valuable appendix (op. cit., vol. III, note FF) contradicts this in the body of his book (ibid., vol. III, p. 437) where he makes William leave London on 12 October. In this he is followed by Colonel Burne (Battlefields of England, p. 20).
28 Will. Jum., p. 134: tota nocte equitans in campo belli mane apparuit.
29 Burne, loc. cit.
30 This would to some extent allow for the remark of Will. Jum. More particularly would it help to explain the fact that William came up on Harold ‘by surprise before he had drawn up his army in battle array’ (AS. Chron., ‘D’, s.a. 1066). Harold's weary troops had arrived late during the night and had perhaps rested overlong on the summit.
31 Op. cit., p. 588.
32 ‘Will. Poit., p. 210.
33 Ibid., p. 212.
34 vv. 598, 599.
35 v. 624: per spatium mensis cum gente perendinat illic.
36 Will. Poit., p. 212.